… continued from On ‘becoming a Domme’ Part I
So I found a lovely vanilla submissive and had it all sorted, right?
Well, kind of.
I fucked that one up, but I learnt what I wanted in a man, and in a relationship, from being with him. And that was no small thing.
I had some other short term relationships after that which ‘worked’, but it was a little hit and miss to find what I knew I wanted. Knowing meant that I could recognise it when I found it, but it didn’t actually make it easier to find.
Then one day I discovered Internet Relay Chat (IRC). I have no idea how or why I found a BDSM chat room there because I’m pretty sure I wasn’t deliberately looking for it (I could be wrong, my memory is appalling!), but I was kind of cyber slutting around at the time, so probably just thought it looked like fun.
I guess they all assumed I was dominant because my nick was capped, and suddenly I had this strange experience of men being solicitous and polite and calling me Ma’am and I thought “Oh my, yes please!”
And so, I started exploring, and chatting to people, and learning, and I thought, “Holy fuck, THIS IS ME!!!!”
I found an American submissive to play with online (this back in the days before skype or digital cameras, and when international phone calls were prohibitively expensive, so it was very limited), and I stomped about all ordery and demanding as one might expect from a new Domme testing the waters. He was a sweetheart and I still recall him fondly so many years later.
Then, when I was ready, I called myself a ‘Domme’ and stepped out into the world.
7 comments
I liked your little two part history lesson.
People’s stories of personal discovery have always been interesting to me and it is especially true in your case.
I have been following your blog for a few years now, I enjoyed learning a bit more about how you arrived at the place you are now.
*smile* Thanks slapshot, and happy delurkiversary (again)!!!
Ferns
I’m so happy to have been born into the internet age. It can be an excellent place to learn all the things that no one else is willing to teach you.
YES!! Oh my god!
It has seriously changed the world. I look forward to sociologists looking back on this era and making links to how *everything* and *everyone* was changed because of the internet.
It kind of blows my mind.
Ferns
Miss Ferns,
Sometimes, I wonder about you and your expections – as an Australian woman, and of a particular milieu (that is, one that includes Australian men).
I occasionally get the feeling that you – and other dommes with whom I’ve talked (and here I’m including some American dommes, for instance) – consider ‘vanilla’ to be what I’d call ‘male-dominant’. Your erstwhile ‘vanilla sub’ partner, for instance, sometimes seems to me (going on the way you’ve described him at this time or that) to be just an ordinary schmo who isn’t a strutting, macho git. That’s all. He assumes that males and females are equal in a relationship. Perhaps he has an added dose of ‘woman as goddess to be served’ – but that’s common enough amongst men who’d consider themselves pretty ‘straight’. Or, at least, it is in my experience.
Also, I’ve never forgotten your saying that you were driven to rage by the ‘vanilla man’ who had ‘his own opinions’ and would never give an inch (in contrast to the sub-males you’d come across beforehand). See, normally, if a woman had written that, alarm bells would have been ringing in my head about the woman who’d said it. But you’ve never seemed so extreme that you’d ever get angry at not getting your own way. Your rage with that man somewhat jars, for me – it doesn’t seem to fit what I know of you . . . .
I’m honestly coming to the opinion that your idea of ‘vanilla’ might just be skewed, or at least relative to mine – that it’s what *I* would call ‘male-dominant’.
What do you think? Could you agree? Or does this confirm your view that British men are naturally submissive? Heh.
“I occasionally get the feeling that you… consider ‘vanilla’ to be what I’d call ‘male-dominant’.”
I’m not sure how you got that from what I wrote. My early experiences were pretty much the exact opposite actually. I *sought* out the stronger willed men (I don’t think of them as ‘male-dominant’, but you might) because I thought that might work better.
“Also, I’ve never forgotten your saying that you were driven to rage by the ‘vanilla man’ who had ‘his own opinions’ and would never give an inch…”
No, NOT because he had ‘his own opinions’ (not sure where you got that from), but yes because he would never give an inch.
He had to *win* all the time, no matter how trivial the thing was, he would NEVER back down. Even when he was wrong he would stand his ground, he would get stupidly aggressive with me over ridiculous stuff, he would question things I did or liked or wanted if it didn’t match his preferences, there was no reasoning with him.
Imagine two silverbacks going chest to chest over and over to establish dominance over *every little thing*. THAT’S what we were like.
Worst. Relationship. EVER!
“Your rage with that man somewhat jars, for me – it doesn’t seem to fit what I know of you . . .”
*laugh* It doesn’t fit what I know of me either. As I said, I’d *never* have thought that I was capable of that sort of rage. Until I was. And I haven’t seen a hint of it since.
“I’m honestly coming to the opinion that your idea of ‘vanilla’ might just be skewed, or at least relative to mine – that it’s what *I* would call ‘male-dominant’.”
You can never have the same experience with vanilla men that I have had, but my idea of vanilla runs the gamut from ‘submissive’ through ‘neutral’ to ‘dominant’, so I am not sure what you think my skewed idea is exactly.
But I *can* say that I don’t think it’s skewed. It’s my experience: no more, no less.
What do you think? Could you agree?
The combination of strong-willed PLUS submissive is the jackpot for me (caveat this with the addendum that they must also have a whole bunch of other characteristics that I enjoy, but I am trying to concentrate on the ‘submissive-dominant’ spectrum).
It’s the same old thing about stereotyping what submissive means (and this is why the language around it is so difficult).
The men I met in my young years were weak and scared, not ‘submissive’. It’s a very *very* different thing and I hated it. The ‘relationship from hell’ guy was *also* weak and scared, he just expressed it in a different way.
Other people could call it ‘submissive’ and ‘dominant’, but it’s not what *I* mean when I use those terms.
Or does this confirm your view that British men are naturally submissive?
My first vanilla submissive *is* British *smile*. So yes, I have a huge soft spot for British men. And of course, they are all naturally submissive *drifts off into a lovely daydream…*.
Ungodly long!! Thanks for the thought provoking comment, puppy.
Ferns