I've been thinking a lot lately about the role of a very good engineering manager. The best managers I've had look out for their reports in the same way that a good dom looks out for their sub. I think it's a lot less about status and more about service. You could probably say something similar about many other fields, including politics.
Tbh, reading this makes me wonder if your nervousness made you miss a social cue, and the Domme's response was irritation. What appeared to you to be wandering back and forth and inviting public interaction could very well have been private active play in that context. I can certainly imagine, from my own life, many ways that such could be the case.
It's also possible that she was brusque and socially inept, perhaps nervous about her own upcoming on-stage scene and wasn't as graceful in disengaging from your curiosity as she could have been, responding reflexively from the dominant stage persona that she was internally rehearsing in preparation.
Certainly it's also possible that she was just rude.
But to respond internally to that perceived rudeness by framing the other person as a "boring" Dom implies a worldview where you subconsciously believe that others are obligated to entertain you even if they are disengaging from you. You've written lines you think she "should" have said so as to be more entertaining for you.
To assume that her response was occurring from the frame of her dominance or "status" l, rather than simple irritation comes off as just as lacking in social contextualization as you are accusing her of being.
And your framing subtly implies that your framing of kink is objectively more "interesting" is an oddly passive aggressive form of kink shaming.
I'll speak for myself at least, a 24/7, TPE Dom - being constantly high status is incredibly fulfilling and not boring to me even in the slightest. Admittedly, you're free to consider me boring as well (many people do feel this way about me, so you'd be in plentiful company).
I am curious how something that reads to me as public and exhibitionist and I guess was paid for by the event, given the participation in later acts, was “private play”.
That's a fair question, but I do think there's a middle ground there (and I'm not saying this is the explanation, I'm just here replying to this focal topic).
I'd throw out two ideas for your consideration. First, exhibition play isn't inherently an invitation to interaction. Having an exhibition kink doesn't automatically imply consent for interaction - just because an actor in a local stage play is playing Hamlet because he loves Shakespeare (and is being paid to do so) doesn't mean he's obligated to speak to you (let alone obligated to be entertaining and interesting to you) before or after the show if he's there in the lobby. It would certainly be nicer if everyone were graceful all the time, but there's no obligation.
Second, I'm sure you've had one of those moments with a partner. You're in a public place, like a restaurant, or a friend's wedding, and you lock eyes with your beloved and you are both just lost in your private world of love and lust. You don't kiss or make out or get handsy with each other, but nonetheless even at a distance, even in public, you are suffused with erotic connection.
Maybe you push into it further by lifting an eyebrow, and in that moment, your single raised eyebrow is the equivalent of sexual teasing at a level that usually requires genital contact.
It's a private world, a private erotic play, right out there in the open, and that's even part of the spark of it.
And, to be fair to you, it can sometimes be non-obvious to onlookers from the outside. But having that moment interrupted by someone who didn't notice it would also be deeply annoying.
A lot of kink involves doing that sort of thing intentionally, as an erotic art form, like illusion or hypnosis is taking the placebo effect and making it into an intentional art, with a purpose of entertainment or healing. Those rhythms can make it even more non-obvious from the outside than my example.
So it's entirely possible that they were engaging in private play.
Again, I wasn't there, so I have less information than you do. But even with your additional visual information, it seems that this would be possible, and in considering the possibility, along with others, perhaps one might reconsider the confident assignment of character adjectives (I was going to say character flaws, but is being boring a flaw? I'm not sure it is, though that might be my own ego, since I'm pretty boring myself).
Okay I've taken some time to think. If you'd like to keep talking let's focus on this notion of exhibition. I agree that an actor on stage isn't looking for interaction. But what about an actor moving through the audience in costume. Am I not meant to take that as something to engage with?
I agree your reading is possible, but I think it's a confusing thing to setup. If you want to play in a public space, fine, many people were doing that. But I think walking in the open area just in front of the stage is inviting interaction. I think it's reasonable to expect it to be possible to engage with such a person.
I think they posited a plausible and more nuanced explanation of the interaction which attributed more benign intent to the Domme. To be fair, though, I have also witnessed interactions with Dommes which I think do fall within the description that you gave in the original post. However, having a Dommey friend has really helped me see the other side of it - subby men are still men and, generally speaking, tend to act much more entitled to other people’s time and attention, which generates a need for firm boundaries to filter through them to find the genuinely submissive and respectful men, especially when FemDommes are in such extremely high demand. I think in some ways, like many female filtering mechanisms, it’s a contrivance to see who is observant and clever and insightful enough to be able to identify and play the game. Contrived, yes, but very necessary to filter for people who are attuned to and respectful of other people’s cues.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the role of a very good engineering manager. The best managers I've had look out for their reports in the same way that a good dom looks out for their sub. I think it's a lot less about status and more about service. You could probably say something similar about many other fields, including politics.
Imo this is genius and absolutely correct 👍
Spot on comment. The person you met acted more like she was cosplaying a role than someone truly into the scene
Tbh, reading this makes me wonder if your nervousness made you miss a social cue, and the Domme's response was irritation. What appeared to you to be wandering back and forth and inviting public interaction could very well have been private active play in that context. I can certainly imagine, from my own life, many ways that such could be the case.
It's also possible that she was brusque and socially inept, perhaps nervous about her own upcoming on-stage scene and wasn't as graceful in disengaging from your curiosity as she could have been, responding reflexively from the dominant stage persona that she was internally rehearsing in preparation.
Certainly it's also possible that she was just rude.
But to respond internally to that perceived rudeness by framing the other person as a "boring" Dom implies a worldview where you subconsciously believe that others are obligated to entertain you even if they are disengaging from you. You've written lines you think she "should" have said so as to be more entertaining for you.
To assume that her response was occurring from the frame of her dominance or "status" l, rather than simple irritation comes off as just as lacking in social contextualization as you are accusing her of being.
And your framing subtly implies that your framing of kink is objectively more "interesting" is an oddly passive aggressive form of kink shaming.
I'll speak for myself at least, a 24/7, TPE Dom - being constantly high status is incredibly fulfilling and not boring to me even in the slightest. Admittedly, you're free to consider me boring as well (many people do feel this way about me, so you'd be in plentiful company).
Yeah it’s possible I’m wrong.
I am curious how something that reads to me as public and exhibitionist and I guess was paid for by the event, given the participation in later acts, was “private play”.
That's a fair question, but I do think there's a middle ground there (and I'm not saying this is the explanation, I'm just here replying to this focal topic).
I'd throw out two ideas for your consideration. First, exhibition play isn't inherently an invitation to interaction. Having an exhibition kink doesn't automatically imply consent for interaction - just because an actor in a local stage play is playing Hamlet because he loves Shakespeare (and is being paid to do so) doesn't mean he's obligated to speak to you (let alone obligated to be entertaining and interesting to you) before or after the show if he's there in the lobby. It would certainly be nicer if everyone were graceful all the time, but there's no obligation.
Second, I'm sure you've had one of those moments with a partner. You're in a public place, like a restaurant, or a friend's wedding, and you lock eyes with your beloved and you are both just lost in your private world of love and lust. You don't kiss or make out or get handsy with each other, but nonetheless even at a distance, even in public, you are suffused with erotic connection.
Maybe you push into it further by lifting an eyebrow, and in that moment, your single raised eyebrow is the equivalent of sexual teasing at a level that usually requires genital contact.
It's a private world, a private erotic play, right out there in the open, and that's even part of the spark of it.
And, to be fair to you, it can sometimes be non-obvious to onlookers from the outside. But having that moment interrupted by someone who didn't notice it would also be deeply annoying.
A lot of kink involves doing that sort of thing intentionally, as an erotic art form, like illusion or hypnosis is taking the placebo effect and making it into an intentional art, with a purpose of entertainment or healing. Those rhythms can make it even more non-obvious from the outside than my example.
So it's entirely possible that they were engaging in private play.
Again, I wasn't there, so I have less information than you do. But even with your additional visual information, it seems that this would be possible, and in considering the possibility, along with others, perhaps one might reconsider the confident assignment of character adjectives (I was going to say character flaws, but is being boring a flaw? I'm not sure it is, though that might be my own ego, since I'm pretty boring myself).
Okay I've taken some time to think. If you'd like to keep talking let's focus on this notion of exhibition. I agree that an actor on stage isn't looking for interaction. But what about an actor moving through the audience in costume. Am I not meant to take that as something to engage with?
I agree your reading is possible, but I think it's a confusing thing to setup. If you want to play in a public space, fine, many people were doing that. But I think walking in the open area just in front of the stage is inviting interaction. I think it's reasonable to expect it to be possible to engage with such a person.
I find the length of your responses tiring. I wish you well.
I think this person’s comments were insightful and I agree with them, fwiw
What did you like about them/get from them?
I think they posited a plausible and more nuanced explanation of the interaction which attributed more benign intent to the Domme. To be fair, though, I have also witnessed interactions with Dommes which I think do fall within the description that you gave in the original post. However, having a Dommey friend has really helped me see the other side of it - subby men are still men and, generally speaking, tend to act much more entitled to other people’s time and attention, which generates a need for firm boundaries to filter through them to find the genuinely submissive and respectful men, especially when FemDommes are in such extremely high demand. I think in some ways, like many female filtering mechanisms, it’s a contrivance to see who is observant and clever and insightful enough to be able to identify and play the game. Contrived, yes, but very necessary to filter for people who are attuned to and respectful of other people’s cues.