16.8.08

Who is the real emotional dominatrix?

This?



OR

This?


“She is non-negotiable,” said Prince Charles about Camilla Parker-Bowles.

He said this when they had not yet married and there was this hoo-ha about a divorcee in the royal family and some problem with the Anglican Church.

The man stood his ground. He said it aloud. And he saw it through.

I don’t quite understand why people should make emotional compromises. God knows, we need to make them in other spheres of life over which we have no control. We own our emotions.

These thoughts occurred to me as I read Mask’s comment to me, “Do NOT be offended...but you're an emotional dominatrix, you know that?”

I replied, “I am not offended...I'd love being what you said I am...”

What constitutes emotional dominance? An emotion or several emotions cannot exist in a vacuum. You feel because you have filled the vacuum. You have invested in that hollow – your own or somebody else’s. In some ways, occupying space itself is a dominant thing to do. When you want your smiles and tears to be understood, if not reciprocated appropriately, you are in a position of authority to begin with.

In a situation where emotions are mutually-expressed, emotional dominance has got to be redefined. It is a feeling of belonging, possessiveness.

Would you say that if a person realises the emotions are meeting a dead-end and decides to walk back, it is a dominatrix role? What about that huge wall at the end of the road – is it not the dominant one, the unshakeable one? Only because a wall is built, it cannot get away with being infallible.

I have been in many emotional situations, including with family and close friends, where my stating things clearly has been seen as dominance. I have given way more than I have got, but one does not flaunt it. Perhaps you’d say giving is also a manner of dominating, right?

When someone says, “I will wait for you” does it not mean that it is a deadline, although no date has been fixed? There is hope, there is pressure, there is expectation and there is domination in a subtle way.

I’d much rather state, “I’ll wait for you until tomorrow” and then let the sun decide whether it wants to show up or not.

The realisation has dawned on me that the real dominatrixes get away by putting on this angelic act with their high-pitched choir girl/boy voices.

A woman I know made a man leave everything, made him believe she was waiting for him. He packed his bags, left everything – and yes, he had other reasons too, but that was most definitely an attraction – and what happens? He did not get to even meet her. In the year he spent there, he waited for her to call. He waited while she went out dating, got into flings, and even married.

You might think this was a situation where he had it bad. He returned home. Contact was established again. She was free, so she tried anew; he had nothing to lose. She even pretended that she did not know he wanted to explore it seriously. And then she started her little angelic act, breathing into the phone and even telling him she wanted his baby…this time, he had other reasons not to be taken in, but of course he did not say no. He went back to ‘end’ the story. They expressed their emotions physically. And do you know what the guy had to say? “Whomever she fucked, she never used foul language; she was polite and respectful…”

See how the dominatrix got her way? She kept up the nice girl act till she could, even trying to mess up his life again by showing up ‘innocently’ and with ‘concern’. Is this respect? How polite is a person if s/he keeps someone on hold while they explore other possibilities?

What happens later? Very likely the man will start dominating in other relationships. The subtle technique employed and which works, as he knows only too well.

My kind does not. But I shall continue to be straight and upfront. And be a bitter pill. Sugar-coating does not change its potency, but why hide intent?

I’d much rather use harsh words, and I do believe in close relationships one does use nasty language sometimes, than be deified as “polite and respectful” and then slyly slut my way emotionally.

Being my kind of dominatrix may appear cruel but it is not unfair. It is most fair because one is not resorting to obfuscation.

You cannot want to walk with me and leave your legs elsewhere. And yes, I am not negotiable. Never was. Never will be.

Achtung!

3 comments:

Pune S said...

FV:

You are a tough cookie. However, Emotional and dominatrix somehow do not go together as a phrase.

BTW, what was the need for this explanation? It sounded defensive at times.

Mask said...

Ahhhh....I suppose I was thinking along the lines of a cross between those two pics.

"Only because a wall is built, it cannot get away with being infallible."
Bingo!

FV said...

FV:

And this is how the cookie crumbles...

Just felt like writing a long post...and I like the 'defence services'!

Mask:

Hoo...so now I have to start thinking of between two pics after between the lines??