>>> Honestly, Rosie, I don't know. It just feels like she's won, and I get all depressed, and then I can't even think straight anymore. <<<

(lots of big hugs and *smacks* uploaded to Jessie) I wish I could also upload some hope or advice, but I know of nothing more difficult, complex, or trying than a person's individual relationship with her parents. My mom is perfectly awful in her own, very different way, as are my siblings, and I finally had, for my own peace of mind, to cut them off; go incommunicado. Doing so has brought me much peace over the years, but most people I know who have awful family relations either cannot, for practical reasons, take that course or they can't bring themselves to break the ties.

>>> Makes no sense to me -- how could someone outthink me consistently and not be doing it to "win"? <<<

Well, usually Donald does it to help me: to help me to face something or feel better about something, to teach me something interesting, etc. So I suppose in a roundabout way you could say that he wins, because when I feel better about something or am able to do or understand something better, he is affected positively as well. We both have such a strong effect on each other, that we sometimes view ourselves as two parts of a single organism. What affects one part, affects the other, usually.

>>> Gradually it sinks in: Rosie's reality is just so different from my experience. I can't even imagine what it's like to live in a not competitive world, where "winning" arguments doesn't mean that you're a "better person." What a fucked up part of my personality. And yes, I think it has a lot to do with my mom's influence. <<<

I don't think it's your personality that's at fault here, it's society that's fucked up. We're all taught to be competitive in the ways you've vividly described, in fact, my reality used to be very similar to your own. While I didn't have a mom that was trying to outfox me all the time, I had lots of siblings, all very close to me in age, who were constantly competing with me, so a strong competitive streak was honed in me during my childhood and teens. During the first couple of years I lived with Donald, I suspected him of all that competitive stuff: of trying to win arguments either to make me look bad or make him look good. Through constant exposure to his personality (which really is cooperative, he's one of the few non-competitive persons I've ever met) I eventually grasped that he wasn't out to get me or to score points off me. And when that happened I was able to let down my guard, at least around him, and relax immensely.

When I leave this cocoon of safety and go out and have dealings with the rest of the world, however, my actions are influenced by the fact that it is just as competitive as before. I have to be on my guard for all the tired old one-upmanship and backstabbing tricks so popular in the corporate environment. But I think that my alternative "cooperative" experience with Donald allows me not to get so enmeshed in all that so that I sink into it. Instead my attitude with the various people I deal with is that of "Come ON! Stop being such babies and playing these baby games. We've got a job to do, and if we all want to look good on this project we've got to produce what our bosses say they want. Stop letting this gameplaying get in the way of doing a good job, and if you must perform these tiresome antics, just leave me out of it. I'm not going to play." (I don't actually ever say any of that directly, of course, but my attitude and actions reek of it.) This approach has mixed results. Some people respond positively to it and drop the games--at least with me. Some people ignore me. Some people (the really paranoid ones) think my attitude is some super-duper deluxe competition trip and treat me with extreme suspicion and dislike. I continue to treat the latter just as I always have: I just will not allow their sick and stupid and deeply insecure reality to impinge upon my relatively healthy one.

One other thing I wanted to say about this non-competitive reality is that Donald's perspective is that he honestly sees no reason to compete with me because he's "won" everything already. Since he controls me, if he tells me to do something, I have to do it (and that sometimes includes to stop arguing--g). If he's already got all that power and control, what's the point in playing competitive games? One of the really good things a working D&S relationship can do for the people involved is to take away the constant struggles for power that go on between two people, as the power all goes to one place--the dominant. The unspoken purpose of most arguments people have with each other (and this applies to all situations, like work, family, and ASB, not just people in a sexual relationship) is to, through various means (logic, force of personality, bullying, rhetorical ploys) wrest power from the other person, to establish dominance over them. That's part of the "winning." But if you already have all that power to begin with, what does the fact that you have won an argument or your sub has won an argument have to do with anything? Why do you care? It's not as if you can establish more dominance over them, or wrest more power from them; you've got all that already. The fact is (at least, if you're Donald); that you don't care, all the outcome of an argument means is that one person's viewpoint is decided by both to be right. And it's important for you both, as a cooperative unit, to do right things more than wrong things, so that, all things being equal, you will succeed more often than not.

>>> And yet, and yet. Trying so hard to "win" arguments has certainly helped me in my professional life. <<<

Yes, amen, same here. Professional life is different than personal life. ("Duh!" Jessie is probably thinking, but slow, ponderous Rosie likes to state the obvious--g). You really can't do anything about all the fucked-up people out there unconsciously doing their power trips on you and others, just for the sake of the power, and not because they are really convinced their way is better for everyone involved (these are the babies playing their baby games that I was talking about earlier). So, if you're going to actually get any useful work done (and because I work on contract, my professional success is a lot more dependent on productivity than on office politics) or work with them, you've got to be able to convince people when you know you're right about something. This is especially important, as I suspect it is in your case, if you are brighter than most of them, or see things more accurately or in more complex terms than they do. Then you must get them to see things your way, or you end up looking like shit because your product or service, through the incessant application of cracked-brain ideas, becomes a piece of shit.

>>> I demand that my assertions be as rigorous as I can make them, and I demand the same from other people in serious conversations. <<<

I think I do the same, but I use different words to describe it. A person's ideas had better be damned good, had actually better improve things rather than worsen them, or have practical, accurate reasoning behind them, before I'll take them seriously.

>>> I suppose I need to work on relaxing, in this as in other aspects of my life. Listening and encouraging my conversational partners to develop their own points, rather than jumping on their sloppy constructions to fluster them and get them to concede defeat. I'm always thinking ahead to how I'm going to break down their argument -- they're lucky if I let them even finish what they were saying. <<<

There are a lot of complex ideas in that short paragraph. You really know how to pack 'em in! I won't be able to do them all justice, but here are my initial responses. First of all, it sounds like you may be a bit hard on yourself. What you're doing, with thinking ahead, breaking them down quickly, etc., may be exactly right for the circumstances you find yourself in. The approach you're taking with people (I'm assuming you're primarily describing work situations?) may be the only one you can realistically take, because it's the only one that will work. I don't know that, not being you, but if I were you, I'd trust my intuitive judgement of what the situation needs above all else. If it works, why change it? You aren't going to change most people anyway, so if your approach actually gets good work produced and gets the job done, you're acomplishing something that many people fail at, and you should be proud of yourself for that. I'm just trying to say that corporate environments differ, and yours might be a particularly cutthroat and uncooperative situation in which your approach is not only sensible but necessary.

My second response is, if you take this approach with everybody, then yes, it may be more pleasant for you to try a different approach with the people you primarily have fun with, because what you do might not be very fun for them. What struck me most about this description of how you argue is that it bears an uncanny resemblance to the ways in which you've described your mother as arguing. I'd say she's taught you how to win well...with everyone except her, that is.

Third response: overall and in general I'm all for more relaxation because most people in this culture do not relax enough: it's an underrated trait. It also makes you feel so darn good when you can do it. However, having been force-fed relaxation by Donald over the years, I know that if you're not used to doing it, you have to take it gradually so that your fears of "relaxing too much" don't get the best of you. When Donald used to tell me that I needed to relax about work and not worry so much about this or that situation or person, I would get deeply worried that if I did that, the situation or the person would get the best of me because I wouldn't be "on my guard." It turned out not to be the case: what happened was that I developed an improved method of coping. When nasty situations come up I deal with them, usually quite successfully, off the cuff. Part of what relaxing has taught me is that I can trust that my mind doesn't need to be anticipating, worrying, preparing all the time in order to win an argument. I do perfectly well, even better, actually, if I am unprepared and just respond in the moment. Sometimes I take a few notes, especially when the matter is complex, but I usually do better without them. It was kind of shocking to find out that my mind doesn't go bye-bye when I relax; it's always there humming in the background, ready to take off when it needs to.

>>> Wow, Rosie. Your explanation of your situation has certainly given me a lot to think about. <<<

And your honesty about your situation has absolutely floored me. People don't ordinarily talk about things on ASB with the acute level of clarity and sincerity that you have brought to this discussion--I think that most of us who can be honest with ourselves save this sort of talk for intimate voice conversations, because it's often so difficult to say this stuff in writing--let alone say it in public. I always find it amazing when someone does that here. Watch out, Jessie--you're renewing my faith in humanity!

Those are very tough questions. Of course, whether you do that or not depends on all the complexities of your personal relationship, and whether you both judge that would work well for you. One question I have is, if you are asking whether you should ask your master to punish you for nit-picking, I assume he doesn't already do so. Wouldn't he already be punishing you if it were an important issue for him? Or are you saying that you want him to get involved for your sake?

I nit-pick a lot. Donald has a rather humorous way of handling this and other negative traits with me: he has these "rules" which he "teaches" me once a week when we play. He tells me the rule, and then beats me while making me repeat the rule out loud, in rhythm to his whippings, over and over and over. The rules have to do about areas of my conduct that he wants to change. Sometimes he has to "repeat" a rule when it doesn't stick well enough the first time, and so it was last week with the rule, "Don't be a jailhouse lawyer." That's our nit-picking rule . And this method of changing my conduct, as humorously punitive and old-fashioned as it is, actually works!

>>> Or is that likely to make me feel intellectually repressed and silenced? <<<

Another really good question to ask yourself. Given your history with your mom, it's a serious one. I would imagine you could find out by also asking yourself if in general Mr. Warlock tends to make you feel intellectually repressed. Your dominant could always handle the punishment in a gentle and humorous way that in general would not arouse bad feelings in you, but if (a) the thing with your mom has had too much of an effect on you or (b) you already habitually view Mr. Warlock through the eyes of combat and competition--that is, if he is already one of those people you struggle and argue with a lot--then doing this punishment might very well be a bad thing for you, at least at first. You may or may not get used to it--it all depends on how important all this is to your personality, your core sense of self. You know how people tend to protect most closely what they identify as being a real strong part of them? I do that with my writing, creative writing especially. When I write some fiction (and occasionally some nonfiction--like an idea), I am often terrified of showing it to Donald. I always expect he's going to tear it to pieces, even though he has never done anything of the sort. But other people have, and so I expect it from him to the point where I can have a major freakout if he so much as asks me what I'm typing on the computer!

>>> I guess what generally works best for me is to tell my master what the perceived problem is, and then trust him to know when it's appropriate for him to bring his dominance to bear on the issue. <<<

That's what works best for me too, but I'd like to make a side comment to other people reading our thread. Whether or not this technique will work for you, dear readers, is not dependent upon the fact that it generally works for Jessie and Rosie: it's dependent upon what your dominant is like and what you're relationship is like. If it were penicillin we were talking about, then I'd say yes, it will probably work for you, too. But dominants differ widely in personality and relationships differ widely in levels of responsibility and control. Asking your dominant to do something like this, if it isn't something he already does on a regular basis, may or may not bring you good results. It all depends....on hundreds of factors, most likely, that only you two can know.

>>> Side Note: Somehow when I try to suggest rules for me to follow, they don't end up being very successful -- either because I don't know myself as well as he knows me ... or because I'm overly optimistic about my own abilities ... or because secretly/subconsciously I'm actually trying to manipulate him by making him punish me... <<<

This happens to me too, and for all three of the same reasons. You've put that much better than I ever could. You know, I always mean well when I suggest these things, I mean the very best, I want them to work, but when I touch on certain areas (not all areas, just a few) that are very difficult or painful for me, I sometimes do suggest what I suggest for self-destructive reasons. I can't help doing it, either; it's like that area in me is still so badly damaged that nothing can come out of it, even the best of intentions, that isn't already warped itself. But very gradually, over the long run, if you are in a positive relationship, things do seem to get slowly better, even the really bad things.

My worst example of this was exercise. When I first knew Donald, I was pretty overweight, and he told me that although it did not affect his desire for me in the least, for health reasons he was going to dominate the weight off me. And he did, and at first it was all very hard: changing eating habits at his command, dealing with the psychological issues that were stirred up by this threatening new behavior, and of course, the exercise. But while all other aspects of losing weight eventually got easier for me, the exercise issue remained a problem. I resisted doing it with all my might. I'd suggest all kinds of new ways to handle it; for instance, one was to let me have absolute control over when I did the exercise, because I resented it so much when he told me to do it. Donald let me try all of these ideas: some he thought had a chance of succeeding; some he thought wouldn't work. All of them (except the final solution, which we use now) did not work, and eventually he'd take control of the situation again and start doing things his way. Only that wasn't working, too, because I resisted it so much. The exercise, for some reason, was a really big deal to me. Part of it, I maintain, was the kind of exercise I was trying to do: most of the time it hurt way too much, and even when it didn't hurt, it bored me to the point of tears. Years later, when I changed to an effective but less painful form of exercise, a lot of my problems with doing it regularly disappeared. But the exercise, aside from the pain, became a really strong issue for me, a psychological stumbling block, and my thinking about it during the very worst times became so confused that I'd often suggest he let me try things that I knew I'd hate, just because I wanted myself to fail. Later, we'd talk about what had happened, try to analyze what went wrong, and just doing that, recognizing self-destruction for what it was, helped me a little bit in avoiding it.

>>> Back to Rosie's life: <<<

No, no! Let's keep talking about your life: talking about mine is too embarrassing!

>>> Seems to me that depriving someone (even a submissive :-) of the NYT crossword puzzle every Sunday for the rest of her life ought to count as cruel and unusual... <<<

Well, , I have to admit to a dirty little secret that I didn't mention in my first version of that cruel tale. If left to my own devices, with a blank puzzle all to myself, I'd be lucky if I got ten words filled in. While I'm smart in the sense that I can figure things out, think on my own, I've very, very dumb when it comes to general knowledge, facts, details about the world around me. I guess for most of my life I just wasn't paying attention. So what I can do with the puzzle on my own is very little, but it's often enough to get Donald unstuck when he runs out of ideas: he hands the puzzle over to me, I see one word, he fills it in and then fills in the next twelve words around it, then hands the puzzle back to me, I see another word, and he fills in all the squares around that new word, and so on. Finally he calls his mother up (she also does the puzzle) and gloats to her over how quickly he's completed it (yes--she knows I help him; he still takes all the credit, however--g). It's a pretty good working relationship, actually, and together we often complete the thing. I'm often better than him at figuring out the main concept of the puzzle, the big clue, that's where my skills come in, and, aside from the stray word or two when he gets stuck, he takes care of all the rest . The only time I get really bummed is when it's an easy puzzle and he hands it to me after his "first pass" with only a couple of really tough words, like Syrian composer, left undone.

>>> I just feel so sad for you, Rosie. Did you give informed consent to that part of your lifelong submission? <<<

Thank you very much for your sympathy, Jessie. I wallow in it! In answer to your question: fool that I am, I did. Only, when he read me the "crossword clause" in our 100-page super-duper-deluxe notarized contract , I didn't think anything of it, not having done Sunday crosswords before. And then that evil, manipulative devil of a master got me hooked on them!