128 rules: No monetary gain
jkay
anyone else for that matter on publishing the "128 Basic slave Rules".
Johnathan Kay
irish
It is difficult to type, when laughing so hard. I doubt any of us,
ever thought for one split second, that anyone with the intellect of a
4 year old would ever, unless totally out of their mind, pay one red
cent for such your pathetic attempted of proclaiming expertise on a
subject you are so totally oblivious to.
I am "WOMAN" hear me roar or should that be giggle?
irisheyes
JWarrenZ
Irisheyes, I used to tell my professional writing classes "There is only one
award or bit of praise that is worth noting. It has 'pay to the order of'
written on it."
Boston Dungeon Society Diversified Services
www.bostondungeon.org Toys & Books for the Scene
Telnet: bdsbbs.com Email: Men...@bdsbbs.com
Info: 617-654-0536 www.diversified--services.com
Strnslady
or
anyone else for that matter on publishing the "128 Basic slave Rules". <<
I should hope not! If you had been paid, I would say the magazine wasted their
money.
When I was read your "basic Rules" <gag> I laughed so hard it was hard for me
to finish. Your rules have got to be the biggest watse of
ink and paper I have ever read. And, if any novice submissive decides to follow
your "rules" <gag>, I hope s/he quickly learns that these "rules" <gag> are not
the way.
How in the devil can you be so smug as to say this is how it should be??? How
can you be so pompous as to think you "know the way"? How can you be so
ignorant?
Your "rules" <gag> may work for you and that would make them *your* rules - not
the rules for the rest of the population.
I thank my lucky stars that my Master doesn't agree with you ( not that I would
be with him if he did) and I pray for the safety of your submissives.
Are you sure the magazine isn't printing your "Rules" <gag> as a spoof?
StrnsLady
jkay
strn...@aol.com (Strnslady) wrote:
>When I was read your "basic Rules" <gag> I laughed so hard it was hard for me
>to finish. Your rules have got to be the biggest watse of
>ink and paper I have ever read. And, if any novice submissive decides to
follow
>your "rules" <gag>, I hope s/he quickly learns that these "rules" <gag> are
not
>the way.
I never said they were anywhere in the document.
>
>How in the devil can you be so smug as to say this is how it should be???
And who are you saying that I can't write the rules the way I wish? Based on
my experiences and conversations is the reason I can write them as they are.
If you are so incensed why not write you own ideas down?!
How
>can you be so pompous as to think you "know the way"?
There you go again. I never said they are the way of anything. Kindly tell me
how it is you have come to this conclusion.
How can you be so
>ignorant?
How is it that you can't read??
>
>Your "rules" <gag> may work for you and that would make them *your* rules -
not
>the rules for the rest of the population.
Tell that to your VCR manufacturer. Maybe you'd like the instructions to be an
option that you have to purchase or maybe you'd like some different forms of
instructions to be available.
>
>I thank my lucky stars that my Master doesn't agree with you ( not that I
would
>be with him if he did) and I pray for the safety of your submissives.
>
>Are you sure the magazine isn't printing your "Rules" <gag> as a spoof?
Would it matter?
Johnathan Kay
William December Starr
jwar...@aol.comnospam (JWarrenZ) said:
> Irisheyes, I used to tell my professional writing classes "There is
> only one award or bit of praise that is worth noting. It has 'pay
> to the order of' written on it."
Did you also tell them that you lifted that line from Heinlein? :-)
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
M. Shirley Chong
> Irisheyes, I used to tell my professional writing classes "There is only one
> award or bit of praise that is worth noting. It has 'pay to the order of'
> written on it."
I have nothing like your success in writing, John. But last year, my income
from my writing ran into five figures and none of those digits were located to
the right of the little period. Let's see... my work has been translated into
Swedish and French and it has been sold in ten countries to date.
It's easy to say "this is so good, it should be published." It's a different
story when it comes to getting people to plunk down their hard earned cash for
the piece of work in question.
My writing is nowhere near on a par with your own, but I don't think it's
bragging to say that it's several magnitudes of order better than the Roolz.
Shirley
to reply via e-mail, remove the trees from my e-mail address
Wogglebug
(jkay) wrote:
> In article <19990403180742...@ng20.aol.com>,
> strn...@aol.com (Strnslady) wrote:
<snip>
> >...if any novice submissive decides to follow your "rules" <gag>, I
hope s/he > >quickly learns that these "rules" <gag> are not the way.
>
> I never said they were anywhere in the document.
<snip>
> >Your "rules" <gag> may work for you and that would make them *your* rules -
> >not the rules for the rest of the population.
>
> Tell that to your VCR manufacturer. Maybe you'd like the instructions to
be an
> option that you have to purchase or maybe you'd like some different forms of
> instructions to be available.
<snip>
> Johnathan Kay
The dawn breaks.
JK's rules are not presented as the One True Way. However, 'twould seem
that only one correct set of rules can (or at least, should) exist.
Someone recently quoted a Tweedle brother recently. JKay can't stand to
be one-upped by *anyone.*
Wagglebug
"...not *that* shaggy!"
William December Starr
jwar...@aol.comnospam (JWarrenZ) said:
> However, I may have absorbed it subconsciously. Was it in Lazarus
> Long's Rules?
I don't think so -- I'm pretty sure that I found it in the non-fiction
area of his "Expanded Universe" sort-of-biography/collection. Long
probably _would_ have said it if he'd ever turned to professional
writing, but as far as I can recall he never did.
Bob Mc.
tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay) wrote:
> Let me state clearly here that there is no monetary gain to me from Secret or
> anyone else for that matter on publishing the "128 Basic slave Rules".
>
Kinda restores your faith in capitalism doesn't it?
Bob
Alberta Public Radio @ http://www.ckua.org 6 am - 2 am Mountain Time.
Music and news from civilized Albertans
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JWarrenZ
>
>> Irisheyes, I used to tell my professional writing classes "There is
>> only one award or bit of praise that is worth noting. It has 'pay
>> to the order of' written on it."
>
When I file the serial numbers off (THAT IS lifted from Heinlein) I'll own up
when I'm caught. I honestly believe the "pay to the order of" line was
original with me.
However, I may have absorbed it subconsciously. Was it in Lazarus Long's
Rules?
posted and emailed
JWarrenZ
>from my writing ran into five figures and none of those digits were located
>to
>the right of the little period.
Well you are doing better than I <grin> I'm ashamed to admit how little I've
made from the books.
Sockermom9
>> Irisheyes, I used to tell my professional writing classes "There is
>> only one award or bit of praise that is worth noting. It has 'pay
>> to the order of' written on it."
>
>Did you also tell them that you lifted that line from Heinlein? :-)
Ah-hah! He's busted yet again! I *knew* I recognized another Heinlein fan!
Gotcha, John!
Lynn
CountV
> In article <19990403180742...@ng20.aol.com>,
> strn...@aol.com (Strnslady) wrote:
>> How
>>can you be so pompous as to think you "know the way"?
>
> There you go again. I never said they are the way of anything. Kindly tell me
> how it is you have come to this conclusion.
Maybe the word "Basic" in the title?
CountV
--
"I have no interest in crafting the best set of rules there ever was." - JK
(author of the "128 Basic Slave Rules")
CountV's Home Page: http://members.xoom.com/CountV
design by Coercion: http://members.xoom.com/CountV/coercion
CountV
In article <3706C46C...@forest.pcpartner.net>, "M. Shirley Chong"
<eit...@forest.pcpartner.net> wrote in response to JWarren:
> My writing is nowhere near on a par with your own, but I don't think it's
> bragging to say that it's several magnitudes of order better than the Roolz.
It would be humility on a grand scale to say they weren't.
CountV
--
"I would prefer that you have an ample amount of breasts." - JKay ('author'
of "The 128 Basic Slave Rules").
jkay
"CountV" <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote:
>=tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay) wrote:
>> There you go again. I never said they are the way of anything. Kindly tell
me
>> how it is you have come to this conclusion.
>
>Maybe the word "Basic" in the title?
So that would mean that if Sears said they were selling a "Basic Set of Hand
Tools" that you would have the same complaint?
Johnathan Kay
CountV
If the set consisted only of a nail file, some pocket lint and a series of
used paperback novels, yes.
CountV
--
"I would prefer that you have an ample amount of breasts." - JKay ('author'
of "The 128 Basic Slave Rules")
Dicentra14
Walking warily in, depositing a largish satchel of milk chocolate truffles,
dark chocolate turtles, and Lammes "Texas Chewie" pecan pralines ....
Whew, those were heavy.
Please, dig in! They don't *begin* to show how much I've learned from you all,
how much I've appreciated your insights and your frankness, and just how
generally grateful I've been to quietly lurk here off and on, for years, going
back to the asb days ...
I've been meaning for ages to say thank you to everyone who posts and shares.
... I can barely believe I'm actually delurking on *this* thread, but I was
getting ready to, anyway, and heck, an insight is an insight .... so here goes:
the.guy.with....@lasfs.org (Joe Zeff), wrote, in reference to jkay
....
(snip)
>Especially when posted by a self-proclaimed technical writer!
(astonished gape) ... Naaaaahhhhhhhh .... You're *kidding* .... He can't be!
... Can he???? ... You mean someone actually pays a semi-literate,
twaddle-spewing ...
Then it came, in a thunderclap of insight ...
I suddenly realized I was wrong all these years, about those really peculiar
thingomatic instructions, the ones that read as if they've been translated into
English via a shaky French version of the Korean ..... But now I get it. They
aren't actually being written by non-native speakers at all. No, someone is
just sending those gizmos to jkay, and ... *he's* writing the instructions!
....
ssbb unravels another of life's mysteries.
Thanks folks,
D
(dicen...@aol.com)
... to reply by e-mail, just remove the "spambane"
NightMist
>>jwar...@aol.comnospam (JWarrenZ) said:
>>
>>> Irisheyes, I used to tell my professional writing classes "There is
>>> only one award or bit of praise that is worth noting. It has 'pay
>>> to the order of' written on it."
>>
>>Did you also tell them that you lifted that line from Heinlein? :-)
>
>When I file the serial numbers off (THAT IS lifted from Heinlein) I'll own up
>when I'm caught. I honestly believe the "pay to the order of" line was
>original with me.
>
>However, I may have absorbed it subconsciously. Was it in Lazarus Long's
>Rules?
>
Jubal Harshaw, "Stranger in a Strange Land"
NightMist
To reply via e-mail add 156 to my initials
JWarrenZ
>>>jwar...@aol.comnospam (JWarrenZ) said:
>>>
>>>> Irisheyes, I used to tell my professional writing classes "There is
>>>> only one award or bit of praise that is worth noting. It has 'pay
>>>> to the order of' written on it."
>>>
>>>Did you also tell them that you lifted that line from Heinlein? :-)
>>
>>When I file the serial numbers off (THAT IS lifted from Heinlein) I'll own
>up
>>when I'm caught. I honestly believe the "pay to the order of" line was
>>original with me.
>>
>>However, I may have absorbed it subconsciously. Was it in Lazarus Long's
>>Rules?
>>
>Jubal Harshaw, "Stranger in a Strange Land"
NightMist, you got me. There was a sudden flash of insight and I recalled the
quote. It was so long ago that I read the book ... 60s or so, that I had
forgotten the line was not original with me.
I was wrong... innocent but wrong
Spyral Fox
<cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> writes:
>= tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay) wrote:
[...]
>> So that would mean that if Sears said they were selling a "Basic Set of Hand
>> Tools" that you would have the same complaint?
>
>If the set consisted only of a nail file, some pocket lint and a series of
>used paperback novels, yes.
Luckily, Sear has some common sense, and they would be
more likely to market it as "Sears' smallest hand tool set."
Note the way they'd attach their own name to it, so as not to give
the impression that it's the only tool set out there, but merely
their own, smallest, version.
take care,
Spyral Fox ("Ani l'dodi...")
"The worst and best are both inclined
to snap like vixens at the truth" --EH Wylie
San Diego Munch & Resources; SSBB Diplomatic Corps:
http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/ (last updated Mar 18 1999)
Spyral Fox
dicen...@aol.comspambane (Dicentra14) writes:
>Walking warily in, depositing a largish satchel of milk chocolate truffles,
>dark chocolate turtles, and Lammes "Texas Chewie" pecan pralines ....
>
>Whew, those were heavy.
How can anything that evaporated so fast be heavy? Why, I
bet you could have toted in five or six times that many of them
if you were really motivated.
Welcome to the posting community!
>the.guy.with....@lasfs.org (Joe Zeff), wrote, in reference to jkay
>....
>
>(snip)
>>Especially when posted by a self-proclaimed technical writer!
>
>(astonished gape) ... Naaaaahhhhhhhh .... You're *kidding* .... He can't be!
>... Can he???? ... You mean someone actually pays a semi-literate,
>twaddle-spewing ...
Well, I don't know about "pays," but you can use Deja News to read
his resume easily enough if you want. And it does clearly claim that
he's seeking a "Senior component engineering or technical writing
position with an engineering team."
>Then it came, in a thunderclap of insight ...
>
>I suddenly realized I was wrong all these years, about those really peculiar
>thingomatic instructions, the ones that read as if they've been translated
>into English via a shaky French version of the Korean ..... But now I get it.
>They aren't actually being written by non-native speakers at all. No, someone
is
>just sending those gizmos to jkay, and ... *he's* writing the instructions!
>....
>
>ssbb unravels another of life's mysteries.
Well, this *is* an educational newsgroup!
:-)
Philip the Foole
English via a shaky French version of the Korean ..... But now I get
it. They
aren't actually being written by non-native speakers at all. No, someone
is
just sending those gizmos to jkay, and ... *he's* writing the
instructions!
Dear Dicentra14:
I am in receipt of your recent inquiry regarding one of our technical
writers, Mr. J. Kay. Mr. Kay is a veteran employee of FooleCo's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Microsoft Corporation. He came to us *highly*
recommended by his previous thirty-six employers, all of whom said in
their reference letters that we would be incredibly lucky if we could
get him to work for us. We were, frankly, somewhat surprised that
several of our competitors, including Lotus, Novell and WordPerfect,
were so eager to have us employ him.
Mr. Kay is the author of one of our original flagship publications, the
MS-DOS Manual, a model of clarity and flawless, geometric logic which
has been an inspiration to all of our other tech writers.
I fully understand your interest in recruiting Mr. Kay as a tech writer
for your organization, and I encourage you to offer him a position. You
will be incredibly lucky if you can get him to work for you.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole, CEO
FooleCo
P.S. If you have *two* jobs open, there is another guy named Joseph R.
Justice ...
P.P.S. Welcome to SSB.
Master John
Dicentra14 <dicen...@aol.comspambane> wrote in
message
news:19990404055729...@ng66.aol.com...
> (Deep breath...)
>
> Walking warily in, depositing a largish satchel
of milk chocolate truffles,
> dark chocolate turtles, and Lammes "Texas
Chewie" pecan pralines ....
>
> Whew, those were heavy.
>
Woops they disappearedreal fast, that's allright I
don't need to eat any more chocolate
I'm up to 346 now.
> the.guy.with....@lasfs.org (Joe Zeff),
wrote, in reference to jkay
> ....
>
> (snip)
> >Especially when posted by a self-proclaimed
technical writer!
>
> (astonished gape) ... Naaaaahhhhhhhh .... You're
*kidding* .... He can't be!
> ... Can he???? ... You mean someone actually
pays a semi-literate,
> twaddle-spewing ...
>
> Then it came, in a thunderclap of insight ...
> They aren't actually being written by non-native
speakers at all. No, someone is
> just sending those gizmos to jkay, and ...
*he's* writing the instructions!
> ....
And a few thousand others just like him in thier
writing habits.
>
> ssbb unravels another of life's mysteries.
Yep! Welcome to ssb-b and if you have been lurking
that long you know that the chocolate is on the
right, the coffee is on the left and the chairs
are soft and comfortable.
Come in sit and visit with us. The discussions are
great and the resident troll is atrocious.
Remember to put on your asbestos suit when others
are spewing flames and enjoy the time with us.
--
Master John
I like women chained naked at my feet.
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps St.Louis, Mo
jai...@hotmail.com jh...@email.msn.com
jai...@yahoo.com jai...@yahoo.com
www.geocities.com/area51/dunes/2051/
Icq #20163064
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/20163064
kookm...@use.net
<7e70ql$9mc...@trace.seanet.com>, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay)
wrote:
>So that would mean that if Sears said they were selling a "Basic Set of Hand
>Tools" that you would have the same complaint?
Absolutely, especially if the set consisted of a chain saw, a
"midnight special" pistol, a hydraulic jack, a kitty-litter strainer,
a splitter's maul, a shoe horn, a widget opener, and a stump grinder,
all packaged with no safety information, and with an overly detailed
recommendation that buyers should use the equipment in any way they
could think of...
The above "basic" set would be about as misnamed as kay's "basic"
rules. Probably almost as dangerous, too.
Kay boy put it this way in an earlier message:
"In my mind it is just fine and that is all that matters as
far as I am concerned..."
Why are we not surprised? After all, kay is a legend in his own
teensy self-contained mind! Thoughtful understanding and responsible
behavior need not apply - ol' kay is doing jes' fine on his own.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, most folks typically lack the
idiot-luck that appears to have kept kay out of jail so far.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Firmly entrenched in the non-existent inner circle of the Official
World Underwater Cabal.
Our secret motto: "We're out to Rule the World, fa-la!"
TyMeDwn1st
>On Sun, 04 Apr 99 06:28:37 GMT, in message
><7e70ql$9mc...@trace.seanet.com>, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay)
>wrote:
>
>>So that would mean that if Sears said they were selling a "Basic Set of Hand
>
>>Tools" that you would have the same complaint?
>
>Absolutely, especially if the set consisted of a chain saw, a
>"midnight special" pistol, a hydraulic jack, a kitty-litter strainer,
>a splitter's maul, a shoe horn, a widget opener, and a stump grinder,
>all packaged with no safety information, and with an overly detailed
>recommendation that buyers should use the equipment in any way they
>could think of...
>
>The above "basic" set would be about as misnamed as kay's "basic"
>rules. Probably almost as dangerous, too.
>
>Kay boy put it this way in an earlier message:
>
> "In my mind it is just fine and that is all that matters as
> far as I am concerned..."
>
>Why are we not surprised? After all, kay is a legend in his own
>teensy self-contained mind! Thoughtful understanding and responsible
>behavior need not apply - ol' kay is doing jes' fine on his own.
>
>Unfortunately for the rest of us, most folks typically lack the
>idiot-luck that appears to have kept kay out of jail so far.
"And Eeyore whispered back: 'I am not saying there won't be an Accident now,
mind you. They're funny things, Accidents. You never have them till you're
having them.' "
A.A. Milne, 1928
"The House at Pooh Corner"
Ty
Who is mostly just
a slightly skewed
Donna Reed
(To reply via email, simply remove my pearls...)
Bob Mc.
dicen...@aol.comspambane (Dicentra14) wrote:
> (Deep breath...)
>
> Walking warily in, depositing a largish satchel of milk chocolate truffles,
> dark chocolate turtles, and Lammes "Texas Chewie" pecan pralines ....
>
> Whew, those were heavy.
Scuze me, sorry about that, watch it, GETOUTTAMYDAMNWAY!, oh, thank you
....<mmmmmmmmm> You, <munch, munch> were saying ....
> I've been meaning for ages to say thank you to everyone who posts and shares.
> ... I can barely believe I'm actually delurking on *this* thread, but I was
> getting ready to, anyway, and heck, an insight is an insight .... so here
goes:
<Bob snips revealing moment>
> ssbb unravels another of life's mysteries.
>
> Thanks folks,
> D
Wow! Welcome to the ward. That's quite the delurk and an fascinating thought
on on those, er, amusing instructions that come with some toys and gadgets.
No doubt they could be written by our "some assembly apparently still
required" resident troll.
May you live long, prosper and post often with such wit and clarity.
CountV
when I wrote the below, and my keyboard was close to unusable due to a Coke
spill, so I would like to amend it.
"CountV" <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote:
> = tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay) wrote:
>
>
>> In article <7e73bo$4fg$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
>> "CountV" <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote:
>>>=tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay) wrote:
>>
>>>> There you go again. I never said they are the way of anything. Kindly tell
>> me
>>>> how it is you have come to this conclusion.
>>>
>>>Maybe the word "Basic" in the title?
>>
>> So that would mean that if Sears said they were selling a "Basic Set of Hand
>> Tools" that you would have the same complaint?
>
> If the set consisted only of a nail file, some pocket lint and a series of
> used paperback novels, yes.
If the "Basic set of Hand Tools" contained 128 tools, some of which were
duplicates of others, the majority of which were completely unusable except
in some Bizarro universe (such as, say, a spanner made for pentagonal bolts)
and others were decidedly dangerous to use (a volt-meter with an
electricity-conducting handle, for instance). Then, yes, I would complain
most vehemently, even if there were a little note included with it saying
"Choose just the tools you like".
I suspect that Sears would have one hell of a class-action law suit on their
hands too.
CountV
--
"I have no interest in crafting the best set of rules there ever was." - JK
(author of the "128 Basic Slave Rules")
jkay
>Unfortunately for the rest of us, most folks typically lack the
>idiot-luck that appears to have kept kay out of jail so far.
>
>Regards, Serion
Ya know Serion if you are so concerned I would think you could really do
something about me and my writings. I guess not.
Johnathan Kay
jkay
shamu...@soca.com (S. Andrew Roberts) wrote:
>Let *me* add that nobody, nowhere, nohow has *ever* benefitted in any
>way whatsoever from the publishing of, reading, or employing The
>Roolz[tm].
Entirely your opinion and like so many similarly stated ones here it lacks any
proof.
Johnathan Kay
Spyral Fox
>On Sat, 03 Apr 99 20:55:45 GMT, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay), in
><7e5v8h$ipo...@trace.seanet.com>, said about "128 rules: No monetary
>gain":
>
>>Let me state clearly here that there is no monetary gain to me from Secret or
>>anyone else for that matter on publishing the "128 Basic slave Rules".
>
><wiping monitor... replacing keyboard>
Do you think JK has any clue what he said?
>No shit Sherlock!
davo
>>>"d" == Dicentra14 <dicen...@aol.comspambane> writes:
d> (Deep breath...) Walking warily in, depositing a largish satchel
d> of milk chocolate truffles, dark chocolate turtles, and Lammes
d> "Texas Chewie" pecan pralines ....
*perk* ... Hmmm ... looks like I might have to stop by Lammes soon.
d> Whew, those were heavy.
*laughs* But then, I'm the one who brought 2,000 swiss truffles to a
play party once.
--
Davo ["Slit and search ... it's not just for D&D anymore"]
jah...@tantalus.clark.net
> *laughs* But then, I'm the one who brought 2,000 swiss truffles to a
> play party once.
I was certainly surprised at how quickly 2000 of anything could
disappear.
kookm...@use.net
<7e9mln$9ks...@trace.seanet.com>, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay)
wrote:
>Ya know Serion if you are so concerned I would think you could really do
>something about me and my writings. I guess not.
|grin| And kay "really" isn't very bright, is he?
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Stalwart perpetrator of the Occasional Usenet Cabal
TyMeDwn1st
>*laughs* But then, I'm the one who brought 2,000 swiss truffles to a
>play party once.
Hmmmm.... Best *I* ever managed to take to a play party was 200 condoms.
Useful, of course, but not in the same league as swiss truffles.
Tigress
>(Deep breath...)
>
>Walking warily in, depositing a largish satchel of milk chocolate truffles,
>dark chocolate turtles, and Lammes "Texas Chewie" pecan pralines ....
>
>Whew, those were heavy.
WOW!! I made it back just in time! I THOUGHT I heard chocolate... <licking
paws> And caramel, too! Person after my own heart. <g>
Welcome! Oh, and guys -- I'm home! For a while, at least...
Tigress
Tigress
>> Dicentra14: I suddenly realized I was wrong all these years, about those
really peculiar thingomatic instructions, the ones that read as if they've
been translated into English via a shaky French version of the Korean .....
at all. No, someone is just sending those gizmos to jkay, and ... *he's*
writing the instructions!
>
>
>I am in receipt of your recent inquiry regarding one of our technical
>writers, Mr. J. Kay. Mr. Kay is a veteran employee of FooleCo's
>wholly-owned subsidiary, Microsoft Corporation.
AH HA!! And boy, do I have a bone to pick with you as regards the
instruction manual for the Virtual Dom software. It's stuck in "Don't bother
me now." mode, and all the manual says is, "Whatever the Dom says to you its
sub must be correct and should be entertained to its fullest." Excuse me?
And why was the money-back guarantee only on the shrink-wrap sticker? It
must be around here somewhere...
<wink>
Tigress
willowy
<<The above "basic" set would be about as misnamed as kay's "basic"
rules. Probably almost as dangerous, too.>>
Interesting diatribe you're putting forth.
Now, you seem busy denegrating others for wiitwd.
Yours truly, happens to know that you have a set of slave rules that you
distribute to those giving a quiver of interest.
I've got an idea!
How about exposing Your slave rules to ssbb public scrutinity.
To make it real fun, get JK's permission to pretend they are his. This
should 'guarantee' an 'unbiased' evaluation from the group.
Willowy
STAMP OUT HYPOCRISY ....
.. Some things ... arrive on their own mysterious hour, on their own
terms and not yours, to be seized or relinquished forever. ~~~ Gail
Goodwin
willowy
It's selene
<<<Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Stalwart perpetrator of the Occasional Usenet Cabal>>>
LOL!!
Looks you are on a downward spiral. That's no way to attract a family
member!
All the Best,
Willowy
X Pouvoir
>How about exposing Your slave rules to ssbb public scrutinity.
>
You know, I did ask if anyone was interested in helping come up with the Top
Ten Worst Slave Rules. Any takers?
xpouvoir
kookm...@use.net
<19990408014835...@ng32.aol.com>, xpou...@aol.complicated
(X Pouvoir) wrote:
>You know, I did ask if anyone was interested in helping come up with the Top
>Ten Worst Slave Rules. Any takers?
|smile| Willowy is just trolling. She hasn't been around long
enough to realize that my "rules" have received plenty of public
scrutiny here and elsewhere, and are also available elsewhere on the
web.
Indeed, kay himself has complimented my "rules" even while
defending his own, to wit:
On August 10, 1998, in message <6qndk7$5...@q.seanet.com>, kay
<tr...@trace.seanet.com> wrote, in part:
>I know that you don't like the rules - fine. I know that you don't like
>my style of play - fine. We are all different as SSBB seems to keep
>saying. I have seen your list of rules - they're good, but the rules
>have a different purpose than yours.
And that last comment I agree with entirely. My "rules" are a serious
work in progress, formulated as a general outline of an actual
full-time BDSM relationship - kay's are not.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Staunch, but Slightly Bent Linchpin of the Official Usenet Cabal
Apparatus.
jkay
My "rules" are a serious
>work in progress, formulated as a general outline of an actual
>full-time BDSM relationship - kay's are not.
Even while the last three words of the above comment is incorrect on your part
I ask you this: Would it matter to you if they were and you had plenty of
evidence to support that they were? I mean would you really change your
position? I doubt it.
Johnathan Kay
Steven S. Davis
:
: Yours truly, happens to know that you have a set of slave rules that you
: distribute to those giving a quiver of interest.
What ? Serion has a set of rules for his slaves ? How astonihsing.
: I've got an idea!
I hope the shock wasn't too great.
Oh, nevermind, that would have been if you'd had a good idea.
Though the readers would probably be the ones who'd really
be shocked.
: How about exposing Your slave rules to ssbb public scrutinity.
Well, yes, he could do that again if he wanted. It'd probably
be useful, since so many readers are new and haven't seen them
before.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
X Pouvoir
>Top
>>Ten Worst Slave Rules. Any takers?
>
> |smile| Willowy is just trolling. She hasn't been around long
>enough to realize that my "rules" have received plenty of public
>scrutiny here and elsewhere, and are also available elsewhere on the
>web.
So do you have any "throw away" rules you can donate? :o) I haven't read your
rules. I think I read about ten of JK's rules last year. You see, I was still
in the introduction and saw the numbering format begin again. I was ticked
that I wasn't well into the rules by the time I reached the rules. :o) So I
got flustered and gave up. Besides, I think my Master wanted my attention at
the time.
Come on you guys.... Top Ten WORST Slave Rules.... I've seen some pretty funny
people expressing themselves in SSBB. Top Ten WORST Slave Rules.
I read the Three Great Lies of SM and got a great laugh out of that. It was
listed on mady's website. I didn't save the URL. Could check though.
xpouvoir
-------------------
We're building our website (non-commercial) dedicated to _committed_ TPE
Relationships. Warning: It's not for everyone. <g>
http://www.echange-le-pouvoir.com/
mady
wrote:
>I read the Three Great Lies of SM and got a great laugh out of that. It was
>listed on mady's website. I didn't save the URL. Could check though.
Actually, I republished them from Jay Wiseman's site, with his
generous permission. See the originals at
http://members.aol.com/OldRope/threlies.htm
Here's my contribution to the 10 Worst:
1. Master is ALWAYS right.
2. Master NEVER makes mistakes
(corollary to above: Master walks on water and dances on the head of
a pin)
3. It's ALWAYS the slave's fault
mady
--
*take hobinrood out of email address to reply*
#Kill all hackers! Neuter/spay so they can't breed!#
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Bacchae
One of the worst I have seen was in a slave contract to the effect that the
slave would sign over all her worldly possessions and if she wanted to break
the contract she would forfeit everything _but_ the "Owner" could break the
contract at any time (and the worldly possessions would still be forfeit).
- Sandy
bacchae at cadvision dot com
Serion Ironcroft
<19990408131451...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
xpou...@aol.complicated (X Pouvoir) wrote, in part:
>So do you have any "throw away" rules you can donate? :o)
Hmmm... The only throw-away rules I know about are those that were
more or less ripped off or paraphrased by kay in his 128 drivels. I'd
be surprised if in 128 tries he hadn't already hit the 10 worst at
least once. |smile|
Regards, Serion
Sockermom9
>So do you have any "throw away" rules you can donate? :o) I haven't read
>your
>rules. I think I read about ten of JK's rules last year.
Well, there's probably your list.
A bunch of his wold qualify. Howabout the one where he designates a slave's
mouth a cunt, thereby making possible all sorts of side-splitting confusions.
Or the one where he says that her own menstrual blood should be one of her
meals in a given day.
Kinda too easy, though.
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Sockermom9
>One of the worst I have seen was in a slave contract to the effect that the
>slave would sign over all her worldly possessions and if she wanted to break
>the contract she would forfeit everything _but_ the "Owner" could break the
>contract at any time (and the worldly possessions would still be forfeit).
Ah, yes. The old "I Want Your Ferrari" slave rule. Didn't that one end with
"Thanks, bye!"
Lynn
CountV
that I am mightily impressed, and just wish _those_ were the ones that
popped up on a web search of 'slave rules', rather than jakey's writings.
Well-written, and well-reasoned. Recommended reading.
CountV
--
"I have no interest in crafting the best set of rules there ever was." - JK
(author of the "128 Basic Slave Rules")
CountV's Home Page: http://members.xoom.com/CountV
design by Coercion: http://surf.to/coercion
victorian squid
How does a slave/submissive/pet/property know what to expect and what is
required?
Well, it's really quite simple. If my Owner wants to see red lipstick, he
TELLS me that. If he wants me to do the dishes and not be on the computer,
he tells me that. If he wants me kneeling naked in the living room when he
gets home from work, he tells me that. I know what he expects because he
tells me. I know what he wants, because he tells me what he wants.
Serion's rules would work just dandy for us! In fact, they're pretty much
how we operate, we've just never written anything down.
Not everybody wants or needs a jillion pages of codification, or finds it
workable in the everyday world, for that matter. JK has a kink for pomp
and circumstance and having everything be the same way all the time. Fine.
Just not fine for everybody. I mean, the unworkability of some of them has
certainly been discussed, but I don't know if I've seen anyone mention how
BORING it would be for some of us, this same thing all the time every day.
Maybe that's just too obvious for anyone to state it.
And honestly, if I were to start constantly walking around naked in heels
I think Ownerperson's reaction would be to put a hand to my forehead to
check my temperature and ask me if I were quite feeling well. Also, being
naked in heels would greatly impede my usefulness to him in any number of
ways, not least when he wants me to help him out in his basement shop.
NBarnes wrote:
> NBarnes, who doesn't understand how anybody
> could distain negotiation. 'You want me to
> sit down with a sexy prospective play
> partner and talk about sex in great detail
> with them? Where do I sign up?!'
I'm with you. Negotiation is fun!
Love on ya,
v. squid
victorian squid
> Erm ... just curious again, but how many slaves have you polled to
> arrive at the conclusion that "slaves rather like things to be
> specific"? (You may very well be right, but if you're going to
> present a generality as unassailable fact, you're going to have to
> back it up with data.)
What he means of course, as I suspect you know, is that the kind of slave
HE wants prefers that. He just has this comprehension problem vice the
fact that his preferences aren't the only ones.
Me, I don't like TOO much specificity, and neither does Ownerperson. We
both like to play by ear. Not having too many built-in specifics means he
gets to use his imagination. I like that, and he likes that. In fact, I'd
even go so far to say that that's one of the best parts.
He also doesn't want to CONSTANTLY mandate/monitor when I go to the
bathroom, when I take a shower, when I eat, etc. He just doesn't want to.
He would find it unbelievably annoying. The way our relationship runs is
the way he wants it to run. Why that's so hard for some people to wrap
their brain around I just can't fathom.
Now, I have nothing against micromanagement per se. If it works for other
people, as indeed it does, more power to them. It's when you start to say
there's only one way that works for everyone, and if you don't do it that
way you're a phony, that there's a problem.
> Maybe it shouldn't bother me so much that new people, and the public at
large, > are being told that there is only One True Way to be a Master or
slave, and
I think it's very important that oppositional forces arise from time to
time just as a reminder. Though I must say I don't understand making the
likes of jk a personal cause, it does make a lot of sense that newcomers
understand that his views are not acceptable to most of us. If he posted
without comment, that could be taken as a tacit acceptance.
LadyGold
LadyGold (at) planetarydefense (dot) org
On 8 Apr 1999 16:28:49 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
wrote in response to something willowy said:
>Well, yes, he could do that again if he wanted. It'd probably
>be useful, since so many readers are new and haven't seen them
>before.
We've posted Serion's Rules from time to time, but it has been a
while. Let me preface them with the following:
These are Serion's rules - they are part and parcel of our lives.
They are not fantasy fodder, but rather a serious and IMO,
successful, attempt to codify D/s behavior and responsibilities.
They are the rules we live by.
This in no way implies that they will work or should be tried by
anyone else; however anyone who wishes may use them.
If they are reprinted they must contain the copyright notice.
Your comments are welcome - but, please keep in mind, he is a Dom.
He may choose to ignore them. <bratly(tm) grin>
Serion sez....
"Too many submissive women think they have to take whatever any
abusive chudwah calling himself a master wants to dish out, and
nobody seems to be telling them otherwise.
I believe that submissiveness in a woman is simply a personality
trait, not a weakness, and certainly not a disability. I prefer
strong self-centered women for my own partners and have
been fortunate over the years to attract women who were submissive
to me but self-assured and competent in their own lives.
During that time, I have developed some Rules for a D/s
relationship. These are not standard fantasy-fodder, but instead
constitute a real framework for a long-term healthy relationship
between my partners and myself.
SERION'S OFFICIAL RULES
A Work in progress...
by Serion Ironcroft
I require your obedience, although I enjoy brattiness and other
playful resistance and don't consider that to be disobedience when
clearly intended to enhance my enjoyment of you.
I require your utter and complete truthfulness and honesty - no
withholding of any requested information, period. That includes
information about personal relationships between you and other
people.
When I own you, I assume ownership of your other relationships as
well. I reserve rights over those relationships, however I won't
interfere in them capriciously or without your full prior
knowledge.
I won't require you to break a confidence without having some
significant purpose of my own. I will explain my purposes to you
on request, and will fairly consider your explanation as to why
you might not want to disclose a confidence to me. Any such
information will rest between us in confidence, and I will not
reveal it to other people without your specific consent.
I offer you the safe and unrestricted right to question me about
anything. I will give a truthful and honest answer to any
question. If for any reason I can't answer a question directly,
I'll give an honest explanation of why I can't answer you.
I offer you the right to refuse me in anything without suffering
automatic retribution. Your refusal tells me something is wrong
between us and is therefore a reason for serious discussion to fix
problems. However, if it becomes clear that you have refused me
for capricious or selfish personal reasons, I reserve the right to
punish you.
If I choose to punish you, you will not enjoy the punishment.
However, you have a right to my continued affection and support,
especially while I'm punishing you. I will never withhold my
support and affection from you as a means of punishment.
My goal is to own you entirely, and to keep you physically and
emotionally healthy. I rarely require immediate full ownership and
will insist on written agreements between us to define mutual
expectations and obligations at every stage of ownership.
Although I expect your total and complete submission, I have no
interest in running your daily life, which remains your
responsibility. However, if there's anything I want from you, from
something as trivial as the color of your lipstick to something as
serious as quitting a job or giving up a friendship, then I expect
your obedience, after any pertinent and appropriate discussions or
negotiations are concluded.
I will take what I want from you in as responsible a manner as I
can. I will not seriously interfere in your personal life without
appropriate consideration of my own purposes as compared to the
effect of my wishes on your life. However, by submitting yourself
to me, you must expect me to use you as I wish.
If you want a safeword or safety signal, I'll set one up. I will
respect your safewords and safety signals, but will not rely on
them. I will treat your use of a safeword like any other refusal.
I consider it my responsibility to know when you're in trouble.
I'll try to keep you safe no matter how thoroughly restrained or
how deeply lost in subspace you might be. If I push you over an
edge, I accept the responsibility of bringing you back safely.
You are my good friend, my lover and my exquisite property. I will
enjoy you accordingly.
Serion
** With appreciation for the wonderful submissive women who have
shared my life and taught me the value of sincerity, trust and
honesty - especially my first submissive partner Melissa; my
golden snow leopard beauty; my dear lost Naomi; and my stalwart
LadyGold, whose love warms our home and guards my heart.
ŠCopyright Serion Ironcroft, 1997. All rights reserved.
--
"Monogamy...is actually insisted upon by less than a fifth
of the world's peoples." - Sex And Spirit, by Clifford Bishop
Spyral Fox
xpou...@aol.complicated (X Pouvoir) writes:
>Come on you guys.... Top Ten WORST Slave Rules.... I've seen some pretty
>funny people expressing themselves in SSBB. Top Ten WORST Slave Rules.
Oh, all right.... :::::yielding to temptation, for it may not
pass my way again:::::
Someone already mentioned the idea of calling one's mouth a
cunt at all times, but here are a couple more that leave me
shaking my head in wonder and dismay.....
= i will ask my Master for permission to satisfy whatever need
= i have before acting on it.
I could deal with it if it were a specific set of needs, but this
sort of blanket statement is, imo, hilarious. "Master, may I
inhale?" "Master, may I wipe myself with toilet paper?"
= my Master will decide what my sexual orientation shall be.
Biologically impossible.
In contrast, I have three rules which I personally like and
follow.
1. There will be no damage, either physical or psychological
["damage" is, of course, subjective, and the way I use it
is for any harm that causes an effect for more than a few
days. Bruises don't bother me, broken bones would]
2. Activities will involve only consenting players.
[rules out everyone unable to legally consent, including
kids & critters, and also rules out public scenes since
the audience needs to consent to play]
3. Nothing may be involved which has passed through a
kidney or gone into the digestive tract past the mouth.
[no urine, no scat, no vomit]
They wouldn't work for everyone -- some people like to do stuff
like hammer nails through testes, or that shocks the public,
or golden showers, or many othre things that I would personally
consider to dangerous or unethical --but they work for my Owner
& me.
Beyond that point, and within the framework, I'll do anything my
Owner wants; as long as none of the rules are violated, he has
my full consent.
irish
<ladygold....@planetarydefense.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
>These are Serion's rules - they are part and parcel of our lives.
>They are not fantasy fodder, but rather a serious and IMO,
>successful, attempt to codify D/s behavior and responsibilities.
>They are the rules we live by.
<SNIP>
Greetings...
Well... I am almost speechless. How very refreshing after the drivel
we have all seen in the "128 Worst slave rules". I could feel the
passion in the words so carefully articulated, not only passionate,
but powerful words. Direct and to the point, yet vague enough to
allow for use in most any BDSM relationship. To say I am impressed is
an understatement. Well my vote is in for the best I have seen put
down on paper. LadyGold you have a very special Master indeed. Thank
you for sharing such an intimate part of your lives with us.
Happy Tying
irisheyes
WhyNot789
>Well... I am almost speechless. How very refreshing after the
>drivel we have all seen in the "128 Worst slave rules". I could
>feel the passion in the words so carefully articulated, not only
>passionate, but powerful words. Direct and to the point, yet
>vague enough to allow for use in most any BDSM relationship.
Well, the difference between Serion's and JK's rules is
pretty straightforward - Serion's rules are realistic rules,
not some sort of fantasy script. The interesting thing is that
there are many ideas in Serion's rules that apply IMNSHO
to *any* relationship, not just BDSM relationships. We're
switches and equals in our marriage, and yet there are many
things (the need for absolute honesty, for instance) in these
rules that we've adhered to long before I came out to Cora.
That's why I've followed the discussion about different sets
of rules for power exchange relationships with some interest
over the past few years - some of these rules contain a lot
of wisdom about relationships in general. Serion's rules are
just about the best set I've ever come across so far.
This doesn't mean to say fantasy scripts (and JK's rules *are*
a fantasy script) aren't OK, sure they are, after all, most of
my own fantasies are pretty violent and nonconsensual by
nature and thus just as unrealistic as some of the rules
talked about here and elsewhere. Problems arise only
when someone fails to make a clear distinction between
his/her fantasies and real life and starts advocating rules
that are - at least potentially - dangerous. I've seen this
happen here several times over the past few years.
Hans
NBarnes
*intro and rules snipped. Go back and read them, it's worth
it*
*smiles and murmurs something about 'quality over quantity', then
hugs LG and Serion*
NBarnes
jkay
Please note: comments under each rule are not necessarily related to the rule
above it, but may be about the difference between our pieces.
The profound difference between "128 Basic slave Rules" and "Serion's Official
Rules: A Work in progress" is that Serion's list is strictly from his
perspective. He speaks directly to the submissive whereas in "128 Basic slave
Rules" it is the slave that is heard speaking the rules and not necessarily to
her Master but to herself, her devotion to her enslavement, and what they are
about to her. And because she has used the instructions provided to her, what
she speaks is true for her because she has struggled, grappled, fought with
them over time and through her nature and then worked them until they spoke to
her and her nature, who she really is deep, deep inside. Only after that
process does she then bring them to her Master for His consideration or to use
to discern if the man she is considering to ask to take her as His slave and
His property is indeed the One she will be able to submit to completely.
>
> SERION'S OFFICIAL RULES
> A Work in progress...
> by Serion Ironcroft
>
>I require your obedience, although I enjoy brattiness and other
>playful resistance and don't consider that to be disobedience when
>clearly intended to enhance my enjoyment of you.
If this rule were applied to a slave some may find it, for the most part,
unacceptable. Serion, if a Master, would be giving a freedom to his slave that
denies her the opportunity to ask for his permission to be bratty, or to
negotiate for such an allowance, an opportunity which is then is lost.
One of the reasons the slave brings the rules from "128 Basic slave Rules" to
her Master or a prespective Master is because it allows for her the
opportunity to present her 'self' as she sees of her 'self' and then to give
it to Him because she values His observations of her work more than her own.
And Serion, because he tells the slave what is acceptable behavior and what is
not, denies his slave the opportunity to work with her nature, to review the
behaviors she brings with her to him, and to present herself to him to speak
to him about her behaviors, to open a dialog with him upon which to ask if she
may act one way or another, and to receive his decisions as confirmation that
he is well pleased with her decisions or that she needs guidance which he is
glad to give to her. Ultimately, Serion, by saying what will or will not be
ahead of time stifles what he might have been able to learn about his slave
through her presentation and the resulting exchange with her.
>
>I require your utter and complete truthfulness and honesty - no
>withholding of any requested information, period. That includes
>information about personal relationships between you and other
>people.
This rule would be fine for most slaves. Serion is direct and to the point.
While the slave may present to him her concerns about this rules if she so
desired, she would likely not do so. Such a ruling is quite exacting -
something which speaks to most slaves. It is specific and slaves rather like
things to be specific.
>
>When I own you, I assume ownership of your other relationships as
>well. I reserve rights over those relationships, however I won't
>interfere in them capriciously or without your full prior
>knowledge.
A slave would find this rule confusing. First, Serion states what he owns, but
then later says that, in effect, he will ask for permission to tread further -
something no slave would like. A slave, in my opinion owns nothing, and does
not need to be asked for anything. What her Master says about such things as
her other relationships and of her participation in them and of her
commitments is obeyed with little if any hesitation. Of course the slave may
rebel and thereby risk the possibility to be punished, or to ask if she may
speak before acting on His will so that she may present to Him her concerns
she has about the issue at hand.
>
>I won't require you to break a confidence without having some
>significant purpose of my own. I will explain my purposes to you
>on request, and will fairly consider your explanation as to why
>you might not want to disclose a confidence to me. Any such
>information will rest between us in confidence, and I will not
>reveal it to other people without your specific consent.
There are a number of problems a slave may have with this particular ruling.
To show a difference I would have written it this way to show a Master's, as
opposed to a Dom's, point of view:
"You are to present to me any issues concerning a break of confidence that may
cause what you perceive to be problems so that I may be able, through our
exchange, to understand all that is related to your concerns. Then I will
consider the options available and decide whether or not for you to divulge
the confidence and whether or not it will be discussed with others."
I believe that one of the primary differences between a submissive and a
slave is that a slave defers all responsiblity to her Master unless he decides
otherwise.
>I offer you the safe and unrestricted right to question me about
>anything. I will give a truthful and honest answer to any
>question. If for any reason I can't answer a question directly,
>I'll give an honest explanation of why I can't answer you.
This would probably be fine for most slaves.
>
>I offer you the right to refuse me in anything without suffering
>automatic retribution. Your refusal tells me something is wrong
>between us and is therefore a reason for serious discussion to fix
>problems. However, if it becomes clear that you have refused me
>for capricious or selfish personal reasons, I reserve the right to
>punish you.
This would probably be rejected by quite a few slaves since Serion leaves a
fairly heavy responsibility upon the slave. most would rather have the Master
ask them if there is a problem as He feels it is necessary to do so because He
just feels like asking, or because He feels from her behavior that their are
issues to resolve.
>
>If I choose to punish you, you will not enjoy the punishment.
>However, you have a right to my continued affection and support,
>especially while I'm punishing you. I will never withhold my
>support and affection from you as a means of punishment.
I think I would have left this rules to just its first line. The rest of it is
pretty vague.
>
>My goal is to own you entirely, and to keep you physically and
>emotionally healthy. I rarely require immediate full ownership and
>will insist on written agreements between us to define mutual
>expectations and obligations at every stage of ownership.
A bit contradictory. First, Serion owns the slave entirely and then he allows
for her to have some expectation and obligations. In my opinion, if a Master
knows His property well, and considering that more observations or different
tactics may have to be employed to learn more over time, that decisions of
what she can expect and not is really up to Him and not her.
>
>Although I expect your total and complete submission, I have no
>interest in running your daily life, which remains your
>responsibility.
Well - this is his choice, but in most M/s relationships the Master runs
everything about his slave including her daily life. It is what she knows
is His responsiblity. What the slave can and can not do is left up to her only
when the allowance is understood as just that - an allowance granted to her to
act on because her Master has deemed it worthy for her and acceptable to him.
This is just an option tho. Others may do it differently.
However, if there's anything I want from you, from
>something as trivial as the color of your lipstick to something as
>serious as quitting a job or giving up a friendship, then I expect
>your obedience, after any pertinent and appropriate discussions or
>negotiations are concluded.
Given the other rules I am not so sure this one is necessary. The other rules
allowed the slave the responsibility to contribute to the relationship in
these matters and now Serion is denying that.
>
>I will take what I want from you in as responsible a manner as I
>can. I will not seriously interfere in your personal life without
>appropriate consideration of my own purposes as compared to the
>effect of my wishes on your life. However, by submitting yourself
>to me, you must expect me to use you as I wish.
This one needs some cleaning up to be consistent with the others or simply to
shorten:
"I will take what I want from you in a responsible manner. I will consider
what interferences with your personal life are or are not necessary. And I
will use you as I please."
>
>If you want a safeword or safety signal, I'll set one up. I will
>respect your safewords and safety signals, but will not rely on
>them. I will treat your use of a safeword like any other refusal.
>
Looks fine.
I may rewrite it to say:
"Safe -words, -signals are allowed, but only after you have asked for them,
and only after I found them to be beneficial for you and for our
relationship."
>I consider it my responsibility to know when you're in trouble.
>I'll try to keep you safe no matter how thoroughly restrained or
>how deeply lost in subspace you might be. If I push you over an
>edge, I accept the responsibility of bringing you back safely.
Sounds good.
>You are my good friend, my lover and my exquisite property. I will
>enjoy you accordingly.
For a slave that might have to be rearranged: "you are my property, my slave,
my lover and my friend to enjoy as I see fit."
Johnathan Kay
jkay
whyn...@aol.com (WhyNot789) wrote:
Serion's rules are
>just about the best set I've ever come across so far.
yea right! They leave teach almost nothing of what would be expected to occur
in a relationship such as mannerisms, behavior, devotion, sexuality, adornment
and the like.
With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on how she can behave nor of what
kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few details.
Johnathan Kay
midnight
>Although I expect your total and complete submission, I have no
>interest in running your daily life, which remains your
>responsibility.
JK's comments:
"Well - this is his choice, but in most M/s relationships the Master runs
everything about his slave including her daily life. It is what she knows
is His responsiblity. What the slave can and can not do is left up to her only
when the allowance is understood as just that - an allowance granted to her to
act on because her Master has deemed it worthy for her and acceptable to him."
I disagree... in most M/s relationships I have come across Serion's paragraph
is realistic. I think this is a question of difinition tho... I presume, JK,
you do not mean that whilst the Master is at work the slave has to telephone
him to ask if she can eat, drink, go to the toilet, go and get the children
from school etc... that level of micromanagement does occur (and I have
absolutely nothing against those who adhere to it) but it is not in my
experience the most usual form of M/s routine. Most M/s couples work out what
the "norm" will be - the allowance is clear in Serion's rules - and then only
have specific Master control in unusual or special (to them) cases of event
or action. As for responsibility... I think one has to be careful
here..adults are responsible for their actions whether they are
slaves/submissives or not. I would not like to see rules that infer
otherwise.
"Safe -words, -signals are allowed, but only after you have asked for them,
and only after I found them to be beneficial for you and for our
relationship."
I feel this is to restrictive ... if one is going to specifically mention
signals then I do not think they should be restricted to ones asked for in
advance... not everyone uses safewords and I'm not going to go into that
discussion...but there is every reason to allow un-negotiated signals... you
get excruciating cramp or suddenly get into a state where mentally you cannot
cope with a scene... I would dread the thought of a Master who disallowed or
ignored un-negotiated signals of distress.
"They leave teach almost nothing of what would be expected to occur
in a relationship such as mannerisms, behavior, devotion, sexuality, adornment
and the like. With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on how she can behave
nor of what
kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few details."
I do not agree with this. Serion's rules are a basis...just as any rules are
... they are not meant to cover every aspect of relationship or play...it
would be exceedingly dangerous to try and do so...they open the way for
further discussion and form the fundamental core of an agreement.
midnigh†
Homepage: http://soiuser.hyperchat.com/midi/mid~1.htm
(includes And The Kinky Sex Is Great Too)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
NBarnes
> whyn...@aol.com (WhyNot789) wrote:
> > Serion's rules are just about the best set I've ever come across
> > so far.
> yea right! They leave teach almost nothing of what would be expected
> to occur in a relationship such as mannerisms, behavior, devotion,
> sexuality, adornment and the like.
>
> With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on how she can behave
> nor of what kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few
> details.
That jk thinks that things like mannerisms, behavior, sexuality,
adorment, and suchlike are things to be codified in a set of rules
is, of course, totally typical.
Thankfully, Serion realizes that women are _individuals_ and does
not sink to the same depths of specificality that jk does in his
rules list.
I would imagine that the more specific details would vary from
submissive to submissive and be custom tailored to the individual.
See, jk, _Serion_ _talks_ to his submissives. LG doesn't need to
read the rules to know how she's supposed to behave, she can _ask_
him. To a large extent, that's what his rules are supposed to do;
set up a environment where communication can flow freely between
the dominant and the submissive without having that communication
impede the flow of _power_ between the dom and the sub. Once that
communication is there, the need for extensive (128 = extensive?
You be the judge) rules outlining specific behavior fades away.
The need for extensive and exhaustive rules like jk's is in,
surprise, surprise, fantasy realms where dominants don't have the
time, the inclination, or the need (due to dominance-associated
telepathy, a frequent device in D/s fic) to develop that kind of
intimate communication with the submissive. However, in real life,
which is very specifically where Serion's rules are supposed to be
applied (they are practical, but not very hot. Sorry, Serion ;) ),
that kind of communication is a _necessity_ (IMHO, of course, since
jk has made his distain for the 'negotiate early and often' school
of thought repeated clear). Part of the danger of 'comprehensive'
lists of rules for submissives is that they give the illusion of
clarity and comprehensiveness, possibly inhibiting further discussion
of expectations, requirements, and limitations between the dom and
the sub.
Serion Ironcroft
<370DB5...@earthlink.net>, NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote,
in part:
> *smiles and murmurs something about 'quality over quantity', then
>hugs LG and Serion*
Hey, we're after quality *and* quantity, hm? |evil grin|
Re-hugs, Serion
kookm...@use.net
<7ehmv8$9l0...@trace.seanet.com>, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay)
wrote:
>I ask you this: Would it matter to you if they were and you had plenty of
>evidence to support that they were? I mean would you really change your
>position? I doubt it.
Hmmm... At long last, I'm beginning to think that kay may be really
as stupid as he acts here in SSBB. It seems pretty clear that he is
dramatically ignorant when it comes to the diversity and complexity of
"basic" human motivations and behaviors.
Trying to reduce an entire cuisine down to 128 poorly written cookbook
recipes is the work either of a zealot, or an ignoramus.
Oh, well, it takes all types. Having an entertaining bogeyman around
can be useful, I suppose.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Chief of Skeptics Division, Official Usenet Cabal
Gorgik
for more particular items like, "Always put the cap back on the toothpaste"
and "Address me as 'Sir' unless there's a good reason not to." <g>
That said, please allow me to join the chorus in praising these "rules"
or "principles" as exceptionally thoughtful, realistic, practical, and
supportive of both Dominant and submissive, or Master/Mistress
and slave. i'd rank them right up there with what my friend David
Schachter told his slave when they first got together:
"Always do what I tell you, tell me the truth, and give me your best
effort."
Bravo!
with respect,
slave david stein
(gor...@AOL.com)
writer, editor, co-founder of Gay Male S/M Activists,
listowner of gl-subs e-mail list for queer submissives
uncollared but looking
http://lthredge.com/ds
"Workaholics can be fun if you tie them down first!"
kookm...@use.net
<7ekh2n$9lk...@trace.seanet.com>, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay)
wrote:
>yea right! They leave teach almost nothing of what would be expected to occur
>in a relationship such as mannerisms, behavior, devotion, sexuality, adornment
>and the like.
And here is kay's ignorance expressed in a nutshell, hm?
Specific mannerisms, behaviors, styles of devotion, styles of
sexuality, adornment, etc., are *details* that vary so widely from
person to person, and relationship to relationship, that any attempt
to codify them in any broad sweeping way is doomed to fit only the
relatively narrow territory of the codifier's own kinks and fetishes.
Really "basic" rules must address the underpinnings of a relationship.
If the foundation is sound, then the details will emerge naturally
from the personalities of the participants.
I don't need to have a "rule" to tell LadyGold to call her mouth a
cunt. Instead, I have a rule that requires her utter obedience, which
covers anything I might wish her to do, including how she describes
her own body parts.
I don't have to have a "rule" that tells dingo I will probably whack
her with the single-tail the next time she's visiting. If that wasn't
something she wanted, why would she even bother to come visit?
>With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on how she can behave nor of what
>kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few details.
Duh... That's because, apparently unlike kay, Serion knows the
difference between the actual basics and the details. |smile|
Frankly, I have never had a serious gripe with kay's semi-intelligible
gibbering as wank fodder. My complaint is with the way he packages it
for public consumption.
Kay is like a man who knows the cost of everything and the value of
nothing. By insisting on misrepresenting his wank fodder as general
behavioral guidelines, he creates the potential for unnecessary harm.
If he retitled the 128 blatherings as "Kay's Hot Master/Slave
Fantasies," my own complaints would virtually disappear.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Human Resources Consultant for the Allegedly Implied Usenet Cabal
Sockermom9
>yea right! They leave teach almost nothing of what would be expected to occur
>in a relationship such as mannerisms, behavior, devotion, sexuality,
>adornment
>and the like.
I'm out of coffee this morning, and without it, the above para *almost* made
sense. Perhaps if I'd been drinking--read dead drunk--I would have made even
more.
>With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on how she can behave nor of what
>kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few details.
She'll behave in a way that is pleasing to Serion. That's the point, or didn't
you read that part? Serion has a life, and wants to live it rather than
spending twenty-six hours a day picking apart the behavior of someone who, by
submitting to him, has agreed to see to his happiness and pleasure.
Now I understand that Serion isn't into humiliation, grandiose rituals, or
posturing, and that you are. He doesn't need to be. And I bet that despite not
having a formal rule stating "a female will be nude at all times", his
statement "hey, wear that blue suit tonight" carries just as much weight to
Lady Gold as a dictum going on for pages and pages--"The female will wear her
blue suit to all dinner engagements that occur on Tuesday evenings between six
and nine. She will wear slacks for any Tuesday night dinner engagements before
those hours, and a black dress with pearls after. Now, as to Monday nights,
and lunches, and breakfasts..."
As soon as you realize that his style is every bit as worthy as yours (and
*much* easier to read!), the rest of us might be a little more tolerant of your
crap.
Spyral Fox
<midnig...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>Serions rules:
>>Although I expect your total and complete submission, I have no
>>interest in running your daily life, which remains your
>>responsibility.
>
>JK's comments:
>"Well - this is his choice, but in most M/s relationships the Master runs
>everything about his slave including her daily life.
[....]
Midnight:
>I disagree... in most M/s relationships I have come across Serion's paragraph
>is realistic.
Personaly, I can state that my Owner wants a slave who can
wipe herself after using the toilet without asking. My Lord Richard
has expressed several times very strongly that he has no interest
in owning someone he would have to micromanage, and that he
much prefers having a pet who can make ordinary decisions without
help.
[...]
JK:
>"They leave teach almost nothing of what would be expected to occur
>in a relationship such as mannerisms, behavior, devotion, sexuality,
>adornment and the like. With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on
> how she can behave nor of what
>kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few details."
Midnight:
>I do not agree with this. Serion's rules are a basis...just as any rules are
>... they are not meant to cover every aspect of relationship or play...it
>would be exceedingly dangerous to try and do so...they open the way for
>further discussion and form the fundamental core of an agreement.
Seconded. Well said -- JK doesn't seem to understand that people
often negotiate this sort of stuff.
Spyral Fox
writes:
>jkay wrote:
>> whyn...@aol.com (WhyNot789) wrote:
>
>> > Serion's rules are just about the best set I've ever come across
>> > so far.
>
>> yea right! They leave teach almost nothing of what would be expected
>> to occur in a relationship such as mannerisms, behavior, devotion,
>> sexuality, adornment and the like.
>>
>> With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on how she can behave
>> nor of what kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few
>> details.
>
> That jk thinks that things like mannerisms, behavior, sexuality,
>adorment, and suchlike are things to be codified in a set of rules
>is, of course, totally typical.
> Thankfully, Serion realizes that women are _individuals_ and does
>not sink to the same depths of specificality that jk does in his
>rules list.
> I would imagine that the more specific details would vary from
>submissive to submissive and be custom tailored to the individual.
>See, jk, _Serion_ _talks_ to his submissives. LG doesn't need to
>read the rules to know how she's supposed to behave, she can _ask_
>him.
[...rest snipped...]
Personally, I think it's a reading comprehension problem
on JK's part. Serion's rules very clearly state:
= However, if there's anything I want from you, from
= something as trivial as the color of your lipstick to something as
= serious as quitting a job or giving up a friendship, then I expect
= your obedience, after any pertinent and appropriate discussions or
= negotiations are concluded.
I interpreted that as "what the master says, goes... and he only
says after discussion."
I would assume that positions to sit in and such like are someplace
between lipstick color and dropping a friend.
mady
>yea right! They leave teach almost nothing of what would be expected to occur
>in a relationship such as mannerisms, behavior, devotion, sexuality, adornment
>and the like.
>
>With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on how she can behave nor of what
>kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few details.
>
Oh dear...us poor females! All that education, reading, exposure to
the arts...all for naught! I mean, how can we possibly figure out how
to behave without being specifically told? Must be the result of all
those years hauling around abundant breasts..shrunk the brains and
made us stupid.
Olivia etc
frequently use is OK with the author.Olivia
^^-^^Olivia^^-^^
JWarrenZ
>has expressed several times very strongly that he has no interest
>in owning someone he would have to micromanage, and that he
>much prefers having a pet who can make ordinary decisions without
>help.
I also concur. It may well be that "God is Dead" and the cause of death was
overwork.
Micromanagement is efficient only in inverse proportion to the slave's
competence... and who wants an incompetent slave.
Boston Dungeon Society Diversified Services
www.bostondungeon.org Toys & Books for the Scene
Telnet: bdsbbs.com Email: Men...@bdsbbs.com
Info: 617-654-0536 www.diversified--services.com
X Pouvoir
>kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few details.
>
Someone did suggest these to be more along the lines of principles. I think
principles are far more important in the development of more detailed rules for
the long-term type of relationship.
I have not read Serion's rules but I immediately copied and forwarded to my own
Master and will await his opinions before I read them. It's just how we do
things. He has his own rules for me but first and foremost he made me
understand his principles before making more detailed rules.
The most important part of rules is understanding the reasons why they are
there.
Can you limit yours to structure around your own principles? I'd be interested
in reading more about where your views are coming from.
xpouvoir
---------------------
We're building our website (non-commercial) dedicated to _committed_ TPE
Relationships. Warning: It's not for everyone. <g>
http://www.echange-le-pouvoir.com/
kookm...@use.net
<7ekgpn$9lk...@trace.seanet.com>, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay)
wrote:
>The profound difference between "128 Basic slave Rules" and "Serion's Official
>Rules: A Work in progress" is that Serion's list is strictly from his
>perspective.
No doubt that's why so many people have described them as containing
basic principles applicable to relationships at large as well as BDSM
relationships.
>He speaks directly to the submissive whereas in "128 Basic slave
>Rules" it is the slave that is heard speaking the rules and not necessarily to
>her Master but to herself, her devotion to her enslavement, and what they are
>about to her.
Well, not exactly. The only voice that actually appears in the 128
wank fantasies is kay's, lecturing the world about his own fantasies
and prejudices.
>If this rule were applied to a slave some may find it, for the most part,
>unacceptable. Serion, if a Master, would be giving a freedom to his slave that
>denies her the opportunity to ask for his permission to be bratty, or to
>negotiate for such an allowance, an opportunity which is then is lost.
???? I think I understand this, but I'm not sure. I do suspect kay
has essentially no experience with bratty submissives. Probably a
good move on his part, eh?
Why would I ever want to require a submissive to ask detailed
permission to behave in a way I've already given blanket permission
for?
Hey, I'm a Dom, not a servant to my submissives. That means I get to
do what I want to do, and my committed partners also get to do what I
want to do. If they get off on asking permission to be bratty, that's
cool, so long as it doesn't become annoying to me.
I get the feeling kay's rules are as much a control on his behavior as
they are on his slaves' behaviors. What if he decides one day he
doesn't want his slave to call her mouth a cunt for a couple of hours.
Has he then broken his own rules? Maybe that's why he (purportedly)
doesn't actually follow his own rules in his relationships.
Oh, yeah, that's right. These "basic" rules can be disregarded at any
time by either the Master or the slave.
>One of the reasons the slave brings the rules from "128 Basic slave Rules" to
>her Master or a prespective Master is because it allows for her the
>opportunity to present her 'self' as she sees of her 'self' and then to give
>it to Him because she values His observations of her work more than her own.
???? What an idiotically round-about way of communicating one's "real
self," eh? The slave wouldn't have to go through such a rigmarole if
her Master had any serious clues about people.
And why would anybody want to insist that a slave value her Master's
observations more than her own? Masters are not perfect - sometimes
they do stupid things.
I welcome the honest observations and criticisms of my submissive
partners, because it is in my best interests to add their collective
wisdom to my own.
>Ultimately, Serion, by saying what will or will not be
>ahead of time stifles what he might have been able to learn about his slave
>through her presentation and the resulting exchange with her.
|yawn| A few paragraphs ago, I was bad for not telling the slave
what to do, now I am bad for telling the slave what to do. Kay must
be one of those people who can believe 4 impossible and mutually
contradictory things before breakfast.
>A slave would find this rule confusing. First, Serion states what he owns, but
>then later says that, in effect, he will ask for permission to tread further -
>something no slave would like.
Hmmm... I wonder what document kay was reading. My rule stated:
When I own you, I assume ownership of your other relationships
as well. I reserve rights over those relationships, however I
won't interfere in them capriciously or without your full
prior knowledge.
I presume kay means that he himself intends to poke around in his
slave's affairs capriciously and without telling her in advance what
he's going to do. Sounds like a real good environment for breeding
mistrust and dishonesty between kay and his slaves.
>A slave, in my opinion owns nothing, and does
>not need to be asked for anything.
Opinions are like assholes, etc. Kay's fantasies not withstanding,
the universe probably doesn't care much about kay's opinions. In my
opinion, confusing real behavior with wank fantasy is not a
particularly effective success strategy, hm?
>What her Master says about such things as her other relationships
>and of her participation in them and of her commitments is obeyed
>with little if any hesitation.
Sure - that's the fantasy. And it may last until kay calls his
slave's boss and announces her resignation, without her prior
knowledge.
There is a thin line between using somebody and abusing them. Kay's
poor understanding of the difference permeates his wank fantasies.
>Of course the slave may rebel and thereby risk the possibility to be
>punished, or to ask if she may speak before acting on His will so that
>she may present to Him her concerns she has about the issue at hand.
???? I wonder why kay assumes such a confrontational relationship
with his slaves?
My own "slaves" are free to say, "Hey boss, you fucked up!" or "Hey
boss, would you mind giving me and NB some time to go screw our brains
out without having to worry whether you're not going to 'punish' me
afterward?"
>"You are to present to me any issues concerning a break of confidence that may
>cause what you perceive to be problems so that I may be able, through our
>exchange, to understand all that is related to your concerns. Then I will
>consider the options available and decide whether or not for you to divulge
>the confidence and whether or not it will be discussed with others."
Kay really doesn't like to use two clear words when five fuzzy
circumlocutions will do, eh? I leave it to the student to figure out
how his translation differs in meaning from mine.
>I believe that one of the primary differences between a submissive and a
>slave is that a slave defers all responsiblity to her Master unless he decides
>otherwise.
Well, duh... My rules state:
Although I expect your total and complete submission, I have
no interest in running your daily life, which remains your
responsibility.
In other words, my submissives defer all responsibilities to their
Dom, unless I decide otherwise. I decide I don't want to run their
daily lives. Ipse facto chewing gum. |shrug|
>This would probably be rejected by quite a few slaves since Serion leaves a
>fairly heavy responsibility upon the slave. most would rather have the Master
>ask them if there is a problem as He feels it is necessary to do so because He
>just feels like asking, or because He feels from her behavior that their are
>issues to resolve.
Kay appears to be looking for partners who want to avoid
responsibility and are willing to settle for half-interest from their
partners.
One of the most dangerous things a Master (or slave) can do is
*assume* they know what the other is thinking and feeling. The more a
direct dialog about relationship problems can be facilitated, the more
likely problems can be resolved comfortably and constructively.
>I think I would have left this rules to just its first line. The rest of it is
>pretty vague.
???? My "vague" rules state:
However, you have a right to my continued affection and
support, especially while I'm punishing you. I will never
withhold my support and affection from you as a means of
punishment.
I judge kay's response to mean that he *would* withhold support and
affection from his slave as a means of punishment. What a Masterly
approach to the care and treatment of a mere slave, hm? More to the
point, what an inhumane jerk. |disgusted scowl|
>A bit contradictory. First, Serion owns the slave entirely and then he allows
>for her to have some expectation and obligations. In my opinion, if a Master
>knows His property well, and considering that more observations or different
>tactics may have to be employed to learn more over time, that decisions of
>what she can expect and not is really up to Him and not her.
???? ???? Seems to be more confusion on kay's part between wank
fantasy dolls and real people.
>Well - this is his choice, but in most M/s relationships the Master runs
>everything about his slave including her daily life.
The itchy part here is that pesky word "most," eh? Considering kay's
very limited experience with the BDSM community, he presumes knowledge
and expertise that he clearly lacks. Yes, some Masters attempt to
micro-manage their slaves. In my experience, *most* do not, simply
for practical reasons.
>It is what she knows is His responsiblity.
|blink| It's *my* responsibility to run my slave's life for her?
Hey, performing that sort of service for a slave is *soooo* Masterly,
eh? Gimme a break!
Myself, I frankly delegate some of my own life-management tasks to
LadyGold. Why would I want to micro-manage her life when I have
plenty to do managing my own? Best to hand off to her the chores she
enjoys and I find onerous.
>What the slave can and can not do is left up to her only when the
>allowance is understood as just that - an allowance granted to her to act
>on because her Master has deemed it worthy for her and acceptable to him.
Well, yes. Or in other words, since I have no interest in running a
submissive's daily life, it remains her responsibility. Perhaps kay
means I shouldn't tell my submissive partner what I expect of her?
>Given the other rules I am not so sure this one is necessary.
I'm not surprised. There are so many things kay is not sure about.
>This one needs some cleaning up to be consistent with the others or simply to
>shorten:
|laughing| No further comment needed! Kay's stature as a writer has
preceded him!
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Card-carrying literary critic for Cabals Anonymous, Inc.
Douglas Reay
>
> Specific mannerisms, behaviors, styles of devotion, styles of
> sexuality, adornment, etc., are *details* that vary so widely from
> person to person, and relationship to relationship, that any attempt
> to codify them in any broad sweeping way is doomed to fit only the
> relatively narrow territory of the codifier's own kinks and fetishes.
>
> Really "basic" rules must address the underpinnings of a relationship.
> If the foundation is sound, then the details will emerge naturally
> from the personalities of the participants.
I have a written agreement with my partner, Louise. And it is very
detailed, even mentioning that it is her responsibility to take the
garbage out each week. But I wouldn't consider those details to be
general "rules", of applicability to all d&s relationships.
The basic part is that she submits herself to my will, and does her
best to follow it, in return for which I accept the responsibility.
The rest is just clarification of what my will is, including how I will
her to follow it, written down to avoid confusion and lack of memory.
For instance, it introduces the concepts of Orders, Directives and
Commands.
Orders are anything I tell her to do.
Directives are some general principles we've written down, such as
"Don't out yourself at work."
Commands are Orders that we've discussed fully
You see, I'm not perfect. <FX>gasps of astonishment</FX> And there is
always the possibility of me giving an Order that, had I had the full
information available, I wouldn't have wanted to give. So I've asked
her to obey my will using the precedance Commands > DIrectives > Orders.
This means, for example, that if I gave her an Order that would (unbeknownst
to me) have the effect of outing her at work, she knows that she should
speak up and tell me why she thinks that would contravene one of the
Directives I've laid down. However, if I then still decide that she
should go ahead, then she does so.
There is plenty of other stuff, some of which duplicates what Serion wrote,
but our agreement starts off by assume Louise is a mature competant adult
who wishes to serve me, and it functions to aid her in serving me, both by
clarifying where there is ambiguity, and serving as an aide memoire.
That's what works for us. Some people might prefer a document short enough
to fit on a sewing sampler. Others might want to use it just as a fantasy
ideal. For us, it's what we live by. It doesn't substitute for talking
(although occasionally it subsititutes for a memory); it is a living symbol
of commitment (but how it got signed and witnessed... that is another story).
Douglas
^allison
particularly this thread. I've struggled for a while, during my learning
phase, with the idea that I can't be a very good sub or slave because I
don't think I could feel comfortable asking my Master for permission to call
a plumber should the toilet overflow, or asking what decisions I should make
in my research job, etc...it's nice to know that there are Masters out there
who can and would appreciate someone competent as a sub/slave.
Again, though, my gratitude to y'all for the amount of knowledge I have
gained from lurking. I will probably go BACK to lurking, but continue to
learn.
--
allison
"I'm not growing up, I'm just burning out."
Green Day
remove the SPAMSUCKS in my email address to reply
JWarrenZ wrote in message <19990409125804...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
Karl Kleinpaste
> Xpouvier asked for the Worst Slave Rules....
I didn't see that query, but the worst one I ever saw was in a
contract posted to alt.torture. Dredging my archives, here's the
relevant snippet:
| The Master will never intentionally leave a permanent mark on the
| slave but if a permanent mark should occur the Master will not be
| held responsible in any way and the slave agrees to hold harmless in
| all causes that arise from the mark or marks on their body.
The jerk who posted this might as well have said, "As a dominant, I'm
an incompetent idiot, but IT'S NOT MY FAULT!"
The rest of the contract was, as I recall, equally stultifying in its
expressions of "control" and "responsibility".
--karl,
who rather likes
permanent marks
Phil Carson
clambered onto a soapbox and shouted to the world:
>The profound difference between "128 Basic slave Rules" and "Serion's Official
>Rules: A Work in progress" is that Serion's list is strictly from his
>perspective.
And your Gorean wish-list isn't written from *your* perspective? It's
practically impossible *not* to write something profound from one's
own personal perspective.
You are entitled to your opinions, of course, but my opinion is that
your definition of "slave" disregards everything that makes a slave a
human being. If you seek shared intimacy from a relationship, you
*must* leave your partner's will intact, slave or no; otherwise you
will end up with nothing more than a lobotomized blow-up doll.
There is more to a slave, by any definition I'm familiar with, than
their contentment to live in a cage unless and until their Master
chooses to take them out, use and abuse them, and put them back. But
then again, by your definition, "their contentment" is totally
irrelevant.
(I've become lost here. Please remind me why anyone, from any
culture, would voluntarily enter a relationship where every last shred
of their personality, creativity, and humanity must be crushed.)
>He speaks directly to the submissive whereas in "128 Basic slave
>Rules" it is the slave that is heard speaking the rules --
If a relationship is not based in love and intimacy, it's no
relationship at all, IMO. So why shouldn't Serion speak directly to
the submissive, to tell her what is expected of her? I think it beats
the heck out of "Vhile in the Stalag you VILL follow zese rulez
exactly ..."
>This rule would be fine for most slaves. Serion is direct and to the point.
>While the slave may present to him her concerns about this rules if she so
>desired, she would likely not do so. Such a ruling is quite exacting -
>something which speaks to most slaves. It is specific and slaves rather like
>things to be specific.
Erm ... just curious again, but how many slaves have you polled to
arrive at the conclusion that "slaves rather like things to be
specific"? (You may very well be right, but if you're going to
present a generality as unassailable fact, you're going to have to
back it up with data.)
>A slave would find this rule confusing. First, Serion states what he owns, but
>then later says that, in effect, he will ask for permission to tread further -
>something no slave would like. A slave, in my opinion owns nothing, and does
>not need to be asked for anything.
Sure thing. "kajira, I have decided tonight to take your eyesight
from you. Here, hold still while I jam these needles in your eyes."
"Oh yes, if it pleases you, Master. I exist only to stumble around
the house blindly for your pleasure."
>Of course the slave may
>rebel and thereby risk the possibility to be punished, or to ask if she may
>speak before acting on His will so that she may present to Him her concerns
>she has about the issue at hand.
Ah, but I thought the slave's will did not matter. How dare a slave
suggest that Master JK has not considered every possible nuance of a
decision affecting her? And if he has, then her input is entirely
unnecessary and unwelcome. (Am I getting with the program yet? I
could get used to this form of slavery ... to have a pet deserving of
less respect than my tropical fish ...)
>This would probably be rejected by quite a few slaves since Serion leaves a
>fairly heavy responsibility upon the slave.
Is it conceivable -- just *conceivable*, mind you -- that Serion
doesn't WANT someone with the "slave" mentality you advocate? For
myself, if I presented Serion's list to someone and they rejected it
because it didn't allow them to be "slavish" enough, they have done me
a favor and saved me a lot of time and trouble.
... yeah, maybe Ty's right. Maybe I *do* need to learn to relax when
I hear someone claim to be the spokesperson for *all* Masters and
*all* slaves. Maybe it shouldn't bother me so much that new people,
and the public at large, are being told that there is only One True
Way to be a Master or slave, and anything else isn't severe enough to
be "true BDSM".
(Ty, you were right about this guy. I'm gonna go have another
martini.) :-)
Phil Carson
http://www.bondageweb.com/
X Pouvoir
are really coming up with some good stuff. :o)
Any more people out there? Do you recall a horrible Slave Rule that for the
rest of your life you will always roll your eyes at hearing it or seeing it?
Or perhaps you have made one up just to be a wise acre?
Thanks for those of you who contributed yours.
xpouvoir
irish
>My comments also below:
>
>Please note: comments under each rule are not necessarily related to the rule
>above it, but may be about the difference between our pieces.
>
>The profound difference between "128 Basic slave Rules" and "Serion's Official
>Rules: A Work in progress" is that Serion's list is strictly from his
>perspective. He speaks directly to the submissive whereas in "128 Basic slave
>Rules" it is the slave that is heard speaking the rules and not necessarily to
>her Master but to herself, her devotion to her enslavement, and what they are
>about to her. And because she has used the instructions provided to her, what
>she speaks is true for her because she has struggled, grappled, fought with
>them over time and through her nature and then worked them until they spoke to
>her and her nature, who she really is deep, deep inside. Only after that
>process does she then bring them to her Master for His consideration or to use
>to discern if the man she is considering to ask to take her as His slave and
>His property is indeed the One she will be able to submit to completely.
The big difference here is that Serion does not try to brainwash his
sub/slave into believing his fantasies are reality. Serion states
throughout his set of rules that the sub/slave may communicate with
him and discuss any problem that may arise.
>>
>> SERION'S OFFICIAL RULES
>> A Work in progress...
>> by Serion Ironcroft
>>
>>I require your obedience, although I enjoy brattiness and other
>>playful resistance and don't consider that to be disobedience when
>>clearly intended to enhance my enjoyment of you.
>
>If this rule were applied to a slave some may find it, for the most part,
>unacceptable. Serion, if a Master, would be giving a freedom to his slave that
>denies her the opportunity to ask for his permission to be bratty, or to
>negotiate for such an allowance, an opportunity which is then is lost.
>
>One of the reasons the slave brings the rules from "128 Basic slave Rules" to
>her Master or a prespective Master is because it allows for her the
>opportunity to present her 'self' as she sees of her 'self' and then to give
>it to Him because she values His observations of her work more than her own.
>
>And Serion, because he tells the slave what is acceptable behavior and what is
>not, denies his slave the opportunity to work with her nature, to review the
>behaviors she brings with her to him, and to present herself to him to speak
>to him about her behaviors, to open a dialog with him upon which to ask if she
>may act one way or another, and to receive his decisions as confirmation that
>he is well pleased with her decisions or that she needs guidance which he is
>glad to give to her. Ultimately, Serion, by saying what will or will not be
>ahead of time stifles what he might have been able to learn about his slave
>through her presentation and the resulting exchange with her.
>
Most mature sub/slaves would find this rule more then acceptable. By
not allowing some spontaneities in any relationship, it is doomed to
become boring. The way you contradict yourself jkay is astonishing.
On one hand you say that Serion is telling his sub/slave what is
acceptable behavior, denies her the opportunity to communicate with
him, yet your set of drivel does not allow for any communication. In
the "128" there is no room for individualities on either the part of
the Dom/Master nor the sub/slave, confirming they are far from
"Basic". A person’s personality is what attracts a partner, why would
anyone want to stifle that? The "128" does just that, turning the
sub/slave into nothing less then a programmed robot, for no other
purpose but to fulfill your unrealistic fantasies. Serion repeatedly
states through every phase of his rules, that communication is the
key.
>>
>>I require your utter and complete truthfulness and honesty - no
>>withholding of any requested information, period. That includes
>>information about personal relationships between you and other
>>people.
>
>This rule would be fine for most slaves. Serion is direct and to the point.
>While the slave may present to him her concerns about this rules if she so
>desired, she would likely not do so. Such a ruling is quite exacting -
>something which speaks to most slaves. It is specific and slaves rather like
>things to be specific.
>
Being a so called Dom/Master, how could you possibly consider yourself
such an expert on what sub/slaves like or dislike, how they feel, or
what they think? If the "128" represents your expertise on this
matter, perhaps you should go back to submitting. You claim to have
spent several years submitting, I would like to see you follow your
own "128" for just one month, perhaps (wishful thinking here) then you
would see how ludicrous they truly are.
>>
>>When I own you, I assume ownership of your other relationships as
>>well. I reserve rights over those relationships, however I won't
>>interfere in them capriciously or without your full prior
>>knowledge.
>
>A slave would find this rule confusing. First, Serion states what he owns, but
>then later says that, in effect, he will ask for permission to tread further -
>something no slave would like. A slave, in my opinion owns nothing, and does
>not need to be asked for anything. What her Master says about such things as
>her other relationships and of her participation in them and of her
>commitments is obeyed with little if any hesitation. Of course the slave may
>rebel and thereby risk the possibility to be punished, or to ask if she may
>speak before acting on His will so that she may present to Him her concerns
>she has about the issue at hand.
>
Confusing? Where does it say he will ask permission? I read it as
saying, I will not interfere arbitrarily into something, I feel you
are more then capable, as a mature sub/slave to handle on your own,
unless it becomes an issue in our relationship. If this becomes a
need, you shall be aware of my action beforehand.
>>
>>I won't require you to break a confidence without having some
>>significant purpose of my own. I will explain my purposes to you
>>on request, and will fairly consider your explanation as to why
>>you might not want to disclose a confidence to me. Any such
>>information will rest between us in confidence, and I will not
>>reveal it to other people without your specific consent.
>
>There are a number of problems a slave may have with this particular ruling.
>To show a difference I would have written it this way to show a Master's, as
>opposed to a Dom's, point of view:
>
>"You are to present to me any issues concerning a break of confidence that may
>cause what you perceive to be problems so that I may be able, through our
>exchange, to understand all that is related to your concerns. Then I will
>consider the options available and decide whether or not for you to divulge
>the confidence and whether or not it will be discussed with others."
>
>I believe that one of the primary differences between a submissive and a
>slave is that a slave defers all responsiblity to her Master unless he decides
>otherwise.
>
Again, your need to own a robot is evident. Whether you are a Master
or a Dom, does not change the fact that a sub/slave is still an
individual with a uniqueness all to herself, if this was not true, why
would anyone have a preference of one sub/slave over another? My
interpretation of this rule is, I need not know of the innermost
thoughts and or actions, that another shares with you in confidence,
unless a need arises in our relationship, and at that time we shall
open a line of communication, that I shall also hold in confidence.
It was very clear to me.
>>I offer you the safe and unrestricted right to question me about
>>anything. I will give a truthful and honest answer to any
>>question. If for any reason I can't answer a question directly,
>>I'll give an honest explanation of why I can't answer you.
>
>This would probably be fine for most slaves.
>
Probably? Most would welcome the openness.
>>
>>I offer you the right to refuse me in anything without suffering
>>automatic retribution. Your refusal tells me something is wrong
>>between us and is therefore a reason for serious discussion to fix
>>problems. However, if it becomes clear that you have refused me
>>for capricious or selfish personal reasons, I reserve the right to
>>punish you.
>
>This would probably be rejected by quite a few slaves since Serion leaves a
>fairly heavy responsibility upon the slave. most would rather have the Master
>ask them if there is a problem as He feels it is necessary to do so because He
>just feels like asking, or because He feels from her behavior that their are
>issues to resolve.
>
:::shaking head in disbelief:::
In all relationships, each person has responsibility, no matter what
the titles of the relationship are. Where in what Serion states does
he say, he can’t just ask his sub/slave if there is a problem? What
he does say is, that he sees refusal as a sign of a problem that they
need to communicate about.
>>
>>If I choose to punish you, you will not enjoy the punishment.
>>However, you have a right to my continued affection and support,
>>especially while I'm punishing you. I will never withhold my
>>support and affection from you as a means of punishment.
>
>I think I would have left this rules to just its first line. The rest of it is
>pretty vague.
>
Your audacity is astounding. There is nothing vague about it. This
from the person who wrote the "128" (ekkkk gawds). To reaffirm that
no matter what, a Dom/Master’s love, affection, and support are there
for you, IMHO, is worth stating.
>>
>>My goal is to own you entirely, and to keep you physically and
>>emotionally healthy. I rarely require immediate full ownership and
>>will insist on written agreements between us to define mutual
>>expectations and obligations at every stage of ownership.
>
>A bit contradictory. First, Serion owns the slave entirely and then he allows
>for her to have some expectation and obligations. In my opinion, if a Master
>knows His property well, and considering that more observations or different
>tactics may have to be employed to learn more over time, that decisions of
>what she can expect and not is really up to Him and not her.
>
Not Contradictory at all! What he does say, is what his "GOAL" is.
Then proceeds to explain just how he plans on reaching such a goal,
and that the goal shall be a mutual endeavor. I fully realize that
the concept of consensual is beyond your grasp.
>>
>>Although I expect your total and complete submission, I have no
>>interest in running your daily life, which remains your
>>responsibility.
>
>Well - this is his choice, but in most M/s relationships the Master runs
>everything about his slave including her daily life. It is what she knows
>is His responsiblity. What the slave can and can not do is left up to her only
>when the allowance is understood as just that - an allowance granted to her to
>act on because her Master has deemed it worthy for her and acceptable to him.
>
>This is just an option tho. Others may do it differently.
>
I would dare say, most would do it differently then you jkay, the
people involved in a BDSM relationship, that I have met, are secure
enough with their role of Dom/Master to not have the need to
micro-manage their sub/slave.
> However, if there's anything I want from you, from
>>something as trivial as the color of your lipstick to something as
>>serious as quitting a job or giving up a friendship, then I expect
>>your obedience, after any pertinent and appropriate discussions or
>>negotiations are concluded.
>
>Given the other rules I am not so sure this one is necessary. The other rules
>allowed the slave the responsibility to contribute to the relationship in
>these matters and now Serion is denying that.
>
Where is he denying it? I quote "then I expect your obedience, AFTER
any pertinent and appropriate discussions or negotiations are
concluded." As you have repeatedly told others "I suggest you reread
it".
>>
>>I will take what I want from you in as responsible a manner as I
>>can. I will not seriously interfere in your personal life without
>>appropriate consideration of my own purposes as compared to the
>>effect of my wishes on your life. However, by submitting yourself
>>to me, you must expect me to use you as I wish.
>
>This one needs some cleaning up to be consistent with the others or simply to
>shorten:
>
>"I will take what I want from you in a responsible manner. I will consider
>what interferences with your personal life are or are not necessary. And I
>will use you as I please."
>
You just don’t get it ajay. You live in such a fantasy world, that
you can not understand when people deal in realities.
>>
>>If you want a safeword or safety signal, I'll set one up. I will
>>respect your safewords and safety signals, but will not rely on
>>them. I will treat your use of a safeword like any other refusal.
>>
>
>Looks fine.
>
It looks fine, because, you didn’t grasp the concept of refusal to
begin with. If you had, knowing your beliefs on the matter, you would
have reacted very differently, which is evident by your rewrite below.
:::laughing::: And who’s reading comprehension is flawed?
>I may rewrite it to say:
>
>"Safe -words, -signals are allowed, but only after you have asked for them,
>and only after I found them to be beneficial for you and for our
>relationship."
>
>>I consider it my responsibility to know when you're in trouble.
>>I'll try to keep you safe no matter how thoroughly restrained or
>>how deeply lost in subspace you might be. If I push you over an
>>edge, I accept the responsibility of bringing you back safely.
>
>Sounds good.
>
Well, will miracles never cease?
>>You are my good friend, my lover and my exquisite property. I will
>>enjoy you accordingly.
>
>For a slave that might have to be rearranged: "you are my property, my slave,
>my lover and my friend to enjoy as I see fit."
>
I realize that this is a difficult concept for you to have an
understanding of, but, without the friendship, and love, there is
nothing to own. Unless of course, you wish to own a corpus.
In which case this URL is just for you, jkay
http://distefano.com/index.htm
with a view of her own, even though she is submissive
irisheyes
occu...@stlnet.com
jkay wrote:
> My comments also below:
>
> >I require your obedience, although I enjoy brattiness and other
> >playful resistance and don't consider that to be disobedience when
> >clearly intended to enhance my enjoyment of you.
>
> If this rule were applied to a slave some may find it, for the most part,
> unacceptable. Serion, if a Master, would be giving a freedom to his slave that
> denies her the opportunity to ask for his permission to be bratty, or to
> negotiate for such an allowance, an opportunity which is then is lost.
But....he clearly states that he does give the slave the freedom to be
"bratty"--that it is often amusing to him and a "freedom" he will allow. You
know, some of us are a bit spontaneous. Some of us erupt into fits of
"brattiness" without taking the time to say "Master, may I be a smart aleck in
five minutes?" If master isn't in the mood for a smart aleck at the moment, I'm
pretty sure most of us can tell from his response whether continuing along these
lines of behavior would be a Smart Thing. If you are talking in a more general
"early relationship negotiation" sense, then it still seems pretty clear.
> One of the reasons the slave brings the rules from "128 Basic slave Rules" to
> her Master or a prespective Master is because it allows for her the
> opportunity to present her 'self' as she sees of her 'self' and then to give
> it to Him because she values His observations of her work more than her own.
I'm afraid you've lost me. If I am reading this correctly, the slave presents her
current or potential master with these rules. What if he has his own? What if
he finds it just a tad presumptious that she would attempt to decide how she will
behave and be treated without his input? What if she just wasted days meditating
upon these rules only to discover that this potential master feels this is
something that she should have left to him to dictate? Maybe I am missing
something, but the idea of presenting my master with a set of rules, even those we
could work out the fine details of later, seems, well, backwards.
> And Serion, because he tells the slave what is acceptable behavior and what is
> not, denies his slave the opportunity to work with her nature, to review the
> behaviors she brings with her to him, and to present herself to him to speak
> to him about her behaviors, to open a dialog with him upon which to ask if she
> may act one way or another, and to receive his decisions as confirmation that
> he is well pleased with her decisions or that she needs guidance which he is
> glad to give to her. Ultimately, Serion, by saying what will or will not be
> ahead of time stifles what he might have been able to learn about his slave
> through her presentation and the resulting exchange with her.
Again, I'm lost. Other than some fine guiding principals and basic groundwork for
working out the fine details of expectations and behaviors, I don't see the part
where "Serion's Rules" do this. In fact, they seem to explicity avoid setting any
concrete "acceptable behaviors" for the generic slave. Presumably this would be
covered on an as-needed, personalized basis.
> >I require your utter and complete truthfulness and honesty - no
> >withholding of any requested information, period. That includes
> >information about personal relationships between you and other
> >people.
>
> This rule would be fine for most slaves. Serion is direct and to the point.
> While the slave may present to him her concerns about this rules if she so
> desired, she would likely not do so. Such a ruling is quite exacting -
> something which speaks to most slaves. It is specific and slaves rather like
> things to be specific.
I would agree that I like things to be specific. But I like things to be specific
*to me* (meaning my personality, talents, abilities and realities and limitations)
and my master's expectations (and personality, etc.), not a generic slave. For
example, there isn't much point in fine details covering menstruation if "the
slave" is post-menopausal, or rules detailing how the slave will spend her daytime
hours during the week if the dictates of her job already determine this.
> >When I own you, I assume ownership of your other relationships as
> >well. I reserve rights over those relationships, however I won't
> >interfere in them capriciously or without your full prior
> >knowledge.
>
> A slave would find this rule confusing. First, Serion states what he owns, but
> then later says that, in effect, he will ask for permission to tread further -
> something no slave would like.
Well, actually it says "....[not] capriciously or without your prior knowlegdge."
There is a difference between informing and asking permission.
A slave, in my opinion owns nothing, and does
> not need to be asked for anything. What her Master says about such things as
> her other relationships and of her participation in them and of her
> commitments is obeyed with little if any hesitation.
Even given that, a competant, ethical master will only intervene if the
relationships or commitments seriously interfere with the slave's ability to
serve or are detrimental in some way. I think this is pretty much covered under "
won't interfere capriciously" or without prior knowledge and the implied
discussion.
> >I won't require you to break a confidence without having some
> >significant purpose of my own. I will explain my purposes to you
> >on request, and will fairly consider your explanation as to why
> >you might not want to disclose a confidence to me. Any such
> >information will rest between us in confidence, and I will not
> >reveal it to other people without your specific consent.
>
> There are a number of problems a slave may have with this particular ruling.
Well, I don't know about "a" slave, but it seems pretty clear cut to me. I would
be interested to know what this difference is between that and the below in
practical applications.
> To show a difference I would have written it this way to show a Master's, as
> opposed to a Dom's, point of view:
>
> "You are to present to me any issues concerning a break of confidence that may
> cause what you perceive to be problems so that I may be able, through our
> exchange, to understand all that is related to your concerns. Then I will
> consider the options available and decide whether or not for you to divulge
> the confidence and whether or not it will be discussed with others."
So are you saying that "a" slave would/should go to the master any time she is
told something in confidence and that the master would/should decide at that time
whether or not it is a confidence the slave may keep? Because this is the only
possible interpretation I could find that differs from the first one in
application. And if so, it is a bit disturbing. I don't "keep secrets" from my
master that are in any way pertinent to me, or him, or "Us"--it isn't allowed.
But I don't go running to him every time a friend, or sister or person I work with
shares some part of their life with me--even to tell him that the event happened.
He would never require that. That would be a horrible violation of their lives
and a serious breach of my morals and ethics.
> >I offer you the safe and unrestricted right to question me about
> >anything. I will give a truthful and honest answer to any
> >question. If for any reason I can't answer a question directly,
> >I'll give an honest explanation of why I can't answer you.
>
> This would probably be fine for most slaves.
>
> >
> >I offer you the right to refuse me in anything without suffering
> >automatic retribution. Your refusal tells me something is wrong
> >between us and is therefore a reason for serious discussion to fix
> >problems. However, if it becomes clear that you have refused me
> >for capricious or selfish personal reasons, I reserve the right to
> >punish you.
>
> This would probably be rejected by quite a few slaves since Serion leaves a
> fairly heavy responsibility upon the slave. most would rather have the Master
> ask them if there is a problem as He feels it is necessary to do so because He
> just feels like asking, or because He feels from her behavior that their are
> issues to resolve.
And if I understand correctly, refusing a request or demand would seem to be a
behavior that would indicate some issues. I am not sure I understand why this
"rule" gives a slave too much responsibility.
> >
> >If I choose to punish you, you will not enjoy the punishment.
> >However, you have a right to my continued affection and support,
> >especially while I'm punishing you. I will never withhold my
> >support and affection from you as a means of punishment.
>
> I think I would have left this rules to just its first line. The rest of it is
> pretty vague.
Not to anyone who has ever met a <ahem> dominant or <ahem ahem> master who sulked
or withdrew affection, attention or control at a time when most submissives or
slaves require it the most. Seriously, JKay, do you honestly see "I will not use
withdrawal of affection or support as punishment." as vague? Do you see *not*
withholding affection and support as "unmasterly" behavior?
> >
> >My goal is to own you entirely, and to keep you physically and
> >emotionally healthy. I rarely require immediate full ownership and
> >will insist on written agreements between us to define mutual
> >expectations and obligations at every stage of ownership.
>
> A bit contradictory. First, Serion owns the slave entirely and then he allows
> for her to have some expectation and obligations. In my opinion, if a Master
> knows His property well, and considering that more observations or different
> tactics may have to be employed to learn more over time, that decisions of
> what she can expect and not is really up to Him and not her.
> >Although I expect your total and complete submission, I have no
> >interest in running your daily life, which remains your
> >responsibility.
>
> Well - this is his choice, but in most M/s relationships the Master runs
> everything about his slave including her daily life.
Yes and no. Most masters ( IMHE) seem to *reserve the right* to run everything.
Whether or not they exercise this right and to what extent depends on many things
and can even vary from day to day. For example, I don't have a pre-set bed-time,
but I also can't refuse when my master does choose to tell me when to go to bed.
> It is what she knows
> is His responsiblity. What the slave can and can not do is left up to her only
> when the allowance is understood as just that - an allowance granted to her to
> act on because her Master has deemed it worthy for her and acceptable to him.
>
> This is just an option tho. Others may do it differently.
>
> However, if there's anything I want from you, from
> >something as trivial as the color of your lipstick to something as
> >serious as quitting a job or giving up a friendship, then I expect
> >your obedience, after any pertinent and appropriate discussions or
> >negotiations are concluded.
>
> Given the other rules I am not so sure this one is necessary. The other rules
> allowed the slave the responsibility to contribute to the relationship in
> these matters and now Serion is denying that.
Hmmm. I didnt' read it that way. What I read was "I'm not interested in
micro-management [and few really are] but I do expect you to submit to my wishes
when and if I do choose to get involved in something." It seems pretty clear-cut
and not contradictory to me. In fact, I'd have to say it is the way most
long-term, (please forgive me) "lifestyle" d/s relationships operate. And yes,
even the master/slave relationships I know of --at least the ones that are
intended to go on for a good long while if not a lifetime.
AJ
Serion Ironcroft
<19990409112225...@ng146.aol.com>, gor...@aol.com (Gorgik)
wrote, in part:
>It might be clearer to call these "Serion's Principles" and reserve "rules"
>for more particular items like, "Always put the cap back on the toothpaste"
>and "Address me as 'Sir' unless there's a good reason not to." <g>
Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree. To me, principles are matters of
innate ethics and morality. One of my own principles is "celebrate
diversity." Another is "do what you want so long as you don't injure
an innocent person." Another is "believe what you want so long as you
stay out of my face."
Granted, my Official Rules incorporate principles, but to me they
conform those principles to a particular venue, and are every bit as
particular as telling my submissive partners to "address me as Sir."
I would agree that they are rules for relationships rather than Rules
for individual behaviors. I tend to formulate those sorts of
behavioral rules through mostly written agreements typically called
"Subleases" |grin|. These are specific sets of customized
understandings which cover a particular relationship between myself
and one of my partners over a given duration.
The final form of a "Sublease" is patterned after a "Deed of Gift."
To date, I've accepted a deed of gift only from LadyGold, although I
have hopes that we'll eventually find another submissive partner for
our family.
>That said, please allow me to join the chorus in praising these "rules"
>or "principles" as exceptionally thoughtful, realistic, practical, and
>supportive of both Dominant and submissive, or Master/Mistress
>and slave.
Thanks! Although many people have found themselves in resonance with
my Official Rules, they were developed as LadyGold said, principally
for my own purposes, in communicating my expectations to potential
partners.
I'm glad other folks have found them useful.
Regards, Serion
Serion Ironcroft
<19990409121343...@ngol07.aol.com>, spyr...@aol.com
(Spyral Fox) wrote, in part:
>I would assume that positions to sit in and such like are someplace
>between lipstick color and dropping a friend.
|evil grin| That's what the hand signals are for!
Regards, Serion
roo
wit...
"If the Mistress/Master is pleased; the slave too is pleased"
roo
---------
sweetly vicious
LadyGold
LadyGold (at) planetarydefense (dot) org
On Fri, 09 Apr 99 09:20:55 GMT, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay)
wrote:
>The profound difference between "128 Basic slave Rules" and "Serion's Official
>Rules: A Work in progress" is that Serion's list is strictly from his
>perspective.
Well, yes. It's been my experience that most rules are those that
the Master imposes on the slave. That's why we keep telling you
that your rules are clearly from *your* perspective and, as such,
should be called JK's rules - not Basic rules.
>He speaks directly to the submissive whereas in "128 Basic slave
>Rules" it is the slave that is heard speaking the rules and not necessarily to
>her Master but to herself, her devotion to her enslavement, and what they are
>about to her. And because she has used the instructions provided to her, what
>she speaks is true for her because she has struggled, grappled, fought with
>them over time and through her nature and then worked them until they spoke to
>her and her nature, who she really is deep, deep inside. Only after that
>process does she then bring them to her Master for His consideration or to use
>to discern if the man she is considering to ask to take her as His slave and
>His property is indeed the One she will be able to submit to completely.
So what that all means is that your 128 are not "slave" rules, but
rather Master rules? IOW, if I like one of your rules and a
prospective Master doesn't, then I should walk away from the
relationship??? Forgive me, but that seems entirely backwards.
Masters create rules - subs obey the rules. If, as it seems you
are saying here, it's a case of the sub creating the rules that
she is willing to live by, then who is the Master???
<snip of Serion's rule to conserve bandwidth - this is gonna be
long enough as it is>
>If this rule were applied to a slave some may find it, for the most part,
>unacceptable. Serion, if a Master, would be giving a freedom to his slave that
>denies her the opportunity to ask for his permission to be bratty, or to
>negotiate for such an allowance, an opportunity which is then is lost.
Excuse me, but there was nothing in what Serion said that forbids
my asking him if I can be bratty. But it seems to me that asking
for such a thing pretty well negates the whole purpose.
Brattiness - as I practice it anyway - is spontaneous.
>One of the reasons the slave brings the rules from "128 Basic slave Rules" to
>her Master or a prespective Master is because it allows for her the
>opportunity to present her 'self' as she sees of her 'self' and then to give
>it to Him because she values His observations of her work more than her own.
Meaning not the slightest bit of disrespect here, but I'm having
considerable difficulty in understanding exactly what you mean
here. I'm going to paraphrase it as I understand it. Please tell
me if I'm wrong.
"The slave reads the rules and uses them to define herself. Then
she shows the rules to the prospective Master and allows him to
decide if what she's defined as herself is accurate."
It seems to me that if the prospective Master is going to have the
final say then putting your rules into the equation is just going
to cloud the issue.
Then, of course, there is the matter of my valuing someone else's
observation of me more than my own. Certainly after some period
of time, it is possible that someone may see parts of me that I
don't. But I really don't think that at first glance, so to
speak, someone is going to know me better than I do. I am very
self aware and honest with myself, tho I realize not everyone else
is.
>And Serion, because he tells the slave what is acceptable behavior and what is
>not, denies his slave the opportunity to work with her nature, to review the
>behaviors she brings with her to him, and to present herself to him to speak
>to him about her behaviors, to open a dialog with him upon which to ask if she
>may act one way or another, and to receive his decisions as confirmation that
>he is well pleased with her decisions or that she needs guidance which he is
>glad to give to her. Ultimately, Serion, by saying what will or will not be
>ahead of time stifles what he might have been able to learn about his slave
>through her presentation and the resulting exchange with her.
I'm not quite sure how you got the impression that Serion's rules
contain any specific behavioral requirements. In fact, it's just
the opposite. Your rules demand specific behavior, Serion's rules
just say that I have to obey him. Your rules would have me, for
example, wearing my highest heels every day. If one day Serion
decided he didn't want me to wear high heels, then what?
In point of fact, the way we run our lives is as they say in the
military, "In the absence of instructions to the contrary...." I
do what I want to but when Serion has a particular desire he makes
it known to me and I obey him.
<snip>
>This rule would be fine for most slaves. Serion is direct and to the point.
>While the slave may present to him her concerns about this rules if she so
>desired, she would likely not do so. Such a ruling is quite exacting -
>something which speaks to most slaves. It is specific and slaves rather like
>things to be specific.
<slight frown> And why wouldn't someone present her concerns
about this or any of the rules? That's what the negotiation
process is for. As for slaves liking things specific <shrug>
Some do and some don't.
>>When I own you, I assume ownership of your other relationships as
>>well. I reserve rights over those relationships, however I won't
>>interfere in them capriciously or without your full prior
>>knowledge.
>
>A slave would find this rule confusing. First, Serion states what he owns, but
>then later says that, in effect, he will ask for permission to tread further -
>something no slave would like. A slave, in my opinion owns nothing, and does
>not need to be asked for anything. What her Master says about such things as
>her other relationships and of her participation in them and of her
>commitments is obeyed with little if any hesitation.
If you consider a slave a cow, then, of course, your comments are
fine. But they are your opinion alone. That is not the way
Serion and I do things. Frankly I've never understood your desire
to own a mindless slug. I've owned my own business and I tried to
find the brightest, sharpest employees I could afford. I didn't
have time to oversee them every minute. But... YKIOKIJNMK.
> Of course the slave may
>rebel and thereby risk the possibility to be punished, or to ask if she may
>speak before acting on His will so that she may present to Him her concerns
>she has about the issue at hand.
Not exactly. As Serion's rules state, I have the right to refuse
him at any time without fear of automatic retribution. Rebellion
doesn't exist around our house... but communication does.
>>I won't require you to break a confidence without having some
>>significant purpose of my own. I will explain my purposes to you
>>on request, and will fairly consider your explanation as to why
>>you might not want to disclose a confidence to me. Any such
>>information will rest between us in confidence, and I will not
>>reveal it to other people without your specific consent.
>
>There are a number of problems a slave may have with this particular ruling.
>To show a difference I would have written it this way to show a Master's, as
>opposed to a Dom's, point of view:
>
>"You are to present to me any issues concerning a break of confidence that may
>cause what you perceive to be problems so that I may be able, through our
>exchange, to understand all that is related to your concerns. Then I will
>consider the options available and decide whether or not for you to divulge
>the confidence and whether or not it will be discussed with others."
The problem here is that I do a lot of counseling work both
formally and informally. I have to be able to assure folks that
they can feel safe telling me their deepest, darkest secrets.
None the less, there is nothing in Serion's rule that prevents him
from requiring me to tell *him* everything - just that he won't
pass it on to an outsider without my consent.
>I believe that one of the primary differences between a submissive and a
>slave is that a slave defers all responsiblity to her Master unless he decides
>otherwise.
Coupled with your previous comment about slaves liking "things to
be specific" the above comment makes me wonder what sort of women
you've encountered. As I hear it, a slave to you abdicates all
responsibility for their own actions and won't lift a finger
without specific orders. Once again, I have to wonder who the
Master is in a relationship with you.
I tried telling Serion he had to order me to do something just now
and he laughed at me, btw.
In our relationship, Serion does what Serion wants to do. I do
what Serion wants me to do. If what Serion wants is to draw bulls
eyes on my butt before I go off to harass the Mayor and the City
Council then I stand still while he does it. If what Serion wants
me to do is manage his business affairs for him, then that is what
I do. I'm welcome to provide him with information on what I might
like to do - such as going to see Katie in Chicago; but if he
doesn't want me to do it - I won't.
<snip>
>>I offer you the right to refuse me in anything without suffering
>>automatic retribution. Your refusal tells me something is wrong
>>between us and is therefore a reason for serious discussion to fix
>>problems. However, if it becomes clear that you have refused me
>>for capricious or selfish personal reasons, I reserve the right to
>>punish you.
>
>This would probably be rejected by quite a few slaves since Serion leaves a
>fairly heavy responsibility upon the slave. most would rather have the Master
>ask them if there is a problem as He feels it is necessary to do so because He
>just feels like asking, or because He feels from her behavior that their are
>issues to resolve.
Again... Serion expects me to take responsibility, but to me, the
main issue in this particular rule is that people are not mind
readers. People, even Masters, make mistakes. The example I use
is that if he ordered me to cross the street and I had reason to
believe he didn't see the truck coming, it is utterly incumbent
upon me to hesitate (refuse) and ask him if he saw the truck.
Otherwise, if I obey and get myself killed, I have damaged my
owner's property and he probably will be very annoyed. <g>
>>If I choose to punish you, you will not enjoy the punishment.
>>However, you have a right to my continued affection and support,
>>especially while I'm punishing you. I will never withhold my
>>support and affection from you as a means of punishment.
>
>I think I would have left this rules to just its first line. The rest of it is
>pretty vague.
I don't think it's vague at all. But given that you don't seem to
think that your slave's feelings are important, I can understand
why you'd use only the first line. Hopefully you'll figure out
why the rest is important before you have any children to raise.
>
>>
>>My goal is to own you entirely, and to keep you physically and
>>emotionally healthy. I rarely require immediate full ownership and
>>will insist on written agreements between us to define mutual
>>expectations and obligations at every stage of ownership.
>
>A bit contradictory. First, Serion owns the slave entirely and then he allows
>for her to have some expectation and obligations. In my opinion, if a Master
>knows His property well, and considering that more observations or different
>tactics may have to be employed to learn more over time, that decisions of
>what she can expect and not is really up to Him and not her.
Um... aren't your rules what the sub is supposed to bring to the
relationship. Aren't those expectations? As for Serion's rule,
it describes a process which he and I have gone through. Now he
does own me completely. I've signed a Deed of Gift, in fact. But
he didn't own me the instant we met for the first time. We had a
negotiated contract which defined our "mutual expectations and
obligations." As the relationship progressed, his control of my
actions expanded until I became his property.
I'd have to wonder at someone who was willing to give complete
ownership instantly and your comments about discussing your rules
seem to indicate that even you allow some negotiation initially.
>>Although I expect your total and complete submission, I have no
>>interest in running your daily life, which remains your
>>responsibility.
>
>Well - this is his choice, but in most M/s relationships the Master runs
>everything about his slave including her daily life. It is what she knows
>is His responsiblity. What the slave can and can not do is left up to her only
>when the allowance is understood as just that - an allowance granted to her to
>act on because her Master has deemed it worthy for her and acceptable to him.
Again, I have to wonder who is the Master in your relationships.
As I see it, it's Serion's responsibility to keep me safe; which
includes making sure I have things like health insurance, a roof
over my head and some financial protection if he should die. I
would never expect him to manage ever aspect of my life, tho.
When would he have time for his own, if he did???
Now, of course, he could if he wanted to. He has the right to
tell me to dye my hair purple and dance naked in the rain *if he
wants to*... But he equally has the right to tell me - "You
decide, I'm busy now."
>
>This is just an option tho. Others may do it differently.
Clearly.
>
> However, if there's anything I want from you, from
>>something as trivial as the color of your lipstick to something as
>>serious as quitting a job or giving up a friendship, then I expect
>>your obedience, after any pertinent and appropriate discussions or
>>negotiations are concluded.
>
>Given the other rules I am not so sure this one is necessary. The other rules
>allowed the slave the responsibility to contribute to the relationship in
>these matters and now Serion is denying that.
Um... I'm not sure how you get that impression. The words
"discussion" and "negotiation" sure mean that I can contribute.
>
>>
>>I will take what I want from you in as responsible a manner as I
>>can. I will not seriously interfere in your personal life without
>>appropriate consideration of my own purposes as compared to the
>>effect of my wishes on your life. However, by submitting yourself
>>to me, you must expect me to use you as I wish.
>
>This one needs some cleaning up to be consistent with the others or simply to
>shorten:
>
>"I will take what I want from you in a responsible manner. I will consider
>what interferences with your personal life are or are not necessary. And I
>will use you as I please."
Sure. I think Serion's sounds better, because it makes it clear
that he's going to think about what he does to me before he does
it, but ... a cow doesn't require as much thought.
LadyGold, High Sheriff of Nettingham
--
To the man who only has a hammer, everything he encounters begins
to look like a nail.
-- Abraham H. Maslow
SarOfTreve
>Well - this is his choice, but in most M/s relationships the Master runs
>everything about his slave including her daily life. It is what she knows
>is His responsiblity. What the slave can and can not do is left up to her only
>when the allowance is understood as just that - an allowance granted to her to
>act on because her Master has deemed it worthy for her and acceptable to him.
Interesting that you've managed to survey a group that can't readily be
identified. Perhaps you mean only that very small subset of M/s relationships
that you have personally encountered. Of course, if you define the population
so as to achieve your desired results...
Frankly, in ten years I have yet to meet anyone in a long-term relationship
that is consistently micromanaged. It's simply too much effort, IMO.
'Run[ning] everything about [one's] slave including her daily life' sounds
dangerously like codependency in any event.
I think, JK, that you miss the fundamental distinction between 'controlling'
and 'in control'. One does not have to express the _right_ to control (in
control) by actuating that control (controlling). It does, however, take some
measure of self confidence to live this way.
Regards,
Sartan
Website index: http://www.sagatech.com/sartan/index.html
Homepage, Working With Leather, Media Gallery... yes, WWL is back online
Spyral Fox
writes:
>NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>However, in real life,
>>which is very specifically where Serion's rules are supposed to be
>>applied (they are practical, but not very hot. Sorry, Serion ;) ),
>
> That wasn't my experience. I found them at least as hot as the
>"128 rules".
Personaly, *I* found them MUCH hotter, because I could imagine
what it would be like to live under them. After that, my subconscious
took me to some very interesting places. ;-)
Spyral Fox
>On Fri, 09 Apr 99 09:25:43 GMT, in message
><7ekh2n$9lk...@trace.seanet.com>, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay)
>wrote:
>
>>yea right! They leave teach almost nothing of what would be expected to
>occur
>>in a relationship such as mannerisms, behavior, devotion, sexuality,
>adornment
>>and the like.
>
>And here is kay's ignorance expressed in a nutshell, hm?
>
>Specific mannerisms, behaviors, styles of devotion, styles of
>sexuality, adornment, etc., are *details* that vary so widely from
>person to person, and relationship to relationship, that any attempt
>to codify them in any broad sweeping way is doomed to fit only the
>relatively narrow territory of the codifier's own kinks and fetishes.
I've been thinking about this tonight, while reading all the posts.
It occurs to me that it's possible that what JK has is a form of
fetishism. For him, perhaps it is only possible to consider an activity
sexually exciting if it's surrounded by his own, fetishistic, ideas about
what the slave should be wearing, how she should stand, where
she should look, etc. Of course, this bias renders his whole set of
rules as useless to others as it would if he insisted that his own
partners were to paint concentric rings around their nipples and
pencil on a moustache before going in public, but everyone's mileage
varies. If I am right, it may be that JK's problem in dealing with
commentary on his rules -- which he keeps asking for and then
exploding when anyone suggests rewriting any of the rules for
another couple to use -- is that he's very personally invested in a
fixed scheme which involves most of the elements in the rules, either
as facts or as fantasies.
Take, for example, the expression in his rules of his high heel fetish.
He has a rule that the slave's "basic attire" when with her partner
will include "her highest heels." Anohter case is JK's insistance that
she shave her pubic area.
Comments I have made saying that people are not all turned on by
these things have resulted in diatribes by JK in which he insists that
all women look better to all men in high heels, and that a man who
doesn't prefer a shaved genital area has psychological problems.
There a re numerous other examples, but take those as a start.
If we assume that JK is a fetishist who must have a partner who is
in high heels and depilated for him to considre her as sexy, and he
is so deeply into his assumption that this *IS* the one right true and
only way in which a woman can be sexually appealing (because it
is what JK likes & he doesn't understand othre people differ), then
that may explain why his rules are so full of minutia which is meaningless
to most of us, and why he insists that rules lacking such details are
useless.
As support for my opinion, here is a bit more, snipped from posts
originally made by others....
In article <371325bc...@news.earthlink.net>, kookm...@use.net writes:
>tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay) wrote:
>>The profound difference between "128 Basic slave Rules"
>> and "Serion's Official Rules: A Work in progress" is that
>> Serion's list is strictly from his perspective.
[note implication that JK's is NOT only from JK's perspective]
In article <370e29ac.524044936@news>, madyl...@hobinrood.home.com (mady)
writes:
>tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay) wrote:
>>With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on how she can behave nor of what
>>kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few details.
[note implication that slaves would need the details explicitly
written out, that they would be unable to negotiate them per
the instructions in Serion's rules, even though they are assumed
by JK to be able to negotiate them out of *his* rules using *his*
instructions; thus, it is implied that slaves lack imagination and
negotiation abilities.]
In article <370e3083...@news.earthlink.net>, iri...@earthlink.net (irish)
writes:
JK sez:
>> And because she has used the instructions provided to her, what
>>she speaks is true for her because she has struggled, grappled, fought with
>>them over time and through her nature and then worked them until they spoke
to
>>her and her nature, who she really is deep, deep inside.
[As Irish notes, this implies that if the slave spends enough time
meditating on the rules, she will accept them as written. Is so,
she will do all the kinky things the way JK likes.]
Opinions?
Susan
<ladygold....@planetarydefense.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>I believe that submissiveness in a woman is simply a personality
>trait, not a weakness, and certainly not a disability. I prefer
>strong self-centered women for my own partners and have
>been fortunate over the years to attract women who were submissive
>to me but self-assured and competent in their own lives.
>
>During that time, I have developed some Rules for a D/s
>relationship. These are not standard fantasy-fodder, but instead
>constitute a real framework for a long-term healthy relationship
>between my partners and myself.
>
>
> SERION'S OFFICIAL RULES
> A Work in progress...
> by Serion Ironcroft
>
Ah, I have fond memories of discovering these "rules" on the web a
couple years ago when I was beginning to explore my desire for deeper
submission and possible ownership. It was such a relief to find these
after the horrifying draught of web sites with "128 Slave Rules" and
other such variations, which were almost enough to make me turn away
from the whole prospect in utter despair. I remember finding one
other really positive site too, but can't remember what/where it was.
Tho I have not yet found a D/s relationship where I have used this
type of "rules", I feel hopeful from reading these that it will be
possible someday for me to have this kind of relationship.
I haven't thought much about those rules for a long time and so when I
met LadyGold at Katie's party, I didn't remember that I had read her
name on that web site way back then. Anyway, thank you both for
posting the some of the particulars of your D/s relationship -- on the
web site back then and here in ssbb now.
Susan
NBarnes
> fri...@address.below (Frites)writes:
> >NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>However, in real life,
> >>which is very specifically where Serion's rules are supposed to be
> >>applied (they are practical, but not very hot. Sorry, Serion ;) ),
> > That wasn't my experience. I found them at least as hot as the
> >"128 rules".
> Personaly, *I* found them MUCH hotter, because I could imagine
> what it would be like to live under them. After that, my subconscious
> took me to some very interesting places. ;-)
Yeah, well, some people erotize healthy relationships. I erotize
pain and suffering and control and nasty, horrible, non-consensual
relationships. I never claimed to have a _subtle_ subconscious. ;)
NBarnes
Sockermom9
>>A slave would find this rule confusing. First, Serion states what he owns,
>but
>>then later says that, in effect, he will ask for permission to tread further
>-
>>something no slave would like. A slave, in my opinion owns nothing, and does
>>not need to be asked for anything.
>
>Sure thing. "kajira, I have decided tonight to take your eyesight
>from you. Here, hold still while I jam these needles in your eyes."
>"Oh yes, if it pleases you, Master. I exist only to stumble around
>the house blindly for your pleasure."
Or better yet; "Slave, I understand that your boss has confided in you that
he's about to turn state's evidence and testify about his mob money-laundering
activities. I'm going to call the papers and see if they're interesting in
this information. Give me his home address, immediately."
Lynn
Joe Zeff
>Any more people out there? Do you recall a horrible Slave Rule that for the
>rest of your life you will always roll your eyes at hearing it or seeing it?
>Or perhaps you have made one up just to be a wise acre?
Not that I've seen it but, "You will memorize all 128 of jk's roolz
and recite them daily."
---
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
I think that's because the Geneva convention prohibits
doing such things.
http://www.lasfs.org
Susan
<snip>
<snip of examples>
>
>Opinions?
>
I think this makes a great deal of sense. When I read your theory, it
was like a light bulb going on. And it seems easier for me now to
stop trying to understand how he could be so dense; instead I can just
understand it as being fetishistic behavior (a pretty rigid fetish,
IMO) and let it go at that.
Thanks!
Susan
jkay
>Trying to reduce an entire cuisine down to 128 poorly written cookbook
>recipes is the work either of a zealot, or an ignoramus.
I would agree with you there Serion in that you can't reduce an entire
cuisine down to 128 rules. What I think you keep missing is that I don't use
just the rules when training or owning a slave. There is much more involved.
Johnathan Kay
jkay
xpou...@aol.complicated (X Pouvoir) wrote:
>Can you limit yours to structure around your own principles? I'd be
interested
>in reading more about where your views are coming from.
Could you be more specific here. Are you asking for a list of strictly
principles or more of a statement of philosophy?
Johnathan Kay
X Pouvoir
>principles or more of a statement of philosophy?
Yeah... that! I think you knew what I meant though. :o)
xpouvoir
jkay
NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> That jk thinks that things like mannerisms, behavior, sexuality,
>adorment, and suchlike are things to be codified in a set of rules
>is, of course, totally typical.
> Thankfully, Serion realizes that women are _individuals_ and does
>not sink to the same depths of specificality that jk does in his
>rules list.
He simply has a different way of going about things than I. There are those
submissives that will go his route and those slaves that will go My route.
> I would imagine that the more specific details would vary from
>submissive to submissive and be custom tailored to the individual.
I would agree.
>See, jk, _Serion_ _talks_ to his submissives. LG doesn't need to
>read the rules to know how she's supposed to behave, she can _ask_
>him.
I don't have a problem with that. I encourage communication both in my
training, teachings and in the rules. Please try to keep in mind that the
rules are more about creating and managing a mindset than anything else.
To a large extent, that's what his rules are supposed to do;
>set up a environment where communication can flow freely between
>the dominant and the submissive without having that communication
>impede the flow of _power_ between the dom and the sub. Once that
>communication is there, the need for extensive (128 = extensive?
>You be the judge) rules outlining specific behavior fades away.
Happens in my relationships too. Serion and I just go about it in different
ways for different reason and different purposes.
> The need for extensive and exhaustive rules like jk's is in,
>surprise, surprise, fantasy realms where dominants don't have the
>time, the inclination, or the need (due to dominance-associated
>telepathy, a frequent device in D/s fic) to develop that kind of
>intimate communication with the submissive.
That may be true for some, but not for all. But I think you are still missing
the point about "128 Basic slave Rules". a slave incorporates in her a mindset
by which her Master then manages and adjusts when needed. In that sense -
there is plenty of time.
Johnathan Kay
jkay
underwate...@usa.net (victorian squid) wrote:
but I don't know if I've seen anyone mention how
>BORING it would be for some of us, this same thing all the time every day.
>Maybe that's just too obvious for anyone to state it.
Again, you are assuming that the rules are the only thing that I use in the
relationships I and others have. They are not. And as far as every slave I
have being the same - they are not. Each one is different in how they respond
and react to the rules, my training, me, and about life between us in general.
Johnathan Kay
jkay
spyr...@aol.com (Spyral Fox) wrote:
>It occurs to me that it's possible that what JK has is a form of
>fetishism. For him, perhaps it is only possible to consider an activity
>sexually exciting if it's surrounded by his own, fetishistic, ideas about
>what the slave should be wearing, how she should stand, where
>she should look, etc. Of course, this bias renders his whole set of
>rules as useless to others as it would if he insisted that his own
>partners were to paint concentric rings around their nipples and
>pencil on a moustache before going in public, but everyone's mileage
>varies. If I am right, it may be that JK's problem in dealing with
>commentary on his rules -- which he keeps asking for
All I did was say that the rules were available. I never directly asked for a
commentary on them. Where did you get this idea Spyral?
And why are you so obsessed with my rules, where I am coiming from, what my
problem is? Why do you keep bringing up the same points over and over again
even when you have been told many times that your interpretations of what my
rules say are wrong? What do you hope to gain?
and then
>exploding when anyone suggests rewriting any of the rules for
>another couple to use -- is that he's very personally invested in a
>fixed scheme which involves most of the elements in the rules, either
>as facts or as fantasies.
You are incorrect here. People may rewrite the rules however they wish to fit
their relationships. It is not my responsibility to do this for them.
>
>Take, for example, the expression in his rules of his high heel fetish.
>He has a rule that the slave's "basic attire" when with her partner
>will include "her highest heels."
Which by the way could be 1-2 inch heels.
Anohter case is JK's insistance that
>she shave her pubic area.
I happen to like clean shaven pussies and the concept that nothing is hidden
from view, and the fact of how vulnerable to be nude there makes them feel.
>
>Comments I have made saying that people are not all turned on by
>these things have resulted in diatribes by JK in which he insists that
>all women look better to all men in high heels,
Regardless of what others think this is my opinion. I happen to know that
others like different things, but personally I also believe there are a lot of
really confused people out there too amongst the genuine.
and that a man who
>doesn't prefer a shaved genital area has psychological problems.
Again, my opinion. Afterall, who likes hair in their mouth when doing oral
sex?!
>There a re numerous other examples, but take those as a start.
Note here readers that Spyral is obsessed with only these things about what I
have written. Personally, I think she has allowed her obsession about the
rules to enslave her.
>
>If we assume that JK is a fetishist who must have a partner who is
>in high heels and depilated for him to considre her as sexy, and he
>is so deeply into his assumption that this *IS* the one right true and
>only way in which a woman can be sexually appealing (because it
>is what JK likes & he doesn't understand othre people differ),
Geez Spyral! I happen to understand fine that other people are different. I
just happen to like the ones that I am involved with to be a certain way. And
by the way, I never said that anything I have posted here is the one and only
true way.
then
>that may explain why his rules are so full of minutia which is meaningless
>to most of us,
So meaningless in fact for Spyral that she is fixated on them enough to write
a critique of them and to waste space on her site to post the critique.
and why he insists that rules lacking such details are
>useless.
Again, my opinion.
>
>As support for my opinion, here is a bit more, snipped from posts
>originally made by others....
>
>In article <371325bc...@news.earthlink.net>, kookm...@use.net
writes:
>>tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay) wrote:
>>>The profound difference between "128 Basic slave Rules"
>>> and "Serion's Official Rules: A Work in progress" is that
>>> Serion's list is strictly from his perspective.
>
>[note implication that JK's is NOT only from JK's perspective]
They aren't. "128 Basic slave Rules" are written as the result of much
research as well as from my experiences. Therefore, I cannot claim that what I
have written is strictly based only from my experiences and hence neither can
I title them "my rules" or some such title.
>
>In article <370e29ac.524044936@news>, madyl...@hobinrood.home.com (mady)
>writes:
>>tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay) wrote:
>>>With Serion's rules a female hasn't a clue on how she can behave nor of
what
>>>kinds of uses she can expect. There simply too few details.
>
>[note implication that slaves would need the details explicitly
>written out, that they would be unable to negotiate them per
>the instructions in Serion's rules, even though they are assumed
>by JK to be able to negotiate them out of *his* rules using *his*
>instructions; thus, it is implied that slaves lack imagination and
>negotiation abilities.]
I simply said that Serion's Rules leave out a lot of details about what can be
involved in a relationship with him. You are reading way too much into all
this.
Johnathan Kay
Bacchae
>
>Well if you really must know: in my opinion slaves are animals. And some
are
>even lower than animals.
>
Please describe to me in intimate detail how your current relationship with
my friend Carla confirms this comment? Please tell me exactly in what way
Carla is an animal to you?
- Sandy
bacchae at cadvision dot com
jkay
>Well, not exactly. The only voice that actually appears in the 128
>wank fantasies is kay's, lecturing the world about his own fantasies
>and prejudices.
Strictly your opinion and the opinion of others. There is nothing in the rules
that directly support what you are saying, and since there are quite a few
websites carrying the rules in full text - there are many, many more out there
who would flatly disagree with you.
>
>I get the feeling kay's rules are as much a control on his behavior as
>they are on his slaves' behaviors.
That concept is true for any M/s or D/s relationship.
What if he decides one day he
>doesn't want his slave to call her mouth a cunt for a couple of hours.
>Has he then broken his own rules? Maybe that's why he (purportedly)
>doesn't actually follow his own rules in his relationships.
Since the rules are for the slave and only a guide for the Master then I may
change them whenever I wish.
>>One of the reasons the slave brings the rules from "128 Basic slave Rules"
to
>>her Master or a prespective Master is because it allows for her the
>>opportunity to present her 'self' as she sees of her 'self' and then to give
>>it to Him because she values His observations of her work more than her own.
>
>???? What an idiotically round-about way of communicating one's "real
>self," eh? The slave wouldn't have to go through such a rigmarole if
>her Master had any serious clues about people.
I simply disagree with you Serion. Please do keep in mind that how I and you
do things can be different. I have never said there is any one and only way.
You can do your deal your way and I mine. What you and your partner choose to
do and what works for you is just fine. I simply do things different. It seems
you have some grave problem with people doing things differently then you and
from your perception.
>
>And why would anybody want to insist that a slave value her Master's
>observations more than her own? Masters are not perfect - sometimes
>they do stupid things.
Because in the view of many slaves they are not qualified to have views of
their own nor ones they can put a value on by themselves. They have to be
directed totally. They are slaves and not much else. They only exist for
one purpose: to please. For those that believe that way I am open to having a
relationship with them. I understand where they are coming from and support
it. The slave values her Master's observations as superior to her own because
her Master is her superior and what He thinks she then views as far more
important and of value then her thoughts. It is a matter of heirarchy. Plus
the Master has likely observed things the slave never considered.
>>Ultimately, Serion, by saying what will or will not be
>>ahead of time stifles what he might have been able to learn about his slave
>>through her presentation and the resulting exchange with her.
>
> |yawn| A few paragraphs ago, I was bad for not telling the slave
>what to do, now I am bad for telling the slave what to do. Kay must
>be one of those people who can believe 4 impossible and mutually
>contradictory things before breakfast.
And make it through 4 lights in 2 blocks!
>
>>A slave would find this rule confusing. First, Serion states what he owns,
but
>>then later says that, in effect, he will ask for permission to tread further
-
>>something no slave would like.
>
>Hmmm... I wonder what document kay was reading. My rule stated:
>
> When I own you, I assume ownership of your other relationships
> as well. I reserve rights over those relationships, however I
> won't interfere in them capriciously or without your full
> prior knowledge.
>
>I presume kay means that he himself intends to poke around in his
>slave's affairs capriciously and without telling her in advance what
>he's going to do. Sounds like a real good environment for breeding
>mistrust and dishonesty between kay and his slaves.
Not the case at all Serion. My observation of what your rule said is just
that - an observation. It was not to say what I do.
>
>>A slave, in my opinion owns nothing, and does
>>not need to be asked for anything.
>
>Opinions are like assholes, etc. Kay's fantasies not withstanding,
>the universe probably doesn't care much about kay's opinions.
Well I don't know. I haven't asked the universe yet.
In my
>opinion, confusing real behavior with wank fantasy is not a
>particularly effective success strategy, hm?
I you want to refer to the rules as wank fantasy - fine. Have a whoppie time.
>
>>What her Master says about such things as her other relationships
>>and of her participation in them and of her commitments is obeyed
>>with little if any hesitation.
>
>Sure - that's the fantasy. And it may last until kay calls his
>slave's boss and announces her resignation, without her prior
>knowledge.
If the slave wants that sort of lifestyle - you can bet that I would do such a
thing. Afterall, in such a lifestyle, I have the right to take her job away
from her.
>
>>Of course the slave may rebel and thereby risk the possibility to be
>>punished, or to ask if she may speak before acting on His will so that
>>she may present to Him her concerns she has about the issue at hand.
>
>???? I wonder why kay assumes such a confrontational relationship
>with his slaves?
Makes for interesting times.
>
>My own "slaves" are free to say, "Hey boss, you fucked up!" or "Hey
>boss, would you mind giving me and NB some time to go screw our brains
>out without having to worry whether you're not going to 'punish' me
>afterward?"
Would never happen or be allowed under any circumstances with my slaves. Such
outbursts would only lead to a severe punishment.
>>I think I would have left this rules to just its first line. The rest of it
is
>>pretty vague.
>
>???? My "vague" rules state:
>
> However, you have a right to my continued affection and
> support, especially while I'm punishing you. I will never
> withhold my support and affection from you as a means of
> punishment.
>
>I judge kay's response to mean that he *would* withhold support and
>affection from his slave as a means of punishment. What a Masterly
>approach to the care and treatment of a mere slave, hm? More to the
>point, what an inhumane jerk. |disgusted scowl|
You may think whatever you like Serion, but I would guess you will be very
careful to state only that which supports your ideas about me and that you
will be careful not to state anything that will change those views.
>>Well - this is his choice, but in most M/s relationships the Master runs
>>everything about his slave including her daily life.
>
>The itchy part here is that pesky word "most," eh? Considering kay's
>very limited experience with the BDSM community,
What experience Serion do I have since you seem to know more about what I
have done than I? What would you consider to be a lot of experience since you
seem to feel you are some kind of expert?
>>Given the other rules I am not so sure this one is necessary.
>
>I'm not surprised. There are so many things kay is not sure about.
You must really get off good by making such statements.
Johnathan Kay
who thinks Serion just loves to bitch. Frankly I think Serion and LG are just
a couple of girls in need of some training.