A slave by any other name is still....
LadyGold
generally reflecting a more intense level of submission or
nonsexual or sexual-plus submission. For example, a slave might be
someone who remains in a 24-hour-per-day submission and cooks,
cleans, and otherwise takes care of a dominant's house."
(source: "The Loving Dominant" by John Warren, c1994)
I am submissive 24/7 and also a damn good cook. My housecleaning
skills are not quite as stellar.
- "Slave - One who enjoys submission, with that submission being
deep enough to elicit the feeling of being owned or fully
controlled by the dominant partner."
(source: "Learning the Ropes: A Basic Guide to Safe and
Fun S/M Lovemaking", by Race Bannon, c1992)
I've signed a Deed of Gift (aka a contract) which gives total
ownership to Serion.
So who is "right"? John Warren? Race Bannon? Both of them would
seem to feel that I am a slave.
Or Serion Ironcroft who is my owner and who refers to me as his
submissive partner NOT his slave?
The answer, IMO, is that there is no right. That trying to use
any sort of formula to pigeon hole people is doomed to failure.
Discussing terminology so that we all have a general idea of what
we mean when we use a particular term is great. But my insisting
that someone must be a submissive if they are a masochist because
I have never met a masochistic Dom is unreasonable, IMO.
Let me give you another example. I happen to feel that trolls
suffer from arrested development and do nothing but take up
bandwidth.
Someone else may feel that trolls provide scintillating commentary
and create opportunities for discussion that would not otherwise
be available.
Now if someone admits they are a troll, is that any reason for me
to consider them less than pond scum?
Hrrrmm.. well, OK.. let me see if I can come up with a better
example....
LadyGold, who, rumors to the contrary, is not the Big Kahuna,
although I am pleased by the compliment inherent in the title.
http://homepages.eu.rmit.edu.au/denis/jargon30/JARGON_K/KAHUNA.HTML
--There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. Nelson Mandela 1994
jk
lady...@spamnot.earthlink.net (LadyGold) wrote:
LG: First of all I value that you are trying to work with some of the things
that I have been talking about and that you have stood your ground as equally
as I have stood mine.
>
>- "Slave: Often used interchangeably with "submissive." However,
>generally reflecting a more intense level of submission or
>nonsexual or sexual-plus submission. For example, a slave might be
>someone who remains in a 24-hour-per-day submission and cooks,
>cleans, and otherwise takes care of a dominant's house."
> (source: "The Loving Dominant" by John Warren, c1994)
>
>I am submissive 24/7 and also a damn good cook. My housecleaning
>skills are not quite as stellar.
But is your submissive status "a more intense level of submission"?
I would say that you would agree. So is it the titles that you don't like to
use such as slave instead of submissive, Dom for the one you serve instead of
Master? And to the person whom you serve - do you allow Him to control every
aspect of your life or at least as much of it as is realistic and doable? Are
you willing to let Him do something to you that you clearly do not want?
>
>- "Slave - One who enjoys submission, with that submission being
>deep enough to elicit the feeling of being owned or fully
>controlled by the dominant partner."
> (source: "Learning the Ropes: A Basic Guide to Safe and
>Fun S/M Lovemaking", by Race Bannon, c1992)
>
>I've signed a Deed of Gift (aka a contract) which gives total
>ownership to Serion.
But do you feel 'owned' by Him?
Do you 'feel' enslaved by Him?
Define "total ownership" as to the extent to which He owns you?
Do you feel submissive naturally, as if you were born that way as opposed to
it being a preference?
Do you feel that your submission is an integral part of your sexual
orientation?
Do you have a problem with identifying with the term 'slave' as opposed to
calling yourself a 'submissive'?
How do you feel about those who do not identify themselves as a 'submissive',
but as a 'slave'?
In your words, how would you define the term 'slave' and the term 'submissive'
- at least for you anyway and also for others if you had to be able to
identify who was who, or simply needed to understand the difference to tell
others of it?
Are you submissive to Serion because of the contract?
Could you do without it and still have a relationship?
Why do you have a contract?
Is it really necessary?
How long did it take for you and for Him to come to terms and the conditions
that met to your expectations and to His?
Are you bothered by the fact that I use 'you' when referring to you and 'Him'
when referring to Serion or does such terms feel as if they do indeed apply?
And do you feel 'lost' when you are without a Dom to serve under who chooses
to 'own' you?
>
>So who is "right"? John Warren? Race Bannon? Both of them would
>seem to feel that I am a slave.
I would tend to agree. But do you feel that way?
>
>Or Serion Ironcroft who is my owner and who refers to me as his
>submissive partner NOT his slave?
What feels more right to you?
>
>The answer, IMO, is that there is no right.
But obviously there is a wrong. And you can clearly identify what and who you
are, and what and who you are not. If you refine that process then I think you
will find that there is a right, in fact, many of them - at least for you and
for many others. The real question is: do you know who LG is and who she is
not? Are you satisfied with who you are and how Serion treats you? Is the
relatonship between the two of you exactly what you want? What is 'right' for
you? And can you learn more about what is 'right' for you from the
relationships of others? And should you do so? Is there anything to gain by
doing so?
That trying to use
>any sort of formula to pigeon hole people is doomed to failure.
My rules document simply present a kind of workbook and allows a person to
deal with a number of areas that may fit them and may not, and then allows
them to express who they are and who they are not. After that, they work on
becoming who they are, want to be, will be, and need to be. (note: the 'need'
idea came from Janet Hardy and so I put it into the instruction set of the
rules document.)
>
>Discussing terminology so that we all have a general idea of what
>we mean when we use a particular term is great.
Well its about time that you realize this. It is what I have been trying to
say all along.
But my insisting
>that someone must be a submissive if they are a masochist because
>I have never met a masochistic Dom is unreasonable, IMO.
I am not insisting here, but saying that if you wear the clothes, walk the
talk, speak the words, and teach it to others - then I would have to say that
either you are living what you preach or fooling all of us.
I don't have to speak to someone for very long to realize or have a pretty
good idea of who they likely are, but there are some who are quite elusive and
still searching.
>
>Let me give you another example. I happen to feel that trolls
>suffer from arrested development and do nothing but take up
>bandwidth.
Screw the bandwidth issue - with some 60 million or more people online at any
given moment and growing every day, Internet 2 going up, and other nets
emerging, I hardly think bandwidth is a problem. Technology may be, but
eventually as more and more people and businesses around the world get
computer technology installed, the bandwidth and number of nets will increase
exponentially.
>
>Someone else may feel that trolls provide scintillating commentary
>and create opportunities for discussion that would not otherwise
>be available.
And that may be true indeed. God forbid that every poster will have to
eventually ask for permission to pose on ssbb first to see if the topic is a
good one or not.
>
>Now if someone admits they are a troll, is that any reason for me
>to consider them less than pond scum?
Is there any reason that you have to go along with the crowd? Is there any
reason to think that just cause trolls abound that you have to believe they
are a waste of time? Is there any reason at all to think that you couldn't
possibly gain anything from them? What reasons could you possibly have about
messing with this one since you have agreed to think that is what I am?
Johnathan Kay
p.s. Perhaps you participate because you are interested in what all the others
have to say, and because there just might be something you can learn from it.
TyMeDwn1st
>Are you bothered by the fact that I use 'you' when referring to you and 'Him'
>when referring to Serion or does such terms feel as if they do indeed apply?
Lordy, JK, it even bothers *me* that you use it, since those terms are not what
LadyGold uses in reference to herself and Serion. Your attempt to recast
their relationship to fit your own terminology is about as good an example of
One Wayism as I've seen here recently.
>And do you feel 'lost' when you are without a Dom to serve under who chooses
>to 'own' you?
I somehow cannot imagine LadyGold feeling lost in much of any circumstance.
I'm a submissive, currently living alone, uncollared, and not in a liaison with
a dominant. The only time *I* feel lost is when I read your fervid prose --
how in the hell can you spout that stuff with a straight face?
>I don't have to speak to someone for very long to realize or have a pretty
>good idea of who they likely are, but there are some who are quite elusive
>and
>still searching.
See what I mean? Pure trollery.
>Is there any reason that you have to go along with the crowd? Is there any
>reason to think that just cause trolls abound that you have to believe they
>are a waste of time? Is there any reason at all to think that you couldn't
>possibly gain anything from them? What reasons could you possibly have about
>messing with this one since you have agreed to think that is what I am?
JK, you've already admitted here that you enjoy posting offensive and
argumentative lies to newsgroups for the entertainment value of the uproar you
cause. I'm not surprised that some folks think your prattling makes sense;
even woofie has a few admirers, now and then.
I see no reason at all to take your rules--and your long-winded blather on
SSBB--as being yet another example of your fantasizing situations for the
pleasure of watching people jump through hoops to argue with you.
Ty
Who is mostly just
a slightly skewed
Donna Reed
jk
tymed...@aol.com (TyMeDwn1st) wrote:
>>Are you bothered by the fact that I use 'you' when referring to you and
'Him'
>>when referring to Serion or does such terms feel as if they do indeed apply?
>
>Lordy, JK, it even bothers *me* that you use it, since those terms are not
what
>LadyGold uses in reference to herself and Serion.
Call it my culture and how I choose to refer to people who obviously practice
a kind of Master/slave relationship and call it D/s when in fact one owns the
other.
Do you tell foreigners how they should act because you don't happen to like
the way in which they address people?
And besides it may be how they do indeed refer to each offline. And they might
actually like it, but if not they will say so.
And since in MY orientation it is more natural for ME to do so - should you be
telling ME how I wish to refer to people?? I don't tell you how to live your
life.
And one more point - since I am trying to push the idea that play vs.
ownership scenarios are different then I think it is only prudent that I
express my beliefs whether they want to see it or not since it supports my
position. They don't have to agree with it. And if they do differently then I
- so be it. They have free will and so do I.
Your attempt to recast
>their relationship to fit your own terminology is about as good an example of
>One Wayism as I've seen here recently.
Are you barking at what I believe? If so, perhaps then I could call you a
communist and then put up signs to say your beliefs should outlawed.
I thought the whole point of all this is that if anyone of us wishes to
practice BDSM in any way we wish - that we can - but you seem to think that
everyone else BUT ME can. Well forget that buddy, ME IS DOIN' MY THING. I
would at least expect the respect you expect of how you behave.
>
>
>>And do you feel 'lost' when you are without a Dom to serve under who chooses
>>to 'own' you?
>
>I somehow cannot imagine LadyGold feeling lost in much of any circumstance.
Having talked to hundreds of women about this issue of Master/slave
relationships and how they feel when they are not in them then I would have to
say that for LG she just doesn't feel that way, but that does not negate the
answers that others have expressed about the feeling of 'lost' they have
experienced.
>I'm a submissive, currently living alone, uncollared, and not in a liaison
with
>a dominant. The only time *I* feel lost is when I read your fervid prose --
>how in the hell can you spout that stuff with a straight face?
So its different for you. Are you trying to say that just because you don't
understand or feel 'lost' that no one else does either?
>
>>I don't have to speak to someone for very long to realize or have a pretty
>>good idea of who they likely are, but there are some who are quite elusive
>>and
>>still searching.
>
>See what I mean? Pure trollery.
Don't like it, don't bother. My experiences are different than yours, but if
you want respect of your experience then at least you could respect mine.
>
>>Is there any reason that you have to go along with the crowd? Is there any
>>reason to think that just cause trolls abound that you have to believe they
>>are a waste of time? Is there any reason at all to think that you couldn't
>>possibly gain anything from them? What reasons could you possibly have about
>>messing with this one since you have agreed to think that is what I am?
>
>JK, you've already admitted here that you enjoy posting offensive and
>argumentative lies to newsgroups for the entertainment value of the uproar
you
>cause.
I never said offensive or argumentative. That's your words.
I'm not surprised that some folks think your prattling makes sense;
>even woofie has a few admirers, now and then.
Well let's hope then that you never meet the people that I have then who agree
with my views.
>
>I see no reason at all to take your rules--and your long-winded blather on
>SSBB--as being yet another example of your fantasizing situations for the
>pleasure of watching people jump through hoops to argue with you.
Well thanks for jumping thru the hoops for me - I enjoyed it alot and hope
that your will stop by my city again so that I can bring some of my friends to
watch you do the hoops again.
Johnathan Kay
Volt
>>Discussing terminology so that we all have a general idea of what
>>we mean when we use a particular term is great.
>
>Well its about time that you realize this. It is what I have been trying to
>say all along.
What came out of your keyboard was that vocabulary not only should be
but is universal, and that anyone who uses a word in other than the
standard manner is _wrong_. Given that this group can't agree on the
difference between top and dom and master, that's a silly assertion.
Perhaps you should address the topic in your rules? Add one called
vocabulary rule, and include a complete glossary. I think that'd be
handy.
>>Now if someone admits they are a troll, is that any reason for me
>>to consider them less than pond scum?
>
>Is there any reason that you have to go along with the crowd? Is there any
>reason to think that just cause trolls abound that you have to believe they
>are a waste of time? Is there any reason at all to think that you couldn't
>possibly gain anything from them? What reasons could you possibly have about
>messing with this one since you have agreed to think that is what I am?
Trolls are just being argumentative to get a rise out of people.
What an amazingly boring waste of time. I mean if you want to get a
rise out of someone, wrap your lips around their dick. If you want
to have a meaningful discussion of BDSM, say something meaningful.
Volt
--
I tried to come up with a two line sig, the best I can do is
http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/volt it's the only way to fit it all in
jk
vo...@links.magenta.com (Volt) wrote:
>
> What came out of your keyboard was that vocabulary not only should be
>but is universal, and that anyone who uses a word in other than the
>standard manner is _wrong_.
Let's just say its not exactly on par.
Given that this group can't agree on the
>difference between top and dom and master, that's a silly assertion.
>Perhaps you should address the topic in your rules? Add one called
>vocabulary rule, and include a complete glossary. I think that'd be
>handy.
Might be but then the docu is for those who already identify themselves as
slaves so really there is no reason for a glossary. The docu is not about M/s
vs. D/s.
>
Johnathan Kay
LadyGold
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
On Sat, 25 Jul 98 00:09:26 GMT, tr...@trace.seanet.com (jk) wrote:
>In article <35ba1292...@NEWS.earthlink.net>,
> lady...@spamnot.earthlink.net (LadyGold) wrote:
>LG: First of all I value that you are trying to work with some of the things
>that I have been talking about and that you have stood your ground as equally
>as I have stood mine.
Well, golly gee wow. I've been "trying to work with some of the
things" since long before I ever heard of you or your rules. In
fact, I rather think it's more like you're trying to figure out
what it is that *I* do, eh?
For example you ask:
>But is your submissive status "a more intense level of submission"?
>I would say that you would agree. So is it the titles that you don't like to
>use such as slave instead of submissive, Dom for the one you serve instead of
>Master? And to the person whom you serve - do you allow Him to control every
>aspect of your life or at least as much of it as is realistic and doable? Are
>you willing to let Him do something to you that you clearly do not want?
and
and
>I would tend to agree. But do you feel that way?
and
> The real question is: do you know who LG is and who she is
>not? Are you satisfied with who you are and how Serion treats you? Is the
>relatonship between the two of you exactly what you want? What is 'right' for
>you? And can you learn more about what is 'right' for you from the
>relationships of others? And should you do so? Is there anything to gain by
>doing so?
Tell ya what, JohnBoy. Ask Phillip to send you an application for
the LadyGold's Correspondence Course, "What Do Serion and
LadyGold Really Do?". All the questions you've asked, together
with some that you haven't even thought of, [1] will be answered.
When you've completed the application and paid your fees, he'll
send you the super secret email address to write to for your
course material. If you do really well on the quizzes, he'll even
send you the URL for Serion's Rules, [2] which are, in fact, the
way we live our lives.
As an absolutely free bonus [3] if you sign up this week, I'll
send you a personally autographed copy of my Deed of Gift on
genuine faux ersatz parchment paper suitable for framing. [4]
[1] Like, "Is she making fun of me or not?"
[2] Also sold separately - write for more information
[3] Just $499.95 for shipping and handling
[4] Same old joke about Sheriffs and framing.
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
P.S Here's a Free Sample
> And to the person whom you serve - do you allow Him to control every aspect of your life
> or at least as much of it as is realistic and doable? Are you willing to let Him do something
> to you that you clearly do not want?
Yes.
Janet Hardy
>Call it my culture and how I choose to refer to people who obviously
practice
>a kind of Master/slave relationship and call it D/s when in fact one owns
the
>other.
It is a Very Bad Idea to use words, especially emotionally loaded words, to
describe people when they would not use those words to describe themselves.
Most people in the world would not call you a master or one of your slaves a
slave, since you have no legal rights over your slave. Yet nobody here is
telling you that your choice of words is inappropriate. And I'm sure you'd
have no hesitation in correcting someone who referred to your slave as your
"girlfriend," which would be by the world's standards the more appropriate
term.
In the gay and lesbian worlds, many relationships that would probably meet
your criteria for master/slave are considered by their participants to be
daddy/boy or daddy/girl relationships. Are you going to tell them that
they're using their terms wrong?
In other words, let people choose their own terminology. If you're trying to
describe someone's relationship to an outsider, try something like "It's the
kind of relationship that a lot of people would call master/slave, but they
call it X." (This is roughly comparable to "They're a lot like a married
couple, but they've never gotten married.")
Verdant
Serion Ironcroft
tr...@trace.seanet.com (jk) wrote, in part:
>Call it my culture and how I choose to refer to people who obviously practice
>a kind of Master/slave relationship and call it D/s when in fact one owns the
>other.
There are specific reasons why LadyGold is my submissive partner, and
not my "slave." Indeed, if JK's 128 rules actually defined "slavery,"
she'd be about as far away from the description as she could be and
still be submissive.
There are specific reasons why I consider myself a dominant partner,
and not a "Master." Relative to JK's 128 rules, I wouldn't qualify as
a master, anyway.
>Do you tell foreigners how they should act because you don't happen to like
>the way in which they address people?
Only when it's clear they don't know what they're doing and are making
themselves look stupid, hm?
>And besides it may be how they do indeed refer to each offline. And they might
>actually like it, but if not they will say so.
Geez, I suppose we might refer to each other as Ozzie and Harriet, or
maybe "Lord_of_my_life_all_others_eclipsing" and "hey_you".
Amazingly as it may seem, I consider my relationships with each of my
partners to be individually unique. I develop rules for each
relationship, but those are created for mutual understanding, and
derive from our personal interactions, not some fantasy-monger's idea
of The Way Things Ought To Be.
My rules for LadyGold, who is a full-time live-in partner, are called
her "Deed of Gift." They are different in important ways from the
rules for my relationship with dingo, called her "Sub-lease," who is a
full-time friend and long-distance partner we get to see only every
few months.
Cookie cutter fantasy rules such as JK's 128 ignore so much of the
richness of interaction between us perverted people that it's really
difficult for me to understand why anybody would take them seriously.
If I'm in a mood to do master/slave fantasies with LadyGold or dingo,
that's what I do. I don't need 128 rules to tell me how to do it
"correctly."
>I don't tell you how to live your life.
|laughing| Hey, I'm not even going to comment on this one. Philip?
Are you reading, or have you plonked this dude?
>And one more point - since I am trying to push the idea that play vs.
>ownership scenarios are different then I think it is only prudent that I
>express my beliefs whether they want to see it or not since it supports my
>position. They don't have to agree with it. And if they do differently then I
>- so be it. They have free will and so do I.
Speaking of ownership scenarios, the fact that JK is pushing a
particular idea doesn't mean that he owns it, or even understands it,
for that matter, hm?
JK appears to be a collector/compiler of ideas, rounding up tidbits of
things that flip his switches and then using them to try to get the
attention and validation he appears to be seeking.
>Are you barking at what I believe? If so, perhaps then I could call you a
>communist and then put up signs to say your beliefs should outlawed.
This comment wasn't addressed to me, but if it were, I'd say go for
it. I'm more than willing to let the newsgroup judge if *my* ideas
make sense, and to listen openly and constructively to any genuine
criticisms and suggestions, even JK's.
>I thought the whole point of all this is that if anyone of us wishes to
>practice BDSM in any way we wish - that we can - but you seem to think that
>everyone else BUT ME can. Well forget that buddy, ME IS DOIN' MY THING. I
>would at least expect the respect you expect of how you behave.
JK doesn't seem to understand that respect is a two-way street, and
respect is earned, not conferred by the ghod of the internet. He
engages in online behaviors such as trolling that show disrespect for
other users, and posts messages that exude disrespect for others in
myriad ways, and he wants people to respect him?
I've said elsewhere that JK appears to be probably an OK dude, but he
appears to be seriously Clue-deficient when it comes to personal
relationships. His fantasy fodder shows a yearning for a world where
respect is automatically conferred, where exercising control over
another person is likewise an easy gift.
In the real world, it's not so trivial or easy to attain genuine
mind/soul/body ownership of another human being. It takes caring and
trusting and vulnerability, and most of all responsibility. The
ownership relationship has to be earned, and that can be very
difficult.
>So its different for you. Are you trying to say that just because you don't
>understand or feel 'lost' that no one else does either?
JK says the right words, but misses his own point. His 128 rules
ignore the fact that "it's" different for everybody. Trying to fit
everybody else into his little box may get him the attention he's
after, but has very little value otherwise.
>Don't like it, don't bother. My experiences are different than yours, but if
>you want respect of your experience then at least you could respect mine.
See above re: respect. Respectful behavior gains respect.
Disrespectful behavior gains disrespect.
>Well let's hope then that you never meet the people that I have then who agree
>with my views.
How about JK inviting them into SSBB to join the fray? Maybe they'll
be able to articulate the issues in a way JK has not achieved so far,
and help us understand them better.
Regards, Serion
Serion Ironcroft
<6pdo32$9dl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, soul_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>First, I believe you can be a submissive without being a slave, but that
>a slave must always be submissive. I feel the difference between a slave
>and a submissive ultimately comes down to ownership. IMO, a dom may
>control his sub's behavior to a large degree but always within clearly
>negotiated limits and guidelines. These limits do not lessen the depth
>of her submission vis a vis a slave, nor do they make the relationship any
>less intense or committed. They do, however, allow the sub to define just
>how much power she will relinquish to her dom.
And if a submissive decides to relinquish *all* power to her dom?
Then how is she distinguished from a slave?
I do think there's a problem with the terminology. Most of the time
when I encounter the term "slave," it is bound up with a lot of
scening baggage that just doesn't fit my style very well. It also has
the unpleasant (for me) connotations of historic non-consensual
captivity.
I use the term "submissive" because that's what my women do - submit
to me. When I own them, I can do what I want to with them - the rest
of it is just window-dressing. I don't have to conform to anybody
else's ideas about what we should be doing - and I don't.
So, is my LadyGold a "slave"? Not by my standards.
Neither of us generally takes offense at folks who call her a slave,
when that's the common terminology. The exception is when some twit
like JK is trying to score points.
But I don't think of her as a slave, any more than I think of my pet
cats as slaves.
Unlike a cat, she's my equal partner intellectually, emotionally, and
physiologically. In fact, the *only* significant difference between
LadyGold and a fully equal partner is her grant of ownership to me.
In practice, she doesn't defer to me, unless I require deference. She
doesn't hesitate to contradict me when she thinks I'm wrong, unless I
tell her to be quiet. She is not required to obey me if she thinks
I'm seriously fucking up, unless I *insist* on unthinking obedience.
I expect her to make decisions about herself (and me) which will be in
my best interests. Nevertheless, I expect her to use *her* best
judgment in arriving at those decisions.
I don't need to own a submissive to prove anything about me. I've
owned lots of submissives over the years, and like any other type of
relationship, sometimes things go well, sometimes things go wrong and
sometimes people change. I know who and what I am, and I know how to
use power responsibly and creatively. I expect my submissive partners
to know themselves in like manner.
>On the other hand, I view slavery as an absolute transference of power
>from the slave to her owner. His power is complete in that she has no say
>in what he can or cannot do with her. Now here comes the tricky part of my
>theory which typically tends to cause a clamor in the community - a sub has
>and may use a safeword, whereas I feel a slave does not have this luxury.
LadyGold does not have a safeword.
I respect safewords when a submissive requests one, but I *never* rely
on safewords. I consider it my responsibility to use my creatures in
ways which do not injure them. Information from them is just another
important part of my overall concern.
Anyway, that's my style and it works for me. YMMV.
Regards, Serion
Steven S. Davis
soul_...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
: I agree that there is no right or wrong definition for any of the elements
: or terms that are associated with BDSM, just as there is no right or wrong
: way to practice BDSM. However, since the topic was brought up, I will
: offer my own definition with the standard disclaimer that "the views
: expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone but me"..
: LOL!!
Understood.
: First, I believe you can be a submissive without being a slave, but that
: a slave must always be submissive.
A pretty mainstream view around here. Now that the troll is gone (or
so he says, anyway; BTW, from my perspective, there was one good thing
about him, namely that the next time anyone remarks about how long
my (now defunct) Terms of Surrender are, I'll just tell them to be
glad there aren't 128 terms in my TOS (and hope that no one counts
up all the sections, subsections, paragraphs and subparagraphs, etc,
which probably don't come to 128 or more, but I haven't actually
counted them myself)), I can mention, w/o fearing he'll regard it as
encouragement is stick around, that, in my usage (which no one else
need use), "slave" and "submissive" are distinct types rather than
points on a spectrum.
: I feel the difference between a slave
: and a submissive ultimately comes down to ownership. IMO, a dom may
: control his sub's behavior to a large degree but always within clearly
: negotiated limits and guidelines. These limits do not lessen the depth
: of her submission vis a vis a slave, nor do they make the relationship any
: less intense or committed. They do, however, allow the sub to define just
: how much power she will relinquish to her dom.
FWIW, the distinction I try to make is that a submissive is under the
command of the dominant while a slave is under the control of the
owner (or at least that's the target they strive for). What that
means, for me, in my idiosyncratic usage of these terms (which may not
match any other usage), is that when a submissive receives an order,
the submissive decides to obey it (or, perhaps not to obey it, knowing
what consequence that may have), while for the slave obedience is a
given (which doesn't mean that it will be either easy or immediate),
i.e. the slave has both consciously rejected the idea that sie might
disobey ("disobey", BTW, is not completely equivalent to "not obey"),
and over time hir mental conditioning is such that in a very real sense
the option to disobey atrophies, eventually until it is all but gone
(I doubt it can ever totally be removed, but at some point the stress
needed for hir to be able to disobey would have to be immense, and for
all practical purposes, under any normal conditions, sie genuinely
cannot disobey[1] ).
This doesn't mean that the submissive won't choose to obey commands
which a slave might not (yet) be able to obey (to not do what one
can't do (even if at some point one might come to be able to do it)
is not to disobey). The depth of service and devotion achieved, at
a given point, may be greater for a particular submissive than for
a particular slave. The behavior of a slave and a submissive
might well be identical. It's how they come to that behavior that
varies. A submissive makes a choice to give hir dominant the gift
of hir service and devotion each and ever time sie serves or obeys
hir dominant. The slave makes the choice to give the gift of hirself
once (which most emphatically does not mean that a slave's service
and obedience is given easily thereafter).
Again, this is what the words 'slave' and 'submissive' mean for me.
Mileage will vary, and while we may each have our preference of
one or the other, neither is superior or inferior to the other,
just different from the other.
: On the other hand, I view slavery as an absolute transference of power
: from the slave to her owner. His power is complete in that she has no say
: in what he can or cannot do with her. Now here comes the tricky part of my
: theory which typically tends to cause a clamor in the community - a sub has
: and may use a safeword, whereas I feel a slave does not have this luxury.
Well, I'd agree with that statement.
But I'd also add that the owner *does* have that luxury (more below).
[snip]
: In slavery, you are handing over to your partner the keys to every aspect
: of your being with no limits. You become his to do with as he pleases
: regardless of whether you want or enjoy it. If you are at a point that
: you trust your partner enough to give him this much control, that trust
: must be limitless - you cannot say "I trust you to do w,x, and y but
: not z". If you trust your owner, you trust him to always have your
: well-being (if not your comfort) as his first priority. By doing so,
: you implicitly trust him enough to know that he will never push you
: further than you are capable of going. If that is the case, wherein
: lies the need for a safeword? It becomes a moot point for both parties.
I agree with that up until the last two sentences, and I certainly
agree that couples can opt to *not* use safewords (or to allow the
use of "plain English" to stop activity (not using safewords is not
necessarily the same as doing "no safeword scenes")) without it being
unsafe, and I agree that for many this is the best choice.
But...
No matter how skilled or observent an owner is, and no matter how
well sie knows and how much sie cares for hir slave, sie can never
know everything that a slave is experiencing at the instant it is
experienced (which is not to say that sometimes sie won't understand
what the slave is experiencing better than the slave does, only that
circumstances can arise that the owner *can't* know of sooner than
the slave does. These situations can be dealt with w/o the use of
a safeword, I don't dispute that. But if the owner does judge it
best to equip the slave with a safeword and to order the slave to
use it in emergencies - and to trust hir not to misuse it (and to
also continue to do everything that sie would do if there were no
safeword, ie *never* assign any weight to the fact the slave has
not safeworded) - that doesn't, IMO, undermine the owner-slave
relationship in any way. That an owner equips a slave with a
safeword and assigns to hir the duty and authority to use it when
necessary no more puts the slave in charge than having the ability
to pull an emergency break on a train meant that one ran the
railroad.
: Again, just my own spin on the subject!
Understood.
FWIW, there's a longer treatment of this "Slaves and Submissives"
issue on the "Backpages" page of my homepage.
[1] In past discussions of this subject, some posters discussed
the slave's "intellectual, psychological, and emotional
'reality tunnel'" within which the right and ability to
exit the tunnel did not exist. Which doesn't mean that the
exits from that tunnel no longer existed, but which did mean that
they were covered over and the covering would get heavier as
time went on, and the slave would come to forget the exits were
there and, if sie did recall them, find them much harder to
access, with them eventually becoming impossible for hir to
access. However, some seismic event(s) inside the tunnel
*might* shatter those coverings - how big or how many such
seismic events would be necessary to do would depend on how
heavy the coverings had become (and, to stretch this metaphor
even further, on how quickly and how well the owner was able
to repair the damage to the tunnel, assuming such an effort
was made).
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Hompage: 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
Steven S. Davis
Oops.
Steven S. Davis (s...@links.magenta.com) wrote:
: I agree with that up until the last two sentences, and I certainly
: agree that couples can opt to *not* use safewords (or to allow the
Ah, that should have read "to not allow"
: use of "plain English" to stop activity (not using safewords is not
: necessarily the same as doing "no safeword scenes")) without it being
: unsafe, and I agree that for many this is the best choice.
While I'm clarifying: by "a scene w/o safewords", I mean a scene in
which the partners are not using an "coded control signals" aka
safewords (though a safeword can also be a "coded communications
signal", the most common usage is as a "coded control signal").
Usually, the ability of the catcher to stop the scene still exists.
In a "no safeword scene" as it seems to me it is most often used,
once the scene begins the catcher can't stop it, or at least can't
expect that sie can stop it by expressing hir will that it should
stop. This is also sometimes referred to as "consensual nonconsent".
FWIW, I also favor striving towards a more common usage of our
terminology. Unlike some people I know that such uniformity
can never be achieved - but this doesn't mean the effort isn't
worthwhile, as it's good both if we come to some shared meanings,
and if the best we can do is come to understand the variety of
meanings (and perhaps sometimes the most common meanings or the
most common range of meanings for a term) that we use, that's
also a positive result.
Sockermom9
><6pdo32$9dl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, soul_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
submissive ultimately comes down to ownership. IMO, a dom may
control his sub's behavior to a large degree but always within clearly
negotiated limits and guidelines. These limits do not lessen the depth of her
submission vis a vis a slave, nor do they make the relationship any less
intense or committed. They do, however, allow the sub to define just how much
power she will relinquish to her dom.
And Serion replied:
>And if a submissive decides to relinquish *all* power to her dom?
>Then how is she distinguished from a slave?
>
I guess that's where the tough dividing-line must lie. Thing is, you don't
have to have the "right" label in order to play. All you have to ahve is an
understanding between yourself and your partner.
I like the term "slave", partially because it allows for a certain amount of
understanding in our community. When I tell them, no, I'm not available to
play tonight, my master has told me not to" I have an immediate understanding
of a) my respondse to the question, "you interested?" and b) my reasons why
not.
So, for me, it serves a purpose, and serves it well.
Lynn
Gorgik
>I do think there's a problem with the terminology. Most of the time
>when I encounter the term "slave," it is bound up with a lot of
>scening baggage that just doesn't fit my style very well. It also has
>the unpleasant (for me) connotations of historic non-consensual
>captivity.
>I use the term "submissive" because that's what my women do -
>submit to me. When I own them, I can do what I want to with them -
>the rest of it is just window-dressing. I don't have to conform to
>anybody else's ideas about what we should be doing - and I don't.
>So, is my LadyGold a "slave"? Not by my standards.
>Neither of us generally takes offense at folks who call her a slave,
>when that's the common terminology. The exception is when some
>twit like JK is trying to score points.
>But I don't think of her as a slave, any more than I think of my pet
>cats as slaves.
>Unlike a cat, she's my equal partner intellectually, emotionally, and
>physiologically. In fact, the *only* significant difference between
>LadyGold and a fully equal partner is her grant of ownership to me.
[snip]
i'm certainly not trying to "score points," but i have to say i
sympathize with the view that saying LadyGold is not a "slave"
is to use the language just a tad idiosyncratically. A slave is
human property, and if Serion "owns" LadyGold, then she is
His slave. That says *nothing* about how He does, or "should"
treat her, or whether she largely acts independently or not,
or whether they are equal partners or not. Granted, some
people do insist that their way of being or owning slaves is
the one and only true and right one, but so what? It's not
the *word's* fault that some people are self-centered idiots!
There are all kinds of inanimate property, so why shouldn't
there be many kinds of human property? Or states of
being owned? Not all historical slave owners were vicious,
bigoted, self-indulgent monsters who treated slaves like
dirt, and there's no reason to suppose that every Owner
of voluntary slaves today will behave the same way.
If Serion (it pains me not to call Him "Master Serion,"
but i've been "spanked" before in this NG for such
presumption!) doesn't want to be associated with the likes
of JK and W*lf, that's understandable, but it still stretches
the language past the breaking point, IMHO, to call His
relationship with LadyGold anything but "slavery."
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
"Workaholics can be fun if you tie them down first!"
Ed Halley
>>cats as slaves.
>
>
> There are all kinds of inanimate property, so why shouldn't
> there be many kinds of human property? Or states of
> being owned? Not all historical slave owners were vicious,
> bigoted, self-indulgent monsters who treated slaves like
> dirt, and there's no reason to suppose that every Owner
> of voluntary slaves today will behave the same way.
Hm, I'm new enough around these here parts, but I still haven't heard of an
indentured submissive. But that has the feel of a term that either (1) gets
dropped as useless immediately, or (2) conjures up a troll-and-patrol flame
war.
Anyone use 'indentured' when referring to their kinky servitude?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edh
(Ed Halley) [ e d @ e x p l o r a t i . c o m ]
Drmacgrego
>The only time *I* feel lost is when I read your fervid prose --
>how in the hell can you spout that stuff with a straight face?
LOL-LOL-LOL---At this point someone need hold up the sign "Last One Out, Turn
Off The Lights" as no further discussion needed. Are the proceeds of Jk's cross
between a Freudian-Wanna-Be Interview and a Detective-Joe Friday-Interrigation
going to the homeless or other charity as Comic Relief Benefit-98??? Only
ridiculous questions omitted were "Did your mother love you?" and "Where were
you on the night of......" Shhhh now be polite DrMac
and stop laughing, others are trying to read....Best Regards.
LadyGold
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
On 26 Jul 1998 06:16:06 GMT, nob...@xxxxxxxxxx.com (Ed Halley)
wrote:
>Anyone use 'indentured' when referring to their kinky servitude?
<slight thoughtful frown> Maybe my understanding of "indentured"
is not correct, but I thought that someone who was indentured was
working off a debt of some sort and was, therefore, working
towards freedom.
I'm certainly a servant, but I certainly am NOT working towards
freedom.
'sides... o/~ I owe my soul to the Company Store... o/~
~LG
"Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp;
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
...Dorothy Parker
volca...@hotmail.com
> i'm certainly not trying to "score points," but i have to say i
> sympathize with the view that saying LadyGold is not a "slave"
> is to use the language just a tad idiosyncratically. A slave is
> human property, and if Serion "owns" LadyGold, then she is
> His slave. That says *nothing* about how He does, or "should"
> treat her, or whether she largely acts independently or not,
> or whether they are equal partners or not. Granted, some
> people do insist that their way of being or owning slaves is
> the one and only true and right one, but so what? It's not
> the *word's* fault that some people are self-centered idiots!
>
> there be many kinds of human property? Or states of
> being owned? Not all historical slave owners were vicious,
> bigoted, self-indulgent monsters who treated slaves like
> dirt, and there's no reason to suppose that every Owner
> of voluntary slaves today will behave the same way.
>
> but i've been "spanked" before in this NG for such
> presumption!) doesn't want to be associated with the likes
> of JK and W*lf, that's understandable, but it still stretches
> the language past the breaking point, IMHO, to call His
> relationship with LadyGold anything but "slavery."
I'm afraid I must disagree. In fact, it is stretching the language
*somewhat* to refer to any consensual relationship as slavery. Anyone
in this country (and in much of the world) can end a 'Master/slave'
relationship at any time by making an abuse complaint to the police or
by contacting someone else who can reach the police. A slave is only a
slave as long as sie choose to be. No contract granting ownership to
the Master can stop that, no matter how freely entered into. The only
thing that would even come close would be if the slave has hirself
declared incompetent and placed under the guardianship of hir Master.
Even that is by no means escape proof. In fact, it would bring up
issues of consent. No matter how kindly some of my ancestors may have
been, they still practiced real slavery, and *their* slaves had no
choice in the matter.
Some people like to use the terms Master and slave in their D/s
relationships, and feel very deeply that such is right for them. I have
no argument with that, and indeed I lean that way myself. But I would
not insist on applying those terms to people who do not use them.
,~~~~
/ \
/ \ Volcano
Serion Ironcroft
<199807260515...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, gor...@aol.com
(Gorgik) wrote, in part:
>i'm certainly not trying to "score points," but i have to say i
>sympathize with the view that saying LadyGold is not a "slave"
>is to use the language just a tad idiosyncratically. A slave is
>human property, and if Serion "owns" LadyGold, then she is
>His slave.
In the historic sense, I wouldn't disagree. But LG is not owned in a
state particularly similar to historical non-consensual captivity, and
she's not under any sort of rule particularly similar to scene-based
or ritual-based "slavery."
If I use the term "slave" to describe her relationship with me, I am
inevitably bringing in all the connotation baggage associated with the
term, most of which is completely incidental, even inapplicable, to
our lifestyle.
Her relationship with me is most nearly like my cats' relationships
with me, and they're called "pets." But if I call LG a pet, it brings
in another complete stack of common usage connotations associated with
the use of that word that don't make sense in context of our
lifestyle.
In order to avoid that, I go back to what I believe to be a more
general term, and just call her a submissive partner. It's an
accurate description, and doesn't imply anything inappropriate about
our lifestyle.
>That says *nothing* about how He does, or "should"
>treat her, or whether she largely acts independently or not,
>or whether they are equal partners or not. Granted, some
>people do insist that their way of being or owning slaves is
>the one and only true and right one, but so what? It's not
>the *word's* fault that some people are self-centered idiots!
I'm pretty much of a pragmatist about words. Words come with social
connotations that can't easily be ignored. Therefore I have to
disagree with you. The word carries the fault with it.
The term "slave" brings to *every* individual's mind their own
preconceptions and understanding of the term, whether they're
self-centered or not. They can't help it - that's how we all come to
understand and use language.
It's not that hard to demonstrate the connotations. For example, I'm
an atheist. Ever try to portray a positive image of an atheist in a
religion-saturated language such as English? Until recently there
hasn't even been a word for an atheist's personal belief system - it
certainly is *not* a religion, although the religionists often try to
portray it as such.
What sort of person am I? Godless? You got it. Heathen? Probably
that too. Let's try godless heathen slave master, hm? That'll go
over real big at the PTA! |grin| The words represent what may be
accurate definitions, but the connotations will generally be received
negatively, eh?
So I look for the words that most accurately represent what I'm trying
to say, both in meaning and connotation. LG is submissive to me and
is my dear partner. Nothing more is needed.
>There are all kinds of inanimate property, so why shouldn't
>there be many kinds of human property? Or states of
>being owned? Not all historical slave owners were vicious,
>bigoted, self-indulgent monsters who treated slaves like
>dirt, and there's no reason to suppose that every Owner
>of voluntary slaves today will behave the same way.
Interesting comment. I'm not an attorney, but my business puts me in
contact with lots of people who have various sorts of ownership
interests, many of them in conflict with each other. It helps me to
have some sort of general map of the territory, so I can make
judgments that will serve my clients professionally.
It seems to me that since medieval times, western civilization has
basically recognized only two types of property ownership - real
property and personal property. These pretty much apply to all kinds
of animate as well as inanimate property.
The essential difference is that real property is linked to the land
and the community - property that can't really be created or
destroyed, just transferred from one owner to another.
Personal property is linked to a person or other similar legal entity,
such as an institution or corporation. It can generally be created
and destroyed at the whim of the owner.
Historically, slaves appear to have been considered personal property,
disposable at whim. Because of increasingly humane social values in
western society, there have been increasingly restrictive legal
constraints on the non-consensual acquiring and disposing of slaves,
until today the practice is widely banned.
In a society of relatively free individuals, I believe voluntary
slaves (a good term, I think) are actually more like real property,
even though they're bound principally to community (as participating
members) than to land.
But I believe "voluntary slave" still carries many of the connotations
and fantasies associated with the older practice. Not my cup of tea.
>If Serion (it pains me not to call Him "Master Serion,"
>but i've been "spanked" before in this NG for such
>presumption!) ...
Anyone used to the M/s paradigm can call me "Master Serion" if they
wish. And if I don't have some point to make |grin|, I'll accept the
appelation gracefully. But I don't consider *myself* a "master" for
the same general reasons I don't consider LG a "slave."
> ... doesn't want to be associated with the likes
>of JK and W*lf, that's understandable, but it still stretches
>the language past the breaking point, IMHO, to call His
>relationship with LadyGold anything but "slavery."
I hope my comments above will serve to reduce the tension in "the
language," hm? I haven't stretched anything, it's just that in the
face of inadvertently misrepresenting myself and LG, I choose
terminology I believe to be more general, more appropriate, and more
accurate.
Regards, Serion
Serion Ironcroft
<199807260422...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, socke...@aol.com
(Sockermom9) wrote:
>I like the term "slave", partially because it allows for a certain amount of
>understanding in our community. When I tell them, no, I'm not available to
>play tonight, my master has told me not to" I have an immediate understanding
>of a) my respondse to the question, "you interested?" and b) my reasons why
>not.
And I like the term "submissive partner" because it doesn't
necessarily kick in the connotations of the general community. LG
calls me "her Dom," which is generally understood as well as Master.
>So, for me, it serves a purpose, and serves it well.
So, do you prefer three refs on a field or a two-ref diagonal? |grin|
Regards, Serion <--- serious soccer fan
Gorgik
>It seems to me that since medieval times, western civilization
>has basically recognized only two types of property ownership
>- real property and personal property. These pretty much
>apply to all kinds of animate as well as inanimate property.
>The essential difference is that real property is linked to the
>land and the community - property that can't really be created
>or destroyed, just transferred from one owner to another.
>Personal property is linked to a person or other similar legal
>entity, such as an institution or corporation. It can generally
>be created and destroyed at the whim of the owner.
i'm not a lawyer, either, but these categories seem awfully
narrow to be comprehensive. What about my ownership of
these words i'm writing? Neither i nor anyone else can
realistically destroy them once created (people come and
go, but e-mail is forever <g>), but my ownership is
fixed by copyright law and can be transferred until it
expires. How about Microsoft's "ownership" of the copies
of Windows installed on a zillion computers?
Is a work of art "real property" or "personal property"?
What would happen if the owner of a Rembrandt decided to
burn it in public? Pets are "personal property," but the
owners are not allowed to dispose of them at whim. The
laws and customs limiting what people and corporations
can do with the "personal" property they own are legion.
>Historically, slaves appear to have been considered personal
>property, disposable at whim. Because of increasingly
>humane social values in western society, there have been
>increasingly restrictive legal constraints on the non-
>consensual acquiring and disposing of slaves,
>until today the practice is widely banned.
>In a society of relatively free individuals, I believe voluntary
>slaves (a good term, I think) are actually more like real
>property, even though they're bound principally to
>community (as participating members) than to land.
Very nice distinction! i like to make a similar point by
saying that slaves can't be owned outright, only leased <g>.
Leased property has to be maintained by the user and
returned to the ultimate owner in good condition at the
end of the term, and the lessee must provide something
of value in return for using the property. Whether a
slave's "ultimate owner" is understood to be the slave
itself, God, or the community, the point remains that
owning a voluntary slave is not like owning a box of Kleenex!
You can use one, but you can't (ethically) use it up, and
"discard after use" is not an option.
>But I believe "voluntary slave" still carries many of the
>connotations and fantasies associated with the older practice.
>Not my cup of tea.
Some of us *like* (some of) those "connotations and
fantasies," but i bow to your preference. :-)
Bob King
>
> >But I believe "voluntary slave" still carries many of the
> >connotations and fantasies associated with the older practice.
> >Not my cup of tea.
>
> Some of us *like* (some of) those "connotations and
> fantasies," but i bow to your preference. :-)
>
> with respect,
>
> slave david stein
Besides, with all respect to Serion, I just can't picture myself
grabbing a sub by the hair, forcing her to her knees, possibly ripping
her bodice a bit for local colour and growling manfully:
"I LEASE you, wench!"
...come to think of it, I CAN see myself doing that. But then, I'm
really, really perverse...
--
Regards;
Bob King
webc...@home.com ICQ#: 12880485
The Dark Castle http://www.munchltd.com/firewheel/
Update List: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/darkcastle
"A burnt child loves the fire"- Oscar Wilde
Sockermom9
>
have to dom *one* other ref. <sigh>
And now, back to our show...
>And I like the term "submissive partner" because it doesn't
>necessarily kick in the connotations of the general community. LG
>calls me "her Dom," which is generally understood as well as Master.
Well, that works, too. I'd probably be the "submissive partner" in most
relationships I'd enter into (at least sexually, that is ;-). But being
sexually submissive implies bedroom activities, much like the term "bottom"
implies (sometimes) dry-SM activities. So who'd the broad washing those dishes
and doing the vaccuming? (though I'll admit that sometimes vaccuming involves a
certain level of pain for those of us who are not natural housewives. ;-)
I use the term "Dom" as well. As my dom <ahem> says, a person is only a
"master" in relation to another given person. So, the term would be more
analagous to that of "husband". You just plain can't be a husband without a
wife, and you can't be a master without a slave. Now, if anyone outside my
married relationship were to refer to me as "wife", he'd be laughed at. My dom
and I understand what we mean by the terms we use, we define the relationship
by living it.
Doubtless none of us here qualifies as a "true" slave (sorry ;-), given the
basically consensual nature of such relationships.
Lynn (not serious about much of anything)
Sockermom9
>sympathize with the view that saying LadyGold is not a "slave"
>is to use the language just a tad idiosyncratically.
Gad zooks! Someone around here behaving idiosyncratically? Heavens, what *is*
this world coming to? Something *must* be done!!
Lynn (gee, I didn't know my tongue went that far into my cheek!!)
Philip the Foole
Foole: I think you spelled "leash" wrong, Bob.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Sockermom9
>grabbing a sub by the hair, forcing her to her knees, possibly ripping
>her bodice a bit for local colour and growling manfully:
>
>"I LEASE you, wench!"
>
>...come to think of it, I CAN see myself doing that. But then, I'm
>really, really perverse...
>
give me a <gasp> <giggle> minute to catch my breath.
Lynn
Sockermom9
>and not a "Master." Relative to JK's 128 rules, I wouldn't qualify as
>a master, anyway.
Um, Serion? I'd put that on my resume, if I were you. If JK keeps it up,
it'll soon be recognized as a mark of high honor.
Lynn
Serion Ironcroft
<35BBBB6F...@munchltd.com>, Bob King <webc...@munchltd.com>
wrote:
>Besides, with all respect to Serion, I just can't picture myself
>grabbing a sub by the hair, forcing her to her knees, possibly ripping
>her bodice a bit for local colour and growling manfully:
>
>"I LEASE you, wench!"
>
>...come to think of it, I CAN see myself doing that. But then, I'm
>really, really perverse...
Heh, heh, heh... As several submissive women can attest, my initial
agreements with potential partners are called "sub-leases!"
Perverse is as perverse does, hm? |evil grin|
Regards, Serion
Jason Crowell
SNIP
>Besides, with all respect to Serion, I just can't picture myself
>grabbing a sub by the hair, forcing her to her knees, possibly ripping
>her bodice a bit for local colour and growling manfully:
>
>"I LEASE you, wench!"
>
>really, really perverse...
*Ahem* KEYBOARD ALERTS BOB!!! (Fortunately my tea was off to the side ;)
Now why am I seeing a car rental office where the following is taking place...
CLERK "Unlimited Mileage?"
CUSTOMER "No, she'll be bound most of the time."
CLERK "Additional Collision Insurance?"
CUSTOMER "Definitely." (brandishes *really* heavy whip)
this could go on and on and on...
trishah
>Bob King <webc...@munchltd.com> wrote:
> SNIP
> >Besides, with all respect to Serion, I just can't picture myself
> >grabbing a sub by the hair, forcing her to her knees, possibly ripping
> >her bodice a bit for local colour and growling manfully:
> >
> >"I LEASE you, wench!"
I went once to our friendly neighborhood munch (which used to be held at a
wonderful kink friendly place) with The Sadist Dom (I sure do miss him) and
during lunch I guess my innate cheekiness got the better of me...and him.
The next thing I knew, and much to the glee of the onlookers, he had
grabbed my head by the hair, leaned my head *way* back and was trying to
dom me into submission, which I confess, I was not making easy for him.
He sort of slapped my face (making it sound and look MUCH worse than the
love pat it really was) and said in a low, forceful voice, "WHO do you
belong to??!!"
Whereupon I whispered as I tried to smile cajolingly into his lovely face,
"Well, I belong to me, Sir, but am on loan to you." There were guffaws,
giggles and gasps all around.
And with that, it was all he could do to maintain his macho masterly pose,
so great was his urge to laugh because he truly adored my cheekiness and I
could see his eyes twinkling, but he managed to say through it all, "WHO do
you belong to AT THIS MOMENT??"
Well, after reading this thread I *should* have said, "Why, you lease me,
Sir," but instead I capitulated, saying what he wanted to hear....<g>
I am most certainly going to remember this thread for my next outbreak!
trishah, the...well...sometimes cheeky one....<g>
T. Eckhart
>Besides, with all respect to Serion, I just can't picture myself
>grabbing a sub by the hair, forcing her to her knees, possibly ripping
>her bodice a bit for local colour and growling manfully:
>
>"I LEASE you, wench!"
>
>really, really perverse...
Or you could do like Pearl Forrestor (MST3K) and get a victim and
say "Can I rule you? Please, please, please, please, please?" (that's too
many please probably)
Wouldn't that just draw tons of subs to your feet?
(everyone blink a few times; yes I did actually try to post
something funny)
--
Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips, & Chains,
TammyJo Eckhart (teck...@kiva.net)
http://www.kiva.net/~teckhart/
Information about my publications and samples of my writing can be found at
http://www.kiva.net/~teckhart/publications.phtml
Bob King
> >grabbing a sub by the hair, forcing her to her knees, possibly ripping
> >her bodice a bit for local colour and growling manfully:
> >
> >"I LEASE you, wench!"
> >
> >really, really perverse...
>
<g> High praise... <g>
> Now why am I seeing a car rental office where the following is taking place...
>
> CLERK "Unlimited Mileage?"
> CUSTOMER "No, she'll be bound most of the time."
> CLERK "Additional Collision Insurance?"
> CUSTOMER "Definitely." (brandishes *really* heavy whip)
> this could go on and on and on...
*36 month term of lease, OAC. Some restrictions apply. Lessee undertakes
to provide all non-warentee maintainance. Lessee agrees to maintain
valid insurance at all times during the period of the lease. At the
expiry of the lease, lessee agrees to return submissive in original
condition or commit to full purchase.
**Extended warentee not available on all models. See dealer for details.
--
Spam Policy: If you have something for me as a
fetish site webmaster, tell me. Otherwise don't. You have 3 seconds
to avoid deletion. 1. 2...
--
Katharine
<snip>
>First, I believe you can be a submissive without being a slave, but that
>a slave must always be submissive. I feel the difference between a slave
>and a submissive ultimately comes down to ownership. IMO, a dom may
>control his sub's behavior to a large degree but always within clearly
>negotiated limits and guidelines. These limits do not lessen the depth
>of her submission vis a vis a slave, nor do they make the relationship any
>less intense or committed. They do, however, allow the sub to define just
>how much power she will relinquish to her dom.
>
>On the other hand, I view slavery as an absolute transference of power
>from the slave to her owner. His power is complete in that she has no say
>in what he can or cannot do with her. Now here comes the tricky part of my
>theory which typically tends to cause a clamor in the community - a sub has
>and may use a safeword, whereas I feel a slave does not have this luxury.
I enjoy hearing how others define and interpret key BDSM trigger words
like "submissive" and "slavery" for themselves -- it's always
enriching.
And to add another perspective -- I've gotten to the point where I am
viewing D/s less in terms of concepts like "power exchange" and more
along the lines of "energy exchange".
For example, I distinguish between "being dominated" and "giving
submission" as two different kinds of energies. I like to have both
going on at the same time, so that I feel that there is a balance
between the energy I put out as a dominant and the energy I receive
back from a submissive.
Given this personal paradigm shift, I see slavery as less and less
about some kind of "total" submission; and more about a balanced
transaction between dominant and submissive. For example, I tend to
view "submission" as something that happens in the theatrics of
high-intensity dramas of scene-space (or playtime). It's something
that I enjoy defining and molding in that space, which I associate as
performative and exploratory. In my lexicon, a submissive is someone
who desires/needs/enjoys the experience of another person's control,
power, and to a certain degree guidance for set periods of time.
I don't necessarily see D/s as having a balanced energy exchange. I
find it rare to encounter submissives who are willing to engage in
"non-play" submission; which I typically associate with service-duties
of some kind.
This also alligns with my sense of what the word "slave" means in
non-leather contexts: Property that fulfills a certain use-function.
Of course, that function can be intensely abstract, and even poetic --
the basic need to be perceived by another is a use-function that a
slave meets by building his/her life around the dominant.
Additionally, something as mundane as attending to a dominant's basic
needs (household work, etc.) allows for an intensification of the
transaction between slave and owner: ("By taking care of my basic
needs, you free my energy from myself; giving me the ability to
enslave you.")
>In slavery, you are handing over to your partner the keys to every aspect of
>your being with no limits. You become his to do with as he pleases
>regardless of whether you want or enjoy it. If you are at a point that you
>trust your partner enough to give him this much control, that trust must be
>limitless - you cannot say "I trust you to do w,x, and y but not z". If you
>trust your owner, you trust him to always have your well-being (if not your
>comfort) as his first priority. By doing so, you implicitly trust him
>enough to know that he will never push you further than you are capable of
>going. If that is the case, wherein lies the need for a safeword? It
>becomes a moot point for both parties.
Again, this is just a reflection of a different paradigm than any
statement of "what's right", but I don't see slavery as an extension
of boundaries.
IMX, good dominants and good owners -- whether they play only once a
month on weekends or are always "in role", have a good grasp of their
bottom's boundaries. The way a dominant or submissive relates to the
experience of "boundaries" seems to have less to do with the intensity
of the power-exchange and more to do with their wiring for
risk-taking/edgeplay. I know non-submissive bottoms who will approach
play with extroardinarly minimal boundaries -- and that's not because
they engage in a "deeper" power exchange with their top,but simply
because they have a more intense need for the erotics of "being at
risk" or a more intense need to experience the erotics of "challenge".
I also know non-submissive bottoms who don't play with safewords, for
similar reasons.
This is not to say that in some relationships, the relinquishing of a
safe-word may be viewed as an act of trust and committment; but
sensible people who only minimally eroticize risk and
boundary-transgression aren't going to do this in any context without
trust and committment -- and again, I don't see how that has much to
do with the intensity of the power exchange.
As I said earlier, however, it's less about power-exchange for me and
more about energy-exchange.
Dominating a person fuels a certain need I have -- which primarily
centers around the power-rush of creating a situation where I can
profoundly affect another person's headspace. (This is why I
particularly eroticize headfucking, though I also see things like
encounters with fear, embarrassment, and general button-pushing to be
agents of growth when used correctly.)
Receiving submission fuels an almost entirely need -- to be perceived,
understood, and feel the sense that someone is building their life
around me.
To me, that's the domain of ownership/slavery. I cannot enslave
anyone who isn't proactively, intelligently and perceptively working
to meet my needs. I simply don't have the energy to take care of
*both* myself and someone else 24/7.
--Katharine
Tobie
Bob King wrote:
> Gorgik wrote:
> >
> > Serion Ironcroft (ser...@ibm.net) wrote (in part):
>
> >
> > >But I believe "voluntary slave" still carries many of the
> > >connotations and fantasies associated with the older practice.
> > >Not my cup of tea.
> >
> > Some of us *like* (some of) those "connotations and
> > fantasies," but i bow to your preference. :-)
> >
> > with respect,
> >
> > slave david stein
>
> Besides, with all respect to Serion, I just can't picture myself
> grabbing a sub by the hair, forcing her to her knees, possibly ripping
> her bodice a bit for local colour and growling manfully:
>
> "I LEASE you, wench!"
>
> ...come to think of it, I CAN see myself doing that. But then, I'm
> really, really perverse...
>
:::cracking up::::
ohhh ohhhhh ohhhhhhh please ...PLEASE will you use the PeeWee Herman voice
when you do that?????
*madgigglefit*
sorry, it was THERE...just begging to happen
Sandra K.
Katharine <kha...@enteract.com> wrote in article
>
> <snip>
>
> And to add another perspective -- I've gotten to the point where I am
> viewing D/s less in terms of concepts like "power exchange" and more
> along the lines of "energy exchange".
For awhile now, I have defined my D/s scenes more in the sense of the
energy created, and less and less in the sense of power exchange.
>
> For example, I distinguish between "being dominated" and "giving
> submission" as two different kinds of energies. I like to have both
> going on at the same time, so that I feel that there is a balance
> between the energy I put out as a dominant and the energy I receive
> back from a submissive.
>
Thank you. :) I've been struggling for months trying to understand the
difference between scenes where I feel that "energy" and scenes where I
don't. I think you've got the answer right here. Some subs are only "being
dominated", so I am giving out energy, but not getting any back.
<snip>
> Dominating a person fuels a certain need I have -- which primarily
> centers around the power-rush of creating a situation where I can
> profoundly affect another person's headspace. (This is why I
> particularly eroticize headfucking, though I also see things like
> encounters with fear, embarrassment, and general button-pushing to be
> agents of growth when used correctly.)
>
> Receiving submission fuels an almost entirely need -- to be perceived,
> understood, and feel the sense that someone is building their life
> around me.
Yes, I see the difference. A lot of things are clicking into place in my
mind. I appreciate your taking the time to post this.
Serion Ironcroft
<199807261748...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, gor...@aol.com
(Gorgik) wrote, in part:
>i'm not a lawyer, either, but these categories seem awfully
>narrow to be comprehensive. What about my ownership of
>these words i'm writing? Neither i nor anyone else can
>realistically destroy them once created (people come and
>go, but e-mail is forever <g>), but my ownership is
>fixed by copyright law and can be transferred until it
>expires. How about Microsoft's "ownership" of the copies
>of Windows installed on a zillion computers?
For those who don't know, property consisting of ideas and information
is presently called "intellectual property," and the precise nature of
it is more or less up for grabs, I think.
I don't know that much about it, other than copyright, trademark and
patent law applies. And the permutations can be pretty bizarre.
Intellectual property law itself can get pretty weird, and seems to be
some sort of hybrid between personal and real property. The dividing
line seems to me to be somewhere around the definition of "publishing"
an intellectual property, but that is a totally uneducated opinion.
>Is a work of art "real property" or "personal property"?
>What would happen if the owner of a Rembrandt decided to
>burn it in public? Pets are "personal property," but the
>owners are not allowed to dispose of them at whim. The
>laws and customs limiting what people and corporations
>can do with the "personal" property they own are legion.
You could probably burn a Rembrandt without legal consequence if you
wanted to and could prove ownership. I imagine you'd have some pretty
interesting encounters with the media, but not the law.
If you burned your dog, the community would probably step on you, but
eating your chicken would probably be okay so long as you killed it
"humanely." And you *can* kill your dog under certain circumstances,
but not whimsically. If it were very ill, you could probably put it
down without legal consequence. The difference is that Society has
more interest in preserving the separate interests of the dog than it
does your chicken, so your dog isn't really personal. If that makes
sense.
>Very nice distinction! i like to make a similar point by
>saying that slaves can't be owned outright, only leased <g>.
>Leased property has to be maintained by the user and
>returned to the ultimate owner in good condition at the
>end of the term, and the lessee must provide something
>of value in return for using the property. Whether a
>slave's "ultimate owner" is understood to be the slave
>itself, God, or the community, the point remains that
>owning a voluntary slave is not like owning a box of Kleenex!
Agreed.
One of the things I always try to discover about a potential partner
is whether she owns herself first. If she doesn't, how can she gift
her Self to me?
>Some of us *like* (some of) those "connotations and
>fantasies," but i bow to your preference. :-)
I'm a head-space Dom. I enjoy exploiting the assumptions,
expectations and fantasies of submissives. I get most of my kicks
from the exploitation rather than the fantasies themselves.
Regards, Serion
Bob King
>
> Bob King wrote:
>
> > Gorgik wrote:
> > >
> > > Serion Ironcroft (ser...@ibm.net) wrote (in part):
> >
> > >
> > > >connotations and fantasies associated with the older practice.
> > > >Not my cup of tea.
> > >
> > > fantasies," but i bow to your preference. :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > slave david stein
> >
> > Besides, with all respect to Serion, I just can't picture myself
> > grabbing a sub by the hair, forcing her to her knees, possibly ripping
> > her bodice a bit for local colour and growling manfully:
> >
> > "I LEASE you, wench!"
> >
> > ...come to think of it, I CAN see myself doing that. But then, I'm
> > really, really perverse...
> >
>
> :::cracking up::::
> ohhh ohhhhh ohhhhhhh please ...PLEASE will you use the PeeWee Herman voice
> when you do that?????
>
> *madgigglefit*
> sorry, it was THERE...just begging to happen
...actually, I was thinking of the voice of the butler in Magnum, P.I.
:)
But PeeWee would work...
Stephen H. Underwood
LadyGold <lady...@spamnot.earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 26 Jul 1998 06:16:06 GMT, nob...@xxxxxxxxxx.com (Ed Halley)
>
><slight thoughtful frown> Maybe my understanding of "indentured"
>is not correct, but I thought that someone who was indentured was
>working off a debt of some sort and was, therefore, working
>towards freedom.
Actually an indenture is a contract to work for another person for a
period of time. I do have an indentured servant, as the ownership is
renewed yearly, and in fact the document is termed an indenture of
servitude.
The connotation that it is working off a debt is mostly from
american history, where boatloads of europeans were brought over and
auctioned off in order to pay the price of their passage, but it is
not part of the definition of the term.
--
Stephen H. Underwood hiranu hir...@netcom.com hir...@openix.com
"And we'll meet some nice people later. We call them losers."
- same actress as the quote "All your life." but several years older.
Stephen H. Underwood
>Serion Ironcroft (ser...@ibm.net) wrote (in part):
>>
>>has basically recognized only two types of property ownership
>>- real property and personal property. These pretty much
>>apply to all kinds of animate as well as inanimate property.
>>
>>The essential difference is that real property is linked to the
>>land and the community - property that can't really be created
>>or destroyed, just transferred from one owner to another.
>>
>>Personal property is linked to a person or other similar legal
>>entity, such as an institution or corporation. It can generally
>>be created and destroyed at the whim of the owner.
>
>whatever reason it never hit the newsgroup, so if this is a repeat to
>anyone, my apologies!
>
>Technically, real property refers to rights to and ownership interests in
>real estate, defined as land and other properties permanently attached to
>it (air rights, houses, fences, landscaping). Personal property refers to
>assets owned by an individual and may be tangible (artwork, livestock,
>furniture, cars) or intangible (stocks, bonds, copyrights, patents). One's
>ownership of real property is conveyed via deeds and title, whereas
>personal property is owned simply by purchasing or taking possession of
>it. BOTH types of property can be either created or destroyed at the whim of
>the owner.
Actually, neither type of property can be created or destroyed at
the whim of the owner in all circumstances. In this country, the
construction or destruction of buildings requires governmental
permission in some form, as does deforestation or change in waterflow
through the property. In fact, real estate law is replete with
example of people who 'o'n" the land, but have bought it under
conditions and covenants severely restricting their use of it.
Likewise with personal property, you cannot create munitions or
destroy them on a whim. Breeding of livestock frequently requires
licensure, and mass destruction of animals can get you cited for
animal cruelty as well as health code violations.
The idea that ownership means a form of absolute control over
something was the legal reasoning of the 1600's, which has been
replaced with the idea that ownership is a collection off rights in a
bundle, and that when you have enough of the correct kind of rights,
society says that you "own" the object in question.
From a legal history perspective, slaves has always been chattels,
which is to say personal property. However in different cultures what
limits there was on your ownship has varied greatly. In many cultures
it was illegal to kill or mutilate slaves. So that the branding that
is done by some owners today would have been illegal in that "real"
slavery situation. And you couldn't creat them necessarily either.
The taking of slaves has always been strictly proscribed, and in some
cases the offspring of slaves were free by default.
>>In a society of relatively free individuals, I believe voluntary
>>slaves (a good term, I think) are actually more like real
>>property, even though they're bound principally to
>>community (as participating members) than to land.
>
>As such, I would have to respectfully disagree with this statement, simply
>because people are never considered real estate by any definition of the
>law. A slave, voluntary or involuntarily, is more appropriately
>considered personal property and can be transferred to another by the mere
>act of giving him/her away instead of deeding him/her. We may be just
>talking semantics here, so FWIW...
If we are talking analogies, I think that probably the way in which
people are owned in the SM community is a lot more like real property
than personal property, specifically given the number of people who
are owned under a stated or implied covenant not to transfer
ownership. If we are talking history, then slaves have always been
personal property. If we are trying to be functional, in the current
context ownership is an agreement to transfer rights between people,
and if there are enough rights those two people see the slave as owned.
(Then again, if you believe that ownership is a function of law, and
that you own things because society says you own them, then noone here
is a slave, since the law is fairly clear that such powers are not
recognized in a court, you can't put up your slave as collateral for a
loan, and they dont' take your slave from you when you declare
bankruptcy. )
Fnord Prefect Fnord (the little blue guy)
: Actually an indenture is a contract to work for another person for a
: period of time. I do have an indentured servant, as the ownership is
: renewed yearly, and in fact the document is termed an indenture of
: servitude.
I thought an indentured servant was one whose teeth had been wrecked
by an amatuer orthodontist.
Dryada
>On 26 Jul 1998 04:22:24 GMT, in message
><199807260422...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, socke...@aol.com
>(Sockermom9) wrote:
>
>>I like the term "slave", partially because it allows for a certain amount of
>>understanding in our community. When I tell them, no, I'm not available to
>>play tonight, my master has told me not to" I have an immediate understanding
>>of a) my respondse to the question, "you interested?" and b) my reasons why
>>not.
>>So, for me, it serves a purpose, and serves it well.
I really have a problem with this. If you have to have that complex
a reason to say no, you aren't being very nice to yourself, IMO.
I also see posts like this as sending out a wrong "signal," implying
that you can't say no without "orders from Master."
My younger sister gave "excuses" to guys in high school. She
tried saying she "wasn't raised that way," and in fact wanted me to
stop hanging out with a certain woman my age to bolster her story,
because Jamie had a "reputation." When I laughed at her, she
was real annoyed. But she got over it, and I don't think she'd
dream of offering that lame of a reason now. She would stand
behind her choice, as her right.
I would say that if at the places you go no one will offer the "the
lady said no" routine (if someone does give you a hard time,
that is), then there's a problem with the place. Either that, or it
has a very large crowd. And I think if the person you tell no
gets offended, that is useful information about what kind of a
person they are, and you'd benefit from finding out.
Humor me. Next time, just try saying no, you'd rather not. Even
if it IS "orders from Master." I betcha it's not any harder to get
your point across, and you might learn something interesting.
Who know. If your Master reads this, he might even think it's a
good idea...
Love, and Balance,
Dryada
Sockermom9
>a reason to say no, you aren't being very nice to yourself, IMO.
>
my response to an offer to play would have been "Just let me use the bathroom
first." And, honestly, the only reason I don't accept those invitations is
that my master told me "no play".
So, in a way, I totally agree with you--denying myself is *not* a nice thing!
Can I snip and print that out for him, please?
And, yes, I know that was not what you meant. I was trying to make a funny.
I will grant that, rarely, and only in response to someone who had far, far too
much garlic with dinner, I have used such excuses as, "my mother expects me
home early" to avoid intimacy with someone.
But, if your sister really *wasn't* raised "that way", she was being honest.
Not that I totally approve of "that way" (as if it were any of my business),
but we do live in a culture in which male conquest against female resistance is
a norm and a goal. Guys are *supposed* to be "go-getters", to "stay the
distance" in order to "score" (presumeably against the "opposing" team).
If we did it, they'd call it nagging.
But somewhere between "my mother expects me hope early" and "I told you 'no',
jerk, what part of that didn't you understand", there has got to be a way to
say no and mean it, and be left alone without any hurt feelings.
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.
Dryada
>>I really have a problem with this. If you have to have that complex
>>a reason to say no, you aren't being very nice to yourself, IMO.
>>
>Well, there have been lots of times (lots of times just last night, even) when
>my response to an offer to play would have been "Just let me use the bathroom
>first." And, honestly, the only reason I don't accept those invitations is
>that my master told me "no play".
>
>So, in a way, I totally agree with you--denying myself is *not* a nice thing!
>Can I snip and print that out for him, please?
Of course you can. Now, I don't know what he'll do with it, but
that's between you and him...
>And, yes, I know that was not what you meant. I was trying to make a funny.
Oh, it was fine. Even if it wasn't a funny. Which I understood it
was.
>I will grant that, rarely, and only in response to someone who had far, far too
>much garlic with dinner, I have used such excuses as, "my mother expects me
>home early" to avoid intimacy with someone.
Tch, tch... you see, this is where I get really absurd by some
standards. I would simply say I want to go home now, thank you.
And go to the heavy guns when they get silly (which, *sigh* I
realize a lot of them do...but I consider it a kindness to give them
the info that they are over the top...)
>But, if your sister really *wasn't* raised "that way", she was being honest.
She was being full of it. She wasn't raised any way, i.e., it was her
decision. In which case, an honest answer would have been, if I
understand where her head was at at the time (and I think I do..) an
"I'm not ready for this." Which is what *I* had told a guy about 4
years earlier, and found it flew just fine, thank you, a little bit of
whining, but nothing spectacular. The phony line, and then the
attempting to browbeat me into supporting her line with my behavior
(bwaahaha!) was just one of those, um, comedies from one's
childhood I remember with humor....
>Not that I totally approve of "that way" (as if it were any of my business),
>but we do live in a culture in which male conquest against female resistance is
>a norm and a goal. Guys are *supposed* to be "go-getters", to "stay the
>distance" in order to "score" (presumeably against the "opposing" team).
Uh, but, you don't have to put up with that shit....and the more you
put up with it, the more you support it. The idjits don't get their
opportunity to educate themselves... See my point?? I know, I'm
being a hardass.
You see, when I was in high school (the 60's) the newspaper had
"men wanted" and "women wanted" (or even "girls wanted") in the
ads, and no I don't mean the personals. And, there was a double
standard about sex that was just like, from hell. Now those things
are both a lot better. I know, I talk to my teenager. It's a new
world out there, and it's crazy bitches like me that pushed it
through, by not playing. (see later reference to crazy bitches..)
>If we did it, they'd call it nagging.
No, they call it being a bitch, crazy, etc. Shows you how much
they feel denied, right, that the words are so hostile? But I'm a
nice, loveable crazy bitch. And I find out scads of useful data
about people I don't want to be around at all, like that I really
don't want to hang around with this idjit one more second.
>But somewhere between "my mother expects me hope early" and
>"I told you 'no', jerk, what part of that didn't you understand", there
>has got to be a way to say no and mean it, and be left alone without
>any hurt feelings.
Um, but it's still lying. See references earlier in this post and
elsewhere about how I have this character flaw of total honesty.
Yes, you can try to put it gently, and I've gotten better at that.
But I'm still a crazy bitch...
Love, and Balance,
Dryada
Sockermom9
>elsewhere about how I have this character flaw of total honesty.
>Yes, you can try to put it gently, and I've gotten better at that.
>But I'm still a crazy bitch...
>
really be practiced. After all there's the old "Thou Shalt Not Lie" thing.
But we, as social animals, tend to want to get along together.
The arguement has to do with a butt-ugly bride on her wedding day, who flounces
out in her wedding dress and cheerily inquires, "How do I look?"
The honest soul has to reply, "Well, you look like a butt-ugly bride in a
rather nice dress." The let's-all-get-alonger says, "You're beautiful!"
The compromise? Tell her she absolutely *glows*, since by definition, all
brides glow.
Honest? Nah. Effective? Yup. Would *I* be satisfied with that approach?
Yes, because I don't feel that it's my responsibility to provide total honesty
in service of her "personal awareness and growth" or her being able to someday
overcome her societally-ingrained attitudes toward her appearance.
Lynn
Xiphias Gladius
>The honest soul has to reply, "Well, you look like a butt-ugly bride in a
>rather nice dress." The let's-all-get-alonger says, "You're beautiful!"
>The compromise? Tell her she absolutely *glows*, since by definition, all
>brides glow.
By the School of Hillel, you say that she's beautiful, because the School
of Hillel defines all brides as beautiful.
The School of Shammai works more towards the harsh honesty.
The compromise honors both positions, but we follow the School of Hillel.
Leastways, that's how I understand it.
- Ian
Dryada
>>Um, but it's still lying. See references earlier in this post and
>>elsewhere about how I have this character flaw of total honesty.
>>Yes, you can try to put it gently, and I've gotten better at that.
>>But I'm still a crazy bitch...
>>
>There's an old Talmudic arguement about whether or not absolute honesty can
>really be practiced. After all there's the old "Thou Shalt Not Lie" thing.
>But we, as social animals, tend to want to get along together.
>
>The arguement has to do with a butt-ugly bride on her wedding day, who flounces
>out in her wedding dress and cheerily inquires, "How do I look?"
>
>The honest soul has to reply, "Well, you look like a butt-ugly bride in a
>rather nice dress." The let's-all-get-alonger says, "You're beautiful!"
>
>The compromise? Tell her she absolutely *glows*, since by definition, all
>brides glow.
>
>Honest? Nah. Effective? Yup. Would *I* be satisfied with that approach?
>Yes, because I don't feel that it's my responsibility to provide total honesty
>in service of her "personal awareness and growth" or her being able to someday
>overcome her societally-ingrained attitudes toward her appearance.
>
>Lynn
Uh, but you see, I don't think my opinion of her "base level"
appearance is relevant in this case.
I mean, how are we defining "butt ugly"? One person's butt ugly is
another person's raving beauty. Ergo, since she is not asking ME if
I will marry her, I will give her an evaluation of her appearance sans
my personal appearance fetishes. Maybe that will mean I say she's
very nicely dressed. Maybe not.
Now, if you are saying she fits MY definition of butt ugly, and she
asks me to kiss her, I will decline, telling her she is not my type.
Seems simple to me.
Love, and Balance,
Dryada