The Wulf According to Serion (was The World according to Wulf)
Wulf
On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 20:34:46 GMT, in soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm
ser...@ibm.net (Serion Ironcroft) wrote:
}On Wed, 05 Nov 97 08:29:09 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
}Without commenting on the merits of Wulf's personal tragedy with the
}woman he now calls "Little Lamb", about which he clearly feels very
}strongly, his post contains a few comments which I believe deserve a
}brief response for the benefit of folks who don't have first-hand
}experience with his past behavior on the internet
for the record...the label "little lamb" has been in use since April of
1996...since my first post to asb...and has referred to the same person ever
since..
}>very nearly _all_ of my recovery period has seen me publish a lot of posts to
}>the net...very nearly _all_ of my recovery period I have been under fire from
}>the majority of those who post to such supportive groups as asb and ssbb...
}Wulf both dissembles and understates.
serion selects his quotes with care to make such a claim...
}To explain, he was under fire not because of the intrinsic ill will of
}"the majority", but because of what "the majority" felt was patently
}obnoxious behavior in the newsgroups.
the very first flame war involving me was over the use of the false pronouns
"sie" and "hir", which I refused to use in my essays...It was my refusal to use
them that inspired the very first calls for a PISS...it was remarked that this
was one of the fastest delurks-to-PISS in living memory...all over the
"patently obnoxious behaviour" of using "he" and "she" rather than "hir" and
"sie"...
of course, that _was_ April 1996 and was sparked by my very second post...the
post where I refused the advice handed to me by those who would later come to
ridicule, humiliate, degrade, and marginalize me...
funny, serion, but you weren't around then...so why are you talking about
something when you know nothing about it...?
}His phrase "a lot of posts" understates the fact that he continuously
}and heavily spammed the alt.personals.bondage newsgroup for a period
}of nearly a year, and viciously attacked *anybody* who objected to his
}spamming. There were periods when Wulf's weekly production of
}repetitive spam in APB equaled the output of all other spammers
}combined, INCLUDING the binaries!
Now who twists the truth...?
You once said:
--Well, it's been a big week, what with Chmeee's announcement about the
--proposal for a new moderated personals newsgroup and the predictable response
--from wulf and a few others. I myself have discovered from authoritative net
--goddess Tanith Tyrr that I "continuously misuse a personal ad newsgroup to
--post flames."
--Over the last few days, I've given a lot of thought to that particular
--accusation. I've reached the conclusion that Tanith's opinion is more or
--less beside the point here in a.p.b - perhaps even contrary to the interests
--of the group. The point here is what can be done to warn inexperienced
--people about the reality of an abusive predator in their midst, and that's
--the point of this FAQ.
and according to tanith's response to the above:
-The problem that isn't so easy to see is that as far as the outside Usenet
-community is concerned, there is no difference between you and Wulf on the
-strength of your arguments alone.
here are some facts...
I had a long ad which I had separated into some 30-odd posts, which I would
release over the period of a week, and then restart the cycle for the following
week...
The Alt.Personals.Bondage FAQ mentions frequency only once:
"If you are a man posting ISO a woman, don't be surprised if you get
very little, if any response. the key is to be persistent and original.
(being persistant *does not* mean posting the same ad 20 times in a week!)"
My ISP recognized I was posting one ad a week...and not anywhere near 20 copies
of the same ad in a week...
what serion also fails to mention is that during that time, he and his
'friends' were bombarding apb with flames regarding me nearly daily and often
to the extent of ten to fifteen posts a day...
five from serion and ladygold and five from the hilberts and five from pierce
and five from bill majors makes for 20 insulting posts demanding my
response...and that on top of the portions of my ad that I am posting that
day...
and of course the APB FAQ expressly forbids flaming and strongly discourages
discussion of any kind...apb is neutral territory where we may all run the ad
we wish for the partner we want, within the very loose confines of the APB
FAQ...and theoretically unharassed by do-gooders and other zealots...
for the record...serion's opinion of apb after I left, i.e. the aftermath of
his war against me, was that apb was "a lifeless carcass"...
nice to see that thanks to my sacrifice and willingness to leave rather than
have it subjected to still more of his flames as well as those being recruited
by tanith in ssbb apb has returned to life and vigour...
}>when I _tried_ to move on and run an ad in apb I was flamed to the point of
}>that group's near-extinction...only my decision to stop posting there saved
}>it from the fate determined by the flamers...
}"Tried" to run an ad? <laughing> During the YEAR or so Wulf was
}active in APB, he not only tried but succeeded in posting the
}equivalent of several THOUSAND ads, primarily in the form of what
}became a half-megabyte personal manifesto published in 30-40 parts at
}rate of 6-8 parts per day, repeated weekly.
now for a little reality...the ad ran for 11 months, one copy a week...for a
two month period the ad was broken into seven parts with one post a day...about
56 posts...the other 9 months saw the ad broken into as few as 25 parts and as
many as 35...about 1100 posts for the nine months...
whether _this_ group considers that illegal has no bearing on whether it was
legal in alt.personals.bondage...and as the FAQ was quite liberal about such
things I and my ISP felt the ad was well within the limits of the group...
However, the flames were clearly _not_ within the acceptable types of post for
the group...
The remainder of my posts to apb, and there are a considerable number of them,
were in response to flames which attacked my character, ethics, and credibility
in the personals group where I was advertising...
}Did Wulf "save" APB by stopping his spamming there? Probably so, but
}not from the "flamers", who are all pretty much still around in the
}newsgroup. As is the case here, Wulf's critics and adversaries
}constituted many of the more experienced and responsible people active
}in the group.
this is not much more than self-serving clap-trap...the only posts that did
_not_ belong in apb were the flames ... those attacking me and those defending
me...
}By removing his spamming and personal attacks, Wulf did however remove
}a principal source of trauma in the group, for which all of us still
}active there are grateful. In my experience, removing the source of
}injury is an essential part of healing.
Quite simply the group's existence was being held ransom by the flamers on
condition I leave...the coup de grace left to tanith to deliver here when she
attempted to recruit ssbbers to flame me in apb by holding serion up as a
paragon of virtue for flaming the group into near-nonexistence...
and what a surprise he was in for when he discovered NANA would not let him
moderate a new personals group since he'd been so busy flaming the public
group into "a lifeless carcass" while preparing the moderated replacement at
the same time...
nice to see not everyone sells out...
}Wulf speaks of his present slave:
}>knows such a loss does not heal quickly...she is patient, this one, and
}>encouraging our pursuit for other slaves in the Toronto area...
}And adds:
}>Feel free to drop a line if you think I've something to offer your
}>recovery...help can never be too close at hand at times like this...
}In my opinion, everybody deserves to find their own "beloved(s)" and
}that includes Wulf.
and words are so cheap when so many deeds have been done to prove the
reverse...both serion and ladygold have often commented on what a tragedy it
would be if I were to find my Beloved...indeed...there was a lot of sympathy
expressed for the poster who fervently wished me sterile and unable to have
children...ladygold once speculated that my true desire was to have children,
treat them as slaves, and keep them in kennels...
hardly the kind of words one forgets when faced with the 'mom and apple pie'
statement above...
}It seems to me that Wulf may have begun to learn from our community,
}and I think that can be good for both Wulf and for us.
chuckles...you are living in a dream world...you and your clan have noithing to
teach except through negative examples..."here be people you can learn from by
learning _not_ to do what they do", and brother haven't I used you as such an
example again and again...your lack of the facts is only outstripped by your
pompous attempts to claim otherwise...
}It also appears to me that for whatever reason, he has been making something
}of an effort to mend his fences and moderate his behavior here in
}SSBB.
which is why you and ladygold attempted to close the accounts of myself and my
friends...? what face-saving is this...?
}Nevertheless,
first rule of the cabal...never say something nice about Wulf without a
caveat...those who ignore Rule #1 are punished...
}there remain a number of folks who have found out the
}hard way that Wulf is *entirely* as unique as he presents himself. I
}would advise anyone interested in Wulf, whether seeking his advice, or
}interested in him as a possible partner, to consider their involvement
}thoughtfully and objectively.
and given your refusal to present the facts no doubt they will have much to
think about before contacting you too...
}Whether Wulf has changed his spots or not, by all accounts, the world
}according to Wulf appears to be a singular place - I believe prudence
}suggests caution.
_I_ believe "prudence" _is_ "caution"...and if it is prudence and caution is
what you seek, whatever are you doing in ssbb...???
on the other hand...serion's sewing sircle may be all you can handle...in which
case he's available to you in ssbb...
nice thing about this group...you can write to those who follow in the paths of
their ancestors never looking up to see if there is something _else_ to do or
you can write to people like me who enjoy the freedom of exploring the horizon
and accepting more risks in our lives...
think of serion and his crew as "safe ol' mom and dad" who will always tell you
something is unsafe but never tell you how to have some real fun...
then there are people like me...who are more likely to understand your desire
to get out of the rut and explore life and might have some insights to offer
you that won't necessarily take the risk out of life but help you survive the
pitfalls and learn to climb out of them...
some people _like_ hang-gliding, even if safe 'ol mom and dad would never climb
into one...
}Regards,
}Serion
}ps: I'm not going to get into a public discussion about this message.
}Wulf has stated his case once again, and I have stated mine. But I
}will be happy to engage a civil dialog in email with anyone, even
}Wulf, who might be interested in why I believe a message such as this
}is necessary.
somehow serion, I rather doubt you have much that is civil to say to me...you
have a long history of incivility towards me and I have a looong memory...
Tuesday morning I removed you and ladygold from the list of 'experts' in the
Scarlet Letter for the simple reason neither of you had engaged in abusing
anyone for quite some time and it seemed to me appropriate...unlike pierce or
lawless you hadn't gone to bat on behalf of anyone _being_ abused either...
but you have to go and say something as pompous as all this when you haven't a
clue what conditions were like when the flame war in asb began and then
misrepresent _your_ efforts in the apb flame war as well as mine...
it certainly pays me to have archived so much of that war to prevent this kind
of distortion and revision...
anyone wanting _more_ information on the flame war in apb would be well-served
to use my old ID: "wu...@fox.nstn.ca" to do a search through the deja news
search engine...the group would be "alt.personals.bondage"...
much to the chagrin of my adversaries I included their quotes liberally in my
responses...though they tried many methods for making it very difficult to
track them through deja news, they could not interfere with _my_ archived posts
and so their comments are preserved for posterity within my responding posts...
I too am willing to discuss this privately with those who are interested...even
serion and ladygold if they manage to be civil about it...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scarlet Letter
Caution, expressing support for my opinions and ideas can get you
flamed in this group, and may result in others complaining to your
ISP. At this time soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm is _not_ a safe and
open forum for discussion for everyone and every point of view...
If you have anything nice to say about this or any of my essays or if
you have a question to ask I will welcome your email...
There are many posters here who have demonstrated an abusive attitude
for those who criticize their attacks or who support me in any way...
Here are some who deserve mention:
Anthony or Joy Hilbert - hil...@hilbert.demon.cox.uk
Steven Davis - s...@magenta.comx
Tanith Tyrr - plea...@netcom.comx
Remove all the "x"s from the above list to get the real addresses...
Do not lightly offend these people, or they can make your stay here very
unpleasant...unfortunately most of the remaining posters to this group
tolerate this abuse and show very little compassion for the victim...
If you want to post here I suggest you ask them for their point of view
so that you can know whether your point of view will be welcomed here or
not...Make sure your ISP safeguards your privacy before making contact...
an informed choice is a wise choice...
Janet W. Hardy
LadyGold wrote:
>
> WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
> LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
>
> On Thu, 06 Nov 97 10:22:17 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
>
> >ladygold once speculated that my true desire was to have children,
> >treat them as slaves, and keep them in kennels...
>
>
> Subject: Wulf's Quest 30 - Letters of Appreciation
> From: Wu...@fox.nstn.ca (Wulf)
> Date: 1997/06/18
> Message-ID: <catQwE#e8GA...@mail.rc.on.ca>
> Organization: Wulf's Lair
> Newsgroups: alt.personals.bondage]
>
> "To my little ones who will also serve me as slaves I miss you all,
> cuddling close on the pillows of the kennel and awaiting my pleasures
> and my attention..."
Oh, come on. I'm not a Wulf fan -- quite the contrary -- but even I am
aware that he has fairly consistently referred to his adult female
submissives as his "little ones." Unless there's some other context in
this post than what we see here, I think this is a bum rap.
Verdant
_____________________________________________________________________
GREENERY PRESS -- Reading for the Sexually Adventurous
toll-free 888/944-4434 http://www.bigrock.com/~greenery
_____________________________________________________________________
LadyGold
WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
On Thu, 06 Nov 97 10:22:17 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
>ladygold once speculated that my true desire was to have children,
>treat them as slaves, and keep them in kennels...
No speculation here - just your own words:
Subject: Wulf's Quest 30 - Letters of Appreciation
From: Wu...@fox.nstn.ca (Wulf)
Date: 1997/06/18
Message-ID: <catQwE#e8GA...@mail.rc.on.ca>
Organization: Wulf's Lair
Newsgroups: alt.personals.bondage]
"To my little ones who will also serve me as slaves I miss you all,
cuddling close on the pillows of the kennel and awaiting my pleasures
and my attention..."
Wulf also whimpered:
>now for a little reality...the ad ran for 11 months, one copy a week...for a
>two month period the ad was broken into seven parts with one post a day...about
>56 posts...the other 9 months saw the ad broken into as few as 25 parts and as
>many as 35...about 1100 posts for the nine months...
So that's why Deja News lists 5100 - yes folks, five thousand one
hundred documents of approximately 70 lines or a total of 357,00 lines
of text from wu...@fox.nstn.ca. Even if he were right that he only
posted 1100 articles (as opposed to the system that Deja News uses)
that means each post was over 340 lines!!!
Then he goes on to claim:
>five from serion and ladygold and five from the hilberts and five from pierce and five from bill majors
> makes for 20 insulting posts demanding my response...and that on top of the portions of my ad that
> I am posting that day...
How many documents did I post in the same time frame? 259. And hard
as it may be for wulf to believe it - many of them had nothing to do
with him. Once again he has proven that he simply can not tell the
truth (or that he is incapable of doing simple arithmetic).
I know, I know this is an "insulting post" and he'll just *have* to
respond and no doubt in something over 340 lines but it is very
difficult to sit quietly while someone posts blatant lies.
Why wulf feels he has to rehash (and inaccurately at that) what
happened months ago is beyond my understanding. I have not written a
single line to him or about him on this newsgroup in weeks and I would
not be writing this if he would just stick to the truth.
Perhaps the best answer comes from his own words. Writing about
posting to alt.personals bondage (and cross posting to seven (7) other
groups, btw) he said:
Subject: Re: 813 AREA LOOKING FOR BAD LITTLE GIRLS 20-40 YEARS
OLD
From: Wu...@fox.nstn.ca (Wulf)
Date: 1997/01/19
Message-ID: <5bt9ll$5...@news.istar.ca>
References: <5br7t6$2...@news2.gte.net>
<32eb8034....@news.earthlink.net>
Organization: a
Newsgroups:
alt.personals,alt.personals.bondage,alt.personal.bondage,alt.personals.spanking,
alt.personals.spanking.punishment.alt.personal.ads,alt.personals.fetish
[Fewer Headers]
"Think about it ... are you looking for someone to hate or someone to
love?"
'nuff said?
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
--
"The secret of being miserable is to have leisure to bother about whether
you are happy or not. The cure for it is occupation."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Xiphias Gladius
lady...@spamnot.earthlink.net (LadyGold) writes:
>WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
>LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
>On Thu, 06 Nov 97 10:22:17 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
>>ladygold once speculated that my true desire was to have children,
>>treat them as slaves, and keep them in kennels...
>No speculation here - just your own words:
>Subject: Wulf's Quest 30 - Letters of Appreciation
[ . . .]
>"To my little ones who will also serve me as slaves I miss you all,
>cuddling close on the pillows of the kennel and awaiting my pleasures
>and my attention..."
Okay. I'm a disinterested party. I don't have anything against Wulf, and
I don't have anything against LayGold. I don't have any sort of political
agenda; I don't care about making either party look better or worse.
But I think I really have to offer a heads-up to LadyGold on this one.
LadyGold, you may want to consider just killfiling Wulf and ignoring him
for a while. You're irrational.
You've just practiced intelectional deception of the worst sort. What you
just said is, "Because Wulf refers to submissives as 'little one', he is a
pedophile."
LadyGold, *I* refer to submissives as "little one" sometimes.
What you have just done is demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that you will
make things up to attack Wulf. Therefore, it is no longer possible to
trust *anything* you say to attack Wulf.
Please, LadyGold, take some time away from the subject.
- Ian
Wulf
In article <346458b2...@NEWS.earthlink.net>, lady...@spamnot.earthlink.net wrote:
}WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
}LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
}On Thu, 06 Nov 97 10:22:17 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
}
}>ladygold once speculated that my true desire was to have children,
}>treat them as slaves, and keep them in kennels...
}No speculation here - just your own words:
}Subject: Wulf's Quest 30 - Letters of Appreciation
}From: Wu...@fox.nstn.ca (Wulf)
}Date: 1997/06/18
}Message-ID: <catQwE#e8GA...@mail.rc.on.ca>
}Organization: Wulf's Lair
}Newsgroups: alt.personals.bondage]
}"To my little ones who will also serve me as slaves I miss you all,
}cuddling close on the pillows of the kennel and awaiting my pleasures
}and my attention..."
On May 8/9 serion wrote the following opinion:
-Subject: The Official Woofie FAQ - Current Revision - 5/8/97
-From: ser...@end.questspam.now (Serion Ironcroft)
-Date: 1997/05/09
-Message-ID: <33749943...@news.earthlink.net>
-8. Does he really think he's going to find an adult woman with the brain of
-an child?
-Wulf is very careful to make it clear that he is *not* interested in abusing
-children. Indeed, throughout his manifesto, he seems to revere children. In
-an unusual but apparently sincere reaction to a personal ad posted by an
-apparent pedophile, wulf recently objected with the following comment:
->I seriously doubt your target audience is capable of consent with any idea
->of the consequences consent would bring...
-Still, the search for a child-woman is an old persistent male
-wish-fulfillment dream sometimes incorporated into chudwah fantasies. In his
-manifesto, wulf distinguishes at some length between the innocence of children
-and the innocence he seeks in his "beloved." And yet, in his search for
-victims, he seems unable to comprehend the differences between the mind of a
-child and an adult woman. He seems to crave a form of innocence so childlike
-that an adult woman in such a state would be emotionally dysfunctional.
-One of his victims alludes to this in the following public statement:
->And what you are seeking is a nightmare for the heart and soul of someone
->who does not know any better. YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IGNORANCE
->OF OTHERS - THAT IS WHY YOU SEEK ONLY THE "INNOCENT".
-Perhaps the key to wulf's dilemma with the established BDSM community is as
-simple as his not understanding that any woman who actually qualified as his
-"beloved" would be as incapable as a child of consenting with any idea of the
-consequences consent would bring.
-Using someone without their informed consent is tantamount to abuse, and so
-wulf misses the point at both ends of the question. On the one hand he misses
-the exquisite gift of the submissive - consent in full knowledge and awareness
-of the consequences. On the other, he fails to understand that misusing an
-adult's innocence is very little different from misusing a child's.
yet on May 13th ladygold posts the following:
-Subject: Re: ChrisQuest '97-Was endless rehashed garbage
-From: postmaster@[127.0.0.1] (LadyGold)
-Date: 1997/05/13
-Message-ID: <33807680....@news.earthlink.net>
-Sender: postmaster@[127.0.0.1] (LadyGold)
-References: <336b6e59...@news.earthlink.net>
-<cz68PcA2...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>
-<IcwVLfV...@mail.rc.on.ca>
-<veruca-0905...@dal-tsa3-32.cyberramp.net>
-<KgVRlft...@mail.rc.on.ca>
-Organization: Mirrors, Inc.
-Reply-To: postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
-Newsgroups: alt.personals.bondage
-On Mon, 12 May 1997 09:25:01 -0400, Wu...@fox.nstn.ca (Wulf) wrote:
-reams and reams, but then he said:
-<snip>
->I discovered I am paternal. Repeatedly I have been told I will be a great
->father. I have the patience and tenderness needed to handle small children.
-Yep, as he says in one section of his manifesto:
-"I have been asked many times how will I raise children in this
-lifestyle, and I have maintained that I cannot anticipate the needs
-that will dictate my decisions at the time. I have some basic
-principles, such as not being ashamed of my lifestyle or those whom
-enslave themselves to me, so I cannot see myself moving into the
-closet when children arrive. However, I am acutely aware that
-the levels of comprehension available to a child take time to grow,
-and do not see the need to confuse the child with behaviour (sic) that
-creates difficulties when discussed with those not of our home."
-Read that carefully, folks. Does that sound like a good parent to
-you? Or some guy who really doesn't have a clue what he's gonna do
-when he has kids? And he plans to have kids, make no mistake about
-that. He says:
-"After a child is born each of the slaves in my home will become
-foster mothers in the sense of caring and nurturing the child. This is
-one of the aspects of communal living that really appeals to me...many
-parents and many forms of love and attention for each child."
-Of course the mothers sleep in kennels, so I guess the kids will, too.
-"At night they will sleep together in the kennels of the master
-bedroom while I will take those whose behaviour (sic) have earned a
-reward to be with me."
-Sounds like a wonderful environment for children to me. NOT!
so how does this sub's opinion compare to her dom's opinion as stated
previously:
-Wulf is very careful to make it clear that he is *not* interested in abusing
-children. Indeed, throughout his manifesto, he seems to revere children. In
-an unusual but apparently sincere reaction to a personal ad posted by an
-apparent pedophile, wulf recently objected with the following comment:
->I seriously doubt your target audience is capable of consent with any idea of
->the consequences consent would bring...
On May 15th the following fell out of the blue:
-Subject: Is Woofie a Pedophile?
-From: "unicorn dreamer" <jos...@roadrunner.com>
-Date: 1997/05/15
-Message-ID: <01bc613c$f5a514e0$8d6d3bc6@josepha>
-References: <NvuaZvH...@mail.rc.on.ca>
-Organization: The Santa Fe Institute
-Newsgroups: alt.personals.bondage
-Woofie expresses the following tender sentiments in one of his sophomoric
-diatribes:
-> To my little ones who will also serve me as slaves I miss you all,
-> cuddling close on the pillows of the kennel and awaiting my pleasures
-> and my attention...
-From my perspective as a clinical psychologist and a parent, children in
-kennels (whether on pillows or not) sounds like child abuse, and "awaiting
-my pleasures and my attention" sounds like possible pedophilia on Woofie's
-part. Does anyone else get the same reading on this or is it just me?
and on May 16th serion posted the following response:
-Subject: Re: Is Woofie a Pedophile?
-From: ser...@end.questspam.now (Serion Ironcroft)
-Date: 1997/05/16
-Message-ID: <337ce73e...@news.earthlink.net>
-References: <NvuaZvH...@mail.rc.on.ca>
-<01bc613c$f5a514e0$8d6d3bc6@josepha>
-Organization: The Smoke Island Company
-Reply-To: ser...@ibm.net
-Newsgroups: alt.personals.bondage
-Josepha,
-On 15 May 1997 14:55:52 GMT, you wrote:
already quoted above...
-Actually, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion you draw from woof's words,
-but I don't think it's accurate, at least not in the sense of a classic
-pedophile.
-It's pretty clear to me from his QuestSpam that woof is not intentionally
-targeting actual children - in fact, he writes with what must seem to him to
-be a respectful protective attitude.
-What he *does* appear to be searching for somewhat obsessively is a physically
-adult woman with the emotional and mental make-up of a child.
-To this end, he typically characterizes submissive women as children or
-weaklings. His descriptors such as "little ones," "little lamb," and similar
-others don't refer to minor children, but to the impossible child-women he
-obsesses about.
-I'm personally not sufficiently acquainted with the official parameters of the
-pedophilia deviance to know if such an obsession would qualify as pedophilia
-for diagnostic purposes.
-On the other hand, I can't imagine a worse environment for children than the
-one woofie wants to create for himself. The personality characteristics he
-displays online - obsessiveness, inability to accept criticism, hatred of
-women, paranoia, etc., seem ideal for producing children as messed up as he
-is...
-Anyway, it's an interesting observation. There's been a brief discussion of
-woofie's relationship with children in the last couple of Official Woofie
-FAQs, posted elsewhere in the newsgroup. If you can't find it, email me at
-ser...@ibm.net and I'll send you a current copy.
-Regards,
-Serion
So on May 16th we have serion claiming terms like "little one" and "and similar
others don't refer to minor children, but to the impossible child-women he
obsesses about.", yet today we have his sub claiming there is no speculation
about the fact that when I use the term it means "children"...
In agreement the hilberts post the following:
-Subject: Re: Is Woofie a Pedophile?
-From: Joy Hilbert <hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>
-Date: 1997/05/17
-Message-ID: <CSvwRpAo...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>
-Distribution: world
-X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hilbert.demon.co.uk [194.222.35.149]
-Sender: Anthony & Joy Hilbert <hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>
-References: <NvuaZvH...@mail.rc.on.ca>
-<01bc613c$f5a514e0$8d6d3bc6@josepha>
-<337ce73e...@news.earthlink.net>
-Organization: runesmith
-Newsgroups: alt.personals.bondage
-Serion Ironcroft <ser...@end.questspam.now> writes
already quoted above...
->Actually, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion you draw from woof's words,
->but I don't think it's accurate, at least not in the sense of a classic
->pedophile.
-I don't think he is either (in the sense that he wants to have sex with
-a physical child) but the idea that the children will also "serve as
-slaves" is child abuse imo. Apart from anything else, what will happen
-to these unfortunates when Wulf is dead?
and finally, on May 16th, I responded to the original post:
-Subject: Re: Is Woofie a Pedophile?
-From: Wu...@fox.nstn.ca (Wulf)
-Date: 1997/05/16
-Message-ID: <z6$V5ufY8...@mail.rc.on.ca>
-References: <NvuaZvH...@mail.rc.on.ca>
-<01bc613c$f5a514e0$8d6d3bc6@josepha>
-Organization: Wulf's Lair
-Newsgroups: alt.personals.bondage
-On 15 May 1997 14:55:52 GMT and in article
-<01bc613c$f5a514e0$8d6d3bc6@josepha>, jos...@roadrunner.com says...
already quoted above...
-you know, josepha, I haven't seen too many posts which give evidence of a
-fictional past like yours...
-seems you have chosen to attempt a 'diagnosis' based on a poor understanding
-of my material as well as a decision to _not_ interview the individual you are
-attempting to 'diagnose'...
-not _too_ professional, eh:
-from Wulf's Quest 17 - Helping the Little Ones:
-Helping The Little Ones
-The following words were written between me and a woman who is hoping to be a
-slave but uncertain as to whether she is ready for it. I have received her
-permission to reprint her contribution to this dialog.
-It is provided here in the hopes that others in similar situations will gain
-as much as the woman who wrote me.
---
-As you might have realized had you bothered to actually conduct some
-research, "little ones" is a nickname I have coined for those who are or would
-be slaves, and reflects their child-like ability to trust others...
-Since I've been using the term since last fall and it appears every week, why
-do you suppose no one before you made your 'diagnosis'...? and why are you
-revealing such atrocious research habits and such irresponsibility with claims
-of proof of pedophilia...? were you actually a clinical psychologist you would
-be aware of what a deadly accusation that can be in our society...basing such
-a 'diagnosis' on one poorly understood passage in an ad that spans 38 sections
-seems a bit impatient for condemnation...
-Now, if you want to argue that insanity can be proven through the use of pet
-names be my guest...
-I assume you are not a very _good_ psychologist...
-Wulf
-Still seeking my Beloved Cinderella...
as you can see...the answer is as applicable now as it was in May...
those who want to turn pet names into accusations of child abuse or the intent
to abuse children are WAY out of line...
you just have to wonder what kind of torment they must be going through to feel
the need to do this to people...
anyone still wondering why people don't stay in ssbb...or anywhere else where
these people hang out...while the sub accuses me of the intent to abuse
children her dom defends me as one who shows _no_ sign of wanting to abuse
children...
and the claim that the sub makes today was refuted by the dom in May...
anyone want to guess what game they've been playing with my reputation...?
Wulf
In article <346458b2...@NEWS.earthlink.net>, lady...@spamnot.earthlink.net wrote:
}WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
}LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
The "little one" issue has been responded to and thus is snipped for brevity...
}Wulf also whimpered:
}>now for a little reality...the ad ran for 11 months, one copy a week...for a
}>two month period the ad was broken into seven parts with one post a
}>day...about 56 posts...the other 9 months saw the ad broken into as few as 25 parts and as
}>many as 35...about 1100 posts for the nine months...
}So that's why Deja News lists 5100 - yes folks, five thousand one
}hundred documents of approximately 70 lines or a total of 357,00 lines
}of text from wu...@fox.nstn.ca. Even if he were right that he only
}posted 1100 articles (as opposed to the system that Deja News uses)
}that means each post was over 340 lines!!!
}Then he goes on to claim:
}>five from serion and ladygold and five from the hilberts and five from pierce
}>and five from bill majors makes for 20 insulting posts demanding my response...and that on top of the
}>portions of my ad that I am posting that day...
}How many documents did I post in the same time frame? 259. And hard
}as it may be for wulf to believe it - many of them had nothing to do
}with him. Once again he has proven that he simply can not tell the
}truth (or that he is incapable of doing simple arithmetic).
Let's go to Deja News and take a look at this...
http://www.dejanews.com/home_sf.shtml presents the Deja News search engine...
use "alt.personals.bondage" for the Group..."wu...@fox.nstn.ca" for the author,
and "1997/05/14" as the Start and End Date...
Press the "Create Filter" button...
you get the following information:
Filter size: 20 documents
Newsgroup(s): alt.personals.bondage
Date(s): {1997/05/14 1997/05/14}
Author(s): wu...@fox.nstn.
looks like I was pretty busy that day...
click on the "20 documents" and you see the following list:
1. 97/05/14 024 Re: ChrisQuest '97-Was e alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
2. 97/05/14 024 Re: ChrisQuest '97-Was e alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
3. 97/05/14 024 cmsg cancel <JnYREy8W8GA alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
4. 97/05/14 024 cmsg cancel <YHoqxx8W8GA alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
5. 97/05/14 024 cmsg cancel <GgKjSx8W8GA alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
6. 97/05/14 024 cmsg cancel <a2lpYy8W8GA alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
7. 97/05/14 024 cmsg cancel <F0W4Cx8W8GA alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
8. 97/05/14 024 cmsg cancel <n7a$jx8W8GA alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
9. 97/05/14 024 Wulf's Quest 28 - A #1/3 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
10. 97/05/14 024 Wulf's Quest 28 - A #2/3 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
11. 97/05/14 024 Wulf's Quest 28 - A #3/3 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
12. 97/05/14 024 Wulf's Quest 29 - Rh#1/2 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
13. 97/05/14 024 Wulf's Quest 29 - Rh#2/2 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
14. 97/05/14 024 Wulf's Quest 32 - Mo#1/2 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
15. 97/05/14 024 Wulf's Quest 32 - Mo#2/2 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
16. 97/05/14 024 Wulf's Quest 31 - Sensor alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
17. 97/05/14 024 Re: ChrisQuest '97-W#1/3 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
18. 97/05/14 024 Re: ChrisQuest '97-W#2/3 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
19. 97/05/14 024 Re: ChrisQuest '97-W#3/3 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
20. 97/05/14 024 Re: woofspew 101 alt.personals.bonda Wu...@fox.nstn.ca
20 documents cited in the summary information, and 20 documents listed...
let's take a look, shall we...?
Item 3-8 represent cancel messages I issued for portions of my ad which had
were about to be duplicated...this was a decision I had made thanks to
information tanith provided about how some ISPs retain information for more
than one week...I was unaware of that, as my ISP stored 6 days and I had
assumed the expiry was a week or less...to prevent a build up of multiple
copies of the same portion at sites storing more than one week I began deleting
old portions before reporting them...
so 6 of the 20 posts are cancellations...
Items 9, 10, and 11 are three parts of one post...deja news parses posts to a
certain length, and breaks down long posts into consecutive "documents"...
similarly items 12 and 13 are one post, and items 14 and 15 are one post, and
items 17 through 19 are one post as well...
so 6 cancellations and 4 posts, so far...
items 1, 2, 16, and 20 each represent a post...
so we have 6 cancellations and 8 posts for the 20 documents reported by Deja
News...
of the 8 posts...4 of them are portions of my ad (apparently for some reason I
did not delete those, though eventually I did achieve a pretty good success
rate at it)...
so of the 14 posts that day, 6 of them were cancellations for previous portions
of my ad to ensure they expire before being reposted, four posts were the
latest portions of my ad, and four posts were responses to flames, an
example of which is on display in "Little Ones" - Pet Names or Child Abuse?
so for the 20 documents listed that day, only four posts were made in response
to flames, and in each case the identity of the flamer was identified
whether the flamer's post is easy to find or whether they subsequently deleted
their documents or deja lost them or they are just too difficult to locate any
other way...their attacks are usually available for viewing through _my_
posts...
while viewing the contents of a document...click on the "View Thread" at the
top centre of the document...it allows you to see the chain of posts as they
appeared, linked according to who responded to who's post...makes it real easy
to check who said what to who when...
and of course I wouldn't have posted those four responses to flames had there
been no flames in alt.personals.bondage...a group whose FAQ clearly bans
flames...
back near the end of June serion (ladygold's dom) wrote:
>Well, it's been a big week, what with Chmeee's announcement about the proposal
>for a new moderated personals newsgroup and the predictable response from wulf
>and a few others. I myself have discovered from authoritative net goddess
>Tanith Tyrr that I "continuously misuse a personal ad newsgroup to post
>flames."
>Over the last few days, I've given a lot of thought to that particular
>accusation. I've reached the conclusion that Tanith's opinion is more or less
>beside the point here in a.p.b - perhaps even contrary to the interests of the
>group. The point here is what can be done to warn inexperienced people about
>the reality of an abusive predator in their midst, and that's the point of
>this FAQ.
so apparently bandwidth isn't an issue at all...just another excuse to claim
"Wulf does bad things"...
ladygold would like to complain about the number of documents deja news has
listed for me because the portions of my ad were so long as to span multiple
documents and the number of responses to flames were almost as many as there
were flames...
the number of responses to flames would have been reduced to zero had she and
her dom and their associates not decided to flame me in a group that bans
flames for the purpose of their religious crusade against whatever they believe
to be a danger to society...on what basis aside from self-righteousness will
she justify any of her posts to apb...99% of her posts, if not all, were
illegal according to the APB FAQ, same goes for her dom serion...
if they wish to shout abuse they had best have an answer that justifies flames
in apb, because it's FAQ wouldn't and apparently they didn't believe NANA would
either...
"people in glasses houses..."
Wulf
In article <346458b2...@NEWS.earthlink.net>, lady...@spamnot.earthlink.net wrote:
}WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
}LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
}
the issue of "little one" has a response, snipped for brevity...
}Wulf also whimpered:
the issue of the deja news count has been addressed...snipped for brevity...
}I know, I know this is an "insulting post" and he'll just *have* to
}respond and no doubt in something over 340 lines but it is very
}difficult to sit quietly while someone posts blatant lies.
}Why wulf feels he has to rehash (and inaccurately at that) what
}happened months ago is beyond my understanding. I have not written a
}single line to him or about him on this newsgroup in weeks and I would
}not be writing this if he would just stick to the truth.
chuckling...
In "The World according to Wulf", on Wed, 05 Nov 1997 20:34:46 GMT, in
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm, ser...@ibm.net (Serion Ironcroft) wrote:
-On Wed, 05 Nov 97 08:29:09 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
-Without commenting on the merits of Wulf's personal tragedy with the
-woman he now calls "Little Lamb", about which he clearly feels very
-strongly, his post contains a few comments which I believe deserve a
-brief response for the benefit of folks who don't have first-hand
-experience with his past behavior on the internet
->very nearly _all_ of my recovery period has seen me publish a lot of posts to
->the net...very nearly _all_ of my recovery period I have been under fire from
->the majority of those who post to such supportive groups as asb and ssbb...
-Wulf both dissembles and understates.
-To explain, he was under fire not because of the intrinsic ill will of
-"the majority", but because of what "the majority" felt was patently
-obnoxious behavior in the newsgroups.
-His phrase "a lot of posts" understates the fact that he continuously
-and heavily spammed the alt.personals.bondage newsgroup for a period
-of nearly a year, and viciously attacked *anybody* who objected to his
-spamming. There were periods when Wulf's weekly production of
-repetitive spam in APB equaled the output of all other spammers
-combined, INCLUDING the binaries!
->when I _tried_ to move on and run an ad in apb I was flamed to the point of
->that group's near-extinction...only my decision to stop posting there saved
->it from the fate determined by the flamers...
-"Tried" to run an ad? <laughing> During the YEAR or so Wulf was
-active in APB, he not only tried but succeeded in posting the
-equivalent of several THOUSAND ads, primarily in the form of what
-became a half-megabyte personal manifesto published in 30-40 parts at
-rate of 6-8 parts per day, repeated weekly.
-Did Wulf "save" APB by stopping his spamming there? Probably so, but
-not from the "flamers", who are all pretty much still around in the
-newsgroup. As is the case here, Wulf's critics and adversaries
-constituted many of the more experienced and responsible people active
-in the group.
-By removing his spamming and personal attacks, Wulf did however remove
-a principal source of trauma in the group, for which all of us still
-active there are grateful. In my experience, removing the source of
-injury is an essential part of healing.
-Wulf speaks of his present slave:
->knows such a loss does not heal quickly...she is patient, this one, and
->encouraging our pursuit for other slaves in the Toronto area...
-And adds:
->Feel free to drop a line if you think I've something to offer your
->recovery...help can never be too close at hand at times like this...
-In my opinion, everybody deserves to find their own "beloved(s)" and
-that includes Wulf.
-It seems to me that Wulf may have begun to learn from our community,
-and I think that can be good for both Wulf and for us. It also
-appears to me that for whatever reason, he has been making something
-of an effort to mend his fences and moderate his behavior here in
-SSBB.
-Nevertheless, there remain a number of folks who have found out the
-hard way that Wulf is *entirely* as unique as he presents himself. I
-would advise anyone interested in Wulf, whether seeking his advice, or
-interested in him as a possible partner, to consider their involvement
-thoughtfully and objectively.
-Whether Wulf has changed his spots or not, by all accounts, the world
-according to Wulf appears to be a singular place - I believe prudence
-suggests caution.
-Regards,
-Serion
-ps: I'm not going to get into a public discussion about this message.
-Wulf has stated his case once again, and I have stated mine. But I
-will be happy to engage a civil dialog in email with anyone, even
-Wulf, who might be interested in why I believe a message such as this
-is necessary.
am I to believe this sub was unaware of her own dom's post...?
}Perhaps the best answer comes from his own words. Writing about
}posting to alt.personals bondage (and cross posting to seven (7) other
}groups, btw) he said:
}Subject: Re: 813 AREA LOOKING FOR BAD LITTLE GIRLS 20-40 YEARS
}OLD
}From: Wu...@fox.nstn.ca (Wulf)
}Date: 1997/01/19
}Message-ID: <5bt9ll$5...@news.istar.ca>
}References: <5br7t6$2...@news2.gte.net>
}<32eb8034....@news.earthlink.net>
}Organization: a
}Newsgroups:
}alt.personals,alt.personals.bondage,alt.personal.bondage,alt.personals.spanking
},alt.personals.spanking.punishment.alt.personal.ads,alt.personals.fetish
}[Fewer Headers]
}"Think about it ... are you looking for someone to hate or someone to
}love?"
}'nuff said?
}LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
you know...you just have to wonder why she does this...the complete text for
the post she has quoted follows:
-In article <32eb8034....@news.earthlink.net>, lady...@earthlink.net
-says...
->On Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:20:33 GMT, bo...@gte.net wrote:
->>you been a bad little girl? need a spanking?
->>e-mail me
->>34 year old swm living in tampa fl....
->Ya gonna e-mail me back a paddle?
->Clue #1 Submissives enjoy being obedient - not disobedient.
->Clue #2 In a relationship built on honesty, all that is required is
->that the Dom wish to whip the sub.
->Clue #3 Pretending to be bad in order to get whipped is generally what
->a SAM (Smart Alec Masochist) does - not a "true" submissive.
->For a Free subscription to the Clue of the Month Club, e-mail:
->Lady...@earthlink.net
-This individual has repeatedly flamed the hopes and dreams of advertisers,
-contrary to the alt.personals FAQ LadyGold (formerly lady...@ibm.net) has
-repeatedly demonstrated rudeness and intolerance for any ad she doesn't
-understand or doesn't like...She is making a career out of making others look
-or feel small through public ridicule and humiliation...
-Your decision to participate and encourage her rudeness and intolerance only
-makes these groups less appealing for others to participate...and any one of
-these advertisers may well decide to fire back...and then we have a flame
-war...
-So encouraging ladygold is encouraging a flame war in the group you hope to
-find a loved one...
-Think about it ... are you looking for someone to hate or someone to love?
-Wulf
-Still seeking _MY_ Beloved in alt.personals.bondage...
anyone notice that I was responding to _ladygold's_ post...?
that means I inherited the distribution from her post...
so _why_ is she making a fuss about me doing what she had already done...?
especially on behalf of a group where cross-posting was _not_ forbidden...?
"Wulf is Bad" sez ladygold...
that's all she needs to say to make you believe she is right...
or so she thinks...
her reason or throwing such an obviously foolish mistake into her post was to
encourage me to quote the original, thus presenting her with her 350-line
prediction-come-true...she wanted to claim I'd write a long response and then
she goes about seeding her post so as to encourage a long response, thus
'proving' she was correct...
if accusations were required to take as long to state as defenses we would be
fine, but to insist that somehow rebuttals must be limited to the length of the
attack is ridiculous...
"are too"
"am not"
"are too"
"am not"
anyone get the idea ladygold hasn't yet _left_ the playground...?
so just why is it that the hilberts, serion and ladygold, tanith, and a variety
of posters feel this need to fill the cyber void wih accusations and
attacks...? they certainly seem stupid enough to believe their attacks won't be
met with rebuttals requiring bandwidth...
'duh'...
any of you want these idiots telling _you_ how to do bdsm...they complain
about the consequences of posting flame bait but they post it anyway...
guess they just have lives where they don't have enough to complain about...
serion...I'd have thought you could have figured out how to teach her some new
trick but perhaps you are not the dom you've claimed to be...you certainly
don't seem to have much luck impressing your submissive with your logic
regarding her opinion that I want to abuse children, so I suppose I've worried
overly much about your influence over others, hmm ;-) ?
Judi
Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
>am I to believe this sub was unaware of her own dom's post...?
This may shock you, wulf, but ~SUBS~HAVE~MINDS~OF~THEIR~OWN~. Now,
before you go into cardiac arrest, please consider that these are full
grown adult women, who think, and feel and speak their minds. Show me
a Master who censors every word his sub speaks or thinks and I'll show
you a "Master" who is threatened by his sub's identity as it exists
apart from her Master.
Now, I know this is a foreign concept for you, you of the child-woman,
"little one", woman-who-is-seen-but-never-heard mentality, but
frankly, any dominant who wants a mindless submissive is a dominant
who is insecure.
Since you have mentioned in several recent posts that "this sub speaks
contrary to her master's thoughts" (I am paraphrasing, do I need to go
back and get quotes, or will you admit that this is your meaning?), I
can only assume that you are hoping to make it an issue in this
newsgroup, and are further hoping to gain support for your views that
a sub should *never* have a differing opinion from her dominant ("Gee,
LadyGold has no credibility because she has a mind of her own, and
*that* must mean that Serion has no credibility, either, because he's
her Master!! It must be so, wulf says it!")
Is it possible that your attacks are losing substance (and whether
they ever had them or not is up to each individual reader), and so you
are forced to grasp for straws?
Yes, I know, you will no doubt feel the need to bash away at me for
this, but just do us all a favor: while you're ripping apart my
personality as *you* perceive it, keep the post under 100 lines or so?
----------------
Mistress Judi
----------------
A differing opinion does NOT constitute an attack.
If you wish to reply to this mail, please remove the "NOSPAM" spambuster
from the address!
Judi
bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
>Who died and left you in charge?
No one, Skeeve. Is it your contention that I should never post
anything that might offend *you*? I have obviously hit a nerve with
you, and since my post wasn't directed at you, I am quite surprised by
your vehemence. But hey, if need an automaton as a sexual partner,
then have at it.
My point is that wulf seems to want us to believe that since
LadyGold's opinion differs from Serion's we should discount anything
she has to say as simply contrary and without merit.
>Who are you to tell anyone what type of relationship to have? If *you* don't
>want that type of relationship -- then don't have it!
>
>As far as I can tell, Wulf has *never* asked you for any type of relationship.
Thank god!
>This goes further than a 'difference of opinion', imo.
In what way?
There's a difference of opinion that submissive women have their own
feelings and thoughts? On what planet? And why are you so irritated?
Why is it that a strong woman who states her opinions without the need
for male input sends you into such a fury?
>Of course you may be
>used to people belittling your wants and needs ....
Huh? In what way have I belittled you, Skeeve? By pointing out that
submissive women are just as human as you, deserve to give input and
receive it, just as you, deserve to have their own opinions, just as
you? If this is belittles you then perhaps you were little to start
with.
Skeeve
>
>No one, Skeeve. Is it your contention that I should never post
>anything that might offend *you*? I have obviously hit a nerve with
>you, and since my post wasn't directed at you, I am quite surprised by
>your vehemence. But hey, if need an automaton as a sexual partner,
>then have at it.
>
Yes, you did hit a nerve. And what does it matter what type of sexual partner
I desire. That's not what my post was about.
>My point is that wulf seems to want us to believe that since
>LadyGold's opinion differs from Serion's we should discount anything
>she has to say as simply contrary and without merit.
If you had left it at that, *would* have been a difference of opinion. But no,
you had to continue with the derrogatory comments about someone who *would*
like that type of submissive. This reeks of YKINOKism to me.
>
>>This goes further than a 'difference of opinion', imo.
>
>In what way?
>
>There's a difference of opinion that submissive women have their own
>feelings and thoughts? On what planet? And why are you so irritated?
>Why is it that a strong woman who states her opinions without the need
>for male input sends you into such a fury?
>
That's not the point. I don't care how strong women behave. I don't care what
ladygold and Serion's relationship is like (which they have both made public
knowledge is *not* Master/slave) I could care less how much control any
Dominant has over any submissive. My fury was on you attack on those who *do*
wnat to excersise that much control. For some, micromanaging and having
absolute control over their submissive is their kink. Who are you to say that
this is wrong or bad?
>>Of course you may be
>>used to people belittling your wants and needs ....
>
>Huh? In what way have I belittled you, Skeeve? By pointing out that
>submissive women are just as human as you, deserve to give input and
>receive it, just as you, deserve to have their own opinions, just as
>you? If this is belittles you then perhaps you were little to start
>with.
>
Submissive women are human, but some have the desire to be micromanaged just
as some Dominants have the desire to micromanage. It was your blatant attack
on someone else's kink that ticked me off.
>
>A differing opinion does NOT constitute an attack.
>
No it doesn't, but an attack does constitute an attack.
If you did not mean the comments that I quoted in my earlier post as an
attack, an apology for any misunderstandings you may have caused would be in
order.
Skeeve
Some things are better than sex, and some are worse,
but there's nothing exactly like it.
--W. C. Fields
Wulf
aximus for
chariot racing. They also invented team colors (the four racing teams in
Rome were, IIRC, the Blues, Reds, Greens, and Yellows) and even traded
players.
--
Raj (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
Master of Meaningless Trivia (626) 585-0144
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~raj/
--
Raj (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
Master of Meaningless Trivia (626) 585-0144
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~raj/
^
Wulf
Joy Hilbert
>LadyGold quotes Wulf as saying
>>"To my little ones who will also serve me as slaves I miss you all,
>>cuddling close on the pillows of the kennel and awaiting my pleasures
>>and my attention..."
>
>LadyGold, you may want to consider just killfiling Wulf and ignoring him
>for a while. You're irrational.
>You've just practiced intelectional deception of the worst sort. What you
>just said is, "Because Wulf refers to submissives as 'little one', he is a
>pedophile."
It's hard for me to put things together exactly, without reading all
Wulf's apb essays again, which I'm not prepared to do. But he did say:
-"At night they will sleep together in the kennels of the master
-bedroom while I will take those whose behaviour have earned a
-reward to be with me."
"they" being his slaves.
He also said:
-"After a child is born each of the slaves in my home will become
-foster mothers in the sense of caring and nurturing the child. This is
-one of the aspects of communal living that really appeals to me...many
-parents and many forms of love and attention for each child."
Since he has elsewhere said he is in favour of co-sleeping, it follows
that the slaves and the children will all sleep together in the kennels.
This being the case, "little ones" is at best ambiguous, at least. Why
would he need to add emphasis "who will also serve me as slaves" if he's
talking about his slaves: of course his slaves serve him as slaves.
This is why it's not clear whether "little ones" refer to his slaves or
his/their children.
>LadyGold, *I* refer to submissives as "little one" sometimes.
>What you have just done is demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that you will
>make things up to attack Wulf. Therefore, it is no longer possible to
>trust *anything* you say to attack Wulf.
>Please, LadyGold, take some time away from the subject.
LadyGold should certainly post more complete quotes in order to prevent
this sort of misunderstanding.
--
Joy Hilbert
Joy Hilbert
Skeeve writes
>That's not the point. I don't care how strong women behave. I don't care what
>ladygold and Serion's relationship is like (which they have both made public
>knowledge is *not* Master/slave)
They have? I thought it was. Certainly they present themselves as in a
24/7 TPE relationship.
Are you disputing their definition simply because LG still has a mind of
her own?
--
Joy Hilbert
"Being responsible and ethical extends beyond not committing a crime." - Steven
S Davis
Leona Joy
>Skeeve writes
>>That's not the point. I don't care how strong women behave.
Whew! Do you really mean that?
And thank the Goddess that there are men who like to dominate women
with strength. As my Master is fond of saying, "Who wants to dominate
a doormat? Give me a woman with power <evil grin> that I can take away
from her."
Perfect obedience from someone who has at least as much personal power
as the Dominant is, from what my Master tells me, a very heady
experience. *smile* I believe him.
For me, kneeling at his feet, proffering my power up to him is the
*essence* of surrender. If I were not powerful, there would be no
significant gift to give. What I crave (and have) is a Master who can
handle taking my power and mixing it, balancing it with his own to
make a greater whole.
I have found that many men cannot effectively use or manage the power
they take (if indeed they can get me to the place of surrendering it
in the first place). That is one of the most disappointing things I
have experienced time and again in the BDSM world, those who think
they want but cannot handle a real, live, vital, breathing, thinking,
feeling, *smart*, powerful woman. 3D meat women are much more work
than cyberbabes or videos. Maybe that's it. I really have no idea.
I must confess, I cannot fathom the attraction to a dishrag (apologies
for the emotionally charged wording). Perhaps you could explain what
your kink is and how it works WRT weak women.
Leona Joy
who really wants to know how it is for other kinksters, despite her
obvious biases.
--
The Lioness who kneels.
Wulf
In article <aArvdVAB...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>, Joy Hilbert <hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>
<346458b2...@NEWS.earthlink.net> <ian.87...@xanadu.io.com> wrote:
}>LadyGold quotes Wulf as saying
}>>"To my little ones who will also serve me as slaves I miss you all,
}>>cuddling close on the pillows of the kennel and awaiting my pleasures
}>>and my attention..."
}Xiphias replies:
}>LadyGold, you may want to consider just killfiling Wulf and ignoring him
}>for a while. You're irrational.
}>You've just practiced intelectional deception of the worst sort. What you
}>just said is, "Because Wulf refers to submissives as 'little one', he is a
}>pedophile."
}It's hard for me to put things together exactly, without reading all
}Wulf's apb essays again, which I'm not prepared to do. But he did say:
}-"At night they will sleep together in the kennels of the master
}-bedroom while I will take those whose behaviour have earned a
}-reward to be with me."
}"they" being his slaves.
}He also said:
}-"After a child is born each of the slaves in my home will become
}-foster mothers in the sense of caring and nurturing the child. This is
}-one of the aspects of communal living that really appeals to me...many
}-parents and many forms of love and attention for each child."
}Since he has elsewhere said he is in favour of co-sleeping, it follows
}that the slaves and the children will all sleep together in the kennels.
let me see if I've got this right...?
since I advocate that adults sleep together "it follows that the slaves and the
children will all sleep together in kennels" according to the hilberts...
well, Ian, what do you think...? another case of someone who will say anything
to attack me...? we must be careful advocating adult slaves sleep together
because the hilberts believe it automatically follows that slaves and children
will sleep together in kennels...?
}This being the case, "little ones" is at best ambiguous, at least. Why
"this being the case" without any proof or quote or even ambiguous quote
regarding my attitude towards my slaves and how it differs to my attitude
towards children...?
as in not a single quote showing unequivocally a use of "little one" to
represent "children" anywhere in my writings...
my my, what the imagination can do for some people...
}would he need to add emphasis "who will also serve me as slaves" if he's
}talking about his slaves: of course his slaves serve him as slaves.
}This is why it's not clear whether "little ones" refer to his slaves or
}his/their children.
}>LadyGold, *I* refer to submissives as "little one" sometimes.
}>What you have just done is demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that you will
}>make things up to attack Wulf. Therefore, it is no longer possible to
}>trust *anything* you say to attack Wulf.
}>Please, LadyGold, take some time away from the subject.
}LadyGold should certainly post more complete quotes in order to prevent
}this sort of misunderstanding.
_ladygold_ should include more complete quotes...?
the hilberts quote me as saying "who will also serve me as slaves" and try to
interpret this as somehow being redundant and therefore as having an additional
meaning...
Here is the _full_ quote in its proper context:
-Letters of Appreciation
-To my beloved...I miss you though we have not met and I long for the day to
-hold you and never let go.
-To my little ones who will also serve me as slaves I miss you all, cuddling
-close on the pillows of the kennel and awaiting my pleasures and my
-attention...
-To my well wishers I thank you for your openness and love which warms me on
-nights like this...
-To my detractors...well...if you are still reading this I hope you will find
-more of me to value than my silence...
This is, of course, why the hilberts _and_ ladygold are both listed in my
Scarlet Letter...
such attempts to accuse me of child abuse or the intent to abuse children
simply validates the need for the Scarlet Letter to protect those who are
unaware of the obsessive personalities that freely accuse others for the
purpose of furthering their own political agenda...
those of you who wish to protest this kind of treatment should feel free to do
so...personally I prefer the inclusion of the Scarlet letter as a constant
reminder that many in this group practice and support a reign of terror over
others who post or have posted to ssbb...
It's pretty obvious to me that ssbb epitomizes all that is wrong in
BDSM...obsessive personalities attacking others in a hope of gaining some power
over them through fear and intimidation...
I mean, Ian, just how many people are expected to take this group seriously
when there are people here who can't tell the difference between a pet name
and an intent to commit child abuse...? do these people _seriously_ expect
_anyone_ to ask them a _real_ question...?
ha-ha-hardly...
If this group cannot collectively agree that a pet name is a pet name and child
abuse is something else again then just what kind of respect does it expect
from anyone...? Just how stupid does ssbb have to be to be unable to tell the
difference...? and just how stupid does a poster have to be to risk his or her
reputation to scum-suckers such as these...?
I've added the following to my Scarlet Letter:
- Wu...@idirect.com - accused of the intent to abuse children because I use
- the pet name "little one" to describe adult consensual slaves...
- welcome to ssbb...watch what you say...
think it will help me warn new readers ?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scarlet Letter
Caution, expressing support for my opinions and ideas can get you
flamed in this group, and may result in others complaining to your
ISP. At this time soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm is _not_ a safe and
open forum for discussion for everyone and every point of view...
If you have anything nice to say about this or any of my essays or if
you have a question to ask I will welcome your email...
There are many posters here who have demonstrated an abusive attitude
for those who criticize their attacks or who support me in any way...
Here are some who deserve mention:
ser...@ibm.netx or lady...@erathlinkx.net
Anthony or Joy Hilbert - hil...@hilbert.demon.cox.uk
Steven Davis - s...@magenta.comx
Tanith Tyrr - plea...@netcom.comx
Remove all the "x"s from the above list to get the real addresses...
Do not lightly offend these people, or they can make your stay here very
unpleasant...unfortunately most of the remaining posters to this group
tolerate this abuse and show very little compassion for the victim...
If you want to post here I suggest you ask them for their point of view
so that you can know whether your point of view will be welcomed here or
not...Make sure your ISP safeguards your privacy before making contact...
an informed choice is a wise choice...
Wu...@idirect.com - accused of the intent to abuse children because I use
the pet name "little one" to describe adult consensual slaves...
welcome to ssbb...watch what you say...
LadyGold
WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:53:53 +0000, Joy Hilbert
<hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>LadyGold should certainly post more complete quotes in order to prevent
>this sort of misunderstanding.
You are absolutely correct. I forget that many folks form their
opinion of wulf without having actually read very much of what he
posts. Thank you for posting the rest of the relevant quotes.
~LG
Skeeve
In article <3463e5ca...@news.mastnet.net>, mercur...@mastnet.net wrote:
>
>My comments were not meant as an attack, but hopefully a wake-up call
>to wulf that just because he expects his women to be empty of opinion,
>that doesn't mean that all submissive women should be so, as well.
>However, I don't see why *your* misunderstanding of my opinions
>requires an apology from *me*.
>
Then the comment
>
>any dominant who wants a mindless submissive is a dominant
>who is insecure.
>
is not an attack?
>
>I don't have any problem with someone who wants a mindless automaton
>as a submissive, although I do have the right to question their
>motivations for wanting such, just as all of us are entitled to have
>our opinions about anything we happen to read on this ng.
>
Then why not pose it as a question instead of name calling? It was the *tone*
that made it an attack.
The question 'Why do you want xxxxx type of submissive ?' is a lot different
than the statement 'If you want xxxxx type of submissive, you are insecure.'
>
>What I *do* object to is wulf's apparent belief that because LadyGold
>and Serion disagree with eachother on any particular
>situation/idea/belief, her opinions *must* be invalid, simply because
>she is a submissive and, in particular, submissive to him (Serion).
>
I did not disagree with your position on this as I could really care less
about the exact details of Serion's and ladygold's relationship--That's
between Serion and ladygold.
Skeeve
Joy Hilbert wrote:
>
>They have? I thought it was. Certainly they present themselves as in a
>24/7 TPE relationship.
>
I did not say that they were not 24/7 just that they are careful not to use
the terms Master, slave, or TPE when describing it to preclude any false
assumptions by others about its nature. This is not a bad thing (imo) as every
relationship will be different and not fit in the *mold* forced by labels.
My comments to Judi were not meant to denegrate Serion or ladygold, how they
run their household is their own business. I do not know, nor do I care,
whether or not ladygold has given Serion the right and authority to censor her
speech. My disagreement with Judi was *not* about this issue--that is between
Serion and ladygold.
My disagreement with Judi was over her use of the phrasing 'a dominant who
wants _______ is _______' which I thought was an attack on dominants who want
_____ (fill in the blanks yourself, it is the *form* that could be
derogatory).
>Are you disputing their definition simply because LG still has a mind of
>her own?
As for ladygold having a mind of her own, again, that is between her and
Serion, not my issue.
Skeeve
Who believes that intolerance for *any* valid aspect of our lifestyle in
unacceptable.
Judi
bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
>If you did not mean the comments that I quoted in my earlier post as an
>attack, an apology for any misunderstandings you may have caused would be in
>order.
My comments were not meant as an attack, but hopefully a wake-up call
to wulf that just because he expects his women to be empty of opinion,
that doesn't mean that all submissive women should be so, as well.
However, I don't see why *your* misunderstanding of my opinions
requires an apology from *me*.
I don't have any problem with someone who wants a mindless automaton
as a submissive, although I do have the right to question their
motivations for wanting such, just as all of us are entitled to have
our opinions about anything we happen to read on this ng.
What I *do* object to is wulf's apparent belief that because LadyGold
and Serion disagree with eachother on any particular
situation/idea/belief, her opinions *must* be invalid, simply because
she is a submissive and, in particular, submissive to him (Serion).
----------------
Mistress Judi
----------------
A differing opinion does NOT constitute an attack.
If you wish to reply to this mail, please remove the "NOSPAM" spambuster
from the address!
Serion Ironcroft
>Skeeve writes
>>That's not the point. I don't care how strong women behave. I don't care what
>>ladygold and Serion's relationship is like (which they have both made public
>>knowledge is *not* Master/slave)
>
>They have? I thought it was. Certainly they present themselves as in a
>24/7 TPE relationship.
>
>Are you disputing their definition simply because LG still has a mind of
>her own?
We don't use the terminology master/slave or TPE, mostly because of
the historical connotation of the terms, and the broader confusion
about what they actually mean. I prefer terms that I consider less
encumbered, and so I generally call our relationship "Dom/sub." It is
a broadly based full-time relationship - not only does LadyGold live
in my home and sleep in my bed, she works in my business.
A more accurate explanation of our relationship might be
"owner/property."
I hold LadyGold's Deed of Gift, transferring her Self to my ownership.
The basis of our relationship is that she obediently yields herself to
my control when I choose to exercise it. She is my property to do
with as I wish, and trusts me to use her Self responsibly, respectful
of the value of her gift.
As any owner of an extraordinary property would be, I'm very proud of
LadyGold. She is an excellent woman who does good things, both here
in the newsgroup and elsewhere in her broader life.
Online, she has served as a mentor/advisor for dozens of newbie
submissives, helped track down dozens of spammers, courageously
confronted people who would use our community for abusive purposes.
Offline, she helps me in my business and keeps my home. But she also
serves on a board representing our neighborhood politically, and
commonly volunteers for other community activities. She has worked
extensively in support of abused women in the general population as
well as among our fellow kinks.
With my permission and respect, LadyGold holds her own opinions and
fights her own battles. I try to hold her coat and guard her back
when necessary. I value her advice and rely on her acumen. She is a
prize.
Regards,
Serion
Serion Ironcroft
On Sat, 08 Nov 97 23:07:46 GMT, bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
>My comments to Judi were not meant to denegrate Serion or ladygold, how they
>run their household is their own business.
FWIW, no offense taken.
There's been so much smoke blown around the newsgroup about myself and
LadyGold that I've posted a brief description of our relationship
elsewhere.
We invite anybody who is curious about us to contact either of us with
their questions. A more complete sense about the nature of our
relationship can be found in "Rules For A D/s Relationship" on the
subNATION web site at :
http://www.aadg.com/DsNET/subnation/index.html
My thanks to ^sparrow for the knight in shining armor! <smile>
Regards,
Serion
Skeeve
>
>Whew! Do you really mean that?
>
Yes
<snip of some very good stuff not pertinent to this response>
>
>I must confess, I cannot fathom the attraction to a dishrag (apologies
>for the emotionally charged wording). Perhaps you could explain what
>your kink is and how it works WRT weak women.
>
I have not a clue as to why someone would want that type of submissive.
Just because I defend someone's kink does not make it mine ... It was Judi's
post which implied that. Never once in this whole discussion have I ever said
*what* type of submissive *I* like. To be honest, my experience level is so
low that I really don't *know* what type I prefer. I have ideas about that,
but no firm opinion as of yet.
I have only interacted (RT) with one submissive woman, and she is by no means
a *dishrag*. My objection to the passage from Judi's post was with the
*intolerance* implied by the statement I referenced.
But just because *I* don't personally have experience with this type of
submissive doesn't mean that those dominants who do have any more or fewer
emotional problems than any of the rest of us. Kind of like 'Its Their Kink
and Its OK ...' -- that's still the operative mindset here, isn't it?
Skeeve
>Leona Joy
>who really wants to know how it is for other kinksters, despite her
>obvious biases.
agreeing with this wholeheartedly -- with knowledge comes understanding.
Judi
bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
>Who believes that intolerance for *any* valid aspect of our lifestyle in
>unacceptable.
And btw, (and no, this isn't a flame, Skeeve, just a minor syntactical
note ;)) does "unacceptable intolerance" sounds like an oxymoron to
anyone else? ;)
Ok, so maybe it's getting late and I'm a little punchy... ;)
Judi
bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
>As for ladygold having a mind of her own, again, that is between her and
>Serion, not my issue.
Then why do you insist on calling her "ladygold", when she not only
calls herself LadyGold, but requests that others do the same? Once is
a typo, but you did it several times in your recent post, as if to
point up the notion that *you* think she is somehow less than Serion
(who's online name you were careful to cap everytime you typed it.)
It might be a small issue to you, but to LadyGold, (and forgive me,
Lady, if I misspeak here), it has always appeared to be *quite* an
important distinction.
Your actions show quite a different mindset from your words.
Joy Hilbert
Skeeve writes
>I do not know, nor do I care,
>whether or not ladygold has given Serion the right and authority to censor her
>speech.
Fair enough. I continue this discussion only because you seem to have
edged into a wider subject.
IE, I am no longer talking about S&LG.
I am just wondering whether you perceive the fact that slave X has given
dominant Y the right to censor his speech as meaning that thereafter Y
must _always_ censor X's speech?
I am of the view that a slave can give absolutely all power to his
owner, but this doesn't mean the owner cannot lend some of it back.0
--
Joy Hilbert
Skeeve
Joy Hilbert Wrote:
>
>I am just wondering whether you perceive the fact that slave X has given
>dominant Y the right to censor his speech as meaning that thereafter Y
>must _always_ censor X's speech?
>
No. Whether or not dominate Y excersises this right is up to dominant Y.
>I am of the view that a slave can give absolutely all power to his
>owner, but this doesn't mean the owner cannot lend some of it back.
We agree.
Skeeve
Skeeve
>
>And btw, (and no, this isn't a flame, Skeeve, just a minor syntactical
>note ;)) does "unacceptable intolerance" sounds like an oxymoron to
>anyone else? ;)
>
>Ok, so maybe it's getting late and I'm a little punchy... ;)
>
No, you're not punchy. But not all intolerance (imo) in unacceptable. It is
very acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance ... <g>
Wulf
}With my permission and respect, LadyGold holds her own opinions and
}fights her own battles. I try to hold her coat and guard her back
}when necessary. I value her advice and rely on her acumen. She is a
}prize.
and yet you still cannot convince her that my use of the term "little one"
refers to adult female slaves and not children...
even after all these months since you last voiced an opinion on the subject...
I'm sure those considering prizing _your_ advice and acumen appreciate learning
about the reliability of those whose acumen _you_ rely on and prize...
remember folks...ladygold sez "little one" means "children"...and upon this
judgment am I accused of the desire to abuse children...
of course...advocating the sexual enslavement of children is against the
law...and as we all know be...@idirect.com is willing to take action if
presented with proof that this is what I am doing...
My essays contain _many_ references to "little ones"...most of them in a
romantic/sexual context...
so why is it ladygold has not submitted this 'proof' to IDirect, not to mention
the various law enforcement agencies that take action against such
offenders...?
the convenience of redefining one of the pet names I have used to describe my
adult lovers so as to accuse me of the intent to commit "child abuse" is
obviously too tempting to be avoided...but hardly proof of my "crime"...
one can only guess at the kind of ethics these people practice where
manufacturing evidence for the purpose of accusing someone you don't like
of the intent to abuse children is considered valuable and reliable acumen...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scarlet Letter
Caution, expressing support for my opinions and ideas can get you
flamed in this group, and may result in others complaining to your
ISP. At this time soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm is _not_ a safe and
open forum for discussion for everyone and every point of view...
If you have anything nice to say about this or any of my essays or if
you have a question to ask I will welcome your email...
There are many posters here who have demonstrated an abusive attitude
for those who criticize their attacks or who support me in any way...
Here are some who deserve mention:
Anthony or Joy Hilbert - hil...@hilbert.demon.cox.uk
ser...@ibm.netx or lady...@erathlinkx.net
Bill Majors - bma...@cyberverse.com
Steven Davis - s...@magenta.comx
Tanith Tyrr - plea...@netcom.comx
Remove all the "x"s from the above list to get the real addresses...
Do not lightly offend these people, or they can make your stay here very
unpleasant...unfortunately most of the remaining posters to this group
tolerate this abuse and show very little compassion for the victim...
If you want to post here I suggest you ask them for their point of view
so that you can know whether your point of view will be welcomed here or
not...Make sure your ISP safeguards your privacy before making contact...
an informed choice is a wise choice...
Wu...@idirect.com - accused of the intent to abuse children because I use
Leona Joy
mercur...@mastnet.net (Judi) writes:
>bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
>>As for ladygold having a mind of her own, again, that is between her and
>>Serion, not my issue.
>Then why do you insist on calling her "ladygold", when she not only
>calls herself LadyGold, but requests that others do the same? Once is
>a typo, but you did it several times in your recent post, as if to
>point up the notion that *you* think she is somehow less than Serion
>(who's online name you were careful to cap everytime you typed it.)
Yeah, I noticed that, too. Irritating and quite telling.
>It might be a small issue to you, but to LadyGold, (and forgive me,
>Lady, if I misspeak here), it has always appeared to be *quite* an
>important distinction.
For me as well. I am offended and insulted when someone who does not know me
attempts to create an artificial power imbalance by using lower case for my
proper name. The loser Wulf does that as a matter of course, that's one
of the reasons I killfiled him so long ago.
After all, I have not consented to appear here with my name in lower
case. To deliberately lowercase my name says to me that the poster has
some other agenda, and that he (I have never had this done to me by a
woman, only by "dom" men) is unclear and disrespectful about the
personal limits and simplest desires of others.
Put plainly, it's rude and clueless.
>Your actions show quite a different mindset from your words.
Ugol.
The problem here is, he has said that he does not care about strong
women (I paraphrase his last post aobut strong women), so I think it
would be stupid of us to *expect* him to show any modicum of social
grace or courtesy towards them (us). The best thing we could do, if he
proves to be a total asshole, is killfile him. Then it won't matter
what he says, because we won't see it. And if enough people killfile
him, he'll be invisible.
Or am I wrong, Skeeve? (you'll notice I did you the courtesy of
spelling your name the way you present it. I do this. not out of any
particular regard for you, but because to fail to do so would say
negative volumes about me.) Have you been deliberately insulting
LadyGold by lowercasing her name? Do you have some opinion about how
submissives should present themselves on this newsgroup, or in general?
And do you think you have the right to insult LadyGold in this fashion?
Leona Joy
note: these are proper names, they get capitalized.
Leona Joy
mercur...@mastnet.net (Judi) writes:
>bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
>>Who believes that intolerance for *any* valid aspect of our lifestyle in
>>unacceptable.
>And btw, (and no, this isn't a flame, Skeeve, just a minor syntactical
>note ;)) does "unacceptable intolerance" sounds like an oxymoron to
>anyone else? ;)
Nope. I am intolerant of bigots and jerkwads. I am intolerant of
"Doms" who try to power-over me when I have not given my consent to
interact with them as anything other than equals. I am intolerant of a
great number of things, like rude waiters and bad drivers. Liars. Soda
machines that eat your money and don't give anything back also fall
into that category. Bad haircuts. Abusive drunks. Wulf. People who out
others on the internet. Clay Bond/Asmodeus.
IMNSHO, these are things I think it's okay to be intolerant of. And
this is just the short list *smile*.
>Ok, so maybe it's getting late and I'm a little punchy... ;)
Maybe.....*grin*
Leona Joy
Leona Joy
bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) writes:
>In article <34666522...@news.mastnet.net>, mercur...@mastnet.net wrote:
>>
>>Then why do you insist on calling her "ladygold", when she not only
>>calls herself LadyGold, but requests that others do the same? Once is
>>a typo, but you did it several times in your recent post, as if to
>>point up the notion that *you* think she is somehow less than Serion
>>(who's online name you were careful to cap everytime you typed it.)
>>
>>It might be a small issue to you, but to LadyGold, (and forgive me,
>>Lady, if I misspeak here), it has always appeared to be *quite* an
>>important distinction.
>>
>>Your actions show quite a different mindset from your words.
>>
>My apologies to LadyGold, there was no intentional offense intended.
Umm, Skeeve....? I think I came down too hard on you in that last post
of mine (where I rake you over the coals for being a loutish boor). I
wrote it before I saw this gracious apology. I'm sorry.
>Thank you for pointing this out Judi, it will not happen again.
Wow. I'm impressed. Thank you for making your apology public.
With new respect,
Leona Joy
who regrets her seemingly hasty words.
Skeeve
>
>The problem here is, he has said that he does not care about strong
>women (I paraphrase his last post aobut strong women),
Leona,
You misread my meaning. What I meant to say is that I have no objection to
or problem with strong women voicing their opinions, a big difference from
your interpretation.
The most help I get in understanding my wants and desires and dealing with my
personal demons comes from the posts of the submissives here who are strong
enough to voice their opinions, feelings, and ideas.
Skeeve
>
>Umm, Skeeve....? I think I came down too hard on you in that last post
>of mine (where I rake you over the coals for being a loutish boor). I
>wrote it before I saw this gracious apology. I'm sorry.
>
I assumed as much, no offense taken.
>
>Wow. I'm impressed. Thank you for making your apology public.
>
I was always taught that if you f*** up in public, you make amends in public.
>who regrets her seemingly hasty words.
We *all* make mistakes sometimes.
Implicated
-> Subject: Re: The Wulf According to Serion (was The World according to Wulf)
-> From: impli...@aol.com (Implicated)
-> Date: Sun, Nov 9, 1997 10:20 AM
-> Message-id: <19971109182...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
whoooops...
I just got a newsdump with the rest of this thread, and I see now that
apologies have been made and things have been mostly resolved.
I stand by what I said, but I didn't mean to stir things up by posting it at an
innapropriate time. It's not really relevant anymore, i guess. Sorry.
Cherlyn
Serion Ironcroft
On Sun, 09 Nov 97 14:24:49 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote in part:
>In article <3465f4b9...@news.earthlink.net>, ser...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>}With my permission and respect, LadyGold holds her own opinions and
>}fights her own battles. I try to hold her coat and guard her back
>}when necessary. I value her advice and rely on her acumen. She is a
>}prize.
>
>and yet you still cannot convince her that my use of the term "little one"
>refers to adult female slaves and not children...
For the reader new to Wulfian "logic", please observe the above
interaction. *I* say that my LadyGold holds her own opinions. *Wulf*
complains that I haven't convinced her that my opinion is superior to
hers.
It simply does not appear to be within Wulf's world view to understand
a relationship where two strong people can hold differing opinions and
yet hold each other dear. Unlike Wulf, I don't require that my
"beloveds" be mindless automatons, mirroring my every whim and
bolstering my insecurities.
In the World According to Wulf, the "master" must be supreme and
cannot brook disagreement. If that's his kink, so be it, but it does
not invalidate my opinions or LadyGold's. If he thinks she has
misinterpreted him, then he has every right to engage her in debate.
Not me.
If he thinks she has misinterpreted him, then *he* has to deal with
her directly. I am certainly not going to do it for him.
Wulf continues:
>I'm sure those considering prizing _your_ advice and acumen appreciate learning
>about the reliability of those whose acumen _you_ rely on and prize...
Wulf appears to thinks only in terms of himself, and his own innate
perfection, of course. IMO, he has shown this newsgroup and others
that he respects only himself as the measure of the world - to me, it
appears to be an entirely closed system.
Wulf also appears to be a very smart man in many ways. However, when
faced with situations beyond his understandings, outside his personal
world view, he seems to behave like a feral creature, snapping at the
point(s) of irritation, barking and puffing himself up to make himself
look larger to his adversaries than he really is.
He also typically misrepresents his adversaries in an attempt to knock
them down to his size.
>remember folks...ladygold sez "little one" means "children"...and upon this
>judgment am I accused of the desire to abuse children...
>
>of course...advocating the sexual enslavement of children is against the
>law...and as we all know be...@idirect.com is willing to take action if
>presented with proof that this is what I am doing...
Again, please observe the nature of the interaction. Actually, Wulf
had set up the situation with his own characterization on November 7
of LadyGold's opinions from months ago:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 97 10:22:17 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
>
>>ladygold once speculated that my true desire was to have children,
>>treat them as slaves, and keep them in kennels...
So, assuming for the moment that LadyGold actually did "speculate" in
this way, even Wulf is admitting from the start that her opinions were
not intended to be factual. But when she posts a response to him, he
continues by *treating* her speculations as factual beliefs and
vigorously defending himself against what has now become not her
speculation but her "accusation."
Of course, in the meantime, he has hooked other folks into knee-jerk
criticisms of LadyGold, based on Wulf's characterizations of her,
bolstering his ego and encouraging him to continue.
It's understandable that these folks didn't go back and read all of
his drivel to understand the context of her speculation. After all,
most of the people here have lives that require their attention away
from the computer, unlike Wulf, who seems to have endless amounts of
time to post endless lines of text over and over. And they're
entitled to their opinion, whatever it may be, at any rate.
So Wulf continues:
>My essays contain _many_ references to "little ones"...most of them in a
>romantic/sexual context...
>
>so why is it ladygold has not submitted this 'proof' to IDirect, not to mention
>the various law enforcement agencies that take action against such
>offenders...?
Well, let's see. Could it be because LadyGold's opinion was a
"conjecture" and not a "proof"? Not in the World According to Wulf,
where his principal modus operandi appears to be setting up "straw
man" arguments to knock down opponents with what seems to be his
severely impaired ability to engage in meaningful dialog.
Having set up the straw man and knocked it down, he then berates
LadyGold for not forwarding his illogical nonsense to an ISP about
which "we all know" will take action faced with proof! I suppose Wulf
thinks this "proves" something about LadyGold, but the only thing I
can see that it "proves" is her good judgment in not spreading Wulf's
nonsense further.
He says:
>the convenience of redefining one of the pet names I have used to describe my
>adult lovers so as to accuse me of the intent to commit "child abuse" is
>obviously too tempting to be avoided...but hardly proof of my "crime"...
Of course not. "Conjecture" is not the same as "proof." "Desire" is
not the same as "crime." Wulf is the acknowledged expert around here
at "redefinitions", hm? The one thing a Wulf seems to do best is
bounce, eh? From one redefinition (he calls his lies and
misrepresentations "paraphrasing") to the next.
On the other hand, if Wulf genuinely thinks that conjecture and
reality are one and the same, then that would explain a great deal of
his difficulties with three successive newsgroups.
Finally, he writes:
>one can only guess at the kind of ethics these people practice where
>manufacturing evidence for the purpose of accusing someone you don't like
>of the intent to abuse children is considered valuable and reliable acumen...
And so, the process is complete. Wulf has turned "conjecture" into
"evidence" in yet another attempt to knock down somebody he decided
nearly a year ago would be easy game. His misjudgment, hm?
Admittedly, Wulf is persistent. Indeed, he prides himself on his
persistence in the face of adversity. I suggest that he often brings
adversity upon himself, perhaps purposefully - people rarely indulge
in unrewarding behaviors for long periods of time. Wulf's aggressive,
belligerent confrontation of our online community must have value to
himself, or else he would not persist.
"One can only guess" at what that value may be, hm?
Regards,
Serion
ps: Again, this is the end of my public comments on this subject. I
will be happy to discuss the matter in email at any length any of you
might wish.
Steven S. Davis
C.D. (bo...@no-spam.com) wrote:
: ... but expose me to a confident, professional woman in a Brooks
: Brothers business suit and my mind will race to those scenes....
Ah, Ugol, someone else who thinks a sharp business suit is sexy
fetishwear !
The soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm FAQ is available from the WWW at:
http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm charter is available at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
Both can be found on the SSB Webpage, the URL of which is:
http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The "Welcome to ASB !", almost all of which applies to SSB,
can be found at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
***************************************************************************
Steven S. Davis * ssd...@ot.com * s...@magenta.com * sdup...@delphi.com
http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/intro.html (go to Kinky page, Users section)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judi
*sigh* here we go again.
impli...@aol.com (Implicated) wrote:
>No. What Skeeve is saying is that you should consider minding your own business
> when it comes to telling people what kink is acceptable, and what is not.
My original response was to wulf. Considering the carnage he has
wreaked upon this ng, and upon me and many of my friends, as well,
there is nothing about him that I find acceptable. If that isn't
correct enough for you, then perhaps you should killfile me now, or
simply pass by any future postings of mine. My feelings about wulf
stand, and I won't make any excuses, nor offer any apologies, for
them.
>-> I have obviously hit a nerve with
>-> you
>
>You hit a nerve with me, too. If everybody acted like you did, going around
> judging what is and isn't correct according to their own personal codes and
> agendas, where do you think YOU would be?
Excuse me, but that is exactly what we all do in our daily lives, in
order to find our own code of ethics to live by. We find that
situations arise in our lives... we debate with ourselves on how
acceptable something is to us... we reach decisions based on how we
feel and think... we go on.
Where do I think I would be if I did this? Right where I am, in the
middle of a life which is guided by my personal codes and agendas.
Would you be happier with me if I allowed my life to be guided by
someone else's codes and agendas? Isn't that, in fact, what you're so
angry about in the first place, your perception that I have demanded
that you (or anyone else) live by my standards? I have not... I have
told *wulf* exactly how I feel about him. I don't ever recall
inserting, "Pay attention here, Cherlyn, this is meant for you, too!"
>Exactly. Even though an automaton is NOT what Wulf is looking for, afaik, who
> are you to judge what is acceptable between two consenting adults?
I am, simply, who I am... a person with her own opinions and a
reasonable right to expect to be able to state them. I haven't laid
judgement on two consenting adults, I have told wulf (and wulf alone)
that his version of bdsm gives me (as I stated to Skeeves in a private
email) a serious case of the willies. His idea of bdsm is abhorrent to
me.
Wulf assumes superiority because, he seems to be saying, he is a man,
and any women he addresses *must* expect to be belittled and demeaned,
just *because* they are women. He never asked LadyGold for her consent
to demean her simply for being a submissive woman whose opinion he
didn't like. She never gave it. He just *took* what he thought was his
God given right. In my home, anyone who does this will be vitrified,
period. Wulf has never viewed LadyGold, nor any other submissive woman
that I have ever met who happens to disagree with him, as worthy of
having their own opinions about his odious rants.
Yes, wulf's version of bdsm makes me shudder, and I won't apologize
for that. I believe he is dangerous because he belittles, not just the
women who consent to submit to him, but any submissive woman who has a
case to state about him. He refuses to take a mature argument about a
particular POV at face value... he must do what he can to rip that
woman up by telling her that because she doesn't agree with her
Master, she isn't valid, and by calling her by a name she hasn't
consented to. He is, in effect, trying to use her submissive nature
against her, placing himself above her, as if *he* were the man she
answers to, and bully her into shutting up. He makes the outrageous
assumption that because she *is* submissive, that means she should be
submissive to him by shutting up. This is not consensual behavior, and
every time he tries it, I will be there to grab him by the collar and
tell him to stop it.
>-> >This goes further than a 'difference of opinion', imo.
>->
>-> In what way?
>
>In that you're attempting to force your opinions and ethics on people. If a
> femsub wants to be a robot, what business is it of yours to say that she's
> wrong?
When did I *ever* address submissive women and tell them how to be??
Cherlyn, this post was to *wulf*, not to submissive women around the
world!
>-> There's a difference of opinion that submissive women have their own
>-> feelings and thoughts?
>
>What- you don't consider women, as individuals, strong enough to stand up for
> what they want...you're saying that you know what's best for them?
When did I *ever* say that?? Am I not, in fact, saying exactly the
same thing as you? That submissives DO have minds and hearts of their
own, and that they ARE strong? I think wulf's propensity for twisting
what someone says and then demanding that they answer to that new
version of is wearing off on you.
>Of course
> we have our own feelings and thoughts- but it's not like anybody's forcing us
> into nonconsentual acts of anything. By implying so, you're insulting women as
> a group, by infering that they're weak-willed and domesticated.
I think you must have read someone else's post! I stated, in my
original reply to wulf:
"This may shock you, wulf, but ~SUBS~HAVE~MINDS~OF~THEIR~OWN~. Now,
before you go into cardiac arrest, please consider that these are full
grown adult women, who think, and feel and speak their minds."
How in the world do you get, out of that, that I am inferring that
submissive women are either weak-willed OR domesticated?? In fact, I
am saying just exactly the opposite and if you actually *read* it, you
would realize that.
>-> Why is it that a strong woman who states her opinions without the need
>-> for male input sends you into such a fury?
>
>This isn't the issue _at all_, and I think you know it. It's people like you
> that give feminism, and perhaps even women in general a bad name.
I have no clue what the current feminist agenda is, nor am I remotely
interested.
*I* am giving women a bad name? By fighting for their right not to be
seen as doormats just because they are submissive?? LadyGold, to whom
the original post referred, is NOT, by anyone's standards, a doormat.
She has a right not to be seen as such, even by wulf, who seems to
think that all women, by the very nature of their gender, *should* be
doormats who do and say and think and feel only what their dominant
males wish them to. Wulf is, in effect, attempting to silence LadyGold
and demean her by suggesting that because she does not agree with
Serion 100% of the time she is somehow less of a person.
That pissed me off highly, as I have come to know LadyGold and Serion
through email and chat, and I have no intention of standing by while
wulf tries to bully either of them.
>How
> disgusting it is for me to see the truth being twisted like this.
Indeed, how disgusting. You should perhaps re-read what was written
before you twist anything else.
>Not Skeeve's. You're belittling Wulf's wants and needs (or, more precisely,
> something you *perceive* as Wulf's wants and needs).
No, trust me, it was wulf himself that I was belittling. Considering
his attempts to do the same to many decent people, I don't feel any
need to apologize for it.
>-> By pointing out that
>-> submissive women are just as human as you, deserve to give input and
>-> receive it, just as you, deserve to have their own opinions, just as
>-> you? If this is belittles you then perhaps you were little to start
>-> with.
>
>If you don't want to play that way, Judy, then you don't have to.
Excuse me, but how does saying this constitute as "playing"?
>But if some
> people do, then that's their right. It doesn't make the submissive any less
> human if that's what turns her on.
Of course it doesn't, and why should it? But why should wulf be
allowed to continue to bash LadyGold for *not* being a doormat that he
can wipe his feet on?
>I find it a little distressing that some
> people are *so* closeminded that they see anything beyond their perception and
> threshold as "bad" and "harmful".
Look to yourself, please. You have closed your mind as to why the
original letter was posted in response to wulf's outrageous
assumptions about LadyGold and Serion, and so have deemed *me* "bad
and harmful".
Kevin
In article <KCmLNWA0...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>, Anthony Hilbert
<hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Catholic Guilt writes
> >Most people do not
> >know that feminine shaving has its roots in turn of the century
> >prostitutes who discovered that they got more business if they could pass
> >themselves off as pre-pubescent. Soon other women began shaving and the
> >pediphilic connection was lost as the practice was accepted by American
> >society.
> >
> It is also the origin of the thinness fashion, which started around the
> same time and has been becoming more extreme with every generation.
> It's no coincidence that most teenage anorexia has been traced to a fear
> of puberty.
>
> It has been pointed out that fashions for thinness against curves rise
> and fall in parallel with the swings of women's liberation: the more
> women are competing with men on equal terms, the more the modal average
> male sexual ideal becomes an immature-looking child-woman.
> --
> Anthony Hilbert
Sorry, Anthony. The heroin-chic "twiggy" waifs reflect the fasion industry
itself, not the "modal average male sexual ideal".
Where do we find these painfully thin, androgynous boy/girl prepubescents?
In fashion magazines and advertisements, whose target audience is most
definitely *not* your average hetero male. Women and gay men, perhaps, but
not the beer-guzzling macho men who inevitably get blamed for "demeaning"
women through their purchase of Playboy and Penthouse. And, the last time
I looked, Playboy, Penthouse, et al. still prominently featured healthy,
curvaceous, full-figured women.
Not that their presentation any more accurately displays the norm, but,
given their circulation, it's safe to say that the men of the world are not
generally turned on by women who look like ten year-old boys.
Kevin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tell you whut. I think body piercing is a good thing.
You can tell who's not right by just looking at them"
- Hank "King of the" Hill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Judi
mercur...@mastnet.net (Judi) wrote:
>vitrified,
Yikes, talk about a spell-checker not knowing what the left hand is
doing ;) This should have read "villified".
Anthony Hilbert
Catholic Guilt writes
>Most people do not
>know that feminine shaving has its roots in turn of the century
>prostitutes who discovered that they got more business if they could pass
>themselves off as pre-pubescent. Soon other women began shaving and the
>pediphilic connection was lost as the practice was accepted by American
>society.
>
It is also the origin of the thinness fashion, which started around the
same time and has been becoming more extreme with every generation.
It's no coincidence that most teenage anorexia has been traced to a fear
of puberty.
It has been pointed out that fashions for thinness against curves rise
and fall in parallel with the swings of women's liberation: the more
women are competing with men on equal terms, the more the modal average
male sexual ideal becomes an immature-looking child-woman.
--
Anthony Hilbert
Mathematicians often resort to something called Hilbert space, which is
described as being n-dimensional. Like modern sex, any number can play.
-- Dr. Thor Wald, in "Beep/The Quincunx of Time", by James Blish
Skeeve
>
>Then why do you insist on calling her "ladygold", when she not only
>calls herself LadyGold, but requests that others do the same? Once is
>a typo, but you did it several times in your recent post, as if to
>point up the notion that *you* think she is somehow less than Serion
>(who's online name you were careful to cap everytime you typed it.)
>
>It might be a small issue to you, but to LadyGold, (and forgive me,
>Lady, if I misspeak here), it has always appeared to be *quite* an
>important distinction.
>
>Your actions show quite a different mindset from your words.
>
My apologies to LadyGold, there was no intentional offense intended.
Thank you for pointing this out Judi, it will not happen again.
Denise Judith Penkalski
Well, as a switch, 75% domme/25% submissive, submitting is something very
powerful for me, and something that I treasure when someone is able to offer
their control to me... It means much more than that to me though, it is a
matter of my trust, and truly giving up that power to someone, i.e. play with
someone I am in love with, is something I *need* to be able to do, otherwise,
I feel incomplete somehow. My last significant relationship was lacking this,
and had it been incorporated, I would have been even more devastated than I
was when things ended, but somehow, I feel had it been there, or at least, had
he not dropped into subspace each and every time play was involved (minus 2x's
in 6 mo.), maybe things would have been more cemented somehow, that sacrifice
of self being something shared between us, instead of something I was craving
yet unable to acheive... Just my 2cents.
pantherrr
Well, as a switch, 75% domme/25% submissive, submitting is something very
powerful for me, and something that I treasure when someone is able to offer
their control to me... It means much more than that to me though, it is a
matter of my trust, and truly giving up that power to someone, i.e. play with
someone I am in love with, is something I *need* to be able to do, otherwise,
I feel incomplete somehow. My last significant relationship was lacking this,
and had it been incorporated, I would have been even more devastated than I
was when things ended, but somehow, I feel had it been there, or at least, had
he not dropped into subspace each and every time play was involved (minus 2x's
in 6 mo.), maybe things would have been more cemented somehow, that sacrifice
of self being something shared between us, instead of something I was craving
yet unable to acheive... Just my 2cents.
pantherrr
Implicated
--Denise said:
-> Well, as a switch, 75% domme/25% submissive, submitting is something
-> very powerful for me, and something that I treasure when someone is
-> able to offer their control to me... It means much more than that
-> to me though, it is a matter of my trust, and truly giving up that
-> power to someone, i.e. play with someone I am in love with, is
-> something I *need* to be able to do, otherwise, I feel incomplete
-> somehow.
I consider myself to have a pretty strong personality also, although
I'm almost completely submissive. The problem seems to be that I
have alot of dignity, a high self image, and a very strong will-
but surrendering all of that to someone who can completely
appreciate what I am losing, what he is taking from me, is an
incredibly intense desire of mine. It can be kind of a confusing
dichotomy and makes for some contridiction if I'm not careful-
something like that can be pretty confusing for a top if they don't
know exactly what they're dealing with. (i imagine ;^)
Cherlyn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. Cherlyn : impli...@aol.com .
. the nothing pages : http://members.aol.com/gurlscoutx/ .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implicated
-> >Who died and left you in charge?
->
-> No one, Skeeve. Is it your contention that I should never post
-> anything that might offend *you*?
No. What Skeeve is saying is that you should consider minding your own business
when it comes to telling people what kink is acceptable, and what is not.
-> I have obviously hit a nerve with
-> you
You hit a nerve with me, too. If everybody acted like you did, going around
judging what is and isn't correct according to their own personal codes and
agendas, where do you think YOU would be?
-> and since my post wasn't directed at you, I am quite surprised by
-> your vehemence.
I'm not. I think your comments regarding Wulf warranted what Skeeve said. If
anything, I was suprised that Skeeve contained himself so well.
-> But hey, if need an automaton as a sexual partner,
-> then have at it.
Exactly. Even though an automaton is NOT what Wulf is looking for, afaik, who
are you to judge what is acceptable between two consenting adults?
-> >This goes further than a 'difference of opinion', imo.
->
-> In what way?
In that you're attempting to force your opinions and ethics on people. If a
femsub wants to be a robot, what business is it of yours to say that she's
wrong?
-> There's a difference of opinion that submissive women have their own
-> feelings and thoughts?
What- you don't consider women, as individuals, strong enough to stand up for
what they want...you're saying that you know what's best for them? Of course
we have our own feelings and thoughts- but it's not like anybody's forcing us
into nonconsentual acts of anything. By implying so, you're insulting women as
a group, by infering that they're weak-willed and domesticated.
-> Why is it that a strong woman who states her opinions without the need
-> for male input sends you into such a fury?
This isn't the issue _at all_, and I think you know it. It's people like you
that give feminism, and perhaps even women in general a bad name. How
disgusting it is for me to see the truth being twisted like this.
-> >Of course you may be
-> >used to people belittling your wants and needs ....
->
-> Huh? In what way have I belittled you, Skeeve?
Not Skeeve's. You're belittling Wulf's wants and needs (or, more precisely,
something you *perceive* as Wulf's wants and needs). You're doing it by saying
that this particular kink is invalid. And you don't have the right to say
that, because nobody elected you crusader for their cause.
-> By pointing out that
-> submissive women are just as human as you, deserve to give input and
-> receive it, just as you, deserve to have their own opinions, just as
-> you? If this is belittles you then perhaps you were little to start
-> with.
If you don't want to play that way, Judy, then you don't have to. But if some
people do, then that's their right. It doesn't make the submissive any less
human if that's what turns her on. I find it a little distressing that some
people are *so* closeminded that they see anything beyond their perception and
threshold as "bad" and "harmful".
Cherlyn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pierce Master (Rev)
Since this subject arises fairly often, and usually because someone
says something denigrating about "dishrags" and the type of dom
who would be attracted to them, I thought that I would put in my two
cents here.
I have had relationships with women who were extremely powerful
in all other aspects of their lives.
Their submission to me was a very personal and valued gift.
I also have had relationships (such as my current one) with women
who were NOT very powerful in other aspects of their life and
were, perhaps, submisive to the core.
I have greatly enjoyed both kinds of relationships and the
personalities involved.
I do have a preference, though, as a general type, for the
personality which seems to be referred to as "dishrag".
I don't believe that this neccessarily indicates an ego weakness
in me as a dom - just a personal preference.
I am considering founding SAD: the Society for the Acceptance of
Dishragginess.
If there are any dishrags out there who would be interested in
participating, please Email Me.
(public service announcement - not personal ad :) )
kelfay
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Pierce Master (Rev) wrote:
>I have had relationships with women who were extremely powerful
>in all other aspects of their lives.
>Their submission to me was a very personal and valued gift.
>
>I also have had relationships (such as my current one) with women
>who were NOT very powerful in other aspects of their life and
>were, perhaps, submisive to the core.
Just a thought, but I'm wondering if attraction to one type or another
might be related to whether the dom is more into the process or the
result? Maybe there's no relation, but it seems like a reasonable
connection, at first glance. Then again, I'm not a dom and am merely
hypothesizing. :)
- Kelly
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~kel...@access.digex.net
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger" - Aeon Flux
-- #10 --
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
Pierce Master (Rev)
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:42:16 -0500, kelfay <kel...@access.digex.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Pierce Master (Rev) wrote:
>
>>I have had relationships with women who were extremely powerful
>>in all other aspects of their lives.
>>Their submission to me was a very personal and valued gift.
>>
>>I also have had relationships (such as my current one) with women
>>who were NOT very powerful in other aspects of their life and
>>were, perhaps, submisive to the core.
>
>Just a thought, but I'm wondering if attraction to one type or another
>might be related to whether the dom is more into the process or the
>result? Maybe there's no relation, but it seems like a reasonable
>connection, at first glance. Then again, I'm not a dom and am merely
>hypothesizing. :)
Actually I have had similar thoughts myself. There are various
pleasures involved, one of which is "training", and if you enjoy
training (as I do), then a "challenge" might actually enhance the fun.
On the other hand if you are seeking, in the long run, complete
submission, then "challenge" may not be what you're looking for.
Implicated
-> My feelings about wulf
-> stand, and I won't make any excuses, nor offer any apologies, for
-> them.
Your feelings aren't what's at issue here, it's your expressions of them.
-> >You hit a nerve with me, too. If everybody acted like you did, going around
-> > judging what is and isn't correct according to their own personal codes
and
-> > agendas, where do you think YOU would be?
->
-> Excuse me, but that is exactly what we all do in our daily lives, in
-> order to find our own code of ethics to live by. We find that
-> situations arise in our lives... we debate with ourselves on how
-> acceptable something is to us... we reach decisions based on how we
-> feel and think... we go on.
I wasn't talking about judging *ourselves*, dear, I was talking about judging
*everyone else*.
-> I am, simply, who I am... a person with her own opinions and a
-> reasonable right to expect to be able to state them. I haven't laid
-> judgement on two consenting adults, I have told wulf (and wulf alone)
-> that his version of bdsm gives me (as I stated to Skeeves in a private
-> email) a serious case of the willies. His idea of bdsm is abhorrent to
-> me.
Even if his concept of bdsm is abhorrent to you, do you think that
justifies saying something like the following? I don't.
- Now, I know this is a foreign concept for you, you of the
- child-woman, "little one", woman-who-is-seen-but-never-heard
- mentality, but frankly, any dominant who wants a mindless submissive
- is a dominant who is insecure.
i _know_ what prompted you to write that: you percieved that Wulf
was devalidating LadyGold because her opinion differed from
Serion's. I would agree with you that this is a stupid and demeaning
argument to make. Whether Wulf actually did this or not isn't as
clearcut to me as it is to you, but that's _entirely_ beside the
point that I'm addressing.
In the above paragraph of yours that I've cited, does it look like
you're addressing *only Wulf*, as you claimed? (You: "I have told
*wulf* exactly how I feel about him") No. You say "any dominant who
wants a mindless submissive". Then you go on to label them
"insecure".
There are practices in bdsm that I have a very hard time with. I'll
give you an example- bloodsport. Every time I read a posting or an
article about cutting, it makes me feel physically ill. But do i go
around to people who enjoy this consentually, calling them sick
fucks? No, because I realize it's okay. I realize that they're not
sick. It's consentual, they enjoy it, it's not hurting me, it's
fine. Go for it.
In the same manner, doms who enjoy 'mindless submissives' are fine,
too. I'm sure there have been submissives that enjoy being mindless,
like the sub guy who posted the "Mistress Needed" ad. As to whether
or not that makes them insecure- Who cares? If doing it consentually
makes you happy, it's cool.
-> Wulf assumes superiority because, he seems to be saying, he is a man,
-> and any women he addresses *must* expect to be belittled and demeaned,
-> just *because* they are women.
Again, this isn't the issue I was addressing. However, I'm quite
sure Wulf would disagree with you about your perceptions of his
views towards women.
-> Wulf has never viewed LadyGold, nor any other submissive woman
-> that I have ever met who happens to disagree with him, as worthy of
-> having their own opinions about his odious rants.
If Wulf has a disagreement with someone who happens to be a woman, I
think he has a right to voice his disagreement. Doing so doesn't
mean he's slandering the rights of the woman to have her opinions.
But then again, this *wasn't* the issue I was addressing in my
letter.
-> Yes, wulf's version of bdsm makes me shudder, and I won't apologize
-> for that. I believe he is dangerous because he belittles, not just
How does his belittling make him dangerous, any more than your
belittling makes you?
(You: "No, trust me, it was wulf himself that I was belittling.")
-> He refuses to take a mature argument about a
-> particular POV at face value... he must do what he can to rip that
-> woman up by telling her that because she doesn't agree with her
-> Master, she isn't valid, and by calling her by a name she hasn't
-> consented to. He is, in effect, trying to use her submissive nature
-> against her, placing himself above her, as if *he* were the man she
-> answers to, and bully her into shutting up. He makes the outrageous
-> assumption that because she *is* submissive, that means she should be
-> submissive to him by shutting up. This is not consensual behavior, and
-> every time he tries it, I will be there to grab him by the collar and
-> tell him to stop it.
Again, I would agree with you. I wouldn't approve of said behaivior,
either. But I wouldn't use it as an excuse to insult a whole class
of people by calling them insecure.
-> >-> There's a difference of opinion that submissive women have their own
-> >-> feelings and thoughts?
-> >
-> >What- you don't consider women, as individuals, strong enough to stand up
for
-> > what they want...you're saying that you know what's best for them?
->
-> When did I *ever* say that?? Am I not, in fact, saying exactly the
-> same thing as you? That submissives DO have minds and hearts of their
-> own, and that they ARE strong? I think wulf's propensity for twisting
-> what someone says and then demanding that they answer to that new
-> version of is wearing off on you.
What I meant here was: It's OK for doms to want 'mindless subs' if
that's what they're into. If a woman wants to be a 'mindless sub',
that's OK. I had the impression that you were in disagreement with
me. If not, then I do apologize for the mistake.
-> >-> Why is it that a strong woman who states her opinions without the need
-> >-> for male input sends you into such a fury?
-> >
-> >This isn't the issue _at all_, and I think you know it. It's people like
you
-> > that give feminism, and perhaps even women in general a bad name.
->
-> I have no clue what the current feminist agenda is, nor am I remotely
-> interested.
Neither am I, but the "any male who becomes upset with me must be
doing so because he's intimidated of me" line of thinking is BS that
some aspects of feminism are well known for.
-> *I* am giving women a bad name? By fighting for their right not to be
-> seen as doormats just because they are submissive??
No, by making ridiculous arguments, like: "Skeeve must be arguing
with me because he's intimidated of strong women like me and
LadyGold."
-> LadyGold, to whom
-> the original post referred, is NOT, by anyone's standards, a doormat.
-> She has a right not to be seen as such, even by wulf, who seems to
-> think that all women, by the very nature of their gender, *should* be
-> doormats who do and say and think and feel only what their dominant
-> males wish them to.
I agree, but again, this wasn't the subject of my posting.
-> Wulf is, in effect, attempting to silence LadyGold
-> and demean her by suggesting that because she does not agree with
-> Serion 100% of the time she is somehow less of a person.
I don't agree, but I'll let Wulf speak for himself.
-> >Not Skeeve's. You're belittling Wulf's wants and needs (or, more precisely,
-> > something you *perceive* as Wulf's wants and needs).
->
-> No, trust me, it was wulf himself that I was belittling. Considering
-> his attempts to do the same to many decent people, I don't feel any
-> need to apologize for it.
Ah. An eye for an eye.
-> Of course it doesn't, and why should it? But why should wulf be
-> allowed to continue to bash LadyGold for *not* being a doormat that he
-> can wipe his feet on?
Again, not the subject of my letter.
-> >I find it a little distressing that some
-> > people are *so* closeminded that they see anything beyond their perception
and
-> > threshold as "bad" and "harmful".
->
-> Look to yourself, please. You have closed your mind as to why the
-> original letter was posted in response to wulf's outrageous
-> assumptions about LadyGold and Serion, and so have deemed *me* "bad
-> and harmful".
There seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding going on here,
more than a little bit of it on my part. In some cases, I thought
that you attacking Wulf for wanting to have a particular type of
submissive (which I had a problem with), when instead you were
actually standing up for LadyGold (which you obviously have a right
to do, if you choose).
Whether or not Wulf told LadyGold that her opinions are invalid is
an entirely different subject, an argument of semantics I'm not
getting involved in.
I consider LadyGold more than intelligent and able enough to deal
with such things.
I'm not saying that you're "bad and harmful". I'm not on anybody's
"side". I'm just saying that in an effort to discredit Wulf, your
message came across as ykinok.
Cherlyn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
the nothing pages : http://members.aol.com/gurlscoutx/
Wulf
to use Philip's method of parsing quotes:
>>>>On Thu, 06 Nov 97 10:22:17 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
ladygold once speculated that my true desire was to have children,
treat them as slaves, and keep them in kennels...
>>>In article <346458b2...@NEWS.earthlink.net>,
>>>lady...@spamnot.earthlink.net wrote:
No speculation here - just your own words:
Subject: Wulf's Quest 30 - Letters of Appreciation
From: Wu...@fox.nstn.ca (Wulf)
Date: 1997/06/18
Message-ID: <catQwE#e8GA...@mail.rc.on.ca>
Organization: Wulf's Lair
Newsgroups: alt.personals.bondage]
"To my little ones who will also serve me as slaves I miss you all,
cuddling close on the pillows of the kennel and awaiting my pleasures
and my attention..."
>>In article <3465f4b9...@news.earthlink.net>, ser...@ibm.net wrote:
With my permission and respect, LadyGold holds her own opinions and
fights her own battles. I try to hold her coat and guard her back
when necessary. I value her advice and rely on her acumen. She is a
prize.
>On Sun, 09 Nov 97 14:24:49 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote in part:
and yet you still cannot convince her that my use of the term "little one"
refers to adult female slaves and not children...
In article <3465d76b...@news.earthlink.net>, ser...@ibm.net wrote:
"For the reader new to Wulfian "logic", please observe the above
interaction. *I* say that my LadyGold holds her own opinions. *Wulf*
complains that I haven't convinced her that my opinion is superior to
hers.
"It simply does not appear to be within Wulf's world view to understand
a relationship where two strong people can hold differing opinions and
yet hold each other dear. Unlike Wulf, I don't require that my
"beloveds" be mindless automatons, mirroring my every whim and
bolstering my insecurities.
"In the World According to Wulf, the "master" must be supreme and
cannot brook disagreement. If that's his kink, so be it, but it does
not invalidate my opinions or LadyGold's. If he thinks she has
misinterpreted him, then he has every right to engage her in debate.
Not me.
"If he thinks she has misinterpreted him, then *he* has to deal with
her directly. I am certainly not going to do it for him."
she has misinterpreted me and I am dealing with it...
Regarding your inability to convince her that my use of the term "little one"
refers to adult consensual sexual partners and not children:
You may wish to address this as a simple issue of two strong people holding two
differing views...
But what I and many others see is one person holding an obviously paranoid and
clearly obsessive delusion which requires her to make public accusations of
intended child abuse against a poster here...and her dominant partner
completely washing his hands of the matter as a simply a difference of
opinion...
where is there any sign of "responsiblity for the submissive" apparent in this
dominant...?
"Wulf continues:
" 'I'm sure those considering prizing _your_ advice and acumen appreciate
learning about the reliability of those whose acumen _you_ rely on and prize...'
"Wulf appears to thinks only in terms of himself, and his own innate
perfection, of course. IMO, he has shown this newsgroup and others
that he respects only himself as the measure of the world - to me, it
appears to be an entirely closed system."
I take it you were a little panicky when you wrote this...
perhaps you realized for the first time how you're abilities are reflected in
the opinions of those who have vowed to serve you...
"Wulf also appears to be a very smart man in many ways. However, when
faced with situations beyond his understandings, outside his personal
world view, he seems to behave like a feral creature, snapping at the
point(s) of irritation, barking and puffing himself up to make himself
look larger to his adversaries than he really is."
I have lived a nice long life so far and I seriously doubt you are in any
position to know what my "personal world view" is aside from the portions I
have expressed here on the net...and that for only a fraction of my life...
your beliefs about how I deal with the strange and unexplained are laughable at
best...you've no experience with me aside from my responses to your
flames...and they are long past being strange or unexplained for me...
"He also typically misrepresents his adversaries in an attempt to knock
them down to his size."
>On Sun, 09 Nov 97 14:24:49 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote in part:
remember folks...ladygold sez "little one" means "children"...and upon this
judgment am I accused of the desire to abuse children...
of course...advocating the sexual enslavement of children is against the
law...and as we all know be...@idirect.com is willing to take action if
presented with proof that this is what I am doing...
In article <3465d76b...@news.earthlink.net>, ser...@ibm.net responded:
"Again, please observe the nature of the interaction. Actually, Wulf
had set up the situation with his own characterization on November 7
of LadyGold's opinions from months ago:"
}>On Thu, 06 Nov 97 10:22:17 GMT, Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
}>>ladygold once speculated that my true desire was to have children,
}>>treat them as slaves, and keep them in kennels...
"So, assuming for the moment that LadyGold actually did "speculate" in
this way, even Wulf is admitting from the start that her opinions were
not intended to be factual. But when she posts a response to him, he
continues by *treating* her speculations as factual beliefs and
vigorously defending himself against what has now become not her
speculation but her "accusation.""
as the quote from ladygold at the top of this post demonstrates, ladygold
corrected my use of the word "speculated" by claiming there was "no speculation
about it"...
so how shall we view serion's 'assumption for the moment' "that ladygold
actually did "speculate" in this way"...?
and his attempt to use _my_ characterization of what ladygold had done
to prove her intent was "speculation" ("even Wulf is admitting from the start
that her opinions were not intended to be factual" - ah yes, but ladygold left
us with "no speculation here - just your words", serion...)
Wulf:
"ladygold once speculated that my true desire was to have children,
treat them as slaves, and keep them in kennels..."
ladygold:
"No speculation here - just your words"
obviously the "speculation" had become an "accusation"...
so what shall we make of serion's attempt to defend ladygold at my expense...?
"Of course, in the meantime, he has hooked other folks into knee-jerk
criticisms of LadyGold, based on Wulf's characterizations of her,
bolstering his ego and encouraging him to continue."
I suppose this is the point when I am expected to say "serion is just whining
about the lack of popularity associated with his and ladygold's ethics,
again"...
"It's understandable that these folks didn't go back and read all of
his drivel to understand the context of her speculation. After all,
most of the people here have lives that require their attention away
from the computer, unlike Wulf, who seems to have endless amounts of
time to post endless lines of text over and over. And they're
entitled to their opinion, whatever it may be, at any rate."
ah...the old "the proof is buried in the archives somewhere but I can't be
bothered finding it but trust me 'little ones' means kids" excuse...
would you mind getting your ducks in order _before_ you start charging people
with the intent to abuse kids...? some of us consider such obvious delusions as
ladygold's completely dangerous to each and every one of us, for none of us are
safe when someone starts making up 'proof' about child abuse to 'get' someone
they don't like...
who is next on ladygold's hate list...? louise, perhaps...? maybe she won't
like the attention you give Cherlyn...? maybe Skeeve will speak out against
her...?
who is next target for her fear-mongering...?
"So Wulf continues:
}>My essays contain _many_ references to "little ones"...most of them in a
}>romantic/sexual context...
}>so why is it ladygold has not submitted this 'proof' to IDirect, not to
}>mention the various law enforcement agencies that take action against such
}>offenders...?
}Well, let's see. Could it be because LadyGold's opinion was a
}"conjecture" and not a "proof"? Not in the World According to Wulf,
}where his principal modus operandi appears to be setting up "straw
}man" arguments to knock down opponents with what seems to be his
}severely impaired ability to engage in meaningful dialog.
we've already been through the fact that ladygold confirmed this was no
speculation but an accusation...
so serion's attempt to address my "principal modus operandi" is simply using
your ignorance of what ladygold posted to fool you into believing he is
describing me factually...
one sets me up so the other can knock me down...or so the theory goes...
}Having set up the straw man and knocked it down, he then berates
}LadyGold for not forwarding his illogical nonsense to an ISP about
}which "we all know" will take action faced with proof! I suppose Wulf
}thinks this "proves" something about LadyGold, but the only thing I
}can see that it "proves" is her good judgment in not spreading Wulf's
}nonsense further.
since I originally described her statements as "speculation" serion must be
speaking of _this_ "nonsense", because everything I have said about ladygold
since was with full knowledge of her objection to the use of the word
"speculation" and her belief that the quote she provided was proof of her
claims about my intentions towards children...
}He says:
}>the convenience of redefining one of the pet names I have used to describe my
}>adult lovers so as to accuse me of the intent to commit "child abuse" is
}>obviously too tempting to be avoided...but hardly proof of my "crime"...
}Of course not. "Conjecture" is not the same as "proof." "Desire" is
}not the same as "crime." Wulf is the acknowledged expert around here
}at "redefinitions", hm? The one thing a Wulf seems to do best is
}bounce, eh? From one redefinition (he calls his lies and
}misrepresentations "paraphrasing") to the next.
Ladygold sez: "No speculation here - just your words"...
}On the other hand, if Wulf genuinely thinks that conjecture and
}reality are one and the same, then that would explain a great deal of
}his difficulties with three successive newsgroups.
one can only wonder if these two people even talk to each other...I seem to be
better informed about ladygold's accusations of child abuse than her dom...
if _you_ were a dom wouldn't _you_ want to be involved in such
accusations...???
}Finally, he writes:
}>one can only guess at the kind of ethics these people practice where
}>manufacturing evidence for the purpose of accusing someone you don't like
}>of the intent to abuse children is considered valuable and reliable acumen...
}And so, the process is complete. Wulf has turned "conjecture" into
}"evidence" in yet another attempt to knock down somebody he decided
}nearly a year ago would be easy game. His misjudgment, hm?
Ladygold sez: "No speculation here - just your words"...
}Admittedly, Wulf is persistent. Indeed, he prides himself on his
}persistence in the face of adversity. I suggest that he often brings
}adversity upon himself, perhaps purposefully - people rarely indulge
}in unrewarding behaviors for long periods of time. Wulf's aggressive,
}belligerent confrontation of our online community must have value to
}himself, or else he would not persist.
I am glad you include the rest of ssbb in "your" community, serion...given the
way you have demonstrated your ethics I would certainly want no part of it...
fortunately ssbb is a "public" group which means it doesn't "belong" to your
community...so it's usefullness as a place to teach the meek and submissive how
to recognize and deal with abusive personalities such as yours is _beyond_
compare...
}"One can only guess" at what that value may be, hm?
no doubt there are a _lot_ of safer people thanks to my refusal to join your
"online community"...your ability to abuse depends upon you being able to
silence your opposition...my ability to educate depends upon my refusal to be
silenced...
}Regards,
}Serion
}ps: Again, this is the end of my public comments on this subject. I
}will be happy to discuss the matter in email at any length any of you
}might wish.
In secrecy...where his deceit won't be challenged by me ;-)
Judi
I was going to try and answer this post point by point, in a
reasonable tone, with the intent to discuss mature subjects in a
mature manner, and then I reached the "But do i go
around to people who enjoy this consentually, calling them sick
"insecure", in describing wulf. I NEVER called anyone a "sick fuck"
for wiiwd, and at that point I became so fed up with Cherlyn twisting
what I have said in order to try and prove her point, that I have
given up the idea of having any further discussion with her about
this. It is difficult to discuss something with someone who hears only
what they want, makes assumptions that don't apply and then demands an
explanation for all of it.
As I have said before, I hate being misquoted, and because, Cherlyn,
this is all you seem to be able to do on this subject (or maybe it's
just with me that you do this, I don't know), I don't feel responsible
to discuss anything more with you, except to take issue with one other
thing:
impli...@aol.com (Implicated) wrote:
>I wasn't talking about judging *ourselves*, dear,
Please don't call me "dear". Since you don't (and have no reason to)
hold me dear, your usage of it is merely condescending.
Implicated
--Judi said:
-> I was going to try and answer this post point by point, in a
-> reasonable tone, with the intent to discuss mature subjects in a
-> mature manner, and then I reached the "But do i go
-> around to people who enjoy this consentually, calling them sick
-> fucks?" part of Cherlyn's post, and saw red.
I wasn't insinuating that this was your attitude, or that you would ever call
someone a 'sick fuck'. I was merely making a point- and my point was, anyone
can choose to express their personal squicks in a base fashion at the expense
of those who are into it- But, it's not a good thing to do, because it offends
people whom are outside our acceptance merely because they enjoy something
which we do not.
-> I used the word
-> "insecure", in describing wulf.
Actually, you used it to describe potentially a whole lot of people.
-> I NEVER called anyone a "sick fuck"
-> for wiiwd,
I never said you did. If that was the meaning you drew from my words, let me
reassure that it was unintended.
-> and at that point I became so fed up with Cherlyn twisting
-> what I have said in order to try and prove her point, that I have
-> given up the idea of having any further discussion with her about
-> this.
That's unfortunate.
-> It is difficult to discuss something with someone who hears only
-> what they want, makes assumptions that don't apply and then demands an
-> explanation for all of it.
I haven't demanded anything.
-> As I have said before, I hate being misquoted, and because, Cherlyn,
-> this is all you seem to be able to do on this subject (or maybe it's
-> just with me that you do this, I don't know)
I believe I've quoted you verbatim and in-context.
-> I don't feel responsible
-> to discuss anything more with you
Certainly your perogative.
except to take issue with one other
-> thing:
->
-> impli...@aol.com (Implicated) wrote:
-> >I wasn't talking about judging *ourselves*, dear,
->
-> Please don't call me "dear". Since you don't (and have no reason to)
-> hold me dear, your usage of it is merely condescending.
Well, I don't harbor any resentment. I understand how you could potentially
have taken unintended meanings from my words, which could cause you to become
somewhat distressed. I hope that this posting has relieved you of your
concern. If so, I'd be happy to continue to discuss this in a mature fashion.
If not, I more than understand.
LadyGold
WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 11:16:37 GMT, am...@tpe.com (Amity) wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 01:19:34 GMT, ser...@ibm.net (Serion Ironcroft)
>wrote:
<snip>
>One of the problems with "net stuff" is that we fail to realize that
>the folks behind the nicks are real people who live in a real world.
>Mule and I have met and lunched with LG and Serion and although that
>doesn't qualify as *really* knowing them (not yet anyway, we have to
>eat dessert first to *truly* know others because without seeing
>someone's reaction to chocolate, you just don't *really* know them),
>it's one step farther than y'all who know 'em (and make decisions
>about 'em) merely from this ng.
To paraphrase Garfield, "I never met a chocolate I didn't like!"
Serion has even acknowledged it as a "mind-altering drug". Under its
influence, I don't mind altering much of anything!
>
>So.... at the risk of pontificating....
>
>LG and Serion are real.
>
>In public, they are lovely, wonderful, talented people who have lots
>to say, great things to talk about, are charming, witty, like and
>respect each other and are (dare I say it? Aw heck....) ... fun!
Thanks for your very kind words. We enjoyed meeting you folks, too
and plan on doing it again. I'm not quite in Tanith's league as a
gourmet cook, but I do get good reviews. Perhaps you and da Mule
would like to visit Chez Ironcroft some evening.
>
>What goes on behind their closed doors and the way they choose to live
>their lives ain't none of my business.
>
>Hey, isn't THAT what THIS is all about?
>
>Amity
><going back to basics>
There are lots of very nifty folks out there who also are "cackling,
sicko perverts" and even the ones with whom I've disagreed from time
to time are unique and interesting people. I've enjoyed meeting them
all.
~LG
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
--
"The secret of being miserable is to have leisure to bother about whether
you are happy or not. The cure for it is occupation."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Anthony Hilbert
Implicated writes
>I consider myself to have a pretty strong personality also, although
>I'm almost completely submissive.
The best kind. In my wholly personal opinion :->
> The problem seems to be that I
>have alot of dignity, a high self image, and a very strong will-
>but surrendering all of that to someone who can completely
>appreciate what I am losing, what he is taking from me, is an
>incredibly intense desire of mine. It can be kind of a confusing
>dichotomy and makes for some contridiction if I'm not careful-
>something like that can be pretty confusing for a top if they don't
>know exactly what they're dealing with.
But if they do, they'll know what a gem they have found.
Don't worry about it. One day you'll make some intelligent top, who's
got enough self-confidence to own a strong willed slave, very happy
indeed.
--
Anthony Hilbert
"You are a creature who has received pain and given pain,
and taken too much joy in its application." - Babylon 5
(Delenn to the Inquisitor, "Comes The Inquisitor")
Spyral Fox
In article <3463599e...@news.mastnet.net>, mercur...@mastnet.net
(Judi) writes:
>This may shock you,
[name deleted]
>, but ~SUBS~HAVE~MINDS~OF~THEIR~OWN~. Now,
>before you go into cardiac arrest, please consider that these are full
>grown adult women, who think, and feel and speak their minds. Show me
>a Master who censors every word his sub speaks or thinks and I'll show
>you a "Master" who is threatened by his sub's identity as it exists
>apart from her Master.
That reminds me of a story..... My Owner's biggest usenet
laugh this year was when someone sent Him a copy of
something I wrote, after interpreting the content as indicative
of an order disobeyed. I'm not sure what amused Him more,
the fact that someone thought I'd disobey any order not
related to food (my eating habits are finally back under
control, but they have given us some bad moments) or
the idea that someone *else* was telling Him that I should
be punished.
I write what I want to, and He never even reads it. Nor
does He read anything else on SSBB unless I make Him
a copy. He;s quite happy with the fact that I have a mind
of my own, and IMO, it is often symptomatic of an
unhealthy relationship if one person tells the other
how to feel and what to think.
>Now, I know this is a foreign concept for you, you of the child-woman,
>"little one", woman-who-is-seen-but-never-heard mentality, but
>frankly, any dominant who wants a mindless submissive is a dominant
>who is insecure.
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. There may be some exceptions.
I know that my Owner values my submission more because
I am a strong, independent woman, but I also have met a
few people who look at me and express the general sentiment
"thank Ghod I'm not your SO," telling Rick that I look like I'm
a bit too much to handle. Of course, a few otehr people
:::::meaningful looks in metaphor directed to certain SD
Munchers::::: would, I'm sure, enjoy working on my training.
And as long as it's non-abusive and mutually satrisfactory,
I have no problem with a MaleDom who is much more controlling
than MiLord. Of course, the problem is thatsuch relationships,
IMO, are much more likely to become abusive.
take care,
- - -Spyral Fox spyr...@aol.com
"What makes you think I'd do as you say? Ani l'dodi."
My Owner is: lordr...@aol.com
San Diego Info & Links: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
Next Munches: 11/17; 12/14
Anthony Hilbert
Leona Joy writes
> 3D meat women are much more work
>than cyberbabes or videos.
Hey, that's what Fooleco should be selling for Xmas... Virtual Pet
Slaves! Maybe a bit bigger than the VP gadgets, with enough resolution
on the screen for them to kneel, and squirm when whipped, and so forth,
while displaying stock phrases like "PLEASE BEAT ME MASTER"... And you
never need to bother with a real person's unreliable feelings again.
--
Anthony Hilbert It's a wild time,
I'm doing things that haven't got a name yet.
- Grace Slick
Serion Ironcroft
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:09:05 GMT, Pierce...@worldnet.att.net
(Pierce Master (Rev)) wrote:
<snip>
>On the other hand if you are seeking, in the long run, complete
>submission, then "challenge" may not be what you're looking for.
Taking no offense here, but it appears to me that you're still to some
extent confusing submission with wimpiness.
Case in point: Most people here would agree that LadyGold is
definitely not a wimp, and perhaps might be considered a "challenge."
<evil grin>
Nevertheless, I have her complete and totally obedient submission. No
challenge at all, hm?
I think some folks assume that a strong-minded submissive necessarily
has to resist submission. My experience has been that
resistance/brattiness is more a matter of style than anything else.
One of the strongest (and most beautiful) submissive women I ever met
is also an excellent chess player. I never owned her, but she did not
have a permanent Dom of her own, and would submit to me when she
visited from time to time. On one visit, she challenged me to a chess
match and, knowing that I had not touched a chess board in 20 years,
snickered when I warned her that I would win.
So we set up the board, she magnanimously offered me the first move,
which I took, and then I instructed her on what moves *she* was to
make. <very evil grin> It was no contest - I won with a fools mate in
a half dozen moves. <very very evil grin>
She had momentarily forgotten the little matter of submission and
obedience. <s> As it happened, we both had a good time - she enjoyed
the experience of being required to yield her considerable skill and
talent to my control.
Changing the focus a moment, I was talking in phonespace earlier
tonight with a submissive friend of ours, tanya. <waving at tanya>
She has been reading this thread and wanted me to know that she was
definitely *not* a dish-rag sub. Instead, she has decided she wants
to be a wash-cloth sub! She offers to soap herself up and rub her body
all over mine the next time she comes to visit. <grin>
Regards,
Serion
LadyGold
WARNING: Do not reply directly to this post. Instead send mail to
LadyGold(at)earthlink(dot)net
On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 07:29:02 GMT, mercur...@mastnet.net (Judi)
wrote:
>bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
>
>
>>As for ladygold having a mind of her own, again, that is between her and
>>Serion, not my issue.
>
>Then why do you insist on calling her "ladygold", when she not only
>calls herself LadyGold, but requests that others do the same? Once is
>a typo, but you did it several times in your recent post, as if to
>point up the notion that *you* think she is somehow less than Serion
>(who's online name you were careful to cap everytime you typed it.)
>
>It might be a small issue to you, but to LadyGold, (and forgive me,
>Lady, if I misspeak here), it has always appeared to be *quite* an
>important distinction.
Actually, Judi, I don't think I ever did request it - if so, it was
quite some time ago. However I do prefer LadyGold. Serion gave me
the name and his spelling of it is with capitals.
wulf, in particular, seems to delight in using lowercase, but then I
refer to him as woofiekins among other "pet" names, so I've always
considered it a fair deal. <eg>
<snip>
>A differing opinion does NOT constitute an attack.
And don't I wish everyone would realize that!
Regards,
--There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. Nelson Mandela 1994
Pierce Master (Rev)
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:06:16 GMT, ser...@ibm.net (Serion Ironcroft)
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:09:05 GMT, Pierce...@worldnet.att.net
>(Pierce Master (Rev)) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>On the other hand if you are seeking, in the long run, complete
>>submission, then "challenge" may not be what you're looking for.
>
>Taking no offense here, but it appears to me that you're still to some
>extent confusing submission with wimpiness.
Well then, instead of "dishrag", perhaps I need to start SAW -
Society for the Acceptance of Wimpiness ?
>Case in point: Most people here would agree that LadyGold is
>definitely not a wimp, and perhaps might be considered a "challenge."
><evil grin>
>
>Nevertheless, I have her complete and totally obedient submission. No
>challenge at all, hm?
>
>I think some folks assume that a strong-minded submissive necessarily
>has to resist submission. My experience has been that
>resistance/brattiness is more a matter of style than anything else.
I am aware of yours and LadyGold's style of relationship and respect
it, but find that it is not what I am seeking.
I, personally, would be embarrased if, for instance, my girl were to
engage in shouting matches with doms. I would consider it much
more appropriate for her to allow me to handle such unpleasantries,
and so would she.
There is certainly plenty of room for all varieties of relationships
in the BDSM world - my purpose in entering the discussion is
because it seems that so often the type of submissive which
I value most highly, and whom I would describe as sweet,
loving, compliant, and extremely submissive is described by others
in terms such as "dishrag" and "wimp".
I am therefore quite serious when I talk about increasing
acceptance of dishraginess - although I would very much
like to find a less perjorative term, and it seems that many
people feel that "submissive" doesn't apply.
Regards.
NrthernSon
Pierce Master says:
>I do have a preference, though, as a general
>type, for the personality which seems to be
>referred to as "dishrag".
>I don't believe that this neccessarily indicates
>an ego weakness in me as a dom - just a personal
>preference.
This is a great thread. I was going to chime in last night, but didn't have
time. I'm glad I waited, because Pierce Master has turned it in an intriguing
direction. Had I posted last night, my response would mostly have been about
how I prefer a mistress who prefers a strong man's submission. I would have
gone a step further, and added that I'm normally not even attracted to a woman
who needs a weak man.
But now I'm going to take it even a step further than that. I'm going to say
that I am generally *most* attracted to "dishrag" dommes. The women to whom I
prefer to submit are usually women who are small, quiet, not classically
attractive.
When I'm initially attracted to a woman, it's usually someone who shows
strong outward signs of dominance. Big, confident, athletic, aggressive,
outgoing - to me, this is the "type" that I notice from across the room. If
I'm at a party, this is the type of woman I "lock on" to first, and once I see
her, I generally focus on her and don't even notice anyone else. She's the one
I'm usually going to try to meet, and ask for a date. However, I haven't had
many deep relationships develop out of my initial attractions to large women.
When I get beyond the initial attraction, the women to whom I feel the
"safest" submitting to are usually small, quiet, demure types. I really don't
quite understand this. I never have. I suppose some of it is physical - I'm
very big, roughly the size of a tight end or outside linebacker in the NFL. I
think that when I kneel before a woman who, even standing, is still looking me
straight in the eye, or when I kiss a slender, delicate foot which is so small
that my lips almost cover the toes, the physical disparity between my mistress
and me strengthens my feeling of surrender. The greater my physical
superiority over her, the more complete her sexual superiority seems to be
when I submit to her. Most of my lovers feel the same way - the thrill of
having a man more than twice their size kneeling chained at their feet,
awaiting their orders, is very powerful for most women I date; or so they tell
me. Small, shy women often seem to be less accustomed to being treated this
way, as well, and seem frequently to take to the concept with appreciatve
enthusiasm.
But I'm sure there is more to it than that. I think it also has a lot to do
with the personalities of quiet women. I'm just generally more fascinated with
women who are deep, introspective thinkers - the philosophical type. To me,
there is nothing that makes me feel more submissive than a woman who is
usually one step ahead of me intellectually. I like to be... *need* to be
consistently surprised by my mistress. I don't want to know what's coming
next. I like a mistress who quietly thinks things through, and then tells me
the way it's going to be.
And, of course - most important of all, remember that I'm not a masochist.
I'll take a whipping, and take pride in enduring it, but I don't look forward
to it. If I'm going to get strapped, better by a 4'11", 95-pound elfin sprite
than a 150-pound rugby player. ;-)
Obviously, this post is laden with generalizations. These generalizations are
based upon a very small sample group, a sample group which is skewed with all
sorts of variables and things like that. Or, in other words, YMMV.
Be well, everyone
Northern Son
====================================
"I'm looking for a hard-headed woman,
One who will make me do my best." - Cat Stevens
====================================
Pierce Master (Rev)
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:35:54 GMT, ser...@ibm.net (Serion Ironcroft)
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 06:54:06 GMT, Pierce...@worldnet.att.net
>(Pierce Master (Rev)) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:06:16 GMT, ser...@ibm.net (Serion Ironcroft)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:09:05 GMT, Pierce...@worldnet.att.net
>>>(Pierce Master (Rev)) wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>On the other hand if you are seeking, in the long run, complete
>>>>submission, then "challenge" may not be what you're looking for.
>>>
>>>Taking no offense here, but it appears to me that you're still to some
>>>extent confusing submission with wimpiness.
>>
>>Well then, instead of "dishrag", perhaps I need to start SAW -
>>Society for the Acceptance of Wimpiness ?
>
>I think you miss my point. Let me see if I can be clearer and more
>direct.
>
>You advised that if a Dom were looking for complete submission, he
>might want to avoid "challenging" submissives. To me, your comment
>*strongly* implied that "challenging" subs could not give complete
>submission, which is absolutely not true.
>
Sorry - didn't mean to imply that - and of course you are correct.
This was meant as just idle speculation on my part in response to
kelfay's observation that there were differences between "process"
and "result".
What I was thinking was that "training" seems to me to be almost a
completely seperate pleasure from the actual day-to-day owning of
a submissive.
Personally, I can quite enjoy training someone even when there
actually are no plans for the relationship ever to develop into a
complete submissive relationship.
A large part of the fun involved in this is locating and breaking
down of areas of resistance.
It has been my experience (YMMV) that often the excitement involved
in pushing at these barriers is a large part of the pleasure found in
the relationship, and unless these limits are constantly pushed the
relationship becomes boring.
As I said, this was just idle speculation.
I think that we are really just dealing with personality differences
and individual preferences here, and I can imagine that if
I had a bright, articulate, "strong-willed" sub who enjoyed venturing
forth and slaying dragons, that I could take pride and encourage her.
There are a few such participants in this newsgroup. And frequently
they are challenged by people who see their behavior as somewhat
"un-sub-like", and need to respond and defend themselves.
Which they do quite well, I might add :)
My sole reason for entering the thread is that frequently, in order
to defend themselves, they seek to find a way illustrate the
differences between their style and that of the, perhaps
stereotypical, "submissive" .
And when they do so they frequently describe that contrasting
style in terms such as "dishrag" or "wimp".
What I would like to achieve is a realization that, just as
"challenging" subs can give complete submission,
subs who are NOT challenging, who may in fact make great
efforts not to BE challenging and to be completely
compliant, deserve a better appelation than "wimp".
Regards
Lawless
Skeeve :
> Then the comment
> >any dominant who wants a mindless submissive is a dominant
> >who is insecure.
> is not an attack?
Read that word, Skeeve. One little word, that you're rapidly proving
describes you. "Mindless" - no will, no intelligence, no comprehension,
no ability to give informed consent.
Skeeve, you're dumb. You're dumb and you're boring and repititive.
Real dumb. Probably short too.
*plonk*
--
-- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg (lawless at howling dot com)
--
-- A wolf by any other flame....
vala...@hotmail.com
Angel here.
OK, for the record, what exactly is a "dishrag sub?"
I submit to my top without question (And after 11 years without safeword
as well). I attempt to obey him perfectly. I do not complain about any
incidental discomforts attendant upon serving him (my feet going to sleep
during a prolonged inspection, etc). I do not speak or orgasm without
permission.
However, out of scene, we are friends, and have been
known to quarrel loud and long over a variety of things.
We have much in common, and more that we agree to disagree on.
We have not been in a play-party situation, but if we were,
I would be expected to behave respectfully toward other doms.
But, they would have to get my dom's permission before demanding
my submission to them.
Does this make me a dishrag or just submissive?
Angel, puzzled by a new catagory
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Skeeve
(Pierce Master (Rev)) wrote:
>
>It has been my experience (YMMV) that often the excitement involved
>in pushing at these barriers is a large part of the pleasure found in
>the relationship, and unless these limits are constantly pushed the
>relationship becomes boring.
>
I agree with this. In my limited experience (7 months) with my sweetie, I get
an intense charge out of pushing and stretching her barriers.
>
>There are a few such participants in this newsgroup. And frequently
>they are challenged by people who see their behavior as somewhat
>"un-sub-like", and need to respond and defend themselves.
>
>Which they do quite well, I might add :)
>
Very true.
>
>What I would like to achieve is a realization that, just as
>"challenging" subs can give complete submission,
>subs who are NOT challenging, who may in fact make great
>efforts not to BE challenging and to be completely
>compliant, deserve a better appelation than "wimp".
>
Yes. My sweetie is no 'captain of industry' but she is no dishrag either. She
is shy and demure in most circumstances, but she does hold very *strong*
opinions in certain areas and will defend them almost viciously.
I have encouraged her to return to college (and the one time I had to actually
punish her was for neglecting her studies) and value her intellegence. The
majority of the time in our relationship is vanilla (sort of like the
sterotypical 50's 'We discuss, I decide') but when in our D/s space there are
times when I like the hesitant 'do you really want me to do this ?' looks as
she complies and there are other times when I appreciate her almost falling
over herself to please. Which mode she is in usually depends on how close we
are to one of those barriers. I think that she is a wonderful blend of the two
characteristics being discussed.
Skeeve
skee...@hotmail.com
bob...@sprintmail.com
Spyral Fox
In article <nospamhgcraig-ya0240...@news.slinknet.com>,
nospam...@slinknet.com (Kevin) writes:
>In article <KCmLNWA0...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>, Anthony Hilbert
><hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Catholic Guilt writes
>> >Most people do not
>> >know that feminine shaving has its roots in turn of the century
>> >prostitutes who discovered that they got more business if they could pass
>> >themselves off as pre-pubescent. Soon other women began shaving and the
>> >pediphilic connection was lost as the practice was accepted by American
>> >society.
>> >
>> It is also the origin of the thinness fashion, which started around the
>> same time and has been becoming more extreme with every generation.
>> It's no coincidence that most teenage anorexia has been traced to a fear
>> of puberty.
>>
>> It has been pointed out that fashions for thinness against curves rise
>> and fall in parallel with the swings of women's liberation: the more
>> women are competing with men on equal terms, the more the modal average
>> male sexual ideal becomes an immature-looking child-woman.
>> --
>> Anthony Hilbert
>
>Sorry, Anthony. The heroin-chic "twiggy" waifs reflect the fasion industry
>itself, not the "modal average male sexual ideal".
>
>Where do we find these painfully thin, androgynous boy/girl prepubescents?
>In fashion magazines and advertisements, whose target audience is most
>definitely *not* your average hetero male. Women and gay men, perhaps, but
>not the beer-guzzling macho men who inevitably get blamed for "demeaning"
>women through their purchase of Playboy and Penthouse. And, the last time
>I looked, Playboy, Penthouse, et al. still prominently featured healthy,
>curvaceous, full-figured women.
Agreed. But with a couple of caveats. First off, the first time that I
begin to see much about anorexia in the literature is in the 1920s.
Think about the "flapper" sillhouette, as parodied in the Movie "Thoroughly
Modern Millie" even if you weren't alive then. They actually sold
corsets which were menat to flatten the bosom and compress the
hips, rather than the waist, to get the boylike figure that was then
popular. While anorexia does show up here & there before then,
primarily as a way that young women could exercise *some* control
over themselves (although the striving for a 17 inch waist may have
had something to do with it -- there's a couple reasons why women
in the 1800s were always fainting) it was only in the 60s that it became
widespread. Some people link this to women's liberation, yes -- but we
do not see the same thing during the suffrage movements earlier, nor
during the 1940s when women had quite a bit of autonomy due to
WWII, and were moving into those "Rosie the Rivetter" jobs. The
Flapper profile vanished until the 1960s, and then vanished again.
Kate Moss is an aberration -- not only has she herself gained weight,
but she wasn't very popular with either women or men as a standard
for beauty in the way that, say, Mary Pickford was. There are clearly
different standards of beauty within the women's magazines, as well.
Most of the Cosmopolitan (the women's magazine, not the bondage
one <g>) Shape, and Glamour models are only slightly below a "normal"
weight. The most extreme height and skinniness (with breast implants
now) is found in the runway models for haute couture, fancy ads in
Vogue, etc. Some oe the women's mags are showing a bit of a
backlash against the skinny models; Glamour in particular seems to
be priding itself of late on including swimsuit models who lack FLAT
stomachs, women who have rear ends, etc.
Wulf
In article <leona.8...@forte.heathen.com>, le...@forte.heathen.com (Leona Joy) wrote:
}mercur...@mastnet.net (Judi) writes:
}>bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
}>>Who believes that intolerance for *any* valid aspect of our lifestyle in
}>>unacceptable.
}>And btw, (and no, this isn't a flame, Skeeve, just a minor syntactical
}>note ;)) does "unacceptable intolerance" sounds like an oxymoron to
}>anyone else? ;)
}Nope. I am intolerant of bigots and jerkwads. I am intolerant of
}"Doms" who try to power-over me when I have not given my consent to
}interact with them as anything other than equals. I am intolerant of a
}great number of things, like rude waiters and bad drivers. Liars. Soda
}machines that eat your money and don't give anything back also fall
}into that category. Bad haircuts. Abusive drunks. Wulf. People who out
}others on the internet. Clay Bond/Asmodeus.
}IMNSHO, these are things I think it's okay to be intolerant of. And
}this is just the short list *smile*.
}>Ok, so maybe it's getting late and I'm a little punchy... ;)
}Maybe.....*grin*
}Leona Joy
another interesting admission...must be a good day for them...
"I am intolerant of 'doms' who try to over-power me when I have not given my
consent to interact with them as anything other than equals. I am intolerant
of..."
notice the list of people leona is intolernt of: waiters, drivers, people who
talk to her whom she disbelieves, people whom she believes to be abusively
drunk...me...
do you think any one of them ever gives her "consent to interact with them as
anything other than equals"...?
yet leona sez "these are _things_ I think its ok to be intolerant of" (emphasis
added)...
"things"...???
so she is so intolerant as to deny their humanity, and not only their
reasonable expectation to be treated as nothing less than "equals"...???
when will they learn to give what they expect from others...? when will they
treat others they don't like as equals...?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scarlet Letter
Caution, expressing support for my opinions and ideas can get you
flamed in this group, and may result in others complaining to your
ISP or threateneing you with law enforcement agencies. At this time
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm is _not_ a safe and
open forum for discussion for everyone and every point of view...
If you have anything nice to say about this or any of my essays or if
you have a question to ask I will welcome your email...
There are many posters here who have demonstrated an abusive attitude
for those who criticize their attacks or who support me in any way...
Here are some who deserve mention:
Anthony or Joy Hilbert - hil...@hilbert.demon.cox.uk
ser...@ibm.netx or lady...@erathlinkx.net
Wulf
In article <leona.8...@forte.heathen.com>, le...@forte.heathen.com (Leona Joy) wrote:
}mercur...@mastnet.net (Judi) writes:
}>bob...@sprintmail.com (Skeeve) wrote:
}>>As for ladygold having a mind of her own, again, that is between her and
}>>Serion, not my issue.
}>Then why do you insist on calling her "ladygold", when she not only
}>calls herself LadyGold, but requests that others do the same? Once is
}>a typo, but you did it several times in your recent post, as if to
}>point up the notion that *you* think she is somehow less than Serion
}>(who's online name you were careful to cap everytime you typed it.)
}Yeah, I noticed that, too. Irritating and quite telling.
}>It might be a small issue to you, but to LadyGold, (and forgive me,
}>Lady, if I misspeak here), it has always appeared to be *quite* an
}>important distinction.
}For me as well. I am offended and insulted when someone who does not know me
}attempts to create an artificial power imbalance by using lower case for my
}proper name. The loser Wulf does that as a matter of course, that's one
}of the reasons I killfiled him so long ago.
}After all, I have not consented to appear here with my name in lower
}case. To deliberately lowercase my name says to me that the poster has
}some other agenda, and that he (I have never had this done to me by a
}woman, only by "dom" men) is unclear and disrespectful about the
}personal limits and simplest desires of others.
}Put plainly, it's rude and clueless.
}>Your actions show quite a different mindset from your words.
}Ugol.
}The problem here is, he has said that he does not care about strong
}women (I paraphrase his last post aobut strong women), so I think it
}would be stupid of us to *expect* him to show any modicum of social
}grace or courtesy towards them (us). The best thing we could do, if he
}proves to be a total asshole, is killfile him. Then it won't matter
}what he says, because we won't see it. And if enough people killfile
}him, he'll be invisible.
}Or am I wrong, Skeeve? (you'll notice I did you the courtesy of
}spelling your name the way you present it. I do this. not out of any
}particular regard for you, but because to fail to do so would say
}negative volumes about me.) Have you been deliberately insulting
}LadyGold by lowercasing her name? Do you have some opinion about how
}submissives should present themselves on this newsgroup, or in general?
}And do you think you have the right to insult LadyGold in this fashion?
}Leona Joy
}note: these are proper names, they get capitalized.
poor leona...
can't fight me...
can't fight louise because that means fighting me...
so here you are looking for a fight with Skeeve...hoping it won't mean a fight
with me as well...
don't you think you are making it more than a little obvious you are quite
capable and willing to transfer rage from a target you _cannot_ reach to one
you believe you can overcome easily...?
that's an illness, leona...and one you should have corrected before you are
trusted domming or subbing for anyone...
it isn't healthy for you to carry so much rage and to release it on those who
don't deserve it...
just how many times do I need to teach you that abusing posters in ssbb is
_not_ therapy as long as I'm around...?
Steven S. Davis
vala...@hotmail.com wrote:
: Angel here.
:
: OK, for the record, what exactly is a "dishrag sub?"
Like most of our terminology, the meaning isn't as precise as
some of us would like (note that even the suggestion that it
would be good if there were agreement on the meanings of our
terminology (ignoring for the moment what a hopeless goal that is)
has been a point of contention in the past). And it has at
least two very distinct usages that are more than a little in
conflict with one another.
But first to address your situation:
: I submit to my top without question (And after 11 years without safeword
: as well). I attempt to obey him perfectly. I do not complain about any
: incidental discomforts attendant upon serving him (my feet going to sleep
: during a prolonged inspection, etc). I do not speak or orgasm without
: permission.
:
: However, out of scene, we are friends, and have been
: known to quarrel loud and long over a variety of things.
: We have much in common, and more that we agree to disagree on.
:
: We have not been in a play-party situation, but if we were,
: I would be expected to behave respectfully toward other doms.
: But, they would have to get my dom's permission before demanding
: my submission to them.
:
: Does this make me a dishrag or just submissive?
I have never observed anyone who is submissive in scene only
referred to as a dishrag submissive, so, no I would not consider it
a term that applied to you. I would say that while the compliance
of a person who knows that this degree of compliance only needs to
be maintained for the duration of a scene (who might, for example,
not need to raise certain issues then because sie knows sie will
be able to discuss them out of scene) may be quite fine for that
situation, that type of compliance could be unhealthy for someone
else who is in scene 7/24 and therefore will never have the
opportunity to raise those issues (I'm speaking of a hypothetical
case, not of Angel's).
It's that latter case that is most commonly thought of when
one speaks of a "dishrag sub". The person who won't - or
can't - speak up for whoself, and who obeys not because sie
is strong enough to obey, but because sie isn't strong enough
to not obey.
It is, of course, impossible to tell from casual observation
whether one person obeys another out of strength or out of weakness
or out of love (the last motivation not being mutually exclusive
of either of the other motivations). Abusers masquerading as
masters are often in search of people who will be obedient and
pliable either because they are weak, or because they are
self-destructive and using this path to destruction.
The submissives who post here tend not to be people who are,
in the mainstream sense of the word, submissive, which says
more about a world which no longer understands the joy or
honor of submission (and therefore can't imagine that anyone
would submit voluntarily or happily and so thinks that *only*
the weak or the self-destructive would ever submit) than it
does about submission. That some of us regard samurai warriors
and Jesuit missionaries as submissives (though not (or at least
not always) sexual submissives) would probably bewilder most
in the mainstream). And so, since so many submissives are
not "submissive", there's something of a problem in distinguishing
feisty submissives from other less assertive submissives. These
less assertive types do seem often to be lumped in with the
"dishrag" submissives, perhaps because it's the feisty subs who
tend to be prominent here and who do much of the characterizing.
I quite agree that we do need a way of distinguishing between the
kind of unhealthy submission born of weakness and/or self-destructive
impulses and/or a wish to escape from life, and those submissives whose
submission comes from strength and from a desire to live most fully,
but who are also quiet and compliant (to their dominants) and those
who, because they know what they want and accept it and are at peace
with it (and because being broken just ain't their kink), don't need
to be broken or punished or forced to obey and may therefore be
regarded by some (especially those whose kink involves training
and "breaking") as "unchallenging".
Personally, when I refer to a "dishrag sub" (or rather, were
I to refer to one, as I can't recall the last time I used the
term), I would mean someone whose submission was born of weakness
and/or self-destructiveness and/or a desire to escape life,
and someone who was unwilling or unable to speak up for hirself.
FWIW, I regard it as both unwise and unethical to dominate a
"dishrag" (save in those cases where a dominant has the hubris
to take it on hirself to seek to heal the dishrag, which I regard
only as unwise).
Again, please note that it can be impossible, by observing one
(or even several) interactions between a dom and a sub to know
whether this sub is doing what sie does because sie's a dishrag.
What may appear "dishraggy" to one person may in fact be a great
display of strength by that submissive and/or a tribute to how
much trust that dominant has earned from her submissive.
In these recent threads, "dishrag" has been used to mean
something quite different. Actually, it seems to me, it's
been used to refer to (at least) two different (but not
necessarily exclusive) sets of characteristics:
1) a quiet, compliant, "low-maintenance" submissive who serves
unobtrusively and well and who doesn't require lot of supervision
or direction (though sie'll take either very well), and who also
won't need (or give much occasion for) punishment, who is passive
not in the sense of lacking initiative or being nonresponsive but
rather of one who is disinclined to forceful expression (well,
of forceful expression or assertion of hir opinions or positions;
other sorts of forceful expression would not necessarily be
excluded or unwelcome <g>)
2) a submissive who is not inclined to resist and who doesn't
need to be broken (note that a person disinclined to resistance
isn't necessarily someone quiet or unobtrusive (FWIW, as a
submissive I have no interest in being broken and no wish to
resist (if I seem balky or hestitant at times I may need guidance
or assurance, but I'm certainly not resisting (if I resist, it's
over)), but I'm hardly quiet or unobtrusive)).
The first type may or may not be someone who was also the
second type; sie could also be someone whose training overcame
whatever tendencies sie had to resist. Whether a particular
submissive who had both sets of features would be less attract
to a dominant who enjoyed the process of obtaining submission
as much as sie enjoyed the possession of submission was Kelfay's
question, and it seems logical (which, of course, does not mean
it will always be true) that a particular dominant for whom
"getting there is half the fun" will not regard a submissive
who already has both sets of features as being as attractive
as will another dominant who is more interested in the possession
of submission that the creation of it, and who would regard the
submissive who's very nearly "plug-and play" as a great find
(hmmm, given the other usages of "plug" and "play", it seems
unlikely that we could use "PAP sub" (for plug-and-play sub)
to describe the kind of submissive that doesn't need to be
broken and doesn't require a lot of supervision (sie'll still
require a bit of configuring of course), but it seems to me
that such a plug-and-play sub is what, in these threads, has
been called a "dishrag sub"; while "PAP" probably won't work,
we do need a way to speak of them that distinguishes them from
"dishrags" as I've used the term above).
The soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm FAQ is available from the WWW at:
http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm charter is available at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
Both can be found on the SSB Webpage, the URL of which is:
http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The "Welcome to ASB !", almost all of which applies to SSB,
can be found at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
***************************************************************************
Steven S. Davis * ssd...@ot.com * s...@magenta.com * sdup...@delphi.com
http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/intro.html (go to Kinky page, Users section)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierce Master (Rev)
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:01:17 -0600, vala...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Angel here.
>
>OK, for the record, what exactly is a "dishrag sub?"
>
>I submit to my top without question (And after 11 years without safeword
>as well). I attempt to obey him perfectly. I do not complain about any
>incidental discomforts attendant upon serving him (my feet going to sleep
>during a prolonged inspection, etc). I do not speak or orgasm without
>permission.
>
>However, out of scene, we are friends, and have been
>known to quarrel loud and long over a variety of things.
>We have much in common, and more that we agree to disagree on.
>
>We have not been in a play-party situation, but if we were,
>I would be expected to behave respectfully toward other doms.
>But, they would have to get my dom's permission before demanding
>my submission to them.
>
>Does this make me a dishrag or just submissive?
Let's see.... sometimes a dishrag, sometimes a backbone....
perhaps a "Sponge"?
:)
Leona Joy
impli...@aol.com (Implicated) writes:
>-> Excuse me, but that is exactly what we all do in our daily lives, in
>-> order to find our own code of ethics to live by. We find that
>-> situations arise in our lives... we debate with ourselves on how
>-> acceptable something is to us... we reach decisions based on how we
>-> feel and think... we go on.
>I wasn't talking about judging *ourselves*, dear, I was talking about judging
> *everyone else*.
I judge everybody else, according to my ethics and beliefs (among
other factors, like social graces or the lack thereof). That is how I
pick my friends and avoid my enemies. I think that everybody judges
others. Otherwise we would have no preferences, neh?
I challenge you to refute this premise.
I would like to make clear that I am not trying to be rude or anything
like that, but I invite you to think about how we make our choices
about the people around us. I posit that judgements are the only way
we make those decisions. Maybe you have some sort of negative
association with the word "judgement"? Perhaps we have different
perspectives on that word. I use my judgement to assist me in the
selection of just about everything in my life, from the clothes I wear
to the things I say. My only regret about my judgement is that it is
not flawless nor unfallible.
>-> I am, simply, who I am... a person with her own opinions and a
>-> reasonable right to expect to be able to state them. I haven't laid
>-> judgement on two consenting adults, I have told wulf (and wulf alone)
>-> that his version of bdsm gives me (as I stated to Skeeves in a private
>-> email) a serious case of the willies. His idea of bdsm is abhorrent to
>-> me.
>Even if his concept of bdsm is abhorrent to you, do you think that
>justifies saying something like the following? I don't.
>- Now, I know this is a foreign concept for you, you of the
>- child-woman, "little one", woman-who-is-seen-but-never-heard
>- mentality, but frankly, any dominant who wants a mindless submissive
>- is a dominant who is insecure.
I think she's entitled to her opinion. So are you. Makes for interesting
discussions.
Leona Joy
--
The Lioness who kneels.
babalon
mercur...@mastnet.net (Judi) wrote:
>Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
>>am I to believe this sub was unaware of her own dom's post...?
>This may shock you, wulf, but ~SUBS~HAVE~MINDS~OF~THEIR~OWN~. Now,
>before you go into cardiac arrest, please consider that these are full
>grown adult women, who think, and feel and speak their minds.
i agree with you to this point. most subs i know, especially femsubs,
and most Doms i know, prefer strong, intelligent, vocal subs who speak
their mind - politely, but are free to speak their mind.
> Show me
>a Master who censors every word his sub speaks or thinks and I'll show
>you a "Master" who is threatened by his sub's identity as it exists
>apart from her Master.
gee, Judi - sounds like you're generalizing far past Wulf here to
*any* Master or sub who plays in this way. some subs i've met really
*do* want their Master to control their every word and thought. some
Doms *do* want this level of control, not because they're threatened
or insecure, but because it trips their trigger.
>Now, I know this is a foreign concept for you, you of the child-woman,
>"little one", woman-who-is-seen-but-never-heard mentality, but
>frankly, any dominant who wants a mindless submissive is a dominant
>who is insecure.
again, you're generalizing here and including doms and subs who play
this way - and they might just have a problem with you dissing their
playstyle. fwiw - my Master has been working on a lot of control
including some of my speech and thought processes - sounds like you
might have a problem with him (at least it does from the way you've
worded this...)
just pointing out some problems with phrasing and overgeneralization
that *may* lead to others feeling you're saying YKINOK.
take care.
*babalon*
"I'm out of bed and dressed, What more do you want?"
Laura nospamGoodwin
Anthony Hilbert wrote:
> Implicated writes
> >I consider myself to have a pretty strong personality also, although
> >I'm almost completely submissive.
> The best kind. In my wholly personal opinion :->
I am in love with a submissive masochistic kinda guy who always protests
when we play and even puts up a bit of a fight, even when everything we
are doing was his suggestion. I don't prefer him that way, but I've
learned to bully on in the face of his resistance because it's what he
needs. Sure, I would prefer to be pampered by some adoring and utterly
servile slave, but that's not the hand I was dealt. I don't like to
have to prove my dominance over and over like Prometheus getting his
liver torn out anew every day, and I don't like being reminded that it
looks like I have never trained my slave. As a matter of fact, he's
very well trained. He's fiercely loyal, a wonderful husband and father,
and an excellent (and very submissive) lover. He's also a pain in the
ass. ;)
My Bruce is a very manly guy and not a complainer. He has endured and
done much quite heroically, but when he bottoms he wants to be a big
baby. That's fine with me, although it's not specifically my turn-on.
He puts up with things that are not his turn-ons, too. We have
compromised on several key things for the sake of our love.
When we play in "public" (at BDSM parties), there is sometimes somebody
there who is traumatised at the sight of this seeming non-con thing
going on, and I get dirty looks. I'm not out to prove how bad I am, I'm
just trying to have and be a good time. I have birched joyful
masochists bloody and recieved only thanks and praise, but if I barely
redden my whining hubby's backside, here comes the DM.
I have to say I have more fun at private parties where my friends
understand that there may be a bit of a struggle, and they shouldn't
worry. I have more fun with a sub who reacts positively, though, which
is one reason I reserve the right to play with others. Sometimes I need
a break! It does go against my grain to play the bully all the time...I
find it emotionally very taxing.
Some may wonder why I married the guy if we're not perfectly matched
BDSM-wise. All I can say is, fall in love and you'll have your answer.
I *don't* like the silent type. Some subs think it's a good thing to
not make any sound or sign, and I'm told many of them were trained that
way. I can't understand the joy in such training, and my husband is as
trained as I want him to be already, so I don't appreciate people giving
me the fisheye and advising me to teach him better. That's their
fetish, not mine, 'K?
As for this business of playing at BDSM parties so quietly that you
might as well be at the library, well, I guess we have to control the
noise level, but why can't we try harder to find party places where we
can make some noise? I'm a strong dominant with a strong and somewhat
noisy submissive, and we play hard (when we can).
--
Laura "Soundbites R Us" Goodwin
&:D=BX>==E <-- in a corset and high heel boots
"Siddartha could wait, think, and fast. I can do all that plus sing,
dance, act, and write. Good thing I know how to fast!"
DragonWizard
*yawn* You sure like to hear yourself talk, don't you?
(Incidentally, I didn't include your lengthy post to save on bandwith,
not to keep from "mis-quoting" you.)
Leona Joy
Pierce...@worldnet.att.net (Pierce Master (Rev)) writes:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:05:16 -0500, Laura nospamGoodwin
><lal...@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>As for this business of playing at BDSM parties so quietly that you
>>might as well be at the library, well, I guess we have to control the
>>noise level, but why can't we try harder to find party places where we
>>can make some noise? I'm a strong dominant with a strong and somewhat
>>noisy submissive, and we play hard (when we can).
>The first thing that I do whenever I get someone new chained up in
>my dungeon is to tell them to scream "Help Rape" as loud as they
>possibly can for a while.
>It's interesting to watch their expression when they realize
>(and I lovingly explain :) ) that no one can hear them and
>they really are completely helpless.
Y'know, the nice thing about being green with envy is that it goes so
well with my red hair.
Leona Joy
Pierce...@worldnet.att.net (Pierce Master (Rev)) writes:
>I think that we are really just dealing with personality differences
>and individual preferences here, and I can imagine that if
>I had a bright, articulate, "strong-willed" sub who enjoyed venturing
>forth and slaying dragons, that I could take pride and encourage her.
>There are a few such participants in this newsgroup. And frequently
>they are challenged by people who see their behavior as somewhat
>"un-sub-like", and need to respond and defend themselves.
>Which they do quite well, I might add :)
>My sole reason for entering the thread is that frequently, in order
>to defend themselves, they seek to find a way illustrate the
>differences between their style and that of the, perhaps
>stereotypical, "submissive" .
>And when they do so they frequently describe that contrasting
>style in terms such as "dishrag" or "wimp".
>What I would like to achieve is a realization that, just as
>"challenging" subs can give complete submission,
>subs who are NOT challenging, who may in fact make great
>efforts not to BE challenging and to be completely
>compliant, deserve a better appelation than "wimp".
Hmmm.....do you have any suggestions?
I would like to ask you a few questions because I think I do not
understand clearly your point of view. Are you saying that strong willed
submissives (which I think are different than challenging subs) cannot
be "NOT challenging"? Are you saying that they cannot or do not "make
great efforts not to BE challenging and to be completely compliant."?
Speaking for myself, a strong willed submissive, it is my desire to
render perfect service without prompting and to endeaviour to actively
avoid redundant correction, to be as utterly obedient and gracious in
my submission as I possibly can. Otherwise the gift I give is
tarnished by my own selfishness and lack of commitment to *his*
pleasure and will, and presumes that my Master will tolerate that kind
of manipulation, which I assure you he does not. And hooray for
that. *grin*
Let me make clear that I *do* have an agenda. We (my Master and I)
both do. Mine is rather a long term kind of thing, dealing more with
the totality and subtleties of surrender and service than the planning
/initiation of day to day details of any training he might wish for me
or what we're gonna do in the dungeon or the bedroom/kitchen/side of
the road *grin*. Our agendas have been discussed and negotiated. This
is what works for us.
For the sake of discussion (and because I can only speak for myself),
let's use me as an example. Do you see me as a "challenging
submissive", and how does my agenda differ from that of a more
introverted submissive (and does that appelation fit better than
"dishrag"? I think it still misses the mark)? Do my results differ
from my naturally less aggressive sisters, and if so, how?
Leona Joy
hot damn, another on topic discussion thread. Livin' large!
Anthony & Joy Hilbert
Pierce Master (Rev) writes
>
>(public service announcement - not personal ad :) )
Suuuuure.
We believe you.
Thousands wouldn't.
--
Anthony Hilbert
And when they bore me overmuch I will not shake my ears,
Recalling many thousands such whom I have bored to tears.
And when they labour to impress I will not doubt nor scoff,
Since I myself have done no less, and sometimes brought it off! - Kipling
Serion Ironcroft
On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:16:30 GMT, Pierce...@worldnet.att.net
(Pierce Master (Rev)) wrote:
>Since this subject arises fairly often, and usually because someone
>says something denigrating about "dishrags" and the type of dom
>who would be attracted to them, I thought that I would put in my two
>cents here.
<snip>
>I do have a preference, though, as a general type, for the
>personality which seems to be referred to as "dishrag".
>
>I don't believe that this neccessarily indicates an ego weakness
>in me as a dom - just a personal preference.
<snip>
Of course not. There very much *are* submissives whose personalities
aren't suited for spam-hunting or confronting abusive chudwahs.
<smiling and waving at dingo> There are many submissives who simply
want to please their Dom/mes and expect only to be treated
responsibly.
Despite the attitudes of many people in this community, being Dom/me
does not confer omnipotence. And being submissive does not mean
relinquishing personhood. People on both sides of the D/s slash are
just people seeking satisfying lives.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that far too many inexperienced Dom/mes
believe their personal kink literally grants them some sort of
intrinsic superiority, and that's utter hogwash. Even more
unfortunately, it seems too many inexperienced submissive seem to
believe they have to take what any chudwah calling himself a "master"
wants to dish out, often to their personal detriment.
In my opinion, it all ultimately comes down to a matter of
self-esteem. No matter what the personality of the submissive, I
believe the Dom/me has a responsibility to respect and preserve the
submissive's self-esteem. If they're doing that, I could almost care
less what their basic kink might be.
Conversely, I think it's irresponsible of Dom/mes to bolster their own
self-esteem at the expense of their submissive's well-being. In my
opinion, that's the definition of abuse, and has no place in our
community.
Regards,
Serion
Serion Ironcroft
>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:06:16 GMT, ser...@ibm.net (Serion Ironcroft)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:09:05 GMT, Pierce...@worldnet.att.net
>>(Pierce Master (Rev)) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>On the other hand if you are seeking, in the long run, complete
>>>submission, then "challenge" may not be what you're looking for.
>>
>>Taking no offense here, but it appears to me that you're still to some
>>extent confusing submission with wimpiness.
>
>Well then, instead of "dishrag", perhaps I need to start SAW -
>Society for the Acceptance of Wimpiness ?
I think you miss my point. Let me see if I can be clearer and more
direct.
You advised that if a Dom were looking for complete submission, he
might want to avoid "challenging" submissives. To me, your comment
*strongly* implied that "challenging" subs could not give complete
submission, which is absolutely not true.
In my experience, complete submission can be obtained no matter what
the personality of the submissive may be. If people are seeking, in
the long run, complete submission from their partners, then they
should seek partners whose kink and style match up with their own,
whether "challenging", "wimpy" or otherwise.
Regards,
Serion
Wulf
In article <34662338...@news.mastnet.net>, mercur...@mastnet.net wrote:
}Yes, wulf's version of bdsm makes me shudder, and I won't apologize
}for that. I believe he is dangerous because he belittles, not just the
}women who consent to submit to him, but any submissive woman who has a
}case to state about him. He refuses to take a mature argument about a
}particular POV at face value... he must do what he can to rip that
}woman up by telling her that because she doesn't agree with her
}Master, she isn't valid, and by calling her by a name she hasn't
}consented to. He is, in effect, trying to use her submissive nature
}against her, placing himself above her, as if *he* were the man she
}answers to, and bully her into shutting up. He makes the outrageous
}assumption that because she *is* submissive, that means she should be
}submissive to him by shutting up. This is not consensual behavior, and
}every time he tries it, I will be there to grab him by the collar and
}tell him to stop it.
this gets sillier by the minute...the "mature argument" being described here is
one where ladygold insists my use of the term "little ones" denotes children
rather than adult sexual partners or prospective partners...
through this device she hopes to demonstrate to you that I really intend to
commit child abuse...
her dom doesn't agree with this interpretation of the term and has been unable
to convince her otherwise...so we have ladygold publicly claiming I intend to
commit child abuse because I use the term "little ones"...
and serion as well as judi seem to be trying to hide the fact that _this_ is
the issue we are dealing with in ssbb by throwing out their 'straw man' that I
have no respect for women period etc... because I find it fascinating to see a
submissive with such an obviously paranoid delusion being encouraged by her dom
to post her delusions to the net...
most certainly a sign of an unhealthy relationship and a poor understanding of
the term "consensual"...
can anyone capable of insisting I use the term "little one" to mean "children"
really be _capable_ of meaningful consent...? despite the apparent absurdity of
her assertion she continues to maintain it with the full support if not
agreement of her dom...
why...?
because he doesn't really care what kind of an ass she makes of herself with
such claims...
his political agenda is being furthered at the cost of her reputation...
has anyone provided a solid bit of evidence that "little one" means
"children"...?
no, of course not...it is a pet name, an endearment that appears in several of
my essays...
yet despite her claim that "little one" means "children" all we get are vague
references to everything I've written and appeals for people to simply take the
accusation on _faith_...
I think serion and ladygold should be held to a higher standard than issuing
accusations about child abusers expecting faith to influence people for them...
where do such accusations end once they've started...?
of course judi is aware of this issue, which is why she is attacking me about
my attitude towards women...
can you spell "diversion"...?
sure...I knew you could...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scarlet Letter
Caution, expressing support for my opinions and ideas can get you
flamed in this group, and may result in others complaining to your
ISP. At this time soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm is _not_ a safe and
open forum for discussion for everyone and every point of view...
If you have anything nice to say about this or any of my essays or if
you have a question to ask I will welcome your email...
There are many posters here who have demonstrated an abusive attitude
for those who criticize their attacks or who support me in any way...
Here are some who deserve mention:
Anthony or Joy Hilbert - hil...@hilbert.demon.cox.uk
ser...@ibm.netx or lady...@erathlinkx.net
Steven Davis - s...@magenta.comx
Tanith Tyrr - plea...@netcom.comx
Remove all the "x"s from the above list to get the real addresses...
Do not lightly offend these people, or they can make your stay here very
unpleasant...unfortunately most of the remaining posters to this group
tolerate this abuse and show very little compassion for the victim...
If you want to post here I suggest you ask them for their point of view
so that you can know whether your point of view will be welcomed here or
not...Make sure your ISP safeguards your privacy before making contact...
an informed choice is a wise choice...
Wu...@idirect.com - accused of the intent to abuse children because I use
the pet name "little one" to describe adult consensual slaves...
welcome to ssbb...watch what you say...
}>-> >This goes further than a 'difference of opinion', imo.
}>->
}>-> In what way?
}>
}>In that you're attempting to force your opinions and ethics on people. If a
}> femsub wants to be a robot, what business is it of yours to say that she's
}> wrong?
}
}When did I *ever* address submissive women and tell them how to be??
}Cherlyn, this post was to *wulf*, not to submissive women around the
}world!
}
}>-> There's a difference of opinion that submissive women have their own
}>-> feelings and thoughts?
}>
}>What- you don't consider women, as individuals, strong enough to stand up for
}> what they want...you're saying that you know what's best for them?
}
}When did I *ever* say that?? Am I not, in fact, saying exactly the
}same thing as you? That submissives DO have minds and hearts of their
}own, and that they ARE strong? I think wulf's propensity for twisting
}what someone says and then demanding that they answer to that new
}version of is wearing off on you.
}
}>Of course
}> we have our own feelings and thoughts- but it's not like anybody's forcing us
}> into nonconsentual acts of anything. By implying so, you're insulting women
} as
}> a group, by infering that they're weak-willed and domesticated.
}
}I think you must have read someone else's post! I stated, in my
}original reply to wulf:
}
}"This may shock you, wulf, but ~SUBS~HAVE~MINDS~OF~THEIR~OWN~. Now,
}before you go into cardiac arrest, please consider that these are full
}grown adult women, who think, and feel and speak their minds."
}
}How in the world do you get, out of that, that I am inferring that
}submissive women are either weak-willed OR domesticated?? In fact, I
}am saying just exactly the opposite and if you actually *read* it, you
}would realize that.
}
}>-> Why is it that a strong woman who states her opinions without the need
}>-> for male input sends you into such a fury?
}>
}>This isn't the issue _at all_, and I think you know it. It's people like you
}> that give feminism, and perhaps even women in general a bad name.
}
}I have no clue what the current feminist agenda is, nor am I remotely
}interested.
}
}*I* am giving women a bad name? By fighting for their right not to be
}seen as doormats just because they are submissive?? LadyGold, to whom
}the original post referred, is NOT, by anyone's standards, a doormat.
}She has a right not to be seen as such, even by wulf, who seems to
}think that all women, by the very nature of their gender, *should* be
}doormats who do and say and think and feel only what their dominant
}males wish them to. Wulf is, in effect, attempting to silence LadyGold
}and demean her by suggesting that because she does not agree with
}Serion 100% of the time she is somehow less of a person.
}
}That pissed me off highly, as I have come to know LadyGold and Serion
}through email and chat, and I have no intention of standing by while
}wulf tries to bully either of them.
}
}>How
}> disgusting it is for me to see the truth being twisted like this.
}
}Indeed, how disgusting. You should perhaps re-read what was written
}before you twist anything else.
}
}>Not Skeeve's. You're belittling Wulf's wants and needs (or, more precisely,
}> something you *perceive* as Wulf's wants and needs).
}
}No, trust me, it was wulf himself that I was belittling. Considering
}his attempts to do the same to many decent people, I don't feel any
}need to apologize for it.
}
}>-> By pointing out that
}>-> submissive women are just as human as you, deserve to give input and
}>-> receive it, just as you, deserve to have their own opinions, just as
}>-> you? If this is belittles you then perhaps you were little to start
}>-> with.
}>
}>If you don't want to play that way, Judy, then you don't have to.
}
}Excuse me, but how does saying this constitute as "playing"?
}
}>But if some
}> people do, then that's their right. It doesn't make the submissive any less
}> human if that's what turns her on.
}
}Of course it doesn't, and why should it? But why should wulf be
}allowed to continue to bash LadyGold for *not* being a doormat that he
}can wipe his feet on?
}
}>I find it a little distressing that some
}> people are *so* closeminded that they see anything beyond their perception
} and
}> threshold as "bad" and "harmful".
}
}Look to yourself, please. You have closed your mind as to why the
}original letter was posted in response to wulf's outrageous
}assumptions about LadyGold and Serion, and so have deemed *me* "bad
}and harmful".
}
}----------------
}Mistress Judi
}----------------
}
}A differing opinion does NOT constitute an attack.
}
}If you wish to reply to this mail, please remove the "NOSPAM" spambuster
}from the address!
Skeeve
>
>Skeeve, you're dumb. You're dumb and you're boring and repititive.
>Real dumb. Probably short too.
>
>*plonk*
>
As you have indicated that you have killfiled me in your newsreader, I am
sending this reply via mail also. Read it if you want or delete it, you're a
grown man and it's your choice.
I also see your and others attacks on Wulf, Mastery, Cherilyn as dumb and
boring.
Judi and I have come to an understanding over this, why can't everyone else?
Your issues with Wulf are between you and Wulf, I carefully choose *not* to
get involved in that fight. If you feel that allowing insults of a group of
individuals (ie: those that *want* mindless subs) is justified in the war on
Wulf then maybe his letter has some validity.
Currently, I disagree with his tactics of adding the letter to each post. But
each day, when I see attacks like these, on an issue that has
_already_been_resolved_ by the concerned parties I begin to wonder ...
mailed and posted
Skeeve
Pierce Master (Rev)
On 10 Nov 1997 21:21:10 GMT, s...@magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) wrote:
<snip>
>In these recent threads, "dishrag" has been used to mean
>something quite different. Actually, it seems to me, it's
>been used to refer to (at least) two different (but not
>necessarily exclusive) sets of characteristics:
>
>1) a quiet, compliant, "low-maintenance" submissive who serves
>unobtrusively and well and who doesn't require lot of supervision
>or direction (though sie'll take either very well), and who also
>won't need (or give much occasion for) punishment, who is passive
>not in the sense of lacking initiative or being nonresponsive but
>rather of one who is disinclined to forceful expression (well,
>of forceful expression or assertion of hir opinions or positions;
>other sorts of forceful expression would not necessarily be
>excluded or unwelcome <g>)
>
>
>2) a submissive who is not inclined to resist and who doesn't
>need to be broken (note that a person disinclined to resistance
>isn't necessarily someone quiet or unobtrusive (FWIW, as a
>submissive I have no interest in being broken and no wish to
>resist (if I seem balky or hestitant at times I may need guidance
>or assurance, but I'm certainly not resisting (if I resist, it's
>over)), but I'm hardly quiet or unobtrusive)).
Well described.
>The first type may or may not be someone who was also the
>second type; sie could also be someone whose training overcame
>whatever tendencies sie had to resist. Whether a particular
>submissive who had both sets of features would be less attract
>to a dominant who enjoyed the process of obtaining submission
>as much as sie enjoyed the possession of submission was Kelfay's
>question, and it seems logical (which, of course, does not mean
>it will always be true) that a particular dominant for whom
>"getting there is half the fun" will not regard a submissive
>who already has both sets of features as being as attractive
>as will another dominant who is more interested in the possession
>of submission that the creation of it, and who would regard the
>submissive who's very nearly "plug-and play" as a great find
>(hmmm, given the other usages of "plug" and "play", it seems
>unlikely that we could use "PAP sub" (for plug-and-play sub)
>to describe the kind of submissive that doesn't need to be
>broken and doesn't require a lot of supervision (sie'll still
>require a bit of configuring of course), but it seems to me
>that such a plug-and-play sub is what, in these threads, has
>been called a "dishrag sub"; while "PAP" probably won't work,
>we do need a way to speak of them that distinguishes them from
>"dishrags" as I've used the term above).
Plug and Play isn't bad.
Perhaps "Ergonomic" ?
"User Friendly" ?
Seriously, for me the difficulty arises because we describe one
personality type as, say "STRONG willed" ,and that has the
natural consequence of seeing the opposite type as "weak"
willed.
Pierce Master (Rev)
Wulf
In article <64846p$b0l$1...@news3.spacestar.net>, bab...@nospamspacestar.net wrote:
}mercur...@mastnet.net (Judi) wrote:
}>Wu...@idirect.com (Wulf) wrote:
}>>am I to believe this sub was unaware of her own dom's post...?
}>This may shock you, wulf, but ~SUBS~HAVE~MINDS~OF~THEIR~OWN~. Now,
}>before you go into cardiac arrest, please consider that these are full
}>grown adult women, who think, and feel and speak their minds.
}i agree with you to this point. most subs i know, especially femsubs,
}take care.
}*babalon*
I wouldn't worry too much, babalon, I'm sure judi will change her wording to
exclude you and all the others who have complained about this broad brush
approach to attacking me...
it is almost certain that judi _only_ means to attack me, and that the issues
and adjectives really don't matter as long as they are nasty and likely to
inspire some kind of emotional distaste for me...
in this age of political correctness and given the PC thread it must have
seemed like a sure winner to attack me thus...
I've noticed they are already excluding many people through a variety of
threads...
eventually it all boils down to "wulf is bad because wulf is wulf and wulf does
what wulf does"...
but thanks for your comment...in my opinion it points out how their reckless
need to attack me leaves them attacking others as well...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scarlet Letter
Caution, expressing support for my opinions and ideas can get you
flamed in this group, and may result in others complaining to your
ISP or threatened with law enforcement agencies. At this time
Skeeve
Wulf,
This issue was resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all involved.
Skeeve
LordHastur
>Despite the attitudes of many people in this community, being Dom/me
>does not confer omnipotence. And being submissive does not mean
>relinquishing personhood. People on both sides of the D/s slash are
>just people seeking satisfying lives.
>Unfortunately, it seems to me that far too many inexperienced Dom/mes
>believe their personal kink literally grants them some sort of
>intrinsic superiority, and that's utter hogwash.
Amen, M' Sieu.
>In my opinion, it all ultimately comes down to a matter of
>self-esteem. No matter what the personality of the submissive, I
>believe the Dom/me has a responsibility to respect and preserve the
>submissive's self-esteem. If they're doing that, I could almost care
>less what their basic kink might be.
Amen again.
.>Conversely, I think it's irresponsible of Dom/mes to bolster their own
>self-esteem at the expense of their submissive's well-being
You're on a roll, my friend. This has needed to be said for a long time.
Thanks for saying it so eloquently.
I am the one you warned me of...
Nicole Cloonan
Kevin doth sayest on Sun, 09 Nov 1997 21:42:35 -0700:
: In fashion magazines and advertisements, whose target audience is most
: definitely *not* your average hetero male. Women and gay men, perhaps, but
: not the beer-guzzling macho men who inevitably get blamed for "demeaning"
: women through their purchase of Playboy and Penthouse. And, the last time
: I looked, Playboy, Penthouse, et al. still prominently featured healthy,
: curvaceous, full-figured women.
What he said!
I have to say, that the fairly small (less than 50) number of beer
guzzling macho men I have known have definately preferred a woman
with a "good set of childbearing hips suitable for some heavy lovin'
baby". The only men I have known that prefer the skinny Moss look
have been young corporate fashion freaks. Fortunately there are a
whole pile of desireable men left in the middle who have a good
appreciation of a woman's body.
Nicole.
trishah
Pierce Master (Rev) <Pierce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6485hl$q...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> The first thing that I do whenever I get someone new chained up in
> my dungeon is to tell them to scream "Help Rape" as loud as they
> possibly can for a while.
>
> It's interesting to watch their expression when they realize
> (and I lovingly explain :) ) that no one can hear them and
> they really are completely helpless.
>
trishah, smiling wistfully.......
Lawless
Skeeve <bob...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> As you have indicated that you have killfiled me in your newsreader, I am
> sending this reply via mail also. Read it if you want or delete it, you're
> a grown man and it's your choice.
Let's see, you misbegotten sack of smegma - you realize that I don't want
to read your quote unquote communications, so you email me??? Rat raping
monkey brained little jackanapes, perhaps you're not aware that some people
consider that harassment and would be complaining to your ISP? Of course,
not that sprint is exactly responsive to complaints, but still.
> I also see your and others attacks on Wulf, Mastery, Cherilyn as dumb and
> boring.
-My- and others attacks on those three names? As I said, Skeeve, you're
dumb, real dumb. I certainly haven't attacked Cherilyn, and I've ignored
"Mastery" as being a clueless idiot who came here whining for support in
stealing intellectual property.
> Judi and I have come to an understanding over this, why can't everyone
> else?
Perhaps because the issue between Judi and yourself has -nothing- to do
with my concluding that you're as worth listening to as New Kids on the
Block? From when you were posting as Aahz, then Aahz Junior, you've been
displaying a patent lack of intelligence and judgement, as evidenced by
your many sniping little attacks on people (Judi, Remlusti, etc) when
you've not yet gotten your eyes clear enough of your colon to have the
faintest inkling of the context and background involved. Hypocrital little
would-be moral superior to others - you, like someone you parroted, claim
to dislike the incessant flames and petty attacks here, even as you're in
the process of doing the same.
> Your issues with Wulf are between you and Wulf, I carefully choose *not* to
> get involved in that fight. If you feel that allowing insults of a group of
> individuals (ie: those that *want* mindless subs) is justified in the war
> on Wulf then maybe his letter has some validity.
As I pointed out, oh paragon of mental murkiness, *mindlessness* would mean
an inability to give meaningful consent. That's different from wanting subs
who defer to the dominant's opinions and views. Perhaps we shouldn't be
allowed to attack those who want child submissives, or mentally handicapped
ones?
> Currently, I disagree with his tactics of adding the letter to each post.
> But each day, when I see attacks like these, on an issue that has
> _already_been_resolved_ by the concerned parties I begin to wonder ...
Oh, it's _already_been_resolved_ (petulant whining tone off)? Again, not
to belabor the point, Skeeve, but you're dumb, real dumb. First, even if
it -had- been openly resolved, does the word "propagation" ring a bell,
and no, I'm not talking about having sex with your relatives. Usenet
propogation. Secondly, my attack on -you- (not Wulf) has nothing to do
with the issue you think you've resolved with Judi, it has to do with
-you- and your perchant for taking your dick out of your mouth just long
enough to pronounce moral judgements on others, while committing the same
crime that you supposedly deplore.
Now, Skeeve, I trust this will hopefully open your pus-filled little eyes
a bit and give you a yardstick against which to make comparison in the
future. _This_ particular post was an attack, unlike others which you
were dense enough to construe as such, such as when you leapt on Lusti
saying that you felt that -she- owed louise an apology..
And again - stay out of my mailbox.
*24-hour time delay replonk*
--
-- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg (lawless at howling dot com)
--
-- A wolf by any other flame....
vala...@hotmail.com
Angel here with her thoughts on Body Image.
First, let me say I will never make it as a runway model. I have the
height (6'), and I have the bust, but I have hips and a waist to go with
them. My ideal weight is 160, not 120. I weighed 120 in 6th grade and
people thought I was anorexic.
I find the idealized images held up by the media, even
men's magazines, to be offensive. It says if you aren't a
size 5, you're unacceptable. Women's magazines are as bad.
"Not a size 8? Great!" was a Woman's day article. Bear in mind
more than half of the women in the country wear a 12 or larger.
My daughter is very thin and fine-boned at 5. If she were the height of
a 5 year old, she'd be normal weight (she's the height of an 8). I
encourage her to eat, which she does enthusiasticly (she's growing,
again). But in 10 years, is she going to be afraid of that extra pound
or two?
I like the 40's and 50's look in clothing, it celebrates the voluptuous
woman. For a time, it looked like we might be coming back in the 80's,
but we never did. Yet, I've seen my skinny, anorexic friends get ignored
in bars while I danced. When I asked, the guys always said "I'm afraid
of breaking her. You're much sturdier."
I talked to a friend of mine who used to be a fashion designer
(he's in interior decorating) and asked if they could use real women
for their designs. He was intrigued by the idea, and wished I was in
NY for use. (we used to date in drag, long story)
And my comment on "little one" It's a completely appropriate pet name if
the top is a foot taller than the sub. I've not had such an experience
and resent any use of "little" or "cute." There's nothing of either
about me.
Angel, statuesque, handsome, Junoesque, voluptuous, but not cute
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Wulf
}And my comment on "little one" It's a completely appropriate pet name if
}the top is a foot taller than the sub. I've not had such an experience
}and resent any use of "little" or "cute." There's nothing of either
}about me.
}Angel, statuesque, handsome, Junoesque, voluptuous, but not cute
..and not "little"...
thanks, but I'm afraid your standard for appropriate use would not permit me to
use it on too many women ;-)
However, there are many who find the word appropriate in a paternal context and
I am considered by those who serve me to be very paternal at times...
ladygold's issue isn't over the use of pet names but rather another attempt to
'vitrify' me through the deliberate misinterpretation of a pet name so she can
have something with which she can accuse me of intending child abuse...
the motive is rather obvious...she hates my guts and has no sense of reality
worth reporting, and her dom is no better, though he at least has the sense
to see the stupidity in her claims about my intended child abuse...
quaint little place we got here, eh...?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scarlet Letter
Caution, expressing support for my opinions and ideas can get you
flamed in this group, and may result in others complaining to your
ISP or threatening you with law enforcement agencies. At this time
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm is _not_ a safe and
open forum for discussion for everyone and every point of view...
If you have anything nice to say about this or any of my essays or if
you have a question to ask I will welcome your email...
There are many posters here who have demonstrated an abusive attitude
for those who criticize their attacks or who support me in any way...
Here are some who deserve mention:
Anthony or Joy Hilbert - hil...@hilbert.demon.cox.uk
ser...@ibm.netx or lady...@earthlinkx.net
Pierce Master (Rev)
On 10 Nov 1997 18:09:46 -0800, le...@forte.heathen.com (Leona Joy)
wrote:
>Pierce...@worldnet.att.net (Pierce Master (Rev)) writes:
>>What I would like to achieve is a realization that, just as
>>"challenging" subs can give complete submission,
>>subs who are NOT challenging, who may in fact make great
>>efforts not to BE challenging and to be completely
>>compliant, deserve a better appelation than "wimp".
>Hmmm.....do you have any suggestions?
Not any good ones yet - I'm not that good with words and was
simply hoping that together we could come up with something
which had less of a negative connotation than "wimp".
>I would like to ask you a few questions because I think I do not
>understand clearly your point of view. Are you saying that strong willed
>submissives (which I think are different than challenging subs) cannot
>be "NOT challenging"? Are you saying that they cannot or do not "make
>great efforts not to BE challenging and to be completely compliant."?
No, I don't think that's true - there are "strong-willed" subs who
are very submissive and compliant in their relationships.
I doubt if anyone fits any particular "type" exactly, which
makes classification attempts almost futile.
>Speaking for myself, a strong willed submissive, it is my desire to
>render perfect service without prompting and to endeaviour to actively
>avoid redundant correction, to be as utterly obedient and gracious in
>my submission as I possibly can. Otherwise the gift I give is
>tarnished by my own selfishness and lack of commitment to *his*
>pleasure and will, and presumes that my Master will tolerate that kind
>of manipulation, which I assure you he does not. And hooray for
>that. *grin*
Yup - I believe that.
>Let me make clear that I *do* have an agenda. We (my Master and I)
>both do. Mine is rather a long term kind of thing, dealing more with
>the totality and subtleties of surrender and service than the planning
>/initiation of day to day details of any training he might wish for me
>or what we're gonna do in the dungeon or the bedroom/kitchen/side of
>the road *grin*. Our agendas have been discussed and negotiated. This
>is what works for us.
>
>For the sake of discussion (and because I can only speak for myself),
>let's use me as an example. Do you see me as a "challenging
>submissive", and how does my agenda differ from that of a more
>introverted submissive (and does that appelation fit better than
>"dishrag"? I think it still misses the mark)? Do my results differ
>from my naturally less aggressive sisters, and if so, how?
Ouch. A rather impossible task, for a few reasons.
1) I don't think that any real human perfectly fits any category
system.
2) I don't really know you that well.
3) I am handicapped by my secretly held desire to get you to dance
for me someday, and don't want to say anything which might
jeapordize that particular fantasy :)
Nevertheless, I would venture that, particularly from what I have seen
of your Master Quest, that you sincerely enjoy being in a relationship
in which you are very submissive to your Master.
Also guessing, I would suspect somewhat Gorean overtones to the
relationship, and that you would prefer a Master who takes pride in
you and enjoys showing you off - perhaps a touch of exhibitionism ?
(one of MY favorites :) ).
As to how you differ - let me contrast your relationship with another
one in which the submissive would, say, feel that her online
postings reflected on her Master and would carefully get permission
before engaging in even friendly discussions with a dom.
My girl's major weakness is IRC chat, and I've had to limit her
severely since she does get carried away - I've been thinking
of instituting parental controls :)
I realize that this describes a relationship with, say Daddy/girl
overtones, and I suspect that it involves surrendering much
more decision making power that you would be comfortable
with.
I think that we can agree that this difference is simply a matter
of personality, and neither is "superior" to another - simply that
we are happy in our relationships and that the relationships
are healthy for us.
So perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but when I hear submissives
who are in relationships in which they retain more decision
making to themselves, and are happy to broadcast it,
refer to other submissives who don't do so as wimps and
dishrags it seems to me that they are practicing a form of
YKINOK.
Ditto for comments which imply that a dom who enjoys this
kind of relationship as being ego-deficient.
Regards,
Pierce (founder, Society for the Acceptance of Dishragginess).
Adrian
>Angel here with her thoughts on Body Image.
I thought the thoughts on Body Image were dead-on
accurate. But I have to disagree with Angel's link
to any objections to pet names.
>And my comment on "little one" It's a completely appropriate pet name if
>the top is a foot taller than the sub. I've not had such an experience
>and resent any use of "little" or "cute." There's nothing of either
>about me.
Just as height need not have anything to do with true
stature, age need not have to do with childishness, and
physical size need not have to do with being a little
one.
My father grew up at a time when caring for babies was
considered entirely "women's work." I was the first
newborn he had ever seen, and he was astonished by how
tiny I was. Hence the pet name, "littlest one." When
I was about 2, and very aware of how big and strong and
sophisticated I was, I objected to the usage. Obviously,
my baby brother was now the "littlest one," I was the
big one, and proud of it! And Da said, "You'll always
be *my* littlest one, no matter how big you get."
I'm about the same size my father was when he said that.
That's fairly short, but so stocky and solid nobody would
call it "little." Even though my father is long dead, even
though I've grown so much...I still love the idea of being
someone's "littlest one, no matter how big." Even when I'm
obviously not the littlest one in the *bed*, it feels safe
and good and helpless for my lover to take me in his arms
and call me "littlest one."
Adrian
"He did not know how well he sang/It just made him whole."
Arrow Blue
Pierce Master (Rev) wrote:
>
> On 10 Nov 1997 21:21:10 GMT, s...@magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >something quite different. Actually, it seems to me, it's
> >been used to refer to (at least) two different (but not
> >necessarily exclusive) sets of characteristics:
> >
> >1) a quiet, compliant, "low-maintenance" submissive who serves
> >unobtrusively and well and who doesn't require lot of supervision
> >or direction (though sie'll take either very well), and who also
> >won't need (or give much occasion for) punishment, who is passive
> >not in the sense of lacking initiative or being nonresponsive but
> >rather of one who is disinclined to forceful expression (well,
> >of forceful expression or assertion of hir opinions or positions;
> >other sorts of forceful expression would not necessarily be
> >excluded or unwelcome <g>)
> >
> >
> >2) a submissive who is not inclined to resist and who doesn't
> >need to be broken (note that a person disinclined to resistance
> >isn't necessarily someone quiet or unobtrusive (FWIW, as a
> >submissive I have no interest in being broken and no wish to
> >resist (if I seem balky or hestitant at times I may need guidance
> >or assurance, but I'm certainly not resisting (if I resist, it's
> >over)), but I'm hardly quiet or unobtrusive)).
>
>
> >The first type may or may not be someone who was also the
> >second type; sie could also be someone whose training overcame
> >whatever tendencies sie had to resist. Whether a particular
> >submissive who had both sets of features would be less attract
> >to a dominant who enjoyed the process of obtaining submission
> >as much as sie enjoyed the possession of submission was Kelfay's
> >question, and it seems logical (which, of course, does not mean
> >it will always be true) that a particular dominant for whom
> >"getting there is half the fun" will not regard a submissive
> >who already has both sets of features as being as attractive
> >as will another dominant who is more interested in the possession
> >of submission that the creation of it, and who would regard the
> >submissive who's very nearly "plug-and play" as a great find
> >(hmmm, given the other usages of "plug" and "play", it seems
> >unlikely that we could use "PAP sub" (for plug-and-play sub)
> >to describe the kind of submissive that doesn't need to be
> >broken and doesn't require a lot of supervision (sie'll still
> >require a bit of configuring of course), but it seems to me
> >that such a plug-and-play sub is what, in these threads, has
> >been called a "dishrag sub"; while "PAP" probably won't work,
> >we do need a way to speak of them that distinguishes them from
> >"dishrags" as I've used the term above).
>
> Perhaps "Ergonomic" ?
> "User Friendly" ?
>
> Seriously, for me the difficulty arises because we describe one
> personality type as, say "STRONG willed" ,and that has the
> natural consequence of seeing the opposite type as "weak"
> willed.
I think what you are talking about is a 'Beta' personality as compared
to an 'Alpha' personality. You want a mate who is a follower rather than
a leader. Nothing wrong with that. If we are all leaders nobody ever
does the dishes.
(grin) which is a great line, but what I mean is that two leaders in a
family unit usually creates a great deal of jostling for control. As the
dom you can order the alpha sub to not react that way, but with a beta
sub the response is automatic because they prefer it that way.
Although I'm not in a D/s relationship, my current partner is a beta
sam. His natural inclination is to follow my lead - he gives me a lot of
grief before he does, but he likes his role.
The inherent problem with a beta personality is the tendency to have to
push them from their passivity to do something and when they do
something as directed, you don't know if it's because you wanted them to
(a hot button for doms) or because that's how they would have reacted
anyway. I guess the inherent problem with an alpha personality is that
you always have to actively control them and that gets tiring, (grin)
especially if you prefer life not to always be a melodrama.
Arrow
Steven S. Davis
Pierce Master (Rev) (Pierce...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: So perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but when I hear submissives
: who are in relationships in which they retain more decision
: making to themselves,
Well, to be precise, it seems to me that there are at least two
situations that you're describing:
1) subs who retain areas of decisionmaking authority to
themselves
2) subs who have perhaps broad autonomy of action
Subs with autonomy to act may not have reserved decisionmaking
authority for themselves, but rather are permitted to act
on their own judgement if their dominants don't wish to make
decisions in a certain area. The fact that, to bring up another
buzzword, the dominant doesn't choose to micromanage this area
doesn't make the sub's submission any more limited than it would
be if the dominant did wish to micoromanage this area.
: and are happy to broadcast it,
: refer to other submissives who don't do so as wimps and
: dishrags it seems to me that they are practicing a form of
: YKINOK.
Agreed. But I'll also add that any dominant who criticizes
a sub for having the gall to challenge, correct, or
criticize a dominant (as was, for example the real beginning
of a certain person's problems, which was not over not
using "sie" and "hir" but started when this person attacked
a sub for daring to correct a "master" after that sub had
pointed out the sexism of this person's articles), or who
criticizes another dominant because that other dominant's
submissive doesn't behave as the criticizing dominant would
like (as for example not being deferential to any idiot who
claims to be a master), is also practicing YKINOK and is
moreover domming w/o consent and is simply *way* out of
line.
Now, as I've mentioned in another article, my usage of
"dishrag" (were I to use that word) would be quite different
and refer to an unhealthy form of dependence (I don't even
wish to call it submission, as I don't believe that a dishrag
(in my usage) is capable of offering valid submission), and
I believe it all a matter of personal preference whether
a particular dom/sub set prefers resistance and challenging
behavior *within that set*. Some may like that, which is
fine (FWIW, IMO, YMMV, etc, I don't want to resist and I
certainly don't want to fight (with my dom <g>, physically or
mentally, so I'd be poorly match with some dommes (hey, I'm
too lazy to answer every thread, and a little crossthread
commentary save time)), and other don't, which is also fine.
But I think what we're now discussing is how submissives
behave outside of the dom-sub set, and getting that
entangled with whether or not the sub is or is not a dishrag
muddies the waters even more. A very submissive person with
a very demanding dominant may be extradordinarily ferocious
with others (was there every someone more fierce than Rosie,
who was (and presumably is) a Jacobian style TPE submissive ?),
and someone in a very limited d&s relationship with a highly
permissive dominant might be very timid. The two matters
- one's way of submitting to one's dominant, and one's manner
of dealing with the rest of the world - simply don't correlate
with each other.
Nor, it should be noted, does the way that one submits
establish anything about the depth or reality of one's
submission, or about one's strength of will or character
or mental faculties.
I'll toss out these terms for use by anyone who wants
to use them, or to produce better ones to express the
same ideas:
For discussing the way a submissive interacts with hir
dominant (or hir dominant set, if that includes, per
hir consent and per the dominant's wishes, other dominants
or perhaps even an entire community of dominants):
low-resistance or high-resistance
This can go along with the low-maintenance and high-maintenance
terms already in use. FWIW, it wouldn't necessarily follow
that a low-resistance submissive (one who doesn't like to
resist and doesn't want to be forced or broken) is also a
low-maintenance submissive (one who doesn't require a lot
of direction and/or attention).
There is, of course, always the matter of how to define
"high" and "low" (which will always be relative), and while
there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a high-maintenance
submissive (and lots of dominants would prefer high-maintenance
submissives), I'm sure that lots of selfish pseudo-doms would
try to put down any sub with needs as being "too high-maintenance").
For discussing the way a submissive interacts with the rest
of the world: brash or retiring
(I was going to say "reserved" or "restrained", but given
the other connotations I thought such might cause confusion,
so I settled on retiring; please note that a retiring person
may be quite capable and quite strong-willed, and that being
brash or being retiring is a style of dealing with the world
and says nothing about a person's other capabiliities or
character traits)
So, for example, I would be (or at least would be if I were
presently submitting to anyone), a brash, low-resistance,
low-maintenance (well, remember low-maintenance doesn't mean
"maintenance free") submissive (who also happens to be a sadist,
but that's another issue).
Fnord (to use one example that I'm pretty sure won't take offense)
is definitely a brash submissive, and probably low-resistance
(in addition to being non-conductive, but that's another subject)
and high-maintenance.
I'd like to offer an example of a retiring submissive poster,
but I'm not sure I know of any; it takes a certain amount of
brashness to post to an international newsgroup with any
frequency. But I'm sure there are lots of intelligent,
capable, strongwilled, retiring submissives of both the
low-maintenance and high-maintenance types. These divisions
I've been making are all matters of styles and preferences,
and that's all they are.
We can also add a couple styles of domination, which for
the present lack of better terms I'll call short-leashed
and tight-leashed. A person who's free to write what
sie wants to or about whoever sie wants without getting
advance permission is on a long-leash, but this doesn't
tell one anything else about the nature, depth, or reality
of hir submission. Someone could be a DNTPE (damn near TPE)
submissive and still be on a loose leash, at least in some
areas, including the ones in which one interacts with hir.
: Ditto for comments which imply that a dom who enjoys this
: kind of relationship as being ego-deficient.
I'll just point out here that powerlessness and mindlessness
are quite different things, and also state that, I would
not wish to submit to anyone who sought a mindless sub,
would not want anyone that I care about to submit to any
dom who wanted a mindless sub, would not recommend to any
submissive any dominant who wanted a mindless sub, and can
see no good reason for a dominant wanting a mindless submissive
nor any good reason for a submissive to wish to submit to a
dominant who wants a mindless submissive.
And if this be YKINOK, then make the most of it.
The soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm FAQ is available from the WWW at:
http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm charter is available at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
Both can be found on the SSB Webpage, the URL of which is:
http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The "Welcome to ASB !", almost all of which applies to SSB,
can be found at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
***************************************************************************
Steven S. Davis * ssd...@ot.com * s...@magenta.com * sdup...@delphi.com
http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/intro.html (go to Kinky page, Users section)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Kleinpaste
> my dungeon is to tell them to scream "Help Rape" as loud as they
> possibly can for a while.
This is one of the things that I'm /really/ looking forward to, as I
am about to close on 15 acres northwest of Pittsburgh, planning to
build a house on it next spring or summer. The new property is better
than a quarter mile beyond the end of a dead-end road. We've got
plans for how the basement will be arranged, so as to give us as much
dungeon space as we need.
We have more distant dreams as well, maybe 5 years down the road, of
putting up a couple cabins on the opposite side of the property, away
from where the house will be, that could be used as a BDSM retreat.
Not quite a B&D B&B, mostly 'cuz we don't want to get into the hotel
business per se, but certainly available for other folks who similarly
want a place where they can afford to make a bit of noise without nosy
neighbors snooping about.
Serion Ironcroft
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 17:18:29 GMT, Pierce...@worldnet.att.net
(Pierce Master (Rev)) wrote in part:
>What I would like to achieve is a realization that, just as
>"challenging" subs can give complete submission,
>subs who are NOT challenging, who may in fact make great
>efforts not to BE challenging and to be completely
>compliant, deserve a better appelation than "wimp".
I agree.
Regards,
Serion
ALustSlave
I am an extremely strong woman and I find it very difficult to find someone
strong enough for me to submit to personally. Perhaps it is the undeveloped
switch side. But I have up to now found it hard to truely reconcile the
submissive side of my personality and my strong individualistic personality
that I have valued for many years. For me, when I am with someone that is not
strong enough, the need for someone strong simply gets even strong rather then
going away at all. I'm not sure how other strong submissives feel about that,
but thats been my experience :)
ALS
~o Open your mind and your ass will follow o~
Laura nospamGoodwin
Pierce Master (Rev) wrote:
> The first thing that I do whenever I get someone new chained up in
> my dungeon is to tell them to scream "Help Rape" as loud as they
> possibly can for a while.
>
> It's interesting to watch their expression when they realize
> (and I lovingly explain :) ) that no one can hear them and
> they really are completely helpless.
<evil LOL> Yeah, that was one advantage I had at the home I had when I
first came out in 1983...it was private.
I have no privacy right now, sharing my home with three kids, and a
bunch of upstairs neighbors. Bruce and I are ready to kick the jams out
at BR 10, honey...don't you know it!?
--
Laura "Soundbites R Us" Goodwin
&:D=BX>==E <-- in a corset and high heel boots
"Siddartha could wait, think, and fast. I can do all that plus sing,
dance, act, and write. Good thing I know how to fast!"
Laura nospamGoodwin
Lawless wrote:
> Skeeve <bob...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > As you have indicated that you have killfiled me in your newsreader, I am
> > sending this reply via mail also.
> Let's see, you misbegotten sack of smegma - you realize that I don't want
> to read your quote unquote communications, so you email me??? Rat raping
> monkey brained little jackanapes...From when you were posting as Aahz, then Aahz >Junior, you've been displaying a patent lack of intelligence and judgement...
Thank you, Lawless: actually, that's true. I've seen evidence of that
myself! For example, when Aahz disagreed with me about something I said
in another newsgroup, he outed me in misc.kids, where I was (until then)
only known as just another interested parent.