Discussing Absolute Relationships: the Big Lie
LOUISE MW
writes:
> That's when your feet point outwards, like a duck's.
>
> But what's it got to do with submission?
>
> This is *the* most confusing newsgroup....
Only for you, old boy, but then a rat only has a brain the size of a
raisin.
Gangster Karen
Sexist Cult of JJ, Class of '96
(It's a joke Garm! <g> I'm still:
Submissive, Not Stupid!)
kar...@ibm.net
>loui...@aol.com (LOUISE MW) wrote:
>
>>In article <1996Jun23.0...@marlin.jcu.edu.au>,
>>zara....@jcu.edu.au (Silky) writes:
>
>>>If I was a domme, which I'm not, admittedly..
>>>
>>>I'd rather my sub -could- leave, but didn't
>>>than that they couldn't leave.
>
>>That's fine, but you do not understand that submissives who are
>>predisposed to enter into absolute relationships don't want that
>>particular option. This lack of choice is not something foisted off on
>>them unawares. It is a situation which they have consciously and
>>deliberately assisted the dominant in creating.
>
>*grin* actually..I do understand..I just can't visualise myself doing
>it just yet, if at all.. =)
I can understand that too <g>. It's a frightening thought, but not at all
that terrifying if you have taken a long time getting into it, and making
sure, as nearly as possible, that this isn't a situation likely to "go
wrong."
>and as a sub..I'm not sure if I'd rather the cage door was shut or
>open..
Oooh, with the right person, he can slam the door shut and throw away
the key. <g>
>I'd *hate* to control someone..hence why I'm *not* a dom *laughs*
Just curious about how you feel about this, but one of the hardest things
for me to "get around" in my own mind was: what sort of a person
would actually want to do the things to me that I want done? and can
you trust somebody like that? Could someone be that consummed with the
desire to own and control, and not lose track of my humanity in the process?
It's just that I have no dominant tendancies anywhere in my makeup, not so
much a dominant fantasy in my entire life, and I have always had problems
visualizing that sort of dominant. One of the hardest things I ever did was
to not only realise, but actually accept that someone can be *that* obcessed
by the power kink and still be a nice guy. I had to actually get to know
one as a friend before I could believe it.
Karen
Submissive, Not Stupid!
the wharf rat
Peter McDermott
ast...@cyberg8t.com (Atara Stein) wrote:
>In article <ADF5BD40...@petermc.demon.co.uk>,
>pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>
>
>> The Gang of Four -- fighting McCarthyism on ASB!
>
>For a moment there I thought you were actually associating McCarthyism
>with those of us who argue for diversity of opinion and human behavior and
>who realize that there are different ways to do things instead of one
>absolute right one. But then I realized no one could possibly be foolish
>and ignorant enough to make such an association, so do please tell me what
>you mean by this.
Sure, I'm associating McCarthyism with people who seek to silence
minority opinions and heretical viewpoints. With a tendency to
deliberately distort the views of opponents, and ignore their
arguments by resorting to character assassination. With the
rhetoric of 'democracy', 'freedom of speech', and 'diversity of
opinion', but no real commitment to those issues. With a sheep-like
tendency to gang up on those who are identified as 'the enemy', and
a fear of speaking out in their defence for fear that you'll be
labelled 'one of them'.
As I recall, you've made all manner of assumptions about what you
see as my beliefs, based upon the fact that I've defended certain
points of Jons or Karens. That stinks of McCarthyism to me.
The Gang of Four -- fighting McCarthyism on ASB!
Peter McDermott
ast...@cyberg8t.com (Atara Stein) wrote:
>> >But don't you see that you've *chosen* your lack of choice? And that is a
>> >kind of power.
>>
>> And I suppose gay people "choose" their sexual preferences as well?
>>
>Y'know, I hate to intrude into your comfortable, binary universe, where
>everything exists in absolutes, but consider the possibility, just
>consider it, that human behavior has a variety of causes instead of a
>single one.
And I hate to intrude into _your_ delusions, but you're projecting
here. You have no idea what I believe. I could make the assumption
that you believe the moon is made of cheese, and it would be just
as valid as the assumption that you're making
>I would say that both the tendency toward bdsm and
>homosexuality have a biological predisposition, but I also suspect that
>there's a measure of choice in whether one *acts* on those predispositions
>or not. Or perhaps this is a little too ambiguous and non-dualistic for
>you to understand.
Hmm. Insulting little douchebag, aren't we? Whydoncha go and take
your face for a shit? Don't forget to use the bidet afterwards...
There may well be a measure of choice in whether people act on their
desires, but if, as you suggest, both bdsm and homosexuality have a
biological predisposition then what you are claiming is a "choice"
is actually very heavily constrained by that predisposition. The
need for a partner or mate is also probably hardwired as well.
When we usually use the word 'choice' we tend to employ it to imply
a relative freedom in the decision-making process. Here, that
freedom is very tightly constrained by those biological predispositions.
I believe that Karen has as much _choice_ in the matter as a
gay man or woman does over their attraction to the same sex.
>And by the way Karen used the terms "consciously and deliberately
>assisted" which sounds to me like a *choice.*
It doen't sound to me like anything without the context in which
it was used.
I'm not saying she doesn't make choices. I _am_ saying that the
kind of submissive that she is is probably not a choice for her.
>Of course, you've chosen to
>obfuscate the issue by bringing up something totally non-analogous.
What? A preference for BDSM (or a specific BDSM kink) is not analogous
to another sexual preference? Why on earth not?
Kevin Munoz
>IMX, the submissive's gift of self is/has_to_be freely made by the
>submissive, but in reality is not free to the dominant. It comes with
>a long string of responsibilities attached, responsibilities which the
>dominant has to respect if he is going to own his submissive in a safe
>and healthy manner.
*Very* true. The sub really needs to know that s/he will not be
merely abandoned. That is part of the security the dom, in my opinion,
MUST offer the sub. The sub should be free from that kind of worry;
without that freedom, the submission is colored by a slowly boiling
undercurrent of fear.
--
Kevin Munoz
*Cricketmaster*
Hillel
In article <4qtotc$q...@xanadu.io.com>, the wharf rat <wr...@io.com> wrote:
> But I thought that size didn't count...
Wharf, what does the following exchange remind you?
wr>Because single people have no one to shower with...
wr> *I* bought a nice scratchy brush....
wr> with a long handle.
Diane> Wharf, you know it's not the _length_ of the handle that counts...
Ruth Gifford
>
>In article <4qn2mo$b...@blackice.winternet.com>,
>isab...@winternet.com (Laura Isabella) wrote:
>
>>What is often left behind in these discussions lately is the fact that
>>_many_ (I don't want to say *all*) of these TPE relationships are
>>relationships based on love.
>
>Yeah, you tell 'em, Laura. For some reason, this fact really does
>seem to escape those who continually posit doom scenarios for TPE.
I don't know about everyone else, but Laura's thoughtful imformative post was
the first time *I* saw anything about love in a TPE post. Granted that I
wasn't in on this in the beginning, so maybe I missed some things. I think
it's great when love is involved in *any* relationship, from the most
vanilla to the the most extreme.
As for doom scenerios, I haven't posited any. I've asked questions in an
attempt to be more informed and learn something, and I've gotten upset (and
justifiably so, I think) when being informed that my type of D/s is faux.
I've also said and will continue to say that I think that TPEs are as a
viable type of relationship as any other.
>Something in their own experience blinding them to this, perhaps?
Hey, when in doubt, insert a snide remark. Always works for me.
Just in case you're interested (and even if you're not), even in my faux-real
relationship there is love and a lot of it. Not to mention trust, and faith
and a willingness to put some effort into the relationship, and all the other
things that make relationships *real*.
>The Gang of Four -- fighting McCarthyism on ASB!
Hello?? Peter, are you actually a Brit, or do you just live or telnet there?
How much do you know about Joe McCarthy and his black and white view of the
world? Waving a "white paper" which later turned out to be a tissue of lies,
he told people that they were traitors and that they weren't "real"
Americans. It was one of the less bright moments in American democracy and
was responsible (among other things) for bringing Richard Nixon into the
spotlight of US politics for the first time. How does this relate to ASB?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Ruth
--
**************
*Ruth Gifford*
**************
"Putting on underwear can be a tragedy"
Sarah VanWinkle: 3rd grader and fashion consultant
Casey Hamilton
>As far as "Sonny" is concerned, I really worry about the boy. If he does
>have a "master" somewhere, then his "master" isn't paying attention. I
>know of very few of mistresses and masters who would countenence this sort
>of public display on the part of a submissive. It reflects so badly on
>the "master," and it does emotional damage to the submissive as well. I'm
>not offended by his own lack of control, but I find his "master's" lack of
>control deplorable.
Now I have to admit, I've completely lost track of just who "Sonny" is
this time around. Doesn't really matter though.
Maybe "Sonny" *isn't* a submissive/slave type and therefore doesn't
*have* a master or mistress to become distraught at "this sort of public
display". Or maybe "Sonny"'s master or mistress enjoys "Sonny"'s
smart-aleck behavior to one degree or another. Or maybe they believe
that "Sonny" is only obligated to be submissive to _them_ and not to
someone they've never met, and that "Sonny" is permitted to be
argumentative with strangers they disagree with.
+ + + +
A single fact can spoil a good argument.
+======================================================================+
Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits - for the CDA
Casey Hamilton (No wannas, please; the Horsie and everyone
06/27/1996 else are QUITE enough for me to deal with!)
Ruth Gifford
>
>On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Peter McDermott wrote:
>
>> In article <Tesarta-2106...@news.cc.oberlin.edu>,
>> Tes...@aol.com (Kevin Munoz) wrote:
>>
>> >Who determines the "real principles of dominance and submission"?
>>
>> Why the secret manual of Domly Dom practice, of course....
>> Haven't you got a copy? Whoooooooo... :-)
>
>Of course he hasn't. How could he ?
>We had duly collected all we could get and burned them on the stake.
>
>Rumour has it that some lone authentic copy still lingers in England,
>and that at least one forgery of the original be circulating in Atlanta.
>
>I shall have to enquire with the Santa Hermandad; they are just
>implementing their new tracking system for heretic books, with the
>friendly help of an UPS advisor.
I actually had my hands on a copy once (possibly the British copy mentioned
here), and thereby hangs a tale . . .
I was in the small town of Hay-on-Wye, just over the Welsh border from
England. Supposedly this peaceful hamlet contains the largest concentration
of used bookstores in the English speaking world. I had stopped there on my
way to Beaumaris (and its beautiful Conquest-era castle) looking for a copy
of Sir Roy Strong's "The English Icon" and two volumes I needed to complete
my collection of Spike Milligan's WWII memoirs (I was missing "Monty: My Part
In His Victory" and "Rommell? Gunner Who?"). My search had been futile and I
was seriously thinking of giving up, finding a pub and a pint of cider when I
noticed one more bookshop at the end of a narrow lane. Feeling an odd sense
of unease (which, at the time, I attributed to the bangers and fried bread at
breakfast), I open the door and went in. At first I simply wandered,
enjoying the musty smell of old paper and leather, but for some reason I was
drawn to one corner of the store. And there it was, placed almost casually
on top of a pile of old issues of "Punch" and "Mayfair". At least it looked
like a casual placement, although a closer look at the time would have
revealed that there were 13 magazines underneath it and each had the number
23 somewhere on the cover, and that the book itself lay at an exact 42 degree
angle in relation to the wall. Oh, if only I had been more cautious, but I
was an impetuous young American with no eye for subtlety. And so I touched
it, this book that called to me even as it repelled me.
And such a book it was. Bound in butter-soft black leather that felt like
gazelle to my knowing hands, it was a work of art. A faint shock ran up my
arms as I lifted it, finding it curiously reluctant to leave the pile of
magazines. I felt as though I had had brief contact with a live wire,
something that hadn't happened since the incident in Iran with the
transformer and the stuffed animal, but I digress . . . The cover was
embossed with a complicated sigil which, after some peering on my part,
revealed itself to be made up of two intertwined Ds. The edges of the cover
and the spine itself were decorated in a tasteful interlaced design of chains
and roses, with a few nettles to add an air of danger. For a moment my
rational mind screamed to put the book down and leave the store, but I
unwisely paid it no heed, and opened the cover, feeling a curious mixture of
dim unease and delicious antici . . . (wait for it) . . . pation.
A faint scent arose from the pages, attar of roses, mixed with bitter orange,
taking me briefly back to that night in Granada when I had purchased the most
curious leather adornment, but that is another tale . . . Printed on the
creamy ivory parchment of the title page, in a curiously wrought Victorian
Neo-Gothic font that I (despite my extensive knowledge of the history of the
printing press) did not recognize, were the words, "The Most Secret and
Ancient Rites of the Noble and Dark Order of the Domly Doms." Curious images
arose unbidden in my mind: a dimly terrible stone walled chamber in which the
most darkly terrible arts were practiced on the willingly offered flesh of
novice members of the order. My unsettled ear seemed to hear screams of
pleasure that can only be distinguished from screams of pain by the most
discriminating of connoisseurs.
I had to have this book and I hoped that the bookseller had no idea of the
true value of this legendary volume. I also had to hope that he didn’t have
a modern Visa machine. For you see, I was willing to risk not only my
sanity, but my very credit history itself to purchase this tome. After all
had I not risked imprisonment and deportation to Siberia when, in Leningrad,
I had bribed my way into the secret recesses of Catherine's Winter Palace?
While that is a story for another day, the things I that I had seen there had
been well worth the risk. As I turned, attempting all the while to look like
another bored wannabe-goth American girl who just wanted a kinky sex novel, a
hand grasped my wrist. The hand was clad in leather the color of long dried
blood, and as it touched me I felt my natural instinct for dominance (natural
but cultivated to it's fullest potential over the many years of my time in
the life) struggle with an utterly foreign (discounting the disaster in
Portland, the less said about which the better) need to submit. My knees
grew weak and my nether regions grew humid at the struggle within me. "Not
yet, Little One," a voice that sounded like fine silk tearing under the
pressure of strong hands, whispered in my ear. I watched, feeling as if I
were outside my body, as my hands released the book (which settled almost
gratefully into it's former 42 degree angle on the magazines). "Someday,
perhaps when you can hear My voice and not wish to kneel, maybe then, you'll
be ready." Lips, warm and full, touched my ear, and a mist fogged not only
my vision and hearing but my very brain as well. When the mist faded and I
was able to look around, I was alone. In front of me was the Strong book and
the two paperbacks I had sought. "Excuse me," I said to the proprietor, "do
you take Visa?"
There is little more to tell. As if in a daze, aware that *something* most
unusual had happened to me, I made my way out of the shop and into Mrs.
Merdle (the ninth Daimler of that name). I found a pub and my pint of cider,
and it was only when I returned to my secluded home along the wild northern
Californian coast many weeks later, that the dreams began.
That was many years ago. Countless hypnosis sessions, and many ritual
journeys and Tarot readings have restored my memory of the events in the
bookstore as much as is possible. I have since embarked on a course of
research to discover all I can about the book and those that wrote it.
Although most modern scholars insist that the order was disbanded after the
famous Nuit St. George incident, I know differently, and soon I shall hunt
them down and either become one of the Order or perish in the attempt. For
now, I have my amusements and when the dreams are too pervasive, I have my
morphine and my e-ludes. Life has settled into a falsely comfortable round
of news-group discussions, but I know that some day I will travel the far
corners of the earth to solve this mystery.
Ruth
who may have possibly read a little too much Lovecraft at an impressionable
age.
the wharf rat
>Wharf, what does the following exchange remind you of?
The fact that some people have entirely too much disc space to
archive with. Or do you have the entire History of Usenet on 9-track tape?
Atara Stein
Gifford) wrote:
> I actually had my hands on a copy once (possibly the British copy mentioned
> here), and thereby hangs a tale . . .
>
Mistress, you are *too* funny! Can anyone doubt why I fell in love with
this woman? She beats me *and* makes me laugh. Who could ask for more?
atara
--
Atara Stein ____
\ /
\/
"Everything is true. . . . Everything anybody has ever thought."
--Philip K. Dick, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
Bill: "Socrates: 'The only true wisdom consists in knowing
that you know nothing.'"
Ted: "That's us, Dude!"
Bill: "Oh yeah."--"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"
Atara Stein
MW) wrote:
[snip]
> When I first began posting here, I posted quite a few things about my
> life. I've seen a lot of silly comments from one particular poster who
> seems to delight in speculating about what my life has or hasn't been
> like. I have also received quite a nice note from one poster asking me to
> post some of my life history, to sort of put what I say into a context. I
> intend to do that later on this evening, but I'm going to answer you're
> questions right here and right now.
>
I won't quote your whole post here, but I appreciate the explanation. I'm
truly glad you've found someone who's earned your trust and that you're in
a situation that fulfills your needs.
What you describe would never work for me. I feel that my submission to
my Mistress is real precisely because it is chosen of my free will. You
seem to say (correct me if I'm misstating you) that your submission to
your Master is real because you have no power and no choice, although you
initially had the choice when you agreed to your enslavement. From *my*
point of view, that wouldn't work for me or my Mistress. In our case, I
would never willfully disobey her (although I do make mistakes, and I'm
punished for them, and I accept the punishment gratefully because I want
to be as good a slave as I can); because I have free will and free choice,
she knows I'm truly giving myself to her every time I submit and surrender
to her. She knows if she gives me a standing order, I will obey it even
if she's not around. If I were a domme in the kind of relationship you
describe, I'd worry that my sub wasn't giving herself freely to me because
she was in a mental state where giving herself to me was no longer a
choice. If you have no options, as you said, how can your owner know that
you're still freely giving yourself, that there's desire there as well as
need? I'm really asking out of intellectual curiosity--I'd like to
understand this.
It's obvious that we have different ideas of what constitutes submission.
I don't think, as Ruth suggested in a previous post, that there's a
scientifically valid, objective test for "real" submission. You've found
something that works for you, and it's real for you. I've found something
that works for me, and it's real for me. I've never said that anyone who
wants the same thing you have should settle for anything less, and I
haven't argued that there's anything *wrong* with wanting what you have.
All I've argued for is that there are different forms of submission, and
each is as real as the other if they work for the people involved. Can
you even *consider* this possibility?
Atara
Hillel
> The fact that some people have entirely too much disc space to
>archive with.
Wharf dear, disk space costs only $150 per gigabyte; it's really not
very expensive. I could probably save everything you've ever
posted on the net for $1.
>Or do you have the entire History of Usenet on 9-track tape?
I joined the net long after you, and very few people wrote as
well as Diane. Most of the net old timers were almost as bad
as the new kids in the block and I did not bother saving
their articles. (Yes, I saved your cooking instructions.
I'll try it next time I'll visit Berkeley.)
Besides, grep on a tape will take forever.
LOUISE MW
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes:
>I'm not saying she doesn't make choices. I _am_ saying that the kind of
submissive that she is is probably not a choice for her.<
No, it isn't. It's who and what I am, who and what I was before I had any
name for it, and who and what I'll be tomorrow. It is my identity and my
personality type. I most certainly didn't wake up one morning and say,
"hey, I want to be one of those." Of course <g>, I did wake up one
morning with the recognition that I was indeed one of those, but
recognition is not quite the same thing as chosing something. And, being
fairly free at the moment, I make quite a few choices <g>.
Peter McDermott
eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford) wrote:
>Hello?? Peter, are you actually a Brit, or do you just live or telnet there?
Yup.
> How much do you know about Joe McCarthy and his black and white view of the
>world?
Probably as much as most Americans. Maybe more.
>Waving a "white paper" which later turned out to be a tissue of lies,
>he told people that they were traitors and that they weren't "real"
>Americans.
Yup.
> It was one of the less bright moments in American democracy and
Quite.
>was responsible (among other things) for bringing Richard Nixon into the
>spotlight of US politics for the first time. How does this relate to ASB?
>Inquiring minds want to know.
See another post elsewhere.
Never a frown, with Golden Brown....
Peter McDermott
eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford) wrote:
>My knees
>grew weak and my nether regions grew humid at the struggle within me. "Not
>yet, Little One," a voice that sounded like fine silk tearing under the
>pressure of strong hands, whispered in my ear. I watched, feeling as if I
>were outside my body, as my hands released the book (which settled almost
>gratefully into it's former 42 degree angle on the magazines). "Someday,
>perhaps when you can hear My voice and not wish to kneel, maybe then, you'll
>be ready."
Ah yes. I remember the incident well. :-)
Kevin Munoz
<10432...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>zara....@jcu.edu.au writes:
>
>>you have a bird, which you keep in a cage.
>>how do you ever know if you truly own the bird,
>>unless you open the door to the cage and it
>>-doesn't- fly away.
>
>How many times have we heard this particular cliche?
>And I think for the topic at hand, it's a bad one.
>Birds by nature are going to fly -- *away* is a concept
>they know nothing of. They only know flying --
>unless their wings have been clipped. Aren't we
>talking about just that? Some of us *want* our
>wings clipped so that flying -- away or not -- isn't
>an option. The clipping shows the ownership, not
>the opening of the cage itself. After all, the
>clipping is done by one's owner. The cage can be
>opened by anyone.
Hm. A moment of pause, I say, for a really good
thought.
--
Kevin Munoz
*Cricketmaster*
Kevin Munoz
ast...@cyberg8t.com (Atara Stein) wrote:
>Amen! I agree totally. I have no intention of trying to denigrate 24/7
>TPE, and I wouldn't presume to question its reality to those involved.
>*All* I'm objecting to in Karen and some others' posts is their claim that
>the d/s my Mistress and I practice is *not* real because it's not in the
>context of a 24/7 TPE.
Maybe it is, and you just don't call it that?
No, don't answer that. I'm just trying to annoy today. Did it work? ;)
--
Kevin Munoz
*Cricketmaster*
Ruth Gifford
John W remarked:
>On 24 Jun 1996 20:24:47 GMT, eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford)
>wrote:
>>Ok I've got to ask this, and this seemed like the right place to ask it.
>>Karen, what if your owner (or whatever phrase you use) told you that sie
>>didn't want you any more? Would you quietly pack up whatever sie allowed
>>you to take with you and go? Or would you try to convince hir to let you
>>stay?
>Answering your questions for myself, not Karen, from the dominant's
>perspective:
Cool! I'm a top myself, and welcome another top's perspective! As I said in
my reply to Laura Isabella, I asked Karen but have no problem with anyone
else answering and I thought the group might be interested in the answers.
Otherwise I would have sent her private e-mail.
>Your questions appear to me to be posed from the POV of a scener,
>which is okay, but can be misleading. It can be really hard to
>understand what Jon calls TPE if you haven't had a good taste of it.
OK, first of all I'm *not* a scener. I'm in a monogamous relationship with
the lovely atara, although as I understand it, it's not a TPE. What I
understand of TPE is that it's for some people but not for all. It sounds
very intense and complex and the people who make it work have nothing but my
admiration. That is, until they tell me that they don't think my type of D/s
is real and tell me that I'm in a deluding myself when I say it is.
>IMX, the submissive's gift of self is/has_to_be freely made by the
>submissive, but in reality is not free to the dominant. It comes with
>a long string of responsibilities attached, responsibilities which the
>dominant has to respect if he is going to own his submissive in a safe
>and healthy manner.
Exactly my point. The sub makes a gift of submission because sie chooses to
trust the dom/me. And then the dom/me has to live up to the trust. What I
was talking about was the breech of trust that can occur in *any*
relationship. So the reason I asked those questions was because Karen talks
about surrendering her will totally and the word "totally" makes me wonder,
how total is total. What does the TPE sub do when the TPE dom/me breaks that
trust? There is no safeword and no contract, and Karen has mentioned not
being able to leave. Made me wonder, that's all.
>Seems to me that some people used to playing at Ds without accepting
>full responsibility for the consequences of their partner's submission
>often seem to have a Real Hard Time with this idea.
I would agree with you here, even though you're being a little condescending.
I dislike the connotations of the word "playing" because it's gotten to be
such a loaded phrase here on asb, but anyone who tries to top without
understanding their full responsibility for the sub involved, *even* if
they're sceners or "just" players is looking for trouble.
>In fact, I think this is the underlying crux of Jon's crusade - that
>people who participate only in scening may not ever "get" the
>underlying responsibilities of the dominant.
Sorry, but what I see is frequently (not always) a little more like: "we do
things the One True Way, and the rest of you are just floundering around in
the mud waiting to be enlightened." Sorry, but that's what comes across.
>When someone used to
>scening encounters a submissive searching to be owned, there is a
>large propensity for misunderstanding and hurt.
>At worst, people can suffer emotional injuries that can take a
>significant part of a lifetime to heal.
Dom/mes *and* subs have responsibilities and in any new situation there
should be a lot of discussion about what those are. Are we to believe that a
sub who is searching to be owned isn't like anybody else (vanilla, D/ser, or
whatever) looking for a new partner? That they're just going to fling
themselves willy-nilly at the feet of anyone in black leather? This insults
the intelligence of every sub out there. Is there no discussion of needs and
wants and directions for the relationship when a TPE relationship gets
started? If there isn't, then my hypothetical questions become a lot less
hypothetical. Also, I think you insult the intelligence of quite a few
sceners. If I were cruising for a new sub to "play" with (I'm not, thank you
very much, atara the only slave I'm interested in--although if a certain
bald, British-accented starship captain showed up wanting to be caned, I'd
have to think real hard; the man has closet sub written all over him) I'd ask
a lot of questions of anybody who told me "I'm looking for an owner." In any
new relationship there's a large propensity for misunderstanding and hurt.
D/s by its nature is about power and anyone looking to totally surrender
their power better ask a lot of questions first. Anyone thinking of
accepting that surrender better ask a lot of questions first. People will
still get hurt, and it will still break our hearts as fellow-members of a
community when they get hurt. We'll try to help them and we'll try to warn
others about the offender, but if you don't want to get hurt in a
relationship, the only "real" guarantee is to not have a relationship at all.
snip
>In effect, I can't make purely self-interested decisions about her,
>because I accepted her as my property, and as property, she's a
>*woman*, a thinking feeling creature, not an inanimate flower pot. If
>I don't want to keep her, I have the responsibility to try to hold her
>harmless from my wanting to let her go, which means I can't just say
>"Go Away Now" and push her out the door.
>This is not essentially different from owning any other living
>creature. How many times have you made a decision to give away a
>puppy or kitten "to a good home", eh? Even with animal pets, good
>people want to treat them humanely and care for them. Imagine how
>much more profound the responsibility if your property is a living,
>thinking, creative human being, eh?
So there is an implied emotional contract, and you feel the responsibility
very strongly. BTW I like this part of your post because it's seems like
mirror to Laura Isabella's post. I get the idea from what you say about your
relationship that you think very highly of your sub and I'm sure she can feel
that concern. But if there were a problem in the relationship and she wanted
to discuss it, would you listen? From what you say here, it sounds to me
like you would. Does you sub feel as though she's abrogated all of her will
and choice to you and does she feel like she can't leave, *even* if she
wanted to? Or is it what you said above, a very special, very meaningful
gift that she gives to you because you have proven worthy of her trust,
faith, and love ?
>So, if I'm a good owner, and if I've done my homework, I will have
>taken into account my submissives feelings and interests in making my
>own decision, and I'll bring to *her* the options and the decision
>making process I went through, and I'll allow her to point out any
>weaknesses or inappropriate considerations. I'm *not* going to just
>walk in and say, "get outta here, I don't want you any more." If I
>did, I'd be acting irresponsibly.
Exactly!!! Of course you're not! But what you say in the paragraph above
indicates to me (correct me if I'm reading this wrong) that she has a say in
the relationship and some form of choice or (and again I hesitate to use a
loaded word) power. Karen has said that the sub has *no* choice and *no*
power in a TPE. *That's* why I asked those questions (and she answered them
and I'll post at my usual length regarding her answer). Because of the
black/white absolutes that are often expressed in this thread.
>>What if sie sold you into another TPE relationship? Would you transfer
over
>>your "total" submission to your new owner?
>I personally could not "sell" a submissive to another dominant until I
>had considered the possibility and the options with as much
>thoroughness as she might have applied herself, all the time looking
>at it from HER point of view, as well as my own.
Once again like any good dom/me you're taking responsibility for your sub and
doing her the credit of thinking of her as a living thinking being with the
ability to make up her own mind. Of course my question was over-the-top, but
then many of the claims we read about TPE are over-the-top, so I felt
entitled.
>>I ask because if you truly want that lack of choice, are you prepared to go
>>through to the logical end with it?
>The "logical" end of her situation is not so important as the quality
>of the relationship and the responsible behavior of her Dom.
Pay attention, because once more, I'm going to admit to a mistake. :-) I
should *not* have used the word logical in the question. It was late and it
was a poor choice of words. I should have said extreme or some such. The
angle I was coming from was "real" historical slavery in which the slave
really did have little or no power in the Master/slave equation. But Karen
says she has *no* choice, *no* power, *no* control, and so I had to ask.
Inquiring minds and all that . . .
>>Would you let your owner do lasting physical damage to you?
>I have a submissive who is not even my total property who would answer
>that question "it depends." She knows that I would not intentionally
>harm her, but is not so sure she could save herself even in an
>unintentional setting. I have once unintentionally injured her in
>circumstances where, even while knowing that she was being injured,
>she was still obediently trying to please me. It was a very unhappy
>experience, and it took a while to rebuild her trust in me, because I
>had failed to uphold my part of the relationship. Even partial
>incomplete ownership can be dramatically different from scening.
This is really important and I'll tell you that I admire you for talking
about it, because it can't have been easy for either of you. The fact that
you say that it took a while to rebuild trust indicates that trust *was*
rebuilt, and that's great. This is where the true responsibility of being a
dom/me gets very serious, very fast. Yes it's possible that the sub will go
so far into sub-space (great term, sounds so SF--as in science-fiction, not
the City) that the dom has to be very careful *even* if there is a safe word.
None of us dom/mes, subs, or switches, TPEers, sceners, or those of us in
the gray fringes between, are perfect. We will make mistakes and we will
hurt (emotionally, or physically) the people we love. That's the way life
is. And you know what? It's life and it's all *real*.
This is kind of a reverse situation (only a lot more mild) that happened to
me. One night when I was working atara over with a flogger and I was
starting slow, she told me that she wasn't able to let go. In fact she
apologized and said, "Mistress, part of me is lying here thinking 'why am I
letting this bitch do this to me?' Please, Ma'am I want you to take that
away from me." Now part of me was a little pissed off for half a second. I
mean who the hell did she think she was . . .? Stop, Ruth . . . She was my
slave and she was telling me about something that was important to both of
us. If she had felt that she'd given up *any* choice or "power" or "control"
of the scene, and that she couldn't stop me to tell me about the problem,
things could have been a lot worse. I'm not blind or stupid, I would have
been able to tell that something wasn't working, but I might not have been
able to figure out why. Of course she got one hell of a beating that night
and I took several opportunities to ask her why she *was* letting "this
bitch" do this to her. I got the right answer too: "because she can,
Mistress" (only a lot more breathlessly than that). And when we reached that
point where the energy was flying around the room, we were right there
together in that place where it all works (I will get mystical about being a
sadist--ask about my 'net name). We wouldn't have gotten there if I hadn't
listened to her and she hadn't felt that I *would* listen to her.
>>Would you accept being sold, given away, or tossed
>>out into the street?
>Would you drive your car through a crowd of people at 60 miles an
>hour?
Not entirely analogous. I haven't abrogated my control to the car. I don't
claim that the car has the right to run my life (or the road--I run the road
thank you). I have a choice when I get behind the wheel.
Thanks for the post; it gave me a lot to think about.
Ruth
Ruth Gifford
Karen remarked:
>In article <4qmtif$i...@gate.cyberg8t.com>, eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth
>Gifford) writes:
>>Ok I've got to ask this, and this seemed like the right place to ask it.
>>Karen, what if your owner (or whatever phrase you use) told you that sie
>>didn't want you any more? Would you quietly pack up whatever sie allowed
>>you to take with you and go? Or would you try to convince hir to let you
>>stay?
>It's as good a place to ask as any. I've been abandoned. I know exactly
>what it feels like. The answer to the question is, you accept it. There
>isn't any choice.
Did you discuss the situation? Did you ask why? Were there any attempts on
either parties' part to save the relationship, if it was worth saving.
Sorry, I should have read your life story post before responding. Ignore any
questions that you answer there if you want to.
>I have also received quite a nice note from one poster asking me to
>post some of my life history, to sort of put what I say into a context. I
>intend to do that later on this evening, but I'm going to answer you're
>questions right here and right now.
Thanks. I'll admit right up front that a lot of your remarks on the subject
of TPE have struck me as being irritating and sometimes ruder than might be
necessary. I have taken exception to the whole faux D/s vs real D/s
discussion because I really dislike black/white wrong/right attitudes. I
also have to admit that sometimes when you talk about TPE I wonder where you
come from, because it sounds so foreign to my POV (that of a non TPE
monogamous lesbian top). Now that I've gotten the whole
dyke-encounter-group-in-your-face-honesty thing out of the way . . .
>>What if sie sold you into another TPE relationship? Would you transfer
>>over your "total" submission to your new owner? <
>If he did, there would be nothing I could do about it. The answer is
>"yes," I would do exactly that.
Right here you lose me and I suspect you lose a lot of other people. What if
you hated the new person? What if they didn't deserve this incredible trust
of yours? Is your submission really so ingrained that you'd accept a
situation like this? This time I want to know because I'm flabbergasted. A
friend of mine is writing a story about a woman who is treated as property
(in this case an arranged marriage) and because of this she makes the people
around her (in the future no less) uncomfortable. Reading this answer and
some of the ones below make me uncomfortable in the same way. Not because I
fear for your safety but because it is so very foreign to anything that I
know or understand. I want to say that if it works for you and you are
genuinely happy, then I'm glad you're happy, but even that is hard to do.
Not that my opinion matters, really. I've got to blame two years in Iran
(yeah I've been to all of those places I mention in my Lovecraft thing) for
some of my knee-jerk reaction that says "this is wrong regardless of whether
she wants it or not." In a way, I have to thank you for this post because it
pushes my perspective on this issue.
>>I ask because if you truly want that lack of choice, are you prepared to
>>go through to the logical end with it?
>Yes, but do read the ending comments.
Of course.
>>Would you let your owner do lasting physical damage to you?
>I have done so.
>>Would you accept being sold, given away, or tossed out into the street?
>Yes.
>Commentary:
>One of the things that a submissive in an absolute relationship has to
>accept, right off the bat, is that powerlessness is powerlessness. Once
>the psychological transformation has occured from free person to true
>slave, the options are all over with.
Is it really? I think this concept of absoluteness is my biggest barrier to
understanding why anyone (dom/me or sub) would *want* such a thing.
>An absolute relationship is a
>relationship between two real people, and cannot be entered into
>frivolously. You do not intentionally get involved with anyone who would
>be predisposed to do any of the things that you have suggested as
>possibilities. In fact, you would refrain from doing so. To paraphrase
>Countess Velveeta, when you decide that you want and need an absolute
>relationship, you just don't do your thinking with your pussy (or your
>dick). That's harshly worded for a reason. You have to use your head in
>setting up such a relationship. You have to know yourself very, very well
>and know that this IS what is right for you. You have to know the other
>person very, very well too. You move forward very slowly. There is no
>such thing as "I'll just try this for a while." Once the power exchange
>exists, it is done. The choices are over.
I went along reading what you write above and I'm thinking well yes, this
makes sense and yes I understand that and then you throw me for a loop again
when you say "the choices are over." Of course no one gets involved with
someone they think is going to fuck them over in a way in which they don't
wish to be fucked over. But if you know that when that threshold is passed
and the choices are indeed over, what kind of questions do you ask while
you're on the threshold? How do you get to know anyone that well? While I'm
not going to say that your submission is any more "real" than anyone else's I
have to admire your trust.
As a top I've also got to say that I personally would not want this kind of
submission, as much as the implied trust amazes me. How does a dom/me in
relationship like you describe know that the sub (I'm trying to ask general
questions here) still actively wants to be in the relationship? For me, the
fact that every time I think about my sub and know that the door is open and
all she has to do is leave my chains behind and have a coverup job done on
her tattoo in order to walk out that door, I feel loved and trusted all over
again. She willingly submits and proves her need both for the submission
itself and *my* domination in particular each time she says, "I'm yours
Mistress." She in turn knows that I need her submission and that if I
stopped getting it, there would have to be some very serious discussion
regarding continuing the relationship. While I'm not saying that if she
suddenly didn't want to be my sub, I'd instantly walk, but it would result
in a lot of soul-searching on my part.
>Understand, however, that the
>other person involved in this is *human*. TPE dominants, most of them,
>are not some sort of monsters. The vast majority of TPE dominants are
>loving, kind, and very dedicated to their lifestyle. They aren't going to
>do the things you suggest. A sociopath might, but those are rare. I am
>peculiarly able to address the issue of what a submissive will or won't do
>in a real power exchange relationship, because I have had that negative
>experience of powerlessness. It does nothing to remove the need for that
>kind of relationship, but I am vastly more intelligent about how I go
>about it now than I used to be. I know that I have blind spots, and that
>I am capable of making some very serious errors, and I got help for that.
>I won't make the same mistakes twice, and many submissives would not have
>made some of the mistakes I've made once.
All this makes perfect sense. The fact that you still need that kind of
relationship and seek it out after the negative indicates how vital it is to
your well-being. It still weirds me out, but it's your life and I'm
certainly not going to tell you you're wrong to want it.
>Real powerlessness IS real powerlessness. It is not something else. It
>has no limits in my experience. There is no physical threat, or social
>threat, or economic threat, or psychological threat, that cannot be made
>real at any time. The true solution to the problems incurred in such
>relationships is not their avoidance, not for those who need that
>experience, but to be sure that you are becoming involved with a real
>human being, who really understands the power dynamic involved,
>understands and has compassion for the real powerlessness of your
>position, and who is not going to do the things you suggest here because
>he/she is too moral, too ethical, too good to behave that badly. The fact
>that a TPE dominant has an intense power *kink* does not make him/her
>inhuman and uncaring. Far from it. In order to "get the job done" in
>power exchange terms, there is a great deal of mental and emotional
>intrusion going on. It is not all that easy to probe that deeply into the
>mind and heart of another human being and to be callous about them, or
>about what is or isn't good for them. As a matter of fact, I very much
>doubt that a callous person is even capable of the endeavor on any but the
>most superficial level.
This is most probably true. Anyone who wasn't interested in a great deal of
responsibility would probably flee someone who offered it to them. In the
ideal world of course perfect trust would be met by perfect love and vice
versa all the time. The reason I asked the questions (yeah so I'm repeating
myself) is that I had to know if you would stand behind your convictions.
You did and I feel like even if *I* don't understand you, *you* understand
you and that's far more important.
And now I have to ask the hardest question. You're obviously an intelligent
person, you undoubtedly know that the most people in the "vanilla" world
would say that you are out of your mind (and many on asb might agree), yet
you answered these questions without trying to hedge or be snide, and you
tried to explain how it works for you. So Karen, why the black/white thing?
Why say that "real" submission has to involve powerlessness on this serious
a level? Why not acknowledge the reality of other people's D/s? Yes, if
someone wanted a TPE relationship and got involved with someone who had no
clue, it would be disastrous. One would also think that it would be fairly
obvious to both parties that it was not going to work long before that
threshold of "no choice" was crossed. So if someone went out and told people
that TPE was BS and that it wasn't real, you'd have a valid point to be
pissed at that someone. And that's why I get pissed. Not because I think
TPE is wrong or invalid or dangerous (in spite of my purely hypothetical
questions), but because you and others have said that my style of D/s is not
"real." It's as real and as meaningful to atara and I as TPE-type D/s is to
you and the others. TPE is not for everyone and not, I suspect for most, but
if you and the rest of the "Gang of however many" keep acting like it is The
One True Way, people who come to asb looking to understand D/s will be more
confused than when they first realized that they don't kink like most people
kink.
Atara Stein
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
[snip]
> There may well be a measure of choice in whether people act on their
> desires, but if, as you suggest, both bdsm and homosexuality have a
> biological predisposition then what you are claiming is a "choice"
> is actually very heavily constrained by that predisposition. The
> need for a partner or mate is also probably hardwired as well.
>
> When we usually use the word 'choice' we tend to employ it to imply
> a relative freedom in the decision-making process. Here, that
> freedom is very tightly constrained by those biological predispositions.
> I believe that Karen has as much _choice_ in the matter as a
> gay man or woman does over their attraction to the same sex.
>
This doesn't contradict anything I said. There's a difference between a
biological predisposition and acting on it. I distrust arguments that
level humans to biology and nothing else. But I do agree that the
predisposition is something one has no choice about. That doesn't mean
you *act* on it with the first opportunity the comes along--you decide if
the person is the right one to fulfill your needs and desires--as Karen
describes entering into a TPE relationship, it's a long and deliberative
process, which again suggests she made a conscious choice to give herself
to the person she did. It's insulting to her to say she mindlessly fell
into a relationship because she was so driven by a biological drive she
had no self-control.
> >And by the way Karen used the terms "consciously and deliberately
> >assisted" which sounds to me like a *choice.*
>
> It doen't sound to me like anything without the context in which
> it was used.
>
Karen has described her willing enslavement as a voluntary and conscious
choice, not her predisposition for it.
> I'm not saying she doesn't make choices. I _am_ saying that the
> kind of submissive that she is is probably not a choice for her.
>
No problem. Agree with that too. I've never suggested she should be
anything different. I'm just tired of her and the rest of you telling me
what *I* am.
> >Of course, you've chosen to
> >obfuscate the issue by bringing up something totally non-analogous.
>
> What? A preference for BDSM (or a specific BDSM kink) is not analogous
> to another sexual preference? Why on earth not?
>
In that post, Karen wasn't talking about her preference for
submission--she was talking about the decisions she made to enter into a
particular TPE relationship.
>
> Hmm. Insulting little douchebag, aren't we? Whydoncha go and take
> your face for a shit? Don't forget to use the bidet afterwards...
>
Ohhh, what originality, what wit! I'm wounded to the quick! Wait . . .
it's worse . . . I'm MEEEELLLLTINNNNNNG!!!!!! AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!
Peter, Peter, Peter, when an adult (you *are* over 18, aren't you?)
resorts to namecalling, it's a sign that he or she has been thoroughly
defeated and doesn't have anything intelligent left to say on the
subject. Thank you for your concession--it means I don't have to bother
with replying to you any more. Hasta la vista Baybee!
Atara Stein
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
[snip]
>
> Sure, I'm associating McCarthyism with people who seek to silence
> minority opinions and heretical viewpoints. With a tendency to
> deliberately distort the views of opponents, and ignore their
> arguments by resorting to character assassination. With the
> rhetoric of 'democracy', 'freedom of speech', and 'diversity of
> opinion', but no real commitment to those issues. With a sheep-like
> tendency to gang up on those who are identified as 'the enemy', and
> a fear of speaking out in their defence for fear that you'll be
> labelled 'one of them'.
>
I never tried to silence anybody. All I've done is object to people
telling me what's *real* and *right* for *me*.
> As I recall, you've made all manner of assumptions about what you
> see as my beliefs, based upon the fact that I've defended certain
> points of Jons or Karens. That stinks of McCarthyism to me.
>
First of all, I'm not interested in Gangs and any confederacy between you
and Karen and JJ. I answer individual posts by individuals. I haven't
made any assumptions about your beliefs. I've simply addressed specific
points you've made about what is "real" and what is (your word)
"delusionary."
an37...@anon.penet.fi
loui...@aol.com (LOUISE MW) writes:
>> The question is whether non-absolute *d/s* is faux.
> There is no question at all in my mind. I've had none d/s
> relationships, d/s relationships in which there was no power
> exchange, d/s relationships in which power exchange was simulated
> but never achieved, and d/s relationships in which there was
> power exchange. The dominance and sumission in non-absolute
> relationships is not real. It may feel good, but it isn't real.
Quoting from Steve Pope's reply:
> But generalizing from a handful of failed experiences to conclude
> that entire broad categories of d/s are "not real" is neither logical
> nor appropriate.
Nor actually correct, as a matter of fact, since there are real people in
real relationships which are not absolute ones who engage in actual
dominance and submission.
However, it's asking a lot of someone that they not generalize from a
handful of experiences, since that's all the experiences most of us
ever have -- especially if, like Karen, we're in them for the long term.
I sometimes avoid that temptation only by reminding myself that not everyone
will get out of a given situation what I get out of it, nor vice versa. Oh,
I could say "real romantic love takes place only in straight relationships"
and cite a number of experiences to confirm this. My fallacy would not be
the small sample size, but the fact that I was pronouncing for people who
might be very different from myself -- even though their need or desire or
capacity for romantic love, the core issue I'm considering in making my
pronouncment, may be basically just like mine.
All manner of relationships succeed, and all manner of relationships fail.
None of us gets to try very many kinds of them; but the real problem is that
none of us gets to try being more than one person, and that's what really
gets us in trouble when we get on a soapbox about what will or won't meet
the needs of others.
Hound Dog.
(posted 25 July 1996)
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi
*Inquisitor*
<-Inquisitor->
> >One of the reasons of my own reserves against "absolute relationships"
> >between mere mortals <...>
Say, you wouldn't understand the real meaning of "concupiscentia" (in its
anthropological, not in its moral sense), which was the very _central_
term of my short posting on which you followed up, and which you there-
fore conveniently cut out, even if 20 Dominicans charitably and conjointly
tried to pound it into your head with rosary-adorned sledge-hammers ?
No, of course you wouldn't. It would shatter your life lie.
But others will do well to take this fundamental condition in account,
when dealing with their urges for and apprehensions about "absolute
relationships".
Inquisitor:
> >aren't even aware of it themselves. Delusion reigns...
Karen:
> One would certainly have to say that if you ever tried to achieve an
> absolute relationship, delusion would reign.
Indeed.
Just as much and more if I were to jump out of the window, flapping
my arms (to honour the JJ imagery...) and frolicking "I can fly !
I can fly !".
Why, I even could. I would just spoil the landing...
Which is why I don't attempt it. To eschew the shattering
disppointment following delusion. I would not be able to live an
absolute relationship. But I know it. And that is all the difference.
Regards,
<-Inquisitor->
*Inquisitor*
> Sure, I'm associating McCarthyism with people who seek to silence
> minority opinions and heretical viewpoints.
McCarthy ? Whoisdat ?
Peter infers that I would not live up to my net.handle in this discussion.
He might even be right.
*Pout*
<-Inquisitor->
fautor veritatis
the wharf rat
But it didn't 15 years ago when you started saving that shit.
>very few people wrote as well as Diane.
Oh, *I* get it. You saved *Diane's* stuff... I'm hurt.
Ruth Gifford
>
>In article <4qravi$1...@crl5.crl.com>, Jon Jacobs <jac...@crl.com> wrote:
>>Sonny, have you ever heard of the word pronection?
>
> That's when your feet point outwards, like a duck's.
>
> But what's it got to do with submission?
Well obviously, *some* ducks don't really point their feet outwards 24 hours
a day 7 days a week. So they're not real ducks.
Besides *I* thought pronection was one of three embryonic excretory organs of
vertebrates, which becomes the functional kidney of certain lower fishes.
> This is *the* most confusing newsgroup....
Not to someone who has actually touched a copy of the "The Most Secret and
Ancient Rites of the Noble and Dark Order of the Domly Doms." But I forgive
you . . .
If you want confusing, try afq, where we recently had a very polite
discussion about D/s, even though not all of us agreed. But then we're geeks
. . .
Ruth
--
**************
*Ruth Gifford*
**************
"Who needs a hobby,
Like tennis or philately
I've got a hobby
Re-reading Lady Chatterly"
Smut-Tom Leher
LOUISE MW
Says Mein Herr (Inquisitor)
> I would not be able to live an absolute relationship. But I know it. And
that is all the difference. <
Here we have the final assertion which is actually the basis for most of
the non-TPE arguments in this group. "I can't do it, so neither can you,
so there." Ridiculous. I had three years of German in college and still
can't speak the language. I simply haven't the "ear for it." What you
can or cannot do, in relationship terms, simply has nothing to do with
what anyone else can or cannot do. Gee, says the minor magistrate, I
couldn't do that, charges dismissed. How incredibly stupid!
LOUISE MW
>Subject: Re: Discussing Absolute Relationships: the Big Lie
>From: an37...@anon.penet.fi
>Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 05:35:27 UTC
>
>Hound Dog here.
>
>loui...@aol.com (LOUISE MW) writes:
>
>>> The question is whether non-absolute *d/s* is faux.
>
>> There is no question at all in my mind. I've had none d/s
>> relationships, d/s relationships in which there was no power
>> exchange, d/s relationships in which power exchange was simulated
>> but never achieved, and d/s relationships in which there was
>> power exchange. The dominance and sumission in non-absolute
>> relationships is not real. It may feel good, but it isn't real.
>
>Quoting from Steve Pope's reply:
>
>> But generalizing from a handful of failed experiences to conclude
>> that entire broad categories of d/s are "not real" is neither logical
>> nor appropriate.
Now the really sleazy lie in here is that Steve starts out by assuming
that my "non-TPE relationships" failed. I never said that, and have
repeated talked about my 7 year long relationship with a serious player
that ended only because he died. The relationship was not a failure in
any sense of the word. It did not satisfy my *power kink* but the
relationship wasn't a failure at all. It is necessary to assume and to
promote the idea that it was a failure, no matter what the truth actually
is, in order to try to invalidate my point. Sorry, you failed. This is
either a serious misunderstanding on your part, based on nothing I've ever
said about my relationships, or you just enjoy misrepresenting the
specific details of my life, which you know little enough about, for your
own purposes.
>Nor actually correct, as a matter of fact, since there are real people in
>real relationships which are not absolute ones who engage in actual
>dominance and submission.
Real people. Yes. Real relationships. Yes. Real feelings. Yes. Real
commitment. Yes. Real dominance and submission. No.
>However, it's asking a lot of someone that they not generalize from a
>handful of experiences, since that's all the experiences most of us
>ever have -- especially if, like Karen, we're in them for the long term.
And I think it is also appropriate to say that the people who argue with
me about this are people who are generalizing from a limited number of
personal experiences as well. The difference, as I see it, being that I
DO have a long experience with what they perceive as *real,* and in spite
of Steve's assertions to the contrary, that experience was quite
successful in bdsm terms, and I have lived from the other side as well.
There aren't the same, and feelings don't count. If you don't happen to
possess the *power kink* you probably will never know the difference,
because you will not miss what you do not desire or need. Another
submissive, with needs less extreme than my own, and not sharing my *kink*
for powerlessness would never have felt that anything was missing. It
would have gone unnoticed. I wasn't unhappy or miserable at all. I did
have a vague sense of *something* not being there. The dominant's
response was to work harder to provide the illusion of powerlessness, but
you what? If it is real, you know it, if it isn't, however intelligently
applied the illusion, it isn't and you sense that too.
>All manner of relationships succeed, and all manner of relationships
fail.
>None of us gets to try very many kinds of them; but the real problem is
that
>none of us gets to try being more than one person, and that's what really
>gets us in trouble when we get on a soapbox about what will or won't meet
>the needs of others.
I've never for a moment denied that most people do not share my needs.
Unfortunately, in this discussion, things always get bogged down by the
assertion that what TPE offers to those who really do need it, is
available in another context, and that is a fallacy. People who have
those needs, but have not fully recognized it yet, or who are looking to
meet those needs, simply cannot be told that the possible solutions are
multiple. They are not. If you actually have the need for an *absolute*
relationship, a non-absolute relationship with somebody who is really good
at it will not do the trick.
Steve Pope
loui...@aol.com (LOUISE MW) writes:
>>>> There is no question at all in my mind. I've had none d/s
>>>> relationships, d/s relationships in which there was no power
>>>> exchange, d/s relationships in which power exchange was simulated
>>>> but never achieved, and d/s relationships in which there was
>>>> power exchange. The dominance and sumission in non-absolute
>>>> relationships is not real. It may feel good, but it isn't real.
>> Quoting from Steve Pope's reply:
>>> But generalizing from a handful of failed experiences to conclude
>>> that entire broad categories of d/s are "not real" is neither
>>> logical nor appropriate.
> Now the really sleazy lie in here is that Steve starts out by
> assuming that my "non-TPE relationships" failed.
Not guilty!!! I never said that, nor do I assume this. I referred
to failed _experiences_, not failed relationships. Specifically,
the experience you cite above of "simulating but never achieving"
power exchange in a non-absolute relationship. I never ever said,
nor would I ever say that that relationship was a failure --
just the experience cited.
> This is either a serious misunderstanding on your part, based
> on nothing I've ever said about my relationships, or you just
> enjoy misrepresenting the specific details of my life, which you
> know little enough about, for your own purposes.
Hopefully, I've clarified that I haven't done either.
Steve
Ruth Gifford
Peter remarked:
>In article <4qpsvo$e...@gate.cyberg8t.com>,
>eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford) wrote:
>>I need no validation, thank you. Besides, I know my submission isn't real,
>>because it isn't there. I'm a top. What I had *hoped* for (so naively as
>>it
>>turns out) was an atmosphere where differences can be discussed and
>>explained, and maybe the people of a community made up of people on the
>>fringe what society calls acceptable might have a little more respect for
>>those differences.
>OK. Then our aims are the same. However, I believe that part of that
>process has to be the right to ask uncomfortable questions and state
>unpopular conclusions -- and recieve equal respect for those positions.
I can respect you position, but I don't have to agree with your conclusions.
When terms like "faux" and "delusionary" get tossed around, I have to wonder
who gave you the right to declare what "real" submission is. Obviously, as
atara pointed out in one of her posts, you aren't using submission as a
dictionary defines it, therefore you're merely talking about "your" version
of submission. If it works for you, great, but I refuse to accept your
definitions, and I get annoyed when you (and others here, this isn't just
aimed at you, Peter) seem so determined to insist that yours is The One True
Way. The Christian Right here in the States annoys me when they do that and
I find it amusing (and a little sad) to see it here on asb. Keep asking
uncomfortable questions, and feel free to state your conclusions. But then
don't say "help help, I'm being repressed by a bunch of McCarthyist
arm-flappers," when people call you on it. I'd like to think that you're
smart enough to know that if you tell people that what they call D/s isn't
real they'll get upset, but maybe I'm being optimistic. Then again maybe
you're just poking sticks into a hornet's nest.
>Well, I've never even _seen_ a leatherpride sticker, but if I had, I'm
>sure I would.
Oh, of course. I got wound up and forgot that you're in the UK (I'm not
being a US-centric American, I'm being my usual Ruth-centric self). AFAIK
(and anyone can jump in and correct me) the leatherpride symbol started to be
used by a group of Leather/Levi folk. It's a flag that has a background of
alternating horizontal black and blue stripes (four of each color) with a
white stripe across the middle, and a red heart in the upper right corner.
Also AFAIK it hasn't been around all that long. I'll explain why I went on
about being out. It's something I feel very strongly about and as far as I'm
concerned it has to do with tolerance. In my not particularly subtle way, I
was making the point that I thought I'd find tolorance here too. When I
found that I was being told that my kink was not "real" by people who
should know better, it cheesed me off.
Snip of Peter explaining that he's very out, which I think is great.
>Men are somewhat different. They tend to snigger and titter a bit more.
Maybe because you're a man too. The guys in the warehouse my office was
connected to (still is, it's just not my office any more, I was downsized
with a bunch of others and then the company's stock went up, but I digress)
just started looking at me oddly (it came up because one of them is gay and
noticed my sticker; he didn't look at me oddly, he just started teasing me
about it--all in fun). The women were the ones with the questions.
>>What I mind and
>>always will mind is other people making absolute statements like the ones
>>I've read here on asb.
>Well, you're allowed to mind them making them, but I question
>the desirability of silencing anybody with a point of view.
That's big of you. BTW Peter, I've *never* tried to silence you (or anyone
else for that matter) even when you called my girl a douchebag during one of
your scintillating bursts of wit. I'll object to both your statements about
"real" vs "faux" D/s and your rather childish name-calling, but I *won't*
tell you to shut up.
>No, I agree. I don't do this either. But the point I was raising
>was really about whether we can discuss abstract theoretical
>principles without people infering a slight on their own
>particular relationship as a consequence and then feeling insulted.
>It seems to me that you should be able to do this without anyone
>taking offence -- though of course, they have every right to disagree
>and to rebut them.
But the fact is that during this discussion, I've seen posts where people
(and this may not even be you personally) insist that *anyone* who thinks
that any D/s outside a TPE is real is living in a fantasy or a delusion (both
words that get tossed out a lot). Flat out statements. Of course people
take it personally, and can you really tell me that you have only the purest
motives? Then why the name calling?
And we always have to ask, what about the people who don’t even know what
kind of D/s they want? I know what I want and what works for me. ::very big
grin after last night:: but if someone came here to try and understand
their kink and were scared off because they read all of this stuff about "no
choice" and "no safewords," and "TPE is the only way that's real," it would
be very sad. I would imagine that some people might be ready for a TPE
relationship right off the bat, but from what I understand, most people don't
know that they need TPE from the get go. But if they think that their non
TPE kink is faux or delusionary D/s, then whoever is telling them that is
doing them as great a disservice as a psychologist who would tell them they
were sick. Sure everyone who reads USNET should know to examine any
information they get there carefully, but still . . . Should someone who is
not suited to a TPE be told that they are deluded in thinking that what they
want isn't really D/s? If they are submitting and feel dominated, who the
*HELL* are any of us to say that they're wrong? True they could feel that
something is missing, at which point they might think, 'hey, maybe I might
want a TPE situation.' At that point talking about TPE and it's rewards and
the concerns some people have is a Very Good Thing. On this subject, I've
got to say here that there have been some posts that explain TPE in very
eloquent and moving terms and I can imagine that they intrigue people who
might think they want this but are afraid of the totality of it all. For
reasons that atara and I have explained, it's not for us, but obviously the
level of love and trust that Laura Isabella (only one example, but I *really*
liked her post) has found in her relationship is truly wonderful. Once more
(and I'll keep banging my head on this wall--while flapping my arm, now
there's a weird mental picture :-) ) it's the condescending position that
irritates me, not talking about TPE. I post stuff on the 'net that
(depending on the ruling of higher courts) could be illegal here in the
States. I'm not about to tell people what they can and can't discuss, just
that they remember that people read and take seriously what they say.
>>I really ought to send this to my ex the Philosophy major; I'm sure he'd be
>>amused. Please define reality.
>I was operating with the one that you were using when you raised the
>concept. ;-)
See, we can't even agree on what reality is. :-) Instead of trying to muddy
the water with definitions of reality (and I think I posted a dictionary
definition that shed no light whatsoever), I'll try another tack. How's this
thought?
***A TPE relationship is a valid and real form of D/s that is very extreme
and all encompassing. It is not for everyone, and if it is for you, then it
would be in your best interests to find a partner with whom you can build a
TPE relationship. Non-TPE D/s may not be as extreme or all encompassing, but
it is still a valid and real form of D/s, and if you practise it and are
happy, you are not living in a delusion.***
Can you agree with that? Or are you going to insist that only TPE style D/s
is real, valid D/s? If you are, I want to see hard and fast evidence for it.
I want to see the checklists and the tests for determining real valid D/s.
So far what I've seen are *your* definitions of submission. They don’t match
either mine or a dictionary, so there we are again, your 'reality" against
my "reality." It's the same as a religious debate, and quite frankly I seem
to be a lot more tolerant than you are. At least I say that both of us are
right for ourselves. Does this have to be so black and white? Is there
really One True Way to do D/s? If you think that then I'm sorry for you,
because I think narrow viewpoints tend to limit one's ability to learn from
life, and if you can't learn from life, I'm of the opinion that that's a sad
thing.
> I've got a question for you here. If I told you that I planned to
>pop out my submissive's eyeballs tonight, and she was really
>looking forward to it, do you think it would be legitimate to
>question _my_ reality, or would you shy away from "imposing
>your reality on others?"
Oh please! I wouldn't question your reality, I'd question your sanity and
hers (imposing my reality, maybe, but still . . .). But are you really
trying to say that your telling me that you're going to pop out your subs
eyeballs is analogous to my saying that my D/s is real? If I say my D/s is
real to me, and that people who do what I do are *not* living in a fantasy
there's very little danger. I know you say that the danger is to someone who
is in a less then TPE relationship but who *needs* a TPE, but see what I said
above about that. It is, actually, an interesting debate question.
Obviously if you told *me* specifically, I couldn't do a damn thing, there
being a continent and an ocean between us (or several continents and an ocean
in the other direction). Your only point in telling me would be to freak me
out. If I lived down the street . . . I don’t know, it would depend on so
many variables. Yeah I'd probably call the cops, given that I had only your
word that that's what your sub wanted. Interesting that when we get into
this you use the "tit-slicing" argument.
>I think the best test of anything is to open it up to critical
>scrutiny by asking questions. Then, the audience can decide for
>themselves what's true and what isn't. But my hackles go up when
>people tell me that certain questions are off-limits.
Help! When have I told any of you that there are off limit questions? If I
have I apologize. I object to you're telling me that I'm not practicing
"real" D/s. I'm even willing to tell you that you can tell me that all you
like, you just shouldn't be surprised when I get pissed off and object loudly
(actually it's *me*; I don’t object in any other way ;-) ) and in public.
>Sometimes, questions here may be posed in the form of statements, but
>because
>of Usenet's nature as an interactive medium, I still find it useful
>to regard them as questions because any such statements will always
>generate more data that hopefully gives us a better understanding of
>the issue.
Are you saying that all the blanket statements you post regarding living in
fantasy worlds etc. are really questions? The one below was a question,
right? To me, the implication was pretty plain that you think those that
don't think your way live in a fantasy world.
>>>But I quite
>>>understand that some people who live in a fantasy would find the whole
>>>thing pretty threatening.
snip
>Again, this was a general observation rather than being specifically
>aimed at you. When I insult people, I make it pretty clear that I'm
>doing so. :-)
Yes you do. And I've got to tell you, you'd be right at home with my five
year old stepson and his little friends. Their insults are on about the same
level.
>>>Then you were wrong.
>>OK. It's been known to happen. Even MightyDyke is wrong on occasion.
>Not often, I'd be willing to bet.
Well no, it doesn't happen often. Little mistakes yes (you all may have
noticed that I can't spell and that I type too fast and rarely proof
read--it's a trial to my English PhD sub). But big ones? I wouldn't be
MightyDyke if I made many of *those*. :-)
Charles Haynes
In article <ADF7564E...@petermc.demon.co.uk>,
Peter McDermott <pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>out are you about your D/s proclivities? Do you have a leatherpride sticker
>>on your car?
>Well, I've never even _seen_ a leatherpride sticker, but if I had, I'm
>sure I would.
http://www.fifth-mountain.com/radical_sex/lthrprid.gif
-- Charles
--
http://www.fifth-mountain.com/
The Bladesman
On 22 Jun 1996 12:39:24 -0700, you wrote:
>Well, of course. What we question is what happens if/when you *stop*
>liking it?
Sorry for interrupting, but I would prefer to give the TPE couple the
benefit of the doubt. If my sub were truly unhappy, I like to believe
that I would have enough empathy to notice it, and I'd like to think we
wouldn't be engaged in a TPE relationship unless there were some very deep
feelings between us. Hell, you know how love is, BDSM or otherwise. What
counts is the other person more than yourself. If I were being topped, I
would also want to know that "person" (yep, it's still uncomfortable
saying "Mistress") intimately enough to make an informed decision about
them; whether they actually cared "for" me, and whether they would take
care "of" me, and vice-versa.
I have to believe that the sub won't even engage in a TPE scenario if real
love isn't present in the mix. It goes without saying that you won't
surrender yourself to someone unless it's for love. If one of the two
*stops* being happy with the arrangement, it'll surely become evident, and
if there was love between them from the beginning, I also have to believe
that any "real" unhappiness *will* acted on in a proper manner. It may be
all you hear about in the news, and I'm sure that's what they would love
you to believe, but truly abusive personalities are still only a *small*
minority. I tend to pride myself on being a good judge of character, and
so far, I've seen no one yet among the asb regulars that strikes me as
being the underhanded, abusive type.
I'm trying *very* hard not to say this in an offensive manner, but (for
you military strategist types) caution is a holding or defensive maneuver,
not to be confused with advancement. As a general rule, letting caution
(or paranoia) control your actions does just that; control your actions
and ruin your happiness, and no matter where you think your caution will
take you, you always, *ALWAYS* end up right back where you started...
The Bladesman
On 21 Jun 1996 05:35:38 GMT, you wrote:
>C'est tout! If I wanted to be told what about my love/sex life isn't real,
>I'd become a Republican.
Hey! I resemble that remark! Here you all go on about how you'd drop out
of an uncaring D&S/TPE relationship, and you can't fathom a very similar
political concept? Republicans don't want to be submissives in an
uncaring TPE relationship with the government, thank you. How can you
think otherwise after the CDA? Billy-C signed that one, remember? Sorry.
I'm off-topic. Republicans can be kinky too, and most of us Republicans
want to separate Sex and State, as well as Church and State...regardless
of what the media wants you to think... Oops. Am I ranting again? <grin>
osborne_richard
LOUISE MW (loui...@aol.com) wrote:
: Says Mein Herr (Inquisitor)
: > I would not be able to live an absolute relationship. But I know it. And
: that is all the difference. <
: Here we have the final assertion which is actually the basis for most of
: the non-TPE arguments in this group. "I can't do it, so neither can you,
: so there." Ridiculous. I had three years of German in college and still
: can't speak the language. I simply haven't the "ear for it." What you
: can or cannot do, in relationship terms, simply has nothing to do with
: what anyone else can or cannot do. Gee, says the minor magistrate, I
: couldn't do that, charges dismissed. How incredibly stupid!
My impression is that the basis of most arguments against TPE is the
idea that there is no absolute Reality. Instead, reality is subjective,
a matter of personal perception. While this concept of "personal
reality" is most often applied to subjective issues such as art.
relationships, and personality it is also applied to sciences using
the logic that perception is the basis of science and perception
varies from one person to the next. (I think I mangled that one, but
it's close enough.) Subjective reality is often used as an argument
against Platonic Reality (Platonic Reality being the major philosophy
of absolute Reality and Truth.)
The problem is that a subjective notion of reality can't successfully
be used to argue against another view of reality because even these
other views of reality are subjective. The resulting discussion is a
horrendous mess in which everything but the kitchen sink is used to
attack and defend.
Unless I've misread the TPE threads, once you discard the angst and
innuendo and once you set aside the illogical argument, you find that
what's left is an expression of protest by the antiTPEers against being
told that their form of bdsm is fake. Nobody likes being told that
their life is fake or somehow "less than".
I can't recall when, where, or how it came up that nonTPE lifestyles
are fake. Maybe it started as a very low-key off-hand remark that
got amped up over time. Maybe it started as flamebait.
To me, having my life labeled as faux (the faux oz?, the pho oz? Maybe
I should open a Vietnamese noodle shop--The Pho Oz)
is offensive and stupid. If the TPE people did not intend this labeling
I think they oughtta clear that up. If they did, I'm getting out my
flamethrower.
a tolerant oz
surf's up!
should be ashamed.
Peter McDermott
In article <astarte-2806...@host26.cyberg8t.com>,
ast...@cyberg8t.com (Atara Stein) wrote:
>> Hmm. Insulting little douchebag, aren't we? Whydoncha go and take
>> your face for a shit? Don't forget to use the bidet afterwards...
>>
>Ohhh, what originality, what wit! I'm wounded to the quick! Wait . . .
>it's worse . . . I'm MEEEELLLLTINNNNNNG!!!!!! AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!
>
>Peter, Peter, Peter, when an adult (you *are* over 18, aren't you?)
>resorts to namecalling, it's a sign that he or she has been thoroughly
>defeated and doesn't have anything intelligent left to say on the
>subject.
You wish. Typical circle-jerker -- you can dish it out but
you can't take it.
"He's old. He's stubborn. He likes girls. Leave him alone."
loui...@aol.com
Peter McDermott
In article <astarte-2806...@host46.cyberg8t.com>,
ast...@cyberg8t.com (Atara Stein) wrote:
>> Sure, I'm associating McCarthyism with people who seek to silence
>> minority opinions and heretical viewpoints. With a tendency to
>> deliberately distort the views of opponents, and ignore their
>> arguments by resorting to character assassination. With the
>> rhetoric of 'democracy', 'freedom of speech', and 'diversity of
>> opinion', but no real commitment to those issues. With a sheep-like
>> tendency to gang up on those who are identified as 'the enemy', and
>> a fear of speaking out in their defence for fear that you'll be
>> labelled 'one of them'.
>>
>I never tried to silence anybody.
Where did I say that you had?
>> As I recall, you've made all manner of assumptions about what you
>> see as my beliefs, based upon the fact that I've defended certain
>> points of Jons or Karens. That stinks of McCarthyism to me.
>>
>First of all, I'm not interested in Gangs and any confederacy between you
>and Karen and JJ. I answer individual posts by individuals. I haven't
>made any assumptions about your beliefs. I've simply addressed specific
>points you've made about what is "real" and what is (your word)
>"delusionary."
I suggest you re-read your posts. For a tenured English professor,
you've got an awfully short memory for what you write.
Peter McDermott
In article <4r6n96$9...@gate.cyberg8t.com>,
eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford) wrote:
>OK. Then our aims are the same. However, I believe that part of that
>>process has to be the right to ask uncomfortable questions and state
>>unpopular conclusions -- and recieve equal respect for those positions.
>
>I can respect you position, but I don't have to agree with your conclusions.
> When terms like "faux" and "delusionary" get tossed around, I have to wonder
No, you don't have to agree with me at all.
>who gave you the right to declare what "real" submission is. Obviously, as
Point out where I do this please?
>atara pointed out in one of her posts, you aren't using submission as a
>dictionary defines it, therefore you're merely talking about "your" version
>of submission.
That tends to be what I'm talking about most of the time. However,
I still believe that there is a place for talking about theoretical
models of D&S here on ASB, and that has to include some distinction
about what is and what isn't, surely? You may not want to discuss it,
and you may want to contest the model I propose, but surely the
discussion is valid and people have a right to express their
beliefs on the issue.
>If it works for you, great, but I refuse to accept your
>definitions, and I get annoyed when you (and others here, this isn't just
>aimed at you, Peter) seem so determined to insist that yours is The One True
>Way. The Christian Right here in the States annoys me when they do that and
>I find it amusing (and a little sad) to see it here on asb. Keep asking
>uncomfortable questions, and feel free to state your conclusions. But then
>don't say "help help, I'm being repressed by a bunch of McCarthyist
>arm-flappers," when people call you on it.
Do try to follow along Ruth. The McCarthy insult was in response to
the Gang of Four insult. Get it now? Or is it one rule for the left
and another for the right -- the American way and all that?
>I'd like to think that you're
>smart enough to know that if you tell people that what they call D/s isn't
>real they'll get upset, but maybe I'm being optimistic. Then again maybe
>you're just poking sticks into a hornet's nest.
I don't think I'm trying to tell anybody anything of the sort. If
you can point to somewhere where I do, I'd be glad to withdraw it.
I think that you and Atara are both doing what so many other people
on ASB do, and making inferences about what people believe rather
than going by what they actually write.
>>Well, you're allowed to mind them making them, but I question
>>the desirability of silencing anybody with a point of view.
>
>That's big of you. BTW Peter, I've *never* tried to silence you (or anyone
>else for that matter) even when you called my girl a douchebag during one of
>your scintillating bursts of wit.
Hey, if she dishes it out, she has to be prepared to take it as well?
I have to say though, I did it before I realized that you were a
couple. I rather regretted it when I did as in the process of replying
to your last post, I'd grown quite fond of you.
>I'll object to both your statements about
>"real" vs "faux" D/s
I'm still waiting for someone to show me these statements....
>and your rather childish name-calling, but I *won't*
Huh? I see. It's OK to engage in name-calling when you do it in a
mock-civilized fashion, but use the same language as the great
unwashed majority and it's unacceptable?
>tell you to shut up.
Fair enough.
>>No, I agree. I don't do this either. But the point I was raising
>>was really about whether we can discuss abstract theoretical
>>principles without people infering a slight on their own
>>particular relationship as a consequence and then feeling insulted.
>>It seems to me that you should be able to do this without anyone
>>taking offence -- though of course, they have every right to disagree
>>and to rebut them.
>
>But the fact is that during this discussion, I've seen posts where people
>(and this may not even be you personally) insist that *anyone* who thinks
It certainly isn't me personally.
>that any D/s outside a TPE is real is living in a fantasy or a delusion (both
>words that get tossed out a lot). Flat out statements. Of course people
>take it personally, and can you really tell me that you have only the purest
>motives? Then why the name calling?
Why the name calling? Re-read the post I was responding to. I was
simply reflecting back. Check the actual _line_ I was responding to.
I write for a living, Ruth. My posts are carefully worded.
>And we always have to ask, what about the people who don’t even know what
>kind of D/s they want? I know what I want and what works for me. ::very big
>grin after last night:: but if someone came here to try and understand
>their kink and were scared off because they read all of this stuff about "no
>choice" and "no safewords," and "TPE is the only way that's real," it would
Do you _really_ believe that's likely? If it were, then I'd be the
first person to take issue with it. However, TPE etc. has always
been a minority interest here on ASB --very much a minority interest,
and I don't believe anyone is in danger of thinking otherwise.
>there's a weird mental picture :-) ) it's the condescending position that
>irritates me, not talking about TPE. I post stuff on the 'net that
>(depending on the ruling of higher courts) could be illegal here in the
>States. I'm not about to tell people what they can and can't discuss, just
>that they remember that people read and take seriously what they say.
Noted.
>>>I really ought to send this to my ex the Philosophy major; I'm sure he'd be
>>>amused. Please define reality.
>
>>I was operating with the one that you were using when you raised the
>>concept. ;-)
>
>See, we can't even agree on what reality is. :-) Instead of trying to muddy
>the water with definitions of reality (and I think I posted a dictionary
>definition that shed no light whatsoever), I'll try another tack. How's this
>thought?
>
>***A TPE relationship is a valid and real form of D/s that is very extreme
>and all encompassing. It is not for everyone, and if it is for you, then it
>would be in your best interests to find a partner with whom you can build a
>TPE relationship. Non-TPE D/s may not be as extreme or all encompassing, but
>it is still a valid and real form of D/s, and if you practise it and are
>happy, you are not living in a delusion.***
I actually don't believe there are any significant differences
between this position and the one that Jon Jacobs articulates.
I certainly don't have any problem with it. But I'm fighting other
battles that precede your appearance here, so you can be forgiven
for mistakingly believing I thought something else.
>> I've got a question for you here. If I told you that I planned to
>>pop out my submissive's eyeballs tonight, and she was really
>>looking forward to it, do you think it would be legitimate to
>>question _my_ reality, or would you shy away from "imposing
>>your reality on others?"
>
>Oh please! I wouldn't question your reality, I'd question your sanity and
>hers (imposing my reality, maybe, but still . . .). But are you really
>trying to say that your telling me that you're going to pop out your subs
>eyeballs is analogous to my saying that my D/s is real?
No, I'm just making the point that sometimes, questioning
people's reality is actually in everybody's best interests,
including the people whose reality is being questioned -- and
on that basis I reserve the right to do it when I think it
appropriate. I don't do it very often, but that tends to be
because I don't care very much about what's going on for
other people that I'm not involved with.
> If I say my D/s is
>real to me, and that people who do what I do are *not* living in a fantasy
>there's very little danger. I know you say that the danger is to someone who
>is in a less then TPE relationship but who *needs* a TPE, but see what I said
>above about that. It is, actually, an interesting debate question.
>Obviously if you told *me* specifically, I couldn't do a damn thing, there
>being a continent and an ocean between us (or several continents and an ocean
>in the other direction). Your only point in telling me would be to freak me
>out. If I lived down the street . . . I don’t know, it would depend on so
>many variables. Yeah I'd probably call the cops, given that I had only your
>word that that's what your sub wanted. Interesting that when we get into
>this you use the "tit-slicing" argument.
Hey, I knew it would come in handy sooner or later. :-)
>>I think the best test of anything is to open it up to critical
>>scrutiny by asking questions. Then, the audience can decide for
>>themselves what's true and what isn't. But my hackles go up when
>>people tell me that certain questions are off-limits.
>
>Help! When have I told any of you that there are off limit questions? If I
You haven't. At least, not personally. As I say, I'm fighting battles
that precede your appearance here, just as you and Atara and a handful
of others are fighting battles you've had with Jon with me. But I
trying to maintain a general focus when I make such points, where as
you too seem to particularize it to _my_ beliefs and actions.
>have I apologize. I object to you're telling me that I'm not practicing
>"real" D/s. I'm even willing to tell you that you can tell me that all you
>like, you just shouldn't be surprised when I get pissed off and object loudly
>(actually it's *me*; I don’t object in any other way ;-) ) and in public.
Maybe my real problem is that I hate certainty? Whenever I come
across people who seem as sure of their arguments as you and Atara,
I just can't help poking my nose in.
>>Sometimes, questions here may be posed in the form of statements, but
>>because
>>of Usenet's nature as an interactive medium, I still find it useful
>>to regard them as questions because any such statements will always
>>generate more data that hopefully gives us a better understanding of
>>the issue.
>
>Are you saying that all the blanket statements you post regarding living in
>fantasy worlds etc. are really questions? The one below was a question,
>right?
>To me, the implication was pretty plain that you think those that
>don't think your way live in a fantasy world.
>
>>>>But I quite
>>>>understand that some people who live in a fantasy would find the whole
>>>>thing pretty threatening.
No, that was a kind of 'if the cap fits', snide jibe. Not aimed at
you or anyone in particular, I should add. It was almost certainly
formed in response to something as well. Out of context like this,
it does look like a blanket statement though.
>snip
>
>>Again, this was a general observation rather than being specifically
>>aimed at you. When I insult people, I make it pretty clear that I'm
>>doing so. :-)
>
>Yes you do. And I've got to tell you, you'd be right at home with my five
>year old stepson and his little friends. Their insults are on about the same
>level.
Strange. That sounds like the sort of insult my grandmother would come
up with. Is there some sort of heirarchy of acceptable insults then?
(That's a rhetorical question. I can insult people on all manner of
different levels. But every now and again, I have a genuine affection
for sheer puerile obscenity. Call me old fashioned, but there we are...)
k'Shandra
Ruth Gifford (eres...@cyberg8t.com) wrote:
: On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 03:14:13 UTC *Inquisitor* remarked:
: >
: >On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Peter McDermott wrote:
: >
: >> In article <Tesarta-2106...@news.cc.oberlin.edu>,
: >> Tes...@aol.com (Kevin Munoz) wrote:
: >>
: >> >Who determines the "real principles of dominance and submission"?
: >>
: >> Why the secret manual of Domly Dom practice, of course....
: >> Haven't you got a copy? Whoooooooo... :-)
: >
: >Of course he hasn't. How could he ?
: >We had duly collected all we could get and burned them on the stake.
: >
: >Rumour has it that some lone authentic copy still lingers in England,
: >and that at least one forgery of the original be circulating in Atlanta.
: >
: >I shall have to enquire with the Santa Hermandad; they are just
: >implementing their new tracking system for heretic books, with the
: >friendly help of an UPS advisor.
: I actually had my hands on a copy once (possibly the British copy mentioned
: here), and thereby hangs a tale . . .
I'm leaving the "tale" below, to assist with propagation...
**BRAVO!** Ruth! (On second thought, make that "*Well* done, old girl!")
A beautifully crafted, wonderfully evocative slice of perversiana -- all
the more impressive and enjoyable for being penned with tongue so firmly
planted in cheek. Thank you!
k'Shandra
bound to sing
: I was in the small town of Hay-on-Wye, just over the Welsh border from
: England. Supposedly this peaceful hamlet contains the largest concentration
: of used bookstores in the English speaking world. I had stopped there on my
: way to Beaumaris (and its beautiful Conquest-era castle) looking for a copy
: of Sir Roy Strong's "The English Icon" and two volumes I needed to complete
: my collection of Spike Milligan's WWII memoirs (I was missing "Monty: My Part
: In His Victory" and "Rommell? Gunner Who?"). My search had been futile and I
: was seriously thinking of giving up, finding a pub and a pint of cider when I
: noticed one more bookshop at the end of a narrow lane. Feeling an odd sense
: of unease (which, at the time, I attributed to the bangers and fried bread at
: breakfast), I open the door and went in. At first I simply wandered,
: enjoying the musty smell of old paper and leather, but for some reason I was
: drawn to one corner of the store. And there it was, placed almost casually
: on top of a pile of old issues of "Punch" and "Mayfair". At least it looked
: like a casual placement, although a closer look at the time would have
: revealed that there were 13 magazines underneath it and each had the number
: 23 somewhere on the cover, and that the book itself lay at an exact 42 degree
: angle in relation to the wall. Oh, if only I had been more cautious, but I
: was an impetuous young American with no eye for subtlety. And so I touched
: it, this book that called to me even as it repelled me.
: And such a book it was. Bound in butter-soft black leather that felt like
: gazelle to my knowing hands, it was a work of art. A faint shock ran up my
: arms as I lifted it, finding it curiously reluctant to leave the pile of
: magazines. I felt as though I had had brief contact with a live wire,
: something that hadn't happened since the incident in Iran with the
: transformer and the stuffed animal, but I digress . . . The cover was
: embossed with a complicated sigil which, after some peering on my part,
: revealed itself to be made up of two intertwined Ds. The edges of the cover
: and the spine itself were decorated in a tasteful interlaced design of chains
: and roses, with a few nettles to add an air of danger. For a moment my
: rational mind screamed to put the book down and leave the store, but I
: unwisely paid it no heed, and opened the cover, feeling a curious mixture of
: dim unease and delicious antici . . . (wait for it) . . . pation.
: A faint scent arose from the pages, attar of roses, mixed with bitter orange,
: taking me briefly back to that night in Granada when I had purchased the most
: curious leather adornment, but that is another tale . . . Printed on the
: creamy ivory parchment of the title page, in a curiously wrought Victorian
: Neo-Gothic font that I (despite my extensive knowledge of the history of the
: printing press) did not recognize, were the words, "The Most Secret and
: Ancient Rites of the Noble and Dark Order of the Domly Doms." Curious images
: arose unbidden in my mind: a dimly terrible stone walled chamber in which the
: most darkly terrible arts were practiced on the willingly offered flesh of
: novice members of the order. My unsettled ear seemed to hear screams of
: pleasure that can only be distinguished from screams of pain by the most
: discriminating of connoisseurs.
: I had to have this book and I hoped that the bookseller had no idea of the
: true value of this legendary volume. I also had to hope that he didn’t have
: a modern Visa machine. For you see, I was willing to risk not only my
: sanity, but my very credit history itself to purchase this tome. After all
: had I not risked imprisonment and deportation to Siberia when, in Leningrad,
: I had bribed my way into the secret recesses of Catherine's Winter Palace?
: While that is a story for another day, the things I that I had seen there had
: been well worth the risk. As I turned, attempting all the while to look like
: another bored wannabe-goth American girl who just wanted a kinky sex novel, a
: hand grasped my wrist. The hand was clad in leather the color of long dried
: blood, and as it touched me I felt my natural instinct for dominance (natural
: but cultivated to it's fullest potential over the many years of my time in
: the life) struggle with an utterly foreign (discounting the disaster in
: Portland, the less said about which the better) need to submit. My knees
: grew weak and my nether regions grew humid at the struggle within me. "Not
: yet, Little One," a voice that sounded like fine silk tearing under the
: pressure of strong hands, whispered in my ear. I watched, feeling as if I
: were outside my body, as my hands released the book (which settled almost
: gratefully into it's former 42 degree angle on the magazines). "Someday,
: perhaps when you can hear My voice and not wish to kneel, maybe then, you'll
: be ready." Lips, warm and full, touched my ear, and a mist fogged not only
: my vision and hearing but my very brain as well. When the mist faded and I
: was able to look around, I was alone. In front of me was the Strong book and
: the two paperbacks I had sought. "Excuse me," I said to the proprietor, "do
: you take Visa?"
: There is little more to tell. As if in a daze, aware that *something* most
: unusual had happened to me, I made my way out of the shop and into Mrs.
: Merdle (the ninth Daimler of that name). I found a pub and my pint of cider,
: and it was only when I returned to my secluded home along the wild northern
: Californian coast many weeks later, that the dreams began.
: That was many years ago. Countless hypnosis sessions, and many ritual
: journeys and Tarot readings have restored my memory of the events in the
: bookstore as much as is possible. I have since embarked on a course of
: research to discover all I can about the book and those that wrote it.
: Although most modern scholars insist that the order was disbanded after the
: famous Nuit St. George incident, I know differently, and soon I shall hunt
: them down and either become one of the Order or perish in the attempt. For
: now, I have my amusements and when the dreams are too pervasive, I have my
: morphine and my e-ludes. Life has settled into a falsely comfortable round
: of news-group discussions, but I know that some day I will travel the far
: corners of the earth to solve this mystery.
: Ruth
: who may have possibly read a little too much Lovecraft at an impressionable
: age.
: --
: **************
: *Ruth Gifford*
: **************
: "Putting on underwear can be a tragedy"
Garm
LOUISE MW wrote:
>
> In article <4qsfvs$1...@pentagon.io.com>, wr...@io.com (the wharf rat)
> writes:
>
> > That's when your feet point outwards, like a duck's.
> >
> > But what's it got to do with submission?
> >
>
> raisin.
>
> Gangster Karen
>
> Sexist Cult of JJ, Class of '96
>
> (It's a joke Garm! <g> I'm still:
> Submissive, Not Stupid!)
Actually, A requirement for an account at the pentagon is a rasin-sized
brain. I've seen all of the two and four legged rats there, and prefer
the company of the honest (four-legged) ones.
Love,
Garm
an37...@anon.penet.fi
It's Hound Dog.
It sounds like Karen (LOUISEMW) shares my instinctive revulsion against
subs engaging in behavior -- as for example, public rudeness -- that in
our opinion reflects poorly on their master. (Here I'm using "master" as
an inclusive, shorthand term where Karen actually said "mistresses and
masters" -- if you wish to note sexist language, mind the attributions.)
She writes:
> As far as "Sonny" is concerned, I really worry about the boy. If he does
> have a "master" somewhere, then his "master" isn't paying attention. I
> know of very few of mistresses and masters who would countenence this sort
> of public display on the part of a submissive.
I would share your judgement on the master, if I knew that the slave was
acting against the master's values. I don't actually know that in this case.
If the master thinks that what the slave is doing is OK, then the master
has not failed to exercise control. Now, the master might have values
that you'd disagree with and wish to take the issue up with the master.
Sometimes the master isn't identified, and that makes it hard -- but by
the same token, it makes it hard to characterize their relationship, as
I believe you did above.
I agree that it's frustrating to see objectionable behavior in one who's
under someone else's control -- e.g. a child using foul language while the
parent stands there with a wry grin and doesn't stop it. And all the more
so when the one supposed to be in control isn't identified so you can't
contact them about it.
But yes, if there's a master, I'd consider the master the one mostly
responsible for the slave's behavior, at least in a D/s context.
That's one of the reasons I try hard to refrain from speaking very
critically of submissives (except in the limited case of a negotiated
humiliation scene.)
At the risk of overstepping that self-imposed bound, let me point out that
you, Karen, have used language in your posts that in my generation would
have brought a swift cuff on the ear to the speaker, no matter to whom they
were speaking. When I object to such rudeness, I'm doing so based on a
reading of your posts that suggests that you're speaking for yourself.
If you had some master who was supposed to be minding such things, and I
didn't know how to contact that master, or if the master and I simply
disagreed as to such values, then I'd just be stuck, and that's that.
I suspect the case of your objections to "Sonny"'s posts is the same way.
Possibly you disagree as to values with the poster, the poster's master,
or both, but that doesn't necessarily mean the master isn't in control;
probably the strongest statement we can make is that the master is not
controlling the slave in accordance with what we'd like to see in the
slave.
Hound Dog.
(posted 7-1-96)
Casey Hamilton
Garm <besc...@wvlink.mpl.com> wrote:
>LOUISE MW wrote:
>> In article <4qsfvs$1...@pentagon.io.com>, wr...@io.com (the wharf rat)
>> writes:
>> > This is *the* most confusing newsgroup....
>>
>> Only for you, old boy, but then a rat only has a brain the size of a
>> raisin.
>
>brain. I've seen all of the two and four legged rats there, and prefer
>the company of the honest (four-legged) ones.
Technically, Garm, wharfie has an account at Illuminati Online aka
io.com (as do I, and many other Austin area pervs - as well as some
telnetters). Pentagon is just one of the machine names, along with
bermuda, xanadu and shangri-la. One of the mail machine names is
bavaria.
+ + + +
It makes sense, when you don't think about it.
+======================================================================+
Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits - for the CDA
Casey Hamilton (No wannas, please; the Horsie and everyone
07/02/1996 else are QUITE enough for me to deal with!)
COUNtess VelVEEta
Verdant said, in response to Duane over half a month ago:
>>> "Leaving" is not always a matter of volition. People get sick, go crazy,
die. Is it ethical to have consciously made someone so dependent on you
that they will be unable to function when you're gone? <<<
Although the answer seems obvious to me, this is a fair question to ask
if you really have no experience with these sorts of relationships.
>>> The closest analog to TPE in my life is child-rearing. But the whole
point of child-rearing is to make your children *less* dependent. TPE
strikes me as an intentionally opposite process -- to make the slave
every day in every way *more* dependent. I have a serious ethical
problem with this idea. It is, of course, within the bounds of consent
-- but can the non-immortal, fully human master or mistress truly claim that
s/he has the slave's well-being at heart when s/he engages in this
process? <<<
Ok, let's start with the cliche: "Tis better to have loved and lost than
never to have loved at all." Like many tired chiches, this one has a
germ of truth in it.
"People get sick, go crazy, die." Yes they do. Therefore, it's best not
to marry the love of your life, whether you are kinky or vanilla.
Therefore, it's best never to have children so you don't let them down or
potentially harm them by getting sick, going crazy, dying. Therefore,
it's best not to take any sort of risk at all when it comes to human
emotional relationships. Sit in your house all day, become a recluse,
don't get intimate with anyone. Right?
Wrong. Obviously wrong. Now let's deal with the "making the submissive
more dependent" biz. When you have been engaged in the experience of
lifestyle S&M for years, you realize, contrary to what outside
psychologers who base their ideas about our relationships on very
negative jerk-off fictions like _Story of O_ (see Chancer in
_Sadomasochism in Everyday Life_) that the master becomes dependent on
the slave as the slave becomes dependent on the master. Yes, the
dependencies are in different areas: they'd almost have to be, wouldn't
they, since the power flows in one direction, but the two partners
definitely find themselves, after a while in a successful relationship,
in a very positive and healthy mutually co-dependent situation. I refer
to this as being two aspects of one person. My master thinks of me as an
extension of himself. I think of myself as an extension of him.
Once, when I was tripping my brains out with my boyfriend, we were lying
on the floor hugging and we both had the experience that we had merged
into the other, and that we were one being. I couldn't tell where he
began and I let off, and vice-versa. We had the experience at exactly the
same time, and both started to speak about it at the same time. Nowadays,
although the feeling isn't as dramatic and druggily mystical as the time
with my college friend, I feel the same thing with my master. We are both
doing the same thing, we both want the same thing, but each from our own
perspective or place. Kind of like the way the differently functioning
organs in a single body work together to preserve health is how I think
of it.
This feeling is born out of intense intimacy, an intimacy in which you
tell your partner everything, where you confess all--keeping no secrets,
and where you do not fear dependency. My master has been sick, so sick
that all the medical professionals that came in contact with him told me
he was going to die. As for crazy, sure it happens, but the chance that
it might happen is small enough that I am quite willing to take the risk.
As for dying, well Verdant, it happens to everybody. It's the great
tragedy. Does this mean that we should therefore avoid anything that
might cause us deep pain, that we should avoid emotional dependence and
the most intense intimacy two people can experience just because we know
that death will inevitably take our partner away from us (or us away from
our partner)? Some people probably do think that this inevitability puts
too high a price on the intimacy. I have faced my master's near death
squarely in the face, and I would not go back and cancel everything in
order to avoid facing it again.
Finally, I need to deal with the idea that extreme dependency in a D&S
relationship somehow makes a submissive "unable to function." This, I
believe, only occurs if the submissive was already "unable to function"
when she met her master, and if so, the dominant would not have been
doing his job if he let this state of weakness continue in his slave. As
Jon Jacobs said many years ago when he first posted on the topic of
self-destructive submissives, it is completely irresponsible for a
dominant to take on as his slave a self-destructive submissive unless
he's certain (and that certainty comes from the experience of having
done it before, not some sort of stupid false bravado that because he's a
dominant he can do anything) he can fix that self-destructiveness. Even
then, most experienced lifestyle dominants proceed with great caution,
often refusing to enter into a permanent or extreme power-exchange with
such a person until they've seen some sign that the person wants to (and
can) get out of their self-destructiveness. You really cannot be a good
submissive and extremely self-destructive at the same time. The
self-destructiveness sabotages the D&S relationship; the self-destructive
individual is uncomfortable unless she's with someone willing to destroy
her, and since a good dominant won't destroy her, she has to do her best
to make him *want* to destroy her. Any sensible top stays far, far away
from such sick game players. On the other hand, I have seen "dominants,"
or vanillas who think of themselves as dominant, latch onto
self-destructive subs because these are the only type of submissive they
are capable of exerting some control over. Normal submissives roll over
these types like bulldozers. People like them need someone weaker than
themselves whom they can kick around, as the only way they feel good is
by making someone else feel like shit. Pretty much the only type of
person who'll take such treatment lying down is a self-destructive
person. (That's partially why Jacobs said it was so dangerous for such
types to get involved in BDSM--as they just see this sexual lifestyle as
a shortcut to getting the kind of abuse they think they deserve--and that
an ethical dominant wouldn't have anything to do with them.) The kind of
control such people exert over such a slave is usually not dominant at
all: it involves invoking guilt, punitive treatment, passive aggressive
manipulation, physical and emotional abuse, and a whole lot of other
nasty, vanilla kinks.
But assuming the submissive is a normally competent person with the usual
number of hangups and problems that we all have, nothing so extreme that
he's being sent off to nursing homes or booby hatches all the time when
he can't cope, then the dominant's death (if she goes first) will leave
him (if the dominant is any good) in a much better emotional condition
than he was when she first met him. The submissive will be stabler,
calmer, find it easier--not more difficult--to cope. Why?
Because the dominant has shown her how. And because she has, as part of
the intense development of intimacy between the two, internalized the
dominant within herself. She knows, for instance, how to handle the
annoying people who try to bullshit her on the phone because she's seen
master do it hundreds of times. She knows how to deal with the staff at a
hospital to wrest the care that her loved ones need from them, because
her master has taught her how. And when she doesn't know something, she
can often, as I do, resort to asking herself "What would master have done
in this situation?" I don't know how it is for other submissives, but for
me, after seven years with this man, I come up with the answer a good 98%
of the time. And guess what? The solutions *work*.
Yes, it is a terrible tragedy when the love of your life dies. But deep
emotional dependence on someone doesn't mean you immediately turn to
jelly when that person is gone. Although one may become so depressed that
she cannot function, this condition certainly is not unique to absolute
power-exchange relationships. We all know of people who, once their
spouse had died, died within a year or two. We all know people who've
become deeply depressed and unable to cope when a child or loved one
dies. We've seen families break apart in the most horrible ways over
exactly that kind of stuff. It's hardly uncommon. But it's a risk you
must take if you want to live your life as fully and as deeply as you can
and not inside some emotional glass bubble. <shrug> There is nothing
intrinsic, however, in a master-slave relationship that would make a
submissive less able to cope than anyone else dealing with a heavy
personal loss. Haven't you heard some dominants talk before about how
much they appreciate and admire their submissives' strengths? Normally,
secure dominants certainly don't try to destroy or rid their slaves of
such strengths (only people who feel threatened do that), in fact, they
usually revel in them. It's quite wonderful, don't you think, to have a
slave who has so many gifts and talents besides her submission...and lays
them all at your feet for you to use at your discretion?
velveet.......a
~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~
"Their success had brought them concomitant envy, and they were
know--inevitably--as The Gang of Four."
--Doris Lessing, _Love Again_, page 10 of
the first U.S. edition.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Steven S. Davis
Peter McDermott (pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <astarte-2806...@host26.cyberg8t.com>,
: ast...@cyberg8t.com (Atara Stein) wrote:
:
: >> Hmm. Insulting little douchebag, aren't we? Whydoncha go and take
: >>
: >Ohhh, what originality, what wit! I'm wounded to the quick! Wait . . .
: >Peter, Peter, Peter, when an adult (you *are* over 18, aren't you?)
: >resorts to namecalling, it's a sign that he or she has been thoroughly
: >defeated and doesn't have anything intelligent left to say on the
: >subject.
:
: You wish. Typical circle-jerker -- you can dish it out but
: you can't take it.
Also a childish comment. Now, would you care to provide any evidence
in support of it (I see none, only a response indicating how
unimpressed Atara was by your comment) or do you simply take any
comment about the ineffectiveness of insults as a sign that
somehow one can't "take it" ?
********************************************************************
Steven S. Davis s...@magenta.com sdup...@delphi.com
steven...@dscmail.com an3...@anon.penet.fi
http://magenta.com/lmnop/intro.html (go to Kinky page, Users section)
Ruth Gifford
Peter remarked:
In article <4r6n96$9...@gate.cyberg8t.com>,
eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford) wrote:
>>who gave you the right to declare what "real" submission is. Obviously, as
>Point out where I do this please?
There have been numerous posts where various people (including, but not
exclusively, you) have said that if a sub retains any "control" then that's
sub's submission is not real. I can't cite chapter and verse, because in
spite of a frighteningly large hard drive, I don't save every asb post I
read. And I could, once again, be wrong and you personally haven't said that
the submission in a TPE is the only "real" submission, but I know it's been
said. And (here she goes again, folks) I *really* dislike this binary view
of a subjective experience. It was 106 degrees F here today. I know people
who love this kind of weather and say it's great. I personally am damn glad
for my air-conditioner. If people can't even agree on what constitutes "too
hot," how are we going to agree on what constitutes "real" submission?
>That tends to be what I'm talking about most of the time. However,
>I still believe that there is a place for talking about theoretical
>models of D&S here on ASB, and that has to include some distinction
>about what is and what isn't, surely? You may not want to discuss it,
>and you may want to contest the model I propose, but surely the
>discussion is valid and people have a right to express their
>beliefs on the issue.
Actually I don't contest your model at all. I like to think that submission
is a conscious choice, but if you want to say that you like to think it's
involuntary that's fine with me. I'm *not* a sub (yes, I do have my
bottom-space moments, but it's for the sensation of it all, and I remain
firmly in control of what atara's doing the whole time) so I don't really
know all of what goes on in a sub's head. atara and I talk about her
head-space a lot (you know, "they" will revoke our dyke license if we don't
do enough processing) and when she tells me that her submission is voluntary,
I'm inclined to believe her. And I'm inclined to believe it's real, as all
aspects of our relationship are based on truth. And yet it has been posited
here that if there is a safeword, the submission is not real; that if the sub
has any say in anything the submission is not real, and so on . . . I *know*
you're all only talking from you're own experiences and those of people close
to you, but when people use absolutist phrasing (example: X type of D/s is
faux) I'll grab my microphone and climb up on a soapbox. The one thing I
want to make clear is that I would be just as annoyed if someone (and I
gather this has happened before I crashed this party) said that TPE was not
real D/s. I agree that there's potential for abuse, but there's potential
for abuse in *any* type of relationship, so you might as well tell vanilla
straight people not to get involved with one another. Karen, and Laura
Isabella have pointed out that there is a great deal of trust in a TPE
relationship, and that certainly makes a lot of sense to me; there'd have to
be for it to work.
>Do try to follow along Ruth. The McCarthy insult was in response to
>the Gang of Four insult. Get it now? Or is it one rule for the left
>and another for the right -- the American way and all that?
Goddess forbid. But when people have called you on the silliness of your
McCarthy sig you defend it by saying people are trying to silence you. Who's
trying to silence you?
>I don't think I'm trying to tell anybody anything of the sort. If
>you can point to somewhere where I do, I'd be glad to withdraw it.
>I think that you and Atara are both doing what so many other people
>on ASB do, and making inferences about what people believe rather
>than going by what they actually write.
Oh come on Peter, you know damn well that you (and Karen and Jon) have stated
in no uncertain terms what constitutes "real" submission. And you and the
rest argue from a binary real/not real stance. If you were quoting a
dictionary definition I'd be more likely to concede the point, but you're
not. Now of course I'll get called on to quote chapter and verse of Peter's
binary statements, which (as I've said) I can't do. But it's been said and
it ticks people off. That was/is/will be my argument in this discussion. If
you want to say you don't *think* that submission can co-exist with a
safeword that's fine. If you want all of us to accept that you are only
giving your opinions (and somebody--Steve Pope maybe?--made a good argument
for using IMHO, IMO, or IME) when you make sweeping absolute statements about
what is real and what is not then let us know. Sure, most of us are smart
enough to know that, but not everyone is. Once more I'm talking about the
newcomers (either to asb, or the "lifestyle") who read it here because it's
anonymous and safe. To admit that you want to Dom/me or sub is hard enough,
and to then be told by someone that true D/s can only be found in a TPE
could be terrifying. If when I was figuring out my kink, I had thought that
to be a "real" Mistress I'd have to work out a TPE relationship, I'd have
been too afraid of the totality of it all to even entertain the thought. I
know better, because I read some good books and some bad books and I talked
to people and I worked a lot of this out in various fictional situations, and
I figured out what works for me (and for atara for that matter ;-) ). And
if there are people who aren't sure, my advice would be to take it slowly and
try to figure out how your kink works for you (and your partner/s).
>I rather regretted it when I did as in the process of replying
to your last post, I'd grown quite fond of you.
Not sure if I've been complimented or not, but, optimist that I am, I'll
assume the glass is half full. As for the name-calling, it's a personal
thing. I like being a grown-up (as opposed to being an adult--big
difference) and I find that childish name-calling is just boring. As a
Dorothy Sayers' character once said, " . . . may be a perverse old idiot, but
it's more dignified not to say so in so many words. A bland and deadly
courtesy is more devastating, don't you think?" So my complaint was personal
and might be because I'm a part time step mom to a 7 year old and a 5 year
old; I hear very few bland and deadly courtesies. I felt no need to defend
atara, she's a big girl and took care of it herself.
>It certainly isn't me personally.
Fine, whatever. Do you think that if there is a safeword involved (even if
it's just for communication) that the sub is really subbing? Do you think
that what you would define as "real" submission can exist outside a TPE
relationship? No dodging, or hedging please.
>Why the name calling? Re-read the post I was responding to. I was
>simply reflecting back. Check the actual _line_ I was responding to.
>I write for a living, Ruth. My posts are carefully worded.
*Do* try to follow along, Peter. Let's be brats and play he said, she said.
atara was talking about your binary viewpoint in fairly civilized (albeit
sarcastic) terms. You called her a douchebag and went on from there to make
some kind of shit reference. But it's OK because you're a professional
(kids, don't try this at home). I must say that your professionalism
impresses the hell out of me. I might not have even written this rather
snooty paragraph if you hadn't tried to go all holier than thou on me, with
that "I write for a living," number.
>>And we always have to ask, what about the people who don't even know what
>>kind of D/s they want? I know what I want and what works for me. ::very
>>big grin after last night:: but if someone came here to try and
>>understand their kink and were scared off because they read all of this
>>stuff about "no choice" and "no safewords," and "TPE is the only way that's
>>real," it would
>Do you _really_ believe that's likely? If it were, then I'd be the
>first person to take issue with it. However, TPE etc. has always
>been a minority interest here on ASB --very much a minority interest,
>and I don't believe anyone is in danger of thinking otherwise.
Yeah but it's a *loud* minority interest. Also if people get their first
impression of wiitwd do from fiction, TPE will sound like the real thing.
I've always been an SF fan. I read a lot of the Gor books (I was in a
foreign country, English-language SF wasn't think on the ground, I was young
. . . and many other excuses) and from what I've seen, those books (as
horrible as they are IMO) influence a lot of people. Then come on to asb and
see the One True Way According To The TPE Crowd thread, and . . . sure it's
far fetched, but this is the same type of thing that we've heard from Karen;
that what we say has such an influence.
>>***A TPE relationship is a valid and real form of D/s that is very extreme
>>and all encompassing. It is not for everyone, and if it is for you, then
>>it would be in your best interests to find a partner with whom you can
>>build a TPE relationship. Non-TPE D/s may not be as extreme or all
>>encompassing, but it is still a valid and real form of D/s, and if you
>>practice it and are happy, you are not living in a delusion.***
>I actually don't believe there are any significant differences
>between this position and the one that Jon Jacobs articulates.
>I certainly don't have any problem with it.
I'm going to save *this* post. In fact I want to repost this part of it on a
weekly basis, like a FAQ. From what I've seen Jon has said (and I *know*
Karen has said) that if the power exchange is not absolute, the submission is
not real. Hey Jon, do *you* agree with my bracketed quote up there? What
about you, Karen? If you respond, please include every word in between the
three asterisks. Peter has no problem with it, which seems to *me* to be a
rather serious reversal on his part, but what do I know?
>But I'm fighting other
>battles that precede your appearance here, so you can be forgiven
>for mistakingly believing I thought something else.
OK.
>No, I'm just making the point that sometimes, questioning
>people's reality is actually in everybody's best interests,
>including the people whose reality is being questioned -- and
>on that basis I reserve the right to do it when I think it
>appropriate. I don't do it very often, but that tends to be
>because I don't care very much about what's going on for
>other people that I'm not involved with.
Fine, but how is it everybody's best interests to try and tell people what's
real D/s and what's not? If there were some sort of danger involved, I could
see it, but when I brought up the lurkers and newbies, you act as if that's
not a concern. So why the concern to define real vs faux submission?
Ruth
who will be away from asb for a few days. I hope all of you here in the
States have a lovely holiday, and remember to toss off a toast to Jefferson
and crowd, thanking them for the Decleration and later the First Amendment.
atara and I will be in a condo on the beach, eating gourmet meals,
occasionally watching some tennis and not doing anything that our hosts (my
parents) wouldn't approve of. Fortunately, with my folks, that means we can
have sex, just no loud "scenes".
--
**************
*Ruth Gifford*
**************
Steven S. Davis
Peter McDermott (pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk) wrote, IRT
eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford):
: Do try to follow along Ruth. The McCarthy insult was in response to
: the Gang of Four insult.
You find being indentified with Karen, CV, and JJ insulting ?
Well, I suppose the JJ association is hard to stomach. While
I never have known who the "Gang of Eight or Nine" were, I quite
doubt I'd mind being identified with them, if ever they are
identified.
Also, in the fashion of authentic McCarthyism, you threw out
a blanket charge. Do you have a list in your hand of the
eight or nine or fifty-seven oppressors ? The Gang of Four
has been identified from the first. Are you ready - at long last -
to read some of the names on that list ?
[snip]
: >and your rather childish name-calling, but I *won't*
:
: Huh? I see. It's OK to engage in name-calling when you do it in a
: mock-civilized fashion, but use the same language as the great
: unwashed majority and it's unacceptable?
Oh, use any language you like. Just use it with intelligence
and style. Sounding like the old Richard Pryor is fine, IMO.
But it's a lot more difficult to do well than it seems, and
most people who try it end up sounding stupid.
BTW, you're no Richard Pryor.
[snip]
: >***A TPE relationship is a valid and real form of D/s that is very
: > extreme and all encompassing. It is not for everyone, and if it is
: > for you, it would be in your best interests to find a partner with
: > whom you can build a TPE relationship. Non-TPE D/s may not be as
: > extreme or all encompassing, but it is still a valid and real form
: > of D/s, and if you practise it and are happy, you are not living
: > in a delusion.***
:
: I actually don't believe there are any significant differences
: between this position and the one that Jon Jacobs articulates.
: I certainly don't have any problem with it. But I'm fighting other
: battles that precede your appearance here, so you can be forgiven
: for mistakingly believing I thought something else.
Well, *now* I know why you don't mind what JJ says. Cause you've never
paid any attention to it (a rather good idea, actually). If you had
you'd know that JJ (also Karen; CV, in previous incarnations, has been
more a little more accomodating on this point) has been quite clear that
if it's not TPE submission - i.e. no limits (except those of the dominant),
no way for the sub to end the relationship or fetish events that occur
within it, and the submissive has no right (and eventually no ability)
to make any final decisions (final meaning decisions not subject to
reversal by the dominant) - it's not real submission. Anyone who
believes otherwise is lying or deluded, per the gospel according to
Jacobs.
And, since d&s stands for dominance and submission, if there's no real
submission (which means there's also no real domination), then there's
no real d&s.
[snip]
: Maybe my real problem is that I hate certainty? Whenever I come
: across people who seem as sure of their arguments as you and Atara,
: I just can't help poking my nose in.
Really ? An understandable reaction, a reaction that a lot of us have.
Which is one reason why so many object to JJ's posts, for he employs
tones of absolute certainty more often than anyone whom I can recall
posting to ASB (go to the news hierachy and the Grubor/Boursy gang
are as bad; well, as much as it pains me to admit it, they're probably
worse, as they seem to post more often, and as, unlike that gang,
JJ is sometimes right).
*******************************************************************
Steven S. Davis * s...@magenta.com * sdup...@delphi.com
http://magenta.com/lmnop/intro.html (go to Kinky page, Users section)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you post to Usenet, read the articles in news.announce.newusers
Before you post to alt.sex.bondage, Read "Welcome to ASB!", and read
the ASB FAQ, which is available by anonymous ftp from:
rtfm.mit.edu /pub/usenet-by-group/alt.sex.bondage.
or from the WWW at: http://www.unreal.com/adult/asb/faq.htm
The FAQ and other useful material is available at http://www.tpe.com
The Welcome can be obtained from its author, Big Al, by sending
email to: Ars...@cris.com
*Inquisitor*
Richard Osborne ? What are you doing here in this thread ?
On 1 Jul 1996, osborne_richard wrote:
> LOUISE MW (loui...@aol.com) wrote:
> : >(Inquisitor)
> : > I would not be able to live an absolute relationship. But I know it.
> : > And that is all the difference.
>
> : Here we have the final assertion which is actually the basis for most of
> : the non-TPE arguments in this group. "I can't do it, so neither can you,
> : so there."
*Nod* Some of the counter-arguments are indeed based on such a specious
thought, as Karen observes. I doubt whether it be "most", though.
A more valid objection goes against the human feasibility of an absolute
relationship between non-absolute, mortal beings, but that evidently
transcends Karen's horizon. No use of explaining it her.
Well, I have known - through a.s.b. - some (few) posters who live an
24/7 DS relationship (I will eschew the Jacobean "absolute' epitheton
for this purpose). I respect them highly, and have learned immensely
from them. C.V. attributed this learning of mine to Jon Jacobs; she may
be right in some sense (although my initial impulse had been to deny such
merit of his :-), and wrong again in a deeper sense.
> : What you
> : can or cannot do, in relationship terms, simply has nothing to do with
> : what anyone else can or cannot do.
Can turtles fly by themselves ?
> My impression is that the basis of most arguments against TPE is the
> idea that there is no absolute Reality. Instead, reality is subjective,
> a matter of personal perception.
A popular and most lamentable belief in a.s.b., in all the years I have
been here. I have always wondered about its popularity, so alien it is
to me. Seems so ... puerile (oh the flamebait of this formulation).
> it's close enough.) Subjective reality is often used as an argument
> against Platonic Reality (Platonic Reality being the major philosophy
> of absolute Reality and Truth.)
I am, as some may know, a Platonist indeed, as far as one of my
fundamental beliefs be concerned. Somebody else (Ruth ?) recently used
the rather witty image of the shadow of a choker on the cave wall...
thank you, dear :-)
> what's left is an expression of protest by the antiTPEers against being
> told that their form of bdsm is fake. Nobody likes being told that
> their life is fake or somehow "less than".
This element is very frequent and indeed the most strongly felt with most
of the objectors. It is not my central counter-argument, however.
> To me, having my life labeled as faux (the faux oz?, the pho oz? Maybe
> I should open a Vietnamese noodle shop--The Pho Oz)
Superb. Would you give out discount vouchers to a.s.b. customers ?
<-Inquisitor->
Peter McDermott
In article <4rhqoc$8...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
s...@magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) wrote:
>eter McDermott (pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk) wrote, IRT
>eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford):
>
>
>: Do try to follow along Ruth. The McCarthy insult was in response to
>: the Gang of Four insult.
>
>You find being indentified with Karen, CV, and JJ insulting ?
Not at all. It's the intent behind it, rather than the substance.
>Also, in the fashion of authentic McCarthyism, you threw out
>a blanket charge. Do you have a list in your hand of the
>eight or nine or fifty-seven oppressors ? The Gang of Four
>has been identified from the first. Are you ready - at long last -
>to read some of the names on that list ?
I decline to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself.
>[snip]
>
>: >and your rather childish name-calling, but I *won't*
>:
>: Huh? I see. It's OK to engage in name-calling when you do it in a
>: mock-civilized fashion, but use the same language as the great
>: unwashed majority and it's unacceptable?
>
>Oh, use any language you like. Just use it with intelligence
>and style. Sounding like the old Richard Pryor is fine, IMO.
>But it's a lot more difficult to do well than it seems, and
>most people who try it end up sounding stupid.
>
>BTW, you're no Richard Pryor.
Perhaps. But thankfully I'm not a pedantic bore, either.
Peter McDermott
In article <4rfdlm$s...@gate.cyberg8t.com>,
eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford) wrote:
>>I don't think I'm trying to tell anybody anything of the sort. If
>>you can point to somewhere where I do, I'd be glad to withdraw it.
>>I think that you and Atara are both doing what so many other people
>>on ASB do, and making inferences about what people believe rather
>>than going by what they actually write.
>
>Oh come on Peter, you know damn well that you (and Karen and Jon) have stated
>in no uncertain terms what constitutes "real" submission. And you and the
>rest argue from a binary real/not real stance. If you were quoting a
>dictionary definition I'd be more likely to concede the point, but you're
>not. Now of course I'll get called on to quote chapter and verse of Peter's
>binary statements, which (as I've said) I can't do.
Indeed you can't. You can't provide a single example. You're just
making assumptions. I've never said anything about what constitutes
"real" submission, nor am I interested in doing so.
>It certainly isn't me personally.
Fine, whatever. Do you think that if there is a safeword involved (even if
it's just for communication) that the sub is really subbing? Do you think
that what you would define as "real" submission can exist outside a TPE
relationship? No dodging, or hedging please.
I don't think I _do_ dodge or hedge. But that doesn't mean I have to
accept the question as you've framed it. I'm not now and never have
been interested in determining what is 'real' anything.
My position on it is this. I don't play with safewords. I feel they
are an obtrusive mechanism for communication, and I'd much rather
communicate in the normal manner. ie, 'what's the matter' 'oh, that
hurts. I can't take any more.' 'Tough.' *whap* :-)
My own objection to them isn't that they aren't _real_ submission,
but that they don't work for me -- that they aren't what I'm seeking,
which is the maximizing of _my_ control over the scene, and the
minimization of the submissives control.
Do I think they are a bad idea? Not really. I think, as with most
things, that there are pros and cons. They might make some subs
feel more comfortable because they _can_ retain that control.
On the other hand, they may engender a false sense of confidence.
Someone who is gonna abuse you isn't going to stop because you
have a safeword, and someone who isn't isn't whether you have a
safeword or not.
But to get to the point, is someone who still retains the ultimate
control over a scene (in the sense of deciding when it will end)
"submitting"? Yes, I think that they probably are engaging in a
form of submission -- but it isn't one that I'm particularly
interested in.
>>>***A TPE relationship is a valid and real form of D/s that is very extreme
>>>and all encompassing. It is not for everyone, and if it is for you, then
>>>it would be in your best interests to find a partner with whom you can
>>>build a TPE relationship. Non-TPE D/s may not be as extreme or all
>>>encompassing, but it is still a valid and real form of D/s, and if you
>>>practice it and are happy, you are not living in a delusion.***
>
>>I actually don't believe there are any significant differences
>>between this position and the one that Jon Jacobs articulates.
>>I certainly don't have any problem with it.
>
>I'm going to save *this* post. In fact I want to repost this part of it on
>a
>weekly basis, like a FAQ. From what I've seen Jon has said (and I *know*
>Karen has said) that if the power exchange is not absolute, the submission
>is not real.
Not at all. Jon has often said that people who are attracted to D/S
should initially engage in it on a limited basis rather than diving
into TPE head first without taking the time or the trouble to check
everything out. (I'm not at all sure of what Karen has said, but it's
a mistake to see us as a gang of anything -- despite what Velveeta
says. I share a lot of their views, but that doesn't mean that I
agree with everything they say.)
But I think that what you're getting at is is there a difference
between limited D/S, and "faux" D/S in which no submission actually
takes place. I think that there _is_ a difference. I believe that
some people engage in limited D/S and others may engage in a play
D/S in which no submission actually occurs. However, I've never
accused anyone of this -- nor do I have any interest in so doing.
But it's only logical if something _can_ be D/S then you can also
have stuff that is _not_ D/S.
>Peter has no problem with it, which seems to *me* to be a
>rather serious reversal on his part, but what do I know?
Not at all. Reversal from what? Positions that only existed in your head?
>>No, I'm just making the point that sometimes, questioning
>>people's reality is actually in everybody's best interests,
>>including the people whose reality is being questioned -- and
>>on that basis I reserve the right to do it when I think it
>>appropriate. I don't do it very often, but that tends to be
>>because I don't care very much about what's going on for
>>other people that I'm not involved with.
>
>Fine, but how is it everybody's best interests to try and tell people
>what's real D/s and what's not? If there were some sort of danger
>involved, I could see it, but when I brought up the lurkers and newbies,
>you act as if that's not a concern. So why the concern to define real
>vs faux submission?
Well, as I've repeatedly told you (but you repeatedly seem to ignore)
I've no real interest at all in defining "real" or "faux" submission.
Nevertheless, I can explain the concern from Jon's point of view and
I think it's a rather plausible one.
It's Jon's contention (and I've no reason to disbelieve him on this
score) that out among the lurkers there are any number of people with
a serious and burning desire for involvement in D/S. When they read
ASB, they get a picture of D/S that is one-sided and deliberately
excludes or tries to discredit TPE practices. The people that Jon
sees himself as addressing have this intense, possibly hard-wired
need for deep submission -- in fact, their happiness depends upon
it -- and if they were to finally pluck up the courage to go out
and try and get those needs met -- and were to find that the type of
D&S practiced here _doesn't_ fulfil those needs, they may well give
the whole thing up as a bad job, and thus never be fulfilled, never
find their hearts desire.
Now leaving aside the issue of whether ASB does deliberately discredit
that particular form of BDSM for the moment. I've said everything
I'm gonna say on that .. I don't think it's particularly useful
to rehash it all again .. I think he _is_ making an important point.
Whether you label it faux D/S or something less perjorative, I
think it's undeniably the case that the two groups have somewhat
different needs, and someone like Karen just _isn't_ gonna find
what she wants in people who do D/S according to the paradigm that
dominates ASB. Which is probably why she's so loyal to him -- along
with so many of the other women who feel that Jon's messages have
spoken directly to their needs.
As for the rest of the newbies and lurkers, I really don't think
they _are_ at risk in the way that you imagine. I don't think that
anyone who didn't have a compelling urge for extreme submission
is likely to sign up for something like that -- but for those
who _are_ at that kind of risk, Jon has very good advice and it's
far better they hear it and take it on board than they hear exclusively
about stuff that has no relevance to them.
I see it as being like addiction. If we legalized drugs tomorrow,
the world and his wife wouldn't run down to the drugstore and start
shooting dope and smoking crack. Similarly, it doesn't matter how
long people like Jon and Karen and Velveeta and myself go on about
TPE. I think that's pretty evident from the majority response to
our posts. Those people who are gonna do it are gonna do it whether
you sanction it or not. So do you give them good advice on the best
way to minimize the risks -- even if it does make the rest of the
population uncomfortable -- or do you tell them 'Just say no!'?
Steven S. Davis
Peter McDermott (pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4rhqoc$8...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,: >
: >Oh, use any language you like. Just use it with intelligence
: >and style. Sounding like the old Richard Pryor is fine, IMO.
: >But it's a lot more difficult to do well than it seems, and
: >most people who try it end up sounding stupid.
: >
: >BTW, you're no Richard Pryor.
: Perhaps. But thankfully I'm not a pedantic bore, either.
True, no one's likely to accuse you of pedantry.
********************************************************************
Steven S. Davis ssd...@ot.com sdup...@delphi.com
s...@magenta.com an3...@anon.penet.fi
LOUISE MW
I've done some snipping here, because, like Peter, some subjects don't
interest me.
In article <AE04740B9...@petermc.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes:
>In article <4rfdlm$s...@gate.cyberg8t.com>,
>eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford) wrote:
>
>>>I don't think I'm trying to tell anybody anything of the sort. If
>>>you can point to somewhere where I do, I'd be glad to withdraw it.
>>>I think that you and Atara are both doing what so many other people
>>>on ASB do, and making inferences about what people believe rather
>>>than going by what they actually write.
>>
>>Oh come on Peter, you know damn well that you (and Karen and Jon) have
>>stated in no uncertain terms what constitutes "real" submission. And
you and >>the rest argue from a binary real/not real stance. If you were
quoting a
>>dictionary definition I'd be more likely to concede the point, but
you're
>>not. Now of course I'll get called on to quote chapter and verse of
Peter's
>>binary statements, which (as I've said) I can't do.
>
>Indeed you can't. You can't provide a single example. You're just
>making assumptions. I've never said anything about what constitutes
>"real" submission, nor am I interested in doing so.
The problem with your argument, Ruth, is that Peter has never said
anything like what you are attributing to him. I've said it very firmly.
Jon has said similar things. Peter has not. The whole basis of Peter's
allegation that there is a heavy dose of McCarthyism rampant on this forum
is that so many people here always seem to know "damn well" what other
people have or haven't said or thought based on the idea that they seem to
have become associated with other people here. The association is seldom
so close as the McCathyites assume. Peter couldn't care less about this
issue, except in terms of his own personal life experience, and has
certainly *never* publically addressed the issue in the terms you mention.
>>Fine, whatever. Do you think that if there is a safeword involved (even
if
>>it's just for communication) that the sub is really subbing? Do you
think
>>that what you would define as "real" submission can exist outside a TPE
>>relationship? No dodging, or hedging please.
Good God, woman, whether you like anything Peter says or not, he is NOT
given to dodging or hedging. Oh, btw, neither am I.
(snipped, because I have no interest in another tedious discussion of
"unsafewords" and how they do or not, largely the later, work)
>But to get to the point, is someone who still retains the ultimate
>control over a scene (in the sense of deciding when it will end)
>"submitting"? Yes, I think that they probably are engaging in a
>form of submission -- but it isn't one that I'm particularly
>interested in.
Ruth - Please do make note of the distinction here: Peter thinks they
probably are on some level. I do not think so. I cannot imagine how in
the hell someone who is yielding to the control of another can
simultaneously be in control. It's nonsense.
Oh, I tend to be far more extreme than Jon is in some areas. Simple
enough reason for it: we're talking about what we believe based on
personal experience, and Jon's experience is much more extensive and broad
based than mine. I am a very extreme case, and I do tend to generalize
(rightly or wrongly) from my own experience. Nevertheless, I will
acknowledge that Jon has advocated limited duration TPE as a means of
checking it out. I don't remember his ever talking about any other kind
of limitation however. I may be wrong.
There is no gang. There are people who tend to agree more than they
disagree. That isn't a gang by anyone's definition. It is a natural
alliance. I not only like that better, it's more descriptive.
>But I think that what you're getting at is is there a difference
>between limited D/S, and "faux" D/S in which no submission actually
>takes place. I think that there _is_ a difference. I believe that
>some people engage in limited D/S and others may engage in a play
>D/S in which no submission actually occurs. However, I've never
>accused anyone of this -- nor do I have any interest in so doing.
>But it's only logical if something _can_ be D/S then you can also
>have stuff that is _not_ D/S.
>
>>Peter has no problem with it, which seems to *me* to be a
>>rather serious reversal on his part, but what do I know?
>
>Not at all. Reversal from what? Positions that only existed in your head?
Ruth, he didn't have to reverse himself. You are assuming, based on
nothing other that your perceptual identification of Peter with others
(like myself) that he must have what you think the common belief set of
the group is. Your assumption is invalid.
>>>No, I'm just making the point that sometimes, questioning
>>>people's reality is actually in everybody's best interests,
>>>including the people whose reality is being questioned -- and
>>>on that basis I reserve the right to do it when I think it
>>>appropriate. I don't do it very often, but that tends to be
>>>because I don't care very much about what's going on for
>>>other people that I'm not involved with.
>>
>>Fine, but how is it everybody's best interests to try and tell people
>>what's real D/s and what's not? If there were some sort of danger
>>involved, I could see it, but when I brought up the lurkers and newbies,
>>you act as if that's not a concern. So why the concern to define real
>>vs faux submission?
>
>It's Jon's contention (and I've no reason to disbelieve him on this
>score) that out among the lurkers there are any number of people with
>a serious and burning desire for involvement in D/S. When they read
>ASB, they get a picture of D/S that is one-sided and deliberately
>excludes or tries to discredit TPE practices. The people that Jon
>sees himself as addressing have this intense, possibly hard-wired
>need for deep submission -- in fact, their happiness depends upon
>it -- and if they were to finally pluck up the courage to go out
>and try and get those needs met -- and were to find that the type of
>D&S practiced here _doesn't_ fulfil those needs, they may well give
>the whole thing up as a bad job, and thus never be fulfilled, never
>find their hearts desire.
That has always been his contention. And they don't just end up not
fulfilled. They end up thoroughly fucked up, as often as not, permanently
so.
>Now leaving aside the issue of whether ASB does deliberately discredit
>that particular form of BDSM for the moment. I've said everything
>I'm gonna say on that .. I don't think it's particularly useful
>to rehash it all again .. I think he _is_ making an important point.
>Whether you label it faux D/S or something less perjorative, I
>think it's undeniably the case that the two groups have somewhat
>different needs, and someone like Karen just _isn't_ gonna find
>what she wants in people who do D/S according to the paradigm that
>dominates ASB. Which is probably why she's so loyal to him -- along
>with so many of the other women who feel that Jon's messages have
>spoken directly to their needs.
Well, the problem is that they don't want it labeled anything. They want
to promote the idea that the two conditions are identical, interchangable,
and that anybody can get equal satisfaction from one style of D/s as from
another. It ain't true. They are not only dissimilar, they are inimical
in many ways. Jon's messages have spoken to my needs, and I know from the
e-mail I get that I am not alone. Loyal to the truth? You bet. To the
person who is willing to take the heat and tell the truth? You bet.
>As for the rest of the newbies and lurkers, I really don't think
>they _are_ at risk in the way that you imagine. I don't think that
>anyone who didn't have a compelling urge for extreme submission
>is likely to sign up for something like that -- but for those
>who _are_ at that kind of risk, Jon has very good advice and it's
>far better they hear it and take it on board than they hear exclusively
>about stuff that has no relevance to them.
No risk at all. A person who hasn't got the need, doesn't have the
ability or the inclination either. For those who do, the risk of wasting
their lives is much greater than any risk to those who have no interest in
it anyway, except in the context of some meaningless philosophical
discussion. You see, rumor to the contrary, anybody cannot do anything
they want to, just because they get an idea into their heads.
>I see it as being like addiction. If we legalized drugs tomorrow,
>the world and his wife wouldn't run down to the drugstore and start
>shooting dope and smoking crack. Similarly, it doesn't matter how
>long people like Jon and Karen and Velveeta and myself go on about
>TPE. I think that's pretty evident from the majority response to
>our posts. Those people who are gonna do it are gonna do it whether
>you sanction it or not. So do you give them good advice on the best
>way to minimize the risks -- even if it does make the rest of the
>population uncomfortable -- or do you tell them 'Just say no!'?
No, they would say, what we've got is just as good for you, come on down.
It's just that what is being offered is not the same thing, not
essentially the same thing, not qualitatively or quantatively the same
thing. Peter didn't say it, Ruth, I did.
Atara Stein
In article <4rci88$5cq$1...@mhade.production.compuserve.com>, COUNtess
VelVEEta <10257...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
[snip]
> "People get sick, go crazy, die." Yes they do. Therefore, it's best not
> to marry the love of your life, whether you are kinky or vanilla.
> Therefore, it's best never to have children so you don't let them down or
> potentially harm them by getting sick, going crazy, dying. Therefore,
> it's best not to take any sort of risk at all when it comes to human
> emotional relationships. Sit in your house all day, become a recluse,
> don't get intimate with anyone. Right?
>
Wonderful post all around, Velvet. I'm one of those people who
occasionally goes into a mood where I start to think that *any*
relationship is too risky because of the potential for loss, but of course
the answer to this is that one might as well not live at all if one's
going to cut oneself off from relationships. That goes for d/s
relationships as well as vanilla relationships, parent/child
relationships, etc. If I'm more dependent on Ruth than I was with
previous relationships, I think it has more to do with the intimacy and
the deep feeling of connection I feel with her, not with being her slave.
I'm just as competent in my profession and just as incompetent in my
parenting (I'm being honest here :-) ) as I always was before I gave
myself to Ruth.
> Wrong. Obviously wrong. Now let's deal with the "making the submissive
> more dependent" biz. When you have been engaged in the experience of
> lifestyle S&M for years, you realize, contrary to what outside
> psychologers who base their ideas about our relationships on very
> negative jerk-off fictions like _Story of O_ (see Chancer in
> _Sadomasochism in Everyday Life_) that the master becomes dependent on
> the slave as the slave becomes dependent on the master. Yes, the
> dependencies are in different areas: they'd almost have to be, wouldn't
> they, since the power flows in one direction, but the two partners
> definitely find themselves, after a while in a successful relationship,
> in a very positive and healthy mutually co-dependent situation. I refer
> to this as being two aspects of one person. My master thinks of me as an
> extension of himself. I think of myself as an extension of him.
>
Yes, I agree. The relationship is one of mutual interdependence and
mutual benefit. We both want the same thing, as Velvet says below, but we
complement each other because our desires (hers to dominate, mine to
submit) mesh so perfectly.
[snip]
>We are both
> doing the same thing, we both want the same thing, but each from our own
> perspective or place. Kind of like the way the differently functioning
> organs in a single body work together to preserve health is how I think
> of it.
[snip]
> Yes, it is a terrible tragedy when the love of your life dies. But deep
> emotional dependence on someone doesn't mean you immediately turn to
> jelly when that person is gone. Although one may become so depressed that
> she cannot function, this condition certainly is not unique to absolute
> power-exchange relationships. We all know of people who, once their
> spouse had died, died within a year or two. We all know people who've
> become deeply depressed and unable to cope when a child or loved one
> dies. We've seen families break apart in the most horrible ways over
> exactly that kind of stuff. It's hardly uncommon. But it's a risk you
> must take if you want to live your life as fully and as deeply as you can
> and not inside some emotional glass bubble. <shrug>
Thanks for putting it so well. When I see a loss close to me (our
neighbor's little girl died at the age of seven a couple of years ago, for
instance), I do go into that mood of thinking that nothing is worth the
risk of that kind of pain. I worry that I'll lose Ruth or my children,
and I won't be able to survive the loss. And maybe I won't. I wish I
could have complete and total guaranteed certainty that Ruth and I will
live to a healthy old age, and my children will outlive me. But I can't
have that guarantee, so after feeling sorry for myself and reflecting on
how fucked up the world is, I remind myself of the kinds of things Velvet
is saying here (or Ruth reminds me!). *All* relationships involve that
kind of risk. A good friend of mine has just fallen in love with someone
who has AIDS--he's taking a huge risk, but on the other side of that is
the fact that since they've been together, his lover's health has
improved. He knows they may have only a short time together, but it's
worth it to him.
>There is nothing
> intrinsic, however, in a master-slave relationship that would make a
> submissive less able to cope than anyone else dealing with a heavy
> personal loss. Haven't you heard some dominants talk before about how
> much they appreciate and admire their submissives' strengths? Normally,
> secure dominants certainly don't try to destroy or rid their slaves of
> such strengths (only people who feel threatened do that), in fact, they
> usually revel in them. It's quite wonderful, don't you think, to have a
> slave who has so many gifts and talents besides her submission...and lays
> them all at your feet for you to use at your discretion?
>
Totally agree here and couldn't put it any better!
atara
--
Atara Stein ____
\ /
\/
"Everything is true. . . . Everything anybody has ever thought."
--Philip K. Dick, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
Bill: "Socrates: 'The only true wisdom consists in knowing
that you know nothing.'"
Ted: "That's us, Dude!"
Bill: "Oh yeah."--"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"
Ruth Gifford
On 2 Jul 1996 16:24:38 -0500 Casey Hamilton remarked:
>
>Garm <besc...@wvlink.mpl.com> wrote:
>>LOUISE MW wrote:
>>> In article <4qsfvs$1...@pentagon.io.com>, wr...@io.com (the wharf rat)
>>> writes:
>>> > This is *the* most confusing newsgroup....
>>>
>>> Only for you, old boy, but then a rat only has a brain the size of a
>>> raisin.
>>
>>Actually, A requirement for an account at the pentagon is a rasin-sized
>>brain. I've seen all of the two and four legged rats there, and prefer
>>the company of the honest (four-legged) ones.
>
>Technically, Garm, wharfie has an account at Illuminati Online aka
>io.com (as do I, and many other Austin area pervs - as well as some
>telnetters). Pentagon is just one of the machine names, along with
>bermuda, xanadu and shangri-la. One of the mail machine names is
>bavaria.
> + + + +
> It makes sense, when you don't think about it.
Yes, but do all your various numbers have the number 23 in them somewhere?
The Illuminatti is subtle in their blatant advertising.
Ruth
who says "if you have to ask . . ."
**************
*Ruth Gifford*
**************
"Let me on the Information Super Highway!"
Crow T Robot (cr...@biteme.com)
Jon Jacobs
Ruth Gifford (eres...@cyberg8t.com) wrote:
: Peter remarked:
: In article <4r6n96$9...@gate.cyberg8t.com>,
: eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford) wrote:
: >>who gave you the right to declare what "real" submission is. Obviously, as
: >Point out where I do this please?
: There have been numerous posts where various people (including, but not
: exclusively, you) have said that if a sub retains any "control" then that's
: sub's submission is not real. I can't cite chapter and verse, because in
: spite of a frighteningly large hard drive, I don't save every asb post I
: read.
I'll help you out. If a person retains ultimate control of what happens
to her, she is not submitting; she is playing with submission or
pretefing to submit or experiencing some of the emotions of submission,
but she is not submitting.
Does that help?
And I could, once again, be wrong and you personally haven't said that
: the submission in a TPE is the only "real" submission, but I know it's been
: said. And (here she goes again, folks) I *really* dislike this binary view
: of a subjective experience. It was 106 degrees F here today. I know people
: who love this kind of weather and say it's great. I personally am damn glad
: for my air-conditioner. If people can't even agree on what constitutes "too
: hot," how are we going to agree on what constitutes "real" submission?
It may be unfair of me to demonstrate that you have chosen your metaphor
poorly, but here goes anyway. It matters nto whether people like 106
degrees or not; it is still 106 degrees. That is a fact. People m,ay
interpret it differently, people may deny it, but it still is a fact. It
is an entirely binary situation: that it is 106 degrees is a fract; that
it is anything other than 106 degrees is a fantasy.
Whether you like the binary nature of submission or lack of it is
immaterial. You cannot submit and not submit at the same time: the
binary nature of the matter is exactly that: it's nature.
: Actually I don't contest your model at all. I like to think that submission
: is a conscious choice, but if you want to say that you like to think it's
: involuntary that's fine with me.
Involuntary submission, eh? Perhaps you could point out someone who has
been talking about involuntary submission. Now obedience is a different
matter. If someone is actually submitting to another person, then
obedience that is sometimes involuntary is inevitable.
Jon Jacobs
Etaoin...@basement.replay.com
In article <4rfdlm$s...@gate.cyberg8t.com>,
Ruth Gifford <eres...@cyberg8t.com> wrote:
>Fine, whatever. Do you think that if there is a safeword involved (even if
>it's just for communication) that the sub is really subbing?
I'm not Peter, but let me say this: my Dom has not given me a
safeword, but if She did and ordered me to use it, I would still be
subbing. It's pretty hard to fail in submission by obeying orders.
>I might not have even written this rather snooty paragraph if you
>hadn't tried to go all holier than thou on me, with that "I write for
>a living," number.
The obvious retort would have been to say "I tear bad writing to
shreds for a living." Credentialism is fun, and the more players the
better.
night...@dump.com
IN>> Wrong. Obviously wrong. Now let's deal with the "making the submissive
IN>> more dependent" biz. When you have been engaged in the experience of
IN>> lifestyle S&M for years, you realize, contrary to what outside
IN>> psychologers who base their ideas about our relationships on very
IN>> negative jerk-off fictions like _Story of O_ (see Chancer in
IN>> _Sadomasochism in Everyday Life_) that the master becomes dependent on
IN>> the slave as the slave becomes dependent on the master. Yes, the
IN>> dependencies are in different areas: they'd almost have to be, wouldn't
IN>> they, since the power flows in one direction, but the two partners
IN>> definitely find themselves, after a while in a successful relationship,
IN>> in a very positive and healthy mutually co-dependent situation. I refer
IN>> to this as being two aspects of one person. My master thinks of me as an
IN>> extension of himself. I think of myself as an extension of him.
I have been reading your posts for several weeks. I think that you have
most definitely got this worked out. My slave is not as eloquent as
you, but she reads your posts and needs to understand it the way you do.
Thank your Master. ---NR
* OLX 2.1 TD * Bad command or filename. Go stand in the corner.
night...@dump.com
IN>To anyone who can help:
IN>I'm a submissive with a little experience. I read a query by someone
IN>named Nightangel, I think, and tried to answer it. I'm a novice on
the IN>net and with e-mail. Turns out I sent my response to a user who
IN>answered her--big misktae. My face is red!
IN>Anyway, I'd like to send a personal e-mail to this person, but when I
IN>scan all the articles, I don't find the original article or the
IN>respondent's message. This is my first posting to the
newsgroup--hope IN>I did it properly. IN>Feedback, please.
I don't know NightAngel, but what was it you are wanting response to.
Feedback to what, exactly.
* OLX 2.1 TD * My other computer has CD Rom.
Jon Jacobs
A small editorial correction: Atara in her aggreable post below
misattributes the quoted material to Velvet. It is from Countess
Velveeta, an entirely diffrent person. I'm not entirely sure that Velvet
and Velveeta would like to be mistaken for one another. They can comment
if they like (g).
Jon Jacobs
In article <astarte-0607...@host04.cyberg8t.com>,
Andrew Kelly
Andrew Kelly here,
Jon Jacobs (jac...@crl.com) wrote (in response to Ruth Gifford):
[ ... ]
: It may be unfair of me to demonstrate that you have chosen your metaphor
: poorly, but here goes anyway. It matters nto whether people like 106
: degrees or not; it is still 106 degrees. That is a fact. People m,ay
: interpret it differently, people may deny it, but it still is a fact. It
: is an entirely binary situation: that it is 106 degrees is a fract; that
: it is anything other than 106 degrees is a fantasy.
: Whether you like the binary nature of submission or lack of it is
: immaterial. You cannot submit and not submit at the same time: the
: binary nature of the matter is exactly that: it's nature.
Chuckle. Yes, 106 degrees is 106 degrees. But it is your ability to
discern that this is so which is questionable. Or that you can discern
this better than I can. Or have you perfercted your black and white
D&S thermometer yet?
Andrew Kelly
ake...@netcom.com
Casey Hamilton
eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford) wrote:
>Casey Hamilton <ms_...@io.com>remarked:
>>Technically, Garm, wharfie has an account at Illuminati Online aka
>>io.com (as do I, and many other Austin area pervs - as well as some
>>telnetters). Pentagon is just one of the machine names, along with
>>bermuda, xanadu and shangri-la. One of the mail machine names is
>>bavaria.
>
>
>The Illuminatti is subtle in their blatant advertising.
Of course, but it's *very* subtle ;'>
+ + + +
If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.
+======================================================================+
Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits - for the CDA
Casey Hamilton (No wannas, please; the Horsie and everyone
07/09/1996 else are QUITE enough for me to deal with!)
The Bladesman
And then Ruth Gifford just had to go and say:
>Karen, and Laura Isabella have pointed out that there is a
>great deal of trust in a TPE relationship, and that certainly
>makes a lot of sense to me; there'd have to be for it to work.
Nononono. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this case. If
they have no choice about submitting, then trust does *not* apply. If
trust has *any* bearing whatsoever, then their submission is *not* real.
Hmph.
The Bladesman <bla...@inreach.com>
Life Is A Joke. Please Take It Seriously.
"What is of extreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy."
- Sun Tzu
"They mostly come at night; mostly..."
- Rebecca "Newt" Jordan
Bill Whitehouse
In article <4rqsun$k...@crl8.crl.com>, jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
> Ruth Gifford (eres...@cyberg8t.com) wrote:
> : There have been numerous posts where various people (including, but not
> : exclusively, you) have said that if a sub retains any "control" then that's
> : sub's submission is not real. I can't cite chapter and verse, because in
> : spite of a frighteningly large hard drive, I don't save every asb post I
> : read.
>
> I'll help you out. If a person retains ultimate control of what happens
> to her, she is not submitting; she is playing with submission or
> pretefing to submit or experiencing some of the emotions of submission,
> but she is not submitting.
As always, Jacobs' leaves out the most common situation: finding out the
_extent_ of her own desire to submit (_Not_ his idea of what it should be).
There are real risks involving in the act of pushing one's own envelope -
despite Jacobs' disregard for the idea.
In short, Jacobs hasn't stated a belief in the validity of the sub testing
their
own limits - his stated belief is that his sub must be _bound_ to _his_
idea of their limits. The hoops he has to go through totry to put a moral,
caring pretense on this ...
> And I could, once again, be wrong and you personally haven't said that
> : the submission in a TPE is the only "real" submission, but I know it's been
> : said. And (here she goes again, folks) I *really* dislike this binary view
> : of a subjective experience. It was 106 degrees F here today. I know
people
> : who love this kind of weather and say it's great. I personally am
damn glad
> : for my air-conditioner. If people can't even agree on what
constitutes "too
> : hot," how are we going to agree on what constitutes "real" submission?
>
> It may be unfair of me to demonstrate that you have chosen your metaphor
> poorly, but here goes anyway. It matters nto whether people like 106
> degrees or not; it is still 106 degrees. That is a fact. People m,ay
> interpret it differently, people may deny it, but it still is a fact. It
> is an entirely binary situation: that it is 106 degrees is a fract; that
> it is anything other than 106 degrees is a fantasy.
This reading of the analogy is wrong: 106 F degrees isn't, by any rational
definition, _absolute_ heat. If Jacobs claims that 352.4 degrees Kelvin
is total heat, then he shouldn't be surprised when people point out that
there is no theoretical or empirical basis for any idea of "absolute heat",
and, in fact, there are several equally valid measures of relative heat in
existence. Also that 500 degrees Kelvin does exist _and_ still fails to
be proof of the existence of "absolute heat".
> Whether you like the binary nature of submission or lack of it is
> immaterial. You cannot submit and not submit at the same time: the
> binary nature of the matter is exactly that: it's nature.
By the same illogic one can't be free and subject to laws at the same
time, or sweatering hot but not still much cooler than the surface of Venus
at the same time. The nonbinary nature of the universe has long been
known and acknowledged by science/rationality - any reductive mindsets
are approximations, models. Any semantic term is a categorization only
valid within a certain context.
Anyone who thinks a fragmentary, reductive mindset is endorsed by
empirical evidence should check out David Bohm's work in quantum
physics ... or there are absolute meanings in any language should
check out nearly any introductory book on lingustics.
Bill Whitehouse whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
LOUISE MW
In article <whitehou-100...@michele.ncsa.uiuc.edu>,
whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Bill Whitehouse) writes:
>As always, Jacobs' leaves out the most common situation: finding out the
>_extent_ of her own desire to submit (_Not_ his idea of what it should
be).
>There are real risks involving in the act of pushing one's own envelope -
>despite Jacobs' disregard for the idea.
On the contrary, Jon spends an awful lot of his time counseling
submissives so that they can find exactly that out. He never said there
were risks, quote him to prove it. Having been in a TPE gone bad, and
having had the man you despise so irrationally make so many profound and
important contributions to my personal recovery, I find your remarks
completely off the wall. The fact that you haven't been around long
enough to hear what he has to say, and have chosen to respond vehemently
to one or two remarks taken completely out of the context of his thoughts,
doesn't make you any kind of an expert on Jon Jacobs. Your statement here
is simply untrue on all points.
>In short, Jacobs hasn't stated a belief in the validity of the sub
testing
>their own limits - his stated belief is that his sub must be _bound_ to
_his_
>idea of their limits. The hoops he has to go through totry to put a
moral,
>caring pretense on this ...
This is, once again, completely untrue. It is untrue regarding his
philosophy, and untrue in terms of his behavior. Any submissive who has
ever been counseled by him would laugh at you when you carry on about
"moral, caring pretense." He *is* moral, and he *is* far and away the
most genuinely *caring* dominant I know personally.
>This reading of the analogy is wrong: 106 F degrees isn't, by any
rational
>definition, _absolute_ heat. If Jacobs claims that 352.4 degrees
Kelvin
>is total heat, then he shouldn't be surprised when people point out that
>there is no theoretical or empirical basis for any idea of "absolute
heat",
>and, in fact, there are several equally valid measures of relative heat
in
>existence. Also that 500 degrees Kelvin does exist _and_ still fails to
>be proof of the existence of "absolute heat".
As I recall, the temperature thing was an analogy of something. Would you
mind telling me what the fuck this garbage response of yours has to do
with D/s or BDSM? Nothing that I can see.
>> Whether you like the binary nature of submission or lack of it is
>> immaterial. You cannot submit and not submit at the same time: the
>> binary nature of the matter is exactly that: it's nature.
>
>By the same illogic one can't be free and subject to laws at the same
>time, or sweatering hot but not still much cooler than the surface of
Venus
>at the same time. The nonbinary nature of the universe has long been
>known and acknowledged by science/rationality - any reductive mindsets
>are approximations, models. Any semantic term is a categorization only
>valid within a certain context.
>
>Anyone who thinks a fragmentary, reductive mindset is endorsed by
>empirical evidence should check out David Bohm's work in quantum
>physics ... or there are absolute meanings in any language should
>check out nearly any introductory book on lingustics.
And you should try to keep in mind that what is being discussed here is a
psychosexual interaction between two human beings, not quantum physics at
all.
Aren't you the same total idiot to was ranting a railing a while back
about Jon winding up in jail or with a bullet in his head? The man has
been what he is now for over 30 years without any of these dreadful
consequences, and in spite of your hysterical rantings, those who actually
have had any personal experience of the man on any serious level have
found him kind, considerate, understanding, compassionate, and very
knowledgable. I certainly have. I know a whole lot of other submissive
and dominant and switch folks who have had the same experience I have.
You don't know him at all, and you don't know what he does or doesn't
believe, because you are too busy over-reacting to concepts you don't get.
LOUISE MW
>And then Ruth Gifford just had to go and say:
>
>>Karen, and Laura Isabella have pointed out that there is a
>>great deal of trust in a TPE relationship, and that certainly
>>makes a lot of sense to me; there'd have to be for it to work.
>
> Nononono. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this case.
If
>they have no choice about submitting, then trust does *not* apply. If
>trust has *any* bearing whatsoever, then their submission is *not* real.
>Hmph.
Trust has a lot to do with whether you get involved in the first place.
It has a lot to do with whether the submissive stays in place during the
process of creating the TPE. It also has a lot to do with whether the
relationship is very comfortable or very uncomfortable. Ordinarily, a TPE
dominant wants trust, and encourages trust, and is quite willing to earn
trust. Trust makes control easier.
I'm sorry that you missed 99.999% of the discussion that has been going on
forever on the details of what a TPE is or isn't, and how it is set up
initially, and how it becomes a reality, but your comments aren't based on
anything that any TPEer has ever said here.
The psychological transformation that must take place in the mind of the
submissive in order to create a TPE requires his/her active participation
in a process which makes him/her ultimately unable to make any choices,
but his/her cooperation in that process is essential, and it doesn't
happen without trust.
Steve Pope
loui...@aol.com (LOUISE MW) writes:
> The psychological transformation that must take place in the
> mind of the submissive in order to create a TPE requires his/her
> active participation in a process which makes him/her ultimately
> unable to make any choices, but his/her cooperation in that
> process is essential, and it doesn't happen without trust.
I agree with the above statement but I have a slightly tangential
question.
You and Jon have spoken many times about the psychological
transformation that the submissive goes through; what about
the dominant? Does the dominant partner not experience, on
average, as strong a transformation?
Seems to me that, assuming an equal depth of psychosexual orientation
in both partners, each should be suspect to an equal degree of
personality transformation over the course of the relationship.
Is it unequal, and if so why?
My own, non-TPE experiences would suggest that in an immediate
sense, d/s activity might induce on average more of a shift in
consciousness for the submissive partner (although this isn't
categorically true...); but that the potential for long-term changes
in personality is there for both partners.
Just curious how you guys see this aspect. Thanks.
Steve
LOUISE MW
In article <4s3d65$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
s...@zabriskie.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Pope) writes:
>You and Jon have spoken many times about the psychological
>transformation that the submissive goes through; what about
>the dominant? Does the dominant partner not experience, on
>average, as strong a transformation?
The psychological transformation that takes place in the mind of the
submissive in a TPE is a deliberate thing. It is something which both
parties in the relationship conspire to accomplish using specific
techniques of intrusion and psychological manipulation. The dominant
partner does not experience a similar transformation. The dominant and the
submissive do not conspire together to alter his self-perception as no
such transformation is necessary in order to achieve an actual power
exchange between the parties. In any interaction of an intimate type
between real human beings, dominants and submissives aside for the moment,
will in time effect the perceptions and personalities of the participants,
but what makes the transformation of the psyche of the submissive in a TPE
quite unusual is that it is so intentionally created and maintained. It
involves a level of intrusion on the part of the dominant into the "space"
(internal, external, and environmental) of the submissive, and her active
participation in creating a condition of intentional vulnerability, that
is quite outside of the normal perimeters of intimate encounters.
>Seems to me that, assuming an equal depth of psychosexual orientation
>in both partners, each should be suspect to an equal degree of
>personality transformation over the course of the relationship.
>Is it unequal, and if so why?
I think I've already largely responded to that. The transformation of the
psyche of the submissive is something that is essential to making the
condition of enslavement *real.* No such transformation is necessary for
the dominant. No such intentional conspiracy is established to accomplish
that end. The transformation in TPE is designed to create a situation in
which the slave in the interaction is fully and completely identified with
that condition of enslavement, has no ability to alter that identification
at any time, and has so completely identified him/herself with the will
and intention of the master, that leaving is impossible under any normally
occuring set of circumstances.
Short Answer: No such transformation is needed on the part of the
dominant. No intentional and directed conspiracy occurs between the
parties to affect any transformation on the part of the dominant. As in
all else involving TPE, it isn't equal at all.
An added point or two: As the dominant has all of the responsibility in a
TPE, it is really quite important that his ability to perceive reality as
it exists both inside and outside of the relationship be very clear. In
order to control the life of the submissive in situations where the world
doesn't see her as she sees herself, s|he needs a different mindset than
the submissive does.
This is my best shot. I'm not a dominant. I understand the dynamics of
how it's done just fine from my own side, which is the only side I need to
fully understand and appreciate <g>. I hope a TPE dominant jumps in with
something from his/her side of it.
Duane Gundrum
Bill Whitehouse (whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: This reading of the analogy is wrong: 106 F degrees isn't, by any rational
: definition, _absolute_ heat. If Jacobs claims that 352.4 degrees Kelvin
: is total heat, then he shouldn't be surprised when people point out that
: there is no theoretical or empirical basis for any idea of "absolute heat",
: and, in fact, there are several equally valid measures of relative heat in
: existence. Also that 500 degrees Kelvin does exist _and_ still fails to
: be proof of the existence of "absolute heat".
:
: By the same illogic one can't be free and subject to laws at the same
: time, or sweatering hot but not still much cooler than the surface of Venus
: at the same time. The nonbinary nature of the universe has long been
: known and acknowledged by science/rationality - any reductive mindsets
: are approximations, models. Any semantic term is a categorization only
: valid within a certain context.
: Anyone who thinks a fragmentary, reductive mindset is endorsed by
: empirical evidence should check out David Bohm's work in quantum
: physics ... or there are absolute meanings in any language should
: check out nearly any introductory book on lingustics.
Uh, I was going to dispute this evidence, but when I went to get my
source books, I realized all I had on my bookshelf were coloring books, so
I don't think I'll be taken too seriously on this particular argument. I
knew I should have bought that "Mr. Weevil Does Science" Coloring Book,
but I just had to have the one with the penguins in it. I should have
realized I'd have to pay the consequences later.
Duane Gundrum
"Owned and collared slave of Mistress Marisha"
(who just so happens to have the kind of books that I might have used,
but they had no pictures in them so I had no idea how to read them)
______________________________________________
du...@crl.com
flip...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.netcom.com/~flippery
"The only web page that hasn't a clue what physics, geothermics and all
that other 'ics' stuff is"
Bill Whitehouse
In article <4s48jn$2...@crl12.crl.com>, du...@crl.com (Duane Gundrum) wrote:
> Bill Whitehouse (whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> : Anyone who thinks a fragmentary, reductive mindset is endorsed by
> : empirical evidence should check out David Bohm's work in quantum
> : physics ... or there are absolute meanings in any language should
> : check out nearly any introductory book on lingustics.
>
> Uh, I was going to dispute this evidence, but when I went to get my
> source books, I realized all I had on my bookshelf were coloring books, so
> I don't think I'll be taken too seriously on this particular argument. I
> knew I should have bought that "Mr. Weevil Does Science" Coloring Book,
> but I just had to have the one with the penguins in it.
No problem there - Mr. Weevil and his penguins should be able to corroborate
what I've stated as well as Dr. Bohm. It's that obvious, despite the
words with
more than five letters in them.
Bill Whitehouse
whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Bill Whitehouse
In article <4s1nda$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, loui...@aol.com (LOUISE
MW) wrote:
> On the contrary, Jon spends an awful lot of his time counseling
> submissives so that they can find exactly that out. He never said there
> were risks, quote him to prove it. Having been in a TPE gone bad, and
> having had the man you despise so irrationally make so many profound and
> important contributions to my personal recovery, I find your remarks
> completely off the wall. The fact that you haven't been around long
> enough to hear what he has to say ...
The fact is you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I _have_
been following this discussion for several weeks and have even given you
the benefit of the doubt in a few newsgroup posts between us (which,
as you've forgotten it you blithely assume it must have never happened),
and while that doesn't make me an instant expert on all aspects of Jacobs,
it _does_ make me an expert on the condescending and self-contradictory
statements he's expressed here - particularly as he's reiterated it many times
since.
Get your facts straight before you run off with _your_ typical condesending
crap again, Karen. Your anecdotal "evidence" about Jacobs means
_nada_ relative to what he's _stated_ here. And I despise the
irresponsible perspective he's expressed here - beyond that, I don't
care if he's Gandhi. A responsible person _doesn't_ express irresponsbile
perspectives like "A TPE sub, once they've made the decision to be
in aTPE relationship, cannot choose to get out of it." and "The dom in
a TPE relationship should be able to _force_ a sub to remain in the
TPE relationship".
> As I recall, the temperature thing was an analogy of something.
Of _course_ it was an analogy, which was why I wrote "The reading of
this *analogy* is wrong".
Would you
> mind telling me what the fuck this garbage response of yours has to do
> with D/s or BDSM?
Read Jacob's "106 degrees is a fact" analogy again and you _might_
be more qualified to comment on the "garbage". If you think that a
relative measure of a relative concept like heat is any kind of substantiation
for an absolute definition of _anything_, much less "dominance" or
"submission" that's your delusion. But as I said in my last posting to you
a few weeks ago, don't get into a pissy fit or put on your condescending
swagger just because someone validly challenges your (or Jacobs')
perspective.
> And you should try to keep in mind that what is being discussed here is a
> psychosexual interaction between two human beings, not quantum physics at
> all.
If _you'd_ be paying attention, you'd know I wasn't the one that brought
up the analogy of heat (which, by definition, _is_ a study of general and
quantum physics) and that psychosexual interactions had nothing to do
with the analogy. I challenged Jacobs' ludicrous claim that nature has
a "binary nature" and that measures of heat used in physics support that,
when it _doesn't_. In doing so, I challenged his ludicrous claim that
there is an absolute definition of "dominance" and "submission" and
that only TPEers know it. You try to keep that in mind next time.
> Aren't you the same total idiot to was ranting a railing a while back
> about Jon winding up in jail or with a bullet in his head?
Yeah, I was the one misguided enough to try to remind him and you of the
obvious. If you're too clueless to know that leaving someone without options,
or not respecting someone's basic right to _choose against_ a TPE
or nonTPE commitment (no matter what they've chosen before) invites a
big risk of a violent response, it's not my problem - _I_ do know this. But
holding a person against their will _IS_ illegal and _IS_ risking incarceration
if the former sub decides to take it to the authorities.
Only someone as transparently defensive as yourself would take a basic
statement of the obvious as a hysterical threat.
> The man has
> been what he is now for over 30 years without any of these dreadful
> consequences, and in spite of your hysterical rantings, ...
Hilarious considering that my comments have been downright calm
compared to your temper tantrum here. It isn't difficult.
> those who actually
> have had any personal experience of the man on any serious level have
> found him kind, considerate, understanding, compassionate, and very
> knowledgable. I certainly have. I know a whole lot of other submissive
> and dominant and switch folks who have had the same experience I have.
> You don't know him at all, and you don't know what he does or doesn't
> believe, because you are too busy over-reacting to concepts you don't get.
I understand that if you're a dom in a TPE relationship and sub decides,
and expresses the decision, that he or she wants out, you'd _better_
respect that decision or pay the piper. End of argument.
Your pretense that there is something deeper and more clever to it that
us vanilla folks just can't comprehend is precisely the bs you're feeding
yourself. And you're more than welcome to it - but again, you start throwing
terms of endearment around like the adolescent you came off as in your
reponse then you are in no position to whine the blues when you get it fed
back to you.
Bill Whitehouse whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Atara Stein
In article <whitehou-100...@michele.ncsa.uiuc.edu>,
whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Bill Whitehouse) wrote:
[snip]
>The nonbinary nature of the universe has long been
> known and acknowledged by science/rationality - any reductive mindsets
> are approximations, models. Any semantic term is a categorization only
> valid within a certain context.
>
> Anyone who thinks a fragmentary, reductive mindset is endorsed by
> empirical evidence should check out David Bohm's work in quantum
> physics ... or there are absolute meanings in any language should
> check out nearly any introductory book on lingustics.
>
> Bill Whitehouse whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Nice post, amen, well-said, etc. Query: I have a very amateur interest
in quantum physics, as in I've read some books for folks like me, but I
can't do math or understand graphs/charts to save my life. Is this book
way mathematical, or is it more or less comprehensible to a science
illiterate? And what's the title?
I find the binary, reductive,
you're-either-submitting-absolutely-or-not-at-all arguments so
disheartening for a variety of reasons, among them the fact that it's
really depressing that so many people still think in such binary, black
and white terms. If there's one goal I have as a professor, it's to try
to break people *out* of that kind of mindset.
atara
--
Atara Stein ____
\ /
\/
"Aie! Una candelabra precariosa!"--The Simpsons
Duane Gundrum
In <whitehou-120...@ratz.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Bill Whitehouse) writes:
>
>No problem there - Mr. Weevil and his penguins should be able to
corroborate
>what I've stated as well as Dr. Bohm. It's that obvious, despite the
>words with
>more than five letters in them.
Wait a minute! This is discrimination against those of us who can't
read words with more than five letters in them!
(the words with over five words were written by the penguin)
Duane
"Owned and collared slave of Mistress Marisha"
______________________________________________
du...@crl.com
flip...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.netcom.com/~flippery
"Where the words might go over five letters, but the sentences don't
make any sense"
LOUISE MW
In article <4sbldv$q...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, ali...@magenta.com (A Hawke on
the Wing) writes:
>Subject: Re: Discussing Absolute Relationships: the Big Lie
>From: ali...@magenta.com (A Hawke on the Wing)
>Date: 14 Jul 1996 20:30:55 GMT
>
>loui...@aol.com (LOUISE MW) writes:
>>In article <4s3d65$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>s...@zabriskie.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Pope) writes:
>>>You and Jon have spoken many times about the psychological
>>>transformation that the submissive goes through; what about
>>>the dominant? Does the dominant partner not experience, on
>>>average, as strong a transformation?
>[snippage]
>
>>Short Answer: No such transformation is needed on the part of the
>>dominant. No intentional and directed conspiracy occurs between the
>>parties to affect any transformation on the part of the dominant. As in
>>all else involving TPE, it isn't equal at all.
>
>You've never observed your dom going into some kind of space where they
>just *look* at you and you quiver?
Sure I have, but that has nothing to do with the subject being discussed.
>They're in that kind of mindset *all* of the time?
Probably not, because if they were it would indicate that a psychological
transformation of the same type as occurs to the submissive in a TPE is
occuring in the dominant, and I've just argued that it doesn't happen.
You are proving my point exactly, that they are not in a special mindset
*all* of the time.
> I've seen that kind of a transformation in my dom.
So have people in vanilla relationships. So have I. It has nothing to do
with what Steve and I were talking.
> He doesn't show that at work. But when he walks into our home, he sheds
that outside veneer and *that* is a transformation. If you've never seen
that happen, then I feel sorry for you.<
I wouldn't feel sorry for me just because my dominant's generally don't
have to shed anything.
> It's a beautiful sight. When my master and I met, we were not in a TPE.
Over the years that we've been together, it has deepend to that point.
When we met, he did not *want* that type of relationship. He did not feel
he was capable of it. And he has gown and transformed into a person that
demands that type of relationship with some people.
What was being discussed was the intentional and directed transformation
in the mind of a TPE submissive as a result of the conspiracy to create
real enslavement that is a characteristic of TPE relationships. I am very
happy that you believe that your dominant has grown into a TPE dominant,
and that may very well be true, but it is not at all the same process as a
deliberate conspiracy to alter self-perception.
>I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with you on that point. There
*can* be a profound transformation in a dominant.
Yes, human beings are capable of making serious transformations in their
own lives and consciousnesses, but that is quite different from what I was
discussion. One is a naturally occuring phenomena in human living, and the
other is a deliberate process.
>>This is my best shot. I'm not a dominant. I understand the dynamics of
>>how it's done just fine from my own side, which is the only side I need
to
>>fully understand and appreciate <g>. I hope a TPE dominant jumps in
with
>>something from his/her side of it.
>
>A TPE submissive should be able to read her dom as well as he reads her.
I don't think so.
>You should be able to offer your dom service without being told what to
do.
And sometimes that is possible too.
> I know that when my master comes home, he wants a hug and a kiss. and a
backrrub sometimes. Sometimes he wants to be left alone. It *is* a two
way street for some of us. If it's not for you, then that's great if
that's what you want. But TPE is *not* all out of the same mold.
You have missed the boat entirely on the subject matter. What you are
talking about is the same kind of instinctive and habitual knowing that
takes place in all human relationships of any degree of depth and
familiarity. It has nothing to do with TPE per se. The conspiracy to
enslave committed to by the dominant and submissive in a TPE is very TPE
specific, has no parallel as far as the dominant is concerned, and has
nothing to do with such normal things as you are talking about.
I'm sorry you feel so compelled to criticize me on this issue, but it
doesn't actually sound like you have been paying any attention to the
discussion, or understood it if you were.
>
>moonlight/Myhkayla
Bill Whitehouse
In article <4s77mo$c...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
flip...@ix.netcom.com(Duane Gundrum ) wrote:
> In <whitehou-120...@ratz.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
> whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Bill Whitehouse) writes:
> >
>
> >No problem there - Mr. Weevil and his penguins should be able to
> corroborate
> >what I've stated as well as Dr. Bohm. It's that obvious, despite the
> >words with
> >more than five letters in them.
>
> Wait a minute! This is discrimination against those of us who can't
> read words with more than five letters in them!
>
> (the words with over five words were written by the penguin)
We'll just have to ask Mr. Weevil to hire less-discriminatory penguins
next time ... :)
Bill Whitehouse
whit...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
A Hawke on the Wing
loui...@aol.com (LOUISE MW) writes:
>In article <4sbldv$q...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, ali...@magenta.com (A Hawke on
>the Wing) writes:
>> It's a beautiful sight. When my master and I met, we were not in a TPE.
> Over the years that we've been together, it has deepend to that point.
>When we met, he did not *want* that type of relationship. He did not feel
>he was capable of it. And he has gown and transformed into a person that
>demands that type of relationship with some people.
>What was being discussed was the intentional and directed transformation
>in the mind of a TPE submissive as a result of the conspiracy to create
>real enslavement that is a characteristic of TPE relationships. I am very
>happy that you believe that your dominant has grown into a TPE dominant,
>and that may very well be true, but it is not at all the same process as a
>deliberate conspiracy to alter self-perception.
And what if there is no deliberate conspiracy to alter self-perception on
*either* side of the equation? There was *no* deception to trick myself
into giving up all control. It was a consious decision. I gave my word
that I would not leave. I told him that if I did, he retains the right
to drag me back until such time as I do not want to leave again. *Where*
is the conspiracy in that to alter my own self-perception? If you do not
participate in that are you saying that you can't be in a TPE? I'm
afraid that I just don't see the importance that you and others place on
the necessity of conspiring with another person to fake yourself into
believing something. What is the point? If you have to do that, then
are you *really* submitting? Or just faking in until it doesn't matter
anymore?
>>I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with you on that point. There
>*can* be a profound transformation in a dominant.
>Yes, human beings are capable of making serious transformations in their
>own lives and consciousnesses, but that is quite different from what I was
>discussion. One is a naturally occuring phenomena in human living, and the
>other is a deliberate process.
Pardon my saying so, but they are *both* naturally occuring phenomena in
human living. Humans are quite capable of deluding themselves into
believing just about anything. It's even easier if you have the help of
a strong willed person to conspire with. One in not necessarily better
than the other, as far as I'm concerned. If anything, the need to
conspire to change what you think and feel is rather a bad way of going
about things.
>>A TPE submissive should be able to read her dom as well as he reads her.
>I don't think so.
Why on earth not? If I am there to serve his needs, then *WHY* should I
not be able to tell what those needs are without him telling me? I have
a brain. Goddess saw fit to provide it to me. I use it creativly. Part
of that is in giving what my dom needs. It seems rather assinine to sit
and say that I am a slave that caters to what my dom needs and in the
same breath say that I have to *wait* for him to tell me what his needs are.
>> I know that when my master comes home, he wants a hug and a kiss. and a
>backrrub sometimes. Sometimes he wants to be left alone. It *is* a two
>way street for some of us. If it's not for you, then that's great if
>that's what you want. But TPE is *not* all out of the same mold.
>You have missed the boat entirely on the subject matter. What you are
>talking about is the same kind of instinctive and habitual knowing that
>takes place in all human relationships of any degree of depth and
>familiarity. It has nothing to do with TPE per se. The conspiracy to
>enslave committed to by the dominant and submissive in a TPE is very TPE
>specific, has no parallel as far as the dominant is concerned, and has
>nothing to do with such normal things as you are talking about.
I don't think so. Yes, it can take place in all human relationships. So
what? Are TPE relationships *so* special that they have to have a whole
different set of behaviors that *only* TPE participants live? Again, I
think that if you have to commit a conspiracy to enslave yourself, you're
not submitting at all. You're deluding yourself until such time as it
doesn't *matter* what you think anymore. It is not a thoughtful choice
to give a gift to antother person.
Life isn't nearly so absolute are you think it is, Karen. It's not black
and white. It's not binary. We are all not the same. What works for
you, obviously doesn't work for me. But that's okie. What I think *you*
need to do is stop trying to fit everyone into your mold.
>I'm sorry you feel so compelled to criticize me on this issue, but it
>doesn't actually sound like you have been paying any attention to the
>discussion, or understood it if you were.
Funny, I could have sworn that I was simply engaging in a conversation
about something that I have some experience in. I don't feel that I was
criticizing your way of doing things. Simply pointing out that your way
is not the way of everyone. I could have sworn that you said that you
were not a dominant and didn't have all the answers. But I must have
been mistaken.
Oh, and as for following and paying attention to the discussion, I've
been following the discussion for longer than you've been posting to asb,
toots. And even understanding it too. Amazing, isn't it? That someone
*might* have an understanding that is different from yours. What a
concept.
moonlight/Myhkayla - who can sling "You're either stupid, not paying
attention, or just plain don't get it" with the
best of them........*rolls her eyes*, and who also
doesn't "think" she has a TPE dom, but rather knows
that she does. *shrugs*
*******************************************************************************
"A "practical joker" deserves applause for his wit according to its quality.
Bastinado is about right. For exceptional wit one might grant keelhauling.
But staking him out to an anthill should be reserved for the very wittiest."
- Lazarus Long
ali...@magenta.com wind...@apocalypse.org wind...@asylum.sf.ca.us
*******************************************************************************
Soulhuntre
*sigh* I thought we were close :(
loui...@aol.com (LOUISE MW) wrote:
>
>The psychological transformation that must take place in the mind of the
>submissive in order to create a TPE requires his/her active participation
>in a process which makes him/her ultimately unable to make any choices,
>but his/her cooperation in that process is essential, and it doesn't
>happen without trust.
Everyone is always making choices. All the time. Animals are making
choices, etc.
NOTE: My newsreader is set to autoforward copies of
posts to the people I am replying to. Just so
you know :)
===================================================
Ken
soulh...@pobox.com
"Do, or do not. There is no try." - Yoda
YES, I KNOW I spell "perhapse" wrong.:)
.signature virus 4.119 REV A
Copy me to YOUR .signature please!