The longer I'm here, the more I like Sherman
Octopussykat
with the practices and ideas behind BDSM, doesn't automatically
preclude him from intelligence. Sadly, that's the general consensus,
though.
I subscribed about 8 months or so ago. I can't say that I'm anything
less than appalled by the sense of autocracy that is reflected here
time and time again, esp. when dealing with people who delurk. It
seems that too many people are ready to believe that anyone new is some
sort of incompetent idjit with nothing of value to offer the group
unless they come in kissing ass and conforming to the holier-than-thou
attitudes offered up. Some regular posters are guiltier than others of
showing this rather base side of themselves. I can't understand it.
Is it because living a lifestyle that is subject to speculation and
criticism has left some people so defensive that automatically attack
on the presumption that everyone is the enemy? Or is it because you'd
like to keep your little group just that- little? I certainly hope
that it's the latter since I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a part
of something where if they step on the wrong eggshell the wrong way,
they'll be completely (overly, is more like it) berated and
embarrassed. Oh, wait...*that's* the appeal. The humiliation. Silly
me. *Now* I get it.
It’s unfortunate that there are actually people who will take this to
heart and believe that they are bad people for not being embraced by
the SSB regs. Luckily for me, acceptance has never been a high
priority.
Octopussykat
--
"Most of the harm that is done in the world
is due to people who want to feel important."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Octopussykat
> Octopussykat <octopu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > At least he makes some valid points. Just because he doesn't agree
> > with the practices and ideas behind BDSM, doesn't automatically
> > preclude him from intelligence. Sadly, that's the general consensus,
> > though.
>
>
> Disagreeing with BDSM doesn't mean someone's stupid. It merely means
that
> they, for whatever reason, misunderstand some postulates.
>
> Even Steven misunderstood postulates, and stubbornly refused to
reexamine
> them even when it was demonstrated that they led to logical
> inconsistencies. This made him dogmatic and wrong, but not stupid.
>
> Sherman McCoy, on the other hand, has wrong postulates, and then uses
them
> incorrectly. This demonstrates a lack of ability to use logic.
By definition, you can't assume that the postulates are law, true and
correct beyond question. Just because something is a generally-accepted
hypothesis doesn't make it the way and the only way. I see someone
(Sherman) who sees the ideas presented here and doesn't like what he
sees. He verbalizes this. It pisses a lot of people off that he can't
just see it their way and accept it for what it is. He's said things
that have pissed me off. But, more often than not, he's said things
that made me think. Gave me a different perspective to entertain. I
don't think that anyone here is right or wrong. It's not my place to
decide. A mere mortal in the grand scheme of things with opinions
entirely my own, I don't tend to read something and say to myself 'No.
That person is wrong' and discredit them completely based on their
opinions. That's the meat of this newsgroup. Opinions. Theories.
Postulates.
> Now, there are lots of ways to define "intelligence", but one that I
often
> use is "the ability to correctly observe reality and correctly use
those
> observations to deduce further truths about reality that are not
> immediately obvious."
>
> Sherman can neither correctly observe reality, or correctly use his
> incorrect observations to make logically consistent (if wrong)
deductions.
Reality. Who's perception of reality? Yours or his? I'm sorry but I'm
not quite sure what you're saying here. I read it as the views
expressed here are reality and he is unintelligent since he can't see
it as such and accept it.
> So how would you define intelligence?
"the skilled use of reason : the ability to apply knowledge to
manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by
objective criteria"
If he can't understand why someone is compelled to practice BDSM even
when presented with reasons, it doesn't make him wrong or stupid. It
makes him unable to relate. It's not within his realm of experience to
either A) draw on those feelings or B) draw on them and agree. I can't
see why runners would do a 10K "for fun". I see it as rather silly,
even though I've been told of the reasons why they do it. I can't
relate to runners as runners. I can, however, relate to them as
people. Doesn't make either one of us right or wrong, just different.
It's a two-way street. Nobody wants to believe that Sherman can have
anything useful to say, either. Not saying that I agree with
everything he says. I never agree with anyone entirely. I don't have
to and I sincerely hope that they wouldn't care either way. I'm not
going to attack them for having formed independent opinions, either.
Octopussykat
> Octopussykat <octopu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >
> > If he can't understand why someone is compelled to practice BDSM
even
> > when presented with reasons, it doesn't make him wrong or stupid. It
> > makes him unable to relate. It's not within his realm of experience
to
> > either A) draw on those feelings or B) draw on them and agree. I
can't
> > see why runners would do a 10K "for fun". I see it as rather silly,
> > even though I've been told of the reasons why they do it. I can't
> > relate to runners as runners. I can, however, relate to them as
> > people. Doesn't make either one of us right or wrong, just
different.
>
run is
> that you were chased by scary dogs when you were a kid, and thus
> traumatized," and when they say "No, I wasn't, in fact I get along
great
> with dogs, I run 'cause I enjoy it," reply with "You're lying! You
WERE
> chased by scary dogs! The fact that you deny it so vehemently, just
PROVES
> it!"
>
> I can easily accept Sherm's inability to relate to WIITWD. Hey, I
don't
> understand why people eat sauerkraut, or watch sports on TV; not
relating to
> stuff other people enjoy is a fact of life for all of us. What I
object to
> is his hanging around here demonizing us, and calling us liars when
we tell
> him that his generalizations aren't true of us all. I don't hang
around
> alt.fan.sauerkraut going "Ewwwww, how can you put that in your MOUTH?"
>
> NG
I couldn't agree more. Hasn't the group done the same exact thing to
Sherman, though?
I do tend to be a bleeding heart who can't accept any one person as
being all bad. I like to hear what people have to say about BDSM, be
it for or against. I'm fond of some activities that make some people
say 'What a freak!' or 'How can that possibly turn her on?!'. Doesn't
mean I'm going to run in a corner and cry and never talk to that person
again. Nor will I use that as an excuse to go on the offensive. I
just accept that they don't understand me and my choices and I move on.
Xiphias Gladius
> At least he makes some valid points. Just because he doesn't agree
> with the practices and ideas behind BDSM, doesn't automatically
> preclude him from intelligence. Sadly, that's the general consensus,
> though.
Actually, comparing him to Even Steven sort of shows the difference.
Disagreeing with BDSM doesn't mean someone's stupid. It merely means that
they, for whatever reason, misunderstand some postulates.
Even Steven misunderstood postulates, and stubbornly refused to reexamine
them even when it was demonstrated that they led to logical
inconsistencies. This made him dogmatic and wrong, but not stupid.
Sherman McCoy, on the other hand, has wrong postulates, and then uses them
incorrectly. This demonstrates a lack of ability to use logic.
Now, there are lots of ways to define "intelligence", but one that I often
use is "the ability to correctly observe reality and correctly use those
observations to deduce further truths about reality that are not
immediately obvious."
Sherman can neither correctly observe reality, or correctly use his
incorrect observations to make logically consistent (if wrong) deductions.
So how would you define intelligence?
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Angel
> At least he makes some valid points. Just because he doesn't agree
> with the practices and ideas behind BDSM, doesn't automatically
> preclude him from intelligence. Sadly, that's the general consensus,
> though.
~snip of the rest (except the last bit), as I really have no interest in
another "everyone who posts on SSB are just big ole meanies" thread~
As to the above...
YKINMK but YKIOK:)
I have the idjit plonked. I have no interest in reading his drivel and
unless *it* has changed the tone of *it's* posts, I see nothing
intelligent about him at all. I mean really, he obviously gets off on
real life murders and mutilations, bombards delurkers with drool and
dribble, and then says we are the ones with the problems because we act
out our fantasies with other consenting adults.
The fact that he claims we are all abused and cannot address any
questions put forth to him about his circular views, in itself, shows a
lack of intelligence.
But, as I said, YKINMK but YKIOK:)
> It's unfortunate that there are actually people who will take this to
> heart and believe that they are bad people for not being embraced by
> the SSB regs. Luckily for me, acceptance has never been a high
> priority.
I am not a SSB regular, at least I don't think I am. I have not been
here for years or have even met anyone from here (that I know of), but I
do think your statement can go both ways.
I think that it would be unfortunate for all the regulars to take all
this stuff to heart and believe that they are bad people for not being
embraced by the lurkers.
Not to say that sometimes everyone need to take a chill pill, as most
people do at some point.
Angel
AMB- Assertive Masochistic Bottom
"Believe me, when I bottom, I want it MY way :)" - Trouble841
~Remove the kitty to email me~
JOHN WARREN
news:uo0f5.368475$MB.58...@news6.giganews.com...
> I think that it would be unfortunate for all the regulars to take all
> this stuff to heart and believe that they are bad people for not being
> embraced by the lurkers.
Actually, I tend to pay a lot more attention to people who have built up
some kind of track record than to somone who pops in from the blue to tell
folks they "just ain't doin' it right."
This doesn't mean that the "from the blue" person may not be right, but the
odds seem to be against it.
The race is not always to the swift or the battle to the strong... but that
IS the way to bet. (apologies to the bible)
--
Diversified Services Books Toys and Videos to the Scene since 1993
www.diversified--services.com (new products added 7/19)
NrrdGrrl
dia{TM}
Octopussykat <octopu...@my-deja.com> wrote
> If he can't understand why someone is compelled to practice BDSM even
> when presented with reasons, it doesn't make him wrong or stupid. It
> makes him unable to relate. It's not within his realm of experience to
> either A) draw on those feelings or B) draw on them and agree. I can't
> see why runners would do a 10K "for fun". I see it as rather silly,
> even though I've been told of the reasons why they do it. I can't
> relate to runners as runners.
And do you then make the leap that 10k runners do it because they were
abused as children? Do you claim studies that prove this, but refuse to
cite sources? My sister doesn't understand what I get out of bdsm either,
but she doesn't go looking for crackpot ideas and try to shove them down my
throat to "prove" that what I'm doing is sick and wrong. She listens to me,
and relates to similar things in her own life, that will help her
understand.
Sometimes Sherman shows a glimmer of intelligence and even humor. Sometimes
I think he's making fun of us all, and believes what he's saying no more
than the rest of us. But overall from what I've seen him post to this
newsgroup, I think he's very mixed up and damaged in some way and he's one
person I would not want to be alone with. He might be as safe as my kid
brother, and maybe I'm basing too much on a few (hundred?) postings, but
frankly I think he needs serious help. YMMV.
dia{TM}
TacitR
I must've missed those. What valid points has he made?
------
Onyx, the game of sexual exploration; Xero, the industrial magazine
of art, fiction and photography; and online photo gallery--all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
tormenta
> when presented with reasons, it doesn't make him wrong or stupid. It
> makes him unable to relate. It's not within his realm of experience to
> either A) draw on those feelings or B) draw on them and agree. I can't
> see why runners would do a 10K "for fun". I see it as rather silly,
> even though I've been told of the reasons why they do it. I can't
> people. Doesn't make either one of us right or wrong, just different.
Ah, and I suppose you hang out in long distance runner newsgroups, and tell
every new poster who comes by that long distance running is sick, twisted,
and a sign of mental ilness, and that they should go be couch potatos and
not be taken in by the twisted running coaches here, who only do it because
they were abused as children?
Shermie doesn't hang out here to try and understand. He doesn't even hang
out to convince us we're wrong, because if he did, his reasons would change.
As it is, all he can do is make extremely offensive remarks about other
peoples fantasies (read, limbless body thing to Rasberry Surprise and "bring
your kids in to watch" to Lynn) and say:
-female subs were abused as children
-male doms are evil abusers
-switches, femdoms, malesubs do not exist.
If these seem like valid points to you, if you can *possibly* see any reason
for him to even be here, all power too you. It only took me 5 Shermie posts
to figure out for myself he's an idjit, and is here for one reason only: to
piss people off.
Makes me wonder why you stick around here, though, if the posters you
sympathize with aren't at all representative of the vast majority of posts
on the ng? Why not lurk where you find people to be more agreable? (honest
question?)
tormenta
TacitR
>when presented with reasons, it doesn't make him wrong or stupid. It
>makes him unable to relate. It's not within his realm of experience to
>either A) draw on those feelings or B) draw on them and agree.
Ah, but here there's a fundamental problem.
Shermie doesn't hold the beliefs he does because he cannot relate. He holds the
beliefs he does because he believes things which are factually, demonstrably
false; eg, that every practitioner of BDSM, without exception, is a victim of
child abuse, or that the psychiatric community agrees that BDSm is destructive.
Both of these are questions of fact, not questions of belief.
You can define the word "abuse" and then see if you can find people in the BDSM
community who do not meet that definition--and if you do so, you discover that
*not* everyone who does BDSM was abused. You can examine the DSM IV, which is
the current state of the psychiatric profession as a whole; it spells out the
psychiatric community's stance on BDSM quite unambiguously.
This is not a question of ability to relate; this is more a question of
believing something which can be proven not to be true. Or, to put it another
way: Shermie isn't a man of reason with a different point of view; Shermie is a
Flat Earther.
Psyfuru
NrrdGrrl
>> I can easily accept Sherm's inability to relate to WIITWD. Hey, I
>don't
>> understand why people eat sauerkraut, or watch sports on TV; not
>relating to
>> stuff other people enjoy is a fact of life for all of us. What I
>object to
>> is his hanging around here demonizing us, and calling us liars when
>we tell
>> him that his generalizations aren't true of us all. I don't hang
>around
>> alt.fan.sauerkraut going "Ewwwww, how can you put that in your MOUTH?"
Octopussykat
>I couldn't agree more. Hasn't the group done the same exact thing to
>Sherman, though?
No, not at all.
Some things are tough to post about for some persons. Those are the posters
that Sherman has continually attacked.
Please re-read the thread involving the first poster he attacked--Jenni.
Nothing has changed. It's simply YKINOK on a grand scale. Why isn't "fuck
that noise" still an appropriate response?
f
Angel
TacitR <tac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000724162312...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> You can examine the DSM IV, which is the current state of the
> psychiatric profession as a whole; it spells out the psychiatric
> community's stance on BDSM quite unambiguously.
This recently came up:) Someone posted on a list that sensual masochism
and sadism is considered to be a mental disorder under the DSM IV. Now,
I have not read it myself, nor have a copy handy, but have heard that it
is only under specific situations that it would be defined as so.
Could someone give me some specifics?:)
Yaldahtvah
>Now,
>I have not read it myself, nor have a copy handy, but have heard that it
>is only under specific situations that it would be defined as so.
>
>Could someone give me some specifics?:)
The DSM-IV specifies both sadism and masochism as mental disorders ONLY if they
1) cause the sadist or masochist intense distress or 2) interfere with social
or occupational functioning.
Otherwise, if neither condition 1 or 2 holds, you can be a sadomasochist
without being considered mentally ill by the psychiatric establishment.
susie
"Those who hear not the music, think the dancers mad."
kathyW
Octopussykat wrote in message <8lht1d$uju$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> I can't say that I'm anything less than appalled by the sense of autocracy
that is reflected here
>time and time again, esp. when dealing with people who delurk. It
>seems that too many people are ready to believe that anyone new is some
>sort of incompetent idjit with nothing of value to offer the group
>unless they come in kissing ass and conforming to the holier-than-thou
>attitudes offered up. Some regular posters are guiltier than others of
>showing this rather base side of themselves.
Octopussykat,
I can not comment on Sherman, I don't know him and have not taken the time
to read the threads regarding him. I would like to comment, however, on the
way some react to those outside of the "inner circle". I had recently
posted an honest reaction and felt I was attacked on many levels. Looking
back on it now, there were really only a few that I feel were reacting to me
in a completely hostile and intolerant way. Most of the replys were
thoughtful and responsible. So I continue to read most of the posts but
ignore the ones from those who I feel display little or no understanding of
issues other than from their own perspective or belief.
be well and be safe,
kathyW
http://bdsm-tavern.org The website for the IRC Undernet channel
#bdsm-tavern for adults with a real interest in bdsm.
Jinxy
<Snippy snip snip stuffz regarding Sherman>
I have him killfiled, so I have no idea if he has suddenly become scholarly
or even rational. All I know is that it took me a long time to get ok, with
myself, my past, "my kinks " and my future. He made me doubt myself, be it
ever so slightly. As difficult as that is to admit, it was even more
difficult to get to this point in my life; so I have no use for him or his
ramblings.
While I may be a few sandwiches short of a picnic some days, alot of us need
to be reminded that this NG is just a group of human beings, with feelings,
and with our faults. Of course everyones mileage varies regarding which are
more positive or negative.
--
Jinxy
The Truth is Out There
"Some say the end is near, Some say we'll see Armageddon soon,
I certainly hope we will, I sure could use a vacation from this bullshit..."
Serion Ironcroft
<20000724202249...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, tac...@aol.com
(TacitR) wrote:
>The reader's digest condensed version is that the DSM IV defines
>sadomasochism as a disorder if and only if it interferes with the ability
>of the individual in question to lead a normal life or if it causes
>emotional distress for the individual.
So that explains Sherm, eh? Thinking about folks enjoying themselves
engaging in S&M activities causes him emotional distress and prevents
him from leading a normal life?
No wonder he thinks S&M is a disorder!
Regards, Serion
Angel
~snip of stuff regarding the DSM IV~
Thanks to you and susie:)
CRC
Norton Zenger wrote:
> Sherman's reasons started out merely being stupid. Then they were doggedly
> stupid, then frenetically stupid, and now his justifications have become
> psychotically stupid. If he continues being stupid much longer I am likely to
> start fearing for the physical safety of those around him.
I am already seriously concerned about the safety of those around
the man. And it has nothing to do with his intelligence. I have
observed this kind of behavior in other people in other situations
who had passions that were constantly struggling against.
The alcoholic who quite sincerely goes two or three months quite
sincerely preaching about the evils of booze. And then falls off
the wagon and drinks himself sick. Waking up in the hospital with
even more determination to save everyone from this demon. Damn
sincere and caring about it too. Unable to distinguish the
difference between his inability to control his drinking with other
peoples ability to have just one or two. They all need to be saved
before they end up like him.
I did a post a few days ago about a vanilla reaction to Sherman. My
friends impression was entirely the same. This guy is dangerous!
was his words. He could tell immediately the difference between
Sherman and an erotic sadist.
Sherman has a very active imagination about how to hurt people. He
thinks about it in great detail while preaching against it. I sure
don't want to be around if and when he falls off the wagon.
Chris
Angel
Norton Zenger <gay...@catholic.org> wrote in message
news:hfnpnsongg00rsd4u...@4ax.com...
> Angel come on down:
>
> >I am not a SSB regular, at least I don't think I am.
>
Yep, which is funny as I am short. But, since my legs are long, then I
need "tall."
> [Yes, I know that makes no sense whatsoever out of context. 'swhy
> I like it.]
Well, unless, I misread the context, then it made sense to me:)
Cindy
> It's unfortunate that there are actually people who will take this to
> heart and believe that they are bad people for not being embraced by
> the SSB regs. Luckily for me, acceptance has never been a high
> priority.
I agree totally, I have only been here a short while, and I have seen a few
things that struck me the wrong way, such as... I have noticed that many
people say what they want to say with no regard for others feelings (putting
someone down, etc. etc. etc.) but if someone else does it, that person will
be the first to lash out at the other...makes no sense to me.
I have always tried to say what I felt without being judgemental, rude, and
so on, there are times though when my temper gets the best of me and I don't
give a shit who I hurt at the time. Anyway, my point is that (and this is
my opinion only) There are rules in here such as don't put down someone's
kink, but I feel like the rules should apply to all things...(ideas,
thoughts, comments, etc.) I am not a regular, and if here for a year I
wouldn't call my self a regular, because I don't practice BDSM, I am just
here to learn because it interests me. Basically what I am saying is that if
I am supposed to respect them (all in here), then they should respect me. If
I don't put down there kink or them, they shouldn't put down my thought, or
comment....but I have noticed with some that these rules are for them only:
I am not saying that we should all have the same beliefs or thoughts etc.
etc. For life would be boring if we did....but we are all adults here, and
we should be able to respectfully disagree, believe what we want, etc. etc.
etc. without getting a rude, put down type of reply:)
I don't care what anyone says, if I have something to say, I will say it. If
I don't get the vote for most liked, so what. The regulars should not or
anyone should not make someone feel bad because their beliefs are not the
same:)
Respect is a two way street :) And as far as Shermie goes....I think that
Shermie gets such hell for his rude way of commenting on posts...he attacks
them, or their beliefs. Like I said respect is a two way street, in order to
get respect you must first give it :) Like him replying to me putting my sis
down...totally uncalled for....if all someone has time to do is sit and read
posts and see just how awful they can make another person feel, then in my
opinion they need to get another hobby and possibly a
life....*LOL*...............*S*
This is my thought on your thought :)
--
Cindy
Have a great day:-)
"If ya can't face it, moon it" (I don't know who this quote belongs to, but
I like it)
Have A Great Day! :-)
Octopussykat <octopu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lht1d$uju$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> At least he makes some valid points. Just because he doesn't agree
> with the practices and ideas behind BDSM, doesn't automatically
> preclude him from intelligence. Sadly, that's the general consensus,
> though.
>
> I subscribed about 8 months or so ago. I can't say that I'm anything
> less than appalled by the sense of autocracy that is reflected here
> time and time again, esp. when dealing with people who delurk. It
> seems that too many people are ready to believe that anyone new is some
> sort of incompetent idjit with nothing of value to offer the group
> unless they come in kissing ass and conforming to the holier-than-thou
> attitudes offered up. Some regular posters are guiltier than others of
> showing this rather base side of themselves. I can't understand it.
> Is it because living a lifestyle that is subject to speculation and
> criticism has left some people so defensive that automatically attack
> on the presumption that everyone is the enemy? Or is it because you'd
> like to keep your little group just that- little? I certainly hope
> that it's the latter since I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a part
> of something where if they step on the wrong eggshell the wrong way,
> they'll be completely (overly, is more like it) berated and
> embarrassed. Oh, wait...*that's* the appeal. The humiliation. Silly
> me. *Now* I get it.
>
> It's unfortunate that there are actually people who will take this to
> heart and believe that they are bad people for not being embraced by
> the SSB regs. Luckily for me, acceptance has never been a high
> priority.
>
>
Sherman McCoy
> He made me doubt myself
Oh, I'm so fucking sorry. I guess everyone in BDSM should just bend
over and stick their heads in the sand, like an ostrich. Why bother
addressing all the contradictions in your lifestyle if you can just
think happy thoughts, eh? Or why see a therapist when you can just
eroticize your abuse and perpetuate a culture of corruption and
apathy, huh?
"Oh, to beat a woman is heaven!" Ira Einhorn
anne f
<octopu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<major snip>
>
>I couldn't agree more. Hasn't the group done the same exact thing to
>Sherman, though?
No. Dozens of very brave posters here (I am not among them where
Shermie is concerned, by the way) have patiently explained logically,
over and over again, why they do what they do, and that their mothers
(or fathers, for that matter) were not abusive. Shermie has
consistently called them liars, crazy, and "in denial." He has
labeled *all* submissives abused, and *all* dominants rapists, over
and over again. The moment the word *all* comes into an argument, the
side which employs it has lost. There IS no "all" in science. And
when Shermie has been asked to provide data, he just loops back into
the "you prove to me you're normal, no one thinks you're normal, you
are sick and everybody knows it, and don't you all find that
humiliating?" mode. He also lives in the realm of the collective noun
"batch load." We are all exactly alike. His one song fits all, in
his view.
Shermie has consistently said that he knows this about all of us
because he knows this, and we all know it too, because he knows this,
and if we don't agree we are liars, or crazy, or in denial, because he
knows this. One tires of an "argument" which is not fact based, after
a while.
>
>I do tend to be a bleeding heart who can't accept any one person as
>being all bad. I like to hear what people have to say about BDSM, be
>it for or against. I'm fond of some activities that make some people
>say 'What a freak!' or 'How can that possibly turn her on?!'. Doesn't
>mean I'm going to run in a corner and cry and never talk to that person
>again. Nor will I use that as an excuse to go on the offensive.
Nor have the vast majority of the posters here on SSBB.
> I just accept that they don't understand me and my choices and I move on.
Yes, that is certainly a rational approach, one I try to employ
myself. Now, can you persuade Shermie to use it? Oh, and for the
record, "bad" isn't a word that works for me, I have a lot of problems
with "moral" judgements, my world view is horizontal, not
hierarchical.
And while I'm in the neighborhood, please help me with something? What
points has Shermie made which work for you? I admit to being ok with
"Why didn't you just email her?" Of his 1,000 (or so) posts, were
there others? What are the other points which resonate for you?
I'm honestly curious.
regards,
anne f (speaking only for myself, as always)
SSBB Diplomatic Corps
San Francisco-East Bay Area, CA
slave kat
You show me any generalized lifestyle that isn't full of contradictions and
I'll buy you lunch. On Master's credit card.
slave kat
bound by Master Ravisher
"Sherman McCoy" <re...@mccoy.com> wrote in message
news:240720002237022533%re...@mccoy.com...
TacitR
>I have not read it myself, nor have a copy handy, but have heard that it
>is only under specific situations that it would be defined as so.
The relevant portion of the DSM IV is the DSM-IV Sourcebook, Volume II.
The reader's digest condensed version is that the DSM IV defines sadomasochism
as a disorder if and only if it interferes with the ability of the individual i
question to lead a normal life or if it causes emotional distress for the
individual.
------
Psyfuru
>I can not comment on Sherman, I don't know him and have not taken the time
>to read the threads regarding him. I would like to comment, however, on the
>way some react to those outside of the "inner circle". I had recently
>posted an honest reaction and felt I was attacked on many levels. Looking
>back on it now, there were really only a few that I feel were reacting to me
>in a completely hostile and intolerant way. Most of the replys were
>thoughtful and responsible. So I continue to read most of the posts but
>ignore the ones from those who I feel display little or no understanding of
>issues other than from their own perspective or belief.
Thanks for the capital I's.
Form vs. substance is always an issue.
But content is the real deal; so I hope you continue to post, and in the style
that is comfortable to you.
No one but you ought to determine how/what to post, neither a former master,
nor a current, perceived "consensus."
f
JOHN WARREN
news:50tpnso1fj048r50h...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:20:58 -0400, gay...@catholic.org (Norton
> Zenger) wrote:
>
> >Damn. We must be doing _something_ wrong, then, eh? [Side note to Cabal
> >(TINC)- Up the heat on Beets! I want his name to be Joe Borscht by the
end of
> >the week!]
>
> Mr. Zenger,
>
> You have mocked my chosen 'Net identity for no other reason than your
> own amusement. I shall expect a full apology ASAP or I shall have to
> turn this matter over to the board of directors (known hereafter as
> "my mother") who will roundly scold you in no uncertain terms and may
> even pull your ear in a harsh manner. I am not in a position to say
> what actions may be taken to right the egregious wrong that has been
> done to my reputation as a largely unknown person here.
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Joseph Beets (and Mother)
[chuckling wildly]
Xiphias Gladius
> Joe Beets come on down:
>>As a long-time lurker and occasional poster, I wanted to say that I
>>have never felt like I needed to bow to any of the regulars here. If I
>>feel I have something to contribute or I have a question, I post.
> Damn. We must be doing _something_ wrong, then, eh? [Side note to Cabal
> (TINC)- Up the heat on Beets! I want his name to be Joe Borscht by the end of
> the week!]
Litvak or Galitzener?
Or, if you go into the Russian and Polish non-Jewish versions, you get
some real interesting things that aren't kosher.
See, there are two main ways to do borscht: as a soup, or as a beverage.
As a soup, you leave shredded beet bits and stuff in it, and you serve
with sour cream and stuff. As a beverage, you strain out everything, so
you can drink it.
Me, I usually like drinking borscht more than eating it, but there's a
treif Russian borscht soup variation that I absolutely love. It's got
chunks of meat and sour cream and lots of good stuff.
Jerri
>> Zenger) wrote:
>>
>> >Damn. We must be doing _something_ wrong, then, eh? [Side note to Cabal
>> >(TINC)- Up the heat on Beets! I want his name to be Joe Borscht by the
>end of
>> >the week!]
>>
>>
>> You have mocked my chosen 'Net identity for no other reason than your
>> own amusement. I shall expect a full apology ASAP or I shall have to
>> turn this matter over to the board of directors (known hereafter as
>> "my mother") who will roundly scold you in no uncertain terms and may
>> even pull your ear in a harsh manner. I am not in a position to say
>> what actions may be taken to right the egregious wrong that has been
>> done to my reputation as a largely unknown person here.
>>
>> Respectfully yours,
>> Joseph Beets (and Mother)
>
>[chuckling wildly]
>
>
>
>
>
>
ROFLMGDAO
Mz Midnite
"Oh Bother" said the Borg, "we've assimmilated Pooh!"
Xiphias Gladius
>> Even Steven misunderstood postulates, and stubbornly refused to
> reexamine
>> them even when it was demonstrated that they led to logical
>> inconsistencies. This made him dogmatic and wrong, but not stupid.
>>
>> Sherman McCoy, on the other hand, has wrong postulates, and then uses
> them
>> incorrectly. This demonstrates a lack of ability to use logic.
> By definition, you can't assume that the postulates are law, true and
> correct beyond question.
Actually, by definition, you *can*.
However, if logical manipulation of the postulates leads to a statement
that is manefestly at odds with reality, then your postulates, while valid
as postulates, do not form a system which models reality.
For instance: "All subs have been abused," is a postulate.
"My wife is a sub" is an observation of reality.
The three line sylogism would lead to "My wife has been abused."
However, she has *not*.
Therefore, either the major premise, the minor premise, the conclusion, or
the form of the sylogism is wrong.
We can pretty safely assume the form of the sylogism as correct.
So: one (or more) of the following statements is incorrect:
1. All submissives have been abused.
2. My wife is a submissive.
3. My wife has not been abused.
Let's look at #3 first, because, well, it's what *she* first looked at
when she discovered she was kinky.
Lis has never been in a situation where she *could* have been abused, has
no reason to suspect abuse, has never been exposed to an abuser, and, in
all other ways, could not have been abused.
So, let's look at #2.
It *would* be possible to define "submissive" as "someone who is using
BDSM to replicate a history of abuse", which would make #2 false.
However, nobody *does* define "submissive" that way. By the definitions
in use, she *is*.
So, clearly, the postulate is false.
Yet Sherman can't, or won't see it.
>> Now, there are lots of ways to define "intelligence", but one that I
> often
>> use is "the ability to correctly observe reality and correctly use
> those
>> observations to deduce further truths about reality that are not
>> immediately obvious."
>>
>> Sherman can neither correctly observe reality, or correctly use his
>> incorrect observations to make logically consistent (if wrong)
> deductions.
> Reality. Who's perception of reality? Yours or his? I'm sorry but I'm
> not quite sure what you're saying here. I read it as the views
> expressed here are reality and he is unintelligent since he can't see
> it as such and accept it.
Reality exists independently of perception of it.
Reality: SQO submissives report no abuse in their histories. Sherman
can't accept that.
Jerri
>treif Russian borscht soup variation that I absolutely love. It's got
>chunks of meat and sour cream and lots of good stuff.
>
You're making me hungry!!!
Xiphias Gladius
> This recently came up:) Someone posted on a list that sensual masochism
> and sadism is considered to be a mental disorder under the DSM IV. Now,
> I have not read it myself, nor have a copy handy, but have heard that it
> is only under specific situations that it would be defined as so.
> Could someone give me some specifics?:)
If the masochism or sadism 1. interferes with the subject's quality of
life including causing guilt feelings or 2. causes the person to act
destructively to zirself or others.
CRC
>
> Octopussykat <octopu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message :
>
> > It's unfortunate that there are actually people who will take this to
> > heart and believe that they are bad people for not being embraced by
> > the SSB regs. Luckily for me, acceptance has never been a high
> > priority.
Cindy wrote:
>
> I agree totally, I have only been here a short while, and I have seen a few
> things that struck me the wrong way, such as... I have noticed that many
> people say what they want to say with no regard for others feelings (putting
> someone down, etc. etc. etc.) but if someone else does it, that person will
> be the first to lash out at the other...makes no sense to me.
Social control is an unavoidable part of human interaction.
Everybody participates in at least attempting to implement these
controls. Everybody reacts to them. Even the very act of saying I
am above that and do not care what people think is a form of social
control. It is an act of encouraging others to not react to some
type of social force. While subconsciously reacting to another.
When it works well the end result is a balance of control that
allows people to interact with out bashing each others brains in.
When it does not work well then chaos, disharmony, and splintering
occurs. Fighting becomes more important than normal routine. In
any society you could chart the flow of these conflicts of social
controls and see a fairly consistent wave pattern alternating from
controlled harmony to disrupting chaos. There is a reason for this
involves the corruptive nature of power which leads to the loss of
power leaving room for struggle for new controls.
On usenet this trend is cycled much faster than in other forms of
society. Mostly this is because of very rapidly changing
demographics. Not so long ago computer communications were
available to only a small segment of the over all society. Mostly
hacker and programmer types who had melded into a subculture of
their own. If you were not pretty well advance in the technical
usage of the tools you were not shit in this subculture. You were
expected to quietly take a back seat and listen until you became
more adept. Such controls were not very hard to enforce as a person
with limited skills did not have access to many of the resources
available through a computer.
The introduction of commercialism to the net changed all of that
very rapidly. The money was in making the resources usable and
easier for more people. You still have a lot of old timers around
who think a culture group should continue to function like a hacker
or programming group. Now the vast majority of users are not of the
old subculture and they can and will have their say and include
their influences on the social controls. Regardless of how poorly
or how well the old cultures adapt to that or adapt others to their
ways. You just can't pour cold water into hot water and expect the
temperature to stay the same.
The changing availability to communications has also had the same
type of effects on the BDSM subculture. More and more people are
gaining exposure to the thinking, concepts, and practices of the
subculture. More and more people are being introduced to the fact
that it is not all that unusual. They are seeing stuff on the net
and thinking "hey I thought I was the only one who felt that way"
The public exposure is also encouraging those who do not feel the
desires to develop healthy curiosity about those who do.
The ones who were here earlier are finding the struggle to maintain
a sense of tolerance harder and harder. There is a constant and
increasing flow of those needing the indoctrination they wish to
maintain. Thus new users and old alike are susceptible to the
border lines of indoctrination and witch hunting. Tolerance comes
in many shapes and colors. Including the tolerance for the changing
times.
The social influence I strive for is not the total avoidance of
conflict. That is not what I see as a reasonable goal. If I can
successfully influence anything it is the practice of attacking
peoples views for what they are rather than corrupting what their
views are for the sake of attacking the individual. I would also
like to see more tolerance for the changing views of others.
Instead of remaining on the prod at a sign of offense thinking or
behavior. Allow the person to accept the influences of others
gracefully and accept the changes that occur from new users being
exposed to all of the input.
Everyone of us does change in how we think as we are exposed to
wider arrays of thinking. What someone said last week could be very
different from what they are thinking and saying this week. What
someone says in the heat of conflict could be very different from
how they really feel after thinking things through. Tolerance and
awareness of such changes could be very beneficial for all.
Chris
SilverOz
CRC <kwa...@nospam.nmfiber.com> wrote:
>
>
>The changing availability to communications has also had the same
>type of effects on the BDSM subculture. More and more people are
>gaining exposure to the thinking, concepts, and practices of the
>subculture. More and more people are being introduced to the fact
>that it is not all that unusual. They are seeing stuff on the net
>and thinking "hey I thought I was the only one who felt that way"
>The public exposure is also encouraging those who do not feel the
>desires to develop healthy curiosity about those who do.
I agree with all yo usay, but I note one thing...
The "chatroom etiquette" stuff - the capitals, the slave pidgin and
such - is relatively new. It's taken off like wildfire in the time
I've been on the net.
What's more, it's very strongly defended in a lot of places.
That's not the old hacker culture people that's the new ones who have
found the net later.
How does your theory explain that?
I feel that it's a way of imposing order. That the original ways of
imposing order are alien to the newer people, as it's an anarchical
order :)
The more formal order is more comforting when you start because it's
clear and simple.
SilverOz
--
========================================================================
Australian BDSM Information Site
http://www.master.webcentral.com.au/abis/
========================================================================
Yaldahtvah
>
>If the masochism or sadism 1. interferes with the subject's quality of
>life including causing guilt feelings or 2. causes the person to act
>destructively to zirself or others.
No, that's not quite right.
1. If the sadism or masochism causes the person intense distress (not quality
of life) or
2. interferes with social or occupational functioning.
Annwyn
>
> >I am not a SSB regular, at least I don't think I am.
>
> Ah, you're another of the Longs, eh?
as in Lazarus Long?? if so, could you please please tell me the name of the
book?
Ive forgetten it and its been bugging me for about 3 years now:(
~Annwyn~
remove the crowbar to email me
Xiphias Gladius
>>there's a
>>treif Russian borscht soup variation that I absolutely love. It's got
>>chunks of meat and sour cream and lots of good stuff.
>>
> You're making me hungry!!!
If you're ever in Boston, go to a restaurant in Brookline Villiage called
"St Petersburg Cafe'". They sell it.
Also caviar and a couple hundred varieties of vodka. One of my ten
favorite restaurants ever, although we can't afford to eat there often.
Xiphias Gladius
>>
>> >I am not a SSB regular, at least I don't think I am.
>>
>> Ah, you're another of the Longs, eh?
> as in Lazarus Long?? if so, could you please please tell me the name of the
> book?
TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE. He also shows up in a bunch of Heinlein's other
works.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
> Annwyn <i...@crowbarnekkid-admin.net> wrote:
>>> >I am not a SSB regular, at least I don't think I am.
>>> Ah, you're another of the Longs, eh?
>> as in Lazarus Long?? if so, could you please please tell me the name of the
>> book?
> TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE. He also shows up in a bunch of Heinlein's other
> works.
Actually, he first appeared in a short story titled "Methuselah's
Children" which Heinlein wrote back in the 1940s. Later, in the early
1970s, he brought the character back in "Time Enough for Love" and
continued writing about Lazarus, his loves and clones, through most of his
books that followed.
Highly recommended (IMHO) is the "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" which has no
story, but is merely a collection of pithy quotations, enjoyable even if
you've read nothing else about the character
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
T. Eckhart
>At least he makes some valid points. Just because he doesn't agree
>with the practices and ideas behind BDSM, doesn't automatically
>preclude him from intelligence. Sadly, that's the general consensus,
>though.
I haven't seen any valid points. I've seen posts from someone who
believes that bdsm is abuse and feels the need to attack it at every turn.
My greatest concern is that when he is the first to reply to a new
person who has questions about themselves he may do them damage by saying
they are abused or abusive just because they are into bdsm.
But second greatest concern is that he himself is hiding for an
abusive past and will continue to harm himself and others by lashing out
and not dealing with his past.
And finally I don't understand why someone would be on a newsgroup
that is about something he hates. Why not be on a newsgroup about your
viewpoint such as starting "bdsmisabuse"? The only reason I can see for
staying and saying what he says are my second concern above.
I got into the community, into education, and into the
organizations for the sake of safety -- I feel that he may be unsafe and
harmful to those just exploring their sexual feelings who only have
access to the internet.
--
--
Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips, & Chains,
TammyJo Eckhart (teck...@kiva.net)
Author, Activist, Educator
http://www.kiva.net/~teckhart/
JOHN WARREN
news:8lk5le$m4a$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
> > Annwyn <i...@crowbarnekkid-admin.net> wrote:
> >>> >I am not a SSB regular, at least I don't think I am.
> >>> Ah, you're another of the Longs, eh?
>
> >> as in Lazarus Long?? if so, could you please please tell me the name of
the
> >> book?
>
> > TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE. He also shows up in a bunch of Heinlein's other
> > works.
>
> Actually, he first appeared in a short story titled "Methuselah's
> Children" which Heinlein wrote back in the 1940s. Later, in the early
> 1970s, he brought the character back in "Time Enough for Love" and
> continued writing about Lazarus, his loves and clones, through most of his
> books that followed.
>
> Highly recommended (IMHO) is the "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" which has no
> story, but is merely a collection of pithy quotations, enjoyable even if
> you've read nothing else about the character
Actually, I have a sneaky feeling old Lazarus was around in "If This Goes
On." Naturally, he was under a pseudonym but that personality shines
through.
--
Diversified Services Books Toys and Videos to the Scene since 1993
www.diversified--services.com (new products added 7/19)
Annwyn
> > 1970s, he brought the character back in "Time Enough for Love" and
> > continued writing about Lazarus, his loves and clones, through most of
his
> > books that followed.
He was also in NUMBER OF THE BEAST which is the reference that started this
brain quest in the first place
thanks!
~A~
slave kat
History Stories, Time Enough for Love, Number of the Beast, and damn near
any of Robert A. Heinlein's last 6 books. *grin*
slave kat
"Annwyn" <i...@CROWBARnekkid-admin.net> wrote in message
news:8ljvhs$9ap$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> >I am not a SSB regular, at least I don't think I am.
>
> Ah, you're another of the Longs, eh?
as in Lazarus Long?? if so, could you please please tell me the name of the
book?
CRC
SilverOz wrote:
>
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:09:20 -0600
> CRC <kwa...@nospam.nmfiber.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >The changing availability to communications has also had the same
> >type of effects on the BDSM subculture. More and more people are
> >gaining exposure to the thinking, concepts, and practices of the
> >subculture. More and more people are being introduced to the fact
> >that it is not all that unusual. They are seeing stuff on the net
> >and thinking "hey I thought I was the only one who felt that way"
> >The public exposure is also encouraging those who do not feel the
> >desires to develop healthy curiosity about those who do.
>
> I agree with all yo usay, but I note one thing...
>
> The "chatroom etiquette" stuff - the capitals, the slave pidgin and
> such - is relatively new. It's taken off like wildfire in the time
> I've been on the net.
I did not know that. I found evidence that you are accurate though
in the archives of old discussions from asb on the site Submissive
Women Speak. Not that I doubted you. I just felt it was important
enough of a point to warrant double checking. I do not do chat
rooms. Just not my kink. I picked up the symbolism from the
castle realm site and the usage in the news group
alt.lifestyle.master-slave. As I have said before I think it is
very romantic and a symbol of desire or commitment to or for
somebody. Certainly not to everybody. I have a hard time taking
the kind of thinking that submissives are subservient to all the
least bit serious. Such attitudes in chat rooms are fantasy and are
not the result of the symbolism or reality. Such places exist only
because of peoples interest in such fantasies. If people are having
trouble making the distinction between such fantasy and reality then
it is misconception that should and is addressed. Not the
symbolism.
>
> What's more, it's very strongly defended in a lot of places.
Defended how? And why is it a problem? What exactly is the
problem? I certainly don't impose upon anyone else to participate
in the symbolism. If you can show where there is real harm directly
caused by the use of the symbolism I will drop my usage of it
immediately. I just can't see the harm. But I am willing to remain
objective.
>
> That's not the old hacker culture people that's the new ones who have
> found the net later.
>
> How does your theory explain that?
That seems to fit right in with my contention that the culture is
changing with the changing demographics. Perhaps I do not
understand your question.
>
> I feel that it's a way of imposing order. That the original ways of
> imposing order are alien to the newer people, as it's an anarchical
> order :)
What kind of order? If there are in fact people using that
symbolism to impose a sense of inequality they are doomed to fail.
Because that is just not reality. There are plenty of people who
will set one with such misconception about submission being the same
as passiveness straight right away. There are well enough
submissive who are anything but passive to prevent any semblance of
success by an attempt for that kind of order.
I used to think that a relationship was a democratic order. Ha!
Funny concept a democracy of two. No, a relationship is an
anarchical order also. I discovered that when I got married and was
blind sided by the ensuing power struggle. The next time around I
wish to have the control and am willing to accept the responsibility
of making sure that the result of the power struggle is one of
exchange with both of us winning. I am willing to make the
necessary sacrifices for the right person and to demand the
necessary sacrifices of that person to achieve this objective. This
requires that I choose one who can trust me with such control and
give me the support and input that I need to maintain the equality
that I see as being so very necessary to success.
As for the anarchical struggle here I have a far greater
appreciation of the wisdom that you put into it than the wisdom of
humiliating the rivals that people like Serion and Ty use. Not that
the techniques are with out merit. The entire Dutch social
structure is supported greatly by such social controls. And they
have a very pleasant culture to live in.
But you seek to gain influence by offering it to others. You offer
topics of interest and encourage those who wish to offer their
influence the opportunity to participate. Your methods net much
greater results and parallel what power exchange is all about.
Offering power to gain power.
My problem is that I lust for the intellectual confrontation and
often allow my self indulgence to lure me away from the real purpose
of me being here. I greatly appreciate your influence and hope to
use it as a tool to help me achieve the self control that I desire.
Thank you for the power that you offer others. And thank you for
using the power that you hold for yourself to make this a better
place for us all.
>
Chris
-^-^spectrum-^^-
JOHN WARREN <ment...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8lk5le$m4a$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote:
[snip of discussion of Heinlein's character Lazarus Long]
>> Actually, he first appeared in a short story titled "Methuselah's
>> Children" which Heinlein wrote back in the 1940s. Later, in the early
>> 1970s, he brought the character back in "Time Enough for Love" and
>> continued writing about Lazarus, his loves and clones, through most of his
>> books that followed.
>>
>> Highly recommended (IMHO) is the "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" which has no
>> story, but is merely a collection of pithy quotations, enjoyable even if
>> you've read nothing else about the character
>
>
>Actually, I have a sneaky feeling old Lazarus was around in "If This Goes
>On." Naturally, he was under a pseudonym but that personality shines
>through.
I've seen it argued in an analysis of Heinlein's work (author long gone
from memory; I last read this in the 60's) that the "wise old
man" character crops up in almost all of RAH's work, and that's
Heinlein's image of himself.
-^-^spectrum-^^- spectrum@magenta..COM
Tales of ASBWorld and Pervhome: http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/spectrum
"It's a regularly posted Cabal (TINC) discussion designed to separate
those who will board the mothership from those who will rot in the
stinking flesh repository that Earth will become. Mwahahaha."
- Nicole Cloonan
Sockermom9
>Oh, I'm so fucking sorry. I guess everyone in BDSM should just bend
>over and stick their heads in the sand, like an ostrich. Why bother
>addressing all the contradictions in your lifestyle if you can just
>think happy thoughts, eh? Or why see a therapist when you can just
>eroticize your abuse and perpetuate a culture of corruption and
>apathy, huh?
Um, Shermie, is your mom a therapist or something? Is she paying you
kickbacks?
Why else would anyone be *angry* that other people won't go into therapy?
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Sherman McCoy
> You show me any generalized lifestyle that isn't full of contradictions
Gays and Lesbians.
Xiphias Gladius
>> You show me any generalized lifestyle that isn't full of contradictions
> Gays and Lesbians.
You've never met any gays or lesbians, have you?
Octopussykat
is dangerous. I've seen a man who believes that a woman is worth more
than to submit herself, physically, emotionally or otherwise, to one of
the repulsive and/or socially retarded wannabe Dom/Top/whatever freaks
out there whose only interests in her is not as a woman or even a human
being but something to feed their low sense of self worth or self
esteem since they can't interact with women on a social level. So what
if his message isn't candy coated? God forbid he suggests therapy
instead of more acts of degradation and humiliation. Maybe if he'd
come on here offering chocolates and conned some poor girl into calling
him Master and eating his shit, everyone would stand up and applaud,
even pat him on the virtual back, for being such a good, strong Dom, eh?
Octopussykat
--
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish
thing."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JOHN WARREN
news:8lkrse$ga9$1...@links.magenta.com...
> I've seen it argued in an analysis of Heinlein's work (author long gone
> from memory; I last read this in the 60's) that the "wise old
> man" character crops up in almost all of RAH's work, and that's
> Heinlein's image of himself.
And here I thought he had modeled it on me.
[looking disappointed]
Jubal Harshaw
wrote:
>>Actually, I have a sneaky feeling old Lazarus was around in "If This Goes
>>On." Naturally, he was under a pseudonym but that personality shines
>>through.
>
Arguably true, though personally, he denied it. I think of
Lazarus as a *geist*; not a ghost, but a sprirt of the times
(*Zeitgeist*)...I think Robert is laughing at us...
V/R
Jubal
>I've seen it argued in an analysis of Heinlein's work (author long gone
>from memory; I last read this in the 60's) that the "wise old
>man" character crops up in almost all of RAH's work, and that's
>Heinlein's image of himself.
*I* believe that it's a consequence of Robert's
birth...Extended families were all the rage, and, as I've expounded,
"The Old Women" ruled the roost.
V/R
Jubal
>
>-^-^spectrum-^^- spectrum@magenta..COM
>Tales of ASBWorld and Pervhome: http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/spectrum
>
>"It's a regularly posted Cabal (TINC) discussion designed to separate
>those who will board the mothership from those who will rot in the
>stinking flesh repository that Earth will become. Mwahahaha."
>- Nicole Cloonan
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
-- Gene "spaf" Spafford (1992)
Angel
CRC <kwa...@nospam.nmfiber.com> wrote in message
news:397DD586...@nospam.nmfiber.com...
> SilverOz wrote:
> > The "chatroom etiquette" stuff - the capitals, the slave pidgin and
> > such - is relatively new. It's taken off like wildfire in the time
> > I've been on the net.
CRC wrote:
I never saw a post from you when I asked you about this, so I am going
to pick it up here. I do not know if you did respond, but if you did, I
never got it:) And, I have been looking for it, as I was very interested
in your response.
~snippage throughout~
> I picked up the symbolism from the
> castle realm site and the usage in the news group
> alt.lifestyle.master-slave. As I have said before I think it is
> very romantic and a symbol of desire or commitment to or for
> somebody. Certainly not to everybody. \
Well, that is the first time I have ever heard that interpretation for
the use. But, I would like to ask why do you find the use romantic? I am
sure we have *very* different views of what makes something romantic,
but I cannot for the life of me see anything that would make it some
kind of romantic symbolism or even a symbol of desire and commitment,
though I have heard submissives say that after being made to use the
convention by their dominants, that they started looking at it as a
romantic symbol of their submission.
Which, again I will point out, after a recent private discussion of this
matter, that I do not have anything against anyone who uses the
lowercasing of the first letter of a submissives name or reference to
them or the use of Y/y and such if that is that person's particular
kink. My issue with it *is* that a lot of people come into such venues
looking for people that they think are like them (kinky and such) and
are told that because they are submissive they must do these conventions
to show their sexual orientation, their inferiority and such, usually
right along with referring to all dominants with an honorific. To me,
that is miseducation. I also have an issue with it when I am told that I
have to use the convention or I am not a real submissive/whatever, or
when I see that being done to someone else. To me, it is utter bull. I
don't like anyone trying to force their kinks on me. And, to me, using
those conventions are kinks.
> I have a hard time taking
> the kind of thinking that submissives are subservient to all the
> least bit serious. Such attitudes in chat rooms are fantasy and are
> not the result of the symbolism or reality. Such places exist only
> because of peoples interest in such fantasies. If people are having
> trouble making the distinction between such fantasy and reality then
> it is misconception that should and is addressed. Not the
> symbolism.
The symbolism of those particular net conventions is *usually* to show
submissiveness to be *real* submissives, to show their inferiority and
lowly status. I have been in too many of those venues, my former master
used to run one, and his was not the only venue where not to do it meant
that you weren't a *real* submissive. So, I feel that the symbolism
needs to be addressed, especially to those you try to push that
symbolism onto others or have been miseducated to believe that is the
way it is supposed to be.
> > What's more, it's very strongly defended in a lot of places.
>
> Defended how? And why is it a problem? What exactly is the
> problem? I certainly don't impose upon anyone else to participate
> in the symbolism. If you can show where there is real harm directly
> caused by the use of the symbolism I will drop my usage of it
> immediately. I just can't see the harm. But I am willing to remain
> objective.
It is adamantly defended as the OTW for many and that it should be the
OTW for all. I am talking from experience with this one:) The venue my
former master ran was very OTWish. And, it was not the only venue. There
are still plenty of them out there! When a submissive came into the list
and did not use "i" or "Y/y" or call all the dominants "Ma'am, Master,
Mistress, Sir, etc" they were browbeaten to death for it. My master used
to have me educate them as to proper submissive behavior. It was
bullshit. And, if they did not agree, then by goodness, they were not
submissives, oh no, they were dommes or doms in disquise.
I have heard it there, and in about 20 other venues, that to be a *real*
submissive, you have to use those conventions. You have to be humble,
subservient, submissive in all ways and manners, because you are just a
lowly, inferior sub/slave to dominants, to masters, to mistresses.
I cannot count how many emails I got from sincere people, who only
wanted to experience what they had always dreamed about, to finally know
that they were not alone, who told me that they obviously were not
*real* because they could not grok that bull. It is a disservice and, in
my opinion, all it does is feed more wannabe's playing dominant just for
some freaky power trip in superiority.
> What kind of order? If there are in fact people using that
> symbolism to impose a sense of inequality they are doomed to fail.
> Because that is just not reality. There are plenty of people who
> will set one with such misconception about submission being the same
> as passiveness straight right away. There are well enough
> submissive who are anything but passive to prevent any semblance of
> success by an attempt for that kind of order.
There are people who do it, do it effectively, and with the amount of it
on the net at this point, it is hard for someone new to find a venue
that does not expect or does not have the majority of submissives doing
it. If everywhere you go you see others doing it, it is hard not to
think that is the way it is. It happened to me. I am a very
strong-willed and outspoken. I did speak up. I did go look elsewhere.
All I saw was submissives writing in that convention, dominants telling
them to write in that convention, websites full of that convention. I
did not understand it, though. All I wanted was for one person to
explain to me why I had to do that to be a submissive, I was submissive
without doing it, what made me inferior because I was? But, no one could
ever explain it to me, except to say that because I submit to a more
powerful person (the dominant), and the usual, *that is just the way it
is and has always been* thing. And, I never bought that submitting to a
more powerful person thing either.
So, I gave in and did it, because I thought that I had to. To explore
BDSM online, as I did not even know if there was anyone even remotely
like me, near me, to ask. So, I did what I was told. And, I watched what
happened to others who did not. The flaming, ridiculing, no one taking
them seriously. And, later, I admit I did it too. I gave them hell
because *that was the way it was* dangit.
Then I found out that it was not the way it was. After a year online.
And, SSB was the first place that I saw that it was acceptable to type
like a regular human being. That I did not have to sign every post "with
humble respect," lowercase references to myself, use Y/y and such, or be
afraid of what some dominant would say to me actually having a friggin'
opinion. I found others that were submissive who did not use those
conventions, were not subservient to anyone except the *one* they choose
to be, who expressed their opinions freely, and were respected as people
first. They didn't have to be in role for everyone. They did not have to
do anything they did not want to do. They did not have to agree or do
the "dom and sub oooooooo and ahhhhhhh dance* or play the *i am a lowly,
humble submissive...see how flowery sweet and fragile i am* thing
either. Ohhhhhhhh happy day for me.
And, I am not the only one this has happened too. There are many, many,
many more who have experienced it.
Angel
AMB- Assertive Masochistic Bottom
*Yeah, I used to be a submissive and sometimes I still am, but not
online*
"Believe me, when I bottom, I want it MY way :)" - Trouble841
~Remove the kitty to email me~
Panda
Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>
> Sherman McCoy <ha...@motes.com> wrote:
> > slave kat <ravi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You show me any generalized lifestyle that isn't full of contradictions
>
> > Gays and Lesbians.
>
> You've never met any gays or lesbians, have you?
Doesn't matter. Not having met any won't keep him from declaring
himself an expert on the subject.
Count me in the "he's a moron" camp. I don't see anything intelligent
at all about any of the things I've read from him. All I've seen him
do is pop up out of a burrow and make insulting, inflammatory
statements, for which he absolutely refuses to provide any supporting
data. Dozens, perhaps scores, of people have, with varying degrees of
patience, refuted his positions with clear, factual data, and have
asked him to rebut their points with data of his own, and he refuses
to do so. He just states his views as facts, and refuses to make any
attempt whatsoever to explain them.
Hell, that's not intelligence. A talking parrot could do that much.
No, that's either an idiot or a troll, perhaps both, and a pretty sick
one at that.
With respect,
Panda
SSBB Diplomatic Corps, Twin Cities Area
Panda
Octopussykat wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but you'll all have to excuse me if I fail to see how Sherman
> is dangerous. I've seen a man who believes that a woman is worth more
> than to submit herself, physically, emotionally or otherwise, to one of
> the repulsive and/or socially retarded wannabe Dom/Top/whatever freaks
> out there whose only interests in her is not as a woman or even a human
> being but something to feed their low sense of self worth or self
> esteem since they can't interact with women on a social level.
And if that was all he was doing, every one of us would be cheering
him on and shouting our support from the rooftops.
But that's not what he's doing. And you know that. Because it's been
explained to you in several posts, and it would appear that you either
don't understand the explanations or you don't believe them. Perhaps
if you told us which it is, we would be better able to understand your
position.
As it happens, I agree wholeheartedly with some of the things you say
about the tone that this group often takes. But the Sherman situation
is a bad example of what you're talking about - Sherman has never, not
from Day One, shown the slightest interest in anything like reasoned,
respectful debate or exchange of ideas. He's either an idiot or a
troll, or both. Fooey on him.
> So what
> if his message isn't candy coated? God forbid he suggests therapy
> instead of more acts of degradation and humiliation. Maybe if he'd
> come on here offering chocolates and conned some poor girl into calling
> him Master and eating his shit, everyone would stand up and applaud,
> even pat him on the virtual back, for being such a good, strong Dom, eh?
I can't imagine why. Perhaps you could explain why you think this is
true - or are you just using it as a rhetorical device?
anne f
Zenger) wrote:
>Joe Beets come on down:
>
<respectfully snipped>
>
>Damn. We must be doing _something_ wrong, then, eh? [Side note to Cabal
>(TINC)- Up the heat on Beets! I want his name to be Joe Borscht by the end of
>the week!]
Noborschtnoborschtnoborscht. REDREDRED!!!!
With all due respect,
anne f (recovering from a Russian grandmother, but very slowly.
Puleeezeeee, no "babushka" jokes, I really can't take any more.)
Foole Groupie
SSBB Diplomatic Corps
San Francisco-East Bay Area, CA
anne f
>Norton Zenger <gay...@catholic.org> wrote:
>> Joe Beets come on down:
>
<respectful snip> (Notice I'm always respectful, about food?)
>
>See, there are two main ways to do borscht: as a soup, or as a beverage.
>As a soup, you leave shredded beet bits and stuff in it, and you serve
>with sour cream and stuff. As a beverage, you strain out everything, so
>you can drink it.
Ah, well, that would explain a lot, about my childhood.
>
>Me, I usually like drinking borscht more than eating it, but there's a
>treif Russian borscht soup variation that I absolutely love. It's got
>chunks of meat and sour cream and lots of good stuff.
No kidding. So, you're saying that with the chunky bits, it's *not* a
beverage? Damn. . . <G>
Thanks, Ian. (Frowning slightly, pondering. Wonder if that's the
problem with the samovar?)
anne f
Panda
Octopussykat wrote:
>
> At least he makes some valid points.
I just noticed that nobody else has asked this question, so I will -
what valid points does he make?
Sockermom9
>I'm sorry but you'll all have to excuse me if I fail to see how Sherman
>is dangerous. I've seen a man who believes that a woman is worth more
>than to submit herself, physically, emotionally or otherwise, to one of
>the repulsive and/or socially retarded wannabe Dom/Top/whatever freaks
>out there whose only interests in her is not as a woman or even a human
>being but something to feed their low sense of self worth or self
>esteem since they can't interact with women on a social level. So what
>if his message isn't candy coated? God forbid he suggests therapy
>instead of more acts of degradation and humiliation. Maybe if he'd
>come on here offering chocolates and conned some poor girl into calling
>him Master and eating his shit, everyone would stand up and applaud,
>even pat him on the virtual back, for being such a good, strong Dom, eh?
Let's review. This is a group for the discussion of BDSM-related activities
and lifestyles. Most of the people who hang out here enjoy such activities.
There are currently, apparently, two who do not, but still want to be here.
I believe they have the right to be here. I think they'll be about as
effective in what they appear to want to do--stamp out SM--as I would be in
eradicating male pattern baldness by personally spray-painting every bald spot
I come across, but if they get off on such quixotic activities, who am I to
judge?
Besides, they're fun to play with when I'm bored.
Xiphias Gladius
> -^-^spectrum-^^- <spectrum@magenta..KOM> wrote in message
> news:8lkrse$ga9$1...@links.magenta.com...
>> from memory; I last read this in the 60's) that the "wise old
>> man" character crops up in almost all of RAH's work, and that's
>> Heinlein's image of himself.
> And here I thought he had modeled it on me.
A venerable, self-assured, lecherous polymath? Wait: is that supposed to
describe Long, RAH, or Mentor?
Serion Ironcroft
<slrn8nqgva...@zipperii.zip.com.au>, ze...@zip.com.au
(SilverOz) wrote:
>I feel that it's a way of imposing order. That the original ways of
>imposing order are alien to the newer people, as it's an anarchical
>order :)
More likely it's a way of defining territory, identifying the "in"
crowd, and spotlighting the strange dogs. Nothing new about it,
indeed just the opposite. This sort of behavior has been a mainstay
of human societies for a very long time.
Regards, Serion
Spyral Fox
<l...@netcom.com> writes:
>Highly recommended (IMHO) is the "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" which has no
>story, but is merely a collection of pithy quotations, enjoyable even if
>you've read nothing else about the character
Not to mention that the caligraphy [calligraphy?] is very pretty.
- - Spyral Fox
--
... a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves
San Diego Resources: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
SSBB Cookbook: http://members.aol.com/ssbbcooks/
SSBB Diplomatic Corps member & Depooty Charter Enforcer (CLG)
Chris Canning
Angel wrote:
>Which, again I will point out, after a recent private discussion of this
>matter, that I do not have anything against anyone who uses the
>lowercasing of the first letter of a submissives name or reference to
>them or the use of Y/y and such if that is that person's particular
>kink. My issue with it *is* that a lot of people come into such venues
>looking for people that they think are like them (kinky and such) and
>are told that because they are submissive they must do these conventions
>to show their sexual orientation, their inferiority and such, usually
>right along with referring to all dominants with an honorific. To me,
>that is miseducation. I also have an issue with it when I am told that I
>have to use the convention or I am not a real submissive/whatever, or
>when I see that being done to someone else. To me, it is utter bull. I
>don't like anyone trying to force their kinks on me. And, to me, using
>those conventions are kinks.
Just for public record I have never forced my use on you. My use is my
personal expression of what it symbolizes to me. I have never urged anyone
else to adopt my usage. and I definetely *DO NOT* think that submissive are
in any way inferior. I would never be happy bonding with one I thought was
inferior. And I would feel like a total failure if the one who chose me to
submit to me ever came to feel inferior.
I wrote:
>
>> I have a hard time taking
>> the kind of thinking that submissives are subservient to all the
>> least bit serious. Such attitudes in chat rooms are fantasy and are
>> not the result of the symbolism or reality. Such places exist only
>> because of peoples interest in such fantasies. If people are having
>> trouble making the distinction between such fantasy and reality then
>> it is misconception that should and is addressed. Not the
>> symbolism.
>
And then Angel wrote:
>The symbolism of those particular net conventions is *usually* to show
>submissiveness to be *real* submissives, to show their inferiority and
>lowly status. I have been in too many of those venues, my former master
>used to run one, and his was not the only venue where not to do it meant
>that you weren't a *real* submissive. So, I feel that the symbolism
>needs to be addressed, especially to those you try to push that
>symbolism onto others or have been miseducated to believe that is the
>way it is supposed to be.
You and I have spoken privately about this and to my understanding we have
no
disagreement that I have never pushed my usage or symbolism on anyone.
Am I correct in my understanding that these words "especially to those you
try
to push that symbolism onto" Are not exactly the context you intended?
And Angel wrote:
>It is adamantly defended as the OTW for many and that it should be the
>OTW for all. I am talking from experience with this one:) The venue my
>former master ran was very OTWish. And, it was not the only venue. There
>are still plenty of them out there! When a submissive came into the list
>and did not use "i" or "Y/y" or call all the dominants "Ma'am, Master,
>Mistress, Sir, etc" they were browbeaten to death for it. My master used
>to have me educate them as to proper submissive behavior. It was
>bullshit. And, if they did not agree, then by goodness, they were not
>submissives, oh no, they were dommes or doms in disquise.
I do not accept the responsibility for the sins of others. Of course that
is
bullshit. I am surprised that it is taken even a little bit seriously. The
association of my usage to this attitude in spite of the fact that I have
never expressed any such attitudes seems a little OTW to me.
>
I can certainly see how the pushing of hypothetical dominance on a person
would be very irritating. That works two ways. I am not at all happy with
a
submissive who pushes that submissiveness on me. If someone gives me
control
and power I have to take responsibility for that should I accept it. I have
no interest in being responsible for a stranger.
I love to speak with submissive women about their desires, needs, and
philosophies. I have founded most of mine based on what I have been told by
such women. Mostly from conversations with subs who were happy and
confident
in a committed long term bond with someone as their master. Submissive
women
who could and would talk straight turkey with me under no pretense of
submission to me. I have never gained much insight from someone who wanted
to
play subbie and tell me what they thought I wanted to hear. That gets damn
irritating to me.
It is regrettable that you have been so adversely effected by such
experiences. But the attitudes you have described are not the result of the
symbolism. It sounds to me like the symbolism has been abused by abusive
people. These people would be abusive with out the symbolism as a tool of
their abuse. And it has nothing to do with me or my usage of the symbolism.
Chris
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Khordas the Salamander
Annwyn wrote:
>
> >
> > >I am not a SSB regular, at least I don't think I am.
> >
> > Ah, you're another of the Longs, eh?
>
> as in Lazarus Long?? if so, could you please please tell me the name of the
> book?
> Ive forgetten it and its been bugging me for about 3 years now:(
>
> ~Annwyn~
>
> remove the crowbar to email me
"Methusela's Children" is the first novel where Lazarus Long appears.
Others are "Time Enough For Love", "The Cat who Walks Through Walls",
and
"To Sail Beyond the Sunset". Heinlien also mentions that Lazarus
appears under one alias or another in many of his works. Seems to me
that there's a Ted Bronson in "The Roads Must Roll", but I'll have to
dig that one out of the chaos that is my recently moved library. I
believe there's a Lazarus timeline in "Time Enough". As an additional
detail/spurious distraction, there are also several timelines of my life
available online. Most list a death date of Febuary 13, 1897, which is
demonstratably not true. I guess the winners write the history.......
Khordas the Salamander
Citizen of the Galaxy
Born ?, Died 1897, still going strong
--
Never criticize an idiot until you've walked a mile
in his shoes. That way, if he gets hostile, you've
got a head start, and he has to chase you down barefoot.
Jerri
>I definetely *DO NOT* think that submissive are
>in any way inferior. I would never be happy bonding with one I thought was
>inferior. And I would feel like a total failure if the one who chose me to
>submit to me ever came to feel inferior.
>
*applause* Submissives are in no way inferior. In fact, in a relationship
between Dom/me and submissive, more often than not it is the submissive who is
indeed the stronger of the two.
My submissive draws from me the things which he needs and desires, control,
guidance, discipline, respect (yes, respect) and love. I in turn draw from him
my strength.
Angel:
>When a submissive came into the list
>>and did not use "i" or "Y/y" or call all the dominants "Ma'am, Master,
>>Mistress, Sir, etc" they were browbeaten to death for it. My master used
>>to have me educate them as to proper submissive behavior. It was
>>bullshit. And, if they did not agree, then by goodness, they were not
>>submissives, oh no, they were dommes or doms in disquise.
>
Agreed Angel, it is bullshit. Totally and completely. I personally find it
rather offensive to be called "Mistress" by anyone other than my own
submissive. Yes, I do expect to be spoken to with respect, just as I treat
others with respect, regardless of their "position" as Dom/me or sub, but as
people.
And just a note on the side...not only do many pseudo dom/me's berate these
submissives as not being *real* for not observing their particular
protocol...on the flip side...I am *so* tired of being told that I can't
possibly be a *real* domme because I'm not a whip-weilding bitch on wheels with
a secret hatred of all men, and using my *guise* as a domme to punish them for
some imaginary trespass committed against me by some poor male at some point in
my life. I do *not* dress in leather or latex from head to foot, I do *not*
look like Barbie, I am *not* bi-sexual and I do *not* share my submissive with
ANYONE. *sigh* Gosh darn it all! Guess I'm just not real......
*checking tags* Nope...says right here..."Manufactured by Mattel". Well damn
it all to hell, then why don't I look like Barbie? *pout*
Mz Midnite
"Oh Bother" said the Borg, "we've assimmilated Pooh!"
SilverOz
Chris Canning <C...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>
>
>Just for public record I have never forced my use on you. My use is my
>personal expression of what it symbolizes to me. I have never urged anyone
>else to adopt my usage. and I definetely *DO NOT* think that submissive are
>in any way inferior. I would never be happy bonding with one I thought was
>inferior. And I would feel like a total failure if the one who chose me to
>submit to me ever came to feel inferior.
Question is... are you *typical* of the people who use the convention?
My experience is no.
The inferior/superior bit is not all that clearcut, but it's been my
experience that users of the convention mostly don't know why they do
it except that they do, and that they are quite strident that it's
"the lifestyle" and "how you tell someone's real" and similar ideas.
The least weird answer I've got when asked was that someone did it
because everyone else did.
SilverOz
Angel
Chris Canning <C...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3993...@MailAndNews.com...
> Just for public record I have never forced my use on you. My use is
my
> personal expression of what it symbolizes to me. I have never urged
> anyone else to adopt my usage. and I definetely *DO NOT* think that
> submissive are in any way inferior. I would never be happy bonding
with
> one I thought was inferior. And I would feel like a total failure if
> the one who chose me to submit to me ever came to feel inferior.
My sincerest apologies if you think that is what I wrote. I even told
you privately that I did not think nor feel that way about it, I was
talking about the convention in general and my feelings about that and
only that.
Very true:)
> Am I correct in my understanding that these words "especially to those
you
> try to push that symbolism onto" Are not exactly the context you
> intended?
I am soooooo sorry! That was supposed to be "who" not a "you" but I
kinda got fired up on that one. I did not mean to write that at all:)
> And Angel wrote:
>
> >It is adamantly defended as the OTW for many and that it should be
the
> >OTW for all. I am talking from experience with this one:) The venue
my
> >former master ran was very OTWish. And, it was not the only venue.
There
> >are still plenty of them out there! When a submissive came into the
list
> >and did not use "i" or "Y/y" or call all the dominants "Ma'am,
Master,
> >Mistress, Sir, etc" they were browbeaten to death for it. My master
used
> >to have me educate them as to proper submissive behavior. It was
> >bullshit. And, if they did not agree, then by goodness, they were not
> >submissives, oh no, they were dommes or doms in disquise.
>
> I do not accept the responsibility for the sins of others. Of course
> that is bullshit. I am surprised that it is taken even a little bit
> seriously. The association of my usage to this attitude in spite of
> the fact that I have never expressed any such attitudes seems a little
> OTW to me.
I in no way meant that you were. I was basically explaining how it was
defended. And, I never ssaid that your usage was associated with this. I
asked you why you used part of it, but you had already stated that you
did not think that submissives were inferior, so I knew it was not that.
I just wanted to know why you did. The question was never meant to
challenge you, I was sincerely curious.
> I can certainly see how the pushing of hypothetical dominance on a
> person would be very irritating. That works two ways. I am not at
> all happy with a submissive who pushes that submissiveness on me. If
> someone gives me control and power I have to take responsibility for
> that should I accept it. I have no interest in being responsible for
a
> stranger.
I can understand that, as I am not interested in submitting to one, even
in a totally online conventualism kind of way:)
> I have never gained much insight from someone who wanted
> to play subbie and tell me what they thought I wanted to hear.
> That gets damn irritating to me.
I feel the same way about dominants. I love talking to dominants, but I
don't like it when they start telling me things that they think I want
to hear or will get them somewhere with me.
> It is regrettable that you have been so adversely effected by such
> experiences. But the attitudes you have described are not the result
> of the symbolism. It sounds to me like the symbolism has been abused
> by abusive people. These people would be abusive with out the
> symbolism as a tool of their abuse.
Well, we have different views on that. I believe that there is abuse
involved, but it is too dang rampant for it not to have to do with
symbolism, in my opinion. But, I agree it only helps them to be abusive.
> And it has nothing to do with me
> or my usage of the symbolism.
Chris, I never said it did. I even said that to you privately when you
asked me if I thought that. So, I am really not sure why you keep making
such comments.
Angel
AMB- Assertive Masochistic Bottom
Angel
Jerri <xxladym...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20000726013517...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
~snip of good stuff~
> Angel:
>
> >When a submissive came into the list
> >>and did not use "i" or "Y/y" or call all the dominants "Ma'am,
Master,
> >>Mistress, Sir, etc" they were browbeaten to death for it.
~snip of me~
> Agreed Angel, it is bullshit. Totally and completely. I personally
> find it rather offensive to be called "Mistress" by anyone other than
> my own submissive.
~snip~
I don't blame you:) My biggest pet peeve is to be referred to as "little
one" or as a "subbie" as they both just go right through me.
> And just a note on the side...not only do many pseudo dom/me's berate
> these submissives as not being *real* for not observing their
> particular protocol...on the flip side...I am *so* tired of being told
> that I can't possibly be a *real* domme because I'm not a
whip-weilding
> bitch on wheels with a secret hatred of all men, and using my *guise*
> as a domme to punish them for some imaginary trespass committed
against
> me by some poor male at some point in my life. I do *not* dress in
> leather or latex from head to foot, I do *not* look like Barbie, I am
> *not* bi-sexual and I do *not* share my submissive with
> ANYONE. *sigh* Gosh darn it all! Guess I'm just not real......
*ROFL* I have heard other dominants talk about this side of it too! It
always amazes me the preconceptions people get in their mind of what a
dominant or submissive is supposed to look like!:)
> *checking tags* Nope...says right here..."Manufactured by Mattel".
> Well damn it all to hell, then why don't I look like Barbie? *pout*
*LOL* Be glad you don't. Barbie has no butt. She has the flatest ass I
have ever seen, even on my mom who also has not butt, but she has more
butt than barbie:)
CRC
> > And it has nothing to do with me
> > or my usage of the symbolism.
>
> Chris, I never said it did. I even said that to you privately when you
> asked me if I thought that. So, I am really not sure why you keep making
> such comments.
>
> Angel
I am sorry for the overkill Angel. I know you did not direct any of
what I was concerned about towards me. I just wanted to make my
point that I do not have the perceptions you outlined in regard to
the usage Caps/lower case. I also wrote another post from
mailandnews answering your question about my romantic perception of
the usage. I sure hope it did not get lost since I do not have a
copy stored to hard disk.
Chris
Angel
SilverOz <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrn8nsv0j...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:09:49 -0400
> Chris Canning <C...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> >is my personal expression of what it symbolizes to me. I have never
> >urged anyone else to adopt my usage. and I definetely *DO NOT* think
> >that submissive are in any way inferior. I would never be happy
> >bonding with one I thought was inferior. And I would feel like a
> >total failure if the one who chose me to submit to me ever came to
> >feel inferior.
>
>
> My experience is no.
And, no, in my experience either:)
> The inferior/superior bit is not all that clearcut, but it's been my
> experience that users of the convention mostly don't know why they do
> it except that they do, and that they are quite strident that it's
> "the lifestyle" and "how you tell someone's real" and similar ideas.
That is the second most common reason that I am given and usually from
submissives. Most of the dominants and some of the submissives have told
me/or I witnessed the exchanges first hand that it was the inferior
lowly submissive thingie.
> The least weird answer I've got when asked was that someone did it
> because everyone else did.
Yeah, I have been told that before too:) That is about the third most
common one that I have heard. Usually I suggest that they go ask why
everyone does it. Many have stopped after they got the answers to that
question:)
Angel
> I am sorry for the overkill Angel. I know you did not direct any of
> what I was concerned about towards me. I just wanted to make my
> point that I do not have the perceptions you outlined in regard to
> the usage Caps/lower case. I also wrote another post from
> mailandnews answering your question about my romantic perception of
> the usage. I sure hope it did not get lost since I do not have a
> copy stored to hard disk.
I understand:) It just made me feel that you did not believe me or was
trying to make it look like I was writing something that I had no
intention of writing at all.
I have not seen that post either. I am still going to get to what you
sent me in email tomorrow, but as I had not checked SSB and found 68
posts, I wanted to clear them out before I woke up to over 100 to read:)
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com
"JOHN WARREN" <ment...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> -^-^spectrum-^^- <spectrum@magenta..KOM> wrote in message
> news:8lkrse$ga9$1...@links.magenta.com...
> > I've seen it argued in an analysis of Heinlein's work (author long gone
> > from memory; I last read this in the 60's) that the "wise old
> > man" character crops up in almost all of RAH's work, and that's
> > Heinlein's image of himself.
>
> And here I thought he had modeled it on me.
>
> [looking disappointed]
Given the later views of Woodrow Wilson Smith, specfically dating from
"The Number of the Beast" I would be relieved that I wasn't the model.
Smith ends up being protrayed in less than flattering terms in later
books, most especially in "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls".
--
Anson
Want to get in touch with the New Zealand BDSM community?
New Zealand BDSM Resource site: http://www.whisper.co.nz
New Zealand BDSM Newsletter available: bd...@thenet.co.nz
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com
<spectrum@magenta..KOM> wrote:
> I've seen it argued in an analysis of Heinlein's work (author long gone
> from memory; I last read this in the 60's) that the "wise old
> man" character crops up in almost all of RAH's work, and that's
> Heinlein's image of himself.
I believe that it was Damon Knight. He was rather less than complementary
about Heinlein's writing in that essay, citing for example Heinlein's love
of melodrama as a negative.
Yaldahtvah
>Angel wrote:
>
>>Which, again I will point out, after a recent private discussion of this
>>matter, that I do not have anything against anyone who uses the
>>lowercasing of the first letter of a submissives name or reference to
>>them or the use of Y/y and such if that is that person's particular
>>kink. My issue with it *is* that a lot of people come into such venues
>>looking for people that they think are like them (kinky and such) and
>>are told that because they are submissive they must do these conventions
>>to show their sexual orientation, their inferiority and such, usually
>>right along with referring to all dominants with an honorific.
I lowercase my name in spite of knowing that some people will write me off as a
clueless wonder. I do not do it to "flag", I do not insist that others
referring to me do so, I do not do it because I have been instructed by anyone
to lowercase my name.
I do it because for me, it symbolizes my pride as a submissive, shorthand for
the years it took to stop running from and embrace my sexuality, my
personality. I don't care if people respond to Susie rather than susie. It's
just my way. It has little to do with any online culture.
Oddly, when I do professional work, I often have to rewrite my signature,
because it gets put down as "susie X--------, M.D."
Come to think of it, so what? Here I am worrying about being "outed" by signing
my professional name oddly!
I guess just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!
susie
susie
"Those who hear not the music, think the dancers mad."
JOHN WARREN
news:yptf5.374688$MB.59...@news6.giganews.com...
> JOHN WARREN <ment...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > -^-^spectrum-^^- <spectrum@magenta..KOM> wrote in message
> > news:8lkrse$ga9$1...@links.magenta.com...
> >> from memory; I last read this in the 60's) that the "wise old
> >> man" character crops up in almost all of RAH's work, and that's
> >> Heinlein's image of himself.
>
>
> describe Long, RAH, or Mentor?
You left off "All of the Above"
T. Eckhart
>I'm sorry but you'll all have to excuse me if I fail to see how Sherman
>is dangerous. I've seen a man who believes that a woman is worth more
>than to submit herself, physically, emotionally or otherwise, to one of
>the repulsive and/or socially retarded wannabe Dom/Top/whatever freaks
>out there whose only interests in her is not as a woman or even a human
>being but something to feed their low sense of self worth or self
>esteem since they can't interact with women on a social level. So what
>if his message isn't candy coated? God forbid he suggests therapy
>instead of more acts of degradation and humiliation. Maybe if he'd
That's just it.
Not everything that any of these people he responses to when they
first post is involved in degradation and humiliation. He tells them
regardless of what they say that they are ill and abuse and need out. He
doesn't look at what they said or what they are requesting in their post.
Not everyone in the scene is female as submissive and male as
dominant. Yet this is what he sees everywhere and if that isn't your
reality they you aren't a real person.
Let me give you an example of how he could be concerned and not be
flamed and how he does.
(situation) woman posts who says her master wants her to do X
activity and she is concerned about both the safety of it and her feelings
about it.
(what Sherman replies now) You must leave now, your master is just
a pathetic little abuser who gets his jollies from harming women, and if
you don't leave you are a sick woman.
(what he could say) There are some dangers involved in X, I
recommend that the two of you sit down out of scene space and discuss
them; you should also spend time alone figuring out how you feel about
this and he should figure out what he wants it; it could be that you are
not compatible -- being a good submissive doesn't mean endangering
yourself; it could be that you can find another activity that fulfills his
needs and isn't a squick for you.
Can you see the difference in these replies? Both express some
concern. The second however is based on the post itself, the situation
presented. The first is a general attack which could be written by
anyone. Both could make the poster and other readers think about
themselves. The second because they are valuable and need to care for
themselves. The first is more of an attack on their ability to to care of
themselves and make decisions.
--
--
Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips, & Chains,
TammyJo Eckhart (teck...@kiva.net)
Author, Activist, Educator
http://www.kiva.net/~teckhart/
Janet Hardy
"JOHN WARREN" <ment...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ZDAf5.16731$o71.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:yptf5.374688$MB.59...@news6.giganews.com...
> > JOHN WARREN <ment...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > -^-^spectrum-^^- <spectrum@magenta..KOM> wrote in message
> > > news:8lkrse$ga9$1...@links.magenta.com...
> > >> I've seen it argued in an analysis of Heinlein's work (author long
gone
> > >> from memory; I last read this in the 60's) that the "wise old
> > >> man" character crops up in almost all of RAH's work, and that's
> > >> Heinlein's image of himself.
> >
> > > And here I thought he had modeled it on me.
> >
> > A venerable, self-assured, lecherous polymath? Wait: is that supposed
to
> > describe Long, RAH, or Mentor?
>
> You left off "All of the Above"
Actually, I have never met a heterosexual dominant man who does not, deep
down inside, believe himself to be Lazarus Long.
Verdant
www.greenerypress.com
webm...@houstonbdsm.com
wrote:
>
>
>Actually, I have never met a heterosexual dominant man who does not, deep
>down inside, believe himself to be Lazarus Long.
>
>Verdant
>www.greenerypress.com
actually, and I know it will lose any remaining respect any one on
this newsgroup has for me, I have never read anything concerning
Lazarus Long. I hate science fiction. I do not read Heinlein at all.
I would love to say it is because I spend my time reading books on
serious philosophy, compartive religions, and Russian history.
the truth is, if you are going to spend your spare time watching Clint
Eastwood westerns, and Rambo and Die Hard reruns, one just does not
have that much time for the less important trivial things in life.
of course you are still right. We have never met.
my loss from what I can tell from your posts
Travis
>
>
Sockermom9
>Actually, I have never met a heterosexual dominant man who does not, deep
>down inside, believe himself to be Lazarus Long.
Hand me that windex; thanks. I take it Himself doesn't read SSBB much these
days. ;-)
DonSideB
webm...@houstonbdsm.com writes:
>actually, and I know it will lose any remaining respect any one on
>this newsgroup has for me, I have never read anything concerning
>Lazarus Long.
Well, that does explain a lot.
Perhaps the two most limiting constraints you can place on your world view are
failing the read RAH and failing to read Ayn Rand.
But there is a cure, and it is avalable for free at your local public library.
don
That which does not kill us is a good scene,
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia
DonSideB
Hardy" <ver...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Actually, I have never met a heterosexual dominant man who does not, deep
>down inside, believe himself to be Lazarus Long.
Why do you limit that to Dominants?
Of course some of us subs are somewhat selective about to whom we are
submissive and are otherwise somewhat "assertive" in other parts of our lives.
RAH himself seemed to be an awestruck admirer of strong female characters.
DonSideB
(Sockermom9) writes:
>Let's review. This is a group for the discussion of BDSM-related activities
>and lifestyles. Most of the people who hang out here enjoy such activities.
>There are currently, apparently, two who do not, but still want to be here.
>
Are you sure it is really two? Not just Sherm using another false address to
cheer for his side?
By the way, Sherm's hero, Ira, lost his bid to avoid extradition and will
shortly be returned to the US to stand trial for murder.
Bacchae
> I'm sorry but you'll all have to excuse me if I fail to see how
Sherman
> is dangerous. I've seen a man who believes that a woman is worth
more
> than to submit herself, physically, emotionally or otherwise, to
one of
> the repulsive and/or socially retarded wannabe Dom/Top/whatever
freaks
> out there whose only interests in her is not as a woman or even a
human
> being but something to feed their low sense of self worth or self
> esteem since they can't interact with women on a social level. So
what
> if his message isn't candy coated? God forbid he suggests therapy
> instead of more acts of degradation and humiliation. Maybe if
he'd
calling
> him Master and eating his shit, everyone would stand up and
applaud,
> even pat him on the virtual back, for being such a good, strong
Dom, eh?
<HOOT> Snorfle...Bwahaaa...Chortle.....Hehehehe
If he was actually doing what you said I would have him un-plonked.
But hey, you can keep up the good work!....lol.
- Sandy <still giggling>
Bacchae at cadvision dot com
Xiphias Gladius
> Perhaps the two most limiting constraints you can place on your world view are
> failing the read RAH and failing to read Ayn Rand.
Mind you, reading, and enjoying, either or both of them does not equate to
agreeing with anything either of them says. But, yeah, they're good
people to think about.
Angel
Yaldahtvah <yalda...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000726061432...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> >Angel wrote:
> >
> >Which, again I will point out, after a recent private discussion of
this
> >matter, that I do not have anything against anyone who uses the
> >lowercasing of the first letter of a submissives name or reference to
> >them or the use of Y/y and such if that is that person's particular
> >kink. My issue with it *is* that a lot of people come into such
venues
> >looking for people that they think are like them (kinky and such) and
> >are told that because they are submissive they must do these
conventions
> >to show their sexual orientation, their inferiority and such, usually
> >right along with referring to all dominants with an honorific.
>
> off as a clueless wonder. I do not do it to "flag", I do not insist
that
> others referring to me do so, I do not do it because I have been
> instructed by anyone to lowercase my name.
I do not usually think that anyone who does it is clueless, though a few
might be:) But, when I hear someone say that submissives *should* do it
for any variety of reasons, clueless is the first thing that comes to my
mind. And, as I do not want any misunderstandings, I am going to specify
that I am not saying that you do that:)
> I do it because for me, it symbolizes my pride as a submissive,
> shorthand for the years it took to stop running from and embrace my
> sexuality, my personality. I don't care if people respond to Susie
> rather than susie. It's just my way. It has little to do with any
> online culture.
I used to do it because I was told to (as in all the conventions from
"i" "Y/y" and lowercasing the first letter of my name. Then I used to
just do the name thing, but it was because I had so many emails from
people thinking I was a domme and when I would explain to them that I
wasn't, they would tell me that "But, you uppercase your name."
> Oddly, when I do professional work, I often have to rewrite my
signature,
> because it gets put down as "susie X--------, M.D."
I doubt anyone would notice:) Or even think anything about it, actually.
Angel
Norton Zenger <gay...@catholic.org> wrote in message
news:afutnsob28fkr3bnl...@4ax.com...
Octopussykat wrote a lot of stuff:
> Ummmmmmmmmm-HUM. And, err, why exactly are you here again?
I have been wondering the same thing ever since I read that post. I am
starting to wonder if we have a sock-puppet amongst us:)
CRC
SilverOz wrote:
>
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:09:49 -0400
> Chris Canning <C...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >Just for public record I have never forced my use on you. My use is my
> >personal expression of what it symbolizes to me. I have never urged anyone
> >else to adopt my usage. and I definetely *DO NOT* think that submissive are
> >in any way inferior. I would never be happy bonding with one I thought was
> >inferior. And I would feel like a total failure if the one who chose me to
> >submit to me ever came to feel inferior.
>
> Question is... are you *typical* of the people who use the convention?
>
> My experience is no.
I really do not know. I was certainly aware that many do not see
things the way I do. But I kind of thought that there were a quite
a few who do see things at least similarly. I do know there a quite
a few subs who use the lower case convention that would not tolerate
someone trying to Dom them without consent. I have done the
greatest amount of my exploring through the opinions feelings and
views of secure intelligent submissive women. I just don't seem to
be able to relate to most online Doms very well. So many of them
seem to be putting up a false front to me. It is like many of the
Doms think they were born that way and never had to struggle for
understanding. It is extremely rare that I see a Dom speak of their
struggles to find a functional way in specific areas. I can kind of
understand that and have the tendency myself to keep my concerns
quiet and puzzle away at it until I find my answer. After the fact
I do not mind in the least exposing the lines of rational that I
pursued to a firm conviction. But I am not at all comfortable with
presenting a line of reasoning that does not have a conclusion that
is satisfactory to me. Obviously my perception is greatly
influenced by my behavior.
I really have no idea what the paths are that Doms take to to get to
where they are. I do know a fair amount of the paths that
submissive women take though because they are always talking about
it. Where as Doms tend to talk more about where they are now and
how they got their submissive to where they are now. Am I unique or
rare in having followed the paths of submissives in search of my own
path to Domhood? I really kind of doubt it. But I am not at all
sure.
Chris
>
CRC
> The inferior/superior bit is not all that clearcut, but it's been my
> experience that users of the convention mostly don't know why they do
> it except that they do, and that they are quite strident that it's
> "the lifestyle" and "how you tell someone's real" and similar ideas.
>
> because everyone else did.
>
It seems this simple to me. I am a bit surprised to find that it is
not usual thinking.
Everyone has a combination of dominant and submissive tendencies and
abilities. It is necessary to use both to function well in a
society. One can never be a good leader with out also being a good
follower. First of all if one does not follow they will never be
allowed to lead. Second of all I know of no leadership position
that does not require submitting to the will of somebody or a group
of somebody's. Even the president of country must submit to the
will of those operating in the system of checks and balances. And
to the will of the voters. A tyrant and dictator still must submit
to the will of those who keep him in power. Other wise its off with
his head. Power can only be gained by giving up power.
Thus the term "Power Exchange" The Dominant/submissive designation
separates the normal dominance and submission of our daily
mainstream lives to specifically cover the area of romantic and
erotic Dominance and submission.
Chris
It is the Trees which cause forest fires.
webm...@houstonbdsm.com
wrote:
>In article <6FC78F3633480A88.5CE1406B...@lp.airnews.net>,
>webm...@houstonbdsm.com writes:
>
>>actually, and I know it will lose any remaining respect any one on
>>this newsgroup has for me, I have never read anything concerning
>>Lazarus Long.
>
>Well, that does explain a lot.
>
>Perhaps the two most limiting constraints you can place on your world view are
>failing the read RAH and failing to read Ayn Rand.
I have read every thing that Ayn Rand has written, novel or essay. I
did it in hopes that there was really some thing there worth reading
and understanding past the age of 19.
I found that she was terribly into Sadomasochism with her leading
ladies women being very much masochistic. Both Atlas Shrugged and The
Fountainhead are pretty sexy in spots.
I thought they were good things to read at an impressionable age, but
overall seemed pretty simplistic when it came to the "real world".
Other than that, there was simply no philosophy that I thought worth
spending time on.
I would take a different view than yours. I would say that, one of the
"most limiting constraints you can place on your world view "
is to fail to take from Ms. Rand what little there really is there,
and move on to other things that have more to offer either as
philosophy or politics.
So I moved on to Clint Eastwood.
ok, I aint perfect
Travis
>
>But there is a cure, and it is avalable for free at your local public library.
>
webm...@houstonbdsm.com
wrote:
>In article <20000725213534...@ng-co1.aol.com>, socke...@aol.com
>(Sockermom9) writes:
>
>>Let's review. This is a group for the discussion of BDSM-related activities
>>and lifestyles. Most of the people who hang out here enjoy such activities.
>>There are currently, apparently, two who do not, but still want to be here.
>>
>
>Are you sure it is really two? Not just Sherm using another false address to
>cheer for his side?
>
>By the way, Sherm's hero, Ira, lost his bid to avoid extradition and will
>shortly be returned to the US to stand trial for murder.
not yet
still on appeal
several more months if I understand French Law
Travis
mady
wrote:
:::::::::::snipped::::::::::::::
>Perhaps the two most limiting constraints you can place on your world view are
>failing the read RAH and failing to read Ayn Rand.
For an alternative view on the subject, I liked RAH's early books, but
from Stranger In a Strange Land (crap IMNSHO) I thought his books were
pretty bad. It's all a matter of taste, I suppose.
mady
--
madylarian OCL(OCF)
*take hobinrood out of email address to reply*
#Kill all spammers! Neuter/spay so they can't breed!#
Honi soit qui mal y pense
TacitR
>is dangerous. I've seen a man who believes that a woman is worth more
>than to submit herself, physically, emotionally or otherwise, to one of
>the repulsive and/or socially retarded wannabe Dom/Top/whatever freaks
>out there whose only interests in her is not as a woman or even a human
>being but something to feed their low sense of self worth or self
>esteem since they can't interact with women on a social level.
Are we talking about the same Shermie here?
The Sherman McCoy I've been reading is a true monomaniac--a person so obsessed
with BDSM that he can think about nothing else.
He's not interested in saving women. He's interested only in railing against
others, whose beliefs and practices he does not understand, because he thinks
that by doing so he can keep his own monster in check.
Sherman believes all dominants abuse women because he himself feels driven to
abuse women. He believes all dominants are dangerous psychopaths because he
himself is a dangerous psychopath.
His preaching is the equivalent of the ravings of a homophobe who is trying to
deny his own homosexual tendencies, or the moralistic pontificating about
"fornication" and "adultry" you so often see from TV preachers and Republican
senators who are busy banging every streetwalker who crosses their paths.
Sherman's rants aren't for the benefit of women; they are for his own benefit.
He is afraid that the day he stops crusading, night and day, against the
horrors of BDSM, he will do something unspeakable. And he's probably right.
------
Onyx, the game of sexual exploration; Xero, the industrial magazine
of art, fiction and photography; and online photo gallery--all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Jahwar
DonSideB <dons...@aol.combackatyu> wrote:
> RAH himself seemed to be an awestruck admirer of strong female characters.
If you can get past the sexism in many of his works.
Kay
>
>Norton Zenger <gay...@catholic.org> wrote in message
>news:afutnsob28fkr3bnl...@4ax.com...
>Octopussykat wrote a lot of stuff:
>
>> Ummmmmmmmmm-HUM. And, err, why exactly are you here again?
>
>I have been wondering the same thing ever since I read that post. I am
>starting to wonder if we have a sock-puppet amongst us:)
I agree. I can't find anything else by this author anywhere on the net.
"She's" like Athena...having leapt full grown from Sherman's head (which
explains the lack of room for an actual brain...)
Kay
~~~
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority,
it's time to pause and reflect --Mark Twain
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: NH, USA
SilverOz
CRC <kwa...@nospam.nmfiber.com> wrote:
>
>It seems this simple to me. I am a bit surprised to find that it is
>not usual thinking.
>
Thinking is a skill :)
Those who think about how D&S has to work in real relationships seem
to come to the conclusions you have about give and take, and
complements and interactions and interdependency.
But it's been my experience that until exposed to such ideas when
receptive, most people don't cotton on.
I think some of it may be a defence in a way - that for some people
it's easier to see it in a more cartoonish way because then it's not
"real" and it is their persona not them.
Others just like the certainty, especially on the net where there are
cues missing that many deep important. I don't need to know the sex
of the person I'm exchanging views with for example, to others it's
disturbing not to know. KNowing who is dom and who is sub and having
etiquette rules that are clear can be reassuring.
I've had quite bad experiences with people who have the mindset about
capitals being important. To me, it most often goes hand in hand with
a fairly simplistic and rigid view of D&S interaction. Strongly
fantasy oriented with "perfect" doms and subs and a lot of roleplaying
rather than display of aspects.
This makes some folk feel good, more power to them :) Unfortunately
if they are doing it for those reasons, then people who don't do it
threaten the worldview.
That's not going to describe everyone who does it, and will describe
some who don't, but it's a trend. And the human classification and
sorting system being what it is, I will tend to have basic assumptions
about someone who does it until they prove they are an exception that
that.
SilverOz
--
========================================================================
Australian BDSM Information Site
http://www.master.webcentral.com.au/abis/
========================================================================
Sherman McCoy
> Dozens, perhaps scores, of people have, with varying degrees of
> patience, refuted his positions with clear, factual data
Uh, what data?
I've never gotten a remotely plausible antithesis--much less data--to
my assertion that submission is formed from abuse, and that submissives
eroticize trauma. These assertions are universal impressions within the
medical community, and they are, with very few reservations, accepted
as fact by the entire world. Surely I've no hard proof; the medical
community itself does not; and the BDSM community, strikingly, does not
either; because most who practice BDSM will always adamantly refuse to
partake in survey. In fact, they flip out and run whenever anyone
attempts to understand them.
Consider the outrage that ensued in the "Overcoming Demons" thread as
soon as I innocently suggested to Jenni that she had eroticized her own
abuse. Despite the fact that Jenni herself indicated she'd been
violently raped, she vehemently denied any connection between her rape
and her submission. She screamed there was no connection at all. And
yet she could not draw a believable narrative as to why she is
submissive. Now why is that? Does she not want to know what drives her?
And then everyone jumped in--including the fake delurkers (oh, yeah, I
was *really* fooled)--and they too, denied any connection at all.
Everyone started shrieking that there was no connection between abuse
and BDSM. Even her husband Sartan showed up and threatened to wring my
neck. For what? All I did was imply a connection between Jenni's rape
and her submissive identity. And Sartan kept insisting that their BDSM
relationship was consensual. Duh, no shit, Sartan--a man who himself
happens to author self-arousing rape and murder fiction.
Then it became like a conspiracy within this newsgroup. Everyone
started jamming their fingers in their ears and spinning gibberish in
an effort to drown out--through sheer will--any more mention of abuse.
Then the sneaky doms began to delurk under different aliases and
insisted they were subs who've never been abused. Presently the fake
subs who've never been abused began to outnumbered the ones who have
been on an order of something like ten to one. It was mind-boggling.
Then there were the real subs who deny any abuse but can never
articulate just why they are submissive, which makes them lying or in
denial. Are these the clear, factual data you are claiming?
I've seen none so far. If there was, it'd be in a FAQ and I would have
to go away with my tail between my legs. But all I've seen bandied
about so far is the hilariously inadequate BDSM banner: "Consensual
BDSM Is Not Abuse". When are you people going to get a new argument?
How about some clear, factual data while you're at it? Put it in a FAQ
and shut up.
"Oh, to beat a woman is heaven!" Ira Einhorn
CRC
mady wrote:
>
> On 26 Jul 2000 16:59:04 GMT, dons...@aol.combackatyu (DonSideB)
> wrote:
>
> :::::::::::snipped::::::::::::::
> >Perhaps the two most limiting constraints you can place on your world view are
> >failing the read RAH and failing to read Ayn Rand.
>
> For an alternative view on the subject, I liked RAH's early books, but
> from Stranger In a Strange Land (crap IMNSHO) I thought his books were
> pretty bad. It's all a matter of taste, I suppose.
>
> mady
I certainly share your taste. Definite decline about that time.
Chris
CRC
DonSideB wrote:
>
> In article <d%Cf5.10404$5N1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Janet
> Hardy" <ver...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >Actually, I have never met a heterosexual dominant man who does not, deep
> >down inside, believe himself to be Lazarus Long.
>
> Why do you limit that to Dominants?
>
> Of course some of us subs are somewhat selective about to whom we are
> submissive and are otherwise somewhat "assertive" in other parts of our lives.
>
> RAH himself seemed to be an awestruck admirer of strong female characters.
>
> don
No doubt! An admirer of both the strong submissive types and the
strong Dominant types.
Chris
Kylara
control was: (The longer I'm here, the more I like Sherman)":
>> signature, because it gets put down as "susie X--------, M.D."
>I doubt anyone would notice:) Or even think anything about it, actually.
Considering the stereotypes about medical handwriting :-), I doubt
anyone notices. :-)
Kylara
--
"Now, I am not a cruel man by nature, but I cannot overestimate
just how mind-bogglingly DUMB your statement was. To fully quantify
its folly requires superlatives previously only used to describe
"Battlefield Earth"." - Norton Zenger to a troll
CRC
Jahwar wrote:
>
> In article <20000726125904...@nso-bg.aol.com>,
> DonSideB <dons...@aol.combackatyu> wrote:
> > RAH himself seemed to be an awestruck admirer of strong female characters.
>
> If you can get past the sexism in many of his works.
Why not? He did.
Chris
T. Eckhart
>I've seen none so far. If there was, it'd be in a FAQ and I would have
>to go away with my tail between my legs. But all I've seen bandied
>about so far is the hilariously inadequate BDSM banner: "Consensual
>BDSM Is Not Abuse". When are you people going to get a new argument?
>How about some clear, factual data while you're at it? Put it in a FAQ
>and shut up.
The claim "consensual bdsm is not abuse" contains its own proof --
the word "consensual".
In legal terms rape is defined on the issue of consent.
Legally abuse can be tricker -- it could be argued that being in
boxing is the same as being abused, being hit is being hit, can't it be
argued?
I think that is not your issue though.
You seem to believe, correct me if I'm misunderstanding, that if
one has been abused at any point, one can never consent to anything that
even looks vaguely like that abuse.
The problem I have I have with such an idea is this: it denies the
person who was once abused any ability to be their own agent in their own
life.
Once a victim does not mean always and forever a victim.