RE: "Earn Respect"

RE: "Earn Respect" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

MissPriss88 -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/22/2007 8:14:23 PM)
I was always taught to give one respect until they have given reason for you to no longer offer that respect. But I think respect, along with many other human interactions is really defined by personal perception. So the idea of respect is clouded from person to person. I feel that those who require offer rudeness until said respect is earned are often insecure with their own people skills and tend to be a bit full of themselves. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, to each his own. ~allurette.

MadRabbit -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 4:12:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I think I've pointed out before.. more dominant doesn't mean better. A tyrant of an omnipotent God is supremely dominant. That doesn't mean I aspire to it.. I'm not sure where you got such a strange notion from. Right here... quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Do you consider "mutual respect" to be the same as "mutual submission"? Yup. If mutual respect equates to mutual submission, then the logical conclusion would be that for one to be more dominant he would have to have lesser respect for the slave then the slave has for her Master. Under your logic, a relationship such as mine where I have the same respect for my slave as a person that she has for me, cant possibly be anything but egalatarian since the level of respect is the same as the level of submission. So in your philosophy, aspiring to be the more dominant one means aspiring to be the most disrespectful one. To be somewhat dominant, I would have to be somewhat of a tyrant because any inconviences I suffered or nice things that I did for her would automatically equate me to being submissive to her...as shown here... quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If he does something nice for her, going out of his way, is he not serving her? It may be minor, and he may still be mostly dominant in the relationship. He may enjoy the service- as the submissive hopefully enjoys serving him quite often. Yet, in the end, it's still submission, isn't it? ...I'm just not as big of an asshole as an omnipotent tyranical god. Finally, your equating all dominance to tyranny based on this statement right here... quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Ah, I'm very much into absolutes. I see a statement as wrong if it isn't applicable everywhere, so a supremely dominant position was one I mentioned for the sake of completeness. ...because if someone can be more dominant while retaining a mutual level of respect (Hence, doing nice things or inconviencing ones self like the bus scenario) toward the person submitting...then the notion that respect is a tangible part of submission cant be applicable everywhere....which makes it not absolute...and therefore basically under your beliefs, means the entire concept is wrong.

RavenMuse -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 4:45:31 AM)
I do not earn her respect... I earn her TRUST and for that I gain her respect.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 7:13:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse I do not earn her respect... I earn her TRUST and for that I gain her respect. That doesn't make much sense to me. I can trust someone and not respect them. I can respect someone and know that they can't be trusted in certain areas. Ideally you want both, but I don't get how one necessarily follows from the other.

RavenMuse -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 8:21:38 AM)
I can not respect someone I can't trust. It comes with the territory for Me. Someone untrustworthy is not WORTH My respect. My girl learned to trust in My duty of care, trust in the fact that I say what I mean and if I state I will do something or be somewhere thats what I will do or thats where I will be. She trusts I do not lie to her, trusts I have her best interests at heart. These are things I have proven over time and earned her trust in... I would not say I earned her respect, rather I showed her who I was and that I was someone worth respecting for things she values.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 8:24:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse I would not say I earned her respect, rather I showed her who I was and that I was someone worth respecting for things she values. Ah that phrasing I understand. This is how it is between my partner and I as well.

velvetears -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 11:20:46 AM)
IMO respect is more a reflection of the person who shows respect then the one respected. If a person values creativity and they go to a ballet performance they will have respect for the dancers grace, beauty and dedication to their art and how well they performed. If a gang member meets someone that wants to join that gang they will respect the new members ability to callously blow an opposing persons head off for showing the gang any form of antagonism. Generally a person will respect someone with like values. Doesn't mean they cannot disagre but if the core values/morals/ethics are not in sync it will be difficult to respect that person. For example - i value um's and think they should all be kept safe, innocent, and protected at all costs. i have zero respect for pedophiles. Obviously a pedo has vastly different values then i do and we will never see eye to eye. i do believe respect comes in degrees. A bum lying in his own filth on a street corner deserves some measure of respect just by virtue of the fact they are human and share the same planet as i do and are one of god's creations. Doesn't mean i am going to be their buddy or even want to talk with them - but i respect their dignity as a human being even if they don't - if people didn't do that there would be no compassion or charity in the world and we would then be free to treat others like animals. i think for the most part when people say you have to earn my respect i think generally what they really mean is you have to earn my trust. Trust and respect don't necessarily go hand in hand in my opinion. Being rude or being nice are character traits and not linked to respect- there are some really obnoxious people i have respected and some really nice ass kissers i had no respect for.

CuriousLord -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 11:45:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I think I've pointed out before.. more dominant doesn't mean better. A tyrant of an omnipotent God is supremely dominant. That doesn't mean I aspire to it.. I'm not sure where you got such a strange notion from. Right here... quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Do you consider "mutual respect" to be the same as "mutual submission"? Yup. If mutual respect equates to mutual submission, then the logical conclusion would be that for one to be more dominant he would have to have lesser respect for the slave then the slave has for her Master. Under your logic, a relationship such as mine where I have the same respect for my slave as a person that she has for me, cant possibly be anything but egalatarian since the level of respect is the same as the level of submission. So in your philosophy, aspiring to be the more dominant one means aspiring to be the most disrespectful one. To be somewhat dominant, I would have to be somewhat of a tyrant because any inconviences I suffered or nice things that I did for her would automatically equate me to being submissive to her...as shown here... quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If he does something nice for her, going out of his way, is he not serving her? It may be minor, and he may still be mostly dominant in the relationship. He may enjoy the service- as the submissive hopefully enjoys serving him quite often. Yet, in the end, it's still submission, isn't it? ...I'm just not as big of an asshole as an omnipotent tyranical god. A well-made point, though you're basing it in false assumption that's causing a generalized error. There's a difference between "role-play" and actually being dominant and submissive. Such as, consider actors on a stage. An actor may be assigned the part of a king, and this "king" might command an actress, playing the role of a peasant, to go serve in the kitchen to prepare a feast along with others. Now, is the king dominant over the actress? I would say not so. They're both adopting roles in which orders were clearly defined. They're both expected to play a part. In the same way, if a "Master" "commands" his slave to do something she wants to do- that they escentially agreed upon preemptively that she would want to do- is this not more of a role play than anything else? I believe that was one misunderstanding. Another.. you even quoted the answer to in leading this.. but okay.. More dominant doesn't mean better. A tyrant of an omnipotent god's probably more dominant than you. More dominant than me, too. Probably more dominant than any human that's really ever lived. Don't take offense. The end-all of a person's value isn't their dominance. At least, not in my world view. So you're not a tyrant. The slaves who want to be beaten, abused, and considered worthless just won't go to you. Others, who want more of your view on things, will. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Finally, your equating all dominance to tyranny based on this statement right here... If I said, "The ultimate humanitarian spends every moment of his life out trying to help others", would you then conclude that the only way to be a humanitarian is to give up your life? I believe this assumption is simplied to the point of being grieviously erronious. Please reconsider. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Ah, I'm very much into absolutes. I see a statement as wrong if it isn't applicable everywhere, so a supremely dominant position was one I mentioned for the sake of completeness. ...because if someone can be more dominant while retaining a mutual level of respect (Hence, doing nice things or inconviencing ones self like the bus scenario) toward the person submitting...then the notion that respect is a tangible part of submission cant be applicable everywhere....which makes it not absolute...and therefore basically under your beliefs, means the entire concept is wrong. As I pointed out, respect goes both ways in all but the case of a supremely dominant being. The respects may be different kinds- as a teacher respects a student in a different way from the student respecting a teacher- but there's still respect on both sides. (Edit) Here, I was trying to point out what I had said under Respect for a superior and Respect for a subordinate. Respect goes both ways- except in the case of a supremely dominant being, as you quoted. This includes when one is dominant (but not supremely dominant). I hope this explains the point more clearly.(/Edit) Based on incorrect assumptions and generalizations, this counter argument isn't effective. The mistakes appear more conceptual than mundane- so if you can fix them, that'd be neat, but I don't think it can be done. (Edit)You sort of evoked a logical-debate structure in quoting the view on such. This is a conclusion to a logical debate. I was stating the obvious as a conclusion, not to be an ass. Just so you know I didn't put this in here to be mean. :P(/Edit) Still, good hearing from you again 'n such.

MadRabbit -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 7:41:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord A well-made point, though you're basing it in false assumption that's causing a generalized error. There's a difference between "role-play" and actually being dominant and submissive. Such as, consider actors on a stage. An actor may be assigned the part of a king, and this "king" might command an actress, playing the role of a peasant, to go serve in the kitchen to prepare a feast along with others. Now, is the king dominant over the actress? I would say not so. They're both adopting roles in which orders were clearly defined. They're both expected to play a part. In the same way, if a "Master" "commands" his slave to do something she wants to do- that they escentially agreed upon preemptively that she would want to do- is this not more of a role play than anything else? I believe that was one misunderstanding. Another.. you even quoted the answer to in leading this.. but okay.. More dominant doesn't mean better. A tyrant of an omnipotent god's probably more dominant than you. More dominant than me, too. Probably more dominant than any human that's really ever lived. Don't take offense. The end-all of a person's value isn't their dominance. At least, not in my world view. So you're not a tyrant. The slaves who want to be beaten, abused, and considered worthless just won't go to you. Others, who want more of your view on things, will. Your validating your argument with the false assumption that people who have mutual respect for each other are simply roleplaying. You seem to basing all this on the very simplistic viewpoint that people cant have respect for other people if they make them do something they dont want to do...which is common in people who have an insecurity or a misunderstanding of power. Hence...you seem to be equating dominance with what you do with the authority. If I order someone to sit in my seat while I stand, thats not really dominance because its not serving my own self interest...I'm just simply "role playing" and letting them do what they want. So, in your eyes, to be a real dominant, you have to only seek to fulfill your own self interests because anything that is against your self interest is a testament to your own lack of dominance. Hence, a benevolent king cant really be dominant because his rule is seeking to fulfill the wants and needs of the people who are under him. But a tyrant king is clearly "more dominant" because hes seeking to serve his own wants and needs with no respect for those of the people who are under him. You seem to equate dominance with selfishness which really isnt the case. Dominance is defined by having authority. What you do with that authority is irrelevant. Lets say...I wanted my slave to work out and diet. My slave didnt particullary want that because its hard and not fun to her. I made her do it regardless, because despite her wants, it was clearly something that I felt she needed. She works out and diets for a length of time and soon the effects are present, resulting in a higher quality in her own life. She's happier and more energetic and glad I made her workout despite her desire not to in the past. Now, in reality, have I really disrepected her? If I take your viewpoint that disrespect is present anytime someone makes you do something you dont want to, then I would be. However, I find that to be a bit of a childish view of respect. Hence...someone who makes a heroine addict go into rehab would be disrespect to the heroine addict since the heroine addict wants to stay out of rehab and shoot heroine. Of course, in your views, making my slave workout isnt really dominance because I would be ultimately inconviencing myself by dragging her to gym, keeping track of her food habits, and maintaing a strict diet when the end result is something that is in her best interest as opposed to mine. In the end though, I inconvienced myself for her best interests and she inconvienced herself by doing something that I wanted her to do that she didnt particularly want to though. The respect was mutual. However, its all at the hand of my authority over her which is dominance. My will or my authority wasnt threatened because it was in align with what I wanted...what I wanted was just in her best interest. But thats just roleplaying since its not serving my self interest. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If I said, "The ultimate humanitarian spends every moment of his life out trying to help others", would you then conclude that the only way to be a humanitarian is to give up your life? I believe this assumption is simplied to the point of being grieviously erronious. Please reconsider. You equated people using authority to order them do things they want to do as simply "roleplaying" You seem to think someone cannot be dominant unless they are ultimately fulfilling their self interests. My assumption that your inaccurately equating dominance to tyranny still stands. Its not a really an assumption at this point since your are equating real dominance to fulfill of personal wants and interests at the expense of the other persons and anything else is roleplaying. Which is...tyranny. As far as examples in the Respect to a Subordinate... quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord This is the respect a teacher might have for a student, a parent for a child, a boss for an employee, etc. While carrying general authority, this authority is not absolute. The will of the superior must yield to the will of the submissive in areas. Such as, a teacher might wish to fondle a female student's breasts. However, he respect her not to, or respect the rule against doing so (as a matter of symantics), yielding to either her will not to or the rule not to. He does so to avoid penalties associated with it. Your automatically equating having power or authority with the complete and unrestrained indulgence of it and anything less than that isnt real dominance or absolute dominance because its automatically a surrender to the other person's will. Lets pretend the rule didnt exist and the teacher chose to not fondle the student's breasts because it wasnt in her best interests. Just because he chose to sacrifice his own immediate wants for her best interest isnt the students will overriding his. Its the restrained and responsible use of authority. Isnt that a very plausible scenario? That the teachers decision had nothing to do with penalities but his own desire to fulfill the best interests of his subordinate and his own responsibility as a superior? So once again...since your equating having absolute power with the complete indulgence of it without consideration to the best interests of the other person and anything sacrifice in the superior's personal wants is submission to the subordinate...your equating real dominance with tyranny. If someone is so insecure in their own dominance that they cant sacrifice their own wants to fulfiill the best interests of the person under them without automatically viewing it as a threat to their authority or dominance, then I feal sorry for that person.

CuriousLord -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 9:57:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Your validating your argument with the false assumption that people who have mutual respect for each other are simply roleplaying. That's not an assumption of mine. If you feel I've said it is somehow, you may cite it, and I'd be happy to explain the point. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit You seem to basing all this on the very simplistic viewpoint that people cant have respect for other people if they make them do something they dont want to do...which is common in people who have an insecurity or a misunderstanding of power. That's almost the opposite of my view point.. I'm saying that respecting someone, in this simplistic tone, is doing something for them you wouldn't ordinarily consider doing if you didn't take their will into account. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Hence...you seem to be equating dominance with what you do with the authority. If I hold a door open for an old lady with a walker, I'm doing something for her I wouldn't normally. I'm respecting her, with regards to her condition, and going out of my way to serve her. She is not an authority, though. No, I'm not equating dominance and authority. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit If I order someone to sit in my seat while I stand, thats not really dominance because its not serving my own self interest...I'm just simply "role playing" and letting them do what they want. I'd agree with this in the general cases. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit So, in your eyes, to be a real dominant, you have to only seek to fulfill your own self interests because anything that is against your self interest is a testament to your own lack of dominance. To be a real dominant, as in one who dominates and not just plays the role of such, you must seek to fulfill your own desires with the use of (an/)other(/s). Elsewise, you're just both doing as you would have, and you're "ordering" her. I sort of doubt you do what I'd considier roleplay throughout all of your relationship, Rabbit. I'm rather sure you'd tell her to do something for you at least once in a while. So I don't see any reason for this to seem offensive, and it works logically. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Hence, a benevolent king cant be dominant because his rule is seeking to fulfill the wants and needs of the people who are under him. If he acts as a "servant of the people"- then is he not a servant? He acts submissively in serving them, though they're submissive to his rule. They're both working together with eachother- following the other's opinions and desires. Who is ultimately dominant in such a relationship follows existientialist philosophy of the twenth centuary. You can consult- what's his name?- Nietcz? That German guy.. him for this sort of thing. He concluded that the servant is ultimately dominant. So, yes, the benevolent king isn't ultimately dominant. Read up on modern philosophy, particularly under that German guy's name. It's kind of neat stuff in places. Some of it's a little redundant, but, meh. It repeats itself in places. This is to say, it can repeat. Also, it occasionally repeats the same idea once or twice. Further, it can say the same thing several times over. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit But a tyrant king is clearly "more dominant" because hes seeking to serve his own wants and needs with no respect for those of the people who are under him. He isn't as submissive to the wants and needs of others. Yes, this makes him more dominant. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit You seem to equate dominance with selfishness which really isnt the case. Not an equation, my friend; something of a coorelation in cases. Do you feel domination is some kind act? Should I, right now, stop patronizing and knock down everything you hope to believe in, and dominate any conversation without giving you voice, would that be kind of me? If the US invaded Mexico and dominated their country, would it be a kind act? Was it kind to invade Iraq, even with Saddam killing his own people? You'd have to ask yourself these things. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Dominance is defined by having authority. What you do with that authority is irrelevant. Ah, I see. And if one with such vaunted dominance should yield to the slightest whim of a child, would he still be dominant? Should an authority figure serve as a servant of the people, is he dominant? Please, think about this further. I'm intentionally leaving it a bit ambigeous. I'll make it more clear if necessary. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Lets say...I wanted my slave to work out and diet. My slave didnt particullary want that because its hard and not fun to her. I made her do it regardless, because despite her wants, it was clearly something that I felt she needed. She works out and diets for a length of time and soon the effects are present, resulting in a higher quality in her own life. She's happier and more energetic and glad I made her workout despite her desire not to in the past. Now, in reality, have I really disrepected her? Disrespected? Pft, that's a false notion. Or, at least, an undefiend one in my bit. Let me rephrase your question. Let's pretend you asked, "have I really not respected her?" The answer is, yes. You failed to respect her desire not to do something. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit If I take your viewpoint that disrespect is present anytime someone makes you do something you dont want to, then I would be. However, I find that to be a bit of a childish view of respect. How do you define "disrespect"? Is it a zero or, or a negative of respect? Consider whatever you like childish, my friend. If it doesn't stand logic, it's invalid to me. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Hence...someone who makes a heroine addict go into rehab would be disrespect to the heroine addict since the heroine addict wants to stay out of rehab and shoot heroine. Blah. You really need to define "disrespect". You're trying to argue with me over my definition for a word that I haven't even defined. =/ Assuming you mean, "Hence...someone who makes a heroine addict go into rehab would be not respecting the heroine addict since the heroine addict wants to stay out of rehab and shoot heroine." Then, yes, however is doing it is disrespecting their right to do heroine. You know, smoking's bad for you. If you were smoking, and I took the cigarette out of your mouth, stomped it out, and told you not to do it again- I'd be helping you to be healthier, under your theory. But would that be respectful? I would say not- you didn't want it. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Of course, in your views, making my slave workout isnt really dominance because I would be ultimately inconviencing myself by dragging her to gym, keeping track of her food habits, and maintaing a strict diet when the end result is something that is in her best interest as opposed to mine. You're a pretty big fan of putting words into my mouth, aren'tcha? Ah wells. I'm curious anyhow. What makes you think I would conclude that? It's okay, I'm not offended or anything, it's just wrong, so it seems weird to me. I'm not sure how you misunderstood it that much. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit In the end though, I inconvienced myself for her best interests and she inconvienced herself by doing something that I wanted her to do that she didnt particularly want to though. The respect was mutual. In the end, you inconvienced yourself for you own interest. You wanted her to be healthy at the cost of her working out and you having to make her. It was your own doing. She may be happy you did it in the end, but it was what you made her do against her otherwise wishes. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit However, its all at the hand of my authority over her which is dominance. My will or my authority wasnt threatened because it was in align with what I wanted...what I wanted was just in her best interest. It was in your best interest- but, yes, it was at the hand of your authority. It was a dominant action to make her do so. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit But thats just roleplaying since its not serving my self interest. The sarcasm's lost due to the inaccuracy of perceived statement. It's roleplaying if you're both horny, she's looking at you, both of you know you're about to go to bed, and she asks you to make her bend over or something. (Sorry if this is vulgar in considering your female. Again, I don't like drawing personal relationships into debates. It tends to make them overly emotional with vested interests despite logic.) quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit You equated people using authority to order them do things they want to do as simply "roleplaying" Afraid you misunderstood me. (Please stop using "equated" so often. It's a very powerful term in logic.. and one that should be used in cases of certainty on logical arguments, not on general usage.) I'm saying "ordering" someone to do something they'd have done anyhow is roleplaying. If I just got home, and stepped out of my car, and you walked up to me and said, "Lock your car", (well, A, I'd ignore you :P and, B,) I'd do it anyway. I was planning to lock my car. It wasn't based on your presumed authority, and you'd just be roleplaying a dominant position. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit You seem to think someone cannot be dominant unless they are ultimately fulfilling their self interests. That's true enough. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit My assumption that your inaccurately equating dominance to tyranny still stands. Its not a really an assumption at this point since your are equating real dominance to fulfill of personal wants and interests at the expense of the other persons and anything else is roleplaying. A tyrant has no concern for his people, silly. Should a Master tell his slave to get him a glass of water, he's being dominant, but not a tyrant. A tyrant of a Master would be if he puts her to work 24/7, even if she's miserable, never considering her feelings or pains. Please understand the difference. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Which is...tyranny. See above. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit As far as examples in the Respect to a Subordinate... Note: backquote deleted (this thing's long enough already) Your automatically equating having power or authority with the complete and unrestrained indulgence of it and anything less than that isnt real dominance or absolute dominance because its automatically a surrender to the other person's will. You're wrong here.. blah. Absolute dominance is pure, unrestrained dominance. Domaniance doesn't have to be absolute to exist or be real. =/ quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Lets pretend the rule didnt exist and the teacher chose to not fondle the student's breasts because it wasnt in her best interests. Just because he chose to sacrifice his own immediate wants for her best interest isnt the students will overriding his. Its the restrained and responsible use of authority. It's not if it's in the student's best interests so much as the student's desires. Does the student not want to be fondled? If not, then the teacher is yielding to that desire. If the teacher- regardless of the student's desires- does not want to fondle the student because the teacher would feel more strongly against it than he does for his own sexual desire, then, overall, he doesn't desire fondling the student. Like.. if one wants to jump off a cliff for the rush, but one doesn't want to do so for the sake of one's health, one, overall, don't want to jump over the cliff, even if part of one does. As the teacher doesn't, overall, want to touch the student's boobs, the teacher isn't yielding, assuming that's the case. The teacher is just doing what it wants. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Isnt that a very plausible scenario? That the teachers decision had nothing to do with penalities but his own desire to fulfill the best interests of his subordinate and his own responsibility as a superior? Yeah, it is; you just drew the wrong conclusions from it. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit So once again...since your equating having absolute power with the complete indulgence of it without consideration to the best interests of the other person and anything sacrifice in the superior's personal wants is submission to the subordinate...your equating real dominance with tyranny. Wrong on several accounts. -I'm not equating. -Absolute something is an extreme of it. Most things can exist outside of an extreme.. which I think you're badly missing.. -Keeping another's best interests in mind does not mean yielding to another's desires. quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit If someone is so insecure in their own dominance that they cant sacrifice their own wants to fulfiill the best interests of the person under them without automatically viewing it as a threat to their authority or dominance, then I feal sorry for that person. Yeah, that would be a sad case. It's also rather sad when one's so insecure about their dominance that they have to make it sound like everything they do is dominant, attempting to argue, even if futilely, that they're actually dominant in scenerios, and not ever submissive, eh?

MadRabbit -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 10:41:03 PM)
Well...you have your beliefs and I have my own. All my beliefs are based on the definition that dominance is "the right to give orders or make decisions". A definition that is in the dictionary. As long as I have the authority, whatever interests they serve isnt a testament to my lack of dominance. The German Guys philosophies play into this. I am very familiar with the philosophy of a "Servant Master". These played into my beliefs above. Your definition just isnt my definition. Your viewing everything in terms of power and I'm not.

CuriousLord -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/23/2007 11:07:32 PM)
Meh, it's fine. Ultimately, whatever works for you I guess.

littlesarbonn -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/24/2007 12:48:05 AM)
I used to find myself consumed with my desire to earn the respect of others. I sometimes still suffer from this ailment. It would sometimes happen when I was talking to someone, and she would disagree with me on something, and I'd find myself backpedaling from comments I made because I had this bizarre desire to have people like me. I don't act that way anymore. An example: a woman I go to school with brought up what I found to be an unsound response to a theory I was talking about, and after I listened to her go on for about five minutes, I turned around and completely deconstructed her analysis by showing how it was using surface level knowledge to explain a higher level analytical process. I then explained how she could use the analysis she was trying to use to substantiate what she was trying to say. The professor nodded and took some notes, and in the end, I believe more people obtained knowledge from the conversation rather than the old graduate level conversations where people are scared to death to challenge anyone for fear of looking stupid. I started to realize (and this is where it talks to this topic) that I've actually earned a great deal of respect in my discipline because of the knowledge and research I bring to it. People have talked to me at other times and indicated that they wait for me to chime in because that is when they actually start to learn something. Now, some people might handle such a situation by being bombastic and rude. That type of person deserves very little respect, and probably a wide berth. However, I find that a tactful ability to address issues so that the goal is higher level analysis and learning is achieved is the best method. I also found that acknowledging when you do not have the answers is probably one of the strongest methods I have ever achieved to receive respect, and it often immediately receives strong respect from me as well. People who walk into a situation convinced they have endless knowledge have often proven to me to be the most dogmatic, unthinking, people who completely lack innovation and imagination.

Firebirdseeking -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/27/2007 8:01:45 AM)
Respect is critical. It is my understanding - my values - that the Dom creates and encourages a "platform" of trust, openness and honesty by being this way himself; he encourages submissiveness and ultimately it is given. I cannot speak for anyone else, but if the first question I get is "what is your kink" or "what are your limits", that tells me he is looking for kink and not connection. Unfortunately, many men here call themselves Doms, Dominant, Masters, Sir, Lord or Alpha - they can call them selves Jesus Christ but that doesnt make them the Second Coming, no pun intended.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875