sissymaidlola
Posts: 518
Joined: 3/27/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2
I'm debating replying here, because replying could easily give a sense of defensiveness on my part, which would obviously be interpreted as a weakness and perhaps being scared what you said is actually true.
Yes indeed, EmeraldSlave2. Your response was defensive on your part, and what sissy stated is actually true, and your response did absolutely nothing to address that basic truth. You have stated, "I like to be precise in my language" while at the same time everything you have told the reader about yourself in this thread (and also in your profile and journals, etc.) clearly indicate that your own particular pursuit of a BDSM lifestyle is NOT as a slave as most intelligent folk that understand BDSM would understand that term. Yet you insist on calling yourself a slave, both in your actual CM moniker and in how you refer to yourself in your writings. There is nothing wrong with that ... there are plenty of others registered on CollarMe that also refer to themselves as slaves when they are really only submissives.
But then again, all those other members haven't started a thread whose basic tenet is that TPE - a perfectly understandable term for very many people heavily into, or even on the margins of, a BDSM lifestyle - is an imprecise, false and misleading term. To call for greater precision in language (WRT to the term TPE) while at the same time describing yourself as a slave is simply ludicrous. Either change your handle or drop your insistence that you care about linguistic precision. You cannot have it both ways, those two statements are totally contradictory.
You cannot read those two definitions of the terms slave and submissive and seriously argue that you are a slave based on what you have revealed about yourself both on and off this thread. Now those particular definitions may not be the most perfect definitions of those two terms, and clearly there are many nuances that some would argue belong to submission rather than slavery and vice versa, and sissy did caveat that fact in his last post, but those two definitions are grossly accurate enough that most that are knowledgeable of BDSM would agree upon them. IsHO, you don't even come close to being a slave and the nuances of interpretation are not even pertinent here. This is not a value judgment about you or your lifestyle ... this is simply an issue of precision of meaning WRT the definition of BDSM slavery ... just as precision of meaning WRT the term TPE was also your point of entry when you started this thread.
quote:
ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2
Also, I really don't think your post is anything but a direct bait/hit on me with obviously no real merits to the topic.
sissy's Post was not a direct hit on you personally but on the words you have posted (they are contradictory as shown above) but if you feel someone disagreeing with your words is also directly attacking you, then so be it. If you are that thin-skinned then you should seriously consider why you are posting on a message board in the first place. The boards are for debate and discussion ... if seeing someone finding a flaw in the logic of something you have posted upsets you emotionally then you shouldn't be here. Just to show you that this is really not personal, the reason that sissy insists that you are not actually a slave is that you are far too single-minded and independent of spirit, and sissy feels those are exemplary personal traits ... however, they don't happen to be typical slave traits. IsHO, the relationship that you have described with the one you refer to as your Owner does not meet many of the criteria required to satisfy a condition of BDSM slavery.
As for sissy's comments having "obviously no real merits to the topic" ... you are joking, right ? If you want us to seriously believe that you can redefine the term slave any which way you care to in order that it fits your particular lifestyle, then you clearly do NOT believe in the overall precision of language, but rather that language is something that you can personally use or abuse at your whim in the pursuit of your own goals. If you do indeed hold that belief (and that is a valid and consistent philosophical stance to take) then the whole premise of your OP - viz. that the term TPE is imprecise and misleading and violates your sense of linguistic precision - is shot in the foot and becomes simply one great hypocritical rant. You are talking out of both sides of your ass!
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola
The key here is that the slave gives up a lot more than authority to his/her Dominant one ... a true slave gives up all mental control, too!
quote:
ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2
You never define what "mental control" means so I really can't say if that's true. For example, I don't know any doms who control what their slaves dream, and that's obviously mental.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Focus50
This is usually where some knuckle-dragger chimes in about how there's no dynamic when you're both sound asleep - thus exploding the 24/7 theory."
Well, EmeraldSlave2, it appears you are that knuckle-dragger that the messianic Focus50 predicted would come along sooner or later ...
But you have just made sissy's argument for him. If Dom/mes cannot have control over what their slaves dream (and sissy would not dispute the truth of that) and therefore by your own argument cannot have either 24/7 control or total mental control over Their slaves, then there are *NO* slaves that actually meet the definition of slave. So by your own argument you CANNOT be a slave but must be, at best, a submissive ... which was exactly sissy's point in his previous post. Thus, if knowing that you are a submissive you continue to insist on calling yourself a slave then you clearly have no respect for the precision of language, and your whole OP is a hypocritical rant!
quote:
ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2
Well I know some people believe that slaves must live with their Owners in order to be slaves, obviously I don't fit into that idea. I don't think I have to live with the Owner in order to be owned.
The word "own" has a clear definition and meaning ... go look it up in the dictionary. According to most definitions of that word you are NOT "owned" by your Owner. Please explain exactly how he "owns" you. Only by relaxing the commonly accepted definition of "ownership" can you claim to be "owned."
So now you have changed the commonly agreed upon definition of two words - slave and own - in order that they fit your own personal situation. Because you disagree with the concept that slaves must live with their Owners in order to be slaves you have decided to create your own definition of slave rather than use the commonly accepted one. If you are going to keep redefining words to meet your own purpose how can you possibly also argue that you care about the precision of language?
quote:
ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2
But then what would you have to pontificate on?
At least all of sissy's posts are logically consistent and make sense. sissy Doesn't disagree with some of the points you make in your OP WRT to the fact that they may not be the best choice of three words to put together to make a TLA - three letter acronym - for what we all understand by TPE (and you understand by UAT). But the resultant term (total power exchange) is hardly oxymoronic (like military intelligence). The word "total" in TPE is probably a mistake for the reasons you state. But as kisshou correctly pointed out, you redefine the word "power" at your own convenience to mean "ability" so that you could then substitute the word "authority" ... but for most people the word "power" already implied "authority" and then some, so that change is your merely tinkering with the accepted meanings of those three words.
As for substituting the word "transfer" for the word "exchange", sissy completely disagrees with that move. The word "exchange" implies that something is swapped for mutual benefit. The submissive or slave grants ultimate authority and control to the Dominant one, and in exchange experiences a sense of liberating helplessness and vulnerability. There are dynamics exchanged in both directions. Your word "transfer" implies something moving in a single direction which is not quite the same thing. It implies only the transfer of power, authority and control from bottom to top and consequently ignores what is transferred in the opposite direction - i.e., exchanged.
sissy Likes dragonofjapan's yin and yang analogy. If you look at things from either the yin's or the yang's individual perspective, something is transferred (e.g., power, authority, control in the case of the sub to Dom/me direction). But if you stand back outside either the yin and the yang and you look at the whole D/s relationship rather than either individual party to it, there is a symbiotic exchange going on that is of mutual benefit to both parties. Your term "UAT" addresses only what is being transferred upwards from the bottom to the top, while the existing term "TPE", while indeed flawed, does at least capture the essence of the whole D/s relationship rather than either of the individual parties to it.
sissy maid lola
_____________________________
If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.
|
RE: TPE = Totally Pointless Expression? - 
Profile
RE: TPE = Totally Pointless Expression? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread