quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

A/anyone that is jumping on this politically correct and pointless ninny over words has betrayed the whole point of a D/s or M/s relationship. T/they have jumped out of the pot and into the fire for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I'm amused by the way someone writes "A/anyone" and complains that OTHERS are jumping on a bandwagon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

A/anyone that is jumping on this politically correct and pointless ninny over words has betrayed the whole point of a D/s or M/s relationship. T/they have jumped out of the pot and into the fire for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola
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.

quote:

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.

quote:

If you are that thin-skinned then you should seriously consider why you are posting on a message board in the first place.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:


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.

quote:

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" ...

quote:

The submissive or slave grants ultimate authority and control to the Dominant one, and in exchange experiences a sense of liberating helplessness and vulnerability.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin
By using Authority Transfer Y/you are saying that the sub gives up everything and gets nothing in return by very definition of the word, which I quote:

quote:

The sub clearly gets something in return, which mandates usage of the term "exchange". The power to set boundaries. The power to set limits. The power to say "no". The power to stop the play. The empowerment that comes with knowing that they are protected, cared for, taught, built up as opposed to being torn down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I'm amused by the way someone writes "A/anyone" and complains that OTHERS are jumping on a bandwagon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

A/anyone that is jumping on this politically correct and pointless ninny over words has betrayed the whole point of a D/s or M/s relationship. T/they have jumped out of the pot and into the fire for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

It is hardly a bandwagon though. Most people scorn at Me for My protocol, especially here in these forums (as You can see, next to nobody adheres to it. I have even had a couple of requests through PM communications to not use it). I do it anyways, as You can see.

quote:

NOW. National Organization for Women. Hmmm.... But they're International says I. Shit. There goes the logic of the N. For Women. Hmmm... All of the women, or just the feminists? Some women just don't want these gals speaking for them, or advancing the agenda that they want to advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

So in that rationale Kenin, Em will continue to voice her opinions with us and get feedback.

And for the record, she wasn't suggesting that the community at large adheres to her thoughts. She was simply proposing another alternative. I really don't understand why anyone would get this defensive about an alternative.

- LA

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

So in that rationale Kenin, Em will continue to voice her opinions with us and get feedback.

And for the record, she wasn't suggesting that the community at large adheres to her thoughts. She was simply proposing another alternative. I really don't understand why anyone would get this defensive about an alternative.

- LA

Nothing wrong with that.. I just thought I would offer My perspective

quote:

Basically- you're wrong.

Let sissy stoop to your own level of debate here ... <straightens his bow tie and adopts his best Pee Wee Herman voice> ... "i know you are, but what am i?"

quote:

What's WRT?

What would be the point of telling you what that standard message board TLA stands for, EmerladSlave2 ? You would probably only go and redefine the term to suit your own purposes and life purview in a similar manner to the way you have already redefined standard terms such as slave, submissive, Master, M/s, ownership, TPE, and a whole bunch of other standard BDSM terminology that 98% of the seasoned kinksters on CollarMe - who have been practicing the BDSM lifestyle, or at least some elements of it, 25-30 years longer than you have - fully understand to mean something completely different than your own nihilistic wet-behind-the-ears revisionistic grasp of these concepts.

So just like every other BDSM term or word in the English language you wish to purloin and redefine to justify your own uniquely isolated philosophy on life, "WRT" means whatever you tell us all at CollarMe you think it should mean. Hell, sissy had always believed he was a submissive fetishistic transvestite for the last twenty years or more, but having read your posts for the last week or so, he now realizes he's really a Dominant transsexual vampire Goth ... thank you so much for liberating sissy from the confines of the English language and the prerequisites of human communication ... gosh it feels so liberating! Hell, sissy is almost in subspace here he feels so liberated ... sissy is now wondering if there is some kind of a term in the EmerladSlave2 Esperanto lexicon of BDSM terminology that covers this new and unique feeling that he is experiencing here?

quote:

I never claimed to be a typical slave.

That's because you AREN'T a slave by most knowledgeable kinkster's understanding of the term. You already completely LOST that debate to SenorX, mistoferin, RiotGirl, Mercnbeth, et al over on the Submission and Slavery thread (which, BTW, sissy hadn't read until AFTER he first posted here and saw references in other posts back to it). Nobody else can tell you what your mindset or headspace should be, and definitely not what it currently is, or has been in the past - only you know that. If you tell us all that you have the heart and soul and mind of a slave that is irrefutable ... only you really know that, and it is not for sissy or anyone else on these boards to tell you otherwise because we cannot get inside your head and think your thoughts or get inside your heart and feel your own emotions. However DO NOT confuse your right to know and define your own thoughts and feelings with a right to nihilistically redefine the English language or accepted BDSM terminology for the rest of us. There is a big, big difference between telling us that you have a slave mindset and telling us that you are currently living a slave lifestyle! That latter statement can be verified and refuted by examining it against known and agreed upon BDSM criteria ... although as sissy has twice caveated in his previous posts there will be multiple schools of thoughts WRT some of the grey areas and nuances that distinguish the concept of slave from the concept of submissive.

quote:

Hmm where are those requirements listed? That would be rather helpful to all of us, really.

Well, there are plenty of other BDSM resource sites on the web that sissy could point you to where one could go to retrieve such a list as a starting point for establishing the basic differences between a slave and a submissive ... but one doesn't really need to go any further afield than the recent debate that you were a major participant in on the Submission and Slavery thread. Go reread the posts of Mercnbeth and SenorX (primarily) and some of the others.

quote:

Yes but I never claimed that masters have "total mental control" over their slaves- you did. To me it's about ultimate authority

sissy Didn't actually say "total mental control" in his initial definition of a slave ... that definition only said that a slave is "one who has given up all aspects of their life - physically, sexually and mentally - to be controlled by a Dominant one" ... so don't get hung up on the word "total" here. sissy Will agree with you that the word "total" in this context has some of the same problems as we agree it does in the context of "TPE". The word "total" is an absolute criterion that is hard to satisfy in most cases (such as controlling dreams) ... a fuzzier term such as "a large amount of" or "near total" needs to be substituted for it. But of course the fuzzier approach opens up the door for total disagreement over what constitutes "a large amount of" anything, or how "near" is "near total", since it is now a relative quantification. One person's Draconian parental control is another person's laissez faire parenting.

sissy Doesn't disagree that one has to take a somewhat relativist approach to some of these definitions, but your own approach is nihilistic rather than relativistic. You will reduce everybody to total solipsism with your approach. You know as well as everyone else that doing yard work for someone remote from you one day a week does NOT past muster as being a slave in an M/s relationship. You define yourself as polyamorous which presumably means that you believe you could be a slave to two or three (or more) Masters simultaneously, and maybe even have a vanilla boyfriend on the side. Almost no one else would agree with you on that one. Slave ownership implies exclusive ownership and the commitment that goes along with it.

Now, sissy may have got this wrong (and apologizes to you if he has) but he believes you have described that you are owned by your Owner and have a vanilla boyfriend, too. If that is true (or even if you believe that it could actually be true in the future, if it is not true right now) then most people would question the commitment of your M/s ownership and suggest that it cannot be sincere. An M/s relationship is a pretty intense and severe lifestyle, and in referring to your own situation as being an M/s lifestyle you are completely watering down that concept for those people that really have one. You are purloining terminology that applies to their much more intense and committed relationship and appropriating it for your own laissez faire promiscuous situation ... that is quite insulting to those people if you consider exactly what you are doing.

The term "UAT" applies equally well to a D/s relationship as it does an M/s relationship. The Dom/me has ultimate authority over those areas that the submissive allows control to be transferred to Him/Her. However, the term "TPE" applies ONLY to an M/s relationship (and if you don't like the term "total" substitute the term "near total"). The reason you balk at the term "TPE" WRT your own M/s relationship is because you don't have an M/s relationship ... you only have a D/s relationship which you insist on calling an M/s relationship. That's why the term "UAT" fits your actual D/s relationship better than the term "TPE".

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against the term submissive ? Why do you insist that you are a slave (even when you are not owned) as if being a submissive is far too wimpy a term to capture the intensity of the way that you feel ? There is no implied level of intensity of submission in the term submissive ... so why do you behave like there is one ?

quote:

And as I responded, that was not fully how I was using the word "power."

sissy Doesn't disagree on what you wrote. kisshou originally pointed out that you redefined the word "power" at your own convenience to mean "ability" and you responded that it means more than "ability" because you sometimes even do the things that you have the "ability" to do. No one has yet come up with a better term to capture that increased flexibility, so let sissy call it "ability plus". Substituting that more comprehensive term really doesn't change the argument, you know? By redefining the meaning of the word "power" to mean "ability plus" you are still just tinkering with the consensus amongst the rest of us of what is understood by the word "power". For you the word "power" implies "ability plus" to act on your own initiative PLUS the "authority" to do so (i.e., you normally "self-authorize"). You claim that in your M/s relationship you transfer that ability to "authorize" to your Owner while retaining the "ability plus" to act on your own initiative. The term "TPE" bugs you because you see that if you transferred (or exchanged) "power" with your Owner, not only would you lose the ability to "authorize" but also the ability to act on your own initiative (viz., "ability plus"). But that is EXACTLY what most real slaves do and why yours is NOT an M/s relationship, but rather a D/s relationship that you falsely call an M/s relationship. A real slave would NOT have any problem with the term "TPE"!

quote:

So you're saying slaves feel helpless? The Owner wouldn't want me to be helpless, after all, how could I help him and make his life better?

That statement right there tells sissy that you are totally clueless about what is involved in D/s and M/s submission and surrender! If you think that a D/s or M/s relationship is ONLY about helping your Owner then you have NEVER actually submitted to anyone. No wonder you have no appreciation of the relative intensity of submissive versus slave ... it sounds like you have never even submitted? Running chores for someone isn't submission for chrissakes ... being obedient isn't even submission. If your mother phones you up and asks you to stop by the grocery store on the way over and asks you to pick up some lettuce, that is NOT friggin' submission ... you are NOT submitting to your mother! Just because you are an obedient girl and don't talk in class, you are NOT submitting to your teacher! Just because some guy that claims he owns you asks you to do yard work and you obediently do it in order to be helpful and obedient and don't feel anything else ... then that is all that is going on there. This might be the source of all your problems ...

quote:

The authority exchange is unique and to me exemplifies what a M/s relationship entails. I obviously don't exchange power, because I still HAVE the power that I had before, and he still has the power HE had before.

The fact that you have never experienced the power transfer as just documented, and don't understand the concept of feeling helpless, tells sissy that you have never submitted or surrendered yourself to anyone. An M/s relationship is NOT about running chores, doing good deeds helping people, and being obedient, for chrissakes ... being a girl scout is NOT a friggin' kink!

Once again you completely evaded the essential point of sissy's last two posts here, so he'll repeat it a third time, this time as a direct question:

How do you reconcile your stance of cavalierly redefining commonly understood BDSM terminology such as slave and M/s relationship and ownership to suit your own purposes while at the same time claiming: "I like to be precise in my language" ?

sissy maid lola




< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 5/21/2005 6:05:28 PM >

_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to EmeraldSlave2)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

That's because you AREN'T a slave by most knowledgeable kinkster's understanding of the term. You already completely LOST that debate to SenorX, mistoferin, RiotGirl, Mercnbeth, et al over on the Submission and Slavery thread (which, BTW, sissy hadn't read until AFTER he first posted here and saw references in other posts back to it). Nobody else can tell you what your mindset or headspace should be, and definitely not what it currently is, or has been in the past - only you know that. If you tell us all that you have the heart and soul and mind of a slave that is irrefutable ... only you really know that, and it is not for sissy or anyone else on these boards to tell you otherwise because we cannot get inside your head and think your thoughts or get inside your heart and feel your own emotions. However DO NOT confuse your right to know and define your own thoughts and feelings with a right to nihilistically redefine the English language or accepted BDSM terminology for the rest of us. There is a big, big difference between telling us that you have a slave mindset and telling us that you are currently living a slave lifestyle! That latter statement can be verified and refuted by examining it against known and agreed upon BDSM criteria ... although as sissy has twice caveated in his previous posts there will be multiple schools of thoughts WRT some of the grey areas and nuances that distinguish the concept of slave from the concept of submissive.

quote:

The authority exchange is unique and to me exemplifies what a M/s relationship entails. I obviously don't exchange power, because I still HAVE the power that I had before, and he still has the power HE had before.

quote:

Oh, and if that day ever comes, I'm fleeing to Mars.

quote:

Until the day comes when there's a Universally Recognized BDSM Council that issues authorized definitions of our terminology, it's silly to insist that everyone has to understand the same words in precisely the same way.

quote:

Actually sub4hire, it was not a point, it was a jab.

Oooh, thanks for posting that, LA, because it explains something that had been baffling sissy all day long. When he logged onto CollarMe this morning sissy was completely confused by the fact that he had 27 new PMs in his message box that all said exactly the same thing: "jab well done." Now the mystery is finally resolved.

Curtsies, Miss LA.

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to LadyAngelika)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash

By the same token, I do think that until by some strange turn of events we have some sort of authoritative organization or council to dictate "terms", we could help ourselves out substantially by agreeing amongst ourselves on, if not precise, but reasonably basic meanings. It is a challenge since we have to share words which originated in the "nilla" world and utilize them to "fit" our particular needs. But like other select groups faced with the same issue (thought comes to mind that the Navy refers to a toilet as a "head"), the burdon is on us, as a whole (preferably not individually), to attempt to define the terms for ourselves.

quote:

Oh, and if that day ever comes, I'm fleeing to Mars.

Oh, really ... Mars, eh ? So would that be the large planet with the rings that the rest of us all call Saturn, Lam ?

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)