Noah
Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
Noah,
I realize it has gotten hard on your ego with me continually calling you on your shit but you have done it again.
DON'T FUCKING INVENT SHIT AND ATTRIBUTE IT TO ME...
You quoted me as saying quote:
"all teachers and trainers are assholes" which is in no way what I said. However, that pretty much sums up your whole post, you spend half a page inventing what I had to say and who I had to say it about.
If you can't tell that rape and child molestation is different than sex then I doubt you can tell the difference between a teacher and someone who uses being a trainer or mentor as an excuse to power trip people onto their back.
You used to be an intelligent and insightful poster, someone I looked forward to reading and I really wonder what the hell has happened to you.
Alright. fair play. There were two characters in my post which should have been left out: those quotations marks. Thanks for addressing those two characters so thoroughly.
Michael you did say, without qualification:
quote:
That's the only training "trainers" are good for. Teaching you that if you can't make good choices about partners, don't make any.
You are speaking about uncounted numbers of people you have never met, to whom you have no access and of whom you have no knowledge. How does that work?
Unless by throwing on the scare quotes you mean some some qualification synonymous with: "The only training really inept/clueless/malicious trainers are good for is ..." In which case you are saying something the truth of which is so trivial as to be almost tautological. In short: bad trainers don't train good.
Doesn't seem like the sort of point you usually trouble yourself to make.
You also said:
quote:
If you can't offer your advice without strings, you are an asshole.
And I'm calling you on this, but rather than respond in any substantial way you start hollering about two characters in my post.
I'm trying to make plain for you and anyone who cares to look that this complaint of your is worse than wrong; it is incoherent in the case of any would-be trainee who desires more than arm's length advice. It is incoherent in the case of any would-be trainee who seeks experiential training.
In what way is it incoherent?
The entire conversation has been about submissives and their trainers. Ergo the training at issue is training having to do with submission. Submission--whatever else it may be described as, is pretty generally acknowledged to involve some sort of surrender; some relinquishing of control.
The experience the submissive in question desires is quite specifically the experience of having strings attached. She wants the experience of surrendering control. A little, a lot, for a short while, a long while... that doesn't matter.
Your contention is that anyone who "mentors" or "trains" (I'll follow your lead in applying the scare quotes) is an asshole if he .... wait for it now .. won't do so with no strings attached, if he has the nerve to actually assume some control.
Are you seing my point?
Kind of like anyone who feeds you is an asshole if he gives you any food to eat.
He is an asshole, following your guideline, in each and every case without exception where he does the very thing his prospective partner comes to him for.
No, this analysis doesn't apply to mentors or trainers who simply mail books to their charges or offer advice over coffee, but they are not the ones you habitually complain about. The ones you complain about are exactly the ones in regard to whom your standard of behavior (no strings attached, or assume no control as you put it in an earlier thread) is incoherent.
quote:
If you have to use being a "trainer" to get into someone's pants who would otherwise reject you, you are an asshole.
I think I asked you a question about this in my last post. Please continue to evade it or respond to it as you prefer.
quote:
Think about it. Nodoby can "train" someone for me, the entire concept is bullshit.
No, Michael. It isn't.
Here's why.
It would be quite unremarkable if an experienced submissive came to you with a lot of the typical newbie questions and confusions sorted out to your and her mutual satisfaction--as a result of time she spent previously with someone she chose to see as a trainer. In addition she might have polished up (or sanded down, whatever you prefer) certain "submissive graces," shall we say, in a way that very much pleased you--and she might have done this undersomeone else's tutelage. Maybe she moved from one side to the other of the "submission is a gift debate" or transcended it altogether thanks to the intercession of her previous trainer. And that movement may have placed squarely into compatability with you whereas earlier the issue might have stood as an incompatibility to be addressed.
That is to say that those aspects of her training served her well in serving you.
I could go on (as you know so well) to speak of her learning concepts and vocabulary at her trainer's hands; learning various techniques both physical and psychological which might happen to please you in ways that she could not have pleased you as well per-training.
And yeah, she might have learned some things which she'll have to un-learn for you. But if nothing else she is now experienced at learning BDSM-related things, just as newly minted grad students are experienced at learning academic things.
Many subs report that it took them months or even years to get over what were to them initial hurdles to any kink relationship they might consider. A person who had benefitted from some training in regard to just those issues in a way suitable to your preferences would indeed be--in that way and to that degree--trained for you, as it were.
Will you maintain that only in cases so unusual as to be unworthy of consideration could a submissive learn something with another dom which might serve her well with you? Honestly?
Do I suggest that someone else's training is likely to prepare her perfectly for you?
No.
But then as I have pointed out in a previous thread: neither has anyone else suggested this. Hence, for you to argue against that is to argue against a straw man of your own construction. This would be cheesy rhetoric, tangential at best to whatever truth or understanding might arise from a conversation like this.
quote:
If you are stupid enough to buy into the concept of training, you probably aren't quite ready to take on the responsiblity of doing healthy BDSM.
So are you or are you not here indicating that stupidity is required for anyone to buy in to the concept of training?
Because the qualifier, "probable" didn't apply to your ascription of stupity. That ascription was categorical.
Training happens, man. Is every person on each side of every (BDSM) training relationship stupid, in your view? I mean just answer the question. Own your words.
It is very had to follow you when you post about how training outside of a particular relationship is laughable or otherwise quite unworkable, while the next day you mention personally benefitting from training yourself outside of relationships, at seminars for instance.
Why is it stupid for some subbie to seek training outside of a committed meant-for-more-than-training relationship even as it is a great idea for you and others to do so?
What if you decided to attend a three-month series of pertty good seminars? What if some subbie "buys in" to the idea of a three-month training relationship with a capable dominant? Why is one stupid and probably nearly pointless and the other not?
Training works in medicine and law and education and the military; in science and in sport, etc, etc. People ranging all the way from stupid to brilliant engage in it every day. And yes, sometimes trainers take advantage.
Boo hoo. Who'd of thunk it?
What is so confounded special about training in BDSM that only the stupid can "buy in" to it?
You have said more than once that most of the time, or usually, training is bunk. Where do you get your stats? There are millions of people out there whom you have never met and of whom you have no knowledge.
And as I said in a previous thread, who cares that most people can't play the trombone or at best play it badly. That fact in no way impinges on the value of all the nice playing going on at ska shows all over the world tonight?
Oi!
And finally, what the fuck was meant by that stuff about me and rape, etc.? That's one hell of an aspersion for you to cast, isn't it? I'd love to see a citation supporting it, or the display of enough integrity to retract it. Because, our differences of opinion about this issue aside, I do see you as a person of integrity and I really can't figure out where that came from.
|
RE: Trainers - Have you ever crossed the line on a limit? - 
Profile
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