RE: Ritual D/s

RE: Ritual D/s (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Ritual D/s (7/2/2007 6:40:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Inhibitor It's been truncated because a moderator was alerted to the post. Whether it would have been, naturally, is speculative, but regardless. The reasoning that a rule (or the promulgation of one) is acceptable on the sole merit that it is enforced is frightening. No one alerted us to the presense of the post. We actually read the posts people make here. It doesn't matter that the copyright information was included or if the poster didn't try to pass the work off as her own, it violated both our rules and the standards of fair use. If it frightens you that such rules are actually enforced, perhaps you would be better suited spending your time elsewhere. XI

mnottertail -> RE: Ritual D/s (7/2/2007 7:07:07 AM)
This is an example of ritual moderation, perhaps it will help the OP understand ritual D/s a little more clearly. Rules are rules, protocols observed are protocols observed and all things in proper order and due time, there is no one way, there is just the way--- grasshopper. RitualisticMaster

Archer -> RE: Ritual D/s (7/2/2007 11:46:25 AM)
Now to try to steer the post back on track. Ritual has a definate indellible imprint when done well. Ritual was the first form of multi media directed teaching/ learning. Song, pagentry, food, incense, pain (hear, see, taste, smell and touch) incorporating all the senses increases the chances that the lessons, value will be remembered. The trick has always been to make sure the values you are learning/ teaching/ internalizing are values you understand and seek on the surface/ mental level before you ritualize and make drive them deeper into the mind.

swtnsparkling -> RE: Ritual D/s (7/2/2007 1:18:24 PM)
John, Thank You for the response. I understand copyright, my work involves copyright issues at times . I know better. I was not thinking- and having a nitwit moment [:)] I'm glad Mods caught it. I'll be more careful next time

Inhibitor -> RE: Ritual D/s (7/2/2007 2:24:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModeratorEleven quote: ORIGINAL: Inhibitor It's been truncated because a moderator was alerted to the post. Whether it would have been, naturally, is speculative, but regardless. The reasoning that a rule (or the promulgation of one) is acceptable on the sole merit that it is enforced is frightening. No one alerted us to the presense of the post. We actually read the posts people make here. It doesn't matter that the copyright information was included or if the poster didn't try to pass the work off as her own, it violated both our rules and the standards of fair use. If it frightens you that such rules are actually enforced, perhaps you would be better suited spending your time elsewhere. XI 'Ello. My mistake; I presumed you'd been alterted seeing as I was monitored before the modification was made. So much for presumption. :) At any rate, if you'll read the text you quoted again, you'll see there's no statement made about the rule's enforcement "frightening" me. The idea that a rule is acceptable solely because it is enforced, which is quite a wildly different concept, is what was being commented on. I have no qualms about the owners of this site making rules and enforcing them. I simply don't like seeing people having their wrists slapped by people with pretend authority (i.e. non-moderators) in the name of lawfullness. It creates a sheep mentality. If it is also in the site's rules that I may not comment on my disapproval of that, by all means, take out your red tape. If not, however, I suggest a bit more effort be made at comprehension. Out of respect for (retroactively, maybe) stopping the derailment I apparently initiated, I'll shut up about copyright issues in this thread. I just hope the local thought-police can manage, as well.

Inhibitor -> RE: Ritual D/s (7/2/2007 2:32:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Now to try to steer the post back on track. Ritual has a definate indellible imprint when done well. Ritual was the first form of multi media directed teaching/ learning. Song, pagentry, food, incense, pain (hear, see, taste, smell and touch) incorporating all the senses increases the chances that the lessons, value will be remembered. The trick has always been to make sure the values you are learning/ teaching/ internalizing are values you understand and seek on the surface/ mental level before you ritualize and make drive them deeper into the mind. That'd seem to suggest that acts not labeled as "ritualistic" do not imprint/teach/get internalized? I'm pretty sure I remember a spanking whether I'm told it's part of a spanking ritual or not. I get that the intent may be different, but does the effect on the mind/body really change because of that? I'm also not so sure about your assertion that ritual necessarily incorporates all senses. Maybe it's more the case that consciously filtering something through a lens of ritual makes one more aware of their senses? Basically, I'd argue "ritual D/s" differs from "normal D/s" (hahaha) only in its use of the term "ritual." It may produce different outcomes for some people to take the value of something out of its categorization, but it does seem kinda silly. Thoughts?

Archer -> RE: Ritual D/s (7/2/2007 2:52:33 PM)
No implied message other than those you put into it yourself. A statement that X does Y does not preclude ABCDEF or G from doing it as well. The fact is ritual has a centuries old proven effect of doing exactly as I stated leaving an indellible imprint. It has been used for good or for ill by almost every religion and culture in recorded history and before, assuming that modern study of "pre history" type cultures (ie culture without a written language) correctly model those same type cutures that are long gone. Does ritual change the result. Most anthropologists say it does in fact change the result. Does going to the funeral change the perception of death? I would contend that it usually does, the ritual provides closure (for most people, otherwise I would contend that the cultures of the world would not have them). Do comming of age rituals imprint the values and responsibilities of a (insert cultural role here) Again the presence of them around the world would indicate that they do, and the absence of meaningfull ones in much of western culture provides additional evidence that they do have a marked effect. Certainly if I gave the impresion that every ritual incorporated all 5 sences that was an error in my communications, but typicaly large rituals do. I would contend that the difference would lie in the amount of focus on and use of ritual. Does the presence or absence of ritual mean that the values are or are not communicated? certainly not. The presence of ritual means only that the people involved have chosen to use ritual as a means to that desired end. (one means amoung many, but one proven over centuries of human culture).

MadRabbit -> RE: Ritual D/s (7/2/2007 4:50:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer No implied message other than those you put into it yourself. A statement that X does Y does not preclude ABCDEF or G from doing it as well. The fact is ritual has a centuries old proven effect of doing exactly as I stated leaving an indellible imprint. It has been used for good or for ill by almost every religion and culture in recorded history and before, assuming that modern study of "pre history" type cultures (ie culture without a written language) correctly model those same type cutures that are long gone. Does ritual change the result. Most anthropologists say it does in fact change the result. Does going to the funeral change the perception of death? I would contend that it usually does, the ritual provides closure (for most people, otherwise I would contend that the cultures of the world would not have them). Do comming of age rituals imprint the values and responsibilities of a (insert cultural role here) Again the presence of them around the world would indicate that they do, and the absence of meaningfull ones in much of western culture provides additional evidence that they do have a marked effect. Certainly if I gave the impresion that every ritual incorporated all 5 sences that was an error in my communications, but typicaly large rituals do. I would contend that the difference would lie in the amount of focus on and use of ritual. Does the presence or absence of ritual mean that the values are or are not communicated? certainly not. The presence of ritual means only that the people involved have chosen to use ritual as a means to that desired end. (one means amoung many, but one proven over centuries of human culture). To help add to the point, think in terms of some of the basic rituals during the average night of sex... Insence with special scents designed to increase sexual bliss... The room lit by candlelight... These are two examples of basic ritual the average human being does but doesnt classify or are aware they are "rituals". Both are used to induce a certain romantic mood and heighten the imprint of the sexual experience... I would venture as far to say that most people would agree that certain "romantic rituals" have a significant impact on the experience. Personally, when I reflect back on my sexual experiences, the most memorable ones that stand out in my memory are the ones that involved these kind of rituals. I can recall my prom night with all its candles and incense and music from when I was 17, but have a hard time bringing back the details of a one night stand with a girl from a local bar when I was 19. I have a certain number of rituals I have learned from other people to help heighten certain experiences and fealings regarding M/S. Many people might call them silly or pointless when viewing them at solely their surface, but they do have a purpose. I cant help but notice the simple absence or prescense of the ritual of wearing a slave collar has amazing impact on a slave's behavior.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125