mstrjx
Posts: 2045
Joined: 11/27/2005 Status: offline
|
To nobody in particular. About my prior remark, about respecting subs/slaves without question, yet not automatically doing so with dominants...... We've all seen it, especially if we've been 'around' for a few years or longer. Some submissive you know meets up with a supposed dominant, and ends up disappointed, in the hospital, or worse. This submissive took the 'word' of the dominant because they are submissive and the dominant doesn't say that he/she is an abuser/rapist/ignoramus. That is not to say that all people claiming to be dominant are miscreants. Some are what they say they are. But in order to make that determination, the dominant needs to show that they are deserving of that respect. I see submission differently, as a concept. Not speaking of individuals, per se. Submission is ceding a portion of oneself to another, whether out of need to do so or not. In a world where each of us are encouraged to be independent, strong, self-sufficient (traits that 'could' occur in an individual submissive), there are those who would prefer to follow another, going against the grain. Personally, I find this 'concept' noble, courageous. A person who, from society's standpoint, has no need to give of themself to that degree does so willingly. That deserves respect. Now when it boils down to individuals, would it be true that each and every sub/slave fits that ideal? No. Just as has been pointed out, there are s-types who deserve no more respect than their opposite d-type number. But as a 'class' of people, just admitting their intent and gladness to be unequal, deserves a little extra consideration in my book. No doubt this entry could be picked apart as easy as the last, but I left the last post ambiguous on purpose. This post really gives the nature of my thoughts on the matter. Jeff
_____________________________
Know thyself. It's the best gift you can ever give yourself.
|