RE: SLAVES VS SUBS

RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

mountainpet -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/29/2007 8:38:21 AM)
"Empowering people to write their own personal dictionaries, regardless of what the words' original meanings may sound great. It merely creates confusion and serves no other purpose than that. As a writer and a communicator, I fail to see why I should embrace this concept." And therein lies the problem. Unless we use a contrived definition, molded to fit soemone's personal concept, then slavery doesn't exist for those of us in the USA. That's why we re-write the meanings. I have seldom heard that submission is by definition something other than 24/7, or that slavery was, by kink definition, only 24/7. Who thought that one up?

adaddysgirl -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/29/2007 8:45:51 AM)
Since i have been on this site, i have come to see that a lot who identify as slaves have certain needs (or desires) in regards to a partner...and that is, they all seem to want to serve, obey, please and make their partner happy. It seems to be a central theme for a slave. i, on the other hand, am a submissive....a daddysgirl....and truthfully, have no real need nor desire for servitude....and perhaps true enough, i don't always obey (but do suffer the consequences for not doing so). Nor do i live exclusively to please and make my partner happy. But for the ones here that do, that is what i consider a slave....and what distinguishes them from myself. And i have a lot of respect for those who live that type of life. But is the point really "would you give away your kids, cut off your arms, rob a bank, etc" to be considered a "true slave"? Are those really the requirements to earn that title? So is every single person who is not willing to go to such extremes not considered a slave? Or can they merely be considered a slave because they want to serve, obey, please and make their partner happy in whatever way he wants....and hopefully they initially choose a partner who is satisfied with all of this and would not require they go to such extremes as mentioned above? To me, i think that most who consider themselves slaves fall under the latter. And i think that as much as one would want to serve, etc, that MOST will have some kind of limit as mentioned above that they would not cross. So they are not a slave then? i don't know what it was like 25 years ago but i think one would be hard pressed to find a slave who would, for example, give up her kids for her Master. Not that i don't think they exist...i just think there are not many. So? This is what it is right now. Deal with it. And to Bob: 1) i don't know exactly what you mean by 24/7, but there are a lot of slaves who do not even live with their partners. So is that a part time thing? Would she then be considered a sub? 2) This phrase "Were she a submissive, she'd have the freedom to make all of her choices any way she wishes, whether I agree or disagree" is truly the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard (and you are not the first person i have heard say that). Even as a daddysgirl, i was not allowed to make "all of my own choices any way i wished". There were rules. If i ultimately could not obey the rules, i could be sent away, just like any slave is released. If something cropped up that i felt was a hard limit and my partner was not accepting of that, then i could walk away, just like a slave could ask for release if need be (although i do realize that there are some, again a minority i believe, who would never do so...fine). But as a sub, i did not pick and choose what i chose to do every day. Why bother then? 3) Hopefully in your search, you present to a potential partner that should you ever so decree that she will sell off her children, she better be ready to make that type of commitment, or she is not a slave. Let's see how much mileage that gets. Some time back, there was a thread on TPE that caught my eye. The "Master" worked at home and had his sub chained 24/7 (when he felt like it). She had no outside contact, not with friends nor family and basically only left the house when he had to take her to a doctor. He swore that was TPE and anything less was not. Obviously most argued that this was an unrealistic way to live but i myself have talked with a couple (just a couple) of doms who would also expect this of their slave. Are there people out there like this? Sure! But again, i don't think you will find that to be the norm....and most slaves do not live like this. Every Master has his own criteria in what he seeks in a partner, and what she would have to do to be considered his slave. In the end, isn't that all that matters? And i don't see how that makes anyone "less of a slave" than anyone you would choose. Daddysgirl

slavegirljoy -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/29/2007 8:57:41 AM)
BRAVO, Dark, BRAVO!! Communication is crucial to any relationship. When my Master and i first began exploring the possibility of having a Master/slave relationship, the first thing Wwe did was make sure that Wwe were speaking the same language and that Wwe each understood what the other meant when saying things, like limits and rules and pain and suffering and ownership, etc., etc. BTW, if someone could tell me where i can get a copy of that 'original BDSM dictionary' with all of the 'original' definitions of BDSM terminology, i would really appreciate it. slave joy Owned property of Master David ___________________________________ "Commitment transforms a promise into a reality." quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark If you really want to get to know a person, you learn to communicate with them as an individual and* learn swahili.* Peace the.dark.

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/29/2007 9:08:24 AM)
I've been musing on this ... quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin What happens when we start re-defining other words to suit ourselves. What about the person who has AIDs, redefining the term "disease free" to include himself/herself? After all, if words should only have the meaning we personally assign them, why shouldn't he/she redefine that term too? Just such a situation has arisen in Lindsay, the largest town in my area. A man infected with AIDs since age 12, now in his 30's, has been charged with deliberately and knowingly infecting women with AIDs. They are still trying to identify all his victims. Lindsay is about a 2 hour drive from Toronto. Who knows how many partners he's had, or how many they had after being infected, or how many -they- had ... ad infinitum. All because one day he decided to change the definition for the term "disease free" so he could say he was "disease free" too. His personal definition for "disease free" includes himself, as far as what he told any of his victims. quote: What about words like "honesty, loyalty, committment, integrity, honour, obedient" etc.? What happens when these words lose -their- meaning because those who were being excluded from their original definitions decide they're going to change the meaning so they can be included too? Well we already know this is happening, don't we? How many profiles have I read where the woman uses these words to describe those she doesn't want to hear from: "no liars, fakes, or wannabes" Guess who the "liars, fakes and wannabes" are? Those who have redefined the meaning of words like "honesty, loyalty, committment, integrity, honour, obedient" so that they could claim to be these things too, when in fact the original definitions for these words excluded them. We hear the complaints: why can't people be honest about themselves? Why lie? why pretend to be something you're not? We hear them, and we understand them, because some of us are still working with the common definitions for words like "honesty, loyalty, committment, integrity, honour, obedient". But there are a lot of people who have chosen the personal definition route, and thus the complaints. Why is it any less true of those who claim to be "slave" when in fact they are "sub"? Why is it any less true of those who claim to be "master" and not "dom"? What two (or more) people call themselves in private is one thing. They speak a common dialect, have their own petnames for each other. But in public discourse, how does it benefit anyone to speak only in that dialect, and expect everyone to comprehend and adopt that dialect when speaking with you? We would truly need a Universal Translator to cope and communicate effectively. That is why there is are dictionaries, providing common definitions for common words. Each field of human endeavour (and BDSM is one of them) has its own language. But the rules of communication do not change for any field. It still boils down to common definitions for common words. "sub" and "slave" once fit within those rules. They do no longer. The man in Lindsay redefined "disease free" so that it included himself. The "liars, fakes and wannabes" have redefined words like "honesty, loyalty, committment, integrity, honour, obedient" to include themselves. They all break the rules for clear, effective communication. And thus they all create confusion, for their own benefit. A dialect can be a beautiful thing. When I was 19 I got to spend the summer hitching through England and Scotland. I was one of the lucky ones who was permitted to touch the stones of Stonehenge. I was one of the lucky ones who got to walk the shores of Loch Ness, and climb the hills above it (who knew there were sheep grazing the tops of the hills of Loch Ness). I was one of the lucky ones who got to sit atop the cliffs of Dover for three days writing poetry. I was one of the lucky ones who watched band after band of fog roll over the shores of Plymouth. Wherever I went, each area had its dialect, its way of speaking, its accent. I became a mimic. I caught each tongue quickly and adopted it while there. And it took me six months to drop the last one when I came back. BDSM once had its own dialect. But not anymore. Now each of us can redefine any term we wish. We are all empowered to create our own personal dictionary, and insist everyone else respect our right to do so. Thus a man with AIDs can redefine "disease free" and expect all of you to respect his right to do so. People can redefine words like "honesty, loyalty, committment, integrity, honour, obedient" and expect all of you to respect their rights to do so. And a sub can redefine "slave" and expect all of you to respect her right to do so.

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/29/2007 9:30:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl ... 2) This phrase "Were she a submissive, she'd have the freedom to make all of her choices any way she wishes, whether I agree or disagree" is truly the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard (and you are not the first person i have heard say that). ... Read this. Got as far as the above quote and shrugged it off. I am not here to establish (or re-establish) a bdsm dictionary. I know what I seek. I know there is no dictionary of common terms with common meanings anymore. Just means I ask a lot more questions to be sure I understand the individual clearly. It also means I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes through my usage of these words. After all, if I am expected to tolerate their usage, I can expect them to tolerate mine. If they don't like it, they can deal with it in the manner they expect me to deal with my dislike of their usage.

RCdc -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/29/2007 9:38:27 AM)
quote: I was one of the lucky ones who watched band after band of fog roll over the shores of Plymouth. Wherever I went, each area had its dialect, its way of speaking, its accent. I became a mimic. I caught each tongue quickly and adopted it while there. And it took me six months to drop the last one when I came back. BDSM once had its own dialect. But not anymore. As a someone who has lived in both cornwall and devon (A - help me out here![;)])- BDSM is no more different to say - Devon. And if you live in devon, you have different dialects - just as BDSM has. BDSM isn't the dialect - it is the country. Foreign to those who do not come into it - and different for those within it depending on the county/province/state you come from. Even in London, there are different dialects and words used for different subjects. There never has been a set definition of anything - even in BDSM. Words evolve. Even your name is an evolution of another word. That is what makes vocabulary so stunning and interesting. Peace the.dark.

leya42 -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/30/2007 3:15:12 PM)
Since everyone was so rude on the last topic i posted.. i want to know can a submissive be a submissive if she argues for reasons she believes to be true?

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/30/2007 3:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leya42 Since everyone was so rude on the last topic i posted.. i want to know can a submissive be a submissive if she argues for reasons she believes to be true? Because being a submissive is an innate orientation that has nothing to do with one's actions. It is only about wanting a personal intimate relationships in which the other person has authority. Many dominants PREFER submissives who will argue and debate with them.

kyraofMists -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/30/2007 3:19:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leya42 Since everyone was so rude on the last topic i posted.. i want to know can a submissive be a submissive if she argues for reasons she believes to be true? There is a difference between being submissive and submitting in a particular moment. I am submissive, but there are few people that I actually submit to. With that said, if you are told to stop arguing and you continue to do it, then you are not submitting. Whether that is a good or bad thing in that moment is for you and the other person to decide. Knight's Kyra

RCdc -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/30/2007 3:42:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leya42 Since everyone was so rude on the last topic i posted.. i want to know can a submissive be a submissive if she argues for reasons she believes to be true? There is nothing unsubmissive about standing up for what you believe in or to be true. If you - however - have a Master or dominant your submit to and do not do as they command, request, or simply stop when told, then you are refusing to submit and that is a different action altogether. And why was your last topic response rude? Try and just remember this is a forum where people who 'know' each other will banter - it wasn't personal to you so don't take it that way[:)]. Just take time to get to know the forums and familierise yourself with the search function - it's a cool feature. And LA rocks as a librarian... I think she'd be hot in glasses, hair tied back and a short skirt....(gawd - look at me and my stereotypes!) Peace the.dark.

BitaTruble -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/30/2007 4:25:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy Because, as it stands now, i am a slave to my Master and, for someone, who doesn't know me or Him, to say that i am not who i am, just because i don't fit their definition, is, to me, just wrong. Why shouldn't i say something about that? Why should i let, what i feel, is a false statement about me go unchallenged? slave joy Owned property of Master David "Commitment transforms a promise into a reality." Okay, I'm going to approach this from a different angle because I've not spoken clearly and I think my meaning has been lost in the semantics during the debate. You are a slave because you are used as a slave by your Master and that's what he wants. If your Master would use you as a Mistress, would that then mean you are a Mistress? According to your arguement, that is, in fact, what would happen. If the answer to that question is 'yes', then don't even bother reading the rest of my post because our minds are going to be way to far apart to ever come to any sort of melding place and we'll just have to agree to disagree right here and now and I will accept, completely, that you are totally defined by how your Master uses and wants you to be. No harm, no foul.. I just won't ever understand it. I've read your posts for a long time, joy. I've read your details regarding your daily life and your heart comes through loud and clear in them. You are quite eloquent and very clear. I just can't agree with your statements and I completely understand, now, where my own Master was coming from when he kept calling 'me' a slave and I denied it for several years. He saw something I didn't. I refused to be defined by someone else, even my own dominant (now Master) and it was only when "I" was able to recognize the truth about myself that I was, then, able to embrace my slavery and revel in it's truth and beauty. I'm a slave. That's what I am regardless of what anyone else may call me, how they may view me or even whether or not Himself thinks of me that way. It just is what it is. I can point to my dishwasher and call it a dishwasher and that's a true statement. I can point to my dishwasher and call it an oven, but it's not cooking me a turkey for dinner. ::laughs:: It's the same thing here. . You said (and many here have also stated) that you don't care what anyone else calls you. My brain doesn't wrap around that concept either. I do care, a great deal, that I'm called what I am. It has nothing to do with pride either, or thinking that being one thing is better than being another thing. It has everything to do with being recognized for who I am. So when someone else calls me slave, I appreciate being recognized. It makes me feel like the truth of me is known. By the same token, when someone says that I'm not a slave, it makes me feel sad or angry or hurt because they are not seeing the truth of 'me'. So I care and that's why I correct people who make assumptions which are wrong or invalid because they've based it on less information than they require to know the truth of the matter. Joy, you've put way to much information out there to be seen as anything other than what you are and while talk is cheap, if everything you've stated is true, then it doesn't make a rats ass bit of difference what your Master calls you. What matters is what you call yourself and if you're truthful with yourself, then put that out there and own it. Why is it so bad to be a slave because that's what 'you' are rather than calling yourself a slave because that's what someone else calls you? If I had a dime for every person who has made a similar statement "I'm a Master because my slave sees me that way," or "I'm a slave because that's what Master calls me," I'd be a fucking millionaire. I would love for someone to be able to open my eyes to that line of thinking, because, frankly, I don't get it. If someone sees me as something 'other' than what I am, then they are blind. Plain and simple. If I explain it and they still don't get it, then I've either spoken poorly for myself or they're an idiot. Okay, I've posted way to much on this topic already and I don't know whether or not someone will take me up on my offer to 'splain this line of thinking to me nor can I promise I'll get it even if it is explained but I invite anyone who has the desire to try. Somehow, I'm thinking I won't be taken up on it but you never know. Celeste

slavegirljoy -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/30/2007 8:48:11 PM)
Believe it or not, Celeste, i do understand your point of view and i respect your opinion. But, the fact is that we are two different people, two different women, and two different slaves. It is my belief, that no two are the same. And, i don't care how many times some people try to give a specific and concise definition to what a slave is (and isn't), very few are going to actually be able to fit that description. And, why should we all have to fit into one neat little description? Look at the definition for "love", for example, dictionary says: "strong affection", "warm attachment." But, is that what love means to everyone? No. Ask 50 people what "love" means and, you are more likely to get 50 different definitions than you are to get just one. Same thing with "marriage", "husband", "wife", "mother", "mom", "father", "dad." These are things that each of us defines for ourselves. To some people, you are not a "mom", if you work outside the home. To some people, you are not a "husband", if you don't go out and earn a living. For some people, "marriage" is strictly monogamous and the couple must do everything together, or it's not really a "marriage." Even, where "man" and "woman" are concerned, there are differing opinions. To some people, you aren't a "real man", unless you ____________ (fill in the blank with any number of requirements people have for their particular definition), or to be a "real woman", you must ____________ (again, fill in the blank.) So, if people can't all agree on what it means to be a man or a woman, why must we be expected to all agree on what it means to be a slave. You are the slave that you are. i am the slave i am. We aren't the same. What's wrong with that? To me, nothing is wrong with that and, our differences are what help to make this such an exciting and interesting world to live in. How boring this life would be, if we were all the same, at least to me it would be. i had a good discussion with my Master about this issue. He told me, to never call myself "a slave" again. As i looked up at him, sitting in His easy chair, as i sat on the floor, at His feet, in my stunned silence, He added, "Only refer to yourself as Master David's slave or the owned property of Master David." He said, "Don't devalue yourself by saying you are a slave. That is too generic and says that you could be a slave to anyone, just for the sake of being a slave. And, you're not. So, stop saying you are." Of course, i have always used "Owned property of Master David" in my signature line. So, i revised my profile, to reflect that change and added a journal entry to explain the change. Here's what i wrote: i revised and updated my profile today, in order to clarify my slavery. i needed to make it clear that i am NOT A slave. i am Master David's slave. What's the difference? To me, it's a big difference. To say that i am A slave, indicates that, should something bad happen (Heaven forbid) to Master David and He couldn't be my Master anymore but, He hadn't disowned me and released me from His collar, then, as A slave, i could become another Master's slave. And, that just isn't the case. In fact, i would not even want to become another Master's slave. my loyalty is to Master David, for as long as He wants. To say that i am A slave, to me, says that i can/will/want to/need to, be a slave to any man, just for the sake of being a slave, and that's just not the case. Master David made me His slave, when He took Ownership of me. i am His slave, and only His slave, because He Owns me and He decided that my purpose for being here is to be His slave. He can use His property for any purpose that suits Him. First and foremost, i am His property. He owns me and He decides how He wants to use me. When i accepted His collar, i agreed to be owned by Him and to be His slave for life, not His life but, my life, both the fulfillment of my life and the duration of it. If He were to leave this world, without disowning me and releasing me from His collar, first, i would continue to be His slave and carry on as His slave, still wearing His collar, and i would not seek to be the slave of another. That, to me, would be disloyal and disrespectful to my Owner. i do have to say that one thing i wrote the other day, in a reply to you, was in error. i wrote something to the effect that if i didn't have my Master anymore, i would not be a slave because i would not have a Master to serve. What i should have said was, if He were to disown me and release me from His collar, i would not be a slave anymore. But, if He didn't release me, even if He were no longer in my life, i would still be His slave. my sense of loyalty to Him, and to the commitment i made to Him, is that strong. i do feel very strongly that there are certain core values that we each have that shape and define our individual character. i'm sure some would probably disagree with that but, this is how i see it. For me, there are 3 core values that are the pillars of my being. They are: Honesty, Trust, and Loyalty. Those 3 values are constants in my life. i can't imagine a situation in which i would compromise any one of them. There could be a situation that i haven't thought of and i realize that there is no way of knowing exactly how i would act until faced with an actual situation that could call for me to compromise my values but, as much as i am able to imagine different scenarios and, based on how i have handled a lot of difficult situations in the past, i feel very strongly that those core values of mine would remain intact, no matter what. They are that important to my sense of identity. So, since i have pledged my life to serve Master David as His slave, i would feel that it would be wrong for me to abandon that commitment just because, let's say some tragic accident caused Him to be unable to be Master over me any longer. So, in that case, i would still be, not A slave but, Master David's slave, even after He was no longer my Master (without releasing me first, that is.) This is really about all i can say on this matter. i know that this probably sounds totally bizarre to some people and, i can understand that. i just hope that people will respect my views on this and not take this to mean that i think i am The answer to what it means to be "a slave", because i know i'm not. i just don't think it's right to try to apply my definition of "slave" to anyone else and i shouldn't have to feel that i am not who i know myself to be, simply because i don't fit the definition that other people use for "slave." Thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion and i sincerely hope that we will have many more opportunities to discuss issues in the future. i think it has been a very interesting discussion and it has actually helped me to clarify, for myself, as well as others, who it is that i am and how i see myself. i hope so any way. Oh, and to answer your question, yes, if my Master were to tell me that from now on, instead of being His slave, i was to be a Mistress, then i would do my best to be a Mistress. It would be a challenge for me, no doubt, but i would give it my best shot, just as i give being His slave my best shot, which i know i fall short on plenty of times. slave joy Owned property of Master David ___________________________________________ "Commitment transforms a promise into a reality."

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/30/2007 9:08:41 PM)
To add to the greatness of Celestes post (and it totally rocked) I find one of the most arrogant, self centered, diminishing thing to do to another is to deny them their right of self orientation. I can think inside my head as loud as I want that "This person is totally fooling themselves" but the moment I try and actually IMPOSE my view in the world over their own- that just completely crosses a line for me. And as she said, it has nothing to do with pride or ego or need to beright- it's simply that we should all respect eachothers right to self orient and identify.

MadRabbit -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/30/2007 9:49:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin For one person to convey thoughts to another, words must be used that have a common definition for both speaker and audience. Consider what happens if I were to speak Swahili to an English-only audience: Words are spoken, but no one in the audience understands the meaning of those words, thus no communication occurs. Sure, buddy, but however we're dealing with words that define people's "individual lifestyles" and since the word "individual" is included with the "lifestyle", then the definitions are "individual" as well. I could, for example, say "I am a cook" and that will generally communicate that I cook food. However, I will still probably have to go into detail to communicate what kind of cook I cook, where I cook at, how much money I make as a cook, what other duties my job as a cook consists of. One could say "submissive" and "slave" and generally, for me, at least...the second will communicate a higher degree of control and the second, somewhat of a lesser one. However, all the details of that "individual lifestyle" will still have to be conveyed. quote: When people refuse to use the words as they were defined (and both "sub" and "slave" once had their own meanings), confusion is created. In the particular case of "sub" and "slave", that confusion was created deliberately. It was created because the arguments used to be who was more invested in bdsm: the sub or the slave. Back then, the sub was not 24/7. He/she was a part-timer. Back then, the slave was 24/7. He/she was a full-timer. Subs did not like the distinction of being considered "bdsm-lite". They did not like the distinction of being the ones who negotiated each scene, where a slave, once owned, negotiated nothing. They didn't like being accused of topping from the bottom (as each scene could be the last one, thus they had the power to curb a dom who was eager for more). And this is not in fact "factual, recorded history" but rather what you have taken away from your past experiences. There is no Pope of Rope or Elected Board of Official BDSM Standards and Definitions. As usual, you have decided to speak for everyone back in the "good old days" rather than simply from your own personal experiences. And speaking for other people besides yourself, tends to leave one in error. quote: In other words, subs were not slaves, and for many people were less desirable than slaves. You just love speaking for other people, dont you? Once again, you have tried to apply some universal, umbrella standard that is really nothing more than your own personal opinion regarding the desirability of slaves and subs. quote: Thus the deliberate creation of confusion over what a "sub" was and what a "slave" was. Whom does this benefit? What word now applies solely to "slaves" as that term was defined originally. There is no word any longer. How does that benefit communication? It doesn't. Once again, you are creating a universal, textbook definition of a word that does not exist as a standard that all of BDSM has agreed to go by. I have absolutely no problems communicating with other people, because I take the time to define what my personal definitions for the words are. The people who understand these definitions have no confusion over what I mean when I say "submissive" or "slave". quote: Now, a "slave" (original definition) shares a label with any top-from-the-bottom submissive. As if there is no difference. Once again, the only reason the definition of these words vary is because we are talking about defining "individual lifestyles" quote: What happens when we start re-defining other words to suit ourselves. What about the person who has AIDs, redefining the term "disease free" to include himself/herself? After all, if words should only have the meaning we personally assign them, why shouldn't he/she redefine that term too? What about words like "honesty, loyalty, committment, integrity, honour, obedient" etc.? What happens when these words lose -their- meaning because those who were being excluded from their original definitions decide they're going to change the meaning so they can be included too? It's the Tower of Babel, where everyone can throw out their dictionaries and define words as they wish, regardless of what those words meant originally. Everything you have listed here are things that are basically objective. The words in this topic are subjective because we are talking about people's "individual lifestyles". This argument is irrelevant and jejune. quote: Does that promote comprehension? Will we be communicating more effectively when your owrds mean something very different to me, and my words mean something very different to you? If the two parties can come to understand each other's definitions, there isnt any problems. I have yet to have any problems communicating with the vast number of people I have met who have varying definitions of what the words mean based on their own "individual personal lifestyle". quote: Empowering people to write their own personal dictionaries, regardless of what the words' original meanings may sound great. It merely creates confusion and serves no other purpose than that. Taking it upon yourself to establish the universal, textbook definitions for words that are completely subjective to individual lifestyles is incredibly arrogant and misguided. quote: As a writer and a communicator, I fail to see why I should embrace this concept. To avoid someone like me from making you look like an idiot. quote: But I can certainly see why someone with AIDs would want to redefine "disease free" so that he/she can claim to be "disease free" too. What happens when that happens? Will those of you arguing for personal definitions embrace that effort too? Or will you then start to realize that common definitions for common words is essential for clear communication? Once again, AIDS has an objective definition that we can all reference in our local dictinonary. If the symptons and ill effects of AIDS was subjective based on the individual, then everyone would have to come up with their own definition of what AIDS is for them.

BitaTruble -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/30/2007 10:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy Oh, and to answer your question, yes, if my Master were to tell me that from now on, instead of being His slave, i was to be a Mistress, then i would do my best to be a Mistress. It would be a challenge for me, no doubt, but i would give it my best shot, just as i give being His slave my best shot, which i know i fall short on plenty of times. slave joy Owned property of Master David ___________________________________________ "Commitment transforms a promise into a reality." Okay. I don't get the Mistress thing but I don't have to get it. I do get being 'his' slave though. (Hell, I fall short, too. Just today I dropped the phone twice and disturbed him because I failed to engage my brain!) I'm Michael's slave. I don't know that I'd be able to be a slave to someone else. Unless and until I'm put into that situation, I don't suppose I 'can' know it. I was talking to ownedgirlie today and we both had mentioned that we are spoiled by our respective Masters because of the people they are and in that spoiling, I know that I would compare any other potential Master to Himself (a completely unfair comparison) and I fear I would find them lacking and not be 'able' to be a slave to anyone else but, I don't know for sure. It may be that once I discovered this truth about myself, it will remain with me forever, but I tend to think that once Michael and I are separated, either by death or dismissal, that's going to be it for me as far as M/s goes. I have a Master and his name is Michael. If there is a forever, my belief is that Michael will be my Master forever. The depth of love and loyalty I have to him seems to be one of those 'once in a lifetime' sorts of things. (Gawds, I'm getting as sappy as SimplyMichael now! lol) That thought brings tears to my eyes but it also brings a tremendous sense of joy to me. I've found someone who both amazes and inspires me. The possibility there may be someone else out there who also does that is unfathomable to me and if I can't serve with all my heart, giving 100% every day, then I can't serve at all because even if someone else never knew it, "I" would know it and "I" would be less than I am in my own eyes if I didn't give my all. Like I said though, I don't know for sure and I never did get that damn crystal ball outta the shop. ;) I've enjoyed this discourse with you, joy, and I shall continue to look forward to reading your words whatever the forum. :) Celeste

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/31/2007 12:28:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross To add to the greatness of Celestes post (and it totally rocked) I find one of the most arrogant, self centered, diminishing thing to do to another is to deny them their right of self orientation. I can think inside my head as loud as I want that "This person is totally fooling themselves" but the moment I try and actually IMPOSE my view in the world over their own- that just completely crosses a line for me. And as she said, it has nothing to do with pride or ego or need to beright- it's simply that we should all respect eachothers right to self orient and identify. So is the individual with AIDs who claims to be "disease free" to be embraced and encouraged for exercising "their right of self orientation"? The person who has sex with both genders can label him/herself as "straight"? The person who lies can label him/herself as "honest"? Where do you draw a line without "actually IMPOSE my view in the world over their own"?

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/31/2007 6:56:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin So is the individual with AIDs who claims to be "disease free" to be embraced and encouraged for exercising "their right of self orientation"? The person who has sex with both genders can label him/herself as "straight"? The person who lies can label him/herself as "honest"? Where do you draw a line without "actually IMPOSE my view in the world over their own"? Bob, lets go with your thinking and work from there. Rather than try and explain the personal beliefs you aren't getting. Look at it this way. Bob, I think you are probably a nice guy. I think you are probably a pretty lonely guy who is just looking for love. I think you have some interesting and sometimes intelligent ideas. I think you are a smart man, just not always a wise one. I think you generally have a habit of pulling analogies out of your ass. I think those analogies often show a rather fallible logic mindset. I think you often react in an imature manner. I think you often react in a churlish manner. I think you often appear hurt by other's lack of acceptance of your point of view. I think you exhibit the inability to concede a point and acknowledge you might be wrong. I think you have a great deal to offer the right person who fits with you. I think you deserve to find happiness. Now, does what I think, define you? Only in my own mind. Are you going to embrace my philosophy of Bob, and make a religion out of it? I rather think not. If how YOU define yourself brings harm to others, imposes your beliefs onto them by denying their right to provide informed consent or breaks the law, then others have a right to impose their own own defintions upon you. We do it every day in the legal system, and we practice it every day in our expectation of informed consent and risk aware consent.

cloudboy -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/31/2007 7:11:13 AM)
It was Sarte's POV that others define us, and we are not self defining. For Sarte, no one could ever effectively claim, "I'm poet." Other's would have to decide if an aspiring poet was actually a poet. To be a poet in in Sarte's world, one would generally be published, read, and treated by others as a poet. Its the conduct of others that confered the meaning of "poet." Self defining people run the risk of others saying, "yeah, right" and shaking their heads. So the question is: How do you relate to others who self define? Suppose you run into a guy who says, "I'm a poet." He gives you some of his work, you read it. Now what do you say? Encouragement or acknowledgement might lead this person down the road of delusion and frustration, or he might persist and find a true poetic voice. Condemnation, "you suck, you're not a poet" or "I don't really think you're very good," might make him give up or it might serve as a useful reality check. Equivocation leaves the poet to decide for himself all the answers he might be seeking. It seems to me that LA is from the "encouragement" camp and you are from the "as I really see it" camp. I like people who are a mix of both: people who are humane, constructive, truthful feedback artists. I don't think people should be able to willy-nilly self define, and I don't think others should be "too" harsh and judgmental.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 8 [9]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.598999E-02