Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/16/2005 11:25:17 PM   
Noah


Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zaynab

*whispering.... not to interrupt, Noah Sir... but i was just wondering if you've ever tried Molson xxx beer?....


As a general rule, zaynab dear, if it is referred to as triple-X there is a pretty good chance I've tried it.

(in reply to zaynab)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 12:07:19 AM   
Noah


Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Well, partly that's because the way you're describing Buddhism sounds completely Christianized. When you're talking about faith, you're talking about Christianity.

Edited to add: It's always amusing how Christians seem to believe that their message is relevant to everyone on earth. It's almost like they can't imagine someone who wouldn't benefit from hearing a little more about Christ.


L.a.m., I grabbed an expression from a Buddhist source and admitted I was doing so out of context. If you found a description of Buddhism there you may have been looking too hard.

Another amusing thing is a habit some people have of telling another person what the other person is talking about, erroneously. When I talk about faith in a BDSM context I'm talking about the faith that one person has and expresses in another. I don't think Christians have a monopoly on this or anything else of value.

Yeah, it occurred to me that some light might be shed by thinking about a well-known historical discussion which some intelligent people have had about ideas in a famous book. Crazy? I dunno. Even though I reflected on ideas from Christian sources I was careful from the start to share my view that the matter at hand did not seem to be one that Christians could claim as their own. I even gave an example to support this view. Why this resulted in a spattering of defensive and antagonistic replies is a question I'm content to leave open.

Again, I'm grateful to those who addressed the (non-sectarian, a-religious) issue that Emeraldslave2's comment stirred for me.

Noah

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 12:16:03 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		To answer the question most directly the act itself is not dominant or submissive the motivation behind the act gives it meaning.

If I tell you to flog me, and do it well and for this long and in this manner and with this tool and ......... and you flog me following every direction I give you then the act is one of submission because you submitted your will to mine.

The same can be said for any act I have ever encountered. I am sure that someone will eventually come up with the exception that proves the rule though, LOL.

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 12:36:54 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Maybe it's because you took what might be the most central concept in Christian theology and tried to apply it to BDSM. What is meant by "faith" in the expression "faith and works," with which you began this thread, is not by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as "the faith that one person has and expresses in another." I no longer understand which "faith" you're talking about--and, as you can tell, I'm not the only person who has been perplexed by your use of this word.

Another reason for the responses you've gotten is that lately religion has been debated on here ad nauseam and many regulars are tired of it. You don't know that, because you've been on the site for less than two weeks. That's not to say you don't have a right to talk about faith if you'd like, but don't be mystified when people react negatively. Frankly, we're oversaturated with faith.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

When I talk about faith in a BDSM context I'm talking about the faith that one person has and expresses in another. I don't think Christians have a monopoly on this or anything else of value.

Yeah, it occurred to me that some light might be shed by thinking about a well-known historical discussion which some intelligent people have had about ideas in a famous book. Crazy? I dunno. Even though I reflected on ideas from Christian sources I was careful from the start to share my view that the matter at hand did not seem to be one that Christians could claim as their own. I even gave an example to support this view. Why this resulted in a spattering of defensive and antagonistic replies is a question I'm content to leave open.



< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 7/17/2005 12:38:33 AM >

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 1:30:45 AM   
Noah


Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

Forget faith-that's an abstract conception.

People cultivate connections to foster their fulfillment in living richer lives. This is about indulgence,rather than abstractions of "belief systems".

"Actions" are outward expressions of inner worlds, and they help people to share a reality in a tangible manner. But their initial expressions always began within. This is the root,the place below the waterline.

What one sees on the surface is merely the tip of the iceberg.


Okay, props to Gemeni.

Putting that iceberg comment next to that photo was just comedic genius.

And how about--let me paraphrase: "Forget about abstract conceptions like faith. Lets talk about concrete, tangible entities like "richer lives" and "inner worlds", and "indulgence." Hilarious.

And speaking of indulgence, people cultivate connections as a matter of indulgence and that's that, eh Gemeni? Sounds pretty pat, like most reductionist arguments. Why not go further?

Interpersonal connections and lives and indeed people themselves are just epiphenomenal upon materially determined cellular events. That is to say that people are not shaking hands and conversing and kissing and spanking in order to make connections, as you suggest. Instead their lips and hands are just flapping away while irrelevant notions flit through their minds (whoops. sorry. another abstract conception; scratch that mind stuff and say brains instead) and all because of certain chemical releases and uptakes at the cellular level. I just explained every submissive and dominant action that ever has or ever will take place. Furthermore I did it without recourse to abstract conceptions! Does everyone understand every nuance their sub or dom's behavior yet? No? That is because my explanation was no more than a reductionist exercise.

Now you can straighten me out by telling me that cellular events are just epiphenomenal upon molecular events. Then I can try to trump you with my theory that molecular events are just epiphenomenal upon quantum events. A whole stack of reductionist arguments, each one equally defensible, in fact each one very strong on its own terms.

Unfortunately, none of these arguments shed a glimmer of light on the matters at hand. The last three (mine) are coherent but utterly trivial, the first one (Gemeni's) is incoherent (see exclusion of abstract conceptions) and begs all the interesting questions.

Now as for expressions starting within, well viewed one way that seems a promising first thing to say even if the entire expression is little more than a recapitulation of the term "expression". But we have to start a conversation somewhere.

So your answer to the question: "If not acts then what?" is "something within"? Super. That is coherent, non-trivial and doesn't beg the question. Even very small steps can result in progress. Care to flesh this out for us in anything but reductionist terms?

Noah

(in reply to Gemeni)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 2:41:50 AM   
lonewolf05


Posts: 830
Joined: 6/21/2005
Status: offline 		the only tangible word i get in here is ======faith.?

i am not one of the church people so deities are out. but that is in faith, right? there is no solid proof, of after life.

so if i get close to target here.....faith in a Dom/me and they have faith in the submissive....each one accounting of their own acts....in faith? help me out here.

some acts i would guess could-be dominant ones...but isn't this up to each person's viewpoint?
some acts i would guess could-be submissive ones...and up to each person's viewpoint?


i do not know of any that can be clearly defined by a court of law of bdsm judges. whom would we appoint? on what grounds?

i am trying to understand these long posts but so many BIG words and i have trouble trying to grasp it all. i'm no college boy, evidently to you, but isn't all this just opinion? viewpoint?

help me out here, huh?

thanks
wolf



(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 3:19:47 AM   
onceburned


Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline 		Dominance and submission is a relationship. They are a form of interrelating, just as romance or friendship are forms of interrelating.

The acts, in themselves, do not necessarily express the same meanings. Ironing clothes for my overworked mother has a different meaning than ironing the clothes for my domme. Ironing my mom's laundry is meant as a positive help for her, and is done out of love. I think she saw it as such. Doing the ironing for my domme might be viewed as an expected chore or a surprising but nice gesture

Moreover, the meanings of a given act is built up by the history of the relationship between two people. Because we interpret any act against the background of past behavior, the weight as well as the meaning we attach to actions will be built up and modified during the on going relationship.

(I hope this makes sense... the hour is early and my brain is foggy)

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 4:11:05 AM   
ElektraUkM


Posts: 309
Joined: 2/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Archer: To answer the question most directly the act itself is not dominant or submissive the motivation behind the act gives it meaning.

If I tell you to flog me, and do it well and for this long and in this manner and with this tool and ......... and you flog me following every direction I give you then the act is one of submission because you submitted your will to mine.


quote:

onceburned

The acts, in themselves, do not necessarily express the same meanings. Ironing clothes for my overworked mother has a different meaning than ironing the clothes for my domme. Ironing my mom's laundry is meant as a positive help for her, and is done out of love. I think she saw it as such. Doing the ironing for my domme might be viewed as an expected chore or a surprising but nice gesture



I'm snipping these two quotes because I think they express for me something of what I think about this question. They talk about Meaning and Intention with regard to Acts. That is what's important, that's what makes the same act at different times either dominant or submissive.

Now, whether it's useful to go beyond that to identify the Origin of that Intention, the Reason behind the Meaning, I don't know. Personally, I think that that would be where we all diverge into our own theories, whether from Psychology, Faith, Biology, Physics, or 'Common Sense' or whatever. I am not sure that going down that route would produce anything other than a whole series of parallel or conflicting theorising.

That doesn't mean to say I'm against such an enquiry ~ in fact, I'd like to witness it, if it were going to happen. I was particularly interested in Noah's description here:

quote:

Noah

... In fact when I have had the experience of acquainting a submissive with her It-ness, sometimes very deeply and even dangerously, we have so far in every case found a floor under that desire for It-ness. What that floor was was not uniform for each person. Some were pleased to find what was truly there even though it came contrary to their expectations. Others were disappointed, even bitterly. They were in love with the notion of a bottomless pit within themselves, you might say, and hated to find something more, or less.


And I'd like to hear what he thinks about that floor and what was under it.


~ Elektra

(in reply to Gemeni)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 5:49:10 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
IMO - as a person - not whether I am a christian(duh!) or not... but as a person, I agree with Emeralds statement(as I do 90% of the time...)

Dominance/mastery and submission/service are not about the acts. It is about, at least for me, the intention of the 'act'. Scooter mentions about
quote:

catering to personal whims, preparing meals, doing assigned tasks, submitting to acts of pleasure (weg), I see these as true acts of submission.


Dominants have prepared meals for me at times - and in the past with others, I have 'Dominated' - but that doesn't mean that the act itself is Dominant - If I cause someone pain from any sort of play because its what they desire - that doesn't mean I am dominating. If I bind someone, because it's their desire, that isn't dominantion. The control is always in someone elses hands - so in my opinion it is the intention - the end result - not the act itself.

Am I making any sense?
(Beautiful post BTW)

_____________________________
.dark.



...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 7:01:52 AM   
Faramir


Posts: 1043
Joined: 2/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

Okay, props to Gemeni.

Putting that iceberg comment next to that photo was just comedic genius.

And how about--let me paraphrase: "Forget about abstract conceptions like faith. Lets talk about concrete, tangible entities like "richer lives" and "inner worlds", and "indulgence." Hilarious.


Noah


I'm just chortling away into my morning coffee here :)

When I read Terry's comment I just busted out laughing - the unintended comedy of using languge (what could be more abstract?) to dismiss abstract concepts is too fucking funny. Priceless

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 7:05:59 AM   
ScooterTrash


Posts: 1407
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

so in my opinion it is the intention - the end result - not the act itself
I understand and agree that AN act itself without any connection would be this way. Perhaps I didn't make my particular take on this subject clear, from my perspective anyway. I guess my point was, more precisely, that an expected or directed act, would (or could) be an act of Dominance or submission. Certainly, a disassociated act in itself would not necessarily be either. I'm sure I could BBQ chicken for a room full of sub/slaves (winks) and not consider myself subservient to them. By the same token, if the same group was directed to clean up and put everything away afterwards, their actions by doing so would be acts of submission. So I guess it depends on the situation at the time, whether an act would actually have any connection to their Dominant or submissive orientation.

edited..I hate early morning typos

< Message edited by ScooterTrash -- 7/17/2005 7:22:43 AM >

_____________________________

Formal symbolic representation of qualitative entities is doomed to its rightful place of minor significance in a world where flowers and beautiful women abound.
-Albert Einstein

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 7:36:59 AM   
Faramir


Posts: 1043
Joined: 2/12/2005
Status: offline 		And for the people who are getting their panties all bunched up over the mere mention of religion: you can let go of your waistbands now. There's nothing remotely prosyletizing about the OP. You don't have to be a Christian to borrow a concept from Christianity. I'm not a Buddhist, but I read The Giver and got something out of it. The author was completely fine in taking something from Buddhism (The Noble Eightfold Path) and using it to shed light on political and social questions - in fact she was brilliant to have done so.

Hell - I didn't cry pantybunch tears when I read Les Jeus Sont Fait - you don't have to be an existentialist to read Satre and think a bit. The ability to to take connections from one place and use it somewhere else is called analogous thinking, and it's a sign of intelligence (at least it is associated with success in graduate school - hence the MAT). We can say, "A is to B, as X is to Y," and it doesn't matter where A and B are from: The Bible, the Koran, The Ethica, Goldman and Narcissis, The Matrix - you can entertain the analogy, and judge it on it's own merits without believing or accepting wholesale the source for the analogy. ScooterTrash's knee-jerk distress at the mere mention of something (anything touching religion) is sad - fearful, rigid thinking that does not allow for creative thinking.


It scares me to think how inflexible and limited some of you are intellectualy - I can't imagine living in a tiny, narrow world without the ability to have nuanced, open-ended thinking.



< Message edited by Faramir -- 7/17/2005 7:44:59 AM >

(in reply to Faramir)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 8:12:07 AM   
ScooterTrash


Posts: 1407
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ScooterTrash's knee-jerk distress at the mere mention of something (anything) is sad - fearful, rigid thinking that does allow for creative thinking.
That's interesting. There was no knee jerk response, I was certainly not distressed, and the reference was valid as that was where the OP took his concept from. My point was that it was not necessary to drag religion into it, as just as your response has proven, it drags the post off course. Me, narrow minded and inflexible? Far from it, but many who "get into" using religion as the basis of their opinions many times are (not insinuating the OP was). I may in fact reference something someone doesn't "respect", but will attempt to play it down so it does not end up being the topic discussed. Point proven here, where your response (and now mine) has contributed nothing to the subject at hand.

_____________________________

Formal symbolic representation of qualitative entities is doomed to its rightful place of minor significance in a world where flowers and beautiful women abound.
-Albert Einstein

(in reply to Faramir)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 8:13:29 AM   
njwinesir


Posts: 1
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline 		acts can be submissive or not. a sub that hangs up the phone or refuses to talk,, this is not a submmisive act.

alot of acts are in fact controlling, either for good or bad

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 8:36:09 AM   
ScooterTrash


Posts: 1407
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline 		Back on track and having given this some more thought, it seems some "acts" would actually be necessary to define roles. Case in point; Dominants generally behave in such a manner as to exude control. This is something submissives want to see and in a way firms up their submission. It is in fact behavioral characteristics, but also is a package of acts in a way. The exercising of authority may consist of assigning tasks or controlling a scene, being the one who does the binding, utilizing the toys (tools) at hand, determining the time elements, basically being the one in control. Even the act of giving aftercare is an expected Dominant response. Granted, in many cases the "acts" themselves may be unrelated, but they can be defining factors and necessary to the mental state of the submissive. Someone who does not display these characteristics and never "shows" they are Dominant by not performing these acts, may have a serious time controlling a submissive as they won't appear as such. Every action made may help (or hinder) defining their role.

_____________________________

Formal symbolic representation of qualitative entities is doomed to its rightful place of minor significance in a world where flowers and beautiful women abound.
-Albert Einstein

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 9:11:43 AM   
Gemeni


Posts: 255
Joined: 2/19/2005
Status: offline 		Very well then.

If you want to talk "faith", lets see this as building a connection with another person. You need to trust and respect them. (hopefully you don't treat them in the condescending and dismissive manner you have with many who replied so far,this helps neither.)

Faith in something unproven and truly abstract,like an invisible "god" is only a dogmatic response from cultural conditioning. It cannot be proven or disproven-people believe because they fear death. And people here prefer to talk about realities that can be proven-not debate cultural fantasies with those too stubborn to see alternatives. Enough said on that issue.

Let's address insecurity next. Huge numbers of people with the desire to Dominate do it from a lack of self confidence. Much of life is beyond control for them-so they seek another person who can alleviate their feelings of powerlessness with obedience on a mirco level. It is difficult for a submissive person to place faith in a person this fragile,once this is realized.

Insecurity on the submissive side often seems manifest in seeking a "wise guide" to help them to "grow". The problem here being that what one "feels" may be best for a submissive/slave is going to be filtered through the Dominant's desire to have their own needs met. The person in control may even feel deeply that they are being altruistic by "communicating" and "taking her needs into account".

This then justifies in the Dominant mind ,doing exactly what they wanted to anyway.

A healthier sort of dynamic results from choosing a bit closer matches-rather then seeking the arrogant approach of "molding" another person to be something they really can't deal with becoming.

To really have the faith being discussed here-you need to know that someone realizes and deeply accepts who one is. Much like a mythical "God", how can one have a relationship with a skewed perspective, which utterly fails to have a connection to reality?

Is this a bit more concise?

(in reply to Noah)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 9:18:30 AM   
Gemeni


Posts: 255
Joined: 2/19/2005
Status: offline 		And I agree Scooter.

Locking another person into a cage would certainly be seen as on overtly controlling action.

I certainly cannot see how reversing it could be seen as Controlling. I'm sure that we could debate actions as being supported by desire, ad nauseum-but then it would just be the same old tired debate about *switches*.

But situataional reversal for "kink" is not exactly the same as non-switching D/s.

(in reply to ScooterTrash)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 9:21:02 AM   
Faramir


Posts: 1043
Joined: 2/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash
My point was that it was not necessary to drag religion into it, as just as your response has proven, it drags the post off course.


That's the knee-jerk part - the OP was in no way religious, had no religious content - it was about D/s, articualting D/s via analogy. The analogy source was a religious one, but it could have been political, economic, philosophical, artisitc - anything.

If the OP had used a political analogy and you had bitched about people always dragging politics in I would have thougt, "Wow, what a pathetic, knee-jerk reaction."

If the OP had used an economic analogy and you had bitched about people always dragging economics in I would have thougt, "Wow, what a pathetic, knee-jerk reaction."

If the OP had used an analogy from philosophy and you had bitched about people always dragging philosophy in I would have thougt, "Wow, what a pathetic, knee-jerk reaction."

If the OP had used an analogy from the natural sciences and you had bitched about people always dragging "science" in I would have thougt, "Wow, what a pathetic, knee-jerk reaction."

If any given subject matter: religion, natural sciences, ethics, politics, etc, inspires you to reach down, grab your panties and yank them up until you squeel - you're having a knee-jerk reaction.

Hope that helps, Mr. Trash.





quote:

ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash
Point proven here, where your response (and now mine) has contributed nothing to the subject at hand.


Hey - you're the one who can't control his knee - maybe you should just stop posting until you feel better?

(in reply to ScooterTrash)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 9:29:18 AM   
Gemeni


Posts: 255
Joined: 2/19/2005
Status: offline 		I can see your point.

But also realize that many Subs DO seem to place a "god status" on thier Dominants.

I'm interested,what is your take on that?

< Message edited by Gemeni -- 7/17/2005 9:32:47 AM >

(in reply to Faramir)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 7/17/2005 9:58:57 AM   
ElektraUkM


Posts: 309
Joined: 2/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

Locking another person into a cage would certainly be seen as on overtly controlling action.


If someone tells me to lock them in a cage, and I obey, who is in control..?

OK.. the person in the cage has put themselves in a very vulnerable position (it's an extreme example), but that doesn't mean they are necessarily the one being controlled.

Apologies if I'm missing something.

~ Elektra


(in reply to Gemeni)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078