|
WhiteFox77 -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/25/2008 6:01:03 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SaraZeal
I think the logic is flawed, as some others have said.
Okay, I can accept that my logic might be flawed, but I'd like someone to point out the logical flaw. So far a lot of people have tried, and none of actually shown a specific flaw in the logic.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SaraZeal
I've not been in a M/s, or a TPE/IE relationship before. And I sorta learned the existence of TPE/IE through that site something like a year ago, and I didn't go "OMG this is horrible." either. I feel I need a sort of similar, close bond, to thrive in a relationship, maybe not M/s, or IE but the bond present in it. I will no doubt attach myself to a very high degree to someone I love. And I need to love the Dom to really appreciate being dominated. As such, leaving the relationship would be harder.
The ideal on that site is to make it extremely unlikely that it's almost impossible - but few people, despite years and decades of being together working to create achieving such an ideal environment would probably only reach something close - not that exactly.
Just like it's a Christian ideal to be Christ-like, but few if any people ever attain this, some try their best though.
If '0' was an ideal, and 0 only exists in the abstract, you could at best attain '1'. Even if you went down from 10,000. From someone outside looking in, your '1' looks like a '0'.
What you are suggesting is what is called an subjective interpretation instead of an objective interpretation (it's also what RedMagic1 is suggesting by saying I'm too literal). In a subjective interpretation you assume that what a person is saying is not exactly what they mean. The problem is a subjective interpretation all definitions become meaningless. To use your analogy, a person says "you are not doing XXX unless you can reach 0", then another subjectively interprets that to mean, "well, 0 is almost impossible, so if you can reach 1 then your still doing XXX". Another person who finds the whole thing very difficult comes along and says "since this is harder for me than for most others, I'm going to say 10 is good enough for me". Another really lazy person comes along and says "well since we all get to decide what doing XXX means, I'm going to say I'm doing it even though I'm at 100".
Now we have a bunch of people saying they are doing XXX, even though none of them really are, and none of them are doing the same thing. So for all realistic purposes XXX has ceased to have any meaning at all. All of a sudden any form of logical discussion becomes impossible because we are all talking about different things.
What is more, in context of this specific topic, the site in question specifically has a section of their FAQ about this kind of interpretation.
quote:
Can't people just decide for themselves what they are?
if they're not literal slaves then we do not see how they can reasonably claim to be such (rather than making perfectly accurate statements that they like to be treated as a slave, to serve as a slave, to roleplay life as a slave or whatever other aspect of the idea of slavery they enjoy.)
I'd say the author of the site made it very clear that he expects the readers of his site to interpret the word "slave" by it's accurate literal definition. So by suggesting that I'm taking the site too literally, you are really supporting my argument that this isn't a good site to use as an IE reference.
And in the end, yes, I absolutely expect people to say what they mean and mean what they say. If people have a problem with that, then they need to stop suggesting I'm doing something wrong, and look inside them selves to determine what issues they have that makes them feel that way because expecting a person to accurately say what they mean should not be an unreasonable expectation.
--------------------------------------------
Now I'm going to ask my own question: Why are people so eager to defend this site? People say I take the sites definition of "slave" as is used on the site, too literally, yet the site specifically says to do so. I've pointed out that by the sites "idea" of IE, the potential of a life-long abusive relationship becomes possible, and at this point, no one has been able to point out anything that the site says that suggests I'm wrong. Yet people are still avidly defending the site. Why?
|
|
|
|
