quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeptha

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear
...However I reitterate, it is in no way up to any slave to try to dictate anything about the relationship except perhaps a decision as to if she will leave.

I used to imagine it would entail something closer to that, but then I started reading these forums about a month ago, and now I'm not so sure. I think I'm seeing the term "slave" used in lots of different ways here.
Maybe I'll make a post seeking clarification about that later.

Regarding dictating anything about the relationship; I suppose one could write into a contract any number of considerations in order to try to safeguard one's person, property, and mental health before taking the plunge, to give just one example.

quote:


I would argue that each was fundamentally different as it relates to choice, as noted above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
 
I would argue that each is fundamentally the same in that they both relate to choice, also as noted above.  ((This is a pivotal point in you and I reaching a meeting of the minds, me thinks))

quote:


Honour and reputation are often quite tied. 

quote:


Honour could, depending on the people involved, be satisfied and/or stained via either of those courses.  Maybe the marriage initially was a dishonour.  I am not sure of the motivations of the people. 

quote:


Imo, taking of money from a nameless, faceless entity that is insured for such losses is far less of a dishonour than breaking a commitment to/behaving dishonourably toward someone dear; it remains a dishonour but it is different. 

You quoted me as saying: 
quote:
Honour and reputation are often quite tied.
You stated:  Undeniably so, I would imagine. 

My reply:  We are of accord there. 

You quoted me as saying:  quote:
Honour could, depending on the people involved, be satisfied and/or stained via either of those courses.  Maybe the marriage initially was a dishonour.  I am not sure of the motivations of the people. 
Can motivation only impact honor in a negative fashion?  Why can it not impact honor positively as well... as in providing context to a poor memory?  If there is no motivation to do wrong, can wrong be done?  Which is not to say that even without motivation to do wrong, and no wrong having been done, that harm cannot result. 

My reply:  Motivation is not only a potential negative as I elucidated above.  I think that oft times people do wrong via greater subtlety than overt motivation to do wrong that ultimately winds up being essentially the same.  Ill thoughts, ill words, ill deeds.  If someone agrees, as in the original example and the perosnal example I cited, to have another in their relationship and they do not make the commitment with an open, honest heart and think that the person won't find someone or that they can manipulate the person to choose differently or whatever, that may not be spoken but it becomes dishonourable when they take actions to make so their covert agenda rather than upholding that to which they agreed.  Lack of self-actualization does not take one off the hook for keeping commitments.  I refuse to marginalize something so important as honour.  It is an opportunity for them to rise to the challenge.  Otherwise, they are decidedly and, at best, troglodites.  Perhaps and often much worse. 

You quoted me as saying: 
quote:
Imo, taking of money from a nameless, faceless entity that is insured for such losses is far less of a dishonour than breaking a commitment to/behaving dishonourably toward someone dear; it remains a dishonour but it is different. 
You replied:  Just like stealing from people who can afford it is far less dishonorable?  Or physically/sexually/emotionally abusing those that are better able to withstand it is less dishonorable?  Burning down John Kerry's or John McCain's house is less dishonorable, because they have other homes to go to?  (note the political neutrality) 

My reply:  I considered not interjecting that distinction for fear it would skew the conversation.  No.  They're all dishonourable things.  The examples you cited are more dishonourable, imo, because they are directly impacting others.  Again, broad-based dishonor in what both you and I cited.  I am saying something that directly wrongs another is worse and is exponentially more-so dependingon the closeness of the other but they're all taints on one's honour. 
I did note the political neutrality but why not cite Obama rather than Kerry, just out of curiosity?  That query is in no way related to our discussion.   

You said:  Looking forward to your reply. 
John

My reply:  And I to yours, John. :> 
  Davan

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

Now, might someone who cares for me offer me some level of laxity based on my f*ck up, understanding that I may be wrecked psychologically at the time.  Perhaps, and that is their choice.  Would I give myself laxity based on that.  No. 

quote:


You cited illness or disability: those can be a bit different but, again, if it's something that can be accommodated (Like my depression example), there you have it. 

quote:


Can motivation only impact honor in a negative fashion?  Why can it not impact honor positively as well... as in providing context to a poor memory?  If there is no motivation to do wrong, can wrong be done?  Which is not to say that even without motivation to do wrong, and no wrong having been done, that harm cannot result. 

quote:


Motivation is not only a potential negative as I elucidated above.  I think that oft times people do wrong via greater subtlety than overt motivation to do wrong that ultimately winds up being essentially the same.  Ill thoughts, ill words, ill deeds.  If someone agrees, as in the original example and the perosnal example I cited, to have another in their relationship and they do not make the commitment with an open, honest heart and think that the person won't find someone or that they can manipulate the person to choose differently or whatever, that may not be spoken but it becomes dishonourable when they take actions to make so their covert agenda rather than upholding that to which they agreed.  Lack of self-actualization does not take one off the hook for keeping commitments.  I refuse to marginalize something so important as honour.  It is an opportunity for them to rise to the challenge.  Otherwise, they are decidedly and, at best, troglodites.  Perhaps and often much worse. 

quote:


Imo, taking of money from a nameless, faceless entity that is insured for such losses is far less of a dishonour than breaking a commitment to/behaving dishonourably toward someone dear; it remains a dishonour but it is different. 

quote:


You replied:  Just like stealing from people who can afford it is far less dishonorable?  Or physically/sexually/emotionally abusing those that are better able to withstand it is less dishonorable?  Burning down John Kerry's or John McCain's house is less dishonorable, because they have other homes to go to?  (note the political neutrality) 

quote:


I considered not interjecting that distinction for fear it would skew the conversation.  No.  They're all dishonourable things.  The examples you cited are more dishonourable, imo, because they are directly impacting others.  Again, broad-based dishonor in what both you and I cited.  I am saying something that directly wrongs another is worse and is exponentially more-so dependingon the closeness of the other but they're all taints on one's honour. 

quote:


I did note the political neutrality but why not cite Obama rather than Kerry, just out of curiosity?  That query is in no way related to our discussion.   

Hi, John----
 
You quoted me:  quote:
ORIGINAL: DavanKael
Now, might someone who cares for me offer me some level of laxity based on my f*ck up, understanding that I may be wrecked psychologically at the time.  Perhaps, and that is their choice.  Would I give myself laxity based on that.  No. 

You queried:  And is it typically your responsibility in the context of a power exchange relationship to determine what is, and what isn't dishonorable?  Are you responsible for your own punishment?  Is it still a wrong if he says it's not?

My reply:  Well, I was in a vanilla marriage for 15 years, although arguably I served as much as I could and quite substantially despite the lack o a Dominant spouse.  I had 1 long-term poly-D/s relationship during that time where I was more on the D-side of the kneel, and I have had a 1 relationship since I was married (Nearly a year in duration) where I behaved in submission to an individual.  So, you may argue 'newbie' experientially.  I would argue adept at knowing what I am and understanding myself, bdsm, and relating in partnered ways with various dynamics. 
To answer your question:  In any relationship, power exchange or not, my internal compass of honourability remains constant; I do not become an automaton via submission.  If the person to whom I was behaving in submission pointed out to me that he believed I was doing something dishonourable, I would certainly take what was said with heavy weight immediately and with great seriousness.  If I have given someone power over me and he chooses to punish me for a transgression, that is his right.  My own self-punishing (pyschological) for something I considered a f*ck up or dishonour is entirely different.  I would trust my partner, I did trust anyone who held that kind of sway in my life.  My sense of honour is stronger and less changeable than those of any of the men I noted above, although I believe them all capable of achieving high stations of honour or I'd not have shared my life, time, and energies with them.

You quoted me as saying:  quote:
You cited illness or disability: those can be a bit different but, again, if it's something that can be accommodated (Like my depression example), there you have it. 

You stated:  Funny thing about disabilities... those of us with them tend to be tougher on ourselves than would otherwise be the case if we had no disability at all.  We cut ourselves no slack or accomodation, as if in doing so we can prove ourselves to be "normal".  Or at the very least, deserving of no special treatment.  Which is fair, if we hold ourselves to the same standards as others.  But often that is not the case, and we often set the bar higher... unrealisticly so.

My reply:  Perhaps.  And, perhaps that is where others come in and offer a softer hand than we grace ourselves with.  The individual I mentioned as a most recent relationship was very healing for me regarding a certain limitation that I have.  It's not one that most people would ever notice but I feel lesser as a result of it being the case and am keenly and painfully aware of it.  Whatever else good or bad we shared, his way of relating to what I consider to be a flaw was very healing for me.  And, I will always appreciate that.  I can't change physiology in some ways but I can serve as best I am able and I can, as you suggest set the bar higher.  That is a choice.  To me, setting the bar higher doesn't feed into my negative feelings about the issue per se; it is a reminder not to be self-defeating and to strive to be the best I can be.  I am not sure of what disability you speak or of the profundity. 

You queried:  Can motivation only impact honor in a negative fashion?  Why can it not impact honor positively as well... as in providing context to a poor memory?  If there is no motivation to do wrong, can wrong be done?  Which is not to say that even without motivation to do wrong, and no wrong having been done, that harm cannot result. 

My reply:  Certainly, motivation can affect honour in a positive fashion.  I have given several examples and spoken of directly that in previous posts.  My overall message is one of positivity, of living upto rather than marginalizing. 
Of course wrong can be done if there is no motivation to do wrong.  Apathy, as an example.  If I sit twiddling my fingers as someone gets raped (Extreme example), I have still committed a wrong and imo disgraced and dishonoured myself most definitely. 
And, as I said previously, I think most wrongs and dishonours are more subtle: agreements made without an honest heart and without good intent. 

You quoted me as saying:  quote:
Motivation is not only a potential negative as I elucidated above.  I think that oft times people do wrong via greater subtlety than overt motivation to do wrong that ultimately winds up being essentially the same.  Ill thoughts, ill words, ill deeds.  If someone agrees, as in the original example and the perosnal example I cited, to have another in their relationship and they do not make the commitment with an open, honest heart and think that the person won't find someone or that they can manipulate the person to choose differently or whatever, that may not be spoken but it becomes dishonourable when they take actions to make so their covert agenda rather than upholding that to which they agreed.  And, in multi-peopled situations, imo, you don't make commitments to others if you can't keep commitments to all.  Lack of self-actualization does not take one off the hook for keeping commitments.  I refuse to marginalize something so important as honour.  It is an opportunity for them to rise to the challenge.  Otherwise, they are decidedly and, at best, troglodites.  Perhaps and often much worse.  
 
You replied:  Perhaps it's just me, but I read your response and see an over reliance upon the negative impact of motivation on honor.  I think if you flesh that out, then you'd have to come to a conclusion that lack of malice, lack of carelessness or negligence, or even just plain old well intentioned error cannot impact honor in the same fashion.

My reply:  Lol, perhaps my maudlin mood colours that a bit and I'll roll that around in the ole noggin' and grant that I may be presenting things in a more negative fashion than I sometimes do.  I would also say that my overall sense of hopefulness about that which people are capable of shines through:  I keep asserting over and over again that honour and right conduct is the birthright of just about everyone if only they choose to rise to the occasion. 
A stupid mistake is probably less of a dishonour than an overt act.  Those subtle dishonesties that accumulate into greater dishonours fall somewhere in the middle then ooze toward the negative extreme of the continuum as they play themselves out.  I am not arguing total black and white in terms of severity of wrongs or ills but I am arguing that stupid mistakes are often made out of lack of consideration, inattention, and things that are very much controllable. 

You quoted me as saying:  quote:
Imo, taking of money from a nameless, faceless entity that is insured for such losses is far less of a dishonour than breaking a commitment to/behaving dishonourably toward someone dear; it remains a dishonour but it is different.
quote:
You replied:  Just like stealing from people who can afford it is far less dishonorable?  Or physically/sexually/emotionally abusing those that are better able to withstand it is less dishonorable?  Burning down John Kerry's or John McCain's house is less dishonorable, because they have other homes to go to?  (note the political neutrality)
  quote:
I considered not interjecting that distinction for fear it would skew the conversation.  No.  They're all dishonourable things.  The examples you cited are more dishonourable, imo, because they are directly impacting others.  Again, broad-based dishonor in what both you and I cited.  I am saying something that directly wrongs another is worse and is exponentially more-so dependingon the closeness of the other but they're all taints on one's honour. 
Just like shooting someone face to face is more dishonorable than setting a bomb that explodes while you're miles away?  The distance from the theft to the individual shareholders who are impacted (whether they be at the nameless, faceless company or the nameless, faceless insurance company) makes it better?  It's better because the criminal doesn't have to look the victims in the eye?  Who is it better for?  I sense that the only one that benefits is the criminal. 

My reply:  Actually, if someone has wronged me or mine to the degree where I am needing to wipe them off of the planet, I want to be eye to eye and face to face, probably with a blade, as I help them on their way to oblivion (Assuming I can do so with minimal likelihood of them sending me there instead): imo, if it is so personal that I am killing a person, it is more honourable face to face.  If I had to rely on distance to get the job done and to ensure my safety and their demise, I'd think it a somewhat less honourable kill but would comfort myself in fact that the honourable course of action was ultimately taken and pragmatism satisfied even if I couldn't carry it out with the intimacy it deserved.  Note: having loved ones who have served honourably in the Armed Forces and with utmost respect for those who do and have served, I am in no way calling a distance kill under their circumstances dishonourable.  I have never been in the military nor will I be, so my lexicon of the idea of taking someone out would be for personal reasons. 
I only interjected that scenario of a nameless, faceless entity as a polarization of closeness of wrong done, not an an anarchic statement of believing it right to pillage corporate America.  If that were the case, I'd be a lot more financially secure at this moment than I am, lol!  :> 

You quoted me as saying:  quote:
I did note the political neutrality but why not cite Obama rather than Kerry, just out of curiosity?  That query is in no way related to our discussion.   

quote:



I'm also coming in late in the game, but I love putting in my two cents, so here goes:

It sounds an awful lot like you initially told your Master that you would be fine with a sister slave. You even state that it might be nice. So, either faced with the reality, you decided it may not be the right decision after all, or you didn't really think he'd go through with it and now you're panicking.

If the latter occurred, well, perhaps you should think about agreeing to things that you know won't work for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

By way of contrasting mistake with willful disobedience, I stated:

quote:


I would argue that each was fundamentally different as it relates to choice, as noted above.

To which you replied:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
 
I would argue that each is fundamentally the same in that they both relate to choice, also as noted above.  ((This is a pivotal point in you and I reaching a meeting of the minds, me thinks))

And I agree... I believe we have reached a point of impasse in that I cannot identify choice in a poor memory.  Heck, that poor memory may even be quantifiable or the result of injury or disease.  No, I simply cannot accept that there is any element of choice involved, though that does not preclude you from doing so (to state the obvious).  

John

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiseCracknSadist
Either you are who you say you are and you honor that or you're just masquerading in which case it won;t take long for him to figure that out and everything fall apart.

SimplyMichael made some quotes:  quote:
ORIGINAL: DavanKael (that's me)
I would argue that each is fundamentally the same in that they both relate to choice, also as noted above.  ((This is a pivotal point in you and I reaching a meeting of the minds, me thinks))
John said: And I agree... I believe we have reached a point of impasse in that I cannot identify choice in a poor memory.  Heck, that poor memory may even be quantifiable or the result of injury or disease.  No, I simply cannot accept that there is any element of choice involved, though that does not preclude you from doing so (to state the obvious).  
John
SimplyMichael said:  If I counted poor memory as a personal failing, BSB and I would never have gotten wherever it is we are now.  My memory isn't the best but hers is like a steel sieve.  It took me a LONG time to not take her forgetting something as a personal affront, a sign of disinterest.  I have instead taught myself to take it as a gift when she does remember things.  We even at times make a game of it.  There are also ways someone can work on retaining things, learning to write them down but for people with ADHD it is brutally difficult for a host of reasons.  I could call it all bitter and sour or I could add some sugar in the form of love and understanding and have lemonade together.  The choice for me was rather obvious. 
So the trick is to be able to discerne, "I forgot" from "I forgot" with one being "I didn't care enough to remember" as opposed to "I tried so hard to remember but then I saw this piece of paper on the floor and so I realized the trash needed to go out but I haven't mailed the utility bills so I need to go get stamps and so I am going shopping and oh my god Macy's has a sale, I need to call Nicole to go with me to have lunch"

My reply:  I agree, that some circumstances make things more challenging: like the adhd, for example. I also work with folks with adhd and know that there are all manner of coping mechanisms.  You need to commit to making them habits, though and it is effort.  But, isn't a significant other worth the effort?  My point was more that if someone or something matters, you figure out how to make that priority something you remember and you do what you say you're going to do: at least, if you're me.  If I told someone I would bring them something and I forgot, I would be far more upset at myself than they would be most likely.  I means I did not have my focus in the appropriate place.  If I make a promise, it can be taken to the bank. 
Also, little forgetfulnesses aren't the same as something profound but they can be cumulative and could indicate someone does not care enough to remember. 
Some things are more profound.  A dear friend/partnerbroke serious commitments to me lately that are far more important than the example I'll give in a few.  My example is of that person's significant other's behavior: someone, in a sit-down, focused conversation made a promise to me, after months of inconsistent, disrespectful behavior.  Then, months later proposed to break the promise on yet another whim.  I called the person a liar.  They initially said they never promised.  I said yes you did.  They then changed what they recalled having said several different times within a 24 hour timespan.  All it boiled down to, imo, was a meaningless promise, in the first place that they didn't intend to keep but I called the person out on it and, in the end, they still didn't show the tiniest shred of honour.  Their overall intent, initially and at most points throughout evidenced dishonour, imo. 
This is more along the lines of where I think the OP went.  I think she made agreements and then thought she could manipulate her way out of them.  Hence mine and John's protracted discussion on honour. 
Davan