RE: Is it a Mistress's right to lay down the law straight away (Full Version)

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



Message


MzMia -> RE: Is it a Mistress's right to lay down the law straight away (4/23/2009 4:08:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Do you have a total inability to hold a discussion without trying to make a mean comment when a poster disagrees with you?  I know I have absolutely no impact on your life, but it makes it very difficult to hold a discussion with you because you make or take everything so personal.  If you feel that way, sobeit.  I am a great believer that people only see and accuse others of what they have within themselves.
It would be easy enough to accuse you of exactly the same, simply because you believe the exact opposite.  But that would be pointless and fruitless to a debate.
Thing is hardbodysub, I can 100% be sure that you lay down the law on first contact, and you aren't a female dominant.  I then went to look at your profile and it's there.  The demands and the law that you believe in.
So even if the question was about s-types, the answer would still be a yes.  Because you 'can'.
 
the.dark.

 
[sm=applause.gif]
We should be able to agree to disagree, without hurling insults.
.....dark, I think you are spot on.




hardbodysub -> RE: Is it a Mistress's right to lay down the law straight away (4/23/2009 4:54:23 AM)

Right back at you, Dark. Your comments in this thread have been consistently closed-minded, pompous, and antagonistic. Why did you think I replied in that manner to you? It's got nothing to do with me taking it personally; most of your comments were directed at others. That old "why must you take it so personally" is a great cop-out. Of the countless times you've posted, I've yet to see you EVER admit to a mistake of any kind, even when it's obvious (as in the current thread). I don't do it often, but I do it.

Your last post misses the point entirely. You continue to harp on the "laying down the law" without defining what you think it means. The simple fact is that if you ask 10 people what that phrase means, specifically, you will get several different answers. it IS an ambiguous phrase, no matter what YOU say.

As an afterthought, it seems appropriate to highlight the following from your post:
quote:

I am a great believer that people only see and accuse others of what they have within themselves.

Like the taking everything personally, perhaps?




LaTigresse -> RE: Is it a Mistress's right to lay down the law straight away (4/23/2009 7:37:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

My law, my enforcement. Her consequences.



I am confused about how this is worded.

Wouldn’t it be your law, your enforcement, your consequences; her will, her choice, her consequences?

Kim


Her consequences because she is the one that suffers them. Simply because, to me, at the point she stopped complying to my law, she made her choice to suffer those consequences.




cpK69 -> RE: Is it a Mistress's right to lay down the law straight away (4/23/2009 7:55:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Her consequences because she is the one that suffers them. Simply because, to me, at the point she stopped complying to my law, she made her choice to suffer those consequences.



I can relate to what you mean by her being the one that suffers, as it would be me, if my actions went against Sir’s ‘law’, but I always understood it as my actions being the cause of my ‘suffering’, not Sir’s law.

Perhaps the difference is in the way the word consequence is perceived? To me it just means end results.

Kim




RCdc -> RE: Is it a Mistress's right to lay down the law straight away (4/23/2009 8:32:15 AM)

Absolutely I take things personally!  I believe it is only right to, it shows that you are considering someones feelings towards you.  I do not, however, give out personally unless it is specifically requested that I do, by someone I know extremely well, so in the context of yourself for example, I would not issue a personal anything unless it was presumed and supported by a fact, such as accusing someone of being closed minded.  That is what you issued (fact) and from that, I determine you are making a mean comment(subjective).  It just makes discussions difficult when it's all namecallingbackatcha kind of thing.  If I insulted you somehow, or you feel slighted because of my views I will apologise as that is not the intent.  However I will not alter them (freewill and all that - see below).

I know you have an issue with me hardbodysub, which I cannot overcome if you do not desire it.  But for the sake of the OP and others, do not bring it into public, it only bores other people when it all starts becoming about individuals and not about a question.  So I will from now on, only discuss the thread itself.
 
So, lets look at the question.  'Do Mistress's have the right' - the answer is certainly yes.  If they did not, you would not be able to lay down your law in your profile so eloquantly either.  That isn't being closed minded, that is a stated fact.  Had the question been, 'Is a Mistress right to lay down the law' - the answer is - that depends on the people within that relationship at that moment and is impossiple to answer, except from a personal viewpoint.  And when you are answering subjectively, it rarely takes into consideration other peoples preference or viewpoints except ones own.
 
Whether a person decides to accept a law (or even someones order come to that) according to *insert person here* is an entirely different matter.
People have rights - that is where freedom of speach comes in and that is where this so called closed minded, pompous and antagonistic opinion that the answer is yes, comes from.  I am pretty comfortable about that.  We are incredibly fortunate people - you and I.  People tend to forget.  We live in a (groups of) society where freedom of speach is totally cool... it's by no means perfect, but it does allow for people to be able to express themselves however they desire.  We(collectively) may not always like or agree that what someone says, issues or has thoughts on, but it is their right to do so. 
 
Now, your question as to what laying down the law means.  If I were desiring to lighten the moment,I would suggest it is a painting.[:)]
Lay down = in this context set out, to seet out, to calculate and execute, foundational, to open oneself and reveal, to establish a basis.
The law = a collection of rules and generalisations of recurring events or facts and a measure of a process.
Given =  the art of giving.  An assumption that is taken for granted based on an arrangement taking into consideration others.  Transfering posession or use of something to another.  To establish and to bring about.
Order = A command by a superior.  An already established customary state.  A request.  Regulation to bring conformity.  To bring something into being.
An order brings something into being. (You will cut off your hair) A law is what already is. (I deal only with those with short hair). Two totally different things.  If you have a different take, I would love to hear.
 
And I do apologise when I am incorrect.  It's just that I am incorrect so very infrequently.</s>[;)]
 
the.dark.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.320313E-02