RE: are we all "equal"?

RE: are we all "equal"? (Full Version)

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

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:44:43 PM)
It was something from Shakespeare, but now that I think of it, it was just lawyers.

alanswhore -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:45:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel Isn't Alan Shore a tv character on Boston Legal? Yes. He is a fictional lawyer who is very, very, VERY good at what he does, probably because there is a team of writers and directors and an Emmy-winning actor making him that way. My owner, who is not fictional, is just a very good lawyer who has to write and direct his own lines, and who therefore rather envies the ease with which Alan Shore is Alan Shore. That's all his username means. (Well, that and he knows I have a bit of a fictional-character-crush on Alan Shore, which it amuses him to indulge. :-p )

mnottertail -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:47:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It was something from Shakespeare, but now that I think of it, it was just lawyers. Ah, yes----------- The first thing let's do------we kill all the lawyers.

subtee -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:48:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail My definition of equality, equinamity, and equivalence is: The whale is undoubtably one of the largest mammals alive today. Ron Unequivocal, that.

PeonForHer -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:50:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamerdreaming Its not that we're equal. Its that we have equal rights. Yep. This great debate won't even stop spinning on the ground unless we first distinguish between different versions of 'equality'. Morally, we are all equal; having equal rights is a corollary of that. (The only societies that have really tried to build an ideology out of superiority/inferiority in contemporary times have collapsed and failed. Evidently such societies are built on upon inferior ideologies - which is a bit of an irony.) Another corollary is the assumption that one side of a BDSM relationship sees it as his or her right to choose to give away power to the other side. The very fact that people - submissives - take it for granted that they have the right to choose to give away their power implies that they further assume that they're morally equal to their dominants. The fact that dominants know that they can't, morally, force submission on others, implies that they acknowledge that equality too. Aside from all that dry stuff: me, I love the thought of a D/s relationship being about two people who are in all ways just ordinary - except for the fact that one likes to dominate and the other likes to submit. I love that. It turns me on, enormously. All the quasi-ideologies, -mysticisms or -religions that others may want to build on top of that are irrelevant to me.

Alanshoreisgod -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:50:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It was something from Shakespeare, but now that I think of it, it was just lawyers. Henry VI, part II, a line uttered by a character named Dick the Butcher, "first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". Some however have argued that the line, by Shakespeare, was not meant as it's popularly considered. Dick was a rabble rouser, violent extremist, and anarchist. The content of the discussion was, essentially, a violent rebellion and overthrow of the current monarchy, and how to achieve it. As such the line "let's kill all the lawyers" has been read by some to mean that, in Dick's view, the best way to overthrow law and order is to first take out the people who enforce that law and order, the lawyers. In interpretation I favor, for obvious reasons.

tazzygirl -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:51:59 PM)
quote: I'm often disturbed by people. Amongst the list of people that disturb me are those who seem to think that they're superior people compared to their partners (or perhaps more often than not, their hypothetical partners that they hope to have some day) because they refer to themselves in capitalized honorifics. hypothetical? i think many here are honest about their relationships, meaning, being in one or not. was there a reason why you added this?

Jeptha -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:52:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent General reply: Perhaps people who place a great deal of emphasis on 'winning' see life as full of winners and losers/chiefs and indians. Perhaps people who place more emphasis on enjoying the ride see little value in attempting to divide people into superiors and inferiors. it's an interesting thought. As to the original question, I'd say equal, for largely the same reasons Alanshoreisgod gave: that we both have freely chosen to participate in the relationship and either can revoke that consent at any time. That sounds pretty equal to me. To take a slightly different tack, I don't see any one person's happiness taking precedence over the other's. Now - that is not to say that we don't sometimes make sacrifices (how much nobler that sounds than "compromises") to somebody else's happiness. But, personally, I'm not looking for that kind of sacrifice of my partner's happiness to the benefit of mine on an extended basis. If the condition is known to me, I will change something, and if it is unknown to me, I consider it a deception if carried on too long. So, in that way too, I would consider it an equality.

Alanshoreisgod -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:54:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl hypothetical? i think many here are honest about their relationships, meaning, being in one or not. was there a reason why you added this? Mainly I think that, for the most part, actually HAVING and BEING in a d/s relationship tends to strip away a lot of the fantasy, and replace it with cold hard reality, and that people who write about d/s relationships, not from the perspective of what I see to be a mature, knowledgeable adult who has lived in those relationships, experienced the ups and downs of them, and learned to adapt and evolve when reality intervenes, but instead discusses them like bad literotica porn...probably hasn't really been in one.

tazzygirl -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:57:20 PM)
and, of course, it is only your perception of what is mature and knowledgeable....?

Alanshoreisgod -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 6:59:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl and, of course, it is only your perception of what is mature and knowledgeable....? Of course it is. We all go through life with only our perceptions to guide us. My perceptions are mine, and mine alone, based and shaped on my life experiences.

tazzygirl -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 7:00:18 PM)
so you have no issues with being judgemental

mnottertail -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 7:01:47 PM)
I typed one in and lost it on this machine. Those that argued that Dick was an anarchist were those in power. Not the common folk, who the plays were written for and played to. Like we now want to kill senators and congressmen. They are standing in the doorways and blocking the halls, for the times they are a' changing.

Alanshoreisgod -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 7:03:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl so you have no issues with being judgemental All of us make judgments, about everything, all the time. One could argue that every single decision you make is a judgment. I will never tell anyone what relationship they should have, or how to live their lives. That is their choice, not mine. But do I have opinions on some of their choices? Absolutely I do. We all do. Even you.

tazzygirl -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 7:04:55 PM)
true, but i dont think i am so superior that i can tell who has a D/s relationship.. no.. wait.. a successful D/s relationship.. by a few typed words on a message board. man!! muct be great to be a god, huh.

Alanshoreisgod -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 7:05:02 PM)
[ quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I typed one in and lost it on this machine. Those that argued that Dick was an anarchist were those in power. Not the common folk, who the plays were written for and played to. Like we now want to kill senators and congressmen. They are standing in the doorways and blocking the halls, for the times they are a' changing. Well, even Shakespeare, like most artists of his time, had sponsors and patrons. While it might have been king and commoner alike that went to the Globe, he still dealt a fair deal with the affluent. They're the ones that sustained him while he wrote.

mnottertail -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 7:06:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alanshoreisgod quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl so you have no issues with being judgemental All of us make judgments, about everything, all the time. One could argue that every single decision you make is a judgment. I will never tell anyone what relationship they should have, or how to live their lives. That is their choice, not mine. But do I have opinions on some of their choices? Absolutely I do. We all do. Even you. Another equivocation from the judiciary. OWHolmes

Alanshoreisgod -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 7:07:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl true, but i dont think i am so superior that i can tell who has a D/s relationship.. no.. wait.. a successful D/s relationship.. by a few typed words on a message board. You can tell a great deal of what people claim, based on their words. I can tell in a moment who is, for example, actually a lawyer, or a doctor, or an accountant, and who is just claiming to be. It's pretty easy really. There are those who seem to know what they're talking about, and those that don't. And fakers of all persuasions are generally easy to pick out by those with actual knowledge and experience.

tazzygirl -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 7:10:59 PM)
intelligence isnt always determined by the level of the ability to communicate. impressions can be deceiving... and assumptions can be dangerous.

RedMagic1 -> RE: are we all "equal"? (7/1/2009 7:16:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alanshoreisgod You can tell a great deal of what people claim, based on their words. As one example, it is fairly easy to see, from post pattern alone, who enjoys arguing and prioritizes "being right," and who is trying to communicate and build relationships with others.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875