RE: Trust and Faith

RE: Trust and Faith (Full Version)

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

Message

angelic -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 1:24:29 PM)
i was playing devils advocate to amoyos's post... Any possession of mine would likely answer, "It's not really a matter of trust. I am a slave. It is not my purpose or place to trust or not trust, but to simply obey." how can one obey without trust? (decided to copy & paste rather than quote)...

ExistentialSteel -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 2:07:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: ExistentialSteel LA, if we are talking about being whipped, that is a D/s thing and one the Dom can do better than the mountain climber. If we are talking in general, sure, I'll buy your side. No that is a BDSM activity NOT a D/s thingy! Ahhh, okay, I can totally agree with that and it allows me a way to get out of this...haha. Seriously, LA, that may have been part of the dichotomy here. As Knight pointed out, sure you can participate in BDSM without being in a D/s relationship. I do admit that wholeheartedly. It is not vanilla, but I can see that view.

MyCaptainsPet -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 2:42:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavekoko Also when do we stop beating our heads agains the wall? Accept that things aren't what we want and may never be? When we stop being human... when our hopes and dreams are just cast aside for the harsh reality of life. Its human to want what we don't have and what never will be.. What makes it a wonderful thing, this humaness, is the fact that what we want and would die for today can change tomorrow... that grass that seems greener may not BE quite as green... and what we want may turn out to be the worse possible thing for us... and we find out before we pull our hair out in the wanting... Personally, i would rather bang my head against the wall and actually feel the pain of longing than have all i want and never aspire for more...

amayos -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 3:52:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross I'm not playing devil's advocate: how can one obey without trust? While trust does not need to be the purpose, but trust is inherent in everything we do. She trusts that her perceptions are keen enough in order TO obey, she trusts that your communication will allow her to obey, she trusts that she will obey, and she trusts that you still want her to obey. None of these are really big deals- you're talking to someone who does highly risky things with nearly perfect strangers on a regular basis. But to suggest that trust has nothing to do with it is a misstep IMO. Trust IS a part of the process. Very true. Trust is a part of the process, and remains so for many extended relations—but does become a somewhat lightweight and irrelevant word over time, with some. While when free it was once a matter of trust and negotiation, for the slave I have come to know, it is more a matter of complete devotion and unremitting love; it transcends trust. Suggesting that you allow or insist your slave to perpetually "trust" you creates a barbed doctrine upon which you may no doubt be gored; in conceding she give or accept trust, she is therefore recognized by extension as a free entity in possession of an ability to choose based upon belief. For many in "BDSM" this critically maintained and ongoing internal dialog is expected and encouraged (entire books and websites were built upon teaching it) but it at best lends to an opulent illusion of slavery for others. For those others, slavery is defined as an unconditional act of adoration and worship; it is truly a selfless and loving act, and needn't be based upon the belief of reliability a slave has in her Master.

kyraofMists -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 4:14:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExistentialSteel Kyra, I commented on Ownedgirlie’s beautiful post not so much as I would review a patent application if I were a lawyer. She used example, metaphor, simile and probably some exaggeration that let me see inside the heart of a sub who has a Master she trusts completely. I can no more tell you why a certain part of her post touched me than I can tell you why a poem touches me at times. I kept the same metaphorical style in my reply to HER. I did not ask you to explain why her post touched you; I very specifically asked who was the "our relationships" that you were referring to that you still have not answered. quote: My question to you is why do you take her exquisite description of her experience and turn it into a mechanical discussion like mechanics leaning over an open hood of a 98 Ford in a greasy garage discussing carburetors? She gave an excellent reply to the OP in her own style. It was a mechanical discussion to begin with. Her post was in direct response to my direct mechanical question and not the OP. I then asked very direct questions in response to her answer as a means to ensure I heard what she said instead of making assumptions about her intent and as a means to clarify what she meant. quote: You say that her experiences or mine can’t be used as blanket explanations. No one is trying to cover you up or for that matter trying to keep you out in the cold and not under the blanket. If you are not under the blanket, I understand that is your choice and I’m truly happy for you. I am very happy as well that I am not under the blanket that lifestyle relationships require more trust than vanilla relationships. However, I try to be as open-minded as possible to other thoughts and ideas that may change my thinking that I have today, and I do this by asking questions of people who have different opinions than I do. I am always grateful when other people’s opinions cause me to change and grow beyond what I am today. quote: Frankly, I see little correlation between your statements that you know non D/s families that follow an authoritarian structure and feel that means they are just as strong as a D/s relationship. If someone is controlling or doing other D/s like activities to others without the framework and understanding of D/s I have to wonder about that family. The knife to the throat included. Do you think that an authority structure in the context of the lifestyle relationships is different than an authority structure in a conventional relationship? In my opinion, authority structure is authority structure. Labeling it D/s does not make it different. The concept of authority structures was not invented with the lifestyle. People have been living in authority structure relationships since the dawn of time. In my mom's family, the women are typically the dominant personalities in the relationship, controlling the finances, children, home and recreational activities. I am not sure why you are alluding to the idea that someone has to be part of the lifestyle to have a healthy authority structure relationship? My parents have been happily married for over 40 years and I know of many other similar relationships that have an authority structure and are very healthy and happy but they are not part of the lifestyle.. In my opinion, what makes D/s relationships distinct from conventional authority structure relationships is that they can have ritualistic behaviors and activities that demonstrate the structure such as, titles of address, kneeling, permission to leave the dominant's presence, symbols of ownership (collars), specific rules of behavior and interaction. This list is many and varied and is limited only by the desire and imagination of the people within that relationship. I do not understand your reference to “knife at the throat” within this paragraph and how it relates to authority structure or D/s relationships. Can you elaborate? Knight's kyra

kyraofMists -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 4:29:18 PM)
ownedgirlie, I do not hide my inquisitive nature from anyone. I am of the opinion that if I do not question the answers then how will I ever learn and grow. I try extremely hard to not make assumptions about what someone meant, but rather ask for clarification through direct questions and repeating back what I heard in my own words. If this causes problems for you, then make the choice to not answer my questions in the future. You are making an assumption that I have not accepted your personal story. What would be acceptance to you and how have I demonstrated a lack of acceptance? Again, I appreciate you telling your story. Knight's kyra

ExistentialSteel -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 5:24:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists I am not sure why you are alluding to the idea that someone has to be part of the lifestyle to have a healthy authority structure relationship? Actually, I wasn't. Trying to cut through what bothered you about my post to Ownedgirlie the most, I suppose it was my reference to "our relationships" since you mention it first in this post. I meant no esoteric concept that excludes anyone. If you felt excluded by my comments, I am sorry. Kyra, we beat this post around a good bit today and I don't know what else I can add. Actually, your Knight may have explained the two opposing views expressed here. There is D/s and BDSM, not necessarily the same, as he pointed out. Maybe I was using the two synonymously in error with all the implications.

kyraofMists -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 5:54:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExistentialSteel quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists I am not sure why you are alluding to the idea that someone has to be part of the lifestyle to have a healthy authority structure relationship? Actually, I wasn't. Then why wonder about the family that has an authority structure relationship that is not within the framework of D/s? quote: Trying to cut through what bothered you about my post to Ownedgirlie the most, I suppose it was my reference to "our relationships" since you mention it first in this post. I meant no esoteric concept that excludes anyone. If you felt excluded by my comments, I am sorry. Yes, it was the "our relationships" that I questioned, but it appeared you were trying to include my relationship (and others) as being similar to what ownedgirlie experienced when mine is not similar. I have absolutely no issue with being excluded from the concept that a lifestyle relationship has more trust than a conventional one. My trust, devotion, commitment, love, passion, vulnerability, desire and obedience in my Lord are not dependent on being in a M/s relationship with him. They would exists just as they are now if all we had was a conventional relationship. They are a reflection of who we are and not the structure of our relationship. quote: Kyra, we beat this post around a good bit today and I don't know what else I can add. Actually, your Knight may have explained the two opposing views expressed here. There is D/s and BDSM, not necessarily the same, as he pointed out. Maybe I was using the two synonymously in error with all the implications. Go to work and miss all the fun.... Knight's kyra

ownedgirlie -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:08:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos For those others, slavery is defined as an unconditional act of adoration and worship; it is truly a selfless and loving act, and needn't be based upon the belief of reliability a slave has in her Master. Well heck, if you had been here and said this yesterday it would have saved me a lot of typing. LOL Perhaps i find the dissection of trust so....needless....because it isn't really something i think about anymore, since the way i feel for him transcends the boundaries of trust as i once knew it.

amayos -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Perhaps i find the dissection of trust so....needless....because it isn't really something i think about anymore, since the way i feel for him transcends the boundaries of trust as i once knew it. Hello, bird of my feather.

CERCKL -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:16:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: CERCKL but looking at experience as a recreation and interpretation of what has/is happening Not sure what you mean by experience as a recreation of what is happening? quote: .my faith is an illusion either with in the 'past' or the 'present' if seen as anything besides that which I create/choose? C Your faith WAS a leap- it was either proven or disproven based on what actually occured. Your faith in anything that hasn't happened yet IS a leap. I'm not sure what you mean by it being an illusion? By re-creation...I meant that our memories of what had happened is interpreted and cataloged by the stories we tell ourselves, or that we interpret what is happening by how we perceive it...the same incident can happen to two people; one would see it as positive and one is negative; the only difference would be their internal states... I will accept that faith in anything which hasn't happened is a 'leap' but my initial reference was to a perspective similar to Pascal, when trying to justify the Christian God's existence and an afterlife stated the 'wager' where might as well bet there is a heaven and hell, you have nothing to lose...I prefer to base any articles of 'faith' on perceptions of what I have experienced and then extrapolate from there...still the unknown but it is grounded in my own existential constructs...as for the 'illusion' comment, I was referring to the fact that this 'leap of faith' in (fill in the blank) is created from me and not from an external source, if I think otherwise, I am not understanding the source of that faith... Enough rambling, again thank you for opening up a path of examination. C

ownedgirlie -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:16:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists ownedgirlie, I do not hide my inquisitive nature from anyone. I am of the opinion that if I do not question the answers then how will I ever learn and grow. I try extremely hard to not make assumptions about what someone meant, but rather ask for clarification through direct questions and repeating back what I heard in my own words. If this causes problems for you, then make the choice to not answer my questions in the future. You are making an assumption that I have not accepted your personal story. What would be acceptance to you and how have I demonstrated a lack of acceptance? Again, I appreciate you telling your story. Knight's kyra Repeating lines or continuing questions causes no problems for me, kyra. You continue to try to place some sort of emotions on my reasonings, when they do not exist. i simply don't feel like continuing an endless line of questioning, as i see no reason for it. i made no assumption as to whether or not you accepted my story. i stated that you do not appear to accept my views on trust, as it exists for me. And that's quite fine with me. i have no need or desire to try to convince anyone to accept them. my Master is quite pleased with my views, and that is all that matters to me.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:17:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Perhaps i find the dissection of trust so....needless....because it isn't really something i think about anymore, since the way i feel for him transcends the boundaries of trust as i once knew it. Hello, bird of my feather. Well hello, my evil friend....

amayos -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:19:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Well hello, my evil friend.... Not evil...just misunderstood. ;)

ownedgirlie -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:21:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Well hello, my evil friend.... Not evil...just misunderstood. ;) Trust me, i know..... [;)]

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:34:08 PM)
Didn't read the whole thread, but here's my view on trust and faith. Trust, to me represents, what I expect based on previous events,behaviours. For example, I would trust someone to be on time, if they had always previously been on time, unless something happened that made it not possible to be there. Similiarly, I trust some people wouldn't steal from me, why because they never have even given the opportunity. So, trust in my head, is based more around past experience, and projecting that onto future promises,actions, etc.... Faith, is more akin to trust without the backing experience. It's more a hope that a person is trust worthy without any evidence. Faith, I don't much put much into other than when necessary. So, long term Dom/Sub relationships in my view are based strictly on trust, as they have enough experiences to base future experiences on past ones. Really, Faith, is only applicable to that which can't be immediately proven. Faith would relate to a New Sub putting her safety in the hands of a new Dom, she doesn't know. She's hoping he is going to act responsibly but doesn't know. Of course, some initial degree of faith is necessary to form trust. But ultimately reliance on faith should be minimized. Such as talking to others that know the person(experience), or telling people where you are at. Are examples of trusting in faith, but not being totally trustful. Anyway, that's my opinion.

kyraofMists -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:39:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Repeating lines or continuing questions causes no problems for me, kyra. Then why compare my questions to a long and painful experience in your past if there is no problem? quote: You continue to try to place some sort of emotions on my reasonings, when they do not exist. i simply don't feel like continuing an endless line of questioning, as i see no reason for it. Please quote me where I continually assign emotions to you. quote: i made no assumption as to whether or not you accepted my story. i stated that you do not appear to accept my views on trust, as it exists for me. And that's quite fine with me. i have no need or desire to try to convince anyone to accept them. my Master is quite pleased with my views, and that is all that matters to me. So you made an assumption that I do not accept your view of trust as it applies to you within your relationship. How did I demonstrate a lack of acceptance to your view of trust and what would show acceptance to your view of trust? Knight's kyra

ownedgirlie -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 6:48:22 PM)
~ looks for that dead horse and thinks it is near ~ It was not a problem, nor a comparison. It was a behavior pattern i recognized and decided not to humor. The pain in my past is history. i live in the present currently. i have no need to place quotes. i will simply say referring to me as defensive and having problems caused, are emotions which i did not have. When a person replies only with argument and questions to clarify, it means they do not currently accept, for if they did accept, they would not need to continue the questions. And now folks, i do believe this horse is dead.

kyraofMists -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 7:10:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie ~ looks for that dead horse and thinks it is near ~ It was not a problem, nor a comparison. It was a behavior pattern i recognized and decided not to humor. The pain in my past is history. i live in the present currently. i have no need to place quotes. i will simply say referring to me as defensive and having problems caused, are emotions which i did not have. When a person replies only with argument and questions to clarify, it means they do not currently accept, for if they did accept, they would not need to continue the questions. And now folks, i do believe this horse is dead. I see. Asking questions = lack of acceptance To me, not asking questions that you have shows an unwilliness to learn and grow. I did not once reply to you and argue with anything you said. Unless you consider questions to also be an argument. Being defensive is not an emotion it is a behavior. And a problem is not an emotion either. For me, if someone reminded me of a painful past then that is a problem. Saying it is a problem does not in any way express any emotion about the situation. Knight's kyra

angelic -> RE: Trust and Faith (3/7/2006 7:16:41 PM)
digs up and drags the dead horse in [:D]

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875