Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

cpK69 -> Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/8/2009 10:24:01 PM)

Sitting here pondering the responses to the thread “You are submissive yet refuse to address Dom as Sir in ...”, I can’t help wondering; what makes people think their opinions, based on emotion, are what defines something? Why do they believe they get to label things ‘good’ or ‘bad’ by their perception?

A Dom does not allow his sub to call him anything but ‘Sir’, it can’t be that in times when referring to him as such could cause an undesirable situation, he would instruct his sub to refrain from calling him anything at all; he must be an egotistical ass.

A sub enjoys calling their Dom ‘Sir’ beyond closed doors, and it can’t be that the sub has such adoration for that person that they can’t think of another word better suited to refer to them by; they must be kink-pushing, ‘title-sluts’.

I still can’t figure out what makes the word ‘Sir’ kinky when used in a D/s context. Is it because those who make the claim associate the word with sex, so assume everyone else does too? Are they afraid people will suddenly know what they do behind closed doors?

I only use the word ‘Sir’ in reference to the one I ‘belong’ to, it’s meaning;

I find you to be honorable;

My heart is with you, so that I attempt to perceive difficult situations as you would, in order to decide a course of action;

Your instruction is valued; it is your advice that matters most when I am unable to resolve an issue myself...

… and a bunch of other things that I just can’t put into words.

Its not meant as a pet name, more than a title; it is my way, as his sub, of saying ‘I love you’.

I am doubtful those of non-D/s relationships have an understanding adequate enough to judge, and if they think they do, they’re the one with the kink issue, not me.

Kim (just felt a need to say that)



NihilusZero -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/8/2009 11:26:39 PM)

I think general thought amongst most would better be served with some anthropology courses. It's one thing to debate whether the pros outweigh the cons when dealing with personal/relationship expressions that go beyond the cultural boundaries of where/when one is, but that should always be done with the understanding that what we each think is somehow a permanent ethical social construct is really just a whole mess of smoke and mirrors.

In addition to that, when it comes to romance and relationships, sexuality (or any expression even remotely relevant to it) gets further chastised with the moral compasses of onlookers because of how taboo and deviant sexuality or even nudity has become in our culture. This is why you will hear commentary saying talking about the imposition of "kink", as if facets of our sexuality are just superficial games. Heck, even if "kink" is just that, what makes it more abhorrent than any other hobby? Would it be tactless for me to "impose" some words/sentiment that made other non-consenting listeners aware I was into tennis or board games or photography? Or is the dissension kept just for more generally 'icky' topics, like if I was talking about being into extreme body piercings or garbage sifting or eating cottage cheese?

In the end, though, it becomes such a gray topic because many people like to decide for themselves how to interpret the actions of others. Since there is no way to tell (when it comes to another person) if X expression of theirs is just a natural manifestation of something inherently them or if it's a melodramatic exhibition to garner attention, we choose to decide for ourselves and the (ironically) impose our conclusion upon them. And humans consistently treat anything uncommon to their moral spheres as an active expressive tantrum of the person they are perceiving when it is their perceptions that cause the actual problems.



cpK69 -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/8/2009 11:35:17 PM)

*nods*

This could be the biggest threat to the downfall of man.

Kim



NihilusZero -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 3:14:24 AM)

It's something I've considered for a long time. It is essentially a question of where we begin the foundations of any logical system of ethics and how large we draw the circle.

I've concluded that the only worthwhile parameter is drawing the line at direct, harmful, physical actions upon a non-consenting party or that party's property. And that's about it. I'm very wary about any concept of emotional or psychological harm. Anything related to that is, primarily, an error in the beholder. To allow leeway for what offends one person, or even a majority, is to make an argument against something that offends anyone...and that's not an acceptable, honorable path (and by honorable, I mean non-hypocritical).

Now, where people choose to draw their own lines is an entirely different topic. Some people are willing to curb parts of themselves if it might, let's say, cost them their job. Others maybe need no more than a social majority vote to decide they should censor parts of themselves. Others decide it is the moral short-sightedness of kin that makes self-restriction (and lying about it directly or by omission) acceptable, because we wouldn't want to harm someone important to us (nevermind the fact that the harm begins in the faulty mindset of the person(s) we are emotionally assuaging).

To that extent, though, there is no necessary demand that we be honest trumpeters of ourselves to anyone. Not even ourselves. Heck, we can engage in things that we, deep down inside, would still consider shameful so long as we are able to hide it from others' eyes. Despite the fact that, historically, every major civil rights movement was begun at the hands of someone who felt they didn't need to have their personas restricted by moral presumption, I don't suggest everyone must make themselves a martyr for human freedom...but don't let me catch the same people then insulting those who do try to open the half-closed eyes of an ethically repressed populace, calling them superficial attention whores without so much as a cursory clue as to whether their assessments are based more in reality than in knee-jerk bias. Don't let me suffer those who are too afraid to openly be (with everyone) who they are when they decide to suddenly condemn those who aren't and do not feel guilt-tripped into being so.

I just don't see how anyone who would espouse views that make even an indirect suggestion that what any of us do isn't fit for "public eyes" can genuinely feel comfortable with such a part of themselves if they hold it to be such a disgrace that it should not be made an open topic to the public or even children.



DesFIP -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 3:56:54 AM)

The problem with openly being such to children is that they will be unconsciously influenced. If a mother is slavish to her husband's demands, a male child will assume that she should also be slavish to him. And indeed that all women should behave this way towards men.

And for those of us who value choice and consent, raising a child to believe that this is not something chosen but something that should be, prevents that male child from choosing later to acknowledge his own desire to be submissive to a female.

Whereas raising them in a more neutral manner allows them to choose for themselves.



Lucienne -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 8:03:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Now, where people choose to draw their own lines is an entirely different topic. Some people are willing to curb parts of themselves if it might, let's say, cost them their job. Others maybe need no more than a social majority vote to decide they should censor parts of themselves. Others decide it is the moral short-sightedness of kin that makes self-restriction (and lying about it directly or by omission) acceptable, because we wouldn't want to harm someone important to us (nevermind the fact that the harm begins in the faulty mindset of the person(s) we are emotionally assuaging).

To that extent, though, there is no necessary demand that we be honest trumpeters of ourselves to anyone. Not even ourselves. Heck, we can engage in things that we, deep down inside, would still consider shameful so long as we are able to hide it from others' eyes. Despite the fact that, historically, every major civil rights movement was begun at the hands of someone who felt they didn't need to have their personas restricted by moral presumption, I don't suggest everyone must make themselves a martyr for human freedom...but don't let me catch the same people then insulting those who do try to open the half-closed eyes of an ethically repressed populace, calling them superficial attention whores without so much as a cursory clue as to whether their assessments are based more in reality than in knee-jerk bias. Don't let me suffer those who are too afraid to openly be (with everyone) who they are when they decide to suddenly condemn those who aren't and do not feel guilt-tripped into being so.

I just don't see how anyone who would espouse views that make even an indirect suggestion that what any of us do isn't fit for "public eyes" can genuinely feel comfortable with such a part of themselves if they hold it to be such a disgrace that it should not be made an open topic to the public or even children.


For someone who has spent so much time thinking about this and affects such an academic tone, you are curiously unwilling to think outside of yourself. I get that you think it's important to share this element of yourself with a broad audience. And that failure to do so, for you, would feel like censorship. Not everyone shares those feelings. Some people probably are motivated by shame or guilt. Others just don't feel the need to share. Censorship suggests I have some impulse to announce these things but I stop myself because I fear social condemnation. I truly don't have that impulse.

Does that make me a dishonest trumpeter of myself to the world? I don't think so. The only people who need to know what type of relationship dynamic I prefer are people I'm interested having a relationship with. You talk about intolerance, shame, and guilt, but this really could be as simple as the difference between introversion and extroversion. I don't need to share for it to feel real.

Regarding civil rights movements, what civil rights are you currently lacking?



couldbemage -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 10:41:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne Regarding civil rights movements, what civil rights are you currently lacking?
Right to die, use drugs, own property without paying rent, be naked, install a turbocharger, 4 point harnesses, bear arms, allow strangers to use my property..... ...Ride sans helmet. Operate a motor vehicle. Perform surgery. Own nunchuks. I'm aware not everyone thinks we should have all of these rights, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't have them.



sunshinemiss -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 10:51:48 AM)

quote:

A Dom does not allow his sub to call him anything but ‘Sir’, it can’t be that in times when referring to him as such could cause an undesirable situation, he would instruct his sub to refrain from calling him anything at all


Yeah, I had this problem... Going down the street trying to get his attention and yelling "HEY!" cause I wasn't allowed to use his name and was to only call him "Master".  Boy did I feel like the biggest jerk. 



NihilusZero -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 12:20:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

The problem with openly being such to children is that they will be unconsciously influenced. If a mother is slavish to her husband's demands, a male child will assume that she should also be slavish to him. And indeed that all women should behave this way towards men.

Replace the word "slavish" with "gay" for a moment and consider the argument you are making.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

And for those of us who value choice and consent, raising a child to believe that this is not something chosen but something that should be, prevents that male child from choosing later to acknowledge his own desire to be submissive to a female.

Really? I was raised roman catholic. My parents still are rather devout roman catholics. Somehow, I turned out to be an atheist. Magic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Whereas raising them in a more neutral manner allows them to choose for themselves.

There is no such thing as "neutral". You raise them with an English vocabulary, yes? Not neutral. You raise them exposed to a heterosexual relationship, yes? Not neutral.

The only catch is that you inherently attribute some taboo/naughty values to being in a D/s relationship when there shouldn't be any more than that of an interracial couple.



NihilusZero -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 12:34:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

For someone who has spent so much time thinking about this and affects such an academic tone, you are curiously unwilling to think outside of yourself.

Your desire to prod me aside, let's see if your statements are followed with any merit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

I get that you think it's important to share this element of yourself with a broad audience.

What element? The decision to actually be myself without feeling guilt-tripped into moral self-censorship? "Important" is a bait-word. Anyone is free to decide how important it is or isn't to them.

It just so happens that viewing things in this way is less constricting due to a priori bias and less hypocritical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

And that failure to do so, for you, would feel like censorship.

No, it would be censorship for anyone. Those who choose to curb parts of themselves haven't been arguing that what they are doing is not self-censorship. It's obvious it is. They just have scenarios in which they perceive the censorship as serving the greater good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

Not everyone shares those feelings.

And not everyone shares the "feelings" that crop circles are man-made hoaxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

Some people probably are motivated by shame or guilt. Others just don't feel the need to share.

I've gone over this. The one part that will show which of these two categories a person is in is if they act a certain way privately and then feel the need to tame it when in public. That is the definition of self-censorship. The same way that someone with a proclivity to swear remaining conscientious of his vocabulary at a formal dinner is self-censorship. Except swearing is normally done with an intent to make a verbally aggressive/antagonistic point. Expressions of D/s aren't like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

Censorship suggests I have some impulse to announce these things but I stop myself because I fear social condemnation. I truly don't have that impulse.

I didn't state that everyone does. I'm sure there are people that do and convince themselves that they don't as well. But it's usually easy to see who writes in a way that's indicative of someone who hides who they are because they feel it's socially better that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

Does that make me a dishonest trumpeter of myself to the world? I don't think so. The only people who need to know what type of relationship dynamic I prefer are people I'm interested having a relationship with. You talk about intolerance, shame, and guilt, but this really could be as simple as the difference between introversion and extroversion. I don't need to share for it to feel real.

I would not disagree here at all. But I have severe doubts that those who don't do things in public just because they are naturally introverted are the sorts of people that would then insult the extroverts for being how they are by calling their actions "attention-whoring".



cpK69 -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 12:58:35 PM)

Very thoughtful post, NZ, thank you for your input.

It seems we have come to many of the same conclusions in considering the topic. I hesitate, however, on using the term ‘ethics’ in relation to a solution, due to its nature of categorizing things into groups of ‘good’ and ‘bad’; which seems to be the cause of the problem to begin with. Though, admittedly, I have not come up with anything better.

I can see what needs to happen, but not how or where to begin. If people can somehow learn to become ‘fair-witnesses’ (term and concept borrowed from the book “Stranger In A Strange Land”); If they can stop thinking they know things they don’t and believing they can know things they can’t…. but first, they would have to be willing to be honest with themselves; want to seek truth.

quote:

because we wouldn't want to harm someone important to us (nevermind the fact that the harm begins in the faulty mindset of the person(s) we are emotionally assuaging).


Could it be that this is where the harm really begins? It seems to me, this is an example of limiting another’s liberties; the use of their ability to make their own choices. I am leaning toward the idea; the statement “You can’t handle the truth” has no place in the acquisition of liberty.

Perhaps some don’t want it.

Kim



cpK69 -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 1:10:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss

quote:

A Dom does not allow his sub to call him anything but ‘Sir’, it can’t be that in times when referring to him as such could cause an undesirable situation, he would instruct his sub to refrain from calling him anything at all


Yeah, I had this problem... Going down the street trying to get his attention and yelling "HEY!" cause I wasn't allowed to use his name and was to only call him "Master".  Boy did I feel like the biggest jerk. 


My main point was that there are other options to consider.

How  do you  think yelling "Master" would have made you feel?

Kim



Missokyst -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 3:52:25 PM)


It seems pretty simple to me. People assign meaning to the term because someone told them that is the way it is supposed to work. From my POV, in my world which is both nilla and kinked, sir is merely a word I use when the situation fits. I might call a customer sir for instance, if I have forgotten their name, or if everything in me wants to call them idiot but I cannot because they are paying for my service. Sir in that case is used so that I do not overstep my bounds.
I sometimes call my x, sir because that is what my head says at the time.
More often than not though, I call people by name because that is what my head feels is right.
I have talked to politicians, judges, doctors, police, bakers, postmen, and people from all walks of life, and to me, everyone of them deserves courtesy and not elevation.

I do not associate the word sir with sex or kink. It is just a word that means different things at different times and no amount of people saying this is the way it should be, has any influence on my actions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

I still can’t figure out what makes the word ‘Sir’ kinky when used in a D/s context. Is it because those who make the claim associate the word with sex, so assume everyone else does too? Are they afraid people will suddenly know what they do behind closed doors?

I only use the word ‘Sir’ in reference to the one I ‘belong’ to, it’s meaning;

I find you to be honorable;





cpK69 -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 4:21:48 PM)

Thank you for your thoughts, Missokyst.

I appreciate the honesty in them.[:)]

quote:

or if everything in me wants to call them idiot but I cannot because they are paying for my service.


[:D]

Kim



Lucienne -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 6:54:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
I would not disagree here at all. But I have severe doubts that those who don't do things in public just because they are naturally introverted are the sorts of people that would then insult the extroverts for being how they are by calling their actions "attention-whoring".



Oh, I don't know. As an introvert, I've felt far more social pressure to feign extroversion than I've felt to feign being vanilla. Resentment can build and cause people to snipe. I just think you're being very extreme in your conclusions and they're not really supported by much more than this is the way you feel therefore it must be the only way to feel. The world isn't your slave. We haven't all agreed that your impression is the only impression that counts and we should all find ways to stop displeasing you in the future.



NihilusZero -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 7:11:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

Oh, I don't know. As an introvert, I've felt far more social pressure to feign extroversion than I've felt to feign being vanilla. Resentment can build and cause people to snipe.

How is excusing the hypocrisy of introverts "sniping" (because of resentment/stress) at extroverts who (in the worst case scenario) would be doing their own version of the same thing sensible at all?

That's like saying that peer pressure I've suffered to imbibe alcohol substantiates my feeling compelled to call all drinkers alcoholics for no reason other than my resentment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

I just think you're being very extreme in your conclusions and they're not really supported by much more than this is the way you feel therefore it must be the only way to feel. The world isn't your slave.

As I recall, I am for the freedom of each individual's expression (and have been so the entirety of this thread and others of similar topic). How you've managed to translate that into me thinking "the world is my slave" is beyond me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

We haven't all agreed that your impression is the only impression that counts and we should all find ways to stop displeasing you in the future.

Exactly! Nor should people who are free to call their partners anything in public feel they need to find ways to stop displeasing the whining moral masses. [:)]



Lucienne -> RE: Emotions; The Mother of All Kinks (11/9/2009 7:33:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

Oh, I don't know. As an introvert, I've felt far more social pressure to feign extroversion than I've felt to feign being vanilla. Resentment can build and cause people to snipe.

How is excusing the hypocrisy of introverts "sniping" (because of resentment/stress) at extroverts who (in the worst case scenario) would be doing their own version of the same thing sensible at all?



First, an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. Second, I don't see the hypocrisy in introverts sniping extroverts. Two different ways of relating to the world. If you're saying it's hypocrisy in terms of people expecting to be respected for who they are... well, you're the guy who suggested that people who don't share your need to extrovert your nature are somehow self-loathing. That's pretty harsh. Third, I'm not clear what you mean by "their own version of the same thing."



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875