RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own)

RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (Full Version)

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

Message

lucylucy -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 8:35:37 PM)
Two things: 1. quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot quote: Nonsense. Wordy does not equal significant. Wisdom is everywhere. I, for one, would prefer not to have to sift through a pile of stuff to find the essence, the beauty, the wisdom... if it exists in the pile of stuff at all. So you think that The Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace, The Magic Mountain are just nonsense and piles of crap? "Wordy does not equal significant" is not at all the same thing as saying "wordy equals insignificant." 2. Rochsub, I admire your patience.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 8:36:50 PM)
He's not the fastest learner, but i have seen a change in him. He's not as naive nor as argumentative as he was when he first arrived. i guess i'm just an optimist. [:D]

Silence8 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 8:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lucylucy Two things: 1. quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot quote: Nonsense. Wordy does not equal significant. Wisdom is everywhere. I, for one, would prefer not to have to sift through a pile of stuff to find the essence, the beauty, the wisdom... if it exists in the pile of stuff at all. So you think that The Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace, The Magic Mountain are just nonsense and piles of crap? "Wordy does not equal significant" is not at all the same thing as saying "wordy equals insignificant." 2. Rochsub, I admire your patience. Okay, then -- give us your theory on D/s that's both more significant and less wordy. Otherwise, we have every right to assume that you don't have the goods. People who haven't tried critical thinking are always the first to dismiss; once you try it, you'll gain a whole new appreciation for what originally appeared pretentious nonsense.

RedMagic1 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 People who haven't tried critical thinking are always the first to dismiss; once you try it, you'll gain a whole new appreciation for what originally appeared pretentious nonsense. I critical-think for a living, and this statement of yours is false. Most people I have met in my life have high -- excessively high -- opinions of people who do mental work. To be honest, you sound like a frustrated grad student. What poster after poster has stated on this thread is that the important thing is praxis -- the union of theory and practice. If you just have the theory, you have the words but not the music. I think you like the OP so much because your level of life experience is commensurate with that of SocratesNot. As a result, you consider "critical thinking" to be more important than it really is -- which prevents you from thinking critically.

Silence8 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:20:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 People who haven't tried critical thinking are always the first to dismiss; once you try it, you'll gain a whole new appreciation for what originally appeared pretentious nonsense. I critical-think for a living, and this statement of yours is false. Most people I have met in my life have high -- excessively high -- opinions of people who do mental work. To be honest, you sound like a frustrated grad student. What poster after poster has stated on this thread is that the important thing is praxis -- the union of theory and practice. If you just have the theory, you have the words but not the music. I think you like the OP so much because your level of life experience is commensurate with that of SocratesNot. As a result, you consider "critical thinking" to be more important than it really is -- which prevents you from thinking critically. Oh get real. I'm just extremely annoyed with (American) Bushian anti-intellectualism. The truth of the matter is that SocratesNot is trying to understand the world, and trying to understand ethics (of all things!), and his detractors are coming back again and again with this pathetic 'Just do it! Don't think!' which should give anyone reason to pause. Again, look what you're doing -- attacking a person, since you can't handle the argument, even with all your alleged experience. (Notice also that it's extremely presumptuous to think I'm not experienced. Frankly, I say 'No!' just as much if not more than 'Yes!', because, with sexual matters, experience is, well, disgusting.) It's like, fine, give us your 'praxis' version of a theory of D/s. I'm not going to hold my breath; until then, SocratesNot gives some good insight.

RedMagic1 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:26:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 with sexual matters, experience is, well, disgusting.) My praxis version of D/s is that until you resolve that contradiction within yourself, you will be doomed to perpetrate incompetent intellectualism in cyberspace forums where no one takes you seriously.

Andalusite -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot But I really do think that switches are not naturally dominant nor submissive. You simply can't be both at the same time. You can have some affinities for both, but one side must be stronger. And in most cases switches are just kinky. I was a Domme for 5 years, and a submissive for 3 years (without switching, with a very strong D/s dynamic in both cases, not just kink). In my last relationship, I had a couple of scenes with my Master and my submissive playpartner, and did experience dominance toward her and submission toward him simultaneously or nearly so. I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that it's impossible for one person to be both dominant and submissive, and that everyone must have a preference for one or the other. Do you also feel that nobody can enjoy both chicken and steak, or that they must prefer one over the other? [;)]

Silence8 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 with sexual matters, experience is, well, disgusting.) My praxis version of D/s is that until you resolve that contradiction within yourself, you will be doomed to perpetrate incompetent intellectualism in cyberspace forums where no one takes you seriously. What contradiction exactly? Try to think of something that isn't an ad-hominem attack. You can do it! You can do it! Again... I dare you to think and formulate an argument. What is your theory of D/s that is both simpler and more substantial? Otherwise I'll stick with the people who can formulate an argument, and who do take me seriously. You say you think critically for a living? Prove it. You've given no indications, but I'm patient. I don't judge. I'm waiting.

Andalusite -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:34:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Someone who is submissive by orientation looks like a dominant who is submitting. That equates to someone playing a role... putting on a face for me to see. Granted, they may be playing it very, very well. In fact, the mask may never come off and to all outwards signs they would behave as a slave. Their "reasons of secondary gain" may be well thought out and laudable in all respects by my own value systems. But I'd always be wondering, why the square peg and round hole? Why not just go ahead and be dominant if that's what you are by nature? I'm neither dominant nor submissive by nature, but rather a blend of both. Some people "resonate" with my submissive inclinations, and submitting to them feels very natural. In fact, opposing them in any way is incredibly difficult and hurtful to me. In other circumstances, or with other people, it's equally natural for me to take the lead. It is impossible for me to make a conscious choice to be dominant or submissive toward someone. There is no mask, or cold cost-benefit analysis. Most people just don't push my buttons in either direction. Obedience, compliance, and even acts of service aren't the same thing as submission. I'm not trying to change your mind about getting involved with someone who doesn't have a submissive personality - you have a right to be attracted to whoever you're attracted to.[;)] It's just that the conclusions you drew above don't seem to fit with my experiences very well.

sunshinemiss -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:42:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot quote: Nonsense. Wordy does not equal significant. Wisdom is everywhere. I, for one, would prefer not to have to sift through a pile of stuff to find the essence, the beauty, the wisdom... if it exists in the pile of stuff at all. So you think that The Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace, The Magic Mountain are just nonsense and piles of crap? Hello S., I never said that, and you know it. You are trying to pick a fight where there is none. And by the way, I did not say "crap". I said stuff. "Stuff" does not imply negative while "crap" does. You do not have my permission to turn my fairly neutral statement into your own version of the glass half full. And as to the literary topic - I also think that Hemingway was pretty darned talented. His use of words was stunning. He cut out every unnecessary word. best, sunshine

RedMagic1 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:49:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 What contradiction exactly? The contradiction inside you that causes you to be disgusted by something you profoundly desire. Such things fester if not resolved. You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem attack.[;)] You will be able to verify, if you choose, whether my scientific theory of kinky humanity is correct. Scientific theories allow their users to make verifiable or falsifiable predictions. I made a prediction about you. You will either deal with the hole inside you, or you will remain a social outcast with little sexual experience, but a big vocabulary. Five years from now, you will know whether I was right. See, that's how you can assess the correctness of a theory -- the correctness of its predictions. The beauty of its ideas are irrelevant to its correctness. Only how well it matches up to reality matters. I won't be online to follow any more of your orders[;)], but I'm sure you'll come up with some way to insult the thought processes of others while I'm gone.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:56:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 People who haven't tried critical thinking are always the first to dismiss; once you try it, you'll gain a whole new appreciation for what originally appeared pretentious nonsense. And people who haven't tried sex are always the first to dismiss it. Like RedMagic, my assessment of you is that you are probably a frustrated grad student who spends too much time studying Nietzsche, and too little time getting laid. People who have actually experienced sex (or in this case, BDSM) don't feel the need to postulate theories about it. We're too busy enjoying it. You are in your early 20's. You lack life experience. Because you lack experience, you tend to berate those who have it by calling them anti-intellectuals. You don't seem to understand that each time you make such a post, the picture of you becomes more clear. Based on what you say, it becomes obvious that your primary sex partner is your own hand and a bottle of lotion. Therefore, developing hypotheses about sex is a reasonable activity for you. The rest of us understand that there is no need to formulate theories about what we practice on a regular basis. Why think about it, when it's so much more fun doing it? (But of course, you wouldn't know that). At least SocratesNot is honest about his situation. He has publicly stated that he has no experience with BDSM, and that he masturbates habitually. You, on the other hand, are both dishonest and disingenuous. Your situation likely mirrors SN's exactly, but you won't be honest and admit it. Here's a tip; the first step towards recovery is admitting that you have a problem. i'm sure that you will respond by challenging me to provide my own theory on D/s. And you won't even recognize that you've validated my point. The irony will be completely lost on you. You know the old saying, "those who can't do, formulate theories". Enjoy life. But visit your optometrist frequently. They tell me that the type of sex that you favor can cause blindness. [:D]

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:06:28 PM)
I am beginning to think that for young people it is better to lie about their age and level of experience, and this is the only way for them to be taken seriously. If I invented the stories about 3 intensive D/s relationships in which I was and said that I am 43, many people would actually believe in the great part of my theory. What a fool I am. How that didn't come to my mind earlier? I appreciate the fact that Rochsub appreciates my honesty. But I am really wondering if honesty is really that important.

leadership527 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:08:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot And the thing that you would submit to Carol if that would make her happy, really stirred my feelings. Making Carol happy is a primary goal in my life. quote: The most fascinating part was your claim of being able to "submit forever in completely slavish fashion with completely dominant mindset" Cakewalk. It is MY primary mission in life to make Carol happy. Carol (well, Carol in an alternate universe) needs me to submit in order to be happy. So I choose and execute a course of action in order to achieve my own objectives. How more more dominant can you get that that? It's all about me and what I want -- which is pleasing her. It would contain large elements of self-discipline and self-control. On the outside, it would look exactly identical to how Carol submits to me. On the inside, the process is wildly different. For Carol, there is no "process" for submitting. That's her default action... it just happens.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:12:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot I appreciate the fact that Rochsub appreciates my honesty. But I am really wondering if honesty is really that important. My apologies, SN. Silence8 was being a bit of an ass, and i attempted to point it out to him. But in doing so, i inadvertently put you in the cross-hairs. After you responded, i realized that my reply took an unnecessary jab at you, and that was not my intention. i know that it doesn't erase the offense, but please accept my apology. i'm truly sorry.

Silence8 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:12:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 What contradiction exactly? The contradiction inside you that causes you to be disgusted by something you profoundly desire. Such things fester if not resolved. You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem attack.[;)] You will be able to verify, if you choose, whether my scientific theory of kinky humanity is correct. Scientific theories allow their users to make verifiable or falsifiable predictions. I made a prediction about you. You will either deal with the hole inside you, or you will remain a social outcast with little sexual experience, but a big vocabulary. Five years from now, you will know whether I was right. See, that's how you can assess the correctness of a theory -- the correctness of its predictions. The beauty of its ideas are [sic] irrelevant to its correctness. Only how well it matches up to reality matters. I won't be online to follow any more of your orders[;)], but I'm sure you'll come up with some way to insult the thought processes of others while I'm gone. An ad hominem attack is basically when you attack the person, and not the argument, which you instantiate right here yet again, when you 'scientifically' maintain that I (someone you've never met, or of whom you've even seen a picture) am a social outcast with little sexual experience. 'The beauty of its ideas are [sic] irrelevant to its correctness.' This 'idea' could just as easily be used to justify SocrateNot's thoughts, which were attacked, as usual, for formal reasons, while the content was left basically untouched. 'The contradiction inside you that causes you to be disgusted by something you profoundly desire.' --> This is the closest you've come to a complete thought. Congratulations, but actually SocratesNot's theory, while error-laden, is much more subtle and profound. The better point you've neglected is how BDSM by its very nature feeds off a complicated system of 'contradictions'. There are different types of contradictions. My definition of BDSM as embracing-simulacrum could be read as embracing-contradiction. Most people will recognize this. What you're describing corresponds with BDSM-related feelings, for instance, of shame and humiliation, with which some people connect, others not. But other contradictions abound. My above post goes into part of it. Also you might want to recognize that you come across ridiculous and conceited in implying that I don't understand the principles of scientific reasoning. Basically, you're retreating from actual thought into dubious professional qualifications. A true intellectual needs no recourse other than the veracity of his or her own thought.

sunshinemiss -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:17:58 PM)
quote: A true intellectual needs no recourse other than the veracity of his or her own thought. wow. I don't know a thing about you Silence. I have only today noticed you on the boards. I have not looked at your profile. All I have to know about you is what little I've read. The statement you made above says quite a lot about you. I do hope that either 1. You were joking although I doubt it. 2. You will learn and realize how far off course this is and eventually look back and shake your head. 3. You like being alone because it will be your self-imposed destiny. None of these is bad per se, but they do each come with their own set of pros and cons. Regardless, well wishes, sunshine

lucylucy -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:23:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: lucylucy Two things: 1. quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot quote: Nonsense. Wordy does not equal significant. Wisdom is everywhere. I, for one, would prefer not to have to sift through a pile of stuff to find the essence, the beauty, the wisdom... if it exists in the pile of stuff at all. So you think that The Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace, The Magic Mountain are just nonsense and piles of crap? "Wordy does not equal significant" is not at all the same thing as saying "wordy equals insignificant." 2. Rochsub, I admire your patience. Okay, then -- give us your theory on D/s that's both more significant and less wordy. Otherwise, we have every right to assume that you don't have the goods. People who haven't tried critical thinking are always the first to dismiss; once you try it, you'll gain a whole new appreciation for what originally appeared pretentious nonsense. Absolutely, you should assume I don't have the goods. I don't have a theory and never claimed to. I fail to see what in my post leads you to charge me with a lack of critical thinking. Are you saying I can't disagree with SN's theory because I don't have my own? That's bullshit.

Silence8 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:24:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 People who haven't tried critical thinking are always the first to dismiss; once you try it, you'll gain a whole new appreciation for what originally appeared pretentious nonsense. And people who haven't tried sex are always the first to dismiss it. Like RedMagic, my assessment of you is that you are probably a frustrated grad student who spends too much time studying Nietzsche, and too little time getting laid. People who have actually experienced sex (or in this case, BDSM) don't feel the need to postulate theories about it. We're too busy enjoying it. Both you and SocratesNot are both in your early 20's. You lack life experience. Because you lack experience, you tend to berate those who have it by calling them anti-intellectuals. You don't seem to understand that each time you make such a post, the picture of you becomes more clear. Based on what you say, it becomes obvious that your primary sex partner is your own hand and a bottle of lotion. Therefore, developing hypotheses about sex is a reasonable activity for you. The rest of us understand that there is no need to formulate theories about what we practice on a regular basis. Why think about it, when it's so much more fun doing it? (But of course, you wouldn't know that). At least SocratesNot is honest about his situation. He has publicly stated that he has no experience with BDSM, and that he masturbates habitually. You, on the other hand, are both dishonest and disingenuous. Your situation likely mirrors SN's exactly, but you won't be honest and admit it. Here's a tip; the first step towards recovery is admitting that you have a problem. i'm sure that you will respond by challenging me to provide my own theory on D/s. And you won't even recognize that you've validated my point. The irony will be completely lost on you. You know the old saying, "those who can't do, formulate theories". Enjoy life. But visit your optometrist frequently. They tell me that the type of sex that you favor can cause blindness. [:D] Look, buddy, a lot of women find intellectuals attractive. Especially grad students (and then professors...) The very fact that everyone goes back to my sexual experience appears sad---for them. You've made a sacred connection into an item for conspicuous consumption --- and, yeah, that idea is from a book, suck on it, mother fucker! [:D] (Cf. Thorstein Veblen's 'Theory of the Leisure Class' -- brilliant piece of writing). Nowhere am I dismissing sex. But thinking and sex are not mutually exclusive (You've obviously never read any Sade!) And I like struggling with my own nature, rather than accepting it blindly. (There's a dance to it.) Truth be told, even when I do masturbate, I usually think of these few great times with an old girlfriend from far away whom I knew for several years, and with whom I shared countless wonderful experiences. I can't think of anything better -- my fantasy is a memory! So be it!

Rochsub2009 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:28:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 Truth be told, even when I do masturbate, I usually think of these few great times with an old girlfriend from far away whom I knew for several years, and with whom I shared countless wonderful experiences. Let me guess. "She" got punctured and you weren't able to blow her up anymore? [:D]

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875