RE: Believing in M/s

RE: Believing in M/s (Full Version)

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

Message

afkarr -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/27/2010 10:03:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot I think that M/s dynamic is just a concept, hyperbolic to some extent and has nothing to do with individual "M/s" relationships, which are usually somewhat short of what concept of pure M/s really means.And yes, I think there is a bit of delusion in the participants. Slaves think they are more enslaved than they really are (if they are at all REALLY enslaved), Masters think they own their slaves more then they really own them (if they REALLY own them at all). So, yes - I think all these relationships are a little too much influenced by prescriptive theories of M/s found in books, even more so are minds of participants influenced by concepts from books. Actually, if there weren't books and concepts in the first place, almost no one would develop the concept on their own and incorporate it in relationship. Most of Masters and slaves would never become what they are if they didn't learn about this concept from books, blogs, websites etc, or from local M/s or BDSM community. Nonsense. A Dominant/submissive hiearchy has existed in almost every culture since the dawn of time. It is only in relatively modern times that a wife has ceased to be considered her husbands property. Peasants were considered as "belonmging" to whomever owned the land they lived on, and often employees were merely chattel of the employers. Enough examples of D/s elements forming the framework of historical society exist that one could argue it supports Jungs theory of the collective unconscious, seemingly disconnected peoples behaving in similiar fashions. The concept of collars, brands, tatoos, etc is directly decended from the practice of owners marking their slaves as their property. Modern BDSM did not dream up the concept of ownership, D/s, M/s, or anything else; it merely has provided a means for people to express themselves openly within the community, and allowed partners to define their own relationship rather than conforming to an artificial societal imposed norm.

Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/27/2010 10:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee The author is dead. The words matter to the one reading/hearing them. An unread text doesn't matter. You forgot that you can believe that you believe something and actually believe it. And if someone believes your truth, as unbelievable as it may seem to others, then what does it matter beyond that? Maybe nothing. That would make things a lot easier.

subtee -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/27/2010 10:04:57 PM)
Maybe everything. That's pretty easy too.

WyldHrt -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/27/2010 10:05:20 PM)
quote: So, relationships based on concepts from books are a little artificial to me. Again, you aren't getting it. For many of us, the books, websites, blogs, or whathaveyou simply explain something we already knew we were, and knew we wanted, but didn't have the words for. Many folks arrive here and their first posts are ones of relief, because they thought that what they wanted and how they felt was somehow 'wrong'. Many of these people, myself included, didn't know that there were so many others; many thought they were freaks; many didn't know why their attempts at vanilla relationships always failed. For us, finding the BDSM 'community', no matter how that happened, was like coming home. I would think someone as supposedly into research as you would understand this, but apparently not.

Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/27/2010 10:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: afkarr quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot I think that M/s dynamic is just a concept, hyperbolic to some extent and has nothing to do with individual "M/s" relationships, which are usually somewhat short of what concept of pure M/s really means.And yes, I think there is a bit of delusion in the participants. Slaves think they are more enslaved than they really are (if they are at all REALLY enslaved), Masters think they own their slaves more then they really own them (if they REALLY own them at all). So, yes - I think all these relationships are a little too much influenced by prescriptive theories of M/s found in books, even more so are minds of participants influenced by concepts from books. Actually, if there weren't books and concepts in the first place, almost no one would develop the concept on their own and incorporate it in relationship. Most of Masters and slaves would never become what they are if they didn't learn about this concept from books, blogs, websites etc, or from local M/s or BDSM community. Nonsense. A Dominant/submissive hiearchy has existed in almost every culture since the dawn of time. It is only in relatively modern times that a wife has ceased to be considered her husbands property. Peasants were considered as "belonmging" to whomever owned the land they lived on, and often employees were merely chattel of the employers. Enough examples of D/s elements forming the framework of historical society exist that one could argue it supports Jungs theory of the collective unconscious, seemingly disconnected peoples behaving in similiar fashions. The concept of collars, brands, tatoos, etc is directly decended from the practice of owners marking their slaves as their property. Modern BDSM did not dream up the concept of ownership, D/s, M/s, or anything else; it merely has provided a means for people to express themselves openly within the community, and allowed partners to define their own relationship rather than conforming to an artificial societal imposed norm. And how do you know about the past, if not for books? Even if it's all word of mouth, which I doubt, that's still language. I don't think the matter of being written or not is the point.

IronBear -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/27/2010 10:12:32 PM)
Assume there are no book especially on any area of kink. There will still be those who by nature would be Masters/Mistresses and there would who by nature would be slaves or have extreme submissive tendencies which is almost the same thing. Nature itself would nudge the two opposites together so they can both fulfil their natures more completely. The only thing missing is the more formal areas of kink but human nature being what it is there would be lots of experimenting to see what works for the individual couples.

SocratesNot -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/27/2010 10:19:34 PM)
quote: Nonsense. A Dominant/submissive hiearchy has existed in almost every culture since the dawn of time. It is only in relatively modern times that a wife has ceased to be considered her husbands property. Peasants were considered as "belonmging" to whomever owned the land they lived on, and often employees were merely chattel of the employers. Enough examples of D/s elements forming the framework of historical society exist that one could argue it supports Jungs theory of the collective unconscious, seemingly disconnected peoples behaving in similiar fashions. The concept of collars, brands, tatoos, etc is directly decended from the practice of owners marking their slaves as their property. Modern BDSM did not dream up the concept of ownership, D/s, M/s, or anything else; it merely has provided a means for people to express themselves openly within the community, and allowed partners to define their own relationship rather than conforming to an artificial societal imposed norm. Historical forms of slavery have nothing in common with BDSM. Even in the most patriarchal families, even though the man was head of family, there were no elements of TPE, 24/7, let alone internal enslavement. Men were simply in position of authority, women were subordinated, but any control the man exercised over woman was for entirely practical reasons, and NOT in order to enslave her internally, control her 24/7 or satisfy some fetishes or sadomasochistic urges. The number of people with tendencies toward BDSM was always the same, but today they can more easily satisfy these tendencies. In the past, they would rather translate it into abuse. That's why these concepts of M/s and BDSM are not really bad. They try to prevent abuse and usually succeed.

crazyml -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 2:50:36 AM)
Oh my, I have had to edit the arse off my response, which was initially very snarky. I can't tell whether your post is tongue in cheek or not. If it's sincere, then I hope this goes into the the politics and religion category so the other nice people who inhabit that space can discuss it (I've taken a vow not to look at the politics and religion boards because they are so full of shit). You're playing a thought-game with the concept of "belief", and this is ok and all, but I'd respectfully submit that this is the kind of thought game Phil profs play with their Sophomore students as a kind of warm up before they get onto the real thinking. Here are my, very much toned-down, comments on a couple of your points - quote: It's amazing how the thing-itself in this case (slavery) is this structural impossibility, just like the Holocaust is the measure that cannot be measured, this incomparable event to which everyone compares everything. Your meaning is really very unclear. What do you mean by a "structural impossibility" - how is this distinguished from "impossibility", does the addition of "structural" refine its meaning or simply make it sound more "brainy". Are you positing that there is an "idealized" M/s that cannot be achieved/realized? In which case... I'd be happy to discuss that riff. quote: Belief is unbelievable. You can believe you believe something, but not actually believe it (e.g., modern people in religion). You can believe you don't believe something, but actually believe it (this is paradoxically, I think, how atheism functions). "Belief is unbelievable" is a basic logical fallacy. "You can believe you don't believe something, but actually believe it" <- Are you talking here about the Atheist who prays to god when filling out his/her lottery slip? Belief is a complex thing, it is not always rational, and people often manage to maintain contradictory beliefs some of which are rational, some of which may not be. But this statement does nothing to promote your "belief is unbelievable" fallacy. What you're doing here is "Thinkurbation" - the wasteful expenditure of thought for the sole purpose of self-gratification. quote: Niels Bohr, the famous scientist, was once visited at his summer house by a friend. The friend noticed a horseshoe above the door, that is, a traditional European superstition. The friend asks Bohr, 'Do you really believe in this?', and Bohr immediately responds something to the effect of, 'What? Are you crazy? I'm a scientist! Of course I don't believe in this ridiculous superstition!' -- but then he adds a bit of sage wisdom: 'But I've been told it works even if you don't believe in it!' He was being ironic! Sheesh. quote: Isn't this, likewise, how democracy functions? No one really is foolish enough to believe that his or her voice is represented, but everyone assumes the system functions even without one's belief. I'm sorry but there are two key issues with this statement - first, I do believe that my voice is represented, it's not foolish at all to believe so. Sure, many people believe that they are not being properly represented. I believe that my voice is represented because I'm politically active and have seen the impact of organizing and lobbying for change. The people who don't believe that their voice is being represented are simply cynical about the democratic process - I don't mean to criticize them for this, it's understandable given the quality of our politicians. Secondly it is absolutely not true to say that "everyone assumes the system functions even without one's belief" there are many people who believe the system is malfunctioning - they campaign, lobby, form parties and generally get het up about it. quote: Similarly, when people present themselves to you, and tell you these (usually quite ridiculous) stories of their livelihood, one cannot help but sensing that, in believing what you hear, you are in fact the only (critical) support for the truth of what you hear. This is what truth becomes, then, in a profoundly empty (almost Buddhist?) way -- consenting mutually to believe the unbelievable. What is the point you're actually trying to make? That "Belief" can sometimes be built on little more than faith? THat's not a new idea. quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 To create infinite desire that replenishes itself, you must embrace impossibility. (Notice how freedom, basically, is an impossible notion, but it still functions). This wouldn't even make it onto a fortune cookie! You can't say "freedom, basically, is an impossible notion" without doing a whole lot more definition and explaining. quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 Christianity is an impossible religion -- that's why it's so effective. God crediting God with his own son? It's wonderfully insane. Jesus, on the cross, shouting, 'God why have you forsaken me? [God, why don't you exist positively?]' Christianity is an atheist religion -- that's the trick Fuck me. Your whole thesis is based on a single piece of intellectual masturbation - "Let's play with the concept of belief/unbelief". Many many philosophers - a good number of them far brighter than Me or you, have discussed the nature of belief over millenia. I can just imagine, way back when - one of Plato's pupils standing up and saying "You can believe you believe something, but not actually believe it" and Plato saying "Oh fuck off"

reynardfox -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 3:10:14 AM)
You are a virgin aren't you? Go on, you can admit it here. We won't judge you You seem to have the franchise on judging others

catize -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 3:49:21 AM)
I believe my cat understands the spoken word and speaks a few words herself. When I tell her she needs to be polite, she sits quietly and waits until I put food in her bowl. When I get home from work she greets me at the door and says 'hello' (so, ok, it sounds like 'Huh-Row', but there it is.) Do I care whether you or anyone else believes that? Not so much! Just because my cat doesn't say 'Huh-Row' to you, does that mean it doesn't happen? Just because M/s didn't work for you are we to follow along your path of bitter logic? M/s is not for everyone (including me). But to say it doesn't exist at all, based only on your experience or my own life, seems a silly and faulty conclusion.

DesFIP -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 3:54:43 AM)
I'm still amazed that a 24 year old has lived this with several different partners. Let's see, got out of college two years ago and got his first apartment shortly thereafter. So by my reckoning, his partners change faster than a revolving door.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 7:42:49 AM)
What I can't believe is otherwise intelligent people engaging in this unbelievably stupid discussion.

Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 8:35:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml You're playing a thought-game with the concept of "belief", and this is ok and all, but I'd respectfully submit that this is the kind of thought game Phil profs play with their Sophomore students as a kind of warm up before they get onto the real thinking. Some of my material derives from the hugely influential Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Some of it comes from Freud. Feel free to cite your sources, if you have any.

leadership527 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 8:45:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 I'm always fascinated how many people will claim without a blink they live 'real' M/s relationship. (Maybe, with only a blink, you 'Last Man' you!) Then again, some of us are analytical and logical and have examined what the word "slave" means including it's etymology. We have examined what "ownership" means across multiple cultures. We have put that thinking together into a cohesive whole that does in fact hang together. Then again, some of us don't give a rat's ass whether our relationship is 'real M/s' It's a label that is useful to get someone from the BDSM world into the right general ballpark in terms of thinking about our relationship. I find saying, "We are an M/s couple without any whips and chains" seems to facilitate communication quite nicely. It would also appear from reading your post, that some people confuse words and reality. Words are only symbols used to portray reality. As such, they are always incomplete and inaccurate. But if in talking to you, you'd find the description, "We are a married couple following traditional beliefs. My wife obeys me in all things." to be more communicative, I could easily (and do frequently in different circles) refer to her as my obedient wife.

Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 8:55:02 AM)
We all have seen this kind of post before: You see things that strike you as counter-intuitive, so you're all excited to shoot them down one by one -- that's when things get difficult. Not even one of the ideas has been substantially 'refuted' (I'm not proposing the validity of refutation, that's another matter). The best you've done is this pathetic, 'Yes, well, someone else already addressed this, errr, I forget whom', as if thought must obey the rules of kitsch and commodity. The notion of 'structural impossibility' (which I just made up on the spot, but I think it works) is substantiated by a whole host of examples -- the vicissitudes in the structure of belief, Atheistic religion, the way that desire works. By the way, the idea of Christianity's being an atheistic religion comes from a Christian writer named G. K. Chesterton. I actually think the matter of 'believing you believing, but not actually believing it' might have come up in Plato -- of course, it wouldn't be Plato saying 'fuck off', it would be Socrates, and, of course, he wouldn't say that, even if he would disagree. The Greeks were better at thinking, and thought it disreputable simply to attack the speaker and not the argument; it's embarrassing to resort to these devices; CM posters might be wise to take notice. The idea of freedom's impossibility has been addressed by just about every philosopher on record. Also, the idea of basic logical fallacy I've already addressed: it's foolish to think that the logical rules that structure the relations of physical things (like bowling balls) coincide exactly with those structuring (transcendent) thought.

crazyml -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 8:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml You're playing a thought-game with the concept of "belief", and this is ok and all, but I'd respectfully submit that this is the kind of thought game Phil profs play with their Sophomore students as a kind of warm up before they get onto the real thinking. Some of my material derives from the hugely influential Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Some of it comes from Freud. Feel free to cite your sources, if you have any. Ermm... is that it? A little game of all my bluff? I've made some very critical points about your post, argue your thesis - Challenge me on my criticism, convince me. With the very greatest respect, the name dropping of Zizek and Freud doesn't amount to a citation. Which books? Which essays? Nor does it move your argument forward one iota. [ed for typos] [ed for more typos and to moderate my response]

Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 8:57:51 AM)
quote: A Dominant/submissive hiearchy has existed in almost every culture since the dawn of time. This is far from obvious. Some anthropologists would agree, but certainly not all, or even most.

Silence8 -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:01:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml You're playing a thought-game with the concept of "belief", and this is ok and all, but I'd respectfully submit that this is the kind of thought game Phil profs play with their Sophomore students as a kind of warm up before they get onto the real thinking. Some of my material derives from the hugely influential Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek. Some of it comes from Freud. Feel free to cite your sources, if you have any. Ermm... is that it? A little game of all my bluff? I've made some very critical points about your post, argue your thesis - Challenge me on my criticism, convince me. With the very greatest respect, the name dropping of Zizek and Freud doesn't amount to a citation. Which books? Which essays? Nor does it move your argument forward one iota. Any chimp can parrot a bit of Freud or Zizek. I get the strong impression that you've either not studied these philos at all, or that you have studied them but misunderstood them shockingly. Zizek would have punch you in the face for your comment on Atheism. And I suspect that Freud would have wondered if you didn't enjoy your potty training just a leeeeetle too much. [ed for typos] I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Zizek is the philosopher arguably I know best. He's stated many times that he's an 'Atheist Christian'. Only because of him I know about Chesterton, who very early developed this contradiction within Christianity. Like me, his idea is that this makes Christianity that much more effective.

allthatjaz -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:04:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot I think that M/s dynamic is just a concept, hyperbolic to some extent and has nothing to do with individual "M/s" relationships, which are usually somewhat short of what concept of pure M/s really means.And yes, I think there is a bit of delusion in the participants. Slaves think they are more enslaved than they really are (if they are at all REALLY enslaved), Masters think they own their slaves more then they really own them (if they REALLY own them at all). So, yes - I think all these relationships are a little too much influenced by prescriptive theories of M/s found in books, even more so are minds of participants influenced by concepts from books. Actually, if there weren't books and concepts in the first place, almost no one would develop the concept on their own and incorporate it in relationship. Most of Masters and slaves would never become what they are if they didn't learn about this concept from books, blogs, websites etc, or from local M/s or BDSM community. I have to go along with this. A recent and ongoing experience with a vanilla couple confirmed something to me. This couple are not within our world and yet its very obvious that he leads and she follows. He structures and she takes on board. He is in charge and she enjoys him being in charge. He is her daddy, her ruler, her boss and of course her very contented lover. Being with them is like being in a successful M/s household and yet its not M/s its just them finding the correct partner. What this confirmed to me was this oblivious reality that they have put together in such a structured way is possible without having to go down the route of learning about S/m or D/s. The reality is, it can and does happen within the vanilla world. These people are vanilla and yet she is like his slave and he is like her Master. I think that when we get into this lifestyle and decide upon our route, we become perfectionists within our own fantasies. We become more demanding of what we want. Submissives/slaves can turn dominant men away in droves because they don't quite fit within their needs. Dominants can demand the ridiculous and if we are not careful it can all start to become a life of roleplay and hidden lifestyles. We refuse vanilla dates because if they are not in this lifestyle they will probably bore us stupid and yet I plainly sit watching a dominant vanilla man get it perfectly right with his submissive vanilla partner.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Believing in M/s (5/28/2010 9:08:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: allthatjaz I think that when we get into this lifestyle and decide upon our route, we become perfectionists within our own fantasies. We become more demanding of what we want. Submissives/slaves can turn dominant men away in droves because they don't quite fit within their needs. Dominants can demand the ridiculous and if we are not careful it can all start to become a life of roleplay and hidden lifestyles. We refuse vanilla dates because if they are not in this lifestyle they will probably bore us stupid and yet I plainly sit watching a dominant vanilla man get it perfectly right with his submissive vanilla partner. Yeah, what the smart girl said!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.515625E-02