Falkenstein -> RE: Can a slave have plans and aspirations? (6/9/2010 11:05:57 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cassandria See, you couldn't compromise such things, but me, I wouldn't hardly blink. Why? Because I am a slave. .... cassandria, great profile, you have. The good thing about this kind of thread is that it incite one to look at profile that one would never find otherwise. When I think that fools are saying that the Internet is making people illiterate... But back to our subject. I think that you could as well have written "Because I am who I am". We have again here a discussion about the orthodox definition of what a proper "slave" is, what is the canon of Ds?. It is an almost ritual exercise, usually with a poor OP in the role of the sacrificial lamb. It comes with a regularity that even Swiss train would envy. It never fails to stir passion, causing otherwise polite and reasonable persons to hurl insults at each other. It is perfectly useless in getting any objective definition of what a slave / master / sub / dominant / should be. It is nevertheless an exercise loved because it allow each of us to define for her- and himself what he is. There are three currents in this community: The absolutists who either have an understanding of the expression pushed to the proper end of a logic or feel that only an absolute power exchange will make them happy. The moderates who are strongly aware of the society's ethics and mores and want their relationship to be seamlessly integrated in it, not just in forms but also in content. The relativists who consider that the form of the relationship depends of the desires and possibility of the two involved persons. Personally, I think that even if the form of the relationship depends of the individuals, as it has been said very eloquently by Ishtarr (who also has a beautifully written profile BTW), most people want norms to follow. And then my humanist education and philosophy pushes me then toward the moderate options.
|
|
|
|