RE: Aggression and submission (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress



Message

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 3:51:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

But there has to be movement at the centre of the axis, or the wheel couldn't be revolving. 

This lack of logic in this sentence hurts me deep inside.

Taoism is all very well, but not at the expense of accurate mechanics.

Plus, you get the greatest leverage if you apply force at the outer edge of the wheel-much bigger torque. If you apply force at the dead centre nothing happens.

(In other words, I dislike your metaphor. [8D])



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 3:54:07 PM)

Aw poop! I was hoping you wouldn't point that out, VC. What else would I expect from my Internet Niece? :)



PeonForHer -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 4:02:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

But there has to be movement at the centre of the axis, or the wheel couldn't be revolving. 

This lack of logic in this sentence hurts me deep inside.

Taoism is all very well, but not at the expense of accurate mechanics.

Plus, you get the greatest leverage if you apply force at the outer edge of the wheel-much bigger torque. If you apply force at the dead centre nothing happens.

(In other words, I dislike your metaphor. [8D])


Yes!  My nerd's magnet worked a treat! 

Firstly, I said it was an enigma - it isn't logical. Secondly, who cares about force?  It's movement that counts here.  Thirdly, I'm sorry you didn't like it, but it's one of the few interesting things I remember from my maths classes at school.  My maths teacher, Mr Emberson, was better qualified than you are, so up yours.*

(*And I mean that in my most aggressively-submissive way.[;)])



VaguelyCurious -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 4:05:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Secondly, who cares about force?  It's movement that counts here. 

*Facepalm*. You aren't anything like this daft, so you're just winding me up. I'm not rising to it.

I'm NOT, y'hear?
[8D]



PeonForHer -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 4:51:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Secondly, who cares about force?  It's movement that counts here. 

*Facepalm*. You aren't anything like this daft, so you're just winding me up. I'm not rising to it.

I'm NOT, y'hear?
[8D]



Yes, I am that daft.   Please walk me through it, VC, if you'd be so kind. 



Twoshoes -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 5:46:25 PM)

I do like where this metaphor has lead, Peon.

Maybe, if worded it this way:
The immobile point at the center of the wheel - the steadfast leader - is crucial to describing the circular movement - the efforts - of any point on a wheel - any peon. Plus, the vector describing the torque - force creating change in what the peons do - is fixed along the axis of rotation going through the center point - all decisions go through the leader. The best leader may actually be seen as not doing any movement at all!



PeonForHer -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 6:04:12 PM)

*Chortle*  Very droll!

But - Twoshoes!

Another physics bod!

I've been trying to recall what my maths teacher told me.  Here it is:

Put a marker on the rim of a rotating wheel.  It'll move faster than on the rim than if you placed it nearer towards the hub.  Say the marker is able to move of its own accord towards the hub.  The nearer to the hub it moves, the slower that marker will rotate with the wheel.  But as the marker moves through the hub and out towards the other side of the wheel, it reverses its direction of rotation.  A thing has to stop before it can reverse.  But if the marker stops - at the centre of the hub - then that means the hub isn't turning - which means the rest of the wheel can't be turning.  It doesn't make sense.

So, where I, or Mr Emberson, go wrong?

Oh well, I passed my maths O level, with top marks.  Heh.  Just as well that problem never came up, eh?  Couldn't couldn't stand the subject, though, and ditched it at age 16.



Twoshoes -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 6:42:00 PM)

Really, only an abstract and infinitely small thing called a "point" at the centre wouldn't be turning. The hub would still be turning, because it's a physical object much bigger than a point. When people say hubs don't turn, they're making an approximation.

*I even spelled it centre for you.
Then again, you probably knew this all along and you're trying to trip me up to make me look foolish!!![8D]



LanceHughes -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 6:52:12 PM)

This is easily solved.... the hub has NO direction of motion / turning.  What you are talking about - a direction - must be with regards to some object.  So, if the wheel point is moving in a given direction with regards to the center, of COURSE it stops on the hub / center.  The hub is not moving with respect to itself, now, is it?

Sounds like something called relativity!  STOP THE PRESSES!



DMFParadox -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 6:56:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twoshoes

Really, only an abstract and infinitely small thing called a "point" at the centre wouldn't be turning. The hub would still be turning, because it's a physical object much bigger than a point. When people say hubs don't turn, they're making an approximation.

*I even spelled it centre for you.
Then again, you probably knew this all along and you're trying to trip me up to make me look foolish!!![8D]


Yeah, that point would be a limit, approaching but not quite zero.

I think that's the point of the mental exercise. Especially since peon learned it in math class.

But it does illustrate an element of power exchange. Part of the reason people crave it is because, in some situations, concentrating leverage increases force and 'work'. The hub of the wheel is constantly deciding for the rim what vector it's going, and the rim expresses that decision in ways that neither rim nor hub could do if they were squished into two separate piles of sawdust.

But there are a lot of different ways to make a wheel... and sometimes the driving force is applied from rim centerwards, to the hub. Doesn't make the power less concentrated... And there's wheels where the spokes are turned, or the axle is hooked to a transmission and four other wheels, or... or... fuck it, this analogy has gotten out of babymommabangin' hand.



DMFParadox -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 7:06:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious


quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

Her description of the differences between the male and female experience was spot on.

I disagree. But debating the issue with you will stress me out and I'm not here to be stressed, so never mind.


For you, I'll try to be nice. But I've seen too many people getting hurt because they ignored this facet of modern life, men and women both. There is a difference in psychology, both from a genetic and a stereotype-threat point of view. Men are not women with cocks, and women are not men with tits, when taken as whole populations. And some of the things both groups do are retarded. In completely different ways. But the ways that women do stupid crap are, shall we say, granted less weight, even when the outcomes are equally severe.



Twoshoes -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 7:08:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twoshoes

Really, only an abstract and infinitely small thing called a "point"


Yeah, that point would be a derivative, approaching but not quite zero.


You meant limit, right? 'Infinitely small' was clearer. Aren't you a programmer, anyway? Stick to:

while (true){
System.out.println("Fail");
}[:D]



DMFParadox -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 7:18:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twoshoes

quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twoshoes

Really, only an abstract and infinitely small thing called a "point"


Yeah, that point would be a derivative, approaching but not quite zero.


You meant limit, right? 'Infinitely small' was clearer. Aren't you a programmer, anyway? Stick to:

while (true){
System.out.println("Fail");
}[:D]


Oops. Yep, that's exactly what I meant. Fuck me sideways.

I was looking at that shit today, too. Sometimes my brain substitutes words and doesn't let me know it happened... kind of part of the reason I am a programmer, because it annoyed me enough I kept trying to do something about it.

Call it masochism; when I'm coding, if I get a word wrong then it's that much more painful, and I can't fucking stop thinking about it until I've fixed the fucker. Nawateyemeen?



PeonForHer -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 7:39:50 PM)

FR,

DMFP, Lance, Twoshoes:

Thanks!  I think between you you've begun to show me a way through that puzzle. 

By the way, before we leave the subject of wheels and hubs - I remember the relationship between the two being used to illustrate the idea of acausal connections.  The hub doesn't cause the rim to move, nor vice versa, but they act together and the one couldn't do its stuff without the other.  You could call either or neither master/mistress or slave.  

With a bit of tidying up, that'd work as a nice metaphor for a D/s relationship in which A is happy to consider him/herself the dominant, B is happy to call him/herself A's slave, but to all outside appearances the opposite sort of relationship could exist, or indeed no D/s relationship at all. 



MsNightShade -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 7:42:27 PM)

Slaves that get my attention are unafraid to approach me. If, however, I have to constantly be the bitch in heels type in order to illicit the responses I want then its just not worth it. No one can be "on" all the time. I'm naturally dominant, its where I find the most comfort in my life. That doesnt mean that I want to always start everything, wear fetish clothing, bark orders or have to "show my teeth". I will pick and choose the times in which I will exhert my aggression and when I wont, not the slave.

Overly aggressive in your face types just scream the kinky sex devotees, to which I have no time to cater to fantasy anymore. If you want that sort of thing, there are a number of pros that can accomodate you. Its there job afterall.



Twoshoes -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/12/2010 10:01:50 PM)

I do have to say "Not now" to people sometimes. Is it really that difficult?



PeonForHer -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/13/2010 6:30:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer
This isn't my particular kink, but one successful dynamic I have seen in some of the long term femdom couples I know is that the dominant woman is very much a pampered princess and her submissive Knight takes charge of building the castle to make her happy and fighting all her dragons for her.  He's the aggressive one, but there's no question who his aggression serves.  He worships her soft femininity and is absolutely obedient and devoted.  She graciously accepts his devotion and gives him direction and inspiration as he lives to serve her.  This is a completely valid and workable model of a D/s relationship.


I fully understand the pull of that kind of D/s relationship and it's given me many a happy reverie over the years.  But, occasionally, it makes me think of the vampires in Anne Rice's books: sucking the life-blood out, killing him and doing her no real good either.  'Soft femininity' is not attractive when it turns into 'bloated effete blob'.



Icarys -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/13/2010 6:39:25 AM)

Funny thing here is if it were reversed (Picturing what I have in mind) you'd hear all kinds of wrong with it.
On a personal note, I'm all for being "taken care of" but not to the point where someone puts me on a pedestal..Emotionally or physically manifested through actions.

Anyway..Great topic..I think I'm done here for now.



crazyml -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/14/2010 10:10:16 AM)

Oh ffs.

The centre of the centre of the hub is still ROTATING, it rotates by the same number of degrees as any other part of the wheel.

The circular motion at the centre of the centre of the hub is zero, because the radius is zero, and therefore the circumference is zero.




PeonForHer -> RE: Aggression and submission (11/14/2010 10:26:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Oh ffs.

The centre of the centre of the hub is still ROTATING, it rotates by the same number of degrees as any other part of the wheel.

The circular motion at the centre of the centre of the hub is zero, because the radius is zero, and therefore the circumference is zero.



Sorry, Crazy, I'm no doubt showing my scientific ignorance here, but don't the two statements in bold contradict one another?  Is there a difference between 'circular motion' and 'rotation'?  Or are you saying that something can rotate, but not move?



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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