Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrMister quote:
ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote:
ORIGINAL: Bearlee His question was merely …is it the general consensus that one is not truly in this lifestyle if they don’t participate in such functions? Do you honestly believe that was the intent of the OP? Can you find any evidence at all on this board that could lead one to even think such a statement could possibly be true? The OP threw up an obvious straw man to make some sort of point...what do you think that point might have been? Taggard Very fascinating indeed that there are a few of you kind folks who possess an extraordinary tendency to assume such things that do in fact literally speak volumes about another person’s character, values, etc. Thank goodness this isn’t too common amongst the vast majority here. And by the way, TD&W, Bearlee was absolutely correct in what she gleaned from my inquiry, which was most assuredly made in an honest effort to learn from the input of like-minded individuals. If you would be so kind, please point out to me what in heaven’s name is wrong with that? Happy that you've received your solicited validation. There are people who feel you can't be considered "lifestyle" if you don't attend functions. After all it's be "heard it in a chat-room" AND "at a munch"! quote:
puella: Yikes, I see his question was offensive to you.. The question wasn't offensive in the least. The assumption, based on "experience" never gleaned from any "experience" I find offensive. If you've never been to a function where is the reference that anyone who does is judgmental? Based upon that perspective it's valid to be judgmental on a group that you admit is not doing something you would do. But wait, the references of validity come from on-line source, by definition outside the avoided experience. And throughout the post, the responses are; "Yeah you're right" from people sharing the same perspective; while anyone claiming activity of sort never experienced by the OP claims they've never heard it, and concur that it's not even thought about. Disagreement is responded to by claims of "misinterpretation" or "taking the quote out of context". If there was a post, "Are there any Dominants who use a safe-word that are anthing more than submissive obeying the sensation needs of their subs." Do you think that would be attacking Dominants with safe words? I'd say so whether I agreed or disagreed with the OP! Can it be interpreted another way? Adding, "it's nonsense if anyone should be considered dominant if they have safe words"; pretty much confirms that attitude. Is there an alternative intrepretation? I only changed the issue addressed. Is there a real example, or experience sited?
|