quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

Some subs crave humiliation and degradation exactly because their natural personality is confident, aggressive or even controlling, and they enjoy the freedom that letting go of such personality traits - and the pressures and responsibilities that go with them - offers them. (this I know from personal experience - In case anyone wants to be critical on those grounds :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

Poly? It certainly shouldn't say that. It does say switch, which is true, but I have changed it to dominant, which is more accurate. That's the problem with labels. They are approximations, not absolutes... and often more than one is required to paint a reasonably accurate picture.

It's also the problem with a website where you almost never see your own profile after you first create it hehe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

It sounds here like you are saying that unless one has experienced the exact scenario an OP is talking about, one has no right to an opinion. That's a worse logical fallacy than the slippery slope one... it attempts, directly, to stifle open discourse.

Even if I did have the exact experience, my evidence would just be anecdotal... which is fine for demonstrating possibility, but useless for proving absolutes.

No, not at all. I don't believe there are discussion topics where anybody can prove absolutes like a mathematical equation.
There are some posters (not on this thread) who try to do statistical analyses, and those may support a position, but I don't find statistics reliable in that they are not much different than creative accounting practices.
Anecdotes don't require proof. Either an event happened or a scenario took place, or it didn't. Therefore, they are more factually reliable to me as demonstrations of actual human behavior.

As for the rest of your post, I stated my piece and did not interfere with you stating yours, nor did I ever assert that your opinions are pure speculation with no basis in reality.
My emphasis was on weight and the weight that opinions can carry, and firsthand knowledge carries greater weight and authority than secondhand knowledge or hearsay.
As far as I can tell, neither one of us has had firsthand knowledge. That doesn't mean we have no right to weigh in with our opinions, the same as anyone else who has an opinion, especially when both playing fields are relatively level.

Nobody should have to feel that another poster is taking the offensive with them without any provocation.

DreamLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamlady

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

Poly? It certainly shouldn't say that. It does say switch, which is true, but I have changed it to dominant, which is more accurate. That's the problem with labels. They are approximations, not absolutes... and often more than one is required to paint a reasonably accurate picture.

It's also the problem with a website where you almost never see your own profile after you first create it hehe.

My bad? It could have been a few months ago, but you had posted about swingers clubs, which had given me that impression.
It may just be semantics, but there is polyamory and polysexuality. I consider both of them to be non-monogamy (hence "poly").
The same with seeking a sub or a Dominant outside of your (plural) primary relationship, with whom a couple want to engage in BDSM play, not strictly for non-sexual service where a sub or slave is basically there to perform household chores and gets his or her need for Domination met.

Yes, I know what you mean about labels, and the classifications on this site are limited. There is no generic catch-all for kinksters or for fetishists, Tops or bottoms.
I have always found this to be problematic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

It sounds here like you are saying that unless one has experienced the exact scenario an OP is talking about, one has no right to an opinion. That's a worse logical fallacy than the slippery slope one... it attempts, directly, to stifle open discourse.

Even if I did have the exact experience, my evidence would just be anecdotal... which is fine for demonstrating possibility, but useless for proving absolutes.

quote:

No, not at all. I don't believe there are discussion topics where anybody can prove absolutes like a mathematical equation.
There are some posters (not on this thread) who try to do statistical analyses, and those may support a position, but I don't find statistics reliable in that they are not much different than creative accounting practices.
Anecdotes don't require proof. Either an event happened or a scenario took place, or it didn't. Therefore, they are more factually reliable to me as demonstrations of actual human behavior.

quote:


As for the rest of your post, I stated my piece and did not interfere with you stating yours, nor did I ever assert that your opinions are pure speculation with no basis in reality.
My emphasis was on weight and the weight that opinions can carry, and firsthand knowledge carries greater weight and authority than secondhand knowledge or hearsay.
As far as I can tell, neither one of us has had firsthand knowledge. That doesn't mean we have no right to weigh in with our opinions, the same as anyone else who has an opinion, especially when both playing fields are relatively level.

Nobody should have to feel that another poster is taking the offensive with them without any provocation.

DreamLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

I have, in fact, first hand knowledge of the issue in question... but I am not inclined to air my private matters publicly in detail. Nevertheless, it shouldn't matter on a topic like this one, where the question was merely of a certain scenario was possible.

Holding out on us, huh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

And I agree with you. Everyone has a right to an opinion on a public board like this, who's whole point is to provide a venue for people to express opinions. At the same time, no one is obligated to agree with someone else's opinion, unless they actually do... and everyone who participates really ought to be prepared to have their opinion challenged, and to defend it if they can. That is what open discourse IS :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamlady


I was including you in my comments, in case you felt that any of the opinions I have expressed were offensive to you personally. You have made more than one remark about how something I've said is insulting, or which you have perceived as an affront.

quote:


You will notice that UllrsIshtar and LadyPact gave straightforward accounts, without challenging the content of any other reply posts and/or any other contributing posters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

I wasn't personally insulted at all. If I recall the comment... I said I thought it was generally insulting to men at large.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

and you go on to be somewhat insulting to subs/slaves who's kinks may tend toward humiliation and degradation. Your statements may well be true for you, but not for all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamlady
It also refers to the WISHFUL THINKING on the part of the NON-PREFERRED gender, similar to the state of denial that so many men go into when they can't deal with perceived rejection by a woman. Any woman. Particularly lesbians. Some men get bent out of shape on this site when they see a lesbian profile which states NO MEN (as did OP apparently when he mentions coming across lesbian profiles which prohibit males from making contact).

This is reading an awful lot in to the intention and character of the OP, with no basis. And a somewhat insulting general characterisation of men, in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

I don't know how you read that in to my position. Your position was an absolute that no lesbian would ever seek out or desire contact with the opposite sex, and my position was simply that for some, that may not be true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

In general, I find the notion distasteful and incorrect that subs/slaves ARE subs/slaves BECAUSE they suffer from low self esteem and confusion. It may sometimes be the case, but as a presumption I think it is insulting to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

I did note their accounts. I noted that they appeared to refute your theory by giving examples to the contrary. That, to my mind, is a challenge. Not aggressively given, or directed personally at you... but a sort of challenge to your position nonetheless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamlady

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

I wasn't personally insulted at all. If I recall the comment... I said I thought it was generally insulting to men at large.

As a man, I assume you were including yourself within that large segment of the population. Besides myself, you seem to take opinions as being polarizing when they oppose your personal belief system, rather than presenting one facet.

Re HoneyBears Post#3, Your Post#4:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

and you go on to be somewhat insulting to subs/slaves who's kinks may tend toward humiliation and degradation. Your statements may well be true for you, but not for all.

Your Post #15:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamlady
It also refers to the WISHFUL THINKING on the part of the NON-PREFERRED gender, similar to the state of denial that so many men go into when they can't deal with perceived rejection by a woman. Any woman. Particularly lesbians. Some men get bent out of shape on this site when they see a lesbian profile which states NO MEN (as did OP apparently when he mentions coming across lesbian profiles which prohibit males from making contact).

This is reading an awful lot in to the intention and character of the OP, with no basis. And a somewhat insulting general characterisation of men, in my opinion.

This did not refer to all men, but the subcategory of men who don't like being the non-preferred gender of women (lesbians), not unlike those men on these and other seeking sites who get belligerent when they can't take No for an answer.

If you as a man do not belong to either subcategory, then this observation would not be applicable to you.

If OP is not bothered by the NO MEN rule that some women have (not only with lesbians, but there are also bisexuals seeking a woman at the current time, who are not looking for a man then, and who don't want to be contacted by any men), and if he is not one to take such things personally, then this wouldn't apply to him either. Only he would be privy to his intentions insofar as what he's told us.

quote:


You read into my comments that I was taking a position that was absolute, and I wasn't. I was presenting one or more facets, and making the distinction between how lesbian is defined as opposed to bisexual, within the context of this thread topic.
OP later clarified that he was specifically referring to lesbians and not to bisexual women.

Re DannyIsNotWelcom Post#35, Your Post#37:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic

In general, I find the notion distasteful and incorrect that subs/slaves ARE subs/slaves BECAUSE they suffer from low self esteem and confusion. It may sometimes be the case, but as a presumption I think it is insulting to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic
I did note their accounts. I noted that they appeared to refute your theory by giving examples to the contrary. That, to my mind, is a challenge. Not aggressively given, or directed personally at you... but a sort of challenge to your position nonetheless.

quote:

Again, you are presuming that I am taking a polarizing position of absolutes. I never see information as a challenge. I don't take such things personally, nor do I view discussions as debate fodder. In fact, I rarely see things as a challenge unless I am directly challenged on a personal level mono a mono.