|
subfever -> RE: The great gift/tribute/money domme question (12/11/2006 7:43:45 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Morrigel
I haven't CALLED you anything. I have suggested you adjust your vocabulary to be more accurate and potentially less offensive.
If you want a "hooker with a whip"--you're not looking for a pro domme. You're looking for a prostitute. There is usually at least one girl in any town who will perform as a prostitute while dressed in leather, and throw in a bit of kink while she blows and bangs people. But such a woman IS in fact a "hooker" (already an unnecessarily offensive term, by the way), with or without a whip. She is not a pro domme per se, because most pro dommes DO NOT SELL the acts that a standard prostitute does.
I do not care, one way or the other, what your interests are sexually or what you spend your money on, so "approval" is a meaningless word. Many of my personal friends are sex workers of various kinds, and I have nothing against ANY sexual profession. Nor do I have anything against their clients, so long as you are polite and respectful--and in the context of this thread, so long as you use terms that do not mislead others.
It's really too bad that you didn't carefully read and comprehend what I was saying. Never once did I infer that ProDommes are hookers with whips. I've been around the block more than enough times to clearly understand the difference between the two.
I made it very clear in post 44 that I was discussing the economic advantages of paying to have sexually-submissive fantasies and kinks fulfilled and getting one's jollies off. How on earth could you or anyone honestly draw a conclusion that I was referring to a ProDomme? Indeed, I was referring to a prostitute with a whip.
I find it noteworthy that when I used the term "hooker with a whip" in that same post, it wasn't a problem for you. In fact, you even responded to it with a lead! But then later in this thread, the identical term became a problem for you. Why is that, Morrigel? I invite you to honestly explain that to us.
I understand the subtle differences between directly calling someone a name, and implying a name indirectly as you have done. Nevertheless, I know a cheap-shot insult when I see one. And anyone who pulls that crap with me is going to get called on it.
You may try to sugarcoat your insult by explaining that you didn't directly call me a name. Such sugarcoating may fool some of the people here, but it doesn't fool me.
But you didn't like being called, did you? You went on to dishonestly twist, back-pedal, and even appoint yourself as Police Of The Boards, outrageously implying that your motivation here is to monitor against potentially misleading terms. Well, according to your convoluted logic, wouldn't the term hooker with a whip been just as "misleading" in post 44?
|
|
|
|
