What I take away from the "Gift" dispute.

What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Noah -> What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 6:54:27 PM)
The gift/not gift dispute as it is conducted here every week or so tends to bring confusion, discord and antagonism moreso than insight, I think, but hope springs eternal. I my experience, conversations about what a thing is are generally fraught with hazard unless either: (A) the matter at hand is strictly factual or (B) the people having the discussion are careful and intellectually generous in an effort to achieve mutual clarity rather than just score dubious points in a tired old pissing contest. Some people in this ongoing discussion hew very close to a particular dictionary definition of the word gift. This is the one which refers to some notion of conditionedness. The fact is, there are other "official, you can look it up" senses of the word gift. Few if any of them have the same requirement of altruistic spirit. Your dictionary may not list these other senses but if you go to one of the dictionaries on my shelf you will see well over a full page of very fine print given over to several well-documented and well-accepted senses of the word gift. Since all these various sense of the word gift are well established in our language I think it is fatuous to compare every use of the word gift in these forums against only one of the several definitions. Do you suppose we could take into account the full range of meanings of the word gift? Could we then examine in which ways it does make sense to describe submission as a gift and in which ways it doesn't? In some ways and for some people it seems helpful and in other ways and for other people it seems less so. There seem to be some well intended, bright people in each camp (and yeah, some tiresome boors) so I really think that we could have a productive conversation if we stay away from all the ontic language, take the wide variety of WIITWD into acount, and look at "submission as gift" from at least as many points of view as there are definitions of "gift" in the OED. For someone to come along and say ".... hogwash. it ain't a gift" seems just as vain and just as in vain as saying the opposite. Do we really imagine that this is the sort of thing where there is a black and white fact of the matter? Some issues are like that, that is they are plainly factual. Other issues aren't. We can evaluate them, assign kinds and degrees of positive or negative value. Those who say that one can't apply the word gift unless there is no expectation of response are making a claim that is opposed to our common experience and directly contrary to what is found in any top quality dictionary. There are lots of perfectly common uses of the word gift that don't impose unconditionality. A lot of them are bundled under the #2 definition of "gift" found in many dictionaries which amounts to: "A thing given." That covers a lot of ground. And as for those who complain that if you give something away you don't have it anymore, have you ever given someone else pleasure? Do you now roam the world personally pleasureless? Have you ever given anyone a good idea? Or a cold, for that matter? I really hope that complaints like "What you give away you no longer have" are meant to be funny. Because, well, they are laughable if offered in the kind of categorical language we so often see here. I have a friend to whom I occasionally give gifts. My giving of a particular gift can be an instance of the Twue, Exalted Giving, I suppose, a pure gush of generous recognition and love desiring nothing in return. But can it be this even if I happen to know this friend well enough to "expect" in some kind of way that, yeah, when my birthday rolls around he is likely to "gift" me back? Does the fact that I expect that he'll probably give me a gift someday really mean for you that my gift is no gift, since my gift wasn't given "without expectations of anything in return"? The mere expectation that something will come back doesn't seem to me to rule anything out automatically and all by itself. And the often cited claim that any giving which is pleasureable, meaningful or otherwise rewarding for the giver is not giving in the first place, well that just sounds wacky to me. Must we be absolutely emotionally neutral or negative in our gift giving? Should I not give you a new swimming pool because of the risk that you might one day invite me to cool off in it? "destroying" the giftishness of the gift? WTF? Now let me give you an another example. There, that sentence was my example. That sentence was an example of a use of the word "give" which you have probably accepted without argument a hundred times this year alone. Am I failing to "give" you an example if I am expecting or even hoping for mutual understanding to result? I can benefit from our mutual understanding so by the rules of some posters here I did not TRUELY GIVE you an example. But that is just silliness, isn't it? Of course I gave you an example. Nothing could be clearer to see. The word "gift" has more than one sense. That is a fact. And in my opinion (and in the opionions of the lexicographers of every dictionary I have ever read) it isn't the case that one sense is the be-all and end-all while the others are bogus. In fact, the differences between the many various senses of the word "gift" are interesting and worth exploring, in my view, specifically in terms of what that exploration might shine light on in the way of power exchange relationships. So yeah, let's highlight that special, restricted, sublime notion of giving which some people have such an irrational fetish for. Let's even promote awareness of it. Let's bring out also the senses in which the idea of "giving submission" fails to capture something in the dynamics of BDSM relationships as viewed by some people who are worth listening to. Let's also highlight that one definition of the word gift is "A thing given." Like the car Dad gives junior on his seventeenth birthday, with the condition that Junior buy his own gas and insurance and not carelessly (or angrily) crash through the garage door every week. Does anyone really want to say that this is not a gift because the giving gives Dad pleasure and the gift arrives with conditions? And isn't this a pretty decent analogy for the submissively oriented person who throws her lot in with a particular dominant type? Especially if she throws in her lot based on a informed presumption that he will behave responsibly and not carelessly or angrily drive her through the garage door every week? Maybe I just don't have my shorts twisted up tightly enough. To describe either of these things (car or submission) as instances of giving just doesn't make me all nervous and jerky. It seems to work good. How are your shorts today? If we choose to explore the range of meanings available in characterizing submissionas a gift I think we can do it with more clarity and less rancor if we avoid saying things like: "This IS/IS NOT That" "Submission IS/IS NOT a gift." The paragraph you just read has an implied "should" in it. That is a pretty good sign that the point I was making had to do with a matter of evaluation rather than simply with a matter of fact. I was expressing an opinion and the opinion followed an account meant to sketch the plausibility of that opinion. My view of submission in general has been illuminated by some of the talk about it being (usefully viewed as) a gift. Including some of the talk in favor and some of the talk against. Over the years this ongoing conversation has shown me how submission can indeed be seen as a gift. Similarly I'm grateful for what has been brought out in certain posts which reject the notion of submission as a gift. This all works and works well without ever bringing up the topic of whether--in some fundamental, real deal, bottom line sense--submission IS or ISN'T this or that. In my view that is a question which is about as helpful as "how much would a triangular smell weigh on the moon?" It looks just like a question and indeed the sentence is an interrogative one. But when you lift its skirt you find nothing worth getting into, eh? I don't think it hogwash to highlight the ways in which submission is or isn't a helpfully seen as a gift. I do think it is hogwash, however, to reject the whole area of exploration based on an insistence to focus on just one of the several dictionary definitions of the word "gift" at the expense of all others. I mean give me a break. I'll give you one later. I promise. As for the talk about how submission can't be a gift because it is something inside you, a character trait can we compare submission to loyalty? A certain person may consider herself "born" loyal. It is a core character trait for her. Just the way she operates. But loyalty is not loyalty if it goes in all directions at once. It must go here rather than there, to this person, thing, or idea rather than somewhere else. If you told me you gave your football loyalty to the NY Jets till they went to play in New Jersey, well, okay. You're a loyal person. You "gave" your (innate) loyalty in that direction until they inspired you to withold it. All those words seem to work just fine. Just as, in general, the language of giving seems to work just fine in regard to submission unless someone stacks the deck by refusing several well-acepted sense of the word "give" and insists that the whole English speaking world is wrong, wrong, wrong when they use the word "gift" in any other way. Not that idiotic things can't be said in terms of "giving submission", too. But idiotic things can be said about anything. And by the way, those who say sibmission can't be a gift because it is just an expression of self--for them--are quite unfair to all those people who instead choose carefully and willingly to submit to another person without any deep sense of need to submit. Come on, picture two women who are behaving in just the same ways toward their partners, ways we commonly think of as submissive. One of these women constantly goes on and on and on about her "slave heart" and how she has no choice in her behavior, that she is absolutely driven to every act of submission. The other woman has no such predispositions. She just really cares for her partner and sees that this behavior pleases him, so she gives him this behavior. Just what is the problem here? Is it not "submission" in the second case because it voluntary rather than "driven by deep-seated needs"? It seems to me that every time she is submitting to his will, she is ... submitting to his will. Is the person who submits in response to some irresistable interior urge "more" submissive that one who does so quite freely in the face of a lovely range of viable alternatives? Then again. do the wonderful range of acts of submission she (the non-slave-heart submissive) gives her partner not count as "giving" just because the word submission might appear in the sentence? Now let me give you another sense in which someone might choose to employ the word gift in this conversation. One sense of gift which appears in any competent dictionary is the one that has to do with a person "having a gift for" something: music, gardening, torture, what-have-you. So let's think of a person who has recognized or at least suspects that she has a "gift" for submission in this restricted sense of the word. She decides eventually to bestow or offer this "gift" of hers to a particular dominant. Now, if you won't allow me to say "give her submission" will you at least allow me to say "bestow her gift for submission"? And if the answer to that last question is even a qualified yes then maybe we are just splitting hairs to say that this is an okay thing to say but "give one’s submission" isn't. So: My answer to the question "Is submission a gift" is not to approve or disapprove of the word "gift" in the question. Instead my answer is to cast a suspicious eye at the word "is." This word, though small, can be a great irritant to a discussion, often without the source of the irritation ever being recognized. I would like to propose a related, alternative inquiry. In what ways is it helpful or unhelpful to conceive of submission as a gift? Some people see their relationships as voyages, even though every day they wake up in the same spot. I suspect that to view a relationship as a voyage could be very helful in many regards, with some negative potentials lurking as well. Some people are comfortable talking in terms of "working"on a relationship. Others get the screaming heebie jeebies that such a word should be used in such a context. Personally I don't see work as a bad thing. I see it as a productive thing and the idea of engaging efforts which will be productive for my relationship is a fine idea to me. Given that you might personally choose not to employ the word gift or the notion of giving to your relationship, can anyone explain to me... in a way that doesn't fly in the face of the dictionary and common sense... why it would be that someone else who finds value in using the notion of "submission as gift" should abandon the value they find there? My advice to any noobs on the relationship prowl is: Comb the profiles and message boards for the names of anyone who insists that that you do or don't see submission as a gift. Put all the names in one pile. Either limit your partner search to these people only, or mark them all "reject" because they all have one thing in common which is way more important than the definition of a word.

SusanofO -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 7:22:59 PM)
1)Well yes! I think so, too, now that you have been so illuminating. 2) My shorts are fine today, thanks for inquiring....(hehe). I've also given other people good ideas and colds, come to think of it. 3) Maybe we won't see this dispute around for awhile (you've covered a lot of ground. Of course, you always do). 4) I do like it when you go on like this (it's very explanatory - and useful, I think). Nice post. Makes so much sense. - Susan

FancySeatCover -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 7:34:30 PM)
Very Well Said!

TemptingNviceSub -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 7:51:38 PM)
Dear Noah..I do like your common sense view of things, and your efforts to clarify points in which the English language can be so interpretive..I looked upon the "gift" discussion, the way I look upon how many ways the bible gets interpreted differently by so many other religions...same words, but always differing conclusions reached upon its meaning. It always seems to be dependant upon your viewpoint,what you seek,and what your beliefs are.....So hence it is what you want it to be......Tempting

LordODiscipline -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 7:55:44 PM)
*Sure -* Just go tossing that 'logic' thing into a perfectly good CM discussion and expect people to simply toss away 4 years of shared bliss in communal antagonism over something which does not matter an iota in any manner shape or form. *If they all started sincerely looking at it from an intellectual standpoint, we might hear the sound of exploding heads reverberating about the entire world...* *And, then where would they be on a Saturday evening?* ~J

Aine -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 8:05:33 PM)
Despite the level of clean-up, that would be a blessed sound, depending on my mood. And a lot less headaches for the rest of us. [:D]

SusanofO -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 8:13:47 PM)
Excuse me LordO' Discipline but - "shared bliss"? hehehhe! You are generous in gauging motives for participation in the discussion (nice of you). Yes, I guess people do just like to debate and get their views out there, sometimes. It doesn't matter one itoa, you are right about that for sure. - Susan

Noah -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 8:51:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FancySeatCover Very Well Said! Thank you Fancy. You too, Susan. Oh, and congratulations on those shorts. Hey Fancy. Ever hear the Fred Eaglesmith song about his bench seat? One of the verses goes ... Well it's five feet from inseam to inseam I had it custom corduroyed There's no reason why it needs to recline It was made for a girl and a boy It's got a bench seat, baby You don't hafta sit over there Now who says you can't write a good country song about the difficulty of pursuing a relationship with a partner who is struggling with intimacy issues?

Noah -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 8:57:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TemptingNviceSub Dear Noah..I do like your common sense view of things, and your efforts to clarify points in which the English language can be so interpretive..I looked upon the "gift" discussion, the way I look upon how many ways the bible gets interpreted differently by so many other religions...same words, but always differing conclusions reached upon its meaning. It always seems to be dependant upon your viewpoint,what you seek,and what your beliefs are.....So hence it is what you want it to be......Tempting Thank you, Tempting. As far as the religion thing goes I think half the battle is getting people to see that one tale can tell a number of different stories. I think the other half is getting them to see that the very same truth can be expressed in many sometimes divergent ways.

Noah -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 9:01:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Sure -* *Just go tossing that 'logic' thing into a perfectly good CM discussion and expect people to simply toss away 4 years of shared bliss...* Hey. I'm a sadist. it's what we do. quote: *If they all started sincerely looking at it from an intellectual standpoint, we might hear the sound of exploding heads reverberating about the entire world...* Now that's edge play fer sure.

MistressYlwa -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 9:31:13 PM)
Great work! Maybe a few heads will explode, but hopeful the main result will be an end to the bickering. But won't hold my breath. Time tends to fade some memories. LOL Mistress Ylwa

NeedToUseYou -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 11:05:12 PM)
I do write on some of the subjective topics the key word being subjective. And as such I do view everyones statements as opinion. It's funny that if one writes in a topic that is obviously unprovable that one must preface everything as "This is my opinion", instead of it just being assumed. So you see someone write. Submission is not a gift. And I'd read that as a opinion, others will read that as a statement of fact. But on questions such as those every single thing written in the thread is opinion. Some base it on different criteria. I'll write my opinion, they'll write an opinon to. I think the problem lies with everyone that reads everything as if it's being dictated to them. Anyway, I read your book(OP) LOL. IN MY OPINION... All Gift are given Not all things given are gifts All things given become the owner of the recipient. Now another meaning or use of "give" is transfer from one place to another without anything being given permanently. But that doesn't really apply to gifts. Such as give me that wrench. Is just a way of saying hand me that wrench. More or less it's a request to move an object to me. edited to add that little thingy above. So, I can give you a Cold and still have a Cold because you now have the cold and I can't take it back. I can give you a back eye, but only under the most odd circumstances would that be considered a gift. You can be gifted in writing, but you can't transfer that gift to others, you can offer the gift of time and training, but not the actual gift. But I've personally never considered a gift something with conditions myself like your dad and son's car example. I don't agree that would be a gift. IN MY OPINION(get's lame writing that when it should be assumed, IN MY OPINION). It's all details really in this debate, which personally I find funny that people get upset about it. IN MY OPINION. Others can define it however they want really and I wouldn't give it a second thought, but those topics are opinion topics(IN MY OPINION), so what the hell else can be in there but opinions. Why anyone would take anything in those type of topics as fact is beyond me. Just like this thread is opinion, so anything in it I'll assume is opinion, unless someone writes "The fact is." or declares they are stating a fact. I don't know why it's assumed to be every single thing that doesn't include "in my opinion" is a declaration of universal truth.

FelinePersuasion -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 11:23:07 PM)
To me when you give someone a gift what they then do with it is out of your hands, and my submission when I give it, is not out of my hands, I very much still have a say in how I am handled.

crouchingtigress -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/16/2006 11:41:13 PM)
Dearest Noah, i just read your whole post...my, that was a long post...but you covered so many thoughts well....and the body of the post seems to be that folks are limiting themselves by adhering to one POV instead of broadening the interpretation of this (and any other debate) i just posted some thoughts on the "why is it so hard thread" and i hope you dont mind if i repost them here as that i feel they do apply: "Wayne Dyer once told me...."i would rather be free then right"......and i gave that some thought...you know how sometimes something is so profound that you sit with it for weeks even months and slowly it starts to change your life in a way that you can never go back? well that was me...i realized that week/month that nothing was worth my enslavement emotionally to a particular POV...that everything in this world is mutable and transient and that i would be so much happier if i stayed fluid and malliable..... and that is the goal...to be happy....when you are on your death bed you dont look back and say gosh i am so glad i was right all that time...you say gosh i am so glad i was happy.... i hope folks wake up and see that they are puppets on a string when they get all mired in one true wayisms and righteousness. even the domliest dom becomes a puppet...which is obvious to every one but himself: as we see on here so many times. being fluid and malleable is the real control, if you study Tai chi, Akido, or Tao....you realize that true power comes from yielding to force and allowing the other person to use their own momentum to tumble themselves on to the floor..." when some one "does battle" (engages wits) with me they can attest to my use of this strategy...often the opponent is on the "floor" with out the slightest idea how they got there...and if i have used this technique well they and i are having a good laugh and have grown deeper in friendship from the experiance... there is a saying about resistance in eastern philosophy that sums up the point i am trying to make: a rock who hits another rock will leave with both rocks damaged....but a rock that attempts to hit water can do no damage... i see a lot of rocks in here smashing other rocks.....i dont understand this.....to me it looks like powerlessness....which is the exact opposite of what the rocks are thinking it looks like.[;)]

julietsierra -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/17/2006 12:30:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *If they all started sincerely looking at it from an intellectual standpoint, we might hear the sound of exploding heads reverberating about the entire world...* *And, then where would they be on a Saturday evening?* ~J Well, then we could sit around discussing the meaning of "wallflower." ewww. juliet

julietsierra -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/17/2006 12:31:56 AM)
Seriously though, I have no problems with considering submission (and domination for that matter) both a gift and a state of being. One is not exclusive of the other. Thank you for a very enlightening post. juliet

jblack -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/17/2006 1:07:27 AM)
I generally don't become involved in the gift debate because it makes me head hurt. But your post was refreshingly articulate and well-considered. I'm glad you took the time to write about your ideas on the subject with clarity and insight. Wouldn't it be great if everyone could express their ideas logically instead of defensively? I might even get involved in the discussion if such a thing happened. I dwell in possibility.

losttreasure -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/17/2006 3:53:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah A whole lot of words representing countless hours of thought and work composing... sighs Gee thanks, Noah... I had this all settled in my mind.

LaTigresse -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/17/2006 4:15:54 AM)
Noah, as always your posts are a delight. So often you manage to get how I feel on an issue put into words in a cohesive manner I never possibly could have. Thank you for your insight and time in writing what you did. The thread you speak of I left after page one or two. I see too many people stubbornly holding their ground with a very narrow view. They have no interest in even beginning to acknowledge that while they may be right for them, their point of view is not right or the best one for everyone else. The endless battles just serve to ridicule their opinion and themselves in my eyes. Personally I enjoy reading well written thoughts on a subject from a perspective I have never considered, perhaps ask some questions, toss out my own thoughts. And then, give it some thought. Sometimes my perspective changes, I learn something, I grow. Sometimes I just end up agreeing to disagree. On something as personal as submission, after all how I view it only matters to the person that is submissive to me, I refuse to get into a battle of words and meanings that has no worthwhile outcome. If I see a poster that I have come to respect interject I may read or respond but for the most part I would just avoid it. More often than not I see such inflamatory threads as gauges of the contributors temperment and personality. Those that battle the most obstinately, treating those that disagree with them as idiots, will generally be someone I would not wish to spend time with in person.

gypsygrl -> RE: What I take away from the "Gift" dispute. (12/17/2006 4:19:52 AM)
quote: Given that you might personally choose not to employ the word gift or the notion of giving to your relationship, can anyone explain to me... in a way that doesn't fly in the face of the dictionary and common sense... why it would be that someone else who finds value in using the notion of "submission as gift" should abandon the value they find there? While I'm not the sort of person who would suggest anyone simply abandon something they find to be of value, I do think there are some rather conclusive philosophical arguments against referring to submission as a gift. And, since you used the word "ontic" in your OP, I am free to argue from equally obtuse grounds, something I usually avoid on a general audience message board. :) Basically, my position is that to refer to submission as a gift, is to dance with the twin devils of essentialism and reification. In working out this argument, I'll sometimes write in the first person but I do mean it to be an objectively binding argument. To say something IS something is a universalizing argument (logically, it has the form of 'all S is P' or all submission is a gift, and thats the premise I'm taking issue with), and providing the counter-example of my own experience is enough to raise serious issues with that argument. If all submission were a gift, my submission would also be a gift. I'll deal with the problem of reification, first. Grammatically, submission is a noun but this does not mean that submission is an object. Its a state that accompanies the act of submitting. As such, it is a quality of the one submitting, and cannot be transferred to the one who inspires or calls forth that state. As a state of the person submitting, it is inalienable. Because of this, submission can not be given. When people refer to subsission as if it were a thing that can be given, they are making an objectification mistake, one encouraged by grammatical conventions. They are treating as a thing something that isn't. Thus, in submitting to someone, I am likely to bend to his will if he desires that, but in bending such, I am not giving anything. I am bending. If I'm feeling very submissive, I may even bend over backwards so he can use me for his pleasure in some wicked way, but I am still not giving anything. I am still bending, albeit over backwards. I do not give the gift of my submission because my submission, as a state, is a quality that inheres in me submitting, is inalienable and thus cannot be given away. And this is a good thing because if a submissive were able to give his/her submission to the Dominant in the sense of transferring it to him/her, the Dominant would become submissive, and who wants that? Certainly not I! (I think my general claim here is relevant to what people mean when they say submission is simply a part of themselves. I'm not likely to say this, so I'm not sure.) Then there is the problem of essentialism. Essentialism is the view, that, for any specific kind of entity it is at least theoretically possible to specify a finite list of characteristics —all of which any entity must have to belong to the group defined. This view is contrasted with non-essentialism which states that for any given entity there are no specified traits which that entity must have in order to be defined as that entity. (this definition of essentialism is lifted from wikipedia). Having made the mistake of treating "submission" as an object, rather than as a state, people then go and try to determine what it is about that 'object' that distinguishes it from other objects, and makes it unique in the attempt to define what it *is.* Since it isn't anything, endless debates ensue not because there are different opinions and perspectives but because the act of defining the essential characteristics of something that isn't a thing in the first place is bound to be difficult, to the point of being impossible. The debate is endless because it cannot be resolved, being founded on a mistaken premise. The essence of submission is not its giftness because submission has no essence. Its not the sort of thing that can be defined in terms of essential qualities. So, to drive my arguement home, you write, quote: For someone to come along and say ".... hogwash. it ain't a gift" seems just as vain and just as in vain as saying the opposite. Do we really imagine that this is the sort of thing where there is a black and white fact of the matter? Obviously, I do imagine that I can come along and say, "hogwash, it aint a gift" and I do see my claim in factual terms, having to do with my understanding of submission. Its not a gift, because it's not an object (show me a submission and I'll reconsider my view) that can be alienated or defined in terms of its essential qualities. Submission is a state that accompanies the act of submitting, and inheres in the one submitting. It cannot be given. I haven't considered any of your definitions of "gift" and, while I think some of your claims in this regard are faulty, and I could argue against them, I havent done this because I don't think its necessary to make the point I want to make. This, because, in your original post, you discuss at leangth the definition of "gift" but, I feel your analytic attention is misdirected. The problem doesn't have so much to do with the meaning of gift, but with the meaning of submission. We can debate the meaning of 'gift' forever, but unless we devote equal attention to the meaning of submission, the energy is wasted. All this having been said, I should address the issue of whether or not I think people should stop thinking of their submission in terms of a gift. Not really. I think, the "gift" idea can be fruitful in so far as we remember that when we use it, we use it as a metaphor and keep in mind that we not to be taken literally. We can fruitfully compare submission to a gift because it does share some qualities with the sorts of gifts that are given. But, the fruitfulness of this metaphore is lost as soon as we forget that its a metaphor and begin to take it literally. I think this happens sometimes when it is implied that since "submission is a gift" the Dominant *should* recieve it as a gift, be grateful for that gift and act accordingly. In other words, the "submission is a gift" idea carries with it a certain set of moral oblications on the part of the recipient. Syllogistically, this general train of thought runs as follows: Since submission is a gift and since gifts are good, it follows that the recipient of that gift should be grateful etc to the giver and treat the giver accordingly. This, to me, can come accross as something of a manipulative, self protective strategy on the part of submissives who fly the "my submission is a gift" banner. Such people often take this idea one step further, and use it as a justification for treating people like crap (ie: my subission is a gift, and i aint giving it to you so I can be insulting, rude, impolite, ect) It is here that the response "fuck you and your gift" seems appropriate. I do think, on ethical/moral grounds, that Dominants should treat their submissive partners well, but not because they have been given the gift of submission. I think Dominants should treat their submissive partners well whether or not those partners submit. I think Dominants should treat their submissive partners well because their submissive partners are human, and as humans, we should treat each other well and be grateful for each others existence. Just cuz.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875