RE: Bad Etiquette

RE: Bad Etiquette (Full Version)

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

Message

N4SDChastity -> RE: Bad Etiquette (4/22/2007 9:58:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: N4SDChastity For those who don't have the necessary experience level to call up "the LOOK", try looking at someone and imagining that, using ONLY the power of your mind, you could LITERALLY turn them inside-out, in an instant... If this is usually accompanied by wanting to, considering, or planning to turn them inside-out, I'm thinking this is the same step-and-a-half-back look I referred to. [:D] That is, in fact, the fundamental concept. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: N4SDChastity Practice in the mirror, first. When you make yourself wet your pants you have it perfected[:D] Sounds like a plan. [:D] Thanks for the advice. Good luck... Wear a diaper, just in case[8D]

Rafters -> RE: Bad Etiquette (4/22/2007 10:57:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Rafters I used to use a combat version of "The Look" in self defense when covering riots. Inside the temporarily, rule free anarchy, someone would take offense to me carrying a camera and Suggest I give it to them and their mates. I would Look at them and Suggest otherwise. Sounds familiar. Perhaps I should try to strip that look down to something I'd be more inclined to direct at a person I wouldn't go all medieval on. It’s exactly the same look In both cases you are taking the protective covers off an upcoming naked display of power. In BDSM the limits are preset, so your display will be channelled around their limits, while fitting them like tailor made fashion and you can take as long as you want. In vanilla world, the display merely has to the job, inside 10 seconds, without offending any of the audience. quote: quote: It's a cocktail of body language, and really hard to explain, since its more reaction than something artificial you construct. Yeah, that's always been the problem for me, too … [snippage] quote: + Like a punch, you don't aim the Look at them, instead through them. I always thought the reason for this was that looking them in the eye tends to make you focus in a way that leaves you less attentive to clues that they're about to make a move? Yes, you want to avoid “target lock” or tunnel vision, where you only see the target and ignore the clues around you. But at a more a philosophical level, attention seeking people like to be someone , and their self image comes from their reflection in other peoples body language. When you change your body language like they are [about to be] nothing, the reflection that was once the centre of attention, becomes insubstantial, and you’ve just deflated the ego that was providing their motivation. Pople are two thirds ego, so removing that, makes them into a different, less confident person. quote: quote: + Their actions have flicked a switch, crossed a line, broken a social contract that protected them from you. Yeah, there's a definite sense of something coming "off the leash", as it were. I can see how one could transpose this into a D/s context. Good Dom’s always have self control, and never consider themselves off their own leash. In BDSM, there a negotiated limits , in self defence court cases, there is reasonable force and in real life, there’s being able to look people in the eye the next day. quote: quote: + Whatever they have counts for nothing, in fact will probably hinder them. Whatever you have will be what will be imposed. For me, that's always been more a sense that, to borrow my own words from another thread, another step means one or more of you will most likely not make it to the hospital, and that you're not about to start giving any thought to whether that might be you until it's over. A fictional character put it similarly, but I'll quote it for a different wording: "A lot of fights end before they start; when his eyes meet yours, and he realizes you're willing to pay the price in blood. His, yours, it doesn't matter. You're committed." I've never had any expectation that it will work out for me, just that it won't work out for them. Nah, that’s a bit too 1930s Bushido for me. It’s a nice to have, but you should save it for fair fights . In life or BDSM you want to convey how you’ve rigged aspects of the game they’ve never considered, so you’ve won before it even starts. Essentially saying "Resistance is futile" without being so insecure as to actually utter that phrase. quote: quote: + The personal space around each of you, is now yours. You will be reaching out to prove this, within seconds. There does seem to be a sense of merging the personal spaces, which disappears when the threat is aborted. I try not to make the first move, though, unless there's an opening and a clear advantage. Of course, in a combat setting, this might not be a viable restraint. Making the first move complicates matters. It screws up a lot of your legal protection in court cases. And in BDSM you really want to have negotiated a lot of this stuff in advance, so when a subbies gets bratty, you’re expected to reach out and touch them. quote: quote: + They are a paper-thin cartoon character thats run off a cliff edge, but hasn't fallen yet. Either they backtrack or the whole planet will rise up to hit them, they have no other options. ~g~ I think most movies with the word "Acme" in them just flashed before my mind's eye, but I can relate, yes. Think force of nature [:)] quote: quote: + They're aren't trapped, since you have left them an escape route that will cost them a small amount of dignity in comparison to the alternative. Vital point that people sometimes forget. Failing to leave an escape route will engender the same commitment in an attacker that didn't have it originally. I've seen people do the mistake of closing on them in a way that cuts off their retreat, and that doesn't seem to defuse things, ever. So far, I've never seen anyone verbalize their backing off, and I'm not sure they can, instead they take that step-and-a-half back, and they palpably fade back to non-aggression. This bit could probably be transposed to D/s too, I guess. The intimacy and privacy of D/S is more verbal. A subbie who’s just become helplessly and indefinitely restrained, and is facing elegantly sadistic torture, has less face to lose saying “I’m Sorry”. Sun Tsu mentions it twice, once for the enemy and once for his own side. But the military play by different rules to civilised society. quote: Kind of interesting to consider in terms of the alpha/beta dynamic, which I suspect still has a biological presence in humans. I've been planning to write an essay/post on this for a while, and have a rough draft of a post that relates it to what Lt. Col. Dave Grossman discussed in "On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs". Have you read that piece? Humankind is pure hormones, we use our intelligence to justify our primal instincts and invent new ones. http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000932.html Check out 17 Read ancient Greek and Roman philosophers and they were whining about the same human behaviour that modern newspaper columnists are. And Grossmans article is very widely circulated [;)] quote: Perhaps it would be useful to employ some of this "dom-space", or whathever one would call it, in the D/s context. You don’t already? [:D]

Jevousadore -> RE: Bad Etiquette (4/23/2007 1:35:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: N4SDChastity If you don't know "THE LOOK," you are obviously NOT a parent!!! But, I'd be willing to bet you did HAVE parents, or at least one (well, biologically, two, but that's a different explaination... stay with me on this, willya?) Remember that "LOOK" you'd get, when you were about to do something GALACTICALLY stupit, of just go CAUGHT doing something galactically stupit? THAT's the LOOK!!! Laughing so hard.......all my dad had to do was bend his head and raise his eyebrows while pushing up his glasses.......kids every where froze to see who about to get it! jevousadore

Aswad -> RE: Bad Etiquette (4/23/2007 10:23:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rafters It’s exactly the same look In both cases you are taking the protective covers off an upcoming naked display of power. Sort of, although the BDSM context version would indicate an upcoming display of power, while I'd say the "combat" version indicates that their threat is about to be neutralized, in the sense that their moves will determine their survival (I'm not out to kill anyone, ever, but I will not endanger my own life or the lives of others for their benefit, so e.g. pulling a knife will end badly for one or both). quote: In BDSM the limits are preset, so your display will be channelled around their limits, while fitting them like tailor made fashion and you can take as long as you want. Yeah, which is why I commented on perhaps moderating it to fit, although I could certainly, as N4SDChastity suggested, practice it in front of a mirror without the associated shift in mindspace. quote: In vanilla world, the display merely has to the job, inside 10 seconds, without offending any of the audience. ~nod~ quote: Yes, you want to avoid “target lock” or tunnel vision, where you only see the target and ignore the clues around you. Oddly enough, I can't say that think I'm ignoring the clues around me, even when I stop being aware of other things than the target. I haven't done any extensive testing, though. quote: But at a more a philosophical level, attention seeking people like to be someone , and their self image comes from their reflection in other peoples body language. When you change your body language like they are [about to be] nothing, the reflection that was once the centre of attention, becomes insubstantial, and you’ve just deflated the ego that was providing their motivation. Interesting thought. What do you base this on? My encounters may not have been very representative, as they have been few in numbers, but I haven't gotten the "attention seeking" vibe from any but the drunk ones. quote: Pople are two thirds ego, so removing that, makes them into a different, less confident person. Substitute "ego" for "false confidence" or "projected ego" or somesuch, and prefix "most", and I think we are in full agreement. quote: Good Dom’s always have self control, and never consider themselves off their own leash. In BDSM, there a negotiated limits , Transpose, not transfer, although I may have misunderstood the meaning of the former. I meant the sense of a line having been crossed and consequences being imminent if it is not "uncrossed", not the sense of unleashing oneself. quote: in self defence court cases, there is reasonable force and in real life, there’s being able to look people in the eye the next day. Being able to look people in the eye the next day is kind of secondary to being able to look myself in the eye the next day, and both require me to be there the next day. I cannot always know intentions up-front, although I'll say that the reaction that I'm talking about has so far only occured in situations where I've afterwards figured that there was a real danger present (e.g. I once got into a pincer with one party brandishing a weapon, due to not paying enough attention). The average drunk who wants to mouth off does not trigger this. As for reasonable force, I get the impression that Norwegian legislation allows any instinctive response that isn't entirely unreasonable, provided one doesn't continue an attack after the threat has been neutralized. Even the latter has been accepted in some cases. The UK has very stringent laws in this regard, while the US is kind of either-or, it seems (in the sense that there have been rulings to the effect that you either feel threatened enough to employ lethal force, or you don't feel threatened enough to employ any significant force at all; e.g. taking a 10ga to the pelvic bone can fail in court, despite giving the best reliability/efficacy vs lethality tradeoff for that weapon, IIRC). My take on it is that I study the Martial Arts for two combat-applicable reasons, and some personal reasons: (1) to reduce risk of harm to myself and those I'm around, and (2) to internalize a sufficiently wide range of applied force, along with a feel for them, that I can respond with less force without unreasonably increasing the risk to myself. quote: Nah, that’s a bit too 1930s Bushido for me. Hehe. 1930's? I'm afraid you lost me. Although, yes, there was a certain sense of "coming home" to my meeting with the ideals of Bushido (prior to, or early in, the Tokugawa shogunate). I'm not talking about sacrificing yourself in the way that later writings tend to romanticize it; I'm just talking about making no prior assumption that you will live. Without having that expectation, one does not delude oneself about the seriousness of the matter, and can, if and when it begins, deal with it without the baggage. I will do my damned best to ensure that I survive, for such is the reason for defending myself in the first place. I find I can do a better job of defending myself if I adopt the approach of replacing my attachment to life with a commitment to the fight. To put it a bit melodramatically (or one could use the euphemism 'poetically', if one were very generous): when I enter that space, I am not alive; when I exit that space, hopefully, I am not dead. Based on feedback from others, and my own observations, it works very well, too. Not only are you sending the signal that you will stop them, along with the usual interpretation of "at any cost" (i.e. with application of lethal force if necessary); you are also sending the signal that "at any cost", right at that moment, includes dying to defeat them, if necessary. It is one thing to send the signal that you've crossed the line where you are willing and capable of harming and/or killing the attacker, and possibly having no fear of death, quite another to send the signal that you've crossed the line where death is an acceptable outcome for you. The former is disconcerting, but will at least make sense to the attacker, even if they are unwilling to risk themselves. The latter makes no sense to most people, and can cause an instinctive response on yet another level. Something about it tells them that you aren't just a counterthreat, but also unpredictable, committed to going the distance, and quite possibly stark raving mad. [sm=banana.gif] quote: It’s a nice to have, but you should save it for fair fights. I will hopefully never be in a fair fight, as that would entail willfully putting myself in a position to be seriously injured or killed, along with putting someone else in that same position. [:D] As far as I'm concerned, if I can avoid a fight, I will. If not, I will avoid giving a lot of thought to the outcome, as I cannot know with certainty the skill, tools and intent of the attacker, nor his/her determination. When in my usual space, I commit to my training in the hopes that it will never be used (again), but that if (when) it is, then it will save lives, and hopefully that of the attacker, by providing me with nonlethal options down to the instinctual level. When in that space, however, I just commit to doing what it takes. quote: In life or BDSM you want to convey how you’ve rigged aspects of the game they’ve never considered, so you’ve won before it even starts. Essentially saying "Resistance is futile" without being so insecure as to actually utter that phrase. Yeah, I get that. quote: Making the first move complicates matters. It screws up a lot of your legal protection in court cases. I'm more concerned with how it rubs against my ethics, really. Nowadays, I'm usually fairly aware of the intent/interview/positioning/attack/reaction process, so I could make a reasonable case that there was due cause to make the first move. But I can't make that case to myself, unless the threat justifies making the first move. quote: And in BDSM you really want to have negotiated a lot of this stuff in advance, so when a subbies gets bratty, you’re expected to reach out and touch them. I'm insistent on informed consent, so that kind of requires such negotiations. Depending on your definition of "bratty", I don't usually do bratty subs. Closest thing I've come was that time with that young marine woman who tried turning the tables. Think I mentioned her in my reply to N4SDChastity. quote: The intimacy and privacy of D/S is more verbal. A subbie who’s just become helplessly and indefinitely restrained, and is facing elegantly sadistic torture, has less face to lose saying “I’m Sorry”. Quite. [:D] quote: Sun Tsu mentions it twice, once for the enemy and once for his own side. But the military play by different rules to civilised society. ~nod~ quote: Humankind is pure hormones, we use our intelligence to justify our primal instincts and invent new ones. Not sure I agree. I think there's a thin coat of paint on the great ape, though the car still runs the same. ~g~ quote: http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000932.html Check out 17 I'll have a look. quote: Read ancient Greek and Roman philosophers and they were whining about the same human behaviour that modern newspaper columnists are. It takes a lot more than a couple thousand years to make significant changes to society. quote: And Grossmans article is very widely circulated [;)] That it certainly is. quote: You don’t already? [:D] Different thing, kind of. I've been employing my conscious mind to a greater extent, not so much an altered state of mind. Certainly not the state of mind I described here, but I was thinking about trying to employ that mindspace once I've found some reasonable assurance that it's not intrinsically tied to the combat mindset for me. The usual space doesn't end up with an experience I'd describe as significantly different from what I've heard others describe, and my ability to read people is dependant on conscious effort, so I'd need to verify that this ability works reliably enough in the "primal" space. Guess that's kind of "it": you could say I do go to a kind of "dom-space", but I haven't tried going to a "primal" space.

Vendaval -> RE: Bad Etiquette (4/27/2007 2:43:55 AM)
General reply - I work on keeping my energy contained in most situations. If I am irritated people shy away. One evil glare is enough to make them back down and go the other way. With a wide evil grin, Vendaval

Rafters -> RE: Bad Etiquette (4/27/2007 7:43:49 PM)
The 1930's Bushido comment, is referring to tactical superiority in one area, at the expense of other areas. Bushido gave the WW2 Japanese, a boost in fighting skill and self image, but decreased their motivation to do any of the boring, unsexy, sneaky or cowardly stuff. So despite starting well, they wound up starving, diseased, stranded, out of fuel, surrounded by pissed off locals, their codes cracked and their civilians on fire. Sure Bushido kept their spirits up to the end, but bravely screaming insults at an enemy who's killing most them from distances, too far away to hear anything, is not something to be overvalued. The Bushido fighter is like the gambler who goes into a casino, willing to do their best, but able to live with losing their wager. It's the best tactic, but the worst long term strategy. [:D] "Attention seeking" is the wrong phrase, "Extroverted" is probably better. Introverts tend to shutup and think, keeping their fantasies and delusions on the inside, while extroverts think with their ego, opening their mouths to try to live their delusions. [Generalising wildly] they seem to be the type of people who get in your face the most, spouting wild ideas about what you should be doing. With sober people I practise avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation. Drunks are a whole seperate species. Every punchup I've every had with a stranger, has been with a drunk who threw a punch because it was easier than thinking. [:D]

Aswad -> RE: Bad Etiquette (4/27/2007 7:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval I work on keeping my energy contained in most situations. If I am irritated people shy away. One evil glare is enough to make them back down and go the other way. Yeah. I've been working on taking the "combat" Look down a few notches, and it seems to do wonders. Makes me more aware of when I'm projecting it subconsciously so I can avoid having people shy away usually, and allows me to avoid getting hassled whenever I visit the next-door 24/7 gas station / convenience kiosk thing during the weekends. Here in Norway, all stores and any kiosk over about 1000 sq ft has to be closed on Sundays, and may not be open past 8pm or so on Saturdays; most close at 6pm on Saturdays, and 8pm on Weekdays. Also, places that serve alcoholic beverages have to close no later than 4am (drinks may not be served after 3am), and the buses stop after about 2am. Hence, in the weekends, lots of drunk people tend to crowd areas such as this next-door gas station / kiosk. Thanks to the people who suggested trying to put that look to non-combat applications [:D]

Aswad -> RE: Bad Etiquette (4/27/2007 11:48:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rafters The 1930's Bushido comment, is referring to tactical superiority in one area, at the expense of other areas. Ah. Thanks for clarifying, although you have now left me confused at how this applies in the context it was first mentioned. Might just be the barbs kicking in, but to be on the safe side, I'd be grateful if you'd care to elaborate on how this ties in with what I said. quote: Bushido gave the WW2 Japanese, a boost in fighting skill and self image, but decreased their motivation to do any of the boring, unsexy, sneaky or cowardly stuff. Yeah. I get that, and agree. It isn't a problem in my case, though. But I'll keep the bits on what I study and where off the boards, if you don't mind. PM if curious. quote: Sure Bushido kept their spirits up to the end, but bravely screaming insults at an enemy who's killing most them from distances, too far away to hear anything, is not something to be overvalued. Well, it's certainly not a pragmatic and survival-oriented approach. Not sure I'd care to attach a value judgement to it, though. No man can say what makes anothers' life worth living, I guess. And there's something to be said for keeping your spirits up, at least [:D] Personally, I was mostly commenting on the meaning of the approach to fighting. Just setting aside everything else, including survival, and committing to the fight. Nothing to get in the way, no distractions. For me, that results in better performance, which makes it a viable strategy once the shit has hit the fan and is closing the distance, although I'm not talking about tossing your life aside, just not letting your life be an impediment to victory in a life-and-death scenario. That, and the bits about certain no-quarter situations where you're on the losing end of something nasty anyway. The ones about pushing forward anyway; since you're already dead, you have nothing to lose, and you're truly free. I can relate to that one based on having been in such a situation, although not combat-related, the details of which will not be posted to the board. quote: "Attention seeking" is the wrong phrase, "Extroverted" is probably better. Introverts tend to shutup and think, keeping their fantasies and delusions on the inside, while extroverts think with their ego, opening their mouths to try to live their delusions. [Generalising wildly] they seem to be the type of people who get in your face the most, spouting wild ideas about what you should be doing. Ah, that makes more sense. Yes, extroverted or, as we say here, out-acting ("utagerende", I'm not aware of a good translation), people tend to be more likely to get in your face. I'd be a lot more worried about the introverted types than the extroverted ones. The former have a more internal sense of self, and you won't know anything about them until their inhibitions are dropped and/or their fangs are bared. The latter have a more external sense of self, which puts it under your direct control if they're not acting in a group, and frequently also if they're in a group. I'm pretty much the introverted type myself. quote: With sober people I practise avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation. Me too, although the most violent encounters I've had have been with sober people... it doesn't always work. I still try to prevent things getting to the point of violence, though, regardless of whether the person is sober or not. If violence ensues, one or more of us will probably be seriously injured and/or dead, and I'm not looking to put myself in that situation, even if I'll commit to it if someone else puts me there. quote: Drunks are a whole seperate species. Every punchup I've every had with a stranger, has been with a drunk who threw a punch because it was easier than thinking. [:D] Yeah, well, I've seen many drunks when they're sober, too. Being drunk doesn't change who you are in any way, with a few notable exceptions; it just lowers your inhibitions, which makes you act more the way you really are. Myself and two other people I know are the only people I've seen both sober and drunk who don't seem to change much, according to the sober people who are present; my dad was reportedly much the same in his youth. Then again, I've done some things sober that few of the people I know would have even considered if they were sober at the time. [:D] Anyway, as my sensei said... most of the time when someone throws a random punch at you, they're just having a bad day, or have made some bad choices... they don't deserve to die or suffer permanent injuries because of it, so we try to be as gentle as we can without compromising our own safety. Bring a knife or gun to the table, though, and this part of the equation goes out the window, regardless of the reasons it happened.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125