MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
~¤~Back Grounds of ¤~§hìftìñgWìñd~¤BackGroundsofShifitngWind@groups.msn.com 
  
What's New
  
  Messages  
  ______<•ЭҖЄ?______  
  Pictures  
  My precious pet  
  My devil  
  Next Buttons  
  Scenes  
  WG pages  
  Buttons  
  Animations  
  Chicago  
  Dark Enough  
  Birthdays  
  Rolling Stones  
  Paint It Black  
  Gimme Shelter  
  Under My Thumb  
  Moo HalloweenB-Day  
  Condolences  
  B-Day fury green  
  xLibrary  
  ery's Last Page  
  Dark Enough Welcome  
  Just 1 Look  
  Copper  
  O/our Home  
  «Living Area»  
  «Øúr Bedröóm»  
  Cowboy Anniversary  
  Blue in Love  
  Θ/óǔr Tìмέ  
  LibraryNew@top  
  Library  
  A girl Serves  
  Belle Page  
  Gold & Silv Frames  
  Multi Pat Gold  
  calie  
  Continuum  
  Moo B-Day  
  The Sneetches  
  annie from ery  
  Gimme Shelter  
  angel B Day  
  Library Owning article  
  Moo B Day  
  SpiderWeb  
  Blue Jewel  
  Xmas 1  
  Gold  
  Xmas 2  
  Xmas 3  
  Xmas 4  
  Node B Day  
  Grinch stole Xmas  
  Dark Spider web  
  devXmas  
  MerryXmas lover  
  Dark dev Page  
  ery's Page Revised  
  surf baby  
  Dangling Dark  
  Tarnsmen  
  *-»¦«-·´¯`*?´¯`·-»¦«-*  
  Adore you  
  Brothers of Wind  
  Paga Tavern  
  Dancers  
  Karta  
  Owning someone  
  Garden BG  
  Soprano pics  
  Soprano's card  
  My Possession dev  
  XMAS Moo 2008  
  Happy BDay Belle  
  PearlSilvBorderPB  
  Dark Enough PB  
  Happy Bday 2-22-04  
  GoldBrder  
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : Mystique
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknameﺼﺸ§hìftìñgWìñdﻌﺼ  (Original Message)Sent: 5/20/2008 8:45 PM
Assuming that, like the public clubs/dungeons I’m familiar with, the designated smoking area would be restricted from playing/sceneing and the dominant was wrong to instruct his submissive to enter it in-scene regardless of whether she intruded on anyone at all.  In addition, the dominant was wrong for compounding the intrusion by involving you in their scene without your invitation or consent.
 
Where I part ways with you is your attempt to equate being spoken to by someone using third person to be the same as being involuntarily included in a scene.  To accomplish this you present flawed characterizations limited to a rigid either/or premise of being a “witness?or a “participant?in a public dungeon.  Trying to make this distinction seems a bit like attempting to split a hair with an axe.  In doing so I think you create a slippery slope for the dilution and pollution of the principals and values you site in your original and follow up posts.
In your response to josh you emphasize the literal interpretations of the terms participate and consent yet you do not apply the same rigor of interpretation when drawing your distinction between being a “witness?or “participant.?nbsp; By definition, a participant is someone who “shares, takes part, or becomes involved in?a particular experience or activity.  In this literal translation, josh’s perspective very accurately defines a person who “just by walking in the door?of a public dungeon becomes a participant because they do share, take part, and “become involved in the experiences of others.?nbsp; At best, the only literal distinction is the degree of involvement rather than the distinct separation you attempt to portray.
The person you characterize as a “witness?may choose to limit his/her participation to being a passive observer but is still, nonetheless, a participant simply by being present and “sharing or taking part in?the activities and interaction of the environment.  Even though a person might sit in a chair all night doing nothing more than observing what goes on, their presence in the dungeon does not occur in a hermetically sealed vacuum.  By definition, the mere presence of the “witness?constitutes interaction simply because she or he influences and will be influenced by the other participants who are present. To claim that they did not “share, take part, or become involved in?and, therefore, had not been a “participant?in a BDSM dungeon event would be a severe case of denial on their part.
musie raises a salient point by asking if the dungeon had written protocol regarding a submissive speaking in third person to someone other than her or his dominant.  As you point out, the host had rules limited to defining what can or cannot be done “play wise.?nbsp; This is a fairly basic standard although specific rules may vary from one site to another and some may include other rules such the use and care of the facility and equipment.  It is highly unlikely, however, that a public dungeon would have rules as specific as who can speak to whom or that a person must speak proper English. Whether the dungeon is operated on the basis of a club or a stand-alone business, those who operate public dungeons must be concerned with the bottom line. Unless the host/owner(s) are wealthy enough to absorb the costs, they must at least operate on a break-even basis if not making a profit on the services they are selling.  For this reason they are not likely to establish stringent rules (let alone protocol) that would limit the attractiveness to their customer base, thus reducing their income.  So long as it does not jeopardize the host or owner’s legal liability and supports the financial realities of providing such a service, they will tend to have the least restrictive environment with regard to their customer’s behavior, aside from expectations of civility and the limitations for playing/sceneing. 
Whatever term the proprietor chooses to use, once you pay your admission or make a donation (and sign the waiver agreements some provide) you have consented to participate within the limits of whatever rules govern the dungeon.  Although it is not impossible, it is likely you won’t know or be known by everyone that is present.  In the case of someone speaking to other participants in third person, no rules have been violated if no rule exists that specifically forbids someone who does so.  In lieu of this fact, you once again raise the issue of “generally accepted decorum?as the barometer for the correctness of a person speaking in third person to someone other than his or her dominant. 
This is a rather specious argument for the very reasons you pointed out in another post where you purported that members of private groups only reflect what they do at home with significant others and friends rather than reflecting “common?or “basic public scene decorum.?nbsp; The same limitation is just as true for the decorum you and your friends are familiar with and prefer; it only reflects the decorum you prefer and are familiar with and nothing more. 
There are other folks who lay claim to the same extent of experience, involvement, and knowledge as you have about yourself and your friends.  They would vehemently disagree with your position on speaking in third person, seeking permission to speak at all, or seeking permission to enter or exit different areas of the dungeon from someone other than their dominant.  These forms of deportment are part of the “generally accepted decorum?that they are familiar with and prefer.   This would be their truth and reality because they are part of the “generally accepted decorum?they and their friends prefer and are accustomed to in the venues they are familiar with.  Generalizing this perspective beyond the limits of their awareness, preference, and experience would be no more accurate or authoritative than you doing so.
Where the slope gets slippery is that your perspective can be generalized and distorted to include almost anything as “training techniques, play, beliefs or relationship dynamics.?This assortment of categorizations can be conveniently applied, either stringently or vaguely, to include almost any behavior in a way that buttresses your perspective that someone has committed a breach of etiquette or protocol because they do something you personally don’t care for.  Perhaps Z and katy attend the same dungeon event as me and he has required her to use his favorite shampoo, bath wash, or perhaps perfume that has a fragrance I find repulsive.  Take your pick as this certainly could qualify as either play or a relationship dynamic.  It certainly fits well with the skewed guise of being just a “witness?to this scenario and makes the case that, as my stomach churns from the odor, I have been forced to inhale her scent without consent. 
I have a friend who easily slips into your proposition of “witnessing language?versus having it “directed towards?at you.  She does not always speak proper English and can be hard to understand at times.  I wonder if the people at the club she attends with her Master consider her to be an imposition, inappropriate, rude, thoughtless, or inconsiderate when she speaks to someone other than her Master.  If they don’t, should they be educated that they have “lost the essence?of “Leather/BDSM/Ms/Ds?because they do not see her as you would?  And what about her Master or Z?  Would it seem appropriate to hand down an indictment on both for disregarding “the very heart and soul of Leather/BDSM, M/s and D/s?because they have “forced?what you say are their “training techniques, play, beliefs, or relationship dynamics?on me or others?
I find little substance to support your claim that being spoken to by someone not using proper English constitutes an act of imposing his or her beliefs “on to the masses?or “forcing?their thoughts on others, carrying an ultimatum of “get on board or ship out.?nbsp; Moreover, You state that consent is the “essence of Leather/BDSM/Ms/Ds.?nbsp; I’m sure anyone who disagrees with this would be at a loss trying support their disagreement and soundly rebuked.  The concept of mutual consent is the foundation from which individuals find acceptance to seek pleasure and personal fulfillment by engaging in activities that can be harmful, illegal, considered socially unacceptable, politically incorrect, as well as judged immoral and sinful by others. 
In your response to Z, however, you equate the act of being spoken to in third person to be the same as a physical assault.  Elevating something as benign as being spoken to in third person to equal the experiences of those who have suffered the viciousness of non-consensual, physical assaults seriously dilutes the importance of consent while diminishing the wounds and scars of those who have been victimized by a far greater degree of force and disregard for mutual consent than being assaulted by someone asking politely; “may this girl speak.?
Questions on the table now
You already have your mind made up that it is inappropriate for a dominant to require his submissive/slave to speak to others in third person, request permission to enter or leave a room, or simply to speak.  It is quite simple to explain why it IS appropriate for a dominant to require his or her submissive/slave to:

A. Speak to everyone in using their version of third person speech.

B. Request permission from anyone that might hear the request for permission to speak.

C. Request permission from anyone that might hear the request for permission to enter/leave.

It is a protocol between the two of them that is no less appropriate than the protocol you have with your submissive/slave regarding someone who would like to see the equipment in your gun case.  No one has a right to negate your protocol anymore than you have to negate theirs. 
It is this particular dominant’s right to require the submissive/slave who has willingly chosen to submit to the will of this dominant to do so, plain and simple. 

The dominant is merely exercising her or his control and preference over the deportment of the submissive/slave, not anyone else and nothing more than that.  Not everyone will find it to be a preference or pleasing, but the submissive/slave has not agreed to serve, please, or submit to them.  She or he has consented to serve this particular dominant only. 

These are tenets of D/s or BDSM that are just as sacrosanct as mutual consent and far more so than other concepts you have posited.

For the very same reason, it would be inappropriate for this particular dominant to require that the submissive/slave:

D. During a humiliation scene walking up to strangers and use verbal humiliation language instructed by the dominant to say to strangers.

I will assume here that the “strangers?are people who have not agreed to play/scene with this particular dominant.  Clearly the dominant has no right to include them without first informing and inviting them as well as receiving their consent.  In as much as it is inappropriate to insert yourself into someone else’s scene/play without invitation or permission, it is just as inappropriate to include someone in play/scene who has not agreed to be.



First  Previous  2-5 of 5  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknameﺼﺸ§hìftìñgWìñdﻌﺼSent: 5/20/2008 8:50 PM
Assuming that, like the public clubs/dungeons I’m familiar with, the designated smoking area would be restricted from playing/sceneing and the dominant was wrong to instruct his submissive to enter it in-scene regardless of whether she intruded on anyone at all.  In addition, the dominant was wrong for compounding the intrusion by involving you in their scene without your invitation or consent.
 
Where I part ways with you is your attempt to equate being spoken to by someone using third person to be the same as being involuntarily included in a scene.  To accomplish this you present flawed characterizations limited to a rigid either/or premise of being a “witness?or a “participant?in a public dungeon.  Trying to make this distinction seems a bit like attempting to split a hair with an axe.  In doing so I think you create a slippery slope for the dilution and pollution of the principals and values you site in your original and follow up posts.
 
In your response to josh you emphasize the literal interpretations of the terms participate and consent yet you do not apply the same rigor of interpretation when drawing your distinction between being a “witness?or “participant.?nbsp; By definition, a participant is someone who “shares, takes part, or becomes involved in?a particular experience or activity.  In this literal translation, josh’s perspective very accurately defines a person who “just by walking in the door?of a public dungeon becomes a participant because they do share, take part, and “become involved in the experiences of others.?nbsp; At best, the only literal distinction is the degree of involvement rather than the distinct separation you attempt to portray.
 
The person you characterize as a “witness?may choose to limit his/her participation to being a passive observer but is still, nonetheless, a participant simply by being present and “sharing or taking part in?the activities and interaction of the environment.  Even though a person might sit in a chair all night doing nothing more than observing what goes on, their presence in the dungeon does not occur in a hermetically sealed vacuum.  By definition, the mere presence of the “witness?constitutes interaction simply because she or he influences and will be influenced by the other participants who are present. To claim that they did not “share, take part, or become involved in?and, therefore, had not been a “participant?in a BDSM dungeon event would be a severe case of denial on their part.
 
musie raises a salient point by asking if the dungeon had written protocol regarding a submissive speaking in third person to someone other than her or his dominant.  As you point out, the host had rules limited to defining what can or cannot be done “play wise.?nbsp; This is a fairly basic standard although specific rules may vary from one site to another and some may include other rules such the use and care of the facility and equipment.  It is highly unlikely, however, that a public dungeon would have rules as specific as who can speak to whom or that a person must speak proper English. Whether the dungeon is operated on the basis of a club or a stand-alone business, those who operate public dungeons must be concerned with the bottom line. Unless the host/owner(s) are wealthy enough to absorb the costs, they must at least operate on a break-even basis if not making a profit on the services they are selling.  For this reason they are not likely to establish stringent rules (let alone protocol) that would limit the attractiveness to their customer base, thus reducing their income.  So long as it does not jeopardize the host or owner’s legal liability and supports the financial realities of providing such a service, they will tend to have the least restrictive environment with regard to their customer’s behavior, aside from expectations of civility and the limitations for playing/sceneing. 
 
Whatever term the proprietor chooses to use, once you pay your admission or make a donation (and sign the waiver agreements some provide) you have consented to participate within the limits of whatever rules govern the dungeon.  Although it is not impossible, it is likely you won’t know or be known by everyone that is present.  In the case of someone speaking to other participants in third person, no rules have been violated if no rule exists that specifically forbids someone who does so.  In lieu of this fact, you once again raise the issue of “generally accepted decorum?as the barometer for the correctness of a person speaking in third person to someone other than his or her dominant. 
 
This is a rather specious argument for the very reasons you pointed out in another post where you purported that members of private groups only reflect what they do at home with significant others and friends rather than reflecting “common?or “basic public scene decorum.?nbsp; The same limitation is just as true for the decorum you and your friends are familiar with and prefer; it only reflects the decorum you prefer and are familiar with and nothing more. 
 
There are other folks who lay claim to the same extent of experience, involvement, and knowledge as you have about yourself and your friends.  They would vehemently disagree with your position on speaking in third person, seeking permission to speak at all, or seeking permission to enter or exit different areas of the dungeon from someone other than their dominant.  These forms of deportment are part of the “generally accepted decorum?that they are familiar with and prefer.   This would be their truth and reality because they are part of the “generally accepted decorum?they and their friends prefer and are accustomed to in the venues they are familiar with.  Generalizing this perspective beyond the limits of their awareness, preference, and experience would be no more accurate or authoritative than you doing so.
 
Where the slope gets slippery is that your perspective can be generalized and distorted to include almost anything as “training techniques, play, beliefs or relationship dynamics.?This assortment of categorizations can be conveniently applied, either stringently or vaguely, to include almost any behavior in a way that buttresses your perspective that someone has committed a breach of etiquette or protocol because they do something you personally don’t care for.  Perhaps Z and katy attend the same dungeon event as me and he has required her to use his favorite shampoo, bath wash, or perhaps perfume that has a fragrance I find repulsive.  Take your pick as this certainly could qualify as either play or a relationship dynamic.  It certainly fits well with the skewed guise of being just a “witness?to this scenario and makes the case that, as my stomach churns from the odor, I have been forced to inhale her scent without consent. 
 
I have a friend who easily slips into your proposition of “witnessing language?versus having it “directed towards?at you.  She does not always speak proper English and can be hard to understand at times.  I wonder if the people at the club she attends with her Master consider her to be an imposition, inappropriate, rude, thoughtless, or inconsiderate when she speaks to someone other than her Master.  If they don’t, should they be educated that they have “lost the essence?of “Leather/BDSM/Ms/Ds?because they do not see her as you would?  And what about her Master or Z?  Would it seem appropriate to hand down an indictment on both for disregarding “the very heart and soul of Leather/BDSM, M/s and D/s?because they have “forced?what you say are their “training techniques, play, beliefs, or relationship dynamics?on me or others?
 
I find little substance to support your claim that being spoken to by someone not using proper English constitutes an act of imposing his or her beliefs “on to the masses?or “forcing?their thoughts on others, carrying an ultimatum of “get on board or ship out.?nbsp; Moreover, You state that consent is the “essence of Leather/BDSM/Ms/Ds.?nbsp; I’m sure anyone who disagrees with this would be at a loss trying support their disagreement and soundly rebuked.  The concept of mutual consent is the foundation from which individuals find acceptance to seek pleasure and personal fulfillment by engaging in activities that can be harmful, illegal, considered socially unacceptable, politically incorrect, as well as judged immoral and sinful by others. 
 
In your response to Z, however, you equate the act of being spoken to in third person to be the same as a physical assault.  Elevating something as benign as being spoken to in third person to equal the experiences of those who have suffered the viciousness of non-consensual, physical assaults seriously dilutes the importance of consent you profess while diminishing the wounds and scars of those who have been victimized by a far greater degree of force and disregard for mutual consent than being assaulted by someone asking politely; “may this girl speak.?
 
Questions on the table now
You already have your mind made up that it is inappropriate for a dominant to require his submissive/slave to speak to others in third person, request permission to enter or leave a room, or simply to speak.  It is quite simple to explain why it IS appropriate for a dominant to require his or her submissive/slave to:

A. Speak to everyone in using their version of third person speech.

B. Request permission from anyone that might hear the request for permission to speak.

C. Request permission from anyone that might hear the request for permission to enter/leave.

It is a protocol between the two of them that is no less appropriate than the protocol you have with your submissive/slave regarding someone who would like to see the equipment in your gun case.  No one has a right to negate your protocol anymore than you have to negate theirs. 
It is this particular dominant’s right to require the submissive/slave who has willingly chosen to submit to the will of this dominant to do so, plain and simple. 

The dominant is merely exercising her or his control and preference over the deportment of the submissive/slave, not anyone else and nothing more than that.  Not everyone will find it to be a preference or pleasing, but the submissive/slave has not agreed to serve, please, or submit to them.  She or he has consented to serve this particular dominant only. 

These are tenets of D/s or BDSM that are just as sacrosanct as mutual consent and far more so than other concepts you have posited.

For the very same reason, it would be inappropriate for this particular dominant to require that the submissive/slave:

D. During a humiliation scene walking up to strangers and use verbal humiliation language instructed by the dominant to say to strangers.

I will assume here that the “strangers?are people who have not agreed to play/scene with this particular dominant.  Clearly the dominant has no right to include them without first informing and inviting them as well as receiving their consent.  In as much as it is inappropriate to insert yourself into someone else’s scene/play without invitation or permission, it is just as inappropriate to include someone in play/scene who has not agreed to be.


Reply
 Message 3 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknameﺼﺸ§hìftìñgWìñdﻌﺼSent: 5/20/2008 8:52 PM
Assuming that, like the public clubs/dungeons I’m familiar with, the designated smoking area would be restricted from playing/sceneing and the dominant was wrong to instruct his submissive to enter it in-scene regardless of whether she intruded on anyone at all.  In addition, the dominant was wrong for compounding the intrusion by involving you in their scene without your invitation or consent.
 
Where I part ways with you is your attempt to equate being spoken to by someone using third person to be the same as being involuntarily included in a scene.  To accomplish this you present flawed characterizations limited to a rigid either/or premise of being a “witness?or a “participant?in a public dungeon.  Trying to make this distinction seems a bit like attempting to split a hair with an axe.  In doing so I think you create a slippery slope for the dilution and pollution of the principals and values you site in your original and follow up posts.
 
In your response to josh you emphasize the literal interpretations of the terms participate and consent yet you do not apply the same rigor of interpretation when drawing your distinction between being a “witness?or “participant.?nbsp; By definition, a participant is someone who “shares, takes part, or becomes involved in?a particular experience or activity.  In this literal translation, josh’s perspective very accurately defines a person who “just by walking in the door?of a public dungeon becomes a participant because they do share, take part, and “become involved in the experiences of others.?nbsp; At best, the only literal distinction is the degree of involvement rather than the distinct separation you attempt to portray.
 
The person you characterize as a “witness?may choose to limit his/her participation to being a passive observer but is still, nonetheless, a participant simply by being present and “sharing or taking part in?the activities and interaction of the environment.  Even though a person might sit in a chair all night doing nothing more than observing what goes on, their presence in the dungeon does not occur in a hermetically sealed vacuum.  By definition, the mere presence of the “witness?constitutes interaction simply because she or he influences and will be influenced by the other participants who are present. To claim that they did not “share, take part, or become involved in?and, therefore, had not been a “participant?in a BDSM dungeon event would be a severe case of denial on their part.
 
musie raises a salient point by asking if the dungeon had written protocol regarding a submissive speaking in third person to someone other than her or his dominant.  As you point out, the host had rules limited to defining what can or cannot be done “play wise.?nbsp; This is a fairly basic standard although specific rules may vary from one site to another and some may include other rules such the use and care of the facility and equipment.  It is highly unlikely, however, that a public dungeon would have rules as specific as who can speak to whom or that a person must speak proper English. Whether the dungeon is operated on the basis of a club or a stand-alone business, those who operate public dungeons must be concerned with the bottom line. Unless the host/owner(s) are wealthy enough to absorb the costs, they must at least operate on a break-even basis if not making a profit on the services they are selling.  For this reason they are not likely to establish stringent rules (let alone protocol) that would limit the attractiveness to their customer base, thus reducing their income.  So long as it does not jeopardize the host or owner’s legal liability and supports the financial realities of providing such a service, they will tend to have the least restrictive environment with regard to their customer’s behavior, aside from expectations of civility and the limitations for playing/sceneing. 
 
Whatever term the proprietor chooses to use, once you pay your admission or make a donation (and sign the waiver agreements some provide) you have consented to participate within the limits of whatever rules govern the dungeon.  Although it is not impossible, it is likely you won’t know or be known by everyone that is present.  In the case of someone speaking to other participants in third person, no rules have been violated if no rule exists that specifically forbids someone who does so.  In lieu of this fact, you once again raise the issue of “generally accepted decorum?as the barometer for the correctness of a person speaking in third person to someone other than his or her dominant. 
 
This is a rather specious argument for the very reasons you pointed out in another post where you purported that members of private groups only reflect what they do at home with significant others and friends rather than reflecting “common?or “basic public scene decorum.?nbsp; The same limitation is just as true for the decorum you and your friends are familiar with and prefer; it only reflects the decorum you prefer and are familiar with and nothing more. 
 
There are other folks who lay claim to the same extent of experience, involvement, and knowledge as you have about yourself and your friends.  They would vehemently disagree with your position on speaking in third person, seeking permission to speak at all, or seeking permission to enter or exit different areas of the dungeon from someone other than their dominant.  These forms of deportment are part of the “generally accepted decorum?that they are familiar with and prefer.   This would be their truth and reality because they are part of the “generally accepted decorum?they and their friends prefer and are accustomed to in the venues they are familiar with.  Generalizing this perspective beyond the limits of their awareness, preference, and experience would be no more accurate or authoritative than you doing so.
 
Where the slope gets slippery is that your perspective can be generalized and distorted to include almost anything as “training techniques, play, beliefs or relationship dynamics.?This assortment of categorizations can be conveniently applied, either stringently or vaguely, to include almost any behavior in a way that buttresses your perspective that someone has committed a breach of etiquette or protocol because they do something you personally don’t care for.  Perhaps Z and katy attend the same dungeon event as me and he has required her to use his favorite shampoo, bath wash, or perhaps perfume that has a fragrance I find repulsive.  Take your pick as this certainly could qualify as either play or a relationship dynamic.  It certainly fits well with the skewed guise of being just a “witness?to this scenario and makes the case that, as my stomach churns from the odor, I have been forced to inhale her scent without consent. 
 
I have a friend who easily slips into your proposition of “witnessing language?versus having it “directed towards?at you.  She does not always speak proper English and can be hard to understand at times.  I wonder if the people at the club she attends with her Master consider her to be an imposition, inappropriate, rude, thoughtless, or inconsiderate when she speaks to someone other than her Master.  If they don’t, should they be educated that they have “lost the essence?of “Leather/BDSM/Ms/Ds?because they do not see her as you would?  And what about her Master or Z?  Would it seem appropriate to hand down an indictment on both for disregarding “the very heart and soul of Leather/BDSM, M/s and D/s?because they have “forced?what you say are their “training techniques, play, beliefs, or relationship dynamics?on me or others?
 
I find little substance to support your claim that being spoken to by someone not using proper English constitutes an act of imposing his or her beliefs “on to the masses?or “forcing?their thoughts on others, carrying an ultimatum of “get on board or ship out.?nbsp; Moreover, You state that consent is the “essence of Leather/BDSM/Ms/Ds.?nbsp; I’m sure anyone who disagrees with this would be at a loss trying support their disagreement and soundly rebuked.  The concept of mutual consent is the foundation from which individuals find acceptance to seek pleasure and personal fulfillment by engaging in activities that can be harmful, illegal, considered socially unacceptable, politically incorrect, as well as judged immoral and sinful by others. 
 
In your response to Z, however, you equate the act of being spoken to in third person to be the same as a physical assault.  Elevating something as benign as being spoken to in third person to equal the experiences of those who have suffered the viciousness of non-consensual, physical assaults seriously dilutes the importance of consent you profess while diminishing the wounds and scars of those who have been victimized by a far greater degree of force and disregard for mutual consent than being assaulted by someone asking politely; “may this girl speak.?
 
Questions on the table now
You already have your mind made up that it is inappropriate for a dominant to require his submissive/slave to speak to others in third person, request permission to enter or leave a room, or simply to speak.  It is quite simple to explain why it IS appropriate for a dominant to require his or her submissive/slave to:

A. Speak to everyone in using their version of third person speech.

B. Request permission from anyone that might hear the request for permission to speak.

C. Request permission from anyone that might hear the request for permission to enter/leave.

It is a protocol between the two of them that is no less appropriate than the protocol you have with your submissive/slave regarding someone who would like to see the equipment in your gun case.  No one has a right to negate your protocol anymore than you have to negate theirs. 
It is this particular dominant’s right to require the submissive/slave who has willingly chosen to submit to the will of this dominant to do so, plain and simple. 

The dominant is merely exercising her or his control and preference over the deportment of the submissive/slave, not anyone else and nothing more than that.  Not everyone will find it to be a preference or pleasing, but the submissive/slave has not agreed to serve, please, or submit to them.  She or he has consented to serve this particular dominant only. 

These are tenets of D/s or BDSM that are just as sacrosanct as mutual consent and far more so than other concepts you have posited.

For the very same reason, it would be inappropriate for this particular dominant to require that the submissive/slave:

D. During a humiliation scene walking up to strangers and use verbal humiliation language instructed by the dominant to say to strangers.

I will assume here that the “strangers?are people who have not agreed to play/scene with this particular dominant.  Clearly the dominant has no right to include them without first informing and inviting them as well as receiving their consent.  In as much as it is inappropriate to insert yourself into someone else’s scene/play without invitation or permission, it is just as inappropriate to include someone in play/scene who has not agreed to be.


Reply
 Message 4 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknameﺼﺸ§hìftìñgWìñdﻌﺼSent: 5/31/2008 3:48 PM
Fascinating topic and questions!  I’m assuming you are referring to the standards and values that are also referred to as “Old Guard?by the authors of the articles posted by Mystique.  Like dev, I think that there was a confluence between the values and influences of my upbringing with those I was introduced to in D/s.  I have no doubt that it was these standards and values that attracted me to the groups and individuals I have been associated with, provided me a broader range of ways to practice and enjoy D/s, and have been part of the structure from which I have conducted myself whether face to face with people or at this screen.
 
Perhaps these are just the ramblings of one whose birthday cake grows increasingly overloaded with hot wax every year, but I do agree that some things seem different from then and now.  There seemed to be a simpler clarity between right or wrong but maybe that was simply because there were less choices to be made and not a matter of higher standards for integrity, dedication, and sincerity.  I think the difference is more a matter of perspective and appreciation between “now?and “then?in the way that the hula-hoop, transistor radios, and eight tracks were the cutting edge of high tech “back then.?nbsp;  I dare anyone whose life was influenced by any of these innovations to try not smiling as you reminisce.
 
Two experiences stand out for me that greatly influenced my formative years. One is the angst of waiting and planning for the expected invasion by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.  Facing the very real threat of nuclear extinction weighed heavy on those of us who were kids during that time and was no way for a grade-schooler to start his day.  Although we did get a short breather after the Cuban missile crisis, it wasn’t long before we had to ponder the almost inevitable invitation to visit South East Asia upon reaching our 18th birthday, courtesy of Uncle Sam.  At the first concert I attended Janis Joplin sang a song; “Get it while you can,?that seemed to provide a remedy for this prolonged angst.  I must have taken it to heart because it definitely became an approach I had towards life.  I was determined to enjoy life as fully as possible while I had it.
 
On a more carnal note, this perspective was further enhanced by my first true love, Dianne, who showed me that sex was beautiful and not nearly as bad, dirty, or sinful as the nuns, priests and Christian Brothers had strongly suggested to us. And here’s to you Judith, my Mrs. Robinson, who showed me that bad, dirty, and sinful sex, with a  little decadence and debauchery thrown in, could be absolutely divine!  Given these aspects of my development it hardly seems shocking that I had a proclivity for seeking as many exotic and forbidden adventures and pleasures as I could find, including those that were of a sexual nature.
 
As far as other influences in my life, having a father who loaded steel all day and worked as much overtime as possible to support eight kids contributed to a strong sense of knowing boundaries, accepting responsibilities, and finding your own way in life.  In addition, the influence of my religious and educational affiliations led me to a very sincere and devout commitment to enter the seminary at the age of 14.  Thanks mom and dad for intervening and encouraging me to taste more of life before making such a commitment.  Thanks again to Dianne for giving me the taste that convinced me I was probably not a good candidate for life long abstinence and thanks for taking me to see Janis.
 
By 18 years old I was every recruiter’s dream and by my 20th birthday I turned to the Dark Side and began a quixotic journey with a very colorful cast of characters.  Some were members of a notorious motorcycle club, some had last names that ended in a vowel, some had trampled in rice paddies, and others who defy any definitive description other than being free spirits who were three bubbles to the left and somewhat tarnished.
 
As the good Doctor Hunter S. Thompson said, “When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.?nbsp; I embraced this period of my life with the exuberance of someone determined on shedding his amateur status.  I probably tasted some parts of life that would not have been on mom’s suggested menu, but I did find my own way.  I have asked myself why some of those I ran with are long dead, in jail, or still meandering through life and I’m not.  I think it is because within the structures of these associations I learned and maintained strict boundaries, interpreting them literally and not allowing myself excuses to violate them.  In addition, with my urges to take things to the edge, I always held a healthy respect for both the deliciousness and danger of the edge.
 
When I examine these influences the common thread I find is a value for boundaries, structure, discipline, and inclusion based on sincerity, integrity, and authenticity.  I’m aware that I valued these attributes as early as when I was an altar boy and it is clear that I consistently gravitated toward associations with people or groups that were sources of support and affirmation of these values.  Whether those associations occurred on the Dark Side or through my involvement in volunteer work, social activism, or local politics, these values were present.  When I was introduced and then invited to become a member of a D/s group, I was attracted to what seemed to be another association that affirmed and accepted these values as well as most all of my experiences, influences, preferences, and pleasures.  It seemed to be a very nice fit for who I was.
 
I enjoyed/enjoy the clarity of structure and the pleasure found in the shared experience of the members based on mutual agreement and loyalty to the rules and protocol of the group.  This obviously appealed to my affinity for inclusion based on sincerity, integrity, and authenticity.  Moreover, I appreciate the orderliness of concise, clear, and firm, boundaries and expectations.  I could easily describe the often-mentioned commonly expected decorum of this particular group based on the rules, protocol, and expected etiquette that shaped it.  A value and principal for the group is that these rules, protocol, and forms of etiquette pertain only to us and no one else, as a way to enjoy D/s in the ways we do.  Generalizing what we define as our commonly expected decorum to anyone else would be no less nebulous and no more accurate than defining this group as “Old Guard.?/FONT>
 
The ritualism found in the group’s protocol and play, and often attributed to the “Old Guard,?appeal to my appreciation for ritualism from my religious background.  Call me twisted but I still get a high from things like pungent incense, the discipline required for proper kneeling, imposed silence, and acts of confession ?whether found in church or at one of the group’s gatherings.  The formality, style, and grace of rituals and protocol provides sensuous displays that can caress your arousal before the hiss of leather begins to lick and kiss and continues to provide a lingering buzz long after all the toys and tools are put away.
 
Rituals can also be very simple and uncomplicated while still providing some D/s seasoning when life seems to only offer a steady diet of things like job responsibilities, kids, family and social obligations, as well as the unexpected emergencies or crisis that saps our time and energy.  I’ve never been interested in deciding exactly what my submissive wears every day but find it very pleasing in the midst of a chaotic day to be told she is wearing those “special?panties.  Just a very simple and lovely gesture like this helps me unclench my teeth, relax my shoulders, gives me that luscious knot in my belly, and causes a little growl to rumble in My throat.
 
For me, the D/s I know has been a simple matter of finding something that “fit??something that embraced my values, life experiences, and personal preferences.  Things may seem “more?or “less?a lot of things when comparing then and now.  The most definitive answer I can give about then and now or Old Guard versus New Guard is based on the theory of jockeys versus boxers.  My father and uncles, most of them veterans of WWII, wore boxer shorts.  My brothers, cousins, and I wore jockeys because, in our perspective, boxers were “Old Man?underwear.  Today, my sons wear boxers and would never be caught wearing jockeys and most likely consider my jockeys “Old Man?underwear.  I suppose if we pondered and theorized these differing perspectives long enough we could spin a thread of lively posts.
 
What I do know is my jockeys fit, are comfortable, and I doubt they ever caused me to miss an opportunity for erotic indulgence.  I sincerely hope my sons have the same comfort and confidence in their boxers.  My dad wore what could be considered “Old Guard?underwear back then.  Although mine are very different from his, it seems in my sons?perspective that maybe I do now.  The lesson to be learned is this …I might consider myself or be considered by others as “Old Guard?if they like, just don’t get your underoos in a bunch chastising me over it and I promise not to ask anyone else to wear my underwear.

Reply
 Message 5 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknameﺼﺸ§hìftìñgWìñdﻌﺼSent: 6/4/2008 11:33 AM
How do you think this quote relates to power exchange relationships which you are currently in, have been in previously or would like to be in?
 
I’d have to agree with annie that, in totality, the quote may not have a lot to do with relationships of the power exchange variety.  Moreover, several key points have been made throughout the discussion that would support why it might not be in the best interest to try and make it fit:
 
annie says: Submissives are not children and dominants are not parents.
 
I could not agree more strongly and have been bothered when I have experienced someone making such analogies.
 
annie says: I don't believe that childlike innocence has a place in a power exchange relationship ?I don't think that adults can choose to be innocent ?at some point innocence turns to naivety in the life of an adult as there is a perception that adults "should" be able to ascertain the differences that will help them to learn as opposed to remaining ignorant of pertinent facts of life.
 
I agree on all counts.  It may simply be the application of the term innocence that catches my attention but unless it is under the most severe conditions of confinement or deprivation I am inclined to believe that adults cannot choose to be innocent but sometimes do choose to be naive or ignorant.
 
If an adult is considering (inquisitive, questioning, exploring) power exchange with another person I would guess that somehow innocence has been lost along the way and that they are acknowledging aspects of themselves and how to live their lives that have been revealed in one way or another.  To maintain intellectual or behavioral “innocence?as a means to remain “child-like?(unless adopted for role-play) in an adult relationship, let alone one that is based on power exchange, can be quite debilitating to both parties.
 
cinna says: Hopefully, as we enter into a power exchange relationship, we are aware of our own set of questions.
 
Hopefully this is the foundation on which a person does enter a power exchange relationship.  One must possess some perspective and knowledge in order to have a set of questions that are relevant to establishing any relationship and especially one based on power exchange.  It seems to me that this would preclude innocence and demonstrate an unwillingness to remain naïve or ignorant.
 
cinna says: The insides of a much-loved partner can be magic to me.
 
Perhaps this might be where the sense of “innocence?may fit with your take on it.  I would be more apt to use another word from the quotation ?wonderment.  I have been fortunate in life to have relationships with people who were “much-loved?partners.  I can be a hopeless romantic and revel in that sense of magic with another person.  I dwell on those moments of self revelations ?I am in awe when I have been trusted to be “let inside?another person ?to touch and see parts of her that she reveals to very few.
 
I revel in those moments of being 17 again, all mushy and babbling ?again in awe that this creature can have such an effect on me and that I am still capable of embracing these experiences.  Pondering her beauty from within, whether in the most subtle or profound ways, is an endless source of satisfaction, arousal, and bliss.
 
What is the role of curiosity and knowledge in power exchange relationships?
 
jessi says: This person's curiosity begins to be partly satisfied and yet also propelled further so they seek other resources (authorities) in which to learn more.
 
jessi says: I also think that the never-ending cycle of curiosity [and] knowledge ?is often in play in a power exchange relationship.
 
Allowing my omission of authority, I think you have described something that is vital for any relationship to be mutually satisfying.  From the very outset, a person’s curiosity about all that might fall under the umbrella of the term power exchange acts as a catalyst for gaining knowledge of self that guides one to being able to achieve whatever his/her goals eventually might be.  Wherever and however they pursue their curiosity (chat room, website, or other sources of information), satisfying one’s curiosity leads to greater knowledge that equips the person to make decisions regarding to what extent they choose to actualize this knowledge.
 
This might be where your take on authority and knowledge fits.  In your example of the person first encountering the labyrinth of power exchange knowledge, one can be intimidated by their humble acknowledgment of their lack of knowledge and the façade of “authority?that seems so prevalent in the many sources of “knowledge?available.  In a realm where “everyone has a right to their opinion?seems to be a droning mantra to challenges, it is important that a person discern whether opinions are based on substantive knowledge or simply a compilation of concepts, perceptions, and/or preferences that have no basis in fact.  Moreover, curiosity and the compulsion to gain knowledge is best filtered through common sense gained in general life experience as opposed to succumbing to the mirage of being authoritative.  If the choice is made to enter into any degree of a power exchange relationship, let it be based on the authority over oneself gained from the cycle of curiosity and knowledge that “fits?rather than an external authority inundating you with admonitions of shoulda, oughta, and gotta.
 
I will once again defer to annie when she states: I believe the curiosity begins with the sense that there is something that resonates for us, and the knowledge is gained from the interaction and subsequent exploration, when it comes to engaging in a relationship.  Whether that might be the initial exploration of play in a casual relationship or in a committed, intimate, on-going relationship, acting on the curiosity of what this other person might add to my life opens the door to greater knowledge of self as well as the other person.  If what resonates is mostly positive, most of the time then it is likely that curiosity will feed itself and continue to seek more knowledge.
 
I am a curious person and I find other people to be fascinating, be it in a positive or negative way.  In the context of power exchange I am curious to see if I can add to the other person’s life in general, and specifically in the exchange of dominance and submission.  I believe I am quite knowledgeable of myself in terms of my preferences and abilities ?two essentials to be shared with the other person and expected from her.  It is one thing to be shy but a whole different thing to be shameful to the point where one cannot share her desires.  It makes the curiosity fade or makes something else resonate within me that is like a warning buzzer.
 
In the most satisfying power exchange relationships I have had, the resonance of on-going curiosity and knowledge has been a driving force.  It might be something as simple a thing as discussing how a new change or decision in life is affecting my partner.  It surely includes the resonance that comes from the ways in which we attend to the power of each other’s domination and submission.  My curiosity is provoked by satisfaction and urged further to seek more “experiential?knowledge of how to bring her along with me to “that place?in which her submissiveness and my dominance is sated. 
 
PS: Should any alleged innocence happen to creep in I hope to have the knowledge to corrupt it and broaden her knowledge base.

First  Previous  2-5 of 5  Next  Last 
Return to General