BDSM and Impregnation

[AngelicAssassin]

Interesting bucket of worms

I think it is somewhat disingenious to summarize the reactions as 'moral outrage', given that it implies some fundementalist knee-jerk response to a lifestyle.

Given you don't know me from Adam, i think it disingenuous of you to assume anything. Perhaps, "gamut of moral and lawful opposition," will more appropriately fit your pedantic semantics.

What is at issue is power and responsibility ... I think that it is simply incorrect to believe that the decision to abdicate power and responsibility actually results in an absence of power or responsibility..

i agree that giving up rights does not absolve a person from responsibility.

The question of 'rights' is beside the point ... (Please feel free to provide a baseline example of a situation or decision that would be morally unacceptable, provoking legitimate concern, rather than merely stimulating 'moral outrage' and 'discomfort'. )

In whose eyes is the question beside the point? Considering you've rolled yours, expect them returned as a fastball. Drink your coffee, re-read what others have posted concerning Total Power Exchange with/without limits (even that concept isn't black&white), and deal with the example i've already provided.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Re: Re: Re: Interesting bucket of worms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AngelicAssassin
As an extension, histrionics aside please, i'd like to hear how others show/don't show dominance and submission in a household with children present and why.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123320&highlight=BDSM+and+children

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177586&highlight=BDSM+and+children

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190117&highlight=BDSM+and+children

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=202523&highlight=BDSM+and+children

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178256&highlight=BDSM+and+children

Catalina

Thanks kittykat, i've been remiss in keeping up with the threads. i'll read these while everyone worries pedophilia like a bone for another 13 pages.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting bucket of worms

Thanks kittykat, i've been remiss in keeping up with the threads. i'll read these while everyone worries pedophilia like a bone for another 13 pages.

LOL, well you will stay away from us and make us all feel neglected and rejected

....actually some are older threads and could do with a rebump.

Catalina

 

[the shadow of a boy]

Re: Interesting bucket of worms

Given you don't know me from Adam, i think it disingenuous of you to assume anything. Perhaps, "gamut of moral and lawful opposition," will more appropriately fit your pedantic semantics.

Are my semantics really that pedantic? Your choice of words felt to me like you were suggesting that anyone who had problem with OSG's decisions or hypothetical future decisions was participating in some sort of reprehensible mass hysteria. That feeling was based on the context in which I tend to encounter phrases such as 'moral outrage'. As a way to strengthen one argument and weaken another, yeah, I'd call it disingenuous. Even if Adam said it.

AngelicAssassin:
I agree that giving up rights does not absolve a person from responsibility. In whose eyes is the question beside the point?

If you agree that giving up rights does not absolve a person from responsibility, then you agree that the question of what rights a person has or hasn't surrendered has no bearing on their responsibilities. The question of rights is beside the point, in my eyes, when I'm disagreeing with the suggestion that someone is 'powerless' and implicitly not responsible for the final consequences of inaction because they've decided to be powerless.

I have not been saying, "I don't think you should do X, because it's evil." I've been saying "I don't accept that you would be powerless to prevent X, and it is an error to claim that you would be." (Although, in this type of context, I'm inclined to think that deliberately choosing to believe something that is false could be considered 'evil'.) All I want is for OSG to acknowledge that she would not be powerless to prevent her child from being raised as "another slave" if her master wished, and that she would be complicit in that decision.

AngelicAssassin:
Considering you've rolled [your eyes], expect them returned as a fastball. Drink your coffee, re-read what others have posted concerning Total Power Exchange with/without limits (even that concept isn't black&white), and deal with the example i've already provided.

I rolled my eyes because I'm skeptical about the authenticity of any apparent moral relativism, and I felt that you were denigrating those who had made arguments from a moral basis. (Forgetting for a moment the question of whether arguing about the self-consistency of a moral system should count as moralizing.) It was perhaps more confrontational than necessary, but you appear unharmed. The question, while ironic, was also genuine. What would we have to be talking about before you ceased to refer to the discomforts of our moral outrage? To dismiss people's concerns out of hand like that seems to evidence a more 'black & white' approach than most of what I've read so far on this thread.

Insofar as I can see, the only direct bearing that TPE might have on the discussion that I have been involved in would be to explain why people might be reluctant to think about or openly acknowledge any power or responsibility they may, in actuality, have. The initial hypothetical situation, in which OSG would be powerless to prevent her child from being raised as 'another slave', is pretty much the same regardless of whether or not TPE is involved.

I will look at the example you have provided, think about it, and get back to you.

 

[the shadow of a boy]

Pure is responding to TSOB
I've often quoted her in making points.

Below are the main texts which indicate that OSG is not contemplating a scenario of abuse. ... In particular, these
passages refute the wild charge that she contemplates a child being sexually used by her master.

I will agree that occasionally some ambiguous or unclear phrases elsewhere *might* be suspected of indicating possible allowance of abuse, but since the postings below explicitly state the contrary, a reasonable approach is to take them as definitive....

Pure, thanks in total honesty for this reference. I'll probably find it usefull myself.

I don't think that the charge that she contemplates a child being sexually used by her master is wild or a charge. I think the fantasy she has mentioned most likely involves exactly such use, unless she fantasizes about housework. I haven't issued wild charges against or on the basis of the fantasy. What has caused me to speak up are statements like the following, which hasn't yet made it into your list:

ownedsubgal at 7:27 PM 02-17-2004:
...now on to the next point...yes of course if my Master decided we would have a child between us, and if it were physically possible to do so, then that is what would happen. i have no control over that. and how the child would be raised (repeating myself again) would be entirely up to him. if another slave is what he desired, that is what would be. i have no control over that, either. but it's soooooo utterly ridiculous and pointless to even discuss such things, because they are NOT possibilities, for more reasons than i could ever count. the uppermost reason being, it is not what i OR my Master would EVER, EVER want. re-read what i just explained about dark perversions, if you like, for an explaination.

I've included the full paragraph so that people won't take it out of context, but the precise words that trouble me are "if another slave is what he desired, that is what would be. i have no control over that, either."

I simply think that the second of those statements is untrue. Because there is a moral question involved (whether or not it is wrong to raise a child as a slave), I see the untruth of that statement as morally significant.

 

[the shadow of a boy]

Netzach speaks to everyone:
...I think those showing great amounts of concern are probably putting too much stock in the likelihood of it happening. For this simple reason if none other: people who actually do raise children to be sex slaves usually aren't public about their desire to do so.

I agree that the hypothetical situation of what OSG would do if her master wished has recieved attention disproportionate to the bulk what she's actually said. Because of my concerns (see a nearby post) I think it deserves that attention. I'm not significantly concerned about what OSG might actually do. But this isn't really 'in public', and people do feel driven to talk about their desires. People who actually do raise children to be sex slaves usually aren't public about it in the same way that people who sexually abuse children usually don't take photographs of it, and that people who wish to commit genocide ususally don't make that clear in a book beforehand.

 

[Pure]

Well, TSOB I do see some words that, taken from context might be construed as troubling. However the para you cite contains clear evidence against your view/concern that abuse is possible with OSG's complicity.

OSG: but it's soooooo utterly ridiculous and pointless to even discuss such things, because they are NOT possibilities, for more reasons than i could ever count. the uppermost reason being, it is not what i OR my Master would EVER, EVER want.

Her statement "I have no control over that [taking a second slave]", you say, is untrue. Its meaning is tricky, in the context of a voluntary--or initially voluntary--relationship. It can be read simply as "I decline to exercize control."

Not unlike a pacifist who says, "If you choose to put me in prison, I have no control of that." This means, of course, assuming a commitment to pacifism, to begin with, perhaps deeply ingrained.

You say the untruth is 'morally significant'. If you mean 'of possible moral relevance,' fine. If, however, you mean, "morally significant in opening a door to wrong doing," I don't see that.

She believes a) the master has no desire for a slave child, and b) the master would not abuse any child, and c) indeed has no criminal tendencies. We don't have the facts, but these are not implausible of a person with honor.

Given those assumptions/beliefs, we have to say that "I have no control" simply means "I decline to exercize control, given that a person with honor, and no tendency to child abuse, is in charge. "

And I see nothing morally problematic of that, if she's judged him correctly.

Just for fun, I make this analogy. If I were invisible and had the power to 'freeze' (make incapable of moving, as in _fermata_) a person, I'd enter Charlize Theron's bedroom. Once she came in and undressed, I'd have no choice but to 'freeze' her and fuck her all night.

How great a concern about my morals would you have, in this case?

Best,

J.


TSOB [verbatim]:

Pure, thanks in total honesty for this reference. I'll probably find it usefull myself.

I don't think that the charge that she contemplates a child being sexually used by her master is wild or a charge. I think the fantasy she has mentioned most likely involves exactly such use, unless she fantasizes about housework. I haven't issued wild charges against or on the basis of the fantasy. What has caused me to speak up are statements like the following, which hasn't yet made it into your list:

ownedsubgal at 7:27 PM 02-17-2004:
...now on to the next point...yes of course if my Master decided we would have a child between us, and if it were physically possible to do so, then that is what would happen. i have no control over that. and how the child would be raised (repeating myself again) would be entirely up to him. if another slave is what he desired, that is what would be. i have no control over that, either. but it's soooooo utterly ridiculous and pointless to even discuss such things, because they are NOT possibilities, for more reasons than i could ever count. the uppermost reason being, it is not what i OR my Master would EVER, EVER want. re-read what i just explained about dark perversions, if you like, for an explaination.

I've included the full paragraph so that people won't take it out of context, but the precise words that trouble me are "if another slave is what he desired, that is what would be. i have no control over that, either."

I simply think that the second of those statements is untrue. Because there is a moral question involved (whether or not it is wrong to raise a child as a slave), I see the untruth of that statement as morally significant.

 

[sunfox]

Sunfox said,

My opinion on a child's raising, hypothetical or not, is unchanged, and will never change. You can offer all the 'no one has convinced -me- yet though, so this subject [OSG and hypothetical child] cannot be dropped' complaints that you like... it won't matter to me. I made my point, my opinion is set in stone.

That's fine. Write your own Holy Writ. Put it on an altar. Revere it.

It's notable that you say your opinions on OSG etc. (I presume) will 'never change.' --given that the total of the facts you 'know' about her and her master could be put into a dozen sentences, I suspect.

What keeps you posting saying 'I'm not listening'? Enjoy your certainty, re-read your old postings and say "I agree; very well put," and save on further typing

I notice, when reading your posts, Pure, that you do exactly that same thing. You do a shitload of cutting and pasting, then say, "I don't agree, and thus you are wrong, and should see it my way." So... why's it good for the goose, and not for the gander? (Gender specifics of goose and gander being nonimportant, of course)

Let me point out again that my opinions are exactly that. Opinions. And I have the right to have them, even if I know nothing whatsoever about OSG but that her username is ownedsubgal. I could take exception to her username, if I felt like it.. that's the nature of freedom of speech. No one makes you read my posts, or anyone else's, if you don't like it.

So why do I keep posting? Because it entertains me to watch you accuse me of something you do constantly. That's why. Stop being the pot, calling the kettle black... and then I'll stop posting.

 

[the shadow of a boy]

Well, TSOB I do see some words that, taken from context might be construed as troubling. However the para you cite contains clear evidence against your view/concern that abuse is possible with OSG's complicity ...

Her statement "I have no control over that [taking a second slave]", you say, is untrue. Its meaning is tricky, in the context of a voluntary--or initially voluntary--relationship. It can be read simply as "I decline to exercise control..."

You say the untruth is 'morally significant'. If you mean 'of possible moral relevance,' fine. If, however, you mean, "morally significant in opening a door to wrong doing," I don't see that.

She believes a) the master has no desire for a slave child, and b) the master would not abuse any child, and c) indeed has no criminal tendencies. We don't have the facts, but these are not implausible of a person with honor.

Given those assumptions/beliefs, we have to say that "I have no control" simply means "I decline to exercise control, given that a person with honor, and no tendency to child abuse, is in charge..."

Just for fun, I make this analogy... If I were invisible and had the power to 'freeze' [someone]... once she came in and undressed, I'd have no choice but to 'freeze' her and fuck her all night.

How great a concern about my morals would you have, in this case?

"We meet again, old man. But this time, I am the master..."



First off, with regards to your analogy, I have a very unfun reply to make, for which I'd like to apologize beforehand given your intentions. If you genuinely expected me to believe and understand that you would at that point have no choice but to "'freeze' her and fuck [i.e., rape] her all night" my concern about your morals would transcend the 'hypothetical' nature of the scenario, not to mention drain all humor from it. I don't think you do expect that of me. But (in counter example and to help explain my general position) I've had jokes and humorous anecdotes related to me that were about rape, when it came down to it, in situations where I was expected to laugh along. I'm sure you've had such, too. It not only causes concern (I guess I can't take a joke), but it also imposes a moral choice between explicit, socially awkward dissent and the implicit acceptance of silence.

I disagree with your conclusions regarding the paragraph I cited. Her statement does make it clear that OSG does not see such abuse as a decision her master might possibly make. What is also expressly clear is that, were abuse possible, OSG would wish to think herself as unable to prevent it.

The distinction of 'initially voluntary' versus 'entirely voluntary' can only be made with reference to the overall and ongoing TPE commitment. The relationship (as measured in years rather than moments) is, in fact, voluntary, insofar as OSG is not coercively prevented from leaving it. If OSG is forced to do something she doesn't want to do, the second element (besides her master) that is always also present and forcing her is her own commitment to maintaining the TPE. If this were not so, we would either have to reject the notion of inalienable human rights, or conclude that OSG is being abused.

I do not think that the statement "I have no control over that [raising my child as a slave]" is particularly ambiguous by itself, and given that we are specifically talking about what unwanted things OSG believes she could not prevent, it doesn't seem ambiguous to me in context. Reading it as "I decline to exercise control..." is to read it as meaning to say the closest equivalent statement that we (both, apparently) would see as true. In which case, OSG would be saying "if [raising a child to be a slave] is what he desired, that is what would be. [Because] I would decline to exercise control over that." I feel that this is the valid statement (regardless of whether or not she would) that her actual (in my opinion, erroneous) statement avoids.

By 'morally significant', I mean that the question of her complicity in this morally problematic hypothetical scenario hinges on the truth of her statement. By extension, her sense of her responsibilities (or the lack thereof) in general may also depend on a belief that this statement is true, and others may have the same belief. I do not only believe that this is wrong (which one could say was a matter of moral opinion); I also believe that it is incorrect (by the more rigorous standards of reason).

Believe it or not, rationalizing behavior that would otherwise be self-censured as immoral by maintaining false beliefs is a pretty standard human tactic.

We are starting to parse, so feel free to reply in the thread at the bottom of my post, if you think this is getting too esoteric.

("Look mommy! The pedantiphants are fighting!"
"Um... that's how they make little baby pedantiphants, dear.")

 

[the shadow of a boy]

thank you Netzach, this is why all the fuss over this topic continues to boggle my mind. not only is this a fantasy, and not only is it a fantasy that will NEVER happen, but it is a fantasy that, were it even possible to realize, neither of us WANTS to make happen anyway. i have posted as much over and over again, but few seem to have read those words and instead prefer taking out a sentence or two and then making the rest up as they go. all i can assume is that most people have fantasies that they actually wish to realize. that most fantasize about what they desire only. as i said, i am a pervert...i have fantasies of a nature so morally and ethically wrong in my OWN eyes, that the absolute last thing i would want is for them to come true. but that doesn't stop the fantasies from creating themselves.

And to make it worse, in between arguing with Pure and AngelicAssassin, I totally missed your post.

I've tried to maintain a distinction between your fantasies, your actual life with your master, and the 'sentence or two' that my lengthy (and probably boring) argument has been about. Hopefully at least one of my attempts has managed to explain why it matters to me. My specific problem is that you seem to believe that you would not be equally responsible nor able to prevent those fantasies from being made reality, if that was what your master wished. Disregarding whether or not he ever could or would wish that.

You'll have noticed that I do have some doubts as to why you're unwilling to clarify the point, but that wasn't why I failed to address you directly or refer to your post in my replies. I should have, and I apologize.

 

[Etoile]

So... why's it good for the goose, and not for the gander? (Gender specifics of goose and gander being nonimportant, of course)

I'd like to note that I'm still astonished that Pure's a guy.

why no, I don't have anything relevant to contribute to this thread at this time.

 

[the shadow of a boy]

I'd like to note that I'm still astonished that Pure's a guy.

I know how you feel. I'm still astonished that I'm a guy.

(If the gender of a goose or gander was ambigious... would that mean that the goose was transgandered?)

 

[Kajira Callista]

thank you Netzach, this is why all the fuss over this topic continues to boggle my mind. not only is this a fantasy, and not only is it a fantasy that will NEVER happen, but it is a fantasy that, were it even possible to realize, neither of us WANTS to make happen anyway. i have posted as much over and over again, but few seem to have read those words and instead prefer taking out a sentence or two and then making the rest up as they go. all i can assume is that most people have fantasies that they actually wish to realize. that most fantasize about what they desire only. as i said, i am a pervert...i have fantasies of a nature so morally and ethically wrong in my OWN eyes, that the absolute last thing i would want is for them to come true. but that doesn't stop the fantasies from creating themselves.

just one more thing i wanted to comment on before i left this thread, and perhaps this should be a topic all it's own, but KC's comment about D/s being about sexuality...that is no more accurate than it would be to say that a homosexual relationship is about sexuality, that a heterosexual relationship is about sexuality. i certainly cannot speak for all, but my relationship is not centered around sex. i was not drawn to the lifestyle for sexual reasons. it is about following one's true nature, and being in a relationship that simply feels most natural to you. take away all sexual elements from my own union with Daddy, and it would be no less D/s, no less M/s, and no less fulfilling to my heart and spirit.

homosexual[1,adjective]homosexual[2,noun]

Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex




heterosexual[1,adjective]heterosexual[2,noun]

Main Entry: 1het·ero·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "he-t&-rO-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex


Best i can do for the D/s relationship being a sexual preference is a few hundred websites....but here is one i like, going to post it on the TPE thread also, a good read http://www.domsublifestyle.com/article9.html

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Interesting bucket of worms

Your choice of words felt to me like you were suggesting that anyone who had problem with OSG's decisions or hypothetical future decisions was participating in some sort of reprehensible mass hysteria.

Newp, that would be an assumption on your part, and i've since clarified my original posting.

The question of rights is beside the point, in my eyes, when I'm disagreeing with the suggestion that someone is 'powerless' and implicitly not responsible for the final consequences of inaction because they've decided to be powerless.

Again, a person still bears responsibility for action or inaction ... implicitly, or explicitly.

I've been saying "I don't accept that you would be powerless to prevent X, and it is an error to claim that you would be."

You err in not accepting her choice to give up choice. i know Francisco and Catalina have raked this yard before. Try separating her conviction "to not choose" from your perception "she can choose at any time, and in this case should."

All I want is for OSG to acknowledge that she would not be powerless to prevent her child from being raised as "another slave" if her master wished, and that she would be complicit in that decision.

What you want from osg is irrelevant to both her and her PYL. i want you to quit beating a dead horse, but i didn't get my wish either if it makes you feel any better.

I rolled my eyes because ... and I felt that you were denigrating those who had made arguments from a moral basis.

Aside from the clairification already provided, i don't denigrate people for arguing their decisions on their individual lifestyles from their moral basis. i will engage, however, when someone attempts to apply their standards to someone else.

Insofar as I can see, the only direct bearing that TPE might have on the discussion that I have been involved in would be to explain why people might be reluctant to think about or openly acknowledge any power or responsibility they may, in actuality, have.

Why do you think "people" reluctant? Perhaps "people" have closed the issue and feel they no longer need to explain the matter to you since you won't change your mind any sooner than they will? i know Fran/Cat tried valiantly numerous times to get the concept of TPE across; including personal variations they didn't have to share, but did in hopes of further clarification (kudos to you two for the effort); but it doesn't seem to have changed your mind.

I will look at the example you have provided, think about it, and get back to you.

No need ... kitty cat already gave me a reading assignment.

 

[Etoile]

This is a bit embarrassing because I've asked this question before. What's PYL mean? It's too short for me to search the forum! It's not in acronymfinder.com either.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Interesting bucket of worms

LOL, well you will stay away from us and make us all feel neglected and rejected

....actually some are older threads and could do with a rebump.

Catalina

No m'lady, i'm doing my homework assignment now having been dutifully castigated.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

This is a bit embarrassing because I've asked this question before. What's PYL mean? It's too short for me to search the forum! It's not in acronymfinder.com either.

Pick Your Label.

My way of getting past pissing off someone because i didn't pick the correct label for them from Dominant/Domme/Top/Master/Mistress/Sadist/Submissive/Slave/Bottom/Masochist/Itchabel Gooch.

i caught your post too, and this isn't poking fun. Shall we refer to Pure as an "e" for pronoun's sake?

Edited for being sexist and owning a chitty spellchecker.

 

[Etoile]

Pick Your Label.

My way of getting past pissing off someone because i didn't pick the correct label for them from Dominant/Domme/Top/Master/Mistress/Sadist/Submissive/Slave/Bottom/Masochist/Itchabel Gooch.

i caught your post too, and this isn't poking fun. Shall we refer to Pure as an "e" for pronoun's sake?

Edited for being sexist and owning a chitty spellchecker.

Oh yeah! Crap, I have to figure out a way of remembering that acronym.

No, I don't think we should use Spivak pronouns for Pure. I'm pretty sure it's well-known that Pure is male, I just hadn't realized it. Spivak pronouns are used for someone of unknown gender, someone who is androgynous, or somebody who doesn't want their gender to be known.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

I'm pretty sure it's well-known that Pure is male ...

Are you sure? i'm taking an educated guess and making a mother of an assumption.

 

[Etoile]

Are you sure? i'm taking an educated guess and making a mother of an assumption.

I guess I'm not 100% sure, but JM has probably got more history with Pure than I do so would have read more of Pure's posts and be in a better position to answer than I am. I suspect that if Pure were female, though, there would have been some denials to my multiple comments that Pure's male. Hell, I dunno.

 

[the shadow of a boy]

Re: Interesting bucket of worms

Newp, that would be an assumption on your part, and i've since clarified my original posting... Again, a person still bears responsibility for action or inaction ... implicitly, or explicitly.....You err in not accepting her choice to give up choice. i know Francisco and Catalina have raked this yard before. Try separating her conviction "to not choose" from your perception "she can choose at any time, and in this case should."... What you want from osg is irrelevant to both her and her PYL. i want you to quit beating a dead horse, but i didn't get my wish either if it makes you feel any better... Aside from the clairification already provided, i don't denigrate people for arguing their decisions on their individual lifestyles from their moral basis. i will engage, however, when someone attempts to apply their standards to someone else.... Why do you think "people" reluctant? Perhaps "people" have closed the issue and feel they no longer need to explain the matter to you since you won't change your mind any sooner than they will? i know Fran/Cat tried valiantly numerous times to get the concept of TPE across; including personal variations they didn't have to share, but did in hopes of further clarification (kudos to you two for the effort); but it doesn't seem to have changed your mind... No need ... kitty cat already gave me a reading assignment.

Ok. Perhaps what sounds like hostility to me is just part of your personal style, but you sound very sure that you 'know me from Adam' as someone you don't like. Could you perhaps explain why that is, either in the thread or via PM?

Your clarification of what you meant by 'moral outrage' was provided on behalf of my "pedantic semantics." Does that itself not sound derogatory to you? The way you spoke, and the way you're continuing to speak, makes me think that your original choice of words was indeed specifically intended to be dismissive.

In your reply, you said that "a person still bears responsibility for action or inaction ... implicitly, or explicitly." Soon after, in response to my statement that "I don't accept that [she] would be powerless to prevent X, and it is an error to claim that [she] would be," you said that I erred in not accepting her choice to give up choice.

First off, that wasn't an error: it was deliberate. I do not believe that the "choice to give up choice" in this circumstance results in an actual absence of choice. I believe that it leads to an emotionally significant perception of an absence of choice, and that a person will be guided in their actions by that perception. If this means that I disagree with Catalina and/or Fransisco, then that's what it means. If it is at odds with every century, hour, and minute of aggregated TPE experience in the room, then that's unfortunate. My belief is based upon both my own experience of involuntary powerlessness and my own experience of falsely perceiving myself to be powerless. It could be that I (with Sartre, and several Holocaust survivors) am very, very wrong. But if I am, then why would you believe that anyone who has chosen to give up choice should bear any responsibility for their action or inaction? If someone is in fact powerless because of this choice, then why are there women identifying themselves as TPE submissives in this thread who do not seem content with what OSG has said? I do not accept that she would be powerless. It is an error to claim that she would be.

Ultimately, I don't care whether what I want is irrelevant to OSG and her master. When I explained what I 'wanted' from OSG, I was explaining for your benefit what my dispute with her (and half a dozen other people) was. You say that you don't want me to keep beating a dead horse. But the horse has died and been reborn every day that I've been on this thread. And unless you're actually trying to engage me in a meaningful discussion rather than throwing off one-liners, what you want is irrelevant to me. If you failed to predict that an insulting point-by-point response to my post might not get you what you wanted, then better luck next time.

It's nice of you not to denigrate people for "arguing their decisions on their individual lifestyles from their moral basis." I don't do that either. Nor do I start arguments with people because of their individual lifestyles. I argue with the decisions they have made, and I argue with their moral basis for those decisions, and I most certainly do argue when they are unwilling to develop or clarify the moral basis with which they would justify those decisions. And when you attempt to apply your standards to me, I will engage right back at you. I've told you before that I'm skeptical about moral relativism. I've yet to encounter the genuine article, and you're clearly comfortable with making morally absolute statements.

In terms of why 'people' might be reluctant to think about any power or responsibility they may have, no, actually, I don't think it's because I won't change my mind. I wasn't referring to any prior dialogue between me and anyone else, or even between anyone and anyone. It's clear that some people aren't reluctant to think about any power or responsibility they might have. You, for one. Off the top of my head, Catalina, sunfox, Kajira, and Etolie as well.

If you demand that I provide a response to an example that you had provided and I hadn't been talking about, please refrain from telling me you don't care to hear it the next time you address me. Or, if you're indifferent to whether I respond to you, please don't demand responses from me. Whichever.

I have tried to keep from giving you less consideration in this post than you have shown me in yours. If I have failed, or if you just want this to degenerate into a flame-fest for the hell of it, then I would ask you to post your response on the thread in my sig. That's one of the things it's there for.

 

[sunfox]

I'd like to note that I'm still astonished that Pure's a guy.

why no, I don't have anything relevant to contribute to this thread at this time.

Should I start a thread for Pure's probable or definite gender? *grins* we can start a betting pool.

It would seem that I have nothing useful to add to this thread either! Or I never have anything useful to add.. one or the other.

 

[Pure]

Hi Etoile,

For someone involved in gender bending, knowledgeable about transsexuals, surgical vaginoplasty, 'bi' lifestyles, age games of mommy- daddy-fucking with any gender, you are very concerned about which of my holes a daddy's cock might fit into. Would some pictures 'down there' be of use to you, for the next time you respond to a posting of mine?

 

[Etoile]

Hi Etoile,

For someone involved in gender bending, knowledgeable about transsexuals, surgical vaginoplasty, 'bi' lifestyles, age games of mommy- daddy-fucking with any gender, you are very concerned about which of my holes a daddy's cock might fit into. Would some pictures 'down there' be of use to you, for the next time you respond to a posting of mine?

Heh! It doesn't really matter to me what you are, I'd just like to know what pronouns you'd like used to refer to you. But hey, if you want to send me pictures, I'm all for it!

 

[the shadow of a boy]

Purely a question of gender

I thought I knew that Pure was male, but now I'm wondering if that belief developed from now-forgotten evidence or not. In other words, if I knew that Pure was male, or if I just 'knew' that Pure was male.

It's possible that given the actual evidence, logic dictates that we regard Pure's gender as undetermined; in a superimposed wave-function between male and female, which can only collapse in the presence of an observer. [If Pure angrily retorts that the wave-function would not collapse in the presence of an observer, we can draw our own conclusions.]

Sort of like 'Schrodinger's Penis'. You don't read about it in physics books, but that trick sure got him into a lot more trouble at faculty parties than the one with the cat, let me tell you...

I can't give an honest probability estimate because the estimate would be influenced by the utility/disutility of the guess vs. truth outcome matrix. Cynics may note this as indicating my gender.

We should remember that Etoile purports to pursue a proof of the penis puzzle purely on a Daddy-by-Daddy basis.

(Spock: "Fascinating."
Andre the Giant: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")