SMACK--a concept, a gathering. Welcome.
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
Pure said:
A sub is not a child.
Assuming the sub is an adult who has consented to such treatment then why would it be immoral? Making a sub cry isn't unfair or cruel in the way of picking on some unwilling and defenseless victim --- unless you're violating the agreed upon rules, in which case you're likely to be looking for a new playmate sooner rather than later. If you abuse your toys they leave you.
-B
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
I'd suppose a good many subs with agreements have focused on activities that can or cannot occur (the 'cannot occur' things are usuals like scat, lawbreaking, exposure to STDs etc.). So let's just suppose that crying is not explicitly covered. Apart from any punishment issue or specific 'offense,' the dom--for reasons not discernable to the sub or explained beforehand-- intentionally makes a hurtful remark causing tears.
(BTW i don't want this to turn into legalist nit picking; i really want to hear your comments on the thread topic.)
(BTW i don't want this to turn into legalist nit picking; i really want to hear your comments on the thread topic.)
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
Pure said:
I'm not sure what you're asking at this point.
If you want a list of codified behaviors that are explicitly okay in all situations or will allow you to say to someone whose feelings you've hurt "Well, according to the rules I'm not out of line so your feelings shouldn't be hurt," then you're SOL.
If you push too hard and hurt the person you're playing with, no amount of argument is going to make them not be hurt. Consequently, you are in the doghouse whether you believe you deserve to be or not. The person who ultimately determines how much hurt is too much is the person with the wound. Arguing with him that he is not hurt or invalidating his hurt by saying that he shouldn't be upset only increases his sense that you are not a trustworthy partner.
If you intentionally inflict hurt it is always the prerogative of the wounded to tell you to fuck off. It isn't always subs hurt by Dominants, either. Plenty of Dominants get their hearts shreaded by subs.
-B
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
poor sweeties**!
no one is saying 'you shouldn't hurt.'
as in the game of football (played for real), in the 'game' of erotic submission you're going to get bruised or get the wind knocked out of you.
if you don't like that, you move over to lawn bowling where the seniors aren't so rough.
---
** putting it a little differently: 'comes with the territory.'
no one is saying 'you shouldn't hurt.'
as in the game of football (played for real), in the 'game' of erotic submission you're going to get bruised or get the wind knocked out of you.
if you don't like that, you move over to lawn bowling where the seniors aren't so rough.
---
** putting it a little differently: 'comes with the territory.'
Last edited:
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
bridgeburner said:
A fascinating topic that we don't see much about.
Kajira Callista
Empty
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Posts
- 19,348
And you won't, because there are too many Dom bashers in this world who believe if something went wrong it has to be all the fault of the Dominant.rosco rathbone said:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
just for the record,
though it's not a topic of this thread,
to 'bash' doms or dommes, would-be or (so to say) 'real,' 24-7 or Sunday afternoon, is not part of SMACK's agenda.
nor to bash 'submissives' under any label or in any category.
the labels 'real' and 'unreal' are not applied by SMACK persons to any categories of sexual practice, whether they seriously vary or do not stray at all, from conventional arrangements
as Kajira Callista implies, the coming apart of any pair of pervs, dom/sub or otherwise, is usually equally the responsibility of both parties, in the last analysis.
yet scrutinizing pairs and giving a stamp of approval is not the intent, here. relationship analysis and counselling is for other threads.
that said, if a pair issue happens to come up, it seems commonsensical to look at the one (if so) who is said to guide, direct or command the relationship, since a serious problem indicates, at very least, that an unsuitable candidate or 'recruit' may have been chosen (unsuitable for that dom--and by that dom).
lastly, the behavior of every pair of kinksters is not of interest to SMACK, nor in particular, gentle or romantic pairings. everyone straight, 'vanilla', gently kinked, or seriously perverted does well to find suitable lovers, partners, or playmates and give them such respect as agreed upon and congruent with the needs of both parties.
those whose kinks run towards the dark, the truly twisted, and the pervs who are attracted to cruelty as a necessary dimension of the so-called 'exchange' are the intended audience of this thread. further, the participants sought are persons who abide the law, and who intend NOT to become enemies of society in pursuit of their gratification.
those of criminal tendency--e.g., who would prey upon the underaged--are NOT welcome.
for all others not interested in SMACK, those in all the usual categories of sexual tastes and practices, it is hoped that they will find threads, friends and groupings which suit their specific needs.
--pure
though it's not a topic of this thread,
to 'bash' doms or dommes, would-be or (so to say) 'real,' 24-7 or Sunday afternoon, is not part of SMACK's agenda.
nor to bash 'submissives' under any label or in any category.
the labels 'real' and 'unreal' are not applied by SMACK persons to any categories of sexual practice, whether they seriously vary or do not stray at all, from conventional arrangements
as Kajira Callista implies, the coming apart of any pair of pervs, dom/sub or otherwise, is usually equally the responsibility of both parties, in the last analysis.
yet scrutinizing pairs and giving a stamp of approval is not the intent, here. relationship analysis and counselling is for other threads.
that said, if a pair issue happens to come up, it seems commonsensical to look at the one (if so) who is said to guide, direct or command the relationship, since a serious problem indicates, at very least, that an unsuitable candidate or 'recruit' may have been chosen (unsuitable for that dom--and by that dom).
lastly, the behavior of every pair of kinksters is not of interest to SMACK, nor in particular, gentle or romantic pairings. everyone straight, 'vanilla', gently kinked, or seriously perverted does well to find suitable lovers, partners, or playmates and give them such respect as agreed upon and congruent with the needs of both parties.
those whose kinks run towards the dark, the truly twisted, and the pervs who are attracted to cruelty as a necessary dimension of the so-called 'exchange' are the intended audience of this thread. further, the participants sought are persons who abide the law, and who intend NOT to become enemies of society in pursuit of their gratification.
those of criminal tendency--e.g., who would prey upon the underaged--are NOT welcome.
for all others not interested in SMACK, those in all the usual categories of sexual tastes and practices, it is hoped that they will find threads, friends and groupings which suit their specific needs.
--pure
Last edited:
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
Pure said:
In the game of football you expect to be injured. You do not expect your own teammates to conspire to break your legs.
I'm not sure why you can believe that there is such a thing as going too far physically but not believe that there is such a thing as inflicting too much emotional or mental harm. You wouldn't argue that a Dom who doesn't regularly put his sub in the hospital is a pussy so why are you arguing that those who don't regularly crush the souls of those they play with are pussies?
-B
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
response to bb
bb: why are you arguing that those who don't regularly crush the souls of those they play with are pussies?
P: bb, that's a very odd reading of this thread. IF I ever flip out and want to advocate 'soul crushing' or wanton destruction, psychological or otherwise, i'll do that in a separate, clearly labeled thread!
peace
===
PS: ADDED: I'd encourage newcomers to look at the early pages of this thread to directly get an idea of what attitudes, values and experiences were thought to be relevant to the topic. There were a number of fine postings. IMO, they did not exhaust the topic, but if you're bored, use your 'back arrow' key and jump into another thread.
bb: why are you arguing that those who don't regularly crush the souls of those they play with are pussies?
P: bb, that's a very odd reading of this thread. IF I ever flip out and want to advocate 'soul crushing' or wanton destruction, psychological or otherwise, i'll do that in a separate, clearly labeled thread!
peace
===
PS: ADDED: I'd encourage newcomers to look at the early pages of this thread to directly get an idea of what attitudes, values and experiences were thought to be relevant to the topic. There were a number of fine postings. IMO, they did not exhaust the topic, but if you're bored, use your 'back arrow' key and jump into another thread.
Last edited:
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
Pure said:bb: why are you arguing that those who don't regularly crush the souls of those they play with are pussies?
P: bb, that's a very odd reading of this thread. IF I ever flip out and want to advocate 'soul crushing' or wanton destruction, psychological or otherwise, i'll do that in a separate, clearly labeled thread!
peace
===
Clearly I've misunderstood you at some point and I'd like to figure out where because my impression is that you've misunderstood me as well.
You had asked me (before edit, sorry, that's when I wrote this) "perhaps you can PM me some of statements you perceive to be recommendations for regular soul crushing. or statements of mine showing i do not believe there to be unacceptable levels of psychological harm"
My perception is that every time I say that there IS a line which should not be crossed your responses imply that I think feathers and chocolate syrup are the extreme edge of what's allowable. ;->
My postion is that if someone is playing immorally s/he's an asshole. It's not immoral to brand or scar or bring to tears anyone who has consented to such. If you intentionally push beyond what someone has consented to in order to harm them then you are out of bounds not just "really hardcore".
If you are playing in gray areas where consent is not explicit or nailed down then you run the risk of pushing too far and causing more harm than your partner would consent to. It happens. If it's an accident and it's rare it can usually be forgiven. If it was intentional and it happens more than rarely, then your partner should kick you to the curb with a pointy boot.
I'm not ever going to agree that immoral play is good play. Immoral play requires abuse that I find to be over the line --- that's why it's immoral. There's a lot of room in my morality for extreme actions but there's no room at all for serial abusers and people who are just flat out shitty because it gives them a thrill to significantly wound others.
Is this not to the point of your question? I feel like I've said this before so maybe I've been answering the wrong question or not what you're asking. Can you figure out where we've crossed wires on this?
-B
P.S. For any who are ducking and covering, Pure and I are NOT FIGHTING, we're discussing. It's not even a raised-voice discussion. Be cool. Hang out. Have a martooni.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
brief response to bb
hi bb,
thank you for outlining your issues with what you perceive to be the SMACK position.
in particular you stress
bb: //My position is that if someone is playing immorally s/he's an asshole.
...
I'm not ever going to agree that immoral play is good play. Immoral play requires abuse that I find to be over the line //
P: You speak as if 'immoral play' is recommended (or said to be 'good').
In looking over the SMACK principles I see no recommendations. The sentence A, quoted below, is typical. It speaks of _looking at_ certain kinks. The sentence D says SMACK leaves ethics to you. By no stretch could 'leaves ethics to you,' mean 'suggests you discard your ethics.' That simply means ethical recommendations are not the subject of the thread.
Perhaps sentence C is a problem. It speaks of amoral impulses. Note the final sentence.
SMACK attends, particularly, to those impulses, actions, and expressions which are transgressive of social norms.
It speaks of "attending to" these impulses which transgress norms. The phrase could harldly mean, "indulging, in an unbridled fashion."
Some of the examples already discussed in the early history of the thread reinforce the point I'm making. The aim was to describe ertain ideas, fantasies, and experiences.
In 25 words, and summing up, we're looking at certain urges and impulses and hearing how they are played out--if so-- by the posters. no one is telling anyone what to do. We are DEscribing, not PREscribing. Your not seeing these two key points accounts for _where our wires are crossed_, to use your words. Perhaps my words have not been as clear as they might.
You bring up lots of large topics which have generated hundreds of words in other places, e.g. what's abusive in a BDSM encounter. I'm not going to try to address these now, though abuse did come up in some postings.
Suffice it to say that SMACK did not define 'abuse' or look at the topic, except to say 'ethics are left to the person' and suggest conforming to criminal law, which would rule out physical abuse. Let's suppose you have an idea--perhaps with some validity-- of what psychic abuse is--e.g., inflicting a series of emotional wounds. Well, that was not recommended or praised in the SMACK principles since no one was told how to act and no actions were praised, other than discussing things forthrightly without moralizing.
The thread is meant to be relatively free of the advice-giving that is common in many other threads.
The above is offered in a friendly spirit, of course. I hope your main concerns are addressed.
J.
-----
[A few excerpts]
A. - SMACK is a look at the kinks that get neglected in
the general focus on DS in this forum.
B. - - SMACK in interested in the individual's impulses and gratification.
C. Why is SMACK Amoral?
- As 'the stiff prick has no conscience,' neither does the streaming pussy. Urges and impulses, especially perverse ones, do not come with 'respect,' or 'concern' for others, attached. Art, expressing these impulses, is likewise outside morality. SMACK attends, particularly, to those impulses, actions, and expressions which are transgressive of social norms.
D. -SMACK leaves ethics to you.
===
bb's posting in full
Clearly I've misunderstood you at some point and I'd like to figure out where because my impression is that you've misunderstood me as well.
You had asked me (before edit, sorry, that's when I wrote this) "perhaps you can PM me some of statements you perceive to be recommendations for regular soul crushing. or statements of mine showing i do not believe there to be unacceptable levels of psychological harm"
My perception is that every time I say that there IS a line which should not be crossed your responses imply that I think feathers and chocolate syrup are the extreme edge of what's allowable. ;->
My postion is that if someone is playing immorally s/he's an asshole. It's not immoral to brand or scar or bring to tears anyone who has consented to such. If you intentionally push beyond what someone has consented to in order to harm them then you are out of bounds not just "really hardcore".
If you are playing in gray areas where consent is not explicit or nailed down then you run the risk of pushing too far and causing more harm than your partner would consent to. It happens. If it's an accident and it's rare it can usually be forgiven. If it was intentional and it happens more than rarely, then your partner should kick you to the curb with a pointy boot.
I'm not ever going to agree that immoral play is good play. Immoral play requires abuse that I find to be over the line --- that's why it's immoral. There's a lot of room in my morality for extreme actions but there's no room at all for serial abusers and people who are just flat out shitty because it gives them a thrill to significantly wound others.
Is this not to the point of your question? I feel like I've said this before so maybe I've been answering the wrong question or not what you're asking. Can you figure out where we've crossed wires on this?
-----
hi bb,
thank you for outlining your issues with what you perceive to be the SMACK position.
in particular you stress
bb: //My position is that if someone is playing immorally s/he's an asshole.
...
I'm not ever going to agree that immoral play is good play. Immoral play requires abuse that I find to be over the line //
P: You speak as if 'immoral play' is recommended (or said to be 'good').
In looking over the SMACK principles I see no recommendations. The sentence A, quoted below, is typical. It speaks of _looking at_ certain kinks. The sentence D says SMACK leaves ethics to you. By no stretch could 'leaves ethics to you,' mean 'suggests you discard your ethics.' That simply means ethical recommendations are not the subject of the thread.
Perhaps sentence C is a problem. It speaks of amoral impulses. Note the final sentence.
SMACK attends, particularly, to those impulses, actions, and expressions which are transgressive of social norms.
It speaks of "attending to" these impulses which transgress norms. The phrase could harldly mean, "indulging, in an unbridled fashion."
Some of the examples already discussed in the early history of the thread reinforce the point I'm making. The aim was to describe ertain ideas, fantasies, and experiences.
In 25 words, and summing up, we're looking at certain urges and impulses and hearing how they are played out--if so-- by the posters. no one is telling anyone what to do. We are DEscribing, not PREscribing. Your not seeing these two key points accounts for _where our wires are crossed_, to use your words. Perhaps my words have not been as clear as they might.
You bring up lots of large topics which have generated hundreds of words in other places, e.g. what's abusive in a BDSM encounter. I'm not going to try to address these now, though abuse did come up in some postings.
Suffice it to say that SMACK did not define 'abuse' or look at the topic, except to say 'ethics are left to the person' and suggest conforming to criminal law, which would rule out physical abuse. Let's suppose you have an idea--perhaps with some validity-- of what psychic abuse is--e.g., inflicting a series of emotional wounds. Well, that was not recommended or praised in the SMACK principles since no one was told how to act and no actions were praised, other than discussing things forthrightly without moralizing.
The thread is meant to be relatively free of the advice-giving that is common in many other threads.
The above is offered in a friendly spirit, of course. I hope your main concerns are addressed.
J.
-----
[A few excerpts]
A. - SMACK is a look at the kinks that get neglected in
the general focus on DS in this forum.
B. - - SMACK in interested in the individual's impulses and gratification.
C. Why is SMACK Amoral?
- As 'the stiff prick has no conscience,' neither does the streaming pussy. Urges and impulses, especially perverse ones, do not come with 'respect,' or 'concern' for others, attached. Art, expressing these impulses, is likewise outside morality. SMACK attends, particularly, to those impulses, actions, and expressions which are transgressive of social norms.
D. -SMACK leaves ethics to you.
===
bb's posting in full
Clearly I've misunderstood you at some point and I'd like to figure out where because my impression is that you've misunderstood me as well.
You had asked me (before edit, sorry, that's when I wrote this) "perhaps you can PM me some of statements you perceive to be recommendations for regular soul crushing. or statements of mine showing i do not believe there to be unacceptable levels of psychological harm"
My perception is that every time I say that there IS a line which should not be crossed your responses imply that I think feathers and chocolate syrup are the extreme edge of what's allowable. ;->
My postion is that if someone is playing immorally s/he's an asshole. It's not immoral to brand or scar or bring to tears anyone who has consented to such. If you intentionally push beyond what someone has consented to in order to harm them then you are out of bounds not just "really hardcore".
If you are playing in gray areas where consent is not explicit or nailed down then you run the risk of pushing too far and causing more harm than your partner would consent to. It happens. If it's an accident and it's rare it can usually be forgiven. If it was intentional and it happens more than rarely, then your partner should kick you to the curb with a pointy boot.
I'm not ever going to agree that immoral play is good play. Immoral play requires abuse that I find to be over the line --- that's why it's immoral. There's a lot of room in my morality for extreme actions but there's no room at all for serial abusers and people who are just flat out shitty because it gives them a thrill to significantly wound others.
Is this not to the point of your question? I feel like I've said this before so maybe I've been answering the wrong question or not what you're asking. Can you figure out where we've crossed wires on this?
-----
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
an example, reposted--what do you think of it?
this thread was not focussed on how to conduct relationships or on legal issues. images and experiences were sought.
so to get the thread on track I'm reposting an episode contributed by "s'lara," whom i thank once again.
Lara's example Lets throw something out there ... something that i haven't experienced, but saw on a clip once and never forgot it. Lets hear some opinions on it (this is not an advocacy post of the following scene, rather it is a reflection of what it might do to both parties involved):
Top and a bottom. The woman (bottom) in question was being treated roughly and gagged by the Top with his penis. She was repeatedly gagged and then held her head dragged back for the camera to see. The Top called her all sorts of derogatory names and made the bottom call herself things like "whore", "slut", etc. The Top then very deliberately softened his voice, told the bottom to look up at him and then he forcefully spit in her face. i mean it wasn't a light spray ... it was a no mistake ejection of spittle. The bottom, who up until that point seemed to enjoy the play, was shocked so badly, her face froze. The Top immediately asked her if she liked that ... whether she liked the fact that he'd spit in her face. Playing tough girl, she tried to resume the role of brazen whore without a heart, but couldn't quite make it. She teared up a little and after a minute or so she was able to go on.
What do you think people? Too far? Damaging? Exciting?
---
There are several threads on this topic, for instance, on spitting as expressing contempt,
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=242441
this thread was not focussed on how to conduct relationships or on legal issues. images and experiences were sought.
so to get the thread on track I'm reposting an episode contributed by "s'lara," whom i thank once again.
Lara's example Lets throw something out there ... something that i haven't experienced, but saw on a clip once and never forgot it. Lets hear some opinions on it (this is not an advocacy post of the following scene, rather it is a reflection of what it might do to both parties involved):
Top and a bottom. The woman (bottom) in question was being treated roughly and gagged by the Top with his penis. She was repeatedly gagged and then held her head dragged back for the camera to see. The Top called her all sorts of derogatory names and made the bottom call herself things like "whore", "slut", etc. The Top then very deliberately softened his voice, told the bottom to look up at him and then he forcefully spit in her face. i mean it wasn't a light spray ... it was a no mistake ejection of spittle. The bottom, who up until that point seemed to enjoy the play, was shocked so badly, her face froze. The Top immediately asked her if she liked that ... whether she liked the fact that he'd spit in her face. Playing tough girl, she tried to resume the role of brazen whore without a heart, but couldn't quite make it. She teared up a little and after a minute or so she was able to go on.
What do you think people? Too far? Damaging? Exciting?
---
There are several threads on this topic, for instance, on spitting as expressing contempt,
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=242441
Last edited:
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
Hiya Pure,
I appreciate your response, but we're still talking past each other to a great degree. My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the opening posts of this thread or the basic concept of SMACK. I think it's time to call this one a wash and move on. I promise not to open it up again in future. ;->
-B
I appreciate your response, but we're still talking past each other to a great degree. My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the opening posts of this thread or the basic concept of SMACK. I think it's time to call this one a wash and move on. I promise not to open it up again in future. ;->
-B
Pure said:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
no problem, bridgeburner
you've been a welcome contributer to SMACK since its begninng.
probably it is at least as much my fault as yours, if my intentional provocations, here and elsewhere cause you and others to get unsettled, and come to believe i'm *advocating* every act discussed.
in any case, as you recognize, the SMACK thread was not set up to counsel illegal acts, or even callous or boorish behavior, simply to share thoughts and experiences related to some of our more 'selfish' SM related desires. it is not to generate 'do's and don't's' but simply food for thought.
you've been a welcome contributer to SMACK since its begninng.
probably it is at least as much my fault as yours, if my intentional provocations, here and elsewhere cause you and others to get unsettled, and come to believe i'm *advocating* every act discussed.
in any case, as you recognize, the SMACK thread was not set up to counsel illegal acts, or even callous or boorish behavior, simply to share thoughts and experiences related to some of our more 'selfish' SM related desires. it is not to generate 'do's and don't's' but simply food for thought.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:
Not sure if I am on the same track as you right now, but I would say in my experience initially there was a period of time where I had to deal with coming to terms with my submission and people's reactions to it. Over time, and through gaining strength in who and what I am as a submissive, and what is really important in those terms, the shame for want of a better word has turned to pride and ecstatic joy.
Catalina
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:
LOL, babe that ain't shameful, that's just plain hot.
Catalina
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:
So true Pure...could also depend on who you were doing it for I imagine, and under what circumstances, the mood created, the implications inferred. Where one person may not raise anything but a yawn, another could easily cause a ripple of delicious and wicked anticipation. Hmmm, after all this time could it be you're becoming a fantasy figure for moi?
Catalina
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
an interesting vignette,
i remember a brash female comic who turned the shame thing on its head.
she did some routine involving a fair amount of moving about, kicking up her heels, etc. she was wearing pants or tights, in the crotch of which she had placed a quite noticeable red spot. she succeeded in inducing lots of strained embarrassment even horrified faces, in the audience; lots concern and inability to point out the problem! iow she had great time!
i believe wearing such a spot would more often cause extreme embarrassment (perhaps shame?), e.g., in strolling through a mall. or i picture a shame episode in a park, where the woman is wearing a white blouse and pure white skirt and sits on a bench. when she gets up and walks away, there is a large red spot in the back of the skirt in the crucial area.
i remember a brash female comic who turned the shame thing on its head.
she did some routine involving a fair amount of moving about, kicking up her heels, etc. she was wearing pants or tights, in the crotch of which she had placed a quite noticeable red spot. she succeeded in inducing lots of strained embarrassment even horrified faces, in the audience; lots concern and inability to point out the problem! iow she had great time!
i believe wearing such a spot would more often cause extreme embarrassment (perhaps shame?), e.g., in strolling through a mall. or i picture a shame episode in a park, where the woman is wearing a white blouse and pure white skirt and sits on a bench. when she gets up and walks away, there is a large red spot in the back of the skirt in the crucial area.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
shame and pride
shame is often defined as affecting one's pride.
is it true then, and in what sense,=:
Measures of humiliation are intended to affect--or undercut--the pride [of the bottom].
Would this be better phrased in terms of 'false pride'?
shame is often defined as affecting one's pride.
is it true then, and in what sense,=:
Measures of humiliation are intended to affect--or undercut--the pride [of the bottom].
Would this be better phrased in terms of 'false pride'?
Last edited:
