What should a Dom do when His slut has sex without His permission?

[TaintedB]

Originally posted by Never
Etoile
" You refer to "you" quite a lot without clarifying who you're talking to. Could you clarify this for me?"

I'm not TaintedB but this is a habit I sometimes slip into when I'm speaking so perhaps she does it for the same reason? The English language doesn't have a satisfying second person plural so sometimes I'll say 'you' to mean a group I've specified earlier when in writing I'd use the third person plural

I don't believe she's addressing anyone in particular. Rather the group that was created in paragraph one (incompetent, boob Dom/mes who petulantly dismiss subs):
" If you've committed to being someone's master for life <snip>, then how can you not look like a totally incomptent boob, to her and to everybody who knows you, if you act just like a vanilla person would and go storming out the door or even masterfully (heh!) "Dismiss" her with a dominant-yet-petulant wave of your hand. "

Are the 'you' in the next paragraph.
"You think your next submissive who may hear about this incident from others and not just hear your version is going to have any trust in your intelligence, forbearance, ability to work through problems, ability to guide her rather than act like a little child who needs guidance? If you do, you're living in some sort of dreamland."

Err, helpful, not helpful?

Helpful! It describes what I intended, if not what was actually communicated.

TaintedB:
" Etoile, if you're going to continue in this unwarrented and, I feel, undeserved, hostile tone with me I am going to have to place you on ignore. I am not here to engage in wars with anybody over matters of opinion this minor, it's stupid and totally fruitless--at least for me--to do so and not how I'd rather spend my time here."

Interesting. I didn't read Etoile's post as being hostile and I didn't read your original post as being condescending. Is it possible that both of you are misreading one another? You might not believe it now but the board would be a poorer place with Etoile on ignore. I don't always agree with her myself but I believe she's a valuable part of the community.

Could be. You know easy it is to read a word that you associate with certain emotional tones but the writer doesn't and then your own emotional associations triggered by that one word or phrase then color the rest of the message for you, causing you to see the whole thing as hostile? That's what happened to me. Dude is one such word for me, because I've most often seen women use it with other women where they're in a fighting mood. I haven't seen much friendly duding around, at least not betwen women. "Bleedingly obvious" was another such phrase. Sounded like a kind of exaggerated way of putting things, so I read it as hostile condesension. If I misread you on these, Etolie, I am sorry.

 

[Never]

TaintedB:
" Helpful! It describes what I intended, if not what was actually communicated."

As a master of making myself misunderstood I strive to undermine the ability in others. Such competition is fearful in my eyes.

" Dude is one such word for me, because I've most often seen women use it with other women where they're in a fighting mood. I haven't seen much friendly duding around, at least not between women."

Etoile, hmm, typical reaction to gender... No, that's not something I'd accuse her of.

Do you bargain? I'll grant you bleeding obvious if you grant me dude.

There was a time when the subs of the board would set on you like a pack of wolves for the 'arrested emotional development' comment. I'm not certain I agree with it myself. If you don't make it to the top level of some psychoanalysts chart does that mean you're emotionally undeveloped or does that mean that psychoanalysts don't really understand human development?

Then again, I suppose I don't really care. I don't understand the entire daddy with son and daughter relationship. I couldn't view someone I love as a child. Or maybe I couldn't love someone I view as a child. I don't see any relationship based on one partner always being mature, responsible, rational, and realistic as possible. Perhaps you just know different adults than I do.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hmmmm, and to think I slept blissfully unaware through this latest discussion. I actually didn't find TaintedB that difficult to understand, abusive, superior, or unduly hostile outside of feeling passionate about a discussion point which we all know I advocate strongly for as opposed to the friendly 'I agree' pat on the back type discussion killers.....and though I don't agree 100% with all Tainted B said, I would say a big part of it I do agree with or at least understand where it is coming from and why.

As to the difference between dismissal and breaking up...perhaps TaintedB does not share my definition but for me there is a huge difference in that breaking up IMHO does not always spell out no further contact, no discussion, no caring, no chance of redemption whereas to me dismissal is just that, a superior type sending away of another with no chance for future communication of any kind, no redemption possible, and though discussion may preclude it, it does not necessarily and often if it does, nothing the about to be dismissed person can say will make a difference. Oh and perhaps I also am more old fashioned than I realised as I am not big on the use of the word 'dude' either where women are concerned...can't say I have actually ever heard a woman referred to as dude. I obviously need to get out more!!

Catalina

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Hmm. Did I not answer that adequately above in my latest response to Etolie? If not, I'll be happy to clarify.

If you meant in this response ...

The idea of dismissal has been floating around the scene for the last 20 years, and steadily gaining popularity. That I do know. Professionals, in my experience (and I know a few) do not "dismiss" paying clients. They may refuse to see them for various reasons, but they don't usually, at least not that I have observed, feel a need to structure the end of a commerical relationship in stagey almost dramatic bdsm terms. But again, I know my professionals and you know yours, so we could have a difference of opinion here, as well.

... is with the reality represented behind the word "dismissal" or the phrase "dismissing a submissive." Again, I am an old fashioned girl in the sense that I believe the old idea that words actually mean specific things and that different words mean different things--I am not trying to be insulting here but a good half of the people I talk to online do not hold to this concept so it's worth being explicit about it. Dismissal, to me, represents a reality radically different from that of breaking up and in my opinion the two cannot honestly be equated or seen as synonyms for the same actions.

... yes.

As best i can tell, you've described them as radically different realities, but you haven't defined either.

If you meant the same thing as kittycat, i get it.

 

[Netzach]

I've known some very mature daddy types (one of whom I met quite recently, in fact) whose biggest concern, if their sub were to have sex with someone else behind their backs, would be for that submissive's emotional and physical safety. They just don't have a button about being cheated on.


I know tons of people, myself included, who don't care if their subs and slaves have other sexual contacts--even vanilla dating relationships! They are usually *aware* of them, however. It's an agreement. If I am taking the time to encourage my boy to go out and have a good time so long as he's safe, this whole question of 'what do do?" would not arise, I would think, is that a totally stupid assumption?

I think this is because as a daddy, they view their submissives as children and children and not always in control of everything they do. While you can characterize submissive women as starry-eyed little princess ballerinas that must be sucked up to, seeing them as childlike and often impulsively childish is a bit more realistic, IMO, because so many of them are exactly that: people whose emotional development has been arrested, for one reason or another, at various stages short of maturity. Obviously, there are plenty of non-submissives walking around with bad cases of emotional arrestment, but submissives respond to this immaturity in specific ways that non-submissives do not, such as seeking out a relationship with somebody whom they can be emotionally dependent on and rely on to help them make the sorts of decisions which, while they can and do make on their own, are often difficult to make or not good ones.

(Boy am I stepping into mined ground now, as there is a very powerful "Submissives are alwaysstrong mature adults" myth circulating in the circles. (Shrug) What else can I do though except state it as I see it. Oh yeah, I could lie about my opinions on this and not step on anyones toes. Now that would be helpful! Riiiggght!)

You're entitled to your opinion- I don't relate, and it's not my bag. I mean, I know that my slave has unresolved issues from his childhood, we play in that creepy sandbox a lot. I hold hands and offer my cleavage as a place for the weeping. However, at the end of the day, he's a grown man, he has to conduct himself as such and he has to obey and hold it together to be useful. That, to me, is the purpose of a slave - to be useful, not to be a burden, not to be a child, not to be anything other than devoted, adoring and USEFUL.

(now who's stepping in mined ground? This viewpoint of mine seems almost a sacrilege in the contemporary D/s world...)

I do not consider myself a surrogate "Mommy" in any but the most darkly subconscious ways, inasmuch as I feel I embody multiple female archetypes with my slave and my submissive fiance.

Actually, if anyone has a right to childish capriciousness and acting out in my relationships...it's me!

Back for a minute to the mature daddies who love taking responsibilty, thrive on it, in fact. Most of the ones I've known--used to be I could only count them on the fingers of one hand, now I'm up to two hands--try to find a sub that attracts them so much that they want to spend a lifetime with him or her. Finding a person who is rewarding enough and compatible enough withe their own personalities to warrent such a commitment takes awhile, often years, but once they've decided upon one that's it--their commitment to that person is absolute and all-ecompassing. In other words, they take vows, to themselves and to their slaves, things like, "I have certain things I want you to do or not do, certain basic rules I want you to obey, but my love for you is incredibly strong and completely unconditional and it will not end if you disobey me--in fact, there is _nothing_ short of killing me (and perhaps not even that), that will end my ongoing commitment to your well-being. My commitment to you is permanent: I will strive always to keep you safe and happy and fulfilled for the rest of your life no matter what may happen to us." This level of commitment can sound strange if you've not encountered much of it before in people, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That sounds like my relationship with my fiance, to be frank. Unconditional, total, romantic- it's not conditional based on his submission, his submission is something that can always be worked on, deepened over time, refined.

My relationship to my slave is different. It has no promises, no guarantees, no safeties, no obligations other than those I myself choose. He knows that.

Now, is that to say I don't adore my slave, is that to say I don't want to have my slave to the end of his life, is that to say that I would not sooner rid myself of this slave than cut off a hand? No, I don't think it does. All those things are true. I know he knows that too. I love him and I tell him that, often. I show dedication and forethought in my handling of him, tenderness, concern, and care.

But if I chose to tell him never to call me or talk to me again, starting tomorrow... with no further information...that's still my right within the scope of ownership. And he knows this, he's keenly aware that that, in theory, it's my right. And I know that I'd never hear a word from him again if I excercised this right.

If he can't be in service to me out of a deep, abiding faith in me and my fundemantally extremely benevolent and kind nature, I don't want it. That's a huge marker of the difference between service and a partnership, and they are two different things. I do not model my relationship to a slave on marriage and I do not model my relationship to a slave on parenting. It has its own specific gestalt.

I've seen it, up close and personal in half a dozen relationships so far. It's not common, granted, but it's defintely out there on one of the more obscure limbs of bdsm. A dominant's personality, particularly the part in him that must do things in certain ways or become ashamed to be alive, demands this sort of commitment from him. His sub doesn't force him into it, no matter how big and demanding a SAP (Submissive-American Princess) she may be. It's just how the dom's, a few doms' personalities operate.

If that's the commitment that you, the dominant, are giving to your submissive, then I think cheating takes a fairly minor role in the big scheme of life and your relationship with your slave. Of much more concern are issues that really threaten the relationship, things like death.

My personality demands the utmost commitment to my slave. I am his emotional rock in difficult times. My fiance and I are becoming, it seems, in some early stage, part of his concept of family. This makes a great deal of sense to me. I sensed and shuddered at the enormity of commitment I am making and the enormity of the responsibility I'm undertaking - at 31 I feel mighty young for it. But the idea that I'm committing because I owe my slave that is anathema. The idea that I'm committing because it's RIGHT is sublime.

What if you (Netzach) set a boundary that the slave was to do the dishes every night, I mean here a slave that you love and have been with for several years and who is really important to you, and they didn't do them one night, or maybe even five nights in a row? Would you consider dismissing them for that or try talking to them to get to the bottom of the dish issue? A few dominants view cheating as pretty much on the same level of emotional seriousness as not doing the dishes for a few days--an important issue to deal with, most certainly, but not one that you'd respond by throwing away the relationship you'd worked so hard on for so many years. I'm not saying your way of doing things isn't right for you and your relationships, just suggesting that in some bdsm relationships cheating doesn't have the same intense emotional stake or value that it does for many people, because the priorities are juggled a little differently. Does such tolerance (which probably appears excessive if you are not used to it) mean that the dominant exercising it must therefore see his submissive as this delicate-flower-porcelain-statue-breakable-if-breathed-on creature? Not ususually, people capable of the control needed to practice something like this are usually not stupid. Such tolerance is an indication of the dominant's broad internal landscape and the demands he places upon himself, not in order to "serve" some special precious brat, but in order that he can regard himself as a man rather than a subhuman piece of slime. When such dominants have explained how they could sustain what always seem like incredible or impossible commitments, those are the words they use, words that relate to their own high perception of themselves and what they must do to live up to that perception.

Are you serious about the dish thing, because if you are, I have to laugh. I'm famed for my non anal-retentive nature. I have just never met anyone, as you have-- for whom cheating, that is -- not poly/encouraged/permitted fucking around (God love it!) - but actually going behind the person's BACK and fucking someone else, or lying about it...is on a level with a dirty sink full of dishes. Since you have met these few people, and I assume they are very few, you must be right, no big issue in the Master/slave universe and they probably need to have a little chat. Maybe she can't have chocolate for a couple of weeks or has to write out "I will not screw the mailman without asking Master" in her composition book.


Your view of male subs is very different from mine, but except for a small handful and the leathermen, of course, the majorty of male subs I've known over the years have been paying clients of one dominant friend or another. These paying clients didn't have much of the admirable quality of regarding genuinely good dominants as the rare and precious people that they are. Perhaps a commerical transaction precludes such humble thought?

My slave is something I never thought I would ever ever do. He was a playing client, who just turned out to be too wonderful not to take on as a personal. The difference is in his attitude of service, and a very real and undeniable connection I felt with him. Such people are remarkably rare, and I do let him know how precious and exceptional he is, often, in spite of the danger of inflating his ego. The majority of paying clients and fetishists I encounter are as about as submissive as I am - IE. none. You are comparing apples to orangutans, if you compare female lifestyle submissives and male fetishists paying prodommes, on the whole.

Also, who is to say that living with an attitude of terror of not obtaining extremely scarce resources is a good one. I think this attitude, which you praise, has the potential to warp a submissive's personality in some pretty bad ways over the long run. Resentment that he must work so very, very hard to get his simple needs for attention, love, or appreciation, met, bitterness at the dominants who have used this need of his in casual and selfish ways to get what they want from the relationship and then discaded him, a deep abiding sadness that no one ever in his life has regarded him as so precious and wonderful that they would do whatever it took to keep him in their lives? I don't know, I don't really know the male mind and am just projecting what I would possibly feel if faced with the male submissive expereince over a period of years.

Read Kierkegaard. Fear and Trembling. No, seriously.

I will not tolerate, in service, a man or a woman in whom certainty and uncertainty can't exist, deliciously, in the same moment. I will reinforce trust, I will win trust, I will lay the foundation of certainty, but I will not promise, I will not obligate, I will not let them forget, for a moment, just who is there for whom.
Frankly, that's part of my obligation. A slave needs to serve, I must give them that opportunity without hand-holding, without the sense that whatever they do wrong, it never really matters much.

They are there for me.

Besides, I don't think that the sense of rarity or scarcity induces terror in the correct type of individual for me - it actually makes him feel as though he must be worthy and special for something so desired and so difficult to be his - the attention of a Dominant woman of style and subtance who thinks the world of him.

There is, of course, a huge difference between viewing and treating submissives realistically (as human beings with widely varying strengths and weaknesses as well as a few shared traits in common) and sitting back on your plump dominant heine and expecting them to do all the submitting for both of you and if they don't, well, you certainly can't be bothered to lift a single finger in a ju- let alone a jitzo, so since you (the lazy dominant in general) have an elevated view of your own importance vis-a-vis these worthless and numerous lowbies.

That whole lazy Dominant thing seems to have come into vogue as well. Frankly, if there's a Dominant who is like that and a slave content to do everything for them--mazel tov to them. I do myriad things for myself, and myriad things for my submissive and my slave, what I am NOT is there to mitigate the fact that the world makes demands of us all.

In fact, it is their duty and their commitment to make some of those demands a little less pressing for me, so that I can use my time as I enjoy it most. Not because I'm lazy, or place myself above, but because they choose, rightfully or stupidly, to revere me.

Service is actually a source of peace and happiness for them, and, frankly, they committed to it. Good slaves, in my experience, are much like your profile of the good Dominant, they'd rather poke out an eye than break those commitments they make with themselves. The ones I like are adult and rational and organized and able to follow through. They are not perfect, they are far from perfect. Luckily, I'm not a perfectionist either, but I sure as hell demand the right *intent* all the time, every time.

It's also not really my thing to sit back and not actively control or interact, but neither is being a kind of ersatz kindergarten teacher obligated to come up with each new day's activities, lest the slave get bored. I think most of us live our lives in the middle of these extremes.

I would think that people with the termerity to call themselves dominant would really relish their control and enjoy exercising it, I mean, why else be dominant, right? But so many of the dominants I or my friends have met seem to prefer to go to the extreme of kicking out the people who love them and are dependant on them,

If someone loves me and is dependant on me, submission will follow. I'm not saying seamlessly, without hitch -- it's MUCH harder for my fiance than my slave, and sometimes, a much sweeter surrender in smaller ways for all our joint effort in seeing that happen. Control isn't the most important facet in my deal, either. For me it's about leadership, inspiration, and transformation, I view myself more as a guide - a Beatrice to hold your hand in your own personal hell of torment. (even while my other hand is doing the tormenting.)

It works both ways, Netzach. Obviously I am highly sympathetic toward the submissive side of things (perhaps that has something to do with the fact that I am a submissive?), but I recognize that there are equally as many shitty submissives out there as there are shitty doms. I do believe, however, that there are ways that people with strong submissive personalities typically behave, and that these ways of behaving or personality traits are quite freqently mis-read, particularly by people who are not dominant but imagine themselves to be, as bad bratty, self-indulgent, behavior that the submissive could control "if only she wanted to."

Like what? Fucking someone without telling your sig. other? Well, seems like most people can't control that one, Dom sub or vanilla. All the submissives I deal with have radically different personalities- they would make an interesting study. None of them blame self-destructive, inconsiderate, or outright lying behavior on their orientation. That's like me cheating on my fiance and saying "well you know, I'm bisexual, so I can't really control it." I'm just as "born that way" as your submissive is. Really, it's out of my power.

It's also very convenient the way that anyone who does not condone this kind of thing is painted as "non dominant." Guess what -- it's not fear or incapability that make me find being lied to about significant matters by significant others a problem: it's exactly that dominant personality that is unwilling to give up control of something via not being clued into what the fuck is going on. A dominant personality is not one of martyrdom or parentally unconditional "you're ok, I'm ok" acceptance- it's one that requires obedience to be happy.


This is a big beef of mine, that some natural aspects of submissive behavior, stuff we cannot help and also stuff that the mature daddy types absolutely love us for, get such bad press in mainstream bdsm circles. To be accepted by the average scene dominant,

What's that average scene dominant? Could you give me a profile? I honestly don't know, the range of Tops/Dominants/Masters, etc. that I know in the scene would make a very mutt and jeff kind of dinner party.

a submissive often has to repress huge parts of her personality, because such traits are seen as a big hassle and something of a threat to somebody who cannot dominate to begin with.

Maybe they are just human traits not desirable to people with mismatched traits. Rather than deciding these people are not actually dominant, or whatever, move on and let the submissives for whom they are suited benefit. I mean, I've had to repress huge parts of my personality when I was so unfortunate as to be in a relationship with a vanilla male, I've had to repress huge parts of my personality when I was dating another female Top, I think that's endemic to being with anyone a person ought not be with.

 

[Netzach]

and for the record, I, the femsub couple I play with, and everyone I know is "dude" without any dissing intent.

Could be generational.

 

[catalina_francisco]

and for the record, I, the femsub couple I play with, and everyone I know is "dude" without any dissing intent.

Could be generational.

I think so...and also cultural as in it is an American invention I think.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

or just a SouthPark overdose.

 

[CutieMouse]

I vote SouthPark.

I tend to use dude with the kids a lot.

"Dude- pick up XYZ, NOW."

"Dude- stop climbing the bookshelves."

etc, etc.

 

[catalina_francisco]

ROTFLMAO.....Interesting point to this discussion I think is that while people continue to hash this out, disagree etc., it seems most likely Kayte and her Master have moved on with their lives either together or apart. Why do I say this? No further posting to this thread or forum since the end of last year, though Kayte is still posting healthily to other Lit forums. Perhaps all a storm in a teacup?!! Damn lucky we aren't taking EKVITKAR"S suggestion to charge for services rendered or the bank might be broke by now.

Catalina

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Damn lucky we aren't taking EKVITKAR"S suggestion to charge for services rendered or the bank might be broke by now.

And i'll bet the 2 cents i received it was over single person sex.

 

[Netzach]

well we're often bumping old shite in the interest of dialogue, sorry if I was boring anyone. The questions raised seemedinteresting.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

well we're often bumping old shite in the interest of dialogue, sorry if I was boring anyone. The questions raised seemed interesting.

Not at all QBotU.

 

[catalina_francisco]

well we're often bumping old shite in the interest of dialogue, sorry if I was boring anyone. The questions raised seemedinteresting.

You are never ever boring and it was not meant to be about your posting, and yes, the questions raised were and are interesting.....was more about emotional reactions by the community to the point of feeling offended, to a situation that did not seem to be raising emotions with those personally involved. Sorry if it was misunderstood.

Catalina

 

[Etoile]

Dude? Do you call all your female acquaintances that?

No, not all of them.
Some of them I definitely do, though. I call my sister-in-law dude all the time...hell, I call my wife dude all the time!

If there is something you don't understand about it, once again, I ask you to please point it out more specifically. What do you mean about my use of "You's?" being unclear? To me that usage is clear or I wouldn't have written it that way.

Here is what I am asking about, not placed in a quote tag for clarity's sake:

"You think your next submissive who may hear about this incident from others and not just hear your version is going to have any trust in your intelligence, forbearance, ability to work through problems, ability to guide her rather than act like a little child who needs guidance? If you do, you're living in some sort of dreamland."

This was in a reply to s'lara, and I can't imagine that you were referring to her as those things simply don't apply to her. (That is, she doesn't have submissives.) So my question was "who were you referring to?" Was it a general "you"? If so, that's fine, but the impression I got was that it was personally directed.

If you believe I shouldn't have the same rights as any other poster here, I'd be interested in knowing why.

I most certainly do not remember implying such. I'm a big believer in Voltaire's line "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I'm sorry you felt that my expressing my disagreement with you was an attack on your right to post.

Etoile, if you're going to continue in this unwarrented and, I feel, undeserved, hostile tone with me I am going to have to place you on ignore. I am not here to engage in wars with anybody over matters of opinion this minor, it's stupid and totally fruitless--at least for me--to do so and not how I'd rather spend my time here.

I'd rather you didn't; I have no problem with you personally and how I interact with someone in one thread doesn't impact how I interact with them in another. In the years I've been here I've carried on simultaneous conversations where I'm arguing with someone in one thread and then cheering them on in another. (This doesn't apply to people like bytor, of course, who are just trolls!) I'm amazed by people who do carry their interaction style over from one thread to another, but only in the same was as I'm amazed by people who can't hear the difference between "pin" and "pen" or "merry" and "marry" - that is, I'm amazed because it comes so naturally to me, but I know there are people out there who either don't hear the difference or do carry their interactions/grudges over from one conversation to the next.

As I said, I hope you won't put me on ignore. I like you for your ability to state clearly and intelligently what your thoughts are. I have no problem with you personally despite our disagreement in this thread, and I'm sorry you feel that I might have been so hostile in this particular instance that it's part of my personality and I'd do it again, which I certainly don't intend to do. Like I said, I may disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I don't want to hear you. I hoe you feel the same way.

 

[Etoile]

OK thanks, that helps clear up the "you" business. No, I wasn't referring to that specific guy who was the thread-starter's master. But I also didn't mean "you" as in absolutely everybody reading the the thread. Yeah, I am beginning to see how this was confusing.

At the begining where I said "I don't know who you are" I meant in that one sentence for the "You" to refer to the person I quoted, Lara I think her name was. But after that beginning sentence, right after where I say, "let's look at this from a dominant's pespective," I meant the you's to mean "a general dominant, any dominant, not a specific dominant and definitely not a sub or a vanilla." I can see where the sudden switch in pronoun object would be confusing.

Ah! Now it is clear. (Sorry, I'm reading and replying post-by-post rather than reading everything first. Duh me.)

I'm glad you understand where my confusion arose from, and I thank you for your explanation. I understand now.

 

[Etoile]

Interesting. I didn't read Etoile's post as being hostile and I didn't read your original post as being condescending. Is it possible that both of you are misreading one another? You might not believe it now but the board would be a poorer place with Etoile on ignore. I don't always agree with her myself but I believe she's a valuable part of the community.

The check is in the mail, LOL!

 

[Etoile]

You know easy it is to read a word that you associate with certain emotional tones but the writer doesn't and then your own emotional associations triggered by that one word or phrase then color the rest of the message for you, causing you to see the whole thing as hostile? That's what happened to me.

Yup. Absolutely do know what that's like. I'm a professional interpreter, so expressing the right connotation is extremely important to me in my job and I'm well aware of the consequences of an error in word choice. That said, I'm not always as careful in my personal speech, as you've seen!

Dude is one such word for me, because I've most often seen women use it with other women where they're in a fighting mood. I haven't seen much friendly duding around, at least not betwen women.

I apologize for this. When one is in one's "comfort zone" as often as I get to be, it can be easy to forget that not everybody uses language the same way my family, friends, and I do.

"Bleedingly obvious" was another such phrase. Sounded like a kind of exaggerated way of putting things, so I read it as hostile condesension. If I misread you on these, Etolie, I am sorry.

I think there was misinterpretation (on both sides) in the overall exchange, but you are 100% right about "bleedingly obvious." I did go back and forth about whether that was the phrase I really wanted to use, and in the end I went with it because I had built up my belief that "how can she not know what I'm talking about?!" so high that I did get a little condescending with it. Again, I apologize for that.

 

[Etoile]

Etoile, hmm, typical reaction to gender... No, that's not something I'd accuse her of.

Ha! Thank you, Never. It can be quite important to know where someone is coming from when interpreting their choice of words.

I don't understand the entire daddy with son and daughter relationship. I couldn't view someone I love as a child. Or maybe I couldn't love someone I view as a child. I don't see any relationship based on one partner always being mature, responsible, rational, and realistic as possible. Perhaps you just know different adults than I do.

If you ever want to chat about this with me, feel free to drop me a PM. I'd be happy to share my thoughts.

 

[Etoile]

or just a SouthPark overdose.

Definitely a big influence for my social circle. Probably more than it should be!

 

[Etoile]

ROTFLMAO.....Interesting point to this discussion I think is that while people continue to hash this out, disagree etc., it seems most likely Kayte and her Master have moved on with their lives either together or apart. Why do I say this? No further posting to this thread or forum since the end of last year, though Kayte is still posting healthily to other Lit forums. Perhaps all a storm in a teacup?!!

I was indeed wondering about this myself, even as I ranted on and on in the above posts about topics totally unrelated to Kayte. LOL!

Okay, I'm done babbling for a bit.

 

[TaintedB]

Ok, thanks for reassuring me on the dude stuff. Uh, is your wife very dude-like?

I've answered the question in some other peoples' replies. Yes you almost have it right, the "you" was in referce to you as in a general dominant, any dominant.

I am pretty much the same person in every thread, unless I take a time-out to tease someone. I have a friend who is like you, however, she responds in multiple ways all the time, even with the same person. Never a dull moment, with her, lol, and I mean that as a complement--she often shakes me out of my plodding, logical down-to-earth deathgrip-on-reality way of thinking.

People can't hear the difference between pin and pen? Are you talking about Southerners, by any chance? (suspicious look) Actually you can't be, because we say them all as "pan."

All right I won't put you on ignore. The only time I do that is if somebody is needling me so hard and persistently that the fun goes out of a place.

Regards,
Taint

PS: Mr. Bytor is still hanging out here doing his trolls? Say it isn't so! Actually I am glad to hear that. Some, although not all, of his messages make me laugh pretty hard.

Originally posted by Etoile
No, not all of them.
Some of them I definitely do, though. I call my sister-in-law dude all the time...hell, I call my wife dude all the time!


Here is what I am asking about, not placed in a quote tag for clarity's sake:

"You think your next submissive who may hear about this incident from others and not just hear your version is going to have any trust in your intelligence, forbearance, ability to work through problems, ability to guide her rather than act like a little child who needs guidance? If you do, you're living in some sort of dreamland."

This was in a reply to s'lara, and I can't imagine that you were referring to her as those things simply don't apply to her. (That is, she doesn't have submissives.) So my question was "who were you referring to?" Was it a general "you"? If so, that's fine, but the impression I got was that it was personally directed.


I most certainly do not remember implying such. I'm a big believer in Voltaire's line "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I'm sorry you felt that my expressing my disagreement with you was an attack on your right to post.

I'd rather you didn't; I have no problem with you personally and how I interact with someone in one thread doesn't impact how I interact with them in another. In the years I've been here I've carried on simultaneous conversations where I'm arguing with someone in one thread and then cheering them on in another. (This doesn't apply to people like bytor, of course, who are just trolls!) I'm amazed by people who do carry their interaction style over from one thread to another, but only in the same was as I'm amazed by people who can't hear the difference between "pin" and "pen" or "merry" and "marry" - that is, I'm amazed because it comes so naturally to me, but I know there are people out there who either don't hear the difference or do carry their interactions/grudges over from one conversation to the next.

As I said, I hope you won't put me on ignore. I like you for your ability to state clearly and intelligently what your thoughts are. I have no problem with you personally despite our disagreement in this thread, and I'm sorry you feel that I might have been so hostile in this particular instance that it's part of my personality and I'd do it again, which I certainly don't intend to do. Like I said, I may disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I don't want to hear you. I hoe you feel the same way.

 

[Prof Bill]

Close the circle?

I thought a lot of this discussion was pretty good. I must admit I didn't like some of the general dischord but it seemed to work itself out so it was not too disruptive.

I was once at a party where a humiliation scene began in the middle of the relaxation space. I was mildly inconvenienced by this but a Domme became incensed. And she had good reason. We all talk about safe, sane and consensual--and no one in the relaxation area had consented to be a part of this couple's humiliation scene. I learned from that.

Was that the case here? Was Kayte told to post on here so she would be humiliated by us? Did we ever find out what exactly the transgression was? Did we learn any more than what she told us in her first post?

Probably not. But I think we might have learned a lot about the value of being specific with our partners. Or is it more metaphysical? "What do we mean by sex?" "Are orders relative to context or are they absolute?" And so on. If I don't stop now I'll start wondering about the sex of angels and how many of them can dance on the head of a pin--but I hope you see my point.

In my opinion, Kate's question (I'm think I'm misspelling her name and I apologize for that) could and did lead to some interesting questioning which could, in turn, lead to growth. If the "misunderstandings" cost a chance for further discussion, I'm sorry for it.

Or shall we just drop the whole idea and wait for another opportunity on another thread?

Prof Bill

 

[Etoile]

Re: Close the circle?

I don't think the off-topic "misunderstandings" discussion (dude, you, and all that) was what killed this thread. Instead, what I think killed this thread was our collective realization that we'd sufficiently beaten the dead horse and couldn't further discuss the issue without feedback from kayte, who seems unlikely to provide it.

 

[Prof Bill]

What killed ????

You may well be right. We did take lots of whacks at that dead horse, didn't we?

Thanks.

PB