What pissed you off today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This morning I watched the latest version of Robin Hood on a very grainy pirate web-site and I must say I will not mind paying full price for the DVD when it comes out. Sorry to say movie goers but if I’m going to spend fifty bucks on a night at the movies it has to really really stir me. And well this disturbs me. The Producers just didn’t work hard enough to making the movie worth-while. And that pisses me off!!!

Robin Hood with Russell Crowe is indeed and entertaining movie. I enjoyed it but sadly felt that this epic film was only lacking in the technical department. Costumes were all uniform and proper for the period. Indeed history buffs would find it enjoyable to see a movie where 12th Century Knights are not carrying 16th Century Swords; however I see a few problems.
1. Knights: European Knights strongest attack was in the use of the Lance and Shield. Here the shield was reduced to being carried by spear carrying infantry troops and not properly used. Instead when mounted troops rode with a lance the lance was on the right side of the horse in a style learned in the 18th Century from India and not across the horse to the left using a shield guard or Jousting as in the movie A Knight Tail.
2. Mounted Riders: again a big mistake. Here everybody is dead wrong. Historically: Knights used a lance, Sergeants rode with sword and shield, and Men-at-arms rode with either a cross-bow or short bow. In this film they rode with the proper training of a Napoleonic Rider sword in right hand swinging down or upwards in well practiced moves of a very century later.
3. Assault landing Crafts: Okay here’s a big mistake. The landing craft of World War Two was a great piece of engineering where you took a barge with hollow ballast sides to keep the boat afloat. These were metal welded sides that displaced water and kept a boat afloat. People were working on the idea in the late 19th Century. So here we are oars out the sides, and landing ramps. Viking style long ships were actually used if you wanted to get across the channel quickly.

Okay other than that I really enjoyed the film. It blended ideas modern freedom and historical fact in a way people can understand. As a matter of fact there was even a little Shakespearian twist in the story as Maid Marion shows up disguised as a Knight leading the real bandits of Nottingham in the final battle. But what’s important too, is that England eventually became a Nation of Laws, but it didn’t happen overnight. I just wished they would spend the time and money to find all the elements to make the production correct. I will still eventually buy the DVD and try to ignore the parts that discomfort me. So enjoy.
 
Some of the threads in talk at the moment.

You click thinking this is going to be a good discussion but what lies within is tres disappointing. :rolleyes:

oh and the apparently massive difference between the words could and would.
 
Last edited:
So it's not sciatica after all, just plain old messed up lower back muscles. The doctor, after a 40-mile ride (one way) to get to him, says it should go away within a month or so... before it comes back again if I don't baby the hell out of it.

I used to have clinically-diagnosed migraines/cluster headaches, EEGs and all. The worst of them were considered to be a 10 on a pain scale of 10, to the point (sometimes) of throwing up. This, the last couple of days, has been the worst pain I've ever experienced: at least a 12 on that same pain scale of 10. Literal tears in my eyes, almost passing out at the slightest wrong movement.

So I'm back on 40mg of vicodin (hydrocodone) a day, and he's already told me if that doesn't work well enough, he'll be happy to shift me up to either percocet (oxycodone) or morphine. And don't worry about the addictive qualities of any of them; I don't have the right type of addictive personality to make that a concern. :: blinkblinkblink ::
 
So it's not sciatica after all, just plain old messed up lower back muscles. The doctor, after a 40-mile ride (one way) to get to him, says it should go away within a month or so... before it comes back again if I don't baby the hell out of it.

I used to have clinically-diagnosed migraines/cluster headaches, EEGs and all. The worst of them were considered to be a 10 on a pain scale of 10, to the point (sometimes) of throwing up. This, the last couple of days, has been the worst pain I've ever experienced: at least a 12 on that same pain scale of 10. Literal tears in my eyes, almost passing out at the slightest wrong movement.

So I'm back on 40mg of vicodin (hydrocodone) a day, and he's already told me if that doesn't work well enough, he'll be happy to shift me up to either percocet (oxycodone) or morphine. And don't worry about the addictive qualities of any of them; I don't have the right type of addictive personality to make that a concern. :: blinkblinkblink ::
Hope you feel better soon, SW! :rose: *hugs*
 
A group on FL with this as it's description. Bolded bits are the ones I have most issue with.

Gah.



This group is for people who are either interested in or engaged in no-limits nonconsensual absolute slavery relationships.

* It is considered a given that such relationships are loving and healthy for both the owner and slave.
* The slave's consent is considered irrelevant in either beginning or continuing such relationships.
* The owner's power is considered to be absolute over his slave.
* It is considered a given that these relationships are permanent, that the owner will never release his property.
 
A group on FL with this as it's description. Bolded bits are the ones I have most issue with.

Gah.



This group is for people who are either interested in or engaged in no-limits nonconsensual absolute slavery relationships.

* It is considered a given that such relationships are loving and healthy for both the owner and slave.
* The slave's consent is considered irrelevant in either beginning or continuing such relationships.
* The owner's power is considered to be absolute over his slave.
* It is considered a given that these relationships are permanent, that the owner will never release his property.
Yeahhh... the bolded items just SO reflect the first item. :rolleyes:
 
Yeahhh... the bolded items just SO reflect the first item. :rolleyes:

Actually, this slave rather likes the idea that the owner won't release his property. (Given the premise that the slave has no freedom to leave.)

I do believe consent at the beginning of the relationship is imperative though. Otherwise, we're talking slavery, not "slavery."
 
A group on FL with this as it's description. Bolded bits are the ones I have most issue with.

Gah.



This group is for people who are either interested in or engaged in no-limits nonconsensual absolute slavery relationships.

* It is considered a given that such relationships are loving and healthy for both the owner and slave.
* The slave's consent is considered irrelevant in either beginning or continuing such relationships.
* The owner's power is considered to be absolute over his slave.
* It is considered a given that these relationships are permanent, that the owner will never release his property.
* The slave's consent is considered irrelevant in either beginning or continuing such relationships.
* It is considered a given that these relationships are permanent, that the owner will never release his property.

*slowly raises hand*
Umm, Doesn't that kind of make, oh, I don't know, things like unhealthy, unconstitutional, and abusive?
 
* The slave's consent is considered irrelevant in either beginning or continuing such relationships.
* It is considered a given that these relationships are permanent, that the owner will never release his property.

*slowly raises hand*
Umm, Doesn't that kind of make, oh, I don't know, things like unhealthy, unconstitutional, and abusive?

The permanence of the relationship is a crucial element of the M/s contract, in my opinion.

However, the lack of consent does imply that they are talking about slavery in its historical context.
 
Actually, this slave rather likes the idea that the owner won't release his property. (Given the premise that the slave has no freedom to leave.)

I do believe consent at the beginning of the relationship is imperative though. Otherwise, we're talking slavery, not "slavery."

No one surrenders their human rights.

If you wish to insist that someone cannot terminate a relationship, you are condoning illegal behaviour.
 
No one surrenders their human rights.

If you wish to insist that someone cannot terminate a relationship, you are condoning illegal behaviour.

ES was speaking of HER relationship. She and her Master are married; they take their wedding vows (and M/s relationship) quite seriously, and don't consider divorce/leaving to be an option. How exactly is that illegal?
 
No one surrenders their human rights.

If you wish to insist that someone cannot terminate a relationship, you are condoning illegal behaviour.

I made a distinction between slavery and "slavery."

The fact that we have an unbreakable contract (in our minds, intentions, vows, and behavior) has been critical in keeping our relationship a growing and mutually beneficial experience. Because we do not dwell in the thought that there is a better alternative somewhere else, we are both required to work with what we have in order to find happiness and peace of mind. The opportunities to learn how to deal with issues of resentment, jealousy, and loneliness have been profound.

We choose to live "as though" we cannot terminate this relationship. It's been working for us, and carried us through years of challenging circumstances.

Not everyone chooses to give up their right to leave. Not everyone views their relationship with this mental construct in place. It is, and has been, the foundation on which our relationship has been built for the last 25 years.
 
A group on FL with this as it's description. Bolded bits are the ones I have most issue with.

Gah.



This group is for people who are either interested in or engaged in no-limits nonconsensual absolute slavery relationships.

* It is considered a given that such relationships are loving and healthy for both the owner and slave.
* The slave's consent is considered irrelevant in either beginning or continuing such relationships.
* The owner's power is considered to be absolute over his slave.
* It is considered a given that these relationships are permanent, that the owner will never release his property.

I'm a member of that group. If you read a little farther, the "consent" issue is explained. They're talking about subs having deep, submissive reactions to doms that they can't control. It's not a choice to submit; it's instinctive, thus consent is considered irrelevant. They're not advocating snatching unsuspecting people up off the street.
 
Whatever sickness decided to plant itself in my stomach just made me break a promise.
 
More stories of my dad being a huge douchebag while my mum is ill.

I could have punched him.
 
going to work while the bluggers on the dole dont bother looking for a job.
 
Not being able to turn the half formed questions in my head into fully formed questions on paper.

=/
 
Fear pisses me off.

and the fact that Ive put on a ton of weight and I feel gross
 
Last edited:
I'm a member of that group. If you read a little farther, the "consent" issue is explained. They're talking about subs having deep, submissive reactions to doms that they can't control. It's not a choice to submit; it's instinctive, thus consent is considered irrelevant. They're not advocating snatching unsuspecting people up off the street.


Ok, I had a look and read further.

Blanket consent as a concept I can follow and try to appreciate it. Some of the stories there, in particular a recent thread about literally being bought, really do make me think about people just being grabbed up, but I know I don't know the full story.


My question now is, what happens when a sub has this deep, submissive, instinctual response to a Dom who isn't the right one for him/her? And this Dom takes advantage of that? And refuses to let the sub go despite things really not working out? What if people fundamentally change for one reason or another? How does that work out then?
 
Ok, I had a look and read further.

Blanket consent as a concept I can follow and try to appreciate it. Some of the stories there, in particular a recent thread about literally being bought, really do make me think about people just being grabbed up, but I know I don't know the full story.


My question now is, what happens when a sub has this deep, submissive, instinctual response to a Dom who isn't the right one for him/her? And this Dom takes advantage of that? And refuses to let the sub go despite things really not working out? What if people fundamentally change for one reason or another? How does that work out then?

Most "Doms" can't dom their way out of a wet paper sack, so it's not as big a concern as one might imagine. I've been taken advantage of my whole life, and it's mostly been vanilla people. As far as the other questions, I suggest reading about internal enslavement and/or messaging the owner of the site on FetLife. I don't feel like I'm qualified to answer the questions, honestly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top