Mistaken

[Netzach]

I take requests, sometimes.

As follows from a conversation in PM, I was doing a little thinking about the assumptions we often make as a community.

One example that came up was the fact I mentioned in a prior thread... that I could sink in bondage therefore I must be a sub.

I've made my share of doozies too: if someone's in a dress it doesn't mean they DO want the feminine pronoun used on them.

Anyone else have anything to add on the subject of making an ass of u and me?

 

[RJMasters]

Two that I know

I am sure I will think of more but two things I know get often mistaken....

1. A mean or angry person does not = Dominant person.

2. A person who like to serve others or be helpful does not have to mean they are submissive. It means they help and serve others in a dominate way.

I also just wanted to put in a comment about using "checklists", though they can be helpful to some extent, they should not be relied upon heavily to make absolute descions about yourself. Often these same checklist will use questions such as do you like to serve others, in an attempt to come to a predisposed answer.

Thanks

Netzach

Good thread, I hope alot of people will chime in and share how somethings can be easily mistaken, and we should avoid sterotype thinking, and always when giving advice, take time to ask enough questions.

 

[A Desert Rose]

This is no mistake... it's a hijack.
Sorry Netzach, but he's not paying attention otherwise,
RJ....


Please empty your box, so I can respond to you.

 

[Netzach]

I don't like to help and serve others "in a dominate way" I like to help and serve others. I think maybe we get too hung up on some of this stuff too.

Service ethic doesn't make someone a submissive it makes them interested in other people.

 

[RJMasters]

This is no mistake... it's a hijack.
Sorry Netzach, but he's not paying attention otherwise,
RJ....


Please empty your box, so I can respond to you.

Ok

 

[RJMasters]

I don't like to help and serve others "in a dominate way" I like to help and serve others. I think maybe we get too hung up on some of this stuff too.

Service ethic doesn't make someone a submissive it makes them interested in other people.

Good point. I didn't mean it like that...but the way you say it is better. Thanks for making it clearer.

 

[kitty4ever]

Anyone else have anything to add on the subject of making an ass of u and me?

I believe the subject that a PYL is not always looking for a pyl, even though he or she is single and vice versa. Also, the assumption that just because you're single, does not mean that you're looking for a play partner. Sometimes, you truly wish to be alone, and you've knowingly chosen that path for whatever reason.

Yeah, so I'm posting ones that I've had to deal with from others, although I've been as guilty in the past of being mistaken about something.

 

[shy slave]

Assumptions

A pyl does not man they are a pyl to everyone they met.

Not all with a service ethic are pyl's

I come across both these assumptions almost daily.

Then there are the other assumptions that drive me crazy:

Enjoying/needing bondage does not make someone outside the 'norm.'

A pyl or a PYL is that 24/7/365 even when bad things happen in their lives, we all lean sometimes and we all support others sometimes.

*sigh* must go to work and stop getting Lit stuff in my head One day I will mix them up, then God knows what I'll say to whom lol

 

[Sir_Winston54]

<snip>
Service ethic doesn't make someone a submissive it makes them interested in other people.

Amen. Well put.

 

[FungiUg]

I always assumed that a PYL was "pissing yourself laughing"... does that count?

 

[TigerClaw]

I thought this thread was for or about Mistaken...

I suppose I was Mistaken.


I have to think about this one......


If I am in public and not at Politically inCorrect Work and I use the Feminine Pronoun on a woman, well damn tough luck for my being polite. Deal with it.

 

[incubus'_sub]

Not only does it count, Mr Fungi, but you get triple points from me.

This politically correct garbage has a lot to answer for now that perfectly reasonable and sensible generalisations have to be examined before use in case someone, somewhere, might just be able to take offense & are in fact encouraged to do so.

To quote the Tiger, GGGGRRRRRRR

 

[bluntforcemama]

Re: Assumptions

A pyl does not mean they are a pyl to everyone they met.

To this I agree. Because I'm submissive to one man does not mean I'm submissive to any other. I can be downright dominant with any other person.

 

[Pure]

To give service, other than very limited service, is to submit

X wants to serve someone, Y.
To serve involves satisfying desires.
X wants to satisfy Y's desires.

One's service is very limited if one satisfies another's desires, even important ones, only where your own, coincide. (e.g., I will go to the store for you, only if I'm already desiring to go to the store.)

A professional's service (like a dentist's) is very limited, since s/he may at any point, say, "I am taking the day off and do not wish to serve you today; find another dentist if you need help today."

Assume: X wants to give more than limited service to Y.

To genuinely serve involves giving another's desires priority over one's own.
(I will go to the store for you, even though I'd rather sit here and watch Seinfeld.)

Assume: X wants to genuinely serve Y.
X wants to give another's desires,Y, priority over X's own.

To submit to someone is to make one's own desires secondary to theirs, esp. their important ones.

If someone commands or directs another, it is their desire to have to other conform.

For any nontrivial command/direction, the desire that something be done is an important one to the issuer of the command.

Suppose: Y commands/directs that X do some non-trivial thing.
Y has an important desire that that thing be done by X.

Suppose: X will do that thing, making X's desires secondary.

THEREFORE: X, in giving priority to Y's important desire, submits to Y.

 

[Netzach]

To give service, other than very limited service, is to submit

X wants to serve someone, Y.
To serve involves satisfying desires.
X wants to satisfy Y's desires.

One's service is very limited if one satisfies another's desires, even important ones, only where your own, coincide. (e.g., I will go to the store for you, only if I'm already desiring to go to the store.)

A professional's service (like a dentist's) is very limited, since s/he may at any point, say, "I am taking the day off and do not wish to serve you today; find another dentist if you need help today."

Assume: X wants to give more than limited service to Y.

To genuinely serve involves giving another's desires priority over one's own.
(I will go to the store for you, even though I'd rather sit here and watch Seinfeld.)

Assume: X wants to genuinely serve Y.
X wants to give another's desires,Y, priority over X's own.

To submit to someone is to make one's own desires secondary to theirs, esp. their important ones.

If someone commands or directs another, it is their desire to have to other conform.

For any nontrivial command/direction, the desire that something be done is an important one to the issuer of the command.

Suppose: Y commands/directs that X do some non-trivial thing.
Y has an important desire that that thing be done by X.

Suppose: X will do that thing, making X's desires secondary.

THEREFORE: X, in giving priority to Y's important desire, submits to Y.

I believe that the second is submission but that most ongoing exchanges happen to encompass both aspect simply in the daily complexities of human life. A lot of a and some of b, a lot of b and some of a.

But I'd never thought I'd see this mapped out with coordinates or join in that particular bit of fun.

 

[RJMasters]

To give service, other than very limited service, is to submit

X wants to serve someone, Y.
To serve involves satisfying desires.
X wants to satisfy Y's desires.

One's service is very limited if one satisfies another's desires, even important ones, only where your own, coincide. (e.g., I will go to the store for you, only if I'm already desiring to go to the store.)

A professional's service (like a dentist's) is very limited, since s/he may at any point, say, "I am taking the day off and do not wish to serve you today; find another dentist if you need help today."

Assume: X wants to give more than limited service to Y.

To genuinely serve involves giving another's desires priority over one's own.
(I will go to the store for you, even though I'd rather sit here and watch Seinfeld.)

Assume: X wants to genuinely serve Y.
X wants to give another's desires,Y, priority over X's own.

To submit to someone is to make one's own desires secondary to theirs, esp. their important ones.

If someone commands or directs another, it is their desire to have to other conform.

For any nontrivial command/direction, the desire that something be done is an important one to the issuer of the command.

Suppose: Y commands/directs that X do some non-trivial thing.
Y has an important desire that that thing be done by X.

Suppose: X will do that thing, making X's desires secondary.

THEREFORE: X, in giving priority to Y's important desire, submits to Y.

Whew, what a relief! And for all these years I was so confused

Of course a submissive's need to be safe and protected...and a Dominate's natural tendancy to provide such is....

Being a provider emotionally, and physically to a person doesn't make them submissive.

And even a king upon his throne is still a servant of the people he rules IMO, but then that's where we may differ in our thinking.

I could see where having my submissive sit at a table while I'll mkae coffee and pour two cups and serve them takes away all Dominacy

I like doing things for people because its how I show I care. That doesn't make me anything but a normal human being who chooses to live life in reality.

I'm so glad life is not logical at times.

Or maybe I just refuse to accept the normal definion of the word serve and the meaning some would dogmatically attach to it.

Who would of thunk it to be true?

Anyone can try to frame an argument by stating logical definitions according to thier viewpoint of things. This is classical debate tactics 101. Just because you state point A and Point B and therefor C is true may all be well and good...except when not all agree with point A or B, as then C may not be true.

Pardon me is I don't "submit" to your narrow definitions and find sound arguments. If this is your view, then good for you. I am glad you have put some thought into it and come to a descion for yourself on the matter.

X wants to show they love, Y.
To love another involves inpart satisfying another's desires.
X does a tangible act to show Y's they care about their desires and needs.

Its simple math really.

 

[Pure]

RJ X wants to show they love, Y.
To love another involves inpart satisfying another's desires.
X does a tangible act to show Y's they care about their desires and needs.

When one lover does something 'nice' for the other, there is neither service nor submission. Chances are, there is an exchange of niceties, which underscores the point.

 

[emme]

I agree with RJ,
In my opinion dominance more of an attitude than a collection of actions.

the best example I can think of right now is that on occasion my husband will perform oral sex on me as I sit on his face. It isn't for any reason other than he likes to and it is the most comfortable position for him. I may be on the top of him, but I am not Topping him.

sorry if I totally missed the point,
emme

 

[RJMasters]

RJ X wants to show they love, Y.
To love another involves inpart satisfying another's desires.
X does a tangible act to show Y's they care about their desires and needs.

When one lover does something 'nice' for the other, there is neither service nor submission. Chances are, there is an exchange of niceties, which underscores the point.

I made my point, deal with it anyway you wish.

The point of this thread shows how often one person's definition of a word or concept can be different than that of another's and leads to assumptions and mistaken thinking. Which is then use in a sterotype way, which can then be damaging and untrue.

As I said, I reject your way or definition in how you use/view certain words. So its no use debating the point as you see something, and I see something totaly different, and we shall never agree as we are talking about two entirely different things. Meaning simply it is semantics. It doesn't matter if your definition is more correct of the word being use. If you wanted to have a long discussion about the definition of the word "serve" and what it means, perhaps we could at some point reach an agreed upon defintion so that we would both know what we both mean when we use it.

However, this is not practical when applied to normal everyday life and hence is why people often Mistakenly push their view and understanding onto others. In the context of this thread, it can be said that when we do this in conjuntion with sterotype thinking, we can often slot people into a PLY/ply based on our understand and viewpoints, but in reality, that person truely doesn't fit. We also then make assumptions that because a person is a PLY/ply "this" must be true about them. For example, bondage and pain is often associated with submissiveness, yet I know many Dom/mes here on lit that enjoy pain and are not submissive.

Sense you don't know me, or spent enough time to have an idea of what I mean when I say "I like to serve others", then for you to frame an arguement based to fit your view does not in any way compel me to accept what you are saying as being true for me.

I admit that I mistakenly project my views onto others, but I am learning and trying to do it less and less. I have found by doing this, people are less offended by what I say and I tend to show more respect to others.

Logic that is based on perspective is only logical to the person who has offered it or other people who share the same perspective.

 

[RavenSpirit2k4]

I take requests, sometimes.

As follows from a conversation in PM, I was doing a little thinking about the assumptions we often make as a community.

One example that came up was the fact I mentioned in a prior thread... that I could sink in bondage therefore I must be a sub.

I've made my share of doozies too: if someone's in a dress it doesn't mean they DO want the feminine pronoun used on them.

Anyone else have anything to add on the subject of making an ass of u and me?

Hmmm...... mistaken assumptions I've made in my time. How many gigs of server space do you think Lit can spare for that?

 

[TigerClaw]

I'm so confused. First we are talking about submission, domination, then plotting a wonderful graph with x, y coordinates to wind up in Algebra 101 all defending a differing view on who should pour the coffee


???

I will keep my definition of D/s for now until we can double check our math.

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

I'm so confused. First we are talking about submission, domination, then plotting a wonderful graph with x, y coordinates to wind up in Algebra 101 all defending a differing view on who should pour the coffee


???

I will keep my definition of D/s for now until we can double check our math.

Welcome to the wonderful world of PureSpeak, LOL.

~anelize

 

[Pure]

X and Y are simply names of persons, for those of you who seem unaware the math thing began as a joke. Call them Bill and Fred if that suits you better. Or Xavier and Yolanda.

 

[Pure]

RJ in part:

//As I said, I reject your way or definition in how you use/view certain words. So its no use debating the point as you see something, and I see something totaly different, and we shall never agree as we are talking about two entirely different things.//

This is pure bunkum. Intelligent discussants can usually identify where the difference are merely in terminology (and differing definitions) and when the difference is substantive.

Then can they agree to use one or the other's terms, or a neutral set of terms, and proceed, if they're sincere, to deal with the issues.

//then for you to frame an arguement based to fit your view does not in any way compel me to accept what you are saying as being true for me.//

this is too confused to interpret, but it appears to be bunkum also. if you don't like an argument you can always do like some kids: plug your ears and start singing loudly.

 

[Pure]

emme said,

I agree with RJ,
In my opinion dominance more of an attitude than a collection of actions.

the best example I can think of right now is that on occasion my husband will perform oral sex on me as I sit on his face. It isn't for any reason other than he likes to and it is the most comfortable position for him. I may be on the top of him, but I am not Topping him.

I agree that a simple action description /Jill sits on Jack's face/ does not tell about dominance.

But I don't think 'dominance' is more or mostly attitude. I'm not sure what the attitude would be.

An even simpler example, quite classic, is Monique whips Xavier.

Who is calling the shots, we have to ask. Is there any conflict of desires. Are any one person's desires more determinative of the outcome.

IOW, if Xavier *orders* Monique to whip him while he jerks off on Mathilde's face, and Monique feels compelled to obey, then Xavier is commanding or controlling the situation. (Dominating it, and her).

Of course, if Monique *loves to whip Xavier and does so quite often, then any 'order' is superfluous. They're simply doing as they both wish; no one is calling the shots.