My Epiphany

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't want to get too personal about Sev and amasterfound, because I don't really know their situation. What you are talking about is known as "negotiation" - it should always be done at the beginning of a relationship of this type, and it may occasionally need to be done again. In this specific case, I would say that there was not enough negotiation/disclosure the first time around. The difference for subsequent rounds is that the Master needs to open the floor to negotiations. Most sensible masters would allow the slave to request negotiation, and if they have half a brain cell they will allow it - but they are not obligated to, according to the previously-established rules for the Master/slave relationship. (What happens if they say no? Well, that's a completely different kettle of fish...but it's a sign that the relationship isn't healthy.)

So in the case of Sev and amasterfound, they don't seem to have negotiated well from the outset. In this situation, I would hope that they both see the need for further discussion. And yes, then they do step onto equal territory, while amasterfound expresses herself. What Sev does with the information, though, is up to him. Part of the responsibility of a master is listening to your slave's needs and keeping them happy and healthy, which means that you might decide to capitulate - but because you chose to, not because the slave has taken on newfound power.

Re-negotiating a relationship involves the submissive contributing their opinion, and the dominant doing what is (hopefully) the best choice for both of them based on what they've heard from the submissive.

Very interesting! OK, I don't want to descend to quibbling or semantic games, but in some ways I think you are saying the same things that I was suggesting, but in the language of this lifestyle.

First off, I've called this a "game," and I think that is the correct term, even though I understand that the usual connotation of "frivolous" that accompanies the word does not apply here. "Game [in mathematics]: A model of a competitive situation that identifies interested parties and stipulates rules governing all aspects of the competition, used in game theory to determine the optimal course of action for an interested party." That is closer to the definition I am using, but it is not exact. I don't think this activity is "competitive" in the usual sense.

OK, I stated that like it or not, it is an existential reality that every human is a sovereign individual, even if you choose to "waive" awareness of it for long, long periods. Given that, who are the negotiators in these "negotiations"? Two sovereign individuals. By definition they must be, or it is not a real negotiation, but coercion.

"(In renegotiation) they do step onto equal territory . . . what the 'master' does with the information, though, is up to him."

I detect a contradiction here. Either they are on equal territory, or not – it can't be both. So within the construct of the "game," it can't be "up to him," or that particular rule is meaningless. Are you sure about your reading or description of this, Etoile? I understand that you are probably trying to sketch in rudimentary terms what appears to be a more fully fleshed out construct. (Hopefully you find delving into these issues with a vanilla bean as interesting as I do, because I have been asking a lot of you here.)

Moving outside the game back into the legal and social world we all inhabit, including the game players, it is not really "up to him," and also, "What happens if they say no?" is quite clear: She can always walk. The 13th amendment is alive and well. The game is over. So is the relationship, if it is completely based on the game.


Reply to Couture citing the contract: I don't have any problem with that document as part of what I have been calling a "game," because it is really just the "rules" of the game. It is obviously not a legally binding agreement, and so is not a genuine contract.


Bottom line: I asked, "At some point don't you have to set the games aside and just be completely genuine, relating to each other as one equal human-to-another, without artifice or restraint?" Although the answer was expressed in the terminology of the "D/s lifestyle," I read it as, "Yes."

I also applied that question to this case study we have before us, asking if this is one of those moments when to preserve their relationship (or to avoid one of the parties capitulating to the desire of the other in a manner that will generate repressed, toxic and cumulative pain and guilt), the two parties must set aside their assumed roles for the moment and relate genuinely as two sovereign individuals. The answer was again expressed in the terminology of the lifestyle ("renegotiation"), but again I read it as, "Yes."

I have asked a lot of you here, Etoile, but I will push my luck and ask if this is the above is a fair statement? (As a gentle and wise woman you may want restate the last point in general terms if you are reluctant to make a statement about these individuals.)

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Now I just can't see how this can possibly be resolved without setting aside these assumed roles at least for a few hours, and relating to each other as the sovereign individual each person really is. (Like it or not, that ultimately is an existential reality, even if you choose to "waive" awareness of it for long, long periods.)

I think your existential reality here is actually the fallacy, Roxanne... it isn't about "equality" at its core, it's about oneness. What we perceive as "equality" is actually the sense or felt awareness that we are not actually separate at our core... We are actually not separate beings at all, aside from our physical bodies. (And during sex, we are joined in the metaphor of "oneness." And we seek that metaphor everywhere, not just sex.) That is partly what the D/S relationship seeks (and rarely finds) by creating two extreme poles that seems to fit together, hand and glove, yin and yang.

Ask D/S people how spiritual their practice really is... ask a sub about "subspace"... when you say "game" Roxanne, I think you've hit the tree, but missed the target. It is, actually, more of a religion. (Sev's gonna hit me with a trout, now, *ducking*) Look at the painstaking ritual involved, the rules and mores set forth...

In the case of a D/S relationship, we have one person acting *as* God and another person worshipping... how many times in religion do we hear about "god loving us?" That he cares about us, as deeply as we care about him? In some religions, the idea is that God isn't really separate from us, that we are one with him and with everything that "God" has made... so in the D/S relationship, they are seeking that connection, I am God, You are my Follower, and we are one...

As anyone here who's been in a TPE relationship how much trust it takes to place yourself in someone else's hands. Ask any Dom how much love it takes to be in that role, to be completely and utterly responsible for another human being's welfare, and to do so with love?

Power itself is actually an illusion. Ask a sub about topping from the bottom. (Lizzy referred to it here, a while back, in terms of Sev and Dora, and that is, actually, a little of what happened, although in that dynamic, there's more going on that just the D/S stuff) It APPEARS as if a Dom is in complete control, and a sub is subservient. That isn't the case. When they are working together, there is no separation, there is no difference, there is no power... the power itself is like a drug. It's mainlining God. They both find the divine through the use of it, but at another level, the power doesn't exist at all--because together, they're one.

Just thought I'd throw a monkey wrench in the works this morning... Can't have it just be a rational and logical debate, that would just be too one-dimensional...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think your existential reality here is actually the fallacy, Roxanne... it isn't about "equality" at its core, it's about oneness. What we perceive as "equality" is actually the sense or felt awareness that we are not actually separate at our core...

I carefully considered that phrase, Selena, and think it is accurate. Your points about perceptions and equality are a different issue, I think.

I thought more about the phrase later. Here are some examples that show what I mean. Let's say we're talking about Sam and Amanda:

If Sam dies Amanda still lives (unless she chooses as a sovereign individual to take her own life.) If Amanda gets a fatal illness Sam can't tell the doctors to turn off the machines, unless Amanda has given him durable power of attorney - the act of a sovereign individual.

If Amanda gets pregnant, Sam does not get pregnant. If Sam impregnates another woman, she does not have Amanda's baby.

If Sam joins the army and volunteers to go to Iraq, Amanda has not joined and won't go. She could join on her own and go. They would not go as a unit.

Sam and Amanda vote in separate voting booths.

Sam and Amanda pass a crazy street person on the sidewalk. Sam points and laughs. Amanda drops a quarter in the person's bowl.

Sam gets an itch on his butt and scratches it. Amanda does not get an itch on her butt. (if she knows about his itch she might do so pychosomatically - but that would be the action of a sovereign individual.)


Some of these are legal not "existential," some are "well duh!" obvious, and some may seem silly, but they all illustrate the point.

Gotta run without giving this it's full due of thought - fascinating discussion!


Edited to add: Most relevent for this discussion, Sam can to nothing to Amanda that she does not consent to, either explicitly throught the "negotiation" of the rules, or implicitly by virtue of the fact that she has not walked away.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I carefully considered that phrase, Selena, and think it is accurate. Your points about perceptions and equality are a different issue, I think.

I thought more about the phrase later. Here are some examples that show what I mean. Let's say we're talking about Sam and Amanda:

If Sam dies Amanda still lives (unless she chooses as a sovereign individual to take her own life.) If Amanda gets a fatal illness Sam can't tell the doctors to turn off the machines, unless Amanda has given him durable power of attorney - the act of a sovereign individual.

If Amanda gets pregnant, Sam does not get pregnant. If Sam impregnates another woman, she does not have Amanda's baby.

If Sam joins the army and volunteers to go to Iraq, Amanda has not joined and won't go. She could join on her own and go. They would not go as a unit.

Sam and Amanda vote in separate voting booths.

Sam and Amanda pass a crazy street person on the sidewalk. Sam points and laughs. Amanda drops a quarter in the person's bowl.

Sam gets an itch on his butt and scratches it. Amanda does not get an itch on her butt. (if she knows about his itch she might do so pychosomatically - but that would be the action of a sovereign individual.)


Some of these are legal not "existential," some are "well duh!" obvious, and some may seem silly, but they all illustrate the point.

Gotta run without giving this it's full due of thought - fascinating discussion!

well I won't drag it too much further into an otherworldly realm... but the actual answer to all of these is... when one does something, we ALL do it. The appearance of it being separate... that one of them dropped a quarter in and the other laughed... is an illusion. Yes, it actually happened, we physically saw it happen... but on another level, there is no separation. So not only did Sam laugh--we all laughed. And not only did Amanda drop a quarter in--we all did. But talking about THAT any further would take us WELL off the path of D/S relationships...

Etoile will probably weigh in here soon and send us on our merry way in that direction...

 

[rgraham666]

I saw the mentioning of 'ritual' in one of Selena's post.

I find that one of the distracting things of the D/s lifestyle. Too often things are so locked into the rituals the spontaneity of making love is lost. At least in my mind.

Plus I'm a heretic and I question every rule and ritual.

 

[Guest]

Just a note....
please do remember that not all of 'it' has been shown to the public.
There are extra pieces to this that actually make the disagreement more.... interesting and the HMMMM factor goes up.

As for the D/s lifestyle and way of life.....
Until someone has actually fully experienced it then they truly would not be giving an accurate description. It is all well and good to look at it through spectator glasses and shout long and hard about how horrible it is and how badly the submissive (male or female) is treated.... but there are things that vanilla people simply do not understand and I am sorry to say will never understand.

I love women (men too) but I am not a lesbian, heck I am only alittle wee bit bi.... I would be a poor choice if someone wanted to know about what it was like to be a lesbian in todays society. I would point in the direction of some of those that haunt the AH that are obvious better choices to tell of what they feel that answer to that question would be.

I see A LOT of looking down of the noses in this thread.... deciding that because one does not understand something that it is obviously wrong/perverted/harmful.... ? Those statements are getting dangerously close to that line that gets crossed right before people state making rules about oh that thing is bad in my opinion so lets ban it or make it illegal.

There are many forms and avenues of BDSM.... some have contracts... some have legal documents... some don't.... some actually get married so that they have that legal thing that is needed if for example one of them passes away or something that would require a spouse. I have never had one, I have a few friends that have had them on and off in different relationships (just like vanilla people have different relationships over the years)... I have a friend right now who is with a man that is heavy into a 'form' of BDSM that just makes my eyes bug out... but I have also seen them play together and know that they are completely intune and aware of what the other wants at all times.

Don't judge....
Those of the BDSM community do not judge the vanilla world just because they do not understand it..... we ask only the same in return.... don't judge us or scorn us because you don't understand.... ask us questions, find out what we are really like.... heck see if you can go to a demo or a munch... but don't point fingers at us and say that we are abusers/abusees... hate-filled people or anything of the sort until you actually EXPERIENCE our world.

 

[Sex and Death]

I think your existential reality here is actually the fallacy, Roxanne... it isn't about "equality" at its core, it's about oneness. What we perceive as "equality" is actually the sense or felt awareness that we are not actually separate at our core... We are actually not separate beings at all, aside from our physical bodies. (And during sex, we are joined in the metaphor of "oneness." And we seek that metaphor everywhere, not just sex.) That is partly what the D/S relationship seeks (and rarely finds) by creating two extreme poles that seems to fit together, hand and glove, yin and yang.

Ask D/S people how spiritual their practice really is... ask a sub about "subspace"... when you say "game" Roxanne, I think you've hit the tree, but missed the target. It is, actually, more of a religion. (Sev's gonna hit me with a trout, now, *ducking*) Look at the painstaking ritual involved, the rules and mores set forth...

In the case of a D/S relationship, we have one person acting *as* God and another person worshipping... how many times in religion do we hear about "god loving us?" That he cares about us, as deeply as we care about him? In some religions, the idea is that God isn't really separate from us, that we are one with him and with everything that "God" has made... so in the D/S relationship, they are seeking that connection, I am God, You are my Follower, and we are one...

As anyone here who's been in a TPE relationship how much trust it takes to place yourself in someone else's hands. Ask any Dom how much love it takes to be in that role, to be completely and utterly responsible for another human being's welfare, and to do so with love?

Power itself is actually an illusion. Ask a sub about topping from the bottom. (Lizzy referred to it here, a while back, in terms of Sev and Dora, and that is, actually, a little of what happened, although in that dynamic, there's more going on that just the D/S stuff) It APPEARS as if a Dom is in complete control, and a sub is subservient. That isn't the case. When they are working together, there is no separation, there is no difference, there is no power... the power itself is like a drug. It's mainlining God. They both find the divine through the use of it, but at another level, the power doesn't exist at all--because together, they're one.

Just thought I'd throw a monkey wrench in the works this morning... Can't have it just be a rational and logical debate, that would just be too one-dimensional...

Beautiful.

Equality is an illsuion. Equality is a way to deny responsibility for one's true nature and to deny responisbility for serving others through one's true nature, whether that nature is surrender or leadership, submisison or dominance, or some combination or switcerhy. As you said, my dear, equality is a substitute for communion.

It should also be said that the vast majority of people who live and practice anything, from maisntream monagamy to alternaitve BDSM, are asleep at the wheel and do not have a clue as to the deeper signifigance of any aspect of their lives, whether sexuality, relationships, or otherwise.

S&D

 

[Sex and Death]

well I won't drag it too much further into an otherworldly realm... but the actual answer to all of these is... when one does something, we ALL do it. The appearance of it being separate... that one of them dropped a quarter in and the other laughed... is an illusion. Yes, it actually happened, we physically saw it happen... but on another level, there is no separation. So not only did Sam laugh--we all laughed. And not only did Amanda drop a quarter in--we all did. But talking about THAT any further would take us WELL off the path of D/S relationships...

Etoile will probably weigh in here soon and send us on our merry way in that direction...

Just remmeber, SK, the objectivist view that Roxanne wields with such passion and acumen is founded on the the fundamental assumption that reality is knowable solely throught the physical senses. And to the physical senses, the law of the universe is separation.

S&D

 

[Sex and Death]

I saw the mentioning of 'ritual' in one of Selena's post.

I find that one of the distracting things of the D/s lifestyle. Too often things are so locked into the rituals the spontaneity of making love is lost. At least in my mind.

Plus I'm a heretic and I question every rule and ritual.

Good point, Rob. I think a lot of people confuse ritual with rules. The purpose of ritual is to provide a container in which people can experience invisible reality. Rules have othe rpurposes than that.

S&D

 

[cloudy]

It should also be said that the vast majority of people who live and practice anything, from maisntream monagamy to alternaitve BDSM, are asleep at the wheel and do not have a clue as to the deeper signifigance of any aspect of their lives, whether sexuality, relationships, or otherwise.

The rest of your post makes some sort of sense. However, whether you actually realize it or not, this statement comes across as pretentious and self-righteous superiority.

Just because someone doesn't believe exactly as you do does not mean they "don't have a clue."

It's a shame to see someone with obvious intelligence resort to this.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Grrr....just when I thought that this whole issue was closed, it reopens.

For the record, no, there was no "capitulation" on my slave's part. One could more easily say that if I had agreed to monogamy in spite of my strong dislike of it, I would be capitulating. We wrote down a contract, agreed to a very clear and precise set of rules, and everything, including allowing for amendments and changes by mutual consent. While I am the Master, that does not give me the right to unilaterally alter the arrangement. The whole question of any possible change from an open relationship (which WAS a compromise, NOT a capitulation) to a polyamorous one was one that was discussed between myself and her recently and vetoed.

If I was forcing things on her that required "capitulation" on her part, she would have no such veto power. We BOTH have such power. That is understood. The only change that can be done unilaterally is to dissolve the relationship itself (since relationships of this sort are consensual just like all others) and neither of us want that.

I won't go into mystical issues right now. That's not the point. The point is that my relationship has weathered a crisis that many have not made it through, a crisis caused by my own contemplation and proposal of something that isn't mutually acceptable. Because it is not acceptable to her, and monogamy was never acceptable to me, we have decided that the status quo is the only arrangement that will work and it will continue.

Have there been recent relationship issues? Yes. They have been resolved, however, and idle speculation about how healthy or unhealthy my relationship with her is notwishstanding, I take our resilience as a sign of great overall health. So, that's that.

I will also back up those who repudiate this narrow-minded view that Couture has of BDSM. Comparing it to NAMBLA is an insult to consenting adults who freely opt for this lifestyle and are often happier and healthier than some in the vanilla world (though there are many happy, healthy vanilla relationships too).

 

[Sex and Death]

The rest of your post makes some sort of sense. However, whether you actually realize it or not, this statement comes across as pretentious and self-righteous superiority.

Just because someone doesn't believe exactly as you do does not mean they "don't have a clue."

It's a shame to see someone with obvious intelligence resort to this.

Don't take it so personally, Cloudy, I wasn't talking about you, necessarily, although it does pain me that I hurt you.

I'm sure it comes across as pretentious, self-righteous and superior. I'm sure I have that character deficit. However, it gets tiring trying to cover everything with so much PC sugar around here, and to make sure no one could possibly be offended, that what gets delivered has no more effect than a carbohydrate binge. If you, or anyone else, wants to disregard my contribution because it doesn't taste good or go down easy than that's what you'll do.

You and I have been down this path before. I don't care if anyone believes as I do or not. And I don't think there are any right answers, per se. But I do want people to wake up to what their missing. And, we're all misisng something about our lives...we could all wake up to a greater degree. I try to challenge my own complacency as much as I can. I don't expect from others any more than I expect from myself. I find that when something bothers me a lot, it's usually because there's some truth in it. I find that the same thing is true of others...when I say something that bothers them it's because I've touched a nerve. Don't you get sick of this covert collusion we all dance aorund in..."I won't call you on your shit if you don't call me on mine!" Life's too short.

I love you (universally and paltonically, of course), Cloudy, and in some moments I can see through your self-righteous anger into your hurt heart. I hope you'll try and see through my pretentious arrogance into my fear of looking like a fool. We're both responsible for trying to do better, but we miss a lot when we decide to accept truth and love only when it comes in packages that don't upset our apple carts.

S&D

 

[Sex and Death]

The rest of your post makes some sort of sense. However, whether you actually realize it or not, this statement comes across as pretentious and self-righteous superiority.

Just because someone doesn't believe exactly as you do does not mean they "don't have a clue."

It's a shame to see someone with obvious intelligence resort to this.

In the spirit of good will, does this revision make a difference?

"It should also be said that the vast majority of us who live and practice anything, from maisntream monagamy to alternaitve BDSM, are asleep at the wheel and do not have a clue as to the deeper signifigance of any aspect of our lives, whether sexuality, relationships, or otherwise."

S&D

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

well I won't drag it too much further into an otherworldly realm... but the actual answer to all of these is... when one does something, we ALL do it. The appearance of it being separate... that one of them dropped a quarter in and the other laughed... is an illusion. Yes, it actually happened, we physically saw it happen... but on another level, there is no separation. So not only did Sam laugh--we all laughed. And not only did Amanda drop a quarter in--we all did. But talking about THAT any further would take us WELL off the path of D/S relationships...

Etoile will probably weigh in here soon and send us on our merry way in that direction...

I'll say otherworldly . . .

Sam died three weeks ago.
Amanda is still alive. She has fallen in love with a salesman from Paducah and they are getting married in a month.
You and I are still here, and we are talking about Sam, who is not here.
We are separate.

S&D's description of my metaphysical understanding is correct. Metaphysical assertions regarding matters beyond the realm of the senses would be an appropriate discussion for another thread. English Lady has one going devoted to one set of such assertions. The problem with these assertions is that you can say absolutely anything, none of which is disprovable, but that is not a reason to believe any of it. I can assert that there is "an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the universe, starting with a mountain, trees and a midget." You can't disprove it, but that is no reason to believe it.

How did we get here?

Damn, and I am sounding snippy. I don't mean to.

Etoile - Help!

While I'm here: Lizzie, I do not intend to be judgemental. I can see where this lifestyle can add value to people's lives by adding a kind of non-vanilla spice. I think that is a good thing, and am happy for them. I am judgemental about fuzzy thinking, though, and am interested in clarifying some important details about this lifestyle. I think that those involved in it can particularly benefit from having a clear understanding of exactly what they are and are not doing, and not having such can lead to a lot of unnecessary suffereing and pain.


Also, S&D's statement that most people "are asleep at the wheel and do not have a clue as to the deeper signifigance of any aspect of their lives" was somewhat elitist, but unless I misread it I don't think S&D said "unless you agree with me you don't have a clue." Someone who agrees with me about lots of things could still be sleepwalking through life. (We would disagree about the importance of not doing that.)

 

[cloudy]

Don't take it so personally, Cloudy, I wasn't talking about you, necessarily, although it does pain me that I hurt you.

I'm sure it comes across as pretentious, self-righteous and superior. I'm sure I have that character deficit. However, it gets tiring trying to cover everything with so much PC sugar around here, and to make sure no one could possibly be offended, that what gets delivered has no more effect than a carbohydrate binge. If you, or anyone else, wants to disregard my contribution because it doesn't taste good or go down easy than that's what you'll do.

You and I have been down this path before. I don't care if anyone believes as I do or not. And I don't think there are any right answers, per se. But I do want people to wake up to what their missing. And, we're all misisng something about our lives...we could all wake up to a greater degree. I try to challenge my own complacency as much as I can. I don't expect from others any more than I expect from myself. I find that when something bothers me a lot, it's usually because there's some truth in it. I find that the same thing is true of others...when I say something that bothers them it's because I've touched a nerve. Don't you get sick of this covert collusion we all dance aorund in..."I won't call you on your shit if you don't call me on mine!" Life's too short.

I love you, Cloudy, and in some moments I can see through your self-righteous anger into your hurt heart. I hope you'll try and see through my pretentious arrogance into my fear of looking like a fool. We're both repsonsible for trying to do better, but we miss a lot when we decide to accept truth and love only when it comes in packages that don't upset our apple carts.

S&D

I wasn't taking it personally. I was, however, calling you on what seemed to be an assumption that you, and you alone, possess some special knowledge that the rest of us need to "wake up" to.
edited to add: yes, the edit reads much better, thanks

I'm probably the least PC person around...I'm quite known for calling 'em as I see 'em. And, although I appreciate your concern, you didn't hurt me.

Sure, we're all missing something. It's called being human. We're all fallible; we all make mistakes. I'm quite aware of my failings.

I do take issue, though, with you saying some months ago that I hate myself, and therefore go from man to man to man, when you know absolutely diddly-squat about me or my situation. You have no idea how far you are from the truth.

 

[Guest]

While I'm here: Lizzie, I do not intend to be judgemental. I can see where this lifestyle can add value to people's lives by adding a kind of non-vanilla spice. I think that is a good thing, and am happy for them. I am judgemental about fuzzy thinking, though, and am interested in clarifying some important details about this lifestyle. I think that those involved in it can particularly benefit from having a clear understanding of exactly what they are and are not doing, and not having such can lead to a lot of unnecessary suffereing and pain.

Then ask specific questions about it and really listen to the answers.

And ALL relationships can benefit from clear understanding not just those in BDSM relationships. We are not a science experiement.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Okay, with the other issue tabled, I will now address mysticism. I tend to assume that MOST mystics are a little arrogant, elitist, and pretentious, including myself. We have a bad habit of expecting others to see us as gurus or swamis, when we are not necessarily such. Maybe we are to some extent, but only to a limited one. Just because I call myself the Hierophant doesn't mean that others should be expected to consider me such, for instance. That's up to them.

The whole nature of secret rites, initiation, mysticism, and the occult, while in itself harmless, helpful, and often significant, lend itself to a risk of hubris, a sense of being above and separate from others, a part of an elect or elite in a similar way that many fundamentalists foolishly believe themselves to be. It is a major reason that Constantine and the bishops stole the Mithraic rites and added them to the Church, to give the communicants that sense of mystery and being in closer touch with God.

The difference is that pagans, for instance, should know better and guard against such arrogance. I'm not saying that S and D is necessarily falling into that trap (though there are some disturbing warning signals that Cloudy noted), but rather he, like myself, needs to be cautious about such hubris sneaking up on him. Just a thought. And, no, I'm not seizing the chance to point a finger at someone else. Just calling it like I see it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Then ask specific questions about it and really listen to the answers.

And ALL relationships can benefit from clear understanding not just those in BDSM relationships. We are not a science experiement.

Fair enough, exept in certain way you are a "science experiment." The science would be psychology and/or sociology, and the "experiment" is the fact that this is a new thing. Traditional relationships have been around for a long, long time, have been well studied, and we all have views on them based on a lifetime of observation and learning. That does not apply to this kind of relationship.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

he, like myself, needs to be cautious about such hubris sneaking up on him. Just a thought. And, no, I'm not seizing the chance to point a finger at someone else. Just calling it like I see it.

I just remind myself with the quote at the bottom of my sig line... humbling words... (speaking of WWCD )

only the penitent man shall pass, eh?

 

[Guest]

Fair enough, exept in certain way you are a "science experiment." The science would be psychology and/or sociology, and the "experiment" is the fact that this is a new thing. Traditional relationships have been around for a long, long time, have been well studied, and we all have views on them based on a lifetime of observation and learning. That does not apply to this kind of relationship.

have been well studied that would be the point right there....
you don't think that BDSM has been around?
like this is a new thing?

*blinks*
I would have to disagree. There are reasons that I feel that it has not been as well studied as you put it but those reasons would spark an entirely different debate so I will not discuss them.

However, sex is sex is sex.... relationships are relationships etc....
just because something is not well studied does not mean that it did not exist.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Just remmeber, SK, the objectivist view that Roxanne wields with such passion and acumen is founded on the the fundamental assumption that reality is knowable solely throught the physical senses. And to the physical senses, the law of the universe is separation.

S&D

I forget

I can assert that there is "an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the universe, starting with a mountain, trees and a midget." You can't disprove it, but that is no reason to believe it... Damn, and I am sounding snippy...

You made me laugh! I have no doubt that anything outside of the realm of the logical, explainable and rational makes you uncomfortable... that's ok...

I forget that... My fault (one of many) is that I forget people don't see what I see, experience what I do... like Cloudy mentioned, not everyone sees it the same way, and none of it is "wrong."

I love your clear and rational arguments... they take my breath away with their clarity sometimes.

I also like fuzzy thinking... soft-focus, completely irrational stuff...

plenty of room in the world for both...

as for your question...
how did we get here? we always were *grin*

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I forget




You made me laugh! I have no doubt that anything outside of the realm of the logical, explainable and rational makes you uncomfortable... that's ok...

I forget that... My fault (one of many) is that I forget people don't see what I see, experience what I do... like Cloudy mentioned, not everyone sees it the same way, and none of it is "wrong."

I love your clear and rational arguments... they take my breath away with their clarity sometimes.

I also like fuzzy thinking... soft-focus, completely irrational stuff...

plenty of room in the world for both...

as for your question...
how did we get here? we always were *grin*

"anything outside of the realm of the logical, explainable and rational makes you uncomfortable"

Uncomfortable is not the word I would use. Spaghetti monsters make me laugh. Catholic intellectuals pondering matters related to "what is the good life" often impress me, and make me thoughtful. Islamicists make me sad and nervous. Mab's talmudic wisdoms make me happy and thoughtful. Charles Murray's ideas on the things that give life a transcendantal meaning exalt me (and make me sad to the extent that I fall short in them.) I accept that human life has a spiritual dimension. I am broadminded toward efforts to capture that dimension in terms that have mystical connotations, but can be interpreted otherwise.

But somehow I don't think these are exactly what you had in mind. (They should be, though, )

Honestly, "impatient" would be the correct word. I really don't want to be impolite, but would not be true to myself unless I at least said, spaghetti monsters have just as much epistemological validity, and "how do you know what you know" is a pretty darned serious matter.

 

[Sex and Death]

"anything outside of the realm of the logical, explainable and rational makes you uncomfortable"

Uncomfortable is not the word I would use. Spaghetti monsters make me laugh. Catholic intellectuals pondering matters related to "what is the good life" often impress me, and make me thoughtful. Islamicists make me sad and nervous. Mab's talmudic wisdoms make me happy and thoughtful. Charles Murray's ideas on the things that give life a transcendantal meaning exalt me (and make me sad to the extent that I fall short in them.) I accept that human life has a spiritual dimension. I am broadminded toward efforts to capture that dimension in terms that have mystical connotations, but can be interpreted otherwise.

But somehow I don't think these are exactly what you had in mind. (They should be, though, )

Honestly, "impatient" would be the correct word. I really don't want to be impolite, but would not be true to myself unless I at least said, spaghetti monsters have just as much epistemological validity, and "how do you know what you know" is a pretty darned serious matter.

Roxanne, your consistency is admirable.

However, epistomological validity rests on empirical proof only to the extent that empirical reality, and, in your case, material reality, is the primary assumption. Epistomological validity is a measure based on particular existential and ontological assumptions.

Given your assumption of the primacy of material reality, you are, of course, correct. Yet, because thought and its personal trainer, logic, states that logical conclusions are not infallible, logic itself dictates that your assumption of the primacy of material reality is fallible, therefore it must be concluded that your assumption of material reality is insufficient.

That said, the wildflower bouquet of joy I feel from you when I read about your romp through philosophical fields is enthralling, young lady! Wow! A cluster of Aquinas, a dash of Ibn al'Arabi, a canopy of Kaplans, a half a dozen Murrays...a glorious arrangement! More of that kind of joy, anytime! It matches your AV.

The spaghetti monster is still making me laugh, too.

S&D

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Roxanne, your consistency is admirable.

the wildflower bouquet of joy I feel from you when I read about your romp through philosophical fields is enthralling, young lady!

isn't it, though?

*enthusiasm*... that's the word...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, your consistency is admirable.

However, epistomological validity rests on empirical proof only to the extent that empirical reality, and, in your case, material reality, is the primary assumption. Epistomological validity is a measure based on particular existential and ontological assumptions.

Given your assumption of the primacy of material reality, you are, of course, correct. Yet, because thought and its personal trainer, logic, states that logical conclusions are not infallible, logic itself dictates that your assumption of the primacy of material reality is fallible, therefore it must be concluded that your assumption of material reality is insufficient.

That said, the wildflower bouquet of joy I feel from you when I read about your romp through philosophical fields is enthralling, young lady! Wow! A cluster of Aquinas, a dash of Ibn al'Arabi, a canopy of Kaplans, a half a dozen Murrays...a glorious arrangement! More of that kind of joy, anytime! It matches your AV.

The spaghetti monster is still making me laugh, too.

S&D

(Roxanne takes a deep breath, preparing to unload both rhetorical barrels into the faces of subjectivists, and then . . . reads this and plops back in the chair, speechless.)



Thank you S&D. Thank you Selena.



Speechless? Not-quite . . .


"Yet, because thought and its personal trainer, logic, states that logical conclusions are not infallible, logic itself dictates that your assumption of the primacy of material reality is fallible, therefore it must be concluded that your assumption of material reality is insufficient."

My assumption of the primacy of material reality could easily be blown into a billion pieces by one thing: E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

In the absense of such, there is no more reason to believe assertions regarding the existance of things outside the universe of the senses than there is to believe in the Great Spaghetti Monster.



(PS. Credit where credit is due: I did not concoct the Spaghetti Monster, and the complete schtick is even more hilarious than the little bits I have included here. Have you been touched by His noodly presence? More here.)