NationStates Jolt Archive

Hah, interesting you still say "D/s" Old habits die hard huh? ;)

I've never been in such a relationship and that's how I would have put it, I guess it comes from having a little knowledge of the subculture and a willingness to use their lingo when discussing them.

To my knowledge, most 'normal' relationships could easily be tracked for dom/sub characteristics, anyway.

Just - not everyone discusses them, or formalises them.. or likes leashes.

Ah, the great and infinite variety of human perception, desire and experience. I was such a fool for forgetting about it.

No.

In fact, it's almost textbook... there's quite a lot of people that live VERY 'dominant' lives in their everyday world (work, etc) who just can't wait to get home and be dominated by their partner.

At least enough for a righteous dance floor exposition about it:

HOW THE HEART BEHAVES (http://www.amazon.com/Are-You-Okay-Was-Not/dp/B000008M4K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1201449767&sr=1-1) -- David & Don Was

She ran him over like a bus, but he seemed to fell no pain
Just laid there smilin' like a flower in the rain
She shrunk his ego down so small that he didn't even know his name
She knew no other way to love, that's how she played the game

But when he got her in a darkened room
in the still of the afternoon
he became her entire world and she cried like a little girl

The line between pleasure and pain
could not be measured by means of the brain
Mere reason alone can never explain how the heart behaves

She wrapped her claws around him like a crab around a rock
It was "baby" this and "baby" that, she never let him talk
He couldn't see his shadow, she was always in the light
And if he moved she arched her back, and dug her claws in tight

But when he got her in a darkened room
in the still of the afternoon
he became her entire world and she cried like a little girl

The line between pleasure and pain
could not be measured by means of the brain
Mere reason alone can never explain how the heart behaves

And they said that he'd break
How much more could he take?
And just when they thought that he'd kill her, she gave him a kiss
It never missed

[ridiculous keyboard solo]

And one day she ran away with a guy she hardly knew
She left a note that said I'm bored with me and you

He found another girl himself, a high-heel hurricane
There was no calm in side her eye, just a promise of more of the same

The line between pleasure and pain
could not be measured by means of the brain
Mere reason alone can never explain how the heart behaves

[mad dance beat edits and a scorching trumpet solo to the end]

D/s relationships are not 'different' to 'other relationships'... except that they make explicit what is implicit. Almost every relationship has some domination and some submission in it.

Maybe the BIG difference is - with a full on d/s relationship - you KNOW going in, what you are going to get.

Interestingly enough, it also applies to those of us who try to purge our relatonships of the unconscious dominant and submissive roles that come with typical gender models. People who are trying to fight the unconscious models we grew up with to have a truly equal relationship also have to be explicit, not only with the other person, but with themselves as well.

That is one thing that fetishists can teach people with more vanilla tastes: the importance of honest discussions about sex and other aspects of relationships.

Driver of bus can decide whom will he take and whom not. Passangers are in no position to object against his decision (directly there, I suppose they could go to boss of driver).

Driver of bus can decide whom will he take and whom not. Passangers are in no position to object against his decision (directly there, I suppose they could go to boss of driver).

Passengers are most certainly in the position to object, and that's what the OP couple did. Are we reading the same thread? "Go to boss" is precisely what they did.

Drivers would be better off if they left the editorializing to the break room after their shift. Unless there's a clear and present danger, nuisance or other obvious problem with a passenger (blatant intoxication and/or belligerence, for example), he should let them on. Bus drivers are not profilers.

I think it is right to deny people like that bus rides, not because of the way they dress or act, but because these perfectly healthy people are receiving benefits for sitting on their arses and not working. Why should the tax payer have to pay money to support wasters like this?

Passengers are most certainly in the position to object, and that's what the OP couple did. Are we reading the same thread? "Go to boss" is precisely what they did.

Drivers would be better off if they left the editorializing to the break room after their shift. Unless there's a clear and present danger, nuisance or other obvious problem with a passenger (blatant intoxication and/or belligerence, for example), he should let them on. Bus drivers are not profilers.

So that means that they really are NOT in position to object directly there, are they? I just explained my vote in the poll because I do not think that if driver decides than potential passangers could object directly.

That is very true. It's not necessarily a relationship *I'd* like to enter (since it's clear Maltby doesn't do *anything*, because not only does she not do housework, she most likely won't actually get a job; and I'd rather have, for the lack of better words, "proper" equality), but it is a very interesting social satire that should be appreciated. From afar anyway. :D
I couldn't maintain it for more than a few minutes, myself. I make snide remarks about being jealous of Ms. Maltby's little racket, but to be honest, I detest fussiness or being fussed over, and role-play bores me to the point of rage. :) I would much rather be able to hire professional servants, than have to date one. ;)

Driver of bus can decide whom will he take and whom not. Passangers are in no position to object against his decision (directly there, I suppose they could go to boss of driver).
No. That is not the law nor the standard operating procedure for bus services in the UK (or the US, btw). We already covered this point and established that fact. A bus driver is only allowed to make decisions that follow the law and the policies of his employer, and if he violates either, the passengers are certainly in a position to object against it.

So that means that they really are NOT in position to object directly there, are they? I just explained my vote in the poll because I do not think that if driver decides than potential passangers could object directly.

Fundamental flaw in your argument: Of course they can object directly there. Whether or not their objections will get them onto the bus or not is an entirely different question, but there is nothing at all to stop them from voicing their objections. And if the driver is in the wrong, then their objections are justified. So both practically and ethically, they are in a position to object.

As if it being a law would protect your "Goth" citizens. Have they reached something directly there (objective explanation or apology)? Being not in position to object does not mean they CANNOT object, but it will not have any kind of effect, because it is simply so (not law). Person in power (driver) does not care about their opinion.

As if it being a law would protect your "Goth" citizens. Have they reached something directly there (objective explanation or apology) ?
Who are you talking to and what are you responding to, please?

EDIT: OK, I'll assume you were responding to my first post addressed to you and not the second one:

1) So what? As I said in my second post to you, them being in a position to object and their objection having any effect are two different things. Having your objection fail is not the same as not being in a position to object.

2) Why wouldn't it be worth a try? You never know, it might work. I have seen it happen and had it happen to me, that someone comes at you with a position you think is unreasonable, you object to it, ask for an explanation, and lo and behold, sometimes you get one. Sometimes the explanation is a good one and you accept the other person's position and give up. Other times, the explanation shows how to resolve the problem and you do so and go forward from there. Other times the explanation is bullshit, and you have more evidence against the person to bring to their boss. So regardless of whether the objection would get your desired result or not, it is still worth voicing it, just in case.

So it means that law enables your citizens to have objections directly, but person in power can simply ignore them without any reason?

Interestingly enough, it also applies to those of us who try to purge our relatonships of the unconscious dominant and submissive roles that come with typical gender models. People who are trying to fight the unconscious models we grew up with to have a truly equal relationship also have to be explicit, not only with the other person, but with themselves as well.

That is one thing that fetishists can teach people with more vanilla tastes: the importance of honest discussions about sex and other aspects of relationships.

You seem to be getting it, but I feel like pointing out anyway - just to avoid confusion - D/s lifestyles are not (just) about a fetish. It's possible to be in a D/s relationship that has no (discernable) sex.

So it means that law enables your citizens to have objections directly, but person in power can simply ignore them without any reason?
Just like he committed the offending behavior without any reason in the first place. The initial voicing of the objection to the offender is just the first step in the objection process. If it does not give satisfaction, you then take it to the next person above the offender in the bus company, in order to show him the limits of his so-called "power." And if necessary, you keep going on up the line until you get what you want.

But sometimes voicing the objection does get positive results the first time, so it is always worth trying -- especially as this goth couple were most certainly in a position to voice their objection.

what ridgedly? I'm looking for clarification and am questioning.

so you're now answering for Muravyets also? wow, do you think others can't respond to their posts by themselves?

and now we know Neo Arts answer to ignorance. it's to insult others. nice going there.

Wow, you're behaving like a total ass.

You admittedly know jack shit about D/s and supposedly want to learn. But you don't actually want to hear from people who have experienced D/s?

I call bullshit on that 'desire to learn' claim.

You seem to be getting it, but I feel like pointing out anyway - just to avoid confusion - D/s lifestyles are not (just) about a fetish. It's possible to be in a D/s relationship that has no (discernable) sex.

Yeah. I realised that after I wrote it, but I couldn't think of a better way to phrase what I was trying to communicate, and the idea gets across regardless of what you pointed out.

But I am glad that someone pointed it out.

So that means that they really are NOT in position to object directly there, are they? I just explained my vote in the poll because I do not think that if driver decides than potential passangers could object directly.

I understand, but given the nature of any public transportation, the driver/conductor is the only representative of the transit authority present. The fact that they can't object directly is built into the system. This goth couple did the only thing ANY couple could do in their situation -- object in the only way available to them.

Wow, you're behaving like a total ass. ok, I'll bite. how am I acting like an ass?

You admittedly know jack shit about D/s and supposedly want to learn. But you don't actually want to hear from people who have experienced D/s?please quote where I discounted or discredited anything anyone has posted about their Experiences or knowledge about D/S?

I will admit I posted about people answering for others, but I never discounted nor disreguarded anything Neo Art or Grave_N_Idle said.

ok, I'll bite. how am I acting like an ass?

please quote where I discounted or discredited anything anyone has posted about their Experiences or knowledge about D/S?

I will admit I posted about people answering for others, but I never discounted nor disreguarded anything Neo Art or Grave_N_Idle said.

Excuse me, but I think you have done nothing but disregard what they have told you. They have told you repeatedly that D/s relationships are not about inequality but you have neither accepted nor shown any evidence against their assertions. Instead you have just repeated your own opinion of D/s relationships. You have said repeatedly that you don't understand D/s relationship, and then you have repeatedly ignored the information offered by those who have experience of it.

the reason why I am asking Neesika, is that many here didn't read my posts and assumed I was focusing on one thing when in truth I was talking about another.

here is the post that started this tirade.
as a Side note, if she considers herself his pet, wouldn't that mean that she's not his equal? 'He' being the holder of the chain that is.

After all, according to the article, he chooses what she wears, he feeds her and he makes her bed, he... waitaminute... maybe he's actually her servant and he only thinks he's her owner...

pretty slick way to get a butler without paying him... :D

note, I'm focusing on the Role they are playing of Pet and Master. the Mask if you will, not the person behind the mask.

the replies were...
I'v been involved in D/S relationships, of various kinds... and have had a lot of friends in the scene.

Aside from the sub-culture of 'Gor' (which pretty much IS fantasy material for those who like to denigrate women), there is no pretense that the subbie (pet, little one, slave) is actually unequal to the dom (lord, master, whatever).

How you chose to regulate the internal relationships... who you chose to have what authority... doesn't change whether or not your partners are equal. It's also worth remembering, a dominant doesn't 'take' authority - it is given.

I'm pretty sure you get this, actually - I'm basically repeating it for those who might not.

Of course not, for one very good reason. He only holds the chain as long as she lets him.

focused more on the person behind the mask, not the roles they play.

here I reply.
True, which is why I'm focusing only on those two (the involved and not including anyone from the outside.)

now realize that in mostly all D-S releationships, it's formed when both parters trust one another to enter such a relationship.

however, even tho the Dominate one doesn't take the position (being that it's given and thus not argued,) it does mean that subserviance is assumed, voluntarily, by the other. that does indicate an inequality in the relationship. a voluntary inequality, but inequality all the same.

the only equality they would hold then is the ability to end the D-S relationship while the inequality in the relationship itself still exists while the relationship goes on.

I understand. :cool:
Bolding mine
I'm focusing on the roles. the "Positions" they take/assume/are given and not when the roles end by one of them ending it.

but as I asked. "WHILE she consideres to be HIS pet, the roles are not equal." meaning once she takes the chain from his hand, she no longer considers herself his pet and therefor now his equal.again, a focus on the role. not the person. the mask, not the actor/actress. by taking the chain out of his hands, she first has to end the role that she is playing.

Subservience and dominance have nothing to do with equality.

It's like saying that a husband and wife can't be 'equal' in their relationship, because man and women are different, and thus unequal... or white and black partners can't be equal, because THEY are different.

Someone in a relationship may be the dominant... may have the (appearance of) authority... but the positions are still equal. How you attribute the responsibility (or whatever) doesn't affect that.
here GnI is still focusing on the people. however I do understand what he's saying

Fall Of Empires reply (http://forums4.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13401792&postcount=425)
another one who focuses on the person and not the roles.

GnI then focuses on the roles with his replies. and I then look for clarification.

When I have been in D/S relationships, sometimes I'm the dominant, sometimes the submissive. Sometimes both.. sometimes both on the same day.

Being dominant means you are in the role that is gifted the authority, being the submissive means you are in the role that is gifted with a lack of authority.

No matter which side of the equation, I've never been in a situation where the understanding was anything BUT that we were still equal.

We had different roles - that's how we were 'different'... but roles don't equate to lack of equality.
the problem I see with this is that GnI's experience is that the roles are temporary. interchangeable. yet Graves and Miss Maltby's roles don't seem temporary but more of a lifestyle/more permament role.

I touch upon that here.
and in this case, it doesn't sound like they switch off or even remove themselves from the roles.

and the inequality exists in these roles. that's what I was talking about. While one is in the role of dominance, the other the role of servant, there cannot be equality within the role.

equal while in the roles? or the fact that both partners agree when one calls it off, the other agrees? which isn't equality, but an agreement to terminate the role-playing.

I agree if those participating do switch around. the Dominant taking the subservant role from time to time. but if the roles are not swapped, how can both say equal since the roles requires inequality?At this point, GnI and I are talking about the Roles. not the people, but the roles (or it seemed that way to me.)

then Neo Art pops in talking about the person, and not the role.
To argue in this sense would render the concept of "equality" to be meaningless. Equality in a relationship does not mean "every party puts in the same". Equality does not mean "each party pays half the bills, does half the chores, and does half the work".

If you try to argue that this is your definition of equality then you will find that there are no relationships that are inherently "equal" in this regard. Equality in a relationship means one thing simply. Both parties have equal bargaining power. Both partners have the ability to choose. Both parties have the ability to negotiate. Both parties have the ability to set their terms and neither party has any more power over the other.

D/s is not about inequality. It never is. Every partner is free to choose. Every partner is free to say no. Every partner is free to accept. Every partner is free to set terms that he, or she, does not wish to accept. Every party is free to negotiate for things in exchange for others.

"you do what I say" isn't unequal, provided the other partner is free, at any time, to say "no, go fuck off".

And once again, it's not that she does, it's that she can that makes their positions equal, albeit different.

So here I'm asking GnI about the fact that she allows him to make choices for her, what to wear, etc... all within the role she assumed for herself.
and one common point.
she gave up her right (for lack of a better word) to choose for HERSELF.

Now this is assuming that their relationship is not "between the hours of 6 pm to 6 am" but until either one calls it off for good.



Somehow it doesn't sound like she's 'not acting like an animal' at any time around him. (this is assuming she has a job somewhere.)
still focusing on the role she assumed as 'Pet' and not the person herself. Stressing that this is under the assumption that this isn't a 'temporary' thing but a long lasting role they are assuming.

then Neo Art pops in with
Did she somehow undergo some brain surgery or other method that renders her incapable of making her own choices? Is this man some marvel comicsesq psychic that is capable of entering her mind and forcing her to do things against her will? Is she infected with some space parasite that leaves her unable to resist suggestion?

No?

Then bullshit she gave up her right to choose for herself. She is completely free to choose for herself. Choosing to do what someone else asks of you is still a choice. To pretend that she can not choose for herself is nonsense, and competely fails to understand the concept of "choice".
Still focusing on the person and not the role they both assumed.

so wanting to focus only on what GnI and I were focusing on, I posted...
Here's a questiopn Grave...
How long (average) are the roles assumed? several hours a day, or several days a week, or longer?
mainly because I was interested to see what length of time GnI witnessed/experienced.

so far, where am I disreguarding what they said Muravyets?

wanting GnI's input... but getting Neo Arts instead.
That depends, entirely, on the relationship. It's also entirely irrelevant to the question of whether they are equal or not.

Every submissive follows the orders of a dominant because he/she chooses to. That's it. End of story. A consensual, informed d/s relationship, no matter how unequal it looks from the outside, is fundamentally equal, every party does what she or he choses to do.

Same as every other relationship.
remember, he's still focusing on the person behind the role. not the roles they are assuming.

and he posted that while I posted this to Neo Art to say I was focusing on the roles, not the person playing the role.
yes, she chose to give them up by assuming the subservant role.

of course, if you've been reading my posts, you'll see that I accepted the fact that she can end the D/S relationship and I also said that the inequality existed WHILE THEY WERE IN THEIR ROLES and that the inequality is only within those two and not involving anyone else. in other words, while she view herself as his pet, she is still equal to the bus driver who is NOT participating in their relationship.

Did I say he forced the role on her? no.
Did I say neither one of them couldn't end the relationship? no.
Am I focusing on the positions of the roles themselves? Yes.
Am I arguing anything else besides the roles both of them assumed onto themselves? no.

then Muravyets pops in with this gem.
The bolded phrase is what invalidates your argument by revealing it to be entirely subjective. There are few ideas more subjective than the concept of "normal" in close interpersonal relationships. The mere fact that you categorize other kinds of relationships as "normal" implies that theirs is abnormal, and this allows you speak negatively about it. Yet their kind of relationship is a norm for millions of people in the world -- not just fetishists, but people living in many different kinds of cultures and societies.
Now note this. who's concept of "normal" is Muravyets is using? (hint, can you show me where I called their relationship 'Abnormal' or weird or anything?)
what negative thing have I said about their relationship have I said other than questioning the percived inequalty of roles on my part? (I can wait for you to prove it Muravyets.)

Remember my recent post to Neo (http://forums4.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13402019&postcount=469)... Muravyets defined the term "Normal Marriage and Partnership" to mean what? and what did Muravyets accuse me of being? ;)

so now we have Neo Arts post. sure I made snide comments about him answering for GnI. but I'll ignore that conversation since it wasn't part of the main points.
And once again, bullshit. Though, you've already shown yourself to have a deep and profound misunderstanding about how these relationships work.

Actually, it seems you have a deep and profound misunderstanding about how relationships work period.
please click on the green arrow and notice what he edited out of the quote and what he chose to focus on.

now I respond, trying to get Neo Art to focus on the roles of Dominate and Subjective.
is she in the role of pet?
is she in the subservant role?
was this role forced upon her?
does the subservant role come with choices other than that of ending the role? or does the subservant role come with the choices the dominate allows the subservant to make (not including the choice to end the role)?

and then there is this gem from Neo Art.
Is asking questions and comparing it wrong? No. But that's not what you're doing. You on the other hand begin with certain assumptions, then ridgedly adhere to those assumptions. You refuse to acknowledge, understand, absorb or appreciate the answers given by people who do know about the subject. Which does create the impression that you're not trying to learn at all. You're creating your own bias and misconception based on ignorance than trying to justify that bias and misconception by pretending to ask questions, then arguing with every explanation you're given.

Which..yeah, that's pretty wrong. Bigoted too.
except Neo Art is arguing apples, I'm arguing recipies using apples. yet I am the one refusing to acknowledge, understand, absorb and appreciate the answers to things I'm not asking about? :rolleyes:

Follow the thread, I'm still focusing on the roles of pet and pet owner (for lack of a better term) that Graves and Miss Maltby (sp) have assumed, not themselves personally, but the roles and the specifics of the roles.

and now we come to Muryvets assumptions. I will put my answers to keep the flow going.

I chided someone else for making assumptions, now I have to point out the same weakness with you.carefull with assumptions, for it's easy to make them yourself.

1) You assume she gave up any rights at all. You do not know that. You only assume it because of what "leash" and "pet" mean to you, which is in obvious conflict to what she says it means to her. But she has said nothing in the articles that in any way suggests she has given up her right to choose. Quite the opposite, in fact. Not choosing to exercise a right at any given moment is not the same as giving up the right. You have no basis on which to assert that she has given up the right to choose anything for herself, ever, as opposed to simply choosing to cede authority to make some decisions to her boyfriend at this time. here Muravetes is assuming that I am basing my views on "leash" and "Pet" (a word SHE is reported to use to describe herself mind you.) and notice, untill Muravyets comes in, the words Neo Art, GnI and I were using were not "RIGHTS", but "Choices." another look into Muravyets thinking processes.
my reply.
now you assume that of me. wrong. i'm only focusing on what those to described of their relationship where they said
Mr Graves said: "She's very animal like, she's kind of like a pet, as well as a partner."

He said he "does everything" for his girlfriend, including laying out clothes for her, feeding her and cleaning their house.

He said: "You wouldn't expect your cat or dog to do the washing up or cleaning round the house."
so with that last line, "You wouldn't expect your cat or dog to do the washing up or cleaning round the house." can we draw the conclusion that she is in almost every sense of the word, a pet? a pet doesn't choose what to wear, as he stated in the second line of the quote. he feeds her so we can assume he cooks, but I am not assuming she eats out of a dog dish. nor do I think that she's not using the bathroom and is also washing herself. yet he is describing living with a pet.

a pet doesn't choose what to watch on the television, a pet doesn't choose what to eat for dinner yet his comments does lead one to believe that such choices are not hers because she is in the role of pet.

this is NOT to say she cannot step out of the role, nor that she can end it.

so I showed that my "assumptions" on their relationship is not from the picture, nor from the leash, but his discription of their relationship and I once more reiterate that I am focusing on the role, not the person.

2) You assume you know the nature of their relationship. You assume that, based on one photo, and some bus stop stories, you can make comments about what their life at home is like, and that it is something different from what they say it is. Come on, JuNii. Really now. The only information you have about what they do at home is their own words, and that does not support your argument. I am not basing it off of the photo nor of the bus stop stories, but HIS comments about their relationship as stated in both the daily mail as well as the BBC article.

and as for their home life?Mr Graves said: "She's very animal like, she's kind of like a pet, as well as a partner."

He said he "does everything" for his girlfriend, including laying out clothes for her, feeding her and cleaning their house.

He said: "You wouldn't expect your cat or dog to do the washing up or cleaning round the house."
"I am a pet, I generally act animal like and I lead a really easy life," she said.

"I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."so I'm baising my guesses on their homelife baised on what they said.again I show that the description of their life is baised off of what BOTH of them said.

3) Finally, you assume she has a job somewhere -- but where in the articles was that indicated? she's actually a student according to the dailymail. The music technology student had this defence of her lifestyle.
And what relevance would it have except to indicate that her relationship with her boyfriend is as consensual and of her own choosing as she says it is? no relavence except I can guess that she doesn't "act like an animal" at her work (or in this case class). proving that 1) it's voluntary and 2) she can end the relationship.
If she can turn the pet act on and off at will, then pray tell us how precisely it is that she has given up her right to choose how to live? I'm not arguing her choosing how to live.
I was questioning and trying to clarify to me, Grave_N_Idle pointed out that they were equal while in the role of D-S. and here Muravyets shows that she too is talking person and not roles. so another person arguing about apples while I'm focusing on recipies using apples.
In fact, you have no idea whether she turns the act on and off. You have no idea how "literal" the act is. You have no idea whether they keep it up without a break in the privacy of their own home. You don't know a damned thing about it, except what they themselves say -- all of which contradicts any notion that she is unequal, in a D/S relationship are the Role of Dominate equal to the role of subservant? or is one role actually lower than the other? (this does NOT touch upon the ability to end the relationship only the roles they assume.) so again I point out that I am focusing on the roles, and not of the people.
mistreated, disrespected, lacking self-respect, less than human, etc, etc, etc.
and where did *I* ever claim that? or are you ASSUMING things.

Nice Huh? Muravyets accuses me of making assumptions yet while I back up my view with what is in the article, Muravyets response is...
I'm not going to respond point for point because all of those points were already covered, and none of your examples pulled from the articles contain enough information to justify the things you have been saying -- including the things you tried to deny saying, just because I did not use your exact wording. If I were to get deeper into each and every detail with you on this, it would quickly devolve into the kind of endless loop of "yes you did/no I didn't" that I have had way too much of lately.

Here is the bottom line:

You say you're just trying to understand these folks.

I read post after post in which you impose meanings on their lifestyle, describe them increasingly negatively, and reject all explanations of what they are doing, even after you specifically asked for those explanations.

I then also compare what you say about their lives, to what they say about their lives.

When I put these things together, I conclude that actions speak louder than words. It is my conclusion, based solely on what I have read in this thread, that you are expressing prejudicial opinions about these people's lifestyle, that you are not actually seeking information about it (or you would accept the information that has been given to you), and that you seem rather intent on putting them down, over and over.

Furthermore, I choose to decide that they probably know more about their lives than you do. So I will take everything they said at its face value (acknowledging large gaps in my understanding because they really didn't say all that much), and I will ignore your cherry-picked quotes that you claim support your assertions about their lives. Ms. Maltby says she is fine and happy with her lifestyle. In the face of that, nothing you say about her means anything, nor is it anything but your own opinion based on your own likes and dislikes as well as your own imaginings.

You have repeated your negative views of them many times, yet this is my opinion of them and of your argument. I do not think you have much chance of convincing me that you are not just blowing smoke to express your own prejudices, so you may as well stop trying to argue it with me. This post contains all the answer you are going to get, unless your argument goes through some profound changes.
and notice, Muravyets is also arguing the person, while I am focusing on the roles those people assumed. watch Muravyets try to backpeddal now.

now Neo Art finally focuses (somewhat) on the roles.
One is a person, the other is the position. "the dominant" is the person in the relationship who assumes the role of the dominant. You first asked if "the dominant and the submissive were equal" then you asked:

Of course the ROLE of the dominate is not equal to the ROLE of the subservant, in the same way that the role of a doctor is not equal to the role of an accountant. They're different things.

However the person who is the dominant is, in any healthy relationship, equal to the person who is the submissive. The roles are not "equal" in the sense that they're different things. But the people are equal.

and for that I thank him. but by this time, I'm so fustrated with everyone coming on assuming I'm arguing one thing but really the fact was until this Post, they were arguing something different. No where did I say the People were not equal, no where did I say Miss Malby had no rights, and no where did I say she couldn't break from her role.

yet that is what Muravyets (and to some degree, Neo Art and GnI and mostly everyone else) were arguing.

the Role does not mean the person playing/assuming that role. they are two different things which is why I was focusing on the role and not the person.

however, it seems some got what I was arguing about, RomeW, and Poliwanacraca.

and Muravyets, please show me where I ignored the information given.

So Neeskia, you following this particular thread so far? GnI, Neo Art, RomeW, and Poliwanacraca all got to the subject of what I was focused on (the Roles they assumed) and my question was somewhat answered. There was an area I wanted to take this which was not a judgemental call on anyone's lifestyle but more of a Psychological nature... maybe I'll pick it up later.

but remember, I'm focusing on the roles they played, not the people themselves.

A couple of points I have to make (again):


note, I'm focusing on the Role they are playing of Pet and Master. the Mask if you will, not the person behind the mask.


The role and the person are not intrinsically separate. This appears to be ahlf of the problem here - you see them as being disconnected. I am usually a dom, maybe because I am a fairly dominant person. I have been a sub because that is in me too. In sex, I often prefer situations that render me submissive, but not to the exception of dominance.

So... I am a dom and a sub. I 'play' a dom and a sub? Are the role and the person different?

The extent might be different.


...again, a focus on the role. not the person. the mask, not the actor/actress. by taking the chain out of his hands, she first has to end the role that she is playing.


The chain isn't the relationship, or the role. It is an accessory to the relationship. It is a mark of how she lets him 'own' her. Taking the chain out of his hands wouldn't be affected by, or affect the role or the person - it would simply be a renegotiation of terms... maybe the mark of the end of (that phase of?) the relationship.

I'm not sure... I think you are somehow seeing it as one person 'playing the part' of submission... I don't think that's realistic for most relationships. The submissive has their needs met by actually submitting, not by pretending to.


the problem I see with this is that GnI's experience is that the roles are temporary. interchangeable. yet Graves and Miss Maltby's roles don't seem temporary but more of a lifestyle/more permament role.


I nowhere suggested that the roles were being defined as some exclusive (inclusive?) definition. I've been in relationships where I was ONLY dominant (although never, thus far, ONLY submissive). During such a relationship, my role was neither temporary nor interchangable. If some of those relationships were still ongoing, as they were, it would still typify my 'lifestyle' or 'more permanent role'.

ALL of our experiences are temporary...

What I've been trying to do, is show you, from my own experience, what it can be like in the (a?) D/s lifestyle. This has been in specific response to some of your assumptions... like the 'inequality' one.

If I have been in both roles (sometimes, in the same relationship... sometimes, in the same day), then there can't be a fundamental inequality... or else I would sometimes not equal myself...?


(hint, can you show me where I called their relationship 'Abnormal' or weird or anything?)


You contrasted the relationship with 'normal'. For there to be a contrast, you must be stating that it is somehow opposed to 'normal'.


As a matter of interest - you might want to (if you haven't already) watch the Maggie Gyllenhaal film "The Secretary". See if you can track it down at your local video store.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274812/

It's not perfect, and it's by no means a complete exposition of the whole subject.. but it might give you some food for thought. Plus - it's just a good movie.

the reason why I am asking Neesika, is that many here didn't read my posts and assumed I was focusing on one thing when in truth I was talking about another.

<snip JuNii's reposting of pretty nearly the entire thread so far>

Yes, yes, I know this is what you have been saying that you have been saying, over and over, JuNii. What you have either not been getting or not been acknowledging is that I have been disputing the truth of your claims that this is what you were focussing on. I have not been misunderstanding you. I have understood you and thought you were not being straightforward. There is a difference. Whether you want to talk about roles or people, I do not care. I happen to agree with GnI that the two are not separable (not the way you want to separate them), but that is immaterial to my response to your argument. I am attacking the subjectivity of your argument on the basis of what I see as its underlying, unquestioned prejudices. Regardless of whether you think this or that about whichever aspect of D/s lifestyles, your argument when applied to the particular story of the OP topic becomes irrelevant.

A couple of points I have to make (again):

The role and the person are not intrinsically separate. This appears to be ahlf of the problem here - you see them as being disconnected. I am usually a dom, maybe because I am a fairly dominant person. I have been a sub because that is in me too. In sex, I often prefer situations that render me submissive, but not to the exception of dominance.

So... I am a dom and a sub. I 'play' a dom and a sub? Are the role and the person different?

The extent might be different. don't get me wrong, I understood that, and with the 'switching back and forth', psychologically, you're maintaining a sort of 'balance' to keep you from getting stuck in one role. hence why I asked you about how long did you particpate, or even witness the role.

The chain isn't the relationship, or the role. It is an accessory to the relationship. It is a mark of how she lets him 'own' her. Taking the chain out of his hands wouldn't be affected by, or affect the role or the person - it would simply be a renegotiation of terms... maybe the mark of the end of (that phase of?) the relationship. I agree with that, I used that term to signify when one wants to end the role and also because neo said "He only holds the chain as long as she lets him." and it just stuck with me.

I'm not sure... I think you are somehow seeing it as one person 'playing the part' of submission... I don't think that's realistic for most relationships. The submissive has their needs met by actually submitting, not by pretending to. interesting.

I nowhere suggested that the roles were being defined as some exclusive (inclusive?) definition. I've been in relationships where I was ONLY dominant (although never, thus far, ONLY submissive). During such a relationship, my role was neither temporary nor interchangable. If some of those relationships were still ongoing, as they were, it would still typify my 'lifestyle' or 'more permanent role'.

ALL of our experiences are temporary...

What I've been trying to do, is show you, from my own experience, what it can be like in the (a?) D/s lifestyle. This has been in specific response to some of your assumptions... like the 'inequality' one.

If I have been in both roles (sometimes, in the same relationship... sometimes, in the same day), then there can't be a fundamental inequality... or else I would sometimes not equal myself...? true, and i've never disagreed that you, GnI, are always equal to your partner, however I was exploring the role you play and positing that they arn't alway equal in the sense of the relationship between roles. I use the word 'role' to differenciate between the person and the part they are playing (always have). GnI the Dominate is not equal to GnI the Submissive since you mentioned that the submissive actually submits to the dominate and not just 'pretends to'. In fact, have you ever seen anyone in the role of submissive, assume the dominate position while they were still submissive?

As a matter of interest - you might want to (if you haven't already) watch the Maggie Gyllenhaal film "The Secretary". See if you can track it down at your local video store.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274812/

It's not perfect, and it's by no means a complete exposition of the whole subject.. but it might give you some food for thought. Plus - it's just a good movie. I'll go check it out.

the reason why I was persuing the role aspect GnI, is that you hear tales of people being 'locked' into a role-type (especially actors/actresses) Jim Carrey actually needed psychological help when he played "The Grinch". Julia Roberts had issues after playing Tinkerbell in 'Hook', there have been reports/rumors of Heath Ledger having problems during and after filming "The Dark Knight" where he protrayed the Joker, and these are roles one assumes for couple hours for several days.

Under circumstances like yours and others, you switch off or switch roles, thus keeping the participants from being locked in any particular role. (tho I wouldn't mind continuing this with Poli since it sounded like (s)he once participated in a role 24/7 or knew someone who did).

However , if one choose to always be the submissive, to always submit to the other on a long time basis (months or years w/o a significant break) would they not become their roles they assumed to the point where breaking out of the role wouldn't even come to them, in other words, would a person playing say... a slave, 24/7/52, would that person in truth start thinking of themselves as a slave and as such, not 'break out'?

don't get me wrong, I understood that, and with the 'switching back and forth', psychologically, you're maintaining a sort of 'balance' to keep you from getting stuck in one role. hence why I asked you about how long did you particpate, or even witness the role.


No, I'm not maintaining a balance... it's just that sometimes I'm more submissive than a partner, sometimes more dominant. Sometimes - even though it's with one partner - I can be one or the other.


GnI the Dominate is not equal to GnI the Submissive since you mentioned that the submissive actually submits to the dominate and not just 'pretends to'. In fact, have you ever seen anyone in the role of submissive, assume the dominate position while they were still submissive?


Of course - If my 'subbie' couldn't dominate me (at all) then I couldn't be submissive during sex with a (generally) submissive partner - which I am sometimes.

I think you're making too much of an artifact of it.

Most people (perhaps) wouldn't think of it in these terms - but you may have encountered oral sex in different positions... example: if I lay my partner on her back, and give her oral pleasure - there is actually a form of submission on her behalf, and dominance on my own behalf. On the other hand, if I give her oral pleasure, but she is across my face, I am submissive to her, and she is dominant - even though the actual intimate act is unaffected by the positioning.

Most people explore some degree of submission and dominance, especially in their sex lives. They just don't necessarilly completely identify what they are doing/thinking.

I am a dominant (although I can be submissive). That's not a role I play - I am dominant, and I receive gratification (not necessarily sexual - it extends beyond that) from being dominant. Similarly, a submissive partner receives something from being submissive to me.

We wouldn't 'get that' if we were pretending the 'roles'. And - because we are each getting from the other that which we want/need equitably, we are equals.


Under circumstances like yours and others, you switch off or switch roles, thus keeping the participants from being locked in any particular role. (tho I wouldn't mind continuing this with Poli since it sounded like (s)he once participated in a role 24/7 or knew someone who did).


No - I've been entirely non 'switch' in some relationships.


However , if one choose to always be the submissive, to always submit to the other on a long time basis (months or years w/o a significant break) would they not become their roles they assumed to the point where breaking out of the role wouldn't even come to them, in other words, would a person playing say... a slave, 24/7/52, would that person in truth start thinking of themselves as a slave and as such, not 'break out'?

Why would someone 'try to break out' of their 'role'? I never try to break out of being 'a guy' (although I might not be 'a guy' the same way the 'guy next door' does it). Again - I think your idea of 'roles' is confusing the issue for you. It's not something you are 'acting'... even when I (a dominant) am being submissive, I'm not 'acting' - I'm just exploring part of a submissive nature that lies even within the dom. As it would, vice versa.

Like Poli said, not everyone can be very convincing in either position, of course... but I think we all have SOME tendencies either way, we just slip more naturally into one or the other, usually.

He is so wrong. So it was a gothic couple. they should fire him and the gothic couple should sue him.

Here's the thing - you can't separate the role from the person the way you're trying to here. I don't "play" a submissive - I am a submissive, in the same sense that I am a woman - or a liberal, a singer, a bookworm, a geek

That's hot *nods*

Under circumstances like yours and others, you switch off or switch roles, thus keeping the participants from being locked in any particular role. (tho I wouldn't mind continuing this with Poli since it sounded like (s)he once participated in a role 24/7 or knew someone who did).

However , if one choose to always be the submissive, to always submit to the other on a long time basis (months or years w/o a significant break) would they not become their roles they assumed to the point where breaking out of the role wouldn't even come to them, in other words, would a person playing say... a slave, 24/7/52, would that person in truth start thinking of themselves as a slave and as such, not 'break out'?

Here's the thing - you can't separate the role from the person the way you're trying to here. I don't "play" a submissive - I am a submissive, in the same sense that I am a woman - or a liberal, a singer, a bookworm, a geek, or any of the other qualities that define me. Why would I want to "break out" of any of those? I didn't "become my role," because it's not a role in that sense. I can (and eventually did) "break out" of the specific relationship, but that didn't make me cease to be a submissive; it just made me cease to have anyone to whom I wished to submit.

To answer your question, while living in that 24/7 relationship, I certainly did think of myself as a slave - sorta. An important caveat to repeat, since many in this thread have misunderstood this, is that I was not just a slave. I was my master's slave, and no one else's. I gave him control of me of my free will, and I most certainly didn't allow that of anyone else. Being a sub doesn't - or certainly shouldn't - involve any lessening of one's dignity, self-respect, or humanity, and when anyone other than my master dared to speak to me as an inferior, I would give them one heck of a piece of my entirely-equal-and-worthy-of-respect mind - while still quite definitely thinking of myself as my master's slave.

(Basically, submission and dominance are sexual orientations just like hetero- and homosexuality. Some people are, by nature, one way or the other, some like a bit of both, and some have no interest in anything of the sort. Unfortunately, just as with gender preferences, people with different tastes often tend to look at you and say, "How could anyone like doing THAT? It must be evil!")

Left wing but not liberal. Quite the opposite in fact, you're an authortarian, no?

No, you really should be. She has like 3 bat'leths and 2 super genius daughters.


Your owner was Jocabia, wasn't it?

I love that she tells you it wasn't degrading and you automatically think of me. How highly you must think of me.

On-topic - If it was a safety issue, I see no problem with him denying them access. However, I have little tolerance for the morality police.

One thing I've noticed about the thread is the comments and 'concerns' about the D/s lifestyle seem to be directed to the submissive role. It's almost like 'it's okay' to be into D/s as long as you are a Dom. I am curious why people seem to think it's okay to pass judgement on one role- heaven forbid it be a female in that role. Why is that? Why is submission such a four letter word?

Wait, wait, wait.

Pot Pie is hyphenated now?

One thing I've noticed about the thread is the comments and 'concerns' about the D/s lifestyle seem to be directed to the submissive role. It's almost like 'it's okay' to be into D/s as long as you are a Dom. I am curious why people seem to think it's okay to pass judgement on one role- heaven forbid it be a female in that role. Why is that? Why is submission such a four letter word?

Questioning or criticising a Dom is completely against the rules. Now go fix me a pot-pie, bitch. :)

Is that the way you talk to your mistress? That's it, I'm locking you in your cage. Don't even bother asking when you can come out.