Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: inferior?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: inferior? Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: inferior? - 4/11/2017 12:24:01 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
I know what your comments were addressed to in all their simplicity. However, finding your dictionary drivel shallow and lacking in interest I prefaced my response with:

My comments were addressed to a much wider point and one I imagine we have all dealt with at some time: why am i different? How did it happen that i have a fetish for the power dynamic? Why is it that some have a fetish for shoes? Or, feet? Why are some same sex attracted and others are not? Why are some convinced their SELF identity does not match their biological identity? How did it come about that some do not have the perception to match their appearance? What are the ORIGINS of the development of this SELF that does not conform to the perceived Norms?

I can very well discuss some of the comments in your second reply but I am not sure you would be able to see over the top of your pomposity to comprehend the discourse. If you have the courage to apologize for your rudeness i will be happy to engage you in a conversation. Otherwise, I will happily remain on your ignore list. I can assure you being on your list will give me no pinch of trauma.



_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to ResidentSadist)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: inferior? - 4/11/2017 3:51:02 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Yes but my struggle is, even if a man commands an army, if he goes home and kneels to his wife who commands him, i find it difficult to respect him.

If that is your struggle you should not be a member of this forum or of the BDSM community because you are breaking the cardinal rule of Queerdom: we do not judge nor denigrate other's kinks. You are guilty of the most verboten behavior.

Your posts have often demonstrated an intolerant personality, one liner criticisms and snarky comments. If you cannot abide by the most sacrosanct courtesies of the community you ought consider going elsewhere to play. Commenting on a point of view is acceptable but commenting on a kink is the lowest form of participation. You owe Peon an apology for such fundamental rudeness. Or you owe us all an early exit.


Yes you're right.

I apologize to Peon for commenting on your kink. I'll try to be more open-minded in the future.


Fantastic, tamaka, happy to have you with us.


Thanks. : ) i need a lot of work... lol


I am betting you will be terrific.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: inferior? - 4/11/2017 4:15:18 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
Firstly, let me say that I seldom ever by-pass a Lady Pact post and say to myself, "Oh, I don't wish to read that. What can she possibly say that would enlighten me or entertain me?" Trust me, I mostly never miss reading your posts, and they seldom fail to enlighten me. So, thank you very much.

I did go off a lot on the vanilla relationship expectations and travails first because since the same primate brain is involved in both vanilla and in BDSM, there are only shades of differences. Sometimes big shades but there are so many similar patterns in behavior. The patterns of the shades may have different shapes depending on the immediate environment (a dance club vs, a bdsm club for example) or they may have different trigger words and dress codes. But, the basics, I think, are pretty much the same. The chemistry is the chemistry.

The first approach is important, yes, more so than most guys realize. The guys are crude or classy in their own fashion. The ladies are alerted to novelty and romance. So, you know pretty quickly if the guy is a keeper or a loser, but he may prank about without a clue. My personal experience is that women are very much interested in the projection of quiet and assured strength, no matter if the guy is sub or dom. Could you confirm that for me?

So, we agree that first approach matters. What I wish to point out is that in many cases over the long term there are strong similarities between the arcs of failing vanilla relationships and the arcs of failing D/s relationships, and that all comes back to neurochemistry, which is basic to all of us. Your experience may call hogwash on what I am saying. But why have LP and MP had a successful fifteen year marriage? Is it because you are unorthodox in your "expanded" family? Do couples who are willing to explore with variation, have a better chance at periodically replenishing the bond between them? Conventional matings die at a rate of 50% in our society. Is it because of boredom and for lack of recurring bonding juice? I suspect so.

quote:

Skeptical? I am and I'm not. When thinking of the other side of the slash, I do tend to think there are people with submissive personalities and those who accept the submissive role by choice. This is not to infer that I think one is better than the other. At the same time, if someone has to extol about how much of this or that they interpret themselves to be, they probably aren't.


I find this to be probably the most fascinating question about human nature. I have swung both ways over the nature vs. nurture binary. When I first began to explore the issue I was cocksure my personality was genetically determined. It was such a great excuse. Just like gays, being erotically submissive was not a choice. Now, I have big doubts and I give far more due to developmental environment. It is still not a choice. I did not choose this role in fantasy but it is what arouses me. I was not born submissive but neither did I make a decision, nor a series of decisions. I emerged a twisted butterfly . . . lol!! So, I have a submissive personality in my mating relationships. But not in my professional career. Where did that personality come from? Zounds!!!!!

quote:

This is the thing. Porn doesn't actually reinforce submission. A lot of it is just reinforcement of dick-centric kink. The majority of porn targets the male market. (Sorry, but studies show that's who is buying it, so it's mostly made to appeal to men.) To most women, submission isn't this constant thing about what gets a person's dick hard.

We differ here, and that's a good thing. The more I learn about the addictive chemistry of the brain the more assured I am that porn is an addiction.

Yes, men buy porn. But, who buys romance novels, LP? Here's a thought! A question, anyway. How are porn and bodice-rippers similar? Don't they each mimic the arousal curves that Masters and Johnson reported in their studies of genitalia? Male targeted porn is dick-centered because most men are quickly aroused and quickly quenched. Female targeted bodice-rippers (I am told) take much longer to reach arousal and then return again and again to the peak. Aren't the book marketers simply following our sexual curves?

quote:

I happen to think this is correct. Take a thing like sub (or top) frenzy. In some cases, it really is about chasing the high. So much of BDSM is about tricking the body and the brain to make this happen. We have no idea why some people become addicted and others don't.


Does it matter whether we are talking about male or female, sub or top, cross-dressers or other fetishes? I have been trying in my own mind to dismiss the possibility that wiitwd is in various forms just addictive behavior that we dress up as "life style." Having difficulty with that one. Actually, there is a lot of research and commentary pointing to childhood stress as an agent laying the groundwork for adult addictions. But, that may just be the flavor of this decade.

Thank you so much for the conversation, Lady Pact. It is so satisfying to be able to talk with a scene-knowledgeable person. Excuse me while I light a cigarette. No, no, only kidding.



_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: inferior? - 4/11/2017 4:47:46 PM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline
Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.

If I said that Walmart tee shirts were inferior to UnderArmour for sports, you would understand that inferior means less valued.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: inferior? - 4/11/2017 5:14:48 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.

If I said that Walmart tee shirts were inferior to UnderArmour for sports, you would understand that inferior means less valued.

Yes, Des, I would understand your use of the term in that sentence. But suppose i told you that the inferior alveolar artery goes through the mandibular canal to supply the lower teeth, would it then be proper to assert that the superior alveolar artery which supplies the upper teeth is of greater value?

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: inferior? - 4/11/2017 11:50:04 PM   
ResidentSadist


Posts: 12580
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: a mean old Daddy, but I like you - Joni Mitchell
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.

If I said that Walmart tee shirts were inferior to UnderArmour for sports, you would understand that inferior means less valued.

You have added your own interpretation to the literal definition of the word... literally it means "lower in rank, status, or quality" to choose or assume the "quality" definition about someone that is making reference to themselves in a world of BDSM relationships based on rank seems errant to me. Look at it from the opposite side of the coin... superior. He is my superior.

So it can go either way, but to presume it only means lower quality instead of lower status or lower rank is incorrect.

_____________________________

-=BDSM Book List=- Reading is Fundamental !!!
I give good thread.


(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: inferior? - 4/12/2017 6:09:01 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.

If I said that Walmart tee shirts were inferior to UnderArmour for sports, you would understand that inferior means less valued.

You have added your own interpretation to the literal definition of the word... literally it means "lower in rank, status, or quality" to choose or assume the "quality" definition about someone that is making reference to themselves in a world of BDSM relationships based on rank seems errant to me. Look at it from the opposite side of the coin... superior. He is my superior.

So it can go either way, but to presume it only means lower quality instead of lower status or lower rank is incorrect.

In medical terminology the words simply refer to location with respect to the brain and feet, without any suggestion of quality. I find that a comfortable analogy that crosses over to BDSM and is similar to your point. The superior has a "higher" position than the inferior. Attendant to that is who commands and who obeys but without judgment on who is smarter, better, kinder, whatever, etc.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to ResidentSadist)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: inferior? - 4/12/2017 7:35:28 AM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.


In medical terminology the words simply refer to location with respect to the brain and feet, without any suggestion of quality. I find that a comfortable analogy that crosses over to BDSM and is similar to your point. The superior has a "higher" position than the inferior. Attendant to that is who commands and who obeys but without judgment on who is smarter, better, kinder, whatever, etc.

I don't know if I placed the quoting correctly but I wanted to utilize the Des quote as it was a segue to RS and Vincent and I do agree with the idea that the term inferior is not necessarily a pejoritive.

I understand the Walmart thing she mentioned but this isn't Walmart and a lot of leather folk from my generation/geographical location would not view the term as a pejoritive but simply a part of ranking hierarchy and not less valued. Thats old school though and I haven't been bathing in the public leather vats for a while.

I'm not sure .. or maybe it has always been this way or maybe kicking the light electric with Michael for so long blinded me to the change but is it just me or is there general blending taking place between the normal and the macabre that warps them both?

I know I'm not explaining it well at all. I need coffee. How the fuck do you warp macabre? I dunno. I need a different word and can't think of one without a caffeine injection.



_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: inferior? - 4/12/2017 7:39:25 AM   
NoirMetal


Posts: 508
Joined: 3/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.


In medical terminology the words simply refer to location with respect to the brain and feet, without any suggestion of quality. I find that a comfortable analogy that crosses over to BDSM and is similar to your point. The superior has a "higher" position than the inferior. Attendant to that is who commands and who obeys but without judgment on who is smarter, better, kinder, whatever, etc.

I don't know if I placed the quoting correctly but I wanted to utilize the Des quote as it was a segue to RS and Vincent and I do agree with the idea that the term inferior is not necessarily a pejoritive.

I understand the Walmart thing she mentioned but this isn't Walmart and a lot of leather folk from my generation/geographical location would not view the term as a pejoritive but simply a part of ranking hierarchy and not less valued. Thats old school though and I haven't been bathing in the public leather vats for a while.

I'm not sure .. or maybe it has always been this way or maybe kicking the light electric with Michael for so long blinded me to the change but is it just me or is there general blending taking place between the normal and the macabre that warps them both?

I know I'm not explaining it well at all. I need coffee. How the fuck do you warp macabre? I dunno. I need a different word and can't think of one without a caffeine injection.



Mainstream culture is headed more and more our way. Fifty shades of crap is a prime example of this. And the "attack of the vanilla cheater sub" in places like this.

_____________________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQeNASx7ksM

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: inferior? - 4/12/2017 7:58:28 AM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.

If I said that Walmart tee shirts were inferior to UnderArmour for sports, you would understand that inferior means less valued.

You have added your own interpretation to the literal definition of the word... literally it means "lower in rank, status, or quality" to choose or assume the "quality" definition about someone that is making reference to themselves in a world of BDSM relationships based on rank seems errant to me. Look at it from the opposite side of the coin... superior. He is my superior.

So it can go either way, but to presume it only means lower quality instead of lower status or lower rank is incorrect.


No. Because conversations rarely include dictionary definitions. Instead we use words as they are commonly used. And dictionary definitions have a lag time of decades before being updated.

Superior is commonly understood to have two meanings, one for rankings and the other for quality. Although the meaning is swinging away from ranking. Most of the younger generation will not use superior for a boss, just supervisor.

Vincent's example is not even to be discussed because most people will never have heard of it. And if at a dentist convention, it's jargon only used by those in that industry.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to ResidentSadist)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: inferior? - 4/12/2017 12:02:36 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.

If I said that Walmart tee shirts were inferior to UnderArmour for sports, you would understand that inferior means less valued.

You have added your own interpretation to the literal definition of the word... literally it means "lower in rank, status, or quality" to choose or assume the "quality" definition about someone that is making reference to themselves in a world of BDSM relationships based on rank seems errant to me. Look at it from the opposite side of the coin... superior. He is my superior.

So it can go either way, but to presume it only means lower quality instead of lower status or lower rank is incorrect.


No. Because conversations rarely include dictionary definitions. Instead we use words as they are commonly used. And dictionary definitions have a lag time of decades before being updated.

Superior is commonly understood to have two meanings, one for rankings and the other for quality. Although the meaning is swinging away from ranking. Most of the younger generation will not use superior for a boss, just supervisor.

Vincent's example is not even to be discussed because most people will never have heard of it. And if at a dentist convention, it's jargon only used by those in that industry.



Firstly, I never contested RS's dictionary definitions of the words. My response was that the dictionary definitions were too trivial for what I was about. So, all this fuss about definitions leaves me indifferent. But I cannot resist playing the game when I see some one hold themselves out as the final arbiter of word meanings.

The English language as we use it is commonly too nuanced and too rich in all its forms, like a Pollard painting, to permit without objection, one person asserting that they have the unwavering truth.

The truth is language is our culture; it is vibrant and sweaty, and exciting, and nasty, and lyrical, and ever changing. I cannot imagine the audacity of one person proclaiming we must all adhere to her definitions as if she were Moses carrying stone tablets.

The definitions I gave are not limited to dentistry, Des. They are widely understood definitions in all life sciences including anatomy, pathology, evolution, taxonomy, and so on. They are commonly used with agreed definitions. They tell us location, location, location.

"Vincent's example is not to be discussed . . ." because Des has no clue about how wide spread the utilization of the terms.

Superior, inferior, posterior, anterior, lateral, distal, etc. are all terms used in forensic science and criminal law as well.

Perhaps you should not be so dismissive of things about which you have little knowledge, Des.


Secondly, the use of the terms in question as to rank, status, or quality really depends on the people having the conversation, which would exclude Des, unless she is some kind of omniscient BDSM goddess.

We do not use words as they are commonly used; we use words as they have emotional meaning for our relationships and associations.

The Superior may have a huge distaste for a doormat slave and would not under any circumstances engage with such a one. How would you know, Des?

On the other hand, the inferior may desperately require humiliation and degradation to function in that position, and may have found a superior who has the energy and fortitude to provide for that fetish. How would you know, Des?

Still again the superior may wish a slave of quality to reflect his/her judgment for quality artistry or quality reasoning. How would you know, Des?

The simple truth is, you have no way of knowing what are the pillow talk definitions of the trigger words, Des. There are endless nuances and ever changing dynamics between two people in a D/s relationship far beyond what can be captured by your laughable, limited, static definitions.

We just do not agree, you and I, Des. Not on this topic. Perhaps another topic at a later time. Fingers crossed.





_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: inferior? - 4/12/2017 1:06:16 PM   
UllrsIshtar


Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.

If I said that Walmart tee shirts were inferior to UnderArmour for sports, you would understand that inferior means less valued.

You have added your own interpretation to the literal definition of the word... literally it means "lower in rank, status, or quality" to choose or assume the "quality" definition about someone that is making reference to themselves in a world of BDSM relationships based on rank seems errant to me. Look at it from the opposite side of the coin... superior. He is my superior.

So it can go either way, but to presume it only means lower quality instead of lower status or lower rank is incorrect.


No. Because conversations rarely include dictionary definitions. Instead we use words as they are commonly used. And dictionary definitions have a lag time of decades before being updated.

Superior is commonly understood to have two meanings, one for rankings and the other for quality. Although the meaning is swinging away from ranking. Most of the younger generation will not use superior for a boss, just supervisor.


Indeed we use words as they are commonly used, which is why words have definitions. When a word has several different definitions, it's left to the speaker (and to some extend the listener) to make clear, by context, which definition is currently being used.

In my circles, it's commonly understood that a slave is the inferior of, but not inferior to, their Master.
There's not a person I commonly associate with who would blink an eye with me proclaiming that Tess is my inferior, or that she is the inferior of me or Zach.

Yet all of them would give me a questioning look if I were to state that she's inferior to me, and they'd be wondering why on Earth I would want to own a slave I didn't deem to be of sufficiently high quality to be proud off.

The difference in the two phrasings might seem trivial at first, but it isn't at all, once you consider that in English, using 'to' in this context denotes a comparison between two things therefore implying that one is better and one is worse, while using 'of' in this context denotes possession or a hierarchical ranking.

That employee is the inferior of his boss.
An off-the-rack suit is inferior to a bespoke suit.

Insisting that the nuanced difference between the two cannot be made clear, and that when using a prepositions which denotes ranking, the qualitative definition still is the one which applies, isn't a matter of English evolving towards no longer accepting an archaic definition, it's merely showing to have a lacking in understanding on how English grammar works.
In the "That employee is the inferior of this boss" sentence, the meaning cannot be a comparison in quality, because it would make the sentence grammatically incorrect. In order to make that sentence use the qualitative definition, the sentence would have to be changed to "That employee is inferior to this boss".



< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 4/12/2017 1:14:06 PM >


_____________________________

I can be your whore
I am the dirt you created
I am your sinner
And your whore
But let me tell you something baby
You love me for everything you hate me for

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: inferior? - 4/12/2017 5:25:38 PM   
Gunshow


Posts: 73
Joined: 10/15/2016
Status: offline
Ooh, great distinction Ishtar. That cleaves it pretty nicely.

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: inferior? - 4/25/2017 6:02:16 PM   
ResidentSadist


Posts: 12580
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: a mean old Daddy, but I like you - Joni Mitchell
Status: offline
Nice perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.

If I said that Walmart tee shirts were inferior to UnderArmour for sports, you would understand that inferior means less valued.

You have added your own interpretation to the literal definition of the word... literally it means "lower in rank, status, or quality" to choose or assume the "quality" definition about someone that is making reference to themselves in a world of BDSM relationships based on rank seems errant to me. Look at it from the opposite side of the coin... superior. He is my superior.

So it can go either way, but to presume it only means lower quality instead of lower status or lower rank is incorrect.


No. Because conversations rarely include dictionary definitions. Instead we use words as they are commonly used. And dictionary definitions have a lag time of decades before being updated.

Superior is commonly understood to have two meanings, one for rankings and the other for quality. Although the meaning is swinging away from ranking. Most of the younger generation will not use superior for a boss, just supervisor.


Indeed we use words as they are commonly used, which is why words have definitions. When a word has several different definitions, it's left to the speaker (and to some extend the listener) to make clear, by context, which definition is currently being used.

In my circles, it's commonly understood that a slave is the inferior of, but not inferior to, their Master.
There's not a person I commonly associate with who would blink an eye with me proclaiming that Tess is my inferior, or that she is the inferior of me or Zach.

Yet all of them would give me a questioning look if I were to state that she's inferior to me, and they'd be wondering why on Earth I would want to own a slave I didn't deem to be of sufficiently high quality to be proud off.

The difference in the two phrasings might seem trivial at first, but it isn't at all, once you consider that in English, using 'to' in this context denotes a comparison between two things therefore implying that one is better and one is worse, while using 'of' in this context denotes possession or a hierarchical ranking.

That employee is the inferior of his boss.
An off-the-rack suit is inferior to a bespoke suit.

Insisting that the nuanced difference between the two cannot be made clear, and that when using a prepositions which denotes ranking, the qualitative definition still is the one which applies, isn't a matter of English evolving towards no longer accepting an archaic definition, it's merely showing to have a lacking in understanding on how English grammar works.
In the "That employee is the inferior of this boss" sentence, the meaning cannot be a comparison in quality, because it would make the sentence grammatically incorrect. In order to make that sentence use the qualitative definition, the sentence would have to be changed to "That employee is inferior to this boss".





_____________________________

-=BDSM Book List=- Reading is Fundamental !!!
I give good thread.


(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: inferior? - 4/26/2017 6:14:55 AM   
male4allseasons


Posts: 11
Joined: 4/12/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

fine answer needles x One cannot own or control broken chaos, nor non broken chaos would be the only thing i have to that..further arguments can be made there is an allure in certain bits of absolute infinity...and further arguments can be made all things whole must be broken for it excites me - you have a reasonable handle on what I am


How is the Glaswegian Faggot Fraternity nowadays? Teresa May or then again she may not, but having called a snap election across the pond it may yet backfire upon her and the tories and their billionaire pay and puppet masters. The jocks will not get Independence this time around either,

(in reply to WickedsDesire)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: inferior? - 4/26/2017 9:02:20 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.


Unless you're talking about the french computer terminal, the subordinateur...

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: inferior? - 4/26/2017 9:12:28 AM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline
Well on Star Trek, a subordinate can release the captain of his duties if he is found incompetent.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: inferior? - 4/26/2017 11:54:05 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: male4allseasons


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

fine answer needles x One cannot own or control broken chaos, nor non broken chaos would be the only thing i have to that..further arguments can be made there is an allure in certain bits of absolute infinity...and further arguments can be made all things whole must be broken for it excites me - you have a reasonable handle on what I am


How is the Glaswegian Faggot Fraternity nowadays? Teresa May or then again she may not, but having called a snap election across the pond it may yet backfire upon her and the tories and their billionaire pay and puppet masters. The jocks will not get Independence this time around either,


Somewhat tangential to the topic under discussion here, I feel, male4allseasons.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to male4allseasons)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: inferior? - 4/26/2017 11:57:10 AM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: male4allseasons


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

fine answer needles x One cannot own or control broken chaos, nor non broken chaos would be the only thing i have to that..further arguments can be made there is an allure in certain bits of absolute infinity...and further arguments can be made all things whole must be broken for it excites me - you have a reasonable handle on what I am


How is the Glaswegian Faggot Fraternity nowadays? Teresa May or then again she may not, but having called a snap election across the pond it may yet backfire upon her and the tories and their billionaire pay and puppet masters. The jocks will not get Independence this time around either,


Somewhat tangential to the topic under discussion here, I feel, male4allseasons.


I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: inferior? - 4/26/2017 12:14:08 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist


ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Subordinate means lower rank.
Inferior means of less value.


quote:


Indeed we use words as they are commonly used, which is why words have definitions. When a word has several different definitions, it's left to the speaker (and to some extend the listener) to make clear, by context, which definition is currently being used.

In my circles, it's commonly understood that a slave is the inferior of, but not inferior to, their Master.
There's not a person I commonly associate with who would blink an eye with me proclaiming that Tess is my inferior, or that she is the inferior of me or Zach.

Yet all of them would give me a questioning look if I were to state that she's inferior to me, and they'd be wondering why on Earth I would want to own a slave I didn't deem to be of sufficiently high quality to be proud off.

The difference in the two phrasings might seem trivial at first, but it isn't at all, once you consider that in English, using 'to' in this context denotes a comparison between two things therefore implying that one is better and one is worse, while using 'of' in this context denotes possession or a hierarchical ranking.



I agree you are spot on, UllrsIshtar. . . and dictionaries, if not useless, should be taken as an "iffy" source for meanings of words in group communications. However, I wish to point out your qualifying phrase "In my circles" which puts an even less value on the use of the dictionary. Your circles, while bigger than mine no doubt, are limited and do not include I would guess teenage circles, which differ themselves from one to the other, and such circles attuned to rap music and others attuned to country/western culture and the different shades and nuances of meaning in use for sex-descriptive terms in those various groups when seated as the same singular audience. This what I was trying to get at when I wrote earlier of the difficulty of identifying the normalized group frame of reference. We can no longer count on Ozzie and Harriet and their kids.

In small group sessions of sexual information I should think the skilled counselor would have little or less difficulty in parsing out the variety of norms. In the public schools however I was faced with about 150 students daily (five classes a day) of a wide multicultural and multi-ethnic array and I am not so happy about the effectiveness of dealing with such intimate information under those circumstances. In retrospect, many years later, I have doubts about the efficacy of the public school model of teaching human sexuality. I am not clear at all about your experiences (Nookie and LP) and the success you have had. I just hope it is better than the facilities available to me. I am guessing here but i should think the most successful models would be community centered small group exchanges, where the normalized group would be quite evident. Just my two cents and sincere wishes for success, ladies.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 4/26/2017 12:15:13 PM >


_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to UllrsIshtar)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: inferior? Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.199