RE: What are words for?

RE: What are words for? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

xoxi -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:50:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi Strangely enough, I think that I do have a valid argument, and I don't feel you disproved it. Not listening or refusing to accept logic will cause these kinds of thoughts. Yes indeed, which is why I went to my previous posts and quoted and bolded them. Reading comprehension for the new millennium and all. Ironically, I'm being far more 'logical' than you are in the sense that I don't take assumptions as fact, and don't argue that similar=same. Just remember, as ridiculous and stupid as you think I am being...I think that you're the one who is. And really preachy and rude, on top of it!

MadRabbit -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:51:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit If two people agree that a safeword is to be used only in an emergency or a critical situation, then saying "Aardvark" is simply a communication that there is an emergency or critical situation. In that context, it's no more of a command then saying "I have a ruptured spleen!" Yes but "Aardvark" also means "by the agreement we made before we started playing you must assess this information." If a top ignores "I have a ruptured spleen" he's a dickface. If a top ignores "Aardvark" he's not only a dickface, but he's also dishonored his word. Now, IF you are saying this in the context that a prior agreement was made that "If I tell you I am injured you will give me medical care" then I will say the two are equally a command. I'm guessing that's the angle you're coming from here. It wasn't something I specified though...nor was it something you specified...so I assumed that it wasn't what we were discussing. So are you saying that people can successfully use safewords without them being commands or being controlling of the domianant? Just so we are clear here and for the record.... I don't want anymore "misinterruptations" by people to come back and haunt you...

subtee -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:52:31 PM)
FR to arguers: please think about this: "A sign is the basic unit of language (a given language at a given time). Every language is a complete system of signs. Parole (the speech of an individual) is an external manifestation of language." --Ferdinand de Saussure ("Father" of the linguistics of modernity, and, actually, subsequent literary theory)

xoxi -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:53:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania In my case ignoring "red" is like ignoring " I have a ruptured spleen"... Then I would say they're both commands of "help me" [;)] Once again, YMMV. My view only. My perception. Not enforcing it, not demanding you agree with it. Just saying it's valid.

xoxi -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:54:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit If two people agree that a safeword is to be used only in an emergency or a critical situation, then saying "Aardvark" is simply a communication that there is an emergency or critical situation. In that context, it's no more of a command then saying "I have a ruptured spleen!" Yes but "Aardvark" also means "by the agreement we made before we started playing you must assess this information." If a top ignores "I have a ruptured spleen" he's a dickface. If a top ignores "Aardvark" he's not only a dickface, but he's also dishonored his word. Now, IF you are saying this in the context that a prior agreement was made that "If I tell you I am injured you will give me medical care" then I will say the two are equally a command. I'm guessing that's the angle you're coming from here. It wasn't something I specified though...nor was it something you specified...so I assumed that it wasn't what we were discussing. So are you saying that people can successfully use safewords without them being commands or being controlling of the domianant? Just so we are clear here and for the record.... I don't want anymore "misinterruptations" by people to come back and haunt you... No, I am saying that a command can be given even if it's not in the form of a safeword.

MadRabbit -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:55:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi Yes indeed, which is why I went to my previous posts and quoted and bolded them. Reading comprehension for the new millennium and all. Yeah, babe, its crazy how reading comprehension can be affected by blatant contradictions. Correction : You went back and highlighted the half of your statements that communicate this as being only in the scope of your world. quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi Ironically, I'm being far more 'logical' than you are in the sense that I don't take assumptions as fact, and don't argue that similar=same. You are more than welcome to go back and quote and bold examples of this. I'm too lazy. quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi Just remember, as ridiculous and stupid as you think I am being...I think that you're the one who is. And really preachy and rude, on top of it! Hey...that bolded part...thats an assumption.

KnightofMists -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:56:06 PM)
why is it I keep hearing a train in the distance... should I safeword... do you think it will stop?

Rover -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit If logically you are going to conclude that one kind of information is a command because of the consequences of ignoring that information, then any kind of information that comes loaded with consequences for ignorance is a command. And that really is what this entire thread boils down to. With the exception that folks like Merc want to limit its relevance strictly to scening, and not beyond (ie: the "it's all my own powers of observation" concept, indefensible as it is when limited to a scene, becomes extraordinarily silly when applied to the rest of life). As if control were an issue only during scenes and not throughout a power exchange relationship. John

juliaoceania -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania In my case ignoring "red" is like ignoring " I have a ruptured spleen"... Then I would say they're both commands of "help me" [;)] Once again, YMMV. My view only. My perception. Not enforcing it, not demanding you agree with it. Just saying it's valid. It is your view of my experience... which, excuse me, isn't valid at all... TYVM

kyraofMists -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi A safeword carries with it an obligation. This is not a universal truth. He will sometimes choose to do a play that he calls "Playing to Red". However, if we say "red" he is under no obligation to stop, nor does "red" communicate stop. All it communicates is "I do not want anymore". Below is an excerpt of a post he made some time ago that describes this play: quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists I play to Red with my girls on occassion. However, playing to red doesn't empower them to stop play... it only communicates that they don't want another. They understand clearly that only I end play when I say play is done. It is not uncommon that I will push them to Red and give a few more afterward they communicate their desire. Is this edge play.. NO it's nothing more than a training techinque that I use with my girls. I am sure some individuals see this approach has showing the girls their place. In actual fact, it is not the focus of who has the authority. It is actually a approach to teach them that they can always push themselves further than their own minds limits them to. They call Red... and still they take a few more.. and play another time and they take more than the last time. In time you end up where alandra is... you just keep pushing, you will not quit. The important thing to realize is that this approach transfer's complete responsibility to the Top as well as a builds alot of trust between Top and Bottom. The Bottom gets into that mindset of not quiting... and the it falls on the Top to say when enough it enough. The mindset that develops because of this approach can be then transferred into other situation that are not simply play. Being able to convey to the Bottom that they learned we limit ourselves and breaking those limits can be very freeing. They come to challanges with new energy and determination... they end up pushing themselves to greater heights as result. Knight's Kyra

xoxi -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:57:23 PM)
An assumption based on you comparing my argument to saying the moon is made of green cheese and insisting it is not valid for anyone but me [8D]

juliaoceania -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:57:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists why is it I keep hearing a train in the distance... should I safeword... do you think it will stop? A few pages ago someone complained that they were going to say "red" after reading this thread.....I say they are trying to dominate this trainwreck by safewording out of it[:D]

KnightofMists -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:58:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Have to agree with the Crazy Rabbit.... He never called xoxi ridiculus and stupid.... damn... that train is getting closer pssst Crazy Rabbit... would it be an assumption if I said that I think KoM thinks that xoxi is ridiculus and stupid? I don't like to make assumptions... so... Just asking your expert opinion since I respect it so much

xoxi -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 6:59:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania In my case ignoring "red" is like ignoring " I have a ruptured spleen"... Then I would say they're both commands of "help me" [;)] Once again, YMMV. My view only. My perception. Not enforcing it, not demanding you agree with it. Just saying it's valid. It is your view of my experience... which, excuse me, isn't valid at all... TYVM Oh please don't get into the "making any sort of judgement of anything ever is wrong" thing. If you got robbed at gunpoint I would say "oh my god how horrible!" - just because it happened to you doesn't mean I can't think what I want of it.

juliaoceania -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:01:11 PM)
That is not what I am saying at all, I am saying I do not recognize your opinion about my dynamic as valid... just like you rantred "F" words at madrabbit a few pages ago for presumably the same offense... I could give a rat's ass what you judge... my judgments and my Daddy's are the only ones that are valid in my universe

sweetnurseBBW -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi A safeword carries with it an obligation. This is not a universal truth. He will sometimes choose to do a play that he calls "Playing to Red". However, if we say "red" he is under no obligation to stop, nor does "red" communicate stop. All it communicates is "I do not want anymore". Below is an excerpt of a post he made some time ago that describes this play: Knight's Kyra That is what red means to us also at times. I agree with what Kyra says about it not being a universal truth. Depends on what we are doing and what is involved.

MadRabbit -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:03:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit If two people agree that a safeword is to be used only in an emergency or a critical situation, then saying "Aardvark" is simply a communication that there is an emergency or critical situation. In that context, it's no more of a command then saying "I have a ruptured spleen!" Yes but "Aardvark" also means "by the agreement we made before we started playing you must assess this information." If a top ignores "I have a ruptured spleen" he's a dickface. If a top ignores "Aardvark" he's not only a dickface, but he's also dishonored his word. Now, IF you are saying this in the context that a prior agreement was made that "If I tell you I am injured you will give me medical care" then I will say the two are equally a command. I'm guessing that's the angle you're coming from here. It wasn't something I specified though...nor was it something you specified...so I assumed that it wasn't what we were discussing. So are you saying that people can successfully use safewords without them being commands or being controlling of the domianant? Just so we are clear here and for the record.... I don't want anymore "misinterruptations" by people to come back and haunt you... No, I am saying that a command can be given even if it's not in the form of a safeword. Wow! WOW! WOW! I can't even come up with an argument anymore because you have twisted yourself up so much that I have no idea what your argument is anymore.

dcnovice -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:04:00 PM)
Red.

xoxi -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:04:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi A safeword carries with it an obligation. This is not a universal truth. He will sometimes choose to do a play that he calls "Playing to Red". However, if we say "red" he is under no obligation to stop, nor does "red" communicate stop. All it communicates is "I do not want anymore". Below is an excerpt of a post he made some time ago that describes this play: And that is an entirely different situation from the one I was presenting. I was referring to safewords that a Top is obligated to listen to, not ones he can decide to ignore or not. In my mind that is a signal, or code word, not a safeword...and before I get accused of saying there is only one true (or "twue" which every time I see it really makes me want to smash the person's teeth in so they really do talk as retarded as they type) way to do things, I'm not. Your method of using safewords is as valid as anyone else's. I just specified quite a few times that I was referring to safewords that must be followed according to the paradigm of the relationship. If it doesn't apply, let it fly.

juliaoceania -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:05:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Red. *red*

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875