RE: Am I being unreasonable?

RE: Am I being unreasonable? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

NihilusZero -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:10:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Yeah I am such a crap submissive I have never told someone I wouldnt murder someone for them as a limit, Christ I put myself in such a vulnerable position if I wanted to keep my trueness card, thanks for the heads up, I will certainly add it to my list in future If you cannot uphold a non-confrontational debate demeanor in the conversation because you think it's too "stupid", perhaps it'd be better to recuse yourself now? Did you read #3 at all or were you just looking for something to be snarky about?

daintydimples -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:10:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero And people are welcome to be prudes if it makes them happy. I would hope, though, that such a self-realization is coupled with an understanding that certain relationship dynamics do not meld well with being a prude. NZ, your posts do make me chuckle; it's the blunt raw honesty. The OP had the option to go to the bathroom, lock the door, and obey her dominant. How that could be construed as endangering the children she was babysitting, I have no idea. People go behind locked doors to use the bathroom facilities on a regular basis. The issue is the nature of what she was being asked to do. The rest of it is an attmept to muddy the waters (just my opinion),

NihilusZero -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:15:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daintydimples NZ, your posts do make me chuckle; it's the blunt raw honesty. The OP had the option to go to the bathroom, lock the door, and obey her dominant. How that could be construed as endangering the children she was babysitting, I have no idea. People go behind locked doors to use the bathroom facilities on a regular basis. The issue is the nature of what she was being asked to do. The rest of it is an attmept to muddy the waters (just my opinion), Thank you. It begs to be said that I'm not giving any points out based on the OP's morality or castigating her for having it. She is welcome to whatever moral compass will float her boat. My main concern is with her disobedience in a dynamic she's labeled as one that would (seemingly) expect obedience, the disrespectful demeanor of "telling" her D-type what she will and won't do (rather than asking) and the further disrespect of parading the issue out here in order to garner support against her D-type. It's evident that her moral code supersedes her trust in his judgment. I'm only arguing for a spotlight to be cast upon that fact and for adequate steps to be taken based on that realization.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:16:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Yeah I am such a crap submissive I have never told someone I wouldnt murder someone for them as a limit, Christ I put myself in such a vulnerable position if I wanted to keep my trueness card, thanks for the heads up, I will certainly add it to my list in future If you cannot uphold a non-confrontational debate demeanor in the conversation because you think it's too "stupid", perhaps it'd be better to recuse yourself now? Did you read #3 at all or were you just looking for something to be snarky about? Well I have held many a none confrontational debate, indeed some with you NZ, but I just get the feeling you are being obtuse for the sake of it. There is little point in taking someone seriously when all you are doing is banging your head against a brick wall. I did read point three yes. But your continual claim that you need to discuss these things as limits seems a little ridiculous when applied to real life. Would I tell someone that I wont kill someone for them? Or that I won't be killed? Or to use Apoc's example injected with heroin? No I wouldnt because my assumption would be that I would never be asked something of that nature. I also agree with Apoc that its about compatibility, this guy has a different moral base and that is not great. Of course it is easy to submit to someone who you completely agree with and you know will only make reasonable requests of you, but if we are talking about TPE that is the only way it works (I dont really feel like a TPE debate again though) And as to bowing out. I believe that sarcasm is as useful a tool as melodramatic examples.

Apocalypso -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:20:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero If you cannot uphold a non-confrontational debate How can debate ever be truly non-confrontational when it's a clash of ideas?

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:21:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero If you cannot uphold a non-confrontational debate How can debate ever be truly non-confrontational when it's a clash of ideas? Dammit, can I say that instead of what I said.

beargonewild -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:23:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero My main concern is with her disobedience in a dynamic she's labeled as one that would (seemingly) expect obedience, the disrespectful demeanor of "telling" her D-type what she will and won't do (rather than asking) and the further disrespect of parading the issue out here in order to garner support against her D-type. It's evident that her moral code supersedes her trust in his judgment. I'm only arguing for a spotlight to be cast upon that fact and for adequate steps to be taken based on that realization. Which leads me to ask this: In order to have a more accurate/authentic D/s based relationship, the s type person would need to place most if not all their focus in a more complete obedience to their D type thereby avoiding an issue of the s type's morality to supercede the dynamics of a dominant/submission based relationship?

lronitulstahp -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:23:48 AM)
quote: You DID put a spin on it and you assumed Reading something and getting a different meaning than that which may be implied(not yet confirmed...i've worked in a hospital, doesn't mean i give expert's opinions on brain surgeries) isn't spin. Kindly try not to assume anything about my thought process there, barelynangel. i don't do the long drawn out back and forth snarkfests that some seem all to happy to engage in here. i apologized because i don't like to make snap judgements, that's the kind of person i am. People that know me can vouch for that... But don't mistake the fact that i apologized on that one point to mean i'm the type of person to let someone get at me and use me as a target of some sort. That's not my game. As i said, you don't know me. So you don't know my type or people "like" me. Case closed.

NihilusZero -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Well I have held many a none confrontational debate, indeed some with you NZ, but I just get the feeling you are being obtuse for the sake of it. You're not the first. [:D] I'm not. When I debate , it's because I'm genuinely trying to inspect even the most minute details of the things we think and why we think them. quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally There is little point in taking someone seriously when all you are doing is banging your head against a brick wall. I did read point three yes. But your continual claim that you need to discuss these things as limits seems a little ridiculous when applied to real life. That's why I included number 3: to take the basic human process of judgment of character into consideration. Obviously, you have chosen partners in your past that weren't so brain-wonky that they asked you to kill someone for them. Other aspects of potential "wonkiness" are a total gray area. For instance, I (though having not seen it myself) have heard of a profile or thread of a slave who cut off a digit in honor of hir D-type. Some people's limits are genuinely farther on the "I don't believe it!" scale than others. quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Would I tell someone that I wont kill someone for them? Or that I won't be killed? Or to use Apoc's example injected with heroin? No I wouldnt because my assumption would be that I would never be asked something of that nature. You've never read Romeo and Juliet? You wouldn't tell someone you want to spend the rest of your life with that you'd take a bullet for them? Yes, I realize these (and other more examples I refrained from using) will cause you to want to pull out the "stupid" sign again. But, the point is that most everything can be situational based on how we look at it. quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally I also agree with Apoc that its about compatibility, this guy has a different moral base and that is not great. I completely agreed and continue to agree with this. It's a reinforcement of #3. quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Of course it is easy to submit to someone who you completely agree with and you know will only make reasonable requests of you, but if we are talking about TPE that is the only way it works (I dont really feel like a TPE debate again though) And as to bowing out. I believe that sarcasm is as useful a tool as melodramatic examples. Fair enough. [8D] (And so is tongue-sticking, so nyah! [;)])

NihilusZero -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:29:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero If you cannot uphold a non-confrontational debate How can debate ever be truly non-confrontational when it's a clash of ideas? You are using Bonetti's defense against me, ah?

NihilusZero -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:32:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild Which leads me to ask this: In order to have a more accurate/authentic D/s based relationship, the s type person would need to place most if not all their focus in a more complete obedience to their D type thereby avoiding an issue of the s type's morality to supercede the dynamics of a dominant/submission based relationship? Precisely. It is one's own morality (or really anything one puts overt emotional investment) that creates a divide between the judgment xhe supposedly trusts and the irreverence of deeming it unacceptable at a given moment.

NihilusZero -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:34:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero If you cannot uphold a non-confrontational debate How can debate ever be truly non-confrontational when it's a clash of ideas? Dammit, can I say that instead of what I said. I still think you're pretty darn cool. I think he's pretty darn cool too. Particularly if the cutesy new sigs are any indication of certain things... [;)][image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s2.gif[/image]

bamabbwsub -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:36:18 AM)
quote: It's evident that her moral code supersedes her trust in his judgment. And is it ever possible for a Dom to make a gasp mistake in judgment? Or is he/she so superhuman that the sub/slave can't possibly question that judgment, ever? I do agree with NZ's assertion that the OP shouldn't have "told" her Dom that she wouldn't. Rather, IMO, she should have told him that she didn't feel comfortable doing as he asked and explained why. If he continued to persist, then she would need to evaluate whether she was choosing to disobey because she didn't trust his judgment, or if she was choosing to disobey just because she didn't want to comply. Regardless, the OP will have consequences of some sort -- perhaps she and her Dom aren't compatible, perhaps she isn't ready to be a slave, etc.

barelynangel -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:39:33 AM)
lronitulstahp You may want to step back and quit taking it so personally -- you did what you did, i simply gave you insight of the legal system. Your continued spouting on about the use of spin when that's what you did -- you put reasoning on something incorrectly to use as part of your argument in this discussion. Deal with it and accept it and move on lol. You didn't indicate you were a lay person citing jury instructions -- you used them as FACT. When you cite something as fact next time simply be sure you are using that FACT correctly within the scope of the discussion. If you are a lay person using something you don't know much about STATE THAT, so people won't see you citing something as fact but as your opinion that could be misconstruing instead of offering it as fact. If you see what i said as snarky so be it -- i am sure anyone who is before a jury on charges may be very happy in my correction that people should answer the questions POSED not their own assumption of the case. I am rather disappointed you are trying now to make this personal, its not -- you posed something as fact, you put a spin on something incorrectly. That's what my posts indicate in the course of the DISCUSSION. You entered into the discussion and then you tried to throw out citations of jury instructions as FACT, i countered you on this because you did put a spin of assumption in it. deal with it -- its part and parcal to discussion. angel

Apocalypso -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:40:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I still think you're pretty darn cool. I think he's pretty darn cool too. Particularly if the cutesy new sigs are any indication of certain things... [;)][:D] LOOK! A DANCING BADGER! THE BADGER IS DANCING! LOOK!

NihilusZero -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:43:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bamabbwsub And is it ever possible for a Dom to make a gasp mistake in judgment? Or is he/she so superhuman that the sub/slave can't possibly question that judgment, ever? Of course mistakes are possible. But...really...a "mistake" is just the differing of two view on a decision or the post hoc re-assessment of one of our own decisions as contrary to what we actually would have wished. People can make mistakes and still be attentive enough to avoid most or honest enough to admit when they've made one. I still say that a sub/slave (I should think) is putting the D-type in such a place in hir life specifically because of hir trust in how good hir Success/Failure ratio in decisions will be. quote: ORIGINAL: bamabbwsub I do agree with NZ's assertion that the OP shouldn't have "told" her Dom that she wouldn't. Rather, IMO, she should have told him that she didn't feel comfortable doing as he asked and explained why. If he continued to persist, then she would need to evaluate whether she was choosing to disobey because she didn't trust his judgment, or if she was choosing to disobey just because she didn't want to comply. Regardless, the OP will have consequences of some sort -- perhaps she and her Dom aren't compatible, perhaps she isn't ready to be a slave, etc. I was gonna say "agreed", but that seems a bit pompous since the first sentence mentions agreeing with me...so I'll just nod instead. [:)]

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:45:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I still think you're pretty darn cool. I think he's pretty darn cool too. Particularly if the cutesy new sigs are any indication of certain things... [;)][image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s2.gif[/image] furious blushing Thank you for the compliment and [:D]

frazzle -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:46:27 AM)
Got to agree with you. I was staying at my sisters with my SO last night, he'd asked me to do something this morning, wouldnt have been a problem except my sister and her wife were up and awake. So yes i dosobeyed the order. When i explained my reasons he was absolutely fine and agreed with me that it wouldnt have been appropriate for me to have obeyed. The joys of a realistic Master. If He carries on like this, i may keep Him. LOL

NihilusZero -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:48:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apocalypso LOOK! A DANCING BADGER! THE BADGER IS DANCING! LOOK! I'll be damned.

leadership527 -> RE: Am I being unreasonable? (8/9/2009 9:50:42 AM)
quote: Our favorite sex god said: If the renegotiation happens like such: sub/slave: "I'm not going to do that. We need to renegotiate our dynamic to encompass me not wanting to do this now (and/or in the future)." As opposed to: sub/slave: "I will do as you ask, but I would like time whenever it's convenient for you to discuss this topic as I had not foreseen it being an issue of difficulty for me and would like to possibly request leniency with being told to do so in the future." I see no issues with the first one. Carol has that option at any moment. I call that "consensual". I would, of course, stop thinking of ourselves as having any sort of TPE-ish sort of relationship in that event. But I could easily see us then coming up with a D/s dynamic that might, in fact, have vASTLY broad parameters. Sure, she might even gasp, seek renegotiation again at some point and then it'd change again. If she eventually took back enough authority, I'd decide it was stupid trying to "lead" and so just go back to vanilla. Option B is more or less how I've instructed Carol to handle it. Although honestly, we don't really think in terms of limits... a thought pattern I find poisonous to a relationship in any event. Carol & I don't have some set of things which she must protect from me. If we run into something like this, we consider it a joint problem to be resolved and we tackle it together. Our most recent such discussions were around: Who does Jeff sleep with? (anyone I want) Who does Carol sleep with? (anyone I want -- in process) Who is invited into our marriage? (anyone I want - in process) Remebering that Carol is fundamentally monogamous, these are not trivial items. Yet we seem to manage just fine without lining up on opposite sides of a limit debate.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.0390625