quote:


There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine
in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French
fries in France (Surprise!). Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads,
which aren't sweet, are meat.

quote:


Quicksand works slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is
neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write
but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?

quote:

If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth?
One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? Doesn't it seem crazy that
you can make amends but not one amend. If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? Is it an
odd, or an end?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats
vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? In what language do people
recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by
ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and in which, an alarm goes off by
going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the
creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all.
That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the
lights are out, they are invisible.

P.S. - Why doesn't "Buick" rhyme with "quick"?

quote:

Guinea pig is a racial slur, referring to the idea that this rat-like creature was eaten in lieu of pork by mariners from a certian nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

I received this in email and have no idea where this originated but I thought it was interesting and wanted to share it.

If you ever feel stupid, then just read on. If you've learned to speak
fluent English, you must be a genius! This little treatise on the lovely
language we share is only for the brave. Peruse at your leisure, English
lovers. Reasons why the English language is so hard to learn:

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to
present the present.
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail
18) After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests
21) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine
in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French
fries in France (Surprise!). Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads,
which aren't sweet, are meat.

Quicksand works slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is
neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write
but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?

If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth?
One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? Doesn't it seem crazy that
you can make amends but not one amend. If you have a bunch of odds and
ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? Is it an
odd, or an end?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats
vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? In what language do people
recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by
ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and
a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a
language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you
fill in a form by filling it out, and in which, an alarm goes off by
going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the
creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all.
That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the
lights are out, they are invisible.

P.S. - Why doesn't "Buick" rhyme with "quick"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thanatosian

and why do both flammable and inflammable mean the same thing when in most cases the 'in' (or 'im') prefix is used to indicate negation?

quote:

Then how can you be disgruntled?

sissy Has also never been combobulated ... so why does he get so discombobulated when instructed to dress as a frilly maid and serve in front of others ?

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to GreyStorm)

quote:

and why do both flammable and inflammable mean the same thing when in most cases the 'in' (or 'im') prefix is used to indicate negation?

That's because the "in" part of the word "inflammable" is NOT a Latin negating prefix but an intensive prefix that is derived from the Latin preposition in. This intensive prefix also appears in the en form in the word enflame. Therefore, something that is set alight can be said to be inflamed, enflamed or just flamed. Consequently, something that can be easily set on fire can be said to be inflammable, enflammable or just flammable. Hence inflammable means exactly the same as flammable and NOT its opposite.

There is a school of pedants that would say that the two words flammable and inflammable have different nuances of meaning. One would normally refer to fabrics and materials as being inflammable - e.g., "My sofa is upholstered in a vey inflammable material." - and to liquids and gases as being flammable - e.g., "Jet fuel is very flammable." But that is not a very hard or fast rule and for most people the two words are indeed interchangeable. The only rule that does matter is NEVER use the word inflammable in a public warning message, such as on the side of a can of lighter fluid, because most people don't know any of the foregoing and, having seen both words, assume the in- is a negating prefix, and consequently that contents of the can are NOT flammable.

Hope that cleared up all the mystery for you, Thanatosian. Now can someone explain to sissy the difference between enforced feminization and forced feminization ? <giggles>

Curtsies,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to fencerpet19)

quote:

forced, forc·ing, forc·es
To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession.
To move or effect against resistance or inertia: forced my foot into the shoe.
To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group

enforced
adj : forced or compelled or put in force; "a life of enforced inactivity"; "enforced obedience

Hi quietkitten,

Sorry for the delay in responding to this post, but sissy has gotten a little more email than normal lately and is running a bit behind with his responses. Yes, you're making sense ... kind of ... forced and enforced are both adjectives derived from the respective verbs force and enforce. Therefore the only difference between the two terms forced feminization and enforced feminization comes down to the difference between these two verbs. On the surface they appear to be synonyms but there is a nuance of difference in meanings between them if you look at your own definitions of these two verbs. IsHO, the verb force appears to imply force or pressure applied once in order to achieve the desired effect ... you force your foot into your shoe one time; you are forced to take a second job one time. OTOH, the verb enforce appears to imply force or pressure applied continuously to cause a repeated number of desired (and similar) effects. So enforced chastity implies a number of repeated actions that must be continuously applied in order to maintain chastity over a period of time. Similarly, enforced obedience implies a number of repeated actions (e.g., punishments) that must be continuously applied in order to maintain obedience over a period of time.

Consequently, IsHO forced feminization implies a one time process of feminization, while enforced feminization would appear to imply a repeated and ongoing process of feminization over time. The former term would apply naturally to what a ProDomme provides. For example, a male sub that is TV-oriented but either hasn't reached the point where he has the courage to crossdress himself, or he simply can't do this (because, for instance, his wife will find out, etc.), will go to a ProDomme to be "forcibly feminized" for a fee. The exchange of money is irrelevant. The sub CD might just as easily strike up a relationship with a non-ProDomme right here on CollarMe and it is a mutual play session. Same difference. It's a one time thing ... yet it may be repeated many times. However, it's the same or similar script each time. For example, he goes to Her and She makes him shed his male clothes, provides the female clothes, supervises his dressing, probably applies his makeup for him (although over time, with repeated sessions, he should be able to that himself and only require supervision and instruction), and then into some appropriate BDSM-related activity with Her newly feminized male now firmly in sub-space (perhaps he does the sissy maid thing for Her and cleans and cooks under Her guidance and instruction, perhaps they go out to the mall together, or perhaps they go our to the local fetish club, etc.).

The latter term, enforced feminization, would seem to apply more to a 24/7 D/s lifestyle relationship ONLY. There are two main scenarios for such. In the first one, he is an alpha male during the working day and such "dress-up" submission scenarios only happen at night and weekends. This would still be repeated forced feminization IsHO, but in an ongoing D/s lifestyle context rather than a sporadic scening context (with possibly various partners). In the second scenario, and this is the one most CDs would appear to fantasize about, but whether they REALLY want it, or can ever REALLY get it (i.e., find someone willing to give it to them), is another thing entirely! On starting the D/s relationship (and it may be more appropriate to call this an M/s relationship) the TV sub's clothes are all removed and destroyed and replaced with a rudimentary female wardrobe (which is, of course, enhanced over time), he is completely depilated from the eyebrows down (and has to maintain this appearance from that point onwards), he is probably confined in a chastity device, and possibly branded as a sissy. He must appear fully en femme all the time, in dresses and skirts during the day, and in nighties and lingerie in the bedroom.

In this scenario, the focus of the ongoing "feminization process" moves quickly away from the initial (one time) masculine to feminine transformation onto continually working on the now full time sissy's feminine and submissive deportment, disposition, and performance of assigned chores. The sissy maid model is probably almost always going to be used for such a scenario (since the sissy male is now effectively a full time indentured servant or slave with no outside vanilla life), but not necessarily so. The Domme will usually have the power to determine exclusively what Her feminized submissive TV partner wears and eats, so She can have him dress and act as Her maid one day, Her secretary the next, Her schoolgirl daughter another, Her lipstick lesbian lover on yet another, and so on. Whatever amuses Her and floats Her boat and has been agreed to up front by both D/s partners. The use of feminizing hormones and breast development (to create a shemale) may also well apply in this scenario, in which case the male should be more TG/TS oriented than merely an alpha male TV.

That's how sissy would use these terms, but clearly these terms are continually misused and abused all over the web. sissy Sniggers when he sees ProDommes offering enforced feminization services ... how could They possibly do all that in a two hour session ?! To tell the truth, for a TV that maintains his full male appearance in his work life, a full male to female transformation may take a good 4-5 hours to execute before the real play can begin, so even a forced feminization session from a ProDomme is somewhat of an oxymoron too. sissy Doesn't use ProDomme services, but if he did, he would probably prep himself first (maybe not fully crossdressed, but certainly all the depilation and shaving taken care of, and most of the makeup done) so that the majority of the session time with the ProDomme can be "dungeon time" rather than "transformation time." Who needs to pay someone $200-$300 an hour to put lipstick on you when you can do it yourself ? However, you cannot tightlace yourself into a corset or paddle yourself. Anyway that's sissy's ten cents worth. Hmmm, that was probably more $2 and ten cents worth, wasn't it ?

Curtsies,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to quietkitten)