Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: On Slavery


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: On Slavery Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: On Slavery - 5/22/2004 7:56:49 PM   
inyouagain


Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring
I think it's a stretch to compare employment with bondage and slavery.

Isn't this combination called "Financial Domination"?

I always wondered what those girls with wheelbarrows full of money at the bank were smiling about.

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: On Slavery - 5/22/2004 9:18:25 PM   
MistressDREAD


Posts: 2943
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
watches as the Master stops and fills His hands and bites My lip pleased and looks around at all the gawkers whom have appeared from no where as I hear the Dominants debate.... ooooooh or maybe quibble and right close to the figs that are left, I look to My slave and whisper I bet befor this is done theres going to be figs flyin..giggles then hears a voice from afar speak to Me and Im shocked.... taps My boy on the arm.... hand Me My other veils.... I look up to see where the sun an three moons shadows lie to know the direction of east..... I do believe that what was once a discussion has deteriorated, I say to My slave..... Let us rise and move towards the east away from this place thats no longer cival nor peaceful.... looks over My shoulder at the beautiful fig tree and a quick smile in the direction of the One I know will fall ahead of this great debate as Me and My slave walk away~

(in reply to inyouagain)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: On Slavery - 5/23/2004 5:30:21 AM   
Dunimos


Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
inyouagain,
Now there you go on again. It doesn’t take much to spark you off does it? Your attempt at character assassination is pretty week but I have come to expect that from you now. You apparently have either come from a poorly educated family or simply didn’t pay attention at all in your studies. This is clearly seen in your logic or lack there of. I haven’t figured out just yet why you set your sites on me but it doesn’t matter really. Your pretty harmless regardless of your attempted strong words. If quoting long dead people is an issue for you perhaps you should avoid this thread as that was the intended discussion, on an old dead persons writing. I have also noticed that you seem to suffer from attention deficit disorder or some other affliction as you miss quoted me yet again. I did not say I deplore illogic and ignorance, I simply find them offensive to the mind. You may not understand what that means, so I will attempt to enlighten you, its not that I as the person am offended as I could not care less if you remain ignorant but rather that to any intelligent mind illogic and ignorance would offend its very being and the two should not coexist. Perhaps I should dummy down my posts so that they not spark you to anger so quickly.
Also, I make no assumption as too what you call yourself, Master sub, or what have you but I have acknowledged what too me is a fact, you are not Master of your own self and temperament so I find it odd that you could Master another. *grin
So, you are bothered by what fascinates me, why the preoccupation with my interests? While were at it, why the flaming responses to my posts in general? I seemed too have gotten under your kin, which is not my intent, but If you insist on taking swings at me then have at it. You may want to take a little more time to collect your thoughts and come up with a better offense. If you need some assistance let me know, I can give you some pointers off-line. Lets not bore the readers with petty attacks shall we but rather give it some worthy effort.

I eagerly look forward to your response.

_____________________________

Dunimos
"I have my faults,
being perfect is one of them"

(in reply to inyouagain)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: On Slavery - 5/23/2004 7:57:43 AM   
inyouagain


Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline
Dunimos,

This is the first time I've addressed you by your nick, while you are the one who has singled me out... using my nick specifically in several of your recent posts for your attempted wordsmithery and alleged defense of dead people.

You have a bone to pick and you make yourself appear more foolish with each subsequent round of diatribe you post towards me. You apparently feel your entertainment is predicated upon throwing "intelligent" barbs at me, but in fact you simply promote turd rolling as a pastime, and claim therefore to be "intellectual". You are indeed a legend in your own little mind, and although I'm not the only one that has stated opinion regarding your self-professed dead people translation expertise... my hypothetical has apparently yanked your short hairs and upset your dingy rowboat.

While it's quite obvious that you do drink (and also start early in the day, as your last flame was made at 0-eight thirtyish), and you are on your merry rounds already. Attacking me is what has now become your pastime... what an exciting life you and Jack have together. Now you not only represent dead poets and philosophers, but you now judge living breathing people who you do not know or have ever met in your "real intelligent" life.

It is very clear who has their dander up... you and Jack Daniels can't deal with other's in your thread that do not subscribe to your theory of your being an "intelligent" dead people translator, from any point of view (no matter how many dead people you translate). You started naming and flaming me, and it has become your favorite activity here at collarme message board. You have a whopping sum of 13 posts, and approximately half of them are addressed specifically to me... but you still don't get the point son... you have no influence on me and you obviously have difficulty with that fact. Sorry, but that will not change, despite your presumptive assumptions and name-calling (illogic, ignorant, not a "real" Master, etc)... go on little boy... have another drinkypoo, it makes you so brave.

However, should you insist upon referring to me specifically in your glorious dead people thread once again, the matter will simply escalate to Mod level and you shall receive your warning and two weeks probation... to be in a real position of control... so that you may off yourself (and have your glorious thread locked or deleted), with your next "intelligent" flame post towards another with opinion of their own. Do you really want this? I'm sure you will demonstrate your desires soon. In fact, the next move is your's to make, so be sure to give it your best shot son.

Cheers, and bottoms up!

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Dunimos)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: On Slavery - 5/24/2004 5:35:12 AM   
Dunimos


Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
Moving right along ***with a deep satisfying grin while waving off the trite threats***


The next step in the conversation taking a look into this "Theory of Natural Slavery". Here is an article I found that may explain a better aplication of this theory. Something most if not all past cultures failed in was correctly identifying this trate in some people, the need to serve or to be ruled.



The Natural Slave
Part of the Internal Enslavement website.
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/natural.html

I'd like to discuss the ancient concept of the Natural Slave, and how it may be updated and applied to Internal Enslavement.

To be a Natural Slave - to be a slave by nature - implies that the individual has some inherent, innate or inborn character trait which predisposes them to slavery in some way.

One of the earliest and most influential analyses of this concept was by Aristotle in the 4th century BC:

The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.

Aristotle, Politics, 1.V (translation by Benjamin Jowett)

Aristotle associated his concept of the Natural Slave with inferior intellect: that slaves are not competent to run their own lives. Many of the domestic servants and labourers of his time were no doubt deprived of the chance to develop the competency to run their own lives. (We can compare this with long term prisoners and patients who have become institutionalised in our own time.) However, Aristotle's belief is clearly not generally true of slaves: in other ancient societies (Imperial Rome was largely administered by slaves and freed slaves), in Eastern civilisations (the Ottoman Empire was governed by slaves, and slaves led its armies and, as the Janissaries, provided their elite troops, artillery and corps of engineers) and in our modern experience of IE and TPE (infact, submissive women appear, as a group, to be disproportionately intelligent and drawn from demanding professions such as teaching and healthcare.)

Instead, I believe we should step back from Aristotle's position, and just start from "it is better for them ... that they should be under the rule of a master", and then define people who are suited to slavery due to their nature (ie Natural Slaves) in an IE-relevant way.

We've already suggested in the discussion of Reactance that submissives may experience lower levels of total Reactance (roughly stress) when their freedom is restricted, compared to when they are free; and that they also don't experience the depression and low performance which psychologists observe with "normal" people in psychologically defined Helplessness.

We can go further and use Reactance to define a type of slave: a Natural Slave is a slave for whom slavery can be better than freedom, since they have the capacity to experience less Reactance when living in that condition, without the depression normally associated with Helplessness. Thus they are suited to slavery by their nature - by some inherent quality of their psychological makeup.

Even though Natural Slaves in this IE sense may experience slavery as a positive experience, other factors in their environment may prevent this. Notably, if the Master behaves in a destructive way, ignoring fundamental needs, then the Helplessness may become negative rather than positive for the slave.

This approach accomodates all literal uses of the word "slave", both historical slaveries and IE. For many of slaves in history, slavery was a deeply negative experience, leading to wasted and unfulfilled lives as needs were disregarded and slaves sank into depression, alcholism, seeking short-term sensual pleasure and suicide. And in turn, these behaviours are used by slave owning classes to characterise slaves, from Greek drama with its lying, stealing slaves, to the 19th century American stereotypes of sullen, feckless negroes.

In stark contrast to this, however, some slaves - especially some women owned as concubines in Eastern cultures - seem to have flourished in slavery, and I believe we could call those that did Natural Slaves in the sense I am suggesting.

It seems plausible to argue that this is part of the wider set of phenomena like Paradoxical Gratitude ("the Stockholm Syndrome" - in which kidnap victims become sympathetic or even allied with their kidnappers) are evolved survival strategies to cope with defeat. In particular, there may be a sexual dimension when the captor is male and the captive female, since the female's reproductive success may be best served by accepting the situation. The instinctive tendency to find captors sexually attractive if they provide for the captive's needs would facilitate this acceptance. This may be the root cause of the Enslavement process we observe in IE between Masters and female slaves.

This would suggest that Internal Enslavement may only be possible with Natural Slaves, since the trust and intimacy (in the Transactional Analysis sense) that forms the emotional bondage would be inhibited if the helpless state were destructive rather than positive for the subject.

I suspect there may be very large numbers of what I've called "Natural Slaves". In fact, it may be a trait of most submissives, which can emerge given the right circumstances.



Thoughts? Comments?

_____________________________

Dunimos
"I have my faults,
being perfect is one of them"

(in reply to Dunimos)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: On Slavery - 5/24/2004 12:29:36 PM   
EStrict


Posts: 729
Joined: 1/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

well done Shiava, You have accurately interpreted his words and meanings.


I admit I haven't read this whole string (hate history), but this line jumped out at me. And loving to look at things from more than one side, I wonder, how do you know she is accurate? He (Aristotle) was dead long before any of us were born, and though she may accurately interpret your interpretation of his words, I don't see how it can be said for sure he meant *this* compared to *that*. ::Laughing:: even those friends I know with psychic abilities rarely ever say they *know* 100% what someone meant a thousand or more years ago.

I guess this one hits me because I hear it all the time in religion. Take any part of the bible, torah, or whatever your religion uses, give it to 10 different religions, and you will hear ten different versions of what it *really* means. And they are ALL positive *their* view is the correct one.

I guess that's one reason I don't read things like Aristotle. At this point society can only *assume* the correct meanings and there is no way to find out who is closest...

_____________________________

Sandy

Don't take life too seriously, no one gets out alive anyway...

(in reply to Dunimos)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: On Slavery - 5/24/2004 1:04:35 PM   
Dunimos


Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
Fair enough question. I based my statement on generally accepted concensus by knowledgable scholars as well as my own interpretation efforts. I haven't seen or read anyone interpreting this document differently, that does not mean that everyone has got it right, just that everyone seems to agree. Everyone who has put forth the effort that is to study those writings.

_____________________________

Dunimos
"I have my faults,
being perfect is one of them"

(in reply to EStrict)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: On Slavery - 5/24/2004 2:37:52 PM   
inyouagain


Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline
Moving right along ***with a deep satisfying grin***

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos (newfound earliest Aristotle writing, 4 Century BC) 5/24/04
The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

Doesn't look like your dead buddy's philosophy changed much... in fact it appears to be verbatim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos (previous earliest Aristotle writing, 330 BC) 5/18/04
But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule....Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

Thank you for expanding the basis for my hypothetical scenario which seemed to upset you so much. I hope these direct quotes are not also considered to be "out of context".

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Dunimos)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: On Slavery - 5/24/2004 6:25:56 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

(Imperial Rome was largely administered by slaves and freed slaves),


Not sure if this is correct, to be honest.

The administration of the Empire of Rome was performed by the Emperor and his court, who handed many things off to the Senate and their underlings who managed Rome.

The army of Rome was originally Roman citizens, but as their empire expanded they were forced to conscript the conquered (some of whom may have been slaves) to fight in the Roman armies, although these were generally led by Roman officers. I suppose one could bandy about the term "conscript" because a plausible definition of slavery is forced on pain of death to fight in an army that may go hundreds or thousands of miles away from one's home and never allow one to return home. Some scholars have postulated that the reason for the fall of the Roman empire was conscript armies, but I am not one of the school of "one single reason for things." I prefer to view things as a system. Systems work because all of the aspects relate to and interact with each other to create outcomes.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to inyouagain)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: On Slavery - 5/25/2004 4:48:56 AM   
Dunimos


Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

(Imperial Rome was largely administered by slaves and freed slaves),


Not sure if this is correct, to be honest.

The administration of the Empire of Rome was performed by the Emperor and his court, who handed many things off to the Senate and their underlings who managed Rome.

The army of Rome was originally Roman citizens, but as their empire expanded they were forced to conscript the conquered (some of whom may have been slaves) to fight in the Roman armies, although these were generally led by Roman officers. I suppose one could bandy about the term "conscript" because a plausible definition of slavery is forced on pain of death to fight in an army that may go hundreds or thousands of miles away from one's home and never allow one to return home. Some scholars have postulated that the reason for the fall of the Roman empire was conscript armies, but I am not one of the school of "one single reason for things." I prefer to view things as a system. Systems work because all of the aspects relate to and interact with each other to create outcomes.

Sinergy

quote:

quote:

(Imperial Rome was largely administered by slaves and freed slaves),

Not sure if this is correct, to be honest.


May help to think of administration as the day to day operations of things. My inderstanding open to interpretation is that what is being referenced here is the slaves who ran the marketplaces and or other such activities.

_____________________________

Dunimos
"I have my faults,
being perfect is one of them"

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: On Slavery - 5/25/2004 4:49:58 AM   
Dunimos


Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inyouagain

Moving right along ***with a deep satisfying grin***

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos (newfound earliest Aristotle writing, 4 Century BC) 5/24/04
The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

Doesn't look like your dead buddy's philosophy changed much... in fact it appears to be verbatim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos (previous earliest Aristotle writing, 330 BC) 5/18/04
But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule....Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

Thank you for expanding the basis for my hypothetical scenario which seemed to upset you so much. I hope these direct quotes are not also considered to be "out of context".

Inyouagain

quote:

Doesn't look like your dead buddy's philosophy changed much... in fact it appears to be verbatim.



Perhaps that is because its the same article.

_____________________________

Dunimos
"I have my faults,
being perfect is one of them"

(in reply to inyouagain)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: On Slavery - 5/25/2004 10:23:11 AM   
inyouagain


Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos

quote:

ORIGINAL: inyouagain

Moving right along ***with a deep satisfying grin***

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos (newfound earliest Aristotle writing, 4 Century BC) 5/24/04
The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man; for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

Doesn't look like your dead buddy's philosophy changed much... in fact it appears to be verbatim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos (previous earliest Aristotle writing, 330 BC) 5/18/04
But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule....Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

Thank you for expanding the basis for my hypothetical scenario which seemed to upset you so much. I hope these direct quotes are not also considered to be "out of context".

Inyouagain

quote:

Doesn't look like your dead buddy's philosophy changed much... in fact it appears to be verbatim.



Perhaps that is because its the same article.

I see... "quote it like you want it"... and the dead guy certainly can't complain. You've "quoted" the same article twice in this thread, in different versions of your own wordings. The dead guy hasn't changed anything, but you choose to do so for him.

Perhaps Forrest Gump really meant to say, "Perfect is as perfect does".

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Dunimos)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: On Slavery - 5/25/2004 11:36:31 AM   
Dunimos


Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I see... "quote it like you want it"... and the dead guy certainly can't complain. You've "quoted" the same article twice in this thread, in different versions of your own wordings. The dead guy hasn't changed anything, but you choose to do so for him.

Perhaps Forrest Gump really meant to say, "Perfect is as perfect does".

Inyouagain



Appearantly your having trouble following the details. You may not have nioticed that I provided commentary by another on the article by Aristotle. So, here we have...
Aristotle wrote an article
some one wrote a commentary on the article,
I provided both as source documents for discussion,
you fail to maintain a level of attention required to provide intelligent discussion and opt for name calling and flaming.

Your acusation of my misdead is inacurate. None the less, since you appearantly are seeking my attention, now that you have it, is there a point you would like to discuss?
You dissagree with Aristotles idea of a "Natural Slave"?
Or do you just want to mix it up with me? If that is the case, perhaps we should take it off line or seek the moderators aprovel to debate openly in this thread or another, makes no difference to me.

The floor is yours.... ball is in your court

< Message edited by Dunimos -- 5/25/2004 2:37:22 PM >


_____________________________

Dunimos
"I have my faults,
being perfect is one of them"

(in reply to inyouagain)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: On Slavery - 5/25/2004 2:17:41 PM   
inyouagain


Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos
(snip)... you fail to maintain a level of attention required to provide intelligent discussion and opt for name calling and flaming.
(snip)

You are the one using names and flames, go back and read your own words please. I don't tolerate ignorance, and you don't like nonscholarly types, so we won't get along and must try to be civil. The crossing of swords (as you first called it) stops here.

This whole thing is about your words, and not so much the words of the dead. Words of the dead are constants, they don't vary like you seem to make them do.

Mods already read threads posted here, so no need to ask them to read this one. If they feel there is anything contrary to posted board guidelines, they will speak up.

If you, or anyone for that matter "quotes" someone (or an article), the quoted text should not be changed, adapted to, or for any given argument... that's not exactly called "quoting". If the audience does not point this out... it won't ever cease. I did not twist your arm and make you post here, and by your posting here I became a part of your audience. My intelligence or scholarlyness has nothing to do with your actions.

A "quote" is a "quote", period.

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Dunimos)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: On Slavery - 5/25/2004 7:44:37 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

May help to think of administration as the day to day operations of things. My inderstanding open to interpretation is that what is being referenced here is the slaves who ran the marketplaces and or other such activities.


Running the marketplaces is one aspect of administration, another is building aquaducts to provide running water to cities and sending armies to fight Pictish Barbarians in central England.

My point is, there were a lot of people who did things, but the ones who were actually in charge of who did what to who were not freed slaves, for the most part.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to inyouagain)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: On Slavery - 5/26/2004 4:56:40 AM   
Dunimos


Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inyouagain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos
(snip)... you fail to maintain a level of attention required to provide intelligent discussion and opt for name calling and flaming.
(snip)

You are the one using names and flames, go back and read your own words please. I don't tolerate ignorance, and you don't like nonscholarly types, so we won't get along and must try to be civil. The crossing of swords (as you first called it) stops here.

This whole thing is about your words, and not so much the words of the dead. Words of the dead are constants, they don't vary like you seem to make them do.

Mods already read threads posted here, so no need to ask them to read this one. If they feel there is anything contrary to posted board guidelines, they will speak up.

If you, or anyone for that matter "quotes" someone (or an article), the quoted text should not be changed, adapted to, or for any given argument... that's not exactly called "quoting". If the audience does not point this out... it won't ever cease. I did not twist your arm and make you post here, and by your posting here I became a part of your audience. My intelligence or scholarlyness has nothing to do with your actions.

A "quote" is a "quote", period.

Inyouagain



If that is your perception of what occurred I apologize for the grievous bruise to your person. I assure you it was not intentional and will here after be more cautious to those sensitivity.

I am interested in your opinion and the opinions of others as a matter of interest. I understood our discourse to have taken a detour because you seemed to dislike my correction if you will to what you had stated, referencing the hypothetical, as being baseless. Again, I was not intending to offend nor am I now trying to insult.

Let this post be a public apology to inyouagain from me Dunimos for my part in causing this grief.


Now, perhaps you would like to discuss the underlying issue of male verses female supremacy as that is what I think is the point you were making? One of which you will find I happen to more agree with you than you may realize.

_____________________________

Dunimos
"I have my faults,
being perfect is one of them"

(in reply to inyouagain)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: On Slavery - 5/26/2004 9:18:54 AM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
All I know is that Aristotle would bitch slap all of you.

(in reply to Dunimos)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: On Slavery - 5/26/2004 9:25:19 AM   
January


Posts: 891
Joined: 4/17/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos

<snip>
submissive women appear, as a group, to be disproportionately intelligent
<snip>


I vote yes.

_____________________________

[link: http://www.bookstrand.com/miss-you-sir] Miss You, Sir by January Rowe is available from Siren now! It's my latest smokin' hot bdsm romance.[/link]




(in reply to Dunimos)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: On Slavery - 5/26/2004 9:58:02 AM   
inyouagain


Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos
Let this post be a public apology to inyouagain from me Dunimos for my part in causing this grief.

Likewise, my public apology to Dunimos for my part in our recent misunderstanding.

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Dunimos)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: On Slavery - 5/26/2004 4:55:28 PM   
ShadeDiva


Posts: 1005
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: Sacramento, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring
All I know is that Aristotle would bitch slap all of you.


LMAOOOOOOOO!

~ShadeDiva

_____________________________

~ShadeDiva
My projects of love:
theFetishForums
HumanFauna
Kinked
DommeWorld

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: On Slavery Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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 © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094