Having Read the Rules I   (05/13/99)
   
 
Here we go again...Round 14,000,001...

[Snip of DLynn, I believe...]
    JK wrote:
    There are a number of premises within the rules document that is common to all Master/slave relationships.
There are? Gosh. Could you elaborate on those, please? Of all the M/s relationships that I've seen over the past decade, there are just as many different *types* of M/s as there are participants. What might these common premises be? Hmmmm?
    JK wrote:
    However, you are right - not all those in M/s relationships have to use the rules document anymore then you have to say use a book on add and subtract math which you already understand.
Mighty damned generous of you, considering that most people think your rules are claptrap.
    JK wrote:
    What I do know is this - you cannot deny that what I have written isn't about M/s relationships.
Sure I can. They're about what *YOU* purport to be M/s. And you don't follow your own rules, from all reports. So. You aren't doing M/s, maybe? Those rules are "ideal" rules that no one *can* follow? Which is it? Are they rules to follow or ideas?
    JK wrote:
    Your thoughts about what I have written are suggestive that you may believe that the rules document is completely out of touch with any part of your personal M/s relationship. That would be a grave error.
Why? Perhaps they are. I know that they have *nothing* in common with my own M/s relationship. They have no commonality to what I am or do. They have no commonality to what Tiger is or does. Unless, of course, you include that the relationship contains a Master and a slave.

Your rules do *NOT* apply to everyone that does M/s, no matter how much you holler and scream and stamp your feet and insist that they do.
    DLynn wrote:
    I can imagine it being useful to someone in the precise situation you describe (interested in that style, not yet matched up with a partner) but, once again, that doesn't describe me.

    JK wrote:
    What does? I mean - why are you hear on SSBB? What do you hope to gain? WE know nothing about you. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit. Perhaps what you practice would help others to understand themselves better.
One would assume that DLynn was here to talk to fellow kinky folk.

And *WE* know things about DLynn. *YOU* apparently do not since you can't be bothered to look at anything but your own blither.
    DLynn wrote:
    Conversation. Conversation. Conversation. It's never failed either me or any partner of mine.

    JK wrote:
    Exactly! And as the instructions suggests, if you are going to utilize the rules properly, you communicate about them with your Master.
Hogwash. You go on at great length about how a Masterless slave can use them to find out about themselves. So. There is no communication going on there. But, here you say that to utilize them *properly* you need to discuss them with your Master.

Both cannot be correct, by the way you define things.
    DLynn wrote:
    Nope, spending an enormous amount of time with me would never be a waste of time to anyone who was the right match for me. And we *will* find that out. (Since I've never engaged in that process with someone who *wasn't* right for me, I think it's been perfectly efficient for me. And them.)

    JK wrote:
    So how do you determine if someone is right for you since it is possible that initial conversations may indicate a non match? Wouldn't it make sense not to write off people too soon? It sounds like you have to be in control at all times.
I don't know about DLynn, but I write people off all the time for a variety of reasons. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not necessary to give *every* *living* *human* a chance to be in a relationship with me, nor is it necessary to have a million and one relationships to know that X is the right person.

Why is it, JK, that whenever people disagree with your method and they're slaves/submissives, you tell them that they have a problem with needing to be in control all the time? Maybe they just know what they want and are looking for? Maybe they know *how* to find that? Maybe they just don't want *YOU* to be in control, eh?
    DLynn wrote:
    Do you feel I am willfully missing some point when I insist that not every person interested in a Master/slave relationship is going to find JK's rules of relevance?

    JK wrote:
    Are you saying nothing of what you read in the document has nothing to do with what you perceive of a M/s relationship or of the responsibilities of a Master and a slave?

    DLynn wrote:
    Yes. I am saying nothing of what I read in the document has anything to do with any of my relationships or any of my responsibilities.
*cheers DLynn on*
    JK wrote:
    I would call total bullshit. Thanks for saying absolutely nothing. Tells me a lot of what kind of person you are: not worth it.
You can call it whatever you want, JK. The fact of the matter is that M/s is as wide a field as D/s, S/M, or any other combination you want to consider. No one set of rules, despite how massive or wishy-washy is going to apply to everyone. No one definition is going to apply to everyone.

If you cannot accept that other people have different ideas from you...if you feel the need to deride someone for answering you honestly as she sees her life...if you feel that your world is *SO* threatened by her answers that you have to make the final comment that you did above....

You, JK, are not worth the waste of protoplasm that you call a body.