Having Read the Rules II   (05/14/99)
	JK wrote: There are a number of premises within the rules document that is common to all Master/slave relationships. moonlight wrote: 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: That a slave obeys, serves and pleases her Master. That would depend on how all of those things are defined. I have no doubt that I serve, obey, and please Tiger. Having said that, I am far from a little, cowering footstool that hasn't a thought or argument in her head. And I most *certainly* will tell him off when he's wrong. I don't sit and dote on his every word. I don't scamper around him and hover over him. JK Wrote: That her focus is to please her Master. Again, this depends on how you define "please". Sexually? Emotionally? Being a vent for his frustration? Challenging him mentally, intellectually, being stimulating to his mind? Occasionally getting him off if he wants? It's not as simple as you're saying. There are a whole host of different types of M/s relationships in just these two points you've made alone. And both don't necessarily apply to all M/s relationships. JK Wrote: That she is found pleasing to Him in all that she does. Gosh. Heaven forbid she ever do anything *wrong* then. I'm sure that I've not been pleasing to Tiger for about the last 3 months, according to *your* personal rules since I've been ill and haven't been terribly slavelike. You can ask *him*, though, if that impinges on our relationship in the least. I'll lay money on him laughing in your face. JK Wrote: That a slave is owned property of her Master. Define property. Does she live at his whim? Not have a house/job/life of her own? Does she sit on the floor by the door when he's not there and just wait for him to come home? Or, does she have a set of rules that specify that when she's not around him she can do as she pleases so long as it falls within their general relationship rules? There is no doubt that I am owned by Tiger. I am his. I live my own life, however, within his broad rules. JK Wrote: That a slave must earn her pleasures. *BZZT* Wrong. A slave receives her pleasure at the whim of her Master or at her own choosing unless she is restricted from them. I, most certainly, have no restrictions on me in this manner. Other than I am to get permission ahead of time if I wish to see another partner. I can masturbate to my hearts content and Tiger just looks at me strangely if I beg to be allowed to have an orgasm. And I quote "If I don't want you to have one, I'll tell you. Otherwise, if I'm toying with you, I'm probably trying to get you to have one. Why would I want to retard your responses by training you to *control* them, when I want you a whimpering pile of goo?" JK Wrote: That a slave trusts her Master. In some relationships I know of, namely service type relationships of M/s, trust isn't an issue. Service is. Again, your rules do not fall over *all* M/s. JK Wrote: That a slave is an instrument, an object from which her Master draws His pleasures out of. Tiger, again, would laugh in your face at the idea that I was an object. A cat toy, yes. Something he can use if he wants, yes. An object? Hardly. JK Wrote: That a slave must ask for permission for such things as using the bathroom for instance. *BZZT* Wrong again. I have to ask for nothing. He will occasionally ask where I'm going, and I answer. That's about it. If he tells me to do something, he expects me to do it. But he doesn't care to managed to the detail that you are talking about. I can ask to play or be flogged or stuck with needles....and whether or not it is done is up to him. If he chooses to do them on his own, then they will be done. I'm expected to keep myself clean and have good hygiene all on my own, thank you very much. JK Wrote: That a slave be thankful for all that her Master gives her and allows her. I love Tiger and I am thankful for the gifts and love that he returns. But no more so than I am thankful to my family or anyone else that gives me anything. Common courtesy and respect are not solely reserved for Masters. JK Wrote: That a slave not be hesitant in her obedience to her Master's Will. I'll let you figure out the rest. I am expected to question Tiger if I believe that he is in the wrong or hasn't thought something through. I am expected to chew him up one side and down the other if he's being pig-headed about something. I am expected to be a challenge to him and keep him on his toes. As *well* as being generally obedient and doing as I'm told. moonlight Wrote: Mighty damned generous of you, considering that most people think your rules are claptrap. JK Wrote: Perhaps you should clarify who 'most people' are that you are referring to. However, would it matter?! Not at all. There are probably as many for the rules as against, but then writing specifically for a segment of the M/s crowd would likely bring both criticism and praise for the rules document. Certainly. Most people in this audience that currently is watching. SSBB. Apparently, some number of others that have been shown your rules that are not on SSBB. I, personally, don't care in the least if people like the rules and use them. That's their choice. What I *do* care about is the fact that you tout them as the way that M/s is organized when it obviously is not the way that *all* M/s is organized. I care about the fact that what you put out is dangerous to some quantity of people. I care about the fact that without people like myself and DLynn and Spyral Fox there would be some quantity of people out there that would be hurt, possibly permanently, but what you carelessly spout off with little regard for the effects that it can have on people. That it works for some people is a given. Everything in the world works for at least one person. What is *wrong* is the idea that one set of ideas works for everyone and that M/s is some monolithic ideal that you have the information on. JK Wrote: What I do know is this - you cannot deny that what I have written isn't about M/s relationships. moonlight Wrote: Sure I can. They're about what *YOU* purport to be M/s. JK Wrote: Hardly, since they are based on the experiences of others as well. They're *your* rules, therefore they are what you purport to be M/s. That some quantity of other people also do it your way does not mean that *ALL* people do it your way. They, obviously, do not. moonlight Wrote: And you don't follow your own rules, from all reports. JK Wrote: I have not had the opportunity to do so in all respects stated in the rules, but that does not mean that I would not ever follow all of them. I am open to all that is stated in the rules. When the opportunity arises I will follow what rules are there accordingly as will my partner to whom I have chosen to own. So. You don't follow your own rules. You follow some subset of your own rules. Yet you say that they are what M/s is all about. Do you, therefore, practice some type of subset of M/s? Wouldn't that mean, therefore, that there is *MORE* *THAN* *ONE* type of M/s? Hmmmmmm? JK Wrote: So. You aren't doing M/s, maybe? I am "doing" and living the M/s lifestyle despite your definitions and views in particular. Perhaps you would like to offer your interpretation of the lifestyle. Dear, I've been very open in the past about what I view as M/s/D/s. I would be happy to reiterate it if there are those out there that want to hear it. Will I do it solely for you? No. I think I've explained my views on M/s/D/s to you in great detail over the last year in many of our long exchanges here on SSBB. If you're *that* unclear on them, perhaps you should go review some of the exchanges on the humiliation thread on Deja News. In a nutshell, however, M/s is what the Master and slave in question design their relationship to be. It does not have a master list of rules that are followed. It doesn't have the posturing that you seem to be so fond of, unless that is what their particular brand of M/s desires. Why on earth would a Master, who by your own words rules his own world, deign to suddenly submit to the rules of some amorphous, unknown body of work or ideal set up by someone that they don't know, simply "Because that is how it's done." Why on earth would someone who claims to be "dominant" follow the rule set of some other person? Why would someone who claims to be "dominant" submit him or herself to the approval of Joe Blow? Why would a self-professed "dominant" *NOT* set his or her world up to follow his own needs and wants? Eh? moonlight Wrote: Those rules are "ideal" rules that no one *can* follow? Which is it? Are they rules to follow or ideas? JK Wrote: They can be either. Depends on how you wish to use them. The rules are primarily used for building a mindset. Ah, ah, ah....You can't have it both ways. Either they are the way that things are done because that is what the general body of M/s does...which is what you've claimed, or they are a set of ideas that can help someone to reach M/s. One path, I might add, out of many. To be internally consistent, you have to believe in one or the other. So. Which is it? moonlight Wrote: 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. JK Wrote: M/s is about a Master owning a slave, managing the slave, and of the slave's relationship to her Master, and how the two then compliment each other from and through their respective roles. If that's not what you are into then I'd have to say you are not into M/s. Repeat after me. M/s *TO* *ME* is about managing the slave. *HOW* that is accomplished ranges from micro to macro-management. Not all Masters run their slaves the same way. Not all Masters require the same thing. Not all Masters have the same needs. Not all Masters have the same desires. Not all Masters have the same rules. M/s is not one monolithic group that follows one set of ideas. Once you get that through your blithering idiot brain you'll be much better off. Claiming that X subset of M/s really isn't M/s when you don't follow what you purport to be the "basic" ideas of M/s is like shooting yourself in the foot. Aim a little higher and we'd all be better off. moonlight Wrote: 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. JK Wrote: If you mean that all the rules must apply - no they do not. If you mean that some of the rules don't apply - you would be correct. If you are saying that none of the rules apply - you would be gravely mistaken. None of the rules apply *IN* *SOME* *CASES*. About all that can be said about M/s relationships is that they contain a Master and a slave. The slave is owned. The slave does what the Master says. Anything else and you're starting to throw your *own* biases on what M/s is into the fray. Even stating "The slave does what the Master says" can be argued to be too ambiguous. How they do that, how "doing what the Master says" is defined is a *very* broad range of possibility. moonlight Wrote: And *WE* know things about DLynn. *YOU* apparently do not since you can't be bothered to look at anything but your own blither. JK Wrote: The issue wasn't to speak directly to me but to provide your views for others to learn from what you have learned and from what you have practiced. SSBB is a forum for free expression. When you post you post for more than one. Odd. From what I gather, they *were* doing that until you jumped in. I post for a variety of reasons, some of which are educational. I'm sure that others post here for a variety of reasons, up to and including needing a forum to just chat with others about a variety of subjects *just* because they're other kinky folk, regardless of the topic. Sometimes there is just a need to be surrounded by those like you, regardless of the topic of conversation. SSBB is not *just* an educational forum. It is a social area. You, it seems, are here just to be an idjit. See? Another reason besides educating and sharing experiences. 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. moonlight Wrote: 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. JK Wrote: At first that can be true, but the goal is to discuss them with a Master of choice. Nice backpedal. What's your next trick? The fact remains that you cannot hold to one position. When you're called on a point, you change your "definition" of what things are. Is it any wonder that people say your rules aren't worth a damn? You can't pick one idea and stick with it without waffling in a hundred directions. moonlight Wrote: 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. JK Wrote: It all solely depends on who is doing the reading doesn't it?! No. According to you, the *PROPER* way to deal with them is to discuss them with your Master. Proper indicates that there is one correct way to use them. Therefore, if you are *NOT* using them that way, that is an improper use of them. Reading them alone is, therefore, an IMproper use. moonlight Wrote: 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? JK Wrote: You'll have to be more specific as to whom you are referring to that I have, as you claim, done this too. My comments are specific in most cases. I cannot generalize what you are asking without knowing to whom you are talking about. Let's see. You've said that about DLynn. In the very post that I was responding too. You've told me that. You've told Spyral Fox that. You've told most of the women that are submissives that have disagreed with you that. Does that refresh your memory? Oh. I forgot. You're the man that says that "if I say it never happened, it doesn't exist in my world, therefore it never happened." Convenient, that. moonlight Wrote: 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? JK Wrote: Whatever! Gee. There's an intelligent response. Nothing to say to that? Can't logically refute it? moonlight Wrote: 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. JK Wrote: I challenge that notion wholeheartedly in that there has to be some differences between each of them. There can be variations of the themes involved, but there are some common qualifiers that differentiate between each of them. You can challenge it all you want, JK. The fact remains that M/s, as a whole, is not what *you* make of it. It's not what *I* make of it. It is what everyone that participates makes of it. You've become incoherent about the subject, judging by your last sentence above. I'm not even certain what you're saying in it. Would you care to explain it, hopefully using english? moonlight Wrote: You, JK, are not worth the waste of protoplasm that you call a body. JK Wrote: Obviously was worth your comments tho. I was bored at work. It takes very *little* to amuse me or capture my attention when I'm bored.