Having Read the Rules V   (05/16/99)
   
 
    JK wrote:
    That a slave obeys, serves and pleases her Master.

    moonlight wrote:
    And I most *certainly* will tell him off when he's wrong.

    JK wrote:
    A good Master should punish you if you out-and-out just told Him off.

    moonlight wrote:
    A good Master will listen to *why* a slave is telling him off when he is in the wrong. And proceed from that point. Unreasoned reactions from a Master are unbecoming.

    JK wrote:
    And react the way your suggest in a working relationship with a boss and you'll get fired for sure for your reaction. There are protocols to follow. Waiting for a slave to vent and not enforcing protocol and the slave will never learn how to properly communicate.
Assuming that a slave cannot tell the difference between a professional relationship and a personal one will get you laughed at. And, fortunately, I also work for a person who wants you to tell him what you think of an idea. Yes, it's phrased carefully. But I don't have to kiss ass when I think a proposal sucks rocks.

Again, each relationship needs to be taken as an individual relationship. Because I *can* chew Tiger up one side and down the other doesn't mean that I *have* to or do all the time. It means that I can when it is justified.
    JK wrote:
    There are presentation methods and protocols a slave should follow to maintain continuity within the relationship.

    moonlight wrote:
    In *your* relationships, there may be.

    JK wrote:
    In any relationship.
Fine. There are protocols in any relationship. They vary widely between relationships. Your protocols may not be my protocols. And my protocols may not be Tigers.
    moonlight wrote:
    In your world, perhaps. In my world, my Master has told me to speak my mind with him. I am not required to ask permission to speak. I am not required to subdue my thoughts or angers or joys. I am not to act as a cowering nothing.....or as a cow....or as any one of a hundred things you've said is proper "slave" behavior.

    JK wrote:
    And it depends as you have shown on the relationship of the couple at hand. I have tried to say you can change the rules to fit any M/s relationship. Hence, the instructions. What is proper is what is decided between two people. If they engage in M/s it ought to be different than one of a non-M/s relationship. Given that there should be some commons to measure the relationship by that determine what it is.
And you still haven't come forth with what those differences are. You've dome forth with a list of what you think specific *behaviors* should be. And *those* you've claimed can be changed according to the wishes of the M/s pair. So, if they can be changed, then they aren't what makes M/s different from D/s.

Please. Put your money where your mouth is and explain what these differences are.
    moonlight wrote:
    My Master wants a strong, proud woman as his slave. One who can care for herself when it is needed. One who has decided to submit and serve him until he chooses to release her. One who stands shoulder to shoulder with him and walks beside him. One who he can subdue when he wishes to or one who will know when he wishes her to simply submit to his will.

    JK wrote:
    This is better than your other posts. At least you are talking about what is agreeable in your relationship.
You haven't asked about my relationship. My relationship hasn't been in questions. Your rules have.
    JK wrote:
    There does, however, need to be communication. you certainly are not just a doormat, but you are an owned slave and thereby, at least in some circles, need to listen to what your Master has to say, have to stop in your speaking when Master begins to speak, have to have an open mind to hear what your Master is trying to get across to you.

    moonlight wrote:
    There's an important phrase in there, JK. "In Some Circles". The circle that has meaning, for me, is the circle as Tiger defines it. Not you, not some faceless mass of "other M/s Masters", not Joe Random off the street. And *that* is what you refuse to see.

    JK wrote:
    Quite the contrary. You both got to where you are today because you worked at it. My rules suggest that people work at it. You both no doubt refined your relationship based on what you observed from others or have been influenced by the actions of others. My document suggests you get out there and see what others have written about and what others do. If you continue to talk about your relationship here as you are doing then others will learn from you of some options to consider for their relationships. We all influence each other to some degree. That's how people function in a society.
Sorry to disappoint you, JK, but when and where I started, I didn't have any such guidance. I, along with a group of people that I found in the town I was living in, formed the first munch group in our area. We discussed, we played, and we figured it out. Not through books, not through personal guidance, through discovery. I didn't read a copy of SM 101 until about a year ago. I didn't read *ANY* sources quoted here until recently.

I certainly talked about what I was discovering here. But, for the most part, The conversations I had weren't about safety or anything like that. They were what it was like to find out something new. I had some very nice people toss in a few pointers here and there. But my growth was just that. *MINE*. I was a creative force for the community that came about. Along with several *very* close friends that I don't see nearly enough these days. We've all scattered hither and yon.
    moonlight wrote:
    A Master gets to decide what his slave does. And *THOSE* are their protocols. Not what some faceless group that *I* certainly have never seen says.

    JK wrote:
    You read books don't you? You take in what the faceless authors write about don't you? So what is the difference? Well it might be that you make some choices as to what you will take in and leave out.
Books in general? Or books on BDSM? If you mean the latter, then no, I don't. And no, I don't take what authors say at face value. When I read something I question it. And then I go out and research it. And form my own belief about something.

You've assumed that I accept what is written at face value and that the authors are being truthful or know exactly what they are saying. And that is a *large* assumption. Because I don't. I never have. I find a new piece of information out and then I start digging into it. To find out the actual truth. Not the biased truth of what one author thinks. I would suggest that to *everyone* that reads anything here.

If you have doubts, interests, niggling little questions....DIG! Go out and find your *own* answers.
    JK wrote:
    Do you scamper? Maybe. Depends on what is required of you.

    Do you hover over Him? Absolutely not unless He wants it.

    moonlight wrote:
    And since he wants neither of these, I do not.

    JK wrote:
    Well, in a sense you do hover over your Master because you are on guard as to what He tells you and up to thrash out against Him.
Ah, no. Generally, I'm sitting about four feet from him on the couch and if he tells me something I stop what I'm doing to go do it. Otherwise, I'm happily occupied doing my own thing.
    moonlight wrote:
    Submission is a continual gift. So is dominance. It is not static and unchanging. And, for some of us, slaves are instructed to remind, harp, nag, pamper, and point out the falicy in thought of the Master when it occurs. Some of us *gasp* are even instructed to leave the presence of the Master should he begin to cause harm to the slave. Even should it be his wish *to* cause that harm. For me, that rule (Rule One) supercedes every other rule.

    JK wrote:
    Submission for a slave is an inborn behavior. It is not a gift anymore then one who is hetero- or homosexual or has two hands and feet.
It is an inborn behavior, yes. However, that behavior is gifted to someone that *deserves* it. It is not given to just everyone or anyone that might happen along.
    JK wrote:
    The Master is managing your life pushing you into various directions somewhat through His punishment of you.
I think this is where a lot of people break off with you, JK. See, some M/s pairs don't use punishment as behavior modification or as a training method. If I do something wrong, I'm punished. If Tiger wants my behavior to change, he rewards "good behavior".

In the time that I've been with Tiger, I have not been punished. I haven't done anything (yet) that is deserving of it. He has modified my behaviors, to some extent, to what he wishes. But I have not been punished to accomplish this.

Punishment is not necessarily an integral part of M/s "teaching".
    JK wrote:
    a slave often breaks rules and misbehaves. she works toward perfection but can't seem to get there. she tries and sometimes she gets rewarded at least for her efforts. she learns what she can and isn't supposed to do. she knows she will screw up. she knows the importance of discipline in her life. she accepts that. she knows she will need guidance. she knows she can offer guidance to her Master knowing He does not have to abide by it, knowing He will have to wiegh it against His relationship for which she is an integral part of and of how important the decision will be in continuing that relationship to her, and knowing that His decision is final.
And? None of that says a thing towards punishment.
    JK wrote:
    If the slave is given something to do that she sees is very disagreeable to her, she must try her best to do it anyway or face Him ignoring her, punishing or disciplining her until she does it. she takes a risk by not obeying Him regardless of how disagreeable the act is to her. she also knows that by properly speaking up that He will change the desired act to something else, thereby realizing that such a request was not in her best interest nor really His. a slave slaloms through life.
Thanks, but I don't ski. I much prefer to follow a path that isn't so precarioous. So does Tiger. I know what will happen if I don't obey. I also know that he prefers not to use punishments. If he wants to play with pain, he will. Punishments aren't an excuse to play with pain.
    moonlight wrote:
    So you keep saying. You haven't pointed any of those out, yet, though. I've been a submissive, and I've been a slave. Everything that you've said, so far, applied to both types of relationships that I've been in.

    JK wrote:
    I have stated in the document that the rules can be used in not just in M/s relationships, but in D/s as well, and in Mistress/slave relationships. You just need to read more carefully.
*grits her teeth* Let me say this slowly so you might understand it. If you say that these rules are a hallmark of what M/s relationships are, they they should point out the differences between M/s and D/s. Either they can be used by *all* types of D/s or they apply to M/s, which is what you keep *saying* they apply to.

It would help matters immensely if you could manage to stick to one story and stop hopping around like a wounded dodo.
    moonlight wrote:
    That's all well and good, JK, but the original point of all of this was that I asked you what was specific to M/s that would be applicable to *all* of M/s. Not what each M/s pair could decide or negotiate. You gave a list, and I've pointed out *why* each of these things are negotiable points. Your coming back and saying "Well, of course they're negotiable...every M/s pair has to do what works for them" doesn't answer the *original* question of what was the mystical formula of "What makes M/s M/s".

    JK wrote:
    I have explained on many occassions what a M/s relationships are and can be. My document presents some ways. It pushes through the use of the instructions for people to define what it will be for them.
You were asked, at the beginning of this exchange to provide some ways in which M/s was *DIFFERENT* from D/s. You still have not done so. Providing a list which can apply to *both* does not provide the *differences*.
    JK wrote:
    That a slave must ask for permission for such things as using the bathroom for instance.

    moonlight wrote:
    *BZZT* Wrong again.

    JK wrote:
    For you, but not necessarily for others.

    moonlight wrote:
    Which was my point, exactly. I asked for what made M/s different...what were the ideas that were universal. You haven't given any of those yet.

    JK wrote:
    But apparently you know what they are for you. If you really are claiming there is not difference then why use the terms at all for anything relating to a relationship that might define it?
What I am asking...I, me, moonlight....is for you, Jonathan, JK.....to tell us what makes M/s different from D/s. There are people out there that want to know. That *I* know what that is, for me, is irrelevant. There are others out there that do not. You say this place is to exchange ideas.....so EXCHANGE ideas. I am honestly interested to see if you can come up with a list of what makes them different.
    JK wrote:
    Some people feel what I expressed in my document is about M/s. I call that good enough despite what you and others say.
I don't want to know what "Some people" think. I want to know what *YOU* think.
    moonlight wrote:
    JK, my family chose me, as well. I'm adopted. One is not *more* important to me than the other.

    JK wrote:
    Well, I didn't know that. Sorry for the assumption.
Apology accepted.
    moonlight wrote:
    They are both equally important, and equally valued. Because I chose to spend my life with one does not mean I turned my back on the other.

    JK wrote:
    What is valued does not mean you turn your back on the others less valued. You simply chose to value one more than the other.
That's just it. I don't value one more than the other. And I couldn't. I would not be able to exist without *either* one of them.
    JK wrote:
    They are different. The values are different. How you relate to each is different. If you had to choose tho who do be with it ought to be the one you value the most and that may be your family or your Master.
There is no choice there. I cannot make that choice. I don't have the ability to. Fortunately, I don't have a family or a Master that would *make* me make that choice. Because they know that it would destroy me.
    moonlight wrote:
    I cannot leave him unless he does me harm, by his own rules. I wouldn't want to. If there comes a time when he does not wish to keep me, he will let me go. And there will be no choice for me in it. I don't expect that time will come. But it could.

    JK wrote:
    So if He chose to let you go you would not bark at him as you claim you do in other things?
Most likely. But that doesn't change the fact that his decision is final. I am an emotional person, and I will express those emotions, including anger, rage, and betrayal if he deserves that.
    moonlight wrote:
    Then STOP SAYING THAT THEY ARE WHAT M/s IS ABOUT. They are what it is about *FOR* *YOU*.

    JK wrote:
    I disgree. They include my thoughts and thoughts of others. If you don't like that then go read something else. I too grow tired of arguing. I am not here to find agreement with you. I will try to clarify some things, but I will not write the document to fit what each and every person whats the damn thing to say.

    If I wish to push they speak of what a M/s relationship is about I will do so regardless of how much you disagree with that notion. If you wish to do better then I strongly suggest you write your views and the views of others into a similar document.
I wouldn't dream of writing about anything but *my* views on any subject. I don't believe that I have the right to tell anyone what another person thinks. All of what I've said are my views on M/s and D/s. My views on you. My understandings of what you've said. I wouldn't paraphrase or incorporate DLynn's views or Spyral's into my own thoughts.
    moonlight wrote:
    Oh really. Well, put your money where your mouth is, JK. *DO* you think you still have things to learn?

    JK wrote:
    I do.
This is good, then. I would *truly* worry if you said no.
    moonlight wrote:
    *DO* you think you can learn things from the people here in SSBB?

    JK wrote:
    Some things yes, and many things no because SSBB is damn negative and bitchy.
Sometimes you can learn the most from the places that are negative and bitchy. I know that *I* learn more from the people that I truly set off than from the people that I agree with. I know that I've discovered a lot about who and what I am from my conversations with you. And if for nothing else, you can have my thanks for that. You can learn from any source if you truly listen.

So. Why don't you try listening to those that oppose you and figure out *why*, or at least use it to learn why you *won't* accept them.
    moonlight wrote:
    *DO* you think you *have* learned anything in these long discussions that you've been having?

    JK wrote:
    Some things yes and for much of it - well, I have thrown it out. What I have learned most about SSBB is how closeminded they are.
One thing that I've found is that it takes two people to be closed-minded. For one person to be seen as closed-minded, it takes another to *see* them as that...and that generally means that *they* themselves have closed their own mind. If I were you, I'd take a moment to examine just *who* is closed-minded.
    moonlight wrote:
    Or does that simply not apply to you?

    JK wrote:
    SSBB is not the only place I gain my information from. In fact, while it is one of many places for info - it is the least likely place I go for info.
Then why stay here? If it isn't useful to you, why not go someplace that is? Seriously.
    moonlight wrote:
    No, I am being truthful. Which is more than I can say for you.

    JK wrote:
    This is beginning to sound like my mommy says so kind of argument.
If you say so.
    moonlight wrote:
    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.

    JK wrote:
    Proper is a number of ways.

    moonlight wrote:
    Where did you come up with *THIS* definition? Proper implies *one* way that is correct. Not more than one.

    JK wrote:
    What is proper for say wealthy to eat and what is proper for less fortunate will be two totally different ways of doing things. What is proper for the English to have tea and what is proper for the Americans to have tea will be totally different.
Proper for X does not equal proper for Y. You have tried to compare different groups, not same groups. Proper, regardless of the group, means one way is correct. That one groups has different *proper* from another is a given.

You have said that there is a *proper* way to use your rules. Proper implies a target audience. You've specified that "proper" entails discussing them with the slave's Master. If there is no Master to discuss them with, there is no "proper" usage.