Jump to content

The Men of SL- a Controversial Guide to Them.


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3171 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Dresden Ceriano wrote:

So I'm late to this conversation... who cares?  I'll say what I want to.  First off...

Perrie Juran wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


I don't know where you've been living, but I've found men to be nifty creatures that defy categorization. Most of them seem to feel the same way about women.



I do totally agree with you that this is how I feel about women. 

But speaking to the topic in general, maybe I could be accused also of pigeonholing people when I say this, but really I see people in three categories:

Those who care and those who don't.

Those who are kind, and those who aren't.

Those who are peace seekers and those who are not.

 

I try to treat all people with care and kindness and peace.

I'm confused... you say you agree with Maddy's statement and yet you lay out a way of looking at things that is so very black and white that it completely negates the statement with which you supposedly agreed.  I can only speak for myself when I say that there are times that I care very much and time that I couldn't give less of a crap; there are times that I'm excruciatingly kind and times that I can be rather cruel, when someone ticks me off or when I think that someone is trying to walk all over on me... I'm not kind when I see that happening.  I will say that I do seek peace, but there are times in your life that peace is not plausible... in which case distance is preferable (Gypsy comes to mind).

All I'm saying is that, you can pigeon hole people into certain categories, if you wish (and sometimes doing so makes perfect sense), but, at the same time, you must realize that most people don't fit into the limited criteria with which you have set forth here.

...Dres

I see your point here.  My mind was on the "niftiness" of the women I am friends/close with when I posted that.  I could have been clearer in my post.

Thanks

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Storm Clarence wrote:

It was a response to you recommending that someone else submit to the will of another.  It was a response to your statement that 'masters' do NOT seek affirmation.  A 'master' ONLY seeks affirmation---they are too weak an individual to conquer and control their own insecurities so they seek affirmation of their strengths from that of the weakness of another.    

*************************************************************************************************************************************

All right, I said I was done but I was wrong. Storm, I "respectfully" disagree with your statement about Masters and their affirmation. I have a number of subs that I care for very deeply..I am more concerned about their well being and if they are happy with what is happening than about myself. Does that make me a weak Master....maybe..Do I care...No!

I do not know if you've spent any time in a relationship like that...if you have, and it was as you describe, I am sorry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any worldview must be pushed onto others if it is to survive and propagate in society. Trivially, if someone's worldview is so pacific and tolerant that we are averse to proseletyzing for it somewhere, then it is guaranteed to die out completely within less than 1-2 generations.

Parhaps this is the cleverest isolating technique used by the politically correct ideology movement on everyone else who would dare disagree. You're promptly told the same cliche that your point of view is yours, yours alone, and you should never presume to share your hard-won truths, god forbid you would interest others to think the same as you. Meanwhile, the PC ideology adherent of course displays no such aversion to proseletyzing, doing so in every sphere and facet of life, seeking to make that set of ideas the formal prerequisite for civil discourse in general and in some cases, get it written into law.

The sneaky switch: instead of saying that you should probably not forcibly push your views onto people who dislike them (which would at least have been decent, but unfortunately would stop the whole PC project in its tracks), we get the general, hypocritical "ban" on sharing any cultural values with others, even if doing so would directly benefit those others! According to the public canon, people who disagree with the "main line" are not supposed to spread their ideas and opinions, but should keep them strictly to themselves and by all means quietly die out as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Vegro Solari wrote:

Any worldview must be pushed onto others if it is to survive and propagate in society. Trivially, if someone's worldview is so pacific and tolerant that we are averse to proseletyzing for it somewhere, then it is guaranteed to die out completely within less than 1-2 generations.

Parhaps this is the cleverest isolating technique used by the politically correct ideology movement on everyone else who would dare disagree. You're promptly told the same cliche that your point of view is yours, yours alone, and you should never presume to share your hard-won truths, god forbid you would interest others to think the same as you. Meanwhile, the PC ideology adherent of course displays no such aversion to proseletyzing, doing so in every sphere and facet of life, seeking to make that set of ideas the formal prerequisite for civil discourse in general and in some cases, get it written into law.

The sneaky switch: instead of saying that you should probably not forcibly push your views onto people who dislike them (which would at least have been decent, but unfortunately would stop the whole PC project in its tracks), we get the general, hypocritical "ban" on sharing any cultural values with others, even if doing so would directly benefit those others! According to the public canon, people who disagree with the "main line" are not supposed to spread their ideas and opinions, but should keep them strictly to themselves and by all means quietly die out as soon as possible.

I sometimes have wondered if Christ would have liked nothing better than to have cold cocked Pontius when he asked, "What is truth?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Tex Monday wrote:


Storm Clarence wrote:

It was a response to you recommending that someone else submit to the will of another.  It was a response to your statement that 'masters' do NOT seek affirmation.  A 'master' ONLY seeks affirmation---they are too weak an individual to conquer and control their own insecurities so they seek affirmation of their strengths from that of the weakness of another.    

*************************************************************************************************************************************

All right, I said I was done but I was wrong. Storm, I "respectfully" disagree with your statement about Masters and their affirmation. I have a number of subs that I care for very deeply..I am more concerned about their well being and if they are happy with what is happening than about myself. Does that make me a weak Master....maybe..Do I care...No!

I do not know if you've spent any time in a relationship like that...if you have, and it was as you describe, I am sorry.

 

Well, Tex, I am glad to read you are happy.  Isn't that what it's all about, you being happy?  Rhetorical.  Enjoy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Storm Clarence wrote:

 

It was a response to you recommending that someone else submit to the will of another.  It was a response to your statement that 'masters' do NOT seek affirmation.  A 'master' ONLY seeks affirmation---they are too weak an individual to conquer and control their own insecurities so they seek affirmation of their strengths from that of the weakness of another.    

If this is how you choose to live your life, cool... but don't push it on others.  

 

A rare moment where I agree with Storm, or at least my read of what he's written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3171 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...