Well, whatever does it for ya...lazy...Originally Posted by Eraser
Well, no offense, but maybe there should be something humble about them, because, the way the originally quoted line reads, one could be forgiven for thinking that you're making broad, sweeping statements for everyone...you think it's a real pain in the butt...you think it's boring...but that wasn't how you presented it, is all i'm saying.Originally Posted by Eraser
i figured.Originally Posted by Eraser
Right, on with the rest of the business...
No, but i didn't 'practice' marriage either! And that's my point, i don't believe you can be trained to be with someone, in any relationship, be it Ds or vanilla, i think you just get on and do it...and it part of that is training and learning, then fine. In fact, surely this very conversation demonstrates this. Me and you, though both great folks (heh!), don't share views on Ds...would it be feasible that i be trained by you? Of course not, that would be silly. In fact, you're right when you say there is no one way to do Ds...therefore, based on this lack of over-arching principles, logic does not follow that one can be trained in the stark way you propose.Originally Posted by Eraser
As for my 'third' point, i think that was more chksng19's point, but either way, i didn't say or certainly didn't mean there was 'one way to do Ds'..in fact, i said or meant precisely the opposite, i said that it is based ON the very fact that there is no one way of doing it, that Ds works best between two given people and that is the only person to whom the submissive should answer to....this diversity IS the pure form. In fact, it is completely illogical, to me, to think any other...to be trained by someone else does not make them your dominant; a trainer, maybe, but not dominant.
sl