Dog Food & The Deepest Form of Submission....  (27)

Except expressing a different point of view on an issue surely isn't the same as saying "we don't do that". Saying "I don't agree that this is x, y and z and here is why" is part and parcel of what this place is about, surely? Most of us don't care what someone does or doesn't do, but we do find the motivation behind an action, or lack of it, to be a tad more interesting.

You are many things, evil twin of mine, including savage when the mood takes you. But you express your pov with fluency and I can't see the "slagging off" tag being one that would apply. If we are no longer permitted to iterate an opposing opinion then it's going to become a very very dull site.

My imaginary friend thinks that you have a problem

Well, I found this link http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_styl... about feeding pets and plenty of other links on a google search which state that the meat in pet food must come from animals that are fit for human consumption. I don't doubt that unscrupulous people sometimes include meat which is less than fit - but then I wouldn't fancy eating a pie from the chip shop either.

Eating dog food isn't something I fancy doing, but if it's someone else's kink then - just like anything else - I'd say be aware of the potential risks and if it's something you want to do then go for it.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

I'm sure from your previous postings that you aren't trying to be insulting, and I also have to add that I didn't see the original postings on the dogfood thread, which might have placed your blog in a different context, but I have to say that I read this blog in a similar way to dave_j.

The OP on the dogfood post presumably explained what he felt to be the deepest form of submission for him. You obviously don't agree with him, and explain very eloquently what your view of submission is, and how you feel its depth - which is what works for you. And all that is fine, good debate, different views and experiences, just what we should have.

But (and I don't know if the original post included similar things) look at a few quotes from the OP of this blog.

Now if I were the original poster, who felt a deep submission, something intensely personal to me, in being made to eat dogfood, I would be quite upset by those quotes.

My greatest, most intense, feeling is 'simply nothing'?

Doing it is an 'idiot idea' from my dominant?

You're insulted by my explaining how I feel, but feel free to explain in depth your own, different, feelings, without wondering whether I might feel insulted by them? And you feel free to throw in insulting comments about my passion and my dominant?

I said at the start that I don't believe for a moment that you intended this blog, or your post on the original thread, to be read as insulting to someone else's beliefs, but I do think that it could certainly be read that way, and can be read as suggesting that your view of what submission means is more valid than his.

I didn't see the original thread, so it is hard to comment on whether the deletions were fair, but if your post contained similar sentiments to this one, but expressed in a less considered way, I can see why it might have been felt that it fell foul of the YKIOK rule.

Is alexandraa's post open for discussion while others are only open to those who will post in agreement?

Basically, if you phrase your post in a certain manner then any opposing views CANNOT be made thanks to YKIOK.

It's stupid, in my own humble opinion, stifles debate and it's a cying shame that something so restrictive was felt necessary because of the behaviour of posters on here.

Another reason I don't blog here anymore.

I'm in my own world. It's Ok, they know me here.

The opinions I expressed above are my point of view, valid for me and my relationship, obviously not more valid than other people's opinions about their own relationships. Many a person thinks I'm barking mad for having the relationship I have. I know that but their opinions are not valid. Is that too many valids? Are you following my thinking? And indeed under the rules applied to the post I made I could delete MQ's response.

Your respone, MQ, if in the spirit of debate, would have been about your point of view on what submission & dominance mean to you. However I agree you have some valid points regarding how my blog could cause offence, especially if quotes are taken out of context.

Quite frankly I prefer people to feel free to respond openly about whatever they like and so therefore will not be hopping about complaining nor hiding replies no matter what they say.

I am simply pleased people have read and thought and replied in whatever way sits well with their personal integrities. I hope to learn and expand my own thinking from such responses, understand more about my own behaviour and explore new ideas. And that was what my alarm at admin's action was about.

If I had only responses from people who agree with me.... my world would be a very small place.

Be careful what you wish for

Edited 18 Jan 09, 11:13 AM by alexandraa

Oh, I never believe deletion is right, I wasn't agreeing with that, only saying how I felt that the post could be seen as offensive to some. My issue isn't with whether censorship is right - I don't believe it is, almost without exception - but just with alexandraa and others not seeing how her post could be seen as insulting, when it did read that way to me.

Now I don't believe she wants to insult anyone, whereas some here set out to do it deliberately. If I thought she was one of those I wouldn't have bothered to post a response at all. I do believe, though, that the way people debate, and the way they perceive other's points is quite important, and is relevant to some of the issues raised in the OP and in littlenic's blog that is linked in the OP.

I probably don't spend as much time as some on here, but it still feels like far too much, yet I have very rarely seen much that I feel is deliberate insult or disrespect to other people's kinks. When I see a lot of posts moaning about it I wonder if I am just reading the wrong threads, but actually I suspect it is more to do with having a different perception of debate.

I am still hamstrung by not having seen the dogfood thread before the deletions occurred, so my point should be taken as being about hypothetical threads rather than real ones, but my feeling is that a lot of people do take offence at someone posting a different opinion. Sometimes saying I don't enjoy or understand a particular kink seems to be taken as being insulting to those that do. So people take offence where none is intended or should be taken. And once people have taken umbrage you tend to get a vicious circle growing up. Whereas I just see different opinions as different opinions, different ways of doing things, which is fine by me.

I'm sorry, I read your OP as being as much about the reasons your post had been censored as about what submission meant to you.

I wouldn't and don't support censorship, it is why I mourn the loss of Off Topic, and why I don't post much on BBC or newspaper sites, and don't always find weblogs an ideal debating forum - I like to see everything, the good, the bad and the ugly. I did feel, though, that your blog read as if you had been offended by the dogfood guy's description of submission, and had then posted your own description of what it means to you, which could be taken as equally insulting to him. Like you I'd rather just see people saying what their own feelings are, and we could all celebrate a great diversity of meanings in submission and dominance, which make people happy.

As for what submission or dominance mean to me...maybe one day I'll be lucky enough to have the relationship which means I can tell you.