Sundew02
Posts: 458
Joined: 2/6/2004 Status: offline
|
Interesting thought process there iwillserve, but I think you have mixed a few apples in with your oranges. First, since we cannot view from first hand experience what occurred in medieval times, historians were human with the same tendancy to put their opinion into an event as the next person. And as the language of the time was not modern English, translation errors will abound. As might made right in that era, without some code of conduct for the males there would have been total chaos. As to who was submissive and who was dominant. All knights had to submit to the King, and their individual Lords. That did not make them submissives. We all must compromise and submit to remain employed. Now, after all that, laughing, my rebuttal. taken individually, the term Chivalric knight as a decription for a Dom, Chivalry- Qualities of honor, bravery, and gallantry towards women. Knight- a noble defender, or champion. It might be a medieval term, but it does have modern usage. Like most words that now have a slightly different meaning than their original it is still applicable. I have known many Doms that I would say have the qualities extoled by the definition, but they do not come riding in on a horse in full armour. Way past my 2 cents worth, but then I never said I was a quiet flower. More like my name, which by the way, is a deadly plant that entices the unsuspecting into its trap. I am not a plant, but the ideal is appropriate, as a decription of ME, the Dominant. Take care, be safe, Tess
_____________________________
~~~~~Enjoy the ride, the landing could get painful~~~~
|