RE: safe, SANE & Consensual

RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 2:53:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance Please do elaborate. By my understanding, I have experienced the mental state of nibbana. It does not have any wants/desires in it. It is devoid of such things entirely. In fact, "void" or "devoid" is probably a viable description of the state in general. The concept does not have any meaning that maps to any equivalent in that state. Lust, yes. Love, yes. Desire, no. To abuse an appropriate quote, "It's only when we've lost everything that we're free to do anything". Or, transposed into this context, "It's only when you relinquish everything that you gain everything."

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:01:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance Please do elaborate. By my understanding, I have experienced the mental state of nibbana. It does not have any wants/desires in it. It is devoid of such things entirely. In fact, "void" or "devoid" is probably a viable description of the state in general. The concept does not have any meaning that maps to any equivalent in that state. Lust, yes. Love, yes. Desire, no. To abuse an appropriate quote, "It's only when we've lost everything that we're free to do anything". Or, transposed into this context, "It's only when you relinquish everything that you gain everything." Actually, that would be my understanding and pretty much how I meant it. I suppose it is beyond my current ability to grasp, but I still think of lust to be an aspect of desire. Love, I believe, can exist pure and whole without desires, but lust? I don't think I agree with that.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:05:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance Actually, that would be my understanding and pretty much how I meant it. I suppose it is beyond my current ability to grasp, but I still think of lust to be an aspect of desire. Love, I believe, can exist pure and whole without desires, but lust? I don't think I agree with that. Been there, done that, as I said. Acquiescence of wants and needs is not incompatible with pursuit or appreciation.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:17:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Been there, done that, as I said. Acquiescence of wants and needs is not incompatible with pursuit or appreciation. That's pretty fascinating to me. I'll have to give it some more thought. Bear with me here, I'm not disputing or degrading your experience. I'm just very curious about it. Having attained such a state of enlightment, do you feel a sense of loss for having relinquished it? (assuming you are not existing now, in a constant state of nibbana.) I know my way of thinking is probably anathema to the entire philosophy, which would be why I have not grasped it yet. I just think that I would feel a sense of loss to have achieved a state, only to return back to my current realm of existence.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:45:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance That's pretty fascinating to me. I'll have to give it some more thought. I get that, most definitely. quote: Bear with me here, I'm not disputing or degrading your experience. No worries. quote: Having attained such a state of enlightment, do you feel a sense of loss for having relinquished it? Sort of. It's mostly everything it's cranked up to be, though when not in that state, there are things one might wish to bring along that really won't be coming along. Basically, in this state, one misses something from that state, while in that state, one doesn't miss anything from this state. That gives a clue, I guess you could say. It has been an enriching visit when it has happened, though, carrying over into this state as well. quote: I know my way of thinking is probably anathema to the entire philosophy, which would be why I have not grasped it yet. It would seem so. Not that I was trying to do so when it happened. I'm not even a Buddhist. quote: I just think that I would feel a sense of loss to have achieved a state, only to return back to my current realm of existence. "Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water. After enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water." -- Zen proverb It's possible to maintain it indefinitely, or to reattain that state of mind if lost. And while the difference is night and day, it's mostly just very different. Well worth seeking, but not necessarily something that is suitable for everyone. I don't know what works for you and what doesn't. Nor can I show you the way, at least not at the moment.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:57:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad "Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water. After enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water." -- Zen proverb It's possible to maintain it indefinitely, or to reattain that state of mind if lost. And while the difference is night and day, it's mostly just very different. Well worth seeking, but not necessarily something that is suitable for everyone. I don't know what works for you and what doesn't. Nor can I show you the way, at least not at the moment. Thank you for sharing.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 4:23:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance Thank you for sharing. You're most welcome. I hope it has been, or will be, useful in some way.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 5:00:06 PM)
I'll skip throught he preliminaries, except to say it is a pleasure to meet you [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin I see it as a statement of complete trust in my judgement and ethics that I will not slit her throat, and that she wishes to go wherever I wish to take her. So far, we agree. However, I then make the assumption that she doesn't have adequate grounds for such trust, because there are only two people in this world that have enough insight into my mind for that, apart from myself. You are confusing trust with certain knowledge. I trust the individual driving on the other side of the road that he's not going to veer into my path. I do not need him to stop me and explain all the ways things can go wrong. Yet I'll wager more people die each day from car accidents than from bdsm accidents. quote: Among other things because I know there are kinks in my inventory that almost universally fall into the "not only no, but hell no" category for whoever wants to play, although I have found a few rare people who share most of them. And because my ethics include consent, which kind of means I can't go with "she consents to let me do whatever I want to do because she trusts me not to do what I want to do". It either invalidates the consent or the dynamic. Ah, well, explaining unusual kinks which she may not suspect you have is certainly a good introductory practice. I agree with that one. quote: The "slit her throat" bit was not something I'd do, it's just a "hey, wake up!". Makes her think about the level I'm telling her to consider, because there are other things on my list that might be well beyond what she's willing to deal with, and that she simply assumes aren't on my list, or doesn't even consider at all because it's unthinkable to her. Yes, I've done this during the introductory process as well. quote: I can't work with "I consent, but I'm not telling you what I'm consenting to". Oh? Does your relationship include experimentation and growth? If so, and you hav an LTR partner involved, then chances are this kind of consent has been given or implied. My relationships have always included the possibility of stepping into new territory, activities that could not be foreseen. But I would always discuss this with my slave, seeking the best approach to any new territory I'm considering. She would not have the right to veto me (unless she quit), but her input would weigh heavily in the balance against other factors. quote: quote: In such cases I look upon it as 'testing the water a little at a time'. Start easy, introduce a new idea and give her time to adjust, if all goes well, introduce the next idea and so on. Don't worry. I progress at an appropriate pace. There's molding, shaping and training to be done, and I am a perfectionist, so I don't feel particularly inclined to rush into things. I use techniques learned from cognitive science and cognitive behavioural therapy to get a slave to be the right one for me. It takes time, but it sticks, and it runs deep. As I am only capable of bdsm within loving relationships, love is the basis for the trust I receive. I develop my slave's skills and cooperation through helping her develop her self-awareness. She does what she does because this is an expression of who she is and who she wants to be. I find that when she owns herself to the extent of acknowledging who she is and wants to be, her cooperation is far more eager and intelligent than when she believes she is only doing this for me. I turn her self-denial into selflessness. Or at least that is the intent. Some rebound out of self-denial and either head straight for selfish or else they get there after a brief attempt at selflessness. It has given me a deep respect for those who can remain selfless, for both self-denial and selfishness seem to be traps that are very difficult to escape. Selflessness seems to be more a matter of walking the razor's edge, when it comes to the choices available in modern society. quote: quote: If I am as trustworthy as she believes me to be, as I know myself to be, she has nothing to fear, whether she knows the risks or not. Depends on what you mean by trustworthy. It's an awfully big word to leave undefined in such a context as a blank check. I was unaware there is more than one kind of "trustworthy". I mean that I do not betray my promises, nor do I betray those for whom I've accepted responsibility. In a loving relationship I add that it means I do not give up on the relationship or my beloved (though she is free to give up on me, if she feels the need). Good friends and family fit that latter criteria as well. quote: quote: For the only ones I would hold as slave are those I love, and for those I love, I'd die before betraying their trust. I'd hold anyone a slave, as long as it didn't conflict with my ethics, which effectively translates into having consent. Love is not necessary for me. Which is not to say that it's incompatible, merely that it's a seperate dimension of the relationship, one that is not necessary for me to be responsible and/or trustworthy. I would disagree with that. If I love myself, then I am responsible to me to not let myself down in the field of ethics and morality. There are no escape clauses for the ethical being in my world.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 6:23:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin I'll skip throught he preliminaries, except to say it is a pleasure to meet you [:)] Thanks. Likewise. quote: You are confusing trust with certain knowledge. Not so much. I just prefer that trust be based on adequate knowledge. quote: Ah, well, explaining unusual kinks which she may not suspect you have is certainly a good introductory practice. I agree with that one. ~nods~ Point being, I have plenty, and a good number aren't things one would normally guess at. That may not show without talking it over in detail, and I've had people reach that level of trust before reaching that level of familiarity. (Basically, I tend to be quickly trusted by people, and make people feel at ease, safe.) quote: Oh? Does your relationship include experimentation and growth? If so, and you hav an LTR partner involved, then chances are this kind of consent has been given or implied. Her consent has been wide in scope, but defined. No intentional permanent physical or mental harm being the first thing that comes to mind in that regard. A few others on the same level. I don't intend to cross those, although she's free to extend her consent at a later point in time, if she wishes to. Generalities suffice, really. quote: I develop my slave's skills and cooperation through helping her develop her self-awareness. She does what she does because this is an expression of who she is and who she wants to be. That's the dialectical approach, which is also valid, but less general than the cognitive approach. Whatever approach we take, it does something. It's not that I use the CBT approach for fun, it just happens to (a) be well-tested and effective, and (b) be fully in line with how I have instinctively done things since before I read about it. quote: I was unaware there is more than one kind of "trustworthy". "Worthy of what kind of trust, or trust in what?" was what I meant. quote: I mean that I do not betray my promises, nor do I betray those for whom I've accepted responsibility. In a loving relationship I add that it means I do not give up on the relationship or my beloved (though she is free to give up on me, if she feels the need). Good friends and family fit that latter criteria as well. ~nods~ Commitment and a measure of Integrity, then. quote: If I love myself, then I am responsible to me to not let myself down in the field of ethics and morality. I'm not inclined to let myself down morally or ethically. But my ethos does not prohibit anything that is done under informed consent.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 10:43:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin Ah, well, explaining unusual kinks which she may not suspect you have is certainly a good introductory practice. I agree with that one. ~nods~ Point being, I have plenty, and a good number aren't things one would normally guess at. That may not show without talking it over in detail, and I've had people reach that level of trust before reaching that level of familiarity. (Basically, I tend to be quickly trusted by people, and make people feel at ease, safe.) Yes, I get that a lot too. Especially those I meet in real life (my voice carries a quality that encourages it). quote: Oh? Does your relationship include experimentation and growth? If so, and you hav an LTR partner involved, then chances are this kind of consent has been given or implied. Her consent has been wide in scope, but defined. No intentional permanent physical or mental harm being the first thing that comes to mind in that regard. A few others on the same level. I don't intend to cross those, although she's free to extend her consent at a later point in time, if she wishes to. Generalities suffice, really. These would be hard limits for me. I've no desire or interest in doing either, and thus far I've not had any arguments over that (well, once, but I refused to consent to it). My standard is that everything I do should be something I can do repeatedly. quote: quote: I was unaware there is more than one kind of "trustworthy". "Worthy of what kind of trust, or trust in what?" was what I meant. quote: I mean that I do not betray my promises, nor do I betray those for whom I've accepted responsibility. In a loving relationship I add that it means I do not give up on the relationship or my beloved (though she is free to give up on me, if she feels the need). Good friends and family fit that latter criteria as well. ~nods~ Commitment and a measure of Integrity, then. And a solid foundation of ethics that benefit those in my life as well as life itself. The trust is not based on one or two features, but an integrated personality encompassing many valued qualities. quote: quote: If I love myself, then I am responsible to me to not let myself down in the field of ethics and morality. I'm not inclined to let myself down morally or ethically. But my ethos does not prohibit anything that is done under informed consent. Mine does. There are things I simply will not do. As I love and value those who entrust themselves to me, so too I love and value their well-being and happiness. I will not jeopardize either for the sake of pursuing a kink. On the other hand, it is amazing how much can be included on the To-Do list within such limits as those.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 1:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin These would be hard limits for me. I've no desire or interest in doing either, and thus far I've not had any arguments over that (well, once, but I refused to consent to it). Not necessarily so for me. But neither are they requisite activities. So I don't advertise that before the topic comes up, as it won't be happening without the other party having given informed consent to it happening, and to a standard that is adequate to the courts up here, as well as being at least equal to that for analogous risk/harm in other areas of life. quote: My standard is that everything I do should be something I can do repeatedly. Rather concise. I would add "and indefinitely" to that, I think. A lot of things can be done repeatedly for a few weeks to a few years, then do harm. quote: And a solid foundation of ethics that benefit those in my life as well as life itself. The trust is not based on one or two features, but an integrated personality encompassing many valued qualities. Ah. But there's the rub. I've yet to encounter two people with the same idea of ethics, except those who have an extremely minimalist ethic with little to no room for interpretation. For that matter, there's no act that has been universally reviled in all cultures at all times, though two or three come close. Morals and ethics follow fashions. quote: Mine does. There are things I simply will not do. Which makes it simpler to conflate trust with other things, as the assumptions made by a potential bottom/sub/slave are more likely to hold in your case than in mine. I can quite definitely be trusted not to cross a line I have agreed not to cross, even one that is put in very general terms. But assuming certain lines are shared is unlikely to be a good idea. Hence, making her think about the need for common ground (which you have implicitly ceded in your argument), and making her realize that there is no certain or definite common ground with a blank check. As I've said in the past, consent is a lot simpler for more basic play than for things that are on the far fringes of edgeplay. quote: As I love and value those who entrust themselves to me, so too I love and value their well-being and happiness. I will not jeopardize either for the sake of pursuing a kink. In the cases where love is a part of the relationship, I agree. But I've had people explicitly ask not to have that element included in any way, shape or form. quote: On the other hand, it is amazing how much can be included on the To-Do list within such limits as those. Definitely. Here, we certainly agree again. Health, al-Aswad.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 5:06:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin My standard is that everything I do should be something I can do repeatedly. Rather concise. I would add "and indefinitely" to that, I think. A lot of things can be done repeatedly for a few weeks to a few years, then do harm. For me, "repeatedly" without qualification excludes those practises. quote: quote: And a solid foundation of ethics that benefit those in my life as well as life itself. The trust is not based on one or two features, but an integrated personality encompassing many valued qualities. Ah. But there's the rub. I've yet to encounter two people with the same idea of ethics, except those who have an extremely minimalist ethic with little to no room for interpretation. For that matter, there's no act that has been universally reviled in all cultures at all times, though two or three come close. Morals and ethics follow fashions. Yes, there is truth in all of that. It is incumbent upon those involved to be sure these ethics are understood and shared. This is usually handled during the introductory process, though to learn a person's system of ethics can take a life time. Some situations crop up so rarely that the ethics handling those situations just do not get discussed, still, such ethics should be consistent with known ethics. For example, the ethics for handling an emergency might not arise until an emergency situation occurs. quote: quote: Mine does. There are things I simply will not do. Which makes it simpler to conflate trust with other things, as the assumptions made by a potential bottom/sub/slave are more likely to hold in your case than in mine. I can quite definitely be trusted not to cross a line I have agreed not to cross, even one that is put in very general terms. But assuming certain lines are shared is unlikely to be a good idea. Hence, making her think about the need for common ground (which you have implicitly ceded in your argument), and making her realize that there is no certain or definite common ground with a blank check. As I've said in the past, consent is a lot simpler for more basic play than for things that are on the far fringes of edgeplay. Again, that depends upon the degree of informed consent one is after. While I will encourage a slave to understand her risks, I do not insist upon it if she is willing to trust in my love for her. Perhaps I should be saying that if she has informed trust in me, she can (if she so chooses) dispense with informed consent for any activity. Consider the medical model. A surgeon can explain to you the risks involved, but the bottom line is going to be: do you trust the surgeon to do the job right. If you do, then a list of risks involved with the procedure really isn't going to change anything. For example, when my wife was pregnant the gynecologist wanted to conduct an amniocentesis (sp?) the needle intot he uterus to draw some of the amniotic fluids to test for the fetus's health. We refused, as we didn't trust anyone with a needle that close to the baby. On the other hand, when my wife went in for surgery to remove the largest tumour, we trusted those involved to do the job right, regardless of the risks. For them, it was a matter of covering their legal liabilities, whereas for us, it was a matter of trust. Thus I can see a slave making a similar decision based on trust, not information. And as I have no expectation this would go to a court of law (and if it did, I doubt I could construct any argument, regardless of what was said or agreed upon, that would overthrow the bias in favour of a female slave vs a male master), I do not worry about such liabilities. In this sense, I too am depending upon trust and love. quote: quote: As I love and value those who entrust themselves to me, so too I love and value their well-being and happiness. I will not jeopardize either for the sake of pursuing a kink. In the cases where love is a part of the relationship, I agree. But I've had people explicitly ask not to have that element included in any way, shape or form. I've been made aware of the fact that such people exist. I've not met them (that I knew of) and quite simply could not become involved with such individuals. Love, or a solid foundation and expressed intention to develop a loving relationship must exist for me before I'm willing to engage in bdsm. Simply put, I lack the psychology needed to engage in bdsm on a casual basis. For me, bdsm expresses deep-rooted spiritual beliefs in love, and casual play is just too superficial for me. quote: quote: On the other hand, it is amazing how much can be included on the To-Do list within such limits as those. Definitely. Here, we certainly agree again. Health, al-Aswad. and Safe Journeys, Robert

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 7:50:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin For me, "repeatedly" without qualification excludes those practises. ~nods~ I prefer to be a notch more precise, and it was concise enough to leave room for it. quote: It is incumbent upon those involved to be sure these ethics are understood and shared. Agreed. Put differently, it doesn't matter so much what angle she approaches it from. I just want her to have an adequate idea of what she is signing up for to be able to make an informed decision about it. Whether that proceeds in terms of limits, ethics, or other things, is rather academic, as long as the net result is the same. quote: Again, that depends upon the degree of informed consent one is after. Which, in my case, depends on what I want to engage in with her. [:D] quote: Perhaps I should be saying that if she has informed trust in me, she can (if she so chooses) dispense with informed consent for any activity. Good way of putting it. quote: And as I have no expectation this would go to a court of law (and if it did, I doubt I could construct any argument, regardless of what was said or agreed upon, that would overthrow the bias in favour of a female slave vs a male master), I do not worry about such liabilities. Around these parts, a signed consent form covers just about anything, and mitigates the rest. quote: I've been made aware of the fact that such people exist. I've not met them (that I knew of) and quite simply could not become involved with such individuals. Personal preference. Some people are apparently more content in such a setting. If I am to take on a secondary, she will not be romantically involved with me, although I will be affectionate in a different way unless she has a preference for detachment. I have a fairly flexible control over what emotions develop. quote: Simply put, I lack the psychology needed to engage in bdsm on a casual basis. For me, bdsm expresses deep-rooted spiritual beliefs in love, and casual play is just too superficial for me. Casual play, for me, is like a one-night stand. But I can engage in a lifestyle relationship without the romantic component.

ChainsandFreedom -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 9:39:29 AM)
Aswad, I always cring when an uncommonly intelligent person makes a common mistake. I hope I don't appear insulting. quote: By my understanding, I have experienced the mental state of nibbana. It does not have any wants/desires in it. It is devoid of such things entirely. In fact, "void" or "devoid" is probably a viable description of the state in general. The concept does not have any meaning that maps to any equivalent in that state. Lust, yes. Love, yes. Desire, no. To abuse an appropriate quote, "It's only when we've lost everything that we're free to do anything". Or, transposed into this context, "It's only when you relinquish everything that you gain everything." Nibbana (origional Pali/Sankrit-nice) or Nirvana is percieved as a permanante state. The idea is that it is something so all-encompassingly wonderful, once you achieve it you will never go back. A postive equivalent of staring into the sun too long, if you will. What you are describing, a temporary feeling of Nirvana, is recognized both in origional scripture and modern practice as being spirtually Enlightend - what you are describing is a rare and good experience. Congradulations on your advanced spirituality, but this is not, strictly speaking, an experience of Nirvanna. Nirvanna is described as being so omniprescent by seeing all things in the universe as one that your indivuality ceases to exist. It is so rare, that according to the Therivada tradition, only 9 people have ever attained this status, and they are referred to as Buddhas. (Buddha singular if your Mahianist and believe the Buddha returns untill all beings achieve Nirvana). The conventional, Western word for love which you describe is probably not exactly the same thing as the Nirvana-love wherein all things are one thing and everything is different than love for you mother, fellow man, ect. The lust you describe is an attachment to physical entities, and once Nirvanna is achieved feelings of lust are no longer relevant. The quote 'only when you've lost everything are you free to do anything' is conventionally true, however it is misleading because while being a pauper may aid in Enlightenment, you must willingly GIVE UP everything to be free rather than have LOST it. Thats why emptying you're mind of everything, meditating, is such an important step. Like I said, what you are describing is a rare and good thing spiritually, according to practicing Buddhists, origonal scripture, and published philosphers I have had the benifit of learning under. I don't mean to say you havent experienced Nirvana, however what you're talking about isnt Nirvana in a conventionally Buddhist sense.

ChainsandFreedom -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 9:47:33 AM)
Personally, I have experienced Nirvana-like states because of a clear night sky over a still lake while in a canoe, staring into the surf and bright light of the tides, pain, and being immobalized for long periods of time...so I think I know what your talking about, however because these states are dependant on nature/physical sensation rather than self-manifesting out of nothing, I always have something to return to rather than dwelling in the everything/nothing I myself consider nirvana to be. I really don't mean to knock your spiritualty or the fact your of advanced understanding. I could well be wrong. Its all an argument over definition to me.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 10:09:20 AM)
ChainsandFreedom, No worries. I know what it was; what word describes it is secondary, as is the detail of how- if at all- it fits in the teaching of any specific religion. I went with what a Buddhist told me when he asserted that it was nibbana. Personally, I've usually referred to it as fudoshin or mushin. It recurs in various religious and spiritual paths, including Zen and Christianity. Although, in the latter case, it was mostly lost with Paul. Whether it is perceived as a permanent state or not, I don't know. Couldn't care less. For me, it wasn't, although it became available to me through experiencing it once. And it was a life altering experience, with lasting effects of a positive nature. Glimpses of this sort are called sa or satori in some traditions, IIRC. Of course, terminology isn't always my strong point, I admit. I universally prefer direct experience in that regard. As for individuality, it is not so much that it ceases to exist, as that it is seamless with the background of reality. Self and Other remain, but have no boundary to seperate them. I am the causative agent and locus of perception, but there is no point where I end and all begins. Neither is there past, present or future. The veil is lifted, and it's all one. As for what one might feel, I can only go by what I felt and speculate from that. As for the quote, the former quote was used mostly as a bridge, due to its familiarity and how easily grasped it is. The latter quote is more to the point you are making, although it isn't even really so much giving up, as it is simply letting go of everything, including wishes, desires, hopes, fears, and really life itself. Hope that makes more sense. Health, al-Aswad.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 10:16:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin For me, "repeatedly" without qualification excludes those practises. ~nods~ I prefer to be a notch more precise, and it was concise enough to leave room for it. And seeking clarification is always a wise move. quote: quote: And as I have no expectation this would go to a court of law (and if it did, I doubt I could construct any argument, regardless of what was said or agreed upon, that would overthrow the bias in favour of a female slave vs a male master), I do not worry about such liabilities. Around these parts, a signed consent form covers just about anything, and mitigates the rest. And how would you defend that document against accusations of coercion? How would you demonstrate she signed it freely, and not under duress? I have from time to time mulled over this idea, but have never acted on it because it seems to me this is the flaw in the theory: that just because she signed it means she was able to exercise her right to walk away from it. Again, this seems to me to come down to fighting the bias that will exist in favour of a female submissive vs the disfavour shown to a male master.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 10:26:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad ChainsandFreedom, No worries. I know what it was; what word describes it is secondary, as is the detail of how- if at all- it fits in the teaching of any specific religion. I went with what a Buddhist told me when he asserted that it was nibbana. Personally, I've usually referred to it as fudoshin or mushin. It recurs in various religious and spiritual paths, including Zen and Christianity. Although, in the latter case, it was mostly lost with Paul. Whether it is perceived as a permanent state or not, I don't know. Couldn't care less. For me, it wasn't, although it became available to me through experiencing it once. And it was a life altering experience, with lasting effects of a positive nature. Glimpses of this sort are called sa or satori in some traditions, IIRC. Of course, terminology isn't always my strong point, I admit. I universally prefer direct experience in that regard. As for individuality, it is not so much that it ceases to exist, as that it is seamless with the background of reality. Self and Other remain, but have no boundary to seperate them. I am the causative agent and locus of perception, but there is no point where I end and all begins. Neither is there past, present or future. The veil is lifted, and it's all one. As for what one might feel, I can only go by what I felt and speculate from that. As for the quote, the former quote was used mostly as a bridge, due to its familiarity and how easily grasped it is. The latter quote is more to the point you are making, although it isn't even really so much giving up, as it is simply letting go of everything, including wishes, desires, hopes, fears, and really life itself. Hope that makes more sense. Health, al-Aswad. I'd be very interested if this should come up in a topic of its own someday. You've described an experience which I've had: that sense of union with everything else, yet not quite giving up my status as an individual. It has fueled what is now some very solid spiritual beliefs of mine. Out of respect for Winsome and her topic (which I think we've been ignoring for too long) I won't go into this here. But if the topic should arise, feel free to let me know.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 11:01:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin And how would you defend that document against accusations of coercion? How would you demonstrate she signed it freely, and not under duress? Same way as in any other context. The defense tries to prove there was no coercion, while the prosecution tries to prove that there was. More ideally, the signing is attested by a neutral third party that holds weight in such a context, for instance an attourney or somesuch; e.g. "hereby attest that the parties have read, understood and signed this document, without coercion and other forms of undue influence, including, but not limited to, substance use, sleep deprivation, or emotional imbalance." Thinking about credibility in advance, along with having a written consent, seriously limits any issues. And if a third party should raise charges, it can generally be dismissed based on the testimony of the submissive party. Such was the case for one M/s relationship in which the M-type amputated a finger on the s-type; it was deemed mere negligence. quote: Again, this seems to me to come down to fighting the bias that will exist in favour of a female submissive vs the disfavour shown to a male master. Bingo.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/5/2007 11:05:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin I'd be very interested if this should come up in a topic of its own someday. [...] Out of respect for Winsome and her topic I won't go into this here. I'll try to remember to drop you a line if the topic comes up. That said, feel free to message me on the other side (PM), as it is an important part of my own beliefs and practices as well. While I am nominally "Christian", I have always been going by my own interpretation, and am now pursuing a rather radical tangent.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875