Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: softness
The myth that bugs me most, is the one kept alive by [slaves] who say they cannot leave service [...] They are perfectly able to leave service they are just choosing to ignore the means of exit. [...] never for a second be so arrogant as to assume that you are bowed so low there is no means of escape.
Guess I'm kind of bugged by the flip side here, the one you express.
It's just a matter of how you want things to work.
With consent, you can ethically take all the same steps that you would with a non-consenting person. You'll notice that most of those don't escape, and many don't even try. Those who do escape, usually do so after years of captivity, and generally do so because someone made a mistake with regard to how they kept them there.
There's all sorts of things you can do to effectively prevent someone from leaving, ranging from instilling a phobic fear of the punishment that awaits any attempt at doing so, through deep conditioning, through using potent psychotropics like trifluoperazine or reserpine, to surgical interventions and/or repeated bilateral electroconvulsive treatment. Whether these are ethical means, depends on the consent involved. Whether they are legal means, depends on local jurisdiction.
In short, it depends on how far the parties want to go, and how badly they want to get there.
Most people stop at trying to put up mental barriers to leaving, or instilling a fear of repercussions.
That is pretty effective, in and of itself, as attested to by recidivism rates in battered spouses.
(And that is, again, with people who didn't ask for it in the first place.)
Not that I'm saying it's necessarily a healthy approach, just that it is by no means a myth.
And, then, there's also the option of going the route of legal guardianship, in which case all you need to do is to tell the police that the person is gone, and come up with a good cover story if they suspect anything is wrong. That option was covered in a different thread a few days ago, with daddysprop chiming in about the parts of their arrangement she is allowed to speak about.
quote:
also .. the "no limit slave" ... pfft please. [...] but the limits are still there.
The idea of a no-limits slave is not related to them not having personal limits.
It is related to not imposing limits on their relationship, and their Dom/me.
In short, the Dom/me is allowed to ignore their personal limits.
Why this is so hard to get, is beyond me.
Some of the things I've done with nephandi are beyond her limits, past the point where she calls out for me to stop (we don't use a conventional safeword). They're just not beyond our limits, the ones we agreed on, the limits on the relationship and on her consent. And we're not even doing no-limits; we have formally agreed on no permanent injuries, etc.
Others may want to impose no limits on their relationship and consent.
She did not want to go that route, and neither did I want to go that route with her.
It's not about whether you can hit their personal limits in 5 minutes or not.
It's about whether you're allowed to go beyond them anyway.
Again, what is so hard to understand about this?
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: TPE Myths and Legends.... - 
Profile
.....bunyons????
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread