|
Cyntilating -> RE: Value vs Status (11/15/2007 4:08:56 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Padriag
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam
Remember the usual argument about whether or not the slave is equal to the Master? Some say, "No, that's not true, by the very definition of the relationship," while other say (ok, I say), "We're equal adults living in a healthy relationship with a defined structure and transfer of authority." The two were finally put together by someone in my local MAsT group:
The Master and slave are of equal value. The Master and slave are not of equal status.
Blam! That just makes so much sense to me. I thought I'd share...'cause ya know...enlightenment and all that. *chuckle*
Master Fire
Anyone who read a recent post of mine in another thread won't be surprised by this... but...
I disagree.
I don't think they are of equal value or status. I do agree their status is defined by the parameters of the relationship. Let's be clear, can we agree that the notion they are of equal value comes from the notion that all human beings are of equal value for no other reason than they exist? Its a notion held at a near religious level by Americans ("We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal," states the US Declaration of Independence, words that began a 200 year love affair with the ideal of universal equality). What I would propose be considered is just why that belief is held. I wrote an entire essay on the subject which can be read at my personal site in the Creative Writing : Essays section, "Are We Equal" which says a good deal more than I have space for here.
I understand that many want them to be of equal value, its a comforting idea to many, especially to some submissives. Its also an ideal that is very common in western thinking, most especially America. It is an ideal that is spoon fed from grade school forward. So it doesn't surprise me that in a lifestyle that deals with such concepts as power exchange, enslavement, servitude and humiliation... that reconciling that with the concept of universal equality and universal value is an uncomfortable struggle for some. I also realize that suggesting that we are not equal is also an unconfortable concept that some will reject out of reflex.
But to come back to the original statement, you say both the dominant and the submissive are of equal value in the relationship. Let's consider this for a moment and ask ourselves where that value comes from? As I allude to above, some will say they have equal value just because they're both human beings (i.e. created equal)... that this is some innate and automatic value. I may argue that later (because I don't buy it), but for now I'll let it stand. Okay, so for sake of argument let's say they began the relationship of equal value. But is that fixed? Is it always the same, never changing? I don't think so. Suppose the submissive spent a lot of time and energy contributing to the relationship, and let us also suppose the dominant contributed virtually nothing. Are they still of equal value in the relationship... or is the submissive of more value in the relationship because s/he is contributing more? If you agree that is true, then you just agreed that people aren't always of equal value. And many of you who have posted in the past have, in essence, already agreed to this when you suggested this dominant or that was unhealthy for this or that submissive and they should leave the relationship. You made that assertion because you felt, if you're honest about it, that the dominant wasn't worth very much and the submissive deserved more. There you are, the submissive deserved more, why, because s/he was of greater value than the "worthless" or literally "worth less" dominant. Anytime you've said someone was worthless, you very literally stated that person was of lesser value than others... you were very literally stating that that person was not of equal value. We are not all equal, and in practice we behave and treat others this way, the proof is abundant in our daily lives... if we're honest with ourselves.
Let's be honest about something else, innate value is an impossibility. That probably has some of you scratching your heads, so I'll explain. Let's consider a diamond... a chunk of carbon rock. Does it have innate value? Some would likely say yes... its a diamond after all. You'd be wrong. A diamond has no innate value, we as human beings (as value creating beings) assign value to it because we find this particular chunk of carbon appealing and useful and intriging because of its rarity. But just lying there on its own, it has no innate value... in fact, were about the only thing on the planet that does value it... to a monkey or meerkat that diamond is worthless. It is not until we, as value creating beings, assign it a value that a diamond is worth anything. Further, how much value we assign a particular diamond depends on how much it pleases us, how useful we think it is, and how rare. That is, the more pleasing, the more useful, the more rare... the more value we assign it. Nothing in this world has value until we assign value to it, and that includes us as human beings.
So lets extend that and come back to the hard working submissive and the lazy dominant... what value would we assign them? As I said before, most of us would assign very little to the dominant, while we would assign considerably more to the submissive. Why? Because we find such a dominant unappealing, not very useful, and perhaps even too common... thus he would be worth less to us. A hard working submissive gets valued more because she is useful and appealing, and perhaps a bit rare. We make similar valuations based on physical appearance, intelligence, experience, sexual behavior and many, many other things. We most explicity do not think of each other as being of equal value, and anyone who spent a day in these forums reading the commentary of some, regarding their opinion of certain others, could easily see this demonstrated. Likewise, sit and listen to almost any group of people and you will hear them making such valuations about others. You might even be bold enough to ponder how often you've made such valuations about others.
So, some of us may say the dominant and submissve are of equal value because its a cherished ideal. But in practice we don't act that way. Going one step further would anyone really care to argue that they value their dominant or submissive partner more than others? I would hope you do value them more than other people! That's also natural. There are various submissives on here whom I like and/or admire... but do I value them as much as I would my own... hell no! I'll hazard a guess most dominants would answer similarly... but why? Because my own submissive is of more use to me personally than someone else... thus I assign her higher value. For much the same reason its unlikely that a dominant and submissive are of equal value in a relationship, since neither is likely to make the same subjective valuation about the other (one or the other will likely value the other at least slightly more).
BTW, undestanding value and where it comes from is very important. Value and valuations are how the worth of anything is determined. If we say any two things are equal, we are literally saying they are of equal worth... thus the idealized notion of all humans are equal is more acurately phrased, "all humans are of equal worth." Yet clearly, they are not, in part because they are not all equally appealing, useful, or any of the other things we base value on... and also because value is subjective... something can be worth more to one person and less to another. Value is not innate... we assign it, and what value we assign can and generally is unique to all of us. For example, we may all agree on some basic concept regarding the value of a dollar... but in practice some people value their dollars more than others, and this can be seen in their behavior.
If by now I've made my point that value is not and cannot be innate, and that how we assign value is subjective... then how can all people, or even a dominant and submissive... be of equal value?
Now... let me throw in one last concept regarding equality. Equality before the law, which simply means that regardless of whatever valuations have been made about an individual... ideally, before the law all are assigned equal value, and thus are entitled to being treated the same. An admirable idea... though sadly one that has never fully been practiced.
So, if you want to say that in your relationship, you assign equal value to the dominant and submissive... that's one thing, and perhaps you do. But, does your behavior match what you do, or does your behavior betray different valuations? As for myself, I don't presume equal value of anyone, for me, all value is earned. If a submissive wants to be valued by me, she'll have to earn it. That leaves some very uncomfortable, others are drawn to it. Most importantly to me, it works for me. If pursuing an ideal of equal value works for you, whatever gets you through the night...
But, if you try to tell me any two people are innately of equal value... expect me to disagree. [;)]
As always, the above is my personal opinion and belief. Consider it philosophical food for thought.
MasterFireMaam,
{The Master and slave are of equal value. The Master and slave are not of equal status.
Blam! That just makes so much sense to me. I thought I'd share...'cause ya know...enlightenment and all that. *chuckle* }
makes sense to me too! thanks for sharing that. I just love lightbulb moments : )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Padriag,
Equal...
There are alot of human-beings who give reason to doubt that all are equal and deserve equality, because their actions make them unworthy of that right.
That doesn't mean the ideology doesn't or shouldn't exist.
I can think you are equal to me in value, but that doesn't mean you will act that way nor beleive it yourself.
And I cannot make you treat others equally, but that doesn't keep me from treating others rights and feelings as valued....and as equal in importance as mine.
Equality is like Happiness:
Happiness is felt and a chosen emotion.
There are people who think they can make another feel happy (equal)...or do something to make another unhappy (unequal)..
but its the decision of the person whether they feel happiness (equal)or not.
Equality can replace the word happy in the above.
People, laws, ignorance, intolerance, jealousy try to create inequality all the time. Sometimes they/it succeeds..
But, walls of inequality are torn down all the time.
Just as people who are in unbeleivably awful circumstances STILL feel happy and happiness.
as MasterFire said.....status seems to be the excepted difference....at least in this lifestyle we embrace the difference in roles and accept the dynamic as a positive and affirming thing.
Status can also be used against us..and lead to ignorance and intolerance....In the wrong hands or wrong mind-set.
That does not mean the equality wasn't there to begin with as , imho, intended and rightfully so.
You are in a hospital and walk up, blindfolded, to the window of a newborn nursery window. You are told there are 12 babies all lined up in a row..You listen to them, some are crying softly others are asleep....all bundled up snug.
You cannot see:
pink or blue blankets
name tags possibly indicating gender and last name origin/nationality
hair color....skin color... height...weight...sex
.........You stand there and in that moment > every baby there, for all you know, has equal potential in life. They are completely helpless and innocent. But their entire life is still to be written and lived to the fullest potential......right??? isnt that their right?? each one deserving to be as valuable and as accepted (loved) as the one in the bassinette next to them....and each given as many opportunities to succeed and be happy and fulfilled.
That, as I see it is equality and is where equality begins.
None of those other babies have any conception of jealousy or hatred or status of the other ones. They just know they all want to be held and fed...to feel secure..
It is when the blindfold is removed, that things change.
Some of those babies, because of what you SEE, will be categorized and given status and more opportunity instantaneously upon seeing a physical difference...
name sake...size...etc.
that is where inequality begins.
re: equality as Ms Ds roles
Equally vital to the relationship, bringing something different to it, yes, but just as vital to its thriving or failure.
One can say the submissives/slaves role is more vital
Or the Master/Mistresses roles is more vital,
but, bottom line > without both bring ALL they can and feeling the other person is most valuable and valued>> the relationship doesn't thrive, so it doesn't matter who was right or who was deemed more valuable . Difference, but equally as important.
|
|
|
|
