RE: Internal Enslavement (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

Huntertn -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/25/2008 8:58:33 PM)

lol..un natural slaves..LOL...sure..try meeting my ex..snickers



SaraZeal -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 1:57:51 AM)

quote:

To use your analogy, a person says "you are not doing XXX unless you can reach 0", then another subjectively interprets that to mean, "well, 0 is almost impossible, so if you can reach 1 then your still doing XXX".  Another person who finds the whole thing very difficult comes along and says "since this is harder for me than for most others, I'm going to say 10 is good enough for me".  Another really lazy person comes along and says "well since we all get to decide what doing XXX means, I'm going to say I'm doing it even though I'm at 100".

Now we have a bunch of people saying they are doing XXX, even though none of them really are, and none of them are doing the same thing.  So for all realistic purposes XXX has ceased to have any meaning at all.  All of a sudden any form of logical discussion becomes impossible because we are all talking about different things.


Just like how some people are not "really gay" because they didn't know about it at 2 years old, didn't have a same-sex partner at 8 years old, and didn't have sex with a same-sex partner before 13? Wether they know at 2, 10, 20 or 30 years old, and wether they act on it at any age, they are still within the concept of being attracted to people of the same-sex.

It's like saying IE is ice cream, and that it absolutely has to be that one brand ice cream that costs 50$ for 2 litres. When what the site really says is "Aim at this, it is your goal if you want this".

And yeah someone at 1, 10 or 100 per my other example would qualify if the environment has the same qualities. The slave would not want to leave under most (but not all) circumstances if the Master is doing it right.

F1 pilots run a lap in a race in 1:30 minute and sometimes less. He can set a goal for himself to run at 1:15 minute and if he can only attain 1:20, he already did a lot towards it. And most people, maybe including him, would see it as pretty good, not a failure. If it was physically impossible to run at 1:15 minute on the lap, he wouldn't say he was a failure as a pilot to not do any better than 1:20 minute.

I wonder how many analogies I have to use for you to understand that abstract concepts rarely exist in their abstract forms in concrete worlds.



WhiteFox77 -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 8:56:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
The logic flaw is that human emotional and psychological experiences don't fall neatly into enumerated logic of A + B = C.


Now we're back to how things feel and what seems right instead of facts and logic.  Sorry, I'm just not going there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
People devote their lives and put all their being into metaphysical deities when simple logic would dictate that they are imaginey and unreal. They continue to endure horrible hardships with their companions, unable and incapable to leave them for their own sake when simple logic would dictate to just walk out the door and put an end to it.

The flaw is that your logic isn't applicable to such experiences and such experiences aren't bound by it. A few people have tried to point this out, but you just aren't getting it nor willing to think outside the box of the order you have forced upon the world to understand it. I can't really fault you though, because I used to be the same way. 


And if I was analyzing peoples feelings and experiences there'd be a problem.  Good thing I'm not doing that.

I'm going to point this out one last time, then I'm off because I'm really tired of saying the same thing.  I AM NOT CRITICIZING OR ANALYZING THE CONCEPT OF INTERNAL ENSLAVEMENT AS A WHOLE, I AM CRITICIZING THE IDEAS PUT FORTH ON A WEBSITE.

Just becuast the web site's title is "Internal Enslavement" does not make it the definitive source of information on the subject.  I can disagree with the site without invalidating IE as a whole.  BTW:  Have you even bothered to read the FAQ and essays on the site in question?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Yeah, dude....but for the last time (repeating myself yet again) the context of such a definition is one of emotional attachment steming from the slave to the Master, not a law turning the clock back to the 1800s like you keep trying to depict.

Ain't nobody keeping the slave from leaving in the M/S relationships depicted besides the slave herself.


And since that is not what the web site in question says you agree with me that the website sucks.  Cool, conversation over.


quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists
I agree that the life/environment you provide is important... but I believe that putting that ahead of the character you are is like putting the cart before the horse.

It has been my experience that those relationships that are healthy strong and enduring have common factor to them.  First is that the individuals are connected as individuals.  The character and personality is what draws them together.  From that they look to the life/environment they can have such a person.  It's is our character and personality that creates the life/environment of our relationships.  IE... a person of low integrity is sure to bring lies and deceit to his relationships and that is the life/environment that his partners can look forward to.

I was very fortunate to cross paths with Alandra... She is a wonderful person and I unknowningly entered in a relationship that was destine to succeed becuase of the compatiability of our character and personality.  Our life/environment naturally flowed from who we are as people.  I never realized the significant connection that the character of who we are has to our life/environment until I brought someone into my life that was toxic to our life/environment.  The experience awaken my awareness to the importance of who we are far out ways our goals and even our actions.  In fact... it is who we are that our goals and actions manifest themselves from.

When we are open and authentic to our partners and this draws us together.. the bond is going to be exceedly strong.  The life/environment that we live is subjected to a variety of things that are beyond our individual control.  But.. who I am... I who I am.  Holding to this is holding on to the rock.  Holding on to a life/environment can be like holding on to air because it can change so rapidly.  The attachment of my girls to Who I am and not because of what I do for them is much preferred in my world.  Who I am doesn't change... it is constant... and as such.. I can expect the attachment to be just as constant.  But... If they are attached because of the life/environment I provide... who is really the Master.  They would serve me... but yet... I would serve them to provide the life/environment they would expect from me.  These may seem like subtle things to many... but from my experience of living a power dynamic relationship.. it is significant.


So that's why that marrige ended....



MadRabbit -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 9:12:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteFox77
Now we're back to how things feel and what seems right instead of facts and logic.  Sorry, I'm just not going there.


Nope, we aren't. I'm not talking about what "feels right". I'm talking about how analyzing emotional experiences and forcing them into A+B=C with simple logic doesn't do them any justice.

quote:


And if I was analyzing peoples feelings and experiences there'd be a problem.  Good thing I'm not doing that.

I'm going to point this out one last time, then I'm off because I'm really tired of saying the same thing.  I AM NOT CRITICIZING OR ANALYZING THE CONCEPT OF INTERNAL ENSLAVEMENT AS A WHOLE, I AM CRITICIZING THE IDEAS PUT FORTH ON A WEBSITE

Just becuast the web site's title is "Internal Enslavement" does not make it the definitive source of information on the subject.  I can disagree with the site without invalidating IE as a whole.  BTW:  Have you even bothered to read the FAQ and essays on the site in question?


Yeah, I have. A few times over.

Your, in fact, analyzing psychological and human experience, because the website is entirely in the context of such an emotional bond. Period. It's not advocating forcing people to stay in relationships and applying such logic that determines it to be unethical is like saying that someone falling so deep in love with someone that they can't just pack up and leave at the drop of a hat is unethically wrong.

Are you suggesting that people forming powerful emotional bonds in their relationships is ethically wrong and nobody should ever do it?

quote:

 
And since that is not what the web site in question says you agree with me that the website sucks.  Cool, conversation over.


Please feel free to point out where the website isn't talking about enslavement in the context of an emotional bond and rather talking about forcing people to stay in relationships and then I'll agree with you.

Cause I promise you aren't going to find it unless you blatantly misread what is written and interrupt it with a filter on. There isn't anything in that FAQ or essays that talks about External Enslavement.

You must be one of those guys who has to always be right and any other way of understanding something besides the order and definitions you force on the words is wrong.



MontrealPhoenix -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 9:58:44 AM)

Greetings Master MadRabbit,
 
As a Gorean slave i must say i agree with you. When the time comes for me to move in with my (as yet unknown) Master, i will no longer own anything. Gone will be my rights including the right to say no.
 
Will it be based on trust of an incredible level? Yes. Will it be with my full consent? Yes. Will i be able to leave for a reason such as it's not fun anymore? No. Will i be able to leave if the relationship is abusive? you bet, and furthermore i would be leaving with all the possessions i came with, that's just how it work.
 
Honestly i don't see what people are getting so worked up about. The site specifies consent and unless i missed it, never talks about a slave being kept against her will. FYI a very strong emotional bond is necessary in order for a slave to trust and give herself completely to her Master. This is not a BDSM D/s relationship it's one of slavery which involves no limits or control by the slave. Is it for everyone? No.
 
Thank you Master MadRabbit for being the voice of sanity and reason here. If there are others with the same view (not having looked over the whole thread) i thank you too.
 
be well,
 
phoenix

edited for clarity



WhiteFox77 -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 11:43:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
You must be one of those guys who has to always be right and any other way of understanding something besides the order and definitions you force on the words is wrong.


It's amazing how the only people who ever accuse others of that are people who are arguing with another and are unwilling to admit they are wrong.

“Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson



HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 1:48:45 PM)

MadRabbit, are we still playing?



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 1:54:47 PM)

I am willing to play some more, and stay on topic. Any thoughts on this section?

"
But how can you claim that literal slavery is possible?


The Enslavement Hypothesis is that there are submissives who have an overwhelming need to be possessed by a dominant. Given the right environment, the submissive can be coaxed out from behind the protective walls she has built during her life and made to expose all of her Self to her master. Among other things this requires that he creates an environment which is emotionally safe and in which her underlying character will be accepted, probably for the first time in her life. During this process, the bond between the submissive and her master becomes sufficiently strong that she can no longer break it herself, and she has then been enslaved. "
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/iefaq

Was wondering thoughts on the areas I put in bold.



MadRabbit -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 7:06:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteFox77

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
You must be one of those guys who has to always be right and any other way of understanding something besides the order and definitions you force on the words is wrong.


It's amazing how the only people who ever accuse others of that are people who are arguing with another and are unwilling to admit they are wrong.

“Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson



You can list those examples anytime you want to.



MadRabbit -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 7:07:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

MadRabbit, are we still playing?


I can only handle one person who doesn't know what they are talking about at a time.



MadRabbit -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 7:16:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I am willing to play some more, and stay on topic. Any thoughts on this section?

"
But how can you claim that literal slavery is possible?


The Enslavement Hypothesis is that there are submissives who have an overwhelming need to be possessed by a dominant. Given the right environment, the submissive can be coaxed out from behind the protective walls she has built during her life and made to expose all of her Self to her master. Among other things this requires that he creates an environment which is emotionally safe and in which her underlying character will be accepted, probably for the first time in her life. During this process, the bond between the submissive and her master becomes sufficiently strong that she can no longer break it herself, and she has then been enslaved. "
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/iefaq

Was wondering thoughts on the areas I put in bold.


It goes to the heart of why I have stated a few times that such literal interruptation of the definitions is a bad idea. Making a constant issue of the unethicality of non-consent and portraying people as being forced into abusive relationships is a whole other different basket of apples when the very process itself is based off a healthy enviroment and the slaves in the relationship are the one's keeping themselves tied to the Master.



Leatherist -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 7:35:40 PM)

I already stated a basic agreement with angel on this subject. The the owner facillitates a basic need that already existed in the submissive core.
 
 This is not something that can be argued logically,because that is not it's deepest basis. It's primal, hind brain stuff-animal.
 
 The other fellow wants to stick to arguing ethics and morals. This has nothing to do with that. To attempt to approach this logically is an excercise in futility.
 
 The owner simply provides and reenforces the "safe zone" in which the person can unfold and refine thier potential.
 
 The person's nature and potential are not questioned by the owner. They are encouraged. For to question the person's desire to completion will only introduce an insecure factor-and will disrupt the process.
 
 Calling in bdsm paranoias like "scc" and "safewords"..will only lead to the owner basically saying,"I give you reasons to distrust me-I give you ways to control me when I push you out of your comfort zones."
 
 "I'm weak, twist me."
 
 I understand the process-but this medium is a piss poor way to express how it goes-you have to be there.



HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 8:42:11 PM)

MadRabbit, despite your ugly words I'm still here. Lets us sort out the issues. In this thread, the following ideas have been debated:

1) Whether IE's training is wrong.
2) Whether IE's training leads a slave to be unable to make choices.
3) Whether consent is durable. (Is initial consent right or not?)
4) Whether consent must be informed.
5) Whether there are "true" slaves.
6) Whether a person can be held against their will.
7) Whether slavery is natural.
8) Whether consensual non-consent exists.
9) Whether people should have to consent to their involvement in acts.
10) What, exactly, an IE relationship entails.

This is just a summary, there were others. Now, I understand that you've been confused - and it may be partially because we're juggling 10+ things at once. Let's deal with one at a time. Would you like to pick first?

Also, I will hear no more accusations of my lack of understanding of power exchange, being closed-minded, or ignoring aspects of arguments without citing where said insult occurred.

Anyone else who wants to play this game is welcome, but be extremely clear which issue you are dealing with. (Feel free to add issues not listed here)



Leatherist -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 8:45:06 PM)

There is no use in arguing with anyone who has not taken part in this process.



HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 8:47:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

There is no use in arguing with anyone who has not taken part in this process.


You mean the IE process?

Because by that logic, men should have absolutely no opinions about pregnancy and women should be forbidden from designing urinals.



Leatherist -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 8:56:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

There is no use in arguing with anyone who has not taken part in this process.


You mean the IE process?

Because by that logic, men should have absolutely no opinions about pregnancy and women should be forbidden from designing urinals.


No, totally pointless.

I refuse to play.



HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 8:59:39 PM)

Then you mean the process of debate? ... Excuse my narcissism, but do you mean me?



Leatherist -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 9:08:54 PM)

yes, bye.



HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 9:27:14 PM)

I admit I stepped away from this thread for reasons of travel and a shifting course of discussion which I opted not to engage myself into. If I've offended you, I'm sorry.

Well, you know where I'll be if you want to discuss about my "lack of participation in the argumentative process."



WhiteFox77 -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/26/2008 9:34:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteFox77
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
You must be one of those guys who has to always be right and any other way of understanding something besides the order and definitions you force on the words is wrong.

It's amazing how the only people who ever accuse others of that are people who are arguing with another and are unwilling to admit they are wrong.

“Every man alone is sincere. At the entrance of a second person, hypocrisy begins.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

You can list those examples anytime you want to.


LOL:  That point just went zippen right past didn't it?

Why would a person accuse another of not being willing to admit it when they were wrong if they weren't activly arguing with the other about something and unwilling to admit that they were wrong and the other right?  The answer is they wouldn't.  So every person that has ever accused another of not being willing to admit that they were wrong was also guily of not being able to admit they were wrong.

Of course I completely expect you to disagree with that because it uses a chain of logic to arrive at the conclusion.

In a way what you are saying about the site is 100% true.  If you read the site and disregard what it says from a literal point of view, and reinterpret it to say what you want it to say based on your own experiences and emotions, it's a great site.  Of course that also means that the site has nothing to do with what the author of the site actually said, and that it means something completely different for each person that reads it, so I guess then it's only a great site if the individual reading it wants it to be a great site.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
Because by that logic, men should have absolutely no opinions about pregnancy and women should be forbidden from designing urinals.


I would have gone with: By that logic a doctor who has never died has no business saving peoples lives, but that's just me.

HeavansKeeper:  The fact that you have the stamina and patients to keep trying impresses me.  But I wouldn't bother with the L word any more if I were you.

In any case, I'm am not interested in a conversation that isn't based on logic and where people don't take what others say as being exactly the same as what they mean, so I'm done with this one.  I've removed my subscription to the thread.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875