RE: Internal Enslavement (Full Version)

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



Message

Leatherist -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 7:14:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pettingdragons

Are their un natural slaves?






Maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk-qcZ7c9Kk



Maya2001 -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 7:52:53 AM)

Personally I do not see it as that evil ...just like any good relationship it is dependent on choosing your partners wisely  but it is not saying that you are physically unable to leave ...legal laws  still override  any relationship dynamics...it is basically saying it basically saying if the relationship has been built up with trust and respect,caring, with needs met and provided for then the slave will not emotionally want to leave and will become very dependant emotionally on her master, the bond is not just physical but emotionally(chained together by  heart and soul) ... and just reading posts here about breakups  you can see how that applies also in even D/s dynamics to a smaller degree but it does exist as well



kiwisub12 -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 8:07:02 AM)

Sounds  a bit like making Stepford Wives to me.    A little scary, a little weird, and very time consuming.  I would think that to find two people who are willing to do this process , and are bonded to each other, would be unlikely.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 8:29:54 AM)

quote:

Not free at all. I hesitate to say that "if someone wants out enough, they will get out" because it leads to blaming the victim, saying they choose to stay. If I add the caveat that the victims of domestic abuse are not of sound state of mind to make that decision, then the theory stays.

News flash for you:

Sound mind or not, victims of spousal violence and domestic abuse remain in that state until they choose to leave--even when friends relatives encourage leaving and offer the means/wherewithal to do so. 

That's not blaming the victim, that's simply the reality of the situation.  Abused spouses who do not make the decision to leave on their own will almost invariably return to the abusive situation on their own.

Slaves are free--or they are not slaves.  In the context of an alternative lifestyle, that is the order of things.

That is also where your argument falls apart.  In any relationship, even one with "internal enslavement," each individual is responsible for their daily choice to remain in that relationship.  There is not a second alternative.  A slave believing she has no power to consent/withdraw consent/leave is a slave rationalizing around that responsibility--it can make for some mighty erotic reading if embellished properly but it is still rationalization.

Likewise the idea that one loves a person so much they cannot live without them is rationalization.  Granted, Shakespeare turned the notion to great advantage in Romeo and Juliet but it remains categorically untrue.  What becomes of a person when their significant other (spouse, slave, master, bringer-of-coffee, alternative to Viagra, et cetera) comes down with a sudden case of death?  Should that person go gently into that good night?

My slave is my slave because calling her slave brings joy to her heart.  Similarly, whether I call her slave, kajira, woman, girlfriend, consort, concubine, odalesque, or she-who-must-be-spanked, she serves me because that brings joy to her heart--she finds peace knowing my decision is final in all things, my word is law, my rule is absolute.  Likewise, I enjoy knowing that I can say to her "do" and it will be done.  This pleasure exists regardless of whether she calls me "Sir", "Master", "Love", or "Sick twisted bastard". 

This pleasure is ours because we choose to be thus to each other.  This pleasure is ours because this is the relationship we choose to have.  Without choice, there is no relationship--period, end of sentence, end of discussion.

The choice is there always.  Free will remains the inalienable right of all humans--we choose to rule, to submit, to stay, to leave, to live, or to die.  As humans, we can never "not choose", nor can we give up the power of choice.  This is true for one who is "internally enslaved", it is true for the abused spouse, it is true for the friend who stands by the abused spouse until she finds the strength within to leave.

We live free--because there is no second alternative.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 10:18:09 AM)

Yep. Those that it is not part of their nature to be a slave, but they still pretend or play at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pettingdragons

Are their un natural slaves?







sujuguete -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 11:06:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

Sounds  a bit like making Stepford Wives to me.    A little scary, a little weird, and very time consuming.  I would think that to find two people who are willing to do this process , and are bonded to each other, would be unlikely.

That is actually a good analogy.  The "breaking" and rebuilding of a slave is for the purpose of making her (or him) into the person the owner wants the slave to be.  The current thread here: http://www.collarchat.com/m_2004641/tm.htm has a good discussion of "breaking" slaves.

As to the likelihood of finding two people willing to go through this process, just visit the site referenced in the OP.  Most folks there are interested in exactly that kind of relationship.



leadership527 -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 11:53:59 AM)

yes, I've read the site previously.  It is an awful lot like what's going on between myself and my wife.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  MadRabbit
Basically, it's not any ideas that are exceptionally new, but just dressed up with a lot of complex psychological talk.
Yup, that's about how I read it also. Not that it didn't have some interesting persepctives, but nothing really radical.  I was on that same path before I read it.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  HeavansKeeper
I don't believe people should consent to putting themselves in a position to where they will not have the faculties to consent.  Assuming this works, it would be very dangerous if the slave's owner were not a top notch guy. 
Yes, this is the quandary I face.  And it's even worse than you described.  Even if we assume that I am currently a "top notch guy" and assume further that I will never lose my mind somehow, I still have to consider what the effects of my training are on the woman I love AFTER I die or we separate.  Will the next guy be a "top notch guy" also? 

quote:

ORIGINAL:  HeavansKeeper
This theory of initial consent is the same line of thinking that made spousal rape legal, as by marrying you she consented to sex. 
Agreed again.  Consent is a moment by moment thing.  If she HAD choice when she originally consented but at some point lost the ability to make that choice, then she is also no longer able to consent.  In my mind, true consent implies at least one a valid and attractive alternative.  So saying, "Hey, you can always disobey me in which case I won't love you anymore and I'll send you packing" is not actually a choice and so cannot constitute consent on her part.

My end resolution to all of this?  Well, on one hand, I am training my girl to give more and more of herself to me.  By the same token, I am also carefully looking at her "core" personality and strengthening those aspects.  My hope is to ensure that while her own scope of self has become smaller, it is also stronger and so remains a solid resting spot for her.  In addition, we talk regularly about "exit strategy" from the M/s aspect of our relationship and I am careful to paint it in a rosy, "Hey, that was a fun experiment and we learned some good lessons out of it" sort of a mindset so that it IS an attractive alternative.  In the end, I am clear that she is and always will be a free agent and I talk to her regularly on that topic. 

quote:

ORIGINAL:  pettingdragons
Are there un natural slaves?
In a word, "yes'.  More specifically, just as in all thigns in life, there are those who come to the role, for whatever reasons -- genetic, environmental, whatever -- that make them more prepared than others.  Hey, some people are naturally better at tennis than me too.  It doesn't mean I can't beat em.  It just means I'll have to practice harder than they would to reach a certain level of achievement.  The important points here are a) "natural" doesn't imply better.  In the end, 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.  b) This shouldn't be any surprise... it's life as we know it.  People have varying skills and inclinations at things.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Maya2001
Personally I do not see it as that evil ...just like any good relationship it is dependent on choosing your partners wisely  but it is not saying that you are physically unable to leave ...legal laws  still override  any relationship dynamics...
If only it were this simple.  I can tell you that my best guess is that if I was so inclined, I actually COULD do as the website discusses and remove consent from my wife.  That is to say, I could train her to a point where the decision to leave or disobey is bordering on impossible.  Nor do I think that means I'm god's gift to doms everywhere.  It means that she loves me.. trusts me.. and she's pretty naturally submissive whereas I'm pretty naturally dominant.  I'd say any competent dom in that same situation could train the slave to remove reasonable consent if that dom were so inclined.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  kiwisub12
Sounds  a bit like making Stepford Wives to me.    A little scary, a little weird, and very time consuming.  I would think that to find two people who are willing to do this process , and are bonded to each other, would be unlikely.
Well, not all that unlikely.  I'm on that path all except the very last step of removing informed consent.  Even before that, it's a bit creepy to me.  But the actual removal of consent crosses my hard boundary.

-------------

I am really looking forward to seeing further discussion on this thread.  These are ethical issues I've had to face squarely and not entirely resolved.



UBERMUNSCHIST -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 6:55:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
The lack of consent is a flagrant violation of my principles which allow for power exchange relationships.


Just pointing out, without agreeing or disagreeing with them, that they also say this in their FAQ:

"Internal Enslavement ("IE") is a collection of ideas about how to take possession of a slave, in a consensual context (ie where the submissive to be enslaved consents at the start of the process.)"

So, there IS consent.

Master Fire



IE is based on consensual non-consent.



UBERMUNSCHIST -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 7:12:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

Basically, it's not any ideas that are exceptionally new, but just dressed up with a lot of complex psychological talk.

When you read between the lines, the general concept is the creation of an environment that has a profound psychological and emotional effect on someone with a desire to submit. The goal is to nurture and encourage a perspective in someone where they take on the identity of a slave and believe that they are compelled to obey and to serve because of this identity.

People are internally branded all the time with metaphysical concepts such as righteousness, integrity, and honor that compel them to act and behave in certain ways. I have opportunities at work all the time to steal small items, but I don't. The reason for not stealing is not because of a fear of getting fired, because I know they aren't going to fire me over stealing one pack of peanuts, but rather my sense of integrity. This metaphysical concept compels me to not steal, because by doing so, I will lose this quality that I value.

Now replace integrity with slavery and stealing a pack of peanuts with disobedience and you have the basic concept behind Internal Enslavement. To disobey means to not be a slave just as to steal means to not have integrity.

Also, a large part of what dominance is, in general, when it comes to a D/S relationship is the creation of such an environment that has a psychological impact on our partners. I make my girl wear a collar because it serves as a symbol to remind her psychologically what she is : my slave. I make her kiss my feet, massage my back, go naked, kneel before me, and crawl for me, not just because I enjoy these expressions of my dominance, but these expressions also serve to help remind her of what she is to me and compel her to submit and worship me on an internal level.

Everything they talk about in Internal Enslavement I learned from really cool heterosexual Leatherfolk who probably have never read the website. The main difference what those Leatherfolk told me and IE is that the Leatherfolk didn't make it sound nearly as complicated and didn't extrapolate the issue to an unrealistic level of "Order the chopping off of a limb and the slave shall obey."


This was beutifully written; The first response reminded me of how a typical person outside of M/s, would see a  M/s relationship.

I don't know why the word SLAVE has such a negative connotation attached to it.



MadRabbit -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 7:24:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
This could be said of anything.  I've said before, if all parties consent, anything is right.  (I've yet to find an exception to this rule). 


Unless they consent to a non-consensual relationship, right?
 
quote:


Yes, it could go the right way, but thats boring and unobjectionable.  My stance is to protect the "innocent" from becoming victims. )
 

Yep, completely one-sided and bias arguments are never boring....nor ever fair.

quote:

I'm The Internet Batman. (Sorry, just saw The Dark Knight, a movie I heartily recommend)


If the Internet Batman is judgmental and self righteous with the use of abstract hypothetical examples, then...hey...I say rock on with your Batman self and fly from a few buildings.

quote:

I like to think I deal with the reality of the situation.)


Have you ever been witness to an IE relationship at work? I haven't.

I would say, if not, then it's pretty safe to say that we are both talking about something only in the abstract. Any "reality" is merely what we think is reality based off on our own inductive reasoning. 
 
quote:


Assuming the training offered is possible, then the slave's mind is broken.  I consider it fair to assume that the slave would require professional debriefing, or untraining, to be released from service. 
 

That's a cliché. Read the essay "The Process of Enslavement". As I said before, based on what they are depicting, the process is to create a psychological environment where a person begins to believe they are a slave. Do you think that restricting somebody's right to privacy and exerting strict control over their time is enough to "break" someone in a psychological sense?

There is countless examples in everyday life where people take on entire new perspectives of reality through exposure to environment, insight, and effort on their part. How about the cliché of the godless crack addict who consents to join a church and reforms themselves into a nun who believes they must spend the rest of their life in service and sacrifice to atone for their sins against God?

quote:


 Who's going to provide that?  The Master so negligent about his slave she wants to leave?  This site, which stands to make no money from it?
 

These questions that are condemning the practice as a whole are once again predicated on the Master being unethical and is an example of inductive reasoning.
 
quote:


I do agree that the slave's mind determines reality.  I have other posts to respond to in this thread in which I may more properly address your last point, about the slave's view and understanding.


While I am reading them, I would appreciate it if you could answer my question.

Do you think the restriction of bathroom privileges and the other practices listed in the Process of Enslavement are practices of non-consensual imprisonment by the Master?

Hypothetically, if you were to fly down from a building in your cape to put an end to one of these unethical and non-consensual IE relationships, which practice from the list would you use to make charges against the Master in a court of law? The protocol of deciding the slave's clothing or the one about deciding how she spends her time?



SaraZeal -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 7:42:56 PM)

quote:

Hypothetically, if you were to fly down from a building in your cape to put an end to one of these unethical and non-consensual IE relationships, which practice from the list would you use to make charges against the Master in a court of law? The protocol of deciding the slave's clothing or the one about deciding how she spends her time?


That one made me laugh.



HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 7:43:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UBERMUNSCHIST
IE is based on consensual non-consent.

(and)

The first response reminded me of how a typical person outside of M/s, would see a  M/s relationship.  I don't know why the word SLAVE has such a negative connotation attached to it.


Perhaps you misunderstood my posts.  Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  Perhaps you didn't see them all.

My problem is NOT about slaves not consenting to acts.  My problem is with slaves losing their ability to properly give consent, and how it becomes a problem when they no longer want to consent.

I don't think my objections were in the name of "typical aversion to slave ownership."  I think they were logical and based on a line of thinking that all potential slave owners should ponder.  "Should not be entered lightly or hastily" has come up in this thread multiple times.  I have done the thinking to ensure My Pet and I do not consider such a situation lightly or hastily.  My method showed problems.  Although the ends may be the same as a "typical aversion" the means are notably different.

I can appreciate your background for appreciating this training, but to make things more clear, how does would this training affect your dynamic, being a dominant bottom?



MadRabbit -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 7:43:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

Let me clarfify your analogy.
 
1) Wife who believes marriage is consenting to always having sex = slave who consents to be a slave with 0 rights.
2) You having sex with said wife = Slave being used in "appropriate" matters.
3) Wife not wanting to have sex = Slave not liking the situation.
 
No where in this analogy does either party want out.  So no, it's not spousal rape.  Lots of women begrudgingly have sex to get their man to stop poking them at 4:29 in the morning.  If premise 3 were to say "Wife not wanting to have sex = Slave wanting to leave" then things would be different.  A power exchange relationship is perfectly accepting of a slave not enjoying the dynamic.  The question is the power to leave.


Allow me to clarify my analogy...since...I'm the one who wrote it [:D]

A wife who believes she gives blanket consent to sex by marriage equates to a slave who believes she gives blanket consent to anything by entering into a relationship.

A wife who gives up sex under this belief with no resistance equates to a slave who endures the will of her Master under this belief.

A wife who says "No" to sex and is raped by the husband who believes she gave blanket consent to sex by marriage equates to a slaves who says "No" and is forced to do it anyways by a Master who believes she gave blanket consent to anything by entering the relationship.

Your dancing around my arguments. Hypothetically, if someone was so immersed in this reality that they believed they could not leave and had to do anything, then the lack of power to leave stems from the slave and not the Master.

quote:


Now now, we all know that taking principles like informed consent and mental competence and bringing them down to a specific case, like slave ownership is perfectly deductable. 


Your examples and reasoning behind declaring it unethical is inductive. Most of what you have suggested here is based off one-sided examples, the presupposition that the Master is unethical, and what you think is happening in IE relationships based on your own personal experiences.



SaraZeal -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 8:02:27 PM)

I'm behind MadRabbit here on this one. I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt than claim it's always abuse. If I came into a relationship with the worst expectations, that might not be healthy too. Be wary, but don't be paranoid or always expecting the worse to happen at any moment. Get your back and be sure of who you're committing to, get to *really* know them. That's your insurance in ANY relationship. That people choose to 'jump the gun' and marry after knowing for one month or less just speaks of misplaced confidence that everything HAS to work out without ironing things out.

If (radical) feminists were able to pull that claim into mainstream, that marriage = slavery or that (any) sex = rape, there would be no marriage anymore, it would be banned as unethical. We all know this won't happen though. Because while the divorce rate is very high, it's not as is commonly thought by some feminists about abuse of any kind.



HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 8:07:41 PM)

Responses in bold and italics.

Allow me to clarify my analogy...since...I'm the one who wrote it [:D]

A wife who believes she gives blanket consent to sex by marriage equates to a slave who believes she gives blanket consent to anything by entering into a relationship. Ok.

A wife who gives up sex under this belief with no resistance equates to a slave who endures the will of her Master under this belief. Ok.

A wife who says "No" to sex and is raped by the husband who believes she gave blanket consent to sex by marriage equates to a slaves who says "No" and is forced to do it anyways by a Master who believes she gave blanket consent to anything by entering the relationship. Ok.
 
Your analogy is balanced and accurate.  The question of interest is when that wife (or slave) DOES say no, does that remove the blanket consent, even if when they originally consented, they were giving blanket consent.

More clearly, can blanket consent be rescinded once given? 
 
I submit that it can, and training someone to be unable to do that (by IE training) is wrong. 
 
I submit that a person always has the right to consent or not consent as aspects change.  If you disagree with that premise, we have found the problem.

Your dancing around my arguments. Hypothetically, if someone was so immersed in this reality that they believed they could not leave and had to do anything, then the lack of power to leave stems from the slave and not the Master.

The lack of power does stem from the slave, correct.  That isn't the problem. 

Your examples and reasoning behind declaring it unethical is inductive. Most of what you have suggested here is based off one-sided examples, the presupposition that the Master is unethical, and what you think is happening in IE relationships based on your own personal experiences.

I agree, I've only dealt with when the owner is abusive to the point the slave wants to leave.  In any other situation, there is no issue.  The slave's inability to rescind consent never comes up when things are hunky dorey, and as such it cannot be proven that issue exists.  All the relationships are not from personal experiences at all.  They're all hypothetical. 
 
I have always used hypothetical situations, sometimes even the most extreme (but possible) hypotheticals to test my principles.
 
Frankly, I can't make it more clear how deductive I'm being.  I'll try again.
 
My line of thinking goes from top to bottom, left to right.  [:D]
 
I have generalizable theorums about consent.  They are based on what logically follows from what is "the best for all parties, when generalized in all ways."
 
I take this theorum and apply it to specific situational (subjective, personal, etc.) conditions.  These conditions happen to be hypothetical.
 
That is deduction.  I am bringing a bigger picture down the the small situation.  We klar?
 



HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 8:20:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SaraZeal

I'm behind MadRabbit here on this one. I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt than claim it's always abuse. If I came into a relationship with the worst expectations, that might not be healthy too. Be wary, but don't be paranoid or always expecting the worse to happen at any moment. Get your back and be sure of who you're committing to, get to *really* know them. That's your insurance in ANY relationship. That people choose to 'jump the gun' and marry after knowing for one month or less just speaks of misplaced confidence that everything HAS to work out without ironing things out.

If (radical) feminists were able to pull that claim into mainstream, that marriage = slavery or that (any) sex = rape, there would be no marriage anymore, it would be banned as unethical. We all know this won't happen though. Because while the divorce rate is very high, it's not as is commonly thought by some feminists about abuse of any kind.



I suggest you re-read the posts made about abusive slave owners and the analogy of spousal abuse.  I think you're applying it in a way that was not intended.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 9:42:02 PM)

They give consent in the beginning. So now are you going to save all the people that fall blindly in love because by doing so they may not be able to resist the will of the person they love? You really need to check your list of ethics and decide which ones seem to contrast with the others.



HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 9:56:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

They give consent in the beginning. So now are you going to save all the people that fall blindly in love because by doing so they may not be able to resist the will of the person they love? You really need to check your list of ethics and decide which ones seem to contrast with the others.


It's important to note that I'm perfectly open to changing my ideals when a better one comes along.  I am devoted to what is right, even when "right" changes.

There's nothing wrong with being unable to resist the will of another person because you love them, or respect them, or trust them, or want to make them happy.  Perhaps you'd like to re-read my one simple grievance: 

Leaving someone without the ability to continuing consenting is having no consent at all.  Initial consent only applies to intial circumstance.  A person's consent changes as the situation changes.  Giving initial consent is worthless after the situation has changed so much the "facts" needed for intial informed consent are not longer viable.

I say "Orion, want to come over and have dinner?  I'm making shells with meatsauce and mushrooms."
You say "I'd love to! Thank you for the kind invitation.
(You've given initial informed consent to coming over and eating dinner)
Then I serve the delicious pasta, and dessert comes.  Dessert is foot-fungus cream.
I say "Why aren't you eating?  You consented to dinner."

Although more a tongue in cheek analogy, the premise is solid.  The facts have changed so much your initial consent is no longer valid. 

What if you initially consented to losing your ability to consent AND eat my dinner.  Now you have a mouthfull of foot-fungicide hoagie.



Alumbrado -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 10:09:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

They give consent in the beginning. So now are you going to save all the people that fall blindly in love because by doing so they may not be able to resist the will of the person they love? You really need to check your list of ethics and decide which ones seem to contrast with the others.


And nothing says 'ethical' like being an apologist for spousal abuse and marital rape, and brainwashed non-consensual slavery..[8|]



meticulousgirl -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/21/2008 7:47:28 AM)

i think people tend to look into this a little deeper than what it's meant to be.

i believe that IE can and does exist, in a sense it exists for me however, if abuse was to ever occur, i would be out of there in a second........this lifestyle is what you personally make it to be there aren't really any right or wrongs just many, many different opinions and ways to go about doing things.  In the end it all boils down to trusting a partner and SSC depending on what your definition of SSC may stand for.

~meticulous~



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02