RE: Slave Tendencies?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Slave Tendencies?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Slave Tendencies?

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/25/2005 12:51:56 AM

Sunshine119

Posts: 611
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

Oh, I'm off the board for a few days and what discussions and debates I've missed. I must admit that I have to agree wholeheartedly with the "Rover, Patrick2005, English Rogue and Lord of Discipline" line of thought on this "Limit/No Limit" debate. I'm a philosopher and ethicist that runs a social service organziation, so I have seen some people who truly have "no limits". Frankly, they all belong somewhere that they cannot hurt themselves or others.

For everyone else, there are limits, even if they are bound by some other rules, such as sanity, consenuality, common sense, nature, life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. We are talking semantics here. Those who are in a relationship where they feel that their Owner/Master/Dominant have the exact same limits as they do, I offer you all my most sincere congratulations and wish you well in your lives. I have no doubt you will be happy.

For those of you new to this lifestyle, or not currently living with your Owner/Dominant/Master who consider yourselves "no limit slaves", well, sorry, I just have to chuckle, maybe even loudly. If you can believe yourself to be a no-limit slave to someone you have just met or have not had the opportunity to develop a very long, real life, every day, with all the stressors of life included, relationship.....well perhaps you belong to the category I referred to under my social services hat.

The romantic idea of being a "slave" to someone that this person has hardly gotten to know (and I mean YEARS here folks), seems silly, immature, unrealistic and pathetic at best. It is dangerous at worst.

Life, whether we like it or not, IS a limit. We can exist in both a live and dead state. Other's can live in both live and dead states. Consenuality IS a limit. People can (and do) do things, everyday, to others whether they consent or not. It may not be usual and customary in BDSM "language" to speak of things like this in this manner, but we are talking about the entire realm of possibilities. Now, if the Owner/Dominant/Master tells a slave to kill her/himself or others, it does not truly negate the "no limits" definition of the slave. Either they kill or they are not "no limits" slaves.

I would venture to guess that 99.99% of those posting here really do have limits and really would walk away if asked to violate their limits. Just look at the numbers of "no limits" slaves that ask for their release. The other .001% really do need to be removed from society for it's, or their own protection.

Whatever else this has been, it has been an interesting and spirited debate!

(in reply to starshineowned)

Profile

Post #: 101

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/25/2005 5:02:51 PM

candystripper

Posts: 3486
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

As I understand your meaning of it, you don't feel that the word 'slave' (as you personally define it) is a good descriptor, but some qualities of a slave (again, as you personally define it) are part of your package. For discussions sake, do you think that you might one day change your mind about calling yourself a slave, provided you are in a fulfilling LTR?

luvdragonx

i'm not picky about how i am addresssed (apart from "slut" and "whore") and if it pleased my Dom or Master, certainly i would call myself "slave". i would also call myself "pinky" or anything else He liked.

candystripper

(in reply to luvdragonx)

Profile

Post #: 102

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/25/2005 5:11:05 PM

candystripper

Posts: 3486
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Shared familial values - another community heard from. ;)

~J/LordofDiscipline

i read Your entire post with interest; but what You fail to consider is the wisdom both dark~angel and sub4hire have demonstrated. i think some of Your points may have been vaild, but perhaps it would have been better to show a bit more respect. i think dark~angel tried hard to explain what "no limits" means to her; just as sub4hire tried to explain her standing in a community. If they failed to adequately communicate on this occassion, well, it is an very unusual lapse.

i like all 3 of You and wish for a bit of mutuality here.

candystripper

(in reply to LordODiscipline)

Profile

Post #: 103

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/26/2005 4:59:03 PM

Rover

Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline

Sarcistic and self-righteous? Sounds like fun to me. :)

I state the obvious because sometimes someone has to. *LOL* For the silent majority, reading along and wondering quietly in the privacy of their own homes... what's "real" out there; what will someone "really" expect of me; what is "possible"; what is safe; etc.

Like children (the analogy is not in reference to one's intellectual capacity, simply a reference to experiential exposure), people are susceptible to influence ("good" or "bad", right or wrong). Some feel obligated to tell the truth, and others do not. I choose the former.

John

P.S. - It actually doesn't annoy me. I find it highly amusing.

(in reply to secretsilver)

Profile

Post #: 104

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/26/2005 6:18:38 PM

candystripper

Posts: 3486
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Sarcistic and self-righteous? Sounds like fun to me. :)

I state the obvious because sometimes someone has to. *LOL* For the silent majority, reading along and wondering quietly in the privacy of their own homes... what's "real" out there; what will someone "really" expect of me; what is "possible"; what is safe; etc.

Like children (the analogy is not in reference to one's intellectual capacity, simply a reference to experiential exposure), people are susceptible to influence ("good" or "bad", right or wrong). Some feel obligated to tell the truth, and others do not. I choose the former.

John

P.S. - It actually doesn't annoy me. I find it highly amusing.

Rover

First, i doubt anyone without a college degree can follow the (several) arguments going on in this thread at once...so no worries about influencing anyone. Second, the best and brightest had a battle of words -- which, hey, was fun to watch -- but since they cannot agree on the battle terms they never fully engaged (sorry, LoD, i know You tried).

Now, without adding fuel to the fire, may i say i agree, anyone advertising herself or himself as "no limits" is engaging in a bit of fantasy. However, there is a bit of fantasy attached to the terms "slave", "Master", "Dominant", "submissive"; and for extra fun, "Switch".

Some of these terms i had never heard before i joined CM...some have entirely different meanings than they would normally be given ("slave" is a good example, in the face of the 13th Amendment). i did clue in pretty early on that there was a secondary meaning that had grown up around this terminology as people needed a way to telegraph their status/wants/desires/etc. in BDSM. i'm still learning some of my BDSM ABC's.

Yes; i worry about new people, particularly young people. But i posted an Op regarding "Avoiding Abuse" (which i assume is what we're all worried about) and was shouted down for even trying. Had the thread pulled as it was nothing but a flame war.

Yes, people do come here and ask questions -- like me -- and get some usable information. However, if the boards are making your decisions on life-altering matters, woe is you. Where is your common sense? Your family and friends? Your sense of right and wrong? And most especially -- where is your sense of sexual orientation...which i had been taught was a known quantity since early childhood?

i like many of the members here and i greatly enjoyed this thread, but we must not abdicate polite conversation and dip into personal invective, IMO, especially if the question is not agreed-upon, never mind the answers.

i doubt the members who have argued so eloquently here agree on the questions...at least, that is my reading. And to each i say "tip of the hat" for a post or posts so eloquently written.

candystripper

(in reply to Rover)

Profile

Post #: 105

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/26/2005 6:50:56 PM

Rover

Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Now, without adding fuel to the fire, may i say i agree, anyone advertising herself or himself as "no limits" is engaging in a bit of fantasy. However, there is a bit of fantasy attached to the terms "slave", "Master", "Dominant", "submissive"; and for extra fun, "Switch".

Absolutely. There is a bit of fantasy inherent to any relationship, and power exchange relationships are no different. The issue is whether one can continue to discern that fantasy from reality. The inability to distinguish fantasy from reality crosses the line from an enjoyable fancy, to a bona fide mental health illness (it is a psychosis).

And just to confuse matters further, there are those that use many of these terms (submissive, slave, Dominant, etc.) as adjectives rather than verbs (ie: they describe people, they don't define them literally). Problem for many is that they persist in holding fast to the assertion that they are definitive terms, which you have (correctly) noted cannot be true (ie: they do not fit the literal definition).

quote:

Yes, people do come here and ask questions -- like me -- and get some usable information. However, if the boards are making your decisions on life-altering matters, woe is you. Where is your common sense? Your family and friends? Your sense of right and wrong?

Many people seem to have no common sense, and particularly so when on a computer (it's frighteningly common for otherwise intelligent people to turn off their reasoning brains when they turn on their computers). They believe that a General in Uganda or Nigeria (or some such third world country) needs their help to get $ 50 million dollars into the US. They believe that CitiCorp wants them to email their credit card number to confirm their identity.

They accept annonymous individuals typing (who knows what) on a keyboard half a continent away as the functional equivalent of their "family and friends". And their sense of "right and wrong" is rendered hostage by those who have manipulated and exploited them into becoming an (unwitting) paticipant in role play and fantasy fulfillment. And all under the guise of "tolerance" which is redefined from its original "tolerance of other's kinks" into "tolerance of all things" (if people do not understand the significance of such a seemingly minor alteration, I will be happy to illustrate the substantial impact).

John

(in reply to candystripper)

Profile

Post #: 106

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/26/2005 7:42:01 PM

ExistentialSteel

Posts: 676
Joined: 1/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Patrick2005

Whenever we mention "limits vs. no limits" or "slave vs. sub", we always venture into the semantic morass

Bro, this was the wisest thing said on the whole thread.

_____________________________

For those who are like Roman Candles leaving bright trails in the night sky while the crowd watches until the dark blue center light bursts into magnificent colors and the crowd goes, ahhhhhhhhhh.

(in reply to Patrick2005)

Profile

Post #: 107

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/26/2005 8:11:33 PM

LadiesBladewing

Posts: 944
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline

Essentially and purely pragmatically, the difference between a slave and a submissive individual in a TPE (or any variant thereof) relationship is what the owner/dominant/boss/master/mistress, etc. chooses to call them.

We have our own parameters for what we expect from our property. For many, our expectations are on the "intense" end. For others, because we rarely participate in the common bdsm activities, we're "wussie". The first group would probably tend to consider our property "slaves", because we expect things from our property that leave us in charge of the direction of much of their lives, both when they are in our presence and when they are outside of our immediate, physical sphere of influence. The second group would probably call them "submissives" because we don't "scene", so what we do isn't "real". WE call our property "servants". I'm a stickler for saying what I mean, and "submissive" is an adjective, NOT a noun -- and "slave" is a dichotomy, since the only form of slavery that is pragmatically available is "consentual slavery", and that is a contradiction in terms.

In the end, the -only- people who are qualified to evaluate the behavior and discipline of our property are the leadership of our House, and what anyone else tries to classify our property as is irrelevant.

Lady Zephyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Just for a point of reference, could you please provide some context by sharing how you distinguish a slave from a submissive in a TPE relationship. To date, I have found only two distinctions:

(in reply to Rover)

Profile

Post #: 108

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/26/2005 8:31:41 PM

LadiesBladewing

Posts: 944
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

So are you now revising your assertion to say that sharing limits means "no limits"? After all, your post was quite clear in stating:

There are people that live as no limit slaves.

Forgive me if you consider it trite if I try to grasp a moving target. Stand still and this will be a lot easier.

John

I believe in saying what I mean. On that note, we do not require our servants to profess either undying love or "no limits". It is not possible to offer what is not in one's control, and there are limits that are inherent in the human body, or are so culturally ingrained that the greater portion of the sane, functional population would not be able to breach those boundaries, no matter -how much- or -how often- xhe professed to have no limits. Since we prefer sane, functional servants, the whole concept of "no limits" becomes moot.

With that being the practical state of things, I acknowledge that a new servant with us will have a certain level of limits. My capacity to train and guide a servant, while respecting that those limits exist, is a skill that I am grateful for. At some point, there may come a situation where I will poke at one or more of those "limits". As in all things, my ethical foundation will be a good guide to which limits I would broach, and which ones I am unlikely to ever get within any distance of touching. By the time that I would poke at limits, my servant would have had plenty of time to come to see, through practical experience and through participation in our life, that I would not endanger hir, and that I am responsible and forthright.

Because of this, we don't use a formal safeword, even when our property is participating with us in the occasional BDSM activity. I tend to go slowly, especially when working with a new servant, until I get a good feel for the way that they express themselves when they are at ease with what is happening, becoming uncomfortable, and at their limit. I also encourage our servants to -tell- me what they are experiencing. So when people talk about "no safewords" being "edgeplay" or the mark of a slave, I have to say that that is completely dependent on the situation. With different owners, who didn't pay close attention to each individual that they managed, perhaps it -would- be edge play. For us, it is just our preference for communication that doesn't get tied up in trite words and cliche'd or rote behaviors.

All of this is far to individual to have any particular definition, aside from the definitions that the individuals in question use to sort out their own dynamics.

Lady Zephyr

(in reply to Rover)

Profile

Post #: 109

RE: Slave Tendencies? - 11/27/2005 5:48:05 AM

Rover

Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Essentially and purely pragmatically, the difference between a slave and a submissive individual in a TPE (or any variant thereof) relationship is what the owner/dominant/boss/master/mistress, etc. chooses to call them.

Agreed. There is no definition that I've ever seen that realistically delineates between the two in all cases (as a definition must do). Those that purport to be definitions are (invariably) either relative judgments (ie: subjective to the individual) or wholly unrealistic (ie: relying, for instance, upon "facts" that are mutually exclusive with mental health).

quote:

It is not possible to offer what is not in one's control, and there are limits that are inherent in the human body, or are so culturally ingrained that the greater portion of the sane, functional population would not be able to breach those boundaries, no matter -how much- or -how often- xhe professed to have no limits.

Agreed again, and as stated above.

quote:

Since we prefer sane, functional servants, the whole concept of "no limits" becomes moot.

Actually, it doesn't seem to me (from what you write) that you debate or argue the issue at all (particularly with your servants). Either the concept of "no limits" is compatible with sanity and function, or it's not (as you have stated). What is moot about that?

quote:

Because of this, we don't use a formal safeword, even when our property is participating with us in the occasional BDSM activity. I tend to go slowly, especially when working with a new servant, until I get a good feel for the way that they express themselves when they are at ease with what is happening, becoming uncomfortable, and at their limit. I also encourage our servants to -tell- me what they are experiencing. So when people talk about "no safewords" being "edgeplay" or the mark of a slave, I have to say that that is completely dependent on the situation

.

I find that some people (evidently not you) confer an almost magical or mystical quality to "formal" safewords. Safewords are nothing more than a communication tool; a tool that is completely redundant if people engage in other forms of communication (within and beyond scenes). I can understand and appreciate several psychological reasons for "formal"
safewords (I use them myself), but that doesn't imbue the "formal" safeword with any greater power or effect than simple human speech ("Stop, I'm experiencing a ventricular arhythmia" would be equally effective).

Bottom line, only the deaf, dumb and blind do not have safewords, "formal" or not (though much like "limits", it can be enormously pleasurable to pretend that they don't exist).

quote:

All of this is far to individual to have any particular definition, aside from the definitions that the individuals in question use to sort out their own dynamics.

While I agree that labels (particularly those of the self-assigned variety) and definitions are highly relative to the individual, we cannot suspend time, space and reality in order to provide rationalization and validation to those that wish to perpetuate a fantasy that requires everyone else's (nonconsensual) participation (though it is highly tempting to do so in our modern "I'm ok, you're ok" society that "tolerates all things").

There is one answer that justifies the use of self-assigned terms (submissive, slave, Master, etc), the existence of "no limits, no rights slaves" or even (as you noted) "consensual slavery" at all.... "because I enjoy thinking of it that way". We ALL do it anyway (myself included).

Still, people are not satisfied with that explanation and feel obligated to go on to "prove" the existence of a fantasy. And that's fine, I have no issue with that. It makes for great debate and discussion. It's just that I don't see the same "tolerance" from "the other side" (ie: sometimes it's a clear inference, often an overt statement, that people should be free to express such things without commentary from others).

People choose to believe all sorts of weird things. Take this for example....

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Choose to believe that the earth is flat in the privacy of your own home, and no one is gonna know or care. Express that notion to your family, friends and neighbors, in schools of higher learning (does not Collarme profess to provide some lifestyle educational function?), or on an internet bulletin board, and you're likely to get a few (persistent?) divergent points of view. If you're secure enough in yourself to believe such a thing (substitute "no limits, no rights slaves" for "flat earth" in this case), and secure enough to profess it in a public forum such as this, then SURELY you're secure enough to accept that others will desire to separate the fact from fiction.

Great post, and interesting contribution to the ongoing thread, Zephyr.

John

(in reply to LadiesBladewing)

Profile

Post #: 110