|
Rover -> RE: Non-consensual slavery (10/13/2008 7:00:28 AM)
|
From chapter three of "Owning and Training a Male Slave" by Ingrid Bellemare:
quote:
"Since I gave up as a professional Domme and adopted the lifestyle for real I have known very few lifestyle slaves who, when faced with the choice, did not accept the non consensual status and only one who, having agreed to it, later backtracked."
In her personal biography, Ingrid describes herself as a "professional Dominatrix" during the 1980's and '90s. I do not believe that a professional Dominatrix with a clientele of bottoms (some of whom may or may not be submissive, but are evidently not submissive to her) is the functional equivalent of a professional Domme.
True or not, Ingrid evidently does not consider this experience to be "real" (and I would agree that it is not a legitimate example of the kind of power exchange relationships she writes about in her book).
I would further note that the "supremacy" in question, by Ingrid's own admission, is consensual (not non-consensual) and that said "supremacy" is (evidently) neither universal (ie: at least a "few" did not succumb to it) nor permanent (ie: at least one "backtracked", further establishing the relationship as consensual).
quote:
"That is not to say that the slave is always happy being forced to serve in this way. He will certainly not be and why should he? That is the very essence of slavery."
No slave or submissive is "always happy" about serving. This is a gratuitous implication that the particular style of relationship dynamic employed by Ingrid is the "one true way" of slavery. Someone should really inform this eminently experienced author that the "one true way" has been thoroughly discredited.
quote:
"But if he is a true submissive the element of compulsion will be a powerful motivator in his search for true slavery and deep down his fervent desire to submit to the women he loves will consume him and the idea that he has any sort of control will disappear."
Ok, there are some real mouthfuls here. "True submissive"? Seriously, Ingrid... do you think yourself the "Pope of Rope" (apologies to Jack Rinella once again) who confers such legitimacy upon those who curry your favor (and illegitimacy upon those who do not)? You should become better informed about Jon Jacobs and his claims to be able to divine "true Dominants". Were it not for his passing, I believe you'd make great partners.
So after establishing "true submissive(s)", you further establish "true slavery" as that which appeals to you personally. How many suns and moons must revolve around you as well.
And what part does "love" play in your "true slavery"? Is it impossible for a "slave" to "truly serve" in the absence of love? Or is "love" a necessary ingredient for "supremacy"? Seriously, this engenders more questions than it answers.
quote:
"There are no risks associated with this strategy because fundamentally it is what both Domme and slave desire and all of the married Mistress/slave couples I know who have embraced this change in their relationship have reported a strengthening of the love between them."
Now this is just faulty logic at it's finest. It's like advocating swinging for all couples because the ones that you know who engage in swinging love it and think it brings them closer together. Seriously... you got a book published with this drivel?
And I can think of plenty of risks. How about the risk that this ruins an otherwise fine relationship. How about it ruins their friendships and employment if it becomes necessary to utilize the "blackmail"? How about some gullible people pay $ 19.99 for this book and actually trying to employ these concepts?
Honestly, the more I learn about Ingrid Bellemare, the less I think of her theory.
John
|
|
|
|
