|
PeonForHer -> RE: Tributes and Genuine Dommes (1/19/2009 12:38:45 PM)
|
Many subs are so wrapped up in their "rights as a sub" and the concept that they do not want to be taken advantage of that they throw a fit at even the mere concept that in a potential *relationship* (two people with mutual affection) they may have LESS rights, or be the one on the other end of power exchange (as Fullfig sort of pointed out - if you want 50/50, it's called VANILLA, boys).
I can't see that your use of the word "rights" holds, there, A. Where else, except in D/s, would one talk about "rights that one has the option to surrender or not to surrender"? "Rights" are enshrined in law, or with some other power behind them. It makes no real sense to talk of "optional rights", as far as I can see.
Versus M's view that "if you want 50/50, it's called VANILLA, boys"; at the level of the word "rights" in its proper usage, I think that both parties certainly are equal. Or they would have to be for me, anyway. That I'd take as read by the very idea of two people coming together to negotiate whose, and which, desires and needs are going to be treated as the more important. They come together as equals in that negotiation and they'll always have equal rights.
I'd assume equal respect for each other's body, mind and soul, too. That assumption might not have physical or legal power behind it but it would have moral power, instead.
|
|
|
|
