RE: Master/slave questions (Full Version)

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



Message

Drakontos -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 7:55:05 AM)


zaphira apologizes. This post here was uncalled for and rude.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 7:55:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetgirlserves

If the imperative/motivation is generated from him... he compels her to want to be his... and that compellation is what drives her... (hopefully, yes... she trust him too... but unfortunately this is not necessarily so)...and so there really is no 'decision' - she is just reacting to him (think of a paperclip reacting to a strong magnet)... then she is a slave. Her submission is not a gift at all... it is taken from her.

~sgs



*checks*

yup glad I wrote down sub then, least now we have a definition we can all agree with though



NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 8:03:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

The "E" doesn't stand for eternal. If a couple gets divorced, that doesn't mean they were never married.

10 points.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 8:06:03 AM)

quote:

if someone has left a given master then it wasn't TPE, despite having declared it over and over and over on the boards. But we are expected to believe them the next time they are in a TPE relationship because, well they say they are in one.


Bollocks. I'm sorry, but this perspective is just not accurate. For as long as a relationship lasts, that relationship can be TPE. When it is over, then it was STILL TPE while it existed.

TPE is a -conditional- state. It is the -condition- of one (or more) dominant party having comprehensive rights to manage every aspect of another person's life, and make decisions regarding that life on behalf of the other person. It is -not- necessarily a permanent state. It depends on several key conditions:

1. The dominant party/parties being in a position to -and- having a desire to have that kind of control over another person's life

2. A submissive individual who is both able and willing to let go of the decisions regarding hir life, both large and small, and in a position to accept that the dominant party has the -right-, whether or not it is excercised, to manage every detail.

3. A situation where there are -no- constraints on the capacity to yield up areas of one's life

4. An agreement between said dominant party and said submissive party in which the submissive confirms that xhe yields up everything to the dominant party's discretion.

If those conditions do not exist, then it is very difficult for a comprehensive authority dynamic to exist-- for example, other things like having to attend to offspring, or being committed to something like the military, Peace Corps, etc., which already "own" a slice of a submissive individual's life would tend to incapacitate comprehensive-authority dynamics, because one cannot give up what one has no control over, so if one is in a contract to the military, the -military- already owns that life, and the military have comprehensive authority -- so trying to give it to someone else is redundant and would, I suspect, be frustrating.

On the other hand, in relationships where those aspects CAN and DO exist, then for as long as those conditions are in play, that relationship would effectively be described as a 'comprehensive authority' or TPE relationship. If the conditions change, then it makes sense that the possibility of a 'comprehensive authority' dynamic would follow suit. However, just because a given relationship stops, at some point, being TPE doesn't mean it was NEVER TPE, or that another, completely different relationship, under proper circumstance, with an individual who has participated in TPE before and who is in a new relationship now couldn't ALSO be TPE.

Dame Calla



NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 8:13:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

Dame Calla

*locks the door behind you*

Aha! Now you've got to stay!



ishyB -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 8:20:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub

quote:


For me the difference between a TPE and a non-TPE is the following:

Non-TPE: I promises to obey you if and when you meet conditions X, Y and Z. Should you no longer meet conditions X, Y and Z then I revoke my promises to obey you because you breached our agreement.

TPE: You compel me to obey you because of X, Y and Z qualities that I see in you that makes me need to be with you. Because you compel me to obey, I have no choice but to obey you until that time that you would no longer compel me to obey.


i am not trying to be argumentative but i honestly don't get the difference between these two statements. In one the conditions by which i (generic i) will obey you and continue to obey you are prespoken. In the other the conditions under which i will obey you and continue to obey you are still there, they are just more internalizes, but they are conditions none the less.

There was a quote on the Gorean board that struck me as very similar on dealing with the concept of consentual slavery. That quote is as follows:



Greetings heartfelt,

don't worry, I didn't take you to be argumentative.

For me the difference between the both is that one is a conscious decision and the other is an emotional reaction that cannot consciously be controlled.

There are certain things that attracted me to Master in the first place, but because my slavery to him is a reaction instead of a decision, those things can change without that affecting my slavery IF he is strong enough.

Say that in the first example the girl agreed to be the man's slave because he allowed her to keep seeing her family.
After a few years for whatever reason and circumstances the man decided to move or something and no longer allow the girl to see her family, she would have two options. Either refuse to be his slave any longer, or renegotiate terms like her being allowed to fly over to visit them.

In the second situation, like mine, the girl might initially be attracted to the man because he would allow her to see her family, but when the moment came that he made a different choice, she would no longer be able to disobey, because her need for him, her reaction to him would override everything else.
There would be no negotiations, she would just react and obey.

She might hate him for it with a passion, she might try to walk away, claiming that she no longer wants to be his, but if his hold on her is strong enough she would literally physically not be able to walk.
She might really really really REALLY want to, and still not be able to do it.

It's that reaction that Angel says is so hard to understand for people who haven't felt it.

Most people assume that if she wants to disobey badly enough, that she simple will, but that's not the case. The only way she would be ABLE to disobey is if he let his control over her slip and allowed her the freedom to disobey. It's really hard to explain what the man does exactly that makes him able to have such a hold over her, again feeling it for yourself is most likely the only way one could even understand it.

Unlike zaphira for instance, I do not have the right to walk at any time. (Not that I think she is any less a slave than I am because of it, her owner just keeps her differently.)
There has been a point in my slavery about 6 months ago that I wanted to leave. I told Master I refused to be his any longer, in turn, he told me that I was not allowed to leave.
I tried, and I literally couldn't go, I was scared, not scared that he would come running after me and drag me back in the house, but scared to disobey. I knew that if I left witout permision that I would be back, because I just couldn't mentally get away from him. Running of and then coming back would NOT have been pleasant. So I didn't leave.

I went back to him and begged him to let me go. I spend 4 hours on my knees in tears in front of him, begging him to allow me to go, telling him I didn't want to be a slave any more, that I couldn't do it.
He refused.
After about 4 hours, he had enough and ordered me back to work.
I obeyed....
I hated him in that moment, but I obeyed anyways.

I hope that explains it a bit better, any more questions, feel free to ask. [:)]

I wish you well,

ishy



mnottertail -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 8:38:50 AM)

So, I thought something like, 'What's for dinner?' would be a valid Master/slave question.

Color me embarrassed.

Ron



IrishMist -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 8:40:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, I thought something like, 'What's for dinner?' would be a valid Master/slave question.

Color me embarrassed.

Ron

LMAO



heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 8:41:12 AM)

Thank you for responding IshyB. i read and reread your response and it still seems to me that there are conditions under which you would no longer be a slave to Bull. And it may be that this statement

quote:


Most people assume that if she wants to disobey badly enough, that she simple will, but that's not the case. The only way she would be ABLE to disobey is if he let his control over her slip and allowed her the freedom to disobey. It's really hard to explain what the man does exactly that makes him able to have such a hold over her, again feeling it for yourself is most likely the only way one could even understand it.



is just something that i don't understand. It is my understanding that you currently live overseas while Bull is here in the states. Again not trying to be argumentative, but what keeps you from doing something like say eat a piece of chocolate even if He has said not to eat any chocolate (trying to come up with an example), when He is not there to observe your behavior. 

If i were to answer that question i would answer with because i made a commitment to submit and obey this person and therefore i am abiding by the commitment that i have made. But i would venture to guess that would not be your answer to that question. i submit/obey based not only on who my Master/Dominant is, what qualities He has but also based on who i am, a person of character who sticks by her word. (Am NOT saying you are not a person of character, just trying to say that my obedience stems from two places.)

If i am reading this correctly, you are stating that your continued obedience is based on Him not allowing you to disobey and frankly i don't get that concept, especially given the long distance nature of the relationship between the two of you.

heartfelt



flogger -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 9:07:16 AM)

Long distance, and you can't leave, you already left as far as I can tell being far away.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 9:10:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flogger

Long distance, and you can't leave, you already left as far as I can tell being far away.



What does that actually mean



heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 9:16:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flogger

Long distance, and you can't leave, you already left as far as I can tell being far away.


Not the same thing at all. Not being able to leave the relationship, break the bonds, is not the same thing as currently living in different locations. The relationship continues even though Bull and ishyB are miles apart.

heartfelt



sirsholly -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 9:34:50 AM)

quote:

Of course by this definition, if someone has left a given master then it wasn't TPE, despite having declared it over and over and over on the boards.


Why is that? Because a TPE relationship never ends? Or because it is the slave/sub that ended it?

Ending the relationship does not mean it never existed.





barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:09:48 AM)

Michael,  There is NOTHING in my statement that remotely indicates that just because the TPE doesn't last forever doesn't mean it never existed.   I fully believe that you in your ignorance and insecurities you would laugh at people who claim something you can't fathom because you are incapable of achieving same -- most people when they are uncomfortable with something tend to try and make it NOT real versus being secure enough in themselves to say hey its something i can't do but i can see how it does exist.

You are grasping at straws, and your straws are limp noodles.  Just becasue a child puts his hands over his eyes and believes something doesn't exist because he can no longer see it -- doesn't mean it isn't there or wasn't there.  

You will keep coming back just to argue about something you KNOW NOTHING about --- that is intelligent how?  Are you really that insecure with yourself you have to try and indicate something doesn't exist when people who have experienced and LIVED it tell you differently. 

So let me say this one LAST time -- maybe this time you may actually pay attention --- TPE is a concept that EXISTS ONLY when the variables of mastery exist and a Man's determination to create the environment within which a woman exists in his life -- HE HOLDS her in this existance base on his determination for her -- many times its a concept of costs and value.   WHEN he has either withdrawn his mastery or he loses his mastery over her -- THE TPE NO LONGER EXISTS.  Therefore, when a woman leaves its because he no longer holds her in the dynamic.  Yes, some people probably believe they have a TPE but they don't.   Just as you believe you had a woman who submits to you and then walks away when she decided she no longer wanted to do same.  ITS THE SAME CONCEPT only the variables of who is actually in control of the dynamic are different because in the TPE concept the MAN is the one who controls through his ability to maintain the dynamic, from what i have seen you write about what you want in a relationship and your profile, in your relationship SHE controls it through her desire, want, decision to submit to you.  So are you saying when she calls it off because she wants what you can't give her, what you had didn't exist because she made a different decision or you did?

Based on the very little i know of BDSM and many of the relationships that come from same, i can see why this would be a hard concept for some to grasp because it requires the ability that people CAN'T see or define through observation, so its like saying i know cells exist based on information and observing the created product so to speak. In a TPE, you don't see the variables working individually you can't observe it happening bit by bit, you see the WHOLE concept at work when you observe, however, what you observe is made up of tiny little concepts that make it a completed whole, when those concepts disintegrate is when the completed project falls apart and the whole no longer exists.

angel



ishyB -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:12:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub

Thank you for responding IshyB. i read and reread your response and it still seems to me that there are conditions under which you would no longer be a slave to Bull. And it may be that this statement

quote:


Most people assume that if she wants to disobey badly enough, that she simple will, but that's not the case. The only way she would be ABLE to disobey is if he let his control over her slip and allowed her the freedom to disobey. It's really hard to explain what the man does exactly that makes him able to have such a hold over her, again feeling it for yourself is most likely the only way one could even understand it.



is just something that i don't understand. It is my understanding that you currently live overseas while Bull is here in the states. Again not trying to be argumentative, but what keeps you from doing something like say eat a piece of chocolate even if He has said not to eat any chocolate (trying to come up with an example), when He is not there to observe your behavior. 

If i were to answer that question i would answer with because i made a commitment to submit and obey this person and therefore i am abiding by the commitment that i have made. But i would venture to guess that would not be your answer to that question. i submit/obey based not only on who my Master/Dominant is, what qualities He has but also based on who i am, a person of character who sticks by her word. (Am NOT saying you are not a person of character, just trying to say that my obedience stems from two places.)

If i am reading this correctly, you are stating that your continued obedience is based on Him not allowing you to disobey and frankly i don't get that concept, especially given the long distance nature of the relationship between the two of you.




Greetings heartfelt,

Valid questions. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s1.gif[/image]

For the record, I am moving in 7 days. Yeah. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s2.gif[/image]

The episode of me not leaving when not allowed to happened when I was in the US and actually in his presents. Would it have happened while I was here, I would have just been able to turn of the PC and might have been able to keep up that behavior and simply refuse to talk to him. It would have been pretty hard, because I do need him, but I might have managed. The same thing applies though. If I would have refused to talk to him for a while and then have realized that I still can't live without him, begging him to keep me after all would have been VERY unpleasant.[&:]

Because I was with him when it happened, I didn't have the chance to get away from him, and thus he managed to make me stay. By the time I came back to Belgium, he had me past that experience, so it was no longer an issue.
I had given up my fight to leave, he won.

As to what it to stop me from eating chocolate while I'm here.
Nothing really, besides my fear that he would find out.

He realizes that there is little he can do to micromanage me on the small stuff here. And because the control he has over me is based on the actually control he is able to have over me, he simple doesn't try to control things that are beyond his reach.
I have only a very few general rules I need to abide to while I'm here.
Like letting him know where I am, and what I'm doing.
I rarely if ever leave the house without him knowing where I'm at.
Of course, I could lie about what I'm doings, but there isn't really a point in doings so, because there isn't really much stuff that I'm not allowed to go do as long as he knows what I'm up to.

Things like what I eat, what I spend time on, small expenses I have, going to work, seeing my family, going to the movies with a friend are not things that he really manages while I'm here.

Him trying to control things that he can only control based on my ability to control myself are a risk to our relationship.
The whole reason why I am a slave is because I'm not able to control myself. Him depending on my self control to follow micromanging rules is asking for trouble, because the possibility that I would screw up would be to big, and if I did, there isn't really any direct action he can take to prevent it from happening again. In a situation like that, disobedience could soon become a habit, and me feeling like I can disobey him without consequences would be the beginning of the end.

Since neither of us is pretending that he has control, there is just no point in him planning out my day for me, and making me follow a million little rules that he can't keep track of anyways. Things are different while I'm with him though, because there he CAN follow up on anything he demands of me.

I wish you well,

ishy



SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:37:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Of course by this definition, if someone has left a given master then it wasn't TPE, despite having declared it over and over and over on the boards.  But we are expected to believe them the next time they are in a TPE relationship because, well they say they are in one.




The "E" doesn't stand for eternal. If a couple gets divorced, that doesn't mean they were never married.


Bita, you are right about marriage nobody is arguing that the vows of marriage actually MEAN forever but the argument for TPE is TOTAL control, if a slave leaves against the masters wishes or no longer feels his mastery, then by definition, his control is not total.

Its like the old joke about prostitution.  You ask a woman if she would fuck you for a million dollars and she says "of course" and then you reply "how about for $100" and she gets offended and asks "what sort of woman do you think I am?"   "We have already established that, now we are just haggling"

Total control either means total control or it doesn't.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:42:52 AM)

But nothing in TPE stands for permenance, I can be totally pissed for a day. The fact I sober up doesn't mitigate the fact that I was totally pissed before.



downkitty -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:44:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub

If i were to answer that question i would answer with because i made a commitment to submit and obey this person and therefore i am abiding by the commitment that i have made. But i would venture to guess that would not be your answer to that question. i submit/obey based not only on who my Master/Dominant is, what qualities He has but also based on who i am, a person of character who sticks by her word. (Am NOT saying you are not a person of character, just trying to say that my obedience stems from two places.)

If i am reading this correctly, you are stating that your continued obedience is based on Him not allowing you to disobey and frankly i don't get that concept, especially given the long distance nature of the relationship between the two of you.

heartfelt


Please forgive the intrusion.  I know this was not directed at me, but I would like to respond, if I may. 

While Master and I do live together and have for years, it was not always so.  My personal experience is that one can be held in that kind of slavery even over great distances for extended periods of time.  I have no experience with online-only relationships, so cannot comment to that.

In response to the bolded portion above, we have a fundamental difference here.  While it could be said that I obey due to my own qualities, those qualities would be very different than yours.  I am not "a person of character who sticks by her word."  I am much more akin to the puppy who greets you at the door and immediately rolls over on his back, exposing his belly to you.  I do not respond this way to absolutely everyone, but I do respond this way to anyone stronger in will than myself (male or female), and unfortunately, that is more people than is healthy.  I do not have morals I will strictly adhere to.  I do not have lines I will not cross.  I have had lines I will not cross and then been made to cross them.  I have lines I think I will not cross, but those lines have not been challenged to date, so who knows how I would respond.  Based on past experiences, I suspect it is very likely I would cross them.  It is a very good thing that I do not have ums, because I am totally incapable of putting anyone above my compulsion to respond to many people the way I do.  I know, without a doubt, that if I had ums and Master decided he didn't want ums, I'd be looking for a new home for them.

I am always surprised when these discussions of TPE slaves versus non-TPE slaves come up.  The general feeling is that people think TPE slaves think they are better than non TPE slaves.  What I am is needy and extremely uncontrollably selfish in trying to get my needs met.  I certainly don't consider that better than someone who has the self control to make the right decision instead of the easy one.  My father calls pretty much my whole personality a character flaw.  My answer is, "What character?"  I have none of my own.  I morph to the whim of the strongest personality around me, whether to my benefit or to my detriment.  I am highly susceptible to suggestion, manipulation, bullying, and any form of control.  I am a prime candidate for a koolaid cult, and would most likely be happy annd fulfilled in that cult ... and I'd most likely drink the koolaid.  I have been in therapy on and off during my teens and early adulthood, but the entire process was extremely uncomfortable and I was miserable.

Master is not some gentle, noble man who cherishes and nurtures me.  He recognized my "weaknesses" and exploits them to his own advantage.  While I know that he loves me, I am also well aware that the primary thing he loves about me is my flexibility and my need for him to keep me.  If I lost those qualities, I am 100% sure I would be out the door in a heartbeat.  He keeps me because he benefits by keeping me.  If he no longer benefits, he has no desire to keep me.  I strive to always be beneficial to him, to cause him no trouble or irritation, so that he will always want to keep me.  This is definately NOT the kind of relationship I would want anyone I loved to be involved in.  I am happy and fulfilled here.  I am a better person at his feet than I ever was on my own or at the feet of other men.  Still, what I would want for those I love is to be able to do what is right, to be able to put others above themself, to have beliefs and to live their lives according to those beliefs.

This is why the phrase, "If you CAN leave, RUN!" resonates with me.  It is not love and devotion that compels me to serve a man.  It's purely instinct, self-preservation and selfishness.  I am just as likely to respond this way to a total asshole as I am to a respectable person.  While it is currently a good thing for me, those tables can turn (and have turned), and I will be literallly stuck here until he destroys our bonds enough that I can leave (that took 4 years in the case of my ex-husband).  Or I could get lucky and some other strong man could show up and poach me.  It's not due to good qualities I possess that I am a TPE or no-limits slave.  It is due to something that is lacking in me.

Please note that I am only speaking for me and am not trying to insult other TPE slaves by saying they are lacking.

Respectfully,

amy



SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:47:30 AM)

What these argurments sound like to me is about like an athelete who says "I have total control of the game" and yet he keeps losing but never changes his tune.  Its silly.

If someone has total control, then their partner can't disobey so they by definition have no reason to leave them and their partner can't leave them because they don't have the control to say no.

SO, if they have had a partner leave or they have left a TPE relationship...then they have as much control of their relationship as a losing athelete has of his game.  Like most things in life, practice helps and people do go on winning streaks.  I think a talented dominant can have an awe inspiring amount of control/authority in a relationship, certainly all the control he wants to exercise, I just think that most have far less than they think they do.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:49:53 AM)

Amy,

Thanks for a very intimate and stunningly honest post!



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625