RE: Master/slave questions

RE: Master/slave questions (Full Version)

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

Message

Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 2:36:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka But, having read rather a lot (by god, she's even read some of the dreaded books!), I am conscious that many do in fact use the word slave in a way that I would not, particularly the self-identified slaves themselves. Maybe I can help. We have a dual concept of "slavery". There is slavery in the sense that you are the property of another. There is also slavery in the sense that you are a slave "by nature". If a woman in our community says "I am a slave" she may be telling you that she is the property of another, or she may be telling you that she is a slave "by nature", in other words, she is telling you that belongs in the class of slaves, and is rightly regarded as such. She may not be owned at the moment, but she wants to be, and expects that she will be, because it is her nature to be. I'm not sure that we're the only ones who use "slave" like that, though. This web site uses it the same way. There are lots of folks who identify as "slave" in their profile who aren't owned at present.

IronBear -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 4:51:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka Aaargh. My apologies, IronBear. I meant no harm by that insertion, truly. Though I am not Gorean myself, I am quite fond of the Gor forum here, and have learned a great deal from those who post there (from their posts there and on this side too.) But, having read rather a lot (by god, she's even read some of the dreaded books!), I am conscious that many do in fact use the word slave in a way that I would not, particularly the self-identified slaves themselves. There is nothing wrong with that if one wishes to indicate that one does not/cannot identify as Free in a Gorean context, irrespective of being (un)owned. I imagine this distinction is what provoked sgs above. But I also think that being owned or not is also a key distinction, and determines whether or not the label is applicable for 99% of the (watch for it) non-Goreans who use the term. (Yes, I know there are exceptions. :::waves to Beth of Mercnbeth::: another whose thoughts on slavery I always find extraordinarily valuable and enlightening.) Whether I am an idiot, you may judge as you see fit. Knock yourself out. No harm. No foul. No offence.. Thank you for clarifying that section of your post. Leonidas's reply gave the insight more succinctly than I could at this present moment. I make no judgements in the matter of you being the village idiot other than to say, as you don't walk like an idiot, sound like an idiot, and have the appearance of an idiot, the odds are you are most likely not an idiot.. [;)]

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 5:39:22 AM)
FR Actually not such a fast reply because i have debated about saying this for over a day ,mostly because i didn't want to get into the testerone laden power struggle between Michael and Leonidas, but i did wish to comment on something that Michael said, something that a number of posters have taken him to task for. Although i can not in any shape or form talk for Michael, i think i understand what he was meaning about wanting to teach a submissive to be more assertive (think that is a close quote). The other reason that i have debated about posting this is that it is very personal and has the potential to be very long. But here goes. i have always been submissive, from the time i was a little girl, very obedient to authority, never rebellious, always wanting to do for others. That is who i am. However for many years, the need to serve came from two places, one was the basic nature i was born with, the other was from the wounds left by a very abusive and hurtful childhood. i had no sense of self-worth, alot of what i did came from a place of needing someone else's approval because i lacked that in myself. The variety of abuses that i had lived through had left a person, who yes underneath it all was and is a submissive, but someone who "served" from a place of woundness and brokenness. i couldn't say no to anyone, and not because i didn't want to say no, but because i was so desperate for their approval, so needy of a "reason" to be that i was often taken advantage of. Eventually, (am about to get into my belief system here, so someone who doesn't want to hear from a Christian don't read this part), my submission to God brought me to a place where i believed that He didn't want me broken inside, that i needed to get healed from the wounds of my past. (This is the part that i think is similar to what Michael was talking about. Where a Dominant force in someone's life can direct a person to get healed from wounds, to then be able to serve from a place of wholeness.) As i worked through the wounds of my past, my core nature remained, that of the submissive, but the reason for submitting came from a different place. It came from a place where now, i can say no when i need to say no. It comes from a place of self-worth and belief in myself and what i have to offer as a person and not from this overwhelming need for approval and validation as a human being. And this is what i believe Michael was talking about (though i do not want to put words into his mouth). That having someone submit who is not driven by wounds or fear of rejection, etc. to submit, but rather is chosing to submit from a place of strength and wholeness, would seem to me to be a much healthier thing. At least it is for me. And for some, the only form of submission that they want to receive. heartfelt

SlyStone -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 5:54:15 AM)
quote: Maybe I can help. We have a dual concept of "slavery". There is slavery in the sense that you are the property of another. There is also slavery in the sense that you are a slave "by nature". If a woman in our community says "I am a slave" she may be telling you that she is the property of another, or she may be telling you that she is a slave "by nature", in other words, she is telling you that belongs in the class of slaves, and is rightly regarded as such. She may not be owned at the moment, but she wants to be, and expects that she will be, because it is her nature to be. Proclaiming oneself to be something does not make it so, although you seem to be saying that it in your world it does. I would say that what you are describing is not a dual concept at all, but rather a beginning and an end. A women, or a man, identifies as a slave, and then they seek to become that which they perceive themselves to be. But until they do, in my mind, they are only a potential slave, and there is a vast difference between potentiality and reality. I understand that people do believe that it is their nature to be something, and there is no reason to think that is not true, although of course often it is not, but cynicism aside, I think there still has to be intent and there has to be action and has to be ownership in order for the realization to occur, because it is the difference between having "slave" tendencies or perceiving oneself to be a "slave", and being a "slave".

IronBear -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 8:10:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone Proclaiming oneself to be something does not make it so, although you seem to be saying that it in your world it does. I would say that what you are describing is not a dual concept at all, but rather a beginning and an end. Probably just a matter of semantics, but I also see this not only as a single jopurney when taken as a whole and yet at any one point of time there is a duality in as far as there are some who identify as being a slave (and possible for some have been collared as a slave in the past), and there are those who at that time are actually collared slaves. Thus socially there are two groups both slaves and yet not identical from a practical aspect. One group being owned and t'other seeking to be owned. This I suspect will mean little to non M/s folk including Gorean Liferstylers but to the M/s folk and Gorean Lifestylers has some significience.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 9:25:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone Proclaiming oneself to be something does not make it so, although you seem to be saying that it in your world it does. I would say that what you are describing is not a dual concept at all, but rather a beginning and an end. A women, or a man, identifies as a slave, and then they seek to become that which they perceive themselves to be. But until they do, in my mind, they are only a potential slave, and there is a vast difference between potentiality and reality. I understand that people do believe that it is their nature to be something, and there is no reason to think that is not true, although of course often it is not, but cynicism aside, I think there still has to be intent and there has to be action and has to be ownership in order for the realization to occur, because it is the difference between having "slave" tendencies or perceiving oneself to be a "slave", and being a "slave". I have to disclaim, before I start, that I may not be grokking in fullness what Leonidas and IronBear are trying to say, despite being heavily vested in owner/servant dynamics and comprehensive-authority dynamics myself, but I did want to respond to Sly's comment, because I've seen the idea that one -is- a 'slave' or 'master' or whatever bandied about for years, and it's always rung sort of 'off' to me. See, Sly's distinction between -being- something and the -potential to be- something is a distinction that I make as well, but that I know that others do not make. I don't consider the -potential- of something to actually -represent- that thing, and that's a lesson hard-learned from far too many years attached to people that I got involved with because of either their or my perception of their (unexpressed) potential. Potential is just that ... it is an unrealized possibility. Now, under the proper circumstances, that unexpressed possibility may become extant -- but I couldn't call myself "professor", even though I adore teaching, have a PhD, and find the University environment very enticing. I can't call myself 'professor' because I am not -hired- as a professor by an institution that recognizes my potential and where I actually -employ- that potential in its designated role. A person can't call hirself a doctor because xhe loves House and -wants- to be a doctor. A person who thinks xhe can write, but who has never put anything down on a piece of paper can't call hirself a 'writer'. To me, it is the same with the concepts of Owner/slave (by whatever name you call it). If our Household didn't have any servants, I wouldn't be a Keeper. In fact, right now, I prefer to consider myself a free member, because, although HB does have servants, frankly, they're in other branches of the household and I don't really deal with them. SR -is- the Matriarch, because we have other members in the household, so there is -still- a House to run, but if she were alone, what would she be the matriarch OF? This, I think, is why I prefer to -discuss- with potential newcomers, and establish terms before I expect them to yield to me... because in my gut, until that collar goes around their neck, I see them as free individuals who prefer submission to dominance... but I -don't- see them as 'servants' until our interaction evolves to the point where they are ready to yield up authority to me... and I don't see them as "comprehensive-authority" servants (slaves, tpe, whatever) until they have yielded up everything. At that point, whether I delegate it back to them or keep it myself, the final authority rests with me, and -that- is the defining point at which they are no longer 'in potential', but are actively -existing- as what they call themselves. In the same way, I don't expect someone to consider me -their- master/mistress/keeper/whatever until I have claimed authority that they have yielded up. Until I've been vested with the authority, we are all independent, free individuals, regardless of our desire, willingness, or capacity to either manage authority or yield such. Dame Calla

sweetgirlserves -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 9:39:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas quote: ORIGINAL: sravaka But, having read rather a lot (by god, she's even read some of the dreaded books!), I am conscious that many do in fact use the word slave in a way that I would not, particularly the self-identified slaves themselves. Maybe I can help. We have a dual concept of "slavery". There is slavery in the sense that you are the property of another. There is also slavery in the sense that you are a slave "by nature". If a woman in our community says "I am a slave" she may be telling you that she is the property of another, or she may be telling you that she is a slave "by nature", in other words, she is telling you that belongs in the class of slaves, and is rightly regarded as such. She may not be owned at the moment, but she wants to be, and expects that she will be, because it is her nature to be. I'm not sure that we're the only ones who use "slave" like that, though. This web site uses it the same way. There are lots of folks who identify as "slave" in their profile who aren't owned at present. Thank you for clearing that up. Yes, personally, i believe that the truth of oneself is much more important than their 'situation' at any given moment. I think there are many 'free' people currently 'owned'- but that is really how you can truly find out that you are free. Some women discover more of their femininity and enjoy their submissive side much more from having experienced 'slavery' at some point in their lives, but came out of that realizing... i am a woman, i can be submissive, i enjoy my feminity, but i am a 'free' person. Also there are 'unowned' people who are slave... and again... trying to 'be free' and failing miserably is probably the best way to come to realize your true nature as slave. Coming to understand the truth about oneself is what it really is all about for me... and the best way to do that is to try both and figure it out. My point was, Gorean especially, care about the 'truth of one's nature'... and to deny someone their truth because you can no longer own them, or you decide you don't want to... is being dishonest with that person at a very deep level.... and to me, also, that is no way to try to 'keep a hold' on someone. ~sgs

Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 9:58:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone A women, or a man, identifies as a slave, and then they seek to become that which they perceive themselves to be. But until they do, in my mind, they are only a potential slave, and there is a vast difference between potentiality and reality. I can appreciate that you aren't accustomed to the way a Gorean would think about it. To our way of thinking, if someone would proclaim themselves a slave, they are a slave, and should take their place as one. Proclaiming oneself a slave is not something that a free man or woman would ever do. I'm not interested in getting into a debate about this. Just about anything related to "Gorean" starts a 1000 post flame war outside the Gorean section. It was just my intent to clear up a misunderstanding about how Goreans use the word.

leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 1:13:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone Proclaiming oneself to be something does not make it so, although you seem to be saying that it in your world it does I dont' think that's what IB was saying Sly. Here's how I read it (and sans any reference to gor since I think this is not a gor vs. BDSM topic). Carol is a slave in that she actually belongs to me (and specifically, obeys me always -- per my personal definition). I think it'd also be accurate to say that Carol belongs to the class of "slaves" in that it is easy for her to be this way. She is certainly capable of being "free", but it's way more pleasant for her to be owned [by the right man of course]. The second of these isn't disingenuous it's just not as immediately provable. I know it to be true because I know Carol. Nobody else could know it though without a fair amount of digging.

TurboJugend -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 1:19:59 PM)
quote: Just about anything related to "Gorean" starts a 1000 post flame war outside the Gorean section the good news is..lately it happens to many other subjects too...must be the weather. and personally I think you never talked "fanatic" about your lifestyle. It is interesting how you explain it.

AnimusRex -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 2:49:44 PM)
quote: Proclaiming oneself to be something does not make it so, although you seem to be saying that it in your world it does. Maybe 10 years ago I might have agreed- But from my experiences since then, I believe differently. Since what we are talking about is internal enslavement, where a person is enslaved by the emotional and mental bonds, what we think of ourselves can become our reality. I am repeating a bit of what I posted in another thread, but words are very powerful things; calling yourself- and thinking of yourself- as a "slave", and using that word, with all of its powerful meanings and connotations, is one of the many things that causes someone to become bonded. In terms of the previous posts along the lines of whether a slave is free to leave and chooses not to, or is actually mentally unable to leave- many cases of both probably exist. There is always a tendency to define our terms in such a way that it ennobles the lifestyle we chose- as if Master/slave, or Gorean, or BDSM relationships can defined in such a way that only terrific life-affirming relationships are covered; our sorts of relationships are as often as not defined by disfunction, cruelty and abuse as they are by love, kindness and generosity.

SlyStone -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 5:23:21 PM)
Dame Calla: I don't consider the -potential- of something to actually -represent- that thing, and that's a lesson hard-learned from far too many years attached to people that I got involved with because of either their or my perception of their (unexpressed) potential. For me it comes down to this, and I realize that some people would find this attitude to be judgmental, but Like Calla I have learned my lessons well in life, and I to have found that people will very often present an image of who or what they want to be, rather then who or what they really are, both online and face to face. I consider it a lesson well worth learning if one wishes to avoid unnecessary disappoints in life. Leonidas: I'm not interested in getting into a debate about this. I have never seen the point of debating anything on a message board with a bunch of strangers. The winner is usually the one with the most time to waste online or the one with the best typing skills, so really what is the point. I come here to learn of others perspectives, others view of the world, NOT for affirmation or for condemnation, and for sure not for debate. For what it is worth, while I usually disagree with your view of the world, I do find it to be both interesting and provocative, can't ask for more then that. Leadership: Carol is a slave in that she actually belongs to me (and specifically, obeys me always -- per my personal definition). I think it'd also be accurate to say that Carol belongs to the class of "slaves" in that it is easy for her to be this way. She is certainly capable of being "free", but it's way more pleasant for her to be owned [by the right man of course]. Jeff I think it would be interesting if you would ask Carol if she can imagine herself without your ownership for a moment, and if so; would she still perceive herself to be a slave? Is it enough that her nature is to be submissive or is it your ownership that makes it a reality? In my mind I see a continuum, first self realization, then intent, then action, and then the reality of "ownership". The question is, at what point in the continuum do you think she becomes a slave. Of course there is no correct answer and I realize that this is just theoretical musing, all that matters is how you and she or anyone in a relationship feel, just making conversation.

IronBear -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 5:26:39 PM)
Seeing that the proposed combat between Leonidas and Michael appears to be set and a possible venue organised, I haven't checked that thread on FetLife for two days so I'm not sure of any changes. I can only comment that hopefully the matter will not devolve into two combatants dancing around each other tossing insults and throwing punches and kicks from a range of 20 feet as often seen when two drunks decide to duke it out. I propose one of two forms of combat: Bare Knuckle Boxing under the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Heidelberg Dueling (with rapiers rather than Sabres). Details of these are: Bare Knuckle Boxing ~ That a square of a yard be chalked in the middle of the stage, and on every fresh set-to after a fall, or being parted from the rails, each Second is to bring his Man to the side of the square, and place him opposite to the other, and till they are fairly set-to at the Lines, it shall not be lawful for one to strike at the other.That, in order to prevent any Disputes, the time a Man lies after a fall, if the Second does not bring his Man to the side of the square, within the space of half a minute, he shall be deemed a beaten Man.That in every main Battle, no person whatever shall be upon the Stage, except the Principals and their Seconds, the same rule to be observed in bye-battles, except that in the latter, Mr. Broughton is allowed to be upon the Stage to keep decorum, and to assist Gentlemen in getting to their places, provided always he does not interfere in the Battle; and whoever pretends to infringe these Rules to be turned immediately out of the house. Every body is to quit the Stage as soon as the Champions are stripped, before the set-to.That no Champion be deemed beaten, unless he fails coming up to the line in the limited time, or that his own Second declares him beaten. No Second is to be allowed to ask his man’s Adversary any questions, or advise him to give out.That in bye-battles, the winning man to have two-thirds of the Money given, which shall be publicly divided upon the Stage, notwithstanding any private agreements to the contrary.That to prevent Disputes, in every main Battle the Principals shall, on coming on the Stage, choose from among the gentlemen present two Umpires, who shall absolutely decide all Disputes that may arise about the Battle; and if the two Umpires cannot agree, the said Umpires to choose a third, who is to determine it.That no person is to hit his Adversary when he is down, or seize him by the ham, the breeches, or any part below the waist. A man on his knees is to be reckoned down. Heidelberg Dueling ~ The duelists stand a sabre's length apart, stripped to the buff. At the side of each is a second. Doctors and corporation officials are present; fellow members sit about drinking beer and watching the "fun." About the middle of each duelist is fastened a protective pad, about each throat a thick scarf to prevent severance of the jugular vein. Over the eyes are placed wire mesh goggles; a steel snout protects the nose. The duelists' prime targets are one another's cheeks and forehead. The swords are swabbed with antiseptic to make the maiming cleanly. At the cry of "Los!" (Go), each falls to, slashing eight times at his adversary's head with his keen blade. Only an up, down or sidewise slash, not a thrust with the point, is permitted. After eight slashes and parries, the seconds seize the sword arms, doctors examine the damage. Unless one contestant is unable to stand up, the affray continues until one faints from loss of blood or has suffered sufficient disfigurement to make the duel satisfactory to one & all.

tazzygirl -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 5:39:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone Dame Calla: I don't consider the -potential- of something to actually -represent- that thing, and that's a lesson hard-learned from far too many years attached to people that I got involved with because of either their or my perception of their (unexpressed) potential. For me it comes down to this, and I realize that some people would find this attitude to be judgmental, but Like Calla I have learned my lessons well in life, and I to have found that people will very often present an image of who or what they want to be, rather then who or what they really are, both online and face to face. I consider it a lesson well worth learning if one wishes to avoid unnecessary disappoints in life. Out of curisosity to you both. where do you place those who have been owned, who were slaves, and yet find themselves once again unowned?

Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 5:41:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear Seeing that the proposed combat between Leonidas and Michael appears to be set and a possible venue organised, I haven't checked that thread on FetLife for two days so I'm not sure of any changes. You are behind the times, bud.

barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 5:50:25 PM)
quote: Seeing that the proposed combat between Leonidas and Michael appears to be set and a possible venue organised, I haven't checked that thread on FetLife for two days so I'm not sure of any changes. Psst Ironbear lol Michael backed out.

IronBear -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 6:19:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear Seeing that the proposed combat between Leonidas and Michael appears to be set and a possible venue organised, I haven't checked that thread on FetLife for two days so I'm not sure of any changes. You are behind the times, bud. quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel quote: Seeing that the proposed combat between Leonidas and Michael appears to be set and a possible venue organised, I haven't checked that thread on FetLife for two days so I'm not sure of any changes. Psst Ironbear lol Michael backed out. Bloody hell and here I was looking for the TV and DVD Rights.. Thanks folks the heads up is much appreciated.

sravaka -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 6:45:11 PM)
quote: Jeff I think it would be interesting if you would ask Carol if she can imagine herself without your ownership for a moment, and if so; would she still perceive herself to be a slave? Is it enough that her nature is to be submissive or is it your ownership that makes it a reality? In my mind I see a continuum, first self realization, then intent, then action, and then the reality of "ownership". The question is, at what point in the continuum do you think she becomes a slave. Of course there is no correct answer and I realize that this is just theoretical musing, all that matters is how you and she or anyone in a relationship feel, just making conversation. By way of penance for almost making a great big mess above (thank you very much, Leonidas, for fixing it), and as someone who is presently somewhere smack in the middle of that continuum, I'm going to try to throw out a thought or two about this.... Call it further data. For many years now, I've been drawn towards communities of M/s people rather than other subsets of BDSM, and while I've remained unowned, have though of myself as having slave nature/potential, or of being someone who will be best fulfilled by slavery, or of being a <cough> "profound submissive" (I wonder if that phrase rings bells for anyone here). I arrived at this conclusion based variously on the way I react to dominant men, the fact that I thrive when someone else is imposing limits/structure and making decisions, that I am most peaceful when I have no choice about things (whether that is internally compelled or externally), that the idea of negotiating "scenes" or being responsible for policing my own "limits" fills me with horror and despair, etc. etc. etc. Unlike many others who have contributed here, though, I cannot say that I am driven by some sharp sense of slave identity, or an unusually intense drive toward service (for me, desire to serve is provoked only by a particular kind of dominant presence, and persists only if a bond develops). I am merely being practical and logical-- certain things/people/structures make me happy, and it turns out that others describe these relationships as M/s, TPE, whatever, so it just makes sense to lurk around those people rather than others. Anyway. Now, at last, there's a serious D-type in the equation, with whom I am exploring in the direction of a committed, full-blown M/s relationship. Am I his slave? No. Things have not progressed that far, and various logistical issues remain to be figured out. Therefore, am I a slave? I would say no. I'd also say that my making the transition to becoming a slave is something that will be his choice and his doing, even if it falls to me to beg a collar. The critical juncture would be his choosing to take full possession and locking that collar shut (figuratively, literally, whatever). I just do what I'm told. I do it because I react to him that way automatically, but also because I want to, because I perceive that it is safe to do so, and because I am infinitely happier doing so than not doing so (I like it when he's happy, and also don't particularly like being punished). But in the end, I'll see myself as a slave when/if he decides I'm his slave and makes it so. Maybe that's too vague to be useful... but since it's written I'll let it go.

leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 6:50:35 PM)
quote: \|Sly Said: Jeff I think it would be interesting if you would ask Carol if she can imagine herself without your ownership for a moment, and if so; would she still perceive herself to be a slave? Is it enough that her nature is to be submissive or is it your ownership that makes it a reality? I'd like to deconstruct this question a bit. Let's discuss what, exactly, I see in Carol that makes her "sub" rather than just using the word. Then we'll talk about a TPE slavey sort of thing. So near as I can tell, there are three things that go into "sub": Flexibility:: The personality in question has to be reasonably flexible... Yeah, either steak or sushi works. Places a high value on pleasing their partner: This should be pretty obvious. Has a predilection for not being 'out in front': This might be true for a wide variety of reasons. But really, if you had those three things, wouldn't you inevitably end up at "submissive"? Given that, I don't actually see any difference between sub and slave at all except as a measure of how well the relationship is working out. So, now, to your question. No, Carol would not perceive herself to be a slave... in fact she doesn't think of herself that way at all. She completely and totally fails to identify with BDSM labels. In her head, she's just Carol doing what she knows to do to please the man she loves. When I said, "Well, I'd like it if you'd be my slave", that was nothing new to her... just another way to make me happy. My guess is that so long as she was getting what she needed, she'd be whatever her partner needed within some really really broad constraints. With me it's all pretty vanilla but if some other partner of hers was into a kinky little pain slut and had no interest in dominance outside the bedroom, she'd turn into a kinky little pain slut. The only caveat to that is she would never hook up with a man who didn't register as alpha/assertive/dominant. Whether or not he actually took the next step she could be flexible on. But she wants a dominant male partner in her life. quote: In my mind I see a continuum, first self realization, then intent, then action, and then the reality of "ownership". The question is, at what point in the continuum do you think she becomes a slave. Of course there is no correct answer and I realize that this is just theoretical musing, all that matters is how you and she or anyone in a relationship feel, just making conversation. I see the viewpoint your coming from... but I'm not seeing how that mental model fits what's going on with the woman I'm looking at. In her head, there is no continuum. There's no self-realization. There's no intent or action... at least not specifically to be a sub/slave/whatever. There is just Carol trying to please her husband. The only thing that's happened as a result of the collar is that she found a new way to be pleasing to me. So in her case at least, I don't think she ever "became" anything other than what she is. Maybe put differently, I think the only thing that's making Carol a slave is because that's the label I happened to like to describe what she actually is. Go ahead though.. What she is is a competent intelligent and capable woman who is flexible in terms of her own needs, strongly desires to please her partner, and generally much prefers to not be out in front. Put whatever label you want on that. But whatever it is, it hasn't changed as a result of the collar.

dcnovice -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/31/2009 6:58:42 PM)
quote: Psst Ironbear lol Michael backed out. When did that happen?

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625