RE: Master/slave questions

RE: Master/slave questions (Full Version)

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

Message

barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 4:56:03 AM)
Couple days ago. I was surprised he announced it on fetlife but not here. But here he actually may have been held accoutable for his actions in talking big and smack going as far as issuing the challenge and then when push came to shove he was the one who ran.

angelikaJ -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 5:05:43 AM)
The thread there devolved into something quite pathetic and there was a whole group of people on that thread who showed themselves to be major asses. Michael essentially removed himself from it. I don't blame him. For the people here who want to judge; it does not surprise me that your prejudices have tainted the facts. (hijack over)

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 5:28:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl 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? For myself and my household, I consider them to be free individuals. Their personality may be inclined to submission and/or servitude, and they may be -experienced- with binding ownership, but, at the moment, they are -not- in that relationship, and may not be suited to -being- in that kind of relationship WITH US... and until that can be determined, they are free, and their -nature- is one of deep submission/service. Until they are actually indentured to our household, and it has been determined that they, and we, desire to have them bound to our household, or they find another person to own them, they are not owned. Now, I know that there are some folks who have had the experience of having "willed" servants, and we, also, have had some servants who did not want to -leave- service, but preferred to go from one situation to another with no break under their own direction in between -- even though these folks weren't -ours- after the transaction, they were still owned/claimed through the whole process, so if, for clarity's sake, we're restricting descriptives to free vs. slave, I would call these folks 'slaves' for that entire process. (Of course, for those who know us, and for internal consistency's sake, we call a person bound to service with us a 'servant', a title which encompasses their entire experience within our household and which doesn't change regardless of whether they yield to our authority with boundaries or whether they yield comprehensively... but that's another issue entirely). Dame Calla

barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 5:51:01 AM)
chuckles angelikaJ, ummmm you do realize MICHAEL was the major instigator of it all HE is the one who started the thread as well as egged people on a lot of which was against Goreans not just Leonidas - ithin a few posts of his starting it btw. But yeah i can see how you would refuse to see that and make excuses. He didn't remove himself from the thread -- he backed out of the fight HE ISSUED with a whole lot of smack talk not only here but also over there. Ohhhh and he continues the smack talk after cowardly backing out of the challenge. One would think his supporters would at least hold him to have some integrity of NOT continuing the smack talk after running away from a challenge he issued. And one would think his followers would have integrity themselves enough not to make excuses for him when the thread itself shows he was a major insitgator. He could have maintained his integrity and honor by backing out of the thread COMPLETELY and privately continued the challenge. But he didn't -- he backed out of the challenge and then continued in the thread. That is my last comment on it as there is a thread here for that -- i simply was answering questions posed by others in my former posts. angel

angelikaJ -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 5:58:22 AM)
I am not a supporter of Michael. The whole thing was childish.

SlyStone -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 6:32:54 AM)
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. I am the last person to put labels on anything Jeff. The only purpose they ever serve, in my mind, is to help us define ourselves, and it works both internally and externally, it just seems to be human nature to need to flesh out, if not why we are here, at least who we are. Having said that clearly your Carol doesn't have that need which makes a mess of my continuum for sure :) Now is that because she is naturally submissive or because she is someone who adapts to a given situation, or perhaps she is one of those lucky people who have learned to live in the moment, that is for you to answer, and I think you have and it works for me. My only question to you would be this; Is the fact that Carol adapts to the situation reactively, rather then internally identifies herself as a slave, in any way limiting to the authoritarian relationship that you envision? If not then who cares, and be happy.

leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 10:51:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone My only question to you would be this; Is the fact that Carol adapts to the situation reactively, rather then internally identifies herself as a slave, in any way limiting to the authoritarian relationship that you envision? If not then who cares, and be happy. First off, let's be clear (just in case), I certainly wasn't feeling like you were challenging me on labels. Just like with you, to me this is an interesting theoretical twist on this thread but whether we call Carol my "obedient wife" or my "TPE Slave" doesn't change my relationship one iota. Heh, it is SOOOO much easier to not care about the labels when you are IN a relationship already. Now, to answer your question, I struggled with this one myself in the beginning. In my head I worried, "She's just doing this to please me. That's no good reason to turn someone into my slave. She should want to do it for herself." Then, as I wised up, I began to think of it differently... "Let's see, if pleasing one's master is not a valid reason to be a slave, then what exactly is? So then I settled down into the idea that so long as she's smiling and I'm smiling, all is well in the world. Carol is all three of those things you mentioned. She is "naturally submissive" (and by that I specifically mean that she chooses to deploy submissive modes of behavior in a wide variety of life circumstances as opposed to specifically with me). She is also very adaptable... in fact both of us are. We have frequently commented on our "chameleon natures". And she, very much so, tends to live in the moment. Whereas a lot of vanilla women would've had a lot of theoretical issues with wearing a dog collar and a leash, for Carol it was just some stuff to wear -- no judgement involved. What's important is how the moment feels and it's feeling pretty good for her. She tends to directly perceive the world around her rather than view it, as I do, through a series of conceptual filters. I envy her that. On one hand, that causes her to be pretty bad at understanding "plot". On the other hand, she has a direct connection to reality that is just such an elegantly simple way to go through life. What I'm guessing is that your mental model works well for what I conceptualize as "natural dominants who are choosing to submit". That's where you'd see some sort of motion or progression. For "natural submissives", you're not going to really see such progression because, just like Carol, even when they transition from vanilla to BDSM, it's really just a new set of labels and maybe some enhanced focus on the same old stuff as was always true. And in case anyone is maybe thinking that my phrase "natural submissive" was a sneaky way to say "twue submissive", no... that's not what I meant and I see no qualititave difference between the two personality types I described.

DavanKael -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 1:08:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear 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. < sigh > Damn it, not surprised but I was hoping for some blood-sports. Davan

DavanKael -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 1:13:15 PM)
Jeff said: Carol is all three of those things you mentioned. She is "naturally submissive" (and by that I specifically mean that she chooses to deploy submissive modes of behavior in a wide variety of life circumstances as opposed to specifically with me). She is also very adaptable... in fact both of us are. We have frequently commented on our "chameleon natures". And she, very much so, tends to live in the moment. Whereas a lot of vanilla women would've had a lot of theoretical issues with wearing a dog collar and a leash, for Carol it was just some stuff to wear -- no judgement involved. What's important is how the moment feels and it's feeling pretty good for her. She tends to directly perceive the world around her rather than view it, as I do, through a series of conceptual filters. I envy her that. On one hand, that causes her to be pretty bad at understanding "plot". On the other hand, she has a direct connection to reality that is just such an elegantly simple way to go through life. I think what Jeff spelled out here is a really great example of how something that can seem grandiose in thought can be really not that big of a deal in 'real life'. Also, a great example of a couple of folks who understand and are dedicated to one another which is where the importance on terminology really becomes irrelevant: it works, those involved are happy. :> Davan

janiebelle -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 1:28:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetgirlserves 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. Sgs, you hit the nail on the head. There could have been no clearer revelation of my nature than to have been tossed into the "free" end of the pool like I was. j

kajiraforsale -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/1/2009 3:17:11 PM)
Sweetgirlserves does that alot...hitting the nail on the head!! grin Recently released, I totally agree that nothing makes you realize how UNfree your heart and soul is than being forced into that "end of the pool". I sit here now, in a public venue, looking at all these people who are Free....and knowing that they have a dignity to which I could never even aspire.

SlyStone -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/2/2009 9:11:23 AM)
quote: For "natural submissives", you're not going to really see such progression because, just like Carol, even when they transition from vanilla to BDSM, it's really just a new set of labels and maybe some enhanced focus on the same old stuff as was always true. For me the natural vs chosen submissive or dominant is an irrelevant distinction that really serves no purpose. I do however think there is a difference worth noting between simply being , whatever path you may take, and in becoming self aware. Of course all human beings experience both states of mind and the two tend to blend together as there are times when we are totally in the moment and there are times when we step back to examine and reflect. The extent of the self awareness process is for me a key relationship component, and clearly it differs among individuals and relationships and dynamics. But my guess is that in some TPE style relationships, the submissive would have to be purposefully minimized to some extent by the dominant, or perhaps to quite a large extent. I would like to hear their opinions on this. Personally I need self awareness from my submissive to complete the circle. For me it is not enough that she adapts to my demands and functions to please me, I need someone who actively takes part in the authoritarian exchange, and by that I do not mean someone who questions my authority, that is the last thing that I need, but rather someone who is actively,consciously, and deliberately engaged in the process, from beginning to end, in the same way that I am. I have no label for this anymore then you do for your relationship, and I consider that to be a good thing. edited for dyslexic spelling

leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/2/2009 9:54:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone I have no label for this anymore then you do for your relatiohship, and I consider that to be a good thing. Yeah, isn't that the truth? In the end, we can say "TPE" or "D/s" or "M/s" or whatever. But those terms just fall so far short of actually describing anything useful. Me personally, I'd prefer if the lables had at least some meaning... but in the end, even if some body went back and rigorously defined them all, they'd still only be rough sign posts. Honestly I think the labels are way more helpful for the new person... at least they were for me. When you're new, you're looking at a vast, uncharted sea of .... stuff. The labels helped me, at least, to come to terms with it. They were the initial slices I used to divide one great big unknown into some smaller and more easily understandable ones. They served as the planks in my conceptual framework. But, as I found my own voice I no longer needed other people's concepts to stave off the chaos.

sweetgirlserves -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/2/2009 11:07:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlyStone *The extent* of the self awareness process is for me a key relationship component, and clearly it differs among individuals and relationships and dynamics.** But my guess is that in some TPE style relationships, the submissive would have to be purposefully minimized to some extent by the dominant, or perhaps to quite a large extent. I would like to hear their opinions on this. What do you mean by the underlined? ~sgs

SlyStone -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/2/2009 2:27:48 PM)
quote: What do you mean by the underlined? [image]http://www.collarchat.com/upfiles/smiley/wife.gif[/image] I really wish I hadn't posted that because you are right, it isn't a clear thought at all, and we were kind of done with all this, but since you asked, here goes. First of all I think "minimized" was a poor word choice, "steered away from" perhaps makes more sense, and I was referring to the process of self examination. I don't think anyone in a TPE style relationship would argue that the authority exchange is in any way pragmatic. It is a very clear cut verbal or written contract in which the slave agrees to give up full authority to the dominant. At any point if she or he can no longer submit to the dominants authority the relationship is at an end. And yet one possibility of self realization is a need for change in order to become the person we want to be. The other of course would be acceptance, which is what most seek and hope for, but being someone who has difficulty with the concept of acceptance , I was thinking of the former. And my thought was that it cannot be in the interest of some TPE style dominant's, and this is only my perception, to encourage the process of self realization ie self examination in their slave as opposed to accepting themselves and their place, because What would they gain? I was trying to contrast that perception with a kind of D/s style relationship, in which the authority exchange is far more pragmatic and shifting. As an example In a TPE style dynamic, if after a period of time a submissive was to come to the conclusion that she could no longer do an important task set forth by the dominant, something that she had always done without thinking about it, and made that clear, how is he or she then able to maintain their authority, as it has been defined, if they accept this? I realize that they might sit down and discuss it, but the reality is that the dynamic has shifted, and while the relationship might survive because the dominant doesn't release her, I would think no TPE could survive to many of these "shifts". In the same situation, since I have no expectation of total authority, I can decide if the task matters to me or not, and not be so concerned with having my authority questioned, if it is clear to me that this is an exceptional moment. I would in fact be interested in understanding what has caused her shift in thinking, and it is most likely that I would not allow a relationship to end because her view of the world has changed, unless it is to such an extent that she could no longer meet most of my expectations, just like any other relationship. Having said all that, I know that people are people regardless of the dynamic, but I do think it presents a different set of problems depending on ones perspective.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/2/2009 3:11:31 PM)
quote: And my thought was that it cannot be in the interest of some TPE style dominant's, and this is only my perception, to encourage the process of self realization ie self examination in their slave as opposed to accepting themselves and their place, because What would they gain? I was trying to contrast that perception with a kind of D/s style relationship, in which the authority exchange is far more pragmatic and shifting. As an example In a TPE style dynamic, if after a period of time a submissive was to come to the conclusion that she could no longer do an important task set forth by the dominant, something that she had always done without thinking about it, and made that clear, how is he or she then able to maintain their authority, as it has been defined, if they accept this? I realize that they might sit down and discuss it, but the reality is that the dynamic has shifted, and while the relationship might survive because the dominant doesn't release her, I would think no TPE could survive to many of these "shifts". In the same situation, since I have no expectation of total authority, I can decide if the task matters to me or not, and not be so concerned with having my authority questioned, if it is clear to me that this is an exceptional moment. I would in fact be interested in understanding what has caused her shift in thinking, and it is most likely that I would not allow a relationship to end because her view of the world has changed, unless it is to such an extent that she could no longer meet most of my expectations, just like any other relationship. Having said all that, I know that people are people regardless of the dynamic, but I do think it presents a different set of problems depending on ones perspective. Maybe it is the luxury of a household that isn't based, fundamentally, on romance, and one where we have multiple servants and Keepers, or maybe it's just because somehow we managed to have structure without rigidity within our concept, but we actually have a process to deal with this, with the understanding that both people and circumstances change over time. I was married for 13 years in a relatively mainstream marriage (the only reason it wasn't -fully- mainstream is because my ex knew about my preferences and knew that it probably wasn't going to last forever before we even started). Even with that being said, towards the end of our relationship, he did -everything- he could to keep me from changing... he tried guilt, anger, repression, withholding money or transportation... and in the end, I progressed anyway. He wasn't a bad man, but he honestly believed that I wasn't going to change on him, even though we discussed all the ways in which I was progressing into something that simply wasn't and couldn't be mainstream. Being in a 'normal' relationship doesn't guarantee the ability to move forward with one's life. At the same time, I have been part of the House for 12 years (almost as long as my marriage). I signed a contract of service and training when I joined up, but the contract was open-ended. We didn't know what I was going to become, or how long it was going to get there. I -did- make it pretty clear that I wasn't big on yielding, and that boundary got pushed to its limits... but in the years in which I trained, and in the years since, I and the others in our house have grown and changed, and the dynamics of the house have adapted with us. Yes, we have had servants who have, for a short time or an extended time, yielded comprehensive authority over their lives and actions... but honestly, what we 'get' out of encouraging progress in our servants is really -quality- servants, and servants who -want- to be there and who -want- to serve in the way that they're serving... and we have had a bonus of getting some Keepers and free members who might not have seen that potential in themselves when we started out (and had some for whom the potentials that they dreamed of, on either side of the kneel, were evoked within the aspect of our family.) Sure, there may be individuals who will repress their servant in order to hold on to something that is fading -- human beings everywhere continue to do this to one another and to themselves, regardless of comprehensive authority dynamics or not. There may also be servants who repress themselves in order to hold on to the relationship -- but, again, that can happen in -any- relationship. If someone is tied to the power, instead of the communion, xhe's not going to be vested in doing anything that could shatter that power dynamic... if it is the relationship that is what is important, then people find ways to encourage one anothers' growth and embrace whatever changes that brings. I've said, many times, that one thing that makes a poly relationship work is making the relationship a -priority-... doing that, though, requires a high measure of honesty and integrity in the people involved, where nourishing the relationship compels nourishing one another, and where change (and sometimes chaos) become part of the process of health and growth for the individual -and- the relationship. Dame Calla

leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/2/2009 5:00:02 PM)
What a fascinating post Sly. I swear I read it like 5 times ... "I agree".... "No wait, I disagree"... "On second thought, maybe I agree afterall"... etc. In the end, I think I am just baffled. For Carol & I, the kind of mis-sync that you're talking about just isn't really possible. I would've known what was going on in her head and adjusted something... either her head or my plan to make it all work out. But under no circumstances would I "adjust her head" in a direction that wasn't good for her. If the whole TPE thing wasn't working out for her, I would not be pushing her in that direction. I'd rather have a happy and healthy carol of any stripe over any "slave" I can imagine. In that sense, my authority is far from "total". It is not limited by her, exactly. But my own personality makes me care deeply about her, what's good for her, what she needs, wants, and dreams. All those things place boundaries if not on my authority, then certainly on the things I'm willing to DO with that authority. quote: Dame Calla said: I've said, many times, that one thing that makes a poly relationship work is making the relationship a -priority-... doing that, though, requires a high measure of honesty and integrity in the people involved, where nourishing the relationship compels nourishing one another, and where change (and sometimes chaos) become part of the process of health and growth for the individual -and- the relationship. And the same thing is true of monogamous relationships... at least the vast majority of them. In her terms, I place more value on the relationship as a whole than I do any conceptual label like "slave" or "TPE".

SlyStone -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/3/2009 6:54:48 AM)
quote: What a fascinating post Sly. I swear I read it like 5 times ... "I agree".... "No wait, I disagree"... "On second thought, maybe I agree afterall"... etc. In the end, I think I am just baffled. Thanks Jeff! I think[sm=nervous.gif]

IronBear -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/3/2009 8:14:03 AM)
I think Jeff, when it's all said and done, we each of us must define our relationships and follow what seems right for us to maintain a healthy dynamic beneficial to all involved be it a mono or poly one. It is my firm belief that whilst we can and indeed should make every attempt to learn what we can especially from those living similar lifestyles, we also must make decisions as to what is suitable for or own relationships and not allow ourselves to be coerced into following the lead of others no matter how high they seem or how well their own dynamics appear to be. Theirs is not ours and in this we are all unique with our own paths, our own goals and our own way of doing things. For this reason labels will and must be somewhat broad or even vague as far as exact definitions and have use only as a most general reference point when conversing with or otherwise communicating with others.

leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/3/2009 11:01:58 AM)
I couldn't agree more Ironbear and if I said anything that sounds contrary to what you wrote, it either isn't what I meant or I recant it. For me, I've looked at MercnBeth for quite some time now and they've provided some very useful signposts for me along my own path. But I remain acutely aware that their path and mine are only related in certain aspects and in other ways, our relationships are diametrically opposite. So I borrow the stuff that's useful within my context and jettison the rest. In large part, that's why I've tried to swap over most of my writings on CM to be more in the immediate "I" mode -- here's what Carol and I do -- rather than the theoretical (and possibly pontificating) mode. This whole little sidebar between me and Sly is of theoretical interest rather than practical. In truth, I'm halfway guessing from remarks of Sly's that there is no real fundamental difference between the authority I hold in my "M/s" relationship and the authority he holds in his "D/s" one. It's beginning to look like it's only a question of viewpoint. Carol & I didnt' focus on boundaries in the beginning and we don't now... we just work stuff out as it happens. But the "stuff" still exists and it still exerts real impact on our relationship and the authority I have within it.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875