|
SouthernSpankin -> RE: Is TPE really total, and if so is it evil? An outsider view (9/6/2009 8:37:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Falkenstein
Before asking this question, one must answer these ones: does it exist and what is it?
A TPE-relation is first and foremost a couple. So I will describe it by firstly comparing it to a mainstream relationship.
Oscar Wilde once said that marriage was about solving together problems you would not have alone. In any couple, decisions must be made, choices made. These choices are decided on the basis of a confrontation of will, the disagreement can be peaceful and loving or not. The result is a series of compromises, quid pro quo, well couple life. Of course, these material and emotional trade-offs have to be in their sum better than the alternative: dissolving the relation. The balance has to be positive for each partner has the power to break the couple. Breaking up is the ultima ratio, the last resort in any relationship.
TPE is radically different because one partner, the woman (I focused of male/dom female/slave situations) gives up her right to contest, negotiate or even discuss any decision. The man is invested with all powers, including upon things which are not open to debate in mainstream relations like sitting, clothing, of the woman of course. The woman gives thus all control upon her life to her partner. Why would a woman chose to give her man more power than any ayatollah may dare ask in his own Iranian household? Did all the women in women lib’ movement burn their bra in vain?
The answer is love, love and kink, but firstly deep love. The collared women I wrote to, or chatted with, were all intensely in love with their partner. The tragic (in the noble sense) beauty of their feelings takes my breath away. If Shakespeare had written about a TPE Juliet, Verona would have not mourned the death of two lovers at the end of the play, but been razed by an earthquake, so powerful love seems to be in the heart of a slave. A master is the alpha and omega of his slave, his opinion of her, how he regards her counts above everything.
Since great love exists in mainstream too, the additional difference is the specific pleasure – or rather fulfilment -- the slave takes from submitting to the Master (and his pleasure of it too of course). This extremely pleasant feeling makes unpalatable submission bearable or even pleasurable. An expression I heard quite a few times is “being complete”. I assume I can translate it in being able to live all the facets of one personality and not to have to negate one in order of living the others. Amusingly, this was the way Nietzsche, the author of “master moral and slave moral” (Herrenmoral und Sklavenmoral) described the right way of life… for a master.
Is TPE static or dynamic? For the master, it is primarily dynamic. The collaring is the start of a process; the enslavement process gives him the satisfaction he wants, more than the final result. How can we otherwise explain that a master will train his slave to eat from a ball or stop using furniture? There is no practical use to it, the savings in dishwasher soap will be minimal, cuddling or fondling a woman at your feet requires more exercise than when she is next to you on the couch. When a very logical master explains that he is still pushing the boundaries of his slave after fifteen years, we can only wonder: is he particularly slow? The obvious answer is that masters enjoy the enslaving process more than the final result. The Marquis de Sade never wrote about degraded women, he wrote about the degrading of women. I read his complete work, leather-bound of course
For the slave, I am not sure that the process is as important – and pleasurable – as for the master. I did not investigate this crucial point, but I think that a slave see it more as a series of test where she can prove her love as well as earn respect and attention from her master.
Is TPE really total? A big classic of fora discussions. The answer is no and yes: No, because numerous slaves leaves their master. Remember the last resort of the mainstream couple, breaking-up? Well it obviously happens – a lot – to master-slave couple too. Therefore it remains like the sword of Damocles upon the head of the master. In addition, many posts of masters state that on one hand they will not accept any limitations by their slave… but they want to “keep their property happy” or any other periphrases that in fine means: “yes there are limits”. This sounds to me like a harsher version of the French recipe for marriage bliss: the husband, as head of the household is free to make any decisions as long it correspond to his wife’s wishes.
However, inside of these boundaries, TPE is indeed total, because the slave refuses to use the nuclear option and submits. It is thus logical to admit that in a good working TPE couple, the slave is completely at the mercy of her master, she has no other option than obey or be punished, punishment being for her a way to redeem in the eyes of the most important person on earth. So yes, inside of the bubble TPE is total.
In that respect the woman acts like Konrad Lorenz observed (and got a Nobel Price for his work BTW) When two dogs fight, the losing dog will at one moment offer its throat to the winning dog, who is stopped by its instinct of biting to death. The female slaves offers her life to her master, well knowing (or in bad cases hoping) that he will not abuse her.
Now that we have established that Total Power Exchange do indeed exist, the last, for me most burning question remains: is it bad or even evil.
Good and evil are supposedly relative: I am disgusted by an Islamic state beating a woman who drank a beer, but many people in that state, Indonesia, will consider it rather lenient. Some of this forum even had a good laugh at it. They are wrong and I am right. Right and wrong are absolute categories. For me they are defined by the universal declaration of human rights, which was written at the beginning of the French Revolution – and was not applied by her, but this is another story. The declaration is universal, which means that it applies to every person, wherever he or she lives. The rights are inaliable, which means that nobody, even the concerned person has the right to limit them. This is something that Islamic women are currently leaning the hard way in France, and they have yet to see the end of it. Another principle, the balance of power, (invented in France but really made in America) plays also a role in this question.
In a master slave relationship, it is obvious that the slave’s rights are trampled upon like a doormat at a Christmas party in Minnesota.
As for the balance of power, Montesquieu said that absolute power corrupts absolutely; I am not just paraphrasing when I say that total power corrupts totally. If total power is wrong for a head of state, why should it be right for head of household? In a TPE relation, the master is supposed to take good care of his “property”. However when a master forbids to his slave the use of silverware, or train her not to climax without his permission, causing immense deprivation, where is the balance to weight the fulfilment of the slave with the pain caused by her submission? Who will challenge his decision? By definition nobody. Is this an open alley to abuse? No. It is an Autobahn!
Therefore, if I base my judgment upon the most sacred texts of my culture which I hold for universal, the verdict is easy: yes the TPE is evil and no goodwill by the master can lesser the verdict.
But what about the obvious happiness of these slaves I met? Should I belittle it as infatuation, misguided love, mental illness (Sade spent most of his life in prison and asylum)? That would be too easy.
The Americans, (Jefferson or Mason?) introduced the notion of “right to pursue happiness”.
If we accept that the inherently submissive women has the right to pursue happiness, and if we recognize that she can only find it by submitting to a TPE relationship, should we deny it?
An honest man, loved by a women yearning to be his slave faces a stark choice: he can either deny her happiness or engage himself in a situation where he risks hurting her gravely and loose his soul, and possibly his mind too.
It speaks a lot for TPE that many women can exit it relatively unscathed, and are more than willing to return to submission once they find a fitting partner. It is also critical to any judgment upon masters to see how concerned they seems to be with the well being of the one who put their happiness in their hands. Finally, in a country like the USA, so prone to litigation, TPE relationships seems to be absent from the court of justice.
Therefore I conclude that TPE may be evil, but it is definitely a lesser evil that can be pursued by a master with a strong sense of responsibility and a deep love for his slave.
I didn't read your post, just your conclusion that TPE may be evil, but is a lesser of two evils. Your title "Is TPE really total, and if so is it evil" reminds me of a post from a thoughtful poster here a few years ago that had a similar question. Basically, he had a slave that would do anything he asked at the snap of his fingers, and he was questioning if that was "right." However, I've also read books by widely-respected minds such as Anthony De Mello (e.g his book Awareness) that question whether even being in any kind of romantic relationship is "right," he even questioned whether it was "right" for one to feel grief at a loved one's funeral. He made some great points about what it means to be truly free.
|
|
|
|
