|
leadership527 -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/7/2010 9:21:16 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
With the above in mind, I find that it is not surprising, nor should it be unexpected, that individuals who are not currently in existing authority-based dynamics would pick and choose who they will or will not obey, until such time as they yield to someone. Until that time, in my mind, they are NOT SLAVES... they are free persons inclined to pursue authority-based dynamics.
Thoughts?
Hello Dame Calla:
In my mind, the English language frequently allows multiple definitions for the same word. I have no problem with treating the word "slave" with two different meanings.
a) Someone who is currently owned.
b) Someone who wishes to be owned.
I can speak to my own history with Carol. When we embarked on this path, I called her my "slave". In the very beginning, this was much more a statement of intent than a statement of fact. The authority I wielded over her was minuscule compared with what I wield today. Honestly, I strongly suspect that the authority I wield over Carol today will be less than what I wield over her 2 years from now. So at what point did we cross the line and become "actually M/s"?? While I'm at it, I'm pretty sure that what I think of as "total" power exchange is not what others think of it. So while we may have crossed some imaginary line into M/s between Carol and I, would others agree?
In the end, the only reason I care about someone's owned vs. unowned status is within the larger context of their actual relationship experience. In the end, I'm interested in building a life-long sustainable relationship. Comments from folks who are actually succeeding at that goal carry more weight with me than those who are speculating about it. Things like "past experience", "present experience", and "good sound theory" all get mixed into a hopper and out of that comes some score in my head which describes how relevant I think the poster's comments are to my actual problems and goals.
|
|
|
|
