RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply!

RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

NuevaVida -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/8/2010 10:16:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Finally, of course, is the real problem. Even if you COULD somehow produce a spreadsheet with the 4 bajillion areas of control neatly scored on a 1-10 scale by a panel of independent reviewers for 2000 relationships... so what? What would that tell you? In the end, it isn't how much control I have over Carol which makes us happy. It's that I have the right control for us. If I found out that I "only" control Carol 10% as much as the average "master".. so what? It certainly wouldn't change anything I do. I suppose it might make me stop using the term "master" but that'd be a semantic correction only. Wow, that was awesome. And the part I bolded was right - on.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/8/2010 10:21:51 PM)
Heaven forbid anyone deny you that fascinating conversation... except... i so totally feel what you are saying and i can find no rebuttal! lol quote: In the end, it isn't how much control I have over Carol which makes us happy. It's that I have the right control for us. If I found out that I "only" control Carol 10% as much as the average "master".. so what? It certainly wouldn't change anything I do. I suppose it might make me stop using the term "master" but that'd be a semantic correction only. You are both happy, why change anything? Seems to me there are areas you want to control, and other areas that you just dont care about because they hold no interest for you. Am i reading that right?

leadership527 -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/8/2010 10:53:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Seems to me there are areas you want to control, and other areas that you just dont care about because they hold no interest for you. Am i reading that right? Yup. But back to the larger question -- you're curious about the absoluteness of control. My simplified answer (lol - that is, I HOPE it's simplified since I've had 3... maybe 4 glasses of wine now) is that this question cannot be sensibly answered. An authority dynamic is too subjective and too contextual and way, way too subtle to compare in that way. As I found though, you can in fact make yourself crazy trying to do it and that might be good for a few weeks entertainment :)

tazzygirl -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/9/2010 12:53:28 AM)
LOL.. driving me crazy has been the source of enjoyment for a few men over the past years.

Awareness -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 12:01:18 AM)
No angel, I have no evidence of anything except your own inconsistencies. Unfortunately you don't appear to be able to distinguish between using you as an example to illustrate a point and commenting upon the details of your life. The two are different and I find myself wondering why you increasingly accuse people of making the discussion personal. Not only is this something that you consistently do, but I made it quite clear that I was speaking about the concept of 'absolute control' - not your personal experience. Whether you feel you experienced this concept of 'absolute control' is brutally irrelevant. If you lived outside a western society, you have grounds for claiming it. If you didn't, you existed in a framework in which society will exert influence to protect you - sometimes against your will - and thus the concept of 'absolute control' is always going to be a fiction. A consensual hallucination, if you will, between Master and slave, but not one which is recognised outside of that shared mind-space. What I spoke about was the concept of human property. I care not which particular thread from yesteryear hashed this out, nor what consensus was achieved. Ultimately there are certain realities which are difficult to deny. And the presence of social forces in our lives is one - even the recluse living in a cabin in the woods needs to pay his taxes. What you appeared to be doing, yet again, is promoting yourself as the torchbearer of M/s with what you define as lesser interactions - despite what they may call themselves - as merely 'D/s'. Once again, this attempt to separate yourself despite knowing full well that many of these things are simply on a sliding scale. And I called this for what it is. Semantics tinged by personal grudges. If you're unable to think about such issues clearly, I'll be sure to ignore your contributions in future. I clearly overestimated you. This does however, bring up an interesting question for the slaves which strikes me as something of a watershed for this kind of discussion. It's quite simply this: Let's say your master decided to sell you. After all, slaves are property. What would happen then? Would this man still have 'absolute control' of your life? Do you allow yourself to be sold? Has this changed who you are, who your master is or whether you're still a slave? I don't expect much sense from angel at this point, but I'd be interested in the viewpoints of other slaves who are willing to consider the scenario and how they would respond to it. And "my master would never do that" is sidestepping the question, not addressing it.

agirl -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 2:12:42 AM)
quote: Let's say your master decided to sell you. After all, slaves are property. What would happen then? Would this man still have 'absolute control' of your life? Do you allow yourself to be sold? Has this changed who you are, who your master is or whether you're still a slave? I don't expect much sense from angel at this point, but I'd be interested in the viewpoints of other slaves who are willing to consider the scenario and how they would respond to it. And "my master would never do that" is sidestepping the question, not addressing it. I'm owned all the time HE owns me. If he decided he wanted to rid himself of me, in ANY way, I'd no longer be owned...at all.....by anyone. Taking your being sold scenario........I'd give my collar back once it was clear he no longer wanted me. He wouldn't get as far as selling me, as the fact that he didn't want to be with me, would render the whole thing null and void anyway. I'm his property all the while I'm his. Once I'm not, then, nope, I'm back to being the free-agent I was before. So, while he has authority over my life, that exists because I am owned by HIM and because I WANT to be owned by HIM. There were reasons for me asking him to own me, and reasons for him taking me on......once those things disappear, we don't have a relationship at all, let alone an M/s one. agirl

DMFParadox -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 2:22:34 AM)
It'd take a book or five to answer, and there would still be debate on it. Still, that doesn't mean that "I do what's right for us" is where the analysis should end; it's a worthy question, with a wealth of understanding to uncover. I'd like to see that spreadsheet leadership posited.

barelynangel -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 3:10:51 AM)
Laughs, awareness, please feel free to ignore my contributions. I think it will benefit you to do so because otherwise it seems to be causing you a lot of strife lol. As far as consistancies, i have been posting on these boards for many years, and my contributions are very consistent with regard to M/s. The point YOU don't get is you and i aren't commenting ON THE SAME THING. You want to speak about it from a LEGAL standpoint. Go read the definition of slave and Master. You really may learn something. SLAVERY is described differently all throughout history, and in this society its again described differently. Sorry i won't discuss slavery from a legal standpoint because to me that's not what M/s as we practice it in our society. If my Master decided to SELL ME -- seriously? God why do people always have to pull out the stupidity of extremes to try and make their point. Awareness, listen VERY carefully, because you don't listen very well, TO ME, AND I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THIS, slavery isn't ABOUT LEGALITIES. So his selling me is not applicable BECAUSE its about the mastery. In order to sell me, he would have to withdraw his mastery which would give me self-determination back. While he could think he was selling me and the idiot who is giving him the money can believe he is buying me, without mastery, i make my own decisions. When the MASTERY is gone so is the slavery and ownership. So while he may make a contract with someone with regard to me, as a self-determining person because his mastery is GONE, i do not have to honor it. But i don't expect you to seriously understand what is being said here because your view of slavery is based on LEGALITIES, mine is not and never has been. Lord help us all, its crap like your comments about selling why so many people have a hard time understanding the concept of M/s and how it can be practiced in a free society and the concept of consent and choice becoming moot WITHOUT legalities. i finally realize why you are making this so personal and do negative towards me lol. You aren't the first guy who got snarky when i didn't continue giving them attention in cmail. angel

NuevaVida -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 6:19:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Let's say your master decided to sell you. After all, slaves are property. What would happen then? Would this man still have 'absolute control' of your life? Do you allow yourself to be sold? Has this changed who you are, who your master is or whether you're still a slave? I don't expect much sense from angel at this point, but I'd be interested in the viewpoints of other slaves who are willing to consider the scenario and how they would respond to it. And "my master would never do that" is sidestepping the question, not addressing it. This is a question that often comes up when people want to disprove the idea of total submission. Just like the limb chopping hypotheticals, etc. Saying "my master would never do that" is actually NOT side stepping an unrealistic hypothetical. I can unequivocally say he won't because I actually got to know him before giving myself to him, and know this is not in his future plans. Same with the limb chopping. While he does not have legal claim to ownership of me, he does own my heart. Emotional ownership can not be as easily transferred as, say, a car or any other inanimate object. Because of the human nature factor here, my heart is not for sale. It is simply not possible for me. He can rent me out, of course, in which case I would still be submitting to him, with assurance I would be returning to him. But transferring ownership of my heart would take a great deal more effort than a money exchange. Here's the thing, and it goes along with what agirl was saying. He owns me until such time he claims he does not own me, at which point he forfeits his hold on me and I regain ownership of myself. Because of my own human nature, I am not a candle in the wind which must clutch to an owner for survival. While he may have authority and control over me while owning my heart, I am fully capable of taking ownership back for myself should he ever decide I would no longer be his. I will not slip into an emotional coma and die off. I gave myself to him for a reason. Were he to say "By the way, you belong to this guy now, and I made quite a profit off of you," I'd think he lost his marbles, think the other guy was suckered into buying something not so attainable, and get on with my life. The hypothetical simply doesn't work in this case. Neither man would own me at that point. I do his will as long as I am his. If/when I am no longer his, I live by my own will.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 2:31:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP But did those children give consent for him to have complete control over them? Because first, my kids haven't and secondly, my son is still a minor and therefore unable to give informed consent. That's why we have laws protecting minors. My father is elderly and has dementia. That makes him someone else who cannot give consent. The Man can make suggestions but he cannot take control. He doesn't want control over my father's care either. I'm sure he would speak up if he thought my father was not being cared for properly but as that is not the case, it has never come up. These are spurious questions. I would not ask my children for permission to enter into a relationship with another adult. It would be up to ME to vette that person to make sure that xhe was well suited if I were in a position to be yielding up authority over the minors who were my responsibility. The same goes for any elderly parent-types living with us. If they are living in our household, they are expected to accept and embrace the chain of authority within that household. Our situation is a little different than some, since we have Keepers (who are, I suppose, akin to the "nobles" of our household), Neutrals (who are sort of like merchants or artisans... they accept the laws of the household, but they're not really part of the hierarchy that manages our house), and Servants (who are under the authority of all other members of the household). Because of this, we're well versed in dealing with people who are not in the direct authoritarian dynamic, but who are subject to the basic rules of the house none the less. This category (neutrals) is where any visitors, offspring, etc., who didn't specifically come into the household to participate in an active authority-based dynamic end up. To us, there is no functional differentiation between being a blood parent and being a parent-of-choice... we are all just -parents- at the end of the day. In our household, the full members who have offspring and who have them in the house do so with the understanding that the Keepers of the household have authority to discipline, correct, and manage the behavior of those offspring. It's -never- been an issue for us. All of our offspring have, essentially, been communally raised. They answer to their blood-parent(s), and to the other adults in the household, with the understanding that, like any other monarchy, the head of the household gets the final say... period. It has nothing to do with sex, nothing to do with fetishism.. and everything to do with keeping a smoothly running household with a clear line of authority, clear, well-enforced rules, and a general sense of discipline that all of our members -- young and old -- respond to positively (for the most part... middle-year teens aren't usually happy about authority under -any- circumstance, so we just expect that they'll suck it up until they get through the rebellious years.). Our offspring have consistently chosen to stay with us, return to us willingly as adults, and have, to a certain extent, modeled their own families and relationships on what we taught, what we expected, and how we managed our home (which is telling, since -all- of our offspring were raised in shared-custody situations... and they're not mirroring the situations from their other families... so that says a lot to us). Personally, I think it says a lot to a youngster when hir parent is unwilling to yield any authority to an adult that the blood-parent has become involved with. To me, it says to the child that there is a chink in the disciplinary foundation of the family that can be exploited... and that if the blood-parent doesn't trust this person enough to require the offspring to obey and follow that person's rules... that maybe there is something there that shouldn't BE trusted... to me, it provides the basis for a familial relationship that is unstable and which has the potential for serious and unpleasant consequences... so we just never went there. We put forth a united front, with a clear disciplinary track, and those who are comfortable with that stay... and those that aren't are welcome to find another situation. Calla

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 2:46:54 PM)
quote: I'm his property all the while I'm his. Once I'm not, then, nope, I'm back to being the free-agent I was before. So, while he has authority over my life, that exists because I am owned by HIM and because I WANT to be owned by HIM. This. If a servant of ours was no longer suited to our household, we may offer hir some alternative options -- but in the end, our authority over hir would end at the point at which xhe was no longer a member of our household. On occasion, we've allowed and even encouraged servants in the household to exchange one sub-household for another... but once the House no longer has authority over them, that is the end. If they want out of the House, our authority ends at the crossing of the threshold for the last time. Until then, they're still bound by the agreements made, and the authority of our hierarchy. Calla

delicatelydirty -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 3:48:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW Personally, I think it says a lot to a youngster when hir parent is unwilling to yield any authority to an adult that the blood-parent has become involved with. To me, it says to the child that there is a chink in the disciplinary foundation of the family that can be exploited... and that if the blood-parent doesn't trust this person enough to require the offspring to obey and follow that person's rules... that maybe there is something there that shouldn't BE trusted... to me, it provides the basis for a familial relationship that is unstable and which has the potential for serious and unpleasant consequences... so we just never went there. We put forth a united front, with a clear disciplinary track, and those who are comfortable with that stay... and those that aren't are welcome to find another situation. Calla With reguard to children this comment makes perfect sense to me and is why for all intents and purposes right now I chose to not have a "serious" relationship with anyone. The idea of someone other than myself disciplining my children, making choices about them is abhorrent to me at this point in time. So whilst I crave to be owned, to have a Master I realise that at the moment I am not in a position to give over that much of myself. As far as things like career, study, religion, politics go, those issues would come down to compatibility before any relationship even got off the ground, if we disagree on the fundamentals why would we bother being in ANY type of relationship in the first place.

KnightofMists -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 5:32:27 PM)
quote: Personally, I think it says a lot to a youngster when hir parent is unwilling to yield any authority to an adult that the blood-parent has become involved with. To me, it says to the child that there is a chink in the disciplinary foundation of the family that can be exploited... and that if the blood-parent doesn't trust this person enough to require the offspring to obey and follow that person's rules... that maybe there is something there that shouldn't BE trusted... to me, it provides the basis for a familial relationship that is unstable and which has the potential for serious and unpleasant consequences... so we just never went there. We put forth a united front, with a clear disciplinary track, and those who are comfortable with that stay... and those that aren't are welcome to find another situation. Calla Bravo Bravo Bravo.....

MDslut -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 9:39:10 PM)
each D/s relationship is different because the people are different. i agree that children are an issue in any relationship. Finances are another area that may be separate, or a least partially. And a sub may be better at handling certain areas of theire lives than the Dom. it all is dependes on what works best for your relationship and the strength of your commitment to each other

Awareness -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 10:34:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: agirl I'm owned all the time HE owns me. If he decided he wanted to rid himself of me, in ANY way, I'd no longer be owned...at all.....by anyone. Taking your being sold scenario........I'd give my collar back once it was clear he no longer wanted me. He wouldn't get as far as selling me, as the fact that he didn't want to be with me, would render the whole thing null and void anyway. I'm his property all the while I'm his. Once I'm not, then, nope, I'm back to being the free-agent I was before. So, while he has authority over my life, that exists because I am owned by HIM and because I WANT to be owned by HIM. There were reasons for me asking him to own me, and reasons for him taking me on......once those things disappear, we don't have a relationship at all, let alone an M/s one. agirl Hmmmm. This is kind of what I expected. The reason I ask is that because from a certain point of view, there's an offensive connotation to calling yourself a slave when real slavery has been practiced and caused untold pain to people for millenia. I see people casually tossing around the word 'slave' with a free abandon that suggests they're unaware of the true meaning of the word and have appropriated it for what is basically kink. My question is around determining how close to that reality self-identified slaves go. In my discussions with various slaves, it's become clear there's a wealth of difference between that kink and the reality. This isn't some kind of righteous crusade, but more an exploration of the reality behind a so-called slave and what that definition means. It seems especially appropriate when you have one slave denigrating the experience of the rest as "not true M/s".

Awareness -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 10:42:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida This is a question that often comes up when people want to disprove the idea of total submission. Just like the limb chopping hypotheticals, etc. Saying "my master would never do that" is actually NOT side stepping an unrealistic hypothetical. I can unequivocally say he won't because I actually got to know him before giving myself to him, and know this is not in his future plans. Same with the limb chopping. I thoroughly agree that extreme hypotheticals are often a poor way of investigating ideas, however the claims which some M/s adherents are making point to an extreme lifestyle choice. My point is that if you're going to claim that extremity of choice, you have to consider the extremities of action. quote: While he does not have legal claim to ownership of me, he does own my heart. Emotional ownership can not be as easily transferred as, say, a car or any other inanimate object. Because of the human nature factor here, my heart is not for sale. It is simply not possible for me. He can rent me out, of course, in which case I would still be submitting to him, with assurance I would be returning to him. But transferring ownership of my heart would take a great deal more effort than a money exchange. Here's the thing, and it goes along with what agirl was saying. He owns me until such time he claims he does not own me, at which point he forfeits his hold on me and I regain ownership of myself. Because of my own human nature, I am not a candle in the wind which must clutch to an owner for survival. While he may have authority and control over me while owning my heart, I am fully capable of taking ownership back for myself should he ever decide I would no longer be his. I will not slip into an emotional coma and die off. I gave myself to him for a reason. Were he to say "By the way, you belong to this guy now, and I made quite a profit off of you," I'd think he lost his marbles, think the other guy was suckered into buying something not so attainable, and get on with my life. The hypothetical simply doesn't work in this case. Neither man would own me at that point. I do his will as long as I am his. If/when I am no longer his, I live by my own will. I understand. So in essence, this is not slavery in any sense - merely an emotional contract with more extreme levels of agreement between the two individuals. What you term as slavery is a concomitant consequence of the emotional and psychological exchange between you.

NuevaVida -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 10:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness This isn't some kind of righteous crusade, but more an exploration of the reality behind a so-called slave and what that definition means. It seems especially appropriate when you have one slave denigrating the experience of the rest as "not true M/s". You might want to revisit the various definitions of "slave." You are limiting yourself to those held in captivity, when if you were to pull out several dictionaries and read their definitions, they are much broader than that. After all, "a machine or component controlled by another machine or component" is one definition by American Heritage. Most dictionaries define slave as one who lives in servitude as another. What you see in M/s discussions is just one element of slavery. Many people compare that to the slavery in our history, thus narrowing the word to just one definition. We aren't reinventing the word here...just sayin' [;)]

NuevaVida -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 10:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness I thoroughly agree that extreme hypotheticals are often a poor way of investigating ideas, however the claims which some M/s adherents are making point to an extreme lifestyle choice. My point is that if you're going to claim that extremity of choice, you have to consider the extremities of action. I believe one only needs to consider the extremities of action presented in their own relationship. If one knows his/her owner's moral code, then one will know how extreme the owner may go...and where the owner will not go. This is the case for me, anyway, therefore I do not need to consider being sold. quote: I understand. So in essence, this is not slavery in any sense - merely an emotional contract with more extreme levels of agreement between the two individuals. What you term as slavery is a concomitant consequence of the emotional and psychological exchange between you. You can say it's not slavery if you like. Slavery is a far more familiar and simpler term than to walk around saying I live in a concomitant consequence of the emotional and psychological exchange between us. [8D] In any case my heart feels enslaved to him. I live by his rule and authority. I do what he says. I am his servant. I don't have any concern what anyone wants to call it or doesn't want to call it. I'm not hung up on the word, in fact, I rarely use it.

sunshinemiss -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 11:04:44 PM)
With respect, Awareness, you are incorrect. A "slave" is also: a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: Now, I'm not really one to throw definitions up on the board because really, all a definition does is tell us the ballpark of what someone is thinking. Many words have more than one meaning, including this one. It does not make it any less or more based on context. You are talking about a completely different context. The word "get" has over 30 meanings (and I'm not even including the verbal phrases). It does not mean "I get my aunt to send me pictures via email" with "get" meaning "convince" is any worse or better as a definition than "I get a card every year for my birthday" with "get" meaning "received". They are simply context-driven definitions. If some fool is denigrating another person's definition of what works, then that person is simply a fool. Isn't it nice when people let us know that? best, sunshine

Awareness -> RE: Another thread about control.. and anyone can reply! (12/15/2010 11:05:20 PM)
I'm afraid angel, that - not for the first time - you've misunderstood. Your philosophy lacks internal consistency. In my experience, you tend to contradict yourself. Your babblings about slavery aren't really the issue. The issue is the definition of what a slave is and your attempt to elevate yourself as the proto-slave versus all the rest who are mere D/s fodder. I find that conceit rather amusing and your hysterically defensive response somewhat symptomatic, but ultimately it merely reveals you as someone not capable of following the discussion. I have already pointed out that this discussion was primarily about semantics. If you don't know what that means, then go look it up - there's a good girl. It will aid your comprehension no end. As the discussion continues, it's been made clear that no slave has come forward with an extremity of view which suggests slavery is anything more than an extreme D/s dynamic with negotiated boundaries of control. Every slave has boundaries, it's simply a matter of where those boundaries are. As such, jostling for position as the 'best' example of a slave with the 'most' right to an 'M/s' designation is both conceited and stupid. As for your final accusation, I must admit, I did wonder how long it'd take you to try that. As you're fully aware, I emailed you to discuss the dynamic growth and progression of a Master versus that of a slave. If you'd like to misrepresent that as an attempt to hit on you, then feel free, but I'm sure the contents of the emails will clearly indicate otherwise. Once again, I find myself amused by your conceit - and I'm just betting you try this on every time you've backed yourself into a corner. In any case, we should definitely ignore each other. You're incapable of keeping up with me and you're certainly unable to control yourself or participate in any discussion with any degree of coherence or civility.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875