RE: releasing a slave

RE: releasing a slave (Full Version)

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

Message

defiantbadgirl -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 12:40:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NiceButMeanGirl OP, your original post is why I would never give up an income of my own for anyone. I would never quit a job or lose my source of income for ANYONE. I never did when I was sub and, now that I'm Dominant, I would never ask someone to do that for me. As a matter of fact, I require that they have their own source of income and, no, I don't want their money. They get to keep it. Did he force you to give up your income? Or did you choose to give it up? He might have said something to the effect of either you quit working or else there's no relationship, but you still made a choice there. Sometimes we think with our hearts and not our heads and we end up paying for it. Live and learn I guess. It's unfortunate that you are in this situation, but next time you will know better. Good luck in the future. NBMG Well said! Years ago, I ended a relationship with a man because he was against women working outside the home. I refused to put myself in that situation. Being in love is a wonderful feeling, but accepting personal responsibility comes first.

searching4mysir -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 12:42:37 PM)
FR My Master insists that I keep my job, even after we marry, even though I would love to be a stay-at-home-mom. This is for both of our sake. The plan is to live on one income and bank the other as a nest egg/emergency fund. If we have children, it will be there for us to use during FMLA so I can stay home with our child(ren) during the first 6 months of their lives. If children don't come our way, it is our retirement (along with our 401Ks/IRAs/etc.). If I've given him control, then I'll follow his lead on this. He is my Dom/Master because I trust his judgment and believe he has both our best interests at heart.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 1:03:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AislynLass quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I'll never understand why some people rely on a significant other for 100% financial support long term. What if the significant other becomes non-consensually abusive? What if the significant other cheats and their partner ends up with an incurable STD because they stayed and put up with the cheating due to lack of income? What if the significant other decides to leave for someone younger? At least with divorce there's a chance of alimony or palimony. Even during the relationship, with no income, how would the partner buy gifts for the significant other? I know I couldn't see myself buying my husband a birthday gift with his own paycheck. Plus I'd feel like a freeloader, even if he asked me not to work. Bottom line, this is 2012, not 1920. I apologize if this offends anyone, but IMO relying on someone else for 100% financial support for an extended period of time is extremely irresponsible. But what if that is the dynamic required by the Master or the Dominant? That level of control necessitates responsibility for that person within the control. Again, my comments are being directed to the type of relationship where that level of dependency and control is required by the Master or Dominant in the situation. And yes, both the Dominant and submissive parties in this type of relationship need to consider carefully all of the ramifications. I think this thread is an insightful discussion that hopefully may cause people to think carefully about their choices. It seems to me that a slave/submissive has three options in this case. One, be naive and give up their education and career with no thought to the future. Two, ask the Dominant what provisions he/she will make for them in the event the relationship does not work out and the submissive/slave has given up education/career. If the submissive/slave asks, there are several answers the Dominant/Master might give. One, is not my problem and two, is "here is what I promise you if we should break up". At that point it is up to the submissive/slave to pursue this on the terms the Dominant/Master is willing to give - in other words, the submissive/slave need not continue to pursue this if they feel they are not being protected properly. Of course, keep in mind, a "promise" to give someone something (anything) after a relationship breaks up is NOT enforceable. Three, the submissive/slave can simply tell the Dominant/Master that under no circumstances will they give up their education/career, particularly if no provisions are made for the future. And if the Dominant/Master can't agree to that - one needs to move on. There may be more options, but these are the ones that readily come to mind. The ultimate point here is that the submissive/slave should be willing to walk away from the relationship if it is one they feel is not in their best interests in the long run. No one is forced to enter a relationship. And if they are "forced", then this is a whole other conversation, in my mind.

njlauren -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 1:11:48 PM)
The issue in question is one that have seen debated and argued since I first became exposed to the bd/sm world many years ago, on the alt newsgroups and so forth. To me it is one of the fundamental conflict of M/s relationships, it is where the fantasy life crashes into the 'real' world. What I mean by fantasy isn't that being a slave isn't emotionally and otherwise real, it is that in a world where such a thing has no legal standing, reality still exists. The problem I have seen over the years is much the same as the old "pure' TPE arguments that said a pure TPE was not a problem in the 'real world' and so forth....it is ignoring reality IMO, on the parts of both the M's and s's. Yeah, sure, if it is a rich M who doesn't have to work, is someone like a Christian Gray in "50 shades of Gray" and myriad fiction stories, sure...they can take care of a sub more then easily, they in effect live in a fantasy world few of us do, and so forth. Besides the fact that a lot of people can't swing living on one salary these days, if someone is to be a full time slave, not working outside the domicile, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before going into this, because of the very real issues, especially what happens if it breaks up? What happens to anything the sub brought into the relationship? If M and s are going to take this leap, they damn well better think about what it means before going into it. yes, in an M/s the M has in theory total control, but the s better be thinking, too. It isn't like there hasn't been a ton written about these relationships and stories lke this one are all over the net and even in some books. This stuff should have been negotiated long before they ever enter into it, in a sense it is akin to a pre nup with a very wealthy person goes to protect themselves, in this case the slave is the one protecting themselves. If the relationship requires the slave to be totally dependant on the M, then it is the right, in fact the duty, of the s to want to know what the exist strategy is, and if the M can't fulfil this, they shouldn't be getting into this. And yes, the M has to protect themselves, expecting them to support an ex slave forever is silly, too.....it is why it needs to be thought out as part of the contract. Will it be legally enforceable? I doubt it...but at the very least, the M and s have thought about this. I can share an example of someone I was in contact with a while ago. She like me was a T girl, in transition at the time, and she also was a lifestyle sub to an M (in her case, a woman) that turned into a M/s. They worked out such a contract, my friend went full time under the M's tutelage, was full time to her as her s, and they had a pretty long term M/s going, that among other things saw my friend through all the way to SRS. After a couple of years, the relationship died off (mutually, the M was more into having a sub who was 'changing' and so forth, my friend found more and more she wanted to be with men and simply having the M give her to men in play wasn't enough)...but there was a pretty decent opt out in it, the M had set aside funds to help my friend get out on her own, have her own place, and was able to help her get a job with a friend and so forth, and within 6 months my friend was totally independant. She and her old M are still close friends....they both protected themselves, my friend was especially vulnerable because going 'full time' like that after quitting her profession living as a male, would have left her really vulnerable. With any lifestyle relationship like this there are things to be negotiated,but with total control ones, even more so. Parallels with stay at home spouses are somewhat valid, but they have the law at least on their side, that can force the other spouse to help them if they split up. While not perfect by any means, there at least is a default back up, whereas with M/s there isn't any enforceable one at all. To be honest, M/s contracts spend a lot of time on protocol and such, means of address, level of control including to minutae like controlling going to the bathroom, levels of punishment, etc, etc,which is great but that is all fantasy, the reality is in what happens when the fantasy crashes.

LoreBook -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 1:35:34 PM)
quote: I don't know if anyone is asserting that an earning ex has a duty to support a non-earning ex after a breakup. I am. I firmly believe that if the non-earning ex is not earning in compliance with your orders, then you have a responsibility to provide some form of temporary safety net for them should the relationship end. Look at it this way, if you require them to put themselves in a potentially physically dangerous situation, then you owe it to them to take all reasonable measures to insure their health and safety, don't you? So why is requiring them to put themselves in a potentially financially dangerous situation any different? The "they knew what they were getting into" argument advocated by RumpusParable just doesn't wash with me. How would you apply that principle to the slave who is required to engage in sex with multiple partners and gets pregnant? Does her agreement to run the risks absolve you of any responsibility towards her and the child?

IrishMist -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 1:42:13 PM)
quote: How would you apply that principle to the slave who is required to engage in sex with multiple partners and gets pregnant? It's called Birth Control

searching4mysir -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 1:59:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist quote: How would you apply that principle to the slave who is required to engage in sex with multiple partners and gets pregnant? It's called Birth Control Contraception can fail. A friend of mine conceived all three of her children while on the Pill.

Baroana -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 2:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist quote: How would you apply that principle to the slave who is required to engage in sex with multiple partners and gets pregnant? It's called Birth Control Contraception can fail. A friend of mine conceived all three of her children while on the Pill. Getting tangential again, but what the hell? I'm bored. I think the words "effective and smartly used" were implied in that statement about birth control. If the story about the three children is actually true, then the old "Fool Me Once" saying comes to mind.

searching4mysir -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 2:17:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Baroana quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist quote: How would you apply that principle to the slave who is required to engage in sex with multiple partners and gets pregnant? It's called Birth Control Contraception can fail. A friend of mine conceived all three of her children while on the Pill. Getting tangential again, but what the hell? I'm bored. I think the words "effective and smartly used" were implied in that statement about birth control. If the story about the three children is actually true, then the old "Fool Me Once" saying comes to mind. She welcomed all three children. She knew who the father was and was married to him. All forms of contraception have a failure rate. Some fail more often than others. And that was my point. Condoms fail in STD prevention and they fail as a contraceptive measure. The intention is good but sometimes it fails. That's the facts of life.

IrishMist -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 2:23:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist quote: How would you apply that principle to the slave who is required to engage in sex with multiple partners and gets pregnant? It's called Birth Control Contraception can fail. A friend of mine conceived all three of her children while on the Pill. Please refer to the bolded part of the first response that I answered. Using your own example...if your friend was FUCKING AROUND as suggested above...then she deserves everything she gets.... Use some fucking common sense please. NO ONE is REQUIRED or FORCED to engage in multiple partners unless THEY WANT IT THAT WAY but are looking for a convienent 'out' clause..."but, you said I had to" blah blah blah

Baroana -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 2:25:17 PM)
[sm=shame.gif] Now here's where I declare shenanigans. With few exceptions, which would be irrelevant here, women take birth control pills because they are trying to prevent pregnancy. Ergo, your friend fucked up, not once, not twice, but three times. The fact that she welcomed the children is irrelevant.

AislynLass -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 2:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: After a couple of years, the relationship died off (mutually, the M was more into having a sub who was 'changing' and so forth, my friend found more and more she wanted to be with men and simply having the M give her to men in play wasn't enough)...but there was a pretty decent opt out in it, the M had set aside funds to help my friend get out on her own, have her own place, and was able to help her get a job with a friend and so forth, and within 6 months my friend was totally independant. She and her old M are still close friends....they both protected themselves, my friend was especially vulnerable because going 'full time' like that after quitting her profession living as a male, would have left her really vulnerable. Thank you for your post because I think you articulated the crux of the issue very well. The example you provided here in the quoted part illustrates what I was trying convey when I said to "see the slave or the submissive right" at the end of the relationship. The M in your example ensured that your friend was not in a worse position for having been in the relationship, and I think that is an important aspect when a Master or Dominant requires a total control type of relationship. As you said further in your post, a lot of attention often gets paid to protocol, forms of address, clothing (or lack thereof), sexual requirements, etc., but not always so much with reference to the level of responsibility that hopefully goes along with that level of control.

Killerangel -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 2:47:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AislynLass I'm extremely surprised also at some of the responses from posters who I generally respected. While everyone's meaning of what it means to be a Master and/or a Dominant varies according to the individual, the one common denominator seemed to be the aspect of the Master and Dominant being the one in control. Control carries with it responsibility, and I frankly do not understand how a person calling themselves a Master or a Dominant would wish that the person who gave up working in order to better please the Master or Dominant would feel justified in so neatly washing their hands of responsibility towards that person as soon as the relationship ended. This is considering a relationship where it did not end because the slave or submissive violated some basic tenet of trust or unethical or violent behavior towards the Master or Dominant. If I were a Master or Dominant, I do not see how I would feel okay that my slave or submissive who gave up or put on hold their career to please me and make themselves more available for my wishes, should then find themselves in a worse situation when the relationship ends that when it began. For the sake of the discussion, I am focusing on the financial aspect. For lack of a better way of phrasing it, I would not wish to see them in a disadvantaged or less position as a result of the time they spent in the relationship with me. I don't think anyone is arguing that the Master or Dominant should be responsible for the slave or submissive for the rest of their lives after the breakup, but there seems a terrible lack of parity in the situation where the Master or Dominant has enjoyed the benefits of the relationship and is essentially not the worse for it at the end, while the slave or submissive who has contributed their time and efforts in the relationship should bear the worse....especially when the Master or Dominant is making the decision to end the relationship. I hope I've been able to clearly express my point. Relationships don't work out and people break up all the time for a myriad of reasons, and M/s and D/s relationships are no different in that. However, I just believe that due to the Master and the Dominant choosing to hold the position of control in that relationship, that connotes some measure of responsibility towards the slave or submissive to "see them right" at the end so that they don't find themselves in a worse-off position financially, professionally, etc. at the end of the relationship than they were in the beginning. Again, this doesn't have to mean some cash payout or whatever at the end, but the Master or Dominant acting in their slave's or submissive's best interest. Depending on the couple, it could mean ensuring that the slave's or submissive's skills might be kept current through classes for instance. I agree very much with the comments that have been made that it is very important to have clear discussions of the "what-if", especially if the level of commitment that a Master or Dominant may require in a TPE 24/7 relationship necessitates the slave or submissive stepping back from their career or education to be 24/7 at home for instance. And yes, I know that not all Masters or Dominants, and not all TPE 24/7 relationships require that. My response here with this discussion is really directed to those that are of that type. Is every single Master and Dominant truly in control and responsible? Sure, it's 'supposed' to come with the title, but it's a self applied title, anyone can slap it on and plenty do, that don't seem to understand what it entails. They're still Dominants though to themselves and to their partners. I"m not sure I saw on this thread that Dominants should wash their hands of the person they're letting go without providing for them but does that happen? Yes. Which is why people are saying an adult is responsible for themselves and to safeguard themselves from harm. Should husbands and wives share their earnings with each other at the end of a marriage? Generally yes. Does that happen all of the time? No. What I have seen put forth in this thread is no matter what someone 'requires' of you, you still have the power of consent. As far as having to go in underneath some form of restriction that says you have to give up your job and wait on me hand and foot....well, no, you do not HAVE to agree to that and shouldn't. Who gives a rat's ass if that is what someone requires, tell them you would like to see certain changes made in the set up or you won't be joining this person's household. You are responsible for yourself. Your Master may wish you to fly, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Let him look somewhere else for a flying slave. If the 24/7 availability is what the slave wants and requires, then she/he needs to be perfectly aware of what that will do to her future and either accept it, ask the Master to provide a plan B for her future, or keep working. I'm sure many of us would love to require that we no longer work and alas, we still have to. Sometimes we have to do things that are needed instead of what we want. There is a lack of parity here when a slave gives up her place in the outside world. No one is espousing that the ones in control get to enjoy the benefits of having a slave without caring for her. Many are saying that people being people, they're going to walk away without doing the right thing regardless of the title they applied to themselves. It's up to the individual to make sure that cannot happen from the start because this is life and that stuff happens a lot. No matter how much you think people should be better - they just aren't. Therefore be prepared for that or be stuck finding out that your M or D is acting irresponsibly toward you and you're sunk. This shit happened all the time in marriages, which is why things evolved over the years the way they have to make sure people get what they should in a fair manner. Does that mean it's always fair....no.

AislynLass -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 2:53:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess It seems to me that a slave/submissive has three options in this case. One, be naive and give up their education and career with no thought to the future. Two, ask the Dominant what provisions he/she will make for them in the event the relationship does not work out and the submissive/slave has given up education/career. If the submissive/slave asks, there are several answers the Dominant/Master might give. One, is not my problem and two, is "here is what I promise you if we should break up". At that point it is up to the submissive/slave to pursue this on the terms the Dominant/Master is willing to give - in other words, the submissive/slave need not continue to pursue this if they feel they are not being protected properly. Of course, keep in mind, a "promise" to give someone something (anything) after a relationship breaks up is NOT enforceable. Three, the submissive/slave can simply tell the Dominant/Master that under no circumstances will they give up their education/career, particularly if no provisions are made for the future. And if the Dominant/Master can't agree to that - one needs to move on. These points were outlined very well, and I agree that the slave and submissive needs to makes responsible and informed relationship choices. The best advice I have been given, and that I have learned the hard way from past experience, is to choose wisely. There have been quite a few topics on these boards that focus on the slave/submissive making responsible relationship choices, and the OP just raised an interesting question that I think doesn't get addressed as often with respect to the responsibility that goes with the control on the part of the Master or Dominant, especially in the context of a TPE relationship where the dynamic was a total level of control.

njlauren -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 2:55:44 PM)
Aislyn- Thank you. While I agree that a sub needs to protect themselves that doesn't change the fact that in a deep M/s, where the M takes total control, doesn't want the slave to work outside the home and so forth, they are de facto taking on a responsibility for that person, it is inherent in the nature of the relationship, a slave gives up control to the M and there is a de facto agreement they will take care of the s, not let them come to home...and I don't see how saying "hey, baby, it is been fun having you as my slave, but now you are so yesterday, pack your bags" is anything but quite frankly a dbag of a person.....if they were in a true M/s, it is like throwing out a puppy, because the person has been dependant (again, I am talking about if they were in a total M/s where the s is suipposed to be home,etc).It would be like where a married couple made the decision one spouse should stay home for the sake of the kids, to support them, etc, and then the other spouse suddenly says "it has been real, but you and the kids are a burden, so you have to move out so I can live my life" and literally push them out the door. If the M cared about the s at all, how the heck could someone do that, make someone dependant and drop them? Put it this way, I have been married longer prob then some of the posters on here have been alive, and no matter what happened between my spouse and myself, there is nothing in this world that would make me 'throw her away' like that and say something like "well, she is an adult, she can take care of herself", I would do everything in my power to make sure she was safe and as happy as I could make her. It comes with the territory when you commit to someone IMO.

graceadieu -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 3:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Baroana [sm=shame.gif] Now here's where I declare shenanigans. With few exceptions, which would be irrelevant here, women take birth control pills because they are trying to prevent pregnancy. Ergo, your friend fucked up, not once, not twice, but three times. The fact that she welcomed the children is irrelevant. Yep. When using the Pill correctly, there's only a 0.01% chance of getting pregnant each year. The chance of being that one-in-a-thousand woman three different years? Very, very small. (Also, if you really weren't trying to get pregnant, why would you continue just using the same form of the birth control after it'd already failed? If it failed on me, I'd go get an IUD stat, or try combining the Pill with another method.)

Missokyst -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 3:19:53 PM)
then I would say it is probably a good thing she did not CHOOSE to be in a relationship with a partner who required she engage in sex with multiple partners. Yes, there is always a risk of contraception failure. So why would anyone willingly choose to take those risks and not be willing to accept responsibility for making that choice? quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir She welcomed all three children. She knew who the father was and was married to him. All forms of contraception have a failure rate. Some fail more often than others. And that was my point. Condoms fail in STD prevention and they fail as a contraceptive measure. The intention is good but sometimes it fails. That's the facts of life.

LoreBook -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 3:56:51 PM)
So the Dom who demands it gets off scott free?

MrBukani -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 4:01:07 PM)
I hate Con-Doms

LoreBook -> RE: releasing a slave (3/3/2012 4:06:54 PM)
[:D][:D][:D] Ouch!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02