|
njlauren -> RE: Mono vs poly? (8/27/2013 10:07:26 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Where? Post number where I said they had the right to do anything. Either put up or recant for inserting this shit into the discussion and then saying I said something I did not. That is dishonest. You are either projecting because of "discussions" elsewhere, or you are purposefully doing it to prove some point.
The only right I have mentioned is the one where an owner in a non-negotiated inter personal relationship can do as they please in relation to the OP. I do not see death and dismemberment in the OP, do you?
Yes the D type has the ability to screw over the s type because of the power they wield, but that is not unique to just this type of inter-personal relationship, that is part of all relationships. There is often unwritten common sense that goes with things in life, I just do not see the sense in telling someone to use their curling iron for external use only when speaking of how to curl hair. Get it?
As far as "real life slavery" goes, that is a personal definition. There was chattel slavery, which is illegal now, but there are ways to make people slaves if you bother to read about that type of psychological conditioning.
quote:
ORIGINAL: njlauren
Both you and the other guy were saying the M has the right to do anything they wish, and that could easily include doing what I just said, and it goes on in some quarters. Emotional damage may not be as horrible as physical damage, but it is damage nonetheless. An M who has a sub who is claustrophobic and decides to lock them in a box could end up driving them into a psychotic state or into a catatonic one, when you take on the M role with the idea you can do anything, you literally are taking on the power to screw someone up, hurt them, and that is my point, that claiming 'absolute power' to do what they wish, because that is what an M is, has potential issues with it.
"The only right I have mentioned is the one where an owner in a non-negotiated inter personal relationship can do as they please in relation to the OP. "
"I do not see death and dismemberment in the OP, do you?"
No, but you also didn't rule it out, either. When you say "they can do as they please", you put no quantifications on it. I am not saying you, Marc or anyone else on here who is an M in a M/s would do that, what I am trying to say is that using your words, you could justify an M who seriously hurt or even killed their slave and argue the slave signed on to do or take what their M gave them, that's all. In real life most people taking on the M role understand ethics and they understand their slave is a human being , not a piece of property, and that ultimately the slave has to reserve for themselves the right to walk away if they are being harmed and the M insists they have the right to do that.
I am not saying that M/s relationships are abusive, I am not saying anyone on here is or condones it, I simply was pointing out that the words "the owner can do as they please in relation to the OP" could mean something very, very dark with the wrong owner....I don't think you meant it to be 'the owner can do what they want, no matter what', but that can happen, it is why these relationships are not for everyone and also can easily slip over the line with an M who is not very ethical and an s so into the role that they forget about self preservation.....I am simply pointing out that words mean something, and we have to be careful using terms like 'an owner can do as they please in relation to the OP', because that could mean things a normal person wouldn't think of, but an abusive person could, and I have heard words similar to that used to justify the actions of an abusive M, and also in telling people they had no right to interfere if they saw an M who was breaking bones and such, claiming that was part of the deal of being an s to an M, which is utter bullshit, but they were applying the "their kink is their kink' stuff. Again, that is not what you were saying, I didn't claim you did, I was only pointing out the possible implications of words you used, not what you meant by it.
|
|
|
|
