RE: Are you a Slave?

RE: Are you a Slave? (Full Version)

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

Message

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 6:31:22 AM)
The point is CP - you consented to it. That's why the non-consent bit becomes an oxymoron in itself. You agreed (like my OH) not to challenge his decisions, no matter what they were. That makes it 100% consent on your part.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 6:45:28 AM)
I never consented not to challenge his decisions. I challenge his decisions all the time, he wants me to. He picked me b/c he knew I would challenge his decisions if I thought they were wrong. He values my input a great deal and often demands it. What I consented to was to give him final authority. I can lobby for buying new boots if I wish, what I can't do is buy them w/o his permission.

JeffBC -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 6:59:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt What is so hard to understand about that? From my own viewpoint it's not hard to understand when others use it. I get it that the interpretation is, "I'm in a relationship where one partner has given some sort of reasonably open-ended consent to the other and finds the concept of force hot." Despite not liking the phrase myself it's not that hard to understand what it means and I find little reason to be a pill about it.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 7:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt I never consented not to challenge his decisions. I challenge his decisions all the time, he wants me to. He picked me b/c he knew I would challenge his decisions if I thought they were wrong. He values my input a great deal and often demands it. What I consented to was to give him final authority. I can lobby for buying new boots if I wish, what I can't do is buy them w/o his permission. My bad. lol. That's exactly what I was trying to say (not enough caffeine intake yet!!) My OH does exactly that. There have been the odd times when she has made me think twice! [:D] But surely, that's what makes for a good and responsible Dom/me instead of an asshat?? Just sayin' ETA: I also happen to think that's what also makes a good sub/slave too!!

chatterbox24 -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 7:18:44 AM)
See, I think this is cute and healthy. You all have merged to one. There is respect by both. quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt I never consented not to challenge his decisions. I challenge his decisions all the time, he wants me to. He picked me b/c he knew I would challenge his decisions if I thought they were wrong. He values my input a great deal and often demands it. What I consented to was to give him final authority. I can lobby for buying new boots if I wish, what I can't do is buy them w/o his permission.

crazyml -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 7:27:56 AM)
hi hlen5, I don't know if we're thinking of the same poster, but I'm recalling a poster who was always very vociferous on the topic of "what is a slave". At times her posts appeared to be driven by a desperate need to assert that the person she was berating had no idea what "true" slavery was, and at other times it appeared that she was trying to rationalise a previous relationship that had all the frikken hallmarks of out and out abuse. Nevertheless, she described a relationship in which she had no choices at all, not even the choice to leave. To the OP... I initially came to the question of "slavery" in the same way that some of the posters on this thread have - My stance was that there can be no such thing as "slavery" - I took the legal definition and ran with that. But, this approach has two flaws. Firstly the definition of slavery encompasses more than simply a person who is bought and sold as a slave as we traditionally understand it. Many dictionaries (as one poster has pointed out) offer a broader definition, that includes someone who is wholly under the control of another. So the "definitional" or "legalistic" opposition to the term is nonsense. Now there's the question of what it means to be "wholly under the control of another".... And even with something as apparently clear as this, I see a very broad spectrum.. There are some relationships where someone is utterly enslaved. There are some relationships, in which the enslaved person is so psychologically dependent on the enslaver that they are incapable of leaving that person, or of denying that person's will. These relationships bother me - they smack of the kind of relationship exposed in news stories - Young women kidnapped and held for years etc. So my natural inclination is to assume that this kind of relationship is nasty, exploitative and fucked up. Now that isn't to say that I can't conceive of this kind of relationship being a positive thing, it's just that I think it's more likely not to be. Moving a little down the spectrum, there are some relationships in which by agreeing to be in the relationship, the slave gives up any further right to choose, with the one exception being the right to end the relationship. This still has shades of the first and more extreme definition (she might feel financial, social, psychological pressure that prevents her from exercising that right to leave), but it has fewer of the nasty connotations I associate with the first type. Further down, there is the whole consensual non-consent thingamie. And I totally understand why some people would find this term an oxymoron, or simply absurd - But I don't think it is. Setting aside the fact that it's a clumsy expression, I think it nicely encapsulates the idea that consent is given once, and then no longer sought (until withdrawn). I've had a couple of relationships that incorporated this approach to consent. In all of the above cases, the enslaver is taking a great big fucking risk both morally and legally. If I cane a woman without obtaining her explicit consent to that particular caning then I'm absolutely fucked if she goes to the police (I appreciate that I can still be convicted in the UK of assault even with her explicit prior consent - but the likely consequences would be far worse if she claimed not to have consented). So there's an element of judgement and trust. And, I see that level of judgement and trust in a number of awesome relationships between people on this site. She says "I will always obey", then the sceptic says "What if he ordered you to kill your mother?" and they (quite rightly) say "Oh for fuck's sake, do you think I would give up my power to someone like that?". Further down the spectrum there's "slave roleplay", in which her continued participation depends on her consenting to each activity - So she can say "No, seriously, that's a fucking no", and it'll be over. Here's the kicker as far as I'm concerned.... While I do find the first (and most hard core) definition of enslavement pretty dodgy.... it's just not my call - Unless I really do have reason to believe that the person is being kept in a state of physical or mental enslavement against their interests, in which case - yeah, maybe I would stick my oar in. I don't give a flying fuck which of these is "better" or "more real"... because it's none of my fucking business how you kinky bastards choose to relate to one another. For me, the slave thing is moot, since it's not my thing. In fact my thing is the exact opposite - I get my kicks from her consent.

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 7:33:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC Finally, to ExiledTyrant. What makes you think I am indifferent other than you've got a bug up your butt about me? I'm indifferent to incoherently defined and applied labels, yes. I am very much NOT indifferent to the actual people who post on these boards and the actual relationships they portray. Kudos to you though, you may be the first person in my entire life who has called me "indifferent". I always like it when I get accused of new shit. Sorry Bub, you misunderstood, so don't let your panties get in a big bunch over it. Your contrary at ever turn and alienate yourself from... Hmmm... Everything. To have a relationship, even a bad one, you have to be able to relate to someone. I do not like nor dislike you. You are an amorphous font of ambiguity, contrariness, pecking at points that exist in your world and we don't have any queue cards that allow us access to that world... Ambiguity, sequestered in your on nomenclature free environment. I'm hard pressed to find a way to relate to you on any level, which precludes me from disliking you or fostering a bug up my ass because your indifference and separation from... Hmmm... Everything, has got my indifference all hot and bothered, to the point I can actually envision a breakfast scenario in your house that would be intriguing to the point of madness. Carol, perhaps we should have some spherical geometric object, scrambled of course, and the deeply evolved, enlightened, and enriched wheat that has taken on new form through its marriage of yeast, spherical geometric objects, water, and high heat, that finally find their way to the flat plane made of rare earths, crafted by the hands of those of asiatic descent, slightly toasted and divorced of the geometric square, achieving divinity in the form of right angles. Breakfast would have to be exhausting. Jus sayin Exiled

FieryOpal -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 8:26:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml <snip> I don't give a flying fuck which of these is "better" or "more real"... because it's none of my fucking business how you kinky bastards choose to relate to one another. For me, the slave thing is moot, since it's not my thing. In fact my thing is the exact opposite - I get my kicks from h[is] consent. [Brackets mine] Awesome post. Sums it up nicely. (One of my pet peeves, though, is when every freaking fetishist and his brother call themselves a slave when they have no real concept of non-objectifying devoted service. Yeah, they're slaves to their fetish, so this is correct in a sense.)

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 8:44:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 In my old-fashioned description, I see a submissive as someone who chooses each time whether to submit or not. A slave decides once to submit always, and that's where I am at the moment. Oddly enough that seems to map exactly onto my understanding of the term consensual non-consent. Now, that isn't to say that I like the term particularly like, but I'm curious as to how your understanding of the definition diverges from the above. Why does it have to diverge? I use a label that I understand, that most people seem to agree with and that works well to describe different kinds of relationships that I am in. If other people want to take that concept and use a different and semantically incorrect label to describe their play then that's their right. But it's not something I'm ever going to do or agree to. It's important for me to keep stressing that everything I do is consensual, because for me that is the difference between BDSM and abuse, or the difference between sex and rape. When people start throwing around the suggestion that some of what we do is not consensual then it both cheapens my consent and blurs the line between BDSM and genuinely non-consensual activity, such as abuse or rape. I'm not comfortable with either of those effects. If you are, then that's up to you, but I will stick with the older label that has always made sense to me.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 8:54:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pg4g ...maybe we should call it "consent to disregard withdrawal of consent"? No, it's just consensual. It can't be withdrawal of consent because it is impossible to withdraw consent after the deal has been made, just as it is impossible for me to rescind the credit agreement once I have borrowed the money. quote: ORIGINAL: pg4g ...what should they call an agreement to make consent irrevocable during a certain time? Consensual "legal nonconsent"? Because under the law it is nonconsensual - you always legally have the right to claim rape, torture and false imprisonment if you tell him to stop during it. That is case in ANY s&m scene and NO agreement or contract is in any way legally binding. Since we don't need, for the purposes of our play, to label what is legal or illegal, then we have no need to label it here either. For me, I don't need another label - it's all contained in my definition of BDSM slavery - I consent once to it all, and that makes all of it consensual. No offence, but you seem obsessed with the idea that it isn't consensual - it seems to be a fantasy for you, and the idea that you fail to specifically label that part of your fantasy seems to distress you, as though simply calling it consensual would not satisfy you. So how about you simply call it fantasy non-consent, or non-consensual roleplay. That way you and everyone else knows it is consensual, but you can both lose yourself in the fantasy that it is not.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 8:56:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Okay this is just silly. Of course consensual non-consent exists. It can most easily be defined (here I go again) as consenting to be in a situation where you have no consent. It can be for a limited period of time (a rape scene or an actual punishment that is administered), or for a prolonged or indefinite period of time where one person agrees to having less rights that another. My marriage has that dynamic, I have agreed to give him final authority. For instance, I found a pair of boots I really wanted last week, but they cost $130. Not a bad price for good winter boots with great arch support (which I need). I wanted to buy them, he decided not now, maybe next winter. So I didn't come home with the boots. I've consented to be in a situation where I don't have consent to make certain decisions. Although I really like the boots, I have no bitterness or animosity for Himself and his decision. This is what I agreed (consented) to. What is so hard to understand about that? I see so if you worked for a company, and you asked your boss to buy you a new computer and he said no, then that would be consensual non-consent too, right?

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 9:03:47 AM)
Yes to me it would be. If you consent to working for an organization, then you just consented to do what your boss says. Reasons why you should meet the boss before you make that sort of decision. I prefer bosses who ask for my input, and many have. But what I really prefer is to work for myself, then I can say I have a major bitch for a boss !! But yes, I see the two dynamics as being quite similar in terms of consensually giving over power.

crazyml -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 10:42:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 No, it's just consensual. It can't be withdrawal of consent because it is impossible to withdraw consent after the deal has been made, just as it is impossible for me to rescind the credit agreement once I have borrowed the money. I can see how this is the case for you, you're someone who believes in keeping her word, and in taking responsibility for her choices. But it is absolutely not generally true. The difference between consent to be enslaved and a credit agreement is that one isn't enforceable, while the other is. An example.... I played a while ago with a woman who insisted that she wanted no choice, no safeword and no limits (something that always makes my eyes roll). We got into something, and true to our agreement I gave her the hard caning she'd asked for... and ignored her pleas for me to stop, as we had agreed that I should. Then she said "abracadabra".... Since we'd not agreed a safeword, I might - perhaps - have been justified in continuing as per our agreement. But.... I stopped, and I'm glad I did, because if I'd continued I'd have been in a world of shit. Morally - sure, we had an agreement, but I don't think I'd have had much fun saying that to the judge...

Darkfeather -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 11:42:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 No, it's just consensual. It can't be withdrawal of consent because it is impossible to withdraw consent after the deal has been made, just as it is impossible for me to rescind the credit agreement once I have borrowed the money. I can see how this is the case for you, you're someone who believes in keeping her word, and in taking responsibility for her choices. But it is absolutely not generally true. The difference between consent to be enslaved and a credit agreement is that one isn't enforceable, while the other is. An example.... I played a while ago with a woman who insisted that she wanted no choice, no safeword and no limits (something that always makes my eyes roll). We got into something, and true to our agreement I gave her the hard caning she'd asked for... and ignored her pleas for me to stop, as we had agreed that I should. Then she said "abracadabra".... Since we'd not agreed a safeword, I might - perhaps - have been justified in continuing as per our agreement. But.... I stopped, and I'm glad I did, because if I'd continued I'd have been in a world of shit. Morally - sure, we had an agreement, but I don't think I'd have had much fun saying that to the judge... Of course, this is just an example of the fantasy hitting the brick wall of reality. But you have to admit, there are those people out there who at the moment you started caning her ass as you promised, would have stood stoically and not moved an inch. The parable work both ways

crazyml -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 12:09:38 PM)
Yes of course it can. That being pretty much the point i was making and all...

Darkfeather -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 12:22:04 PM)
No sweat. As you can see, this issue polarizes a lot of people, because when you try to nail down the definition you are trying change how someone sees them-self. You get the same issues when bringing up what is a switch, what is bi-sexual, etc. And all the people who actually identify as these see, is us, trying to categorize and classify them. I am a black man, and a dominant. I don't need anyone else to tell me I am a black man, or a dominant. No one to clarify the definition of a black man, or what a dominant is. So to say we need to tell others what the word slave really means, is kinda insulting, and condescending

JeffBC -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 12:40:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darkfeather No sweat. As you can see, this issue polarizes a lot of people, because when you try to nail down the definition you are trying change how someone sees them-self. Which is in and of itself a terribly fascinating statement. As I've looked at my own history what I noted was that when I was new to all this I was lost and confused. The labels had much more significance to me then because I needed some sort of roadmap to help navigate. But as I learned the actual terrain the map became less significant. I suspect it's easy to be so casually self-confident when you're in already happy relationship which meets your needs. My terrain, after all, was relatively static... Carol and I. BDSM (or more accurately Gor) just gave me a new and more accurate lens to view that terrain through but it remains true that the map is not the terrain.

Darkfeather -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 12:48:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Darkfeather No sweat. As you can see, this issue polarizes a lot of people, because when you try to nail down the definition you are trying change how someone sees them-self. Which is in and of itself a terribly fascinating statement. As I've looked at my own history what I noted was that when I was new to all this I was lost and confused. The labels had much more significance to me then because I needed some sort of roadmap to help navigate. But as I learned the actual terrain the map became less significant. I suspect it's easy to be so casually self-confident when you're in already happy relationship which meets your needs. My terrain, after all, was relatively static... Carol and I. BDSM (or more accurately Gor) just gave me a new and more accurate lens to view that terrain through but it remains true that the map is not the terrain. This. Your dynamic is personal. You have no official "label" to put to it, and honestly fuck all of us for the relevance to it. It works for you, and that is all that matters. If anyone needs to understand it, they ask, you explain. It doesn't fall on you, to put your life in a neat little box just so the rest of us can feel comfortable. It falls on the rest of us to come up to your level and try to feel where you are coming from, or stay the hell out of your life

Kana -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 1:56:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 A regular poster who identified as property once posted "It was her Master's decision whether or not she continue breathing ". If I understood her history correctly, she would have internalized her slavery to the bone. I was just thinking of her the other day and wondering what would happen if he decided she not continue. Would she fight in the end? I'd like to think so. If that's the case, then consensual slavery is an artificial construct. And to answer the OP, no. ETA: I haven't seen that property post here in years, by the way. I admit, this is Master and I pretty much. It's his decision....about anything...period. I am his slave, his property, his "it". It's not a term we take lightly and not without really knowing who we both are. We both are comfortable with our terms and places. His choices, his decisions. Nothing is off limits. Webster's Dictionary: "1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence 3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another 4 : drudge, toiler " Are you agreeing to both the bolded parts (Ignore the bolded ETA)? We do extreme breath play ya know :-) quote: 1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another Yep. Chattel is such a nice word to. It contains reams of historical significance when one considers female legal standing quote: 2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence The base rule I have is if you are in my life for BDSM purposes, you have two choices:Do as I say or leave. That's it. Those are the terms. Nothing more. Nothing less. quote: 3:a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another She's an object to fulfill my wishes. One of her roles is to be a physical extension of my will so to speak quote: 4: drudge, toiler " Lastly we have this. Slaves have many uses but at their heart their a labor device. Now, that labor might be sexual, psychological, whatever, but one of her foremost purposes is to make my life easier, better, smoother, happier. Might mean cleaning, doing laundry, all that service slave shit. Taken to an extreme it could mean putting her to work and taking the earnings (i.e. subcontracting the slut out), exercising traditional financial controls. Her body is mine. Her mind is mine. her life is mine. If I want to nail her tongue to a cutting board and feed the slut her own urine I can. Now she won't be necessarily be thrilled about it (Not many people would...but hey, if you're out there and are, drop me a line [:)])but she will do it. The alternative is sayanora.

pg4g -> RE: Are you a Slave? (2/17/2014 5:38:22 PM)
Ok Kana, I have four questions: 1. Do you consider this for real, or ultra-intense role play? 2. Would you consider your relationship exploitation and use of a person, and why do you hold this view? 3. I have a very hard time reconciling what you describe as love. I view love as caring, and all I see is selfishness without care. How does that work? 4. Aren't you blackmailing your partner to do whatever you want with your "my way or the highway" thing, and using their devotion to you against them? I've seen women, my mother included, forced psychologically like that to stay with an abusive husband, and to accept a lot of abuse as they are devoted to that person. That... scares me. I'm not judging but I have no way I can understand this...

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875