RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this

RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

Greta75 -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/4/2014 2:31:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder If he's in the mood, then he may have us sit down and talk about it. That still doesn't mean anything is going to change. He may tell me that I agreed to this life and if I felt it wasn't for me anymore then I was free to leave. But Point is, THIS is exactly what her master should have done. Sit her down, and tell her, she agreed to this and if she's not happy, she should walk. And not slap her around instead and ignore her.

pg4g -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/4/2014 3:43:19 AM)
littlewonder has a point: this is what she signed up for. He can treat her as he likes, and she wanted that. Can you blame the guy for doing what he's well within his rights to do? The issue I see here is that while he's within his rights within the relationship, it's probably not wise to do what he's doing. Communication is important, and he's turning communication from being an important, positive element of a relationship, into something to punish her for. He's risking her leaving for good, and/or despising him for not showing what she may consider to be love and care. Not to mention this sends 100 warning bells off in my head of "Man using D/s to justify selfishly ignoring his wife when he doesn't like what she has to say, and then beating her for opening her mouth." Just cos she signed up for this doesn't mean this guy doesn't have some serious ignorance issues.

kalikshama -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/4/2014 12:09:37 PM)
quote: "Man using D/s to justify selfishly ignoring his wife when he doesn't like what she has to say, and then beating her for opening her mouth." Yes, this is exactly my concern.

LafayetteLady -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/4/2014 7:29:28 PM)
Ishtar, answering this from my POS phone is proving difficult. I had typed a whole response out and it went poof. So I may have to do this in parts. We are likely to never agree because we have very different world views. Yours is look out for yourself and others must do the same. Mine is focused on the bigger picture, always has been and always will be. Regardless, each and every day of your life you impart your moals and values on another that lacks the ability to consent. You teach them YOUR belief system and the skills necessary to care for themselves when you are gone. You acceppted this dutty and obligation willingly, although on occasion have complained when it didn't go according to your liking. What in the world am I referring to you ask? You are raising children. They are human and by law have no ability to consent. If you do not teach them, they have a mother and father who will, but you accepted t be part. Of that team, like it or not. Now I know Jeff has since clarified a bit about his situation but think about something. From a legal standpoint in at least all western countries, if you lack the ability to consnet, you are deemed incompetent and therfore are requied a guardian to decide for you. Now that isn't Carol, but if someone truly lacks that ability (and I can think of a couple of posters here where I do question that competence, not on this thread, but who partake in this boards). There have been private discussions as to whether or not those posters should remain since the psychological age was definitely not that of an adult. Years ago, women were ,property of their husbnds. More recently (think 1920-1970 or so) while women we're not considered property, men still tended to be "head of house" making all decisions, paying bills, giving wife an allowance. Frequently what happened was that husbands died and women, having not ever been taught to do more than clean and cook and raise children had no idea about paying the bills or where the life insurance was, etc. No by your statements, tough titties for them, they should go back where they came ffrom and be grateful they had it so good for so long. First, thankfully the law doesn't agree with you and a husband can't disinherit a wife (children yes, spouse no). So while she isn't going to be leftt homeless, she still lacks those life skills. My mother had friends this happened to. My parentss marriage wasn't much different, except they did have a love that surpass even death(and yes I'm proud of that). However, it only took my mother seeing this happen to one of her friends for her to make sure she knew everything she needed to know should my father pass before her (which he sadly did). My mother knew every bank account, every bill that had to be paid and established credit in her own name while my father was alive. Now, theirs wasn't a situation where she asked his permission for this, she just did it. And she taught me that EVERY woman needs to know these things because at some point we are alone and need to do fo our selves. I believe that statement holds true, and in adynamic where the roles are reversed, it still holds true.

LafayetteLady -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/4/2014 7:40:08 PM)
As I said I need to do this in parts with my finnicky phone. You say I'm on a moral crusade to save people from themselves. Well one of the several languages you speak is not comprehending. In this thread, I never told the OP she should leave and stop living in fantasyland with her husband. What I di, and will do, much to your chagrin is alway, ALWAYS, make sure people know their options and what do do when they don't like the situation they are in. I even went so far as to point out that while its great she's happy now, the advice I gave is valid anytime, even though you managed to misread that. People don't think they will lose their ability to walk when they enter these relationships. Sure, there's the whole, ,you are my slave for life unless I release you," but that's fantasy and we both know it. Othwise you would still be with your gor ex, since based on what you say (and this isn't meant to be an insult), you were a prize worth keeping. The idea that someone thinking changes and they really lose the ability within themselves to do what's right for them isn't something to be applauded and I think you agree. But when they reach that point, you seem to feel let darwinism take effect and since they are weak, they will cull themselves from the herd. I say they simply need the knowledge to bring them to the next step. And I as well as others will happily give them that knowledge.

LafayetteLady -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/4/2014 7:47:23 PM)
I don't follow philosophy, in fact I find it a way for people with mediocre intelligence to get out of actual action. So Kant Has nothing to do with my thinking. When a d-type takes "ownership" of an s-type," they are accepting responsibility for that person. Typically there are goals to make the s-type a better person, whether it is helping them learn to manage money better, be healthier, whatever. And then there are the scumbag d-type who like velcro collars so they can use and damage an s-ttype until they are no longer useful and toss them to the curb. Am I on a crusade? That's the only way you are able to perceive my thoughts and actions because you are the type of person who would walk by someone being beaten in a parking lot because it isn't your business and you don't want to interfere in their dynamic. I wouldn't walk by, and haven't. There are more "you" in the world than there are "me." Luckily it take far fewer me to change the world than yous' to destroy human decency.

LadyPact -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/4/2014 11:24:28 PM)
To the OP. I passed over this thread several times since it's inception because I thought it was more a Gorean based thread, rather than a more direct M/s type one. Had it not been for another thread created over in the General discussion board, I probably would have continued to pass it by. It sounds to Me like you are in a type of dynamic that requires obedience. You requested that a ritual be changed. You were told no. In My opinion, yes, that means you obey or leave. If your Master Husband has made a final decision on this matter, unless you can bring additional information to the table, the matter is closed. It really is what you signed up for. This comes from someone on the other side of the kneel who literally has told their (former) slave that if they did not like the structure of the dynamic...... There's the door. (I ended up booting that person from the household for a number of reasons.) The only area of this that might have new consideration would be the delay of morning urination. It is completely possible that the Master Husband is not aware of the potential health risks. In My view, this is an area of new information, rather than it's just not erotic for you anymore. ~~~~~~~ General stuff as far as responses........ Folks, you'll have to forgive Me, but I'm getting a bit long in the tooth when people want to automatically play the 'abuse' card just because other people do things differently. I admit to skimming some of the posts, but I didn't see one comment from the OP that said the face slapping was done in anger. Lots of folks don't do punishment. Lots of folks don't engage in face slapping. I get that. However, as a person who engages in both, I can promise you that it's not automatically what some folks conjure it up to be. If offense X is not permitted by a slave, and the punishment for offense X is a slap to the face, that does not mean that anger or an uncontrolled action is in there. Please don't embellish. I'm no expert on Gor, but consent/non consent is a very real type of dynamic. At the beginning, the s-type consents to being under the control of another. Renegotiation is not necessarily a part of that. As the person in charge of the home, it is up to the M-type to decide what will be allowed and what will not. It honestly doesn't matter why he wants this ritual as a part of their lives. It is what he says will happen. Any M-type runs their own house. If the slave doesn't like it, they do have the option to leave.

FieryOpal -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 12:20:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact To the OP. I passed over this thread several times since it's inception because I thought it was more a Gorean based thread, rather than a more direct M/s type one. Had it not been for another thread created over in the General discussion board, I probably would have continued to pass it by. It sounds to Me like you are in a type of dynamic that requires obedience. You requested that a ritual be changed. You were told no. In My opinion, yes, that means you obey or leave. If your Master Husband has made a final decision on this matter, unless you can bring additional information to the table, the matter is closed. It really is what you signed up for. This comes from someone on the other side of the kneel who literally has told their (former) slave that if they did not like the structure of the dynamic...... There's the door. (I ended up booting that person from the household for a number of reasons.) The only area of this that might have new consideration would be the delay of morning urination. It is completely possible that the Master Husband is not aware of the potential health risks. In My view, this is an area of new information, rather than it's just not erotic for you anymore. ~~~~~~~ General stuff as far as responses........ Folks, you'll have to forgive Me, but I'm getting a bit long in the tooth when people want to automatically play the 'abuse' card just because other people do things differently. I admit to skimming some of the posts, but I didn't see one comment from the OP that said the face slapping was done in anger. Lots of folks don't do punishment. Lots of folks don't engage in face slapping. I get that. However, as a person who engages in both, I can promise you that it's not automatically what some folks conjure it up to be. If offense X is not permitted by a slave, and the punishment for offense X is a slap to the face, that does not mean that anger or an uncontrolled action is in there. Please don't embellish. I'm no expert on Gor, but consent/non consent is a very real type of dynamic. At the beginning, the s-type consents to being under the control of another. Renegotiation is not necessarily a part of that. As the person in charge of the home, it is up to the M-type to decide what will be allowed and what will not. It honestly doesn't matter why he wants this ritual as a part of their lives. It is what he says will happen. Any M-type runs their own house. If the slave doesn't like it, they do have the option to leave. It might be cut and dried, black and white as you and a few others have asserted, if this couple were not married. Wives have rights, regardless of olden days chattel mentality. They have rights to shared property, of not being able to be disinherited, rights to offspring, etc. This woman has legal rights, and the law will and can trump privately enforced arrangements no matter how consensual both parties insist they are. Nowadays a third party witness can report domestic abuse. Do they have no meddlesome neighbors who haven't seen this woman have to relieve herself outdoors? This is a matter of potential public health risk as an unsanitary practice.

LadyPact -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 12:47:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal It might be cut and dried, black and white as you and a few others have asserted, if this couple were not married. Wives have rights, regardless of olden days chattel mentality. They have rights to shared property, of not being able to be disinherited, rights to offspring, etc. This woman has legal rights, and the law will and can trump privately enforced arrangements no matter how consensual both parties insist they are. Nowadays a third party witness can report domestic abuse. Do they have no meddlesome neighbors who haven't seen this woman have to relieve herself outdoors? This is a matter of potential public health risk as an unsanitary practice. Wives have legal rights. I am not disputing the law. However, I don't see this any differently than a slave who is unhappy in any other area. Want to stop being a slave? Awesome! Do the lawyer. Get half. Do whatever is best to do. When third parties decide something is "abusive"..... I get My hackles up. I've been a little too close to said third parties using such as weapons and hoping such accusations can be retaliations. Relieving oneself isn't necessarily a health hazard to other people. I live in Alaska where people piss outside as a matter of course. Check out waterless cabins.

FieryOpal -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 1:17:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Wives have legal rights. I am not disputing the law. However, I don't see this any differently than a slave who is unhappy in any other area. Want to stop being a slave? Awesome! Do the lawyer. Get half. Do whatever is best to do. When third parties decide something is "abusive"..... I get My hackles up. I've been a little too close to said third parties using such as weapons and hoping such accusations can be retaliations. Relieving oneself isn't necessarily a health hazard to other people. I live in Alaska where people piss outside as a matter of course. Check out waterless cabins. While it's true there are remote areas in Maryland, if OP is a suburban housewife, it's as if one were dumping one's sewage openly. She only admits to urination, not defecation. I've had my share of nosy neighbors who make up stories and have nothing better to do than spread gossip. In rural areas it's much worse, I've found than when I was a suburbanite where most folks mind their own business and haven't the foggiest idea who their neighbors are unless their kids play together. At any rate, assuming OP doesn't have hepatitis or some other contagious disease, the point I was trying to make is that telling the authorities something makes you feel sexy isn't going to stand up in court or get you out of a fine. Can you imagine this couple having children, and then they start copying such behavior from their mother? I'll leave it alone. YKINMK.

pg4g -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 2:49:27 AM)
Either way, LadyPact, we were simply expressing concern. Unlike a standard slave, marriage and love does complicate things. Now lets play a game of "What If" shall we, and lets forget roles: What if this was a man demanded something, didn't like her rebuttal, hurt her, avoid what she wants? That's a worrying sign for a wife. Can she leave? Of course. But it's not easy. What if the man played off the fact that she'd agreed to accept this abuse in general, and now in this specific case he's using it and ignoring the woman, and punishing her? What if this is abuse wrapped up in the guise of D/s? Can she leave? Yes. Will she leave if she hates it? Maybe. Maybe not. Why do I say this? Because I've been in a relationship where people who are hurt, who hate it, won't leave due to love, and can't bring themselves to do it. And the other partner knew it, leveraged it, and kept mistreating them. Knowledge that the other partner won't walk away no matter how you treat them makes it real easy to abuse someone the way you want to. AND I WASN'T EVEN MARRIED. Emotional investments, love, and agreements, mean that a person can mistreat a person to a certain extent and exploit the partner's emotional tendency to stay when things get tough. True love means you could almost bash them to a pulp, and they STILL couldn't walk away. They're too emotionally tied. I've felt that for myself. You're a dominant. You may never have had that tested, been mistreated and hurt and pushed to ask "should I leave for my own good, or do I just love my partner too much to leave". A dominant can get way, way, way too much leeway, and utilise that to abuse. Let alone the additional pressure legalities provide that are DESIGNED to encourage a person not to leave. I'm not saying that this is what is happening. I'm saying you seem completely and pathetically inept at considering that the "if the sub doesn't like it, the sub will leave" clause may not be perfect, because it is NEVER that simple.

LadyPact -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 7:44:03 AM)
That's the problem, though. Too many folks on the thread are playing "what if" rather than accepting the fact that the OP and the Master Husband want to live the life they have chosen. The marriage and the dynamic are two different things. A person can end the dynamic without ending the marriage. The OP is very specific in the follow up post that she does not want to stop being a slave. That means, golly gee whiz, she's going to submit to the authority of the person in charge that she engage in something she doesn't necessarily like. In other words, Master says engage in slave positions in the morning during his breakfast. That's what the slave is going to do. Whether the s-type likes it, doesn't like it, fails to get turned on by it, or anything else, the decision is up to the person in charge. Jumping on the abuse train was a huge leap.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 8:03:55 AM)
I have to disagree with you LadyP. I don't think jumping on the abuse train was a huge leap. As many of us have stated in this thread, as to the positions, it's what she bought into and if her husband wants her to do it, she has to suck it up or alter the dynamic. And there's the thing, it's possible to become so internally enslaved you don't know how to alter the dynamic. LL said this: quote: People don't think they will lose their ability to walk when they enter these relationships. Sure, there's the whole, ,you are my slave for life unless I release you," but that's fantasy and we both know it. I have been so internally enslaved it took me 5 years to leave an abusive relationship. I was in denial, sure, but I was also not capable of seeing that my unhappiness wasn't all me. I was so emotionally beaten down and so sure everything was my fault for not being a good enough slave, wife, mother that I lost that ability. And I tend to think if it could happen to me, it could happen to anybody. It wasn't her having to do the positions every day that I found abusive, it was her husband's reaction to it. If I suddenly decided, gee Himself, I want to be the one who decides what we get to watch tonight, we've had 15 years of you deciding, he would automatically realize something bad was happening in our relationship, and it has nothing to so with DVD viewing. He would instantly understand that there were underlying issues in our relationship that needed to be addressed. He would see the need to discuss it until we got to what was really bothering me.

LafayetteLady -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 8:56:02 AM)
Here's the way I see it... Two people make an agreement and further agree that agreement is irrevocable. Making the agreement is fine, but making it irrevocable is fantasy, pure and simple. Now add marriage to that original agreement. Whether it is done fr love or just tax purposes, the legality remains the same. Perhaps there is a pre-nup that states the s-type gets nothing, although no lawyer will draw one up because the court would over rule said document and tthe lawyer is duty bound to let the parties know. So now they are married, and happily engaging in their dynamic. One day the bottom has questions and the top refuses to answer. Part of their agreement? Sure. But it can also be part of the unraveling of the agreement if not handled properly. Do I think the OP is being abused? By my standards, sure, but I can't measure by my standards, so at this point, she says the beatings are still consensual and I have no choice but to believe that. However, my instincts tell me that in time, that will change, and I firmly believe that the OP or anyone else in that position should know what options they have should a time come when they need them. The fact they are married changes the "don't like it then leave" situation considerably. So while there may have been a "fantasy" contract saying the slave has nothing and is entitled to nothing and will be a slave in peretuity, the law says different and people need to be aware of that. Why? Because all too often in these M/s situations that involve marriage the master likes to really remind the slave that should they leave they get nothing because that was the agreement. Simply not true. So as long as everyone is happy, its all good. Knowing your options should that happiness change is equally important.

LadyPact -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 9:27:02 AM)
CP, I think I'm in the minority on this one for a few reasons. Some of which are colored by My own personal experiences. I think that's what most of us do when we respond on boards like this. How I interpreted this was from the top side. The slave coming the first time to ask if the morning ritual could be changed wasn't the problem. Evidently, the slave was told no. In how I do things, once I've said no, unless there is additional information that I have to consider, the answer remains no. By additional information, I don't mean rehashing the same input just phrased differently. That's why even I gave in on the waiting to urinate thing. (Which, I promise, I honestly couldn't do.) The health risk may be new information. (He's a guy, so I'm trying to cut him some slack on that.) The first time this came up, and the slave said she wanting more emotional attachment during the mornings, for whatever reason, the Master said no. Great choice? Maybe not, but it is still his to make. After that, bringing it back up repeatedly may have been a part of the issue. Sooner or later, isn't there a point where the decision is made and obedience is expected in some households?

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 9:49:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady We are likely to never agree because we have very different world views. Yes, I've suggested that several times now... quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Yours is look out for yourself and others must do the same. Mine is focused on the bigger picture, always has been and always will be. That's a misrepresentation of my position. My position is that it's not okay to force other people to look out for themselves, of be looked out for, because you happen to believe that the choices they're making are invalid. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Regardless, each and every day of your life you impart your moals and values on another that lacks the ability to consent. We're not talking about kids here. We're talking about a mentally capable adult who not only consented, but continuously maintains consent, who is being told that -by virtue of affirming her consent to something some other people wouldn't pick- must be mentally impaired to the point of being incapable of consent. So because she consents it's being determined that she obviously can't and therefore needs to be be protected, whether she wants to or not, unto, and including, having her husband arrested. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Now I know Jeff has since clarified a bit about his situation but think about something. From a legal standpoint in at least all western countries, if you lack the ability to consnet, you are deemed incompetent and therfore are requied a guardian to decide for you. Now that isn't Carol, but if someone truly lacks that ability (and I can think of a couple of posters here where I do question that competence, not on this thread, but who partake in this boards). Jeff says that IS Carol. Jeff has literally stated, multiple times, without being ambitious about it, that Carol cannot revoke consent to him. Are you suggesting that the OP cannot refuse consent? And if she can refuse consent, then what exactly is the problem? quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Years ago, women were ,property of their husbnds. More recently (think 1920-1970 or so) while women we're not considered property, men still tended to be "head of house" making all decisions, paying bills, giving wife an allowance. Frequently what happened was that husbands died and women, having not ever been taught to do more than clean and cook and raise children had no idea about paying the bills or where the life insurance was, etc. No by your statements, tough titties for them, they should go back where they came ffrom and be grateful they had it so good for so long. First, thankfully the law doesn't agree with you and a husband can't disinherit a wife (children yes, spouse no). So while she isn't going to be leftt homeless, she still lacks those life skills. Again a misrepresentation of my statements. I didn't say anything about how a wife shouldn't have claim to part of the life she build with her husband. Of course a husband shouldn't be able to disinherit a wife. Of course he shouldn't be able to kick her out on the street without a penny in her pocket. Of course he shouldn't be allowed to non-consensually withhold information from her like where he keeps their health insurance. However, none of that implies that HE is responsible for teaching her the life skills she needs to pay the bills. If she wants to learn how to pay the bills, she needs to learn how to pay the bills, which may include asking for his help, but that doesn't make it his duty to force her to learn how to if she shows no interest in it. Sorry, but did she taught him the life skills he needed to know how to pay the bills? Nope? Then why is it his job to force the reverse on her? She's an adult, if she wants to learn life skills, she needs to go out an learn life skills. Marriage doesn't make her a child, nor does it make her husband her designated educator. It's not his responsibility to make sure that she learns the things an adult needs to know. If she wants to be an adult, she needs to be an adult. If she refuses to be an adult, and refuses to learn the things an adult needs to know, then yes, she should just count herself lucky that she got to ride his coattails as long as he's around, and she's just back to where she started when he goes away (+ all the stuff she's obviously entitled to by law). And no, that doesn't even imply that I support somebody deliberately and non-consensually withholding information from their wife. But the fact that he cannot non-consensually impede her from learning life skills doesn't mean that he's morally obligated to make sure that she does. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady My mother knew every bank account, every bill that had to be paid and established credit in her own name while my father was alive. Now, theirs wasn't a situation where she asked his permission for this, she just did it. And she taught me that EVERY woman needs to know these things because at some point we are alone and need to do fo our selves. Did your mother also taught you that if a woman doesn't step up and make sure she knows these things (things you and I agree she needs to know) it's her husband's duty to teach her? I'm confused... didn't you just say that your mother made sure she knew all these things, because she decided she needed to know them, and then stepped up and made sure she did? Did your mother sit around and wait for your father to step up and be responsible for teaching her? Did she wait around for her husband to impart her with necessary life skills? What would your mother say about your argument that when a man marries a woman, it becomes his duty to make sure she's educated, it becomes his duty to take care of her as if she were a mere child?

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 10:17:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady You say I'm on a moral crusade to save people from themselves. I clarified already that I didn't mean that you're on a crusade in this thread, against the OP. You're on a crusade in general, as your defacto moral position is that people need to be prevented from being able to make certain choices -by force if need be- if you don't agree that they should consensually be allowed to make those choices. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady What I di, and will do, much to your chagrin is alway, ALWAYS, make sure people know their options and what do do when they don't like the situation they are in. Again a misrepresentation. I feel no chagrin at all at you pointing out options. In fact, I support you doings so, and have stated that several times now. I disagree with you on various points, and most of your moral stance, but there is no chagrin about that. I've stated half a dozen times now that we'll never agree on these points. At the same time I have no problem continuing the debate, as I find it enjoyable to argue about matters like these. If you do not find the same enjoyment in this type of discourse, then maybe we should stop the debate, but don't project that lack of enjoyment on me and call it chagrin, because I feel nothing of the sort. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady People don't think they will lose their ability to walk when they enter these relationships. Sure, there's the whole, ,you are my slave for life unless I release you," but that's fantasy and we both know it. The idea that someone thinking changes and they really lose the ability within themselves to do what's right for them isn't something to be applauded and I think you agree. My active goal entering in the relationship with my ex was to lose that ability. Obviously it didn't work, as is evident by the fact that we're no longer together, but it was the goal. As I've said previously in this discussion: I have no problem with a person entering in a relationship where their ability to remove consent is removed, so long as they are aware of the fact that this is going on and/or the goal, and there is no 'trickery' involved in the conditioning. I'm confused by your point now. Are you saying that the OP didn't lose the ability because her being a slave is all a fantasy? Or are you saying that she did lose the ability? quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady But when they reach that point, you seem to feel let darwinism take effect and since they are weak, they will cull themselves from the herd. Again a misrepresentation of my point, of Darwinistic evolution, and of my understanding of Darwinistic evolution. I've never said, or even implied, that they are weak, or that they should, or will be, culled from the herd. I've said that if they choose to remain in a relationship in which they know consent will eventually be removed, their choice to do so should be respected, even after they no longer have the ability to revoke consent. Now of course, if they later change their mind and want to leave (and therefore reaffirm their ability to revoke consent) they should be allowed to do so. But they shouldn't be labelled 'abused' of forced to leave, just because they knowingly stayed in a relationship long enough so that they now feel they can't leave. I've also said that a spouse's job isn't that of educator. It's not a husband's duty to make sure that his wife knows how to take care of herself after his death. If the wife doesn't want to know, and doesn't seek out the knowledge, then it's not the husband's duty to force it on her. Sure, he can mention it to her from time to time to make it sure she knows the information is available to her if she wants it; but that does not make it -as you said it is- the husband's duty and obligation to make sure that she learn this necessary life skills before his death. Nobody has the duty and obligation to make sure another mentally capable adult can take care of themselves. We all may be generous and help people in need, including by imparting them with necessary knowledge and skills they seek to learn, but that doesn't make it our duty and obligation to make sure that such happens.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 10:25:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact The first time this came up, and the slave said she wanting more emotional attachment during the mornings, for whatever reason, the Master said no. Great choice? Maybe not, but it is still his to make. After that, bringing it back up repeatedly may have been a part of the issue. Sooner or later, isn't there a point where the decision is made and obedience is expected in some households? In theory I agree that bringing something up repeatedly after you've already gotten a no answer is counter-productive to the relationship. But I think you have to look deeper than that and see that most really want to be obedient, pleasing, everything their d-type wants them to be. So if they are repeatedly asking for something, they're actually not being a pain in the ass, or flaunting authority, they have an issue. In real time relationships we know issues can be so convoluted it's difficult to determine what the real problem is. That's certainly true of me. Once I know what's really bugging me, it can be resolved.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 10:27:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady When a d-type takes "ownership" of an s-type," they are accepting responsibility for that person. I'm again confused. Didn't you say: ' "Sure, there's the whole, ,you are my slave for life unless I release you," but that's fantasy and we both know it.'d? If the slavery is just a fantasy, then why is the D-type suddenly responsible for another person? If it's just a fantasy and the s-type can leave any time they want, regardless of being granted release, then why is the D-type now suddenly the 'guardian' and the s-type 'incapable of looking out for their own welfare'? How does fantasy role-pay impart the full responsibility for another mentally capable adult on the D-type? quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady you are the type of person who would walk by someone being beaten in a parking lot because it isn't your business and you don't want to interfere in their dynamic. I wouldn't walk by, and haven't. There are more "you" in the world than there are "me." Luckily it take far fewer me to change the world than yous' to destroy human decency. Oh, now the misrepresentations are getting personal... still mirroring that 'chagrin' you accused me of I see. Just for the record: I wouldn't walk passed somebody being beaten up asking for help. In fact, I wouldn't even walk by without verifying that they didn't need help. What, after they assured me to my satisfaction that they didn't need help, and what they were doing was consensual, I wouldn't do was stick around anyway to preach to them that what they were doing is wrong and they're being abused. I also wouldn't suggest they call the cops if they later changed their mind about it being consensual. I also wouldn't call the cops myself in an attempt to force them to stop because I couldn't accept that they could consensually agree to what they were doing.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 10:35:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal It might be cut and dried, black and white as you and a few others have asserted, if this couple were not married. Wives have rights, regardless of olden days chattel mentality. Nobody has disputed this woman's legal rights. Nobody has disputed that this woman has additional rights because she is married. Nobody has suggest that the 'leave' option implies that she leaves empty handed, allow him to kick her out of their house, or forsake the legal rights and protection she's due. None of the advice I've given would have been any different had she not been married. Their dynamic isn't impacted by the fact that they're married, and the end of their dynamic shouldn't be impacted by the fact that they're married. My position remains, married or not: if she wants to end the dynamic, she needs to end the dynamic (and then decide whether or not she wants to stay a couple with this man and/or he with her), if she wants to remain in the dynamic, then she needs to accept that within the dynamic, it's none of her business to bring up grievances.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625