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

littlewonder -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 9:20:24 PM)

Thank you LP for explaining what I tried to explain earlier. You and I are on the same viewpoint. Nowhere do I see her as being abused.

Master has slapped me, not as part of a scene or play but because he was annoyed with me for something. Was it abusive? No. It's simply part of our relationship. It's what I consented to when I met him. He does what he wants or I walk out the door. Cut and clear and quite simple really. Even if we were married, it would still be exactly the same....one of us would walk out and we would get divorced. We would no longer be the same people we were when we agreed to the relationship. One of us is no longer getting what we agreed to.

I think the op's Master is simply annoyed with her asking all the time. I would be annoyed too and probably would slap her myself and if that didn't shut her up I'd ask her if she wanted this relationship anymore and she should think long and hard about her answer because it could mean the door closing behind her never to be opened again.

I don't see that as abusive or cruel...just a matter of fact. His rules/rituals, her's to follow or leave. Doesn't matter if she gets bored with them or not. If he wants to change them he'll let her know. Until that time, deal with it.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 10:00:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

The problem as I see it Ishtar, is that a 'dynamic' is just that - "dynamic".
Ie, it is (or should be) open to change if need be - or at least have a 'get out' clause.


There is no evidence that she doesn't have a 'get out' clause.


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
To me, it should never ever be "Obey Me" or "Fuck Off" as the only available options.
Notwithstanding all the legal shit, within the dynamic, I would agree with that.
But, and I think it is very important, there must always be a "can we step out of the role play for a moment because I have an issue that needs to be addressed".



To you, sure. But others disagree. Some of those who disagree have relationships in which 'stepping out of the role for a moment' = 'end of M/s dynamic and possible the relationship'. Them disagreeing doesn't mean that they're wrong, or abusive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

But we all know that the law trumps any marriage arrangements and those marriage arrangements trump anything within role-play; or at least it should IMHO.
If OP's Master husband is soo engrossed in the role-play that he has effectively decided that his fantasy trumps real life - that spells trouble.



Agreed, fully. With the caveat that him being a dumbs doesn't equal to him necessarily being abusive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

You seem to come from the viewpoint that once OP has given consent to not having any consent, that 'command' is set in stone, utterly and completely, for the rest of her natural other than to walk.



Nope. My position is that once she has given consent to not have any consent, that consent stands until she withdraws it. If she ends up in a situation where she cannot withdraw said consent, and claims she doesn't want to, we -as outsiders- don't have the right to decide for her 'oh she's not capable of withdrawing consent now, and we think her husband is being abusive, so we'll remove her from him for her own sake'.

As long as she cannot, and won't withdraw the previously given consent to have no consent, it stands.

Note that this is why I mentioned earlier in the thread that awareness that consent may be lost in the future is more important to me than current capability to consent. And that I have moral issues with somebody tricking a person into losing consent capabilities under false pretensions.

But let me be very clear again: if somebody gives consent to lose consent capability, and later changes their mind and decides they no longer want to obey anyways, I fully support that they ought to have the right to leave, and if refused this right, the offender should be prosecuted to the full extend of the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

What I and several others are trying to say is, OP has a real-life issue that is affecting her ability to translate that effectively into the role-play dynamic (it is obviously a problem for her otherwise why bring it to a forum such as CM) but her Master hubby is just too engrossed in his role that he cannot (or refuses to) acknowledge that her issue even exists.



I get that you all feel like that, and I even get why. I merely disagree.

In my opinion, there is no evidence whatsoever off her husband being too engrossed in his role to acknowledge the existence of the issue. In my opinion, he is handing and addressing the issue directing within the constraints of the rules of the dynamic they both said they wanted. In my opinion, he hasn't been given the tools or information to be aware of the fact that she wants to address this specific issue outside of the rule of the dynamic they both agreed to, because she hasn't told him that's what she wants. In my opinion, she has come in, in her second post, and specifically said that she doesn't want to address this issue outside of the dynamic they both agreed to, by reaffirming she still wants to be his slave.

Now, I may be wrong on all of that. I don't deny that. We are all just reading a bunch of stuff into two posts based on our own world views and perspectives.

I will even go so far as to say that, if I'm reading the situation wrong, and you're reading it right, I completely agree with you. If she has -in any way that any reasonable human being could have understood what she meant, even if she didn't literally say it- communicated to him that she wants to address this issue outside of their dynamic, and he has repeatedly beaten her for her basically asking for a time-out, I totally agree that he's abusive.

We're completely on the same page over that, and there is no argument there. What we disagree on is whether or not this has taken place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

We are saying that she appears to have lost her ability to withdraw consent just because her Master hubby has brainwashed her into believing she cannot do that.



Again, we disagree on whether or not this has happened.
I've seen no evidence of the fact that she's not capable of withdrawing consent. I've seen no evidence of her husband having brainwashed her to believe anything.

Just because something is happening in her relationship that she doesn't like, and she's refusing to take affirmative action to ensure that it will change, doesn't mean that she's not capable of changing it.
Being unwilling to put your foot down and demand change isn't the same as being unable to put your foot down.

I think we've seen clear evidence that she's unwilling to demand change, I see no evidence so far of being unable to demand change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Fuckit!! Can anyone explain it any clear than my diatribe??



You were clear. I hope I was as well, as most of our disagreement seems to be in opinion about what the facts are, not interpretation of how different sets of facts ought to be addressed. [:)]



UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 11:02:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Your inexperience with spousal abuse is appalling.



Why is my supposed inexperience appalling? If I'm as ignorant as you feel I am, how is my ignorance offensive to you?


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

From your statements it's quite clear you have never been internally enslaved for any period of time. Being manipulated and controlled in a way that makes you think less of yourself for years can render *anyone* unable to see reality, to know what is consent and what isn't, what's abuse and what isn't.



Internally enslaved, no. Abused, yes.

I've been in a non-BDSM physically abusive relationship for 5 years. I got beaten up to the point of needing hospitalization several times, with the neighbors regularly calling the cops, and just about everybody (co-workers, friends, family) trying to convince me to seek help, and have him prosecuted. I never pressed charges, because I believed it was my own fault. I believed that if I was just better, and didn't provoke him so much, he wouldn't do it, and he shouldn't' be punished over my mistakes and provocations.
I didn't leave for many years, because I believe that I wasn't going to be able to find another guy who would take me. That I was too fat for any guy to every want me (5'11" at 130lbs, or a BMI of 18.1), because he kept pressing me to loose weight. I believed I was too ugly to be desired by men, because he never was satisfied with anything I wore, any way I had my hair, any way I did my make-up.

The thing is... it didn't stop, and I didn't leave until I did. I made that choice, despite having been unable to make it all those years prior. There wasn't anybody that could make me leave. My dad pulled me out of there by force a couple of times, and I just ended up going back. He tried to make the cops intervening, but I refused to press charges, so they couldn't do anything.

It wasn't until I decided I wasn't going to let him use me as a punching bad anymore that it stopped, and it's my understanding that such is the case for almost every abused woman. You can talk to them, and throw their guys in jail all you want, they go back to him, until they decide they've had enough.

So sure, I fully support telling women in that situation of their options. Especially if they aren't aware that they have options it's crucial that they are made aware that options do exist. But in the end, after you've told them about the options, the only thing you can do is wait for the woman who has lost her ability to withdraw consent to regain it. Until she does that, she will go back to him, and if you make him completely unavailable to her, she'll find a new guy to beat her up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Your statement that it's not the husband's job to school his wife on financial affairs is equally misguided. If your own spouse isn't supposed to care enough about you to see to it that you know the basics, well then who should?
I can agree that a person can't count on their spouse's help in furthering their education or skills in areas they lack, but morally I consider it the spouse's responsibility. It is certainly the responsibility of anyone styling themselves as 'master.'



I suspect that you and I are in disagreement of the nuance of the word 'responsibility'.

I fully agree that if you love somebody, it is desirable/right for you to want what's best for them.
Desiring what's best for them includes sharing your recourses, knowledge and otherwise, with them.

So of course, I agree it's a good thing for a husband to teach his wife life skills she doesn't have. I'm not denying that. I'm even agreeing that him making knowledge he has that would help her be a better person unavailable to her would be a bad thing, and an unloving thing for him to do.

However, I don't agree that makes it his duty and responsibility.

Responsibility and duty to me mean:

responsibility |riˌspänsəˈbilətē|
noun (pl. responsibilities)
the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone: women bear children and take responsibility for child care.
• the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something: the group has claimed responsibility for a string of murders.

duty |ˈd(y)o͞otē|
noun (pl. duties)
1 a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility: it's my duty to uphold the law | she was determined to do her duty as a citizen | a strong sense of duty.
• [ as modifier ] (of a visit or other undertaking) done from a sense of moral obligation rather than for pleasure: a fifteen-minute duty visit.
2 (often duties) a task or action that someone is required to perform: the queen's official duties | your duties will include sweeping the switchboard | Juliet reported for duty.

See, responsibility implies that if it doesn't happen, the husband is the person to blame, because it's his responsibility to MAKE it happen.
And duty implies that making sure it happens is a requirement he has if he wants to be a moral person, which means that if it doesn't happen, he's necessarily an amoral person.

While I applaud you for imparting Himself with a new life skill, I don't see you teaching him to do laundry as either you duty, or your responsibility, because I don't think you would have failed as a partner, as a moral person, and as loving human being has he rejected your attempt to teach him.
If you had made the knowledge available to him, and he had said he didn't care to learn, because he didn't think it necessary, or he had continuously told you he intended to learn, but didn't have the time right at the moment (to never have the time), you wouldn't have failed to fulfill your duty or your responsibility as his partner.

If it was your responsibility to make sure he learn this, then that responsibility would stand, whether or not he would desire to learn. You would have to nag, push, drag or force him into learning to do laundry even if he completely rejected the idea. Failing to do so would equate failing to your duty as his partner.

Instead, what I see you as having done is lovingly sharing your abilities with him, in order to make both of you better people. That's a good thing, and I do believe relationships who are based on a mutual desire to so help each other grow are the best kind of relationships out there, but that doesn't imply that making sure that the other person actually does become a better person is your duty.

If the other person ends up rejecting your attempts to improve their life, you are not to blame for that, nor have you failed to life up to some supposed duty and responsibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

From my point of view you are extremely inexperienced and naive when it comes to relationships. You like to make everything black and white, cut and dried, when emotional relationships are rarely so easily defined. People don't always know how they feel, or what's bothering them, to say nothing of knowing how to articulate it to their partner in a way they can understand and then resolve the issue. If it were easy, we wouldn't need therapists and counselors.



Perhaps. I'm not denying the possibility that I'm completely wrong about my views on relationships. After all, they've changed and been reevaluated several times over the last decade or so (though each adjustment has put me into what I bet you would describe as a more 'extreme' point of view). You are also right that I am often extremely black and white in my thinking patterns.

I think a large portion of the particular argument in your last post stems from the fact that I tend to take concepts/definitions much more literally than most people. So when I hear somebody say 'duty' I really do literally think 'an action somebody is required to perform, where failing to fulfill said task means moral failing as person'. So what happens in my head is that I test that definition with my view of reality (Has a husband who under A, B, C, ... circumstances fails to make sure that his wife learns to do X failed as a man, a husband, and a human being? No? -> definition does not match) Which results in me categorically stating that I don't agree that it's a husband's duty/responsibility to make sure his wife learns X.
I assume most other people feel definitions much more contextually, so that you all feel 'duty' in the context of this argument as 'something good people who love each other want to do for each other'.

Because of this, I often time get drawn into long arguments that basically come down to 'that word doesn't mean precisely what you're implying it means, therefore you're wrong', 'you're wrong because this argument obviously makes sense', when we're both essentially agreeing about the thing being debated (it being good to help your partner grow, in this case) but disagree about the nuance of how that idea should be expressed.




LadyPact -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 11:44:55 PM)

I really need cross cultural help for this one. (That means Gorean or Gorean aware people might have to correct mistakes.)

I've always gotten the impression that a high number of Gorean folks don't 'play' like BDSM folks would think of it. Some cross over but nothing like the numbers of BDSM or leather folks that engage in WIITWD for fun. I definitely have seen a number of Gorean folks that mention using corporal punishment, which seems to be an area that authority transfer folks are having more people move away from. As a sadist, I don't think I'd want to use a whip as a punishment implement. I enjoy the whip and I wouldn't want the negativity associated with that. I'm with kalikshama that, personally, I'd rather engage in face slapping for the hotness factor. I know that some people don't like it due to negative connotations or think it's not a good idea because of the potential damage that can happen. I still like the activity. (Don't crucify Me for that one.)



pg4g -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/5/2014 11:57:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

I've always gotten the impression that a high number of Gorean folks don't 'play' like BDSM folks would think of it.



Lol maybe I'm more Gorean than I think. I don't have fun with what I endure. I just endure it cos I need it. I've never understood the lighthearted approach to the pain. I get the fun that a top can have - I have that. But when I'm bottoming, it's pure hell.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 12:01:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact


I've always gotten the impression that a high number of Gorean folks don't 'play' like BDSM folks would think of it. Some cross over but nothing like the numbers of BDSM or leather folks that engage in WIITWD for fun. I definitely have seen a number of Gorean folks that mention using corporal punishment, which seems to be an area that authority transfer folks are having more people move away from.



You're right. Many Goreans -most all of the ones I'd actually identify as 'Gorean' instead of 'role player'- don't really engaging S/M. A lot of the times, they don't even really engage in other forms of kinky play, like bondage, or D/s for kink's sake either.

Sure there are exceptions, and being Gorean isn't mutually exclusive with being a kinkster, but self-identifying as Gorean doesn't in the slightest imply that the person also identifies as kinky.

In fact, I know more than one Gorean who will use corporal punishment on their property without a second of hesitation (in fact, they often view corporal punishment as just about the only viable way to discipline a slave who has not been 100% pleasing), but who would be as resentful of you labeling them as kinky for punishing a slave, as an educator in the 1920s using corporal punishment in school would be if you called them kinky. To them, just because they happen to use a whip to punish somebody they call a slave it doesn't mean that they're engaging in BDSM.

For most, the reason they don't consider themselves kinky is because they have no particular sexual attraction to the concept of beating somebody with a whip, or the concept of calling them a slave. Whipping the slave is a means to an end, not an activity to be enjoyed or lusted over.
But I've also heard the argument be made that what you do with a slave can't possible be BDSM, because BDSM by definition is an activity between consenting adults, and somebody who is a consenting adult is by the very definition of the concept of a slave -to some Goreans- not a slave. So according to that crowd, there really isn't a way it's possible for you to engage in BDSM with a slave, because there is no way for a slave to consent to engage in BDSM. Just like you wouldn't say that an animal engaged in BDSM, just because some pervert used it to live out some of his fantasies.

However, you won't find those Goreans on BDSM orientated sites at all, because they simple do not identify themselves as being BDSMers in the slightest.



LadyPact -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 12:26:16 AM)

Thank you, Ishtar. Sometimes, I do better understanding such things if they can be explained to Me from the other angle.

You also talked about agreeing on making sure people knew their options. (I'm really reaching here, so hang with Me.) I know that not all Goreans read the books, read all of the books repeatedly by all Goreans, or even read more than one. Still, if I recall correctly, I remember a reference that a Gorean slave girl might take her option to run, might even be thought of encouraged to do so, if she hasn't been Mastered properly. If that's right, couldn't that be applied to a situation like this? Individual beliefs on whether this OP is abused aside, wouldn't actual abuse, where the individual feels themselves abused, fit that kind of criteria?



UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 1:13:36 AM)

Absolutely. Goreans both feel that it's foolish to free a slave (as in: treat somebody unwilling or unable to be their own person as if they are a free person capable of consent) as well as considering it immoral to keep somebody who is internally self-governing enslaved by force.

Goreans -in the books- wouldn't be able to conceive of a mentally capable adult calling a situation they willingly remain in abusive. To them, it would be clear cut case that the situation wouldn't be abusive until the point the subject at the very least desired to leave. At that point they'd consider the choice to run natural, even if made by a slave. A lack of desire to change the situation they'd see as what we consider consent, regardless of what created said lack of desire for change.



pg4g -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 1:27:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
But I've also heard the argument be made that what you do with a slave can't possible be BDSM, because BDSM by definition is an activity between consenting adults, and somebody who is a consenting adult is by the very definition of the concept of a slave -to some Goreans- not a slave. So according to that crowd, there really isn't a way it's possible for you to engage in BDSM with a slave, because there is no way for a slave to consent to engage in BDSM.



This is what's called getting lost in a fantasy. And this is also known by a few other choice words:

  • Deluded
  • Dangerous
  • Pathetic



ARIES83 -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 2:34:32 AM)

What I find pathetic is the continuous berating of a lifestyle choice that, as a matter of basic etiquette, should be shown the same type of consideration as the various other ways of life that populate this public forum.



pg4g -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 2:56:38 AM)

When someone can't distinguish fantasy from reality, it goes from lifestyle choice to delusional.

The part I quoted above was specifically talking about people actually thinking their slave was NOT a consenting adult because they have no rights to be, nor do they have any rights to consent. Anyone who actually in reality thinks that, rather than in some part of their fantasy, is delusional and lost in that fantasy.

To which I say it is not a lifestyle choice, ARIES83. It's delusion.



FieryOpal -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 3:18:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pg4g

When someone can't distinguish fantasy from reality, it goes from lifestyle choice to delusional.

The part I quoted above was specifically talking about people actually thinking their slave was NOT a consenting adult because they have no rights to be, nor do they have any rights to consent. Anyone who actually in reality thinks that, rather than in some part of their fantasy, is delusional and lost in that fantasy.

To which I say it is not a lifestyle choice, ARIES83. It's delusion.

Living in a state of actual slavery is not consensual, not BDSM, and highly illegal.

Someone who is not in their right mind (delusional or psychotic=disordered/distorted thought processes & patterns) cannot give informed consent to become enslaved.

Further, consenting to participate in an illegal activity or cooperate in illegal practices does not make it any less illegal.

ETA: Neither is this a victimless crime. (In reply to ARIES83)



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 6:01:08 AM)

Given your past experience, you should know that just b/c someone says 'it isn't abuse' doesn't NOT make it abuse. And yes I did find that level of ignorance appalling. However, I very much appreciate your measured responses; it allows us to actually discuss the issues.

You say you were abused but not internally enslaved. I question that evaluation. If you allowed someone to put you in the hospital for five years, in my mind it means there *is* a level of internal enslavement there. I believe in cases of domestic abuse, there is *always* a level of highly negative internal enslavement.

Although I agree with your definitions of responsibility and duty, I tend to not be terribly interested in arguments over semantics.

You are a very literal person, I understand that b/c I can be the same way. You are also highly intelligent and articulate, and as such have brought a great deal to this discussion. But I've learned that in relationships, things are rarely black and white. Over the years I've learned to see the shades of gray, and I believe that's a good thing.

I have repeatedly stated this though I'll do it one more time for those who are so caught up in the Gor vs non-Gorean debate that they've lost their reading comprehension:

I don't see having the woman do her positions in the morning as abusive. I don't see her being in a Gorean relationship as abusive.

What I find has the *potential* for abuse is this:

The shock collar. They are not safe of animals, definitely not for humans. Though I assume she consented to wearing the shock collar, what I question is her ability to form actual consent (more about that later).

The slapping as a punishment. I'm not a big fan of punishment dynamics though I'm well aware not all are signs of abuse. I do think that type of dynamic lends itself more easily to abuse. Also, a slap for punishment leads me to believe it was done in anger, another hot button.

She has an issue that her masterhusband does not want to address. This is a sign of emotional sadism and abuse.

I don't believe this is a minor issue. Why? B/c she came onto this board looking for advice. This means it's something that's been preying on her mind for months. Again, I'm making an assumption, but I believe it's accurate.

Lw:

quote:

I think the op's Master is simply annoyed with her asking all the time. I would be annoyed too and probably would slap her myself and if that didn't shut her up I'd ask her if she wanted this relationship anymore and she should think long and hard about her answer because it could mean the door closing behind her never to be opened again.



Although I think the above is certainly possible, I find it unlikely. Why? First b/c most people who self identify as slaves really do want to obey and be pleasing. The last thing they want to do is nag, as I know from past experience even the hint of a nag draws forth a stern look that the s-type finds chilling.

We have no evidence at all that she's done any nagging. In truth we have no evidence that her means of trying to communicate with her husband have not all followed protocol. She hasn't made that clear, we can only assume. I've decided to assume a Gorean slave with a shock collar is most likely fairly well trained and would not nag. I'm well aware I could be wrong.

A couple years back we had a great thread on internal enslavement. Anyone who wants an in depth look at how deep this can go should read that thread. In my mind a person cannot form consent if they are so internally enslaved they consent to anything and everything.

Is that where this wife is? I don't know, though I strongly suspect so. I could certainly be wrong. However my comments at this point are not so much for this wife, who hasn't returned to the thread, but for anyone else who may be in an abusive relationship.

So I will reiterate what I've said repeatably: It's not one thing that makes me think this is an abusive relationship, it's the combination of all three potentials for abuse that makes me lean that way.

Again, I lean that way, others do not. It's not necessary that we agree.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 7:38:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Given your past experience, you should know that just b/c someone says 'it isn't abuse' doesn't NOT make it abuse.



Of course not. But from experience I also know people will cry abuse when there is none, and at that point, there is nothing you can say to convince them otherwise, because the more you claim it isn't abusive, the more convinced they become they're right.

As such, I think that one ought to be sure relatively before levying such a heavy accusation -which can literally destroy lives- which I don't think anybody on this thread even remotely can be, based on the available evidence.
Yet only a few people proceeded with caution, asking questions, and pointing out facts. The majority merely jumped to making hair trigger judgment calls framed as if one could be sure to be dealing with factual statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

And yes I did find that level of ignorance appalling.



Did? How exactly has the level of my ignorance changed between then and now, considering that my positions has remained the same?


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

You say you were abused but not internally enslaved. I question that evaluation. If you allowed someone to put you in the hospital for five years, in my mind it means there *is* a level of internal enslavement there. I believe in cases of domestic abuse, there is *always* a level of highly negative internal enslavement.



Actually, it was you who asserted that it's quite clear that I've never been internally enslaved. I was rolling with your definitions on the agreement that I wasn't, considering that to my own definitions of 'internal enslavement' I have indeed never been internally enslaved. I've gotten close in one relationships, which wasn't the abusive one btw, but -according to my definitions- the process was never completed.

It's interesting that you have completely changed your position from asserting without doubt that I've clearly never been internally enslaved, to questioning my judgment on the assertion that I wasn't internally enslaved.
However, I think we're back to a disagreement about concepts. To me, enslavement is something that happens to an external force. You are a slave to something, or somebody else. It's not a state that can be created internally without a thing outside your own personhood to actually be enslaved to, although I can see situations in which you may be able to use the concept interchangeable with 'addiction'.

The thing is, I was never enslaved to my abusive ex. It wasn't him controlling me. It was my fears, low self-esteem, and self-doubts -that I all came into the relationship with- which controlled me. He didn't control those things either, neither actively or accidentally. What he did was interact with them.

As such, while I blame him for what he did, and while I blame him for not realizing himself he ought to leave out of what was a destructive relationship for him as well, I do not blame him for my decision not to leave all those years. He was as stuck, and as incapable of leaving the relationship as I was. He was as ruled by his doubts, fears, and low self-esteem as I was. He was as trapped -and maybe even more so, considering that I'm the one who left- in that relationship as I was, despite the fact that it was equally damaging for both of us in very different ways.

Either ways, it was a relationship of two weak people mutually feeding of each other worst sides, which lead to physically and mentally abusive situations, but doesn't equate to internal enslavement, as it was the relationship, not him as a person, that I was dependent on. And that dependency was not one created by him, but by myself.

Just because I was unwilling to leave doesn't mean I was unable to. And even IF I was indeed unable to leave, that doesn't necessarily mean that inability was something created by him.

I'm sorry, I know the way you'll probably feel about this, and the need you have to blame him for the whole thing, because he was the one initiating physical violence, but I for one refuse to blame him for *my* mistakes, and *my* refusal to take responsibility for myself, just because he happened to express his own dysfunction and fears in the form of physical violence. That doesn't mean I excuse what he did. It just means that I don't use his behavior as a scapegoat for all my own failings during that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

What I find has the *potential* for abuse is this:

The shock collar. They are not safe of animals, definitely not for humans. Though I assume she consented to wearing the shock collar, what I question is her ability to form actual consent (more about that later).

The slapping as a punishment. I'm not a big fan of punishment dynamics though I'm well aware not all are signs of abuse. I do think that type of dynamic lends itself more easily to abuse. Also, a slap for punishment leads me to believe it was done in anger, another hot button.

She has an issue that her masterhusband does not want to address. This is a sign of emotional sadism and abuse.



All of those things currently actively happen, or have happened, in my current relationship. Including the occurrence of the issue he refused to address outside of our dynamic.

Of course, the issue has now long been addressed, and the reason he initially refused is because he needed to do some internal rework of himself, and shift his self-image and expectations around, as well as face some internal demons from a past relationship he as carrying around, before he even could address the issue. But then again, I don't expect him to be a divinely flawless being who never fucks up merely because he bosses me around and beats me some times.

Am I being abused?
Is there evidence that I've lost my ability to consent -that you seem convinced I lost in the past- again?
Is the fact that I'm saying I'm not abused irrelevant, or does it somehow get more credibility because I'm able to express myself in a more rational manner than the OP?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

In truth we have no evidence that her means of trying to communicate with her husband have not all followed protocol.



That's not true, we have clear evidence of the fact that she didn't follow protocol.
She said 'recently, the punishment for asking about a change has changed' which means that the protocol is 'do not ask me about this', protocol she implied she has repeatedly broken.

I again maintain that considering that she agreed to a M/s dynamic in which her husband has the prerogative to deny her opportunity to speak or ask questions about a certain subject, she cannot, within the dynamic, speak or ask question about said subject without breaking protocol and provoking punishment.

If she wants to speak on this topic anyways, she needs to do so outside of the dynamic, as it is impossible for her to speak on it within the dynamic without breaking protocol. She cannot speak on this while following protocol, as doings so violates his direct order to not bring it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

In my mind a person cannot form consent if they are so internally enslaved they consent to anything and everything.



Agreed.

However, is somebody goes into a relationship with the expressed purpose of reaching a state in which they'll consent to anything and everything, and they reach that goal, do you feel that their priorly given consent to the relationship, and to the inability to withdraw consent stands? And if not, why not?



UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 7:41:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

if I actually wanted to talk to him, instead of get beaten, I would say something that would guarantee to me that we'd talk (like time-out) instead of say something that would make him assume I was acting like a slave looking for a beating.


She's not. You are able to articulate your needs and advocate for yourself far better and more clearly than she is.

I get no sense that she knows about asking for time outs, or that she got her rocks off from the slappings and whippings.


It's convenient that she is deemed to dumb and poorly educated to be capable to speak on her own happiness, considering that your main issue is that you don't understand the happiness she claims to have.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 7:57:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
But I've also heard the argument be made that what you do with a slave can't possible be BDSM, because BDSM by definition is an activity between consenting adults, and somebody who is a consenting adult is by the very definition of the concept of a slave -to some Goreans- not a slave. So according to that crowd, there really isn't a way it's possible for you to engage in BDSM with a slave, because there is no way for a slave to consent to engage in BDSM.



quote:

ORIGINAL: pg4g

The part I quoted above was specifically talking about people actually thinking their slave was NOT a consenting adult because they have no rights to be, nor do they have any rights to consent. Anyone who actually in reality thinks that, rather than in some part of their fantasy, is delusional and lost in that fantasy.



The bolded part is not correct. And not at all what I said.

I said that certain Goreans do not believe that you can engage in BDSM with a slave, because a slave is not capable of consent. That doesn't mean that they feel a slave has no rights to be a consenting adult, or no rights to consent, in fact it's got nothing to do with rights.

-Preface, for the next portion of my argument, I am specifically talking about mentally capable adults, and specifically NOT talking about mentally handicapped people who lack the capacity to be able to consent indefinitely. I want to make this clear now, so that I can condense my writing and don't need to redundantly keep putting in that specification in every single instance.-

To them, IF a person is capable of consent, they are not a slave. Period. Calling them a slave doesn't change that. They would consider calling somebody capable of consent a slave to be role play or a fantasy.
To them, IF a person is not capable of consent, they are a slave. Calling them free doesn't change that. They would consider calling somebody incapable of consent 'free' to be role play or a fantasy.

As such, it's not that they deny a slave's 'right' to be or become a consenting adult, but instead that, as long as somebody IS not a consenting adult, they are considered a slave, and therefore considered unable to engage in BDSM. The moment in which they would become capable of giving or withdrawing consent, they would by definition no longer be a slave, and therefore now able to engage in BDSM. The change between slavehood and freedom would be instantaneously, and only dependent on whether or not they were capable of consenting. There would be no assessment that somebody who was previously called a slave, or is currently called a slave, has no 'right' to be a consenting adult, as doing that would fly in face of the reality of the fact that they ARE a consenting adult.

It's a classification system. If you're capable of consent, you're not a slave, and therefore able to engage in activities requiring consent. If you are incapable of consent, you are a slave, and therefore not able to engage in activities requiring consent. BDSM is an activity requiring consent, therefore people who are slaves are not able (not have no right to) engage in BDSM.

There is no 'denying of rights' at all involved with this, as it is more focussed on acknowledging a person's inner state and capabilities, rather than forcefully denying a person capable of consent the right to exercise that capability.

For example, they would consider the type of person Chatte speaks of -who is in a physically abusive relationships that they are internally enslaved to- to be a slave, regardless of whether or not either party in the relationship actually calls the person a slave. They would consider such a person unable to engage in BDSM, because as an internally enslaved person, they lack the ability to refuse consent, and therefore lack the ability to engage in BDSM.
If such a couple would engage in kinky activities anyways, they would view this as virtual the same as when somebody engages in kinky activities with a dog: it's something that the internally enslaved person is subjected to rather than engaging in, as they do not have the capacity to choose to not to engage in the kinky activity.



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 8:31:22 AM)

quote:

As such, I think that one ought to be sure relatively before levying such a heavy accusation -which can literally destroy lives- which I don't think anybody on this thread even remotely can be, based on the available evidence.
Yet only a few people proceeded with caution, asking questions, and pointing out facts. The majority merely jumped to making hair trigger judgment calls framed as if one could be sure to be dealing with factual statements.


We're on an online message board, not calling the police on this couple in real time. Let's try to tone down the rhetoric, shall we?

quote:

Did? How exactly has the level of my ignorance changed between then and now, considering that my positions has remained the same?


Yes, I did say 'did.' I did not realize you were a victim of domestic abuse. That changes my stance completely. I don't know how long ago that relationship was, but from my own experience it can easily take years to work through all the issues revolving around that. Many of those issues have to do with denial.

quote:

Actually, it was you who asserted that it's quite clear that I've never been internally enslaved. I was rolling with your definitions on the agreement that I wasn't, considering that to my own definitions of 'internal enslavement' I have indeed never been internally enslaved. I've gotten close in one relationships, which wasn't the abusive one btw, but -according to my definitions- the process was never completed.


In my opinion you were internally enslaved, you just don't realize it. That's not uncommon in the least. Your protestations make it clear to me that

In post #162 you said this:

quote:

My position is that once she has given consent to not have any consent, that consent stands until she withdraws it. If she ends up in a situation where she cannot withdraw said consent, and claims she doesn't want to, we -as outsiders- don't have the right to decide for her 'oh she's not capable of withdrawing consent now, and we think her husband is being abusive, so we'll remove her from him for her own sake'.


Which again leads back to a question we are both toying with (though in very different ways), at one point is internal enslavement so manipulative and abusive that the victim can no longer be considered capable of giving consent?

You said this:

Internally enslaved, no. Abused, yes.

quote:

I've been in a non-BDSM physically abusive relationship for 5 years. I got beaten up to the point of needing hospitalization several times, with the neighbors regularly calling the cops, and just about everybody (co-workers, friends, family) trying to convince me to seek help, and have him prosecuted. I never pressed charges, because I believed it was my own fault. I believed that if I was just better, and didn't provoke him so much, he wouldn't do it, and he shouldn't' be punished over my mistakes and provocations.
I didn't leave for many years, because I believe that I wasn't going to be able to find another guy who would take me. That I was too fat for any guy to every want me (5'11" at 130lbs, or a BMI of 18.1), because he kept pressing me to loose weight. I believed I was too ugly to be desired by men, because he never was satisfied with anything I wore, any way I had my hair, any way I did my make-up.

The thing is... it didn't stop, and I didn't leave until I did. I made that choice, despite having been unable to make it all those years prior. There wasn't anybody that could make me leave. My dad pulled me out of there by force a couple of times, and I just ended up going back. He tried to make the cops intervening, but I refused to press charges, so they couldn't do anything.



Those words really resonated with me. The situation I was in was not nearly so physically abusive, it was extremely emotionally abusive and if you've experienced then you know how a smart, attractive, assertive female can be turned into someone who believes you are so worthless that no other man would be interested. I was made to feel that way as well.

Once you're at that point, I don't think you're incapable of consent, b/c let's face it you're not seeing reality very well.

quote:

The thing is, I was never enslaved to my abusive ex. It wasn't him controlling me. It was my fears, low self-esteem, and self-doubts -that I all came into the relationship with- which controlled me. He didn't control those things either, neither actively or accidentally. What he did was interact with them.

As such, while I blame him for what he did, and while I blame him for not realizing himself he ought to leave out of what was a destructive relationship for him as well, I do not blame him for my decision not to leave all those years. He was as stuck, and as incapable of leaving the relationship as I was. He was as ruled by his doubts, fears, and low self-esteem as I was. He was as trapped -and maybe even more so, considering that I'm the one who left- in that relationship as I was, despite the fact that it was equally damaging for both of us in very different ways.


There is no question that domestic abuse is a 2 way street. If there is an abuser there is also a victim. These two mentalities (victim and abuse) quite naturally attract each other. I agree that a victim will never stop being a victim until they own their own part in what happened, which appears to be where you're at.

quote:

Am I being abused?
Is there evidence that I've lost my ability to consent -that you seem convinced I lost in the past- again?
Is the fact that I'm saying I'm not abused irrelevant, or does it somehow get more credibility because I'm able to express myself in a more rational manner than the OP?


Just like with the OP, I think you're relationship has the *potential* for abuse, and even more so since you have been abused in the past. *You* know if you've really worked through all that, I can only guess. My guess is that you're in the process.

As far as internal enslavement goes, yes I do think we are confusing concepts. In my mind there are levels of internal enslavement, as well as positive and negative means of being enslaved. In my current relationship I have a degree of internal enslavement, as I can't imagine life w/o my husband. Many vanilla marriages have that. But it's in a very positive way. I'm not here b/c I've been beaten down to the point that I think no other man would take me.

You said this:

quote:

I was never enslaved to my abusive ex. It wasn't him controlling me. It was my fears, low self-esteem, and self-doubts -that I all came into the relationship with- which controlled me. He didn't control those things either, neither actively or accidentally. What he did was interact with them.


Although your abuse stemmed from your own insecurities (and his as well), that he could turn you into a woman 'no other man would take' (your words) that is negative internal enslavement to me.

I'm happy to take your word the wife broke protocol, you know far more about a Gorean dynamic than I.

quote:

However, is somebody goes into a relationship with the expressed purpose of reaching a state in which they'll consent to anything and everything, and they reach that goal, do you feel that their priorly given consent to the relationship, and to the inability to withdraw consent stands? And if not, why not?


That's a great question. My opinion is that *anyone* who enters into a relation with the express purpose of reaching a state where they'll agree to anything and everything is looking to be the victim. Anyone who would accept them is looking to be the abuser. I do think it's possible for a relationship to evolve over a long period of time (years) into something similar to this, and I wouldn't see abuse there. I think some couples on this board have achieved that.

Unfortunately, far too often things go the other way.




UllrsIshtar -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 8:58:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt
I don't know how long ago that relationship was, but from my own experience it can easily take years to work through all the issues revolving around that.



It ended 7 years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Those words really resonated with me. The situation I was in was not nearly so physically abusive, it was extremely emotionally abusive and if you've experienced then you know how a smart, attractive, assertive female can be turned into someone who believes you are so worthless that no other man would be interested. I was made to feel that way as well.



I wasn't 'turned into' anything by him. I entered the relationship with all those fears and self-doubts, mostly created by nearly a decade of heavy bullying as a child. While he unintentionally fed my insecurities, he neither caused, nor controlled them. In fact, one of his own greatest fears that he'd loose me to suicide. He financially supported me through 6 months of full-time therapy in an attempt to help me deal with my own feelings of inadequate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt


There is no question that domestic abuse is a 2 way street. If there is an abuser there is also a victim. These two mentalities (victim and abuse) quite naturally attract each other. I agree that a victim will never stop being a victim until they own their own part in what happened, which appears to be where you're at.



I don't agree, nor did either of my therapists at the time, that this is the case. There was no duality between victim and abuser in our relationship, because it wasn't so cut and dry as to who was the victim and who was the abuser.
As I said, I wasn't enslaved by him, he wasn't the one controlling me. I came in the relationship with the things that controlled me, and he had his own issues.

What we had was two people explosively interacting with each other's worst sides. I drove him nuts, and completely up the walls with anguish until he reached the point where the only thing he could manage to do, in a feeling of selfdefense was to shut me up by taking to physical violence. His physical violence provoked more verbal assault from me. We were two people stuck feeding of each other's worst qualities.

In essence, I think there is a stronger argument to be made for the fact that he was internally enslaved to me, rather than I to him. I was the one able to leave eventually, and I was the one to get over the relationship in a reasonable timeframe (a few years). He has neither processed the ending of it fully, nor would he have been capable of leaving me, nor was he able to reject me if I insisted on something as well as I was able to reject it when he insisted on something. He gave into me far more often than I every did to him.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you're just going to see my disagreement with your assessment that I was internally enslaved as proof of the fact that I must have been, and am currently in denial. But I want to restate that I have two mental health professionals who have seen me on a daily basis for months who would disagree with your assessment on that. As far as they are concerned, I currently have a very accurate grasp about the relationship, the dynamic, the causations for us both to get trapped in that situation, as well as the underlaying patterns of how the roles between abuser/victim shifted around and blurred depending on the context of our fights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Although your abuse stemmed from your own insecurities (and his as well), that he could turn you into a woman 'no other man would take' (your words) that is negative internal enslavement to me.



As said above, he didn't turn me into that woman. What he did was meet a frightened little girl (I was 17 when we met) tethering on the brink of self-destruction, fell and love, and then became so consumed by that love that he lost the ability to see that we weren't good for each other. He beat me out of panicked insecurity, due to being raised by a single alcoholic and abusive father giving him a stunted upbringing in which the only way he learned to express emotions off acute distress was by physical violence against objects or people.

Again, while that doesn't excuse what he did, or the fact that he failed to seek help, or the fact that he failed to see that we were bad for each other, it does mean that he's not the actor who internally enslavement me to be turned into a victim.

In his own way, which was very different from mine, he was as much a victim of that relationship as I was.






ChatteParfaitt -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 9:34:15 AM)

I have to learn to be more careful about every single word I use with you.

No, HE didn't turn you into that, the relationship did. You did it together, that I will most definitely agree.

As much as I love to bad mouth my ex husband, he was still *MY* choice of a husband.

As far as you being internally enslaved by him, or vice versa, wow, it's so close to being the same damn thing. In this type of relationship I don't think it's all that uncommon for who's the victim and who's the abuser, who's the enslaved and who's the enslaver to be in a constant state of flux.

Yes, my ex husband abused me; the truth is I abused him right back.

These types of relationships are so deeply symbiotic, and people become so heavy dependent on one another it becomes almost an addiction. Is there a difference between internal enslavement and dependence? Sure, but I see those differences as being many shades of gray as opposed to the firm white and black you see.

I understand a huge issue you have is that I'm saying 'he did it to you' and you see it as something you did to yourself. Actually, you did it together. My situation was a bit different since I was mostly fighting back. I didn't want to destroy him, in the end I just wanted to leave him.

He did want to destroy me for leaving, and he gave it a good try.

Does that mean I assign more blame to him? On an intellect level I say how can I? Again, I picked him. No one forced me to marry him. On an emotional level it's hard not to when a person goes out of their way to destroy you.

quote:


In essence, I thing there would be a stronger argument to be made for the fact that he was internally enslaved to me, than I to him, as I was both the one able to leave, as the one to get over the relationship in a reasonable timeframe (a few years). He has neither processed the ending of it fully, nor would he have been capable of leaving me,


When things get to the point of 'two people stuck feeding of each other's worst qualities' isn't it a mutual enslavement, dependence, addiction, please pick the word you feel best suits?

quote:

But I want to restate that I have two mental health professionals who have seen me on a daily basis for months who would disagree with your assessment on that. As far as they are concerned, I currently have a very accurate grasp about the relationship, the dynamic, the causations for us both to get trapped in that situation, as well as the underlaying patterns of how the roles between abuser/victim shifted around and blurred depending on the context of our fights.


Arguing with your therapists would be counterproductive. I'm glad you have them and they've helped to get you where you are.



kalikshama -> RE: How often does a Master usually put his slave into slave positions. What's so interesting about this (3/6/2014 9:52:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

if I actually wanted to talk to him, instead of get beaten, I would say something that would guarantee to me that we'd talk (like time-out) instead of say something that would make him assume I was acting like a slave looking for a beating.


She's not. You are able to articulate your needs and advocate for yourself far better and more clearly than she is.

I get no sense that she knows about asking for time outs, or that she got her rocks off from the slappings and whippings.


It's convenient that she is deemed to dumb and poorly educated to be capable to speak on her own happiness, considering that your main issue is that you don't understand the happiness she claims to have.


We are both projecting ourselves on her, and are probably both wrong.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125