amayos
Posts: 1553
Joined: 6/2/2004 From: New England Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Homestead It's still dependent entirely on the will of the slave to comply before and after. Or one can find onself having a nice little nonconsensual 'scene' in prison. Quite true, Homestead, if one takes into account the motive and part of both sides and includes the assumed social surroundings, which are usually under the influence of Western law and culture. But the question posed from Lotus was something I took as purposefully philosophical and more from the submissive's perspective, in relation to choice and desire and force contrasted against each other. So with this in mind, and for the sake of a *philisophical* discussion, my outline further extends into suspending all the easy smack-downs that silence getting to the heart of this human question: constitutions of nearby law, safety words, usefulness of screaming out or otherwise big red panic buttons. What if all the usual trappings and familiar locations are taken away, and there is no safety net, whatsoever? How many would enter into such an arrangement, then, out of love or devotion? Certainly not many, indeed, even after "trust" was established under the ideal tenets of a trademark BDSM relationship®. I'm aware readers may scoff at the lack of plausibility in the above motif, or may even be alarmed by its use, yet some who are already upon their knees in worship and servitude to another, would, by virtue of their loyalty and the commitment they've undertaken, go naked into that unknown, where they will be helpless and unheard until their captors free them. But even after this, I personally come around to the same conclusion as before: there are two possible and equally valid answers to the question, depending upon how you tilt the diamond.
|