RE: Forced!

RE: Forced! (Full Version)

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

Message

amayos -> RE: Forced! (9/4/2006 9:50:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO But, there is one thing I was thinking...addiction to a person, that is slightly different. A drug can't talk to you and get inside your head. A drug or booze, it might be argued, can't affect your existence is such myriad ways. A drug doesn't volunteer to put itself inside your mind or self - you have to seek it out, every single time you invite it in. If you're living with someone, though, or they've become a part of your life in a major way, they are there in your life, alongside you - affecting your life in all sorts of ways that can influence, probably sometimes almost imperceptibly (but at the same time very definitely), which way the wind blows, so to speak, in terms of you needing them more and more - every day. Or not. Susan, it has been a while since I've looked over this thread in its entirety. I just came across this comment, and I must say it is spot on. I was impressed to see the addiction parallel extended beyond the singularity of submissive / slave so well.

SusanofO -> RE: Forced! (9/4/2006 10:01:00 PM)
amayos: Why thank you, Sir! This has been an interesting thread, I think. I always enjoy your posts. marie: I can't remember when Patty Hearst was kidnapped, but I think it was 1979. I don't think she should have been convicted - there was nothing consensual about her being kidnapped, or brainwashed into being a bank robber for the people who held her (for ransom, if I recall correctly, but there wasn't much focus on the ransom factor). There were plenty of people who saw her as guilty for holding up the bank(s), though (don't remember where, I think it was in L.A.). She did later marry a bodyguard and now has (I think) three kids (not to focus on "celebrity" trivia, hehe). - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: Forced! (9/4/2006 11:08:37 PM)
ExSteel: Thank you for the site reference in your post re: Patty Hearst. I just now read it. The "court of public opinion" was, I think, very unkind to her, during and immediatley after that bank robbery of hers, in the name of the SLA (which was just a fly-by-night organization anyway, whose real only goal, I think, was holding her for ramsom). Then again, (more "celebrity" trivia - yay!) - I sort of wish they'd free some of those gals that did the Sharon Tate murders in Charles Manson's name too (but not Charlie himself - mostly because he was the ringleader, and is still psychotic. And I do think he is psychotic. I think he's delusional still, and his delusions really do tend to have "Helter Skelter" effects, if past history is any judge - but that he had enough realistic brain circuitry intact back then, to be able to plot what he had other people do, and what he did). It's been over 30 years since that happened (1969) - but those gals who helped him carry out his insane plot (a.k.a. "The Family") are of course different individuals, and the parole officers know more than I do about any subsequent "rehabilitation" of any of them. So, it looks like that even if Charles Manson is psychotic, and cannot be their leader in everyday life anymore - the prison system is doing it for them, if they wish to simply be submissive to just any "concrete" higher power. One of those gals, though, I've read, is almost a different person (in a good way) than when all that stuff happened (she was only 19 when she helped Charles Manson) - Leslie VanHouten. But her parole has been repeatedly denied (she is not psychotic). Of course "Squeaky" Fromme, another of Manson's "Family", will probably never be released, as she tried to murder President Gerald Ford, killing two other people instead, in the process, as a show of "allegiance" to "Charlie"- so she is never going to get out, I'd guess. It has been over 30 years since the Sharon Tate murders happened. I doubt those gals will ever be released, though - there's not a lot of public sympathy for any of them. Freeing them would probably be considered "politically incorrect". I think it might take a really gutsy judge, if they're eligible at all, to be let out of prison. Of course, responsible bdsm Masters never ask people to either committ murder, or kill themselves (my opinion, and I can safely say I think I am not alone in thinking it). I guess it is one more example, though, of how far some can get inside some other people's heads. - Susan

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 12:09:07 AM)
Charles Manson could definitely get inside people's heads alright. I, too, read Helter Skelter and studied the control he had over that group. One girl, the group had just met, balked at the idea of joining them, but Charlie whispered something in her ear and she immediately fell under his power. WTF? They were intelligent people. Remember Tex, the athlete who had made straight A's in school? Manson was a jail house game player who became a Rasputin type character.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 1:15:34 AM)
I read that too, a long time ago. It was absolutely mesmorizing.

SusanofO -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 1:20:09 AM)
I think it goes back to those girls being emotionally vulnerable, and Manson was willing to use that for personal gain that included murder. Of course, Manson was psychotic, so he was vulnerable, too, the way I see things. But, one can't just go around randomly killing people (or robbinhg banks, etc), or expecting others to do it for you, as most people know (except unmentionables, possibly). Society as a whole, has to draw the line somewhere, if it is going to claim to be civilized, or there won't be any of us left, eventually. This has been an interesting thread. I think it can be tied into how important it is for a Master/Mistress or Dominant/Domme to be able to assess the vulnerabilty and potential damaging results (as well as potential positive ones) to a submissive or a slave, in reference to the requests and-or demands he/she makes of them, throughout a relationship, and for the submissive (or slave), as well as the Master, to be able to assess those things, at the beginning of one. Of course, no sane or responsible bdsm Master makes such a demand as Manson. - Susan

ownedgirlie -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 1:23:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I think it can be tied into how important it is for a Master/Mistress or Dominant/Domme to be able to assess the vulnerabilty and potential damaging results (as well as positive ones) to a submissive or a slave, in reference to the requests and-or demands he/she makes of a submissive or a slave, throughout a relationship, and for the submissive (or slave), as well as the Master, to be able to asseess it, at the beginning of one. - Susan This is why it is so important to choose wisely who you wish to give yourself to. How come all these threads seem to be evolving into a theme of the Master wanting the slave to murder? This is like the third or fourth thread like this.

SusanofO -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 1:26:45 AM)
owned girlie: Personally, I simply see that as the "ultimate" request or demand anyone could make of someone else, and view the question as a philosophical and intellectual exercise. This thread title is: "Forced!", so I figured the thought was fair game. I've been reading threads about the "No Limits!" area. There are at least three of them on the boards right now, you're right. Lotsa people are posting about it. But - marie had a good point, I thought, in another thread when she mentioned that a husband would say he'd risk his life to save his wife or chilldren, and nobody would think that was strange, they'd consider it heroic. And on the Titanic,* when the ship was going down, the call to lifeboats was: "Women and children first". So, traditional chivalry was not "dead". Of course, if you were a lowly servant on the Titanic, you were in thrid-class quarters, and just drowned to death. I think the questionn of what can or cannot be be "Forced!" may boil down to operating inside of (or outside of) what is considered societally normal - and what people are conditioned to believe is fine to do (no matter what society, or sub-set of it, you're speaking of. Even if it's just a society of two people - the ultimate human micro-society). It's an interesting question, I think. [:)] - Susan

ownedgirlie -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 1:35:33 AM)
I would think it an extreme rarity that a Master would request murder, if it occurred at all. It's weird to me why that seems to be a reasonable "limit" being expressed. As I said in a previous thread a long time ago...if Master suddenly wanted me to kill someone at random, or mutilate small puppies, or whatever other "ultimate" anyone wants to toss out there, then it would be safe to say he has gone over the edge and is not the Master I originally begged ownership from. The over the top hypotheticalness (is that a word) is such a stretch, it doesn't even apply. If the questions of values and morals and ethics and principles weren't discussed before ownership occured, then a huge step was missed in the process.

SusanofO -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 1:41:51 AM)
owned girlie: Well, I know you wouldn't do it. Neither would I. But some people may think that's what "No Limits" means - if it means that for them, I think they are either a sociopath (or their Master is) or haven't thought it through. Or - most likely - we have "different definitions" of just what "No Limits!" means. Yes, I believe also a slave has their Master's limits. Which is why, as has so often been said, it is so important to consider if you're considering the right Master for you, and what his/her requests or demands, might entail (by asking that question, and others, perhaps). I imagine this is a gradual, get-to-know-you process, to entail trust to deepen in to an almost bottomless well, myself. - Susan

Imaginemeandyou -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 1:56:54 AM)
I do not think the alcohol/drug addiction analogy you make is accurate; it is interesting, but it shows a lack of understanding (don't take that as a slight,- most people don't understand it) of the disease. Take alcoholism, for instance. It is a two-pronged disease: it is an obseesion of the mind coupled with an allergy of the body. That is the generally held medical opinion also. It is NOT just a psychological addiction. The obsession prong of the disease creates the illusion for an alcoholic that he can have a drink and go home to his family. The allergy part kicks in when the body receives the alcohol. At this point the alcoholic has no control over how much or for how long he will drink. The "real alcoholic" as AA members refer to themselves, lacks power of choice, and more importantly power of reason. The good news is that an alcoholic can recover totally from the mental obsession. The physical allergy will always be with them, hence they will never be "cured", but once the obsession is removed (by means too lengthy to get into here, but I will be happy to e-mail with anyone interested), the allergy becomes a moot point because the recovered alcoholic will not have to have that first drink. Therefore, I believe that a sub/slave has a greater choice before she gets into the relationship, because although there might be an obsession, the physical allergy is not present. I have no experience in being a s/s so I can't speak to their need once in a M/s relationship.

SusanofO -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 2:00:27 AM)
Imaginemeandyou: I've been an AA member for over 25 years. I consider myself fairly familiar with what having the "disease" means - for those who do buy the disease concept as a part of their "remedy". I agree it is both a psychologial and a physical addiction. Thanks for the thoughts. How is this different from addiction to a person? There is an interesting question (to me). I think, a person has a greater chance to have more pervasive influence over a person's thought processes, and consequently their actions, than a drug. But - it's a question, I suppose, of philosophy and opinion. - Susan

ownedgirlie -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 2:03:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO owned girlie: Well, I know you wouldn't do it. Neither would I. But some people may think that's what "No Limits" means - if it means that for them, I just take for granted they are either a sociopath (or their Master is) or haven't thought it through. Or - most likely - we have "different definitions" of just what "No Limits!" means. Yes, I believe also a slave has their Master's limits. Which is why, as has so often been said, it is so important to consider if you're considering the right Master for you, and what his/her requests or demands, might entail (by asking that question, and others, perhaps). I imagine this is a gradual, get-to-know-you process, to entail trust to deepen in to an almost bottomless well, myself. - Susan It's not a question of what I would or wouldn't do. It's a question of carefully choosing who you submit to. That is the lesson that should be told to newcomers, as opposed to nit picking what limits may or may not be, and who may or may not have them. As for deciding who is a sociopath or not, I take nothing for granted about others based on little knowledge about them. Again, in my case I don't really care what anyone wants to call it. He commands, I obey, end of story.

SusanofO -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 2:10:55 AM)
ownedgirlie: Okay, I've always understood that about you (for months now). I am not not taking anything for granted about anyone. I also rarely attempt to tell anyone else what to do, realizing it's a1) personal choice and 2) ultimately futile. I am stating my personal limit includes murder, and I consider anyone who would murder to satisfy a whim as a sociopath, or insane (or both) and I most likely always will - as I thought you did by stating you'd determine your Master had gone off the deep-end - if he ever made such a request. I think the importance (for me) of choosing who to submit to has been covered in some of my posts immediately above. Some people do not consider this important, perhaps, but I don't want to nitpick. End of story? Yes! [:)] HUGs! Unless you want to discuss what constitutes "being forced"- I think that is an interesting question. - Susan

ownedgirlie -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 2:25:35 AM)
Susan: Just to clarify, if he were to suddenly drastically change any part of his ethics, morals and principles without any hint of it coming, I would wonder if he went off the deep end. It was a matter of speech. If he changed from night to day in a heartbeat, I would wonder what happened. Being forced, in my opinion, is just that - forced. I surrendered myself to Master and as such I consented to willingly do whatever he wants of me. Nothing about it is forced. There are things I might not want to do, or things I might not like to do, but that has no bearing on my willingness to do them. ~hugs back [:)] ~

SusanofO -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 2:31:00 AM)
ownedgirlie: Me too. That's what I believe (in theory anyway. I hope to practice that. I don't have a Master right now, but will someday, when the time is right). Hugs back at ya! HUG- fest (HUGs - festival. Hugfest, hug-fest! Free Hugs - Everybody come on down to the hoe down...we're a havin' a Hug-fest! [:)][:D] -Susan

SusanofO -> RE: Forced! (9/5/2006 3:58:13 AM)
Maybe off-topic (depending on what, exactly, anybody thinks the topic actually is): I do believe there are probably many Masters who focus on requiring a submissive or a slave to do good and positive things, both for them and maybe for larger society (Volunteer work? Writing? Charitable donations?) - the list could go on forever, probably of the good things that could come of a D/s or M/s relationship. But - I am wondering: About those endorphins and feel-good bodily chemicals that can kick in during bdsm activity - and also sometimes when someone falls "in love" with someone else (at least so one theory goes anyway) that influence those happy, warm-fuzzy feelings that someone gets from being around someone else they are attracted to in a deep way. And - how did some (or all) become attracted, in-person, to said person?- Pheromones come to mind, for some reason. I realize "other things" are also probably at work here...But - if those endorphins really get you going and-or ya just can't seem to get enough of them - do you ever just "lose" your ability to "reason"? And what about "Dom space?" or "subspace?" - is there an ability to reason lessened within those zones? Hmmm. How is addiction to a person not the same as addiction to a drug? I do wonder. Not that I'm objecting. Or saying it is. I'd argued it's not exactly the same. People need people - and everybody's gotta have somebody. No man or woman is an island, etc. Just wondering what others think. sidenote: If the topic turns to it - a discussion about the term "Co-dependency" if we get to how "bad" that can be....we can talk about it - but let's face it - some good* things can come of it, depending on how one defines those terms, and their realm of operation, can they not?...Anyway, (I'll stop w/the controlling tendency (hehe) - talk about what ever you want). But - If someone is an "addictive personality" (or not) - can they really become addicted to another person? Is this bad? good? Hmmm. *If so -is there a point at which they lose capacity for "good" judgment (if any)? I do think this question is relevant to the OP's original post. I still think (as I said on page 5) that a person has a better chance* than any drug to have a more pervasive influence on another than what is traditionally viewed as a "physical substance" like cocaine or booze or pot, for example - partly because relationships in general are sanctioned pervasively in any society, (ever hear of a hermit society? I haven't). This may be a partial generalization, but it mostly holds true, I think. I wonder how many clandestine-ordered monks are addicted to substances? I go on forever with this train of thought, I suppose - but I'll stop now. Because I know my possible internet addiction is not good for me (then again - who's to say, really)? [;)] [:)] [:D] - Susan

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02