RE: Consensual slavery? Or not?

RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (Full Version)

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

Message

Archer -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 11:48:27 PM)
I tend to fall into the camp that says all slaves have limits, just as any other peice of propery has limits. A 1965 Mustang has a top end limit when stock of X miles an hour and simply will not exceed that without physical failure of some part. Same concept applies to humans there are things they can do things they cannot do and things that lie on that boarder line between there. If you try to pass a slave's limits they will break and then you as the owner have the ethical responsibilty to clean up and pay for the mess, same way you have the responsibility to clean up and pay for the mess created if you blow the engine and wreck that 1965 Mustang. Even non consentual slaves in history had limits, some ran away and risked death, some had mental breakdowns and were killed, others committed suicide by other means. With consensual slavery you have the problem of if they run away? there is no legal right to catch and hold them. In fact catching and holding them falls into the catagory of Kidnapping. Is there a bit of perception = reality and suspenssion of disbelief that is central to the idea? Certainly there is.

BitaTruble -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 12:38:02 AM)
"All slaves have limits." What horror, in all the course of human history has not been done by someone, somewhere at some time? I have to wonder at a mind which is so evil that it could come up with something that no one would be willing to do it for any reason. Murder, rape, dismemberment, serial killings, mass murder, genocide, executions, cannibalism, child killers ... all done for greed, jealousy, faith, insanity, lust, attention etc ... and yet, a slave is above such actions? What makes us so special that we will 'not' do things the rest of humanity has been doing since the dawn of time? There is always an assumption made that those who practice BDSM are 'sane'. I would question such an assumption. I'd say that the % of sane people in BDSM is fairly equivalent to the rest of the world. I mean how often has it been written that 'we' are just like everyone else? Perhaps, if folks would change the phrase "All slaves have limits" to "All sane slaves have limits" it would be easier to swallow. Then we can debate the definition of sane. ::laughs:: As it stands though, I can't agree with it. Humanity has proven itself capable of incredible good.. and horrific evil, over and over and over again. Slaves are no exception nor are they immune to the vagaries of humanity. Now, I state quite clearly in my profile, that I'm not sure of my sanity, so how can anyone else be sure of it? I think ya'll should count your blessings that Himself doesn't have such evil within him so that he would command me to commit atrocities upon your person.. ::giggles:: It's one of the reasons I'm with him. Makes ya wonder, don't it? ::chuckles:: Just how much is TIC and how much is utter truth? "All slaves have limits." May I have a copy of the limits list, please? I love to read a good fantasy and besides, with that list, maybe I can help turn Himself to the dark and evil side. [8D] Celeste

Hercuckslave -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 12:52:07 AM)
rover, get over yourself. there are many couple (Mistress and myself included) who have, and continue to have, long term, healthy permanently consensual M/s relationships. Mistress and I are part of a thriving local D/s community that has many such couples. And it seems that there are a few couples on this thread that share the same lifestyle and joy. Don't presume to know us, how we live, how we feel, or the state of our mental health. My mental health is sound and balanced, and it was sound and balanced when I consciously decided to give over all limits to my Mistress. I did not take that decision lightly, and believe me, I had previously thought that I would never meet someone I felt so strongly about, or trusted so completely to enter into such a relationship with. Sounds to me like you have some small chip on your shoulder, OR, wish you had this type of relationship and are letting your jealously slip out. LordandMaster and Fitznicely....kudos to you, your reasoning, and your M/s lifestyles. M's m

daddysprop247 -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 5:08:21 AM)
if one has limits (and not referring to actual physical limitations, as everyone and everything has, but things that one will make the choice NOT to do), then one is not a slave, imo. from my understanding of the term, a slave is property, without rights of any kind, including the right to limits. however i realize that many in the lifestyle use the term much more loosely, and for some even it is nothing more than a petname or something that gets them hot and bothered to roleplay. however there are a few of us weirdos out there who do actually live a D/s M/s lifestyle. and what separates D/s slavery from traditional slavery imo is the initial consent. as for...scening...play...etc...those things are a part of bdsm, which is not a part or not a significant part of every M/s relationship.

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 5:33:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fitznicely As far as I can see, it's a debate that you're trying to have for your own purposes. I commented on this thread primarily because I believe I have a good "consensual non-consensual" relationship with my girl and though that maybe my point of view would be welcomed in the discussion. I find your statements alarmist, condescending and full of false supposition. I'm sure that wasn't your intent. Unfortunately, you have compounded your original mistake by continuing to assume that none of us know what we're doing and have set out to dliberately break our slaves to the point of legal involvement and the risk of personal injury. This is purely ludicrous. I view my girl as a treasured possession. Why on earth would I break her to that extent? ____________________________________________________ I take it from that ridiculous postuing that you prefer the gloves-off flamefest style of argument. I'm not interested in any kind of disagreement. I've answered you in a reasonable manner given the ludicrous and uninformed assumptions you've made about my skill as a Master. You have your own agenda? Fine, go play with the other toothless cyberbullies. Several observations you might care to consider: 1. You have commented upon my posts and replied to me directly several times now. My contributions to this thread, and to the discussion, are (contrary to your statements) neither irrelevant nor meaningless (unless you are drawn to write copious quantities to and about irrelevant and meaningless things). 2. You consistently label me, and my posts, as "alarmist", "condescending", "irrelevant", "ludicrous", "ridiculous posturing", etc. Am I to understand that you don't see how I might construe your motivation to be one of trading personal insults? I'm not complaining, mind you, since I'm as capable as anyone at being insulting. Just let me know your intentions I'll be happy to either oblige you, but don't insult our collective intelligence (or impugne yours). Until then, I'll continue to argue the issues and let you play in the mud. 3. This sentence of yours refutes your entire argument of "consensual non-consent": "Unfortunately, you have compounded your original mistake by continuing to assume that none of us know what we're doing and have set out to dliberately break our slaves to the point of legal involvement and the risk of personal injury." To begin, I do not hope to be the first to explain that some sadists do indeed enjoy "breaking" things. And yet, it may not involve "breaking" anything in a physical sense, but perhaps a moral absolute. You may not know of it, you may not share it, but you will surely be held accountable for it (if it is indeed a moral absolute) when you stumble across it, intentionally or not. Further, the "point" you mention (as in "point of legal involvement" or "point of personal injury") is a "limit" by any other name. Beyond that point/limit you risk personal injury (though some rather enjoy personal "injury" depending upon how you define it, and up to a point/limit) or legal liability. (Newsflash... depending upon where you live you may have already passed that point/limit if you've engaged in impact play placing your continued freedom entirely in the hands of your girl. And if you think she would NEVER, under any circumstances, tell the police or a judge about what you did to her then you've never read or heard about the nasty divorce cases, custody cases, or breakups that periodically involve BDSM or the many more in which it's used as a type of "blackmail". Does that put her in control?) If the point exists, then a limit exists. Saying that you "would not go there" is not the same as saying that you "cannot go there without consequence". Saying that your limits are compatible is not the same as saying they cease to exist. If you can find a logical explanation to refute that assertion, I would enjoy reading it (with or without the liberal sprinkling of insults). John

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 5:41:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hercuckslave My mental health is sound and balanced, and it was sound and balanced when I consciously decided to give over all limits to my Mistress. I did not take that decision lightly, and believe me, I had previously thought that I would never meet someone I felt so strongly about, or trusted so completely to enter into such a relationship with. Ok, so you searched high and low to find someone you trusted not to exceed any of your limits and now you're saying that having found that person they no longer exist because you can trust her not to go there? That's the functional equivalent of closing your eyes in the expectation that if you cannot see bus headed at you as it crosses the street, it no longer exists either. It fails the test of logic. Truth is that you found someone that shares your limits. Not that your limits no longer exist, you simply found someone who is compatible. Is that such an awful thing to say? So why is it so difficult to admit? John

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 5:50:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 if one has limits (and not referring to actual physical limitations, as everyone and everything has, but things that one will make the choice NOT to do), then one is not a slave, imo. from my understanding of the term, a slave is property, without rights of any kind, including the right to limits. however i realize that many in the lifestyle use the term much more loosely, and for some even it is nothing more than a petname or something that gets them hot and bothered to roleplay. however there are a few of us weirdos out there who do actually live a D/s M/s lifestyle. and what separates D/s slavery from traditional slavery imo is the initial consent. as for...scening...play...etc...those things are a part of bdsm, which is not a part or not a significant part of every M/s relationship. I know you (and others) feel that you didn't get a fair shake in some previous threads. I'd like to extend an olive branch. I write a column in an ezine, and I'd enjoy interviewing you, your daddy, and any of the other M/s couples that you've referred to on several occasions that share your relationship dynamic. You'll remain annonymous other than scene names, and I'll give you the opportunity to review the column prior to publication to ensure that your comments are not taken out of context. This is sincerely a fascinating topic, and I think people would be interested in reading about it dispassionately. Of course, I'll pay for my own transportation and lodging. Lunch and dinner are on me as well. I'm sure we'd all learn a great deal about each other, and the folks that read about it would all be better informed about both sides of the issue. Whaddaya say? When's good for you? John

Archer -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 5:50:16 AM)
Rover the argument of limits cease to exist is only an overstatement, not a flaw in logic. They in effect cease to exists when they match because they no longer have any relevance within the context of the relationship. To use your bus annalogy: The bus is a real threat if I'm on or near the street, If I stand 200 yards from the road I can close my eyes and deny the threat because it is ar enough away that it is not a relavent threat. Does it mean that it will never be a threat or that it is not possible that the bus will be driven off the road and kill me? No does it mean that the risk amount is reduced to de minimus level, I would contend it does.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 6:09:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 if one has limits (and not referring to actual physical limitations, as everyone and everything has, but things that one will make the choice NOT to do), then one is not a slave, imo. from my understanding of the term, a slave is property, without rights of any kind, including the right to limits. however i realize that many in the lifestyle use the term much more loosely, and for some even it is nothing more than a petname or something that gets them hot and bothered to roleplay. however there are a few of us weirdos out there who do actually live a D/s M/s lifestyle. and what separates D/s slavery from traditional slavery imo is the initial consent. as for...scening...play...etc...those things are a part of bdsm, which is not a part or not a significant part of every M/s relationship. I know you (and others) feel that you didn't get a fair shake in some previous threads. I'd like to extend an olive branch. I write a column in an ezine, and I'd enjoy interviewing you, your daddy, and any of the other M/s couples that you've referred to on several occasions that share your relationship dynamic. You'll remain annonymous other than scene names, and I'll give you the opportunity to review the column prior to publication to ensure that your comments are not taken out of context. This is sincerely a fascinating topic, and I think people would be interested in reading about it dispassionately. Of course, I'll pay for my own transportation and lodging. Lunch and dinner are on me as well. I'm sure we'd all learn a great deal about each other, and the folks that read about it would all be better informed about both sides of the issue. Whaddaya say? When's good for you? John you're asking the wrong person. i can't really see my Master wanting to be "interviewed", esp. by someone who has clearly expressed disbelief in our existence or way. but shrug i could be wrong, so you're free to give it a shot. He uses our couple's nick, PapiNsweet...send him a message anytime.

KatyLied -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 6:14:06 AM)
quote: I tend to fall into the camp that says all slaves have limits They do. To say they have "no limits" is just silly talk. If they say they have "no limits"; I say they've not yet met their limit. Perhaps they never will, perhaps one day their Master will present them with something that, uh oh, is a limit.

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 6:49:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Rover the argument of limits cease to exist is only an overstatement, not a flaw in logic. They in effect cease to exists when they match because they no longer have any relevance within the context of the relationship. You have a valid point that compatibility causes limits to cease to have relevance within the relationship. But that's still not the same as ceasing to exist (and I think is more than an overstatement, it's a calculated and integral part of an ongoing fantasy). I might also add that it's impossible to know all of a person's limits. Heck, they may not know themselves. And it can be quite common for those professing a belief in "consensual non-consent" not to recognize a newly revealed limit, to confuse it with a simple preferential aversion and to continue headlong into a looming land mine. One might consider the land mines that exist in the form of latent catharsis that can be tripped during certain scenes. These are limits passed as well, and we must be prepared to deal with them when they arise. Denying that these limits exist, and pressing on to the conclusion of the scene because the Top/Dominant/Master/Mistress (covering all the bases) thinks that their Dominance is challenged if he/she subjugates the continued "usage" of the bottom/submissive/slave to the newly discovered "limit", or in confusing the limit with a mere preferential aversion, is a recipe for very real disaster. John

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 6:54:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 you're asking the wrong person. i can't really see my Master wanting to be "interviewed", esp. by someone who has clearly expressed disbelief in our existence or way. but shrug i could be wrong, so you're free to give it a shot. He uses our couple's nick, PapiNsweet...send him a message anytime. Thank you, I'll contact him directly. His profile is very open, very warm, very inviting and indicates a sincere desire to meet (real time) with other lifestylers (I thought you indicated you only met with people who practiced the same relationship dynamic?). John

Fitznicely -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 7:00:29 AM)
Rover, the only one asserting that slaves have no limits is you. The rest of us are discussing the phenomenon of passing responsibility for those limits over to another person. Using the bus analogy - No-one's standing in the road, closing their eyes and hoping a bus won't hit them, they're standing in the road, closing their eyes and trusting their D-type to decide the preferable course of action. If the D-type chooses to let the bus hit, it may be that the bus is only doing 10 MPH and won't do damage or that the Dom isn't competent or, as you say, sane. I have only ever referred to my relationship specifically. I haven't made generalisations. I can tell you that the point/LIMIT you speak of will never be reached in my relationship - intentionally or otherwise. Now be a good chap and accept my statement concerning that which you know nothing about. Enough now. Down boy [:D]

darksdesire -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 7:02:17 AM)
Archer makes an excellent point. Yes. Limits cease to exist when they match because they are no longer relevant in the relationship. Do i have limits? Of course i do. However, i chose consensual slavery with a Master with similar limits. Additionally, He has put a great deal of time and effort into knowing and understanding me, and demonstrating his responsibility and trustworthiness. At some point in our relationship, i stopped thinking about my limits and now the control of those limits and how far to push them are in his hands. i don't think about it. i don't worry about it. Limits are no longer relevant. If one wishes to take the term "no limits" in the absolute literal sense, then yes. We all have limits. However, in the context of a loving D/s relationship, "no limits" refers to the level of trust, respect and communication between the Master and slave. It's much more abstract and cannot be defined in black and white terms. That's the beauty of it, and arguing about a literal translation of "no limits" completely misses the point of the rich and complex dynamics of a D/s relationship.

BBBTBW -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 7:20:55 AM)
I would like to direct everyone's attention to a movie called Manderlay. It stars Danny Glover. This has an odd take on traditional consentual/non consentual slavery. Ms. Loren

Elegrea -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 7:28:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Is there a bit of perception = reality and suspenssion of disbelief that is central to the idea? Certainly there is. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Cognitive dissonance is a necessary part of consensual BDSM. ‘If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.’ 1984, George Orwell

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 7:36:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fitznicely Rover, the only one asserting that slaves have no limits is you. The rest of us are discussing the phenomenon of passing responsibility for those limits over to another person. Using the bus analogy - No-one's standing in the road, closing their eyes and hoping a bus won't hit them, they're standing in the road, closing their eyes and trusting their D-type to decide the preferable course of action. If the D-type chooses to let the bus hit, it may be that the bus is only doing 10 MPH and won't do damage or that the Dom isn't competent or, as you say, sane. I have only ever referred to my relationship specifically. I haven't made generalisations. I can tell you that the point/LIMIT you speak of will never be reached in my relationship - intentionally or otherwise. Now be a good chap and accept my statement concerning that which you know nothing about. Enough now. Down boy [:D] 1. I have no idea why you're arguing with me, because you haven't made a coherent argument. 2. At no time have I ever challenged your personal relationship. Why do you persist in defending what has not been attacked? 3. Several people have clearly expressed that their relationships have no limits, or that "passing responsibility" along to someone else makes them cease to exist. I know you're important, but you're not the only other person in this discussion. 4. Per your own post (#4 in the thread) you stated: "We do on occasion use safe words, but only in designated play scenes." Now I'm not denigrading you for using safewords (fact is, I believe everyone uses them, just that some don't use a "mystical" term and simply rely upon communication). But I will point out that the use of safewords is completely contradictory with your assertion that your girl has turned over all limits to you (unless she is a sock puppet and you are the one mouthing "red"). 5. Whether the points/limits in your relationship will ever be reached or not isn't material. The fact that they exist is. There exist points/limits beyond which you cannot go, whether you want to or not. Not because you are a good Dominant (and I have no reason to believe you are not), but because she will not allow you (or the consequences of her actions... leaving, removing your willy, sending you to prison, etc.... are such that you are unwilling to accept the responsiblity of her reactions). Perchance you are a politician? John

WhiteRadiance -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 7:46:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Hi WR Can I ask - did you get this as a long (very long) mail on the other side? I've had something like that twice now and I'm sure someone else raised questions about the same text a month back, after they received it. E E: Actually, I get this type of mail frequently. Usually from greenhorns who have grandiose fantasies and very little rt experience.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 7:50:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 you're asking the wrong person. i can't really see my Master wanting to be "interviewed", esp. by someone who has clearly expressed disbelief in our existence or way. but shrug i could be wrong, so you're free to give it a shot. He uses our couple's nick, PapiNsweet...send him a message anytime. Thank you, I'll contact him directly. His profile is very open, very warm, very inviting and indicates a sincere desire to meet (real time) with other lifestylers (I thought you indicated you only met with people who practiced the same relationship dynamic?). John not at all...those we interact with socially/casually may or may not live or wish to live a similar lifestyle dynamic as we do (although obviously that would be ideal), but they must be understanding and accepting of our ways. otherwise, lots of unncessary tension and drama result, and we don't have the freedom to simply be ourselves. btw, believe it or not, i do agree with you on one point: the idea that one has no limits when in actuality they are only with a partner who shares the same limits. that has always bugged me a bit too, but i try to keep in mind, different strokes, different folks. when i say that i have no limits of my own, i do not mean that my Master and i share the same limits and therefore the limits issue is a moot point. there are many things that, if i had the freedom to set my own limits, i would choose not to do. there are plenty of things that tickle and delight him, that horrify me. and there are a couple of things that i would have no issue doing or engaging in, which are currently personal limits of my Master's. so, i did not get into this union knowing i had found someone who shared my boundaries/limits. quite the opposite actually...i knew we had many areas where we differed. but i understood that once i became property, any limits of my own would fly out the window. the only limits i have are those he sets for me, for his own personal reasons, and these are ever-changing.

WhiteRadiance -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/2/2006 8:00:54 AM)
I feel thaty two points are being made here and they are not at all contradictory to the others. It is merely a matter of perception. There are relationships that are somewhat casual- the players meet and agree to scene and limits are discussed and agreed upon. After the play ends, the parties go their seperate ways. Then there are those who have on-going, deeper relationships. They agree upon play and limits as well. However, in these cases, the "players" learn and grow together, the relationship changes. The consent is always present, but the bond that has been formed dictates the level of consent. I do not want this to become another arguement about limits. It is merely, in my mind, an indication of the contrast in thinking between playing vs. building a loving, trusting and expanding relationship between two who wish to journey together and explore one another in this way. I do not think a slave should be attacked as being mentally ill because their developement and expansion has brought them to a place they are content to be. If they are content and happy.. that to me is indicative of consent.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875