Consensual slavery? Or not?

Consensual slavery? Or not? (Full Version)

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

Message

WhiteRadiance -> Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 7:09:57 PM)
I have come to the conclusion that there are many views- none of them wrong- about slavery and domination. One common theme I hear, as a domme- is the sub who wants "no-limits" slavery. I had one of them present the topic in this way: "Consensual slavery is, by it's very nature, a paradox. The parties enter into a verbal (or written) contract stating that one will be used by the other for the pleasure of both. It's like the "slave" saying, "use me for Your pleasure , but only if it pleases me. i act like i don't want You to, but secretly i really do." This contract is non-binding, and can be terminated by the "slave" at any time. To draw a distinction between consensual, and actual slavery, the term "roleplay" is used to describe the former. Individuals as cast members in a play. For example, one person pretends to be a slave and another person pretends to be a master, but that are just roles they play, nothing they really are. If one party is no longer willing to participate the play, she or he utters a certain word, the so-called safeword, to stop the play. While the play goes on, the submissive role pretends as if she or he wants the play to stop, but only as part of the play. (or scene) Another theory is that one person declares one time her or his will to participate at the play, and that free declaration is all what is needed to make the play consensual, and if the person changes her or his mind, it is legitimate to continue the game without their consent, since the first declaration is all that is needed. As far as I know, the first view is much more common....." In a way, I see the point. In another way, I see that I would not want to hold someone against their will. To me.. the former is a scene, and the latter is a relationship. I personally think the responsibility put upon the dominant- and the sub- is immense, if they do venture beyond mere "play". Thoughts, please.

Kalira -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 7:16:57 PM)
I can agree with both. The relationship I have had in the past, and the one that I am now in, would fall in the area of the last theory that you put down. We negoitiated what we BOTH would not do long before our first meet; anything past what was said at that time, in my own mind, becomes HIS limits. Basically, I can say that I have a no limits relationship with him, but that is only because we hold to our original contract and neither of us step over those boundaries. There are things that he has had me do that I absolutly did not want to do, but have done, simply because it falls within the original decisions put down by both of us.

thetammyjo -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 7:39:49 PM)
Slavery or slave is a word that turns us on, that is why we use it. To expect it to resemble historical or institutional slavery and have it be consensual is unrealistic and unnecessary. For those folks who think they want historical or institutional slavery, I think they don't truly understand what systems like that required from all members of the system. You could call it any other word but for some reason many folks find the terms themselves to be intense and valuable enough to keep using them.

Fitznicely -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 7:42:20 PM)
I think I may have a different angle. I've been in a healthy but often fraught relationship with my girl for almost ten years. We have two kids and are to all intents and purposes settled for good. We've always dabbled with various aspects of BDSM, meaning that I'd tie her up now and again, we've always had a good selection of toys and we've thoroughly enjoyed the play we've had in the past. Over the course of the last year, however, we've been steadily upping the ante, introducing pain play and discipline into our relationship, resulting in some stunningly satisfying play scenes and a much more settled home life. Three months ago, she begged for my collar. Illness aside, since that day we have lived as Master and slave. We do on occasion use safe words, but only in designated play scenes. All other times, she is at my mercy. I feel that the dynamic we now have is solid and "true" as it can be. We have perfect trust in each other, she accepts her lessons well and has shown over and again just how committed to truly serving me she is. In return for her sacrifice, I strive to be the best Master I can be, extensively researching methods of domination and honing my skills as a Trainer and duties as an Owner. What we have now is something requiring more commitment than a marriage and more satisfying and empowering than at any time during the time we've spent together. Is this the right course for everyone? No. Would this work for anyone else? I have no idea. All I know is that if you're looking for a dynamic that works as an advertisment showing how consensual slavery - meaning the complete abandonment of the self to the will of another - can work, then I'd be happy to let myself and my girl be put forward as just that. (It may or may not have any bearing on how well our lifestyle is going that we have never had any contact with the BDSM community at large and do not subscribe to the many different - and to my mind - needlessly over-proscriptive dynamics you find there)

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 7:53:04 PM)
The only people without limits are those in need of mental health treatment (that is not my opinion, it is a factual diagnosis by the mental health community). Hence, any reference to (or definition of) slavery absent limits describes an individual with a mental disorder. One might further conclude that an existing mental disorder would preclude the judgment necessary to offer consent in the first place, negating the entire premise for the "consensual non-consent" theory. Just some mind numbing logic. John

Lordandmaster -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 8:15:42 PM)
Oh please. Normally I agree with you, Rover, but since when do the opinions of the "mental health community" (as though they agree on every issue) count as "factual diagnosis"? Never mind the fact that the opinions of the mental health community are in constant flux. It wasn't so long ago that they considered homosexuality a mental illness as well... I really hoped we wouldn't have to get caught in another predictable and fruitless discussion about "no limits." Haven't we done that one to death about twelve times already? quote: ORIGINAL: Rover The only people without limits are those in need of mental health treatment (that is not my opinion, it is a factual diagnosis by the mental health community).

Hercuckslave -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 8:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover The only people without limits are those in need of mental health treatment (that is not my opinion, it is a factual diagnosis by the mental health community). not sure i agree....but then again, its all semantics, isn't it. i have no limits of my own with Mistress. i consented to be her slave over 5 years ago, and since that day, consent is implied and not required to be given again. on anything!!! now here is the rub....i trusted her completely when i gave myself to her as her slave. i knew she would care for me and keep me safe from harm. my only limits are HER LIMITS. i trusted her, so i gave myself to her with NO LIMITS. Does this make me in need of mental health treatment? i don't think so. M's m

LadyEllen -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 8:19:04 PM)
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

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 8:38:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Oh please. Normally I agree with you, Rover, but since when do the opinions of the "mental health community" (as though they agree on every issue) count as "factual diagnosis"? Never mind the fact that the opinions of the mental health community are in constant flux. It wasn't so long ago that they considered homosexuality a mental illness as well... I really hoped we wouldn't have to get caught in another predictable and fruitless discussion about "no limits." Haven't we done that one to death about twelve times already? You can't negate the entirety of the mental health profession, simply because you disagree with some part of it, or something from it's past. If you apply that opinion consistently, no one and nothing is valid (you will differ on some level, large or small, with everyone and every organization and/or some past mistake). John

BitaTruble -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 8:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiteRadiance I have come to the conclusion that there are many views- none of them wrong- about slavery and domination. One common theme I hear, as a domme- is the sub who wants "no-limits" slavery. I had one of them present the topic in this way: "Consensual slavery is, by it's very nature, a paradox. The parties enter into a verbal (or written) contract stating that one will be used by the other for the pleasure of both. It's like the "slave" saying, "use me for Your pleasure , but only if it pleases me. i act like i don't want You to, but secretly i really do." This contract is non-binding, and can be terminated by the "slave" at any time. To draw a distinction between consensual, and actual slavery, the term "roleplay" is used to describe the former. Individuals as cast members in a play. For example, one person pretends to be a slave and another person pretends to be a master, but that are just roles they play, nothing they really are. If one party is no longer willing to participate the play, she or he utters a certain word, the so-called safeword, to stop the play. While the play goes on, the submissive role pretends as if she or he wants the play to stop, but only as part of the play. (or scene) Another theory is that one person declares one time her or his will to participate at the play, and that free declaration is all what is needed to make the play consensual, and if the person changes her or his mind, it is legitimate to continue the game without their consent, since the first declaration is all that is needed. As far as I know, the first view is much more common....." In a way, I see the point. In another way, I see that I would not want to hold someone against their will. To me.. the former is a scene, and the latter is a relationship. I personally think the responsibility put upon the dominant- and the sub- is immense, if they do venture beyond mere "play". Thoughts, please. For me, if all 'play' stopped tomorrow (and I'm fairly certain that age, infirmary etc. will actually stop play one day) it would not change my orientation. BDSM and M/s are separate in my mind and one has nothing to do with the other although they do make for a nice mix on occasion. I guess I view using things such as limits like a bargaining chip. "I'll do this if you promise never to do that." For me, that's not the way our relationship works. It's simple really. I obey. That's pretty much the crux of the matter. Obedience to his will, his desire, his whim is a way of life and I don't pick and choose which things are OK with me and which are not and that's because I made sure that 'he' was OK with me. Play comes and goes and while it's loads of fun even when it's deadly serious and intense, it is the least of what we have together. I mean, what the hell is a 'limit' when you compare it to your entire life? Not much in my book. Celeste

Fitznicely -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 8:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover The only people without limits are those in need of mental health treatment (that is not my opinion, it is a factual diagnosis by the mental health community). Hence, any reference to (or definition of) slavery absent limits describes an individual with a mental disorder. One might further conclude that an existing mental disorder would preclude the judgment necessary to offer consent in the first place, negating the entire premise for the "consensual non-consent" theory. Just some mind numbing logic. John Your reasoning is sound, but your argument is irrelevant. At no point - in my case at least - has there been a suggestion that there are no limits. The slave in my case has placed the responsibility for any limits on someone else - namely Me. That the slave may not desire the treatment she is given is also irrelevant. she has placed ultimate responsibility for her safety and wellbeing in My hands. I and I alone decide the limits she is to be taken to. Therefore, logically, as she has consensually submitted herself to my will, any future non-consent is immaterial, it simply does not matter as unconditional consent has previously been given. I can see two instances in this thread of other couples who say the same thing, although I will not speak for them. Should there be a case where neither the slave or Master/Mistress subscribe to any limits, then your argument would have a place in this discussion. As this is demonstrably not the case, your statements are irrelevant to the discussion in progress and are bordering on revealing your ignorance of the subject of that discussion as it is in place at this moment. Your statement would become relevant only if someone were to add to the thread something along the lines of "I have no limits, I allow my slave no limits. hell, I've even killed a few".

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 8:48:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fitznicely Therefore, logically, as she has consensually submitted herself to my will, any future non-consent is immaterial, it simply does not matter as unconditional consent has previously been given. Yes, I'm well aware of the "slave consents once" theory. And this sounds perfectly wonderful in theory, almost like a charming fairy tale. And it works wonderfully in practice, until such time as the "future non-consent" becomes material. And then you'll either end up with an "ex-slave", a "John Bobbit", a criminal record, or all three. John

Fitznicely -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 8:57:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: Fitznicely Therefore, logically, as she has consensually submitted herself to my will, any future non-consent is immaterial, it simply does not matter as unconditional consent has previously been given. Yes, I'm well aware of the "slave consents once" theory. And this sounds perfectly wonderful in theory, almost like a charming fairy tale. And it works wonderfully in practice, until such time as the "future non-consent" becomes material. And then you'll either end up with an "ex-slave", a "John Bobbit", a criminal record, or all three. John Please do not lower yourself to supposition and guesswork. I speak only of my own situation. Lines of communication are in place where the slave is required to express any concerns she may have about whatever it is I intend to do. Once her concerns have been noted, I may decide to alter my direction, but again the responsibility for deciding limits rests squarely on My shoulders, not my slaves'. In my opinion, it is a poor Master/Dom/Domme/Mistress whatever that doesn't allow for that possibility. Again, your concern would have a place here if it was relevant to the discussion at hand. Would you care to contribute something other than admonitions based on the false and rather condescending premise you seem stuck on?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 8:58:24 PM)
Who ever said anything about the entirety of the mental health profession? You mean to claim that the ENTIRETY of the mental health profession would call anyone who pretends to be a no-limit slave insane? Anyway, this is exactly why I don't accept that something is a mental illness just because someone from the mental health community says so. There is hardly any sex act that some mental health expert somewhere hasn't declared pathological. quote: ORIGINAL: Rover You can't negate the entirety of the mental health profession, simply because you disagree with some part of it, or something from it's past. If you apply that opinion consistently, no one and nothing is valid (you will differ on some level, large or small, with everyone and every organization and/or some past mistake).

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 9:11:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fitznicely Please do not lower yourself to supposition and guesswork. I speak only of my own situation. Lines of communication are in place where the slave is required to express any concerns she may have about whatever it is I intend to do. Once her concerns have been noted, I may decide to alter my direction, but again the responsibility for deciding limits rests squarely on My shoulders, not my slaves'. In my opinion, it is a poor Master/Dom/Domme/Mistress whatever that doesn't allow for that possibility. Again, your concern would have a place here if it was relevant to the discussion at hand. Would you care to contribute something other than admonitions based on the false and rather condescending premise you seem stuck on? You have an extensive vocabulary and a rather substantial chip on your shoulder. But neither of those serve you well in a logical debate, nor did they serve to reply in any meaningful way to the very relevant premise that "unconditional consent" exists only for so long as: 1. Your girl agrees that it exists. 2. You are willing to risk the possibility that in angry retribution for having exceeded an innate (her own) limit, she decides to remove your from the burden of caring for your "willy". 3. You find yourself at the mercy of the local authorities trying to explain your theory of "consensual non-consent". 4. Your girl leaves you after removing your willy, and you're sent to prison where the only available option in your sleeping quarters requires that you wear lipstick and panties while your new best friends teach you their personal version of "consensual non-consent". You can choose a reasoned response or you can choose polysyballic insults at twenty paces. I'm reasonably adept at either. John

Rover -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 9:13:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster You mean to claim that the ENTIRETY of the mental health profession would call anyone who pretends to be a no-limit slave insane? *No, they'd call someone pretending* to be a no-limit slave a "fantasizer". John**

Lordandmaster -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 9:15:24 PM)
All right, since we're using the word "pretend," I'll just point out that you're PRETENDING to speak for the entire mental health community. And I'll leave it at that, because I really don't have much of a stomach for revisiting the whole "no-limits" debate. We've done it over and over. Maybe you weren't around--I don't know. But we've gone over all this before, and the view that it's all just insanity is about as stale as last week's polenta.

Fitznicely -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 10:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover You have an extensive vocabulary Thank you. quote: and a rather substantial chip on your shoulder. I fail to see your reasoning in this case. I am aware of holding no grudges or any such negative emotion which has tempered my responses to your condescending assumptions that I don't know how far I can push my girl. Fair dues, I'm tired, but I've tried to answer you with honesty and in the spirit of your first post. If you feel insulted, I suggest it's your finer feelings that I've somehow rattled. I apologise. quote: ... reply in any meaningful way to the very relevant premise that "unconditional consent" exists only for so long as: 1. Your girl agrees that it exists. 2. You are willing to risk the possibility that in angry retribution for having exceeded an innate (her own) limit, she decides to remove your from the burden of caring for your "willy". 3. You find yourself at the mercy of the local authorities trying to explain your theory of "consensual non-consent". 4. Your girl leaves you after removing your willy, and you're sent to prison where the only available option in your sleeping quarters requires that you wear lipstick and panties while your new best friends teach you their personal version of "consensual non-consent". 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? It's you that's being insulting as far as I can see. quote: You can choose a reasoned response or you can choose polysyballic insults at twenty paces. I'm reasonably adept at either. 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.

Fitznicely -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 10:23:09 PM)
WhiteRadiance: The excerpt you quote seems to rely heavily on the idea of "Play". I for one don't feel that I'm playing a role in someone's game. I have done that, before the collaring, and we did indeed call it play. It was wonderful, but it just doesn't go far enough emotionally for us. I've had someting to do with the philosophy of "Game theory" over the years and I can see where this person's coming from, but you have to wonder where the game ends and real life begins. As what we have - and I'm sure others have too - is not so much apart, but a part of life, impacting decisions made and actions taken from waking in the morning to sleeping at night, I'd suggest that it's at that point, where it becomes the primary point of reference when living your otherwise seemingly vanilla life that it stops being a game. You're right about the weight of responsibility. I'm still finding it hard sometimes, but then it's early days yet.

imtempting -> RE: Consensual slavery? Or not? (11/1/2006 10:51:00 PM)
I agree with what LAM is saying. I don't like the word slave in respect to the lifestyle. If you want to be a slave then im sure you could go to a third world country and become a slave. Its exactly what your wanting if your choosing to be a slave. Otherwise I think the lifestyle needs to create a new term..

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875