RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 9:24:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:

6) What does serve mean...attend to the whims and wants of the Master, in a pleasing fashion, to bring him pleasure, honor and pride in what he owns.

that sounds very romantic and charming, however, it does little to enlighten anyone on what kind of service you provide.


I think it does an excellent ob of describing the kinds of service provided. She arrebds to the whims and wnats of the Master. Imagine some whims and wants, and you have an idea of the kinds of services she provides.

Unless, of course, you are looking for specific, intimate, and perhaps a bit kinky details...well, you'll have to buy me a few drinks before I'll be willing to spill those. *wink*


quote:

still don't get why you are searching for validation here, but getting others(Masters or otherwise) to hop on your bandwagon and agree with you might be difficult.


"Ownership" only has meaning within the context of a community. If I were the only one on the planet, I would "own" everything...but what would that mean? Since I coldn't sell it, or buy it, or defend it, or steal more, the reasons for the construct of ownership vanish, and so does ownership itself.

Because "ownership" only means something if there are others to recognize it, we (or at least I) seek to find those of like mind who understand and recognize my brand of "ownership." I believe one of the reasons the Goreans have survived as a sub-culture is that they all recognize one anothers "ownership" of their slaves, and that serves a vital function to those who are wired to own and be owned.

I speak for myself entirely here when I say, I am not Gorean. I do not buy into all of their ideas and codes. My community is this message board and a few of the friends I have made in real life from here. (Boy, having dined with Leonidas last night, I have now met over 10 people who are (or have been) regular contributors to these boards.) So I strive to explain my style of ownership and defend it when others attack it as "bullshit" and "snake oil." I strive to be accepted in this community and to be seen as I see myself.

Taggard



Alexander -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 9:31:43 AM)

Need to say a few things.

first, Every body better kiss and make up by the 12th. I am sure you will. its too easy to read these things as hard edged.

Second, celestia I think you are a legal piece of art and would love to elaborate sometime. I love what your doing whatever the outside world decides to say about it. Again and again I keep thinking, How much for that girl? You have an admirer. Let me address something you said publically. I have no idea why I need to adress it.

but it seemed each time I was with one they would fall into that "love" thing, and in all my experience that has only weakened their hand on me. They became more concerned with the romance and forgot who they were originally. I am not saying this happens in all cases, I know it dosen't. But for me I needed a Master that was going to stay a Master and maintain that upper hand,

This is the great crux and challenge of mastery for me. And one I think many 'owners' face and often fail. I am sure there are challenges as equally important to being a master but this ranks among the most critical to me. Why is it something I dont discard from my relatonships then? Why if I understand this to be one of my conflicts don't I do away with it? It would be fairly simple. (maybe) That becomes the question. I do not discard it because that struggle between sublime mastery and a weakening of the heart may be one of the most elemental human struggles there is. To remove myself from that would be to remove myself from one of lifes most important sensual experiences. Please do not draw a value judgement from that remark. As I said I believe what you are doing is beautiful for many many reasons. the mere thought of what you are doing pushes buttons i didnt know I had. good girl!

I am not sure what I am trying to explain there. Its as if I am trying to explain why masters need to own love even though I believe it to be purely an individual thing. I think you just tapped on something that happens to lots of owners and I felt compelled to discuss it. I almost want to say, "if we are not trying to push our own boundaries and do what you find most difficult to do, are we really growing?"

There is no need for the husband to join the conversation. He is seperate from the D/s relationship.
Oh I am sure he is but having to do with my concept of what you have done, he is deeply involved on a level you may be unaware of. Perhaps we will have time to talk about it sometime.

"Full blown slaves can be disobediant little sluts compared to a girl in training..."

Girls in training can be this too *wink*, they just have to accept the consequences. Which in turn maybe what they are desiring.
yes you are right. I was trying to say that the names we give, slave or love slave or submissive has nothing to do with whats going on inside the girl or the master. Not so much a value judgement on girls in training versus slaves etc. bad use of the word "compared"

Alex.



ruffnecksbabygir -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 9:36:22 AM)

quote:

first, Every body better kiss and make up by the 12th. I am sure you will. its too easy to read these things as hard edged.




ok, what's on the 12th? (EDITED: ah, never mind, read it in another post, sounds like fun! hope you all have a great time! [;)]



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 9:39:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alexander
Why if I understand this to be one of my conflicts don't I do away with it? It would be fairly simple. (maybe) That becomes the question. I do not discard it because that struggle between sublime mastery and a weakening of the heart may be one of the most elemental human struggles there is. To remove myself from that would be to remove myself from one of lifes most important sensual experiences.


Truly an interesting thought. As you know by know (I hope) I have indeed tried to put myself in a place where love has no play in my dominance. My love is saved for my partner, my control is saved for my slave.

I have struggled with the love vs dominance issue. I didn't really like it all that much. *smile* Maybe I can ust check that one of my list of things to do before I die and call it a night.

Taggard



Alexander -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 9:46:43 AM)

quote:

I am not sure what I am trying to explain there. Its as if I am trying to explain why masters need to own love even though I believe it to be purely an individual thing. I think you just tapped on something that happens to lots of owners and I felt compelled to discuss it. I almost want to say, "if we are not trying to push our own boundaries and do what you find most difficult to do, are we really growing?"


I added this edit. Maybe the truth is taggard is that you don't have any difficulty controlling love at all, your pushing other boundaries.



celestia -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 10:30:00 AM)

How do you people expect me to accomplish any work during the day....geesh! *smile*

quote:

first, Every body better kiss and make up by the 12th. I am sure you will. its too easy to read these things as hard edged.


I don't mean to come off as snobby. I'm a nice girl, I swear, ask my mom.
I look forward to the 12th, it will be quite the experience I am sure.

quote:

I love what your doing whatever the outside world decides to say about it. Again and again I keep thinking, How much for that girl? You have an admirer.


Thank you, Alexander. You'd have to ask the Master what my price is. *wink wink* I look forward to speakign with you more.

I can't speak for Masters, but I can say that for every way of thinking there is someone out there that thinks along the same lines. I need one that can keep the love aspect seperate. You need one that can have that aspect but not let it take control over the D/s side of the relationship. It is possible, it just has been so in my case.

quote:

Its as if I am trying to explain why masters need to own love even though I believe it to be purely an individual thing.


It's a matter of accepting a level of emotion. Just like there are limits to what will be involved in any BDSM relationship, there also has to be an agreed upon level of emotion to have it work. If said Master does not wish to love his slave, but the slave is all wound up in her love for him, more often than not he is going to push her away, becuase she is giving something he does not desire. If they can find a common ground, it can work splendidly. So in no way am I saying that I am with out emotions, I just don't go to the "love" level.
I don't know if I have explained it any better either, Alex.



quote:

I think hubby is not okay with this and that is why Celestia is seeking validation for not being monogamous.


I am not seeking valadation. I was merely posing the question to see what the Masters would say. I honestly do not need anyones yea or nay on this for myself. I merely wanted to see how it was viewed.
You can not assume he is not ok with this, you can only state in your opinion if he were not okay with it. And if you or anyone else missed it on my last post. I do not condone cheating and lying, that would include doing something behind anothers back without their knowledge. I deeply frown upon this, because I firmly believe that in order for any kind of relationship to work and grow you have to be honest above all else, and communicate.

quote:

we aren't talking about your situation or mine in particular we are talking about celestias.


Actually we're not talking about mine either, or at least thats not how I intended it when I started the thread. Perhaps I should have put a sidenote on that. My fault.

Merc and beth,

"thanks for playing..." was not ment anyway but to be a quirky closing. I guess I was coming off as snobby.....where's my mom when I need her to defend me.....*rolling eyes as she goes to find that woman.*














ruffnecksbabygir -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 12:08:37 PM)

[/quote]
we aren't talking about your situation or mine in particular we are talking about celestias.

Actually we're not talking about mine either, or at least thats not how I intended it when I started the thread. Perhaps I should have put a sidenote on that. My fault.
[/quote]


i was under that impression....sowwy [:)]



ruffnecksbabygir -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 12:12:48 PM)

quote:

where's my mom when I need her to defend me.....*rolling eyes as she goes to find that woman.*



aaww, lol...you don't need your mom sis, you do a fine job of defending yourself! btw, for what it's worth, this turned out to be a great thread you started! who would've known?! [:D]



Leonidas -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 4:23:38 PM)

quote:

What is the difference between "being with someone who will treat you as if you were his slave " for a year and "being a slave" for a year? Don't you treat your slave as if she were your slave? If not, do you treat her as if she were not your slave? Is there an option I am missing?


You do like to dance, I'll give you that. What you are suggesting here is that there is no such thing as role-play. There are couples all over the country who have, in an episodic fashion, been behaving "as if" they were master and slave, for mutual enjoyment, a "couple of times a month" (what you said you wanted, Taggard), for years. It doesn't mean that's what they are. It means that it's something they enjoy doing sometimes. Outside their episodes of D/s play, one is not absolutely submitted to the discipline and control of the other. They aren't master and slave. They just enjoy acting "as if". If the distinction is lost on you, then it is, I suppose. If it is, then for you they are the same. I can accept that you think so. I don't.

quote:



I said:

If you were indeed a man's slave, he'd be within his rights to command exactly what he pleased of you and you, being a slave to his will would perceive that you had no choice but to do your master's bidding. If you were in fact a man's slave your life would be wholly in his hands.

To which you responded:

This is indeed the kind of relationship both Celestia and I are looking for.



OK, but that's not what you've been saying all along. More to the point, that's not what celestia says on her profile. She states very plainly "family and career are off limits". What does that leave, exactly, that is wholly in your hands? Yep, play time. I can accept that whatever time she can carve out for D/s play is in your hands. You defining that as slavery is consistant with your position above that you don't draw a distinction between role-play and slavery as I would define it.

quote:



I said:

You could not be committed to your husband because you would have no commitment to offer. Only a free woman can make commitments of her own.

You responded:

Being married isn't being enslaved. She could indeed commit to me as property, yet maintain her marriage and her commitment to it. Slaves can indeed make commitments, though they are always made with the understanding that the owner can cancel those commitments at any time.



Wow, and I thought your definition of slave was wacky. Your notion of commitment is really something. How, under those circumstances could a slave answer any question about the future from her husband honestly with anything other than something analogous to "I don't know"? That's called being non-committal, Taggard.

quote:



I said:

Whether you followed whatever life plans you have made with your husband, whether you had a sexual relationship with him, even whether you stayed, or left, would be completely at your master's choosing.

You responded:

Of course. This is the kind of relationship I am looking for, and I believe it is the kind Celestia is looking for as well.



Yeah, sorry, can't respect that at all. Forget about my world. I can't see how that passes ethical muster by norms of behavior in the general BDSM culture. celestia says that her husband is "vanilla". He wants no part of this lifestyle by her own account. So, it's safe to say that he's not consenting to being made your cuckhold Taggard, yes? He may be an understanding guy, even to the point that his wife has needs she gets met on the outside. The key phrase here being "on the outside". In other words, she goes out, she plays, she comes home, and resumes being his wife. Is he really consenting to Taggard holding sway over his house, and his future? Is he a signatory to your contract? So, what? If he doesn't like it he'll just have to hit the road because that's what Taggard and celestia want? Where is his consent in all this, or does he not count because he's "vanilla"? Sorry, my friend, but that's just about the worst kind of all the kinds of narcissistic bullshit there is. There was a time when respect ment something in this life. If this is what it's come to, its just about where I get off.

quote:

And what is wrong with that??? Why does an owner allowing his property to have a healthy and happy marriage make her any less a slave?


Just when I thought that your definition of "commitment" was the end all, you offer up that jewel. A man (a vanilla man, mind you, not a male sub who loves humilliation) whose daily life is subject to the will of Taggard like the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, regardless of how benevolent you think yourself, is going to equate to a "healthy and happy marriage" in what strange and foreign universe?

quote:



I said:

Your marriage by any reasonable measure would cease to exist. It would be reduced to your master allowing you to cohabitate with a man because it happened to be convenient for him to do so.

To which you responded:

And what is wrong with that???



Good question. Ask her husband what's wrong with him being reduced to the role of convenience player in the life of Taggard. Ask him if he understands and accepts that it's only through the forbearance and good graces of Taggard that he'll be allowed to keep his wife. Ask him if he consents to that. You've always been so big on contracts, negotiations, and consent. I'd love to see that negotiation session.

As long as I think you're playing, I'll play along. If you're serious here, and not just taking a position for the sake of argument, I think I've said just about all I want to say to you.



Elektra -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 7:32:26 PM)

In case I am just repeating what others said: I didn't wade through all pages but have to give my opinion anyway.

Yes, it is possible. I am married.I've been a slave owned by the same master for 2 years.Before I get noisy question, it didn't end because I was married or ebcause he was amrried but because I moved too far away ( and I mean VERY far)

I loved him.A lot.And he loved loved me,too.

It just depends if both parties are willing to make sacrifices.A married slave simply is not available 24/7.



Elektra -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/3/2005 7:37:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrThorns

Can a married slave be owned?

I guess it depends on what it meant by owned. When she took her marriage vows, didn't it say something along the lines of "..forsaking all others until death do you part.."? The wife and husband "belong" to each other. She's breaking one contract to form another contract and if that's the case...how much is this new contract really worth? She can break that contract if she wants to, right? She can walk away from the new contract anytime she desires. Can't she also walk away from her master if she wants to? So using that logic...no. She cannot be owned. Not owned by her husband or her master.



~Thorns


As I see it an unmarried slave can just as well leave a master whenever she pleases. Real slavery is a thing of the past.

But I think you are making assumptions based on the fact that she is breaking her "marriage vows".Sorry, life isn't that easy.It's not black and white.Wish it was, though...



January -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/4/2005 7:58:09 PM)

Hi Leonidas,

This post largely off topic and fluff--sorry to the mods!

I don't visit the forums much anymore, so I was recently catching up. Familiar territory, I see: Trekkies linked to Goreans. Arguments between you and Taggard...

Anyway, I was searching for recent posts by deannalynn (I always enjoyed reading what she had to write), and her profile is gone! Is she okay? Did she find an awesome Gorean man? I figure you'd know how she is. Will you tell me?

January



Histeacup -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/6/2005 9:28:14 AM)

No, absolutely not...a married woman has given a vow to her husband therefore that vow takes precedence over anyother relationship unless the arrangement is agreed upon by all 3 parties. If a married women breaks her vow of faith to become a slave to another then she is proving her dishonesty and disloyalty and she ain't worth a shit. Any person who goes behind their spouses back to become a slave to another should certainly send up a few red flags. Anyone in the lifestyle for real would already know this...Mark



Leonidas -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/6/2005 2:14:55 PM)

Hi January,

She didn't mention deleting her profile to me. She did express some dissatisfaction with the site in general and the kinds of men who were approaching her here specifically. I'm only guessing, but she probably just didn't see any upside in keeping a profile here.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/6/2005 7:21:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

What you are suggesting here is that there is no such thing as role-play.


We all play roles. When does the role become the person? I'm sorry, you don't get to decide that point for anyone but yourself...

quote:


There are couples all over the country who have, in an episodic fashion, been behaving "as if" they were master and slave, for mutual enjoyment, a "couple of times a month" (what you said you wanted, Taggard), for years.


As is your wont, you misunderstand. I seek to own a girl without cesastion...I seek to use her a few times a month.

quote:



I said:

If you were indeed a man's slave, he'd be within his rights to command exactly what he pleased of you and you, being a slave to his will would perceive that you had no choice but to do your master's bidding. If you were in fact a man's slave your life would be wholly in his hands.

To which you responded:

This is indeed the kind of relationship both Celestia and I are looking for.


OK, but that's not what you've been saying all along. More to the point, that's not what celestia says on her profile. She states very plainly "family and career are off limits". What does that leave, exactly, that is wholly in your hands?


Alright, at this point I know you think we have left the "real" slavery you practice, but when a slave says in her profile that "family and career are off limits" I read it the same as if it says "I only have one arm" or "I have narcolepsy". It is a limitation on the kind and type of service the slave can provide. It does not make them less of a slave, just a slave with a limitiation.


quote:



I said:

You could not be committed to your husband because you would have no commitment to offer. Only a free woman can make commitments of her own.

You responded:

Being married isn't being enslaved. She could indeed commit to me as property, yet maintain her marriage and her commitment to it. Slaves can indeed make commitments, though they are always made with the understanding that the owner can cancel those commitments at any time.

Wow, and I thought your definition of slave was wacky. Your notion of commitment is really something. How, under those circumstances could a slave answer any question about the future from her husband honestly with anything other than something analogous to "I don't know"? That's called being non-committal, Taggard.


Ummm...what??? Are you going to be alive in two hundred years? What about two weeks? If you answer anything other then "I don't know" you are simply not being honest. Does this make it impossible for you to be commited to something? Of course not.


quote:



I said:

Whether you followed whatever life plans you have made with your husband, whether you had a sexual relationship with him, even whether you stayed, or left, would be completely at your master's choosing.

You responded:

Of course. This is the kind of relationship I am looking for, and I believe it is the kind Celestia is looking for as well.


Yeah, sorry, can't respect that at all.


And why should I care?


quote:


Forget about my world. I can't see how that passes ethical muster by norms of behavior in the general BDSM culture.


And again, why should I care? Do you care that most think Gor doesn't pass the ethical muster by norms of behavior in the general BDSM culture?


quote:


celestia says that her husband is "vanilla". He wants no part of this lifestyle by her own account. So, it's safe to say that he's not consenting to being made your cuckhold Taggard, yes?


Celestia's relationship with her husband is her concern, not mine...pretty simple.

quote:


If this is what it's come to, its just about where I get off.


And, again, why should I care? *smile*


quote:


Just when I thought that your definition of "commitment" was the end all, you offer up that jewel. A man (a vanilla man, mind you, not a male sub who loves humilliation) whose daily life is subject to the will of Taggard like the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, regardless of how benevolent you think yourself, is going to equate to a "healthy and happy marriage" in what strange and foreign universe?


Loenidas, you have a very narrow view of the world. What's more, you refuse to try and broaden it. People can happily and healthily live in ways that would simply blow my mind...and I am far more tolerant and willing to accept things then you are. I know you can not concieve of adults working out the kind of relationship I am living, but your inability to think it doesn't make it impossible.


quote:


Good question. Ask her husband what's wrong with him being reduced to the role of convenience player in the life of Taggard. Ask him if he understands and accepts that it's only through the forbearance and good graces of Taggard that he'll be allowed to keep his wife.


A smart slave would make sure her husband never felt that, even if it were true.


quote:


As long as I think you're playing, I'll play along. If you're serious here, and not just taking a position for the sake of argument, I think I've said just about all I want to say to you.


I am, and have always been, serious...

Taggard



Leonidas -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/7/2005 3:11:36 AM)

quote:

We all play roles. When does the role become the person? I'm sorry, you don't get to decide that point for anyone but yourself...


True enough. We haven't been arguing your definition or mine. We've been arguing whether they mean the same thing. Whether that point were it stops being play and starts being life for you and I are the same point. I say no. You say yes. What you call ownership I call episodic session play. What I call ownership you find to be too akin to "mundane marriage". It's alright that we disagree about that.

quote:

Ummm...what??? Are you going to be alive in two hundred years? What about two weeks? If you answer anything other then "I don't know" you are simply not being honest. Does this make it impossible for you to be commited to something? Of course not.


Well, I know that you don't care (see below) but the difference here is one of the foundations of ethical conduct. You make only those commitments that you have every reason to expect that you can keep. It makes you someone in whose word others can trust.

When I give my word about something I'm not claiming omnicience, I'm saying, in effect "This is in my power to do, and I will see it done". When my child comes to me and asks "Dad, are you going to pay for me to go to college" and I say "Yes, son, I will" it's a commitment. It's within my power to do, and I will see it done. If on the other hand he says "Can you get me into Yale?" well, that's not up to me, and I know it. If I'm ethical, I'm not going to say "Yeah, sure, no problem", I'm going to say "That's not up to me.". Professionally, when I commit to deliver something on a date certain, it's the same thing. Ethics require that I only make those commitments that I can reasonably assume are within my power to deliver upon. As I said before, and expanded upon here, if your girl is your slave, truly, she has no commitment to offer her husband. Nothing would be within her power to deliver upon. Any commitment that she made would be a lie when it left her lips.

Now, you can say that by your definition the girl can still have power over her own home and professional life and be a slave. In other words, she could exempt those parts of her life from your control and you would still consider her a slave. As I've been saying all through this thread, do that if that is what makes you happy, just don't confuse it or equate it with what I do. It's simply not the same thing.

quote:



And why should I care?



Well, I didn't say that you have to be ashamed because I have no respect for that choice. I just said I have no respect for it. It's a statement about what I find ethical, nothing more.

quote:



And again, why should I care? Do you care that most think Gor doesn't pass the ethical muster by norms of behavior in the general BDSM culture?



You don't have to care about anything other than what you want at the moment. Your "ethics" can proceed backward from there. It's called "situational ethics". You do what seems most beneficial to you at the time. It's alright. It's the way most folks live. Accepting shared norms of ethical conduct is one of the things that makes you part of a community, however. I don't claim to be part of the general BDSM culture. If I did, I personally would conduct myself within the ethical norms of that community. I happen to value citizenship highly. You are absolutely right, though, you don't have to care.

quote:

Celestia's relationship with her husband is her concern, not mine...pretty simple.


Now we're getting somewhere. There isn't any aspect of my girl's life that is none of my concern. Certainly not something as central to her life as a marriage, or a career. If those things were none of my concern, I certainly couldn't call her my chattel (property) with a straight face. You can. Dandy. You set out back at the beginning stating that your notion of ownership is the same as mine. Obviously not.

quote:

Loenidas, you have a very narrow view of the world. What's more, you refuse to try and broaden it. People can happily and healthily live in ways that would simply blow my mind...and I am far more tolerant and willing to accept things then you are. I know you can not concieve of adults working out the kind of relationship I am living, but your inability to think it doesn't make it impossible.


I have a view of the world that is shaped by my experience, just like everyone else. Yes, it's true, there are some things that I find ethically acceptable, and others not so much. I will gladly allow that I am damn well not so tolerant of those things I find ethically repugnant. Simple, basic, culture non-specific ethics as I understand them dictate that one consider the rights of all stakeholders. It's simple, basic, respect. If you aren't kidding yourself, and you do indeed expect to take complete ownership of another man's wife, he's a stakeholder to say the least. Again, simple, basic, respect would require that he at least be made aware that that is what you are doing, and given the option of accepting it, or not. To me, this is foundational ethics. Something that a human ought to understand regardless of culture. Maybe you don't think so, which is fine. The conclusions that I would draw about you in that case are my own, and you are right, you don't have to care.

It's not that I can't concieve of a man happily having relations with a married woman Taggard. What I do find to be impossible is for one man to own a woman and another to have a meaningful marriage with her at the same time. If one is true, the other won't be. I've seen men own women who were married in name only (meaning that both they and their spouse considered it to be in name only, not that one was being kept in blissful ignorance as you state below), and I have seen men happily play with married women with their husband's approval, or at least tacit consent. I have also seen men attempt what you are attempting. I've just never seen it succeed. The only time that "open" relations like what you are suggesting succeed, in my experience, is when everybody's cards are completely on the table. In other words, when due respect has been accorded to all stakeholders, as I have said above. When that isn't the case, people feel betrayed in the end, and rightly so. Most folks, for some odd reason, don't seem to like that much. Unhappiness and drama ensue. It's the damndest thing. Best of luck to you though. I'm sure you'll be the exception that proves the rule.

quote:

A smart slave would make sure her husband never felt that, even if it were true.


Well, I would call that a deception, but that's not suprising. You and I can never seem to agree on definitions. That aside, I don't see how that would be possible if she is at your beckon call. You are crediting her husband with intelligence above that of a single-cell organism, yes? Even the dullest of men is going to catch on fairly quickly that, as my grandfather used to say, he's "not the head rooster in the hen house anymore". If she isn't at your beckon call, then I fail to see how you own her by any tortured definition of ownership, but we've already beaten that dead horse sufficiently, I think.






GingerleeDREAD -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/7/2005 3:41:12 AM)

quote:

Now, you can say that by your definition the girl can still have power over her own home and professional life and be a slave. In other words, she could exempt those parts of her life from your control and you would still consider her a slave. As I've been saying all through this thread, do that if that is what makes you happy, just don't confuse it or equate it with what I do. It's simply not the same thing.


I agree with Leo Taggard on this one in that it is not the same thing and this is what the difference in a submissive and slave is in Our world and bending the ways does not make it right.
slaves serve the Owner and it is the Owner whom chooses if the slave is to serve any other then
the Owner ( not the slave choosing what man or woman to serve for their own satisfaction ). submissives make these choices for their selfs and if a submissive is in a marriage and chooses to go outside of it to gain that which is not gained with in it, this is not a consensual act between those whom have professed to each other hence not honorable nor integral nor even following the protocol of S.S.C.(safe sane consensual) or R.A.C.K.(risk aware consensual kink)Which are both rules of BDSM and agreed upon by the majority of Our Society if there is a party of the three left in the dark. If a third party enters and is aware of the marriage and still chooses to take part in a deceit of the professed original twos marriage this makes them also dishonorable as well. JMPO



darkinshadows -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/7/2005 4:20:24 AM)

wow... I go away for a bit and when I return, it's to a wonderful long post like this!

I think my head hurts from all the reading...[:(]

Can a married slave me owned by one and married to another?(Or even, any commited relationship)
I would venture yes.
If the husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend agrees.
If they don't and the slave has given the choice of accept or leave, and they stay. then more fool the wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend. But if the slave has given that ultimatium, then in truth, a relationship like the one the slave wants, has nothing to do with BDSM.

I am not the greatest fan of the phrase 'safe, sane and consensual'. I tend to think that one persons sanity is another persons madness and as for safety...? Well, its unsafe to just walk down the street, so thats just about choice.
But the sticking point is the consensuality.

People can argue about love in a kink relationship being good or bad until the cows come home.
People can discuss whats the right or wrong way to use a safe word.
And the thoughts on slave vs. submissive can go on for years.

But in a kink relationship two things are non negotiable.
Trust and Consensuallity.

If You cant trust, you cant get anywhere.

And if something isnt consensual, then its imposing.
Force.
Disrespect.

And on an added note...

quote:

Taggard:

I really don't care if her husband knows.


Now to me, that is just so scarey.



ProtagonistLily -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/7/2005 5:56:44 AM)

quote:

No, absolutely not...a married woman has given a vow to her husband therefore that vow takes precedence over anyother relationship unless the arrangement is agreed upon by all 3 parties. If a married women breaks her vow of faith to become a slave to another then she is proving her dishonesty and disloyalty and she ain't worth a shit. Any person who goes behind their spouses back to become a slave to another should certainly send up a few red flags. Anyone in the lifestyle for real would already know this...Mark


So what exactly are you saying here? That it's wrong or that it can't happen? Moralizing is one thing, but are you saying that it's couldn't actually occur?

Also, how do we know YOU are in the lifestyle for real? What if the slave isn't going behind her husband back? What if she has consent? What color flags would a consent from the husband for the slave to do this send up?

Hrm, I guess the fact that this is happening, and I have witnessed it means I must have witnessed some kind of illusion or apparition and that I'm fake and I'm not really in the real life scene.

Thanks for clearing that up for me...

Lily



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/7/2005 9:08:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

What you call ownership I call episodic session play. What I call ownership you find to be too akin to "mundane marriage". It's alright that we disagree about that.


That is a very good description of how our ownership styles differ. Your slave has much in common with a wife of the 1950s. My slave has much in common with a slave of the 1850's.

My view of the world is broad enough to see that both are ownership. The basic desire to own and be owned is the same, just lived in two very different manners.


quote:


You make only those commitments that you have every reason to expect that you can keep. It makes you someone in whose word others can trust.


You have given no examples of how either Celestia or I have done anything else with our commitments.

quote:


When I give my word about something I'm not claiming omnicience, I'm saying, in effect "This is in my power to do, and I will see it done".


Which is precisely how my style of slavery works. I am saying to Celestia, "I think it is in your best interest to keep your marriage healthy and happy. I give my word to see that my requirements on your service do not make that impossible." Celestia is saying to her husband, "I want our relationship to be healthy and happy, so I will find a Master who wants that too." Her husband is saying, "I want to be healthily and happily married to you, so I will trust you to find the right Master." Hard to imagine three such people finding one another...but it does happen.

quote:


Ethics require that I only make those commitments that I can reasonably assume are within my power to deliver upon.


All three of us have made commitments we can reasonably assume are within out power to deliver upon.

I have commited to providing my slave with the time she needs to maintain her marriage. Celestia has commited to both serving me as I require, and keeping her marriage healthy and happy. Celestia's husband has commited to allowing his wife to fulfill all of her needs, and making their marriage healthy and happy.

quote:


As I said before, and expanded upon here, if your girl is your slave, truly, she has no commitment to offer her husband.


That is true only if the owner is a power hungry and insensitve. It takes a lot more skill to own a slave who is on a much longer leash. If the slave is given a consistent level of autonomy, she can indeed make and keep lasting commitments.

quote:


Nothing would be within her power to deliver upon. Any commitment that she made would be a lie when it left her lips.


Does your slave make a commitment to her employer? Is that a lie? But you could at any moment tell her to blow off her job...does that mean she can not make a commitment?

quote:


Now, you can say that by your definition the girl can still have power over her own home and professional life and be a slave.


Of course...many slaves in the pre-Civil War south had a great deal of autonomy in both professional and domestic life.

quote:


In other words, she could exempt those parts of her life from your control and you would still consider her a slave.


It has nothing to do with exemption. If you owned a slave with diabetes, she wouldn't be able to exempt herself from your command to eat sweets, would she? But you would never ask her to eat sweets, as you know it would not be good for her.

Celestia doesn't exempt her personal and professional life from me, she simply lets me know that she needs a master who believes that it is in her best interest to let her keep her marriage healthy and happy. This is the same as the diabetic needs a master who doesn't demand she eat sweets.

quote:


As I've been saying all through this thread, do that if that is what makes you happy, just don't confuse it or equate it with what I do. It's simply not the same thing.


Of course it is not the same thing, you have a domestic style Master/slave relationship, mine is more pre-Civil War south based. The base desires to own and be owned, however, are the same.

quote:


Well, I didn't say that you have to be ashamed because I have no respect for that choice. I just said I have no respect for it. It's a statement about what I find ethical, nothing more.


And, in my opinion, out of place on a board like this. No one is here to hear what you do or do not respect. If you disagree with what I say, if you find fault in my logic, or see what I am doing causes harm, then, by all means, strike up a lively and heated debate. Your values, however, are your own. You have stated them clearly. I, for one, don't care if you respect me or my style. I have my own opinions about what you do and have shared them privately with those whom I respect. I have never, however, spoken about my value judgements on your style in a public manner. Personally, I believe there is too much animosity for what we do from the outside world...and I refuse to add any from the inside.

quote:


You don't have to care about anything other than what you want at the moment. Your "ethics" can proceed backward from there. It's called "situational ethics". You do what seems most beneficial to you at the time.


Your ignorance and narrowmindedness shows clear in statements like this. What surprises me is that you never learn. You make strong statements on things you clearly know nothing about, like my interest in owning male slaves, and then simply ignore the fact you said such things when I present you clear evidence to the contrary. I do indeed have a strong ethical system that is not situational at all, and have written extensively on it...if you would care to see it, I will be happy to send you the first chapter of my book. *smile*

quote:


Accepting shared norms of ethical conduct is one of the things that makes you part of a community, however. I don't claim to be part of the general BDSM culture.


And show me exactly where I claim to be part of any culture, other than the great American Pop culture.

quote:


There isn't any aspect of my girl's life that is none of my concern.


Yes, you have made it clear that you micro-manage her life. In fact, you take great pride in it. I, on the other hand, take great pride in the fact that my slave can be successful, well adjusted, and happy without my making every decision for her. In fact, I can trust her to make intelligent decisions on everything. Fact is, I wouldn't want to own anyone whom I didn't trust to make intelligent decisions on everything. Two different styles, yet both ownership.

quote:

You set out back at the beginning stating that your notion of ownership is the same as mine. Obviously not.


My notion of ownership includes your notion. The base desires, to be owned and to own, are the same. I take what you consider ownership and add the concept of ownership as it was applied in the pre-Civil War south. You seem unable to expand your view...not much I con do about that.

quote:


I have a view of the world that is shaped by my experience, just like everyone else.

[...]

It's not that I can't concieve of a man happily having relations with a married woman Taggard. What I do find to be impossible is for one man to own a woman and another to have a meaningful marriage with her at the same time.


I suppose I will just have to chalk that up to a lack of experience on your part, then. The truth is, I have seen it and know it can work.

quote:


I'm sure you'll be the exception that proves the rule.


It wouldn't be the first time...*wink*

quote:


quote:

A smart slave would make sure her husband never felt that, even if it were true.


Well, I would call that a deception, but that's not suprising.


What isn't surprising that you can not conceive of an adult relationship based on trust and open communication that is not jealous nor possessive, that doesn't include deception.

quote:


That aside, I don't see how that would be possible if she is at your beckon call.


I am sure I could fill two encyclopedias with what you can't see how would be possible. She is indeed at my beck and call, though she understands that I will not beckon, nor call, so often as to ruin her marriage. I simply don't have that kind of need for her...which makes her a perfect slave to be owned by me.

Taggard



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125