RE: Have No Rights (Full Version)

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



Message

aurora31 -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 3:18:41 PM)

To me I have but one right. Each morning when I get up I choose weather or not to submit. all other belong to my Sir. Now he may choose to give me certain righs and privilages but that is his progative.

aurora



MaryT -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 3:26:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

I've chosen to give up my inalienable rights which are granted to me by the Constitution ...


Your constitutional rights remain in effect whether or not you care to recognize them at this moment.  Either you are making a choice or your "captor" is committing a federal offense. 



SCDommie -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 3:27:19 PM)

I think no rights means giving up your freedom to serve another being; however, in the real world, it is going to be nearly impossible to keep serving one.  For example, if you are in the work place, you serve another person. There will be times, when you will need to make decisions.  
I don't want a slave to be a prisoner or noth ave any political and religious views. 
I view a slave as strong.
What ever happened to just having fun with this and being who you are?  That is when you really get to where you need to be. 

SCD



MaryT -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 3:33:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterWilliam55

Statements like "you have no rights but the one's I give you"...is pure retoric.  It isn't the Dom giving out rights...it's the sub giving up certain rights.


I think the problem is using the words "rights."  If I take a job that requires me to work 9 to 5, that doesn't mean that I have given up the right to go skiiing at 10 am.  It just means that I make a choice between the job and the skiing.  Using the word "rights" just adds to the fantasy that BDSM is about something other than choice.  And I gather that its usage irks you as much as it does me.



BitaTruble -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 3:50:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaryT

Your constitutional rights remain in effect whether or not you care to recognize them at this moment.  Either you are making a choice or your "captor" is committing a federal offense. 



Others may choose to embrace documents and point to them as black and white determiners of their lives. I don't sit in such an 'either or' box.

Celeste





MaryT -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 3:57:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaryT

Your constitutional rights remain in effect whether or not you care to recognize them at this moment.  Either you are making a choice or your "captor" is committing a federal offense. 



Others may choose to embrace documents and point to them as black and white determiners of their lives. I don't sit in such an 'either or' box.


They are black and white determiners of the law (they are the law), which exactly what I said.  Maybe it would be helpful if you didn't present your personal choices as being something other than constitutionally guaranteed every day of your life.



blmtrsne -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 4:49:21 PM)

For me it means my husband gave me his assets, his life, his freedom. He has the need to have no rights. He needs to know I have nude pictures of him I can show to everyone, Or that I can fuck aroubnd if I want to. His total slavery gives me total freedom. that's his gift to me.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 5:37:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

I often see the statement, "slaves have no rights."  However, I don't have a good appreciation of what other people mean when they say that someone has no rights. 

Hopefully without diverging into a debate on what a slave is or isn't...  Can you explain what this expression means to you?

Knight's kyra

I am not sure that I should reply to this as I have an issue with the idea of "consensual slavery" but I guess as long as I admit that up front and state that I know that the problem is mine and not others', I can go forward with my opinion.

Part of the reason for my problem with the statement that "slaves have no rights other than the right to leave" is that, as someone else noted, unless you as the owner intend to break the law, they ALWAYS have rights.  They have the right to stop their slavery/submission at any time, some have the right to maintain control over their offspring, some maintain the right to control their assets, they all have the right to continue living even though they choose to disobey, and various and other sundry rights "negotiated" as part of their dynamic before they agree to submit/enter slavery. 
So, when I hear the statement that "slaves have no rights other than the right to leave, my thoughts on the subject would be recognition of something along the lines of what I have stated above and not of genuine...as compared to "true"...slavery.  It is BDSM D/s slavery.



BitaTruble -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 5:51:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaryT


They are black and white determiners of the law (they are the law), which exactly what I said. 


I didn't use that phrase. I said that the documents are not black and white determiners of how I live my 'life'. Perhaps you misread my written words.

quote:

 Maybe it would be helpful if you didn't present your personal choices as being something other than constitutionally guaranteed every day of your life.


I have no idea what that means. I don't hold the law above my own integrity and value system. There are things much more important than any written 'law' and just because someone else determines that the things which I may or may not do are not in keeping with their ideals (even if those ideals come from law makers) that only effects me as far as consequences go and as I'm willing to suffer for the consequences of my actions, it seems rather pointless to worry about them. I don't obey the 'law' just because it's the law.. I do what I believe is the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do regardless of the law.

We disagree and I don't believe further discussion will change that disagreement, so I'll bow out of this one now. I believe I understand where you're coming from so if your post was to try to enlighten me to your way, I do get it.. I just don't agree with it.

Celeste




KnightofMists -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 6:04:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

As far as I am concerned slaves do have rights. They have the right to enter into servitude and the right to leave it. I have heard some forms of TPE say that a slave cannot leave unless his/her Owner releases them. I cannot fathom keeping a slave that did not want to be owned by me. But to each their own.


I agree that a fundamentally that a person has the right to enter or leave a relationship... Regardless of relationship structure.

I realize that many equate slavehood as a person that has no rights!  However, this in of itself ignores the very concept of consensual slavehood as compared to forced slavehood.  The difference being one has the choice to be in it and other does not.

The arguement that a consentually slave loses this right when they initially consent is illogically.  Some will state that for someone to get to this state of commitment of slavehood is only possible if they trust that such a master would never abuse them and therefore the right to leave is not needed.   I do agree that for a person who will give complete authority will be required to trust and believe in their master completely.  However, this doesn't equate to a lost of rights... it only means that one doesn't forsee that such rights will ever need be exercised.  There is a huge difference between "Having No rights"  to "Never Exercising One's Rights"

It is my opinion that everyone does indeed have rights... but for some the trust and belief in their Master/Mistress is so strong that idea that one would ever exercise the right to leave is about as possible as the sun not rising the next day.  Just because you don't use it.. doesn't mean you don't have it.



juliaoceania -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 6:15:06 PM)

There is something called free will and free agency. It is something  have heard Christians debate one too many times. We all have the free will to do whatever we like, now we may not choose to use that free will, and we are constrained by things such as the law of gravity and such, but basically we have the right to do whatever we please in some ways. Now when we do certain things they can cause us to lose our freedom, get beaten up, be shunned, our spouse to leave us.. but we could still exercise our free agency to make certain choices...

... a slave either feels unwilling to exercise their free agency, or they have willingly conceded it to another because they wanted to. I have read some people that feel as though they have no choice but to be a slave... so in essense I have wondered if their slavery is in fact consensual... but that is another topic all together I suppose...

... where I am going with this? Slaves have rights, but they choose not to exercise them. They will have rights the same as any other human being on planet earth. I am not talking about under the law, because what I am talking about is not legalese, it is about the right to take action... even if that action has bad consequences.. we always have a choice among a myriad of options... slaves choose not to make their own choices. I could be totally wrong, but that is how I perceive it.



Caitriona -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 6:15:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

To me, while ownership rights are all encompassing and a necessary part of the M/s relationship dynamic, it's also theoretical because A) slave ownership is not legally enforcable and B), I'm still not an abusive arsehole anyway.  So in theory she has no rights as my slave but the fact is she can choose not to be my slave anytime, as well.  But only once!
 
Focus.


Wonderfully said.  Thank you, Focus!



KnightofMists -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 6:15:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterWilliam55

Just because a sub does not choose to excersise certain rights, does not mean they don't exist.  When a Dom never asks anything of his sub that would seriously hurt her and never refuses her anything that she really needs, he by default acknowledges she has rights. The right not to be abused, the right to look after her health, the right to live...etc.  By saying a sub can Leave of her own choosing over anything you do that she objects to...is acknowledging free will.  She stays by consent. Are you going to ask her things she can't consent to...not likely.

Statements like "you have no rights but the one's I give you"...is pure retoric.  It isn't the Dom giving out rights...it's the sub giving up certain rights. You can tell your slave that she must report to you at 12 noon every day. Her job may not allow that. So she comes back with 2:30...asking you. "Will that work ,Sir" She is negotiating what she actually Can do to make the dynamic work. 

In other words, these relationships are not black and white. If your slave says No, and you won't listen to the point she heads out the door, what exactly have you proven?  Lets see, you've proven she has rights, and just excersised one of them. Incidently, if it goes that far, you've also proven she is stronger than you.

This is BDSM slavery, not Real historical slavery.


Like this post...  and I highlighted a portion that I address below...

It's not just the giving up of certain rights... but privileges as well. 



asassylilslave -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 6:32:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

I often see the statement, "slaves have no rights."  However, I don't have a good appreciation of what other people mean when they say that someone has no rights. 

Hopefully without diverging into a debate on what a slave is or isn't...  Can you explain what this expression means to you?

Knight's kyra

For myself, in the past, it has always meant that he now has the right to decide what and what I will not do on any given day; he has the right to choose my clothing, my food, my goof-off activities ( go camping, sit at home and read, etc, etc ), he has the right to choose for me anyone outside himself that I will have sexual relations with, he has the right to change my spending habits to a more efficient and fiscal way, he has the right to choose what books and television shows I can and can not watch...I could go on, but I think you get the point [:)]
 
He basically has ALL the rights in the relationship, and I would have none except for what he decided to give to me. The only area that is not a part of this would cover my responsibility to my family; that is mine and mine alone. I could ask for his advice, and he would gladly give it, but I do not have to follow it.



TreasurePet -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 6:37:15 PM)

I believe part of the problem is that everyone has a different definition of the word "right".
I personally don't believe that anyone has any "right" to anything. The right to free speech? There are things people are not allowed to say ... so, I believe no one has any inalienable rights.
On the other hand ... people do have free will and there are liberties that most people have that they take for granted.
One of my rules is that all the freedoms I have are privileges and can be revoked at any time for any reason.
I chose whether or not to submit. I chose whether or not to obey. Every time. But if I do not chose to submit ... then the relationship I currently have is over.
One can be blackmailed or punished but one never HAS to do anything.
I find that to be true in most cases. Everything in life is a choice.



TreasurePet -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 6:44:57 PM)

I was once in the unfortuante position to ask for my release. If it had not been granted, I would have stayed. I can't say it would have been comfortable or would have made me happy but I had agreed to stay until such time as I was released. If things got worse, perhaps I would have walked away without permission but even given the situation, that is not something that would ever come easily for me. Asking alone took as much as I had but I had to do it to take care of myself when he was not taking care of me.



alandraofMists -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 6:55:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aurora31

To me I have but one right. Each morning when I get up I choose weather or not to submit. all other belong to my Sir. Now he may choose to give me certain righs and privilages but that is his progative.

aurora


i very much agree with what you have said here and thought it needed repeating *ss*

looking forward to seeing you in Beat Me.

Knight's  alandra



MaryT -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 7:19:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaryT
They are black and white determiners of the law (they are the law), which exactly what I said. 


I didn't use that phrase. I said that the documents are not black and white determiners of how I live my 'life'. Perhaps you misread my written words.


Perhaps if you were not talking about your rights under the law, you should not have brought up the subject of "Constitutional rights" in regard to your kink, since there is a BIG difference between the two.

quote:

 Maybe it would be helpful if you didn't present your personal choices as being something other than constitutionally guaranteed every day of your life.


quote:

I have no idea what that means. I don't hold the law above my own integrity and value system.
There are things much more important than any written 'law' and just because someone else determines that the things which I may or may not do are not in keeping with their ideals ...


What I said, repeatedly, is that it is ALL about choice.  It is in no way about "no rights" and certainly has nothing to do with losing, or giving up, Constitutional rights.  The *fact* is that you make choices every minute of every day of your life.  You lose no *rights* no matter what (unless you break the law or leave US soil), because your Master possesses no state-recognized power to take state-recognized rights from you.  Either you are making a choice or he is commiting a federal offense.  So which is it?  Obviously, you are making a choice, every minute of every day of your life.

quote:

(even if those ideals come from law makers) that only effects me as far as consequences go and as I'm willing to suffer for the consequences of my actions, it seems rather pointless to worry about them.


Oh puleeeeze!  The Constitution does not guarantee you protection from your own choices nor penalize you for being a submissive.  It simply guarantees your right to choose ... every minute of every day of your life.

quote:


I do get it.. I just don't agree with it.


Whatever.  If you really "get it" you would not continue to confuse Constitutional law with your personal choices.

MaryT



BitaTruble -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 7:49:09 PM)

quote:

Whatever.  If you really "get it" you would not continue to confuse Constitutional law with your personal choices.


Whatever? A word often used by my grandchildren. Interesting that a grown woman uses it as well.

As for 'getting it', I truly do. I 'get' the constitution and I 'get' that while I "may" exercise the rights granted by that documents, it's not mandated that I 'must' exercise those rights and in my first post to this thread, I made it clear that I 'gave up' those rights .. and that is a choice, so what, exactly you think I don't 'get' I'm not certain. What I am certain of, is that further argument serves no purpose, so I wish you a good evening.

Celeste



Wulfchyld -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 8:11:53 PM)

Mary,
 
Everyone here “gets’ what Celeste is saying. What they are also getting is that this is turning into some kind of personal thing for you and has little o do with the topic, rather an attack on Celeste. You have entered into a “none productive stage” and are damaging your credibility. Constitutional references are just damn skippy, because it is the very creature in which prosecutors use to send people to jail.
A “slave owner” can and will be prosecuted if it is in the better interest of a prosecutors career. A great many “crimes” are punished because it gives statistics to careers, gives media coverage, or sets precedence for a prosecutor’s career.
DNA has exonerated so many people, who for the most part where just pawns for the satisfaction of justice or a career boon. By the time they are exonerated the prosecutor has moved on to other things already reaping the rewards of that “fame” or statistical data.
Could Celeste’s Dom be jailed over their practice? Yes he could. Could she? Perhaps she would be a sacrificial lamb thrown to psychologists to save her from her self.
The point being is that state law varies on how hard and what kind of play you can have. Yet the undeniable truth is that the constitution is the very tool in which a D/s couple would be charged, tried and prosecuted with.
 
Now the constitution protects you from harm… rape, murder, assault, and a host of other nasty things. Nevertheless it only protects you by telling those that would do you harm that they will be jailed over it. It is not a magic shield that will save you or protect you. It is a simple double-edged sword that works for and against us.
 
Respectively
Loki



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

Valid CSS!




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