RE: Have No Rights (Full Version)

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



Message

angelic -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 8:57:27 PM)

~fast reply to no one in particular~

In a Ron White (a stand-up comic) he says in one of his stories... this was after he had been drinking and tossed out of a tavern and the cops showed up... "I had the 'right' to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability".   In some instances is it possible that, yes a slave has the right to leave  but not the ability? (Just thinking outloud).



RavenMuse -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 9:03:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelic
In some instances is it possible that, yes a slave has the right to leave  but not the ability?


In My Own girls case that might well end up being the case due to the way she has submitted herself and how she ties herself into that commitment (As said, I had to impose the one right that would remain. She wanted/needed to hand Me ALL of them) . But she also trusts that if I ever believed it to be truely in her best interest.... *I* would force that on her, even if it was the last choise I was able to make on her behalf as a result.



Noah -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 9:20:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam


To me, this means they are equivalent to something that has no spiritual energy. In my belief system, almost everything, rocks, plants, animals, etc., has spiritual energy and thus has a right to be treated with respect. Things, however, like my car, I don't see as having any rights. My cats, the trees on my land and the rocks in my medicine wheel do. Now, why I feel that my car doesn't have a spirit, I dunno...but even with that, I treat it fairly well and maintain it in working order.

I'm just not able to lower a person to such a status as "no rights" in my head. Now, they can choose to turn over those rights to me...but that doesn't mean they don't have them. It simply means I have control of them...or authority over them, as LA would say. In the end, I still feel that there is one right the slave always maintains: to obey or not. If you take that away, then the obedience means nothing for they didn't CHOOSE to do it.

Clear as mud, maybe?


Clear as crystal. As a dominant I appreciate submission in my partner. I can't see any way that the word submission (as I understand it) could be applied to the behavior of some thing with no rights. Compliance, maybe, at most. But if this being has no more rights than a stone, and responds to a command the way a stone responds to being dropped,  it hardly even counts as compliance, does it?

It's just one more instance of: Stuff Happens.  Ho hum.

I mean that sort of thing might be interesting for about fifteen minutes; a novelty like your first yo-yo. I can't see it holding my interest, though..

If instead this being has every right I have, then it is suddenly possible for her to surrender those rights to me, over and over, a thousand times per day, in her actions and her words and her thoughts.

That's what dominance and submission have to do with where I come from.

All that said, let's face the fact of how much commonality there is in what actually transpires in our respective relationships. To a great extent we are reaching into the same dark sack of (somewhat magical) Scrabble letters. The magical thing about them is that when strung together they don't form words, but rather meanings.

I take and make from an experience almost indistinguishably similar to yours, a meaning which on one level can be seen to stand at odds with the meanings you (and your partner) take and make for yourselves. And vice versa. Heavy on the vice, of course.

I'd hate to see either of us look down on the other for it.

You (anyone) can describe your experience of dominance/submission in terms which are coherent for you and quite at odds with the set of terms/concepts/images/meanings I employ in my relationships. You can describe them in those terms presumably because that's how you encounter them, really and truely (in the noble senses of those two often tortured words.) If your set of set of terms/concepts/images/meanings resonates suitably for you, I say go with it. If my way of encountering all this just doesn't resonate at all for you, then pass it by.

Even though I personally reject the description and view of things which holds a submissive partner to have no rights, I have perfect confidence in the beauty and power of the yielding that is done by many of those who choose to describe--and indeed, to see--their submission in those terms.







starshineowned -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 9:45:58 PM)

Greetings..~smiles~

Just a reply...

I agree with the constitution these days being a double edged sword. When it comes to rights I am not so inclined to agree that it matters whether they are there or not where personal dynamics are concerned, and formed from choice.

Agreements made based on desires, needs, wants are only going to be valid and upheld as long as the persons involved continue to desire, need, and want. Invalidating any agreement will come with consequences. If your willing to take on those consequences what ever they may be or imposed by whom ever..then so be it.

Humans were instilled with free will. It takes extreme conditions and years to break that. Historical slaves ..though the laws of the lands were against and not for them, and consequences severe most of the time..still had free will to make choice whether to submit. The point here is not a issue of debating the fact that the consequences were so overwhelming for most..it was a extreme motivator for most to submit..the point is that they retained that free will inside to exercise that choice, laws or no laws, and some did, and paid the consequences there of. This not only over the course of slavery applied to slaves but to slave owners and traders as well as different codes and laws were implemented regarding the institution of slavery.

Well Wishes
starshine
Happy slave of Master Delvin



MaryT -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 10:05:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wulfchyld

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


Well, first of all I must stand in AWE that *you* speak for everyone here.

Secondly, you in no way addressed one single point that I made.  My point - once again for the learning impaired -
either she makes a choice OR he commits a federal offense.  At any given time, only one of those circumstances can exist - one of the two circumstances is protected under Constitutional law.

Your point: 
quote:

"Could she? Perhaps she would be a sacrificial lamb thrown to psychologists to save her from her self."
Perhaps she could.  It is theorhetically possible - I know of not one single case in American history, but perhaps you can enlighten me, such knowledge you surely possess since you speak "for everyone."

I care not about my "credibility" in a forum wherein fantasy rules supreme and reality is nuisance.  My gripe has nothing whatsoever to do with Celeste as a person but her usage of "Constitutional rights" as it applies to kink.  The two do not mix unless the latter supports the former.  Easy, pacheezee Japaneeze no?

It is about choice or it is not BDSM.  Wow, what a simple concept.  What a shock to learn that "everyone here" disagrees with that statement.

Respectfully,

MaryT



Wulfchyld -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 10:13:07 PM)

Mary,

My point is that you have taken a stance on what you preceive to be right and untill such a point that everyone sees it your way they are wrong.

Is that pointed enough?



Noah -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 10:39:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaryT

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.


First of all, I'd like to opt out of Loki's rather magisterial "we".  I'm not at all confident as to whose understandings line up with who else's. Furthermore the rhetorical gambit that the "we" amounted to sounded all too much like Junior High School clique-speek to me.

I think it is sufficient to speak in terms of the ideas and their usefulness, stopping short of tallying up who believes what and who else is left out in the cold.

Mary, I wonder whether those who claim to have abandoned all rights would be accordingly quite sanguine about, say, being beaten robbed and raped by a stranger while on a  trip to the market. Sure they might still feel physically harmed, but they would presunably not feel offended in any way, since they had no right to expect their day to go any differently, since they simply have no rights whatever.

Most of us hold that we have have a rights such as those enshrined in the language of the U.S. Constitution when it speaks of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the Constitution very explicity does not intend to "grant" these rights. It intends to recognize them as naturally present, and to found a system of law recognizing this "fact" about the world.

That someone mentioned the Constitution does not require descent in to a legalistic debate. We can just as well refer to the rights enshrined in the constitution as our natural rights, and only use the constitutional language as a sort of pointer. I felt that this was the sort of move BitaTrouble was making.

Your point hinges, as you say, on whether a person has stepped across a certain national border. BitaTrouble's point--unless I'm wildly mistaken--holds irrespective of geography.

I suspect that you and I are both out of our depth anyway, in trying to tackle things in terms of Constitutional Law. I say that about me because I know my limitations.  I say it about you because you actually said:

quote:

either she makes a choice OR he commits a federal offense.  At any given time, only one of those circumstances can exist - one of the two circumstances is protected under Constitutional law.


...which entails that commiting a federal offense is protected under Constitutional law.


Your "at any given time" clause is very troublesome to me. You seem to feel that in any case where permission must be granted, the person granting the permission must be busy, actively choosing to regrant it in each minute of each day. It seems to me that I can choose to let my nephew squat on my woodlot upstate and then three months later quite forget I ever had that conversation with him, forget I granted that permission. In this event I am most assuredly not "at any given time" busy choosing to let him live there but unless I miss my guess, my preoccupation with other matters doesn't make him a trespasser under the Constitution. When the deputy drags him before me I will of course remember our deal and the lad will be exonerated from ever having been a trespasser.

If I'm wrong about this I hope some legal practitioner or scholar will straighten me out.

In the same way, I doubt that BitaTrouble must by law be busy choosing in every minute of every day any particular thing at all, on pain of making her honey a criminal. That would seem a surpassing odd way, a sort of LewisCarolingian way, for a set of laws to operate.

As for your claim that we are each busy making a choice in each minute of every day of our lives, in general, well that seems like either very silly and careless talk. At best it seems like talk which expands the sense of the word "choice" until it looses all it's ability to highlight any particular aspect of the human experience.

I say this since it applies as well to waking as to sleep, as to daydreaming, as to deliberating in advance of a choice, as to the relatively restricted set of things that normal speakers of English use the word "choice" to indicate.

So you may say "Well daydreaming entails a CHOICE to daydream, and every dream in the daydream is a dream we CHOSE to have rather than some other dream." Against that, I will say that in my experience, some thoughts--for good or ill--come unbidden.  Oh I recognize that by a radical reductionism one could encompass those thoughts in a web of Choice too. I just can't see the point of devising such an arbitrarily arch and improbable theoretical construct to hold up as the filter through which to view our lives. And even if one chooses to do so, to insist that it is the self-evident one true way of viewing life get's us back into the silly, careless territory, I think.

Moving on, if I'm not mistaken, the above snippet is the second instance of you claiming that "it" is all about choice. I'm reading "it" to point to submission.

This time you capitalized all the letters in "all".  Please forgive me if I am wrong in taking this to mean that you are holding this is a very strong sense indeed.

I think the notion that submission is all about choice is terribly wrong.
That is to say that I could list any number of things, in fact any number of sorts of things, that submission can be "about."  I don't mean to scare-quote your word. I put it in quotes, rather, to highlight that it is another suspect locus of some semantic disconnection between you and I in that I'm not sure how you would cash out your meaning of "about" or your meaning os "ALL".

I'm hoping you will clear those (as perceived by me) ambiguities up.

Now it may happen to be the case that you are indeed making some grand reductionist move, and no matter what I might list as other "subject matters" of submission, you might choose to say that each and every one "boils down" to choice. I just don't know.

I'm pointing to the ambiguities as an alternative to making assumptions about them. If you'd like to say more about what you mean when you say It is all about choice I'll be pleased to listen and willing to learn, and/or criticize.





adaddysgirl -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 10:48:29 PM)

i am trying to grasp the concept of  'a slave has no rights'  Can that be tantamount to 'a slave has no limits'?  i really am just trying to wrap my head around this.  So let me take what i have gleaned from these boards.
 
Slave A:  Master says i will have sex with another female, so i will because that is what he says to do.  Master says i will eat shit so i will because that is what he says to do.  Period.
 
Do i believe there are some on here like this?  Yes....and i will use adaddysprop as that example of that. 
 
Slave B:  Master says i will have sex with another female and even though i am not bisexual and the thought of it repulses me, i will do so to please him (and how many times have we heard that?).   But...Master says i will eat shit but i just cannot do it.  It is a hard limit for me so i could not do that even if it pleased him.  Right there, the sub has made the choice on what she will do in the relationship.
 
Slave C:  Master says i will have sex with another female and although i know it would please him, i just can't do it....hard limit for me.  Master says i will eat shit but that is also a hard limit for me so i just can't do it.
 
People are always saying it is important to find a partner who shares your same limits.  Then it will seem like there are no hard limits and it will never seem like you are disobeying because all he requires of you is what you have already agreed to.
 
But from what i see here is that with the exception of Slave A, everything else is based on what the slave agrees to or not.  The only difference is...is what her Master requires of her.  So find a Master who 'fits' your limits?
 
Again....this whole 'a slave has no rights'....'a slave has no limits'....seems pretty interpersonal to me and not something that can be established across the board.
 
DG
 
 
 
 



ownedgirlie -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 11:27:00 PM)

When I hear people say they have no rights as a slave, I assume they mean they are in a place in their slavery where their Master's word is more important to them than any rights granted by law. Like Celeste said, my being a citizen may give me certain rights, but my being a slave to my Master has me following HIS word as my priority.  The laws of this land say I have a right to vote.  If my Master decides I won't be voting, then I won't be voting.  I may have a legal right to bear arms.  If my Master wants me to get rid of my weapons, then I will get rid of my weapons.  I have a legal right to practice the religion of my choice.  If my Master tells me to go to a particular church, or to NOT go to a particular church, that's what I will be following.  It's really simple for me - I obey him.  Period.  But to be honest, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about rights.   I think about obeying him, and so far that's worked out really well for me.

As for the ability to leave.  My heart is so tightly bound to that man that, as KoM said, I know I will never leave as sure as I know the sun will rise tomorrow.  He has given me the right to ask for my release at any time.  And I know if I truly do not want to submit to him, he will grant it, as he does not want a slave who doesn't want to be there.  But while he has given me that right, I know I will never exercise it.  It's really not something I think about.



juliaoceania -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 11:35:04 PM)

FR

These are heavy concepts to articulate extremely well with no ambiguity as it were. I do not see there are being any right or wrong answer... if someone wants to refer to the Bill of Rights, to the Bible, to the Koran, to some way-out philosophy we have never heard before in an attempt to explain how they feel about their rights as a human being.. why should others get bent over this?

Some people will resonate with what we say, others definitely will not... it is like 5 blind men trying to describe an elephant by only feeling a part of it. I see many of these answers as complimentary, thought provoking, and even the ones that do not resonate with me provide wonderful and delicious contrast to contemplate.

but that is just the way I see it... btw, we can be more legalistic when chastizing others for being so... just an observation.



adaddysgirl -> RE: Have No Rights (2/2/2007 11:58:28 PM)

owned,
 
It's kinda funny....i almost mentioned both your name and bita's when i mentioned adaddysprop.  i wanted to prelude my post with more but thought it would be too much of a read.  So let me say this:
 
i want to wear a pink shirt to work today...Master says i am to wear the black one so i wear the black one.  After work, i'd like to go home and watch tv rather than do the dishes. But Master says i am to do the dishes first....so i do.  OK....his choices become mine.  Many will say this.  But...that is the 'easy stuff'....when it comes to a hard limit...then what?  Most are singing a different tune.  Most will say they have no rights until a hard limit is introduced.
 
And to me, most of the doms who say their slave obeys or she leaves are the ones who are taking into consideration their slaves' limits.  Mind you, though, they don't have to....and some don't.  So if they don't, and the slave stays, then that (to me) is much different than the ones who make concessions for their slaves limits.
 
And that is why i say....most (dom or sub) will probably find the best relationships with those of similar views.
 
DG



ownedgirlie -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 12:16:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl

i want to wear a pink shirt to work today...Master says i am to wear the black one so i wear the black one.  After work, i'd like to go home and watch tv rather than do the dishes. But Master says i am to do the dishes first....so i do.  OK....his choices become mine.  Many will say this.  But...that is the 'easy stuff'....when it comes to a hard limit...then what?  Most are singing a different tune.  Most will say they have no rights until a hard limit is introduced.
 
And to me, most of the doms who say their slave obeys or she leaves are the ones who are taking into consideration their slaves' limits.  Mind you, though, they don't have to....and some don't.  So if they don't, and the slave stays, then that (to me) is much different than the ones who make concessions for their slaves limits.
 


Hi adaddysgirl,

I can really only say this.  I don't say no to him.  Period. 

Having said that, If I am told to do something that is absolutely impossible to do, he will recognize that and revise the order.  If I come up against circumstances which might prevent or delay certain orders (for example, I was completely overloaded with work, life and orders this week, and needed to ask him which he would like to take priority), then I let him know and he considers (but does not guarantee) revising. 

If I am told to do something I simply do not want to do, that might be handled in several ways. In most cases, I just do it, period.  In some erm...more extreme type of cases, he won't just spring something on me that will give me an emotional breakdown.  He will know my thoughts on the subject inside and out - my fears, my anxieties, my eagerness, my nervousness, my delights, etc. - so that he can assess my readiness for such a feat.  I am very confident that when he tells me to do something, he knows I will handle it, even if I struggle.

The thing is, it becomes more and more rare that I don't want to do something he wants of me.  My joy in life is pleasing him and I please him by doing what he wants.  Sure there are things that I would clearly dislike doing, but I will still do them.

You mentioned making concessions.  He decides what he will give me and what he will put on me.  And while he will push and while this has caused me stress at times, he knows me well enough to know how I will respond, and what I'll succeed at.  Since he prefers to not set me up for failure, the odds are pretty good that all will be fine, no matter what he requires of me.

But I think you are interchanging rights and limits.  And while I believe they are related, I do not view them as the same.  After all, I don't have the right to have limits [;)]



BitaTruble -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 12:18:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl


 
Again....this whole 'a slave has no rights'....'a slave has no limits'....seems pretty interpersonal to me and not something that can be established across the board.
 
DG
 
 
 
 


Truth in a teacup, dat!

So, I asked Himself: "What rights do I have?"

His reply.. "None."

Me: "But.. what about.."

Himself: "I said none. Did I stutter?"

This led to a wonderful discussion with him on priviledges and responsibilities so this thread turned out to be quite beneficial to me on a personal level. We've actually had the discussion before, but it never hurts to readdress and rethink certain aspects that have a direct impact on day to day life.

Celeste




NorthernGent -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 2:16:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

When I hear people say that "slaves have no rights" to me it means that they are saying that slaves are purely objects or property, not human beings. A robot if you will that does what it is programmed to do. As long as this robot functions as its supposed to things are wonderful, if it does not then the Owner simply does away with it and replaces it.



I agree with the general point but will add it's a matter for personal taste. To each their own etc.

I'm attracted to people with energy, ideas, a spark, someone bubbling with enthusiasm. Dampening this with a "no rights" policy would not serve my needs. Providing she accepts that I hold decision making power on behalf of both of us we'll get along like a house on fire. Outside of this, she has all the rights she needs to bloom.

I appreciate the above isn't answering the OP.



julietsierra -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 2:54:50 AM)

As a slave, I really don't follow the whole thing about "slaves have no rights." I have every single right in the world that I ever had before I came to this point in my life. I can stay, I can leave, I can do what I want, when I want, how I want, if I want. I don't see that slavehood in my situation has changed that whatsoever.

However, by virtue of my slavehood, some of my rights, which I exercise vigorously, is the right to be in a relationship where he calls the shots. I have the right to make a decision to remain in a relationship where he calls the shots. I also have the right to be happy, to be healthy and to be cared for. I also have the right to care for someone else. I have the right to love in the manner that's right for me, and I have the right to reasonable safety. I also have the right to NOT be in a relationship where he calls the shots. I have the right, I suppose, to not be happy, to not be healthy, and all the rest. I have the right to walk away.

What I do not have is the right to expect that if he's calling the shots, that he'll do what I say. I don't have the right to manipulate in such a way as to undermine the basic foundations of our relationship. I don't have the right to hurt him, use him or demean him. I don't have the right to humiliate him or treat him in a manner that is disrespectful of him as a person and as the person I have pledged myself  to. And the big one for me in terms of what slavery is to me, is that I don't have the right to expect reciprocation. This is not a tit for tat relationship, a relationship where if I do abc, I should expect that he's going to do def.

To me, it's simply a relationship. Perhaps it is more formal, and perhaps we take some areas to the nth degree which isn't common to relationships in general, but still, it is a relationship that we've structured so as to be in the best interests of the two people involved in it. It is not necessarily in alignment with what everyone else out there believes a relationship should be, but it is in alignment with what we choose it to be. If that means we're comfortable with me asking permission to do whatever it is that I want to do, then that's what's good for us. It doesn't mean I can't do what I want - it just means I need to ask first. It also means that sometimes, the answer may be no, and that at that point, other rights, like the right to be happy (being in the relationship) supercede my right to do what I want at that moment in time. 

My slavery to him is something intensely personal. It is not built on "community" expectations or generalized beliefs as to what a "true slave" should be. However, it IS built according to some specific ideas of what each of the two of us needs, and wants, and feels. It does have the expectation that if I don't like something I can leave. I CHOOSE to abide by what he says in every other instance, and if I say "no," I'd better be able to back that up with some significant reasons for saying it  -  not just because "I don't feel like it."

And most importantly, it has, at it's  base, the fact that loyalty plays a significant role, in that even when I don't like something, my loyalty to him mandates that I follow what he says. 

Yes, I can choose at any time not to follow what he says. At that time, I'm well within my rights to make that choice. And in doing so, I'm choosing not to submit and I am choosing not to be in this relationship.

juliet



eyesopened -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 3:01:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

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.


i agree with this entirely... a slave has one right and that is who will be her/his Master/Mistress.  The word "right" equals entitlement.  What is a slave entitled to?  Only that which was agreed upon when entering slavehood.



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 3:24:55 AM)

It’s mostly fantasy. The real part is that I can maintain a desire in her to be with me so much that she will submit to what I want. When that desire leaves, she will probably be gone, too.



agirl -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 3:51:29 AM)

I haven't thought about *rights* a great deal in terms of my relationship with M, so I'm thinking outloud here in a way.

When I asked to belong to him, I was giving HIM a a personal right. I still have all the rights I had before..........consumer rights,right to choose my children's school.....right by law. M can't remove those rights.

What he has is a personal right to decide what rights I exercise, and how. But's that's something I gave him on a personal level. No-one else recognises his *right* apart from him and I.

There are things that other people determine as rights on a personal level that I don't....for example, the right to happiness, to be healthy and cared for. I don't see those things as rights because there's no-one *governing* them. I see those things as hopes and desires.

INSIDE my relationship, the only *right* that's been spelled out is that I may leave whenever I wish to, after giving the agreed notice. But even THAT is only enforced by my own integrity.

Back to the question ......* What does the expression..."slaves have no rights"........mean to me?*........My preliminary thoughts are that they do have rights, whether they recognise them or not or whether they like the thought or not....but they can make a personal choice to allow someone else to override them.

agirl





julietsierra -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 4:04:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl


There are things that other people determine as rights on a personal level that I don't....for example, the right to happiness, to be healthy and cared for. I don't see those things as rights because there's no-one *governing* them. I see those things as hopes and desires.

My preliminary thoughts are that they do have rights, whether they recognise them or not or whether they like the thought or not....but they can make a personal choice to allow someone else to override them.

agirl





I can understand the whole idea of hopes and desires, but I would guess that when someone is unhappy for too long, they opt to walk away and find their happiness elsewhere. When someone is unhealthy in their relationship, generally speaking (of course there are exceptions since we see time and time again posts about abuse and what constitutes it, etc) they leave. And when uncared for for too long, people walk. So, happiness, health and the need to be cared for IS under someone's governance. It's under the governance of each of us, and while they are of course, hopes and desires, they are also rights that we enact whenever we decide that a relationship isn't right for us or has become not right for us. And yes, some of us allow even those rights to be overridden.

juliet



NorthernGent -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 4:23:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: agirl


There are things that other people determine as rights on a personal level that I don't....for example, the right to happiness, to be healthy and cared for. I don't see those things as rights because there's no-one *governing* them. I see those things as hopes and desires.


agirl




Hi agirl,

Based on your posts, I'll offer that you are being governed by your master and it follows that an element of his remit is your happiness and health. I do take your point that you have no right to the said needs. Whether or not you expect provision for these needs is your call, personally I see these as basic essentials of human existence (even a burrow owl cares for its family).



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875