TypeAsub1
Posts: 65
Joined: 12/10/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Evanesce Interesting take on things, TypeA. I've heard many submissives say they'd never "serve" someone else. So you'd never get a glass of water for a dominant that was not your own, even if that dominant was a close friend? You'd never polish someone else's shoes just because you can and theirs need it? For myself, I may not willingly get involved with another dominant sexually, but I'll certainly get him or her a cup of coffee. I would get a drink for a friend if I happened to be getting up and grabbing one for myself yes. I wouldn't do it for a stranger and I wouldn't polish anyone's shoes - except my Doms.. no way. LOL.. i'm not built that way and spending a night where i'm expected to be that way for strangers or casual friends/acquaintances - no way. Not a chance. I am equal to everyone except my Dom and I will not "serve" another person, except him (or her). Nobody has the right to ask anything of me except my Dom, my boss and my clients. quote:
In order to have a more complete view of what we're doing, you'd have to rent and watch several episodes of the old British drama, "Upstairs, Downstairs," because it's that type of service, and that type of household structure, that we work towards in the Kaptin's house. As for the event itself, no one is required to attend, but those who do know what will be expected of them. The slaves will cook and serve. The dominants will relax and enjoy being served. That's nice for you and your group. I'm sure that those of you who are comfortable with that kind of activity will enjoy it. I would find it wholly insulting to have any Dom other than mine expecting me to do anything related to service... They're not my Dom, they have no reasonable expectation to expect me to serve them. quote:
I have no such obligation; particularly when the event being planned is highly specific and requires the active participation of ALL attendees in order to be successful. LOL... well silly me for thinking that we have an obligation to attempt to make our invited guests comfortable. quote:
This is not a play party. But your activities are a D/s function. If I were to have a party and require all my submissive guests to wear collars and leashes and be on all fours for the duration of the party - that's not play... but it's certainly a d/s activity. "Play" is not only sexual. Play can be anything you regard as part and parcel of your d/s dynamic. I regard the service things you are referring to as play... they would not be something I would do on a public basis... quote:
How is it removing consent? Everyone knows, well in advance, the nature of the event and what will be required of participants. By showing up, they consent to those requirements. It's really very basic and straightforward. It is removing consent because you've provided no alternative for people who attend. The invitation requires people to participate in their D/s roles by virtue of being there. Just because you regard the service as something impersonal or trivial, doesn't mean that it is for others. For some people this level and degree of submission is MORE meaningful, more signficant and more intimate, than a flogging or crawling on the floor. I would be one of those people. I'm not joking either. I can easily be minimally sexually submissive with someone early in my relationship with them, but to provide them with submission outside of sexuality - that is where intimacy and genuine relationship are necessary for me. You are arguing that the consent occurs when one accepts the invitation to attend... OK, that's fair. However, if you want to be 'inclusive' providing a non-participatory means of engaging others is a generous thing to do. In the end, you might find that people who are able to attend part of your evening for brief observations, may find it an interesting learning experience and show a greater flexibility should you have future parties of this nature. quote:
No, it is not. I would not expect someone else to make such concessions for me, and the nature of our event does not allow for "extras." Not to mention that I'm not cooking a 7-course meal and serving it to someone's slave just because they decided to come as "non-participants." Firstly, I clearly stated that I wouldn't expect such concessions. I do, however, think that a gracious host would be inclined to want to attempt to find means of accommodating their invited guests and friends- even if only for a short period of time to allow people to feel included. Yes - well... we wouldn't want a slave to eat a fine meal or anything... what a travesty! I find it very interesting that you find serving "a slave" so offensive - why? Besides, I didn't say you had to serve or feed them. Try thinking outside the box for a bit? Did I say they had to attend the whole dinner? Did I say they had to eat it? I would've suggested several options... invite them to attend the information session where the expert you've invited gives information. Invite them to come after dinner and socialize and sit and talk. Invite them just for dessert? There are any number of things one could do if they really wanted to make an effort to try and include their friends. I'm a bit perplexed as to why you posted this thread as a Dilemma. It appears there isn't much of a dilemma at all. You've already decided that you are not willing to change any part of your plans or even to extend a "partial" invitation to allow these folks to attend within their own comfort level. It appears to me that you merely wanted a place to rant where people would pat you on the back and agree. And - were it not for my post, which was entirely polite and a genuine effort to present an alternative perspective in conjunction with constructive advice on how to provide an alternative approach... it would've been a fait accompli. I hope you enjoy your party.
|