daddysprop247
Posts: 1712
Joined: 6/24/2005 From: DC Metro area Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DominaSmartass I know how stupid it sounds to say "What if your master tried to kill you?" because most people will just answer "He never would do that, that's why I'm able to give up that much trust to him." But this is what has never made sense to me: if you choose a master that would never kill you, harm you permanently, maim you, etc., then why is it so vital that people know "he has the right to do so if he wishes" ? I get the impression that people like to brag, in a sense, about how they are specifically "NOT SSC" because their master has the absolute right to life over them but they will also say, as you've said above, that they are under orders to protect their health and life above all even if that were to be protecting it from a suddenly psychotic personality flip in your normally calm master. So, if you chose to give up this right to life to your master with the understanding that he "can" do whatever he wants but he is not "going to" try to kill you - and then one day he just changes his mind and tries to kill you and you admit that in that case you would defend yourself and NOT just go along with the killing during his moment of psychosis - then I ask what is the point of saying that he has the right to take your life? I mean, if it were not a moment of temporary insanity but instead and very well thought out decision, presented to you rationally, where he sat down and said "Melissa, I love you but I've decided you need to die now. And I'll sure get a lot of pleasure from it, it would make me really happy." Would you just say "Yes, Master" and let him proceed to do it by whatever means he had in mind? I can't imagine you would. So again, what's the point in saying that he has the right to when the whole basis of you handing over that right to him is in the knowing he'd never do it? Am I making any sense? realizing this post was not directed to me, i just wanted to say that i feel the above makes perfect sense, and i've always thought much the same. if a slave knows that because of ultimate trust, love, shared limits, or whatever, that her Owner will never subject her to x, y, or z, then it is rather meaningless to say that he has the right to do x, y, or z. it may very well be the truth, but it's a moot point in the relationship. when i make such statements (like, my Master may do whatever he wills with me), it's partially to give others an understanding of my reality, and partially to reinforce that understanding within myself. mentally or emotionally i still struggle with my slavery at times, and stating (or typing) these things can be helpful. my Master and i do not share all the same limits or values. i also know that he is certainly capable of intentionally doing me great harm, even taking my life, if i ever made the fatal mistake of pushing those buttons in him. and unlike melissa's and perhaps most Masters, He has never given me a standing order to protect his property (me). quite the opposite actually...he's conditioned me to be non-resistant, which means that if a dangerous situation arises i am not to fight, or run, or scream, but simply take it as best i can, without complaint. that is the sort of slave he wants. now if he were the source of danger, being non-resistant would only be that much more important. so if he wakes up one day and decides to slit my throat, well i'll just hope it's what he truly wants, tell him "i love you", shut my eyes and dream of england, as they say. it's in no way bragging or attempting to come across as hardcore....it's truly laughable how far removed i am from hardcore...it's just doing as any slave does and attempting to be the best slave for my Master i can be.
|