|
velvetears -> RE: Are there any Dominants who don't care about submissive orgasm? (5/6/2007 12:53:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:
ORIGINAL: velvetears
Isn't it a kind of "romanticised" notion of slavery when one can say my needs are at the whim of my master whether he sees fit to meet them or not, when in reality if he doesn't the slave would die?
It might appear somewhat romanticized until one considers that such a consequence is also, strictly speaking, at the whim of the owner, unless there are terms attached to his/her property; although the law generally doles out some punishment for it afterwards, there have been instances where this has happened, even in the west.
i understand any dom would not want to pay the consequence (jail) for allowing or being responsible for his slaves death, but there are other ways to "kill" a slave besides allowing her life to end.... some maybe even worse then actually physical death.
quote:
Obviously everyone has needs - obviously they have to be met for life to be sustained - it just sounds dramatic and extreme to voice it in the sense that - i have needs but it is up to my Master to see if they are met, i am not entitled to have them met, they are at masters whim....
Sure, anything can sound extreme to anyone. EBM can sound extreme to many, for instance. People draw their lines of consent in different places, and they have their expectations with regard to where their Doms will be drawing theirs as well.
What is EBM?
i understand the notion of a slave having her masters limits - this makes sense if you are a no limits slave, to find a master who matches up with you... but people change. Two people who think they have talked about everything that could possibly happen or occur or come up as possible tasks, assignments, requirements, etc, may, down the road, change preferences, or the dynamic may change and the Master doesn't have the same level of affection/love/responsibility for the slave... so many things can happen that cannot possibly be taken into account. The master can suffer a brain injury, or get a viral infection that affects his brain leaving him with a personality change..... i guess, or at least would hope, many would allow common sense to overide their slave committment and they would take measures to protet themselves from any permanent harm.
I always try to make sure people's expectations about where I will be drawing my lines is congruent to where I actually draw them, so they understand the implications of what they agree to. If someone wanted to give themselves to me with no conditions attached, I'd require a mental health professional to attest that they understand the implications.
He or she would probably commit you LOL.... but i do understand what you are saying - you want no surprises popping up at you. You don't want any slave biting off more then they could chew.
quote:
-yes its easy to say this when you know darn well they are going to be met! LOL...
Of course. But applying "know" to it, rather than "trust", is dangerous, IMO. The M one signs up with can change, as can the laws in the area. Up here, one M cut off a finger on one of his slaves, for which he got a slap on the wrist, since she had given consent to that kind of treatment. I'm thinking she might be a bit more careful about making an assertion that her health needs will always be met, regardless, compared to the those of us who could never imagine an M doing something like that.
Good point, trusting someone is more important then just knowing them or what their expectations would be of you, but i take for granted trust would be there , or why would a slave even consider it.
For me, it's always been about trust. The trust to give another person the right to make those choices as they see fit. Whether the person actually will is beside the point; if you put the right in their hands, that fits the dictionary definition of slavery; if you don't, that doesn't fit the dictionary definition. Some people live by the dictionary definition, most do not. We still apply the word, with individual definitions. Whether doing so is valid or not is an ancient linguistics debate that we shouldn't get into here.
quote:
This just doesn't feel honest to me - if i can give you a visual: dog on a chain sees bigger and badder dog not on a chain - smaller dog on chain barks, growls, and pulls and tugs at his chain cause he appears to want to break loose and jump the other dog.... gee too bad that chains hoding him back lol.
Actually, you need to know how to interpret what the dog is saying. If he's saying that he's scared (the usual thing), then he's just trying to warn off the bigger dog, as well as letting you know he's scared. If, on the other hand, he's saying that he wants to have a go at the other dog, he'll take it if you let him go. Of course, he'll be on his back with his tail between his legs in no time, usually, but that's a different matter.
Not sure I got the analogy, though.
Too many variables in that scenario to make it clear, sorry about that. My meaning was - anyone can seem extreme when they have set the conditions in their life where they know they aren't in any real danger. For instance, the slave might say for example " i would die for my master, kill for him, steal for him, etc" (extreme action)by making sure they find a master who would never allow them to do those things they can say they will do anything at all, knowing all along they are really safe. Not sure if i explained it well. The dog example was about the barking chained dog "acting" like he wanted to rip apart the unchained dog because he knew he was safe from really being able to do such a thing. Hope i made it more clear [:)]
quote:
Maybe i think too concretely to ever understand these kinds of exchanges and ideas?
I can't be the judge of that, particularly since I tend to think abstractly.
|
|
|
|
