RE: Masterhood

RE: Masterhood (Full Version)

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

Message

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 2:48:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drawntothedark The OP in my thinking did not come out and say "this is the be all and end all of definitions" He simply gave his thoughts on how he viewed Dom/Masters. No more no less. I'm not clear why so much fuss over a opinion. Actually in later posts he tried to clarify that he really only meant that was how he saw himself and his own relationships. Generally when a person makes the effort to start a new thread with their own perspectives, it's because they want feedback on it. The fussing has been over the logical fallacies involved in the original and modified definitions presented, the attitudes of the posters, and a few tangents and specifics gone into closer detail. It's been a pretty standard thread really.

daniL -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 2:52:27 PM)
I'm sorry if I offended you-- I don't actually agree with the concept that bdsm slavery can be related to other forms. I was merely using that as a counterpoint as it had been brought up earlier in the thread. I think it's a much more mutually fulfulling relationship than any of the historical references to slavery. The majority of my post was using images/ideas/theories that originated in the posts of others in order to examine the OP and the insuing elaborations.

Archer -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 2:56:13 PM)
The thread drifted a bit and somefolks didn't see the mice type disclaimer, LOL. Beyond that I simply offered MY opinion along with the reasons I could not agree with his viewpoint. It was offered not as argument but as food for further thought. Minds are seldom changed wildly from one viewpoint to another, they change in millimeters not kilometers. My own mind is always looking for better viewpoints than my own to adopt in part. Hundreds of posts though all the years have shifted my thoughts a milimeter at a time until this point and I'm sure it will continue to shift little by little. Whn your mind gets set on a single viewpoint to the exlussion of all other possibilities that is when your mind is closed and stops growing. If it's not growing it's dieing.

MadRabbit -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 3:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I will, however, dispute the notion that for a successful relationship to be successful, both people in the relationship didnt have to work and fulfill responsibilities and arent both deserving of credit if they both in fact want to claim it. I hope that provides some clarity. My friend, I'm unsure if this point has been clearly expressed to you.. In the M/s dynamic, as defined in this thread, the Master adopts the responsibilities of the slave in her collaring and, as her owner, gains any new ones that would have fallen to her as if the dynamic had no occured. However, she maintains a singular responsibily, one that consumes her attention in its entirety, to her Master. One thing that I'm still considering, though, is the obligation of relationship. In this dynamic, both Master and slave accept the premise: slave obeys Master, Master accepts full responsibility and credit. In my relationship, and those of similar nature which I've observed, slaves have been incredibly loyal, never disobeying (except in minor instances of misunderstanding, which I do not find blameworthy) nor rebelious. Masters have had no trouble guiding a slave to the degree which they desire. This is to say, I've found these relationships to be without strain nor drama. I'm curious if most following this dynamic are so blessed? I think you are a very smart boy, my friend. (I dont mean to condescend to you) I think you have spent a lot of time with computers and not as much with people. I am sure as time goes by and you gain the life experience, you will come to understand how things involving people dont operate with the flawless certainity that is present in your "theory" and in your computers and machines.

WhiplashSmile -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 3:07:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daniL I'm sorry if I offended you-- I don't actually agree with the concept that bdsm slavery can be related to other forms. I was merely using that as a counterpoint as it had been brought up earlier in the thread. I think it's a much more mutually fulfulling relationship than any of the historical references to slavery. The majority of my post was using images/ideas/theories that originated in the posts of others in order to examine the OP and the insuing elaborations. It should be much more mutually fulfulling relationship than any of the historical references to slavery. In regards to historical references to slavery it's best to look outside the amercian history books though. There have been meaningful M/s relationships with great respect in history as well. There have been those that have not been so meaningful and darn right brutal too. However for the sake of modern day BDSM consentual slavery, it should be a mutually fullfilling relationship. Keyword being "mutual" and it's a dynamic relationship that requires work of both sides of the M/s. Two sperate human being coming together for mutal interests, desires, needs and wants. A level of power is exchanged but this does not make either any less sperate. It's a relationship after all, Any relationships is a two sided thing. Motivations and interests and directions will vary from M/s relationship to another. People will be selective about thier M/s partners as well. This say a lot about the freedom of choice now does it not. Yes even M/s relationships can fall apart like other relationships can. There are some Masters out there that actually believe a slave will endure anything and everything.. then one day wake up to find their Slave left in the middle of the night or something. Anybody who believes a slave does not have something called "will power" is fooling themselves... they must have forget that their slave was also a human being with many human traits or something... It amuses me that people get so caught up in things they forget the obvious..

WhiplashSmile -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 3:11:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer BTW the thought process for transfering a slave's pre existing capabilitis to their owner is simple but has been missed so far. A slave has talents and abilities and were selected in part based on those capabilities, so the reflected honor on their owner is in selecting a slave with a good skill set. My slave does many things really well which I had little to nothing to do with instilling in her. I take the laurals for her by simply saying, "Thank you, I still believe choosing Elegant was he single best decission I ever made." I am not responsible for providing the skill to her, but I am responsible for allowing her the opportunity to practice it. My favorite joke compliment for her is "It's easy I wind her up I point her in the right direction and turn her loose. It's easy when you start with good materials to begin with." I'm with you 100% on this one!

darkinshadows -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 3:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: MagiksSlave Again LA you speak so very well. Honeslty that quote or whatever seems to be just a fantasy that kind of thing can not exist just because well think of it the venilla world isnt gunna care that she is a slave to a Master if she does something they dont like they are gunna blame her... If he tells her to rob a bank and she does the police arent gunna arrest the Master they are gunna arrest the slave!!! Oh, of course the vanilla world won't recognize it. This doesn't mean you can't have it, now does it? Do you recognize yourself as a slave, despite the fact most people in the world would probably say you can't be owned, that slavery is illegal? Slavery is illegal. That means that no one really owns anything and your "slave" can pick up the phone and call 911 on your ass if you beat her too hard. If you cheat and piss her off, she can also share what you two did together, possibly costing your job, child custody, friends and family. That's the reality of what we do. If you want to really own someone and not have to deal with that, then you should consider moving. So I am coming onto this thread late. Slavery is illegal yes. However, so are numerous other things in WIITWD. Does that stop people? Having sex in a public place can get you arrested. Flogging someone can. Anal sex, kissing in public, holding hands even in some places are all illegal acts. Taking drugs and then scening contains an illegal act. Drinking and driving, or giving someone a blow job whilst driving would be illegal. But it still exists. Piss people off sure - but not everyone has retaliation in their blood. Peace

darkinshadows -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 3:41:07 PM)
I think that what CL is showing, is a personal standpoint. No more or less. At least that is what I gleamed from even his first post - not a one truewayism. I am not a great label maker. Tell me your a slave, and I will say sure - whatever floats your boat. Right now, I do not identify as a slave. But then that really isn't my decision at the end of the day - when I have given over to my partner. If Darcy calls me his slave, that is his choice. He is who I defere(not sure thats the best word) to after all. If he decides to consider my opinion then he will. I gave up reading through all the responses and will simply say that if I understand CL correctly, then what he offers (and offer is how I see it) is beautiful and a huge releasing for a certain section of people who identify for this type of relationship. If I serve a meal, I am serving and is all great. But I don't do it to be praised by anyone. Yes, people do thank me, and do say, hey, that was great or wonderful or beautiful. And politely, I will thank and accept their comments - after all it is how one deals with grace - but what is more important is that people see that it is Darcy who is responsible. Yes, ultimately everyone is responsible for themselves. But what CL offers is an ideal that can work and does feel amazing (if I read his post correctly). Slavery isnt selfless, but the pleasure gained is beautiful only when it is the Master/Dominant/insertlabelhere is the One receiving the glory - I really do not care that people see me as making a great apple pie - I only care that people see I made a great apple pie because of him. My nanna may have taught me how to bake it and sweeten it and make it look fantastic, but I am not doing it for others, because my focus is on him and his glory. Now I might use words that seem overtly flowery and dare one say - romantic- but that is exactly what this is without apology. I do only what he would be proud of, only what he would want and only for him to be percieved in the best possible light. If a dominant desires to be responsible for the behaviour, good and bad, of his property or submissive or slave or whatever damn label you want to stick on a persons forehead then that is something that is opposite to society today and is commendable. So many parents wipe their hands of 'problem' children claiming ridiculous reasons why they aren't 'responsible' for their childs behaviour. Thats just bull. Teachers and people in so called authority are too afraid to stand up and be responsible in anyway, in case they are sued or shown as libal. And thats just incredibly sad. So many people see a dog attack and immediately say 'its not the dogs fault - its the owners - they should have trained it better, they should have managed it better, they should have kept it on a tighter leash.' They want these owners prosectued - held accountable. Yet you have people - Masters, Dominants - wanting to take that responsibility and told that it will never work, that its an overtly romantic notion and completely invalid. And yet, the only difference between that dog and that slave, is that people have the sense and idea of what being sentient is. The reality is - its just conjecture and no one can really know if that dog is sentient or not. If that makes any sense. Peace

CuriousLord -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:05:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I will, however, dispute the notion that for a successful relationship to be successful, both people in the relationship didnt have to work and fulfill responsibilities and arent both deserving of credit if they both in fact want to claim it. I hope that provides some clarity. My friend, I'm unsure if this point has been clearly expressed to you.. In the M/s dynamic, as defined in this thread, the Master adopts the responsibilities of the slave in her collaring and, as her owner, gains any new ones that would have fallen to her as if the dynamic had no occured. However, she maintains a singular responsibily, one that consumes her attention in its entirety, to her Master. One thing that I'm still considering, though, is the obligation of relationship. In this dynamic, both Master and slave accept the premise: slave obeys Master, Master accepts full responsibility and credit. In my relationship, and those of similar nature which I've observed, slaves have been incredibly loyal, never disobeying (except in minor instances of misunderstanding, which I do not find blameworthy) nor rebelious. Masters have had no trouble guiding a slave to the degree which they desire. This is to say, I've found these relationships to be without strain nor drama. I'm curious if most following this dynamic are so blessed? I think you are a very smart boy, my friend. (I dont mean to condescend to you) I think you have spent a lot of time with computers and not as much with people. I am sure as time goes by and you gain the life experience, you will come to understand how things involving people dont operate with the flawless certainity that is present in your "theory" and in your computers and machines. I am not a boy; I am a man. Such a pretention would be insulting, though I'm going to chauk it up to lack of forethought. I'm glad we're on the topic of honesty.. there's something that's.. rather insulting to others, generally, to say, but I feel it's vital to understanding things I have to say.. Have you ever met one of those people in special classs at school in your youth? Not really able to get things, they're typically proud of their ability to add single-digit numbers, still spelling four-letter words in middle-school, getting down how to use quotes in highschool? The difference between their IQ and a normal person's IQ is a little less than half the difference between mine and a normal person's, or about the same as mine and a gifted person's. I respect how you think, and that's why I feel more comfort saying this to you, despite the flames I'm just about certain will ensue. It's just important to understand because, have you ever tried explaining something to a person like that? How things work, how to do average-level thinking for that age group? It's.. just about impossible, really.. so frustrating! This is less than the barrer I experience trying to explain things to people. I've yet to express my true beliefs on this forum. I'm finding a nearly 50% incidence rate of misunderstandings on the things I consider to be trivial. It's.. it's so frustrating. This said.. my "theories" are constructs- not actually theories, proper. Being constructs, they are implicity true models. I'm rather frustrated to see the incidence at which this is not understood. Models are effective over domains. In this specific cause, it is a pseudo domain encompasing instances of which the only intelligent objects are humans within the dynamic or accepting of it. This is to say, a Master assumes responsibility for the action of his slaves for those involved in my dynamic, both myself and my slave, and any future slaves I may acquire, and those accepting of it- which I would predict as being a prodominantly Gorean group and more open-minded individuals. I suffer from no illusion that police would arrest me instead of my slave should she vandalize a car. I am well aware society would hold her accountable. They are not part of the dynamic. Now, if my slave were rude to a Gorean Master, it would be me he addressed. If my slave stole something from him, he'd likely speak to me before calling the police and hold me socially liable for the theft. Please understand that I am at an utter loss as to which part of this concept is not sinking in for other people. It is entirely accurate.. I can both justify it logically and demonstrate it, as I am living this dynamic. If you find anything about this still unclear or apparently contradictory, I will be glad to explain it. It is not sane to deny the possibility of something logical and demonstratable.

CuriousLord -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:13:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer I think the problem comes when folks try to include things outside of or tangental to the relationship when hey speak of responsibility, of a Master to and for their slave. In the instance of crimeinal orders then the problem is not that the master is not responsible for the slave's actions (within the relationship itself) but that society also imposes responsibilities on every person as an individual and the person slave or Master is responsible to the society for their behaviour meeting some community standards. Slavery does not, and can not remove a person's responsibility to society in most cases. Because in a nation of laws even the most Alpha person is individually held to some community standards (Murder, robbery, assault, etc...) The Master may be responsible for the order to break those standards but society does not recognize that chain of command, unless the Master pipes up and admits to being the one giving the order after which society may well simply file charges against both parties. (Conspiricy to commit). But Society will still hold each individual responsible for their choices and every order given or followed is a choice. Give and accept responsibility/ Obey and accept the conseqences or Give and reject responsibility, / Disobey and accept the consequences. Agreed. quote: ORIGINAL: Archer As to the definitions given in the OP I'm not of the same mind, I still contend that "ownership" is the definative difference. If the person genuinely feels OWNED then a condition of consensual slavery exists. If the person feels controlled but not owned then a condition of consensual submission exists. Obedience although desireable in a slave is not definative. Submission although it makes managing the slave possible is not definative You can own a dog that does not obey or submit and by all legal defintion you still own the dog, and you are in fact held by society responsible for that dog's actions. I would also agree here, though I would cite that the topic is skew to the thread. This does not mean it's wrong, by any means, nor does it mean I'm less than accepting of it being here, though I'm wondering if it was in response to something perceived but not actually intended? "Ownership", with regards to the defintion provided in the OP, is with regards to the dynamic in the thread as opposed to all forms of possible ownership.

CuriousLord -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:32:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile Now logically speaking.... If a slave is not responsible or accountable for their own actions, then all punishment should fall upon thier Master. So if a slave fucks up, the Master should punish himself under this idealized concept. This is assuming punishment is appropriate recourse to a failure to perform. This begs the question as to what degree punishment is corrective and to what degree it is retribution. A Master need not conduct retribution against himself. An intelligent Master is likely able to better correct his behaviors through thought than self-punishment. To this end, I disagree. quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile Look this is completely insane to make a statement that slaves are not accountable nor responsible for their own actions. This is the very reason why punishment and even rewards come into play. Hell, this concept is known about even in periods of time and cultures where slavey has been legal. When would you punish? For failure to perform under sincere attempt or for lack of sincere attempt? A legitimate slave has yet to lack sincere attempt. I would not punish one for their inability to perform yet recommend working on performance. To this end, again, I disagree with you. quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile In terms of a slave being able to cook Bitchen Hot Apple pies and if she learned this from somebody other than her master, The Master was not responsible for this skill set. Master may be in control of this skill, but not responsbible for it either. The Master is responsible for the acquisition of a slave which such a talent. In this dynamic, this credits him with the effects of this talent in the same manner in which he would be credited with the negative effects of other, lacking talents and a slave's misconduct. quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile Now any MASTER or DOM should know that they can't control everything around them... There is a Limit to the level of control. Anybody who thinks they have complete control over everything and anything about a slave is just Living life in denial and in an illustion. This applied to even in cultures and history periods where Slavery was legalized.. Agreed, though I believe you display misunderstanding in making this point. A Master gives a slave both rules and guidelines. In establishing running guidelines, a Master is always in control of his slave. Such as, if he says "never use profanity in public", regardless of his lack of presense, his slave is unable to use profanity in public. This is contineous control. It is important to highlight that, while he does not say, "Say these exact words" to his slave, he guides her voice. Mistakes she makes while following these guidelines are his own for not making them complete enough. quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile OK.. so let's get all romantic here for a moment, how does the path to owning a slaves Heart, Mind and Soul work.. OH Geeessh... Knock Knock Knock... The slave has not been magically transformed into something other than a human being! Dugh! We are talking about a human being still here. If it looks like a Duck, Sounds like a Duck it's really a duck. When you define a slave's behavior and manner of speaking, along with being the sole object of her obidience, it's rather hard to not own her heart, mind, and soul. quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile Responsible people are accountable people, now why do slave get punished again, is it not because the slave was accountable or responsible for something? The first clause is a generalized assumption. The second does not refer to slaves, dynamic, but slaves, proper. The statement is flawed. (If what this means is not obvious, I would ask you state such, so that I may elaborate.) ---- I appreciate the post. I hope these responses come to clear some things up. I would welcome responses, though I ask you maintain your relatively civil, logical approach. I realize my thoughts, including in responses, rebuke assumptions and generalizations. These cause flaws. I realize most people rely extensively off these and find it frustrating to work without assumptions. I ask that the lack of vague assumptions be understood, as accepting a flawed assumption also accepts error the answers that they lead to.

jessk -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:33:36 PM)
quote: If a dominant desires to be responsible for the behaviour, good and bad, of his property or submissive or slave or whatever damn label you want to stick on a persons forehead then that is something that is opposite to society today and is commendable. So many parents wipe their hands of 'problem' children claiming ridiculous reasons why they aren't 'responsible' for their childs behaviour. Thats just bull. Teachers and people in so called authority are too afraid to stand up and be responsible in anyway, in case they are sued or shown as libal. And thats just incredibly sad. So many people see a dog attack and immediately say 'its not the dogs fault - its the owners - they should have trained it better, they should have managed it better, they should have kept it on a tighter leash.' They want these owners prosectued - held accountable. Yet you have people - Masters, Dominants - wanting to take that responsibility and told that it will never work, that its an overtly romantic notion and completely invalid. And yet, the only difference between that dog and that slave, is that people have the sense and idea of what being sentient is. The reality is - its just conjecture and no one can really know if that dog is sentient or not. That was, quite perfectly, stated. Even with the deviation that this thread took, I enjoyed the differing view points offered. It was a very interestin read.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:40:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I am not a boy; I am a man. Such a pretention would be insulting, though I'm going to chauk it up to lack of forethought. You called me girl a few days ago and I'm older than you. What in the past two days changed your mind on that particular thing?

CuriousLord -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:42:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile Anybody and everybody is a separate living human being from the other. The OP made the statement that submissives are sperate and that slaves are not. However so are slaves and anybody else regardless of title or label placed upon them. The seperate versus not idea was an expression of relative emotional closeness, not a statement that slaves are, infact, stapled to their Masters. Further, a point of thought for me lately has been the definition of self versus social identity. A slave is much more, in the more philosophical sense, part of her Master than a sub is. Again, this is not a physical but an abstract reference. quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile No matter how hard you'd like to mentally dehumanize a human being they are still a human being. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it a duck. Foot stools are simple objects, using a slave as a foot stool is just using a human being as a foot stool, it does not make them literally become a foot stool and not a human being. How would you define "human being"? How would you define "foot stool"? A human being acting in the stead of a foot stool may also be a foot stool. She maintains her "human" identity, assuming both her good health and that you define human as something along the lines of a specific animal without greater contradictory implication.

CuriousLord -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I am not a boy; I am a man. Such a pretention would be insulting, though I'm going to chauk it up to lack of forethought. You called me girl a few days ago and I'm older than you. What in the past two days changed your mind on that particular thing? Nothing, really. I've lived a life around submissive women and dominant men. "Girl" has never been offensive and "boy" always has, when used outside appropriate context. It's one of the "stud versus slut" double standards in language. If you found it insulting, then my apologies for my lack of forethought; allow me to restate it as "smart woman". (Since this may sound insincere stated like that: I believe you are a smart woman, LA.) I figured MadRabbit probably made the mistake as a lack of forethought, believing those are the conditions under which I would make such a mistake. It appears I was correct, at least in diagnosing my own potentional for error. Edit: While I let most typos slide unless they cause a word to be incomprehensable, something about "protentional" bothered me.

WhiplashSmile -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:52:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I suffer from no illusion that police would arrest me instead of my slave should she vandalize a car. I am well aware society would hold her accountable. They are not part of the dynamic. Now, if my slave were rude to a Gorean Master, it would be me he addressed. If my slave stole something from him, he'd likely speak to me before calling the police and hold me socially liable for the theft. You in turn would deal with your slave for her actions, she is still responsible for her actions, that she carried out seperate from your desires. Case in point where the slave acted seperately, and she will be held accountable by you, and you are responsible and accountable to the Gorean Master. She still acted seperately from your will at the time, and she is indeed responsible and so are you. In the case of a slave Vandalizing a car, even though she may be held legally responsible for it, if she does not work.. somebody will have to pony up for damages. Now who would that be? However, there are something called limits. You as her Master what is the limit to what she does that you will accept responsibility for? So if she runs out and burns down the Gorean Masters house worth $250,000, including priceless contents such as family heirlooms and slays all his animals (dogs, cats and birds) will you accept liability for the damages that occured? What are the limits in accepting responsibility for a slaves actions here? At what point would you turn your back on a slave and say, "it was all her and I had nothing to do with it and I'm not responsible for a damn thing." quote: A Master owns his slave, ordering her without limits. She's to live by his word and do his bidding. Her actions are his actions- her responsibilities become his. Should he assign her a responsibility, while she's obligated to follow in it, it is, ultimately, still his. looking for any limits to the responsibility you will take for a slaves actions here, as per above example I gave or other extreme cases one could imagine. Ordering her without limits - does this include being able to order her without limits to burn down a Gorean Masters house and slay his animals. Perhaps ordering her to steal from him as well instead? quote: Please understand that I am at an utter loss as to which part of this concept is not sinking in for other people. It is entirely accurate.. I can both justify it logically and demonstrate it, as I am living this dynamic. If you find anything about this still unclear or apparently contradictory, I will be glad to explain it. It is not sane to deny the possibility of something logical and demonstratable. I'm tossing the proverbial dynamics of limits here be it a Masters Limits or a Slaves Limits...

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:52:50 PM)
No worries, I corrected you back in my initial response on page 2. But you must watch for things like that in the future if you plan on engaging in forums which welcome all orientations and do not abide such double standards so easily and don't want to spend half your discussion time apologizing and restating. Just think of it as any vanilla forum- our relationship orientations really aren't relevant in HOW you write to someone.

CuriousLord -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 7:56:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Minds are seldom changed wildly from one viewpoint to another, they change in millimeters not kilometers. My own mind is always looking for better viewpoints than my own to adopt in part. Hundreds of posts though all the years have shifted my thoughts a milimeter at a time until this point and I'm sure it will continue to shift little by little. Whn your mind gets set on a single viewpoint to the exlussion of all other possibilities that is when your mind is closed and stops growing. If it's not growing it's dieing. That's an interesting philosophy. I have something like it myself. I believe that a good conclusion is based off the best logic and as many facts as possible. Each time logic is improved, it's likely higher-level conclusions will be altered, sometimes to dramatic effect. Each time a fact is added, if a lot of facts already exist, it may very well do nothing, as irrelevant. Some, however, cause a change to some lesser degree while some can cause an entire contradiction to the previous belief. It's admirable you seek to grow.

CuriousLord -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 8:13:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I suffer from no illusion that police would arrest me instead of my slave should she vandalize a car. I am well aware society would hold her accountable. They are not part of the dynamic. Now, if my slave were rude to a Gorean Master, it would be me he addressed. If my slave stole something from him, he'd likely speak to me before calling the police and hold me socially liable for the theft. You in turn would deal with your slave for her actions, she is still responsible for her actions, that she carried out seperate from your desires. Case in point where the slave acted seperately, and she will be held accountable by you, and you are responsible and accountable to the Gorean Master. She still acted seperately from your will at the time, and she is indeed responsible and so are you. Which case are you referring to? If you mean the case in which I did not have guidelines against whatever offense she has commited, then I am at fault. Her sole obligation is to me and I had not set up a guideline or a command that contradicts her action, then she was free to make it. It would be my fault. If you mean the case in which she defied a guideline willingly, she breaks from the defintion of "slave" in this dynamic and she is no longer my responsibility. She is no longer mine. If you mean the case in which she defied a guideline due to lack of ability not to (i.e., I told her to make chicken for dinner while I stepped out, and there was no chicken available to her), then she would not be at fault. If you mean a case in which she misinterepts a guideline, again, I am at fault, for not ensuring her comprehension, provided she was open and honest with me. quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile In the case of a slave Vandalizing a car, even though she may be held legally responsible for it, if she does not work.. somebody will have to pony up for damages. Now who would that be? However, there are something called limits. You as her Master what is the limit to what she does that you will accept responsibility for? Me. She doesn't have money, only holds part of my money that she is allowed to spend. quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile So if she runs out and burns down the Gorean Masters house worth $250,000, including priceless contents such as family heirlooms and slays all his animals (dogs, cats and birds) will you accept liability for the damages that occured? What are the limits in accepting responsibility for a slaves actions here? At what point would you turn your back on a slave and say, "it was all her and I had nothing to do with it and I'm not responsible for a damn thing." If she acts under my guidelines, I accept full damages. This said, I would be rather foolish not to tell my slave to intentionally cause others property damage! If she does not act under my guidelines, she is no longer my responsibility and I do not incur damages. This said, it is questionable as to whether or not I would be, somehow, at fault for not predicting and preventing her behavior. That's a thought for another day. quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile quote: A Master owns his slave, ordering her without limits. She's to live by his word and do his bidding. Her actions are his actions- her responsibilities become his. Should he assign her a responsibility, while she's obligated to follow in it, it is, ultimately, still his. looking for any limits to the responsibility you will take for a slaves actions here, as per above example I gave or other extreme cases one could imagine. Ordering her without limits - does this include being able to order her without limits to burn down a Gorean Masters house and slay his animals. Perhaps ordering her to steal from him as well instead? Yes, she would do so if ordered. (In this case, of course, I would be directly liable for her actions.) quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile quote: Please understand that I am at an utter loss as to which part of this concept is not sinking in for other people. It is entirely accurate.. I can both justify it logically and demonstrate it, as I am living this dynamic. If you find anything about this still unclear or apparently contradictory, I will be glad to explain it. It is not sane to deny the possibility of something logical and demonstratable. I'm tossing the proverbial dynamics of limits here be it a Masters Limits or a Slaves Limits... I can assure you, this is a welcome break from, "OMG! U SAID IM NOT ACTUALLY A uCase{Master,Dom,sub,slave} BECAUSE U SAID UR WAY IS THE ONLY WAY!!!!!!1111oneoneone". Heh. I appreciate the constructive approach. Edit: Typo'd a quote tag! That wasn't pretty.

CuriousLord -> RE: Masterhood (5/7/2007 8:21:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross No worries, I corrected you back in my initial response on page 2. But you must watch for things like that in the future if you plan on engaging in forums which welcome all orientations and do not abide such double standards so easily and don't want to spend half your discussion time apologizing and restating. Just think of it as any vanilla forum- our relationship orientations really aren't relevant in HOW you write to someone. Watch it, LA. I'm trying to be accepting of your emotions, not open myself up to your condescention.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625