quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteFox77

In a way what you are saying about the site is 100% true.  If you read the site and disregard what it says from a literal point of view, and reinterpret it to say what you want it to say based on your own experiences and emotions, it's a great site.  Of course that also means that the site has nothing to do with what the author of the site actually said, and that it means something completely different for each person that reads it, so I guess then it's only a great site if the individual reading it wants it to be a great site.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I think it is dead. Just let it lie. I have always found it humorous when logic is used to explain the workings of the human mind and emotions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteFox77

"Yes, I know, we are back to a perfect model again. But I speak with I.E. slaves who have accomplished this goal much more than I have (and I have to tell you, I am a pretty sickeningly sweet saccharinely happy little slave slut), and this is NEVER about them being unhappy. If they are unhappy, discontent, unsatisfied, they are NOT in I.E. - well, not to the level we are talking about. If they are unhappy, the whole I.E. thing is not working, and they would be able to walk away."

And that is why I say the site in question isn't a good example of I.E., because it doesn't say it that way.

From the portion of the FAQ on:  But how can you claim that literal slavery is possible?
"the bond between the submissive and her master becomes sufficiently strong that she can no longer break it herself, and she has then been enslaved."

It does not say: "she can no longer break it herself so long as she remains general happy in the relationship".
It does not say: "she can no longer break it herself so long as her owner is not generally abusive to her."

The way the site puts it once the process (and yes it does refer to it as a process in several places) of internal enslavement is complete, the slave is never capable of leaving on her own again.

So I'm going to stand by my appraisal of the site in question being a bad site to use as a guide to I.E.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I think it is dead. Just let it lie. I have always found it humorous when logic is used to explain the workings of the human mind and emotions.

One can use a form of emotional logic to deal with it-but it certainly does not work along scientific lines..

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit


Show me one quote that proves the website is advocating unethically forcing people to stay in abusive relationships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteFox77

"Yes, I know, we are back to a perfect model again. But I speak with I.E. slaves who have accomplished this goal much more than I have (and I have to tell you, I am a pretty sickeningly sweet saccharinely happy little slave slut), and this is NEVER about them being unhappy. If they are unhappy, discontent, unsatisfied, they are NOT in I.E. - well, not to the level we are talking about. If they are unhappy, the whole I.E. thing is not working, and they would be able to walk away."

And that is why I say the site in question isn't a good example of I.E., because it doesn't say it that way.

From the portion of the FAQ on:  But how can you claim that literal slavery is possible?
"the bond between the submissive and her master becomes sufficiently strong that she can no longer break it herself, and she has then been enslaved."

It does not say: "she can no longer break it herself so long as she remains general happy in the relationship".
It does not say: "she can no longer break it herself so long as her owner is not generally abusive to her."

The way the site puts it once the process (and yes it does refer to it as a process in several places) of internal enslavement is complete, the slave is never capable of leaving on her own again.

So I'm going to stand by my appraisal of the site in question being a bad site to use as a guide to I.E.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

No it says more than just the snippet you posted. Here try the whole thing like I did to try and jump start this back in the right direction:

But how can you claim that literal slavery is possible?


The Enslavement Hypothesis is that there are submissives who have an overwhelming need to be possessed by a dominant. Given the right environment, the submissive can be coaxed out from behind the protective walls she has built during her life and made to expose all of her Self to her master. Among other things this requires that he creates an environment which is emotionally safe and in which her underlying character will be accepted, probably for the first time in her life. During this process, the bond between the submissive and her master becomes sufficiently strong that she can no longer break it herself, and she has then been enslaved. "
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/iefaq

Look at the phrase "given the right environment" as well as "requires that he (the owner) creates an environment which is emotionally safe. Those two phrases right there indicate you are unlikely to find this in an abusive relationship. An abusive relationship does not foster those things. You also ignore something an IE slave mentioned, if they are unhappy then they are not internally enslaved.

May I ask if you have ever used the process of Internal Enslavement? It used to be called Natural Enslavement. If not, then your apprasal is one of cursory knowledge at best. Kind of like someone reading Art of War and giving their opinion on whether it is good for tactics and strategy, but never having employed those techniques.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sujuguete
I just wanted to add that not only does the owner have to create and environment where the slave knows she is emotionally safe, he also has to maintain it.

If a slave no longer feels safe, emotionally or physically, then IE is broken.  That does not mean that IE was never achieved in the first place, it just means that the owner has not done what is necessary to maintain it.  IE is not a "one time and it's done" kind of thing.  It requires constant vigilance from both parties to ensure that it is nurtured and continues to grow.

If an owner turns rogue and starts abusing his slave, he will upset the balance (or imbalance as it may be) in the relationship, and the slave will be able to leave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiteFox77

quote:

ORIGINAL: sujuguete
I just wanted to add that not only does the owner have to create and environment where the slave knows she is emotionally safe, he also has to maintain it.

If a slave no longer feels safe, emotionally or physically, then IE is broken.  That does not mean that IE was never achieved in the first place, it just means that the owner has not done what is necessary to maintain it.  IE is not a "one time and it's done" kind of thing.  It requires constant vigilance from both parties to ensure that it is nurtured and continues to grow.

If an owner turns rogue and starts abusing his slave, he will upset the balance (or imbalance as it may be) in the relationship, and the slave will be able to leave.

Could you please point out where in the site in question that is stated?

quote:

But how can you claim that literal slavery is possible?   The Enslavement Hypothesis is that there are submissives who have an overwhelming need to be possessed by a dominant. Given the right environment, the submissive can be coaxed out from behind the protective walls she has built during her life and made to expose all of her Self to her master. Among other things this requires that he creates an environment which is emotionally safe and in which her underlying character will be accepted, probably for the first time in her life. During this process, the bond between the submissive and her master becomes sufficiently strong that she can no longer break it herself, and she has then been enslaved.

quote:

Could you please point out where in the site in question that is stated?