RE: Social Status: Pros and cons

Create a
Free Account

As the Collar Turns:

Collarchat.com - BDSM Forum

Home Login Search

RE: Social Status: Pros and cons

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> RE: Social Status: Pros and cons

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Social Status: Pros and cons - 1/13/2010 6:13:04 PM

Dinnardin

Posts: 368
Joined: 1/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Bita always is informative and thoughtful, as well as making you have to cogitate a bit.

Hup

Ron,
If you keep cogitating, you are going to go blind.

John, AKA Dinnardin

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Social Status: Pros and cons - 1/13/2010 6:37:42 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 26032
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sabba

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

hello angel

i pulled this out not to argue your point, but to explain my own a bit. i agree with all that you posted, except that it isnt gor where we live. my only need to know is based upon interactions. i would interact with a Free far differently than another slave. i would also interact differently with someone outside the gorean way of thought, so to speak. no one in my profession would expect a slave mentality when dealing with customers, or patients. so while the mentality is still there, it has to be tempered with the knowledge of their expectations.

gah! i think im making this worse.

ah well

thank you for your post

tazzy

greetings tazzy;

sabba completely disagrees with this. Why would interactions with Free be any different than interactions with other slaves? Unless you have directives from your Owner to do so.....what exactly is the difference? sabba certainly isn't saying that there are no differences between Free and slave, but why would your demeanor/position/status/behaviors change dependent on who you were interacting with? This may be oversimplifying....but would you "treat" a slave badly, just because she is a slave? sabba doesn't think you would.....so again, what exactly would be different?

Recently she got to spend the day with Mistress Liz and Master Brule....and she doesn't believe she acted any different than she did the day before, during a meeting with her clients. (Except for the enormous mountain bugs...OMG!). A couple weeks later, she had lunch with Master Brule and angelique. sabba is sure she will be corrected if she is wrong, but there was no difference in the way she interacted with Master and the way she interacted with angelique. One is Free, and one is slave.....but sabba was the same person she always is, regardless of who she interacts with.

Free or slave, Gorean or not, at a Masters side or by herself....her duty is to be who He has deemed her to be....slave. Not some of the time....but all of it. sabba doesn't act any differently when she is at home, at work, at the ballpark, at dinner with friends or at a Gorean gathering. In her profession, she is expected to be lot's of things. Intelligent, assertive, decisive, factual, knowledgable and tenacious come to mind. None of those characteristics change when she leaves the office at the end of the day. As a slave, she is still all of those things....her mentality is the same.

well wishes,
sabba

hi sabba

i knew i messed that post up.. lol.. didnt realize i did it in that direction.

my interactions with the Free will indeed be different than with another slave. i would not dream of the familiarity being the same. i would not kneel to a slave, unless commanded. i would not dream of upsetting another slave, being mean without cause.. or even with cause, depending on the issue. imagine the upset of i were to address a slave as Free, or, heaven forbid, a Free as a slave.

quote:

I think that's what tazzy meant when she says she behaves differently with her patients then she does with other people, and differently with slaves then with the Free. She doesn't change who she is, because of them; instead she changes HOW to please them, because of who she is.
When she is working as a nurse, the best way to please and serve her patients is by being the best, professional nurse, she can be, not by "serving" their every whim by literally obeying their every command. In fact, doing so would go against the spirit of the very service those patients expect her to deliver.

thank you ishy, that is indeed a huge part of it, and something i did not take the time to articulate well.

as far as my profession... well... we have been down that road before. if i am the most qualified person in the room in the time of an emergency, you can bet the bank i am taking charge and barking orders, regardless of the status of others.. i am assertive when the situation calls for it, aggressive if need be, demanding a times. i am also supportive and a patient advocate, and will fight tooth and nail for their needs.

i used to worry that this would make me be seen as less than a slave (or more than?) i no longer worry. i merely am... who i am.. what i am... if i am slave, its because a man has determined i am... if i am not a slave.. again.. a man's determination. its no longer up to me to make that determination. just to be, for me, is enough... and to be the best me i can be.

well wishes

tazzy

_____________________________

No body dies a virgin... life fucks everyone.

RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11

"There are no atheists getting blowjobs" ~Master Ron

+20 Heresy Points - Hard earned!

Duchess of Dissent 1

(in reply to sabba)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Social Status: Pros and cons - 1/13/2010 7:07:19 PM

starshineowned

Posts: 1551
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline

Greetings..

no alittleevil..not in the least. Your Owner may tell you exactly that or it may very well just be that its a word to express what it is you feel. It definately wasn't directed at you in the least..just a noticeable difference that I myself couldn't make is all. :)

In the end though from every slaves posts here I read it all boils down to a fine point..the Owner, and everything thing else that transpires beyond that or even how by the slave is because of that same point. What is interesting is that even with those being different, most never meeting or having a clue or probably even a care about one another..how commonality in what they expect, and what they deem are neccessities as far as what is pleasing to them..*them being the Owners*.

starshine

_____________________________

"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." --Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to alittleevil)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Social Status: Pros and cons - 1/13/2010 7:47:55 PM

AnimusRex

Posts: 2104
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

For AnimusRex,
And it is clear that the Gorean model does not work for a modern society, or even a world at the modern level of complexity, though one might argue that there are things worth carrying across, particularly at the local level.

I agree strongly. But there is another aspect to be balanced against freedom, isn't there? Namely, the desire for a well-ordered society, versus individual freedom.

At first blush, one might think that Gorean thought embraces freedom above all else, a dog-eat-dog, every man for himself thinking, and scorns societal responsibility. But I think there is more to it than that.

I think what often gets missed, is the equally strong Gorean desire for order, which requires cooperation and peaceful resolution. For example, the clans in the books, aside from their savagery that we know well, also placed a value on peaceful cooperation- at least within their own clan and tribe.

The reasoning for this is not hard to figure out- warfare always impoverishes those who do it, and a cooperative settlement usually results in a better deal for both sides. A well ordered society ends up being wealthier than one that is riven with feuds and disputes.

I wrote elsewhere that modernity produced feminism, which was Norman's main target. It was thought that if all MEN are created equal, then shouldn't men and women both be equal, and the same?

For some, this produces a backlash against not just feminism, but modernity itself- thinking that if we do away with the (in my mind obvious) error of feminism, then we would necessarily do away with egalitarianism, and revert to a class-bassed society.

I see it differently- in recent decades, most scientific and cultural thinkers have edited classic feminist theory to accept a lot of the ideas that Norman wrote.
Ideas that were heresy in 1969, such as that men and women are fundamentally different, that women take to childrearing better than men, that women are more apt to want to be homemakers, etc, are today regarded as mainstream thought. Maybe not universally accepted, but not shocking.

So I can see a world in which we keep ideas like political egalitarianism, but also embrace our own fundamental nature- one that accepts that most often, women prefer to follow a man rather than lead, and in some cases, prefer to be owned, rather than free.

(in reply to Aswad)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Social Status: Pros and cons - 1/13/2010 9:18:06 PM

sweetgirlserves

Posts: 255
Joined: 4/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElizabethAnne

Hello sweetgirlserves,

quote:

But at the end of the day, if you aren't the legal propery of someone else, you are 'free'.

I disagree with this, because slavery in the "legal" sense of the word is illegal, at least here in the US, and everywhere else that I know of. While yes on Gor, slavery is a legal status, it's not here, so that's not how a slave is held by a man. By this definition, NO one is a slave.

Take care,

Elizabeth

Hello Mistress,

Yes, true. Thanks for catching that. The closest we have to a 'legal status' is simply the bond between the Man and his girl and his determination that the manner in which she will fit into his life is as slave... and her inability to deny him this.

My point was kind of to put the idea of slave aside... we all know what that is and the status it implies in a Gorean paradigm, and instead to focus on the idea of 'Free People'... and the fact that there is a tremendous spectrum in the degree to which an individual is actually 'free'. Economically free? Free in their choice of profession? Freedom of ideas (vs. being programmed into a particular belief system), political freedom. And then of course, the idea of 'Free and Great'... and all that implies (vs. Free and not-so-great).... and by what standards the degree of 'greatness' is determined. At the end of the day, the bottom line is that they are all considered 'free', and as I think think about it, that is rather interesting.

I wish you most well,
~sgs

< Message edited by sweetgirlserves -- 1/13/2010 9:36:15 PM >

_____________________________

"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." ~Maya Angelou

(in reply to ElizabethAnne)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Social Status: Pros and cons - 1/14/2010 1:23:40 PM

kushiels

Posts: 55
Joined: 11/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

For kushiel,

While the girl did not intend to be harsh, she should have been. The word is indeed appropriate. By Gorean standards, if you aren't fit to be free, you aren't worthy of freedom. And, yes, that means people who have traded liberties for safety. It does also mean people who have yielded to threats. The price of freedom can sometimes be blood, or even death. Anyone who isn't willing to shoulder their part of that burden is at the mercy of someone else. Anyone who isn't willing to pay the price of their own freedom when circumstances call for it is essentially not fit, not worthy, of being free.

Harsh or not, that's a reality. If you don't own up to your own freedom, you aren't free, and anyone treating you accordingly is simply recognizing that fact and acting on it. Sure, one can posit that those who are free should be beneficial masters who leave you on a long leash, such as modern governments do with citizens who aren't free in this sense. But you're at the mercy of others, and that they choose to be merciful is mere circumstance when you haven't earned freedom.

Let's not be apologetic about that, folks.

Health,
al-Aswad.

P.S.: One highly thought of historical persona in the US voiced the exact same sentiment. Remember which one?

Greetings Master Aswad,

thank you for taking the time to respond--your words gave me much to think about! i also appreciate your bluntness--Gor (whether speaking of the planet or the philosophy/culture) is a harsh place, as is the world we live in--your directness helps me understand the philosophies much more quickly!

that being said, when i read your words, i thought, "shouldn't i strive to be free, then?" because i pride myself on taking responsibility, and on EARNING freedom. i believe in being and demanding the best of myself that i can--how can i strive for my best and also strive to be a slave? Martin Luther King Jr said something along the lines of "someone who won't die for anything doesn't deserve to live." In the culture we live in there does not seem to be a price to being a Free Person--at least not in comparison to being a slave. Basic freedom seems to be granted to most everyone, with some of us choosing to embrace slavery.

i do not know if there is a question in there, but i am still having trouble grasping Gorean philosophy on this. Or, perhaps, i am just having trouble ACCEPTING the philosophy, since it is uncomfortable for me!

_____________________________

"Whose my domly dom? Huh? Whose my domly dom?"
~AquaticSub

(in reply to Aswad)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Social Status: Pros and cons - 1/15/2010 4:45:19 PM

Aswad

Posts: 6618
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

But there is another aspect to be balanced against freedom, isn't there?

Not really, no. The horse in front. The cart behind. No balance.

quote:

At first blush, one might think that Gorean thought embraces freedom above all else, a dog-eat-dog, every man for himself thinking, and scorns societal responsibility. But I think there is more to it than that.

If you think there is more to it than that, one wonders how you could have come up with "scorns societal responsibility." And, as Nephandi has pointed out repeatedly, it's not about fostering a dog-eat-dog world. The world simply is a dog-eat-dog place, regardless of the postmodernist sentiments to the contrary. To be resigned to that, rather than bearing it in mind while reaching further, does not strike me as the way to go. And if honor has any meaning, it is precisely that each man have the backs of those he has a reciprocal bond of loyalty with. When one tries to translate that into 6 billion people, however, things get complicated, as even something simple as the logistics of opt-in communities is a no-go, and everyone is settled down to a heterogenous mass where there is no space for an individual to retreat anywhere, save as an outlaw.

quote:

I think what often gets missed, is the equally strong Gorean desire for order, which requires cooperation and peaceful resolution. For example, the clans in the books, aside from their savagery that we know well, also placed a value on peaceful cooperation- at least within their own clan and tribe.

And I think you may have confused a general preference for peace with a desire for order, and neglected to take into account the difference between those who- in another time and place- would have been Heliots, and those who would not. Obviously, as I've commented elsewhere, mankind does have some division at an inclination level, as a vast majority are there to be extensions of someone else's vision, and will otherwise generally be content to have food, something to fill their time, and a reasonable assurance that the sky is unlikely to fall down on their heads tomorrow. The inertia of the masses is all too human and neither particularly inspired, nor particularly inspiring.

quote:

The reasoning for this is not hard to figure out- warfare always impoverishes those who do it, and a cooperative settlement usually results in a better deal for both sides. A well ordered society ends up being wealthier than one that is riven with feuds and disputes.

Which returns us to the religion of capitalism, an expedited form of causal-entropic principles: a rapid seeking of the local minima, with occasional tunneling to a globally lower minima. It is an emergent property of a mechanical system. As such, one could just as easily posit that it is not wealth that is accumulated, but terminal velocity being approached in free fall. A pleasant state of affairs for a while, certainly, if one is happy to be resigned to that.

It neglects one of the things I've seen in Gorean thought, which was voiced reasonably well in the reimagining of the Battlestar Galactica TV series: to ask ourselves why we deserve to exist. When we can show nothing other than a large scale behavioral mechanic that derives from the action of entropy in a causal universe, when no values or aesthetics or other choices set a goal that we try to reach for, when we will neither hold ourselves nor others to a higher standard or be willing to take a stand at a cost, then not only is no answer forthcoming, but indeed none can be that will satisfy in that worldview.

To sacrifice values to have peace and relative comfort, and to sacrifice freedom to exist in relative comfort, these are merely another way to sacrifice life itself to exist. And, yes, existence is certainly the lowest common denominator, shared all around the board, arguably the metric of success in an evolutionary perspective. But is it enough? Is being human about existing and having a reasonably human genome? Is it about touting the popular opinions du jour? Is it about making do, going on, just grinding along and keeping the wheels turning? Or is there something else? A craving for genuine life that must be satisfied, lest a living death occur? A set of instincts and behaviors that are somehow defining?

And, perhaps more to the point, if such a thing is what it is to be human...

... do we exalt it, maybe even attempt to refine it?

I think "yeah, that's it."

quote:

I wrote elsewhere that modernity produced feminism, which was Norman's main target. It was thought that if all MEN are created equal, then shouldn't men and women both be equal, and the same? For some, this produces a backlash against not just feminism, but modernity itself- thinking that if we do away with the (in my mind obvious) error of feminism, then we would necessarily do away with egalitarianism, and revert to a class-bassed society.

Other way around, I should think. Reject equality between men in acknowledgement of the apparently hard-wired competitive streak and confrontational problem solving style with a lust for conquest. When equality between men has been rejected for a good reason, besides that of the value analogue of thermodynamics (reducing all to zero by eliminating difference), then the notion of equality between genders becomes absurd- if no man is equal to another¹, what man is the other gender then equal to?

Both genders consist of people. People can be judged on merit. Merit does not discriminate. Merit knows neither gender, race, creed or anything else. It acknowledges or does not. Aggregate it, and it shows you trends that you can use in optimizing a solution to a problem on a demographic level, without bias. In some cases, you can- or must- generalize; free women and children first, for instance. But those are a matter of optimal problem solving when a constrained metric is the time to solve the problem (e.g. when the Titanic is going down, it doesn't care how optimally you allocate lifeboat seats, but does bound the time you have to do it).

I have no gripe with most of what passes for gender equality, I just think it's properly subsumed under the heading of merit, and that merit is the only approach which has some element of objectivity (and thus the benign elements of equality) about it. The problem with the queen of France wasn't that she was a woman, or even that she was in government, but rather that she was ill suited for the latter; she did not hold her position on merit, but on accident of birth. And I would no more accord men authority on accident of birth alone as a general thing than I would want the late queen of France digging her way out of the earth and having the position of world governess.

Personally, I favor solutions over backlashes (cf. "beyond Gor"), but Lange did not.

And modernity, postmodernity even, is not a solution.

quote:

Ideas that were heresy in 1969, such as that men and women are fundamentally different, that women take to childrearing better than men, that women are more apt to want to be homemakers, etc, are today regarded as mainstream thought. Maybe not universally accepted, but not shocking.

You mean that people were slow enough to reject their biases that they are now in vogue again.

Seriously, though, what you say does not hold where I live.

quote:

So I can see a world in which we keep ideas like political egalitarianism, but also embrace our own fundamental nature- one that accepts that most often, women prefer to follow a man rather than lead, and in some cases, prefer to be owned, rather than free.

That's a bit too utopian, making it about as viable as Gor. People care about restraining each other, limiting each other, holding each other back. Envy, conformity, should, ought, and so forth. It's what goes on when people run out of opium. Whenever the inmates are allowed to run the asylum, it will be thus. No growth, except in the manner of an ingrown nail. Perhaps in a few ice ages, but certainly not until the inception of the post-halocene era, if it will even have humans at all.

Not to derail anything, but how do China, India, Africa and Monsanto fit in such a world as you propose?

Health,
al-Aswad.

¹ Incidentally, it was the assumption of equality that was the problem. "Prove yourself equal," and all that.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to AnimusRex)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Social Status: Pros and cons - 1/15/2010 8:03:21 PM

Aswad

Posts: 6618
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kushiels

thank you for taking the time to respond--your words gave me much to think about! i also appreciate your bluntness--Gor (whether speaking of the planet or the philosophy/culture) is a harsh place, as is the world we live in--your directness helps me understand the philosophies much more quickly!

You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment.

quote:

that being said, when i read your words, i thought, "shouldn't i strive to be free, then?" because i pride myself on taking responsibility, and on EARNING freedom. i believe in being and demanding the best of myself that i can--how can i strive for my best and also strive to be a slave?

In a Gorean sense, the word slave has a specific meaning: human livestock, property. Whether someone chooses to live in a way that embodies submission, or even cultivates submission, is a personal choice that affects the people involved. Freedom is a choice, and as I commented to one girl on the boards (for her: sorry about the delay with that mail!) there are some who have a nature whereby the absolute embodiment of their freedom comes as a slave, in a Zen sense- they're not slaves in this conventional sense, but they are in the sense that "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck."

My companion chose freedom in a difficult way that I will not go into here. Suffice to say that she has proven herself to me in this regard. Yet she does prefer to live in a particular way, with a particular dynamic, even some aspects of the social status. But most who adhere to the Gorean lifestyles do not have room in their minds for a partial implementation of the social status that slaves have, so the dynamic remains a private thing, a preference that others cannot accomodate because of cultural taboos (gah).

Heinlein said that you cannot enslave a free man, that the most you can do is kill him. In that sense, it may be as accurate to say that freedom is the realization that you have chosen, as to say that it is a choice in itself. But the implication is, also, that if a free person wears a collar, it is because they have chosen to wear one. Most free persons would not choose that, but the wonder of humanity is diversity. so it is certainly plausible that some would, even those who do not fit the Indic/Zen/Tao mold of one. Whether you are one or not, only you can decide. The first step, though, is to eliminate preconception and consider just what you mean by "slave," what the implications of that are, and what your inner nature is like.

As Unbuilder said, know your imperative. Or, as Leonidas quoted the Oracle, know thyself. Do not ascribe value or lack of same to freedom or slavery or anything else until you know what is inside you. Then allow your values to proceed from that, your mandate, your essence. And, finally, arrange your life in line with your preferences without compromising those values. If the sort of slave that has no freedom is who you are, then by all means embrace that. And if you find that you are free, but desire something which the collar has to offer, arrange your life so that you can fulfill that desire without relinquishing core freedom. Either way, be what you are, and then refine yourself from that.

quote:

Martin Luther King Jr said something along the lines of "someone who won't die for anything doesn't deserve to live."

What he said was that if a man has not found something worth dying for, he is not fit to live. That is also at the core of what I commented to AnimusRex, that our right to live, as humans, depends on whether we have people, ideas or values that are so important that we cannot live without them, and will die to defend them if necessary. Without these things, we do not live, we merely exist. And there is nothing more meaningful or profound about a human existing than a rock existing. It is life, and the value we fill it with, that is worthwhile.

To a Gorean free (wo)man, freedom is one of those things.

In theory, it's the most important one.

quote:

In the culture we live in there does not seem to be a price to being a Free Person--at least not in comparison to being a slave. Basic freedom seems to be granted to most everyone, with some of us choosing to embrace slavery.

Correction, just about everyone is accorded a long leash. Few are free.

Both freedom, power and rights are things that are claimed, taken and held; they are never given, provided or conferred, and in fact they cannot be. The realities are increasingly replaced with the illusory comforts of legal autonomy, privileges and entitlements, and the lack of a clear distinction is evidence that most do not see a difference they care about. However, when we compare with respect (earned), truth (known), emotion (felt) and life (lived), people can more readily relate to the idea that the false form is inferior, that there is a single modality for each of these things that rings true.

Humans have a singular faculty for selective awareness, which is why rationalizations are so dangerous, and why bluntness can occasionally be preferable to other forms of communication: the moment we allow ourselves to block out a truth from our awareness, we risk forgetting that truth until we are adequately reminded of it. A rationalization allows us to accept what is unpalatable and thereby compromise in a manner that readily desensitizes us and prevents us from seeing that we inch ever closer to accepting what is unacceptable.

Ask (almost) any American, and you will hear that it is unacceptable for them to live in a country where they are not free. Yet, inch by inch, over the past century or so, (almost) every American has accepted the loss of something they once held to be part of the meaning of being free. And in many cases, with upstanding, well reflected citizens, if you had taken away all the freedoms they have lost at the same time, instead of giving them a century to rationalize away the losses, well... chances are there would be violence. But so long as these things are taken away, the idea hollowed out bit by bit, (almost) nobody gets up in arms about it. And if you inquire about specific things, a rationalization is readily on hand (for the children, against terrorism, different times, etc.).

That could not have happened if each citizen was vigilant against rationalization, and concerned with personal freedom (as opposed to the ever shrinking legal autonomy that has taken its place). It actually started even further back than a century ago, but at the time, people were up in arms, though generally because the autonomy they lost was the autonomy to do what they wanted to do. Lately, i.e. the past century, it has been a more insidious process, with more room to rationalize away each thing in turn.

If your notion of freedom has anything to do with what others give you or permit you, then you are on a leash of some length that has been determined for you. If you are free, then you are either an outlaw, or have not yet decided to act in a manner that would bring you into conflict with the law (or have not been caught doing so, at least). If you remain free, you will most likely come into conflict with the law at some point, though, or will come into a serious conflict of interests in determining the appropriate course of action (duties, loyalties and obligations are desires, too, after all). Most of the time, though, people are going to pick rationalization to conform with social conditioning, and thus allow those shackles to bring a collar to their neck that they will promptly block from their mind. Until the leash chafes too much, of course. By then, though, it's too late to act alone.

Guess that was more of a ramble than a reply.

Just one of those days...

quote:

i do not know if there is a question in there, but i am still having trouble grasping Gorean philosophy on this. Or, perhaps, i am just having trouble ACCEPTING the philosophy, since it is uncomfortable for me!

This place is for those who find it interesting, not just those who accept it.

Health,
al-Aswad.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to kushiels)

Profile

Post #: 48