The juncture of submission and companionship (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles



Message

sunshinemiss -> The juncture of submission and companionship (2/3/2010 6:27:52 AM)

Greetings,

After re-reading some other threads, and looking through some of the archives, here and on other sites, a nebulous question keeps bopping around in my head.

Is it possible for a woman to be a Free Companion in the Gorean sense and to the outsde world and still be very much a slave in a different sense within a companionship relationship? (not sure how to even define those terms either) There are different levels of submission that I've seen in women - and in the BDSM side of things there are words for that - bottom or bedroom submissive for example.

Certainly there is something of a "submitting to one's own companion but no one else" sense that often comes up from a number of the FW here. There are certainly levels of submission that are involved in real life relationships. As has often been brought up on other threads, all people submit one way or another to life - laws, bosses, familial norms, our physical bodies, etc. A number of the "slave" women that are around are mothers and bosses / supervisors and such as well. So where is the differentiation?

I'm not quite sure there is a line in this question; it's not either / or, more like a grey area. I'm not sure I even understand exactly what I'm asking. But there is something about submitting to the organic relationship versus standing alone and defending oneself.

Best,
sunshine



jakeskajira -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/3/2010 11:28:51 AM)

Honestly, I don't see a difference other than some women feel they are too "whatever" to be labled a slave because they feel if they speak, their words aren't worth anything, or won't hold merit.

I don't care if my words have merit with anyone but my Owner, so whatever label he's given me, doesn't really matter.

However, with that said, the disrespect i've received because of the label slave on gorean forums, and even regular BDSM boards have often made me wish I could just label myself "free" so I can speak freely and not get the same judgment or have my words so disregarded because of my label.

In the end, i realized, whatever makes a person happy. I don't personally believe that a free woman has to be submissive, or defer. I believe a free woman is NOT a submissive woman and prefers to be free to make her own choices and dictate her own life... unlike that of a submissive person or a slave.

I am not particularly submissive, but I am owned property. ;)





Cherylmazana -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/3/2010 9:05:56 PM)

I think your problem sunshine is that you are trying to define Gorean free women by BDSM terms and the two have nothing to do with each other.

A free woman isn’t a submissive/bottom/bedroom submissive etc, she is a woman who lives her life like any other woman with one difference, she follows a philosophy outlined in the Gorean novels.

What she does or doesn’t do in her bedroom for fun and games such as BDSM with her being a bottom or sub is totally irrelevant to her status. If for sexual kicks I want to play at being Madam de Sade or even Doreen the captured slave that has nothing to do with how I live my life and the philosophy I follow.

Women by nature are designed to be yielding in the bedroom the act of penetration by its very nature means to a certain extent you have to submit to being invaded.

What makes you a slave or a free woman is the philosophy you follow not your sexual leanings.

Cheryl



Elisabella -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/3/2010 9:58:52 PM)

Hi Cheryl,

Excellent answer :)

Hi Sunshine,

As you know, I can't answer this question from the perspective of Gorean FC vs. slave. What I can do is answer it from the perspective of free woman (not GFW, just a woman, who is free), who does tend to submit to her husband, as compared to a woman who is mastered.

To me, the choice to submit, or to yield, or to agree, or to consent, etc. requires agency. To put it as concisely as possible - saying "yes" means nothing, unless there is also the option of saying "no." That's what I do when I "submit" - I don't like that word very much, but it'll do for this discussion - I say yes, when I might possibly have said no.

To obey, on the other hand, requires less agency. Obeying is not lessened if there's no option to disobey, and disobedience in a slave leads to punishment, not to a discussion. When you want someone to obey you, you want them to do as they're told.

I've heard slaves say they did something "Because Master told me to." As a free woman, I don't base my decisions on whether or not to do something because my husband tells me to. I'll do it because I think he's right, I'll do it because I want to make him happy, I'll do it because I want to avoid an argument, but whatever my reason is, you can be sure it's NOT going to be "because he told me to."

The dynamic is totally different to me. The slave can say "no" ten times in a row, and be whipped for it, and still be a slave. The free woman can say "yes" ten times in a row, can make a point of never saying no, yet still maintain her agency. So long as she is saying "I choose to say yes" rather than "I was told to do this so I must," she is maintaining her will.

Others of course may disagree, that is just my opinion.

I wish you well,
Bella



sweetgirlserves -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/3/2010 10:26:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


To obey, on the other hand, requires less agency. Obeying is not lessened if there's no option to disobey, and disobedience in a slave leads to punishment, not to a discussion.

I wish you well,
Bella


Hi Bella,

That was a very good explanation, however, I would say if the Master has an intelligent kajira and not a doormat, disobedience should lead to both punishment and a discussion. A slave-type girl who disobeys usually has some reason, which needs to be addressed. To only handle such situations with punishment can slowly destroy the 'mastery', imo.

~sgs



Elisabella -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/3/2010 11:22:25 PM)

quote:

Hi Bella,

That was a very good explanation, however, I would say if the Master has an intelligent kajira and not a doormat, disobedience should lead to both punishment and a discussion. A slave-type girl who disobeys usually has some reason, which needs to be addressed. To only handle such situations with punishment can slowly destroy the 'mastery', imo.


Hi sgs,

I agree completely, but the discussion would be more along the lines of "how can I improve your obedience" rather than "will we reach a compromise or agree to disagree or do what you think or do what I think" etc.

I wish you well,
Bella



owusuprecious -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/3/2010 11:28:49 PM)

hi



xBullx -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 3:40:58 AM)

No male responses yet?

I do believe we are seeking the Gorean answer here so I'll give it to you as straight as I see it, no whitewashing the idea for bullshits sake.

A woman has the "choice" to "not risk" the removal of her veils. Hense she is held to account by other free, and most often by men.

What social effect (being submissive or what have you) she employs to avoid the removal of these actual or hypothetical garments is up to her, I suspect that is where her freedom begins or ends if a Gorean man interjects his opinion. Or so it goes in the books, our western social perversions of the order of nature not withstanding.

In other words a woman utilizes the tools that her nature provides her with in order to survive. I suspect freedom could be a term of idle speculation in many cases.

Ponder in this for a time and maybe you'll start to see the world through Gorean eyes.



Cherylmazana -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 5:59:45 AM)

I have read your words a few times Bull and the way it seems to come across to me is that you believe that a Gorean woman around you could be stripped by you if you dislike how she behaves? Or maybe even enslaved?

Of course I may be reading your words wrong but this is how it comes across to me.

Cheryl



AlwaysLisa -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 6:42:35 AM)

Cheryl,

Bull may say I am wrong, but I got the feeling he was speaking metaphorically. 

Instead of the actual act of face stripping, he may simply view the woman as a slave if she acts inappropriate.  That was how I read his words, :)

Lisa




xBullx -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 6:49:20 AM)

Now don't assume when it comes to what I'm saying, concurrently don't be trying to mix and match philosophical concepts to meet some politically correct intent.

You've read the same books as me and you know in the end, whether a free woman is of a man's household, city or whatever, a Gorean man in the end holds the binding fibers and it is his will, and in fact his responsibility to use them or not. Perhaps we could inquire with the likes of the female Boabissa on the matter.

But to respond to your frivilous question directed at me I'll say, no, no I don't have any intention of simply enslaving random females in our society, its illegal and that my dear would be foolish, at least in this day and age.

II can however shun errant females and expose them for the contemptuous sluts or frauds that they are. Just because a woman claims to be free doesn't mean that's how other Gorean free types see her.

The OP's "query" has a couple different responses, perhaps an answer that certain so called Goreans attempt to squeeze into their less than Gorean agenda; or maybe there is the answer exposed by the examples within the books. Just because you can't make the answer work in our current social make up doesn't mean you can alter the Gorean concept and still call it Gorean.

Square pegs, round holes, you get the idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cherylmazana

I have read your words a few times Bull and the way it seems to come across to me is that you believe that a Gorean woman around you could be stripped by you if you dislike how she behaves? Or maybe even enslaved?

Of course I may be reading your words wrong but this is how it comes across to me.

Cheryl




AnnaOfAramis -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 10:20:28 AM)

quote:

What makes you a slave or a free woman is the philosophy you follow not your sexual leanings.


Greetings Mistress,

This one has been turning this sentence over and over for a while, and perhaps she is not reading it correctly, because it seems to her from what Norman wrote that a slave is very much determined by her sexual leanings. Not in the sense of a "bedroom slave" or in whether one likes to "bottom" sexually. But on a deep instinctual sexual response to Men level. As this girl understands it, it is this response to Men that makes a girl able to be mastered and then any philosophy she follows is that of the Man. Perhaps the difference is that a FW follows her own philosophy, while a slave follows her sexual leanings and thence follows the Man's philosophies? Not sure if that made sense? [:-]

Well wishes,
anna



Trevelyan -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 10:39:00 AM)

Guardsman of Gor [Gor Series Book 16]
by John Norman
398

"I thought long after our conversation," he said. "You had
dared to confess your slave needs, and this had shamed you,
and it had scandalized me. But, why, I asked myself. Should
not, rather, one be more ashamed by deceit than the truth?
Can there truly be a greater honor in hypocrisy than in
honesty? It does not seem so. I then realized how bravely
you had trusted me and revealed this to me. My outrage gave
way to gratitude and admiration. Similarly, I asked myself,
why was I scandalized. Was this not connected with hidden
fears of my own, that I might discover complementary needs
within myself, the needs to own and be a master? Your
confession, so expressive and poignant, tended to undermine
a deceit of free persons. You had dared, it seemed, to break
the code of hypocrisy. Had the gate to barbarism been left
ajar? I regretted, for a time, the loss of the lie. We grow fond
of our myths. Yet our myths are like walls of straw. Ultimately
they cannot protect us. Ultimately they must perish in the
flames of truth."
"You would have taken me," she asked, "knowing that I
had slave needs?"
"Your slave needs," he said, "made you a thousand times
more desirable. What man does not want a slave?"
She looked at him, startled.
"It was thus my intention to take you into honorable
companionship," he said, "but, in the privacy of our quarters,
away from the sight of the world, to put you in a collar, and
keep you as a slave, even to the whip."



Arturas -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 12:16:55 PM)

Greetings Bull,

I'm sorry, I swore to myself I would never post here again, but you absolutely crack me up. I cannot believe you honestly said..."But to respond to your frivilous question directed at me I'll say..." to someone doing an honest post, to Cheryl specifically? I've seen her posts before and there is nothing frivilous about them.

And like Cheryl, I had to read your post about three times trying to descern your idea. I finally gave up and decided you were drinking when you wrote this, and that is OK, just so everyone realizes this.

You do crack me up! I promise not to post again if you promise not to drink and post at the same time.

Be well,
Arturas



Kirata -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 1:10:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

I swore to myself I would never post here again, but...

[sm=applause.gif]

K.



Elisabella -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 1:10:36 PM)

quote:

I swore to myself I would never post here again

If you're going to break your word, even to yourself, do it for something more important than snark.



Elisabella -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 1:22:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

No male responses yet?

I do believe we are seeking the Gorean answer here so I'll give it to you as straight as I see it, no whitewashing the idea for bullshits sake.

A woman has the "choice" to "not risk" the removal of her veils. Hense she is held to account by other free, and most often by men.

What social effect (being submissive or what have you) she employs to avoid the removal of these actual or hypothetical garments is up to her, I suspect that is where her freedom begins or ends if a Gorean man interjects his opinion. Or so it goes in the books, our western social perversions of the order of nature not withstanding.

In other words a woman utilizes the tools that her nature provides her with in order to survive. I suspect freedom could be a term of idle speculation in many cases.

Ponder in this for a time and maybe you'll start to see the world through Gorean eyes.


This is actually really interesting, Bull.

Do you think that Western women have a sense of invincibility, perhaps best demonstrated in the woman who goes to a bar, gets trashed and makes flirtatious sexual comments, leaves with a guy, then tells the judge she just wanted to "make out" with him...and she honestly doesn't understand why things turned out the way they did?

Most women I know who have a good head on their shoulders know there are two Western worlds, there's the world that 'should be', which is the world we use when talking about things in public, then there's the world that is, which our mothers might tell us about once or twice growing up, that we tend to only allude to with looks or pointed comments. The fortunate of us learn to navigate both worlds without any damage, but this sense of invincibility, the fact that we have it constantly drilled into our heads "this is what should happen, if it doesn't, you can sue, and it'll all be okay" seems to make many women hardheaded and convinced that if anything bad happens to them, there's NOTHING they could have done differently, and to even hint at that is putting all the blame on the victim.

I remember watching an episode of NCIS where one of the agents, a single woman named Kate, said she slept with a gun under her pillow, and her boss replied "good." It's pretty obvious that even a well trained special agent could very possibly be overpowered by a male intruder, and that the weapon sort of equals the playing field.

Anyway that was definitely an interesting post, I'd rather wait to hear from more Gorean FW to see if they agree that's the core difference because your observation as a man might prioritize things differently from their observations as women about their own lives, but it was great food for thought, and you're right, it does shed a new light on Gorean way of thinking.

Best <3 to you, Natalie, and your little tartlet,

Bella



xBullx -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 1:31:02 PM)

Well, well, well the Jester speaks!

Arturus, your sworn statements, opinions and promises hold as much weight with me as a three foot squared unit of empty space.

Frankly I don't expect the likes of you to comprehend a damn thing I say, it's apparent to some of us that the Gorean philosophy is knowledge that, even in small measures well exceeds your pay grade. In fact it could be surmised that your post quoted below was a pathetic attempt of a drama queen to secure some much needed attention.

To the point, Cheryl is a rather astute individual and with reference to the Gorean philosophy she does better then some, in fact she maintains a level of understanding that I doubt you'll ever come to know. That being said, and considering the discussions I've had with her on past occasions she knows good and well I wasn't implying what she asked; so even if her question wasn't frivolous or just simply snarky it was little more than a rhetorical mention.

So do yourself a favor and cease with the self-mutilation of your own character and reputation.

Furthermore I assure you that this is a battlefield you are ill-equiped to negotiate, though the possibility does exist that you simply have a humiliation fetish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Greetings Bull,

I'm sorry, I swore to myself I would never post here again, but you absolutely crack me up. I cannot believe you honestly said..."But to respond to your frivilous question directed at me I'll say..." to someone doing an honest post, to Cheryl specifically? I've seen her posts before and there is nothing frivilous about them.

And like Cheryl, I had to read your post about three times trying to descern your idea. I finally gave up and decided you were drinking when you wrote this, and that is OK, just so everyone realizes this.

You do crack me up! I promise not to post again if you promise not to drink and post at the same time.

Be well,
Arturas



AlwaysLisa -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 2:02:02 PM)

quote:

I'm sorry, I swore to myself I would never post here again


Was this due to Star disobeying you...again, and it was easier to leave, then face facts and have to pen yet another admittal of embarassment caused by her behavior?  

Just wondering.

Lisa



sunshinemiss -> RE: The juncture of submission and companionship (2/4/2010 5:10:19 PM)

Hello everyone,
Thank you to those who have given well thought out responses to this thread.  Very much food for thought.

Best to you all,
sunshine



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2012
Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1757813