Collarchat.com

Create a
Free Account		 As the Collar Turns:
 Collarchat.com - BDSM Forum

Home  Login  Search 
Espanol  Deutsch  Francais  Italiano  Portugues 

The need to be property


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> The need to be property Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The need to be property - 5/6/2010 11:08:50 AM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline 		*For all those who found this topic because they clicked on the thread scroller: this is a Gorean thread. You're welcomed to reply too, if you want. I'm just letting you know, seeing that topic tittles like this sometimes seem to make people end up in places they don't even want to be.
This thread is a continuation of a debate that started in this topic: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3188253*

I have a (couple) question(s) for all you girls who need to be property and nothing but property.

How much of this need is sexual?
How much of this need is the fetish of slavery?

Imagine that tomorrow your Master would change all the rules by a 180 degrees.
He would forbid you to wear a collar.
He would forbid you to call him Master.
He would forbid you to kneel.
He would forbid you to be slutty or sexual in public, instead expecting you at all times to wear heavy and ugly clothes.
He would forbid you to beg him for things, and instead require you to simple ask, or *gasp* just proceed without asking.
He would forbid you to refer to yourself as a slave.
He would never punish you again, or use restraints on you.
He would decide that he really liked vanilla sex better then rough sex.
He would expect you to be assertive in public, and not allow yourself to be pushed around by other people.
He would expect you to tell him if you didn't like something he did, or disapproved of any decision he made (not that he'd always do what you wanted, but he'd still require you to tell him.)

Yet at the same time, he would still be the man of the house, and expect all his orders to be followed with perfection.
In other words, he still retains the right to order you to kneel, it's just that he chooses not to give you that specific order, or others like it.
He would still maintain financial control over the relationship.
He would still set the course of your future together.
He would still maintain veto right over everything you did, even if he let you decide what to do on your own, unless he use his veto right.

In that situation... he would have JUST the same amount of control over you that he now has.
You would be mastered by him to exactly the same degree that you are now.
He would control your life to exactly the same degree that he does now.
You would be his slave to exactly the same degree that you are now.

And yet, suddenly, with all the fun, fetishistic, sexy social trappings of slavery removed, you'd be acting exactly as a mastered Free Woman would.

Really, you're still mastered by him, you're still his "property" in the same sense you are today.
So, if you claim that that's all you need from him, would you really still feel the same?

Is the importance you place on your slavery really an importance on the slavery, or is it an importance on your own sexuality?
And is it necessary for man to ONLY be allowed to give his woman certain types of orders in order for him to call her "mastered"?
Is a man bound by mastery as the woman is, because it restricts which orders he can or cannot give her in order for her to remain his "mastered woman"?
If a man can give a mastered woman any order he wants, can he order her to behave like a Free Woman?

I'll be very interested in the responses...

I wish you well,

ishy

< Message edited by ishyB -- 5/6/2010 11:15:48 AM >

_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: The need to be property - 5/6/2010 11:43:38 AM   
starshineowned


Posts: 1551
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline
I'm going to simplify this if only for myself. If Master went from the upright, in control of every aspect of our lives directions to a blathering, bed ridden, unable to even control his own functions let alone mine..I'll still be here until he musters up some logical words verbal or otherwise saying he no longer wants "me" the person..status be damned. Any other man in my life up till now I'd of told you hell no I'm out of there.

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 ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: The need to be property - 5/6/2010 12:58:40 PM   
allyC


Posts: 776
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ishyB 
How much of this need is sexual? 
 This is a tough question to gauge.  I don't think I can put a percentage on that.  I can only offer that I am a woman with sexual needs, however, they don't solely rely on rough sex, bondage, or the more physical manifestations of slavery - my sexual needs (while still selfish to one degree or another) are primarily based on his sexual needs.  I have a deep need to satisfy him sexually and that is a huge part of my own sexual fulfillment.  I will offer, however, that if he couldn't (or wouldn't) have sex with me for an extended period of time, while I may feel sexually frustrated, my need to be his would still exist just as strongly as it did before.
quote:

How much of this need is the fetish of slavery? 
 While I enjoy all of the trappings that go along with the path of enslavement (and I really do enjoy them) I have learned that those aspects are simply window dressing to what lies inside.  While they are attractive and they do, in many ways, make me feel those tangible aspects of my enslavement to him, they are not necessary for me to continue and even thrive on the path.  His mastery in word, principle, and deed are what keep me on the path.

quote:

Imagine that tomorrow your Master would change all the rules by a 180 degrees...  ...So, if you claim that that's all you need from him, would you really still feel the same?"
 Again a tough question.  I offer that if things changed to that degree, I would imagine that my feelings would change to some degree or another (I know I'd certainly miss my collar!), however, since his mastery of me is not reliant on calling him Master, wearing a collar and engaging in rough sex etc., that I would still very much feel like his slave.   
quote:

Is the importance you place on your slavery really an importance on the slavery, or is it an importance on your own sexuality?
 The importance is placed on him.  He is the focus for me.  I often hear people talking about their slavery, their service and discussing it to the nth degree, however, to me it is all about him.  For nearly 12 years he has guided (and sometimes dragged me) down this path.  In all this time I have learned that focusing on my slavery or placing some sort of importance on it can be detrimental to being what he wants me to be.  So I do my best to place the importance where it belongs - on his needs, wants, and pleasure.
quote:

And is it necessary for man to ONLY be allowed to give his woman certain types of orders in order for him to call her "mastered"?
 I don't see being mastered as being one in the same with receiving orders.  It isn't about the types of orders and being told what to do so much as it is about a more broad picture.  It has more to do with who he is as a person and who she is as a person and how those two react and interact naturally. 
quote:

Is a man bound by mastery as the woman is, because it restricts which orders he can or cannot give her in order for her to remain his "mastered woman"?
    Only if he allows himself to be bound by it.  It is either something he does, or something he is.  If it is simply something he does, than perhaps he may eventually find mastery too much work and it could become tiresome.  If it is a part of who he is, then I would imagine in most cases, it would simply be an extension of himself in relation to the slave. 
quote:

If a man can give a mastered woman any order he wants, can he order her to behave like a Free Woman?
 Absolutely.  He can command her to "behave" in any way he wishes her to behave.  That doesn't necessarily mean that she would like it, or feel natural in that place, or even comfortable but he could certainly command it.   In the end though, if she does it because she is commanded to, is she really free?  Methinks not.  :)  There's that rules based morality thing popping up there.  She isn't doing this because internally, her personal truth and ethics cry out that she must base her decisions from a centric place.  She is doing it because she is following the authority of the one who has enslaved her.

I think in the end, it all boils down to the philosophical breakdown.  Agent based morality = Master.  Rules based morality = slave.  To me, a free woman is not a mastered woman.  She is free.  She does not seek an outside source to dictate how she is to live.  She may listen to the ideas of others and perhaps take the advice of others but when it comes to the core of her life, she lives it based on her own personal ethic and core principles. The woman who behaves as a free person because she is told to is not free. Well wishes, Cav's ally

(in reply to ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: The need to be property - 5/6/2010 2:14:35 PM   
ElizabethAnne


Posts: 1711
Status: offline 		Hello ally darlin',

I truly wish we could have met last December.  Your posts ring out so many truths to my ears, I enjoy them muchly.   More often than not, I find myself nodding as I am reading them.  This one is no different, especially the last paragraph.  That simple paragraph, in my opinion defines the difference between a free person and a slave.

Keep writing!

Take care,

Liz

(in reply to allyC)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: The need to be property - 5/6/2010 2:25:48 PM   
allyC


Posts: 776
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline 		Greetings, Mistress!! Thank you very much!  :)    Oh how I wish we could have met too!!!  But the move was so crazy-stressful and with the deadline right at the time you were here, it was pretty much an impossibility.  We were (as they say) up to our asses in alligators.  *grin* I do hope though, that December won't have been the only opportunity for us to meet.  So here's to the future!  Well wishes to you and to Master Brule! -Cav's ally 

< Message edited by allyC -- 5/6/2010 2:26:03 PM >

(in reply to ElizabethAnne)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: The need to be property - 5/6/2010 3:14:11 PM   
Rule


Posts: 8016
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ishyB
He would forbid you to be slutty or sexual in public, instead expecting you at all times to wear heavy and ugly clothes.
So then he has an slave in ugly clothes. Bah. I expect such from depraved populations in which the males have a circumcised penis.

A natural slave obeys her master if he is responsible for her well-being. All else is superficial. It is as simple as that.

A submissive is not a slave, though I have been told that in practice there is little difference.

A Gorean slave is something else again, much like all mammals are not necessarily the same species.

(in reply to ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: The need to be property - 5/6/2010 3:29:56 PM   
kisshou


Posts: 2425
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline 		greetings ishy,

I think that Ally's last paragraph of her post explains the difference between slaves and free women perfectly.

That being said , I think what happens here on earth is that a man can take a woman as his slave but then his feelings for her change. Once that happens he does not want other men to treat her as a slave. Since this is 2010 and he can't keep her guarded in a harem, he changes her social status to that of free woman. That is where your mastered free woman come in, I used to think of them as secret slaves. They are very strong women. There is a difference between a mastered free woman and what alley was talking about.

I am not saying that when his feelings change they make it better that the feelings he would have for a slave. They are just different. I am not saying a free woman with a agent based morality is better than a mastered free woman , just different.

It has been my experience that alot of men do want both a free woman and a slave in their life. One of the great things about Gorean men is that they love women. They love and celebrate the female sex in unique ways.

In answer to your questions, for me personally it has nothing to do with sex. However if Master suddenly started expecting me to make decisions without asking him first we would have a big problem. Not because I would not want to obey but because I would be lost. Maybe he could employ some kind of reverse training technique. Thankfully I don't see that happening any time soon.

well wishes
kisshou

(in reply to ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: The need to be property - 5/6/2010 4:45:20 PM   
DMFParadox


Posts: 1404
Joined: 9/11/2007
Status: offline 		You know, as a white male Gen-X American who's culturally obligated to be conflicted about wanting to own that ass, I'd kind of see this situation as ideal. As long as there was a tiny bit of resistance to let me know I've got a woman and not a rubber doll, that kind of sheer desire to obey for the sake of it, with or without the trappings, is a massive turn on.

And it comes out in the little ways. A tendency to do what I ask, first, and ask questions later... a submissive body language, respectful tone of voice, those are the cues that either drive me crazy with desire or drive me cold with their lack. I've met far too many wannabe submissives who wore collar and leash, but didn't seem the least bit submissive, gave me crap in inappropriate situations where I couldn't correct them, acted confused when I tagged 'em for it that evening long after they'd forgotten about it, and absolutely sucked at the subtleties of being submissive.

Going off on a tangent, allow me to vent for a moment, please. I cannot discipline you ('you' being several submissives I know, who shall remain nameless, and any other asinine sub that puts their partner in this position) outright. I cannot be aggressively, 'abusively' demanding as your Dom in public, no matter how badly you want me to. I cannot, cannot, can NOT force you to act, except under very special circumstances; I've tested that limit already, and the hammer comes down fucking HARD.

I'm already 'The Man.' I look like him, I talk like him, I have relatives who were significantly pale-skinned tie-wearing office-holding business-owning uniform-wearing icons of WASPishness, not to mention the fact that my family tree is lousy with bikers and roughnecks; and the simple fact is that I just cannot fucking get away with overtly pushing my weight around in public. I've lost too many friends to state prisons for trumped up rape and domestic violence charges and I'm not going to be a raging dick to you in public no matter how badly you provoke me. I'm not even going to pretend to try. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DOESN'T NEED YOUR TESTIMONY TO CONVICT. Not always... Witnesses are enough, especially if you've got any kind of record of visiting a mental health care professional, and one pushy friend or relative. Or neighbor. Or random white knight. And even if I never have a problem with you, if I should ever find myself facing any kind of assault charges in the future you can be certain your history with me will play a role if Murphy's Law has anything to say about it. So I don't CARE if you'll lie for me or not if I 'force' you to obey and act all Domly towards you. It is your RESPONSIBILITY to accept your role, meaning that you're ultimately responsible for making you do it. Not me. No matter how much I would like to - and for the most part I wouldn't, I like playing and mislike punishing - I can't really force you to do a damned thing. Suck it up.

This isn't a wanking tale, I've lived through this kind of fuckery. And it is not fun when my girl keeps asking me to act more 'Dominant' in public and won't accept that I can't, and that if she wants to be my 'slave' she's going to have to step up her own game. I left and didn't go back. All I could do.

Society can accept a woman (or man) that's eager to please, but one that's eager to dictate is just not kosher. 'k? It's on you subs to carry the weight of things, if you're going to sustain a M/s dynamic in public. That's just how it is, and anyone who tells you otherwise never had to watch an innocent man sentenced to 15 to life.

Expecting me to shove my cock down your throat at will is retarded. I can't do it. You're going to have to be able to understand a glance, see my subtle hand motion that I train you on beforehand, and play the part of volunteering to kneel and open your mouth with absolutely no real threat backing up my glare except that I might leave you. I'm not gonna slap a bitch in public. Or in a way that'll leave a mark on your face in private. I will leave. That's all I've got; I have the door and my shoes, and everything else is PURE FANTASY. Legally. Actually, in reality I could choke a bitch and hide the body, but... no. Not gonna. You need to understand that and still embrace your role, or it's just not going to work, because I cannot act like I own you in public with any reasonable degree of safety to my personal freedom, which I much place higher value on than you do. I know, this pretty much makes me out to be a poser and a pussy, but that's how it is. I'm a citizen of the U.S. and I am the least amount of pussy I can be and reasonably get away with, but that doesn't include public displays of discipline. Welcome to the 21st century lady submissives, be very glad you're here. My loss is your gain, and overall I'm ok with that.

Back to the original topic - yeah. Pretty much the ideal girl you're describing there, assuming she says 'yes' to the scenario.

Rant over.


_____________________________

bloody hell, get me some aspirin and a whiskey straight

"The role of gender in society is the most complicated thing I’ve ever spent a lot of time learning about, and I’ve spent a lot of time learning about quantum mechanics." - Randall Munroe

(in reply to kisshou)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: The need to be property - 5/6/2010 5:05:41 PM   
xBullx


Posts: 3962
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline 		Hi there ally,

I'm not gonna get into this to much, this is actually a learning excercise for ishy.

Now when ishy is talking about the free woman in the context she has over this thread and several posts in other threads, her reference is, or at least better be directed towards the free companions or females residing under the roof of a "Gorean" man.

Now I get your agent versus rules based moralities, and while these concepts are alive in the Gorean ideals, I believe our intent is to discuss the "Gorean" morality.

I may have missed a point somewhere along the way, but I believe the Gorean Phillosophy stems from a patriarcle society. I'm not going to go into the meaning of that to deep at this point in order to not come off patronizing. But I will say that if you are a female and live with what is seen as a Gorean man, leadership will exist, hense rules will be issued and one would assumed be followed. I'm not sure where in all this that self determination enters that equation, unless a woman retains the right to come and go as she pleases in those damn contracts, or maybe it stems from the fact free women aren't legally owned.

Anyway, you girls have fun.


< Message edited by xBullx -- 5/6/2010 5:13:06 PM >

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to allyC)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: The need to be property - 5/7/2010 10:21:50 AM   
xBullx


Posts: 3962
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline 		Hi there little wench,

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisshou

I think that Ally's last paragraph of her post explains the difference between slaves and free women perfectly.



After reading this comment, my qquestion to you is:

Is this the perfect explanation for Aristotle or a Gorean?

While I also believe the agent/rules based moralities exist, at least in part, within the Gorean Philosophy, it's my opinion they are only part of a much larger picture. The Torvies, the Wagons Peoples, the Red Savages or the men of the Barrens could have given two shits about some Greek Philosophers societal explanations. So we also have to examine their morality as to what a Gorean is.

I's neither my contention nor ishy's to deny that "slaves" or " free women" exist. But there are plenty women masquerading as slaves and far to many "free women" that in fact, are not. So it is my opinion that until we actually come to terms with a man, his nature and his mastery of women, the Gorean Philosophy as it relates to the sexes is at best, indefensible.

Or we could all just do whatever, therefore offering men like Domiguy and a whole host of others all the fuel they needs to ridicule the Gorean idea, assuming there even is one. Credibility is a motherfucker and building a philosophy based in part on romantic fantasy and inconsistant ideology just keeps us revisiting the same rhetorical points and accomplishing...............nothing.

< Message edited by xBullx -- 5/7/2010 10:30:09 AM >

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to kisshou)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: The need to be property - 5/7/2010 12:57:26 PM   
kisshou


Posts: 2425
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

To me, a free woman is not a mastered woman. She is free. She does not seek an outside source to dictate how she is to live. She may listen to the ideas of others and perhaps take the advice of others but when it comes to the core of her life, she lives it based on her own personal ethic and core principles. The woman who behaves as a free person because she is told to is not free.


Greetings Master Bull,

thank you for the time you took to respond to my post, I don't know the answer to your question but it was the quoted portion of Ally's response that resonated with me. I do not know Aristotle or his philosophical principles.

On the planet Gor a free woman was allowed to exercise her freedom by the grace of men, it was the man's sword who upheld her legal rights. On earth it is the man's sword who upholds her social status as that of a free woman since she can not be legally enslaved.

so either way in either place her status is determined by men. He recognizes the above quoted within her and this recognition by him determines her status.

A woman's social status is determined by men. Isn't that the Gorean philosophy?

well wishes
kisshou

(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: The need to be property - 5/7/2010 6:43:57 PM   
CaringandReal


Posts: 1396
Joined: 2/15/2008
Status: offline 		I guess this doesn't apply to me very well. I frequently say I need to be property. I never add "...and nothing but property." Do you know people who do say or feel the second sentiment? I guess you do or you wouldn't have started this thread.

Ok, I'll just jump into this:

quote:


"How much of this need is sexual?
How much of this need is the fetish of slavery?"


1. I estimate about 90%. Maybe 85.

2. I cannot fetishize slavery, at least not given the way I define "fetish" which, even when transferred to sexual interests, is still the rigidly traditional one: to imbue an object (or, less commonly, an act) with meaning, power, relevance, beyond what that thing has of those qualities by itself. For me, a woman of many fetishes, slavery is far too general (or too complex) of a condition, it involves too broad a range of activities to fetishize. There's no one specific thing to grab onto and make into one's totem, so to speak.

Being property is just one aspect of the experience of slavery for me. A very large aspect to be sure, but not the only one, by a long shot. I can envision how someone could fetishize being property. I can almost see how such a fetishist might find other aspects of slavery annoying, immaterial, or even in the way. But I've never known any property fetishists personally, so I'm not at all sure my imaginings about this condition or interest are correct.

Let's press on to the next part, which I admit, I am having difficulty connecting to the first part:

quote:


"Imagine that tomorrow your Master would change all the rules by a 180 degrees.
He would forbid you to wear a collar.
He would forbid you to call him Master.
He would forbid you to kneel.
He would forbid you to be slutty or sexual in public, instead expecting you at all times to wear heavy and ugly clothes.
He would forbid you to beg him for things, and instead require you to simple ask, or *gasp* just proceed without asking.
He would forbid you to refer to yourself as a slave.
He would never punish you again, or use restraints on you.
He would decide that he really liked vanilla sex better then rough sex.
He would expect you to be assertive in public, and not allow yourself to be pushed around by other people.
He would expect you to tell him if you didn't like something he did, or disapproved of any decision he made (not that he'd always do what you wanted, but he'd still require you to tell him.) "


Gah! That sounds so very unnatural. Why would an owner lose interest in me that way? What would be in it for him?

My gut reaction to the above is either (1) the man who would do all of this would never have been able to master me in the first place or (2) if someone who was able to master me suddenly did this and showed no signs of illness in body, mind, or spirit, I would suspect that it was some sort of test, and soldier on as best I could under the circumstances, trying to not get too dispirited by his lack of interest in those things in relation to me. I cannot imagine any man who might own me having any fun doing the above, however.


quote:


Yet at the same time, he would still be the man of the house, and expect all his orders to be followed with perfection.
In other words, he still retains the right to order you to kneel, it's just that he chooses not to give you that specific order, or others like it.
He would still maintain financial control over the relationship.
He would still set the course of your future together.
He would still maintain veto right over everything you did, even if he let you decide what to do on your own, unless he use his veto right.


While this makes things a little better from my perspective, it sounds almost schizophrenic on the part of an owner, to demand all of this control but at the same time to also demand a slave not act naturally like herself nor expect/want him to treat her like what she is. The only way through such a situation for me, would be to constantly remind myself that I don't kneel because he has forbidden it, and that's an order and an exertion of control just as much as expecting me to kneel is. I'd do my best to follow his rules cheerfully and in good faith, whatever they were, and try hard not to get too depressed or fearful that he'd lost interest in me. It would be tough, though.

I cannot comment on much more. I cannot get my head around the concept of a "mastered" freewoman, it sounds like such a contradiction of terms. (Of course there are many things I cannot get my head around. Switches are another. Higher mathematics, as well. We all have our limitations, don't we?) And, of course, I lack the Gorean background. But I find it quite interesting that, when I hear some non-Gorean submissives' descriptions of their relationships, the two groups of activities are almost completely reversed. In other words, their masters do the first group of things you listed, but quite often not the second!

Ok, back to the stuff I understand! :D

quote:

Is the importance you place on your slavery really an importance on the slavery, or is it an importance on your own sexuality? "

It's both. Pray tell, how do you separate the two?


quote:

And is it necessary for man to ONLY be allowed to give his woman certain types of orders in order for him to call her "mastered"?

Of course not. That's why you need to be very, very, VERY careful about who ultimately masters you. Any orders are possible from your master, and if your intention is to obey no matter what the orders are, then you need to be as sure as you can be that you'd be willing to follow any orders whatsoever, from this particular person. This level of certainty is rare, but it comes, at times, and sometimes toward individuals that logic says the most unlikely to work out for you. :)

quote:

Is a man bound by mastery as the woman is, because it restricts which orders he can or cannot give her in order for her to remain his "mastered woman"?

To me, a master is bound by his own rules for himself, and nothing else. Including this: If one of his self-rules is he likes a bit of strap-on play now and then, well then, his submissive better get used to wearing that particular harness, no matter how uncomfortable it may make her. ;)

I realize now you were probably trying to make a rhetorical point with these questions, so my post isn't really in spirit with the thread. But I have no background or basis to comment upon the rhetorical point (of free women with some sort of masters?), so I just had fun answering the thought-provoking questions in isolation.

_____________________________

"A friend who bleeds is better" --placebo

"How seldom we recognize the sound when the bolt of our fate slides home." --thomas harris

(in reply to kisshou)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: The need to be property - 5/7/2010 9:37:41 PM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

I think in the end, it all boils down to the philosophical breakdown.  Agent based morality = Master.  Rules based morality = slave.  To me, a free woman is not a mastered woman.  She is free.  She does not seek an outside source to dictate how she is to live. 


I understand that point, but it leaves me to wonder about the Gorean Free Companion and even the Gorean free woman in general.

We've all read the quotes that claim that in the end, the Free Companion is still subject to the whip at the will of her man. In the end, she is still subjected to sleeping chained to his bed. In the end, she is in some cases not even so much as allowed to leave her compartments without his permission. In the end, she is subjected to certain behavior standard, lest she be collared for acting like a slave. In the end, she better make sure she is suitable covered in public, or again the collar will soon find her.

It seems to me that for all Gorean free women, and especially for the Free Companion, it is very much an outside source dictating how she should live.

kisshou brought up:

quote:



On the planet Gor a free woman was allowed to exercise her freedom by the grace of men



And I very much have to agree with her, in the Gorean context, women were always portrayed as being that what men allowed them to be.
The only exception I can think of is Verna, who turned away love, because even the throne of an Ubara wasn't worth living her life on the terms a man would set for her. She clearly told him that she could no accept his throne, because it would cost her the thing she valued most: her freedom.

So was Verna the only free woman with an agent based morality?
And does the fact that Gorean women had their lives dictated by men mean that all the free women in the books had a rule based morality?
And further more, what exactly does it mean to have an agent morality, and what does it mean to have a rule morality?
Is it a matter of black and white?
If a person ever, even in the slightest, have their lives and morality system decided, influenced or guided by another person, do we automatically assume that that person lives by a rule based morality? Even if in all other matters of their lives they make their own choices, by there own free will?
Is human nature really something that abstract that you can divide all people into two groups, with a clear "do-not-cross!" line between them?

Moral agency is defined as: "A being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."
A rule based morality is defined as: "An ethical system stemming from a sense of duty to a predefined set of rules."
Do both those definitions not apply to all of us, at different times in our lives?
Do we, as slaves, loose the capability to "act in reference to right and wrong"?
Do free people never have an ethical system that "stems from a sense of duty to a predefined set of rules"?

Even more than that, the books show time and time again that it doesn't matter at all what your morality is or where it comes from, all that's important to make the distinction between a free person and a kajira is a line of legality.
There are a plethora of examples I can give you that clearly demonstrate that a person with an agent morality can be a slave, or a person with a rule morality can be a free person, both in male and female characters.
It isn't even the case that the books always illustrated that, in the end, a person would end up in a legal status that confirms their internal morality system.

So if both the free woman and the kajira on Gor had their lives dictated by men, what was then the difference between them?
The difference was that the free woman had the choice of which man was going to dictate her life, and the ability for her to walk away if she didn't like his terms.
But in the end, that was still the only way she could determine her own morals: by choosing a man who would allow her to uphold her own morals.

It seems to me that all we "Gorean" women here on Earth are doing exactly the same thing, although I do have to admit that there are probably more "Vernas" running around here than there were in the books.
I can even imagine it possible, here on Earth, that there are women out there who do not accept of their man that he dictates the terms of her relationship with him, and who thus instead, dictates to him what the terms of their relationship will be.
I can very well imagine a woman here doing that, but not with Gorean men.
I really have a hard time imagining any Gorean man allowing a woman to set the terms of his relationship with her.

If the only difference, on Gor, between a free woman and a kajira was the fact that a free woman had the ability to choose which man she would defer too, then what about us girls here on Earth? Do we not choose which man we will defer to? Do we not uphold our own morals by picking a man that will uphold our morals? Are we not for that very reason told to pick wisely?

We are not slaves in the social sense. No man can force us to pick him to be our Master. They can entice us, yes, but force us they cannot.
We make our own free choice when we pick our Masters, inspired by our own morals, our own sense of ethics.
We make exactly the same choice the Free Companion makes on Gor.

So what then, makes us slaves?
And what then, makes the free woman free?
The will of men.

It is our Master's will that demands of us that we pretend to be socially enslaved. It is his will that makes us bow to all free, for the free cannot make us bow. It is his will that makes us wear our collar, for we can take it off.
And thus, by his will, he can take our collar off, and change nothing about our relationship with him.

When Kamchak freed Apharis and made her his Ubara Sana, did he no longer master her? Did she not come running after him begging to be kept, if only as his slave? When he rejected her as his slave, and made her his queen instead, was she no longer subjected to his will? Did her morality suddenly change?
When Thurnus freed Sandal Tongue and asked her to be his Free Companion, was she not still mastered by him? So mastered in fact that she turned him down and begged to be his slave instead. Did her morality suddenly change when he freed her?
When Relius freed Virginia and asked her to be his Free Companion, was she not still mastered by him? Did her morality suddenly change?
And when Ho-Sorl refused to free Phyllis, did he not do so exactly because she was less mastered then Virginia was, and he thus knew she would attempt to use her freedom to get leverage over him?
In fact, do we not see that every time a man finds his loveslave and has her perfectly mastered, he frees her? And do we not see every love slave who does not get freed try to manipulate her Master, and thus proof that his mastery over her is not (yet) complete?

It seems to me that Gorean men have no problem with the concept of a mastered free woman....

So where do we draw the line?
Are we not all women?
Are we not all, at least in part, attracted to the Gorean philosophy because it -unlike our Western society- accepts that women seek strong men who will lead them? I'm not saying that that is the only thing that will attract a woman to the Gorean philosophy, but at the same time, would a woman who rejects the notion of being lead by men really be all that fond of spending time around Gorean men?

So how much male leadership is needed to make a slave?
And how much autonomy must a woman have to call her free?

Again, is human nature really black and white? Or is it more nuanced that that? Full of shade of gray, never to be clearly defined as to where one aspect of ones nature begins and where it ends.

And if human nature is gray, is it not impossible to draw a line in the sand and proof that there is a definite difference between the opposite sides of the line? 
And if there is no line, and the line on Gor only exist because of a legal issue, how much validity does it have to try to emulate a line that doesn't exist here on Earth?
Do we not always claim to not live in the books?
Do we not always claim that the social customs of Gor are not needed to live it's philosophy?
And if that's true, then why is THIS particular social custom different?

I'm not saying it is wrong that people choose to emulate a social custom from the books if they have a desire to do so.
If you wish to call your coffee "black wine", by all means, go right ahead, I see no harm in that.
However, claiming that one NEEDS to call their coffee "black wine" in order to live the Gorean philosophy is absurd, I think we can all agree on that.

I wish you well,

ishy


< Message edited by ishyB -- 5/7/2010 10:13:00 PM >

_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to allyC)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: The need to be property - 5/7/2010 10:17:18 PM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

He So then he has an slave in ugly clothes. Bah. I expect such from depraved populations in which the males have a circumcised penis.




I picked the examples I did, because they are exactly the type of behavior Gorean men dictate that their free woman must obey.
The mode of dress for the free woman on Gor was not that different from the mode of dress in depraved populations in which the males have a circumcised penis.
The difference is that a free woman on Gor wouldn't be killed for refusing to obey the dress code, she would just be enslaved.

I wish you well,

ishy




_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: The need to be property - 5/7/2010 10:31:25 PM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kisshou

That being said , I think what happens here on earth is that a man can take a woman as his slave but then his feelings for her change. Once that happens he does not want other men to treat her as a slave. Since this is 2010 and he can't keep her guarded in a harem, he changes her social status to that of free woman. That is where your mastered free woman come in, I used to think of them as secret slaves.


I would consider it to be absolutely opposite kisshou.
On Gor, when a man's feeling changed like you described, he would -in my opinion- no longer wish other men to treat her like a slave.
He would not want to send her to the market with the risk of some stranger fucking her.
He would not have children with her, while she was a slave, because he wouldn't want his children to be subjected to slavery should something happen to him during her pregnancy.
He would want her to be cared for and safe, she he come to an untimely demise.

And I think he would free her for all the reasons I just mentioned.

Here on Earth men have however the luxury of calling a woman a slave, without having to deal with any of the negative aspects of slavery.
They don't have to worry about men they don't care for treating her like a slave.
They don't have to worry about strangers fucking her in the supermarket.
They don't have to worry about their children's future, should they impregnate her.
They don't have to worry about her pension, safety and future, should they die before their time.

On Earth, men have the claim of slavery that is by no means limited by the fact that it would be actual slavery. Men have the freedom to assign just as little or as much importance to its practice as they would personally like to do. They can happily claim she's his slave, without having to be bothered by her actually having to obey everybody else.
How many girls here really have standing orders to obey all free (people not in collars)? Does that obedience includes vanilla's, or being whipped, fucked, killed, maimed by anybody claiming to be Gorean?

Social slavery doesn't exists here on this message boards.
All that exists is a bunch of people would agreed to pretend that social slavery exists.

I wish you well,

ishy

_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to kisshou)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: The need to be property - 5/7/2010 10:34:54 PM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

Back to the original topic - yeah. Pretty much the ideal girl you're describing there, assuming she says 'yes' to the scenario.



If she doesn't say "yes" to the scenario, then apparently the pretense of slavery is more important to her, than actually being held under the will of a man.
I wish you well,

ishy




_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to DMFParadox)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: The need to be property - 5/7/2010 10:55:22 PM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CaringandReal

I guess this doesn't apply to me very well. I frequently say I need to be property. I never add "...and nothing but property." Do you know people who do say or feel the second sentiment? I guess you do or you wouldn't have started this thread.



Yes I do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaringandReal

Gah! That sounds so very unnatural. Why would an owner lose interest in me that way? What would be in it for him?

While this makes things a little better from my perspective, it sounds almost schizophrenic on the part of an owner, to demand all of this control but at the same time to also demand a slave not act naturally like herself nor expect/want him to treat her like what she is. 


It's exactly what Gorean men on Gor expect from their Free Companion/free women: control in certain areas of their lives while they are not allowed to express submission, passion, emotions, or even sexuality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaringandReal

I realize now you were probably trying to make a rhetorical point with these questions, so my post isn't really in spirit with the thread. But I have no background or basis to comment upon the rhetorical point (of free women with some sort of masters?), so I just had fun answering the thought-provoking questions in isolation.


Yes, I was trying to make a rhetorical point with my questions.
Namely the point that I belief that Norman (the author of the Gor books) used slavery as a metaphorical instead of a literal philosophical device.
As such, I deem it perfectly possible to completely separate the literal practice of social slavery from the Gorean philosophy.

In other words (and this is going to be news to this board ) you don't need to practice social slavery to call yourself a Gorean.

I still enjoyed your answers, thank you for contributing.

I wish you well,

ishy

_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to CaringandReal)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: The need to be property - 5/7/2010 10:56:07 PM   
allyC


Posts: 776
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline 		Greetings, Master BullHello, ishy! I'm going to sort of respond to both posts at once as I think I can smash all of my thoughts into one idea here.  :) I have always viewed the agent based morality as being the morality of Goreans - the master morality.  That which does not command us to find our personal truth by the dictates of others, be it religion, government, or relationships.  To me, a person who possesses an agent based morality is one who learns truth from living and experiencing and those principles and ethics that guide them were forged within.  Furthermore, the Gorean morality is one which is hard.  It is one in which a free person will adhere to their own personal code of ethics as best they can within society.  Nobody bats 1,000.  I don't think it is really all that black and white as I know those who are free persons who still must, from time to time, base their choices on the dictates of others (i.e. the law).  It happens.  But what a genuinely free person will not do, is compomise their principles because someone else says so.  I believe this to be true regardless of the gender of the person.   The morality of slaves (what John Norman defined as the morality of Earth) i.e. the rules based morality is much softer.  It is compliant.  It is that which lives within those people who would base their principles and moral compass on what others tell them is right and wrong.  A person who lives in this way isn't necessarily a slave per se, but that person isn't really free either.  :)  I know a Gorean free woman.  She is companioned to a Gorean man and has been so for several years.  He doesn't define her morals.  He has never told her that she must believe in the principles that he believes in.  He values her free nature and while she may look to him for advice or counsel, he does not command her to believe in x, y, and z.  He cannot do this because her nature is not that of one who is so soft and compliant.  She won't capitulate and compromise her principles simply because he is a Gorean man and he says so.   That isn't to say she wouldn't defer to his decisions in certain matters.  I am sure she has.  But on the same note I am certain that she would not defer to his decisions if they compromised her principles.  She is free, she is not required to, nor is it her nature to do so.  She greatly values her personal freedom and I believe he sees great value in it as well. The enslaved woman, on the other hand, is soft.  She is compliant.  It is the will of the man who enslaved her that will help to shape and define her ethics.  If she is a wise woman, she will beg the collar of a man whose moral compass is similar to her own.  In this she can feel somewhat secure that he will not command her to go against the grain of her own personal code of ethics, however, if she is commanded to do so, and she is an enslaved woman, she will do so. And in between those two women is a ton of gray.  But in the Gorean sense, because the books also included a legal framework and a societal framework on that fictional planet that is not in harmony with our own, finding a place for that gray is difficult.  But... I don't believe that being chained to a bed at night and having rough sex with her free companion would make her a 'slave' any more than wearing suggestive clothing at home or being of service would. These things are not (in my opinion) a sign of enslavement - they are simply things that we may or may not prefer to do - sexually or otherwise.   To me, what it boils down to is the absolute bottom line.  Would this female compromise her principles if that man's will pushed her to.  If she does, then in my opinion, she is indeed a slave to that man.  She may wear free woman's clothing and she may cap that first initial but if she is mastered by another human being, she isn't free. I realize that a great deal of this is subjective to personal beliefs, interpretation of the books, and life experience and I very well may believe differently than I do now in ten years but at this moment, this is how I see it.   I do agree that the Gorean philosophy stems from a patriarchal society but I also believe that the society used was a prop.  One which held many truths but a prop nonetheless.  I don't find the actual philosophy itself to have as much to do with men and women's relationships as much as the interaction of human beings in general.   "I know of no prouder, more self-reliant, more magnificent creature than the free Gorean, male or female; they are often touchy, and viciously tempered but they are seldom petty or small..." The above quote does not imply, to me, that the free Gorean female (companioned or otherwise) is slave-like at all.  It implies to me that she is free and great - self-reliant and proud.  :) But that's just my interpretation... And I am happy to agree to disagree as I realize that we all view things differently. Well wishes!! Cav's ally   Edited to add:  I don't believe that a man's will is what allows a woman to be free.  I believe that genuine freedom comes from within and it is that singular person's actions, decisions, choices, and morality that makes them free or not.  Perhaps on Gor it was a man's choice due to law and brute force, however I don't believe that to be true in practice.  Freedom and truth are forged and found within.  They are gifts given to one's self, from one's self.

< Message edited by allyC -- 5/7/2010 11:06:01 PM >

(in reply to ishyB)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: The need to be property - 5/8/2010 7:49:02 AM   
ishyB


Posts: 555
Joined: 9/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

I have always viewed the agent based morality as being the morality of Goreans - the master morality.  That which does not command us to find our personal truth by the dictates of others, be it religion, government, or relationships. 


And yet, we see example after example in the books on how Gorean free have their lives dictated to them -at least in some degree!- by their codes, by the Priest-Kings, by their Ubar, and in the case of the free woman, by men.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

But what a genuinely free person will not do, is compromise their principles because someone else says so. 


A "genuinely" free person?
You mean a person like Tarl, all the times he wore his collars?
Or like Verna, when she wore hers?
What about Jason? Was he a "genuinely" free person in Fighting Slave? What about in Guardsman?

You mean a person that's internally free right? A person who can, under the Gorean practice of SOCIAL slavery, very well be... a slave.


quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

It is that which lives within those people who would base their principles and moral compass on what others tell them is right and wrong. 


Oh I get what you mean... kinda like having somebody tell you that it's wrong to develop technology, mass-communication, or firearms, right? So that you stay easier controlled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

She is companioned to a Gorean man and has been so for several years.  He doesn't define her morals.  He has never told her that she must believe in the principles that he believes in.  He values her free nature and while she may look to him for advice or counsel, he does not command her to believe in x, y, and z. 


Master has never told me to believe in the principles I believe in. He's never commanded me to believe x, y, and z. He's never made any decision that goes against my core beliefs.
Yet, I can honestly say that nobody has ever had as much influence on my ethical system then he has. He doesn't need to order me to change my view on the world, he's mastered me, which means that all he has to do to influence me is talk to me about things, and give me his opinion on them.

Now, I'm not saying that the same thing applies for this free woman you know. I'm not arguing that she is not internally free. I don't even know her.
I'm just trying to point out that the absence of clearly visible commands does not mean that mastery is not in place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

If she is a wise woman, she will beg the collar of a man whose moral compass is similar to her own.  In this she can feel somewhat secure that he will not command her to go against the grain of her own personal code of ethics, however, if she is commanded to do so, and she is an enslaved woman, she will do so.


Which is exactly why most Gorean free woman -on Gor- wouldn't seeks to beg the collar of the man similar to her, but instead, would suit to be his Free Companion. Exactly because as you said: if she is an enslaved woman, she will be EXPECTED to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

And in between those two women is a ton of gray.  But in the Gorean sense, because the books also included a legal framework and a societal framework on that fictional planet that is not in harmony with our own, finding a place for that gray is difficult. 


If the reality of human nature has no place within a Gorean philosophy, then I reject that philosophy as being fundamentally wrong.
You cannot claim to make a philosophy that is in alignment with human nature, but disregard the majority of the human race, that's just ridiculous.

Instead, I propose that the gray DOES have a place under the Gorean philosophy's framework, even if Norman didn't create a clear, legal place for it on Gor. I also absolutely disagree with the notion that he didn't create a social place for it on Gor, I think he did every time he showed us an agent based slave, and a rule based free person.
Because he made it clear that he did include the gray in the Gorean philosophical framework, but neglected to make a place for it in the legal framework I would say that he was using the legal framework as a way of illustrating his point, NOT as an ideal that he believes should be emulated.


quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

I don't believe that being chained to a bed at night and having rough sex with her free companion would make her a 'slave' any more than wearing suggestive clothing at home or being of service would. These things are not (in my opinion) a sign of enslavement - they are simply things that we may or may not prefer to do - sexually or otherwise.


The Gorean Free Companion wouldn't sleep chained to the couch out of sexual preference, but as a punishment imposed onto her by her Free Companion. The quote doesn't seem to imply that there is much "preferring to do so" going on her on the free woman's behalf, either "sexually or otherwise".

quote:


If she has not pleased her master of late, she may be, of course, as a disciplinary measure, simply chained nude to the slave ring at in the bottom of the couch, sans both blanket and mat. The stones of the floor are hard and the Gorean nights are cold and it is a rare girl who, when unchained in the morning, does not seek more dutifully to serve her master.
This harsh treatment, incidentally, when she is thought to deserve it, may even be inflicted on a Free Companion, in spite of the fact that she is free and usually much loved. According to the Gorean way of looking at things a taste of the slave ring is thought to be occasionally beneficial to all women, even the exalted Free Companions.
Thus when she has been irritable or otherwise troublesome even a Free Companion may find herself at the foot of the couch looking forward to a pleasant night on the stones, stripped, with neither mat nor blanket, chained to a slave ring precisely as though she were a lowly slave girl.
It is the Gorean way of reminding her, should she need to be reminded, that she, too, is a woman, and thus to be dominated, to be subject to men. Should she be tempted to forget this basic fact of Gorean life the slave ring set in the bottom of each Gorean couch is there to refresh her memory. Gor is a man’s world.
Priest-Kings of Gor ~ p67


You say "wearing suggestive clothing at home " where I said "suitably covered in public" there is a big difference, I would assume.
Is this free woman you know allowed to wear suggestive clothing in public?
There is a difference between wearing comfortable clothing and wearing suggestive clothing. Are Gorean Free Companions allowed by their men to appear less than their status in public? And is it the men who set this rule, or the women?
Is a Free Companion allowed to dress like a slave, should she choose to do so?
I can tell you for instance that my Mistress is not.
She's allowed to be feminine, beautiful and graceful in public, but suggestive as might be a slave? No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC
Would this female compromise her principles if that man's will pushed her to.  If she does, then in my opinion, she is indeed a slave to that man. 


Good, we found something we can agree on: "she is a slave to that man".
Not to men, not to everybody, not in a legal sense, not in a social sense, not to other women, to THAT MAN.

So again, why do we as a culture impose on the man that once he masters a woman, he MUST publicly collar her?
Where is his free choice to do with HIS woman as he pleases?
Why are we so resistant to accepting that free companions CAN be mastered -even if they not always are- when the books even show that the free woman can be mastered.


quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC
She may wear free woman's clothing and she may cap that first initial but if she is mastered by another human being, she isn't free.


Free in what sense ally?
Are you talking about social freedom here, or a legal one, or an internal one?

And lets say you personally knew a woman like that.... a free woman who is *gasps* mastered.
One who would even openly admit to being mastered.
Would you -as a slave- treat her any differently than you treat any other free?
If you would, then why does your Master allow his slave to treat a legally free person with less respect that is accustom?
And if you would treat her the same, then you acknowledge that -at least in a Gorean, cultural, social sense- the ONLY difference between a free woman and a slave is the collar.


quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC
"I know of no prouder, more self-reliant, more magnificent creature than the free Gorean, male or female; they are often touchy, and viciously tempered but they are seldom petty or small..."The above quote does not imply, to me, that the free Gorean female (companioned or otherwise) is slave-like at all.  It implies to me that she is free and great - self-reliant and proud. 


Again, try to think about Aphris... does she fit the definition or not?
Was she mastered or not?
It might be that our disagreement stems from a fundamental difference on how we answer these questions, because for me, the answer to both of them is "yes".

I don't see how mastery excludes a person from fitting the above definition, because mastery implies a servitude to ONE MAN, it does not have to affect how one relates to the rest of the world.


quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC
And I am happy to agree to disagree as I realize that we all view things differently.


You don't have to agree with me ally -obviously.
You don't even have to debate this with me if you don't want to, or see no point in doing so.

However, this is not a subject that I'll ever agree to disagree on, simple because I enjoy the debate about it too much.
I know my position is controversial, which is exactly why I wont let it rest without testing it against the ideas of others.


quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC
I don't believe that a man's will is what allows a woman to be free.  I believe that genuine freedom comes from within and it is that singular person's actions, decisions, choices, and morality that makes them free or not.  Perhaps on Gor it was a man's choice due to law and brute force, however I don't believe that to be true in practice.  Freedom and truth are forged and found within.  They are gifts given to one's self, from one's self.


If you acknowledge that a man legally has no power over a woman, like he does on Gor, then why do we run around, pretending to be slaves, pretending that he does have that power, pretending other free have that power?
Why keep on part of the social custom and not the other?
How does that make any sense?

Again, like I said: we claim to not live in the books, maybe it's time to stop living in the books...

I wish you well,

ishy

< Message edited by ishyB -- 5/8/2010 8:35:09 AM >

_____________________________

I want you to know that it doesn't matter where we take this road
Someone's gotta go
and I want you to know you couldn't have loved me better
But I wanted to move on
So I'm already gone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJFn_RIdkg

(in reply to allyC)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: The need to be property - 5/8/2010 8:30:27 AM   
Terrah


Posts: 372
Joined: 7/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Would this female compromise her principles if that man's will pushed her to.  If she does, then in my opinion, she is indeed a slave to that man.  She may wear free woman's clothing and she may cap that first initial but if she is mastered by another human being, she isn't free.


Hello ally

I know you stated personally from your experience, but you know there are cases in which any person would compromise their values or principles for another person, does that mean if it were a slave any slave would be required to do so? Or if a Fw did she would be considered a slave? I mean that's a general term you are using it applies to everyone whether they are Gorean or not.

Now suppose I did such, which I have on many occasions, I would be considered a slave? Not hardly. I stand by my principles most directly, however if Tavares my mate challenges them and I can see his point and sometimes I do not until later, I do not feel in any sense I am a slave to him, I defer to him however to guide me. I would indeed be very rigid woman if I did not, and certainly so with a Gorean man.  I believe it comes down to trust in your mate. I trust him with my life, truly, not many can say that and mean it more or less live it. Yes I can name examples by the handful of the times I let down my principles to allow him to make a decision based on our life, so far only a few rare times have I been right. Which I don't bring up much lol, actually I let them go, because it's just a passage of time in our life, should they define our relationship? Heck no. I would be then very petty should I hold things against him in such ways. We have a life together, our journey is based on respect and love, we decide, a slave would not have the right to do so IMO.

I cannot see making references from the books to our life either. I do not live by the books, therefore I cannot take references from them and apply them to our life. I will not see a point made by the books and say, Oh heck yeah that is how it is. Nope, our life is defined by what we hold true and right with honor and forethought relevant to our beliefs together.

What separates a Fw from a slave on Earth? A slave can go to the market, make choices for dinner etc if she is allowed. I go and buy what I like. Tavares may tell me what to buy him, but I include my own choices as well. I ask him what he would like for dinner out of respect for his taste buds solely as I like him to be happy, he trusts I will make it to his taste (which I have perverted to suit mine) I pay bills at home when they come in the mail, he may as well. Point is they get paid. I would not wish my slave to do the same, to me that's a realm she/he doesn't need to be. I make choices based on what he likes/dislikes on my own will. To me a slave does that as well to a point within certain circumstances they are allowed. Notice I said allowed. My life is free to determine if I want to be with Tavares or not, the same as a slave would. However I do not have to beg for release.

He does take care of me, as I do him, that is a choice we make together. A slave is there to serve, in my perspective. A slave is not my friend, nor my love, a slave is property. Yes I agree there can be love slaves, or love for a slave certainly, that slave can be made into a Fw as well, however then she has to change a great deal and can the relationship withhold under that type of change?

Remember in the long run, it's not easy bein' cheesy. :)

I wish you all well,

Terrah

P.S. Ok, here's a good one for ya, this really did happen too. On 4-1-2010 (get the date here) I went to the car dealer and got a 2010 Dodge Ram (really great truck) I brought it home timing it exactly right after Tavares got home. I told him I bought it, used his SS# and wrote the check. Since we had a salesperson at our home, he didn't lose it at all, (this is why I timed it so carefully) and showed complete and utter discipline the entire time the guest was at our house. Just before the guest was about to leave, I told him it was a April Fools joke. He smiled, and laughed slightly, IT WAS A GREAT JOKE!

Now the guest left, and he asked me if it was really a joke, I said sure it was. We both had a giggle, and then I thought, hold on.... does he really think I would do something like that for real?? Now I was saddened he thought so. Of course I never would do something like that, I have a hard time buying anything more than $50. without asking if we can afford it or not. (Yes we can, but I want to make sure it's ok with him) Anyhow, this is the respect I am speaking of. I dare a slave to try that one...

Ok now he got me back BIG TIME. I promise never to pull a joke on him again ever. To me this is the epitome of being Gorean: He bought the truck for me, bought himself one in the meantime, and then surprised me at the car dealer two days later... oh by the way, he humiliated me at the same time by the surprise, having the entire staff at the dealership standing there behind the truck while he tried to explain he actually was giving it to me and I didn't believe him, all I could say is "You're Kidding" what's worse, I didn't get the joke either, the key tag said happy anniversary on it and my thumb was covering it. I sat there like some kind of idiot and didn't know what was going on.... oh yeah there's a prime example of a Gorean man I believe.  We could add that one to the next book eh? lol  BTW I do love my new truck!

Terrah


_____________________________

"Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyhow." (John Wayne)

(in reply to allyC)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> The need to be property Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.313