|
UllrsIshtar -> RE: how to keep my slave from coming to the website (8/28/2017 5:14:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
Nope, because the origin and meaning of the term is relevant for determining what types of relationships can be considered to be a consensual/fantasy emulation of the original concepts that are relayed by the term in and of itself.
What you're asking is to discuss why "puppy play" is a called puppy play, and what type of behaviors could fall under the umbrella puppy play, without being willing to discuss origins of the term, the fact that it's based on simulating the behavior of dogs, and without being willing to compare to what extend the simulated behavior during puppy play resembles/represents that of actual dogs versus how it differs from the behavior of actual dogs.
I'm not sure if I'm on board with this. To use your example, had the OP started the thread with 'how can I get my pup to stop coming to the website,' it wouldn't go to how much like a real dog the other person happens to be.
If you read what I wrote again, you'll see that I didn't suggest comparing how to interact with a partner in a relationship to how dogs behave, but rather comparing what type of behavior falls under 'puppy play' versus what type of behavior doesn't, by looking at how dogs behave.
If one likes to dress in latex, and wear gasmasks, while being fucked in all holes by a machine, and one would claim that this constituted puppy play the community would take exception at that... why? Because latex/gasmasks/machines don't in any way relate to dogs, and puppy play, is named puppy play because it is play that resembles/imitates the behavior of dogs.
The fact that puppy play resembles the behavior of dogs isn't circumstantial, it's because it emulates dog's behavior that it's called puppy play.
Now, here we are, with people claiming that in 'slavery play' or slavery relationships, disobedience breaks the slavery part; that is, if one doesn't treat obedience as SOP, then one is not a slave. If one needs their obedience enforced, then one is not a slave. If one doesn't feel a moral duty/promise to obey, then one is not a slave.
And I'm wonder why... because disobedience without the enforcement of commands, and the lack of a feeling of duty on part of the slave to obey DOES very much emulate the behavior of actual slaves. Actual slaves don't obey 'because the owner said so'. They obey because they fear the consequence of disobedience.
And yet... here we are, with the community with one voice claiming that if commands need to be enforced the s-type in such a relationship isn't a slave.
That if a punishment/enforcement dynamic is required to extract obedience, and there is disobedience without it, the relationship isn't M/s.
That if the s-type doesn't consider themselves to have a duty/promise to obey, she's a 'crappy slave', 'not really a slave', 'not consensual slavery', that such a relationship is just 'vanilla with some kinky sex'.
The community deems such a relationship NOT slavery, precisely because of behavior that emulates the behavior of actual slaves.
It's like saying that getting on all fours and barking excludes somebody from engaging in puppy place, because if one gets on all fours and barks it couldn't possible be puppy play.
|
|
|
|
