RE: Internal Enslavement

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Internal Enslavement

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Internal Enslavement

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 9:46:17 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Everyone must accept the consequences of their actions. Society should not impose something against their wil. If someone wants to become internally enslaved, it is their choice. Your judgements and indictments reminds me of the Christian zealots when they talk about BDSM. They want to say "It is just wrong" and then rationalize why everyone should do and see as they do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

They give consent in the beginning. So now are you going to save all the people that fall blindly in love because by doing so they may not be able to resist the will of the person they love? You really need to check your list of ethics and decide which ones seem to contrast with the others.

It's important to note that I'm perfectly open to changing my ideals when a better one comes along. I am devoted to what is right, even when "right" changes.

There's nothing wrong with being unable to resist the will of another person because you love them, or respect them, or trust them, or want to make them happy. Perhaps you'd like to re-read my one simple grievance:

Leaving someone without the ability to continuing consenting is having no consent at all. Initial consent only applies to intial circumstance. A person's consent changes as the situation changes. Giving initial consent is worthless after the situation has changed so much the "facts" needed for intial informed consent are not longer viable.

I say "Orion, want to come over and have dinner? I'm making shells with meatsauce and mushrooms."
You say "I'd love to! Thank you for the kind invitation.
(You've given initial informed consent to coming over and eating dinner)
Then I serve the delicious pasta, and dessert comes. Dessert is foot-fungus cream.
I say "Why aren't you eating? You consented to dinner."

Although more a tongue in cheek analogy, the premise is solid. The facts have changed so much your initial consent is no longer valid.

What if you initially consented to losing your ability to consent AND eat my dinner. Now you have a mouthfull of foot-fungicide hoagie.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 10:34:24 AM

Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

More clearly, can blanket consent be rescinded once given?

I submit that it can, and training someone to be unable to do that (by IE training) is wrong.

I submit that a person always has the right to consent or not consent as aspects change. If you disagree with that premise, we have found the problem.

I am going to focus on the real point of my arguments and focus on the fundamental flaw of all your arguments and lack of perspective on this.

The problem is that you have a very judgmental view of IE that is basically portraying the Process of Enslavement as some kind of unethical psychological brainwashing where innocent girls are being taken and put through this process and losing any will to leave the relationship by abusive Masters. Your ignoring answering my previous questions which show how abstract your perspective is on this and given the facts of the method, it's rather naive.

Allow me to repeat the questions and add another one.

Reading the Process of Enslavement that depicts the methodology behind enslaving....

Do you think restricting the privacy of a slave's bathroom privileges constitutes unethical imprisonment by the Master?

If you were to attempt to decree the behavior and the process of the Master as being morally wrong and unethical, which technique from the essay would you use as evidence? Choosing the slave's clothing? Dictating her time?

What technique from the essay do you think provides clear evidence of "psychological brainwashing?"

I already know the answer. None of them, because to call any of what is listed "brainwashing" is disingenuous at best. It's the process of creating an environment to reinforce the belief of ideas for someone who "wants" to believe them.

If I take someone and begin to tell them over and over again that they are my slave and must obey my will and try to create rules and protocols for them to follow, I can pretty safely say they aren't going to believe them or follow them if they don't really want to.

Do you really think that someone can just agree to enter into this kind of relationship and then through the process of "having their right to bathroom privacy restricted" be transformed into some mindless zombie without their full and complete consent, effort, and willingness to believe what the Master is telling them?

If you are going to declare this creation of a highly controlled environment as being "unethical brainwashing", then you are also saying that the Marines are utilizing "unethical brainwashing" to train soldiers to obey and to kill at the command of their officers without question.

There is very little difference to consenting to become part of this kind of environment and consenting to join the Marines where they tell you how and when to eat, sleep, shit, dress, march, walk, talk and kill. Hell, the Marines probably use harsher and more severe tactics of "breaking" down a person's psyche then the
one's listed in that essay.

And last time I checked, nothing the Marines did was "irreversible" nor have I read of any cases of Marines needing special therapy to overcome their training of obeying their commanding officers upon leaving the Marines.

This is why I cautioned against taking the site in too literal terms, because the extreme portyal of the end result of their methods doesn't match up with the methods being used.

Also, the last time I checked, once you consent to join the Marines, you can't just pick up and leave whenever you want to. Is what the Marines do unethical?

Another example would be sacrificing your life for the person you love. Death...is pretty irreversible. Is it wrong for people to kill themselves to save the life of another, because once they consent, they can't consent to leave, uh, death?

< Message edited by MadRabbit -- 7/21/2008 10:46:50 AM >

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 11:05:24 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

~FR~

Okay I am letting the Lunatic Hare handle all of this one. Excellent post MadRabbit!

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to MadRabbit)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 12:04:09 PM

Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

~FR~

Okay I am letting the Lunatic Hare handle all of this one. Excellent post MadRabbit!

*grins* I agree, a true challenge. One far to hearty to take on before breakfast. I'll try to respond as hastily as my schedule allows, but my priority is to take slavegirl to the carnival for a funnelcake.

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

... You've waited your whole life for this moment...

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 12:12:46 PM

Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

~FR~

Okay I am letting the Lunatic Hare handle all of this one. Excellent post MadRabbit!

*grins* I agree, a true challenge. One far to hearty to take on before breakfast. I'll try to respond as hastily as my schedule allows, but my priority is to take slavegirl to the carnival for a funnelcake.

Don't take me personally. I'm really direct, playful, and toying in a mildly sadistic way, but this isn't any kind of vendetta against you.

I hope you actually take my constant challenges as a compliment, because if I didn't have a degree of respect for you and your intelligence, I won't bother debating with you. I would probably make some two-line snarky comment and not reply beyond that.

And given that you haven't responded personally or emotionally to my little nudges shows you are a pretty cool guy.

< Message edited by MadRabbit -- 7/21/2008 12:15:08 PM >

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 12:20:32 PM

Posts: 5026
Joined: 6/2/2008
Status: offline

For the record, I'm not 100% convinced that Heavan's and the Rabbit are actually disagreeing. As near as I can tell, it's down to just one point... is it ethical to train a sub to the place where the sub loses sight of the fact that they DO have a choice.. effectively removing that choice from them? If so, what does that mean to "consent"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Do you really think that someone can just agree to enter into this kind of relationship and then through the process of "having their right to bathroom privacy restricted" be transformed into some mindless zombie without their full and complete consent, effort, and willingness to believe what the Master is telling them?

Yes, I do and I worry about this daily. Not in the flippant way you put it. But this is a real and present concern to me on a day to day basis. My wife has extended A LOT of trust to me. I could abuse that greatly... even to the point of effectively training her to believe she had no choice. Given that I believe, based upon 13 years of knowing this woman, that I could in fact do that... then discussions about it's pragmatic and ethical consequences are quite relevant to me.

_____________________________

~Jeff

I didn't so much "enslave" Carol as I did "enlove" her. - Me
I want a joyous, loving, respectful relationship where the male is in charge and deserves to be. - DavanKael

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 12:41:36 PM

Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
My wife has extended A LOT of trust to me. I could abuse that greatly... even to the point of effectively training her to believe she had no choice. Given that I believe, based upon 13 years of knowing this woman, that I could in fact do that... then discussions about it's pragmatic and ethical consequences are quite relevant to me.

I think the ethical question of abusing trust applies to all relationship where one is taking a degree of authority over aspects of another person's life and is not singular to the discussion of whether or not IE relationships are ethical.

The argument is that power based relationships are ethical because one can leave the relationship and thus take back the authority they have. The ethical question posed here, from what I see, has more to do with what happens if somewhat reaches a state where they are incapable of taking back the power that has been abused.

I think that is possible someone can reach a mental state, but not plausible. If such a state could be reached, then I imagine it would take a hell of a lot of time and more than enough time for someone to understand the real character of the person taking authority and leave if necessary. I don't think it's as simple as saying "Yes, I want to be enslaved" and then *snap fingers* the person is done for with no chance to back out before such a mental state was reached.

I don't think the hypothetical process of removing someone's belief in choice is anymore inheritantly unethical then the action of tying someone up and removing their ability to escape. One is obviously more extreme than the other, but the principle is still the same. I also don't think that if someone were to adapt such a perspective and the Master were to become abusive, it's not possible for them to stop believing that. I think the success of this would be based on benevolent actions and ethics. Even Marines would have been trained to obey go against their commanding officers, disobey and risk court martial when what they are ordered to do is too much. There is many examples of this in history.

For the sake of fairness, even though I am debating this, I would never use such methods and actively discourage such lines of thought in my girl such as "she will do anything for me".

< Message edited by MadRabbit -- 7/21/2008 12:46:36 PM >

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to leadership527)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 2:47:08 PM

Posts: 152
Joined: 7/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Bringing that to the abused wife, is her objection to her husband ("Stop hitting me.") the same as stating "I do not consent to this abuse."

As far as the consent, there is a difference, in my experience.

I was in an abusive relationship in the past, for a very long time during the abuse I would cry and say, "stop" I would ask in the aftermath for him to not do it again and it continued. When it finally stopped, it was because as an abuse episode began, I kicked him and said "NO, no more. I will not allow you to do this any longer". The physical abuse stopped, it took me a bit longer to see the mental and emotional abuse.

So, yes, I believe there are different levels of denying consent.. .
Saya

_____________________________

Anais Nin: Love never dies a natural death. It dies because we don't know how to replenish its source. ...

(in reply to SaraZeal)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 2:57:13 PM

Posts: 461
Joined: 7/5/2008
Status: offline

I wanted to think about this thread all afternoon before I posted my opinion because I wanted to be sure of (1) how I felt and (2) how I presented it. Understand that I am coming from a position where I don't think slavery is such a good idea to begin with. People will do whatever they want anyway, so I don't expect my opinion is going to matter to anyone in the long run.

Some of the examples that you gave, MR, are certainly well within the realm not only of slavery (being told what to wear, no privacy in the bathroom, etc.) but just a dom/sub relationship. Neither of the two is harmful per se. And maybe I am reading to much into this as someone suggested earlier, but I read the website and the FAQs, etc.

It seems that the goal of IE is to truly internalize the person's slavery. Not just lip service, but to actually do just that. They even have some sort of disclaimer on the front page about who IE is for and not for. So, the problem to me becomes...not that your slave does what you want because it makes you happy or because it makes her happy to make you happy but because s/he truly believes that she has no other choice. She cannot leave therefore she must comply.

I don't even see the problem being someone taking advantage of that. To me, the danger is that mindset itself. It's most definitely not like the Marines in that a marine knows that once his stint is up, he goes back to "normal" life. If one's slavery is internalized, then this is normal life...a life where you must do what someone else (your owner or whatever) says because you have no choice.

I don't want to argue consent or non consentual consent as there can be no consent if there truly is no choice.

(in reply to MadRabbit)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 3:54:45 PM

Posts: 747
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline

just to throw my two cents in here, and before you fry a total concept. if you ever visit the forums for the site that generally tends to follow IE you will tend to find a huge number of intelligent and healthy submissive men and women doing exactly what they want to be doing. a huge number know exactly what they are getting into. they either have had previous experiences with something similar to IE or IE itself and would not want to live any other way. just like any other harder edged, more control based M/s relationship it takes a great deal of responsibility on the Owners side as well as the property's side. it isnt a situation to be taken under lightly, but niether are any of our relationships. understanding and education is what the site is there for, for both sides. and some people really want that interdependecy. it is how they function at thier best, and how they are happy. so who are we to judge?

remember there are those that think even the mild D/s of us are whacked.

smooches
lee

_____________________________

I am so not right, that I left..

(in reply to UBERMUNSCHIST)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 4:53:27 PM

Posts: 5026
Joined: 6/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
I think the ethical question of abusing trust applies to all relationship where one is taking a degree of authority over aspects of another person's life and is not singular to the discussion of whether or not IE relationships are ethical.

The argument is that power based relationships are ethical because one can leave the relationship and thus take back the authority they have. The ethical question posed here, from what I see, has more to do with what happens if somewhat reaches a state where they are incapable of taking back the power that has been abused.

Well, I see it a bit differently. Insofar as I am concerned, the only thing that makes what I am doing with my wife moral, ethical, or good is consent. But to me, consent requires a lot more than a head nod and it is a moment by moment thing. As soon as the slave in question loses the ability to choose, then they also lose the ability to consent in my mind. Game over. There is no such thing as consentual non-consent as far as I'm concerned. Black does not equal white. Good is not bad. Non-consent is never consent. The slave either wants something or they don't. If they don't then they are not consenting. If they can no longer choose what they want, then they can no longer consent. That's how I view it which means, by definition, I view what they write there as non-consentual slavery and like most people, I see that as a Bad(tm) thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
I think that is possible someone can reach a mental state, but not plausible. If such a state could be reached, then I imagine it would take a hell of a lot of time and more than enough time for someone to understand the real character of the person taking authority and leave if necessary. I don't think it's as simple as saying "Yes, I want to be enslaved" and then *snap fingers* the person is done for with no chance to back out before such a mental state was reached.

Certainly it's not simple. I can guess that if I wanted to do this to my wife, it'd take a good 2-3 years to get from here to there. I can guarantee you it is plausible though. I have known at least one woman who very clearly had lost the understanding that she could stop consenting. Based upon a lay persons [very poor] understanding of contract law, she naively assumed that since she had "agreed" to a one sided bargain, then she was bound by it (ethically, not legally of course). Honestly, I would not be surprised if she has killed herself since I spoke to her last.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
I don't think the hypothetical process of removing someone's belief in choice is anymore inheritantly unethical then the action of tying someone up and removing their ability to escape. One is obviously more extreme than the other, but the principle is still the same.

OK fine. But how would you feel if you saw someone tying up a sub and the sub fully consenting to that. Then, as soon as the sub is tied up, the sub sincerely and truly begins asking to be released (who knows why) and the top left her tied there. Personally, that'd be a fighting moment for me and I'm not exactly a brawler.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
I also don't think that if someone were to adapt such a perspective and the Master were to become abusive, it's not possible for them to stop believing that.

You'd think. But i have at least one solid example of this not being true and I'm pretty certain I could, in fact, enslave my wife to the point where she had lost her ability to choose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
For the sake of fairness, even though I am debating this, I would never use such methods and actively discourage such lines of thought in my girl such as "she will do anything for me".

*laughs* Good because you're one of my favorite posters and it'd be a shame to decide that you were secretely a closet case nutjob. And frankly, without chaning my views on consent, I don't really see how else I could view such a person. Like you, I actively discourage any line of thought that sounds unbounded or unexamined. I encourage my girl to obey me because she understands why it is good for her, not because she for some vague reason "ought to".

_____________________________

~Jeff

I didn't so much "enslave" Carol as I did "enlove" her. - Me
I want a joyous, loving, respectful relationship where the male is in charge and deserves to be. - DavanKael

(in reply to MadRabbit)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 5:14:55 PM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Yep, it is 24/7 slavery. It is someone being who they want to be and their nature dictates. If they choose this as their life, then what is the problem? If their is trust, everyone involved is taken care of, and there are no laws broken, then what is the problem? There is a choice when the process starts. What does ownership of a slave mean to you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: simpleplan2

To me, the danger is that mindset itself. It's most definitely not like the Marines in that a marine knows that once his stint is up, he goes back to "normal" life. If one's slavery is internalized, then this is normal life...a life where you must do what someone else (your owner or whatever) says because you have no choice.

I don't want to argue consent or non consentual consent as there can be no consent if there truly is no choice.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to simpleplan2)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 5:20:23 PM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

I see where the problem is now, the word "slave" means something different to many people. Yeah I suppose my ideas of slavery are too harsh for most, and the fact that I treat slaves as if they have no rights (this does not mean I break the law myself), and that they really are property, tends to make it so I see nothing morally wrong here. I also see why some would find it morally wrong, but then I wonder why they do not find similar things morally wrong. Is it just some kind of emotional trigger or societal conditioning?

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to leadership527)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 5:34:10 PM

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

The problem lies in the fact that getting someone to the point where they can realize their deepest desires of that sort is easier said than done...and those who blithely claim that they can do it because there is something 'Twuly Special' about them are just as likely to be wife rapists and spousal abusers slapping a comic book or pop psychology label on intimidation and callous treatment of those who for whatever reason enable such things.

I don't doubt that there are some people who have achieved a happy relationship of the IE or other 'chattel' type... I am very skeptical that everyone will get such magical results, because the processes are to put it bluntly, hogwash.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 6:06:53 PM

Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline

I'm kind of argueing two different things here. On one hand, I am argueing that it's very implausible that the processes of listed by IE are going to produce the extreme results being depicted and on the other hand, I am argueing that if they could (which I am highly skeptical of) that such a thing is not unethical, because of initial consent.

I thought I would clarify that so things aren't as confusing and it doesn't seem like I am going back and forth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: simpleplan2

I wanted to think about this thread all afternoon before I posted my opinion

I am happy that I made you think, because my intentions here are just to examine this and make people think. I am trying hard not to approve or disaprove of this on a personal level. But if people are going to make blanket statements about the ethics of a practice, I think it's worth challenging and examining.

quote:

It seems that the goal of IE is to truly internalize the person's slavery. Not just lip service, but to actually do just that. They even have some sort of disclaimer on the front page about who IE is for and not for. So, the problem to me becomes...not that your slave does what you want because it makes you happy or because it makes her happy to make you happy but because s/he truly believes that she has no other choice. She cannot leave therefore she must comply.

I don't even see the problem being someone taking advantage of that. To me, the danger is that mindset itself. It's most definitely not like the Marines in that a marine knows that once his stint is up, he goes back to "normal" life. If one's slavery is internalized, then this is normal life...a life where you must do what someone else (your owner or whatever) says because you have no choice.

I don't want to argue consent or non consentual consent as there can be no consent if there truly is no choice.

Okay, so now we are talking about the ethicality of this if it were possible and I will pretend that I buy into it for the moment to respond.

In principle, I think it's a lot like the Marines, just not to the same degree.

We consent to do things that cannot be undone all the time. If I join the Marines, I am consenting to a stretch of service that I cannot simply revoke consent on the drop of a dime. If I shoot somebody, then I am consenting to time in jail or in some cases, my own death, that I cannot get off if I choose. If I ring up a huge credit card debt and choose not to pay it off, I am consenting to have my credit score damaged and I cannot simply get out of that by making a choice.

If this were true, is it dangerous? I would agree. Is there a hell of a lot of risk involved? I would agree to that. Would I personally advocate it or do I seek to have a relationship as such? Nope, not a chance in hell.

But...on a logical level, I can't make a blanket statement that such a process of enslavement is wrong anymore than I am going to say it's wrong to hold people in jail, lower their credit score, or keep them in the Marines simply because they made a choice and didn't like the consequences of that choice.

Everyone attempting to decree this as being "wrong" is doing so on the basis that it's too "dangerous" or too "risky". Unfortanely, ethics don't work that way.

< Message edited by MadRabbit -- 7/21/2008 6:28:10 PM >

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to simpleplan2)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 6:12:34 PM

Posts: 6233
Status: offline

Fast reply:

_____________________________

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
R.W. Emerson

(in reply to MadRabbit)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 6:47:09 PM

Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline

Okay, still on the ethicality if this possible...I am not claiming any first hand knowledge of whether it is or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

Well, I see it a bit differently. Insofar as I am concerned, the only thing that makes what I am doing with my wife moral, ethical, or good is consent. But to me, consent requires a lot more than a head nod and it is a moment by moment thing. As soon as the slave in question loses the ability to choose, then they also lose the ability to consent in my mind. Game over. There is no such thing as consentual non-consent as far as I'm concerned. Black does not equal white. Good is not bad. Non-consent is never consent. The slave either wants something or they don't. If they don't then they are not consenting. If they can no longer choose what they want, then they can no longer consent. That's how I view it which means, by definition, I view what they write there as non-consentual slavery and like most people, I see that as a Bad(tm) thing.

Okay...then following your principle here, then it's safe to say that if someone makes a choice to join the Marines and lose their choice to leave, then if they decide they want to leave and is denied that right, then you would say that keeping him in the military is wrong, correct?

If making a choice to lose a choice is "wrong" in principle, then shouldn't it be wrong in other contexts as well?

quote:

Certainly it's not simple. I can guess that if I wanted to do this to my wife, it'd take a good 2-3 years to get from here to there. I can guarantee you it is plausible though. I have known at least one woman who very clearly had lost the understanding that she could stop consenting. Based upon a lay persons [very poor] understanding of contract law, she naively assumed that since she had "agreed" to a one sided bargain, then she was bound by it (ethically, not legally of course). Honestly, I would not be surprised if she has killed herself since I spoke to her last.

Switching over to whether or not this is plausible, I am not going to argue with you, because you have obvisouly had first hand experiences that I haven't. I'm just gonna say that I'm still skeptical and it would take quite a lot for me to lose that skeptism.

quote:

OK fine. But how would you feel if you saw someone tying up a sub and the sub fully consenting to that. Then, as soon as the sub is tied up, the sub sincerely and truly begins asking to be released (who knows why) and the top left her tied there. Personally, that'd be a fighting moment for me and I'm not exactly a brawler.

If the hypothetical situation we have been discussing is true, then someone internally enslaved won't ask for realease. Your analogy is crossing over from talking about someone who is keeping themself in the relationship over to someone who is forcing someone else to say.

The point of my analogy is this. If I tie someone up, then I have put them in a position of being powerless where they are unable to stop me from abusing them if I so choose to. If an IE relationship is possible, then they are putting someone in a position where they are powerless to stop someone from abusing them. The principle is the same. If you decree the process of making someone powerless is unethical and not the abuse, then by assocation your saying that bondaing is unethical.

quote:

You'd think. But i have at least one solid example of this not being true and I'm pretty certain I could, in fact, enslave my wife to the point where she had lost her ability to choose.

Once again, I'm not gonna say anything.

quote:

Good because you're one of my favorite posters and it'd be a shame to decide that you were secretely a closet case nutjob. And frankly, without chaning my views on consent, I don't really see how else I could view such a person. Like you, I actively discourage any line of thought that sounds unbounded or unexamined. I encourage my girl to obey me because she understands why it is good for her, not because she for some vague reason "ought to".

Thank you.

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to leadership527)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 6:52:17 PM

Posts: 3460
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

The problem lies in the fact that getting someone to the point where they can realize their deepest desires of that sort is easier said than done...and those who blithely claim that they can do it because there is something 'Twuly Special' about them are just as likely to be wife rapists and spousal abusers slapping a comic book or pop psychology label on intimidation and callous treatment of those who for whatever reason enable such things.

I don't doubt that there are some people who have achieved a happy relationship of the IE or other 'chattel' type... I am very skeptical that everyone will get such magical results, because the processes are to put it bluntly, hogwash.

I agree with this. I think that getting the extreme end result as suggested by the website would require a lot more than what they depicted and probably involve intimidation, extreme isolation, and probably psychological torture.

That's why I think it's generally hogwash that shouldn't be taken literally, but it does make for an interesting ethical debate.

_____________________________

Advice for New Dominants
The Unpolitically Correct Lifestyle Definitions

Obama is NOT the Messiah! He's just a VERY NAUGHTY BOY

(in reply to Alumbrado)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 10:13:09 PM

Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline

I started this post sometime earlier today, and some points may seem redundant by now. I will spend just a bit of time recapping, but first, I agree with MadRabbit’s first argument, that IE’s theories will rarely, if ever, produce a real broken and remade slave, by the dictionary definition they honour. I admit I have been too harsh on the IE concept. I opted not to look at the large picture and drop criticism where it deserved; I simply ripped that tiny slit in the couch into a canyon. I made their mission statement of “real REAL REAL!!!!” slavery more real than possible. I am debating Mad Rabbit’s second point that if the IE true goal was realized, it would be unethical.

If you feel you have complete understanding of my previous points, you can skip until the next bold face line.

It is obvious to say that the more accepting and reinforcing an environment is of submission, the deeper it will become. The IE philosophy, deep down, is all about that.

My interpretation of its initial goal is different. So let me lay to rest right now, I have no grievance with the methods used by IE. All the ones I’m aware of, I think will cause no harm, and can make a D/s or M/s relationship stronger and happier.

I admit, on 7-20-08 1:12 a.m, that I am taking the website as literal as possible because if we broaden any terms to interpretation, there is nothing to debate.

Same post I write that I’m only dealing with “if and when” things go horribly wrong, because otherwise there’s no problem with IE. (A slave happy to serve continues her consent to serves, even if she suffers through some acts.)

A quote from 7-20-08, 1:25 a.m.
“I will clarify. What I'm against is that after this training the slave loses its ability to consent properly. As such, if she were forced to do unethical things, she would have no choice. The option to leave would be lost. I am against losing your most basic human right - the right to not be owned if you choose it.”

This is the next bold face line. All the above is recap and clarification, mostly quotes from before.

You’ve given me direct questions to answer, which I can no longer find. If you point them out again I’ll deal with them in a concise and direct manner. Meanwhile, I have these.

Are you for or against people having the right to leave whenever they choose?
Do you think a slave can be trained never to leave?
Are you for or against the concept of “freedom to rescind initial consent?”

If you answer “For”, “Yes”, and “For” then you are against the biggest goals of IE, to make the mind a slave.

7-20-08, 1:36 a.m. I again clarify:

“However, my problem is ONLY with giving up the power to get out of the situation. When a slave truly wants out, and it's impossible, then it isn't consensual slavery anymore. It's 1855 in Alabama.” (Edited to spell “consentual” right, this time.)

This makes my stance clear. Let me now address points.

7-21-08, 10:34, MadRabbit says: “If you were to attempt to decree the behavior and the process of the Master as being morally wrong and unethical, which technique from the essay would you use as evidence? Choosing the slave's clothing? Dictating her time? (and other statements about the process of IE)”

I have no problem with the process, every single act I’ve read is fine, see my early synopsis of IE in this post. The sum of these processes is supposed to flip a switch that makes a person into a true slave. My grievance is with the being of a slave, who cannot consent.

I’ve made myself crystal clear, so other points of interest.

You made two points that are irresistible: 1) Are the Marines unethical in the contract they use? And 2) Can you consent to death for someone you love (or anyone, for that matter)

1) If the Marines ordered their soldiers to do something they did not consent to doing, but the soldier had no choice, then it is unethical. I know it isn’t popular to say such a thing about the armed forces but it’s true. Master and slave, husband and wife, Marines and marine… They’re all similar examples.

That said, I don’t want this thread to become the ethics of war. That is a whole other topic. An important disclaimer is when the master, armed forces higher-ups, or abusive husband are doing the wrong; I don’t blame the slave, soldier, or wife.
2) Yes. Death is a static condition (at least as far as this world is concerned). In many respects death is the most clear and concise arrangement we can consent to. The initial consent for death, if death is imminent, is also the active and final consent. If you consent to dying for “her” and none of the facts change between your consent and her death, then yes – it is ethical. I don’t want this post to also encompass suicide, so we can make another post there.

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

... You've waited your whole life for this moment...

(in reply to MadRabbit)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 10:17:23 PM

Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

Don't take me personally. I'm really direct, playful, and toying in a mildly sadistic way, but this isn't any kind of vendetta against you.

I hope you actually take my constant challenges as a compliment, because if I didn't have a degree of respect for you and your intelligence, I won't bother debating with you. I would probably make some two-line snarky comment and not reply beyond that.

And given that you haven't responded personally or emotionally to my little nudges shows you are a pretty cool guy.

You've always been civil, and as such I have no grievance with you. You'll notice I also spend the time to duke it out with you. I reserve "Agree to disagree" for people I feel are not intelligent enough to defend their points or I do not respect enough to debate with. I hope you take my constant challenges as a compliment. =) You're pretty cool too.

Oh! I almost forgot. I made you this... A Gift For MadRabbit

Edit to add: This is all fun, but who would win in a 2v2 tag team wrestling match? Leadership and Keeper or MadRabbit and OrionTheWolf?

< Message edited by HeavansKeeper -- 7/21/2008 10:26:34 PM >

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

... You've waited your whole life for this moment...

(in reply to MadRabbit)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Internal Enslavement

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 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 © 2024

Terms of Service

0.152