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 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 10:52:23 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

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?

I've admitted a few times that there is no "problem" when all goes well, and that I'm only dealing with when it goes wrong. That said, whether there is a problem or not, it is unethical. That doesn't make it impossible, unethical things happen all the time. It only means it is wrong in the eyes of people who hold certain principles. In this case, the following principles:

Consent must always be given for an act upon them to be ethical.
Consent must always be informed.
Consent must not be coerced or forced.
Consent is no longer valid once initial premises change.

There are others, but those are a few.

To me, a slave and a submissive are the same. The issue of limits (a slave having none, vs. a submissive having them) is a semantics argument. This is matter for another post. Doing a search on the subject will get you a ton of responses and opinions. Enough to satiate anyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

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?

As said, what brings me to believe this is unethical is the same for even the Marines, a group of people I trust, respect, and am extremely greatful for. You seem to have one of IE's winning show-quality slaves. If she wanted to leave, how would that go? If she told you "I don't want to do something." How would that go?

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

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

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 11:05:23 PM

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

Edit to add: This was in response to MadRabbit

My responses in bold and italics. This does not mean my words are either bold, not Italian.

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

No. If I move to Wichita, Kansas from New York, New York I lose many choices in the epic "What do I want to do tonight?" It's not making a choice to lose choices, it's chosing to lose the ability to be ok with the choices you make (Informed consent).

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.

The steps, independently, are not unethical (the bathroom door thing, the clothing thing). The process is questionable, but the desired outcome certainly is. By extrapolation, tieing someone up lowers their "power" just like choosing their clothing. Both can be perfectly ethical. When either the slave or the bondage bottom wants to rescind consent (or stop giving it) but the top or owner just doesn't care, it is unethical. It'd be like ignoring a safeword.

< Message edited by HeavansKeeper -- 7/21/2008 11:07:22 PM >

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

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

(in reply to MadRabbit)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/21/2008 11:06:53 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
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.

I'm Heavan's Keeper and I approve this message.

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

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

(in reply to MadRabbit)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/22/2008 8:54:40 AM

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

quote:

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

Oh puleaze, we would SOOOO kick their asses. *laughs*

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
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?

Wow, great question. I needed to really stop and sort through my feelings on this. Having thought it through, my opinion is that yes, it's wrong... wrong on several counts actually. Personally, I'd feel that we'd all be much better off if we didn't have any wars that our leadership couldn't convince enough people to attend... "Sorry, war called on account of disinterest". Much like in my M/s relationship, I believe that my country should be able to call me to war. But I should always have the right to decide to no longer be a citizen of the US -- even if I'm already on the battlefield.

As long as your are mine, you must obey me. But you can always choose not to be mine... Sir Stephan, Story of O

_____________________________

~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 - 7/22/2008 2:36:48 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

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?

I've admitted a few times that there is no "problem" when all goes well, and that I'm only dealing with when it goes wrong. That said, whether there is a problem or not, it is unethical. That doesn't make it impossible, unethical things happen all the time. It only means it is wrong in the eyes of people who hold certain principles. In this case, the following principles:

It is unethical based upon your ethics. That is great, as we should all live by a code of conduct that upholds our morals. Where the problem comes in, is when you say blanketly it is wrong.

quote:

Consent must always be given for an act upon them to be ethical.
Consent must always be informed.
Consent must not be coerced or forced.
Consent is no longer valid once initial premises change.

Why does consent must be continually given? There is also the debate of how any type of influence or cohersion muddies the waters of consent. These are dictates of yourself, and I hope they work well for you. Not everyone believes as you, and there is as much wrong with IE as there may be with patriotism, which means that in the hands of "bad" people it will likely turn out bad.

quote:

There are others, but those are a few.

To me, a slave and a submissive are the same. The issue of limits (a slave having none, vs. a submissive having them) is a semantics argument. This is matter for another post. Doing a search on the subject will get you a ton of responses and opinions. Enough to satiate anyone.

I suggest a little more exposure and examination of consentual slavery. IE is basically a process by which someone internalizes and manifests their desires to be a certain way.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

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?

As said, what brings me to believe this is unethical is the same for even the Marines, a group of people I trust, respect, and am extremely greatful for. You seem to have one of IE's winning show-quality slaves. If she wanted to leave, how would that go? If she told you "I don't want to do something." How would that go?

Yes I do have a winning show quality slave. You have not been exposed to a complete slave if you evern have to ask the above questions. If the trust breaks enough for these questions, then things have gone horribly wrong, and the IE has broken as well. I have never kept a slave that wishes to be released. I have kept them for a short period of time, so that they are sure of their or my decision. There are various degrees one can employ IE, and it takes many years to fully take hold, if it ever does. The process though is beautiful and the slave becomes much happier and more pleasing.

_____________________________

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 - 7/22/2008 6:02:09 PM

Posts: 263
Joined: 7/3/2008
From: DC metro area
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

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.

Actually, it doesn't have to involve intimidation, isolation or torture of any kind to achieve IE. What it takes is a concerted effort on the part of the owner to determine what motivates the prospective slave, and once determined, to use that as a tool to bend the slave's will.

Some slaves respond to intimidation and isolation, for sure, but have you read any of the threads about what constitutes effective punishment for most s-types? Knowing they have disappointed their Owner/Master/Dom is worse than anything the O/M/D does to them. Seeing the look of hurt and disappointment in his eyes is enough to make most of us fall to our knees and beg forgiveness.

Positive reinforcement is also a wonderful tool, and can be much more effective than negative consequences (or in combination with negative consequences) in most cases.

_____________________________

"The true man wants two things: danger and play. For this reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

(in reply to MadRabbit)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/22/2008 6:07:19 PM

Posts: 2068
Joined: 1/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SaraZeal

Like was said before, consent is given at the start, and you do have to consider things a lot more than you consider "Do I buy milk today or not?". When you marry someone, it's technically for life, or it used to be anyways. Now it's a joke, just watch Britney Spears...she's about my age and has married how many times so far? Including one that was less than 24 hours...

Marriage used to mean something. "Til Death do us part" wasn't meant lightly. It wasn't a "Til I'm bored/annoyed with you". As such you should know the person, a lot. I recommend a long time knowing the person (in person, online doesn't count), at least living some time (months if not years) with them if possible, and then, judging from what you know, discussions you've had, observations you've made - IF you're willing to commit to for an indeterminate length of time, possibly forever.

Marriage used to be an iron cage you could not escape. When you two stepped in you knew it was exactly what it said til death do us part. Put up carpet, paint the walls green. Whatever you two have to do make it work for you. But no escape. In that type of marriage you have some very good reasons to make it work. In today's marriage you meet go around the corner and get married. And if it's no exactly as you expected, or too hard then just go around another corner and get divorced.

I think if you give consent at the beginning while knowing what will be expected from you then your consent carries thru.

_____________________________

Don't fight him. Embrace your inner asshole.

Tu fellas magnus penum meum...iterum

Genuine catnip/kryptonite.
Ego sum erus.

The capacity to learn is a gift, the ability to learn a skill, the willingness to learn a choice. Dune HH

(in reply to SaraZeal)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/22/2008 6:16:03 PM

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

My responses in bold and italics. Quotes from OrionTheWolf

It is unethical based upon your ethics. That is great, as we should all live by a code of conduct that upholds our morals. Where the problem comes in, is when you say blanketly it is wrong.

In a post entitled "Protecting your submissive" I made a fairly thorough argument for objective ethics. I can go again if you want, but here's a post I'd rather you read first.
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1999519/mpage_1/tm.htm
The shortest version is this: "Subjective ethics allow for the justification of anything, including great atrocities. Objective ethics work to eliminate victims."

Why does consent must be continually given? There is also the debate of how any type of influence or cohersion muddies the waters of consent. These are dictates of yourself, and I hope they work well for you. Not everyone believes as you, and there is as much wrong with IE as there may be with patriotism, which means that in the hands of "bad" people it will likely turn out bad.

Consent doesn't have to be given formally, as in "Are you ok with this?" everytime the crop comes down. You do agree a slave must consent to slavery. When the terms of her conditions change, she must consent again. It's like changing a contract in the legal world. In relationships the consent can usually take the form of not objecting. Remember my dinner example?

Consent can be clear and concise, but it takes time and ruins the mood. Usually consent takes the form of a lack of objection. This isn't the same as actively consenting, hence "muddied". I don't know where you get patriotism from, but yes, obviously bad people can make a good idea bad.

A quick note about anyone concerned over the comparison of slavery and armed forces:
The ethics of war are different than the ethics of the ideal world. In war, you're dealing with the reality of 1) people who do not agree with "it is wrong to kill" and 2) only the winner matters. As such, there is no way to be ethical (jn the ideal world manner) and win a war against those who are ok being wrong.

_____________________________

The Loving Owner of HisHeavan

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

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/22/2008 6:40:57 PM

Posts: 452
Joined: 2/26/2008
Status: offline

Perhaps one can find un-natural slaves in the same aisle as the silk flowers and fake baby's breath at Garden Ridge.

Look on the top shelf, that's where they hide the good stuff. lol

As for that site, there was too much psycho-babble for me to focus on at this point in time. I think after a few more beers and a nap I may be able to make sense of it all.

Bottoms up!

(in reply to pettingdragons)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/22/2008 6:44:07 PM

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

quote:

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

Dude, your anything but crystal. In fact, my head is spinning trying to figure out what you exactly you are articulating. All these contradictions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
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.

See your...missing the point. You keep going on and on about how wrong it is to become a slave that cannont consent except all your arguments conviently forget that the basis of such a relationship begins with them consenting to become someone who basically consents to anything.

And if someone consents to "anything", then when "anything" happens, there is no argument that "they didn't consent to that and therefore it's unethical".

Edited to Add : Btw...so you would be against imprisoning people in jail if they commit crimes without knowledge that they were consenting to jail time?

< Message edited by MadRabbit -- 7/22/2008 7:08:09 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 - 7/22/2008 6:50:13 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper
In a post entitled "Protecting your submissive" I made a fairly thorough argument for objective ethics. I can go again if you want, but here's a post I'd rather you read first.
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1999519/mpage_1/tm.htm
The shortest version is this: "Subjective ethics allow for the justification of anything, including great atrocities. Objective ethics work to eliminate victims."

Not very through. I just bored.

Objective ethics only serve for pompous pontificators to declare they know what's best for everyone as if somehow they had access to all experience and knowledge to adequately decide what is right and wrong for everyone. It's a naive point of view at best.

The fact that you have been debated here and your opinion of the ethics of this situation has been argued against and shot down several times only really proves the subjectivity of ethics.

It's really just blantantly arrogant to think that your opinion is the end all and be all of what is right and wrong.

_____________________________

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 - 7/22/2008 6:55:26 PM

Posts: 6233
Status: offline

It has honestly boggled my mind in this thread that people in BDSM can find it ethical, moral, and a concept of acceptance for a guy to beat the hell out of a woman because she is a masochist and her need is that of pain. And you can't forget your social conditioning enough to acknowedge that there may be women out there who NEED the full and complete mastery of a Man, who thrive and exist very happily in such a relationship.

I mean did i really really see someone ignorantly spout off that thsi type of relationship involved isolation, intimidation an TORTURE? Heaven's keeper -- you don't know what you are talking about. You can stamp your foot and try and make an argument for consent but if you really understood what this relationship was about -- you yourself would have to concede you are sounding like some vanilla person who has no clue what YOUR lifestyle with your sub is all about but instead takes a little bit of information and in their ignorance blows it into some OMG concept of being appauled you would dare take advantage of a woman like that.

And for the record since people seems so caught up on the concept of she can't leave. A woman who is enslaved and mastered by the Man is HELD in such a relationship because HIS mastery of her and hold on her fulfills quite awesomely her needs. So when there are days that she in her very conscious and stable and fully comprehending mind says fuck this i am out of here. She is and does WALK toward the door as the Man simply watches her and he says she is free to go. BUT what no one has taken the time to recognize in their self-righteous appaulled concept of this life of woman, is with each step she takes her needs sing out to her and she knows she has a choice -- to break free of the mastery and live in misery trying to be something she is not -- free...... OR she recognizes that while she may be having a fuck off to him day, she doesn't WANT to live without his hold, his mastery, his enslavement because that is what compels her to her knees before him. So this concept of can't leave is NOT the BIG BAD MAN not letting her leave, its a woman knowing when her needs are met even if her mind may be having a fuck off day. Think of it as a safeguard for a woman, she may do something stupid on a whim and say i am outta here, but instead his hold on her stops her from harming herself by actuallly leaving the one thing she needs in her life.

IE slaves are NOT ultra submissives, they are NOT women who CANNOT regroup if the relationship ends. They are NOT women who cannot exist without a Man's mastery though to be honest it sucks to have too and she doesn't want too. And show me ONE woman in any D/s or M/s relationship that doesn't have to regroup and get her bearings when she is suddenly set free from the dynamic -- so why use that against women in IE relationships. These women are simply very lucky women who are able to live out their lives in a concept that fulfills a biting, aching and painful need because a Man has choosen and determined her existance in his life and he is capable of holding her within same. Believe me, without that from a Man, it sucks and you never ever stop seeking it because your needs ache for it.

These Men are the farthest thing from abusers. They may be harsh, they may be non comformist especially in the socially and politically correct aspects, they are Men who are usually financially stable, mentally stable, and are masters in their lives in most things. There is a quote i have that describes these Men -- He excudes confidence, i, as slave, know He possesses more than confidence; He possesses power. Power that comes not from practice, but that formed a building block of his character.

Now many men in their arrogance would read that quote and say HEY that's me. Umm no. There are VERY FEW Men who can actually personify that quote and those are the Men capable of achieving this type of relationship if they choose. There is another quote i have: His will is such i can only be what naturally compels me.

Again, many men who read that would say hey that's me, but again... umm no. Very few Men are so comfortable with themselves and are not ruled by insecurities, fear, and politically correctness that they can simply by being the Man they are compel a woman to naturally be what she is -- to him.

Now, i know there will be those on this discussion who having never experienced this type of relationship and who pretty much from what i have read would be incapable of achieving such if they wished too, who will continue in their ignorant assumptions of this type of relationship and spouting incredulous comments with regard to same.

But here is how i see it, IF you can seriously see a Sadist beating a masochist as a concept of okay, then you should be able to understand the concept that is at play in an IE relationship. Sorry if this sounds bitchy but i have been trying very hard not to go off on some of the idiotic ideas people are throwing around here.

Lastly, remember there are bad people in ALL TYPES of this type of life and since you dont like when vanilla's generalize that what you do must be what these bad people do, don't generalize this about IE in your ignorance and fear - unless you yourself are willing to admit you are an abuser in your D/s or M/s dynamic with a woman because of the bad people who take advantage in that name. Thank you.

angel

< Message edited by barelynangel -- 7/22/2008 7:07:34 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to HeavansKeeper)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/22/2008 6:57:05 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

The steps, independently, are not unethical (the bathroom door thing, the clothing thing). The process is questionable, but the desired outcome certainly is. By extrapolation, tieing someone up lowers their "power" just like choosing their clothing. Both can be perfectly ethical. When either the slave or the bondage bottom wants to rescind consent (or stop giving it) but the top or owner just doesn't care, it is unethical. It'd be like ignoring a safeword.

Once again, I think you really don't what your talking about or fully understand the details of a literal IE relationship.

You keep talking about how "removing consent" and how unethical it is for someone to deny that which is still....as all your arguments...based on the presupposition that the Master is unethical and going to deny that request if asked.

However, what you fail to grasp is, if over the course of however many years it takes, if the process were to take hold, the slave isn't going to ask to leave the relationship.

So all these arguments about the removing of consent and how it's unethical to deny that are really...moot.

Try again.

_____________________________

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 - 7/22/2008 6:58:39 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

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

You might want to hang on to it for the next time you try to make examples like you did in post 2

_____________________________

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 - 7/22/2008 7:02:47 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper

“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.)

Edited for a rewrite.

Let me repeat the same thing I've repeated several times now, but you conviently keep ignoring in order to carry on with your crusade.

It's Internal Enslavement, not External Enslavement.

That means the inability for a slave to leave the relationship stems from the slave herself and doesn't stem from a Master actively forcing her to stay.

If somebody decides they want to leave the relationship and then the Master denies it and attempts to keep them in the relationship, then it's no longer Internal Enslavement, but External Enslavement.

< Message edited by MadRabbit -- 7/22/2008 7:21:38 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 - 7/22/2008 7:06:23 PM

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

I mean did i really really see someone ignorantly spout off that thsi type of relationship involved isolation, intimidation an TORTURE?

No, you did not see that.... you did see people pointing out the problem of distinguishing real abuse that is masquerading as this type of relationship.

But thanks for the straw.

(in reply to MadRabbit)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/22/2008 7:11:09 PM

Posts: 3292
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel
And for the record since people seems so caught up on the concept of she can't leave. A woman who is enslaved and mastered by the Man is HELD in such a relationship because HIS mastery of her and hold on her fulfills quite awesomely her needs. So when there are days that she in her very conscious and stable and fully comprehending mind says fuck this i am out of here. She is and does WALK toward the door as the Man simply watches her and he says she is free to go. BUT what no one has taken the time to recognize in their self-righteous appaulled concept of this life of woman, is with each step she takes her needs sing out to her and she knows she has a choice -- to break free of the mastery and live in misery trying to be something she is not -- free...... OR she recognizes that while she may be having a fuck off to him day, she doesn't WANT to live without his hold, his mastery, his enslavement because that is what compels her to her knees before him. So this concept of can't leave is NOT the BIG BAD MAN not letting her leave, its a woman knowing when her needs are met even if her mind may be having a fuck off day.

angel,

Thank you for your post, I enjoyed it very much, especially the part I quoted. I have enjoyed quite a few of your posts in the Gorean section lately and have appreciated hearing your perspective on slavery.

I once was someone who had a very hard time with the idea of not being able to leave. I had a hard time resolving how it could be a healthy place for me to be. Then something Celeste (BitaTruble) posted once that expressed something similar to what you just wrote. It isn't about not having any other choice, but that the other choices that exist would result in not being true to who you are. That the choice is between being who you are or being something that you are not, it isn't a choice about leaving or staying.

I choose to be who I am, so that means my only choice is to remain in this relationship with him and do what he wants even if I don't want to do it and even if it causes me distress.

Knight's Kyra

_____________________________

"Passion... it lies in all of us. Sleeping, waiting, and though unbidden, it will stir, open its jaws, and howl. It speaks to us, guides us... passion rules us all. And we obey..." ~Angelus

(in reply to barelynangel)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/22/2008 7:23:20 PM

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

I mean did i really really see someone ignorantly spout off that thsi type of relationship involved isolation, intimidation an TORTURE?

No, you did not see that.... you did see people pointing out the problem of distinguishing real abuse that is masquerading as this type of relationship.

But thanks for the straw.

Yeah, no shit. Talk about ignorance of what I have been trying to say for the last 4 pages.

_____________________________

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 - 7/22/2008 7:27:41 PM

Posts: 263
Joined: 7/3/2008
From: DC metro area
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

I mean did i really really see someone ignorantly spout off that thsi type of relationship involved isolation, intimidation an TORTURE?

No, you did not see that.... you did see people pointing out the problem of distinguishing real abuse that is masquerading as this type of relationship.

But thanks for the straw.

Yes, it was in post #58.

And we also saw people pointing out that BDSM relationships such as the ones aspired to by the majority of users of this site are also seen as abusive by society at large.

And your point is. . .?

_____________________________

"The true man wants two things: danger and play. For this reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

(in reply to Alumbrado)

RE: Internal Enslavement - 7/22/2008 7:32:45 PM

Posts: 9184
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel
And for the record since people seems so caught up on the concept of she can't leave. A woman who is enslaved and mastered by the Man is HELD in such a relationship because HIS mastery of her and hold on her fulfills quite awesomely her needs. So when there are days that she in her very conscious and stable and fully comprehending mind says fuck this i am out of here. She is and does WALK toward the door as the Man simply watches her and he says she is free to go. BUT what no one has taken the time to recognize in their self-righteous appaulled concept of this life of woman, is with each step she takes her needs sing out to her and she knows she has a choice -- to break free of the mastery and live in misery trying to be something she is not -- free...... OR she recognizes that while she may be having a fuck off to him day, she doesn't WANT to live without his hold, his mastery, his enslavement because that is what compels her to her knees before him. So this concept of can't leave is NOT the BIG BAD MAN not letting her leave, its a woman knowing when her needs are met even if her mind may be having a fuck off day. Think of it as a safeguard for a woman, she may do something stupid on a whim and say i am outta here, but instead his hold on her stops her from harming herself by actuallly leaving the one thing she needs in her life.

IE slaves are NOT ultra submissives, they are NOT women who CANNOT regroup if the relationship ends. They are NOT women who cannot exist without a Man's mastery though to be honest it sucks to have too and she doesn't want too. And show me ONE woman in any D/s or M/s relationship that doesn't have to regroup and get her bearings when she is suddenly set free from the dynamic -- so why use that against women in IE relationships. These women are simply very lucky women who are able to live out their lives in a concept that fulfills a biting, aching and painful need because a Man has choosen and determined her existance in his life and he is capable of holding her within same. Believe me, without that from a Man, it sucks and you never ever stop seeking it because your needs ache for it.

These Men are the farthest thing from abusers. They may be harsh, they may be non comformist especially in the socially and politically correct aspects, they are Men who are usually financially stable, mentally stable, and are masters in their lives in most things. There is a quote i have that describes these Men -- He excudes confidence, i, as slave, know He possesses more than confidence; He possesses power. Power that comes not from practice, but that formed a building block of his character.

barelynangel, this was brilliant. Thank you for posting it. As one who has, on occasion (even recently) had moments of thinking "That's it, I'm out", when push comes to shove, I have seriously contemplated enough to know that "out" is not an answer for me. To have someone tell me, "If you don't like what he's doing, you can just leave" is a bit insulting, because it negates who and what I am - both to myself and to him.

And if he ever ended the relationship, as he has considered on occasion (even recently), I would absolutely regroup and carry on, although it would be extremely difficult. Then again, it was difficult to regroup and carry on after my marriage ended, too, but I did.

I appreciate your words here.

_____________________________

Good is the enemy of great.

(in reply to barelynangel)

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

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

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 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

0.527