Internal Enslavement

Internal Enslavement (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

UBERMUNSCHIST -> Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 6:01:14 PM)
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/ This is a new website that I just stumbled upon, I would like to know if anyone else has read any of the articles and if so what they think about them.

HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 6:10:47 PM)
I'm against it. It seems like they're trying to break people to the point where they could not leave their owners, even if abuse ran high and constant. I come from the camp where my submissive MUST have the freedom to leave. As such, she needs the faculties to do so. The freedom, which is always available in the civilized world, means nothing if the means do not exist. "You think selling you for sex is abusive when you consider it a limit, and now you're pissy because you have herpes and I won't touch you?" "Yes... I'd like to leave, Sir." "You're free." "... But I have no idea how... I have no money, no friends, no contacts, no where to go..." "Get out." Sounds like healthy power exchange to me. Read about their definition of slavery on their FAQ: http://www.enslavement.org.uk/iefaq The lack of consent is a flagrant violation of my principles which allow for power exchange relationships.

MadRabbit -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 6:42:29 PM)
Basically, it's not any ideas that are exceptionally new, but just dressed up with a lot of complex psychological talk. When you read between the lines, the general concept is the creation of an environment that has a profound psychological and emotional effect on someone with a desire to submit. The goal is to nurture and encourage a perspective in someone where they take on the identity of a slave and believe that they are compelled to obey and to serve because of this identity. People are internally branded all the time with metaphysical concepts such as righteousness, integrity, and honor that compel them to act and behave in certain ways. I have opportunities at work all the time to steal small items, but I don't. The reason for not stealing is not because of a fear of getting fired, because I know they aren't going to fire me over stealing one pack of peanuts, but rather my sense of integrity. This metaphysical concept compels me to not steal, because by doing so, I will lose this quality that I value. Now replace integrity with slavery and stealing a pack of peanuts with disobedience and you have the basic concept behind Internal Enslavement. To disobey means to not be a slave just as to steal means to not have integrity. Also, a large part of what dominance is, in general, when it comes to a D/S relationship is the creation of such an environment that has a psychological impact on our partners. I make my girl wear a collar because it serves as a symbol to remind her psychologically what she is : my slave. I make her kiss my feet, massage my back, go naked, kneel before me, and crawl for me, not just because I enjoy these expressions of my dominance, but these expressions also serve to help remind her of what she is to me and compel her to submit and worship me on an internal level. Everything they talk about in Internal Enslavement I learned from really cool heterosexual Leatherfolk who probably have never read the website. The main difference what those Leatherfolk told me and IE is that the Leatherfolk didn't make it sound nearly as complicated and didn't extrapolate the issue to an unrealistic level of "Order the chopping off of a limb and the slave shall obey."

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 6:42:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper The lack of consent is a flagrant violation of my principles which allow for power exchange relationships. Just pointing out, without agreeing or disagreeing with them, that they also say this in their FAQ: "Internal Enslavement ("IE") is a collection of ideas about how to take possession of a slave, in a consensual context (ie where the submissive to be enslaved consents at the start of the process.)" So, there IS consent. Master Fire

HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 6:52:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam Just pointing out, without agreeing or disagreeing with them, that they also say this in their FAQ: "Internal Enslavement ("IE") is a collection of ideas about how to take possession of a slave, in a consensual context (ie where the submissive to be enslaved consents at the start of the process.)" So, there IS consent. Master Fire I don't believe people should consent to putting themselves in a position to where they will not have the faculties to consent. Assuming this works, it would be very dangerous if the slave's owner were not a top notch guy. This theory of initial consent is the same line of thinking that made spousal rape legal, as by marrying you she consented to sex.

MadRabbit -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 7:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper I'm against it. It seems like they're trying to break people to the point where they could not leave their owners, even if abuse ran high and constant. I come from the camp where my submissive MUST have the freedom to leave. As such, she needs the faculties to do so. The freedom, which is always available in the civilized world, means nothing if the means do not exist. I think your taking the website a little too literally and missing out on a lot of good insights into the psychology of M/S and D/S quote: "You think selling you for sex is abusive when you consider it a limit, and now you're pissy because you have herpes and I won't touch you?" "Yes... I'd like to leave, Sir." "You're free." "... But I have no idea how... I have no money, no friends, no contacts, no where to go..." "Get out." Sounds like healthy power exchange to me. That's a pretty one sided theoretical example and the harsh judgment that stems from such an example is nothing sort of myopic. While something like this could happen, it's also equally plausible that two responsible, ethical adults can take the creation of such an environment to such an extreme level and have it be healthy. quote: Read about their definition of slavery on their FAQ: http://www.enslavement.org.uk/iefaq The lack of consent is a flagrant violation of my principles which allow for power exchange relationships. In the hypothetical situation of the most literal example of this working, a subjective belief by the slave that they cannot leave the relationship does not equate to forced captivity imposed by the Master. This website deals with psychological theory of slavery and the definition is written from the point of view that the perspective of the slave determines reality. Unless you think that, from an example on the website, the "restriction of a slave's ability to close the bathroom door" correlates to non-consensual imprisonment by the Master.

Leatherist -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 7:24:57 PM)
To thier credit-when I read thier forums,there were also a great many level headed individuals that warned against getting involved with abusive owners-Including Thanos.

DesFIP -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 7:32:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper This theory of initial consent is the same line of thinking that made spousal rape legal, as by marrying you she consented to sex. I think I love you. I've always felt there was something wrong with giving up the right to withdraw consent but have never been able to articulate it. That's the perfect example of why I feel this way.

MadRabbit -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 7:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper This theory of initial consent is the same line of thinking that made spousal rape legal, as by marrying you she consented to sex. Except in this case the hypothetical inability to leave the relationship stems from the slave's own mind and not necessarily from actions imposed by the Master. If I had a wife who believed fully that she consented to sex at anytime simply by being married and therefore gave it up whenever I asked, is it still an example of spousal rape? Am I raping her because she beleives she has to suck my cock even when she doesn't want to? Your decree of this as being blatantly unethical is all presupposed by the fact that the Master is taking advantage of the slave's mindset to do unethical things. Sounds like pretty flawed inductive reasoning to me. [;)] [:D]

sujuguete -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/19/2008 9:41:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper I'm against it. It seems like they're trying to break people to the point where they could not leave their owners, even if abuse ran high and constant. I come from the camp where my submissive MUST have the freedom to leave. As such, she needs the faculties to do so. The freedom, which is always available in the civilized world, means nothing if the means do not exist. IE-type M/s relationships are not to be entered into lightly. Anyone who is considering submitting to this extent, knowing they will become totally dependent on another person - mentally and physically - needs to be damn sure the prospective owner accepts full responsibility for the well-being of the slave - mentally and physically. quote: The lack of consent is a flagrant violation of my principles which allow for power exchange relationships. There is no "lack of consent." A slave in that type of relationship gives consent at some point to give up all rights and choices. Again, it is not something to be taken lightly or done hastily. The slave needs to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the owner can be trusted not to damage the slave before the unconditional consent is given. The degree of consent is just another point on the continuum of control. When a dominant ties up a sub and uses her for his pleasure, has he not taken away her choice to move about freely or to resist what he does to her? Don't dominants occasionally do things they know their subs do not enjoy? Isn't that what being the dominant about - being the one in control of the situation, making the decisions and choices? Keeping the safety and well-being of the sub in mind, but not acceding to the sub's every whim and desire? Subs give consent, and give up choices and rights. Some choose to give up few of their rights, some give up more, and some are most content when they give up all of their rights. Who are you to tell them they are wrong for wanting that kind of relationship?

MisterBeast -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 12:34:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper I'm against it. It seems like they're trying to break people to the point where they could not leave their owners, even if abuse ran high and constant. I come from the camp where my submissive MUST have the freedom to leave. As such, she needs the faculties to do so. The freedom, which is always available in the civilized world, means nothing if the means do not exist. "You think selling you for sex is abusive when you consider it a limit, and now you're pissy because you have herpes and I won't touch you?" "Yes... I'd like to leave, Sir." "You're free." "... But I have no idea how... I have no money, no friends, no contacts, no where to go..." "Get out." Sounds like healthy power exchange to me. Read about their definition of slavery on their FAQ: http://www.enslavement.org.uk/iefaq The lack of consent is a flagrant violation of my principles which allow for power exchange relationships. Oh come come now, its what all the cool kids are doing these days beats head on desk Kind of reminds me of those Dow Chemical commercials, this is what happens when you remove the human element. Submissives are people first, and they have needs, I think turning some one into what the site is advocating is really really low, and showes who ever does it doesnt have the damn self esteem to be anything more. I am going to guess that the site is probably run by some lonely old man who has been burnt a bunch of times, and seeing as how he needs to vent, is doing so through a website that is being touted as the end all be all for bdsm. Reading what little I did really gave me that impression. Boy arent we a bunch of civilised people any more. [:'(]

HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 1:12:49 AM)
Mine are in italics and bold. I think your taking the website a little too literally and missing out on a lot of good insights into the psychology of M/S and D/S I am taking the website literally, which is important. I also take the constitution and supreme court decisions literally. If we want to broaden the terms, exactly what the site warns against, then there's no point talking about it. It will just come down to a difference of definition. That said, I agree they have a very strong handle on the concept of power exchange, and there is much to learn, if taken with a grain of salt and careful consideration. That's a pretty one sided theoretical example and the harsh judgment that stems from such an example is nothing sort of myopic. While something like this could happen, it's also equally plausible that two responsible, ethical adults can take the creation of such an environment to such an extreme level and have it be healthy. This could be said of anything. I've said before, if all parties consent, anything is right. (I've yet to find an exception to this rule). Yes, it could go the right way, but thats boring and unobjectionable. My stance is to protect the "innocent" from becoming victims. I'm The Internet Batman. (Sorry, just saw The Dark Knight, a movie I heartily recommend) In the hypothetical situation of the most literal example of this working, a subjective belief by the slave that they cannot leave the relationship does not equate to forced captivity imposed by the Master. This website deals with psychological theory of slavery and the definition is written from the point of view that the perspective of the slave determines reality. Unless you think that, from an example on the website, the "restriction of a slave's ability to close the bathroom door" correlates to non-consensual imprisonment by the Master. I like to think I deal with the reality of the situation. Assuming the training offered is possible, then the slave's mind is broken. I consider it fair to assume that the slave would require professional debriefing, or untraining, to be released from service. Who's going to provide that? The Master so negligent about his slave she wants to leave? This site, which stands to make no money from it? *I do agree that the slave's mind determines reality. I have other posts to respond to in this thread in which I may more properly address your last point, about the slave's view and understanding.* Edit: Added bold to my italics for a clearer post.

HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 1:25:20 AM)
My responses are in bold and italics. quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper This theory of initial consent is the same line of thinking that made spousal rape legal, as by marrying you she consented to sex. Except in this case the hypothetical inability to leave the relationship stems from the slave's own mind and not necessarily from actions imposed by the Master. I consider the slave's mind broken after this degree of training. (Again, assuming the level of brainwashing presented by the site is possible.) As such, the slave loses the ability to consent or make proper decisions for itself. Therefore any decision the slave makes to stay or leave in moot. If I had a wife who believed fully that she consented to sex at anytime simply by being married and therefore gave it up whenever I asked, is it still an example of spousal rape? Am I raping her because she beleives she has to suck my cock even when she doesn't want to? *Let me clarfify your analogy.* *1) Wife who believes marriage is consenting to always having sex = slave who consents to be a slave with 0 rights.* *2) You having sex with said wife = Slave being used in "appropriate" matters.* *3) Wife not wanting to have sex = Slave not liking the situation.* No where in this analogy does either party want out. So no, it's not spousal rape. Lots of women begrudgingly have sex to get their man to stop poking them at 4:29 in the morning. If premise 3 were to say "Wife not wanting to have sex = Slave wanting to leave" then things would be different. A power exchange relationship is perfectly accepting of a slave not enjoying the dynamic. The question is the power to leave. Your decree of this as being blatantly unethical is all presupposed by the fact that the Master is taking advantage of the slave's mindset to do unethical things. 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. Sounds like pretty flawed inductive reasoning to me. [;)] *Now now, we all know that taking principles like informed consent and mental competence and bringing them down to a specific case, like slave ownership is perfectly deductable.* [:D]

HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 1:36:17 AM)
*My responses in bold and italics.* IE-type M/s relationships are not to be entered into lightly. Anyone who is considering submitting to this extent, knowing they will become totally dependent on another person - mentally and physically - needs to be damn sure the prospective owner accepts full responsibility for the well-being of the slave - mentally and physically. There is no "lack of consent." A slave in that type of relationship gives consent at some point to give up all rights and choices. Again, it is not something to be taken lightly or done hastily. The slave needs to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the owner can be trusted not to damage the slave before the unconditional consent is given. *Giving the warning that such a serious and important act is not to be done hastily is great advice, but it doesn't change the ethical issue at hand.* The degree of consent is just another point on the continuum of control. When a dominant ties up a sub and uses her for his pleasure, has he not taken away her choice to move about freely or to resist what he does to her? Don't dominants occasionally do things they know their subs do not enjoy? Isn't that what being the dominant about - being the one in control of the situation, making the decisions and choices? Keeping the safety and well-being of the sub in mind, but not acceding to the sub's every whim and desire? A continuum of control... A great concept, which is true. Yes, the bondage submissive consents her right to move freely. Yes, the sex doll gives up her right to choose sex partners. 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 consentual slavery anymore. It's 1855 in Alabama. Subs give consent, and give up choices and rights. Some choose to give up few of their rights, some give up more, and some are most content when they give up all of their rights. Who are you to tell them they are wrong for wanting that kind of relationship? Who am I... I am a believer in an objective right. Hence, I try hard to fight for that pipedream. If you'd like a thread in which subjective and objective ethics and the "duty" to intervene is discussed at length, click here. *I will by my own devil's advocate and bring up durable power of attorney. This all needs some thinking about.* *The REAL analogic question to defeat me is "Should people have the right to reverse transferred power of attorney at any time?"*

Owner4SexSlave -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 1:58:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper quote: ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam Just pointing out, without agreeing or disagreeing with them, that they also say this in their FAQ: "Internal Enslavement ("IE") is a collection of ideas about how to take possession of a slave, in a consensual context (ie where the submissive to be enslaved consents at the start of the process.)" So, there IS consent. Master Fire I don't believe people should consent to putting themselves in a position to where they will not have the faculties to consent. Assuming this works, it would be very dangerous if the slave's owner were not a top notch guy. This theory of initial consent is the same line of thinking that made spousal rape legal, as by marrying you she consented to sex. I have to toss my 2 cents at this one. The reality of the matter is that most D/s relationship are the intentional growth and development of a Co-Dependent relationship. I many cases it become emotionally difficult for a slave to simply pull the plug on their Dom/me and leave out the door. In fact the thought or fear of the relationship ending is so painful that they simply want to do anything and everything they can to keep and maintain the relationship. I'll go a step further, any relationship where two people have and form an actual bond. Consentualism starts to fade, where one does anything or everything to hold onto that relationship. In D/s relationships, it's amazing, the things people will do to keep that relationship. Yes, slaves/subs will end up doing things they never thought they would be doing. On the flip side, even some Dom/mes will do things they normally would not do otherwise. The reality of CoDependent bonds totally can over-ride consent. Hence why people stick with people that actually do abuse them for real. A lot of people have a hard time leaving a Loved One behind and deal with the Domestic violence. I'm not saying this a good thing. I'm just expressing this as a realism. Anybody, is free to leave any relationship any time that they want technically. However, if you love somebody so much, that you can't live without them, just how free are you really?

HeavansKeeper -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 2:14:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner4SexSlave Anybody, is free to leave any relationship any time that they want technically. However, if you love somebody so much, that you can't live without them, just how free are you really? Not free at all. I hesitate to say that "if someone wants out enough, they will get out" because it leads to blaming the victim, saying they choose to stay. If I add the caveat that the victims of domestic abuse are not of sound state of mind to make that decision, then the theory stays. Consent does get murky, even though we wish it to be clear all the time. Talking in realism, many times it doesn't matter. Rarely is consent given explicitely. "Do you consent to me putting my penis inside your body?" is a mood killer. (Even if it's done with some degree of subtly, consent is rarely brought up). Many people have to go with "if they didn't consent, they'd object. 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."

seababy -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 4:17:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeavansKeeper quote: ORIGINAL: Owner4SexSlave Anybody, is free to leave any relationship any time that they want technically. However, if you love somebody so much, that you can't live without them, just how free are you really? Not free at all. I hesitate to say that "if someone wants out enough, they will get out" because it leads to blaming the victim, saying they choose to stay. If I add the caveat that the victims of domestic abuse are not of sound state of mind to make that decision, then the theory stays. Consent does get murky, even though we wish it to be clear all the time. Talking in realism, many times it doesn't matter. Rarely is consent given explicitely. "Do you consent to me putting my penis inside your body?" is a mood killer. (Even if it's done with some degree of subtly, consent is rarely brought up). Many people have to go with "if they didn't consent, they'd object. 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."

SaraZeal -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 4:41:48 AM)
quote: 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. 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.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 5:59:55 AM)
~FR~ It is a good site, and has some good content. Natural slaves desire this level of ownership, and thrive in it very well. If the process is completed, it is one of the most beautiful relationships I have experienced.

pettingdragons -> RE: Internal Enslavement (7/20/2008 6:27:15 AM)
Are their un natural slaves?

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

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.078125