RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

January -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/7/2004 12:35:59 PM)

I've enjoyed reading this thread, particulary the interaction between you and Leonidas. I think your differing perspectives on why a slave agrees to be a slave are telling.

On the one hand, there's the pleasure of being owned. And on the other hand, there's the pleasure in serving.

Now I'm not a slave, and am not likely to be, but I do understand the concept of the selfless devotion inherent in serving. For one, in a good realtionship, the devotion is returned. Not in the same way, or in the same style. Maybe devotion is called responsibility in a master.

Devotion/service is also not a feeling, it's a doing. It's like love. Feeling love for someone without the behavior to back it up is just plain sentimental. Feeling devotion without actually serving is self-indulgent. Like love, devotion should grow with time. Like love, selfless serving can't be done in a play setting. Can you really "love" someone for just a weekend? Can you contract love? I don't think so.

I don't completely understand the joy in "being owned" (I don't want to be a table, either). I'm also not convinced you've given as much attention or thought to understanding the other side of the "dynamic" as you imagine you have. But clearly it's a lot of fun for many people.

Anyway, although you and Leonidas might use the same words, like master and being owned and slavery, I don't think you mean the same thing.

JMO,

January



darkinshadows -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/7/2004 1:18:31 PM)

Sorry for not responding sooner, Taggard...

quote:

Why would this be so? Why do things need to be permanent and without limits to be binding?


Firstly, I have not wished for people to believe I implied that within slavery, there are not or should be, no limits. If this is how You read, then I was not. Personally, I do not believe that anyone has 'no limits'... everyone has a limit be they Dominant, submissive, slave, switch, transves, gay, lesbien, transgen, fetishist or someone outside the Lifestyles we discuss here.

quote:

A realistic contract with clearly set limits and boundaries is so much more binding (in my eyes) than some fictional "unconditional" surrender.


I am not here to say what is best and what isnt better, what is fictional and what isnt... but I am here to listen to peoples thoughts to try to understand them better, even if I do not agree. I thank You for Your view.

quote:

No one surrenders unconditionally with no escape clause. It isn't even legally possible in the US or UK. At any time they can call the police and be escorted to safety. People can pretend, or they can embrace the reality of life and draw the lines clearly.]Do you want to pretend that you are a slave with no limits, or do you want to embrace the limits.


Personally I do not 'play' at anything. I am who and what I am and I take it very seriously. I have not claimed to be a slave, and I would appriciate it if You did not assume so. In my opinion, slaves are extremely valuble people I admire in awe their ability of surrender.

quote:

In my mind, a slave is one who loves to be owned. They may only want to be owned occasionally, or in scene. But when they play with those desires, they are desires that make them enjoy being owned.


If a person 'plays' slave for a scene... or is only a slave to someone for a few hours/days etc... I do see the use of a contract in this context... I can see how helpful and informative they can be. However...
quote:


Being a slave doesn't mean wanting to be a slave all the time.


I have to take real issue with this. I know people who have been slaves most of their life and know of no other way to be... they are born into slavery and will never be able to leave that behind. I of course understand that everyones definitions are individual and unique. But You have generalized something that just isnt true in my opinion. Its this kind of generalisation that makes a mockery of BDSM. The whole point of this Lifestyle is to be accepting of peoples 'kinks' but to say that a slave isnt a slave all the time is demeaning of slaves. I hate using the term 'real' or 'true' but the whole meaning of the word slave is someone who is held captive for the soul purpose of serving another with no thought of payment, be it monetary or sexual. That is slavery. That isnt pretend. I am sorry if this come across as strong worded...


quote:

Clearly defining limits and expectations does not make one any less of a slave.


Indeed it doesnt... OF COURSE it doesnt... but being a slave and surrendering to a Dominants will is understanding that the Dominant will push and release those limits at the Dominants Will... not the slaves. If she was raped anally years ago she may have anal sex as a limit... or rape play as a limit... If she surrendered to someone who wasnt aware of this... then thats her mistake... the Domiant should know of this limit... work with her on it... show and teach her properly...pushing her and releasing her beyond that limit.... in His own time and His own Will. If its a limit she does not wish to pass through(Hard Limit)... the Master would and Should ALREADY KNOW THAT... and she would surrender knowing He wont even push that.

quote:

I am an enigma, wrapped in a riddle...

*wink*

Yours,
Taggard


Winston Churchill's radio broadcast was

*...It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.*

[:D]



darkinshadows -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/7/2004 4:27:14 PM)

Thank You ND for replying and forgive me missing out responding to you...

I do agree with you, it is totally down to individuals... and I love hearing the views of others.

Be well



darkinshadows -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/7/2004 4:30:17 PM)

Thank You deannalynn...

Angel appriciates you taking the time to respond with your own very well written point of view... I am most grateful

Peace for Your Path...



darkinshadows -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/7/2004 4:41:07 PM)

January...

I thank You for such a wonderful post... I do believe You are so right... that the differences between what the labels are, exist... my concern is on that though... does this harm BDSM, or enhance it?

...hmmmmm... maybe I should begin a different thread...*giggles*

Hoping Your journey is full and peaceful



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/7/2004 7:27:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

quote:

ORIGINAL: me
Being a slave doesn't mean wanting to be a slave all the time.


I have to take real issue with this. I know people who have been slaves most of their life and know of no other way to be... they are born into slavery and will never be able to leave that behind. I of course understand that everyones definitions are individual and unique. But You have generalized something that just isnt true in my opinion.


Then we would disagree. I see nothing about a slave who has served 24/7 all their lives that makes someone who only indulges their slave desires occasionally any less of a slave. I am a professional dancer. For 5 years I danced 2 hours a day, every day. Yet, I would never say that those who didn't dance as much as I did were any less "dancers." Being a dancer, in my eyes, is about loving to move your body to music, if you do it once a month or once a day.

Slavery works the same way in my eyes. It is the desire that is born within that creates and makes a slave, not their timesheet of service.

Again, I don't think anyone has just pure "slave" desires. I think bottoms have mixes of slave, sub, and masochist desires. Check out my bdsm page (http://bdsm.taggard.net) if you are curious, as I ramble on about the three aspects there.

quote:


Its this kind of generalisation that makes a mockery of BDSM. The whole point of this Lifestyle is to be accepting of peoples 'kinks' but to say that a slave isnt a slave all the time is demeaning of slaves.


A mockery? hmmm...you'd have to explain just how I did that. Not that making a mockery of BDSM is something I would be adverse to doing. If you can't mock yourself, who can you mock?

When did I say a slave wasn't a slave? I said a slave is more than someone who serves 24/7. I said a slave is what a person is, not what a person does. My idea of slave is just a bit more inclusive than yours.

quote:


I hate using the term 'real' or 'true' but the whole meaning of the word slave is someone who is held captive for the soul purpose of serving another with no thought of payment, be it monetary or sexual. That is slavery.


Oh, I must have missed the meeting of all BDSM participants where this definition was agreed on by everyone. For I surely would not have accepted it if I was there...*wink*

My definition of slave is one who desires to be owned. Nothing about being held captive. Nothing about thoughts of payment or lack thereof. Desire to be owned, that is the core of consensual slavery.

Yours,
Taggard



darkinshadows -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 9:38:01 AM)

Taggard...

Not in any time have I generalized. Nor have I at any time said that a person who serves for an hour a day is any less a slave... ... read back and I think You will find You generalized alot more.. Maybe You read my words wrong... maybe I read Yours wrong also...(I am far from perfect)... but then... isnt that all the more enjoyable?...*laughs softly*

quote:


Again, I don't think anyone has just pure "slave" desires.


Indeed, You can think what You wish. But again Your generalizing. I would not dream in painting everyone with the same stereotype... some do.. some do not... But if it is in Your thoughts that every slave is the same... You have Your opinion and I can respect that.

quote:

A mockery? hmmm...you'd have to explain just how I did that. Not that making a mockery of BDSM is something I would be adverse to doing. If you can't mock yourself, who can you mock?


I do enjoy a good laugh... I love laughing at myself. Goodness, I need to at times... gosh...*laughing*... But I dont ever do anything unconsensual... so I wouldnt mock or laugh at others at all. But if that makes You happy, I am sure You will continue and I wish You blessing in such.

quote:

Oh, I must have missed the meeting of all BDSM participants where this definition was agreed on by everyone. For I surely would not have accepted it if I was there...*wink*



I dont remember this being agreed apon... but that is the written meaning of the word slave.(check out your dictionary) Maybe if You had wiped up the blood from the scars of a 'slave' You wouldnt generalize quite as much. I was merely pointing out what the meaning of slave(in the outside world) is... then You might not use the word so flipantly...

quote:

My definition of slave is one who desires to be owned. Nothing about being held captive. Nothing about thoughts of payment or lack thereof. Desire to be owned, that is the core of consensual slavery.


Again... YOUR view... not upheld by everyone... but nonetheless it is Your view and interesting and I respect You for that. However, seeing as You are not a slave(unless I am mistaken)... I do not see how You can say what a slaves thoughts on being one is... each slave is different... each slave is individual... there are sexual... ones who desire to be owned... ones who desire purely to serve... Myself... I would not judge why one person submits or why one surrenders... but, If You feel You must...whatever floats your boat I guess...*w*



topcat -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 10:01:04 AM)

quote:

Anyway, although you and Leonidas might use the same words, like master and being owned and slavery, I don't think you mean the same thing.


"jou keep using tat word... I do no tink it means what jou tink it means..."

-Inigo Montoya



Leonidas -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 10:03:03 AM)

Ahhhhhhhhhh!!! No princess bride please. Seen it 723 times (daughter who loved it).

Leonidas



darkinshadows -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 10:08:18 AM)

*squeals*...OMGooooooooooooooosh...

I LOVE that Film...

(also love Mr Patinkin... but there ya goes....lol)



Thanatosian -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 12:30:39 PM)

but what about the "as you wish = I love you" line - to me that pretty much sums up the whole Master/slave/Dom/sub relationship in a nutshell - the submissive party is in effect saying 'I am doing/undergoing/accepting this because I love you and want to make you happy, therefore as you wish'

just my helpless romantic view of it



LadyBeckett -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 1:44:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WayHome

Leonidas, I think that the solution to your present mystry is pretty simple. Perhaps Taggard in not threatenned by what you do, but instead, offended by your atitude towards what he does. You don't even seem to recognize your own condescension, which pervades most of your posts.


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha He hasn't missed a thing!!! That's what makes him so delicious!!! [;)]



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 5:32:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel
Not in any time have I generalized.


And where did I claim you did? I don't think there is anything wrong with generalizations (other than as Mark Twain said "all generalizations are wrong, even this one"). I love them like I love labels. They help make sense of a pretty senseless world. We all build inaccurate models of the world with which to understand it. Generalizations and labels are two of those modeling techniques.

quote:


Nor have I at any time said that a person who serves for an hour a day is any less a slave... ... read back and I think You will find You generalized alot more..


Why are you so anti-generalization? They can be really helpful as long as it is understood that even the best generalization will have exceptions. Did you have some kind of horrible generalization trauma as a child? *wink*

If you read my post above, I stated that "Being a slave doesn't mean wanting to be a slave all the time." To which you responded "I have to take real issue with this." and went on to talk about slaves you have known who serve all the time.

Perhaps we have a simple problem of logic and set theory here. What I am saying is that the set of all slaves includes both those who serve all the time and only an hour a year. I did not say "Being a slave means not wanting to be a slave all the time." I said that both were slaves, perhaps that is where you misunderstood.


quote:


Indeed, You can think what You wish.


Thanks!! *smile*

quote:


But again Your generalizing. I would not dream in painting everyone with the same stereotype... some do.. some do not... But if it is in Your thoughts that every slave is the same... You have Your opinion and I can respect that.


I am not generalizing (though there would be nothing wrong if I were), I am defining and categorizing. I defined "slave" (which, to be fair is short and for "consensual slave", the other kind of "slave" is quite repulsive to me) as those who felt the desire to be owned. I then said you must feel that desire to be a consensual slave in my eyes. Now you may not agree with that definition, but it doesn't change my categorazation scheme. You may .know people who call themselves slaves who feel no desire to be owned. I wouldn't call them slaves, no matter how much they protested. I have a definition and I sort people by my definition.

quote:


I dont remember this being agreed apon... but that is the written meaning of the word slave.(check out your dictionary) Maybe if You had wiped up the blood from the scars of a 'slave' You wouldnt generalize quite as much. I was merely pointing out what the meaning of slave(in the outside world) is... then You might not use the word so flipantly...


Which dictionary? Why that one? Why are we letting people have no idea of WIITWD define WIITWD? The dictionary definition of "slave" is for a non-consensual slave. I don't play that way, so that definition of the word has all but been forgotten. When I say "slave" I mean "consensual slave", and when I say "consensual slave" I mean someone who feels a desire to be owned.

quote:


Again... YOUR view...


But who's view am I supposed to have? Even if I take another's view as my own, it becomes my view....no?

quote:


However, seeing as You are not a slave(unless I am mistaken)... I do not see how You can say what a slaves thoughts on being one is...


Why would I need to be a slave to define what a slave is? I'm not a cleptomaniac, but I know that they feel a compulsive need to steal.

quote:


each slave is different... each slave is individual... there are sexual... ones who desire to be owned... ones who desire purely to serve...


I think those who purely want to serve should have their own category...I am going to update my webpage. They are servants, not slaves. See, a new definition and category is born.

I have been tumbling this idea around in my mind since May, and that is the obvious answer. There are 4 draws to BDSM

quote:


Myself... I would not judge why one person submits or why one surrenders... but, If You feel You must...whatever floats your boat I guess...*w*


I am not judging, I am categorizing. (Not that there is anything wrong with judging.) People who want to be owned are slaves, people who want to serve without being owned are servants, people who want to be forced are subs and people who want to experience pain as pleasure are masochists. They have their compliments in Owners, Masters, Dominants and Sadists.

Awesome...I am off to re-write my BDSM page and checklist.

Yours,
Taggard



January -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 6:43:17 PM)

quote:

People who want to be owned are slaves, people who want to serve without being owned are servants, people who want to be forced are subs and people who want to experience pain as pleasure are masochists.


Can't you just call a person who wants to be owned a table or a chair? At least then the definition of a slave can remain as is.



LadyBeckett -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 6:47:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: January

quote:

People who want to be owned are slaves, people who want to serve without being owned are servants, people who want to be forced are subs and people who want to experience pain as pleasure are masochists.


Can't you just call a person who wants to be owned a table or a chair?


That would be an objectionist. [;)]



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/8/2004 7:23:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: January
Can't you just call a person who wants to be owned a table or a chair? At least then the definition of a slave can remain as is.


The problem is that there is no one definition of "consensual slave." There are as many as there are people who say the word. Now, if there could be an objective definition, and its use caught on, there could be actual useful conversation on the topics of consensual slavery, service, submission, and masochism, instead of so much banter about what the words themselves mean.

That was the entire purpose of dictionaries in the beginning, to standardize the language.

Yours,
Taggard



MzBerlin -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/9/2004 1:21:18 AM)

OFF TOPIC

My fave. line from TPB is "Life IS pain, Highness...."
As Always-
Berlin



darkinshadows -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/9/2004 4:50:48 AM)

quote:

I am not judging, I am categorizing. (Not that there is anything wrong with judging.)


?????

quote:

Why are you so anti-generalization? They can be really helpful as long as it is understood that even the best generalization will have exceptions. Did you have some kind of horrible generalization trauma as a child? *wink*


Like I said before... laugh at yourself however much you wish(I think You need to)... but do not do things that are no consensual. Your attempt at 'humour' will only embarress Yourself.

gosh... I just love contrary people... ...*giggling as she contemplates petnaming him mary...*

(better check the dictionary...opps... no you can't..oh, yes you can... opps...no... yes...ummm)

Peace on Your Journey...Be Well



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/9/2004 7:23:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

quote:

I am not judging, I am categorizing. (Not that there is anything wrong with judging.)


quote:

Why are you so anti-generalization? They can be really helpful as long as it is understood that even the best generalization will have exceptions. Did you have some kind of horrible generalization trauma as a child? *wink*


gosh... I just love contrary people... ...*giggling as she contemplates petnaming him mary...*


Could you kindly explain where you see the contradiction? Do you think that judging, generalizing, and categorizing mean the same thing? Here are the terms I used and the meaning I apply to them:

Judging: to place a value on something. Example: This ice cream is good.

Categorizing: to place somthing within a defined category. Example: This is ice cream, because it is frozen cream and other ingredients made in a specific way.

Generalizing: to make a broad statement about all things based on one thing: All ice cream is yummy! (All generalizations are false, even this one.)

Now, since I have been so kind as to answer your questions, how about you answer a few of mine. Why are you so anti-generalization? Do you think that judging things is wrong? Do you understand the difference between categorization and generalization?

Many thanks.

Yours,
Taggard



afmvdp -> RE: Contracts(AGAIN*LOL*) (8/9/2004 8:47:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

The problem is that there is no one definition of "consensual slave."



That's because that is an oxymoron and does not exist.

con·sen·su·al
Pronunciation: k&n-'sen-ch&-w&l a.
1: existing or made by mutual consent without any further act (as a writing)
2: involving or based on mutual consent <consensual sexual intercourse>

Slave
Pronunciation: slav n.
1: One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2: One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

Thus if you are bound or adject to servitude than it cannot be consensual. Thereby it just doesn't work. A Slave is owned by his/her Master, they are their property to do with as they please. They do NOT have the power that you seem to be instilling into the process. I know it's cute and catchy to call it funfuck slavery but it's just not. It's submission, yes without a doubt but not Slavery. That is a much deeper level that does not need a contract, a referendum, a summary, or any other doctrine as they would be trivial and meaningless.

To look at it from a logic minds eye, as a Slave it is comparitive to the legal form of Power of attorney. Thereby if your Master alone owns the right to make the decisions for you and sign said contracts then the Master could then essentially write any contract he wants and sign it himself under full legality as they ALONE control your ability to make that decision.

I am not stating that someone cannot submit or choose to live a life as a Slave, that is undenied, just that as a Slave to go into it with an idea of boundaries, play scenes, contractual obligations under section F paragraph 3 subsection 239 that Lube shall be applied only liberally under designation of the US state Sexuality office. I mean come on, that's just silly man...no lube at all! Oh wait...no that's not what we're talking about.

To each their own, I understand your love of contracts. I should let you see some of my papers and written responses...but that is Dominant/submissive not Master/slave. It's a modern bastardization of positions and term usage. It's just much more popular for someone to wake up one day, put on a Leather Petes cap and call themselves a Master without needing to live the life of a Dominant.

/end of line



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.078125E-02