quote:

ORIGINAL: CelticPrince

Is there a understanding that a " master"/"mistress" carries the power of ultimate right to do as he/she desires. Does the sub/slave understand that if she or he is to be loaned out to friends for sexual pleasure or any other service; that it is to be complied with.
for myself i do not think there is an awareness but i look to others for their thoughts, be yee " D " or " s" .

CP

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: CelticPrince

Is there a understanding that a " master"/"mistress" carries the power of ultimate right to do as he/she desires. Does the sub/slave understand that if she or he is to be loaned out to friends for sexual pleasure or any other service; that it is to be complied with.
for myself i do not think there is an awareness but i look to others for their thoughts, be yee " D " or " s" .

CP

Perhaps it's a matter of the code by which you abide.

Two people could certainly come to an agreement to the effect that, as one partner possesses the other, one has the 'right' to take the life of the other (possession is tangible, so can be argued to be more of a right than access to welfare). Obviously, it wouldn't be recognised as a legal right under the rule of law. I suppose the difference is that whereas property belongs to you by virtue of a recognised title, a partner does not (outside of your own codes).

I'm not convinced that such 'rights' are meaningful, on the grounds that I doubt very much any person would put themselves in a situation where one partner is serious about resorting to the said 'right'.

In terms of loaning someone, well, I think the trick is to understand what you're getting yourself into, regardless of the concept of rights. Yes, you have the power to so do; she has the power/civil right to walk away. Edited to add: and that goes for both partners - there's no use in crying foul because you've chosen a partner who wasn't good for her word.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wordstoponder

I suppose I am one of those girls who stumbled upon CM, and soon after joining, found the "One" that I want to serve.  This was over a year ago, and I am still very happy with my choice.

Each D/s relationship is different, and the "rules" depend on what each individual agrees upon.  Also, most relationships grow from a seed, with many limits untested, into a flower, expanding beyond limits. 

quote:

 
It simply focuses on the recognition of ultimate rights contained in a Master/Mistress relationship and certainly did not address patently illegal actions.

CP

quote:

ORIGINAL: CelticPrince

quote:

ORIGINAL: wordstoponder

I suppose I am one of those girls who stumbled upon CM, and soon after joining, found the "One" that I want to serve.  This was over a year ago, and I am still very happy with my choice.

Each D/s relationship is different, and the "rules" depend on what each individual agrees upon.  Also, most relationships grow from a seed, with many limits untested, into a flower, expanding beyond limits. 

words,

You did not indicate if he is yourMaster or Sir;
CP

quote:

ORIGINAL: CelticPrince

NG,

I do not know if you took the 40 hours it would take to read this thread. It has evolved into personal arguements on things never intended in the original post. things such as taking a life etc etc .
It simply focuses on the recognition of ultimate rights contained in a Master/Mistress relationship and certainly did not address patently illegal actions.

CP

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie

quote:

ORIGINAL: CelticPrince

quote:

ORIGINAL: wordstoponder

I suppose I am one of those girls who stumbled upon CM, and soon after joining, found the "One" that I want to serve.  This was over a year ago, and I am still very happy with my choice.

Each D/s relationship is different, and the "rules" depend on what each individual agrees upon.  Also, most relationships grow from a seed, with many limits untested, into a flower, expanding beyond limits. 

words,

You did not indicate if he is yourMaster or Sir;
CP

Does it matter which?  I still don't get the difference. I call mine both depending on the situation and how I feel. Does that mean that sometimes I am a sub and sometimes a slave?

quote:

ORIGINAL: InTonguesslut

quote:

 
It simply focuses on the recognition of ultimate rights contained in a Master/Mistress relationship and certainly did not address patently illegal actions.

CP

Perhaps this is why it degenerated into the carnage and mayhem it did. It stands to reason that someone, somewhere, sometime would say legally there are no 'rights' in a D/s relationship. Let's face it legally you don't have the right to make your slave do anything, be anything, say anything etc etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

I think both the submissive vs. slave and "no limits" things are mostly a matter of how you phrase things. Intonguesslave and Intonguesslut both have made it pretty clear that they are using "no limits" to mean "our limits are compatible with our Dom/we trust him." In some of my past relationships, limits never really came up, primarily because we *weren't* doing anything really extreme, and discussed things before doing them most of the time. That doesn't mean that we were truly "no limits," just that we were compatible.

I view submission and slavery (in the BDSM sense) as being a bit different, but I have used that phrasing during playtime, and don't have any problem with people choosing the descriptors they prefer, even if they don't mean the same thing by them that I do. It only is relevant to me if they are getting involved with me. I might disagree with their definition, but I'm not going to get all worked up over it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: greeneyedreamer

Well, are you aware that some of us actually communicate for quite a while before we consent to be anyone's Submissive? LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Dang, looks like a great thread.  Sorry I missed it. 
 
Personally, I divide the issue into two facets.
 
1.  First, as it relates to power, I have my personal power and whatever power over her that she (consensually) grants to me (often stated as the authority to exercise control).
 
2.  Within the context of my own relationships, I have the right to exercise my control in any way I wish... within reason.  Of course, that requires that we have a mutual understanding of what is, and isn't, "reasonable" (I have consistently agreed that death and dismemberment is unreasonable).  And the fact is that what constitutes "reasonable" often evolves over time as the relationship deepens, and our mutual experiences expand. 
 
John

quote:

ORIGINAL: CelticPrince
thanks for your thoughts; the key point of the initial thread was communications prior to commitment which is lacking in any depth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

quote:

ORIGINAL: CelticPrince
thanks for your thoughts; the key point of the initial thread was communications prior to commitment which is lacking in any depth.

Like I mentioned in my post, I've been in a couple of relationships where we really didn't communicate much about limits beforehand, and only once or twice in the course of the relationship. We focused more on what we *DID* want to do than what we didn't want to do. If something came up that one of us didn't want, we'd put it off until we had a chance to communicate about it. We'd come up with an alternative, or change things enough to make it work, or skip it, depending on what the outcome was.