RE: what is TPE 24/7?

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: what is TPE 24/7?

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: what is TPE 24/7?

Page: << < prev 25 26 27 [28] 29 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/9/2009 1:05:29 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Surrenderwithin

I see your point, but this specific facet of my persona is not present without him. Prior to him, I have never felt or became what I am now. Even if I wanted to leave him, and my status, I am unable to make that choice. Even when I try, and I have, I failed. I have now accepted that. Maybe it is a form of stockholm syndrome... but it is what is.

Then you would be another example of the word "slave" being accurate in a non-figurative sense.

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Surrenderwithin)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/9/2009 2:43:44 AM

Posts: 352
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Surrenderwithin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eigenaar

What you are saying here is that what Carol and you have is TPE 24/7 and that this is the same as slavery ''in some earlier time or different place''. Thruth is it is not the same and never will be. Having no choice is not the same as having a choice and Carol has a choice those (slaves) ''in some earlier time or different place where slavery was culturally allowed'' have not. This is what Lucienne is referring to and what some here overlook.

I am not going to be obtuse and make it sound as if I miss your point. I get your point and I hear what you are saying. Fundamentally, I agree.

However, I am a slave. I am not capable of choosing not to be a slave. I cannot turn it off. Trust me, if I could, there are times that I would. I do not have a choice in the matter. It is who I am.

You can argue that legally I have a choice. However, legally I do not. I am not allowed to choose slavery. Now, legally, my Master cannot hold me against my will. That, I will admit. However, lets face it, the law has nothing to do with slavery in the manner in which we live it.
I, too, see my enslavement as complete as slavery was in the days gone by. I am NOT by any measure embracing forced slavery, but to me it is not a choice. A choice indicates that I can, have the ability, to choose. I do not. I am a slave.

Incorrect. Your dominant partner did not buy you from an entrepeneur, you were neither given to him as a birthday present. You are not a legal slave; being a slave is not about turning it on and/or off or being who/what you identify with, this would mean the general slave in earlier days felt the same way as you and this is not the case. I referred to the assertion ''TPE 24/7 is legal slavery'', not what you might feel what/who you are. You may feel not being able to leave your partner whereas a legal slave did not have the right to leave the owner. You are not doing things justice not making this distinction. That ''the law has nothing to do with slavery in the manner in which we live it'' is not correct either. You would have to define that to make it valid.

< Message edited by Eigenaar -- 10/9/2009 3:01:06 AM >

(in reply to Surrenderwithin)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/9/2009 6:43:27 AM

Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

They both come back to the same points, though. Barring the loose means we have to denounce someone as incompetent, we seek to relieve someone of an act which brings them happiness.

Well if we're talking about Daddysprop in particular, then the 'denounced as incompetent' would apply.

If we're talking in general, what do you think the litmus test is for incompetence? Seeing as how incompetent means basically, "shouldn't make their own decisions because those decisions will endanger self or others."

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Age as a means of determining capacity for consent is a really sticky topic. This is why I've just been going under the accepted stance that we treat minors of a certain age as presumed to be incapable of it (until a thread dealing with the topic comes up and we end up with just as many pages as we have here!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Is there really any difference between inability to consent due to age and inability to consent due to severe emotional imbalance, or is it just that the general umbrella of kinks you prefer is being breached?

There is no easy answer to that. It's a genuinely poignant question and one that gets often shunned into being treated like a 'porn' issue ("I know it when I see it"); a response which is intellectually flaccid and not really informative or useful at all.

I think our agreement on this quoted bit is the closest we're going to come to any sort of consensus.

< Message edited by Elisabella -- 10/9/2009 6:46:04 AM >

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/11/2009 1:28:02 PM

Posts: 56
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

...but only one of us is proposing a system that tells or mandates other people to act a certain way, even if their actions are consensual.

This is the point that seems to be getting lost in this whole discussion. From what has been posted, DaddysProp's Master actively and deliberately had her declared mentally and/or emotionally incompetent. It wasn't an uninvited outside entity that took it upon itself to make a judgment about their relationship. It was her Master (from within the relationship) stating that she is incompetent, thereby stating that she is not able to give consent. At this point her Master has now stated that the relationship is unconsensual.

It cannot cut both ways. You can't have on one hand her Master stating that she is incompetent, and then at the same time, saying it is a consensual relationship.

This is the crucial point that is getting lost in the melee that is shifting this focus on that point to calling the posters who have raised this concern "do-gooders" and "crusaders" and "white knights." I think it is very dangerous for this point to be lost unless those who are doing so are actually advocating for non-consensual relationships.

For example, IrishMist posted about her relationship where she willingly engaged in activities that I personally would consider extreme for myself. However, the key difference is that, from my reading, IrishMist consented in these activities, and I fully support and defend her right to do so.

The crucial distinction in DaddysProp case is her relationship, based on her Master's actions in declaring her incompetent, is unconsensual, whereas IrishMist's was consensual. This disctinction is not being imposed by an outside entity, but by DaddysProp's Master....and THAT key fact is what makes this relationship unconsensual.

_____________________________

Aislyn

Life is short. bend the rules, forgive quicky, kiss slowly, love truly, laugh uncontrollably, and never regret anything that made you smile.

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/11/2009 4:54:12 PM

Posts: 43
Joined: 2/20/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AislynLass
The crucial distinction in DaddysProp case is her relationship, based on her Master's actions in declaring her incompetent, is unconsensual, whereas IrishMist's was consensual. This disctinction is not being imposed by an outside entity, but by DaddysProp's Master....and THAT key fact is what makes this relationship unconsensual.

In my opinion, whether or not the relationship is now non-consensual would depend on why he had her declared incompetent: maybe he did so in order for her to live a life as a slave with no rights. Did she fight his decision, argue that she was competent? I think more information would be needed before declaring her relationship non-consensual due to her master's legal guardianship.

(in reply to AislynLass)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/11/2009 11:37:32 PM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AislynLass

It was her Master (from within the relationship) stating that she is incompetent, thereby stating that she is not able to give consent.

His doing so (regardless of reason) is irrelevant as much as a Master heavy into puppy-play telling his sub that she is henceforth a dog nullifies her being actually human.

The question of whether she is intellectually and psychologically able to consent is the only gray area (and, yet again, this is really difficult to delve into considering how soft a science psychology is). Despite people aghast at some of her commentaries or experiences, her method of expression, her ability to understand what she is and where she is, and her ability to eloquently demonstrate the linear and honest reasons why she is in her dynamic all speak of a mind that is competently aware of her situation, herself and her place not just in her relationship but in life in general.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 10/11/2009 11:38:38 PM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to AislynLass)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/11/2009 11:56:12 PM

Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: AislynLass

It was her Master (from within the relationship) stating that she is incompetent, thereby stating that she is not able to give consent.

His doing so (regardless of reason) is irrelevant as much as a Master heavy into puppy-play telling his sub that she is henceforth a dog nullifies her being actually human.

Your comparison would only be valid if a court of law declared the sub a dog and ruled that from now on she'd have the legal rights of a dog.

Kinda like a court ruled on Daddysprop's mental incompetence.

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/12/2009 12:04:13 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Your comparison would only be valid if a court of law declared the sub a dog and ruled that from now on she'd have the legal rights of a dog.

Which would never happen. Which is the point. Him declaring her a "dog" (and thereby supposedly absolving her of the ability to genuinely consent, since dogs cannot) does not actually affect the ethical structures that comprise the capacity to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Kinda like a court ruled on Daddysprop's mental incompetence.

Which makes for an interesting legal discussion. However, we can look back to when cultural slavery was legal in the US (or another country) and say that the legality of it was not genuinely relevant to whether the sentient being was able to consent.

Bringing in the legal issue makes for a lot of red tape discussions, but if we genuinely care about the status of the emotional and intellectual innards of the people in this community, such discussions are moot.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 10/12/2009 12:05:37 AM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Elisabella)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/12/2009 12:08:31 AM

Posts: 5521
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Chico, Nor-Cali
Status: offline

Independent of all the arguments going on in this thread, having dealt with the mental health system & the legal aspects of it from different angles (institutionalized patient, relative of institutionalized patients, etc, etc), I have to say that having some psychiatrists & / or judges declare someone incompetent is something I'd only partly weigh in my own evaluation of competence.

I know it got lost in the ongoing melee, but earlier I made mention of Frances Farmer & those concerns still ring strong every time I hear someone pointing to 'court adjudged incompetence' as some kind of definitive evidence of mental health issues . . . . .

Maybe, maybe not, is what I'm sayin' . . . . . .

(in reply to Elisabella)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/12/2009 12:15:41 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

Since I think most of the people here, regardless of their position in the discussion, are approaching it from a position of actually "caring" (with differing views of how best to exemplify it):

Let's say that an individual chooses to be in a situation that s/he interprets as making him/her happy, but all supposed authoritative entities determine the individual to be incapable of capably making that decision (and we'll say that this situation the individual is in happens to be one that is consensual with the other people involved). Even if that's the case, under what presumptions do we advocate the motion to remove the individual from the situation that makes them happy?

Ultimately, happiness is an emotional interpretation of the status of the environment around us. It has no rules other than those we create (just like listening to NSync for hours on repeat may indeed make someone happy...while it would be absolute torture for me).

This issue, at its heart, lies in the discussion of whether there is a universal 'thing' that trumps someone's declaration of being happy to where we can forcibly expel them from engaging in that situation and/or possibly medicate them to change the chemical reactions that make them interpret that situation as "happy".

So...what is the universal thing that trumps someone's happiness?

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 10/12/2009 12:21:30 AM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/12/2009 6:34:55 AM

Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Your comparison would only be valid if a court of law declared the sub a dog and ruled that from now on she'd have the legal rights of a dog.

Which would never happen. Which is the point. Him declaring her a "dog" (and thereby supposedly absolving her of the ability to genuinely consent, since dogs cannot) does not actually affect the ethical structures that comprise the capacity to do so.

You're comparing a to b. Declaring something obviously physically impossible isn't the same as declaring something that could possibly be true. The former is automatically false. The latter requires more information.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Kinda like a court ruled on Daddysprop's mental incompetence.

Which makes for an interesting legal discussion. However, we can look back to when cultural slavery was legal in the US (or another country) and say that the legality of it was not genuinely relevant to whether the sentient being was able to consent.

Except we're not talking about declaring someone incompetent because of their skin color or their legal status at birth. It's based solely on a person's behaviour, past and present, and judged on an individual, case by case basis.

I hate to keep jumping back to this point, but the law saying a sentient person is not capable of consent is really the only objective measuring stick we have here. People don't automatically gain sentience, morality and a sense of self preservation at the age of 18 but in many jurisdictions that birthday makes the difference between consent and non-consent. If we're going to throw away one legal standard because we don't personally believe it's valid, why keep any of them at all? Why not say consent is consent is consent, whether the person's a minor agreeing to sex or a bank teller with a gun to his head or an alzheimers patient who signed her life savings over to an unscrupulous attendant...or a legally incompetent person who is in a violent relationship? If they all consented, circumstances be damned, right?

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/12/2009 7:20:38 AM

Posts: 352
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Your comparison would only be valid if a court of law declared the sub a dog and ruled that from now on she'd have the legal rights of a dog.

Which would never happen. Which is the point. Him declaring her a "dog" (and thereby supposedly absolving her of the ability to genuinely consent, since dogs cannot) does not actually affect the ethical structures that comprise the capacity to do so.

What would never happen? Human beings have been declared animals in the past. And how would 'him declaring her a ''dog'' not actually affect the ethical structures that comprise the capacity to do' what?

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/12/2009 7:30:00 AM

Posts: 2492
Joined: 1/25/2009
Status: offline

I have some very serious concerns about daddysprop's ability to consent, due to her age when she got involved with him, and her being declared legally incompetent. She comes across as very intelligent, and seems to have things together more than she did at the time. It's quite possible that she could pass a competency hearing now, but hasn't chosen to take one. Even children who are abused (in non-BDSM/non-sexual ways) and many victims of outright domestic violence don't want their abuser to be jailed, or it would be outright detrimental to them in many ways (for example if they are dependent financially for their well-being). I don't think just reporting him is a good answer, but I do think that she should look into getting a competency hearing, or get someone else to be her legal guardian while she continues her relationship with him. In her current circumstances, if he continues doing things that put her in the hospital, someone's bound to get suspicious even if she keeps on lying. At that point, she might be removed more forcibly from his custody, or he might even be jailed.

(in reply to Elisabella)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/12/2009 8:02:49 AM

Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

I hate to keep jumping back to this point, but the law saying a sentient person is not capable of consent is really the only objective measuring stick we have here.

Circular reasoning: "the law is right because it's the law".

If we genuinely care about the betterment of other people and settle for using an incompetent and malleable measuring stick to gauge their ability to be happy because we're too lazy to dig deeper, then we're not really concerned about their happiness at all.

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Elisabella)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/12/2009 10:54:41 AM

Posts: 352
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

I hate to keep jumping back to this point, but the law saying a sentient person is not capable of consent is really the only objective measuring stick we have here.

Circular reasoning: "the law is right because it's the law".

If we genuinely care about the betterment of other people and settle for using an incompetent and malleable measuring stick to gauge their ability to be happy because we're too lazy to dig deeper, then we're not really concerned about their happiness at all.

You mean you are willing to break your partner's limbs to make her happy and should the hospital treat her before a ''serious'' patient! daddysprop claims she would probably not be released if she would ask for it and that she finds this right since she once agreed upon being property. Where is your happiness there? You seem to try to say nature knows no ethics, if I am right than why do you mention mutual consent and quote the dictionary and deny ethics and opinion when others appeal to them?

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 10/12/2009 3:53:22 PM

Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

I hate to keep jumping back to this point, but the law saying a sentient person is not capable of consent is really the only objective measuring stick we have here.

Circular reasoning: "the law is right because it's the law".

If we genuinely care about the betterment of other people and settle for using an incompetent and malleable measuring stick to gauge their ability to be happy because we're too lazy to dig deeper, then we're not really concerned about their happiness at all.

That wasn't my reasoning actually. I didn't say the law is objectively right, in fact my past posts have implied that I think it's at times pretty arbitrary.

What it is, however, is an objective guideline to determine these things. It's also reflective of the society that codified it - the law only applies on that soil. It's part of the social contract.

My reasoning is, if you're going to throw out one bit that explains how to judge whether a person is able to consent, why keep the rest of it? Why keep the age limits, or the can't-change-your-will-if-you're-senile bit?

I'm sure the nice elderly lady with Alzheimers would argue that giving all her money to the nurse she's had for 6 days is what really makes her happy. Which again is why I keep harping on Daddysprop's guardian in this. A senile woman can offer me her entire savings, and I'd turn her down and notify her family. From his taking advantage of Daddysprop I wouldn't be surprised if he'd also see no problem with accepting an Alzheimer's patient's savings. After all, the woman said it's what she wanted to do, no?

< Message edited by Elisabella -- 10/12/2009 3:55:11 PM >

(in reply to NihilusZero)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 11/17/2010 8:19:42 PM

xssve

Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

"Consent" is utterly irrelevant, except as legal fiction.

agreed. as the.dark. has mentioned here and many times in the past, consent as used within this lifestyle is no more than a fuzzy kitty buzzword to make D/s and BDSM seem more palatable. the reality is that it's an extremely fuzzy concept at best, and moreover a rather irrelevant one in this context.

Well this is the kind of "fuzzy" crap tha bugs me - consent is a legal fiction, true, so is murder, in fact all law in the Anglo-Saxon legal system is pretty much based on the concept of legal fiction, but it doesn't make murder - or consent, "irrelevant", and there are practical reasons for that other than keeping lawyers and philosophers employed.

It's not fuzzy at all, unless unless you're a nihilist, or you don't know what having a choice is apparently.

(in reply to Elisabella)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 11/18/2010 5:15:18 AM

Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline

You brought back a year old thread for this?

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!

(in reply to xssve)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 11/18/2010 6:21:29 AM

xssve

Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline

It was a accident.

(in reply to DesFIP)

RE: what is TPE 24/7? - 11/18/2010 7:18:11 AM

Posts: 4666
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

You brought back a year old thread for this?

No he did it to stir the pot a little more here

_____________________________

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King
Godmother of the subbie mafia
My all time favourite threads
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2002501
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=790885

(in reply to DesFIP)

Page: << < prev 25 26 27 [28] 29 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: what is TPE 24/7?

Page: << < prev 25 26 27 [28] 29 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

0.180