Defining Abuse in Absolute and Total Power Exchange
Christian subbie
By Master Eso © 2005
The problems with the definition of abuse within an Absolute and Total
Power Exchange commitment/relationship is very clear. Abuse is
completely subjective. Everyone has different perceptions, principles
and standards, as well as different needs, wants and kinks.
So, lets look at some commonly used definitions, and see how applicable
and useful they might be in finding a standard definition of abuse in
APE/TPE:
Majority: A majority of people in the "vanilla" society around the world
do consider everyone who is into BDSM or APE/TPE as either an abuser or
abusee. Even the majority in the mainstream BDSM community, who are
themselves considered abusers and abusee's by the vanilla society,
consider those who practice APE/TPE as abusers and abusee's. Clearly the
concept of "majority" cannot be used to define
a standard of abuse in APE/TPE.
Law: Many activities within BDSM or APE/TPE are illegal and against the
law. Even slavery itself, consensual or not, is against the law. In some
states sadomasochism is illegal, while in other states anal sex or even
oral sex, is illegal and against the law. Clearly the concept of "law"
cannot serve us to define a standard of abuse within APE/TPE.
Health: Many would think that the concept of a healthy Dominant,
submissive or even activity can be used as a standard. Unfortunately,
"health" is again a most subjective term. A majority of healthcare
professionals do consider those into BDSM or APE/TPE as unhealthy or
mentally ill. In the very least Dominants and submissives both possess
all the signs of "unhealthy" Co-Dependency. Clearly the concept of
"health" cannot be applied in the definition of abuse in APE/TPE.
Harm: What is considered harmful to some, is a need and desire to
others. Even a simple bruise could be considered as harm. Not to mention
a tattoo, a piercing, a branding or a stroke with a cane or flogger.
Clearly harm is very subjective and cannot be used as a standard in
defining abuse in APE/TPE.
Inhumanity: For some extreme de-humanization is a most desired need.
Others crave to be completely objectified or used as a pet, pony or pig.
Human or Inhuman is also very subjective again. Clearly "inhumane"
cannot be used as a standard for definition of abuse in APE/TPE.
Sustainability: This is actually a pretty good concept. Any activity
that can be repeated indefinitely without leading to death would be
acceptable. Unfortunately, life itself is not sustainable. Even
piercings, brandings etc. will eventually lead to dead if repeated too
often. As every food becomes poisonous if eaten in excess, I
believe every activity will eventually lead to dead. The concept of
sustainability however would restrict the Masters absolute power, which
of course would be in opposition to APE/TPE. Clearly, while
"sustainability" is a pretty good attempt, it cannot be used as a
standard to define abuse in APE/TPE.
Safe: "Safety" is about as subjective as it gets. Safe for what, safe
for whom, what in this world is really safe ? Without going much further
here, clearly "safe" cannot be possibly be used as a standard to define
abuse in APE/TPE
Sane: The King of subjectivity. What really is sane ? Who really is sane
? Are we all insane ? I am sane. You are not. It is impossible to even
consider "sanity" as a definition of abuse in APE/TPE.
Consent: Another very good concept, in which everything that is
consensual would not be abuse. However, a slave consents completely,
absolutely and unconditional when accepting a Masters collar. If applied
to APE/TPE the concept of "consent" alone would negate even the
slightest possibility of abuse. Clearly, if the concept of abuse is
valid in APE/TPE, and I believe it is, then it cannot be defined with
the concept of "consent" alone.
Abuse: Clearly the most abused word in the English language. Without
definition it is meaningless and absurd in its application to Absolute
and Total Power Exchange.
Our through the practice of Absolute and Total Power Exchange inherited
inability to find a clear standard of definition of abuse in APE/TPE, of
course, leaves us in a real dilemma.
Who gets to define and set standards as to what is acceptable and what
not ? Who gets to say my Kink is good and your Kink is bad ? Who has the
right to impose and dictate their limits and regulations on all others ?
Who gets to determine what's right or wrong for everyone else ?
The simple truth is, it doesn't mean a thing what you might think or
say. It really means squat what even I think or say. And in APE/TPE it
doesn't even matter what a slave might think. Unless a definition of
"abuse" in APE/TPE can be found and established as a standard which is
applicable to everyone, it only matters what a slaves Master thinks or says.
So, if we cannot find a clear definition standard applicable, acceptable
and adoptable to everyone practicing Absolute and Total Power Exchange,
by way of defining abuse, we must now look at what abuse is not:
As we all should agree that a slave is her Masters property, and has no
rights other then the privileges granted by her Master, and the slave
consents, surrenders and submits completely, voluntary and unconditional
when accepting her Masters collar, then a Master may do with his slave
as he alone sees fit, according to his wants and
needs, as well as his values, principles and beliefs. The Master has the
final decision in all matters and issues within this power structure.
Once a slave has accepted her Masters collar and consented to be his
total and unconditional slave, no further
consent is needed or required.
In turn a Master is completely and absolutely responsible for his
slave's behavior, actions and deed, care and safety, health and
wellbeing - physically and mentally, and ultimately her life in
accordance with God's Law, His Higher Self, or the Laws of Nature,
Universal Laws, Human Laws, Spiritual Laws, you pick it… all according
to a Masters values, believes, principles, character, etc.
The forgoing conditions must be met for it to be a consensual APE/TPE
slavery commitment. Any conditions, limits or restrictions imposed on
the Master by the slave, would negate APE/TPE slavery. Period. Absolute
and Total, mean just that. Absolute, Total and Unconditional.
Derived from the forgoing conditions here is my general attempt of
definition of "abuse" within an APE/TPE commitment as it could be
applied to everyone:
""Abuse" is doing something to someone, else that you have no right to
do, or having them do something to you that they have no right to, or to
use or be used wrongly or improperly."
This is indeed a very fitting and useful definition of abuse, especially
if applied to our Absolute Master and slave commitments/relationships
such as APE/TPE.
However, while the Masters rights grant him almost omnipotent powers and
authority (as it should be) and they are almost self-explanatory, the
proper, improper and wrong use of a slave puts us right back into the
dilemma, as everyone has different perceptions of proper and improper
use, as everyone has different values, needs, and kinks.
Therefore, in all my years in this lifestyle, the only definition of
abuse in APE/TPE, that I could conclude, which is applicable and should
be acceptable to everyone is the definition of intent.
If a Master continually does "harm" to his slaves in a way, that he did
not intent to originally, such as it might be the case with alcohol or
drug abuse, mental illness, or any other significant mental or emotional
imbalance, this might indeed constitute "abuse", even within an absolute
relationship. The emphasis here must lay on
the Masters intention, or "non intention" for that matter.
This definition seems to me, to be the one and only definition of
"abuse" in APE/TPE that can be accepted, adopted and even practiced, by
everyone practicing Absolute and Total Power Exchange.
Anyone wishing to use this article on their site or mailing list may do
so as long as the article remains unchanged and my name and email
address remain on them. Giving credit where it belongs. MasterEso@...
alcibia...@gmail.com
Christian subbie wrote:
> Defining Abuse in Absolute and Total Power Exchange
>
<snip of obnoxious CHUDWAH nonsense and TLA-coinage>
Well, if he rejects SSC as too subjective, rejects considerations of
law and medical health as not subjective enough, and says "abuse is the
most abused term in the English language," then he must be the ideal
Twue Dom to produce guidelines for our little O (or whoever she is
today). She has demonstrated such adamantine psychological strength
that I'm sure she won't be horribly damaged by entering into a
relationship on these terms.
Good luck with that, and thanks for illuminating the rest of us as to
how it ought to be done!
alcibiades
Christian subbie
> Christian subbie wrote:
>
>> Defining Abuse in Absolute and Total Power Exchange
>>
>> By Master Eso © 2005
>>
>
> <snip of obnoxious CHUDWAH nonsense and TLA-coinage>
>
> Well, if he rejects SSC as too subjective, rejects considerations of
> law and medical health as not subjective enough, and says "abuse is the
> most abused term in the English language," then he must be the ideal
> Twue Dom to produce guidelines for our little O (or whoever she is
> today). She has demonstrated such adamantine psychological strength
> that I'm sure she won't be horribly damaged by entering into a
> relationship on these terms.
>
> Good luck with that, and thanks for illuminating the rest of us as to
> how it ought to be done!
>
> alcibiades
>
critique. This is not from my dom, I guess that is what he is. Frankly
the submissive community is concerned about me.
I am not O. I am not allowed to go by my Christian name. O is a
dimunitive of that name.
Please do not underestimate my psychological strength. I have withstood
the criticism of the church, and the bdsm subculture to submit to this man.
I was already damaged before entering into this relationship. This man
is healing me, and apparently, he is the only one who can do it.
I will leave that submissives group if these groups recommend it.
Apparently my dom, I choke on that term, wants these groups to be my
home groups. We tried out a lot and apparently this is where I have
landed for now. These are my perceptions, they may not be his.
Lynn
Christian subbie wrote:
> As we all should agree that a slave is her Masters property, and has no
> rights other then the privileges granted by her Master, and the slave
> consents, surrenders and submits completely, voluntary and unconditional
> when accepting her Masters collar, then a Master may do with his slave
> as he alone sees fit, according to his wants and
> needs, as well as his values, principles and beliefs. The Master has the
> final decision in all matters and issues within this power structure.
> Once a slave has accepted her Masters collar and consented to be his
> total and unconditional slave, no further
> consent is needed or required.
It's so nice to see people who are so completely impervious to the
influence of reality. Refreshing, really.
Lynn
Christian subbie
by the newsgroup. I did not say I agreed with it. Don't assume I agree
with something I post.
Please.
alcibia...@gmail.com
You're right - what were we thinking? Just because you post someone
else's writing with no comment or question at all, unexcerpted so we
know you haven't done any critical reading on it, and then start
stomping around about how you're a real slave who's been into TPE (or
APE, APE-TPE, XYZZY-TPE, etc.) from day one, and the rest of us are
rank amateurs, no one should think you agree with it.
I have GOT to stop making so many snap judgments, and then maybe
someday I can hope to be as highly respected for my careful, informed
statements as you are.
alcibiades
Ruth Lawrence
"Lynn" <socke...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165703661.3...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Unfortunately there are those who propagate such nonsense to newbs in real
life, and seem even to believe it (or hope it's true).
Lurkers: this is a load of total manure. Continuous consent, even if it's
tacit, is always required.
Ruth
Christian subbie
Lynn and Ruth making it seem like I did. I got those words from a
slavery group I belong to and I posted them here to see your reaction.
David Weinshenker
>
> Ruth Lawrence wrote:
> > Lurkers: this is a load of total manure. Continuous consent, even if it's
> > tacit, is always required.
> >
> > Ruth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Again, lurkers, I did not pen those words, and I do *not* appreciate
> Lynn and Ruth making it seem like I did. I got those words from a
> slavery group I belong to and I posted them here to see your reaction.
Looks like you're getting it - and so far it seems to be in disagreement
with the text you posted for comment. To be fair, you did say you were
going to do that, and did include a byline of the original author, so
I don't think anyone thought you actually wrote it, but it wasn't clear
whether you were posting it intending it as "something that explains where
I'm coming from" or "I'm wondering what y'all think of this - seems weird
to me..."
I think Ruth's comment was addressed to the original text itself; it was
perhaps unclear whether you shared that point of view or disagreed with it.
-dave w
Jennie Kermode
> Defining Abuse in Absolute and Total Power Exchange
> Majority: A majority of people in the "vanilla" society around the world
> do consider everyone who is into BDSM or APE/TPE as either an abuser or
> abusee.
I know that's the common perception, but I'm not sure it's
true. The British government is currently trying to pass legislation on
the strength of this belief and research by major news organisations
indicate that most people resent their actions - whilst they may find
some bdsm activities too extreme, most of them have no problem with what
they might identify as 'a bit of slap and tickle'.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
fnordikins
Please stop tormenting us. Do us all a favor and call off your subbie.
You seem to be tormenting her too, and I don't think she's enjoying it.
It's not doing anyone any good, unless it's fun for you, and that
alone isn't a good enough reason.
pretty please?
IrishWinks
wrote:
With sugar on top, Alleged Master?
Winks
*Note email addy is munged. Correct email is irish...@bresnan.net
alcibiades
IrishWinks wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:17:40 -0500, fnordikins <fnord...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dear You Know Who You Are, The Alleged Master:
> >
> >Please stop tormenting us. Do us all a favor and call off your subbie.
> >You seem to be tormenting her too, and I don't think she's enjoying it.
> >It's not doing anyone any good, unless it's fun for you, and that
> >alone isn't a good enough reason.
> >
> >pretty please?
>
> With sugar on top, Alleged Master?
And also rabbit sushi (and a biscuit banisher), if you're extra good.
alcibiades
IrishWinks
wrote:
>And also rabbit sushi (and a biscuit banisher), if you're extra good.
>
>alcibiades
I'm not comfortable with the idea of eating bunnies, but no biscuit
for "Alleged Master," for sure!
Troia
I would tend to agree; of course, I currently live in a rather liberal
part of the world.
Most people would not object to, say, a female being submissive to her
master to whom she is married (a not uncommon D/s scenario) nor even to
his spanking her, perhaps not even if in "discipline" and certainly not
as sexual play. They would not even object to her wearing a collar to
symbolize her enslavement; after all, so many people wear wedding rings
for the same reason.
Make the collar big, black leather and spiky (not terribly common in
BDSM as some might imagine) and many people now start to become offended.
-- Troia
Lynn
Troia wrote:
>
> Make the collar big, black leather and spiky (not terribly common in
> BDSM as some might imagine) and many people now start to become offended.
They do?
Lynn
Stephanie Moore-Fuller
<shake head sadly> These Bay Area people get *so* spoiled!
Let me take you on a tour of Southeastern Michigan sometime, 'K?
stephanie
--
Stephanie Moore-Fuller smoo...@blackrose.org Mountain View, CA, USA
"If a man have a strong faith he can indulge in the luxury of skepticism."
-- Frederick Nietzsche
Troia
Yeah, seems so. Just like the nail polish that teen girls wear is fine
as long as it's not black, in the minds of so many people. Or dying
one's hair is OK unless it's Kool-Aid green.
And on & on; lines are drawn to say "this is OK" and "this is not".
Possibly more-so in the suburbs of large cities? (Not sure). I do know
that reactions to manner of dress in the major NW cities are far less
inflammatory than in other places I've lived or close friends have
lived, in the US. Here, though, we routinely see men in skirts; there
are other places in the US where that alone (even though I mean such as
utilikilts which are designed for men) would be enough to get one attacked.
I tend to find it interesting to see where different people draw their
lines of "OK" and "not OK", even where I disagree (which is often
enough, of course.)
-- Troia
Ruth Lawrence
I rather think that if I wear mine, Public just think I'm Weird.
Ruth
M. Shirley Chong
>>
>>>Make the collar big, black leather and spiky (not terribly common in
>>>BDSM as some might imagine) and many people now start to become offended.
>
>>They do?
Stephanie Moore-Fuller wrote:
> <shake head sadly> These Bay Area people get *so* spoiled!
>
> Let me take you on a tour of Southeastern Michigan sometime, 'K?
I lived in Iowa City Iowa for many years, saw people wearing black
spiked leather collars and no one really took any notice. Much to
the disappointment of said collar wearers, in many cases. <snort> No
one really took notice of the spiked purple Mohawks or the dozens of
facial piercings either.
I did once complain about a waiter with a tongue piercing--not
because of the tongue piercing but because he was spewing spit all
over as he spoke. I didn't care about his piercing but I didn't want
his spit on food I was going to eat. I didn't actually say anything
about the piercing when I asked the manager for a different waiter,
I just explained that the original was spraying spit and the manager
attributed it to the new tongue piercing.
Even here in my teensy little rural town, such wear might garner
some looks but I doubt anyone would be offended.
This may be an effect of limited sample size, though--I am unlikely
to hang out with anyone who would get offended enough about someone
else's clothing or accessory choices to complain.
Shirley
Christian subbie
>
>
> I think Ruth's comment was addressed to the original text itself; it was
> perhaps unclear whether you shared that point of view or disagreed with it.
>
> -dave w
>
This is all new to me. I do know I identify more as a slave than a sub.
My kink is 24/7, 365, permanent commitment, as I have stated from the
beginning. That is what I know.
Stephanie Moore-Fuller
What I've noticed is not so much actual "complaining" as staring in a
sort of flabbergasted way. And also hearing views from people *about*
such things, in a way that assumed I'd be complicit in their views.
Personally I don't have any piercings (only do the play kind!) or
tattoos or died hair, etc. I also am an engineer, and *not* EE or CS,
which means that a big part of my life is in that environment.
IrishWinks
Well, if you don't know to whom your are committing, you don't know
much. You know nothing. People's reactions to you are not because
they don't understand you - it's because they do. They don't like
you.
They don't like your (possibly imaginary) cyber dom either. They
don't like that your silly "cyber-inspired" ideas might influence a
newbie - a real life, flesh & blood, newbie - someone who might get
hurt - someone who doesn't know any better than to listen to you and
your (possibly imaginary) ilk/Master.
Stop seeing this as a misunderstanding. It is not - not unless you
see yourself as the one who doesn't understand. And even if you do -
the crap you expel makes you dangerous to newbies. That makes you an
enemy of this group ... and not because you are *such* a nice person
or a subbie extraordinaire.
Get it?
user119
> On 2006-12-10, Lynn <socke...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Troia wrote:
>>>
>>> Make the collar big, black leather and spiky (not terribly common in
>>> BDSM as some might imagine) and many people now start to become offended.
>>
>> They do?
>
> <shake head sadly> These Bay Area people get *so* spoiled!
>
> Let me take you on a tour of Southeastern Michigan sometime, 'K?
On a day trip with another couple, both subs wore their respective
collars and didn't even attact a stare. This to a small central
CA coast town. (Both collars were difficult to miss or misunderstand)
--
Cui bonuo
remove the -N-COLD to reply
Kara
> Defining Abuse in Absolute and Total Power Exchange
>
<snip>
> Majority: A majority of people in the "vanilla" society around the world
> do consider everyone who is into BDSM or APE/TPE as either an abuser or
> abusee. Even the majority in the mainstream BDSM community, who are
> themselves considered abusers and abusee's by the vanilla society,
> consider those who practice APE/TPE as abusers and abusee's.
They do? Now I don't know much about how the BDSM-scene feel (and I
honestly know nothing about APE/TPE other than having heard of the
concept), but I don't really think most 'vanilla' people have a problem
with BDSM as long as it doesn't happen where they can see it. I don't
think anyone, but people like extreme feminists, Christians, moralists
etc, actually think of BDSM as abuse. I can of course only speak for my
part of the world (Scandinavia). Perhaps everyone in Asia and Africa
(that is where the majority of people live, isn't it) feel differently?
<snip>
> Consent: Another very good concept, in which everything that is
> consensual would not be abuse. However, a slave consents completely,
> absolutely and unconditional when accepting a Masters collar. If applied
> to APE/TPE the concept of "consent" alone would negate even the
> slightest possibility of abuse. Clearly, if the concept of abuse is
> valid in APE/TPE, and I believe it is, then it cannot be defined with
> the concept of "consent" alone.
Again, I don't know much about this, but wouldn't the slave need to
'consent to continue consenting' as it would be? Wouldn't there have to
be some way of ending the slavery? I will go as far as to suggest that
anyone who would willingly enslave themselves without any way of getting
out of it, in todays society, has mental problems, and no one should
agree to take on such a person as their slave.
<snip>
> The simple truth is, it doesn't mean a thing what you might think or
> say. It really means squat what even I think or say. And in APE/TPE it
> doesn't even matter what a slave might think. Unless a definition of
> "abuse" in APE/TPE can be found and established as a standard which is
> applicable to everyone, it only matters what a slaves Master thinks or
> says.
Wouldn't a definition of abuse partly depend on how the receiver feels?
I agree that it also has to do with the intent of the abuser, but it
is a two-way thing. Someone trying to abuse someone, but failing even
to mildly annoy the other person (or even amusing them), is not an
abuser. And someone feeling abused by someone just behaving in their
everyday fashion, is probably not actually being abused either.
Other then that, I can not see how the form of slavery described in this
article would actually work in real life. I can see it as being an
entertaining fantasy, but not actually working in todays society.
Kara
displaying her ignorance
Lynn
Christian subbie wrote:
> My kink is 24/7, 365, permanent commitment, as I have stated from the
> beginning. That is what I know.
Marriage is a kink now?
Lynn
Lynn
Kara wrote:
> They do? Now I don't know much about how the BDSM-scene feel (and I
> honestly know nothing about APE/TPE other than having heard of the
> concept), but I don't really think most 'vanilla' people have a problem
> with BDSM as long as it doesn't happen where they can see it.
Much like a big sloppy blow job, a flogging would be out of place at
the grocer's. ;-)
> Again, I don't know much about this, but wouldn't the slave need to
> 'consent to continue consenting' as it would be? Wouldn't there have to
> be some way of ending the slavery? I will go as far as to suggest that
> anyone who would willingly enslave themselves without any way of getting
> out of it, in todays society, has mental problems, and no one should
> agree to take on such a person as their slave.
There are folks who believe that a "true slave" or a slave that
*they've* trained would be unable to withdraw consent after having
given it, much as I can't stop being my kids' parent no matter how old
they get.
>
> Other then that, I can not see how the form of slavery described in this
> article would actually work in real life. I can see it as being an
> entertaining fantasy, but not actually working in todays society.
>
>Kara, displaying her ignorance
Or giving a fine demonstration of common sense. A good bullshit filter
is a great thing to have.
Lynn
Troia
...
> Other then that, I can not see how the form of slavery described in this
> article would actually work in real life. I can see it as being an
> entertaining fantasy, but not actually working in todays society.
>
>
> Kara
> displaying her ignorance
No, not "ignorance", that was a Bingo!
-- Troia
Christian subbie
for us.
Troia
> ...
> This may be an effect of limited sample size, though--I am unlikely to
> hang out with anyone who would get offended enough about someone else's
> clothing or accessory choices to complain.
Yeah, try a PTSA (aka "PTA") meeting!
-- Troia
seriously
and reminding readers that there are places where parents want to ban
"Harry Potter"
Troia
I worked in aerospace in SoCal years ago, and at that time, at work, one
could garner all sorts of disapproval simply by wearing something
colorful. I am not exaggerating, not even a tiny bit.
When I first moved there, I thought that I would buy a few "tropical"
colored outfits (conservative cut & design) since I was now living
somewhere that had temps over 100F and it somehow seemed an appropriate
association in my mind. (I cannot fully explain that, however.) The
first time I wore one to work -- nicely attired, conservatively clad,
but colorful -- I was vastly censured. It was explained to me that navy
blue, black, grey, and perhaps brown suits were OK, blouses should be
very neutral or white ... NO brights at all.
Years later, however, I found that such attire fit perfectly with work
in Phoenix, while the suits I'd worn in SoCal aerospace would have
probably gotten me laughed at for their impracticality and staidness.
Nowadays, when I wear a red suit, for example, there are people who find
it disconcerting in the context of my work environment; of course, I am
not saying *everyone* objects but simply that there are people who will
be very vocal at anything they consider over a certain line they draw in
their mind. The major difference now is that I am established enough to
not have to dress according to anyone's expectations.
Oh, and I have seen someone treated with great hostility at a law
office, for having tattoos on her arms and not keeping them covered up,
and that was here in the "liberal" NW; it was quite definitely a factor
in her eventual firing; very simple to do in places that employ "at
will" and are subtle and careful in their documentation.
-- Troia
Ruth Lawrence
"IrishWinks" <irish...@bresnansansspam.net> wrote in message
news:ue0pn2p3s4mmdr1ps...@4ax.com...
> They don't like your (possibly imaginary) cyber dom either. They
> don't like that your silly "cyber-inspired" ideas might influence a
> newbie - a real life, flesh & blood, newbie - someone who might get
> hurt - someone who doesn't know any better than to listen to you and
> your (possibly imaginary) ilk/Master.
I really don't care about someone' in here's not-present dom, real
or not (unless they are in fact an abuser, and what could I do from
here, eh?).
It isn't my business.
I very much do care about lurkers and newbies seeing toxic crap.
Ruth, not so long ago a newb herself
Ruth Lawrence
"Kara" <Ka...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:eli5mc$eok$1...@news.netpower.no...
>
> Again, I don't know much about this, but wouldn't the slave need to
> 'consent to continue consenting' as it would be?
Yes, obviously, whatever is said (and these folks can say a lot)
> Wouldn't there have to be some way of ending the slavery? I will go as
> far as to suggest that anyone who would willingly enslave themselves
> without any way of getting out of it, in todays society, has mental
> problems, and no one should agree to take on such a person as their slave.
That someone would do so is worse, to my mind, than someone getting into it
as a Hawt Thing.
> Wouldn't a definition of abuse partly depend on how the receiver feels?
Obviously, yes.
> I agree that it also has to do with the intent of the abuser, but it is a
> two-way thing. Someone trying to abuse someone, but failing even to
> mildly annoy the other person (or even amusing them), is not an abuser.
I owuld say that in fact they are, only in this instance a failed abuser.
>And someone feeling abused by someone just behaving in their everyday
>fashion, is probably not actually being abused either.
This depends on the situation.
> Other then that, I can not see how the form of slavery described in this
> article would actually work in real life. I can see it as being an
> entertaining fantasy, but not actually working in todays society.
I know someone for whom it seems to work, but they property
where they live (and which provides their income), is the slave's,
and the master is exceptional.
Ruth
Christian subbie
> "IrishWinks" <irish...@bresnansansspam.net> wrote in message
> news:ue0pn2p3s4mmdr1ps...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> They don't like your (possibly imaginary) cyber dom either. They
>> don't like that your silly "cyber-inspired" ideas might influence a
>> newbie - a real life, flesh & blood, newbie - someone who might get
>> hurt - someone who doesn't know any better than to listen to you and
>> your (possibly imaginary) ilk/Master.
>>
>
> I really don't care about someone' in here's not-present dom, real
> or not (unless they are in fact an abuser, and what could I do from
> here, eh?).
>
>
>
judge others kink. Good job Ruth.
>
>
>
>
Stephanie Moore-Fuller
Your experience is very similar, but not identical (of course), to mine.
In all the years I have been working full time and professionally (since
... uh, 1989), I have *never* seen anyone in my workplace or a visitor
to such workplace with visible tattoos, piercings other than in the earlobe,
or hair colors not close to those found in nature. In fact, I seem to
recall much whispering and strangeness about a guy with an earring.
I don't recall an issue with bright clothing, but now that you mention it,
that may have just been because no one even tested it. I remember my
cubicle mate at GM telling me that she remembered very clearly the day her
father first wore a shirt to work at GM that was not white. She was a bit
younger than me, and she was not a tiny kid, so it had to have been after
1970 or so. And that was the first day that he was *allowed* to wear a
non white shirt.
My current workplace (in the Bay Area) is a bit more relaxed in
dress code than I have been used to -- almost everyone wears jeans every
day, with either polo shirts, dressy short sleeved shirts, Hawaiain (sp?)
shirts, or even T shirts. At all of my previous employers, jeans were
forbidden along with shirts without collars. Sometimes jeans were allowed
on Fridays.
Oh, and a woman I work with did recently get a tattoo, on her lower back,
and will show it to people when asked, but it is not seen unless she shows
it. Even that level of acceptance and openness is new to me, so I think it
must be California versus Michigan again.
M. Shirley Chong
> They do? Now I don't know much about how the BDSM-scene feel (and I
> honestly know nothing about APE/TPE other than having heard of the
> concept), but I don't really think most 'vanilla' people have a problem
> with BDSM as long as it doesn't happen where they can see it. I don't
> think anyone, but people like extreme feminists, Christians, moralists
> etc, actually think of BDSM as abuse.
That's my experience too.
> Again, I don't know much about this, but wouldn't the slave need to
> 'consent to continue consenting' as it would be? Wouldn't there have to
> be some way of ending the slavery? I will go as far as to suggest that
> anyone who would willingly enslave themselves without any way of getting
> out of it, in todays society, has mental problems, and no one should
> agree to take on such a person as their slave.
Without ongoing consent, the top (master, dominant or whatever) is
running a huge legal risk, at least here in the US. So I think that
both people in a relationship that has no agreed upon way to end it
would probably be certifiable.
Shirley
IrishWinks
wrote:
<snip>
>Oh for christ sakes, what a load of crap. Your problem with
>CS/Atlanta/OK/Venus is your problem, not mine. Enemy??? What is this, a
>war? It's a newsgroup, for fucks sake!
Overstatement on my part, even just speaking for myself. My
apologies. And whatsherface is not my problem - lucky me.
Ruth Lawrence
"mady" <madyl...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> No matter how I feel about CS/Atlanta/OK/Venus, I am getting a little
> tired
> of being told that anything and everything posted here must be vetted for
> "newbie appropriateness".
Nobody is vetting, but some of us *will* make remarks on certain posts,
as is our decision.
More than one woman local to me has been physically and/or emotionally
significantly damaged because uncontested on-line crap has given them a
false idea of what a dom ought properly to be doing.
Yes, I realise it's boring of me and others to rabbit on about consent, but
Hello, you can skip on by.
Ruth
Tobie
hit the space bar to get proper spacing and some times I see that I'm
missing that when I'm pre-post scanning. )
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:00:58 -0500, mady <madyl...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>No matter how I feel about CS/Atlanta/OK/Venus, I am getting a little tired
>of being told that anything and everything posted here must be vetted for
>"newbie appropriateness". I read and post to this group to express my own
>thoughts and opinions and read and discuss those of others. It's neither
>my intent nor desire to teach BDSM 101.
I don't think the group as a whole is or has been instructed to do
that, nor is there a set understanding or silent protocol for such
action, however there are a few of us who do talk explicitedly(sp)
enough that some thought should be taken as to mentioning at least the
bare bones of care taking in our play.
It is not my intent ( generally ) to teach BDSM, I don't think I'm
qualified, on the other hand I am teaching whether I want to or not
when I post my scene reports and I would HATE knowing that someone
came back and said, "I did what Tobie said she did and my lover ended
up in the hospital..blah blah blah.."
How we vet our posts is entirely personal, but in my opinion if we're
going to talk about hitting people with impliments that can break
bones for example, a word or two on proper use and care for a bottom
is a good thing. I *do* use things that can break bones. I've got an
acrylic spiral cane that would easily break thin bones..*I'm* not
going to post about using that toy without making mention that it
needs to be used on well padded places.
That's not my job, that's not my responsibility, but it is in part, me
giving something back to the community that has given so very much to
me.
Tobie
The Dip in the Dip Corps
SSBB Diplomatic Corps
Portland Oregon
Lynn
Christian subbie wrote:
> >
> > Marriage is a kink now?
> >
> for us.
If marriage is a kink, then right now I want to talk about my kink for
getting good deals. I was teaching my older son how to navigate the
grocery store the other day, and I realized that a big part of my kink
is in saving money. I love buying store brands and saving 30%. As a
matter of fact, I will never buy a national brand again--that's just
disgusting. Nope, only store brands and generics for me. I want a
relationship where someone orders me to buy generics. Except in dog
food, because the cheap stuff gives the puppy gas, and that's just
disgusting. I definately have a kink for saving money. Tonight, I
saved $3.50 on a store brand of Cinnamon Toast Crunch. My grocer knows
me. The bag-boy looked at me, and I knew he understood my kink. I
know he'll help me save money. I meditated on this, and I know that I
can find tuna salad in cans for only $1.00, not the $1.89 they want at
Safeway. They don't understand my kink at all there. I want a
relationship where someone orders me not to shop at Safeway. I have
been kinky since I was six--I once even tried to get my little brother
to give me his allowance. He didn't, but that's because my family
shares my kink--they're very kinky.
Lynn
Lynn
Norton Zenger wrote:
> Lynn come on down:
I happen to agree with you, despite being into bondage. ;-)
Lynn
Tobie
>If marriage is a kink, then right now I want to talk about my kink for
>getting good deals.
*snip*
That was as good as a proper SNL parody skit.
Excellent job.
Thank you for the giggle fit
Tobie
Troia
> I know he'll help me save money. I meditated on this, and I know that I
> can find tuna salad in cans for only $1.00, not the $1.89 they want at
> Safeway.
EWWW, YKIOKIJNMK!!!!
-- Troia
Kaos
<curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Lynn" <socke...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1165783065.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Troia wrote:
>>>
>>> Make the collar big, black leather and spiky (not terribly common in
>>> BDSM as some might imagine) and many people now start to become
>>> offended.
>>
>> They do?
>
> I rather think that if I wear mine, Public just think I'm Weird.
For a fairly large portion of Public, there's not much difference between
"weird" and "offensive."
Ruth Lawrence
"Kaos" <ka...@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:op.tkexh...@resurrection.ab.hsia.telus.net...
No accounting for that is there?
In truth, I've only worn it when walking between my car and a BDSM event.
These tend to be held in districts where used syringes are ubiquitous.
I think they'll live.
Ruth
Troia
-- Troia
Ruth Lawrence
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:457d2d28$0$97216$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
A spikey one? It's kinky gear. We have dress codes.
No, a spiky collar is not regarded locally as a sub collar, indeed several
Mistresses (a name for a trained and experienced dom here) wear them on
occasion.
I have worn a subbish (dog) collar as a statement of owning myself when very
new, but feel no need for such a thing now.
Ruth
Troia
ones, though some on goth types.
The few slave/sub collars I see much of are usually very tasteful, like
the red choker I described in another post, or a leaf-garland necklace
another woman wears (that is, ironically, open ... I thought it was a
lovely statement of her submission.)
I know folks in some areas use them for sub ID'ing (that's kinda crude
when you have as many switches as this area seems to have) or just in
small play parties or in training.
I suppose the fact that I live relatively near some clubs might skew the
reality that I see far more fetish gear as well as goth-style attire on
the street here, than I ever have at the few public events I've
attended. However, I do see the younger sub women making the best of
their assets, and would have done so myself at that age (i.e. lacy
catsuit, leather straps around strategic places, short skirts with
boots, etc.)
I'm trying to think of if I saw a single black-spiky collar at the large
playparty I recently attended; there were a few people on leashes, but
I don't think their collars were of that sort.
I seem to recall reading somewhere also that spiky collars (as opposed
to plain) were more associated with Doms than subs; was that here
perhaps or in my various idle surfings?
-- Troia
Ruth Lawrence
"Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote
>>
> Ah. I don't see many collars here among the BDSM folks, esp. not spiky
> ones, though some on goth types.
Oh, there are lots worn here.
> The few slave/sub collars I see much of are usually very tasteful, like
> the red choker I described in another post, or a leaf-garland necklace
> another woman wears (that is, ironically, open ... I thought it was a
> lovely statement of her submission.)
Ours tend to look like dog collars, are very chain and loop embellished, or
are steel!
> I know folks in some areas use them for sub ID'ing (that's kinda crude
> when you have as many switches as this area seems to have) or just in
> small play parties or in training.
Being a switch is hardly acknowledged here.
I doubt we have much fewer, proportionately, in truth.
> I suppose the fact that I live relatively near some clubs might skew the
> reality that I see far more fetish gear as well as goth-style attire on
> the street here, than I ever have at the few public events I've attended.
Goth gear is interchangeable with BDSM to a degree here.
>...However, I do see the younger sub women making the best of their assets,
>and would have done so myself at that age (i.e. lacy catsuit, leather
>straps around strategic places, short skirts with boots, etc.)
Corsets are very, very commonly worn by women, as is (usually black) lace.
I don't wear a corset, as I have asthma and don't need my breathing impeded
further, but I stand out in not doing so, amongst women with cleavages :-)
> I'm trying to think of if I saw a single black-spiky collar at the large
> playparty I recently attended; there were a few people on leashes, but I
> don't think their collars were of that sort.
Uh-huh.
> I seem to recall reading somewhere also that spiky collars (as opposed to
> plain) were more associated with Doms than subs; was that here perhaps or
> in my various idle surfings?
Hmmm, I can't know where you saw it, can I?
Yep, spiky says dommish. I truly don't wish for Tom, Dick and Mary to come
on all domly at me uninvited.
Ruth
Von
> I'm pretty sure she's into PLUGH-TPE as well, based on the number of voices
> (hollow and otherwise) heard to cry "Fool!" whenever she opens her mouth.
An adventurer will find:
... There is a large "Y2" on a rock in the room's center.
> east
You are in a jumble of rock, with cracks everywhere.
Somehow, it appears that Will C. may have been prescient.
But perhaps it is only a coincidence. Who can tell?
I can tell I have been round and round in that cave too many
times. I should get back to work. Heh.
--
Von
in a maze of twisty little passages most of the morning
Nena and Al
tough to tell what's okay and what's abusive." That's certainly true.
His "look at some commonly used definitions" was really just a
tedious repetition of the obvious - "There's no single clear indicator
that someone is being abused."
>Our through the practice of Absolute and Total Power Exchange inherited
>inability to find a clear standard of definition of abuse in APE/TPE, of
>course, leaves us in a real dilemma.
The author seems to feel that there need to be special rules or
definitions for abuse when it comes to TPE because people just don't
understand what it's about and the majority assume that it's abusive.
That really seems to be his central point, and the one with which
folks are most likely to disagree. He doesn't explore that at all, in
fact he seems to assume that everyone will agree, but he doesn't come
up with anything that applies particularly to TPE people.
There's stuff that can indicate that abuse may be taking place. It's
pretty much the same kind of stuff whether the relationship is
vanilla, kinky, or TPE. Isolation from friends and family,
depression, dependency (chemical or emotional), possessiveness, rigid
views of roles, other things. The presence of any of these indicators
is not proof that abuse is taking place, nor does the absence of any
of them prove that it's not.
>Who gets to define and set standards as to what is acceptable and what
>not ? Who gets to say my Kink is good and your Kink is bad ? Who has the
>right to impose and dictate their limits and regulations on all others ?
>Who gets to determine what's right or wrong for everyone else ?
Who feels the need to repeat the same rhetorical question? I get the
impression that the fellow has been in a number of online groups where
his TPEness has been gasped at. There are venues out there that don't
really subscribe to YKIOK, and where folks feel comfortable labeling
everything outside their box as abusive.
He seems to be trying to persuade people, but it's not really clear
what he's trying to say.
>And in APE/TPE it
>doesn't even matter what a slave might think. Unless a definition of
>"abuse" in APE/TPE can be found and established as a standard which is
>applicable to everyone, it only matters what a slaves Master thinks or says.
Unless I'm misreading this, he's saying that absent some objective
standard I can do anything I want to Al as long as I don't see it as
abusive, regardless how Al might feel about it. That's just foolish.
He comes up with a definition that could apply to anyone -
>""Abuse" is doing something to someone, else that you have no
>right to do, or having them do something to you that they have no
>right to, or to use or be used wrongly or improperly."
Really, that's so vague as to be nearly meaningless, but that's the
way definitions often work. He tries to tighten it up with
>The emphasis here must lay on the Masters intention,
>or "non intention" for that matter.
which doesn't really say anything.
>This definition seems to me, to be the one and only definition of
>"abuse" in APE/TPE that can be accepted, adopted and even practiced, by
>everyone practicing Absolute and Total Power Exchange.
"Abuse is doing something wrong to someone whether or not you meant
to." It took 161 lines in my newsreader to get there, and didn't
really clarify anything.
Nena
Lynn
Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>
> Okay, Lynn gets the gigglefit trophey for the day...
Wow, that's incredibly touching. I want to thank all the little people
who made this possible, principle among them Venus and my bag boy.
Lynn
Lynn
Ruth Lawrence wrote:
>
> Corsets are very, very commonly worn by women, as is (usually black) lace.
>
> I don't wear a corset, as I have asthma and don't need my breathing impeded
> further, but I stand out in not doing so, amongst women with cleavages :-)
<aol> Me, too </aol> Sucks, dunnit? I have a couple of very nice
corsets, and one Dark Garden's that is fantastic, but when my breathing
is even a little iffy, I get panicky when I wear them.
Lynn
Christian subbie
the laughing stock, believe me. It is you who looks the fool.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> They do? Now I don't know much about how the BDSM-scene feel (and I
> honestly know nothing about APE/TPE other than having heard of the
> concept), but I don't really think most 'vanilla' people have a problem
> with BDSM as long as it doesn't happen where they can see it. I don't
> think anyone, but people like extreme feminists, Christians, moralists
> part of the world (Scandinavia). Perhaps everyone in Asia and Africa
> (that is where the majority of people live, isn't it) feel differently?
My personal experience of people who think of BDSM as abuse has been
occasionally venturing into the crazed feminist blogosphere, a stray
extremely sexist asshole of a crackpot who appears to believe that
anything that even remotely resembles something that might
metaphorically be referred to as slavery is participating in the
oppression of his ethnic group, and ... I think that's about it.
I have a couple of friends who are deeply *uncomfortable* with it --
mostly people who are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of
non-egalitarian setups -- but whose discomfort is mostly an "I'm not
willing to be involved in that". I imagine that if my dom and I were
the sort of people who did overt power play in public, we would upset
those people; since our most overt public power stuff tends to be of the
'I'm sitting on the floor playing cards, he's sitting in the chair
behind me and stroking my neck' sort, that doesn't come up. (And
anyway, right after that I kicked his ass at Abalone a few times; if our
power dynamic extended to letting him win rather than giving him a good
game I think it would weird _everyone_ out.)
- Darkhawk, who now she thinks of it met all her
current partners gaming ....
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
warlo...@gmail.com
public, just for a few seconds, and nobody seems to think anything of
it. I also once blindfolded my slave with an ace bandage and walked her
around in a busy shopping district. I had a couple of answers all set
for any questions, but in the event nobody even asked a question. I got
a lot of curious looks, and some grins, but otherwise everyone just
seemed to shrug it off.
That was in a suburb of Los Angeles, by the way.
~~Warlock
www.BondageMaidens.com
---------------------------------------------------
Ruth Lawrence wrote:
> "Lynn" <socke...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1165783065.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Troia wrote:
> >>
> >> Make the collar big, black leather and spiky (not terribly common in
> >> BDSM as some might imagine) and many people now start to become offended.
> >
> > They do?
>
> I rather think that if I wear mine, Public just think I'm Weird.
>
Ruth Lawrence
Sucks dead slugs.
I keep wondering whether I could get away with wearing a bustier (wot would
Lift and Separate but not squash), but think it wouldn't be worth the $$$
unless I lost another ten or twenty pounds.
Ruth, whose breathing would get iffy immediately on donning a corset
warlo...@gmail.com
the legislature in response to the great Abuse Frenzy here a few years
ago are draconian. A submissive of mine fell in with a couple of "Abuse
Activists" in the Scene. Later, I gave her a stern lecture about some
of her behaviour. She got very emotionally upset and stormed out; they
talked her into the idea that that constituted abuse, and took pictures
of her showing - believe it or not - a scratch on her upper lip. It
didn't even break the skin, and I'm not sure how it even happened, as I
didn't do anything physical - I just talked to her. She got over it the
next day and came back to me, but someone put it out on the web, and a
friend called me to tell me he'd gotten an e-mail to the effect of,
"Did you hear, Warlock abused his sub?"
I told him the story, and when I mentioned that the pictures
showed her holding a newspaper, he said, "You know you have to release
her immediately and never play with her again, don't you?" Clueless me,
I was flabbergasted. He told me that any allegation of abuse in
California where there's any mark is a mandatory arrest, and bail is
minimum $25,000, which means you have to spend $2500 just to get out of
jail. It'd actually happened to him - a jealous sub asked him to cane
her and leave some marks, so she would have them to show off at the
next Scene party, and then went to the police.
The prosecutor declined to charge or prosecute, luckily, so he was
only out the bail and the lawyers fee, another $5000. And no prosecutor
would have spent five minutes thinking about prosecuting me with the
pictures, but the newspaper's date made them evidence legally, and had
she called the police, they'd have HAD to arrest me - again, it's
mandatory.
And in California, a SECOND charge by her of ANYTHING would have
been not only a mandatory arrest, but a mandatory PROSECUTION as
"showing a pattern of abuse".
That was it - I had to release her, much as I loved her.
I have a policy now, like many of the experienced Doms I know
here, of automatically sending home, permanently, any submissive who so
much as mentions abuse . Abuse allegations, here, are the Neutron Bomb
of BDSM - it leaves the buildings standing but all the people dead.
~~Warlock
WWW.BondageMaidens.com
--------------------------------------
Kara wrote:
> Christian subbie wrote:
> > Defining Abuse in Absolute and Total Power Exchange
> >
> > By Master Eso © 2005
>
> <snip>
>
> > Majority: A majority of people in the "vanilla" society around the world
> > do consider everyone who is into BDSM or APE/TPE as either an abuser or
> <snip>
>
> Kara
> displaying her ignorance
warlo...@gmail.com
consent is not considered a valid legal defense to abuse charges. So if
you're accused of abuse (which by the way in most states doesn't even
require the "victim" to make the accusation; ANYONE, including the
police, can make the complaint), your sub's statement that it was
consensual isn't a defense in court.
~~Warlock
WWW.BondageMaidens.com
----------------------
M. Shirley Chong wrote:
> Kara wrote:
>
> snip>
warlo...@gmail.com
~~Warlock
~~ WWW.BondageMaidens.Com
------------------------
mady wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:06:18 -0700, IrishWinks
> <irish...@bresnansansspam.net> wrote:
>
> >They don't like your (possibly imaginary) cyber dom either. They
> >don't like that your silly "cyber-inspired" ideas might influence a
> >newbie - a real life, flesh & blood, newbie - someone who might get
> >hurt - someone who doesn't know any better than to listen to you and
> >your (possibly imaginary) ilk/Master.
>
> No matter how I feel about CS/Atlanta/OK/Venus, I am getting a little tired
> of being told that anything and everything posted here must be vetted for
> "newbie appropriateness". I read and post to this group to express my own
> thoughts and opinions and read and discuss those of others. It's neither
> my intent nor desire to teach BDSM 101.
>
> >the crap you expel makes you dangerous to newbies. That makes you an
> >enemy of this group
>
> Oh for christ sakes, what a load of crap. Your problem with
> CS/Atlanta/OK/Venus is your problem, not mine. Enemy??? What is this, a
> war? It's a newsgroup, for fucks sake!
>
> --
> Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their
> level, then beat you with experience.
> Honi soit qui mal y pense
Ruth Lawrence
<warlo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165863369.8...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Actually, in most of the US, consent is not a legal issue, as
> consent is not considered a valid legal defense to abuse charges. So if
> you're accused of abuse (which by the way in most states doesn't even
> require the "victim" to make the accusation; ANYONE, including the
> police, can make the complaint), your sub's statement that it was
> consensual isn't a defense in court.
It is similar in the state of Victoria, Australia, but I rather imagine we
won't be seeing anyone charged over something that could easily be caused by
an everyday accident, unless there are witnesses or repeated complaints.
The upshot of this is that quite cleary those who bottom need to be as
trustworthy as those who top.
And there's a risk there.
Ruth, who has had far worse marks and damage from accidents than BDSM
fnordikins
(stuff happened)
I just talked to her. She got over it the
> next day and came back to me, but someone put it out on the web, and a
> friend called me to tell me he'd gotten an e-mail to the effect of,
> "Did you hear, Warlock abused his sub?"
Sounds to me like he got it backwards. Actually, Warlock's sub abused him.
M. Shirley Chong
> Actually, in most of the US, consent is not a legal issue, as
> consent is not considered a valid legal defense to abuse charges. So if
> you're accused of abuse (which by the way in most states doesn't even
> require the "victim" to make the accusation; ANYONE, including the
> police, can make the complaint), your sub's statement that it was
> consensual isn't a defense in court.
I'm aware of that.
My thinking was that someone with a reasonable amount of low down
cunning can conceal their lifestyle from others, including (possibly
illegal) impact activities, etc. A certain amount of effort to
conceal untoward sounds (soundproofing, sound masking, etc), some
effort not to cause bruises or cuts on areas of the body commonly
visible in public, etc, pretty much eliminates the risk of someone
outside the relationship initiating a complaint.
But you can't hide such activities from the person you are doing
them to. And if that person stops consenting, they are the ones in
possession of the evidence that can lead to involuntarily bunking
with an overly affectionate roomie named Bubba.
Shirley
Kaos
<curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Kaos" <ka...@xplornet.com> wrote in message
> news:op.tkexh...@resurrection.ab.hsia.telus.net...
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:19:06 -0700, Ruth Lawrence
>> <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lynn" <socke...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1165783065.1...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Troia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Make the collar big, black leather and spiky (not terribly common in
>>>>> BDSM as some might imagine) and many people now start to become
>>>>> offended.
>>>>
>>>> They do?
>>>
>>> I rather think that if I wear mine, Public just think I'm Weird.
>>
>> For a fairly large portion of Public, there's not much difference
>> between
>> "weird" and "offensive."
>
> No accounting for that is there?
Presuming that is asking what I think it is: all generalizations are
subject to local variances.
Renate
Christian subbie wrote:
> Lynn wrote:
> > Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, Lynn gets the gigglefit trophey for the day...
> >>
> > Wow, that's incredibly touching. I want to thank all the little people
> > who made this possible, principle among them Venus and my bag boy.
> >
> the laughing stock, believe me. It is you who looks the fool.
Ahh, but we are laughing *with* Lynn.
As opposed to you, Olympiada/Atlanta/V/Obeauty/et al/ad nauseum,
whom we are laughing *at*.
Renate
Christian subbie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As we all should agree that a slave is her Masters property, and has no
>>>> rights other then the privileges granted by her Master, and the slave
>>>> consents, surrenders and submits completely, voluntary and unconditional
>>>> when accepting her Masters collar, then a Master may do with his slave
>>>> as he alone sees fit, according to his wants and
>>>> needs, as well as his values, principles and beliefs. The Master has the
>>>> final decision in all matters and issues within this power structure.
>>>> Once a slave has accepted her Masters collar and consented to be his
>>>> total and unconditional slave, no further
>>>> consent is needed or required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's so nice to see people who are so completely impervious to the
>>> influence of reality. Refreshing, really.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I not only did not write that, I brought that here for critical analysis
>> by the newsgroup. I did not say I agreed with it. Don't assume I agree
>> with something I post.
>> Please.
>>
>
> You're right - what were we thinking? Just because you post someone
> else's writing with no comment or question at all, unexcerpted so we
> know you haven't done any critical reading on it, and then start
> stomping around about how you're a real slave who's been into TPE (or
> APE, APE-TPE, XYZZY-TPE, etc.) from day one, and the rest of us are
> rank amateurs, no one should think you agree with it.
>
>
All right, my comment is on the point about codependency. I used to be
into codependency recovery. Now I find myself in a relationship that is
characterized by some as either codependent and/or abusive. I know it is
not. I am going to have to let go of my old paradigms to be fully open
to this new relationship. Someone should write an essay about how TPE is
*not* codependency.
All I am stating is my orientation. I do not have any physical or
sensual experience, but I have mental and psychological experience,
within a relationship. I am sorry to offend you. I do appreciate you and
encourage you to write more.
> I have GOT to stop making so many snap judgments, and then maybe
> someday I can hope to be as highly respected for my careful, informed
> statements as you are.
>
> alcibiades
>
>
Again, see above. I do respect you. I can not make you trust me so you
are going to have to decide for yourself if you want to tell me about
your relationship or not.
I will clip and comment on the health issues, ie, codependency, if needed.
Christian subbie
Lynn
Christian subbie wrote:
> >
> All right, my comment is on the point about codependency. I used to be
> into codependency recovery. Now I find myself in a relationship that is
> characterized by some as either codependent and/or abusive. I know it is
> not. I am going to have to let go of my old paradigms to be fully open
> to this new relationship. Someone should write an essay about how TPE is
> *not* codependency.
Of course it's codependent. Codependency is a syndrome so vague as to
make astrology look reliable. Pretty much anyone with a modicum of
self-awareness would identify codependent traits in themselves, and
anyone who didn't, of course, is in denial, and therefore codependent.
Lynn
Christian subbie
analytical essay for someone, so let this be my start. Mine will be on a
different subject, of course.
> Health: Many would think that the concept of a healthy Dominant,
> submissive or even activity can be used as a standard. Unfortunately,
> "health" is again a most subjective term. A majority of healthcare
> professionals do consider those into BDSM or APE/TPE as unhealthy or
> mentally ill. In the very least Dominants and submissives both possess
> all the signs of "unhealthy" Co-Dependency. Clearly the concept of
> "health" cannot be applied in the definition of abuse in APE/TPE.
I do not know enough about Dominants and submissives to know what these
signs of "unhealthy" Co-Dependency might be. I don't have the patience
to analyze this right now, I am working on a task. I do know that some
people, again, have characterized my relationship as "abusive", because
they are "concerned" about me. SSC D/s is all new to me. I was abused in
my prior relationship. I did confuse my prior relationship with my
current one. Hopefully I cut that off this weekend. Now I am facing my
new relationship with a blank slate it seems. I am finding that *none*
of my books are helpful anymore. Not You Just Don't Understand by
Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., not Rebuilding by Dr. Bruce Fisher.
It is true, I don't own a single book about D/s. I have so many books I
have *not* read that I feel hard pressed to buy another book. I have
very little patience. More later, if there is a decent reply.
Christian subbie
> Christian subbie wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>> My marriage is. You are such a good little medium. Thanks for channeling
>> for us.
>>
>
> If marriage is a kink,
>
Correction, my relationship is, it looks like marriage to you. Marriage
can be in the church, the law, or the flesh, and you have to be in the
church to understand the meaning of the flesh, for the flesh is not just
the body.
Christian subbie
kest
>
> If marriage is a kink, then right now I want to talk about my kink for
> getting good deals. I was teaching my older son how to navigate the
> grocery store the other day, and I realized that a big part of my kink
> is in saving money. I love buying store brands and saving 30%.
*howling*
Now if only this post didn't disturbingly remind me of my mother....
k
Ruth Lawrence
>
> Christian subbie wrote:
>> >
>> All right, my comment is on the point about codependency. I used to be
>> into codependency recovery. Now I find myself in a relationship that is
>> characterized by some as either codependent and/or abusive. I know it is
>> not. I am going to have to let go of my old paradigms to be fully open
>> to this new relationship. Someone should write an essay about how TPE is
>> *not* codependency.
>
> Of course it's codependent. Codependency is a syndrome so vague as to
> make astrology look reliable.
:::VEG:::
>...Pretty much anyone with a modicum of
> self-awareness would identify codependent traits in themselves, and
> anyone who didn't, of course, is in denial, and therefore codependent.
:::nods:::
The concept sounds like Freud's theories to me, too: the violation of
Goedel's theorem and common sense and so on.
Okay, I'm biased against Freud.
Ruth, a female, a feminist, a queer and a kinkster with Totally Revealing
Fetishes
Whitewater
It took me a long time to figure out that there's good codependency --
the sort that humanity needs to exist, the sort that allows one to
expand as a person and gives one support and affirmation and such -- and
bad codependency -- the kind that diminishes one's sense of self and
turns one into a pale shadow of one's true nature, due to 'But My
Partner Likes . . . ' sort of thing.
I think that the bad version really makes one lose the ability to
function independently, even if one is part of a relationship. Of
course, I also am a firm believer in retaining one's sense of self and
independence no matter what, even -- maybe especially -- when one joins
with another.
If Generic You are in a relationship with somebody and you suddenly find
that you can't survive without them, because you have lost whatever
makes you 'you', in favor of whatever the other half likes, to my way of
thinking that's bad. And co-dependent in the bad way.
Of course, I also think that if you're prone to losing your self when
you get into a relationship, that you shouldn't be in one anyhow.
Relationships are supposed to enhance your ouisa*, not lessen it.
Whitewater
* ouisa -- Greek. Means, roughly, who you are fundamentally, at bottom,
without interference from any outside sources. Kind of, your original
you. The 'you' you are when you're alone with yourself. Etc.
Christian subbie
D/s and in a relationship, that some women friends have labeled as
abusive for various reasons. I would like to be able to argue against
them for my own sake, in the form of a critical essay. I have nothing
to prove to them, but it would be nice to have that piece of writing for
the future, should I ever need it.
Also, what do you mean "totally revealing fetishes"?
I think I am going to have to backtrack here and be able to defend the
power exchange concept first. Anyone want to help me with that? Again, I
am not initiating any more conversations with these women, and there is
no need for me to talk about my relationship, however, I would like to
produce this work for my self, for now.
Christian subbie
>
>> Christian subbie wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As we all should agree that a slave is her Masters property, and has no
>>> rights other then the privileges granted by her Master, and the slave
>>> consents, surrenders and submits completely, voluntary and unconditional
>>> when accepting her Masters collar, then a Master may do with his slave
>>> as he alone sees fit, according to his wants and
>>> needs, as well as his values, principles and beliefs. The Master has the
>>> final decision in all matters and issues within this power structure.
>>> Once a slave has accepted her Masters collar and consented to be his
>>> total and unconditional slave, no further
>>> consent is needed or required.
>>>
>> It's so nice to see people who are so completely impervious to the
>> influence of reality. Refreshing, really.
>>
>
> life, and seem even to believe it (or hope it's true).
>
> Lurkers: this is a load of total manure. Continuous consent, even if it's
> tacit, is always required.
>
> Ruth
>
>
>
>
Just a minute. What's the problem here? What if power exchange is the
natural dynamic of the relationship? Again, I thought we were not to
judge another's kink. That is the rule on the list I got this from.
I believe that a relationship naturally forms from an attraction between
two people and that the dynamic speaks for itself. Therefore "propagate
such nonsense in newbs (sic) in real life" is a false concept. Of
course, I am coming from the place of not having looked for a
relationship and having received one, so I don't understand that whole
concept of looking for that "special someone" or dating. Meaning I think
it is artificial to try and force a dynamic on a relationship that is
not there. Meaning if a M/s dynamic is not there, it should not be
created just for fun.
I would hope that someone else agrees with me that when two people come
together, a natural dynamic forms between them and this defines the
relationship. If that natural dynamic is power exchange, than it would
not be abuse, but following the natural course of events. In fact, to
fight a power exchange dynamic inherent in a relationship will cause
more damage than allowing it to develop.
I hope my thoughts are clear to you. I have never written on this before.
Christian subbie
> "IrishWinks" <irish...@bresnansansspam.net> wrote in message
> news:ue0pn2p3s4mmdr1ps...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> They don't like your (possibly imaginary) cyber dom either. They
>> don't like that your silly "cyber-inspired" ideas might influence a
>> newbie - a real life, flesh & blood, newbie - someone who might get
>> hurt - someone who doesn't know any better than to listen to you and
>> your (possibly imaginary) ilk/Master.
>>
>
> or not (unless they are in fact an abuser, and what could I do from
> here, eh?).
>
> It isn't my business.
>
> I very much do care about lurkers and newbies seeing toxic crap.
>
> Ruth, not so long ago a newb herself
>
>
>
>
I find it difficult to write a proper analytical reply to you. First
of all, my dom is present and real and not an abuser. Second of all
there is nothing toxic about our relationship. Third of all the point of
my publishing that essay was to deal with replies like yours, or
conversations in real life that label my relationship as abusive. Its
not. I would like to be able to get to a point where I can present it as
not being abusive. Apparently the way I am presenting it now it looks
abusive and that is not good. So I need your help to clean up its image
for the public eye, and, for conversations with friends who might judge.
So, are you willing to help?
Christian subbie
Christian subbie
> IrishWinks wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:17:40 -0500, fnordikins <fnord...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear You Know Who You Are, The Alleged Master:
>>>
>>> Please stop tormenting us. Do us all a favor and call off your subbie.
>>> You seem to be tormenting her too, and I don't think she's enjoying it.
>>> It's not doing anyone any good, unless it's fun for you, and that
>>> alone isn't a good enough reason.
>>>
>>> pretty please?
>>>
>> With sugar on top, Alleged Master?
>>
>
> And also rabbit sushi (and a biscuit banisher), if you're extra good.
>
> alcibiades
>
>
What is a biscuit banisher?
Tobie
<white_wat...@NOSPAMcomcast.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>It took me a long time to figure out that there's good codependency --
>the sort that humanity needs to exist, the sort that allows one to
>expand as a person and gives one support and affirmation and such -- and
> bad codependency -- the kind that diminishes one's sense of self and
>turns one into a pale shadow of one's true nature, due to 'But My
>Partner Likes . . . ' sort of thing
I think I consider that interdependency.
Or symbiotic.
Tobie
Christian subbie
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:49:11 GMT, Christian subbie
> <amkemail...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> David Weinshenker wrote:
>>
>>> I think Ruth's comment was addressed to the original text itself; it was
>>> perhaps unclear whether you shared that point of view or disagreed with it.
>>>
>>> -dave w
>>>
>>>
>> I do not know enough to share the point of view or disagree with it.
>> This is all new to me. I do know I identify more as a slave than a sub.
>> My kink is 24/7, 365, permanent commitment, as I have stated from the
>> beginning. That is what I know.
>>
>
> Well, if you don't know to whom your are committing, you don't know
> much. You know nothing. People's reactions to you are not because
> they don't understand you - it's because they do. They don't like
> you.
>
This was totally out of line. I don't think I framed my presentation
correctly. I am in a relationship that is not about parties and scenes
and it is a D/s relationship. I do not appreciate your judgment. It is
out of line.
> They don't like your (possibly imaginary) cyber dom either. They
> don't like that your silly "cyber-inspired" ideas might influence a
> newbie - a real life, flesh & blood, newbie - someone who might get
> hurt - someone who doesn't know any better than to listen to you and
> your (possibly imaginary) ilk/Master.
>
am gaining the framework to write about the relationship. It is all
very intuitive and natural. There is no imitation or emulation
possible, except in a role playing scene. You only see the outside,
which is a barrier to many, the appearance of it.
> Stop seeing this as a misunderstanding. It is not - not unless you
> see yourself as the one who doesn't understand. And even if you do -
> the crap you expel makes you dangerous to newbies. That makes you an
> or a subbie extraordinaire.
>
> Get it?
>
> Winks
>
>
>
> *Note email addy is munged. Correct email is irish...@bresnan.net
>
I get that you are a very angry man. And I get that you do misunderstand
me. And I get that you do not want to understand me. I am not here to
win friends and influence people.
Christian subbie
> "Troia" <troia....@gmail.removethis.com> wrote
>
>> Ah. I don't see many collars here among the BDSM folks, esp. not spiky
>> ones, though some on goth types.
>>
>
> Oh, there are lots worn here.
>
>
>> The few slave/sub collars I see much of are usually very tasteful, like
>> the red choker I described in another post, or a leaf-garland necklace
>> another woman wears (that is, ironically, open ... I thought it was a
>> lovely statement of her submission.)
>>
>
> Ours tend to look like dog collars, are very chain and loop embellished, or
> are steel!
>
>
>
Those sound the most appealing out of all described. I have always liked
choke collars ever since I had a dog.
>
>
David Weinshenker
> I believe that a relationship naturally forms from an attraction between
> two people and that the dynamic speaks for itself. Therefore "propagate
> such nonsense in newbs (sic) in real life" is a false concept. Of
> course, I am coming from the place of not having looked for a
> relationship and having received one, so I don't understand that whole
> concept of looking for that "special someone" or dating. Meaning I think
> it is artificial to try and force a dynamic on a relationship that is
> not there. Meaning if a M/s dynamic is not there, it should not be
> created just for fun.
Well yeah. (For example, I know my kink isn't really oriented to dom/sub
interaction; it's more like "friends playing with rope, & stuff, etc...")
> I would hope that someone else agrees with me that when two people come
> together, a natural dynamic forms between them and this defines the
> relationship. If that natural dynamic is power exchange, than it would
> not be abuse, but following the natural course of events. In fact, to
> fight a power exchange dynamic inherent in a relationship will cause
> more damage than allowing it to develop.
>
> I hope my thoughts are clear to you. I have never written on this before.
Hmmm... maybe in a total D/S or "power exchange" context one could view
the question of abuse the same way one would view it with, say, a horse
or a piece of machinery: something like "don't break your toys, and you
will be able to play with them again."
Does that make any sense? I may totally own something, it may be absolutely
mine to use by any legitimate standard, and yet I still may distinguish
between using it well and abusing it. (Substitute "someone" for "something",
and include "by his or her consent" in the "any legitimate standard" part,
and it still applies I think.)
-dave w
Christian subbie
> Kara wrote:
>
>> honestly know nothing about APE/TPE other than having heard of the
>> concept), but I don't really think most 'vanilla' people have a
>> problem with BDSM as long as it doesn't happen where they can see
>> it. I don't think anyone, but people like extreme feminists,
>> Christians, moralists etc, actually think of BDSM as abuse.
>
> That's my experience too.
>
>> Again, I don't know much about this, but wouldn't the slave need to
>> 'consent to continue consenting' as it would be? Wouldn't there have
>> to be some way of ending the slavery? I will go as far as to suggest
>> that anyone who would willingly enslave themselves without any way of
>> getting out of it, in todays society, has mental problems, and no one
>> should agree to take on such a person as their slave.
>
> Without ongoing consent, the top (master, dominant or whatever) is
> running a huge legal risk, at least here in the US. So I think that
> both people in a relationship that has no agreed upon way to end it
> would probably be certifiable.
>
> Shirley
Marriage is entered into for life, with no thought for ending it.
Christian subbie
> Norton Zenger wrote:
>
>> Lynn come on down:
>>
>>
>>> Christian subbie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My kink is 24/7, 365, permanent commitment, as I have stated from the
>>>> beginning. That is what I know.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> I happen to agree with you, despite being into bondage. ;-)
>
> Lynn
>
>
So today the idea of entering into an intimate relationship with no
intention to exit is a perversion?
Christian subbie
power and how others outside the relationship perceive it. I have
accepted the relationship's existence and I have sat down in the middle
of it and am meditating on the judgment of the outside world, pondering
it almost. It alienates some people. If I were a professional sub, then
I think people would be more accepting of it, ironically enough. I find
it interesting that people can talk openly about polyamory and
transsexuals but they judge my situation harshly.
Christian subbie
> I don't think anyone, but people like extreme feminists, Christians,
> moralists etc, actually think of BDSM as abuse.
>
> <snip>
>
> I will go as far as to suggest that anyone who would willingly
> enslave themselves without any way of getting out of it, in todays
> society, has mental problems, and no one should agree to take on such
> a person as their slave.
>
>
Ruth Lawrence
"David Weinshenker" wrote
> Hmmm... maybe in a total D/S or "power exchange" context one could view
> the question of abuse the same way one would view it with, say, a horse
> or a piece of machinery: something like "don't break your toys, and you
> will be able to play with them again."
A horse is *so* not machinery, though.
> Does that make any sense? I may totally own something, it may be
> absolutely
> mine to use by any legitimate standard, and yet I still may distinguish
> between using it well and abusing it. (Substitute "someone" for
> "something",
> and include "by his or her consent" in the "any legitimate standard" part,
> and it still applies I think.)
I apply different values when it's alive. The closer to sentient it is -by
any reasonable standard-, the more heavily I regard my responsibility.
I wouldn't usually care much if I lost some object worth $2, but would feel
bad if a $2 goldfish died due to my ignorance or laxity.
Ruth, chanting "people are not things, oh my, oh no"
Dag
>> I will go as far as to suggest that anyone who would willingly
>> enslave themselves without any way of getting out of it, in todays
>> society, has mental problems, and no one should agree to take on such
>> a person as their slave.
> So do you think that all married people "has mental problems" (sic)?
As you yourself have proved, it is quite possible (and in fact quite
easy) to get out of a marriage.
Also there is absolutely nothing slave like about marriage, so the point
is moot either way.
Dag
H Duffy
"Christian subbie" <amkemail...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:457E4462...@yahoo.nospam.com...
> Lynn wrote:
>> Christian subbie wrote:
>> If marriage is a kink,
> Correction, my relationship is, it looks like marriage to you.
Y'know, it really doesn't. Like, in a marriage, generally both partners have
to consent, whereas in your "relationship", your "dom" doesn't even know
that you're having these fantasies about him, and certainly hasn't consented
to be part of them. That's not at _all_ like marriage.
H
H Duffy
> M. Shirley Chong wrote:
>> Without ongoing consent, the top (master, dominant or whatever) is
>> running a huge legal risk, at least here in the US. So I think that both
>> people in a relationship that has no agreed upon way to end it would
>> probably be certifiable.
>
Says the divorcee...
H
erithromycin
Hello, SSSB. I'm just quickly responding to warlock's message to remind you
that, when cross-posting to alt.gothic, we'd prefer that you post underneath
the message that you are responding to. You all seem like civilised folks,
so it's only fair to warn you that top-posting causes crabs. That's a
SCIENTIFIC FACT.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Atlanta bashing.
--
erith - Scientific Factologist
fnordikins
You all seem like civilised folks,
> so it's only fair to warn you that top-posting causes crabs. That's a
> SCIENTIFIC FACT.
"There's enough evil there to turn you all into hermit crabs!"
The Supreme Being, Time Bandits
Renate
Christian subbie wrote:
> Ruth Lawrence wrote:
> > Lurkers: this is a load of total manure. Continuous consent, even if it's
> > tacit, is always required.
Every time the slave chooses *not* to leave the relationship, it's
consent to the dynamics.
> Just a minute. What's the problem here? What if power exchange is the
> natural dynamic of the relationship? Again, I thought we were not to
> judge another's kink. That is the rule on the list I got this from.
What exchange? Power flows one way. One gives, one takes. It doesn't
flow back and forth, like a yo-yo.
People judge every day. The most common, is when we see that people's
words do not match their actions.
> I believe that a relationship naturally forms from an attraction between
> two people and that the dynamic speaks for itself.
There first must be two people who are *both* attracted to eash other.
Imaginary people don't count, nor do those who haven't consented to be
part of the dynamic.
> Therefore "propagate such nonsense in newbs (sic) in real life" is a false concept.
Take you, for instance. You know nothing about disparate power
relationships, but you read something, decided it met your latest
fantasies, and that you wanted one of those. Not having one waiting in
the wings, you created it. Alas, your words (and actions) belie your
claims.
> Meaning if a M/s dynamic is not there, it should not be created just for fun.
As you've demonstrated, anything can be created.
> I hope my thoughts are clear to you. I have never written on this before.
Sure you have, for some time now; and with no clarity at all, to even a
basic understanding of even the most rudimentary dynamic of a d/s
relationship.
Renate
Renate
Marriage (between humans), is clearly defined by both the Church and
the law. Your 'relationship' doesn't even look like a relationship,
let alone a marriage.
Renate
Renate
Christian subbie wrote:
> Ruth Lawrence wrote:
> >
> >> They don't like your (possibly imaginary) cyber dom either. They
> >> don't like that your silly "cyber-inspired" ideas might influence a
> >> newbie - a real life, flesh & blood, newbie - someone who might get
> >> hurt - someone who doesn't know any better than to listen to you and
> >> your (possibly imaginary) ilk/Master.
> >
> > I really don't care about someone' in here's not-present dom, real
> > or not (unless they are in fact an abuser, and what could I do from
> > here, eh?).
> >
> >
Present, where? Your imagination? You say he lurks here, yet he never
speaks. You have said we can write to him, yet you refuse to give
contact info. You are not allowed to contact him, yet you have a
"relationship".
> Second of all there is nothing toxic about our relationship. If it does exist (which you've pretty much assured that no one believes), then the trauma he has subjected you to, by handing you over to be scorned, humiliated, and verbally abused (against your will), belies that statement.
> Third of all the point of my publishing that essay was to deal with replies like yours, or
> conversations in real life that label my relationship as abusive.
If you aren't capable of explaining a "relationship" you claim to have
been involved in for some time, with the excellent communication skills
(and superior intellect) you also claim to have, then apparently you
don't understand it, either.
> So I need your help to clean up its image for the public eye, and, for conversations with friends who might judge.
You want us to give you cut/paste statements you can use to make this
imaginary relationship sound more believable? In short, you want us to
create your relationship, for you, so you will sound credible, as you
enter new groups/lists.
Nope. Not interested in helping.
Renate
Renate
Christian subbie wrote:
> Kara wrote:
> > I will go as far as to suggest that anyone who would willingly
> > enslave themselves without any way of getting out of it, in todays
> > society, has mental problems, and no one should agree to take on such
> > a person as their slave.
> So do you think that all married people "has mental problems" (sic)?
You equate marriage, with slavery? Most people equate marriage with
partnership.
Renate