Total power exchange or lifestyle d/s?
Lady Sun
There is no intent as usual on arousing flames here, I just seek some
answers. If my writing, intent, or word choice isn't clear please just ask
me for clarification. If you are interested in flame throwing please pass
this post.
I was looking over the website on "submissive women speak" which was a
hyperlink from this site: http://www.lovingds.org/introframe.htm and I came
across some conversations with Jon Jacobs and others and a small reference
to "total power exchange". I started to wonder what TPE is all about and if
that is who I really am. I have always called myself a lifestyler but I
wonder if saying I am into TPE is more accurate. I consider myself a
lifestyler because I not only play BDSM games but I also enjoy control and
domination in everday situations. I enjoy making the decisions, acting as
guide, teacher, etc. to my submissive.
Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any between being
a lifestyler and being into TPE?
Smiles and Blessed be,
Lady Sun.
--
To use you, is to love you.
Lady Sun
Tanos - remove X wrote in message ...
>[Followups set in case this thread, mentioning TPE, Jon Jacobs and
> Gloria Brame attracts the flamers ...]
Please excuse my ignorance but what does the above mean?
>http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm takes you directly to Jon
>and Polly's "Submissive Women Speak" site.
Thanks for the direct link!
>The key thing is the totality of power exchange in TPE (or Absolute
>Power Exchange as they prefer) and this is more a change in the sub's
>perception than something you can just decide to be.
Hmmm.. this sounds intriguing. So what I understand is that the sub would
perceive me as having total power over them? Is this similar to me
considering myself as lifestyle? I will read the url you sent along, thanks
again!
>For more see: http://gloria-brame.com/absol.htm#absol
Smiles and blessed be,
Lady Sun.
David Weinshenker
>
>
Hello there Lady S. - I think I can clarify at least part of
your question perhaps!
>
>
> Tanos - remove X wrote in message ...
> >[Followups set in case this thread, mentioning TPE, Jon Jacobs and
> > Gloria Brame attracts the flamers ...]
>
> Please excuse my ignorance but what does the above mean?
Well, Gloria Brame is relatively unknown to me (I suspect she
should be near the top of my BDSM-reading-list-to-do, along with
Pat Califia's "Sensuous Magic" and "Diesel Fuel") ... and I haven't
seen any of JJ's posts myself, but I've put in a link to something
Steven Davis wrote about him below. I get the impression that Tanos
considers him to be the subject of potential future (as well as
historical) flamewars.
Therefore the message has a "followup to: ssbb" header even though
it is crossposted to ssbb and ssbb.femdom, so that if you use your
news program's "reply-to" feature it will automatically just write
in ssbb in the reply field, instead of both newsgroups. Sounds like
a reasonable flame-containment precaution.
The idea is that if the message does stimulate an angry reply
and someone posts a reply to that, the news software default
will be for the messages only to post to ssbb, and the argument
will stay in one newsgroup, leaving the .femdoms to whatever
it is that they do over there. :)
(Someone, please, what's the deal with Gloria Brame? She's someone
I've heard of as some sort of 'feminist BDSM author,' but I don't
understand what's flammable about her as a topic...)
Here's SD's bit about JJ...
http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/jj.html
Hope I've clarified things a bit...
-dave w
Tanos - remove X
Gloria Brame attracts the flamers ...]
Lady Sun <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There is no intent as usual on arousing flames here, I just seek some
> answers. If my writing, intent, or word choice isn't clear please just ask
> me for clarification. If you are interested in flame throwing please pass
> this post.
>
> I was looking over the website on "submissive women speak" which was a
> hyperlink from this site: http://www.lovingds.org/introframe.htm and I came
> across some conversations with Jon Jacobs and others and a small reference
> to "total power exchange".
http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm takes you directly to Jon
and Polly's "Submissive Women Speak" site.
It's mostly an archive of Countess Velveeta and Rosie posts to
alt.sex.bondage, but with some more recent articles as well. It's
pretty much all worth reading, whether you agree with it or not.
> I started to wonder what TPE is all about and if
> that is who I really am. I have always called myself a lifestyler but I
> wonder if saying I am into TPE is more accurate.
> Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any between being
> a lifestyler and being into TPE?
The key thing is the totality of power exchange in TPE (or Absolute
Power Exchange as they prefer) and this is more a change in the sub's
perception than something you can just decide to be.
For more see: http://gloria-brame.com/absol.htm#absol
Take care everyone,
Tanos
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| alt.lifestyle.master-slave information page: Charter,links,web2news |
| gateway,FAQ: http://www.owner-slave.com/alt.lifestyle.master-slave/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip the Foole
David Weinshenker: (Someone, please, what's the deal with Gloria Brame?
She's someone
I've heard of as some sort of 'feminist BDSM author,' but I don't
understand what's flammable about her as a topic...)
Foole: She is the co-author of "Different Loving: The World of Sexual
Dominance & Submission," along with William D. Brame and Jon Jacobs. I
don't personally have any problem with Gloria, and I've done a favorable
review of one of her erotic fiction works. Her co-author Jon Jacobs is
sometimes perceived as being an exponent of the "One True Way" (his way)
to do D/s. Steven Davis has a summary of the JJ debates at his
website.
JJ's psycho girlfriend, Rosie/Countess Velveeta/Sophia Eisor ("Eisor" =
"Rosie" backwards) pops up here occasionally under a variety of aliases
to attack my alleged cruelty to "intelligent submissive women" and to
try to create the impression of a mass movement in support of her
honeybunch against those who practice "faux" BDSM.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Janet Hardy
Lady Sun wrote in message ...
>Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any between
being
>a lifestyler and being into TPE?
TPE is more a goal than a reality, as I understand it. The idea is that the
sub has *no* control over any aspect of his life unless the dom chooses to
give it to him -- the dominant controls anything she cares to control: his
work, his family life, his health habits, everything. In Jacobs-style TPE,
the sub also does not have the right to end the relationship.
Jacobs' views on TPE are highly controversial, as is Jacobs himself. You
might want to run a Deja search on his history on s.s.b-b.
Verdant
mady
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>TPE is more a goal than a reality, as I understand it. The idea is that the
>sub has *no* control over any aspect of his life unless the dom chooses to
>give it to him -- the dominant controls anything she cares to control: his
>work, his family life, his health habits, everything. In Jacobs-style TPE,
>the sub also does not have the right to end the relationship.
Another person's version of TPE can be seen at
http://www.powerotics.com/hans/hd.htm
>Jacobs' views on TPE are highly controversial, as is Jacobs himself. You
>might want to run a Deja search on his history on s.s.b-b.
One of his more controversial statements was a speech given a few
years ago. It can be read in it's entirety at
http://www.mouse-works.com/subnatione/speech.html
mady
--
madylarian OCL(OCF)
*take hobinrood out of email address to reply*
#Kill all spammers! Neuter/spay so they can't breed!#
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Philip the Foole
Foole: JJ's co-author for that speech, "Polly Peachum" is, of course,
yet another pseudonym for Rosie/Sophia Eisor/Countess Velveeta. Their
central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites above, is
that anyone not practicing their particular brand of D/s isn't doing the
*real* thing. The multiple name game deception by Rosie/Sophia
Eisor/Countess Velveeta/Polly Peachum might work better if each of them
didn't claim superiority based on the same "seven and a half years" with
her master.
I guess that trumps my twenty-two years with Lady Foole. Of course,
we're still not doing BDSM the *right* way, but I ain't givin' up.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Five hundred trips and they've *all* been bummers. But I ain't givin'
up.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by the Forty-year-old Hippie.
RJ-
}> mady: One of his [Jon Jacobs'] more controversial statements was a speech given a few
}years ago. It can be read in it's entirety at
}http://www.mouse-works.com/subnatione/speech.html
}
}Foole: JJ's co-author for that speech, "Polly Peachum" is, of course,
}yet another pseudonym for Rosie/Sophia Eisor/Countess Velveeta. Their
}central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites above, is
}that anyone not practicing their particular brand of D/s isn't doing the
}*real* thing. The multiple name game deception by Rosie/Sophia
}Eisor/Countess Velveeta/Polly Peachum might work better if each of them
}didn't claim superiority based on the same "seven and a half years" with
}her master.
}I guess that trumps my twenty-two years with Lady Foole. Of course,
}we're still not doing BDSM the *right* way, but I ain't givin' up.
That's what happens when your synapses are wired in series rather
than parallel.
RJ
Tanos - remove X
>
> > mady: One of his [Jon Jacobs'] more controversial statements was a speech given a few
> years ago. It can be read in it's entirety at
> http://www.mouse-works.com/subnatione/speech.html
>
> central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites above, is
> that anyone not practicing their particular brand of D/s isn't doing
> the *real* thing.
More accurately, that submission with limits and safewords isn't
"submission", because of the element of control the sub retains.
Now I don't agree with them, but they argued their case rationally,
despite the mob mentality they were faced with in alt.sex.bondage, and
they're entitled to have an opinion on how to define words like
submission, just as much as anyone else.
One of the nice things about the web is that they have the opportunity
to express that opinion, free of attempts to silence them:
http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
Lady Sun
David Weinshenker wrote in message <37A3B6B9...@grin.net>...
>Hope I've clarified things a bit...
As always you did! *s Hope you are keeping well...
Warmest smiles and blessed be,
Lady Sun.
Lady Sun
Janet Hardy wrote in message <7o1pcl$dfi$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Lady Sun wrote in message ...
>>Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any between
>being
>>a lifestyler and being into TPE?
>
>
>TPE is more a goal than a reality, as I understand it. The idea is that the
>sub has *no* control over any aspect of his life unless the dom chooses to
>give it to him -- the dominant controls anything she cares to control: his
>work, his family life, his health habits, everything. In Jacobs-style TPE,
>the sub also does not have the right to end the relationship.
I have to admit that I do *try* to control these things. I view myself as a
Matriarch. In my household I am bossy. I like to care for the people in my
life and I want what is best for them. That is not to say that I don't take
their opinion into account, their reasons for not agreeing or that they
can't think for themselves. I do enjoy, however, final veto power. It is
important that they are an individual because they need to survive and
thrive when I am not with them. Furthermore they are of no intellectual use
to me if they are a drone just following orders. Humble intellect is
necessary in my relations with subs.
The power and control that the sub gives to me should come freely and
without overt coercion. *s The sub can leave when they want but I expect
that thru constant honest communication that issues need resolving would
come up and discussions would take place and that he would be too
deliciously happy in subspace<<okay, so that is the ideal and this is my
dream. I am allowed! *s. The way I look at it, if a sub just gets up and
leaves then he wasn't worth my time in the first place and it's best that he
goes on his merry little way before wasting anymore of my time.
>Jacobs' views on TPE are highly controversial, as is Jacobs himself. You
>might want to run a Deja search on his history on s.s.b-b.
I will, but I still trying to figure out if I am into TPE or a lifestyle
Domme or maybe there is no difference.
Smiles,
Lady Sun.
-^-^spectrum-^^-
>Philip the Foole <p...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > mady: One of his [Jon Jacobs'] more controversial statements
>> >was a speech given a few
>> years ago. It can be read in it's entirety at
>> http://www.mouse-works.com/subnatione/speech.html
ptf:
>> Their central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites
>> above, is that anyone not practicing their particular brand of
>> D/s isn't doing the *real* thing.
Tanos:
>More accurately, that submission with limits and safewords isn't
>"submission", because of the element of control the sub retains.
>
>Now I don't agree with them, but they argued their case
>rationally, despite the mob mentality they were faced with in
>alt.sex.bondage, and they're entitled to have an opinion on how to
>define words like submission, just as much as anyone else.
They (primarily Jon Jacobs) argued the case, but not rationally.
Calling *any* D/s that wasn't his version of Total Power Exchange
"faux D/s", calling others who express their opinions of the One
True Way TPE statements "deluded" and "junior", is *not* a rational
argument. Jacobs was deliberately and excessively brusque and rude
in his postings. I point out to him that his manners were defeating
his goals, and was called "deluded."
As I remember, he also said that he would allow that a brief period of
"trying things out" would be acceptable, but that it had to move to TPE
very shortly or it wasn't True D/s. He was in essense staking claim to the
term D/s as *his* way and his way only.
and Janet Hardy wrote in message
<7o1pcl$dfi$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>TPE is more a goal than a reality, as I understand it. The idea
>is that the sub has *no* control over any aspect of his life
>unless the dom chooses to give it to him -- the dominant controls
>anything she cares to control: his work, his family life, his
>health habits, everything. In Jacobs-style TPE, the sub also does
>not have the right to end the relationship.
Even more so: he maintained that the sub *cannot* even *conceive*
of leaving the relationship. If the sub had that amount of free
will, it wasn't TPE or real D/S, but only tha faux version. He was
asked what the difference between TPE and brainwashing was, and
did not answer to the satisfaction of most here. As I remember,
his answer was to the effect that only those acutally doing TPE
could understand the difference. The rest of us were incapable of
comprehending it.
>Jacobs' views on TPE are highly controversial, as is Jacobs
>himself. You might want to run a Deja search on his history on
>s.s.b-b.
ASB. He last showed up in late 1996 to "discuss" things, and
sometime in early 1997 posted a pointer to his web page.
-^-^spectrum-^^- spectrum@magenta..COM
Tales of ASBWorld and Pervhome: http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/spectrum
"Absolute Power corrupts...but Total Power Exchange perverts."
RJ-
Phillip T. Foole opined:
}> Their
}> central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites above, is
}> that anyone not practicing their particular brand of D/s isn't doing
}> the *real* thing.
}
}More accurately, that submission with limits and safewords isn't
}"submission", because of the element of control the sub retains.
}
}Now I don't agree with them, but they argued their case rationally,
}despite the mob mentality they were faced with in alt.sex.bondage, and
}they're entitled to have an opinion on how to define words like
}submission, just as much as anyone else.
}
}One of the nice things about the web is that they have the opportunity
}to express that opinion, free of attempts to silence them:
} http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
Tanos, interesting bit of revisionism you have going there. As I
recall, no one attempted to "silence" any of the posters (to with:
no one got ahold of JJ's ISP and tried to get his account canceled
nor did anyone try to cancel his posts). People disagreed with him,
loudly and energetically, that's all. And it wasn't even for his
personal definition of what dominance or submission meant to him.
No one objected to JJ defining what submission meant for himself or
those people in a direct relationship with him. What inspired lots
of critical replies and flames was his attempt to offer a "one size
fits all" definition for anyone and everyone involved with D/s. To
those that disagreed with him, he would loudly declare that people
who didn't follow his definition, weren't "really" doing D/s.
Just to clarify.
RJ
Karl Kleinpaste
> JJ's psycho girlfriend, Rosie/Countess Velveeta/Sophia Eisor ("Eisor" =
> "Rosie" backwards) pops up here occasionally under a variety of aliases
You neglected at least the additional aliases "Polly Peachum," under
which she operated in several venues for well over a year (e.g.
"Latches" mailing list) as well as "Bambi Bottom."
Don't forget that "Bambi" was "interviewed" for Brame & Jacobs'
_Different Loving_, of course. He didn't use (couldn't find?) an
unbiased, not-personally-involved subject for that piece. One can't
help but wonder how much of the "interview" was simply "Bambi" writing
down whatever Jacobs told her to write. If one examines the site
surrounding _Different Loving_, finding that Rosie, Velveeta, Bambi,
and Polly are all cross-quoted to one another (that far back, the
"Sophia" alias didn't exist), one begins to gain the realization that
Jacobs can't actually find a whole lot of supporters beyond the 4
exterior walls of his own house.
I make this contentious observation as one who nonetheless advocates
and practices a serious no-way-out variety of D/s. I regret having
had brief, personal dealing with Jacobs outside ASB & SSBB, of a
professional nature, and I am annoyed and disgusted to report that
Jacobs is as willing to step into arrogant One True Way-ism
professionally as he is in regards to D/s relationships. There are
one or two areas of my field where I am truly the sole authority, and
Jacobs, in his abject ignorance, saw fit to try to talk up his
supposed high ranking, before he went conspicuously silent upon being
informed of my position superior to his own.
He is arrogant, disrespectful, arrogant, foolish, arrogant, ignorant,
arrogant, self-impressed, and arrogant. A certain measured arrogance
is, in my opinion, a positive attribute of anyone who professes to
take control of other people, but Jacobs' version has no measure, no
limit. It is not checked by a proper, natural self-awareness that
ought to accompany it.
--
SSBB Diplomatic Corps, Pittsburgh & s.w. Pennsylvania
Dennis Novak
> I still trying to figure out if I am into TPE or a lifestyle Domme or maybe
> there is no difference.
It may be a semantic difference. For me, "Lifestyle," refers to the constancy
of the relationship. If ti's more-or-less always in gear, it's Lifestyle.
"TPE" refers to a facet of the intensity. If it refers to totality of control,
it's TPE.
I have difficulty with TPE, except when viewed through the glass of willing
suspension of disbelief. I don't believe that totality does or can exist, or is
even a good goal. But if you substitute "a helluva lot," for "total," then I
have no problem at all. In practice, I think that a helluva lot is what is
practiced.
Another way of looking at TPE, is that it is an extreme PPE relationship that
has not been tested to destruction. Considering that you can only test to
destruction once, that is probably a good thing.
-Dennis novak
RJ-
Spectrum wrote:
}> Jacobs was deliberately and excessively brusque and rude
}> in his postings. I point out to him that his manners were defeating
}> his goals, and was called "deluded."
}
}Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
}has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
}suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
What YKINOK attitude are you thinking of? Other than JJ's towards
anyone who questioned his desire to define "real" D/s for everyone?
}Staking claim to the __term__: he acknowledged that different styles
}of what almost everyone else calls D/s, might be just right for other
}people.
}
}To those without emotional investment in the alt.sex.bondage attacks
}on Jon Jacobs and his ideas:
} If you're interested in these issues, go to his website and read
} what he actually says _for_yourself_:
} http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
} Make your own decisions about what makes sense and what doesn't,
} and which bits are applicable to you, and which aren't.
}
}For example:
}
}"Shedding the comforting cloak of fantasy, just as a child gives up
} his security blanket when he gets too old for it, is the first hard
} step that a person who really wants to live a real-world BDSM life
} style must take. You must realize that most people in the S&M cyber
} society around you will not take that step, and, in fact, not only
} do not want personally to take that step but do not want you to take
} that step, as they feel that your doing something different from them
} will invalidate their life choices."
So, JJ compares non "real-world BDSM" to childish indulgences?
Fascinating.
And then he closes out with an unsupported claim that "cyber S&M"
folks will oppose those "real D/s folks" because they are scared by
"real D/s."
Yep, JJ is really the voice of calm, open0minded reason.
Different year, same attitude.
RJ
Tanos - remove X
>
> Tanos - remove X <Ta...@informedconsent.Xc uk> wrote:
> >
> >"submission", because of the element of control the sub retains.
> >
> >Now I don't agree with them, but they argued their case
> >rationally, despite the mob mentality they were faced with in
> >alt.sex.bondage, and they're entitled to have an opinion on how to
> >define words like submission, just as much as anyone else.
> Jacobs was deliberately and excessively brusque and rude
> in his postings. I point out to him that his manners were defeating
> his goals, and was called "deluded."
Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
> As I remember, he also said that he would allow that a brief period of
> "trying things out" would be acceptable, but that it had to move to TPE
> very shortly or it wasn't True D/s.
Or rather, his position favoured brief periods of TPE - ie TPE with a
time limit but no other limits. (This flies in the face all my "trial
and error" instincts, but hey, we're talking about his right to hold
opinions and why certain people want to rubbish his ideas, not just
about whether he's right.)
> He was in essense staking claim to the term D/s as *his* way and his
> way only.
Staking claim to the __term__: he acknowledged that different styles
of what almost everyone else calls D/s, might be just right for other
people.
To those without emotional investment in the alt.sex.bondage attacks
on Jon Jacobs and his ideas:
If you're interested in these issues, go to his website and read
what he actually says _for_yourself_:
http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
Make your own decisions about what makes sense and what doesn't,
and which bits are applicable to you, and which aren't.
For example:
"Shedding the comforting cloak of fantasy, just as a child gives up
his security blanket when he gets too old for it, is the first hard
step that a person who really wants to live a real-world BDSM life
style must take. You must realize that most people in the S&M cyber
society around you will not take that step, and, in fact, not only
do not want personally to take that step but do not want you to take
that step, as they feel that your doing something different from them
will invalidate their life choices."
Take care everyone,
Tanos - remove X
>
> On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Tanos - remove X wrote:
>
> Spectrum wrote:
> }> in his postings. I point out to him that his manners were defeating
> }> his goals, and was called "deluded."
> }
> }Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
> }has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
> }suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
>
> anyone who questioned his desire to define "real" D/s for everyone?
The YKINOK attitude displayed in ASB. In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm,
s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) wrote:
|>
|>There was, once, the principle of antiYKINOKism on
|>BDSM newsgroups, admittedly never as widely practiced as some of us
|>would have liked (and TPEers have plenty of reason for feeling
|>that we never lived up to that principle as regards their kink).
As I said:
> }To those without emotional investment in the alt.sex.bondage attacks
> }on Jon Jacobs and his ideas:
> } If you're interested in these issues, go to his website and read
> } what he actually says _for_yourself_:
> } http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
> } Make your own decisions about what makes sense and what doesn't,
> } and which bits are applicable to you, and which aren't.
Take care everyone,
Tanos
Spyral Fox
<Ta...@informedconsent.Xco.uk> writes:
>Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
>has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
>suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
Actually, it always struck me as more of a "YKIOK, but unrealistic."
Sort of like JK, really. JJ talked about TPE as if it were a goal we
should all strive for and the only "real" D/s, which was bad enough,
but then he also admitted that he & his partner didn't live in some
little dream universe where everything he said went. He actually
admitted in one of his posts to having arguments with his partner
-- if it were "real TPE," how would she possibly disagree with JJ?
JJ's attitude led to more conflict than was IMO "needful" -- I personally
have no trouble with someone defining what they do as "slavery"
or as "TPE," but it's helpful to recall that in almost the entire
planet you can't really keep someone against their will, and that
-- all promises aside -- if the Dom gets too weird the sub has a
legal right to leave, and that "battered women's syndrome" can
keep a sub in plave long after the line to abuse has been crossed.
- - Spyral Fox
--
Official Depooty of the Sheriff of Nettingham's Charter Enforcers (CLG)
Member, SSBB Diplomatic Corps.
Owned & Operated by Lord Richard. ("Ani l'dodi...")
San Diego Munch info & resources: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
Steven S. Davis
: In article <37A65A7C...@informedconsent.Xco.uk>, Tanos - remove X
: <Ta...@informedconsent.Xco.uk> writes:
:
: >Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
: >has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
: >suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
:
: Actually, it always struck me as more of a "YKIOK, but unrealistic."
There were (at least) three parts to the criticism of TPE (and
specificly Jacobin TPE):
Part of it was criticism of JJ and his acolytes for maintaining
that "total" or "absolute" were achievable (it's this sort
of thing which leads to the "hot poker to the eye" arguments).
Sensible people know, of course, that the absolute exists only
in theory. Jj & company would never admit this. FWIW, in
some of his articles JJ seemed to be saying that someone with
a goal which is absolute must pretend the goal is achievable
or zie will be unable to pursue it. I think that underestimates
people quite badly, as many do understand the value in the
striving for an unobtainable goal.
There was also the criticism of the goal (and the approach close
to that approachable but unachievable goal) as being unhealthy.
IMO, most of the YKINOKism regarding TPE relates to this criticism.
And there was (and is) the body of opinion which rejects irrevocable
consent. People holding this view state that any consent which is
not always withdrawable at any time is not valid. This view is in
direct contradiction to the basis of TPE, so people with this view
reject TPE as either impossible or nonconsensual. This view
is connected to the second objection, as people holding it feel
that some of those measures[*] used to prevent someone from revoking
zir consent are unhealthy and/or abusive.
[*] - e.g. to remove the ability or to diminish it until it
is removed under all normal circumstances (that is, yes,
under extreme pressure the slave may be able to revoke
zir consent, but not until then; one RL examble was the
slave who remained with her TPE master as his orders to
her broke promise after promise that he had made before
she submitted, but who broke free when he ordered her
to bring her small children to him to sexually service
him)
: Sort of like JK, really. JJ talked about TPE as if it were a goal we
: should all strive for and the only "real" D/s, which was bad enough,
Quite true.
: but then he also admitted that he & his partner didn't live in some
: little dream universe where everything he said went. He actually
: admitted in one of his posts to having arguments with his partner
: -- if it were "real TPE," how would she possibly disagree with JJ?
Because never was it said that TPE meant never disagreeing, never
arguing, never being angry or resentful, or never thinking that
the owner was wrong. That's one of this differences between the
"brainwashing", that some people would liken to TPE, and TPE. Being
committed and conditioned to obedience doesn't mean that one can't
disagree, or feel anger or resentment, or, within certain bounds,
argue. Keeping the will and desire of one's owner in one's mind
at all times, while it would, in most cases, tend to incline one
to agreement with one's owner, does not mean that one will at all
times and in all things agree with one's owner.
: JJ's attitude led to more conflict than was IMO "needful"
I certain agree. JJ, however, claimed that his "agit-prop"
produced exactly the effect he wanted, which was to keep
his words and ideas constantly present in the newsgroup.
And he did succeed in that. So while being an obnoxious,
dishonest, OTWist SOB may well be a role for which JJ is
ideally suited, it also seemed to suit his objectives, which
did not include rational discussion or helping other people
to understand TPE, but rather were focused on finding
"his people".
Whether other TPE types, even JJ's acolytes, were engaged
in agit-prop (and whether JJ really was engaged in such,
or made the claim to rationalize tactics which reflected his
obnoxiousness rather than a rational plan), I don't know.
However, a great many (though by no means all) TPEers are
immensely obnoxious, superior, and dissmissive of other styles.
This may, to some extent, be explained (though not excused) by
the frequency with which they are met with misunderstanding
or hostility, by people either informing them that their
kink is impossible fantasy, or claiming that they are either
abusers or weak and unhealthy doormats (which is to say that
some BDSMers regard TPEers very much as ES regards BDSMers)).
But it doesn't help their cause very much.
: -- I personally
: have no trouble with someone defining what they do as "slavery"
: or as "TPE," but it's helpful to recall that in almost the entire
: planet you can't really keep someone against their will,
Well, not w/o due process of law.
Which is irrelevant, as the idea in TPE is to control their will.
: and that
: -- all promises aside -- if the Dom gets too weird the sub has a
: legal right to leave,
True, but also irrelevant, as the issue was not rights but power.
JJ himself discussed participations in interventions to remove
slaves from dangerous situations from which they did not have
the will or power to extricate themselves.
: and that "battered women's syndrome" can
: keep a sub in plave long after the line to abuse has been crossed.
Very true. And the fact that some of what was discussed as
techniques for the development of TPE were for some people
so uncomfortably reminiscent of techniques abusers use (and.
to be frank, if the TPE dominant is unethical or uncaring,
they're sometimes the same techniques) was one thing that
bothered some people about TPE.
The critical difference is that, in TPE, the goal is one
which both people are aware and both people agree to seek.
The slave wants zir will bent to that of zir owner and
wants zir power taken by zir owner, and zie not only agrees
to it but zie actively, knowingly, and willing collaborates
in the process.
And, if zie's chosen well, the owner doesn't exercise zir
power over the slave in a destructive fashion, as does an
abuser, but rather seeks to build, enhance (even as zie is
made small), and even empower the slave zie loves (for those
interested in paradoxes, there are a couple delicious ones
(and, like all true paradoxes, they contain truth) in TPE:
enhancement through dimunition (and dimunition w/o diminishment),
and empowerment through powerlessness.
As for the original question in this thread, perhaps it's not
an inappropriate time to repost this:
On 10 Aug 1997, in article 5sj3uf$9di$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu, in the
Newsgroups: soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm, s...@magenta.com (Steven S.
Davis) wrote, on the Subject: "24/7" & "TPE" (was Re: Youth and
submissiveness):
james noonan (Rou...@webtv.net) wrote:
: I'm pretty new to all this...what is a 24/7 relationship?
And various things were said in response.
It being more than 30 days since these articles were posted, and the
question of "24/7" and "TPE" having arisen again (and, FWIW, both
non-24/7 and non-TPE relationships are very bit as "real" as
relationships which are 24/7 and involve TPE), let's replay some
past posts:
From: s...@magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) / Newsgroups:
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm,alt.sex.bondage / Subject: Re: 24/7
Lifestyle - Questions / Date: 25 Jun 1997 10:10:52 GMT / Message-ID:
5oqqrc$ndm$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu
Laura Goodwin (lal...@spamtrap.com) wrote:
: >The Question: How do YOU define a 24/7 relationship?
[snip]
: I don't think that "24/7" and "total power exchange" are the same.
FWIW, in the TPE debates, TPE relationships were often described
"absolute lifestyle d&s relationships" (OK, "absolute" is no more
accurate than "total", but that's another topic; attach "near" to
either "absolute" or "total" for more plausible terminology) with
"lifestyle d&s relationship" meaning essentially the same as "24/7".
The distinction being that a "non-near-absolute d&s relationship" can
be one that is lasting (or as lasting as are any volitional human
relationships) and have the power element always present, while still
having explicit limits and conditions on that power, such limits and
conditions being antithetic to TPE relationships, aka "(near)absolute
lifestyle d&s relationships".
******
OK, translation: A 7/24 relationship is a relationship in which the
power relationship between the partners is always present. People in
7/24 relationships may be said, in one sense, to either never "scene"
or to always be in scene in the sense that they don't enter and leave
scenes the way other BDSM partners do, but that does *not* mean that
they are always engaged in what would be recognizable as BDSM
activities (which is to say, that yes, they have lives to conduct just
like everyone else), nor does it mean that they never set aside
playtimes or that they don't (necessarily; some will, some won't) have
any change in their mental/emotional "space" during play.
That a relationship is 7/24 says nothing about how or how "heavily"
people play, nor about whether the relationship has any contracts, or
has negotiated limits, or employs safewords.
A TPE (Total Power Exchange) relationship, sometimes described as an
absolute lifestyle d&s relationship (that such relationships can
actually be neither "total" or "absolute" is agreed; these are ideal
states to be worked towards but which will not be achieved, which is
why TPE may be better seen as a process or goal than as a state), is
a relationship in which no impediment to the exercise of the owner's
power is accepted (some may, of course, exist, and what prudent owners
do is to avoid direct collisions with these impediments, while working
to overcome those that can be overcome (since the laws of gravity
can't be overcome, a sane owner isn't going to ask a slave to fly (w/o
appropriate equipment, of course), nor will a sensible owner try push
a slave into things that are hard limits for hir (but the owner
*might* push a slave up against what the slave thinks are hard limits
but which sie can in fact overcome)). Such things as safewords,
contracts, negotiated limits, and anything else which
recognizes/acknowledges/formalizes limits on the owner's power are
inimical to TPE.
***************
From: s...@magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) / Newsgroups:
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm / Subject: TPE / Date: 5 Jul 1997 11:12:09
GMT / Message-ID: 5pla69$o4c$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu
Andre Ay (a...@student.uni-kassel.de) wrote:
: Laura Goodwin wrote:
begin LG quote:
I don't think that "24/7" and "total power exchange" are the same. For
example, a pair of switches could have a 24/7 d/s relationship without
it ever solidifying into a TPE situation.
end LG quote
begin AA quote
Very nice explanation. But could you just please tell me what TPE
means? I'm not so used to English BDSM-terms.
end AA quote
Ooohh boy.
Weeeell, what it means could take awhile. What it stands for, however,
is a lot easier. TPE stands for Total Power Exchange.
TPE is a variety of d&s in which all power has been offered to and
taken by the dominant, and in which there are no limitations or
conditions upon the exercise of the dominant's power. Other than
consent to entering a TPE situation, there is no question of consent
in TPE.
Whether TPE is possible or not is a frequent argument. As an end
state, TPE is not, IMO. However, as a goal (one that is approachable
if never quite achievable) and a process, TPE is quite plausible.
There's also frequent debate about whether it's consensual, which
focuses on whether consent can be given irrevocably, or if consent
only exists so long as the right to withdraw consent exists. IMO, the
right to consent includes the right to waive the right to consent, and
so consensual nonconconsent, which is an essential element of TPE, is
ethicly legitimate.
This irrevocability (on the submissive's part; the dominant can
release the submissive (slave, actually; anyone on the submissive side
of a TPE relationship would be a slave) if sie feels that such is for
the best, which FWIW happens quite often; it should be noted, however,
that because of the degree of commitment given and the degree of
dependence that can develop, an ethical and responsible TPE dominant
cannot simply release a submissive because sie doesn't feel like going
on with the relationship) makes TPE a very serious choice, one not to
be made lightly or quickly and that requires complete trust between
owner and slave, a trust that can only be given on the basis of
thorough knowledge (i.e. one doesn't answer an ad to become a
stranger's TPE slave; one might, however, answer an ad from someone
interested in beginnning a process that will hopefully lead to a TPE
relationship (which, as said above, is itself also less a state than
a process and goal (it's a journey *and* a destination, or perhaps
better, a journey to a known destination (even if that destination
will never quite be reached)))). Some would say that TPE
relationships are high risk, which is true in many ways. But in
another sense, since for some people TPE is the only way to be happy
and fulfilled (if it's not the only way for you, then it's probably
the wrong way for you), and since the choice that offers a chance of
happiness must be better than one that offers the certainty of misery,
TPE is for some people the safest choice (the choice of dominants
remains critical, and something not to be rushed no matter how badly
one wants such a relationship, as the choice of a TPE dominant who
isn't well-matched to the slave - or the choice of a dominant who
isn't what one thought sie would be - can have extremely unfortunate
consequences).
TPE relationships, sometimes called absolute lifestyle d&s
relationships ("absolute" because there are no limits; "lifestyle d&s"
because every moment of one's life is lived within the strictures of
d&s (this doesn't mean that one is constantly in what other people
would recognize as a scene, but rather that the power relationship
between dominant and submissive - whatever that might be for those
partners is always in force (or, as sometimes said, is 24/7))) are
difficult, extremely difficult to those not tempermentally suited to
them, and while the fantasy can be hot for many TPE is really suited
to very few - but for those few it can be essential to happiness.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
sabreen{SABRE}
this question, But I will give it my Best shot!
Master and I are in a TPE Master/slave relationship, and to
me a lifestyle sub retains some amount of control in her
life. In my case Master retains Full control of my life,
from what I wear everyday, what I eat, what time I go to
bed, how I wear my hair, whether or not to wear make-up,
Who I am allowed to speak too or if I'm allowed to speak to
anyone at all. He has this total power because I gave it
too him and have Full Trust in Him and His decisions. This
type of relationship isn't for everyone! It is hard to find
the right person that you trust enough to give Full and
Unconditional control of your life! I feel I was Extremely
Lucky to have find myself the Master I Love so many years
ago. I hope this will help to shed some light on what some
of us concider to be TPE.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Lady Sun
That was great post and helped me understand where I am and where I am
going. Thank you!~
Peace,
Lady Sun.
Steven S. Davis wrote in message <7o79tu$t23$1...@links.magenta.com>...
A lot of snips of a post which looks at the many sides of a cane. :)
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com
add a comment or two anyway.
As soon as one mentions "TPE" a lot of hackles go up on the topic.
Historically this seems to be because TPE as it has been advocated
implies (or at times says explicitly) that those who are not
exercising absolute control over a submissive, are simply 'playing at'
domination, and not doing the real thing. You can imagine what kind
of flamefests this has fueled in the past.
I would like to sidestep the TPE discussions and address your original
question from a somewhat different angle. That question was:
> Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any
> between being a lifestyler and being into TPE?
"Lifestyle" means you do some aspect or aspects of bdsm as an
integral part of your life. You may even consider that it is not "what
you do", but rather, "who you are".
"Lifestyle" covers the gamut, from pro dommes to fetishists to
hardcore SM tops who abhor D/s. To be lifestyle does not speak at all
to the extent - minimal or extreme - that you exercise control over
another human being (or, on the sub side of the fence, permit yourself
to be controlled).
To engage in TPE is to strive for an ideal of extreme control as
constant subtext (and when appropriate, in-your-face reality) in the
relationship. This does not mean the dom/me is micromanaging hir
brains out every breathing moment: the point is that the dominant has
the *option* to control whatever sie pleases, and to delegate
responsibility to the slave wherever/however sie pleases.
Most people do not have the control kink or the powerlessness kink to
the extent that living at this extreme of the D/s spectrum is
essential to their happiness. For people who are kinked this way, no
lesser degree of D/s will make them happy.
Semantics aside, I find that an extreme type of totally-controlling
power exchange is indeed lived by a large number of Master/slave (or
Mistress/slave) couples in RL. It is also of interest to me that this
kind of D/s relationship has been taken for granted in the gay leather
community for many long decades. There are no lengthy philosophical
hairsplitting debates over whether TPE is really doable or not,
either. People so inclined just do it.
-Teramis
p&e'd
*********
Check out Femsubs: women-only mailing list for discussion of D/s
relationship issues. Email for subscription information to:
Ter...@teramis.com
Sockermom9
>power exchange is indeed lived by a large number of Master/slave (or
>Mistress/slave) couples in RL. It is also of interest to me that this
>kind of D/s relationship has been taken for granted in the gay leather
>community for many long decades. There are no lengthy philosophical
>hairsplitting debates over whether TPE is really doable or not,
>either. People so inclined just do it.
I seem to have stumbled into an interesting exchange with not one, but two
dominants who have challenged me to respond to the question, "What the the
sub/slave get out of it?" Odd that they should ask me, because I don't qualify
as TPE or any variant thereof, but it is a question that gets my wheels
spinning.
Any ideas on how to explain this?
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Lady Sun
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com wrote in message
<37bf16a5...@news.slip.net>...
>As soon as one mentions "TPE" a lot of hackles go up on the topic.
When I posted I didn't know there was so much hackling about it.
>You can imagine what kind of flamefests this has fueled in the past.
Yup! :)
>To engage in TPE is to strive for an ideal of extreme control as
>constant subtext (and when appropriate, in-your-face reality) in the
>relationship. This does not mean the dom/me is micromanaging hir
>brains out every breathing moment: the point is that the dominant has
>the *option* to control whatever sie pleases, and to delegate
>responsibility to the slave wherever/however sie pleases.
It seems to me that I am a TPE'er albeit an understanding one. I can always
hear a *no* as long as it comes with valid(anything but "just because I
don't want to") concerns. I may not be happy to hear it but if it causes
mental or physical anguish than I will defer to the sub(also considered
slave).
>Most people do not have the control kink or the powerlessness kink to
>the extent that living at this extreme of the D/s spectrum is
>essential to their happiness. For people who are kinked this way, no
>lesser degree of D/s will make them happy.
I do have this control kink and you are so right in saying that nothing
lesser will make me happy.
>Semantics aside, I find that an extreme type of totally-controlling
>power exchange is indeed lived by a large number of Master/slave (or
>Mistress/slave) couples in RL.
I strive for this in my relationships. It is very hard and at times
painful. It requires extreme communication.
>It is also of interest to me that this kind of D/s relationship has been
taken for granted in the gay leather
community for many long decades. There are no lengthy
philosophicalhairsplitting debates over whether TPE is really doable or not,
either. People so inclined just do it.
I wonder why the gay community feels that way. hmmm
Thanks for your post Teramis!
Smiles and Peace,
Lady Sun.
Dreamer
> mental or physical anguish than I will defer to the sub
Is this your ironclad rule or something you decide on a case by case basis? If
case by case, have you ever disregarded the sub's refusal/request?
If it is an ironclad rule, either literally or de facto, I wonder how you
reconcile the sub's then quite real power to the fact that you claim to live in
a Total Power Exchange?
I wish you well.
Dreamer
Lady Sun
Dreamer wrote in message ...
>> I may not be happy to hear it but if it causes
>> mental or physical anguish than I will defer to the sub
>
>Is this your ironclad rule or something you decide on a case by case basis?
If
>case by case, have you ever disregarded the sub's refusal/request?
It's ironclad, however depending on the sub I may disregard the
refusal/request if it isn't valid(subjective and if it is a 'basically I
just don't want to attitude', some invalid claims would for example be "i'm
a little tired" instead of "i'm exhausted" or "i'm a little cranky" instead
of "I had a terribly bad day(with reasons)".) The bottom line is that it
has to be valid and detrimental to the sub's physical and emotional well
being. If it isn't I won't defer. If he doesn't accept it then a
re-evaluation of the relationship is in order.
>If it is an ironclad rule, either literally or de facto, I wonder how you
>reconcile the sub's then quite real power to the fact that you claim to
live in
>a Total Power Exchange?
Well based on what the posters have written and what I have read about TPE,
I would say that I am a TPE'er instead of a lifestyler. I strive for TPE
but it doesn't mean I am always gonna get it. In a perfect world I would
always love to have my submissive defer to me. Since I don't live in
fantasy land I know that from time to time my submissive will not always be
submissive and I will not always be dominant. I just need to roll with it
in order to have a happy life. What is most important is that at least 80%
of the time I click and connect with my submissive and vice versa. That is
why it is very important to choose your Dominant and submissive well. I
also believe in individuality and that a submissive should have a time in
his life separate from his dominant. I believe that a submissive can power
out in extreme long term control situations and this is not my intent. I
approach my relations so that I have to rarely defer to my submissives.
Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
responsibilities to each other. In my opinion in a TPE relationship
choosing a Dominant is one of the few concrete choices a submissive can
make. If you are a serious, loving, firm, in control, understanding, safe,
informed Dominant then you will gain trust from your submissive and they
will literally be eating out of your hands if you say so. TPE is about a
lot of extreme communication, patience and trust! I don't think it is for
everyone.
Now I could be wrong in my interpretation of what TPE is all about, if I am
please come forward and state your case. :)
>I wish you well.
You too, and thanks for the non judgemental q's!
Peace,
Lady Sun.
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com
>I seem to have stumbled into an interesting exchange with not one, but two
>dominants who have challenged me to respond to the question, "What the the
>sub/slave get out of it?" Odd that they should ask me, because I don't qualify
>as TPE or any variant thereof, but it is a question that gets my wheels
>spinning.
>
>Any ideas on how to explain this?
>
>Lynn
Always with the easy questions, huh, Lynn?
I can only speak for myself (well, and for the Vitos at
FooleCo)....though I know my experience is similar to that of other
slaves in TPE relationships. So I will take a stab at answering your
homework assignment <g>.
What does the slave get out of a D/s relationship where the Dominant
has final say, *always*, and pervasive control of the slave?
It is an opportunity to express one's fullest, deepest devotion to and
love for One.
It is a partnership that is intensely bonded, intensely intimate (even
for slaves for whom the relationship is non-sexual, the emotional bond
is extraordinarily intimate).
It is getting to "do" for the Dominant, in all kinds of ways that are
personally meaningful (as well as many that are not, but that make the
Dom/me happy ;)
It is finding one's niche in a heirarchy, joining an Army of One,
becoming Someone's indispensible right hand. It is accepting final
decisions even if you don't agree with them, because your loyalty is
to the greater thing you are building between you; its success does
not hinge on singular instances of disagreement (or agreement) between
you, but on the accord and harmony you build over time, and this is
predicated on trust.
It is about developing and exploring profound depths of trust, and
intimacy.
It is about transcending ego.
It is about finding the freedom, in slavery, for a fuller expression
of self. (That is a very difficult one to explain briefly and I won't
try; if you want more explication let me know and I will go on at
terrible length ;)
It is finding one's place, at last, by a special Someone's side, and
having the nurturance and protection and for many slaves, guidance,
that makes one feel safe and loved and cared for in an unshakeably
enduring way.
That's a start, but it is also, perhaps, the essence, and the end.
-Teramis
Ter...@teramis.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Keep in mind always the present you are constructing.
It should be the future you want." ~Alice Walker
Duane Gundrum
Lady Sun <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> Now I could be wrong in my interpretation of what TPE is all about, if I
am
> please come forward and state your case. :)
>
I think this is where the argument has come about in the past, and as I've
made the statement over and over again (although it does seem to fall on
deaf ears), this is probably the most important statement as well. TPE is
what you as an individual desire it to be. If you are involved with another
individual, and both of you call it TPE, then you should be satisfied that
that is what it is. What has happened over and over again is a group of
people who are "experts" of TPE come on line and then tell you that you are
NOT in a TPE relationship, and suddenly it becomes a major flame war that
serves no one or any purpose other than give people the satisfaction of
stating that they have no redefined, in their own image, what TPE is.
I am a major proponent of TPE relationships. But at the same time, I've had
those who claim to know better state that I've not been involved in a TPE
relationship, even though my partner and I may have agreed that's what we
had. Who cares what some outsider says? Because that's what it boils down
to. And on the other side of the coin, I've had those who are anti-TPE
relationships argue that previous relationships of mine have been "bad"
because the TPE didn't seem consensual. Uh, yeah?
That's what it comes down to. People are going to be arguing over this topic
for the rest of time, and as Teramis mentioned, there's not really been a
problem with the gay leather community concerning this particular subject.
It seems to have become a problem since it was put in words (thus, the
internet).
Anyway, just a rant before I have to head off for another type of TPE
relationship (the first meeting of a grad assistantship at my new
university).
--
Duane Gundrum
du...@penguinlogic.com
http://www.penguinlogic.com/duane.htm
for information about duane, the submissive
--
Now, The Cell's Door, written by Duane, is available for purchase from
Quality SM at http://www.qualitysm.com (using a credit card). The Cell's
Door, the story of a man who surrenders his entire life to slavery only to
discover that reality can be quite more than expected. For further
information, including ordering directly from the author, visit
http://www.penguinlogic.com/Celldoor.htm.
Dreamer
<du...@penguinlogic.com> wrote:
>
> Lady Sun <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>> Now I could be wrong in my interpretation of what TPE is all about, if I
> am
>> please come forward and state your case. :)
>>
>
> I think this is where the argument has come about in the past, and as I've
> made the statement over and over again (although it does seem to fall on
> deaf ears), this is probably the most important statement as well. TPE is
> what you as an individual desire it to be. If you are involved with another
> individual, and both of you call it TPE, then you should be satisfied that
> that is what it is. What has happened over and over again is a group of
> people who are "experts" of TPE come on line and then tell you that you are
> NOT in a TPE relationship, and suddenly it becomes a major flame war that
> serves no one or any purpose other than give people the satisfaction of
> stating that they have no redefined, in their own image, what TPE is.
There is a rule when writing patents that "the applicant may serve as his
own lexicographer." In other words, if I want to refer to a wheel as a
"narrow cylindrical section member," I can. However, if I try to refer to a
wheel as a "box," the examiner will make me write the patent over again.
Why? Because there is a limit to how far one can torture a definition.
Making everybody who reads the patent, starting with the examiner, remember
that for EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD, a box is a box, but for ME, a box is a
narrow cylindrical section member, is not reasonable.
The phrase "total power exchange" is a simple phrase made of simple words
which are commonly understood to have a certain meaning. If you want to
debate whether something is or is not a total power exchange, or whether one
is even possible (technically it's not in the vast majority of the world as
slavery is illegal) that's one thing. But the phrase "it means whatever you
want it to mean" fills me with fear and dread. If we have to resummarize
what each word means every time we try to discuss, that makes EVERY message
in EVERY discussion a message about definitions. Unwieldy. Annoying. And
ultimately, it means that every message begins every discussion all over
again, because if my definitions don't match yours, by swapping the
meanings, I've essentially rephrased the argument to match my point of view,
erasing any progress that might have been made.
Not that this will make ANY difference whatsoever. But I felt it needed to
be said.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
Cutter John's Theory of Temporo-Natal Irrelevance:
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood!"
If you live near Chicago, you should check out "Galleria Domain," a
BDSM/Fetish club open nightly. It's way cool. See it at:
http://www.galleriadomain.com
This is a totally unsolicited testimonial, but the operators are friends of
mine, if that makes a difference.
----------
Dreamer
In article <rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Lady Sun"
<Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dreamer wrote in message ...
>>> I may not be happy to hear it but if it causes
>>> mental or physical anguish than I will defer to the sub
>>
>>Is this your ironclad rule or something you decide on a case by case basis?
> If
>>case by case, have you ever disregarded the sub's refusal/request?
>
>
> It's ironclad, however depending on the sub I may disregard the
> refusal/request if it isn't valid(subjective and if it is a 'basically I
> just don't want to attitude', some invalid claims would for example be "i'm
> a little tired" instead of "i'm exhausted" or "i'm a little cranky" instead
> of "I had a terribly bad day(with reasons)".) The bottom line is that it
> has to be valid and detrimental to the sub's physical and emotional well
> being. If it isn't I won't defer. If he doesn't accept it then a
> re-evaluation of the relationship is in order.
The philosophy I use - and in the end it might be that mine mapped to yours
1 to 1, dunno - is that it's not logical to damage your own property. If
doing something to or with her would excessively damage her, I don't do it.
However, *I* am the sole judge of what constitutes excessive damage. Her
opinion is completely nonbinding. If her opinion were binding, I would not
consider her a slave nor ours to be even a theoretical TPE, as it would not
be T.
>>If it is an ironclad rule, either literally or de facto, I wonder how you
>>reconcile the sub's then quite real power to the fact that you claim to live
>>in a Total Power Exchange?
>
>
> Well based on what the posters have written and what I have read about TPE,
> I would say that I am a TPE'er instead of a lifestyler. I strive for TPE
> but it doesn't mean I am always gonna get it. In a perfect world I would
> always love to have my submissive defer to me. Since I don't live in
> fantasy land I know that from time to time my submissive will not always be
> submissive and I will not always be dominant.
An interesting approach. I am *always* dominant, in that there is never a
time when I submit or when I forget who is what. She's always mine. However,
there are times, absolutely, when I don't feel like being bothered with her.
I'm a pretty mellow person anyway, not into micromanagement.
Similarly, there are times when she's begging to serve and times when she'd
be just as happy to sit and read a book. However, I don't care where she is
on the continuum, I expect service, and I expect it right now, when I ask
for it. So she is a slave all the time, even if she's not wearing silks and
collar and chained up on her knees.
> I just need to roll with it
> in order to have a happy life. What is most important is that at least 80%
> of the time I click and connect with my submissive and vice versa.
Any particular reason you picked that number?
> That is
> why it is very important to choose your Dominant and submissive well.
Not knowing what you're getting into is the cause of approximately 125%* of
all problems in all relationships. Let alone BDSM ones, where it usually
becomes obvious a lot faster.
*Some error due to rounding.
> I
> also believe in individuality and that a submissive should have a time in
> his life separate from his dominant.
I'm all for the occasional night out. However, even if I sent her to Paris
for a week by herself, I expect all my rules to be obeyed and my commands
followed.
> I believe that a submissive can power
> out in extreme long term control situations and this is not my intent. I
> approach my relations so that I have to rarely defer to my submissives.
I simply make it clear that I will *not* defer to them. Ever. They have to
decide for themselves if what I am likely to demand is more than they can
tolerate. I don't tone it down before I accept them: what they see is what
they get.
That doesn't mean I won't be sympathetic to physical or emotional problems.
It means it is MY DECISION whether to do so, how much, and for how long.
> Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
> responsibilities to each other.
I have no responsibilities to them. None whatsoever.
They knew that up front.
HOWEVER, once having claimed them as my property, I will take what I
consider to be reasonable care of my property. That's logical. However, if I
decide to take my television out on a whim and blow it up, so long as I
don't endanger anybody and I pick up the mess, that's my prerogative.
Likewise, if I decide to be IRRESPONSIBLE with them, that's tough luck on
them: they can submit, or leave. Those are their choices. If they thought
that was a serious risk, they would not have submitted to me.
> In my opinion in a TPE relationship
> choosing a Dominant is one of the few concrete choices a submissive can
> make.
That is the ONLY decision they can make. Once they have made that one, their
choices then are done.
> TPE is about a
> lot of extreme communication, patience and trust! I don't think it is for
> everyone.
I agree completely.
> Now I could be wrong in my interpretation of what TPE is all about, if I am
> please come forward and state your case. :)
I don't really have a case: the words have fairly standard meanings. I've
answered your points above as struck my fancy. If you're happy, I'm happy
for you.
Tobie
I was merrily reading away when *this* whacked my sensibilities
Dreamer wrote:
>
> ----------
> In article <rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Lady Sun"
> <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
> > responsibilities to each other.
>
> I have no responsibilities to them. None whatsoever.
>
Well..I must say, that's about the goofiest thing I ever heard
of!
You have no responsibility to see to their health? To make sure
they work outside the home or not? To make sure they have
personal hygiene items if you handle the money? You have no
responsibility to be some where to pick them up if you don't
allow them to drive?
I sure do hope I mis read the intention and tone behind the
black and white of what you said. :/
I really, really do.
Even in my relatively simple D/s relationship, we have
responsibilities to each other, much less the depth that a TPE
can go...
Tobie
the red cabbage
Sockermom9
>Always with the easy questions, huh, Lynn?
What can I say?
The answers I gave the person who asked me, and the responses I've gotten from
folks I've asked, have come down to a couple of common themes, which are not
what I'd wanted--I wanted to give him a well-written, intellectual theses,
preferably using lots of Big Words, that would enlighten him and make him one
with the everything. (Sorry, been reading Terry Pratchett again.)
>It is an opportunity to express one's fullest, deepest devotion to and
>love for One.
This was one theme. "This is how I express my love."
>It is finding one's niche in a heirarchy, joining an Army of One,
>becoming Someone's indispensible right hand.
This was one aspect of another--"since this is an elemental part of me,
allowing me to express it is freeing, and accepting my serive is honoring me.
>It is about finding the freedom, in slavery, for a fuller expression
>of self. (That is a very difficult one to explain briefly and I won't
>try; if you want more explication let me know and I will go on at
>terrible length ;)
Same basic idea--this is the core of *me*, giving it free reign affirms by
basic identity and (in a world that doesn't have much respect for either
service or non-standard sexualities) is my safe harbor.
>It is finding one's place, at last, by a special Someone's side, and
>having the nurturance and protection and for many slaves, guidance,
>that makes one feel safe and loved and cared for in an unshakeably
>enduring way.
The person who originally asked me the question also went into some detail as
to how concerned he was with being sure that someone he loved was happy and
fulfilled in their relationship. For someone who seemed so bright and caring,
I was amazed that I had to point out that just having someone *be* so
concerned, to know that they cared enough to meet your rather unusual needs,
was an incredible rush.
It also made me wonder, since I have, if not an erudite, intellectual
understanding of the submissive's dynamics, what is in it for the dominant?
That one I don't have much empathy for (though it's improving--slowly).
gra...@deletethisaffordable-leather.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:15:07 -0500, "Dreamer"
<dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:
>There is a rule when writing patents that "the applicant may serve as his
>own lexicographer." there is a limit to how far one can torture a definition.
Do definitions get safewords? ;-)
Cheers,
Graham.
Dreamer
wrote:
> *picking my chin up off the floor here*
>
> I was merrily reading away when *this* whacked my sensibilities
>
> Dreamer wrote:
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Lady Sun"
>> <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
>> > responsibilities to each other.
>>
>> I have no responsibilities to them. None whatsoever.
>>
>
> Well..I must say, that's about the goofiest thing I ever heard
> of!
Goofy is in the eye of the beholder. You'll note I don't go around referring
to myself as a vegetable. Not that there's anything wrong with doing that,
but it does point out that our relative goofy scales might be a little
different. First, I'll insert the relevant parts of my original message:
>>> I believe that a submissive can power
>>> out in extreme long term control situations and this is not my intent. I
>>> approach my relations so that I have to rarely defer to my submissives.
>>
>> I simply make it clear that I will *not* defer to them. Ever. They have to
>> decide for themselves if what I am likely to demand is more than they can
>> tolerate. I don't tone it down before I accept them: what they see is what
>> they get.
>>
>> That doesn't mean I won't be sympathetic to physical or emotional problems.
>> It means it is MY DECISION whether to do so, how much, and for how long.
>>
>>> Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
>>> responsibilities to each other.
>>
>> I have no responsibilities to them. None whatsoever.
>>
>> They knew that up front.
>>
>> HOWEVER, once having claimed them as my property, I will take what I
>> consider to be reasonable care of my property. That's logical. However, if I
>> decide to take my television out on a whim and blow it up, so long as I
>> don't endanger anybody and I pick up the mess, that's my prerogative.
>> Likewise, if I decide to be IRRESPONSIBLE with them, that's tough luck on
>> them: they can submit, or leave. Those are their choices. If they thought
>> that was a serious risk, they would not have submitted to me.
That being said, I'll respond to your post:
> You have no responsibility to see to their health?
I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
> To make sure
> they work outside the home or not?
I'm not sure what this means: specifically, I don't see how it's related to
my "responsibility" towards them.
> To make sure they have
> personal hygiene items if you handle the money?
I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
> You have no
> responsibility to be some where to pick them up if you don't
> allow them to drive?
That's just silly. If I don't allow them to drive, how did they get there?
Why would I allow a certain form of transport TO a place and not back? If
there was some general area of responsibility implied here, like looking
after their safety:
I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
Otherwise please elaborate.
> I sure do hope I mis read the intention and tone behind the
> black and white of what you said. :/
Responsibility implies obligation. I have no obligation towards them. Is
that black and white enough for you?
As a rational person, I take reasonable care of things which I enjoy owning.
If I didn't enjoy owning them, I'd get rid of them. If I didn't think I'd
enjoy owning them, I'd never have taken them in the first place.
That doesn't mean I dump them at the first inconvenience. Have you never
known a person who had an antique sports car or a motorcycle or a piano?
Something they had to put time and money into on a more or less constant
basis so they could continue to enjoy and/or improve it? Then why is it so
unbelievable that I take what I consider proper care of them, expending
time, effort, and money to do so, not because I am Responsible for Their
Inner Slavehoods, but because it pleases me to do so, because they are mine?
> I really, really do.
I'm not sure you do, actually, but this is the way I am and the fact that it
distresses you is Way Down There on my list of reasons why I might want to
change it. I'm happy. They're happy. Why is that not enough?
> Even in my relatively simple D/s relationship, we have
> responsibilities to each other, much less the depth that a TPE
> can go...
That's YOUR relationship. You seem to be implying a progressive function:
since your relationship is a simple D/s relationship (didn't know there was
such a critter, but I digress) and you have responsibilities to each other,
since I live in a 24/7 M/s relationship, we must have even greater
responsibilities.
Incorrect.
The responsibilities flow ONE WAY. They are responsible to me. For
everything. I am responsible to them for nothing. Again, one must be
rational: if I expect them to fix dinner, I should provide the means for
doing so. If I tell them to perform certain dances, I should tell them what
I expect them to learn, how fast, and the means for doing so. One cannot
make something out of nothing. But if I give them a command and the means to
achieve it are within their grasps, I expect it followed or I expect their
collars. Removed. At which point I will melt them down. My way, or the
highway.
There is an interesting message which is fairly relevant here:
http://www.pantheus.com/forum/posts/11708.html
Although that is a Gorean discussion board that particular message is not
Gorean and in fact was written by a non-Gorean submissive. I commend it to
you.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
So I wish you first a sense of theatre;
only Those who love illusion and know it will go far:
Otherwise we spend our lives in a confusion;
Of what we say and do with Who we really are.
(Many Happy Returns , W.H. Auden)
Tobie
Dreamer wrote:
> > Well..I must say, that's about the goofiest thing I ever heard
> > of!
>
> Goofy is in the eye of the beholder. You'll note I don't go around referring
> to myself as a vegetable. Not that there's anything wrong with doing that,
> but it does point out that our relative goofy scales might be a little
> different. First, I'll insert the relevant parts of my original message:
Aye ::grin:: But I have always said I was goofy.
> That being said, I'll respond to your post:
>
> > You have no responsibility to see to their health?
>
> I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
Reasonable care isn't the same as responsibility, and
reasonable care can differ quite a bit from one moment to the
next, depending on mood and situation.
Let's make sure we don't start another word war here, please
tell me how you see this:
I take reasonable care to get my kids on the school bus.
I have a responsibility to get my kids on the school bus.
Which of those would apply to you?
If we're looking at daffynitions differently, then it's just a
misunderstanding.
>
> > To make sure
> > they work outside the home or not?
>
> I'm not sure what this means: specifically, I don't see how it's related to
> my "responsibility" towards them.
I may have missed something, Are you on a different topic, or
is this conversation about TPE relationships? If it's not about
TPE, again, we've crossed wires. If it is, then as bottom line
nay sayer, you have responsibilities whether you like admitting
it or not. If you say, "You can't have a paid job." You have
responsibilities to that person. Not reasonable care...Aide's
in nursing homes give "reasonalbe care". Most of those folks
that have family in those nursing homes, think the Aide's
reasonable care, really sucks. I think that I've always thought
that that phrase was a cop out for people that didn't like
committments or responsibilitues. Of course, that isn't going
to be the case all of the time.
> > You have no
> > responsibility to be some where to pick them up if you don't
> > allow them to drive?
>
> That's just silly. If I don't allow them to drive, how did they get there?
Walking, a friend picked them up? Took a bus? Any number of
ways.
> Why would I allow a certain form of transport TO a place and not back?
If they were walking, it may have started raining hard, ot the
heat may have rizen unexpectdly fast. If a friend picked them
up, the friend may have had an emergency and had to go. This
doesn't take much imagination.
> If
> there was some general area of responsibility implied here, like looking
> after their safety:
Ahh ok, a general responsibility, I can go with that.
>
> I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
ohh, never mind, you negated it again.
>
> Otherwise please elaborate.
>
> > I sure do hope I mis read the intention and tone behind the
> > black and white of what you said. :/
>
> Responsibility implies obligation. I have no obligation towards them. Is
> that black and white enough for you?
You are in a TPE and feel no obligations or responsibilities??
Sure, that's black and white enough. Ugly, but black and white
enough.
I'm still hoping we're seeing the daffynitions differently and
that answering the kids & bus question will clear this up.
>
> As a rational person, I take reasonable care of things which I enjoy owning.
> If I didn't enjoy owning them, I'd get rid of them. If I didn't think I'd
> enjoy owning them, I'd never have taken them in the first place.
>
> That doesn't mean I dump them at the first inconvenience. Have you never
> known a person who had an antique sports car or a motorcycle or a piano?
> Something they had to put time and money into on a more or less constant
> basis so they could continue to enjoy and/or improve it? Then why is it so
> unbelievable that I take what I consider proper care of them, expending
> time, effort, and money to do so, not because I am Responsible for Their
> Inner Slavehoods, but because it pleases me to do so, because they are mine?
Ok, I accept the we do indeed see things differently and it
looks like we might not even be able to find middle ground. I
don't see people as a whole as things. Humans aren't brainless
lifeless objects, however fun that might be in a scene.
>
> > I really, really do.
>
> I'm not sure you do, actually, but this is the way I am and the fact that it
> distresses you is Way Down There on my list of reasons why I might want to
> change it. I'm happy. They're happy. Why is that not enough?
I didn't say it wasn't enough, nor did I ask you to change
anything. I posted a polite response to something you said that
bothered me, and you seem to be getting edgy over it. If you
don't want to be questioned about such strong statements, then
either don't make them or put a footer in you post that says,
"Don't bother asking me about this"
>
> That's YOUR relationship. You seem to be implying a progressive function:
> since your relationship is a simple D/s relationship (didn't know there was
> such a critter, but I digress) and you have responsibilities to each other,
> since I live in a 24/7 M/s relationship, we must have even greater
> responsibilities.
>
> Incorrect.
I dissagree.
>
> The responsibilities flow ONE WAY. They are responsible to me. For
> everything. I am responsible to them for nothing. Again, one must be
> rational: if I expect them to fix dinner, I should provide the means for
> doing so. If I tell them to perform certain dances, I should tell them what
> I expect them to learn, how fast, and the means for doing so. One cannot
> make something out of nothing. But if I give them a command and the means to
> achieve it are within their grasps, I expect it followed or I expect their
> collars. Removed. At which point I will melt them down. My way, or the
> highway.
Ahhh...so to clear things up a bit further. Can I take it that
you don't do this for or because of "relationships"? Hrmmmm,
no, that can't be because TPE is all about the relationship.
::shrug:: I'll wait till you tell me how you see it, cause I'm
still not understanding how your attitude can in any way
compliment a TPE. I still have much to learn about non-love
bdsm relationships.
>
> There is an interesting message which is fairly relevant here:
>
> http://www.pantheus.com/forum/posts/11708.html
Thanks! I'll go read it as soon as I get this post off. It was
kind of you to get the url for me.
>
> Although that is a Gorean discussion board that particular message is not
> Gorean and in fact was written by a non-Gorean submissive. I commend it to
> you.
>
> I wish you well.
And you ::smile::
Tobie
the red cabbage
Tobie
> There is an interesting message which is fairly relevant here:
>
> http://www.pantheus.com/forum/posts/11708.html
I went to read it, again, my thanks. I don't see that as
related in any way to *this* though. A service situation is not
the same as a TPE at all. For a service situation, I can see
where your stand comes from, makes sense to me. If the slave
isn't working out, get a new one. I don't see TPE in that same
view. Do you, or did the subject line not get changed when the
conversation took a turn?
Tobie
the red cabbage
Kook Monitor
<7prodq$s71$1...@flood.xnet.com>, "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com>
wrote:
>There is a rule when writing patents that "the applicant may serve as his
>own lexicographer." In other words, if I want to refer to a wheel as a
>"narrow cylindrical section member," I can. However, if I try to refer to a
>wheel as a "box," the examiner will make me write the patent over again.
No, no, no, I have it on good authority from a well-known and highly
disrespected regular poster on SSBB, that you're absolutely wrong!
His "definitive" quote was, "The rules will say whatever you wish them
to say." [1]
Accordingly, all you have to do is to copy this rule to a website
somewhere, and edit it to show that a wheel *is* a box. Then submit
your patent application in the normal way and everything will be just
fine.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Lexicological dyslexicographer for the Official Usenet Cabal.
[1] Johnathan "Screw waiting till I have mastered the language" Kay,
in case you didn't know.
Binder
>
> Teramis writes:
{boodles of wonderfull verbiage snipped]
> It also made me wonder, since I have, if not an erudite, intellectual
> understanding of the submissive's dynamics, what is in it for the dominant?
> That one I don't have much empathy for (though it's improving--slowly).
Lynn, for myself, I'd suggest you reread Teramis's post on why submissives
want to be such. Take the inverse of those dynamics, and that's what's in
it for me. (In short, to be worthy of those gifts from another.)
Binder
--
" 'Tis better to Wield a Good Ruler than to Bend before a Bad one."
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA -- to reply, remove the idjit
Dreamer
wrote:
> Dreamer wrote:
>> That being said, I'll respond to your post:
>>
>> > You have no responsibility to see to their health?
>>
>> I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
>
> Reasonable care isn't the same as responsibility, and
> reasonable care can differ quite a bit from one moment to the
> next, depending on mood and situation.
> Let's make sure we don't start another word war here, please
> tell me how you see this:
>
> I take reasonable care to get my kids on the school bus.
>
> I have a responsibility to get my kids on the school bus.
>
> Which of those would apply to you?
I have a responsibility to make sure that my daughter is as safe and happy
as reasonably possible. But the situations are not analogous. My daughter is
my child: she didn't ask to be born, nor to have me as a father, and we did
not work out any understandings before she arrived. By creating her, I
assumed a responsibility towards her. Had I not wished such a
responsibility, I should have made damned sure that I was not about to incur
it.
They both, by the way, could apply. I should take reasonable care to make
sure she gets on the bus... making sure she's up on time, making sure the
bus stop is safe, the driver adequate, the buses maintained, etc. I have a
responsibility to make sure she goes to school and is educated so she has
the maximum of opportunity.
> If we're looking at daffynitions differently, then it's just a
> misunderstanding.
I don't think it is, quite frankly.
>> > To make sure
>> > they work outside the home or not?
>>
>> I'm not sure what this means: specifically, I don't see how it's related to
>> my "responsibility" towards them.
>
> I may have missed something, Are you on a different topic, or
> is this conversation about TPE relationships? If it's not about
> TPE, again, we've crossed wires. If it is, then as bottom line
> nay sayer, you have responsibilities whether you like admitting
> it or not. If you say, "You can't have a paid job." You have
> responsibilities to that person. Not reasonable care...Aide's
> in nursing homes give "reasonalbe care". Most of those folks
> that have family in those nursing homes, think the Aide's
> reasonable care, really sucks. I think that I've always thought
> that that phrase was a cop out for people that didn't like
> committments or responsibilitues. Of course, that isn't going
> to be the case all of the time.
I think I now understand. You mean that if I do not allow them to work, I am
"responsible" for their maintenance? That falls under reasonable care again.
If I want them to be pleasing, they have to be healthy and strong. If I want
them to be healthy and strong, they have to be fed, sheltered, clothed, and
provided with adequate medical care. I have no obligation to do so, but it's
nobody's fault but my own if I don't and they then suffer for it and I do
not get the level of service I expect.
>> > You have no
>> > responsibility to be some where to pick them up if you don't
>> > allow them to drive?
>>
>> That's just silly. If I don't allow them to drive, how did they get there?
>
> Walking, a friend picked them up? Took a bus? Any number of
> ways.
>
>> Why would I allow a certain form of transport TO a place and not back?
>
> If they were walking, it may have started raining hard, ot the
> heat may have rizen unexpectdly fast. If a friend picked them
> up, the friend may have had an emergency and had to go. This
> doesn't take much imagination.
No, it doesn't, nor does the common sense reply. If I let them go outside at
all, why would I care if they took a bus or a taxi or drove a car? If their
car breaks down, of course I'm going to go get them. To do otherwise would
be to unnecessarily endanger my property.
>> If
>> there was some general area of responsibility implied here, like looking
>> after their safety:
>
> Ahh ok, a general responsibility, I can go with that.
>
>>
>> I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
>
> ohh, never mind, you negated it again.
Yes, I did, because I have no general responsibility.
>> Responsibility implies obligation. I have no obligation towards them. Is
>> that black and white enough for you?
>
> You are in a TPE and feel no obligations or responsibilities??
>
> Sure, that's black and white enough. Ugly, but black and white
> enough.
>
> I'm still hoping we're seeing the daffynitions differently and
> that answering the kids & bus question will clear this up.
"Not Warm and Fuzzy and Respecting Her Little Personhood" may equal "ugly"
in your book: that's your privilege. It doesn't in mine. And that is the way
it is. I am not warm, I am not fuzzy, and I do not respect their little
personhoods.
>> As a rational person, I take reasonable care of things which I enjoy owning.
>> If I didn't enjoy owning them, I'd get rid of them. If I didn't think I'd
>> enjoy owning them, I'd never have taken them in the first place.
>>
>> That doesn't mean I dump them at the first inconvenience. Have you never
>> known a person who had an antique sports car or a motorcycle or a piano?
>> Something they had to put time and money into on a more or less constant
>> basis so they could continue to enjoy and/or improve it? Then why is it so
>> unbelievable that I take what I consider proper care of them, expending
>> time, effort, and money to do so, not because I am Responsible for Their
>> Inner Slavehoods, but because it pleases me to do so, because they are mine?
>
> Ok, I accept the we do indeed see things differently and it
> looks like we might not even be able to find middle ground. I
> don't see people as a whole as things. Humans aren't brainless
> lifeless objects, however fun that might be in a scene.
Again, "brainless lifeless object" does not equal "thing" and it does not
equal "slave." Slaves are things, but so are masters. Things are things.
There are lots of things I have that I enjoy, even cherish. My slaves are
among them. However, I do not have a responsibility to my knife collection,
my motorcycle, my signed letter from Patrick McManus, or my slave girls. If
I don't take care of them, and they deteriorate, I'm only hurting myself,
which I prefer not to do.
To use your earlier (incorrect) analogy, I *do* have a responsibility to my
daughter - because I *don't* own her. She is in my care. That is such a
monumental difference as to be almost incomprehensible.
>> > I really, really do.
>>
>> I'm not sure you do, actually, but this is the way I am and the fact that it
>> distresses you is Way Down There on my list of reasons why I might want to
>> change it. I'm happy. They're happy. Why is that not enough?
>
> I didn't say it wasn't enough, nor did I ask you to change
> anything. I posted a polite response to something you said that
> bothered me, and you seem to be getting edgy over it.
I'm not exactly edgy, but the basic gist of your argument is that I am a Bad
Man because I refuse to acknowledge the "responsibilities" you see as
inherent in a relationship such as I have with my slave girls. Given that
you refuse to acknowledge my point, which is that I have no such
responsibilities, I am not bothering overmuch with tempering my responses.
Either I have them, or I do not. If I do, dodging them would indeed make me
a Bad Man. Avoiding responsibility is an unethical act: that's what
responsibility means. I went through a long period, quite honestly, where I
wondered if I did in fact have responsibilities and obligations to them. I
felt bad because I felt that I was not providing them with what they
"needed."
This was, of course, incorrect. What they need, what they asked for, is a
master. Period. I am their master. If they don't like what I am doing, they
are free to say so. I will consider any polite request or observation. I
will then make a decision. If they don't like it, they are free to say so. I
will then either reconsider, or tell them the decision is final. If the
decision is final, that is IT. ONE WORD will earn them a punishment, a
severe one. Their only recourse is then to leave my possession. Rather than
compromise what I feel to be right, I will release them. Yes, I am a
hard-case. So be it.
> If you
> don't want to be questioned about such strong statements, then
> either don't make them or put a footer in you post that says,
> "Don't bother asking me about this"
Question away. But as you yourself noted, there does not seem to be any
middle ground here and you are not so much questioning as pointing out where
you think I am wrong. Whether you meant it or not, you are stating quite
simply that I am an unethical person because I refuse to acknowledge my
alleged responsibilities. Don't be surprised to get a strong response to
that.
>> That's YOUR relationship. You seem to be implying a progressive function:
>> since your relationship is a simple D/s relationship (didn't know there was
>> such a critter, but I digress) and you have responsibilities to each other,
>> since I live in a 24/7 M/s relationship, we must have even greater
>> responsibilities.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> I dissagree.
Fine and dandy. On what grounds?
>> The responsibilities flow ONE WAY. They are responsible to me. For
>> everything. I am responsible to them for nothing. Again, one must be
>> rational: if I expect them to fix dinner, I should provide the means for
>> doing so. If I tell them to perform certain dances, I should tell them what
>> I expect them to learn, how fast, and the means for doing so. One cannot
>> make something out of nothing. But if I give them a command and the means to
>> achieve it are within their grasps, I expect it followed or I expect their
>> collars. Removed. At which point I will melt them down. My way, or the
>> highway.
>
> Ahhh...so to clear things up a bit further. Can I take it that
> you don't do this for or because of "relationships"? Hrmmmm,
> no, that can't be because TPE is all about the relationship.
Incorrect.
And *I* will provide you the grounds for that statement. It's about me doing
what I want to do. What I want to do is own women. They want to be owned and
they want to be owned by me. We provide each other's wants. That's good for
all concerned. However, I do not do it to make THEM happy, or for the good
of our "relationship." I do it because that is what I do.
> ::shrug:: I'll wait till you tell me how you see it, cause I'm
> still not understanding how your attitude can in any way
> compliment a TPE. I still have much to learn about non-love
> bdsm relationships.
I don't understand how an attitude can compliment or not compliment a TPE.
And by my definition of love I *do* love at least one of them: I am learning
to love the other two. They all say they love me. However, you are correct
in essence that love is not really a factor here.
>> There is an interesting message which is fairly relevant here:
>>
>> http://www.pantheus.com/forum/posts/11708.html
>
> Thanks! I'll go read it as soon as I get this post off. It was
> kind of you to get the url for me.
>>
>> Although that is a Gorean discussion board that particular message is not
>> Gorean and in fact was written by a non-Gorean submissive. I commend it to
>> you.
> I went to read it, again, my thanks. I don't see that as
> related in any way to *this* though. A service situation is not
> the same as a TPE at all. For a service situation, I can see
> where your stand comes from, makes sense to me. If the slave
> isn't working out, get a new one. I don't see TPE in that same
> view. Do you, or did the subject line not get changed when the
> conversation took a turn?
It is relevant because it talks about people (like me) who don't buy the
"gift of submission" or "this is all about the sub" argument, and why they
offend people who do, so mightily. To me the term "slavery" and the term
"TPE" are more or less synonymous.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
"Will a day come when the race will detect the funniness of these
juvenilities and laugh at them - and by laughing at them, destroy them? For
your race, in its poverty, has unquestionably one really effective weapon -
Laughter. Power, Money, Persuasion, Supplication, Persecution - these can
lift at a colossal humbug, - push it a little - crowd it a little - weaken
it a little, century by century; but only Laughter can blow it to rags and
atoms at a blast. Against the assault of Laughter nothing can stand. You
are always fussing and fighting with your other weapons. Do you ever use
that one? No; you leave it lying rusting. As a race, do you ever use it at
all? No; you lack sense and the courage."
-Mark Twain, _The_Mysterious_Stranger_
Golpea
In a lot of ways, I agree with Teramis... here's my own take with my words.
:) (gotta throw in that tuppence ya know!)
In the D/s that I do, being a submissive is like "coming home." I feel like
I am finally where I belong. This is, of course, with a Dominant person
whom I share affection and chemistry, and with whom I feel appreciated.
I actually get off on pleasing my Sir, and the other Dominants with whom I
have done little bits of play.
Out in the 'Everyday' world, I actually feel confined (in a bad way) by the
necessity for me to make decisions for others... to constantly be in power,
when what I really desire is to support a Master, and to follow his rules.
In my fantasies, I imagine a relationship where certain behaviors are
expected, and where sometimes limits are pushed in order to please both
partners, both the 'Master' and the 'slave.' I desire (with all my heart)
to know that my body and my soul do not belong to me, are not under my
control, but are subject to the pleasure of my Master.
I don't know if I will ever have the opportunity to build up to a level of
trust with a Dom/me to get to the point where I would be willing to be
his/her/their slave, but I know that I will die happy if I'm ever allowed
the opportunity to experience that.
Autum "Golpea"
Golpea
To rephrase so that it makes more sense to me, the impression I get is that
most everyone is saying that:
Total Power Exchange means "anything goes" basically, whatever the
Master/Dominant wishes can happen.
***However*** the sub/slave has the option at any time to walk away from the
entire relationship.
Most Master/Dominants treat their property well, (as Sir says, it may not be
fun, but it's important that the experience be _gratifying_) so that a)their
property does not suffer the effects of abuse, b)their property is more
strongly and sincerely motivated to serve from a strong base of loyalty and
love rather than just an observation of positional requirements, and c)so
that their property doesn't leave. (or some other variation of reasons to
treat a slave well that are not as common)
What do y'all think?
Autum
Tobie
been a *very* informative conversation. Your time has been a
valuable learning experience for me.
Now, to the post.
Dreamer wrote:
> I have a responsibility to make sure that my daughter is as safe and happy
> as reasonably possible. But the situations are not analogous. My daughter is
> my child: she didn't ask to be born, nor to have me as a father, and we did
> not work out any understandings before she arrived. By creating her, I
> assumed a responsibility towards her. Had I not wished such a
> responsibility, I should have made damned sure that I was not about to incur
> it.
I should have used a different example, but it wasn't the
situation, it was word usage.
>
> They both, by the way, could apply. I should take reasonable care to make
> sure she gets on the bus... making sure she's up on time, making sure the
> bus stop is safe, the driver adequate, the buses maintained, etc. I have a
> responsibility to make sure she goes to school and is educated so she has
> the maximum of opportunity.
ok.
>
> > If we're looking at daffynitions differently, then it's just a
> > misunderstanding.
>
> I don't think it is, quite frankly.
Not with *this* word, no, I think you're right, we see them at
least kinda the same.
> I think I now understand. You mean that if I do not allow them to work, I am
> "responsible" for their maintenance? That falls under reasonable care again.
> If I want them to be pleasing, they have to be healthy and strong. If I want
> them to be healthy and strong, they have to be fed, sheltered, clothed, and
> provided with adequate medical care. I have no obligation to do so, but it's
> nobody's fault but my own if I don't and they then suffer for it and I do
> not get the level of service I expect.
Ok, at least that's cleared up. We aren't going to see eye to
eye. That in it's self is no big deal and has nothing to do
with us being able to discuss other things, at other times.
> > If they were walking, it may have started raining hard, ot the
> > heat may have rizen unexpectdly fast. If a friend picked them
> > up, the friend may have had an emergency and had to go. This
> > doesn't take much imagination.
>
> No, it doesn't, nor does the common sense reply. If I let them go outside at
> all, why would I care if they took a bus or a taxi or drove a car? If their
> car breaks down, of course I'm going to go get them. To do otherwise would
> be to unnecessarily endanger my property.
In *all* of the TPE relationships that I know of,
transportation is one of the things covered. When where how and
why, to one degree or another.
> >
> > ohh, never mind, you negated it again.
>
> Yes, I did, because I have no general responsibility.
::shrug:: Ok, I accept that you feel no responsibility to those
you call slaves that are under your care.
>
> "Not Warm and Fuzzy and Respecting Her Little Personhood" may equal "ugly"
> in your book: that's your privilege. It doesn't in mine. And that is the way
> it is. I am not warm, I am not fuzzy, and I do not respect their little
> personhoods.
I didn't say or imply anything about "Warm and Fuzzy and
Respecting Her Little Personhood".
Nope, sure didn't. To not respect a persons, personhood, is
something that I've decided not to go into here. I suspect that
things would digress to flaming and I don't want to go there.
> > I didn't say it wasn't enough, nor did I ask you to change
> > anything. I posted a polite response to something you said that
> > bothered me, and you seem to be getting edgy over it.
>
> I'm not exactly edgy, but the basic gist of your argument is that I am a Bad
> Man because I refuse to acknowledge the "responsibilities" you see as
> inherent in a relationship such as I have with my slave girls. Given that
> you refuse to acknowledge my point, which is that I have no such
> responsibilities, I am not bothering overmuch with tempering my responses.
> Either I have them, or I do not. If I do, dodging them would indeed make me
> a Bad Man. Avoiding responsibility is an unethical act: that's what
> responsibility means. I went through a long period, quite honestly, where I
> wondered if I did in fact have responsibilities and obligations to them. I
> felt bad because I felt that I was not providing them with what they
> "needed."
No, if I felt you were a "bad man", I'd have said so. Yes, I
know you aren't bothering over much to temper your response and
I accept that in an effort to learn more from you. I do not
*have* to like you, to learn from you. I don't dislike you
either though.
>
> This was, of course, incorrect. What they need, what they asked for, is a
> master. Period. I am their master. If they don't like what I am doing, they
> are free to say so. I will consider any polite request or observation. I
> will then make a decision. If they don't like it, they are free to say so. I
> will then either reconsider, or tell them the decision is final. If the
> decision is final, that is IT. ONE WORD will earn them a punishment, a
> severe one. Their only recourse is then to leave my possession. Rather than
> compromise what I feel to be right, I will release them. Yes, I am a
> hard-case. So be it.
Ok that clarifies even more. The TPE's that I know of don't
consider release a fast or easily viable answer. The TPE's I
know of wouldn't consider a "word" to be worthy of punishment,
it would, perhaps open a conversation as what was going on that
was wrong.
In case you have misunderstood me, I see absolutely nothing
wrong with being a stern owner if that is what pleases you and
your slaves. Being in a M/s doesn't to me, mean per say, that
M/s are in a TPE.
>
> Question away. But as you yourself noted, there does not seem to be any
> middle ground here and you are not so much questioning as pointing out where
> you think I am wrong. Whether you meant it or not, you are stating quite
> simply that I am an unethical person because I refuse to acknowledge my
> alleged responsibilities. Don't be surprised to get a strong response to
> that.
Eh, it does look as though that's how I meant it, and I
apologize for that. But what I did finally realize is that we
see TPE in *totally* different ways. Therein is where we took
different terms. I'm glad to have found that out.
>
> >> That's YOUR relationship. You seem to be implying a progressive function:
> >> since your relationship is a simple D/s relationship (didn't know there was
> >> such a critter, but I digress) and you have responsibilities to each other,
> >> since I live in a 24/7 M/s relationship, we must have even greater
> >> responsibilities.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> > I dissagree.
>
> Fine and dandy. On what grounds?
It no longer matters, I was talking about TPE, you're talking
about M/s. To me these are things that can happen at the same
time, but do not *have* to be inclusive.
> It is relevant because it talks about people (like me) who don't buy the
> "gift of submission" or "this is all about the sub" argument, and why they
> offend people who do, so mightily. To me the term "slavery" and the term
> "TPE" are more or less synonymous.
I don't buy into the gift thing either, I've said that here
before. I don't buy that it's all for one partner OR the other,
I've said that here before as well. To me those terms are two
different things entirely.
Thanks for the learning!
Tobie
the red cabbage
Dreamer
<gol...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dreamer, you raise some good points, as has everyone I've seen so far.
Thank you.
> To rephrase so that it makes more sense to me, the impression I get is that
> most everyone is saying that:
>
> Total Power Exchange means "anything goes" basically, whatever the
> Master/Dominant wishes can happen.
In essence. However...
> ***However*** the sub/slave has the option at any time to walk away from the
> entire relationship.
Precisely. Not because it is an implied term of the "contract" or terms of
submission: my slaves HAVE no contracts, no terms of submission. Because it's
the law. I am a lawyer and I have no desire to go to jail or be disbarred. I
wouldn't lift a finger to stop any of them if they tried to leave. Nor, to be
brutally honest, would it be hard to replace them. But I like *these*. *smile*
> Most Master/Dominants treat their property well, (as Sir says, it may not be
> fun, but it's important that the experience be _gratifying_) so that a)their
> property does not suffer the effects of abuse,
I see abuse as being largely subjective, and mostly irrelevant. If she wants it,
it's not abuse. If she's willing to put up with it in return for being
possessed, it's not abuse. I never for one single solitary second tell them "you
deserve this *because you are a bad person,* or because God said men could beat
women", or any of that other crap. I say "You have been displeasing. Your
punishment will be X." They are free to protest. If they refuse to accept the
punishment, out they go. But I would never taunt, tease, guilt-trip, or
manipulate them in any way, shape or form. That is beneath me.
Incidentally, I used to be a world-class sulker. Since I accepted my dominant
side I have not had one sulk, one fly-off-the-handle, one storm-out-of-the-room.
I am the very picture of calm reason.
Unless the modem's not working.
Then they're allowed to hide, though. *grin*
> b)their property is more
> strongly and sincerely motivated to serve from a strong base of loyalty and
> love rather than just an observation of positional requirements,
Well-treated animals are more productive of whatever it is they produce than
badly-treated ones. That goes without saying.
> and c)so
> that their property doesn't leave. (or some other variation of reasons to
> treat a slave well that are not as common)
Never once does that enter my mind.
>
> What do y'all think?
That's what I think. *smile*
I wish you well.
Dreamer
Dreamer
> been a *very* informative conversation. Your time has been a
> valuable learning experience for me.
You are most thoroughly welcome. I have enjoyed it as well, believe it or not.
> Now, to the post.
>
> Dreamer wrote:
>
>> I have a responsibility to make sure that my daughter is as safe and happy
>> as reasonably possible. But the situations are not analogous. My daughter is
>> my child: she didn't ask to be born, nor to have me as a father, and we did
>> not work out any understandings before she arrived. By creating her, I
>> assumed a responsibility towards her. Had I not wished such a
>> responsibility, I should have made damned sure that I was not about to incur
>> it.
>
> I should have used a different example, but it wasn't the
> situation, it was word usage.
Unless someone else has already used it (and I have been saying it for a long
time) I hereby declare Dreamer's Law of Discussion:
"All Discussions are about definitions."
>> > If they were walking, it may have started raining hard, ot the
>> > heat may have rizen unexpectdly fast. If a friend picked them
>> > up, the friend may have had an emergency and had to go. This
>> > doesn't take much imagination.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, nor does the common sense reply. If I let them go outside at
>> all, why would I care if they took a bus or a taxi or drove a car? If their
>> car breaks down, of course I'm going to go get them. To do otherwise would
>> be to unnecessarily endanger my property.
>
> In *all* of the TPE relationships that I know of,
> transportation is one of the things covered. When where how and
> why, to one degree or another.
Okay. Our relationships are not very formal in that regard. (Among many others.)
I simply find out where they're going. If they have a problem, they call me. I'm
not running a bus company. Keep in mind that these are kajirae (Gorean slave
girls) and kajirae, absent specific orders or understood customs and laws, do
much as they please most of the time.
>> > ohh, never mind, you negated it again.
>>
>> Yes, I did, because I have no general responsibility.
>
> ::shrug:: Ok, I accept that you feel no responsibility to those
> you call slaves that are under your care.
... which of course means you do not concede the point, you're just saying that
you believe I believe it. As far as we're going to get and far more civil than
most discussions of this sort end up. *smile*
>> "Not Warm and Fuzzy and Respecting Her Little Personhood" may equal "ugly"
>> in your book: that's your privilege. It doesn't in mine. And that is the way
>> it is. I am not warm, I am not fuzzy, and I do not respect their little
>> personhoods.
>
> I didn't say or imply anything about "Warm and Fuzzy and
> Respecting Her Little Personhood".
> Nope, sure didn't. To not respect a persons, personhood, is
> something that I've decided not to go into here. I suspect that
> things would digress to flaming and I don't want to go there.
I did not know where else one might obtain the justification for the word
"ugly." Ugly is a very subjective term but at this point you don't know enough
about the way I treat them to say whether our relationship is ugly or not. All
you know is what I've said and all I've said that you've objected to is my lack
of responsibility - or, in other terms, respect for them as anything other than
property.
>> > I didn't say it wasn't enough, nor did I ask you to change
>> > anything. I posted a polite response to something you said that
>> > bothered me, and you seem to be getting edgy over it.
>>
>> I'm not exactly edgy, but the basic gist of your argument is that I am a Bad
>> Man because I refuse to acknowledge the "responsibilities" you see as
>> inherent in a relationship such as I have with my slave girls. Given that
>> you refuse to acknowledge my point, which is that I have no such
>> responsibilities, I am not bothering overmuch with tempering my responses.
>> Either I have them, or I do not. If I do, dodging them would indeed make me
>> a Bad Man. Avoiding responsibility is an unethical act: that's what
>> responsibility means. I went through a long period, quite honestly, where I
>> wondered if I did in fact have responsibilities and obligations to them. I
>> felt bad because I felt that I was not providing them with what they
>> "needed."
>
> No, if I felt you were a "bad man", I'd have said so. Yes, I
> know you aren't bothering over much to temper your response and
> I accept that in an effort to learn more from you. I do not
> *have* to like you, to learn from you. I don't dislike you
> either though.
While people disliking me doesn't keep me awake nights (or I'd have got no sleep
since I was seven years old) I'm glad to hear you don't, as I rather like you. I
realize that you were not proceeding along the direct thought-path that I am an
Evil Man but that is the very direct logical conclusion of what you said.
Keep in mind I don't have to feel that the mode of your submission is The
Perfect Slavery to learn from you, either. I have lots of friends. online and
off, who are not lifestylers, 24/7, or even male dominance oriented.
>> This was, of course, incorrect. What they need, what they asked for, is a
>> master. Period. I am their master. If they don't like what I am doing, they
>> are free to say so. I will consider any polite request or observation. I
>> will then make a decision. If they don't like it, they are free to say so. I
>> will then either reconsider, or tell them the decision is final. If the
>> decision is final, that is IT. ONE WORD will earn them a punishment, a
>> severe one. Their only recourse is then to leave my possession. Rather than
>> compromise what I feel to be right, I will release them. Yes, I am a
>> hard-case. So be it.
>
> Ok that clarifies even more. The TPE's that I know of don't
> consider release a fast or easily viable answer.
I don't either. But it's a front-loaded system. Getting to BE my slave is not
easy, and I am as hard on prospectives as I am on my slaves - probably harder.
But during any potential "interview" or "learning" period, lapses of any sort
are not grounds for ditching the whole thing. But once you've submitted to me,
you know the score, and you know that there is a clear bright line which you
simply are not allowed to come back over once you cross it. In essence, that
line is the word "no."
> The TPE's I
> know of wouldn't consider a "word" to be worthy of punishment,
> it would, perhaps open a conversation as what was going on that
> was wrong.
Correction. *Most* of the TPE's you know. *smile* I am a strict master in that
if there IS a rule, or a command, or a decision, that is IT. No debate. However,
UNTIL there is a rule, or a command, or a decision, they are allowed to say
whatever they like so long as they are respectful. And they are never, EVER
punished for telling me something they think I would want to know, or that they
think I might not know, if it affects how I might treat them.
> In case you have misunderstood me, I see absolutely nothing
> wrong with being a stern owner if that is what pleases you and
> your slaves. Being in a M/s doesn't to me, mean per say, that
> M/s are in a TPE.
NOW we descend into definition hell. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. If you
*own* somebody, if they are your *property,* how could it NOT be a TPE?
>> Question away. But as you yourself noted, there does not seem to be any
>> middle ground here and you are not so much questioning as pointing out where
>> you think I am wrong. Whether you meant it or not, you are stating quite
>> simply that I am an unethical person because I refuse to acknowledge my
>> alleged responsibilities. Don't be surprised to get a strong response to
>> that.
>
> Eh, it does look as though that's how I meant it, and I
> apologize for that. But what I did finally realize is that we
> see TPE in *totally* different ways. Therein is where we took
> different terms. I'm glad to have found that out.
It would so appear.
>
> Thanks for the learning!
Again, you are most sincerely welcome. I wish you well.
Dreamer
Tobie
to Dreamer. But I got caught up in making sure we were at least
understanding how each other saw the *words*.
"Steven S. Davis" wrote:
> Many TPE
> dominants stress that the slave has no right to leave and some
> stress that they would bring them back if they tried. The limits
> of their ability to bring back a slave who truly wishes to leave
> have been discussed at great length (and to about as much agreement
> as you and tobie are having (ah, much less, actually), and one of the
> common answers is that the task and goal of the owner is to - with the
> agreement of the slave with zir active collaboration of the slave -
> remove from the slave the capability to leave.
>
> In any such relationship which seeks to bind a slave so that zie
> cannot leave, first binding zir by zir commitment and zir agreement
> that zie has surrendered the right to leave, and second binding
> zir by conditioning to deprive zir of the capability of leaving
> (whatever zir legal rights might be), the responsibilty of the
> owner for the slave's well-being is enormous.
These are points that go along with my understanding of TPE,
the long term reality of it. Thank you for expressing what I,
in my trying to understand, left out.
Tobie
trc
( yup, she's a veggie! )
Steven S. Davis
: In article <7psgbh$5j4$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net> , "Golpea"
: <gol...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
: > ***However*** the sub/slave has the option at any time to walk
: > away from the entire relationship.
:
: Precisely. Not because it is an implied term of the "contract" or
: terms of submission: my slaves HAVE no contracts, no terms of
: submission. Because it's the law.
Much of wiitwd is illegal (of course, so is much of what vanillas
do).
: I am a lawyer and I have no desire to go to jail or be disbarred.
: I wouldn't lift a finger to stop any of them if they tried to leave.
Which is fine, and I do understand that all you have been discussing
is how *you* handle your ownership of slaves. However, within the
context of this discussion it is important to recognize that this is
not the way all TPE is handled (and yes, there's no OTW even for TPE,
unless perhaps one wishes to be extremely specific about a style
of TPE (there is perhaps only OTW to do Jacobin TPE)). Many TPE
dominants stress that the slave has no right to leave and some
stress that they would bring them back if they tried. The limits
of their ability to bring back a slave who truly wishes to leave
have been discussed at great length (and to about as much agreement
as you and tobie are having (ah, much less, actually), and one of the
common answers is that the task and goal of the owner is to - with the
agreement of the slave with zir active collaboration of the slave -
remove from the slave the capability to leave.
In any such relationship which seeks to bind a slave so that zie
cannot leave, first binding zir by zir commitment and zir agreement
that zie has surrendered the right to leave, and second binding
zir by conditioning to deprive zir of the capability of leaving
(whatever zir legal rights might be), the responsibilty of the
owner for the slave's well-being is enormous.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSBF Charter: http://www.tpe.com/ssbbf.html
The SSB Homepage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com
>If I want them to be healthy and strong, they have to be fed, sheltered, clothed, and
>provided with adequate medical care. I have no obligation to do so, but it's
>nobody's fault but my own if I don't and they then suffer for it and I do
>not get the level of service I expect.
This is rather the crux of the semantics here, which you stated more
clearly in an earlier post: to you, "responsibility" also implies
"obligation" and you refuse to be (or feel) obligated to your
property.
"Obligation" means, "something one is bound to do", as in a duty or
responsibility[1]. It can also mean "obligating oneself to a course of
action (as by a promise or vow)" and close variations thereof.
Why are you so allergic to the concept of "obligation"? If you deny
someone autonomy and the means to be self-sufficient, and then levy
requirements upon them, *someone* must be (that dreaded word)
*responsible* _for the consequences of their choices_. Since choice
is stripped from the slave, that person responsible for consequences
(as well as choices) would be *you*, the dominant.
Or put another way, by assuming that power, you are obligating
yourself to clean up your own messes. Not to "answer to the slave" -
but to be _responsible_ for your actions.
It is not a matter of 'taking reasonable care'. It is a matter of
owning one's choices and decisions (yours) and the outcomes they
produce that affect another.
So, to use that concept you don't seem to like: are you "obligated"
(ie, have a duty, a responsibility) to deal with the consequences your
choices put upon your property - or others who are dependent upon you?
From my point of view, I would say.... Yes.
I am very curious to know why is it that the concept of "obligation"
discomforts you so? I am not talking "slave guilt tripping you into
feeling like you owe her something". I am talking about dealing with
the fallout or other consequences from *your* choices and *your*
decisions that other people (slaves, etc) must live with. Are you not
responsible to *yourself*? If yes, then why not to a slave? If no,
then....perhaps that's the end of this discussion.
> To me the term "slavery" and the term "TPE" are more or less synonymous.
I agree with you completely on that point. And both I and my Mistress,
should she ever choose to become my Owner, know full well that she
will behave then in the same responsible manner towards me that she
does now - and I, to her.
regards,
-Teramis
[1] mirriam-webster, www.m-l.com
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com
<dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:
>
Tobie:
>> In case you have misunderstood me, I see absolutely nothing
>> wrong with being a stern owner if that is what pleases you and
>> your slaves. Being in a M/s doesn't to me, mean per say, that
>> M/s are in a TPE.
>
>NOW we descend into definition hell. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. If you
>*own* somebody, if they are your *property,* how could it NOT be a TPE?
Um, is this a test? I can't resist.
A: some people own their slaves only x% of the time, or actively
refuse to have control over some portion(s) of the slave's life. Kids,
job, finances, whathaveyou, might be offlimits, for whatever reason.
When you say "You're mine and I control you, except for this little
bit over here" - you do *not* have a TPE. But you might well have a
Master/slave relationship.
-Teramis
Jesse Garon
>Dreamer, writing to Tobie:
>>If I want them to be healthy and strong, they have to be fed, sheltered, clothed, and
>>provided with adequate medical care. I have no obligation to do so, but it's
>>nobody's fault but my own if I don't and they then suffer for it and I do
>>not get the level of service I expect.
<snip>
>Why are you so allergic to the concept of "obligation"? If you deny
>someone autonomy and the means to be self-sufficient, and then levy
>requirements upon them, *someone* must be (that dreaded word)
>*responsible* _for the consequences of their choices_...
Me, I'm just trying to figure out if this Dreamer is talking about
owning submissives or raising puppies. But then, I'm not a strong
believer in "owning" submissives; I prefer to think of submissives
as people who make a gift of their submission to their masters. But
that gift is, like all pleasure (or pain, for that matter), transitory.
Even when it presents itself as "total."
But even within THAT framework, recognition of the consequences of
one's actions is essential.
"Jesse Garon": the God damnedest mass of tact known to the human race
---------------------------------------------------------------------
gri...@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~grifter/TAO.html
Dreamer
In article <7pt3of$ioh$1...@links.magenta.com>, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S.
Davis) wrote:
> In any such relationship which seeks to bind a slave so that zie
> cannot leave, first binding zir by zir commitment and zir agreement
> that zie has surrendered the right to leave, and second binding
> zir by conditioning to deprive zir of the capability of leaving
> (whatever zir legal rights might be), the responsibilty of the
> owner for the slave's well-being is enormous.
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion.
Sorry, couldn't help it. Seriously, once again, you are imposing the notion
of power = responsibility = obligation. I deny it. If she wishes to submit
to me, I set the terms. One of those terms is, I assume no responsibility
for you. If you are afraid of what I might do with absolute power over your
body, mind, and spirit, you have no business submitting to me. So long as I
was truthful to begin with, and you knew what you were getting into, that's
that.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
Dreamer
wrote:
> Dreamer, writing to Tobie:
>
>>If I want them to be healthy and strong, they have to be fed, sheltered,
> clothed, and
>>provided with adequate medical care. I have no obligation to do so, but it's
>>nobody's fault but my own if I don't and they then suffer for it and I do
>>not get the level of service I expect.
>
> This is rather the crux of the semantics here, which you stated more
> clearly in an earlier post: to you, "responsibility" also implies
> "obligation" and you refuse to be (or feel) obligated to your
> property.
>
> "Obligation" means, "something one is bound to do", as in a duty or
> responsibility[1]. It can also mean "obligating oneself to a course of
> action (as by a promise or vow)" and close variations thereof.
>
> Why are you so allergic to the concept of "obligation"?
I am not. I have many obligations, some of which I imposed on myself, some
of which I chose to accept. For the nth time, I simply do not number my
slaves among them.
> If you deny
> someone autonomy and the means to be self-sufficient, and then levy
> requirements upon them, *someone* must be (that dreaded word)
> *responsible* _for the consequences of their choices_.
Someone is. They are. If they do not meet my requirements, they will be
punished. If they continue to fail, they will be released.
And, as I mentioned before, I do not micromanage them. They are largely
self-directed within a framework. The two who do not live with me, for
instance, are both extremely successful professionals. The one who does
keeps our household and has a job outside our home, which I feel is good for
her, as people stagnate when they never do anything outside a routine.
The key here is my knowing what their capabilities are BEFORE accepting
them. Just as I had an obligation to them BEFORE enslaving them - as they
were then free persons - to make sure they knew what they were getting into,
I had the obligation to make sure they were not offering me what they did
not have.
> Since choice
> is stripped from the slave, that person responsible for consequences
> (as well as choices) would be *you*, the dominant.
Incorrect. They have choices. They can obey, or not. They can be pleasing,
or not. They can follow the laws of their respective jurisdictions, or not.
They can work hard in their professions, or not. After they make those
choices, the consequence, good or bad, is then visited upon them, just like
every other living creature.
> Or put another way, by assuming that power, you are obligating
> yourself to clean up your own messes. Not to "answer to the slave" -
> but to be _responsible_ for your actions.
Their actions are not mine, but theirs. They are not zombies nor programmed
automatons. They cannot honor or dishonor me (to use a frequent Gorean
argument). They are sentient creatures. If I wanted a dog, I'd buy a dog...
and then I'd make sure the dog was either well enough trained not to do
things which I would then be culpable for, or I'd make sure the dog was
secured so it *could* not do things which I would then be culpable for.
In other words, those collars aren't so tight that their little brains start
to soften.
> It is not a matter of 'taking reasonable care'. It is a matter of
> owning one's choices and decisions (yours) and the outcomes they
> produce that affect another.
> So, to use that concept you don't seem to like: are you "obligated"
> (ie, have a duty, a responsibility) to deal with the consequences your
> choices put upon your property - or others who are dependent upon you?
> From my point of view, I would say.... Yes.
People who are dependent on me? Absolutely. If I screw up and cost my
employer money, there will be consequences - severe ones. If I do not take
care of my daughter when I am watching her, there will be consequences -
severe ones.
However, my slaves are not dependent on me. I own them. Big difference. The
aforementioned dog would, in a way, be dependent on me, in that if I did not
take care of him he would not know what to do and would either then have to
become feral or die. But the dog is not a sentient creature. They are. They
could take care of themselves without me, and I have incurred no
responsibilities toward them. That is the difference.
> I am very curious to know why is it that the concept of "obligation"
> discomforts you so? I am not talking "slave guilt tripping you into
> feeling like you owe her something". I am talking about dealing with
> the fallout or other consequences from *your* choices and *your*
> decisions that other people (slaves, etc) must live with. Are you not
> responsible to *yourself*?
No, actually, I'm not. My life is mine to do with as I please, or discard if
I please. However, I *do* have obligations to others, and therefore
discarding it before those obligations are met *would* be irresponsible of
me. (That at times is the only reason I have not done so.) My slave girls
are not members of that set.
> If yes, then why not to a slave?
Now that's just silly. If I have obligations to my daughter, why not to your
daughter? Because they're not the same, that's why.
>If no, then....perhaps that's the end of this discussion.
*shrug*
>> To me the term "slavery" and the term "TPE" are more or less synonymous.
>
> I agree with you completely on that point. And both I and my Mistress,
> should she ever choose to become my Owner, know full well that she
> will behave then in the same responsible manner towards me that she
> does now - and I, to her.
Then I am pleased that you fulfill each other's wants. However, morality !=
ethics != logic. If you feel you have responsibility towards each other,
fine and dandy. But that does not mean I have responsibility towards my
slaves.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
Dreamer
In article <7ptkes$dq4$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, gri...@primenet.com ('Jesse
Garon')
> clothed, and
>>>provided with adequate medical care. I have no obligation to do so, but it's
>>>nobody's fault but my own if I don't and they then suffer for it and I do
>>>not get the level of service I expect.
>
>>Why are you so allergic to the concept of "obligation"? If you deny
>>someone autonomy and the means to be self-sufficient, and then levy
>>requirements upon them, *someone* must be (that dreaded word)
>
> Me, I'm just trying to figure out if this Dreamer is talking about
> owning submissives or raising puppies.
Rather a cheap shot, as I've already said umpteen times I don't micromanage
them, they are quite capable of fending for themselves, and are allowed to
do much as they please most of the time - which is a lot more than can be
said for a lot of the abject wretches I've seen in more "standard" BDSM
lifestyles. I wouldn't do to my dog some of the things I've seen people do
to other human beings at BDSM events: it would belittle ME as a person. But
you don't see me asking THEM if they are owning submissives or raising
puppies.
> But then, I'm not a strong
> believer in "owning" submissives; I prefer to think of submissives
> as people who make a gift of their submission to their masters.
Then, quite frankly, we have nothing further to discuss. You are looking at
the relationship in completely the opposite direction that I am and there is
no middle ground. Even Tobie and I, who disagreed on so much, are a lot
closer together than you and I.
> But
> that gift is, like all pleasure (or pain, for that matter), transitory.
> Even when it presents itself as "total."
>
> But even within THAT framework, recognition of the consequences of
> one's actions is essential.
True... but whose actions are we speaking of? To *me*, the essential act in
this relationship was not my "accepting" the "gift" of submission, but their
surrender to me of themselves. Once they did that, the consequence - that I
own them - is theirs to deal with, not mine. I don't care how deep your
submission or how perfect your slavery: you are still a functional,
sentient, self-aware human being (if you're not, then that's a whole other
discussion) and you are responsible for you. Period.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
"Will a day come when the race will detect the funniness of these
juvenilities and laugh at them - and by laughing at them, destroy them? For
your race, in its poverty, has unquestionably one really effective weapon -
Laughter. Power, Money, Persuasion, Supplication, Persecution - these can
lift at a colossal humbug, - push it a little - crowd it a little - weaken
it a little, century by century; but only Laughter can blow it to rags and
atoms at a blast. Against the assault of Laughter nothing can stand. You
are always fussing and fighting with your other weapons. Do you ever use
that one? No; you leave it lying rusting. As a race, do you ever use it at
all? No; you lack sense and the courage."
-Mark Twain, _The_Mysterious_Stranger_
----------
new...@earthlink.net
for his or her actions. Everything a dom/me does he or she is
responcible for, saying one sets a "term" that as the dominant he or she
isn't responcible is like taking a gun, shooting into neighbors' houses,
hitting a few people, then saying when I go shooting, I set the terms
and one of those terms is I'm not responcible for anyone getting hit.
Generally I would say the submissive is responcible for what happens to
him or her too. However, the point of power exchange is to relieve a
slave of his or her choice-making. Still, a submissive/slave is
responcible for getting her or himself into the relationship.
All in all we are responcible for what we do and there is no escape and
no way to escape it, no technicalites to get one out of it.
Dreamer wrote:
>
> ----------
> In article <7pt3of$ioh$1...@links.magenta.com>, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S.
> Davis) wrote:
>
> > In any such relationship which seeks to bind a slave so that zie
> > cannot leave, first binding zir by zir commitment and zir agreement
> > that zie has surrendered the right to leave, and second binding
> > zir by conditioning to deprive zir of the capability of leaving
> > (whatever zir legal rights might be), the responsibilty of the
> > owner for the slave's well-being is enormous.
>
> Explain the logic underlying that conclusion.
>
> Sorry, couldn't help it. Seriously, once again, you are imposing the notion
> of power = responsibility = obligation. I deny it. If she wishes to submit
> to me, I set the terms. One of those terms is, I assume no responsibility
> for you. If you are afraid of what I might do with absolute power over your
> body, mind, and spirit, you have no business submitting to me. So long as I
> was truthful to begin with, and you knew what you were getting into, that's
> that.
>
SarOfTreve
>Dreamer, writing to Tobie:
>
>>If I want them to be healthy and strong, they have to be fed, sheltered,
>clothed, and
>>provided with adequate medical care. I have no obligation to do so, but it's
>>nobody's fault but my own if I don't and they then suffer for it and I do
>>not get the level of service I expect.
>
>This is rather the crux of the semantics here, which you stated more
>clearly in an earlier post: to you, "responsibility" also implies
>"obligation" and you refuse to be (or feel) obligated to your
>property.
>
>"Obligation" means, "something one is bound to do", as in a duty or
>responsibility[1]. It can also mean "obligating oneself to a course of
>action (as by a promise or vow)" and close variations thereof.
>
>Why are you so allergic to the concept of "obligation"? If you deny
>someone autonomy and the means to be self-sufficient, and then levy
>requirements upon them, *someone* must be (that dreaded word)
>*responsible* _for the consequences of their choices_. Since choice
>is stripped from the slave, that person responsible for consequences
>(as well as choices) would be *you*, the dominant.
>
>Or put another way, by assuming that power, you are obligating
>yourself to clean up your own messes. Not to "answer to the slave" -
>but to be _responsible_ for your actions.
>
>It is not a matter of 'taking reasonable care'. It is a matter of
>owning one's choices and decisions (yours) and the outcomes they
>produce that affect another.
>
>So, to use that concept you don't seem to like: are you "obligated"
>(ie, have a duty, a responsibility) to deal with the consequences your
>choices put upon your property - or others who are dependent upon you?
>From my point of view, I would say.... Yes.
You seem to be saying two different things...
In one paragraph: "someone must be *responsible* _for the consequences of their
choices_" ["their" being the slave] and "Since choice is stripped from the
slave, that person responsible for consequences (as well as choices) would be
*you*, the dominant"
And two down: "It is a matter of owning one's choices and decisions (yours) and
the outcomes they produce that affect another"
Personally, I agree with the second but not the first. There's a saying I
believe to be relevant: my responsibility for another human being ends at the
tip of their nose. I am responsible for myself, and the impact of my decisions
on others. I am not, and cannot be, responsible for another person.
If my actions somehow force my slave to become unable to make any choice,
however simple, as you imply above, there _is_ a good argument for total
responsibility for that person. Short of practices I've yet to see employed in
wiiwd, this isn't a very plausible scenario.
On balance, I certainly do have obligations/responsibilities to my slave. One
of my decisions has been that she not work. The impact of said decision is
that she could not be self-supporting on her own today. The fact that she
feels herself owned to the point of being unable to leave is, however, a choice
she made. It is not accompanied by blanket responsibility on me for who and
what she is.
YMMV, etc.
Regards,
Sartan
Working With Leather - http://www.sagatech.com/sartan/wwlsal/index.htm
Dreamer
> It matters not what terms anyone sets, he or she is still responcible
> for his or her actions.
Absolutely. Deeds, not words.
> Everything a dom/me does he or she is
> responcible for, saying one sets a "term" that as the dominant he or she
> isn't responcible is like taking a gun, shooting into neighbors' houses,
> hitting a few people, then saying when I go shooting, I set the terms
> and one of those terms is I'm not responcible for anyone getting hit.
A telling analogy, save that it is completely inapplicable. Guns can't
think. Guns don't know what they're getting into before someone pulls the
trigger. Guns don't know or care what's going to happen when the bullet gets
where it is going. My neighbors didn't ask me to come into their houses and
start shooting. And so forth.
They are not guns and they are not little puppies and they are not children
and they are not robots. For you to imply that they are, or that I am trying
to make them so, seems to me FAR more demeaning and unethical than for me to
say I have no responsibility to grown adults who asked me to become their
owner.
> Generally I would say the submissive is responcible for what happens to
> him or her too. However, the point of power exchange is to relieve a
> slave of his or her choice-making.
Your opinion. I disagree. For the n+1th time, I do not have or want mindless
zombie slaves. The point of power exchange like the point of any other human
interaction is to satisfy a need or want. They get what they want, I get
what I want.
> Still, a submissive/slave is
> responcible for getting her or himself into the relationship.
> All in all we are responcible for what we do and there is no escape and
> no way to escape it, no technicalites to get one out of it.
You are seeking to impose technicalities on me... the "with great power
comes great responsibility" thing. Been there, got a whole box of t-shirts,
and it was a bigger scam than Disney World. I'm not Spiderman, nor even
Peter Parker, and they are quite intelligent adults who knew what they were
getting into before they did it. If that's not a choice YOU would have made,
fine. But don't try to tell THEM, or me, that the terms they freely entered
into were not really what they meant.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
Dreamer
In article <19990824105801...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
sarof...@aol.comNOSPAM (SarOfTreve) wrote:
Tal, Sartan. *smile* A question...
> There's a saying I
> believe to be relevant: my responsibility for another human being ends at the
> tip of their nose. I am responsible for myself, and the impact of my
decisions
> on others. I am not, and cannot be, responsible for another person.
>
> If my actions somehow force my slave to become unable to make any choice,
> however simple, as you imply above, there _is_ a good argument for total
> responsibility for that person. Short of practices I've yet to see employed
in
> wiiwd, this isn't a very plausible scenario.
I feel that this is also why one can have a responsibility to one's
children... they're not yet ready to make choices.
> On balance, I certainly do have obligations/responsibilities to my slave. One
> of my decisions has been that she not work. The impact of said decision is
> that she could not be self-supporting on her own today. The fact that she
> feels herself owned to the point of being unable to leave is, however, a
choice
> she made. It is not accompanied by blanket responsibility on me for who and
> what she is.
I do not understand the distinction. She could certainly support herself if
she is of average intelligence and reasonable health. It would not be
luxurious, no, but anybody can get a job washing dishes. Are you saying you
have a responsibility to maintain her in the lifestyle to which she has
become accustomed? If so, where does it end, and how did you incur it? If
not, how is that not a blanket responsibility?
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
Cutter John's Theory of Temporo-Natal Irrelevance:
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood!"
If you live near Chicago, you should check out "Galleria Domain," a
BDSM/Fetish club open nightly. It's way cool. See it at:
http://www.galleriadomain.com
This is a totally unsolicited testimonial, but the operators are friends of
mine, if that makes a difference.
LawLess
> NOW we descend into definition hell. Abandon hope, all ye who enter
> here. If you *own* somebody, if they are your *property,* how could it
> NOT be a TPE?
I own a cat - nominally, by law, he's my property. Is it a TPE? I
think not. If I were a dog person and owned one of those slackjawed
drooling fleabags that worship their person, it'd be closer - but still
not TPE, as fleabags are notorious for deciding to disobey when the
mailman knocks on the door or a bike goes by or another dog comes onto
first fleabag's turf.
I can be "owned", not have any limits concerning what I will or won't
do for my owner, and still not be in a TPE relationship, because what
personal power I have hasn't been exchanged or given away - it's at my
owner's disposal, but it's still mine, and every time a difficult thing
is "asked" of me, I have a conscious decision to make, albeit it'd be
a safe wager how I'll decide, until (and if) a time comes when one of
us or the relationship has changed to such an extent that the ownership
is ended.
Now, some might say that what I describe is not in fact "ownership",
given that most things one owns can't decide to stop being owned - but
dogs and horses can run away, as could and did historical slaves which
most certainly were owned.
And I'd like to think that, owned or not, I have more in common with
a dog or a horse than a toasteroven or those other things that can't
decide the reciprocal relationship of an ownership is over.
--
-- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg | SSBB Undiplomatic Corps, Tampa
-- Wormwood and wine, and the bitter taste of ashes. \ ICQ #19100721
Lady Sun
Dreamer wrote in message <7psdhh$73u$1...@flood.xnet.com>...
Tobie wrote:
>>> > I really, really do.
Dreamer wrote:
>>> I'm not sure you do, actually, but this is the way I am and the fact
that it
>>> distresses you is Way Down There on my list of reasons why I might want
to
>>> change it. I'm happy. They're happy. Why is that not enough?
Tobie wrote:
>> I didn't say it wasn't enough, nor did I ask you to change
>> anything. I posted a polite response to something you said that
>> bothered me, and you seem to be getting edgy over it.
Dreamer wrote:
>I'm not exactly edgy, but the basic gist of your argument is that I am a
Bad
>Man because I refuse to acknowledge the "responsibilities" you see as
>inherent in a relationship such as I have with my slave girls. Given that
>you refuse to acknowledge my point, which is that I have no such
>responsibilities, I am not bothering overmuch with tempering my responses.
>Either I have them, or I do not. If I do, dodging them would indeed make me
>a Bad Man.
Lady Sun wrote:
I probably shouldn't chime in here but I will. It did appear to me that
Tobie would hope that Dreamer would change his mind about his relations with
his slaves. Also it appeared that what he was saying wasn't enough as the
same topic of "responsibility" continued(s) to enter the posts. It seems to
me that he refuses to be influenced by anothers distress of his style of
relating and therefore he is firmly saying this(perhaps considered edgy ).
Just my opinion, now I will shut up and continue following the posts.
By the way, as much as I might be startled by Dreamer's way of thinking
about TPE it seems to me that he has a good head on his shoulders and
wouldn't do anything to harm his property. Some of us get bothered by how
others think around here and it is a shame that we can't leave the horrors,
that enter our mind, behind us and just try to understand where someone is
coming from(I do see Tobie attempting to do this after the initial shock of
it all). Can you imagine how vanillas think about our *relatively minor*
bdsm practices such as (perhaps) spanking?
I think there is a big continuum on the BDSM scale. Like the Kinsey scale
of sexual interest(ie. heterosexual, bi-sexual, gay and everything in
between). Has anyone ever worked on a BDSM continuum scale? We seem to be
all clumped up together and understandably so, but it seems that there is
such a huge variance. I wasn't aware of this variance until I joined these
ng's. I thought we were all the same.
Anyways just some musings and now I am on my way.
Peace,
Lady Sun.
Tobie
( taking a break from mowing *whew!* Hot werk :/ )
Dreamer wrote:
> You are most thoroughly welcome. I have enjoyed it as well, believe it or not.
::grin:: It's good to be able to get into issues without
flaming and go deep enough to actually explore something. I
*like* it! It's one of those things I "get into". But it's hard
to find folks that have the tenacity to do it. ::laughing::
> > I should have used a different example, but it wasn't the
> > situation, it was word usage.
>
> Unless someone else has already used it (and I have been saying it for a long
> time) I hereby declare Dreamer's Law of Discussion:
>
> "All Discussions are about definitions."
Yup, for the most part, I'd agree with that.
> >
> > In *all* of the TPE relationships that I know of,
> > transportation is one of the things covered. When where how and
> > why, to one degree or another.
>
> Okay. Our relationships are not very formal in that regard. (Among many others.)
> I simply find out where they're going. If they have a problem, they call me. I'm
> not running a bus company. Keep in mind that these are kajirae (Gorean slave
> girls) and kajirae, absent specific orders or understood customs and laws, do
> much as they please most of the time.
Ahh, another difference, I'll have to read up on that a bit to
find out more. I don't know much about the Gorean stuff. I know
even less about how folks take gor from online and translate it
to meat life.
> > ::shrug:: Ok, I accept that you feel no responsibility to those
> > you call slaves that are under your care.
>
> ... which of course means you do not concede the point, you're just saying that
> you believe I believe it. As far as we're going to get and far more civil than
> most discussions of this sort end up. *smile*
::wide happy grin:: Aye... But it was about the best I could do
in the situation and still explore other area's of our
differences. I'm nosey as hell, you figured that out yet?
::laughing::
Dreamer said:
> I did not know where else one might obtain the justification for the word
> "ugly." Ugly is a very subjective term but at this point you don't know enough
> about the way I treat them to say whether our relationship is ugly or not. All
> you know is what I've said and all I've said that you've objected to is my lack
> of responsibility - or, in other terms, respect for them as anything other than
> property.
I didn't mean to imply that the relationships were *ugly*, I
meant that I thought your attitude was *ugly* as far as that
one thing went. It was *after* that that I realized that we
view TPE *really* differently. That cleared much of that up.
but we're going to have to hrmmm stalemate? is that the right
word? on the responsibility issue. I don't think we're going to
change each others minds on it. I see owning someone as having
inherent responsibilities, I see being in a TPE as having even
more responsibilities.
> > No, if I felt you were a "bad man", I'd have said so. Yes, I
> > know you aren't bothering over much to temper your response and
> > I accept that in an effort to learn more from you. I do not
> > *have* to like you, to learn from you. I don't dislike you
> > either though.
>
> While people disliking me doesn't keep me awake nights (or I'd have got no sleep
> since I was seven years old) I'm glad to hear you don't, as I rather like you. I
> realize that you were not proceeding along the direct thought-path that I am an
> Evil Man but that is the very direct logical conclusion of what you said.
I often don't "direct path". I amble around and meander here
and there ::smile:: If I'm really focused on a single point
though, I can be as myopic as a rat terrier ::laughing::
>
> Keep in mind I don't have to feel that the mode of your submission is The
> Perfect Slavery to learn from you, either. I have lots of friends. online and
> off, who are not lifestylers, 24/7, or even male dominance oriented.
Me too!
> > The TPE's I
> > know of wouldn't consider a "word" to be worthy of punishment,
> > it would, perhaps open a conversation as what was going on that
> > was wrong.
>
> Correction. *Most* of the TPE's you know. *smile* I am a strict master in that
> if there IS a rule, or a command, or a decision, that is IT. No debate. However,
> UNTIL there is a rule, or a command, or a decision, they are allowed to say
> whatever they like so long as they are respectful. And they are never, EVER
> punished for telling me something they think I would want to know, or that they
> think I might not know, if it affects how I might treat them.
Point taken. I find this most interesting. This is the first
time I've been in this situation. I have to accept your word
that you are in TPE's. It's how you see it, how you call it. I
do *not* see it as you have described it, as TPE, at all. To
me, you aren't in what you say you are. That's really a weird
feeling. I realize that in the end, it means nothing, but so
far it's always been easy to accept what folks said they were.
I read in another post where you have 2 (?) slaves that don't
live with you. To *me* there is no possible way to be in a TPE
with someone you aren't living with. I realize that in this, my
opinion matters little, and in fact there are many folks that
would say that I'm not in a M/s because I'm " in charge" of
much of the day to day stuff. We say we're M/s so that's what
counts. Same for you. I realize that not coming to a middle
ground on this shouldn't bother me, but it does. ::sigh:: As a
"fixer" I like things with tidy conclusions. ::grin:: Lot's 'O
"realizes" in there.
>
> > In case you have misunderstood me, I see absolutely nothing
> > wrong with being a stern owner if that is what pleases you and
> > your slaves. Being in a M/s doesn't to me, mean per say, that
> > M/s are in a TPE.
>
> NOW we descend into definition hell. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. If you
> *own* somebody, if they are your *property,* how could it NOT be a TPE?
This is going to take more time than I have *right now* to
answer, so I'll finish mowing and address it after I rest a
bit.
Take care
Tobie
the red cabbage
Lady Sun
Dreamer wrote in message <4Jnw3.9$Ag...@news.ais.net>...
>Unless someone else has already used it (and I have been saying it for a
long
>time) I hereby declare Dreamer's Law of Discussion:
>
>"All Discussions are about definitions."
lol.. it would seem so, wouldn't it? :) It has a good ring to it "Dreamer's
Law of Discussion"!
Peace,
Lady Sun.
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com
wrote:
>You seem to be saying two different things...
>
>In one paragraph: "someone must be *responsible* _for the consequences of their
>choices_" ["their" being the slave] and "Since choice is stripped from the
>slave, that person responsible for consequences (as well as choices) would be
>*you*, the dominant"
>
>And two down: "It is a matter of owning one's choices and decisions (yours) and
>the outcomes they produce that affect another"
>
>believe to be relevant: my responsibility for another human being ends at the
>tip of their nose. I am responsible for myself, and the impact of my decisions
>on others. I am not, and cannot be, responsible for another person.
I agree with that completely and see I have not expressed myself
clearly with the "someone and their choices" thing.
>If my actions somehow force my slave to become unable to make any choice,
>however simple, as you imply above, there _is_ a good argument for total
>responsibility for that person. Short of practices I've yet to see employed in
>wiiwd, this isn't a very plausible scenario.
I am not speaking of a dominant being totally responsible for another
human being. I am pointing here specifically to the issue of a
_dominant_ (not a "someone", as I said earlier) being responsible for
the dominant's choices and the consequences therefrom.
Of *course* a slave is responsible for hir choices, insofar as sie has
lattitude to make choices. After sie is owned, however, hir focus
becomes to *obey* the dominant. If sie is left areas of
self-responsibility, naturally sie is responsible for those
consequences hir actions reap - in the employment world, in education,
what have you.
However, in all areas where the expectation is that sie obey the dom,
it is no longer a matter of hir personal choice whether or not to
obey, or whether or not the action sie is directed to undertake is
something sie would, left to her own devices, do.
When the *dominant's* choices about the slaves
actions/activies/endeavors etc have consequences, I contend the
dominant is responsible for those consequences. This is better
illustrated with examples than principles, so I will give some
instances that come to mind.
Examples: *if* the dominant forbids the slave to work outside the
home, and slave in consequence of that has no cash and therefore no
wherewithal to buy food, it is the dominant's responsibility to
provide food and basic necessities.
If the dominant pierces the slave's nipples, and the slave gets an
infection, it is the dominant's responsibility to see that medical
care is provided.
Let's say this slave works and *does* have money. If the dominant
chooses to have her pay for her own medical care that is also within
his purview but I do not see it as responsible behavior. It was his
action (the piercing, or having her pierced) that resulted in that
consequence (infection). It was not the slave's choice to be pierced.
She was obeying. I say the dominant is responsible for that aftermath.
This applies also to orders a dominant gives the slave and actions
that follow from obeying those orders. For instance (and this is an
example based on an order given to a slave in real life): If the dom
orders his (male) slave to pee out the front window, and the (male)
slave is then arrested for indecency in consequence, should the slave
be responsible for the aftermath of that incident? Say that what the
dom intended as a humiliation becomes an arrest with all kinds of
fallout.
Is the slave responsible for the consequences of his action, which was
ordered by his dominant, or is the dominant?
When a TPE slave is acting in obedience to hir owner, and consequences
that come about _because_ sie followed a dominant's order, then that
is something the dominant has to be held accountable for. Ie,
responsible for. MNSHO.
-Teramis
Ter...@teramis.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Argue for your limitations, and you get
to keep them." - Richard Bach
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com
>> If you deny
>> someone autonomy and the means to be self-sufficient, and then levy
>> requirements upon them, *someone* must be (that dreaded word)
>> *responsible* _for the consequences of their choices_.
>
>Someone is. They are. If they do not meet my requirements, they will be
>punished. If they continue to fail, they will be released.
[major snippage]
I did not express myself well enough with the paragraph above. Please
see my reply to Sar of Treve in this thread to see a clarificaiton of
where I am coming from.
I will have to revisit this particular post later.
Dreamer
wrote:
> Hi there Dreamer!
>
> ( taking a break from mowing *whew!* Hot werk :/ )
>
> Dreamer wrote:
>
>> You are most thoroughly welcome. I have enjoyed it as well, believe it or
not.
>
> ::grin:: It's good to be able to get into issues without
> flaming and go deep enough to actually explore something. I
> *like* it! It's one of those things I "get into". But it's hard
> to find folks that have the tenacity to do it. ::laughing::
The fun thing (well, one of them) about me is that while I give as good as I
get, it is not possible to offend me or hurt my feelings.
>> Keep in mind that these are kajirae (Gorean slave
>> girls) and kajirae, absent specific orders or understood customs and laws, do
>> much as they please most of the time.
>
> Ahh, another difference, I'll have to read up on that a bit to
> find out more. I don't know much about the Gorean stuff. I know
> even less about how folks take gor from online and translate it
> to meat life.
If my approach to slavery doesn't appeal to you, I wouldn't bother. (Not
that I'm recruiting, but I'm rather typical of, if not MORE laid back than,
most r/t Gorean masters.) It's rather esoteric and there's a lot more to it
than slavery or D/s. If you do want to know more about it, you can read a
pocket summary at:
http://www.dreamstrike.com/abgfaq.html
and if you want to see what is out there, go spend a weekend or three at:
>> > ::shrug:: Ok, I accept that you feel no responsibility to those
>> > you call slaves that are under your care.
>>
>> ... which of course means you do not concede the point, you're just saying
that
>> you believe I believe it. As far as we're going to get and far more civil
than
>> most discussions of this sort end up. *smile*
>
> ::wide happy grin:: Aye... But it was about the best I could do
> in the situation and still explore other area's of our
> differences. I'm nosey as hell, you figured that out yet?
> ::laughing::
I don't consider it nosy to ask questions in general, or to ask specific
ones of someone who's already volunteered information along the same lines.
> Dreamer said:
>
>> I did not know where else one might obtain the justification for the word
>> "ugly." Ugly is a very subjective term but at this point you don't know
enough
>> about the way I treat them to say whether our relationship is ugly or not.
All
>> you know is what I've said and all I've said that you've objected to is my
lack
>> of responsibility - or, in other terms, respect for them as anything other
than
>> property.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that the relationships were *ugly*, I
> meant that I thought your attitude was *ugly* as far as that
> one thing went.
That's what I said. That's all you know about me and my relationships. I was
pointing out that my response, while perhaps a little over-whimsical or
satiric, was reasoned.
> It was *after* that that I realized that we
> view TPE *really* differently. That cleared much of that up.
> but we're going to have to hrmmm stalemate? is that the right
> word? on the responsibility issue.
In "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer," there is a wonderful line after a mock
battle between two groups of boys:
"The terms of the next disagreement were agreed upon."
I always say that we'll have to agree to disagree.
> I don't think we're going to
> change each others minds on it. I see owning someone as having
> inherent responsibilities, I see being in a TPE as having even
> more responsibilities.
Ah, but why? Is it inherent in the system? If so, on what logical basis?
>> > The TPE's I
>> > know of wouldn't consider a "word" to be worthy of punishment,
>> > it would, perhaps open a conversation as what was going on that
>> > was wrong.
>>
>> Correction. *Most* of the TPE's you know. *smile* I am a strict master in
that
>> if there IS a rule, or a command, or a decision, that is IT. No debate.
However,
>> UNTIL there is a rule, or a command, or a decision, they are allowed to say
>> whatever they like so long as they are respectful. And they are never, EVER
>> punished for telling me something they think I would want to know, or that
they
>> think I might not know, if it affects how I might treat them.
>
> Point taken. I find this most interesting. This is the first
> time I've been in this situation. I have to accept your word
> that you are in TPE's. It's how you see it, how you call it. I
> do *not* see it as you have described it, as TPE, at all. To
> me, you aren't in what you say you are.
Which word (Total, Power, or Exchange,) as you see it, is not accurate?
> That's really a weird
> feeling. I realize that in the end, it means nothing, but so
> far it's always been easy to accept what folks said they were.
*from Definition Hell* "Yeah, that's what we said!" I *am* what I say I am:
rather, I have what I say I have, a TPE. The questions are, how is your
definition different from my definition, and which definition is more
logical, and if one is more logical than the other, why should the other
definition be considered?
> I read in another post where you have 2 (?) slaves that don't
> live with you. To *me* there is no possible way to be in a TPE
> with someone you aren't living with.
Why is that?
> I realize that in this, my
> opinion matters little, and in fact there are many folks that
> would say that I'm not in a M/s because I'm " in charge" of
> much of the day to day stuff.
*shudder* What's the point of having slaves if I *still* have to decide what
to have for dinner and what to get my mother in law for Christmas?
An interesting side note: she proposes alternatives for dinner. If she for
some reason has not picked one, I do decide. Jack Peacock posted a wonderful
message on a.l.m.s. a while back which had as one of its themes why it's not
acceptable for a master to say "I don't care." She can make decisions and
usually does. (She's the fussy eater: food is not really that big a concern
for me. I *do* have quite a bit to say about the way they dress, for
example.) But if she asks, I decide.
> We say we're M/s so that's what
> counts. Same for you.
I would disagree. (Again. Surprise, surprise.) You can say you're HAPPY and
that's what counts. But either you have a TPE, or you do not. Either you are
master and slave, or you are not. (I use what seems to me a logical and
reasonable definition for these which ignores the legal problems and
considers de facto activity as if the actual illegality of slavery were
irrelevant.) You're not really arguing about whether you have one or not,
you're arguing about what one is.
> I realize that not coming to a middle
> ground on this shouldn't bother me, but it does. ::sigh:: As a
> "fixer" I like things with tidy conclusions. ::grin:: Lot's 'O
> "realizes" in there.
I'm a lawyer. I hate ambiguity. But I'm a patent lawyer, so a certain
purposeful vagueness is not without its charm.
I've noticed that these days many, many people have this feeling that any
problem can be resolved with enough discussion and empathy and heartfelt
communication. Unfortunately, it's not true and never was, so a lot of
people go around with this feeling you're experiencing.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
Dreamer
> Hi there Dreamer!
>
> ( taking a break from mowing *whew!* Hot werk :/ )
>
> Dreamer wrote:
>
>> You are most thoroughly welcome. I have enjoyed it as well, believe it or
not.
>
> ::grin:: It's good to be able to get into issues without
> flaming and go deep enough to actually explore something. I
> *like* it! It's one of those things I "get into". But it's hard
> to find folks that have the tenacity to do it. ::laughing::
The fun thing (well, one of them) about me is that while I give as good as I
get, it is not possible to offend me or hurt my feelings.
>> Keep in mind that these are kajirae (Gorean slave
>> girls) and kajirae, absent specific orders or understood customs and laws, do
>> much as they please most of the time.
>
> Ahh, another difference, I'll have to read up on that a bit to
> find out more. I don't know much about the Gorean stuff. I know
> even less about how folks take gor from online and translate it
> to meat life.
If my approach to slavery doesn't appeal to you, I wouldn't bother. (Not
that I'm recruiting, but I'm rather typical of, if not MORE laid back than,
most r/t Gorean masters.) It's rather esoteric and there's a lot more to it
than slavery or D/s. If you do want to know more about it, you can read a
pocket summary at:
http://www.dreamstrike.com/abgfaq.html
and if you want to see what is out there, go spend a weekend or three at:
>> > ::shrug:: Ok, I accept that you feel no responsibility to those
>> > you call slaves that are under your care.
>>
>> ... which of course means you do not concede the point, you're just saying
that
>> you believe I believe it. As far as we're going to get and far more civil
than
>> most discussions of this sort end up. *smile*
>
> ::wide happy grin:: Aye... But it was about the best I could do
> in the situation and still explore other area's of our
> differences. I'm nosey as hell, you figured that out yet?
> ::laughing::
I don't consider it nosy to ask questions in general, or to ask specific
ones of someone who's already volunteered information along the same lines.
> Dreamer said:
>
>> I did not know where else one might obtain the justification for the word
>> "ugly." Ugly is a very subjective term but at this point you don't know
enough
>> about the way I treat them to say whether our relationship is ugly or not.
All
>> you know is what I've said and all I've said that you've objected to is my
lack
>> of responsibility - or, in other terms, respect for them as anything other
than
>> property.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that the relationships were *ugly*, I
> meant that I thought your attitude was *ugly* as far as that
> one thing went.
That's what I said. That's all you know about me and my relationships. I was
pointing out that my response, while perhaps a little over-whimsical or
satiric, was reasoned.
> It was *after* that that I realized that we
> view TPE *really* differently. That cleared much of that up.
> but we're going to have to hrmmm stalemate? is that the right
> word? on the responsibility issue.
In "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer," there is a wonderful line after a mock
battle between two groups of boys:
"The terms of the next disagreement were agreed upon."
I always say that we'll have to agree to disagree.
> I don't think we're going to
> change each others minds on it. I see owning someone as having
> inherent responsibilities, I see being in a TPE as having even
> more responsibilities.
Ah, but why? Is it inherent in the system? If so, on what logical basis?
>> > The TPE's I
>> > know of wouldn't consider a "word" to be worthy of punishment,
>> > it would, perhaps open a conversation as what was going on that
>> > was wrong.
>>
>> Correction. *Most* of the TPE's you know. *smile* I am a strict master in
that
>> if there IS a rule, or a command, or a decision, that is IT. No debate.
However,
>> UNTIL there is a rule, or a command, or a decision, they are allowed to say
>> whatever they like so long as they are respectful. And they are never, EVER
>> punished for telling me something they think I would want to know, or that
they
>> think I might not know, if it affects how I might treat them.
>
> Point taken. I find this most interesting. This is the first
> time I've been in this situation. I have to accept your word
> that you are in TPE's. It's how you see it, how you call it. I
> do *not* see it as you have described it, as TPE, at all. To
> me, you aren't in what you say you are.
Which word (Total, Power, or Exchange,) as you see it, is not accurate?
> That's really a weird
> feeling. I realize that in the end, it means nothing, but so
> far it's always been easy to accept what folks said they were.
*from Definition Hell* "Yeah, that's what we said!" I *am* what I say I am:
rather, I have what I say I have, a TPE. The questions are, how is your
definition different from my definition, and which definition is more
logical, and if one is more logical than the other, why should the other
definition be considered?
> I read in another post where you have 2 (?) slaves that don't
> live with you. To *me* there is no possible way to be in a TPE
> with someone you aren't living with.
Why is that?
> I realize that in this, my
> opinion matters little, and in fact there are many folks that
> would say that I'm not in a M/s because I'm " in charge" of
> much of the day to day stuff.
*shudder* What's the point of having slaves if I *still* have to decide what
to have for dinner and what to get my mother in law for Christmas?
An interesting side note: she proposes alternatives for dinner. If she for
some reason has not picked one, I do decide. Jack Peacock posted a wonderful
message on a.l.m.s. a while back which had as one of its themes why it's not
acceptable for a master to say "I don't care." She can make decisions and
usually does. (She's the fussy eater: food is not really that big a concern
for me. I *do* have quite a bit to say about the way they dress, for
example.) But if she asks, I decide.
> We say we're M/s so that's what
> counts. Same for you.
I would disagree. (Again. Surprise, surprise.) You can say you're HAPPY and
that's what counts. But either you have a TPE, or you do not. Either you are
master and slave, or you are not. (I use what seems to me a logical and
reasonable definition for these which ignores the legal problems and
considers de facto activity as if the actual illegality of slavery were
irrelevant.) You're not really arguing about whether you have one or not,
you're arguing about what one is.
> I realize that not coming to a middle
> ground on this shouldn't bother me, but it does. ::sigh:: As a
> "fixer" I like things with tidy conclusions. ::grin:: Lot's 'O
> "realizes" in there.
I'm a lawyer. I hate ambiguity. But I'm a patent lawyer, so a certain
purposeful vagueness is not without its charm.
I've noticed that these days many, many people have this feeling that any
problem can be resolved with enough discussion and empathy and heartfelt
communication. Unfortunately, it's not true and never was, so a lot of
people go around with this feeling you're experiencing.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
Steven S. Davis
: ----------
: In article <7pt3of$ioh$1...@links.magenta.com>, s...@links.magenta.com
: (Steven S. Davis) wrote:
: > In any such relationship which seeks to bind a slave so that zie
: > cannot leave, first binding zir by zir commitment and zir agreement
: > that zie has surrendered the right to leave, and second binding
: > zir by conditioning to deprive zir of the capability of leaving
: > (whatever zir legal rights might be), the responsibilty of the
: > owner for the slave's well-being is enormous.
: Explain the logic underlying that conclusion.
Responsibility can't be taught to one who won't understand it.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
I'm not sure logic has much to do with ethics, so I won't bother
with a logical explanation. Anyone who cannot see why, in a case
in which one has willingly created a disability in a person - with
that person's consent and collaboration, this is true - and obtained
as close to total power over that person as one can obtain, one
then has a responsibility for that person, is never going to get it.
And yes, I realize that you have repeatedly stated that you don't
seek or obtain that degree of control. Just as I expressly stated
that I was discussing the varieties of TPE which did aim towards
that degree of control.
: Sorry, couldn't help it. Seriously, once again, you are imposing
: the notion of power = responsibility = obligation.
With total power goes total responsibility. If you don't want the
responsibility, don't seek the power.
: I deny it.
So I've observed. However, you also don't claim total power
(since you admit that your slaves can chose to leave, and you
don't seek to do anything which would make them unable to do
so), so the consequence of your position is not what it would
be for a real TPEer.
FWIW, I wouldn't generally use the term "real", but as you seem
set on there being "real" TPE, and you don't take as much power
as do other TPE dominants, they must be the ones with total power.
Duane Gundrum
<Ter...@nospam.teramis.com> wrote in message
news:37c352ef...@news.slip.net...
> >*own* somebody, if they are your *property,* how could it NOT be a TPE?
>
>
> A: some people own their slaves only x% of the time, or actively
> refuse to have control over some portion(s) of the slave's life. Kids,
> job, finances, whathaveyou, might be offlimits, for whatever reason.
>
> When you say "You're mine and I control you, except for this little
> bit over here" - you do *not* have a TPE. But you might well have a
> Master/slave relationship.
>
No, no, no. How many times do I have to explain that it's not TPE until I
explain that it's TPE. In this particular case, taking into account the
parameters of negative reinforcement enchanced with the certainalities of
potential skirmish-like behavior in the historical context, there can be no
doubt that the power of its virtue excludes metaphysically but not in the
maltonian sense. And I really mean this.
So taking this into effect, I flipped a coin and determined that it was, in
fact, not TPE in this particular situation.
--
Duane Gundrum (who really needs to get out more often)
du...@penguinlogic.com
http://www.penguinlogic.com/duane.htm
for information about duane, the submissive
--
Now, The Cell's Door, written by Duane, is available for purchase from
Quality SM at http://www.qualitysm.com (using a credit card). The Cell's
Door, the story of a man who surrenders his entire life to slavery only to
discover that reality can be quite more than expected. For further
information, including ordering directly from the author, visit
http://www.penguinlogic.com/Celldoor.htm.
WhyNot789
>I think there is a big continuum on the BDSM scale. Like the
>Kinsey scale of sexual interest(ie. heterosexual, bi-sexual, gay
>and everything in between). Has anyone ever worked on a
>BDSM continuum scale? We seem to be all clumped up
>together and understandably so, but it seems that there is
>such a huge variance.
I agree. In fact, I believe there's more than one continuum -
there's not just a dominant - submissive continuum, but also
a switch - non-switch continuum and a sadistic - masochistic
continuum for instance. And there are probably more. I think
it would be very hard to work out a BDSM continuum scale
precisely because there are so many different factors involved.
> I wasn't aware of this variance until I joined these ng's.
>I thought we were all the same.
And this is probably one of the greatest advantages of
reading a newsgroup such as this - you get to know about
the *huge* variance in the world of BDSM. It kind of puts
your own view of the world into perspective.
Hans
Duane Gundrum
<Ter...@nospam.teramis.com> wrote in message
news:37c2e8f...@news.slip.net...
> Let's say this slave works and *does* have money. If the dominant
> chooses to have her pay for her own medical care that is also within
> his purview but I do not see it as responsible behavior. It was his
> action (the piercing, or having her pierced) that resulted in that
> consequence (infection). It was not the slave's choice to be pierced.
> She was obeying. I say the dominant is responsible for that aftermath.
>
As this particular issue is a bit personal for me, I'd just like to chime in
with my thoughts on it. A truly deciding issue of whether or not a TPE is in
effect comes in should the slave (who is a live-in, totally under the
dominant's control) suddenly fall ill while living with the dominant. If
that dominant suddenly decides to abandon the sub right then and there,
essentially kicking the person out, I think the realization that a TPE was
not in effect is quite easy to determine. Once an instructor at this little
military academy I once attended stated that one never knows how loyal to
one's country one is or how dedicated to a cause one is until that
individual is faced with the realization that a crucial decision of this
devotion must be faced. It is that decision and the actions after that help
truly define the status of that individual and that devotion. I see the same
thing in such relationships. One can talk about being in a totally
controlled master/mistress/slave relationship, but when it comes down to
that critical moment, if one side falters and turns away, the realization,
painful as it will be at the time, comes all too quickly.
>
> This applies also to orders a dominant gives the slave and actions
> that follow from obeying those orders. For instance (and this is an
> example based on an order given to a slave in real life): If the dom
> orders his (male) slave to pee out the front window, and the (male)
> slave is then arrested for indecency in consequence, should the slave
> be responsible for the aftermath of that incident? Say that what the
> dom intended as a humiliation becomes an arrest with all kinds of
> fallout.
> Is the slave responsible for the consequences of his action, which was
> ordered by his dominant, or is the dominant?
This goes back to something I was saying a long time ago concerning TPE and
control. I believe both of them are responsible for the actions and the
aftermath. The dominant is responsible for ordering the slave to do such a
thing while the slave is responsible because he or she chose the dominant
that is in control over him/her. If I pledge my life to a woman who I will
swear to obey to whatever extreme she implores, I have made that decision
based on understanding this woman well enough to know that she is the one
who deserves that control over me. If I swear allegiance and obedience to a
nut case, then I am guilty for having done it in the first place. I know
this because I have done this in the past...some certifiable nutcases to be
kind. The upshot, or downshot, of this is: when I realized this person
wasn't the individual to whom I pledged allegiance, the relationship was
discussed and quickly ended. So, it's not TPE by definition once that moment
is decided, but in the long run, it was TPE during the time that the
relationship was in effect. It was ended because of the realization that it
would not be sane to be owned by an individual such as this. In the example
given, if the dominant tells the slave to pee out the window, then the slave
has pledged him/herself to this individual so such an order would not become
the detriment that it would be if the two were casual players rather than
owned to each other.
Just my thoughts coming from the deserts of Michigan. (okay, I'm not very
good at geography)
--
Duane Gundrum
Tobie
This post is not to be meant as inflammatory in any way,
towards anyone. The daffynition given here for TPE is just my
own opinion and certainly not a goal or standard for any one to
go by. It's simply haw *I* see it.
> Dreamer wrote:
> > NOW we descend into definition hell. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. If you
> > *own* somebody, if they are your *property,* how could it NOT be a TPE?
In a TPE, the final goal, is *no* way out. TPE is a slow
process that will eventually make the couple so interdependent
that there really aren't two separate people any more, But, two
people that have blended to function almost as one. TPE begins
rather slowly, with more and more of the responsibility for
general life matter and control, going to the dominant partner.
It doesn't have to mean micro managed, but the dominant hand is
there to some degree or another in every aspect or function of
the submissive partners life. The door to leave is slowly
closed by the amount of dependence given over to the dominant
partner.
Total doesn't mean when it's convenient, doesn't mean when you
have time for it or when someone has done something that
irritated you and you feel the need to punish them. Total means
that there is absolutely no area of the submissive persons life
that the dominant doesn't have access or control over.
There are many styles and ways and raves of bdsm, TPE is one of
the most rare and complex types, it isn't for everyone by any
means. Owning someone has *nothing* to do with being in a TPE,
they just aren't linked together like that.
Instead of my typing for an hour, plaese allow me to refer you
to Hans and Diny at:
http://www.powerotics.com/hans/hd.htm
Tobie
the red cabbage
DL2ndEditn
>
>Which word (Total, Power, or Exchange,) as you see it, is not accurate?
>
Just my own reactions: total.
On this newsgroup, the TPE relationships I've read about use that term to
describe a relationship from which the slave may not and *cannot* walk away.
(As a concrete example, you've mentioned, more than once, about removing a
slave's collars as a last-resort possibility. The TPE masters I've read would
not acknowledge that as an option. The slave *will* obey.)
DLynn
p&e
Binder
[snippomongo]
> > The TPE's I
> > know of wouldn't consider a "word" to be worthy of punishment,
> > it would, perhaps open a conversation as what was going on that
> > was wrong.
>
> Correction. *Most* of the TPE's you know. *smile* I am a strict master in that
> if there IS a rule, or a command, or a decision, that is IT. No debate. However,
> UNTIL there is a rule, or a command, or a decision, they are allowed to say
> whatever they like so long as they are respectful. And they are never, EVER
> punished for telling me something they think I would want to know, or that they
> think I might not know, if it affects how I might treat them.
(popping in here over a niggle... will pop out very soon indeed.)
Well, I'm afraid there's a flaw in this logic. Perhaps it doesn't work as I
understand it in practice, but this is how *I* hear it:
"I have the final say on what may be said, after which it may not be
mentioned without ending the relationship."
Slave wishes to discuss said matter after the "final say" because something
has changed in slave's perception, emotion, or other important
consideration.
" And they are never, EVER punished for telling me something they think I
would want to know, or that they think I might not know, if it affects how
I might treat them."
Once that final word has been said, the topic is *closed*, and yet slave
will never ever be punished for speaking. It's got to be one or the other,
but it can't be both.
And that's why I don't consider the relationships in question to be TPE: to
me (and yes, this is *all* very subjective) "Total" Power Exchange has as
its basis a long term committment, at least. Until the consequence of
ending the relationship over a word or action is removed, the exchange
isn't total. Either a partner is worthy of a committment and the
responsibilities that go along with it or they are not... but then I see
the concepts of master/Slave and TPE to be opposites. As long as the
property is disposable, there can't be TPE.
IMO, YMOV
Binder
--
" 'Tis better to Wield a Good Ruler than to Bend before a Bad one."
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA -- to reply, remove the idjit
Dreamer
Davis) wrote:
> : Sorry, couldn't help it. Seriously, once again, you are imposing
> : the notion of power = responsibility = obligation.
>
> With total power goes total responsibility. If you don't want the
> responsibility, don't seek the power.
There is no logical connection between power and responsibility. Just because I
can, doesn't mean I should, should not, will, or will not. You are starting from
your moral position - that power implies responsibility - and arguing that the
two are inextricably linked. For you they are, if you will have it so, but they
are not for me.
> : I deny it.
>
> So I've observed. However, you also don't claim total power
> (since you admit that your slaves can chose to leave, and you
> don't seek to do anything which would make them unable to do
> so), so the consequence of your position is not what it would
> be for a real TPEer.
Unless you live in the Sudan or other place that recognizes chattel slavery, or
you are a government, you cannot legally prevent someone from leaving your
presence/employ/service/influence. Period. I have no particular interest in
being prosecuted for battery, false imprisonment, or criminal neglect, or even
in being a test case. I do not have the wealth or the connections to "illegally"
enforce my ownership. So that's that.
If I could legally enforce their slavery, that would be different. But I can't.
Given that I can't, there is no point in blustering about how "*my* slaves can't
leave, I won't allow it." As someone who follows a Gorean philosophy, and
enforces 24/7 slavery on other people, I am vastly amused to now be told that my
position is too *weak* because it takes "the real world" into account. It is at
least a novel position for me.
Binder
[mongosnippo]
> When a TPE slave is acting in obedience to hir owner, and consequences
> that come about _because_ sie followed a dominant's order, then that
> is something the dominant has to be held accountable for. Ie,
> responsible for. MNSHO.
IME, that one paragraph summarizes the concept of "exchange". In an
exchange based relationship, the one with power is the one with
responsibilities, both *to* and *for the other party. "Responsible to"
meaning that they do what they say they will do; "responsible for" implies
that they accept the consequences of "responsible to."
Those that insist that they are not responsible *for* their slaves, or
their slaves' actions, therefore must yield great amounts of autonomy to
the slave, including the right to end the relationship. Total ownership
implies that the owned cannot end the relationship... and so on.
Without responsibility, there must be limitations to the power, and where
there are limits, there is no totallity. ("total: ... complete, utter,
absolute.")
Dreamer
>
>>
>>Which word (Total, Power, or Exchange,) as you see it, is not accurate?
>>
>
>
> On this newsgroup, the TPE relationships I've read about use that term to
> describe a relationship from which the slave may not and *cannot* walk away.
>
> (As a concrete example, you've mentioned, more than once, about removing a
> slave's collars as a last-resort possibility. The TPE masters I've read would
> not acknowledge that as an option. The slave *will* obey.)
And how do they deal with the legal consequences of forcing someone to do
something they do not wish to do? That's assault and battery. False
Imprisonment. Etc.
Dreamer
wrote:
>> Correction. *Most* of the TPE's you know. *smile* I am a strict master in
that
>> if there IS a rule, or a command, or a decision, that is IT. No debate.
However,
>> UNTIL there is a rule, or a command, or a decision, they are allowed to say
>> whatever they like so long as they are respectful. And they are never, EVER
>> punished for telling me something they think I would want to know, or that
they
>> think I might not know, if it affects how I might treat them.
>
> (popping in here over a niggle... will pop out very soon indeed.)
>
> Well, I'm afraid there's a flaw in this logic. Perhaps it doesn't work as I
> understand it in practice, but this is how *I* hear it:
>
> "I have the final say on what may be said, after which it may not be
> mentioned without ending the relationship."
>
> Slave wishes to discuss said matter after the "final say" because something
> has changed in slave's perception, emotion, or other important
> consideration.
>
> " And they are never, EVER punished for telling me something they think I
> would want to know, or that they think I might not know, if it affects how
> I might treat them."
>
> Once that final word has been said, the topic is *closed*, and yet slave
> will never ever be punished for speaking. It's got to be one or the other,
> but it can't be both.
Didn't say they wouldn't be punished for speaking. Said they wouldn't be
punished for telling me something they think I would want to know, or might not
know. This is not a loophole any more than raising the defense of self-defense
is to an accusation of murder. Raise it frivolously and it will be thrown out.
Raise it in error and while it may reduce the severity of your punishment (here,
it means you will not be punished for raising it) but it will not change the
fact that you are guilty of murder. (Or whatever it was in this case.)
If TPE requires the setting in stone of rules for everything, and nothing can
happen which is not codified, then no, I do not live in one. Furthermore, I have
no interest in creating crippled individuals who cannot live without me. Again,
if TPE requires that, I do not live in one.
However, save only their legal right to leave - which I *cannot* take away - I
do have total power. What I say goes, or they're out. I already discussed the
fact that that does not mean the first time one of them spills my drink, they're
handing over my collar. They can choose to exercise that one power, or they can
accept my punishment, and then my decree. (Accepting a punishment does not get
them out of whatever it was that caused the punishment: they cannot "choose" to
take a whipping rather than comply with a command. First they get the whipping,
THEN they comply. Or they get another whipping. And so forth.)
> And that's why I don't consider the relationships in question to be TPE: to
> me (and yes, this is *all* very subjective) "Total" Power Exchange has as
> its basis a long term committment, at least.
Fine and dandy. You are lexicographing up a storm. However, there is nothing in
any of the words in the phrase "total power exchange" which implies a duration,
commitment, or responsibility. Only that one have the power, and one give it up.
Would you say that you do not own your body because you cannot legally sell it
or will it to anyone? If so, then I agree. I do not have total power. If not,
then I have total power, in that I have all the power they can legally give me.
> Until the consequence of
> ending the relationship over a word or action is removed, the exchange
> isn't total.
Then there are no TPE, as it can't be done.
> Either a partner is worthy of a committment and the
> responsibilities that go along with it or they are not... but then I see
> the concepts of master/Slave and TPE to be opposites. As long as the
> property is disposable, there can't be TPE.
A consistent definition, if not one I agree with.
David Weinshenker
> I think there is a big continuum on the BDSM scale. Like the Kinsey scale
> of sexual interest(ie. heterosexual, bi-sexual, gay and everything in
> between). Has anyone ever worked on a BDSM continuum scale? We seem to be
> all clumped up together and understandably so, but it seems that there is
> ng's. I thought we were all the same.
Maybe we could make a "Kink-sey" scale: 0 is "perfectly vanilla",
6 is "only enjoys heavy kink", 3 is "could go either way", and
so on. (I'm probably around 3.)
-dave w
Steven S. Davis
: And that's why I don't consider the relationships in question to be TPE: to
: me (and yes, this is *all* very subjective) "Total" Power Exchange has as
: its basis a long term committment, at least. Until the consequence of
: ending the relationship over a word or action is removed, the exchange
: isn't total.
Well, that's not quite what Dreamer described. He said that past the
point when discussion was closed [Binder's nice dissection of that
logical quandry sacrificed to the bandwidth gods] a word would bring
punishment.
However, he does not stress what many TPE dominants do stress,
which is that the slave *cannot* break the relationship (in
actual fact, TPE relationships breakup as do others (though some
OTWists argue that any TPE relationship which breaks up was therefore
no TPE relationship at all), often because dominants realize it
is not working (as for example it's producing a very unhappy slave)
and release the slave (this is not always the same as simply cutting
them off, since responsibe TPE dominants know when their slaves
can't simply be cut free)). Slaves may sometimes try to break
the relationship, as for some slaves it's important to know that
they can't break it. They may - sometimes, not invariably, discussion
and reassurance being an equally valid method even for mere property -
be punished for trying, or punished for failures or for outbursts
which weren't meant to be relationships breakers but which they may
fear will be (to refer to another thread, a TPE slave will and
should fear disappointing zir dominant, but zie should never
fear that to do such will end the relationship; when the slave
disappoints, it means the master has the task of more or revised
training so zie won't continue to disappoint). But they are stuck
in the relationship. Which is generally just where they want to
be.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
Xiphias Gladius
> I think there is a big continuum on the BDSM scale. Like the Kinsey scale
> of sexual interest(ie. heterosexual, bi-sexual, gay and everything in
> between). Has anyone ever worked on a BDSM continuum scale? We seem to be
> all clumped up together and understandably so, but it seems that there is
> such a huge variance. I wasn't aware of this variance until I joined these
> ng's. I thought we were all the same.
I have worked, conceptually, on a scale. I don't believe that a single
axis is sufficient.
I think there are *many* variables.
They include:
How much you enjoy giving pain
How much you enjoy recieving pain
How much you enjoy controling someone
How much you enjoy being controlled
How much you enjoy restraining someone
How much you enjoy being restrained
There are others, but those are the six my model focused on.
The important thing about this model is that *all of the values are
independent.*
Just because you like being controlled doesn't imply *anything* about how
much you like pain, or how much you like controlling others. It's very
possible to enjoy being restrained but not being controlled (I'm like
that, for instance). It's very possible to enjoy causing pain, but not
enjoy controlling people, particularly.
That's the point that this model was designed to illustrate, and I feel
it's a vital point to understand.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
SarOfTreve
<snip>
>When the *dominant's* choices about the slaves
>actions/activies/endeavors etc have consequences, I contend the
>dominant is responsible for those consequences. This is better
>illustrated with examples than principles, so I will give some
>instances that come to mind.
I agree, morally, with the sentiment you express here. I'm really glad that
you provided what you see as concrete examples, since responding to them
provides a better framework for my own beliefs. Most of this discussion may
boil down to what a "responsibility" entails. Is it an "I must, by our
explicit agreement" or an "I would, because of my moral obligation"? I don't
have any explict obligations to my slave, except the care and rearing of her
(now our) children.
>Examples: *if* the dominant forbids the slave to work outside the
>home, and slave in consequence of that has no cash and therefore no
>wherewithal to buy food, it is the dominant's responsibility to
>provide food and basic necessities.
It is required that I do so, assuming I want a live slave (which I do). It is
not my responsibility in the sense that I am obligated by unbreakable agreement
to do so. My slave is not "entitled" to these things. Additionally, what
constitutes "food and basic necessities" are entirely at my discretion.
>If the dominant pierces the slave's nipples, and the slave gets an
>infection, it is the dominant's responsibility to see that medical
>care is provided.
I'd apply the same logic here. Additionally, I don't see this example as
clear-cut. My slave recently got a horizontal hood piercing. She's instructed
to care for it as directed by the piercer. In your view, how does this play
into the scenario? If appropriate care is not maintained prior to the
infection, how does responsibility sort out? Standing alone, the above implies
(to me at least) a level of micro-management that I don't engage in.
<snip>
>Is the slave responsible for the consequences of his action, which was
>ordered by his dominant, or is the dominant?
>
>When a TPE slave is acting in obedience to hir owner, and consequences
>that come about _because_ sie followed a dominant's order, then that
>is something the dominant has to be held accountable for. Ie,
>responsible for. MNSHO.
Held accountable by whom? Legally, the slave, as the acting party, will be
held accountable/responsible for her actions. "The law" won't recognize "he
ordered me to" as justification. Personally, I may consider myself morally
responsible in the situations you describe , but I have not codified that
responsibility as a "right" of my slave. She has no justification or basis to
expect entitlement to it. If it's the "community" holding someone
accountable... :::twirling finger in air:::
Lady Sun
Dreamer wrote in message <7prpn6$srn$1...@flood.xnet.com>...
>The philosophy I use - and in the end it might be that mine mapped to yours
>1 to 1, dunno - is that it's not logical to damage your own property.
Yup I think we match, but it is perhaps the severity of how we approach
things in either our minds or in actuality.<<Did that make sense? If it
didn't I am counting on you to tell me.
>*I* am the sole judge of what constitutes excessive damage. Her
>opinion is completely nonbinding. If her opinion were binding, I would not
>consider her a slave nor ours to be even a theoretical TPE, as it would not
>be T.
Sometimes I am not able to progress that far in my relations although I
would love to during those times that I feel that it's important for my sub
to go my way but doesn't easily or at all. Those are the times when the 20%
applies. 80% of the time I get exactly what I want, when I want it, and how
I want it. And 20% of the time I deal with resistance. Resistance can be
overcome in time if it is really important for me to have it overcome. It
takes a lot of energy if I want it to be overcome . Sometimes I don't mind
deferring, other times I do. It depends on how strongly I feel my
sweetheart should be following my direction and wishes. Sometimes I
consider my sweethearts as slaves and other times as submissives. I find
that as submissives they have a choice to submit or not. As a slave they
feel overpowered to do as I say. <<hmmm.. those pesky definitions again>>
So perhaps I am a cross between a lifestyler and a TPE'er. I strive for
TPE, but it isn't always possible. Then again as I write all these words I
realize that I don't always prefer it in actuality, because I am not always
right and my beloved can help me grow with their resistance! Perhaps I love
TPE 80% of the time. :)
>>Since I don't live in fantasy land I know that from time to time my
submissive will not always be
>> submissive and I will not always be dominant.
>An interesting approach. I am *always* dominant, in that there is never a
>time when I submit or when I forget who is what. She's always mine.
However,
>there are times, absolutely, when I don't feel like being bothered with
her.
>I'm a pretty mellow person anyway, not into micromanagement.
Hmmm.. I can't say that I am always dominant. I would say I am dominant 80%
of the time, submissive/ bottom{1) 10% of the time, and a vanilla 10% of the
time!
>Similarly, there are times when she's begging to serve and times when she'd
>be just as happy to sit and read a book. However, I don't care where she is
>on the continuum, I expect service, and I expect it right now, when I ask
>for it. So she is a slave all the time, even if she's not wearing silks and
>collar and chained up on her knees.
This is where I say to myself I want what I want but at what price do I want
it. I usually deal with it in a compromising way while still getting what I
want in the end. If he can be happy and I still get what I want then I see
nothing non TP'ish about that. Then again I could be wrong. :)
>> I just need to roll with it in order to have a happy life. What is most
important is that at least 80%
>> of the time I click and connect with my submissive and vice versa.
>
>Any particular reason you picked that number?
It has stuck in my mind since business school. The 80/20 rule. So as
stated above in an earlier response I get 80% of what I want most of the
time and 20% of the time I don't. I can live with the 20% so perhaps I am
not a *true* TPE'er.
***So does a partial power exchanger exist?***
>> That is
>> why it is very important to choose your Dominant and submissive well.
>
>Not knowing what you're getting into is the cause of approximately 125%* of
>all problems in all relationships. Let alone BDSM ones, where it usually
>becomes obvious a lot faster.
>
>*Some error due to rounding.
hehe.. so you are a funny guy.... yup that is one of the reasons why I love
this stuff so much.. everything seems so much clearer at an earlier time
than vanilla relationships..
>> also believe in individuality and that a submissive should have a time in
>> his life separate from his dominant.
>
>I'm all for the occasional night out. However, even if I sent her to Paris
>for a week by herself, I expect all my rules to be obeyed and my commands
>followed.
I want and need this most of the time, but sometimes it doesn't matter
either way. Sometimes I just want to get away too. I think TPE can be
overwhelming at times.
>> I believe that a submissive can power out in extreme long term control
situations and this is not my intent. I approach my relations so that I
have to rarely defer to my submissives.
>I simply make it clear that I will *not* defer to them. Ever. They have to
>decide for themselves if what I am likely to demand is more than they can
>tolerate. I don't tone it down before I accept them: what they see is what
>they get.
Hmmm I have never found a submissive/slave/etc. where I everything else
matched and I never had to defer. Sometimes I am like a child and I want
something even though I shouldn't take it. I feel that if the 20% part of
the rule wasn't there that I could possibly take advantage of the situation
and get things that I probably shouldn't have. Also sometimes it is no fun
to get what I want all the time without a little hard work.
>That doesn't mean I won't be sympathetic to physical or emotional problems.
>It means it is MY DECISION whether to do so, how much, and for how long.
I am very much like that too. I like to feel as if it is my decision. I
despise not being given a choice in my relations and if that comes
about(which it has on the rare occasion w/ non TPE'ers) I don't feel happy.
>> Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
>> responsibilities to each other.
>
>I have no responsibilities to them. None whatsoever.
>They knew that up front.
Hmmm I feel very responsible for my beloveds so maybe that goes back to the
fact that I am a part time TPE'er. I dunno know. I am just trying to
figure it all out for myself. There is so much that I require in a
relationship to keep me happy :) I desire so much versatility. I want him
to be a submissive/slave/bottom/toy/top/sadist/masochist and cd. hehe Never
a dominant mind you. There is little room for that since I am covering 80%
of it myself!
>HOWEVER, once having claimed them as my property, I will take what I
>consider to be reasonable care of my property. That's logical. However, if
I
>decide to take my television out on a whim and blow it up, so long as I
>don't endanger anybody and I pick up the mess, that's my prerogative.
>Likewise, if I decide to be IRRESPONSIBLE with them, that's tough luck on
>them: they can submit, or leave. Those are their choices. If they thought
>that was a serious risk, they would not have submitted to me.
Strong statements but hey I have made and felt a few myself. What can I
say? *s
>> In my opinion in a TPE relationship choosing a Dominant is one of the few
concrete choices a submissive can make.
>That is the ONLY decision they can make. Once they have made that one,
their
>choices then are done.
Yeah, this is where the "wish it was possible(but maybe not) but isn't" part
comes in with my approach to power exchange.
>> Now I could be wrong in my interpretation of what TPE is all about, if I
am
>> please come forward and state your case. :)
>
>I don't really have a case: the words have fairly standard meanings. I've
>answered your points above as struck my fancy. If you're happy, I'm happy
>for you.
Yeah I am happy but I think I would be happier if I totally & fully
understood who I am. Well that will come in time I guess and these ng's are
amazing for self discovery. Thanks and big warm group hug to y'all! *g
Peace,
Lady Sun
1-having the appearance of a submissive because it suits me to behave as
such which really makes me a manipulating dominant and a top from the bottom
sensation slut :)
DL2ndEditn
Dreamer:
>>>
>>>Which word (Total, Power, or Exchange,) as you see it, is not accurate?
>>>
>>
DLynn:
>> Just my own reactions: total.
>>
>> On this newsgroup, the TPE relationships I've read about use that term to
>> describe a relationship from which the slave may not and *cannot* walk
>away.
>>
>> (As a concrete example, you've mentioned, more than once, about removing a
>> slave's collars as a last-resort possibility. The TPE masters I've read
>would
>> not acknowledge that as an option. The slave *will* obey.)
>
Dreamer:
>And how do they deal with the legal consequences of forcing someone to do
>something they do not wish to do? That's assault and battery. False
>Imprisonment. Etc.
>
I dunno how they deal with it, because I don't engage in it, my own self. I was
just answering a question about definitions. I think I'm correct in my
understanding about how the term TPE has generally been used on this newsgroup,
but I have no data to supply about whether or not such an approach is workable.
As I recall Jon Jacobs' writing, however, one point he emphasized was that
anyone engaging in real-world TPE mastery would inevitably encounter strong
resistance on the part of the slave -- and that mastery entailed overcoming
that resistance. I took this to imply a certain commitment on the part of the
master to the slave and the relationship both: "you will not, and cannot, be
abandoned."
I do not know if Karl Kleinpaste characterizes his relationship with his slave
as "TPE" or not, but I believe he is someone else who has posted about the
irrevocable nature of the relationship.
I would suggest that one possible answer lies not in legal consequences but
emotional dynamics: that the claim TPE masters make is not that the law will
uphold their relationships (no one has ever claimed that, as far as I know) but
that a TPE relationship will create in the slave an emotional state of mind
that makes the relationship literally unbreakable.
And I agree with Steven: to create such a mindset in another human being is to
incur moral obligations. Your analogy of birthing a daughter is apt in *this*
understanding of TPE, because mastery carried out under such an understanding
would deliberately create a slave emotionally incapable of independent life.
Whether or not such TPE is possible/feasible/desirable is another question
altogether, and one I have no answers to. All I know is it holds no appeal for
me.
DLynn
p&e
paladin1
Xiphias Gladius wrote in message <7pvjgm$f1m$1...@hiram.io.com>...
Sounds like a very reasonable approach, what flashed in my mind after
reading Ian's point about multi axis rating was this: since vanillas seem
sort of one dimensional in perspective, and they tend to rate themselves
with one scale (usually 1 to 10) why not have a triple numbered scale
Bondage: Enjoy tying up- 0 and enjoy being tied at the 9
Dominance: Dominator at the low end dominated at the 9 side
Sadism: 0 for the giver and 9 for the masochist
My rating would be a 023
Love to bind, enjoy some straight up commanding, light on the pain giving.
(4's being the middle would be considered not really interested ) Sorry
switches I'm not sure where you fall in this
Paladin
(P.S. everyone enjoying their summer?)
Xiphias Gladius
> Sounds like a very reasonable approach, what flashed in my mind after
> reading Ian's point about multi axis rating was this: since vanillas seem
> sort of one dimensional in perspective, and they tend to rate themselves
> with one scale (usually 1 to 10) why not have a triple numbered scale
> Bondage: Enjoy tying up- 0 and enjoy being tied at the 9
> Dominance: Dominator at the low end dominated at the 9 side
> Sadism: 0 for the giver and 9 for the masochist
That was the original plan -- to have three axes, where one could be
placed with a single dot in a space
However, I realized that it was more useful to handle the desire to do
something and the desire to have something done to one *seperately*.
Otherwise, it implies that "the more you like to do something, the less
you like to have it done to you," which is clearly not the case. For what
it's worth, I have the same problem with the Kinsey scale -- it is *not*
true that the less interested you are in men, the more interested you are
in women, or vice-versa.
> My rating would be a 023
> Love to bind, enjoy some straight up commanding, light on the pain giving.
> (4's being the middle would be considered not really interested ) Sorry
> switches I'm not sure where you fall in this
Which is precisely why I dropped the idea of a continuum axis, and went
rather to the two independent values per kink. Any model which can't
model switches is of extremely limited use.
Dreamer
wrote:
> IME, that one paragraph summarizes the concept of "exchange". In an
> exchange based relationship, the one with power is the one with
> responsibilities, both *to* and *for the other party. "Responsible to"
> meaning that they do what they say they will do; "responsible for" implies
> that they accept the consequences of "responsible to."
Aha! This may be the problem. The word "exchange" is simple enough... but
what is being exchanged? To you, and to everybody but me, it seems, you are
exchanging power for responsibility. The slave/exchangee says, "I will give
you complete power over me: in return, you must assume complete
responsibility for me."
Homey-master don't play that. I (and by the responses I freely admit I seem
to be a minority of one) would view that as less than total... because the
slave's terms (that they are now absolved of some/all responsibility) are
still controlling the relationship. In an even more subtle way, the slave's
inability to leave, or more precisely the master's (I'm using slave and
master for convenience: I mean the two participants in the hypothetical TPE)
inability to discard or release the slave, gives the slave a great deal of
power, in that if the slave has some area which they simply will not yield
in, the master must give up and accept it. Obviously, one can work a long
time on such things, and should: again, I'm not suggesting that the first
time a master tells a slave to deep-throat him and she gags, he says
"Displeasing. Out you go." But the knowledge that the master cannot and will
not release her, while very comforting to the slave, gives her the knowledge
that if for whatever reason she cannot or will not please him in some
certain way, she doesn't hafta.*
In my particular relationships (and I am going to stop referring to them as
TPE, simply because I am, when pressed, smart enough to see when I'm
outnumbered) they have no terms. I have one term. "Do what I say, or leave."
In practice, that doesn't mean "do what I say right this second, perfectly,
or leave right this second." It means I mean to be obeyed, and I will be
obeyed, or I will not accept that person as my slave. How long the obedience
takes is not really important subject to reasonable limits - reasonable by
*my* definition. After all, I'm the master.
(*One possible deduction from this observation is that a TPE is only
possible if the slave has the psychological imperative to please so strongly
imprinted on her that there ARE no ways in which she cannot or will not
please him. This sounds good but we then quickly arrive at the logical
conclusion that if the slave would not, say, commit infanticide,
necrophilia, or mass murder on command, it is not a TPE. Rather a high bar
to clear, but if that's what it means, so be it.)
> Those that insist that they are not responsible *for* their slaves, or
> their slaves' actions, therefore must yield great amounts of autonomy to
> the slave, including the right to end the relationship.
Untrue. No logical connection. I *can't* take away her right to end the
relationship. My slaves *do* have great amounts of "autonomy" in that, as
I've said, I'm not a micromanager. I know at least two of them WOULD be
happier if I was and they were under considerably more specific control. But
I'm not interested in that and this is about me being happy, not them.
> Total ownership
> implies that the owned cannot end the relationship... and so on.
True. But as that's legally impossible, I freely admitted and continue to
admit that if that is the benchmark I do not meet it.
> Without responsibility, there must be limitations to the power,
Why? Where is the logical necessity?
Dreamer
In article <37fc7d9d....@news.cyberverse.com>, -=- kajira hill -=-
<odal...@iols.net> wrote:
> i do believe if i were to even attempt Gor/TPE -vs- the rest of the
> world on both fronts, my head would explode.
>
> i've come to the conclusion (which i am totally contradicting by
> writing this) that i don't belong in those debates. i can state my
> opinion, but as you well know, Dreamer, i can't debate well on things
> i feel passionate about. i go all flooey. :p
So listen in and make the occasional clever remark. That's what *I* do 99.9%
of the time.
I wish you well.
Even if you are a smarty-silks.
jmi...@usit.net
> Xiphias Gladius wrote in message <7pvjgm$f1m$1...@hiram.io.com>...
>>I think there are *many* variables.
>>
>>They include:
>>How much you enjoy giving pain
>>How much you enjoy recieving pain
>>How much you enjoy controling someone
>>How much you enjoy being controlled
>>How much you enjoy restraining someone
>>How much you enjoy being restrained
> Sounds like a very reasonable approach, what flashed in my mind after
> reading Ian's point about multi axis rating was this: since vanillas seem
> sort of one dimensional in perspective, and they tend to rate themselves
> with one scale (usually 1 to 10) why not have a triple numbered scale
> Bondage: Enjoy tying up- 0 and enjoy being tied at the 9
> Dominance: Dominator at the low end dominated at the 9 side
> Sadism: 0 for the giver and 9 for the masochist
> My rating would be a 023
> Love to bind, enjoy some straight up commanding, light on the pain giving.
> (4's being the middle would be considered not really interested ) Sorry
> switches I'm not sure where you fall in this
That inability to classify switches seems to me to be a fairly significant
problem with this sort of scheme. If I were seriously trying to come up with
this, I'd be more inclined to go with something like a Geek Code. Mine
might look like:
Aspect Degree of Interest
OH YEAH! Eh HELL NO!
+++ ++ + 0 - -- ---
Bondage, tying: B -
Bondage, being tied: b +1
Pain, giving: P ---
Pain, receiving: p +++1
Control, exercising: D ---
Control, receiving: s ---
With an optional degree-of-intensity scale added on the positive side of
the axis, say 1-5 with 5 being high.
Summarized, that would be:
Kink code: B- b+1 P--- p+++1 D--- s---
Translated:
No interest in tying someone up; slight interest in being mildly
restrained; NO interest in giving pain; high interest in receiving very
mild pain; NO interest in controlling or being controlled.
Based on what you said in your post, yours might be (using my model, and
please forgive me if I'm way off the beam):
Kink code: B+++ b--- P+1 p--- D+ s---
A switchier person might come up with something like:
Kink code: B+1 b++2 P-- p- D+ s+
You could further complicate the scale by adding other modifiers (e.g.,
likes receiving pain, but only erotically; likes giving pain but doesn't
include sexual energy in a scene; doesn't like pain, but will accept it as
punishment in a context of submission; will not give submission but can be
forced to submit; that sort of thing).
I suspect someone else has probably already come up with this, though, and
done it better. Plus I think it's more a gimmick than it would be useful,
but that's my personal opinion, and your mileage may well vary.
JanetM
--
Posted by Janet Miles (jmi...@usit.net) <http://www.public.usit.net/jmiles>
Loyal Webcrafter: PenUltimate Productions <http://www.worthlink.net/~ysabet>
and SSBB DC <http://www.public.usit.net/jmiles/ssbbcorps.html>
Member: SSBB Diplomatic Corps -- East Tennessee
Spyral Fox
<palad...@erols.com> writes:
>Sounds like a very reasonable approach, what flashed in my mind after
>reading Ian's point about multi axis rating was this: since vanillas seem
>sort of one dimensional in perspective, and they tend to rate themselves
>with one scale (usually 1 to 10) why not have a triple numbered scale
>
>Bondage: Enjoy tying up- 0 and enjoy being tied at the 9
>Dominance: Dominator at the low end dominated at the 9 side
>Sadism: 0 for the giver and 9 for the masochist
>
>My rating would be a 023
Hmmm.... better. I'd be a 974. But not perfect -- how about
six figures --
Bondage
enjoy tying
enjoy being tied
Dominance
enjoy dominating
enjoy being dominated
Sadism
enjoy being sadistic
enjoy being masochistic.
The added flexibility might make it clearer who the switches are.
Or may not. ;-)
That makes me a 093835.....
- - Spyral Fox
--
Official Depooty of the Sheriff of Nettingham's Charter Enforcers (CLG)
Member, SSBB Diplomatic Corps.
Owned & Operated by Lord Richard. ("Ani l'dodi...")
San Diego Resources: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
Steven S. Davis
: (*One possible deduction from this observation is that a TPE is only
: possible if the slave has the psychological imperative to please so
: strongly imprinted on her that there ARE no ways in which she cannot or
: will not please him. This sounds good but we then quickly arrive at the
: logical conclusion that if the slave would not, say, commit infanticide,
: necrophilia, or mass murder on command, it is not a TPE. Rather a
: high bar to clear, but if that's what it means, so be it.)
An observation which is a commonplace from some very old and very
long and bitter arguments. People who insist on using the terms
"absolute" and "total" w/o acknowledging that neither is possible
outside of theory may get tripped up on them. People who recognize
TPE as a goal and a process, a process which can, with time and effort
and commitment, lead to approaching ever closer to that goal, but never
to achieving it, those people have fewer difficulties.
And two of the standard answers to such objections as you noted are:
1) the submissive and the dominant must both be extremely careful
to select people with compatible values, so such circumstances,
or much lesser and much more probable ones, do not occur
[Actually, that's not a standard answer; the standard answer
only says the submissive should take great care. I'm just
feeling a bit irked by much of what I've been reading which
places so much emphasis on what the submissive needs do before
offering consent and so little on the ethical considerations
of a dominant in taking consent (FWIW, yes, I have observed
that Dreamer does not fail to consider this imporant area,
but it still seems to me an underdiscussed area, and I feel
that this does make it seem as if ES is accurate in charging
that our ethic is that "just get her to say 'yes' and then
you can do whatever you want and it's her fault for being
stupid enough to say 'yes', when in fact most of us know
very well that "She said 'yes' " is *not* enough. ]
2) It's not a failure of TPE when someone fails to fly (w/o
an aircraft) when ordered to fly. Having total power was
long ago demonstrated not to enable one to stop waves
from coming in. It also doesn't enable one make people
fly. There are psychological incapabilities that are just
as real as those physical incapabilities. Most people
couldn't do certain extreme actions even if they wanted
to (granted, most people in what are supposed to be TPE's
wouldn't want to, and that raises the question about how
closely they've approached the goal; one who has approached
it *will* want to obey any order zie receives, but zie may
or may not be able to obey that order
FWIW, as I have said before in other occurences of this argument,
one reason why I will never give any BDSM dominant a pledge of
unlimited obedience is because if I did and if I were then given
an order to set fire to an orphanage and shoot the nuns and
children as they fled the burning building, I could and would
do so, and since I could and would, I won't (give any pledge of
unlimited obedience to a BDSM dominant (I can conceive of certain
extreme - and extremely unlikely - circumstances in which I might
give such a pledge to a political cause)).
SarsSAM
cover!!) I have noticed that a lot of confusion stems from the name "TPE"
alone. Total Power Exchange implies that one's power is exchanged with
another. I can happily say that I have no power whatsoever.
I gave him absolute power over me. In exchange I received fulfillment, joy,
happiness, peace and a sense of self. I personally feel that I got the better
end of this bargain.
As far as the whole responsibility issue goes... I am responsible for making
sure that I carry out his orders in a timely fashion. For instance: I take
lithium and welbutrin every morning and at night another lithium pill as
perscribed by my doctor for my bi polar disorder. I have been ordered by the
Master to whom I am owned to follow the doctor's orders. When I forget to take
my pills I suffer horrible mood swings. It is my responsibility to make sure
this doesn't happen.
I am also responsible for letting the Master know what is going on inside my
head, how I am feeling and if their is anything I need. It is then his
responsibility to decide if it is actually a need or a want and whether or not
he desires me to have it.
It is in his best interest to provide me with the necessities of life, however
it is not his responsibility to do so. He has no obligation to me (other than
making sure our children are well cared for). However, if I am not provided
with the necessities to life I might become sick and I know he doesn't want
that. (He likes my cooking too much ;o)
By the Master's orders, I no longer work outside the home. If he were to
decide that our relationship was not beneficial to him any longer today and
kick me and the kids out, he would have a moral obligation (note: not a
responsiblity) to make sure that I and the children had a place to live and
food until I was able to get a job and take over the support of myself and the
children.
What it all boils down to is: He and I are happier than we have ever been in
our entire lives. We may not be doing "correct" by way of society's
definitions, but then I don't see society living in our home.
Warmest regards,
Jenni
Binder
> > And that's why I don't consider the relationships in question to be TPE: to
> > me (and yes, this is *all* very subjective) "Total" Power Exchange has as
> > its basis a long term committment, at least.
>
> Fine and dandy. You are lexicographing up a storm. However, there is nothing in
> any of the words in the phrase "total power exchange" which implies a duration,
> commitment, or responsibility. Only that one have the power, and one give it up.
> Would you say that you do not own your body because you cannot legally sell it
> or will it to anyone? If so, then I agree. I do not have total power. If not,
> then I have total power, in that I have all the power they can legally give me.
Well, make up all the definitions you like, Dreamer. You've heard
essentially the same answer from at least three of us out here. We believe
it looks like something other than TPE; you insist it *must* be because you
say so.
As long as you cling onto your "total power", you don't have it. IMO, you
are misdefining TPE as applying to your relationship, and that will be true
as long as you threaten to end the exchange because you're no longer happy
with it, or because you can't control your slaves.
That's what it really boils down to, isn't it? That when faced with a rogue
slave, you quit.
*feh*
Binder
--
" 'Tis better to Wield a Good Ruler than to Bend before a Bad one."
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA -- to reply, remove the idjit
Steven S. Davis
: In article <7pv1d3$iau$1...@links.magenta.com>,
: s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) wrote:
: > So I've observed. However, you also don't claim total power
: > (since you admit that your slaves can chose to leave, and you
: > don't seek to do anything which would make them unable to do
: > so), so the consequence of your position is not what it would
: > be for a real TPEer.
: Unless you live in the Sudan or other place that recognizes
: chattel slavery, or you are a government, you cannot legally prevent
: someone from leaving your presence/employ/service/influence.
Yes, you can.
Or rather, some people can; if you cannot, I'll take your word on it.
What you can't do legally is physically restrain people who don't want
to be restrained, or beat them (whether they consent or not, unless
it's any athletic match), or terrorize them with threats of physical
pain.
And since these things are illegal, BDSMers never do them. Of course.
But w/o doing any of them (though they help, and make the process
more fun) a person can work on another person's psyche and emotions
enough to render zir unable to leave a relationship even in the
absence of physical force, threats, or physical restraints (barring
a major external shock to her situation, as for example an intervention).
: Period. I have no particular interest in being prosecuted for battery,
: false imprisonment, or criminal neglect, or even in being a test case.
: I do not have the wealth or the connections to "illegally" enforce my
: ownership.
Neither wealth nor connections are required. Time, skill,
commitment, intimacy, presence, and a willing subject can
be sufficient
: So that's that.
: If I could legally enforce their slavery, that would be different.
: But I can't. Given that I can't, there is no point in blustering about
: how "*my* slaves can't leave, I won't allow it." As someone who follows
: a Gorean philosophy, and enforces 24/7 slavery on other people, I am
: vastly amused to now be told that my position is too *weak* because it
: takes "the real world" into account.
The real world consists of more than laws or chains. And perhaps
more than is dreamt of in either your or John Norman's philosophy.
Including the fact that people can be held without the force or
support of law, and without physical violence or physical restraints.
: It is at
: least a novel position for me.
: I wish you well.
: Dreamer
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSBF Charter: http://www.tpe.com/ssbbf.html
Dreamer
----------
In article <37C4344E...@idjit.jps.net>, Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net>
wrote:
> That's what it really boils down to, isn't it? That when faced with a rogue
> slave, you quit.
>
> *feh*
>
> Binder
I talk about me, not about others, because I don't want to put words in
other people's mouths. I stick up for what *I* have to say. You talk about
me, because this personal attack (more thinly veiled than a Port Kar dancer)
is what you feel is the best way to answer my continued request for some
logical connection between power and responsibility, and my assertion that I
do not want to be obeyed because of locks and chains, illegal
persuasion/retention methods, or brainwashing - simply because I will be
obeyed.
You're a funny little person.
Dreamer
Tobie
Binder wrote:
> That's what it really boils down to, isn't it? That when faced with a rogue
> slave, you quit.
Hrmmmm, but if folks are in a purely service relationship,
isn't that how it should be?
Not taking sides here because Dreamer has already made it
clear, that by the understanding of those in this conversation,
he's not in TPE's. He's also explained that it's a fairly
straight up and honest "services rendered" thing, at least
that's how I read it. If *that* is the case, wouldn't prompt
release be the right thing?
If one is offering service positions for slaves and the slave
wants to behave in a roguish fashion, they have no business
being there.
Tobie
the red cabbage
Dreamer
----------
In article <37C4AC84...@mindspring.com>, Tobie <tob...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> Salutations!
>
> Binder wrote:
>
>> That's what it really boils down to, isn't it? That when faced with a rogue
>> slave, you quit.
>
>
> Hrmmmm, but if folks are in a purely service relationship,
> isn't that how it should be?
Yes, it should... but the phrase, besides being an attack on my lack of
will, is nonsensical. To me there is no such thing as a rogue slave because
if she can go "rogue," she is not a slave.
> Not taking sides here because Dreamer has already made it
> clear, that by the understanding of those in this conversation,
> he's not in TPE's.
Don't worry about taking sides. It's become abundantly clear to me that I am
my own side. As I said, I'm seriously outnumbered. (I have a little rule
about being outnumbered, though, which anybody who asks privately may find
amusing.)
> He's also explained that it's a fairly
> straight up and honest "services rendered" thing, at least
> that's how I read it. If *that* is the case, wouldn't prompt
> release be the right thing?
If the alternative is false imprisonment or being somebody's emotional iron
lung, then for me, yes it is. YMWV.
> If one is offering service positions for slaves and the slave
> wants to behave in a roguish fashion, they have no business
> being there.
Precisely. What I want is someone who will obey me because they want to, not
because they have no choice or have been brainwashed to be unable to NOT
obey me. If that's not TPE - and apparently it's not, I know when I'm licked
*snort* - fine and dandy. I'm not in a TPE nor will I ever be. My life is
full of people who aren't what I want... why would I waste my own time on
people who aren't? (Not people who are *close,* and need a little training
and experience.)
SarOfTreve
>> On balance, I certainly do have obligations/responsibilities to my slave.
>One
>> of my decisions has been that she not work. The impact of said decision is
>> that she could not be self-supporting on her own today. The fact that she
>> feels herself owned to the point of being unable to leave is, however, a
>choice
>> she made. It is not accompanied by blanket responsibility on me for who
>and
>> what she is.
>
>I do not understand the distinction. She could certainly support herself if
>she is of average intelligence and reasonable health. It would not be
>luxurious, no, but anybody can get a job washing dishes. Are you saying you
>have a responsibility to maintain her in the lifestyle to which she has
>become accustomed? If so, where does it end, and how did you incur it? If
>not, how is that not a blanket responsibility?
Well, to flesh out this specific example...
a) all of the finances in our household are mine, as is the only income
b) we live in the the SF Bay area, which isn't exactly cheap
c) she brought three children into my life, and given the fact that she's their
mother, I wouldn't resist her anticipated desire to keep them with her
While she's highly intelligent and quite capable, starting with no roof and no
assets seems reasonably difficult with four people to keep sheltered, clothed,
and fed in one of the most expensive geographies in the country.
Since a series of decisions on my part following her surrender placed her in
this situation, I see a moral obligation to ensure neither she nor the kids
suffer as a result. As I indicated in another post, support in this instance
is not an entitlement by agreement.
To provide contrast between this type of "impact" moral obligation (my
responsibility for another person ends at the tip of their nose) and what I
described above as "blanket responsibility for who and what she is"...
My slave has been abused, and carries baggage from that. Some of my decisions
have caused these to surface is various ways. Am I responsible? No. This is
a matter of "who" she is, and I can't (IMO) be responsible for that (morally or
by agreement).
davo
>>>"x" == Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> writes:
x> Which is precisely why I dropped the idea of a continuum axis,
x> and went rather to the two independent values per kink. Any
x> model which can't model switches is of extremely limited use.
seesh ... this is an easy one.
First you pick your set of 3 axes. I find that mapping {x, y, z} to
{BD, DS, SM} works well, but mapping to {emotional, mental, physical}
works well.
Then map your interest in play to a 3 dimension surface in your chosen
coordinate system. For example, I'm willing to play extremely heavy
on the pure SM axis, but mixing in a little bit of DS or BD might tend
to lower my comfort level on the SM. Once you have this surface
defined, you also have the concept of "pushing the envelope" aka
playing with limits.
And of course these limits are further modified by the person you're
playing with, the phase of the moon, what you had for dinner, etc.
To handle the switch components, just continue the mapping into the
non-positive space. Along the lines of top/bottom, pitch/catch,
dom/sub, etc.
This procedure is performed for the perspective play partner so that
you each have your own shape of interests.
Then perform a transform on the play space of the perspective partner
to reflect their play space thru all three axes. For example your
interest in beating maps to their interest in being beaten. Finally
perform a 3 dimension solid geometry intersection which yields a play
space of mutual interest for the pair in question.
Of course it's much easier to say ...
"Hey Babe, wanna get beaten senseless?"
--
Davo ["Slit and search ... it's not just for D&D anymore"]
akasha
cheek> that not even a masochist has this high a threshold for pain. What in
the world do babies and schoolbuses have to do with TPE?<br><br> With
permission from my Master, akasha posts a few thoughts on the
subject...<br><br> My Master is not Vidal Sassoon. He is not Wolfgang Puck.
Thus he does not do my hair each morning nor hand feed akasha. Akasha
generally picks her own clothing to wear, though Master determines what style
and with the exception of "no black," the color as well. Go figure, she can
actually feed herself. It's rather disheartening to hear that the majority
tend to think a slave must be a mindless emotional cripple in order to be a
slave. Akasha would tend to think that would not be pleasing at all to a
Master... In fact, just the opposite -- akasha is valued as a slave *because*
of her intelligence; not in *spite* of it.<br><br> She drives, she walks,
she feeds herself, clothes herself, and travels across the country in her
profession which Master allows her to practice. Heck, she might even be your
boss. Master's enslavement of akasha is not about him delving into the
boring minutia of her every waking moment. Her enslavement is in pleasing
*him*, not in him having to hold her hand 24/7. She is his slave, not his
baby. Her slavery is about doing what pleases *Him* -- not about what
pleases her, or giving her the warm fuzzies. Bear in mind that what pleases
Him and akasha *having* the warm fuzzies are not always mutually
exclusive.<br><br> <<I own a cat - nominally, by law, he's my property. Is
it a TPE? I think not. If I were a dog person and owned one of those
slackjawed drooling fleabags that worship their person, it'd be closer - but
still not TPE, as fleabags are notorious for deciding to disobey when the
mailman knocks on the door or a bike goes by or another dog comes onto first
fleabag's turf.>><br><br> BTW, according to Master Bear, who was quoted
earlier, you can keep a cat but not own it, you can however own a dog... a
cat does what pleases a cat, a dog does what pleases its owner..<grin>. Just
food for thought.<br><br> Now, being that Master does not dress and feed
akasha, being that she is able to do it for herself, and not being a
"drooling fleabag" or self-serving cat, and being that her capability to care
for herself was one of the things Master found attractive about akasha in the
first place, in what capacity is the very real power that he holds over her
diminished?<br><br> Its rhetorical, so akasha will answer it. The answer is
that it isn't. Being in a TPE is not about who feeds who, or who clothes
who, or who holds the purse. Being in a TPE is the exchange of *Total
Power*. Master takes power, akasha surrenders to his taking. Its not a
gift, he takes it. He takes it because he is capable of taking it. He takes
it because it pleases him to take it. And it pleases him to take it from
someone who will not become an emotional cripple in her submission or a
mindless drone.<br><br> The surrender of power does not mean that the slave
ceases to have a functioning intellectual capacity. If it did, then she
ceases to be what was so attractive about her in the first place. Thus
ceasing to please, thus becoming undesirable property to hold power over or
to own.<br><br> "Your very intelligence makes you the more helplessly a
slave." -- John Norman<br><br> "Helpless."... not "hapless"...<br><br>
Just because she's not locked in the basement nightly to prevent her from
leaving doesn't mean she's any less bound to the Master that owns her. Patty
Hearst claimed to be locked in a closet and forced to submit as well,
becoming brainwashed, but akasha hardly thinks that is the *ideal* for TPE.
The fact that akasha is His is marked indelibly in her brain. Being out of
his sight does not change that fact. <br><br> <<And that's why I don't
consider the relationships in question to be TPE: to me (and yes, this is
*all* very subjective) "Total" Power Exchange has as its basis a long term
a word or action is removed, the exchange isn't total.>><br><br> Long term
commitment is indeed present in Master's enslavement of akasha. BTW,
responsibility does not equal commitment. The consequences of a single
action or word don't figure largely into our relationship. A single
infraction would and does incur punishment. However, were akasha to go and
shoot a whole busload of children, then that would be the day that akasha
ceased to be a slave and became a lunatic. Master collared a slave, not a
lunatic. <smile> arguably, some might debate that point.<br><br>
akasha,<br> slave to Dreamer
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.