Open Air Bondage - the best outdoor BDSM shoots    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : Internal Enslavement : "RFC: Definitions" 1 2 RFC: Definitions (15) This post is on the Internal Enslavement web board. Thu 1 Jan 09, 9:19 AM Ghostbear US(TX), 3 yrs I'm tempted to hijack Ms Valentine's interesting thread ( http://www.seekdiscipline.com/posts/178153/0 ) but the more appropriate path would be to post this recent excerpt as an introduction and request for comment: On Owning Life Wednesday, December 24, 2008: I suppose, to preface, I would do well to explain my (current) definitions of major terms, lest we start out with wildly differing expectations … something that we've experienced all too acutely in the past. Dominance, to me, condensed to its core, is a relatively simple concept. Dominance is making the choices. It is not necessarily making all the proposals. At minimum, it is being responsible for the authorizations. Incidentally, it follows that dominance then means being responsible for the results. Ownership is not just authority and responsibility for choices, but authority and responsibility over lives. One could substitute the term Master for Owner, but I am inclined not to since the term master is overused and underdefined. Submission is the act of allowing another to make or at least authorize choices. It is my expectation that this submission then requires the responsibility to fulfill the terms of the decision made, to the degree possible, under non-extraordinary circumstances. Submissive and Slave, to me, are terms that conveniently mirror the states of Dominant and Owner. A submissive is one who agrees (or at least desires) to allow a dominant to make some or all choices for them. This is not a passive thing, the sub sitting back and the Dom doing everything, rather the submission of the agreed upon choices to the will of the Dom and the subsequent carrying out of the decisions, as required. A slave, to me, submits their life to the Owner, not just some or all of their choices. Interestingly, at the boundary condition between submissive and slave, the difference would be externally imperceptible, however, to my way of thinking, there is a significant psychological difference (and a significant shift in the balance between authority and responsibility) between being "completely one's submissive" and being "owned." ~GB 1 Jan 09, 2:46 PM The_Apprentice UK, 3 yrs Ghostbear wrote: A slave, to me, submits their life to the Owner, not just some or all of their choices. As someone new here, with a lot to lean, I'm interested in how you see the difference. If a submissive submits all choices to their Master, couldn't a Master decide to make them a slave? 1 Jan 09, 2:48 PM SixThreeFive SE, 5 yrs I'm intrerested in that one as well. I'd also like to point out that on this board, we use the Ownership Wiki defenitions to avoid debate on what means what. The SD! Wiki can be found here: http://www.seekdiscipline.com/wiki/ Smile, it confuses people. 1 Jan 09, 3:31 PM Ghostbear US(TX), 3 yrs Mark_you wrote: Ghostbear wrote: A slave, to me, submits their life to the Owner, not just some or all of their choices. As someone new here, with a lot to lean, I'm interested in how you see the difference. If a submissive submits all choices to their Master, couldn't a Master decide to make them a slave? Ghostbear wrote: Interestingly, at the boundary condition between submissive and slave, the difference would be externally imperceptible Aye, an implication of the last paragraph, the dominant could choose to become an owner and decide to make the submissive a slave. The area where the two states approach and meet is functionally overlapping and the source of many a BDSM board war. Personally, I would wait for that need to blossom, or not, of its own accord within the person. Wiki wrote: Slave: A person who is owned: that is, someone in a relationship with an owner who has ultimate authority over them, and from which the slave cannot remove themselves. I'll admit I'm uneasy with the wiki definition, more in that it is implied as a goal state rather than an accepted probable side effect. It's just quibbling though. I guess I'm looking for a statement with positive spin ~GB 1 Jan 09, 4:06 PM Mistress_Tiara 5 yrs Ghostbear wrote: I'll admit I'm uneasy with the wiki definition, more in that it is implied as a goal state rather than an accepted probable side effect. Hi GB, Welcome to the board. I'd like to offer a small point to assist future dialogue. Obviously everyone may think whatever they wish, but I've found that adhering to the definitions in the wiki in posts here is an important tool to aid discourse on the board. If everyone is using the same terms in the same way it just makes life much much easier. When people use terms in different ways it often results in troubled conversations and debates in my experience. Using the terms the same way allows us all to focus on discussing ideas and thoughts, rather than getting tangled up in endless debates over definitions. It's not a matter of right and wrong, just speaking a common language. I hope this helps 'It's the fire in my eyes, And the flash of my teeth, The swing of my waist, And the joy in my feet. I'm a woman, Phenomenally, Phenomenal woman - That's me'. 1 Jan 09, 7:40 PM ravenkaldera US(MA), 6 yrs I'm fine with Ghostbear's definitions, and I don't think that they differ all that much from Tanos's; they're just seen from a different angle. Yes, that finicky dividing line ... that's where things get weird around consent, don't they? Ideally, when the sub starts to notice that they are getting beyond the ability to refuse, there should be discussion on both sides and serious thought put into whether this is the right thing. What if there isn't, and the dominant goes ahead with it? (Not asking anyone in particular, just musing.) What if the sub is already so far along that it seems like a good thing, when perhaps it wouldn't have a month back? Consent gets blurry in cases like this, and we have to tread carefully. It's a tricky thing. -Raven Kaldera -If you're in charge, it's all on your head. If it's not all on your head, then you're not really in charge. 1 Jan 09, 9:00 PM 662-935-655 5 yrs Isn't that the benefit of this lifestyle for many of U/us? I.e. being able to blur the rigid boundaries that society has forced down our throat - almost like being raped in my day, believe me and due to the era my mom, now 87, was raised in. Which for many was quite puritanical - at least for the vanilla wife, but probably just as much for the Man who had to be the head of the house and breadwinner by definition at that time? Just a thought! Except of course, when consent gets a little too fuzzy in definition - which is why putting it in writing at some point seems a good idea. it's easier to know where O/one stands - and can protect the Dom/Owner as much as the sub/slave, esp. if the sub/slave has certain past "issues" or mental health challenges, such as mood swings. j/L Papa's owned always: still proudly wearing His Collar and Ring, rest in peace Beloved Master/Husband! alias "granny" matrika ye olde crone, blessed be! Edited 1 Jan 09, 9:03 PM by 662-935-655 1 Jan 09, 9:56 PM anjuli UK, 4 yrs As Ghostbear is aligning Owner and slave, he's pretty much following the wiki definitions as I read it. I'm not quite following why he feels slightly uneasy with it and am hoping he'll explore that a bit further but I'm not seeing much daylight between them. As to the blurred boundaries and consent. I think we'll find that many of us were simply guided this way by Masters who knew what we needed. Consent most certainly is a tricksy thing when it comes to consensual non-consent dynamics. Some of us had a discussion. Some were given a very overt choice. Some of us were told this was the way it was going to be and had the whole thing laid out but it was pretty much assumed. Some were simply told what they were to be and how it would work. As long as you're with someone you trust and know and are already in a power exchange with a good Dominant who knows what's right for you and acts in your best interest, I don't see the issue. All the red flag waving tends to come with those who leap without looking, think they can sign their lives away to people they met one weekend in a hotel somewhere and all that sort of stuff and nonsense. But then they tend to fall in and out again just as fast and move on to another 'Master' when they find they've made the wrong choice so there's really no commonality with the way we live now is there? Interesting discussion. Welcome Ghostbear. anjuli Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Blessed Yule, Eid Mubarak! *** May your Saturnalia be super and your Longest Night lovely! *** Have a wonderful Winter Solstice, a fruitful First Fruits or a cracking Kwanza! *** Whatever you're celebrating... have a good one. 1 Jan 09, 11:26 PM tails_SB UK, 6 yrs request for comment, or rangers football club? *hic* 2 Jan 09, 12:34 AM Ghostbear US(TX), 3 yrs dontmindthepain wrote: request for comment, or rangers football club? *hic* Hold the sagebrush there cowbo. . .girl! Last time I checked the Rangers played baseball. Oh, Glasgow. . .right anjuli wrote: As Ghostbear is aligning Owner and slave, he's pretty much following the wiki definitions as I read it. I'm not quite following why he feels slightly uneasy with it and am hoping he'll explore that a bit further Ahh, I think it's mostly in the particular phrasing "and from which the slave cannot remove themselves." It's really just a quibble in that I like to phrase goal states in an achievement form rather than a limitation form. However, it occurs to me that this form could in fact be desirable from an s-type perspective. Hafta think on that one some more. Is it better this way for you or would something overtly positive be preferable? ~GB 2 Jan 09, 2:29 AM ravenkaldera US(MA), 6 yrs For me, speaking of situations in terms of the limits around them is very useful. It defines boundaries, and boundaries are all negatives, in the sense of "Beyond this it does not go." One of the defining factors between slave and submissive, on this board, is the slave's inability to walk out (and walking out is the hard-limit consent litmus test for a submissive, by definition) so long as the owner is continuing to enslave them. It's the hard line that separates them, the one clear thread in the large grey area between them. By this definition, an owner is a person who has created this boundaried situation where before there was only positive open doors. They've said "No." Why do we make a big deal out of that? It's not just a "more-slavier-than-thou", although I've seen that happen before. It is that this is the line beyond which most people cannot imagine ethically going. It is the no-line that we must defend, and be (probably negatively) judged by. It matters. Let's face it, we're doing something here that it would be very easy to judge as A) impossible and therefore delusional, and/or B) if it's real, it's evil. We are aware of this. That's why we carefully define that line: we know that we may eventually be called upon to do the very difficult work of justifying it. -Raven Kaldera -If you're in charge, it's all on your head. If it's not all on your head, then you're not really in charge. Next page