This page sponsored by Mr. S Leather, San Francisco    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : Internal Enslavement : "Ethical Ownership" 1 2 Ethical Ownership (14) This post is on the Internal Enslavement web board. Mon 20 Apr 09, 7:00 PM blue_girl US, 3 yrs i've used the "Search" tool and read most everything related to this idea in the archives, and i've found this idea often referenced in other discussions, but rarely dealt with specifically on its own. i may not be using the right 'search' terms, however, so if this is a topic that's been thoroughly exhausted, i apologize in advance. i'm interested in discussing in greater depth this idea that lifestyle D/O/M's are somehow expected to keep a slave's "best interests" or "growth and development" in mind when They make decisions. my Owner adamantly states He is not a "service Dom," and that while He has a responsibility to maintain my general health and well-being, and while He has some areas where He'd like to see positive growth and development, everything he does isn't geared towards "making me a better person or a better submissive." He does some things because He wants to, because He enjoys them, and/or just because He can. Sometimes, it's to reinforce O/our dynamic, but at times, it's just because He's somewhat of a sadist and He enjoys it. Because O/our dynamic is what it is--and because i enjoy suffering for His pleasure--this works really well for U/us. A lot of O/others in the lifestyle, however, have said that this crosses the line, and especially in 24/7 TPE relationships (versus temporary or part-time power exchanges). In fact, when i state my Owner's position on this, i tend to get flamed. What do Y/you think? Is a D/O/M in service to His or Her s-type in this respect? Is it unethical for a D/O/M to be selfish or demanding, especially when doing so isn't for any reason other than fulfilling His or Her own pleasures...in other words, when He or She isn't thinking about how the experience or activity will help the s-type "grow" in some way? Can disregarding this whole altruistic "growth and development" paradigm potentially deepen the IE more than a more "service"-oriented dominant role might? Or do Y/you think it matters? For me, the knowledge that He isn't "in service" to me, that He doesn't have altruistic reasons for everything He does, does deepen the feelings of IE: i am His, and He uses me for whatever He wants--whether it is for my benefit or simply for His own pleasure. ~blue~ "I was being called to surrender the very citadel of my self. I was completely in the dark. I did not really know what repentance was or what I was required to repent of. It was indeed the turning point of my life." --Bede Griffiths 21 Apr 09, 1:07 AM 201-997-618 3 yrs its my humble opinion, if everything Master did was with the slave's growth in mind then He 'would' be in service to the s-type in a way - for us its more the slave is obedient in everything with pleasing Master in mind, therefore, i dont think it matters or is unethical for Him to be selfish or demanding if He wants to be - maybe the ethics depends on the originally agreed dynamic -- as His slave i am growing to love the things He loves and be more than happy to do them - in the beginning there was quite some reactance due to my shyness and ignorance - still is on occasion. Master has been patient but firm and i feel when He does things 'just because He can' it does actually deepen the IE in our case. While He generally considers my well being and development, He certainly has times when He uses me for whatever He wants and purely for His own selfish pleasure - and He has every right to - has the right to be demanding if He chooses because i agreed to be His slave with that understanding and with enough trust to know whatever He does is not going to be THAT detrimental to me. when its something i'm not too keen on and He knows it, its an awesome feeling when He insists for His own purposes only and i end up being overjoyed that He's pleased with my obedience and taken that pleasure for Himself and it 'does' make me feel more enslaved. Master wants me to be happy to do his bidding but if i cant be then it comes back to 'have to' whether or not - in the long run i find it leads to growth anyway even if thats not the motivation in some instances - its a circle - hope i made sense -- Master is the Master 21 Apr 09, 4:15 AM Qrystal_KingandQueen CA, 3 yrs Greetings to the both of you slaves and please send my(QUEEN MISTRESS)regards to your Masters. I agree with with what is said. "Master Is Master"..as well Mistress IS Mistress. Either Way THE DOM/DOMME (the descent one)KNOWS automatically within HIS/HER heart and mind where the descent and SAFE limits should be in ALL aspects of HIS/HER slave property's life. BOTH owner and slave KNOW that from the moment the contract IS signed; the slave HAS given up ALL rights to ANYTHING. As well as the owner (in a TRUE D/s dynamics) KNOWS that HE/SHE CAN BE somewhat 'selfish' If HE/SHE CHOOSE to BE at times. It is NOT for the slave to dictate WHEN or HOW the 'owner' should Be selfish or NOT. ALL choices and opinions...ARE GONE from the TRUE slave's life unless the owner CHOOSES to ask the slave "its" opinion or ALLOW the slave an "opinion" at all. the TRUE slave's ONLY duty and OBLIGATION is to SIMPLY OBEY In ALL WAY"s without questioning the "motives" or reasoning of the owner. It IS THAT simple. It does NOT matter whether the slave LIKES or DISLIKES WHAT the owner is demanding of the slave. slave simply OBEYS it's MASTER or MISTRESS in ALL things and aspects of life. Well THAT is MINE(and My KING'S) way and belief. Farewell and Benevolent Blessings from the heart Always, THE QRYSTAL QUEEN MISTRESS LADY K. (Also on behalf of THE QRYSTAL KING MASTER GRYPHON, LORD GRIFFIN) 21 Apr 09, 11:16 AM Tanos UK, 14 yrs Y! blue_girl wrote: What do Y/you think? Is a D/O/M in service to His or Her s-type in this respect? Is it unethical for a D/O/M to be selfish or demanding, especially when doing so isn't for any reason other than fulfilling His or Her own pleasures...in other words, when He or She isn't thinking about how the experience or activity will help the s-type "grow" in some way? I think this is one of the situations where one side of the coin is talked about in opposition to something else, and the other side tends to be ignored. Because some people who are sceptical about M/s ask (silly) questions about M/s being destructive, abusive, crushing the slave's talents etc, we can end up just talking about the way in which functioning M/s relationships are good for a slave. I think it does have to be said that the slaves I've talked to in any depth have flourished in it. However, yes, M/s isn't a symmetric relationship and the owner isn't there for the slave. I'd say that ownership is "the enduring authority to control and use for one's own purposes that which is owned", and that idea of the slave being there for the owner's purposes is fundamentally what this is all about. I think this can also be clarified by thinking about wants and needs. To keep a slave alive and sane long-term, needs have to be met somehow (by definition, otherwise they're not needs) but how that's done, and how many wants are also indulged, is the owner's choice, ultimately determined by their own objectives. Can disregarding this whole altruistic "growth and development" paradigm potentially deepen the IE more than a more "service"-oriented dominant role might? Or do Y/you think it matters? One of the traps in M/s is the slave having feelings of false entitlement, which can either come as vanilla baggage at the start, or be acquired through habit because they've been allowed a particular privilege for long enough. I think basing the relationship on a commitment to "grow" the slave risks setting up more of these false entitlements. This kind of commitment can also create "gaps" in the owner's authority, which the slave can end up (perhaps by subconscious testing) exploiting to carve out more freedoms. For instance, if getting to Grade 9 on the piano is a goal, things can start to be justified to help with that goal ("I didn't do X, because I needed to practice". "I didn't black your boots, because I didn't want finger marks on your sheets of music.") These might seem trivial, but when you've really established a high level of authority, these are where the battlegrounds can be - even if only with hindsight. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk www.bridgewood.org.uk www.twitter.com/ukTanos 21 Apr 09, 5:00 PM blue_girl US, 3 yrs 201-997-618 wrote: <snip> as His slave i am growing to love the things He loves and be more than happy to do them - in the beginning there was quite some reactance due to my shyness and ignorance - still is on occasion. Master has been patient but firm and i feel when He does things 'just because He can' it does actually deepen the IE in our case. <snip> when its something i'm not too keen on and He knows it, its an awesome feeling when He insists for His own purposes only and i end up being overjoyed that He's pleased with my obedience and taken that pleasure for Himself and it 'does' make me feel more enslaved. Master wants me to be happy to do his bidding but if i cant be then it comes back to 'have to' whether or not - in the long run i find it leads to growth anyway even if thats not the motivation in some instances - its a circle - hope i made sense -- Master is the Master This absolutely makes sense to me. One of M.'s primary goals for me is to not simply 'endure'--or even to find pleasure in the act of serving Him--but to actually align my will with His, to love what He loves, enjoy what He enjoys, and so on. This is one of the focuses of my ongoing training, and it certainly deepens the IE when i find myself craving mustard on my sandwich (His preference) rather than mayo (previously my preference). Thanks for such a thoughtful response, 201-997-618. ~blue~ "I was being called to surrender the very citadel of my self. I was completely in the dark. I did not really know what repentance was or what I was required to repent of. It was indeed the turning point of my life." --Bede Griffiths 21 Apr 09, 5:28 PM blue_girl US, 3 yrs Tanos wrote: One of the traps in M/s is the slave having feelings of false entitlement, which can either come as vanilla baggage at the start, or be acquired through habit because they've been allowed a particular privilege for long enough. I think basing the relationship on a commitment to "grow" the slave risks setting up more of these false entitlements. This sense of entitlement also seems to accompany the idea of submission as a gift, and it's a feeling held by the majority of s-types on some of the BDSM-related boards and sites i've visited. The whole idea that everything an Owner does must be good for the s-type, I agree, tends to let the latter presume that they should even play a role in helping to decide what's "healthy" for them, which leads to topping from the bottom and undermines any real potential for IE. i think part of the misunderstanding comes from the desire of some submissives to be perceived (or to perceive themselves) as slaves, but that's a whole other can of worms. Even when my Owner does something specifically to promote my growth or development in some way, He doesn't feel compelled to share or defend either His motives or His goals with me, and i wouldn't dream of asking or expecting Him to do so. Recognizing that i have a tendency to analyze and deconstruct things to death, He shares with me no more than what He thinks i need to know. my ignorance of His methods, goals, and motivations help to preserve His absolute power in O/our dynamic. This kind of commitment can also create "gaps" in the owner's authority, which the slave can end up (perhaps by subconscious testing) exploiting to carve out more freedoms. Certainly...and i think many D/O/Ms feel pressured and/or compelled to show how Their decisions are in the s-type's best interests, which--as You point out here--ultimately undermines Their authority and limits Their power. ~blue~ "I was being called to surrender the very citadel of my self. I was completely in the dark. I did not really know what repentance was or what I was required to repent of. It was indeed the turning point of my life." --Bede Griffiths 21 Apr 09, 7:37 PM 000-719-381 US(TX), 10 yrs Y! blue_girl wrote: while He has a responsibility to maintain my general health and well-being, and while He has some areas where He'd like to see positive growth and development, everything he does isn't geared towards "making me a better person or a better submissive." in this slut's opinion, He doesn't have a responsibility per se to "maintain [its] general health and well-being" any more than He has a responsibility to keep His car's tires inflated or perform proper oil changes -- However, it may be in His best interest to do so, to protect the value and function of His possessed object/slave as long as it holds value for Him. "everything " He does is best geared to giving Him the maximum use of and pleasure from/by His owned slut. blue_girl wrote: He does some things because He wants to, because He enjoys them, and/or just because He can. Sometimes, it's to reinforce O/our dynamic, but at times, it's just because He's somewhat of a sadist and He enjoys it. His motivations are His, and His alone: pleasure, power, sadism. "just because He can" . . . ideally such exercise of Ownership will enhance the value and function of His owned slut, but such enhancement is only a useful by-product, and not the rationale, of exercising Ownership. blue_girl wrote: What do Y/you think? Is a D/O/M in service to His or Her s-type in this respect? No, an Owner/Master should never be thought of as being "in service" to a slave. blue_girl wrote: Is it unethical for a D/O/M to be selfish or demanding, especially when doing so isn't for any reason other than fulfilling His or Her own pleasures...in other words, when He or She isn't thinking about how the experience or activity will help the s-type "grow" in some way? Can disregarding this whole altruistic "growth and development" paradigm potentially deepen the IE more than a more "service"-oriented dominant role might? Or do Y/you think it matters? If its Owner wants to be selfish, so be it. a slave is to be selfless, at full service to its Owner. Any "growth" from becoming a better or more fully surrendered slave is to its Owner's benefit and to increase its Owner's pleasure. What does not matter is a slave's "growth and development" except as it grows its service deeper and more complete. A "D/O/M" is never meant to serve; a slave is only meant to serve at and for its Owner's pleasure and fulfillment. most respectfully submitted 000-719-381 21 Apr 09, 8:11 PM blue_girl US, 3 yrs 000-719-381 wrote: blue_girl wrote: while He has a responsibility to maintain my general health and well-being, and while He has some areas where He'd like to see positive growth and development, everything he does isn't geared towards "making me a better person or a better submissive." in this slut's opinion, He doesn't have a responsibility per se to "maintain [its] general health and well-being" any more than He has a responsibility to keep His car's tires inflated or perform proper oil changes -- However, it may be in His best interest to do so, to protect the value and function of His possessed object/slave as long as it holds value for Him. "everything " He does is best geared to giving Him the maximum use of and pleasure from/by His owned slut. 000-719-381: Yes, i agree. i'm using the term "responsibility" here very loosely, perhaps more along the lines that Tanos describes: Tanos wrote: I think this can also be clarified by thinking about wants and needs. To keep a slave alive and sane long-term, needs have to be met somehow (by definition, otherwise they're not needs) but how that's done, and how many wants are also indulged, is the owner's choice, ultimately determined by their own objectives. In my relationship with M., He sees Himself as responsible for ensuring His property is kept "alive and sane long-term." Aside from the obvious legal consequences should i die from maltreatment, i'm of little value to Him if i'm dead or insane. It sounds like we agree in spirit if not in specifics. He has agreed to ensure i have what i need, and anything more is a privilege. Many s-types conflate needs with desires, and i want to specifically state that i'm not doing that here. When i speak of essential nutrition, for example, i mean the minimum amount required for reasonably good health and survival. M. currently chooses to restrict my diet quite dramatically, but it meets all of my nutritional and caloric needs to ensure that i am healthy enough to work hard for Him. ~blue~ "I was being called to surrender the very citadel of my self. I was completely in the dark. I did not really know what repentance was or what I was required to repent of. It was indeed the turning point of my life." --Bede Griffiths 22 Apr 09, 7:10 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs blue_girl wrote: my Owner adamantly states He is not a "service Dom," and that while He has a responsibility to maintain my general health and well-being, and while He has some areas where He'd like to see positive growth and development, everything he does isn't geared towards "making me a better person or a better submissive." Is a D/O/M in service to His or Her s-type in this respect? Is it unethical for a D/O/M to be selfish or demanding, especially when doing so isn't for any reason other than fulfilling His or Her own pleasures...in other words, when He or She isn't thinking about how the experience or activity will help the s-type "grow" in some way? Can disregarding this whole altruistic "growth and development" paradigm potentially deepen the IE more than a more "service"-oriented dominant role might? I don't think any d-type can or should make the benefit of the s-type the basis of EVERY action. But at the same time, by enslaving the s-type s/he has removed many of the abilities the s-type once had to obtain that which is of necessity to a healthy human being, self-actualization and a sense of significance being among them. If not to the dominant, who does the responsibility to provide then fall to? If one takes the position that disregarding these needs will strengthen IE, one cannot also hold that IE is a healthy thing. And if IE is not a healthy state for a person, whether it's achieved via mutual consent or otherwise, I don't see how the M/s relationship which employs it could be considered ethical. I do know that's a lot of "ifs". This is an extrapolation rather than opinion - I have a very long way to go in understanding IE. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) Edited 22 Apr 09, 7:13 AM by EvaMaria 22 Apr 09, 9:04 AM thegildedlili 3 yrs blue_girl wrote: <snip>This sense of entitlement also seems to accompany the idea of submission as a gift, and it's a feeling held by the majority of s-types on some of the BDSM-related boards and sites i've visited. Actually I think this has a lot more to do with, as Tanos said, “vanilla baggage” around entitlement. I think many s-types struggle with a sense of entitlement and expectation because, in the society I live in anyway, this is reinforced in so many ways, and in a variety of different relationships. To rid yourself of expectation and entitlement, for most people I know, is a mammoth task and not something that could be achieved quickly or easily, desire or not. As Tanos also said, that same sense of entitlement can even come within an M/s relationship which slaves voluntarily enter on the premise that they are entitled to nothing, if a particular privilege is reinforced over time. A recurring theme that *I* notice on BDSM related sites, including SD! Is that a dom will ultimately do what is in his slaves best interests, and in my opinion *this* is a more common expectation than any other. A dom friend of mine really switched the light on for me recently when he told me he does everything in his own best interests, but this most often translates as being in his slave's best interests too. Why would he do something that may have a long term detrimental impact on his slave's ability to function at her optimum? Tanos wrote: <snip> I think basing the relationship on a commitment to "grow" the slave risks setting up more of these false entitlements. While I agree with this, I do think that if the commitment is to “growing” the slave in the best interests of the owner, it puts a slightly different slant on it and is less likely to set the scene for false entitlement. blue_girl wrote: <snip> Even when my Owner does something specifically to promote my growth or development in some way, He doesn't feel compelled to share or defend either His motives or His goals with me, and i wouldn't dream of asking or expecting Him to do so. While I agree this *can* be useful, I also think it is useful for a slave to know his or her owner's expectations, or where they are heading with “training” at least in some instances, so they can focus their energy on the same goals. EvaMaria wrote: I don't think any d-type can or should make the benefit of the s-type the basis of EVERY action. But at the same time, by enslaving the s-type s/he has removed many of the abilities the s-type once had to obtain that which is of necessity to a healthy human being, self-actualization and a sense of significance being among them. If not to the dominant, who does the responsibility to provide then fall to? If one takes the position that disregarding these needs will strengthen IE, one cannot also hold that IE is a healthy thing. And if IE is not a healthy state for a person, whether it's achieved via mutual consent or otherwise, I don't see how the M/s relationship which employs it could be considered ethical. this is definitely food for thought. i have no need, for such things, but to make you happy... Josh Pyke Edited 22 Apr 09, 9:06 AM by thegildedlili Next page