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

	TSR : Web boards : M/s D/s O&P : "Just being human?" 1 2 3 Just being human? (26) This post is on the M/s D/s O&P web board. 30 Jun 09, 2:13 AM thegildedlili 3 yrs I wrote a rant about capitalization in my journal recently, but only from the perspective of d types using it when referring to themselves, I find it quite pretentious when used in general conversation or on message boards. I have no problem with subs using it in reference to their own owner though, although the W/w does get on my nerves purely from a practical point of view when reading, but I respect that some are required to type this way by order of their owner. As for basic human rights, I am happy to hand over the decision to judge what those are in relation to me to the right person, those are the kinds of decisions I want out of my hands after I have made the initial decision to submit to someone's will. I'm also happy to become an extension of my owner, moulded and shaped to his will, but again, I would probably only choose to become the property of someone who I thought had good judgement in terms of that specific shaping and moulding, and it would likely be someone who wanted me to maintain my individuality as long as it didn't get in the way of my service to him, or rather, he knew how to hone those individual qualities to meet his needs better. I don't lose myself in this type of relationship, I become *more* myself. In short though, I need to connect with someone I can get along with aside from the D/s, the D/s is the way of conducting the relationship and doesn't take the place of shared or at least compatible values, morals, ethics and interests. I for one thrive in an environment of high protocol, strict rules, routines and guidelines, though I am aware others want to maintain some elements of freedom and free will in their relationships; everyone's dynamic is different. As for the discussion around gifts and the like, again, that depends on the dynamic of individual relationships. I don't see that the giving of gifts or privileges lessens the power of a dom, my main concern around such things is entitlement and a slave developing an expectation that she has a right to such things, to me that is more a romantic relationship with a bit of D/s mixed in, and it's not something I myself am interested in, I don't want a boyfriend, I want to be owned as property. The very nature of D/s relationships dictates that they are asymmetrical, but how unequal they are is really up to the individual parties to decide, and at the end of the day for me, in the context of a relationship, it's not really for me to decide either. i have no need, for such things, but to make you happy... Josh Pyke Edited 30 Jun 09, 2:58 AM by thegildedlili 30 Jun 09, 7:54 AM Ms_Valentine UK, 4 yrs 976-188-983 wrote: I think that anyone who takes a persons basic human rights is not a dominant but an abuser, IMHO. Whilst not wanting to be pedantic, surely on this site we use the WIKI definitions of what slave means and that fully includes the assertion that a slave is a person who has had personal rights and freedoms removed by their Master/Mistress. Calling people like that abusers is probably levelling an insult at a large portion of the dominants on this site. 30 Jun 09, 10:35 AM Ms_Valentine UK, 4 yrs tigermonkey wrote: Just being human? Now what I do not understand is what I have been terming lose of basic human rights. For example, the word I. Why is it when in those forums the sub/slave types i not I. I mean be for the fact it looks like bad grammar in a sentence, why did this person lose their basic human right to be a complete I. As well as Y/you, when did the Master/Dom once again become more then who they are and in the middle of a sentence get a capital Y in front of you. When talking I do not make it clear this Y is better then that y. Not to mention this kinda silly behavior in typing makes these said posts hard to read. Now I do believe there are somethings that deserve that difference, I will not degrade this in any way. The simple answer to this is that it is one form ( among many) of conventional behaviours within D/s which some adopt and some don't. I think, however hard to read some of the more convoluted lower case, third person, slashy speak writing can be, it is ultimately up to the sub/slave and their own D/O/M as to how they right and communicate. I don't think every one in D/s or M/s adopts these conventions by any means. I certainly only use a few and then only sometimes. I don't think that these communication norms really can be taken as definite indicators per se of the depth or commitment to the D/s or M/s relationship.Some of the most full on, committed and long lasting relationships do not employ any of these techniques, whereas a online relationship which began yesterday could be full of them. I will defend anyone's right to chose how their sub/slave writes on the internet but equally see it as only one way among many of signifying being involved in a D/s relationship. tigermonkey wrote: Then there is this stuff about gifts at random times for no reason for the sub/slave. Now here would be a lose of what I see from the Master/Doms as a lose of basic human rights. To some extent they have feelings for this person they call property (well I don't my sub is still human and I can't have human property I think its the whole free will thing) or however they choose to term this person. Why are they no longer aloud to give this said person a gift just because they decided to. When did that stop being doable in the relationship, due to the fact it is a relationship be it complicated it is still a relationship. I read that some slaves/subs consider this to be hard on them, because they do not see how they have earned or deserved this gift. So serving someones every need, and when you cant or do it wrong you get punished in ways many people would frown and run away from is not a form of earning this said gift? Just can not figure all this stuff out. I can see no reason on this earth why a D/O/M could not give a gift to their sub/slave just because they wanted to. It is up to the dominant to do that o rnot as they choose. Hopefully the sub/slave will accept the gift gratefully, with happiness and not carp on about not deserving it. It doesn't say anywhere in any rues I know of that gifts are only given when something has been done by the sub/slave. This after all could lead to them expecting gifts when they had been good and then getting resentful if the gift did not materialise. Any sub who thinks getting agift is 'hard on them' should realise it is not all about them or much of the time, even a little about them.It is not up to them to try to figure out the reason for gifts and react according to what they think they deserve. Where does that leave the Master/Mistress in all this? I do sometimes wonder when I hear nonsense about gifts being hard on subs, if they really even think about what they are saying. If they are in a sane, healthy relationship, with a Dominant who trains, controls and dominates them fully, they should be thrilled by gifts, the thoughtfulness it showed and not moan on about how they don't know what it means. It means whatever the Master/Mistress wants it to mean. tigermonkey wrote: I am not one to look down on others relationships, I am in a D/s relationship as well. But I guess what I can't figure out is when did the people in these kinds of relationships lose the very thing that makes them humans and people, with feelings and wants and needs that every human being has. Even infants have a sense of individuality, why when a person says yes I need this in my life, I need to be controlled/control and loved like this, do they lose that right to be a complete I and individual that they once were and become something I see as being less then complete in who they are. How is it they lost this one basic human right to be themselves? Slaves don't lose their ability to know what their needs are. Nothing in being a slave stops that. Slaves are meant to learn with correct training from their D/O/M how to let go of their 'wants' and accept what their dominant has in store for them. That is all part of giving up control and with that rights, maybe some, maybe all. Losing rights does not take away the personality or character of the sub/slave. Losing the right to be a free human being is what being a slave is all about. It is not a bad thing. For many it is liberating and exciting to learn how to live through the wishes of another. To do that requires much strength, devotion, hard work and determination to go through the bad parts to reach the happiness and contentment that is found when a slave feel internally enslaved and free of much of the desire for things and constant wants. I don't have a slave, as I cannot believe I can literally own a human being and if I can't believe in the concept as a model for living, then I cannot follow it. No more than I could pretend to be religious, just for the sake of everyone else around me. I know how you feel about that idea. Others however are extremely happy and often for years and years in a M/s relationship. It is horses for courses and as long as it has been entered into consensually, I don't see that it is a problem. Edited 30 Jun 09, 5:11 PM by Ms_Valentine 30 Jun 09, 4:50 PM tigermonkey US(MN), 2 yrs Just wanted to say thank you for all the answers. Some very enlightening and others interesting to read. tigermonkey 30 Jun 09, 5:09 PM 976-188-983 US(ID), 4 yrs Ms_Valentine wrote: 976-188-983 wrote: I think that anyone who takes a persons basic human rights is not a dominant but an abuser, IMHO. Whilst not wanting to be pedantic, surely on this site we use the WIKI definitions of what slave means and that fully includes the assertion that a slave is a person who has had personal rights and freedoms removed by their Master/Mistress. Calling people like that abusers is probably levelling an insult at a large portion of the dominants on this site. I don't intend to call anyone who has taken a slaves personal rights and freedoms an abuser. An abuser is a person who has taken the basic HUMAN rights to such things as food, water, shelter, and basic safety. I realize that most, if not all, M/s D/s relationships entail the taking of some if not all rights and freedoms but I believe that taking someones own self-identity and other basic Human rights is a wrong. I myself have given up most of my basic rights and freedoms but I still possess the right to say "I'm not sure about this". Please forgive me for any misunderstandings that my previous post or this post may cause. If there is further problems feel free to take it off list and memo me and we can discuss it further without disrupting the thread. Thank you in advance. Approved by Sir Kyle. Baby In his eyes I am lost, In his arms I am found, In his soul I am content. Kore ga Watashi no Goshujin-sama 30 Jun 09, 5:13 PM Ms_Valentine UK, 4 yrs 976-188-983 wrote: Ms_Valentine wrote: 976-188-983 wrote: I think that anyone who takes a persons basic human rights is not a dominant but an abuser, IMHO. Whilst not wanting to be pedantic, surely on this site we use the WIKI definitions of what slave means and that fully includes the assertion that a slave is a person who has had personal rights and freedoms removed by their Master/Mistress. Calling people like that abusers is probably levelling an insult at a large portion of the dominants on this site. I don't intend to call anyone who has taken a slaves personal rights and freedoms an abuser. An abuser is a person who has taken the basic HUMAN rights to such things as food, water, shelter, and basic safety. I realize that most, if not all, M/s D/s relationships entail the taking of some if not all rights and freedoms but I believe that taking someones own self-identity and other basic Human rights is a wrong. I myself have given up most of my basic rights and freedoms but I still possess the right to say "I'm not sure about this". Please forgive me for any misunderstandings that my previous post or this post may cause. If there is further problems feel free to take it off list and memo me and we can discuss it further without disrupting the thread. Thank you in advance. Approved by Sir Kyle. Thanks, I understand what you mean now. Best...Ms_V 1 Jul 09, 2:59 PM ravenkaldera US(MA), 6 yrs Attempting to address the possible underlying problem in the OP's somewhat difficult-to-read post... It's not unusual at all for a submissive who still has a great deal of their rights to look at a slave who has given it all up and be horrified. Perhaps it's even more horrifying than it would be to an egalitarian person, because it's closer to home. The sub is already one step in that direction, and to see someone who's willingly walked six more steps toward that goal can freak them out. "Is that where this road leads? Will I be expected to go there, when I don't want to? Aaaargh!" And, as many folks do when confronted with something uncomfortable, they lash out without thinking and attempt to discredit or denigrate it. Since it's easier to demonize owners, it's often the owners who get yelled at ... which, in its own way, is insulting the slaves. Most of the full-time, all-the-way-to-the-wall properties that I know are complex, thoughtful people who have put a lot of thinking into every step of their path. It's not done mindlessly or reflexively. They are able to talk intelligently about why this is good for them, why they chose this in the first place, what needs it fulfills, what difficulties it presents and how they cope with those. When the owners get characterized as evil tyrants, the slaves by definition are reduced to mindless robots, and neither is true. I wrinkled my brow at the idea that decapitalization of one's pronoun is the ultimate in rights-violation, as well ... Joshua is required to use correct grammar and punctuation at all times, neither his name nor his pronoun are ever decapitalized, and yet I know that there are a lot of folks out there using "i" who have far more rights than he does (they're still managing their own clothing, hairstyles, jobs, money, and votes, for example). I think that the best cure for this sort of thing is to have those thoughtful slaves talk about gradations on the sub-to-slave continuum, and why they went here instead of staying there ... and perhaps a whole lot of reassurance that no one is going to make you go there when you want to stay here, and if they try you can walk away. (BTW, Joshua just had his last day of school. This makes us both so happy you can't imagine. Woo hoo!) -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 Jul 09, 5:57 PM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs ravenkaldera wrote: And, as many folks do when confronted with something uncomfortable, they lash out without thinking and attempt to discredit or denigrate it. Since it's easier to demonize owners, it's often the owners who get yelled at ... which, in its own way, is insulting the slaves. Most of the full-time, all-the-way-to-the-wall properties that I know are complex, thoughtful people who have put a lot of thinking into every step of their path. It's not done mindlessly or reflexively. They are able to talk intelligently about why this is good for them, why they chose this in the first place, what needs it fulfills, what difficulties it presents and how they cope with those. When the owners get characterized as evil tyrants, the slaves by definition are reduced to mindless robots, and neither is true. I know I can say this for myself and I believe there are others like me: I *have* put much thought into the matter, and I've done so from the start. And the fully committed properties I know are the way you've described as well. But that doesn't mean my objections to specific practices are wholly emotionally motivated and/or an attempt to discredit. I understand that any relationship is a joint effort - I don't have an idea of Tyrant/Robot any more than I believe sexism is practiced and perpetrated solely by males. ravenkaldera wrote: I wrinkled my brow at the idea that decapitalization of one's pronoun is the ultimate in rights-violation, as well ... Joshua is required to use correct grammar and punctuation at all times, neither his name nor his pronoun are ever decapitalized, and yet I know that there are a lot of folks out there using "i" who have far more rights than he does (they're still managing their own clothing, hairstyles, jobs, money, and votes, for example). I don't think decapitalization is the ultimate violation nor do I take it as an indication of what they are or aren't allowed to do in daily life. I object to the idea of representing one's self as less than they were before they were owned as a single and particular aspect, not an overall condemnation of power exchange. And just to be sure - most of the committed dominant persons I know personally are decent and admirable. From the things I've read, I think you are, too. Eva (Will you give congratulations from me to Josh please?) (The property formerly known as Camille ) 1 Jul 09, 7:11 PM His_caethes 2 yrs ravenkaldera wrote: It's not unusual at all for a submissive who still has a great deal of their rights to look at a slave who has given it all up and be horrified. Perhaps it's even more horrifying than it would be to an egalitarian person, because it's closer to home. The sub is already one step in that direction, and to see someone who's willingly walked six more steps toward that goal can freak them out. "Is that where this road leads? Will I be expected to go there, when I don't want to? Aaaargh!" -Raven Kaldera I am a submissive. I have looked at both sides slave and submissive and I am one who has to say I don't understand how one can completely give themselves so freely. I understand but yet I don't. I think for me being the type of person I am it would be too huge of a step to take to give up everything and to serve so completely. I have a little bit of an attitude and I am stubborn on some things yet I want my Owner happy and pleased. I love when he gives me praise or when he scolds and punishes me for what I have done wrong. I commend the women and men who are slaves to their Owners I don't see it as being a bad thing. I think we all have a different dynamic on how we view the relationships with the D/s world. Each one takes consideration of the next and some may look down on the way one dynamic works and some may just be curious. I do think you are right Sir, some submissives do look at a Domme/slave relationship and go a little nuts. I for one would like to know a little more in depth. I don't ever think I could totally place myself there though. (Please tell Joshua congratulations) in the circle of my arms he shall have all my pleasures all his desires fulfilled. in his heart i shall have all the love i need in his eyes i shall forever be his collared one ~ Aaron's Pet 1 Jul 09, 7:46 PM ravenkaldera US(MA), 6 yrs EvaMaria wrote: (Will you give congratulations from me to Josh please?) I will, thank you, Eva. If you'll check back at my post, you'll notice that I was commenting on the OP's post, not yours. I think I made that clear in the first line. Thus the commentary about decapitaized pronouns and fear of enslavement and such. -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