10/08/2005 ed. note: most of this remains accurate – but my views on consent have solidified. It is obviously possible for a relationship like this to exist without explicit, conscious consent. It changes almost nothing about this essay.
So last night, as I watched the TV and surfed a bit I was taking time off. You heard me… not working; Tatsumi suggested it. It was an odd feeling. I was bored, so I figured hey! I’ll hit the old chat rooms! I still know some folks there and it will be a decent way to kill some time. Besides, my wisdom is always welcome *cough*. Then again, maybe not…
I had an incident happen on AOL last night that is all to common in my life, some people who didn’t like what I said panicked, had a heart attack and turned into a mob. I won’t go into all the details, basically it was a train wreck and I should have known better, the warning signs were there… overprotective “mentors”, subs who felt they needed protecting and a bunch of folks looking for the hearts and flowers thing.
Anyway, the conversation was predictably turned into a discussion of how a “true dom” has a responsibility to build a submissive a castle or something, protect her, never exceed her limits, make her coffee and all the rest of it. And then a single statement came out load and clear.
ed. note: the screen names other than mine have been changed. I have reformatted slightly, and fixed the spelling errors (mostly mine). This does not represent the full log, a lot of other stuff is omitted as this is not meant to be a recap of a conversation… rather these snippits are used to illustrate my view.
A Protector of Subs: I don’t consider those sadists to be Doms… for with being a dominant, comes the responsibility for the sub…
Now, I disagree that dominance carries responsibility with it as a basic concept. The word “dominance” doesn’t include any such thing. Obviously an ethical dominant will act in a responsible manner of course.
SoulHntre: :: shrugs :: dominance – the linguistic term – is wrapped up in the ability to compel compliance. It should be tempered with morality and ethics, but an abusive violent bastard may still be linguistically dominant.
I thought that was pretty clear and simple… but then it went to hell.
A Protector of Subs: Soul – I understand your “literal” expression within the language and use – – however, I certainly hope you don’t live your d/s life that way – otherwise I feel sorry for any human or animal under your control
SoulHntre: I don’t know how to explain it any better without it seeming like
SoulHntre: semantics, and it is more than that. Suffice to say I dont expect to kill
SoulHntre: anyone anytime soon, but I believe my ownership grants me the right to
SoulHntre: do so (not legal obviously).
Well, as you can imagine that sure as hell went over very, very badly.
A Protector of Subs: well, at least you do understand there are at least some laws out there that would hopefully prevent you from doing such with your property…
SoulHntre: The legality is the least of my worries, if circumstances were so extreme that taking Kimikos life seems like a good idea then I doubt I will worry about the legalities.
Now, I see what I meant. And you, my dear reader, if you will control your jerking knees for a moment… you may also see it. You are welcome of course to decide I am insane :: shrugs :: that is up to you… but you will see that what I specifically didn’t say was that I advocated killing her on a whim… nor did I say that all ownership did any such thing.
I used the words “my“, and I used the words “extreme circumstances“. There really isn’t much more I can do.
I think the core issue lies right here…
A Protector of Subs: you wont get an argument from me on that M***…. but you also wont get me to agree that if a sub chooses no limits and slavery, that it gives me the right to kill her if I choose
A Protector of Subs: and with your morals Soulhntr… I feel you hunt a soul for you have none… and look to see you in my jail cell anytime you should choose to act on your whims
See the comment there about “whims”? That’s the sound of a knee jerking reaction. I never said whim. I never implied whim. I mentioned only the concept of extreme circumstances and had a discussion about the extreme limitations or lack of that may be embodied in some ownership arrangements.
SoulHntre: What I find interesting is how this is a supposed reflection on my morals.
SoulHntre: I am truly confused by the logic there.
SoulHntre: it seems to me that my morals come into play about whether or not I would DO that, not whether or not I consider it a possibility.
SoulHntre: For instance, I know that the police I train are within their rights to use deadly force. Yet I know that their morals must guide them as to when to do so.
See the confusion? A well, screw it. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I’ll say it here, and I’ll say it clearly. You can freak out if you want, I don’t care.
Some relationships between owner and property include consent from the property to the owner to make decisions that may result in the properties death. It is obviously important that such consent only be given to someone you trust, and that exercising that consent should be guided by your morality and ethics.
If I were to find myself in a situation so extreme, so fucked up that I thought that the taking of the life of my property was my best option I do not believe concern for the law would be my main problem or concern.
This view is not unique. When I was in the military the dynamic was similar. I liked my commander, and I knew he would not throw our lives away on a whim… I also knew that there may come a day when he would need to forfeit my life… and if that came, I trusted him enough to accept it.
Have a question then [[let me know]].
If you can’t understand that… fine.
If you feel you need to misrepresent it? Fuck you 🙂