BDSM and Impregnation

[lark sparrow]

Doesn't anybody realize that it's just a fantasy for osg's Master, too? It's a fantasy for both of them. If he asked her to do it, osg would do it. But he's not going to, because it's a fantasy. Not real.

That needs to be heard again. I know I posted some things that some people found offensive as to why some might have found it offensive (so convoluted lol)... but it never really rocked my boat, because of the above stated.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Insanity, pure and simple.

 

[sunfox]

I think you should re-read what you've written, because it manages to re-inforce sigsauerprinces' point, and it will make everyone who's been upset by you comments - even those who understand that you are, indeed, talking about a fantasy - upset all over again.

The gist of your last paragraph, as far as I understand it, is that you would be unable to prevent your child from being raised as 'another slave', that you would not feel responsible for (or even consider) any harm done to your child because of that, and that you should not be held responsible nor be blamed for your cooperation with your master in this circustance, because of your surrender of power in the TPE relationship.

As far as moral reasoning goes, this is in error. To put it bluntly, the powerlessness you claim would guide your actions in this hypothetical situation is itself a fantasy. We are talking about years in which you would fail to seek help for your child; in which you would be complicit in the hypothetical abuse. You do not even make it sound like this complicity would be motivated by overwhelming fear. It sounds like it would be entirely enthusiastic.

It is not so much your fantasy - or even your unwillingness to leave it behind in a hypothetical 'actual situation' - that bugs me, so much as the notion that you're missing the point willfully.

Excellent post.

And now I've bumped the thread that won't die again. Hee. I'm so bad.

 

[lark sparrow]

When does moral reasoning become the compass for pure fantasy?

 

[sunfox]

I don't think that's what shadow was trying to say.. though he can feel free to refute me if I'm wrong in my assessment.

I believe he's saying that for him, OSG's steadfast refusal to understand why her 'inability' to behave responsibly should such a fantasy be realized is a red flag in front of a bull, is annoying to him.

Quote: "the very thought completely ignores the fact that i am a slave, as if by having a child i'm no longer a slave, but a roaring, independent, do-for-myself modern woman, whose slavery is nothing but a game that was fun for a while, but now "real life" has come into play, and nothing will come before my child, including "Master". " Endquote.

His statement is that regardless of your personal lifestyle, that cannot translate onto a child. Which I agree with, again because of my previous contention that TPE is something undertaken as a choice, a lifestyle, a way of being... but not something indoctrinated into a child. I don't think anyone is looking for OSG to suddenly grow a spine if she were to reproduce. I think for my part, I am mostly just looking for the understanding that as a fantasy, it is one thing. But as a person who refuses to be held accountable for a child that could theoretically come from her body, it is quite simply not okay to claim the blanket protection of 'oh, but I'm a slave, and I can't say no'.

Point blank: Bullshit.

Apparently, my charm (always questionable anyway) has deserted me as I am immensely tired, and worried about personal issues. And lawd, I can't believe I let myself be sucked into this again. I place the blame squarely on lark's lovely shoulders.

 

[lark sparrow]

lol well, I agree, it's not a "model mom" but that is not what osg is nor what she is seeking. I think if she were "mom" material she would be a step-mom to his son, and actually desire real children born of her that followed the path assumed. That is not who she is.... she doesn't have to be... her life is not set up to be so... it's a freaking fantasy... and even if it's not, like there is something you could do about it on a message board. Maybe he is raising his son to be a Dom believing in the ultimate Dominance of men and submission of women... is there anything you say here going to change that? There are people who live that.... hard as it is to believe in the "real" world.

Live and let live.... unless you can't... in which case, rave on. But seriously folks - we are talking about a fantasy here. Do fantasies sometimes lead to reality? Yes, sometimes. Are some fantasies strictly fantasy material? YES!

 

[sigsauerprinces]

this would only upset those who do not truly understand the dynamics, the realities, of a Master/slave union. the very thought completely ignores the fact that i am a slave, as if by having a child i'm no longer a slave, but a roaring, independent, do-for-myself modern woman, whose slavery is nothing but a game that was fun for a while, but now "real life" has come into play, and nothing will come before my child, including "Master". this is an attitude of those who do not take our (referring to the lifestyle of Daddy and i) way of life seriously. who view it as something borne out of kink and sexual kicks, with nothing whatever to do with reality. this is who we are. it IS our reality. it is the ONLY reality in which i could ever even hope to find fulfillment or happiness. no, not many can relate or understand, not many wish to understand. but it's us.

(btw, my Master would never "ask" me to do anything...another thought that ignores the realities of slavery).

and what's being ignored most of all here (except by those like Etoile) is the fact that this is allll a fantasy...and not merely a fantasy, but a fantasy that neither of us even WANTS to become a reality, even if it were possible. i think some just can't comprehend such a thing.

im sorry to be rude, but that is pure unadulturated HORSESHIT. i told you in my last post that i didnt want to hear some "you dont understand TPE bullshit". because you are hiding behind TPE and frankly its fucking repulsive. first of all you are assuming a whole lot about me. TPE is my ultimate goal in my relationship. and yes, when it gets to that stage, i would do anything for my Master-anything. anything. that has to do with ME. but when it has to do with another person-a person who did not ask to be born into my TPE with my Master-then that child is not bound by my TPE relationship and shouldnt have to be. when you have a child-another living human being

YOU HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO IT. and it doesnt matter if you are a slave a sub a kajira or what fucking have you. you have responsibilities, as a decent human being. so i ask you-because you are now his slave, you do not have to be a decent human being? is slavehood a free pass to total immorality?.

i should have know you'd hide behind TPE, its all you can do really, isnt it?

"as if by having a child i'm no longer a slave, but a roaring, independent, do-for-myself modern woman, whose slavery is nothing but a game that was fun for a while, but now "real life" has come into play, and nothing will come before my child, including "Master"."

this statement makes me want to hurl. YES,ownedsubgal, by having a child, you are no longer JUST a slave, but a parent, whos FIRST responsibility is to your child, not "Daddyy". you entered willingly into tpe and i dont give a shit if you let your daddy blow your head off. but your kid should have nothing to do with you and your daddys relationship. your steadfast refusal to see that is mind boggling.

"who view it as something borne out of kink and sexual kicks, with nothing whatever to do with reality."

i find this comment insulting. i do not view TPE as something to do with kink and sexual kicks, on the contrary, i view it as something two ppl enter into out of immense love. and when i enter into it, you better believe it will be for real. you also better believe that if my Master ever hurt my kid he'd end up seriously hurt if not dead. because a child is an innocent party to your TPE and does not deserve to suffer because of it.



larksparrow-no, we're not talking about a fantasy. we're talking about the fact that should her Master decide tomorrow he wants it to become reality-which is always possible-she would do it.

shadow of a boy-thanks, your posts are insightful and you are getting the point which so many seem to be overlooking.

again, larksparrow-no one said moral reasoning is the compass for pure fantasy. to repeat myself AGAIN, its the fact that she would make this a reality if he desired it that is disgusting some ppl. the fact is it SHOULD disgust everyone.

and osg dont give me that "perhaps you dont have extreme fantasies" line either. because i do. my favorite fantasy of long standing has to do with something that if one slipup happened, i'd be dead. but that fantasy has to do with ME, myself, my own body, which as far as im concerned i can do whatever the fuck i want with, including putting it in grave mortal danger. id never dream of doing so to a child. the fact that you WOULD, without hesitation, even eagerly, as shadow of a boy has said, is what is upsetting some ppl. and like i said, it SHOULD upset everyone.

but again, it seems like we're all supposed to say "oh thats completely normal and healthy osg, good going!".

well im not going to say that. i dont care if im in the minority. im glad to be in the minority on this one.

 

[Etoile]

this statement makes me want to hurl. YES,ownedsubgal, by having a child, you are no longer JUST a slave, but a parent, whos FIRST responsibility is to your child, not "Daddyy". you entered willingly into tpe and i dont give a shit if you let your daddy blow your head off. but your kid should have nothing to do with you and your daddys relationship. your steadfast refusal to see that is mind boggling.

Think again about the legal issue here. It is quite likely that if osg had a child by her Daddy, she would legally give up all rights to the child, as do carriers for gay male parents. If she signs that piece of paper, then she is absolved of responsibility as a parent.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Think again about the legal issue here. It is quite likely that if osg had a child by her Daddy, she would legally give up all rights to the child, as do carriers for gay male parents. If she signs that piece of paper, then she is absolved of responsibility as a parent.

Here is a question Etolie. Would you willingly and legally sign rights to your child over to a person so that he could forcefully make that child a slave. Saying that they got off on the fantasy should tell you the thoughts of things to be done to the hypothetical child would be things that no one in this lifestyle would condone, no matter what the situation was. And anyone who thinks a child has anything to do with TPE is not living in the real world. To me that would be the same as inviting your child in the bed with you to join...and i do believe that in a sense that is the reason so many are disgusted.BTW i also feel by continuing this topic we (yes including myself now) are feeding OSGs need for disapproval...the shock factor seems to be what she is looking for and we are all playing into it. ( i swore i wasnt gonna post here again too lol)

 

[the shadow of a boy]

Think again about the legal issue here. It is quite likely that if osg had a child by her Daddy, she would legally give up all rights to the child, as do carriers for gay male parents. If she signs that piece of paper, then she is absolved of responsibility as a parent.

I'm pretty sure this is simply untrue, but I'm not a lawyer, let alone an American lawyer. The contention would seem to be that, not having legal parental rights to a child, OSG (or anyone) would not be legally responsible for failing to report, failing to prevent, or even assisting in the abuse of a child. (Again, everyone, please remember that we're talking about a hypothetical situation.) Furthermore, the idea that she would or could be 'absolved of responsibility as a parent' introduces a radically legalistic notion of responsibility that I am uncomfortable with. Absolved by whom? Surely not the child.

The horse may be dead, but it has not yet given it's signale. So I'll resumarize my objection to OSG's attitude.

Firstly, I do not mean to imply that the commitment to the total surrender of submission - nor the responsibility of absolute authority - in a TPE relationship is not real. Personally, the idea is fairly foriegn to me, as many of you will have noticed. In some ways, my life could be seen as a struggle from a harmful de facto submissive role towards autonomy, so being a TPE submissive is - needless to say - rather close to anathema to me. To imagine myself dominant in such a relationship would presume that the measure of my dominance had been taken, and that it had proven to be natural and rewarding, rather than an artifact of ferral aggression. Furthermore, it would presume that, given my responsibility for the growth and well-being of the submissive, I would allow her to enter into such a relationship. So, except insofar as I have been one of those who was bruised as a child, and have known those who were mutliated, I am as guilty of approaching this from a fantasy-based perspective as anyone else.

My point is really simple. (Ok, well, it seems simple to me.) In reality, the decision to submit in a TPE relationship is not like a deal with the devil. If Fransisco owns Catalina's soul, it is not because he has a piece of paper that says so. The decision to submit is renewed and re-affirmed with every act of submission. When Catalina approaches Fransisco as a supplicant, and surrenders her life to him, it is only Fransisco, and only insofar as he can assume it in her stead, who absolves her of responsibility. At the trial, after the edible bits of TSOB have been pulled from the freezer, it is only Fransisco's forgiveness and absolution she can look for; it is only between them that her surrender of autonomy has merit, and her complicity in TSOB's murder and subsequent transformation into haute cuisine is only due to her surrender of will and choice by her will and choice, at every moment.

In other words, I'm not sure a submissive can turn to 'the rest of us' (everyone other than h(is/er) dominant) and in honesty say, "I am powerless". They can only say, "this is what my master has chosen for me, and what I have chosen for myself." It is not so much a question of whether they have chosen something right, wrong, good or evil. It is a question of honesty about their choices.

(no spell checking available where I am; so please forgi... um, I mean, so deal with it!)

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Think again about the legal issue here. It is quite likely that if osg had a child by her Daddy, she would legally give up all rights to the child, as do carriers for gay male parents. If she signs that piece of paper, then she is absolved of responsibility as a parent.

You should think really hard about the legal issues yourself, you know? The moment her "daddy" abuses that child in any way, shape, or form(and any "training" could potentially be seen as abuse), and osg witnesses it, she is legally compelled to report the abuse. If she fails to do so, she is complicit in the crime, and it doesn't matter if the child is her biological offspring or not.

 

[sexymom]

I'm sure my comments will irritate both sides, but something in me requires that I write anyway. First, on the issue of fantasy vs. reality; none of us can be held accountable for our fantasies, so long as that is what they are. There are several very good reasons for this, but I guess the main one is that fantasies do not damage real people or property, nor interfere with anyone else's exercise of their rights. The world would be a dangerous and dull place if we were accountable for our fantasies.

The problem seems to have come about with the statement "but I would do it in real life, if I could". This is still fantasy, though, if you think about it. None of us really know what we would do in given situations, even situations that have confronted us in the past. There are simply too many variables.

The "but you don't understand" defense is the perfect, infallible argument winner or escape clause. You can't prove something doesn't exist, because if it exists, even in one person's mind, then it does exist, and it's real, to that person. This lack of understanding works both ways. If I don't believe tpe exists, it's because I don't understand; but the tpe advocate also doesn't understand what I mean by my statement that it doesn't exist. All these arguments are hypothetical, not "real world", in that we can't observe them in action to the satisfaction of all parties.

Those of you who have been around for a while have, I'm sure, seen the same arguments about Gor, and about internet bdsm, and the similarities are amazing. The answer is, if it's real to you, it's real (that should be understood), and anyone who doesn't see nor acknowledge your reality doesn't understand. You can't be held responsible for your reality, though, except for the part of it that affects other people.

 

[Etoile]

You should think really hard about the legal issues yourself, you know? The moment her "daddy" abuses that child in any way, shape, or form(and any "training" could potentially be seen as abuse), and osg witnesses it, she is legally compelled to report the abuse. If she fails to do so, she is complicit in the crime, and it doesn't matter if the child is her biological offspring or not.

She's required to report it, yes - but not as a co-parent, which is the issue I thought we were discussing. People have been saying that osg would have responsibility as a mother, when it's entirely possible that she could legally waive that responsibility. That's the only point I was trying to make. But yes, all Americans are expected to report child abuse if they see it (or even suspect it).

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

The point that I am trying to make is that you cannot sign away your responsibilities as a human being, and to claim that you don't have them means that you are either lying(to us or to yourself), or you are a sociopath.

 

[Pure]

Johnny opined: "The point that I am trying to make is that you cannot sign away your responsibilities as a human being, [...]"

While that true in one sense, it's also true that a mom with a new born may, for example, 1) put it up for adoption [signing all the papers, etc.] ; or 2) relinquish parental rights and responsibilities to the father. 3) Either parent (or both) may reliquish rights of parents, in conjunction with placing a child in foster care (perhaps with relative) and/or letting it become a ward of the state. Some of these paths don't rid a parent of a financial responsiblity to "support", but all other rights and duties are eliminated.

Further 1) 2) and 3) among others, could according to circumstances be both moral and legal in my lay opinion.

PS. A legal duty of adults to report likely abuse of a child, is another issue entirely.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Pure, do you think you are disagreeing with me?

 

[Pure]

OK, Johnny, so you agree a biological parent may, within the bounds of morality and the law, relinquish all parental rights and responsibilities (with possible exception of a duty to make 'child support' payments)?

Let's get that agreed and out of the way.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Originally posted by me!
You should think really hard about the legal issues yourself, you know? The moment her "daddy" abuses that child in any way, shape, or form(and any "training" could potentially be seen as abuse), and osg witnesses it, she is legally compelled to report the abuse. If she fails to do so, she is complicit in the crime, and it doesn't matter if the child is her biological offspring or not.

Pure, if you examine this post, you'll see that my assertions about abuse are not tied to parental rights. Of course someone can give up their parental rights...what is your point, besides being argumentative with me for its own sake?

 

[the shadow of a boy]

While that true in one sense, it's also true that a mom with a new born may, for example, 1) put it up for adoption [signing all the papers, etc.] ; or 2) relinquish parental rights and responsibilities to the father. 3) Either parent (or both) may reliquish rights of parents, in conjunction with placing a child in foster care (perhaps with relative) and/or letting it become a ward of the state. Some of these paths don't rid a parent of a financial responsiblity to "support", but all other rights and duties are eliminated.

Further 1) 2) and 3) among others, could according to circumstances be both moral and legal in my lay opinion.

PS. A legal duty of adults to report likely abuse of a child, is another issue entirely. [/B]

The circumstance here, though, is unusual in that it is proposed that the submissive partner relinquish his/her legal rights and duties while continuing in the role of being a primary caretaker for the child. I have to confess that it entirely unclear to me what advantage this would confer on any of the three parties involved.

 

[sunfox]

BTW i also feel by continuing this topic we (yes including myself now) are feeding OSGs need for disapproval...the shock factor seems to be what she is looking for and we are all playing into it. ( i swore i wasnt gonna post here again too lol)

We're suckers, KC.. This thread is like a train wreck to me.. I can't seem to help looking.

I have to admit, I think you hit a point upon the head here. It may well be that we're feeding into a desire to seem the most extreme person here, the most controversial.

As an aside, lark.. I don't disagree with you. Were it only a fantasy, it wouldn't matter to me. I might be disgusted by it, but it's her fantasy to have. But the repeated contention that if it could be made real, she would merrily condone it.. that is what bothers me, and others. Not the fantasy, but the evidence that were it offered as reality, she would jump in with both feet, without caring that it's abuse and wrong. You can give up your parental rights. But you cannot give up your responsibility to protect a child, whether yours or not, from abuse right under your nose. There would be no excuse for allowing a situation like this to occur, slave or not.

 

[catalina_francisco]

We're suckers, KC.. This thread is like a train wreck to me.. I can't seem to help looking.

I have to admit, I think you hit a point upon the head here. It may well be that we're feeding into a desire to seem the most extreme person here, the most controversial.

And this has been mentioned here before, but train wrecks do have a way of captivating the attention whether we want to or not.

Catalina

 

[the shadow of a boy]

When does moral reasoning become the compass for pure fantasy?

Were we in one of my fantasies, you would find your capacity for moral reasoning invaluable, and the consequences of error dire. But you would actually need six or seven different compasses, and that would be only one of them.

More seriously, none of my remarks regarding moral, ethical, or legal reasoning have been concerning anything which has been presented as 'pure fantasy'. They have always adressed assertions about either hypothetical or actual reality.

 

[Etoile]

The circumstance here, though, is unusual in that it is proposed that the submissive partner relinquish his/her legal rights and duties while continuing in the role of being a primary caretaker for the child. I have to confess that it entirely unclear to me what advantage this would confer on any of the three parties involved.

I think you may have missed the part where osg said she would not be involved in the child's upbringing and would not be a caretaker for the child. Or am I misunderstanding you?

work? what do you mean I'm supposed to be working?

 

[Pure]

Johnny said,

//Pure, if you examine this post, you'll see that my assertions about abuse are not tied to parental rights. Of course someone can give up their parental rights...what is your point, besides being argumentative with me for its own sake?//

We've agreed parental rights can be given up--without a moral or legal wrong.

We've agreed adults have a duty to report likely abuse.

The whole osg question then depends on your and other's assertion that osg's master would abuse a child in his care.

There is no evidence of that, and osg has denied he is or would be an abusive parent.

The only phrase used long ago, is something like "bring her up in our ways," i.e., bdsm slavery.

There is a perfectly obvious reading of that phrase which doesn't entail abuse: 1) Raise a child who is very obedient, but otherwise 'normal' , 2) who, at the age of 18 might make a decision one way or the other. We might postulate that 3) at some point, lets say 14, she is made aware of bdsm consensual slavery, and that the woman who bore her, is in that lifestyle 24/7.

All of the above is suggested by or at least compatible with OSG's half dozen statements.

The abuse issue dealt with, the indictiment--moral or legal--for abuse collapses. If not refuted, it's entirely without evidence save a couple ambiguous phrases used early in the discussion.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

*yawn*

Ok, so this IS about you being argumentative for its own sake...alrighty then!

My point, as stated several times, is that if osg claims she has no responsibility for the safety of a child in her care(which she has, repeatedly), then I have a problem with that attitude. Don't you?