BDSM and Impregnation

[the shadow of a boy]

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?

The part that I missed was what difference this legal distinction could possibly make. I'm now asking you.

OSG's more recent words:
...yes of course if my Master decided we would have a child between us, and if it were physically possible to do so, then that is what would happen. i have no control over that. and how the child would be raised (repeating myself again) would be entirely up to him. if another slave is what he desired, that is what would be. i have no control over that, either.

I feel uncomfortable dragging OSG back to the whipping block on this one, because talking about her specifically makes it sound like we're talking about her intentions, rather than an ethical viewpoint she has, and the rationalization she gives for her hypothetical actions from the perspective of that viewpoint.

However.

Nowhere, to my recollection, has OSG suggested that the child would not be raised in the same home as herself and her master. This means that she would be involved in the child's upbringing, and would be a primary caretaker for the child. That is a matter of fact, rather than legal status.

So far, from what I've seen, the notion being discussed is that the waiver of legal status as a parent under those circustances would in some way make it ethical or understandable to feel that one was not accountable for the welfare of the child.

Unless you have a highly abstract notion of what a child is, I'm not sure how this idea can even seem significant to you.

("Hey chief, the car that says 'sulfur dioxide' on it is dripping something. Is that bad?")

 

[catalina_francisco]

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.

With a clever law defence and a lot of luck, in a court of law it might not hold as abuse, but I think many react to the bigger picture throughout the whole board over past months that a child is already witness to the lifestyle except for the sex in that household ( and encouraged to see this as normal); that injuries on osg are regular and visible for days, sometimes longer, which are already visible to a child of her Master (and can be used in most countries to remove a child); that it is a strong desire of both whether it becomes reality or not; that the chikd is always referred to as a girl child which in my experience of such fantasising master's means sexual training from an early age; and admiration for porn which depicts girls of 'questionable age'....and the list goes on.

These things tend to speak volumes to most that it is not just a return to good old fashioned obedience and respect for their elders that is sought in a child. One statement on it's own, perhaps 2, might pass by unnoticed or not taken too seriously, but it is often, frequent, and with more than a casual 'take it or leave it' attitude which I suspect makes some edgy there is not much, if anything, between fantasy and opportunistic reality. I guess some are asking themselves, would you drop your daughter off to be babysat in their house and not think twice about her safety?

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Catalina said

//you drop your daughter off to be babysat in their house and not think twice about her safety?//

Round we go.

Look. If the master runs the show, everything depends on him, e.g, the occurrence of child abuse.

In OSGs words, said repeatedly
//i have no control over that. and how the child would be raised (repeating myself again) would be entirely up to him. //

IF I thought the master was like Francisco of Hallowed Fame, I'd have no problem. If he's a weirdo with pedophile tendencies (OF WHICH NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN), then I'd keep my kids and others' away. (And try to see he's prosecuted and gets 50 years.)

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Catalina said

//you drop your daughter off to be babysat in their house and not think twice about her safety?//

Round we go.

Look. If the master runs the show, everything depends on him, e.g, the occurrence of child abuse.

IF I thought the master was like Francisco of Hallowed Fame, I'd have no problem. If he's a weirdo with pedophile tendencies (OF WHICH NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN), then I'd keep my kids and others' away. (And try to see he's prosecuted and gets 50 years.)

*grins* so, you concede that child abuse is bad, right?

 

[catalina_francisco]

IF I thought the master was like Francisco of Hallowed Fame, I'd have no problem. If he's a weirdo with pedophile tendencies (OF WHICH NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN), then I'd keep my kids and others' away. (And try to see he's prosecuted and gets 50 years.)

Thanks for the vote of confidence on F, but what would make you suspect someone had pedophelic tendencies apart from witnessing with your own eyes their dick up to the hilt inside a child's body, or them physically enabling another to perform such acts on a child? I'm just curious as Gemini's usually are.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I personally think this is a thread that will never end, the discussions will only get more and more heated and the insults will get more and more personal.

This thread leads to nothing, not understanding of each other or each other viewpoints and certainly not to persons changing their minds. I think it is pretty clear we can all see that, so why do we keep posting here, why do we keep arguing over and over about the same things.

I would not know, I really do not see any reason for it. So I am not posting on this thread anymore, if anyone wants to ask me anything about TPE or have a sincere discussion about whatever then I will be available on any other thread.

Francisco.

 

[the shadow of a boy]

With a clever law defence and a lot of luck, in a court of law it might not hold as abuse, but I think many react to the bigger picture throughout the whole board over past months that a child is already witness to the lifestyle except for the sex in that household ( and encouraged to see this as normal); that injuries on osg are regular and visible for days, sometimes longer, which are already visible to a child of her Master (and can be used in most countries to remove a child); that it is a strong desire of both whether it becomes reality or not; that the chikd is always referred to as a girl child which in my experience of such fantasising master's means sexual training from an early age; and admiration for porn which depicts girls of 'questionable age'....and the list goes on....

My apologies, but I had always assumed that this was specifically the sort of fantasy that we were talking about: that a child (almost certainly female) would be raised via extensive BDSM training, either 'benignly' (in terms of the fantasy) as an idealized 'perfect submissive' and/or child-bearer for her father, or 'malevolently' (a fantasy of indulging in unrestrained evil) as a disposable toy. The question of whether or not this is a pedophilic fantasy - ie, whether the narrative of the fantasy begins circa the child's pubescence, or well before - seems besides the point. Regardless, we are far from the fair land of Literotica, and deep into the realm of Asstr. I took this notion as confirmed when OSG refered to this as a 'perverted' fantasy in a BDSM forum, and especially when she stressed (repeatedly) that it is not something that she or her master would actually wish to see happen.

The monotonous pounding of my arguments - amongst the chorus which has made poor Francisco's head ache so - hasn't been due to an attempt to hammer out the details of the fantasy. (I have a couple of things to say regarding that in a moment.) I've been banging away at the contention, and everyone who seems to (wittingly or not) support it, that OSG, due to her TPE relationship, would be powerless to prevent such a thing were her master to order it in reality, and that she should not be blamed, by God, law, or in the eyes of man, for failing to act; furthermore, that we should understand and sympathize with this as an inevitable consequence of TPE. "I was only his slave," she would say. And although she has repeatedly stressed that the fantasy is a fantasy, she has also repeatedly reiterated this point.

Now for the points I mentioned, regarding the fantasy.

With respect to whether or not this fantasy means that OSG and her master would present a danger to a child; I think the best approach is always to take reasonable and persistent precautions with everyone, rather than have dire fears about one specific person or another. Personally, when I lived with my sister and brother-in-law, I refused to let them leave me alone to watch any of my neices friends, unless the parents knew who I was and had consented to the possibility. Not because I felt I presented any danger, nor because I thought it was foolish of my sister to not assume I might, nor even because I thought that it would particularly concern the child's parents', but just because it was a bad procedure. Should OSG and her masters' fantasies be a source of concern? Yes, especially if a correlation of information leads someone to believe that we have not yet heard the full or true story. Would a person who would ultimately seek to harm a child in this way share this fantasy or discuss it on the internet? Yes, and quite possibly. Does this mean that we should focus on OSG and her master rather than making sure that we take reasonable steps to minimize the possibility that those whom we cannot imagine harming children in our own homes and communities do not have the unfettered opportunity to do so? Definitely not.

As far as fantasies go, this is the sort of taboo unmentionable fantasy that fascinates me in terms of its origins, motives, and systems of rationalization. When OSG thinks about this, does she project herself into the role of the child raised 'submissive', or does she envision herself having the type of power, or willfully failing to prevent an exercise of power, that she was unable to imagine and/or resist as a child? Is this a fantasy stemming from (or focusing on) the injustices of childhood, or the murk and frustrations of puberty? Does the appeal of the fantasy arise despite the 'wrongness' of it, or because of that wrongness?

Anyway, I know most people don't want to discuss those things, and that people's squick alarms have been going off for days with respect to this thread. But the discussion has straddled two main themes, loosely 'the ethics of fantasy' and 'the ethics of child abuse', and I have strong opinions about both. Under other circumstances, I would say it was brave of OSG to mention this fantasy, but I share the sense that she's already been sufficiently rewarded by the reactions it has drawn.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Anyway, I know most people don't want to discuss those things, and that people's squick alarms have been going off for days with respect to this thread. But the discussion has straddled two main themes, loosely 'the ethics of fantasy' and 'the ethics of child abuse', and I have strong opinions about both. Under other circumstances, I would say it was brave of OSG to mention this fantasy, but I share the sense that she's already been sufficiently rewarded by the reactions it has drawn.

This thread was not the beginning of this discussion in reality, nor does it seem to be the end...and I would go so far as to say it is not restricted to this board/site alone, or osg and her lifestyle choices and/or fantasies...is not solely about fantasy, but realities as well...and as GBB says, she likes to create discussion which will stir up things, and in creating this thread she has a huge success.

I actually think the discussion is good, especially in relation to people thinking beyond what they see in relation to their children's safety, and often overlooking obvious signs for fear of looking stupid or over protective. As a parent and also a professional, I have on more than one occasion had to comfort parents who hit the panic buttons too late, or lived with the guilt of knowing they did not heed what was before their eyes because they felt it was unfair or stupid to act on their gut instincts, or a few signals. Hindsight is not of advantage at these times, so where I see discussions which raise awareness, I am all for it.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

IT's said this thread is endless.

Here's why. IMO. Most people won't put their cards on the table. They try to score easy points on the child abuse issue, without any evidence, *and, specifically in the absence of a child.*

IMO, a number of people think OSG is abused; but it's *very uncool to say of anything labeled "bdsm" that it's abuse. It's like the Catholic church of 40 years ago; some things just aren't said.

Spouse-type abuse also is an area totally UNamenable to being decided by internet postings, but that doesn't stop anyone. People have this feeling or speculation, and it drives them into irrelevant arguments:
Look what [in their fantasy] would happen to a child.

 

[sunfox]

IT's said this thread is endless.

Here's why. IMO. Most people won't put their cards on the table. They try to score easy points on the child abuse issue, without any evidence, *and, specifically in the absence of a child.*

IMO, a number of people think OSG is abused; but it's *very uncool to say of anything labeled "bdsm" that it's abuse. It's like the Catholic church of 40 years ago; some things just aren't said.

Spouse-type abuse also is an area totally UNamenable to being decided by internet postings, but that doesn't stop anyone. People have this feeling or speculation, and it drives them into irrelevant arguments:
Look what [in their fantasy] would happen to a child.

I think the point you're continually allowing to fly past you, Pure, is that I, and probably others, are not attempting to score points.

My cards have been openly on the table from the first time I posted here. My words are my opinion. I don't expect in any way that my feelings will alter anyone else's opinion. But the nature of a discussion is for everyone to offer their opinions, and why they feel that way. That has been done, quite to death, on every point of view offered.

Do I think OSG is abused? Not to be mean, but I don't really give a shit. If she wants what she gets, it's her deal. She is not like a spousally abused person, imo. That is a different kind of abuse from consensual beatings. Either way, different strokes for different folks, and she doesn't seem to be at all worried about any beatings she receives.. it is just a part of her life, and she is content with it. More power to her.

My opinion on a child's raising, hypothetical or not, is unchanged, and will never change. You can offer all the 'no one has convinced -me- yet though, so this subject cannot be dropped' complaints that you like... it won't matter to me. I made my point, my opinion is set in stone. You can agree, or you can not agree, or you can completely not understand... I don't care. It's a discussion board, we've discussed. I don't agree with you. So what? Let it go.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Interesting bucket of worms

Thanks Francisco. Eloquent as usual, and pretty much dead on the money.

As for the rest of you that have expounded on your limits, congrats. You've chosen them as your limits, but understand the world isn't Black and White. For every one of you that feel comfortable in whatever kink you've chosen, i can find 9 people off the street that would consider you sick and perverted, including the laws of various states and countries. Pure did most of the legal exposition. i'll leave that niche to him.

As an extension, histrionics aside please, i'd like to hear how others show/don't show dominance and submission in a household with children present and why.

 

[Pure]

Sunfox said,

My opinion on a child's raising, hypothetical or not, is unchanged, and will never change. You can offer all the 'no one has convinced -me- yet though, so this subject [OSG and hypothetical child] cannot be dropped' complaints that you like... it won't matter to me. I made my point, my opinion is set in stone.

That's fine. Write your own Holy Writ. Put it on an altar. Revere it.

It's notable that you say your opinions on OSG etc. (I presume) will 'never change.' --given that the total of the facts you 'know' about her and her master could be put into a dozen sentences, I suspect.

What keeps you posting saying 'I'm not listening'? Enjoy your certainty, re-read your old postings and say "I agree; very well put," and save on further typing

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Interesting bucket of worms

Thanks Francisco. Eloquent as usual, and pretty much dead on the money.

As for the rest of you that have expounded on your limits, congrats. You've chosen them as your limits, but understand the world isn't Black and White. For every one of you that feel comfortable in whatever kink you've chosen, i can find 9 people off the street that would consider you sick and perverted, including the laws of various states and countries. Pure did most of the legal exposition. i'll leave that niche to him.

As an extension, histrionics aside please, i'd like to hear how others show/don't show dominance and submission in a household with children present and why.

I don't think you are getting what we are saying, dude... no one here is addressing the idea of D/s with a child in the house. We are specifically addressing the idea of including children in the activities of the D/s relationship. Do you understand that part? I know pure doesn't seem to get it.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Re: Re: Interesting bucket of worms

I don't think you are getting what we are saying, dude... no one here is addressing the idea of D/s with a child in the house. We are specifically addressing the idea of including children in the activities of the D/s relationship. Do you understand that part? I know pure doesn't seem to get it.

aka pedophilia...there its been said folks...go to town on it!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Re: Re: Interesting bucket of worms

aka pedophilia...there its been said folks...go to town on it!

Pure won't want to talk about it, or at least he has refused to so far. He'll talk about osg's abuse or lack of it, or how we should respect the kinks of others, or about the legality of surrendering parental authority. He hasn't yet addressed the actual point, which is osg's statements that she cannot and will not lift a finger to prevent child abuse or pedophilia if her "Master" tells her not to. Further, for the posting she makes generally, she will submit to any man who tells her to, because she is a "natural slave"(naturally full of shit too, but I digress). So, basically, her Master, or any man, can rape, abuse, or possibly even murder a child in her presence, and she will do nothing about it.

And, while she may claim it is just a fantasy, she also claims to be involved in some of the most extreme behavior already...so when does this cross the line into reality? If it ever does, we know how she will behave...

 

[sigsauerprinces]

Re: Re: Re: Interesting bucket of worms

aka pedophilia...there its been said folks...go to town on it!

lol..im done with this thread. i am taking the advice of a few wise individuals on this site and deciding not to respond anymore. especially since i have doubts that certain things and relationships spoken about by a certain person are even real in the first place.

oops..did i just say that?

the "I want to be the hardest most extreme subbie here on lit" attitude bores the shit out of me.

and besides, IM the hardest most extreme subbie

 

[Kajira Callista]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting bucket of worms

lol..im done with this thread. i am taking the advice of a few wise individuals on this site and deciding not to respond anymore. especially since i have doubts that certain things and relationships spoken about by a certain person are even real in the first place.

oops..did i just say that?

the "I want to be the hardest most extreme subbie here on lit" attitude bores the shit out of me.

and besides, IM the hardest most extreme subbie

hehehe thought i was...
anyway while im still in rant mode here there really is one more thing i would like to say. A D/s or M/s or whatever term you choose to use is a relationship based on sexually preference....bottom line. You can color it anyway ya want ...call it, see it, feel it any way ya want. But when you say you would raise an innocent child to be a sex object/possesion dont expect ppl to not be upset by it. In my opinion what has been implied here is more then immoral its inhumane. (Hmm that was two things but who's counting at this point right?)

 

[Pure]

Johnny opined:

He [Pure]hasn't yet addressed the actual point, which is osg's statements that she cannot and will not lift a finger to prevent child abuse or pedophilia if her "Master" tells her not to.

An utter distortion. Supply quote.

Further, for the posting she makes generally, she will submit to any man who tells her to, because she is a "natural slave"(naturally full of shit too, but I digress).

This is out and out false.

So, basically, her Master, or any man, can rape, abuse, or possibly even murder a child in her presence, and she will do nothing about it.

Yes, she definitely said she'd help Jeff Dahmer with some kids... in Johnny Mayberry's mind at least.

Hell, she'd help Adolph Hitler set up extermination camps!

There don't we all feel better! (We of superior morality.)

Despite the efforts of AngelicAssassin, with a perfectly sane question, regarding children, the thread gets deeper and deeper in steaming horseshit. Where the fuck are the kids when all this healthy beating, whipping, 'submitting', 24-7 'domination' is going on?

Why hasn't the alleged unhealthiness of "mom" taking orders and being second fiddle to 'pops' been raised for others besides OSG and her nonexistent child.?


J.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Johnny opined:

He [Pure]hasn't yet addressed the actual point, which is osg's statements that she cannot and will not lift a finger to prevent child abuse or pedophilia if her "Master" tells her not to.

An utter distortion. Supply quote.

Further, for the posting she makes generally, she will submit to any man who tells her to, because she is a "natural slave"(naturally full of shit too, but I digress).

This is out and out false.

So, basically, her Master, or any man, can rape, abuse, or possibly even murder a child in her presence, and she will do nothing about it.

Yes, she definitely said she'd help Jeff Dahmer with some kids... in Johnny Mayberry's mind at least.

Hell, she'd help Adolph Hitler set up extermination camps!

There don't we all feel better! (We of superior morality.)

Despite the efforts of AngelicAssassin, with a perfectly sane question, regarding children, the thread gets deeper and deeper in steaming horseshit. Where the fuck are the kids when all this healthy beating, whipping, 'submitting', 24-7 'domination' is going on?

Why hasn't the alleged unhealthiness of "mom" taking orders and being second fiddle to 'pops' been raised for others besides OSG and her nonexistent child.?


J.

See how you avoided the point everyone else is discussing, in favor of idscussing a point that no one else is debating? I expect your NEXT move will be to a) edit a post, b) bring up a quote of mine from the middle of last year regarding my masturbation habits, or c) restate some other issue that no one is discussing.

 

[Romany]

Originally posted by Johnny Mayberry
See how you avoided the point everyone else is discussing, in favor of idscussing a point that no one else is debating? I expect your NEXT move will be to a) edit a post, b) bring up a quote of mine from the middle of last year regarding my masturbation habits, or c) restate some other issue that no one is discussing.

lol Johnny I like your style. I am not sure if it was your intention, but you injected some well needed humour into this tragic thread.

As for the rest..........

There is no doubt in my mind, what would go on if a certain person deemed it should; and that being the case it would be morally, ethically, legally etc. etc. WRONG. But you ain't ever gonna get certain folks to agree no matter what you say, or however well you say it.

As to the issue of legality -v- morality......... I could have signed away all legal rights to my child the day she was born, and provided she was adopted, fostered, whatever but raised somewhere other than under my nose I might be able to say (in the event of some future abuse of her) I am neither legally nor morally responsible for what happens to her. However, should I sign the same piece of paper and she was raised right under my nose and I did nothing should she be abused then I damn well would have been both legally and morally responsible.

Whatever way you choose to cut it being in a 'lifestyle' does not negate your responsibilities as a human being!

I too had done posting here; particularly as I got flamed for a 'figure of speech', but hell the reason I posted in the first place was cos certain comments got right under my skin and I guess that hasn't and wont change no matter whatever else is said.

Anyhow, rude or not, at least your kids, hypothetical, fantasy, or real, would be safe with me!

 

[Kajira Callista]

Whatever way you choose to cut it being in a 'lifestyle' does not negate your responsibilities as a human being!




Exactly!!!!! Thank you Romany. Just one more thing (because im just such a damned masochist) Maybe it can be understood in a different way for those who still dont seem to get it. Would you impose your lifestyle on another adult...would you force a scene without some sort of consent from them? Im betting the answer is no. But to do that to a child....would be ok?

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

*edit*

 

[Etoile]

Re: Interesting bucket of worms

As an extension, histrionics aside please, i'd like to hear how others show/don't show dominance and submission in a household with children present and why.

Sounds like a good thread to go start!

Added: Holy crap. For some reason all along I've been thinking Pure is female. Whoa!

 

[Pure]

/JM/See how you avoided the point everyone else is discussing//

I took your post piece by piece; hard to see how that could avoid the point.

The point, as I see it, and apart from your silly posturing, is that some say this hypothetical child of OSG would be abused, because of what they hypothesize the 'master' would do, and what they hypothesize OSG would do.

If you're willing to make all these hypotheses, sure. If the frog had wings, he would not bump his ass so often. But no good reasons have ever been given for them, evidence, etc.

I see no need to bring up your masturbation postings, since it's obvious the practice DID result is some addling, inability to focus, and tendency to vituperation.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

That's funny, how you tried so hard not to talk about me jerking off, and then did it anyways. Now that you have gotten my wanking out of your system, go back and read osg's posts again, ok?