BDSM and Impregnation

[catalina_francisco]

I've never seen a TPE slave who didn't eventually get put in this kind of a hot seat.

"If he told you to jump off a bridge, would you?"

It's a moot point. The slave knows the other person isn't going to ask. It's as likely as me telling M to jump off a bridge or for a parent to tell their child to do it, so why on earth would Mastery lend itself more quickly to homicidal lusts against a loved one?

I honestly don't know why this always plays out this way.

I have to agree, but it does usually come down to that from my experience because simply people do have a problem coming to terms with that concept of 'no limits' TPE and accepting it is not a 'but if I was asked to do blah blah blah, I wouldn't' situation. osg, as well as Francisco and myself have repeatedly explained our concepts and that we understand it is not for most people, but it is no less a real concept for us, but there is still a difficulty for some not living it to understand and/or comprehend it's foundations and their importance.

I guess in some ways it is the same as my difficulty relating to the opposite concept of someone submitting 100% in their opinion, but then listing all the circumstances which would be deal breakers...I understand it but cannot relate to it personally. I don't have a problem explaining our reality, though I hate having to defend it repeatedly as I am sure osg does. Thanks Netzach for understanding it even though it is not your own chosen path.

Catalina

 

[sigsauerprinces]

im not hating on ownedsubgal. i like some of the same extreme things she does. but when ppl start talking about abusing kids, i get pissed off.

francisco-i understand what you're saying, i really do. i guess i dont agree with TPE then. at least not on principle. i mean id do anything for my bf/master.if someone was threatening his life, id kill them. id beat up someone for him. sell my ass on the street for him. anyting like that. but id never fucking have a kid for him to be a slave.you know?

i want to say again im not putting down anyones lifestyle. but i think being SO into TPE that youd let a child be abused, is wrong.

 

[Etoile]

If you want to search you can probably find some of the stories from a few years back about the issue I was talking about. It was in some of the counties that don't allow hunting & are more urbanized, where the deer were wandering in & ending up on the streets sometimes in groups, with no good way to remove them.

I'm familiar with overpopulation issues (we have them here in Fairfax County too), and I'm familiar with crashes caused by deer, but I'll have to take your word for it about that specific issue of hunting deer. I guess your original post about it made it seem like deer were swarming cities in herds, so I reacted a little strongly. It's clearly not that big a problem.

And for the record, I grew up in Columbia, went to college in Westminster, and my agency's main office is in Silver Spring.

 

[Etoile]

Since this is kind of turning into a discussion about TPE, is this an okay place for me to ask what happens when a TPE relationship ends? I have very little experience with relationships of any kind ending (I guess I'm lucky that way) but I'm sure there are TPE relationships that end just like everybody else. Or should I start another thread for this?

I think another misconception about TPE is that the sub has zero say in anything. I suspect that in certain instances, a dom will consult their sub about their opinion, and then incorporate that into their decision. Maybe things will go the way the sub prefers, maybe not - it is ultimately the dom's choice, after all - but there are situations in which the sub can at least voice an opinion.

Does it show that I'd like to be in a TPE relationship myself?

 

[Pure]

From impregnation to hunting to TPE, this thread is a runaway train! I reproduce some comments below:

OSG: fantasies of being impregnated by my Master for the purpose of breeding another little slave girl for him to raise up in our ways....


OSG: i'm sorry you miss the point of fantasy, and sorry that you are unable to open your mind enough to see the beauty that exists in our household. agreeing or disagreeing with someone else's ways or beliefs is beside the point entirely....but making judgements based on more assumption and zealousness than actual knowledge, and outright disrespect, imo have no place in a discussion between intelligent adults.

LH: Nice and I'm sure the weaker souled will think you some kind of strong heroin for this but in truth, as i see it, it is all BS.

Do as you wish osg, but do not suppose to think for me on my objection to your litany of garbled beliefs. What you find "sorrowful" I find reinforcing. You, in my opinion, are an unstable and wanting individual. Disagree with and dislike me, matters not.

I find your drivel just what it is, drivel. I'm not enamored with your "apperant" rawness and I find you quite conflicted in many of your own posts.

You state you cannot object to any person's whims beacues you are this super sub yet you then state that you go to clubs and seek out people to fuck. I peronally believe you are either half full of shit or deeply troubled. But hell, why should my opinion count?

When you bring children into the equation osg, you damn well should expect harsh feedback. I will use Daddy in quotations as I see fit and did so with intent when I did. When I post I am exposing myself to critisism, as are we all.

I disagree with you now and it seems I always will. Do whatever you want osg, just be prepared to reap what you've sown.
[end LH]
----
SSP:im not hating on ownedsubgal. i like some of the same extreme things she does. but when ppl start talking about abusing kids, i get pissed off.

SSP:

ownedsubgal-if youre Master told you tonight "pet i want us to have children, ive changed my mind. we will have children and we will raise our little girl to be our slave", what would you do?

OSG
as for our fantasy...of course if my Master decided that it was going to happen, it would happen (if nature allowed, of course). but as for sigsauer's question about it being "our" slave, that would not happen, i can't even speak on that hypothetically. as a slave i cannot own or have power over another. but again this is all about things that will not happen anyway, so i'm not really seeing the point in the questions.

------
It seems Limbhugger in particular has blown off steam insultingly, but has several sympathizers, and even SSP is ready to imply OSG is preaching child abuse (i.e., being open to doing/allowing it).

It seems to me that a number of persons are trying to have it both ways: Our life style is fine and (bdsm) slavery is not abuse.
BUT were it carried through to the next generation, that IS abuse.

I know a number of weird analogies have been proposed, but consider this one. An adult woman says, "I am a fundamentalist[Christian/Muslim/Jew], and we believe in the authority of the Father, and that the earthly father represents him; the wife owes total obedience as do the children. I hope to bear a child, a girl who will be similarly
situated in our lifestyle: first she will obey her father as a child; at some point agreed by him, she may transfer obedience to a husband."

Now this scenario can be taken to unpalatable extremes, but it's rather common. A number of earthly fathers have had this unrestricted power, from Biblical to Roman times, in China and elsewhere.


Question: Is this wife proposing to abuse or allow the abuse of her child?

OSG has already made some of the necessary points, e.g., that we shouldn't assume the worst; that it's a loving arrangement, and a committed one; that the father is NOT going use his power to make the wife into stew. etc.

My answer to my question: There's not enough evidence to conclude, as Limb screams, and SSP suggests, that there is or will be abuse. Further if you do say it's abuse, you must be consistent and apply that label to the wife's (OSG's) situation. You can't have it both ways.

And if you tell me OSG is being abused in any but your personal sense of the term, i.e., in a legal sense, I say, "Where is your evidence?"

 

[catalina_francisco]

francisco-i understand what you're saying, i really do. i guess i dont agree with TPE then. at least not on principle. i mean id do anything for my bf/master.if someone was threatening his life, id kill them. id beat up someone for him. sell my ass on the street for him. anyting like that. but id never fucking have a kid for him to be a slave.you know?

The question really is do you believe your bf/master would ever ask that of you?

See this is the misconception, a slave decides whom their owner is going to be. It is a choosing first from the slave and then, only then do they give power over themselves to someone else.

Catalina is my 24/7 TPE slave/partner, she would never have accepted me as her Master if I would be the kind of man who would demand something of the sort. In our relationship we first had hard limits between us, and yes one of those had to do with children. It was only after we had been married for almost a year that Catalina out of her own accord removed any hard limits. Nothing really changed between us; her hard limits are also my hard limits.

To have a successful TPE relationship you need to find a partner that is perfectly compatible with you. The kind of love osg describes between her and her Master is something quite common in 24/7 TPE and by the way is not limited to heterosexual couples. I have seen a multitude of leather queer couples living TPE which were incredibly in love, to whom loosing their partner would be like ripping out their heart.

Francisco.

 

[Etoile]

The kind of love osg describes between her and her Master is something quite common in 24/7 TPE and by the way is not limited to heterosexual couples. I have seen a multitude of leather queer couples living TPE which were incredibly in love, to whom loosing their partner would be like ripping out their heart.

The last comment struck me as kind of surprising. Why wouldn't queer couples of any kind (kinky, vanilla, whatever) be as in love as heterosexual couples? Anyone who is in love would have their heart ripped out if they lost their partner. I'm not trying to come across as defensive, I'm just surprised to hear a comment like that.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Since this is kind of turning into a discussion about TPE, is this an okay place for me to ask what happens when a TPE relationship ends? I have very little experience with relationships of any kind ending (I guess I'm lucky that way) but I'm sure there are TPE relationships that end just like everybody else. Or should I start another thread for this?

I think another misconception about TPE is that the sub has zero say in anything. I suspect that in certain instances, a dom will consult their sub about their opinion, and then incorporate that into their decision. Maybe things will go the way the sub prefers, maybe not - it is ultimately the dom's choice, after all - but there are situations in which the sub can at least voice an opinion.

Does it show that I'd like to be in a TPE relationship myself?

Lots of questions and maybe we should continue this in Mr Blonde’s thread “Attention 24/7'ers: What misconceptions do people have about 24/7 relationships?,” but since you have asked I do not see why I should not answer. I am always a sucker for your beautiful bright eyes, Etoile.

I have been in one previous TPE relationship before that one ended just like any other relationship can end, we grew apart and we were not fulfilling each others needs. I learned something out of it though, to be successful in having a TPE relationship the involved persons need to be very compatible. What happens depends on the persons involved and the agreements that the involved parties made when entering the relationship. It can be a very complicated process but so can be the ending of any relationship.

For your second question I can be very quick and short in my answer, only Dominants who are complete morons do not consult their partner and ask from time to time their advice. The decision is always of the Dominant, the responsibility is always that of the Dominant, but the brain and knowledge used to get to that decision could very well be the Dominants partner.

And for your third question I think to an extent the power you have given your daddy comes close, very close to a TPE just not a 24/7 TPE.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

The last comment struck me as kind of surprising. Why wouldn't queer couples of any kind (kinky, vanilla, whatever) be as in love as heterosexual couples? Anyone who is in love would have their heart ripped out if they lost their partner. I'm not trying to come across as defensive, I'm just surprised to hear a comment like that.

Lots of D/s hetrosexual couples disengage themselves from non heterosexual couples, I was just making sure that I was not making that same mistake; you could say I am defensive about it since Catalina is Bi.

Francisco.

 

[Etoile]

Lots of D/s hetrosexual couples disengage themselves from non heterosexual couples, I was just making sure that I was not making that same mistake; you could say I am defensive about it since Catalina is Bi.

Ah, okay. I guess my involvement in queer BDSM circles has kept me from realizing there was a separation encouraged by het couples.

 

[GodBlessBreasts]

This is the best post on this thread. Thanks, Pure.

From impregnation to hunting to TPE, this thread is a runaway train! I reproduce some comments below:

OSG: fantasies of being impregnated by my Master for the purpose of breeding another little slave girl for him to raise up in our ways....


OSG: i'm sorry you miss the point of fantasy, and sorry that you are unable to open your mind enough to see the beauty that exists in our household. agreeing or disagreeing with someone else's ways or beliefs is beside the point entirely....but making judgements based on more assumption and zealousness than actual knowledge, and outright disrespect, imo have no place in a discussion between intelligent adults.

LH: Nice and I'm sure the weaker souled will think you some kind of strong heroin for this but in truth, as i see it, it is all BS.

Do as you wish osg, but do not suppose to think for me on my objection to your litany of garbled beliefs. What you find "sorrowful" I find reinforcing. You, in my opinion, are an unstable and wanting individual. Disagree with and dislike me, matters not.

I find your drivel just what it is, drivel. I'm not enamored with your "apperant" rawness and I find you quite conflicted in many of your own posts.

You state you cannot object to any person's whims beacues you are this super sub yet you then state that you go to clubs and seek out people to fuck. I peronally believe you are either half full of shit or deeply troubled. But hell, why should my opinion count?

When you bring children into the equation osg, you damn well should expect harsh feedback. I will use Daddy in quotations as I see fit and did so with intent when I did. When I post I am exposing myself to critisism, as are we all.

I disagree with you now and it seems I always will. Do whatever you want osg, just be prepared to reap what you've sown.
[end LH]
----
SSP:im not hating on ownedsubgal. i like some of the same extreme things she does. but when ppl start talking about abusing kids, i get pissed off.

SSP:

ownedsubgal-if youre Master told you tonight "pet i want us to have children, ive changed my mind. we will have children and we will raise our little girl to be our slave", what would you do?

OSG
as for our fantasy...of course if my Master decided that it was going to happen, it would happen (if nature allowed, of course). but as for sigsauer's question about it being "our" slave, that would not happen, i can't even speak on that hypothetically. as a slave i cannot own or have power over another. but again this is all about things that will not happen anyway, so i'm not really seeing the point in the questions.

------
It seems Limbhugger in particular has blown off steam insultingly, but has several sympathizers, and even SSP is ready to imply OSG is preaching child abuse (i.e., being open to doing/allowing it).

It seems to me that a number of persons are trying to have it both ways: Our life style is fine and (bdsm) slavery is not abuse.
BUT were it carried through to the next generation, that IS abuse.

I know a number of weird analogies have been proposed, but consider this one. An adult woman says, "I am a fundamentalist[Christian/Muslim/Jew], and we believe in the authority of the Father, and that the earthly father represents him; the wife owes total obedience as do the children. I hope to bear a child, a girl who will be similarly
situated in our lifestyle: first she will obey her father as a child; at some point agreed by him, she may transfer obedience to a husband."

Now this scenario can be taken to unpalatable extremes, but it's rather common. A number of earthly fathers have had this unrestricted power, from Biblical to Roman times, in China and elsewhere.


Question: Is this wife proposing to abuse or allow the abuse of her child?

OSG has already made some of the necessary points, e.g., that we shouldn't assume the worst; that it's a loving arrangement, and a committed one; that the father is NOT going use his power to make the wife into stew. etc.

My answer to my question: There's not enough evidence to conclude, as Limb screams, and SSP suggests, that there is or will be abuse. Further if you do say it's abuse, you must be consistent and apply that label to the wife's (OSG's) situation. You can't have it both ways.

And if you tell me OSG is being abused in any but your personal sense of the term, i.e., in a legal sense, I say, "Where is your evidence?"

 

[sunfox]

I'm lazy, and I'm not going to go back and quote all to hell from Pure's post. But I wanted to reply to something, as I have been one of the people who commented in response to the potential for abuse of a child in such a situation.

"And if you tell me OSG is being abused in any but your personal sense of the term, i.e., in a legal sense, I say, "Where is your evidence?" "

Whether or not OSG is, in my opinion, being abused, doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. She is an adult, and has made a decision on what she wants for her life based on her desires and personal choice.

However, as a parent, I know that there are things I have to put aside so as to provide a good atmosphere for my daughter to be raised in. Regardless of the fact that it may be my desire to spend an entire day in a blindfold, or a gag, or bound in some way.. it is impossible. I have a child to raise, and I cannot indulge my personal desire at this point in my life.

If a child becomes involved, it is an entirely different thing than OSG choosing to be beaten, raped, given to various men, etc. That is her choice, as an adult. No police intervention can do jack without her pressing charges, which of course she would not wish to do.

But a child does not make the decision to see an adult figure in the family bruised, bloody, etc. And raising a child in a situation where the desire is to make of that child a slave, without the child being an adult to make the decision for himself/herself, is pure and simple abuse.

That is the issue I see, is that -should- OSG's Daddy decide he wants her pregnant for exactly that purpose, she would not argue with him. That is the thing I have a problem with. It's that simple.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Not that osg needs any defending, but there is something which so many who are not in a 24/7 TPE relationship simply do not understand, osg is a 24/7 slave, she has no choice in whatever she does. This is the depth of her commitment towards her Master, it is total, and whatever he would demand of her she would rather die then fail him.

When an 24/7 TPE slave gives themselves to their owner there is a negotiation, sometimes limits are set which will not and can not be passed and sometimes the trust of the slave in the owner is of such proportions that they give them selves without any limits. The trust in their owner and the owner’s morals is absolute, by doing this they give up the power of choice. There are no more limits in the mind of osg; she will do whatever her Master tells her to do.

The question will you have a child and raise it according to your Master’s wishes is irrelevant to osg, the power does not lie with her to agree or disagree with her Master’s wishes. The decision is her Masters and the question should be asked to her Master not osg, the responsibility lies with him not osg.

Francisco.

thank you for this post Francisco. it is a point which is so simple for those of us living and loving within a M/s union to accept and understand, but which others will likely never be able to grasp. i do not make decisions for myself of for our relationship. i cannot say what will and will not happen. the idea of me arguing or fighting a command/desire of my Master's is just unfathomable to me...not because i agree with everything he says, or because i want everything he wants...but merely because i am his property. and property does not have rights or power or a vote. although i do not believe that two people in a TPE/(no limits/Master/slave, or whatever you choose to call it), relationship have to be perfectly compatible. i've never encountered any two people who were compatible in all ways regarding all things, all the time. i think the key is in being MOSTLY compatible, and in being commitment minded to the extreme. being able to accept that this is the way it is, the way it will be, period...no negotiations, exceptions, or what ifs.

 

[Pure]

Replies to Francisco, OSG,

Francisco said,

The question will you have a child and raise it according to your Master’s wishes is irrelevant to osg, the power does not lie with her to agree or disagree with her Master’s wishes. The decision is her Masters and the question should be asked to her Master not osg, the responsibility lies with him not osg.

Francisco.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

osg replied,


thank you for this post Francisco. it is a point which is so simple for those of us living and loving within a M/s union to accept and understand, but which others will likely never be able to grasp. i do not make decisions for myself of for our relationship. i cannot say what will and will not happen. the idea of me arguing or fighting a command/desire of my Master's is just unfathomable to me...
=======

With all due respect, I think both postings miss a key point, namely whether abuse is and would be occurring. F and OSG generally ignore this point.

Sunfox, Limb, and others, to the contrary allege that, if implemented, the plan is 'pure and simple abuse.'

IF (hypothetically) that were the case, then Francisco's statement
the responsibility lies with him not osg. is simply false, from a legal perspective.

If a spouse sees abuse and does nothing, the spouse is complicit and part of a criminal act. The alleged contract has no legal validity, not exculpatory value.

Hence OSG's statement "I do not make decisions for myself", while possibly true, is without legal effect if there is abuse. IF there were abuse, the prosecutor would allege either: 1) that a 'decision' was made by default, to let the child be abused OR 2) since the laws specify negligence and recklessness with respect to a child's safety as culpable, the OSG was negligent or reckless, even if there was no decision.

These points are why I argued around the core issues: 1) is osg being abused?, and 2) would a child of hers, raised in the relationship as a 'bdsm' slave' be necessarily abused if ruled similarly by the Master? (I proposed that the answers were 'no' and 'there's insufficient evidence to answer' respectively.)

At least sunfox addressed these key issues.

Francisco did not.

Reply to sunfox in following posting, as this is long enough.

J.

 

[Pure]

Reply to sunfox

You have addressed what I take to be the core issues: 1) is osg being abused?, and 2) would a child of hers, raised in the relationship as a 'bdsm' slave' be necessarily abused if ruled similarly by the Master?

sunfox says says 'no' to 1) and 'yes' to 2), a position I argued to be inconsistent. Her(?) reason:

And raising a child in a situation where the desire is to make of that child a slave, without the child being an adult to make the decision for himself/herself, is pure and simple abuse.

When having a surface appeal, a little thinking shows this key point to be false, and hence sunfox's answer to 2) is unfounded.

sunfox ignores my example of the fundamentalist family raising and grooming daughters for patriarchy. surely she(?) knows this is widespread. are all these families abusive? a lesson white feminists learned in the 60s was that women's view, where women live in other cultures, must be respected.

further, sunfox ignores a host of counterexamples to her contention: we necessarily inculcate obedience to all kinds of things in children, even if there isn't a Yahwist patriarch. from not stealing, to obeying policemen. we don't wait to eighteen and say 'it's your choice.' all religious instruction is also like this.

So sunfox's position, while theoretically posssible, would label most US families and a majority of families in the world as abusive.

Lastly sunfox's stress on 'making decisions for him/herself' is an admirable yuppie goal for a child. It's not a Chinese or Latin American goal. And in the US, it could not, in itself, be the basis for an actual abuse case. Psychological damage sometimes is, but it's entirely unclear if a female child's obedient tendencies would be construed as actual damage, even if the judge didn't admire them.

sunfox, again I reiterate: If the bdsm or "TPE" lifestyle is fine, fulfiling and honorable, why is its inculcation in a child not likewise honorable? your and others arguments, i maintain, treat the lifestyle as a parent treats an addiction or unwelcome 'gay' choice: You say, "Well, OK, I do it, and if you choose it as an adult I won't say anything, but I'm not going to trying to incline you, as my child, to my lifestyle. It's just too painful, and too big a burden/source of anxiety/stigma, what have you."

J.

 

[sunfox]

Reply to sunfox

You have addressed what I take to be the core issues: 1) is osg being abused?, and 2) would a child of hers, raised in the relationship as a 'bdsm' slave' be necessarily abused if ruled similarly by the Master?

sunfox says says 'no' to 1) and 'yes' to 2), a position I argued to be inconsistent. Her(?) reason:

Yes, her. And unfortunately, it is the nature of human thought to be inconsistent. I am no more or no less guilty of it than anyone else. I rarely see things in a completely black or white way.

And raising a child in a situation where the desire is to make of that child a slave, without the child being an adult to make the decision for himself/herself, is pure and simple abuse.

When having a surface appeal, a little thinking shows this key point to be false, and hence sunfox's answer to 2) is unfounded.

sunfox ignores my example of the fundamentalist family raising and grooming daughters for patriarchy. surely she(?) knows this is widespread. are all these families abusive? a lesson white feminists learned in the 60s was that women's view, where women live in other cultures, must be respected.

further, sunfox ignores a host of counterexamples to her contention: we necessarily inculcate obedience to all kinds of things in children, even if there isn't a Yahwist patriarch. from not stealing, to obeying policemen. we don't wait to eighteen and say 'it's your choice.' all religious instruction is also like this.

In contention, I do not ignore a host of counterexamples. I am one of those religiously raised children. My father is a pastor. However, I was never encouraged to blindly obey. My parents have always encouraged me to think for myself, and make a decision for myself.. with the understanding that I must perforce live with the choice I have made, with no one to blame but myself. That thinking, however, does not in any way apply to a child too young to think in such a complex fashion, such as my fifteen month old daughter. If I begin inducting my child into slavery from birth, I am taking the choice to indulge in a Master/slave relationship on her own away from her.

So sunfox's position, while theoretically posssible, would label most US families and a majority of families in the world as abusive.

Again, overgeneralizing, and incorrect. My position would only make a US family or family in the world abusive if they were doing as was indicated in this thread, and producing children only to raise them to be mindless automaton sexual slaves. (Let me at this point add that I do not mean with that statement to label OSG as such.. but that raising a child with no other possibility of life for themselves, would likely make them so.)

Lastly sunfox's stress on 'making decisions for him/herself' is an admirable yuppie goal for a child. It's not a Chinese or Latin American goal. And in the US, it could not, in itself, be the basis for an actual abuse case. Psychological damage sometimes is, but it's entirely unclear if a female child's obedient tendencies would be construed as actual damage, even if the judge didn't admire them.

I fail to see how raising a child not to get into cars with strangers, or take drugs, can in any way be compared with raising a child for the purpose of being a sexual slave. So I'll just let this one slide.

sunfox, again I reiterate: If the bdsm or "TPE" lifestyle is fine, fulfiling and honorable, why is its inculcation in a child not likewise honorable? your and others arguments, i maintain, treat the lifestyle as a parent treats an addiction or unwelcome 'gay' choice: You say, "Well, OK, I do it, and if you choose it as an adult I won't say anything, but I'm not going to trying to incline you, as my child, to my lifestyle. It's just too painful, and too big a burden/source of anxiety/stigma, what have you."

J.

I never stated that BDSM or TPE is honorable, and I feel honor has very little to do with the discussion at hand. My point of view is exactly that, mine. You are not required to agree with me, or even understand me. But while I don't feel that BDSM, or D/s, or TPE is in any way an addiction or an unwelcome choice... I do feel it is a choice best made as a fully aware participant, not someone raised to not know any different. That is not a choice. It's an induction. Choices are made with two or more potential paths. Raising someone in one path, as a slave, takes the choice out of it. While I appreciate your pseudo-psychological attempt to read into my words and tell me what they really mean... your attempt was rather off the mark, and incorrect. But I appreciate your reply, and hope that I managed to make my position more clear, even though I'm immensely tired.

(*edited to fix my screwed bold setting. I reiterate.. tired. )

 

[niteshade]

I am sorry you have felt so attacked Dionysus2003 and His maenad, but I have to agree with LH I did not read pet4u to be saying it was sick of your or anyone's Dominant to choose the timing of a pregnancy...in fact many vanilla relationships are on a similar basis due to financial constraints etc. I also think it fine you are in agreement you do not want to raise your child/ren in the lifestyle so as to influence them in any way. It is a wise decision for many reasons.

I think perhaps some may be a little more edgy about osg's words also as she has spoken in previous posts of how her Master's children do see many aspects of the D/s lifestyle in their home as in her subservience to him, eating at the table as a family with her customarily sitting lower than him or on the floor, etc. While that is their decision, it does influence a child's perception and does begin to border on risky in the eyes of child protection authorities.

Catalina

Please Please tell me you are joking, and they don't have children being subjected to that. Please.

 

[niteshade]

Ok... I am gonna say some things to some different people, and I hope that it is taken in the proper way. I am going to try very hard not to rant as I sometimes do when we broach the subject of children.

First off... Francisco, I have a great deal of respect for you and Catalina, but I absolutely disagree with the statement that you made: "The question will you have a child and raise it according to your Master’s wishes is irrelevant to OSG, the power does not lie with her to agree or disagree with her Master’s wishes. The decision is her Masters and the question should be asked to her Master not OSG, the responsibility lies with him not OSG."

The very large problem that I have with this is that when speaking of children, the responsibility ABSOLUTELY lies with her. It is her womb, her seed, and very definitely her responsibility. If she sees fit to bring a child into the world, slave or not, she has a responsibility to that child. When you speak of true slavery, something not entered into willingly, but a situation where the slave is there by force, she STILL has a responsibility to her child. That responsibility is universal, and anyone who abdicates it has no business giving birth. Period.

On to other points.
Fantasy is just that; fantasy. However, I do have to agree with Limbhugger that if she truly does wish for this to happen in reality, I do believe she needs help. I would feel the same for any person who truly wanted something so certainly destined to hurt someone if it came to pass. At this point, OSG has stated that she knows her fantasy can never come to pass; whatever the reasons, I can only be glad for the unborn child.

As far as her owner raising a child in that situation, I have this to say: OSG, you speak on a regular basis of the pride with which you bear your master's marks, the pleasure you take in a split lip or black eye. Do you think the child blind??? Do you think the sight of violence having been inflicted on your person is pleasing to him/her? What right do you or he have to show that side of your life to a CHILD?

I speak as a formerly abused child myself, and as the child of a mother who liked to play rough games even with men who did not abuse us. The marks on her skin, even when given in the pursuit of mutual pleasure, seemed to me to have been meant for something else. It is only from the distance of years that I realize the difference, and it is still a disturbing image.

That child is going to grow up thinking that it is ok to be beaten, or to beat someone. And while it that may be so in some contexts, where all parties are consensual, there is a very large difference. Quite honestly, I have thought for some time that you need help. From your descriptions of your lifestyle, I firmly believe you live a life of abuse. I have never stated that in all the months I have posted here, because you are a grown woman, and it is your choice to live that life. You will continue to be abused until you either die of it, or you make the choice to see it for what is. However, you have no right to subject a child to that, in any way shape, or form.

As for what Pure said, yes, I do believe that the situation described is abuse. It is mental and emotional abuse, and no, I don't believe it should be tolerated.

Let’s go a little farther; I think the Muslim lifestyle as practiced in far too much of the world is abusive in respect to women.
Anytime the choice is removed, and someone is kept in bondage without knowing any other alternative, it is abuse. If they know a different way exists, and still chose to live that way, so be it.

I chose to live a life that sometimes sees me tied to a bed, hair being pulled, face being slapped, bites being given. That is fine for me, but it absolutely did not happen when my sisters were sleeping down the hall, and the marks were kept in places that they could not see. I make it a point to tell them they don't have to be ashamed of their kink or their fantasies, but I don't make them watch, either.

Edited to add that the other reason I disagree with Fransico's statement is that from the information given here on the board, I really don't see Catalina giving up responsiblilty for her children at any point, slave or not, 24/7 TPE or not. She chose you, and you have beliefs that match hers, but if she had chosen wrongly, and you were not the man that you are, would she stand by while you abused her children and say "Oh, well, I signed my slave contract, and if Master wants to do that, well, I gave up my right to choices." ?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Francisco, I have a great deal of respect for you and Catalina, but I absolutely disagree with the statement that you made

Niteshade, I am so disappointed that you disagree with me, how can you do that, don’t you know I am always right?

TPE with no limits is extremely hard for all parties involved, and it is not something many will commit to. It takes an enormous amount of trust to go that far and for some it simply is not possible. In most cases written or unwritten agreements are set in stone and in almost all cases those agreements have to do with children. There is no legal base for TPE and it does not change the legal responsibilities which are why I choose not to confuse matters even more by dragging in the legalities of it all.

We are raising a child in our household and we live a 24/7 TPE, as a couple we have put certain restrictions on what we do and what can be visible. We are not ashamed that we are into BDSM D/s we just do not feel we have to subject him to the full extent of our perversions. He did not have a choice whether to live in the lifestyle or not, it is not our right to make that choice for him or anyone.

The very large problem that I have with this is that when speaking of children, the responsibility ABSOLUTELY lies with her. It is her womb, her seed, and very definitely her responsibility. If she sees fit to bring a child into the world, slave or not, she has a responsibility to that child. When you speak of true slavery, something not entered into willingly, but a situation where the slave is there by force, she STILL has a responsibility to her child. That responsibility is universal, and anyone who abdicates it has no business giving birth. Period.

In the 24/7 TPE the responsibility does not lie with her, osg has given up that right. What of course is undeniable is that she is human, like any other person in TPE. There is no such thing as being able to comply blindly like a robot with everything a Master demands. I can not imagine any person be they man or woman (because let’s not forget please that men also have responsibilities and rights concerning children) able to perform such an injustice on a child. Although a slave in TPE might not carry the responsibility for the action, the question really is if that person could actually perform such an act.

For example I might want to have Catalina eat my shit, she might want to, she might want to try and perform such for me, but she would probably never be able to physically do it. There would be a mental block that would stop her of doing it.

"Oh, well, I signed my slave contract, and if Master wants to do that, well, I gave up my right to choices." ?

Niteshade this is for us a completely hypothetical question. In every model we live there are boundaries which we can and will not pass. Philosophy is based upon trying to find and explore those boundaries. It is impossible for us normal humans to know how we will behave until we have actually reached that point where we are forced to choose. Knowing Catalina if I would abuse her children I would probably end up with my balls neatly tied around my neck, at least I would hope so.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ok... I am gonna say some things to some different people, and I hope that it is taken in the proper way. I am going to try very hard not to rant as I sometimes do when we broach the subject of children.

First off... Francisco, I have a great deal of respect for you and Catalina, but I absolutely disagree with the statement that you made: "The question will you have a child and raise it according to your Master’s wishes is irrelevant to OSG, the power does not lie with her to agree or disagree with her Master’s wishes. The decision is her Masters and the question should be asked to her Master not OSG, the responsibility lies with him not OSG."

The very large problem that I have with this is that when speaking of children, the responsibility ABSOLUTELY lies with her. It is her womb, her seed, and very definitely her responsibility. If she sees fit to bring a child into the world, slave or not, she has a responsibility to that child. When you speak of true slavery, something not entered into willingly, but a situation where the slave is there by force, she STILL has a responsibility to her child. That responsibility is universal, and anyone who abdicates it has no business giving birth. Period.

I'm sorry Niteshade but this also is one of those areas that make me see red, especially given my own personal experience in raising 2 children alone in poverty because their father chose to abdicate HIS responsibility. It is not the mother's seed, it is the combination of a fathers seed with a mothers egg which biologically produce a child. I am sorry if it offends some but I am so sick and tired of this attitude which says if the father chooses to go off impregnating a bevy of other women such as my grandaughter's father does (3 in 3 years to date) and not lend any financial support because it would infringe on his rights to continue a great life free of responsibility, that it is his right to do that, and the whole responsibility is then on the mother. I am tired of newspaper reports and communities exposing and accusing women who are trying their best in less than suitable conditions of being unfit mothers, and in many cases the authorities then seeking the fathers who have been absent for the life of that child to come and take the child from the mother with the laws help.

I am tired of society turning a blind eye to the responsibility fathers should carry but often don't, while condemning women who they feel don't have the right to choose. If a woman says she does not want the child she is held up as an example of a cold and uncaring bitch, if a man says the same he is given a caring pat on the shoulder and told he should not be put in that position if he didn't want it. What is it in your mind which can so easily blot out any responsibility from fathers be they molesters, gamblers, drunks, or just plain absent through choice, and yet hold women up as supposed paragons of virtue who should be able to withstand everything, cope with anything, find food and shelter without money or need to prostitute herself, and live untarnished on the pedestal society feels she should never step down from? What is it which makes you think women have a responsibility to uphold this unrealistic view you have of them as perfect human beings with ability to always cope and do the right thing no matter what the circumstances, while giving men your permission to do whatever they like and let others cope with the fallout but never, never lay the blame at their feet? And who has responsibility for a child they have not been able to give physical birth too but are no less their parent? Birth does not have a magical manual come with it. Maybe when you give birth yourself, and yes I do feel giving birth or parenting from birth has significance here not just assuming responsibility for part of a child's lifetime, you will change your outlook and see more realistically it takes two to make a child, and two who share that responsibility.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think there are 2 main points most are missing in this current discussion which are important. Firstly is to do with the full responsibility of osg's Master to answer to the wish of bringing a child into the world for the stated purpose. Many seem to think it is osg's responsibility, or both their responsibility. This is clear misunderstanding of the TPE (total power exchange; I think we need to remember the full phrase not abbreviation here) lifestyle. When you live TPE that is what it means TOTAL power exchange, not part depending on the mood, not only on certain days or areas. It means one person gives total control of themselves over to another in a way which no matter what their pesonal feelings may be, it no longer is their choice to have them acted upon unless the owner chooses to for reasons of their own. This is why I continually caution people to not go into such an agreement without first thinking and understanding what it is you are committing to.

Secondly is the issue of bringing a child into the world for such purposes, and whether that falls under TPE. In my reality TPE is something which has to be given, not something to which another can subject a third party without their informed consent. It falls under the cloak of consensual which to me has always been a point to be respected. I gave consent a long time ago so in reality I no longer have to be asked to consent to anything. Francisco may ask out of respect or concern but he does not have to so I am not responsible in that way for his decisions. Bringing a child into the picture though does not fall into that realm for me as like Sunfox said, it is removing freedom of choice from the child by giving them no other options to choose from. It also goes against the consensual rule in that it is harming another wiithout their consent.

So my analysis would be it is not osg's responsibility in any way anymore, but it is also not part of TPE once that child is born as the child is not of a cognitive level to give consent and raised in that environment for that purpose is not given an unbiased and informed position from which to give consent in later years.

Catalina

 

[Kajira Callista]

I think there are 2 main points most are missing in this current discussion which are important. Firstly is to do with the full responsibility of osg's Master to answer to the wish of bringing a child into the world for the stated purpose. Many seem to think it is osg's responsibility, or both their responsibility. This is clear misunderstanding of the TPE (total power exchange; I think we need to remember the full phrase not abbreviation here) lifestyle. When you live TPE that is what it means TOTAL power exchange, not part depending on the mood, not only on certain days or areas. It means one person gives total control of themselves over to another in a way which no matter what their pesonal feelings may be, it no longer is their choice to have them acted upon unless the owner chooses to for reasons of their own. This is why I continually caution people to not go into such an agreement without first thinking and understanding what it is you are committing to.

Secondly is the issue of bringing a child into the world for such purposes, and whether that falls under TPE. In my reality TPE is something which has to be given, not something to which another can subject a third party without their informed consent. It falls under the cloak of consensual which to me has always been a point to be respected. I gave consent a long time ago so in reality I no longer have to be asked to consent to anything. Francisco may ask out of respect or concern but he does not have to so I am not responsible in that way for his decisions. Bringing a child into the picture though does not fall into that realm for me as like Sunfox said, it is removing freedom of choice from the child by giving them no other options to choose from. It also goes against the consensual rule in that it is harming another wiithout their consent.

So my analysis would be it is not osg's responsibility in any way anymore, but it is also not part of TPE once that child is born as the child is not of a cognitive level to give consent and raised in that environment for that purpose is not given an unbiased and informed position from which to give consent in later years.

Catalina

OK, He does call the shots and this fantasy has been discussed, lets hear from OSG as to how her Master intends to raise the child if he decides this is what HE wants. We are only getting OSGs point of view and fantasy, lets find out what Master thinks feels about all of this. Im guessing it will put alot of ppls minds at rest (or not) when we know if this would ever be a reality for him.

 

[niteshade]

Niteshade, I am so disappointed that you disagree with me, how can you do that, don’t you know I am always right?

TPE with no limits is extremely hard for all parties involved, and it is not something many will commit to. It takes an enormous amount of trust to go that far and for some it simply is not possible. In most cases written or unwritten agreements are set in stone and in almost all cases those agreements have to do with children. There is no legal base for TPE and it does not change the legal responsibilities which are why I choose not to confuse matters even more by dragging in the legalities of it all.

We are raising a child in our household and we live a 24/7 TPE, as a couple we have put certain restrictions on what we do and what can be visible. We are not ashamed that we are into BDSM D/s we just do not feel we have to subject him to the full extent of our perversions. He did not have a choice whether to live in the lifestyle or not, it is not our right to make that choice for him or anyone.

In the 24/7 TPE the responsibility does not lie with her, osg has given up that right. What of course is undeniable is that she is human, like any other person in TPE. There is no such thing as being able to comply blindly like a robot with everything a Master demands. I can not imagine any person be they man or woman (because let’s not forget please that men also have responsibilities and rights concerning children) able to perform such an injustice on a child. Although a slave in TPE might not carry the responsibility for the action, the question really is if that person could actually perform such an act.

For example I might want to have Catalina eat my shit, she might want to, she might want to try and perform such for me, but she would probably never be able to physically do it. There would be a mental block that would stop her of doing it.


Niteshade this is for us a completely hypothetical question. In every model we live there are boundaries which we can and will not pass. Philosophy is based upon trying to find and explore those boundaries. It is impossible for us normal humans to know how we will behave until we have actually reached that point where we are forced to choose. Knowing Catalina if I would abuse her children I would probably end up with my balls neatly tied around my neck, at least I would hope so.

Francisco.

LOL... I beg pardon, I did forget I was talking to the all powerful one for a moment. Please accept my humble apology

I understand that for you and Catalina, the question is hypothetical... most of this discussion is. But you got my basic idea~ "Knowing Catalina if I would abuse her children I would probably end up with my balls neatly tied around my neck, at least I would hope so"

That is exactly what I meant. If she had been wrong about you (which we all know she wasn't, as you are so obviously perfect ) she would not allow her choices, or lack thereof, to negatively impact her children. You guys aren't raising her son to be either a proper little Dom or a humble little slave, correct? And you do keep aspects of your life in the appropriate place.

My point, I suppose, which was most likely badly stated to begin with, (as they usually are when we start discussing children around here) is that while I would never chose the lifestyle you and Catalina have chosen, I still respect your right to have it... as long as you aren't hurting an innocent as a by product. My secondary point was that I have far too much respect for Catalina herself to believe that she would allow that to happen, which you confirmed.

 

[niteshade]

I think there are 2 main points most are missing in this current discussion which are important. Firstly is to do with the full responsibility of osg's Master to answer to the wish of bringing a child into the world for the stated purpose. Many seem to think it is osg's responsibility, or both their responsibility. This is clear misunderstanding of the TPE (total power exchange; I think we need to remember the full phrase not abbreviation here) lifestyle. When you live TPE that is what it means TOTAL power exchange, not part depending on the mood, not only on certain days or areas. It means one person gives total control of themselves over to another in a way which no matter what their pesonal feelings may be, it no longer is their choice to have them acted upon unless the owner chooses to for reasons of their own. This is why I continually caution people to not go into such an agreement without first thinking and understanding what it is you are committing to.

Secondly is the issue of bringing a child into the world for such purposes, and whether that falls under TPE. In my reality TPE is something which has to be given, not something to which another can subject a third party without their informed consent. It falls under the cloak of consensual which to me has always been a point to be respected. I gave consent a long time ago so in reality I no longer have to be asked to consent to anything. Francisco may ask out of respect or concern but he does not have to so I am not responsible in that way for his decisions. Bringing a child into the picture though does not fall into that realm for me as like Sunfox said, it is removing freedom of choice from the child by giving them no other options to choose from. It also goes against the consensual rule in that it is harming another wiithout their consent.

So my analysis would be it is not osg's responsibility in any way anymore, but it is also not part of TPE once that child is born as the child is not of a cognitive level to give consent and raised in that environment for that purpose is not given an unbiased and informed position from which to give consent in later years.

Catalina

Catalina, thank you for this post... you said what I was fumbling around with. I was trying to get there, but doing a very poor job.

As it seems I did a very poor job of expressing myself last night, (one of the dangers of posting at 3 am ) I would also like to clarify that I agree with you on a father's responsiblity. I may not have given birth to my sisters, but I certainly went hungry more than once to give them extra shares of my food, even when I was only a very young child myself. If any of our dead beat fathers had given a fig for their responsibilities, that would not have been the case. I simply meant that while it is fine for a woman to make choices of her own, she should not subject a child to it. If she feels she cannot except responsibility for a child, then she should have the balls to give the child to someone who will, not "breeding another little slave girl for him to raise in our ways." or not have a child to begin with.

 

[Pure]

Catalina said,

It falls under the cloak of consensual which to me has always been a point to be respected. I gave consent a long time ago so in reality I no longer have to be asked to consent to anything. Francisco may ask out of respect or concern but he does not have to so I am not responsible in that way for his decisions. Bringing a child into the picture though does not fall into that realm for me as like Sunfox said, it is removing freedom of choice from the child by giving them no other options to choose from. It also goes against the consensual rule in that it is harming another wiithout their consent.

So my analysis would be it is not osg's responsibility in any way anymore, but it is also not part of TPE once that child is born as the child is not of a cognitive level to give consent and raised in that environment for that purpose is not given an unbiased and informed position from which to give consent in later years.

With respect, these points miss the obvious legal issues. Both parents have legal responsibilities. All the "TPE" contracts, written or not, do not change this. You or OSG can give up responsibility for maintaining the back garden, but not the child.

As to the child, I've said there is not enough evidence. IF, for example the master avoids fondling, fucking, whipping, binding, etc., and provides the necessaries of life and love and support, that roughly speaking, is enough to avoid the'abuse' charge.'

IF the master simply requests complete obedience and backs that up with legal methods (nothing worse than spanking), I don't think an abuse case could be made out.

So the question of what a 'little slave girl' is expected to do, and how she is protected is the open one. Probably it will remain hypothetical. But in any case, we can't assume OSG's master would in a legal sense be an abuser. And as argued, were there to be abuse (which we have no reason to assume), and OSG allowed it, she would have legal responsibility-- she could lose custody and/or even be jailed.