BDSM and Impregnation

[catalina_francisco]

I am so pleased Pure has noticed the discussion board is not a grand jury, though I didn't notice it relieved us of another legal courtroom like approach. Pure, can we please as Lh says see something of you as a normal average citizen for a change instead of reducing it to a legal interrogation of anyone who dares post and the dissecting of words with demands of explanation based on legal understanding? The world is not a courtroom, more importantly your courtroom, so no-one has to feel intimidated to respond to your endless interrogations and cross examinations. Lighten up and join the discussions please on the same level as everyone else preferrably, not as DA or lawyer self appointed to the legal dissection of lives, choices, and posts.

Catalina

 

[Kajira Callista]

Limbhugger's outburst,



Pure I try look for it but do you ever take a stand? I mean seriously. You qoute us and then use theories, ideas, and five dollar words but I can never find you coming down on a side of things. Unsettling.

Francisco As always I have the deepest respect for what you've said here. But I must disagree with your assessment that because osg has "chosen" to live as a slave none of these matters are hers but rather her "master's". I can not and will not accept that a person of sound mental health would make a commitment to anyone that would surrender the creation of life and subsequent unquestioned raising of said life. That isn't a part of the D/s lifestyle, that is selfish at best and mental illness at worst.

All this talk is mindnumbing for the context.

This is LIFE we're talking about! FUCK THE BDSM BULLSHIT. We are discussing the creation and care of LIFE for crying out loud. That tiny baby in the cradle of your arms looking up to you as their sole protector and teacher of all things.

osg said in a previous post: "as far as how i address my Master around his child...that is the same also...i call him Daddy. that's who and what he is, to us both. and it's never caused any confusion for his child. i always take my meals in a place physically below my Master...whether that's below his feet, or in a lower/smaller chair. usually, i'm sitting on the floor. it's a message to his child that i'm more on the child's level, than Daddy's." https://forum.literotica.com/...ildren+and+BDSM

This shit isn't fucking healthy. I don't give a damn about your D/s beliefs. Those are yours to make for yourselves. This is being taught and that shit is wrong. OSG likes to hide behind the idea of "very traditional" but that is crap. There isn't the most stringent Puritan woman that ever ate lower than her husband.

I return to OSG's original words: "as children are not in the plans for us, these will all have to remain fantasy. they are probably one of the few fantasies between us that cannot/will not be realized. but they sure are lovely to think about"

----------

I see we're on the same side in one small but important way; we agree that the parents who pursue bdsm are not 'outside the law',and that the understandings that create what some call 'our own world of TPE' are subject to the law and likely null in its eyes.

As to taking a stand, I thought I was pretty clear, but I remind you that neither I or you are DAs or grand juries; judgments are not required, nor in many cases desirable. This is a discussion forum. Even if someone says (heaven forbid) "I'm going to shoot my dog.", it's not necessary to go beyond saying, "You sound depressed. I've felt that sometimes." If indeed anything is said. In any event, it's necessarily a good thing proceed any further, beyond saying, "that sounds like a cruel thing to do."

There's not necessarily any point to saying, "You're a fucking sadist, and the law prescribes that you be sentenced to a minimum of 1 year in jail, and I hope you rot there."

For you I will avoid 'five dollar words' in what follows, and stay in one syllables as far as I can.

On the woman sitting lower than the man: You say, "This shit isn't fucking healthy" and that it did not apply to Puritan women.
In any case, a number of traditional societies the wives/women eat entirely separately, often after, the men/husbands.

You give no reason why it's not healthy, even though NOW would clearly not approve. Do you think a husband headed family is ever healthy? Is 'equal authority' written in the stars that only you can read.?

Equality of genders is NOT in the Bill of Rights, my friend. Nor anything close to it, like a right to vote or get a divorce or keep child custody after a divorce. Odd that Washington and Jefferson, not to speak of Mrs. Washington and Mrs Jefferson, did not agree with you, nor did a majority of *US* citizens till the early 20th century.

I say 'lower household status' may be moral and legal, and not necessarily 'unhealthy.' This holds especially when chosen by an adult woman. Is that clear enough?

It's not clear what 'unhealthy' is supposed to mean, but (assuming it were true) surely you'd agree you can't dictate to others on that basis, e.g., regarding their cigarette smoking or love of motorcycling, so long as others aren't harmed.

You refer to 'sound mental health.' Well, I have the _DSM IV _ manual of the American Psychiatric Association. It lists hundreds of psychological disorders. I don't see "accepting or taking lower household status" among the disorders or the symptoms. What disorder or illness do you think it is?

Now as to the child, who does not exist and whose existence is not planned. I suppose you hold s/he would be abused? Again, consult child welfare laws, would lower household status (along with the mom's) constitute abuse? Unquestioning obedience is demanded in many households. Children did not always "vote" as in enlightened yuppie households.

You have no evidence that anything abusive would happen, e.g., rape, incest (which you mention), assault, neglect, etc. You have no evidence that--were there to be child--that OSG would allow its abuse, or that OSG's 'master' would abuse it. (And there is some evidence against that, by a poster who knows this 'master.')

But the larger point stated by OSG many times is that this thread is about a fantasy. You yourself have fantasies of subservience and maybe even torture, don't you? Are these 'fucking healthy'?

Given that no child is *actually* involved, this seems to be a case of "I have healthy submissive tendencies in moderation, which I explore in a mature way, but you have unhealthy and mentally unsound tendencies, which are extreme, and you probably should go to jail if you act on any of them." In simple terms, "My kink is fine; yours is sick."

Get a grip, man.

J.

I may be wrong, and if i am Limbhugger please let me know. What i understood about his post was that he doesnt think a child and a slave should be equal. You can be daddys lil girl all ya want for daddy but teaching a child that you are this is not such a great thing. Another thing from what i saw was that a sexual slave is saying her Master would raise thier child as a slave, im pretty sure this is making ppl here feel that it would be the same type of slave that mommy is...a sexual slave, and pretty much there lies the problem. Once again this is how i read the post(s) if im off base please let me know.

 

[Pure]

OSG said,

//[I have] fantasies of being impregnated by my Master for the purpose of breeding another little slave girl for him to raise up in our ways... //

Kajira said,
a sexual slave is saying her Master would raise thier child as a slave, im pretty sure this is making ppl here feel that it would be the same type of slave that mommy is...a sexual slave,

In the original posting, aside from saying it's a fantasy, she did NOT say anything about what the Master would do.

"Slave" has many meanings, esp. in bdsm contexts, where it does not mean 'year 1800, Mississippi slave'. So if "ppl here feel it would be... a sexual slave", that is not necessarily correct. Perhaps those folk would deign to ask?? rather than assuming.

Further, in a later posting OSG directly said she did not think the Master would (hypothetically) abuse a child in any way. The degree of 'obedience' that might be required of the child (hypothetically) is another issue.

Best,
J.

 

[Pure]

[posting deleted]
.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Catalina,

There, happy? I hope the 'normal average' statements promote the discussion you like.

(Limbhugger, do me the favor of responding, if you wish to, to the detailed points, not these pabulum ones posted for ms catalina. I somehow doubt you are "intimidated" as ms. cat suggests , but if so, I'm sorry.)

**Limbhugger himself is a fine, honorable, and intelligent person, with whom I have many agreements. We have always treated each other with respect.

Sorry you missed the whole point of my post. I know Lh well enough to know he wouldn't be intimidated by you or anyone. Unfortunately not everyone feels like coming to discuss openly and be cross examined as if on the witness stand every time you do not like their post, or share their viewpoint. This is not my personal whimsical view but one expressed often to me. I asked you respectfully, as I know you like responses to your posts, to see it from another perspective apart from your legal one. There are many who would like to know the real person but that does not happen as you play Perry Mason. As you point out though, that is your choice the same as it is others to not have to repeatedly justify their posts to you if they don't wish to.

Catalina

 

[Etoile]

I eat on the floor beside T most days. It makes me happy. I also wait to eat until he has eaten and wait to drink until he has drunk. I do this regardless of the company we are in; we have several friends who are aware of our relationship but none who are in a similar one.

Once again, I really like the idea of eating lower and being lower. I see it as a nice way of showing deference. But can you or osg tell me what to do when you're eating in a restaurant? I'd like to try sitting on the floor (Daddy doesn't have a table in the apartment anyway, so we always eat on the bed) but we go out to eat fairly often and I'm not sure how that would be handled.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Once again, I really like the idea of eating lower and being lower. I see it as a nice way of showing deference. But can you or osg tell me what to do when you're eating in a restaurant? I'd like to try sitting on the floor (Daddy doesn't have a table in the apartment anyway, so we always eat on the bed) but we go out to eat fairly often and I'm not sure how that would be handled.

On the floor in public is not handled well by ppl around you. I have done it and i think it was more of a thrill because i was comfortable at his feet and could sense other ppls outrage because of it. If you arent one to handle uneducated rude comments this one would not be for you. If you love the twinkle in Masters eyes because he is ruffling feathers....go for it

 

[Etoile]

On the floor in public is not handled well by ppl around you. I have done it and i think it was more of a thrill because i was comfortable at his feet and could sense other ppls outrage because of it. If you arent one to handle uneducated rude comments this one would not be for you. If you love the twinkle in Masters eyes because he is ruffling feathers....go for it

Heh, thanks for the heads-up! I hadn't even considered being on the floor in public, I was just wondering how to handle eating lower when all the chairs are the same height. I was looking at it more from the "how do I adjust" perspective.

 

[Limbhugger]

I see we're on the same side in one small but important way; we agree that the parents who pursue bdsm are not 'outside the law',and that the understandings that create what some call 'our own world of TPE' are subject to the law and likely null in its eyes.

As to taking a stand, I thought I was pretty clear, but I remind you that neither I or you are DAs or grand juries; judgments are not required, nor in many cases desirable. This is a discussion forum. Even if someone says (heaven forbid) "I'm going to shoot my dog.", it's not necessary to go beyond saying, "You sound depressed. I've felt that sometimes." If indeed anything is said. In any event, it's necessarily a good thing proceed any further, beyond saying, "that sounds like a cruel thing to do."

There's not necessarily any point to saying, "You're a fucking sadist, and the law prescribes that you be sentenced to a minimum of 1 year in jail, and I hope you rot there."

For you I will avoid 'five dollar words' in what follows, and stay in one syllables as far as I can.

On the woman sitting lower than the man: You say, "This shit isn't fucking healthy" and that it did not apply to Puritan women.
In any case, a number of traditional societies the wives/women eat entirely separately, often after, the men/husbands.

You give no reason why it's not healthy, even though NOW would clearly not approve. Do you think a husband headed family is ever healthy? Is 'equal authority' written in the stars that only you can read.?

Equality of genders is NOT in the Bill of Rights, my friend. Nor anything close to it, like a right to vote or get a divorce or keep child custody after a divorce. Odd that Washington and Jefferson, not to speak of Mrs. Washington and Mrs Jefferson, did not agree with you, nor did a majority of *US* citizens till the early 20th century.

I say 'lower household status' may be moral and legal, and not necessarily 'unhealthy.' This holds especially when chosen by an adult woman. Is that clear enough?

It's not clear what 'unhealthy' is supposed to mean, but (assuming it were true) surely you'd agree you can't dictate to others on that basis, e.g., regarding their cigarette smoking or love of motorcycling, so long as others aren't harmed.

You refer to 'sound mental health.' Well, I have the _DSM IV _ manual of the American Psychiatric Association. It lists hundreds of psychological disorders. I don't see "accepting or taking lower household status" among the disorders or the symptoms. What disorder or illness do you think it is?

Now as to the child, who does not exist and whose existence is not planned. I suppose you hold s/he would be abused? Again, consult child welfare laws, would lower household status (along with the mom's) constitute abuse? Unquestioning obedience is demanded in many households. Children did not always "vote" as in enlightened yuppie households.

You have no evidence that anything abusive would happen, e.g., rape, incest (which you mention, see below at **), assault, neglect, etc. You have no evidence that--were there to be child-- that OSG's 'master' would abuse it and that OSG would go along with it. (And there is some evidence against that, by a poster who knows this 'master.')

But the larger point stated by OSG many times is that this thread is about a fantasy. You yourself have fantasies of subservience and maybe even torture, don't you? Are these 'fucking healthy'?

Given that no child is *actually* involved, this seems to be a case of "I have healthy submissive tendencies in moderation, which I explore in a mature way, but you have unhealthy and mentally unsound tendencies, which are extreme, and you probably should go to jail if you act on any of them." In simple terms, "My kink is fine; yours is sick."

Get a grip, man.

J.

--------
** Limb said
The phrase, "will have to remain" gives me pause that this could easily transition from fantasy (as osg now seems bent on making it) to reality. And lovely to think about? It's lovely to think about creating a child to serve her incestual father? And we're not supposed to stand in judgment of that? [/B]

*Takes a deep breath. Snaps neck. Rolls shoulders. Purges*

Uh...What?

Pure what the hell are you talking about?

First, I didn't say dick about the law. I reckon from my implied sense that this would be abuse is where you got that. But none of this has anything to do with the law in my mind. It has to do with right and wrong. You know those two little words that no matter how hard the world tries are always still around? Sorry, but some things are black and white.

I have NOT argued against the impregnation aspect of this thread. In fact I think at one point I said I had no problem with the dominant picking and choosing the time and method of said impregnation. I have argued about what occurs after that child is born.

Is a male run household ever right in my world? Oh I get it, I'm a male sub so that means my wife is in complete charge of the house. Whatever works in your mind Pure. Wife and I are not engaged in TPE though so this whole statement by you is ridiculous.

A mother, step or otherwise, eating at the father's feet, or a father, step or otherwise, eating at the mother's feet in the presence of children is wrong Pure. Plain and simple it is wrong. Contrary to popular world beliefs, some judgements can still be made against others.

Adults have a choice on how they wish to live and what they wish to experience. Children do not. Children depend upon adults to teach them. A large part of teaching children is to teach them to make their own choices. To show them that a woman is "beneath" a man isn't equiping them to make educated choices. It is simply showing them your own statement of fact.

I don't judge people's kink Pure. A convenient argument for most of the folks you like to intimidate but it won't fly with me. I don't give a rat's ass what two consenting adults decide to do.

And thanks for trying to limit yourself to one syllable words. It is so distracting to have to clap while sounding out the big ones.

 

[Quint]

Once again, I really like the idea of eating lower and being lower. I see it as a nice way of showing deference. But can you or osg tell me what to do when you're eating in a restaurant? I'd like to try sitting on the floor (Daddy doesn't have a table in the apartment anyway, so we always eat on the bed) but we go out to eat fairly often and I'm not sure how that would be handled.

You know, it's never come up. How fascinating. When T returns from his trip, I'll bring up the idea---but I think it will remain hypothetical for us. I think he views my lower eating position in a "home" mentality; it's one of the things that allows him to relax and be himself after all he's done and been during the day.

In public, when he wants me to know that he IS my dominant half, he'll order for me, make me wait before eating, make me pick up the tab (haha but no joke), or other tasks. Like I said, haven't thought about seating yet, but it's really an interesting thought.

 

[Pure]

Hi Limb,

I see you want to make a moral argument:

//A mother, step or otherwise, eating at the father's feet, or a father, step or otherwise, eating at the mother's feet in the presence of children is wrong Pure. Plain and simple it is wrong. Contrary to popular world beliefs, some judgements can still be made against others.

Adults have a choice on how they wish to live and what they wish to experience. Children do not. Children depend upon adults to teach them. A large part of teaching children is to teach them to make their own choices. To show them that a woman is "beneath" a man isn't equiping them to make educated choices. It is simply showing them your own statement of fact.//

Let's get this straight--a woman has chosen a marriage/permanent-relationship in which she is under direction from the husband (two examples posted, quint, and osg).
That will be evidenced in various ways.

You're claiming the child (female, ftsoa) sees the woman as 'beneath' the man, and isn't being equipped to make good choices.

I reply: A small child may well not understand the reasons. I see no reason, however, why the child (assume female, ftsoa) reaching 8-10 would fail to see (i.e., because told) that the mother's choice is what's behind the practices.

A modeling type argument leads to the opposite conclusion to yours: I'd say the child directly sees something about choices, and thereby learns to make them. That is a girl following in mom's footsteps.

If you want an analogy, consider the {live-in}children of {live-in}servants, as in present day England (voluntary ones, not captured or bought).

If Dad or Mom chose to be a servant, and the child learns this, and the advantages and disadvantages, they can make their decision up the road.

 

[Limbhugger]

Damn Pure, you don't do so good without your big words.

You see I chose to make this a moral argument? It ALWAYS was a moral argument. And I ALWAYS was making moral judgements.

A child whose parent is employed as a maid, butler, or personal toenail clipper is totally irrelevent to this conversation. That is their job and the child sees it as such. And you can bet your ass that child also hears plenty of bitching about the boss. Unlike the scenario in this thread.

BTW Pure, do you have kids?

 

[ownedsubgal]

I may be wrong, and if i am Limbhugger please let me know. What i understood about his post was that he doesnt think a child and a slave should be equal. You can be daddys lil girl all ya want for daddy but teaching a child that you are this is not such a great thing. Another thing from what i saw was that a sexual slave is saying her Master would raise thier child as a slave, im pretty sure this is making ppl here feel that it would be the same type of slave that mommy is...a sexual slave, and pretty much there lies the problem. Once again this is how i read the post(s) if im off base please let me know.

had to stop my reading here to make a correction KC...i am NOT a "sexual slave". i am my Master's slave, period. not his sex slave, not his domestic slave, simply his slave. meaning he owns me and rules me entirely, not simply when he has a hard cock. if you wish to refer to yourself as a sexual slave that is fine, but that term does not apply to our relationship. as for a fictional child serving my Master in all the ways i serve him, that would be 1. impossible and 2. not desired by my Master, so is a pointless issue to ponder all around.


Etoile, as for the seating in public issue...that's actually something that caused me a bit of stress in the early days, not knowing what to do. my Master's feelings were that when we are out in a vanilla public together, my general submissiveness to all and my reverence to him is obvious by the other things we do...like another poster mentioned, things like him ordering my meals, not touching my own food or drink until he says i may, never looking a male waiter/server in the eye, etc. the last year or so he has taken to having us only sit in booths, so that i can sit beside him and he can fondle/hit me as needed, discreetly.

 

[Limbhugger]

OSG,

Not that you have any obligation whatsoever, but I still haven't seen you answer to the one phrase that caused me so much trouble with all of this. And that is "will have to remain".

Now that you have come up against some opposition you seem bent on saying this is fantasy but yet you refuse to address this. You simply dodge it by saying it is impossible.

So, do you fantasize about having a daughter to serve daddy?

Would you have a daughter to serve daddy?

Assuming daddy said you had to that is.

 

[ownedsubgal]

OSG,

Not that you have any obligation whatsoever, but I still haven't seen you answer to the one phrase that caused me so much trouble with all of this. And that is "will have to remain".

Now that you have come up against some opposition you seem bent on saying this is fantasy but yet you refuse to address this. You simply dodge it by saying it is impossible.

So, do you fantasize about having a daughter to serve daddy?

Would you have a daughter to serve daddy?

Assuming daddy said you had to that is.

Limbhugger, that question has been answered, perhaps you missed my response. i am a slave. so of course, if my Master decided he wanted to impregnate and have a child with me, that is what would happen, assuming nature allowed it. how the child would be raised would be up to him as he would be the parent. giving birth does not give me rights. i understand the entire concept of this is entirely foreign to you as you are not in a TPE or M/s relationship. but our lifestyle is something we take very seriously...it is not a kink or about sexual kicks for us. my status as slave is absolute and there are no exceptions.

yes, it IS a fantasy of mine, a long-standing one, to be impregnated by my Master and for him to raise the child up in our ways. and yes the child would be his slave because in the fantasy, the child is a girl. it's a fantasy we both enjoy talking about and getting each other all hot and bothered thinking about, but it's not something that either of us would ever desire to make a reality, even if it were possible. maybe Limbhugger you do not have any fantasies that you do not truly wish to happen, but still give you warm tingles to imagine?

 

[Pure]

ownedsubgal, your PM box is full.

 

[Etoile]

how the child would be raised would be up to him as he would be the parent. giving birth does not give me rights. i understand the entire concept of this is entirely foreign to you as you are not in a TPE or M/s relationship. but our lifestyle is something we take very seriously...it is not a kink or about sexual kicks for us. my status as slave is absolute and there are no exceptions.

This is one area in which the law does apply in a TPE relationship. If a slave is genetically determined to be the child's mother, then that slave will be charged with allowing abuse if the child is abused by its father. Giving birth makes the slave the mother, and therefore the law says she does have rights (and obligations) regarding the child.

 

[Limbhugger]

Limbhugger, that question has been answered, perhaps you missed my response. i am a slave. so of course, if my Master decided he wanted to impregnate and have a child with me, that is what would happen, assuming nature allowed it. how the child would be raised would be up to him as he would be the parent. giving birth does not give me rights. i understand the entire concept of this is entirely foreign to you as you are not in a TPE or M/s relationship. but our lifestyle is something we take very seriously...it is not a kink or about sexual kicks for us. my status as slave is absolute and there are no exceptions.

yes, it IS a fantasy of mine, a long-standing one, to be impregnated by my Master and for him to raise the child up in our ways. and yes the child would be his slave because in the fantasy, the child is a girl. it's a fantasy we both enjoy talking about and getting each other all hot and bothered thinking about, but it's not something that either of us would ever desire to make a reality, even if it were possible. maybe Limbhugger you do not have any fantasies that you do not truly wish to happen, but still give you warm tingles to imagine?

Well if you really believe this, then I think you have serious issues. I don't care what you and your master do with each other but with a child?

And to hide it behind TPE is bullshit. You bring a child into this world it is your highest obligation period. Nothing takes priority over that child. Not even yourself.

And by placing this child in this apperantly hypothetical scenario, aren't you being just a wee bit selfish osg? I mean if it is your fantasy, then isn't that being selfish?

I will say this slowly and plainly for anyone who has missed it...

THIS...IS...WRONG.

 

[Kajira Callista]

had to stop my reading here to make a correction KC...i am NOT a "sexual slave". i am my Master's slave, period. not his sex slave, not his domestic slave, simply his slave. meaning he owns me and rules me entirely, not simply when he has a hard cock. if you wish to refer to yourself as a sexual slave that is fine, but that term does not apply to our relationship. as for a fictional child serving my Master in all the ways i serve him, that would be 1. impossible and 2. not desired by my Master, so is a pointless issue to ponder all around.


Etoile, as for the seating in public issue...that's actually something that caused me a bit of stress in the early days, not knowing what to do. my Master's feelings were that when we are out in a vanilla public together, my general submissiveness to all and my reverence to him is obvious by the other things we do...like another poster mentioned, things like him ordering my meals, not touching my own food or drink until he says i may, never looking a male waiter/server in the eye, etc. the last year or so he has taken to having us only sit in booths, so that i can sit beside him and he can fondle/hit me as needed, discreetly.

I do believe you need to read that post again, i said i ...from what i read felt that is what OTHERS were feeling and why they were upset.

 

[ownedsubgal]

This is one area in which the law does apply in a TPE relationship. If a slave is genetically determined to be the child's mother, then that slave will be charged with allowing abuse if the child is abused by its father. Giving birth makes the slave the mother, and therefore the law says she does have rights (and obligations) regarding the child.

actually Etoile, i meant this even in a legal sense. were the world to go topsy-turvy and my Master were to have a child with me, appropriate legal measures would be made by him to deny me of any parental rights even in the eyes of the law. when Daddy says that no slave of his will have any rights, then he means no slave of his will have any rights.


KC, the following words made the implication that you view me as a sexual slave, not that "others" may view me as a sexual slave.

"Another thing from what i saw was that a sexual slave is saying her Master would raise thier child as a slave, im pretty sure this is making ppl here feel that it would be the same type of slave that mommy is...a sexual slave"

if it's just a matter of unclear wording/phrasing, fine, but i only stated the way the words came across.


Limbhugger, i am sorry that you feel it wrong to have certain thoughts. that you cannot seem to differentiate between a fantasy and a desire, is also regrettable. what's also clear is that you have no interest in respectful, adult discussion as far as this thread is concerned, and your point mainly seems to be to shout your moral condemnations down the throats of others and basically stir up "stuff". for that reason this will be my last response to you.

 

[Etoile]

actually Etoile, i meant this even in a legal sense. were the world to go topsy-turvy and my Master were to have a child with me, appropriate legal measures would be made by him to deny me of any parental rights even in the eyes of the law. when Daddy says that no slave of his will have any rights, then he means no slave of his will have any rights.

I am familiar with your situation, and that is why I phrased my statement generally, using words like "a slave" instead of "you". In most cases, a slave who was the child's biological mother would be determined to be responsible for that child. I understand that you are different.

 

[lark sparrow]

I have to wonder if the majority of this furor is over someone not only fantasizing about being an "unfit mother", but actually being "unfit" as well? It doesn't sound as though owned subgal is a step-mother in traditional terms to her Master's child and has no plans to be a mother through giving birth, and would not be suited to the image, ideal, expectation or responsibilities of a "fit mother" in any way, shape or form. Fit or unfit being defined by cultural expectation and/or a child's need.

Not everyone has to be a "fit mother" - there are certainly mothers and non-mothers who aren't, and of course there are those who may have fantasies around impregnation and are perfectly capable of being an entirely "fit mother". It seems fitting that someone who is "not fit" to be a traditional mother would have non-traditional fantasies around motherhood, should they have them at all.

Personally, I don't have any fantasies around impregnation (maybe some nightmares) and no children.... just dogs. lol and don't get me started on bestiality as then it's going to get moral!

 

[Limbhugger]

Limbhugger, i am sorry that you feel it wrong to have certain thoughts. that you cannot seem to differentiate between a fantasy and a desire, is also regrettable. what's also clear is that you have no interest in respectful, adult discussion as far as this thread is concerned, and your point mainly seems to be to shout your moral condemnations down the throats of others and basically stir up "stuff". for that reason this will be my last response to you.

Suit yourself dear. I can distinguish between fantasy and desire and reality. I do not condemn folks for fantasies. Well, I guess until those fantasies involve children. But what you have posted is beyond fantasy OSG and you know it. That is what pulled my reaction. You have by your own words stated you would, should daddy approve, make this a reality.

Spin it however you want osg, but that is the fact as you presented it.

If one was to review my posts throughout this board one would find that I am extremely given to adult respectful discussion. Don't confuse my condemnation of your words with my overall demenour. I can only shout my moral condemnations down the throats of those with open mouths.

I am not here to stir things up although I realize you find that a convient excuse and easy dismissal.

I have posted what I believe and I what believe to be right. And for that you duck and run behind the curtain of my being an ass. Okay. Whatever works.

You dear made a very, very controversial statement on an open public forum about your fantasies with a child of your bearing. I responded.

Dismissing me may be any easy way of dealing with my retort and some feabile attempt at regaining stature amongst other posters, but it doesn't change the basis of what you have said here.

 

[Pure]

Etoile said,

//This is one area in which the law does apply in a TPE relationship. If a slave is genetically determined to be the child's mother, then that slave will be charged with allowing abuse if the child is abused by its father. Giving birth makes the slave the mother, and therefore the law says she does have rights (and obligations) regarding the child.//


Etoile added,

//I am familiar with your[OSG's] situation, and that is why I phrased my statement generally, using words like "a slave" instead of "you". In most cases, a slave who was the child's biological mother would be determined to be responsible for that child. I understand that you are different. //
----------
I reply:

You're making certain assumptions about such things as custody, and the status of the mother/child relationship. What you say applies, should the biological mother hang around in a quasi parental capacity.

Consider a biological mother who says "I don't want to have the responsibility for this child," and perhaps a biological father who steps forward and says he will take on all responsibility. The woman surrenders all her rights--through a legitimate legal process-- and is thus freed of obligations.

Alternatively, along the lines Lark S has mentioned. If a mother were to arrange to have herself declared 'unfit'-- like go to a couple shrinks talking of doing violence to herself and/or the baby, or perhaps just being so deeply depressed as to be barely able to fend for herself, she could surrender the child to children's services on a voluntary basis. They would try to place it with the biological father or other relative. Then through proper process, sever all connection in rights or obligations (or merely, without disappearing, do nothing to impede the CS --or the relative--from winning sole guardianship before a judge.)

Note 1: the mother could, imo, accomplish these things without abusing the child.
Note 2: the issue of how the biological father would treat the child, is an open question: having full and sole parental authority over it, depending on the person, may not give rise to abuse in the legal sense.
Note 3: the above outcomes might equally result from efforts by others, including the biological father, even were those efforts opposed by the mother.

 

[Etoile]

Pure, could you clarify something for me? In your profile, your biography says "writer, researcher" and your interests are listed as "erotica, history, deviance, law" so I assume you've done some research on law. But are you actually a lawyer? Do you work in the legal profession, or is it more of a hobby for you? I'm asking the question honestly because I don't know the answer, and I'm just trying to get a better idea of your background.