BDSM and Impregnation
- Thread starter GodBlessBreasts
- Start date
the shadow of a boy
Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Posts
- 75
A few comments on what has been a really educational thread to me.
[Referring to 'the scenario', I'm not addressing the idea of conception or birth, but the idea of raising a child as a slave.]
There seems to be be a serious disjunction between those speaking as submissives from a TPE perspective, where they've abdicated all exercise of power in the relationship, and those who are approaching the scenario in terms of a concept of inalienable moral and ethical responsibility (i.e. Nuremberg) that all humans have for acts in which they are participant or complicit. To me, it seems like both groups are being far too casual about interchanging the concepts of a 'right' and a 'responsibility'.
People's concepts of the scenario under discussion keeps drifting back and forth from fantasy to reality. For several participants, the idea of the scenario resonates as a reality - regardless of what anyone said or meant - because for them it is a reality, either because they have witnessed the evidence, or the consequences, or because, essentially, it happened to them. And they will, of course, have great difficulty letting things go at assurances that one's Daddy/Master would never order such a thing because the people who did it to them lied, and nobody helped them. Furthermore, they have likely heard claims of powerlessness as an excuse, and probably as a dishonest one. So an explication of the meaning of TPE will, for them, miss the point.
For most people in general, of course, this is a hot-button issue because their first instinct is to protect children, even hypothetical children, and reassurances can't be verified over the internet.
I find an interesting parallel to that in the side discussion of restaurant floor sitting. The people in the restaurant are most likely outraged not because it presents evidence of an alternate lifestyle, but because what has been presented to them is only the assertion of the sub's powerlessness, without the reassurance of contextual information. They would most likely feel that they may be responsible to intervene, but (because of the ambiguity and the lack of clear abuse) powerless (through social constraint) to do so.
[For that reason, I would probably be even angrier myself, actually, if I had just gone somewhere to enjoy a meal. If a couple presented me with a situation like that, I would read it as a flagrant and obvious attempt (on their mutual part) to establish and exercise a dominance over me to which I had not consented.]
Anyway, a pertinent question for those involved in TPE: would you be comfortable making an assertion like "I am legally, ethically, and morally responsible for the consequences of my obedience", or have I missed the point?
[Referring to 'the scenario', I'm not addressing the idea of conception or birth, but the idea of raising a child as a slave.]
There seems to be be a serious disjunction between those speaking as submissives from a TPE perspective, where they've abdicated all exercise of power in the relationship, and those who are approaching the scenario in terms of a concept of inalienable moral and ethical responsibility (i.e. Nuremberg) that all humans have for acts in which they are participant or complicit. To me, it seems like both groups are being far too casual about interchanging the concepts of a 'right' and a 'responsibility'.
People's concepts of the scenario under discussion keeps drifting back and forth from fantasy to reality. For several participants, the idea of the scenario resonates as a reality - regardless of what anyone said or meant - because for them it is a reality, either because they have witnessed the evidence, or the consequences, or because, essentially, it happened to them. And they will, of course, have great difficulty letting things go at assurances that one's Daddy/Master would never order such a thing because the people who did it to them lied, and nobody helped them. Furthermore, they have likely heard claims of powerlessness as an excuse, and probably as a dishonest one. So an explication of the meaning of TPE will, for them, miss the point.
For most people in general, of course, this is a hot-button issue because their first instinct is to protect children, even hypothetical children, and reassurances can't be verified over the internet.
I find an interesting parallel to that in the side discussion of restaurant floor sitting. The people in the restaurant are most likely outraged not because it presents evidence of an alternate lifestyle, but because what has been presented to them is only the assertion of the sub's powerlessness, without the reassurance of contextual information. They would most likely feel that they may be responsible to intervene, but (because of the ambiguity and the lack of clear abuse) powerless (through social constraint) to do so.
[For that reason, I would probably be even angrier myself, actually, if I had just gone somewhere to enjoy a meal. If a couple presented me with a situation like that, I would read it as a flagrant and obvious attempt (on their mutual part) to establish and exercise a dominance over me to which I had not consented.]
Anyway, a pertinent question for those involved in TPE: would you be comfortable making an assertion like "I am legally, ethically, and morally responsible for the consequences of my obedience", or have I missed the point?
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
Pure said:
I can tell... none of the professional attorneys I know would give unwarranted or unpaid legal advice even if asked, but for a close friend or family member.
pierced_boy
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2002
- Posts
- 482
Good grief folks remeber what this was aboutRe: BDSM and Impregnation
give up the pontificating please
H
GodBlessBreasts said:
give up the pontificating please
H
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Lark S. , you said, earlier,
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.
Here you mention OSG by name, and comment on her allegedly being "not suited to...responsibilitilies of a 'fit mother.'"
"Fit mother" is a legal term, and your posting, besides being insulting is presented as a legal-type opinion; which is itself poorly founded as you don't know but minimal facts of the case.
I mention this no so much because of you personally, as because a number of other posters have rendered all kinds of judgments about OSG's fantasy and various "what if's". But with the moral judgments of limbhugger, one can see it's an opinion about 'wrong', in his view. Your posting is presented as a comment about parental fitness in an individual case; something that would be determined by a judge--on the facts, not postings to a fantasy thread in a amateur porn writers' archive.
Lark S, most recently, you said,
[start]
Pure Said, Etoile, I am not a lawyer.
------------------------------------------------
Lark said,
I can tell... none of the professional attorneys I know would give unwarranted or unpaid legal advice even if asked, but for a close friend or family member. [end]
My[Pure's] comments were about 'a biological mother' and 'a mother'. Not about OSG in particular. And she is neither.
Those comments, for the record, are below.
J.
================
Pure originally said,
[to Etoile]
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.
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.
Here you mention OSG by name, and comment on her allegedly being "not suited to...responsibilitilies of a 'fit mother.'"
"Fit mother" is a legal term, and your posting, besides being insulting is presented as a legal-type opinion; which is itself poorly founded as you don't know but minimal facts of the case.
I mention this no so much because of you personally, as because a number of other posters have rendered all kinds of judgments about OSG's fantasy and various "what if's". But with the moral judgments of limbhugger, one can see it's an opinion about 'wrong', in his view. Your posting is presented as a comment about parental fitness in an individual case; something that would be determined by a judge--on the facts, not postings to a fantasy thread in a amateur porn writers' archive.
Lark S, most recently, you said,
[start]
Pure Said, Etoile, I am not a lawyer.
------------------------------------------------
Lark said,
I can tell... none of the professional attorneys I know would give unwarranted or unpaid legal advice even if asked, but for a close friend or family member. [end]
My[Pure's] comments were about 'a biological mother' and 'a mother'. Not about OSG in particular. And she is neither.
Those comments, for the record, are below.
J.
================
Pure originally said,
[to Etoile]
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.
Last edited:
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
It may used in law, but it is not an exclusively legal term, Pure - you just jumped on it in your passion for law. I wasn't speaking of being legally declared unfit because of depression or violence as you suggested - that was your own little trip.
my post was not meant to be offensive, but honest and direct in wondering why people were so riled by the post. People were commenting on OSG in particular from the beginning to the end. When someone says they are not a step-parent, and Daddy is raising them both, and they have never been able to protect themselves or say no, and they are submissive to men, and it just is, with or without a Master, these are things that probably would make people uncomfortable with thought of this person being a mother. Then when this person says they have fantasies about being the vessel of her Master's new little slavegirl it might even lead to moral indignation.
People have stated again and again in this thread that motherhood is thought to be above and beyond any D/s relationship - it stops there. OSG's fantasy completely contridicts this, and her lifestyle is based on being a slave and utterly powerless, which in effect, makes her an "unfit mother" as veiwed by most people. That really doesn't have to be insulting at all if her place is being a slave and she has no plans to become a mother. She has already stated in essence that her Master would not even allow her to be a traditional mother in taking all rights and privileges of motherhood from her were she to conceive a child.
my post was not meant to be offensive, but honest and direct in wondering why people were so riled by the post. People were commenting on OSG in particular from the beginning to the end. When someone says they are not a step-parent, and Daddy is raising them both, and they have never been able to protect themselves or say no, and they are submissive to men, and it just is, with or without a Master, these are things that probably would make people uncomfortable with thought of this person being a mother. Then when this person says they have fantasies about being the vessel of her Master's new little slavegirl it might even lead to moral indignation.
People have stated again and again in this thread that motherhood is thought to be above and beyond any D/s relationship - it stops there. OSG's fantasy completely contridicts this, and her lifestyle is based on being a slave and utterly powerless, which in effect, makes her an "unfit mother" as veiwed by most people. That really doesn't have to be insulting at all if her place is being a slave and she has no plans to become a mother. She has already stated in essence that her Master would not even allow her to be a traditional mother in taking all rights and privileges of motherhood from her were she to conceive a child.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Lark S,
You said, in part,
People have stated again and again in this thread that motherhood is thought to be above and beyond any D/s relationship - it stops there. OSG's fantasy completely contridicts this, and her lifestyle is based on being a slave and utterly powerless,
Your mistake here is to assume a slave, who is voluntarily powerless vis a vis the master, is powerless overall or in general. You make as if she can't flush the toilet after a crap, or, more relevant, change a diaper. Slaves, of old, really powerless, often had tasks involving directing, e.g., sheep, or more menial slaves.
We need only suppose, as is reasonable, that the Master's order, given early on, is, "Look after the child while I am away." Not, "You can't change a diaper, unless I'm here to authorize it in person."
which in effect, makes her an "unfit mother" as veiwed by most people.
Well, the reasoning is mistaken, but how exactly do you know 'most people's' views of a situation involving OSG, which doesn't exist?
J.
You said, in part,
People have stated again and again in this thread that motherhood is thought to be above and beyond any D/s relationship - it stops there. OSG's fantasy completely contridicts this, and her lifestyle is based on being a slave and utterly powerless,
Your mistake here is to assume a slave, who is voluntarily powerless vis a vis the master, is powerless overall or in general. You make as if she can't flush the toilet after a crap, or, more relevant, change a diaper. Slaves, of old, really powerless, often had tasks involving directing, e.g., sheep, or more menial slaves.
We need only suppose, as is reasonable, that the Master's order, given early on, is, "Look after the child while I am away." Not, "You can't change a diaper, unless I'm here to authorize it in person."
which in effect, makes her an "unfit mother" as veiwed by most people.
Well, the reasoning is mistaken, but how exactly do you know 'most people's' views of a situation involving OSG, which doesn't exist?
J.
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
And I think your assumptionsabout other people's assumptions are often wildly off base, but... and this is a big and important but... I have no desire to argue merits with you simply for arguments sake. Have a nice day!
Pure said:
sunfox
Gangbang Girl
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Posts
- 1,310
I'd like to join this conversation... oh wait. No, I wouldn't. So I'll just tell lark sparrow something.. on the record, and shamelessly stolen from another thread entirely that has nothing to do with this one.
"Yehaaaaaa! Squeal like a piggy, baby!"
Remember, sometimes telling someone your point over and over again can be like teaching a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
"Yehaaaaaa! Squeal like a piggy, baby!"
Remember, sometimes telling someone your point over and over again can be like teaching a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
The claim that a 24/7 (consensual bdsm) slave, of a TPE type--or OSG in particular-- is necessarily an abusive or 'unfit' mom has been refuted in detail. That the original scene was a fantasy, makes the vehement judgments against her even more bizarre.
Indeed, even real female slaves, as in the Old US South, were not necesarily (or generally) abusive or unfit moms.
Insulting words from the losing side don't add strength to their case.
Though they may irritate a pig.
Indeed, even real female slaves, as in the Old US South, were not necesarily (or generally) abusive or unfit moms.
Insulting words from the losing side don't add strength to their case.
Though they may irritate a pig.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:Insulting words from the losing side don't add strength to their case.
Though they may irritate a pig.
Discussion is not about winning or loosing it is about gaining mutual understanding and respect for each other view points, healthy discussion leads only to winners on all sides.
Francisco.
sigsauerprinces
just a shot away from you
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Posts
- 437
*edited.
nevermind, im not gonna go there again.
nevermind, im not gonna go there again.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Francisco said,
Discussion is not about winning or loosing it is about gaining mutual understanding and respect for each other view points, healthy discussion leads only to winners on all sides.
Exactly. That's why the above postings with the tired old line:
I argue to find the truth, You argue just for the sake of it, don't help 'respect' at all. Also: I am rational, you are a pig.
But so as to avoid a 'win/lose' depiction, I shall rephrase my sentiment: The folks who want to say OSG hypothetically, would make an abusive or 'unfit' mom have not been convincing, with one exception. Their points have been shown to be without foundation.
This is despite the intelligence of the individuals (assumed), and presumably because their feelings and arbitrary assumptions came into play.
Another reason their points have been unsustainable is because of something I mentioned early on: They are incongruent and want to plant feet firmly on two sides of the fence and say, "OSG's arrangement is (based on what's told) non-abusive" AND "OSG's hypothetical mothering of a hypothetical child *would* be abusive." Presumably because the child would not be consenting to the hypothetical father's authority.
But of course no child 'consents' to a patriarch's or matriarch's authority, in the strict sense. Though I suppose if they run away at 15 (but not 10) they may be said not to consent.
The one exception is Limbhugger, who holds two congruent beliefs, which he's ably stated: OSG herself is being abused. This is at least part of the reason she would hypothetically be an abusive mother. What follows is purely my re-construction of his views, based on my interpretations. He will continue to make his case in his own terms, of course.
While I don't entirely agree with this 'congruent' position, at least it makes sense, since, in the legal sphere (which L does not enter) one does see abused wives/moms who are party to abuse. L's moral case has a similar sort of plausibility, since he argues, morally, as follows (This is entirely my attempt to summarize what I understand to be his view):
Mom suffers indignities and debasements, and is acting as less than a person, in the moral sphere, having surrendered moral decision making (which requires choice and independence). Hence any child, esp. a female, cannot help but see (and be influenced by) such indignities, which makeup can't disguise.
One example would be mom's sitting lower than dad at a dinner table; also deferring always to his views, etc. The child, then, is seeing a modelling of abuse, in particular, female demeanment.
This would tend to 'corrupt' the child as to her expectations; she might well come to believe that *she* and other women *deserved* indignities, etc. She might, like mom, to end up not being a full fledged (self aware, responsible, independent) moral agent. Being in danger of that, she's eo ipso being abused.
A consistent case like Limbhuggers deserves full discussion, but unfortunately that hasn't happened. I bear some responsibility
(but could remedy it), others have apparently found his views too
dissonant to appreciate. And definitely not 'PC' with regard to how bdsm folks like to present themselves.
PS: Of course a number of posters have positions, in gray areas, that don't easily fall into one of the two categories I proposed. And some, to me at least, are unclear.
Discussion is not about winning or loosing it is about gaining mutual understanding and respect for each other view points, healthy discussion leads only to winners on all sides.
Exactly. That's why the above postings with the tired old line:
I argue to find the truth, You argue just for the sake of it, don't help 'respect' at all. Also: I am rational, you are a pig.
But so as to avoid a 'win/lose' depiction, I shall rephrase my sentiment: The folks who want to say OSG hypothetically, would make an abusive or 'unfit' mom have not been convincing, with one exception. Their points have been shown to be without foundation.
This is despite the intelligence of the individuals (assumed), and presumably because their feelings and arbitrary assumptions came into play.
Another reason their points have been unsustainable is because of something I mentioned early on: They are incongruent and want to plant feet firmly on two sides of the fence and say, "OSG's arrangement is (based on what's told) non-abusive" AND "OSG's hypothetical mothering of a hypothetical child *would* be abusive." Presumably because the child would not be consenting to the hypothetical father's authority.
But of course no child 'consents' to a patriarch's or matriarch's authority, in the strict sense. Though I suppose if they run away at 15 (but not 10) they may be said not to consent.
The one exception is Limbhugger, who holds two congruent beliefs, which he's ably stated: OSG herself is being abused. This is at least part of the reason she would hypothetically be an abusive mother. What follows is purely my re-construction of his views, based on my interpretations. He will continue to make his case in his own terms, of course.
While I don't entirely agree with this 'congruent' position, at least it makes sense, since, in the legal sphere (which L does not enter) one does see abused wives/moms who are party to abuse. L's moral case has a similar sort of plausibility, since he argues, morally, as follows (This is entirely my attempt to summarize what I understand to be his view):
Mom suffers indignities and debasements, and is acting as less than a person, in the moral sphere, having surrendered moral decision making (which requires choice and independence). Hence any child, esp. a female, cannot help but see (and be influenced by) such indignities, which makeup can't disguise.
One example would be mom's sitting lower than dad at a dinner table; also deferring always to his views, etc. The child, then, is seeing a modelling of abuse, in particular, female demeanment.
This would tend to 'corrupt' the child as to her expectations; she might well come to believe that *she* and other women *deserved* indignities, etc. She might, like mom, to end up not being a full fledged (self aware, responsible, independent) moral agent. Being in danger of that, she's eo ipso being abused.
A consistent case like Limbhuggers deserves full discussion, but unfortunately that hasn't happened. I bear some responsibility
(but could remedy it), others have apparently found his views too
dissonant to appreciate. And definitely not 'PC' with regard to how bdsm folks like to present themselves.
PS: Of course a number of posters have positions, in gray areas, that don't easily fall into one of the two categories I proposed. And some, to me at least, are unclear.
Last edited:
sunfox
Gangbang Girl
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Posts
- 1,310
Pure.
Had I wanted to call you a pig... I assure you, my post would have gone more like this.
Pure. You pig. Oink Oink.
But since it didn't, it must have meant that I was teasing, mostly lark sparrow, because I can understand her frustration in attempting to clarify her position to someone so utterly incapable of seeing anything but their own side.
While I may not personally feel OSG would fit the categorical reference of 'unfit' mother... or maybe I do, that's not really the point here... I do comprehend where it fits into lark's opinion.
That's exactly what it is. Her opinion. And your belittling her and using roundabout arguments to mock her point of view lacks both a real point, and persuasiveness. The point of a post is to garner opinions, and she has offered hers.
But hey. Carry on. At least I'm amused.. not that that likely shocks anyone.
Had I wanted to call you a pig... I assure you, my post would have gone more like this.
Pure. You pig. Oink Oink.
But since it didn't, it must have meant that I was teasing, mostly lark sparrow, because I can understand her frustration in attempting to clarify her position to someone so utterly incapable of seeing anything but their own side.
While I may not personally feel OSG would fit the categorical reference of 'unfit' mother... or maybe I do, that's not really the point here... I do comprehend where it fits into lark's opinion.
That's exactly what it is. Her opinion. And your belittling her and using roundabout arguments to mock her point of view lacks both a real point, and persuasiveness. The point of a post is to garner opinions, and she has offered hers.
But hey. Carry on. At least I'm amused.. not that that likely shocks anyone.
sunfox
Gangbang Girl
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Posts
- 1,310
Pure said:The claim that a 24/7 (consensual bdsm) slave, of a TPE type--or OSG in particular-- is necessarily an abusive or 'unfit' mom has been refuted in detail. That the original scene was a fantasy, makes the vehement judgments against her even more bizarre.
Indeed, even real female slaves, as in the Old US South, were not necesarily (or generally) abusive or unfit moms.
Insulting words from the losing side don't add strength to their case.
Though they may irritate a pig.
Oh yes. I knew I'd wanted to comment on something useful, in theory.
The claim, as I read the thread, is not that a 24/7 slave of the TPE type is an abusive or 'unfit' mother. The claim is that OSG only, with her inability to disagree openly with her Daddy in what she would construe most likely as disobedience, could be an abusive mother should she carry the fantasy to reality. The point really isn't that she nor her Master intend to produce children of their union, because pregnancies have a way of happening, planned or not, when you have sex. That's nature. (Barring any physical disability or snip that might block the ability to reproduce, which I don't know has or has not happened.)
As a point, if I were a TPE slave, and my Master wished to strap or cane my child for disobedience to him, I would have no trouble stopping it. TPE slave or not in my own part, my child is not required to submit to that, and as her mother, it is my duty to see to her safety. For me, that includes disobeying my other half if he sees fit to do something I don't agree with in regards to her.
The statement has been made that OSG would not do so. If her Daddy wished to do such a thing, or whatever.. I'm just picking that as an example.. she would sit by and let it happen.
After writing all this, I have to wonder why I bothered. I really don't care to get dragged into all this again. But I did want to clarify that despite Pure's contention that everyone who has posted with passion on this subject feels -all- TPE slaves would be unfit parents.. which I do not feel. I don't feel in any way Catalina would allow harm to her own children simply if Francisco wanted it. I don't feel necessarily that any TPE slave would allow that. However, I do feel that OSG would... in the hypothetical situation offered by the expression of fantasy into reality.
Yes, I know she intends not to. I addressed that above.
Limbhugger
Team Slut Towel Boy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Posts
- 3,031
*Looks over the skeleton...* "Whelp, there ain't an ounce of flesh left on this horse."
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Sunfox said,
But I did want to clarify that despite Pure's contention that everyone who has posted with passion on this subject feels -all- TPE slaves would be unfit parents.. which I do not feel.
That contention, unfortunately wasn't made.
I don't feel in any way Catalina would allow harm to her own children simply if Francisco wanted it. I don't feel necessarily that any TPE slave would allow that. However, I do feel that OSG would... in the hypothetical situation offered by the expression of fantasy into reality.
I fail to see any distinction. Catalina says her will is entirely subordinate to F's. She will not oppose it, nor any sane command. (If asked to sit lower for dining, for instance, she surely would.) She also trusts that F will be his sadistic but basically kindly, sane, civilized self, so there is--and could be-- no abuse problem to her, or other dependents if there were any.
I don't see any difference in OSG's position (do you?), though she maybe (we don't have all the facts) undergoes bit more physical chastisement.
PS: "Soup's on!"
But I did want to clarify that despite Pure's contention that everyone who has posted with passion on this subject feels -all- TPE slaves would be unfit parents.. which I do not feel.
That contention, unfortunately wasn't made.
I don't feel in any way Catalina would allow harm to her own children simply if Francisco wanted it. I don't feel necessarily that any TPE slave would allow that. However, I do feel that OSG would... in the hypothetical situation offered by the expression of fantasy into reality.
I fail to see any distinction. Catalina says her will is entirely subordinate to F's. She will not oppose it, nor any sane command. (If asked to sit lower for dining, for instance, she surely would.) She also trusts that F will be his sadistic but basically kindly, sane, civilized self, so there is--and could be-- no abuse problem to her, or other dependents if there were any.
I don't see any difference in OSG's position (do you?), though she maybe (we don't have all the facts) undergoes bit more physical chastisement.
PS: "Soup's on!"
Last edited:
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
And I think that is the point.....most here do not have all the facts, though some know more than others, and many question where fiction/fantasy ends and reality begins if at all that reality even exists beyond the posts on discussion boards.
Catalina
Catalina
the shadow of a boy
Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Posts
- 75
I'm starting to think that the main problem is not so much what the TPE(s) would or wouldn't do, or what the TPE(D) would or wouldn't order; rather, it's that they don't want to violate their current TPE(s) experience by thinking or speaking about hypothetical situations in which they would have to choose between the TPE relationship and exercising their capability to reclaim power and act autonomously to protect a child. Nor do they want to lessen the comfort of that experience by thinking about responsibility. My sense is that, were a discussion of TPE ethics to take place, some TPE(D)s would have to be participating, as they could discuss such matters without feeling unfaithful to their choices.
My apologies if that strikes anyone as harsh or judgmental; I didn't mean it that way, and I'd appreciate being corrected if I am in error. (verbally corrected, thank you. )
Since I haven't done my bit yet in terms of answering the original question, I'll try to address it.
My fantasies tend to be highly constrained by realism; that is, if something would be a concern to me, I can't push it out of the fantasy. (picture, if you will, adolescent youthful fantasies that degenerated into fantasies about earnest discussions.) So in terms of impregnation, feelings of responsibility towards any child I may father is a real sticking point. Needless to say, basic responsibility towards others tends to squick my contemplation of a fantasy of impregnation by force or deceit before it's even formed. However, the idea of having a secret, sordid affair with a woman who's practicing contraception with her significant other, but actively trying to conceive my child, manages to get off some loud pangs of zest before I start to consider the actual child.
My apologies if that strikes anyone as harsh or judgmental; I didn't mean it that way, and I'd appreciate being corrected if I am in error. (verbally corrected, thank you.
)Since I haven't done my bit yet in terms of answering the original question, I'll try to address it.
My fantasies tend to be highly constrained by realism; that is, if something would be a concern to me, I can't push it out of the fantasy. (picture, if you will, adolescent youthful fantasies that degenerated into fantasies about earnest discussions.) So in terms of impregnation, feelings of responsibility towards any child I may father is a real sticking point. Needless to say, basic responsibility towards others tends to squick my contemplation of a fantasy of impregnation by force or deceit before it's even formed. However, the idea of having a secret, sordid affair with a woman who's practicing contraception with her significant other, but actively trying to conceive my child, manages to get off some loud pangs of zest before I start to consider the actual child.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Excellent idea I am starting a thread on TPE ethics.the shadow of a boy said:
Francisco.
sunfox
Gangbang Girl
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Posts
- 1,310
Pure said:
Everyone -except- for you seems to see the distinction, Pure.
There is a rather obvious set of differences from Catalina's posts to OSG's posts of what are usual in their lifestyle, and Catalina has frequently mentioned that the welfare of her child would come first where necessary. In OSG's case, it cannot necessarily be inferred that this would be so.
You can lead me to soup... but you can't make me drink.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
sunfox,
[regarding OSG and Catalina's regimens]
//Everyone -except- for you seems to see the distinction, Pure. //
Not true. I have an argument partly from silence, but I think it's plausible: If you read Catalina's posting right after mine, a) she does not object to my proposal, and b) she agrees that one likely doesn't have the facts to make a decision/distinction. Which is to indicate, as I read her, that my proposal of 'no difference' is at least possible.
You want more soup???
PS Let her correct my reading of her, if necessary. I welcome it.
{{Added later: Here is sunfox's entire posting, for the record:}}
SF: Everyone -except- for you seems to see the distinction, Pure.
There is a rather obvious set of differences from Catalina's posts to OSG's posts of what are usual in their lifestyle, and Catalina has frequently mentioned that the welfare of her child would come first where necessary. In OSG's case, it cannot necessarily be inferred that this would be so.
You can lead me to soup... but you can't make me drink.
[regarding OSG and Catalina's regimens]
//Everyone -except- for you seems to see the distinction, Pure. //
Not true. I have an argument partly from silence, but I think it's plausible: If you read Catalina's posting right after mine, a) she does not object to my proposal, and b) she agrees that one likely doesn't have the facts to make a decision/distinction. Which is to indicate, as I read her, that my proposal of 'no difference' is at least possible.
You want more soup???
PS Let her correct my reading of her, if necessary. I welcome it.
{{Added later: Here is sunfox's entire posting, for the record:}}
SF: Everyone -except- for you seems to see the distinction, Pure.
There is a rather obvious set of differences from Catalina's posts to OSG's posts of what are usual in their lifestyle, and Catalina has frequently mentioned that the welfare of her child would come first where necessary. In OSG's case, it cannot necessarily be inferred that this would be so.
You can lead me to soup... but you can't make me drink.
Last edited:
the shadow of a boy
Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Posts
- 75
asenath said:
I don't think that sort of comment is fair, given how explicitly and thoroughly she designated it as a fantasy.
In my opinion, yes, fantasies can be dangerous. Yes, repeated exposure to a fantasy or idea can 'desensitize' someone to it. Yes, people tend to believe things that justify their desires. But it is important, and valuable, to be able to discuss and contemplate the range and reality of human fantasy, and understand their modes and origins. It is important to be able to understand how we fantasize, and how and where fantasies diverge from reality. My interest in this arises from observing patterns, over the years, in stories that I've read on alt.sex.stories.
For instance, typical themes in pornographic fantasy, especially 'mainstream' (i.e. typical) violent or non-consensual fantasy, have to do with the plasticity of the body, the imposition of pleasure and the submission of the victim to their awakened desires (their powerlessness in the face of those desires), and the mirroring of pleasure - that the victim quickly experiences every pain, fear, and humiliation with exactly the arousal, both sexual and adrenal, and sense of liberating transgression that the protagonist experiences in inflicting them.
Our fantasies often originate in childhood, and our fantasies often involve a sense of wrongness. Sexuality is muddy, biological, and doesn't always conform well with our responsibilities as adult humans to ourselves, each other, or those who need protection. Puberty is not voluntary, and it happens before anyone is ready to deal with its full consequences. Furthermore, although I will debate until blue in the face anybody who tries to justify their adult desires with the notion that children are 'sexual', the precursors of sexuality are already present in our childhood experience. To deny this specifically about ourselves, or to repress rather than ignore it in children, is to limit and deny our experience and expression of being human. I was a very sensual child, to the point where it weirded people out, and I knew (experienced clear evidence, rather) that I was very excited by bondage, before I even knew that I was straight*.
A hard and quick, generally accurate rule for figuring out whether a 'consensual' fantasy involving children or adolescents stems from original (honest) or masked (predatory) sexuality: look for the "pedophile's soliloquy" in the latter, usually in a form of an 'educational' talk, in which the protagonist justifies the situation and removes the dark clouds of reality from the horizon.
I'm sure I've managed to upset everyone at least a little bit, so
s to you all.*Telling your parents as a child that you "don't care" whether or not you like girls or boys and that you'll find out later lets you in for a lot of extremely embarrassing acceptance upon puberty... I think they've finally managed to accept my sexual orientation by this point. I hope.
Similar threads
