Scat (no, i'm not talking about jazz)

[Kajira Callista]

Hiya Kace,

Love the current AV!

-B

thank you

 

[Marquis]

I've never fully understood this, and this is why I have no need to jump up and appplaud someone for being "hardcore". Here's how I run my relationship:

We do what I want. If that's more than you feel like doing tonight, dear, tough. (unless there's some really compelling reason, I can dig that)

If that's less than you feel like doing (just as likely) tough shit again. We're going to watch South Park and vegetate.

I have no interest in pushing boundaries just for the sake of pushing them, maintaining excitement, etc.

I run my relationships in much the same way, but I will admit that my desires tend to increase over time. There is a "sweet spot" in which the Dom is not too demanding but not too relaxed and the sub is not too adverse but not too agreeable. I try to keep my relationship in the sweet spot because I believe everyone in life appreciates a challenge and meeting that challenge.

I don't know how far along the bdsm spectrum that sweet spot is going to move, and I'm not implying it moves in one direction only, but I can tell you that things I used to think were unthinkable are no longer out of the question. I would be ignoring my history to not assume that I would one day want more, and my sub would want to give it to me.

Would M die for me? I'm sure he would, as I would for him in the advent of the bullet, or what have you. However, this is completely moot as I need him ALIVE right now, very much!

Would my slave off himself if I told him to? Possibly. I can't believe we're off on this theoretical however. How, please someone explain to me, barring a right-to-die medical emergency situation, could you possibly argue that this kind of thing is "right" or "ok?"

Just from an ethical standpoint?

Personally, I can't fathom submitting to someone whose ethics would include seeing you splatter your brains on the wall for shits and giggles, but that's just non-slave me.

This is obviously quite the hypothetical, but doesn't it comfort you to know that your slave has that kind of obedience to you? There are many things that I would never ask my slave to do (anything to do with scat for example), but it would comfort me to know that she would do these things. That she is ready to submit her will to mine on that level.

Since we're off on a hypothetical, I will give two very sick scenarios that may answer the question. I do believe in Kantian ethics, and if the whole D/s thing can't hold water at logical extremes than I think we need to change our model of how we view the responsibilities of power exchange.

My partner and I are spies caught deep within enemy territory. We are cornered and about to be caught and tortured for information. I am going to make one last attempt at looking for an escape route, but I recognize I will most likely be shot down during my attempt. I tell her if I don't come back in 10 minutes she is to blow her brains out.

At this point, the obedience of my submissive would be highly appreciated. If she chose not to obey me, likelihood is that she will be caught herself, tortured and raped (stop smiling TB), and eventually compromise the mission.

A second scenario, don't evil people get to be in love too? What if a submissive has the desire to be in love with the most satanic figure imaginable, someone who would abuse her recklessly. If this was her desire, is this not her right?

 

[Marquis]

But that doesn't also apply to the slave, now dying from internal bleeding? Or is that somehow different. To be applauded even?

This does not logically engage my argument in any way.

I'm talking about someones own right to do what they want as long as they don't affect anyone else.

 

[Marquis]

Well, the state would step in and find foster care. My concern is with the forum. Would you be willing to put all the Mod power into the hands of Marquis?

I wouldn't. I still don't know why Catalina asked me.

By the way, since I've been mod I've moved two threads.


OOOOOOOHHHHH

 

[Netzach]

This is obviously quite the hypothetical, but doesn't it comfort you to know that your slave has that kind of obedience to you? There are many things that I would never ask my slave to do (anything to do with scat for example), but it would comfort me to know that she would do these things. That she is ready to submit her will to mine on that level.

Since we're off on a hypothetical, I will give two very sick scenarios that may answer the question. I do believe in Kantian ethics, and if the whole D/s thing can't hold water at logical extremes than I think we need to change our model of how we view the responsibilities of power exchange.

My partner and I are spies caught deep within enemy territory. We are cornered and about to be caught and tortured for information. I am going to make one last attempt at looking for an escape route, but I recognize I will most likely be shot down during my attempt. I tell her if I don't come back in 10 minutes she is to blow her brains out.

At this point, the obedience of my submissive would be highly appreciated. If she chose not to obey me, likelihood is that she will be caught herself, tortured and raped (stop smiling TB), and eventually compromise the mission.

A second scenario, don't evil people get to be in love too? What if a submissive has the desire to be in love with the most satanic figure imaginable, someone who would abuse her recklessly. If this was her desire, is this not her right?

I don't even really roleplay or fantasize scenarios like that so I'm not the one to ask, sorry, my mind just doesn't go in those narratives, it's more impressionistic. I think if M and I were involved in intelligence, that willingness would probably come as contextual second nature in that setting, sure, for me or for him.

I don't really find it comforting to think that my slave might off himself if I asked.

I hope he'd refuse, in fact.

I will say that I know for a fact that if I told him to walk away, not look back, live his life and not contact me, I know that if I chose another owner for him and told him to go with him or her...those things WOULD be done without a moment's hesitation, and that gives me a great deal of pride.

 

[Marquis]

I don't even really roleplay or fantasize scenarios like that so I'm not the one to ask, sorry, my mind just doesn't go in those narratives, it's more impressionistic. I think if M and I were involved in intelligence, that willingness would probably come as contextual second nature in that setting, sure, for me or for him.

I don't really find it comforting to think that my slave might off himself if I asked.

I hope he'd refuse, in fact.

I will say that I know for a fact that if I told him to walk away, not look back, live his life and not contact me, I know that if I chose another owner for him and told him to go with him or her...those things WOULD be done without a moment's hesitation, and that gives me a great deal of pride.

From a practical perspective I would hope a slave of mine would refuse such an order as well, I'm not ready for that kind of responsibility.

 

[WriterDom]

I'm talking about someones own right to do what they want as long as they don't affect anyone else.

Suicide doesn't affect anyone but the victim?

 

[Marquis]

Suicide doesn't affect anyone but the victim?

It is no one's responsibility to stay alive for another person.

 

[sunfox]

It is no one's responsibility to stay alive for another person.

Obviously you're not a parent.

 

[Netzach]

I was once told by a parent that I was the only reason they had not offed themself. It's not exactly a warm fuzzy thing to pass onto one's kids.

 

[Marquis]

5 years ago my mother took an unnecessary risk with her life and lost it.

I don't hold it against her.

 

[babiesmiles]

I can safely say that there is NO circumstance in the world that would cause me to tell my property to snuff itself, and they know that. The answer to the question would be, unequivocally, "Mistress would never ask that, so it's a moot point." Not "yes I would" not "no I would not."

After reading (and thinking about ) the whole talk about the matter , in my opinion this sentence is the core of the point .

From a sub point of view this would be exactly my answer to the initial question .

 

[bridgeburner]

Actually, she has stated time and again that she is incapable of taking care of herself. That her Master is her caretaker and protector as much as Master.. so again I have to disagree that it is devotion.. it is obedience.

That she -has- devotion to him, I don't question. But that she obeys things without question out of devotion, that I disagree with as a total truth.

Okay, this looks like mostly a semantics thing which is generally about as thrilling as watching paint dry, but I'll give it a go and then move on.

One is obedient for a reason, either out of fear of the consequences should one fail to be so or out of a genuine desire to satisfy the will of some outside force -- whether that's the law or the Church or a parent or a Master.

Obedience requires self-will. If someone is truly compelled to act regardless of what he actually desires then that's not obediance that's machination of the type displayed by robots, puppets or, in the great fantasy world, victims of mind control serums.

Devotion is one motivation for obedience-- devotion defined as the state of being ardently dedicated and loyal to some other. Fear of distateful consequences is another possible motivator. Whether that's a beating or being kicked to the curb.

osg has made a choice to subsume her will within her Master's, but that choice is still hers. At root she chooses to do what he says. Her inability to run her own life is a factor only if she is mentally or emotionally deficient and incapable of doing so. I don't know that she is, only that she has made a choice to turn that responsiblity over to someone else because she prefers that.

I'll be honest here and say that even if she was a prisoner in her home, I probably wouldn't give much of a shit. I've never said I was altruistic, or even remotely interested in people's safety other than my own loved ones. I suffer from a woeful lack of pity for humankind on a larger scale... particularly when someone puts themself in a bad situation of their own accord.

I'd have to view that as Darwinian.

I have quite a bit of conern for those abducted and held against their will. For those who have created their own prisons it depends on the situation. I think battered women who try to get out deserve every support, but for those who choose not to do so I'm a bit harsher. For those who have children and stay you don't even want to know what I think.

I don't at this time believe that any of that applies to osg, though. ;->

-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Lordy-lord, where's Pure? He'd be on this like white on rice.

Wild and far-flung scenarios aside the question being asked at this point is do you believe in/support/participate in absolutes as regards power exchange. Some people do and some people don't. I don't think it's a matter of which is better or worse. Hopefully those who do, don't enter into such arrangements with psychopaths.

-B

 

[sunfox]

I was once told by a parent that I was the only reason they had not offed themself. It's not exactly a warm fuzzy thing to pass onto one's kids.

No, it's not, and I would never tell my daughter that, were it the case.

The statement, however, was that no one has a responsibility to another person to stay alive, and that is not true of a parent. You do have a responsibility to stay alive.

Marquis: There is risk, and there is shooting yourself in the head.

I take risks every time I ride my horses. I'm not willing to give up every potential risk.. however, that doesn't mean I'd drive my car into a wall, or over a cliff, or shoot myself, and say 'aww, but I didn't know I'd die' in the note I left. Those are two very different circumstances, and a parent -does- have responsibility to raise their children to independence before knocking themselves off.

 

[sunfox]

osg has made a choice to subsume her will within her Master's, but that choice is still hers. At root she chooses to do what he says. Her inability to run her own life is a factor only if she is mentally or emotionally deficient and incapable of doing so. I don't know that she is, only that she has made a choice to turn that responsiblity over to someone else because she prefers that.

It is largely a semantic matter, but in this.. again I have to say that she herself has repeatedly made remark of how she is incapable of taking care of herself without someone to care for her/watch over her/protect her. So no, I don't think it's about choice. It's about necessity and luck that she and he got together.

I have to stand by my opinion that it is not devotion, though of course there -is- devotion in their relationship.

And I rather imagine you feel much the way I do about battered women with children who choose to remain in those situations. Wrong doesn't begin to cover it.

 

[TaintedB]

I'm with Sunfox here. I see nothing whatsoever to applaud in totally mindless obedience. To me it doesn't mean love or devotion or in fact anything other than not having either the brains or the motivation to think for yourself. I don't even see a power exchange in these extreme situations. So you put a gun to your head & blow your brains out on command, do you think that you'll be around after to congratulate yourself on your supreme obedience?

I'm just one of the ordinary schmucks who calls herself a submissive. Fortunately my Master does not require me to eat poop or shoot myself to prove anything to him.

My post has apparently touched a few raw nerves. That was not its intent, but if I said I was surprised, I'd be lying.

There's a lot I could say here, in response to this and other posts that follow my long one, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble saying. If I change my mind, I'll reply again to this message.

 

[TaintedB]

It is largely a semantic matter, but in this.. again I have to say that she herself has repeatedly made remark of how she is incapable of taking care of herself without someone to care for her/watch over her/protect her. So no, I don't think it's about choice. It's about necessity and luck that she and he got together.

I have to stand by my opinion that it is not devotion, though of course there -is- devotion in their relationship.

And I rather imagine you feel much the way I do about battered women with children who choose to remain in those situations. Wrong doesn't begin to cover it.

If I may interject a rather personal question here, why do you feel the need so frequently to attack the way OSG and people like her such as yours truly live? (I've pretty much admitted to living a similar life, although I don't believe I have quite the all around strength that OSG has.) Did OSG attack you once long ago in the misty history of this forum and you've never forgiven her for it? Does what she say about her lifestyle make you feel personally threatened or in personal danger in some way? If none of this is so, why not go pick on the people who make mink coats out of cute little rodents rather than attack someone's right to practice her own form of sexuality as she sees fit? OSG (and myself, and, if I dare say it, Catalina) aren't hurting anybody, least of all ourselves. In fact, we are very happy and content with the way we have chosen to live--it clearly fills deep needs in us that could not be filled in any other way or in any other type of relationship.

So why the constant potshots against an extremely controlled lifestyle? Actually I don't even know if your gripe is with a lifestyle, as your contetious remarks seem to arise only in OSG threads--well, unless we get on the subject of animals. My point is, no one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to live this way, from what I can see. I am saying the opposite in fact: that nobody should do something this damn hard and scary unless they are absolutely sure they'll be miserable living any other way. Has OSG said at any time that you must walk this way or you are a shit of a person? If not, and you're not responding from past resentments or interpersonal hurts, I really don't understand why you feel so bad about what is, at its core, a highly personal sexual choice that nobody is forcing upon you or anybody else who doesn't want it. Why not just live and let live? And also, talk (about what you like) and let (us) talk (about what we like)? I extend to you that courtesy. I don't question how you live your life (I can't, actually, as I don't know any specifics about how you live it, but I wouldn't even if I did know. I celebrate differences in personal sexuality: look at how I enjoy Aeroil, for instance, who is a very different person from myself interested in a very different kind of sex than I am). Is it too much to ask to expect from you a certain generousity in spirit when it comes to our individual chosen kinks to be returned in kind?

I don't know the past history to this, obviously, so if I'm putting my foot into something tender, just remember you're under no obligation to answer this. Just tell me "it's personal" and I will not bring it up with you again. (Although I will still occasionally defend the rights of people like myself to speak proudly and happily of our minority kinks--much as I did in this thread.)

 

[arctic-stranger]

It is no one's responsibility to stay alive for another person.

You obviously have not had to clean up the mess after someone took a shotgun to their head.

As the person who is usually called after a suicide, i know it affects a whole host of people. Unlike other deaths, a suicide leaves a trail of hurt, guilt and anger behind them. I have done funerals for all sorts of people and suicides are the hardest. The feelings are the hardest for people to process. The suicide hurts a lot of other people--a LOT of other people. It is the cheap way out, as far as i am concerned.

for the record, i dont think suicides are condemned to hell, but i know they end up putting a lot of other people through hell.

call me a "brother's keeper" type guy, but i think we do have a responsibility to stay alive for others.

The ultimate story about this is from Buckminster Fuller, inventor the geodesic Dome. He lost his business, and a child (because he could not afford doctors for the boy) and he decided to do himself in by jumping into Lake Michigan in December. Standing on the shore it hit him--he did not belong to himself, he belonged the universe. The talents he had were given to him as a part of the processes of the universe (i am not sure that he believed in any kind of god or not) and he gave himself to the universe.

As doms and subs, we give ourselves to others, often in strange and wonderful ways, but we realize, at some basic level, we are not here just for ourselves.

Word.

 

[Marquis]

I find the tangential arguments in this thread totally fascinating. I'm going to start a thread that focuses on the major fulcrum of discontent here.

 

[Quint]

For what it's worth, I didn't think Sunny was particularly derogatory towards osg. I read her most recent post through pretty carefully and I didn't see anything that smacked (sorry, couldn't resist) of scorn. osg HAS said that she is not capable of taking care of herself. I think that with that said, it's understandable how one could see her relationship as being a matter of necessity rather than choice. Sort of "female submitting to the dominant male in exchange for protection" evolution thing. Sunny arrived at a different conclusion than you and others did, B, but I don't think she did it to be mean.

And for the record, I'm pouting because I only got one response on what I thought was a really neat correlation between total (but not blind) obedience to God and total (but not blind) obedience to Master. Pout pout pout.

 

[Marquis]

Marquis: There is risk, and there is shooting yourself in the head.

I take risks every time I ride my horses. I'm not willing to give up every potential risk.. however, that doesn't mean I'd drive my car into a wall, or over a cliff, or shoot myself, and say 'aww, but I didn't know I'd die' in the note I left. Those are two very different circumstances, and a parent -does- have responsibility to raise their children to independence before knocking themselves off.

Swearing absolute obedience to anyone is a risk. But just like any soldier, priest or even citizen who makes the same decision, we usually do it out of a sense of duty, and out of a belief that it is the right thing to do.

If I may interject a rather personal question here, why do you feel the need so frequently to attack the way OSG and people like her such as yours truly live? (I've pretty much admitted to living a similar life, although I don't believe I have quite the all around strength that OSG has.) Did OSG attack you once long ago in the misty history of this forum and you've never forgiven her for it? Does what she say about her lifestyle make you feel personally threatened or in personal danger in some way? If none of this is so, why not go pick on the people who make mink coats out of cute little rodents rather than attack someone's right to practice her own form of sexuality as she sees fit? OSG (and myself, and, if I dare say it, Catalina) aren't hurting anybody, least of all ourselves. In fact, we are very happy and content with the way we have chosen to live--it clearly fills deep needs in us that could not be filled in any other way or in any other type of relationship.

So why the constant potshots against an extremely controlled lifestyle? Actually I don't even know if your gripe is with a lifestyle, as your contetious remarks seem to arise only in OSG threads--well, unless we get on the subject of animals. My point is, no one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to live this way, from what I can see. I am saying the opposite in fact: that nobody should do something this damn hard and scary unless they are absolutely sure they'll be miserable living any other way. Has OSG said at any time that you must walk this way or you are a shit of a person? If not, and you're not responding from past resentments or interpersonal hurts, I really don't understand why you feel so bad about what is, at its core, a highly personal sexual choice that nobody is forcing upon you or anybody else who doesn't want it. Why not just live and let live? And also, talk (about what you like) and let (us) talk (about what we like)? I extend to you that courtesy. I don't question how you live your life (I can't, actually, as I don't know any specifics about how you live it, but I wouldn't even if I did know. I celebrate differences in personal sexuality: look at how I enjoy Aeroil, for instance, who is a very different person from myself interested in a very different kind of sex than I am). Is it too much to ask to expect from you a certain generousity in spirit when it comes to our individual chosen kinks to be returned in kind?

I don't know the past history to this, obviously, so if I'm putting my foot into something tender, just remember you're under no obligation to answer this. Just tell me "it's personal" and I will not bring it up with you again. (Although I will still occasionally defend the rights of people like myself to speak proudly and happily of our minority kinks--much as I did in this thread.)

TB, what I find most remarkable is that any one of you three will be the first to admit that you are in the minority of BDSM practitioners and that your lifestyle is not for everyone. You can't not threaten some people.

You obviously have not had to clean up the mess after someone took a shotgun to their head.

As the person who is usually called after a suicide, i know it affects a whole host of people. Unlike other deaths, a suicide leaves a trail of hurt, guilt and anger behind them. I have done funerals for all sorts of people and suicides are the hardest. The feelings are the hardest for people to process. The suicide hurts a lot of other people--a LOT of other people. It is the cheap way out, as far as i am concerned.

for the record, i dont think suicides are condemned to hell, but i know they end up putting a lot of other people through hell.

call me a "brother's keeper" type guy, but i think we do have a responsibility to stay alive for others.

The ultimate story about this is from Buckminster Fuller, inventor the geodesic Dome. He lost his business, and a child (because he could not afford doctors for the boy) and he decided to do himself in by jumping into Lake Michigan in December. Standing on the shore it hit him--he did not belong to himself, he belonged the universe. The talents he had were given to him as a part of the processes of the universe (i am not sure that he believed in any kind of god or not) and he gave himself to the universe.

As doms and subs, we give ourselves to others, often in strange and wonderful ways, but we realize, at some basic level, we are not here just for ourselves.

Word.

You're the second person to point out an "obvious" fact about me in the last few pages.

It is a fundamental maxim of science and philosophy that any assumption too obvious to be proven is almost always false. No, I don't have any offspring and I've never had to cleanup after someone took a shotgun to their head, but neither of you know shit about my life or the collection of personal experiences that make me who I am. Guessing at circumstantial reasons to undermine my opinions does nothing to prove your point.

To say that suicide is the only form of death that leaves a trail of hurt, guilt and anger behind it seems ignorant beyond belief for someone of your age and profession. Perhaps you meant that suicide leaves a disproportional amount of pain in its wake, but even if that were true, I think it is more a symptom of the perverse way our society looks at suicide.

When someone kills themselves, they didn't commit murder, they were so sick that they died.

I have felt suicidal a few times in my life, and if I ever did commit suicide, I would hate for anyone to think it was because they didn't help me or I didn't love them enough. If I do commit suicide, it'll be because there is something wrong with my brain. Something that sends me into irrational and sometimes uncontrollable fits of depression or mania.

I want these feelings no more than the unrequieted lover wants his longing, but it is my lot.

 

[Marquis]

For what it's worth, I didn't think Sunny was particularly derogatory towards osg. I read her most recent post through pretty carefully and I didn't see anything that smacked (sorry, couldn't resist) of scorn. osg HAS said that she is not capable of taking care of herself. I think that with that said, it's understandable how one could see her relationship as being a matter of necessity rather than choice. Sort of "female submitting to the dominant male in exchange for protection" evolution thing. Sunny arrived at a different conclusion than you and others did, B, but I don't think she did it to be mean.

And for the record, I'm pouting because I only got one response on what I thought was a really neat correlation between total (but not blind) obedience to God and total (but not blind) obedience to Master. Pout pout pout.

Actually, your post made me think of the story where God tells Abraham to bring his son to the mountain as a sacrifice, only to switch him up for a lamb once he realizes old Abe's faith was legit. I play these sort of mind games with my subs quite a bit. I find it helpful to know the extent of one's submission before actually putting them in a difficult situation. Some scenes are hard to reel out of.

 

[Netzach]

I actually make my slaves and serious applicants read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling which is all about that biz.

Theory and practise are different animals, to me, though.

 

[Marquis]

I actually make my slaves and serious applicants read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling which is all about that biz.

Theory and practise are different animals, to me, though.

Which biz are you referring to?

I gotta get up on my existentialism game.