Silver Threads and Iron Chains

At least now I know what to call my new alt.

Pserendipity,
Fantasy obedience is fantasy obedience it isn't real, it like a bunch of d&d players
pretending to kill the dragon to get it's gold and special treasure quest to bring back to the
Dungeon Master or Vampire RPG game...it's all a game.
Any time the obedience thing goes beyond that for some Master or Mistress, it case of Dom
or Sub gone little to far and often leads to nutty things that end up with some crime that ends up on the 5 o'clock news or in lesser degrees people who very hurt and emotionally imbalanced in terrible need to learn how to get grip and better boundaries.
When people start believing in their roles and fantasy and lose balance you get nuts
thinking their real life vampires can kill people and not pay consequences and other bizarre bs.
This type of bs lead to dangerous situations.
No healthy Dom or Master is going to ask for total obedience from their sub or slave they have never met or haven't already built level of trust even then most who have sense of what is healthy boundaries is going to ask for that unless their seriously mentally disturbed or into playing whacko nonconsensual mind games.

Love is correct in that us normals have very little understanding of the subject as it pertains to SL.

I imagine things thus:

Mistress: Hop on that poseball
Slave: No
Mistress: Oh, okay
Mistress: Put on this collar
Slave: Nope
Mistress: I said put on this collar
Slave: Sorry, boundaries and all that. Gonna go shopping now
Mistress: Oh, okay
Slave: Can I have some money?
Mistress: Only if you go naked
Slave: Not in my contract, sorry
Mistress: Hmm, okay. Can I tie you up later?
Slave: Hmm, k. 15 minutes after I watch Grey's Anatomy
Mistress: Yay me

Okay, that was tongue in cheek, but one has to wonder what exactly is so special about this relationship if a simple "bite me" will suffice to get out of whatever task 'master' has dreamed up.

Is it any wonder that some of us are confused?

Still object to the term 'slave'. If that is it, you're doing it wrong.

i see a lot of people that are other peoples pets and then owners of them..is this the same thing just using different names for it??

Are we not all enslaved by this pigging game?

Well, the silks are quite pretty.

It would go more like this (still tongue in cheek)...

Mistress: If you deserve to become my slave, I'll expect you to go on poseballs when I ask.
Potential Slave: No
Mistress: Bugger off and stop wasting my time, there are are thousands of subs out there. NEXT!

For the record, I'm not overjoyed abut the connotations of the word slave either.

Ohh, I get it now. Duh.
I had assumed there to be a relationship between dom and sub beyond the pixel thing. Silly me. Didn't know that subs were quite so disposable. This makes more sense now.

(Although I'm thinking now that fear of dismissal might lead some people to agree to things they normally would not. Hence the 'master' may be able to SAY that there is consent, but I wonder how much of that is truly free will)

My actual point was that the rules are set early and both sides stick to them. The conversation might instead have gone:

Mistress: I'll want you to perform [specific sexual act] when you are my slave.
Potential Sub: I don't like [specific sexual act], can I not do that?
Mistress: You will damn well do it and like it, bitch!
Potential Sub: You'll have to find another sub then, and I'll look for another Mistress.

The submissive can just as easily refuse the Dominant. Admittedly, the supply and demand thing is certainly on the Dominant's side, but subs aren't entirely disposable.

Really, D/s is like any other relationship: each partner supplies what the other wants from them. In the case of D/s, the submissive wants the Dominant to exercise control over them, and the Dominant wants someone to exercise control over. The nature of the control is what is different from one relationship to another. Don't like being spanked? Don't partner up with someone who likes spanking.

Love- walk away now. Really. It's pointless - trying to convince some people they are wrong about something or just don't fully grasp all the information is completely impossible. Believe me- I have made those same points to that same person over and over and over and finally decided I can walk away 'cause I have nothing to prove.

As for the string theory, I consider that an alt-ercation

Perhaps it's "all in a name"; is obedience a form of slavery? Yet I perceive a fascination with the idea of slavery in sl. It's total fantasy of course; Scherazade 1001 Nights and silky gowns, bowing and scrapping for some kink-sex.

We shouldnt forget that killing a dragon IS fantasy but imitating life by subjecting people to domination and subjugation by ownership (however tenuous) is not. There may be a few of us on this thread who have slavery in their ancestry but most of the people who indulge in slave fantasies here (and in real) prolly have no "history" of this form of ownership; it would "stick in their craw" to bow to anyone regardless of teh reasons to do so.

Who, in your mind, is "subjecting people" to anything in a D/s relationship? The whole thing revolves around consent. The sub CHOOSES to submit, to whom they submit, and what actions they submit to. In SL, they can even log out if things get too tough for them. It's almost impossible to be coerced.

Right, so that is what I mean - I realize now that the idea of a dominance relationship is a game. But, we use teh word "slavery" too easily. Using that word as freely as we do in sl (slave auctions, role play etc) diminishes the power of the word in rl. I dont think I have ever seen teh word "murder" used in any situation in sl (because it is so heinous a crime in real), but "slavery" is a fairly common term, yet we consider teh very notion in real as despicable.

May I refer you to my previous posts in this thread, particularly the last line of #56 (typo preserved!)?


Also the ongoing conversation with Brann, where I steer away from her terms of 'Mistress' and 'Slave' in favour of Dominant and submissive. Generally I'd prefer 'slave' not to be used as a D/s term.

If you want me to be extra-picky, I could tell you about Toxian City, a hugely popular RP in SL self-described as "Horror, Murder, Suspense, Drama,& Sex!!", the idea of 'Murder Mystery' as entertainment in fiction and even such casual uses as "Traffic was murder" or "I could murder a drink". Lots of other emotionally charged words are used in mundane contexts ("I'm a martyr to my back" but no-one worries that anyone is carrying out those actions.

I can get you some popcorn.

Wow the ignorance displayed in this thread by several people is just off the chart.

The great thing about life and experiences is that if you run across something you do not like, you can actually LEARN ABOUT IT FIRST HAND and then come to an informed opinion about this thing you find yourself ignorant about and at odds with.

The fact that some of you change the context of the relationship and place real life principles on what is happening in virtual world between consenting adults shows how unreasonable and close minded you are to the issue at hand and literally not worth talking to.

I didn't miss it out. It is entirely irrelevant to my argument. If I was arguing about dogs being deaf then telling me that cats are deaf is of no interest to me.

Pep (You seem to miss the point)

You're mixing in-character and out-of-character behaviors. You're also omitting a huge amount of implied understanding about what that obedience means.

Edited to add "by using emotional and illogical arguments."

Edited to add "by repeating the same emotional and illogical arguments over and over and over."

Edited to add "logically".

Pep (Emotional arguments know of no refutation)

How am I to be able to differentiate in-character and out-of-character behaviours? "Implied understanding"? Does that mean the same as complete guesswork?

Pep (Address the basic question if you want to make an argument to me)

A lot of marriage vows still have the words "...love, honor & obey", so imagine this conversation taking place: "Hon, let's get totally plastered and then go rob a bank, naked."

...and the appropriate response would be ...?

Actually, at least as far as RL BDSM goes, I have always understood that a D/s relationship is subtly different from a Master (or Mistress)/slave relationship. Both exist. From what I understand, the slave thing involves once-only consent rather than a continuous negotiation of limits, and is looked on by many as being akin to a marriage. In this situation the slave can choose not to obey, but that is the end of the M/s relationship. The Owner/pet thing is different once again.

Then again, in SL it might be different, after all, many don't really take the concept of SL marriage very seriously either.

The word "slave" probably is offensive to anybody with slavery in their ancestry. Perhaps it would be good to have another term for this particular flavour of relationship. On the other hand, lots of words have more than one meaning. Should I stop eating faggots (yum!) because the word is offensive to gay people?

I still think that a lot of the attraction in SL is because the silks are pretty

I am agreeing with you for the most part. As for using "murder" as a metaphor or image well, ofcourse I accept that. As in "A Murder of Crows" (right?) But, if a child, on a playground, said "Let's play at Murder!" we may be a little bemused. Or if two teenagers said "We're gonna go out and be slaves tonight" the general consensus of opinion would be "No, I don't think so."

This is the sticking point for me.
Those of us who are not "into" this sort of thing tend to think of subs as generally weak-willed people who need someone to tell them what to do. Perhaps they are emotionally needy, somehow damaged, or for some other reason willing to let someone else take over the reins. (Yes, of course, not all of them - forgive us this perception when we see people willing to be led around on a chain like dogs)

So then I'm thinking that there is a real danger of such people falling victim to someone's whims because these 'slaves' are afraid to withhold 'consent'.

In a perfect happy world everyone agrees on what is within boundaries.
But would someone dependent on their 'master' agree to otherwise objectionable actions out of fear of dismissal? Would a "master" even be aware that their pet isn't happy with what they're asked to do?
You are then, actually, moving from play-slave to real-slave. An abusive relationship, be that SL or RL.

(Briana, if some of us weren't ignorant about the subject, we wouldn't be asking. If someone isn't worth talking to, you can feel free to withhold comment.
Folks like Kelli and Love are trying to explain things quite reasonably without the knee-jerk reaction - the odd idiot post notwithstanding)

B.

spinster...
This is all getting a bit more technical than the original question really demands, and I'd rather not get bogged down in the specifics of D/s terminology here. When you start getting to this level of detail, you can get different definitions from everyone you ask. Suffice it to say that there are people who want to be called slaves, but I'm not one of them. I think the emotive nature of the term clouds some folks' judgement. I'm not quibbling with anything you posted.

Jig...
Likewise, I think we are splitting hairs a bit finer than necessary. One might decide to play at murder without being thought all that odd... "Murder in the Dark" or "Blink Murder" parlour games, "Murder Mystery" roleplay weekends, there's a even "Murder on the Orient Express" boardgame IIRC. And yes, you would think it odd if teenagers talked about slavery like that, because even if they weren't using it in the original emotive 'unwilling labour' sense, thinking of teenagers (especially underage teens) involved in D/s play would be just as controversial.

Unless this thread goes in a different direction, I think I've said all I need to on the subject.