Posted by BrianInSF on July 30, 2005 at 13:10 [69.110.31.97]
In Reply to: Re: Stories by Hal posted by L.E. on July 30, 2005 at 08:42
You're using very strong sound arguments to present you're point. However I think what you're essentialy discussing is a matter of subjective preference.
The master/slave relationship can manifest itself in many different ways. And different slaves get off on different things. I think a Gorean approach parrallels Russ and his slave, the slave gets off on the fact that they have no controll, that the locus of decision making for them exists outside of their person. That's the turn on, and in the right relationship it's the turnon for the master too.
However annother variatel, which is just as valid, is the persuasive master. In which through the art of cunning and manipulation alters the behavior of the sub. This sounds more like what L.E. enjoys. The sub gets off on the fact that she's being played like a violin, and the master gets off on the act. The goal(usualy treated as unabtainable) is total domination, whereass in the Gorean approach, total domination is where everything starts. Both are equaly as valid.
Another variable is whether or not the relationship is based on the Al Dente factor, which can apply to both of the above. How much resistence does the sub offer before submission. Some preffer a great deal of feistyness and see it as a way of enriching the eventual prize of gaining control(or from the subs view, enriching what she finnaly gives away/looses).
On the more specific issue of consent, I agree with Russ that it's a more nebulous definition that we would like to think. However on another level, while consent may carry several conflicting definitions, I think that consent does have to exist between a master and slave on some level. She may not offer specific consent to individual action activites, but thats only because at the beggining of the relationship the slave gave a carte blanc consent for what she knew were going to be potential unpleasent future activites. Not unlike the military, you voluntarily sign up. But once you've made that X on the page, you're ass belongs to them. At the same time however, every person can potentialy rescind their consent by saying "No, I refuse to do that" and depending on the situation they often have the right of way. So on some level that slave does not offer consent(to offer it would eliminate the point of certain types of m/s relationships) but that's only because on another level she does.
At least that's what I think. I'll let both ya tell me why I'm wrong :-) This kinda shit's why I like you guys, it sure beats talking about 'who I saw yesterday that might have looked good in a diaper'
OK, I gotta go to work. See you folks later,
Brian
Email: moboya@yahoo.com