Treating slaves as property and boybear's responses

Re: My thoughts on treating slaves as property and boybear's responses

Stuart, I am becoming increasingly convinced that there is virtually nothing one can say on the subject of the power-exchange or of slaves, that cannot be easily controverted for the simple reason that each of us is an individual and we experience life differently.


But if words have meaning, and if the concept of the exchange of power between two men means anything at all, it must mean one man giving the other power and the other taking that power and using it to accomplish his ends.

Everything else is icing on the cake, so to speak.  Who can know the heart of a man?  The ways that a man uses to create sexual excitement are simply endless and boundless, but they are tied up in important ways to what we know men want to do or think of doing or fantasize doing.

I suspect that what is important here is the conversation, the discussion, that a potential leatherman sees going on.

When I distinguish between men and submissive males, I speak of a stereotype, and ideal, an ideal that claims erotic purity without the bother of daily adjustments that must be made in any real relationship.  Ultimately what a slave is depends on what his master wants and needs; what a master is depends on what his slave wants and needs.

But we know that both need or seek an exchange of power to one degree or another.  I have an ideal I seek to accomplish as do all other men.  We would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to ignore that slaves are the enablers here.  Without their permission to control them as we wish, there would be no exchange of power.  Yet the fact remains that the slave wants and needs to feel absolved of responsibility for his life, especially his sexual life, and that his dick gets hard, his pussy wet, his sensations all a quiver over the prospect of becoming dominated by a hot alpha male, being controlled, and being used as an object, as a property.

We can debate endlessly over whether this need of the slave "unmans" him or does anything to him.  The debate is really pointless, when you think about it.  What counts is what gets dicks hard.  That's pretty much the end of it.  Everything else is a means to an end.  That we have re-created our real lives to approximate what might be called the romantic life as lived in the brain, is nothing more than a recognition that the real erogenous zone is the brain, not the dick and not the pussy.  Sexual stimulation is something men create and develop.  It requires leisure, it requires wealth, it requires the opportunity and the freedom our society permits.  It does not exist otherwise.

Strikes me that you and those who approach power exchange as you seem to do, have forgotten the point of the power exchange.  Its only purpose is to enhance and stimulate sex for those who want a great deal of sexual stimulation.  That does not mean, I hasten to add, that a man and his slave are constantly involved in explicitly sexual activities.

But it is equally true that their protocols exist solely for the purpose of sexualizing everyday experience--a sort of extended, developed and greatly heightened sexual foreplay.  The very purpose of denying a slave sexual release, for example, is to keep it constantly horny and ready for sexual service at a moment's notice.  The thought a man has that he owns a slave he can use as he wishes is a sexual turn-on, a form of heightening his sexual response.

Why do men do this?  Because it is fun, basically.  Sex is fun.  When separated from reproduction, sex is amazing fun and does not suffer from the consequence of having to rear children.  That is one of the main reasons, I am convinced, that so many religious people, who typically are heavily invested in family development, find promiscuous queer sex so disturbing.  They are, at a certain level, profoundly jealous.  They may speak of the joys of rearing children, and I have no brief against rearing children (I have three of my own), still I've had more sexual fun in one year as a leatherman than I have had in the entire thirty years I've been married.

This goes also to comments I make privately, especially to potential slaves.  I think it fairly common that a man will find in his makeup desires both to dominate and to submit.  Typically one might see a dominant alpha male executive who feels fulfilled in his role as a dominant business executive, but who, for an infinity of reasons, may find that he craves sexual domination by what he typically considers a "superior alpha male."

He finds both sides of his nature to be fulfilled.  With a man such as this, can it be reasonably said that he is a slave, or potential slave?  I think not, because he would have no reason to give up the dominating part of his life.  This is not the male I would consider to be a good candidate for full-time consensual slavery.

On the other hand, there are submissive males who may operate quite successfully as dominant alphas in the business world, in their career roles, but they find dominating, managing, controlling, directing others to be a thoroughly unpleasant burden, something they do because the expectation has been foisted off on them and they may not have had the strength of character or courage to tell their family to go to hell.  There are any number of legitimate reasons for not saying that to one's family, so one makes accommodations and compromises and soon one finds oneself living a life he hates and gives no satisfaction.

Such a submissive is till a male, perhaps a highly accomplished male; but that's not at all the point.  The point has to do with what makes him happy and fulfilled.

When I describe such males, the aim is not to enforce some sort of abstract rule on what a slave must be; it is, on the contrary, a description that slaves themselves talk about and desire.

In my view it is perfectly legitimate for a man to take a reformist view of his role as owner and seek to facilitate the mending of what he may regard as psychological dysfunction in his slave.  I would caution such a man, however, that unless he is trained professionally he probably shouldn't try to go very far in this reformist impulse, since he doesn't understand the profound emotions he may unleash and these can sometimes harm the very people unleashing them was designed to help.

A slave undergoing a deep work session where the man is delivering new levels of pain and the slave is experiencing new levels of endorphins and out of body experiences and the like, well, experience suggests we tread more lightly here and back away until we get more knowledge about how to proceed.

For most men and slaves, however, the situation is much more simple.  The slave signs on to be used and the man uses it for his own sadistic pleasure.  Bonding occurs at some level and two happy leathermen result.

Virtually everything else, at least in fictional form, is foreplay and sexplay and designed quite specifically to make the dick hard and the pussy wet.  Men are wired to fuck; nature really has not much use for a man who doesn't.  Nature is concerned with reproduction.  While we men have been clever enough to divorce sex from reproduction, the fact is we still live as beings created for sexual pleasure.  A man thinks about sex something like every 7 seconds or so, is that not true?  What else motivates a man so deeply and profoundly as sex, besides food and shelter?

In summary, your remarks seem to be related to "teaching" and "modelling" appropriate behaviors.  I think that those efforts are largely misplaced, do not and cannot occur on the sort of institutionalized level of which you speak.

There may be specific leathermen who have special skill in training slaves, such as was depicted in the world of Waddie Greywolf's The Ties That Bind, but that was one or two special men in an extended leather family.  The story itself was heavily idealized in all respects, even though I thought its world was plausible and very sexually stimulating.

The fact is men go for sex; they generally don't think of going to school first to learn how to express themselves sexually.  They may ask around, that they certainly do, but you absolutely must respect the integrity and intelligence of every single man who comes to a place like The Leather Room seeking in the first instance some free, hot entertainment, and second, maybe a little information on how to make his sex life even more enjoyable.

A submissive male who craves to eat shit will eat shit by finding a man who will use his mouth as a toilet.  The slave who needs regular whippings will find a man who will whip him.  That is what men do, what they will continue to do, so you may as well recognize that submissive males, when they submit to the power of a man, come to rule the roost in a very basic sense, for without their submission there would be no power exchange at all.  They rule because they are willing to give their bodies to men who want to fuck them, whip them and shit on them.

We can facilitate matters, it may be, at the  margins, but at the end of the day, men do what men do and there's nothing you can say or do to stop that from happening.  Or am I completely mistaken here?

Psychmstr





--- In The_Leather_Room@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Norman <cyrwyn@...> wrote:
>
> Psychmstr and others on this thread,
>
> I've waited awhile to make a response re your posts and David Stein's
> responses because I also find some of the things you said about slaves or the
> way you say them bordering on the offensive. At least not in my experience. I
> was trained in SM over 30 years ago by an Old Guard Master. I have been a
> Top/Dom who has occasionally bottomed since that time. so I also know
> something about submission. I have known David Stein as a friend for over 20
> years and his former guardian Master Steve Sampson (now Rev. Kozen Sampson),
> founder of Butchmann's, for at least 15. I respect both of them highly. They
> have been good teachers for many kinky people. Just because they are respected
> friends do I always take everything they teach as gospel truth.
>
> For example, I had a friendly, long-running argument with Master Steve on his
> assertion that a slave doesn't have to submit, but only obey, while my take is
> that to obey one must first submit. Is there a solution? You decide.
>
> The Old Guard did not teach that slaves were inferior men. In my experiences
> of many Master/slave relationships often the slave was in every way an equal
> to his Master, even sometimes his superior, but the slave simply needed to be
> a slave and desired a Master and was glad to submit to another man to fulfill
> the need of both. Many slaves were the movers and shakers in many SM
> organizations. They often had great administrative and organizational skills
> that were highly prized and useful to the community. In their outside jobs
> many slaves were often in management or other positions of authority and
> respected for their skills and knowledge. Masters had pride that their slaves
> had respected skills and accomplishments and could offer those skills to the
> community. I've known so many slaves who I admired as men. Some of them were
> even superb Dominants.
>
> So I have to ask you why you think that slaves aren't men? Is this a semantic
> problem? I find that attitude both disturbing and unhealthy. I've only seen
> that behavior in psychologically crippled men who need professional help. Such
> men aren't slaves, but wounded puppies. I wouldn't want anything lesser than a
> real man who would willingly submit to me from his strength. Why is a
> submissive male not a man? Your definition of "man" seems to me a bit
> distorted.
>
> I worry what your message says to a loosely organized and younger leather
> community that isn't like the closely-connected communities of the past. What
> does it say to new members who have little or no experience and no close
> community members to mentor them in person? How can they compare reality and
> fantasies? Can they have healthy Master/slave relationships without good role
> models?
>
> I realize that some Masters and slaves play a pretend role wherein the Master
> is superior and the slave inferior, less than human, etc., to increase the
> dominant/submissive dynamic, but deep in their minds they know that it is not
> the case. There's nothing wrong with this because it is consensual.
>
> I doubt that you are abusive to your slave(s) and I wonder if you might not
> care more for them than you attest. I'm not accusing you of any impropriety,
> but I must ask you why you would want a lesser being to serve you when you
> could have better.
>
> Many other things you say about Masters, slaves and submissives are correct.
> You understand submission in a similar way to my understanding. You say that a
> slave needs to serve. You say that the relationship should be consensual, even
> to ownership. Each partner has needs that must be met. You also say that each
> relationship can be different dependent of the personalities, wants and needs
> of the parties. Etc, etc. We are mostly in agreement. Yet your blanket
> assertions about what a slave is appear to be revelations from on high. It's
> only YOUR personal way.
>
> I also must cast doubt on another post where the poster (justpasnthru1007)
> asserts that it is difficult for a Master and slave to love each other because
> love gets in the way of the Master hurting the slave. That well may be the
> condition in a particular relationship, but not in all Master/slave
> relationships. I've seen deep love and heavy SM go hand in hand. If both
> partners want heavy scenes, then heavy play is an expression of love. I've
> experienced it many times. Love can only increase a Master/slave relationship.
>
> I appreciate your courage to take on a disparate forum where we can have such
> interesting discussions.
>
> --
> This message has traveled almost the distance to the moon!
>
> Stuart Norman
> cyrwyn@...
> Registered Linux user 239714
> Censorship is the ultimate obscenity.
>