|
LadiesBladewing -> RE: Slavery/submission and personal responsibility (7/3/2006 6:32:41 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slavejali
The submissive has chosen to live a life like this through particiapting in a D/s M/s relationship..and with that undercurrent going on in day to day life, day in and day out..when someone as allowed themselves to become vulnerable enough to let these desires rise to the surface and commit themselves to a role within the relationship...I'm asking..how can they be wholly responsible for themselves?
In a healthy Ms relationship, at least from our perspective, the truth is that they can't be -completely- responsible for themselves IF they yield to this level. That is why so few individuals truly -do- yield to that point (and not just people in Ds or Ms relationships, but those in monastic life, and in military life, and in other walks of life that require daily submission of the ego to the will of another person or entity in its entirety -- or darned close). However, once an individual has yielded him or herself completely to the process, the process itself begins to direct the situation, and there is a suspension of the ego.
I think that the place where this crossed the line in terms of the court case mentioned earlier is that most people have ethical and/or moral boundaries that they cannot cross, even in service to another. A healthy, well-adjusted owner will recognize the point at which hir servant(s) have yielded to this point of having offered everything up to that owner, and, from that point on, the owner will return to them a reminder of their own ethics, never betraying the immense trust offered up to hir by exceeding that ethical standard. The problem in this case was two-fold. First, the owner was (by far) not well-adjusted and healthy. He was a predator, with no more care for his property than the pleasure it could bring him -and- he had a perversion that severely exceeded the bounds of social and legal morality. A healthy, well-adjusted dominant who desired to keep healthy, well-adjusted servants would not consider requesting something like what he did from a servant, knowing full well that it would injure another innocent being outside of their relationship who was unable, for -any- reason, to consent. That act, in itself, to me is criminal.
On the second leg of this, there must have been something in this woman, that she would be able to abandon her own sense of ethics to do what she did... and that something must have been either -very- broken, or very malnourished. As a parent, even for the love of those whom I served, and even as I yield my life to my dharma and by command of my Abbott (should he ever have been so demented as to command such a thing), I cannot imagine doing -anything- that would injure, humiliate, or keep my saplings from obtaining their full potential.
In terms of the generality, I have been in the position, myself, of having someones whom I was able to yield everything to... not always without a struggle, but, in the end, to offer everything that I was, without reservation. Even now, I don't know what I would do if LEB suddenly returned to us, whole and alive. Actually, I -do- think I know what I would do, and it scares me that now, even 5 years after his death, I can still feel that strongly about the bond between us, and find that, in my heart, though I have never since felt such a desire to yield, if he stood here before me, I believe that I would yield willingly -- even to my life. Even among the monks, I did not feel so compelled to yield completely (though yielding to LEB gave me the grace and peace to be able to yield to my dharma, as I yielded to him.) It is rare to have a person able and willing to give so much of hirself, and that is ok -- but if it -does- happen, the responsibility in the hands of the one wielding the power is immense -- because it becomes our responsibility not ONLY to protect that servant, but to -never- let hir forget who xhe is and what hir goals are for hir life -- it is possible to get lost in a bond like that... and it becomes the responsibility of the owner to protect that servant from all that would damage hir -- even from hirself if need be.
This does not abdicate personal responsibility, because each day, that servant must -still- make that choice to yield hirself to that level. What one can choose to do, one can also choose -not- to do, when it is no longer nourishing to do so. This is not a hasty process -- and most people will not find themselves able to totally yield their will and ego to the point where another person could make them surpass their ethics... but if one is hearing the little voices of conscience or hidden wisdom that are concerned about the stability of one's leader... then listen. In the end, no matter how attractive or powerful, the servant is the one who must offer up hirself.
ZWD
|
|
|
|
