I will use myself as the convenient example. When I was born and growing up, in my mind it was not an option to have a man control me in any way. Then, when I was in high school I was exposed to BDSM for the first time via literature and conversations with my then-boyfriend, now-Master. Gradually, my instinct began to change. No longer did I believe there was no choice but independence. When I began to submit, from my view there was NO CHOICE except for Master to stop something if I told him I really meant it. Now? He’ll stop if he damn well pleases. Generally he stops if I tell him I am in real pain – but I know he does not have to. The choice has switched sides. Rather than me having the choice to end something, Master has the choice of granting my *request.* Even now, I am evolving further.

Seeing you describe it, IE seems like the opposite end of the spectrum of instincts from those I was born with. I was born believing that having another person control me was not even an option. IE would occur, then, when NOT being controlled ceases to be an option. It is a complete change in instinct.

I will agree with others – I am not sure I could handle that. I do have the utmost respect for those who can, and/or those who want to. I believe it is possible, it is just a series of small evolutions of instinct. I would be willing to bet that if you look back over your relationship, there are many periods where something that was previously not an option to have occur became something you saw no option of preventing.

This is just my .02 here…but the way you phrased that seemed the perfect description to me. It demonstrates precisely how it goes both ways. “He refuses to not let me speak my mind.” What I take out of that statement is twofold: (1) You get to speak your mind, and it is important to him that you get that chance; (2) You do not HAVE to speak your mind if you do not want to.

My Master is actually similar in that regard. He has always encouraged me to speak my mind, even before we got into D/s and M/s (however you choose to categorize it). He does not want me to lose my passion, opinions, etc., because that is a big part of why he loves me, and why he wants me around.

I would distinguish my situation in that regard from the impression I get of yours in two ways only. (1) While Master values me speaking my mind, there are times when my voice IS silenced – though that silence has never been permanent, only temporary. In that way he “refuses” to not let me speak my mind, but occasionally he chooses to delay it. (2) Sometimes I am ordered to speak my mind when I do not want to. This evening was the perfect example, actually. I was kneeling beside Master, in a situation where I was free to get up and move about if/when I wished. I had a horrible day today, and was very upset, and it was making me more upset kneeling there in silence, waiting for him to finish what he was doing. I decided to go change my clothes into comfy, home clothes, which he had earlier given me permission to do whenever I wished. I got up and went to the door in silence. He looked at me and asked what I was doing. I said “don’t worry about it” because I didn’t want to talk about why I was changing, and that I was upset, etc. until/unless he had time to hear it all. He then said in “that” voice: “Erlina, where are you going.” I knew I had no choice but to tell him then and there.

I know this is random and of topic…your response just got me thinking of how many subs/slaves I know who seem to think that a person who speaks their mind cannot possibly be a slave. (The whole “True Slave” idiocy and all that…) But your phrasing, in my eyes, demonstrated precisely why it doesn’t matter if the person speaks his/her mind – it is the intent behind it that matters.

Basically…while I see your point on the prenup, the reality is that it only serves so much purpose.

My personal opinion in regards to “slaves cannot meaningfully consent since they have no veto” is that this statement all boils down to the context.

If we think of “slave” we think historically of no choice, no freedom in regards to African Americans in early US history, in which case the statement would hold true. However, modern day, many in M/s relations see “slave” as submissive which truly depends on the relationship between the given two. Many that I have read up on do indeed believe in “ownership” at all levels; no veto “you do as I say” very cut throat…

On the other hand many M/s relationships are based on consensual desire that is agreed upon and therefore the statement would not hold true. Example being Master and myself…while we speak as new to this lifestyle I can certainly vouch for Him that He would not take His position as my Master had it not been for my consent as well as the fact that I have right to “veto” at any given time if I feel it is necessary. But honestly…what fun would that be? *smirk*

One last thought- why would a safe word be available to most “slaves” if this was to hold true. If they have no “veto” a safe word is pointless and meaningless. (Not that I have used mine yet- but still it is there).

OK- I am done my half political / slightly too serious rampage! :)
~Viemoira

Legally, I suppose Hawkeye is correct with the first quote. As much as I’d like to say, “Absolutely not! Once consent is given a slave never gives it again!” that just isn’t true. I hate using coin phrases, but, unless and until a slave has internalized slavery to the point that her subconscious no longer allows her to refuse anything, she is consenting to the things her owner does day in and day out by remaining and allowing him to do them. Even if, to the couple, that consent is meaningless. Even if the choice is obey or die.

I don’t agree that if the slave doesn’t understand the ability to withdraw consent she’s being abused. I guess that’s partly because I believe in blanket consent. But saying that it’s abuse is saying that it’s impossible to get to that place where subconsciously a slave no longer has a choice or that once she gets there she’s being abused and I don’t agree with that. I said, “Anything and everything, no matter what.” So if I go off my rocker, if I stop being able to register the law, if I lose the ability to communicate… I’m still His to use as He wishes. I gave Him that forever. And because of that, I believe it’s impossible for Him to abuse me.

Okay. So, to take this someplace weird, I’m going to explain this within the context of morality. I went to a Catholic high school, and this is pretty much verbatim what one of my teachers said. I can’t remember the exact context of the discussion, but I’m pretty sure we were talking about sinning and choice and going to heaven/hell.

Anyway, throughout your life you make a series of choices. These choices are influenced by how you are raised and the culture you are in. If, for example, you were raised not to steal, and live in a society that in general greatly discourages stealing, you will more than likely not steal. The first time you steal, you may experience great inner turmoil, feel guilt etc and so forth. (This is not in and of itself a damning sin). If you stop there, if you repent whatever and so on, you can still be good. However, if you continue to steal you will eventually become accustomed to it, and it will seem normal, not bad, and perhaps even good. At this point, we start to move into the realm of damnable sin because you have done it so much that you are no longer affected by your own sin.

You have, basically, brain washed yourself.

(Lets not get into the political and moral debate regarding stealing and damnability and so on. Thats missing the point)

Now, take person A, who has never stolen/only that once. I’m a good example of that person. If I cannot afford something, it may not even occur to me to steal it. I will probably think O poo, I can’t get the shiny. Its not a conscious choice. Conversely, person B, who is a rampant stealer, may take it without even considering if they can afford it. It doesn’t occur to them not to steal it.

Now, this is obviously over-simplified.

However, you can condition a person, without as much effort as you may think, and without as much cruelty as you would think, to not even consider an alternative to what you are suggesting. Brainwashing does not have to occur whilst locked in a box under a bed. Brainwashing is simply an extreme form of enculturation. The problem is when it is done without consent, or when it occurs past the point of consent. This could be in an abusive relationship, or a non-TPE relationship with poorly defined boundaries.

My fiance, right now, is attempting to brainwash me to put my dishes in the sink when I am done with them, as opposed to leaving them in the living room. Usually I leave them on the table till I remember to take them to the dishwasher. That is how I was taught to deal with dishes. He, on the other hand, immediately takes them to the sink (which shall forever be a point of contention). We could throw them away, or smash them against the wall, but that is not what we were taught/encultured/brainedwashed to do. His goal is so that when I am done eating, I get up and take them to kitchen without thinking. To do anything else is not -truely- a choice. This is totally outside the context of powerplay, and more in pursuit of hygene, but the idea is the same.

My fiance wants me to not even consider that there might be anything else to do with a dirty dish but put in a sink.
Kaya’s master wants her to consider that there might be anything else to do but obey him.