Submissive Rights

March 4, 2001
Rights Of A Submissive

[21:22] * raven^Ron says Hello and welcome to #Leather_and_Roses' weekly discussions on BDSM topics. I hope you enjoy it. The following rules apply for all present.
[21:22] <raven^Ron> You must be of legal age to participate, if you are not, please leave. Legal age being 18 or 21 depending on your location, if you are thought to be younger, you will be asked your age. If you are found to be younger, you will be kick/banned.
[21:22] <raven^Ron> No trolling will be tolerated, this is not a singles night, it is a discussion night Trolling is the advertising of yourself, wants/needs/desires, and/or personal ads. If you troll, you will be kick/banned.
[21:22] <raven^Ron> Harassment will not be tolerated either. If you harass another person, and an op is made aware of it, you will be asked to stop. If you continue, you will be kick/banned. This discussion is for enjoyment and information, not harassment.
[21:22] <raven^Ron> Please try to stay on topic and discuss one thread at a time. If the discussion gets overly fast (or overly emotional, or someone requests a break), I will call a break. This is so everyone can take a few moments to relax, and get their thoughts in order before continuing.
[21:22] <raven^Ron> If it erodes into a semantics argument, and those who are disagreeing can not agree to disagree, I will close the discussion for the night. We are here to discuss and learn from one anther, not fight with one another.
[21:23] <raven^Ron> Please be polite when speaking and do not flame anyone. Flaming is insulting the person who states an idea. You can disagree with an idea, but do not attack the person making the idea. Flamers, will be kicked
[21:23] * simoriah harasses Flagg in PMs..... please don't tell on me, Flagg :)
[21:23] <raven^Ron> All statements are publishable on the web site,. I will change nicks if it is requested via email to ravenshad@mindspring.com. If I receive no requests, logs will be published in full on the web site and the lack of a request will be taken as consent to publish your statements.
[21:23] <raven^Ron> I hope you enjoy tonight's discussion, the topic is Rights Of A Submissive
[21:23] <raven^Ron> Lets start with this..what are rights
[21:23] <jakyra> rights are guarenteed
[21:23] <ayli> uh
[21:23] <raven^Ron> guaranteed by who jakyra?
[21:23] <ayli> things that you have no matter what?
[21:24] * ayli just went stupid.. sit over here for a moment
[21:24] <jakyra> good question :)
[21:24] <raven^Ron> ok..I can agree with that definition of rights ayli...but who bestows those "rights"?
[21:24] <{sonja}JP> thought stopping question even.......
[21:25] <ayli> other humans?
[21:25] <ananda`{R}> right (rt)
[21:25] <ananda`{R}> adj. right·er, right·est. Abbr. r., R., rt.
[21:25] <ananda`{R}> Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
[21:25] <ananda`{R}> In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer.
[21:25] <ananda`{R}> Fitting, proper, or appropriate: It is not right to leave the party without saying goodbye.
[21:25] <Roamer`> contract
[21:25] <_Flagg> Rights are a social construct, created by concensus and authority.
[21:25] <raven^Ron> Ron: there are no inallienable rights per say, but human socieites have structured themselves to allow to one extent or another, freedoms..such as freedom of speach, innocent until proven guilty..for example in America...
[21:26] <raven^Ron> Ron: But there are no inalleanable rights..
[21:26] <ananda`{R}> Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature
[21:26] <jakyra> in the case of BDSM, I would guess it would be a very personal discision, between the couple
[21:26] <Soulhuntre> Rights are a ethical construct used to embody and codify an idea of good and evil. They have no objective existense.
[21:26] <Roamer`> its down to the contract .......
[21:26] <raven^Ron> how is it down to the contract Roamer?
[21:27] <raven^Ron> Ron: Good way of saying it Ken..
[21:27] <Roamer`> well, since i agree tha tthere are no such things as rights per se ...........
[21:27] <raven^Ron> Ron: I mean before we had societies it wasn't nothing for someone to come along and kill you..that took away anything like a "Right"
[21:28] <Roamer`> any rights within a D/S relationship would have ot be agreed during contract negotiation
[21:28] <ananda`{R}> the laws of the land you live in dictate certain rights
[21:28] <raven^Ron> Ahhhhhh..ok I get it now Roamer..thank you...
[21:28] * {sonja}JP just had a thought......
[21:28] <raven^Ron> so..if "rights" are set up in a contract, are they then rights for the sub?
[21:28] <{sonja}JP> this one is going to get me in trouble......
[21:28] <Roamer`> depends on how the contract is written .but yes .....
[21:29] <Roamer`> thats how i basically see it
[21:29] <{sonja}JP> rights are something the weaker people thought up to keep the stronger people from "taking advantage of them"?
[21:29] <Roamer`> son didnt ework though did it
[21:29] <raven^Ron> ok..that makes sense to me Roamer..
[21:29] <ananda`{R}> perhaps the stronger thought of to protect the weaker, sonja?
[21:29] <raven^Ron> could very well be sonja...
[21:29] <raven^Ron> or the other way around..
[21:29] <raven^Ron> GMTA Ananda..
[21:29] <{sonja}JP> perhaps
[21:29] <raven^Ron> ananda even..
[21:29] <Roamer`> sorry. last comment was meant for sonja
[21:29] <_Flagg> How about the rights of the Dominant to enforce his will?
[21:30] <Roamer`> _Flagg: thats comes down to the contract again ........
[21:30] <{sonja}JP> does he have that "right"?
[21:30] <raven^Ron> within the confines of BDSM...do submissives have rights in general, outside of the specific relationship? (Rights that exist for them even before they are in a relationship)
[21:30] <{sonja}JP> or does he just DO it?
[21:30] <raven^Ron> I think a Dominant has that right Flagg once consent is given and the submissive submits (to whatever level was agreed upon)
[21:30] <{sonja}JP> they had the rights society gave them......before the relationship......
[21:30] <Tatsumi> thanks Soul:)
[21:30] <{sonja}JP> because they were ....... submitting to society at large....
[21:31] <raven^Ron> Ron: I would say if it is outside the relationship the submissive has the rights agreed upon by whatever country/area he/she is in...
[21:31] <_Flagg> It had better be specified if thre is going to be a contract, i'd like to suggest.
[21:31] <raven^Ron> Ron: I'm not sure if that's a right duty or privalege Flagg..
[21:32] <raven^Ron> IN contracts aren't the rights/privaleges/duties of both the dominant and the submissive usually spelled out Flagg?
[21:32] <Roamer`> raven^Ron: yes
[21:33] <Roamer`> to me that has always been the reason for having a contract in D/s
[21:33] <jakyra> how can something be both a right and a privalege
[21:33] <_Flagg> Consent and abuse are nebulous things, with definitions often dependent on emotional state and other human frailties. If you are righting a contract, specify the limits of that authority - in writing.
[21:33] <Soulhuntre> The ability to have recognized rights IS a priviledge
[21:33] <raven^Ron> I used the slash as an either or thing jakyra..not to imply the words are synonymous
[21:34] <raven^Ron> Ron: I have the right to punish raven. I view it as a privalege that has been granted to me. That way it reminds me not to abuse it..or raven
[21:34] <_Flagg> Not always- most people concentrate on the rights of the submissives under contract, and very little else.
[21:34] <Roamer`> good answer Ron :)
[21:34] <ananda`{R}> that wasn't true in our case, Flagg
[21:34] <raven^Ron> I think a contract has to include both, not just the sub...
[21:34] <_Flagg> Ok- but where do your rights to punish begin and end?
[21:35] * {sonja}JP ROLLS
[21:35] <Roamer`> _Flagg: that depends on how the individual contract is negotiated .given the differences between people .no tw ocontracts will likely be the same
[21:35] <raven^Ron> Ron: They began when the relationship began, they will end if the relationship ends, or when in my view I have overstepped the vows and abused raven..
[21:35] <raven^Ron> Ron: I"ll end it then..
[21:36] * {sonja}JP tries to imagine a dom.......or really a guy......"deciding that he has abused someone..."
[21:36] <_Flagg> Do you have the right to emotional punishment? Food deprivation? Bodily alteration as punishment?
[21:37] <raven^Ron> raven: bodily alteration as punishment? I don't want to know...
[21:37] <Roamer`> that depends _Flagg .....
[21:37] <{sonja}JP> that is that whole toe thing again raven.....
[21:37] * {sonja}JP shudders
[21:37] <raven^Ron> I know sonja
[21:38] <Roamer`> if its been agreed on in the contract .then yes .......
[21:38] * simoriah is afraid Ror will pick back up with the pinky removal idea now
[21:38] <raven^Ron> Ron: I have the right to any of those, but I have the choice to not do anything that would harm raven, and with things like bodly alteration, I would chose not to do that..
[21:38] <Roamer`> but if it breaks alreayd established limits within the contract .then no
[21:38] <raven^Ron> Ron: now chocolate deprivation might be an emotional thing I might use one day.. LOL
[21:38] <raven^Ron> raven cringes and prays that never happens..
[21:38] <_Flagg> Where are YOUR rights defined? Not you particularly, but most contracts depend on "common sense", love, and trust. Contracts are about rights and rules, not trust.
[21:38] * Roamer` sets Ron mode + cruel bastrad
[21:38] <{sonja}JP> lol
[21:38] <raven^Ron> raven: we don't have a contract Flagg...it was verbal agreements..
[21:38] <raven^Ron> LOL Roamer
[21:39] <raven^Ron> Ron: LOLOL Roamer
[21:39] * Roamer` sets self mode + dyslexic
[21:39] <{sonja}JP> that would be cruel........but perhaps self-abusing if he did it at certain times of the month.....
[21:39] <_Flagg> My point being- if we are defining rights, we have to actually DEFINE them. Not just kinda hope you are both in agreement.
[21:39] <jakyra> I would thing that the trust would have to come first, I wouldn't give someone that kind of power over me withough trust
[21:39] <raven^Ron> true jakyra..
[21:40] <Roamer`> jakyra: indeed
[21:40] <raven^Ron> Ron: I'm smart enough not to do that during that period of time..
[21:40] <raven^Ron> OK Flagg..but it seems you are trying to define rights of individual relationships, in generalities, and that is very hard to do...rights via contracts are extremely indivualized
[21:40] * {sonja}JP smiles
[21:40] <raven^Ron> the rights given in a contract, are designed by both parties and the contract is to set up the dynamics and borders of the relationship...
[21:41] <raven^Ron> not so muhc general "rights"..
[21:41] * jakyra nods to raven^Ron
[21:41] <Soulhuntre> there are no such things as general rights outside of a shared ethical context.
[21:41] <raven^Ron> ok...
[21:41] <_Flagg> I'm suggesting that rights - different for every relationship as they are- require concrete definitions.
[21:41] <{sonja}JP> how long would a contract that actually set all those definitions have to be??
[21:42] <ananda`{R}> ours is until one of us says they want to renogiate the contract
[21:42] <Roamer`> _Flagg: but how can we give concrete definitions .when they are different for every relationship ...........
[21:42] <raven^Ron> ok I'm lost then Flagg because the first question asked for everyone's definition of the word "Rights"...we can't possibly sit here and define every single right someone might have in any given relationship...
[21:43] <raven^Ron> god sonja...hundreds of pages...
[21:43] <{sonja}JP> exactly.
[21:43] <{sonja}JP> ummmmmm.......
[21:43] <{sonja}JP> so what is the point?
[21:43] <_Flagg> I'm not proscribing rights for everyone- i'm suggesting everyone take a closer look at their own personal and relationship view of rights, in detail.
[21:44] <raven^Ron> ummmmm...how does that fit in wiht a discussion night? that sounds more like a self help group...everyone look at your relationship and lets discuss the fine details of what you can or can't do in your relationship...I'm still lost it seems...
[21:44] <bella{D}> and what constitutes a 'right' as opposed to a 'privilege'? it is like looking at needs as opposed to wants.
[21:44] * {sonja}JP returns
[21:44] <_Flagg> My suggestion is that for somethoing to be an agreed upon "right", it should be agreed upon in specidfic detail, to avoid rthe diffences of personal definition at a critical moment.
[21:44] <ananda`{R}> I don't think it takes hundreds of pages, sonja and raven.....ours clearly says that neither one will intentionally do things that we know would emotionally harmt he other, we don't have to list every item, because we know and continue to learn each other well enought to know what would be emotionally damaging
[21:45] <raven^Ron> OK. so you are saying in order for someone to have a "right" it has to be written in a contract and spelled out in full detaikl and for every possible contingency?
[21:45] <_Flagg> Most people don't share a common definition. We can
[21:45] <Roamer`> we also have a clause allowing either person to cal la "tine out".
[21:45] <Soulhuntre> not at all. But in order for somethign to be a right in a relationship is has to be agreed on as such. Otherwise, you have to back up your rights with force. That works for states, but not for individuals.
[21:46] <Rorschach> Perhaps the problem is that there is no one set of rights
[21:46] <Roamer`> time out even
[21:46] <{sonja}JP> ah.....see ananda......at that stage of "knowing each other"........i believe you can do it......i just dont understand the point of the contract then...
[21:46] <_Flagg> 't agree on what "abuse" means as a community. Those involved should have a VERY clear idea of what their terms mean.
[21:46] <ananda`{R}> it's like saying your marriage vows sonja
[21:46] <{sonja}JP> ok
[21:46] <raven^Ron> that makes sense to me ananda and Roamer..which is what I thought a contract allowed for...relationship specific generalizations between people who knew each other, thus removing the need to spell out every single detail..I mean this is a relationship, not a business deal..
[21:46] <Roamer`> {sonja}JP: the point is .we sarted with a contract .and let it evolve over time .as we did :)
[21:47] <raven^Ron> I agree that anything that is set as a "right" in a relationship has to be agreed upon Ken. But does that neccessitate having to micro-define everything and put it all in writing or it isn't allowed?
[21:47] <Soulhuntre> that is up to the people involved.
[21:48] <Roamer`> contracts can alwasy be refined if needed
[21:48] <raven^Ron> I thought discussing what each person's terms meant came in with the getting to know each other part Flagg..discussing BDSM in general, then people specific areas..which would include philosophies, points of view definitions..etc...
[21:48] <ayli> basically, rights and limits to those rights should be spelled out clearly so as that when things do change, emotions change, people all involved know where the limits and rights begin and end?
[21:48] <raven^Ron> true Roamer..
[21:48] <ananda`{R}> so do we all agree that a submissive has rights?
[21:48] <ananda`{R}> or can have rights, I should say
[21:48] <_Flagg> Ayli: YES!
[21:49] <jakyra> ayli: yes
[21:49] <Tatsumi> ok, the rights of submissives... the way i see it, the only right a collared sub really has is to bring up topics s/he is worried about at an appropriate time for discussion. if s/he has a problem with the outcome of the discussion, then s/he can live try to change it or leave the situation
[21:49] <Tatsumi> that's my two cents:)
[21:49] <raven^Ron> ok ayli, but if the person changes, thus their definitions change..doesn't that change the beginning or ending of a right, thus needing more discussion?
[21:50] <{sonja}JP> wah!!.......i have no rights....
[21:50] <bella{D}> communication is a right
[21:50] * raven^Ron sighs..
[21:50] <Roamer`> {sonja}JP: do you have a safe word ?
[21:50] <{sonja}JP> nope
[21:50] <Roamer`> k
[21:50] <ayli> I think he(Flagg) was more meaning..impermanant changes
[21:50] <ananda`{R}> Tatsumi, I think that makes good sense
[21:50] <Tatsumi> sorry sonja, the way i see it, the only right a sub has is to talk about his/her concerns and then plan an action accordingly
[21:50] <raven^Ron> I was trying to discus the topic of rights of a submissive ..meaning general rights that subs have before they are collared...because so many people spout off about rights of sub's..even going so far as to make lists of hundreds of "rights"...
[21:50] <Roamer`> you see .i consider a safe word ot be a "right" ...........
[21:50] <_Flagg> Bingo ayli.
[21:50] <{sonja}JP> its ok
[21:50] <{sonja}JP> its ok Tats even....
[21:50] <Tatsumi> :)
[21:50] <{sonja}JP> i understand all the definitions.....
[21:51] <raven^Ron> I think we can all agree that any rights a collared sub has have to be agreed upon (or dictated by) the dominant involved in the relationship...
[21:51] <{sonja}JP> and i get it
[21:51] <_Flagg> And in your structure, it would be, Roamer.
[21:51] <Tatsumi> ok, the rights of an uncollared sub are equal to the rights of anyone on the street.
[21:51] <jakyra> Tatsumi: what about a relationship where the Dom doesn't have control over (say) the subs work life, the sub would then have the right to make decisions about work issues
[21:51] <ananda`{R}> would you like us to suggest what we think rights are of uncollared subs, gf?
[21:51] <ayli> for permanant changes, yes, I agree it should be included in those set rights, that at those points, it should be allowable, to alter the rights and or limits with appropriate comunication between all parties
[21:51] <bella{D}> congrats simi!
[21:51] <_Flagg> AS well as to choose NOT to alter those rights.
[21:52] <Tatsumi> jakyra, in my world, the sub in question would still talk to her Dom about her work desicisions before making them. it might be her final call but as a coutesy she would discuss them with her Dom first
[21:52] <ayli> yes Flagg, I meant to include that in the whole..
[21:52] * _Flagg nods
[21:52] <simoriah> ROFL!
[21:52] <Rorschach> LOL
[21:52] <ayli> and thank you, I like cookies :)
[21:52] <Tatsumi> kinda like parenting... 1 person usually makes the final call on any given decison but there is a talk about it first
[21:52] <Tatsumi> (if it's major)
[21:52] * {sonja}JP stocks the cookie jar
[21:53] <bella{D}> i have the right to remain a thinking, growing person....
[21:53] <jakyra> sure
[21:53] <Roamer`> bella{D}: i disagree .you do not have that right .but you DO have that opportunity
[21:53] <Tatsumi> as a god-given right, i think the only one you get is to talk
[21:53] <raven^Ron> I'm pretty sure everyone has seen at least one list of so called "Rights Of A SUbmissive" ..they are usually presented as rights for every sub at all times...do you think such lists are accurate or even generally applicable?
[21:53] * Roamer` grins
[21:53] <{sonja}JP> talk?
[21:54] <_Flagg> Nope. Talking is a privelige in some places.
[21:54] <Tatsumi> talk about your fears or concerns AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME with your Dom
[21:54] <jakyra> my understanding from what you said was that the Dom made all the decisions and the sub has to live with it
[21:54] * {sonja}JP thinks of the number of times she has been told "hush"
[21:54] <bella{D}> no Roamer...for me that is a right...if i allow it to be merely an opportunity that i may bypass, then i am in error.
[21:54] <Tatsumi> not to me Flagg.
[21:54] <Soulhuntre> ::nods::
[21:54] <ananda`{R}> I certainly think as an uncollared sub that I sure did have rights
[21:54] <_Flagg> :>
[21:54] <Tatsumi> i see talking out your concerns as the only right a collared sub has
[21:54] <Tatsumi> sure you did ananda!!!
[21:55] <{sonja}JP> an uncollared sub has all the rights the "world" gives them?
[21:55] <jakyra> a sub collared to you, but a sub collared to someone else may have very different rights
[21:55] <Roamer`> bella{D}: i was speaking more in generalities acutally.but wasnt critisizing .just disagreeing .......
[21:55] <Roamer`> scuse typos
[21:55] <bella{D}> *smiles*..of course Roamer....
[21:55] <Tatsumi> jak, i think it is the right of the Dom to make the decisions he has been allowed to make in the context of the relationship
[21:55] * Roamer` smiles
[21:56] <Tatsumi> if a sub comes into the rleationship with kids and chooses to keep those kids off-limits to her dom then he can only suggest how they should be raiesd
[21:56] <{sonja}JP> bella........that seems to me like a "directive" that Draco gives you......HE WANTS you to talk.........
[21:56] <Tatsumi> but if she has trusted her life to him ideally she should be able to trust her kids to him as well
[21:56] <Tatsumi> just MHO
[21:56] <{sonja}JP> so it is not a right it is ....yanno.....something he tells you to do
[21:56] <bella{D}> talking is a privilege....
[21:56] <bella{D}> growing is a right.
[21:56] <ananda`{R}> however, Tatsumi, the law puts the birth parent responsible
[21:57] <bella{D}> communicating is a right...and damned well expected at the 'appropriate' times
[21:57] <jakyra> I'm much more protective of my child than I am of myself, I can take care of myself, he can't
[21:57] <Tatsumi> we do lots of stuff thats outside of the law bella:)
[21:57] <Soulhuntre> I think people can structure the relationship anyway they want... and thats kinda my thoughts - no rights are required in an absolute way.
[21:58] * ananda`{R} nods
[21:58] <Tatsumi> i totally agree jak, but when picking a life mate (a Dom in my world is a life mate) one should ideally pick someone who will care for your kids as much as you do
[21:58] <raven^Ron> here are the "rights" I came up with that I think are applicable to almost every submissive or slave..
[21:58] <jakyra> how about the right not to be abused
[21:58] <{sonja}JP> exactly Ken
[21:58] <Tatsumi> i'm not trying to preach - please excuse me if i am
[21:58] <{sonja}JP> then you have to get a definition of "abused"
[21:58] <{sonja}JP> and generally.....abuse is "of rights"
[21:58] <raven^Ron> what is abuse to one person isn't to anotehr in this lifestyle jackyra..
[21:59] <raven^Ron> can't rights be just a matter of being able to choose what is right for you and what is not?
[21:59] <jakyra> sure, but everything is a matter of definition
[21:59] <raven^Ron> anyway..here are the 5 things I came up with..
[21:59] <ananda`{R}> that works for me raven^Ron!
[21:59] <raven^Ron> 1: A submissive has the right to choose to submit to whatever level/degree
[21:59] <raven^Ron> fits them best...
[21:59] * ananda`{R} listens
[21:59] <Tatsumi> jak, if a collared sub thinks s/he is being abused i think they have a right to bring it up at the right time and talk about it. if that is impossible, then they need to decide if that is the right relationship for them.
[22:00] <raven^Ron> 2: the sub has the right to engage in activities that fit their (and their
[22:00] <raven^Ron> dominant's) idea/definition of safe and sane..
[22:00] <jakyra> people can't even agree on the definition of the word slave
[22:00] <raven^Ron> 3: The sub has the right to not be forced into a relationship they do not
[22:00] <raven^Ron> want
[22:00] <raven^Ron> 4: The sub has the right to submit to a dfominant who's desires,
[22:00] <raven^Ron> expectations and such closely match thiers (or as closely as the sub
[22:00] <raven^Ron> needs/wants them to)
[22:00] <raven^Ron> 5: The sub has the right to decide for themselves what they consider to be
[22:00] <raven^Ron> acceptable relationship dynamics limits and/or guidelines for any
[22:00] <raven^Ron> relationship they enter in to, before they enter in to it
[22:00] <raven^Ron> (woops..tehre are 6..sorry all am tired)
[22:00] <raven^Ron> 6: A sub has the right to basic life sustaining needs such as food, shelter
[22:00] <raven^Ron> and intellectual stimulation in whatever level/degree they decide is
[22:00] <raven^Ron> neccessary for them to remain alive, or within the confines of their chosen
[22:00] <raven^Ron> relationship
[22:01] <Tatsumi> i guess those are just too specific for me
[22:01] * _Flagg agrees with Tats.
[22:02] <ananda`{R}> I think those are well fitting to uncollared subs, raven^Ron
[22:03] <Tatsumi> to me an owner could very easily withhold food or television or computer time and so on from a collared sub without it infringing on her god-given rights as his property
[22:03] <jakyra> a lot of those are about entering a relationship, so that would make sense
[22:03] <ananda`{R}> I don't think witholding those things is a prob, Tatsumi because they are not "life sustaining"
[22:03] <raven^Ron> I know that Tats..which is why the words life sustaining are in there...basically it means that the dominant can't/shouldn't withold food to the point where the sub dies...
[22:03] <Tatsumi> well, food is
[22:03] <jakyra> I think withholding food is unhealthy, but that's my opinion
[22:03] <ananda`{R}> well, food is if it is for a long time
[22:03] <ananda`{R}> I meant miss a meal, or take away junk food
[22:03] <raven^Ron> I mean..a person has to eat to live...but skipping one or two meals isn't going to kill a person either..
[22:03] <Tatsumi> but i dom could put his property on a diet
[22:04] <Tatsumi> without some foods and it not be against her rights
[22:04] * _Flagg remembers an mdom RIOT when a Dominant would not let his slave post to a list,
[22:04] <raven^Ron> yes...and a diet is life sustaining Tats isn't it?
[22:04] <raven^Ron> I don't know of any diet that cuts out all food all together..basically starving someone ..
[22:04] <Soulhuntre> ::nods:: Yes, it is,
[22:04] <Tatsumi> yes, but some would call bloody murder if a dom tried to take away thier twinkies
[22:04] <Tatsumi> :)
[22:05] <Tatsumi> liquid diets do raven, but they are very short term
[22:05] <bella{D}> fasting cuts out food altogether.....and can be quite a good thing
[22:05] <Tatsumi> :)
[22:05] <ananda`{R}> the key word is life sustaining here
[22:05] <raven^Ron> short term being the key word there Tats..and liquid food is still food...
[22:06] <{sonja}JP> fasting for 4 days has always been a good way to start a diet.....
[22:06] <raven^Ron> yes it can be bella..but I doubt someone would fast to the point they die of starvation...
[22:06] <Tatsumi> would? sure people have!
[22:06] <Tatsumi> nevermind... this is getting off the point
[22:07] <bella{D}> a dom can withold food...but not liquid...for quite a while without there being 'damage'
[22:07] <raven^Ron> Ron: fasting for 4 days?? eww..I couldn't do that.I'd pass a Burger King and the car would pull in of it's own volition
[22:07] <bella{D}> depending upon the metabolism of the sub in question.
[22:07] <raven^Ron> ok..so basically you don't think a sub has the right to those things which sustain human life?
[22:07] <Tatsumi> the rights of an uncollared submissive seem to me to be the same as the rights of anyone. to be able to live comfortably, happily and as prosperously as possible without infringing on the same rights of others.
[22:07] <raven^Ron> sorry but I can't agree with that..
[22:08] <_Flagg> Um- that's not what was said.
[22:08] <Soulhuntre> Tats, that certainly is fairly close to the ethical set I think makes for a good society - and I think those rights would be enforced by the society.
[22:08] <Tatsumi> raven, i think the only "right" a collared submissive has is to bring up concerns s/he has with her owner
[22:08] <Roamer`> {sonja}JP: done :)
[22:08] <Soulhuntre> BUT - they arent enforced by the universe as a whole. Generally speaking, the universe doesnt care
[22:09] <ayli> raven: woops
[22:09] <Tatsumi> wb raven
[22:09] * _Flagg knows the universe don't care... or else he'd have cookies by now.
[22:09] <raven^Ron> damnit..wrong X..had windows maxed so Ron could read and keep up..meant to close a diferent window..hit program window's X...<sigh> duh raven!
[22:09] <simoriah> ROFL
[22:09] <raven^Ron> ok..someone repaste Tat's comment and anything after it.I missed it
[22:09] <Roamer`> hehehe
[22:09] <raven^Ron> ty Tats..
[22:09] <Tatsumi> Soul, the universe doesn't care but that doesn't mean you can stomp all over people without the other people caring
[22:09] * ayli sends flagg some fricken cookies.. quit whining.. it's unseemly
[22:09] <_Flagg> lol
[22:10] <raven^Ron> Ron: Sorry Flagg but the universe doesn't care about your cookies...
[22:10] <_Flagg> point ayli. :>
[22:10] <jakyra> [22:17] <Tatsumi> raven, i think the only "right" a collared submissive has is to bring up concerns s/he has with her owner
[22:10] <jakyra> [22:17] <Roamer`> {sonja}JP: done :)
[22:10] <jakyra> [22:17] <Soulhuntre> BUT - they arent enforced by the universe as a whole. Generally speaking, the universe doesnt care
[22:10] * {sonja}JP giggles......go ayli
[22:10] <raven^Ron> OK Tats.. :)
[22:10] <{sonja}JP> oh THAT was fun
[22:10] <Tatsumi> ack! stop pressing buttons!
[22:10] <bella{D}> ACK!
[22:10] <{sonja}JP> loudness
[22:10] <Tatsumi> thanks jak:)
[22:10] * ayli climbs out from Under the desk
[22:10] <jakyra> 'welcome
[22:11] * {sonja}JP laffs
[22:11] <Tatsumi> ok, so we're cool now?
[22:12] <Tatsumi> at least we understand where everyone is coming from?
[22:12] <raven^Ron> nope..but that's ok..
[22:12] <Tatsumi> hehehe
[22:12] <Tatsumi> ok
[22:12] <ayli> florida
[22:12] <ayli> by way of michigan
[22:12] <Tatsumi> land of the impending blizzard here
[22:12] <{sonja}JP> i think there is a big difference between what someone CAN do and what they WOULD do
[22:12] <raven^Ron> I don't see any way to continue the discussion, sorry..
[22:13] <Tatsumi> raven, i'll stop pushing, ok?
[22:13] <Tatsumi> let other people answer and all that:)
[22:13] <raven^Ron> I can't bring up any of the questions I had thought of to generate discussion Tats..and I am not blaming anyone in particular..I just can't think of a way to specify everything that isn't "specific"..
[22:13] <Tatsumi> ah, ok
[22:14] <Tatsumi> well, if you want to talk specifics for a bit we can:)
[22:14] <Tatsumi> i dont mind playing "what if" games:)
[22:14] <raven^Ron> *Ron grabs the keyboard.....The right to brat?
[22:14] <_Flagg> A broad term is fine, Raven- provided all parties undrerstand them the same way. That often takes some work.
[22:14] <raven^Ron> The right to tease?
[22:14] <Tatsumi> hehhee, sure:) i dont see it as a right persay but it can be a lot of fun if tolerated by both parties:)
[22:15] <Tatsumi> teasing and brattiness both apply there
[22:15] * raven^Ron is a brat....so is raven for that matter.....I just get away with it cause I am the Dom....LOL
[22:15] <Tatsumi> i'm a total tease when i'm allowed to be:)
[22:15] <Soulhuntre> ::chuckles:: Thats for sure.
[22:15] <{sonja}JP> oops
[22:16] <ayli> Okay, do you think there SHOULD be a list of rights that apply in GENERAL to every submissive inside or outside a relationship?
[22:16] <_Flagg> evening.
[22:16] * raven^Ron is just a slut....
[22:16] <{sonja}JP> ack........nooo
[22:16] <Tatsumi> that's a matter of pushing the envelope with your partner... everyone does it to some degree. the amount it's tolerated differs from relationship to relationship
[22:16] <ayli> okay, why not sonja?
[22:17] <Tatsumi> i dont think there can be one ayli. i think it's a very personal thing as tonight's discussion proved.
[22:17] <{sonja}JP> because that takes away individual rights..........LOL..........cant believe i used that word
[22:17] * raven^Ron shoots {sonja}JP with the water gun for using the "R" word.
[22:17] <Tatsumi> hehehe
[22:17] <raven^Ron> raven returns
[22:17] <raven^Ron> ok..lets see if we can't clear up this misunderstanding..
[22:18] <{sonja}JP> unless you say......you can take away the rights if ya want.......but then.....they dont make sense
[22:18] <ayli> okay..
[22:18] <Tatsumi> wb raven
[22:18] <{sonja}JP> brb-ggp again!
[22:18] <Tatsumi> k
[22:18] <raven^Ron> When the discussion began, about 15 minutes was spent trying to define every right, causing me to think taht in order to discuss this topic we had to define every right down to it's most specific detail...this of course led into the topic of contracts, ironing out contracts, what is in them and such..
[22:18] <raven^Ron> with me so far?
[22:18] <Tatsumi> yep
[22:18] * raven^Ron is trying to sort out her confusion so she can continue..
[22:18] <raven^Ron> ok..
[22:18] <Roamer`> uh huh
[22:19] <Roamer`> we were doing fine until then ...............
[22:19] <raven^Ron> then I tried to explain I was talking about those lists of "Submissive RIghts" that many people seem to have created and are pushed as the only way to be sub and if you don't have those rights you're being abused....that was where I was speaking..
[22:19] <Tatsumi> yeah...
[22:20] <raven^Ron> so..I put up a list of 6 rights that I had come up wiht, which I felt were general enough to aplly to almost every uncollared sub..beacuse I was under the impression we were now discussing gneralities...and was told they were too specific..
[22:20] <Tatsumi> ok
[22:21] <raven^Ron> so now I'm trying to figure out how to discuss the topic in general wihtout being specific...we had basicvally areed we couldn't list every right a person may have in their relationship because those things are individual...hence, general discussion..
[22:21] <raven^Ron> so..I'm lost
[22:21] <Tatsumi> ok, my bad
[22:21] * raven^Ron gets her map...figuring she took a left turn somewhere..
[22:21] <Tatsumi> i jumped in after the 6 rules
[22:21] * {sonja}JP is lost too raven
[22:21] <bella{D}> at albequerque
[22:21] <Roamer`> actually .i didnt regard them as too specific .i htought they were rather general .
[22:21] <Tatsumi> the whole beginning of the discussion was way to specific for me
[22:21] <raven^Ron> LOL bella...alberquerque always screws me up.. LOL
[22:21] <Tatsumi> the rules were only less specific
[22:22] <raven^Ron> Ahhhhhhhhh...ok,..now I see...
[22:22] <Tatsumi> but i tried to be as general as possible. sorry if i threw everyone off:)
[22:22] * raven^Ron gets away from ALberquerque..
[22:22] <raven^Ron> no problem Tats..
[22:22] <raven^Ron> Ron turns the map right side up: tehre ya go
[22:22] <Tatsumi> :)
[22:22] <raven^Ron> raven: Thanks Ron..
[22:22] <raven^Ron> raven giggles
[22:22] <Tatsumi> hehehe
[22:22] <Tatsumi> i think people use the word "right" too liberally
[22:23] <raven^Ron> OK..we can all agree that specific rights (like punishment, amounts of communication etc) have to be ironed out, defined, and agreed upon between the parties in any relationship hopefully before it becomes a comitted one..?
[22:23] <Tatsumi> so i'm always annoyed when i see those lists and when people talk about getting their desires met as needs or rights
[22:23] <raven^Ron> yes Tats..I agree with that..there are no inalleanable rights..god given rights...
[22:23] <{sonja}JP> if that is what the two people want.....
[22:23] <Soulhuntre> flagg grunts yes
[22:23] <simoriah> They weren't with us
[22:23] <raven^Ron> Flagg grunts?? LOLOL
[22:23] <Roamer`> yes
[22:23] <raven^Ron> Ron: I wondered why he only had one eyebrow
[22:24] <ayli> yes.. Flagg is grunting
[22:24] <raven^Ron> ok..so those lists of sometiems hundreds of so called submissive rights..are not rights at all, but instead the author's desires for their specific relationship?
[22:24] <Tatsumi> raven, i do see those things as rights. i think those are allowances made in the context of a relatiopnship to suit the people involved
[22:24] <raven^Ron> LOL OK I'm ticked that I can't get that web site to work..
[22:24] <raven^Ron> I can agree with that..
[22:24] <Tatsumi> rights are things that apply to all people of like mind
[22:24] <Tatsumi> yes raven - those things are not rights at all
[22:25] <Tatsumi> :)
[22:25] <raven^Ron> ok..I can agree with that too Tats..
[22:25] <Soulhuntre> .me makes flagg grunt again
[22:26] <Tatsumi> therre is now here!
[22:26] * Soulhuntre makes flagg agree like the bitch he is
[22:26] <Tatsumi> ugh - there is snow here even
[22:28] <raven^Ron> In your opinion, what general things are or should be "Rights" for most submissives? (if any)
[22:28] <Tatsumi> ok, i'll wait to answer this time:)
[22:28] <{sonja}JP> collared or uncollared?
[22:28] <raven^Ron> uncollared..
[22:29] <raven^Ron> go for it Tats..I'll try and stay on track..and slow down so I don't take that gosh darn left again..<giggle>
[22:29] <{sonja}JP> alll the rights "society" gives anyone....
[22:29] <Rorschach> Which society is that?
[22:29] <raven^Ron> ok..can you think of any that would be specific to submissives that are not "society" given sonja?
[22:29] <Tatsumi> ok... an uncollared submissive has the same rights as any human walking down any street in the town in which they live.
[22:30] <raven^Ron> I would have to guess the socieyt in which the person lives ROr..
[22:30] <simoriah> You know, I just can't wrap my mind around this... it just isn't something we hammered out beforehand. Tonight, at this moment, I woul have to agree with Tats' overview: that being the right to appropriately bring up concerns
[22:30] <Soulhntre> I agree.
[22:30] <{sonja}JP> not really.....most of them are based upon society rules.....even if they are a bit "tailored" to D/s
[22:30] <Tatsumi> they have the right to live and die on their own terms as much as possible without infringing on other's rights
[22:30] <bella{D}> Not to be dissentive, but i think rights change constantly..depending on where you are (work...home...daycare)...who you are with....all of it is dependent upon conditions.
[22:30] <raven^Ron> I agree with that as a right simi..
[22:30] <raven^Ron> I can agree with those two Tats..
[22:31] <Tatsumi> bella, most of those aren't rights
[22:31] <raven^Ron> then would that be a right or a situational preference?
[22:31] <Rorschach> Hmmmmm
[22:31] <Tatsumi> something that changes due to situation is probably not a "right"
[22:31] <simoriah> I really can't think of any rights that I would assert otherwise with Ror... can you Sir?
[22:31] <Tatsumi> a right is a constant
[22:32] <Tatsumi> it's a base thing. like air. it just is.
[22:32] <raven^Ron> Ron: I would say that would be a situational thing...your right to self expression, in your home for example, is expressed differently than when you're at the mall..at home you can dance naked, but wouldn't in the mall..
[22:32] <Rorschach> Isn't freedom from cruel and unusual punishment one of society's rights? That's where society's rights don't really work for me
[22:32] <{sonja}JP> then what rights do anyone have Tats?.....cause they change from country to country....
[22:32] <simoriah> So is the right to bear arms... and we know simi with a gun is a bad thing
[22:32] <Tatsumi> the rights people have are not constant through time or place, but they tend to be constant throughtout the person's time and place
[22:32] <Tatsumi> does that make any sense?
[22:33] <Rorschach> Another good example
[22:33] <{sonja}JP> freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is only here......
[22:33] <raven^Ron> (It worked btw, with Netscape....I guess IEdidn't like the site)
[22:33] <raven^Ron> Yup..got it
[22:33] <raven^Ron> me
[22:33] <raven^Ron> raven{Az}
[22:33] <raven^Ron> Hi!
[22:33] <raven^Ron> at least I'm not a cow.. LOL
[22:33] <raven^Ron> ok..
[22:33] <{sonja}JP> it is not a right in ....... Turkey
[22:33] <bella{D}> lol
[22:33] <raven^Ron> ayes Tats.. :)))
[22:33] <Soulhntre> yes, that did tats :)
[22:33] <Tatsumi> lol raven
[22:33] <raven^Ron> OK..earlier..Flagg was talking about how rights in relationships are specific and need to be spelled out..do you agree?
[22:33] <simoriah> I thought we were discussing our society, not Turkey's
[22:33] <Tatsumi> thanks:)
[22:33] <raven^Ron> LOL simi..
[22:34] <Rorschach> Well, with the idea of using rights of our location, I was going with what was local to me
[22:34] <Tatsumi> we can only talk about peoples' rights in the place in which they are born and live in
[22:34] <simoriah> That was my understanding as well Tats
[22:34] <{sonja}JP> i was just sayin that if rights were constant no matter where we were........
[22:34] <{sonja}JP> ok Tats :)
[22:34] <Tatsumi> a wonan's rights in Moroco are different than a woman's rights in Chicago for instance:)
[22:34] <raven^Ron> Ron: My preferance for rights are the American ones..beacuse those are the ones I know..
[22:34] <raven^Ron> true Tats..very true..
[22:34] <raven^Ron> OK..earlier..Flagg was talking about how rights in relationships are specific and need to be spelled out..do you agree?
[22:35] <Tatsumi> i think Flagg meant allowances not rights persay
[22:35] <ayli> I think Flagg is still doing the bagal
[22:35] <Tatsumi> or i should say... i would agree if he meant allowances, not rights
[22:35] <Tatsumi> :)
[22:35] <ayli> bagel
[22:35] <raven^Ron> bagel?
[22:35] <Tatsumi> i LOVE this commercial!
[22:35] <raven^Ron> cute commercial :)
[22:35] <ayli> he was making a bagel a few minutes ago
[22:36] <Tatsumi> thanks:) one of our fans made it for us
[22:36] <{sonja}JP> 's cool
[22:36] <ayli> very cool
[22:36] <_Flagg> I specificaly meant making certain everyone's definitions were the same.
[22:36] * {sonja}JP is getting music
[22:36] <{sonja}JP> oh bummer
[22:36] <raven^Ron> well..we started discussing spelling thigns out in contracts..and each person defining their terms...
[22:36] <Tatsumi> that makes more sense Flagg
[22:36] <raven^Ron> I think that is neccessary Flagg...it prevents confusion with the participants later on...
[22:36] <_Flagg> my point exactly.
[22:37] * Tatsumi thinks Cantilopen is yummy:)
[22:37] <Tatsumi> -n
[22:37] <raven^Ron> so now I'm curious, do you think a contract, which defines the allowances, expectations, etc, of a specific relationship, should allow for some way of re-evaluating things if a person's definition changes?
[22:37] <raven^Ron> I may get lost Flagg, but I can usually find my way around again with a little help.. :)
[22:37] <Tatsumi> yes, it's called talking:)
[22:37] * Tatsumi is a HUGE fan of talking
[22:38] <Tatsumi> i tend to keep Soul in diners for 4 or 5 hours at a time:)
[22:38] <raven^Ron> LOL Tats..true.. and I have to agree that talking/communication needs to be a right
[22:38] <_Flagg> I definately do- However,
[22:38] <Rorschach> I've seen contracts which allow for renegotiation
[22:38] * raven^Ron waits for the however..
[22:38] <Rorschach> And contracts which expire which would allow for changes in a new contract
[22:39] <_Flagg> i specifically feel that both parties should be aware that there is no RULE that such things be changed. Sometimes it is better to end a relationship thanj compromise.
[22:39] <Tatsumi> i totally agree Flagg
[22:39] * _Flagg nods
[22:39] <raven^Ron> I can understand that Flagg...and agree that some situations may arise where ending the relationship is alot better than compromising..
[22:39] <Rorschach> "No compromise" <g>
[22:39] <Tatsumi> i think talking (at the right time) is a basic need and should be a right in all relationships.
[22:39] <ayli> oh god.. nuffin.. sounds like Kyle
[22:39] <ayli> nuffin
[22:39] <Tatsumi> the outcome of such talks is not given though
[22:40] <raven^Ron> So would it be safe to say that in BDSM, the rights of a collared sub are those agreed upon at the beginning of the relationship by the participants?
[22:40] <raven^Ron> Ron: I agree with that Tats
[22:40] <raven^Ron> I agree Tats :)
[22:40] <ayli> sounds right to me raven.. :)
[22:40] * {sonja}JP agrees with THAT def. raven
[22:40] <Tatsumi> yeah, i guess you could say that raven:)
[22:40] <raven^Ron> rights within bdsm, seem to have to be quite specific and relationship orientated..so what rights do you have in your relationship?
[22:40] <Tatsumi> poor bella! what's going on i wonder?
[22:41] * {sonja}JP has........none......
[22:41] <{sonja}JP> really
[22:41] <Tatsumi> i have the right to speak my mind when appropriate
[22:41] <raven^Ron> (This question is meant to give an idea of what rights others have, but not to say that these are the "correct" or "only" rights allowed)
[22:41] <Tatsumi> :)
[22:41] <raven^Ron> yeah..what rights you have in your relationship (Flagg or Ken..whichever it was)
[22:41] <Tatsumi> Ken is the one who laughs a lot
[22:41] <raven^Ron> ahhhhhhhhh...ok.. LOL
[22:42] <_Flagg> The right of final refusal. You can say no... it just may be the last time.
[22:42] <raven^Ron> I have the right to talk to Ron, express myself apropriately of course..
[22:43] * simply^{H} slips quickly to her Master's chair, lowering herself to kneel by his feet. She glances up to Hrithik then back to ayli, "He does....but he's afk right now so i'm sure he'll understand."
[22:43] <Tatsumi> i have the same right as he does to end the relationship if it's not working after taqlking aqbout it
[22:43] <simoriah> You're welcome :)
[22:43] * ayli smiles to simply
[22:43] <simoriah> oops
[22:43] <bella{D}> big ooops
[22:44] <Tatsumi> you're back guys
[22:44] <raven^Ron> Me too Tats...
[22:44] <ayli> or not.. screw you too
[22:44] <{sonja}JP> lol ayli
[22:44] <Tatsumi> lol ayli
[22:44] <raven^Ron> well..anyone else have anything to add?
[22:46] <raven^Ron> I can't think of things that haven't been mentioned that i would consider to be a "right" in my relationship...
[22:46] <raven^Ron> lots of privaleges and options..but not "rights"
[22:46] <Tatsumi> yeppers raven
[22:46] * _Flagg nods
[22:46] <Tatsumi> not many "rights" when you get right down to it
[22:46] <raven^Ron> Ron: What about the right to copanionship? I mean if you're in a relationship you are not in it to be "alone"
[22:46] <raven^Ron> true Tats...
[22:47] <reage> oh ... this is wonderful timing
[22:47] <Tatsumi> reage, what do you see as the "rights" in your relationship (if you have one)
[22:47] * reage grins and listens
[22:47] <_Flagg> privelige. It can be revoked.
[22:47] <reage> ummmmmmmmm
[22:47] * simply^{H} clears her throat, "the right to open communication?"
[22:47] * reage squirms
[22:47] <ayli> this is true
[22:47] <reage> well ....
[22:47] <Tatsumi> no raven, i would see that as a topic for discussion
[22:47] <reage> rights?
[22:47] * reage looks at him ...
[22:47] <raven^Ron> Ron: right to communication is a good one..
[22:47] <Tatsumi> if you're not happy with the level of companionship you're getting demanding it as a right isn't going to make it happen
[22:47] <reage> I have a relationship ..... but rights?
[22:47] <reage> none ....
[22:47] <Hrithik> yes dear ?????
[22:47] <raven^Ron> I agree Flagg..it's a privalege taht can be revoked..but how about the right to a basic level of human interaction...?
[22:48] <simply^{H}> nothing Sir...wondered if You agreed with me on that is all
[22:48] <{sonja}JP> you would then have to define a "basic level"
[22:48] <Tatsumi> well, things i see as rights are thing you can with a staright face demand when the time comes
[22:48] * reage strolls to the couch with a fluid grace ... ehr movements sure and smooth ... she sits at his feet and leans back against his legs
[22:49] <Hrithik> yes I would have to agree, simply^{H}
[22:49] * Night`Master plays with her hair and listens
[22:49] <Tatsumi> ugh - typos suck
[22:49] <simply^{H}> no need Sir...not a big deal.
[22:49] <reage> ooh Tatsumi Sir ...
[22:49] <_Flagg> If it''s a right, i can't revoke it, even temprarily. My default allows open communication- but there may be a reason to suspend it temporarily. Therefore I do not offer it as a "right". I have NO authority over "rights" granted- at least the way i run things.
[22:49] <{sonja}JP> they do? Tats?
[22:49] <reage> I can demand anything with a straight face
[22:49] <{sonja}JP> cool...
[22:49] <ayli> Tatsumi is female reage :)
[22:49] <Tatsumi> i have a right to talk to my partner when it's appropriate to do so
[22:49] <Tatsumi> that's about it
[22:49] <reage> my apologies
[22:49] <Tatsumi> hiya:) I'm a girl:))
[22:49] <raven^Ron> Ahh then in that pioint of view Tats..I have the right to companionship/interaction...I have the right to be heard/listened to...I have the right to demand release, but he doesn't have to grant it right away
[22:49] <Tatsumi> hehehe, np
[22:49] <simply^{H}> but even silence is a sort of communication
[22:49] <Rorschach> If you withhold one or more of these things for a period of time, are you violating those rights?
[22:49] <_Flagg> And a cute one!
[22:49] <Tatsumi> cool raven!
[22:50] <Tatsumi> aw, thanks Flagg:)
[22:50] <Rorschach> Taking, for instance, food?
[22:50] <ayli> yep.. she was showing off her chest a minute ago :)
[22:50] <_Flagg> only if I agreed to them as rights beforehand. Thus- priveleges.
[22:50] <Tatsumi> i was??
[22:50] <raven^Ron> Ron: Good point Flagg. A right, once given, can't be taken away...
[22:50] * Soulhuntre is a BIG fan of tats chest :)
[22:50] <reage> I think there is a right to safety
[22:50] <bella{D}> define safety
[22:50] <ayli> yes Tatsumi.. on the girl2 camera :)
[22:50] * reage rests her hand on his thigh
[22:50] <_Flagg> As defined by who?
[22:50] <raven^Ron> Ron": wait a minute somoene showed off her chest and I didn't get to see it?? damnit!
[22:50] <raven^Ron> raven giggles
[22:51] <{sonja}JP> thats a good one bella
[22:51] <reage> as in ... no permanent physical or emotional damage
[22:51] <Tatsumi> if my partner refused to have a talk with me when the timing allowed him to do so he would be infringing on my right and i would have to decide if it was worth the relationship
[22:51] * _Flagg nods.
[22:51] <Tatsumi> lol, ok ayli, if you say so:))
[22:51] <ayli> I do.. and.. I'm the ayli.. I know everything.. *joke*
[22:51] <reage> but what about his right to choose his own time Tatsumi Ma'am?
[22:51] <Tatsumi> hehehehe
[22:51] <bella{D}> reage...so, a cutting that scars would be permanent damage?
[22:51] <Tatsumi> just Tats is fine reage:)
[22:51] <raven^Ron> Shouldn't there be some leeway for human situations and daily experiences within this "right to talk" thing?
[22:51] <_Flagg> On the other hand, I keep that as a privelige bexcause I may not agree on what an "approprite" time is.
[22:52] <reage> is a scar damage?
[22:52] <reage> I think not ....
[22:52] <_Flagg> Sure. But priveleges rather than rights keep my options open.
[22:52] <raven^Ron> I mean...yes I have the right to talk and expect to be listened to..but if Ron is stressing out over work, or buried under projects, wouldn't I have to alow a bit of leeway there and understand that he cant just drop everything to listen to me beacuse I asked him to?
[22:52] <Tatsumi> he is more than welcome to pick the time to talk. he knows his schedule better than i do. it is one of his priveldges in the relatiopnship to prioritze our talk time.
[22:52] <reage> but if the submissive chose not to be permanently marked ... is she suffering emotional damage?
[22:52] <ayli> no.. I think.. harm would be more along the lines of internal injuries, and broken bones
[22:52] <Tatsumi> yes raven
[22:52] <Tatsumi> that's why the timing is key
[22:52] <raven^Ron> cool...thought we were on same page..
[22:53] <Rorschach> Hmmm ... so the only Right I can see so far I can completely agree with would be the Right to Leave
[22:53] <reage> not the right to be safe?
[22:53] <{sonja}JP> and not everyone has that right
[22:53] * _Flagg agrees- but a right allows conflict over timing - by my defs- where a privelege does not.
[22:53] * reage shakes her head
[22:53] <Tatsumi> reage, i dont see that as a right. i see that as a preference the submissive has that the dominant will choose to honor or not. then the submissive can decide if he is the right dom for her based on his choice
[22:53] <Tatsumi> :)
[22:53] <bella{D}> i do not have the right to leave, at least unconditionally
[22:53] <raven^Ron> wouldn't that be a matter of how one defines safe reage?
[22:54] <simoriah> I like the right of final refusal too..
[22:54] <reage> are there definitions of safe?
[22:54] <raven^Ron> I mean...I think people have the right to engage in activities that they consider to be safe enough for them..
[22:54] <raven^Ron> yup reage..in bdsm there are..
[22:54] <reage> I think damage is pretty clear
[22:54] <_Flagg> Who can gurantee saftey? I can't prevent a heart attack or meteor. I can agree to a "reasonable expectation of saftey"
[22:54] <reage> maybe I am naive ....
[22:54] <reage> you know when you are harming someone
[22:54] <raven^Ron> for example, some people think knife play is unsafe and thus wrong..some do not...who's definition of "safe" is right for that activity?
[22:54] <Tatsumi> not to me Flagg. i have a right to have a conversation at some point. the timing is up to him, but if a time has come and gone repeatedly, then he has violated my right to talk and i mned to make a choice
[22:54] <reage> and I differentiate harm from hurt
[22:55] * _Flagg nods to tatsumi.
[22:55] <reage> it is a subtle difference perhaps
[22:55] <bella{D}> same with needle play...scarification...branding...
[22:55] <reage> but a difference nonwtheless
[22:55] <raven^Ron> tehre's a difference between harm and damage..some damage is temporary like bruises..whereas harm would be permanent damage like say death..(extreme example I know)
[22:55] <_Flagg> Sorry, reage. I'm a little literal.
[22:55] <reage> thank you raven
[22:55] <Tatsumi> i think the level of safety is too individual to say it's a right
[22:56] <reage> a meteor attack as a non safety issue is literal?
[22:56] <reage> well ...
[22:56] <^Guil> hmmm...your knife play example is tricky, raven....because people do change......things that would have been hard limits and out of bounds completely a few years ago......aren't anymore....
[22:56] <_Flagg> Yes.
[22:56] <bella{D}> the right of safety i think would be a negotiated item in the aforementioned contract.
[22:56] <Tatsumi> some submissives will gladly die at thier owners hand. for them they do not have to ruight to expect safety from their relationship
[22:56] <reage> if my partner doesn't know my definition of safety .... I am an idiot to put mine in his hands
[22:56] <Tatsumi> yes bella
[22:56] <^Guil> did you agree that having identified hard limits respected was a right?
[22:56] <raven^Ron> true Guil..I hated canes a coupole years ago..now I like them..except for punishment, then it just plain hurts.. LOL
[22:56] <Tatsumi> yes reage! i agree completely:))
[22:56] <bella{D}> i did not agree to any hard limits.
[22:57] <raven^Ron> Ron: I agree with that reage (The partner knowing your definition of safety)
[22:57] <raven^Ron> I agree with that as well reage..
[22:57] <raven^Ron> nope..we didn't really touch on that Guil..
[22:57] <Soulhuntre> it is important for you to knwo if your dominant has a definition of safety you can agree with - and whether they agree with your views on abiding by it.
[22:57] <Tatsumi> yes Soul
[22:57] <bella{D}> i agree Ken
[22:57] <raven^Ron> I would have to say that in a relationship where hard limits exist, then it can very well be the right of the sub (or dom) to have those limits upheld..
[22:57] <_Flagg> My point that saftey is an ABSOLUTE. I can make every effort- but I CANNOT gurantee that result with 100% certainty. There is ALWAYS risk.
[22:57] <Tatsumi> a lot of these come down to knowing your partner
[22:57] <raven^Ron> I agree Ken..
[22:58] <reage> there is risk in walking across the street ////
[22:58] <raven^Ron> quite a bit comes down to that Tats..
[22:58] <reage> you are avoiding responsibility
[22:58] <Tatsumi> ack! i just read a book on that reage:)
[22:58] <bella{D}> who is avoiding responsibility??
[22:58] <reage> did you Tats ...
[22:58] <ayli> no.. he's not saying it's not his responsibility reage, he is saying he does not have control over every thing in the universe
[22:58] <raven^Ron> who is avoiding responsibility reage.and how did they do it?
[22:58] <reage> what was it?
[22:58] <Tatsumi> yeppers
[22:58] <_Flagg> Exactly. I cannot PROMISE nothing will happen. I CAN promise to make every attempt to keep someone from injury... thus, literal.
[22:58] <reage> I believe that Flagg is ....
[22:59] <Tatsumi> "The Dog Ate My Homework"
[22:59] <reage> <_Flagg> My point that saftey is an ABSOLUTE. I can make every effort- but I CANNOT gurantee that result with 100% certainty. There is ALWAYS risk.
[22:59] <reage> with this statement
[22:59] <bella{D}> he is being literal.
[22:59] <_Flagg> Exactly.
[22:59] <raven^Ron> that isn't avoiding responsibilty reage
[22:59] <reage> just my humble opinion
[22:59] <raven^Ron> that is being literal
[22:59] <raven^Ron> no activity done in BDSM is 100% safe
[22:59] <raven^Ron> accidents do happen
[22:59] <reage> semantics ...
[22:59] <ayli> he can do everything he can to prevent injury, and something could STILL happen, the submissive could have a heart attach.. when they did not show any signs of it before that
[22:59] <Soulhuntre> being literal is NOT the same thing as avoiding responsability.
[22:59] <reage> living isn't 100% safe
[22:59] <Soulhuntre> And it is NOT semantics.
[22:59] <reage> but let me ask you this ...
[22:59] <simoriah> I would be very leery of anyone, in or outside of BDSM, who could guarantee my safety unconditionally
[22:59] <ayli> exactly.. living isn't safe..
[22:59] <Tatsumi> reage, let me sugest that if you knew Flagg you wouldn't say that. he is one of the few people i know who actually own up to most things about themselves:)
[22:59] <bella{D}> exactly reage...
[22:59] <Soulhuntre> If I take a bullwhip to a submissive, I CANNOT promise she will be safe.
[23:00] <reage> do I have a "right" not to be murdered?
[23:00] <Soulhuntre> And I refuse to lie about it.
[23:00] <raven^Ron> by admiting that..and realizing it occurs...added to doing everything they can to prevent permanent injury..shows they are more responsible than someone who niavely believes BDSM is safe..
[23:00] <Soulhuntre> No, you don't.
[23:00] <reage> then you have no right handling a whip
[23:00] <ayli> and neither is bdsm.. no one can promise that you will be perfectly safe and okay every second of either.
[23:00] <bella{D}> !!!
[23:00] <raven^Ron> reage..we have a rule for discussion night...
[23:00] <raven^Ron> here it is..please read it
[23:00] <bella{D}> oh my....reage..have you ever played with whips?
[23:00] <Tatsumi> well, no... you do not have a "right" to not be murdered
[23:00] <Soulhuntre> ::smiles:: if you know someone who can promise 100% safety with a whip, then you know someone who is lying his ass off :)
[23:00] <simoriah> OMG
[23:00] <raven^Ron> Please be polite when speaking and do not flame anyone. Flaming is insulting the person who states an idea. You can disagree with an idea, but do not attack the person making the idea. Flamers, will be kicked
[23:00] <bella{D}> there is always a margin of error....ALWAYS
[23:00] <Tatsumi> you have the right to pick a partner who would not murder you though:)
[23:00] <reage> I am not attacking ...
[23:00] <bella{D}> you would be irresponsible if you played and believed that you might NOT get hurt
[23:00] <raven^Ron> what you just said is a flame..please refrain from further flames or you will be removed from the channel..
[23:01] * reage nods
[23:01] <raven^Ron> [23:00] <reage> then you have no right handling a whip
[23:01] <^Guil> Tats, I think that's chopping the semantics too fine...
[23:01] <raven^Ron> that is a flame in my book reage...
[23:01] <Tatsumi> well, i think it's true Guil
[23:01] <raven^Ron> we can discuss different opnions without resorting to such stone throwing..
[23:01] <Tatsumi> i think you can pick someone who will in fact kill you at some point
[23:01] <Tatsumi> then you dont have the right to not be killed
[23:01] <Tatsumi> the only right you have is to pick someone who wouldn't kill you
[23:01] <Tatsumi> make more sense?
[23:02] <reage> well ....
[23:02] <{sonja}JP> and here is a good example.....
[23:02] <reage> I was referring to merely walking down the street ...
[23:02] <{sonja}JP> "society" says, you have the right to not be murdered.......
[23:02] <reage> I was being hypothetical
[23:02] <Tatsumi> sorry, i missed it reage... please repeat?
[23:02] <{sonja}JP> but they cant gaurantee that you wont be
[23:02] <reage> the risk comment .....
[23:02] <reage> true ...
[23:02] <raven^Ron> rights, such as those in the Constitution are man made and given by man..they are not inalleanable rights in that they do not exist for every human being on the planet..
[23:02] <El`Aurens> all activities involve some level of risk... the issue is what level of risk is acceptable to ths involved...
[23:02] <Tatsumi> true sonja
[23:02] * _Flagg listens.
[23:02] <reage> but it is my right ... is it not?
[23:03] <reage> let me try this again ....
[23:03] <Tatsumi> what is reage?
[23:03] <Tatsumi> ok:)
[23:03] <Tatsumi> yes El - that's a good point
[23:03] <^Guil> Hmmm....raven, I don't know about that.....
[23:03] <Tatsumi> also true raven
[23:03] <reage> I have a right to walk down the street and not be murdered ... I cannot be 100% sure that this will not happen ... but it is my right ....
[23:03] <raven^Ron> in America, yes reage.you have that right to life..
[23:03] <Tatsumi> it is your right as given to you by the US of A
[23:03] <raven^Ron> but in other countries..that right doesn't exist..
[23:03] <^Guil> not everyone lives in a country where they can exercise their rights unhindered......
[23:03] <reage> as I have a right to be safe in an S/m encounter ....
[23:03] <Tatsumi> no reage
[23:03] <Soulhuntre> That is certainly a right in the view of the constitution... in some circumstances.
[23:04] <bella{D}> reage, you have the right to make choices that agree with your personal morals and ethics
[23:04] <reage> the fact that there is risk, does not mean that safety is not a right
[23:04] <raven^Ron> Exactly Guil..which is basically why I say rights are not inalleanable because they are man made...and do not apply to anyone
[23:04] <^Guil> and NO where can you have perfect freedom because of the need to live in a community....
[23:04] <Soulhuntre> However, even the state reserves the right to terminate you if they think it is useful.
[23:04] <Tatsumi> the right that says you wont be killed in the street is granted by the law
[23:04] <{sonja}JP> lol......
[23:04] <{sonja}JP> good point Ken
[23:04] <raven^Ron> Ron: 20 years ago a woman walking down a street in Afghanatsan would be stoned to death for wearing a short skirt...short meaning showing her ankles...
[23:04] <El`Aurens> reage, even bondage if not donne correctly can have unintended and long term consequences...
[23:04] <Tatsumi> the moment you enter into a relationship you must take the law's rights out of the picture
[23:04] * reage sighs
[23:04] <reage> ok ...
[23:05] <^Guil> ah, but I disagree. I believe that your rights are inalienable. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inherently rights - people do live in societies where those rights are not respected, but that does not mean they don't exist...
[23:05] <reage> I have no rights ... and my Master wishes me to leave ...
[23:05] <bella{D}> reage, you have the right to discuss safety issues with a potential top, and then to have those limits respected - yes.
[23:05] <raven^Ron> reage, I don't see how being aware of the fact that bdsm activities are dangerous is being irresponsible...I tend to think it is being realistic..
[23:05] <reage> be well all ....
[23:05] <raven^Ron> bye reage
[23:05] <ayli> be well reage.
[23:05] <Tatsumi> it is then the rights of a human we're speaking of. the god-given ones and the ones created by the people in the relatiopnship we're speaking of
[23:05] * Soulhuntre waves
[23:05] <raven^Ron> love it when people don't understand
[23:05] <Tatsumi> sorry reage, bye bye
[23:05] <raven^Ron> and refuse to try to..and just assume "I have no rights"
[23:05] <_Flagg> Bondage, if done correctly and TENDED can have unintended consequences.
[23:05] <reage> I guess I am clueless ...
[23:05] <reage> good evening
[23:05] * reage steps out
[23:05] <Soulhuntre> Night :)
[23:05] <raven^Ron> no..just closed mined and unwilling to actualy discuss reage
[23:05] <raven^Ron> ok,...sorry..I just broke my own rule...
[23:06] <raven^Ron> raven warns herself not to flame again..
[23:06] * ayli giggles
[23:06] <bella{D}> that's okay raven....it was not like it was untrue
[23:06] <Rorschach> <chuckle>
[23:06] * {sonja}JP warns raven not to flame again
[23:06] <{sonja}JP> lol
[23:06] <raven^Ron> I mean..is it just me..or was that person wanting to fight??
[23:06] <raven^Ron> I don't see how one is irrespsonsible if they understand the risks bdsm activities have...
[23:06] * {sonja}JP thinks she just hasnt been exposed to certain........characters....
[23:06] <Tatsumi> nah, she was just confused
[23:06] <bella{D}> nope...she is hard on the SSC bandwagon...by her own definitions...
[23:06] * ayli giggles
[23:07] <_Flagg> nope. She was just scared.
[23:07] <Rorschach> I would say she just has a very narrow focus
[23:07] <raven^Ron> ahhhhhhhhhh..that makes sense bella..
[23:07] <ayli> scared Flagg?
[23:07] <El`Aurens> I tend to be RASC not SSC
[23:07] <bella{D}> Flagg smelled fear?
[23:07] <raven^Ron> I like RACK better..
[23:07] <raven^Ron> it's seems to be a bit more aware of risks..
[23:07] <El`Aurens> define safe and sane in a manner that everyone will agree on and I'll join...
[23:07] <El`Aurens> err RACK yes...
[23:07] <raven^Ron> vicious? Who's being vicious?
[23:07] <raven^Ron> naww..it's Ken making us all rude.. :)
[23:07] * {sonja}JP likes common sense......i just wish it were more common
[23:07] * raven^Ron smiles sweetly
[23:07] <ayli> vicious?
[23:07] * ayli isn't vicious.. just.. uhmm
[23:07] <bella{D}> i was not rude!
[23:08] <_Flagg> Yep. The idea of no absolute saftey, as well as the absolute terminology shocked and scared her. Unfamiliar, uncompomising.
[23:08] * ^Guil arches an eyebrow at ayli
[23:08] <_Flagg> I like it.
[23:08] * ayli looks at the floor
[23:08] <ayli> i'm sorry?
[23:08] <raven^Ron> I used to like SSC El`Aurens...but then I realized that it was too difficult to adhere to since tehre is no single definition of safe and sane that covers all bdsm activities..
[23:08] <raven^Ron> YOu haven't pissed us off enough yet then Ken and Flagg..<smile>
[23:08] <{sonja}JP> Ken whines again?
[23:08] <^Guil> the only point I see to SSC is for teaching for newbies....
[23:09] <Rorschach> Yes ... that could be seen as being vicious. Glad you didn't say that
[23:09] <{sonja}JP> such language....
[23:09] <raven^Ron> (END OF DISCUSSION FOR LOGGING PURPOSES) formal rights discussion..we can continue what we're talking about though...