From: dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: Roy's "consenting" slave
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:19:36 GMT


In article <1gopk1INN6h8@agate.berkeley.edu> rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapop
ort) writes:
>In article <BzCqK6.C8p@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.c
a (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>
>Pardon me, but it seems like you think that the safeword ends the
>relationship ... there is the issue, as I mentioned earlier, of tactical
>consent, v. strategic consent.  The safeword is only used explicitly for
>tactical situations, such as a scene the bottom doesn't want to do.  There
>is no safeword in terms of the relationship other than the fact that the
>bottom (in this case) can walk away ...

Well, this ins't what I meant, and in fact I was simultaneously using
S&M and abusive relationships to discuss facets of social contract and
in so doing seem to have blurred the distinction between them.  Parts
about safewords as a mechanism within a social contract have nothing
to do with the examples I was using about abusive relationships.

>->abuser (through financial intimidation, threats to loved ones, cutting
>->off the abused from other supportive friendships, and so on).  From an
>->abstract level, they merely seize all the power in that relationship.
>->On an abstract and artistic level, this is exactly what occurs in a
>->master/slave relationship (the master apparently seizes all the power).
>
>No.  It isn't what exactly occures in a master/slave relationship.  That's a
>very dangerous generalization, and I do not believe you're are knowledgeable
>enough to make it stick.

Again, the distinction must have been blurred because I was talking about
an abusive relationship and how the social contract is violated within
that interaction (possibly a new, though unfair, contract is formed).
Anyways, if it sounded like I was characterizing slave/master relations,
that isn't what was *meant*.  The connection between master/slave and
abusive relationships should not be made.

Maybe I should make it clear that the important part of the last couple
of posts was the concept of the social contract and its application to
the situation.  The examples used and application to your situation
are not meant to be connected together.  Abusive relationships are an
example of a social contract violated; S&M and master/slave relationships
are examples of relationships strongly governed by implicit contracts
(not that these can't also be voilated).  The `safeword` merely illustrates
how strong that implicit contract is.  The facets of abuse were meant to
illustrate how power is seized to violate a contract.

Clearer?

As for 'knowledgeable' in any respect, I don't remember you from about four to
eight months ago when I was posting here more regularly (and reading more
regularly, in fact), so I'm at a loss at how you can make any such
characterization :-?.  Two posts hardly serves to summarize my entire
personality (though perhaps I'm being egotistical?).

>The master does not always seize all the power.  This is fairly rare, in my
>experience.  The more power, the more responsibility, and responsibility is
>a fairly heavy load ... the more responsibility you have to your slave, the
>more like your child they become.  I want an SO ... not a child.

Well, that was exactly my point.  The apparent distribution and the real
distribution of power in the situation are not related.  The contract that
governs the interaction might vest more power in the 'slave' than the
master.


>-roy


Brad

Newsgroups: soc.bi