Thursday, 7 July 2016

smoke and mirrors

My inspiration for today's post comes from a comment by Anonymous to an earlier post here.            

I am not convinced that living this life, this 24/7 D/s 'lifestyle', is possible at all. It's all fantasy, and keeping that in mind is key. If indeed it's all about compromise and negotiation, then it's all smoke and mirrors and so be it. Yay for smoke and mirrors. We come together for mutual satisfaction - whether sexual or otherwise - but maintaining personhood is crucial. If marriage lasts forever, when does the 'playing' end due to age, infirmity, children, etc ?

There are many who claim to live the lifestyle 24/7. However as anonymous writes. Is this not just smoke and mirrors? Isn't it really fantasy however much one is really involved in an intense D/s relationship. For instance one may like to describe oneself as being a slave or being owned. But ultimately one can walk away from it all - otherwise I would be very concerned.

Anonymous contends that maintaining "personhood" is essential. Is she not right in this? Can one really completely give up ones personality or rights as a person? Is that something anyone with a moral compass could agree with?

I would love to hear readers views on this.


Misty said...

Hmmmm, smoke and working, caring relationships there are compromises--D/s (M/s, and any power exchange label) is not excluded. Having said that, I don't feel what we do is an illusion, he leads and I follow. And, I think of myself as his slave.

If you see a 24/7 M/s relationship and think it should look like real slavery, then, yeah, I guess you would see mirrors and smoke, but this isn't real slavery.

I do think she's right, maintaining personhood is important. If I was expected to give up my rights, change my personality, etc., I'd run away as fast as I could! Anyone who wants that from someone, or for themselves, has serious problems.

Pygar said...

Thanks Misty. I think you give a very balanced view of this.

I agree, I think, that it is not an illusion as in smoke and mirrors. However I also think there can be a large element of fantasy in such relationships. I don't see that as a negative thing. I think that fantasy can enhance any relationship. I suppose it is trying to get to the bottom of where the fantasy stops and the reality begins - to ensure that "maintaining personhood".

Thanks again for commenting

P xx

Wilma Rubble said...

Perhaps it would be 'easier' for others to understand if people used the phrase Total Power Exchange in stead? I am fairly certain I might be linched by some in a TPE because they don't identify themselves as slaves, but I mean just for the simplicity of understanding how it may be actually possible 24/7. I'd imagine there are as many interpretations of the word slave in M/s relationships as there are couples living that life.

I do whole heartily agree with Misty though, it is not the same living as a slave in a dynamic as the conventional definition. It is consensual ownership, that is the huge difference. My understanding is that once that decision has been agreed upon the rights have been handed over to the 'owner' but naturally, legally no one has the right to own anyone in today's society, so your 'fantasy' comment is somewhat truthful. Although I think to those living this life, they might disagree with the actual word. Abandonment of conventional society's laws might be more apt..LOL.

Basically I think you hand over your free will ( how much is dependent on the dynamic) and that is where the term slave comes into play?


DaniS said...

Personally, living the dynamic 24/7 kept me compliant with blinders on. We really did live it in many aspects. I had some "control" but not real authority in any situation. When the air shifted for reasons I won't get into, "slave" was placed on me unwillingly, my eyes were opened. I took a hard look at what our life had become and knew there was no coming back from that. I ran as fast and far as I could. The divorce is going as one would expect when the husband sees his wife as "property". Looking back it wasn't smoke and mirrors from the point of view one might think. The smoke and mirrors were used by him to keep me compliant and blind. I had no reason to question so I didn't. From my perspective, it was great until it wasn't. There is a clear definite line between abuse and TTWD. Once the trust is gone, so goes the beautiful dynamic.

Pygar said...

Thanks willie for your illuminating comment. Yes, I think many prefer to use the phrase Total Power Exchange. Perhaps that is as you say "easier to understand" though it also may mean different things to different people.

Your notion of "consensual ownership" too is interesting in that the consent presumably can be withdrawn at any time.

I can understand how using the word "fantasy" to some may imply a belittling of something they take very seriously. Perhaps I would be better searching for a different word to express that aspect.

You write though of handing over your free will. I wonder if the handing over of your free will is opposite to the notion of "maintaining personhood". Can and should one completely give up their free will? Is that good psychologically or emotionally? I fear it opens up the possibility of abuse - which leads neatly into Dani's comment!

P xx

Pygar said...

Thank you for commenting DaniS.

When I first read and was considering willie's comment I was thinking of your situation before your comment appeared. That was in relation to the difference between abuse and TTWD that you explain so clearly.

It is interesting when you describe how it was he who used "smoke and mirrors" to keep you, as you say, "compliant and blind".

Thank you very much for sharing your personal perspective. I am pleased things are working out for you now.

Good luck

P xxxx

Misty said...

"Fantasy" is throwing me off, but I've been thinking about this, especially as comments come in...

Are talking about not losing site of reality? Or perhaps, finding the line between manipulating and guiding?

Pygar said...

Yes Misty - perhaps "fantasy" is too strong a word and doesn't really get to the heart of the issue.

Yes of course, hanging on to reality - and I like your distinction between "manipulating" and "guiding".

Perhaps though there is still an issue about "reality" and what truly is real in a D/s relationship. Each relationship is different but if it becomes too "real" as in Dani's case, then can it be getting too close to abuse?

Thanks for sharing your further thoughts Misty.

P xx

Wilma Rubble said...

"Can and should one completely give up their free will? Is that good psychologically or emotionally? I fear it opens up the possibility of abuse"

I suppose if one believed that free will also meant freedom of thought. Which I do not.

Pygar said...

"I suppose if one believed that free will also meant freedom of thought. Which I do not."

What an interesting distinction you make Wilma! I might make a further distinction with 'freedom of action - which one gives up voluntarily but can by an act of will revoke that decision at any time.

Thanks for the fascinating discussion.

P xx