May 22, 2020

Humbled Females: new forum reply to Slave as object vs slave as being Human/pet how does it change the dynamic overall?

New reply from Patriarchy

<p>I’ve been following this thread; I didn’t want to throw out ‘too deep’ introspective reflections as it didn’t seem they would be helpful to the objective at hand.</p>
<p>However, there are at least two facets of this conversation that are really worth prying open and forcing some potent reflection into.</p>
<p>1) It’s a dangerous trap to get stuck in; to think that ‘what we do’ is what makes us happy. It’s simply not so; not for a slave and not for a Master. <b>It’s necessary to have a deep appreciation of the fact that joy, pleasure, ecstasy, sadness, dissatisfaction, even pain; all of these are experienced inside you</b>. The very seat of all sensation, of all experience, is within you; not without.</p>
<p>When one is ‘stuck’ here, they endlessly look outside themselves for what is ultimately inside. This is at best a clumsy an ineffective method. The path to the greatest sexual pleasure, or personal satisfaction, is not so dependent on how one arranges their relationship, but rather how one arranges their own mind. This foundational truth is not something to skip over too quickly. It’s essential that all the implications of this are really integrated into everything one does. It is fundamental to accessing all the potential an individual has a master, slave, relationship partner, or loyal friend.</p>
<p>So let’s highlight this great irony: that objects and slaves cultivate themselves to the very height of human possibility. Is it true? Emphatically, yes. One needn’t look past even just this thread; right here there is enough evidence of how deeply within themselves ‘humbled females’ have looked. Why is this an irony? Because this act of such deep self-knowledge, of reflection and transformation makes them ‘more human’ and more ‘in control of themselves’ then so many who blindly and automatically move through life’s processes.</p>
<p>If an object sits in perfect stillness, and a dog acts out it’s nature without pause; surely a woman is more conscious and aware, and capable of choice.  And if we say that women are more capable of deliberate action than a stone, and more aware and conscious than a dog; it is right to argue that the ‘humbled female’ is more sentient than the common woman. She has looked deep within herself, and she has <i>mastered</i> facets of her being that other women have yet to even consciously discover within themselves.</p>
<p>To serve, or to lead; to achieve great results; it’s necessary that one can <b>choose</b> what they feel (to some extent). If my mind is simply the product of what happens around me, or to me, I am in a deep-seated trap. Indeed, <b>I aspire to the opposite: that my environment be shaped by what happens within my mind</b>. It is right to first decide what is necessary to achieve one’s goals, and then to organize the mind, to find it’s pleasure in what must be done. Without this, consistent and organized effort are very difficult to come by.</p>
<p>Organized and deliberate behaviour is necessary if you are exploring and stretching the possibilities of what you can become. In between every command, and every act of obedience, there is a reorganization within your mind. There is a moment where you transform in some way, into that person, who will act as instructed. Whether you seek the best sex humanly possible, or the deepest intimacy fathomable, you are exploring the boundaries of human possibility; and that is where the greatest pleasure is to be found.</p>
<p>2)<b>There is no such thing as objectification.</b> This is simply shallow feminist claptrap. It’s an invalid idea; demonstrably false. All human interaction is a form of ‘objectification‘. If I shake your hand, in that moment I reduce you to ‘a hand-shaking object’, as I fail to consider the entirety of what you are. If I collect fees owed for services rendered, you are reduced to a ‘customer-object’; and of you purchase services, I am reduced to a ‘professional-service-provider-object’. In that moment you hold a door open for me, you fail to consider my needs as man, with sexual desires; having reduced me to less than my full self, you have objectified me, as an object-to-open-doors-for. </p>
<p>Who can even understand another fully, except something like an omniscient God? And if reducing you is the criteria of ‘objectification‘, all who know you have objectified you.</p>
<p>It’s not a meaningful argument to posit that sexual expression objectifies people, by failing to consider aspects of who they are beyond their sexual use. All human interaction is limiting in scope: all human interaction is accomplished through mutual objectification. All human interaction precludes the full scope of what you are, to a subset of actions. This very moment moment, as I write your response, I have objectified myself. I have become an object of word and though; and one that only thinks on the matter at hand. All other impulses within me have been ignored, pushed aside, and restrained. </p>
<p>Did your question not objectify me? There is so much more to me as a person… how dare you ask! How dare you read my response!</p>
<p> </p>

Original Post by Iwillsubmit

Slave as object vs slave as being Human/pet how does it change the dynamic overall?

<p>I am wondering if anybody has any experience with this I find Ultimate freedom in complete submission to master, however I cannot become the object that he deserves for this dynamic. Does anyone have any experience with having a slave that it's not an object but remains human or parapet rather than inanimate object. And how being an object would be better for the master-slave dynamic or how being adamant could be better or worse unable to find any literature thank you</p>

No comments yet.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.