Education... where is it these days?

[_ID_]

Actually, consent can be coerced, even forced. The entire lifestyle is based upon TRUST. The moment you remove that, you create resentment in your partner and they start looking for a way out of your control, and out of your life. The requirement of consensuality, while valid, is tagential to the point you make on slavery. A slave is, by definition, a piece of property. If you, as a Master or Mistress, do not make the slave feel owned, you are falling short in your duties, and will soon find yourself asked for the release of your charge. Ownership and possession are paramount to the mindset of a slave, and must be tended first and foremost in all aspect of the relationship... personal life included.

No, when ANYTHING is forced it ceases to be consensual. This again is the crux of the fault with your thinking. Until you understand that, you will not come to understand how people can define the same words and ideas so very differently.

Well, to start with, you quoted me accurately with the website function, then misread my words. I said a slave DEFINES their pleasure through PLEASING their master. There is a fundamental difference here. One does not have to serve directly or even indirectly to please. It may be the master's pleasure to treat the slave as a complete pain toy, yet the slave has no particular affinity for pain, but enjoys being treated as such because it is pleasing to their master. You also neglected the rest of my definitions on submissives and slaves entirely. Slaves do not believe they have the right to set limits. It becomes the master's responsibility to uncover what is traumatic for the slave, what is neutral, and what is enjoyable. This is vastly different from a submissive, as the sub as the right to set limits from the beginning. Furthermore, the sub has the right to walk away from the relationship, collared or not, without question. The slave, while in the eyes of the law, does as well, if the Master or Mistress is doing their job correctly, then the slave will feel that they MUST beg for release or else remain until released.

That is your definition and yours alone. It is not how I nor my slave define our relationship. Again, hence the reason your idea is faulted from the very beginning.

I could not disagree more with your use of semantics here. Principles are rules if nothing else, especially when they become personal principles. These principles serve as a guide to all aspects of the person involved. Rules are NOT laws. I have yet to visit a public pool where the rules were codified law, or any other public locale for that matter. I have already addressed the issue of consensuality versus trust in my previous paragraph, and will not resort to redundancy in order to drive that point further. Also, in my previous paragraph, I addressed the issues of limits and the slave versus sub mindset, though, I freely admit to agreeing with you on the negotiation. It is paramount to forging any BDSM relationship. However, once again, when dealing with a slave, it becomes the Master's responsibility to discover what is traumatic for the slave, as the slave will not likely be willing to set limits upon the Master if the person sees the Master as someone suitable to meet their needs.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. We see things differently, and that's my point.

While I agree that there are multiple safe ways to swing a flogger, and also to use many of the tools of our trade, I must call you to task on the issue of wraparound. Wraparound is a result of a poor aim. How can you defend something so obviously a result of poor technique, when you spoke just a few sentences before that to the importance of preventing serious injury. If one cannot properly hit where one is aiming, how is it that injury is to be avoided?

Like I said, some people want the wrap around.