Voting (46)

Perhaps we need a discussion on feminism and O and P. I do think you can be one and also be submissive to a man. The choice, albeit at first in some cases, is yours to make.

That women died for my right to submit or my right to wear trousers, makes me more comfortable in the decision to submit than if i were being made to.

mia, x

Eddited to end a sentence with a preposition. Stone me

"Passion should believe itself irresistible. It should forget civility and consideration and all the other curses of a refined nature. Above all, it should never ask for leave where there is a right of way." @Manchester

Edited 8 Feb 10, 10:29 PM by mia

Why would you have to take responsibility for these things? Surely if you are handing yourself over to someone to take responsibility of you, that means all of you (albeit easier said than done, i appreciate ) if you allow yourself exceptions to begin with won't this only hinder the process?

Personally voting is a none issue for me, i would hand it over willingly but it's not as important to me as it is to you (by the sounds of things).

I'd personally find control of the Ben and Jerry's tub harder to hand over (gosh doesn't that make me sound shallow) but it's true and food control is emotive in it's own right (my excuse and i'm sticking to it)......

At the end of the day the more important something is (which is completely subjective) the harder control is to relinquish, somethings i image take a lifetime and a Dominant worth his salt will no doubt pick his battles wisely, but the "thing" itself should be irrelevant in theory.

popi x

mia wrote: velvet_minx wrote: I feel a slight rant coming on and don't want to hijack your post so I'll piss off now No no, please feel free. I've yet to miss any election and vote mainly because of my feminism and the reasons you mentioned. The thing that's difficult to get my head around is how it fits with O and P. As property, is it my worry anymore? My duty? Or is it something i still have to take responsibility for, much like my friends and family? mia, x

Perhaps you are property only in the context of your relationship with your Dom, whereas voting is part of your relationship with the State.

I doubt that you are State property. If you were you would have been sold off long ago.

I'd be appalled and saddened and think much less of her if she chose not to vote.

Patience is bitter - but its fruit is sweet.
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

Good grief, I'm not sure who to feel more worried about!

You're getting your knickers in a knot over an infinitesimally small aspect of a more fundamental issue, the submissive's right to think.

I've had a very successful relationship with a christian whose beliefs were deeply held. I'm an atheist. It didn't stop us falling in love and our relationship was fulfilling for both of us. It didn't change the views of either of us.

I can't imagine being in a relationship with someone who cedes all thought to me. The fact that I beat her has no bearing on my expectation that she can think for herself and decide whether or not to vote for herself. In fact, faced with the prospect of a partner who couldn't decide whether or not to vote, and sought my direction, I'd finish the relationship there and then.

Al

But then this is a group looking at ownership and possession, and in essence an M/s relationship, beating someone doesn't really factor into that (although I have known people who were in M/s relationships who liked being beaten, and those who didn't)

If someone has handed total control over to somebody, then is is only right that direction is sought surely?

I personally don't want an M/s relationship, I know I couldn't hack it, but if you were in that situation I would assume it would be something that was discussed in the early stages of a relationship, and while I may not have always been in relationships with people who hold the same views about faith that I do, socially and politically we are generally close if not a perfect match

The world is too much with us, Could we not now just elope? Strange way to hold us closer, Strange way to give us hope, Strange way

i would say it depends on your relationship. If it is your right to set limits, then it might be up to you! in my relationship to Frank i am owned, to us that means that nothing at all falls outside of the relationship. Then this issue is very easy to solve, isn't it? That doesn't mean it would be easy to let anything go that i feel strong about, but then again, it is up to him to take control of anything about me he wants to...why make an exception for voting?

i realise voting is something many people feel strong about. it is just like monogamy though: if you've given up all of your rights, then you cannot draw the line and say: but he cannot have other women! (just to compare this to something else many women feel strong about )

in practise it works like this: we talk about politics and what is important to us and i ask what he wants from me or if there are any guidelines and then we vote independently (because that is so practical on our way to work). Or he tells me to vote for him (you can arrange for that) and tells me what he wants to vote and i do it, as one of the many forms of service. He's never told me not to vote or disaproved of my opinion regarding politics and told me to vote otherwise. He could though, i just cannot think of any reason why he would.

interesting topic dorine

A little tangent for a moment just to be absolutely clear: the "possession" part of O&P is roughly the non-M/s relationships, where subs may be "under the thumb" as it were, but not necessarily all the time or about all things.

eg you can be "in possession" of someone every time you meet, but not be in charge of the rest of their life.

Yes, I don't think it should be surprising to anyone that some submissives would want to defer to their dominant's opinion about politics. For a start, a lot of submissives seek out dominants who are more intelligent than themselves, that they can look up to.

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk
@Manchester ?

Edited 9 Feb 10, 3:46 PM by Tanos

I look at it primarily as a right people can use collectively to safeguard their own lives against governments rather than a duty that must be exercised to help other people. That's probably because I'm quite pessimistic, in that democracy offers little more than the ability to veto the daft/fanatical ideas of successive groups of politicians, who fall into power as each previous government fails and is ejected.

In that picture, the submissives who assign their votes, in amongst lots of other rights, to a dominant whom they trust with their life, are acting perfectly reasonably. A lot more reasonably than the people who vote according to the traditions of their parents, the opinions of some celebrity, or the demands of a newspaper.

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk
@Manchester ?

Sorry for going off topic but I'd like to carry on with this tangent a little.

This hits the nail on the head as to why I've never really posted here, i struggle to get my head around this.

Now i can understand "possession" in the context of working towards Ownership, a means to an end if you like. I think my post on this thread and elsewhere reflects that. I see how relationships start off as "P": why they would and also why they should to some extent. What i don't understand is the concept of "Possession" relationships which are not working towards Ownership and in which it is acceptable to maintain veto's. How does that differ from D/s relationships where the Dominant has control in certain circumstances but not necessarily all the time or about all things. Why the different terminology...... what is it I'm missing here?

popi x