Human Pet = Voluntary Slavery?
January 24, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
To what extent should society have anything to say to people who voluntarily give up their rights? Should we ignore them, celebrate their freedom to enslave themselves? Should we educate them? Should we get them counselling?
To what degree should society intervene when human beings act contrary to their own health and happiness?
I’m not saying the bus driver should have done what he did. There’s trying to help and then there’s just being insulting. But dang. That’s messed up.
As long as the person in question is not causing anyone harm, I believe we should let people do as they wish. Just because someone doesn’t subscribe to what we consider ‘normal’ doesn’t mean we should feel an obligation to help.
If this woman truly is happy in this situation, then society should let her be. If this were an abusive situation, society should intervene. The real question is: how can we tell the difference?
So as long as a person consents to abuse and debasement it’s ok. As long as they consent to having their person devalued and dishonored, it’s ok.
What, by the way, is the working definition these days of “mentally ill”? How does one define that condition now that as long as “nobody else” is hurt, all is pink and rosy?
Do we now feel so little sympathy for our fellow man that we will leave them trapped even if they have been fooled or brainwashed into it? Even if they perhaps lack the mental capacity to understand that what they find normal and enjoyable is in fact contrary to their human potential and dignity?
I feel like a human pet every time I pay my taxes.
This girl has a better grip of reality than we might want to believe.
IANAL, but I suspect the concept of “voluntarily giving up your rights” is a dubious one. Most rights can not be given up, voluntarily or not. For example, police cannot torture a prisoner even if the prisoner agrees to it.
In the above case, however, I don’t think the girl was giving up her rights. She was free to walk away at any time, and thus was not a true slave.
If this is a by the book D/s relationship, they’ve both signed an agreed upon contract, possibly drawn up by a lawyer, agreeing to an arrangement for a limited time, say for one year.
However, she’s not a “house slave” — he does all the housework. Sounds like their roles and boundaries are uncharacteristically fluid. So I doubt they were that formal about it.
I’m not thrilled that they’re bringing their private set up public and leaving parents to deal with their little tike’s embarrassing questions.
Public displays like these are normally reserved for special events like the Folsom Street Fair. The couple may regret going public too. The mainstreaming of anything takes all the fun out of it eventually.
The driver’s concern for ‘health and safety’ isn’t immediately evident in their statement about “freaks and dogs like you”. In the driver’s defense, however, when one plays “épater les bourgeois”, one shouldn’t be too surprised when the bourgeois get épaté.
Who here wasn’t surprised that the girl was on government benefits (welfare)?
Sure, let her do that, but don’t let her have kids when she’s doing it. I don’t want children thinking that this is somehow ‘normal’.
Dan Savage, (in)famous sex columnist, dealt with a similar matter once. Basically, his opinion is that when you allow your kink to become so public, you shouldn’t complain how people react to you. Basically, you are involving others in your fantasy, and have to live with the consequences.
If the public’s financing her lifestyle (which they are) then they have a right to comment on it, positively or negatively.
Get a job, Fido.
I think you’ve all missed the salient point here:
The couple, who live on benefits in a council house and plan to start a family, have been friends for years.
God Save The Queen.
Well, that too Ellie. Too me, it was just too painful to even point out.
As I tell my lefty acquaintances, I believe that rights and responsibilities are balanced. Wonder how the left would react to a Human Responsibilities Commission staffed by the non-left? So, if I have the responsibility for that homeless guy I see every day, I also have the right to help him in the best way I know how: here’s a boom, at least keep your part of the street clean…etc.
In last month’s issue of Toronto Life, there was a photo essay some new slum the city is building, and some pics of the folks in the old slum (Regent Park).
Interestingly, while some of the immigrants seem to have found other (non-public housing) accommodations, there was a Canadian-born 33 year old woman, with five kids. The youngest is 4…
Goneaux,
You are barking up the wrong tree. You should not see yourself as having “the responsibility for that homeless guy” that see every day. Meles-toi de tes propres onions.
Why do you demand such a responsibility?
“If the public’s financing her lifestyle (which they are) then they have a right to comment on it, positively or negatively.”
You have a “right” to comment on anything you want. I think the question was, did the bus driver have a “right” to exclude the person in question because of the bus-driver’s personal aesthetic?
Funny how democracy works,
The government takes money from my pay check, I have no say and no choice,
if I refuse the government will come and seize my property,
then the governemnt does what it wants with my money, I have no say and no choice,
and the government gives part of my paycheck to wellfare “recipients” who can do what they want with it, buy drugs, buy slavery stuff for their dysfunctional relationships,
I have no say and no choice,
At least I can still have an opinion…
that is until the Human Rights Commission makes having opinions illegal…
a commission I pay for with part of my pay check
yeah, funny how democracy works…
It is democratic for the wellfare recipient and undemocratic for the guy who pays for the wellfare.
I could just imagine Ellie walking up to a single mother in Walmart and giving her opinion on her lifestyle. Ellie, you are priceless.
Anony-Ezra, read more betterer.
The article clearly shows this deranged couple is on the wally, and wants to now bring a child into this world. All the while they’re both idiot “goths”, and she walks around on a chain.
That’s a far cry from a single mother at Wal Mart.
[This silly thing is making me do math at 11pm]
Ummm…I’m confused about what our “conservative” friends are suggesting here.
People on welfare shouldn’t be allowed to wear dog collars?
Bus drivers should be given the authority to ban folks who show evidence of a B/D fetish? Does that depend on their income source, and level? Second hand dog collars from St. Vincent de Paul’s are out, but your $1,200 silver spiker from Coco de Mer is ok?
Silly me. I thought conservatism was about LESS intervention in peoples’ lives and MORE freedom.
Well done, Dalton. You have managed to completely ignore the original post.
This is exactly the question I am asking - to what extent should we be able or allowed to intervene in relationships and situations where people are acting against their own best interests? Is there any role for compassion in the public sphere anymore or do we simply ignore other’s sufferings because they “choose” that “lifestyle”?
I do NOT believe it was right for the bus driver to treat them that way, but is it completely wrong to express publicly disapproval for the couple’s situation and “lifestyle” given what it condones and represents?
Charles:
I didn’t say I “demanded”. I said IF “…I have the responsibility for that homeless guy” then I should, by balance, have the RIGHT to at least have input into his life.
IF I have to pay for welfare mothers in Regent Park to pop out a half dozen kids, I have the right to say “close your legs you slut”.
You know, stuff like that.
JimG,
In that case, I suggest that you forget about what other people do with their lives. Instead, it would be wise to simply object to having to pay for the homeless guy or the welfare mothers or the open-legged sluts.
Dalton,
I am glad that you made that point: “Silly me. I thought conservatism was about LESS intervention in peoples’ lives and MORE freedom.” because I agree whole-heartedly with you. [I know my writing is often sarcastic. I am being genuinely sincere here.] There is certainly an inconsistent application of when a “conservative” demands less intervention and it drives me nuts.
It is important to be reminded that conservativism is not synonymous with libertarianism. Libertarianism is a call for less (in fact no) government intervention except as necessary to keep peace. Conservativism sees a role for government beyond this, but just believes a minimalist approach is best.
At leat that’s how I understand the two political views. Check me if I am wrong.
“Silly me. I thought conservatism was about LESS intervention in peoples’ lives and MORE freedom.”
They do want less government and MORE freedom (to bitch and complain and to force their ideals on everyone else - government gets in the way of that Dalton).
Shane,,
I am glad that you made that point: “Conservativism sees a role for government beyond this, but just believes a minimalist approach is best.†because I agree whole-heartedly with that description of how the common “conservative” defines himself. [I know my writing is often sarcastic. I am being genuinely sincere here.] You have documented an internal inconsistency with that identity and it drives me nuts.
As long as government exists, there will always be an even MORE “minimalist” approach to government intervention. Therefore, to be consistent this “conservative” identity must strive to eliminate government but the “conservative” still wants to hold on to government intervention while still wanting “a minimalist approach” but still sees a role for government beyond keeping peace.
I think the “conservative” just subconsciously wants government to intervene differently in people’s lives without wanting to admit it.
Charles Anthony wrote:
JimG,
In that case, I suggest that you forget about what other people do with their lives. Instead, it would be wise to simply object to having to pay for the homeless guy or the welfare mothers or the open-legged sluts.
Charles (and its James, BTW): so you don’t agree with the idea that rights must be balanced with responsibilities?
“Well done, Dalton. You have managed to completely ignore the original post.”
My observation related to the comments thread, Shane.
Yeah Shane, try to stay with us here…
Author of The JAGwire,
I am glad that you asked the question: “so you don’t agree with the idea that rights must be balanced with responsibilities?†because the concept is so wholly bizarre that you have given me a wonderful idea for an entire future blog post — stay tuned. [I know my writing is often sarcastic. I am being genuinely sincere here.] That concept is like a reflexive mantra for the common “conservative” and it drives me nuts.
I see no reason why “rights must be balanced with responsibilities” because the only rights worthy of discussion are negative rights such as the right not to be murdered, not to be robbed and not to be assaulted. These classical human rights are unconditional.
So I guess its just another question: you feel no responsibility to anyone other than yourself?
I feel an immense amount of responsibility towards other people.
However, your latest question does not follow your previous question.
Ok, we are getting there. So, you feel responsible for other people. Good to know.
Now, do you feel you have the right to have some sort of say into their lives?
I figure I have a bit of say in the lives of my kids at least while they are under my roof. Nevertheless, my sense of responsibility towards my family are not dependent upon my perceived “right” to order them around.
—
Indeed, your question is peculiar. Whether I “have the right to have some sort of say into their lives” or not is irrelevant. My actions as a parent affects their lives anyways no matter what I do. It is physically impossible to parent a child (or even to be a member of a family) without having the same effect as to “have the right to have some sort of say into their lives” regardless of how I or you feel about the situation.