An entire page dedicated to the various kinds of psychological conditioning/manipulation techniques developed over the history of psychology and how to apply them to your sub or slave so they do what you want and are compliant.
Younger women are easier to
manipulatetrain according to them.
Rules for my personal slave [there are 50 in total – APL]:
1) It submits to the will of its Master and it is bound to Him. It accepts His authority over it for its purpose is to serve, obey and please its Master. It will be managed, disciplined and controlled in a manner beneficial to its slave training and long-term service and inclusion in his household as a slave.
2) It accepts that part of slave training is the actual physical control of its behavior. It will have no privacy from its Master. The space it occupies all its time, physical actions, privacy and relationships with others are controlled and managed by its Master.
3) Communication with its Master is one of the most important aspects of its development as a slave.
It is responsible for answering each and every e-mail sent to it by its Master and when not in His presence, it will send Him at least one e-mail or contact Him each and every day. It must be both specific and explicit in its speech.
It will give complete and accurate answers to each and every question that its Master asks of it.
It is allowed no secrets from its Master.
It will work hard to welcome this openness of body, mind and soul.
4) To receive pleasure it must earn it. It must always give thanks to its Master for all it is given immediately after receiving it, for such things are gifts or privileges granted to it by Him. This also includes any punishment and discipline that it may receive so that it may grow in bondage and serve him better.
5) It will not hesitate in its obedience to its Master and will respond quickly to all orders given.
How to keep your submissive on their toes (lol this is p fuckin rapey)
New Year’s Day 2015 was a bad one. My main memory of it is the moment when my husband essentially scraped me off the bed, where I was lying face-down, crying, because I’d seen a tweet from someone I thought was a friend – someone I’d worked with, someone whose kid I’d babysat for – denouncing me as a “terf”. The occasion for the denunciation was a piece by me published earlier that day. My editor had double-checked that I wanted to go ahead with it – there would be, she said, a lot of flak, which I knew anyway but one of the reasons I like writing for her is that she asks that kind of thing. The piece was worth doing, regardless of flak, because it was about something important: the way suicide is reported, and the potential for harm when it’s done badly.
Sarah Ditum has written a really great summery of her past six years as a radical feminist, and the ongoing state of trans activism; I would really recommend reading the whole thing.
1. I think the most important thing to remember is that you’re talking a human being who’s in a community where they’re expected to be subservient and brown nose all the time. They are in a community where men study aspects of psychological manipulation/learning theory and then warp it so they turn these women into what essentially amounts into an automaton bang maid that has no will or thoughts of her own.
2. You’ve got treat dealing with these women like you’re dealing with someone who has an addiction to illicit substances – it’s not a “choice” or a moral failing, it’s a mental disorder/disordered sexual development called a “paraphilia”.
Paraphilias typically develop after something fucks up during the childhood/adolescent development stage.
Most people who have paraphilias (whether male or female,) tend to have a high level of comorbidity with self-esteem issues, personality disorders, anxiety and mood disorders. Similarly, most sub women tend to have histories that are littered with physical, sexual and psychological abuse in the forming phases of their psychology and their identity.
Would you tell a woman in an abusive relationship that wasn’t a part of a BDSM relationship that she loves to be abused and that she’s contributing to the abuse of other women by staying with him? Why/why not?
3. Encourage these women to seek help for mental issues that they may have ESPECIALLY resolving trauma and building self-esteem and self-identity.
4. Encourage these women to seek friendships OUTSIDE of the BDSM community – a great example of why this is important is seen in the rise of DDLG bullshit on here and in BDSM circles.
These women are discouraged from talking to the opposite sex/forming friendships with them; they’re discouraged from socialising outside of the BDSM world because they take the attitude that “vanilla people just don’t get it and they think we’re perverted freaks.”
Try engaging with them in outside interests – are they an artist, inquisitive, interested in space or w/e? Talk to them about non kink related shit before you bring up why Doms are fucking horrible shitcunts.
Sub women are often socially isolated particularly if they’re more “committed” to living the lifestyle.
5. Set healthy boundaries with them – if you don’t wanna hear about how they can’t get off unless they have clothes pins on their clit, a ball gag in their mouth while their boyfriend whips them and calls them a filthy cum eating cunt, SAY SO POLITELY. See above – they’re socially isolated and often are discouraged from speaking their mind unless it’s enforcing a boundary (and even then, the kink community is rampant with doms who don’t care about their subs boundaries). If you’re out and their “owner” is hassling them, remind them that they are entitled to their own lives.
6. Be supportive, but don’t try and cover for the problems that arise in their life as a result of being in the BDSM scene/lifestyle. You need to be honest with them about the consequences of either the lifestyle (if you’ve been in it yourself,) or of stepping over your boundaries or social norms (think those dumb teenagers who walk their girlfriend in the shops on a leash.)
7. Be optimistic for them and make them see the glass half full, but remember at the end of the day, you can’t make their choices for them. Just like with the heroin addict who’s shooting up in the bathroom and hiding his baggies in your couch, all the love, light and education in the world is not gonna make a difference if they can’t get past their own cycle of negative and self-harming bullshit.
A federal appeals court judge just made it a lot easier for the pornography industry to abuse and exploit children for profit.
The Aug. 3 legal decision, which has received far less media attention than it deserves, represents the most significant blow to opponents of child porn in decades. We believe it could lead to a sharp increase in the number of underage performers being exploited due to the removal of legal oversight and penalties for uploading or distributing images that feature minors.
We’ve been studying the business of porn for years, as scholars, advocates and experts in legal battles. In fact, we provided expert testimony in 2013 in a related court case and endured two hours of grilling from the judge and porn industry lawyers.
The industry is now celebrating its landmark victory. To us, it is a sign of porn’s growing power to fight legal battles and free itself from regulatory constraints as its business model rapidly changes in the internet age.
The case revolves around U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2257, which requires porn producers to keep stringent records on the ages of performers and allows federal agents to inspect them at any time.
The penalties for failing to do so are harsh, including large fines and up to five years imprisonment for a first offense. In the most famous case, the company that produced the “Girls Gone Wild” video series was fined US$2.1 million for 2257 violations. Although there have been few prosecutions, the potential penalties provide an important deterrent.
Over time, the Justice Department expanded the definition of producers subject to the regulations to include “secondary producers,” which includes internet distribution, and set out detailed guidelines for how the records should be organized and indexed.
Judge Michael Baylson of the U.S. 3rd Circuit of Appeals ruled that most of 2257’s record keeping requirements were unconstitutional on First and Fourth Amendment grounds. The ruling allows primary producers to fulfill age verification obligations by using a form developed by the Free Speech Coalition, the industry association that brought the lawsuit against 2257. In the most far-reaching and troublesome change, the decision completely exempts major distributors (termed secondary producers), from any record-keeping requirements.
While the production and distribution of child pornography remain illegal, the law is toothless without record keeping. The requirement provides the only way to verify and track performers’ ages and serves as a major incentive for businesses across the complex supply chain to monitor content.
The regulations came in response to the public outcry that ensued when Penthouse magazine featured a 15-year-old Traci Lords in its September 1984 edition.
Research and evidence demonstrate clearly that children who are exploited in the making of porn suffer from a range of devastating and long-lasting effects.
Four years later, Congress enacted the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, which included Section 2257 and criminalized a wide range of transactions involving the use of minors in pornography, including the electronic transmission of visual images.
The rapid growth of pornography on the internet led lawmakers to pass the Child Pornography Prevention Act in 1996, which extended the provisions to include any digital image that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”
The porn industry has fought these regulations ever since they were first passed in 1988 and founded the Free Speech Coalition just three years later to coordinate the industry’s lobbying and legal strategy and to share expenses related to it. Prior to this month’s decision, its biggest victory was overturning the 1996 restrictions in a 2002 Supreme Court decision that permitted images of young-looking girls, as long as the performers were actually over 18.
The decision made the reporting requirements more vital that ever, as it was otherwise impossible to know the real age of performers who were made to appear very young. Nonetheless, the coalition filed many lawsuits over the years challenging 2257, claiming that the regulations placed an undue burden on pornographers’ free speech and violated Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless search and seizure.
While different courts have struck down various parts of 2257 and then upheld them on appeal, overall the regulations have largely remained intact – until now.
In the 2013 case in which we served as expert witnesses, the Free Speech Coalition challenged 2257 by claiming that there was hardly any porn featuring young-looking females.
Constitutional cases often turn on whether a compelling public interest – such as protecting children from exploitation – is greater than any resulting regulatory burdens that might infringe on another group’s rights – in this case, keeping records.
Our research demonstrated that, contrary to the industry’s claims, “teen porn” and related genres featuring young-looking females have grown to be the largest single segment, representing about one-third of all internet porn in terms of both search-term frequency and proportion of websites.
The same Judge Baylson cited the strength of our research in his 2013 ruling to uphold the 2257 regulations. But in his decision this August, for reasons unknown to us, he appears to have changed his mind and sided with the industry over the protection of children. Indeed, the decision only considered injuries to porn businesses, not to children.
The Department of Justice might yet appeal, but most legal observers we have consulted with think that 2257 is in serious jeopardy.
The Free Speech Coalition claims that it has invested more than $1 million since 2005 to fight 2257 and is now asking for donations to cover outstanding legal debts.
Why is overturning 2257 so important to the porn industry?
The key reason, in our view, is that the regulations strike at the heart of the business model of the major corporate distributors of porn and particularly of MindGeek, which has become the largest multinational porn conglomerate in the world.
MindGeek and other distributors source porn content from a large number of fragmented low-cost producers, who are increasingly located around the globe. The growth of the market segment featuring young-looking females represented a potential legal threat. And distributors of porn – like other internet companies and social media platforms – want to avoid responsibility for content that could expose them to substantial legal and financial liabilities.
Although software solutions are available that could tag every picture and video with data on the performers, the complexity of distribution networks and the vast amount of product uploaded by third parties likely makes compliance with 2257 somewhat cumbersome and costly.
The porn industry has emerged as a powerful force that is trying to shape the regulatory environment to support its shifting business model. Compliance with age verification laws might cost the industry some money, but we believe this is a small price to pay to protect children from the predatory porn industry.
I was sickened to hear of the absolutely abhorrent rape and torture of a ten year old girl by Green Party activist David [Baloo] Challenor. My thoughts are with the victim. I am especially angry that the perpetrator pleaded not guilty, forcing this poor child to have to attend court and testify against him, drawing out the horrific process. I hope that she has access to adequate help and services having been so appallingly let down by so many thus far.
As a former Parliamentary Election Candidate of the Green Party. I am concerned about how the party has handled this. I have been let down by the party and personally experienced distress at the hands of bullies and procedural failings. Of course nothing on this scale could have been predicted but favouring certain individuals beyond criticism shows the beginnings of safe-guarding failings.
Until yesterday, Coventry Green Party listed their HQ as the Challenor home, where the crimes were committed. Coventry Green Party HQ is a crime scene and has been for over a year. Does this not require some explanation and apologies?
The local branch of Coventry Green Party have not released a statement. All the activists would have known David Challenor. Do they not wish to condemn the actions of their colleague?
Why has Aimee Challenor not been suspended? I feel that appointing an election agent who is awaiting trial for the rape and torture of a child breaks a number of procedural policies, not least bringing the party into disrepute.
I feel that the entire branch should be suspended pending a full investigation, I’m not convinced that the Green Party are taking this seriously. There could be more victims, the party needs to investigate whether other individuals were put at risk by this man being an election agent and resident at their Coventry HQ.
The Green Party did not offer any apology for wrong doing and did not reach out directly to the victim. They did not name male violence, rape, torture or paedophilia, instead using this distasteful term ‘gender-based violence’. A direct insult to the victim and the gender critical women who exposed Challenor’s membership of the party. They took an entire week to publish any statement at all and when it did emerge contained this line “There is no connection between these offences and Mr Challenor’s previous membership of the Green Party.” What on earth is meant by that? He was an activist for you, a suspected paedophile was out (presumably) knocking on doors on your behalf.
David Challenor an anti-feminist lobbyist who, alongside other members of the LGBTIQA+ Greens, have spent the last few years running a successful campaign of intimidation and hatred towards feminists. The main objectives of these activists has been to:
- Legalise prostitution
- Promote medical transition of children and adults
- Allow male bodied individuals access to women’s spaces
- Promote the idea of ‘gendered’ brains, an idea which has been used to subjugate women and girls
- Normalise sexual fetishes such as BDSM (violence) and AB/DL (which involves dressing up as a baby, often wearing a diaper)
- Silence women who disagree with the above agenda (some members of LGBTIQA+ Greens celebrated the violent attack of feminist, Maria Maclachlan).
Radical feminists campaign tirelessly against male violence. We disagree with BDSM, we do not think anyone can ‘consent’ to being beaten or physically harmed during sexual activity. We condemn anyone who gains sexual pleasure from inflicting pain on another human being. For this opinion we have been called ‘kink-shamers’ and ‘bigots’ as if being turned on by violence is akin to being homosexual and should not be criticised.
Radical feminists and lesbian feminists have been silenced, attacked, ostracised from the Green Party. I was suspended and subsequently expelled for naming a biological male as a ‘man’ on TV. The suspension within a couple of days of the incident, so we know they can move fast with their disciplinary motion when they want to.
My local party tried to resist the bullying of feminists with a motion condemning the behaviour ‘North Surrey Green Party reaffirms its commitment to free speech, and condemns all silencing, abuse, threats and physical violence against all radical feminists; and against all members regardless of sexuality.’ A complaint was upheld against the local group with the Green Party Disciplinary committee asked them to remove this motion on the basis that Radical Feminist = TERF. Well, Green Party of England and Wales, Radical Feminists are women who have the courage to question the misogyny which is rife within your party. Radical feminists are the women who condemn sexual violence, radical feminists are the women who promote the safe guarding of women and children above the feelings of men.
Both the LGBTIQA+ Greens and Coventry Green Party have sheltered this child rapist and actively pushed a misogynistic agenda. It has now become apparent what his motives for supporting this movement were. I am absolutely sure that the majority of members who have met or supported David Challenor are disgusted by his actions and sickened by having had contact with him. I ask them to speak out. I ask them to look at the motives of men within their movement and ask themselves who gains from normalising sexual violence and misogyny?
I await statements from LGBTIQA+ Greens, Coventry Green Party and further clarification from the Green Party of England and Wales.