RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE

RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/28/2004 1:30:18 PM)
So my basic point is this. I have no interest in incorporating anyone under the 21 and non human species into play. Those are MY limits. A slave that wants to serve me would accept those and not add to the list is what you are saying, correct? Because the whole slave haing one limit, two limits, three limits 4 is analogous to the argument "how many individual pieces of sand does it take to make a pile?" One limit means you are a slave but 5 means you are not? Is there a magical number of limits that allows someone to be included in the denotative set of slaves? I believe there is and the magic number is 0. J

perverseangelic -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/28/2004 3:12:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessJules But Perverse, If I find someone who matches my "list of limits" (in the previous thread) I'd still be a slave by your definition. quote: Rather, a submissive party decides what he/she will NOT do, and finds someone who will not ask her to do those things. J Yup, in my definition you -would- be because you found an owner who wanted his/her slave to do those things. If "your" owner wanted you to behave that way, and in behaving that way you fufilled his pleasure and obeyed him, well, I guess that still makes you fall into my definition of "slave" though it sounds silly.

GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/28/2004 3:31:03 PM)
But this goes back to my original post: A slave is basically whatever people want it to mean. Because If someone who didn't know the definition of the word "slave" and they were presented with the hypothetical situation where I designated myself as a slave. . .they would walk away thinking that "slave" was synonymous with "royalty." I'm not nit picking on your definition of slave Perverse, it's just a topic that has me thinking a lot because there are so many people identifying as such and there seems to be just as many individual inerpretations of the word. If I mention the word "monk". . .it isn't as problematic to come to some kind of consensus as to what that word means. (versus the word slave) BUT. . you have all given me more food for thought. J

MistressDREAD -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/28/2004 4:43:20 PM)
quote: the subsequent and highly publicized civil rights movement in the USA and the ongoing claims of racism and discrimination that abound in our society invariably taint those works. They only taint the word slavery in the USA. slavery has been around for thousands of years befor it was brought to the USA and the study of such would open the eyes of most here from the USA in their better understanding of what and how slavery has evolved. Those whom were stole away from Africa to the USA to become slaves in the USA were originally slaves from the start of their Own people after tribal wars and when the Euros found that some of the Africanas were in servitude to others They divied up on this plight of the overthrown people there and that is how the slavery of many came to be in other countrys. The worst slavers come from the Mother Land their selfs and are not the lilly white color which goes along hand n hand with the USAs short term form of slavery compaired to the rest of the world. Study Indian and Chinese and Japanese cultures a bit and you will find wide spread slavery of their own people in tribal warfare overthrows thousands of years befor the USA was even thought about. Look at the slavery of the English poor by the aristacrats as well long befor Columbus sailed the oceans blue.

perverseangelic -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/28/2004 5:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessJules I'm not nit picking on your definition of slave Perverse, it's just a topic that has me thinking a lot because there are so many people identifying as such and there seems to be just as many individual inerpretations of the word. If I mention the word "monk". . .it isn't as problematic to come to some kind of consensus as to what that word means. (versus the word slave) BUT. . you have all given me more food for thought. J I understand. Didn't feel nitpicked :) Actually, it's started me thinking, again, too. I stand by the way I define slave though. I think that the word "slave" like many others -is- a highly subjective one. I don't think that there -can- be a universal definition. Similarly, I don't think there can be a univeral definiton of words like "patriotism." One could say that slave is a literal, concrete word that -can- be defined while patriotism is an idea so undefinable, but I think there are many nouns that are subjective too. Heck, the work "priest" is. To my grandfather, it's a man who's been ordained by the Chrisitan church, preferably baptist. To one of my friends it is a spiritual leader who is called by god. To another of my friends it is anyone who innacts the role of the Horned God in ritual. So, yeah. I'm sittin' on the fence.

realophelia -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/28/2004 6:21:47 PM)
quote: Because the whole slave haing one limit, two limits, three limits 4 is analogous to the argument "how many individual pieces of sand does it take to make a pile?" One limit means you are a slave but 5 means you are not? Is there a magical number of limits that allows someone to be included in the denotative set of slaves? I believe there is and the magic number is 0. I agree. I looked up slave online at Merriam-Webster. It said that a slave is 'completely subservient to a dominating influence.' To me this means a relationship without safe-words, limits, or any form of manipulation on the part of the slave. Yours truly, Ophelia

bottominwa -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 2:13:13 PM)
The girl ofcourse agrees that in BDSM as a generalization of the term "slave" it is agreed upon by the majority that a BDSM "slave" has two choices, entering into the slavery and leaving the slavery. But she still contends this isn't really slavery at all. More of an endentured service of some sort. It is no higher status really than an employee...as an employee one must do what their Employer says, or be fired. You can not choose to collate or not collate the stack of papers He shoves at you, you have two choices taking the position and then leaving the position. If you are an integral part of a house, belonging to a Owner, or a Couple, but have the choice to leave and consented to becoming such, you are by strictest definition a servant. If one has the choice to leave and the "POWER" to leave...thats not slavery. You are not "PROPERTY" if you can of your own "free will" get up and leave. Period. You are at best an extremely devoted servant, not a slave. Slaves are not given a choice of consenting to ownership, slaves do not have the "freedom" to choose to leave. Anyhooha it appears the etymology of slave is changing....so then if a slave is to be as is described in this thread...then what shall be called property, true property...that can not leave by choice etc...which is historically the inference when one says "slave". Because there are those out there, who seek actual property vehementally, and when they use the word slave,they mean it as such...so it is a slippery slope to call one's self "slave" in every avenue and corner of the world. she doesn't get unnerved by the BDSM defintion of "slave" she has been living that way and contemplating the term for a decade, in the same house, serving the same Man...so she isn't chaffing at the idea of having no limits in the context of serving etc...something she lives day in and out. What she chafes at is just the term "slave" in its historical inference...and many many people when they read one is a slave that is the definition they are applying not the new and improved BDSM one. And to a degree she feels that is disrespectful to those who actually have lived in states of totalitarian bondage, unable to leave, unable to choose to be there...which has on Earth always been the definition of slavery. So if it is to change and slave is to mean what is referred to here, then we need to develop a new word for what was once called slavery and still is called slavery in many parts of the world. she thinks by and large the term developed out of phrases like "bound by love". And it is a romanticized notion that a fulfilling D/s dynamic is slavery. Where it started that it would be fantabulous to be held against one's will, kidnapped or sold or bred as a piece of livestock and then never having the choice to leave was this magnificent thing we should all aspire to she has no idea. And when she speaks at length to both sides of the coin, what Masters are looking for is servants, true servants who are willing to pledge allegiance to them and serve them without limits. Not slaves, that they have to take by force and hold against their will. And what girls are looking for is Mentorship that takes them to a state of the best human being they can be as a servant and a sense of Belonging to something. Not being held against their will. It is like the old respect debate..what is better, respect by proxy....as in you are my captor so I have to repsect you or you kill me....respect bred by fear, despair and entrapment...or Respect of choice. A respect earned because one is deserving of respect. A servant who stays and serves out of devotion or love, of their own "free will" when you get right down to it, that is what people are describing on both sides of the coin...and if a Master approaches you and He says He wants a slave...ask Him to describe what He means by that and You will the vast majority of the time get the above a description of a loyal servant or liege, not a slave. And if you do get he description of a slave then run...run screaming and yelling and flailing about...because as forementioned them Folks...ya see them on the five o'clock news...in the fancy orange suits...intermixed with live footage of bodies being removed from their apts. It takes maturity, integrity and immense sense of leadership attributes to be trusted and followed...a Master. It only takes brute force to be a Captor. This girl would never encourage anyone to aspire to be a captive. sabrina King House of King

Moleculor -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 4:05:40 PM)
The beauty of language is that it is fluid, dynamic, and alive. It changes based on usage, not on arbitrary decisions from some mystical language master, nor does it remain stagnant. A perfect example of this is the recent inclusion of the word "D'oh" in the Oxford English Dictionary, based on it's abundant usage stemming from a rather popular TV show called "The Simpsons". In addition, words can have multiple meanings (as well as multiple spellings, which aggravates me a great deal). Know what this adds up to? The word "banana" means whatever it means to the people using it. The word "red" means whatever it means to the people using it. And the word "slave" means whatever it means to the people using it. So yes, the definition of the word "slave" is different depending on the group of people using it, and its context. This is not a bad thing.

GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 4:11:01 PM)
quote: Know what this adds up to? The word "banana" means whatever it means to the people using it. The word "red" means whatever it means to the people using it. And the word "slave" means whatever it means to the people using it. If you follow that logic to its conclusion, then if I were to say "I have a white dog". . it would be totally meaningless because If to me, "I" meant "they", "have" meant "eat" "white" meant "black" and "dog" meant "man". . .no one would know what the fuck I was talking about. So as a rule, words do have a definition. It would be ABSURD to think that a word could mean anything to anyone. There would be no point in studying language. And if you really think that a word means whatever it means to the person using it, go to the hospital and tell the doctor that your head hurts. . . .OOPS!!! To him, "head" means "pancreas." J

perverseangelic -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 6:11:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessJules quote: Know what this adds up to? The word "banana" means whatever it means to the people using it. The word "red" means whatever it means to the people using it. And the word "slave" means whatever it means to the people using it. If you follow that logic to its conclusion, then if I were to say "I have a white dog". . it would be totally meaningless because If to me, "I" meant "they", "have" meant "eat" "white" meant "black" and "dog" meant "man". . .no one would know what the fuck I was talking about. So as a rule, words do have a definition. It would be ABSURD to think that a word could mean anything to anyone. There would be no point in studying language. Honestly, I think that language =does= verge on meaninglessness if one actually sits down and thinks about it. People -never- mean the exact same thing as someone else when using words. There is -always- a disconect between the speaker and the listener. I think the point of studying lanugage lies in examining the relationships between words as they affect and relate to the individual studying it. A reader or listener can never be in the speaker/writers head, so the only reaction or meaning that a reader can know is that which she gives to the text.... Uh....this is why I'm an English major.

GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 6:41:08 PM)
Perverse, I'll agree with you up to that point that I do believe that language isn't infallible. But with that said, I believe that there is a tacit understanding that we ascribe certain definitions/connotations/characteristics (whatever you want to call it) to words so that we can communicate via language. When I say "skyscraper" unless we universally acknowledge that a skyscraper is a building that happens to be very tall, it would be a totally useless word. If language is totally subjective, I wouldn't have been able to understand your post to be able to respond to it. I don't think it is the word or words that fail us. . .it is the inability of some to accept the definition of a given word. "Slave sounds cool, but I don't really fit the definition. . .so I'll just say that the definition is kinda flaky and make up my own." And repeated use of this modified definition is what causes ambiguity in language. Just like in another thread. . .no one really knows where the word "domme" came from or if it "really is a word" but you better bet your ass that most people affiliated with BDSM have used it. quote: I think the point of studying lanugage lies in examining the relationships between words as they affect and relate to the individual studying it. A reader or listener can never be in the speaker/writers head, so the only reaction or meaning that a reader can know is that which she gives to the text.... Derrida argued this as well. (That language is phonocentric versus logocentric.) Something written stands alone defenseless. . .the writer isn't there to clarify so it is open to being bastardized by the person reading it. (And he goes into the "trace" or "pharmakon" and differance (sorry, I don't have an accent aigu to add to the e.) So yes, there are problems/weaknesses with language. . .and in my opinion, it is exacerbated by people more so than the inherent flaws in the system or the structure. J

perverseangelic -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 7:53:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessJules But with that said, I believe that there is a tacit understanding that we ascribe certain definitions/connotations/characteristics (whatever you want to call it) to words so that we can communicate via language. When I say "skyscraper" unless we universally acknowledge that a skyscraper is a building that happens to be very tall, it would be a totally useless word. If language is totally subjective, I wouldn't have been able to understand your post to be able to respond to it. Agreed 100%. I'm thinking more theoretically than actually, because if our system of language didn't work to communicate information we'd have something else. :) I simply find the disconect interesting. I should have said I think language can be totally subjective, if one steps outside of that agreed upon sign system. quote: I don't think it is the word or words that fail us. . .it is the inability of some to accept the definition of a given word. "Slave sounds cool, but I don't really fit the definition. . .so I'll just say that the definition is kinda flaky and make up my own." And repeated use of this modified definition is what causes ambiguity in language. Just like in another thread. . .no one really knows where the word "domme" came from or if it "really is a word" but you better bet your ass that most people affiliated with BDSM have used it. I think I agree with this too. I get upset when people challenge other's chosen identities though. For example, someone is told she is not -really- bisexual because she's only been with women, or someone is not -really- lesbian because she's never been with a woman. Identities like "slave" though, are too...too powerful(?) to work the same way I think. Self-identity isn't perfect, of course, but I think that it needs to be taken into account. Still, the identity of "slave" -is- a problem for me. I keep coming down on different sides. quote: Derrida argued this as well. (That language is phonocentric versus logocentric.) Something written stands alone defenseless. . .the writer isn't there to clarify so it is open to being bastardized by the person reading it. (And he goes into the "trace" or "pharmakon" and differance (sorry, I don't have an accent aigu to add to the e.) So yes, there are problems/weaknesses with language. . .and in my opinion, it is exacerbated by people more so than the inherent flaws in the system or the structure. Big Derrida fan, here, actually :) He and Judith Butler formed many of my opinions as they related to langauge and idenitty. What do you mean that it's exacerbated by people? Do you mean that they refuse to agree to meanings? Or that by exploring the disconect between speaker and listener they somehow weaken language?

GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 8:32:53 PM)
quote: What do you mean that it's exacerbated by people? Do you mean that they refuse to agree to meanings? Or that by exploring the disconect between speaker and listener they somehow weaken language? What I meant by flaws being exacerbated by people is that since there are more variables on the side of people (their perception of words within a language could be influenced by their education, experiences, I.Q., culture, etc) I would assume that there is a great chance of people making the fallibilities of language even greater than the system itself. quote: I get upset when people challenge other's chosen identities though. For example, someone is told she is not -really- bisexual because she's only been with women, or someone is not -really- lesbian because she's never been with a woman. I think that these instances are issues where people don't agree on the definition. You can't really get far on building a great, big, pretty superstructure on a flawed premise. And the challenge/argument comes not from the words themselves having "subjective" definitions but that the people involved in the discourse can't come to a consensus on what the definition is. (And again it comes to what I said above about culture, experience, education yadda yadda.) I heart Derrida as well. He's so underappreciated! And thanks for the discourse Perverse. . . kisses J

GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 8:42:09 PM)
quote: I keep coming down on different sides. Just to let you know, my heart kinda swelled with pride for you when I read that. You are the type of person that earns your beliefs with sweat, tears, and blood instead of having it spoon fed to you. Even if I don't agree with you. . .at least I know that in your disagreeing with me. . .you put a lot of thought into that and that I'll ALWAYS respect your views. J

perverseangelic -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 10:17:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessJules quote: I keep coming down on different sides. Just to let you know, my heart kinda swelled with pride for you when I read that. You are the type of person that earns your beliefs with sweat, tears, and blood instead of having it spoon fed to you. Even if I don't agree with you. . .at least I know that in your disagreeing with me. . .you put a lot of thought into that and that I'll ALWAYS respect your views. J Wow. You just made my night. Thank you so much.

harmony3709 -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/29/2004 10:44:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bottominwa Anyhooha it appears the etymology of slave is changing....so then if a slave is to be as is described in this thread...then what shall be called property, true property...that can not leave by choice etc...which is historically the inference when one says "slave". Because there are those out there, who seek actual property vehementally, and when they use the word slave,they mean it as such...so it is a slippery slope to call one's self "slave" in every avenue and corner of the world. she doesn't get unnerved by the BDSM defintion of "slave" she has been living that way and contemplating the term for a decade, in the same house, serving the same Man...so she isn't chaffing at the idea of having no limits in the context of serving etc...something she lives day in and out. What she chafes at is just the term "slave" in its historical inference...and many many people when they read one is a slave that is the definition they are applying not the new and improved BDSM one. And to a degree she feels that is disrespectful to those who actually have lived in states of totalitarian bondage, unable to leave, unable to choose to be there...which has on Earth always been the definition of slavery. So if it is to change and slave is to mean what is referred to here, then we need to develop a new word for what was once called slavery and still is called slavery in many parts of the world. Well said, bottominwa. This is also my problem with the word slave versus the context of its use in by those involved in BDSM. Although over the years it has come to be used much more liberally, (I'm a slave to love, a slave to my job, etc.), basically the meaning is still derrogatory. And yes, I have always had the similar feeling of being disrespectful to those who have experienced and are experiencing slavery as in being a captive, unwilling, unconsensual, and unable to leave without severe penalty or death. According to a news article I read several years ago, there is still this kind of slavery going on today in parts of Africa, according to the article, mostly young boys for hard labor and young to middle-age women for service as well as sex. I understand completely the desire, extreme desire even, to give yourself to someone else and to feel a sense of pride at being completely under another's control. To me what I have always cringed at is to feel that way and be proud and feel joy in this position and then label yourself with a word that for others has meant such horror and torment. In an intimate (vanilla) discussion with someone who was more of an acquaintance than a friend, she shared with me and several other women that she had been raped several years prior. She brought this into the conversation because she had just that day come across a list of kinks and was horrified at only one thing on that list -- the term "play rape". I saw the look on her face as she recounted what had happened to her and listened to her talk about how seeing those words humiliated her all over again, and how that in her words, it seemed to "trivialize" what she had gone through. Again, my issue is in no way with the acts that are going on or the way people choose to live their lives, be it in service or in being Master/Mistress. I think history is filled with examples of those who have given their lives to service, and with those who rightfully bore the title of Master of Mistress. Master has been used as much, if not considerably more, in a context with respect and love and honor. The disciples of Jesus referred to him as Master and there are many other similar examples. I also completely understand the desire to describe to others the depths that you have given yourself to the one you call Master or Mistress and perhaps slave is the only thing we have at this time that will do that. What I wonder is: Are we "cleansing" a word by redefining it? Or are we continuing on with a word that represents such tragedy that it should be forgotten? harmony

Moleculor -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/30/2004 6:33:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessJules quote: Know what this adds up to? The word "banana" means whatever it means to the people using it. The word "red" means whatever it means to the people using it. And the word "slave" means whatever it means to the people using it. If you follow that logic to its conclusion, then if I were to say "I have a white dog". . it would be totally meaningless because If to me, "I" meant "they", "have" meant "eat" "white" meant "black" and "dog" meant "man". . .no one would know what the fuck I was talking about. Yup! Ain't language cool? (gasp! Why am I talking about temperatures in this sentence? Temperature doesn't make sense in this context!</slight sarcasm>) quote: And if you really think that a word means whatever it means to the person using it, go to the hospital and tell the doctor that your head hurts. . . .OOPS!!! To him, "head" means "pancreas." Nuh uh uh! Bad Jules! You've got a serious flaw in your logic there. Follow this closely: You have Speaker and Listener. quote: a word means whatever it means to the person using it The person using it would be the speaker. quote: OOPS!!! To him, "head" means "pancreas." That's the listener. He is not "using" the word in this example. Therefore it would not matter (theoretically) what he thought the word meant. Realistically, of course, it matters a great deal, and that's why we have dictionaries. But as I stated before, dictionaries change based on what people are using words for, and not the other way around. If you think about it, this concept can be applied to a great many things. Your eyes might see things completely differently than mine, and I'd never know it. What you call red I call red, but my mind sees it as the commonly accepted version of blue, and yours sees it as the commonly accepted version of green. But it doesn't matter, because we both call it red. Cool, eh?

RealityFix -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/30/2004 7:53:17 AM)
I've always personally preffered the word "servant" for someone who enjoys being in a "service" relationship. The very term "consensual slavery" has always seemed to me to be about the silliest oxymoron I have ever heard. And for those calling themselves slaves, I just reply "Get over it, you aren't,the law frowns on that." I don't get to stuck on labels and definitions, they are too vague. What I DO get, is CLARIFICATION of what something means to someone. I do not expect everyone to think as I do.

GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/30/2004 8:21:50 AM)
quote: The very term "consensual slavery" has always seemed to me to be about the silliest oxymoron I have ever heard. Hmmmmm. . .you may have a point there. But I think the whole appeal to the word is that it is harsh. Servant would conjure up images of Mr Belvedere. . . J

Mercnbeth -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (12/30/2004 9:38:43 AM)
quote: I believe that there is a tacit understanding that we ascribe certain definitions/connotations/characteristics (whatever you want to call it) to words so that we can communicate via language. dearest Jules, this has been a very interesting discussion on the use of the English language as well as opinions as to the "true" meanings of the words we toss around to describe ourselves and others. people refer to themselves as "submissive" where someone else would argue that they REALLY mean they are "permissive", "slave" where someone would argue they REALLY mean "indentured servant", "bisexual" when others would insist they REALLY mean "obedient", "Lord" when they have nothing to do with English aristocracy, "girl" when they are a full grown woman, etc. For example, with all due respect, your self-ascribed title is Goddess, however, you (probably[;)]) are not an immortal deity with supernatural powers. for the sake of communicating and/or commiserating with others, it helps a great deal to have a general understanding of the adjectives we use and definitely adds to the confusion when we can not agree on even the basic meanings--for example, for months this slave participated in a yahoo group for "submissive females". it was very confusing to read posts of self-proclaimed "slaves" who asked for opinions on how to manipulate their Masters, frustration that their Master's weren't as attentive to their needs as they wanted them to be, etc. their insistance that "slave" meant whatever definition they assigned to it made it hard to relate to their complaints and any attempt to offer advice (such as: good slaves don't manipulate) was met with a certain amount of disdain.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02