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

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



Message


GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/9/2005 3:04:55 PM)

quote:

PS are you toying with me- I really can't believe you missed a Stranger in a Strange Land referance?


Lawrence,

Chances are, if you make a reference to a literary work. . .and the author hasn't been dead for at least 100 years. . .I'll be totally lost. I don't read "contemporary" literature at all. *blush* That is one of my deficiencies.
Go for the European classics. . .I'm all over it.

J




topcat -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/9/2005 7:56:01 PM)

M. Jules-

deficiencies?

Nonsense- actually another of your myrid charms!

Stay warm,
Lawrence




DutchessKate -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/10/2005 9:01:54 AM)

Jeeze louize!

What a thread! To wish that all of the following ones will be just as fantabulous would be, (I know), too much to ask.

There's been food for thought, eloquence and humour.

After lurking for some time, and getting far too many personal... erm... let's call them 'reactions', shall we? I've finally been drawn to writing myself. Drawn by sheer enthousiastme for the writings of the main contributors to this thread. Now I've stepped out of the shadows...

I suppose all I dare write to this illustrious company is;

Thank you all very much.

I really, really enjoyed this discussion. The original topic, the linguistic side issues, the historical side alleys... all of it.


Really... Thank you.

Kate
puppy girl


(who is Dutch, and whose better (and Dominant) half feels she has expensive tastes. Hence the Dutchess) [:)]




proudsub -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/10/2005 12:37:30 PM)

quote:

I really, really enjoyed this discussion. The original topic, the linguistic side issues, the historical side alleys... all of it.


Really... Thank you.

Kate
puppy girl


Welcome to the forums Kate. Judging by your siggy, you may enjoy some of the threads on puppy play too.[;)]

Here's a link to the most recent one. In that thread you will find some links to others.
puppy play




DutchessKate -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/12/2005 11:28:11 AM)

proudsub,

thanx for the link. It is very sweet of you.

However,...I'm not a puppy girl in that sense. lol

The signature is a nickname I was given by a dominant I greatly respect and look up to muchly, and who, in the past few years, has become a very good friend to Hawkins and myself (Hawkins is the one I serve). I managed to do something to make him compliment me, and the 'puppy girl' tag was rather affectionate and even a little proud. He allowed me to 'wear' it. *smile*

Kate
puppy girl




LuvSponge -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/12/2005 4:00:54 PM)


quote:

I don't know if you were being facetious but I *do* enjoy cuckolding. There is just something to be said for a situation in which the cucked party willingly lets the object of his desire go out to be please by someone else. (And then be turn on by it!)

J


(When it comes to the cuckold lifestyle...I is ALWAYS serious [8D])

It's a good thang [:D]




lechat -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/13/2005 9:55:12 PM)

you're counting angels on the head of a needle or just arguing for arguments sake. bdsm slaves aren't actually owned........lechat.




LuvSponge -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/14/2005 4:19:29 AM)

quote:

bdsm slaves aren't actually owned........lechat.


That may be true, and I should mention at this juncture that I'm offering one hell of a lease...Corinthian leather, soft top, Alpine stereo, bucket seats (2 small holes from a previous Owner), and if by the end of business today...NO PAYMENTS THROUGH APRIL 2006!!!!!

Own your own Cuckold3000 today.

(Your mileage may vary).




MemphisDsCouple -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/15/2005 5:20:43 AM)

Hi. lechat. Your post left me wondering...... do you mean that bdsm slaves are usually not owned, that it's just an erotic fiction that a couple plays out...... or do you mean a bdsm slave can not be owned, that it is a literal impossibility to own a bdsm slave?


quote:

ORIGINAL: lechat

you're counting angels on the head of a needle or just arguing for arguments sake. bdsm slaves aren't actually owned........lechat.





garylee -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/15/2005 3:37:18 PM)

the modern times has injected the difference between olde school-old guard that ''i'' learned as a slave.........and this new modern day new school thought --------
that is where you find your terms of types of slaves of specializing in whatever areas.

but this is just my feelings, as i was taught to believe it to be.




ProtagonistLily -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/15/2005 4:06:10 PM)

quote:

I treat my boys as chattel. It works for us. *BUT* in the eyes of the community at large, I'm an insensitive abuser. I do partake in activities that are "marginalized" in the community. There are always disparaging words. "Oh my god!!! You have your slaves eat out of a dog bowl off of the floor??? And you sprinkle your toesnails as garnish??? You are the epitome of EVIL!!!" I don't/can't relate to most of the "slave owners" of my community and vice versa. So I find myself more and more withdrawn not because they scare or intimidate me. . .but going against brick walls gets old. The fetish/kink community outside of BDSM has been a lot more welcoming. The way I interact with my boys is a LOT more accepted in the latex fetish crowd than a crowd of masters and mistresses.
So (after that long drawn out story) that was the motivation behind me starting this thread. It wasn't intended to be a pissing contest about semantics. . .but if there *were* any slave/slave owners out there that felt they were out of step with the BDSM community at large due to the way they chose to manifest their relationships.

Did I make *any* sense??? LOL

J


Yes, it makes a hell of a lot of sense, and Ya know....this smacks of "My kink is ok but you are fucked up" kind of attitudes that can prevail in some BDSM communities. Fortunately, I was socialized into the 'public' scene through an organization modeled after TES and Janus. When you are new, in the group's orientation, it is stressed, over and over that "Everyone's kinks are ok, regardless of how you may personally feel about them". This is to say, that in our public play space, there are specific rules and DMs that will guard against any serious harm/illegal acts taking place in our dungeon. In 6 years, I've never seen a scene stopped because some DM decided to over rule a Master/Mistress/Dom/Domina/Top of the choices they were making in a scene. This goes for actual S&M or B&D play, or contextual relationships between people, be they looser play partners, strict Master/Mistress/Dom/Domina and submissives/slaves.

Which leads me to wonder what the hell's going on out there that's making people act like superior assholes? Jules, I adore feeding submissives out of animal dishes, on the floor. And anyone who squicks at that is a closed minded person. Slaves love it too....

This ultimately is about power exchange, regardless of how you qualify yourself. I am of the belief that people who stand aghast at how you practice your dominance over your slaves are simply forgetting that there's a power exchange going on in all of this; Power Exchange in it's truest sense is what frees us up to be able to both administer this kind of sadism or accept it.

Though, some people think all they need is a whip and they are a Top. I don't want to offend anyone, but to me, that's dime store half assed Kink. If the concept of Power Exchange is lost, then it's just something kinky to do on a Friday night. ~shrugs~

Ok, I'll sit back and wait for the hate mail LOL.

Lily




ShadowKnight -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/15/2005 6:10:28 PM)

Ok, I just read through this thread and semantics aside or personal feelings about the use of the english language, throughout history there are examples of consensual slavery. I'm an graduate student Cultural Anthropologist rather than a linguist or an English major. Word definitions are most often based on and relative to the culture of the person using the word. i.e. it wasn't all that long ago that in Britain the word 'fag' meant a cigarette while here in the States it has a vastly different connotation and meaning.
Some one said earlier that perhaps a personal definition of the word is in order here so that all may know where I stand on this issue. By My definition of the word slaves are chattel; they are without recourse to a safe wordas are submissives. Their choice was made when they chose to accept the collar or not. Beyond that there is no choice. My slaves are not My girlfriends, wives, or whatever...they are My property and chattel that I may use as I see fit. That use is not subject to their whims or wishes.
That being said, it is not a romanitcized notion of slavery, it does contain definite service connotations. I have issue with the use of the word servant as that implies that they are paid a wage to do what is expected of them. So servant is not the right word either.
Do I fit in with the mainstream of bdsm? Most likely not. Many so called slaves think that they can dictate terms to a Master/Mistress. That makes them submissives in My book relying on a safeword. So they shy away from those like Me who view them as chattel.


ShadowKnight





MemphisDsCouple -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/17/2005 5:33:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowKnight

throughout history there are examples of consensual slavery.



This is a subject of interest to me. As you say, there are examples of consensuality in slavery in history and I have found some examples. However, I am always interested in more. If you have the time and inclination, you might mention some specific historical examples of consensuality in slavery. Thanks in advance.




Sensualist -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/17/2005 8:48:02 AM)

Historically consnsual slavery has been around for a long time before the modern world. Two examples, a bond servant was one that volunatrily entered into slavery. The ear was pierced to show their staus. In the Bible Paul says he was a "bond servant of Jesus".

Indentured servants. America was founded in part by these. People that sold themselves to a company or person for a period of years in return for passage, maintence, etc.


Workaholics, don't they sell their souls?




GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/17/2005 8:50:29 AM)

quote:

The ear was pierced to show their staus. In the Bible Paul says he was a "bond servant of Jesus".

If he meant "slave of jesus. . .I'm sure that is how he would have put it.

quote:

Indentured servants. America was founded in part by these. People that sold themselves to a company or person for a period of years in return for passage, maintence, etc.

Once again, at the time of indentured servants, the term "slave" was around and in use. If they meant slavery, I'm sure they would have used that term.


J




onceburned -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/17/2005 9:04:42 AM)

quote:

If you have the time and inclination, you might mention some specific historical examples of consensuality in slavery.


Here are some consensual slavery references from the Old Testament

quote:

Exodus 21

1. When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years. In the seventh year, he shall go free without payment.
2. If he comes alone, he shall leave alone; if he has a wife, his wife shall leave with him.
3. If his master gives him a wife and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone.
4. But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children. I do not wish to go free,”
5. his master shall take him unto G-d, he shall take him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.



Similarly, but with a bit more detail:

quote:

Deuteronomy 15

12. If your fellow male or female Hebrew is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.
13. When you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed.
14. Furnish him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress; give him that with which the L-rd has blessed you.
15. You will remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the L-rd your G-d redeemed you, therefore I am commanding you this thing today.
16. But if it happens that he says to you, “I shall not leave you,” because he loves you and your household, because it is good for him with you,
17. you will take the awl and put it in his ear into the door, and he will be your slave forever. Also with your female slave you shall do thus.
18. When you let him go free, do not consider it a hardship, since for six years he has given you double the service of a hired worker, and the L-rd G-d shall bless you in all that you do.



And on indentured servitude:
quote:

Leviticus 25

39. When your kinsman is impoverished and sells himself to you, do not work him the work of a slave.
40. He shall remain with you as a hired worker or tenant; he shall serve with you until the jubilee year.
41. Then he and his children with him shall go out from you. He shall return to his family and return to his ancestral holding.
42. For they are my servants, whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they may not be sold from the slave block.
43. You shall not rule over them with rigor; but shall fear your G-d.
44. Such male and female slaves as you may have -- it is from the nations round about you that you may buy male slaves and female slaves.
45. You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your possession.
46. You may bequeath them to your children after you, to inherit as property. You may enslave them for ever. But as for your Israelite kin, one over his kin shall not rule with rigor.


BTW, I am not some Bible whiz-kid... I am pulling those examples from the website
Slavery in the Torah
http://mchester.queernet.org/leatherjews/verses.html




Mercnbeth -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/17/2005 10:01:33 AM)


quote:

If he meant "slave of jesus. . .I'm sure that is how he would have put it.


there is no indication that the word "slave" existed in that form during Jesus's life. according to the dictionary, "The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, “Slav, slave,” first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävs) “Slav,” which appears around 580."

quote:

Once again, at the time of indentured servants, the term "slave" was around and in use. If they meant slavery, I'm sure they would have used that term.


Before 1650 the laws referring to servants did not differentiate between race--servants were servants, african, indian or white. Around 1660 the laws started to reflect a difference. In 1670, a law was passed that prohibited Indians or Africans from owning "Christian" servants, but they were free to own other servants of their same nationality.

"Whereas it hath been questioned whither Indians or negroes manumited or otherwise free, could be capable of purchasing christian servants, It is enacted that noe negore or Indian though baptised and enjoyned of their owne ffreedome shall be capable of any such purchase of christians, but yet not debarred from buying any of their owne nation."

"the word slave did not appear in Virginia records until 1656, and statutes defining the status of blacks began to appear casually in the 1660s. The inference was then made that blacks called servants must have had approximately the same status as white indentured servants. Such reasoning failed to notice that Englishmen, in the early seventeenth century, used the word servant when they meant slave in our sense, and, indeed, white Southerners invariably used servant until 1865 and beyond. Slave entered the Southern vocabulary as a technical word in trade, law and politics." Robert McColley in Dictionary of Afro-American Slavery, Edited by Randall M. Miller and John David Smith, Greenwood Press, 1988 pp 281

"By the 1650s some of the indentured servants had earned their freedom. Because replacements, whether black or white, were in limited supply and more costly, the Virginia plantation owners considered the advantages of the "perpetual servitude" policy exercised by Caribbean landowners. Following the lead of Massachusetts and Connecticut, Virginia legalized slavery in 1661."--Compton's Encyclopedia Online

In theory, the "indentured servant" is only selling his or her labor. In practice, however, indentured servants were basically slaves and the courts enforced the laws that made it so. The treatment of the servant was harsh and often brutal. In fact, the Virginia Colony prescribed "bodily punishment for not heeding the commands of the master." Half the servants died in the first two years. As a result of this type of treatment, runaways were frequent.

according to this slave's maternal family legend, two of this slave's ancestors came over on the indentured servant ticket, they died before their term of service was up and therefore their son was required to serve in their stead. He ran away, stole a boat and rowed out to an island where his descendants live to this day.




GoddessJules -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/17/2005 10:32:17 AM)

You are correct about the etymology about the word "slave." However, I think you are missing my point. The English word slave maybe have been first documented to be in use circa 1290, but the concept and connotation of slave existed before that. Perhaps in Latin or Greek or whatever. They existed, people taken and forced to serve against their will either through conquest or as part of trade.

So the word to denote slave would invariably be different than the words used to denote "servant" "domestic help" or any other *similar* derivatives. Further, if the existing words in the English language actually encompassed what the term "slave" became, they most likely would have stuck with those words.

This is just a general statement, but for those citing the bible as some sort of "evidence". . .keep in mind that the bible also gives "evidence" to the existence of talking snakes.

J




onceburned -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/17/2005 11:08:53 AM)

quote:

keep in mind that the bible also gives "evidence" to the existence of talking snakes.


Oh yes. Man those things are scary!! I shiver just thinking about them.

Erm... on happier note, the Latin word for slave is 'servus' which is also the root for English word servant. From what I remember (so long ago) of my high school history the Roman conception of household slavery was much less harsh than practiced in the Americas during the 19th century and before.

The Latin word 'ancilla' meant 'slave girl' and is the root of the English word 'ancillary', a noun meaning 'something of secondary importance' or an adjective meaning 'helper'.

On the other hand, Roman penal slavery was intended to brutally work people to death, such as in the salt mines. But my recollection of all this is just a little hazy, so I will let better informed people correct me.




die4urpleasure -> RE: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE (1/17/2005 11:17:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessJules

This is just a general statement, but for those citing the bible as some sort of "evidence". . .keep in mind that the bible also gives "evidence" to the existence of talking snakes.

J


Such lawyers aren't so uncommon.

Seriously, this is a great thread and I shall return to it later when I have caught up and have the time to share my thoughts better.




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875