RE: Submission and Slavery

RE: Submission and Slavery (Full Version)

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

Message

ruffnecksbabygir -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 12:14:36 PM)
Tosses in her .02 contrary to popular belief here on the boards, i do believe there are definitions to words...if this would of been the very first place i would've looked at for knowledge on BDSM i'd be so confused i'd still be trying to figure out what it all means. i copied and pasted this definition which i think is very accurate...here's the link to the page: http://www.answers.com/topic/slave-bdsm "Slave is a term often used in BDSM to conote a specific form of submissive. Such a person could also be a masochist or "bottom", but this is not always the case. Connotatively it refers to very involved D/s relationships; a person who has surrendered their personal property and freedoms to another, who has become the property or chattel of their owner(s). This term is widely used, as it has a certain self-affirming weight. The difference between submissive and slave is the degree of submission." i am now a slave to my Master, i was a submissive up to the point i accepted His collar and became His property.....not all owned submissives are slaves, of course....but the difference is quite clear, the words pretty much speak for themselves....a submissive and a slave...one is a submissive person, the other is owned property....why try to complicate something that really isn't so complicating. My former Master, which was also a mentor, explained it quite simply, "a submissive submits each time she obeys her dominant, a slave submits only once, when she accepts her collar , from that point on it's no longer her will but her Masters" i know there are many here who have a phobia of labels but just because they refuse to accept that we all do indeed carry a label, whether we want to admit it or not, that does not mean they are correct to say that a submissive or slave is in the eye of the beholder, soto speak....i can say i am a Domme, sure....but it's not the reality, i am submissive in nature, so i can pretend all i want but i can't expect others to buy into it....same goes for submissives who claim to be slaves but really are not....sure, they may promise their doms that they will be this and that, and will do as they're told, yadda yadda, but if you don't back it up with actions then what you claim to be is not a reality...those are just examples of course. .

onceburned -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 12:18:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2 To clear away the hyperbole here... You have some people who say "slaves cant say no" Well, I say no a lot. You have some people who say "slaves have no choices" Well, I have a lot of choices. The realistic issue that started this thread is that someone gets annoyed at "slaves" pronouncing themselves as "slaves" when they "obviously aren't" Thank you for bringing us back to earth. [:)] I think we all agree that there is a difference between 'slave' and 'submissive'. And that 'slave' is more involved, deeper. But spelling out the exact requirements to be a slave is something we will not all agree on. The definition of a word may be a bit like an atom. There is a nucleus but the electron cloud surrounding it makes an atom much larger and less precise in form than it would be otherwise. But atoms do have predictable characteristics.

mistoferin -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 12:23:39 PM)
quote: Even if someone came into your group, said - I am a Master - showed you His slave - proved what he owns, does that mean you automatically accept him, and call him Master, because he can show proof thats acceptable to you? Yes. That doesn't mean that I have undying respect, hold him in high regard or think he is even qualified....but yes, if he owns a slave he is a Master. I know plenty of Master's who I have no respect for, and plenty who I think have no business being in charge of their own life let alone someone else's. But those decisions are not my decisions to make. Having a slave might make you a Master, but it does not make you a better Dominant. Just as owning a dog does not make someone a responsible pet owner....but it does make them a pet owner. quote: And yet a man with no slave, can claim the same, have more credentials, more experience, yet you won't believe him? No, I won't believe him. Unless you own a slave you are not a Master. He may have been a Master in the past. He may become a Master in the future. He may be the most respected Dominant on the planet. But unless he has ownership...then no....he is not a Master at that moment. There are those who have mastered a skill and call themself a Master of _____. But that does not make them a Master in the context of slave ownership.

darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 12:31:51 PM)
so, in that case - what does that make me in your eyes? If I claim to be a submissive by such thoughts, then I am not to you. Because by definition, I am a slave. But thats not up to you to decide that. (Ya know I don't mean that in a bad way, erin - we is still good[:D]) Peace and love

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 12:32:56 PM)
For me, I do not believe being a slave means I am in a "deeper" relationship than the Owners primary, or deeper than my relationship with my boyfriend, or deeper than my sisters relationship with her husband. For me, I believe I am a slave whether I am owned or not. I believe submissives can and do make the choice to submit long term and do NOT continue to make the choice over and over again. I believe my will is my own, to be directed and authorized by the Owner. I have many decisions to make as the Owner's slave. Each of us will contradict eachothers definition at some point. It's not about label-phobia or philia, it's not about complicating things, it's not even about making someone feel better or worse about themselves. It's simply that we're talking about who we are, how we are oriented and how we work in relationships to the world. We use a few general terms so that we can have reasonable discussions about them (where specific definitions aren't really important) but we really do all have different perspectives and to say "she shouldn't call herself a slave because she doesn't fit my definition of one" is just not going to fly. Are there slaves out there that I chuckle at and go "yeah sure"? Absolutely. I'm betting people say that about ME too. But I let them go on their way and I go on my way and we somehow manage to co-exist in the same world- even learn a bit from eachother.

mistoferin -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 12:43:49 PM)
quote: so, in that case - what does that make me in your eyes? If I claim to be a submissive by such thoughts, then I am not to you. Because by definition, I am a slave. But thats not up to you to decide that. (Ya know I don't mean that in a bad way, erin - we is still good Well first of all....you are a human being who's thoughts and opinions I respect. And yes....we is still good. It should not matter to you what all of this makes you in my eyes. If you have agreed to be a slave...and you have a man who has agreed to take ownership of you...then and only then can you be a slave. If that is the dynamic of your situation then you could call yourself a fairy princess but it wouldn't make it so.

SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 1:43:29 PM)
Well, Wwe are now getting some good and diverse input here which makes this for a more interesting discussion and I can learn so much more about all of you who are participating in this discussion. I appreciate the input. Kp ging s Im dgsting mst f dis o n tks 4 da npoot nau i cn spl hau I wont X

darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 1:46:13 PM)
quote: It should not matter to you what all of this makes you in my eyes Yes - that I is my view point... and why I disagreed to an extent with the OP... its no one elses right to say what a person is or to decide what a person is or should be. slave = owned property - there is very little seperation between definitions in any dictionary. I am owned by Demon. I am His property. I am under his ownership. I have no limits. But I am not a slave. Would you insist, therefore that I am not a submissive, just because I say I am and that doesn't conform to your idea of submissive? I am not believed. Peace and Love

darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 2:02:49 PM)
Just mentioning definitions (and because I am a knowledge fetishist and a word whore...lol) - Slave Websters - One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: “I was still the slave of education and prejudice” (Edward Gibbon). One who works extremely hard. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component. Encarta - 1. person forced to work for another 2. dominated person: somebody who is completely dominated by somebody or something 3. somebody accepting another’s rule: somebody who meekly accepts being ruled by somebody else 4. very hard worker: somebody who works or has to work very hard, often in bad conditions and for low pay 5. device controlled by another: a device that is totally controlled by another ( often used before a noun ) Merriam-Webster - 1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence 3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another Cambridge - noun [C] a person who is legally owned by someone else and has to work for them Oxford English - noun 1 historical a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. 2 a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something Rhymezone - noun: a person who is owned by someone noun: someone who works as hard as a slave verb: work very hard, like a slave Wikipedia - The word slaves has several meanings and usages: People who are owned by others, and live to serve them without pay. See slavery. Slaves are a technical term denoting a piece of equipment whose functioning is dependent on that of another piece of equipment. See slaves clock, slaves station, slaves drive. Slave is a term often used in BDSM to conote a specific form of submissive. Such a person could also be a masochist or bottom, but this is not always the case. Slaves were also the name of a 1970s funk band. Slavey (pronounced as SLAY-vi) is a First Nations people around the Great Slave Lake. The name of the people was "slaves" but was changed due to a homograph. They speak the Slavey language. Slave, refer to the master/slave configuration in Advanced Technology Attachment (ATA). Infoplease - —n. 1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. 2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug. 3. a drudge: a housekeeping slave. 4. a slave ant. 5. Photog.a subsidiary flash lamp actuated through its photoelectric cell when the principal flash lamp is discharged. 6. Mach.a mechanism under control of and repeating the actions of a similar mechanism. Cf. master (def. 19). a member of a group of Athabaskan-speaking North American Indians living in the upper Mackenzie River valley region of the Northwest Territories and in parts of British Columbia, Alberta, and the Yukon Territory. Also,Slavey. Allwords - 1. historical Someone owned by and acting as servant to another, with no personal freedom. Thesaurus: captive, bondman, bondwoman, bondservant, serf, chattel, vassal. 2. A person who is submissive under domination. 3. A person who works extremely hard for another; a drudge. 4. A person submissively devoted to another. 5. A person whose life is dominated by a specific activity or thing. Example: She's a slave to her work Form: a slave to something (also) 6. A mechanism controlled by another mechanism, eg in computing, by a central processor, or by remote control. So - basically... a slave isn't - by definition - an owned property/person. So unless there is some huge BDSM uprising to define exactly what the meaning of slave is within our community - slaves could, technically, be anyone who associates a part of themself with the word. Person choice. Peace and Love

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 3:54:28 PM)
dark~angel, I love all of the definitions and I understand all of these definitions and their various uses. But I think it is important to note that in each and every definition above, the very first definition refers to person who is, in some form, owned property. And we are dealing in human relationships here. So it would be logical to assume tht the first definition in each case would be the most applicable. I seek slaves. Because I know how confusing this issue can be in this lifestyle, I have taken the responsibility of not only stating I seek slave boys, but what My definition of slavery is. If a boy takes the time to read and feels this is what he wants, then, by all means, write to Me, and W/we can explore it. I don't really care how they identify as to orientation. I have given My definition of what I seek. It would be ideal if there was an accepted definition. But there is not. People all view this in mamy different ways. All I can do is clarify, to the best of My ability, what it means to Me. I have done that. I still get the "but I thought" emails, and I have to deal with that. So I do and I move on. I admit I get annoyed when I see a blank profile on a boy who has written to Me and he does identify as a slave. The email? "let me know if you are into cyber". Yes, he's a slave alright. A slave to his desires. Delete Move on. It comes down to whatever works in a personal relationship, and whatever labels that couple chooses to use, is up to them.

darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 4:17:41 PM)
quote: It comes down to whatever works in a personal relationship, and whatever labels that couple chooses to use, is up to them. . Yup- totally agrees

GentleLady -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 9:40:38 PM)
quote: i know there are many here who have a phobia of labels but just because they refuse to accept that we all do indeed carry a label, whether we want to admit it or not, that does not mean they are correct to say that a submissive or slave is in the eye of the beholder, soto speak Having a phobia about labels has nothing to do with believing that words or terms have more then one meaning and may be up to the individual's interpretation. I wear many different labels and they change as I grow. Some labels cause harm such as being labeled insane. Some labels do not. Some labels are placed on the person by others (the medical profession labels me insane). The same label can be placed by the person (I label me insane). Whose definition counts? In this case the medical one because I can be locked up based on the opinion of others. Whose definition matters? Probably mine because I know me better then anyone else does. If I believe differently then the majority of other people I can be labeled insane. That does not make me insane...it only makes me different. Personally I think I am as crazy as a hoot owl based on a comparison between my actions and those considered the 'norm' for western culture. The medical profession has labeled me completely sane and I have the paperwork to back that up. If words had standard official meanings and meant the same to everyone then we would not need to learn how to communicate. Everything would be immediately understood and crystal clear. This is not the case. Gentle Lady

mnottertail -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/18/2005 10:07:47 PM)
ja, im the guy who has people pee in public( ssc or rack) can be done, so look............my edge is your center of the paper..........continuum once agan.......I actually see no difference betweem a submissive and a slave when we talk sex........my center is anothers edge, my edge is anothers center........and when we get all done at the end of the day, you feel good, I feel good.........rack,ssc, no animals whatever..........

brightspot -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 12:27:40 AM)
What about women in Countries,Where they have no rights? Whom have to keep their bodies totally covered and can be beaten for laughing out loud in public. They may be murdered or killed if they degrace thier brother or family. They have No Right to education, who they marry, when they will or won't have sex, and/or their clitoris is removed so there is no pleasure. They may be labeled as slaves by men in their country, or in "their community" But does that make them slaves? submissive? The men Dominant? or Masters? I would love to hear these woman speak from the Heart. I'm sure when it is not SSC, and or a personal choice to be involved in WIITWD...It is quite different, so... does not our choice to be involved allow the right to our own definition....is it not always found out to be applicable or not sooner or later between the individuals involved. If I were to be a Prostitute, I could claim a # of titles....Money Whore, Street Slut, Bitch, Escort. Pro, Love teacher, whatever it would still fall under the fact I sold my body or abilities to sexually satisfy another. In WIITWD there are a lot of Labels that have a lot of diferent meaning for a lot of diferent folk, and I for one hope that never changes...Let it be a Fluid thing....there is enough ridgidity around sex in this country the way it is! I think what is important is that the 2, 3 or 4.... how many people are involved, is that they all agree on what those label's mean for them as individuals and as a whole. *Brightspot

SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 7:49:00 AM)
k, so Wwe have people here who believe that words can mean anything they want to mean, regardless of what the acceptable definitions are, while there are folks here who feel that there are definitions which are what society agrees upon are the definitions of words. We have folks in here that have never found definitions of salvery nor submission, but then found the dictionary definitions which all point to slavery in re a person being that of being owned by or at the minimum, being a subserviant servant to somebody else. Therefore, the question has been answered. A slave is an owned person, therefore it is reasonable and logical to state that an unowned person, though he/she may be submissive in nature, is not a slave until owned. Likewise, an owned person can still consider him/her self a sub even if s/he is a slave, because of submissiveness being how a person is and slavery being what a person is. In essence, slavery defines a what, which is dependent on external factors while submissiveness defines how the person feels, strictly dependent on internal factors. This being stated, now My question has been answered, which was a question regarding slavery and submission and nothing else. And since My question has been answered, then those who list themselves as slaves are either owned, or not slaves at all. That is the only rational and reasonable conclusion so far, based on the discussion and arguments posed herein this post. Thanks to all of you who participated in this discussion. I hope that My prodding has not offended anyone, as I basically pushed the issue in order to get diversity in responses. If any have been offended, it has not been My intention. I greatly appreciate the manner in which most everyone here was able to discuss and argue this question in such a decent, gracious and civil manner. Best Regards, X

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 7:56:28 AM)
quote: We have folks in here that have never found definitions of salvery nor submission, but then found the dictionary definitions which all point to slavery in re a person being that of being owned by or at the minimum, being a subserviant servant to somebody else. Therefore, the question has been answered. A slave is an owned person, therefore it is reasonable and logical to state that an unowned person, though he/she may be submissive in nature, is not a slave until owned. Likewise, an owned person can still consider him/her self a sub even if s/he is a slave, because of submissiveness being how a person is and slavery being what a person is. In essence, slavery defines a what, which is dependent on external factors while submissiveness defines how the person feels, strictly dependent on internal factors. This being stated, now My question has been answered, which was a question regarding slavery and submission and nothing else. And since My question has been answered, then those who list themselves as slaves are either owned, or not slaves at all. Thank you. Very well stated and thought out, and I couldn't agree more. Jewel

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 7:57:01 AM)
Well obviously not ALL of society agrees with it, trust me, I'm not the only person who believes they are a slave whether they are owned or not.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 8:06:06 AM)
In 1986 I believed I was 30, I really did. I celebrated my 30th birthday and bragged about making it out of my 20's alive and all that happy crap. Then a close friend of mine pointed out that I was mistaken, I wasn't 30. Of course I argued the point vehemently, after all, we all know how old we are, right? I mean, even a five year old knows that much. Well, I stopped arguing long enough to think about it. I was 31. Just because you personally believe it, doesn't mean it's true, it just means that you believe it, that's all. Jewel

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 8:17:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel Of course I argued the point vehemently, after all, we all know how old we are, right? . Just because you personally believe it, doesn't mean it's true, it just means that you believe it, that's all. Jewel Doesn't mean it's not true either, and I'm not vehemently doing anything. I tend to think a fact such as a birthdate (which if you WANT to be literal about it depends on which calendar you use) is slightly different than defining a personal orientation. For me, slavery is defined as "the type of primary relationship I am fulfilled in" Not "the type of primary relationship I AM IN"

SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 8:30:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2 quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel Of course I argued the point vehemently, after all, we all know how old we are, right? . Just because you personally believe it, doesn't mean it's true, it just means that you believe it, that's all. Jewel ... I tend to think a fact such as a birthdate (which if you WANT to be literal about it depends on which calendar you use) is slightly different than defining a personal orientation. Like what other calendar? And if you use that calendar, you are the age that is defined by that calendar, which, in turn translates to the age in the other calendars, so you are back to your real age. X

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.570313E-02