RE: Submission and Slavery (Full Version)

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



Message

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 8:38:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SenorX
so you are back to your real age.

X


"real age" being the term at issue here.



ShiftedJewel -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 8:51:45 AM)

I believe that the point I was trying to make is that just because a person believes something doesn't necessarily make it real or correct. I personally don't care what others may think of the moon, the reality is that it's there and it's a moon. Not THE moon, just A moon. Just like Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, they all have moons. And amazingly enough, they are all called moons. Why? Because they all fit the definition of "moon"

moon: any satelite revolving about a planet (Funk & Wagnell) (personally I would add, not man made)

Using this logic, a slave, by definition accepted by the scholars of the world, would be "owned property".

Jewel



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 8:56:19 AM)

Yes but if you want to take it that far, no one REALLY IS "owned property" the way we in our bdsm culture use the term is very different from how scholars use the term historically.

One of the most common debates is that dictionaries do not even have a definition for "A" submissive.

I certainly understand what people are saying and where they come from and we can communicate nonetheless. I just look at things differently.



SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 9:01:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2

I just look at things differently.


which goes without saying.

X



darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 2:44:52 PM)

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


Nope[:D]

A slave - if you want to be exact - is someone who would be witheld against their will, or made to believe they were 'slaves' because they were taken from birth or very young from their families so they do not form a bond with family members. Therefore, by your thoughts - slaves cannot ever exist in BDSM Ds or whatever medium you want to label it - because alledgedly - BDSM is RACK.... SSC.... or whatever consensual sense you want to label it.

And also - in many different definitions a slave is someone who is subserviant or under the influence of another source - therfore, not owned - but under the influence of - this could be anything from a person, to a drug, to a fetish to BDSM itself.

Case Closed.

Peace and Love



subcheryl -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 3:23:05 PM)

SenorX, the best I can explain is to have you read Mercnbeth"s posting right after yours. It is explained better than I could have. Merc thanks for explaining what I was trying to say, even if you didn't mean to, but it hit the nail on the head as to how I feel. Thanks[:)]



dragonofjapan -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 3:32:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SenorX

I have noticed so many ads (a/k/a profiles) here whereby people clandestinely choose without a clue to call themselves slaves when, in reality, (and sometimes, at best) they would be subs and not slaves. Perhaps there are many who become involved in D/s that do not realize the true significance of slavery.


Maybe they could get a link to you, and you could classify them.

So I've noticed everyone is trying to do as best they can to get what they want in a world which is quite hostile to them having any type of fun what so ever. But they get up each day and keep trying.

I don't get leather. I don't get latex.

But lots of folks don't get me either.

I haven't had much success in life looking or talking down to people.

Zip



ScooterTrash -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 7:29:14 PM)

Every time I see this discussion, I marvel at how insistent some are to simply not accept that it really is pretty clear cut. I have to agree totally with the OP
quote:

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.

I usually am not insistent in what I say, as generally I consider anything posted on these board to be an opinion, but this really is not one of those sort of topics. Words, labels, whatever you want to call them...they are there so that we may better define ourselves and our roles within the lifestyle, they are not the evil thing many seem to think they are. It is odd that some, our "own", are so insistent with trying to keep clearcut definitions from surfacing. WE are the ones who make the rules, WE are the rulemakers. No one from the nilla world, Webster included, is going to come in and tell us who is right and who is wrong..the only way this is done is for everyone to agree that something MEANS a specific thing. I have witnessed and been involved in this same discussion countless times and all I ever get out of it is that most folks know what they are talking about while a few simply want to stir the pot. If we would simply agree on the definitions, then we could persuade others to see what we mean, then eventually the topic would be done once and for all. Can you imagine if every word in the English language had to undergo this same ritual and scrutiny..we would still be talking jibberish. So why don't we just go with the majority and take the logical conclusion...Slaves are owned...in the meantime they are subs and no, not all subs want to, or have to, become owned or slaves. And if we would ever agree on the definition, then it wouldn't matter what one thought of themselves..they would still not be a rock, just because they said they were.
Good day.....



SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 7:34:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

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


Nope[:D]

A slave - if you want to be exact - is someone who would be witheld against their will, or made to believe they were 'slaves' because they were taken from birth or very young from their families so they do not form a bond with family members. Therefore, by your thoughts - slaves cannot ever exist in BDSM Ds or whatever medium you want to label it - because alledgedly - BDSM is RACK.... SSC.... or whatever consensual sense you want to label it.

And also - in many different definitions a slave is someone who is subserviant or under the influence of another source - therfore, not owned - but under the influence of - this could be anything from a person, to a drug, to a fetish to BDSM itself.

Case Closed.

Peace and Love


Alot of folks that initially came to the US while still a colony and even through the 1800's came here by voluntarily 'selling' themselves into slavery under a contractual agreement, otherwise known as "indentured servitude" (another term to be researched???)

Best Regards,

X



mistoferin -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/19/2005 8:01:37 PM)

quote:

Words, labels, whatever you want to call them...they are there so that we may better define ourselves and our roles within the lifestyle, they are not the evil thing many seem to think they are. It is odd that some, our "own", are so insistent with trying to keep clearcut definitions from surfacing. WE are the ones who make the rules, WE are the rulemakers. No one from the nilla world, Webster included, is going to come in and tell us who is right and who is wrong..the only way this is done is for everyone to agree that something MEANS a specific thing. I have witnessed and been involved in this same discussion countless times and all I ever get out of it is that most folks know what they are talking about while a few simply want to stir the pot. If we would simply agree on the definitions, then we could persuade others to see what we mean, then eventually the topic would be done once and for all.


Awesome post. Wouldn't that be nice to have it done once and for all? Like I said earlier in the thread....here we still all sit in two(or more) different camps.



darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 2:34:33 AM)

No offence meant to people who are considered slaves by themself or their Masters - I totally accept that there are people within wiitwd who have taken this label thang and turned it on its head so as to try and make people see what they feel and where they are coming from. But I have to admit, I don't see people as slaves, ever. There is the heart of a slave, the mind of a slave - but to me, slaves cannot exist comfortably in my life. Thats just my personal thoughts. Whilst I mean no offense to others, I myself am offended that people can use such a word with such brutal, current undertones.

quote:

Alot of folks that initially came to the US while still a colony and even through the 1800's came here by voluntarily 'selling' themselves into slavery under a contractual agreement, otherwise known as "indentured servitude"


That was then - this is now.
Then call them servants, not slaves. But then, that isn't quite as 'romantic' is it?

Not to seem rude - but Your looking for justification on what makes a slave a slave?

Try taking your justifications to the thousands of people - TODAY - in slavery in Niger - or those trapped as slaves in Kenya, or Mexico, some US states... Brazil... Lituania... Japan... Uk...


Peace and Love



mistoferin -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 3:34:39 AM)

quote:

But I have to admit, I don't see people as slaves, ever. There is the heart of a slave, the mind of a slave - but to me, slaves cannot exist comfortably in my life. Thats just my personal thoughts. Whilst I mean no offense to others, I myself am offended that people can use such a word with such brutal, current undertones.


angel, reading this I finally understand just exactly the perspective you are coming from. You have ferociously(grin) argued this sub/slave issue, but what it really boils down to is that you can not seperate the term slave from it's historically negative and violent past inside of your own mind. While I understand and absolutely agree that the term had meaning that was undesireable and horrific, what we talk about here is just not the same thing. We are not using that terminology in the same context in wiitwd, nor does a slave in wiiitwd have the same reality as those who were and are held against their wills.

By stating that you can not see people as slaves EVER and that in your life slaves CANNOT EXIST, that fact tells me that you understand that it is you who have an issue with this. By arguing that point in the context of wiitwd when in truth your belief has nothing whatsoever to do with wiitwd, you have participated in discussing a topic where your emotional response to the word is clearly biased.

No disrespect to you intended, but all of the definitions and dictionaries in the world are not going to change your emotional response to slavery, because in your mind you have that image of horror that is inseperable from the word. But there are those of us who have successfully seperated that from wiitwd and see the two as completely different concepts. I, for instance, don't get negative images when I hear the word coming from someone referring to this lifestyle, I get images of beauty and trust.



allyC -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 4:48:11 AM)

While some of the definitions of the word "slave" may denote non-consensuality, not all of them do. While some definitions of slave may denote legality, not all of them do and while some definitions may denote ownership, not all of them do.

When we're talking about wiitwd, it seems very simple to me. As defined in several dictionaries, a slave is a person who is wholly subservient to someone else or as defined, "A person who is abjectly subservient to a dominating influence or force." There is no legal or non-consensual connotation there.

A person can be a slave to their job, a slave to their muse, or a slave to their partner - but to me, the one thing that is required in order for the slave to be a slave is something to be a slave to. Without that dominating influence or force, to whom or what is the slave subservient to?

I think this is a topic that will be hashed out and argued until hell won't have it but for me, using the actual definition works. That's why I generally don't like the words dominant and submissive used as nouns. I'd much rather hear someone say "I'm a submissive woman" or "I prefer to be on the bottom in a D/s relationship." To me, that just sounds better.

What even twists my rig even more is "I'm a Dominate." *grin* Feels like nails on a chalk board to me.

Well wishes, everyone

Cav's girl
ally



darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 6:57:20 AM)


ooooo... I am ferocious... [:D]
grrrrrrr.....

I agree, yes, that using the term slavery as it stands, as people here insist - yes, I would have a problem seeing anyone as a slave because people are talking as if their is a black and white solution.

Slaves are Owned Property.

Thats what has been said, over and over. In that case, sure, I can't accept that, because in that sense, every owned slave is the same - consensual. But they are not.

Slave doesn't just mean owned property. All the dictionaries in all the world do not just list slavery as one point.

I don't have a problem with slavery. I have a problem with the community picking and choising who is a slave. It isn't up to the community - its up to individuals.

If Emerald (not meaning to pick on you!)choses to call herself a slave - I support her. I don't feel any negativity in her position - I see beauty and trust and that she knows exactly what she is and follows her heart - that is the truth of wiitwd.

If I see people, ridicule a girl because she calls herself a slave and isn't owned - I still support her, not them. They are the foolish, trying to take away her very essence. It isn't about ewhat they perceive, its what she knows that matters. Otherwise BDSM as a community just starts looking like a religion...

Nothing in BDSM is gospel....

Peace and love



darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 7:03:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

While some of the definitions of the word "slave" may denote non-consensuality, not all of them do. While some definitions of slave may denote legality, not all of them do and while some definitions may denote ownership, not all of them do.


YES, YES, YES!....[:)]

quote:

When we're talking about wiitwd, it seems very simple to me. As defined in several dictionaries, a slave is a person who is wholly subservient to someone else or as defined, "A person who is abjectly subservient to a dominating influence or force." There is no legal or non-consensual connotation there.

A person can be a slave to their job, a slave to their muse, or a slave to their partner - but to me, the one thing that is required in order for the slave to be a slave is something to be a slave to. Without that dominating influence or force, to whom or what is the slave subservient to?


Yes, yes, yes - again...lol

quote:

I think this is a topic that will be hashed out and argued until hell won't have it but for me, using the actual definition works. That's why I generally don't like the words dominant and submissive used as nouns. I'd much rather hear someone say "I'm a submissive woman" or "I prefer to be on the bottom in a D/s relationship." To me, that just sounds better.


[sm=lol.gif]yes... and again, yes...

quote:

What even twists my rig even more is "I'm a Dominate." *grin* Feels like nails on a chalk board to me.


That and the words, 'true'... 'real'.... [;)]

Thank you for being so elloquent

Peace and Love




Lordandmaster -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 11:43:07 AM)

I've always disliked it too, so I know whatcha mean, but remember that the word "submissive" doesn't exist in the vanilla world as a noun either. (Yeah, I've looked it up. "Dominant" does exist as a noun, but only as a technical term--as in music, ecology, and so on--not as "a dominant person.") Anyway, my point is that we have no choice but to invent our own words and usages--and as long as we're just making everything up, who's to say that "dominate" can't be a noun?

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

What even twists my rig even more is "I'm a Dominate." *grin* Feels like nails on a chalk board to me.




MundaneEgg -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 1:09:38 PM)

What if you used the term "Erotic Slave"?



mistoferin -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 2:43:26 PM)

quote:

What if you used the term "Erotic Slave"?


It really doesn't matter. As long as people self identify with a term or a definition of a term that they have conjured up only to define their personal perspective it is not going to matter. They could stand atop the highest mountain and scream it out at their highest decibel level but it is not going to matter. The only validation they are going to get from it is going to have to come from themselves. It is not going to make the person or people they are trying to define themselves to understand any better.

While everyone has the right to call themself whatever they wish, it is not going to change the perception of them by those around them. Some will say that they don't need to be validated or understood by anyone but themselves, but if this were the case....would they try so hard to get everyone else to see their way and understand their definition? If that were true, what would be the point of trying to explain your own personal definition of yourself at every turn?

Contrary to what some believe, there ARE generally accepted definitions for the terms we have tossed around on this thread, at least at a base level. That is why we use the terms in the first place, Dominant, Master, submissive, slave. We use them because it gives folks a basic understanding of where we identify. If you step outside the generally accepted view of those terms, it is not going change the perception of those who identify with the generally accepted definition of the term.
That is all fine and well, if that is what they wish to do they have the right, but it is not going to mean that just because you say you are something that you will be viewed as such by others.



darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 4:39:07 PM)

quote:

It is odd that some, our "own", are so insistent with trying to keep clearcut definitions from surfacing. WE are the ones who make the rules, WE are the rulemakers. No one from the nilla world, Webster included, is going to come in and tell us who is right and who is wrong..the only way this is done is for everyone to agree that something MEANS a specific thing. I have witnessed and been involved in this same discussion countless times and all I ever get out of it is that most folks know what they are talking about while a few simply want to stir the pot. If we would simply agree on the definitions, then we could persuade others to see what we mean, then eventually the topic would be done once and for all.


But why do we need to justify what we are? This I just cannot understand.

All the time, people say - 'you are what you are.' You choose a 'label' - a name - a distinction... and its personal... do it the way you want... individual choice etcetcetc...

Then, the next minute... its... 'ah... but there are clear definitions - we must make those definitions stick... it's our job to make the rules.'

I swear - the minute I have to submit to someone elses rules other than Demon, or to somone who I don't know or want to submit to - is the day I walk out of the Lifestyle.
There shouldn't be a group mentality - we aren't making BDSM into some religious community which dictates and seperates those that don't fit our 'ideals' - it would make wiitwd no different than the life outside of wiitwd. It would make it regimented, ruleridden and extremist.

We need to support each other - not turn our backs because a person doesn't fit our 'ideals' - not ridicule someone or say they are wrong because it doesn't conform - all I can see is that people are beginning to segregate - you'll end up with different sects - different denominations that will stiffle, not enhance wiitwd - and all the time - these discussions within ourselves are only making it harder.

Why must we choose a definition - you say the majority yet, its quite clear its pretty 50-50... or else we wouldn't be discussing. Look through the profiles... slaves, dominants, subs, switches, masters, mistress' - no one can prove to anyone else they are what they say they are, because we all see each thing different. You claim to be a dominant - yet you aren't that to me(no offense intended). Emerald is a slave - but if she wasn't already owned - some here would dismiss her as foolish.... M'Lady A sometimes bottoms(see relevant thread) yet, shes no switch - she is a very dominant female who is highly respected within the community... I should be a slave by definition - but I am not by Demons choice.... cheryl is a sub by nature, a slave at heart but to me? - she is a very dear friend and yes - sister because I have grown to trust her. I know Masters with slaves, but they are not master to me - they are Mike, or Jon or Chris...

Sure, slaves are owned. But by what? By a Man? A Woman? A Lifestyle? Every damn definition is different... every 'BDSM Bible' is different and alters over time. Things evolve. All I can see is that people don't want to evolution of the slave to occur - but it already has, way before any of us were even born. And it will continue to do so - no matter how much you want to try and fight it.

He is a Master - He claims to be one, yet has no slave - yet in His heart His slave is still with Him, even though she died two years ago... are you wanting to take that away from Him?

It isn't up to us to change the definitions - maybe make new ones - but you can't change the definitions - you evolve with them. We as a group havent got the power of each and everyone of us to say exactly what must be. But we as a group should stand by each other and accept the individual even when we cant understand their viewpoint.

Peace and Love



mistoferin -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 10:20:59 PM)

quote:

There shouldn't be a group mentality


Although we are all individuals, collectively we are a group.
Group: a number of individuals assembled together having some unifying relationship

All successful groups have one thing in common....order.
Order: : a proper, orderly, or functioning condition

If each member wants to make up their own rules and definitions as they go....what you have left is simple...it's called anarchy.
Anarchy: absence or denial of any authority or established order



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.492188E-02