RE: Submission and Slavery (Full Version)

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



Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 10:51:07 PM)

RIGHT LIKE NEXT THING YOU KNOW THERES GOING TO BE A REVOLUTION AND ALL THE WALLS WILL COME TMUBLING DOWN

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

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




Lepidoptera -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/20/2005 10:52:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SenorX

Should I have deliberately wanted to reduce your comment to the point of absurdity, I would have simply pointed out that your example would then mean that, from your very words, an Atheist could call himself a Christian, and thereby be a Christian, and though maybe in this day in age of 'political correctness' nobody would question how a person who has no belief in any god could really be a follower of Christ, even though the terminology of the word Christian, inherently by its own definition is a follower of Christ.



I am an atheist, but I could call myself a Christian because I follow the teachings of Christ. I believe in turning the other cheek and I try to follow the tenants of Christ's philosophy in everything I do. (In fact, in this way I am probably more Christian than a lot of people who call themselves that.) This does not mean I believe that he was the literal son of God, or even that there is a god at all.

I agree that there have to be (and are) some standards in language. However, I think the subtleties between the words "submissive" and "slave" as they have evolved in the bdsm community are too small to pick fights over.

*as a note, I read through the rest of the posts after I wrote this and found that everyone had the same objection that I did... so much for originiality : D *



ElektraUkM -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/21/2005 2:03:00 AM)

Just want to make a couple of comments on the thread. Firstly about the topic of the thread:

quote:

mistoferin wrote: "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."


I think, when people get wound up about people calling themselves Master or slave... they're really reacting to the idea of 'Master' as a title... whereas to me, i see it as a Name. Someone has 'Master' in their screen-name, doesn't necessarily show anything about their current relationship status... it's just what they've called themselves at some point. ditto for slave. To give an analogy, if someone calls themselves 'pink-pixie'... we're not really going to spend a whole thread arguing that they're not a ... pink pixie. It's a name. Not a description.

For the rest of the topic of the thread, I wanted to say that I agree with those who call for a definition of slave, because that seems to be the most controversial term used in BDSM. I don't think it matters how often it's discussed, because probably each time it's discussed the debate gets messed up with other considerations ~ as in this thread. It's not Just about 'what is a slave'... its about all sorts of other things!

To be honest, before I came to collarme i'd read plenty of very decent definitions of 'slave', and i'm a little confused about why it's still being debated here... but then, this is a discussion board so maybe that's why....

quote:

dark~angel said: "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."


Not all slaves were/are badly treated. I've seen it mentioned here on collarme before that Roman slaves held some of the highest posts in the Empire. Simply being one who follows orders doesn't mean that you are some sort of nobody who gets flogged and never listened to.

~ Elektra



darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/21/2005 5:16:01 AM)

Hi erin...

I never said that we aren't a group - but that their shouldn't be some group mentality. I said that we should support - not condone because of a mentality that says things should be a certain way Just because we don't all conform, doesn't mean thats wrong - but it means that we are open and understanding. I can't get over the fact that people want acceptance for wiitwd, but can't accept others who don't 'fall in line'.

Peace and Love



darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/21/2005 5:20:44 AM)

quote:

Not all slaves were/are badly treated. I've seen it mentioned here on collarme before that Roman slaves held some of the highest posts in the Empire. Simply being one who follows orders doesn't mean that you are some sort of nobody who gets flogged and never listened to.

~ Elektra


Point taken - I guess that the Roman reaction to some slaves is the reaction that people give in wiitwd today to slaves. Some Roman slaves were not owned in particular - not by a person but by the process - so it is very closely entwined with wiitid anyways...

peace and Love



darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/21/2005 5:31:33 AM)

quote:

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


But there are no rules. There are individuals. My husband is the Master of me, you want him to insist He is Master of every sub here? No, of course not. But He may dominate some here. He may even be called Master by some - but not all - there is no hard and fast rule - no black and white - and if there was, I doubt that the majority of people would even want to be involved with wiitwd if there was.

If your group didn't like Demons and my ways and told us to conform - its simple - we wouldn't attend. You can't tell people what to do - you can exchange views but none have the right to insist on uniformity.

I don't belong to a group. I belong to Demon - If I wasn't with Him, I still wouldn't just belong to a group, I might discuss and converse - but I don't have to blindly follow and submit to every rule and regulation. We care a community of like minded people who converse at times, but practise what we practise when we want, how we want, if we want.
No rules.
Nor Order.
No Functions.

The only function, order and rules we have are laid out ourselves.
Thats not anachy - thats freedom to exist.

Peace and Love



SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/21/2005 3:44:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

...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



Very well stated herein, ally.

I have pushed and prodded and yes, even forced the issue for, hopefully, some clarity to exist in harmonious accord re the difference between sub and slave.

And you have stated it very well. All of the discussions here are great and the arguments have kept this post going very well to a point that we may all be able to see where those who have commented herein are in regard to their thoughts, their feelings, and the acceptance of commonly accepted terminology.

From everything here, the majority, even some of those who argue that there is no difference between sub and slave, have defined or expressed that a slave has to be a slave to someone or something... even those who have tried to take the whole thing out of context have made comments of slavery not necessarily being slave to someone, but in the context heerein, we all know that it deals with slavery to someone not some thing. But, either way, even if that slavery is to some thing, it is still within the meaning that in order to be a slave, it has to be to someone (or thing), whereas a sub can merely be submissive in nature without necessitating service to any person or thing.

Again, I commend your words herein.

X



SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/21/2005 3:52:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

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



Exactly.

In the endings of the 'hippie era', I was saddened that hippies had no longer formed a collective thought. And, I still held fast to the principles of nonconformity to society. So, by holding to those hippie principles, I was not conforming to society, but, de facto, I was conforming to society, as I conformed by not conforming to conformity and in so doing I was conforming with an element of society, which made up the whole of society, thereby conforming.

X



SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/21/2005 3:54:22 PM)

BTW, I again give My thanks to all of Yyou who have actively been participating in this discussion, and even though I may strongly disagree with some of you, I still appreciate the diversity in dialogue.

X



sissymaidlola -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/21/2005 8:30:09 PM)

quote:

BTW, I again give My thanks to all of Yyou who have actively been participating in this discussion, and even though I may strongly disagree with some of you, I still appreciate the diversity in dialogue.

Oh, is that it now ... is this thread done with, SenorX ?

Damn. sissy Feels like the person that turns up outside the box office just as the theater is starting to empty out! [:(]

sissy Was going to post here something he cut out of one of his posts on another thread. He wanted to thank You for fighting the good fight in resisting the rampant nihilism that was starting to spread across the boards courtesy of EmeraldSlave2 and dark~angel, and for at least establishing the following agreed upon terminology:

submissiveness defines how the person feels, strictly dependent on internal factors.
slavery defines what a person does, which is dependent on external factors.

Based on the above consensus, slavishness might be a good term to describe the state of mind of someone that feels very submissive and is prepared to undergo the state of slavery. [Note: That is simply a suggestion just made here by sissy ... he is NOT representing it as being part of any consensus that has been already established.]

All slaves are submissive in nature.
Not all submissives are slavish in nature and therefore will never become slaves.

A slave is an owned person.
An unowned person, though submissive in nature, is not a slave until owned.
An owned person can still consider him/herself a submissive even once s/he is a slave.
An owned person (slave) once released reverts back to being a submissive.

A Dominant person that owns one (or more) slaves is a Master (or Mistress).
A Dominant person that owns no slaves is just a Dom (or Domina) - whether they want to own any slaves or not, or have previously owned slaves, is irrelevant!

Someone that is a Master / Mistress / slave according to the above lives an M/s lifestyle or is said to be in an M/s relationship.
Someone that is a Dom / Domina / submissive according to the above and is also actively fulfilling that role in a relationship is living a D/s lifestyle or is said to be in a D/s relationship.

Clearly there are contentious grey areas in the foregoing. The terms Master and Mistress frequently get applied to Dominant people that do not currently own, have never owned, and do not wish to own slaves. There are also many synonyms for some of the above terms e.g., Domme is a synonym for Domina. The key distinction between slave and submissive is one of ownership ... but that now just shifts the battle of concepts to what it really means to be owned. Some Dominants collar Their submissives so being collared might NOT be a sign of slave ownership. Some Dominants may require Their slaves to sign a slave contract when They take ownership while others may not, so a slave contract, like a collar, is NOT totally indicative of ownership.

sissy Would now like to recommend that the debate move on to what actually constitutes slave ownership. Since the above terms establish the difference between a slave and a submissive as primarily being that a slave is an owned submissive, unless we now continue on and reach some sort of consensus of what it means to be owned, we really have not established a whole lot here. So here are some quick questions to help maintain the momentum of this debate:

Does being collared constitute being owned ?
Does not signing a slave contract mean that you are NOT owned ?
If slavery requires a greater level of surrender than simply submission, what are the indicators of that greater level of surrender ?

sissy maid lola

[image]local://upfiles/21203/7550AAD373274EA8911F0BC3852D002C.jpg[/image]



allyC -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/21/2005 11:40:56 PM)

quote:

submissiveness defines how the person feels, strictly dependent on internal factors.

I disagree. Submissiveness can also be something that is inspired through external factors. I'm not a submissive person by nature, however, my owner is someone who (because of who is is) has become the catalyst - the inspiration to my submissiveness. While it is felt internally, it was evoked by external forces and often dependent on them

quote:

All slaves are submissive in nature.
Not all submissives are slavish in nature and will therefore will never become slaves.

Some slaves are dominant in nature. They just have surrendered to the one person who was the catalyst to their enslavement. There are many dominant slaves out there.

I wasn't slavish before I met my owner, nor was I a submissive. I was just a woman who knew that somewhere out there, there was someone who had the power to bring me to my knees - both literally and figuratively. I was fortunate enough to find him. :)

quote:

A slave is an owned person.
An unowned person, though submissive in nature, is not a slave until owned.
An owned person can still consider him/herself a submissive even once s/he is a slave.
An owned person (slave) once released reverts back to being a submissive.

Or in some cases, they revert back to being just a dominant person who once lived as a slave and who might live as a slave again if they meet someone who is strong enough and dominant enough to inspire it.

quote:

Does being collared constitute being owned ?

That depends on the nature of the collar and what it symbolizes to the people involved. It might be a scene collar or it might be a fashion statement. Everyone puts a different value on symbols.


quote:

Does not signing a slave contract mean that you are NOT owned ?

I don't believe that the lack of a slave contract negates one's slavery. If person A. is abjectly subservient to person B., then person A. is a slave. A signed piece of paper is only worth the actions and intentions of those who sign it. It doesn't make or break anything. My contract is simple: He is the master and I am the slave. No paper is necessary. :)



quote:

If slavery requires a greater level of surrender than simply submission, what are the indicators of that greater level of surrender ?

I've always looked at it this way. Everyone has limits - there are things that people just won't do but a slave's limits, as long as he/she wishes to remain owned, are in the control of the owner. Within the confines of the relationship itself, the slave has one absolute right - the right to walk away.

(**disclaimer - when I say rights, I am not speaking of civil rights or human rights, I'm speaking specifically of what happens within the circle of that relationship. If the slave wants to exercise the right to vote (which he/she technically has) and the owner tells the slave not to vote, then the slave has two options - accept the command/restriction, or vote and face the consequences, those consequences being anything from perhaps punishment to release.)

I still believe that the bottom line is that every relationship will most likely be different. While I have my own beliefs as to what constitutes consensual slavery, submission, etc., the only people my opinion affects are my owner and myself and to be honest, what I think doesn't mean squat. If he says I'm his slave, then that is what I will call myself because the nature of my individual relationship says that he calls the shots. :)

I am free to have my own opinions and beliefs. I can judge people 'til Hell won't have it but they are still free to pick their own label and if it is really what works for them, quite frankly its none of my business.

Well wishes,

Cav's girl
ally



SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/22/2005 9:50:55 AM)

sissy,

No. you are not too late. Have at it. That is what I want. And that is why I reiterated My appreciation for Aal who have been and are participating in this discussion.

Thanks for your interest in the subject matter, sissy.

X



SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/23/2005 6:04:03 PM)

Well, this appears to be the finale to this thread.

In essence, by posing this question, it appears to Me from all the comments stated herein, supra, that the general consensus is in agreement that slavery is directly dependent upon some exterior force whereby the sub would have to be a 'slave' to somebody else in the context of inter-relationships between humans, and that a submissive can be submissive without actually having to submit to any person in particular.

Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that submission is independent of any interrealtionship between two or more parties, but that slavery is directly dependent on some Dominant/submissive interation between two or more persons in the context that slavery is considered herein.

Wherefore, an 'unowned' slave is not actually a slave at all, until he is, de facto, owned or submitting to some other party and otherwise if the feelings of submissiveness are present, then that 'unowned' slave is not a slave at all, but rather a submissive.

Thank Yya''ll for your participation in this exercise of Mine.

Best Regards,

X



darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/24/2005 1:16:30 AM)

Greetings SenorX

I am sure that the last message won't be the last - old threads pop back up now and them, even from a year or more ago. Especially ones like this that cause a good debate.

quote:

In essence, by posing this question, it appears to Me from all the comments stated herein, supra, that the general consensus is in agreement that slavery is directly dependent upon some exterior force whereby the sub would have to be a 'slave' to somebody else in the context of inter-relationships between humans, and that a submissive can be submissive without actually having to submit to any person in particular.

Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that submission is independent of any interrealtionship between two or more parties, but that slavery is directly dependent on some Dominant/submissive interation between two or more persons in the context that slavery is considered herein.

Wherefore, an 'unowned' slave is not actually a slave at all, until he is, de facto, owned or submitting to some other party and otherwise if the feelings of submissiveness are present, then that 'unowned' slave is not a slave at all, but rather a submissive.


I can appriciate you wishing to close and silence this thread with an ending of your choosing. I am sure you would like everyone to follow your way of thinking. But this is a world of unique individuals, not sheep.
Personally - I didn't read it like that at all - I saw a pretty much 50-50 split between those that agree/disagree. There will be people in this life who won't fit your personal ideals. You just have to accept that and move on within your own enviroment and not try to change everyone around you to your desire - because it just isn't gonna happen. You cannot force people into taking on your ideas. You can only hope that they are accepting of them as something you feel for yourself.

I think something that was noticed is that people don't always feel a need to be pidgon holed by others that want them to conform to some set standard, no matter how many people try to force an issue. People have the desire for understanding and acceptance - not rational conformity.

BDSM is a personal experience, not a majority one. It always has been, and will always remain so.

Peace and Love



Oumae -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/24/2005 6:05:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel


[


I think something that was noticed is that people don't always feel a need to be pidgon holed by others that want them to conform to some set standard, no matter how many people try to force an issue. People have the desire for understanding and acceptance - not rational conformity.

BDSM is a personal experience, not a majority one. It always has been, and will always remain so.

Peace and Love


Well said dark~angel.

While I can see where terms can help with understanding in a general way, I dislike when some try to fit people into rigid boxes. One of the joys of wiitwd is the wide range of ways to express oneself.

Oumae



SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/24/2005 6:35:31 AM)

Blue park did three cloud coffee threw dominant & Submissive fourteen. Out seven cup went clock deter. Countertop blow buffet rug seven.

Now, dark, I guess you can make sense out of the paragraph above, supra, since you can make it mean anything you want it to mean. However, the number of people who would take the paragraph above and say that it makes sense because an individual can decide whatever word means whatever would be minimal, at best.

your manner of arguments lack substance anyway, since you consistently contradict yourself throughout many of the threads that I have read herein. And it appears that when you begin to lose an argument, you throw a little temper tantrum and begin making little personal attacking remarks, which does evidence your true nature.

First you claim that you have never found the definitions in ANY dictionary. Then later you come back and post a bunch of definitions, of which the accepted dictionaries properly are in accord with each other and clearly make any kind of slavery dependent on some BODY or thing. So, in essence, your arguments herein, lacking substance, have no credibility since it is nothing more than double talk.


My expirement was not so much in re actual definitions, but to see and find out some other things about those who are in here and how they process information. I gave that hint in My last post.

I have discovered what I wanted, and you have very much so confirmed what I have thought of you and your thoughts.

Thank you.

X



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/24/2005 6:38:16 AM)

I don't know why people insist that there either be absolute rigidity or absolute anarchy.

Just because I don't agree with a definition or feel it's accurate doesn't mean I can't UNDERSTAND it or what people actually mean by it.

That's why communication is a process. Yes, at SOME point communication will break down if we aren't using recognizable symbols for eachother. But I don't see this as being a make or break situation.



SenorX -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/24/2005 8:25:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2

I don't know why people insist that there either be absolute rigidity or absolute anarchy.

Just because I don't agree with a definition or feel it's accurate doesn't mean I can't UNDERSTAND it or what people actually mean by it.

That's why communication is a process. Yes, at SOME point communication will break down if we aren't using recognizable symbols for eachother. But I don't see this as being a make or break situation.


Perhaps we should revert back to the neanderthalistic era... oh, that's right, even with pictography there were standards in order for even the cavemen to be able to communicate.

If we don't have communcation standards, then it would all be unintelligible jibberish like the example in My previous post or like the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoons.

And if such were the case, then we would have total chaos.

I have read posts herein the message boards talking about fakes, wannabes, etc. Funny thing, even some of those who post in here arguments against setting standards have posted sometimes even suggestions of dictatorial standards to 'spot the fakers', 'protect the subs', etc. reminiscent of McCarthy, Hitler, and even the Inquisitions!

If we really wish to beg the question, then those who 'claim' that everything is based on individualism (translating to anarchism) cannot make claims that someone is a faker, not real, a player, or whatever, because they claim that each person can decide for him/herself what the meaning of anything is.

I guess this now opens the new door likened to the mass exponential increases in hypocritical 'christianity' whereby it is now mirrored by hypocritical D/s.


Ugh. Umgawa.

X

"wonders how much time shall elapse before one of a few certain folks will be forced to make a comment"



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/24/2005 8:46:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SenorX

If we really wish to beg the question, then those who 'claim' that everything is based on individualism (translating to anarchism) cannot make claims that someone is a faker, not real, a player, or whatever, because they claim that each person can decide for him/herself what the meaning of anything is.

I tend to agree, and speaking solely for myself, the posts I made on those threads vehemently opposes that sort of classification and separatism.

But again, this is not an all or nothing endeavor. It is not necessarily contradictory to say "we need some standards here, but we don't really need standards here" OR to say "this is a gray area, but this is absolutely a black and white area."



I guess this now opens the new door likened to the mass exponential increases in hypocritical 'christianity' whereby it is now mirrored by hypocritical D/s.


Ugh. Umgawa.

X

"wonders how much time shall elapse before one of a few certain folks will be forced to make a comment"




darkinshadows -> RE: Submission and Slavery (5/24/2005 8:58:53 AM)

quote:

your manner of arguments lack substance anyway, since you consistently contradict yourself throughout many of the threads that I have read herein. And it appears that when you begin to lose an argument, you throw a little temper tantrum and begin making little personal attacking remarks, which does evidence your true nature.


Substance is personal choice - some prefere cream in their coffee - others enjoy the richness of a thick latte - others take no condiment at all. What you take - is what you desire.

I would really enjoy seeing these personal remarks. I am sure you will endeavour to explain yourself by showing where I have done such a thing. If you call disagreeing with your opinion as a personal attack - that is something you have to deal with, within yourself. I speak as it shows itself to me - no more no less. By belittling my opinion - you have shown nothing but immature behaviour.

My goodness - a temper tantrum!... Well, that must make me human after all[;)]

Personally, I leave the flames to those who desire to be burnt.

quote:

First you claim that you have never found the definitions in ANY dictionary


No I did not - You have taken from context (which is often the case when people cannot agree - it tends to be a bit of'I am making a point here!' trait)- what I said was that I could not find your definition as the only singular definiton - because there are many - which answers your second point...

quote:

My expirement was not so much in re actual definitions, but to see and find out some other things about those who are in here and how they process information. I gave that hint in My last post.

I have discovered what I wanted, and you have very much so confirmed what I have thought of you and your thoughts.


Ah... its experiment(like yourself - we all learn something everyday about different people - I do know how exact you wish to be with words[;)] - unless you really ment to expire - which would be such a loss to discussion threads)

Opps... that must be another temper tantrum... I best go bang a drum or something...

I must also thank you for submitting to my knowledge fetish - it has been a most enjoyable experience for many...

Peace and Love



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1132813