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

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.

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."

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."

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

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

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

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

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




< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 5/22/2005 1:19:30 PM >

_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to SenorX)

quote:

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

quote:

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

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.

quote:

Does being collared constitute being owned ?

quote:

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

quote:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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