quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evlgryn

At this point I am leaving this thread behind. You will find people who see your side as being perfectly reasonable...but I guarantee there will be people who take my position...that a duck is a duck, and a "consensus of one or two against the world" is a short definition of insanity.

Considering that all we know about this "duck" is reported to us through a third party source who may not even know the duck very well, and is admittedly envious of the duck, I don't know if I would trust the information at hand to make any sort of damning judgement.

But that's just me.
No, that's me too............luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evlgryn

Being the  defender of the English Language, Reality, "truth justice and the american way" here in this forum should not be this hard. There is nothing wrong with creating your own language, it happens often with twins.  The whole movie "Nell" with Jodie Foster hinged on twinspeak created by two sisters, one being "Nell" . It made a great movie.

The problem is when you make up your own definitions...use this "twinspeak" as if it was common English, and then go back again and again to defend your right to use whatever terms to mean whatever you want. The English language was created changed and evolved by consensus and usage over decades. But a consensus of two people yourself and your dom, over a few months just isn't good enough.

Compare that to my efforts in this forum to communicate what I believe to be an important truth. I haven't coined any new words...redefined any old words...or defended my right to use words to mean different things at different times depending on changes within my head. I have simply made an effort to use this flawed but rich medium of the English language to communicate.

At this point I am leaving this thread behind. You will find people who see your side as being perfectly reasonable...but I guarantee there will be people who take my position...that a duck is a duck, and a "consensus of one or two against the world" is a short definition of insanity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247
Evlgryn, i could hug you for making this post. what's the heathen equivalent to "amen"?
How did I know this was coming?............slave luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shantra

This is a very interesting thread, but I do not intend getting into the definition of a slave debate.  I agree with posters who say it is what your relationship, Master and yourself define it.  I did read out to Master the post about the slave going down to the river and beating the clothes on the rocks and Master said 'if I want you to go down to the river and beat clothes on the rocks then you damned well will'.  and that for me is the point.. what I own or any aspect of my life is under his control, by his will and his decision... period.  It may not be legally so.. but in our hearts and our heads it is.. and that is what matters.  And thankfully we are finding others who do not think we are nuts that we believe it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
...
She can call herself whatever she wants. 
Certainly.  Perhaps she could respond that "based on" her "experiences" and what she has "learned from reading and speaking to others" that she "respects," that she does see herself as a slave.
If you say I don't fit your definition of a dominant, then am I still a dominant?  Yes...not the one for you...but yes, I am. 
That's the point I've been making all along.  I also believe that extends to the "other side of the kneel," as people say.  If I "don't fit your definition of a "slave," then I am "still a slave."  Just "not the one for you."  If you don't have to fit my definition of a dominant, why do I have to fit your definition of a slave?  It works both ways.

 
The difference is that I am NOT asking you to fit a definition of "slave" that comes solely from "my" head and perhaps the head of the submissive that fit before nor from a definition that fits nothing you have ever seen or heard or read before.  I am asking you to meet a definition that includes guidelines that you have...most likely...heard of and read before.  Nor, when I define myself to you, will I give you some definition or spout some dominant principles that came from my own head after having discarded every standardized or non-standardized reference source. 

Welcome to the human race, haven't we all?  In this particular instance though, I don't think either or us is wrong.  You say that if you don't fit my definition, that doesn't mean you aren't a dominant.  I am agreeing and simply adding that it extends to the slave-side of things too. 

quote:

I believe that I have answered this above.  To me, the idea that "I am whatever I say I am, even if it fits nothing in anyone else's standards of what that "whatever" is just doesn't hold.  There has to be something there that is recognizable.  People keep going back to the duck analogy.  You can hold a duck up and say "This is a bird."  Yes, it is.   It has all the recognizable characteristics and genetic makeup of a bird.  You can hold it up and say "This is a duck".  Yes, it is...it has all the recognizable characteristics of that winged creature that scientists and laypeople have come to agree to call a "duck".  You can hold it up and say it is a "hawk".  You might get your scientific partner to agree with you.  But try to convince the rest of the scientific community and laypeople that it is a "hawk" and you are going to run into difficulty unless you can come up with some valid reasons why it should be considered to be a hawk other than the fact that you and your partner declare it so.  It is sort of like saying "Peace is worth any non-violent price".  No, it is not.  If peace means my giving up my freedom to live as I do in this country, then it is not peace, it is concession.  It is sort of like saying, when it comes down to discussing the costs of implementing some new safety program and the best answer someone can give you when you ask them about the astronomic cost of implementation, "Even if it saves only one life, then isn't it worth it?"  Again, no it is is not.  That is not cruel, nor shallow, nor inconsiderate of human life...it is simple economic reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

On the other hand, the person relating this quote to us is someone who was confused and caught up in a mini-jealousy fit.  I'm not sure we can take what she passes onto us as anything clear cut.  Self-selection and skewed perspective is all over the place here.

It might be just a simple state of fact- the master prefers her happy (perhaps even spoiled) and enjoy giving things to her.  It can actually take a fair bit of bravery to admit that KNOWING how a lot of people might perceive that to be a sign that she's the one in control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evlgryn

Could we go back to "all sophistry aside". We don't have to agree on a precise definition of master and slave to see that some just don't come close to fitting anybodies definition of M/S. Some will meet the definitions of most of us...And as always there will be some on the fence , included under some definitions and excluded under others. But that is true with many things in the English language. Take a stand...hold to a position...in a decade or so maybe we will have a standardized definition, maybe it will be yours maybe it will be mine. State the best arguments possible. That is how it works

Honestly, I don't think we will ever a standardized defination of a master/slave relationship. Nobody likes exactly the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie
If I'm unhappy that may make my owner unhappy, it doesn't mean it changes his mind or the circumstances but sometimes it does. It depends on what it is that is causing the issue.
I think that's very well said, Chewsie.  That's part of the point I had attempted to make.  Master does not like it when I'm unhappy but when I'm unhappy, it's usually never anything to do with Him.  We never have many situations where I'm in need of punishment for disobeying.  Most of the times I feel unhappy have absolutely nothing to do with some rule, punishment, or decision He has made.  It's nearly always to do with some issue "outside" our relationship.  So, Him being concerned and wanting me to be happy never really involves Him needing to change/alter anything that He has done or decided. 
 
One time, however, I did receive a significant punishment that I was not happy about and my unhappiness did NOT change a thing.  Was He concerned about my feelings?  Sure.  Did He still want me to be happy?  Of course.  But He felt the need for discipline outweighed my "happiness" at that point and so it was done whether I liked it or not.  That's what I think is so beautiful about our relationship.  He does desire my happiness but He won't neglect guidance, discipline, and yes, punishment to see that I have it....slave luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie
Where does how one is treated fit in the definition? If you have unlimited stuff and unlimited access to cash or whatever how does that change your status as *owned* and therefore a slave. I don't get where in the definition it says slave must live a life of denial?
It doesn't and that's a wonderful point.  For all the back and forth about what the definition of a "slave" is, so often it is assumed that denial and suffering must be a part of it.  That is simply not the case for all of us.
To me this is simple. A slave is an owned person. I don't care how luxurious her life is...if she is *owned*, she is a slave.
Wonderfully stated.  Thanks for making a point I've attempted to make and making it in so few words.  It's a gift...........slave luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie
Where does how one is treated fit in the definition? If you have unlimited stuff and unlimited access to cash or whatever how does that change your status as *owned* and therefore a slave. I don't get where in the definition it says slave must live a life of denial?
It doesn't and that's a wonderful point.  For all the back and forth about what the definition of a "slave" is, so often it is assumed that denial and suffering must be a part of it.  That is simply not the case for all of us.
To me this is simple. A slave is an owned person. I don't care how luxurious her life is...if she is *owned*, she is a slave.
Wonderfully stated.  Thanks for making a point I've attempted to make and making it in so few words.  It's a gift...........slave luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie

I have no problem with the dictionary definition of master or slave. They work fine for me. I'm not sure that I understand the idea that being a "slave" requires more than being an owned person. Where does how one is treated fit in the definition? If you have unlimited stuff and unlimited access to cash or whatever how does that change your status as *owned* and therefore a slave. I don't get where in the definition it says slave must live a life of denial?

To me this is simple. A slave is an owned person. I don't care how luxurious her life is...if she is *owned*, she is a slave.

She doesn't even have to ever serve, she just needs to be owned. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs
I'm hoping that this all makes sense b/c i'm suffering from a head cold and a bit fuzzy today....

Oh thank goodness you are too.  I was wondering what the heck was going on since we NEVER have this sort of disconnect.  I'm fully willing to wash the whole thing up to simultaneous sickness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: velvetears
Any slave if they don't have their needs filled will be unhappy - even the slave who enjoys the suffering/denial/toil kind of relationship - if her master all of a sudden got hit by a bolt of lightening and the next day showered her with praise, gifts, privledges would more then likely feel lost and miss what she wasn't getting and feel like she no longer was living the master slave dynamic.
Great point, velvet!  It's funny you would say that.  Master and I were talking last night and He said virtually the same thing.  We'd been discussing the "Gift of Submission" thread and how having (or not having) expectations was discussed there.  This led to Him talking about how even those with no "positive" expectations (as far as "good" treatment, etc). still have expectations - even if it's of being treated "badly."  Of course what defines "good" and "bad" would be up to each couple. 

Just as you wrote, He said He wondered what the reactions would be if a slave who was used to a life of utter suffering and denial was suddenly expected to accept being praised and "spoiled" and having their feelings and wants taken under great consideration.  We tend to assume that slaves who are treated "well" will balk at suddenly being forced to go through suffering and denial but nobody ever tends to talk about what would happen if a slave who is used to suffering and denial was suddenly expected to be fulfilled through praise and pampering.  Would they balk?  Would they still see it as total submission - even when submitting to things that aren't "hard" to submit to for most?  I'm curious as to whether most slaves feel there has to be some level of suffering, discomfort, denial, etc. to "feel" as if they are properly serving/submitting. 
 
Interesting question you and He both raised and I think Chewsie touched on it.  She mentioned that if it were up to her, she'd live as if in a death camp but her owner doesn't want that and doesn't permit it.  She has obviously adjusted well to the fact that he wants her in a "better" situation than she would have for herself.  Perhaps that would make an interesting thread...hint, hint.....   
There is no where written in stone on any commandment that slaves have to be a certain way to be real - maybe a bdsm Moses will come down one day and pronounce it so from some mountain top - till then - just live your dynamic, repects others dynamic, and be happy
Well said, velvet...........slave luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: velvetears

maybe a bdsm Moses will come down one day and pronounce it so from some mountain top - till then - just live your dynamic, repects others dynamic, and be happy