Obsidiansnamaste
Posts: 266
Joined: 1/7/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: spankmepink11 It's actually very easy to replace the word "slave" with the word submissive in several of the definitions listed for slave in the dictionary. No offense to anyone, but i always get the sense that some people think "slave" implies something much deeper than submission, which feeds their need to feel that their dynamic is somehow deeper, more committed, or, insert grandiose adjective, than others. If one really wanted to be technical, slavery throughout history has not been consensual, so really shyinni, if one wanted to split hairs on identifying as a "slave" no one would qualify, because regardless of what anyone says, you must consent to become slave to another in the realm of BDSM, and as it's been said many times in the past, choosing not to have a choice, is a choice in and of itself. Taken from m-w.com (Mirriam Webster online) slave: Main Entry: 1slave Pronunciation: 'slAv Function: noun Etymology: Middle English sclave, from Anglo-French or Medieval Latin; Anglo-French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe during the early Middle Ages 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 4 : DRUDGE, TOILER Most submissives are not completely subservient to thier Dominants...they are subservient to a point (called a limit within BDSM). This also has no mention of consent or the lack thereof being a defining factor. Globally historically, there have been cases of people consenting to enslavement. It is possible. While often i see people making consent the sticking point, i think thats adding to the definition of the term in order to suit the user. The question really is...why is this discussion even necessary? Why do people who do have limits feel like they need to prove that EVERYONE has them? Why do those who are submissive covet the title slave so much? whats really wrong with being a submissive? why isn't that enough? At one point i was a submissive and very happy being just that. i had no qualms with saying i was NOT a slave and did not intend on being one. i had my limits and was very happy with that and could honor and respect those who did not. To take this out of the BDSM context. Lets say i like medicine, it is a field i'm interested in. i read a great deal of medical information. i like it so much i want to be called a Dr. but i'm NOT a Dr. so what? Call me that anyway because it makes me feel good, and when you tell me i'm not a Dr it makes me feel bad. Besides...Dr's don't know everything! And i can make up my own definition of what a Dr is! Yep, thats about how this whole "we create our own definitions" thing sounds. We define US. We decide what we are and who we are. What we want to be or not. That is not the same and recreating the definitions of words so that we can all be included within thier scope. There is already a term that is all inclusive like that it's called human.
< Message edited by Obsidiansnamaste -- 7/2/2007 6:29:21 AM >
_____________________________
Always in His service, ~Master Obsidians namaste http://houseobsidian.wordpress.com http://his-namaste.livejournal.com
|