AquaticSub
Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste
quote:
ORIGINAL: AquaticSub
The dictionary defination of slave, however, simply does not apply to most m/s relationships. In most countries the slave is not legally owned - therefore they are not chattel. The only part that is true is "one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence" and having a limit, any limit, means they are not completely subservient. It is my personal opinion that to compare the practice of modern day consentual slavery to the historical and legal defination is similiar to comparing killing chickens for fried chicken to the holocost.
Greetings,
i have already stated that complete subservience is necessary to fit the dictionary definition of slavery. The Merriam Webster definition of chattel doesn't speak to being legally owned, however i am aware that there are other dictionaries that do speak to that so it's a matter of preference i suppose. The historical implication of slavery of the non consensual variety are far reaching and horrid...however notice that the historical implications are missing from the definition itself. Often it seems there is a knee jerk response to something due to what we perceive about that word, not because of what it actually means. Like people disliking marriage because to them it means pain by virtue of thier own experience, or woman who hate oral sex because they were forced to perform it at one time or...vanilla society who can not fathom that being beaten is not always assault. To me it's the same thing. i have seen Owners punch and kick thier slaves all consensually and yet they were performing the same action as a man who balls up His fist and hits his wife, the connotation , motive and consent are different but the action is *not*. If someone doesn't like the word slave because of what happened historically to some people thats fine use another term, actually that makes sense. But to try to change the definition of the term, when the definition does not indicate the historical atrocities or nonconsent is allowing personal bias into the picture, imo.
However, the dictionary defination is based upon the historical defination of slavery. Not all slaves were tortured - some led relatively happy lives and even able to buy or earn their freedom. It was the luck of the draw as to where they were, what time they in and who they belonged to. But because the basis of this defination is a practice where so rarely was there joy, good treatment or consent, I feel it has no place in a world where a slave must consent to their own slavery.
A slave owned by the dictionary's defination had no rights at all. No right to life, no right to happiness and no right to safeguard their own children. The slaves in BDSM have those rights, regardless of if they do not act on them. Hence I believe all slaves in BDSM have made their own defination and are not following the defination given to us by Mr. Webster.
< Message edited by AquaticSub -- 7/2/2007 2:35:05 PM >
_____________________________
Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val
It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me
Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair
|
RE: why slave and not submissive? - 
Profile
) and if you will cite the source I would be grateful (you know I am a complete word whore and any new info I soak up) but I only know from the Oxford and MW that its an adjective like submissive (which can be a verb also) which modifies or describes a noun. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread