|
slavegirljoy -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 10:23:56 PM)
|
Padriag, this was such a wonderful response and i enjoyed reading it very much. This pretty much sums up what being an owned slave means to me, especially where you wrote, "On the other hand, I observe the ways in which the slave does become dependent on me, the ways in which they grow to need me. Simply put, they're owned by me when they reach a point that it would truly be difficult for them to walk out the door, to leave me or try living without me." This is what i think of when i speak of Internal Enslavement. The fact is, someone is owned, only if they choose to allow themself to be owned. To me, this means that there has to be a very deep bond that develops within the slave to her Master, that keeps her in her enslavement to Him. When a slave's identity is so strongly connected to being her Master's property and belonging to Him, that she can't even imagine being anything other than His slave and she will do anything to keep Him happy and satisfied, without being forced, to me, this is the achievement of full ownership. Her enslavement to her Master becomes a necessity to her very being. After all, can you own someone who doesn't want to be owned by you? Why would you want to?
slave joyOwned property of Master David "Commitment transforms a promise into a reality."
quote:
ORIGINAL: Padriag
First off, I haven't had time to read the entire thread so I'm just going to share my thoughts and then catch up later as I have time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty
Are you really a slave if all you are ever forced to do is stuff you enjoy?
First thought that comes to mind is that this is a moot question. Let's say I have a dog, and the only thing I "require" of that dog is just to lay around, play the odd game, go for walks, etc. all things he enjoys. Do I own him any less? Same thing with a slave. But I see where you are coming from. As you later say, you enjoy tangible proof and for you that means being able to make them do something they don't enjoy, thus the above question. For me, that proof comes in a different form... so my perspective on the question is not surprisingly different.
quote:
As evidenced by the replies to the "sharing" question, many people believe that slavery or ownership is simply a state of mind. All it takes to be a slave is the feeling that one is a slave. All it takes to be owned is the acknowledgment that one is owned. Is that really all there is to it?
For some it is, for others it isn't. I can see some frustration occuring trying to answer this as peoples different ideals clash. Those two words do not have absolute definitions within this lifestyle, instead we have a lot of personal definitions and styles of relationships.
That said, and on a more personal note, for me owning a slave does require a bit more than just feeling or saying... there's some doing involved and while a state of mind is part of it, you might say there's also a state of being involved as well. Where you look for things you can do with a slave that provide a tangible proof of ownership, I come at it from a different angle.. I look for things they can't do without. I don't share precisely because I am possessive, it doesn't present any "pay off" or reward for me to do so. On the other hand, I observe the ways in which the slave does become dependant on me, the ways in which they grow to need me. Simply put, they're owned by me when they reach a point that it would truly be difficult for them to walk out the door, to leave me or try living without me.
quote:
The question of "suffering" is an interesting one as well. Whenever I begin negotiations with a slave, I make it very clear the "slavery is not always fun." For me, again, I like tangible evidence that the relationship I have with my property is Master/slave. This means that only forcing them to do things they want to do just won't cut it. I have to re-enforce the idea that they are slaves by throwing in some unpleasantness...otherwise, it is purely a subjective and theoretic Master/slave relationship.
Possibly, but then I've encountered many who are attracted by that very idea of being made to suffer for their master/mistress. Whether that suffering comes in the form of pain play, or simply being made to do unpleasant tasks. I've also known many who are attracted by the idea of service, they like doing things for me, they like and need to feel useful. So while I can order them to do all kinds of things for me, from fixing me a cup of tea to doing my laundry to scrubbing the bathroom with a tooth brush... they enjoy doing it because it makes them feel useful and owned. In that sense they enjoy it, does that make it any less valid?
quote:
Of course this is just my way. I am not saying everyone must form their relationship this way or else it is not real or true. Nor am I saying there is anything wrong with a purely theoretic and subjective Master/slave relationship. I am sure, for many people, just knowing that they could and would do the unpleasant things (they just don't want to) is enough for them to feel like Master and slave. It just isn't enough for me. I need evidence. I need proof.
Thoughts?
I suspect we all need some form of proof. We all look for signs that whatever relationship we have with another person is valid, whether that be a romantic one, a friendship, etc. We feel betrayed when the other person doesn't live up to our expectations of that relationship. Those are natural feelings to have. How we go about looking for that "proof", how much we require and what form it takes, or even what we expect, will vary according to who we are as individuals. Sharing does it for you as proof. For me its the things I see in their daily behavior. For someone else it will likely be something else. Yet all those different expectations are valid... at least for each of us individually.
So when is a slave owned? When our personal expectations are satisfied. That's pretty subjective and I think its likely the only "standard" we'll have. Objectively, there is no such standard, you can't legally own someone so its just not going to happen. It could be argued when you say you own a slave, what you are describing is really a case of simply being able to control specific forms of behavior of another person, i.e. being able to share them with others when and with whom you choose. Is that really ownership, are you certain that no one can lure that slave away? If they can, did you really own that slave, even though you could share them when you chose? If I own a slave and their behavior satisfies my expectations, do I really own them or am I just satisfying my own desires? But then again if we're happy, does it matter?
|
|
|
|
