RE: SLAVE TRADE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

AquaticSub -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/2/2007 8:25:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJBK

role doesn't not imply gender. gender implies gender. role implies submissive dominant or switch. be more specific in what you imply next time.



Considering your statement, role did imply gender. You said that male subs would react one way and female subs would react a different way. Her point remains valid - you have not had any experience being a female submissive.



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/2/2007 9:39:14 PM)

I'm with MadRabbit on this one.

Seriously, my foot has permanent teeth marks on it by now from all the time it spends in my mouth, but I think someone is posting a lot faster than they are thinking, or at the very least not taking the time to form a cohesive presentation of their POV along with some support for their position or the line of reasoning behind it.

That said, I have heard plenty of people who would gladly trade me for another poster, but one would think there is a middle ground somewhere that is viable. A lot of others seem to have found that middle ground with little difficulty.

Anyway...

It's clear that some like the idea of chattel slavery, but also clear that most here don't. That makes me think a more viable line of discussion would be either the temporary bit, which is quite different in nature and I expect equally different as an experience, or the bits about if there is a legal and responsible way to mediate temporary arrangements like loaning, lease, trading services, and so forth, like daddysprop mentioned.

The rest of this discussion seems to have drifted from the topic at hand.



Twicehappy2x -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 4:08:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: captainblack


That being said there is also the little factor of human trafficing laws, but somehow the bikers get around that. In my younger days my roommates and I had a girl at our place for about 6 weeks while she got established in a new job and got her own place. This girl had been traded around.....her ass was tatooed PROPERTY OF JOHN SMITH (fill in different names) 5 times with all but the last name crossed out. She had been a biker chick and from what I hear they do trade their property and mark it's ownership.



LMAO.....
 
A most unusual case you described. It is very true that years ago bikers did buy/sell/trade their women. I was sold once but to someone i agreed to(we had two ums together before he was killed) and i was tattoed to him. But if they were tattooed at all it was with "Property of insert club name here" which generally indicated they were a club honey for general use, not a highly desired position.
 
If the were tattooed "Property of insert individual name" it was highly unlikely she would be up for trade, that type of tattoo was considered forever like Mormon marriage, and never given lightly.
 
Commonly during the time they were being traded etc if they were marked at all it was by wearing a patch that read "Property of insert individuals name" because removing a patch from their back caused much less scarring than removing a tattoo from their ass cheek. 
 
Of course i am older now, and i tend to associate with older bikers, those that survived and aren't in jail or six feet under, so things may have changed. 



Twicehappy2x -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 4:10:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

Dont worry krista, Id be on the chopping block with you, gravity won the battle with my tits long ago.


Me too though i think Scooter probably keep me around to be the cook.



MasterJBK -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 7:05:37 AM)

i know her point is valid she just needs to specify more.



AquaticSub -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 8:22:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJBK

i know her point is valid she just needs to specify more.


She pointed out that you made a generalization and then that as a male dominant you don't have experience being a female submissive. Exactly how could she make it more specific? The only way I can think of is to say "unless you have had some nifty surgery, you don't experience being a woman". Assuming that you haven't had that surgery seems more like playing the odds then generalizing to me, particularly since some people would be offended by that.



GhitaAmati -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 9:14:36 AM)

Somewhere around US laws...there is something about being able to be a slave once you have commited a crime....Ive GOT to go hunt it back down....one of my Sirs conspirisory theory quacks showed it to me once

(Sir teaches self defense and combat tactics to our local "militia" heh....they're a bit weird but they pay well)

OK...here...13th ammendment...US constitution...

quote:

  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


So does this mean that if we go commit a crime, we can legally become slaves?



LafayetteLady -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 11:04:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

Somewhere around US laws...there is something about being able to be a slave once you have commited a crime....Ive GOT to go hunt it back down....one of my Sirs conspirisory theory quacks showed it to me once

(Sir teaches self defense and combat tactics to our local "militia" heh....they're a bit weird but they pay well)

OK...here...13th ammendment...US constitution...

quote:

  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


So does this mean that if we go commit a crime, we can legally become slaves?


The 13th Amendment was written to abolish slavery in its entirety.  Many people commit crimes everyday, but one must be CONVICTED of a crime for "involuntary servitude" (read as imprisonment) to occur.  Then of course we also created a multitude of legislation to protect those in prison as well in order to protect their civil rights.

In any case, it is the Justice System of the United States who is given the right to determine when someone was convicted of a crime that they go into "involuntary servitude."  Which incidentally is done quite regularly through work programs in prisons and community service.

I could be mistaken, but it seems by your post that you are imply the U.S. supports the idea of slavery on some level which is certainly not the case.



Rover -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 11:08:13 AM)

Further to this issue, the servitude is rendered to the state (government), rather than any individual.
 
John



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 11:17:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

one of my Sirs conspirisory theory quacks showed it to me once


~lol~

Yeah, back in my early teens, I was one of those. Cracks me up to think back on it.
At some point, one has to cut the paranoia, and leave it at social hygiene.
I am quite grateful to the people who guided me to that truth.
Of course, I wasn't as far gone as most such quacks.

quote:


So does this mean that if we go commit a crime, we can legally become slaves?


As LafayetteLady pointed out, prison with work camps is involuntary servitude.
Under the right circumstances, though, it could probably be interpreted to include slavery.

Interestingly enough, a Norwegian judge (IIRC) in the BDSM scene recently wrote a novel where overcrowding had been resolved by using corporeal punishment for light crimes, as an option the would-be prisoner could choose instead of prison. Personally, I think it might also be an idea to consider time-limited slavery, subject to certain limits, as an alternative people could choose for certain crimes, as well.



Rover -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 11:47:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Interestingly enough, a Norwegian judge (IIRC) in the BDSM scene recently wrote a novel where overcrowding had been resolved by using corporeal punishment for light crimes, as an option the would-be prisoner could choose instead of prison. Personally, I think it might also be an idea to consider time-limited slavery, subject to certain limits, as an alternative people could choose for certain crimes, as well.


Some Asian and Middle Eastern societies employ corporal punishment for criminal behavior with regularity, often garnering much attention in the West.
 
John



GhitaAmati -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 11:56:52 AM)

quote:

I could be mistaken, but it seems by your post that you are imply the U.S. supports the idea of slavery on some level which is certainly not the case.


That is in no way what I meant to imply....but the OP was implying we could consent to being sold into the livestock trading version of slavery and we would all enjoy it, so I figured what the hell...Id add in some more obsurdities too


quote:

  Further to this issue, the servitude is rendered to the state (government), rather than any individual.
 
John



But wouldnt it be FUN if it were....ok, maybe not by committing some crime, but if there was some way we could legally insert ourselves into someones life as a recognized slave? yes I know...more obsurd statements from the peanut gallery.....



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 12:40:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Some Asian and Middle Eastern societies employ corporal punishment for criminal behavior with regularity, often garnering much attention in the West.


If you reread my post, I carefully noted that I was talking about a voluntary alternative, not a compulsory arrangement. There is no room for organized violence in civilized society, and if we abandon that, we abandon civilization. Such is, at least, my opinion. And, just to make that point, by violence, I am referring here to forms of violence where the recipient has not consented to being subjected to it.



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 12:54:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GhitaAmati

That is in no way what I meant to imply....but the OP was implying we could consent to being sold into the livestock trading version of slavery and we would all enjoy it, so I figured what the hell...Id add in some more obsurdities too


Well, you could always make it a crime to voluntarily enter chattel slavery, and then proscribe slavery as the "punishment", but then there would be the matter of the person who accepted your slavery being punisheable for it, unless some odd arrangement were to be made to pardon them or something. Just while we're on the note of absurd arrangements.

quote:

But wouldnt it be FUN if it were....ok, maybe not by committing some crime, but if there was some way we could legally insert ourselves into someones life as a recognized slave? yes I know...more obsurd statements from the peanut gallery.....


That one isn't absurd at all. People should be allowed to choose how to live for themselves.

It would be a step forward for civilization to recognize and celebrate the diversity of human relationships. A well developed society must support LGBT and poly relationship models, as well as ones with a D/s dynamic in them. From this, one could then grow the notion of M/s, which would ideally be based on a modern concept of property, including conditions similar to easements. A person could be seen to own themselves by default, and could transfer their ownership to someone else with (if desired) additional conditions. Further transfers, if not prohibited by conditions, could simlarly impose further conditions, but not remove ones that are attached to the human property.

That said, the only thing missing in many jurisdictions is the actual concept of property.



MasterJBK -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 1:27:13 PM)

why think when you are just playing with the girl. and i mean playing with her mind. i was just trying to spark a rise out of her. without assuming or implying anything.

about this slavebay idea. i would be willing to put my time aside to work on a website, but first i would need investors to pay for the site. since currently i am broke.



MasterJBK -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 1:32:27 PM)

i know what she said but she assumes to much stuff she needs to say female role b/c role does not necessarily imply gender. it can but not in bdsm society that is why they have to split it up in our profiles. role and gender are two seperate things. I know what she said and i knew what she meant but someone might take offense to it. by only saying role and just implying gender their can be mix ups.



Rover -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 2:03:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

If you reread my post, I carefully noted that I was talking about a voluntary alternative, not a compulsory arrangement.


Sorry, I missed that.

quote:

 
There is no room for organized violence in civilized society, and if we abandon that, we abandon civilization. Such is, at least, my opinion. And, just to make that point, by violence, I am referring here to forms of violence where the recipient has not consented to being subjected to it.


I'm not sure I can agree with this sentiment, on many levels.  And while I understand that it's simply your opinion, I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case that a good many of the societies that practice state sponsored corporal punishment are not civilized.  Even if you did not agree with the practice, I fail to see how that singular fact could invalidate the entirety of their civility.
 
John



AquaticSub -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 2:06:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJBK

i know what she said but she assumes to much stuff she needs to say female role b/c role does not necessarily imply gender. it can but not in bdsm society that is why they have to split it up in our profiles. role and gender are two seperate things. I know what she said and i knew what she meant but someone might take offense to it. by only saying role and just implying gender their can be mix ups.


Okk... let's go over this...

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJBK

. Most female slaves wouldn't b/c that brings back memories of times one hundred years ago when the women was basically a slave to the man.

Ummmm, no, that's not the reason why I find it objectionable. It's not even close to the reason that I find it objectionable. And seriously, generalizations suck.

quote:

quote:


ORIGINAL: MasterJBK

you don't make up most of the female sub population.

Neither do you. A word of wisdom: you shouldn't make generalizations about emotions from the perspective of a role that you haven't been in.


Here she is relpying to the comment you made about her not making up the entire female population. I really don't see a need to be more specific because, again, unless you've had some surgery you have never been a female submissive nor will you ever unless you get some surgery in the future.

Every submissive is different. But you simply have no experience being a female submissive. At no point was she unclear as to what she meant. She discussing with you the particular statement you made regarding female submissives. She did not need to put it in boldface at the start of every comment.



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 3:00:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJBK

why think when you are just playing with the girl.


I always think. And I never "just" play.

quote:

and i mean playing with her mind.


Nor do I toy with people in that way.

quote:

i was just trying to spark a rise out of her.


Not a very constructive contribution.

quote:

i would be willing to put my time aside to work on a website,


Do you have a portfolio and/or resume? No offense, but I'd like to see your work first.

quote:

but first i would need investors to pay for the site.


Investors are a bane to something intended as a community site.

quote:

since currently i am broke.


If you have a good portfolio, I can add you to my list of potential commercial webdesigners.

Note, though, that this was not intended as a commercial website.
It was intended as a community service to the BDSM scene.
While money may change hands, I won't be profitting.
Hence, I'm really looking for someone else for it.

Not what you want to hear in that situation, I know, but that's just how it is.



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/3/2007 3:22:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

Sorry, I missed that.


Not a problem, just pointing it out.

quote:

 
I'm not sure I can agree with this sentiment, on many levels.  And while I understand that it's simply your opinion, I think you'd be hard pressed to make a case that a good many of the societies that practice state sponsored corporal punishment are not civilized.  Even if you did not agree with the practice, I fail to see how that singular fact could invalidate the entirety of their civility.


To transcend mere pack or herd is to aspire to something higher. That requires either virtues, values or both. I cannot see any set of virtues or values that are compatible with my notions of civilization, while entailing the organized perpetration of non-consensual violence. The bone of contention between us, I hope, is not that last phrase, but my assertion that this is something that invalidates any other merit such a society might have, even if their merit otherwise would have been enough to qualify as civilization.

Whether the agent is the individual or the state does not matter to me. Either one goes by agent-based morality, and each agent is a moral cosmos unto themselves, disbanding the notion of civilization, or one goes by action-centric morality, in which case the act itself is either wrong for both agents, or right for both agents. The final alternative, victim-centric morality, breaks down to agent-centric morality by way of there being no difference between the state choosing a victim and that victim choosing another, or breaks down to deontic morality that is only compatible with theocratic government.

Civilization is a state of affairs, a property of certain societies.

When violence is necessary, such as for self-preservation, civilization breaks down locally. That is self-evident during such an encounter. To systematize violence is to relinquish this property entirely, and to leave a state of civilization, until and unless the practice ceases.

This simple presentation of my case may not be adequate to the task of convincing you of its merit. But it gives a rough impression of what I mean. It also points out that, no, I will not hold the societies you have in mind as civilized, unless you can convince me that there is a major flaw in the argument itself. That judgment will offend some, so let's not explore it too closely with regard to certain such societies, if you don't mind.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875