RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom

RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (Full Version)

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

Message

chellekitty -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/3/2007 8:34:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty she did not say "for me, to live in slavery would be to live like..." she said "to me, slavery is..." she defined slavery as something involuntary and terrible... my slavery is voluntary and anything but terrible... I said TO ME...ie: my opinion, my view. I really don't give a crap how someone else labels themselves. If you makes you happy to describe yourself as a female porcupine trapped in a male human body...go for it. My view is that my happiness (notice the word MY) should not share a label with something as ugly as human trafficking. I did not say that I think it's stupid/silly/assinine or anything else for someone to refer to themselves as a slave. I did not tell anyone else that their relationships weren't real. No where did I attempt to define anyone else's relationship. I've stated my view on my relationship and explained the label that I have given myself. You don't have to like my opinion, but I still have the right to hold that opinion. thanks for that clarification...i suspected that is what you intended...

Wildfleurs -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/3/2007 8:40:10 PM)
With the discussion of definitions and such I find the concept of owned submissive, while decrying the term slave just a bit strange. Literally when you own something/one it is your property and you can lease, sell, etc that thing or person tht you own... just like a slave (which is why I have to agree with the person that said that you own a slave, not a submissive). C~

AquaticSub -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/3/2007 9:20:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs With the discussion of definitions and such I find the concept of owned submissive, while decrying the term slave just a bit strange. Literally when you own something/one it is your property and you can lease, sell, etc that thing or person tht you own... just like a slave (which is why I have to agree with the person that said that you own a slave, not a submissive). C~ Not exactly. You can't do whatever you like with everything you own - you are not allowed to beat your animals or sell your dogs to dog fighters for example. However, you still own them. Your ownership of them simply has conditions. If you own a house that is certified to be a part of history you can't do whatever you like with it. To modify it you have to get permission and I'm pretty sure there are rules regarding who you can sell it to. A submissive, from my point of view, is very much something you can own. Your ownership of it, like a historical house or an animal, simply has some clauses. And as has been pointed out, some people simply don't regard what we do here as slavery in any sense of the word.

LittleWench -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/3/2007 9:39:34 PM)
quote: A submissive, from my point of view, is very much something you can own. Your ownership of it, like a historical house or an animal, simply has some clauses. And as has been pointed out, some people simply don't regard what we do here as slavery in any sense of the word. In both the case of the house and the dog you get a piece of paper recognizing ownership. You get a little disc to put on your dog's collar, you get a deed to the house. There is no such recognition of the ownership of human beings. My Owner and I talked today about our relationship (the shift from nilla to TPE and everything inbetween) and asked if I identified as a submissive or slave, because he felt there was a significant difference between them. I said, the general definition was that a submissive had more control in the relationship, more choice, whereas a slave was considered chattel, property. He said, wait a minute, don't you think you are taking the definition of slavery too literally? I said, well that was the commonly recognized definition, on message boards on websites... He said, why do we have to limit ourselves to the definition used by anyone else, why can't we make our own definition? I said, then why make me choose an identity if we are going to agree those identities don't apply to us? :) So I call him my Owner (more often than my Master) and I don't know what label I should have. Obviously I am submissive to him, I feel that I belong to him. I don't see any point in calling myself a slave... its not recognized by law, I still have human rights, laws that control my actions and behaviours, laws that protect me from abuse, I can still buy and own my own property, goods, food. Calling myself a slave because I am submissive has about as much basis in reality for me as calling myself a hobbit because I have hairy feet.

laurell3 -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/3/2007 9:49:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs With the discussion of definitions and such I find the concept of owned submissive, while decrying the term slave just a bit strange. Literally when you own something/one it is your property and you can lease, sell, etc that thing or person tht you own... just like a slave (which is why I have to agree with the person that said that you own a slave, not a submissive). C~ That is assuming what you view ownership as is what everyone else does. That seems to be the problem with this trainwreck of a thread. Chelle takes pride in being what she calls a slave. I think that's wonderful. Others would be offended by being called such and identify as submissive or owned submissive. I think that's wonderful for them too. The problem arises (as it always does here) when one tells the other their version isn't right for the person that has that version. Not so wonderful. Call yourselves whatever you like, have as many masters/owners/doms as you like. Let others do that as well.

Wildfleurs -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 3:23:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Not exactly. You can't do whatever you like with everything you own - you are not allowed to beat your animals or sell your dogs to dog fighters for example. However, you still own them. Your ownership of them simply has conditions. If you own a house that is certified to be a part of history you can't do whatever you like with it. To modify it you have to get permission and I'm pretty sure there are rules regarding who you can sell it to. A submissive, from my point of view, is very much something you can own. Your ownership of it, like a historical house or an animal, simply has some clauses. And as has been pointed out, some people simply don't regard what we do here as slavery in any sense of the word. You are talking about whether there are conditions of ownership, which isn't what I'm talking about. I'm just literally talking about the concept of ownership and what it is thst the literal dictionry definition of ownership entails owning property. So unless the thing (chair, house, door) or person considers themselves property I don't see how they are owned. Not to mention the synonyms for property are chattel and slave.... not submissive. As I was scrolling through the pages of discussions on this thread and as it shifted I noticed the irony of discussion on definitions yet the very clear twisting of the term own to encompass submissives and just thought I would add those two cents. C~

Wildfleurs -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 3:25:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs With the discussion of definitions and such I find the concept of owned submissive, while decrying the term slave just a bit strange. Literally when you own something/one it is your property and you can lease, sell, etc that thing or person tht you own... just like a slave (which is why I have to agree with the person that said that you own a slave, not a submissive). C~ That is assuming what you view ownership as is what everyone else does. That seems to be the problem with this trainwreck of a thread. Chelle takes pride in being what she calls a slave. I think that's wonderful. Others would be offended by being called such and identify as submissive or owned submissive. I think that's wonderful for them too. The problem arises (as it always does here) when one tells the other their version isn't right for the person that has that version. Not so wonderful. Call yourselves whatever you like, have as many masters/owners/doms as you like. Let others do that as well. Just to be clear I'm not trying to force people to change what they call themselves and I'm not trying to call them fake or assuming that everyone should or does have the same definition as I do (or even as the dictionary does). What I'm doing is just mentioning what my perspective on the issue is. C~

RCdc -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 4:20:27 AM)
Who said that those who submit and who are owned, do not see themselves as property? And althought BDSM does use standard definitions of words - it also doesn't. Take the word submissive - use the standard definition and it doesn't exist as it does in the BDSM world. Neither does the word dominant. Yet it still exists. No one is twisting words - because the beauty of language is that it evolves. When you ignore the evolution of words, you negate others people. the.dark.

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 5:12:51 AM)
you're welcome to contact me anytime if you have any other questions ...i don't bite

MissSCD -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 7:04:09 AM)
There are a lot of couples who own a sub/slave together. I have shared ownership with my slave in the beginning to help me learn a particular skill. It takes a lot of work. It doesn't work for me because I believe in a one on one relationship, but it is quite acceptable in the life. *Regards, MissSCD*

Wildfleurs -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 7:18:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs Not to mention the synonyms for property are chattel and slave.... not submissive. quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Who said that those who submit and who are owned, do not see themselves as property? And althought BDSM does use standard definitions of words - it also doesn't. As I said in the post you quoted, the synonym for property is slave. So linguistically someone can say they are owned, say they are property and say they are a submissive... but it just doesn't make sense. quote: Take the word submissive - use the standard definition and it doesn't exist as it does in the BDSM world. Neither does the word dominant. Yet it still exists. The definitions in Merriam Webster for submissive is "one who submits" and for dominant "a dominant individual in a social hierarchy." I think those fit just fine. quote: No one is twisting words - because the beauty of language is that it evolves. When you ignore the evolution of words, you negate others people. Its not evolution when there are perfectly good dictionary definitions that clearly spell out what those terms mean which have applicability to the BDSM scene and people choose to change them to be able to use terms they want to use that possibly don't fit. Everyone has free will and can absolutely do that, but I also have the freedom to point it out. C~ Edited for font and posting quirks

RCdc -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 8:08:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs Not to mention the synonyms for property are chattel and slave.... not submissive. quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Who said that those who submit and who are owned, do not see themselves as property? And althought BDSM does use standard definitions of words - it also doesn't. As I said in the post you quoted, the synonym for property is slave. So linguistically someone can say they are owned, say they are property and say they are a submissive... but it just doesn't make sense. quote: Take the word submissive - use the standard definition and it doesn't exist as it does in the BDSM world. Neither does the word dominant. Yet it still exists. The definitions in Merriam Webster for submissive is "one who submits" and for dominant "a dominant individual in a social hierarchy." I think those fit just fine. quote: No one is twisting words - because the beauty of language is that it evolves. When you ignore the evolution of words, you negate others people. Its not evolution when there are perfectly good dictionary definitions that clearly spell out what those terms mean which have applicability to the BDSM scene and people choose to change them to be able to use terms they want to use that possibly don't fit. Everyone has free will and can absolutely do that, but I also have the freedom to point it out. C~ Edited for font and posting quirks You know, I am a complete word whore. I list it as a bonafide fetish because it really does stimulate me. I like to use classic dictionaries, where word definitions are controlled by those who are never named. Like the Oxford - I like that - it kinda rocks. However I do also use other dictionaries, just for the fun of it. In merriam webster it describes 'submissive' as an adjective. How can there be 'a submissive' if the word is an adjective? Nowhere does it define submissive as you described. So I thought, maybe we just have different publications - so - I checked it out online also. Nope - still it lists submissive as an attribute, not a person, place or thing. It does detail that being submissive is to defer to an authority - it is to surrender. To be subjected to something from another. I would say being owned would fit that definition quite well. I have never come across it as being a noun. A verb. An adjective. But never a noun. I am not 'a slave'. I am not even 'a submissive'. - I have to list myself as something on CM so I choose that which closest to my action. I am a woman who defers authority to another and submits to ownership. Could I put that on my profile 'list' as what I am, I certainly would. Not evolution? Of course it is! How do you think you actually got the words you are using today? Did they always exist or did they come from others? To ignore the evolution of words is to negate whole sections of people. To deny the existance of countries or communities. I do not think you see that you are contradicting everything you say. If we used your example then we would have to deny that there are slaves in BDSM. Because slavery is both illegal and immoral by the standards of those that are the 'powers that be' that write and define words and dictionaries. You cannot legally 'own' a person - therefore you cannot be a slave in BDSM - is basically what you are infering by saying that you cannot just take a word and use it because they 'possibly don't fit'? Confusion reigns.[sm=m23.gif] the.dark. (.editbecauseiamalogophiliacwithdyslexia.)

OsideGirl -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 8:12:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs With the discussion of definitions and such I find the concept of owned submissive, while decrying the term slave just a bit strange. Literally when you own something/one it is your property and you can lease, sell, etc that thing or person tht you own... just like a slave (which is why I have to agree with the person that said that you own a slave, not a submissive). C~ Actually, I view myself as indentured. As in those that would willingly bind themselves into service via a contract. While that contract was in force, the indentured servant was considered the property of the contract holder.

chellekitty -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 9:25:05 AM)
sociologically an indentured servant is the the evolution of a slave, when slavery became illegal, they changed it to indentured servitude, and then made it impossible to leave that servitude, leaving the indentured servants in the same physical, mental, emotional, fiscal, and basically everyother thing but legal status of a slave...so....you are arguing that you are a slave Oside? i am not trying to be difficullt here, but i have seen indentured servatude in action, my grandparents had servants in Sri Lanka and later Singapore that were indentured servants, they could not leave the house without permission, they could not get married without permission, they lived their entire lives with my father's family until they no longer were able to serve them and then the money they had been paid all those years was used as a retirement fund - because they never saw a cent of it while they were in service to my grandparents, the lived life happily taking care of the house and the kids, eating the food in the house, living in the house, clothing was provided, everything was taken care of because they were slaves, whoops i mean indentured servants....and they were not tortured or unwilling, they did not know differently...when my grandparents moved to the USA they had to send their last servant back to Sri Lanka...she was in her 30's or 40's i am guessing...and she had lived with my grandparents since her teens...it was an upset for her too....she still had a good chunk of her life that she could make money with, before retirement, and her meal ticket was dissapearing....she was a very nice lady, i never treated her "as a servant" but that was her status...it still goes on in the world today.... chelle

DesFIP -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 9:41:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs With the discussion of definitions and such I find the concept of owned submissive, while decrying the term slave just a bit strange. Literally when you own something/one it is your property and you can lease, sell, etc that thing or person tht you own... just like a slave (which is why I have to agree with the person that said that you own a slave, not a submissive). C~ It may be strange but I have religious and moral objections to the use of the word slave when applied to me. I have the same objections to body modifications. You don't have to understand someone else's objections, you just have to accept their right to define for themselves what works for them and not tell them (or in this case me) that I can't call myself what he and I both call me.

laurell3 -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 9:42:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs With the discussion of definitions and such I find the concept of owned submissive, while decrying the term slave just a bit strange. Literally when you own something/one it is your property and you can lease, sell, etc that thing or person tht you own... just like a slave (which is why I have to agree with the person that said that you own a slave, not a submissive). C~ That is assuming what you view ownership as is what everyone else does. That seems to be the problem with this trainwreck of a thread. Chelle takes pride in being what she calls a slave. I think that's wonderful. Others would be offended by being called such and identify as submissive or owned submissive. I think that's wonderful for them too. The problem arises (as it always does here) when one tells the other their version isn't right for the person that has that version. Not so wonderful. Call yourselves whatever you like, have as many masters/owners/doms as you like. Let others do that as well. Just to be clear I'm not trying to force people to change what they call themselves and I'm not trying to call them fake or assuming that everyone should or does have the same definition as I do (or even as the dictionary does). What I'm doing is just mentioning what my perspective on the issue is. C~ My post was not directed at you specifically. Definitions and semantics are only as good as the person interpreting them and applying it to their own lives want them to be.

RCdc -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 9:46:50 AM)
...and then again, indentured means you could be an apprentice. Indentured was an agreed upon contract. A little different from 'traditional' slavery. Again - choose the definition that works for you. the.dark.

Mercnbeth -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 10:02:10 AM)
quote: One half to two thirds of all immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants. At times, as many as 75% of the population of some colonies were under terms of indenture... This was a labor system, not a system of apprenticeship. (Galenson, 6) The historic basis for indenture grew out of English agricultural servitude and began because of labor shortages in England and in the colonies. It developed at a time when England had a great number of people being displaced from farming. This led to an early growth of the indentured labor system. The importation of white servants under contracts known as indentures proved more profitable as a short-term labor source than enslaving Indians or using free labor. Eventually, the final attempt to ease labor shortages was enslavement of Africans. Wherever you find slavery, you first find indentures... Criminals convicted of a capital crime in England could be transported in lieu of a death sentance (for the theft of an item with a cost of as little as one shilling). Servitude also could result from indebtedness, where a person, their spouse or parents owed money, and the person was sold into servitude to recover the debt. In other cases, a parish indentured orphans in order to keep them off the poor roles. Plus, the poor sometimes sold themselves into indenture just to survive. In theory, the person is only selling his or her labor. In practice, however, indentured servants were basically slaves and the courts enforced the laws that made it so. The treatment of the servant was harsh and often brutal. In fact, the Virginia Colony prescribed "bodily punishment for not heeding the commands of the master." (Ballagh, 45) Half the servants died in the first two years. As a result of this type of treatment, runaways were frequent... http://www.geocities.com/nai_cilh/servitude.html historically speaking, indentured servants did not always willingly enter into their contracts. they were used by others to pay off debts.

RCdc -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 10:18:11 AM)
All depends on the context and country. For those in the states, I am sure it does resemble slavery greatly because of the history. In the middle ages in england and france - indenture was a form of 'steping up the ladder' or a way to better serve the king. Knights often 'indentured' themselves to the king. Again - take the definition that works for you and go with it. the.dark.

ownedgirlie -> RE: how can a sub be owned by more than 1 Dom (12/4/2007 10:39:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark All depends on the context and country. This would apply to "slave" 'a submissive' (which I think was originally "a submissive person" but abbreviated, since we all know we are people), "indentured servant" "toy" "slut" etc. etc. etc. There was a time (before he knew me) when my Master did not like the term "slave" due to some of the other reasons stated here. He came to accept the term in the context of "consensual slavery", which is why it is critically important to him that the slave ask/request/beg her place as his slave, so there is no confusion that she or he fully wants to be there. I very much understand the aversion to the word "slave", and respect anyone's issues with it. I am here of my own accord, however. I was not taken against my will and smuggled here for uses that are appalling to me and harm my well being. I entered, eyes wide open, into this dynamic, asking to be here and asking for his ownership. This met his requirement of being a "consensual slave", abbreviated to "slave" since we both understand what it means to us...which is basically the definition kyra posted earlier in this thread. Getting back to the OP, however, Master and I have a pet, for however long this pet wishes to remain (very new, still feeling things out, etc.). The pet is owned by us both - reporting directly to me, overseen by Master. He is the slave of a slave, basically, and since Master owns me, he also owns anyone I might own. The boy understands this, and it appeals to him greatly. Master and I are on the same page, and so there is no conflict. Think of it as two levels of managers at work - I'm the Vice President; Master is CEO. [;)]

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625