RE: Slave rights

RE: Slave rights (Full Version)

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

Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: Slave rights (12/5/2007 8:38:17 PM)
No. That's a controversial answer, but if that's not for you, you're not a slave. You're just someone using the word "slave" because it sounds hot. quote: ORIGINAL: lovethewhip Does a slave have rights?

slaveluci -> RE: Slave rights (12/5/2007 8:44:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster No. That's a controversial answer, but if that's not for you, you're not a slave. You're just someone using the word "slave" because it sounds hot. Well, duh. If we were "real and true" slaves, we wouldn't be sitting here playing on the computer, now would we? Obviously, I am not a "slave" in the dictionary/legal sense of the word. That is semantics. I think the OP means "Do those who identify as a slave in a consentual M/s relationship have rights?" Yes, I do. You know what they meant[8D]...........luci

breatheasone -> RE: Slave rights (12/5/2007 10:29:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovethewhip Does a slave have rights? Yes..I have the rights my Master tells me I have.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Slave rights (12/5/2007 11:23:26 PM)
Yes, I knew what they meant, and the answer is still no. A "consensual d/s relationship" (or whatever you call it) isn't slavery. It's not just a matter of semantics. (What does "That's semantics" mean, anyway? There's no language without semantics.) The real problem, as I've mentioned a couple of times before, is that people are confusing their discourses when they talk about "rights" within the context of a d/s relationship. "Rights" belong in the realm of law and politics. That's where they're derived, and that's where they make sense. D/s relationships are about whatever fulfills the people involved in them; getting hung up on whether or not slaves have "rights" is really just another way of asking yourself "Are the parameters of my relationship acceptable to the Great Self-Anointed Pontificators who determine what is 'true BDSM' and what isn't?" As you may have guessed, I think that's a waste of time. quote: ORIGINAL: slaveluci quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster No. That's a controversial answer, but if that's not for you, you're not a slave. You're just someone using the word "slave" because it sounds hot. Well, duh. If we were "real and true" slaves, we wouldn't be sitting here playing on the computer, now would we? Obviously, I am not a "slave" in the dictionary/legal sense of the word. That is semantics. I think the OP means "Do those who identify as a slave in a consentual M/s relationship have rights?" Yes, I do. You know what they meant[8D]...........luci

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Slave rights (12/5/2007 11:27:28 PM)
Does the Master say that they do? Does the slave agree with the Master? It can work however you want it to work. In my relationships, they do. Master Fire

ownedgirlie -> RE: Slave rights (12/6/2007 2:08:53 AM)
My State and Country may allow me certain rights as a citizen, but I only exercise those rights which my Master allows me.

AquaticSub -> RE: Slave rights (12/6/2007 11:03:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovethewhip Does a slave have rights? Assuming they haven't been kidnapped and sold into slavery but consented to a relationship where the terms "master" and "slave" are the most fulfilling to them, they have every single right granted to them by law. They also have to right to not excerise those rights.

SensibleSam -> RE: Slave rights (12/7/2007 3:30:03 PM)
Of course in BDSM we just make up whatever rules we want, so can be no authoritative answer. But consider some of the history of slavery. Movie critics praised the historical accuracy of the Russel Crowe vehicle "Gladiator". Ha! In the film, gladiators were depicted as slaves - and that was true. But slaves didn't have to be gladiators if they didn't want to, at least since the reign of Antonius Pius (the predecessor to Marcus Aurelius in the movie). If Maximus (Russel Crowe in the movie) didn't want to be a gladiator he should have just quit. Similarly female slaves could not be made to be a prostitute. Both had rights. The real problem with gladiators was that so many free men volunteerd to be enslaved. Gladiators were whipped and branded but for the most part were volunteers. Funny, huh? Aurelius issued laws limiting the number of men of good families who could become gladiatorial slaves. This is of course late second century - the golden age of the Pax Romana. Earlier Roman slaves were treated much more harshly. Still there had always been volunteers for slavery in domestic roles and what we would call today the civil service. Nobody volunteered for the salt mines or the latifundi. The career opportunities in slavery were very diverse. Slave rights - at least for some slaves - were officially recognized and respected.

Shawn1066 -> RE: Slave rights (12/7/2007 4:30:04 PM)
The answer isn't simply "no," it depends on the relationship. And, as the poster above me correctly put, slaves in ancient times had rights from time to time. As a consentual slave, I have the rights that my Owner says I have, and she gives me a great deal. If she were to take them all away and then become abusive, I would have my right as an intelligent being to look elsewhere. Speaking of ancient Rome. There's actually a story of one intelligent slave who helped his Master with various business enterprises, making him very rich. His Owner was very pleased, and shared the wealth with him...however, when he offered the slave his freedom...the slave declined. Why? Because slaves didn't have to pay taxes and serve in the army.

DMFParadox -> RE: Slave rights (12/7/2007 4:57:24 PM)
What the hell is a 'right', anyway? Even the legal definition is so fuzzy that they're argued about, modified, and argued about some more.... UNCEASINGLY. I don't think a D/s relationship is about 'rights' per se. It's about behavior patterns and training. for example, most of the time, if my pet says something I don't like, I'll call her on it. I don't increase the pressure over time (or I try not to), I operate on a case-by-case basis and try to remain consistent. And in this sense, I too am in behavioral training. Does she not have a right to say anything I don't like? Sure, she has that right, by most definitions of the word. Just as I have that same right. But I don't have the 'right' to stand in the middle of traffic, and yet if I wanted to that word 'right' wouldn't stop me. The fact that I don't want to get my pale ass run over is what keeps me on the sidewalk. I guess the point of this ramble is that we need a better word. Or better definitions and usage for the words that we have. D

IrishMist -> RE: Slave rights (12/7/2007 5:26:25 PM)
~FR~ Do slaves have rights? No

kinkypuppy2 -> RE: Slave rights (12/8/2007 4:23:16 PM)
We all have inalienable rights. the rights you decide to give to another is between you and tht other.

slaverosebeauty -> RE: Slave rights (12/8/2007 9:29:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovethewhip Does a slave have rights? Yes, everyone does. Sheesh that was the easiest and shortest question to answer in a long time.

eyesopened -> RE: Slave rights (12/9/2007 4:38:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox What the hell is a 'right', anyway? Even the legal definition is so fuzzy that they're argued about, modified, and argued about some more.... UNCEASINGLY. I don't think a D/s relationship is about 'rights' per se. It's about behavior patterns and training. for example, most of the time, if my pet says something I don't like, I'll call her on it. I don't increase the pressure over time (or I try not to), I operate on a case-by-case basis and try to remain consistent. And in this sense, I too am in behavioral training. Does she not have a right to say anything I don't like? Sure, she has that right, by most definitions of the word. Just as I have that same right. But I don't have the 'right' to stand in the middle of traffic, and yet if I wanted to that word 'right' wouldn't stop me. The fact that I don't want to get my pale ass run over is what keeps me on the sidewalk. I guess the point of this ramble is that we need a better word. Or better definitions and usage for the words that we have. D i could not agree more. Do state or federal prisoners have rights? Should they? Doesn't being a convicted criminal cause one to forfeit their rights? What exactly is a "right"? i can only answer for myself in my own relationship. i have the "right" to choose who is my Master. If i maintain that "right" after i have accepted His collar, am i still a slave? This is a debate with no conclusion that will be acceptable to everyone.

sladev59 -> RE: Slave rights (12/9/2007 6:18:15 AM)
a slave on never has rights! He has to read the need to his MASTER to serves and all from the eyes his wishes. servile sladev

Padriag -> RE: Slave rights (12/9/2007 12:49:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovethewhip Does a slave have rights? Yes, no, maybe... it really depends on who you ask. Master / slave relationships are just another variation on the D/s dynamic. In some cases defining the differences requires splitting some very fine hairs. The only truth is, that every individual and every relationship is at least a little bit different from everyone else... people define these things for themselves. So, one person may tell you a slave has no rights, and for them that is true. Another may say they only have basic human rights... and for them that's true. Others have broader negotiated rights agreed to at the beginning of the relationship... and for them that's true. None of it applies universally. There have been and probably will continue to be long arguments by various individuals and groups regarding what the "truth" is, questioning whether or not any objective standard can be made. Some will point out that certain legal rights exist regardless of what an individual agrees to. Some believe all individuals have certain inherent rights that are always with them. Many philosophical arguments can be made, and often at the end of them you have people who disagree even more than when they started. My own personal belief is that none of us, regardless of role, gender or orientation has any real "rights" beyond those which we can guarantee for ourselves. Everything else are merely privileges extended to us by individuals or societies. Legal "rights" are a good example of this... you only have a legal right because society says you do... but what happens to that "right" when they change the law? All that aside, here's what matters to you. What do you need to be happy? Do you want to be in a relationship where you have no rights (even if that turns out to be only the illusion of it)? Would you rather to have defined rights? Figure that out and don't worry too much about what the rest of us say or do... most of what we say really isn't that important. [8D]

OldBastardly1 -> RE: Slave rights (12/9/2007 1:29:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster It's not just a matter of semantics. (What does "That's semantics" mean, anyway? There's no language without semantics.) This from dictionary.com. Note #3. se·man·tics [image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif[/image] [image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image][image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif[/image] /sɪˈmæn[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]tɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-man-tiks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun (used with a singular verb[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]) 1. Linguistics. a. the study of meaning. b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form. 2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote. 3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

chellekitty -> RE: Slave rights (12/9/2007 2:45:06 PM)
well....going with some assumptions i will give multiple answers...first we are assuming that by slave you mean someone that is identified as a slave, either by themselves or their partner...no definition needed - that is a never ending discussion, we will get no where if we start that one... next...if you mean legal rights...yes...a Master is not a court of law, they cannot remove a slaves legal rights...sorry, no God complex is going to make that happen... now...if you mean rights within the relationship...yes, no, depends on the individuals in the relationship...a Master may choose to give their slave no rights, a Master may choose to give their slaves certain rights, a Master may choose to put no contstraints on their slaves rights....what works for them, works for them...and who the fuck am i to tell them what works for them is wrong, because...umm hey, it works for them... my $1.50 chele

Lordandmaster -> RE: Slave rights (12/11/2007 11:44:47 PM)
Umm...you really thought I don't know what "semantics" means? Whatever. quote: ORIGINAL: OldBastardly1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster It's not just a matter of semantics. (What does "That's semantics" mean, anyway? There's no language without semantics.) This from dictionary.com. Note #3.

IrishMist -> RE: Slave rights (12/12/2007 5:08:16 AM)
quote: Umm...you really thought I don't know what "semantics" means? Whatever. LMAO I actually was going to point out to him when he posted that idiotic definition for you that obviously he did not know that you were the king of words lol. It's quite funny.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.198242E-02