|
BitaTruble -> RE: The Characteristics of being "property" (2/20/2008 1:38:00 AM)
|
::snipped for the sake of brevity::
quote:
ORIGINAL: gypsygrl
I, as property, accept a certain amount of objectification but he, as owner, ends up with an object. If taken to its logical conclusion, the result would seem emotionally barren.
Of course, there's its not always necessary to take things to their logical conclusion. Things can be taken in illogical directions with good result.
The premise here is that it's 'logical' to assume that being property makes one an 'object.' I don't find that a logical assumption to make. An actor can be described as a 'hot property' and certainly wouldn't be seen as an object, though he may be seen as a valuable commodity. When I think of human property, it is more terms of a valuable commodity (albeit that is a subjective notion) than as an object. A studio holds the rights to the hot property (the actor/human), but that does not objectify the actor. Objectification is, in and of itself, a pretty hot concept for me, but, in the end, it's just a kink much like any other kink.
Being a slave, being property, being owned, being submissive .. these things are all ways in which can choose to live ones life as a human being and the nomenclature used to describe how one lives life doesn't automatically put someone into the category of 'object.'
By that standard and taking it to it's logical conclusion, human property has no more nor less emotional investment than any other sort of human.
Celeste
|
|
|
|
