Redoubt
Posts: 185
Joined: 8/11/2007 Status: offline
|
Have mercy on my soul, I agree with the bunny... For me, describing property is to describe something that has no free will whatsoever, I can claim ownership over a dog or cat, but if I beat them, abuse them enough they can run away, but I can treat the car I own the title to like total garbage and the worst that can happen is that it will fail to function (usually when its the least convenient) So when we describe a submissive as a "slave" we are referring to someone who's entire being is dedicated to the service of their owner, but willingly. While a slave is property if you explore the true meaning of the word, slaves used to occasionally run off, risking their lives rather than stay with their owner. So property when used to describe a submissive would, at least for me, indicate a level of submission beyond slave. An object that only exists for it's master's or mistress' pleasure and whim. As a result would have no rights or priviledges beyond servitude. Do I believe that such people exist, yes. But I do not believe they are as common as internet fantasies would indicate... as the bunny says, they would have to be prepared to sacrifice themselves at the most trivial whim, even so trivial as their owner wanting to check the sharpness of a blade.... of course, most owners of such a commodity would probably not sacrifice such a valued item as a living breathing human being totally commited to their pleasure, that they can use at their discretion. Golden goose and what not. That level of trust I do believe to be attainable, and enviable.
|