RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=-

RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Maya2001 -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/10/2008 6:49:31 PM)
quote: After the last time someone used this idea to try to call all consensual slavery just extended role play I came to the basic conclussion that those that want so much to knock down off the imagined pedistal, those who do not consider it as such, are guilty of wanting sameness from other people. They can't deal with the idea that anybody might be different or special because that somhow reduces them in value (certainly a self percieved reduction in value since what anybody else is or is not effects their value almost none). If I had labeled myself as a slave rather than as a submissive ...would you have made the same comment????? My point was simply that legally real life slavery cannot exist as a master you are restricted in what you are able to do by law, so you never have total power over a slave. For slavery to exist is takes at least 2 individuals, I agree that a person can consent to slavery but the "master" will never in todays world will have total authority over the slave....which is what my first post referred to...in real slavery a master could stop a slave from leaving ... this is my point you are missing in you response , theey were based totally on the slave role. When I say role play the problem your having is with the word "play" the role being the title the play being my interaction which is not constant and over time and circumstances changes, for example mother is a role , but the action/ behaviour, requirements of the role is not constant it caretaker/nurturer role at infancy during age progression also teacher is added and disciplinarian, , at some point you step back and let go later as mom there is a good chance that later is life your child becomes your caretaker which would happen in your relationship as well if either of your healths changes or at least I would hope that is the case if her health failed dramatically and she could not serve you the way you would like that you would care enough about her to make changes to serve and take care of her instead, but to you she should still be your slave in your eyes even though she may not be able to do the duties that were once important to you and you may be doing them instead for her ... for this reason I still define it as a roleplay because life circumstances can change your roles as once was defined by acts and protocols but the titles will still remain As far special....... are you not belittling subs with your own comment and saying they are not as good and have less worth than slaves...therefore not special?( I am speaking in general terms ...not in reference to personal preference) Is one relationship truly more special than another just by how they label it ??? or is a relationship special by how the 2 people within the relationship define it between themselves and the way they view their relationship. In some relationships I have been in the dominant has referred to me as his slave and property in others I am referred to as his sub and pet. Does that mean I am less special in a relationship if I am not called a slave and property? Is RL slavery vs RP slavery defined by protocols ? Is there a set standard for everyone? Does the ones that adhere to the most protocols win when definng their relations as "true" Some believe that slave means total micro management that a slave cannot even go to the bathroom, have a drink of water or eat, without the masters permission , and not allowed to make decisions on their own ... is that the same view of slave you have? othere want the authority transfer but do not feel it necessary to micromanage every single detail of their slaves actions... which is more true or real??? IMHO trying to agrue what is real and who has the more real version in general is foolish, and can only be decided on couples involved and how they want to define their roles and no two M/s relationships are going to be 100% identical

Archer -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/11/2008 5:48:11 AM)
If I had labeled myself as a slave rather than as a submissive ...would you have made the same comment????? I resenet the implication you make here very much, I never even read your chosen label. wheather slave submissive, switch etc. Makes no difference to me I sought to discuss and disagree with points in your post. In fact going back and reading the post you made why the question at all since your post does not identify you as any of them, unless it is to infer that I am being intelectually biased against you??? My point that you avoid so deftly was two fold. #1 I reject the idea that "Real" (and I hate that word online so much because of all the crap that follows it most of the time) slavery must be limited to the legal definition. I offered the example of Life Debt slavery, as the closest thing to what we call consensual slavery. #2 I make later is that I replace the idea that law holds a slave in place with the idea that a slaves own honor holds them in place. That certainly is more beautiful than someone held in place by law or even social preasure. As far special....... are you not belittling subs with your own comment and saying they are not as good and have less worth than slaves...therefore not special? Nope you seam to have missed this part. even though it is included in your quote of me. "They can't deal with the idea that anybody might be different or special because that somhow reduces them in value (certainly a self percieved reduction in value since what anybody else is or is not effects their value almost none). The section you leave behind even specificly addressed that. Last lines of my post. "Slaves are in fact special (different), but the things that make them special are not universally valued. Special has developed a connotation that it means better than as if anything different must be more valuable, when we know that different does not always mean better for everyone. " So the rest of the rambling is non sensical since it really just rants agasinst an idea I did not espouse based on what you didn't retain from my post.

Justme696 -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/11/2008 7:12:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Oh wow now we're making the connection sorry timming made it look otherwise in those last two posts. lol..yes sometimes it takes some time. But well, that is why we are here.

hopelesslyInvo -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/11/2008 6:17:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The toaster example is fairly weak actually since the obvious rebuttal is that live property would make a better and closer comparison. Take the baseball bat to the dog and see how far the property rights extend when it comes to "live property". And there have been forms of minimum standards of treatment of live property in some societies for centuries. i suppose you could look at it that way. on the other hand i could make many other examples of how more often, livestock was of greater worth than the life of a slave. i guess i could have used the example of taking my dog out and shooting it, but even then, it's unlikely anyone would find out i did it, as well as doubtful anyone would care, and even if they did, it's doubtful that i'd suffer any reprocussions, largely in part that i live where i have a fair bit of privacy and don't have people like peta up my ass, much like the similar situation people enjoyed "back in those days". even if i did have animal rights on my ass, the most likely situation is that i would not be allowed to continue to own any pets, and that any other animals i already had at the time would then be seized. what examples did you have in mind with "minimun standards of treatment for live property several hundreds of years ago", was this also basically just in regard to anything living, or with slaves that to this belief, "you weren't allowed to beat to all hell for no apparent or significant reason"? i figure if people can compare their "slaves" to a microwave, that they are just property and that "it" should never question its role and just do as its told without hesitation, without taking into concern what is harmful to it, what it is capable of, or even show notion of thinking for itself... then i'd say using a toaster as an example isn't much of a stretch. guess it really comes down to the meaning of a slave. i still stick to the traditional definition, "a person who lacks freewill and lives in servitude, not someone who willfully serves". my question is still; if nothing more is holding a slave to remain in service to someone except their will alone, how is that not simply submission or servitude? how does that fit into "not having freewill", when their will is the only reason they do it, what else could possibly merit the word slavery other than what the mindset and viewpoint is of the "slave", and the one they serve? even in the life debt example, is every moment they "choose" to stay not an absolute testament to how much they are not a slave? there's no question of legality in this inquiry, nor any question of if i can kill my dog in the middle of times square. i know i couldn't kill my dog like that with no consequences, and it's for the same reason i can't own a slave, "rights". but from someone not worried about the "legalities" of a slave in this argument, the rebuttal of what i'm legally allowed to do with a pet of mine is a bit hypocritical is it not? i know you weren't the one to bring up the subject, but my standpoint was in the fact that you can't treat people that way, that they aren't toasters. i wouldn't any sooner want to compare a person to a dog either, as also people are not dogs. the point i was trying to make, is people are not property, which is why murder would be the issue i'd face, and people are much more accounted for than animals, even "human strays". saying i couldn't get away with it if it was a living creature was the very point i was trying to make. legality and rights come into play depending on the example, but in dismissing those things and getting right the root of it, what will be left to discuss if everything is so quickly disregarded as being an irrelevant point? just semantics and word play? we'd all be back at square one then. the only difference i can possibly see is that you're saying, a "slave" doing something like paying a life debt would serve in honor of "what" a person did for them, and that this honor can hold them to it. i see a "submissive" as serving so as to honor "who" that person is, and they will continue to do so for reasons no different. their devotion to their cause cannot be compared, what they do cannot be compared, what they are capable of cannot be compared. now the way i word that puts a pretty stark difference between the merit of the two, but these aren't my views between the two, and i'm not tryin to discredit or glorify one or the other; my first post pretty well clarifies how i actually feel about both. i think using the life debt is more of a weak example that my toaster, as i'm sure you're not trying to take the standpoint that a person would need to do something absurdly unlikely like saving their life. i'm sure the "honor" is your point in it all, but i would argue quickly that having or not having honor doesn't even help to prove anything, and that especially in bdsm terms... honor might be among the least likely of reasons to form or to hold a relationship of that nature. i'd be more concerned with proving that much like a submissive can offer themselves and service to another at will, a person calling themself a slave could do just the same, without needing any other reason other than they want to. i think it'll take far more than the example a something like a life pledge to prove anything, if for no other reason that between bdsm and indiana jones saving someone's life, there's not much that is similar in those examples other than the name "slave", but i believe that these are things that don't exactly need to be proven if they even can be. no one needs to prove what global warming is to me for me to know what it is, and regardless of what i believe is causing change in weather, i can see the effects. i wonder as i've tried figuring this out myself, is the word "slave" or "slavery" the one causing more problems to what people are buying into, or does it have the same impact. it might have some merit to questioning it, afterall would a person who's a "slave" to drugs, chinese food, or jazz music count as a person who is "in slavery", or much like "sex slave" is it just wordplay used to describe how passionate or possibly dependent they are to something by means of relating it to another descriptive/definitive term such as a "real slave". people say things all the time like "his god is money", but obviously such things are not a diety, and calling them a god in expressive terms doesn't make them so. i'm not on some madhouse goal to disprove slavery, i'm not going to be relentlessly badgering this subject, and even if i did have a pretty valid point, or even truly proved it, the bdsm community could not care less what i have to say, and nothing would change aside from a handful of viewpoints. the point i would like to make and stress, and not to anyone imparticular, but simply to anyone who bothers to read my rants; regardless of what the wording ends up being, regardless if a person was decided to be a slave or not, a master or not, or any other often questioned title, that doesn't make what they do, what they commit to, or what their beliefs are "roleplay". i will continue to find the idea of "each person has their own reality" to be bullshit, but things don't diminish in how real they are simply because others don't see the reality of it, i can think of some single celled friends and some round worlds to attest to that.

AcademyForSlaves -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/11/2008 9:29:23 PM)
Excellent question. Some people might use terms according to their own convenience. ie-Some might call a one hour session "24-7 slavery". Some call themselves a "slave" but top from the bottom with "make me do this" and "do this to me". Some dominants will ask the slave what they want done to them. The question is a good one because it triggered exactly what was predicted; a difference of opinion. Just to piss everyone off I will give my own opinion so someone nasty can try ripping it to shreds to make themself feel better. We feel there is a really BIG difference between real time slavery and role playing. In real time the slave is the slave. Period. A slave does not call the shots. Do they have a human right to say "please stop" and then leave if they don't like the situation? Absolutely. Can they come back whenever they want to "play" a continuing game of "who's really in charge"? No. I'm the Boss. Period. For me it's never a game. It's real, true, 24-7 (whatever I want to call it).

Leatherist -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/11/2008 9:43:25 PM)
This is really not so very difficult to comprehend. "Role playing" more or less involves people who do this to spice up a kink aspect. There is no real commitment made to it from either party-it will be dropped when it is no longer entertaining. (ie, becomes work) So these individuals like to "feel" like masters and slaves-while they are getting off on it. Those who feel more of a commitment to practice an authority dynamic realize that it will involve some work and hardship to continue it to it's logical conclusion. It's not always fun, it involves work and effort to maintain. And if the slave or master decides to slack off, it will often simply disintegrate. So a large part of the dynamic involves following a discipline. When that goes away, so does the relationship-at least in that sense.

salilus -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 12:16:00 AM)
At the risk of being flamed: I am enslaved and it is definitely 100% different than the role playing I was doing for years before this. There is a difference between acting submissively or behaving in a manner we think is correct for a submissive... and being truly enslaved. There is role playing and there is real slavery in the sense that the person has no rights that are not given by their owner and cannot or are unable to leave/escape. There is a difference between doing things that are widely considered to be submissive and being utterly complaint. One is not better than the other, in an objective sense, but they are very, very different. Perhaps 'role play' is the wrong term. It always seems to set a lot people off when discussions like this come up. I think people like believing that slapping a collar on and saying 'yes sir' for the weekend makes them a slave... even though they go back to being in control on Monday. There isn't anything wrong with it. For some people, that is exactly what they need... for others, that sort of thing is a tease, really. I still get to partake of role playing when my owner wishes. A collar gets slapped on and I spend the weekend naked and ensconced in sex... but then we go back to real life. And I am a possession and he is the owner; no time outs, no safe words, no moments in which I need to stop being a possession so I can make something clear to him. It's different. Just different. One cannot take a week of sex play and call it real slavery based on the dictionary definition. It's just not. Not even if they really, really want it to be. Trust me - I used to really, really want it to be and now I can see that 'role play' doesn't even come close to the real thing.

Justme696 -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 12:42:33 AM)
quote: Just to piss everyone off I will give my own opinion so someone nasty can try ripping it to shreds to make themself feel better uhh? are you sure the other person is the problem?? lol

ThistleDown -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 1:18:29 AM)
I only have one comment to add. I think people are getting hung up on legality with the "can't be true property of another". Before slavery was legalized in the U.S. there were slaves. And after slavery was abolished, there were slaves. What is written in the lawbooks doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what people are actually doing. I would suggest that a mindset can imprison someone or make someone so dependent that they really can't be without an owner. And as it was with economic/political slavery way back when, the slaves depended on their masters (up to a point, many many of them broke out of that and eventually, those that did helped to win the freedom of the rest- i'll get to the choosing and consequences part in a moment). (dependency and imprisonment aren't the only qualifiers of course, you could substitute anything in there, any qualifier you like, those are just examples. I also want to add that imprisonment doesn't have to be bad if you think of it more loosely, if you think of it as being so fastly attached to a place, position or state of being that it would be extremely difficult to unattach oneself and become independent of it). I get the feeling that many people think that a mindset, how one thinks of oneself or a situation, isn't enough to make them a slave but once again, people can be mentally enslaved and I think that's what it comes down to. It's just that normally people phrase it differently. so what about the topic of forced vs consensual? I like to think of things more broadly than that. minorities suffering from oppression in early America had a choice. It was submit and be miserable or resist and probably die for it. (To be extreme and also accurate). The only difference here is the consequences. To some people, the affect of choosing not to submit (once this .. dynamic has started to be put in place) may not mean physical harm, but emotional/mental harm can be just as damaging or more so and it can be just as permanent. So that's my argument for forced vs. consensual. I think there's a little of both and I don't think you can really separate submission and slavery. They have things in common and things unique to each. I therefore believe there isn't really a point in trying to define the two so.. definitively... it's ok to compare and contrast though. I guess I had more to say than I thought... ~puppy oh one little last note, it has been noted every once in a while that a person brought into slavery unconsenting who was later given the option of leaving the service, chose not to. Unfortunately, I have no citations so I don't expect people to take my word for this one if they haven't heard it themselves from a credible source. xP just thought I'd add it.. just in case.

Justme696 -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 4:52:06 AM)
quote: What is written in the lawbooks doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what people are actually doing. well mostly it has, but it doesn't mean it doesn't excist when a law forbids it. ( I guess you mean that). Laws just reduce the amount of times it happens, because of the risk involved.

ExSteelAgain -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 5:08:23 AM)
I get your theme and, yes, M/s is powerful and can make a slave feel like she is really owned, yada, yada, yada. I’ll only point out that your many references to “legal guardianship” mean little. You can’t become the legal guardian of an adult unless the person is incapacitated physically or mentally. You can give someone power of attorney to sign your name, but if that is abused, you would be in big legal trouble.

orfunboi -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 5:14:42 AM)
In the US real life slavery is illegal. Yes there are still some who try it, but when they are caught, they are arrested. You can call yourself whatever you want, but the bottom line is, if you want to leave the relationship your in, you can.

ExSteelAgain -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 5:16:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gypsygrl quote: We care because as human beings we are a social animal, and we want to *belong. Since our inclinations toward BDSM make us feel we don't belong in 'general' society, we try to make an ordered society of everyone* whose 'not belonging' matches our general way of not belonging. It's kind of like herding cats. Brilliant. :) Yep, or another way of saying we are all fucked up. Told ya.

allyC -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 5:30:04 AM)
Hello, everyone. There are 2 definitiions in the OP for slave. Only one of them mentions being property. The other simply says that one must be entirely under the dominance or influence of another person or force. The second mentions nothing about legality, non-consensuality, papers, etc. By definition, one can indeed be a 'real' slave as defined by the leading authority of the English language without having their legal rights removed. As for the comment that a slave doesn't have to be submissive, I believe that wholeheartedly to be true. One does not have to be a submissive person in order to become enslaved to another. On the contrary, I know many dominant, outgoing, assertive people who are enslaved to someone (including myself). To that person specifically they have reacted submissively, however, they are not submissive people. The act of submitting to another person doesn't make that person submissive - it simply means that they committed an act of submitting. They might be very non-submissive with all other people in their life. They may react submissively only to certain types of people. Just thought I'd offer my two pesos :) Well wishes to everyone! -Cav's ally

julietsierra -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 5:33:07 AM)
Well, in my world, I am a slave to my Master. It may not mean the same thing to ANYONE else out there, but to me, being his slave means that I love (yep, the L-word) him and am obedient to him to the extent that I do not question what he chooses for me to do. I don't consider myself his servant. I don't consider my existence with him to be merely one of his convenience. I love. I simply love so much so that all the rest doesn't matter. And so, I never worry too much about how other people see slavery. They're not living my life and I'm not living theirs. I'm his until he no longer wants me. I'll do what he wants until he doesn't want me to do it anymore. None of the rest matters. juliet oh yes... I'm also a slave to fashion - but that encompasses a whole different definition.

kyraofMists -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 6:52:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain I’ll only point out that your many references to “legal guardianship” mean little. You can’t become the legal guardian of an adult unless the person is incapacitated physically or mentally. You can give someone power of attorney to sign your name, but if that is abused, you would be in big legal trouble. I have not read the entire thread, so hopefully this is not repetitive and I am just using ExSteel's post as a jumping off point. Even if you get the courts to legally declare another adult incompetent and in need of someone else to be their legal guardian, that does not ensure that the "slave" will not walk. Even that relationship can be terminated and especially if the "slave" lets the courts know that their guardian engages in BDSM with them. I don't think the legal system would look too kindly on someone who has been appointed to protect someone who is incompetent if it were discovered that they were abusing their charge. (I am not saying that I think BDSM is abusive, but that the legal system sees BDSM as abuse and the defense of "they consented" would not exist for an adult who is legally declared incompetent.) In the end what keeps two or more people in a relationship with each other is their own commitment to maintain that relationship. I am committed to doing his will; the only thing that will change that is if he decides to intentionally harm me or the relationship. Knight's Kyra

Daddyslilpookie -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 8:18:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: julietsierra Well, in my world, I am a slave to my Master. It may not mean the same thing to ANYONE else out there, but to me, being his slave means that I love (yep, the L-word) him and am obedient to him to the extent that I do not question what he chooses for me to do. I don't consider myself his servant. I don't consider my existence with him to be merely one of his convenience. I love. I simply love so much so that all the rest doesn't matter. And so, I never worry too much about how other people see slavery. They're not living my life and I'm not living theirs. I'm his until he no longer wants me. I'll do what he wants until he doesn't want me to do it anymore. None of the rest matters. juliet oh yes... I'm also a slave to fashion - but that encompasses a whole different definition. I am and feel the same the same way, I am Daddy's slave and he is my Master. I don't care what other people think, it's my life so who are you to judge.[;)]

lubegirl -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 8:50:06 AM)
i role play submissive with other DOMMEN that MASTER has me entertain when we swing. However in real life my MASTER is very "real" to me i am HIS commited happy slave HE decides everything..where i live, what i eat,when i exercise, who i fuck, when i sleep and wake, which friends i can meet for coffee or girlfriends, what i wear, what color my nails, hair is. Where i work..and HE has access to my bank account my earnings are all HIS, how much i spend and on what. i am not at liberty to make any plans or decisions without consulting HIM and i wait patiently for HIS response. MASTER makes all of my decisions and when i am faced with a circumstance where i need to make an immediate decision i am allowed to do what i feel MASTER would want me to do. The results from this kind of love and devotion and respect for my MASTER have made me feel so complete and given me an incredible natural high and screaming orgasms on HIS command. I love being HIS slave and am thankful to GOD and the Universe for bringing me to HIM. Lubegirl

Maya2001 -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 9:42:43 AM)
quote: Great question! This touches the heart of what lays between the core of many Ds & Ms relationships. I presume it is a negotiated limits D/s relationship with a mark of ownership on the submissive? I would imagine that from the D/s perspective you feel you own your submissive under conditional terms and limits of the relationship. From my narrow M/s perspective, it's not property if it negotiates. It's more like a conditional employment than ownership. Inorder to be consentual there is negotiation taking place with agreement to submit to an authority transfer relationship and is conditional even though unspoken terms exist based on your treatment of your slave because if you go beyond the limits the slave can handle ..they will leave you and walk away, that includes making allowances, example if your spending time with the slaves family at christmas or if they are ill etc. I will admit my views are skewed differently as to how I view real life slavery/TPE based on life experiences was in marriage where he viewed the marriage certificate as ownership of property allowing him total control with no consent on my part and not what I expected when I entered into the marriage, it meant isolating me from family and friends, taking away my means to leave, money access to vehicle, phones removed or locked in a room , my property confiscated and threatening to or beating up anyone that tried to interfere, control through fear, intimidation and beatings, there was no agreement to submission, it was surrendered out of fear of the consequences until I finally could leave 2 years later when a temporary move gave me the opportunity and window of time to leave and go into hiding with aid from a neighbour and the police. Looking at from that perspective of slavery is a lot different than one where one agrees to relationship of servitude Because of my experiences I view my experiences as RL slavery, where as consentual slavery in terms of M/s a form of extended roleplay that one can slip in and out of according to current circumstances at the time(mostly on the part of the master yielding his authority to when it is appropriate , for eg you may wish to have your slave blow you but if family or friends are over for dinner, you won't demand it until a more appropriate time) and that the slave is agreeing to submit knowing it cannot be absolute power of authority otherwise consent would be withdrawn if they felt it would be harmful to them emotionally or physically or where they can discuss a problem they are having with their master Mind you I do understand what others are trying to say when they speak of the difference between lifestyle(instead of the term real life slavery) and roleplay ...one exists with a greater agreed upon transfer of authority over a specified time frame but regardless they are both negotiated and do have acknowledged limits even if they are unspoken ... ..... the arguments tend to stem from use of words to describe the relationship and each persons view of the meaning. for exampe I don't care for the term TPE, and feel authority transfer as being more appropriate or using the term real life slavery. In Archer's example of life debt slavery it does not require a transfer of authority inorder to serve, it can be one sided .. they may forsee a need and act upon themselves in their desire to aid and please that is unless the recipient of requests it, which is quite a bit different than lifestyle slavery where it is expected/demandedinorder to fulfill the role of both parties

Floggings4You -> RE: -=RL Slavery vs Role-play Slavery=- (4/12/2008 9:52:18 AM)
Real-life slavery is illegal, and (IMO) immoral. A great deal of the thrill of D/s for Me is that it is consensual; that the person submitting to My will, to My desires, has freely (and continually) chosen to do so, and is turned on by doing what turns Me on, etc.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875