CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote:
ORIGINAL: poisonedprogress quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact Which is exactly what I said in the first place. In order for a person to be a slave, there must be an M. There is no self-proclamation. So there is no such thing as an unowned slave? quote:
You answered this for yourself, when you said participant*s* (plural) rather than participant (singular). What do you call an unowned slave then? I am beginning to think that you are trying so hard to pigeonhole My definition to match that of yours that you will try to come off with every exception possible. For your benefit, however, I call an unowned slave a slave who has, in some way, lost their prior owner. When I say "lost" that covers all reasons that a slave might no longer be with an owner, be that by intent, design, or death. I do hate to disappoint you, but we are not going to agree on the issue. By My definition, a person is not a slave who has not had an owner. If it makes you feel any better, I have strict definitions for the other side of the kneel as well. Not everybody agrees with Me, which is fine. I do not live their life and they do not live Mine. One thing that always does amaze Me when these kind of threads come up. Some are so willing to say 'everyone's definition should be acceptable' until someone comes around who says their definition might be a little more rigid. You've noted that too, eh? It's funny...there are those who want people to accept their self-definition of themselves and what they are as a "slave", "submissive", "dominant", whatever and what they think fits their definitions for the other characters but who want to fight those with a more rigid definition of themselves as a "slave", "submissive", "dominant", whatever and what they see as necessary to fill the other characters' definitions. After my post yesterday, I went back through my books...Devon & Miller, Wiseman, Lizst, Bannon and, because of what is written there, I thought back to words I've read from others on here about master/slave relationships...Mercnbeth come to mind but there are others...and that led to an alteration of the definition landscape in my mind. But even allowing for this variation, it still comes down to this...you can define yourself however you see fit. Most likely, given the nature of the world...whether D/s or vanilla...you are going to find someone who agrees with your definition. But you are also going to find someone who does not. When the majority of people, be they friends or authoritative sources or enemies or all of the above, disagree with your definition then you just might consider re-examining your position to see if you might be wrong. And just remember, even if you are right... for you and your partner...it doesn't make the other fellow wrong, just because he doesn't agree with your looser definition.
|