Demspotis
Posts: 61
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
|
We won't get any definitive answer here, because there's many conflicting opinions and ideologies. :)
But for what it's worth, here's my legalistic answer:
"Lower" refers to social heirarchy. Among the free, there is social heirarchy, called either class or caste. There are many cultures, with different relative positions for many of the classes. And then there are differences between ideals and realities. Some examples, in the traditional Japanese class system, particularly as codified and rigidified by Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu, merchants were considered lower than peasants, though higher than untouchables such as butchers, tanners and executioners. In the Gorean caste system, there is some ambiguity: the merchants want to be considered "high caste" and the "high castes" have severe doubts about that! There is somewhat of a real world reflection of that, too: in India, on one hand, merchants are classified with warriors and priests/academics as the high classes, apart from the common workers; and on the other hand, they are sometimes also classed with the workers, apart from the warriors and priests who have higher ideals and values, theoretically.
Now then, below those free classes are such groups as serfs, slaves and outlaws. In some cases, slaves may be considered outside the social heirarchy altogether, but sometimes they are considered the lowest. Either way, in general, a slave is lowest in that sense. (The fact that we masters and mistresses may treasure our two-legged pets very highly, as I do, is a separate issue! :))
However, within the category of slaves, there can be heirarchy as well. So in that heirarchy, certainly one slave may be lower than another. But they are still also equally slaves in regard to any non-slave.
A submissive who is not a slave is free, and has as much as anyone else to have a slave. Does it make that slave any lower than other slaves? Not legalistically. Socially, perhaps, but it seems like a very subjective thing.
Can a slave own slaves? That depends very much on the legal ideas involved. In some forms of slavery, a slave may own nothing. In others, a slave might have the right to own property, including slaves, but still be owned by another. Even in that case, at least legalistically, the slave-of-a-slave is not "lower" than other slaves, but the social ideas about it may be subjective.
What about for people in the BDSM world? There is no overarching set of rules that apply to all. Essentially, the rules of slavery in every M/s relationship in the BDSM world are negotiated separately. Some masters/mistresses may say that the slave owns nothing, while others may have no such idea, and everything in between. As such, in that sphere, we can't make any legalistic determination, and so it comes down to subjective opinions among the people.
Heh... so in the end, this doesn't help much, because there is no one standard answer. Oh well... hope it helps someone in some way, though...
|
RE: lower then a slave - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread