The Indenture model

The Indenture model (Full Version)

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

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> The Indenture model (7/28/2008 11:45:52 AM)
I've been following several posts on the board comparing 'submissives' and 'slaves'. To me, the expression "slave", when used in a BDSM context, is a very inaccurate representation of both slavery in its traditional form -and- the particular relationship that many consider 'slavery' in the BDSM realm. There is a model that could be effectively implemented, would compel a similar richness of service and inevitibility to the relationship, and yet would be technically viable, even in our modern time. This is the model of indentured servitude. Indentured servitude opens the doorway for submission that is bound to a contract, which is how most modern BDSM slavery is shaped. It allows for negotiation of terms (another feature of modern BDSM slavery), and stipulates the grounds under which an individual can end their indenture, either on a schedule or if certain events that breach the terms of the original agreement occur (again, note the similarities to modern BDSM slavery). For those seeking the immersion of "slavery", indenture would provide the same level of intellectual bondage, but would not roll over into the semantically questionable non-consentual expression that makes the BDSM version of slavery a less than accurate description of the relationship. Calla Firestorm

softpjOS -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 12:08:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW I've been following several posts on the board comparing 'submissives' and 'slaves'. To me, the expression "slave", when used in a BDSM context, is a very inaccurate representation of both slavery in its traditional form -and- the particular relationship that many consider 'slavery' in the BDSM realm. I doubt anyone here would try to argue that the term slave used here is supposed to mirror the historical use of the word. There is a model that could be effectively implemented, would compel a similar richness of service and inevitibility to the relationship, and yet would be technically viable, even in our modern time. This is the model of indentured servitude. Indentured servitude opens the doorway for submission that is bound to a contract, which is how most modern BDSM slavery is shaped. It allows for negotiation of terms (another feature of modern BDSM slavery), and stipulates the grounds under which an individual can end their indenture, either on a schedule or if certain events that breach the terms of the original agreement occur (again, note the similarities to modern BDSM slavery). There are as quite possibly as many negative/nonconsentual historical references to the words " indentured servitude" as the term "slave". For those seeking the immersion of "slavery", indenture would provide the same level of intellectual bondage, but would not roll over into the semantically questionable non-consentual expression that makes the BDSM version of slavery a less than accurate description of the relationship. The ONLY accurate description of my relationship with Mistress is the one we place on it. If Her referring to me as Her slave confuses anyone, i'd suggest asking Her what Her thoughts/reasons behind using the term are. I don't just assume that because someone says they are a slave they are treated the same as me, do the same things as i do, have the same tasks expected... each individual relationship is based on those involved and not some "set in stone" definition set by others. Labels/titles are used to give a general idea, not an exact definition of our relationship. Calla Firestorm

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 12:19:36 PM)
As a second question -- Why do you think that the community clings so strongly to the word "slave"? Calla Firestorm

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 12:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW As a second question -- Why do you think that the community clings so strongly to the word "slave"? It is a strong word...something taboo...and, for some, it does describe the nature of their relationship. For some, slavery is non-consensual, but not in the way it was for historical slaves. Modern BDSM-based slavery is one of nature, not force. The slave does not consent to their need to be owned, just as a junkie does not consent to their need for more smack. Slaves think of themselves as slaves, even when they are not owned, because it is the need that is non-consensual, not the ownership. A slave picks their owner, not their need to be owned. Taggard

softpjOS -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 12:35:31 PM)
Quite possibly for the same reasons some cling to the term "Mistress", "Master"... Each relationship and the people in it have their own reasons for using the label/title that most clearly represents their role within said relationship. For some it comes down to their own personal views on what a "sub" or a "slave" is to THEM. For others it's simply a fetish thing... Only they can say why they prefer one over the other. Why is it we see so much debate/concern/distaste for the term "slave" and yet it's perfectly fine to slap on other titles/labels that history and even current society in general says were/are "unacceptable"? Personally i find other terms just as questionable as many seem to find "slave", but i'm willing to keep an open mind and ask why they choose that term. By doing such, often i find myself understanding and accepting, perhaps not agreeing but at least understanding their perspective on it.

leadership527 -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 1:51:00 PM)
OP #1: of course, not only has "indentured servitude" historically had a great many examples of non-consentuality, but in addition, the contract you speak of is also a fiction (as in not legally enforceable) so the "intendured servitude" you are looking for is no more "real" than "slavery". In short, while I get it that you really dislike that word, the bottom line is that the rest of the community seems to use it. Languages evolve over time and this is one of those evolutions. What's the issue? OP#2: If you want my guess why the community clings to it, I'd say that in general, this community clings to anything that is counter-culture. The more abnormal and shocking something is, the better. In addition, the internet has allowed the gorean contingent to really get organized and at least in my travels, I'm seeing gor all over the place. In gor, subs are called slaves. So I think we're looking at a social dynamic here wherein "slave" has become fashionable becuase a) it's what goreans do and b) because it's "more" than a sub. In short, people will tend to adopt whatever they are first introduced to and gor is serving as a significant entry point nowadays for better or worse. Note, I'm not defending gor, or anything involving the sub/slave divide. I'm just saying what I think is happening at least in my own little neck of the woods.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 6:53:06 PM)
For me maybe it's the same reason I keep using the word switch even though I know how inaccurate a term it is and how badly it gets used. It's still the quickest way to communicate the general concept to the most numbers of people.

DreamsOfSpider -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 7:23:51 PM)
A BDSM slave may not much in common with a historical slave, but that doesn't mean that the word is being used incorrectly. It's just acquired another definition, as words often do. Which is why I'm always leary of arguments that boil down to "you/they aren't really a [noun]." Nouns are really too slippery to play tug-of-war with. That said, I like the idea of indentured servitude... the connotations are more appealing to me than those of slavery. But I doubt you'll talk any slaves into giving up their right to call themselves such. Clearly it resonates for them... even if non-slaves don't understand why.

katie978 -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 7:39:59 PM)
I think it's pretty well-established that most people use slave in an entirely fantastical sense...none of us is here against our wills, and all the slaves here have the right to leave their master whenever they feel like it (whether they think so or not). It's true that BDSM slaves are considereably different than historical ones, but, to be honest, I don't think indentured servitude is any closer to the point. Indentured servants, as I recall, were legally forced to stay where they were until their contracts were fulfilled (not a stipulation of modern slavery), and the contracts were typically filled out by the indentured servant's parents or caretaker. Even when the servant filled them out themselves, they more or less signed on the X or they didn't...there was no negotiation or discussion of limits (again, totally unlike bdsm slavery). The main problem I see with both historical definitions is that there usually wasn't a lot of consent going on-none for the slaves, and indentured servants usually were working off some horrible, unpayable debt that they either had to work off or go to jail for. A BDSM slave is free to leave at any time, has loads of say into who her master is, and never has the choice of finding a master or going to jail.

Leatherist -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 7:41:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: katie978 I think it's pretty well-established that most people use slave in an entirely fantastical sense...none of us is here against our wills, and all the slaves here have the right to leave their master whenever they feel like it (whether they think so or not). It's true that BDSM slaves are considereably different than historical ones, but, to be honest, I don't think indentured servitude is any closer to the point. Indentured servants, as I recall, were legally forced to stay where they were until their contracts were fulfilled (not a stipulation of modern slavery), and the contracts were typically filled out by the indentured servant's parents or caretaker. Even when the servant filled them out themselves, they more or less signed on the X or they didn't...there was no negotiation or discussion of limits (again, totally unlike bdsm slavery). The main problem I see with both historical definitions is that there usually wasn't a lot of consent going on-none for the slaves, and indentured servants usually were working off some horrible, unpayable debt that they either had to work off or go to jail for. A BDSM slave is free to leave at any time, has loads of say into who her master is, and never has the choice of finding a master or going to jail. Nor would anyone today dream of dragging them back if they broke thier contract and ran. Bail jumpers are the closest we come these days-or escaped convicts.

Juliannadelion -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 7:51:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW As a second question -- Why do you think that the community clings so strongly to the word "slave"? It is a strong word...something taboo...and, for some, it does describe the nature of their relationship. For some, slavery is non-consensual, but not in the way it was for historical slaves. Modern BDSM-based slavery is one of nature, not force. The slave does not consent to their need to be owned, just as a junkie does not consent to their need for more smack. Slaves think of themselves as slaves, even when they are not owned, because it is the need that is non-consensual, not the ownership. A slave picks their owner, not their need to be owned. Taggard Well put. I was a slave long before I met my Owner. I have an inherent need to serve. Finding someone worthy of that service, now that is a Herculian task, slave or otherwise. [:D] To please and be pleasing to Him, always, in all ways.

barelynangel -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 7:58:31 PM)
quote: In gor, subs are called slaves On an aside -- This is inaccurate -- there are no "subs" in Gor or Gorean understanding - and Goreans don't think in the terms of subs and Domme's-- there are slaves and there are FW. FW are not dominants and slaves aren't subs within the concept of Gor. angel

Leatherist -> RE: The Indenture model (7/28/2008 8:27:03 PM)
People fly under the radar to do this stuff. It's a covert agreement. Worrying about formalizing something like this is a waste of time.

chamberqueen -> RE: The Indenture model (7/30/2008 7:58:32 PM)
I've noticed that some people tend to compare BDSM slavery to shackles and chains - which some modern slaves may enjoy. : ) My slavery is totally voluntary. I choose consciously to give my will over to my Master every time I see Him. I do tasks for Him, assigned either by Him or by myself, between visits. I have the right to say at any time that I am no longer getting fulfillment from the relationship the way it is and at that point we would discuss what direction things should go in from there.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1875