MmeGigs
Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raechard The only form of real slavery in my opinion, and it's not going to be popular view but it is how I see it none the less, is non consensual. Anyone that chooses to be a slave at any point has made that choice therefore they aren’t a real slave by the only definition of the word. Your argument is based on there being only one definition of "slave", and that lack of consent is part of that definition. Fact is that there's more than one definition, and which one applies depend on the context. Even then, I don't know that non-consent is an essential part of any of the definitions. In a legal context, non-consent would be a big deal if someone were trying to lock me up for enslaving someone, although it's possible that consent wouldn't get me off the hook depending on the circumstances. In a historical context, non-consent can't be part of the definition. There is plenty of historical evidence for consensual slavery - folks selling themselves into slavery to get food, shelter, etc. - and that in some times and places, slave was a lot better gig than free peasant. That these folks consented didn't change the fact that they were in slavery. Here in the US we had both nonconsensual and consensual slavery. If I wanted to go from Europe to the US and didn't have the $, I could sell myself to someone for a period of time during which I was for all intents and purposes their property - their slave. That was consensual indentured servitude then. It would be illegal slavery today. We're discussing slavery here in the context of kink. In a kinky context it's a very handy label, describing a certain subset/mindset of submission. A lot of kinky people use that label. What is the point in defining "slave" in terms of non-consent when that definition renders the term completely useless in a kinky context, where everything we do is understood to be based on consent?
|