RE: slavery

RE: slavery (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive

Message

Lashra -> RE: slavery (12/6/2008 6:10:58 PM)
My male sub and I differed on this question which, btw, I think is thought provoking. I said No I do not believe in unconsensual slavery PERIOD. His reply was that for me he would do it without hesitation. ~Lashra

OrionTheWolf -> RE: slavery (12/6/2008 6:51:37 PM)
It seems some people have missed the part in bold. Basically it looks like contractual slavery. I always find it odd that people say they believe in freedom, but then disallow someone the freedom to give their freedom to another. quote: ORIGINAL: lynn1947 If the government brought back real and legal slavery, would you sign yourself over to your Owner as his/her slave

oceanwynds -> RE: slavery (12/6/2008 7:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It seems some people have missed the part in bold. Basically it looks like contractual slavery. I always find it odd that people say they believe in freedom, but then disallow someone the freedom to give their freedom to another. quote: ORIGINAL: lynn1947 If the government brought back real and legal slavery, would you sign yourself over to your Owner as his/her slave I do apologize for my above ranting. I did understand this question was based in fantasy around contractual slavery. I guess it touched a nerve in me. blessings oceanwynds

xBullx -> RE: slavery (12/6/2008 7:43:08 PM)
Tal Orion, quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I always find it odd that people say they believe in freedom, but then disallow someone the freedom to give their freedom to another. We drink to much of the same koolaid. Thinking alike and all. After watching a good number of threads on this very subject, both here at CM and on boards in other places I have noticed that those that generally side for the conditional and consensual slavery are interestingly enough those that without artificial legal aid would most likely have fallen under the weight of chains themself .The reason might vary, but none the less I feel my theories would stand. I also maintain other opinions on this subject pertaining to those that grovel at the feet of imaginary dominants. This would have to do with lazy critters taking the path of least resistance to the prize. In a less "civil" world these individuals would most often meet a timely demise. I happen to think we have an advance surplus of these beast at present and thus have a society in chaos, but that's a whole 'nother story. In the end slavery isn't what is bad, it's actually part of our nature. Hell maybe we need a better term for the condition in order to bypass the stereotypes and negative connotation that surround an all to corruptable yet potentially beautiful and or fulfilling reality. You see it's those that would abuse the concept that are the real problem. Now before any of you discover this a personal attack or an unfounded alligation; by sure to understand this is only an opinion and you are welcome to find disagreement, no singular comment is all that important anyway, but it is important to consider all things possible. It also bears mention I am not in favor of simply inacting some random state of slavery. The weight of ignorance, greed, selfish human nature; along with the lack of sufficient nobility and honor would not only lead to tyranny and unjust human subjugation, but would do nothing to help those that carry the heart of a slave to find personal freedom.

MadRabbit -> RE: slavery (12/6/2008 8:01:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx It also bears mention I am not in favor of simply inacting some random state of slavery. The weight of ignorance, greed, selfish human nature; along with the lack of sufficient nobility and honor would not only lead to tyranny and unjust human subjugation, but would do nothing to help those that carry the heart of a slave to find personal freedom. I have to admit your post was probably one those most extreme Nietzschian opinions I've read in a long time. What are you in favor of? I'm asking out of sincere curiosity and not because I want to argue with you.

celticlord2112 -> RE: slavery (12/6/2008 8:21:56 PM)
quote: I always find it odd that people say they believe in freedom, but then disallow someone the freedom to give their freedom to another. Personally, I've never understood how it could be possible.

isoldePhoenixHse -> RE: slavery (12/6/2008 8:22:25 PM)
I think government has no buisness in my private affairs, be it marriage, or my D/s. I very strongly feel this is in line with seperation of church and state. There are all types of legal provissions that can and have been made to satisfy any and all obligations, rights, needs, ect. between one person and another. Seek these. In Leather angel

OrionTheWolf -> RE: slavery (12/6/2008 8:36:09 PM)
Tal Bull, Very well said, my friend. I could care less about the legality, because as we both know, with excellent mastery our sluts are owned in entirety. I see many people spout things about fighting for freedom, when many do not have a clue what freedom really means. I have learned that they often mean freedom on their terms, which to me is not freedom and is usually an echo of the status quo and a measure of mediocrity. I very much agree with "You see it's those that would abuse the concept that are the real problem." but as with anything that is applied to human frailty of spirit, they often get what they deserve. Live well, Orion

DreamsOfSpider -> RE: slavery (12/6/2008 9:05:45 PM)
No. I can see the appeal, but no. I've been "in the lifestyle" for, um, three weeks... to the extent that I'm "in" at all. Pretty sure my answer won't change over time, though. Even if there were someone in particular I wanted to sign my life away to, I think my self-preservation instincts would kick in.

Hissweetshiv -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 8:04:46 AM)
Okay - i've been with Master over 6 years, so we know each other pretty well. That being said.... yes i would. In a heartbeat. It's no different than the wedding ring and collar i'm already wearing. Both of those are forever commitments.

xBullx -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 8:13:51 AM)
Greetings MadRabbit, quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I have to admit your post was probably one those most extreme Nietzschian opinions I've read in a long time. What are you in favor of? I'm asking out of sincere curiosity and not because I want to argue with you. First I would have to admit I'm not now nor have I ever been a student of Nietzsche. Though being a descendent of the Germanic tribe I reckon the possibility of shared blood exists. Actually I would assume Norman is a student of his and at that, via proxy it must be considered I am then a student as well. As for your query, “what am I in favor of?” I am afraid I have no singular position or comment at this point in time. You see my opinion as to the corruption of society wasn’t spawned overnight and therefore I am certain, absent a meteor collision that wipes out the majority of the populace that I have no logical point of recalibration. You see humans are as individuals, often enough weak creatures of habit and community. The vast majority fit within the beta section of social order. It is the assimilation of various survival concepts through trial and error that have seen to our very survival (note it is not personal/individual survival I am alluding to, but rather the species in general). It bears mention though that within each of us flows the DNA and erudition of centuries of gathered information. We are the wolf pack… Often within our arrogance it is popular to dismiss certain concepts of natures intended orders, so we more often than not relish in the fact that our external perversions are able to supplement change. But to me it seems rather obvious that when we remove our rose colored glasses our society may not have socially advanced as a civilization but rather simply perverted its existence. We before long will be faced with catastrophically proportioned challenges that make our recent economic woes appear miniscule. I rather doubt a thread about legal slavery is where to discuss with challenges of the coming centuries, but you must consider that honestly understanding ALL of our own internal compulsions will be vital to establishing any real sense of natural harmony. Most of us on a site like this dwell within a segment of society that is most often chastised or shunned for our social oddities and even at that when we are faced with concepts that challenge our own persoanlly perceived truths we lash out, cry foul and attempt to lecture as to reality or what is right. So my opinion is not to create a legal condition of “SLAVERY” but rather a social acceptance for all to be that which they are without the interruption of the self proclaimed righteous. I myself blame the foundations of unnatural manipulation along with social control and subjugation upon both of the confused segments of the children of Abraham. And Abraham owned slaves, go figure. So in a synopsis of the above I hope it is visible that I see no one answer fits all our misgivings. Thanks for the inquiry.

AquaticSub -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 9:47:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth perhaps it would have been a better idea to suggest the words "indentured servitude", to describe the "sign yourself over to your Owner", for those wanting to run with the historically accurate version of the words/terms, instead of the controversial word "slavery". Indentured servitude has much more appeal to me than the idea of bringing back slavery (there the key word really was back as opposed to a new form with new rules that were undefined in the OP). Even in the historical system, it's still owned but there was a time limit and not all rights were lost. That would probably be a better model for consensual relationships. My [sm=2cents.gif]

DesFIP -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 10:20:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It seems some people have missed the part in bold. Basically it looks like contractual slavery. I always find it odd that people say they believe in freedom, but then disallow someone the freedom to give their freedom to another. I don't think we missed that. We just don't like the idea of it. Besides once you've signed yourself in, there's no way to prevent him from then selling you to someone else. More importantly, there's no way out once you enter into it. And that's where the loss of freedom comes in. Lot's of people here give over their freedom to another, but there are protections against misuse of power. In the hypothetical situation that the OP presents, there are no protections.

Tinkerer -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 10:32:18 AM)
quote: Brenardo de la Paz, in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. Id doesn't matter what the law is. If I say on my honor that I belong to my lady, then I do. I find that much more binding that any decree or edict that could ever be passed. I have much more trouble breaking my word than a law. If I choose to let her own me, than she does. We know on what terms the contract is broken, and I cannot leave unless it is, because I have given my word. I stick to what I think is morally right, and leave others alone because I wish to be left alone myself. And while I might be able to ignore a law that binds me to her, my morals cannot ignore my word that I'v given to her.

Aszhrae -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 10:41:30 AM)
Girl agrees with Tinkerer. If upon my word that girl says that she is bound to another and to serve them unconditional in my loyalty. Then my self would be nothing if girl did not keep her word. Would be a wise and experienced domme that gives their word also that certain limits should never be breached.

Mercnbeth -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 11:02:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth perhaps it would have been a better idea to suggest the words "indentured servitude", to describe the "sign yourself over to your Owner", for those wanting to run with the historically accurate version of the words/terms, instead of the controversial word "slavery". Indentured servitude has much more appeal to me than the idea of bringing back slavery (there the key word really was back as opposed to a new form with new rules that were undefined in the OP). Even in the historical system, it's still owned but there was a time limit and not all rights were lost. That would probably be a better model for consensual relationships. My [sm=2cents.gif] indeed...the OP mixed bringing "back" "real and legal" slavery with a "willingly sign yourself over" model of it in the same sentence. it's innacurate. the only thing that could be brought "back" that equates to "signing yourself over" that was "real and legal" is indentured servitude, *not* slavery.

DarkSteven -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 3:21:34 PM)
Anything between my woman and myself is between us. I'm not filling out a Form 1528ZGB for the government, nor am I allowing them into our relationship.

MadRabbit -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 3:22:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Greetings MadRabbit, quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I have to admit your post was probably one those most extreme Nietzschian opinions I've read in a long time. What are you in favor of? I'm asking out of sincere curiosity and not because I want to argue with you. First I would have to admit I'm not now nor have I ever been a student of Nietzsche. Though being a descendent of the Germanic tribe I reckon the possibility of shared blood exists. Actually I would assume Norman is a student of his and at that, via proxy it must be considered I am then a student as well. As for your query, “what am I in favor of?” I am afraid I have no singular position or comment at this point in time. You see my opinion as to the corruption of society wasn’t spawned overnight and therefore I am certain, absent a meteor collision that wipes out the majority of the populace that I have no logical point of recalibration. You see humans are as individuals, often enough weak creatures of habit and community. The vast majority fit within the beta section of social order. It is the assimilation of various survival concepts through trial and error that have seen to our very survival (note it is not personal/individual survival I am alluding to, but rather the species in general). It bears mention though that within each of us flows the DNA and erudition of centuries of gathered information. We are the wolf pack… Often within our arrogance it is popular to dismiss certain concepts of natures intended orders, so we more often than not relish in the fact that our external perversions are able to supplement change. But to me it seems rather obvious that when we remove our rose colored glasses our society may not have socially advanced as a civilization but rather simply perverted its existence. We before long will be faced with catastrophically proportioned challenges that make our recent economic woes appear miniscule. I rather doubt a thread about legal slavery is where to discuss with challenges of the coming centuries, but you must consider that honestly understanding ALL of our own internal compulsions will be vital to establishing any real sense of natural harmony. Most of us on a site like this dwell within a segment of society that is most often chastised or shunned for our social oddities and even at that when we are faced with concepts that challenge our own persoanlly perceived truths we lash out, cry foul and attempt to lecture as to reality or what is right. So my opinion is not to create a legal condition of “SLAVERY” but rather a social acceptance for all to be that which they are without the interruption of the self proclaimed righteous. I myself blame the foundations of unnatural manipulation along with social control and subjugation upon both of the confused segments of the children of Abraham. And Abraham owned slaves, go figure. So in a synopsis of the above I hope it is visible that I see no one answer fits all our misgivings. Thanks for the inquiry. Thanks for the response. It was a really interesting read and there is a couple of opinions we see eye to eye on.

RainydayNE -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 3:41:41 PM)
yeah probably not a good idea. you can romanticize slavery and "signing yourself over" all you want to but real genuine slavery is nonconsensual by definition. what if someone came and made you their slave before you got a chance to CONSENT and sign yourself over to your beloved master? consent of signing yourself over makes it not REAL slavery. and say you signed yourself over to your owner and then your owner sold you because s/he found a pretty shiney new slave to purchase and play with? real actual slavery isn't anything to fantasize about, i don't think. i don't think anyone here really experiences anything like actual nonconsensual slavery. they can be killed on their master's whims, sold away from their families, shipped all across the globe, etc etc etc. it didn't really go over well the first time we had it in this country and it still lingers as one of the evils of the modern world.

RainydayNE -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 3:48:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It seems some people have missed the part in bold. Basically it looks like contractual slavery. I always find it odd that people say they believe in freedom, but then disallow someone the freedom to give their freedom to another. quote: ORIGINAL: lynn1947 If the government brought back real and legal slavery, would you sign yourself over to your Owner as his/her slave people give their freedom away all the time in M/s relationships. nobody's against that. (whenever i think M/s, i always think Mercandbeth and i dont even know them =p go figure) the bolded section contradicts the section that PRECEDES it. if the government brought BACK real and legal slavery -- "bringing back" generally refers to returning to a previous state. what was slavery like before? it had nothing to do with exercising your freedom to "truly be who you are" or any other romantic phrase for what people do in the "lifestyle." real and legal slavery back then and even as it exists today is not about your freedom to give away your freedom, it's not about being who you truly are. it's about property and all the things you can do with said property, and that's it. maybe "contractual slavery" would've been better : if the government instituted contractual slavery, if the government recongnized contractual slavery, or even indentured servitude. but talk of "bringing back slavery" means going back to what we had before, and it's controversial for a reason.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.375