RE: slavery

RE: slavery (Full Version)

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

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 6:24:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RainydayNE 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. Actually the mixture of the two statements, makes for indentured servitude. So what are your opinions on that? Does someone have the right to sign themselves away for a period of time? What about adding in some laws that prevent killing or neglect, similar to what there is for animals? quote: 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." Most people do not understand any type of slavery, except for that which happened in the American colonies. So if there were someone that wanted to be a slave, no matter what, since their opinion differs from yours, would you say there was something mentally wrong with them? quote: 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. Yep. If someone wanted that existance, then what? quote: maybe "contractual slavery" would've been better : if the government instituted contractual slavery, if the government recongnized contractual slavery, or even indentured servitude. "Signing yourself over" indicates there would have been a need for a contract. Now that would be indentured servitude though. quote: but talk of "bringing back slavery" means going back to what we had before, and it's controversial for a reason. And that reason would be the treatment of those slaves, along with the belief that all people should be free, whether they want to be free or not. Interesting indeed. edit: Spelling errors

Aszhrae -> RE: slavery (12/7/2008 10:06:17 PM)
Yes. Orion' is correct, when most think of slavery they think of slave trade to the americas. However there are other forms of slavery practiced in the world. In the ancient times and even now, 'white slave trade'. People disappear all the time.

RainydayNE -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 5:02:37 AM)
oh i know there are tons of different sorts of slavery. there's a type of "slavery" practiced by africans where you're sold to a master for the benefit of your family AND yourself. and your master is responsible for taking care of you for a pre-determined time, and they usually teach you a skill so that when you're "free" again, you have something to show for your time. it all reflects on the master and how good he was. and when people see what a good person you became under him, more people wll want to send family members to that master, etc etc. that's more contracted/indentured. i actually know people who've spent time in this sort of existence and they don't think it's a bad thing at all. and contrast to that, on the same continent, there are muslim schools holding their students as slaves in essence. they don't actually even learn anything, but they were sent there under the belief that they would learn something. however they spend their lives in total misery, pandering for money to give back to the school (and usually the leader of the school, not for the benefit of said school). different thing altogether. and there's not even any selling involved. yes there are lots of different kinds and people tend to think of the type we had here, blah blah blah, etc etc etc, but guess what -- most of us are American, and that's just what it "means" over here. i'm not against people being who they are. that's why at the end of my post, i went on about different stipulations that could be added. (online arguments are always a bit "farcical" =p i love how i'm accused of thinking something's "mentally wrong" with someone when i never said anything like that) but bringing BACK slavery like what we had would just be dumb. and it's not "romantic." if the government wanted to open a slot for recognition of slavery in the contracted or indentured sense, then sure, go ahead. you can "contract" to someone who WILL treat you like a pure chattel slave. alot of people already have situations like that in their M/s relationships and if they signed themselves over, that wouldn't change. but if slavery were opened up across the board, then it would affect alot more people than you. the idea that I'M operating on, whether it was the OPs intention or not, is that the government re-institutes slavery, PERIOD. not just for those quirky BDSM people who like to "say" they're slaves, but for anyone. then it's not about "kink." people would be importing slaves from cambodia or wherever else, TRUE nonconsensual slaves, and nothing in their lives is romantic. they aren't doing anything they want to do. "whether they want to be or not" in terms of freedom is something that we apply to the issue based on the way we look at it from THIS position, as people involved in a bunch of activities that may or may not include consensual slavery. some people DO want to be slaves, but alot of people know that their Master can't really do anything to them, it's all very safe. but it has nothing to do with the other people who would be affected. i doubt anybody else thinks "well what if they WANT to be slaves?" (CERTAINLY not in places where chattel slavery is still running rampant) unless they're already into the M/s kink. =p i could be wrong, but this is all my OPINION after all =p it touches on a sore nerve for alot of people. and people who pose these sorts of questions will just have to understand that. there should always be more clarification. =p

rabinyaZharovna -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 6:01:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynn1947 If the government brought back real and legal slavery, would you sign yourself over to your Owner as his/her slave? Yes, without a moments hesitation. Would it change anything between He and I? No because it is already how our relationship operates. Personally though I would find a bit of peace in having the fact that I have ownership of nothing, that I am His property to do with as He pleases, being documented in a legal sense. In the same way that marriage gives some people a sense of completeness to their relationship, legally being His slave would give me the same. Also, because I find "putting a face on" for the outside world to be a struggle, for me, it would be quite liberating to be able to simply state I am His slave. rz{Ph0enixF1re}

Aswad -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 6:28:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: krikket Why would we want to back to those horrible days when the future, for all it's uncertainty, is so much more... Do you really want the long-winded answer to that? The brief answer would be: don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Health, al-Aswad.

IrishMist -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 6:32:35 AM)
quote: If the government brought back real and legal slavery, would you sign yourself over to your Owner as his/her slave? *If, and only IF* it was to the man of my choice.

Aswad -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 6:33:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: XaviersXian OP, this same topic was, at one time, discussed on the Gorean slave thread. The discussion there might be of use to you. No, that was not the same topic. It was a circumspect inquiry about how people interpreted and responded to the question, aimed at the Gorean crowd, which makes the nature of the question rather oblique. One of Bull's more devious moments in recent history. It is also a dead thread that people have been ressurrecting (one of those consonants is superfluous, I'm sure) repeatedly, despite the best efforts of pretty much everyone there to put an end to it, since CM does not encourage thread necromancy. Anyone who cares to read it is encouraged not to keep it undead. Health, al-Aswad.

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 6:47:37 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. 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 didn't miss that and my answer still will be a resounding no. i do not view Daddy as Master to me and He in turns does not see me as slave to Him simple as that

Aswad -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 7:02:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Real bright spot in the history of the nation. argh..... Actually, without intending to imply that it was a good thing (it wasn't, in my mind), there are a few angles to it that are rarely considered. Paraphrasing someone from another board: "For myself, I'm very glad my grandma sucked white cock, or else I'd be stuck with no food, no clean water, no education, no medicine, no future, a bunch of kids who would be no better off than myself, and the twisted idea that I could rid myself of AIDS by passing it on to a virgin." That's just one example of alternate views that have been presented. It might also qualify as a dim moment in African history, since local slave merchants did sell a significant fraction of the slaves, due to the high demand. Sure, they were probably shortchanged. But the fact remains that a lot of Africans participated in selling their own future to the west, and generally from the deep end of their gene pool. Compared to the Slavic peoples, that exhibits a lot of traits that are present in some cultures in Africa today, and which is still causing them trouble. Not something I know enough about to give one of my usual, long-winded opinions on, though. Regardless, though, evolution affects cultures as well as species: those who adapt, survive; those who fail, die off; diversity is overall good; assisting cultures in the process of extinction in avoiding extinction is tampering with the natural process of selection, just like saving species that are endangered for other reasons than human intervention is tampering with the same process. Somehow, though, this seems to get a lot less attention than the far more natural prospect of transhumanism and genetic engineering, which merely extends the existing human tendency to actively adapt on a far shorter timescale than most multicelled organisms can do. Personally, I would have reservations about some models of slavery, while others could actually be gainfully employed as humanitarian efforts (!). Health, al-Aswad.

celticlord2112 -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 7:15:55 AM)
quote: Also, because I find "putting a face on" for the outside world to be a struggle, for me, it would be quite liberating to be able to simply state I am His slave. It seems this is the prevailing rationale for why a legal recognition is desirable. There does not appear to be a tangible legal benefit other than social recognition and acceptance. Is our social programming so deeply ingrained that we need the blessings of others to live our lives as we see fit?

Aswad -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 7:29:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael I know this is a hot fantasy for many but considering that slaves rebel, it is clear that legal ownership is far less controlling and "owned" than many submissives and even bottoms and bedroom subs feel for their "owner". Rebellion is strongly tied to conditions and relative population size. When the number of slaves exceed the number of free, you obviously have a little bit of a numbers problem if the slaves stop thinking about themselves individually and start worrying about the group instead. Similarly, if there is a lot of oppression, then the incentive to rebel is higher, while beyond a certain point it becomes discouraging. Consider historical regimes. It's usually not a big problem for an oppressive dictator to retain power- unless they cross a line, their problems won't begin until they decide to loosen the reins. Humans as a whole tend to choose safety over liberty, and those who do... well... I believe one of your historical figures had something to say about them? Slavery is a choice. Sometimes it is a difficult choice. Sometimes, it is a choice where the only other option is death. Life presents us with such difficult choices at times. It presented my mother with the choice of whether to pursue a treatment that would most likely leave her a different person than when she started out, or to terminate treatment for her fatal condition. When she was in a coma, me and my sister were presented with the choice of whether to enact her will to disengage life support, or to keep her alive until the immediate crisis passed. Such choices are not easy for those involved. But there are inescapable consequences to any course of action, including the null choice (the existence of inescapable consequences does not permit one to not make a choice, it only permits a null choice- a default- and an active choice). We can't shield people from difficult choices, or from living with whatever consequences follow from their choices, nor do I think it would be appropriate to do so, as that would deprive them of accountability, which is the other side of the coin of liberty. In essence, it would be no different than slavery to eliminate the choice. It becomes a question of benign vs malign ownership. And that question is, IMO, better addressed by generalizing the laws that apply to the ownership of other species of living beings. Animal rights are long due for an overhaul, for instance. The only difference between ownership of a non-human animal and ownership of a human animal is cultural in nature, except for the differences in capabilities, of course. And, needless to say, humans are unsuitable as livestock (energy requirements scale as you move up the food chain) and unsuitable as food (pathogenic compatibility and prion diseases make this a non-starter). But the practice is not without precedent, considering that a billion people around the world worship a man whose mother was the slave of a master craftsman charged with rebuilding Galilée. Another part of the question is entry routes. If one is talking about consensual entry into legally binding slavery, then there's no reason why one couldn't simply sue for it in the same manner as one would sue for emancipation. That places the costs and the burden of proof of consent on the parties that are looking to use this option. If one is talking about non-consensual entry into legally binding slavery, then there are potential ethical concerns. It seems to be undesireable to reintroduce debt slavery without serious modifications. It is counterproductive in the justice system, except as something to use when there is no intention of attempting rehabilitation. But it has serious humanitarian applications, for instance, and would probably be a preferrable route for prisoners of the "war on terror," who otherwise get stuck with no rights and no time frame for release. Whether people think it's hot or not, is largely irrelevant. There's no reason to allow wetness or a hard-on as an entry condition. quote: To me it would be meaningless and as Leadership said, I would fight against it because it is morally wrong. Morality is a fashion that changes frequently, and which varies from culture to culture. Some people fight against BDSM because it's morally wrong. Some people fought against ending racial segregation because it was morally wrong. Some people fight to keep women in a burkha because it would be morally wrong for them to go without. A bit of rational pragmatism and a solid ethical foundation makes a better starting point for determining whether something is moral than does the prevailing prejudices of any one segment of the population. quote: I value the look of devotion in her eyes far more than any words on any piece of paper, for in the end, what else is there? Quite so. In regard to anyone I care for, I definitely share this sentiment. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 7:32:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub If the government allowed for a different kind of slavery, or some other system, which allowed me to be owned but protected the rights of my children and there a "Slave ASPCA" in place, I would more seriously consider it. However, it would have to be system where I didn't lose all rights - I lost the rights I agreed to lose in my contract. Nice to hear a voice of reason on the subject. Thanks for bringing up the point about hereditary status; that's definitely one of the things that would simplify the picture a lot to do without. Health, al-Aswad.

slavegirljoy -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 7:33:30 AM)
Well, it's too late, now, to edit so, i will just reply to my own posting, instead. The main reason why i would not want to see a return to government-sanctioned slavery is because i prefer the government to stay out of my private life. The government already regulates too much, as it is, in my opinion. The less government is involved in my private life, the better. As a privately-owned slave, i have the life that i have always wanted and i don't want government coming in and messing with it. i don't want or need the government sanctioning anything that i do in my private life. i don't want government to have any role in deciding whether or not i am a slave and what "rights" i have as a slave. i don't want their approval or their regulations or their "benefits", including their "protection". i don't want government regulating how i am to be disciplined or punished by my Master. i don't want government to determine that, since i'm a slave, my children must be slaves, too. The list goes on.... As far as i can tell, from what i have read, government-sanctioned slavery wasn't great before and there isn't any reason for me to believe that it would be any better now. This slave is quite content with my life, as it is, and i didn't need the government's help in getting here. So, i say, "No, thank you" to any form of government-sanctioned/regulated slavery. joy Master David's erotic-domestic slave

Aswad -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 7:37:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit I think people are mostly responding from a place of emotion and not one from logic in this thread. In my experience, "in this thread" is redundant, but, yes. quote: I wonder how the debt collectors for my hospital bills would take to that argument... It would certainly add some pressure to health reform in your politics, yes? [;)] That said, there's a difference between having a specific, seperate arrangement, having the option of including it as clauses in other contracts, and having it be something that can be entered into without consent (e.g. in the hospital scenario, the difference between having it as a clause in a contract, vs you waking up after an accident to find that your bills are subject to such a clause without having signed anything). quote: Do I think such a thing is realistic and workable? Well, given the number of people who enter into legal contracts with credit card companies and manage to destroy their financial health, I don't think I will be casting my vote for it. Not a big fan of social darwinism? [:D] Health, al-Aswad.

ishyB -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 8:30:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: XaviersXian OP, this same topic was, at one time, discussed on the Gorean slave thread. The discussion there might be of use to you. No, that was not the same topic. It was a circumspect inquiry about how people interpreted and responded to the question, aimed at the Gorean crowd, which makes the nature of the question rather oblique. One of Bull's more devious moments in recent history. It is also a dead thread that people have been resurrecting (one of those consonants is superfluous, I'm sure) repeatedly, despite the best efforts of pretty much everyone there to put an end to it, since CM does not encourage thread necromancy. Anyone who cares to read it is encouraged not to keep it undead. Health, al-Aswad. Greetings Master, the discussion xian referred to isn't the 'none-consensual slavery' topic but a discussion held recently on the girly topic. The discussion started with this post if anybody cares to read it. I wish you well, ishy

AquaticSub -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 9:10:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Nice to hear a voice of reason on the subject. Thanks for bringing up the point about hereditary status; that's definitely one of the things that would simplify the picture a lot to do without. Health, al-Aswad. I do my best. [:)] How the children of slaves were treated under law in a new system would be one of my primary concerns as I definately want to be a mother and I never want to lose the right to care for my child - or have them sold/given away.

celticlord2112 -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 9:42:28 AM)
quote: How the children of slaves were treated under law in a new system would be one of my primary concerns as I definately want to be a mother and I never want to lose the right to care for my child - or have them sold/given away. Not to belittle your desires, but doesn't this defeat the idea of a "legal" slavery/indentured servitude?

AquaticSub -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 11:58:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: How the children of slaves were treated under law in a new system would be one of my primary concerns as I definately want to be a mother and I never want to lose the right to care for my child - or have them sold/given away. Not to belittle your desires, but doesn't this defeat the idea of a "legal" slavery/indentured servitude? Not in the slightest. The children of indentured servants - from my recollections of history - were not bound legally to those who held their parents' contract. Regardless, a new system (one I would support at any rate and which I've been discussing) would not be based on previous systems except loosely but instead would create a legal recognition of my particular commitment, similar to a marriage. To say that all children born to slaves/owned parties are free until they reach the age of majority and consent to be owned themselves would create no particular problem that I can see. I also do not see keeping my parental rights as a problem - in theory, in this new and improved system, one could give them up but as the child would be free the free parent would continue to have their legal duties to their offspring and could not sell them as chattel. You have to remember, I am not, in any way, supporting bringing back any system (other than perhaps indentured servant) but am in favor of a new creation with new rules. Do I think it will happen? Most likely not as it would be fraught with difficulties in the planning and, in the end, it likely wouldn't achieve anything that one can't achieve simply through devotion. But it could be nice.

rabinyaZharovna -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 12:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Also, because I find "putting a face on" for the outside world to be a struggle, for me, it would be quite liberating to be able to simply state I am His slave. It seems this is the prevailing rationale for why a legal recognition is desirable. There does not appear to be a tangible legal benefit other than social recognition and acceptance. Is our social programming so deeply ingrained that we need the blessings of others to live our lives as we see fit? It would be great to say, I don't care what anyone thinks, but that isn't the reality... not really. It's easy to say and mean on a superficial level.. do I care if so and so likes me? No. Do I care if so and so likes how I wear my hair? No... and so on. The reality though is that if none of us cared about how we would be regarded by family, friends or business associates we would all be speaking publically and openly about it... yet few of us are able to do so. Is it because we care what they think? Or is it because we regard it as none of their business? Or is it because we are realistic enough to understand that there are some things that are simply beyond others understanding and acceptance, meaning that the hardship it would impose on us, for them to know, isn't worth it? I find chalking it up to "needing their blessings to live our lives," to be an overly simplistic view of the issue of others knowing. Do I want their blessing? No. Do I realize that it wouldn't be understood, that I would lose business, that my family would think and preach to me that I needed counseling, rather than letting me enjoy my life? yes. Do I wish that weren't the case? Yes. Am I realist? Yes. So that means everyday I go to work and I listen to women babble about relationship issues that I don't ever even think about, and I think carefully about how to phrase things when they ask me why I'm so happy, or I remain silent when they gripe about picking up their husbands socks and on and on, and sometimes, it's utterly exhausting. Sometimes I think of how blissfully wonderful it would be if I could simply say, I can't relate, I'm a slave, and they would understand what that entailed and the moment could simply move by. rz{Ph0enixF1re}

Mercnbeth -> RE: slavery (12/8/2008 1:05:16 PM)
quote: ...The children of indentured servants - from my recollections of history - were not bound legally to those who held their parents' contract... this slave's ancestor ran away, stole a boat and hid out, which was slightly easier for him to do...being white and all...when he inherited the remainder of his deceased parent's contract.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875