RE: Slaves with requirements... (Full Version)

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



Message

welcomerain -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 12:11:58 PM)

quote:

This OP is seeking something that for him is no role-playing game. He wants a real time slave that is the true meaning of the word, who doesn't belong to some slave labor union with a list a mile long that details what she will or won't do. The man wants a slave who won't mind being simple property, who gets off on that kind of thing, and he's certainly entitled to attempt to find one here amongst the lot of you if he so desires, is he not? So what's with all the jeering and the joking? Do you have any idea how it looks? This is not roleplay for everyone. Some actually take this serious.


For fun, try changing the word "slave" in the above to "heterosexual". After all, twue heterosexuals ought to be interested in everyone of the opposite sex, not simply one person who has to jump through hoops to prove himself.

After all, heterosexuality is not roleplay for everyone. Some actually take this serious.

quote:

I would infer that one who labels himself or herself as submissive would behave, at least in some respects, politely, perhaps even in a way "in public" that demonstrates a modicum of what the word "submissive" means. The words "humble, modest, passive" demonstrate a submissive nature. How does rudeness demonstrate anything close to the label one claims? It is, instead, ironic and a contradiction.


This too.

I would infer that one who labels herself as heterosexual would behave, at least in some respects, politely, perhaps even in a way "in public" that demonstrates a modicum of what the word "heterosexual" means.

All dommes in this thread are henceforth requested to stop complaining when I grab their body parts unless they're actively groping another girl at the time.



welcomerain -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 12:32:59 PM)

quote:

Now, some folks want you all to believe that there is a particular 'place' for a submissive, a certain kind of behavior that is expected .. well, there's not because, kiddies, there was no such thing as a 'submissive' back in those Ye Old Glorified, Old Guard days. Tops and bottoms, Masters and slaves and if you weren't gay, you weren't there. Period. Feel free to spin any sort of romantic bullshit onto raw, dirty, stanky sadomasochistic sex and call it what you will .. it's still raw, dirty, stanky SM sex and you can blind yourself to the past, but you can't change it.


This, on the other hand, is teh awesome.

Strangely enough, I've never associated the idea of "old guard" with the gay leathersex aspect. I came of age in the mid-80s and didn't even know much about homosexuality until that scene was on its last legs.

"Old guard" to me meant the contributors to Bizarre magazine and some of its competitors in the 40s and 50s, most of whom were very conservative by any reasonable standard today. There's plenty of fantasy going on in those magazines, but the really interesting contributions were from people doing something different and unique with their spouses when their 2.5 kids were in bed.

Some of them, like the Grangers, would be seen as bizarre even today, but at the time their individuality was even more striking. What they had in common was that they were all fighting the labels and roles that were being placed on them at the time and the idea that if you do A, you have to do B, C and D as well. In most of the letters they wrote, there is some real relief at discovering there was at least one other person out there begging his spouse to wear leather more often.

This is why I just don't get the nitpicking over words like slave and submissive. The scene is finally large enough and well-known enough that most people who want to be involved in it, even in a small way, know about it and know where to look for people who might be similar to them. And since the push for conformity that people had to face in the 1940s is finally gone, we're all supposed to adhere to the Advanced D&S Rules 3rd Edition, as put forward by the Association of Twue Doms?

Screw that. The thing that appealed to me about the scene in the first place was that people were pretty much doing what they wanted and trying to communicate with their partners well enough to understand what the other person liked.



feydeplume -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 1:01:23 PM)

"Advanced D&S Rules 3rd Edition" I think i love you a little bit!



themischievous1 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 3:33:00 PM)

...



DominantDamsel -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 3:57:08 PM)

quote:

Original: Bita Truble DD - How dare you come in here talking down to anyone from your ivory tower, denigrate PEOPLE and what they do and how they do it and how they behave because they don't fall into line with your way of thinking  .. then expect them to kiss your ass with your fake pronouncements and mutilated concepts of universal slavery and dictionary submission.
 Exactly; thank you so much for proving my point. And allow me to repeat, who do you think you are and how dare you jeer and denigrate the man who started this thread while you and many of the others here exhibit the exact same behavior you've accused him and myself of! What an absolute laugh riot! It's you who needs to come down out of your ivory trailer park  and attempt to spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e. It would seem that rude, intolerant, high falootin,' arrogant, jerry springer behavior is the norm around here for one who seems to know her history but isn't all right with another individual's opinion if it's one iota different from her own.

And just for the record, sister, no, I'm not asking you nor do I expect you to "kiss my ass," though I do suggest that you find a large sink big enough to plunger out that nasty cyber mouth you've got on you, or have your -cough- "dom" put it to good use. You're done here as far as I'm concerned and you've earned no respect from me nor anyone else except those who are just like you-- believe me, that is not something to be proud of. 
quote:

Fucking rude my ass. Take a look in the mirror, sister. I hope that cloak of hypocritic crap keeps you warm at night.


In reference to class, simple manners and civility, you're an embarrassment and an insult to whomever calls you his or her own in the little roleplaying game you call D/s and slavery. Even a vanilla can do what you do and they do so often, in case you missed the memo. They practice a little kinky sex with a flogger, and play swinger or pain slut whenever they deem it appropriate; it doesn't make them or you even close to what you claim. Your "costume" and your menopausal rantings might get you a new bus pass when the old one expires...if you're lucky.



ModeratorEleven -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 3:59:02 PM)

Ok children, that's quite enough.

XI



RedMagic1 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 4:31:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantDamsel
Even a vanilla

Kinksters are better than nillas?  I think this really is the point, isn't it?  That somehow you are more true and perfect if you are more slavey and more ownery?

I judge someone's worth based on their level of compassion and concern for the world.  What they do for others, how they treat the less fortunate, not what they call themselves. I don't care what they do in their private relationships, or in their beds.  It kinda falls into the "none of my business" department, know what I mean?

There is more to life than sex, though sometimes people don't feel that way when they get turned down again and again.  But the addition of artificial protocols won't solve the underlying problem.



colouredin -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 4:55:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

I judge someone's worth based on their level of compassion and concern for the world.  What they do for others, how they treat the less fortunate, not what they call themselves. I don't care what they do in their private relationships, or in their beds.  It kinda falls into the "none of my business" department, know what I mean?


You know what Redmagic, wouldnt it be simply wonderful if everyone did this? It is such a shame that people seem to think their way of living is the only way. To me that means you miss out on all the variation and complexity of human beings. That to me is a crying shame.



ModeratorEleven -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 5:09:19 PM)

For those of you who either misunderstood or are just plain ignoring my last post, allow me to reiterate.  Knock off the back and forth personal attacks and the associated cheerleading by the peanut gallery.  I won't say it again, enough is enough.

XI



rastermanblu -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 6:19:21 PM)

In the past there were slaves without choice in their status.  Today in the 21st century we have us doms, subs, slaves, switches.  We all are here by choice.  Who we are is who we decide to be.  If I were a slave, my slavery would complete surrender.  But the surrender would always be my choice.  So do slaves have rights?  As long as they've got a brain. 

There is the game and there is me. 



Jeptha -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 7:42:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

...Unowned property is not your property ...

...Part of the process of becoming bound in servitude is the acceptance of such on both sides as there is no legal ground for M/s relationships beyond acceptance on both sides.
To belabor the property analogy a bit further - property of value does not sit around unowned. If you wish a house or a car, you must negotiate for the title with a title holder.

With consensual slavery, the prospective slave is in effect the title holder.
Perforce they must act as their own agent and representitive because, if it is truly consensual, then it must be by mutual agreement.

Even if one claims to be "no limits", those are the terms agreed to by both parties...negotiated, in other words.

When there is choice there is no evading personal responsibility and personal agency.




welcomerain -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 7:55:29 PM)

quote:

And allow me to repeat, who do you think you are and how dare you jeer and denigrate the man who started this thread while you and many of the others here exhibit the exact same behavior you've accused him and myself of!


I dare all that may become a man. Who dares do more is none.

And as for who do I think I am, well, obviously I'm some kind of superstar.

There are a lot of aspects of the BDSM scene that have no right or wrong answers, but the question the OP asked isn't one of them. He said

quote:

I don't see my car refusing to start for only one sex-so how can a slave make any decision as to who owns them?


Which in plain English is an assertion that no slave has the right to be heterosexual. Or homosexual. Everyone has to bisexual just in case some nimrod calling him or her self the Grand Overlord of the Universe decides to take them as "property". Moreover, he is claiming that "slaves" cannot choose who they let in their lives for any reason. I'm sorry, but respect for other lifestyles aside, that's obviously a load of drivel. Worse, it's dangerous drivel. The fewer people in the scene who believe consent doesn't matter, the better.

To be honest, I agree with some of the points NCNutcase was making earlier on in the thread. In some ways the word "slave" isn't quite right for what people in the scene use it for. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with using another word instead. But a lot of people don't see a difference between "slave" and "submissive" and use them interchangeably. The idea is to discuss with your partner what the words mean and proceed accordingly, not to hammer out an official meaning for every term for everyone to abide by. Pointing to a dictionary definition of slavery and saying the term has no place in BDSM unless it refers to a completely non-consensual relationship is stupid. The only thing that has no place in BDSM is a non-consensual relationship.

I've seen similar arguments over honorifics. Some women I've met like to be called "Mistress". Others have issues with the word and prefer "Goddess" instead. But then, some people don't like word "Goddess" used in that way. Still others see them both as interchangeable. This doesn't have to be any more complicated than talking it out so that the poor sub knows what to say.

For the record, I tend to use "submissive" when I refer to relationships and "slave" when I'm talking about sessions. When you are playing, it is perfectly all right for a domme to say that for the next two hours (or whatever), you will have no say in what happens to you, and barring the safeword she intends to do whatever she wants no matter how much you protest. That sort of situation cannot exist 24/7, and so for the long haul, I prefer using submissive to slave.

I suppose there are plenty of submissives who are more docile than I am, which is fine, and like I said, I have no problem with them calling themselves slaves. I take issue with the idea that none of them do care or should care who owns them, or that their compliance shouldn't matter to the dominant. Practically everything there is to know about me involves what I like to do and what I would refuse to do. Saying that my possible desire to refuse an order after I'm collared is irrelevant implies that as far as the domme is concerned, they learned everything there was to know about me before they "took ownership" and they had no further interest in getting to know me better after that. Limits are in fact one of the best ways of getting to know someone.

I know of no one in a relationship like the OP was describing, but if I did, I would not only doubt the sanity of the "slave", but I would also question the sanity of the dominant.





UPSG -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/24/2009 10:08:57 PM)

I don't mean to step on any toes or infuriate any been-there-done-that's, but there seems to be a level of truth argued on both sides. I guess I should also point out I haven't read through most of this thread yet. Right now I jumped from last page to first page.

1) I think Jeptha put up a pretty awesome response in post 271. Frankly, his post would seem to end any debate on the legal and contractual aspects surrounding this issue of consensual slavery. So, from that stand point the OP's position would be wrong (not to mention before the court of law).

2) To the degree choices are made between parties involved in what many might regard as decadent sexual lifestyles, the OP's and DominatDamsel's position or argument would seem tenable. Goven the fact the slave makes the choice and commitment to approximate a most complete slave - sexual slave - in reality.

3) I don't mean this offensively, so I hope no one takes it that way, but many from my impression of what I read on here, are adults playing master and slave similar to children playing "Cowboys and Indians." Some people may play gangsters, they might even dress up in the image of one on Holloween, but there does exist a world of real gangsters. We might even play, or pretend to ourselves to be sexually chaste (morally ordered correctly in sexual activity and temperance, not necessarily celibacy or abstinance, which are three different concepts, though they overlap), but that does not make us a monk like Thomas Merton. Some women seem to also be seeking a safe (unlikely to be domineering I mean) husband through the BDSM kink, or so that's the impression I get. Which is cool. Everyone has to do them, and seek where they believe is right.

4) The sexual slavery, wherein a man or woman seeks out the commitement and identity of a slave, and to be owned fully, to even be trained through processes of humiliation and degradation, is not entirely the same thing as the chattle slavery we imagine of the Antebellum U.S. South. To be sure, in some ways they overlap, both used humiliation and degradtion to maintain the social order. One, however, was based more off of pure economics and less to do with sexual fetish. Yes, I acknowledge some male and female slave owners centuries ago, where known to sexually abuse slaves of the opposite sex as well as the same sex.




Slavery as such, especially as it relates to the social science of economics (e.g. ownership of the person as opposed to ownership of one or more persons labor), is very ancient. It has existed in almost all societies on earth at one time or another. Many slaves were skilled craftsmen, soldiers, or professionals of the time learned in some form of academics. In the case of ancient Rome and most of Spanish and Portuguese America, manumission was possible and prevalent through various means including slaves recieving personal wages, albeit tiny wages. Many of the Black and Mulatto slaves of the Spanish conquested Americas were heroic soldiers, combat proven, and within urban centres they often were skilled craftsmen (domestic servants of course too). But even "freedom" in the 1800's United States (or Europe for that matter) was something of a paradoxical nature if not a straight up oxymoron, when considering the wages the poor made (especially Irish), and the conditions they both lived in and worked in. Nightmarish to be more precise. But hey! they had the label "free."

Slavery still exists today - especially in certain parts of Africa. One thing is for sure, at least I hope; the sexual slavery, predicated by mental slavery and choice of the slave (choice initially), does not lead to cannibalism and the devouring of the slaves flesh as it once did among the Aztecs. Lol.

If someone resigns to being bought and sold, for fetish gratification, allow them that personal pleasure, be happy you are not them, and live your life in honor in contrast to theirs. Only wish them (per humanity) that they recieve a "responsible" owner and not some extraordinary evil person. Many of you out there anyways, have your labor (not your person) bought and sold by different corporations. Just look at the auto industry in Detroit.



BitaTruble -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/25/2009 12:55:32 AM)

~FR~ DD I have the ability and the vocabulary to expressive myself in a variety of ways. I chose the least of those rather than the best of those and I did it on purpose. It was uncalled for, unusual and I don't blame you for your reaction. I apologize.  Celeste



DominantDamsel -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/25/2009 1:58:30 AM)


Thank you for the apology, Celeste. I must also apologize for the insensitivity and rudeness of my retort.

I've always believed that if we were nothing else as a group of people involved in all of this, we were tolerant of others, and that is one of the more important things we have supposedly been known for. Even if I don't agree, (and I can't tell all of you how many times I haven't), I've had it drilled into my head from day one that it wasn't my business what others do in this life and that others had a right to their own particular practices and kink and it wasn't my place to judge them.

We may not understand why the OP believes what he does or how he can do the things he does; we may not understand how a slave or submissive could find the way he wishes her to live to be attractive, but we have to be tolerant of that and respect it to the extent that he has as much right as we do to his opinions and belief systems and to enact those out -- even if they don't resemble anything close to what we believe or know as right. It just boils down to respect, and respect is something that we've all been taught to show one another even when it's tough, and sometimes it's damn tough. I find it amazing when I see it in action and most especially when I learn quite deep things from those who exhibit it.




LaTigresse -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/25/2009 3:38:38 AM)

Because a person says they are kinky they deserve your respect?

Certainly not mine. I was taught that is given based upon actions and deeds. Hard to earn and very easy to lose. Very few have it.

Even courtesy is not deserved by all. With some, avoidance at best.



colouredin -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/25/2009 3:45:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantDamsel

I've had it drilled into my head from day one that it wasn't my business what others do in this life and that others had a right to their own particular practices and kink and it wasn't my place to judge them.

We may not understand why the OP believes what he does or how he can do the things he does; we may not understand how a slave or submissive could find the way he wishes her to live to be attractive, but we have to be tolerant of that and respect it to the extent that he has as much right as we do to his opinions and belief systems and to enact those out -- even if they don't resemble anything close to what we believe or know as right. It just boils down to respect, and respect is something that we've all been taught to show one another even when it's tough, and sometimes it's damn tough. I find it amazing when I see it in action and most especially when I learn quite deep things from those who exhibit it.




The thing is it is not that we are going into his personal life and judging his decision. The op was a judgement about all people who call themselves slaves, it wasnt prefixed with 'its my preferance or personally' it is saying that all slaves are wrong. That is disrespectful of a large number of people on this site, that is judgemental and that is intollerant. 

He bought a biased opinion to a public forum and dressed it as fact, people dont have to smile at that people have a right to voice their opinion which is what they have done. All the stuff mentioned in your post here is not crimes that other cm posters have made but crimes stemming from the OP. I dont really undestand why you cant see that.

I do think that we have to allow other people to live their lives of course we do but you cant ask an opinion of a radical statement and expect everyone to agree. I really do recomend you go back and read the OP again and see how full of the things you dont like it is. 



masterforRT -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/25/2009 3:51:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantDamsel

I've had it drilled into my head from day one that it wasn't my business what others do in this life and that others had a right to their own particular practices and kink and it wasn't my place to judge them.

We may not understand why the OP believes what he does or how he can do the things he does; we may not understand how a slave or submissive could find the way he wishes her to live to be attractive, but we have to be tolerant of that and respect it to the extent that he has as much right as we do to his opinions and belief systems and to enact those out -- even if they don't resemble anything close to what we believe or know as right. It just boils down to respect, and respect is something that we've all been taught to show one another even when it's tough, and sometimes it's damn tough. I find it amazing when I see it in action and most especially when I learn quite deep things from those who exhibit it.




The thing is it is not that we are going into his personal life and judging his decision. The op was a judgement about all people who call themselves slaves, it wasnt prefixed with 'its my preferance or personally' it is saying that all slaves are wrong. That is disrespectful of a large number of people on this site, that is judgemental and that is intollerant. 

He bought a biased opinion to a public forum and dressed it as fact, people dont have to smile at that people have a right to voice their opinion which is what they have done. All the stuff mentioned in your post here is not crimes that other cm posters have made but crimes stemming from the OP. I dont really undestand why you cant see that.

I do think that we have to allow other people to live their lives of course we do but you cant ask an opinion of a radical statement and expect everyone to agree. I really do recomend you go back and read the OP again and see how full of the things you dont like it is. 


Obviously, YOU  (and many others) are the ones that don't read! Should I quote some of my original post?

"I have always believed that slaves are property"

Do you not know what a personal opinion is?

Now, why don't YOU go back and read my original post-as you instructed the poster to?

And then apologize.



LaTigresse -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/25/2009 3:56:20 AM)

RT, no one owes you an appology. You voiced your opinion, other people do not care for your opinion and voice their opinion about your opinion. That's how this discussion thing works.

You may be able to command the slaves in your home, if indeed there are any, to behave in a specific way. Here, the moderators are in command, whether you like it or not. Sometimes many of us don't but we accept it or we leave. It is our choice. If that isn't good enough for you.........I just don't know what to tell you.



masterforRT -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/25/2009 4:04:44 AM)

"The op was a judgement about all people who call themselves slaves, it wasnt prefixed with 'its my preferance or personally' it is saying that all slaves are wrong. That is disrespectful of a large number of people on this site, that is judgemental and that is intollerant. "

Can't have it both ways, darlin'  You can't burn me at the stake because you stated I didn't claim that what I wrote was my opinion, then when disproven, wiggle out and claim the opposite. 



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875