|
masterforRT -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 2:56:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd
quote:
ORIGINAL: masterforRT
More and more, I see people who call themselves slaves claiming that they only want women...or men...or couples. I have always believed that slaves are property, just like a house or a car. 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?
The definition of slave from Answers.com is as follows:
"One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household."
Property....right?
I'm interested in what the rest of you think.
Comments imbedded
Wow.. just wow...
Subs, slaves, Dom/mes.. ok any humaniod type creature each has inherant worth, dignity and the right to make their own choices. The fact that subs and slaves give a portion of that right into the care and trust of another human being does not mean that they are mindless peices of flesh to do as you will irregardless of their own feelings, concerns, and needs.
If you don't want to be a slave, there's an easy thing you can do-call yourself a submissive!
God help the ones who give this gift of themselves over to one who would feel as you do.
Slavery isn't a gift. Submission is. Slaves are property. Do you truly beliveve that the cotton pickers from the 1800s were giving themselves to the plantation owners as a gift? They were slaves!
Because a submissive or slave submits does not mean they are weak, lessor, or undeserving of the same conciderations as anyone else. It means they are strong enough to submit, to give of themselves that deeply. ( unless they are doing that human door mat crap... then all bets are off)
Where did I say ANYTHING about weakness or anything else in my original post? YOU are the one going out on a tangent!
The moment you believe in your heart and mind that you are better then, or greater then a submissive, or anyone is the moment in time that you prove you are not better then the "lowest" of all of Gods Creatures. ( Again see the all have inherant worth and dignity clause above)
Just because a person *is a slave* does not mean they are *your* slave, or a free range chicken for you to chicken hawk. In this day and age we get to pick our mates, and it is generally concidered in what it is that we do that people have the right to chose, and refuse suitors no matter what their station. It is called Consentual slavery. Real Slavery is illegal.
It was banned back in Lincon's day remember?
I own a consentual slave. Before my ownership of her, we met, we talked, we came to terms of what each other wanted and needed. If she had not consented to being my slave, and following me as her Domme and owner then I would have had absolutely no rights to her. She is gay, if she had been straight then of course we would not have even persued each other. Human sexuality is something that is ingrained. You can see if a Bi-curious person will explore their curiousity... but as the old saying goes you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink. It would be rape in the case of forcing someone to go outside of who they wanted to be sexual with.
Fine, 'own' your consentual slave all you want. BUT by the literal def . of a slave, they are NOT a slave-they are a submissive. AGAIN I ask, were there any conditions attached to 1800s slavery? The fact that it's illegal in the USA today is irrelevant-it does not change the dictionary def. of what a slave is. Not to mentiuon that BDSM is illegal in much of the world-and slavery is still legal in parts of the world too!
What perplexs the hell out of me is why people... ~ Usually a Dom, or Domme continues to believe that slaves and subs are not people? With being people that confers all rights and privaledges of being able to chose for themselves. ~ Be they rights, privaledges, or how they wish to be treated. Untill they hand those rights over to another they are still in ownership of those rights. ~ We Pray that they chose wisely.
Where did I say they were not people? Of course they are people..BUT AGAIN I SAY, by the actual def. of what a slave is they are ALSO property! They have no rights. The fact that no one owns them only means that they are available for ANYONE to own them. Back to the 1800s again. Were those cotton pickers not people? yet, they HAD no rights or privliges! What about prisoners? Do they not have their rights taken away? Yes, most of them have committed crimes, but it seems that practically every day we hear about someone innocent in prison that was put there wrongly. Are those innocent prisoners not legal slaves?
I have to wonder if these people with the mind set that any slave is free range, and has no rights what some ever if unowned is so broken, and undesireable that they can not find a willing slave to chose them.
Again, let's go back to 1800s America. Slaves there had no input/choice on who owned them. They even had ownership papers, much like the title of a car. How does you (and other's) nasty, insulting comments to me change what Webster's definition of a slave is?
Yep.. I said chose them. That is what submissives and slaves do. They chose thier Dom/me just as we chose them. If they do not agree to ownership you have nothing.
How many times to I have to state the obvious to you? Have you no clue? Read everything I said above.
I wonder if the sour grapes of not finding a suitable slave makes them so desperate that they take this stance?
Now you are simply being nasty simply because you can! All I did was ask a simple, legimate question in a non nasty way. YOU (and others) show yourselves to be the nasty, intolerant ones. There is a DEFINITION for what a slave is! It's been around for centuries. Now you and others here want to say: "the definition of a slave is whatever any of us think it should be". Does BDSM have ANY rules or protocols. or it it the free for all many of you seem to think it should be? If we can't agree upon a dictionary definition of a word, what CAN we agree on?
Look, I wasn't asking for anyone's respect-but common courtesy also seems to be sadly lacking here. All I did was ask a question in a non-nasty way. Based upon the rude tone of the majority of the replies, you and others are the intolerant, insulting ones. I'm not looking to unload on you either-at least you seem to have written this with a drop of intelligence, so I replied to your post over the others, some of whuch seem to be written by ones with fifth grade educations.
Gwyn
|
|
|
|
