RE: Slaves with requirements...

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

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

Message

surelyujest71 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 3:47:59 PM)
Perhaps if we look into the more distant past, we can find a definition of "slave" which fits better? In ancient Rome and Greece, slavery wasn't racially biased. It simply meant that a person was owned by another person. The slave's actions were considered to reflect upon the Master. And, while some slaves were kept more or less as concubines, others were kept to keep house, or help with the household's income. Many were some sort of combination of these. "BDSM" as we know it usually didn't apply... we can be fairly sure that if a slave in those times were abused, he or she would either roll over and die, or get up and run. (unless they liked it.... fetishes existed back then, too, right? ;) ) In current times, involuntary slavery is limited to a few areas of the world; usually in 3rd world nations. In Brazil, once you get away from "civilization," there are some who manage their wealth by enslaving the natives, and anyone else who happens to be convenient. I'm sure similar things happen elsewhere. These sorts of slaves only exist to help build the Owner's wealth. Although, a few might be picked out of the herd to act as a household maid, or concubine. To my understanding, this category of slaves are often roughly treated, no matter their preferences in the matter. To me, I prefer the first category - the ancients' concept. Brought forward to today, and adding in free consent on the part of the slave... it's often more erotic, but also a very stable situation. And hey! Slaves have always come with a price tag, right? In our subculture, the price tag includes consent. Hopefully I haven't re-written someone else's point... I've only read page 4 of this thread. :p

feydeplume -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 3:50:57 PM)
where i have the most confusion is claim them from who? I mean where is the slave warehouse where we/they all go when one M is done with us and we are "waiting" on another to claim us? I haven't heard of a slaves clearinghouse nor have i ever gotten an ad from a slave reseller. Since there is no one out there to feed, cloth, house, and promote unclaimed slaves, they HAVE to do it for themselves. So why shouldn't they be a little picky and try to choose new owner/s that have needs that they already know how to fill? What is wrong with a slave making sure that they are going to be used to their full potential and not have their worth and life frittered away in a bondage that doesn't play to their strengths?

sirsholly -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 3:52:12 PM)
quote: ..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. tell you what hon...you approach a few unowned slaves with that attitude...and be sure to let us know how it worked for ya. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

LaTigresse -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 3:56:05 PM)
It is apparent it isn't working too well. What is that saying about.....something about making the same mistake over and over again......? Doing the same thing and getting the same result? Expecting a different result... It escapes me. The decongestant is wearing off.

E2Sweet -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 3:56:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: masterforRT ...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... I am not arguing the dictionary/historical definition of the word slave. What I'm saying (and several others here are as well) is that the term slave as its used within BDSM is NOT THE SAME as the historical definition. Scrolling though the profiles of those here who call themselves slaves and equating them to what slaves were in the 1800s is an INACCURATE comparison. We can argue the point of what the definition of a BDSM slave should be until we're all blue in the face, but really why does it matter? People will label themselves whatever they wish, and since there's no authoritative BDSM body to set the rules on who is who and what is what, its a pointless argument. BDSM labels have basically become subject to each individual's interpretation... It is what it is...

OmegaG -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 3:56:33 PM)
to nit-pick here, a slave cannot be a slave unless they are owned, if they've been owned before they are a former slave, if they wish to be owned then they are a future slave. While they are unowned they are not a slave and therefore have atonomy over themselves. Now if the gentleman wants to kidnap someone and enslave them, he should remember that even when slavery was supported by governments there were still rules and laws that didn't allow people to slave others at whim. But guess what-- through out history there have also been slaves that have been favored by their masters and have been able to ask for freedom or marriage (either to the master or to another) so its obvious to me that slaves with preferrences has a long and distinguished history.

sirsholly -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 3:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance By MasterforRT's thinking, unowned slaves are simply unclaimed property, and should be at the mercy of anyone who desires to claim them, with no say in the matter of who claims them. and every time he attempts to claim one he is shot down. Therefore he will say she was not a slave but a submissive [8\|]

DavanKael -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 3:58:41 PM)
I must suggest an awe-struck silence as it seems we have a 'twue' Dom in our midst. [8\|] Geez, OP, even if I were to agree with your premise of "Property, right?" Property doesn't mean YOUR property which is what seems to be stickin' in your craw. I suspect if you workon your people skills a bit (First and foremost acknowledging that someone who wishes to serve could, in fact, be a person), you may have greater success. Maybe Davan

MistressLamia -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:00:25 PM)
I was speaking of the OP. That is what we are all talking about. quote: ORIGINAL: ALAstella quote: ORIGINAL: MistressLamia Some thoughts... Perhaps they're are people out there who want to be owned by such a person. People who go to this extreme, either D or s, are not doing this in a healthy way. Oh and what would a thread like this be without a sweeping generalization that people calling themselves or their partners slaves are not healthy. Like erm... on what basis? stella

E2Sweet -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:01:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse ...What is that saying about.....something about making the same mistake over and over again......? Doing the same thing and getting the same result? Expecting a different result... ...It sucks, and as adults we should know better?... [;)] [:D]

pixidustpet -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:02:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: masterforRT 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? My car refuses to start for anyone who doesn't have the key. i had a car that wouldnt start for my first husband. come to think of it, two cars of mine wouldnt start for him. he was more of a boob than a dom though... kitten, just watching miss kittyfurface exploring her new home

surelyujest71 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:05:11 PM)
Let's look at it this way. A slave without a Master is a slave who is carrying his/her own emancipation papers, but wishes to find him/herself another Owner. As a free person who wishes to be a slave, they have the right to choose their own Master or Mistress. And personally, I wouldn't want a free slave to bow for my collar just because I walked up and told her to; she wouldn't necessarily be capable of giving herself to me as I need. And I really do want to be sure the girl I take for Mine is one who won't run off the first time I wrap her in chains or play rough with her. Part of the "payment" for the slave, to me, is Trust - and that needs to run both ways. Make sense?

Gwynvyd -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:14:21 PM)
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. snickers I think if you were to try and claim a "Free Range Slave" you would have some explaining to do to the popos. Since the countries that do allow slavery still do not have a this color of person is a slave this one is not sort of rule of thumb... ( Hell the US didnt have one till late either) just how in the hell would you tell the slaves from the free folks? They do not wear a hammered metal necklace to denote their station... nor do they carry brands or markings. Do you just kidnap folks willy neillie until you find a keeper? Do you force the masses to be branded or marked? Or do you just force who ever takes your fancy into slavery... laws be damned. Hmm maybe go to a slave auction? Hmm not many of those around. Again this kind of thinking just boggles the mind. I guess that is why I shy away from (to me) such unhealthy thinking. What on Earth gives someone the right to own another with out thier consent? To take away their rights with out their consent? Gwyn [Mod Note: quoted flame removed]

feydeplume -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:15:25 PM)
that seems to skirt around the problem of definition really well. a freed slave (one with their papers) can choose to stay free or can offer themselves back on the market.

Catgirl711 -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:16:54 PM)
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. OP while you are correct in pointing out that the "slaves" in the BDSM community have no right to call themselves slaves by the definition you obtained from Answers.com, you neglected to mention that you also obtained 3 other definitions. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: “I was still the slave of education and prejudice” (Edward Gibbon). One who works extremely hard. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component. Now by your insistence of adhering to the definitions, BDSM slaves are an exact definition of slavery as seen in the 2nd definition. Also by that logic, many people not even involved with BDSM but find themselves loaded with responsibilities and toiling tirelessly would also have the right to call themselves a slave. Neither of which is property, and both are given choice.

feydeplume -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:19:20 PM)
<-- doesn't want to get warned again about hijacking but is having a great time with "free range" slaves! snort all i can say is talk about humiliation games and the definition of kinky... snort

torturedmuse -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:20:18 PM)
I know it's a shock, but slaves actually have minds, needs, and desires of their own. You see, no matter how one can try to fool themselves in this society actual slaves do not even exist. At any time one call to 911 and you are free to go and the person holding you is arrested. A far cry from the old days where instead the slave was beaten and returned back to their owner. The thing for me is, we can choose who to serve and in what capacity we will give over our lives. I would only be a slave to a single man, someone decent, and someone that could show me that he could be responsible for my well-being in every way. I found someone that matched that, now I am his slave. I am not a slave to every person that walks by, or anyone else in the world for that matter. I have found those that are looking for mindless drones, are afraid that anyone more intelligent will see right thru their bullshit. Goodness knows we wouldn't want that.

Gwynvyd -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:20:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: E2Sweet quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse ...What is that saying about.....something about making the same mistake over and over again......? Doing the same thing and getting the same result? Expecting a different result... ...It sucks, and as adults we should know better?... [;)] [:D] It's called this. Gwyn, Bopping her head to the music

thetammyjo -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:21:21 PM)
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. The source you cite isn't talking about BDSM, it's about historical and institutional slavery. I doubt you'd really like being part of such a system. I study these systems, they are far worse than you can imagine for everyone involved enslaved and owner both. So when someone says they are a slave my first question, internal or voiced, is always "to whom?" because I see BSDM slavery as a relationship type not a personality type. For those using the term in a way that annoys you, masterforRT, they are looking at the term as more an expression of their personality or nature. Thus it is much like being female or being a certain race or ethnic group -- unchangeable and yet as a human being that doesn't mean it is all that determines your life. Just as a lesbian would not necessarily have sex with any woman these people do not submit to everyone whom claims to be dominant or master. Some people even go so far as to have multiple terms beyond submissive, bottom, or slave. They might use property or pet or possession or slut or whatever. The fact is, if how they use the terms annoy you that means they aren't a good match for you. Just accept and move on to the next profile. Yeah, it really is that easy.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:25:26 PM)
I've had this debate before with close friends of mine, "can a slave be a slave if they aren't owned?" While I'm ambivalent toward the semantics, I've sort of leaned toward the thinking, and so choose to click the "submissive" option, until such a time as I am the owned property of another.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125