|
thetammyjo -> RE: Slaves with requirements... (1/21/2009 4:37:48 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: surelyujest71
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
I think this is a decent description of slavery in these historical and institutional context. Good job.
|
|
|
|
