|
SocratesNot -> RE: Slavery is bullshit (6/1/2010 3:07:55 PM)
|
quote:
This is exactly why I don't like the "slavery" word.
Not because I have something against the concept as it is often used by couples like Jeff and Carol, but because too many people still use the term to reflect what it used to mean in a legal context.
Legal slavery does not require any leadership. All you have to do to own and dominate a legal slave is buy them.
Then you dish out orders and simple expect them to be obeyed.
Even when there isn't a hint of authority present, and the slave has to force themselves to obey and to "respect" your authority while secretly thinking about that knife they're going to plant in your back that same night, you can under legal slavery still expect them to at least half-ass carry out your orders.
The type of BDSM slavery that leads to harmonious relationships is totally different from that, because it depends on nothing but the dominant's ability to create and environment of authority that is as natural to the relationship as gravity is to the world.
To do this, the dominant has to have their own bases covered and actually create a continuous situation in which obedience is simple the better choice, for both parties involved.
A woman like Carol, who finds the right man obeys simple because she would be an idiot not to obey him.
Doing what he wants will eventually always yield the results she wants, which creates a situation in which compliance becomes as natural as oxygen.
But the reason this is true is because of the kind of man Jeff is, and because of his ability to create a setting in which obedience is always the best choice for her.
If the guy doesn't have his shit together, but still expects the "slave" to obey out of nothing but "respect" for his non-existing authority, and the promises she made to obey him, then he's delusional. The day will come where she'll realize that disobedience yields better results then obedience... and at that point, any sane rational being will flip him and all his blustering commands the bird and walk off.
What you have written causes very ambivalent feelings in me.
At the same time, I am fascinated and at the same time I have to disagree with some things.
Clearly, you described very intelligently the difference between slavery in ancient times - which is legal slavery, and the slavery in BDSM sense.
You explained how the former was beneficial only to the Owner, and his authority was respected only out of fear and coercion, while the second is beneficial
for both parties involved and the authority is respected out of holding the Master in very high esteem and out of knowledge that doing what the Master
demands would always lead to results that the slave wants.
However, this very same text makes some very unrealistic assumptions about the nature of the Master.
You assume that the Master is almost perfect and that he can't be wrong.
What I really think is that no one is perfect and everyone can be wrong, sometimes very wrong.
By the same logic, in many cases, what Master demands will not necessarily bring beneficial effects, neither to slave, neither to Master himself.
This is not because the Master is evil, but simply because he is a human.
No human is perfect, and no human always know what is best.
All the presidents of states and prime ministers have many counselors and even with their help, they sometimes do wrong, and sometimes do very wrong.
So, no one is perfect, nether kings, nor popes, nor emperors, nor presidents, nor Masters.
Assuming that one course of action will always bring best results to the slave JUST BECAUSE THE MASTER ORDERED IT is a logical fallacy called
"Argument from authority".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
|
|
|
|
