Un-owned "slaves"

Un-owned "slaves" (Full Version)

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

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 9:13:20 AM)
Ok, I know this is a semantic land-mine, but I would like to ask peoples' thoughts about whether it is possible to be an "unowned" slave. This came to my mind as part of the "Is this place real?" thread, but that one was already so deeply enmired in doo-doo that it seemed pointless to address it there. Before I discuss my opinion, there are certain premises that I hold to, and those shape my thoughts on this, so I'm including those below, so that participants know, up front, what I am basing my position on. For the purposes of discussion, my definitions and uses of certain commonly-used phrases are expressed below: The term "slave" includes all full-authority-yielding descriptions including, but not limited to "TPE", "Keeper/kept", "M/s", etc. There are individuals who are extremely submissive by nature, and who are willing to submit to nearly anyone. Merely being 'submissive' is not indicative of whether a person yields, either fully or in part, to another -- so the existence of submission is not an automatic pre-supposition of "slavery". Submissive is an adjective, it is not a noun... it describes a person's nature, but, in order to provide clarity, I tend not to use it as a noun, because using it as a noun implies an individual who is indiscriminate and -always- submits, which is not the case for most individuals of submissive nature. "Slavery" is the state of being owned. The definition of "Owned" in our current culture is a reflection of the perception of the individuals involved, but that kind of shared dynamic is a pre-requisite to be considered in the "slave" category. "Slave" is not a free-standing term. "Slave" requires "Owner" to exist. Being highly submissive has nothing to do with being a "slave" -- Slave's can be submissive within the full range of possibility or don't have to be submissive at all, even to the ones who "own" them -- as long as the owner controls the slave, that person is a slave. To me, there is no such thing as an un-owned slave. If an individual is seeking someone to yield to, and has an inclination to be positioned as a slave in that dynamic, then xhe would choose someone who would shape the relationship in those directions... however, until the point where xhe is owned, xhe is NOT a slave... xhe is a free individual, in the decision process to determine where and to whom xhe wishes to yield hir authority... or in the decision process of being prepared to allow that authority to be stripped away from hir. Until that happens, however, xhe is just another free person, not a slave. Being of submissive nature may increase the probability that one could eventually end up in an "enslavement dynamic", but that is not a guarantee. With the above in mind, I find that it is not surprising, nor should it be unexpected, that individuals who are not currently in existing authority-based dynamics would pick and choose who they will or will not obey, until such time as they yield to someone. Until that time, in my mind, they are NOT SLAVES... they are free persons inclined to pursue authority-based dynamics. Thoughts? Calla

xxblushesxx -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 9:22:28 AM)
In a chat room you can be anything you like! lol

amaidiamond -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 9:29:41 AM)
I have to say that this does make a lot of sense, and a lot of time people do get mired down with words and "boxes" as it were. I consider myself a submissive female, owned or not I am still in my very nature a naturally submissive female. I think that your definition is correct in that - without being "enslaved" how can one be a slave. It is not possible to give over full control without having someone willing and able to take it. In the same vein whilst I am submissive, I am unable to submit without one to take my submission. Just my random thoughts dia

juliaoceania -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 9:35:47 AM)
I think of slave as an orientation to a relationship.... In other words, some people feel that they are oriented toward a certain sort of relationship and they have their individual criteria of what that relationship entails.... So yes, a slave can be unowned

eibhlinauvert -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 9:40:34 AM)
Hello CallafirestormBW, I would consider myself an unowned slave. I don't have a Master right now, and I did think of changing my preference back to "submissive" on here, but decided against it. Probably for the same reason a Master once he does not have a slave to own would call himself anything else.

dreamerdreaming -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 9:44:55 AM)
I was an "un-owned" slave, if you want to call it that. I don't. Its a misnomer. Slaves who are not owned by another, are owned by their own selves. So they are owned, always. There's never a time when they are without an owner. Its just that sometimes the owner is another person, and sometimes not. I owned myself, then as now.

jujubeeMB -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 9:51:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW Submissive is an adjective, it is not a noun... it describes a person's nature, but, in order to provide clarity, I tend not to use it as a noun, because using it as a noun implies an individual who is indiscriminate and -always- submits, which is not the case for most individuals of submissive nature. This is the only part I know enough to comment on. I'm submissive, a submissive, and I will not submit to 99.999999% of the population. It's a noun because the sexual roles have been labeled for clarification of self, like "top" and "bottom." I am always a bottom; I am always a submissive. That doesn't mean I'm acting on it at work, but that's because people aren't required to be everything they are all at once. Someone who is a painter isn't painting the sidewalk when they're out walking the dogs. Someone who is a Red Sox fan isn't flipping cars when they go on dates (hopefully...those Boston folks can get pretty crazy...). What and who you are just exist within you. Not everyone identifies as "a submissive," but at least for me, it's just there all the time, inactive until appropriate.

UniqueRaven -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 9:53:21 AM)
i am currently an "Un-Owned slave." And yes, i do understand that for some, it is a misnomer. But this is the best way to currently describe myself. i do see a difference between those that identify as "submissive" and those that identify as "slave." For me, the title of "submissive" simply doesn't describe who i am. i have always known since i was very little that i am a slave. To say that i am submissive and in the right relationship i am a slave simply isn't accurate. My friends who know me know that i operate as a slave right now, even though i'm not currently Owned. i do have a self-imposed structure that takes care of "me" and allows me to function perfectly well. But i am slave, through and through, and nothing will change that. Being Owned again will simply be a transfer of all control and structure over to my new Owner. And yes, i have been Owned before in a real, long-term 24/7 situation, so it isn't merely a fantasy for me, and sometime in the near future i will be Owned again. You are accurate in that the term "slave" is a noun. It is a noun that describes me. i don't think that there must be an Owner to use that word as a descriptor - as dreamerdreaming stated so well, one can consider that i am simply owning myself right now. And this is what works for me - but i think everyone defines their own reality.

juliaoceania -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 9:54:41 AM)
I have a question for the OP, is a master a master without a slave?

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 10:00:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I have a question for the OP, is a master a master without a slave? In my world, no (unless the "master" is an academic title). I am a "Keeper" (which is the term that we use for 'management track' in our household) by training, but am merely a Lady of the House unless we have servants active there. Right now, in preparation for the binary fission coming up in our household later this year, myself and the other members of our current sub-household aren't keeping servants... so we're just members of the house with specialized training, dominant by nature. However, when we visit at one of the other sub-households making up the Bladewings, if -they- have active servants, our "Keeper" status is recognized, as any servants who are Bladewings are cooperatively managed (owned) by the House and all of the Keepers, not by individuals. [Gosh, I hope that made sense!] Calla

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 10:09:07 AM)
I really hate it when unowned folks wave the slave banner... though I do understand that some people are slave-hearted, owned or not. Still, they are NOT owned, so in my world, they don't get to use that as an excuse for anything, just an indicator of their orientation. And no, I am not a "mistress/master" unless I own someone! I used to be, but now I am "just" a dominant. When I say "excuse", I was thinking of a person who said "slaves shouldn't X" but that person was not in relationship to ANYONE. So, sorry.

juliaoceania -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 10:24:13 AM)
I think it is interesting that both of you seem to have a certain subculture and ways of doing things... but I am thinking that the vast majority of those using the term slave and master do so for their own relationship, and many of them are not poly, aren't highly formal, and so not have the social networks you set up. Most of them are just trying to find fulfilling relationships and they see the label slave or submissive , master, dominant - as a way to define the degree of power exchange they want in the context of their intimate relationship... I do not see why that would be annoying or irritating

sexyred1 -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 10:27:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB quote: ORIGINAL: This is the only part I know enough to comment on. I'm submissive, a submissive, and I will not submit to 99.999999% of the population. It's a noun because the sexual roles have been labeled for clarification of self, like "top" and "bottom." I am always a bottom; I am always a submissive. That doesn't mean I'm acting on it at work, but that's because people aren't required to be everything they are all at once. Someone who is a painter isn't painting the sidewalk when they're out walking the dogs. Someone who is a Red Sox fan isn't flipping cars when they go on dates (hopefully...those Boston folks can get pretty crazy...). What and who you are just exist within you. Not everyone identifies as "a submissive," but at least for me, it's just there all the time, inactive until appropriate. This. Exactly. Says it all. It never ceases to amaze me when people feel that words and labels are more important than how someone views themselves.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 10:29:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I think it is interesting that both of you seem to have a certain subculture and ways of doing things... but I am thinking that the vast majority of those using the term slave and master do so for their own relationship, and many of them are not poly, aren't highly formal, and so not have the social networks you set up. Most of them are just trying to find fulfilling relationships and they see the label slave or submissive , master, dominant - as a way to define the degree of power exchange they want in the context of their intimate relationship... I do not see why that would be annoying or irritating It doesn't annoy me at all, actually. It's just that I DO have a way of doing things, so I am very careful to make sure I understand what the OTHER person means when they use a term. Or if they mean any damn thing at all. ETA: We are indeed free to define ourselves however we like. Hence the constant semantic debates!! I want to make it clear that I am NOT saying that everyone needs to do things my way, or any way at all but that which makes them content. And that my own life is nowhere near as complex as Calla's!

DesFIP -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 10:30:12 AM)
So someone in a M/s dynamic who was married to her M, who is now mourning him no longer has the right to think of herself as his? Nope, not in my book. If you've been in a m/s dynamic and for whatever reason it ended, but you're searching for another compatible partner to be in another m/s dynamic, you get to define yourself. Besides it's too unwieldy to write that you're a presently free person seeking enslavement. Nor does CMe nor other such sites have a label suitable for someone between relationships.

lobodomslavery -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 10:37:06 AM)
i regard myself as an unowned slave. i have been unowned since January 09. However i welcome the debate kevin

bondmaid123 -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 10:45:48 AM)
This certainly is a challenging semantic gymnasium. ;) I come from a Gorean background, where this is also hotly debated, fwiw. Please excuse the gender-specific terms, for most intents/purposes I mean both male and female when only one is used. I believe that unless there is an actual "ownership", the "submissive" can not be a slave. To me, "slave" identifies somebody who is engaged in that relationship as property. I do, however, believe that "Master" has practical application in "the lifestyle" (and this is challenging for Goreans, because of the "heirarchy of titleship") even for men who do not own property. "Master" is used both for "He who owns me" and "He who is free, even if he doesn't own me specifically." Some people see this as confusing. I personally think some people need to get a clue and recognize that the title is always just an honourific, regardless of what the title is, but anyway. There is this weird artificial construct (among all the other artificial constructs we live with in the lifestyle. ;) of "the unowned slave." I suppose this is to simplify the awareness that "this unowned person is stating they are willing to be treated as property, even tho they are not currently owned." It's not terribly rational, nor HONEST... but to me, that's where that started. (This is especially common online, and especially abused in both directions online.) From a Gorean perspective, one is not "A Master", per se. One is a MAN (or, a Free Woman) and that confers rights and responsibilities and social status (sort of). And, philosophically, and in the books, anybody who acts like a slave, regardles of legal status, is perceived to "be" a slave, and is likely to find oneself in the legal status as a result. (Obviously this becomes challenging when you mix in the REAL WORLD legal dynamic, ie it is not truly possible for one human to own another, at least in MY country, which is what makes this such a slippery concept in "real life"). I get that it can be challenging to find "that special person or family" to whom one would want to surrender control. I personally think it's just more intellectually honest to say "I am not a slave now, but I am interested in pursuing that as an eventual goal in this relationship", even adding "and I have served as a slave previously, so here are the things I bring from that experience...." (if that is the case). Some people seem to think that "slave" is the same as "uber submissive". I have NO CLUE how that weird connotation got started but I HATE it. Many people also seem to think slave = "no brain or independent thought." That also makes no sense to me. I can see, though, how people who think those definitions are valid would say "I am ultra submissive, therefore I am a slave".

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 11:18:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx In a chat room you can be anything you like! lol A jest not without a healthy dose of a good point. Individuals not in an M/s dynamic (but aspire to be) can have slave potentiality, but they are not slaves until they have a Master or Mistress to whom they are subjected and to whom their larger freedoms are given.

juliaoceania -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 11:23:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx In a chat room you can be anything you like! lol A jest not without a healthy dose of a good point. Individuals not in an M/s dynamic (but aspire to be) can have slave potentiality[*/i]*, but they are not slaves until they have a Master or Mistress to whom they are subjected and to whom their larger freedoms are given. Too bad they do not give that choice on the other side[:D] As someone who marked the "submissive" box next door, I am glad they have the slave option for those looking for more 24-7 TPE situations..

IronBear -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 11:24:14 AM)
To be pedantic for a change and to take a Gorean stance or to respond from a Gorean perspective (No I haven't returned to the Gorean Fold it is just still part of my make up and thinking process), there is no such animal as an unowned slave. A female who is unowned and claims to be a slave, is a runaway but still owned (not happening in reality), she is a Panther Girl (ok that could have some debate but usually not happening in reality either) or, she is a Free Woman with submissive tendencies. If no one own you no matter how submissive you are and how strong your slave tendencies are you are still unowned and as such a free woman (perhaps just waiting to be collared). Just my personal view of things and others will see things in a different light. Makes for a bright rainbow after the rain and the sun shines and you've sunk a few jars.......

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875