YouName
Posts: 271
Joined: 10/22/2014 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: littleladybug quote:
ORIGINAL: BitYakin personally I don't see what all the fuss is about, is it REALLY so important that you wear the label "SLAVE" as opposed to "SUBMISSIVE"?? its a WORD, it has a definition, if you don't fit that definition, DEAL WITH IT! Ok...done with the caps? Personally, I don't care much for labels. I only adopt them in a general context in forums like this one. What's interesting to me about the links you provided is the definition of "slave". "a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something" "one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence" On the same site, "submissive" is defined as "characterized by tendencies to yield to the will or authority of others" ...which is why I asked about these definitions specifically in relation to BDSM. Is there any place to find that? ¨ There's a good wiki called whipedia or something...but I forgot about its url. The swedish site darkside.se defines it as being owned and owned as being collared and having surrendered part of their control over their life as compared to a submissive that merely submits when it feels reasonable (within a session/kink). Smileforme50 is right, let's skip the semantics. For me (unless it would be a part of some gorean fantasy or something) it would feel terribly wrong to ever sell or be sold. Even though I identify as a switch I can picture myself in either of the two usual roles but never doing this. The concept of not having control over with whom I live with feels both alien, illegal and thus impossible for me. In fact, the choice is there always, for everything. It can be actively repressed. Let's put it this way. If I had a slave I would think it to be extremely irresponsible to sell that person to someone without discussing it with her first and at that point the sale just becomes symbolic anyway.
< Message edited by YouName -- 11/24/2014 11:11:31 AM >
|