|
perverseangelic -> RE: submissive vs slave (2/2/2005 1:50:39 PM)
|
quote:
My kink is consensual slavery, but let's, for a moment, say it was single-tails. Let's say I loved to whip people till they were in such a deep subspace that they lose the ability to express themselves verbally. Now while I am describing my kink, someone comes along and asks what stops those who like to whip people from kidnapping and whipping strangers? After all, if you like whipping people, you are a freak and prolly have no control over who and what and when you whip people, right? It is just taking whipping people to the extreme, right?
Of course, you'd expect that from someone outside the lifestyle. Yet, it would be quite shocking to come from someone in the lifestyle, because whipping is such an accepted activity.
But here we have someone who runs some sort of munch saying much the same thing about my kink. I can own someone without abusing them, to imply anything else is the same to me as implying someone who enjoys whipping a willing participant would also enjoy whipping an unwilling participant.
Such ignorance from someone is a position of influence is, to me, insulting.
Taggard
But that wasn't what you said. You said
quote:
Slaves are property. Slaves don't always serve; some slaves are pampered, even worshipped by their owners. Slaves don't always submit; some refuse to do so. What makes one a slave is the fact that they are owned, nothing more or less.
At first, you just use words without defining them. You simply said that to be a slave, you must agree to be owned, by someone else, as property. You don't define "owned" or "property."
You go on to qualify the terms later though, which is where I start getting confused.
quote:
"And why can't slavery be taken a bit less seriously? What is wrong with someone who just wants to be owned on weekends? Or just wants to be owned for a few hours? Or wants to be owned, but only if certain safeguards are in place? Submissives get to have rules, limits, safewords and such, why shouldn't slaves?
There isn't anything mystical or magical about the desire to own or be owned...it isn't much different then the desire to dominate or submit. It comes it shades and strengths. Some are heavy edge players and like there submission or ownedness 24/7 some want it a lot less.
Perhaps I should just give up on the word slave. Perhaps it has too many connotations and emotional weight. I think I will start using the word "property" to express what I am looking for. Submissives, servants, and property will match dominants, Masters, and Owners. Hmm...food for thought, anyway. "
Those 2 ideas expressed seem to conflict. How can one be "sometimes" property? How can property place limits on the way in which it belongs to someone.
It seems like you say something, and then say the opposite. First, you assert that to be a slave you need to be owned by someone, to be their property and that to simply submit to their will doesn't make you belong to someone else. I can't see how the definition of "property" jives with "three days a week" or "within limits"
once again it comes down to a definition. What is "property"? Is it someone who belongs to someone when they want to belong to them? Is it someone who gives up -all- his/her rights? Is it someone who gives up some of them, expect the ones he/she doesnt' want to give up?
You're picking and choosing the way you define "property" as relative to the people invovled just as we pick and choose how we define "submissive" and "slave" It's a different word, the same problem.
As I see it, what Sub4hire did was use your first definition and take it to it's logical extreme. Person as property just as lawnmower is property. She didn't take into account the variations for relationships based on the people invovled. Rather, she used the -literal- definition of the terms you used. Isn't that what you've been asking us to do? Standardize the terms?
yes, the thing she said -were- offensive to one practicing consnesual slavery, hoewver they were -not- out of line when it comes to someone owning property.
(edited for coherence)
|
|
|
|
