|
Voltare -> RE: submissive vs slave (2/2/2005 5:16:03 PM)
|
For what some people have stated is only a question of semantics, there certainly are a lot of raised hackles on the backs of peoples necks.
I think this speaks to the heart of the issue, that it isn't just a question of semantics. It reminds me of one couple I remember fondly, where the dominant was aggressive, loud, overbearing, and the submissive was meek, kind, and obviously overwhelmed by aura of the dominant, especially in light of her command that he was permitted to call her 'slave.' While it certainly isn't any of my business to judge people for what makes them happy, when speaking to another close friend about it, we had a nice laugh about how clearly some dominants can have a more powerful influence on their knees then many who carry belts and wear black leather pants. It was EXTREMELY important to the couple to believe themselves to be Master and slave, when clearly the power dynamic was completely opposite.
In any sense of community, rules and morals evolve. Little societies and counter societies grow and thrive under such order that semantics and definitions provide us. Used positively, they keep us driving on the right side of the road, at the same speed. They teach us that we should pull over when an ambulance is behind us, to stand in an orderly line at the grocery store, and that tight spandex generally shouldn't be worn in public. Negatively, it becomes a 'My-Kink-Is-Better-Than-Your-Kink' war on classified personals sites.
I enjoy the sense of saying I own a slave. It makes me just plain happy. I do it without contracts, powers of attorny, or paychecks signed over. For some people, that is the foundation of ownership. For myself, they are just more examples of the outside world trying to barge in on our happy one on one union. I don't think anyone would dispute my sense of ownership over a slave, just because I don't have a contract on file at the courthouse -it would be very poor ettiqutte indeed if another Dominant were to proposition my slave if she was kneeling next to me, wearing a collar with my name on it, and a leash from the collar running to my hand. It would be quite clear, in this context, that she was 'mine' be she submissive or slave. Thus, the definition, of her status -as- slave, or submissive, would only be of importance between her and I - for to the rest of the world, the important designator wasn't that she is a slave (or not) but rather she has OWNED written all over her.
Specific points:
(Original, Taggard)
I suppose this is the perception I am trying to battle. Why is it that people lump slaves in with intense submissives? Why can't a submissive who desires a greater degree of control (ie dominance) still be a submissive?
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?
(End quote)
Actually, I completely agree with you, and this was what I was trying to allude to. In my mind, a slave generally means xyz, but as it is clearly a general label, one size certainly does NOT fit all. The girl I've been involved in is as you would describe, an intense submissive. It's part and parcel of everything she is. Our relationship hasn't progressed to a level where we wish to consider her owned, but it's only been a few months.
I once believed that submissives had rules, slaves did not. Today, I think such an opinion is a little naive, but that rather submissives wish a greater degree of control over the time, place, and nature of their service. A slave, to me, requires a measure of that control, but no desire for it - but even that is a fuzzy answer. There are so many hundreds of different characteristics of a submissive or slave, and the thousands of forces that are behind those characteristics, that to lump people into a yes or no answer would amount to politically saying 'are you a Democrat or Republican.' The answer gives a little information, but hardly addresses the hundreds of issues that are constantly at war, ranging from abortion, civil rights, taxation, foreign policy, military, etc etc etc. To say that if you are republican, then you can ONLY vote republican, and can ONLY have republican party beliefs is preposterous. The same goes for the submissive verses slave issue.
sub4hire - The lawnmower example was probably not your best. The ownership of a person, generally, is not literal (as literal ownership of a human is illegal in most of the world, and truely a repugnant concept.) Thus, the figurative ownership of another person could be likened to the ownership of a cat. Cat owners will vouch for me on this one. And, yes, there are couples who believe that the ownership of a person should be just like the ownership of a lawnmower, though obviously the vast majority of lifestylers obviously don't take this position. Instead, it's the willingness to surrender your will, either in part, or in whole, some of the time, or all of the time. But that too is a paradox -as it requires a voluntary submission. So, what exactly *would* you call a person who, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, wants to feel that their actions, thoughts, and words are being directed by another person. Some people might use the word obsessive, but I think the difference isn't that they wish to be 'owned'24/7, but rather, the security that comes from knowing that whenever you interact with this other person, you are doing so for their pleasure. That your existance has been surrounded and covered by this person. One hundred years ago, there was another name for this type of arrangement - they often called it 'a happy marriage.' I think that's what a lot of people in this lifestyle are really just looking for, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Stephan
|
|
|
|
