RE: what is a slave????

RE: what is a slave???? (Full Version)

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

Message

AquaticSub -> RE: what is a slave???? (11/28/2006 8:44:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl And then we have the submissive....who supposedly submits and renegotiates on a daily basis. Yes....every day she wakes up and thinks 'Hmmm...do i really feel like submitting today?' 'That rule Sir made yesterday just doesn't sit right with me. Think i'll tell him that's a hard limit today and if he doesn't like it, oh well. Too bad for him.' It often sounds like they don't give their all.....like they have no real 'stake' in the relationship....much like the girlfriend of old. I have no idea what submissives you have been talking to. I never question his orders. We discuss them and then I obey them without question. I am a submissive because I am not a slave. I retain the right to go "No you may not shove that up my ass without lube or pre-work". Basically, I retain the right to make sure I am cared for. This does not make my submission any less. One does not "feel like" submitting. One is a submissive or one is not. Aqua, You may have misunderstood my point here. Haven't you heard that expression that a slave submits once but a sub submits daily? (or it's something like that) i was actually trying to make a point of how ridiculous that sounds. my entire post was trying to point out that subs, particularly those in LTRs, do not wake up every day and decide if they're going to submit no more than a slave in a LTR does. Do you see what i am saying? DG Ahhh. I apologize.

mountainpet -> RE: what is a slave???? (11/28/2006 10:41:13 AM)
Lots of people look on the differences between submissives and slaves as being differences in intensity or permanence. I disagree on both points. One is a personality or character trait; the other is a condition of ownership. I have known submissives who had less freedom of action, and more restrictions, than many slaves. About the only difference I see is that a slave can be sold or loaned out to others.

AGORANTE -> RE: what is a slave???? (11/28/2006 11:12:45 AM)
What is a slave? When a person - usually a woman - chooses to advertise herself as a slave what does she mean? What does she intend to imply by the use of that term as opposed to the term submissive? The obvious answer is that she may mean one of several things. After all she doesn't have to qualify or present credentials. She is perfectly free to use the term slave (irony intended). Here are some possibilities that come to mind: She wants her ad to have a competitive edge. Dominant men come here and browse through the profiles. There are hundreds (thousands?) of women in any one locality who advertise themselves as submissives. If a woman wants to get noticed by men looking for female submission she can go for the stronger self descriptor. She is experienced. About half of all the self proclaimed subs on this site seem to be newbies or just curious. Maybe she thinks being a slave is a kind of promotion. She needs a place to stay or someone to support her. She found that so many of the guys who call themselves Doms are pathetic wannabes. She hopes that the guys who call themselves Masters will be more satisfactory. She has developed a real taste for the whip. Spankings and floggings just don't do it for her anymore. She is desperate for male company and will say anything to get attention. She sexually responds strongly to rank and hierarchy. She has read a lot of John Norman novels. She found that all the previous Doms in her life made her address them as Master anyway. She decides she might as well call herself a slave. She has agonized over her feelings and the D/s classifications and she has decided that she is best described as a slave. She gets a bigger charge out of calling herself a slave than a sub. She doesn't like the term subbie. She thinks of a Master/slave relationship as a kind of matrimony - a serious adult relationship not just casual play. She likes to amuse herself by titilating men online whom she has no intentions of meeting in real life. Advertising herself as a slave gets more nibbles. She had a life changing experience with a guy who she came to accept as her Master. She continues to look for another such. She checked the wrong box on the form. She is weak willed and seek guidance. She is strong willed and wants someone stronger yet. She is writing her Doctorial dissertation on paraphilias and she is collecting data.

SirLordTrainer -> RE: what is a slave???? (11/29/2006 6:46:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: SirLordTrainer quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: SirLordTrainer Wouldnt be the first time, so nothin new.. besides My hose is pretty damn long, I could prolly nail 8 or 9 posters if it gets to that! LOL I am sending Happy a tape measure, i want proof. (Ooooppps, sorry, SLT, not the hose you were talking about!) Otherwise iffin ya need more proof ya better consult with your Owners first! LMFAO!!!! Lol, they do not care if i look! Tease! Ok if I send a pic do I get one back in return? Oh, an I never tease til I got em bound and gagged! <efg>

pinkkeith -> RE: what is a slave???? (11/29/2006 7:16:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyClaudiaVan submissives can negotiate terms and conditions slaves can not (for the most part) I would agree with this definition. Submissives have a little more say in the relationship while slaves are a little more extreme and are more like property then a person with opinions.

MistressDolly -> RE: what is a slave???? (11/29/2006 8:19:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CelticPrince To those I ask if you might define in print, as long as you refer to yourselves as such,, just what is a slave compared to a submissive, collared or not. CP Hi CelticPrince, This is akin to asking someone what is the definition of "beautiful". Imo, a submissive negotiates, a slave doesn't (or I should say - barely). A submissive gives part of himself, a slave gives all of himself. ETC

awmslave -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/10/2006 11:01:50 PM)
I agree with those who say slave is a property. Therefore, slave without a master or owner does not make much sense: there can not be property without the owner. So, in adverts perspective slaves need to identify as "wannabe slaves", slave material, former slaves ... or something like this that applies. I need to correct my advert too.

Rover -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/11/2006 5:15:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave I agree with those who say slave is a property. Therefore, slave without a master or owner does not make much sense: there can not be property without the owner. So, in adverts perspective slaves need to identify as "wannabe slaves", slave material, former slaves ... or something like this that applies. I need to correct my advert too. To follow this logic, a slave is what one "does" (ie: serve an owner) rather than what one inherently "is". I think a great many people would take issue with that, and question how someone who is not a slave by nature would desire to be a slave (ie: how can anyone desire to be what it is not their nature to be). By the same token, are there no Dominants until such time as they have a slave/submissive to dominate? Seems rather unlikely to me. In fact, the entire premise lacks logical continuity. John

Mercnbeth -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/11/2006 5:37:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave I agree with those who say slave is a property. Therefore, slave without a master or owner does not make much sense: there can not be property without the owner. So, in adverts perspective slaves need to identify as "wannabe slaves", slave material, former slaves ... or something like this that applies. I need to correct my advert too. To follow this logic, a slave is what one "does" (ie: serve an owner) rather than what one inherently "is". I think a great many people would take issue with that, and question how someone who is not a slave by nature would desire to be a slave (ie: how can anyone desire to be what it is not their nature to be). By the same token, are there no Dominants until such time as they have a slave/submissive to dominate? Seems rather unlikely to me. In fact, the entire premise lacks logical continuity. John Taking issue or not, the question is, without a Master whom does a slave serve? Stipulating that there is a "slave heart" or a "slave mentality" doesn't change the fact that without possession there is no slavery. Desire is meritorious but on it own doesn't qualify. Same holds for a Master. Unless assigned through or under some service organization, being a Master requires ownership. You can't interchange Master with Dominant. Submission and Dominance are character traits that don't require the same standard. There are many lifestyle submissions who are dominant in their daily life, as there are Dominants who lead are submissive in their non-lifestyle interactions. Of course there is no written standard, but the answer to the questions; who are you serving, who are you Mastering seem pragmatic to me. Like you can't be a parent without having full responsibility for a child or a have child-like person under your direct care.

Rover -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/11/2006 6:05:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Like you can't be a parent without having full responsibility for a child or a have child-like person under your direct care. See, now that makes sense because everyone knows that when the children grow up, move out of the house, and are no longer under your direct care, you cease to be a parent. Makes perfect sense now. John

Rover -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/11/2006 6:14:42 AM)
On a more serious note, many lifestyle terms exist as both active terms (such as verbs) and descriptive terms (such as nouns, pronouns, etc). One can "be" a slave (noun) because that is what one is, just as one can "be" a Dominant (noun) because that is what one is. In neither case does the lifestyle descend upon these people like the Holy Spirit to "make" them into something they are not. They are something inherent to themselves, independent of anyone else. I am a proponent of the nature side in the "nature vs. nurture" debate. Many learned people (evidently you) have a reasoned opinion more favorably disposed to the "nurture" point of view where people are "made" into something by virtue of outside forces and experiences (in this case, a slave is "made" into a slave by a Master/Mistress). I can live with that. John

cherylnchains -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/11/2006 6:31:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Like you can't be a parent without having full responsibility for a child or a have child-like person under your direct care. See, now that makes sense because everyone knows that when the children grow up, move out of the house, and are no longer under your direct care, you cease to be a parent. Makes perfect sense now. John i need to show this one to my 19 year old the next time she comes home and says, i love you mom, 20 dollars worth!!

awmslave -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/12/2006 12:06:29 AM)
quote: See, now that makes sense because everyone knows that when the children grow up, move out of the house, and are no longer under your direct care, you cease to be a parent. Makes perfect sense now. It was just a bad example (genetic family connections) that does not invalidate my point. Take for instance computer hard drive. It can be connected as a slave to a master drive. Disconnect it and you have just a drive. It has a potential to be a slave but it is no slave.

Rover -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/12/2006 5:23:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave quote: See, now that makes sense because everyone knows that when the children grow up, move out of the house, and are no longer under your direct care, you cease to be a parent. Makes perfect sense now. It was just a bad example (genetic family connections) that does not invalidate my point. Take for instance computer hard drive. It can be connected as a slave to a master drive. Disconnect it and you have just a drive. It has a potential to be a slave but it is no slave. See, the problem is one of literalness (if that's a word). Merc is very literal in the usage of the term slave. Like daddysprop. They both see lifestyle slavery as indistinguishable from (for example) American slavery of the nineteenth century, or any of the nonconsensual slavery evident throughout portions of the third world today. To begin, entering into lifestyle slavery is a consensual decision. And while some may cite instances in which historical slavery was a decision made by the slave, it was far from consensual in that it was coercive (slavery or starvation, slavery or death, etc). And historically, once a slave always a slave unless one's owner offered freedom (or sometimes upon their death). Lifestyle slaves can leave anytime they desire. Even if they don't choose to, they can (and many do). Just try to stop one that has had enough, and see how quickly the police show up at your door (don't believe me, read some of the press reports at the NCSF website about idiots who believed in literal lifestyle slavery). Often times this is where the conversation degenerates into slave chest thumping about all the instances in which they would dutifully obey. Instances so outlandish that it leaves one scratching their head, and reaching for the psych hotline. Once the boastful claims wander into the realm of unbelievable... well... the entirety of their argument becomes unbelievable (literally). A frequent "out" is that these slave owners claim to release unhappy slaves before they can leave of their own free will. But that's no different than a frustrated and powerless employer shouting "you can't quit... you're fired!!" as you walk out the door (great, now you can quit AND get unemployment benefits). Bottom line is that anyone wishing to play the "literal" game just prolongs the misery of an illogical argument that is bound for failure. There's nothing wrong with believing in what is illogical and nonsensical... we do it all of the time. But as has been a common theme lately, attempting to contort logic and sense to fit a preconceived theory (rather than using observation, logic and sense, and developing a theory to explain it) only serves to entwine the purveyor. On the other hand, watching them struggle in the growing entanglement is admittedly entertaining. In the computer hard drive example you used, the slave drive is an inanimate object. People are not inanimate objects, though they may enjoy pretending to be for periods of time... until such time as they no longer enjoy pretending. That may be an hour, it may be a month, it may be a decade. Doesn't matter, because unlike the slave drive on your computer, a human can decide that it's no longer what they want to be, and move on. I have never seen a slave drive unhook itself and leave a computer on its own. Yet I have seen many slaves across a good portion of the United States and Southern Canada who have left their Masters when the situation was no longer to their liking. Now, you may state that they must not have been "real" slaves, but that would call into question everyone who claims to be a slave since I know of no manner of identifying "real" from "fake" (they do not come with certificates of authenticity... well... some do have slave registration numbers, is that a guarantee?)/ John

Mercnbeth -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/12/2006 5:58:42 AM)
quote: See, the problem is one of literalness (if that's a word). Merc is very literal in the usage of the term slave. Like daddysprop. They both see lifestyle slavery as indistinguishable from (for example) American slavery of the nineteenth century, or any of the nonconsensual slavery evident throughout portions of the third world today. Wrong. The distinction is obvious and critical. "American slaves" or slaves that exist in the world today are not relevant to this discussion. It is the prime, or #1 definition for the word. The BDSM cultural borrowed the term to describe a deeper commitment or a total surrender to a relationship where one has power over another to the point approaching ownership. It is not recognized in the legal manner that American slavery was. I wish there was a better word to use, but for lack of it, I'll still subscribe to the relationship requirement and distinction. The "test" being the question; "Who do you own?" or "Who is your owner?" Even then the name or label is unique to how the relationship defines "slave" and "Master". There is no definition of slave that does not encompass ownership. Not for a person anyway. If you're looking for a semantic argument, go for it. It does not a matter to me. I see no logic whatsoever in your argument that slavery, or Mastery occurs without ownership. For you it's a matter of labeling, self labeling. For some people it's more important than reality. But it doesn't mirror reality. A steer has horns just like a bull, but he is called a steer and not a bull because he's missing a very critical aspect of being a bull. You can contort or bend the square peg as much as possible. But similarly to the requirement of hole for it to fit in being a 'relationship' between the items; it also has to be some manner of square for it to fit. Nowhere, in any definition of a slave is it independent. But if it makes you feel good, enjoy yourself, and call every steer a bull.

Rover -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/12/2006 6:18:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The BDSM cultural borrowed the term to describe a deeper commitment or a total surrender to a relationship where one has power over another to the point approaching ownership. Ah, so now the definition is "approaching" ownership. That's a new one. quote: The "test" being the question; "Who do you own?" or "Who is your owner?" Wait, I thought it wasn't literal ownership. Shouldn't the question be better phrased as "Who do you nearly own?" or "Who nearly owns you?". I'm just saying, if you're going to be consistent. And isn't a collar a symbol or representation of ownership for many of those in Dominant/submissive relationships? Is that a false symbol, even though many (most?) Dominants would answer that they own their submissives, and many (most?) submissives would reply that they are owned by their Dominants? So maybe the "test" isn't really all that functional? Excuse me, is that silly string you're entangled in? John

thetammyjo -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/12/2006 6:26:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave I agree with those who say slave is a property. Therefore, slave without a master or owner does not make much sense: there can not be property without the owner. So, in adverts perspective slaves need to identify as "wannabe slaves", slave material, former slaves ... or something like this that applies. I need to correct my advert too. To follow this logic, a slave is what one "does" (ie: serve an owner) rather than what one inherently "is". I think a great many people would take issue with that, and question how someone who is not a slave by nature would desire to be a slave (ie: how can anyone desire to be what it is not their nature to be). By the same token, are there no Dominants until such time as they have a slave/submissive to dominate? Seems rather unlikely to me. In fact, the entire premise lacks logical continuity. John Being dominant is a personality trait like being submissive or it can be a role choice that you make for activities or sex, sort of like saying you prefer top or bottom. Slave, master/mistress, owner, pet, etc I consider these to be relationships roles or titles, ideally titles you are recognized as having by someone other than yourself (which seems sort of arrogant to me). No, I do not believe I am an owner or a mistress without a partner --- now I do have a master's degree in history and am working on a phd but that hardly translates into Ds or BDSM. I really dislike when folks assume they have a relationship with me and start using any of these titles.

Mercnbeth -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/12/2006 6:43:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The BDSM cultural borrowed the term to describe a deeper commitment or a total surrender to a relationship where one has power over another to the point approaching ownership. Ah, so now the definition is "approaching" ownership. That's a new one. quote: The "test" being the question; "Who do you own?" or "Who is your owner?" Wait, I thought it wasn't literal ownership. Shouldn't the question be better phrased as "Who do you nearly own?" or "Who nearly owns you?". I'm just saying, if you're going to be consistent. And isn't a collar a symbol or representation of ownership for many of those in Dominant/submissive relationships? Is that a false symbol, even though many (most?) Dominants would answer that they own their submissives, and many (most?) submissives would reply that they are owned by their Dominants? So maybe the "test" isn't really all that functional? Excuse me, is that silly string you're entangled in? John There is no legal deed. I won't pretend otherwise. However you can play semantic games all you like. Living in reality makes more sense to me. If you can't differentiate between American slavery and BDSM use of the word you need to go back to BDSM 101. Regardless of the trappings such as collar, contract, or whatever. No agency will return your slave to you should he or she escape as was the case for an American slave. I wouldn't dishonor the pain and suffering these people went through to place BDSM slavery as a direct comparison. There are similarities, but the distinctions are more important. However, you can't take the relationship aspect out of the definition; which is why I imagine you didn't respond to that aspect. Go ahead - be a steer.

Kalira -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/12/2006 6:58:32 AM)
quote: nod This is the defination I tend to go with. Generally I think that a slave retains two rights for sure: The right to choose her master and the right to leave if he is not treating her well as property. Other then that, it depends on how much control the master wants over her. For some that definition may work, for others, they would disagree. Personally, I did not choose Master; he chose me. In addition to that, when I became his property, I gave up my rights, which include the right to just walk out the door. It has nothing to do with being physically restrained or a doormat; and everything to do with holding to the ideal that I have of slavery. I can beg for release; but only Master can release me. I would not walk out the door without his first releasing me. quote: Submissives have a little more say in the relationship while slaves are a little more extreme and are more like property then a person with opinions. I am property, and yet I have very extreme opinions. Opinions that Master actually enjoys me expressing [:)]

mountainpet -> RE: what is a slave???? (12/12/2006 7:56:26 AM)
We often hear excprssions such as "I am a slave to my kids", or to my car, my life coach, etc. Once we get away from the dictionary definitions we are in the "slavery means different things to different people" area. That's probably where we should be, since there is no accepted bdsm definition.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625