Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: what is a slave????


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: what is a slave???? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/13/2006 4:38:49 PM   
Kalira


Posts: 954
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Fort Wayne Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Killbotsgirl

slaves have rules that they follow and the brand on their body or the collar they wear is a proud statment of that that is why i love being a slave because i am proud to wear my Masters collar

I am not branded; nor do I wear Master's collar. Having a brand or collar means very little to me if the mental aspect of submission was not there.


_____________________________

Facilius Per Partes In Cognitionem Totius Adducimur
We are more easily led part by part to an understanding of the whole.
Seneca

Damnant Quod Non Intellegunt

(in reply to Killbotsgirl)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 7:07:23 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline 		I'll take this to mean that you're interested in furthering this discussion, which I appreciate because it's both enjoyable and informative.  In previous threads I do seem to recall you being an advocate for a very literal definition of lifestyle slavery, but having been challenged you seem to have abandoned that in favor of a (somewhat) more practical definition.  Be that as it may, let's review what has been said in this thread alone:
 
In post #62 you stated:

quote:

 
A person defines what they are seeking. The definition can be broad or focused. The label applied doesn't matter. Fulfill the definition and you become the label assigned to the definition by the seeker.  The decision is to live by the definition. The label is a short form reference more for others; however without knowing how it’s defined by the labeler it more confusing than clarifying. 


Seriously, I agree with you entirely on this statement.  We all define what we are seeking, and we choose the label that each of us, individually, wishes to apply.  Based upon your statement above, you and I are not in disagreement at all.  However, you're in disagreement with yourself when you abandoned that sentiment to chastise me in post # 95 when you said:

quote:

 
For you it's a matter of labeling, self labeling.


And again in post # 114:

quote:

 
You believe calling yourself something makes is reality regardless of reality. In some circles that's called delusional. Shouting, "I'm a slave" walking down the street, or should that be crawling?, doesn't make it true


Now, perhaps you're advocating that you should be allowed to define and label your own relationships, but others must abide by your definition and label or risk being delusional.  Or worse yet... untrue.  On the other hand, given such conflicted statements, it might be more entertaining if I simply step out of the way and allow you to debate yourself.
 
In post #61 beth (I presume it was beth, though it was unsigned) said:

quote:


this slave is very sure that there are those who operate, with regards to their lives, in relatively the same manner as she does(as described briefly in her previous post) and yet call themselves submissive and not slave.  more power to them, so what, etc.

this slave is also sure that there are those who refer to themselves as submissive or slave and for this slave, relating to her own experience, they resemble neither, in her opinion.  this slave would never be so crass as to express it directly to them, or insensitive enough to try to invalidate their experience by trying to convince them that they aren't "real", just because this slave's experience is different than theirs.


This seems to confict with your own opinion on the topic, Merc.  Does the existence and expression of an independent opinion that contradicts your own preclude ownership in the manner in which you define "slave" in your own relationship?  It is commonly asserted by others that "real" slaves are not entitled to even the ownership of opinions, much less public expression of those that contradict their Master.  How do you define it in your relationship, or are you abandoning that position as well?
 
In post #71 you stated:

quote:


In general I don't particularly like the use of the word 'slave'. I think it is a disservice to those who live as slaves in the world today as well as in the past. However, I always have difficulty with the pronunciation of kajari, and there is no other acceptable, short-cut, labeling word. The association with the general definition may be confusing however, as I said, it serves as a quick reference and I'm happy to explain its use in the context of our relationship.


This statement seems to abandon your previous position (as expressed in posts #95 & #114) that people are not free to define these things for themselves, which in turn abandoned your prior position as expressed in post #62 that asserted they are.  Are you as confused as I am?  Wait, I guess that's a silly question.
 
In post #89 you said:

quote:


Like you can't be a parent without having full responsibility for a child or a have child-like person under your direct care.


And upon reading that analogy, I asked if parents cease to be parents when their children grow up, leave the house, and are no longer under your direct care.  I suppose the question could be asked if children remain children.  Of course, despite my having asked the question you abandoned the premise, never answered the question, and never mentioned it again. 
 
In post #89 you also said:

quote:


Stipulating that there is a "slave heart" or a "slave mentality" doesn't change the fact that without possession there is no slavery.


Though you abandoned the implication of total ownership in post #93 to say:

quote:

  
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.


Of course, that begs the question of how you define "approaching ownership".  How close does it have to be?  What does it have to include? 
 
But then, you immediately abandoned the "approaching ownership" position in the same post (#93) to establish a test for determining whether one is a Master or slave:

quote:

  
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".


Afterward, I asked whether the test questions would be more accurately stated as "Who do you nearly own" and "Who nearly owns you"?  You abandoned this "test" by not replying nor mentioning it again.
 
I also inquired as to how this would impact the many Dominants and submissives who view a collar as the symbol of ownership, and whether they were using it as a false symbol.  Again, you abandoned the premise by not replying or mentioning this test again.
 
So perhaps you see how I might have the impression that you've been contradictory in your logic, and that you have a penchant for abandoning your assertions when challenged, or when they might be a demonstrative burden to your credibility.
 
Now, I'm not the brightest guy on Collarme, or anywhere for that matter.  So it may simply be that I'm just incapable of understanding such complicated issues. 
 
But I think it's equally likely that the terms "Master" and "slave" are descriptive labels people apply to themselves that express (in shorthand) who and what they "are" inherently.  I think others (like yourself) also use them as descriptive terms to express (in shorthand, much as you said yourself) how they (personally) view their relationship (though their definition may not be identical to your own). 
 
The problem people (like yourself) run into is when they want the terms to represent something much more.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 7:31:06 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		Rover,
Babble on.

I'll reduce it to the basics:

slave=relationship
submissive=personality trait.

Nothing you quoted is in contradiction. Allowances for nuances or others to define it differently are acceptable to us, but we simply disagree and indicate why.

Feel free in the face of that equation to do as you please; however no accepted definition of slave in any source I could find, defines slave without relationship. It's the only aspect of importance. It is the only aspect you don't argue against, so I assume you don't have an argument and want to argue by injecting tangents.

Caveat: To us it matters not how you or anyone else label yourself. It doesn't change the aspect of needing a relationship to be a slave or Master. Our use of Master/slave only provides a shorthand reference. A relationship is required. We have one. The best manner to convey it is with those terms. If anything happened to either of us, the terms would not apply.

quote:

Now, I'm not the brightest guy on Collarme, or anywhere for that matter.  So it may simply be that I'm just incapable of understanding such complicated issues.

Agreed.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 7:39:10 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Rover,
Babble on.

I'll reduce it to the basics:

slave=relationship
submissive=personality trait.

Nothing you quoted is in contradiction. Allowances for nuances or others to define it differently are acceptable to us, but we simply disagree and indicate why.

Feel free in the face of that equation to do as you please; however no accepted definition of slave in any source I could find, defines slave without relationship. It's the only aspect of importance. It is the only aspect you don't argue against, so I assume you don't have an argument and want to argue by injecting tangents.

Caveat: To us it matters not how you or anyone else label yourself. It doesn't change the aspect of needing a relationship to be a slave or Master. Our use of Master/slave only provides a shorthand reference. A relationship is required. We have one. The best manner to convey it is with those terms. If anything happened to either of us, the terms would not apply.

quote:

Now, I'm not the brightest guy on Collarme, or anywhere for that matter.  So it may simply be that I'm just incapable of understanding such complicated issues.

Agreed.


I'll consider that abandoning the entire discussion.  You're not French by any chance, are you?
 
John
 
P.S. -  Definitions and labels apply to individuals, and to relationships.  Focusing exclusively upon relationships is only half the picture.

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 7:52:09 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

I'll consider that abandoning the entire discussion.  You're not French by any chance, are you?
 
John
 
P.S. -  Definitions and labels apply to individuals, and to relationships.  Focusing exclusively upon relationships is only half the picture.
 
No John, that isn't abandoning the discussion it is the core of the discussion, and as expected, you can't challenge the relationship aspect. The answer to "What is a slave?" requires a relationship. Self label aside, the concept is hollow without one. Even going back to the Harley example. It's not a Motorcycle or a slave without a relationship. It's a big paperweight without gas. (Relationship) But we accept that people think and believe otherwise. We don't understand it or agree with it, and we (I mostly) challenge it; but it doesn't effect us in the least.
 
On the simplest terms, the test questions at least get the person hearing them to think about themselves and their identity. It doesn't require them to change. It isn't represented as any dogma. It really isn't even a challenge.
 
It really is as simple as that, but as complicated as the intricacies within the relationship.
 
French? No - the French surrender.
 
And I apologize for the cheap shot but I couldn't resist the opportunity you presented.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 8:22:39 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
And I apologize for the cheap shot but I couldn't resist the opportunity you presented.


Actually, when one goes fishing they usually bring bait.  Fish oblige by swallowing it.
 
Unlike you, I will answer the issues directly:

quote:

 
The answer to "What is a slave?" requires a relationship. Self label aside, the concept is hollow without one


Those who subscribe to the "nature" side of the "nature vs. nurture" would define it as qualities inherent to an individual.  Those who subscribe to the "nurture" side of the argument define it as something one can be "made into" by experience, manipulation, etc.  Sill others (such as yourself) would define it solely as a title in a (personally defined) variation of a power exchange relationship.
 
Each of those replies is logical in its own right.  Elevating any one of them as the only "right" answer is incomplete and inappropriate. 

quote:

 
Even going back to the Harley example. It's not a Motorcycle or a slave without a relationship.


I did not engage in any Harley references with you, though I would suggest that a Harley is still a motorcycle whether it is owned (in a relationship) or not (still on the showroom floor).  I'm anxiously awaiting your explanation as to how that is not so.
 
I'm also awaiting your explanation about the parents and children.  Though I have diminishing hope that you will ever return to that abandoned analogy either.

quote:

 
On the simplest terms, the test questions at least get the person hearing them to think about themselves and their identity. It doesn't require them to change. It isn't represented as any dogma.


In all honesty, that is not the manner in which you presented the "test", nor your clear intention at the time.  Asking "How do you differ from a carrot" also gets people thinking about themselves and their identity, but is also of no value as a "test" for determining whether one is a lifestyle slave.
 
That is also inconsistent with several previous statements of yours that are included in my previous post (but to which you do not respond).

quote:


French? No - the French surrender.


There are a slew of abandoned assertions and statements I provided for you in my previous post.  You've abandoned them (surrendered the argument) until such time as you reply to them.  You might consider using my post here as a template, in which I responded to each of your points individually.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 9:09:20 AM   
starshineowned


Posts: 1551
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Greetings..~smiles~

Just general reply...

I don't think the opening question is one that needs to be asked. The word slave is clearly defined already in the dictionary with some alittle more detailed than others but pretty much all of them have the same basic answer.

Maybe more importantly is where people have drawn their knowledge of the word from to begin with in order to manipulate it to their own personal satisfaction. If the word itself and the established accepted base meanings are not where the initial start of thought process and identification came from..then where else is there that this might be done from?

History to present has given us many different types of slaves having many different types of functions within the social settings and needs during those periods. With that said: What was/were/are/is the absolute common bond between all these different types of slaves that allowed for them to be viewed as slaves?

Legal?
Ownership?
Property and not human?
No rights or priveledges unless given but never entitled?
shackles?
collar?
Fear of severe physical pain or death?
Horrid conditions?
disposable?
Booty of war?
Born into it?
Ignorance of what was going on and no idea how to combat it?
Better treatment and life than they had actually had?

I'm sure that list could go on a long time. What are the elements that people feel are a absolute must (if not in legal allowances..in mindset) in order to be a slave?

I dont think until those elements are found, and agreed upon by the mass of alternative life choices that this debate will ever calm. I know that when I go to look up a word in the dictionary/s ..I don't sit there and debate the definitions provided. Because though we each process information different or in variances..it is quite possible that one will see into something that another will not. In doing this ..they will walk away having a somewhat similiar understanding but will incorporate it into their lives in a much different manner. A whole lot actually will come into play now not just based on the possible variances..but upbringing, morals, values, experiences, status mental, physical, emotional, laws, culture..etc. etc. etc.

Any who..find the elements and work from there.

Well Wishes
starshine
Happy slave of Master Delvin


_____________________________

"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." --Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 9:17:16 AM   
mountainpet


Posts: 40
Joined: 6/24/2005
Status: offline 		One question that isn't often asked:  Why is it important to you that I consider you to be a slave?  What do you get from that?  Many people might answer, "that's what I am, so it will further your understanding of me." 

I don't think so.  Since there is no accepted definition of slavery in a bdsm context, or in any other context except that of pre-20th century feudal societies, I don't think a person's self-characterization as a slave lends anything to understanding. 

(in reply to starshineowned)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 9:38:28 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mountainpet

One question that isn't often asked:  Why is it important to you that I consider you to be a slave?  What do you get from that?  Many people might answer, "that's what I am, so it will further your understanding of me." 

I don't think so.  Since there is no accepted definition of slavery in a bdsm context, or in any other context except that of pre-20th century feudal societies, I don't think a person's self-characterization as a slave lends anything to understanding. 


I would suggest that what (some, not all) people get is a self-satisfaction, a gratification, associated with the term.  Some achieve the same sense of pleasure from other terms (such as submissive, girl, boi, etc.). 
 
In no case are any of them literally, denotatively, a slave.  And thus, what constitutes an "acceptable" departure (or variation) from that literal definition is open to personal interpretation.  I have no issue with that (in fact I endorse it).
 
What some argue is that their interpretation is "better" or "more accurate" or whatever than the next person's interpretation (and denigrate others for their own interpretations, maybe even call them "delusional").  And that is where I have an issue.  I find it ironic and hypocritical that these folks have no trouble being self-professed arbiters of "correctness", but wail against those that are "self-defined" slaves.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to mountainpet)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 9:44:47 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		John,
quote:

Those who subscribe to the "nature" side of the "nature vs. nurture" would define it as qualities inherent to an individual.  Those who subscribe to the "nurture" side of the argument define it as something one can be "made into" by experience, manipulation, etc.  Sill others (such as yourself) would define it solely as a title in a (personally defined) variation of a power exchange relationship.
 
Each of those replies is logical in its own right.  Elevating any one of them as the only "right" answer is incomplete and inappropriate. 

Because you say so? I see, your dogma sets the standard without acceptance of any other. Enjoy that viewpoint.

Providing no example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.
quote:

I did not engage in any Harley references with you, though I would suggest that a Harley is still a motorcycle whether it is owned (in a relationship) or not (still on the showroom floor).  I'm anxiously awaiting your explanation as to how that is not so.
 
I'm also awaiting your explanation about the parents and children.  Though I have diminishing hope that you will ever return to that abandoned analogy either.

The MC doesn't move independently it is a slave to someone/something.
Biologically, your "nature" example a father and mother is defined by providing the sperm and egg for the child. A 'parent' is a caregiver. These are definitions, yet a adoptive parent identifies and calls themselves father and mother. It is their label it is how they feel but they are not father/mother by a definition appropriate "naturally". It also doesn't effect me, their child, the outside world, nor should it. It is a function of the definition. A 'parent' may be a father and/or mother but its not a requirement. To be a father/mother it requires a biological test question; "Did you provide the sperm/egg?"
No example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.
quote:

 In all honesty, that is not the manner in which you presented the "test", nor your clear intention at the time.  Asking "How do you differ from a carrot" also gets people thinking about themselves and their identity, but is also of no value as a "test" for determining whether one is a lifestyle slave.
 
That is also inconsistent with several previous statements of yours that are included in my previous post (but to which you do not respond).

It serves as a test to prove a point. Obviously a good one because...
No example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.  

quote:

There are a slew of abandoned assertions and statements I provided for you in my previous post.  You've abandoned them (surrendered the argument) until such time as you reply to them.  You might consider using my post here as a template, in which I responded to each of your points individually.

You, failed to make a point providing any empirical or even anecdotal contrary position, why respond? Nature/nurture? They provide a debate to identify the cause, but whether the reason is nature or nurture it still required a relationship for it to make any sense.

I should make another qualification. If your relationship reference point derives solely from internet experience, I can understand your adamant arguing against the necessity of physical contact initiated by another living human being. But that really should be subject of a different thread. I responded in context and from the perspective of real time intimacy, not long distance masturbatory fantasy. 

And yet the basic item missing. No example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 10:31:49 AM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Those who subscribe to the "nature" side of the "nature vs. nurture" would define it as qualities inherent to an individual.  Those who subscribe to the "nurture" side of the argument define it as something one can be "made into" by experience, manipulation, etc.  Sill others (such as yourself) would define it solely as a title in a (personally defined) variation of a power exchange relationship.
 
Each of those replies is logical in its own right.  Elevating any one of them as the only "right" answer is incomplete and inappropriate. 


quote:

 
Because you say so? I see, your dogma sets the standard without acceptance of any other. Enjoy that viewpoint.

Providing no example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.


No dogma, Merc.  I'm not the one saying there is only "one true way" (I've identified three ways), you are.  Those are three identifiable definitions of a lifestyle "slave". One of which embraces the concept of inherent qualities that make one a slave (ie: "nature") independent of their current relationship status.  Despite your protestation to the contrary, that is an example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.
 
There may be other logically defensible definitions that I'm unaware of, and you (or others) are free to share them.

quote:

 
I did not engage in any Harley references with you, though I would suggest that a Harley is still a motorcycle whether it is owned (in a relationship) or not (still on the showroom floor).  I'm anxiously awaiting your explanation as to how that is not so.
 
I'm also awaiting your explanation about the parents and children.  Though I have diminishing hope that you will ever return to that abandoned analogy either.

 
quote:

 
The MC doesn't move independently it is a slave to someone/something.
Biologically, your "nature" example a father and mother is defined by providing the sperm and egg for the child. A 'parent' is a caregiver. These are definitions, yet a adoptive parent identifies and calls themselves father and mother. It is their label it is how they feel but they are not father/mother by a definition appropriate "naturally". It also doesn't effect me, their child, the outside world, nor should it. It is a function of the definition. A 'parent' may be a father and/or mother but its not a requirement. To be a father/mother it requires a biological test question; "Did you provide the sperm/egg?"
No example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.


Whoa, Merc.  Now you're redefining "slave" to mean something that cannot move independently?  What does beth do when you're at work... sit on the couch unable to move, think or act independently?  My, such a moving target you are.
 
The Harley is still a motorcycle, owned or unowned.  You're not very convincing in trying to prove otherwise.  In fact, you didn't even try to prove otherwise... simply abandoned the premise because it's indefensible.
 
As for the biological example, it was your example not mine.  I will remind you that you said:

quote:


Like you can't be a parent without having full responsibility for a child or a have child-like person under your direct care.
 

Now you're introducing the concept of biological father and mother vs. parent (caregiver).  Did you seriously mean to make that distinction when you made the initial statement, or are you simply struggling to find some wiggle room in the logical maze you've created for yourself?  This still doesn't answer my question... when the children grow up and live on their own, do you cease to be a parent? 
 
I might suggest that this is indicative of the same logical problem you have in regards to the term "slave".  You're focused on the "active" (ie: parenting, not parent... and slaving, not slave) as if when one ceases to "do" something, they cease to "be" something. 
 
As a side note, I think there are a great number of adoptive families that would be offended to hear you say that they are not fathers, mothers, and children.
 
Finally, the example of a slave outside the context of a relationship was given (and noted) above.  Just because you do not like this example does not make it valid.  If you'd like to invalidate it logically and factually, take a whack at it.

quote:

 
In all honesty, that is not the manner in which you presented the "test", nor your clear intention at the time.  Asking "How do you differ from a carrot" also gets people thinking about themselves and their identity, but is also of no value as a "test" for determining whether one is a lifestyle slave.
 
That is also inconsistent with several previous statements of yours that are included in my previous post (but to which you do not respond).


quote:

 
It serves as a test to prove a point. Obviously a good one because...
No example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.  


Again, the example is given above.  You may not like it, but you cannot invalidate it logically.

quote:

 
There are a slew of abandoned assertions and statements I provided for you in my previous post.  You've abandoned them (surrendered the argument) until such time as you reply to them.  You might consider using my post here as a template, in which I responded to each of your points individually.


quote:

 
You, failed to make a point providing any empirical or even anecdotal contrary position, why respond? Nature/nurture? They provide a debate to identify the cause, but whether the reason is nature or nurture it still required a relationship for it to make any sense.


Empirical or anectdotal evidence?  Really, Merc.  Neither of us has provided any scientific evidence.  This is a philosophical and logical debate, not a science project.  Empirically, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people I have met real time that identify themselves as "slaves" independent of their relationship status.  So have you, and to deny that would be a big fat lie.  That's plenty of empirical evidence.  Whether you agree with them is another issue entirely.

quote:


I should make another qualification. If your relationship reference point derives solely from internet experience, I can understand your adamant arguing against the necessity of physical contact initiated by another living human being. But that really should be subject of a different thread. I responded in context and from the perspective of real time intimacy, not long distance masturbatory fantasy. 


I think you know that my reference point is real time based.  It would be just as unsporting (and inaccurate) for me to question whether your relationship is internet based.  You must be very frustrated to have made such an classless implication.  It is not, however, beneath you to have done so.

quote:

 
And yet the basic item missing. No example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.


Once more, for the record, since you seem to think that closing your eyes makes this cease to exist...
 
An individual can embody the qualities that inherently make one a "slave", exlcusive of their current relationship status.  You don't need to take my word for it, because you've met hundreds if not thousands of people offline, in real time, who have told you exactly the same thing about themselves.  You may not like it, you may argue with it, but you've provided no evidence to invalidate their statements about who and what they are. 
 
And that is a fact, Jack... errrr... Merc.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 11:17:42 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Despite your protestation to the contrary, that is an example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.

No it isn't despite your protests to the contrary.

quote:

Whoa, Merc.  Now you're redefining "slave" to mean something that cannot move independently?  What does beth do when you're at work... sit on the couch unable to move, think or act independently?  My, such a moving target you are
Your a joker you are. But as stated, beth would not be a slave outside our relationship. The MC sits there without gas. End of story.
quote:

As a side note, I think there are a great number of adoptive families that would be offended to hear you say that they are not fathers, mothers, and children. 
Offending now changes biology? Feelings make fact?
quote:

Empirical or anectdotal evidence?  Really, Merc.  Neither of us has provided any scientific evidence.  This is a philosophical and logical debate, not a science project.  Empirically, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people I have met real time that identify themselves as "slaves" independent of their relationship status. 
 
There's the difference between us. You base your fact on philosophy, to me it's pragmatic. There are hundreds of people that identify themselves as a lot of different things, it doesn't make it so. But if it makes them feel good and you - enjoy
quote:

I think you know that my reference point is real time based.  It would be just as unsporting (and inaccurate) for me to question whether your relationship is internet based.  You must be very frustrated to have made such an classless implication.  It is not, however, beneath you to have done so.
Don't know - don't care and it is an outstanding question based upon your position. Your position is that however anyone identifies themselves is fact. I've witnessed it only previously on-line so I saw the question as relevant. It wasn't judgmental. If that's was your reality it would have explained a lot. Classless? Frustrated? You're inference not mine. It was just a question to gain perspective. You can believe what you what regarding beth and I.

quote:

 An individual can embody the qualities that inherently make one a "slave", exlcusive of their current relationship status.  You don't need to take my word for it, because you've met hundreds if not thousands of people offline, in real time, who have told you exactly the same thing about themselves.  You may not like it, you may argue with it, but you've provided no evidence to invalidate their statements about who and what they are. 
Those are self identities and it matters not to me that they are.
quote:

And that is a fact, Jack... errrr... Merc.

Your facts - not "the". Your world not mine.

An individual can consider themselves or embody themselves anyway they like. Without interaction they only embody a concept not a reality. They feel they are a slave, have be nurtured to be a slave, it's their nature to be a slave? Why stop there? What else can be self embodied? Police officer? Movie Star? Pirate ship captain? Astronaut? I say I am - so I am? Wow - can I be President Bush for a moment and order home the troops for Christmas? I feel in my heart I am the embodiment of a US President. That must make it so and everybody must accept my reality! Hey, tomorrow I want to be polar bear - I say I am so that makes it true according to you. I need no fact or relationship or ability to back it up. Independent of any empirical or actual reality I say so - so I am. You can rationalize that mentality? Okay - I am a motorcycle. Tell you what, within that context you win - you ARE a Master, and all those who care to anoint themselves slaves are slaves. There feel better and validated? Consider it a Christmas present.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 2:43:25 PM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Despite your protestation to the contrary, that is an example of a slave outside the context of a relationship.

quote:


No it isn't despite your protests to the contrary.


Is that your version of "no I'm not, what are you?".  Should I come back with "I'm rubber and you're glue" or something of that sort?  Seriously, even I had expected better of you. 
 
 If you were an attorney and your case rested upon simply stating "No it isn't" I'd imagine you'd have a very underrepresented (and dissatisfied) client.  If you disagree, make a cogent and logical argument to the contrary (as I did). 

quote:

 
Whoa, Merc.  Now you're redefining "slave" to mean something that cannot move independently?  What does beth do when you're at work... sit on the couch unable to move, think or act independently?  My, such a moving target you are


quote:

 
Your a joker you are. But as stated, beth would not be a slave outside our relationship. The MC sits there without gas. End of story.


Actually, that's illogical.  Whether the MC (motorcycle) sits there with or without gas, it is still a motorcycle.  You still have yet to make any logical argument to the contrary.  You may wish it were the end of the story, but alas, wishes do not always come true. 
 
You have stated a new way to test the legitimacy of a slave:

quote:


The MC doesn't move independently it is a slave to someone/something.


You have also stated that beth is your slave.  I believe it is a fair question to ask if beth moves independently of you.  Whether she is able to walk, talk, or in any way move without your direction or command.
 
Just comparing you with the criteria you have set out for others.  Hope it's not too uncomfortable on that petard.

quote:

 
As a side note, I think there are a great number of adoptive families that would be offended to hear you say that they are not fathers, mothers, and children.


quote:

 
Offending now changes biology? Feelings make fact?


Nope, biology is what it is.  But then, a great many people would define being a father, mother or child as something far more than mere biology.  If you want to narrow the statement to "biological father", or "biological mother", etc. then your analogy makes sense.  But I have heard a great many adoptive families state emphatically that they are more father, mother and child than biology would imply.  Who are you to say they are wrong?
 
One might further inquire how you feel about our leather families.  They also are not biological relations.  But they are adamant about their bonds to one another, and their relationship as a family.  Do you want to state for the record that they also are wrong?
 
You do seem to have a penchant for pointing out that many people are, in your view, wrong.  You evidently feel that you have been given the power and authority to determine for everyone what is "right" and "wrong", "real" and "delusional".  Thankfully your "one true way" has been thoroughly discredited.

quote:

 
Empirical or anectdotal evidence?  Really, Merc.  Neither of us has provided any scientific evidence.  This is a philosophical and logical debate, not a science project.  Empirically, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people I have met real time that identify themselves as "slaves" independent of their relationship status. 


quote:

 
There's the difference between us. You base your fact on philosophy, to me it's pragmatic. There are hundreds of people that identify themselves as a lot of different things, it doesn't make it so. But if it makes them feel good and you - enjoy


I don't think many people would describe me as anything less than a realist.  You asked for evidence that there are slaves beyond the context of a relationship, and I provided that evidence for you.  You implied that such people only exist on the internet, yet you can't deny that you and I both have met scores of people who have said so about themselves. 
 
Do you not believe what you have met and seen for yourself with your own eyes, and heard with your own ears?  Now who is the realist and who is not? 
 
Of course, you can choose to simply dismiss them all away by saying that they're "wrong" or "delusional".  Thank goodness we have you to make that distinction for everyone else.
 
quote:

 
I think you know that my reference point is real time based.  It would be just as unsporting (and inaccurate) for me to question whether your relationship is internet based.  You must be very frustrated to have made such an classless implication.  It is not, however, beneath you to have done so.


quote:

 
Don't know - don't care and it is an outstanding question based upon your position. Your position is that however anyone identifies themselves is fact. I've witnessed it only previously on-line so I saw the question as relevant. It wasn't judgmental. If that's was your reality it would have explained a lot. Classless? Frustrated? You're inference not mine. It was just a question to gain perspective. You can believe what you what regarding beth and I.


Ah, but you did know and you do care (at least enough to use that as an intended slight).  And you have mistated my position.  Never once did I say "however anyone identifies themselves is fact".  Go ahead, look it up... I never said it.  I'm not sure if you assumed (you know the danger with assumption) what I might think, or if you think you might find some advantage to putting words in my mouth.  Either way, you're incorrect.
 
Lots of people identify themselves in unfactual ways.  But there are plenty of folks who identify themselves in factual ways.  Are there some people who identify themselves as slaves, but are not?  Depends upon whose definition you use and what is in their mind and heart.  I cannot know what is there, but evidently you can (is that a superpower?). 
 
Here I shall depart from logic to say that I do not believe (read: I have no evidence but believe it to be so anyway) they are all lying. 
 
Why?  Not only because I don't believe everyone in a certain group or class is a liar (an interesting stereotype or prejudice you seem rather fond of), but because there a logical case can be made for being a slave absent a current relationship.  You still have not made a logical case to the contrary.
 
I stand by the classless and frustrated assessment, though it has nothing to do with beth. 

quote:

 
An individual can embody the qualities that inherently make one a "slave", exlcusive of their current relationship status.  You don't need to take my word for it, because you've met hundreds if not thousands of people offline, in real time, who have told you exactly the same thing about themselves.  You may not like it, you may argue with it, but you've provided no evidence to invalidate their statements about who and what they are. 


quote:

 
Those are self identities and it matters not to me that they are.


You and beth have self identities as Master and slave.  There is no certificate you bear authenticating you as "real".  No ruling authority has stamped Merc & beth's self identification as genuine, while denying the self identification of others.  We cannot know if, behind closed doors, beth leads you around on a collar and leash while you worship her as your Mistress.  However, most folks will take you at your word.  Seems a shame that you don't offer the same in return.
 
Your self identification is no more, or less, valid than anyone else's.  Though it's hard not to get the impression that you consider yourself and your relationship superior.
 
You make plenty of statements in haste, without appreciating the implications of what you say. 

quote:

 
And that is a fact, Jack... errrr... Merc


quote:

 
Your facts - not "the". Your world not mine.


You took this snippet out of context.  The context in which it appeared was the statement that you have also met hundreds if not thousands of real time lifestylers who identify themselves as slaves exclusive of their current relationship status.  That is a fact, an undeniable fact (and to your credit, you have not stepped over the line that would call your veracity into question).  Anyone who has spent any time out in real time communities has met plenty of these good folks... heck, they may even be those good folks.

quote:

 
An individual can consider themselves or embody themselves anyway they like. Without interaction they only embody a concept not a reality.


I don't know if I agree with that, Merc.  Or if it makes any logical sense.  You do not need to interact with anyone to be heterosexual, and I presume that to be a reality.  You don't need to interact with someone in order to be Pagan, or Christian, or the like, and no one would question it as a reality.  You don't need to interact with someone in order to be happy or sad, and yet those are realities.
 
Point is, each of those things (and an endless list) are very real, yet anyone would have a difficult time "proving" them to your satisfaction, beyond saying that they self identify in that manner.  Who are you to say they are "right" or "wrong"?
 
Really, I suppose the bottom line is... who are you?  I know that you are not the all seeing, all knowing arbiter of what is and isn't "right" or "true" in this lifestyle or any other.
 
John

< Message edited by Rover -- 12/14/2006 2:51:00 PM >

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 2:52:45 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		John,
I don't get it. You win - everyone is how they feel best embodied.

After, as President I bring the troops home for Christmas. I declaring that everyone who as more than a $1.00 in assets is rich! Instant end of poverty in the USA. This is FUN! I'm surprised one or both of the political parties doesn't subscribe to your method.

I'm on board with you brother. No need for relativity just a personal feeling or statement is good enough.

After I'm done with the USA I may make similar proclamations for the rest of the world.

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 3:01:38 PM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

John,
I don't get it. You win - everyone is how they feel best embodied.

After, as President I bring the troops home for Christmas. I declaring that everyone who as more than a $1.00 in assets is rich! Instant end of poverty in the USA. This is FUN! I'm surprised one or both of the political parties doesn't subscribe to your method.

I'm on board with you brother. No need for relativity just a personal feeling or statement is good enough.

After I'm done with the USA I may make similar proclamations for the rest of the world.


You see, claiming to be President is more than a self identification.  But then, logic seems to escape you.
 
And if you feel rich with $ 1.00 in your pocket, then by God you ARE rich.  Good for you, your heart is in a great place.  Not that you could ever prove that to another person, but I can't imagine that anyone would be so crass as to deny your validity.
 
John
 
P.S. - You're right on one account though... I do win.  :)

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 3:04:25 PM   
Driver1961


Posts: 459
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline 		He enters, dips His lid to all.

Question- Re  the DomGames-  Can another Dominant enter sword drawn or is there only room for two on the mountain peak?  Oh, can I bring my 'Scottish Terrier'? - it never lets go when it bites..


Thanks for an enjoyable joust Merc n Rover  or Rover n Merc?

_____________________________

Dance as though nobody is watching!

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 3:32:05 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

P.S. - You're right on one account though... I do win.  :)
  Wow - On-line is that important to you? Just as I suspected!
 
quote:

Can another Dominant enter sword drawn or is there only room for two on the mountain peak?


Appoint, (or is it anoint Rov, what is the proper way to self ordain? I'm still new at your talent for irrelevance.)  yourself "Lord of the Manner". However you feel "embodied" you are! What a wonderful world!

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: what is a slave???? - 12/14/2006 4:51:09 PM   
BDSM05478


Posts: 417
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
If I were to be any type of salve in the world, I guess I would choose bag balm.
Dr. Naylor


Hey I thought that was a N.E. secret!   your always good for a chuckle :)

_____________________________

"It's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart" U.E. McGill

"Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present." - Marcus Aurelius

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: what is a slave???? - 1/4/2007 6:19:55 AM   
badlilthang


Posts: 357
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SirLordTrainer

Adding further and in My opinion, a slave is a slave with or without a Master, she always retains a slaves heart, it's who and what she is.


i agree with this statement complitely. Being who you are - has nothing to do with Own/being owned. who you are - is who you are. Period.




_____________________________

.Forgiveness is the fragrance a flower leaves in the air after being crushed underfoot.

(in reply to SirLordTrainer)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: what is a slave???? - 1/4/2007 7:29:23 AM   
dvart


Posts: 110
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline 		But you cannot get away from the fact that the most important defining characteristic of a slave in history is that he or she had no legal right to walk away.
A BDSM slave may choose to see his or her situation as being the same, but this is a wholly voluntary choice whereas a historical slave had an involuntary choice made for them.
A BDSM slave can always walk away.
A state of mind is not the same as involuntary bondage.

Although it a mouthful and less emotionally charged "voluntarily enslaved" would be a more accurate term.

(in reply to badlilthang)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: what is a slave???? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.187