RE: Married slaves, can they be owned?

RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 4:40:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas Your personal experience; what you genuinely feel and percieve, is that you have no choice but to do as your owner commands. If you were indeed a man's slave, he'd be within his rights to command exactly what he pleased of you and you, being a slave to his will would perceive that you had no choice but to do your master's bidding. If you were in fact a man's slave your life would be wholly in his hands. This I agree with. quote: That isn't really possible for a married woman. You could not be committed to your husband because you would have no commitment to offer. Only a free woman can make commitments of her own. Why not? I am allowed to make whatever commitments the Owner allows me to make. A slave can graduate from college, raise a child, even have a successful career. Those are ALL large, time consuming responsibilities and commitments. If the Owner allows it, why wouldn't it be possible for the slave to get involved with those? I think some people buy into the idea that in a slave's life, the ONLY thing she CAN possibly be devoted to is the Owner. For me, the Owner is my PRIMARY devotion, which comes before all else. But there's lots of other things I can be devoted to at the SAME TIME that does not conflict with my service to the Owner. Most Owners in fact prefer that the slave have other things besides themselves which bring their slaves are committed to, whether it's career promotion, family promotion, education or just hobbies. If the Owner deems it best for the slave to engage in those commitments, then shouldn't the slave follow through? And I truly believe they ARE commitments. quote: Whether you followed whatever life plans you have made with your husband, whether you had a sexual relationship with him, even whether you stayed, or left, would be completely at your master's choosing. Your marriage by any reasonable measure would cease to exist. It would be reduced to your master allowing you to cohabitate with a man because it happened to be convenient for him to do so. I think that's a great description of what a marriage would be for me, though perhaps a bit more than co-habitation. But that doesn't mean I'm not married and committed in that marriage. If the Owner allows it, then it exists. Certainly the Owner COULD tell me to end it at any point, just as he COULD tell me to end my life, end contact with my family and many other things, at his discretion. But we're living in the world we like to be fulfilled in. The Owner has told me he WANTS me to have other commitments, that he WANTS me to continue living, that he WANTS me to be connected to my family. Now, he could change his mind, it's not out of the realm of possibility. However, the Owner is of consistent character and to end a relationship unless it were causing some sort of dysfunction in my service to him would be inconsistent with what he has developed me as thus far. quote: I will say to you the same thing that I said to my girl before she knelt and begged to be collared: If you feel that you could choose anything but to live as a slave, you should. It's kind of like being an artist; something that you sould only do if you must. I tend to agree with this as well.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 8:03:00 AM)
I think EmeraldSlave did a wonderful job answering this, but I wanted to add a few thoughts of my own. quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas On the other hand, you could do what you're doing now; have trysts with someone who will treat you as if you were his slave for a bounded period of time while acknowledging that you are, in the final analysis, a free woman who has somewhere else to be. What is the difference between "being with someone who will treat you as if you were his slave " for a year and "being a slave" for a year? Don't you treat your slave as if she were your slave? If not, do you treat her as if she were not your slave? Is there an option I am missing? quote: If you were indeed a man's slave, he'd be within his rights to command exactly what he pleased of you and you, being a slave to his will would perceive that you had no choice but to do your master's bidding. If you were in fact a man's slave your life would be wholly in his hands. This is indeed the kind of relationship both Celestia and I are looking for. quote: That isn't really possible for a married woman. Why on earth not? quote: You could not be committed to your husband because you would have no commitment to offer. Only a free woman can make commitments of her own. Being married isn't being enslaved. She could indeed commit to me as property, yet maintain her marriage and her commitment to it. Slaves can indeed make commitments, though they are always made with the understanding that the owner can cancel those commitments at any time. quote: Whether you followed whatever life plans you have made with your husband, whether you had a sexual relationship with him, even whether you stayed, or left, would be completely at your master's choosing. Of course. This is the kind of relationship I am looking for, and I believe it is the kind Celestia is looking for as well. quote: Your marriage by any reasonable measure would cease to exist. It would be reduced to your master allowing you to cohabitate with a man because it happened to be convenient for him to do so. And what is wrong with that??? Why does an owner allowing his property to have a healthy and happy marriage make her any less a slave? How does having an owner who allows you to have a healthy and happy marriage make your marriage cease to exist? Do you make your slave sleep only 2 hours a day? Being your property, you could do that, right? Does that fact that you do not exercise your ability to limit her sleep make her any less your property? Of course not. Why don't you limit her sleep? Because you think it would not be the healthiest thing for her. Why wouldn't I destroy my slave's marriage? Because I think it would not be the healthiest thing for her. quote: None of the above means that you do not have a slave nature. You may in fact desire to be owned. What you are trying to do is satisfy that desire by having some of the experiences that an owned girl would have while stopping short of becoming a man's slave. You have this habit of making assumptions that simply astonishes me at times. From what I know of Celestia, she is quite serious of becoming a man's slave. She is looking for an owner who will take her as property, as completely and fully as you own your girl. She has special needs, so she must be choosy in the man she gives herself to. He must want what is best for her, and understand that keeping her family intact is best for her. quote: If, on the other hand, Taggard ever succeeds at enslaving you, truly, you will have chosen, celestia. That would be the last choice you would make, for as long as you were a slave. Yep...and if she chooses her owner wisely, she will be in a situation where she is really and trully owned, and still allowed to have a healthy and happy marriage. Does that still not make sense? If we ever sign a year long contract, I will know that I have the power to ruin her marriage. I will have the power to command her to leave her family (or ask for release). Having met the girl, I know that she is a slave at heart. If we ever got to the point of a year long contract, I imagine that she would leave if I asked. However, I would never ask. It is really outside my desires and inclinations. quote: Much of life is about the choices we make. Some of them are very cruel choices. Not always...life has a way of giving us what we need, if we are smart enough to know what that is and patient enough to wait for it. quote: To my way of thinking there is no special cache in being a man's slave. It's not a special badge of honor that you must claim to be "real". Agreed. It is like skin color or height. It just is what you are...or aren't. quote: I know that you think I am being unkind to you and somehow trying to deny you special status, but nothing could be further from the truth. Umm...you got that right. There is no way you could confirm or deny the title of slave on anyone. quote: If you feel that you could choose anything but to live as a slave, you should. It's kind of like being an artist; something that you should only do if you must. I would say that is a rather accurate explination of why both Celestia and I do what we do... Taggard

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 9:56:52 AM)
I'm so confused... I agree with Leonidas, because I think a married woman's 1st/greatest commitment is/should be to her husband... I agree with Taggard when he says "if she chooses carefully, she can have both", which seems essentially like cheating hubby on some priviledges by honoring another as his slave, but if it works for all involved, who am I to judge. M

Tempestspet -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 10:20:39 AM)
For my own opinion, no. But then perhaps it depends on the vows and promises you took when you got married, and whether you meant them or not. You cannot be owned, yet not "be owned". And if it's ok with the husband, that you have a master, I may be getting confused on the terminology here, please... any help would be apreciated, would the married couple be some sort/type of a cuckhold couple? The husband, in this case, knows that his wife... is not his.... doesn't matter what vows and promises were taken or made..... she belongs first and foremost to another. Even if my terminology is wrong, I believe the example is fairly correct. At least from my point of view. And if that's true.... how can she be owned? Tempest's pet

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 10:35:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig I'm so confused... I agree with Leonidas, because I think a married woman's 1st/greatest commitment is/should be to her husband... I would disagree here (I guess obviously), but I hope in a way that is not so obvious. I think a married woman's 1st/greatest commitment is/should be to herself. After that, it is just a matter of working out the relationships amongst consenting adults. I think one of the major differences I have with most others is that my need to own actually has a higher priority in my life than any marriage I would commit to. In fact, I left my marriage because I did not feel free to own a slave in it. Marriage is a secondary commitment, in my mind, to ownership. Taggard

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 10:45:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tempestspet And if that's true.... how can she be owned? Because marriage, as it is defined today has nothing to do with ownership (as most women refuse to even have the word "obey" in their vows). And ownership, as it was defined in the pre-Civil War south (which is pretty close to how I define it, with a bit of consent added) has nothing to do with marriage. One could have been owned and married (to two seperate people) in the pre-Civil War south...so why not now? Taggard

Alexander -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 10:53:47 AM)
isnt the defining characteristic of this problem/conflict/quandary that this husband is not here explaining himself and being involved in what we like to consider a primary plank of ourselves, an open complete line of communcation? The mans sublimating his rights even if they do exist outside of our little community. he ought to A. either answer for himself why it's allowed or B.) be made to state that he is giving up his rights how and why. I would assume that would be part of any longer term contract. You are enslaving the both of them to your will at some level. Alex.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:03:01 AM)
this slave has to agree with Alexander, without any more information, how can we answer Celestia's original question? quote: Do you think that a married woman can be considered a slave to a Master if he is not her husband? not enough information, here. specifically with regards to the use of the words marriage, considered, slave, Master and husband. #1. Define Marriage. Other than the legal ramifications of it, what sort of marriage relationship are we talking about here? there are many different "styles" of marriage once the ceremony is over(some folks are married and only see each other once a year when they meet with the tax guy to sign the papers, if that). #2. Considered by whom? Herself? her husband? A court of Law? #3. Define slave. unfortunately, we can't seem to come to a concensus on that one, so for the sake of the question that you are posing--what do YOU mean when YOU say slave? #4. Define Master. (see #3 and substitute the word Master for slave) #5. Define husband. His role as part of the aforementioned "marriage" has not been outlined, so it would be impossible to even guess without first knowing what sort of "husband" he is. quote: If this is the case, then how does one that is in a vanilla marriage fulfill that need to serve? again, not enough information. Define serve. there are a variety of ways to serve, just as there are a variety of reasons one submits to service. some feel as if they have no choice but to serve, regardless of the relationship in question. what does serve mean to you? quote: How does one fulfill that need? Given the partner in the situation is vanilla and does not wish to be involved in this lifestyle and for the sake of further argument is aware of the need in their spouse? is the vanilla husband willing to allow the wife to explore her "needs" seperate from him? are we talking about the "need" for a hearty flogging or the "need" to feel subservient, could you be more explicit with regards to the need you are seeking to fulfill that your husband does not wish to be involved in?

Hickory -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:04:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty Because marriage, as it is defined today has nothing to do with ownership (as most women refuse to even have the word "obey" in their vows). And ownership, as it was defined in the pre-Civil War south (which is pretty close to how I define it, with a bit of consent added) has nothing to do with marriage. One could have been owned and married (to two seperate people) in the pre-Civil War south...so why not now? Taggard Slaves did not control their spousal relationships, their owners did. If an owner wanted to sell 1/2 of a couple to a plantation in the next state, she went. If the new owner wanted that slave to take up with one of his slaves, she did. If the "Massuh" wanted her for himself, well, just ask Thomas Jefferson, or any of the African Americans who can trace their ancestry back to Merry Old England. Why do you think there were laws on the books in many states that classified people as "Negro" if they has 1/8 or 1/16 African blood? I do not expect that all of these unions were consesual, nor did anyone care, at the time. Also, although many modern marriage vows omit "obey", very few omit "forsaking all others". Regards, Hickory

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:06:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander You are enslaving the both of them to your will at some level. Quite honestly, I just don't see it that way. If Celestia were on the slave block, and I was interested in purchasing her, would I need to talk to her husband? Of course not...once purchased, she is mine and her relationship with her husband is between her and her husband. I veiw a marriage much like I veiw any limitation to the service that can be given to me by my slave. If during negotiations, a slave tells me that she is diabetic, I make a note that I must not order her to eat a box of candy in front of me. If she has arthritis, I make a note that I should not ask her to give me twice daily massages. If she is married, I make a note that some of her time will need to be occupied keeping her marriage healthy and strong. Again, my view of slavery most closely resembles the slavery of the pre-Civil War south, with the addition of consent. Back then, money is exchanged and a slave was purchased. Now, likes and dislikes, limits and desires are exchanged, and a slave gives herself. The bidding used to be in dollars. Now it is done in limitations. Slave says "I have a family that is important to me." Master A says, "I want you for myself...no husbands." Master B say, "I like married slaves and I think it is important that you keep your marriage healthy and strong." Master B wins the bidding and the ownership of the slave. The husband's view of the matter is inconsequential. The Master has agreed to let the slave stay married...in fact, the master may have only bid on the slave because she was married. He doesn't want to know about the husband, and doesn't really care what he feels. Just as long as the slave keeps her marriage strong, and still belongs to him with every fibre of her being, he is content. Taggard

EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:06:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hickory Also, although many modern marriage vows omit "obey", very few omit "forsaking all others". Regards, Hickory Luckily you don't have to use those vows to become married.

sweetpleaser -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:07:20 AM)
Yes, where does the husband fit into all this? I'm sorry to pipe in here again, but I still have some confusion. Taggard, it is okay that you do not want to be married but want to own a slave. I get that. I don't get why Celestia wants to remain married if she wants an Owner unless the husband is okay with this. She is not being fulfilled at home, I understand that also. I am assuming (I know dangerous on my part) that the husband is not okay with this and that is why she posted the question. Forgive me if I am wrong please. PS Taggard: Your former marriage you mentioned is not the same one where you gave her freedom to meet someone overseas is it? You don't have to answer if it is too personal. I was just curious because it did not seem fair to you.

Hickory -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:10:47 AM)
quote: EmeraldSlave2: Luckily you don't have to use those vows to become married. Touche!

Alexander -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:13:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander You are enslaving the both of them to your will at some level. Quite honestly, I just don't see it that way. If Celestia were on the slave block, and I was interested in purchasing her, would I need to talk to her husband? Of course not...once purchased, she is mine and her relationship with her husband is between her and her husband. I veiw a marriage much like I veiw any limitation to the service that can be given to me by my slave. If during negotiations, a slave tells me that she is diabetic, I make a note that I must not order her to eat a box of candy in front of me. If she has arthritis, I make a note that I should not ask her to give me twice daily massages. If she is married, I make a note that some of her time will need to be occupied keeping her marriage healthy and strong. Again, my view of slavery most closely resembles the slavery of the pre-Civil War south, with the addition of consent. Back then, money is exchanged and a slave was purchased. Now, likes and dislikes, limits and desires are exchanged, and a slave gives herself. The bidding used to be in dollars. Now it is done in limitations. Slave says "I have a family that is important to me." Master A says, "I want you for myself...no husbands." Master B say, "I like married slaves and I think it is important that you keep your marriage healthy and strong." Master B wins the bidding and the ownership of the slave. The husband's view of the matter is inconsequential. The Master has agreed to let the slave stay married...in fact, the master may have only bid on the slave because she was married. He doesn't want to know about the husband, and doesn't really care what he feels. Just as long as the slave keeps her marriage strong, and still belongs to him with every fibre of her being, he is content. Taggard Master still needs/needed to sign the bill of sale my dear friend. Consent on all three levels. But your saying he's inconsequential which means he has no rights in your eyes. Im good with that. I still see it as subjegating him a little bit. I should make it clearer that I don't think you are far from a real definitive answer here but This guy needs to join the conversation... maybe.. See I can relate to the will or thing that allows me to operate without concern for this guys "rights" In my case I would just victimize him however because I would have disdain for him and then throw in the fact I'm a possessive owner and its all my personal interpretation. When I try to be objective I see a girl being trained over a periodof time to suit your needs and none of this 'slavery' conciousness is a done deal. Full blown slaves can be disobediant little sluts compared to a girl in training who who doesnt bother to classify herself on the sliding scale. I love what your doing. We gotta get answeres to merc and beths questions. And in the final analysis nothing matters but that space you are creating. Hell i want the girl now. Hand her over! Much love. Alex.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:13:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hickory Slaves did not control their spousal relationships, their owners did. Of course. How does that modify what I said? As owner, I could control my slave's spousal relationships. As I have clearly stated before, I have no desire to exercise that control. Many owners in the pre-Civil War south did not exercise their control of their slave's spousal relationships. Becuase I choose not to exercise control does not mean that a) control does not exist and b) the thing not being controlled is somehow invalid just because I could exercise control over it. Taggard

Mercnbeth -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:15:57 AM)
quote: If Celestia were on the slave block, and I was interested in purchasing her, would I need to talk to her husband? Of course not...once purchased, she is mine and her relationship with her husband is between her and her husband. Are You assuming Celestia's husband knows that she is on the "proverbial" block and therefore it shouldn't matter or are You assuming this is Your construct and that is how it "should" happen?

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:16:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Master still needs/needed to sign the bill of sale my dear friend. Consent on all three levels. But I don't consider her husband to be her owner/Master. I consider the girl to be self-owned. She has full power to give herself away...no one else has that power. Taggard

ruffnecksbabygir -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:22:16 AM)
i understand Taggard's point, a slave is not property of her husband so she is free to become property of a Master ... sure, she is free to do as she wishes, the problem i see with that is that eventually something will have to give....more than likely the husband will get screwed over in the long run.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:25:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: If Celestia were on the slave block, and I was interested in purchasing her, would I need to talk to her husband? Of course not...once purchased, she is mine and her relationship with her husband is between her and her husband. Are You assuming Celestia's husband knows that she is on the "proverbial" block and therefore it shouldn't matter or are You assuming this is Your construct and that is how it "should" happen? I am not sure I am fully following your question. I really don't care if her husband knows. She presents me with a limitation. I can either accept the limitation and "purchase" her, or I can pass. I suppose it is less of a limitation if the husband knows and supports her (think of that as a lower price I have to pay). But as long as she can do all that I will ask of her, her marital status is rather inconsequential, as it would be to anyone considering purchasing a slave in the pre-Civil War south. Owning a married slave is a lot like owning a slave with one arm. You can only ask so much of either...it doesn't mean they both are not owned. Taggard

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Married slaves, can they be owned? (3/2/2005 11:30:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetpleaser I'm sorry to pipe in here again, but I still have some confusion. Pipe away!!! Personally, I find all the piping to be mighty sweet music. smile quote: Taggard, it is okay that you do not want to be married but want to own a slave. Actually, I do want to be married...or at least in a marriage type of relationship. I also want to own a slave. I need both... quote: Taggard: Your former marriage you mentioned is not the same one where you gave her freedom to meet someone overseas is it? You don't have to answer if it is too personal. I was just curious because it did not seem fair to you. Yup...same marriage. Nope, wasn't fair. That is why I left. Taggard

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875