quote:

Better examples of people agreeing to be slaves might be those occasions where someone would sell themselves into slavery for the chance of earning citizenship -- this did happen in Rome but very, very, very rarely. Once bought there were few ways to enforce the agreement other than doing excellent work and proving you would be more valuable as a freedman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittensmailbox

not a slave.... i am much to strong willed... i am a spirited submissive....

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittensmailbox

oh jesus christ.. i just said i wasnt a slave..... i'm not... like it or not.... i'm not, good for those who are... me, just a sub.... i was trained that slaves are not free thinkers..... that is how i was trained... dont like it? too bad, doesnt make me wrong or right, just how i was trained..... hate me, dont care.... i do not have to answer to any of you.... so kiss my ......

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

To MFM and others who have a similar response. This post is intend to provoke a discussion is slavery. There is "real" slavery. If, as many with in "the scene" profess, that "the scene" is not a scene but reality in every sense of the word i.e. 24/7,  than we must define accurately the word slave. 
slave

• noun 1 historical a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.


I we are to give credible scholarly dictionaries their due credit, slavery is not a negotiable. A slave is property. If one has the ability to decide for themselves, they are by definition not a slave. There is no consent unless a Slave Master is willing to give it.

Clearly by some of the answers here several self described slaves said they are for sale but hope that would never happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Exodus chapt. 21 V. 5 and 6 say "But if a slave declares, "I love my master, my wife and my children, I do not wish to go free". His master shall take him unto G-d, he shall take him to the door or to the doorpost , and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl: and he shall serve him forever." Deuteronomy chapt. 15 v. 16 and 17 repeat basically the same thing, " ... you will take the awl and put it in his ear into the door, and he will be your slave forever. Also with your female slave you shall do this."

Historic Consensual Slavery Documented

*giggle*

This is the quotation Fox and I used when we pierced his ears for our 7th anniversary.

I would ask though, as a historian, what defines consensual.

If someone knows no other life or if someone knows that if they leave they are less likely to be able to have food on the table, clothes on their backs, or a roof over their head, are they giving consent to be a slave or simply choosing that which makes the most sense to them? In other words, if slavery is the least harmful option is it truly consensual or simply surviving?


The Historic context of slavery as practiced by the Jewish people according to "The Law" was that slavery of another Jew was for a period of 7 years, after which you were obliged to free them. UNLESS they beged to remain your slave as mentioned in the quoted texts.

So 7 years not exactly the amount of time for someone to not know any other way. In fact the indenture period practiced by european society also 7 years in most cases is often conjected to come from that aspect of Levitical Law.

(in reply to thetammyjo)

quote:

ORIGINAL: obey1

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

To MFM and others who have a similar response. This post is intend to provoke a discussion is slavery. There is "real" slavery. If, as many with in "the scene" profess, that "the scene" is not a scene but reality in every sense of the word i.e. 24/7,  than we must define accurately the word slave. 
slave

• noun 1 historical a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.


I we are to give credible scholarly dictionaries their due credit, slavery is not a negotiable. A slave is property. If one has the ability to decide for themselves, they are by definition not a slave. There is no consent unless a Slave Master is willing to give it.

Clearly by some of the answers here several self described slaves said they are for sale but hope that would never happen.

The "scene" is not a scene but reality?  Then the entire dynamic becomes illegal as of the end of the civil war.  If I can walk into your homeland, steal your children and force them to become my slaves because I have money, then I should be hunted down and prosecuted.  That is what "real, true, historical, institutional" slavery is.  It is always by force AND WITHOUT CONSENT of the slave.  Otherwise it is known as an indentured servant.

"decide for themselves"?  Another wrong assumption.  Even in the famous story 'Roots' by Alex Haley, Kunta Kinte had ALOT of deciding for himself, to the point of getting repeated beatings, running away, and having his foot chopped off.  But as a slave, he was still able to "choose" to have a family, even though he knew that his children would be BORN INTO slavery, all of which prove that this 'consensual' argument is rubbish.

If it is not consensual then it is illegal, tell me where this is happening and I will call the authorities to liberate the human being trapped within your repressive RT Megalomania.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittensmailbox
ouch!!!!, just posting my own feelings.... damn!!!!! ... i was trained that slaves have no freedmon

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
Well then perhaps this question (and maybe it deserves its own thread);

Can a slave (in context here with BDSM) say no if the owner wants to trade out their services, for a profit, for punishment, on a whim or because they just want too show they have the ability to do so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obey1

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

To MFM and others who have a similar response. This post is intend to provoke a discussion is slavery. There is "real" slavery. If, as many with in "the scene" profess, that "the scene" is not a scene but reality in every sense of the word i.e. 24/7,  than we must define accurately the word slave. 
slave

• noun 1 historical a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.


I we are to give credible scholarly dictionaries their due credit, slavery is not a negotiable. A slave is property. If one has the ability to decide for themselves, they are by definition not a slave. There is no consent unless a Slave Master is willing to give it.

Clearly by some of the answers here several self described slaves said they are for sale but hope that would never happen.

"decide for themselves"?  Another wrong assumption.  Even in the famous story 'Roots' by Alex Haley, Kunta Kinte had ALOT of deciding for himself, to the point of getting repeated beatings, running away, and having his foot chopped off.  But as a slave, he was still able to "choose" to have a family, even though he knew that his children would be BORN INTO slavery, all of which prove that this 'consensual' argument is rubbish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittensmailbox

oh jesus christ.. i just said i wasnt a slave..... i'm not... like it or not.... i'm not, good for those who are... me, just a sub.... i was trained that slaves are not free thinkers..... that is how i was trained... dont like it? too bad, doesnt make me wrong or right, just how i was trained.....  hate me, dont care.... i do not have to answer to any of you.... so kiss my ......

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittensmailbox

oh jesus christ.. i just said i wasnt a slave..... i'm not... like it or not.... i'm not, good for those who are... me, just a sub.... i was trained that slaves are not free thinkers..... that is how i was trained... dont like it? too bad, doesnt make me wrong or right, just how i was trained.....  hate me, dont care.... i do not have to answer to any of you.... so kiss my ......

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Well then perhaps this question (and maybe it deserves its own thread);

Can a slave (in context here with BDSM) say no if the owner wants to trade out their services, for a profit, for punishment, on a whim or because they just want too show they have the ability to do so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
Can a slave (in context here with BDSM) say no if the owner wants to trade out their services, for a profit, for punishment, on a whim or because they just want too show they have the ability to do so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
Can a slave (in context here with BDSM) say no if the owner wants to trade out their services, for a profit, for punishment, on a whim or because they just want too show they have the ability to do so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy
Can a slave (in context here with BDSM) say no if the owner wants to trade out their services, for a profit, for punishment, on a whim or because they just want too show they have the ability to do so?

yes.  it "can" happen.  some slaves rebel.  some get punished.  some get released from service.  some even run away.
 
similar to, but not exactly like, forms of slavery out of the past.

quote:

ORIGINAL: starshineowned

quote:

Better examples of people agreeing to be slaves might be those occasions where someone would sell themselves into slavery for the chance of earning citizenship -- this did happen in Rome but very, very, very rarely. Once bought there were few ways to enforce the agreement other than doing excellent work and proving you would be more valuable as a freedman.

This time period is where I know Master and myself draw from especially the domestic slaves, which are more liken to what occurs for Us. What is removed is the social acceptance of it and legality by law of it. The Owner then could beat, sell, kill the slave but most did not because slaves were a commodity. They cost bucks to own, and upkeep. To maim them, kill them or just sell them off for no particular reason defeated the reason for buying in the first place. Also during this era it even came to pass that it was illegal for a Owner to severely maim or kill their slaves less they be made slaves themselves or killed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Exodus chapt. 21 V. 5 and 6 say "But if a slave declares, "I love my master, my wife and my children, I do not wish to go free". His master shall take him unto G-d, he shall take him to the door or to the doorpost , and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl: and he shall serve him forever." Deuteronomy chapt. 15 v. 16 and 17 repeat basically the same thing, " ... you will take the awl and put it in his ear into the door, and he will be your slave forever. Also with your female slave you shall do this."

Historic Consensual Slavery Documented

*giggle*

This is the quotation Fox and I used when we pierced his ears for our 7th anniversary.

I would ask though, as a historian, what defines consensual.

If someone knows no other life or if someone knows that if they leave they are less likely to be able to have food on the table, clothes on their backs, or a roof over their head, are they giving consent to be a slave or simply choosing that which makes the most sense to them? In other words, if slavery is the least harmful option is it truly consensual or simply surviving?


The Historic context of slavery as practiced by the Jewish people according to "The Law" was that slavery of another Jew was for a period of 7 years, after which you were obliged to free them. UNLESS they beged to remain your slave as mentioned in the quoted texts.

So 7 years not exactly the amount of time for someone to not know any other way. In fact the indenture period practiced by european society also 7 years in most cases is often conjected to come from that aspect of Levitical Law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub

It is my understanding, though i could be incorrect, that the original 7 years prior choosing to make the slavery permanent was more of an indentured servitude based on debt (typically). Granted this may have not always been the case, it is just my understanding.