|
chrissyslave -> RE: So you think you are really a slave.... (1/31/2007 1:57:57 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: starshineowned
If a historical slave legally had no rights, and a present slave gives up those rights in order to be that slave..the end result is they both have no rights to use while they are slave. The same result is yielded yet modified.
Well Wishes
starshine
Happy slave of Master Delvin
With all due respect here I must take issue with the "same result" aspect (the "modified" part being too understated for my thinking), and think this is perhaps the most critical difference between the various forms of slavery. If one is only speaking of "compliance" to commands then there would be more of the "same result." But the strength of motivation and ultimate desire of the slave is perhaps in general has an indirect relationship to the sense of mere considered chattel property, i.e. more as property means less concern with the desires of the slave.
I feel that regardless of the level of stated committment of a slave today within M/s this is still a voluntary servanthood, although there obviously are various key differences between masters and slaves sub-forms of relationship. Just using our own black slavery in the states as a clearer case of involuntary slavery, there were no doubt many slave owners in the old south that only cared that the tasks assigned to slaves be accomplished as expected, whether or not the slave desired to please him or not. The function or "result" was all that mattered, and not so much their minds and hearts, and some in not many saw caring for their slaves beyond a minimal level as a wasteful use of resources (one to support the function of another). Some of these "legal" masters no doubt saw the benefit of providing some additional care/support, of needs beyond the basic, as a way to help make the slave more productive (a happier healthier slave is a more productive slave). Some others, likely much fewer masters, wanted to feel their slaves truly respected them and wanted to serve them, and gave more considerations to their well being and motivations, at least short of allowing them to leave them as free persons.
But in all cases the approach, care and degree of "freedom" were up to the master alone, and only he could free his slaves if he choose to, and very few did. But all the slaves knew they had NOT freely given up their rights as free men/woman, but were forcibly taken and often kept in mental bondage by threatening ill treatment or death of those left behind even if they escaped, besides death to themselves if recaptured. That's true slave reality.
Can we really find so many masters here and now that would see their consensual slave as mere chattel property? Or desire to? To consider his "slave" as a nearly inadament object without desire and feelings? Doesn't it not much more please the more typical master to want to see his slave look at him with adoring eyes, and know she/he turns themselves over to him willingly and find their fulfillment in him, and being there for him however out of a choice made..and made stronger by claiming it was made for life? So that even when he uses her in functional ways, and even extreme ways, that she/he allows that out of knowing that he personally cares deeply for them? I think that is what allows the slave to more give themselves over to a Master as completely as they can at any moment/growth-point of their slaveship. And ultimately the most unfeeling harsh thing a master could do is NOT let the slave serve them with all their being. Or not use them in what others might consider "extreme ways" as a show of his appreciation for her voluntary submission.
For the master to knows that the consensual aspect makes themselves much more than any owner of mere chattel property, but greater in himself as a master of another person's heart and being. Is that not a much greater pleasure for him? So baring major disagreement here, I believe that consentual slavery is a higher form than nonconsensual forms, and the *context* of the "result" is far greater than the accomplishment of tasks, or objectification at times. So makes the acts/function go far more than accomplishments, but expressions of a form of a deeper relationship. How can we argue that a truly nonconsensual M/s relatinship is a better/desirable form of slavery?..... even if we knowingly incorporate the strongest symbolic aspects of that condition? (collar, claims of no choice, extreme/edge play)?
Being merely a piece of chattel property without many of those interpersonal elements to me would be like enslaving myself to a machine (computers aside...smiles!). If I don't know that it care for me back, and has my best interests at it's code source, then how can I trust such a master to be masterful of me and provide me the conditions of slavery that I yearn to serve within? Ultimately one might claim that "real slavery" gives up even that small degree of self interest, but I find it demeaning to consider myself merely being a machine....to a machine. To the extent I do in this respect consider myself chattel property I still consider myself a person, a woman, and a "slut" to the right master, and wish to give that which could not be given to a machine/man without wanting to know me, and know me better than myself, and use that understanding for a higher purpose, and to ultimately for me to find my highest purpose to to please him with all my heart and mind, in complete obedience. The "result" of that is not compared to an unresponsive nonconsensual slave allowing themselves to be used however, while hating it in their hearts. This is not to say that there are some slaves that might prefer this "chattel" aspect to a high degree, but it seems to be that they are the type that are bound by their own slaveness, and not so much as to a master. I seek my fulfulness through another, and not as being a piece of property to be trodden upon.
No doubt that there are varying levels of preferences of the preferred style of such M/S relationships that members here experience, but believe that "the result" beyond mere compliance of commands would be very far different compared to most historical forms of nonconsensual slavery, as it goes to the mind, heart and soul of a form of committed relationships. Anyone can own a piece of property, but few can command/deserve consensual respect, loyalty and obedience from a born free-person who offers them their desires and purpose for living, even to consensual slavery, which to me is the highest form of slavery one can enter into in life.
So I have read, so I desire, and so ultimately so I shall experience.
BTW, starshine, I admire your thoughts, and know this response is not to you directly as much as my summary take on this whole topic, and my tentitive views being new to this scene . I offer these thoughts with much respect to the experience of the r-l slaves and masters who have posted great thoughts on this and this discussion has helped me plus those who have shared with me in a training capacity off forum.
|
|
|
|
