RE: Have No Rights

RE: Have No Rights (Full Version)

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

Message

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 4:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble I use the Miranda Warning as a basis. You know, the one that says you have the right to remain silent, have an attorney present during questioning etc, etc. then there's that little blub about "if you choose to give up those rights" then anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. I've chosen to give up my inalienable rights which are granted to me by the Constitution with the cavaet that by so doing, I actually exercise my right to pursue happiness. Celeste FABULOUS Celeste!! i love it. and very similar to what i say as well. When i say "no rights" i don't mean a slave is NOTHING or has no wroth or value...those are two very distinct things. i have given up all rights to Master, it was an act of trust, devotion and surrender. i do not believe entering into that type of dynamic should be done quickly or without much forethought.

TreasurePet -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 4:36:40 PM)
I understand what you are saying. I believe that most slaves do find Owners that have limits similar to their own. But there are times when things are introduced that may hit on a limit. I know in my case, when it is something that I feel is wrong for me ... I couldn't just do it. I would have to ask ... what happens if I don't do it? If it comes down to do it or leave ... then there is no choice for me. I would do it. BUT my Owner would not do anything to harm me. I know that. It makes doing undesireable things easier.

bandit25 -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 4:56:26 PM)
This subject used to "bother" me a bit too...until I realized it doesn't make a bit of difference how anyone else lives his or her life. One can or cannot "choose" to recognize or exercise rights. Either way, it's not going to make any difference in how I live my life. If Celeste, owned or daddysprop (and these three are simply examples, that's all) don't have rights, it's absolutely none of my concern. I don't mean that in an "I don't give a shit" way, just that their lack of rights has nothing to do with mine. It's quite obvious from the tone of their posts, that their lack of rights hasn't harmed them in any way. Quite the opposite, in fact. All of them seem pretty happy to me. Obviously, their lack of rights doesn't preclude them from posting now does it? I think these debates are pointless. It's not as though anyone is going to change anyone else's mind...and why should they? I'm not in their relationships...nothing I say will change them. Works for me and, I am sure, for them. Edited to add: Forgive me Celeste, owned and daddysprop if I offend by using the three of you as examples...no offense meant. Peace.

ImpGrrl -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 7:48:58 PM)
This expresses my feelings on the issue perfectly. quote: ORIGINAL: julietsierra As a slave, I really don't follow the whole thing about "slaves have no rights." I have every single right in the world that I ever had before I came to this point in my life. I can stay, I can leave, I can do what I want, when I want, how I want, if I want. I don't see that slavehood in my situation has changed that whatsoever. However, by virtue of my slavehood, some of my rights, which I exercise vigorously, is the right to be in a relationship where he calls the shots. I have the right to make a decision to remain in a relationship where he calls the shots. I also have the right to be happy, to be healthy and to be cared for. I also have the right to care for someone else. I have the right to love in the manner that's right for me, and I have the right to reasonable safety. I also have the right to NOT be in a relationship where he calls the shots. I have the right, I suppose, to not be happy, to not be healthy, and all the rest. I have the right to walk away. What I do not have is the right to expect that if he's calling the shots, that he'll do what I say. I don't have the right to manipulate in such a way as to undermine the basic foundations of our relationship. I don't have the right to hurt him, use him or demean him. I don't have the right to humiliate him or treat him in a manner that is disrespectful of him as a person and as the person I have pledged myself to. And the big one for me in terms of what slavery is to me, is that I don't have the right to expect reciprocation. This is not a tit for tat relationship, a relationship where if I do abc, I should expect that he's going to do def. To me, it's simply a relationship. Perhaps it is more formal, and perhaps we take some areas to the nth degree which isn't common to relationships in general, but still, it is a relationship that we've structured so as to be in the best interests of the two people involved in it. It is not necessarily in alignment with what everyone else out there believes a relationship should be, but it is in alignment with what we choose it to be. If that means we're comfortable with me asking permission to do whatever it is that I want to do, then that's what's good for us. It doesn't mean I can't do what I want - it just means I need to ask first. It also means that sometimes, the answer may be no, and that at that point, other rights, like the right to be happy (being in the relationship) supercede my right to do what I want at that moment in time. My slavery to him is something intensely personal. It is not built on "community" expectations or generalized beliefs as to what a "true slave" should be. However, it IS built according to some specific ideas of what each of the two of us needs, and wants, and feels. It does have the expectation that if I don't like something I can leave. I CHOOSE to abide by what he says in every other instance, and if I say "no," I'd better be able to back that up with some significant reasons for saying it - not just because "I don't feel like it." And most importantly, it has, at it's base, the fact that loyalty plays a significant role, in that even when I don't like something, my loyalty to him mandates that I follow what he says. Yes, I can choose at any time not to follow what he says. At that time, I'm well within my rights to make that choice. And in doing so, I'm choosing not to submit and I am choosing not to be in this relationship. juliet

ImpGrrl -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 7:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 i think for some this concept is so difficult to understand because they hold their rights (whether legal or "human") so near and dear that the thought of no longer having them as an option seems an impossibility. then i think for others, they do not understand the mindset of a slave or of one who needs to be slave, and the intense conditioning that can take place within such a relationship. No - they do not understand the mindset of your type of slavery. It is not the be-all, end-all - only your (and your owner's) interpretation of it.

ImpGrrl -> RE: Have No Rights (2/3/2007 7:57:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelic And some actually wonder why BDSM; D/s or M/s is seen as wrong in the 'nilla world. At the risk of being flamed and offending the masses... After this post (the one to which i am replying) i said a small thank you for the feds that occassionally view this site. (Apologizes to the Mods if this post is against the TOS.) [&:] You don't have to agree with her, but you don't have to bash her and her way of life either.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Have No Rights (2/5/2007 8:41:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelic And some actually wonder why BDSM; D/s or M/s is seen as wrong in the 'nilla world. At the risk of being flamed and offending the masses... After this post (the one to which i am replying) i said a small thank you for the feds that occassionally view this site. (Apologizes to the Mods if this post is against the TOS.) [&:] lol...do you honestly think they care? lmbo

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: Have No Rights (2/5/2007 9:07:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ImpGrrl quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 i think for some this concept is so difficult to understand because they hold their rights (whether legal or "human") so near and dear that the thought of no longer having them as an option seems an impossibility. then i think for others, they do not understand the mindset of a slave or of one who needs to be slave, and the intense conditioning that can take place within such a relationship. No - they do not understand the mindset of your type of slavery. It is not the be-all, end-all - only your (and your owner's) interpretation of it. ~sigh~ yet another case of "let's reinterpret the word so that in can include anyone who has a desire to be called "slave"." Basically if someone wants to be a slave, they desire or need to be someone elses property. If one wants to maintain their "rights" i'm 100% for it....but why be a slave? "i want to be owned except in the areas i DONT want to be owned in" ...then i'd dare say you want to be submissive not slave and there is nothing wrong with that. Daddys prop...i think you're right...many people simply do not understand, and what's worse...they have no desire to.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Have No Rights (2/5/2007 9:28:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste quote: ORIGINAL: ImpGrrl quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 i think for some this concept is so difficult to understand because they hold their rights (whether legal or "human") so near and dear that the thought of no longer having them as an option seems an impossibility. then i think for others, they do not understand the mindset of a slave or of one who needs to be slave, and the intense conditioning that can take place within such a relationship. No - they do not understand the mindset of your type of slavery. It is not the be-all, end-all - only your (and your owner's) interpretation of it. ~sigh~ yet another case of "let's reinterpret the word so that in can include anyone who has a desire to be called "slave"." Basically if someone wants to be a slave, they desire or need to be someone elses property. If one wants to maintain their "rights" i'm 100% for it....but why be a slave? "i want to be owned except in the areas i DONT want to be owned in" ...then i'd dare say you want to be submissive not slave and there is nothing wrong with that. Daddys prop...i think you're right...many people simply do not understand, and what's worse...they have no desire to. that's the sad reality of it. it never ceases to amaze me how many so obviously despise the idea of slavery, yet at the same time desire so ardently to define themselves and their relationship in that way.

starshineowned -> RE: Have No Rights (2/5/2007 10:22:13 AM)
quote: ~sigh~ yet another case of "let's reinterpret the word so that in can include anyone who has a desire to be called "slave"." Basically if someone wants to be a slave, they desire or need to be someone elses property. If one wants to maintain their "rights" i'm 100% for it....but why be a slave? "i want to be owned except in the areas i DONT want to be owned in" ...then i'd dare say you want to be submissive not slave and there is nothing wrong with that. Daddys prop...i think you're right...many people simply do not understand, and what's worse...they have no desire to. Think probably some will think I am nuts but that is okay. ~smiles~ While I completely do understand what you are saying here..I also have to recognize that while I am pretty much under the same likeness in many respects to this..that this is in reality not the only way. Because of choice..a persons choice to live as a slave..a persons choice to determine what being a slave means..a persons choice to find a person who supports that same meaning of slave as you do...it can only be based on interpretation and personal meaning in the end. The introduction or forcing of "choice" in order to arrive at the point we are today with this means that the standard definition that we've all come to know from history can not be entirely applied. Yes, I believe there are certain things that can be completely given up or done in the here and now to again stay as close to that base as possible..but ultimately the word is being redefined in order to even exist. This is why there are still so many wide varietys and idea's as to what it all means. This is why we go to lengths to express what we feel it means to others so that we can touch base with others who feel the same way. There currently isn't a new definition accepted across the board that defines what a "consentual slave" is compromised of. That is currently what people like us are doing I think. As long as you made a choice to become a slave, and who your Owner was to be..you have (in my eyes) redefined the word already. Where you go from there? Well that is seen in persons postings. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

daddysprop247 -> RE: Have No Rights (2/5/2007 10:34:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned As long as you made a choice to become a slave, and who your Owner was to be..you have (in my eyes) redefined the word already. Where you go from there? Well that is seen in persons postings. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin consent has never been a defining factor in what makes one a slave. if you look through your dictionary of choice, you'll see definitions saying something like, bound in servitude to another, completely subject to the will of another, etc...you will not see "forcibly claimed/taken by another." although when most, especially in the vanilla world, think of the word slave they think of force and of nonconsent, that is due to the commonly known history regarding the practice of slavery, and not the actual definition of it. it's a case of, while every slave you have ever heard of was forced and did not choose to be there, that does not mean that one must be forced and not choose their place in order to be a slave.

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: Have No Rights (2/5/2007 12:32:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned As long as you made a choice to become a slave, and who your Owner was to be..you have (in my eyes) redefined the word already. Where you go from there? Well that is seen in persons postings. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin starshine, When did slavery become defined by a lack of consent. Throughout history slavery has not been defined that way...in fact one can go back to Biblical times and see that it was possible to CHOOSE to such a thing. Therefore i see no reason to revise the definition to make it more easily digestable. Why change defintions so they can encompass anyone and everyone...maybe the question is why are people wanting to be called a slave in the first place? Obviously there is something in the term that resonates but likeing the title, doesn't mean one wants to embody it. i mean if we took any other title and applied it so loosely, or any other term we'd understand how ridiculous it is. An apple perhaps? Let's see...i think a red potato is similar enough in look and texture to pass as a red apple...so rather than calling it a potato i'm adovocating calling it an apple...because i like that word. Now granted...someone will likely be very disappointed when they find out my "apple pie" is really filled with potatoes...but who cares...we should just call things what we like...right?

ImpGrrl -> RE: Have No Rights (2/5/2007 6:50:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste ~sigh~ yet another case of "let's reinterpret the word so that in can include anyone who has a desire to be called "slave"." Basically if someone wants to be a slave, they desire or need to be someone elses property. If one wants to maintain their "rights" i'm 100% for it....but why be a slave? "i want to be owned except in the areas i DONT want to be owned in" ...then i'd dare say you want to be submissive not slave and there is nothing wrong with that. Daddys prop...i think you're right...many people simply do not understand, and what's worse...they have no desire to. And by this reply you obviously do not understand my philosophy, outlook, or relationship. Which is fine - I don't necessarily expect you to. But goodness, the ~sigh~ - slinging is a bit much.

starshineowned -> RE: Have No Rights (2/8/2007 3:50:55 PM)
Slavery is the social status of specific persons, known as slaves, who have been stripped of individual rights, and are the property of another person or household. Slaves are people who are held against their will since either their capture, their purchase, or their birth, and are deprived of their individual freedom for the purpose of exploitation of their labour and in some cases their sexual abuse. Historically, slavery has generally occurred as a means of securing the labour of the slave, without the right of the slave to refuse, leave or receive anything in return for his labour. As such slavery is one form of unfree labour. Chattel slavery is the absolute legal ownership of a person or persons, including the legal right to buy and sell them. While slavery has been a prominent feature of many civilizations throughout human history, it has over the past few centuries gained a repugnant aura. Courtesy of Wikipedia.. Now I don't know about you..but "against their will" translates to "lack of consent". This coupled with the blank statement of "no rights" gives further credibility to the word "slave and "slavery". Slavery came with a price. Wether anyone wishes to acknowledge it or not..This is the stigma we are faced with. Consent has to be pushed, and recognized wether we like it or not. It is consentual slavery by the very simple reason that slavery itself is no longer legal. Therefore wether the definition you retrieved did not state "consent"..it has to be something other than "slavery" because it in itself no longer exists for you to freely enter into in Most countrys. Don't know about you..but no way in hell am I going to go find a illegal trader of human flesh and happily run up to them and offer myself up. No way in hell am I going to head off to a 3rd world country where slavery isn't so illegal, and jump on the band wagon. This to me makes All The Difference In The World. There is No slavery today. There is no acceptable definition of Legal slavery..wether by choice or not in most countrys. There are no viable definitions inwhich to draw upon unless you revert to historical slavery. Historical slavery..wether entered into by "choice" or not..once you were in..it then came with legal definition applied to your status, and according to whatever code or laws were present during what ever time period in history your choosing to "choose" slavery..certain things were usually, and generally Always present...forcing you to do things against your will, extreme tortures/punishments, sell, starvation, No contact what so ever with your actual owner of you, and doubtful you'd be snuggled all nice on his arm if contact were present, just another among many slaves, no legal backing to rights, to even acceptable death of just another slave..oh well..go buy another. Those slaves entered into this knowing these things. The gamble was real. Now, I don't know about you..but I don't think no matter how much I wished or needed to serve another and have no control of my destination in life..would I ever choose to enter a situation where I knew that a person could just whack me off like a fly and think nothing of it, or beat me to a pulp daily and expect me to love them, and Want to continue serving them. Sorry but there has to be some measure of reality in this for me. The type of slavery done now is "consentual slavery". Forced against will does not only apply to coming in, it applys through the entirety of on anything. Can call it what you wish ofcourse..but I can't and won't try and completely identify myself in any context with those of history who became known as slaves and brought about the definition of it. My life as a consentual slave will never compare to their social status as a slave. To do that (to me) is to demish and belittle what they went through or were subjected to or could of been subjected to with all legal force and right of a Owner to do so. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: Have No Rights (2/8/2007 6:05:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned Slavery is the social status of specific persons, known as slaves, who have been stripped of individual rights, and are the property of another person or household. Slaves are people who are held against their will since either their capture, their purchase, or their birth, and are deprived of their individual freedom for the purpose of exploitation of their labour and in some cases their sexual abuse. ~snip~ Slavery came with a price. Wether anyone wishes to acknowledge it or not..This is the stigma we are faced with. Consent has to be pushed, and recognized wether we like it or not. It is consentual slavery by the very simple reason that slavery itself is no longer legal. Therefore wether the definition you retrieved did not state "consent"..it has to be something other than "slavery" because it in itself no longer exists for you to freely enter into in Most countrys. Don't know about you..but no way in hell am I going to go find a illegal trader of human flesh and happily run up to them and offer myself up. No way in hell am I going to head off to a 3rd world country where slavery isn't so illegal, and jump on the band wagon. This to me makes All The Difference In The World. Now, I don't know about you..but I don't think no matter how much I wished or needed to serve another and have no control of my destination in life..would I ever choose to enter a situation where I knew that a person could just whack me off like a fly and think nothing of it, or beat me to a pulp daily and expect me to love them, and Want to continue serving them. Sorry but there has to be some measure of reality in this for me. The type of slavery done now is "consentual slavery". Forced against will does not only apply to coming in, it applys through the entirety of on anything. Can call it what you wish ofcourse..but I can't and won't try and completely identify myself in any context with those of history who became known as slaves and brought about the definition of it. My life as a consentual slave will never compare to their social status as a slave. To do that (to me) is to demish and belittle what they went through or were subjected to or could of been subjected to with all legal force and right of a Owner to do so. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin starshine, Again this is but one definition of slavery. It might be worth it to know that Wiki is not definitive. In fact anyone can go into it and alter the entry to say whatever they wish. (And in fact some have done just that) . But i digress. When you look up the definition of slavery it does not mention all of what you have written. That is one persons interpretation of what slavery meant and it lends itself quite well with what most people think of when they think of slaves. However every culture has practiced slavery differently. i do not put my consensual slavery on par with the slavery expereinced by Africans when they came to this country. Different type of slavery all together. The consenting aspect does make our slavery much more enjoyable no doubt however it is not a determining factor (IMO) of how real it is.

julietsierra -> RE: Have No Rights (2/8/2007 6:24:37 PM)
See, I've tried to avoid saying this...it's extremely personal y'know... but all this talk about what is and is not slavery.. And finally, I'm driven to confess. Yes...it's true... I've tried to deny it... I've held out far too long... It's becoming more and more difficult But here it is... Whatever I am, I'm a slave to fashion. There. I've said it.. I feel so much better now. Thank you all for helping me relive my soul A slave to fashion.. Yep... That's it exactly... I have to go now... The mall is calling. juliet

MaryT -> RE: Have No Rights (2/8/2007 6:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 quote: ORIGINAL: angelic And some actually wonder why BDSM; D/s or M/s is seen as wrong in the 'nilla world. At the risk of being flamed and offending the masses... After this post (the one to which i am replying) i said a small thank you for the feds that occassionally view this site. (Apologizes to the Mods if this post is against the TOS.) [&:] lol...do you honestly think they care? lmbo Occassionally a post gets moved to another forum because it's off-topic in the one in which it is posted. Here's an idea: A new forum called "Fantasies." Every post that appears to be a fantasy is automatically moved to that forum. Maybe a few brave souls would actually post fantasies as fantasy. Every dumb ass question, such as: "Does a slave have any rights?" is automatically moved to that forum. Or, there could be another forum called "Irrational Ideas" and such posts could be moved there. Whoa, baby, wouldn't the boards clean up fast?!!! Of course, the moderators would live in a new kind of moderating hell and that would suck. But still ... it makes for a nice fantasy. [:D] I would happily sacrifice this post to the realm of "irrational ideas" too.

hereyesruponyou -> RE: Have No Rights (2/8/2007 7:02:55 PM)
I think the main difference between a sub and a slave is the "lack of rights" of the slave, rights to an opinion, to negotiate once in a contract and yes, maybe even to leave. But in examining the whole idea of slavery and "born slave mentality" i have come to believe that rights have nothing to do with it. A true slave, as many here claim to be, will always obey and even anticipate their master's needs and desires because they ALWAYS put their master first. It is the ultimate consent to put him/her before whatever rights you may have real or imagined. It is the only way to serve both of their needs and leaves both sides content with their situation. I think i'm jealous i haven't found that perfect symbiotic relationship......

MaryT -> RE: Have No Rights (2/8/2007 7:09:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hereyesruponyou I think the main difference between a sub and a slave is the "lack of rights" of the slave, rights to an opinion, to negotiate once in a contract and yes, maybe even to leave. But in examining the whole idea of slavery and "born slave mentality" i have come to believe that rights have nothing to do with it. A true slave, as many here claim to be, will always obey and even anticipate their master's needs and desires because they ALWAYS put their master first. It is the ultimate consent to put him/her before whatever rights you may have real or imagined. It is the only way to serve both of their needs and leaves both sides content with their situation. I think i'm jealous i haven't found that perfect symbiotic relationship...... I would like to nominate this one for the non existent "fantasy forum." [:D]

angelic -> RE: Have No Rights (2/8/2007 7:32:49 PM)
quote: Occassionally a post gets moved to another forum because it's off-topic in the one in which it is posted. Here's an idea: A new forum called "Fantasies." Every post that appears to be a fantasy is automatically moved to that forum. Maybe a few brave souls would actually post fantasies as fantasy. Every dumb ass question, such as: "Does a slave have any rights?" is automatically moved to that forum. Or, there could be another forum called "Irrational Ideas" and such posts could be moved there. Whoa, baby, wouldn't the boards clean up fast?!!! Of course, the moderators would live in a new kind of moderating hell and that would suck. But still ... it makes for a nice fantasy. [:D] I would happily sacrifice this post to the realm of "irrational ideas" too. Occassionally i do suffer from 'irrational ideas'. It is part of my charm. [8D][;)]

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875