the marks of a slave


P.P.S.

It is unfortunate that some people sully the terminology by adopting it as an affectation. But! That is also the case with any designation which other people envy. There are some things (and people) we just have to ignore.
 

P.P.S.

It is unfortunate that some people sully the terminology by adopting it as an affectation. But! That is also the case with any designation which other people envy. There are some things (and people) we just have to ignore.
This post made me lol - most literally!

Whether I'm laughing at you, or with you, depends on whether you're serious or not.
 

Irrespective of the fact that "Master" is a term connoting ownership and/or authoritative power of control which has been used in that context in the English language for.... how long? Over two hundred years, I'm confident. Longer? Probably.


Considerably longer, if my quickie research is correct.

Latin "Magister" (great/large magus) > Old English "Magister" > Middle English "Master"

This is a VERY basic etymology. VERY.

Anyway, Middle English is what was spoken after the Norman Invasion, so 1066 to the mid-to-late 1400's, roughly.
 
Here is a link to the post she referenced, so you may put it in context.

What I actually said was:

My response to your comments is to repeat the obvious and state that there is no such thing as actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States.

Hi JM. You seem like a reasonable guy so I'll try to say it again a little differently.

The fact of the illegality of "actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States" does *not* = "there is no such thing as actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States".

There is such a thing. There is nothing to stop that thing from happening and existing. That thing does happen and exist. The illegality of it makes no difference at all.

As proof:

If you get caught doing it, there are legal sanctions for the act which you are subject to suffer!

Which of course, if I think about it, I realize *proves* that society recognizes and accepts the possibility of the existence of the thing!

"Actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States" *is* possible. There is such a thing. Our own laws recognize and outlaw that very possibility.



Regrettably, there *is* such a thing as real slavery in the U.S. Actual, non-consensual, illegal, slavery. You're right, SS. But non-consensual slavery was not the subject of my post.


Nor was it the subject of mine. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I can capture a wild dog and the dog is mine. It does not matter that the dog does not consent. A wild dog can choose to come to my home, get adopted by me and become mine. The dog consented. It does not matter.

Ownership is ownership. Consent is an entirely different topic.
 
Leftover dialysis fluid/solution is great for cleaning the toilet - I only have to brush once a week now :)
I guess whether we're slaves or subs the dunny still needs cleaning ;) :D


yep, whether we are slaves, subs or even vanilla wives
 
This post made me lol - most literally!

Whether I'm laughing at you, or with you, depends on whether you're serious or not.


A hint at my seriousness:

Had I read this before writing my last post, I would not have responded to you so patiently.
 
Lol. You have no ownership rights in marijuana, true. If someone steals your pot, you can't sue. But if you possess marijuana, you are breaking the law. It's not that the illegality makes slavery nonexistant. It's just unenforceable by law.


Exactly.
 

A hint at my seriousness:

Had I read this before writing my last post, I would not have responded to you so patiently.
I am a reasonable guy in general, but have no patience for arrogance. And that post read as either a spoof of the arrogant, or an expression of arrogance to me.
 

Hi JM. You seem like a reasonable guy so I'll try to say it again a little differently.

The fact of the illegality of "actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States" does *not* = "there is no such thing as actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States".

There is such a thing. There is nothing to stop that thing from happening and existing. That thing does happen and exist. The illegality of it makes no difference at all.

As proof:

If you get caught doing it, there are legal sanctions for the act which you are subject to suffer!

Which of course, if I think about it, I realize *proves* that society recognizes and accepts the possibility of the existence of the thing!

"Actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States" *is* possible. There is such a thing. Our own laws recognize and outlaw that very possibility.






Nor was it the subject of mine. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I can capture a wild dog and the dog is mine. It does not matter that the dog does not consent. A wild dog can choose to come to my home, get adopted by me and become mine. The dog consented. It does not matter.

Ownership is ownership. Consent is an entirely different topic.
If you ID as M/s, and consider yourself to "own" whomever you "own," you do so until he/she decides otherwise and walks out the door. If you physically prevent him/her from doing so, then you pass out of the realm of a consenting couple referring to themselves as M/s, and into the realm of non-consenting, illegal slavery.

I don't see consent as an "entirely different topic." Consent is the whole point, to me.
 
If you ID as M/s, and consider yourself to "own" whomever you "own," you do so until he/she decides otherwise and walks out the door.


And there is the next fallacy in logic that seems to come up when someone is trying to convince someone (himself/herself? someone else?) that slavery can/does not exist unless that slavery is nonconsensual.

A wild dog comes to my home. I adopt the dog. The dog is now mine. If he kills the neighbor's chickens I have to pay the neighbor for the chickens "my" dog killed. "My" dog runs away. He reverts to feral. He owns himself.

My dog goes to someone else's home. That guy adopts the dog. The dog now belongs to that other guy. If the dog kills the neighbor's chickens the new owner has to pay the neighbor for the chickens.

So here it is:

The fact that the dog could run away at any time had nothing to do with the fact of my ownership.



If you physically prevent him/her from doing so, then you pass out of the realm of a consenting couple referring to themselves as M/s, and into the realm of non-consenting, illegal slavery.


Ok. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact of my ownership. Actually, it has nothing to do with anything in the world unless and until I do those dastardly things. (Which I do not intend to do.)


I don't see consent as an "entirely different topic." Consent is the whole point, to me.

If ya can't see it, ya can't see it.
 


And there is the next fallacy in logic that seems to come up when someone is trying to convince someone (himself/herself? someone else?) that slavery can/does not exist unless that slavery is nonconsensual.

A wild dog comes to my home. I adopt the dog. The dog is now mine. If he kills the neighbor's chickens I have to pay the neighbor for the chickens "my" dog killed. "My" dog runs away. He reverts to feral. He owns himself.

My dog goes to someone else's home. That guy adopts the dog. The dog now belongs to that other guy. If the dog kills the neighbor's chickens the new owner has to pay the neighbor for the chickens.

So here it is:

The fact that the dog could run away at any time had nothing to do with the fact of my ownership.






Ok. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact of my ownership. Actually, it has nothing to do with anything in the world unless and until I do those dastardly things. (Which I do not intend to do.)




If ya can't see it, ya can't see it.
Just for the record, I do acknowledge that ownership of dogs exists in the United States. Why you keep mentioning dogs when we're talking about humans, I have no idea.

As for who's trying to convince whom, of what, and why - you're the one who started the debate on this subject, on this thread. Not me. The point of my comments from a year ago was to help a guy who was formulating his own concept of ownership. What your motivation is, I'll leave for you to say.
 
Gentlemen, the pissing contest is amusing as hell (seriously - I grabbed wine and popcorn ages ago ;) ), but at this point may I respectfully suggest the poor horse is getting a wee bit tired?
 
Gentlemen, the pissing contest is amusing as hell (seriously - I grabbed wine and popcorn ages ago ;) ), but at this point may I respectfully suggest the poor horse is getting a wee bit tired?
Careful, CM. Your inner control freak is showing.
 
Master and I view my ownership very much like that of owning a car.

Interesting that you should choose a car to illustrate your thinking. I used to chat often with a woman whose online name was "femcar". Like you are, she was a deep thinking and fascinating d/s philosopher.

Master has the choice. He can be attentive and responsible in his ownership of me, showing me off to the world proudly and buffing my bodywork on a Sunday afternoon. He also has the option to leave me to rust and just hope that I'll still take him wherever he wants to go without breaking down along the way. He can jealously guard the keys or hand them to friends to borrow me on a whim. His authority extends as far as he wants it to and my value to him appreciates according to how he treats me and how much importance he assigns to my needs.

In keeping with the discussion about slavery:

The fact of the illegality of slavery is unfortunate in some ways. One of those ways is that there is not a ready market for slaves. I have heard some guys say they have no responsibility to comfort a slave or consider a slave's feelings. She is after all, just a slave. I have sometimes said, "Would you say that about your car?" Well, of course not. A car is usually considered important - just because of its monetary value (or the monetary cost to replace it) if for no other reason. If there were a ready market for slaves, I think you would not find owners thinking of a slave as worthless or ignoring a slave's maintenance. Hmmmm... Well, at least not as much or as often.
 
Interesting that you should choose a car to illustrate your thinking. I used to chat often with a woman whose online name was "femcar". Like you are, she was a deep thinking and fascinating d/s philosopher.

No shit. Can there be more than one woman who goes by Femcar? The one I know of was one of the previously described (in the other thread) dildo skewerees...while strapped to the hood of a car. :eek:
 
All my life, I had completely misunderstood her. I had only tasted the bitter fruit she bore. And failed to see the sweetness that was left to rot, unpicked and fallen to the ground.

And it was only after she died that I even began to embrace this aspect of my sexuality on a conscious level. I wonder what she thinks of me.


I'm gonna always believe that by this point, she understands that the most important thing is your happiness, so that when it is your time to join her you go with grace and a light heart.

Edited to add: I know she is happy for you.
 
Last edited:
No shit. Can there be more than one woman who goes by Femcar? The one I know of was one of the previously described (in the other thread) dildo skewerees...while strapped to the hood of a car. :eek:


The internet being what it is, someone could easily have swiped her nick. But, that sounds like her. I haven't read the thread.
 
Gentlemen, the pissing contest is amusing as hell (seriously - I grabbed wine and popcorn ages ago ;) ), but at this point may I respectfully suggest the poor horse is getting a wee bit tired?

For the record, it was not me. This time.
 
Considerably longer, if my quickie research is correct.

Latin "Magister" (great/large magus) > Old English "Magister" > Middle English "Master"

This is a VERY basic etymology. VERY.

Anyway, Middle English is what was spoken after the Norman Invasion, so 1066 to the mid-to-late 1400's, roughly.

It's also been shortened to "Mister" in the states as well as elsewhere for well around a century. Unless I've been dragged screaming to a renfaire I'm "Ms. mylsastname" or "Ma'am."

Not to piss on the tree, but honestly, what other titles are natural and normal outside the scope of your own little world? Doctor. Your Honor. Congressman.

Master and Mistress? Is there a board certification?

Irony as well, any f-wit can be "slave suzy" - we don't police that claim whatsoever as a community and don't care to. The fact that nine tenths of people who want to be slaves have no concept of what that actually could mean doesn't seem to bother us as much as the "fake master" phenomenon.

In an imaginary garden insisting on real toads. Mistress is not an organic descriptor of me to anyone not in a PE relationship with me or desiring to be in one. Why it should be I can't begin to fathom.

Maybe some of H's old school rubbed off on me. I'm a relative kid but my property was learning to iron pleats in a pro's house before there were recreational het clubs at all. It was *certainly* your little world and no one else's at that time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top