Do Masters want a sub or a slave?

[RJMasters]

Except then I'd think they were all Orc War Chiefs, struggling to maintain the Horde in the face of great conflicts and Catacly--

Ohhhhhhh eeee. I'm sorry did my geek show?? *covers* I am so sorry. *blushes*

As the exibitionist of the group...

Its pronounced Darlan, not darlin' lol.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

As the exibitionist of the group...

Its pronounced Darlan, not darlin' lol.

okay?

 

[RJMasters]

okay?

I'm sorry for the confusion. That's my way of saying I play wow too and not afraid to let my geek show.

The Darlan comment is sort of a joke in my house. My wife makes fun of the way I say Darlan (the floating city in WOW at lvl 70+) because I have a slight texas drawl.

She's convinced I say darlin' not Darlan.

The conversation usually goes something like...

Me: I'll meet you in darlin'
Her: where?
Me: darlin'
Her Correcting me: Darlan
Me: That's what I said...darlin'
Her: Darlaaaaaan
Me: darlin'
Her: Laughs....its Darrrrrlllaaaaannnn
Me: Ok, whatever meet me in darlin' in 5 mins I'm going to the auction house.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Oh well, as long as I'm not alone I'll flaunt my geek all I wish MAHAHAHAHAHA *Geek streak*

 

[eastern sun]

Mexico: Killing your spouse in Mexico is just as illegal as it is in the US; I don't see why that man wouldn't be prosecuted. Mexico has a justice system as well, you know, with faults, just like the American one.

Then why isn't this man, a powerful man in his community, being prosecuted? Why do people get away with murder, when laws clearly state that murder is a crime?

And I'll use this opportunity to ask as well, why does slavery exist, when laws clearly state it is a crime?

There are elements of human culture that exist in spite of our desire for justice and legality. And if I grew up in certain neighborhoods, or fit a certain racial profile, I wouldn't trust our Western legal systems to look out for my rights either.

But that's a different issue than the use of the term "slavery" in BDSM.

I would never claim that consensual and non-consensual slavery are of the same nature. However, (and I do not say this lightly), BDSM slavery is not always very fun and in its most challenging moments, it can actually seem in the mind of the slave that you might have a glimpse into what non-consensual slavery is like. A glimpse. This statement does not mean that I think they are the same. I just know that the experience of being a slave and the experience of being a submissive and the experience of being a bottom are three different things, and the terms have specific meanings within a BDSM context.

I am concerned that the term "slave" is being condemned on a BDSM forum. Like the use of the word "rape" here, the specific context in which it is used clearly defines the meaning. If we're concerned that readers will not understand the difference, then we should be very careful in all that we say.

I'd like to suggest differently. My sexuality is totally incorrect according to egalitarian, romantic standards. It is precisely the darkness in the words that triggers my erotic yearnings. I have repressed my sexuality for years thinking it was unhealthy. But I am far happier and more beautiful when I am engaged with its paradoxical nature. And I think many of us here are similarly engaged in a dialogue with our own sexuality. This is good.

We should be celebrating and enjoying the words we use in this conversation, not limiting or denigrating them.

 

[rosco rathbone]

It's interesting that the "reality" of slavery is only tested when the person doesn't want to be a slave. At that moment, the slave in some countries has no recourse to outside support. In others, s/he does.

So, here are slaves that don't wish to test the reality of their slavery. They don't want to leave, nor do they feel they have the choice to leave. The question of their legal standing in court is never at issue.

The argument might be then that the relationship was chosen voluntarily, which in fact is an essential element of slavery in BDSM. It is chosen as a life-path, a way of being. Once chosen, if fully embraced, it no longer matters in the minds of the master and the slave what the laws of the land are in regards to their right to own property. They are owned and owner.

Obviously laws are different in different countries. In Mexico, a woman I know was killed by her husband in front of her children for having an affair with a younger man. Her husband will probably not be prosecuted. The younger man then "killed himself" on her grave. Most people involved think it more likely that he was killed as well.

In the United States, this man would do time for murder, whatever the cause. It's one of the reasons people want to live in this country, including me. I am virtually certain that my husband will not kill me, in large part because he doesn't want to go to jail.

Why are we so concerned about the use of the term "slave" as used in BDSM? Is it because we think that what a few people do in the U.S. when they define their sexual relationship will have a negative impact in the world? desensitizing people to the inequities and lack of freedom in other parts of the world? If that's so, then we should have that argument. Not this endless debate on whether slavery can or cannot exist.

Slavery of both the voluntary and involuntary kind does exist, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. Legal systems exist, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. Should there be a law against voluntary slavery to regulate the behavior of those few who would like to give up their freedom and rights?

This ought to be graven in the archway of the gates leading to the BDSM forum to prevent this dumbass question from ever being raised again.

 

[Braschi]

Back to what I said earlier: words have meaning in context. In the context of this forum, then "slave" has one meaning. In the context of analyzing human trafficking in the Orient, it has a different meaning.

Then why isn't this man, a powerful man in his community, being prosecuted? Why do people get away with murder, when laws clearly state that murder is a crime?

And I'll use this opportunity to ask as well, why does slavery exist, when laws clearly state it is a crime?

There are elements of human culture that exist in spite of our desire for justice and legality. And if I grew up in certain neighborhoods, or fit a certain racial profile, I wouldn't trust our Western legal systems to look out for my rights either.

I wouldn't know about that; I'm not the Minister of Justice for Mexico. That having been said, people get away with murder all the time, both in the US and in Europe. Not all crimes can be resolved, and I think the murder resolution rate in the US averages about 60.7% In other words, almost 40% of murders in the US aren't prosecuted. That doesn't count the murders that we never know about, nor the amount of people who are wrongfully convicted.

There are a slew of reasons why people can get away with murder, starting from sloppy police work, tempering with evidence, failed court system, bad lawyers, improper use of information, bad luck, that don't have anything to do with the law itself. Or the morality of the law. Of whether it's "Western" or not.

I've got an idea: how about we just use "thrall" instead of "slave" in the BDSM context? "Thralldom" doesn't really have much of a social stigma attached to it, and besides: it sounds cooler.

And thralls often entered into thralldom "voluntarily", to pay off debts or from losing a wager. So, there's something of a similarity there...

This conversation is getting silly.

Yeah. Cookie?

the difference between having had the opportunity to choose one's place in life, and not, is pretty frickin' huge. obviously consensual and non-consensual slavery are not "the same," beyond the fact that they are both some form of slavery. it's those who vehemently deny that slavery can even exist outside of non-consent who really burn my bum.

The legal definition of slavery implies non-consent, but that's only applicable to jurisdictions where there are right-to-freedom laws. But not everything is the "legal definition", so clearly we can have consensual slavery: it meets all the criteria for the definition of slavery, with the caveat that the law can break it up at any time.

um, i absolutely would not liken the terms Master and slave to endearments. but then i don't claim to be in a "BDSM relationship." again for me personally, the dictionary suffices in this case.

as for your cookies...did you mean the sweet chocolate-chippy kind or the fluffy southern buttermilky kind?

*offers one of each just in case*

Aww, thank you? I don't know what the southern buttermikly kind are... my knowledge of cookies is woefully deficient

 

[Richsap]

M/s vs. D/s

IMHO, a slave is a mindless, thoughtless being that reacts only to stimuli as trained to do. A sub has to apply thought in how to please with or without stimuli. A sub may call her Dom "Master" or "Mistress" but that is more role play than anything. A true slave, properly trained, would not think to use any other name than Master or Mistress at ANY time and ANY place.

A little more food for thought: I believe that a married couple can not truly form a M/s relationship in its purist definition, mainly because the marital relationship should and does override any role play relationships created. How can one whip a slave and then go to sleep next to his/her spouse? It doesn't make sense to me. We role play the M/s relationship, but it has definite start and end points, at which time we become husband and wife. But the RP is not very effective because the welt from a cat stays long after the RP is finished and leaves my sub/slave/wife confused.

If you want a true M/s relationship, again IMHO, the rules and the relationship must be black and white and leave no room for interpretation. A D/s relationship is more appropriate for married or long-term couplings.

 

[Aurantica]

This is all definitional. There are no real accepted definitions for any of these words, you use what suits you. Generally people who use the word 'slave' are playing with the idea that the 'slave' can be compelled to do things - that her consent does not need to be obtained for every particular scene. In good relationships with a loving bond and a sensitive 'master' who gives plenty of aftercare this can work well, but there is a real potential for abuse and I think there's no doubt that some wannabe 'masters' and 'doms' are really just abusive people.

My present plaything wears a collar when we are together, and when she is wearing the collar 'can be compelled' (except that she has a safeword) - but the things that I 'compel' her to do are generally things we've discussed before hand and I know she wants to try. We both like compulsion as a game, but I wouldn't 'compel' her to do anything which I believed she would not do willingly.

If this was a full time exclusive relationship (which unfortunately it isn't) I'd want her to wear a permanent collar she could not remove herself, and in that context might use the word 'slave' if it worked for us (in her case I think it might, although she is anything but a docile submissive!)

I like the way you think- thats how I want it to be with my man.

 

[SinfulSailor]

While posting I got this error message:

"You have included 49 images in your message. You are limited to using 10 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again. "

So I'm just going to break it up into pieces pretty much at random and post those in sequence.

 

[SinfulSailor]

At long last!

We finally get down to the nitty gritty. That's me all over. I'm that kinda guy. Gimme the bottom line news. If it's bad, I'll deal with it. I just want to know what the down 'n dirty real deal is.

No, I'm not saying that you and your circumstance doesn't exist, I'm saying that it will never be as real as you or anyone else in a true M/s dynamic would like. In the western world, at least.

Then where?

I'm not saying that M/s love-based or romantic relationships don't "exist," merely that they are different from legally or socially enforceable slavery, as I described in my post.

A point of fact: Slavery has been outlawed in every country of the world.

See here:

http://www.cod.edu/courier/pdfs/courier07_08/fall/10.26.07/FeaturesFINAL10.26.07.pdf

Well then, since there is no longer any such thing as "legally enforceable" slavery, we are left with "socially enforceable slavery". I asked myself, what would be "socially enforceable slavery"?

Well, "social" - that could refer to things like the Taliban. Or communes. Or, it could refer to the so-called "BDSM community". Or, it could even refer to a subset of the "BDSM community", like the "Consensual Non-Consent" (You guys know about CNC here on Lit?) group. Or, it could even refer to one couple! That is a social organization, one couple.

 

[SinfulSailor]

So what is "socially enforceable"? Aside from the law (we covered that just above - that no longer applies) what would "socially enforceable" entail? How do social entities enforce things? Well, the Taliban used to shoot people. But aside from that kind of radical approach (and they're out of business for the moment anyway) how do social entities enforce things? They complain about things to enforce their mores (their customs). They denigrate things to enforce their mores. They ostracize people to enforce their mores. They banish people to enforce their mores.

So, not taking it to the extent of the Taliban, all these "enforcing" actions are available to be used on any slave-by-choice here in the western world. Indeed, "socially enforceable" - that is precisely what western-world-slave-by-choice IS!

I'm not saying that M/s love-based or romantic relationships don't "exist," merely that they are different from legally or socially enforceable slavery, as I described in my post.

But.... but.... "different"? What is "different"? the owner of a western-world-slave-by-choice (WWSBC from now on) can employ all the normal "social" tools of enforcement. So what is "different"? You didn't describe that.

Western-World-Slave-By-Choice = WWSBC from now on.

So anyway, what's love got to do with it? (That outta be a song.)

A girl can be my slave if she does not love me, but the moment she does love me she stops being my slave? Is that it? Is that the way it works on Lit? So then I could be mean and make her hate me and then she becomes my slave again? How does this work?

All the so-called "differences" that have been brought up so far have been refuted by fact and logic! (Except just preference, prejudice or blind faith type conviction.)

That means there is only one thing left. And like Sherlock taught me, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." (quotation courtesy of wikiquote.org)

 

[SinfulSailor]

What remains is prejudice. Simply deciding there is a "difference". Even in the face of all the examples being factually and logically refuted! It does not change. That, dear reader, is prejudice, ie., pre-judgment without regard to the facts.

So be it. At least now I know what I'm dealing with.

So then, it occurs to me.... Why? Why this prejudice?

So, I binged it. And damn if I didn't get a good hit.

Prejudice, Causes and Solutions *
David A. Gershaw, Ph.D.

See here:

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/PrejudiceCauseSolution.html

Interesting reading. It's short. Check it out.

Anyway, Gershaw says, "Prejudice lumps together all members of an outgroup with a common and negative perception. Members of the outgroup are not judged as individuals. They are rejected solely on the basis of traits believed to be shared by all members of the group."

Just a negative perception. We who claim the validity of WWSBC are simply the object of "a common and negative perception", at least insofar as WWSBC is concerned. It is just "different". And WWSBC is "rejected solely on the basis of traits believed to be shared by all members of the group." Regardless of logic or fact. Thank you for explaining that, Gershaw.

 

[SinfulSailor]

As I considered what might create this prejudice, two things came to mind.

One thing is our socialization. We are taught to abhor slavery. There is a saying/truism that the victor writes history, and never was that more accurate, I think, than in the case of writing the history of slavery. We are taught some untrue/inaccurate supposedly-absolutes about slavery. But you know what? Honestly? I always thought that was what I was dealing with when I started talking to people about WWSBC. But.....

Another thing:

a slave need not be submissive at all (no dictionary definition of "slave" will include the term submissive).

As I noted in an earlier post, that is an astute observation. However! I think that when we are talking about a WWSBC situation, submission is a prerequisite. I mean... that's what we're saying. A slave-by-choice. That slave must, by definition, submit to slavery.

So as I'm thinking about that fact, it occurred to me that not every submissive is willing to do that! Indeed, comparatively few are willing to submit to the degree required of literal slavery. With that in mind, it also becomes obvious that not every person who identifies as dominant will be able to find and bond with a submissive who will submit to the extent of literal slavery.

With Sherlock still in mind, the above leads me to the conclusion that there is probably a healthy (unhealthy?) dose of just plain old green envy involved with the prejudicial in-spite-of-the-facts assertion that WWSBC is just "different".

Oh well. Whatever. At least now I know what I'm dealing with.

It's a game to them. It's play. I mean.....

OK, yes, 'slave' is a clearly defined word.

snip

any use we make of it is necessarily figurative, playful and not literal, and one playful use is as good as another.

The use of "slave" and "Master" within the context of BDSM can be likened to the use of affectionate nicknames within relationships, like "dear" or "honey".

I have no objection to the word used in the romantic or bdsm context.

the word "slave" for example <snip> is used in a certain contrived manner.

"Contrived" "play" is what these people are all about! And if I take it up a notch and live it for real - they don't much like that.

They want everybody to just leave it at the play level where they live.

And as David A. Gershaw, Ph.D. said, "They are rigidly conventional and are hostile toward people who violate conventional values."

 

[SinfulSailor]

Denial of validity and existence in spite of fact and logic is pretty hostile. It's a shame to find that within the supposedly unconventional BDSM subgroup.

But I think we can still make a little lemonade.

Some (however small) portion of those people will eventually yield to fact and reason. Don't give up on the truth!

Also! The new people! (Which is what got me started in this discussion. Remember?) Don't let the prejudiced recruit the new people to prejudice! At least not without challenge! (I'm so glad I took the trouble to correct inaccuracies in the beginning.)

With that in mind, I'll correct a few more inaccuracies.

I have no illusion that the entrenched among the naysayers will adopt fact and reason. They are just prejudiced. But there may be one or two readers who can see the light.

Gershaw points out that "People... are skillful at ignoring whatever contradicts their deep-seated beliefs."

So anyway, here we go:

No, I'm not saying that you and your circumstance doesn't exist, I'm saying that it will never be as real as you or anyone else in a true M/s dynamic would like. In the western world, at least.

Then where would it be "real"? I can buy a plane ticket.

And so, when I get there, my girl becomes a "real" slave? Does that happen before or after I go through customs?

And if I come back to the USA, does she become an "unreal" slave again? Or does her "real" status stick with her?

Also, are there any other requirements? Can you give me something solid here, or is simply the way you feel about it? I mean.... something like all real slaves must have naturally green hair and no one in the western world has naturally green hair, therefore no one in the western world can be real? Something like that?

You can probably tell I've given this subject more than a little thought. I sincerely want to learn.

 

[SinfulSailor]

I'll submit to being a bit confused about the original question, in the hopes of keeping this on topic. What exactly is she asking, again?

OK, enough of on topic, back to the fight!

Words are imperfect, they are crude approximations to the ideas we have in our heads. They are woefully insufficient, which is why we routinely paste pictures, graphs, diagrams, animations and even smilies in our text presentations in the hopes of conveying a little more meaning.

Naturally, people will "bend" their definitions a bit, or use euphemisms or approximations to try to best convey their idea. Nothing wrong with that. But that's all possible because there is some "base" of a definition that we all understand. We all have a working understanding of the word "slave" for example. However, in order to convey a specific idea in the world of BDSM, it's used in a certain contrived manner.

Which is normal for certain groups or areas to use different "meanings" for a word, although still attached to the dictionary definition. For example, a "screen" in a DIY shop has a different meaning from that of a computer store. But no computer geek will walk into the hardware store and start arguing with the employees and construction workers that their definition isn't "true" or "real". If he was sane, at any rate.

Wow, that's a lot of typing but the bottom line is that a word only means what it means if you like it?

Gershaw nailed it. "People... are skillful at ignoring whatever contradicts their deep-seated beliefs."

Regardless of what each person might think of the word "slave", there is still a consensus in the BDSM world about the euphemistic use of the word and it's particular definition as applied within the group. In other words, it's "technical definition."

No.



I've read a lotta books about BDSM and I have found no "consensus" re the definition of slave. I do encourage you to provide us with some citations. There being a "consensus", it should be easy as pie to provide a substantial list of citations.

Moreover! This very discussion, and the fact that similar discussions/disagreements have occurred in prior threads are facts that deny your assertion.

There is no "consensus" re the definition of slave.

I was going to add legally enforceable (as in legally enforceable slavery), but I thought that was clear.

Since there is no longer any such animal (see the citation above) then "legally enforceable" is not a relevant consideration - unless one takes the position that "legally enforceable" is a prerequisite to the existence of slavery. Does anyone take that position?

 

[SinfulSailor]

Which is the brilliance of rights versus laws; because with a right you can choose to exercise it or not, while a law must always be obeyed. By providing a fundamental right to freedom to people, the legal system is already satisfying those who want to be free, at the same time those who want to "give up" those freedoms. They simply don't have to exercise the right.

Finally! a logically and factually accurate statement.

But then:

Just because they legally have the option to be "free" doesn't mean that their "slavery" is any less "false".

But.... but..... but.......

You never established that any slavery was "false" at all! You have to establish that first. You have to point out this false slavery and what it is that makes it "false" before you start drawing comparisons to it or conclusions about it.

In point of fact, you just authenticated the valid possibility of the choice of slavery - just above. You said:

Which is the brilliance of rights versus laws; because with a right you can choose to exercise it or not, while a law must always be obeyed. By providing a fundamental right to freedom to people, the legal system is already satisfying those who want to be free, at the same time those who want to "give up" those freedoms. They simply don't have to exercise the right.

Right. People do not have to exercise their right to be free. (Unless they're talking to the BDSM Police on Lit.)

The main difference being that in the Western world, people like osg have a choice of whether to become a "slave" or not: people in other parts have no choice.

Three questions:

1. So what? How does that, if it is true, invalidate osg's choice?
2. Are you saying no one has ever chosen to be a "real", legal slave? And if that's what you're saying, do you have a citation for that? Or do you simply imagine that to be true? Or what? Exactly?
3. There's that "Western world" again. Then where? Where do I go to validate my slave? Do they stamp our passports? "Real" slave and owner? How long does it last?

 

[SinfulSailor]

The issue is not what is real, it is the suggestion that non-consensual slavery is the same as consensual slavery.

No. The question is, how are they different? And then, if a difference can be identified, the question becomes, does that change the essence of the thing? And more precisely, does it change the essence of the thing so as to to make it a purely "romantic" construct? I mean... if you're denying the validity of the claims made by your peers, you outta give them some definitive reasons, I think.

I'm reading closely. I'm looking for answers to these questions.

I can't imagine that many non-consensual slaves or people who are treated like property and suffer consequences as a result of that status would not want to leave or have the option of freedom

I agree with you completely!

The pivotal word there is "many". I note that you didn't say "all". And it seems we agree that not all non-consensual slaves would want to leave their slavery.

By extension, therefore, some (initially) non-consensual slaves would want to stay, after being given the option to leave. And, in wanting to stay, those originally non-consensual slaves would become slaves by consent. Would that make them not a slave any more?

And! Nothing else needs to have changed! They could serve right beside their non-consensual brethren. Any "difference" would have existed only in that moment in which they had the option to leave. Once that moment passed, and the choice to stay was made, they would become consensual slaves just like their brethren the non-consensual slaves! No one could tell them apart. Not by their appearance. Not by their duties. Not by their standard of living. Not by the way they were treated. Indeed, each would be just as real and as valid as the other. And equally so. Right?

The key word is "many". We agree that some will want to stay, even in the case of "real", legal slavery.

And that contradicts:

It's the consent that makes it an entirely different animal.

Consent, by itself, does not change a thing that I can find. But I'm willing to consider any facts or logic that may prove that consent changes something.

 

[SinfulSailor]

The legal definition of slavery implies non-consent, but that's only applicable to jurisdictions where there are right-to-freedom laws.

No.



This on top of "consensus on the definition of slave"?

Do you even bother to look anything up?

Just make it up, call it a fact and hit the send button?

I checked out a legal dictionary and looked up "slave". Here:

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=slave&type=1

It says "No word found"

So I tried "slavery". Here:

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=slavery&type=1

The result?

"No word found"

Ok. Try again.

I tried Findlaw. I know this reference. I've seen it quoted.

So look up "slave". Here:

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/search.pl?s=slave

Results?

"Your Search for the term "slave" produced no matches."

Ok, then. Try "slavery". Here:

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/search.pl?s=slavery

Results?

"Your Search for the term "slavery" produced no matches."

They are not coming up with the definition you claimed.



Not to be put off the scent

I googled "legal definition slavery"

I got this hit, titled "Law Definition of Slavery":

http://www.lawvideolibrary.com/docs/Definition of Slavery.pdf

Check it out.

They start their paper by complaining about the lack of a definition of slavery!

Deep into the paper they get around to quoting an old definition of slavery. Hooray!

Here it is:

"Slavery is a status in which one person exercises a right of property over another"

Where did you get *your* "legal definition of slavery"?


Nothing about:

The legal definition of slavery implies non-consent, but that's only applicable to jurisdictions where there are right-to-freedom laws.

Please cite your source. I'm interested in reading it.

 

[SinfulSailor]

And wait! Wait.... wait.... wait.... just a minute here. Above, you were denigrating definitions! Definitions are "woefully insufficient". Remember that? But now you're authoritatively quoting a definition? Wait, wait, wait! You can't have it both ways.



So in close.......

We find not one factual, logical consideration that precludes the existence of the possibility of "real", actual, valid, literal slavery in Western-World-Slavery-By-Consent.

We have people who claim to live in Western-World-Slavery-By-Consent.

Thus far, the only way to deny their claim is by prejudice.

Let me know what you come up with.

Oh, and P.S. Braschi:

IMHO, a slave is a mindless, thoughtless being that reacts only to stimuli as trained to do.

A little more food for thought: I believe that a married couple can not truly form a M/s relationship in its purist definition

Is this part of your "consensus" definition?

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Long post is long...

 

[KoPilot]

Can you give me something solid here?

No, not really. I'm done.

And yes, it is "simply" how I feel about it. And you should give that a little more credence than you seem to be doing... after all, the entire basis of this forum is people's feelings.

 

[Braschi]

Well, SinfulSailor, thank you for roping me in with the "them" crowd (i. e. the conforming prejudiced people), so I'm guess I'm going to have to stand with them, aye?

Wow, that's a lot of typing but the bottom line is that a word only means what it means if you like it?

No. The meaning still stands; but how that meaning is used to convey and idea is a matter of personal choice. Allow me to use an example, and don't take this literally; it is an example: A hammer, for purposes of this example, is something that, well, hammers things. Nails, boards, sides of cars. If I contrive a way to use that hammer to cut a bit of wire, because that's what I need in that particular moment, the hammer doesn't suddenly become a wirecutter. Because I use it as a wirecutter most of the time doesn't mean that I've changed the purpose and use of hammers. Words are tools for communication, and must be used appropriately. Sometimes tools can be used for other purposes than that for which they were designed. It does not change the tool or it's purpose. A word might be used to convey an idea in a different manner than it's definition, as in, for example, used euphemistically or technically, but that does not change the meaning of the word.

I agree with Gershaw on this. What are your deep-seated beliefs in this issue, Sinful? What are you ignoring? Don't tell me that you aren't, because you're human just like the rest of us

Consensus: In a couple of instances you denigrated my supposition that there was something of a consensus regarding the word "slave" in the BDSM community. While there is no precise definition which would fit neatly in a dictionary, most people in the BDSM community have a general idea of what a slave is, although they disagree on the particulars. No one in the BDSM community, for example would say that the slave holds the power in the relationship. Just now, when I said "slave" you had a broad idea of what I was talking about, though you clearly disagree on the particulars. That's the consensus I was referring to.

You never established that any slavery was "false" at all! You have to establish that first. You have to point out this false slavery and what it is that makes it "false" before you start drawing comparisons to it or conclusions about it.

No, I don't; because I wasn't drawing comparisons or conclusions about it. I was making a statement regarding the ability of people to consent, and how that applies to the alleged falsehood -hence the quotation marks- of slavery.

Three questions:

1. So what? How does that, if it is true, invalidate osg's choice?
2. Are you saying no one has ever chosen to be a "real", legal slave? And if that's what you're saying, do you have a citation for that? Or do you simply imagine that to be true? Or what? Exactly?
3. There's that "Western world" again. Then where? Where do I go to validate my slave? Do they stamp our passports? "Real" slave and owner? How long does it last?

1. It doesn't. Since I'm particularly sympathetic of osg, I don't think I would invalidate your choice in any way.
2. No, I'm not saying that no one was ever chosen to be a "real", legal slave. In fact, I know of -as in read a biography about- someone who requested to be a legal slave.
3. The Western world is the area or place of where I have some degree of knowledge. I don't know Sharia legal systems as in, for example, Iran or Saudi Arabia, so I'm careful to limit my statements to the context I'm talking about. Since it's beyond my area of knowledge, I don't know where you could go to "validate" your slave, if such a place exists. All I know is that in the "Western world", understood as the part of the world where European culture is dominant, slavery is not legal, nor should it be.

No.



This on top of "consensus on the definition of slave"?

Do you even bother to look anything up?

Just make it up, call it a fact and hit the send button?

I checked out a legal dictionary and looked up "slave". Here:

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=slave&type=1

It says "No word found"

So I tried "slavery". Here:

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=slavery&type=1

The result?

"No word found"

Ok. Try again.

I tried Findlaw. I know this reference. I've seen it quoted.

So look up "slave". Here:

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/search.pl?s=slave

Results?

"Your Search for the term "slave" produced no matches."

Ok, then. Try "slavery". Here:

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/search.pl?s=slavery

Results?

"Your Search for the term "slavery" produced no matches."

They are not coming up with the definition you claimed.



Not to be put off the scent

I googled "legal definition slavery"

I got this hit, titled "Law Definition of Slavery":

http://www.lawvideolibrary.com/docs/Definition of Slavery.pdf

Check it out.

They start their paper by complaining about the lack of a definition of slavery!

Deep into the paper they get around to quoting an old definition of slavery. Hooray!

Here it is:

"Slavery is a status in which one person exercises a right of property over another"

Where did you get *your* "legal definition of slavery"?


Nothing about:



Please cite your source. I'm interested in reading it.

Wow, that's a lot of research. Pity you didn't look at the source you quoted first in this topic:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slave

Though it is telling of the broad understanding of the word "slavery" that neither the legislatures of the United States or the United Kingdom or Great Britain in their Acts abolishing slavery felt it necessary to define the term. Clearly they deemed the idea sufficiently understood and clear. Maybe they weren't members of the Lit BDSM boards...

And wait! Wait.... wait.... wait.... just a minute here. Above, you were denigrating definitions! Definitions are "woefully insufficient". Remember that? But now you're authoritatively quoting a definition? Wait, wait, wait! You can't have it both ways.

Sure I can: I didn't invalidate either. I said they were "woefully insufficient" (thanks for the quote), but where they are useful they are... well, useful and authoritative. In legal context, the legal definition is what needs to be applied. In literary circles, the dictionary definition will suffice. When discussing the particularities of BDSM -which probably won't be clearly defined in the Queen's English- well, we have to resort to novel uses of different words in order to convey novel ideas.

Also, we're in accord that it's not right for people to "force" their opinion of certain definitions on others. So, while I sympathize with you not wanting "them" to foist their definitions on you; I would also appreciate it if you don't try to do the same to me, and us.

Finally, Sherlock Holmes -for all his deductive skill- was a figment of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's imagination. I'd much rather apply Occam's razor.

 

[intothewoods]

No. The question is, how are they different? And then, if a difference can be identified, the question becomes, does that change the essence of the thing? And more precisely, does it change the essence of the thing so as to to make it a purely "romantic" construct? I mean... if you're denying the validity of the claims made by your peers, you outta give them some definitive reasons, I think.

I'm reading closely. I'm looking for answers to these questions.





I agree with you completely!

The pivotal word there is "many". I note that you didn't say "all". And it seems we agree that not all non-consensual slaves would want to leave their slavery.

By extension, therefore, some (initially) non-consensual slaves would want to stay, after being given the option to leave. And, in wanting to stay, those originally non-consensual slaves would become slaves by consent. Would that make them not a slave any more?

And! Nothing else needs to have changed! They could serve right beside their non-consensual brethren. Any "difference" would have existed only in that moment in which they had the option to leave. Once that moment passed, and the choice to stay was made, they would become consensual slaves just like their brethren the non-consensual slaves! No one could tell them apart. Not by their appearance. Not by their duties. Not by their standard of living. Not by the way they were treated. Indeed, each would be just as real and as valid as the other. And equally so. Right?

The key word is "many". We agree that some will want to stay, even in the case of "real", legal slavery.

And that contradicts:



Consent, by itself, does not change a thing that I can find. But I'm willing to consider any facts or logic that may prove that consent changes something.

Frankly, I think the ways they're different are so obvious that there is just no point to this conversation.

Again, I don't have any issue with the label "slave" as used in a consensual relationship. I just think it's obnoxious to act as though your life is the same as a woman born to a fundamentalist Muslim family in Afghanistan or a sex slave in Thailand.

 

[catalina_francisco]

*ladylike quiet applause*

i agree with the above in full. there would be no point whatsoever in language if words can mean whatever anyone wishes them to at the moment. it is beyond absurd, but sadly that does seem to be the popular message now.

I'm with you on this one. I gather this 'one size fits all' type defining is meant to avoid offence and confusion, but IMO it only increases confusion and often creates huge offence. Sadly, it is a movement sweeping the western world where it is considered politically incorrect to have anything defined clearly, much better to be wishy washy so you can change your stand quick if someone doesn't agree. Blah, much prefer knowing what is and what isn't in this world, not to mention knowing who and what I am dealing with.

Catalina