Do Masters want a sub or a slave?

[JMohegan]

Do you always search before you reference a thread? I mean, did you look that thread up, or did you post based on your recollection? If it's the latter, I am impressed. If it's the former, ok fine, I take it back and transfer all of my shock and awe to RJ.

Not always, but for something that old? Sure.

All shock and awe is due to RJ.

 

[SinfulSailor]

If we are at a point where we can all agree to agree - I'm up for that!

 

[ownedsubgal]

I said that clearly that they aren't not real, but are simply not the same, repeatedly. I really fail to see how "love-based" is condescending! It was just shorthand because many M/s relationships are also romantic relationships. Obviously it is more all encompassing to say consensual slave relationships.



Love-based is condescending? Perhaps if you believe that relationships based in love are worth less than others. It was just shorthand, since many M/s relationships are romantic relationships...

I don't think they are incomparable in every conceivable fashion, and I never said that. I said repeatedly that they are not the same and I object to describing them as the same. You yourself say consent makes an astronomical difference, and that's my point. Someone who leads a life of freedom who then chooses to give up such freedoms comes from a position of privilege that a nonconsensual slave does not have.

the sucky thing about written communication is that our words will sometimes come across in a manner entirely different than we intended. it sure happens to me more times than i can count.

when you said that being a consensual slave isn't "harder" than being a non-consensual slave, for instance, or that the differences between the two are "so obvious" the topic doesn't even merit discussion, it does seem as if you are painting consensual M/s with a fairy lalaland brush. the reality is that the differences may not be so obvious to the unknowing observer, and that consent does not define happiness nor quality of life. a consensual slave may live life in misery and sadness, and a non-consensual slave may have mentally and emotionally risen above their circumstances in such a way that they are able to live a life in contentment. you just can't make those kinds of assumptions either way.

as to why i personally found the "love-based M/s" label condescending...well first off it defines the relationship by the love, rather than the ownership. besides the fact that many consensual M/s relationships do not include romantic love, even among those who do that love does not tend to be the foundation. it is the ownership which is the foundation.

 

[intothewoods]

a consensual slave may live life in misery and sadness, and a non-consensual slave may have mentally and emotionally risen above their circumstances in such a way that they are able to live a life in contentment. you just can't make those kinds of assumptions either way.

Sure, a consensual slave may be miserable and sad, and a non-consensual slave can find some beauty in the midst of tradgedy. Neither state is necessarily a direct result of being a consensual or non-consensual slave. Assumptions are one thing. I only know what I've read and observed. And what are the hallmarks of consensual and non-consensual slavery? I don't typically come across accounts of nonconsensual slaves who say, in the end, I have found happiness as a slave, and would therefore choose this path even if I had an opportunity to leave. And in the same vein, I don't typically meet or read the account of a consensual slave who routinely expresses how day after day he or she would like to leave but can't. Sure, someone, somewhere may have said something. But the overwhelming evidence is as I described.

as to why i personally found the "love-based M/s" label condescending...well first off it defines the relationship by the love, rather than the ownership. besides the fact that many consensual M/s relationships do not include romantic love, even among those who do that love does not tend to be the foundation. it is the ownership which is the foundation.

That would explain why you found it innacurate, not condescending.

 

[SinfulSailor]

If we are at a point where we can all agree to agree - I'm up for that!

I guess not.

I don't typically come across accounts of nonconsensual slaves who say, in the end, I have found happiness as a slave, and would therefore choose this path even if I had an opportunity to leave. And in the same vein, I don't typically meet or read the account of a consensual slave who routinely expresses how day after day he or she would like to leave but can't. Sure, someone, somewhere may have said something. But the overwhelming evidence is as I described.

So, if the percentage of people who would like something is small, and the percentage of people who would not like the thing is large, then the small percentage of people who do like the thing are marginalized. Their liking the thing is obviously less meaningful. Any fulfillment they may find, as a small percentage, is probably self delusion. Otherwise, a larger percentage of people would have liked the thing in the first place, right?

"I don't typically." Of what significance is "typically"?

I don't typically run across people who want to be peed on. So, if I ever do find someone who likes that, then (thanks to the above example) I know that they are just plain full of shit and their preference is far less meaningful than they happen to believe it is.

Frankly, I don't "typically" come across a woman who is proud to say she submits to her husband and pretty much whatever he wants is what she will go along with. So, since they are in a minority, I guess any woman who does want to submit to her husband is just showing that her relationship is less valid than that of a woman who has the courage to stand up to her husband and demand a full and equal voice in every issue that comes up.

I don't know what your personal kinks are, what brings you to a "BDSM Talk" forum, but whatever they are, it is very unlikely (considering the nature of this forum) that they are widely held, authenticated, preferred, approved or participated in within the overall population. If that is correct, then by your reasoning, that automatically (and justifiably!) subjects you to derision of your choice and proclamations of how your choice is less valid, less worthy than the choice more popularly made by the vast majority of the population. And the fact that you say you find it fulfilling is basically a figment of your imagination, an euphemism, and you are just fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Look.

Once we establish that a thing can exist, as in "Sure, someone, somewhere may have"; and then we have someone who claims the thing; then we need something more than an assertion that the thing is not "typical" to reasonably deny the existence of the thing.

Do you see this?

Of course, you don't have to be reasonable. You can be judgmental.

Coming at this from a different perspective:

It's like I learned in Sociology 101. When we are examining groups of people we can often develop a significant degree of predictability. We may, for hypothetical example, know that 90% of men do not watch shopping shows on tv. If we stop 100 men on the street and ask if they watch shopping programs on tv, it is likely that 90 (or thereabout) will say "no". However! That does not predict how any particular individual will answer our question! (Sociology 101)

Indeed, because we know that *some* men *do* watch shopping programs we will surely eventually put our foot in our mouth if we walk up to every man and say, "I know you don't watch those damn shopping programs. A real man would never watch those programs."

 

[ownedsubgal]

Sure, a consensual slave may be miserable and sad, and a non-consensual slave can find some beauty in the midst of tradgedy. Neither state is necessarily a direct result of being a consensual or non-consensual slave. Assumptions are one thing. I only know what I've read and observed. And what are the hallmarks of consensual and non-consensual slavery? I don't typically come across accounts of nonconsensual slaves who say, in the end, I have found happiness as a slave, and would therefore choose this path even if I had an opportunity to leave. And in the same vein, I don't typically meet or read the account of a consensual slave who routinely expresses how day after day he or she would like to leave but can't. Sure, someone, somewhere may have said something. But the overwhelming evidence is as I described.

when it comes to defining something, i think it's best to stick to facts. something may be typically or commonly the case, but that doesn't make it a defining factor of the concept. just as a particular word may typically have a negative connotation...that doesn't make the word in its raw definition negative.

That would explain why you found it innacurate, not condescending.

you're right, and that's my bad for punking out in my earlier response. i suppose i found it condescending because of my own personal bias against the idea of basing a relationship as deadly serious and completely life-changing as slavery on something like romantic love. but it also gives it a fleeting, almost whimsical tone...like, two folks decide to be Master and slave because they love each other sooo much, and if that love ever fades well, bam! M/s over. that's not what i personally would define as a M/s relationship, and further being a slave myself obviously the topic hits very close to home... and it's so monumental, all-consuming, overwhelming, and precious to me that i would hate for anyone to think i chose this path because of "love." which may make sense to no one at all, but there you go.

 

[where]

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:



Is this part of your "consensus" definition?

definitions are very important. words have meaning. sticking 'consensual' before the word 'slave' doesn't mean that consensual slavery exists. it's contradictory. a person can no more consent to slavery than they can to rape, theft or murder. you can call yourself a slave, but unless you are doing so in the understanding that you are merely playing in the role, no matter how 'real' it seems, you are sadly deluding yourself.

Yes, my delivery may have sucked. Granted.

And the "Chill" was warranted - though it didn't go over well with me in the moment.

Hey, I was new to all this formal BDSM stuff but fairly well educated in the world of non-consensual slavery and I was gobsmacked to find myself faced with people who asserted there was very little difference between the two, aside from consent. It still makes me shake my head when I see it but I'm wise enough to keep my lips zipped now, (most of the time).

I'm constantly stunned how it comes up time and time again. people should go and educate themselves a bit before tossing terms like 'consensual slavery' around.

 

[intothewoods]

I guess not.



So, if the percentage of people who would like something is small, and the percentage of people who would not like the thing is large, then the small percentage of people who do like the thing are marginalized. Their liking the thing is obviously less meaningful. Any fulfillment they may find, as a small percentage, is probably self delusion. Otherwise, a larger percentage of people would have liked the thing in the first place, right?

"I don't typically." Of what significance is "typically"?

I don't typically run across people who want to be peed on. So, if I ever do find someone who likes that, then (thanks to the above example) I know that they are just plain full of shit and their preference is far less meaningful than they happen to believe it is.

Frankly, I don't "typically" come across a woman who is proud to say she submits to her husband and pretty much whatever he wants is what she will go along with. So, since they are in a minority, I guess any woman who does want to submit to her husband is just showing that her relationship is less valid than that of a woman who has the courage to stand up to her husband and demand a full and equal voice in every issue that comes up.

I don't know what your personal kinks are, what brings you to a "BDSM Talk" forum, but whatever they are, it is very unlikely (considering the nature of this forum) that they are widely held, authenticated, preferred, approved or participated in within the overall population. If that is correct, then by your reasoning, that automatically (and justifiably!) subjects you to derision of your choice and proclamations of how your choice is less valid, less worthy than the choice more popularly made by the vast majority of the population. And the fact that you say you find it fulfilling is basically a figment of your imagination, an euphemism, and you are just fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Look.

Once we establish that a thing can exist, as in "Sure, someone, somewhere may have"; and then we have someone who claims the thing; then we need something more than an assertion that the thing is not "typical" to reasonably deny the existence of the thing.

Do you see this?

Of course, you don't have to be reasonable. You can be judgmental.

Coming at this from a different perspective:

It's like I learned in Sociology 101. When we are examining groups of people we can often develop a significant degree of predictability. We may, for hypothetical example, know that 90% of men do not watch shopping shows on tv. If we stop 100 men on the street and ask if they watch shopping programs on tv, it is likely that 90 (or thereabout) will say "no". However! That does not predict how any particular individual will answer our question! (Sociology 101)

Indeed, because we know that *some* men *do* watch shopping programs we will surely eventually put our foot in our mouth if we walk up to every man and say, "I know you don't watch those damn shopping programs. A real man would never watch those programs."

This is a discussion. Because my point of view is different, it doesn't make me judgmental in the sense that I believe myself to be morally superior.

And your example about submission is not at all comparable. There are plenty of BDSM and D/s forums out there to show you that those who enjoy submission are a statistically significant group. Where is the forum for non-consensual slaves who are happy and would choose this path if they could??

when it comes to defining something, i think it's best to stick to facts. something may be typically or commonly the case, but that doesn't make it a defining factor of the concept. just as a particular word may typically have a negative connotation...that doesn't make the word in its raw definition negative.

To both of you -- I am being completely factual. The only reason I used the word typically is because it is possible that someone, somewhere has a different story. The huge numbers of accounts of non-consensual slaves in comparison to the accounts/descriptions of consensual slaves make it clear that the former is hell on earth in a way that is incomparable. We're not discussing whether all women are good listeners or something -- a point for which there are plenty of examples on either side. This is why I said it's obvious. I am not going to pretend the obvious isn't true, particularly to OSG who continues to make claims about parenting norms that I find utterly ridiculous and offensive, without any support for those claims whatsoever.

Talk about political correctness. So I should account for the invisible silent minority of non-consensual slaves who are content and would choose this path if only they could, to avoid offending anyone here? Again, I'll be happy to when people stop, say, denigrating feminism without a hint of awareness for everything we have to thank feminism for. That offends me. It's judgmental. It's not reasonable. And yet I read it here all the time, so I guess we'll all have to put on our big boy and big girl panties and move forward.

 

[KoPilot]

you're right, and that's my bad for punking out in my earlier response. i suppose i found it condescending because of my own personal bias against the idea of basing a relationship as deadly serious and completely life-changing as slavery on something like romantic love. but it also gives it a fleeting, almost whimsical tone...like, two folks decide to be Master and slave because they love each other sooo much, and if that love ever fades well, bam! M/s over. that's not what i personally would define as a M/s relationship, and further being a slave myself obviously the topic hits very close to home... and it's so monumental, all-consuming, overwhelming, and precious to me that i would hate for anyone to think i chose this path because of "love." which may make sense to no one at all, but there you go.

Twu slave?

 

[SimonBrooke]

In one case of non-consensual slavery, (in the US, BTW), one of the captive girls tried to escape. When she was caught, the people who were holding her dragged her to a room and made all the other girls who were being held as slaves watch as they beheaded her. They made it very clear that this was a warning, this was what they could expect if they tried to escape.

This goes beyond "a lot harder".

"Slavery" in BDSM is so far different from non-consensual slavery that the two cannot be compared, IMO.

As for BDSM slavery...awesome, cool, have at 'er.

Keroin, I agree with you - I'm not really arguing against you here, merely exploring the issue.

Some of us - I don't know how many - play with 'consensual non-consent' - play in which a very broad consent is given before the play starts, and in which consent 'cannot be withdrawn'. Of course, if the sub actually wanted to withdraw consent, I suspect most of us would probably end the scene anyway, but at least within the 'rules of engagement' - the agreement to play - that's 'against the rules'.

I'm using a lot of scare quotes here because of course we all know that whatever has been agreed in advance, consent may be withdrawn, and if you continue after consent has been withdrawn then in the societies in which we play, that's rape, and a crime. But then again many of the things we do are legally crimes anyway... however I think that most of us would agree that continuing with a scene after consent has been withdrawn is a significantly more serious moral issue than administering a beating or torture to a willing victim.

So in the sense that one can have consensual non-consent, a person who has voluntarily agreed to a very long or indefinite period of consensual non-consent might be called a 'consensual slave'.

I agree with you, however, that using 'slave' in this sense - while it does have a real erotic charge and is fun to play with as an idea - is nothing like actual slavery.

You cite a US example of the condition of actual slavery which I feel sure is true. I know of another story - which I believe to be true - from Brazil, which to my mind is even more telling. A male slave owner invited a male visitor for dinner. The visitor later recorded the visit in his journal, and that journal is where I have the story from.

The meal was served by naked female slaves. The visitor stared repeatedly at the breasts of one particular slave. At the end of the visit, the owner, in front of the visitor and the other slaves - cut off one of her breasts and gave it to the visitor, saying that he'd obviously liked it so much that he must take it home with him as a gift.

This wasn't punishment of the slave - she had not, as the story was reported, done anything wrong. If it was a rebuke to anyone, it was a rebuke to the visitor. The journal doesn't relate whether the slave survived, but one would guess that an injury as serious as that in a hot climate without good medical care, she probably didn't. She was obviously of so little value to her owner that she could be mutilated or killed on a whim.

And, of course - key point - she was her owner's property, and the law of the land completely supported him in what he did. Any 'master' here who wants to find out if he has a 'twoo slave', just try cutting off one of her breasts without anaesthetic and see how long it takes the police to get you behind bars. That - if nothing else, that - is why 'BDSM slavery' or 'consensual slavery' are nothing like real slavery.

In real slavery, the master can do more or less anything without fear of reprisal from anyone. We can't.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Twu slave?

mockery is fun for you, huh?

 

[eastern sun]

you're right, and that's my bad for punking out in my earlier response. i suppose i found it condescending because of my own personal bias against the idea of basing a relationship as deadly serious and completely life-changing as slavery on something like romantic love. but it also gives it a fleeting, almost whimsical tone...like, two folks decide to be Master and slave because they love each other sooo much, and if that love ever fades well, bam! M/s over. that's not what i personally would define as a M/s relationship, and further being a slave myself obviously the topic hits very close to home... and it's so monumental, all-consuming, overwhelming, and precious to me that i would hate for anyone to think i chose this path because of "love." which may make sense to no one at all, but there you go.

It makes sense to me. Especially the kind of romantic love that never lasts as long as the negotiated contract.

 

[ownedsubgal]

This is why I said it's obvious. I am not going to pretend the obvious isn't true, particularly to OSG who continues to make claims about parenting norms that I find utterly ridiculous and offensive, without any support for those claims whatsoever.

Talk about political correctness. So I should account for the invisible silent minority of non-consensual slaves who are content and would choose this path if only they could, to avoid offending anyone here? Again, I'll be happy to when people stop, say, denigrating feminism without a hint of awareness for everything we have to thank feminism for. That offends me. It's judgmental. It's not reasonable. And yet I read it here all the time, so I guess we'll all have to put on our big boy and big girl panties and move forward.

well we're all offended i guess, the downside of interacting with other people from different backgrounds, lifestyles and perspectives. my only point in this particular argument was that if we are actually defining something...(note, not describing, or waxing philosophical, etc.), then we should stick to those factors which actually define that thing. to say that most slaves who did not choose their place are in misery would be a true statement, from which you'd get no argument from me. but to say that such misery is what defines slavery, or that not wanting to be there is what defines slavery, is just plain false. and to then go on from there and state with authority that slavery without those factors (nonconsent, force, misery, etc.) is not slavery at all, that it is some sort of fairytale game folks like to play for fun, is also just plain false. but as with countless other topics, most here will never see eye to eye on that.

on parenting...i have no idea what "claims" you feel i've made that have been ridiculous and offensive. i will say however that i have difficulty relating to the parenting utopia in which you often describe living in. we are all colored by our personal experiences and the environment closest to us.

 

[ownedsubgal]

It makes sense to me. Especially the kind of romantic love that never lasts as long as the negotiated contract.

and they always have a contract, don't they?

thanks eastern, i'm just glad it made sense to someone.

 

[intothewoods]

It makes sense to me. Especially the kind of romantic love that never lasts as long as the negotiated contract.

Lol, contracts are forever!

well we're all offended i guess, the downside of interacting with other people from different backgrounds, lifestyles and perspectives. my only point in this particular argument was that if we are actually defining something...(note, not describing, or waxing philosophical, etc.), then we should stick to those factors which actually define that thing. to say that most slaves who did not choose their place are in misery would be a true statement, from which you'd get no argument from me. but to say that such misery is what defines slavery, or that not wanting to be there is what defines slavery, is just plain false. and to then go on from there and state with authority that slavery without those factors (nonconsent, force, misery, etc.) is not slavery at all, that it is some sort of fairytale game folks like to play for fun, is also just plain false. but as with countless other topics, most here will never see eye to eye on that.

The statements in bold aren't an accurate summary of what I'm saying and have said.

on parenting...i have no idea what "claims" you feel i've made that have been ridiculous and offensive. i will say however that i have difficulty relating to the parenting utopia in which you often describe living in. we are all colored by our personal experiences and the environment closest to us.

Utopia! That parents these days are aware of the most obvious gender differences is parenting utopia? Damn, I thought I would be less tired when I arrived in Utopia.

My personal experience includes parents from all different backgrounds. But beyond that, I've read countless parenting books, parenting blogs, articles on parenting, blah blah blah. I feel fairly confident that I've got a decent handle on the current cultural millieu of parenting.

 

[ownedsubgal]

for the record, i never asserted that parents themselves are unaware of "the most obvious gender differences." i was referring to a strong cultural shift away from even remotely defined gender roles, and the fact that many parents seem to support this shift. and by parenting "utopia" i was referring to your description of interactions with parents from every conceivable ethnic and religious and lifestyle background, from hippie buddhist to lesbian jews, etc. and yes, obviously that's an exaggerated statement...but i think you get the idea. whether i recall the rural environment of my childhood, or the Suburbia in which i live now, there just hasn't been that kind of variety in families or ways of thought.

 

[intothewoods]

unisex is the way many children are being raised today, the way my own mother attempted to raise me, the way that has rapidly become the "norm" in human behavior, customs and expectations. it recognizes nothing special about either femininity or masculinity...no special accommodations or considerations for female, or expectation of any special maturity or responsibility for male.

The idea that it is the norm to raise children as unisex is ridiculous. The idea that parents don't recognize anything "special" about either feminity or masculinity, and have the same expectations for boys as for girls is also ridiculous.

As far as my various interactions go, it's not because I live in a community that is so diverse that it's utopic. It's because I've moved around a lot and I read a lot.

 

[where]

well we're all offended i guess, the downside of interacting with other people from different backgrounds, lifestyles and perspectives. my only point in this particular argument was that if we are actually defining something...(note, not describing, or waxing philosophical, etc.), then we should stick to those factors which actually define that thing. to say that most slaves who did not choose their place are in misery would be a true statement, from which you'd get no argument from me. but to say that such misery is what defines slavery, or that not wanting to be there is what defines slavery, is just plain false. and to then go on from there and state with authority that slavery without those factors (nonconsent, force, misery, etc.) is not slavery at all, that it is some sort of fairytale game folks like to play for fun, is also just plain false. but as with countless other topics, most here will never see eye to eye on that.

except that slavery is by definition non-consensual.

 

[KoPilot]

except that slavery is by definition non-consensual.

Pleeeaase don't get her started on that!

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Well. I have to say, that TECHNICALLY, by dictionary-defintion, consent is not part of the definition.

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of SLAVERY
1
: drudgery, toil
2
: submission to a dominating influence
3
a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding

And "chattel" doesn't take consent into account either.


However, non-consensual slavery in regions that allow it to happen is such a different beast than consensual slavery in first world countries, that I think it's important to make a distinction between them.

 

[where]

Pleeeaase don't get her started on that!

*looks innocent*

Well. I have to say, that TECHNICALLY, by dictionary-defintion, consent is not part of the definition.

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of SLAVERY
1
: drudgery, toil
2
: submission to a dominating influence
3
a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding

And "chattel" doesn't take consent into account either.


However, non-consensual slavery in regions that allow it to happen is such a different beast than consensual slavery in first world countries, that I think it's important to make a distinction between them.

literature around the ethics of consent would disagree. lack of consent is a condition of being a slave. otherwise it's subservience.

 

[KoPilot]

In all honesty, I was serious about the "thrall" idea. ;P

 

[bhndblueyes88]

I don't really disagree, but I'm just pointing out that the dictionary definition does not contain consent. Thus there is an argument existant for consensual slavery. I'm sure you could find social discussion validating it as well, although it might not be as easy to find.

Honestly, I don't care too much about whether the slavery is consensual or not, and I'm more concerned on how the "slave" is treated. A consented slave who puts up with abuse because they "consented" (and I'm assuming it's actual abuse) is, in my mind, in a more imminently dangerous place than a slave who has not consented and is pampered as a prized trophy. Conversely, a slave who did not consent in a dangerous situation is of far more concern to me than a consensual slave who's enjoying her slavedom. Behavior is vastly more important to me than definitions.

Who cares of osg is or is not a slave? If she's treated well and is happy and healthy, isn't that what matters?

It also matters that there are absued non-consenting slaves that are mutilated, murdered and psycholgically battered every day in this world.

BUT, for people like osg to claim equal status to these slaves (not saying that you are, osg, I'm only referring to people in your form of relationship) belittles their turmoil. You may or may not be a slave...but you are not a raped and mutilated slave.

btw, if i'm overstepping my bounds as a n00b, please let me know. I just enjoy discussion

 

[Stella_Omega]

Who said this, anyway?

...it recognizes nothing special about either femininity or masculinity...no special accommodations or considerations for female, or expectation of any special maturity or responsibility for male.

Well, we try to encourage a similar level of maturity and responsibility in both young men and young women, and a similar level of accommodation and consideration for both as well.

It gets difficult, of course when the youngster's parents and grandparents gripe and bitch about effeminate boys and girls who are too big for their britches, and tell the kids that those other roles are more right because PENIS! and vagina!

 

[JMohegan]

Who said this, anyway?

She pulled it from the Manners thread.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=35980362&postcount=158