Is genuine slavery possible in a romantic committed relationship?

[Mr2Apprentice]

Thoughts and opinions are welcome.

 

[CutieMouse]

Thoughts and opinions are welcome.

I suppose that kind of depends on what one defines as "genuine slavery".

 

[Blue]

_____

 

[apom]

Slavery is the practice of expanding property right to include humans, meaning they can have value allocated to them and to be bought and sold as property.

If you mean being forced to act out labour for another person without the ability to opt out or terminate the agreement then that's not necessarily "slavery" but could be described as such.

So in both regards: I guess?.......
For me it turns into a thick and murky grey area since I'm sure that there are some extremely 'hardcore' elements of D/s that a few people practice where one of the partners has agreed to contractual autonomy. I mean that in the sense that their freedom of expression/activity is a privilege dolled out by their PYL.

So is that slavery or is it indentured servitude? Or is there even a difference? And if it is, why is it 100% necessarily a bad thing? I have no idea.

I would certainly love to see something like this go to a court and see everybody try to work through the muddle of concepts.

Me too, particularly the idea that I'm born free but not so much that I may give my freedom away.

 

[apom]

Or that you are born free, but are not permitted to consent to anything the state deems 'abuse' and attempting to do so is considered proof of unsound mind, which in turn can elevate the charges against the 'abuser'.

This is my exact sentiment, better than I could say it, and the great frustration of my life.

 

[Nezhul]

I guess that only happens when Dom's desires are completely in sync with Sub's desires. So that whatever you want to do to your slave is viewed positively by her/him.

To answer that question you should define slavery and loving relationship.
For me, true sexual slavery as a sort of sexual play between partners (let's not talk about real slaves in real world who still exist) - is the situation when a submissive has absolutely no say in what happens, and the dom has absolute rule. To take it to extremes, it's a situation where there's no safewords, no ability to object and decline to do something. In that respect, sexual slavery (between partners) is not really a BDSM, because it leaves the ability of non-consent, while BDSM is always a consensual play. It still has a right to exist, because Kinks....

Now, Love for me is when you care about your partner and get off on pleasing him/her. You get off on making them happy as much as possible. There may be clashes of opinions or sore points, as with any relationship, but the end result is that you still love your partner so much that you want to make his/her life as good as you can, and watch them live it happily. That's only one side of love, but in the spec of this discussion I'll go only with this one.

Slavery and Love? It is possible, granted that the owner does never want to do something that slave feels bad about. It is possible only when the Owner does whatever damn-well he pleases, but the nature of those actions are such that the sub never feels the need to object or safeword.

For example, Owner's desires may lie in bondage, some whipping/flogging, having sex whenever and however he/she pleases, having the slave cook and look after the house.... and nothing more. I can imagine myself fit into just that category - I'm not into extreme pain, for example, and I'm not really going to prevent her from seeing friends, from going to work she likes - because that type of control doesn't interest me. Let's say I can call her back to me at any time, but I do so rarely because our schedules align well, and she doesn't mind. Can there be a girl who will be ok with such level of ownership? Easily. Will that cast shadow on our loving relationship in any way? Hell no, because we both still have our partner's desires in mind, we just know that they align perfectly with our own. She wants to serve, and I want to be served. Can that be called sexual slavery? Technically, yes - She has no control, and I have every control, but it works out for both.

However, If the Owner is restraining his/her desires because he loves the Slave and does not want to hurt him/her - that's not a slavery anymore, because slave's desires are taken into consideration. It is power exchange.
If, on the other hand, the Slave has to suffer through something that he/she does not enjoy at all, not during, not after - than we can't talk about true love, because willingly hurting someone you love for the sake of your own amusement contradicts love.

What you are left with is a very fine line that theoretically could be walked but realistically is quite impossible. And if it deviates from the formula "Owner's desires = Slave's desires" even one bit, then slavery becomes unhealthy.
That is if you are talking about "true slavery". Power exchange sometimes go to great extremes, and the sub will give almost all power to the dom. That does't mean there should not be consideration for sub's whishes, that does not mean there should not be safeword. You can play really hardcore with a right partner, while still maintaining trust, love and safety.

p.s. Also, there are a type of dominants who actually get off the most on making there sub's experience as best as they can. They will gladly go into extreme pain, if that's what their sub desires, but will not even pay the possibility any mind, if it's not. I'm partially that, I have my things that I really want to do in my kinky life, but I can forgo them simply because I just love seeing that "everything is perfect" smile on her face.

 

[desertslave]

Thoughts and opinions are welcome.

It's been working here. Honestly I'm not sure how well the BDSM sort of slavery would work without the committed relationship.

 

[apom]

For me, true sexual slavery as a sort of sexual play between partners (let's not talk about real slaves in real world who still exist) - is the situation when a submissive has absolutely no say in what happens, and the dom has absolute rule. To take it to extremes, it's a situation where there's no safewords, no ability to object and decline to do something. In that respect, sexual slavery (between partners) is not really a BDSM, because it leaves the ability of non-consent, while BDSM is always a consensual play. It still has a right to exist, because Kinks....

...snip...

However, If the Owner is restraining his/her desires because he loves the Slave and does not want to hurt him/her - that's not a slavery anymore, because slave's desires are taken into consideration. It is power exchange.
If, on the other hand, the Slave has to suffer through something that he/she does not enjoy at all, not during, not after - than we can't talk about true love, because willingly hurting someone you love for the sake of your own amusement contradicts love.

What you are left with is a very fine line that theoretically could be walked but realistically is quite impossible. And if it deviates from the formula "Owner's desires = Slave's desires" even one bit, then slavery becomes unhealthy.
That is if you are talking about "true slavery". Power exchange sometimes go to great extremes, and the sub will give almost all power to the dom. That does't mean there should not be consideration for sub's whishes, that does not mean there should not be safeword. You can play really hardcore with a right partner, while still maintaining trust, love and safety.

I can't say that I agree with the whole thing, but very interesting post, Nezhul. You've got me reconsidering exactly what "BDSM" means and if and where I fit into that set of definitions.

My take is…

Everyone is different, and in my opinion while some kinks are much less common than others, I don't think that just because they are rare that they are necessarily unhealthy. This is the crux of the “inalienable” freedom thing that I find so totally frustrating: You must do things our way, and if you don't want to you are obviously nuts and we will not allow it. I mean, if I want to sign away my right to make choices for myself, I don't understand why anyone has the right to tell me I can't or that I'm wrong or crazy for wanting to. What if I don't want love? What if what makes me feel right, whole and happy is a situation where I have no safewords, no ability to object or decline to do anything? Such a mindset may not be understandable to a majority of folks, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I don’t think we’re talking about “genuine slavery” here. To me, “slavery” means the abhorrent practice of taking humans as property against their will, people being kidnapped and sold for sex as sadly happens every day. Unlike a lot of people though, I believe wholeheartedly in consensual non-consent. I believe that if I allow myself to be taken as property and sold for sex that that is my business. If what I do makes me feel worthwhile, gives pleasure to others and doesn’t hurt anyone but me, what’s the problem?

I’m certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I’m smart enough to understand the concepts being discussed here. I’m under no duress, so when I tell those who possess me right up front to please use common sense but otherwise ignore me when I scream and beg them to stop, I am willingly surrendering all control of my body and my life—the right to decide when something is too unpleasant or painful to proceed. Once I’m alone among them, tied up on the floor of their basement, what happens to me is obviously totally at their discretion anyway. This is where most people seek love and trust. Just because I’m not doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with me.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[staciliv]

Thoughts and opinions are welcome.

Ive been a sex slave for a male a coupke of times. Slavery is illegal in the US, so each time I signed a "voluntary chattel" agreement acknowledging that but also asking the authorities not to intervene and setting certain limits for my protection.

Both times the experience was degrading, humiliating, and painful. At the time I hated it but when each ended (a month each time) I surprised myself by crying, begging to remain a slave.

Oh well, females are fucked in the head I suppose.

 

[apom]

I don't think your post suggests and bluntness to your knife.

My quoted piece raises the question though, is this 'romantic' relationship? the OP asks this question of the two , slavery as you describe and romantic ( and committed) in union together. If you do not seek love, can it be 'romance'? ( and this is a question not a conclusion)

For me the easy answer is no. In my mind, it’s no more possible for an owner to relate romantically with his slave than it is with his milk cow or his left shoe. They are all three objects at his disposal, and that’s that. He may develop some friendly feeling for Bessie because she has big brown eyes and says MOOO, but once she’s past her prime he won’t hesitate to dump her for $50 and a dozen eggs. He can get more than that for one of his Air Jordans.

The way I see it, as soon as a relationship becomes romantic it’s no longer slavery. I have a hard time with the concept of love, but the idea of a caring partner blistering my bottom for tears during the anal penetration he knows I can’t stand seems way more than contradictory. He can't love me and disregard my feelings at the same time. As his slave I might cry, but I’d spread my cheeks obediently, keep my mouth shut during and expect nothing less than a stern lashing after.

 

[Blue]

_____

 

[CutieMouse]

Ive been a sex slave for a male a coupke of times. Slavery is illegal in the US, so each time I signed a "voluntary chattel" agreement acknowledging that but also asking the authorities not to intervene and setting certain limits for my protection.

Both times the experience was degrading, humiliating, and painful. At the time I hated it but when each ended (a month each time) I surprised myself by crying, begging to remain a slave.

Oh well, females are fucked in the head I suppose.

You do realize that a "voluntary chattel" agreement is not legally binding, authorities are required to intervene (unless you mean a medical DNR drawn up by a lawyer), and that paperwork you signed could just as easily be used in court to prosecute whomever you agreed to enslave yourself to?

Human trafficking is illegal, even when you write a note saying it isn't.

For me the easy answer is no. In my mind, it’s no more possible for an owner to relate romantically with his slave than it is with his milk cow or his left shoe. They are all three objects at his disposal, and that’s that. He may develop some friendly feeling for Bessie because she has big brown eyes and says MOOO, but once she’s past her prime he won’t hesitate to dump her for $50 and a dozen eggs. He can get more than that for one of his Air Jordans.

The way I see it, as soon as a relationship becomes romantic it’s no longer slavery. I have a hard time with the concept of love, but the idea of a caring partner blistering my bottom for tears during the anal penetration he knows I can’t stand seems way more than contradictory. He can't love me and disregard my feelings at the same time. As his slave I might cry, but I’d spread my cheeks obediently, keep my mouth shut during and expect nothing less than a stern lashing after.

By all historical accounts, Thomas Jefferson had a relationship with Sally Hemings resulting in 6 children. While Sally, herself, was never freed, her children were all emancipated by Jefferson, several lived within the white household and several went on to pass as white members of society. One could argue that Jefferson treated Sally as abhorrently as the worst space iwner depicted in Huck Finn, but that has never been the story told or recorded. Rumors have always swirled about society that there was some degree of relationship there.

Is it possible she bore 6 children, with Jefferson the potential father (DNA testing has proven lineage for at least one male child), without any "loving relationship"? Of course. However, given that Sally was legally classified as a slave for her entire existence, please explain to me how any hint of "romance" between the two negated their respective status as slave and owner?

As for how a lover cares for someone while disregarding their feelings...

Why I earth would one enter into a long term relationship with someone who disregarded my feelings? It kinda sounds like a recipe for disaster (to me).

Wouldn't it be more productive to enter into an arrangement (relationship - D/s, M/s, Owner/property, whatever) where each party complements & benefits the other?

My lover happens to love spanking my ass.
I happen to love being spanked.
Win/win.

He's not all that into anal sex, but really enjoys turning me into an orgasmic puddle of goo.
I kinda like it [anal sex].
He figured out alternatives to anal sex that he enjoys, and also turn me into a puddle of orgasmic goo. (I don't miss anal, at all.)
Win/win.

Just because one persons experience or expectation of slavery = X, does not mean that X is the only way to experience slavery.

 

[apom]

But torturing a slave or "disregarding [their] feelings" isn't necessitated by owning one. It's possible for an empathic slave-master to not subject his/her human property to unnecessary and painful ordeals that he/she knows they don't like. That's just being an ass. Being unable to opt out of the agreement doesn't say anything about the actual content of that agreement or the humours of the owner.

Even though it's presumed for some reason that slave owners, even in a BDSM context, must be abusive by definition, that's just not true. Owning a slave says nothing about a person's character other than that they don't seem to have any qualms with owning a slave. Which is why I would say that being enslaved isn't inversely correlated with a caring and respectful bonding.

I was interpreting the words "genuine slavery" from the original post, but both you and Cutie were exactly right at the top of this thing: The answer to the question depends on one's definition of the term, and what "slave" means by the book is a human who belongs to someone else and can be sold, loaned, given, rented and otherwise treated like any other article of property. By the strict definition that means doing whatever you want with your slave, including loving her. So my no isn't quite as easy as I thought.

When the topic pops up of society telling me I'm not free to do with my own freedom what I want and that I'm unhealthy because I want something different than most people, my focus gets a little bit narrow and I post when I shouldn't.

 

[apom]

You're correct on all accounts.

Just because one persons experience or expectation of slavery = X, does not mean that X is the only way to experience slavery.

Which is why I only ever speak for myself.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]