Do Masters want a sub or a slave?

[00Syd]

Neither, of course. A true Master desires no less than a RealDoll. Because, seriously, a true Master shouldn't have to be bothered with all of those pesky desires and needs that come with real woman.

 

[SinfulSailor]

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.

Actually, that's a fair restatement of my position. I said:

While I recognize the validity of you choosing to use the word "slave" playfully and euphemistically, and indeed I recognize the validity of you choosing to use the word "slave" exclusively playfully and euphemistically, I bristle when you tell me I can not experience a slave "bound in servitude as (my) property".

But, some folks basically said, fuck you SS. I'd rather try to shit on your plate.

So, here we are.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Actually, that's a fair restatement of my position. I said:



But, some folks basically said, fuck you SS. I'd rather try to shit on your plate.

So, here we are.

Some people may like shit on a plate. Maybe they were trying to be generous

 

[SinfulSailor]

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.

That sounds so sensible on a first read.

But then, it occurs to me to ask - who said their life was "the same as a woman born to a fundamentalist Muslim family in Afghanistan or a sex slave in Thailand"?

I looked above and I can't find that.

So when I couldn't find it where anyone said that, then I thought about it again, and that led me to wonder......

Are you confusing the conditions of life with fact of a person's status/being/occupation/title/and-so-on?

I mean.... if you're saying a person can't be a slave because her life is less harsh than that of "a woman born to a fundamentalist Muslim family in Afghanistan or a sex slave in Thailand".... that is mixing up our apples and oranges.

By that logic, a "real" doctor couldn't have a nice, hygienic, well-equipped western-world hospital, because "real" doctors in Afghanistan function in ill-equipped, contaminated, over crowded hospital environments.

By that logic, a western world police officer couldn't be "real" because the counterpart in Afghanistan has to face insurgents armed with mortars and grenade launchers, and employs suicide bombers, whereas in the west polic officers rarely encounter those elements.

That doesn't make sense for police officer, or for doctors, or even for slaves.

A lot of things are harder in Afghanistan than they are here. That doesn't make "here" into a Never Never Land.

 

[SinfulSailor]

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.

That sounds interesting. I wonder if you'd share whose biography that was?

 

[Keroin]

That sounds so sensible on a first read.

But then, it occurs to me to ask - who said their life was "the same as a woman born to a fundamentalist Muslim family in Afghanistan or a sex slave in Thailand"?

I looked above and I can't find that.

So when I couldn't find it where anyone said that, then I thought about it again, and that led me to wonder......

Are you confusing the conditions of life with fact of a person's status/being/occupation/title/and-so-on?

I mean.... if you're saying a person can't be a slave because her life is less harsh than that of "a woman born to a fundamentalist Muslim family in Afghanistan or a sex slave in Thailand".... that is mixing up our apples and oranges.

By that logic, a "real" doctor couldn't have a nice, hygienic, well-equipped western-world hospital, because "real" doctors in Afghanistan function in ill-equipped, contaminated, over crowded hospital environments.

By that logic, a western world police officer couldn't be "real" because the counterpart in Afghanistan has to face insurgents armed with mortars and grenade launchers, and employs suicide bombers, whereas in the west polic officers rarely encounter those elements.

That doesn't make sense for police officer, or for doctors, or even for slaves.

A lot of things are harder in Afghanistan than they are here. That doesn't make "here" into a Never Never Land.

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.

 

[Chgris]

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.

I agree with all of this.

 

[Keroin]

I agree with all of this.

Look at us getting along.

 

[intothewoods]

That sounds so sensible on a first read.

But then, it occurs to me to ask - who said their life was "the same as a woman born to a fundamentalist Muslim family in Afghanistan or a sex slave in Thailand"?

I looked above and I can't find that.

So when I couldn't find it where anyone said that, then I thought about it again, and that led me to wonder......

Are you confusing the conditions of life with fact of a person's status/being/occupation/title/and-so-on?

I mean.... if you're saying a person can't be a slave because her life is less harsh than that of "a woman born to a fundamentalist Muslim family in Afghanistan or a sex slave in Thailand".... that is mixing up our apples and oranges.

By that logic, a "real" doctor couldn't have a nice, hygienic, well-equipped western-world hospital, because "real" doctors in Afghanistan function in ill-equipped, contaminated, over crowded hospital environments.

By that logic, a western world police officer couldn't be "real" because the counterpart in Afghanistan has to face insurgents armed with mortars and grenade launchers, and employs suicide bombers, whereas in the west polic officers rarely encounter those elements.

That doesn't make sense for police officer, or for doctors, or even for slaves.

A lot of things are harder in Afghanistan than they are here. That doesn't make "here" into a Never Never Land.

I mentioned the examples that I did because they are examples of non-consensual slavery or women-as-property. As has been pointed out, there are sex slaves in the western world too. The country is not crucial here.

I never said a consensual slave wasn't real. I simply said it's not the same as non-consensual slavery. It's not harder. It's not like a sex slave in Thailand has to give 8 blow jobs instead of 3.

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.

Why this is a fucking controversy is beyond me.

 

[Keroin]

Why this is a fucking controversy is beyond me.

Yup. Me too.

And yet I recall being thoroughly lambasted over this shortly after I joined here. Interesting.

 

[Braschi]

That sounds interesting. I wonder if you'd share whose biography that was?

It was in William Ellison's (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Masters...3144/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291060720&sr=8-1) but I couldn't point you to the appropriate passage.

 

[JMohegan]

Yup. Me too.

And yet I recall being thoroughly lambasted over this shortly after I joined here. Interesting.

You were not lambasted. You worked yourself up into a frenzy, and were told to chill.

You were also saying something very different than what ITW's saying here. If you want a link to refresh your memory, let me know.


As for why this controversy continues, year after year, I suspect that part of the problem is the frequency with which consensual M/s is dismissed as game playing. This makes some M/s folks defensive, which in turn sometimes leads to those obnoxious attempts to draw inappropriate comparisons.

 

[SinfulSailor]

Some people may like shit on a plate. Maybe they were trying to be generous

More like a misery loves company type thing, I think.

Kind of like: If I don't have the guts to be a slave, you can't be one either.

 

[Keroin]

You were not lambasted. You worked yourself up into a frenzy, and were told to chill.

You were also saying something very different than what ITW's saying here. If you want a link to refresh your memory, let me know.


As for why this controversy continues, year after year, I suspect that part of the problem is the frequency with which consensual M/s is dismissed as game playing. This makes some M/s folks defensive, which in turn sometimes leads to those obnoxious attempts to draw inappropriate comparisons.

Fair enough, perhaps "lambasted" was strong language.

And, to be fair, I wasn't well versed in BDSM etiquette and such at that point in time. However, my general point in that discussion was that BDSM slavery and non-consensual slavery are fundamentally different creatures. That doesn't make M/s relationships a "game", it just makes them different.

Which is what, I think, ITW was saying here. If I'm wrong, well, apologies.

 

[intothewoods]

Fair enough, perhaps "lambasted" was strong language.

And, to be fair, I wasn't well versed in BDSM etiquette and such at that point in time. However, my general point in that discussion was that BDSM slavery and non-consensual slavery are fundamentally different creatures. That doesn't make M/s relationships a "game", it just makes them different.

Which is what, I think, ITW was saying here. If I'm wrong, well, apologies.

I was going to say, I think it was your delivery. But JM has a freakishly accurate photographic memory for what a poster has said in the past, so I won't argue with him. And yes, the bolded part is what I'm saying. Not that it's fake, pretend, imaginary, yada yada. Just not the same.

 

[Keroin]

I was going to say, I think it was your delivery. But JM has a freakishly accurate photographic memory for what a poster has said in the past, so I won't argue with him. And yes, the bolded part is what I'm saying. Not that it's fake, pretend, imaginary, yada yada. Just not the same.

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).


And JM's freakish photographic memory bites sometimes. Though at least I was able to bounce the "chill" back into his court, down the road...as I'm sure he recalls with freakish accuracy.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

More like a misery loves company type thing, I think.

Kind of like: If I don't have the guts to be a slave, you can't be one either.

I'm not sure if "guts" is the right word I don't see how someone is some how more brave for choosing slavery over someone who does not believe a M/s-relationship is what works for them. Contrarily, some might argue that it is cowardice to give up all that personal responsibility, independence, etc... But really it's neither. It's just a difference.

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALOOONNNGGGGG

 

[SinfulSailor]

As for why this controversy continues, year after year, I suspect that part of the problem is the frequency with which consensual M/s is dismissed as game playing. This makes some M/s folks defensive, which in turn sometimes leads to those obnoxious attempts to draw inappropriate comparisons.

That's pretty well said.

So cut it out with the Sharia and the Afghanistan and the Thailand and the "western world" and the head chopping and other ridiculously obnoxious stuff. I say. Really, I've spent enough time debunking this bullshit.

And while we're at it, cut it out with the condescension. The "love slave" and the honey and the term of endearment.

Not that it's fake, pretend, imaginary, yada yada. Just not the same.

If you had said that, and left out the condescension about love-based and so on, I think no one would have taken issue.

Personally, I'm glad I participated in this discussion. For me anyway, this discussion has opened a new window on understanding people who feel compelled to deride or deny the existence of M/s and O/p. And better understanding is always good.

 

[SinfulSailor]

It was in William Ellison's (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Masters...3144/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291060720&sr=8-1) but I couldn't point you to the appropriate passage.

Thanks. I just ordered a copy.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I was going to say, I think it was your delivery. But JM has a freakishly accurate photographic memory for what a poster has said in the past, so I won't argue with him. And yes, the bolded part is what I'm saying. Not that it's fake, pretend, imaginary, yada yada. Just not the same.

ehhh...maybe more accurate than most, but far from photographic. i suppose everyone forgets, misinterprets, or has false recollections sometime or other.

as for consensual v. non-consensual slavery, your point seemed to be that not only are they not the same, but that they are so different as to be incomparable in every conceivable fashion...which is just not accurate. the difference between the two is consent, and that is it. now mind you, that is a pretty astronomical difference...but it certainly doesn't mean that a consensual slave necessarily has an easier or more pleasant life, or that on the individual, personal level they have any more power or ability to remain in that station or not. and i'm with SS, the "love-based" bit was pretty condescending as well as presumptuous (tho i would guess that wasn't your intent).

 

[Keroin]

I was going to say, I think it was your delivery. But JM has a freakishly accurate photographic memory for what a poster has said in the past, so I won't argue with him. And yes, the bolded part is what I'm saying. Not that it's fake, pretend, imaginary, yada yada. Just not the same.

I would add that, really, I don't think the delivery matters at all. I just read through this thread from beginning to end and every post you've made seems reasonable and well thought out. I found nothing inflammatory in your statements and you certainly weren't worked up into a frenzy. And yet, even so, you are accused of being condescending and you are meeting resistance to your ideas.





Which is why I usually stay well clear of these discussions.

 

[SinfulSailor]

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?

You give me the feeling you're comfortable.

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.

Ummmmm.... lol..... that's what I have been saying. Too funny. One might use the term "slave" euphemistically, but that does not change the meaning. lololol..... That's the way I came in on this discussion.

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

As I've said repeatedly, my deep seated belief is that fact and logic will win in the end. Eventually, they will slay prejudice.

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.

LOL.... No. That's not what you said. You said:

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". Just because you call your spouse "honey" doesn't automatically turn him into honey. Nor would we claim that calling partners "honey" would lead to confusion as to what is the exact definition of honey. Even the most corrective of grammar police would have to concede the euphemistic use of the word and not return to the dictionary definition is such cases.

You spoke in a clearly absolute proclamation. You said all uses of "slave" in BDSM is an euphemistic use.

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.


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.

Sheesh. That's another thing people could stop bringing up. There is no longer legal slavery anywhere in the world (see citation earlier) so it is totally an effort in obfuscation to bring that up. It no longer has any bearing. It does not exist. So unless you're saying slavery must be legally codified to exist (and no one has taken that position is spite of me asking) then bringing up "legal" is just obfuscation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slave

If you'll read the whole page, down toward the bottom you'll note that citation is from 1856! Sheesh!

All that stuff came off the books on or before Lee's surrender on April 9, 1865.

It was interesting reading though. Thanks for that.

The current source is available through Google Books. On a "preview" basis it will let you look up a word. Like the other current legal sources I cited, Burton's Legal Thesaurus (the current copy, not the document cited from 1856) gives us no legal definition of the word "slave". It refers us to another word, captive.

See here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9O...m=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=slave&f=false

Also, we're in accord that it's not right for people to "force" their opinion of certain definitions on others.

Great! Then join me! Open arms!

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.

You missed it way back in the beginning before you even entered the discussion?

While I recognize the validity of you choosing to use the word "slave" playfully and euphemistically, and indeed I recognize the validity of you choosing to use the word "slave" exclusively playfully and euphemistically, I bristle when you tell me I can not experience a slave "bound in servitude as (my) property".

I thought you were reading this stuff.

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.

That is my high ground.

From the very beginning I have proclaimed the simplicity of just referring to the dictionary. You didn't read that part either?

 

[nerdygrrl]

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*

HEHE! Orcs! I love it. But for me thrall makes me think of humans captured by the faeries like in that Keats poem:

I saw pale kings and princes too,
Pale warriors, death-pale were they all;
They cried—“La Belle Dame sans Merci
Hath thee in thrall!”

 

[JMohegan]

I was going to say, I think it was your delivery. But JM has a freakishly accurate photographic memory for what a poster has said in the past, so I won't argue with him. And yes, the bolded part is what I'm saying. Not that it's fake, pretend, imaginary, yada yada. Just not the same.

Actually, I'm just skilled with the search function. Giving credit where it's due, I have RJ to thank for it. He taught me, years ago.

That's pretty well said.

So cut it out with the Sharia and the Afghanistan and the Thailand and the "western world" and the head chopping and other ridiculously obnoxious stuff. I say. Really, I've spent enough time debunking this bullshit.

And while we're at it, cut it out with the condescension. The "love slave" and the honey and the term of endearment.




If you had said that, and left out the condescension about love-based and so on, I think no one would have taken issue.

Personally, I'm glad I participated in this discussion. For me anyway, this discussion has opened a new window on understanding people who feel compelled to deride or deny the existence of M/s and O/p. And better understanding is always good.

I'm glad you appreciate my wording.

For the record, I share ITW's opinion on this subject, and find her neither condescending nor obnoxious.

I do not now, nor have I ever, derided or denied the existence of M/s and O/p. However, when people start insisting that those s and p partners are real slaves or real property, in the actual, literal sense, I find that insistence alternately obnoxious and silly - depending on who's doing the insisting.

 

[intothewoods]

That's pretty well said.

So cut it out with the Sharia and the Afghanistan and the Thailand and the "western world" and the head chopping and other ridiculously obnoxious stuff. I say. Really, I've spent enough time debunking this bullshit.

And while we're at it, cut it out with the condescension. The "love slave" and the honey and the term of endearment.




If you had said that, and left out the condescension about love-based and so on, I think no one would have taken issue.

Personally, I'm glad I participated in this discussion. For me anyway, this discussion has opened a new window on understanding people who feel compelled to deride or deny the existence of M/s and O/p. And better understanding is always good.

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.

ehhh...maybe more accurate than most, but far from photographic. i suppose everyone forgets, misinterprets, or has false recollections sometime or other.

as for consensual v. non-consensual slavery, your point seemed to be that not only are they not the same, but that they are so different as to be incomparable in every conceivable fashion...which is just not accurate. the difference between the two is consent, and that is it. now mind you, that is a pretty astronomical difference...but it certainly doesn't mean that a consensual slave necessarily has an easier or more pleasant life, or that on the individual, personal level they have any more power or ability to remain in that station or not. and i'm with SS, the "love-based" bit was pretty condescending as well as presumptuous (tho i would guess that wasn't your intent).

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.

I would add that, really, I don't think the delivery matters at all. I just read through this thread from beginning to end and every post you've made seems reasonable and well thought out. I found nothing inflammatory in your statements and you certainly weren't worked up into a frenzy. And yet, even so, you are accused of being condescending and you are meeting resistance to your ideas.

Yeah, I take that back - you're right!

Actually, I'm just skilled with the search function. Giving credit where it's due, I have RJ to thank for it. He taught me, years ago.


I'm glad you appreciate my wording.

For the record, I share ITW's opinion on this subject, and find her neither condescending nor obnoxious.

I do not now, nor have I ever, derided or denied the existence of M/s and O/p. However, when people start insisting that those s and p partners are real slaves or real property, in the actual, literal sense, I find that insistence alternately obnoxious and silly - depending on who's doing the insisting.

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.

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).


And JM's freakish photographic memory bites sometimes. Though at least I was able to bounce the "chill" back into his court, down the road...as I'm sure he recalls with freakish accuracy.

Why is "you were told to chill" making me giggle?

Hey, I remember that too! Whodathunkit.