Do Masters want a sub or a slave?

[Stella_Omega]

She pulled it from the Manners thread.

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

Should I display tolerance for that post?

It makes me want to puke.

 

[RJMasters]

All shock and awe is due to RJ.

Train wrecks and eclipses... anything less is just pop-tarting it.

 

[SinfulSailor]

I read a couple things yesterday that made me think of this discussion. I will share them with you.

In yesterday's USA Today, BET founder Robert Johnson is quoted as saying, I always have a lot of faith in people's ultimate rationality."

And on another website, I read: "Don't yuck somebody else's yum, people. It makes you look like an idiot, and it's not attractive".

 

[SinfulSailor]

"Chattel" being 'any legally owned personal property that can be moved,' brings legality into the issue. An individual may not legally own slaves in most first world countries.

Ummm... just to keep the facts straight. See:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=chatte...=QBLH&qs=AS&sk=&pq=chattel+defin&sp=1&sc=1-13

Legality does not define chattel. Obviously, we can own things that are illegal to own.

... I had originally typed more, but it occured to me to wonder why I let myself get drawn into arguements about other people's pet names?

If someone wants to make an ass of themselves by being a snob about what other people's pet names should or should not be, that's their perogative, there's no reason for me to get sucked into being an ass with them.

Wise words. If more people took this position I think they would avoid offending other people.

 

[SinfulSailor]

For a large part of this discussion we have been talking about "proof". Basically, we have been dealing with attempts on the one hand to "prove" that people can not be (or own) a slave. Then, we have the rebuttals of those "proofs" offered. And indeed, by fact and logic, all attempts to prove the negative have failed. Opinion (or prejudice) of course, can not be disproved.

On the other hand! I think it is important to note that neither can the positive be proved definitively. That is to say, that one can not prove oneself a slave, beyond dispute by someone with another opinion. If that other opinion is totally based in prejudice, that does not matter. It is deplorable, yes. But it does not "count" when we are exploring a topic with fact and reason.

The highest and greatest "proof", I think, that one may cite in an effort to "prove" slavery is described in a concept known as "body of work". See here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q="body+of+work"+definition&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sk=

So, if you live it then you have legitimate claim to it even though the final "proof" of it is definitive only within you and within those others who may observe and be convinced by your "body of work".

That does not mean you should allow others to deny you! For as we have so laboriously established, just as you can not prove the positive - they can not prove the negative.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

"Chattel" being 'any legally owned personal property that can be moved,' brings legality into the issue. An individual may not legally own slaves in most first world countries.

... I had originally typed more, but it occured to me to wonder why I let myself get drawn into arguements about other people's pet names?

If someone wants to make an ass of themselves by being a snob about what other people's pet names should or should not be, that's their perogative, there's no reason for me to get sucked into being an ass with them.

I'm sorry, I was not trying to be snobbish. I just saw a lot of people ranting about defining "slavery", but no one was really using any objective means so I offered one. I was just trying to be helpful

 

[where]

For a large part of this discussion we have been talking about "proof". Basically, we have been dealing with attempts on the one hand to "prove" that people can not be (or own) a slave. Then, we have the rebuttals of those "proofs" offered. And indeed, by fact and logic, all attempts to prove the negative have failed. Opinion (or prejudice) of course, can not be disproved.

On the other hand! I think it is important to note that neither can the positive be proved definitively. That is to say, that one can not prove oneself a slave, beyond dispute by someone with another opinion. If that other opinion is totally based in prejudice, that does not matter. It is deplorable, yes. But it does not "count" when we are exploring a topic with fact and reason.

The highest and greatest "proof", I think, that one may cite in an effort to "prove" slavery is described in a concept known as "body of work". See here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q="body+of+work"+definition&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sk=

So, if you live it then you have legitimate claim to it even though the final "proof" of it is definitive only within you and within those others who may observe and be convinced by your "body of work".

That does not mean you should allow others to deny you! For as we have so laboriously established, just as you can not prove the positive - they can not prove the negative.

how very post-modern.

I'm sorry, I was not trying to be snobbish. I just saw a lot of people ranting about defining "slavery", but no one was really using any objective means so I offered one. I was just trying to be helpful

I don't think it was h=just you getting poked by that.

 

[DVS]

OK, from someone who doesn't care much for labels, I'll ask the question...
What do you consider the definition of the below to be?

Capital letters were used for the folks sensitive to PC.

Master?

Dom/me?

Top?

submissive?

slave?

bottom?

 

[where]

What do you consider the definition of the below to be?

Capital letters were used for the folks sensitive to PC.

Master? the dog's owner

Dom/me? someone who can't spell

Top? that thing up there

submissive? way of getting what you want without appearing to do so

slave? someone whose autonomy has been forcibly taken by another. or a silly little pet name

bottom? the squidgy thing I'm sitting on

 

[intothewoods]

For a large part of this discussion we have been talking about "proof". Basically, we have been dealing with attempts on the one hand to "prove" that people can not be (or own) a slave. Then, we have the rebuttals of those "proofs" offered. And indeed, by fact and logic, all attempts to prove the negative have failed. Opinion (or prejudice) of course, can not be disproved.

On the other hand! I think it is important to note that neither can the positive be proved definitively. That is to say, that one can not prove oneself a slave, beyond dispute by someone with another opinion. If that other opinion is totally based in prejudice, that does not matter. It is deplorable, yes. But it does not "count" when we are exploring a topic with fact and reason.

The highest and greatest "proof", I think, that one may cite in an effort to "prove" slavery is described in a concept known as "body of work". See here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q="body+of+work"+definition&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sk=

So, if you live it then you have legitimate claim to it even though the final "proof" of it is definitive only within you and within those others who may observe and be convinced by your "body of work".

That does not mean you should allow others to deny you! For as we have so laboriously established, just as you can not prove the positive - they can not prove the negative.

No, we've been talking about language and meaning, not proof or whether M/s relationships are real.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

No, we've been talking about language and meaning, not proof or whether M/s relationships are real.

I agree, I don't think anyone here has argued whether or not M/s relationships are real in of themselves. Just whether they have a definitional difference between M/s-slavery and what everyone else thinks of as slavery (i.e. the ability to non-consensually sell, use, abuse and otherwise mangle and murder human beings that are viewed as property).

 

[RJMasters]

Perhaps a slight different view.

People can have different levels of addiction, and though many consent to smoke drink or even use drugs, there comes a point where their continued behavior becomes a habit and an addiction.

I personally view people who are addicted to things as slaves to those things.

I'm not equating the two, I am just pointing out that my perspective of being a slave to something or someone isn't always by the book definition.

I think it is entirely possible for a person to begin slavery from a consentual position, and progress to a place where they become submersed or even institutionalized in that life.

Could they walk away and be free? Yes, but for some it would be very unlikely or even impossible to do so. Not that they would want to, but even if they did, they might not be able to.

So for all the gurus out there who seem to have everything pinned down, what exactly or how would you define a situation where someone may have started from a consenting position, but has now evolved to a place where consent no longer is a part of the equation? There is no way back and there is no way out, or there is, but they are just unable to do so on their own.

At that point, is there still a clear distinction between non-consenting slavery and those who consent to enslave themselves to another?

 

[SinfulSailor]

That is an exceptionally astute and incisive observation, RJM.

 

[intothewoods]

Perhaps a slight different view.

People can have different levels of addiction, and though many consent to smoke drink or even use drugs, there comes a point where their continued behavior becomes a habit and an addiction.

I personally view people who are addicted to things as slaves to those things.

I'm not equating the two, I am just pointing out that my perspective of being a slave to something or someone isn't always by the book definition.

Sure, that's a common usage of the word. Slave to love, slave to your job, etc.

I think it is entirely possible for a person to begin slavery from a consentual position, and progress to a place where they become submersed or even institutionalized in that life.

Could they walk away and be free? Yes, but for some it would be very unlikely or even impossible to do so. Not that they would want to, but even if they did, they might not be able to.

So for all the gurus out there who seem to have everything pinned down, what exactly or how would you define a situation where someone may have started from a consenting position, but has now evolved to a place where consent no longer is a part of the equation? There is no way back and there is no way out, or there is, but they are just unable to do so on their own.

At that point, is there still a clear distinction between non-consenting slavery and those who consent to enslave themselves to another?

Could a person enter into a consensual relationship where one partner eventually becomes entirely dependent on the other? Or physically dependent on the other? Or so isolated from others that leaving becomes inconceivable? Absolutely. I can think of many very different relationships where one partner becomes dependent on the other. Contrast a relationship where one partner becomes severely handicapped with a relationship where one partner lives in fear of the other because of physical abuse. It seems to me that there is still a significant difference between someone who had the freedom to choose his or her own path and someone who did not have that choice.

Again, I personally have no issue with the use of the word "slave" in consensual M/s relationships. It's simply a different usage of the word.

 

[RJMasters]

Sure, that's a common usage of the word. Slave to love, slave to your job, etc.



Could a person enter into a consensual relationship where one partner eventually becomes entirely dependent on the other? Or physically dependent on the other? Or so isolated from others that leaving becomes inconceivable? Absolutely. I can think of many very different relationships where one partner becomes dependent on the other. Contrast a relationship where one partner becomes severely handicapped with a relationship where one partner lives in fear of the other because of physical abuse. It seems to me that there is still a significant difference between someone who had the freedom to choose his or her own path and someone who did not have that choice.

Again, I personally have no issue with the use of the word "slave" in consensual M/s relationships. It's simply a different usage of the word.

Thanks for the reply.

I don't think your statement is wrong, infact its probably more correct than it is anything else, however I am not completely convinced. On one hand I definately agree that having a choice in the begging verses being taken and made into a slave without consent are two completely different animals, however I do believe its quite possible, that the further the road is traveled, the more in line they can become with one another, and at some point, there is not much distinction between the two. Not always of course but certainly in my mind within the realm of possibility.

Another example I might offer

Those drafted. Many hated it when being drafted and hated it after they were done, others hated it at first then found millitary life to be the best thing for them and they thived. At the end of the later's career, can you say it is different than a person who volunteered and had the same length of career? yes you can "always" say they started off differently but much harder to say they way they started some how made them different.

 

[intothewoods]

Thanks for the reply.

I don't think your statement is wrong, infact its probably more correct than it is anything else, however I am not completely convinced. On one hand I definately agree that having a choice in the begging verses being taken and made into a slave without consent are two completely different animals, however I do believe its quite possible, that the further the road is traveled, the more in line they can become with one another, and at some point, there is not much distinction between the two. Not always of course but certainly in my mind within the realm of possibility.

Another example I might offer

Those drafted. Many hated it when being drafted and hated it after they were done, others hated it at first then found millitary life to be the best thing for them and they thived. At the end of the later's career, can you say it is different than a person who volunteered and had the same length of career? yes you can "always" say they started off differently but much harder to say they way they started some how made them different.

What exactly are you thinking of when you say there would there be not much distinction between the two? And how many people do you know of in M/s relationships that are indistinguishable from non-consensual slavery?

 

[SinfulSailor]

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.

And

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.

Before an innocent reader of this discussion mistakenly thinks this stuff is accepted as fact simply because it goes unchallenged.....

Let's have some documentation here, shall we?

A beheading in the USA - there must have been loads of news stories. Let's have some citations, shall we?

And a journal that you read - I'd like to read it too.

Would you provide the title/author/publisher, please?

 

[SinfulSailor]

What exactly are you thinking of when you say there would there be not much distinction between the two? And how many people do you know of in M/s relationships that are indistinguishable from non-consensual slavery?

You have taken the position, repeatedly, that there are differences. It seems completely reasonable to ask if you can provide a list of the primary differences.

 

[intothewoods]

You have taken the position, repeatedly, that there are differences. It seems completely reasonable to ask if you can provide a list of the primary differences.

Is there a disagreement that most sex slave lives a life that is completely different from most consensual slaves? I wasn't under that impression. The response has been that typical means that there will be some outliers. I'm genuinely curious how many outliers we're talking about and what that looks like. If we're talking about a relationship where the terms completely change and the s wants to and can't leave, we're now talking about a different animal.

 

[SinfulSailor]

So please, what are the differences? Precisely, in what ways is this animal different?

 

[intothewoods]

So please, what are the differences? Precisely, in what ways is this animal different?

I'm still waiting for that link to the joys of non-consensual slavery forum.

Contrast this with this.

 

[SinfulSailor]

No, no, no

I'd not be accused of putting words in someone's mouth.

I'll leave it to you to compare the two (if that's what you want to hang your hat on) and enumerate for us the differences between consensual and nonconsensual slavery.

 

[SinfulSailor]

I'm still waiting for that link to the joys of non-consensual slavery forum.

Interesting you should mention that.

Honestly, when I first read this:

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??

It took me a couple days to wrap my head around that fact that there is someone who is so internet-centric as to judge the existence of a thing by the number of internet forums to be found!

Literally, for me, it was mind-boggling!

Nevertheless, so an innocent reader will not think there is substance in this concept - I'll be getting back to you on it.

 

[Keroin]

Before an innocent reader of this discussion mistakenly thinks this stuff is accepted as fact simply because it goes unchallenged.....

Let's have some documentation here, shall we?

A beheading in the USA - there must have been loads of news stories. Let's have some citations, shall we?

And a journal that you read - I'd like to read it too.

Would you provide the title/author/publisher, please?

The incident I mentioned, as well as many others, along with numerous documented statistics and interviews with non-consensual slaves, can be found in "Sex Trafficking: The Global Market in Women and Children". Unfortunately, I do not have the book here to reference the page number for you because I had to leave it behind when I moved back to Canada - books are very heavy, baggage limits are very strict.

You didn't hear about the beheading because it was never reported, because these women are slaves and illegal immigrants. Hence, they don't matter/are invisible to our society. I urge all "innocent" readers to read that book and verify my statement and then learn more about human trafficking.

If you believe that the general population in N America hears about or even knows of even a quarter of the crimes committed in this illegal industry, then you are delusional or ignorant. Did you know, for example that the country with one of the worst records for human trafficking is Canada? I'm guessing not.

Any more questions?

 

[intothewoods]

Interesting you should mention that.

Honestly, when I first read this:




It took me a couple days to wrap my head around that fact that there is someone who is so internet-centric as to judge the existence of a thing by the number of internet forums to be found!

Literally, for me, it was mind-boggling!

Nevertheless, so an innocent reader will not think there is substance in this concept - I'll be getting back to you on it.

A literal mind boggling? Sounds painful. I'm not the one focused on existence, nor do I reach conclusions based on the number of internet forums to be found. It's just an example. There are also plenty of BDSM groups throughout the world, consisting in part of M/s folks. Books written on M/s relationships, etc.