Do Masters want a sub or a slave?

[SinfulSailor]

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.

Thanks! I just ordered a copy.

 

[SinfulSailor]

nor do I reach conclusions based on the number of internet forums to be found. It's just an example.

On one hand, I feel like saying, "Good. Then we need not consider that."

On the other hand, I wonder.... is this one of the "differences" to which you have referred? That consensual slaves might have more internet forums than nonconsensual slaves?

And if so, how is that a critical consideration? An example of what?

 

[Keroin]

On the other hand, I wonder.... is this one of the "differences" to which you have referred? That consensual slaves might have more internet forums than nonconsensual slaves?

And if so, how is that a critical consideration? An example of what?

You're joking right? This is a joke?

Let us know when you've finished that book. Then maybe you might be able to have a constructive discussion here.

 

[SinfulSailor]

What would be ridiculous would be for me to try to put someone else's point into words. Of course, I don't want to do that.

So my questions are tendered with all seriousness and sincerity. I want to know what conclusions ITW draws from the examples presented.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Okay, I'm not sure exactly what your intent is with the overwhelming presence of smile faces, but it doesn't make you sound sincere and friendly. It makes you sound like you're being snide, condescending and/or mocking. Just letting you know, since that probably isn't your intent. I was trying to ignore it but it keeps poking me in the face.

 

[where]

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.

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

are you asking for the differences between a slave (as in like a proper, real slave) and a person who chooses to to call themselves a slave because it makes them and/or their partner feel super-kinky?

if so, it's that the former is a slave because they have had their agency forcibly removed, with no ability to leave the situation and the latter is someone who has chosen to enter a life of servitude and can, if s/he chooses to, leave it without fear of recrimination. it's all down to choice and consent as to what makes a person a slave or just someone playing it, a bit like Marie-Antoinette pretending to be a shepherdess.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhbY8CE2BcksEA9I0N

 

[RJMasters]

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?

Sorry for taking so long to reply, been busy.

Look, before I am misunderstood in trying to defend a position that I am not all that enthused to do, I just want to reiterate that I am throwing this stuff out for consideration, not because I advocate it. Nor do I see it happening around every corner... Again I think you are mostly correct, I am just enteratining possibilities here.


The question as I understand it based on the conversation so far.

On one end we have those who have been taken forcibly against their will and made into a slave. On the other end we have those who for their own reasons, consent to give themself to another to be thier slave. In what ways do I see the possibility of there not being distinction between the two types of relationships, and how many people do I personally know that are in these types of relationships.

I'll answer the later first. None. I'm not claiming any authoritive knowledge or any based upon personal experience other than the few M/s people I have known for years online. I am simply putting out some thoughts and reasoning for the purpose of discussing possibilities.

To answer your question, about there not being much distinction the further down the road a person lives this type of life would mean that either the slave held against their will would have to move towards the middle or even the other end of the spectrum or it would mean the consenting person would have to move to the middle or other end of the spectrum.

Here is one example I can think of regarding those who are slaves against their will and how it might be possible for them to move to the other end of the spectrum.

Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness

One such example which happens here in the USA, but we don't call them slavetraders, we call them pimps for some reason( I guess that's because its PC or something I duuno). Many women are abducted and used for prostitution to make money. It is my understanding that a process is used over a period of time that is designed to breakdown a woman's will till she moves through the 5 stages of grief except not to a positive end goal, but to an acceptance where she finally gives up and accepts her fate. From that place she no longer even thinks about escape, but rather chooses to conform to expectations and obedience. Some make the best of a horrible situation and some even learn to thrive in it.


Coming from the other direction, you have a woman who for her own reasons wishes to be a slave....I am sure the reasons are a vast and different as there are the number of people who do this, so I don't feel remotely qualified to even attempt to guess at their motives. So I am skipping that to where one of these woman makes a choice to be a sex slave and finds herself a pimp and tells him she wants to be one of his girls. He takes her in but just because she came of her own free weill doesn't mean shit to this pimp and he beats herdown just like any other woman, maybe even get her addicted to drugs so he can control her, regardless she realises after a short time that this was not what she thought it was, she tries to escape, he catches her and really breaks her will. After a time, she blames herself for her own fate, but out of survival she accepts it does her best to conform to expexctations and obedience.

I offer these two examples as food for thought. To me, one was forcibly taken in the beginning, the other consented and was taken in the beginning. The further each went down the road in this life, the less distinction I see between them.

 

[Shagly]

This master wants both.

 

[intothewoods]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, been busy.

Look, before I am misunderstood in trying to defend a position that I am not all that enthused to do, I just want to reiterate that I am throwing this stuff out for consideration, not because I advocate it. Nor do I see it happening around every corner... Again I think you are mostly correct, I am just enteratining possibilities here.

But we're not talking about people who voluntarily become prostitutes for violent pimps (Who? And did they actually know what they were signing up for -- i.e., give meaningful consent?). We're comparing M/s relationships to literal slaves, only to make the point that they're different. And the only reason I make that point is because I find it ridiculous for M/s types to act as though they are all in the same definitional category. Thankfully most do not do that, so it's really not much of an issue.

 

[RJMasters]

But we're not talking about people who voluntarily become prostitutes for violent pimps (Who? And did they actually know what they were signing up for -- i.e., give meaningful consent?). We're comparing M/s relationships to literal slaves.QUOTE]

We are? I didn't get the memo

So are you saying that all women who enter into the M/s relationships know what they are signing up for and give meaningful consent?

That Masters do not use similar techniques to establish control over their slave(i.e. break them down then build them back up). I do not necessarily mean like a pimp, I mean they do the same thing in boot camp when people join the service. It meant as a way to break ties to an old life and begin anew in this new life.

...that once a women/man enters into a M/s relationship they can at anytime just walk away from it?

I guess there are different ranges of M/s relationships from the fantasy weekend to 24/7 TPE. The kind of M/s relationships I am talking about is strictly the all or nothing deal.

 

[intothewoods]

But we're not talking about people who voluntarily become prostitutes for violent pimps (Who? And did they actually know what they were signing up for -- i.e., give meaningful consent?). We're comparing M/s relationships to literal slaves.QUOTE]

We are? I didn't get the memo

So are you saying that all women who enter into the M/s relationships know what they are signing up for and give meaningful consent?

That Masters do not use similar techniques to establish control over their slave(i.e. break them down then build them back up). I do not necessarily mean like a pimp, I mean they do the same thing in boot camp when people join the service. It meant as a way to break ties to an old life and begin anew in this new life.

...that once a women/man enters into a M/s relationship they can at anytime just walk away from it?

I guess there are different ranges of M/s relationships from the fantasy weekend to 24/7 TPE. The kind of M/s relationships I am talking about is strictly the all or nothing deal.

I am talking about all people who hold themselves out as M/s. Can you find a Master and slave where the conditions have become so terrible and/or the slave has become so isolated that he or she can't leave? Sure. An M/s relationship could become abusive. It could even turn into actual slavery - maybe he decides to turn their house into a factory and force her to work 12 hours a day and she can't leave. But then it's turned into something else.

 

[ownedsubgal]

so not only must "actual, literal" slavery involve non-consent, it must involve forced labor and captivity as well? *sigh*

obviously this is a topic about which many of us have some very strong feelings and views, and i don't think anyone's going to succeed in changing any minds here. as many headaches as these debates give me, that's something i have to force myself to accept too.

but there is something i wanted to express: there is an internal condition of being enslaved, where no bonds, no threats...and on the other side, no love or trust is needed. in part it has to do with the process Mr. RJ described, where one is broken down to be built back up in the image of slavery. but there is another necessary component, and that is the psychological wiring of the slave.

you have those who, forced into a position of slavery, never succumb to it internally. each day, each hour, each second, they cling tightly to their self-identity. they never forget they are daughter, or sister, or mother. even in the most hopeless and dire of circumstances, their captors never succeed in possessing them one millimeter beneath the surface. there is no breaking and rebuilding them. i would like to think that some of my legally enslaved ancestors were made up of such stuff (wouldn't we all)...that "slave" never defined them, because it never possessed them.

and then of course you have others who, also forced into a position of slavery, allow themselves to be consumed by it. perhaps initially they mentally resisted, and their were desperate attempts to cling to some vague sense of self. but for the sake of sanity and for the sake of endurance, they had to eventually be broken. they had to let go of any hopes or illusions of their past free self, and fully embrace their slavery. some call this Stockholm syndrome...the reality is Stockholm is but one of many paths to this state.

it need be no different in M/s. you have those consensual slaves who, while making the choice to follow this path, do so with countless conditions and qualifiers (as long as i trust him, as long as he is fair, as long as he is loving, etc.). they agree to be "owned" so long as all goes well and their conditions continue to be met. and within those conditions, they may serve beautifully and faithfully. but they never give up any sense of self...they never forget they are daughter, or sister, or mother. these are the folks who would not hesitate to walk away from an "abusive" Master, or if prevented, use every legal resource necessary in order to assist. these are the folks who, upon being released in a cordial and civil fashion, pull up their bootstraps and go on with life...working, rearing children, going out with friends, sleeping, eating, breathing.

and then you have those consensual slaves who are wired in such a way that they can be well and thoroughly broken...any former sense of self becomes harder and harder to recall. perhaps they even went in the door believing they would be one of those slaves with conditions, and then reality threw them for a loop. or perhaps they were aware of their own vulnerability all the time. either way, it is done now. mentally they are unable to process a life of freedom, and emotionally they are not able to endure it. it has nothing to do with how well or how poorly they are treated...it has to do with that mysterious chemical cocktail between a determined domineering force and a vulnerable submissive mind. even under the most heinous of conditions, with the most deplorable of betrayals and abuses to spirit, they will never leave. not with all doors wide open and a squad car waiting outside. they will never leave because they have been internally conditioned to slavery. and at that point, nothing else is an option.

and i express all that to say that internal enslavement...a slavery which has utterly possessed the mind and spirit...has not a whit to do with consent. and to deny that an internally enslaved person is a "literal, actual" slave simply because at some point in time they gave consent, is a horrible offense imo. just as horrible an offense as labelling someone first and foremost as slave when their mind and spirit remain free, all because they never consented.

again...just my personal opinion, for whatever it's worth.

 

[JMohegan]

Show me a person who says, "I am devoted in mind and spirit, and can't imagine leaving under any circumstances, ever, no matter what," and I'll show you a person in love.

Show me a person whose personal agency has been systematically stripped by his or her partner, to the point where he or she remains under even the most heinous conditions, and I'll show you a person who's been abused.

 

[intothewoods]

so not only must "actual, literal" slavery involve non-consent, it must involve forced labor and captivity as well? *sigh*

It was an example.

and i express all that to say that internal enslavement...a slavery which has utterly possessed the mind and spirit...has not a whit to do with consent. and to deny that an internally enslaved person is a "literal, actual" slave simply because at some point in time they gave consent, is a horrible offense imo. just as horrible an offense as labelling someone first and foremost as slave when their mind and spirit remain free, all because they never consented.

again...just my personal opinion, for whatever it's worth.

Internal enslavement - As JM and RJ's examples touched on -- breaking someone down so that they don't want to leave is certainly a powerful transformation to a person's state of mind, but I can also think of it in contexts other than slavery such as abuse or kidnapping. Powerful stuff, but I don't think it's unique to slavery.

Show me a person who says, "I am devoted in mind and spirit, and can't imagine leaving under any circumstances, ever, no matter what," and I'll show you a person in love.

Show me a person whose personal agency has been systematically stripped by his or her partner, to the point where he or she remains under even the most heinous conditions, and I'll show you a person who's been abused.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Keroin]

and to deny that an internally enslaved person is a "literal, actual" slave simply because at some point in time they gave consent, is a horrible offense imo. just as horrible an offense as labelling someone first and foremost as slave when their mind and spirit remain free, all because they never consented.

If my mind and spirit remain free but my physical self is enslaved, either through force or threat of force, to me or my loved ones, then I am a slave. That is not insulting or offensive, that is a state of existence.

An unfortunate state of existence, if it is non-consensual, but not a comment on my personality or my inner self.

 

[ownedsubgal]

If my mind and spirit remain free but my physical self is enslaved, either through force or threat of force, to me or my loved ones, then I am a slave. That is not insulting or offensive, that is a state of existence.

hence the use of the phrase "first and foremost."

 

[ownedsubgal]

Internal enslavement - As JM and RJ's examples touched on -- breaking someone down so that they don't want to leave is certainly a powerful transformation to a person's state of mind, but I can also think of it in contexts other than slavery such as abuse or kidnapping. Powerful stuff, but I don't think it's unique to slavery.

it's definitely not unique to slavery, at least not as we are labeling it here (consensual or not). nor does slavery mandate such a condition, which was part of my point really...i only wanted to touch on the experience of internal enslavement, and how within the realm of slavery it is not limited to nonconsensual circumstances.

 

[Keroin]

hence the use of the phrase "first and foremost."

What does that mean in practical terms?

That I can refer to said person as a slave but only after I've listed at least one other descriptor first?

This makes no sense to me.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Show me a person who says, "I am devoted in mind and spirit, and can't imagine leaving under any circumstances, ever, no matter what," and I'll show you a person in love.

Show me a person whose personal agency has been systematically stripped by his or her partner, to the point where he or she remains under even the most heinous conditions, and I'll show you a person who's been abused.

what signifies abuse to you, signifies conditioning to me. and of course, one can be in love while still having been thoroughly conditioned.

 

[ownedsubgal]

What does that mean in practical terms?

That I can refer to said person as a slave but only after I've listed at least one other descriptor first?

This makes no sense to me.

the entire post was simply an expression of my own personal viewpoint and feeling...obviously the point was lost, which is okay.

 

[intothewoods]

what signifies abuse to you, signifies conditioning to me. and of course, one can be in love while still having been thoroughly conditioned.

Or having been thoroughly abused, for that matter.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Or having been thoroughly abused, for that matter.

true. but clearly i'm missing your point?

one can reach a state of internal enslavement without ever having been abused. abuse is not what creates such a state, the chemistry of individual natures i referred to earlier is.

 

[eastern sun]

Or having been thoroughly abused, for that matter.

Do you think internal enslavement is abuse?

Ironically, it can be an incredibly liberating state-of-being.

 

[intothewoods]

true. but clearly i'm missing your point?

one can reach a state of internal enslavement without ever having been abused. abuse is not what creates such a state, the chemistry of individual natures i referred to earlier is.

Internal enslavement is your term, and that's fine, but it also could be called extreme devotion, or love, or Stockholm Syndrome, depending on the circumstances. It's an interesting question -- what that is -- but I think it's something other than literal slavery, or M/s slavery for that matter.