Is "Slave" a misnomer?

[babyslut1]

I'd like some opinions on this: the word slave doesn't do the sexual slave justice at all. True slaves, historical slaves, are really abused, and really hate being slaves. They are mistreated, ignored, starved, beaten (not for fun) and made to work long hours under terrible conditions. They are often hungry, cold, or sick, and no one cares about them, or at least the American Black slaves were treated like that. I truly cannot say about Greek or other slaves.

The bdsm slave, though, is a part of a loving, consensual relationship where both partners are concerned with making the other one happy. This is not true slavery. The master might do things to the "slave" that he/she dislikes, but he/she gives consent to it by being there and taking it. A "slave" can always leave, or ask for release, or even timeouts. There is always some kind of an "out". So, is the term "slavery" really accurate here?

If not, what term should we use instead: servant (denotes the service aspect of a sub's role), child, puppy, or what? In fact a "slave" can be all of these things, depending on the partners' preferences at the time.

As a "slave" to my master, I feel loved and highly valued. I am allowed to talk to him on an equal basis during my "free mode", I am encouraged to read and write, to educate myself, to tell him my ideas, thoughts, fears, dreams, wants, likes, and dislikes, to make suggestions for a scene or during one, etc. Yet when I am with him in "slave mode", I stay on the floor, bound, usually gagged, eyes lowered, taking orders, beatings, etc. giving oral service, etc. But he serves me, too. He spends hours getting ready for my visit (I am married and cannot commit 24/7, but that is what we both want) and then hours on me using ropes and sexual toys to stimulate us both. I write stories and read them to him. He gives me presents sometimes. We call each other at night. This is a love relationship, yet we both refer to me as a slave.

This is not true slavery. What is it?

 

[babyslut1]

I'd like some opinions on this: the word slave doesn't do the sexual slave justice at all. True slaves, historical slaves, are really abused, and really hate being slaves. They are mistreated, ignored, starved, beaten (not for fun) and made to work long hours under terrible conditions. They are often hungry, cold, or sick, and no one cares about them, or at least the American Black slaves were treated like that. I truly cannot say about Greek or other slaves.

The bdsm slave, though, is a part of a loving, consensual relationship where both partners are concerned with making the other one happy. This is not true slavery. The master might do things to the "slave" that he/she dislikes, but he/she gives consent to it by being there and taking it. A "slave" can always leave, or ask for release, or even timeouts. There is always some kind of an "out". So, is the term "slavery" really accurate here?

If not, what term should we use instead: servant (denotes the service aspect of a sub's role), child, puppy, or what? In fact a "slave" can be all of these things, depending on the partners' preferences at the time.

As a "slave" to my master, I feel loved and highly valued. I am allowed to talk to him on an equal basis during my "free mode", I am encouraged to read and write, to educate myself, to tell him my ideas, thoughts, fears, dreams, wants, likes, and dislikes, to make suggestions for a scene or during one, etc. Yet when I am with him in "slave mode", I stay on the floor, bound, usually gagged, eyes lowered, taking orders, beatings, etc. giving oral service, etc. But he serves me, too. He spends hours getting ready for my visit (I am married and cannot commit 24/7, but that is what we both want) and then hours on me using ropes and sexual toys to stimulate us both. I write stories and read them to him. He gives me presents sometimes. We call each other at night. This is a love relationship, yet we both refer to me as a slave.

This is not true slavery. What is it?

 

[leeroy jenkins]

I think the reason for the term is for the historical reference that you touched on. Historically slave serve at the whim of their owners desires. They had no real voice and choice unless it was given to them. And its also a label that most people can understand the basics of.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

This is not true slavery. What is it?

Are you his, heart, body and soul?

Can you simply just walk away from him?
Not in theory, in practice. Are you willing to?

Would you do anything for him, including leave with another if he ordered it?

How much freedom to you really have in your relationship? Or is it the idea of freedom that you hold to?

Even historical slaves _could_ vote with their feet and run away. If they were able to escape the boundaries of the kingdom or country they were enslaved in, they could be free. Granted, if they were captured they could be brought back to their owner in chains, beaten, even killed, but that has been the case in almost all slave owning cultures.

Who then is the real slave, the one who stays at their owner's feet and side through love? Or the one who stays for fear of punishment, or because they know of no other existence? Being bound by love is not the same thing as being bound by law. I believe that being a slave for love is far stronger, far deeper, and far more glorious.

*tosses his $.02 in the jar...*

 

[Kailey_86]

I'd like some opinions on this: the word slave doesn't do the sexual slave justice at all. True slaves, historical slaves, are really abused, and really hate being slaves. They are mistreated, ignored, starved, beaten (not for fun) and made to work long hours under terrible conditions. They are often hungry, cold, or sick, and no one cares about them, or at least the American Black slaves were treated like that. I truly cannot say about Greek or other slaves.

The bdsm slave, though, is a part of a loving, consensual relationship where both partners are concerned with making the other one happy. This is not true slavery. The master might do things to the "slave" that he/she dislikes, but he/she gives consent to it by being there and taking it. A "slave" can always leave, or ask for release, or even timeouts. There is always some kind of an "out". So, is the term "slavery" really accurate here?

If not, what term should we use instead: servant (denotes the service aspect of a sub's role), child, puppy, or what? In fact a "slave" can be all of these things, depending on the partners' preferences at the time.

As a "slave" to my master, I feel loved and highly valued. I am allowed to talk to him on an equal basis during my "free mode", I am encouraged to read and write, to educate myself, to tell him my ideas, thoughts, fears, dreams, wants, likes, and dislikes, to make suggestions for a scene or during one, etc. Yet when I am with him in "slave mode", I stay on the floor, bound, usually gagged, eyes lowered, taking orders, beatings, etc. giving oral service, etc. But he serves me, too. He spends hours getting ready for my visit (I am married and cannot commit 24/7, but that is what we both want) and then hours on me using ropes and sexual toys to stimulate us both. I write stories and read them to him. He gives me presents sometimes. We call each other at night. This is a love relationship, yet we both refer to me as a slave.

This is not true slavery. What is it?

This isn't true slavery but i think it has to do more with the acts of the slave. The slave does whatever s/he is told. Sometimes the slave is told to do things s/he doesn't like but s/he does them anyway because s/he is a slave. IMO, a submissive consents initially. they consent to give up all control and therefore become a slave. They DO have the choice to leave but while they are still the property of their Master, they are to do as they are told, no questions asked.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I guess it depends on your reality and agreements. On the historical note, while the majority of slaves were mistreated and unhappy in their situation, and were certainly not given the priviledge of choosing or consenting to their role, some also had a different existence where there was sometimes love, caring and consideration, and for some even a measure of authority and choice...it was not as prevalent as the abused slave, but there have been documantations of it happening.

That aside, the reality of a D/s slave and whether it is a misnomer is subjective to your reality, You mention the choice to leave and time off etc., which is a popular view some have of slavery, but is your reality and not mine. You also mention you are married to someone else, so on top of the things you mention he does for you, I imagine he also has to work around your marriage and commitments there which puts you in a fairly powerful position of deciding when you will be in 'slavemode' and when you won't.

For me, it was a choice made and I sought someone who shared the same desire as far as a M/s relationship went, and to whom I would give myself and all I was, had, and could be where he was my first priority, and he does decide what happens and when, and where it is a lifestyle, not a role to be fit in around other obligations and people. Fortunately he is usually understanding if I have a family matter which has to be dealt with, but it is not a matter of switching off and going on my merry way, nor is it something I receive permission for if it is not of importance on the more than want scale. I don't have an income of my own, I don't have another partner to whom my first commitment is to, and I don't have another life outside this relationship. I am his slave and I knew what I was committing to when I did it, so no, I can't leave, I can't say I am taking off to attend to other things, I can't decide when I want to play slave and when I want to slip back into mainstream, and sometimes when he decides he needs a session and I am not feeling like it I am not able to decline or use a safeword when and if it becomes too much for me.

Of course many think that is still not a problem because I wanted that and in part they are correct, but wanting it does not translate to the reality you speak of where only nice things happen which you want and can handle, or that will always make you happy because that is what it is supposedly all about. Sometimes it is brutal and beyond what I can enjoy on a physical level, not to mention mental....sometimes days/weeks later I can appreciate it, sometimes not. Then of course there are the other elements which do not come into scenes and sessions and playing games, but are expected to be adhered to, done, or arranged and which can be things which I hate or even feel overwhelmed by...but that doesn't buy me a get out of jail free card...it is expected to be done. I do not have the ability to choose to go home and see my family and friends...it is for him to decide when and if that happens, and after the last time, he has said the time allowed will be a lot shorter than the previous 3 weeks because he neeeds me here. It has been just over 14 months since I saw them.

Basically my life is in his hands. Without him I have no money, no home...it is not a part-time thing. He makes the decisions, and even in areas where he gives me the responsibility, he can take it away or change whet I have been doing in the blink of an eye without need for any explanation. Often if I am unwell he will decrease my duties, or if I am really bad, will order me to rest and do nothing for a specified time....but he also has expected me to continue doing what I always do and even added more and expected it done under the same circumstances...it is up to him. He loves me, I love him, but we are not in an M/s relationship which has an on/off switch and the word slave in this relationship does mean I am owned and do not have freedom to go or choose my destiny when it isn't fun anymore or is inconvenient, or that I go home at night to another partner. So no, in our situation I don't find it a misnomer.

Catalina

 

[Daddyslilpet]

This is not true slavery. What is it?

Definitions are not set in stone. Each couple decides how things fit best for them. As for this not being "true slavery" I'm not so sure. Why does everyone want to qualify everything with the word "true" in the first place? I mean like "true Dominant", "true submissive", "true slavery", etc. There are so many meanings these things can have to people and none of them are wrong for the people involved.

Being a slave can look like the way Catalina described it above. Or it can be like the relationship I have with Daddy. There are many layers to our relationship, but I am his slave. Could I just up and walk out? No. I can say that with utter certainty because we've been down that path and no I was bound to him by love.

Anyway, I feel you should give yourself a break and stop trying to fit a label. If you are happy with your life and the way you are living it, then shouldn't that be all that matters?

 

[WriterDom]

To meet the definition of "slave" you have to be property. I don't see how you can be married to someone and slave to another. Unless you are willing to be sold to a Jute farmer in Nepal and never see your family again.

 

[JMohegan]

Is "Slave" a misnomer?

The word slave is used quite frequently, by kinky and non-kinky people alike, to mean "someone who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence".

As in: She is a slave to fashion.... He is a slave to his career ambitions.... She is a slave to love.... etc.

That's not a misnomer. It's just option #2 in the list of definitions provided by Webster.

The bdsm slave, though, is a part of a loving, consensual relationship where both partners are concerned with making the other one happy. This is not true slavery. The master might do things to the "slave" that he/she dislikes, but he/she gives consent to it by being there and taking it. A "slave" can always leave, or ask for release, or even timeouts. There is always some kind of an "out". So, is the term "slavery" really accurate here?

Broadly speaking, I see three kinds of slavery in the world today.

1 - Nonconsensual slavery

2 - BDSM lifestyle slavery

3 - BDSM roleplay slavery


The difference between 1 & 2 is consent.

The difference between 2 & 3 differs markedly, depending on whom you ask.

As a "slave" to my master, I feel loved and highly valued. I am allowed to talk to him on an equal basis during my "free mode", I am encouraged to read and write, to educate myself, to tell him my ideas, thoughts, fears, dreams, wants, likes, and dislikes, to make suggestions for a scene or during one, etc. Yet when I am with him in "slave mode", I stay on the floor, bound, usually gagged, eyes lowered, taking orders, beatings, etc. giving oral service, etc. But he serves me, too. He spends hours getting ready for my visit (I am married and cannot commit 24/7, but that is what we both want) and then hours on me using ropes and sexual toys to stimulate us both. I write stories and read them to him. He gives me presents sometimes. We call each other at night. This is a love relationship, yet we both refer to me as a slave.

This is not true slavery. What is it?

Given the limited information that you've provided and my own personal definitions, I'd say that sounds like an extra-marital affair involving type 3 slavery from the above list.

 

[myinnerslut]

i wonder if the problem with the term slave orignites in ones ability to go down that path. one can choose to be in that type of relationship or not (ive heard it all before and frankly i agree that as a submissive i wouldnt be happy in a vanilla relationship, but even so, i have the choice to remain unhappy in a vanilla relationship as oppsed to exploring my submissive side). in the historical sense, one couldnt choose to be a slave, at least to my knowledge.

so does how you got there affect what you are?

 

[catalina_francisco]

In present day slavery, of the non-D/s variety, there are some who choose it, though it is not a choice I imagine they would necessarily make if their circumstances were different.

Catalina

 

[myinnerslut]

In present day slavery, of the non-D/s variety, there are some who choose it, though it is not a choice I imagine they would necessarily make if their circumstances were different.

Catalina

you mean for financial reasons and such? i had forgotten about situations like that. thank you.

 

[catalina_francisco]

you mean for financial reasons and such? i had forgotten about situations like that. thank you.

Yes...it is not widely acknowledged or spoken of when people speak of historical slavery as being a thing of the past. It still exists in both consensual and non-consensual forms in various places in the world and totally unrelated to D/s.


Catalina

 

[JMohegan]

In present day slavery, of the non-D/s variety, there are some who choose it, though it is not a choice I imagine they would necessarily make if their circumstances were different.

Yes, I suppose that's true. Ghastly to think about, but true nonetheless.

Okay, I'll add type 1.5 to my list above.

1.5: Consenting-out-of-desperation slavery

 

[myinnerslut]

this thread is both in talk and the cafe

 

[lil_slave_rose]

I'd like some opinions on this: the word slave doesn't do the sexual slave justice at all. True slaves, historical slaves, are really abused, and really hate being slaves. They are mistreated, ignored, starved, beaten (not for fun) and made to work long hours under terrible conditions. They are often hungry, cold, or sick, and no one cares about them, or at least the American Black slaves were treated like that. I truly cannot say about Greek or other slaves.

The bdsm slave, though, is a part of a loving, consensual relationship where both partners are concerned with making the other one happy. This is not true slavery. The master might do things to the "slave" that he/she dislikes, but he/she gives consent to it by being there and taking it. A "slave" can always leave, or ask for release, or even timeouts. There is always some kind of an "out". So, is the term "slavery" really accurate here?

If not, what term should we use instead: servant (denotes the service aspect of a sub's role), child, puppy, or what? In fact a "slave" can be all of these things, depending on the partners' preferences at the time.

As a "slave" to my master, I feel loved and highly valued. I am allowed to talk to him on an equal basis during my "free mode", I am encouraged to read and write, to educate myself, to tell him my ideas, thoughts, fears, dreams, wants, likes, and dislikes, to make suggestions for a scene or during one, etc. Yet when I am with him in "slave mode", I stay on the floor, bound, usually gagged, eyes lowered, taking orders, beatings, etc. giving oral service, etc. But he serves me, too. He spends hours getting ready for my visit (I am married and cannot commit 24/7, but that is what we both want) and then hours on me using ropes and sexual toys to stimulate us both. I write stories and read them to him. He gives me presents sometimes. We call each other at night. This is a love relationship, yet we both refer to me as a slave.

This is not true slavery. What is it?

technically the definition of slavery is one who is owned. how they are treated has NOTHING to do with the word 'slave'. yes, in history most slaves were treated badly, but not all of them. Thomas Jefferson had a slave that He fathered children with and gave her release upon His death. i think the term 'slave' always brings up those pictures of 'slaves' being treated badly and loses what it's true meaning is, if you are 'owned' you are slave, no matter how you are treated, obviously slave doesn't hold the same meanings it did in history, because well, that is ILLEGAL....but it still means 'owned'.....and i'm happy with that....

 

[JMohegan]

technically the definition of slavery is one who is owned. how they are treated has NOTHING to do with the word 'slave'. yes, in history most slaves were treated badly, but not all of them. Thomas Jefferson had a slave that He fathered children with and gave her release upon His death. i think the term 'slave' always brings up those pictures of 'slaves' being treated badly and loses what it's true meaning is, if you are 'owned' you are slave, no matter how you are treated, obviously slave doesn't hold the same meanings it did in history, because well, that is ILLEGAL....but it still means 'owned'.....and i'm happy with that....

To me, being owned means you can be sold.

I've known many BDSM lifestyle Masters, but not one who has ever permanently sold his slave to another guy for cash.

I've also never met a single BDSM lifestyle slave who would agree to being sold to a stranger for cash.

Of course, I don't know everyone in the BDSM world. Obviously.

But this does make me wonder how tight the comparison between nonconsensual and BDSM lifestyle slavery really is for most practitioners.

 

[catalina_francisco]

To me, being owned means you can be sold.

I've known many BDSM lifestyle Masters, but not one who has ever permanently sold his slave to another guy for cash.

I've also never met a single BDSM lifestyle slave who would agree to being sold to a stranger for cash.

Of course, I don't know everyone in the BDSM world. Obviously.

But this does make me wonder how tight the comparison between nonconsensual and BDSM lifestyle slavery really is for most practitioners.

They exist and it happens...it is not as prevelent as those who don't, but it also isn't a myth. For myself, once you have given up your rights as a slave, you no longer have to 'agree' to being sold...fortunately F is not interested in selling me. LOL, he wouldn't get enough to make it worth his while I suspect.

Catalina

 

[lil_slave_rose]

To me, being owned means you can be sold.

I've known many BDSM lifestyle Masters, but not one who has ever permanently sold his slave to another guy for cash.

I've also never met a single BDSM lifestyle slave who would agree to being sold to a stranger for cash.

Of course, I don't know everyone in the BDSM world. Obviously.

But this does make me wonder how tight the comparison between nonconsensual and BDSM lifestyle slavery really is for most practitioners.

i'm not sure, but i'm almost positive, being sold for cash would fall under illegal. i don't see being owned the same as you apparently, because it doesn't mean to me that i will be sold...could be..i guess, but know that i won't. i am owned, He calls me His property all of the time, and sometimes make ME say it, which is hard for me, but i don't think it's all about the old school 'slave' or 'being owned' i think it means different things to different people. the definition of slave is as follows:
Main Entry: 1slave
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'slAv
Etymology: Middle English sclave, from Old French or Medieval Latin; Old French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another

nowhere do i see the words 'treated badly' .....but that's just my opinion of course and how i see myself. i am in servitude to another, i am subservient to a Dominant influence (Master) so yes, i am a slave.....and as i said in my earlier post, i am happy with that

 

[Netzach]

I don't care how deep it is, or how enmeshed you are. There is not an equivalency between M/s lifestyle slavery and political slavery. Unless your Master bought you from an agent or on a market and unless you never got a chance to chat and see what kind of guy he was before you got into the situation - picking your owner is a big luxury.

 

[tareacel]

I think "slave" refers to a mindset more than a position. There is a difference between a "slave" and a "submissive". At least, that's what I get from the people I've talked to.

"Submissives", in general, tend to get more freedom, more rights and choices, are usually allowed to perform basic functions (as in, going to the bathroom, eating and drinking, and personal grooming outside of play) without having to ask permission, have their limits respected, and can end the relationship whenever they choose, on a whim. And they want it this way. They want to submit, yes, even in 24/7 relationships...and obey and care for their Dom/me, but they want to be cared for and loved in return.

The way I've reseached and heard that a "slave" is different...is that they want none of that. Their Dom/me can do *anything*, *anytime*, no matter what the slave may have said their limits are. Depending on the Master, they may have to ask permisson to take a shower or go to the bathroom...they don't leave the house unless ordered or permission is given...it's a *much* more restrictive arrangement. They have no rights inside that relationship. They have no choices. And they *Wanted* it that way. That's what being a "slave" is, versus being a "submissive".

Of course, every Dom/me is different. Some "slaves" may be treated more like "submissives", and vice versa. Which is why I tend to say that being a "slave" is more about having that mindset...rather than what your position technically is.

I hope that helped......

~tareacel

 

[catalina_francisco]

this thread is both in talk and the cafe

Thanks, I just noticed so it is now merged into one.

Catalina

 

[bronntanas]

Thanks, I just noticed so it is now merged into one.

Catalina

Thanks, I'm lazy today and didn't feel like flipping back and forth.

 

[the captians wench]

I know my Love has a defined line between what a slave is and what a sub is. He talks about his plans, and my transition from sub to slave some times.

For me, the two sort of meld. There is very little I have ever denied him, and if distance wasn't an issue, I don't think I would have even that much.

Because of these hard lines that he has formed in his mind, he has never called me his slave, always his sub. While my friends will call me slave all the time.

I think in the contest we live in, slave is defined how you wish to define it.

But personally, I've never put much thought into why the term slave is used. To me it seems like just another name, like Master and Dom and Top. You (as a couple) pick a term that sounds right to you. He personally prefers Sir to Master, while Sir will get me ten swats with the cane from my friends. It's like everything else it's all choice.

 

[JMohegan]

i'm not sure, but i'm almost positive, being sold for cash would fall under illegal. i don't see being owned the same as you apparently, because it doesn't mean to me that i will be sold...could be..i guess, but know that i won't. i am owned, He calls me His property all of the time, and sometimes make ME say it, which is hard for me, but i don't think it's all about the old school 'slave' or 'being owned' i think it means different things to different people. the definition of slave is as follows:
Main Entry: 1slave
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'slAv
Etymology: Middle English sclave, from Old French or Medieval Latin; Old French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another

nowhere do i see the words 'treated badly' .....but that's just my opinion of course and how i see myself. i am in servitude to another, i am subservient to a Dominant influence (Master) so yes, i am a slave.....and as i said in my earlier post, i am happy with that

I do not consider slave to be a misnomer here. See my post 9, above.

As for the various definitions of "owned", my point is not that yours is wrong but rather that mine matches TJ's. Which means that your comparison of your BDSM lifestyle slavery to nonconsensual slavery is not a good one.

It was the comparison I was commenting on. Not the semantics.