Is "Slave" a misnomer?

This is an interesting topic and something that I was recently confronted with. My partner and myself for while were into having threesomes but decided to take a break. So for a while we were a bit "vanilla" when it came to sex. My partner has always had an interest in BDSM particularly being dominated and started on their own accord without any influence from me calling me "master" while in the bedroom. I tried using the word "slave" but it did not fit. At least from my perspective "slave" is someone who is in a role of servitude without their consent, which means they had no choice. When comparing I look at the word "slave" in the context of what we are doing, I do not feel it is an appropriate choice since my partner has consent and choice over what happens to them. Instead of using slave I am trying another word that is more in line with what we are exploring.
 
Speaking only for myself, the term "slave" includes the following connotations that are true of our relationship - a. no escape, b. forced submission, c. heavy physical labor, d. general lack of tender loving care, e. financial dependence, f. sexual service without reciprocation. Any of these factors could be problematic in a marriage that wasn't defined by an M/s framework. Within the context of "slavery," it all seems appropriate and fine.
 
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.

Some slaves were mistreated, and masters always tried to keep the costs of maintaining their human capital low, but slaves were valuable possessions--the agricultural machinery of their day. There's no profit in abusing your labor force to the point where productivity declines.
 
This is an interesting topic and something that I was recently confronted with. My partner and myself for while were into having threesomes but decided to take a break. So for a while we were a bit "vanilla" when it came to sex. My partner has always had an interest in BDSM particularly being dominated and started on their own accord without any influence from me calling me "master" while in the bedroom. I tried using the word "slave" but it did not fit. At least from my perspective "slave" is someone who is in a role of servitude without their consent, which means they had no choice. When comparing I look at the word "slave" in the context of what we are doing, I do not feel it is an appropriate choice since my partner has consent and choice over what happens to them. Instead of using slave I am trying another word that is more in line with what we are exploring.
Why do you have to call her slave? There are no rules. Call her anything you want.

And for the record, a sexual slave isn't the same as the slave you are using as a definition. Similar in some ways, but different in others.
 
Why do you have to call her slave? There are no rules. Call her anything you want.

I was just preparing to make the same comment. Slave does carry those negative connotations and I intellectually object to the term. "Submissive" or "mine" said with the appropriate growl, I would like to think, conveys the true intent: I'm taking you because you are giving yourself to me.

Elsewhere on lit you see "PYL/pyl". Pick your label is absolutely correct. I believe you are more complete if you use your own words and avoid the traps of what "main-stream" BDSM might expect of you.
 
I consider myself a slave. I would be very disappointed to be called something else. Well, other than slut or whore... :)
 
Back
Top