This page sponsored by JT's Stockroom    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : M/s D/s O&P : "When is a slave not a slave?" 1 2 3 When is a slave not a slave? (21) This post is on the M/s D/s O&P web board. 25 Aug 10, 9:23 PM mr_dave UK, 3 yrs Y! OK Firstly I believe you needed an “In my opinion” when you say “Slave, is a relationship dependent description”. Surely you can see different people will have different viewpoints on this? Some feel they were born slaves but let's not get into the nature versus nurture debate. Secondly how about a doctor with a licence to practice but no patients? By your logic he is no longer a doctor surely? In the end, why impose restrictions on those we are not personally involved with, if ownerless “let's say individuals” want to refer to themselves as slaves then they have every right to. 25 Aug 10, 9:38 PM mia UK, 11 yrs mr_dave wrote: OK Firstly I believe you needed an “In my opinion” when you say “Slave, is a relationship dependent description”. Surely you can see different people will have different viewpoints on this? Some feel they were born slaves but let's not get into the nature versus nurture debate. Surely as she was writing it, it's obvious it's her opinion. In the end, why impose restrictions on those we are not personally involved with, if ownerless “let's say individuals” want to refer to themselves as slaves then they have every right to. She did say people had the right to call themselves what they want, she just pointed out that it was a term that implies a place in a relationship. I think the term *can* be useful to distinguish between people who are perhaps kinky and submissive and those who are in or are seeking a Ds relationship. I would be more likely to use the terms bottom and submissive respectively here though. As much as some people are free to class themselves as one thing, others are free to think they are another. Manners mean you should call people what they use though. m, x 26 Aug 10, 7:52 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs mr_dave wrote: OK Firstly I believe you needed an “In my opinion” when you say “Slave, is a relationship dependent description”. mia wrote: Surely as she was writing it, it's obvious it's her opinion. This is true. Unless I think a distinction is necessary - say, in the case where documented facts or references are part of what I've written - I won't usually add that sort of disclaimer. But, to support my opinion: From Dictionary.Com: Slave –noun 1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. And... From TSR's O&P Wiki: Slave A person who is owned: that is, someone in a relationship with an owner who has ultimate authority over them, and from which the slave cannot remove themselves. Both definitions are dependent on a relationship with another person. (Emphasis mine) mr_dave wrote: Surely you can see different people will have different viewpoints on this? I do. But I think mutual cooperation would better serve the community in general. mr_dave wrote: Some feel they were born slaves but let's not get into the nature versus nurture debate. I agree. I think it will be a very long time before any authoritative work on the matter from that perspective is done. mr_dave wrote: Secondly how about a doctor with a licence to practice but no patients? By your logic he is no longer a doctor surely? He is still a doctor. What I was trying to express with my examples is the difference between a "title" that's held based on the expectations and standards of the society of which the person is a part, and one that's self-applied. In the case of an MD, his legal ability and general acceptance by others to practice medicine - whether or not he currently has a list of patients - is what makes him a doctor. mr_dave wrote: In the end, why impose restrictions on those we are not personally involved with, if ownerless “let's say individuals” want to refer to themselves as slaves then they have every right to. I took the OP's question in a community sense - as in what sort of things do I believe we should adapt/accept as a whole. I don't believe this idea qualifies for 2 reasons. The first being that rather than enhancing communication, accepting the definition of "slave" to be A) A person who has a master/owner, and/or B) Any person who decides to identify as such based on personal preference will add confusion in a community already grappling with definitions in general. As to individual self-expression - it's an important and valuable thing. But rather than expecting the community as a whole to give up the clarity of a clear definition (via customized definitions) I think the burden should fall to the individual. I don't think it would be difficult - adding the information to one's sig line or to personal ads, making it clear in conversations when necessary - things like that. The second is credibility. I realize that there are many who don't care what type of impression they (or we as a community) make on the rest of the population in general. Some even to the point where they believe any person who does isn't being true to themselves, or not genuinely committed to the lifestyle. I disagree. I think increasing our credibility would go a long way toward alleviating the difficulties we face in just living our daily lives. And, while I don't think "it means whatever I say it means" is among the more significant issues that cause the general population to consider our ways with trepidation, it is *one* thing. mia wrote: I would be more likely to use the terms bottom and submissive respectively here though. I agree. I think either term is easy to use and provides enough information for casual conversation and most online posts. For those in which it doesn't or should the conversation develop toward a more significant relationship, it's easy enough to explain one's personal feelings. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) 26 Aug 10, 1:26 PM seresse US(PA), 23 mths Y! i tend to agree with Eva Maria, and like how she has said her piece so clearly. Thank you. seresse 28 Aug 10, 10:25 AM charlotte AU, 2 yrs mr_dave wrote: Agree completely, you don't stop being who and what you are no matter what external factors may affect your lifestyle or circumstances. In the simplest sense, a stapler doesn't stop being a stapler just because I am currently using it as a paperweight. .................... Or, “When it's a jar” maybe? that is fair enough, but i might still see myself as a slave, but i would call my self a sub, only if i was owned by another Master and He said i was His slave then i would b that, others would only be Sir to me, thats just what i think 30 Aug 10, 2:23 AM MeluthTur US(TN), 6 yrs £ Y! First before I thought about it, thought the best way to approach this was to state one is a slave other than submissive for clarification purposes in searching for a Master/Mistress. However, it then occured to me that as a Master, I would be most acceptable to either term. I would just communicate my qualifications I seek and discuss to see what would be possible. I would rarely take a self described word as gospel and I have found out through the years that alot of "slaves" were not slaves to begin with. I have found some very capable slaves that has described themselves a submissive. I do have a capable mind to reason some things out and will respond with a "DOES NOT COMPUTE" regardless of what one says they are if it truly is not the case. Of course if one was to declare that he/she was a slave should take the Dominants out of the mix and attract only Masters, but we all know how that usually turns out because we tend to have the same problem on the upperside as well. So when it comes down to it. My only recourse is to suggest to the OP to use what she knows and feels she is. I would not and I would think no one else would hold anything against you in using what you felt you were. I understand the differences in opinion, but I feel it boils down to there is not a def right or wrong, just degrees of understanding ones position and mindset. If we could only get the "posers and spammers" to use what they know they are.....what a wonderful life this would be. Respectfully MeluthTur Edited 30 Aug 10, 2:45 AM by MeluthTur 30 Aug 10, 1:24 PM mia UK, 11 yrs MeluthTur wrote: So when it comes down to it. My only recourse is to suggest to the OP to use what she knows and feels she is. I would not and I would think no one else would hold anything against you in using what you felt you were. I understand the differences in opinion, but I feel it boils down to there is not a def right or wrong, just degrees of understanding ones position and mindset. This is interesting. Perhaps some people use the term 'slave' to distinguish themselves from people into 'lighter' Ds, or those who are more into what i would class as being a 'bottom', that is a masochist or similar. For me, the word slave is a very specific, relationship dependant word, as @EvaMaria explained earlier. It's also a word i feel i have owned through my enslavement to my Master. I often dreamt of the day i could call myself slave, but having used the term too easily in a previous relationship, where there was no internal enslavement, just friendship, S&M and some Ds activities, i felt i'd done a diservice to the word; that i'd betrayed it. But to other people, who's desire to serve is so strong, who've never had to use the word to describe themselves disingenuously, perhaps it makes perfect sense to use this word, to fully describe the type of relationship they are looking for and how deeply this desire is ingrained in them. I would also put forward, though, that there are plenty of people who use this term as they think it makes them more desireable. You could argue that this is the same for the term 'Master'. Just some thoughts... m, x 30 Aug 10, 3:05 PM thegildedlili 3 yrs mia wrote: MeluthTur wrote: So when it comes down to it. My only recourse is to suggest to the OP to use what she knows and feels she is. I would not and I would think no one else would hold anything against you in using what you felt you were. I understand the differences in opinion, but I feel it boils down to there is not a def right or wrong, just degrees of understanding ones position and mindset. This is interesting. Perhaps some people use the term 'slave' to distinguish themselves from people into 'lighter' Ds, or those who are more into what i would class as being a 'bottom', that is a masochist or similar. mia wrote: But to other people, who's desire to serve is so strong, who've never had to use the word to describe themselves disingenuously, perhaps it makes perfect sense to use this word, to fully describe the type of relationship they are looking for and how deeply this desire is ingrained in them. I think this is quite often the case. For me personally, even though I do agree that the word is "relationship dependent", I don't necessarily think that identifying myself simply as "submissive" or "a submissive" gives enough insight into the type of relationship I'm looking for. I also think it's clear from this and other discussions around the same topic that not everyone agrees on its use, so that then makes it difficult to effectively communicate the type of relationship I'm looking for without calling myself a slave, if other people use the word in a different way to me, namely *not* using it in a way that indicates that they see it in a relationship dependent way. I do realise that a profile or whatever is just a starting point, but it's another example of why I feel that a common language is so important. mia wrote: I would also put forward, though, that there are plenty of people who use this term as they think it makes them more desireable. I agree with this too, and I think the overuse (or useage that deviates from the wiki which is what I use as my reference) has the potential to dilute it. For me it's kind of like being a vegetarian and constantly having to tell people that no, I don't eat fish, because lots of people who do eat fish call themselves vegetarian. i have no need, for such things, but to make you happy... Josh Pyke 30 Aug 10, 6:28 PM 375-295-503 UK, 2 yrs I am slave to my Master and I seem to have adapted well to this role. I certainly don't get it right all the time (far from it unfortunately )but I am never happier than when I am ensuring his needs are met within the domestic setting. My identity is that of a slave;I am submissive, I am loyal, I am devoted to my Master, but I have absolutely no desire to serve another and if my Master does ever decide to walk away, my slavery would end. I am a slave to and for my Master, and proud to be so. I just don't think I am slave per se. 30 Aug 10, 11:15 PM chrystal_HMLK US(IL), 5 yrs tainted_desire wrote: When is a slave not a slave? After replying on a topic in Fetlife, the question originally posted got me a thinking. If your Master were to release you, would you still class yourself as a slave? What is slavery to you? Is a slave still a slave without a Master? Infact is a Master still a Master without a slave, or are they both just extremely submissive/Dominant? td I am currently unowned, but do have a trainer. I actually asked him a part of this question the other day, the part about an unowned slave being slave or free. He said that an unowned slave is free. After his explanation, i do see where he is coming from, and am wording this very carefully as i think he will be reading this. Rather not have my posting privileges taken away. While i see how an unowned slave is free, i do feel the desire to be slave in my heart, which is why i decided to get a trainer in the first place. i desire a level of submission that i have yet to hit for long periods and know i have the ability. To me, being a slave is about pleasing the owner, being there when they need or want you, having the ability to obey without question in most cases. As far as whether a Master is still a Master without a slave, i do not know. Though thanks for giving me another question to ask him, i seem to run shy on questions lately. Next page