Historical D/s

[Netzach]

I agree with what bridgeburner said about the overall difference in state and public-life power imbalance and personal, chosen power imbalance.

But as for a discussion of methods, symbols, tools? Sure, there are antecedents. If I'm not mistaken the romans had metal collars.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think there's plenty of historical merit in looking at the evolution of hardware and practices like Flower Auctions etc, but I think it's less useful to talk about historical slavery in general as it relates to BDSM unless you simply want to talk about all power imbalance in the history of human existence as it relates to BDSM.

I have yet to come across a topic that I found inappropriate --- I figure everything is fair game for those able to keep a level head --- but what has Sally Hemmings got to do with BDSM except in the minds of modern people who want to play "let's suppose?" I understand the intent behind bringing up possibly heart-warming slavery stories in a Schindler's List kind of way, but in a case like this it appears a bit self-serving.

I think it just makes me wonder why slavery? I mean, I know that seems like a "Duh" kind of question, but really, most countries don't practice slavery anymore but all of them have jails. Cages, chains, numbered prisoners. Some even have tattoos and canings and whippings. None of these practices have ever been restricted to slaves and I think it would be very difficult to say whether the concept of slavery was born before the concept of "war captive" or "criminal" was.

Perhaps the reason we immediately look to "slavery" from a BDSM board is because it fits the BDSM lexicon --- or it seems to. I'm not sure that's really true, though. What is the difference between a chained slave and a chained prisoner?

It's late and my brain is starting to stutter but I'm still having a hard time seeing that historical slavery has anything much to do with modern day BDSM at all unless you want to talk about who invented the brank.






-B

At the expense of repeating that the topic was not so much a discussion of slavery, rights and wrongs, daily life etc., as influences in the symbolism like collars etc., and some practices such as boot licking, caging etc.. Sally Hemmings was raised as an article as it presents another view to the stereotypical one so popular, not to mention it is part of the US history involving a president which I thought overall, was interesting from a history standpoint. I seriously am tired of the topic here as it seems to have lost it's point, but am finding interesting references from people elsewhere so that at least feeds the interest and enthusiasm I initially felt when I saw it was being researched. Maybe it is something to do with cultures as this was raised in Europe and did not attract any issues of offence, or concentrating on slavery as opposed to symbolism, or anyone basically seeing it as unrelated.

I think the difference between a prisoner in chains and a slave in chains is that one is there not because they did anything wrong, but because they became the target of economically focused people, while a prisoner is being punished for breaking a law. Add to that, while a prisoner maybe expected to work some hours each day, they are protected by certain laws, they do have some rights, and they do often have a time factor when they will be free again...a slave has no rights, is usually expected to serve/work long hours, and usually is not going to be freed.

All that being said, one only has to look at places like Alt to see prisoner/guard is an accepted form of roleplay for some people into BDSM. There is no one way, but a huge variety of ways which present an interesting picture overall for those open to at least some of them. As has been said here so often, never say never...it will likely come back to bite you.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm not so sure that was the idea or concept behind this. I think the thread got off track a bit and now it seems people have lost the original intent. I confess I might be a bit lost on it as well.

I found the idea very interesting and a great topic to explore. I am not a great history buff, but I do enjoy thinking about why things came to be as they are.

I think this was suppose to be an exploration of where possible origins of certain modern /D/s and BDSM practices may have stemed from. I don't think the goal was neccessarily to equate the origin with the modern day practice.

Rarely is anything an original idea or concept in modern times. Most things have evolved from something and have been built upon or changed in some ways.

I think this thread was an attempt to look at past origins of practices to see if we could make logical connections to the present day expression.

I really hope this thread gets back on track. I was enjoying it very much.

*****

Thanks RJ, you are right on the spot. Who would have thought such a simple concept would be so difficult and contentious?!! Humanity has evolved by adapting ideas and practices to better suit the individual, the group, and the time.

Catalina

 

[RJMasters]

But as for a discussion of methods, symbols, tools? Sure, there are antecedents. If I'm not mistaken the romans had metal collars.

As did the free citizens of the empire, so did the slaves of Rome inhabit a steep hierarchy of statuses and privileges; at the top were elite slaves such as Musicus Scurranus, at the bottom the many who were subject to routine brutality and physical abuse....

...Furthermore, he contends that the distinction among various forms of slave labor led to fine distinctions in status among the slaves themselves. Thus, the population of slaves internally was subject to the same hierarchical impulse as the rest of Roman society.

http://infomotions.com/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9511-owens-slavery.txt

Netzach's comment about iron collars sent me on a search which resulted in this interesting peice.


What I found interesting was that the status or a slave was directly linked to the job they performed. It made me think about those who owned multiple slaves or submissives and how there is also a high-archy often established. I would venture to guess that often that status is in somehow attached to the purpose of taking that slave or submissive.

The thing that hit me was that I seriously doubt anyone today with intent set up this type of hiearchy according to tradition of roman culture. So I asked myself how did that come to be and I was left with the thought that some things develop naturally based on the dynamic. Thus its possible that a heiarchy of submissives or slave today, would resemble in someways the heiarchy that developed in the culture of Rome and for many of the same reasons. This does not necessitate there is a relation of origin, but it is an interesting off-shoot to contemplate.

I also found this part and reminded me of some things Catillina has said about herself and made me appreciate it a little more. - suggest the psychic despair brought about by the cultural dislocation of enslavement... ...the cultural shock of seeing for the first time the ocean, sailing ships, and white men. Though Catillin may have made the choice to go and had one to whom she could cling to, I imagine the culture shock and many of the dificutlies that go along with it were experienced in a simillar manner.

Good stuff.

 

[alice_underneath]

I think there's plenty of historical merit in looking at the evolution of hardware and practices like Flower Auctions etc, but I think it's less useful to talk about historical slavery in general as it relates to BDSM unless you simply want to talk about all power imbalance in the history of human existence as it relates to BDSM.

I have yet to come across a topic that I found inappropriate --- I figure everything is fair game for those able to keep a level head --- but what has Sally Hemmings got to do with BDSM except in the minds of modern people who want to play "let's suppose?" I understand the intent behind bringing up possibly heart-warming slavery stories in a Schindler's List kind of way, but in a case like this it appears a bit self-serving.

Excellent post, B.

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
- Martin Luther King Jr.

Alice

 

[bridgeburner]

At the expense of repeating that the topic was not so much a discussion of slavery, rights and wrongs, daily life etc., as influences in the symbolism like collars etc., and some practices such as boot licking, caging etc..

I'm not attempting to talk about the rights and wrongs of slavery, I'm asking if perhaps looking at historical slavery for the artifacts of BDSM rather than looking at historical imprisonment for the artifacts of BDSM isn't a case of tunnel vision. That is, because the more common terms within the BDSM world are Master/Owner and slave not Guard/Warden and prisoner, the impulse is to look back in history at slavery as if that is where the through-line should/would be and the most artifacts and rituals might be found.

Sally Hemmings was raised as an article as it presents another view to the stereotypical one so popular, not to mention it is part of the US history involving a president which I thought overall, was interesting from a history standpoint.

Catalina, I'm sure you don't mean to be cavalier, but I'm not sure you realize how it sounds when you say "another view to the stereotypical one so popular." To say that something is a popular stereotype is to imply that it isn't really true. I don't think Sally Hemings should be held up as a kind of poster child for why folks shouldn't believe everything that mean old Alex Haley tells them about Whitey.

Just how bad was it? So bad that 150 years later we're still dealing with the repercussions. It's not a healed scar here in the States, it's a scabbed-over wound that's still got infection under it. That may be impossible for anyone who isn't from here to understand. I was born and raised in the South. I have both slaves and slave owners in my family tree so it's not purely an academic thing for me.

Maybe it is something to do with cultures as this was raised in Europe and did not attract any issues of offence, or concentrating on slavery as opposed to symbolism, or anyone basically seeing it as unrelated.

I think this has very much to do with it. I don't know to what extent African slaves existed in Australia but the number was very small in Western Europe. Slaves owned by Europeans worked on their distantly held plantations either in America or in the Carribean. Slaves constituted 40% of the population of the Confederate States. When nearly half your population has been enslaved by the other half for 400 years and is then suddenly freed and everyone has to live together things are just the teensiest bit ticklish for generations to come.

Look at it this way: Of 4.5 million African Americans in 1860 less than 150,000 of them were free. This means that with the exception of immigrants, nearly every African American in the States is descended from slaves. THATS why it's a big deal here. It's why we're so careful about it and why we get touchy when it looks like people are trying to brush aside the significance of it. We're nowhere near as jumpy as the Germans are about Nazism, though.

I think the difference between a prisoner in chains and a slave in chains is that one is there not because they did anything wrong, but because they became the target of economically focused people, while a prisoner is being punished for breaking a law. Add to that, while a prisoner maybe expected to work some hours each day, they are protected by certain laws, they do have some rights, and they do often have a time factor when they will be free again...a slave has no rights, is usually expected to serve/work long hours, and usually is not going to be freed.

I would have said that, except for the manner of aquisition, it depends entirely on the entity who holds the key.




-B

 

[bridgeburner]

So in my way of thinking as you look back in history at many of the legal punishments that were handed out, you can see the concept was born, then modified.

I always think of the tools of the Inquisition but that's my religious upbringing. ;->


-B

 

[Kajira Callista]

I always think of the tools of the Inquisition but that's my religious upbringing. ;->


-B

follows bb around

 

[catalina_francisco]

As did the free citizens of the empire, so did the slaves of Rome inhabit a steep hierarchy of statuses and privileges; at the top were elite slaves such as Musicus Scurranus, at the bottom the many who were subject to routine brutality and physical abuse....

...Furthermore, he contends that the distinction among various forms of slave labor led to fine distinctions in status among the slaves themselves. Thus, the population of slaves internally was subject to the same hierarchical impulse as the rest of Roman society.

http://infomotions.com/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9511-owens-slavery.txt

Netzach's comment about iron collars sent me on a search which resulted in this interesting peice.


What I found interesting was that the status or a slave was directly linked to the job they performed. It made me think about those who owned multiple slaves or submissives and how there is also a high-archy often established. I would venture to guess that often that status is in somehow attached to the purpose of taking that slave or submissive.

The thing that hit me was that I seriously doubt anyone today with intent set up this type of hiearchy according to tradition of roman culture. So I asked myself how did that come to be and I was left with the thought that some things develop naturally based on the dynamic. Thus its possible that a heiarchy of submissives or slave today, would resemble in someways the heiarchy that developed in the culture of Rome and for many of the same reasons. This does not necessitate there is a relation of origin, but it is an interesting off-shoot to contemplate.

I also found this part and reminded me of some things Catillina has said about herself and made me appreciate it a little more. - suggest the psychic despair brought about by the cultural dislocation of enslavement... ...the cultural shock of seeing for the first time the ocean, sailing ships, and white men. Though Catillin may have made the choice to go and had one to whom she could cling to, I imagine the culture shock and many of the dificutlies that go along with it were experienced in a simillar manner.

Good stuff.

Great post RJ, and yes, I still occasionally experience culture shocks, only now I get them in both countries when I move from one culture to another and need time to assimilate. Isolation is also a problem at times, though thankfully I have always been a loner so it id not as big an issue as it would be for some.

You might be interested in this , which has a series of writings from Tanos, one being about the research into collars, and also describing his household and hierarchy which is influenced by Victorain and Edwardian models. Of course, just reading through his article on Commercial vs Domestic Slavery , I found many things mentioned I can identify with.

Catalina

 

[alice_underneath]

To say that something is a popular stereotype is to imply that it isn't really true. I don't think Sally Hemings should be held up as a kind of poster child for why folks shouldn't believe everything that mean old Alex Haley tells them about Whitey.

Just how bad was it? So bad that 150 years later we're still dealing with the repercussions. It's not a healed scar here in the States, it's a scabbed-over wound that's still got infection under it. That may be impossible for anyone who isn't from here to understand. I was born and raised in the South. I have both slaves and slave owners in my family tree so it's not purely an academic thing for me.

Look at it this way: Of 4.5 million African Americans in 1860 less than 150,000 of them were free. This means that with the exception of immigrants, nearly every African American in the States is descended from slaves. THATS why it's a big deal here. It's why we're so careful about it and why we get touchy when it looks like people are trying to brush aside the significance of it.

B,

*bows head with respect*

Eloquently and with great dignity, you have just explained my comments on this thread.

I truly do not believe that it is appropriate to discuss Old South slavery in a BDSM context, and I offer the following in an effort to help non-U.S. members of this Board understand why.

Imagine how it would feel to be Black and see the suffering of your great-grandmother held up for salacious intent - which is what you are doing when you talk about their suffering and translate it into a BDSM context. The clear implication is something like: "Oh, yeah baby. The humiliation of branks. Being tied to a whipping post. I get off on that."

At the end of the day, that's what you are doing by discussing the origin of BDSM customs in Old South slavery. Using the images and the emotions of human suffering to get off.

I do not find it morally objectionable that anyone gets off on this. (Given all of my rape fantasies, that would be more than a bit hypocritical of me, to say the least.)

However, I do believe that the urge to discuss and celebrate your kink does not translate into the right to abandon the norms of considerate behavior for other human beings. That is just my opinion, and I respect the right of others to have a different point of view.

I have sat down with a very close personal friend of mine (who is Black), and seen her family photographs and letters. There is agony for her in the suffering of her ancestors, and prejudice that she faces in this country even today.

Fact is, as B said: in many ways, the legacy of slavery in America is still alive today.

Really as a matter of decency and simple common courtesy to members of this Board and the lurkers, I believe that Old South slavery should be left out of this discussion. But that is just my opinion.

I am not attempting censorship here. I am just offering my point of view.

Some may say that there is no difference between a discussion of a Roman slave collar and a collar worn in Alabama, but I disagree. On an American bulletin board, there is a difference - and it is profound.

I am not saying this to criticize anyone's kink, or any Board member specifically.

All of my comments on this thread have been written for one reason and one reason only: to stand up for the dignity of African Americans in general, and my friend in particular.

Respectfully,
Alice

 

[catalina_francisco]

B,

*bows head with respect*

Eloquently and with great dignity, you have just explained my comments on this thread.

I truly do not believe that it is appropriate to discuss Old South slavery in a BDSM context, and I offer the following in an effort to help non-U.S. members of this Board understand why.

Imagine how it would feel to be Black and see the suffering of your great-grandmother held up for salacious intent - which is what you are doing when you talk about their suffering and translate it into a BDSM context. The clear implication is something like: "Oh, yeah baby. The humiliation of branks. Being tied to a whipping post. I get off on that."

At the end of the day, that's what you are doing by discussing the origin of BDSM customs in Old South slavery. Using the images and the emotions of human suffering to get off.

I do not find it morally objectionable that anyone gets off on this. (Given all of my rape fantasies, that would be more than a bit hypocritical of me, to say the least.)

However, I do believe that the urge to discuss and celebrate your kink does not translate into the right to abandon the norms of considerate behavior for other human beings. That is just my opinion, and I respect the right of others to have a different point of view.

I have sat down with a very close personal friend of mine (who is Black), and seen her family photographs and letters. There is agony for her in the suffering of her ancestors, and prejudice that she faces in this country even today.

Fact is, as B said: in many ways, the legacy of slavery in America is still alive today.

Really as a matter of decency and simple common courtesy to members of this Board and the lurkers, I believe that Old South slavery should be left out of this discussion. But that is just my opinion.

I am not attempting censorship here. I am just offering my point of view.

Some may say that there is no difference between a discussion of a Roman slave collar and a collar worn in Alabama, but I disagree. On an American bulletin board, there is a difference - and it is profound.

I am not saying this to criticize anyone's kink, or any Board member specifically.

All of my comments on this thread have been written for one reason and one reason only: to stand up for the dignity of African Americans in general, and my friend in particular.

Respectfully,
Alice

Once again Alice, that was not what was being said by showing links between present day and past practices. Trying to silence the past, does not undo it, but has in some cases gone a long way toward it being repeated at a latter date simply because the lessons that could have been learned through open knowledge and discussion were disguised and oppressed. You might find the article I just posted a link to interesting. Out of interest, you might also wish to know and acknowledge that we have had and still do have posters on this board who are in the lifestyle and of slavery heritage and have no problem admitting there are elements of connection in BDSM and their own minds...and they do not suggest it should not be discussed or that the connection be denied. If you explore further, you will also find elswhere on the net, and in RL, African American D/s people who also speak about and acknowledge the connection, some even including it as part of their role plays because they want to.

I feel the dignity of a people is threatened far more by trying to suppress discussion of their real history and experiences, thus IMO denying them a voice, more so than by people who can discuss it openly without wanting to continue their oppression or having any issues in their mind or need to step in and speak for them when they are more than happy to speak for themselves...I see that as disempowering and further oppressing in the context of the white person once again taking the superior and powerful position regardless of the feelings of all they say they speak for.

Catalina

 

[alice_underneath]

Out of interest, you might also wish to know and acknowledge that we have had and still do have posters on this board who are in the lifestyle and of slavery heritage and have no problem admitting there are elements of connection in BDSM and their own minds...and they do not suggest it should not be discussed or that the connection be denied

I have already acknowledged this. Specifically, my comment was:

"That is just my opinion, and I respect the right of others to have a different point of view."

 

[RJMasters]

If people are going to continue to play this thread by rugby rules then I am gonna start drop kicking for points.

 

[RJMasters]

Great post RJ, and yes, I still occasionally experience culture shocks, only now I get them in both countries when I move from one culture to another and need time to assimilate. Isolation is also a problem at times, though thankfully I have always been a loner so it id not as big an issue as it would be for some.

You might be interested in this , which has a series of writings from Tanos, one being about the research into collars, and also describing his household and hierarchy which is influenced by Victorain and Edwardian models. Of course, just reading through his article on Commercial vs Domestic Slavery , I found many things mentioned I can identify with.

Catalina

Thank you Catalina I look forward to the read.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I have already acknowledged this. Specifically, my comment was:

"That is just my opinion, and I respect the right of others to have a different point of view."

Uh huh, but you also said you were speaking up for the dignity of African Americans which to me is speaking for all African Americans, whether they want you to or not, and whether they mgiht all agree with your opinion or not. The intention may be well meant, but it is still oppression IMO in the context white races have used for centuries to disempower other cultures while saying they are doing it for their own good. Whenever you speak for someone else without being asked, especially without knowing that is their opinion, you are taking away their voice and rights and oppressing them by presenting your opinion in their name. If it is your opinion, fine, but don't assume it is that of all the people you think you are protecting when it might very well be the opposite in their opinion, not to mention many of them I expect would take offence at you thinking they needed you to speak for or protect them. It can also be seen as I touched on earlier, though in other words, as pushing people (back) into a victim role which in itself is hugely disempowering and oppressive.

Let me put it this way...if you as a woman were raped, worked hard to overcome the negatives of that experience and feel strong again, and then someone comes along and tells everyone who raises the subject of rape in any sense, whether it be to fight against it and improve laws, or in terms of what it is, that they should not discuss or mention rape as it is offensive (I actually worked with a counsellor once who told a rape survivor she found it offensive she wanted to talk about her rape, that it was not necessary to speak about rape...the survivor did not feel very good after that session and went backwards in her therapy) and that it harms the dignity of those who have survived it. How do you think that would make you feel? Would you feel empowered, respected, like your voice or experience was important, like you had a right to feel proud of how far you had come? I think it would make most survivors feel embarrassed, unclean, oppressed, judged, invalidated, inferior, damaged, and possibly hopping mad that someone else was speaking for them without knowing how they felt or what their experience was. Then add to that a lot of women, and men too, would object to what was discussed on this board as they see it as offensive to women..so do we stop the forum, stop the site because it discusses several issues of sexuality that can be seen as offensive by others? Where do you decide what can be discussed and what can't because just about everything wil offend someone somewhere?

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

Well what about historical imprisonment? Or, hell, the army?

Additionally, the notion of prison versus slavery is not completely devoid of an economic impetus. It's not middle class white guys filling the jails. They are the social strata that also gets to define what's criminal, gee.

I think Jean Genet is very very relevant to a discussion of literary antecedents and historical windows into SM.

I'm agreeing with everything bb said on this subject, pretty much. But I'm begging to differ as to dropping the dialogue because it might offend someone, as per alice. The world is an offensive place to live in. How are we supposed to move forward if we can't have a dialogue about anything? Maybe we should describe the holocaust as delicately as possible.

Furthermore, I'm one who's always going to call attention to that essential difference between my life and the lives of outward public oppression in the world. I'm always going to fight for someone's ability to get their rocks off to any politically incorrect thing under the sun - as long as they realize the difference between being forced and not really being forced and as long as they remain people who give a shit about a real-world Darfur.

IE: If you don't like me playing Nazis and Partisans in my house, start with a donation to Amnesty, get real.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Well what about historical imprisonment? Or, hell, the army?

Additionally, the notion of prison versus slavery is not completely devoid of an economic impetus. It's not middle class white guys filling the jails. They are the social strata that also gets to define what's criminal, gee.

I think Jean Genet is very very relevant to a discussion of literary antecedents and historical windows into SM.

I'm agreeing with everything bb said on this subject, pretty much. But I'm begging to differ as to dropping the dialogue because it might offend someone, as per alice. The world is an offensive place to live in. How are we supposed to move forward if we can't have a dialogue about anything? Maybe we should describe the holocaust as delicately as possible.

Furthermore, I'm one who's always going to call attention to that essential difference between my life and the lives of outward public oppression in the world. I'm always going to fight for someone's ability to get their rocks off to any politically incorrect thing under the sun - as long as they realize the difference between being forced and not really being forced and as long as they remain people who give a shit about a real-world Darfur.

IE: If you don't like me playing Nazis and Partisans in my house, start with a donation to Amnesty, get real.

Thanks Netzach. I daresay there are links to areas of imprisonment as well. After all, they are all areas which include a power imbalance, and one which can have dire outcomes for those who do not play the game right. Wonder where stocks originated. They were certainly in use in bonny England before they were brought to America and Oz, and for some they are part of their D/s play. LOL, I am seriously thinking of making some...sheesh, what is it about me that draws me to obtaining or making these things I dread, and then living to rue the impulse?

Catalina

 

[bridgeburner]

I'm always going to fight for someone's ability to get their rocks off to any politically incorrect thing under the sun - as long as they realize the difference between being forced and not really being forced and as long as they remain people who give a shit about a real-world Darfur.

IE: If you don't like me playing Nazis and Partisans in my house, start with a donation to Amnesty, get real.

Since I couldn't be the one to say it I can at least repeat it.


-B

 

[alice_underneath]

The intention may be well meant

Thank you for acknowledging this, Catalina. I appreciate it very much.

Thank you also for offering a different point of view for me to contemplate.

Alice

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Okay well I am not sure how much of this information below is of benefit to the direction of this Thread as I am somewhere between completely lost and certain I am lost . However I am including it as a reference for us to share should aspects of it appear relevant.

A Complete Alternative Sexuality History Timeline

I did forward this link to Joe at the time of his post as I thought perhaps he might decipher what was more relevent, it seems he may be indisposed currently and I do not think he would mind me doing so.

Just to lighten things up a little there is the following extraction
"Ca. 1250 BC
The Ani Papyrus shows the rite of the "animation of the phallus." It appears to be one of the earliest recorded examples of a blow job."...........smiles​

 

[Kajira Callista]

If people are going to continue to play this thread by rugby rules then I am gonna start drop kicking for points.

rushes over to be the first in line.

 

[RJMasters]

Okay well I am not sure how much of this information below is of benefit to the direction of this Thread as I am somewhere between completely lost and certain I am lost . However I am including it as a reference for us to share should aspects of it appear relevant.

A Complete Alternative Sexuality History Timeline

I did forward this link to Joe at the time of his post as I thought perhaps he might decipher what was more relevent, it seems he may be indisposed currently and I do not think he would mind me doing so.

Just to lighten things up a little there is the following extraction
"Ca. 1250 BC
The Ani Papyrus shows the rite of the "animation of the phallus." It appears to be one of the earliest recorded examples of a blow job."...........smiles​

I liked the one about the brother who was a sculper and invented the famious boy peeing fountain.

I always wondered where that came from or who thought of it. Now I know.

Definately a different way of looking at history. Almost all of it had to do with sodomy of some sort.

Thanks for the read.

 

[RJMasters]

rushes over to be the first in line.

You don't get dropped kicked. You get thrown into the middle of the scrum.

 

[Kajira Callista]

You don't get dropped kicked. You get thrown into the middle of the scrum.

Don't tease the painslut that way RJ, it's not nice.

 

[PatPowers]

It's late and my brain is starting to stutter but I'm still having a hard time seeing that historical slavery has anything much to do with modern day BDSM at all unless you want to talk about who invented the brank.
-B

You've got a point, psychologically speaking. The nonconsensual nature of historical slavery meant that it was psychologically a very different experience for actual slaves in comparison to consensual slaves. It's very possible that the experience of having slavery imposed on one would make it impossible to feel the impulses that make slavery and submission psychologically rewarding for some. I'm not sure of that, but I am sure that most people who were enslaved felt it as a living hell.

That said, there's no reason why we can't study the forms of slavery in various historical times and pick and choose the stuff that interests us and use it in our fantasies. This has already happened to a large extent, and it's been going on for a while. Frex, I found record some time ago while trying to figure out the history of the ballgag that prostitutes in some French brothels in the 1800s wore a gag they called "the pear." It was named after an instrument or torture used in the Inquisition which, after being inserted in the mouth, was widened until the vitime gave up or his/her jaws were dislocated. The "pear" of the brothels was a relatively harmless affair, apparently just a carved wooden gag but it probably got some people off pretty good.

BTW, I really tried hard to find an origin for the modern ball gag when I was doing that research, but I couldn't manage to find any solid cites or facts. All I could come up with was that it probably followed the discovery and commercial exploitation of rubber back in the 1800s -- as soon as there were rubber balls, probably somebody made rubber ball gags.

The real reason I think the whole business of bondage and slavery is so touchy in the mainstream is that elements of it still permeate mainstream society. Slavery depended ultimately on not recognizing the humanity of slaves. They were as the Romans said, "Tools with voices." The Romans built a hierarchy with the Romans at the top and the slaves at the bottom. All the slaves ever did was work.

Now we must ask what about the poor people in our society, who often must work two jobs to make ends meet, leaving little or no time for personal lives? Just how far from a slave is someone who spends all their time asking "Do you want fries with that?" I'll grant you there's a real difference between that and slavery as practiced in the Old South, but not so much of a difference as most people think.

That's where the real touchiness on the subject lies, IMHO. Everybody who has ever worked in a low-status job knows it and feels it, and everybody who has ever been in charge of them has a desire not to know it and feel it, and most of all, not to acknowledge it.