Is "Slave" a misnomer?

[babyslut1]

Is slave a misnomer?

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...*

So true. I agree with You completely! No, I could not walk away, because I don't want to. My slavery is voluntary. But the question remains, is it slavery if it is voluntary?
-babyslut1

 

[babyslut1]

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.

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.

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 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

True. Yours is truly 24/7. But mine is not an option. I had the husband and kids before he came on the scene. And while we are together, I am completely slave, having to ask to use the bathroom, smoke, get a drink, having to eat on the floor, etc. I would, of course, prefer a relationship like yours, but kids come first. We are very lucky that we can both work around my life. I envy you your position, though I know it isn't easy.
-babyslut1

 

[babyslut1]

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....

Me, too!

 

[Tuomas]

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?

I won't get into the debate about the "misnomer", but I do think you need to do some research into how historically "slaves" were treated. I know that you are American, so it will probably be hard to get accurate information on this subject, but "historical" slavery was not at all how you describe it. I don't want to start a slavery debate, either, so I won't get into details. However, there is a huge popular misconception in regards to slavery, and if you want to make a rational, well-thought comparison between "historic" and BDSM slavery, I suggest you research the former.

 

[Netzach]

I won't get into the debate about the "misnomer", but I do think you need to do some research into how historically "slaves" were treated. I know that you are American, so it will probably be hard to get accurate information on this subject, but "historical" slavery was not at all how you describe it. I don't want to start a slavery debate, either, so I won't get into details. However, there is a huge popular misconception in regards to slavery, and if you want to make a rational, well-thought comparison between "historic" and BDSM slavery, I suggest you research the former.

The biography of Frederick Douglass seems a good start. What's the misconception? It's a bad idea to treat your human capital so poorly it doesn't function any longer, so I believe abuse was kept in check on the occasions it was mostly in the name of property value.

I don't think owners went out of their way to be as inhumane as possible at the cost of their farms, but I don't think they went out of their way to make sure these people were any more comfortable than pigs or horses.

Clearly, those who inspired others to break rank were expendable because the danger presented outweighed the benefit of not making an example of them.

Unless you're one of these people who think slavery the moon landing and the holocaust were all smoke and mirrors. In which case you are welcome to your "information."

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Netzach, by "historical" slavery I believe Toumas was refering to slavery in other historical (non-US) cultures, ie Greco-Roman slavery or Egyptian or Persian etc...

We in the United States have our perceptions of slavery colored by the abuses in our not-so-distant past.

 

[Kajira Callista]

How can people continually say a slave and a submissive are two different things.
A slave is not an alien from another planet or some kind of mindless freak in need of someone to think for them. They are not lower or any less a person then a sub, nor are they better then or more submissive then one.
A slave is a submissive who is owned.....period.
At least in my world that is the way it is.

 

[JMohegan]

Netzach, by "historical" slavery I believe Toumas was refering to slavery in other historical (non-US) cultures, ie Greco-Roman slavery or Egyptian or Persian etc...

We in the United States have our perceptions of slavery colored by the abuses in our not-so-distant past.

I'm guessing that Netzach has fairly strong opinions about slavery in ancient Egypt. I'll let her address that one if she chooses to, and pick Rome instead.

Galley slaves. Forced to row constantly and at high speed. Tied to the ship, so they went down with it if it sank.

Gladiators.

People rounded up in military conquests and taken thousands of miles from their homes.

Etc.

That all sounds "abusive" to me.

To say the least.

 

[Etoile]

All of this debate seems to be ignoring one very fundamental difference between historical slavery and modern slavery. One was legal, one is not.

Catalina described modern D/s slavery very well. There are other versions of modern slavery - indentured servants (eg, brought to the US and forced to "work it off"), human trafficking (including the sex trade), etc. But all of these modern versions have one thing in common: they are not legal contracts. There are no nations or states in the world that recognize slavery. People are bought and sold, it is true, but it is not legal.

Historical slavery, on the other hand, was quite legal. People were property - not their souls, but their bodies. Running away, while physically possible, was also illegal - although I'm sure the punishment of being returned was far more severe than anything the legal system could have come up with.

So let's put that into the debate of comparing historical and modern slavery. I think the issue of legality means that the two cannot be compared. Yes, modern slavery exists, but it cannot be compared to historical slavery, they are of profoundly different constructions. That's my two cents.

 

[lil_slave_rose]

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.

no,no, i was not saying my BDSM lifestyle slavery was anything like the non consensual slavery. i think you misunderstood. the only thing my first post was trying to prove was the mere fact that slave is not a misnomer in the lifestyle. obviously i'm not LEGALLY owned. and by owned that is not what i meant. i have given Master 'ownership' of me by offering my submission to Him. could i take it away at anytime? technically yes, which is why my slavery is nothing like that of non consensual. i hope this cleared it all up somewhat and that we are now on the same page i as i think we already were but had misunderstanding of terms.....

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Me, too!

then why question?

and what i mean is, if you are happy with your definition of 'slave' and as you said, are happy with it, why are you questioning if it's a misnomer??

 

[Netzach]

I'm guessing that Netzach has fairly strong opinions about slavery in ancient Egypt. I'll let her address that one if she chooses to, and pick Rome instead.

Galley slaves. Forced to row constantly and at high speed. Tied to the ship, so they went down with it if it sank.

Gladiators.

People rounded up in military conquests and taken thousands of miles from their homes.

Etc.

That all sounds "abusive" to me.

To say the least.

Yeah, though there *are* differences. Just look at the main difference in slavery in Latin America versus the US: the children of slaves and masters were *free* in one culture, remained slaves in the other. (Dred Scott was 1/16th black) That's going to play out in really different ways.

Ancient Hebrews certainly had slaves, though they seemed to have a lot of laws about what you could and couldn't do with them, as well as provisions for slaves who *wanted* to remain slaves after a certain period of indenture was over. (Apparently they agreed for you to nail their earlobe to the doorstep and they were slaves for good.)

Frankly, figuring out what was and wasn't slavery in these contexts is an anthropology lesson and a half, and there's so much romanticization of the classical world the Near East, the Far East, etc. that it's really hard to sift.

 

[Netzach]

How can people continually say a slave and a submissive are two different things.
A slave is not an alien from another planet or some kind of mindless freak in need of someone to think for them. They are not lower or any less a person then a sub, nor are they better then or more submissive then one.
A slave is a submissive who is owned.....period.
At least in my world that is the way it is.

Pretty much jives with my experience. It's the little tip of objectification that makes the person *property* that creates the line. For me, this is typified in that I have the right to give H away to someone else for good, and the essential inequality in that I owe no explanations, quid-pro-quo or justifications in my actions. If I do any of these things, it's just me being the nice person I am and not to be taken for granted.

 

[JMohegan]

So let's put that into the debate of comparing historical and modern slavery. I think the issue of legality means that the two cannot be compared. Yes, modern slavery exists, but it cannot be compared to historical slavery, they are of profoundly different constructions.

The galley slaves in ancient Rome were part of a system of slavery that was both legal and nonconsensual, the latter term meaning in this context that they did not choose to be sitting there rowing those ships.

Modern slavery is illegal, but unfortunately still nonconsensual in many cases.

To me, comparing nonconsensual slavery to BDSM lifestyle slavery is like comparing actual rape to BDSM-style "rape". Some may try to make it look similar, feel similar, etc. No problem. But it's just not the same thing.

no,no, i was not saying my BDSM lifestyle slavery was anything like the non consensual slavery. i think you misunderstood.

I did misunderstand your post about Thomas Jefferson. Thank you for clarifying.

By the way, just FYI and in case you are interested, the evidence on the relationship between TJ and Sally Hemings is described as "not definitive", i.e., it has not been conclusively proved that she bore his children or even mated with him.

And just to correct one misconception in your earlier post, the Monticello website states: "Sally Hemings was never officially freed by Thomas Jefferson. It seems most likely that Jefferson's daughter Martha Randolph gave Sally 'her time,' a form of unofficial freedom that would enable her to remain in Virginia (the laws at that time required freed slaves to leave the state within a year)."

Other facts about Jefferson and slavery are as follows.

"By 1796, Jefferson owned about 170 slaves -- 50 living on his land in Bedford County and 120 in Albemarle County. The seventy adult slaves on the Monticello plantation were the foundation of Jefferson's labor system, performing the farming and household tasks, driving the wagons, constructing the buildings, and making items of wood and iron necessary for plantation and house.

Monticello's African-American laborers worked from dawn to dusk, six days a week. Only after their long work day, and on Sundays and holidays, could they follow their own pursuits. Music, dancing, and prayer meetings, as well as midnight excursions in search of wild honey, are mentioned in the records.

'Nothing would induce me to put my negroes out of my own protection,' Jefferson wrote in 1820. Like many of his contemporaries in Virginia, he held paternalistic views of his human property, feeling responsible for their welfare while doubting their ability to succeed in a free white world. He even advanced the 'suspicion,' in his Notes on the State of Virginia, that blacks were inferior to whites. Jefferson had strong scruples against selling slaves, while freeing 'persons whose habits have been formed in slavery,' he said, 'is like abandoning children.' Yet, economic difficulties forced him to sell almost one hundred slaves during his lifetime, and his death left the remainder unprotected. He freed or bequeathed freedom to only seven slaves, all skilled artisans who could be expected to prosper as free men. Because Jefferson died deeply in debt, most of the other members of the Monticello African-American community were sold at auction and dispersed among different owners in Albemarle and surrounding counties."

Source: here

 

[Daddyslilpet]

How can people continually say a slave and a submissive are two different things.
A slave is not an alien from another planet or some kind of mindless freak in need of someone to think for them. They are not lower or any less a person then a sub, nor are they better then or more submissive then one.
A slave is a submissive who is owned.....period.
At least in my world that is the way it is.

That's the way it is in my world too. It's like adding the word true in front of submissive or slave, doesn't make one better than or more submissive than anyone else either. However folks are real fond of doing that too.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

There is a definate line between consensual and nonconsensual.

I know which I choose...

 

[master_dstar]

slave Terms

As a long time slave Owner I have to say that term is mostly misused. All too many, IMO, are strong subs or mostly sex slaves.

As a TPE Master if sex is the primary focus that’s fine but it isn’t fully slave. That's closer to whore which is fine with Me however, now don’t get Me wrong if a sex slave is what is desired, required fine but I must say I wish people would more often use an additional indicator with the term slave since there are so many types/levels.

Enjoy your wonder-filled day

 

[Ebonyfire]

How can people continually say a slave and a submissive are two different things.
A slave is not an alien from another planet or some kind of mindless freak in need of someone to think for them. They are not lower or any less a person then a sub, nor are they better then or more submissive then one.
A slave is a submissive who is owned.....period.
At least in my world that is the way it is.

Actually a slave is a submissive, but a submissive is not always a slave. I have owned a few submissives in my time and they were not slaves. In other words, they did not go "there". Ownership does not always indicate slavery.

Eb

 

[Etoile]

As a long time slave Owner I have to say that term is mostly misused. All too many, IMO, are strong subs or mostly sex slaves.

As a TPE Master if sex is the primary focus that’s fine but it isn’t fully slave. That's closer to whore which is fine with Me however, now don’t get Me wrong if a sex slave is what is desired, required fine but I must say I wish people would more often use an additional indicator with the term slave since there are so many types/levels.

Enjoy your wonder-filled day

This is the "not a true slave" thing again. Because I clean my Daddy's bathroom when asked, that makes me more of a slave?

 

[babyslut1]

Link to slavery article

I won't get into the debate about the "misnomer", but I do think you need to do some research into how historically "slaves" were treated. I know that you are American, so it will probably be hard to get accurate information on this subject, but "historical" slavery was not at all how you describe it. I don't want to start a slavery debate, either, so I won't get into details. However, there is a huge popular misconception in regards to slavery, and if you want to make a rational, well-thought comparison between "historic" and BDSM slavery, I suggest you research the former.

Here is a link to a great article on slavery and the distinction between the political slave with no rights, and the house slave or servant, who is valued and in some cases considered part of the family; it is good to remember that the valuable slave is justified in history.

http://www.enslavement.org.uk/weblog/67220/
-babyslut1

 

[CoupleFun]

How can people continually say a slave and a submissive are two different things.
A slave is not an alien from another planet or some kind of mindless freak in need of someone to think for them. They are not lower or any less a person then a sub, nor are they better then or more submissive then one.
A slave is a submissive who is owned.....period.
At least in my world that is the way it is.

Methinks that you protest too much... I did not hear anyone say that a slave is any LESS than a sub, just different. I would never think that a slave was a freak, or anything like what you have described, merely someone in a different type of relationship than I am in. I try not to use terms like "my world" as we all are clouded by our own judgments, and perceptions, and can easily misinterpret a written comment when there is no need to do so.

My potential dom and I (I am married to one man and we are exploring the possibility of my being a sub to another man) had a very long talk the other day about the term slave vs. submissive and my $.02 on it is this... A slave has no choice, a sub does, even if the choice is not to exert one.

Like I said, just my $.02, looking to learn and grow and this appears to be a great place to do so...

 

[catalina_francisco]

Methinks that you protest too much... I did not hear anyone say that a slave is any LESS than a sub, just different. I would never think that a slave was a freak, or anything like what you have described, merely someone in a different type of relationship than I am in. I try not to use terms like "my world" as we all are clouded by our own judgments, and perceptions, and can easily misinterpret a written comment when there is no need to do so.

My potential dom and I (I am married to one man and we are exploring the possibility of my being a sub to another man) had a very long talk the other day about the term slave vs. submissive and my $.02 on it is this... A slave has no choice, a sub does, even if the choice is not to exert one.

Like I said, just my $.02, looking to learn and grow and this appears to be a great place to do so...

I think you might find what KC is referring to is the continual discussions around this topic that have taken place over the last few years on this and many other boards, and the inevitability of comparisons and 'levels or submission' people like to raise to measure their or other's relationships by instead of just being happy to be who they are and living the terms of their relationship which hopefully makes them happy, more so than worrying about whether they are outdoing slave a and/or sub b. If you go through the threads, you will find many posts by people who feel their way is the 'right' way, and/or they are the only (or one of the very few) 'true' or 'real' subs or slaves based on their own opinion and discounting all others as imitations of the role. I can think of one or two who didn't even try and disguise their view they were the best and were happy to tell the forum just how true a statement it was....according to them of course. It just gets a little worn after a year or 2 of it arising repeatedly.

Catalina http://www.world-of-smilies.com/wos_sonstige/generate.php0.php1.php0.php.png

 

[subtleone]

I can't answer but these are my muddled feelings:

I am a bit funny about the word Slave and I'm not entirely sure why. I don't think it applies to me; I am a submissive and I wish to make my Master happy no matter what, which on occasion is not necessarily what I need but from His pleasure I find great pleasure. I cannot get past the term Slave (in a BDSM sense) referring to giving everything about me over to him, I am not that far along my journey, nor do I know if I ever will be (When it is cold outside I want to be able to put on long socks!!!). When we first started this journey together her referred to me as his slave a few times and I took great pains to point out that I was not a slave, slipping out of role to do so.
Now after a short while along our journey, on occasion when I am entering a subspace type of feeling I want to blurt out that I am his Slave and he may take me as that from now on, but something always stops me .
Sorry completely unhelpful I know but some may share my views.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Now after a short while along our journey, on occasion when I am entering a subspace type of feeling I want to blurt out that I am his Slave and he may take me as that from now on, but something always stops me .
Sorry completely unhelpful I know but some may share my views.

I think it is very helpful both in explaining your views and feelings, not to mention taking it seriously enough to not allow yourself to make that statement in the moment only to want to retract it later. You share a similar view of the meaning of slave as we have in our relationship and F cautioned me and enforced thinking time on me before he accepted my offer because of the enormity of that committment. For me it was a good sign as I knew he was taking it just as seriously as I was, and that he wanted the same thing. I often feel I am not all I could be, but he pointed out this morning after he did something to me which we had talked about early on in our relationship of never doing due to risks and health issues, and my acceptance of him doing it and not protesting, that I showed him in those moments just how committed I was to being the best I can be for him. I guess it is the perfectionist in me which will never allow me to be satisfied with my performance.

Catalina http://www.fullsmilies.com/q/Smiley/asik/love0081.gif

 

[CoupleFun]

I think you might find what KC is referring to is the continual discussions around this topic that have taken place over the last few years on this and many other boards, and the inevitability of comparisons and 'levels or submission' people like to raise to measure their or other's relationships by instead of just being happy to be who they are and living the terms of their relationship which hopefully makes them happy, more so than worrying about whether they are outdoing slave a and/or sub b. If you go through the threads, you will find many posts by people who feel their way is the 'right' way, and/or they are the only (or one of the very few) 'true' or 'real' subs or slaves based on their own opinion and discounting all others as imitations of the role. I can think of one or two who didn't even try and disguise their view they were the best and were happy to tell the forum just how true a statement it was....according to them of course. It just gets a little worn after a year or 2 of it arising repeatedly.

Catalina http://www.world-of-smilies.com/wos_sonstige/generate.php0.php1.php0.php.png

New to lit, so please forgive a newbie mistake. I guess I just would hope that on a place such as this, we could really get past the petty squabbles of the "real" world's judgements and ick. No offense meant or taken.

Having just had this talk with my dom, it gave me a lot to think about, he knows that he has as much of me that anyone can, just in a different way than my husband. He prefers that I have the will and ability to walk away from him and CHOOSE not to. I know this isn't the right way, or everyone's way and I am ok with that.

Thanks, Catalina, for pointing out the reasons behind KC's statement and I really look forward to learning more here at Lit...

back to hiding...