'Selling' slaves... WTF?

[StrayKat]

Mine too - though from a different side of the auction block.

< drops eyes, blushes, & smiles >

Who do I discuss the price with?

 

[MisterSir]

Who do I discuss the price with?

Me. For, to quote Roger Daltrey (as I do whenever it's appropriate and often when it's not), one hundred English pounds.

 

[StrayKat]

Me. For, to quote Roger Daltrey (as I do whenever it's appropriate and often when it's not), one hundred English pounds.

Sold

 

[yourmissl]

Sold

Whaaa..... I missed the auction!

 

[StrayKat]

Whaaa..... I missed the auction!

Your presence was not relevant

 

[yourmissl]

Me. For, to quote Roger Daltrey (as I do whenever it's appropriate and often when it's not), one hundred English pounds.

Only one hundred pounds? I got 'flipped' for 100 measly pounds?


Hmmph. Should have tried me out first. You would have either kept me or gotten more.

Thank you very much, MisterSir. Hmmph.

 

[YourCaptor]

As much as I love and respect you, I have to disagree with the bolded statement. If he orders you to live with someone else, and even receives money from that person, it's still not selling. You went willingly to the new person. "Not supported by the law" is not the same thing as blatantly illegal. The fact is, no country in the world allows one human being to legally own another. You cannot sell what isn't legally your property. Just because there would be repercussions if you left doesn't mean you are his legal property. He can do with you as he sees fit, but in no sense can one human ever legally belong to another.

Remember Delia Day? It's come to light now that she was not everything she seemed to be - that the husband was doing most of the writing - but let's pretend that relationship was as genuine as it was portrayed to be. In the end, we saw that he did not own her. As much as their relationship may have seemed like owner/property, he did not own her. She was no less of a slave for this, and he was no less of a master. But he did not own her.

As much fun as it is, as profoundly devoted as we feel to each other, we have to keep some grounding in reality.

I think this gets more into property being a purely imaginary concept.

Really a claim to property is only as good as the power to back it up. In the modern world that power is usually the government. However government wont insure your claim over people. Unless they are kids or prisoners, then you can partially own them.

However ownership goes even further back then that. Its a part of human nature. We are territorial animals, we collect things as our own, probably cause we use tools so extensively. That instinctive act however does not exclude other humans. Historically, its very apparent that we do collect people as our own.

So, while one cannot be legally owned and one cannot have the legal right to own someone, its still possible to own someone outside of that, its just very hard to keep from getting squashed.

Also I think things with money get iffy because a slaves desire to be a slave in a new situation cannot be simply bought (... when the slave is not the one getting the money). To sell a slave changes much for that slave, and the negatives in the new situation may then outweigh the positive. At that point the slave is no longer... a slave.

We have got to get some better vocabulary here.

 

[00Syd]

We have got to get some better vocabulary here.

That's what I've been saying!

 

[subish2009]

Mmmmm, watching money exchange hands, and not having a say in it, is tingly.

But then, that was more selling services, pimping, than selling selling.

Agreed, I can see that being tingly even for myself, but only in a strict game sense. I'd have to be attracted to the guy, which means he'd have to be a very specific kind of dominant, I'd have to be endlessly reassured by my Dominant before the hand-off, it would have to be very temporary....endless consent issues.

I'm by far the least subby sub on this board, I think.

 

[00Syd]

I'm by far the least subby sub on this board, I think.

Heh. Don't be so sure.

 

[Etoile]

I think this gets more into property being a purely imaginary concept.

What about all the ones who say NOOOOOOO I really AM his property like REALLY FOR REAL AND STUFF and HE OWNS ME and it's really really REALLLLLLL...what about those? They really and truly believe it's not imaginary. But it is - which is why I keep saying we have to keep grounded in reality, even if it's fun to pretend sometimes.

 

[StrayKat]

What about all the ones who say NOOOOOOO I really AM his property like REALLY FOR REAL AND STUFF and HE OWNS ME and it's really really REALLLLLLL...what about those?

You pat them on the head and say "sure"?
Arguments with some people are exercise in futility.

 

[Aquila1]

You pat them on the head and say "sure"?
Arguments with some people are exercise in futility.

Exactly. Their imaginary worlds are very limited and have no grounding in reality.

A very dear friend of mine worked in SE Asia for a number of years working with young people (mainly girls but also some boys), who were caught up in the sex industry in Thailand and Burma. I visited her there and I recall I wept for two solid days - this was real slavery and I struggled to even comprehend it.

I can understand the fantasy aspect within play, but that is what it is - a fantasy. Kind of like playing computer games I guess - the norms and rules of reality are suspended. I could use religion as an example of 'reality' here but I won't.

 

[BiBunny]

It's interesting that lifestyle people want to define "property" literally, but not "slave" or "submissive" or other such terms. How many times do we say, "A slave or a sub is whatever the people in the relationship want to define it as," as opposed to the legal or dictionary definitions of the words? What makes these words different from "property," I wonder?

Just curious. I'm not trying to be combative, as I have no real attachment to any of those words myself because they all fail to define me.

 

[yourmissl]

Exactly. Their imaginary worlds are very limited and have no grounding in reality.

A very dear friend of mine worked in SE Asia for a number of years working with young people (mainly girls but also some boys), who were caught up in the sex industry in Thailand and Burma. I visited her there and I recall I wept for two solid days - this was real slavery and I struggled to even comprehend it.

I can understand the fantasy aspect within play, but that is what it is - a fantasy. Kind of like playing computer games I guess - the norms and rules of reality are suspended. I could use religion as an example of 'reality' here but I won't.

QFT

A few hours in Patpong is enough to change forever your definition of 'a hard life.' It is a bleeding, unstoppable tsunami of poverty and voracious despair. Yes, the girls are beautiful... actually so are most of the boys. Yes, they will try their best to 'ensorcel' your husband/mate with sex, lies, guilt, more sex, even more sex and scams of horrific proportions. No, they don't give a shit about you, your children or tearing apart your pleasant little life.... they are just trying to live - and maybe save their little sister and brother up in the wilds of the Northeast from having to take their place in a year or so after their own looks and health are ravaged.

Yes, I know this from personal experience, my husband 'falling in looove' with a girl closer in age to our then 9-year-old son than himself. It was a miserable time in my life, but now, over a decade later, the horror and anger I feel is directed not at her, but at my morally outraged fellow Christians who piously sneered at both her morals and the "misguided" compassion that led me to pay for her schooling after hubby, er,... fell out of love. After all, I'm just encouraging this sort of behavior, dontcha know. As if these girls give a shit what....

< takes deep breath and slowly climbs down from bandwagon >

Sorry... another hot button.

Still, you'd think they'd remember even Jesus preferred sluts to hypocrites.

 

[eastern sun]

Putting aside illegal human trafficking and the sex industry in Asia, slavery as it is experienced in BDSM is primarily a social agreement, often reinforced by some kind of contractual agreement that defines the parameters of the relationship.

Unless it's a marriage contract, it has no legal standing in a court of law. So, the relationship is still primarily a social agreement between the involved parties.

Now, I find the idea of being sold to another master totally hot, maybe especially if that master is not my idea of my perfect mate.

On the other hand, I have children. The idea of being "sold away" from my children is heartbreaking and unthinkable. Fortunately, though my husband's initial response to this thread was "how much could I get for you?," he would never consider it more than a joke, because of the devastating effects it would wreak in the lives he is responsible for.

If I did not have children, if my circumstances were different, I would object loudly to being sold, but I'd go. And I would commit myself to learning to serve the new master.

Then, if the new master turned out to be an irresponsible drunk, who abused me and showed no signs of respect, I would take a new look at the value of that social agreement I had made. I would have the law of the country on my side. I could leave.

But . . . would that new master let me?

The biggest problem I see in any of these situations is not the legal ramifications or the fantasy fixations, it's weeding through these complicated desires. What happens when you want to be abused? Aren't you in some way responsible for placing yourself in the abusive situation?

What happens if you only want to be abused to a certain degree, and then suddenly it goes too far?

What if you give up control and then lose control?

These seem to be the more salient features in the realm of slavery that thrives on this board.

 

[Etoile]

Then, if the new master turned out to be an irresponsible drunk, who abused me and showed no signs of respect, I would take a new look at the value of that social agreement I had made. I would have the law of the country on my side. I could leave.

But . . . would that new master let me?

Unless you were in a Colleen Stan type of situation, you could leave. You can always leave. Being "unable" to leave is another part of the fantasy world.

And don't get me wrong, people. I find consensual slavery, "selling" slaves, etc. just as hot as the rest of you. My god, I used to live it myself. But it's all a mindfuck. ALL of it. Some aspects more mindfuckery than others. But the whole thing is an elaborate dance that is REALLY REALLY HOT and can even be valuable/beneficial to both partners. But still a dance.

 

[BiBunny]

Unless you were in a Colleen Stan type of situation, you could leave. You can always leave. Being "unable" to leave is another part of the fantasy world.

And don't get me wrong, people. I find consensual slavery, "selling" slaves, etc. just as hot as the rest of you. My god, I used to live it myself. But it's all a mindfuck. ALL of it. Some aspects more mindfuckery than others. But the whole thing is an elaborate dance that is REALLY REALLY HOT and can even be valuable/beneficial to both partners. But still a dance.

Internal enslavement. Legally and physically, I can go. Heck, I don't even live with them. I walk out of their house on a regular basis. But emotionally and psychologically, I can't.

 

[Etoile]

Internal enslavement. Legally and physically, I can go. Heck, I don't even live with them. I walk out of their house on a regular basis. But emotionally and psychologically, I can't.

And I'm not suggesting you could in that sense. But if the pyl no longer feels connected to the relationship - if they WANT to leave - they can leave. You don't want to leave because it would emotionally break you. Not the same.

 

[BiBunny]

And I'm not suggesting you could in that sense. But if the pyl no longer feels connected to the relationship - if they WANT to leave - they can leave. You don't want to leave because it would emotionally break you. Not the same.

Absolutely. I was agreeing with you, though it didn't quite come out that way.

 

[Etoile]

Absolutely. I was agreeing with you, though it didn't quite come out that way.

Oh. Cool!

Now that we've kissed each other, can we make out? You're HOT.

 

[eastern sun]

Unless you were in a Colleen Stan type of situation, you could leave. You can always leave. Being "unable" to leave is another part of the fantasy world.

And don't get me wrong, people. I find consensual slavery, "selling" slaves, etc. just as hot as the rest of you. My god, I used to live it myself. But it's all a mindfuck. ALL of it. Some aspects more mindfuckery than others. But the whole thing is an elaborate dance that is REALLY REALLY HOT and can even be valuable/beneficial to both partners. But still a dance.

I totally agree. I just want to point out that this mindfuck can have real physical consequences.

It seems utterly conceivable that if master a sells slave a in all hotness to master b, but slave a decides he/she doesn't like master b, master b could decide to hurt slave a for failing to keep up his/her end of the agreement. Master b may not have the law on his side, but slave a is still hurt and/or damaged.

In other words, it's a mindfuck with potentially serious and damaging consequences.

 

[BiBunny]

Oh. Cool!

Now that we've kissed each other, can we make out? You're HOT.

*Giggles* Of course!

And you're hot, too!

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Agreed, I can see that being tingly even for myself, but only in a strict game sense. I'd have to be attracted to the guy, which means he'd have to be a very specific kind of dominant, I'd have to be endlessly reassured by my Dominant before the hand-off, it would have to be very temporary....endless consent issues.

I'm by far the least subby sub on this board, I think.

Heh, I think there's a few of us who'll jelly wrestle you for that title.

Admittedly, my case was definitely not for D/s play. There was some mild kink, but absolutely no bondage or hard play. He was a good looking guy, far too well hung. I was attracted to him, yes.

 

[Netzach]

I think it's like religion.

Just because something is abstract and symbolic doesn't mean it's not *important*

But I've always thought that "real" was the wrong litmus test.