'Selling' slaves... WTF?

[YourCaptor]

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.

It’s also fun to pretend that the USA owns a large portion of North America and that Trump owns a massive amount of imaginary goods that he could trade for just about anything real. People take that rather serious though.

While we’re at it lets also pretend that small rocks own bigger rocks, and that the moon owns mars.

Point is a master owning a slave is just as real as a Russia owning Moscow. Only difference is that when ownership is disputed only one of them has missiles to settle the argument.

 

[SimonBrooke]

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.

The point which YourCaptor was making (I think, forgive me if I've got this wrong) is that all property is more or less imaginary. We own something just if the people around us are prepared to accept we own it. If they don't share the belief, then the ownership isn't worth much. It's like all the historical pretenders to various monarhies. Each of them may well have believed that (s)he was the rightful King/Queen, but that didn't help them any because not enough other people shared their belief.

So, yes, if a slave believes that (s)he is owned and that (s)he has no rights to resist the actions of the owner, then (s)he is just as much right as you are when you say you own your car.

 

[rida]

You are all figment of my imagination.

I gave you the freedom to believe in ownership, sex and popsicles.
The fact is thou that, as soon as I wake up in the "real" world, you'll all be gone.

Will miss you thou ...



----------------------

Now to contribute to the discussion at hand.

Being "sold" or "rented" out is a very HOT fantasy.
Being pimped out, is also a very HOT fantasy (and Hubby and I dabble in some sort of close proximity ... but no money are involved).

I'd love to be feel owned to the point of total objectification, where I am just an object to use and abuse, and then trade or sell or give away when the PYL grows tired of me. It feeds my inner emotional masochist.

Practically thou life has too many strings. Too many social & life obligation claim their "ownership" on a piece of me. Any PYL will have to deal with those other "owners" in my life, such as :family, work, and so forth.

 

[JMohegan]

The point which YourCaptor was making (I think, forgive me if I've got this wrong) is that all property is more or less imaginary. We own something just if the people around us are prepared to accept we own it. If they don't share the belief, then the ownership isn't worth much. It's like all the historical pretenders to various monarhies. Each of them may well have believed that (s)he was the rightful King/Queen, but that didn't help them any because not enough other people shared their belief.

So, yes, if a slave believes that (s)he is owned and that (s)he has no rights to resist the actions of the owner, then (s)he is just as much right as you are when you say you own your car.

Peace, love, and communes, baby! I'm left, but I'm American left. If the discussion's gonna have any basis in reality, then "all property is imaginary" just doesn't pass the laugh test with me.

But semantics arguments and discussions of personal proclivities seem beside the point here. From the OP, aren't you talking about individuals whom you don't know, and with whom you have no direct contact of any kind?

If we were all standing around on a hill, watching a guy rip the clothes off a struggling female in the distance, would we be chatting about whether or how hot we find rape in fantasy, under what circumstances simulated "rape" would be hot, whether it would be hot in reality, and why we're wired that way? Or would we be pulling out our cell phones to call the police?

 

[Etoile]

Whoa now. People are starting to talk about the nature of property in general. I get what YC and SB are saying, but the point is, it does NOT require the people around me to accept that I own my car. The government has declared that I own my car (which I paid cash for, so it's ONLY mine). If I die, the car is property that can be inherited. It is an inanimate object. As for "Russia owning Moscow" - Russia is an imaginary entity made up of people, it is not A PERSON. Yes, the Russian army will defend if somebody tries to capture Moscow, because it is where many Russian people live and work, and there are resources there. (I play Civilization IV a lot.) But nobody OWNS a city. You cannot OWN a collection of things that belong to someone else. The buildings in Moscow are inanimate objects owned by their human owners, nobody can "lay claim" to the entire city without the handover of its contents to the mass owner. An individual.

We're talking about people owning people here. Not the same thing AT ALL as people owning inanimate objects, or states owning cities.

I'll grant you that pets are a bit of a gray area, the "intrinsic value" of non-human pets exists, but they are also incapable of providing for their own subsistence like wild animals.

I can't believe people are even making the comparison between owning a car and "owning" a person. Nowhere in the world can anybody own another person. I've said that before. Most world governments allow people to own their own property, but PEOPLE are explicitly excluded from the definition of "property" - oh hai 13th Amendment.

 

[Netzach]

Right. You cannot own another human being.

However, people are also granted, at least in the US whatever freaky deaky belief system gets them through the day. And often money is involved in vast insane quantities.

So I think that this is one of those things that exists in both worlds, when we're talking about consensually entered upon slavery.

 

[Etoile]

If anybody wants to prove to me that they are property by getting themselves sold off, please do it. I'll report it to law enforcement and then we'll see just how owned you are.

wow, this topic has got me kind of angsty, that's unusual for me

 

[Netzach]

When it comes to individuals I don't know online at a fetish/sex related site and in the absence of more information, I'm assuming a lot of Jergens lotion and tissues are the driving force.

 

[Netzach]

I'm also feeling angstful. Because beat me cage me dry ass fuck me every day is FINE but the moment someone pulls out a wallet the collective ass of the community puckers and goes oh noes.

 

[Etoile]

I'm also feeling angstful. Because beat me cage me dry ass fuck me every day is FINE but the moment someone pulls out a wallet the collective ass of the community puckers and goes oh noes.

Not me - I think trading money for sex can be hot. What I'm saying is that it's not "selling" because you cannot "sell" people. It's two gifts, not a "sale" at all. And no, the master isn't the one giving the gift - the slave is the one giving of themselves and going willingly.

 

[Netzach]

Not me - I think trading money for sex can be hot. What I'm saying is that it's not "selling" because you cannot "sell" people. It's two gifts, not a "sale" at all. And no, the master isn't the one giving the gift - the slave is the one giving of themselves and going willingly.

My own butt pucker is mainly motivated by the fact that there are people who seek, want and NEED that level of flippancy in the control exerted over them. There aren't a TON of them, but they're out there, and they're often very capable people.

I don't like the idea of comparing that kind of transaction to trafficking, because I agree, it's insulting to actually trafficked humans. I think the comparison itself is absurd.

 

[Primalex]

If anybody wants to prove to me that they are property by getting themselves sold off, please do it. I'll report it to law enforcement and then we'll see just how owned you are.

I think your logic is flawed. You declare that you can't sell someone, because it's illegal and law enforcement will stop it when they find out. Using this logic, rapeing a woman is not possible, because it's illegal and law enforcement will stop it when they find out.

 

[Cattypuss]

If your right of ownership cannot be legally defended, it's not legal ownership.

And you can't legally sell what you don't legally own.

N'est-ce pas?

 

[Etoile]

I think your logic is flawed. You declare that you can't sell someone, because it's illegal and law enforcement will stop it when they find out. Using this logic, rapeing a woman is not possible, because it's illegal and law enforcement will stop it when they find out.

Your interpretation of my logic is flawed. You're basing it on the premise that selling is something that is physically impossible. Obviously it's not. You're welcome to try. And you would be arrested for it just like rape.

 

[Primalex]

Your interpretation of my logic is flawed. You're basing it on the premise that selling is something that is physically impossible. Obviously it's not. You're welcome to try. And you would be arrested for it just like rape.

Okay, I just checked it.

(1)(a) A person is guilty of trafficking in the first degree when:

(i) Such person:

(A) Recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means another person knowing that force, fraud, or coercion as defined in RCW 9A.36.070 will be used to cause the person to engage in forced labor or involuntary servitude;

Force? Fraud? Coercion?

 

[00Syd]

Well, if we're going to talk about legality... Its not legal for me to hit another person with a paddle here in Massachusetts, and I can not legally consent to being hit, and anyone who does hit me with a paddle could possibly be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. That sure as shit doesn't stop me, or any of the other thousands of kinky people living in the state, from hitting each other.

And I'm sure that the illegality of slavery and selling human beings isn't going to do too much to deter any couple for whom (consensual M/s) slavery is part of their sexual/romantic relationship.

I'm not trying to argue whether it is right or wrong, only saying that, IMO, legality is often (not always, but often) irrelevant when discussing BDSM-type actions.

 

[Homburg]

There is no actual rights of ownership. You don't really own any physical thing irrevocably. Your car can be repossessed, taken for tax reasons, towed because it was in the wrong spot. You can legally be denied possession of it, thus you do not have a true ownership of it. Your house is certainly not yours while you pay on it, and, once you do pay it off, it is only yours so long as you pay taxes on it. Or until the government decides to build a new thoroughfare through your yard and invokes Eminent Domain.

The extent to which you own anything at all ends where your ability to keep someone else from legally taking it ends.

Property ownership is a consensual concept, and only works so long as the social contract is followed by individuals, and so long as the government wants the property less than you do.

Consensual slavery is likewise a consensual construct. The problem here is that the consensus is much, much smaller than in the case of, oh, a property to which you have the deed.

 

[Etoile]

Well, if we're going to talk about legality... Its not legal for me to hit another person with a paddle here in Massachusetts, and I can not legally consent to being hit, and anyone who does hit me with a paddle could possibly be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. That sure as shit doesn't stop me, or any of the other thousands of kinky people living in the state, from hitting each other.

And I'm sure that the illegality of slavery and selling human beings isn't going to do too much to deter any couple for whom (consensual M/s) slavery is part of their sexual/romantic relationship.

I'm not trying to argue whether it is right or wrong, only saying that, IMO, legality is often (not always, but often) irrelevant when discussing BDSM-type actions.

I guess what I am trying to say both here and with the rape example is that it's not the illegality of the act itself, but the fact that it starts from a false premise. Rape is illegal, you can do it anyway. Paddling is illegal, you can do it anyway. But if you think you own someone and can sell them, you can't do it, because you DON'T own them to start with.

Homburg's point about actual rights of ownership is a good one, but I don't think repossession disproves ownership, it just removes ownership. You owned it until you did the thing that caused it to be repossessed, and then you don't own it anymore. Having something repossessed is a penalty for a wrong, not a statement that "you never owned this in the first place."

 

[JMohegan]

I guess what I am trying to say both here and with the rape example is that it's not the illegality of the act itself, but the fact that it starts from a false premise. Rape is illegal, you can do it anyway. Paddling is illegal, you can do it anyway. But if you think you own someone and can sell them, you can't do it, because you DON'T own them to start with.

Homburg's point about actual rights of ownership is a good one, but I don't think repossession disproves ownership, it just removes ownership. You owned it until you did the thing that caused it to be repossessed, and then you don't own it anymore. Having something repossessed is a penalty for a wrong, not a statement that "you never owned this in the first place."

You are right.

Fucking and paddling both have meaning apart from the issue of whether the activity is legal or not. In contrast, legality is part of the construct of ownership itself.

Ownership.

I don't have the right to hang out in my neighbor's living room, or plant bushes in his yard, or take his Audi for a spin.... unless he gives me permission to do those things. Why? Because he owns that house, that land, that car, and enjoys the rights of ownership that confer thereto.

I can pretend he has no rights of ownership, but if I take his Audi and he presses charges, then I will face the tangible consequences of my fantasy.

 

[Etoile]

You are right.

Fucking and paddling both have meaning apart from the issue of whether the activity is legal or not. In contrast, legality is part of the construct of ownership itself.

Whew...I was starting to feel like Don Quixote a bit there.

 

[Homburg]

Homburg's point about actual rights of ownership is a good one, but I don't think repossession disproves ownership, it just removes ownership. You owned it until you did the thing that caused it to be repossessed, and then you don't own it anymore. Having something repossessed is a penalty for a wrong, not a statement that "you never owned this in the first place."

Not quite. If it is repossessed, this implied that the lien on the property went into default. Most people will say that they own something when they are still making payments on it. If there is a lien on the property, you don't own it. The lender (or other agency) does. You cannot dispose of the property, sell it, drastically harm it, etc. It is not yours. If you do, you will face legal repercussions. Thus, while you may say "I own my house," as an expression to indicate that you are not a renter, you do not even remotely own it so long as there is a lien on it.

In other words, you didn't own it in the first place. Wrong committed or not, it was not yours to begin with, else they could not have repossessed it.

 

[Etoile]

Not quite. If it is repossessed, this implied that the lien on the property went into default. Most people will say that they own something when they are still making payments on it. If there is a lien on the property, you don't own it. The lender (or other agency) does. You cannot dispose of the property, sell it, drastically harm it, etc. It is not yours. If you do, you will face legal repercussions. Thus, while you may say "I own my house," as an expression to indicate that you are not a renter, you do not even remotely own it so long as there is a lien on it.

In other words, you didn't own it in the first place. Wrong committed or not, it was not yours to begin with, else they could not have repossessed it.

Hmm. I guess I misunderstood "once you do pay it off, it is only yours so long as you pay taxes on it" - I admit I am not a financial wizard.

Okay, so in the case of repossession, I agree with you - if the car or house isn't paid off, it isn't yours, it's the bank's. I know that. But in every other case of ownership - like the laptop I'm typing on or the shoes I'm wearing - just because somebody takes them away as a penalty doesn't mean they weren't mine. It just means I did something wrong, and the punishment is loss of my stuff.

But people still can't own people. Period. This shouldn't even be a question, from a legal standpoint. You can act as if the slave is owned, but it's an illusion.

 

[Homburg]

I don't have the right to hang out in my neighbor's living room, or plant bushes in his yard, or take his Audi for a spin.... unless he gives me permission to do those things. Why? Because he owns that house, that land, that car, and enjoys the rights of ownership that confer thereto.

I can pretend he has no rights of ownership, but if I take his Audi and he presses charges, then I will face the tangible consequences of my fantasy.

Can your neighbour rent a backhoe and dig a 50' deep pit in his front yard? Hell, can he even rent a backhoe and dig a shallow trench in his front yard?

Can your neighbour take a sledgehammer to his Audi and bash the shit out of it in his front yard?

You cannot indulge in a fantasy of no ownership because you do not have the right to. You are as mired in the consensual construct as he is. I am not claiming that you, as an individual, can intercede in anyone else's affairs. But the government can, and does quite frequently.

If the government can claim Eminent Domain, you do not own your property. If some organisation has a lien on your property, it is not your property. This is not a fantasy. This is just an argument against the fallacy of private ownership of anything in a country in which private property rights are not protected, and the unrelated fallacy far too many people operate under that their car/house/boat is theirs while they're still making payments.

Fucking and paddling both have meaning apart from the issue of whether the activity is legal or not. In contrast, legality is part of the construct of ownership itself.

As an aside, I do agree with this part. Ownership of even the casual sort only matters if it is supported at some level by society at large. Society may not respect private ownership when it stands in their way, but they may defend your claims of ownership against other private citizens. Ownership in the M/s style is not publicly supported, thus is legally meaningless.

Though I'm still not sure who is arguing that it is legally meaningful, thus confusing me as to why this portion of the argument is even occurring.

 

[Homburg]

But in every other case of ownership - like the laptop I'm typing on or the shoes I'm wearing - just because somebody takes them away as a penalty doesn't mean they weren't mine. It just means I did something wrong, and the punishment is loss of my stuff.

Eminent Domain. Do everything right, pay your bills, pay your taxes. Whatever. The government can still claim Eminent Domain and take your property.

Hell, pay your bills, pay your taxes, do everything right. The DEA finds someone growing pot on the back forty of your unimproved rural property. The government can seize your assets, take away your land, etc. You did nothing wrong. Someone else planted the pot. Doesn't matter. They can take your shit.

But people still can't own people. Period. This shouldn't even be a question, from a legal standpoint. You can act as if the slave is owned, but it's an illusion.

Uh, sure. I wasn't arguing that.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm still a bit confused here.

If we're arguing dictionary definitions, practically nobody here is a "slave." None of us are "pets" because I'm thinking that implies us being animals. While I do sometimes wonder if some of the posters here aren't monkeys who learned to type, I'll still give them the benefit of the doubt until I'm proven wrong. Hell, we've appropriated the adjectives "dominant" and "submissive" and turned them into nouns, and sometimes, we even make up words.

So why's "property" the only word that's sacred in "You are whatever you want to call yourself, no matter how much you have to twist words and definitions to make it fit" Lit land?