where did you first hear the terms for BDSM?

[Stella_Omega]

What I, in fact, feel most deeply ashamed of is the fact that I get turned on whenever I read accounts of gang rape in the Congo, white slave rings in Russia, forced marriage in south Asia and sex crimes in NYC. I have often used the newspaper to masturbate.

Yeah... I don't go looking for news to beat off to, but once in a while some atrocity hits a button for a moment and I get that reflex.

But you know what, there's plenty of stuff produced specifically for my kinks, so that I can treat the REAL THING with anger and regard for human dignity as I should.

 

[Soumis]

I first heard the terms on the story side of lit. After finding the bdsm category hit a few too many buttons I ordered Different Loving for further reading. I found my rabbit hole in an area group that met regularly. I feel like there wasn't a preference for Dom/sub or Top/bottom or anything else for that matter in the group. I identified as a bottom initially. I was under the naive impression that subs did things that I wasn't ready to try starting out.

I think that most of the assumptions about top and bottom are that they have nothing to do with power exchange, and are therefore less 'serious' than people who ID as D or s because they more explicitly play with the "heavy" power stuff. But I think that those sorts of assumptions are easier to dismiss than the ones attached to D/s roles. But then again, I could just think that because I've personally had a lot of issues with the ideas and assumptions attached to D/s roles, and less experiences with the Top/bottom part of it.

And yeah, I think that assumptions can be extremely harmful, especially when they are so, so entrenched, and they are the first things that most people encounter. When people are new, the last thing they need is to be told that all of these different, and often arbitrary things must apply to them if they have an interest in a particular role, or sexuality.

Also, many assumptions are at the root of so much mistreatment and bad behavior in the scene. From ignoring someone because they are wearing a collar, to spanking someone without asking, or worse.

You nailed my first impression about titles when I was a newbie.

I've referred to myself as a bottom with a nurturing fetish before.

I have no qualms with the word itself, but I don't like it's links to to the term 'passive' cos that word rankles me.

I came across this feeling when I started posting on lit, but not prior. It does indeed rankle. I started to think that if that's what a bottom was then I didn't want to identify as one.

Nowadays, I'm going the opposite direction where I actually have a distaste of sorts for the term submissive. I like to think that I can be submissive, but that I am not a submissive. At least not at this point in my life. So I suppose if I had to stick a label on it would read, bottom - sometimes submissive[adjective]." I prefer to use PYL and pyl here though as it allow a lovely breadth of ambiguity.

To me, I find the word "bottom" degrading. Worse than slave. A slave with no value. And Top makes me think of a circus for some reason. But whatever floats your boat. I'm not a fan of PYL/pyl either.

/baffled

 

[where]

Wow. When you put it like that it makes me hate myself. Maybe I should change. Fundamentally. Maybe I'm deep down wrong to play this game. It seems morally indefensible.

No, not wrong at all. the fact you recognise it as a game makes all the difference.

and I didn't mean to make you hate yourself.

That's the Starving Children In China argument. It's a good one-- but you can't get send your spaghetti to China, can you?

You can support anti-global slavery efforts while you enjoy a lifestyle that has a superficial similarity to some of the things people think of when they think of "slavery."

It's not quite the same as 'eat your dinner, there are children starving'. It's to make some people who don't see that what they are doing is, essentially a game
played out by a privileged subset (ha!) of society, recognise it as such. I get a bit cheesed off when some 'slaves' earnestly tell me that they have no choice, they have no consent, that they are completely owned and equate that with real slavery.

What I, in fact, feel most deeply ashamed of is the fact that I get turned on whenever I read accounts of gang rape in the Congo, white slave rings in Russia, forced marriage in south Asia and sex crimes in NYC. I have often used the newspaper to masturbate.

I don't get turned on by real life accounts, but since I was a kid a lot of my fantasies have revolved around sexual slavery and rape. There is a big difference between getting off on the idea of something and getting off on the reality of it.

 

[eastern sun]

No, not wrong at all. the fact you recognise it as a game makes all the difference.

I feel you dismiss the nature of my experience too lightly. Though I deeply and correctly understand the difference between an "idea" and "reality," my sexuality does not feel like a parlor game.

The years I've lived like this have given me incredible opportunities to work with both abused women and women in forced marriages primarily because I understood the realities in their life. And they trusted me because they could tell.

Literally, tell me what was going on inside their head without risking judgement. Not every woman shares the same opinions. Not every woman is in the same position of freedom and power.

 

[eastern sun]

Yeah... I don't go looking for news to beat off to, but once in a while some atrocity hits a button for a moment and I get that reflex.

But you know what, there's plenty of stuff produced specifically for my kinks, so that I can treat the REAL THING with anger and regard for human dignity as I should.

We are looking at the same beast from two different ends. I think I've accepted that violence is too deeply ingrained in the human experience for me to be able to have a significant impact (except by transforming my own actions), so my concern has always been in any community's treatment of its "victims."

What has always appalled me, for instance, is not the systematic war rapes themselves, but the rejection of the girls by their families and communities afterward.

There are economic issues and desires for power that need to be addressed for any real change to occur in those cultures that foster violence. And we, here in the Western world, are contributing to those issues just by existing. I applaud genuine efforts to rectify social inequities, and have to assume that your concern about D/s power exchanges in hetero relationships is based on its reinforcement of male power structures.

I'm interested in empowering women within the male power structures that already exist. And I'm very interested in discovering what women want. I have tremendous faith in women's wisdom, and think most girls are cut off from it during adolescence as they turn their attention towards the boys.

 

[where]

I feel you dismiss the nature of my experience too lightly. Though I deeply and correctly understand the difference between an "idea" and "reality," my sexuality does not feel like a parlor game.

The years I've lived like this have given me incredible opportunities to work with both abused women and women in forced marriages primarily because I understood the realities in their life. And they trusted me because they could tell.

Literally, tell me what was going on inside their head without risking judgement. Not every woman shares the same opinions. Not every woman is in the same position of freedom and power.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to dismiss your experience or lifestyle choice at all or imply that it is something you only play at once in a while. I accept that women who are in forced marriages may find it easier to relate to you, but the big difference is, is they had no choice in the matter, whereas you (and I am making a bit of an assumption here, I admit) made the knowing choice to live that way. So you, as a privileged western woman, actually do have a large degree of freedom and power, which is my point I suppose.

and I know this may sound like I'm being hard faced and judgemental about you personally, but I'm really talking more generally and actually thinking of other 'slaves' I've met in the past.

 

[VelvetSin]

It seems to me that most hetero newbies who show up here talks about doms and subs, and not tops and bottoms-- as I do, because I come from a different tradition.

Furthermore, they "know" that these are innate qualities, that last a lifetime...

Where does this come from? Where do you guys get your information from, when you first start looking? What are you reading, who talks to you? Did you ever hear the terms top and bottom?

What differences do you think exist between a top and a dom, a bottom and a sub?

As it was explained to me, Top is similar to Dominant and bottom is similar to submissive, and while they can overlap, they are not perfectly synonymous. Dominant and submissive are the terms used when the mental side of an exchange takes place, and Top and bottom are the terms used when it is mostly physical. In other words, Dominant and submissive terms apply to D/s power exchanges where dominance and submission take place (can include some S/M but the primary bent of the relationship is D/s). Top and bottom are terms applied to those participating in an S&M exchange that does not necessarily involve much power exchange (can include some D/s but is mostly S/M). A Dominant can also be a Top and a submissive can also be a bottom, but someone does not always wear both terms.

I can't say exactly when I heard the terms themselves, but the above definitions were given fairly recently. I picked up Dominant and submissive somewhere along the line a long time ago from maybe media or books or conversations. I have no idea when I heard them first. Top and bottom made their way into the vocabulary somewhere over the past few years of B and my chitchats. It's just in the past few months that I started reading various books and here on Lit that I saw a complete lack of consistency with the term usages and asked him how he used them. While the above are his definition, I get that they're not everyone's. That's why I like PYL/pyl when writing something here on Lit. People seem to get their panties and boxers twisted about far too frequently over words that obviously have inconsistent definitions from reader to reader.

I personally use submissive in reference to myself because it rolls off the tongue easier than "sincere enjoyer of Dominance and submission play but also likes to be beat soundly for His entertainment (and her own), but sometimes just likes to be beat without the power exchange, and sometimes likes a service aspect, and sometimes can understand the 'slave' appeal but not all the time." The former single-word term is just easier to say than the latter billionty-two-something word 'term.'

 

[SimonBrooke]

Control freak works for me. If people want to be polite about it, they can refer to me as a "guy with control issues." But the bottom line is: if I'm not in control, I'm not playing.

Ha! Look at that. A firm & forceful use for the word bottom.

I think I started down this path because I was an (uptight) guy with control issues. Now I'm no longer nearly so uptight and I honestly don't think control issues drive me any more. But I'm still down this path, and I'm happy here.

I think Domina is worse than Domme. But that's just me.

'Dominie' and 'Domina' in Scots are just old fashioned words for school teachers. It's hard to get an erotic charge out of that, for me. (edited to add - since I started writing this post, and quite coincidentally, my plaything called me 'dominie'. I liked it.)

I like PYL/pyl because I have no fucking clue what I am, so that fits. I really don't much like 'bottom' either. and like lizzie says it has connotations of passivity to me.

The problem with PYL/pyl is that although they work here, as text, among people who know what they mean, they really don't communicate in the wider world.

A fortnight ago I first seriously said 'I am a sadist' to a vanilla friend. I've always had trouble with the label 'sadist', because I'm uncomfortable with the fact that I enjoy causing pain. I don't like that in myself. But 'sadist' is the most widely understood label that applies to me, and it felt liberating to own it. And as I've processed that, I think it's a label I'm going to admit to more often in future.

That's the Starving Children In China argument. It's a good one-- but you can't get send your spaghetti to China, can you?

You can support anti-global slavery efforts while you enjoy a lifestyle that has a superficial similarity to some of the things people think of when they think of "slavery."

Slavery is a statement of ownership of one person by another. Of course, slavery often entails abuse. But the word 'slavery' does not refer to the abuse, it refers to the ownership. Not everyone who keeps a dog beats it, or starves it, or neglects it. The fact that some dogs are beaten, or starved, or neglected does not make someone who does not beat their dog any less of a dog owner. There have been places and times (I think classical Rome was one, but I'm not certain) where it was legal to own a slave, but slaves nevertheless had legal protection from many forms of abuse.

If someone honestly believes they are property, that they must obey their owner and that if sold to another owner they have no choice but to go, then as far as I'm concerned they're a slave. Slavery and abuse are entirely orthogonal concepts.

 

[ownedsubgal]

]




precisely. and even if in your relationship you are under that kind of control, it is still fictitious compared with what 'real' slaves undergo.

what are you saying "precisely" to? i did not say that i am not a real slave, i said that i am not a "BDSM" slave, whatever that means. i do not live a BDSM lifestyle, therefore i do not identify with the use of the term slavery within that context.

]

as an illustration, your (using 'your' generically) master decides he's bored of you, and decides that you are going to be sold to some guy 300 miles away. this not only means you and your children have to uproot, but you then discover that your new master is HIV+ and prefers to have anal bareback.

My guess is that any 'slave' will suddenly discover a degree of agency and get the fuck out of that relationship.

you sure do make a heck of a lot of assumptions. if a person is truly owned, and to be very specific, by owned i mean they are entirely subject to the authority of another, and that is the life they know, then no they would not get the flock out of that relationship. they would be emotionally, mentally, and perhaps even physically (depending on how they are kept) unable to do so.

because i gave myself to him, my Master has the right to do what he pleases with me, including selling me. it would never occur to me to attempt to find some way out of such a situation...what would be the point or purpose in that? the reality also is that if he did not want me anymore, i honestly could not care less if he wanted to give me to a schizophrenic HIV+ baboon to live out the rest of my days in the jungle...nothing would matter to me at that point.

]
I wonder what real slaves would think about pampered western women playing at slavery and saying that non-consent is not an issue, as they get raped every day of their lives against their consent (because as you say, consent does exist within a slave's life, it just means it isn't taken into consideration), often kept in line with threats of violence, not just against their own person, but against their families.

slavery is not a game to be played, at least not in my world. i do not diminish the experiences of all the women and girls who are forced to endure atrocities beyond any semblance of humanity, entirely against their will. consent does make a huge difference, a tremendous difference...in the quality of one's life, in the sense of one's emotional well being and sanity, in the sense of morality and ethics...but NOT in the definition of slavery itself.

i understand eastern sun well when she tells of how comfortable the abused women she worked to help felt with her, because they could sense that she related. at the desire of my Master's mother (who has fought all her life to empower girls and women, but also strongly believes in female submission in the Christian sense), for a short time i volunteered at a local women's shelter. well if you can call it volunteering...mostly just helped organize and dole out food and clothing donations, and assisted with domestic stuff like cleaning. i mostly kept to myself, but just as eastern sun experienced, many of the women sensed a connection with me. it actually became extremely uncomfortable. i felt like somewhat of a hypocrite, helping this organization while living a very similar way of life myself. these women were being counseled almost daily that control is not love, hitting is not love, that they deserved certain treatment from a mate. everything i lived, everything i believed in was the model for the monstrous, abusive type of relationship these women needed to stay away from.

after a couple of months my Master agreed that i needed to stop going.

 

[where]

The problem with PYL/pyl is that although they work here, as text, among people who know what they mean, they really don't communicate in the wider world.
I don't ever go out into the wider world. I would rather die than attend a munch and whilst I have attended fetish sex clubs, I have always been ambiguous in my status.


Slavery is a statement of ownership of one person by another. Of course, slavery often entails abuse. But the word 'slavery' does not refer to the abuse, it refers to the ownership. Not everyone who keeps a dog beats it, or starves it, or neglects it. The fact that some dogs are beaten, or starved, or neglected does not make someone who does not beat their dog any less of a dog owner. There have been places and times (I think classical Rome was one, but I'm not certain) where it was legal to own a slave, but slaves nevertheless had legal protection from many forms of abuse.

If someone honestly believes they are property, that they must obey their owner and that if sold to another owner they have no choice but to go, then as far as I'm concerned they're a slave. Slavery and abuse are entirely orthogonal concepts.

that's the issue though between being a slave and playing the role of a slave. A slave is actually owned by someone and can be used or abused and tossed away by that person as they see fit. Someone who plays at it does so on the basis of consent. they can, if they so wish, walk out any time they want. Hence my original scenario of being 'given' away to someone you know will end up killing you. You may choose to still go ahead with it, just like the guys who chose to be canibalised in germany, but it is a choice the play slave is making. A real slave has no choice in the matter and that is why so many of them end up in a bad way, to say the least.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As it was explained to me, Top is similar to Dominant and bottom is similar to submissive, and while they can overlap, they are not perfectly synonymous. Dominant and submissive are the terms used when the mental side of an exchange takes place, and Top and bottom are the terms used when it is mostly physical. In other words, Dominant and submissive terms apply to D/s power exchanges where dominance and submission take place (can include some S/M but the primary bent of the relationship is D/s). Top and bottom are terms applied to those participating in an S&M exchange that does not necessarily involve much power exchange (can include some D/s but is mostly S/M). A Dominant can also be a Top and a submissive can also be a bottom, but someone does not always wear both terms.

That's close to the way I understand the terms, as well. But to me, top and bottom include dominance and submission.

I can't say exactly when I heard the terms themselves, but the above definitions were given fairly recently. I picked up Dominant and submissive somewhere along the line a long time ago from maybe media or books or conversations. I have no idea when I heard them first. Top and bottom made their way into the vocabulary somewhere over the past few years of B and my chitchats. It's just in the past few months that I started reading various books and here on Lit that I saw a complete lack of consistency with the term usages and asked him how he used them. While the above are his definition, I get that they're not everyone's. That's why I like PYL/pyl when writing something here on Lit. People seem to get their panties and boxers twisted about far too frequently over words that obviously have inconsistent definitions from reader to reader.

Yeah... Which is why I started this thread, because I get my panties in a twist when I see young women talking about "sub" when it's obvious they mean "bottom." Since women of my generation have such a hard time fighting the social pressure to submit in general, yanno? I'm trying to understand what these girls mean by the word.

I personally use submissive in reference to myself because it rolls off the tongue easier than "sincere enjoyer of Dominance and submission play but also likes to be beat soundly for His entertainment (and her own), but sometimes just likes to be beat without the power exchange, and sometimes likes a service aspect, and sometimes can understand the 'slave' appeal but not all the time." The former single-word term is just easier to say than the latter billionty-two-something word 'term.'

I would call you a bottom if you were part of my tradition...

 

[VelvetSin]

I would call you a bottom if you were part of my tradition.

I guess that's why PYL and pyl are what I prefer to use in these here forums. It would be hard to define in words here exactly how I "work" to assign one specific term. I use the term submissive because that is what he calls me. He also sometimes calls me his little girl, though we don't have a Daddy/daughter arrangement. He also sometimes calls me his little slut, though we're not poly and he insists he's greedy and doesn't like to share his toys. He also calls me his plaything. Any of those terms could also apply. I go with what he uses, because he has the most accurate picture of how I work and function and because he is Him and his opinion is the one that counts in my happy little world. For Lit use, I'll stick with pyl because sometimes I bottom and sometimes I am submissive and sometimes I do both.

 

[where]

what are you saying "precisely" to? i did not say that i am not a real slave, i said that i am not a "BDSM" slave, whatever that means. i do not live a BDSM lifestyle, therefore i do not identify with the use of the term slavery within that context.
I was refering to your comment about control


you sure do make a heck of a lot of assumptions. if a person is truly owned, and to be very specific, by owned i mean they are entirely subject to the authority of another, and that is the life they know, then no they would not get the flock out of that relationship. they would be emotionally, mentally, and perhaps even physically (depending on how they are kept) unable to do so.

because i gave myself to him, my Master has the right to do what he pleases with me, including selling me. it would never occur to me to attempt to find some way out of such a situation...what would be the point or purpose in that? the reality also is that if he did not want me anymore, i honestly could not care less if he wanted to give me to a schizophrenic HIV+ baboon to live out the rest of my days in the jungle...nothing would matter to me at that point.


the point is, is that you CHOOSE to go with the HIV+ baboon. you may contextualise it as not having a choice (and I still query this if you had children involved. would you really move your child in with someone who was like that? Really?) but the reality is, is that you as a privileged western woman DO have a choice and you CHOOSE to me controlled by someone else.

slavery is not a game to be played, at least not in my world. i do not diminish the experiences of all the women and girls who are forced to endure atrocities beyond any semblance of humanity, entirely against their will. consent does make a huge difference, a tremendous difference...in the quality of one's life, in the sense of one's emotional well being and sanity, in the sense of morality and ethics...but NOT in the definition of slavery itself.

Actually, I think you completely diminish the experiences of the thousands of women and children who are in sexual slavery, mostly because of your poor understanding behind the ethics and meaning of consent. Slavery, by definition, is not a consent-dependent action. Like murder, slavery happens without consent. however much you choose to work it, you consented to your situation.

i understand eastern sun well when she tells of how comfortable the abused women she worked to help felt with her, because they could sense that she related. at the desire of my Master's mother (who has fought all her life to empower girls and women, but also strongly believes in female submission in the Christian sense), for a short time i volunteered at a local women's shelter. well if you can call it volunteering...mostly just helped organize and dole out food and clothing donations, and assisted with domestic stuff like cleaning. i mostly kept to myself, but just as eastern sun experienced, many of the women sensed a connection with me. it actually became extremely uncomfortable. i felt like somewhat of a hypocrite, helping this organization while living a very similar way of life myself. these women were being counseled almost daily that control is not love, hitting is not love, that they deserved certain treatment from a mate. everything i lived, everything i believed in was the model for the monstrous, abusive type of relationship these women needed to stay away from.

after a couple of months my Master agreed that i needed to stop going.

yes, I can imagine how uncomfortable that must have been for both sides.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I guess that's why PYL and pyl are what I prefer to use in these here forums. It would be hard to define in words here exactly how I "work" to assign one specific term. I use the term submissive because that is what he calls me. He also sometimes calls me his little girl, though we don't have a Daddy/daughter arrangement. He also sometimes calls me his little slut, though we're not poly and he insists he's greedy and doesn't like to share his toys. He also calls me his plaything. Any of those terms could also apply. I go with what he uses, because he has the most accurate picture of how I work and function and because he is Him and his opinion is the one that counts in my happy little world. For Lit use, I'll stick with pyl because sometimes I bottom and sometimes I am submissive and sometimes I do both.

That's what labels you 'submissive,' right there, the fact that you see him in that way.

 

[intothewoods]

It seems to me that most hetero newbies who show up here talks about doms and subs, and not tops and bottoms-- as I do, because I come from a different tradition.

Furthermore, they "know" that these are innate qualities, that last a lifetime...

Where does this come from? Where do you guys get your information from, when you first start looking? What are you reading, who talks to you? Did you ever hear the terms top and bottom?

What differences do you think exist between a top and a dom, a bottom and a sub?

Various internet pages, but I can't really remember where. I read a few books and was also into looking for sources on the history of cultural bdsm (gay leather).

I started out talking to people here, but once I joined my local group I met a wider variety. It's more queer-oriented, but not leather. I would say people don't necessarily ID as top or bottom, though they sometimes do, but the romantic aspects of power exchange are more of a private thing.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Actually, I think you completely diminish the experiences of the thousands of women and children who are in sexual slavery, mostly because of your poor understanding behind the ethics and meaning of consent. Slavery, by definition, is not a consent-dependent action. Like murder, slavery happens without consent. however much you choose to work it, you consented to your situation.

yes, i consented to being a slave. when have i ever denied that? you feel i have a poor understanding of the "ethics and meaning" of consent...i just stated that the importance of consent cannot be understated. my point is simply that lack of consent has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. while clearly for you the word implies lack of consent, that has no relation to the way the word is actually defined. a refresher, from Merriam-Webster's:

slave
1. a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2. one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence


i consented to my way of life 10 yrs ago. many women may live a life in some ways very similar to mine, but they did not consent. they never made that final choice. of course that makes a tremendous difference...it is the difference between the path to peace and salvation and a living nightmare. but it is not the difference between slavery and not slavery.

and on another note...you are sorely misguided in your assumption that a consensual slave continues to "choose" their fate once owned.[/B]

 

[where]

yes, i consented to being a slave. when have i ever denied that? you feel i have a poor understanding of the "ethics and meaning" of consent...i just stated that the importance of consent cannot be understated. my point is simply that lack of consent has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. while clearly for you the word implies lack of consent, that has no relation to the way the word is actually defined. a refresher, from Merriam-Webster's:

slave
1. a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2. one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence


i consented to my way of life 10 yrs ago. many women may live a life in some ways very similar to mine, but they did not consent. they never made that final choice. of course that makes a tremendous difference...it is the difference between the path to peace and salvation and a living nightmare. but it is not the difference between slavery and not slavery.

and on another note...you are sorely misguided in your assumption that a consensual slave continues to "choose" their fate once owned.[/B]

you are again missing the point. and a simplistic online dictionary definition doesn't change the fact that consensuality and slavery are inextricably intertwined because slavery happens without consent. that is what defines it! simply because you consented in the first place to be a 'slave' means that you aren't actually a slave. it's like you can't consent to be murdered or raped.

of course, you can call yourself a slave if it makes you feel better or presses a kink button, but just as the little girls and their daddy doms on here aren't actually little girls having sexual relations with their fathers, you aren't actually a slave. you just choose to call yourself 'slave'. and that is fine, but as soon as you start claiming to actually be a slave in reality, then you are not just deluding yourself, but also making all the non-consensual shit and anguish and pain that real slaves and their families go through, on the same level as your lifestyle choice.

 

[BiBunny]

Dead. Horse.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Dead. Horse.

Dead and bloating. Any minute now, there's going to be a whoosh of nauseating stench as the carcass deflates.

 

[Etoile]

and on another note...you are sorely misguided in your assumption that a consensual slave continues to "choose" their fate once owned.[/B]

Not to abuse the late equine even further, but I think the point meant here was that a "consensual slave" has the physical ability to call the police to their aid (eg, is left alone in the presence of a phone) vs. a "non-consensual slave" is typically kept physically incapable of escape (eg, locked in the basement like that girl in Austria).

Though there are always exceptions to the rule. Someone who originally consented to the relationship but is brainwashed into being afraid to touch the phone, might not be able to call the police. And someone who didn't consent and is given the option to leave, still might not do so (like Jaycee Dugard, who had access to email and phone and remained in captivity).

 

[Stella_Omega]

The thing is that a non-consensual slave living in any of the places where slavery is condoned or ignored, would not find rescue even if they did call the police. If Jaycee had phoned for help, she would have had a damn good chance of getting it.

 

[Etoile]

The thing is that a non-consensual slave living in any of the places where slavery is condoned or ignored, would not find rescue even if they did call the police. If Jaycee had phoned for help, she would have had a damn good chance of getting it.

True enough - I was thinking only of the United States and other western countries (Austria, for one).

 

[ownedsubgal]

you are again missing the point. and a simplistic online dictionary definition doesn't change the fact that consensuality and slavery are inextricably intertwined because slavery happens without consent. that is what defines it! simply because you consented in the first place to be a 'slave' means that you aren't actually a slave. it's like you can't consent to be murdered or raped.

of course, you can call yourself a slave if it makes you feel better or presses a kink button, but just as the little girls and their daddy doms on here aren't actually little girls having sexual relations with their fathers, you aren't actually a slave. you just choose to call yourself 'slave'. and that is fine, but as soon as you start claiming to actually be a slave in reality, then you are not just deluding yourself, but also making all the non-consensual shit and anguish and pain that real slaves and their families go through, on the same level as your lifestyle choice.

good googly moogly you are impossible. i can't really intelligently debate with someone who just stubbornly repeats a blatant falsehood over and over again as if that will make it true. that's one reason i can't tolerate talking to small children. slavery happens with consent, slavery happens without consent...consent has nothing to do with the concept of slavery, bottom line, The End, dot dot.

 

[Stella_Omega]

good googly moogly you are impossible. i can't really intelligently debate with someone who just stubbornly repeats a blatant falsehood over and over again as if that will make it true. that's one reason i can't tolerate talking to small children. slavery happens with consent, slavery happens without consent...consent has nothing to do with the concept of slavery, bottom line, The End, dot dot.

This is a lot like the argument that we get about the difference between "Real sadism" and BDSM sadism. Somewhere else I offered a link to devicebondage.com, which is pretty hardcore IMO. Someone said something like... "Well, I suppose it's like a funhouse ride for those women, they are okay at the end instead of sliced into small gobbets of flesh."

Yeah, exactly. there are Sadists in a BDSM sense of the word, and there are homicidal criminals who are tagged with the term "Sadist." The difference is subtle but unavoidable.

osg you are a real, genuine slave, and there is no question of consent, if your owner decided to sell you to an HIV+ baboon that would simply be your lot in life. If he wanted to kill you he has the right to do so--- oh, wait, he does not.

And you know damn well he's not going to do sell you You are perfectly safe making that claim, because it's never going to be put to the test.

The differences are subtle, but there.

You are NOT playing at slavery, you are a real genuine owned slave, but the differences between your situation and the ones we read about in the newspaper are as wide as the differences between eastern Sun's gangbang scenarios and the wartime tortures in Bosnia.

The little details... like unending grief, and murdered children, and amputated body parts... they are part of the definition of "the real thing." (which should, I agree, have a different word.)

 

[where]

good googly moogly you are impossible. i can't really intelligently debate with someone who just stubbornly repeats a blatant falsehood over and over again as if that will make it true. that's one reason i can't tolerate talking to small children. slavery happens with consent, slavery happens without consent...consent has nothing to do with the concept of slavery, bottom line, The End, dot dot.

Slavery by definition is without consent. consensual slavery is an oxymoron. you can no more consent to slavery, than you can to rape or murder or having stuff stolen from you. I suggest you perhaps do some reading around the ethics of consent. Miller and Wertheimer (2009) have written an excellent book on it 'The Ethics of Consent: theory and practice'.

But like I said, you can call yourself whatever you like.

Affectionately yours,

The man in the moon.