Aswad
Posts: 6618
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
With regard to the community, it has some of the pros and cons you would expect in any class based society, with a major difference being that it is at least nominally based on a specific trait: freedom, in the sense Heinlein used the word in a well-worn quote. Obviously, the extent to which social status and reality are congruent will vary, and the extent to which this trait is actually definitive will vary. And, again, there's more than a few who enjoy the dynamic while the trait is a different one, which will cause some friction against the common point of reference, since there is no such distinction made there on account of the satire, allegory, etc., etc., etc.
The interactions with other communities may be the most notable thing, however.
In the bulk of the West, slavery is an accepted part of life. However, honesty is not an accepted part of life. And, at the risk of state enslavement, the practice of any form of slavery cannot be honest. It must be couched in terms of consent and/or law, and that consent must be given with no socially unacceptable coercion (e.g. if someone made money transporting you into the country and reserved the right to deport you, then your consent is invalid; if they hired you from the slums and reserve the right to dump you back there or make you indebted for life, then your consent is valid as hell; and if you misfiled a tax form or whatever, then your consent isn't even needed anymore). When the coercion is "the door is over there, exit it to withdraw your consent, nobody's stopping you from doing so," then the matter is legal, but certainly not popular. The moral requirement is even less, but I will assume we are all playing by the rules (i.e. laws) here.
For the most part, we use this term to mean what it's always meant. The means and measures by which the status of property is enforced vary, presumably within the bound of law. But our idea of property, more fundamentally than law, is the notion of something that is claimed and kept, with intent to back up the claim against a challenge (which happens to be where legal notions of property have relevance, but let's stick to the fundamentals). A slave is claimed and kept, and the primacy of the emotions involved and our way of relating to those is part of why they don't exit the open door, at least not without slinking back in later on... to be property. In a sense, sufficient for the law, it is consensual. Yet, it kind of sidesteps the question, as there is no negotiation, no formal idea of consent. I will do as I will, and the girl will be there or not.
This uncompromising notion of property is part of the reason for the social status. And it generates friction when interacting with groups which emphasize formal consent and negotiation, where our use of the word slave may be the only sense in which the word is not used by the BDSM community at large. Many would even argue that it is unethical or abusive, particularly the notion that leaving is the manner of withdrawing consent. In a relationship, the "threat" of ending the relationship is problematic, and I would be inclined to agree on that point. However, in this case, it is an artifact of the matter of consent, and the fact that- with the exception of so-called "love slaves"- there is no relationship in the sense normally implied.
It is not that I'm saying "you will serve my guests, or this relationship is at an end." Instead, I am simply saying "you will serve my guests," and that is that. Leaving is just a recourse allowed by law. Some in the BDSM community undoubtedly have similar practices. But it is not the norm. Thus, as a society, we do see a con to the social status which is not inherent in class based societies, as a function of friction with the social norms around us: others hear the word, fail to consider that it may be meant in a more literal sense, and then respond based on what it means in their specific jargon; conversely, when others interact with us and present themselves as identifying as a slave, we tend to take that at face value, rather than the jargon interpretation (which usually, but again not always, is that of a submissive by a more eroticized/fetishised name).
As a side note, which you're probably aware of, negotiating is something we do when entering a free companionship between two free (i.e. non-slaves). There is nothing that says the negotiated terms have to be the equivalent of a prenuptual. It would, in fact, be quite acceptable to have the companionship agreement entail terms that are pretty much essentially the same as those generally seen in a D/s or M/s context, and the kinky among us, or those who enjoy the dynamic, may choose to do precisely that. Such agreements are renewed annually, usually with the same formality and reverence one might accord a significant milestone in a conventional marriage, contingent on both of the parties wishing to renew the agreement. In any case, even for those who did not arrive at the Gorean lifestyles through exposure to it via the BDSM communities, there's nothing alien about the arrangements in D/s and M/s relationships. The desire to avoid misunderstandings is why we tend to use the term from the books, kajira, and it would probably be helpful if others who subscribe to the conventional, negotiated relationship models were to present themselves as submissives, rather than slaves.
But, yeah, the main pros and cons as a group are simply those you would expect in any dual class subculture.
Don't know if that's what you were asking. Was it? 
Health,
al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
Social Status: Pros and cons - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread