TigerNINTails
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
My funniest observation is that in no instance did the OP ever state this woman wasn't a slave. Note that the title of this thread is "Differences between SLAVES and how they are treated."
This indicates to me, that even to the OP this woman is indeed a slave. However, she would not (I would think, being a reasonably intellectual person myself) have brought up the statement were there not a "tone" included, which, regrettably, or unfortunately, we can not nor will we ever be able to hear.
This tone is so important, it spurred 5 pages of discussion on whether or not this woman is a manipulative gold digger, or if she's a slave.
Which I find to be ludicrous, personally. Note, I'm not attacking any particular train of thought by any individual, just the concept that there is something wrong with what she said, based only on the quote, without identifying a "reason why" behind the idea.
And here's my idea. I can read that quote both ways. Here's why;
1. Her quote could simply mean as most have argued that "If the slave isn't happy, than it affects her service, thereby making Master unhappy, even above, beyond and excluding any manipulative agenda.
2. Her quote could well have carried an onimous and albeit manipulative undertone to it, indicating that she knows ways to make life "not so smooth" and therefore, "Master is unhappy if I'm unhappy".
This is where I pick up the undertone.
"i may be his slave, but i am also his love, and if i am not happy.(right here, there is a period. This period could reflect one of two things. An onimous intent, or simply a reflection on that which isn't desired.) Master will not be happy."
The reason behind that now, is that there is a pause, as if for thought. This might not have been the case, in the live-fire demonstration of this conversation, but it's again, on the perceptions of who was there, and who was there had an obviously confused envy-attack. Not to beat a dead horse.
But not one person understood, or even identified that most of the perception seems to be in the structure of the sentence, leaving a rather distasteful "implication" where there most likely isn't one.
It's her reference also to "but i'm also his love..." This "but" right here, indicates that what comes next is either the truth of the matter and all that came before it is a lie, or...
It indicates that there is a negative connotation to what follows. The word "but" is a negative in our language. This is where the confusion starts, that period is where it compounds.
Furthermore, the statemten "i am also his love..." which seems to indicate that she believes that his love for her and being that love of His, elevates her to some sort of pseudo-ultra-slave level, where she has some sort of right which is beyond that of a "typical" or "lowly" slave girl...
Which I'd have to disagree on. My love for Histigress, my lustypetto is not an indicator of her status with me. It just adds more fuel to my desire to be sure she serves properly according to my wishes and adds more fire to my fight in her protection and care for her well-being. It doesn't give her extra status. But this is what is implied by the "but i am also his love" as if this elevates her beyond being just a slave, which, imho is not correct.
But again, how he facilitates her slavery is none of my concern, nor is it relevant, again. But that statement does add to that probable undertone.
I'm not totally for either camp, but I'm hoping that this helps to clear up where some people would be seeing this sentence as indicating something untoward here.
Now, as for the OP... The treatment of slaves is up to those involved in the situation, and ultimately, as has been demonstrated by every slave that's posted, entirely up to the individual Masters that own those slaves.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'm going to address the "duck" issue.
If a slave (I'll call them slaves, because that's what they are, and not ducks, and no number of those from the scientific community will convince me otherwise) is called a slave, believes herself to be a slave, and her OWNER believes her to be a slave, and his frinends who know them acknowledge that she is a slave, regardless of her creature comforts, then of course... She's a slave. No matter how this is facilitated (acted out upon), this is the facts of it. She acknowledges slavery. He/She acknowledges ownership of her as a slave. She calles herself slave. He calls her slave. She is a slave.
Ownership is the only one true definitive of whether a slave is a slave. Period. How her slavery is facilitated is absolutely irrelevent. Plain and simple.
Just as the definition of a Master... No one person can argue that if a person doesn't own a slave, or hasn't mastered a skill set, then they are not a "Master" of anything.
However, if they've accepted the responsibilities and acknowledged the absolute ownership of a human being and act on that knowledge and exhibit those responsibilities to that person OR they have mastered a skill set, then they are of course A Master. Plain and simple.
It comes down to this:
Does she call herself slave? Yes? Okay, then does she call acknowledge that she is owned? Yes? Okay, and she knows whom she acknowledges as her owner? Yes? okay, then Her alleged owner acknowledges himself as her Owner? Yes? Her Master? Yes? Okay, and he calls her slave? Yes? Then she calls him "Master? Yes? And those around them also facilitate this relationship by acknowledging that they are "Master & slave"? Yes?
Then guess what people... They are indeed a Master and his slave. Same applies to Mistresses and slaves too, there is no sexual discrimination going on here. Just trying to simplify it.
She calls herself slave. Another slave refers to her as a slave. She acknowledges her role as an owned person, and therefore as a slave. Her Owner acknowledges that he owns her and that she is a slave. His friend(s) in the lifestyle also acknowledge this.
Then she is indeed a slave. Period. She is owned. He is her owner. He can make her happy, discipline her, punish her, tease her, torment her, tickle her, fuck her, whatever the hell he wants to do, she is his property and she is a slave. What he does is none of my f'n business. Nor is it anyone elses.
How he governs that relationship is absolutely irrelevent, and so is whether she was being manipulative. None of that matters.
What matters is that their dynamic works for their situation. Just as it's important that anyone elses dynamic works for theirs.
There is no set of ground rules for how a slave should be treated to be a slave, though there might should be. But I don't see it happening. Ever. There will never be a BDSM Moses, though I have to agree that's a great idea!
But to sum it up. I caught the manipulative undertone. But that's all it was. A probable undertone. Not being there, we don't know if there even was one.
So doesn't this conversation seem like a collossal waste of f'n time?
I think so. So that's all I'm going to say about it.
Peace.
Tora Kuo
< Message edited by TigerNINTails -- 6/12/2007 5:43:00 PM >
_____________________________
Consistent Discipline Renders Punishment Unnecessary
|
RE: Differences between slaves and how they are treated. - 
Profile
......you summed that up wonderfully. That happens alot and it's really ridiculous to me. This isn't some type of slave competition to see who can "outslave" each other. I couldn't care less how I "rate" or "rank" comparitively as long as I'm pleasing the only One who really matters........slave luci 
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