|
Padriag -> RE: How about Real slavery? (4/30/2009 9:27:23 PM)
|
First off let me say I haven't seen nor heard of this site before and I'm not attempting to defend it. But the following caught my eye and raised a few questions for me. Apparently GotSteel (and possibly others) object to the following snippet I assume was taken from this site. However, as I read over it, I wonder why?
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
From the site: "By definition, a ‘slave’ is a piece of (movable) personal property (a.k.a. "chattel") owned by another person. A slave can be bought, sold or traded. While a slave may be cherished and cared for, a slave can also just as easily be misused and abused. Of course an owner can love their slave; nothing in the book says that an owner cannot love their slave. However, slavery does not require love. Slavery is about control: the utter and total domination and control over another human being's life. Slavery is also about responsibility: the utter and total responsibility of another human being's life."
Now taking this point by point... lets break it down.
From the site: "By definition,
Okay, I'll give this one... who's definition? There are more than a few threads on here about how notorious we are for not agreeing on definitions... but moving beyond that...
a ‘slave’ is a piece of (movable) personal property (a.k.a. "chattel") owned by another person.
Okay, and the objection here is? Sounds like it fits with what many espouse their view of a slave to be, so I'm not seeing any particular problem with this statement.
A slave can be bought, sold or traded.
Can be, but isn't necessarily. I've known all of the above to actually happen, as well as rentals, loaned out, etc. Hell, we've had accounts of such here on these forums. Doesn't mean everyone does this... but some do and its something I would say is fairly specific to the concept of slavery... ie, I can't recall someone claiming to be a sub or babygirl for example claiming to have been bought, sold or traded. So again, what's the objection?
While a slave may be cherished and cared for,
And people like Merc and Beth, or KoM and his girls, or Michael and BSB clearly prove this part. No objections here I trust?
a slave can also just as easily be misused and abused.
And we've all heard pleanty of accounts of this happening ad nauseum... so again I trust no objections with this statement. Note the statement doesn't say it should happen, merely that it can (and we know it does sometimes happen).
Of course an owner can love their slave; nothing in the book says that an owner cannot love their slave.
Again, other than this "book" which I suspect is only metaphorical on the part of the author... I don't see a problem with this statement. Actually I rather like it, because it points out something I've noticed some new dominants or submissives miss... that a Master doesn't have to be this emotionless, uncaring, aloof bastard... you can own a slave and still have the warm fuzzies about them... you can even, dare I say it... Love them (that last said with a bit of humorous sarcasm).
However, slavery does not require love.
I find nothing false in this statement... doesn't exclude it, it merely points out that its not strictly necessary to the concept (some of us as individuals may need it, but that's an individual difference). People can have long term relationships, including intimate relationships, without love being part of it... I've certainly seen more than a few loveless marriages.
Slavery is about control: the utter and total domination and control over another human being's life.
Often M/s relationships are described as striving for greater control, more complete control, removal of all limits or conditions on control, etc. That being the case, I don't see this statement as being a problem, so far as the ideal goes. I certainly know plenty of slave owners who strive towards that level of control... some of them are regulars right here on these forums. If I personally were going to object to anything, it would be that the sentence should perhaps be reworded slightly to indicate that such a degree of control is the ideal. Other than that, what are the objections?
Slavery is also about responsibility: the utter and total responsibility of another human being's life."
I have no problem with this. In another thread someone stated something to the effect that when you take control of someone, you take responsibility for them at that time. That statement was applauded (and I agree with it personally) by many. Does it not follow then that if you seek to take complete control of someone you should also seek to take complete responsibility for them? I can see one possible objection (probably from LuckyAlbatross) that the slave still retains responsibility for themselves... and I agree, but I don't see that conflicting the the owner also being responsible. Put another way, if a dominant seeks complete control over a submissive, they should be prepared to take an equal degree of responisiblity (in this case complete), but the submissive / slave is still responsible for themselves... they both hold responsibility. Any objections?
Just to be clear, this is in no way intended as any sort of personal attack or anything... I just found myself curious as to what others objections might be. For myself, other than the questionable source, I didn't really find anything in that one paragraph I had a problem with. Course like I said, I haven't seen the site it came from and it doesn't sound like I'd care too. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s4.gif[/image]
|
|
|
|
