Homestead
Posts: 1005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: amayos
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kree
1.
a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2.
a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
The term "no limits slave" makes no sense. By definition, a slave is chattel to be used by their owner for whatever purposes the owner deems proper. There have been comments that a "no limits slave" share the limits of their owner, which might be subject to change, thus changing the dynamic. The dynamic of "slave" would not change if a real world definition of slave were applied. The owner might have a radical shift in their thinking, or actions, which would not change the simple fact that a slave is "a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another, a bond servant".
Perhaps there should be a BDSM law that says if you claim to be a slave, you must have the real world definition of slave tattooed on your arm and read it 10 times per day. If you claim to be a "no limits slave" you must read it 1000 times per day. I have no desire to start a discussion of submissive vs slave because we all should acknowledge that the term slave means little in a BDSM context. 99.99% of the people proclaiming their slavery are submissives with deep feelings of submission, not slaves. That other .001% likely contains some that actually do live as real world slaves, but we probably dont hear much from them because they dont sit around posting to internet boards. The word slave has become a romanticized version of "submissive" that bears little or no resemblence to the real definition of the word, thus making "no limits slave" an oxymoron at best.
Definition 2 of your own post discounts your sole chattel (movable legal property) slant, Kree. While it is true slavery was (and in certain portions of the world, still is) a legal-based term, legality alone does not define all states of slavery. I would remind you there are over twenty million humans in a state of slavery in the world today, and a large fraction of that number exists within boarders or between borders of countries which legally outlaw slavery on the surface, including the United States.
In a BDSM context, I agree that many may romanticize or severely misuse the term, but I am not at all in question over whether or not a human being can exist within a complete state of what was at first an easy choice-based personal subjugation. Psychological bondage is just as, if not more persuasive than, physical bondage. Educating oneself over the psychology of capture bonding and conditioning is highly recommended.
This may be a small, nit-picking, neither here nor there detail, but you also left out another definition from your source:
3. A drudge.
Drudge: a person who does menial, distasteful, dull, or hard work.
While this only covers a portion of what constitutes a slave under me, this third definition, if you are to go solely by dictionary.com's source, would further discount your assertion that slave is defined by movable legal property value alone.
Most people do not understand the reality of internal enslavement. To try to express it to closed minds is futile.
It springs from desire, and flourishes under the guidance of an artful methodology.
< Message edited by Homestead -- 9/4/2006 9:18:29 PM >
|
RE: "No Limits Slave" - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
Plus, it's none of my business. I don't care what other people do. But - that was the topic. 
RE: "No Limits Slave" - 
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