songbird26
Posts: 72
Joined: 1/16/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EmeraldSlave2 It's not about ACTIONS, it's about AUTHORITY. If the Owner allows the slave to marry, then the slave is acting within what the Owner considers best. The husband obviously would agree to that and know where his priorities are, just as he would if the wife's sick mother had to be cared for. I think that Celestia's question addresses a different situation: one where the marriage came first and is thus the established and primary relationship, and where the 'owner' would really have no say over that relationship or the marriage at all. A very different situation than allowing a slave to care for a sick mother, or have an outside relationship after the master/slave dynamic is already firmly established. My take would be that the married 'slave' would be able to serve a master and submit to him, but not be fully 'owned': the marriage vows would, by nature of their chronological and emotional primacy, simply not allow the kind of focus, total dedication, and objectification that comes to my mind when 'ownership' is mentioned. With a very, very understanding and non-possessive spouse, the 'owner' might be able to govern a few things outside direct contact, but...in my mind, that's not really ownership. It's service. A third party's rights, opinions and feelings would always be considered by the 'slave' in making certain important decisions. Would the 'slave' divorce the husband if ordered by the 'owner'? Is it really 'slavery' if you say "I'll do anything you command, except in areas x, y and z of my life?" I honestly don't know; I've never pretended to be anything but a sub, and an unruly one at that, but if I were thinking of myself in terms of 'owner/slave' I'd have to think long and hard about these issues. It's rare that events fall into place perfectly, so that we can have exactly what we want without any compromise whatsoever. If life would be miserable for a 'slave' without complete and absolute 'ownership'--miserable on the scale of living with a debilitating illness, or an emotional disorder, or something similar--then, in my mind, that married slave should take steps to clear the boards, so to speak, so that an 'owner' can take primary place in all things. If service will fill that need tolerably, then smaller compromises (and a spouse who should be nominated for sainthood, in my opinion), are necessary. Of course, this all depends on how you personally view 'ownership' and how far you personalize and internalize the legal fiction of same.
|