RE: On Slavery

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: On Slavery

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: On Slavery

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: On Slavery - 5/20/2004 12:18:05 PM

Posts: 2943
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

~sighs~
continues to look on
at Dunimos as Im
still under My fig tree
reaching down for one
fruit thats just dropped
and I bring it to My lips
to taste as My eyes never
leave the vision befor Me
and I turn to the others
and say............ Yea what
HE said * blink~blink~!
~giggles~

(in reply to January)

RE: On Slavery - 5/20/2004 3:03:34 PM

Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos
I can see that some clarification is in order. I have seen a couple comments that are taking Aristotle out of context. So rather than attempting to "strictly" interpret the written word of an English translation of a Greek Philosopher I will follow Aristotle’s line of thinking and apply logic.

On the issue of Dominant women, this is a simple matter of thinking it through. There were at that time slaves, consensual and otherwise, who served families. In these families were certainly women and these women would most certainly be in charge of said slaves. This is well documented throughout many Greek and Roman works. There were some other statements made attacking Aristotle, saying if we followed this philosophy there would be no freedoms that we have today. Again, some research is in order here. If you look into Athens, the birthplace of western democracy, you will find that there were several Greek communities were even slaves had voting rights and participated in community affairs. Also, Greeks during that time would have supported entirely the BDSM community as they held a belief in the self over the state and the pursuit of individual happiness was strongly encouraged. The US adopted this directly from them in our founding moments.

So, the idea that women could not be Dominant is incorrect. The idea that Aristotle would have limited individual choice is false. And that Socrates, well. I’m not even going to go there.

In rereading the article I originally posted, you will see that he is not speaking only of forced slavery but rather mentions that some people are by nature, slaves or submissive to the point were they can only be ruled. He separates the "natural" slave form the "forced" slave or the ones taken by force. He also describes those who are born to slavery but are really free and vice versa.

No sense moving on to Socrates if we can't understand Aristotle. In reading paragraph two of the article you posted, I don't see anything I posted "out of context":

quote:

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule....Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.

One thing I do NOT see in this paragraph are the aspects you inserted... the provision for Dominant females, OR your inserted provision regarding "choice".

It's rather clear that he refers to females as "inferior" and naturally slaves. On the other hand, he refers to males as "superior", and goes on to state "superior" males rule while "inferior" females are ruled. Nothing about Dominant females, let alone a choice.

Paragraph two speaks for itself, and needs no translation. I clearly see what it says, and have not spoke of it "out of context" as you suggested. Adding your own conjecture and speculation to describe what Aristotle "meant to say" is quite ludicrous.

One more reminder that my posts were in regard to a hypothetical scenario, based upon acceptance and adherance to what Aristotle says in paragraph two. He wrote it... I didn't, so apply any stereotypes to the author, Aristotle... not to me, the reader.

Perhaps someone would like to tell me "what I meant to say" in my written words?

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Dunimos)

RE: On Slavery - 5/20/2004 11:46:38 PM

Posts: 765
Joined: 5/10/2004
From: New Castle, PA
Status: offline

quote:

P.S. I just have to ask. I know you're not Gorean. But are you UNIX?

<---- <groan> - nice pun Jan!!!

wish I had thought of it!

_____________________________

Apply Usual Caveats Here

An expert is somone who has made all the mistakes there are to be made

(in reply to January)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 12:03:14 AM

Posts: 1005
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: Sacramento, California
Status: offline

Yanno, I'm totally seeing what inyou is seeing.

All I will say on that topic at this point, lol.

~ShadeDiva

_____________________________

~ShadeDiva
My projects of love:
theFetishForums
HumanFauna
Kinked
DommeWorld

(in reply to Thanatosian)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 5:20:52 AM

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

Inyouagain,
I will not presume to know what you meant to say, I will however comment on what you did say.
"In his philosophy, females did NOT rule period... they were ruled. That is something that certainly appears to have been and is still not being seen. Aristotle's words are there... NO other way to interpret him as saying it's OK for a female to even be a Queen, whether she serves under a King or not... she would never "rule" anybody, let alone be a Dominant female. "
Perhaps you can site your sources for this then? You authoritatively summarize his entire philosophy by one sentience where he is making generalizations.

"Looking at these philosophical words literally, Aristotle defines gender roles across the board. If you believe, accept and adhere to Aristotle's philosophies, then the world as we know it today would be totally different:

There would be NO Mistresses or Dommes, ONLY Masters.

All females WOULD "naturally" be slaves to males, by "virtue" of gender.

Financial Domination would NOT exist in real life or in cyberspace.

Real men would NOT be sissy's and wear panties.

Male chastity devices would NOT exist.

CBT would stand for Central "Broad"cast Time.

When ANY male ANYWHERE wants sex, the word NO would not exist.

Females would not be allowed toys like computers, telephones, cars, and money.

Prostitution would NOT be the world's oldest profession.

Equal rights, voting, joint bank accounts, etc, would NOT exist for females.

Commercial use of slave names would not exist (ie. Betty Crocker, Aunt Jamima, Martha Stewart, etc)

NO ships, planes, or trains, etc, would bear feminine names or references of "her" or "she".

There would be NO Queens anywhere, of any kind (even Queens, NY).

There would be NO Madonna's, Brittney Spears', J-lo's, Pamela Anderson's, etc...

ALL females would be bisexual (males would ensure that aspect!)

Marge Oppenhiemer would NOT own the Reds.

Bill Clinton would have gotten a 2-girl blowjob in the Rose Garden (Hillary and Monika).

There would be NO female Gods... or Goddesses.

The Statue of Liberty would be titless and packing male hardware.

The term SEX would simply refer to a female doing her "natural" duty.

PFC Lindsey English would have been on the other end of the leash in the pics.

Think about it... this list would be virtually endless... on the slight chance that anyone worshipped or made reverent Aristotle's philosophies across the board, and did not just pick and choose of which suited their personal preferences, the world as we know it, would definitely NOT exist... as we do know it today.

How many females have made favorable comments and observations on Aristotle's words above in this thread... and apparently totally overlooked his second paragraph?

Either you love him, or you don't... and hey, I love him... great guy, and smart too! "

These statements are just entirely incorrect altogether. Again, women where in fact in charge of slaves during Aristotle's time. This was common practice in Athens, Troy, Macedonia and especially Sparta.

I will of course site my sources.
Hesiod: Works and Days, c. 750 BCE
Strabo: Geographia, [written c. 20 A.D.], circa 550 BCE
Antiphon: On the Choreutes, c. 430 BCE
Demosthenes: Against Timocrates. c. 350 BCE
Aristotle: The Politics, On Slavery, c. 330 BCE

I would expect someone who makes a decision to cross swords to do a better job of being prepared.
No offense is meant, however if you are looking for a heated debate I will be happy to reciprocate

*** Acknowledging mistressDread with a grin ***

Keep in mind, that Aristotle's phillosophy changed over his years and his oppinions softened as well. One can not simply take a snap shot in time and determine the character and ideals of any given person.

(in reply to inyouagain)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 5:30:16 AM

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

s it iwll hepl to understand these portions as well.

"strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happens---that some have the souls and others have the bodies of free men. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."

And perhaps even more importantly these words:

"There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention---the law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would an orator who brought forward an unconstitutional measure: they detest the notion that, because one man has the power of doing violence and is superior in brute strength, another shall be his slave and subject. Even among philosophers there is a difference of opinion. The origin of the dispute, and what makes the views invade each other's territory, is as follows: in some sense virtue, when furnished with means, has actually the greatest power of exercising force; and as superior power is only found where there is superior excellence of some kind, power seems to imply virtue, and the dispute to be simply one about justice (for it is due to one party identifying justice with goodwill while the other identifies it with the mere rule of the stronger). If these views are thus set out separately, the other views have no force or plausibility against the view that the superior in virtue ought to rule, or be master. "

With that said, I too have notice what inyouagain has stated.
*grin

(in reply to ShadeDiva)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 6:37:12 AM

Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos
I would expect someone who makes a decision to cross swords to do a better job of being prepared.
No offense is meant, however if you are looking for a heated debate I will be happy to reciprocate

I am quite fully prepared, as paragraph two is posted all over this thread, and for the umpteenth time... I stated a hypothetical scenario based on his comments in paragraph two of what you posted. Do you understand that?

(umpteen + 1) PARAGRAPH TWO IS WHAT MY HYPOTHETICAL WAS BASED ON... NOTHING ELSE.

Crossing swords has not happened here yet, you are the one who mentioned that, I didn't. If you want to cross swords on my (umpten + 2) hypothetical scenario based on paragraph two... have a nut! As long as we are talking about paragraph two, I will indulge you.

I clearly stated my hypothetical scenario was based on (umpteen + 3) paragraph two. You bantered and argued what paragraph two really means, etc. Others have posted now that they see what I said in my hypothetical scenario. You seem to want to debate my hypothetical scenario as to whether it's factual or consistent with any other Greek philosophy.

Once again... I stated a hypothetical scenario based on paragraph two (umpteen +4) of the article you first posted. For you to quote my hypothetical scenario's points and tell me thay are incorrect based on history is quoting me "out of context".

Oh yeah, I also stated the Greeks don't want no freaks. That seems to have freaked some people out!

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Dunimos)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 7:17:12 AM

Posts: 16
Joined: 4/25/2004
Status: offline

Greetings Aall,
Just a thought here.... If Wwe are to read and take into account ALL of what Aristotle wrote in this posted section... then it seems to this slave anyway, that He definitely acknowledges that some are and some are not cut out for slavery... and that this applies (not adding or supposing anything here and no offense to anyOone intended) to men as well. This slave, unless completely misunderstanding what He is saying, derives this from the paragraph in which He states:
"....But the opposite often happens---that some have the souls and others have the bodies of free men. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."
IF... and here is where her supposition come into play... IF this were to hold true for men... then why not for women as well? Is He stated "men" in general, or "men" as in definitely a gender characterization? If it is a generalization, then it would seem to this slave that women too, could have been possessed with a body and a soul that did not match up correctly to "nature".
Again, just a thought.
Best Wishes to Yyou Aall
~schiava

(in reply to Dunimos)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 10:20:24 AM

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

well done Shiava, You have accurately interpreted his words and meanings.

You see, none can fairly take one statement and or sentence and presume that it hold the entire meaning alone. I would expect that to hold true for all subjects.

To point out yet again, it is an offense to the mind and to logic to imagine that the Aristotle was not aware that women ran the home and all the slaves in it. This is a point that seems to cause disagreement but I believe is unsupported.

However, with all that said, I am pleased with the comments and differing opinions on the article. Again, thank all of you for your ideas. Isn't diversity wonderful *smile

< Message edited by Dunimos -- 5/21/2004 1:29:12 PM >

(in reply to schiava)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 11:20:40 AM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

Aristotle wrote what he wrote within the social norms of the time he lived. Applying modern precepts to what he wrote doesnt make any sense. In ancient Greek society, the only citizens were men, so he did not live in a time or a place where women would be considered the equal of men. It simply would not occur to the Greek citizen of that time to even be able to consider a world different than the one they lived in.

And having pointed that I, I do want to caveat it saying I studied Feminist theory in college and was the most radical person in a 30 person class of women, and I was the guy.

2000 years from now, when dogs have been emancipated and set free from their yokes of bondage, do you want people criticizing you for putting a collar on them and taking them for a walk?

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Dunimos)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 11:54:12 AM

Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos
To point out yet again, it is an offense to the mind and to logic to imagine that the Aristotle was not aware that women ran the home and all the slaves in it. This is a point that seems to cause disagreement but I believe is unsupported.

The only mind that seems to have been offended seems to be your's... all due to a stated hypothetical scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
In ancient Greek society, the only citizens were men, so he did not live in a time or a place where women would be considered the equal of men.

This should get interesting, as that's kind of the way I understood it to be too.

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Dunimos)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 1:43:39 PM

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

** Contemplates if MistressDREAD is aware of the symbolic significance of eating fruit in ancient Greece in front of a Man... Grin **

(in reply to MistressDREAD)

RE: On Slavery - 5/21/2004 3:04:51 PM

Posts: 2943
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

~blushes~
I did try to state
My opinions and
beliefs of the same
subject but *sighs*
I was not blessed
with the abilitys to
express My views
in ways that the
majority can understand
no matter how hard I
try it fills My heart to see
One whom can echo only
what I can hear in My soul
and express it in the ways
I try so hard to get thru.
It seemed to the point to be
Me against the collarme
World till this moment....~smiles~

looks around at all the figs
apon the ground and looks
over at My new slave and
has him pick them up and
brings them over to Dunimos
path He travels and stacks
them into a perfect tower
so when He walks past in
His discussion cannot miss
the sustinance.

(in reply to Dunimos)

RE: On Slavery - 5/22/2004 11:54:03 AM

Posts: 22
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

"The only mind that seems to have been offended seems to be your's... all due to a stated hypothetical scenario. "

Perhaps inyouagain, I find illogic and ignorance a to be a great offense.

With that said, I understand that you might find it bothersome for Aristotle to sugest that men are superior to women. Whether you and I agree or dissagree or if we have even concidered what he may have meant by it, it hsould not be suposed to define his phillosophy, anyone who has read is many other works would see that.

May be neccessary to move beyond this point, it has been belabored enough I suspect.

Something I find interesting is how slavery is implemented today.
A few examples are, first the obvious, in BDSM one may enter into voluntary slavery. next we may agree that employment is a form of bondage and perhaps slavery, are you really free if you require employment to survive?
Of course there are stil areas in the world where old fashion slavery exists. Just a few months ago a sex ring was busted up in Ohia where women were forced into sex slavery.

However, consensual slavery is the most fasinating too me. And the many oppinions and perseptions of it are interesting as well. Too many its a "lifestyle" others a "fantasy" and then too some its merely a casual roleplay. However, to those, such as the ones Aristotle speaks of, it is paramount to who they are, an identity. Yes, an identity, unless they are owned they feel lost and wonder aimlessly without hope. Thats a terrible feeling for someone who needs guidance. Whats worse is, so many suposed "Masters" that think they can take in sucha creature and provide everything they need. But there house is not in order. Likened to taking in a stray animal only to realize the animal is not yet house broken or perhaps they realize they can't devote the neccessary resources to keeping the beast. What happens then? They turn it lose ussually or abuse it for being difficult. Neither produce good results, then they say "that animal was terrible" when in fact the they made a poor choice, they a terrible Master / Owner.

Agree? Dissagree?

***Takes a fist full of figsfrom the pile and tastes them.... ***
Well done Mistress, well done. you may find me in the east, aproach.

< Message edited by Dunimos -- 5/22/2004 2:58:09 PM >

(in reply to inyouagain)

RE: On Slavery - 5/22/2004 6:42:28 PM

Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

I think it's a stretch to compare employment with bondage and slavery. Last I checked, I am not forced to work and I do get paid. Though as a musician, I may feel like I'm working like a slave sometimes. Lol. And you don't need to work to survive. Take a walk down 3rd St. in Santa Monica and you will see many homeless people who are surviving that way by choice.
I think you were a bit melodramatic as far as consensual slavery goes too. In my dealings with slaves, they have never seemed like lost stray animals. A true slave usually has thought her position through very thoroughly. A player is the one that is usually impulsive.

And a slave is usually housebroken.

(in reply to Dunimos)

RE: On Slavery - 5/22/2004 6:50:17 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Take a walk down 3rd St. in Santa Monica and you will see many homeless people who are surviving that way by choice

Read a master's thesis where the guy went out and determined that working 8 to 5pm panhandling by the freeway would net a person $30,000 a year tax-free.

Who says those homeless people are not working? A day in the scuzzy clothes and a night out at the Pantages.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Estring)

RE: On Slavery - 5/22/2004 6:53:42 PM

Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

True, but they are self employed.

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: On Slavery - 5/22/2004 7:03:56 PM

Posts: 418
Joined: 1/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunimos
Perhaps inyouagain, I find illogic and ignorance a to be a great offense.

Then why do you quote long dead people you've never met, and then attempt to explain to us what those stiff dead corpses were saying years before you showed up? Another question, why do the only instances of correct spelling in your posts exist only in what you quote from others? All of your spelling errors in your last post (that you "contemplated" for 24 hours before making) make it appear that you enjoy drinking. Do you drink much, or have you simply bought a used keyboard from a former member here who had the same problem which he blamed on a bad $10 keyboard?

If you deplore "illogic" and "ignorance", then bury your nose in Aristotle writings since "you know" how he thought all those milleniums ago... perhaps you are simply trapped in the wrong time, and can't get back?

quote:

With that said, I understand that you might find it bothersome for Aristotle to sugest that men are superior to women. Whether you and I agree or dissagree or if we have even concidered what he may have meant by it, it hsould not be suposed to define his phillosophy, anyone who has read is many other works would see that.

LOL, how the hell could you "understand" what I think? Do you bury your nose in my writings, lol... psst, I'm not dead yet, and you seem to relate much better to dead people and Jack Daniels as opposed to living ones you've never even met.

OMG, have you fucked up and assumed I'm a sub... thinking (pun) and "understanding" (on your own?) that I'm somehow concerned because your buddy Aristotle left you a note to infer males are superior? ROFLMAO! I'm told I had a reputation on this board as a woman hater, and that was funny in itself, lol, but this is the exteme opposite of that, and it's even more hilarious... good one Jack!

quote:

May be neccessary to move beyond this point, it has been belabored enough I suspect.

Don't make promises you don't intend to keep... else I'll tell Aristotle and Jack the next time I see them.

quote:

Something I find interesting is how slavery is implemented today.
A few examples are, first the obvious, in BDSM one may enter into voluntary slavery. next we may agree that employment is a form of bondage and perhaps slavery, are you really free if you require employment to survive?
Of course there are stil areas in the world where old fashion slavery exists. Just a few months ago a sex ring was busted up in Ohia where women were forced into sex slavery.

However, consensual slavery is the most fasinating too me. And the many oppinions and perseptions of it are interesting as well. Too many its a "lifestyle" others a "fantasy" and then too some its merely a casual roleplay. However, to those, such as the ones Aristotle speaks of, it is paramount to who they are, an identity. Yes, an identity, unless they are owned they feel lost and wonder aimlessly without hope. Thats a terrible feeling for someone who needs guidance.

First you are fascinated by live breathing BDSM participants, and then you proclaim today's lifestylers to be those "that Aristotle speaks of" milleniums ago... and then grace us with your "understanding" of how todays slaves think and feel. Apparently, you and Jack seem to constitute a very talented "logic" and "non-ignorant" tag-team. Which one of you is the attention slut that wanted to keep this turd rolling?

quote:

Whats worse is, so many suposed "Masters" that think they can take in sucha creature and provide everything they need. But there house is not in order. Likened to taking in a stray animal only to realize the animal is not yet house broken or perhaps they realize they can't devote the neccessary resources to keeping the beast. What happens then? They turn it lose ussually or abuse it for being difficult. Neither produce good results, then they say "that animal was terrible" when in fact the they made a poor choice, they a terrible Master / Owner.

Agree? Dissagree?

***Takes a fist full of figsfrom the pile and tastes them.... ***
Well done Mistress, well done. you may find me in the east, aproach.

You do ramble don't you... or was that Jack?

I hope your head don't hurt in the morning when Jack leaves.

Inyouagain

_____________________________

Careful with that axe, Eugene

(in reply to Dunimos)

RE: On Slavery - 5/22/2004 7:43:58 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

True, but they are self employed.

I suspect they did not file a 1099 or do quarterly withholding.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to inyouagain)

RE: On Slavery - 5/22/2004 7:47:13 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

This should get interesting, as that's kind of the way I understood it to be too.

As another example, there is a lot of discussion in the United States Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independance about freedom for all men.

This was written by Thomas Jefferson, a wealthy landowner who owned slaves.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Sinergy)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: On Slavery

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

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

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.206