Those who've read this blog for long at all will know I do not refer to myself as being part of "D/s". I am both disappointed and disgusted with what is now passed off as D/s, and I have no desire to misrepresent what I do by referring to it by that term and risking someone mistaking me for one of the pop-culture "Masters" parading around, falls of their overpriced, boutique provided flogger dangling from their rear pocket like some kind of badge of office. I also don't call my Ladies slaves, and in fact we never used the term. My Ladies are submissive.
My problem of late has been with the term slave, because so many seem so proud to call themselves that, and they so completely aren't. Now frankly, this post is not in response to the others I've seen in the last couple of days broaching this exact topic, but has been sitting in my drafts box for quite some time. I pull it out, work on it a bit, and then real life intrudes so I put it away again. However, I confess, the recent posts-at-large have motivated me to get the damned thing finished already. One of the reasons I have taken so long to post it is simply, I can't think of a polite way to put this. But, as is so often the case, that is because I insist on a greater level of reality than most. I use terms intending their meaning to be exactly what they have meant for the last 100 years, and I tend to stay away from slang and variants in meaning. When I say a thing is (Insert negative term here) it isn't to hurt feelings or insult an individual, it's because I mean what I said. So for instance, if I say something is a "Dumb" thing to do, I don't mean, "Gee, you are a real idiot". I mean it was an action "Lacking in intelligence and good judgement". By the same token, when I say slave, I mean "a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person". This in no way describes someone living as the consentual submissive partner in the context of a D/s relationship. Unless of course one is willing to allow an extreme amount of lattitude in one's meanings.
I've never quite gotten the whole rabid apeal of the "Slave" thing. Mainly because, in a lifestyle that purports to be based foundationally on consent, there is quite simply no way for there to be any level of "Slavery". Everyone is capable of leaving if they want to make the choice. As soon as they are physically held captive against their will, the consent rule is broken and they are no longer acting within a D/s relationship. The fact that it looks similar does not make it the same thing. Further, what's the soul wrenching appeal of claiming you are a slave, especially since those that proclaim it the loudest seem to be the ones that enact the most limits and have the most rules for their "Masters"? You are consentual submissives, what's the shame? No one has insulted my Ladies (At least lately) by insinuating they are somehow less because they do not refer to themselves as "Slaves" Which is just as well, because I don't get too goggle eyed over someone claiming they are a "Slave" anyway. I mean, if that's the fantasy you want to live, so be it, but don't think I have some obligation to jump down that particular rabbit hole with you.
I actually spent some time looking into this, because I have been repeatedly told that there were slaves with rights in the past. In fact, not really. At least no rights that weren't granted by the master himself at his whim, and could be removed just as easily. The closest thing I can find (And I note the irony) is Islamic Sharia law, which stated slaves were "...your brothers whom Allah placed under your hands. Feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear and do not impose duties upon them which will overcome them. If you so impose duties, then assist them. Whoever kills his slave, we will kill him. Whoever slaps his slave or strikes him, his atonement is to free him". Over the course of ages, it apparently became an accepted understanding within Islam that the natural condition of man was to be free, or so I read. Actually I could not verify this statement is actually in the Koran. However, I admit I am not Muslim, do not own a Koran, and have only the internet to lean on for this research. It may be there, or it might not be.
Everything else I found, from current trafficked sex slaves, to the slave trade in the U.S. in the 1800's, to the Greeks, to the Romans states that the person held as a legal slave is chattel property without rights by law. If there is no law recognizing that lack of any rights, then they are illegally held slaves that the law would free if they were found. People with rights were indentured (a contract by which a person, as an apprentice, is bound to service) not enslaved. These people were held for their labor by virtue of a debt. Often these people understood the terms of these agreements and entered servitude for a preset term of years immediately the loan had been made and the moneys transferred. At the end of the term they were free to leave. It was illegal to hold them longer, and the law would have protected them if they were not freed. Any investigation into Indentured Servants will show this.
European serfs were held by the master of the land, and were forced to work it on his terms and at his whim. However, they were not slaves, because they could not be bought and sold. If the Lord of the manor sold his property, the serfs stayed with the land. They could not be legally forced off, and their families could not be split up and sold off. If they could somehow manage to save enough, they could buy their freedom at any time. Peasants were legally capable of leaving if they wished to go live elsewhere. Of course, in the Middle Ages, there were very few options concerning where to go, but they did have the legal right, useless as it was. You can verify these things by investigating The Manorial System"
Roman gladiators were slaves, because they had no right to make their own choices. Most of these were criminals sentenced to the arena, their only hope for freedom being to survive for three to five years, at which time they were normally freed. Criminals convicted of capitol crimes such as murder were regularly sent into the arena unarmed, a virtual death sentence. A slave could be purchased and made a gladiator, but obviously no question he was a slave. He fought to survive, or he would be (And legally could be) executed. Finally, some free men chose to become gladiators. Here we find the closest thing to consentual slaves I've come acrossed. But slaves they became, because in order to become a Gladiator they had to take an oath in which they agreed that they would submit to a) being branded; b) being chained; c) being killed by an iron weapon; d) to pay for the food and drink they received with their blood; and d) to suffer things even if they did not wish to. I reiterate that they were required to agree to being killed. REQUIRED, or they were rejected. This constituted an official renunciation of their citizenship of Rome and all the social benefits that citizenship provided. This at a time when a traveling citizen was literally kept safe simply by proclaiming himself a citizen of Rome, because an attack on a single Roman could be seen as an attack on the Empire with dire consequences. Free men who entered the games by volunteering to fight for a wealthy sponsor understood that the sponsor would then legally own them for a term of years. The gladiator was then trained at the owners pace, and if that training killed him, no punishment would be offered that owner. If the gladiator did not fight well for his sponsor, that sponsor could order his execution with complete immunity, and in fact would be considered weak and lose societal respect if a gladiator that regularly lost his matches were allowed to live. When given the thumbs down sign, a gladiator was expected to kneel and lift his head to his opponent, so that the sword could be thrust directly through his throat and into his heart. This provided a relatively quick and painless death, at least by the standards of the time. And yet these men were well respected and honored. But they did not have any rights. Any search for the conditions of Roman Gladiators should be able to verify what I've said here.
In Greece, slaves were often abandoned babies saved from death by being taken into a wealthy home as a slave, or were the children of slaves born into slavery. They were assigned their names by their owners, and required the master's permission even to use the restroom. They were thought of as the property of their masters and were not recognized as citizens of Greece. A search on Roman slavery can verify this from many sources.
I could go on and on here, but I think you see my point. Slaves are people with no rights at all. They may have had some level of protection in a society, but not rights. And when they did have protections, they were the protections offered any private property by that society. A chariot, a horse, a water jug. A sponsor could order his own gladiators death with complete impunity and for no reason, but if his owned man cheated and injured or killed a competitor, the owner of the cheat might be punished by society. Not for murder, only for destruction of private property. And the consequences to the cheat himself were completely up to the owner.
Within the context of D/s, supposedly the worst possible act is to engage in some activity without consent, in other words, against the partners will. This requires the partners consent prior to any activity being engaged in. This requirement of consent absolutely precludes any potential for actual slavery to occur. So if folks out there want to proclaim themselves slave, certainly I will keep my mouth shut and let you play with your fantasies. But don't push things. Because when you get right down to it anyone insisting they are a slave involved in a D/s lifestyle is making a statement that is both contradictory and ignorant, and I'm prone to telling the truth even if that offends some people.
