Slavery reconsidered

Greetings all,

Those who have followed my blog, or know of my other writings, may understand that I have some problems with people defining their relationships as Master/slave. Recently this came to a head on FetLife. The following is a copy of a new thread I recently started on the Masters and Slave forum there, with the intent of provoking some discussion.

I am posting it here as well with the same intent.

----------------------

A couple of weeks ago there was a rather brisk discussion about the status of being a slave, and its implications. I took a rather contrary view to the majority. The thread was sadly purged by the list moderators because of complaints of name calling, etc. However, I believe this is an important topic, and so I am raising it again in the hopes that we can maintain a respectful level of debate, and some valuable information sharing.

Here are the basic premises which I would like to discuss:

1) The terms (not their meanings) "Master" and "Slave" are not really reflective of the dynamic of the relationship that exists in many couples who claim M/s status.

2) The use of the terms "Master" and "Slave" used in conversations with people outside the community makes meaningful communication very difficult, plus does a disservice to the community as a whole.

3) A new lexicon and taxonomy is required to describe the relationships that are currently defined as Master/slave so as to allow for better communications between people in the lifestyle, as well as the "vanilla" world.

Given the length of this post I was considering breaking it up into three different topics, but in the end decided that they should be kept together, since I imagine people will reference them all when they reply

So, with that in mind, let us begin:

Section 1: Does Master/slave really mean Master/slave?

Move anywhere outside the BDSM community and start looking for the definition of a slave. I would suggest that none of the definitions you would find in any way reflect the reality of the interaction model between two people in the community who call themselves Master and Slave. In my experience when people say they are in a Master/slave relationship what they are really saying is that one partner has agreed to obey the other partner in most things, that one partner has agreed not to engage in certain activities without the other's permission, that there is a long term commitment between the parties involved, and a general recognition that the relationship is based on one partner being Dominant and the other submissive. Plus a bunch of other things that vary from relationship to relationship.

But this is not slavery by any stretch of the imagination. For example, a real slave has no civil rights, may not own property, may be damaged or destroyed without any legal recourse to the Master, etc. In the most commonly accepted definition of slavery (outside the BDSM community) a society that legalized slavery would recognize that as property, the slave could be disposed of in any way their owner wished.

The matter is further complicated, at least here in North America, by the fact that even if the submissive partner wished to sign a "slave contract" in which they gave up their civil rights, and would hold their Master harmless for any injury, that such a contract would not be held as legal by the courts. Frankly, it is impossible for anyone in North America to become a slave.

Or put another way, no one may abrogate their rights and privileges as a citizen, even if they wanted to.

What this means is that in every real sense of the word, there is no way for anyone to voluntarily become a slave, and further, even if someone was to call themselves a slave, it is high unlikely that they are referencing the common accepted definition. Rather, they are using the word to describe a "special" committed relationship. What makes it special is however the participants decide to define it.

Bottom line: I have no problem if two (or more) people choose to use the term Master/slave when they speak to each other, or as a way of honouring the nature of their relationship. But such terminology should be kept private to the relationship. Much in the same way that most couples keep their special terms of endearment for those occasions when they are alone with each other.

Section 2: Trying to explain ourselves to others

Consider the following hypothetical scenario. You are at a party and you meet a couple. After a few moments the man announces that he is a pedophile, and that his partner is his child-victim. You (naturally) are shocked and tell him that you are about to report him to the police. "You don't understand!" he exclaims. "In my community the term 'pedophile' and 'child-victim' describe a committed loving consensual relationship between two people which expresses itself through photography and the acting out of situations where each partner assumes a role. If you were part of my special community you would understand!"

Get the picture?

Telling those outside the BDSM community that you are a Master or a Slave is counter-productive in the extreme. All it does is setup a situation where communication and dialog become more challenging. Not only that, but as shown in Section 1, when people say they are in a M/s relationship, in reality they are not. So, not only are they creating barriers to communication, but they are not even accurately describing their relationship.

Another example happened to me a few weeks ago on this forum. Something I said caused someone to label me as a "Gorean". Once that happened, they decided that there was no further point in talking with me, since Goreans are a sort of person that this individual already had a pre-conceived notion about. And both of us are in the BDSM community! How much more of a challenge then to try and open up a talk with someone who is not?

Wouldn't it be so much easier if we described ourselves using some other label?

Section 3: Towards a new lexicon

I don't have too much to write about in this section. I am hoping that you, the reader, will have input. If you agree with sections 1 and 2, then it seems to make sense that we want to find a new way of describing our relationships in a meaningful manner, without using emotional or intellectual triggers.

Power-based relationship? Dominant/submissive lifestyle? Consensual domestic discipline? I really don't know, but what I do know is that one of the reasons most Masters and Slaves are reluctant to tell others about their relationship is because of what happens as soon as you say Master or Slave.

A while back I wrote a short story called "All things great and small" which was a metaphorical creation tale. My two main characters were called God and Satan. I was not really referencing the Christian stereotypes, but I thought they were good terms to use to describe the first two entities in our universe, and part of their interaction model. The problem I encountered from those who read it, was that once they saw the word "God" or "Satan" a whole host of filters and biases came into play which made it very difficult for anyone to understand what the story was really about.

The same thing applies here. We are using terms that are just too emotionally loaded to be of any value. I suggest that new terms are required.

What do you think?

Be seeing you,