D/s question
27 Jul 2003 10:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
firecatThis is prompted by a flame war on alt.polyamory in which someone is objecting in a really rude and obnoxious manner to someone else's 24/7 D/s relationship.
I don't object to consensual relationships of whatever type that work for the people involved.
But the person who's being obnoxious is in fact bringing up a point that I am curious about.
A lot of people use terms such as "slave" and "owner/owned" to describe their D/s relationships.
Historically, slavery was non-consensual, and being owned meant not having much of a say in what happened to you.
But practitioners of D/s usually emphasize that there is choice involved in what they do. Maybe it's a one-time choice, but it's still a choice.
Given the existence of this choice, I don't understand why the word "slave" is used to describe these relationships. It seems a contradiction in terms.
Historically and culturally, there are many types of hierarchical, dominant/submissive, superior/inferior relationships that go by other names. master/pet, master/servant (indentured or otherwise), master/apprentice, sensei/student, lord/vassal, etc. etc. etc.
Those relationships would seem closer to what most D/s actually is than slavery, since those relationships (except "pet") usually involve at least some choice.
So how come (it seems to me) "slave" is more often used?
I don't object to consensual relationships of whatever type that work for the people involved.
But the person who's being obnoxious is in fact bringing up a point that I am curious about.
A lot of people use terms such as "slave" and "owner/owned" to describe their D/s relationships.
Historically, slavery was non-consensual, and being owned meant not having much of a say in what happened to you.
But practitioners of D/s usually emphasize that there is choice involved in what they do. Maybe it's a one-time choice, but it's still a choice.
Given the existence of this choice, I don't understand why the word "slave" is used to describe these relationships. It seems a contradiction in terms.
Historically and culturally, there are many types of hierarchical, dominant/submissive, superior/inferior relationships that go by other names. master/pet, master/servant (indentured or otherwise), master/apprentice, sensei/student, lord/vassal, etc. etc. etc.
Those relationships would seem closer to what most D/s actually is than slavery, since those relationships (except "pet") usually involve at least some choice.
So how come (it seems to me) "slave" is more often used?