D/s question
27 Jul 2003 10:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
This 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?
master/slave terminology
Date: 28 Jul 2003 02:46 am (UTC)and yes, i am a cantankerous, judgmental arse at times -- i don't like sports teams with native american names either. whatever cranks somebody's private moments is zir business, but when one goes public with one's hormonal poetry, well, it can be tempting to comment on one's form.
i sure wish LJ had killfiling ability. and apropos nothing, if i never see this stupid ashanti video again it'll be too soon, oh baby uh baby rock wit U.
Re: master/slave terminology
Date: 5 Aug 2003 12:28 pm (UTC)Thank you for saying that! I brought this up on the discussion "forum" on Polymatchmaker.com some time ago, and people talked around me.