The Top 100 BDSM / Fetish Books    [other banners]

	SD! : Web boards : IE Theory : "The Value of a Human...the value of a slave" 1 2 The Value of a Human...the value of a slave (11) Thu 7 Aug 08, 4:55 AM Gieren US, 4 mths  (Edit: As difficult as this may be to believe, I've tried to keep this vaguely succinct while maintaining a decent amount of clarity, given that my mind's a bit of everywhere though... feel free to ask for specific clarification/justification/logical explanation.) I'll begin by saying that I'm likely to be offensive. C'est la vie. I intend to foray into the nebulous realms of philosophy. People get angry about philosophy. Such is life. I only ask that this remain a debate. Not an argument, not a flamewar, a debate. Now, to our feature presentation. As background. I make a very clear distinction between two types of owned submissives, servants and slaves. My definitions are not orthodox, so I will clarify them here. Slaves are the truly dependent. The ideal state for a submissive, some would say. They are the trained, the tractable, they have been conditioned to such a degree that they truly are an extension of their Master's will. A slave considers situations with the approach of 'What Would Master Do?' A slave is the ideal of IE. In brief, a slave is its Master. Servants differ from slaves in only one regard, that they are independent souls. A servant may not be able to extricate itself from a relationship. A servant may be incapable of disobedience in more than isolated incidents, but a servant is capable of displeasure, of doubt... A servant is capable of defiance, and a broad reach of emotions long subverted in a slave. Thus, a quandary. I have come to the conclusion that to truly enslave an individual, as opposed to mere enpetment, (my own word, used with my own property) would have devastating effects on their personality. It would impose severe limitations on their potential as an individual and pervert (classical definition) any previous capacity for creativity with their new focus. Creating a slave requires the complete control of and immense modification of the functional personality, and I have decided that the procedure is not one I would reserve for my dearest, my loves and my pets, but for my fondest enemies. I have concluded that successful enslavement, the subjugation of the psyche, qualifies as nothing short of murder, and while I've little compulsions against the idea, I feel it is a course best reserved for those I would as soon kill. The question: Is such an enslavement possible? I believe so. I have seen several people, even in this vein of society, disagree on the grounds that there is an immutable personality, one that can be suppressed, but not destroyed... Regardless, I believe such a course is entirely plausible, and have yet to hear convincing evidence to the contrary. The capacity for the psyche to be salvaged is not an issue, as we are assuming that the Dominant in question wishes to keep the submissive in a state of enslavement. The next question: If possible, would such an enslavement limit the potential of a slave? Again, I believe so. I find it difficult to fathom that any creature who's attention is so heavily focused upon, who's positive stimuli are so heavily reliant on a single item (in this case, Dominant) not to reorder its entire existence around such a powerful individual. And the last question, the one that spurred this long-winded mess...: Given the above, what is the intrinsic value of a slave, as opposed to what it was before? Some people make better slaves than others, and some people make better people than others, so at what point does it become acceptable to destroy an individual, and all the creative and productive potential once harboured, and replace it with the potential of a slave? To answer this question, one must have a firm grasp of one's philosophy, I have a specific answer, one I'll share when I'm not possessed of a strong desire to relent to carpal tunnel, but I'd like to pose the idea to the community. In brief, I feel that the role of a slave is a poor allocation of resources, a waste of perfectly good potential, and the already dead... those I would gladly destroy for the sake of my own twisted morals, are the only creatures suitable for such an endeavour. Evening to you all, and if this has been discussed before, I missed it. Apologies. --Gieren. P.S. I doubt anyone I'd've pissed off will read this far... *but* I do feel a need to clarify that the role of a slave, by my definition, is not an insignificant one. I do, however, find a slave at times detestable and infinitely less beautiful, in most cases, than the corresponding 'human' (that is to say, fully independent psyche) from which the slave was produced. Edited Thu 7 Aug 08, 5:01 AM by Gieren 7 Aug 08, 6:42 AM Oklahoma_Mike US, 5 mths  Gieren wrote: (1) The question: Is such an enslavement possible? . . (2) The next question: If possible, would such an enslavement limit the potential of a slave? . . (3) Given the above, what is the intrinsic value of a slave, as opposed to what it was before? (1) My opinion (which I can't "prove" correct) is that such enslavement might conceivably be possible, but in practice nobody outside of North Korea is likely to have enough control and resources to do so. Outside of such extreme cases, it's certainly possible to substantially change a person's behavior in many important areas through conditioning. Many of the people on this website have done it, had it done to them, or seen it done to others. And certainly a slave can decide that the good opinion of another is so vital, that she will radically change her behavior to keep that good opinion (this would be IE). But I think there's LOTS of personality and creativity left in all or at least the great majority of people who've been so affected. Conditioning, as far as I know, is (always?) very limited in what it affects. And being driven to please another shouldn't affect the many other bits of personality and creativity floating around in each of our minds--Usually such people want to be valued as separate individuals, otherwise they wouldn't be so driven to please. My suspicion is that most of the participants in these fora, including those who consider themselves Masters, value personality and creativity in anyone, including a slave, quite a bit (I do know that some do not, but I think they're a minority), and don't actively seek to create the kind of machine-slave you describe. I also suspect most of them think it would be very wrong to change a person in that way. (2) If it happened, it most certainly would! (3) The flippant, smart@ss answer is here: http://www.oneplusyou.com/bb/cadaver A less flippant and smart@ss answer would be "intrinsic value to who?" To the slaves, clearly their individuality would be gone, so this is the ultimate catastrophe. Even if they somehow sought the unfortunate state they've come to, "they" no longer exist (except perhaps quivering inside as a helpless spectator--Who would know?) to appreciate the new state. At the other end of the scale, their worth to society as a whole is almost certainly much less, with the exception of someone who was a serial killer, trashed-out drug addict, etc., before being enslaved in the special way you describe. Overall, I don't think the definition of slave you set forth is a very realistic one for achievement in the real world (despite appearing in loads of amateur and some professional BDSM fiction). I'm awake far too late, thanks for stimulating me to write my own diatribe! Mike 7 Aug 08, 8:10 AM ravenkaldera US(MA), 3 yrs  I think I'm rather in a different world than the OP on this matter, and perhaps there is too much background that I would have to fill in (and it's too late at night for that, and I have to leave for the M/s conference in the morning) in order to make my view on this make sense. But I'll give it a shot, and if it makes no sense, my apologies in advance. First, I don't want to descend into definitional hell around what is a slave and what isn't. I don't know if you'd consider my slave a slave, OP. He is conditioned to the point where he cannot leave and cannot disobey. His entire life revolves around me to one extent or another. It will do so until I am dead. I call him a slave. You might not. Whatever. ...But your question, I believe, is about whether his intrinsic value to society/the world/what have you has been ruined by conditioning him into, essentially, an extension of myself. He's been asked that question himself. His answer is generally that he might as well have given over his life purpose to me, because he wasn't using it. He was largely partying and doing risky behaviors and neither fulfilling his potential nor doing much for the world. Now he supports me in doing what I'm doing for the world, and helps me make progress in a way that I wouldn't be able to if I didn't have free slave labor. He feels that if he had a great potential that was more important than assisting me night and day, he'd be doing it. There isn't, so he's here. Which brings me to the next part of the answer to your question. I am a strongly religious person, and I have wrestled philosophically with the issue of my cosmic "right" to enslave someone. The answer I've come to is that, like all things in this lifestyle, the responsibility lies squarely on the enslaving owner, period. When the slave becomes an extension of you, their value is subsumed into yours ... and yours had best be worth at least two person's allotments of value. For me, this is the essence of doing the path of mastery in a spiritual way, as opposed to just doing it because you enjoy it. (Nothing wrong with that, but doing it as a spiritual path means it becomes harder and more rigorous morally.) This person has given their entire life over to me. Therefore, my life had better be worth giving it up for. I have the privilege of owning another life, dedicated only to my comfort, so I'd best use that freed-up time and energy to do something big, something worthwhile, something that makes a mark on the Universe. His destiny and potential was sidetracked for my benefit in this lifetime, so mine must be big enough for both of us. Simultaneously, I also have the spiritual duty of figuring out what parts of his potential he can fulfill that don't interfere with - or even work well with - his job of serving me, and forcing him to do that. (You will eat correctly. You will do yoga. You will take up a career that feeds you spiritually. You will practice violin. You will get out of bed even when you're depressed and work. You will deal with that childhood issue, now. You will face that phobia, now. You will attack that bad habit and get over it. Etc.) Imagine living with someone who could force you to do even a quarter of the things that you're supposed to be doing for your own well-being, every day, no slacking, no letting up? Can you imagine what that would be like? Your example of a slave seems to be that of what most people think of when they think "slave" ... downtrodden, unhappy, living a weary life with no joy or competence or self-esteem. This always disturbs me when I hear it. It implies that for most people, if they were suddenly given total control over someone who would then live their life centered around them, this is what they'd do to them. Certainly your commentary about only wanting to do this to your own worst enemy suggests that this is the only thing you can think of to do with a real slave. This makes me shake my head. Has it never occurred to you that some masters would have a vested interest in their slaves feeling happy and fulfilled? Have you ever been the primary caretaker of a young child? That's a situation with a lot of parallels to slavery. It differs in that you're dealing with an individual who is not yet competent, and you are expecting to slowly wean them out of this stage, but there's still a lot of similarities. They are totally dependent on you and entirely in your power. You can make them obey you. They desperately want to please you. Your moods set the tone for their life, and you are the most important person in it. What you say is believed, no matter how crazy it is. Would you only want to parent your worst enemy? Do you feel that being a child is a punishment? Try using that as a basis for comparison. There's also the issue of fitness. Someone who would do well as a slave would be naturally submissive, reactive, malleable, and perhaps have a fluid sense of self. To assume that "fulfilling their potential" would mean becoming someone who is not those things is a modern Western myth, and untrue. For all you know, they were placed here this time around to learn how find a place where they could be that, and be it as far as possible. After all, many world religions value the concept of losing one's self to a higher or deeper force. Slavery, if done from a spiritual perspective and with a worthy master, can be a more concrete vehicle to taking someone to that place of perfect selflessness. Remember that selflessness is considered a Good Thing in many faiths. It may not be your thing, but don't throw it out for all of humanity. In the end, it comes back to this: Whether making someone into a slave is a waste of a life or a triumph depends entirely on the person in charge, and how worthy a human being they are. Period. I'm guessing, from the tone of your post, that what's really going on here is an inability to understand the mind of a submissive. It feels to me like you are saying on some level, "I am imagining what it would be like to be shunted away from my own potential and path and made to be entirely dependent on someone else, and I would hate it. It would suck for me. If I were brought to that place, it would be by force and I would be unhappy and downtrodden and my life would be wasted. It would be a terrible punishment. Therefore, it must be true for everyone else." Well, except for that last sentence, me too, dude. That's why I'd make a crappy sub. But just because that's what I'd be if I were a slave doesn't mean that's true for everyone. I have to keep coming back to that, again and again. Joshua is not me. He does not react like me. We are deeply different in this way, and indeed sometimes I am blown away by how different he is from me. Taking away his free will comforts him. Taking away his choices focuses him. He would never have done half of what he's done if I hadn't been there to make him do it. This is why I cannot, ever, assume that he would want X or Y from my own reactions to X or Y. I made that mistake frequently, in the beginning. No more. Now I observe, and communicate, and condition bit by bit over time. A metaphor that has been used around here is that of a bonsai tree. If you're someone who is not like this, it's often difficult to believe that there are such people in the world. But there are, I assure you. Bet you wouldn't do so well in a monastery, either, would you? Yet people join them and live their lives happily there. (Actually, that's another good comparison to consensual slavery.) Human beings come in a dizzying array of types, and some are actually built to thrive as slaves. It's not hard for me to see *that* as their destiny, their potential. I hope at least some of this was coherent. It's late. -Raven Kaldera -If you're in charge, it's all on your head. If it's not all on your head, then you're not really in charge. 7 Aug 08, 9:02 AM anjuli UK, 16 mths  Well you've had some full and fabulous answers. (And I'm giggling at the idea of Raven's answer being incoherent! That'll be the day!) There's one little point I will add to those you've already been offered. If you read Tanos's writings on enslavement and reactance carefully, you will note that he does make the differentiation between those who react to loss of freedom with the traditionally accepted depression and demotivation, and those who experience the reactance and then drop into acceptance and respond positively. Of course if you're not one of these you will react badly. But the evidence is right here. There are many bright, intelligent, positive slaves full of motivation and life that have or are experiencing IE with their masters. QED. For some there's great freedom in the chains of slavery. The problem here lies in the idea that you can change the base personality of a sub and turn him/her into an automaton. This is not Stepford. I don't believe it's possible outside of sci-fi or perhaps subject to massive concomitant physical damage in torture and so-called brainwashing techniques. So to follow that thro. The Master and the process of enslavement is a positive and life-affirming one for most real life M/s slaves and we are happy and fulfilled, successful and functioning people. The problem is in your thought processes and your attitudes as Raven has already suggested. I don't believe for one moment that the highly responsible and dedicated and hugely emotionally intelligent people that we call our Masters would recognise the picture you paint as related to what we do in any shape or form. And the value of a slave as defined here on SD!/TSR is incalculable to most of their masters. We are after all their counterparts and everything we do and are reflects fully on them and their value. As the village idiot might point out... you really shouldn't be starting from here. You're asking the wrong questions. anjuli ~~~ “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naive or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” - Anais Nin ~~~ 7 Aug 08, 10:26 AM 315-076-759 UK, 6 mths  There are those with a naturally dominant nature and those that are naturally submissive. Those of us that recognise which we are and act within that category are happier than those who are not. In my working life as a nurse, when I was in a senior position the main criticism directed at me by my superiors was my inability to delegate. Believe me I really had to psyche myself up to dish out orders. I did it out of sheer necessity. I was always happiest as a nurse when at the bedside responding to "Nurse get me this and Nurse, can I have that." Perhaps I've always been a slave, but not in name? I have been to extended monastic retreats from time to time and being in the Zen tradition of Master and Disciple I am very comfortable with that and there are as Raven says some parralells to be drawn here. But the difference between M/s and monastic life is that in M/s the participants maintain role without changing and in a monastery, once one has risen beyond the novitiate one takes on more responsibility and eventually makes decisions affecting those under them. So here a natural submissive who is quite at home in the novitiate eventually has to cope with leadership and similarly, a dominant personality has to learn to be submissive while a novice. And presumably, that dominant nature is suitably tempered later on from the experience as, conversely, my submissive nature has been tempered by having to be in charge when nursing. As I stated earlier, when you KNOW who/what you really are then the way to happiness can be found. I know I am naturally submissive and am very happy to be Lady Mistress' slave for as long as she wants me for a slave. That is what my signature quote means, (there is a bit of Zen in there, -grins-) I know I am really a slave by nature, therein lies my freedom. For further reading take a look at Aristotle, "The Politics" Book one, chapter 2. To be a true slave is to be truly free Slave/Sklavos 8 Aug 08, 5:05 AM JSubathrt US(CA), 4 mths  This was really a thought provoking post for me. I got me to thinking about how I view myself as Dave's slave. What gets me up every day with joy and laughter? Why don't I feel as though I have lost everything that I am. For me it's an honor to have become a reflection of all that is good within the man who I call Master. My personality is still very much in tact. The playful nymph is still there and loves to laugh. The red headed, green eyed monster that reacts badly and takes punishment as warranted is still there. I truly believe that if those things weren't there that I wouldn't have the love and respect that I get from him every day. Without that love and respect, then I would be hard pressed to serve him in the numerous ways that I do. In fact, I feel more able to express who I really am, because the person that was hidden for so long now has an outlet that is safe and rewarding. For me, serving is not just about cleaning the house, making the beds, and cooking, etc. Nor is it about submitting to the numerous sexual escapades that we both enjoy. We have a housekeeper who cleans and Dave is a much better cook than I am (and he actually enjoys it). Serving is not just about that wonderful beating that I submitted to that left me heady with delight, but it's also about how I reflect that radiance back to the world. It's not about the punishment that I stood and took because I did something I wasn't supposed to in a moment of thoughtlessness that has left welts on my rear from the cane. To me, serving him is more about pleasing him, reacting in a way, to all manner of things, that actually reflect his high standards. It's staying centered on the things that are important to him. (And wow is that cane "centering"). If you asked someone who walks into our home who does not understand or know about the lifestyle that we lead or does business with us who the dominant personality is, they would probably say "oh...Judy...by far". They see the reflection of all that he has given me by faithfully and lovingly accepting the gifts of my submission and slavery to him. 8 Aug 08, 5:19 AM Kurtis US(AL), 4 mths  I chose not to quoate and reply do to the lateness of the hour. I am affraid I will not address each one of your questions individually and I hope that is ok with you. I Echo a bit of the previous answers however I often have a way of simplifying things so to it is my desire that this makes sense. I have to address the overall first idea you posed as to whether or not a slave can be trained to a degree that they completley subject themselves as an extension of thier master and while retaining literally nothing of their former selves. My answer to this is with probably half of the subs/slaves I have met here that yes you can but most of the time dont have to. Most of the training that needs to take place here is merely a matter of specific intricasies. simply learning what Master wants and what Master does not. The training you are talking about of completley robbing a slave of their will in its entirety i must tell you appears to me that it has been done usually by them already. I dont have to make my motorcycle a motorcycle I just have to steer it. Now of course I know that we are talking about a living being and not an inane object however, I feel like as far as free will goes most of those I have met here gave it up a long time ago and are just waiting to put it into practice if they are unowned or putting into practice if they are. Granted I have met some that are a little difficult and I would classify them as bedroom submissives over slaves. that is why I think it is important for one to know what they are seeking and look for it not just give in to the temptation of finding something close. People are what they are before you meet them. They have given thier will before you take it. That doesnt mean they are lost but rather it is my thinking that they are found. They have found what completes them what makes them happy and a lifestyle that they desire. I dont think they are to be detested for even a slave that accepts themselve for who they are, are in my opinion miles ahead of the rest of those still wondering the world searching. 8 Aug 08, 5:10 PM Mistress_Tiara UK, 23 mths  Gieren wrote: I intend to foray into the nebulous realms of philosophy. People get angry about philosophy. Many philosophical theories place heavy emphasis on the concept of free will. While on the surface your comments may seem to support the notion of free will, I believe you have actually overlooked this key point by disregarding the free will of the individual who makes the initial decision to enter into consentual slavery Gieren wrote: I have come to the conclusion that to truly enslave an individual...would have devastating effects on their personality. It would impose severe limitations on their potential as an individual and pervert (classical definition) any previous capacity for creativity with their new focus. Creating a slave requires the complete control of and immense modification of the functional personality, and I have decided that the procedure is not one I would reserve for my dearest, my loves and my pets, but for my fondest enemies. I have concluded that successful enslavement, the subjugation of the psyche, qualifies as nothing short of murder, and while I've little compulsions against the idea, I feel it is a course best reserved for those I would as soon kill. at what point does it become acceptable to destroy an individual, and all the creative and productive potential once harboured, and replace it with the potential of a slave? This whole idea is based on the notion that all slave Owners seek to destroy their properties creativity and productive capability. Ethics of the issue aside, that would seem to Me to be an 'own-goal' on the part if the Owner. An Owner chooses their slave on the basis of their capabilities and potential, and the sensible thing to do is to encourage these and make full use of them. Suggesting that enslaving an individual 'qualifies as nothing short of murder' seems an odd comment for someone who has registered on a site dedicated to those in M/s relationships. If you believe this then why register here? Gieren wrote: I do, however, find a slave at times detestable and infinitely less beautiful, in most cases, than the corresponding 'human' (that is to say, fully independent psyche) from which the slave was produced. Fine. Though if you find slaves detestable then again I suggest you are in the wrong place. Do you actually know any slaves? It's inconsiderate to call slaves detestable when you have entered a domain largely for them. That's not theoetical discourse however much you may like to pretend it is, its just rude. In fairness though I doubt many here are that bothered by your comments. Gieren wrote: In brief, I feel that the role of a slave is a poor allocation of resources That would depend simply on how the resource is handled and allocated. I wonder what your 'feeling' on this is actually based on? Real life is rather different to fantasy and fiction after all - My slave for example has created a beautiful garden under My direction which we all enjoy. I dont see this as a repression of creativity or a waste of resource and neither does he. If he was unowned and left to his own devices he would probably be watching TV, drinking and bedding an unholy anount of women. Im sure he would be having great fun, but as you reference creativity throughout your post I feel that the creation of a lovely garden is a far better use of My resource and far more creative. It has also proved far more satisfying for him, both through the creative process and the enjoyment of the result of his endeavours. Generalisations make for poor debate in My opinion. *~*Mistress Tiara*~* Edited 8 Aug 08, 5:21 PM by Mistress_Tiara 8 Aug 08, 11:05 PM anjuli UK, 16 mths  Mistress_Tiara wrote: Generalisations make for poor debate in My opinion. Very nicely put MT. That about sums the whole thing up. anjuli ~~~ “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naive or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” - Anais Nin ~~~ 8 Aug 08, 11:17 PM little_linnet US, 3 yrs  So hey then, every time I plant a seed I am destroying it and wasting its potential? It certainly doesn't grow into anything resembling the seed it used to be. And when I cut fabric to sew a skirt I am destroying the fabric and wasting it. And when I measure flour and butter to make a cake ... Unless, of course, transformation doesn't equal destruction. Krista I may be a blowzy, slovenly slattern, but how can you be drab when you've used a bedazzler to make rainbows all over your blue jeans? (For the record, this makes them more gay, but possibly less feminist.) 12 Aug 08, 5:47 AM Tragopan US(CA), 16 mths  Gieren wrote: The Value of a Human...the value of a slave I have come to the conclusion that to truly enslave an individual, as opposed to mere enpetment, (my own word, used with my own property) would have devastating effects on their personality. It would impose severe limitations on their potential as an individual and pervert (classical definition) any previous capacity for creativity with their new focus. Creating a slave requires the complete control of and immense modification of the functional personality, and I have decided that the procedure is not one I would reserve for my dearest, my loves and my pets, but for my fondest enemies. I have concluded that successful enslavement, the subjugation of the psyche, qualifies as nothing short of murder, and while I've little compulsions against the idea, I feel it is a course best reserved for those I would as soon kill. The question: Is such an enslavement possible? I believe so. I have seen several people, even in this vein of society, disagree on the grounds that there is an immutable personality, one that can be suppressed, but not destroyed... Regardless, I believe such a course is entirely plausible, and have yet to hear convincing evidence to the contrary. Your defininiton of a slave is indeed unusual. It sounds more like what I would call a "zombie" than a slave... It is indeed posssible to destroy a personality to this extent. During one of the wars in Mexico, there was a general in the army who was so cruel in his atrocities that he was hated deeply by the people. When he was finally captured, the people turned him over to a bruja (witch) who repeatedly drugged him with a plant and destroyed his personality and reprogrammed him to the point that he thought he was a dog - he slept with her dogs, ate with them, had lost the power of speech, and went on all fours with them. Similar things have been done in Haitian zombification procedures. Horrifying, and certainly not something that most of us would ever consider, except perhaps to a terrible enemy. --Tragopan "From darkness, light." Next page