You name them slaves because they fit within the bounds of your definition... and if they don't, they aren't slaves. So you've assigned a meaning to the word and catagorize your subs based on whether they fit the meaning. Your "defense" uses the definition as proof... That would be disallowed in a debate or logic challenge.Originally Posted by Master Cromac
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, because if we can't agree upon the meaning of the word (and state of mind,) we really can't discuss it without being at cross-purposes.
However...
We're saying... I'm saying... that many subs would classify themselves as slaves though they may not fit within the bounds of your definition. Therefore, your definition would exclude them from the happiness their feeling of slavery brings them because you would not accept them as being slaves.
I object to that as much as I did proposed definitions of Master/Dom/Top that, by definition, "excluded" me from the lifestyle...
I hope that all makes sense.... it's late and my ears are still buzzing from my 6 hour motorcycle ride.