Quote Originally Posted by Master Cromac
In the over 30 years I have been envovled with BDSM I have found some things common amoung the groups I was with. One is that both the subs and slaves chose who is to Dom them. If is going to last there is a period of coutship if you will so they can become more aware of each other. During this period limits are discussed and agreed upon. The slaves I have knowen all said they would do anything their Dom/Domms asked of them they trusted them that much. I do admitt the almost all were husband and wife also. And the Dom/Domme had their owen limits. As far as safety is concerned it is called safe and sane play. And I agree that the issuse here is not my deffintion of slavery but rather his inability to accept his subs answer of NO. And I too am qiute concerned that he does not know what ind of animals nor how many there are. I am a firm believer in NO MEANS NO.
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.

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.