Thursday 25 October 2012

A slave..but not a slave?

Amused by the discussions that have been flying around, both online and offline, both public and private.. I thought I'd finally put a new post up here - and what could be a better subject, that something that is close to my own situation?

The idea that slaves are slaves regardless of whether they have an owner is absolute bollocks. It is nonsense. Regardless of whether you look at history itself or the Gorean books. In fact, the only place that I know of that this kind of idiocy is tolerated is internet chatrooms, and second life Goreans. 

So in an attempt to educate those that have got their wires crossed, or are just plain ignorant.. Here we go. 

People will say "a dog is a still a dog, even if it has no owner." And I would agree with that. However, what people fail to realise is that a 'slave' is not a species. The species is 'homo sapien' (human), and that doesn't change whether in a relationship or not. However, the 'slave' idea DOES change whether you are in a relationship or not.

Does anyone know of any Roman, Greek or even African slaves who were "not owned"? No. Because they didn't exist. If a slave had no owner (and being "owned by the state" - thus not having a 'single owner' - still counts as being owned, as is stated in some of the Gorean novels), then it ceases to be a slave. It is then its own person., and thus, by definition, not a slave but FREE.

People seem to have lost the reality of what a 'slave' actually is. It isn't a princess-y "this is what I feel like, so I must be one.." attitude.

Perhaps the Oxford English Dictionary says it best - 
Slave(noun)
- (especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
- a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something.

Free(adjective)
- able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another
- (historical) not a slave.

It goes on, and you're free to read up on it as you wish. But the idea remains the same. A slave is a person who is the property or another, and who is controlled by someone (or something). 'Free' is classified as 'not under the control of another'. I wonder if everyone who fights for the 'unowned slave' status is willing to take on the dictionary as well...

Sure, anyone (including 'free' people) can have 'slave tendencies' - that doesn't make them a slave. It might make them a 'possible slave', or a 'slave in waiting', but for all intents and purposes they are still free until such time as they have an owner or controller. They might WANT to be a slave, they might have been TRAINED as a slave... but until such time as they are collared to someone - they are NOT a slave. 

So for all these people that claim I (and many others who have been slaves and have been freed through one reason or another) am NOT a free woman - think again. 

From a Gorean perspective, Master Asmodeusgm (fetlife) put it most succinctly, so with his permission I have included his words:

Girl IN a collar = slave
Girl NOT IN a collar = free woman
Girl IN the collar of a GOREAN male = kajira
Girl IN the collar of a NON-GOREAN man = slave

It really is as simple as that. 

If a person is collared, they are treated as a slave, because that is what they are. If a person is not collared (regardless of whether they have been collared in the past, or wish they were collared now), they are treated as a free person, because that is what they are. 

Argue if you wish, but before you do, please consider this...I can support my argument with both historical and present day facts, and Gorean references.. Can you?

Copyright

All content on this website is copyright protected.



Permission to use any of the content must be sought from either the author, or Asmodeus. Details on how to contact can be found on the 'Blog and Me' page.



©The House of Asmodeus