Should slavery be legal

[GrizzlyOne]

in developed countries?

obviously this wouldn't happen in real life, but if you were a leader, what if there was like, a couple really into BSDM? (especially the BD part).

The sub would want to be recognized as a slave to his/her's master or dom, and as such would be recognized as a slave and would have reduced human rights, he/she wouldn't be able to interfer financially in terms of their dom's property unless of course the dom was in some kind of legal trouble (in jail) or among the like.

Along with the reduced human rights would be complete ownership to the dom, the sub can be treated legally as what the dom wants, whether it be something sexual or just being degraded.

The only exceptions to this rule are that the sub cannot be severely maimed or killed, the sub if need be due to emotional stress, mental, and/or physical stress has the power to legally get out of this label of slavery as easy as he/she got into it. The couple also cannot perform any "degrading" actions in public where it wouldn't be normally concerned acceptable to commit severe acts of the like. (I've seen of stories where doms take their subs out naked with various objects sticking out of their asses and walking like a dog, that kind of stuff shouldn't be accepted in public because several people as of right now consider it taboo)

The thought of this crossed my mind when a friend of mine who was researching bdsm linked me to an article about it

[Gagsy]

BSDM is a completely different topic because as you know its a persons choice if they want to be submissive to their lover. It should never go beyond what they do in their own household. You want to make them a slave in everything they do but I'm pretty sure the majority of them only act as a 'slave' to their partner, not doing the whole public thing. Well a few do of course, as you know.. But yeah you want to have reduced rights for them? That alone is an insult. You can CHOOSE to be a 'slave' in your home but once you exit that house, or indeed that relationship you are a human and should be treated as such by anyone you come into contact with, and in fact by your own master too.

So to put it simply;

No.

[GrizzlyOne]

At 9/7/14 05:19 AM, Gagsy wrote:

No.

thats why i included the part about not leaving the house due to taabboity

[Ejit]

I'd rather make BSDM illegal thbwy

[Gagsy]

At 9/7/14 05:21 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

thats why i included the part about not leaving the house due to taabboity

But you talked about reducing their basis human rights.

That ain't cool man.

If we give the full human rights to people who abuse kids and cops who murder black guys for no reason but not to someone who gets a sexual thrill from acting submissive with their partner. Dude.

[yurgenburgen]

At 9/7/14 05:12 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: The sub would want to be recognized as a slave to his/her's master or dom, and as such would be recognized as a slave and would have reduced human rights, he/she wouldn't be able to interfer financially in terms of their dom's property unless of course the dom was in some kind of legal trouble (in jail) or among the like.

this happens in real life. There are men who sign over their power of attorney to mistresses, etc
there are couples who 'submit' to an owner by having the man get a vasectomy and having the woman get her tubes tied.

so long as they all consent to it it's legal I suppose

[GrizzlyOne]

At 9/7/14 05:25 AM, Gagsy wrote:

At 9/7/14 05:21 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

thats why i included the part about not leaving the house due to taabboity

But you talked about reducing their basis human rights.

That ain't cool man.

If we give the full human rights to people who abuse kids and cops who murder black guys for no reason but not to someone who gets a sexual thrill from acting submissive with their partner. Dude.

When I say reduced human rights I mean it half-and half, in terms of things like basic human rights provided by the bill of rights like freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial, those would apply, by that phrase I meant recognized more of being owned more to the dom, and a result the dom has more freedom to do what he/she pleases with the sub so long as isn't severe main/killing, if the sub feels damaged emotionally, physically, or mentally, the sub can get out of the legal agreement any time just as easily as he/she got into the legal agreement.

I don't mean it in a negative way

[Xenomit]

At 9/7/14 05:25 AM, Gagsy wrote: If we give the full human rights to people who abuse kids

Well, not full human rights, a couple get tightened up a bit and tested

and cops who murder black guys for no reason

*Cops who murder people for no reason

Only racists make things about race

but not to someone who gets a sexual thrill from acting submissive with their partner. Dude.

Well, it's not like they're being forcefully taken away, the person in question is willingly giving them up for said sexual thrill

[GrizzlyOne]

At 9/7/14 05:27 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 9/7/14 05:12 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

this happens in real life. There are men who sign over their power of attorney to mistresses, etc
there are couples who 'submit' to an owner by having the man get a vasectomy and having the woman get her tubes tied.

so long as they all consent to it it's legal I suppose

How does getting a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied mean submitting to your dom

[Xenomit]

At 9/7/14 05:34 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: How does getting a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied mean submitting to your dom

It's more of a "master - pet" kinda thing. Lots of owners have treatments done to their pets (usually cats and dogs) that keep them from being able to breed.

[yurgenburgen]

At 9/7/14 05:34 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: How does getting a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied mean submitting to your dom

apparently it's to do with the process of becoming the property of someone else
removing the things that make you your own person, so to speak
idk it's fucking weird tbh.

[Gagsy]

At 9/7/14 05:33 AM, Xenomit wrote:

*Cops who murder people for no reason

Only racists make things about race

Yeah huge racist me. Love black people.

Just had Ferguson on my mind seeing how recent it was.

And it pretty much is about cops who murder black people, because in fact they seem to get more rights then the guys they've killed for no reason. If a cop kills a white person for no reason its usually a bigger deal to the police force then just another black guy wrongfully shot.

[Xenomit]

At 9/7/14 05:38 AM, Gagsy wrote: If a cop kills a white person for no reason its usually a bigger deal to the police force then just another black guy wrongfully shot.

Ok, I'm saying this to everyone right now, not just you, you all realize that the kid who got shot wasn't an innocent angel, right? Just because the cop was white and the guy was black doesn't automatically mean that all white cops are demons and this guy was a harmless sweetheart who would never hurt a fly, the kid was a thug. Just before he got shot he was recorded robbing a convenience store. Not only was he robbing it, but he wasn't even trying to be sneaky about it, he was as thuggish as he could possibly be; he just grabbed what he wanted in plain view of everyone, and when the clerk tried to stop him the guy strong armed him, threatened him, and proceeded to leave the store.

So lets not all pretend that it was some kind of tragedy, a thug was shot and killed. Sure the cop should have done a better job at not killing him, obviously, but only so that he could be charged with robbery and taken to court, he wasn't some poor innocent who was killed for no reason.

Ok, but that's not the point of the thread, seriously, don't derail it, I'm just so sick and tired of people acting like that was a legitimate tragedy when it was no where near.

[Makakaov]

Some people should just follow. Slavery is for hardcore servants.

[Radaketor]

At 9/7/14 05:45 AM, Xenomit wrote: you all realize that the kid who got shot wasn't an innocent angel, right? Just because the cop was white and the guy was black doesn't automatically mean that all white cops are demons and this guy was a harmless sweetheart who would never hurt a fly, the kid was a thug.

This.

[Gremlin]

I've no idea what's going on in this fucking thread.

[Gagsy]

Unarmed is unarmed.

Unless Michael Brown was dressed up as Pennywise the clown and had his razor-sharp teeth glistening menacingly, there is no need to shoot him 6 times was it?

[Makakaov]

At 9/7/14 05:59 AM, Gagsy wrote: Unarmed is unarmed.

Unless Michael Brown was dressed up as Pennywise the clown and had his razor-sharp teeth glistening menacingly, there is no need to shoot him 6 times was it?

Implying one cannot shoot an unarmed man.

Implying you wouldn't shoot unarmed Dahmer/Hitler/some heavy animal abuser/etc.

[Gagsy]

At 9/7/14 06:01 AM, Makakaov wrote:

Implying one cannot shoot an unarmed man.

Shoulder, leg. I've seen cop shows man. I know where you're meant to hit them to get them to stop. In the head twice though? I mean yeah it stops them, but a little too permanently you know.

Implying you wouldn't shoot unarmed Dahmer/Hitler/some heavy animal abuser/etc.

Its hilarious that you're comparing Michael Brown to any one of those.

[Xenomit]

At 9/7/14 06:04 AM, Gagsy wrote:

At 9/7/14 06:01 AM, Makakaov wrote: Implying you wouldn't shoot unarmed Dahmer/Hitler/some heavy animal abuser/etc.

Its hilarious that you're comparing Michael Brown to any one of those.

The point he's making is unarmed =/= innocent. At the end of the day, he was a thug robbing a convenience store for cigars (or whatever it was). Sure, it's excessive to kill him for that, we should let cops just start killing criminals, but this wasn't a tragedy, not by a long shot. He might not have deserved to die, but he was very far from innocent.

[Xenomit]

At 9/7/14 06:07 AM, Xenomit wrote: we should let cops just start killing criminals

Shouldn't*

Don't anyone dare quote that and say some retarded shit, you should be able to tell out of context that it wasn't what I meant

[GrizzlyOne]

At 9/7/14 05:36 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 9/7/14 05:34 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: How does getting a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied mean submitting to your dom

apparently it's to do with the process of becoming the property of someone else
removing the things that make you your own person, so to speak
idk it's fucking weird tbh.

I think I understand xenomit's pov more on it than yours, the whole master-pet thing

ya, that makes more sense

[Makakaov]

At 9/7/14 06:04 AM, Gagsy wrote:

At 9/7/14 06:01 AM, Makakaov wrote:

Implying one cannot shoot an unarmed man.

Shoulder, leg. I've seen cop shows man. I know where you're meant to hit them to get them to stop. In the head twice though? I mean yeah it stops them, but a little too permanently you know.

Police officers are trained that when potentially hostile person is approaching them and they're allowed to shoot they have to shoot twice in the chest and once in the head. Both chest and head are rather vital shot areas so it's clear what the purpose of this training is. Durning adrenaline rush one can get several shots to limbs and not even feel it. You say two shots is too much? There are hundereds if not thousands of cases of gunshots to the head where the person hit survived and was actually fine. Besides life is not an action movie, when you feel threatened and under the pressure you don't always have time to aim properly, or control how many times you shoot exactly.

Implying you wouldn't shoot unarmed Dahmer/Hitler/some heavy animal abuser/etc.

Its hilarious that you're comparing Michael Brown to any one of those.

I wasn't even adressing Michael Brown thing, just your post about shooting an unarmed man. And It's hilarious how you're avoiding a solid argument that points to your hypocisy.

And yeah, he got rightfully shot. Some people have to go and they don't have to commit genocide first to make it obvious.

[GrizzlyOne]

gagsy why are you still here

why did you derail my thread into garbage over shit that happened like two months ago

[yurgenburgen]

At 9/7/14 06:13 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: I think I understand xenomit's pov more on it than yours, the whole master-pet thing

ya, that makes more sense

tbh it's not something I am into, and when the subject of tube-tying came up I promptly NOPE.JPGed
bit to extreme for my liking
too real mang

[Makakaov]

At 9/7/14 06:17 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: gagsy why are you still here

why did you derail my thread into garbage over shit that happened like two months ago

She is a notable troll starting flamewars and framing me for almost all of them. It's a known fact she posts some flame posts to bait me and when I get into an argument she tells mods to delete her flaming posts and people start accusing me of being the troll.

[GrizzlyOne]

At 9/7/14 06:18 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 9/7/14 06:13 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: I think I understand xenomit's pov more on it than yours, the whole master-pet thing

ya, that makes more sense

tbh it's not something I am into, and when the subject of tube-tying came up I promptly NOPE.JPGed
bit to extreme for my liking
too real mang

idk, i started this topic because i myself am interested in BS and wanted to know if something like this actually existed or not ( in terms of legality) but i put that thing at the end of the thread was a lie but it doesnt matter now because gagsy destroyed my thread to the point where it's probably gonna get locked.

doesn't really matter

[Gagsy]

At 9/7/14 06:13 AM, Makakaov wrote:

Police officers are trained that when potentially hostile person is approaching them and they're allowed to shoot they have to shoot twice in the chest and once in the head. Both chest and head are rather vital shot areas so it's clear what the purpose of this training is. Durning adrenaline rush one can get several shots to limbs and not even feel it. You say two shots is too much? There are hundereds if not thousands of cases of gunshots to the head where the person hit survived and was actually fine. Besides life is not an action movie, when you feel threatened and under the pressure you don't always have time to aim properly, or control how many times you shoot exactly.

Usually the gunshot head wound survivors are those self inflicted. Either way if you're aiming for the head you're usually only after one outcome.

I wasn't even adressing Michael Brown thing, just your post about shooting an unarmed man. And It's hilarious how you're avoiding a solid argument that points to your hypocisy.

What hypocrisy? I don't think I've ever once voiced a desire to shoot Jeffrey Daffrey, Hitler or any animal abusers. I would surely love some justice against the latter but why kill them dead when I'd rather make them suffer like they make their animals suffer. So please never put words in my mouth.

And yeah, he got rightfully shot. Some people have to go and they don't have to commit genocide first to make it obvious.

Yeah ok sure concede.

[GrizzlyOne]

omg, gagsy is the definition of keyboard warrior

[Gagsy]

At 9/7/14 06:21 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

idk, i started this topic because i myself am interested in BS and wanted to know if something like this actually existed or not ( in terms of legality) but i put that thing at the end of the thread was a lie but it doesnt matter now because gagsy destroyed my thread to the point where it's probably gonna get locked.

doesn't really matter

Hey man I'm sorry. I only wanted to mention one little thing I gave no second thought to then I got called a racist for it? I didn't find that cool.

I did respond to your thread originally on what I personally think on the matter so Ii hope that counted for.. something.

I feel strongly on the not losing any human identity because I have submissive tendencies, and sure why acting out that way with another does turn me me, a deal breaker would indeed be me giving them EVERYTHING that I am.