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

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.

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

No.

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

I'd rather make BSDM illegal thbwy

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

gagsy why are you still here

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

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.

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

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.

omg, gagsy is the definition of keyboard warrior

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.

At 9/7/14 06:24 AM, Gagsy wrote: 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.

digression. I was talking solely about cases where person was shot by other person with intention to kill that first person.

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.

What I meant is that you wouldn't leave or cause their death just because they're unharmed. Start understanding the point of the statement, don't just react to keywords. It is possible, I swear I saw woman capable of that somewhere durning my life.

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.

Following your logic you're either a hypocryte or it's magically justified and okay to leave unarmed people for sure slow, painful death, while shooting an unarmed agressive thug in self defence a tragedy and mistake of whole humanity.

You remind me of woman I once knew. She was sjw type, liked apple products, loved black people mainly for their stereotypes and wanted a jewish intelligent-class parthner. She ended up with a black kid and her life destroyed because of her stupid dreams and inability to understand that this world has some major rules which don't care about your personal feelings like inner lust for vengance because someone does something you don't like.

At 9/7/14 06:51 AM, Makakaov wrote:

digression. I was talking solely about cases where person was shot by other person with intention to kill that first person.

Luck of the draw.

What I meant is that you wouldn't leave or cause their death just because they're unharmed. Start understanding the point of the statement, don't just react to keywords. It is possible, I swear I saw woman capable of that somewhere durning my life.

Holy shit start making sense. I swear I saw a man capable of that once too, but it wasn't on Newgrounds that was for sure.

Following your logic you're either a hypocryte or it's magically justified and okay to leave unarmed people for sure slow, painful death, while shooting an unarmed agressive thug in self defence a tragedy and mistake of whole humanity.

You're a magical twister of words that is for sure. If a guy who stole one item from a store is worse than someone who tortures animals then wow I am just shocked and amazed. Do you really love disagreeing with me so much that you will believe in this notion? Hell, I've stolen tons of times from supermarkets. I'm sure a lot of posters here have. Only one I'm endangering are the mega rich corporations. So please tell me again how the one that isn't worse is worse cause I must be missing something big here. I get it, I'm a woman its in my nature too right.

At 9/7/14 06:59 AM, Gagsy wrote: Holy shit start making sense. I swear I saw a man capable of that once too, but it wasn't on Newgrounds that was for sure.

Damn duude, I warned you about the keywords.

Following your logic you're either a hypocryte or it's magically justified and okay to leave unarmed people for sure slow, painful death, while shooting an unarmed agressive thug in self defence a tragedy and mistake of whole humanity.

You're a magical twister of words that is for sure. If a guy who stole one item from a store is worse than someone who tortures animals then wow I am just shocked and amazed.

It depends on what level you're talking. From law point of view, both Dahmer and Brown are criminals, while a man who brutally tortures and kills animals in slaughterhouse is a working backbone of our economy and food industry.

Of course committing a mass murder is morally worse than stealing from the shop, but simple things like stealing from a shop can lead to death or damages even worse than stupid Dahmer would ever do. Examples? Ferguson incident and it's consequences. Sure you're going to scream more at a serial killer because you're a woman, but the damages there were big, people got killed and arrested, because a simple thug decided he's tough enough to steal things and not comply with the law enforcement. Law sure was enforced on him properly.

Do you really love disagreeing with me so much that you will believe in this notion? Hell, I've stolen tons of times from supermarkets. I'm sure a lot of posters here have. Only one I'm endangering are the mega rich corporations.

"Mega rich corporations" depend on smaller enterprices, which usually deliver them products to sell. When employee will notice people steal a good version of product, they will replace it with worse model because it's cheaper. And even without such scenarios, just becaue you have stolen something from the shop it doesn't mean that Ferguson guy is excused. Just because you have stolen from the stop it doesn't mean you have to act agressive towards law enforcement which job is to catch you for crime you have done. That's how law works. Brown wasn't shot for stealing from the market and we both know that. He wasn't as morally evil as serial killers but it doesn't take being serial killer to deserve to get shot.

So please tell me again how the one that isn't worse is worse cause I must be missing something big here. I get it, I'm a woman its in my nature too right.

I never said it isn't worse, stop putting words in my mouth. I guess it's just in your nature, because you're a woman.

Isn't it there already in some way?

I'm fairly certain BDSM isn't slavery. Of course, if it's done unwillingly, then it pretty much is torture. Slavery is defined as the act of selling people. In that sense, what does selling a person even have anything to do with that? I guess you could expand the definition to "owning".

le Makakaov troll

At 9/7/14 04:49 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I often use this very subject to get out of sticky situations by changing the topic.

Girl: "What do you mean you don't like my blah blah blah?"

Me: Slavery should be legalized again!

No offense, but I kind of doubt wanting to legalize slavery would put you in the clear.

At 9/7/14 05:19 AM, Gagsy wrote: Well thought out response

Gagsy nailed it. There's absolutely no need for the government to intervene in something like this, as the sub isn't really the 'slave' of the dom in a real sense, only in a roleplaying sense.