litphoria

Ownership seems like a poor choice of words for the interest. This seems to be the only site that tags it as that instead of slavery, and when generally talking about the subject, it's referred to as slavery. Example, the civil war wasn't fought over ownership, it was fought over slavery.

Ownership is not always slavery. A pet has an owner. In some cultures the husband was the owner of his wife. For the modern USA this may be correct but not in general. I think the most important aspect is, that slavery has a very negative connotation. Ownership is not always negative.

I believe the intent here was to avoid the negative associations with "slavery" and account for the fact that not all ownership is nonconsenusal.

I believe the intent here was to avoid the negative associations with "slavery" and account for the fact that not all ownership is nonconsenusal.

Which to me sounds like Flist going around to dodge negative connotations of Paedophilia with their Ageplay. Let's have some consistency, shall we? We either name things for what they are or not, changing the stance around is not professional.

I did that. At first, it didn't include the word "legally", but it was pointed out that actual ownership of another person can be different than the BDSM definition of ownership, so not being part of that community and not wanting to get into that at all, I stuck "legally" in there. No one thought about the name after that (or at least I didn't). But yes, it should probably just read as "Slavery" now.

I don't get why it should have 'legally' there. It means that there is the whole subset of people who want illegal ownership and don't get that. What happened to the idea of making the interests mostly basic? There should either be both versions (legal and illegal) or one version that doesn't mention legality and leaves it up to people to specify.

This isn't trying to dodge anything. It's an interest about ownership, and slavery is only one kind of ownership.

I could play a robot or an animal pet and be owned but not a slave. Motoko Kusanagi, a well respected secret agent and soldier, is a character who in the original and remained series faces issues of ownership - her entire body and everything but her brain are legally government property. They aren't large narrative devices, but they are there and contributors to the story. No slavery. She's definitely indentured though.

It's not trying to allude to anything whilst not saying it. It means what it says on the tin. The comparison to f-list's ageplay doesn't hold.

If we want an interest in slavery we should have one but this doesn't need a rename because it is there to be what it is.

Adding slavery as its own interest would be fine too. Along those same lines, we have both mind control and hypnosis interests.

If there is slavery there should also be petplay.

Oh, well, I will own your soul if you just sign this little parchment with your blood. It's not slavery, it's a contract after all. *smiles *

Hm, animal play is close to pet play but not exactly the same. But indeed it would make not much sense to have pet play and animal play as interests.

I think that slavery vs. legal ownership is splitting hairs a bit too much personally, but at the same time, "own" is a broader word. Like you own a couch, but you wouldn't call it your slave. Or... at least I wouldn't.

Only thing I would argue about is to make sure both the established and not established (so probably all flavours of unlawful/nonconsensual) ways are somehow included. So, as said before, make two versions of it or just ditch the whole legally in the definition and leave it without that, would cover all uses.
Cutting into all the possible 'names' of it seems, for now, unnecessary. It is just really-really weird to establish a definition that is completely unusable for some people. Not to mention that the legality is, as with everything, very dependant on construction of narrative etc. I would just deal away with that legally, really.

It's not trying to allude to anything whilst not saying it. It means what it says on the tin. The comparison to f-list's ageplay doesn't hold.

My last post was somewhat incomprehensible, I switched my understanding on the issue while writing but didn't correct. I get that it is not named slavery because of wanting to cover more flavours, but I also wanted to express that if only reason to change the name was as mentioned by WA, that wouldn't be exactly proper, given how other things are handled.

We've added a separate Slavery interest. Closing this rename proposal.