Home > rayne > Should slaves be completely dependent upon their Owners for survival?

Should slaves be completely dependent upon their Owners for survival?

February 13th, 2006

a slave such as myself is not capable of functioning in the outside world anymore……. A slave is not supposed to be self sustaining but depends on the owner for support…..

These two statements kind of irritate me. The reason is, a slave has to be responsible and be able to be independent should the need arise. They should be strong enough, responsible enough, and intelligent enough to be able to walk into the “outside world” and take care of themselves and adhere to their Master’s/Mistress’s rules without their owner looming over their shoulder all the time. These statements suggest that slaves are weak and that they can’t do these things and this shouldn’t be the case. And whether or not a slave should be able to be self-sustaining should be left up to their owner, should it not?

The economy of the world today sometimes makes it impossible for a household of more than one to survive on only one paycheck. If, in fact, a slave cannot function in the outside world and cannot be depended on to be able to stand on their own two feet without their Master/Mistress holding them up (metaphoric, not literal), how can their household be supported? Should the Master/Mistress work more than one job to support the slave because the slave is completely dependent upon them to survive? How is that fair to them? Slaves are supposed to serve, not be served, and saying they cannot sustain themselves is the same as saying they should be served, in my opinion.

Categories: rayne Tags:
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: