If you are opposed to wage labor or "wage slavery" then you would logically be opposed to BDSM slavery. Both are voluntary but hierarchial, and since one is opposed, the other must be opposed for consistancy. Thus, the dominatrix/gorean/etc. is just as much a foe as the capitalist.

With that in mind, does that mean we will see anarchists hunting down dominatrices? Will anarchists closely moniter requests for marihuana plants to make sure that they all gets made into pot rather than rope? I guess that means that leather production will be completely halted.

I can't help but think of some encounter between them:

The Dominatrix
*An anarchist opproaches a BDSM dungeon*
Anarchist: I'm here to free the slaves! Slaves of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains, literally.
Dominatrix: You've been a bad little anarchist. It's time for some torture.
*Burly Brawl from Matrix: Reloaded plays*
*The anarchist throws motolov cocktails while the dominatrix whips*

ok.....ummm.....


This kid is obsesed with sex!


Also, capitalism is not consentual BTW. I'm sure my comrades will elaborate on that b/c I've got to run.

Capitalism is not voluntary and BDSM is not really hierarchical. In BDSM, there is only the illusion of domination. If the dominated wants to get out, (s)he can just say the safe word. There is no safe word to get out of capitalism.

In BDSM, there are slaves. You don't see that in capitalism. The capitalist safe word is "I quit". If you don't like it, you can get a different job. You can even be self-employed or start your own business.

The circumstances under which someone enters into a BDSM agreement are different from those under which someone enters into an empoyment agreement.

In BDSM, two people equally consent to an agreement. One agrees to cede power over his/her body to the other. When they are done, or when it is no longer enjoyable for one of them, they stop, and the dominated is now free and equal to the other. Everyone has the freedom to, and freedom from such an arrangement. One has not have to enter into such an agreement to live, only to satisfy oneself sexually.

In capitalism, two people with unequal power make an agreement. Everyone has the freedom to such an arrangement, but not everyone has the freedom from it. One does have to enter into such an agreement. If the only way to make money and survive was to submit to someone else sexually, even if someone consented to submission, the relationship is still exploitative because someone does not have the freedom not to make the agreement with someone. Since the only way to make money and survive is to submit to someone as an employee, the relationship is still exploitative because the employee has to submit to someone. Sure, (s)he can submit to someone else, but (s)he will still have to submit.

Then why do they call it slavery?



You can be self employed or start your own business, though.

Because, some people get off on that. Slavery is not based on consent. BDSM is based on consent. Therefore, BDSM is not a form of slavery.



This has been addressed in another thread

The answers are too widely spread through the thread. Why can't you start your own business or be self-employed?

Objection the first: BDSM "slavery" and wage slavery are not identical. Firstly, "slavery" in BDSM confers no power outside the relationship; even if it is hierarchal (and I won't say that it universally isn't), it isn't exploitative, and a Master is unable to exert any coercive power beyond that already held. The money exploited in wage slavery is usable to exert coercive power outside the capitalist/wage-slave relationship. Secondly, as has already been noted, capitalism has no safeword.

Objection the second: Technically speaking, a dominatrix isn't involved in "slavery" at all. A dominatrix (if I understand correctly this is one of the standard connotations within the S&M scene, which I'm not part of) is a job, a form of skilled labor (as for instance is noted in an article SergeForward posted 'round these here parts some years back - by an anarcho-communist dominatrix, I might add, and apparently not the only one either.) No relationship is inherent in dealing with a dominatrix beyond domme/client; as such, while certain actions may be objectionable on an ad hoc basis, there's no ground for making a transcendental "Thou shalt smash the dominatrices" statement the way you're doing.

Objection the third: There are anarchist dominatrices (and presumably a few anarchist submissives too; there are nearly 7 billion people in the world, stranger things have probably been seen under the sun.) 'nuff said.

The thread is not that long. It's not as long as, say, a book. If you have enough patience to read a book, you have enough patience to read the thread. And since the thread specifically addresses the question you asked, and since the question was asked by someone with the same opinions as you, it shouldn't be hard to find the patience to read it.

If I understand it, it seems that only previously wealthy people can get enough money, usually from bank loan



There goes my arguments. Completely shattered. I'll back with new ones, though. Still, the idea of an anarcho-communist dominatrix is odd to me. I can't help but think of a Jewish nazi or a gay homophobe.

It is an odd combo (though not an inherently contradictory one), but the world's seen odder ones - including several Jewish Nazis (and one Jewish Grand Dragon of the KKK, if I recall correctly) and plenty of gay homophobes.

Pretty much. But even if it were easy to go from poor to rich, that social mobility would not justify socio-economic hierarchies.



BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!



Why? A dominatrix does not really dominate anyone. Oh, and a lot of homophobes are actually gay, or at least they are afraid that they might be, and they react to that fear with hatred of gays/themselves.

.

Ha ha ha ...

This is funny.



.

You're a total dumbass.