Find me any jurisdiction where under the justification of "BDSM" one becomes the chattel property of another and thus can no longer do anything by their own will, and can only escape it if they're manumitted. I guarantee you won't find any.
Notice the words that I typed said that I
imagine it
could be a form of it, not that it is?
Because if you own yourself, you can sell yourself and lose it. It's a contradiction. I believe it's "immoral" to own yourself, or really anything honestly. It's a greedy mentality.
It's not a contradiction. We're talking about humans here, not a static material asset. It's literally impossible to control all aspects of a human, and so there will always be a degree of self-ownership. You can certainly put a human in chains, restrict their physical movements, force them, coerce them, manipulate and blackmail them, etc. But there are still whole other realms of features and capacities to a human that cannot be taken and must be volunteered, such as consent. And whole other realms that
ought to be self-owned, such as what we volunteer to do with our own body, what we volunteer to take into our own body, which paths we choose in life, and so on, up to the point where they conflict with those of others.
Well, history disagrees with you. The Aztecs, the Romans, the Ottomans, and even to some extent the British and Americans had voluntary slavery, where you sold yourself to be chattel and the only way to escape was the goodwill of your master, or I guess running away. How does "self-ownership" exclude this? If I own myself, can't I do anything I want with my own body, including selling it to be someone's chattel? If not, then you yourself are stating I don't own myself.
Also, do children own themselves? In many past societies one could sell their kids into slavery ostensibly to give them a better life. Was very common with the Romans.
Honestly, I must be missing something here. I feel like I'm having an entirely different conversation to you. I keep trying to narrow down my points and emphasise the specifics I'd like you to address, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere.
Anyway, we'll ignore my questions. The answers are not forthcoming and I've forgotten what I was leading to anyway. Let's just go with your questions so we have something to talk about.
How does "self-ownership" exclude this? If I own myself, can't I do anything I want with my own body, including selling it to be someone's chattel? If not, then you yourself are stating I don't own myself.
I think the problem here is you're talking about 'owning' oneself strictly in terms of material property. I should have picked up on that earlier and expanded on what I meant. I'm speaking in terms of personal liberty and responsibility, self-determination, the permission to do whatever we want with ourselves as long as it does not affect others, in which case terms must be reached.
Also, do children own themselves?
Insofar as what they should be free from having inflicted upon them, yes. And we ought to protect that sanctity, since we are able to and since they are incapable of protecting it themselves.
Poll
Topic: Suicide or not?