The clitorides voting is open until the end of April. Vote for your favourites [ X Dismiss ]
Home « Forum « Story Recommendations

Forum: Story Recommendations

Similar to "The Collar Around the Heart"

bloseagree

Hello,

I'm searching for stories with a similar concept to The Collar Around the Heart or Elevated where a young protagonist is given a servant/slave to do as he wishes. Best if it doesn't contain any heavy BDSM or incest.

Do you guys know anything that falls in this category?

sunkuwan

@bloseagree

A slave to do what he wishes WITHOUT being heavy on BDSM?
Slaves are by definition heavily involved in the BDSM scene.

Replies:   anim8ed  joyR
Obliterous

'Growing up a Master' by MWTB

https://storiesonline.net/a/MWTB

Replies:   sunkuwan
anim8ed
Updated:

@sunkuwan

As with most things there are degrees and shades.

The OP would be better helped if they specified which areas of BDSM they were not interested in.

Bondage / Discipline (lots of degrees from spanking up to hardcore SM)

Dominance / Submission (kinda need this for slaves)

Sadism / Masochism (Pain freaks)

sunkuwan

@Obliterous

I would define growing up a master as heavy bdsm

Replies:   Obliterous
Obliterous

@sunkuwan

I would define growing up a master as heavy bdsm


and having been there, done that, I consider it medium, at most.

bloseagree

I would say no excessive pain or violence.
Definitely domsub is neccessary as you mentioned but where the protagonist doesn't inflict any pain on the girl.
It's more of - she was given to him somehow and it's his first servant/slave; he's learning about what it means and what is possible

Replies:   seanski1969
seanski1969
Updated:

@bloseagree

Then you want https://storiesonline.net/s/42959/the-favor by MWTB which is more inline with your wishes.

joyR

@sunkuwan

Slaves are by definition heavily involved in the BDSM scene.


Not true.

Perhaps in fiction that might appear true, the reality is different, (Isn't it always?) There are those who live as slaves without any 'heavy BDSM'

Some harem style stories illustrate this.

BDSM is a generic term that covers way too many facets of sexuality for it to be in any way specific.

Replies:   sunkuwan
sunkuwan

@joyR

I disagree.
Slaves are the property of a person in the BDSM scene. There is nothing "light" about it.

A submissive person who submits to a dominant person is "light BDSM" But this person still has their freedom, must decide for themselves and can walk out whenever they want.
A slave is the ritualized ownership of a person. A slave has no freedom, there is a contract, and their master/Mistress will decide everything for them (this includes what the slave is allowed to decide for themselves)

Replies:   joyR
joyR

@sunkuwan

A slave is the ritualized ownership of a person. A slave has no freedom, there is a contract, and their master/Mistress will decide everything for them (this includes what the slave is allowed to decide for themselves)


(My bold)

Indeed, that's correct, as far as it goes.

Ritualised is important. The slave does have an 'out' can walk away, usually that means the end of any association indefinitely. But more to the point is that it does not infer or require any of the more intense acts usually deemed 'heavy' BDSM.

The OP was specific. "Best if it doesn't contain any heavy BDSM or incest." In this context I presume the OP means impact play etc etc etc. It is perfectly possible to maintain a Master/slave or Mistress/slave relationship without such things being practised.

Of course if one was to count a person deemed to be a slave as 'heavy' simply by virtue of the role, then yes, but that obviously isn't what the OP meant.

samuelmichaels

@bloseagree

Colt45 has several stories similar to the Collar, but they do generally contain incest, except for Finder's Fee.

JohnBobMead
Updated:

Oy.

Clearly, the lot of you _haven't_ read The Collar...

This is not a scene. It's not play, it's not ritualized.

It's legal slavery. The slave is not voluntarily such. It's just like the slavery in the US prior to the Civil War, and in England prior to it being outlawed, etc., etc. etc.

Thus, BDSM doesn't enter the situation, at all. That's why he doesn't want stories dealing with heavy BDSM; it's not that version of slavery.

(This doesn't mean that there aren't those who wouldn't abuse the legal situation in an involuntary pseudo-BDSM type of thing, but without all involved being voluntarily part of it, it doesn't classify as BDSM in my book, but just outright criminal sadistic treatment on the part of the _legal_ owner of _legal_ property; while the owner is getting jollies from it, the slave _isn't_; it's not reciprocal, it's not a mutually supportive relationship.)

Yes, D/S is part of it, but only in that the legal situation mandates that the slave submits to the orders of the owner, and she (the slave) is very much aware of this.

That said... check out a series of stories by Tedbiker, Devastation Diaries. These are also set in an England where things have drastically changed, in this case after a devastating world war, and legal indentured servitude (in theory, not slavery, in practice, yes, slavery) has been re-instituted. And, as with Old Softy, Tedbiker writes very compassionate stories.

Tedbiker does have a couple of other stories which involve slavery of the BDSM definition, but they, too, have much more of the feel of The Collar than those suggested previously. I would unhesitatingly recommend them as well.

Replies:   sherlockx
bloseagree

What you described is exactly what I had in mind!

I'll try your recommendation, thanks!

sherlockx

@JohnBobMead

and in England prior to it being outlawed,

Slavery has never been legal in England,at least not for roughly 1000 years.
The Slave trade (which was ostensibly legal) was abolished by the Slave Trade Act 1807 but the moment a slave set foot in Engand then that slave became free .
In 1569 a law case held

"that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in."

That is not to say that individuals did not flout or circumvent the law

Ernest Bywater

@sherlockx

Slavery has never been legal in England,at least not for roughly 1000 years.


Hmm, the pre-Roman Celts kept slaves, the Romans kept slaves, the Saxons kept slaves, the Normans kept slaves - there's nearly 2,000 years there.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

I detect a maths problem.

2018 - 1807 is not roughly 1000.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

I detect a maths problem.


Pre-Roman Celts were around hundreds of years before AD1, and if you take into account the bronze age and iron age cultures who also had slave you can add many more hundreds of years, not so sure about the neolithic period as the evidence of them having slaves isn't that good.

Replies:   sunkuwan
sunkuwan

@Ernest Bywater

the main point was, that slavery was not present for a thousand years before our time. you talk about 2000 years before.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Obliterous

To (try and) pull this thread back in the direction of the original request...

If MWTB is too much BDSM, try Elevated by Tom Frost.

https://storiesonline.net/a/Tom_Frost

Ernest Bywater

@sunkuwan

the main point was, that slavery was not present for a thousand years before our time. you talk about 2000 years before.


Slavery was common during the Norman times, and they didn't start until 1066, to the 'no slavery for the last 1,000 years' is clearly wrong. What is in doubt was how organised slavery in the UK was between the 1500s and 1800s, but there were slaves in England in the 1700s, with many being taken there in the company of people from the colonies.

Replies:   sherlockx
sherlockx
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Please quote me correctly! I said


roughly 1000 years.


I would be interested in your evidence for saying

that


there were slaves in England in the 1700s, with many being taken there in the company of people from the colonies


That implies it was systemic and widespread.

I did say


That is not to say that individuals did not flout or circumvent the law


Please also note that my post only referred to England and NOT the UK which did not exist until 1801

Please note that I am only referring to the traditional definition of slavery and not economic slavery.

p.s Please note I own a personal original Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

According to the reports from the day many of the people involved the slave trade and other mercantile projects had slaves, also many of the people from the Americas who had slaves took them with them to England when visiting or returning to England and some were presented as gifts to those in power in England. It may not have been legal to make people slaves in England at the time, but they weren't automatically set free. Ben Franklin took 2 slaves with him to England in 1762 where 1 ran away and he didn't go after him, but he took the other back to the Americas with him.

There are accounts of Australian Aboriginals who were taken to England as slaves who later escaped and returned to Australia, but were never emancipated or set free.

Apart from the proven need for the Slave Trade Act of 1824 and the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 to end slavery throughout the Empire you have a few interesting cases like the Somersett v Stewart case of 1772 where Lord Mansfield declared a slave bought in Boston and taken back to England was set free. Prior to that slaves purchased outside of England and taken back were still slaves.

Then we can get into such things as forced economic slavery like serfdom and the like that continued for centuries, and the forced use of convicts as unpaid slave labour until the late 19th or early 20th century.

typo edit

Replies:   sherlockx
sherlockx
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

It is interesting that I asked you for evidence and you simply reply with dialogue citing reports.I am aware of reports that prove the existence of fairies indeed with photos (The Cottingley Fairies )

There is a long tradition of uncensored authorship of social commentary in England , starting with Chaucer,especially prevalent in the Elizabethan times, continuing through to Dickens, Wells etc and yet I am aware of none that mention slavery.

Yes I am aware of convicts being sentenced to hard labour but there again that was probably viewed as rehabilitation.

I believe that practice was still in existence in the USA at least in the 1960s as evidenced by the hit song Chain Gang was inspired after a chance meeting with an actual chain-gang of prisoners on a highway and if one can believe the opening scenes of Rambo 2 then into the 80s.

As a country England has certainly not got an unblemished history (remember that the English invented the concentration camp in the boer wars) but please do not reinvent history to suit yourself.

It is as bad as the story I started reading and closed the window in disgust when it opened by saying that Robin Hood was awaiting the return of his men who were hunting turkeys in the forest
post scriptum I have the greatest of respect for you as an author and if you wish to continue this dialogue elsewhere the please dm me.I believe this thread has been thoroughly polluted

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@sherlockx

dialogue citing reports.


I see you're ignoring the British laws I mentioned and the documents about why they were needed as well as ignoring the British law case Somerset v Stewart of 1772 as well as the well documented trip of Ben Franklin in 1762. But since you made the claim England had been slave free for centuries, you need to do the research to prove it. I see you also ignore the economic slavery that lasted for centuries called serfdom where people could be summarily killed for being outside of their master's lands without permission because they were not 'freemen.' You claim to have the British law books, look up the laws and cases I mentioned, then check the newspaper archives on the Australian and American natives taken back to England as slaves. Hint - it was the 1772 Somersett case that decided slavery wasn't legal in England.

Replies:   sherlockx
sherlockx
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

I am sorry but yet again you are wrong. The two acts you refer to were consolidating acts following on from the Slave Trade Act 1807 , which I first mentioned and dealt with the abolition of slavery in the Empire.

But since you made the claim England had been slave free for centuries, you need to do the research to prove it.

Are you really expecting me to prove a negative?

I have repeatedly asked you for evidence and all I get is ill informed rhetoric.

Hint case law on slavery being illegal goes back to 1569.There is nothing worse than amateur lawyers!!!!

You are the one that claimed there has been slavery in England. Prove it !

I shall not comment further in this thread as it is pointless arguing with a closed mind

Ernest Bywater

@sherlockx

I have repeatedly asked you for evidence


I seed you still ignore the Somersett v Stewart case of 1772 which is where the English courts establish slavery as not being legal in England. It had to go to court as it was seen as legal until then. I see you also ignore the way the English law called slavery by another name but exactly the same in fact - serfdom and indentured servitude.

You claimed their had been no slavery in England for 1,000 years, yet the Normal laws put in place in 1066 and in the centuries following then included laws on the treatment of slaves, so that alone blows you 1,000 years out of the water.

Dominions Son

@sherlockx

Are you really expecting me to prove a negative?


A legal prohibition on slavery is not a negative.

Remus2
Updated:

@bloseagree

Best if it doesn't contain any heavy BDSM or incest.


Bondage / Discipline / Dominance / Submission / Sadism / Masochism

Obviously that's one too many words for a four letter acronym. Within those words exist a massive gulf of subjectivity. Not to mention the differences in which those six words are applied to a four letter acronym.

The qualifier of "slave" further muddied the water. Physical slave, emotional slave, sexual slave, financial slave, all or one, you get the idea.

Not sure what the difference is between heavy and light incest either. Suggest that be a either or condition. None or undefined.

Good luck on your search.

Replies:   AmigaClone
AmigaClone

@Remus2

Bondage / Discipline / Dominance / Submission / Sadism / Masochism

Obviously that's two too many words for a four letter acronym.


Not sure what the difference is between heavy and light incest either.


I can see a few ways to differentiate between light and heavy incest.

An example of heavy incest might be a guy constantly having sex with several of his sisters as well as his mom getting most them pregnant. In contrast light incest might have a pair of cousins watching each other masturbate a single time from across a room.

Replies:   Remus2  awnlee jawking
Remus2

@AmigaClone

Possibly. Yet it still remains subjective, which was the point.

awnlee jawking

@AmigaClone

I can see a few ways to differentiate between light and heavy incest.


Light incest is doing it with a male sibling - "He ain't heavy, he's my brother."

AJ

JohnBobMead

@sherlockx

The point I was trying to make was that it wasn't only the US which had economic slavery.

Slavery has existed in pretty much every society at some time or another, as an economic institution, separate from any sexual aspects.

Yes, it existed in England. Maybe not within the last 1000 years, but I did not state a time period; it definitely existed prior to the Norman Invasion.

I'd argue that a villain who was not allowed to leave his lord's land to live elsewhere without his lord's permission meets every definition of economic slavery that counts, and that existed in England considerably after the Conquest.

That is not to say that slaves were not sexually abused, for that definitely occurred, but the concept of slavery as an economic institution, as permanent ownership of another human, predates any BDSM culture of which we are aware. The BDSM concept of slavery derived from the economic institution of slavery, not vice versa.

And it was the economic institution which the OP was referring to in his request.

Of course, to realize that, one needed to have read the story he referenced as being the one he desired stories similar to. That's why he said he wasn't looking for BDSM, to prevent the very referrals he was then inundated with.

richardshagrin

@JohnBobMead

villain

"vil·lain
/ˈvilən/Submit
noun
1.
(in a film, novel, or play) a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot.
"the terrorists are cartoon villains"
synonyms: criminal, lawbreaker, offender, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer; More
2.
ARCHAIC
variant spelling of villein.

Most landlords would be happy to have a villain leave the neighborhood. Go be evil somewhere else.

Replies:   JohnBobMead
JohnBobMead
Updated:

@richardshagrin

Mind fart on my part, clearly.

Yes, villein is what I meant.

awnlee jawking

@JohnBobMead

I'd argue that a villain who was not allowed to leave his lord's land to live elsewhere without his lord's permission meets every definition of economic slavery that counts, and that existed in England considerably after the Conquest.


Some overpaid footballers have complained that they're little more than slaves, but offhand I'm unaware of any of them being from Aston Villa.

AJ

Replies:   karactr
karactr

@awnlee jawking

Some overpaid footballers have complained that they're little more than slaves, but offhand I'm unaware of any of them being from Aston Villa.


And I am pretty sure they could just walk away and not take the money. I can't argue with their talent but their whiny drivel just pisses me off.

Replies:   seanski1969
seanski1969

@karactr

Why does everyone whine about the players. What about the owners? Are they poor? Don't they make more money than all the players combined yet all that they contribute is the fact that they either inherited the team or bought it, they contribute nothing to the teams success yet still extract massive amounts of money from fans and try to blame the players for their own greed.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@seanski1969

What about the owners? Are they poor?


No, they aren't poor.

Don't they make more money than all the players combined


More than the average player, sure, but it's less than you think. In many cases less than what the top star players are paid individually, much less than combined.

Let's look at the Green Bay Packers, since they are a corporation (though not publicly traded), they have to publicly report their financial data.

For the 2017/2018 season, the Packers reported $455 Million in Revenue.

Out of that, they reported an operating profit (what the owner would make for a more traditionally owned team) of just a little over $34 million.

Compare that to Arron Rogers (The Packers' QB) compensation. His base salary for the 2018 season is $35 Million, another $31 million in on field performance bonuses, and $9 million in off-field compensation for a total compensation package worth $75 million. That's Double the Packers' profits and that's just for one player.

https://www.reuters.com/article/football-nfl-gb-nfl-revenues/report-nfl-teams-revenue-share-topped-8-billion-in-2017-idUSKBN1K719F

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

Out of that, they reported an operating profit (what the owner would make for a more traditionally owned team) of just a little over $34 million.


Is that before or after taxes?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

Is that before or after taxes?


Does it mater? Considering that this is probably coming from reporting for the shareholders, it's probably after, but I can't be sure because the article doesn't specify and doesn't link to sources.

Replies:   jimh67  PotomacBob
jimh67

@Dominions Son

That sounds like Hollywood accounting where blockbuster movies never make a profit that needs to be shared with the suckers who took a percentage of NET profits.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@jimh67

Well, it's not. The packers are a rare form of not-for-profit corporation. They pay no dividends. There is no distribution of profits to the owners anyway.

If they were playing those kinds of games, they would report no operating profit at all.

PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

It matters for the purpose of comparing the owners' income to that of a player. If one of them is before taxes and the other is after taxes, it's not a fair comparison.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

If one of them is before taxes and the other is after taxes, it's not a fair comparison.


On the other hand, as I said, the Packers are an odd form of commercial non-profit corporation, it's a Wisconsin state law thing (and even here it doesn't exist anymore for forming new companies).

Corporate taxes work VERY differently than personal income taxes. And I don't think the Packers pay state corporate taxes, though they definitely pay federal taxes, so a direct comparison is difficult.

That said, I still think it's more than fair enough to refute the earlier point that the owners make more than all the players combined.

Back to Top