Printable View
piggybacking on bbeale's thread below on submission/slavery/ objectification ..
i wonder if you would share with me how you, or your dominant, decided on whether you would describe yourself as a submissive or a slave?
i don't know if i'm asking this question correctly but i think once there are a couple of responses i will be able to refine it.
thanks
One of the first questions I ask a Dominant is how they prefer to be addressed. I honestly don't bother with what they call me. They can call me whatever the bloody heck they like. :D
However, if it's important to you, perhaps discussion of what the terms mean to the two (or three, or four, or...) of you. It's been my experience that almost everyone has at least a slightly different definition of what it means to be a slave or submissive. Perhaps you could consider using it as a "getting to know you" question over that first meeting cup of coffee or bringing it up during contract/ scene negotiation.
(immature note: this is my 69th post! *wiggle*)
kittenfemme,
I like your signature quote, it covers a lot of ground - but I have to admit, it is 100% opposite what I feel :)
Thank you! *purr* *preen*Quote:
Originally posted by LadyAmanda
kittenfemme,
I like your signature quote, it covers a lot of ground - but I have to admit, it is 100% opposite what I feel :)
And as for the 100% opposite... I wouldn't have expected anything less my Lady.
I always thought that a Slave wants a person to micromanage her/his life while a submissive is a person who doesnt like that level of control.
As I see it, the difference between a submissive and a slave can be boiled down into one word: Negotiation.
As I see it and as it has always been defined to me, a slave does not have the right to negotiate. Her privileges are decided by her master and may be revoked or suspended at any time, based upon her attitude and competency.
A submissive has the right to negotiate her rules and privileges and then not have them removed, unless under previously negotiated circumstances.
If a submissive doesn't like something about her relationship, she can change it. A slave, once she signs the contract of ownership or agrees to her masters collar, may not.
thank you all for your thoughtful comments. as i move toward turning who i am into a life style it is very helpful to understand how people interpret these terms. i believe that it will better help me in the "getting to know you phase" especially in determining how closely we are matched.
But isnt a slave a slave until he/she decides not to be a slave.Quote:
Originally posted by BDSM_Tourguide
As I see it, the difference between a submissive and a slave can be boiled down into one word: Negotiation.
As I see it and as it has always been defined to me, a slave does not have the right to negotiate. Her privileges are decided by her master and may be revoked or suspended at any time, based upon her attitude and competency.
A submissive has the right to negotiate her rules and privileges and then not have them removed, unless under previously negotiated circumstances.
If a submissive doesn't like something about her relationship, she can change it. A slave, once she signs the contract of ownership or agrees to her masters collar, may not.
Like when the master is beating the slave and the slave punches the master in the mouth.
No. A slave is a slave. She doesn't just decide that she wants to be or wants not to be. If she is being abused, she will likely leave the relationship, because her contract becomes null once she is abused. That's a different story altogether and discussed in another thread.
Most people say a slave is a slave. They are born that way. Others say that slaves begin as submissives and then they are sort of "promoted" to slaves after a certain amount of experience. That's also another thread, too.
Quote:
Originally posted by bbeale7
But isnt a slave a slave until he/she decides not to be a slave.
Like when the master is beating the slave and the slave punches the master in the mouth.
*giggles* See, this is what I meant by everyone having their own definition of the two terms. This is why I feel it is important to sit down and discuss your potential Dominant's views.
That said, I have to say that my own definitions tend to be near clones to BDSM_Tourguide's. I think that the term "slave" implies ownership. As such, a slave would have very few freedoms beyond genuine concern for their own safety. I feel that when a slave negotiates a contract or other agreement is then bound by it completely. Perhaps they have safewords in their contract, perhaps they don't. If they do have safewords, then those safewords are used ONLY in the event of an emotional or physical safety issue.
I see submissives more as play partners. Maybe they're just in it for a scene or three with a Dominant. Maybe they want more than just a scene or three but don't want to turn their entire will over to someone else.
Though I would like to reinforce that what I've written are my views. These things are not clearly defined in Webster's Dictionary-O-Kink. I encourage you to define "slave" and "submissive" in your own words and through your own experiences InnerTemptress. And please remember that until you're collared and have agreed otherwise, your opinion matters.
--
"Not all that yields is weak." - Jacqueline Carey
thank you kittenfemme. your thoughts through this entire site have been very helpful to me. and although i don't know that i will ever give my life over to the degree that you have i admire you for knowing exactly who you are and what will make you completely happy in life. one day i hope to realize that for myself.
Oh wow. Such flattery! Thank you InnerTemptress. *hugs* I'm very, very glad my words have been helpful to you.Quote:
Originally posted by InnerTemptress
thank you kittenfemme. your thoughts through this entire site have been very helpful to me. and although i don't know that i will ever give my life over to the degree that you have i admire you for knowing exactly who you are and what will make you completely happy in life. one day i hope to realize that for myself.
I ask that you pay heed to the words of others here as well. BDSM_Tourguide, redEva, veru, and many others have offered advise and more smiles to me than I can properly thank them for. Your voice is now among them. For that, I thank you.
I hope that you find what makes you happy... and soon! :D
All I have to say is that personal preference for B/both parties involved should be considered. I for one do not like using the term slave in reference to one I hold dear to My heart. The word has historical negative conotations and I personally do not like the term.
However, I do completely respect the term for O/others to use as they will. For Me it is only a matter of taste, and personal preference.
As TG, said before the technical definition of slave vs sub is that a sub can negotiate. *shrug* Perhaps, but does not, int he beginning a slave/sub still need to negotitate thier own levels or lack of levels of independence with the would be Dom/me?
Again, I feel that the level of control the Dominant has over the "s" should be a negotiated thing of complete conscent by both parties from before the beginning as it were. Consensual should always be a part of everything that happens within every relationship. IMHO.
To clairify, (if I can), I would add that at the beginning of the relationship in the ngotiation prosscess, a "s" could allow her/himself no freedom of negotiation followign agreeing to the contract. Whether, the "s" in question is refered to as a submisive or a slave, or something different entirely, as the tastes of B/both parties concerned agree upon.
I see a "submissive" taking tht name and givign herself no fredom as acceptable. Also, someone wishing to be called a "slave" having a degree of freedom and independence as acceptable. SO long as it is agreed to by B/both parties involved.
For me the title is not important. IF a "s" desired to be entitled as a "used car", so be it. Not exactly my taste. I would prefer a slave to that title, but if that is what you and Yours agree to. That is fine with Me.
LT
Although i like to think of myself as my Master's slave.. Technically in all honesty i'm a submissive. But it’s not really the definition that matters; although real slavery involves ownership and no rights for the owned person, to me -as a personal opinion, BDSM has to be ssc to be what it is. i think there is a clear difference in BDSM terms; a submissive has more rights of negotiation than a slave, (just for an example –i’m sure there are plenty more situations-,) a submissive can refuse to play if he/she isn’t in the mood, a slave will feel he/she can communicate this to his/her Master/Mistress but be expected not to refuse, and leave the decision to the Dom/me. When a D/s couple are involved in each other’s lives only by occasional BDSM play and not D/s outside those times, i’d definitely use the word submissive rather than slave To be a slave i think there needs to be a reasonable element of D/s transferred over to everyday life.
This obviously isn’t “total slavery” but if BDSM is safe sane and consensual then it isn’t total slavery, as a real slave has no rights whatsoever. Some may disagree with me (which is fine!) But i think it isn’t possible for someone to be happy in absolute slavery. A slave in a BDSM relationship can walk if they don’t like the rules, whereas a real slave could not. (though i don’t think I’d want to be with any Dom who would rather let their slave leave them than find a way round the problem and of course punish them later… (i always enjoy the punishment bit ;)
Maybe there should be a separate idea for BDSM slavery…
I think I’m probably about halfway between what i’d describe as a sub and a slave using that idea. Working on being more submissive than i am –i like to please because i’m deeply in love with my Dom, but I get my rebellious moments... :D
posted with Master's permission
When Master and i first committed to O/our BDSM lifestyle together, Master wished to be called Sir and referred to me as his submissive.
As W/we progressed through my training Master allowed me the honour of calling him Master. i asked Master why he did not call me his slave, his response was this:
"A submissive has a contract, a safeword, and boundaries; A slave has no contract, no boundaries. Everything the slave does and says is for the Master. EVERYTHING is a privelage, and that includes speaking, reading, sleeping, bathing, writing, talking, going outside, using the bathroom etc......"
i proudly wear the name of Master Saintan's slave angel, with no regrets, and never a thought or look back to what was.
respectfully
Master Saintans
Basically I would have to agree with your definition between the two. A lot of people use both terms loosely, sometimes calling themselves a submissive while other times calling themselves a slave. To me, there is a large gap between the two.Quote:
Originally posted by Master Saintans
"A submissive has a contract, a safeword, and boundaries; A slave has no contract, no boundaries. Everything the slave does and says is for the Master. EVERYTHING is a privelage, and that includes speaking, reading, sleeping, bathing, writing, talking, going outside, using the bathroom etc......"
Also, I would have to commend anyone who can whole-heartedly be a slave. I know I couldn't. I don't have the discipline and I will admitt that freely.
I would have to agree with the definition given by Master Saintans, there is definitely a big difference between the two. I am most definitely a submissive but could never be a slave.
That said, in terms of a scene, i may be termed a 'bath slave' or 'body slave'. These to me are very specific roles, which will come to an end with the scene whereas my submissiveness to my Mistress doesn't end.
jad
thank you all for your comments.
Master Saintans definition made perfect sense to me and i think that with this definition i will be able to utilize when going through the next few weeks of discussions and limits.
anyone have any suggestions on how to communicate these ideas either before an agreement between Dominant and submissive is made and also during a scene.
firefly brought up the point ...
how would you do this?Quote:
i think there is a clear difference in BDSM terms; a submissive has more rights of negotiation than a slave, (just for an example –i’m sure there are plenty more situations-,) a submissive can refuse to play if he/she isn’t in the mood,
Quote:
how would you do this?
How would you refuse to "play"? If that is your question then I would simply give a polite objection. Usually it has to be accompanied with a valid reason, though. Usually TG is pretty good about it since I have to take care of the babe and she is a full time job in herself and some nights I am just completely worn out by the end of the day.
This is what negotiating is all about. Yoou each state what each of you expects from the other. There are liable to be some points that you see perfectly eye-to-eye on and some that you see completely opposite.
Eventually, you will learn to set limits. You might think some things sound a bit extreme, gross or excessive, but they don't completely lack appeal to you and those you would call your soft limits. On the other hand, other things might just be completely repulsive to you and you absolutely would not do them under any circumstances, even at the cost of the relationship and those would be your hard limits.
The difference is that soft limits are meant to be pushed, prodded and eventually broken. Hard limits are not. Hard limits are pretty absolute and only you can decide that something that you see as a hard limit might actually be worth trying. Your partner cannot decide that for you.
Many thing, as you grow and learn in this lifestyle, will change your perspective. There might be many things that you think are gross, too painful, too extreme or just way out there today that you will love doing and practice with excessive joy a year down the road. The important thing is to keep an open mind and to negotiate your limits and activities frequently, as your tastes for things will change. Everyone's do.
Quote:
Originally posted by InnerTemptress
anyone have any suggestions on how to communicate these ideas either before an agreement between Dominant and submissive is made and also during a scene.
While I can see how one might get that idea from the, erm, high maintenance crowd, it's a pretty bogus idea for delineating.Quote:
Originally posted by Kostly
I always thought that a Slave wants a person to micromanage her/his life while a submissive is a person who doesnt like that level of control.
Slave isn't a label you can really give yourself. You're not one till someone else has pinned it on you. The last thing it ends up having to do with is what *you* want.
I agree with what you say, Deliaday!Quote:
Originally posted by DeliaDay
While I can see how one might get that idea from the, erm, high maintenance crowd, it's a pretty bogus idea for delineating.
Slave isn't a label you can really give yourself. You're not one till someone else has pinned it on you. The last thing it ends up having to do with is what *you* want.
I consider myself a submissive who would LOVE to be a slave to my Man. He doesn't desire that level of control over me for extended periods , so you are ultimately correct. I may WANT to be a slave, but if He doesn't wish to take that level of control, it won't be taken!
Hopefully our lifestyle will eventually include others, so I am learning a lot about the terms and definitions and implications here. Thank you all!
i agree to a point, DeliaDay, but if i am not slave material no amount of control from a Dominant is going to make me into a slave. at least that's my opinion
A submissive is a person who can override her self preservation instinct and allow control of her body and mind by another person. Through the choices she makes she in fact holds the ultimate control of the intensity or depth of the relationship. She may be punished or tormented beyond her limits, but as long as those limits exist (broken or intact) she is still submitting. A slave has no such choices and is unable or unwilling to make them. A slave is thus, a non-person.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jones, Nikka
A slave has no such choices and is unable or unwilling to make them. A slave is thus, a non-person.
Wha...? I wouldn't think of them as non-persons at all. I'd think of them more as people that have consesually given up their right to make choices.
I have to agree there, a slave in a bdsm relationship makes the decision to give up their freedom in the first place and in reality still has to make some decisions afterwards; the decision to obey can sometimes be a hard one! i wouldn't call myself a slave in the terms we're discussing here but i try to obey my Dom, and when told to do something sometimes obeying requires a conscious effort if i'd rather be doing something else! -obeying is something i choose to do, and even a slave has to choose to obey.
Having said that... when being ordered while we're together i somehow seem to melt into obedience without thinking... ;)
I would love to be his slave, but unfortunately at the moment our lifestyles don't permit it to work. Hopefully one day!
Slaves aren't non-persons because slavery to someone doesn’t remove the feelings or personality of someone, which are the things that make them a person. They may consider them self the property of someone else, but i'd think this is something adding to who they are rather than cancelling out the rest.
While it is true that slavery does not remove the person's feelings or their personality, it does negate their value. A person who "chooses" to become a slave is in fact submitting to slavery, thus, a sub playing (or living) the role of a slave. A person who is forced into slavery, whether or not they submit to it, is in the strictest sense of the word, a slave. He or she is property with no moral or legal rights, hence a non-person. This is why slavery is illegal in the real world and slave "agreements" or "contracts" are in fact negotiated submission/role playing instruments of no legal value. True slavery is a really disgusting concept that has no place in a SS&C BDSM relationship save in fantasy.Quote:
Originally posted by Firefly676
Slaves aren't non-persons because slavery to someone doesn’t remove the feelings or personality of someone, which are the things that make them a person. They may consider them self the property of someone else, but i'd think this is something adding to who they are rather than cancelling out the rest.
... it would be best to assume that, when the term slave is used, it refers to the consensual type found in our community.
Although, I must say, you are finding a way to trivialize the relationship slaves have with their masters. I know slaves that would bristle at hearing you call them submissives playing at the role of slave.
There are differences between the two, of course. The biggest difference between a submissive and a slave can be summed up in one word. Negotiation. When a slave signs a contract to belong to another, she gives up the right to negotiate past the articles listed on her contract. Her privileges, rewards and punishments are doled out by her master as he sees fit, based upon how pleasing the slave is at the tasks she has been set to do.
A submissive, however, may negotiate for limits, privileges, rewards and punishments. If a submissive has a limit, she is allowed, without contractual obligation to say no and have that respected. Therefore, submissives and slave are two different, yet similar things.
My apologies. I realize that I was being too literal with my definitions. I just hope that there is not anyone out there blurring the line between fantasy and reality. I sometimes come in contact with the results of abusive relationships and am very sensitive about it.
If I offended anyone, again, I apologize.
My tupp'orth:
'submissive' is an adjective, 'slave' is a noun.
A 'slave' (in the context we're talking about here) must be 'submissive' by thier very nature, albeit at one extreme of 'submissivness'. To the extent of being micromanaged and having no 'free-will' as has been mentioned before.
A 'sub' on the otherhand, while 'submissive' is not at that extreme end of the scale. They are someone to whom it means "being open and vulnerable" (thanks for the quote ;)) but still in control of and for themselves.
There, it took a while but I think I translated what was in my head into English *lol*