Submissive vs. slave

[BDSM_Tourguide]

What is the difference between a submissive and a slave? Is there one, really? Can the terms be used interchangably?

The simplest answer between the difference between a submissive and a slave is summed up in one word: Negotiation.

Simply put, the submissive has the right to negotiate new rules for herself, or to alter rules within her relationship after she has enetered into the relationship.

In a more general sense of the word, though, a submissive is not typically interested in a TPE type relationship. She will enter into a 24/7 domestic relationship with a dominant and will be more interested in the aspects of serving, both/either domestically and/or sexually. She is not so much interested in having her life micromanaged, nor is she desirous of corporal punishment, heavy scenes of bondage or strict discipline. She is, however, comfortable with some rules, discipline and in knowing she is in a position of perceived subservience to her dominant.

A slave, to flip the coin to the other side, is interested in being micromanaged. She wants her clothes and food chosen for her. She want to be told how to act when in public. She wants to give up her control over things and her right to negotiate. In short, she gives herself totally to her relationship and to her master.

And these terms do not even describe other forms of 'submissives' in other types of BDSM and kink. There are quite a lot of types of people that can be grouped into the broader 'submissive' category. Included in this category are bottoms, painsluts, cumsluts, piss whores, toilet slaves, masochists and a broad variety of other types that I probably don't even know about. Still, in most common terms, the word submissive covers them all.

The biggest difference, though, between what is usually termed a "true" submissive and other types of fetish/kink submissive types is that a submissive gets her first and foremost satisfaction from the act of submitting. A submissive wants to serve and please her dominant before any other consideration is taken, but not to the point of giving up her safety or putting her submission before her children, for instance.

A slave also wants to serve, but a slave's primary motivations are usually a little different from a submissive's. Certainly, she still wants to please and satify her master, but she also wants to be owned completely and have most of her decisions taken from her on a day-to-day type basis.

Now, there are plenty of people that think that submissives are just playing at being slaves and there are plenty of people that think slaves are just people that don't want to take responsibility for themselves and want all their decisions made for them. The fact is that submissives and slaves are equal, both in commitment and in servitude. They just choose to show their service and commitment in different ways.

[Barton]

Very well written. A fine distinction.
Barton.

[Pickety Witch]

Spot on! A good description TG.

[tehya]

Very well done Tourguide! However I would like to add that there are those of us that straddle the proverbial fence.

I think there are many lines that blur for me in this area. Fortunately for me, Canopus can see my needs, as I know of his and has found ways to adapt my slave needs into my submissive self... or is it my submissive needs into my slave self... LOL.

There are still places in my life where I must be in control of things... my children, job, household matters (when Canopus is not available). Yet on the other hand, there are many places that I can give up total control... my attire, attitude, sex, purchases, needs, etc.

The point is we believe in defining our relationship for ourselves. As I have stated in another thread, the titles have no bearing on us. What matters is that the relationship is what we want it to be or need it to be, and it could change daily and often does. We work on it every single day.

Call me or put whatever title on me that you would like, but when I am at home, with him, all I am is his! And that is what makes us happy and healthy.

Master's tehya

[myri_SN]

applaudessssssssssssssssss at Tourguide
i started teh same tpic twice in bondage.com and never got a real reply. this sounds much more like the answer i was lookign for.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

applaudessssssssssssssssss at Tourguide
i started teh same tpic twice in bondage.com and never got a real reply. this sounds much more like the answer i was lookign for.

Amazing what happens when you get some people together that really know what they're talking about.

[Barton]

Professor TourGuide!

[allalone46]

From what I have read here I ave been thinking on the same lines, but reading some profiles I see the contradictions, in what some think that thay are, but what thay realy are, and want to be. Always learing.

[pandemonium]

I also saw something of this nature someplace else. I don't think I fall into the sub category and definitely not the slave category. Not that I think there is anything wrong with it, but I couldn't do it.
Is it safe to say that a bottom is different in the amount of time or type of play?

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Is it safe to say that a bottom is different in the amount of time or type of play?

Yes it is. Bottoming is usually just occasional SM play, with very little or no DS elements involved at all.

[Dslave]

The simplest answer between the difference between a submissive and a slave is summed up in one word: Negotiation.

Simply put, the submissive has the right to negotiate new rules for herself, or to alter rules within her relationship after she has enetered into the relationship.

The difference IS choice and in essence negotiation, most absolutely. Once you are a slave, your choices are made for you. The only choice a slave really has is to leave or stay. A submissive that is not a slave has many choices and because of that many things ARE up for discussion and negotiation. As a slave, you trust that your Master knows what is best for you and he makes the choices.

Though, I still differ on the level of commitment. I believe that a slave's level of commitment is much stronger. Just the fact that she must trust her Master with her life is reason enough for me to believe that. A submissive is someone that will allow someone to make choices, up to a point, but she has the last say. A slave truly has very little say if any. And, simply because of that, knowing that a submissive can redefine the rules and the relationship at any given moment, I believe that the level of commitment to the relationship is not as extreme as a slave's. I am NOT saying that a slave is not commited. I am saying it is a very different level of commitment that a slave has.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Though, I still differ on the level of commitment. I believe that a slave's level of commitment is much stronger. Just the fact that she must trust her Master with her life is reason enough for me to believe that.

It seems that you and I are just bound to disagree on these things.

I don't see any difference in level of commitment between a submissive and a slave. The two simply choose to serve in different ways.

In fact, an argument could easily be made that a slave is less comitted than a submissive is, because she doesn't actually have to make any decisions or take any responsibility for herself. She just has to obey and follow orders as they are given.

I don't know where the stigma that submissives are not as comitted as slaves are, but I certainly do not believe it to be a true one.

Incidentally, how does a slave trust her master with her life? This isn't the world of Gor. A slave isn't going to be put to death for disobedience or for being displeasing. A slave that is not happy with her master, or a master that is not happy with his slave, can walk out the door. If a slave worried that her life was in danger, why would she have become a slave to the person that caused that worry in her in the first place?

[Dslave]

Incidentally, how does a slave trust her master with her life?

I will tell you how very simply, a slave allows the Master to make all decisions for her (save the one... stay or leave) and therefore in essence she is giving him her life or "devoting her life" to him in a very real way. And, it is one of his responsibilities (again, our level of responsibility seems to differ but by your own definitions you do seem to agree that a Master does make all the decisions and there is little room for negotiation and that in itself is a HUGE responsibility) to protect that life that she has basicly given him. She trusts him with all of the decisions in her life so therefore she trusts him with her life. Also, in extreme BDSM (which is not the norm but still exists), a slave does literally trusts her Master with her life quite literally as she trusts that he is going to keep her safe and unharmed through his knowledge, skill, wisdom and commitment towards her life, her well being and her growth. Again, I don't see Dominants having that level of commitment. Sure, they are going to keep things safe/sane/consentual but are they going to care about the slave's long term growth, well being and life in general? I don't believe the average Dominant is very concerned with these things but a Master will (or should be) concerned about these things.

[leo9]

I believe that a slave's level of commitment is much stronger. Just the fact that she must trust her Master with her life is reason enough for me to believe that.

If, as you suggested later, you're referring to SM scenes, I've seen plenty of subs get into situations where they were trusting the Dom with their lives. In the final analysis, anyone who lets someone else tie them up and play rough with them does that. Even excluding conscious malice, a careless or inexperienced Dom can hold the sub's life in hir hands without realising it.

In fact, subs are often taking a bigger risk. They may be playing with someone they only meet for occasional scenes, who they don't know well and who has only a casual commitment to their welfare. Whereas a slave knows hir Owner intimately and knows (one hopes) that the Owner feels responsible for the slave's well being.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

In fact, subs are often taking a bigger risk. They may be playing with someone they only meet for occasional scenes, who they don't know well and who has only a casual commitment to their welfare. Whereas a slave knows hir Owner intimately and knows (one hopes) that the Owner feels responsible for the slave's well being.

Occasional scene play is more the dynamic of a bottom than a submissive. Submissives generally do find relationships. They just don't have the same kinds of relationships as slaves do.

My wife and I are in a DS relationship right now. We're not 24/7 DS, though, because we can't be. We have a few other commitments, like our daughter, to think about.

[leo9]

Just discovered this thread after I'd started an almost identical one over in the next room, so I'll be doing a bit of catching up.

In a more general sense of the word, though, a submissive is not typically interested in a TPE type relationship. She will enter into a 24/7 domestic relationship with a dominant and will be more interested in the aspects of serving, both/either domestically and/or sexually. She is not so much interested in having her life micromanaged, nor is she desirous of corporal punishment, heavy scenes of bondage or strict discipline.

I think you're mistaken in conflating submission and masochism. I know a totally owned slave who is micromanaged and controlled, but who doesn't want or get any punishment stronger than a sharp word; contrariwise, I know any number of submissives who want extreme bondage and pain, but are always in control even when they're saying "Beat me harder!"

IME, there's no correlation between levels of submission and levels of masochism. In terms of pain, the only consistent difference between sub and slave is that a slave may accept pain that is completely "wrong" and unerotic in order to please hir Owner, and even feel fulfilled by doing so, where a sub would be saying "Red, red, this isn't working for me."

[BDSM_Tourguide]

IME, there's no correlation between levels of submission and levels of masochism.

No, and I didn't say there was. What I said, foremost, was that I was speaking in general terms. But there are many different "types" and "categories" that can fit under the generalized "submissive" banner. I know that a submissive does not have to be a masochist, because mine isn't. She doesn't want or appreciate pain at all, and if pain is used, it is more often than not, a punishment.

However, having said that, if you've seen our pictures, then you know she has a great fondness for candle wax. That's doesn't mean she's any more of a masochist or any less of a submissive. It just means she has a fetish she enjoys.

Submission is categorized, first and foremost, by the desire to submit. The extracurricular activities are just gravy. As I mentioned, though, trying to classify people by their exact likes, dislikes and fetishes could involve a very complicated naming process that no one really wants. Therefore, we stick to the broadly accepted terms most times: Submissive, slave, bottom, etc.