RE: why slave and not submissive?

RE: why slave and not submissive? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive

Message

Domspaintoy -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 5:29:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross "essay on why you can't be in subspace and orgasm." Blimey!!!! since when? i do that all the time W/we must be doing something wrong lol [;)] Mindst you i do remember a time once when i was in subspace and Master came on my face and it snapped me out of subspace so quick i went into a very similar reaction to shock. Wasnt pleasant and W/we know not to do that again lol. But on the whole i agree with LA. Once you start telling people they arent something they will either dig their heels in and be almost childish or be quite aggressive to prove whoever wrong. Each to their own i say. dpt. [:D]

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 5:29:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shyinini I've been pondering something. Maybe I have been retarded enough to miss the answer to this on other threads. PLEASE do not rehash the slave vs sub topic, tis really NOT what I seek. Please do not make something more of my question than it reads… Why do “self stated newbies” call themselves "slaves," when their profile clearly demonstrates their lack of knowledge in what a “slave” is. And their profile also states they have never had real experience. That is no experience at all in R/T. I’ll use the 9 Levels of Submission as a point of reference. I ask this because of some reading I have been doing, NOT on CM. It was that “substud” thread in “Ask a Mistress” that finally propelled me to ask this question. Sir's curious girl Greetings curious girl, My belief is that some are enamored of the term "slave" with little understanding for what a slave is. Some believe that we all create our own definition. To me that's a bit ridiculous as it doesn't apply in any other venue beyond BDSM. Everyone doesn't create their own definition for mother, or daughter or Dr. or Attorney or any other title...just for "slave". My personal belief is that the dictionary definition stands perfectly well. The TSR has elaborated on it as well and that seems to be a good working definition. Many people eschew having a real "definition" because there is a desire for anything and everything to be included. i don't really understand this tendecy and it shows even more the desire to have the title of "slave" and not really caring if it suits them or not. The word slave is descriptive not prescriptive. Some people view it as a sort of heirarchy and so "more" means better. Being slave means i'm MORE submissive thats submissive ...so there!...lol. This isn't a competition. No ones keeping score or anything like that. i believe people should use the term that most accurately describes their dynamic. not attempt to redefine the term so that their dynamic can fit within it. If a newbie believes she is slave and is seeking a M/s dynamic then that is likely why she is using the term "slave". if her conversation is such that it suggests she doesn't understand what a slave is...thats something altogether different but its a free country so what can you do about it?

RCdc -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 5:41:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste quote: ORIGINAL: shyinini I've been pondering something. Maybe I have been retarded enough to miss the answer to this on other threads. PLEASE do not rehash the slave vs sub topic, tis really NOT what I seek. Please do not make something more of my question than it reads… Why do “self stated newbies” call themselves "slaves," when their profile clearly demonstrates their lack of knowledge in what a “slave” is. And their profile also states they have never had real experience. That is no experience at all in R/T. I’ll use the 9 Levels of Submission as a point of reference. I ask this because of some reading I have been doing, NOT on CM. It was that “substud” thread in “Ask a Mistress” that finally propelled me to ask this question. Sir's curious girl Greetings curious girl, Everyone doesn't create their own definition for mother, or daughter or Dr. or Attorney or any other title...just for "slave". My personal belief is that the dictionary definition stands perfectly well. Yes they do. That is how words evolve and come into being and how the whole dictionary process works. Create it. Write it down. And wait a few years. .done. the.dark.

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 5:46:47 AM)
for me, whether he called me slave, slut, sweet lil minx, girl, by my first name, bitch, sweet lil bitch, horny needy woman, hey you c'mere now, the list goes on................... no matter what he called me-i was what i was-and he was what he was, and it was what it was. its just that simple to me..............

KatyLied -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 5:52:20 AM)
The best part of the 9 levels of submission: quote: different people use the words "submissive and slave" to mean many different things

spankmepink11 -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 5:56:23 AM)
It's actually very easy to replace the word "slave" with the word submissive in several of the definitions listed for slave in the dictionary. No offense to anyone, but i always get the sense that some people think "slave" implies something much deeper than submission, which feeds their need to feel that their dynamic is somehow deeper, more committed, or, insert grandiose adjective, than others. If one really wanted to be technical, slavery throughout history has not been consensual, so really shyinni, if one wanted to split hairs on identifying as a "slave" no one would qualify, because regardless of what anyone says, you must consent to become slave to another in the realm of BDSM, and as it's been said many times in the past, choosing not to have a choice, is a choice in and of itself.

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 6:10:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark [ Yes they do. That is how words evolve and come into being and how the whole dictionary process works. Create it. Write it down. And wait a few years. .done. the.dark. With all due respect that means that we can all call apples.. plums, cars... houses and so on and so forth. We have definitions because we AREN'T each individually creating our own definitions. If we did communication would break down completely due to having no shared language of understanding. To take the means by which language evoles down to the micro level with everyone changing terms as they want to means you won't be understood.

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 6:25:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spankmepink11 It's actually very easy to replace the word "slave" with the word submissive in several of the definitions listed for slave in the dictionary. No offense to anyone, but i always get the sense that some people think "slave" implies something much deeper than submission, which feeds their need to feel that their dynamic is somehow deeper, more committed, or, insert grandiose adjective, than others. If one really wanted to be technical, slavery throughout history has not been consensual, so really shyinni, if one wanted to split hairs on identifying as a "slave" no one would qualify, because regardless of what anyone says, you must consent to become slave to another in the realm of BDSM, and as it's been said many times in the past, choosing not to have a choice, is a choice in and of itself. Taken from m-w.com (Mirriam Webster online) slave: Main Entry: 1slave [image]http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: 'slAv Function: noun Etymology: Middle English sclave, from Anglo-French or Medieval Latin; Anglo-French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe during the early Middle Ages 1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence 3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another 4 : DRUDGE, TOILER Most submissives are not completely subservient to thier Dominants...they are subservient to a point (called a limit within BDSM). This also has no mention of consent or the lack thereof being a defining factor. Globally historically, there have been cases of people consenting to enslavement. It is possible. While often i see people making consent the sticking point, i think thats adding to the definition of the term in order to suit the user. The question really is...why is this discussion even necessary? Why do people who do have limits feel like they need to prove that EVERYONE has them? Why do those who are submissive covet the title slave so much? whats really wrong with being a submissive? why isn't that enough? At one point i was a submissive and very happy being just that. i had no qualms with saying i was NOT a slave and did not intend on being one. i had my limits and was very happy with that and could honor and respect those who did not. To take this out of the BDSM context. Lets say i like medicine, it is a field i'm interested in. i read a great deal of medical information. i like it so much i want to be called a Dr. but i'm NOT a Dr. so what? Call me that anyway because it makes me feel good, and when you tell me i'm not a Dr it makes me feel bad. Besides...Dr's don't know everything! And i can make up my own definition of what a Dr is! Yep, thats about how this whole "we create our own definitions" thing sounds. We define US. We decide what we are and who we are. What we want to be or not. That is not the same and recreating the definitions of words so that we can all be included within thier scope. There is already a term that is all inclusive like that it's called human.

sweetnurseBBW -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 6:39:12 AM)
When I was introduced to this lifestyle I was a senior in college. I was just starting out in the lifestyle and in the world. There wasn't an internet we arranged munches and such through the local independent paper in the classifieds. I didn't know what being a submissive in general was about. It wasn't til I had been in the lifestyle a few years that I felt like I wanted to explore being a slave. Now that there is an internet anyone can identify any way they want. I can't say they are wrong if it is how they feel about themselves. Sometimes newbies might pick being a slave one day and a sub the next. They just have to learn for themselves through experience which one is right for them.

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 7:00:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste The question really is...why is this discussion even necessary? Why do people who do have limits feel like they need to prove that EVERYONE has them? Why do those who are submissive covet the title slave so much? whats really wrong with being a submissive? why isn't that enough? At one point i was a submissive and very happy being just that. i had no qualms with saying i was NOT a slave and did not intend on being one. i had my limits and was very happy with that and could honor and respect those who did not. There is already a term that is all inclusive like that it's called human. and there are those who would say you cannot be a slave because slavery is illegal-and you do have the choice to leave, should he ever begin to do things you find you can not and will not tolerate........ as i stated before, no matter what you choose to call your self, the only thing that matters is it works for you, in your relationship...... to insinuate there are folks that covet a title that you have bestowed on your self, that in reality can not even happen in todays world, IMHO, is as silly as the sub vs slave debate that will go on forever.

mistoferin -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 7:04:10 AM)
It's most likely because many Dominants and many who claim the title of slave hold it up like it's supposed to be the elite, the cream of the crop, the pinnacle of where you can go as an "s" type in BDSM. Submissives are seen as "just", "less than", or on a place on the path where they have "not yet become" or "have not yet reached that level". It's all utter horseshit of course. I find it really interesting that when the title is claimed, some are still not satisfied and have to further it into a contest of who is the "slaveliest" slave.

RCdc -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 7:25:35 AM)
Doesn't matter who understands you as long as you are understood by the people that matter to you. And if they matter that much to you, then they already know your definitions because they took the time. It makes me smile when people make claims that 'you can;t use your own definition' when it comes to things like submissive and slave. For one thing, unless you are speaking in a BDSM context the word 'a submissive' does not occur in the english language. 'Submissive' isn't a noun - it is a verb. Same as the word 'Dominant' - you can be a dominant personality, but as far as dictionarys (Oxford/Cambridge/AS) are concerned it's a verb so you can't be 'a dominant'. Also with the word 'switch'. Then there is the word slave. In non BDSM world, a slave is something completely different to that which someone who feels a slaves mentality (and that is what we are talking of here) believes is their definition of a slave. And people wonder why those outside wiitwd look at us in puzzlement and don't see slaves as happy, but instead - abused individuals? So now tell me people don;t and can't take a word and make it their own? That is the whole way language works. That is the whole way language evolves. Peace the.dark.

sweetnurseBBW -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 7:44:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I find it really interesting that when the title is claimed, some are still not satisfied and have to further it into a contest of who is the "slaveliest" slave. How right you are there and it comes from both sides. Masters/Mistresses as well as the slaves themselves. It gets very old.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 8:09:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste Everyone doesn't create their own definition for mother, or daughter Actually they do. There are adopted mothers/daughters, I've had people I've felt connected with and considered them a spiritual mother to me. And shall we bring up Leather Families? And I think professional titles are a completely different context from personal orientations and not really relevant- but even then, there's room for flexibility. Always has and always will be.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 8:14:52 AM)
"I am a slave. I expect.........honesty and commitment in my life I wont...........run from problems If you want to contact me...............please do so as a proper mature adult I dont care what you think .......I will remain true to myself If you are.......an immature asshole I dont think you're dominant, so........save yourself the time as we won't be compatible You will not push my limits, which are ...........deceit, harming UMs, and drinking alcohol Being self aware and refusing to compromise on one's sense of self is completely necessary to form a healthy positive relationship as a consensual slave IMO.

shyinini -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 8:21:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sweetnurseBBW quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I find it really interesting that when the title is claimed, some are still not satisfied and have to further it into a contest of who is the "slaveliest" slave. How right you are there and it comes from both sides. Masters/Mistresses as well as the slaves themselves. It gets very old. I think my curiosity is satisfied with this answer, for many reasons. Thanks ladies. Sir's submissive [:)]

MasterFireMaam -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 8:27:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shyinini PLEASE do not rehash the slave vs sub topic, tis really NOT what I seek. ....when their profile clearly demonstrates their lack of knowledge in what a “slave” is. Their idea of a slave obviously does not match your idea of a slave. I'm willing to bet that you were new once...and that your definition of "slave" has changed over time, too. Master Fire

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 11:47:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste Everyone doesn't create their own definition for mother, or daughter Actually they do. There are adopted mothers/daughters, I've had people I've felt connected with and considered them a spiritual mother to me. And shall we bring up Leather Families? And I think professional titles are a completely different context from personal orientations and not really relevant- but even then, there's room for flexibility. Always has and always will be. Greetings LuckyAlbatross, Actually adopted mother, Leather families and even spiritual mothers are all included within the dictionary definition of mother. None of those is creating a new definition. Mother: . a female parent. 2. (often initial capital letter[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]) one's female parent. 3. a mother-in-law, stepmother, or adoptive mother. 4. a term of address for a female parent or a woman having or regarded as having the status, function, or authority of a female parent. 5. a term of familiar address for an old or elderly woman. 6. mother superior. 7. a woman exercising control, influence, or authority like that of a mother: to be a mother to someone. 8. the qualities characteristic of a mother, as maternal affection: It is the mother in her showing itself. 9. something or someone that gives rise to or exercises protecting care over something else; origin or source. 10. (in disc recording) a mold from which stampers are made. –adjective 11. being a mother: a mother bird. 12. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a mother: mother love. 13. derived from or as if from one's mother; native: his mother culture. 14. bearing a relation like that of a mother, as in being the origin, source, or protector: the mother company and its affiliates; the mother computer and its network of terminals. –verb (used with object) 15. to be the mother of; give origin or rise to. 16. to acknowledge oneself the author of; assume as one's own. 17. to care for or protect like a mother; act maternally toward. –verb (used without object) 18. to perform the tasks or duties of a female parent; act maternally: a woman with a need to mother. Creating a "new" definition for mother would be along the lines of something that is not included, such as ":Lets make daughter mean mother" "Lets make Dr. mean mother" now...when someone holds forth the attributes of a mother we call them mother or give them that title. Which is preceisely my point. We choose the title that fits the dynamic. In Leather families we have Daddyy's Mothers, bois, girls, sisters etc; because we're using terms that fit the most. That practice seems to be left at the door when describing slavery. i don't think i can speak on this to any degree that is different than what i have already said so at this point i'll just agree that we disagree on this topic.

AquaticSub -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 11:53:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross The 9 levels of submission piece is one of the worst dogmatic kinky pieces of trash on the net- right between the 128 slave rules and "essay on why you can't be in subspace and orgasm." People can and will continue to use whatever labels they want- whether it's because it sounds cooler, because they like it, because they feel it's their truth, whatever. Unless you are going to take a stand and tell someone "You aren't who you say you are" then there's really nothing to say about the situation. And someone who would be willing to say that had better be a really very close person to who they are talking to, or else they are being completely rude and arrogant. The moment you tell someone they can't label themselves, is the moment you open yourself up to having someone say and be justified in doing exactly that to you. So unless you want to deal with people telling you that you aren't who you say you are, that THEY know you better than you do, and THEY will decide when it's ok for you to use the terms you want to use- unless you want to live in a world where that's ok and good and you welcome that- then shut up and smile. Ditto and bolding mine.

AquaticSub -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 11:59:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste Most submissives are not completely subservient to thier Dominants...they are subservient to a point (called a limit within BDSM). This also has no mention of consent or the lack thereof being a defining factor. Globally historically, there have been cases of people consenting to enslavement. It is possible. While often i see people making consent the sticking point, i think thats adding to the definition of the term in order to suit the user. Interesting that you think that. I have said it before. I will say it again. There are people who ID as submissives who live much stricter lives then some people who ID as slaves. There are plenty of slaves who still have limits (even if they match their owner's perfectly so it is never an issue it is still a limit) and there are plenty of submissives who have so few as to be not noticed unless they were ordered to kill or steal.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875