|
daddysprop247 -> RE: Are you a slave or are you a submissive? (2/21/2008 7:59:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: puella
I really really hate this question that, no matter how wordily re-expressed, seems to pop up every other week on these forums.
First I will give you my answer. I am both. I am by very nature a woman who is submissive, essentially. That nature has nothing to do with my owner, per se. It is an innate quality which is as much a part of the internal make-up of of Jen, just as is my sense of humor, sense of integrity, justice, nurturing, stubbornness, irrational need to feed people until they burst (hehe)...etc etc. Who I am as an individual is a complex myriad of factors and my being submissive is just one part 'soup'... it is no greater or less important than any other piece of my 'people puzzle'.
Currently, I am owned. The word slavery denotes ownership and as I have willingly surrendered my rights of complete freedom to another, I am a consensual slave. How he chooses to utilize, maximize and enjoy that surrender is his right and prerogative. Slavery requires more than one person. It is (in the case of consensual lifestyles) a relationship choice, not a matter of identity. Within the context of my slavery, I am still Jen, submissive, humorous (subjective), nurturing, stubborn, constantly feeding, etc (see above). The ‘slave’ tag simply acknowledges that I have surrendered (rather than having had it forcibly taken from me as in traditional slavery ‘relationships’) my rights and freedoms to another. He now has the choice to manipulate that which he desires from me, even regarding how much 'freedom' I am allowed to practice, in order to best meet his needs and maximize the pleasure he takes from me and this relationship. (That balance and manipulation is as fluid and ever evolving as we as individuals are, I have found.)
wow...puella, you have expressed so eloquently here many of my own ideas and feelings on this subject, now i don't feel quite so odd. :) the submissive v. slave argument has always rather confused and irritated me, the main reason for that being the implied assumption that one cannot be both. imo, submissive is a personality trait, simply the way one naturally expresses themselves and functions in the world, and has nothing to do really with a relationship dynamic. while slave is a status, something one can become, like any other status in life...teacher, lawyer, doctor, etc. i am a submissive person who is owned, making me a slave.
the hierarchy many seem to feel within all of these labels (bottom, submissive, slave) is another unfortunate thing. a slave is no better, more devoted, more "subbier" than a (happily) unowned submissive, and a submissive no better than a bottom. the fact is simply that we are all different, in many cases VERY different, and we are not necessarily able to relate to one another as well as some may think. the problem i think stems partially from the fact that we are all considered to be under this one big umbrella of BDSM, implying we share a way of life, point of view, state of being, etc., when the reality is that oftentimes we do not. maybe if we give up this guise of oneness we can start accepting and appreciating one another for who and what we really are, and perhaps there can be a lot more understanding and respect all the way round.
|
|
|
|
