Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (Full Version)

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



Message

BA -> Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/24/2004 10:38:45 PM)

Okay, call Me a pragmatist (I've been called worse! LOL), but the general terms W/we use to define what W/we are in the lifestyle ARE important to keep straight.

There is a WORLD of difference between the Master/slave relationship and the Dom/sub relationship. Mixing the terminology only confuses the issue. The terms shouldn't be interchangeable.

A Master would have NO need for a submissive NOR would a slave have ANY need for a Dom. They're simply NOT the same thing.

I am Dom (hear Me roar) and I wouldn't EVER want run someone's life to the extent of a Master!

Is this the BIGGEST challenge of this lifestyle? And while I know that My kink is NOT E/everyone else's kink...can't W/we all just get along?

All the best...Black Adder



inyouagain -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/24/2004 11:41:38 PM)

Interesting questions.

If your first question refers to your last statement preceeding it, the answer would be no. Being a Mistress is an equally big challenge I'm sure of it.

Regarding your second question, we do.

The remainder of your post is amusing, however overlooking the obvious first division of Dominant/submissive, your logic is flawed.

subs/slaves fall under the latter divison... no matter what language you choose to speak.

Further, Master/Mistress - Dom/Domme (aka Dom/me) fall under the Dominant division... regardless of language immersed in.

Hope this helps, wait til you get to 'boi', we just did a thread on it.

Inyouagain



JerryInTampa -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/25/2004 7:03:21 AM)

Agreed. It would be terribly nice if the words were clearly defined; but they are not... and they are therefore very equivocateable. Not to mention the number of people who are "both". I tend to think in the "a slave likes to do things and a sub likes to have things done (or be made to do things)" but that's a generalization that even I don't consistantly hold.



BA -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/25/2004 11:37:50 AM)

Don't get Me wrong here...I AM fully aware of the division of power. But I guess more simply stated (I wrote My first posting on little sleep, hyped-up on two venti Starbuck's lattes!) submissives ARE NOT slaves (visa versa)...and Dom/mes ARE NOT Masters (visa versa). The terms simply aren't interchangeable, nor are the mindsets required for each.

Yet Y/you have slaves looking for Doms, subs looking for Masters, and My ALLLL time fave...Masters looking for "submissive slaves" (as if there were any other kind!) I think it creates a jumble of jargon that confuses Us old Folks and which many newbies struggle to understand.

BA ;-)

I apoligize to the Dommes/Mistresses which read this post. My omission of Your titles is meant simply for simplicity sakes. No offense meant.

..and one last post script: What is a "boi"? And can I get shots for it??



ShadowHwk -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/25/2004 1:46:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JerryInTampa

Agreed. It would be terribly nice if the words were clearly defined; but they are not... and they are therefore very equivocateable. Not to mention the number of people who are "both". I tend to think in the "a slave likes to do things and a sub likes to have things done (or be made to do things)" but that's a generalization that even I don't consistantly hold.


It would be nice, but given that people, for the most part, defy definition, that probably wouldn't work anyway. The line between sub and slave can be damn grey at times. The same between Master/Mistress - Dom/Domme. No matter how you define it - people will define themselves how ever it best works for them.

I often see the difference as a matter of degree. And often someone who considers themselves a sub would willingly be a slave for the right Master/Mistress.

Just my .02
Terry
AKA ShadowHwk



BA -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/25/2004 2:11:54 PM)

Shadowhwk,

I know Your response was to Jerry's post, but I don't see the line between submissive and slave as all that grey. The line is a matter of choice. A subbie chooses their "fate"...a slave does not.

I think the same goes for Doms/mes & Masters/Mistresses. There, the line is the level of control. A Master wants total control over a slave's life...a Dom wishes for only limited control (what is negotiated) over a submissive's life.

P/people in the lifestyle often like to defy labels, but if W/we're not going to follow some basic general outlines, why not just drop ALL of the titles and get on with it?!? ;-))

BA



ShadowHwk -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/25/2004 2:30:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BA
I know Your response was to Jerry's post, but I don't see the line between submissive and slave as all that grey. The line is a matter of choice. A subbie chooses their "fate"...a slave does not.

I think the same goes for Doms/mes & Masters/Mistresses. There, the line is the level of control. A Master wants total control over a slave's life...a Dom wishes for only limited control (what is negotiated) over a submissive's life.

P/people in the lifestyle often like to defy labels, but if W/we're not going to follow some basic general outlines, why not just drop ALL of the titles and get on with it?!? ;-))


BA,

And just like most, different folks we see things differently. And my opinion on this is probably very different from most.

Both subs and slaves can decide their fate. At any time - either one can walk away. Don’t believe me? This community is full of those that have done just that for one reason or another. In general subs can be characterized as having more limits than a slave might - but is this ALWAYS the case? No. In general slaves have less limits than a sub – but is this ALWAYS the case? No. Does a sub have limits? Yes, by every definition they do. Does a slave have limits? Yes. They may say they don't and they and their Master or Mistress may like to believe that they don't have limits. But put a gun to his or her shoulder and pull the trigger and watch how fast you find yourself behind bars. A slave contract would not protect you from prosecution in the US, for they are not binding/enforceable to that degree.

And if you do such a thing, do you really think that your slave would be waiting for you when you got out? Some might, but a majority would not. Now you can argue they "really" are not slaves by your definition - but it isn't your definition that counts... nor mine for that matter. It is up to the sub/slave and to some extent their Master or Mistress to define what they are.

Once again, just my opinion. I hesitate to make statements of the “this is the only way it is” because every time I have ever done that – someone writes a well reasoned response that shows me that I am wrong – again.

Terry
ShadowHwk



BA -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/25/2004 2:56:29 PM)

Shadowhwk,

I DO hear what You are saying. I guess ye olde addage of "Y/your kink is NOT M/my kink" applies here. On My behalf, this is really just wishful thinking..but I realize I am only ONE Dom...and the world won't change for Me! (Man, is THAT a hard pill to swallow!)

I think it (Sticking to more defined titles) would just make things easier for A/all...but as Dennis Miller says, "That's My opinion, I could be wrong."

Anyway, I'm new here, but I have taken the time to read Your profile and agree with so many of the things You've said there...I just hoped to get O/other's ideas on the subject.

Thanks for You response...BA



SherriA -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/25/2004 3:10:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BA

Okay, call Me a pragmatist (I've been called worse! LOL), but the general terms W/we use to define what W/we are in the lifestyle ARE important to keep straight.



It's pretty difficult to keep things straight when we take words and assign them meanings that they don't generally have. Who decides just what the "right" definition is?

An example.....submissive and dominant are adjectives. They're not nouns. There is no such thing as *a* submissive, though there are certainly submissive people. It's a descriptor of an aspect of someone's personality, not a definition of who an individual is. The same applies to the word dominant - check the dictionary and you'll find that the noun definitions of it have nothing to do with bdsm, yet all sorts of folks who do wiitwd use it in that way.

When we co-opt words already in common usage and twist their definitions, we're bound to find that we don't agree on just what those words mean. Since there are no "official" definitions, people are going to use them in ways that suit them personally. What that means, from where I sit, is that the only people who really need to agree on how the terms are used are the ones in the interaction. So, define your usage up front, and it will make it a lot easier for others to understand just what it is that you're saying.

-- Sherri



sub4hire -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/25/2004 7:27:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowHwk

quote:

ORIGINAL: BA
I know Your response was to Jerry's post, but I don't see the line between submissive and slave as all that grey. The line is a matter of choice. A subbie chooses their "fate"...a slave does not.

Why do you think a slave does not choose their fate? Does that mean they are sold. They don't choose you as their Master or Dominant? I believe they have a say until they submit in anybodies book.



I think the same goes for Doms/mes & Masters/Mistresses. There, the line is the level of control. A Master wants total control over a slave's life...a Dom wishes for only limited control (what is negotiated) over a submissive's life.

P/people in the lifestyle often like to defy labels, but if W/we're not going to follow some basic general outlines, why not just drop ALL of the titles and get on with it?!? ;-))



I may feel I am a submissive...I very well could be a slave to some. Just as my Dom will become my Master when he gives me a collar. Yep:in my terminology Doms and Masters are one in the same. The collar is the differentiating point to me.




Both subs and slaves can decide their fate. At any time - either one can walk away. Don’t believe me? This community is full of those that have done just that for one reason or another. In general subs can be characterized as having more limits than a slave might - but is this ALWAYS the case? No. In general slaves have less limits than a sub – but is this ALWAYS the case? No. Does a sub have limits? Yes, by every definition they do. Does a slave have limits? Yes. They may say they don't and they and their Master or Mistress may like to believe that they don't have limits. But put a gun to his or her shoulder and pull the trigger and watch how fast you find yourself behind bars. A slave contract would not protect you from prosecution in the US, for they are not binding/enforceable to that degree.


I totally agree with ShadowHawks opinion here.



And if you do such a thing, do you really think that your slave would be waiting for you when you got out? Some might, but a majority would not. Now you can argue they "really" are not slaves by your definition - but it isn't your definition that counts... nor mine for that matter. It is up to the sub/slave and to some extent their Master or Mistress to define what they are.


Some would depending on how devoted they were. In my opinion a slave should be waiting no matter what. But then again thats my personal opinion.


Gloria



BA -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/25/2004 10:12:25 PM)

PLEASE understand that I DO NOT hope to change the world to My way of thinking with this topic thread...I ONLY hope to create discussion...

THAT being said...just a couple of last things, cause when the horse is dead...IT'S DEAD! But as far as Doms being the same as Masters and the collar differentiating Them, I disagree. Doms collar submissives just like Masters do with Their slaves...but the difference being the Dom still doesn't want to run every aspect of the subbies life...wanting that makes You a Master. It's the difference between total control (M/s) and power exchange (D/s). If Dom/me & Master/Mistress ARE the same, then L/let's drop one of the titles and just go by one. Either all Dominants are Dom/mes or We're all Master/Mistresses. Cause why have two names if they're the same? ;-))

As far as the deciding their repsective "fates", perhaps fate got taken out of context. Within the limits of reason (meant to exclude killing someone and other extreme acts of humanity), yes both slaves and subs can simply walk away...but for a slaves walking away (in most cases) is their only way out and usually their last resort. submissives can negotiate. And again, if sub and slave are the same thing...then why have two names?

I can only assume, (Yes, I know what happens when W/we do that!) rightly or wrongly, that there must be a reason that both sets of names exist. So if NOT to mark some delineation between M/s & D/s, then why?

Black Adder



EStrict -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/26/2004 11:00:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BA

If Dom/me & Master/Mistress ARE the same, then L/let's drop one of the titles and just go by one. Either all Dominants are Dom/mes or We're all Master/Mistresses. Cause why have two names if they're the same? ;-))

Black Adder


Well, there is the problem Sir. Just *who* decides what term is correct and which ones should be used. I have met many people through the years that do not use computers to search, read forums, or go in chat rooms. Some of them do not go to munches, belong to local groups or attend play parties with other than a few select friends. They may or may not have read the gor series, the beauty series, loving dominant, ethical slut, or any of the other of 100s of books you can find that could be considered *lifestyle* related. Some of them call their relationship master/slave, others dominant/submissive, even if and when it is a relationship where it is one that there is no negotiation.

You said earlier that you saw someone looking for a *submissive* slave, and asked what slave isn't? By that way of thinking, what master isn't dominant? And since a slave is seeking someone who is dominant, why would they not be attracted to someone who called themselves a dom and not a master?

Oh, BTW, I don't consider very much about myself submissive at all. I am headstrong and obstinate as all hell (ask Master). As someone mentioned, a submissive negotiates. There is no negotiating in our relationship. The one thing demanded of me is total honesty. Should Master tell me to do something I don't like/want, I have been known to fight it every step of the way. In the end, I do bend to his will, however, if I do not like it, I do never say thank you, or agree just to make things easier on myself.

As a submissive, I could have negotiated things that I hate, or that were not discussed previously. As a slave, I do not have the right within the confines of my relationship. But doing something under duress because you have no other option is not is not the same thing as *submitting* to it Imo.

::Laughing:: reading over that, it *could* make my relationship sound abusive, but, ironically, the samples I would give would be very boring. I am not micromanaged. Master works full time out of the house, and I eat when/what I want. Master considers me a *plain* eater. A good example is him cooking something on his day off and offering me some. I always say no, as I don't like his cooking. But, occasionally he decides I need to *try* something. Most people like his cooking, but he uses too much onions, and some weird spices for my tastes, etc. When he tells me to *taste* it, it is under duress, and he is well aware of it. If I don't like it, and he asks me, I tell him. Of course, I *know* this will cause him to suggest me to try it again, but I am not going to lie to get out of it. There is no danger in eating it, but each bite is *forced*.

If I say I am not hungry (he has been known to do this right after I finished eating something for myself because he was cooking and I knew I didn't like it), the non-eating option is something physical that I don't like. To stop, all I have to say is something like *not too bad*, or *I'd eat it if I wasn't full*, or even just that I like it. But, I am not going to lie to get out of doing something I don't like. Still, if it is do it or lie, and I do it, I don't call that *submission*, but duress. I remain my obstinate self during the whole incident.

Sandy



BA -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/26/2004 2:25:10 PM)

Sandy,

Thank you for your post, but in many ways you have helped Me prove My point.

In your first paragraph you mentioned that you knew of couples who would label their relationships D/s even when negotiation is NOT part of it. Well, no wonder they're confused! LOL To Me (and I don't think I'm alone here), the MAIN difference between M/s & D/s is that: M/s is TOTAL POWER over the relationship by one person, the Master/Mistress. The slave, generally speaking (and leaving out extremes like killing someone), has no/little room to negotiate. Much like you say about your own realtionship. D/s, on the other hand, is a POWER EXCHANGE between two people where the submissive can negotiate various aspects of that relationship.

Saying that you're looking for a submissive slave is redundant. It's like shopping for a car and saying you want a German BMW. All BMWs are German just like all slaves are submissive. This is NOT to say that all slaves are doormats for their Masters. But have you ever met a NON submissive slave? ;-) You say that "by that <My> way of thinking, what Master isn't dominant?" And THAT'S My point...Masters ARE all dominant, just as slaves are ALL submissive. Or have you met a Master that is submissive? The fact that a slave or submissive is headstrong and sassy, doesn't "boot" them from the submissive category. The fact that you eventually acquiesce to your Master is proof of that. A submissive in a D/s relationship CAN negotiate, and doesn't have to acquiesce. By the way you have described your relationship with your Master, I would say (by My definition) you have a M/s relationship with Him...is that NOT correct?

What you said in the 4th paragraph shows My point about the difference between M/s & D/s realtionships. Yes, as a submissive you could have negotitated...thus making it a D/s relationship...BUT as a slave you DO NOT have the RIGHT to negotiation. And that is My point about where to "draw the line" between the two types of relationships.

And you're ABSOLUTELY right that doing something out of duress is NOT the same as submitting to it, but I'm not sure how that fits into the original topic.

BA (Still beating the dead horse!) ;-)



EStrict -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/26/2004 3:00:58 PM)

::sighs:: if that is what you read in my post Sir, then either you didn't understand what I meant or I didn't say it clearly. I don't feel I proved any of your points as I don't agree with them. People call themselves what they feel applies to them. You have the right to disagree, but that doesn't make them incorrect.

I guess from this point, I will just have to agree to disagree though Sir, for though I do have a sadistic side, I am not into beastiality, so I try not to beat dead horses :)

Sandy



BA -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/26/2004 4:20:21 PM)

sandy,

Absolutely! People can call themselves WHATEVER they want. But if you're not the President of the United States, then why refer to yourself as such? I just think that this mix & match, cherry-picking style of the "lifestyle" is pointless, confusing and misleading.

...and I said I was beating the horse, NOT having sex with it! [:)]

BA

"Does anybody remember laughter?" ~ Robert Plant, Stairway to Heaven (Live)



inyouagain -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/26/2004 5:29:36 PM)

We should find out if the President is Dom or sub before we start emulating him, agreed?

Things are fouled up enough already and it seems the dead horse is catching hell.

Hmm, this makes me feel rather ''Pope'ish''. (wonder if he's Dom)

Damn the torpedoes... Full Speed ahead! Hmm, does the ship submit to the torpedo (after all, it MUST be sub... it came from a Sub!), or vice-versa? The torpedo can't be Dom or Dommme, but it has 'mean mutherfucker' written all over it... I don't know what it is??? Now look what I've done...

Peace.

Inyouagain



JerryInTampa -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/27/2004 6:29:41 AM)

Or, for a different definitions:

Slave - Someone who wants to obey
Sub - Someone who wants to recieve
Bottom - Someone who wants to have the other person direct play

There are many different, valid definitions; perhaps we should start taking care to list our interest (TPE vs SM for example).



BA -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/27/2004 6:39:08 AM)

Inyouagain,

Okay, well, actually, the torpedo is a S/switch...while it is Dominant, forcing the ship into a submissive role...it (the aforementioned torpedo) is, itself, submissive to the submarine which launched it. It could also be considered a tad "Toppy".

And while Admiral David G. Farragut said, "Damn the torpedoes...full speed ahead!" in 1864...he was, in fact, speaking about FLOATING MINES, which would also be considered S/switches, for the same reasons as the aforementioned torpedo.

Two other fascinating things (to Me, at least) with your post...1) That you would use a naval anology responding to a post from a naval enthusiast (Me) LOL ...and B) That you would use a war-related anology & quote and then offer up "Peace"...therefore, you are a Democrat! ;-)

~ BA (And while I DID introduce the beleaguered horse into this conversation, it was in NO WAY My intention to see it further besmerched)


"BDSM is meant to be endured, NOT enjoyed. The LAST thing We need around here is a bunch of damned idiots trying to make this fun!" ~ unknown Master



robert1699 -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/27/2004 8:12:57 AM)

wait! hand me that crop this horse is a still not in sub-space!!
How about: subs try to talk their way out of a "request", slaves try to submit their way out. In my limited experience they really are two different species (and yes the overlap can be extensive) and woe be to the dom/master who mixes the two up. (oh another difference, but not always true, is a '"slave" will try to top from the bottom in a heartbeat and have no shame, a sub will go 4 maybe 5 heartbeats and give lip service to shame.......imho)



Voltare -> RE: Doms/Masters...submissives/slaves...keeping them straight? (2/28/2004 2:31:48 PM)

Interesting thread, I'll offer my thoughts.

According to Websters:

Master - \Mas"ter\, n. [OE. maistre, maister, OF. maistre, mestre, F. ma[^i]tre, fr. L. magister, orig. a double comparative from the root of magnus great, akin to Gr. ?. Cf. Maestro, Magister, Magistrate, Magnitude, Major, Mister, Mistress, Mickle.] 1. A male person having another living being so far subject to his will, that he can, in the main, control his or its actions; -- formerly used with much more extensive application than now. (a) The employer of a servant. (b) The owner of a slave. (c) The person to whom an apprentice is articled. (d) A sovereign, prince, or feudal noble; a chief, or one exercising similar authority. (e) The head of a household. (f) The male head of a school or college. (g) A male teacher. (h) The director of a number of persons performing a ceremony or sharing a feast. (i) The owner of a docile brute, -- especially a dog or horse. (j) The controller of a familiar spirit or other supernatural being.

I won't go through and define each term- this exerpt from Websters is only the first definition, and is sufficiant to illustrate that an attempt to define terms in D/s, M/s, or BDSM (for brevity, just D/s for the rest of this thread) I will will be as hopeless as trying to define the word in vanilla terms. In this dictionary definition, I suggest that there are five sub definitions that are appropriate for D/s use.

(a) The employer of a servant.
(b) The owner of a slave.
(e) The head of a household.
(g) A male teacher.
(i) The owner of a docile brute, -- especially a dog or horse.

Who is to say that any of these definitions are mutually exclusive, or that any are actually appropriate?

Master
Mistress
Dominant
Domina
Top
Gorean Master
Sadist
Switch
Submissive
Slave
Kajira (Gorean slave)
Bottom
Masochist
Fetishist
Gothic
Kinked
Cross Dresser

Each of these words mean something to me. Each of them mean something to you, the reader. What I perceive this meaning to be, may not be the same as you. More to the point, I don't think they have to be. I don't spend a great deal of time trying to assess if a woman I have met in the lifestyle is a submissive, slave, SAM, just kinky, or a 'true' anything - if I spent all my waking hours wondering if I was a 'True' Master or just a guy who likes kinky sex, I'd never have time to enjoy the lifestyle.

As pointed out quite well before, dominant and submissive are adjectives. A Master, by definition, would be dominant. A slave, by definition, would be submissive. Saying they aren't the same simply isn't true - all Masters are dominant, all slaves are submissive.

quote:

A Master would have NO need for a submissive NOR would a slave have ANY need for a Dom. They're simply NOT the same thing.


This is the crux of my post. I am a Master. I enjoy, and prefer Total Power Exchange relationships. I assure you that I have MANY uses for submissives. I don't believe that generally, a woman wakes up at the tender age of thirty two, and realizes that she's been a slave her whole life, and immediately starts seeking out a Master. She may find curiousities in the lifestyle, and her first introduction will be that maybe she is a submissive - but certainly not a slave! I believe - contrary to what I've heard others say - that one doesn't become slave overnight. If this is the case, if I only accepted self-professed 'slaves' for conversation, interaction, and dating, I would be a very lonely person.

Definitinos permit us to express ourselves. Our words express our thoughts. They permit others who interact with us to learn of us, who we are, what we think. Permitting words to define us, throwing my hands up in the air and saying "I'm a Master, so I guess I better have a dungeon in my basement, wear black leather whenever I leave the house, and best be an expert in the single tail whip, and never relate to a woman on any level, unless she is a slave" severely limits my expression of the man I am. I define myself with many words - but when you see me write in these forums, or interact with my slave, I tend to avoid saying "I am a Master" and do my best to simply say "I am me" and let others, by the quality of my words, and nature of my interaction, judge for themselves who they see.

Stephan



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125