RE: Slaves who are subs

RE: Slaves who are subs (Full Version)

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

Message

hopelessfool -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/6/2008 9:33:28 PM)
-sneaks after lynn and watches and offers help :P ^_^-

masterlink65 -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/6/2008 9:34:45 PM)
i never said i lost the job. i only said they didnt believe me, which was what my point was, but it went overhead i guess

GreedyTop -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/6/2008 10:07:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Philosopher13 We fundamentally see sub and slaves completely differently to compound this even more. I personally don't think subs can become slaves. They are wired completely differently. Subs always look at things in terms of them and what the relationship can do for them. A slave looks at the relationship as how she can make someone else happy and how best she can serve that persons needs. A slave basically sacrifices herself to a Master and vicariously receives pleasure from his happiness. I will be waiting for all the stones to fly my way. Gregory "One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson I know quite few submissives, on this site alone - not to mention offline, who would take issue with the higlighted statement.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/6/2008 10:15:21 PM)
I don't have anything to say. I just realized that I was male and had a big ego, so I should post here.

GreedyTop -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/6/2008 10:22:23 PM)
tacklehugs Red how are you?

opposingtwilight -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/6/2008 10:30:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Philosopher13 We fundamentally see sub and slaves completely differently to compound this even more. I personally don't think subs can become slaves. They are wired completely differently. Subs always look at things in terms of them and what the relationship can do for them. A slave looks at the relationship as how she can make someone else happy and how best she can serve that persons needs. A slave basically sacrifices herself to a Master and vicariously receives pleasure from his happiness. I will be waiting for all the stones to fly my way. Gregory "One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson Well, this statement bugs me personally. I don't live vacariously through anyone. Yes, I want to be ultimately pleasing to my Master (whoever he may be) but if thats the ONLY reason I'm feeling any sort of pleasure, something is wrong in the relationship. I may be a slave but I do have needs and I don't think there is anything wrong with expecting those needs to be met.

willowspirit -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/6/2008 10:59:14 PM)
Sorry, coming into this late, but I read pages 1,2 & 5. Common sense, and a bit of logic, hopefully still apply to the English language. Words have definitions. It's how we communicate. It has to has some logic to it. Though I tend to agree with Philospher13 on some points, BUT I feel he has the terms submissive and bottom confused. A bottom usually negotiates a scene with a Top -- and, thus, is more in control. I'm a submissive by fact of my core personality. Genetics have some sort of influence on it. It's not a role I play. (In fact, I try to hide my true self, and the phoney act is the more dominant intellectual persona I put out.) Example of submissive core: I make a lousey bottom because I don't ask for things very well. I also have trouble getting out of a scene that is going badly. I haven't been able to "safeword", and I tend to leave my body like the way a rape victim might... to escape something bad. Subspace is a TOTALLY different experience for me. My "escape place" when an encounter goes bad is a very sad and alone place. Yes... so by definition of personality traits -- I am a submissive. But, I tend to explain to the guys who contact me claiming they are a "Master" that "Master" and "slave" are relationship words. Having a "slave heart", or having the desire to be one doesn't make me one. I am not a slave only by the fact that I am not OWNED -- AND I would need to study and learn my Dominant One's needs, desires, ways of doing things, etc. , and I would need to make that commitment. I would also need to petition my (future) Dominant One to accept that complete responsibility of ownership of me as His slave. This is one HUGE BIG GIGANTIC deal ! I can NOT take this on without His acceptence of this responsibility. No Way can I do this myself... alone. Likewise --- unless a "Dominant" has been recognized by the community as being the possessor of some special skill, like use of the bullwhip, or fireplay, or piercing, or something -- And they bestow the title of Master of (said skill) on the Dominant .... --- OR --- that Dominant One already owns a slave. The Dominant has "mastered" knowing almost everything possible about their submissive one, and the submissive has accepted the Dominant as "Master" --- then it makes sense being called "a Master". It's sorta like the basic power exchange ---- "Master" and "slave" are honors we give to E/each other. Like respect -- it is EARNED .

Philosopher13 -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 12:44:32 AM)
Likewise --- unless a "Dominant" has been recognized by the community as being the possessor of some special skill, like use of the bullwhip, or fireplay, or piercing, or something -- And they bestow the title of Master of (said skill) on the Dominant .... --- OR --- that Dominant One already owns a slave. The Dominant has "mastered" knowing almost everything possible about their submissive one, and the submissive has accepted the Dominant as "Master" --- then it makes sense being called "a Master". This is the kind of problem that started this whole misguided BS about M/s. A Master has nothing to do with skill level, I think the D/s folks wanted to add some kind of skill level to their play and grabbed ahold of the terms to indicate some super Dom capable of walking on water, and all knowing. It has nothing to do with skill level a Dom can have more skills than a Master, it has only to do with relationship dynamics and nothing else. Why would a Dom need to be called a Master? For ego reason maybe? Gregory "One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson

quickened -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 12:56:59 AM)
quote: Then why not just call themselves cucumbers and for that matter why have any definitions what so ever? Why don't we just call the lifestyle the big hairy fucking igloo? Personally, i couldn't agree more. I think titles and designations lose something in the translation. Henceforth, we should all be referred to as "The collarme member formerly known as Prince." Please refer to a thread formerly entitled Prince should any confusion arise.

Philosopher13 -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 1:00:17 AM)
Well, this statement bugs me personally. I don't live vacariously through anyone. Yes, I want to be ultimately pleasing to my Master (whoever he may be) but if thats the ONLY reason I'm feeling any sort of pleasure, something is wrong in the relationship. I may be a slave but I do have needs and I don't think there is anything wrong with expecting those needs to be met. It is like the drinking of wine to symbolize the blood of Christ, it wasn't written in that way to be taken literally. If a slave is on my fucking machine and I have the control in my hands who is having the orgasms here? People take beautiful spirtual ideas and fuck them all up because they think them too death. You just took my example of a selflessness and analyzed it too fucking death. The way I look at M/s as a whole is a spiritual relationship why the rest of you folks are concerned about slap and tickle. Gregory "One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson

AllietheKitten -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 3:04:13 AM)
Gregory, I agree that words have meanings. I have always taken a submissive to mean "someone who gets sexual/mental enjoyment from surrender within certain limits" whereas a slave is "someone who wants to give over complete control to a Master". Likewise, the titles of Dominant and Master announce what that party is looking for. I personally don't have any interest in having a slave. Its too much work. I frankly find that kind of devotion a little terrifying when directed at me...but that is my own personal preference. I can certainly see how another could find it alluring.

gypsygrl -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:05:58 AM)
What if the M part of the M/s relationship doesn't want TPE? Seriously. This question has only just dawned on me. When I was in an M/s relationship, it wasn't TPE. He didn't want control/responsibilty over my finances and even after I moved in, it was up to me to see that my personal bills were paid. Legally, I couldn't give up control over and responsibility for my um. I share custody/parenting with my ex-husband and can't go giving that responsibilty away. When we discussed our dynamic, we kept my job/career out of it, because we were living separately, but over time, I pretty much ceded those decisions to him, at least insofar as he had veto power over my independant employment. I sometimes said our dynamic had 'TPE tendencies' in so far as situationally, we couldn't do full TPE but that's the direction we moved in. And, the reason we couldn't do full TPE was because of legal considerations, and because there were things he didn't want responsibility for.

seababy -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:15:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 I don't have anything to say. I just realized that I was male and had a big ego, so I should post here. checks pulse and temperature This is serious Red..I think you've come down with "Twue Dom" syndrome.

natasha66 -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 6:40:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble ~FR~ . There's no one size fits all and there is no one true way. If there were, anyone could hook up with anyone else, there would never be a divorce or release and the world would truly be Utopia. Ain't gonna happen. Well put Celeste.

OsideGirl -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 7:07:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Philosopher13 That is like telling someone who plays football that they are a basketball player. You keep going back to this. You can't seem to the see the difference. "D" and "s" definitions only matter within our relationships. They have no bearing outside of our relationships, so therefore the labels/definitions we use within those relationships are up to us. What you're talking about is a label outside of a relationship dynamic in the general public. Unfortunately, I have a nonconscentual realtionship with the DMV and my car gets labled what ever they decide it should be. I'll also add...if I send you to the grocery store for an apple....how many different versions of apples are there? Under your definitions there's only two and we all have to like one of the two offered.

OsideGirl -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 7:17:55 AM)
I always find these discussions funny. I fit what most people on this post consider a slave....and I call myself a submissive. I'm an owned and collared submissive. I am submissive to Master 24/7, not just in the bedroom. I have limits (which everyone does), however ours are compatible so they no longer get listed. We are involved in TPE But I am not a slave. I don't like the title of slave. To me, slavery is something horrible and involuntary. I won't label my relationship with something that has those connotations.

OnlyHisLovebug -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 9:06:50 AM)
After skimming through the last 5 pages, I'd have to say that what I see is the OP looking for absolutes in his definitions- in situations where far too many variables exist for it to be possible. Yes, defining words makes it a lot easier for effective communication to take place. But, when defining words for things that are not concrete- one's beliefs, biases, culture, etc, etc goes into what meaning the word has to them. For instance, in the OP's statement: "That is like telling someone who plays football that they are a basketball player "- it's nowhere near the same as D/s definitions- as there is little left to interpretation. Those of us in a certain culture know what we define as football, basketball, and have a general consensus as to the officially accepted rules that govern each sport. D/s and M/s have no such definitions or rules. There are no absolutes. While many people truly believe their way is the correct way, the only right way- this very discussion is proof that their way is not the only way. Think about the vast array of people on this site alone. Everyone is different. They bring different attributes, hopes, fears, and definitions- to any given relationship. Because there are no absolutes, you get a vast array of meanings assigned to any given term- basically, it’s whatever works for that person, at that point in time. I know that, over the years, my personal definitions for the labels people place on themselves (and more importantly- on OTHERS) has changed dramatically. The definitions are fluid, they evolve with me, change as I learn and grow. Were my earlier definitions incorrect? No. They were the best I had to work with given my information at the time. The problem arises when we try to pigeonhole others into our own biased definitions. What does it matter what someone I am not in a power exchange relationship with labels themselves as? Just as importantly- what does how I define myself matter to anyone that is not involved in a relationship with me?

opposingtwilight -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 9:09:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Philosopher13 People take beautiful spirtual ideas and fuck them all up because they think them too death. You just took my example of a selflessness and analyzed it too fucking death. The way I look at M/s as a whole is a spiritual relationship why the rest of you folks are concerned about slap and tickle. Gregory "One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson Pot meet kettle.

Philosopher13 -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 11:33:36 AM)
I am going to try to address what has been said since last night in one fail swoop but start with Lovebug because everyone says I am not seeing what they are saying and I am saying a number of you folks aren't seeing what I am saying. I really truely believe that people should be able to define their relationships how they see them or want to see them. We all have brains that all see things differently and god forbid than others should tell us how something so creative and individual as a relationship should be defined BUT I will repeat this part again we need basic outlines of how relationships work or definitions are meaningless. I am all about taking the basic outline and extrapolating however anyone wants but I would all think it would be a benefit to everyone to have a base from where to start to define our relationships directions. Then we wouldn't have to spend hours going through hundred of profiles that are looking for something different. I don't look through homosexual slaves profiles because I am straight, how is this any different? I know we have some members of Fetlife here they have about 10 different defintions from which too choose because that is how many different variances, sometimes in combination, that there are. I personally don't want to be throw into one big hairy igloo, I think the more we can break things down into basic catagories the more helpful it is to find who we are looking for, it is that simple. I also want to address some other things that were brought up in terms of the M/s dynamic. The one gal talked about her Master not wanting TPE and that is fine as well because the bottom line is she was willing to give him all the power, whether he chooses to take all that responsibility or not is his option, that is the key. Yes i recognize that the slave has the power, she really has it all along, but chooses to completely surrender that power vs. a D/s relationship in which she reatains that power. The person who makes the rules and creates the boundaries is the one who holds the power whether the the two parties agree or not if the submissive party in the beginning places boundaries or rules on the relationship it can never be a M/s relationship because the submissive created the boundaries. A slave never ever creates rules or makes boundaries, when she surrenders herself totally it is up to the Master to decide what those rules and boundaries are. Its called faith people and its about trust a pretty big pill obviously for alot to swallow. One would hope in the preliminary stages the slave would come to recognize whether this Master is capable of handling the power she is surrendering too him. Again we have an open door policy so if for whatever reason she looses respect or faith in the Master she can walk out the door. Again the defining factor in M/s is the complete surrender from the beginning without that it is not a M/s relationship. Yes I also recognize she can take back the power at anytime by leaving the relationship but whether she has the power or not the fact is she surrenders it and as long as the relationship is intact the Master will retain that power. So if there isn't a relationship who has the power doesn't matter anyway. The M/s dynamic is about a design. A design that is set up to test a slave to see what she is made of and to see if she is what the Master seeks in a slave. He basically tests her with the tools of BDSM and if she makes it through the gauntlet he then gives her his collar. It's kinda like planning out a trip with stops along the way with a goal. I personally don't understand D/s and have never considered myself a Dom because from what I see of D/s it is just about the play with no rhymm nor reason other than mostly the physical aspects of BDSM. BDSM isn't a tool in D/s but the core of what it is about. I know is over simpified as D/s dynamics are far more complex and many relationships do evolve into some aspects of power exchange and involve emotional and spiritual levels as well. Lastly M/s is far more about the psychological and spirtual aspects than D/s is and example is that in D/s pissing into a subs mouth is alot of times seen as humiliating or territory marking. In M/s pissing into a slaves mouth goes to a much deeper bonding experience. She consumes me as a symbol of unity and the bond we share, as it leaves me she gains nourishment from my body. As the bond grows she feels empty without it. What goes through me goes through her and part of me becomes part of her. Kind of like drinking wine as the symbol of Jesus's blood. To me as I had mentioned it before there is alot of symbolism and bonding rituals in M/s. Some of it is my own creation from a pretty extensive background with eastern religions that I have either consciously or sub consciously incorporated into my relationship idea. I think this pretty much sums it up. Gregory "One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson

akisha -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 11:45:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Philosopher13 M/s-Dominant party is in power D/s-Submissive party is in power Fundamentally different concepts. Gregory "One man with courage is a majority" Thomas Jefferson You're fricking joking right? Sub in power my ass. Where the heck did you come up with that idea?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.453125