Define Slave

Define Slave (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

TragicallyHip -> Define Slave (1/10/2006 9:10:22 AM)
It appears that there are many different definitions of a slave ( I would add in context to verses a submissive). This came to me recently when I came across a Lesbian slave seeking a Mistress only (NO MEN) (always capitalized!). I found this odd. (the same can be said of slaves who say they are straight and will not do same sex). Can a slave be defined by sexual preference? Is this a "limit" as described to me by one? Would this not make the person more of a submissive than a slave if there is such a limit? I believe that to place such a limit on ownership would be to define oneself as a submissive and not a slave. I would prefer to hear comments on this one narrow aspect of sexuality or sexual preference and not open this to a discussion about limits and whether any slave has any. thanks

MsIncognito -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 9:12:03 AM)
Huh. I have to admit I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that in order to be a slave one must be bisexual. Is that what you are actually saying?

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 9:16:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TragicallyHip Can a slave be defined by sexual preference? Most people do. It is very rare you will find someone looking for a Ds or Ms relationships with someone who isn't compatible to their orientation. Even as people say "It's not about sex for me" you won't really see a hetero sub female open to anything but a hetero male as their dom. quote: Is this a "limit" as described to me by one? For most people, yes. quote: Would this not make the person more of a submissive than a slave if there is such a limit? For some yes, for others no. quote: I believe that to place such a limit on ownership would be to define oneself as a submissive and not a slave. I would prefer to hear comments on this one narrow aspect of sexuality or sexual preference and not open this to a discussion about limits and whether any slave has any. thanks We get to choose what works for us. It is possible but rare to see long term intimate personal relationships with people who do not have compatible sexual orientations. Whether you call it a limit or not, whether you consider it limiting to a slave or not...depends on your own perspective.

phoenixslave -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 9:30:24 AM)
What they said. define slave; a slave will be whatever the parties involved say they will be After answering questions like this.

MHOO314 -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 9:55:49 AM)
I do not equate it to sexual preference as much as to whom one would feel the greatest level of submission.

veronicaofML -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 10:35:35 AM)
why does being-a-slave have-to do anything WITH sex at-all????

Mercnbeth -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 11:50:33 AM)
quote: Can a slave be defined by sexual preference? sure, why not? there are some folks that are purely sexual slaves--they provide NO other level of service, just like there are service slaves are not interested in providing any other level of service, then there are service slaves who provide no sexual service whatsoever. quote: Is this a "limit" as described to me by one? Would this not make the person more of a submissive than a slave if there is such a limit? it would sure make sense that way, wouldn't it? unfortunately, it isn't as easy as that. a while back this slave suggested taking the whole slave word out of circulation and replacing it with submissive. those that identify as submissive could call themselves permissive, since to this slave, that more closely describes the difference. that viewpoint was no more embraced by everyone any more than a simplistic "submissives have limits, slaves don't" sort of description. this slave ended up with the opinion that someone could call themselves a purple spotted goat if they want, it makes no difference to this slave, but it might surprise someone who really IS looking for a purple spotted goat to find out that description doesn't match the person's sexual orientation, relationship goals, personality, species, genus, etc. why should it even matter to this slave what others refer to themselves as or why they define themselves that way? quote: I believe that to place such a limit on ownership would be to define oneself as a submissive and not a slave. that's great that you have a working definition of "slave" and "submissive" to suit your purposes. if you are looking for either, you should probably plan on explaining that definition to avoid confusion. quote: I would prefer to hear comments on this one narrow aspect of sexuality or sexual preference and not open this to a discussion about limits and whether any slave has any. Good luck. it would seem to this slave that it would be incredibly hard to have such a discussion and not touch on the concept that submissives have personal limits separate and apart from what their Master desires and slaves adopt their Master's limits and have none to call specifically their own. then there will be those who resemble neither yet refer to themselves as such---more power to them, if it works for them, but please don't expect them to see it as you do, even if you point it out. personally and this is in the spirit of attempting to comment narrowly, this slave believes that either as submissive or slave, she would be able to voice an opinion on sexual preference. as a submissive, this slave would be able to retain veto power over any sexual liaison Master desired and He would accept that. as slave, this means that any decisions about who is having sex with who and when is His alone and this slave enthusiastically waits to or actively serves in whatever sexual capacity He desires, there is no right of refusal, no veto power. that's how it works for US, though, not for everyone. Edited to Add by Merc: A "slave" is someone who, in real time, has been taken in as a possession of another person who then becomes a "Master". From that moment on, the slave has no "limits" other than those of the Master. Included in that statement is consideration to sexual "limits".

MTslave -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 11:57:43 AM)
First let me say thank you for this topic. It sparked a delicious conversation between me and my Master this afternoon. Next I must say that my opinion is that subs and slaves have nothing to do with sexual orientation, or rather, don’t have to have anything to do with sexual orientation. Now if that’s ones main focus in this lifestyle then that is how they will define it. It doesn’t necessarily make it wrong just different. However I think on a general consensus you’ll find that most define subs and slaves in actions of servitude rather then sexual preference. For instance… some people feel the difference between sub and slave is the degree of submission. However there are many involved in a M/s relationship as a kind not a degree. Meaning that there are some slaves that are not submissive at all but rather surrender their will to another. I can only speak for myself, but I always considered myself submissive for the longest time even though I was always fighting myself on the term. It just didn’t seem to fit right… there was always something that was just…… off. Now I’m a hetero woman and have a male Master but it wasn’t that side of things that had me questioning. Then one day as I was doing some research I came across a definition of slave that I really really liked and it did make more sense to me.. it fit a whole lot more of who I am. It said something like… a slave does not always get pleasure from submitting but feels a deep need or desire to do so. I relate it to something akin to a pain slut. There are some that don’t necessarily get warm fuzzies from the pain but they get a release… a sense of peace when they pain is given to them. That is the same way with me. I don’t have a lot of choices…. And when my Master says something, it’s that way and no other. Whether I like it or not. It’s that knowing of Master absolute rule that keeps me at peace. I may be seething inside about having to do this or that… but ultimately it’s having that absolute rule that I crave. Of course this is just one persons opinion on a many faceted subject. There has always been and will always continue to be but to say that to define a slave or sub by sexual preference, to me is just, limiting and shallow and not really open minded… IF… that’s a big one.. IF.. they are living or professing to live in a well rounded M/s lifestyle not just a fetish or kink or admitted to wanting nothing more then a sexual relationship

fastlane -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 12:03:39 PM)
Some times it's easy to define or recognize a slave. For example, the one in chains and kneeling is usually readily recognize as "the slave." Other time's it's way more difficult. For example, my ex-wife. The last words I remember her saying as she left me were along the lines of "I'm not your fucking slave!" And here, I thought she was? I do however, believe gender and sex have nothing to do with the definition. To be a slave is nothing more than a consentual agreement between two parties with whom each need to quench the desire they seek. Peace, Kevin

Wildfleurs -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 12:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TragicallyHip It appears that there are many different definitions of a slave ( I would add in context to verses a submissive). This came to me recently when I came across a Lesbian slave seeking a Mistress only (NO MEN) (always capitalized!). I found this odd. (the same can be said of slaves who say they are straight and will not do same sex). Can a slave be defined by sexual preference? I’m not to sure I understand the question, but I think in your example if someone is single they can define everything for themselves. Which is why I think its pretty impossible for a single person to run around calling themselves a slave. quote: Is this a "limit" as described to me by one? If the owner allows their slave to have limits, I guess they could have sexual orientation as a limit. It wouldn’t mesh with my idea of slavery, but my opinion doesn’t really matter (the owners opinion should be what counts). quote: I believe that to place such a limit on ownership would be to define oneself as a submissive and not a slave. I would prefer to hear comments on this one narrow aspect of sexuality or sexual preference and not open this to a discussion about limits and whether any slave has any. thanks In another thread a similar issue was coming up (identifying as a slave but limiting what the owner can do). Basically I think flexibility in general, including in areas of sexual orientation are a very valuable skill for a slave to learn. Over the years my owners interests, desires, etc have changed and learning to adjust and adapt to them has been difficult but very valuable. And I’m not just talking about the kink, sex, sexual orientation… but just in terms of life preferences and decisions. I don’t think its possible to be a slave (in the way I view it) and not have to learn how to be very bendy over the years. C~

caitlyn -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 12:53:11 PM)
Actually, defining "slave" will do you no good. What "really" happened [;)] is that John Warren, noted dominant and author, was dictating to someone while he was smacking them on the butt with a riding crop, and a yelping, slip of the pen, coined the term. Now, we are not entirely sure what that term was supposed to actually be, but we do have some potentually useful suggestions, using variable-sequence lettering. LAVES: residue SALVE: remedial or soothing influence of agent VALES: glens or nolls VALSE: a waltz VEALS: flesh of a young calf I hope this helps ... [;)]

Arpig -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 2:17:11 PM)
It seems to me, that if a person wishes to be a slave, and they are seeking an owner of a particular gender, then it is perfectly correct to state that preference openly (prevents contacting people who are just NOT interested). And keep in mind saying "Slave seeking Mistress (NO MEN)" does not mean that this person would not be willing to service a man sexually if so ordered by their new-found mistress.

classykindasassy -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 3:35:46 PM)
If you are super interested in exploring the topic as a lifestyle issue for yourself, may I suggest looking up the nearest chapter of MAsT? This group (Masters And slaves Together) is all about the Master/slave relationship and is pansexual, open to anyone who wants to engage in the conversation. If you do a net search for them you will find them.

Delvin -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 4:41:48 PM)
Define a slave - An adult able to comprehend their own actions within society’s laws who consensus to another adult to surrender themselves. They can be a service oriented slave a house slave a sex slave or anything in between but in the end they are an adult who has consented to someone to serve them. As for the dynamic of a certain Master/slave relationship, each one will be defined by the adults involved. Any one way isn't the right way for all, but is the right way for those people involved. The main problem within this lifestyle is the rebel in us all which is hard to define certain "rules" for all to abide by. Why we see so many arguments over definitions of words and phrases and the passion to press home their own beliefs. Safe, Sane, Consensual. To avoid more dissecting of the word slave and who falls into that label vs. who doesn’t, it is a lot easier to understand that unless we are talking about forced slavery which still happens in this day of age, the above applies. Everything else is icing on the cake between the parties involved. D

la90066 -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 4:45:19 PM)
S = Service L = Love A = Acceptance V = Validation E = Excellence

EriaeMelody -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 5:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: la90066 S = Service L = Love A = Acceptance V = Validation E = Excellence LOL now that is good

veronicaofML -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 5:56:50 PM)
S = Service L = Love A = Acceptance V = Validation E = Excellence =========== i'll give ya excellent service.. the rest i have nothing to do with.

amayos -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 6:26:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TragicallyHip I believe that to place such a limit on ownership would be to define oneself as a submissive and not a slave. Or rather, any limits at all. A slave is just that—a SLAVE: A person who is property of another and is forced to obey. Period. No exceptions. No limp facade of servitude or setting down rules or boundaries; they are fully and wholly owned. They do not belong to themselves. They are not owed compensation, love, loyalty, fidelity, respect as a sentient human being or any form of affection or recognition. They only receive what their Master/Mistress may grant them, and that purity is so very ideal. So few have the selflessness and dedication to be that.

mistoferin -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 6:42:23 PM)
quote: SLAVE: A person who is property of another and is forced to obey. Period. No exceptions. While I agree that a person can not be a slave...even if they are of that mindset...without being owned, I have to disagree with your force stance. I believe that the vast majority of those who identify as slaves, in the context that we use the term here, do so consentually.

Duste -> RE: Define Slave (1/10/2006 7:04:35 PM)
I've always considered this question to be grouped among such queries as "where the hell did my other sock go?". All you can ever do is ask and wonder, because you'll never truely know, and neither will anyone else. Your most wild and vivid idea of it will be tame by someone else's definition, and you'll never really find a version that works for everyone. Though, "complete and utter devotion" come to my mind.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875