|
LadyMorgynn -> RE: Whats the difference between slaves and submissives? (1/29/2006 11:50:24 AM)
|
A great deal of what you say is true. And there are further distinctions between an "owned" slave and a slave in the BDSM lifestyle context that is mostly used here. And yet, "slave" may still be an apt description to *differentiate* the deep end of the pool from the rest. So what if a slave can legally pack his bags and leave? He stays because he wishes to stay, and to consider himself a slave to his Mistress. Because there is an "x" rate of failure (hello, we're still talking real *people* here), does that make him any less of a slave? Who is anyone else to tell him so?
I find the main distinction between submissive and slave to be a matter of degree, and as well, being a slave incorporated into a *lot* more of the everyday "vanilla" life than a submissive or bottom. I find the term misused a lot by those who think it sounds cool, or hot, variously, or newbies who have no clue what being a 24/7 slave means. This accounts for at least half the profiles of those I've seen who categorized themselves as slaves. More than half of the rest, those indeed seeking a 24/7 r/l Mistress, had a list of requirements and conditions and "must have" a mile long! To most of them it's just a fantasy they want lived out, and require a Domme to do it for them... hardly slave-like!
I'm probably going out on a limb here, but in *MY* book, if you're not 24/7 and living with, or working toward living with, your Master or Mistress, you're not a slave, you're a submissive.
A lot of people lose sight of the fact that a 24/7 slave/Mistress relationship is NOT all about S&M, it is not 24/7 scening, and in fact, many "real" slave owners use corporal punishment only for discipline and are not rampant sadists needing safewords and limits. Not that there are not such. But before making sweeping condemnation of slaves, one needs to consider the many different kinds of enslavement that are possible in this lifestyle, that allow an individual to *choose* to turn over all that he is, into the hands of a Mistress.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sunshine119
After reading post after post after post on this subject (as LA pointed out), it seems to me there is no difference at all. A slave is "supposed" to be totally owned by another, yet, unless you live in only a few countries in the world, this is a legal impossibility.
Slaves would tell you that they have no right to do anything but what their Master's tell them....yet they have limits and can indeed leave the relationship if it doesn't meet their needs. Master/slave relationships have a higher number of "breakups" than marriages (from Gloria Brame's web site). So if 50% of marriages break up and even more of the M/s types do, slaves clearly retain the right to go. It's not that many Master's tossing them out.
Even the idea of selling oneself to another as soveh pointed out raises some questions. For a sale to occur, something of real value needs to pass from the buyer to the seller. If the seller is selling him/herself, who holds the proceeds from the sale? Without the exchange, it is either a gift or nothing but fantasy. Yet, if the seller has taken something real from the proceeds of the sale (such as money, gifts, etc), who retains that? And if a "slave" retains the proceeds then he/she actually isn't a slave because a slave owns nothing by his/herself.
***shaking my head*** Submission is a state of being. And, IMHO, slavery is fantasy.
|
|
|
|
