RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve)

RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (Full Version)

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

Message

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 5:42:02 AM)
Great topic, so I thought I would throw my $.02 in. For me, the difference between sub and slave lies in the very nature of one's attraction to the lifestyle. A slave is drawn to this by her desire to willingly give up the very control of her own life. The slave chooses not to choose, but rather to allow another to make her choices for her. She finds freedom in the abdication of personal responsibility, and can, aggressively at times, pursue this need to give up control. A slave doesn't need punishment or coercion to give up her will, she lovingly hands it over. A submissive is one who is drawn to the lifestyle by her need to be forcefully controlled. She wants to maintain her right to choose, but desires to have another ignore her choices and force her to do the things she wouldn't choose to do on her own. She finds freedom in the physical restraints and the complete disregard for her desires. (I also believe there is a third category of bottom, the masochist, who is drawn to the pain play, but that would be going a bit off topic.) Of course there are gradients and shades of sub and slave in almost every bottom. In fact, on my website, I have created a BDSM checklist that "scores" responses and comes up with a composite score of just how "slave", "sub", and "maso" one is. I also talk a bit more about my sub, slave, maso theory. Just my thoughts... Yours, Taggard http://www.taggard.net

proudsub -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 8:22:31 AM)
quote: A submissive is one who is drawn to the lifestyle by her need to be forcefully controlled. She wants to maintain her right to choose, but desires to have another ignore her choices and force her to do the things she wouldn't choose to do on her own. She finds freedom in the physical restraints and the complete disregard for her desires. I disagree with this statement unless i am misinterpreting it. I hope you don't mean that the dom of a submissive has no respect for his sub's limits. The way you said it turns a sub into a slave in my opinion.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 10:54:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: proudsub quote: A submissive is one who is drawn to the lifestyle by her need to be forcefully controlled. She wants to maintain her right to choose, but desires to have another ignore her choices and force her to do the things she wouldn't choose to do on her own. She finds freedom in the physical restraints and the complete disregard for her desires. I disagree with this statement unless i am misinterpreting it. I hope you don't mean that the dom of a submissive has no respect for his sub's limits. The way you said it turns a sub into a slave in my opinion. I think in the extreme case of a no-limits submissive, it would be exactly as I state. However, there are few no-limits submissives (I don't think I have ever met one who claimed to be such, but maybe they are out there), so in most cases there would be an understanding between the Dominant and submissive as to just how far her choices could be ignored. Again, though, even if the mythical no-limits submissive did exist, having all of her choices forcefully over-ridden would not make them, at least in my mind, a slave. (In reading that, it seems paradoxical, but doesn't most of BDSM? Release through bondage. Freedem in servitude. Pain is pleasure. smile) I think the crux of my logic is that a BDSM slave is a consesual slave, she willing gives up her right to object to an activity or action. A BDSM submissive does not give up her right to object, she just desires that those objections be ignored. As I tried to state above, there are degrees of both slaves and submissives. A consensual relationship requires that the boundaries of how far the slave gives up her rights and how far the submissive is willing to have her rights violated be fully and completely negotiated and respected. In my mind, it is the base desire that makes a slave a slave and a submissive a submissive. They could both live the same life, doing the same activities, but the thrill comes from a very different source. For example, both could expereince the same scene, let's say being gagged, bound with leather restraints and forced to kneel in a corner for an hour. The slave would derive her pleasure from the thought that she was just property, with no expectation that her Master could not use her exactly thus. The fact that he does use her this way reaches into the core of her desires and prooves she is slave. The submissive, on the other hand, would derive her pleasure from the thought that there was someone who had the power to make her do things she would not (at least on the conscious level) choose for herself. The loss of power reaches into the core of her desires and prooves she is submissive. The same activity, but very different internal responses. One of the indicators I use in determining if a bottom I am talking to is slave of sub is the question of rape play. A slave will often times get less of a sexual charge out of rape than a submissive. To a slave, there can be no rape once she has given up her right to determine who uses her body, so rape carries the same sexual thrill as any other sex act. Yet to the submissive, rape is one of the purest forms of sexual domination. (Yes, I know there are lots and lots of exceptions to this rule. I know there are lots of pure slaves who love to be raped and lots of pure submissives who can't stand the thought. However, it has been my expereince that this generalization can be fairly accurate when things like sexual history and unusual circumstances are taken into account. Remember: all generalizaions are false, even this one.) So, to answer your questions, even if a submissive agreed to having all of her rights violated it would not make her a BDSM consensual slave, it would make her a no-limits submissive. She could be forced to do all of the things a slave would do willingly, but the thrill would come from the force, not the choice to let her Dom do these things. The difference is in the mind set, not the activities. Again, just my thoughts... Yours, Taggard http://www.taggard.net (My lousy web hosting company has screwed up my site again, so if the above url isn't working, try this one: http://bdsm.taggard.net )

January -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 10:57:08 AM)
I'm with you, proud. I can't personally relate very well to Taggard's categories. I wonder if these divisons are more compatible with fantasy roles? IMO, service seems to be missing from the definition of slave, and consent seems to be missing from the definition of sub. Jan

proudsub -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 11:17:01 AM)
quote: A BDSM submissive does not give up her right to object, she just desires that those objections be ignored. Maybe some desire that, but not this sub. If my objections were ignored i would be out the door. I would not consider that consensual play.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 11:53:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: January I'm with you, proud. I can't personally relate very well to Taggard's categories. I wonder if these divisons are more compatible with fantasy roles? IMO, service seems to be missing from the definition of slave, and consent seems to be missing from the definition of sub. Jan Like any model of a complex system, my model does not work in all situations. That said, I think you missed the point of what I am describing (which is due to my inability to get it across very well). In my model, slave and submissive are not labels or categories, but rather inclinations. All bottoms have a bit of both in them, and just usually lean more towards one than the other. In the above examples, I talked about a "pure slave" or "pure submissive" which would be a fictional person who only had slave or submissive desires at the exclusion of the other. I have never met a person like that in real life. (I tend to try and avoid labeling real life people in black and white terms, preferring to see things in shades of grey.) The utility of the model comes in its ability to define the inclinations and then understand how the mind works in processing the stimulus. Was that thrill caused by lack of power, or the lack of self-ownership? Again, it's just a model, but I have found it useful. I think you are missing the aspect of consent in my definition of the submissive inclination because I feel that when the bottom out rightly consents to the loss of a right, she is activating her slave inclination and not her submissive one. The fact that a submissive can enjoy slave-like activities just moves her out of the realm of "pure submissive, " it does not invalidate her as a "submissive." Another thing to consider is that I am only talking in depth of two-thirds of the model. The entire aspect of S&M and pain play is getting short shrift in this conversation (which I find often happens in online discussions, as few online only BDSMers have much experience with or knowledge of real pain play (not that there is anything wrong with that wink)). In my full model, there is a third desire point, pleasureful pain. Was that spanking enjoyed because it demonstrated a slaves owned status, because it demonstrated a submissives loss of control, or just because it feels so good when it hurts so bad? For most, it is some mixture of all three...but the exact make-up of that mixture is what I am attempting to define. I do think I perhaps have given too little attention to the role of service to a slave, and I thank you for pointing that out. Being as how I feel no submissive or slave desires whatsoever, all of my theories are based on the communications I have had with slaves and submissives. So let me pose a few questions and perhaps those in the group can further my education into the slave mindset: Can a slave be a slave without desiring to serve? Would that fall into the "pet" or “princess” category of bottom? My concept of slavery is heavily based on the idea of "ownership"; can there be rewarding BDSM service without ownership? (The image of Alfred the Butler from Batman popped into my head...not a very sexy image. smile) Is the desire of service separate and independent from the desire to be owned, or is service simply more evidence to one's owned status? Any and all thoughts would be greatly appreciated... Yours, Taggard http://www.taggard.net (They seem to have my site fixed, for now...)

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 12:01:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: proudsub quote: A BDSM submissive does not give up her right to object, she just desires that those objections be ignored. Maybe some desire that, but not this sub. If my objections were ignored i would be out the door. I would not consider that consensual play. Again, consent is implied in everything I discuss. But I have a few questions for you. 1) Do you define all acceptable activities before you scene with a dominant? 2) Do you use a safeword, or does "no mean no"? 3) Do you feel that you are in control of the scene and the dominant will only do those things you desire? 4) What is your principle source of pleasure in the scenes you participate in? 5) Do you feel your scenes are role-play or do you only participate in scenes where there is no pretending or suspension of belief? I am most interested in the cases where my model fails, as those are the points at which I can learn... Yours, Taggard http://www.taggard.net

January -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 12:39:40 PM)
Edited

iwillserveu -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 2:11:18 PM)
Actually many Dom/me's insist "protocol" falls more heavily on a slave. (Never mind that your kink is not my kink or said Domm/me is relying on a third party for their "domination rights" or whatever you call it.[:)]) Calling yourself "submissive" cuts down on that crap (hopefully[:)]). Of course, what do I know? I'm just a supplicant.[:)]

proudsub -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 2:52:07 PM)
quote: What is your opinion of the 9 levels of submission discussed in another thread? There's been lots of argument (even sneering) on the board about that depiction of the sub-slave continuum, but I personally relate to it pretty well, and find it interesting. Wow January, i thought i was the only one here who related to the 9 levels of submission and found where i fit in.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 2:57:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: January What is your opinion of the 9 levels of submission discussed in another thread? There's been lots of argument (even sneering) on the board about that depiction of the sub-slave continuum, but I personally relate to it pretty well, and find it interesting. January I have been in the lifestyle since 96 and that is the first time I have ever seen that list. It looks to me like it was written from a fem-Domme perspective, which is probably why I haven't seen it. I have only read the 9 Level one, but, quite honestly, it just about perfectly fits in with my model. The only real discrepancies I find is that the 9 Levels deal a lot with time devoted to the submission, which my model really doesn’t look at. I hope this doesn't get too mathematical/computer sciency, but I view the BDSM desires as being modeled to a three dimension matrix with the slave, submissive and masochistic inclinations being used as the indices. The 9 Levels are then just points on the matrix: 1-THE OUTRIGHT NON-SUBMISSIVE MASOCHIST or KINKY SENSUALIST In my model, this maps to a bottom who has a very high masochistic inclination, but a very low slave and submissive inclination. 2-PSEUDO-SUBMISSIVE NON-SLAVE. This level would map to a bottom with a medium submissive inclination but a low slave inclination. The masochistic inclination is indeterminate. 3-PSEUDO-SUBMISSIVE PLAY SLAVE. This level would map to a bottom with a medium slave inclination and a medium submissive inclination. Once again the masochistic inclination is undefined. 4-TRUE SUBMISSIVE NON-SLAVE This level would map to a bottom with a high submissive inclination and a low slave inclination. Masochistic inclination ignored. 5-TRUE SUBMISSIVE PLAY SLAVE This level maps to high submissive inclination, medium slave inclination and low masochistic inclination. 6-UNCOMMITTED SHORT-TERM BUT MORE THAN PLAY SEMI-SLAVE This level maps to high submissive inclination, medium to high slave inclination, and indeterminate masochistic inclination. 7-PART-TIME CONSENSUAL-BUT REAL SLAVE This level maps to high submissive inclination, high slave inclination, and indeterminate masochistic inclination. 8-FULL-TIME LIVE IN CONSENSUAL SLAVE. This level maps to medium to low submissive inclination, high slave inclination and indeterminate masochistic inclination. 9-CONSENSUAL TOTAL SLAVE WITH NO LIMITS. This would be the fantasy high submissive, high slave, high masochist…the holy grail of slaves. laughing I think there are two major drawbacks to the 9 Levels. The first is the name. These aren’t really levels that one would pass through. They seem to me to be more states of mind. One needn’t ever experience Level 1 to get to Level 6. The second is that they are quite incomplete. I have known real life bottoms that would be close to Level 4 (high sub, medium slave, low maso) but enjoy their pain for pain sake, and not only to please their dominant (which would go against what is described at this level in the 9 Levels). I think a more complete gradient, as described in my model, could be used to enhance and expand the levels. That said, I think they do a good job of describing some of the more common points on the matrix, and can be a very useful tool in a bottom’s self discovery. Yours, Taggard

proudsub -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 3:11:43 PM)
quote: 1) Do you define all acceptable activities before you scene with a dominant? 2) Do you use a safeword, or does "no mean no"? 3) Do you feel that you are in control of the scene and the dominant will only do those things you desire? 4) What is your principle source of pleasure in the scenes you participate in? 5) Do you feel your scenes are role-play or do you only participate in scenes where there is no pretending or suspension of belief? I will do my best to answer these. I have had two r/l Doms, the first one was outside my marriage and will call him Dom1 and hubby is Dom2. 1. With Dom1 my limits were clearly defined. With Dom2 i know that he has more limits than me and after 36 years of marriage there is no reason to define them. He is still afraid of hurting me and doesn't like humiliating me. I think love gets in the way here, which is discussed in another thread. 2. With Dom1 we had a safe word but i never had to use it. With Dom2 yes i explained safe words to him and have used "yellow" a few times but never had to use "red". 3. Both my Doms were inexperienced and we often planned the scenes together but as they progressed the Dom was clearly in control. I have never had a situation where i didn't desire all that we did. 4. My principal source of pleasure is knowing that i am pleasing my Dom. Secondary is my personal pleasure, but with both Doms their pleasure was always to please me so we both won.[;)] I hope that makes sense. For example, i love nip torture and they both loved giving it. 5. I don't quite understand this question. With Dom1 it was all role playing because we only saw each other about once a week, but i don't think there was any pretending or suspension of belief. With Dom2 i serve him 24/7 like a 50's wife, meaning i wait on him, do all the household chores, etc. But i have my independece too, meaning He does not control me during my recreational time. Our sceneing is mainly in the bedroom. I hope that helps.

ShadeDiva -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 4:32:24 PM)
Hmmm for some odd reason I rebelled against how you communicated much of your levels Taggerd. Probably it's my distaste for lables and boxes. Or it's that I personally don't see much difference between slave and submissive, nor do I see any real tangible difference between BDSM, SM, and Ds. What I see is the sheer need for people to mark themselves as this but not that. For me - it's pretty much all in the same. I don't tend to vary myself into one group or another group - I tend to see that as me trying to define myself using others concepts. I have no inner need to say: I am a Dominant, I am a bottom, I am a slave, I am a submissive. Because in reality - I'm ALL of those at some point. I also tend to see (and this isn't meant to be a negative statement) that most folks will say I'm a submissive not a slave (or vice versa) because they find something wrong or unappealing about the other that for some reason that if they used the term slave(or submissive), they feel they might be either expected to do, or expected to be, when that surely isn't the case at all, since it is relative to the people that they are involved with. In other words, my dominant can call me slave if it suits him (granted it is far and few inbetween but still LOL) - it matters not that I am a switch, or that I am primarily dominant, or that to the rest of the worlds I might be seen as only a bottom. We have defined the term between ourselves, I know exactly what he means if he decides to use that term, and it TOTALLY defies all the written levels, stages, or whatever currently exists. We simply don't live our lives based around other people perceptions or constraints. And it works for us. I know that 99% of the BDSM lifestyle would say that was a misuse of the word, but the reality is, what we do is what WE do. Not 99% of the BDSM world. lol. I have yet to see any label or box that even remotely approaches what I am in fact as a person. I kinda like it that way. And in regard to how many heavy players are on this board, I'd say it would be best not to make snap judgements of a space based on your past experiences online, until it has shown you that it applies. I and my partner are VERY heavy players - when the mood is right, and our play partners are capable of processing that level. I'm fairly certain that quite a few folks that play on the heavy edge are frequent posters on this site - just my little playdar has gone off the scale too many times to count here - this is not the typical cyber fantasy group on the boards here - there are real folks here that have been actively playing in real life for decades in their local communities and in other communities as well. Just some thoughts. ~ShadeDiva

ShadeDiva -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 4:36:09 PM)
Yanno you seem very familiar now that I think of it Taggerd - do you have a wife that is also your slave? I am struck by your writing style, something just pings it as something I've seen before, long long ago. Were you on Prodigy perhaps? There is a small flavour that just wiggles in the corner of my mind that makes me think perhaps I ran across you there, lol. ~ShadeDiva

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 4:46:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: proudsub I hope that helps. It does, thanks! You too, January! Yours, Taggard

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 4:53:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShadeDiva Yanno you seem very familiar now that I think of it Taggerd - do you have a wife that is also your slave? I am struck by your writing style, something just pings it as something I've seen before, long long ago. Were you on Prodigy perhaps? There is a small flavour that just wiggles in the corner of my mind that makes me think perhaps I ran across you there, lol. ~ShadeDiva It wasn't prodigy, more likely ssb, when ssb still existed. I did start out with my wife as my slave and I tend to write in bursts. Yours, Taggard http://www.taggard.net

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 5:13:47 PM)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply! There is so much in here I want to comment on that I figure the best way would be to comment inline...so see my comments below. quote: ORIGINAL: ShadeDiva Hmmm for some odd reason I rebelled against how you communicated much of your levels Taggerd. Probably it's my distaste for lables and boxes. I am not really in love with them myself. Yet I do find value in some generalizations. For exampl, I have found that many who are mostly pain sluts are not really compatible with my style of domination. quote: Or it's that I personally don't see much difference between slave and submissive, nor do I see any real tangible difference between BDSM, SM, and Ds. What I see is the sheer need for people to mark themselves as this but not that. For me - it's pretty much all in the same. I don't tend to vary myself into one group or another group - I tend to see that as me trying to define myself using others concepts. I have no inner need to say: I am a Dominant, I am a bottom, I am a slave, I am a submissive. Because in reality - I'm ALL of those at some point. I completely understand and support what youare saying. However, I simply do not feel it. I know that I have certain desires and not others. I also know that others I have talked to feel the same way I do, or have their own select list of desires that are not mine. In my experience, these desires break down as I have described. I know, for example, that I am primarily aroused by the "ownership" aspects of BDSM. I know when I meet a slave that shares my interests there is a much better connection then when I meet a submissive who is primarily arroused by the "control" aspects. quote: I know that 99% of the BDSM lifestyle would say that was a misuse of the word, but the reality is, what we do is what WE do. Not 99% of the BDSM world. lol. Well, that's fine and all, but you then need to remember that when you try to communicate with that 99%, they might have difficulty understanding you. I think I go through that quite a bit myself (as this thread can clearly point out). I make up my own definitions for things and then expect people to understand what I am talking about. Luckily, I love explaining myself, so it isn't exactly a hardship. quote: I have yet to see any label or box that even remotely approaches what I am in fact as a person. I kinda like it that way. I like it that way too. Variety is the spice of life! quote: And in regard to how many heavy players are on this board, I'd say it would be best not to make snap judgements of a space based on your past experiences online, until it has shown you that it applies. I and my partner are VERY heavy players - when the mood is right, and our play partners are capable of processing that level. I'm fairly certain that quite a few folks that play on the heavy edge are frequent posters on this site - just my little playdar has gone off the scale too many times to count here - this is not the typical cyber fantasy group on the boards here - there are real folks here that have been actively playing in real life for decades in their local communities and in other communities as well. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I never meant that there were no heavy players on this board. What I meant was that I have never met an online-only BDSMer who was a heavy player. And since you tend to get a lot of online-only BDSMers online, heavy players and heavy play topics tend to be under represented. If this board is the exception to the rule, then I am certainly happy to have found it. wink quote: Just some thoughts. ~ShadeDiva They certainly are appreciated! Yours, Taggard http://www.taggard.net

Sinergy -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/12/2004 5:23:22 PM)
quote: I am not really in love with them myself. Yet I do find value in some generalizations. For exampl, I have found that many who are mostly pain sluts are not really compatible with my style of domination. Hello, I have to agree with this, play and pain have their time and place, but a lot of what draws me to the lifestyle is found outside of the dungeon. I have done the pain slut thing before, and found something lacking for me in the experience. Feeding her the sushi I choose and making her ride the whirly rides I decide we should go on works quite well for me ;) Sinergy

DVS -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/15/2004 3:45:58 PM)
I agree with most of the posters here, that titles are mostly over rated. I've seen 24/7 people look down on weekend warriors and long term lifestylers look down on newbies. It's just how it is. People will be people, and they seem to consider longevity a pecking order, where experience is king. Actually, experience is good, but it isn't always the best and highest form of life. Newbie has always been a label used for someone new to anything. There is no real time limit on this label, as some will take longer than others to learn their way and preferences. This is the only label I think is needed, so those with experience will know to go slow, and often actually educate while doing, to help a newbie become less of one. Unfortunately, the label newbie will also attract the basic wannabe Doms who only think they are such and because the newbies don't know any better, the combination can lead to disaster. Labels like slave, sub, Dom or Domme, Master and Mistress etc. are only labels. Take them for what they are, and leave it to others to do the same. The only ones you really need are the defining ones describing your preference. Are you submissive or are you dominant? Everything else can be fabricated. And until you know for sure, don't trust labels. Once you meet up with another, then you can decide together what you want to be called. Slave means different things to different people. Personally, I don't like to be called Sir, unless the submissive wants to. I make no demands in that way. Master is another label I don't care about. Experience should receive the label Master. I've got a lot of experience, but I could care less if I'm called Master. Call me what you want. Complain, protest, plead, beg...I love someone who is vocal, that way. I'll deal with you in my own way. [:D] Don't get me wrong. If others believe in sort of thing, that's fine. I just don't take myself so literally. Not being into 24/7, I'd guess has a lot to do with this. I'm just into having fun, and dominating a submissive woman in my own way is my sexual satisfaction. Slave? Sub? I only deal with any limits before me. After that, it's just plain fun.

deannawill -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (6/15/2004 4:00:40 PM)
Following is (in part) a message to somene who "irked" me a bit in many ways - but the part which relates to the thread subject is herewith. This is my opinion, and I expect it to be slaughtered from many quarters. Such is life. .............."For your further edification, I have no respect or regard for "slaves". To me they are sadly lacking in mental prowess, or they are emotionally unstable to a harmful degree. And I usually place the same qualifications to those who would purport to 'own' one. I have projected myself at "CollarMe" as a 'submissive'. A submissive can be guided, controlled, owned, and cared-for just as well as a slave, but she is not the proverbial 'doormat'. Fortunately, IMHO, most Dom/mes seem to prefer submissives to mental morons. Perhaps it is because the slave owners are afraid they cannot control anyone who can think. But that is another subject. Thank you for your time and your goals. No reply is necessary. Warmly, Deanna"

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625