~slave vs sub~

~slave vs sub~ (Full Version)

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

Message

lordbaltizar -> ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 12:59:52 PM)
i`d enjoy hearing what people think the distinction is between slave vs, sub .To me it has always been a slave has no rights and gives her or himself completely. A sub on the other hand sets limts and boundrys and is not in sceen 24/7 and has rights .Also do you think a sub can be owned?I do however realize no one is a true slave since laws prevent it in this country.i am courious of what all have to say on this ,i am sure it has been disscussed before here but it is a worthwhile topic.~lord~baltizar~

truesub4u -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 1:05:46 PM)
Yes submissives can be owned...

Knightspheonix -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 1:06:12 PM)
In my opinion, a slave gives up more of herself, her rights, and so forth. A submissive is simply that, submissive. As a slave, i feel my needs and wants are different than a submissives. For me, they're darker, stronger, and i thrive on being controlled. The more i give up to my Master, and the more He takes, the more owned i truly feel.

jezzabelle -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 1:14:38 PM)
There have been a few threads that have covered this same topic recently. Here are a few of them: http://www.collarchat.com/Does_submission_%3D_slave/m_339378/tm.htm http://www.collarchat.com/Slave%2FSubmissive_not_the_Same_or_are_they%3F/m_323453/tm.htm

andal -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 1:33:12 PM)
Ahh, the ages-old question. (As always, YMMV) One oft-answered, with as many different opinions as there are opinion-holders. But similarities do show up. The important thing is that all parties involved agree on the definition and people use them consistently. Some people say that slaves give up control once and permanently, while submissives give up control continuously. Some say that a slave has "no limits" and a sub has limits. Some say if you have a safeword you are sub, and slaves do not have them or use them. Just be aware of the many opinions and COMMUNICATE. (Personally, I think that labels are a good opening place for discussion in a relationship, but that is about all, simply because everyone sees things differently).

Wulfchyld -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 1:40:00 PM)
A slave is an extra hard drive and a sub is what you get at subway. Of course the slave is most helpful when you need to remember stuff and the sub, with regular diet and exercise, can help you lose weight. Smiling mischievously Loki

MichMasochist -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 2:39:37 PM)
That a really difficult answer to give. The impression I get is two fold. Persons calling themselves slave appear to want to not only give up a greater degree of autonamy and responsibility to another who will then tell them what to do. As well as to provide for the care, feeding, and maintenance of the slave. A few individuals who define themselves as slaves appear to be submisive to almost any person demonstrating a dominant personality. However persons advertising for slaves appear to be seeking persons to serve more along the line as defined by the Webster definition. Interms of labor and service with no rights or freedoms. Submisives often appear to be assertive, aggressive, sometimes confused as actually being a top, or dominant. The exception is that the submisive appears to surrender power and control to one person. Submiting on demand of the dominants slightest whim. The submissive also apears to require less management because he, or she, retains a greater degree af autonomy and self rule. Haven't seen any personal adds, by dominants, for a submissive that I can recall. Persons identify themselves as masters often leave me with the impression of wanting to have the maximum possible control. While Persons identify dommes want power control, the few I have met seem to want the adoration and admiration of the ones they control or own. Please fell free to correct my observations. as it isn't scientific or of a large enough sampling to be statistically accurate. Mich

mixielicous -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 2:45:14 PM)
it is hard for me personally to be defined. i consider myself, slave. i am owned, have a contract, no safeword, and no limits with my Master. He Owns me, and W/we are agreed on this but he wont call me slave, simply on the stigmatic prose that is connected with it [past and present] i have been attacked by many Doms from CM on this matter, saying b/c He doesnt call me slave, He doesnt deserve me. But this doesnt bother me, W/we try not to get too deep into labels b/c its frivilous. [:@]

enthralled -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 2:52:36 PM)
Most simple way I've seen it put .... A submissive is a volunteer. A slave is not a volunteer. http://www.steel-door.com/Submissive_vs_Slave.html Respectfully, enthralled

LadyHugs -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 3:09:02 PM)
Dear Mr. Lordbaltizar, Ladies and Gentlemen; Again, I am from an antiquated system, to which there were only two titles permitted. Master or slave. Master was used by females at the time, to which I see has been resurfaced and used again. Submissive was a state of being as well as dominant was a state of being back then. As people who did not want to submit to the degree of what my timeline referred to as slave, People started to use Dominant and or submissive to denote the role they wished to pursue. It was not to the degree of Master/slave but, committed. However, it wasn’t set in stone and was more casual than formal Master/slave. However, when this change was taking place protocol was still practiced. Now days, one is hard pressed to find anybody even doing a ‘half effort in doing protocols.’ When this was still to much formality, Top and Bottom came up as a label. (My has time changed). Slaves in my day had their “rights” and they did have a “voice.” But, it was done in respectful tone and not a ‘demand.’ Boundaries were known through communications as well as in my day, Senior Masters handled novice slaves, as not to be subjected to those who don’t know how to train, had no interest in training and or had no idea how important it is for a Master to keep physical, emotional, mental, spiritual and timing realms at a pace tailored for that individual slave. Slave sex was not that big of a deal. Senior slaves were assigned to novice Masters. The highest trained slave was assigned to the most inexperienced. By the slave’s service, that slave indirectly trains the Master, as the mentor points out what the slave is saying in the most silent means in service. The first rules of slaves was, to protect themselves--even from their own Master. That was the most enforced rule in any household. Slaves were held harmless, if that slave left the premise without permission, etc.; as they were removing themselves from potential harm. Of course in my day, that slave would immediately seek a Senior Master; especially if friendly to both parties as to be the advocate for the slave and work with the Master, to which caused the slave to be fearful and alarmed for their safety. Second rule of slave was they have a right to say yes and no. However, it could be overridden by their Master. To say no as a slave, was to say; “Not if it pleases you.” All Masters would understand it as to say no and to change course. To say yes, the slave would say; “If it pleases you.” Then Masters knew it was ok to proceed. There are other rules for slaves however, are common. The point is, that there are loopholes to which a slave can use to negotiate and or maintain boundaries. My favorite expression for the difference between a submissive and slave is this; a submissive submits many times. A slave submits once. Respectfully submitted,Lady Hugs

steelmagnolia -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 3:44:00 PM)
If a Slave feels comfortable and secure in their role as a "Slave"...who is any one to define what that role is except the Slave and the Master? To each his own....the sub/Dom or the Slave/Master....the rules are personal and between those involved. *Smiles....I hope no one gets the idea that I know 'it all'..I don't...it's just that limits are not set by a group, right? I am a submissive and I surely don't want anyone defining who I am [;)] Hugs Magnolia

Vancouver_cinful -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 3:52:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wulfchyld A slave is an extra hard drive and a sub is what you get at subway. Of course the slave is most helpful when you need to remember stuff and the sub, with regular diet and exercise, can help you lose weight. Smiling mischievously Loki Okay, that's the best answer to this darn question EVER!!! ::applauds:: Cin

MrrPete -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 4:09:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wulfchyld A slave is an extra hard drive and a sub is what you get at subway. Of course the slave is most helpful when you need to remember stuff and the sub, with regular diet and exercise, can help you lose weight. Smiling mischievously Loki Damn, I wish I had thought of that I'm so sick of this topic. Good one, Loki ALL submissives are NOT slaves but ALL slaves ARE sbmissives. Mr. Pete available & looking

SirCumsSlut -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 4:16:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHugs Dear Mr. Lordbaltizar, Ladies and Gentlemen; Again, I am from an antiquated system, to which there were only two titles permitted. Master or slave. Master was used by females at the time, to which I see has been resurfaced and used again. Submissive was a state of being as well as dominant was a state of being back then. As people who did not want to submit to the degree of what my timeline referred to as slave, People started to use Dominant and or submissive to denote the role they wished to pursue. It was not to the degree of Master/slave but, committed. However, it wasn’t set in stone and was more casual than formal Master/slave. However, when this change was taking place protocol was still practiced. Now days, one is hard pressed to find anybody even doing a ‘half effort in doing protocols.’ When this was still to much formality, Top and Bottom came up as a label. (My has time changed). Slaves in my day had their “rights” and they did have a “voice.” But, it was done in respectful tone and not a ‘demand.’ Boundaries were known through communications as well as in my day, Senior Masters handled novice slaves, as not to be subjected to those who don’t know how to train, had no interest in training and or had no idea how important it is for a Master to keep physical, emotional, mental, spiritual and timing realms at a pace tailored for that individual slave. Slave sex was not that big of a deal. Senior slaves were assigned to novice Masters. The highest trained slave was assigned to the most inexperienced. By the slave’s service, that slave indirectly trains the Master, as the mentor points out what the slave is saying in the most silent means in service. The first rules of slaves was, to protect themselves--even from their own Master. That was the most enforced rule in any household. Slaves were held harmless, if that slave left the premise without permission, etc.; as they were removing themselves from potential harm. Of course in my day, that slave would immediately seek a Senior Master; especially if friendly to both parties as to be the advocate for the slave and work with the Master, to which caused the slave to be fearful and alarmed for their safety. Second rule of slave was they have a right to say yes and no. However, it could be overridden by their Master. To say no as a slave, was to say; “Not if it pleases you.” All Masters would understand it as to say no and to change course. To say yes, the slave would say; “If it pleases you.” Then Masters knew it was ok to proceed. There are other rules for slaves however, are common. The point is, that there are loopholes to which a slave can use to negotiate and or maintain boundaries. My favorite expression for the difference between a submissive and slave is this; a submissive submits many times. A slave submits once. Respectfully submitted,Lady Hugs LadyHugs, This slave thanks you for such a clean and clear definition [:)]

Evanesce -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 4:17:01 PM)
quote: A slave is not a volunteer. Actually, a slave is a volunteer. But only once.

Wolfspet -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 4:21:10 PM)
Submissives are the smart ones. They know how to find the key to the cuffs in the morning. Slaves are the pretty ones [8D]

LadiesBladewing -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 5:20:13 PM)
In actuality, in the current paradigm both of these terms are truly "in the eye of the beholder". There are plenty of assumptions about what the words mean, but, if they are defined in accordance with the world that we live in, the way that someone in service serves, and what is required of him or her, are truly defined by the individuals involved. In our home, we found -both- of those terms to be unsatisfactory. Slavery is not only a legal impossiblity, it also implies a measure of non-consentuality. We wanted those who came to serve with us to serve with full consent and understanding of what they were giving and what such giving fulfilled in them. On the other hand, "submissive" is not a noun -- it is an adjective, and an individual can be submissive, and yet not be actively -choosing- to serve. We, here in House Bladewing, tend to call these people "perpetual victims". We didn't want victims. We wanted this to be an empowering process for both individuals, reflecting both the deep need to serve, and the capacity to guide and direct such service, respectively. Because of that, we chose to call those who came to serve here "servants"... fully respecting that each and every day was a choice -- they could choose to obey, or not... they could choose to stay, or not... but if they served, and if they stayed, they would have to progressively yield everything within themselves to the service... and from that, we shaped and grew them. It isn't what you -call- someone that makes him or her committed to the service... it is the dynamic between you, and both of your commitment to the level of service you require, and a constant striving for perfection, though it can never be reached. If those are in place, you can call her "wife", "pet", "slave", "servant", or "starfish", and it won't impact the dynamic between you. Lady Zephyr quote: ORIGINAL: lordbaltizar i`d enjoy hearing what people think the distinction is between slave vs, sub .To me it has always been a slave has no rights and gives her or himself completely. A sub on the other hand sets limts and boundrys and is not in sceen 24/7 and has rights .Also do you think a sub can be owned?I do however realize no one is a true slave since laws prevent it in this country.i am courious of what all have to say on this ,i am sure it has been disscussed before here but it is a worthwhile topic.~lord~baltizar~

KarbonCopy -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 6:34:33 PM)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Its all in the eyes of the beholder. There are no guidelines in this feild. To make guidelines is rediculous. But there are many sites out there that try and make these standards, these universal definitions, and its bullshit. You are what you say you are, and nobody can call you anything different. Do I see a difference between Slave and Submissive? no Because there is no difference.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 6:52:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHugs My favorite expression for the difference between a submissive and slave is this; a submissive submits many times. A slave submits once. quote: Actually, a slave is a volunteer. But only once. See I'm not sure how that got invented or even what it really means. I don't think subs go around deciding at every turn "OK do I really want to obey here?" and I don't think slaves NEVER question. The whole idea that a "sub submits every time while a slave submits once" just doesn't make sense to me. They are both obeying, they are both DOING the same thing and MAKING the same choice every time.

feastie -> RE: ~slave vs sub~ (4/24/2006 7:08:02 PM)
LOL! Nice one![:D]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.046875