RE: Just a sub? (Full Version)

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



Message

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 12:01:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tikkiee

quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil

I think "just a sub" can be fine, but overall think it's a level.

For me, bottoms are people who enjoy having BDSM activities (spanking, whipping, etc) done to them, but are not looking to give up any power or control. The activity is the purpose of play or a relationship.

Submissives are people who enjoy BDSM activities as a reminder of the power exchange and/or loss of control that can take place in a D/s interactions. For subs the power exchange and pleasing is the purpose, the physical activity just becomes a way to demonstrate it. Also, this is the one thing that describes someones nature. As debated in other threads, submissive can be a noun or adjective. A person can be submissive whether serving someone or not.

Slaves are generally submissives who dedicate themselves to a person or group, and the power exchange is absolute. It's not just during a certain period of time, or during a certain act, submission to the dominant partner(s) rules and desires is a way of life.

Just my definitions.

Edited for spelling


I will argue definitions till everyone is blue in the face [:)] but the words here, probably come the closest.

So what do you call someone who engages in all of these types of relationships at the same time, with the same or different people?

I'm NOT making this into a definitions sub/slave topic Erin, I swear!



agirl -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 1:13:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

I have seen countless times on these message boards where a submissive will say "I'm not a slave, I'm just a sub" or "I'm not slave material, I"m only a submissive". I have seen slaves who will say in their advice to others "Maybe you aren't ready to be a slave, maybe you should just be a sub" or "she's not a slave, she's just a sub". I've seen Dominants and Masters refer to the "just a sub" thing. Just today I've seen it implied that slaves need to be more mature. I've also seen this phenomenon in real life. "She calls herself a slave but she is really just a sub".

So, what do you mean by "just a sub"? Do you think slaves are more mature? More dedicated? More submissive? More committed? Higher up on the ladder? Do you see slavery as a goal that you strive to reach that comes somewhere after submission? Are slaves more elite? Better than?

Just what is meant by this "just a sub" thing.




I haven't seen phrases using the word *just* but I haven't been around these boards for very long.

Speaking on a personal level........I am not submissive but I chose to be a slave, therefore I have to submit to my Master or leave the relationship. There aren't areas of my life where he cannot go, or cannot have the final say in.

Basically we are *just* us.......and choosing a term of reference is really all it is. One person's choice isn't a *just* anything , apart from *just* their choice.

agirl



caitlyn -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 1:53:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
So the elitism and ridicule works both ways, I see...


All I saw were people making jokes. 



Proprietrix -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 1:56:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
So, what do you mean by "just a sub"?
Just what is meant by this "just a sub" thing.


I'm going to try to stick to these questions, and try real hard to not veer into sub vs. slave.

The more I think about "just a ...", the more it actually makes sense to me.
If in my mind a slave is someone who has qualities 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
And in my mind a submissive is someone who has qualities 2, 4, and 5.
And I'm looking for what I define as a slave,
It makes sense that I would say "You aren't what I'm looking for because you're just a sub."
Meaning "You just have some of the qualities I want in a person. Not all of them."

We can replace it with anything.
If a man wants a cake, he's not going to settle for "just a twinkie".
It doesn't mean twinkies suck. It means they don't have all the qualities he's looking for in dessert.
If he want a cow, he's not going to settle for "just a glass of milk".
Not meaning that a glass of milk lacks value. But he really wanted the whole cow.
If he wants a slave, he's not going to settle for "just a submissive".
It doesn't mean he thinks submissives are bad. It means that he sees them as failing to meet his full definition of slave.

(Just as an aside, I personally don't use the "just" qualifier. I'm just trying to shed light on why someone might state things that way.)



Submotive -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 2:07:31 PM)

Ha - labels - i'm just a girl - that's all i'll ever be. Now does that mean just a girl is less than a woman or a man or a lady? How does one define a Master/Mistress vs. a Dom/Femdomme? There is so much discussion on identifying the attributes of these labels, when the nature of the human is change.

There are times when my desire to surrender and be controlled is so strong that it could be labeled "slave" like, other times i am more opinionated, negotiating etc. and so that may be generally considered more sub like. In my work i'm definitely Domiant. But what i'm not is "just" anything compared with something considered more favorable.



Sunshine119 -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 2:36:06 PM)

I hope this doesn't mistakenly get posted as a reply to anyone except the OP.  I too, have been called "just a sub" even though I am in a 24/7 live-in relationship where I am ALWAYS the submissive to my dominant.  Anyway I wrap my head around it, I cannot conceive of anyone being anything BUT submissive or dominant.  That's it....period.

I don't mean to upset those who consider themselves slaves here and don't want this to degenerate into a slave vs. submissive thread.  However, if we have the power to say no (or even leave the relationship) at any point, even to the point of allowing a dominant to kill us just for ha has (not that I think there are any out there), WE hold some power.

If we hold ANY power, IMHO, we are "only" submissive.  I haven't met anyone, here or anywhere else that is really a no-limit (including leaving and death) slave, which is the only definition there is of slave.

Consequently, we "only submissives" are all in this together.



agirl -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 2:45:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunshine119

I hope this doesn't mistakenly get posted as a reply to anyone except the OP.  I too, have been called "just a sub" even though I am in a 24/7 live-in relationship where I am ALWAYS the submissive to my dominant.  Anyway I wrap my head around it, I cannot conceive of anyone being anything BUT submissive or dominant.  That's it....period.

I don't mean to upset those who consider themselves slaves here and don't want this to degenerate into a slave vs. submissive thread.  However, if we have the power to say no (or even leave the relationship) at any point, even to the point of allowing a dominant to kill us just for ha has (not that I think there are any out there), WE hold some power.

If we hold ANY power, IMHO, we are "only" submissive.  I haven't met anyone, here or anywhere else that is really a no-limit (including leaving and death) slave, which is the only definition there is of slave.

Consequently, we "only submissives" are all in this together.



That's one way of looking at it, for sure.

agirl









catize -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 3:44:28 PM)

quote:

  it is NOT just  a submissive thing, although it maybe more subtle since there are not entire threads discussing the differences....smiles  


Good point, but as you say, it is less frequent.
(smiles back atcha)



catize -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 3:49:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Some day when I grow up, I hope to work myself up to such a high level of submission, that before being collared, master actually kills me ... just to prove that I'm not topping from the bottom.

Now THAT certainly  puts things in perspective.......love your humor! 



MistressSassy66 -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 4:34:28 PM)

For Myself...slave is a person that lives with Me,submissives are
people who visit.
I do however look at slave bishop as being higher on the "totem pole",just because she lives with Me and W/we share a life.

I dont think anyone is just a sub or just a Dom.We are all people first and foremost.




genvieve -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 4:47:03 PM)

Thank you for bringing this topic to other's attention.  i personally believe there should be absolutely no conflict between submissive and slave. 
 
myself?  i am submissive.  i identify myself as a submissive because i choose to serve, but i also desire my free will.  Slavery is not something i aspire to be.  Nor would i be with One who demanded that i work towards it.
 
It's just not for me. 
 
That being said, i know lots of wonderful slaves who are happy as a clam.  Go them!
 
"Just a sub" is offensive to me.  i think one would be hard pressed to find a submissive who wasn't offended by the term.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 5:33:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

I have seen countless times on these message boards where a submissive will say "I'm not a slave, I'm just a sub" or "I'm not slave material, I"m only a submissive". I have seen slaves who will say in their advice to others "Maybe you aren't ready to be a slave, maybe you should just be a sub" or "she's not a slave, she's just a sub". I've seen Dominants and Masters refer to the "just a sub" thing. Just today I've seen it implied that slaves need to be more mature. I've also seen this phenomenon in real life. "She calls herself a slave but she is really just a sub".

So, what do you mean by "just a sub"? Do you think slaves are more mature? More dedicated? More submissive? More committed? Higher up on the ladder? Do you see slavery as a goal that you strive to reach that comes somewhere after submission? Are slaves more elite? Better than?

Just what is meant by this "just a sub" thing.


I've seen it also.  It bugs me.  It is as if slaves somehow have more magical qualities than submissives.  I understand that some who identify as slaves do so because they give their all to their dominant/Master/Mistress.  This supposedly sets them apart from submissives who do not give their all to a dominant/Master/Mistress.  However, I have known submissives who give their all to someone and yet do not identify as slave because they think, as I do, that there is an oxymoron present in the term "consensual slave". 

The dictionary defines a slave as property.  This same property could be killed or sold or broken into bits and pieces physically and mentally.  Would we call someone who did that as a Master/Mistress just doing what was his/her right to do with their property...or would we call them a criminal? 

Soooooooo...we go with a modified version of the definition of slave to exclude those sorts of things.  But then...are we left with a slave?  Or a D/s-defined version of slave?  Again, who defines it?  If I have a submissive who lives the life 24/7, who makes me supremely happy by her service to me and for me and for others as I direct, who fits allllllllllll the qualities generally attributed to a "slave", and she gets offended when I call her "slave" and tells me she is a submissive, then is she wrong?  Am I wrong?  Is she "just a sub", despite having allllll those 'slave' qualities, because that is how she chooses to identify? 

I don't like the term "just".  It is usually used in a pejorative manner...
He's just a top, not a dominant.  Is dominant somehow better?  No...it is a different thing entirely.  As noted above, you can call yourself slave. You can call yourself submissive.  But there is no "just" in my world.  If you like to just play on weekends with no power exchange any other time, you may be a bedroom submissive...but you are not "just" a bedroom submissive.

MOO, YMMV



feastie -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 5:47:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Proprietrix

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
So, what do you mean by "just a sub"?
Just what is meant by this "just a sub" thing.


I'm going to try to stick to these questions, and try real hard to not veer into sub vs. slave.

The more I think about "just a ...", the more it actually makes sense to me.
If in my mind a slave is someone who has qualities 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
And in my mind a submissive is someone who has qualities 2, 4, and 5.
And I'm looking for what I define as a slave,
It makes sense that I would say "You aren't what I'm looking for because you're just a sub."
It makes as much sense and is not as offensive to say, "You aren't what I'm looking for because you're submissive and I am looking for a slave."
Meaning "You just have some of the qualities I want in a person. Not all of them."

We can replace it with anything.
If a man wants a cake, he's not going to settle for "just a twinkie".
If a man wants a cake, he's not going to settle for a twinkie.
It doesn't mean twinkies suck. It means they don't have all the qualities he's looking for in dessert.
If he want a cow, he's not going to settle for "just a glass of milk".
If he wants a cow, he's not going to settle for a glass of milk.
Not meaning that a glass of milk lacks value. But he really wanted the whole cow.
If he wants a slave, he's not going to settle for "just a submissive".
If he wants a slave, he's not going to settle for a submissive.
It doesn't mean he thinks submissives are bad. It means that he sees them as failing to meet his full definition of slave.

(Just as an aside, I personally don't use the "just" qualifier. I'm just trying to shed light on why someone might state things that way.)


Leaving out the word "just" in these sentences clearly illustrates that the meaning is clear without that word...and, the sentence is not negating the value of anything or anyone.  JMHO [;)]



4u2spoil -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 10:10:52 PM)

Just curious (had to throw the just in there [:)]), but why wouldn't you consider yourself submissive if there are elements of power exchange there?

I definitely think it's possible for a bottom to have a relationship or connection with their top. I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't. For a lot of people, I'm sure a Top/bottom relationship is every bit as meaningful as a D/s or M/s relationship. Not really a better or worse thing, just a difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: denika

quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil

I think "just a sub" can be fine, but overall think it's a level.

For me, bottoms are people who enjoy having BDSM activities (spanking, whipping, etc) done to them, but are not looking to give up any power or control. The activity is the purpose of play or a relationship.





As  each person has their own definition of what  slave/submissive means to them the same thing is said of bottoms.
I am a bottom, but  I don't fit into the classic description I give up both power and control to my Top,  Not all bottoms are masochist the same as not all masochists are bottoms. Mind you, I also do not play with other's only Him so that cancels out the beleif that all  bottoms play with multiple partners or have no emotional connection with their Top.

Being called 'just a sub' kind of falls into the same catagory as when  paramedics get called 'just ambulance drivers' well ,we do drive the ambulance but we also do alot more same as  someone in a submissive relationship.


denika



iFraudius -> RE: Just a sub? (5/30/2006 11:26:54 PM)

When people are of the mindset that they have to validate themselves through a comparision with others that is inherently denigrating, isn't the real issue why the subject of that comparison would even care to debate what someone like that says, thinks or expresses? 

I validate myself when it comes to the expression of my inner being.  What anyone, regardless of what they call themselves, expresses for no other reason than to make fatuous comparisons that bolster their own sad ego, is of no significance to me and it just boggles my mind that so many people even give it a second's thought. 

There's only one person I care to discuss the issue of who that inner me is and that's the person I'm having the relationship with, so that they know who I am.  And that won't be some idiot who has to compare me to anyone else.

Karbon Copy's signature lines is, "the more people I meet in the lifestyle, the more I want to throwup"...  I think I know why.



mistoferin -> RE: Just a sub? (5/31/2006 6:57:27 AM)

This has been an interesting discussion. I love to get into people's minds and find out why they say and do the things that they do.

My own personal opinion.....when we use the word "just" to refer to another's position it is a judgment. It is a negative and degrading statement. When submissives use it to state their role, it implies that they see slaves as being some superior creature and that they feel like they themselves pale in comparison. When slaves use it implies that they view themselves as somehow superior to submissives.

Personally, once you take into account that there is no clearly definitive model in existance of either a submissive or a slave, the word "just" has no real meaning and shows ignorance on the part of the user. One person's idea of slavery can certainly show far less commitment, dedication and devotion than the next person's view of submission.

I will use myself as an example. I identify as a submissive. I do so because FOR ME the bottom line criteria that MUST be met in order to identify as slave is ownership. One can not be a slave unless they are owned. There are certainly many other criteria, but that is the most basic. Currently I am alone, therefore I CANNOT identify as being a slave. Ownership....and when I say that I mean ownership that is all encompassing, live in, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.....not on the internet.....not part time on the weekends or once a month.....not an in training with a Master you don't live with situation.

Now if you have been on these boards for awhile or been out within your lifestyle community, you will take note that my definition varies from that of others. That is ok....I didn't put it out there for anyone to debate or try to convince me that I'm wrong. It is the way that "I" see it. It is the way that I came to recognize when I came up in this lifestyle because if you had then walked into a community and stated that you were a slave without having met that basic criteria of ownership you would have been laughed out of the sandbox.

It may surprise some of you when I say that "I"...... yes independent and opinionated "I"....... was a slave to my ex Master for 11 years. In total dedication, under total control of, in complete service to, 100% slave. I know that my personality is not something that many here associate with slavery. I don't "fit" your model. He had the last and final say on every single thing there was that needed a decision....but He also ALWAYS asked my opinion and made His decision from there....that most likely doesn't "fit" into many of your models either. The moment that it was decided that we were no longer going to be together I was no longer his slave. I was and am still the same exact person I always have been....a submissive woman. That did not change when I was affixed with the title of slave....and it did not change when my service to Him ended. So should I refer to myself now as "just" a sub? Hell no, because I am who I am.....owned or not. Will I become a slave again? Well that remains to be seen and is dependent upon who I may meet and what our relationship may grow into. But if I never do it doesn't make me "just" or "less".

I have seen "slaves" who were no more slavely than my big toe. I have seen submissives who far exceeded the levels of submission, commitment, dedication and devotion of their "slave" counterparts.
Without an across the board, universally recognized definition of what the distinction is between submissive and slave....the use of the word just is......well, it's "just" plain ignorant. 



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Just a sub? (5/31/2006 7:00:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
Without an across the board, universally recognized definition of what the distinction is between submissive and slave....the use of the word just is......well, it's "just" plain ignorant. 

Or their brother words "real" and "true."



mistoferin -> RE: Just a sub? (5/31/2006 7:25:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
Without an across the board, universally recognized definition of what the distinction is between submissive and slave....the use of the word just is......well, it's "just" plain ignorant. 

Or their brother words "real" and "true."


How incredibly silly of me to forget[;)]!



CreativeDominant -> RE: Just a sub? (5/31/2006 7:38:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
Without an across the board, universally recognized definition of what the distinction is between submissive and slave....the use of the word just is......well, it's "just" plain ignorant. 

Or their brother words "real" and "true."


How incredibly silly of me to forget[;)]!


How could you possibly forget those most definitive, those most helpful in delineation, of terms?  Oh, erin...erin...erin.



agirl -> RE: Just a sub? (5/31/2006 7:42:28 AM)

I wouldn't identify myself  *a submissive* OR *slave*, if I wasn't in the relationship I'm in.  I don't *need* to be submissive nor do I particularly want to be. I submit because I made a choice; I often don't like it and even more often get quite frustrated about it. That doesn't negate the fact that it's better for me. I don't always do things because I want to please, I do them because I have the choice of doing them or being punished......and it makes sense to avoid that.

agirl





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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875