quote:

ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs
I think that there are some masters that could say, "I don't like it when my slave is happy, but i'm not going to let her emotions decide which way I go or change a decision that I believe is right."  But again it wasn't that she said, my master gets sad when I'm not happy she said that "master will not be happy."  To me thats a very different suggestion.

quote:


It could be a joke, it could be a slight misquote, it could be that the sun was in the OPs eyes and she didn't hear the other person correctly.  Or it could be that she said it and (omg) meant what she said.  I've heard people say that phrase before, so thats why its feasible to me that the slave in question did say it.

quote:


Except that you said she was brave.  So all of us are obviously forming opinions and such about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
I agree with wildfleurs in that we all make our own judgments about what something is or is not
Of course we do.  It's when we give voice to those judgments to tell others they aren't what they say they are because they don't measure up to the standards by which WE judge that I take issue with said judgments.
hough I can be pretty flexible on a lot of things...you say you're an artist but all your stuff looks like "the neighbor's 5 year old could do it", you are still an artist.  The definitions surrounding artist are pretty all-encompassing these days.  But, if you want to tell me you're a motocross rider and all I ever see you do is fall and never finish a race, then my opinion is going to be you are TRYING to be a motocross rider but you aren't there yet
I would say I was a "motocross rider in training."  A motocross rider who hasn't perfected my craft YET. 
It's been stated that there is no "concise" definition of slave.  If you are referring to just the term "slave", then you are wrong. 
Of course I would be wrong if that's what I meant.  I think you know that's not what I meant.
There are fairly concise definitions to be found in Webster's, Funk & Wagnall's, New Oxford, etc..  If you are referring to a BDSM/D/s slave, then you come closer to the truth though there are quite a few authors within D/s who have defined the term based on their interviews and research into other D/s practitioners/lifestylers/role-players (pick the term that suits you). 
It's not "close" to the truth to say that there's not one agreed-upon definition.  There isn't.  Authors are simply people who have put their opinions to paper.  Those authors have never interviewed me or my Master or anyone I personally know.  Therefore, their definitions aren't any more all-encompassing than mine or yours. 
The definitions are more broad but there are points of agreement between the disparate authors.   Now...if someone like Evlgryn or Merc of Mercnbeth or me or any other dominant chooses to read the dictionary definition and the various BDSM definitions and then use those definitions to make a judgement as to whether or not someone is a "slave" for us, are we wrong?  I don't think so.
No, and you're making the same point I am.  You and Evlgryn and Merc and every other dom in the world can decide what makes a slave for YOU.  You can think in your own minds : "Gee, I don't think that slave would work for me.  Doesn't measure up to what I desire."  Great.  Just don't tell me or any other Master's slave we aren't slaves because we don't fit YOUR definition and standards.  That's all I'm saying.
If we look at someone who claims the title "slave" and rule them out because they come nowhere close to the broad D/s definitions of "slave", let alone the dictionary ones, are we wrong?  I don't think so.
Nope, not unless you take that extra step of telling the slave they are not a slave merely because you don't think they meet certain requirements.  Tell her she can't be YOUR slave but don't set yourself up as the judge of whether or not she's A slave. 
If we look at another couple's relationship and that couple wishes to refer to the "serving" side of the couple as a slave and we disagree...even if only in our own head and not to the couple...are we wrong?  Not necessarily.
Again, no you would be in no way wrong UNLESS you felt compelled to inform that couple that they aren't in an M/s relationship simply because they don't do things as you think they should be done.
In the end, sure it is true that whatever makes a couple (or more) happy in their relationship is what matters. 
Absolutely.
But I am not of the bent to call someone simply a harsh husband when he is clearly abusive
I would tend to agree there but I've learned since coming to these forums that there are behaviors I would clearly consider abusive that others say are totally acceptable to them.  I realize that much of what many of us here do would be dubbed "abuse" by vanilla folks.  It's very hard within BDSM to decide what is abusive for others.  I have encountered slaves who appear very happy within situations I would call abuse and run from.  It is not my decision to make for them. 
nor am I inclined to say that someone is just a bit "physically challenged" when he is a quadriplegic nor am I likely to call someone a slave if nothing about them resembles the term as I have seen it defined elsewhere.
But see - that's what I don't understand.  Why on God's green earth does it matter one iota whether or not someone else's slave fits your definition? Why?  She isn't your slave.  She suits her Master's needs.  Why does it matter if she fits ANY definition you've ever read or heard of of thought up yourself?  You can call her anything you want but if she is His slave, she is a slave.  Your definitions and thoughts are not going to influence that nor should they.
I am not saying this is true in this case...or not true.  I am just saying that if there are some who wish to have wide open definitions wherein a slave/dominant/submissive/top/bottom is what THEY define it as, more power to them.
You say that but somehow I don't think you believe it
Just allow others to have that same freedom and say that it is not.
You have all the freedom in the world to say anything you want.  It just may not be accurate and it just may not be appropriate.  This thread became interesting to me when the idea came up that if a slave has a master who cares so much for her happiness that it affects his, that somehow he isn't masterly enough or she is manipulative.  I take issue with that simply because I have a Master who desires my happiness greatly.  This is because He loves and cherishes me, not because I nag, needle, and manipulate Him in anyway. 
 
It was assumed that such a slave would use her wiles, so to speak, to get her master to change his mind or do things her way.  This is absolutely not the case in my relationship.  I offered my take on my situation because I simply do not know what the people mentioned in the original post were thinking.  I think it is the height of arrogance for anyone (sub/slave or Dom/Master, etc.) to come along, see another couple, and flippantly and definitively "rule" that they are not M/s because they don't fit some narrow, personalized definition.  If I say you aren't a dominant because you don't meet my standards, does that mean you aren't?  Hardly.  That's all I'm sayin'...........slave luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evlgryn
All sophistry aside...the old quote is " if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck"
NOT: "If master says I am a duck. and I say I am a duck QED I'm a duck."
In my mind I am extremely tall and handsome and with hardly any grey hair, and I could probably get my slave to agree with me. But we would both be fooling ourselves.
......On your last point there, yes .......  None of us can. ...doesn't fit my definition of "slavelike," etc.  Who am I to question the person's Dom/Master? 
Again, I see your point but until there is one definitive, agreed upon, comprehensive, all-inclusive definition of just exactly what a "slave" is, (like there is for a "duck") I'm going to have to refrain from including some and excluding others.........slave luci

Could we go back to "all sophistry aside". We don't have to agree on a precise definition of master and slave to see that some just don't come close to fitting anybodies definition of M/S. Some will meet the definitions of most of us...And as always there will be some on the fence , included under some definitions and excluded under others. But that is true with many things in the English language. Take a stand...hold to a position...in a decade or so maybe we will have a standardized definition, maybe it will be yours maybe it will be mine. State the best arguments possible. That is how it works

(in reply to slaveluci)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evlgryn
We don't have to agree on a precise definition of master and slave to see that some just don't come close to fitting anybodies definition of M/S.
And I will ask the same thing of you that I asked above.  WHY do you care how another defines his/her M/s relationship?  How does that personally affect you?  You can live your life and have your relationship any way you choose.  So can others.  What does their definition matter?
Some will meet the definitions of most of us...And as always there will be some on the fence , included under some definitions and excluded under others. But that is true with many things in the English language. Take a stand...hold to a position...in a decade or so maybe we will have a standardized definition, maybe it will be yours maybe it will be mine. State the best arguments possible. That is how it works (for you).  As far as my definitions, they fit those of my Master.  Those are the only definitions that concern or affect me personally each and everyday.  What He considers a slave may not match your definition and vice-versa.  That's how it works for us.............slave (under our definition) luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia
As long as your relationship works for you, luci.
That is all that really matters.

Thanks, MzMia.  That's kinda what I thought.........luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evlgryn

Could we go back to "all sophistry aside". We don't have to agree on a precise definition of master and slave to see that some just don't come close to fitting anybodies definition of M/S. Some will meet the definitions of most of us...And as always there will be some on the fence , included under some definitions and excluded under others. But that is true with many things in the English language. Take a stand...hold to a position...in a decade or so maybe we will have a standardized definition, maybe it will be yours maybe it will be mine. State the best arguments possible. That is how it works

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

I'm not reading anything into what you said actually. I'm just guessing that the slave and master operate on a principle that I've found to be true over and over in every healthy relationship that I've encountered: If you love someone, you want them to be happy. If they are unhappy, you aren't.

Being aware of the fact that someone loves you, wants you to be happy, and is unhappy when you are unhappy does not make you in control of the relationship.

Okay, when you started talking about control and love in response to quoted material from me, I assumed you were responding to things I said.  If thats not the case, then I was wrong!

C~

All I was doing was pointing out that it doesn't make sense to me to assume she is the one in control or even being bitchy by simply making a statement that demostrates that she is aware her owner loves her, wants her to be happy and is not happy when she is unhappy. My reasoning is that I have yet to observe a happy and healthy relationship where one partner didn't care that their partner was unhappy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
Which was one of the thigns I said- maybe it's just a matter of fact reality statement.  I personally do not get nefarious or manipulative or "I'm really the one who makes the rules here" implications from that matter of fact statement at all.

That's why we're having the whole debate "What did she mean by that statement?"

I've said that statement before about my own partner.  And he's said the exact same thing about me.  Where does that leave us?

quote:



No, that's not what I said, or at least not how I meant it to be taken.  I said:
It can actually take a fair bit of bravery to admit that KNOWING how a lot of people might perceive that to be a sign that she's the one in control.

That doesn't mean it WAS an act of bravery, just that it was yet another possibility of how to interpret what she said.

We've brought up about a dozen fairly reasonable ways this statement could have been meant and could have been interpreted.  I'm not seeing any serious evidence to suggest any way and my own intuition tells me that the scope in which the OP brought us this quote is too fuzzy for us to see beyond.

Since I tend to go with my intuition, that's where I find myself holding to in this discussion.  Obviously the reality is that the quoted person did mean something specific by that statement and did intend it to be taken a certain way.  The issue we have is that we cannot know with any real level of certainty.

quote:



On many discussions I'm more than ready to come out with my idea on what was actually meant by a statement, so it's not like I'm taking this as a special case to not hurt some total strangers feelings.  This is just my honest intuitive and logcal though process and where it takes me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs
I'm hoping that this all makes sense b/c i'm suffering from a head cold and a bit fuzzy today....

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

It was assumed that such a slave would use her wiles, so to speak, to get her master to change his mind or do things her way.  This is absolutely not the case in my relationship.  I offered my take on my situation because I simply do not know what the people mentioned in the original post were thinking.  I think it is the height of arrogance for anyone (sub/slave or Dom/Master, etc.) to come along, see another couple, and flippantly and definitively "rule" that they are not M/s because they don't fit some narrow, personalized definition.  If I say you aren't a dominant because you don't meet my standards, does that mean you aren't?  Hardly.  That's all I'm sayin'...........slave luci

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evlgryn
We don't have to agree on a precise definition of master and slave to see that some just don't come close to fitting anybodies definition of M/S.
And I will ask the same thing of you that I asked above.  WHY do you care how another defines his/her M/s relationship?  How does that personally affect you?  You can live your life and have your relationship any way you choose.  So can others.  What does their definition matter?
Some will meet the definitions of most of us...And as always there will be some on the fence , included under some definitions and excluded under others. But that is true with many things in the English language. Take a stand...hold to a position...in a decade or so maybe we will have a standardized definition, maybe it will be yours maybe it will be mine. State the best arguments possible. That is how it works (for you).  As far as my definitions, they fit those of my Master.  Those are the only definitions that concern or affect me personally each and everyday.  What He considers a slave may not match your definition and vice-versa.  That's how it works for us.............slave (under our definition) luci

Being the  defender of the English Language, Reality, "truth justice and the american way" here in this forum should not be this hard. There is nothing wrong with creating your own language, it happens often with twins.  The whole movie "Nell" with Jodie Foster hinged on twinspeak created by two sisters, one being "Nell" . It made a great movie.

The problem is when you make up your own definitions...use this "twinspeak" as if it was common English, and then go back again and again to defend your right to use whatever terms to mean whatever you want. The English language was created changed and evolved by consensus and usage over decades. But a consensus of two people yourself and your dom, over a few months just isn't good enough.

Compare that to my efforts in this forum to communicate what I believe to be an important truth. I haven't coined any new words...redefined any old words...or defended my right to use words to mean different things at different times depending on changes within my head. I have simply made an effort to use this flawed but rich medium of the English language to communicate.

At this point I am leaving this thread behind. You will find people who see your side as being perfectly reasonable...but I guarantee there will be people who take my position...that a duck is a duck, and a "consensus of one or two against the world" is a short definition of insanity.

(in reply to slaveluci)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evlgryn

At this point I am leaving this thread behind. You will find people who see your side as being perfectly reasonable...but I guarantee there will be people who take my position...that a duck is a duck, and a "consensus of one or two against the world" is a short definition of insanity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Apparently you missed some of the stuff I said...such as thinking these things in my own head without stating them to the couple.  I have no desire to walk up to someone and question their relationship or the dynamics of it, especially in the case of a couple I have just met.
CreativeDominant,
I didn't miss any of what you said.  Sorry if I implied that I thought that you do or want to walk up to someone and question their relationship.  That was a general statement. 
If I was dealing with someone who wanted to be my slave and she asked why I did not want her as a slave, I have every right to tell her that by my definitions, based on my experiences and what I have learned from reading and speaking to others I respect, she doesn't fit what I see as a slave.
You certainly do and I believe I said as much before.
She can call herself whatever she wants. 
Certainly.  Perhaps she could respond that "based on" her "experiences" and what she has "learned from reading and speaking to others" that she "respects," that she does see herself as a slave.
If you say I don't fit your definition of a dominant, then am I still a dominant?  Yes...not the one for you...but yes, I am. 
That's the point I've been making all along.  I also believe that extends to the "other side of the kneel," as people say.  If I "don't fit your definition of a "slave," then I am "still a slave."  Just "not the one for you."  If you don't have to fit my definition of a dominant, why do I have to fit your definition of a slave?  It works both ways.
As a matter of fact, if I fit the majority of the definitions of a dominant and follow what makes sense to me as what is defined as  responsible behavior for a dominant...and that differs radically from your beliefs ...I'd even be tempted to say you are wrong.  But there again...I have never claimed to be all encompassing nor all expansive in my definitions of what is and what is not.  Nor do I believe that everyone is always right...nor wrong.  I have known myself to be both.
Welcome to the human race, haven't we all?  In this particular instance though, I don't think either or us is wrong.  You say that if you don't fit my definition, that doesn't mean you aren't a dominant.  I am agreeing and simply adding that it extends to the slave-side of things too.  Thanks for the debate..........slave luci

quote:


Being the  defender of the English Language, Reality, "truth justice and the american way" here in this forum should not be this hard.
Well, as it's a self-appointed position, you can always resign
There is nothing wrong with creating your own language, it happens often with twins.  The whole movie "Nell" with Jodie Foster hinged on twinspeak created by two sisters, one being "Nell" . It made a great movie.
I hardly think defining my own status and relationship is creating my "own language" of "twinspeak." 
The problem is when you make up your own definitions...use this "twinspeak" as if it was common English, and then go back again and again to defend your right to use whatever terms to mean whatever you want.
I simply don't agree that I have to defend my right to define my own status and relationship. 
The English language was created changed and evolved by consensus and usage over decades.
Speaking of the English language, I looked up the definition of "slave" in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.  These are the first two definitions:
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
By the way, just to set your mind at ease, I do fit the dictionary definition.  So there's that.  But, if I didn't, I still would have the right to define my own relationship.  I don't recall giving up that right. 
But a consensus of two people yourself and your dom, over a few months just isn't good enough (for whom, you?)
First of all, He's not my dom.  He's my Master.  Secondly, not sure why the remark about a few months.  Master and I have been together over a year (as if that matters).  FYI:  all that jazz about the longer you've been at it the more "real" you are that you'll read around these forums - nonsense by the way.  But, that aside, as long as there are but two people IN the relationship, I think their consensus is all that DOES matter frankly.  This is perhaps the most arrogant statement I've read you make yet.  You deign to tell my Master and I that we can't decide how to define our own relationship?     
Compare that to my efforts in this forum to communicate what I believe to be an important truth. I haven't coined any new words...redefined any old words...or defended my right to use words to mean different things at different times depending on changes within my head. I have simply made an effort to use this flawed but rich medium of the English language to communicate.
Oh and a valiant effort it was.  And you made it without ever once supplying any definition.  You spoke about the "correct" definition but never said just what it was.  I did supply one (from an English language dictionary) and I do fit it.  Is that acceptable to you now?  Can Master and I continue to call ours an M/s relationship since I've publicly stated that we do meet the definition?  Do we get formal approval now?
At this point I am leaving this thread behind. You will find people who see your side as being perfectly reasonable...but I guarantee there will be people who take my position...that a duck is a duck,
Of course, that's what I think makes this a great place.  Allowing differing opinions without categorically stating that another's relationship style is dead wrong.
 and a "consensus of one or two against the world" is a short definition of insanity.
Well, not technically.  Momentarily assuming your abandoned role of "defender of the English language" in this thread, I feel obligated to say that the one and only real definition of "insanity" - as written in an official English dictionary - is as follows:
1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility3 a: extreme folly or unreasonableness b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable.
Nothing about a "consensus of one or two against the world" here though I do like that term.  Master and I against the world - sounds pretty darn romantic to me...........slave luci