RE: why slave and not submissive?

RE: why slave and not submissive? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive

Message

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 12:11:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste Most submissives are not completely subservient to thier Dominants...they are subservient to a point (called a limit within BDSM). This also has no mention of consent or the lack thereof being a defining factor. Globally historically, there have been cases of people consenting to enslavement. It is possible. While often i see people making consent the sticking point, i think thats adding to the definition of the term in order to suit the user. Interesting that you think that. I have said it before. I will say it again. There are people who ID as submissives who live much stricter lives then some people who ID as slaves. There are plenty of slaves who still have limits (even if they match their owner's perfectly so it is never an issue it is still a limit) and there are plenty of submissives who have so few as to be not noticed unless they were ordered to kill or steal. Greetings Aquaticsub, I did not speak to slavery equating with the strictness of the lifestyle one leads, as yes what you have stated above is true. What i was speaking to is what the dictionary stated definition of a slave is (which is my own personal view of slavery) Vs. the "we all make up our own definitions" version of slavery. It is not my intent to address how submissive a submissive is Vs. how submissive a slave is. My only point is that we have a very real and workable definition for slave that can be used as a definer. Many do not desire to use it and thats okay, we live in a free country, but that doesn't invalidate the definition from being used. The definition is not romanticised, is not based upon consent, or based upon how strict the Owner is. If a submissive prefers her identity as a submissive over being considered slave that is fine and her choice to do so, i am not speaking to that issue.

AquaticSub -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 12:36:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste Greetings Aquaticsub, I did not speak to slavery equating with the strictness of the lifestyle one leads, as yes what you have stated above is true. What i was speaking to is what the dictionary stated definition of a slave is (which is my own personal view of slavery) Vs. the "we all make up our own definitions" version of slavery. It is not my intent to address how submissive a submissive is Vs. how submissive a slave is. My only point is that we have a very real and workable definition for slave that can be used as a definer. Many do not desire to use it and thats okay, we live in a free country, but that doesn't invalidate the definition from being used. The definition is not romanticised, is not based upon consent, or based upon how strict the Owner is. If a submissive prefers her identity as a submissive over being considered slave that is fine and her choice to do so, i am not speaking to that issue. The dictionary defination of slave, however, simply does not apply to most m/s relationships. In most countries the slave is not legally owned - therefore they are not chattel. The only part that is true is "one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence" and having a limit, any limit, means they are not completely subservient. It is my personal opinion that to compare the practice of modern day consentual slavery to the historical and legal defination is similiar to comparing killing chickens for fried chicken to the holocost.

Obsidiansnamaste -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 12:57:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub The dictionary defination of slave, however, simply does not apply to most m/s relationships. In most countries the slave is not legally owned - therefore they are not chattel. The only part that is true is "one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence" and having a limit, any limit, means they are not completely subservient. It is my personal opinion that to compare the practice of modern day consentual slavery to the historical and legal defination is similiar to comparing killing chickens for fried chicken to the holocost. Greetings, i have already stated that complete subservience is necessary to fit the dictionary definition of slavery. The Merriam Webster definition of chattel doesn't speak to being legally owned, however i am aware that there are other dictionaries that do speak to that so it's a matter of preference i suppose. The historical implication of slavery of the non consensual variety are far reaching and horrid...however notice that the historical implications are missing from the definition itself. Often it seems there is a knee jerk response to something due to what we perceive about that word, not because of what it actually means. Like people disliking marriage because to them it means pain by virtue of thier own experience, or woman who hate oral sex because they were forced to perform it at one time or...vanilla society who can not fathom that being beaten is not always assault. To me it's the same thing. i have seen Owners punch and kick thier slaves all consensually and yet they were performing the same action as a man who balls up His fist and hits his wife, the connotation , motive and consent are different but the action is not. If someone doesn't like the word slave because of what happened historically to some people thats fine use another term, actually that makes sense. But to try to change the definition of the term, when the definition does not indicate the historical atrocities or nonconsent is allowing personal bias into the picture, imo.

BitaTruble -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 1:19:21 PM)
~FR to several posts~ The word 'dominant' is listed in my dictionary as both adjective and noun. I will cite the reference for those interested. Slavery is illegal so it can't exist? Bank robbery is illegal as well but that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of bank robbers around. The dictionary definition of slavery is all well and good 'if and when' we all own the same book and can get on the same page. One of the definitions of 'slave' in my dictionary is 'hard worker'. I'm a hard worker and I identify as a slave. Who is to say that I'm 'not' a hard worker and don't have the right to label myself as a slave based on that definition? What about dictionary's in other languages, which have different nuances and ideas which don't even exist within the English language and as such can't even be translated? This is called an 'alternative' lifestyle for a reason and words which work outside this very narrow lifestyle don't always 'fit' well within the spectrum of BDSM. Slave happens to be one of those words because for many of us it's about the 'concept' and 'idea' .. it's about what being a slave makes us feel and not what others believe it means. One 'hard worker' will call themselves a slave.. another will call themself a submissive and yet another har worker will call themself a Master. Being a slave has nothing to do with being cool and everything to do with what you discover as the truth of your own spirit. Being a submissive, being a slave, being a vanilla are all quick labels to have a starting point from which to share what's inside of you, what makes you tick or what you yearn for in your life. It's a fuzzy, blurry idea which comes into sharper focus as you enter deeper into communication with those in whom you have an interest. How dare a newbie call themselves a slave when they don't have the first clue what it means to be a slave? Well, how dare anyone make such an assumption that they don't. YMMV and that's a beautiful thing. Learn to live with it. Celeste

litleone8620 -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 1:30:45 PM)
quote: What i was speaking to is what the dictionary stated definition of a slave is (which is my own personal view of slavery) Vs. the "we all make up our own definitions" version of slavery. This just shows that your definition of slave isn't my definition of slave. When I say 'I use my own definitions of slave'. I'm not saying I just make up some random definitions for it and call it my own. I'm saying, I take the 'text book' definition and alter it to make it fit my personality. quote: My only point is that we have a very real and workable definition for slave that can be used as a definer. This might be true. But I, personally, don't like using text book definitions to define my personality, let alone whether or not I'm a slave. I use what works for me. It's a matter of opinion of how I define myself is more or less valid than how others define themselvs.

charismagirrl -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 1:33:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shyinini Would you take the time to browse some profiles? You will find in generalities... "I am a slave. Maybe they are or maybe that is what they are seeking, to be a slave and not a submissive Only they know what they mean by that. But, i am a slave and if i were EVER looking that is what i would say, not submissive, because of my personal definition of what slave is. Obviously someone would have to ask what i mean by it. I expect.........Before a slave is involved with a Dominant they have every right to expect certain things. If not then they will be unhappy and the relationship won't go too far. The best case scenarios are to become involved with someone who is the closest to what you seek, so without putting it right out there how will one know if it is possible for you to click or not? I wont...........Before getting involved with a Dominant a would be slave should state specifically what they will and won't do. If the Dominant that wants them doesn't know where the slave stands on wants/desires/.limits etc. then how do they know if they are compatible? Sure the things i told my Daddy i wouldn't do have changed but if there had been a LONG list of things that i wouldn't do then that may have been an issue. Better to know earlier than later. If you want to contact me...............Not sure why this one is an issue, unless you mean the possible attitude that could seemingly come from it. (such as...If you want to contact me then you should know/do/be XYZ) If that is what you mean, i don't understand why an unowned/collared slave who is looking can't have a back bone and state that i will not accept this thing or that thing. I would be very pointed if i were ever to be searching again...(If you want to contact me you must be drug and alcohol free, you must be tall, intelligent, height and weight proportionate etc etc....I would spell it out, because without doing so how would i/you get who you are looking for? I dont care what you think ....... Well making no apologies for who they are, what they want etc. Sure, it could be said in a more tactful way, but maybe they've been bothered by some of the troll types who think they are super Dom and that all should kneel and get naked instantly or something...But why shouldn't they be who they are and why should they care what someone thinks? (again, tactfulness would be better, but thats only my opinion) If you are.......... I dont think you're dominant, so............Again, maybe the trollish SuperDom/me stuff? Or maybe they have alot of growing to do. You will not push my limits, which are ............. " Well they are definitely in need of growth but they are also making it crystal clear that they WILL NOT do ABC...so this could either be a challenge to a would be Dom/me or give them the information quite quickly that they don't want to be bothered or as in the case of my Master/Daddy he politely ignored me and allowed me to have certain limits until he was ready to remove them, when he felt that it was the right time and that i was ready for them to go. To each his/her own POV.........right?? Absolutely[:)]

AquaticSub -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 2:31:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Obsidiansnamaste quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub The dictionary defination of slave, however, simply does not apply to most m/s relationships. In most countries the slave is not legally owned - therefore they are not chattel. The only part that is true is "one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence" and having a limit, any limit, means they are not completely subservient. It is my personal opinion that to compare the practice of modern day consentual slavery to the historical and legal defination is similiar to comparing killing chickens for fried chicken to the holocost. Greetings, i have already stated that complete subservience is necessary to fit the dictionary definition of slavery. The Merriam Webster definition of chattel doesn't speak to being legally owned, however i am aware that there are other dictionaries that do speak to that so it's a matter of preference i suppose. The historical implication of slavery of the non consensual variety are far reaching and horrid...however notice that the historical implications are missing from the definition itself. Often it seems there is a knee jerk response to something due to what we perceive about that word, not because of what it actually means. Like people disliking marriage because to them it means pain by virtue of thier own experience, or woman who hate oral sex because they were forced to perform it at one time or...vanilla society who can not fathom that being beaten is not always assault. To me it's the same thing. i have seen Owners punch and kick thier slaves all consensually and yet they were performing the same action as a man who balls up His fist and hits his wife, the connotation , motive and consent are different but the action is not. If someone doesn't like the word slave because of what happened historically to some people thats fine use another term, actually that makes sense. But to try to change the definition of the term, when the definition does not indicate the historical atrocities or nonconsent is allowing personal bias into the picture, imo. However, the dictionary defination is based upon the historical defination of slavery. Not all slaves were tortured - some led relatively happy lives and even able to buy or earn their freedom. It was the luck of the draw as to where they were, what time they in and who they belonged to. But because the basis of this defination is a practice where so rarely was there joy, good treatment or consent, I feel it has no place in a world where a slave must consent to their own slavery. A slave owned by the dictionary's defination had no rights at all. No right to life, no right to happiness and no right to safeguard their own children. The slaves in BDSM have those rights, regardless of if they do not act on them. Hence I believe all slaves in BDSM have made their own defination and are not following the defination given to us by Mr. Webster.

Lordandmaster -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 2:33:56 PM)
Christ, I leave you kids alone for two days, and what do I find when I get back? You're arguing about the dictionary again. Can't you do something more normal while Daddy's away, like try to make out on the sofa or something?

AquaticSub -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 2:35:39 PM)
But I'm bored of making out on the sofa...

RCdc -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:04:17 PM)
Hello celeste - hope you and yours are well? The word Dominant is a noun - however not in the context of being 'a dominant'. It is musical or genetic noun, as a 'place' or 'thing'. However, not as a person but as a trait. I know I may sound picky (hey - you know me[;)]) and if you will cite the source I would be grateful (you know I am a complete word whore and any new info I soak up) but I only know from the Oxford and MW that its an adjective like submissive (which can be a verb also) which modifies or describes a noun. For BDSM it is used as a noun - like switch - but they are universally accepted as such - which is why the argument of 'labels are defined' doesn't work. Peace the.dark.

RCdc -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:05:58 PM)
Hey Aqua - If we were fighting and arguing over the dictionary in mud or jello - I bet LaM 'Daddy wouldn't mind then...[;)] Peace the.dark.

swift -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:31:33 PM)
this is my first post....so forgive me but i wanted to add a comment... the difference between submissive and slave... a submissive has wants and desires a slave has only needs such as those that will keep them alive...basic needs ..all else is decided by slaves's Master Thank Y/you for reading this.

angelslave77 -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:36:01 PM)
just a quick reply, I called myself angelslave because angelsub sounded silly lol but to me it is just a word, the true meaning of what and who I am is defined by what is within me and to some extent by my relationship with Master Taz

mistoferin -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:40:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swift this is my first post....so forgive me but i wanted to add a comment... the difference between submissive and slave... a submissive has wants and desires a slave has only needs such as those that will keep them alive...basic needs ..all else is decided by slaves's Master Thank Y/you for reading this. First off, welcome to the boards. Not trying to be hard on you, especially as it is your first post...but that simply is not true.

Missokyst -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:46:59 PM)
Slave takes less effort to spell.

mistoferin -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:48:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missokyst Slave takes less effort to spell. Than sub?....lol

MstrssPassion -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:48:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missokyst Slave takes less effort to spell. sub is even easier hmmm I think you're onto something... maybe we should just end the debate... call all of them s & justify the reason as being it is easier for us to spell & they should all be focused on ways to please us & make our lives easier [;)]

AquaticSub -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:49:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Slavery is illegal so it can't exist? Bank robbery is illegal as well but that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of bank robbers around. I've been thinking about this comment for a little while. Yes, it's true. Real slavery does exist. Real slavery is what happens when people, mostly women, are drugged and transported to another country to serve as unpaid labor or forced into a life of real sex slavery. Real slaves are the women who are tricked into going to another country, thinking they will work as maids or nannys and get a paycheck to send home to their family. What really happens is as soon as they arrive, their passports and visas are ripped up and they never contact their family again. Real slavery is when children are stolen from their parents and brought into other countries where they don't speak the language and have little chance of ever going home again. That's real slavery and it's very illegal. Unfortantely, like you said, it being illegal doesn't stop it from happening. Saying that what we do here is anything like that... to me it just trivalizes what those women, those children and their families go through. Real slavery doesn't involve consenting to your collar and you can't beg release. It's a digusting practice that shames all of humanity. Heaven help those who practice this if I ever find them, because I don't know if I could control myself and they may not live long enough for the police to deal with them.

AquaticSub -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:52:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Hey Aqua - If we were fighting and arguing over the dictionary in mud or jello - I bet LaM 'Daddy wouldn't mind then...[;)] Peace the.dark. Can we go with the jello? I bet it's easier to wash out of your hair. [:D]

MstrssPassion -> RE: why slave and not submissive? (7/2/2007 4:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Hey Aqua - If we were fighting and arguing over the dictionary in mud or jello - I bet LaM 'Daddy wouldn't mind then...[;)] Peace the.dark. Can we go with the jello? I bet it's easier to wash out of your hair. [:D] you'd be suprised how much easier it is to wash mud from hair than jello

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125