RE: SLAVES VS SUBS

RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (Full Version)

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

Message

AquaticSub -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 9:30:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBWMistressAngel I wonder what everone's take is on the differences between the 2 .. For me I believe that SLAVE's have submitted to have NO CHOICE .. where as SUB's are always within their rights to CHOOSE .. so .. what do you think???? Mistress A ~ I think Valyraen can call me whatever he wants and he calls me both.

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 9:37:27 AM)
sighs not again ...is there a full moon happening this month? op, your pov of the differences between slave and submissive are your own ...mine are totally different from yours as well as the many responses - don't expect everyone to agree with you in your original post. anyway, this is a pointless and neverending argument in which i shall graciously bow out right now.

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 9:44:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveish I've been a sub, I've been a slave. The types of men I choose are similar in intellect and style, so the terminology means very little to me. I don't care what he calls me. I'll be whatever kind of s-type fits with his definition. I've been noticing this interchangeability since arriving here. Rather confusing for an old guy like me who is used to the distinctions but hasn't kept up with 'community' usage for over a decade. I just thought it was new folk not aware of the distinction (rather like those who use "dominate" for "dominant"). Guess not. [;)]

slaveish -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 9:48:02 AM)
Hey Bob, It used to be confusing for me too. I wondered what would make one Man call me a sub and another call me a slave. Then I realized that I am the same me - the difference is in his desire to use a different word to describe me. And I take great pleasure in either word, knowing its deep significance and affection when it comes from his lips. ~smiling~

UR2Badored -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 9:51:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin It wasn't always so. Sub was someone who submitted part-time, where a slave submitted 24/7. ... But language is a slippery thing, constantly evolving. Personally I think it would be a shame to lose the distinction, but then I may be too late for that. My point is I have no control over how other people define and interpret a opinion or even a universal definition for that matter. That is why I believe it has no distinction. I purposely did not offer my own distinctions between the two because it would be a moot point.

feastie -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 10:27:29 AM)
Fast reply Labels, labels, labels everywhere and not a drop of think For real, what you believe it is goes for you and yours, but not for anyone else. Mods, PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE give this topic a sticky!!!!

GhitaAmati -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 10:43:41 AM)
I knew there was a reason I used to have wet dreams about feastie... ghita~ damn, did I say that outloud?

BitaTruble -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 10:55:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBWMistressAngel I wonder what everone's take is on the differences between the 2 .. For me I believe that SLAVE's have submitted to have NO CHOICE .. where as SUB's are always within their rights to CHOOSE .. so .. what do you think???? Mistress A ~ I think I can only define what it means for 'me' to be submissive and what it means for 'me' to be a slave. As a submissive, I retained the ability to walk out any door at any time without detriment to my mental health or worry about being untrue to my own nature. As a slave, I have lost the ability to walk out the door without having to put on a mask and be someone different rather than the unique individual that my slavery allows me to be. It's not a matter of 'choice' on whether to leave or stay. I make a choice every moment of every day to be true to who I am. I guess, simply put, when I identified as a submissive it was because of my ability to be a submissive. Now, I identify as a slave because of my inability to be anything else. Celeste

beargonewild -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 11:23:31 AM)
Overall I don't see any major difference between the two. Simply it is important on how that person wants to define it for themself. Some are comfortable calling themself a slave, others are comfortable calling themself a submissive. What is important is how you want to label yourself without following what anyone else may think. If a person is owned by a dom, then whatever label works for them is fine. What works just for me is labelling myself as submissive. I couldn't care less if someone else calls me a slave. And until I have submitted to a Dom, that is only when I will alter my perception on how I define myself.

jssubc -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 11:50:10 AM)
Where a slave is someone who needs to have someone else provide an answer to every question... basically someone who needs to be micromanaged... needs to be told when to sleep... eat... dress... work... etc... they don't feel right with themselves unless they have this... i couldn't disagree more. Mistress would soon be rid of me if She had to micromanage me, why would She want to create work for Herself? i agree with Bobkgin, i have one choice and i choose not to take it.

beargonewild -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 11:58:56 AM)
Granted this may be so, yet a large percentage of slaves don't need nor want to be micromanaged. Whether we deem ourselves as slaves or submissives, once we learn how our owners want us to be as they want, we are perfectly capable to serve their needs and still be able to utilize independant thought in doing so.

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 12:09:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UR2Badored quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin It wasn't always so. Sub was someone who submitted part-time, where a slave submitted 24/7. ... But language is a slippery thing, constantly evolving. Personally I think it would be a shame to lose the distinction, but then I may be too late for that. My point is I have no control over how other people define and interpret a opinion or even a universal definition for that matter. That is why I believe it has no distinction. I purposely did not offer my own distinctions between the two because it would be a moot point. Oh, I don't know. A lot of people use one or the other, and it is understandable that those new to bdsm would ask "what's the difference". As long as no one is trying to force others to use a specific interpretation, I see no harm in the question. One might also ask the difference between a "dom(inant) and a master", especially when Master So-and-So claims to be a "dominant" [;)] Those who are new (and perhaps nervous) are doing the right thing to ask, rather than assume. Not knowing which is which, they likely want to avoid sending the wrong signal and thus causing confusion. Of course, for those who view the terms as interchangeable it doesn't matter. But CollarMe offers people a choice between "Slave" and "Submissive" as a self-designator, and you can search for either (tho' searching for "submissive" also pulls up "slave"). Seems a reasonable question to me.

UR2Badored -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 12:13:49 PM)
I agree, the question is reasonable. However, my answer to the question remains the same. It (opinions and interpretations sub vs slave) is highly individualized to each relationship based on biases and preferences. Edited to add my abridged original response (I conceded that my answer and opinion may seen as flawed by many. However, my answer to her question remains the same as my initial response.) quote: ORIGINAL: UR2Badored quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen68 It is unique to the individuals involved in a relationship and what words they choose to describe their roles. Mistress A- The first person answered your question, and you can see from the other responses why it is moot point to have a opinion. It only matters to have an opinion, if at all, in regards to your own personal relationships.

DarkDaddyZ -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 12:19:49 PM)
~fast reply~ We all have our own definition as to the difference to what's a slave and what's a sub and they are all right for us. I didn't read prior threads regarding this topic so I look forward to the links that LA will provide. Still, I (and those interested in being with me) believe that a slave is one who is interested in ownership in a agreed upon capacity. They still have free will, and they have chosen to be in a M/s power exchange relationship as much as possible with everyday life. To me a submissive is one who may enjoy service (physical, mental etc) but isn't interested in ownership at least in the interim.

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 12:20:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jssubc Where a slave is someone who needs to have someone else provide an answer to every question... basically someone who needs to be micromanaged... needs to be told when to sleep... eat... dress... work... etc... they don't feel right with themselves unless they have this... i couldn't disagree more. Mistress would soon be rid of me if She had to micromanage me, why would She want to create work for Herself? i agree with Bobkgin, i have one choice and i choose not to take it. I agree with you, J. The stereotype of the completely helpless slave (to the point of dysfunctional) is a myth when applied generally. Certainly there are those who wish this. But so do adult 'babies' and others involved in some sort of age-play, and they would not be described as "slaves". Slaves can be highly intelligent and functional individuals in no need of micro-management. What they have in common (according to the definition I'm familiar with) is that they desire to serve 24/7 (which is why the term "slave" is applied, as there is no such thing as a part-time "slave" in the world outside bdsm). The Goreans have escaped this confusion with their word for it: "Kajira". I'd use that term but I'd confuse hell out of the Goreans. (Side note: I was reading the Gor series as it came out, fascinating but eventually I lost interest as Norman bogged down entirely in the story-telling to provide more details about his concept of slavery - perhaps I should dust off those old paperbacks and re-read it [:D]).

MadRabbit -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 12:33:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin quote: ORIGINAL: BBWMistressAngel I wonder what everone's take is on the differences between the 2 .. For me I believe that SLAVE's have submitted to have NO CHOICE .. where as SUB's are always within their rights to CHOOSE .. so .. what do you think???? Mistress A ~ A slave voluntarily gives up all choices but one: to leave*. While there is nothing wrong with narrating a relationship this way, in a literal sense, I find the idea of a slave giving up all their choices and having none to be impractical and unrealistic. Such a person who no longer makes any choices would be roughly on the same level as this coffee mug on my desk or as Rover phrases it, "a sack of taters". I prefer to think in terms of a slave being "a person who has given me the authority to intervene and make choices for them as I see fit" I find the first definition to be unrealistic because if a normal day were to go by and I were to allow my slave to make choices regarding when she will wake up for work, her clothing for that day, how many brush strokes she will make when cleaning her teeth, whether or not to use the bathroom prior to waking, how long to scrub her body and hair in the shower, how long to cook her eggs for breakfast, and what time to leave for work, then is this person not really a slave? Or in my defintion, if I only choose to exercise a small percentage of my authority, would this make her less of slave than someone who exercised a larger percent? Personally, my own defintion of a slave in my personal lifestyle has very little to do with concern over what choices I make for them, but rather my own personal protocols that changes this person's behaviors into my own personal vision of a slave. However, for me to apply that definition in a universal sense, then any Master who has different protcols than mine would not have a "real slave". I find it really impossible to think we can come up with a universal definition that sets the standard of "slavedom" for all varying dynamics and personal lifestyles. And the one presented here doesnt flesh out completely in a logical sense.

naughtysubK -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 12:40:13 PM)
i don't see a thing wrong with bringing up these often debated topics again . i understand that those of you with 23469678372 posts may be tired of seeing the same old thing. But a fresh perspective can't be all bad, can it? my Master and i had some long discussions about the difference between submissive and slave at the beginning of our relationship because He let it be known from the start that He wants a slave, not a submissive. We both agree that to us, when i decide to be His slave, that's basically the last decision i make on my own. In theory. He realizes that His control will not extend to my work or my relationship with my family. i am not at a point yet where i feel that i can call myself His slave. we just haven't gotten to that total power exchange yet. But that's what it means to us and that's how we are comfortable defining it. Your milage may vary

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 12:55:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin quote: ORIGINAL: BBWMistressAngel I wonder what everone's take is on the differences between the 2 .. For me I believe that SLAVE's have submitted to have NO CHOICE .. where as SUB's are always within their rights to CHOOSE .. so .. what do you think???? Mistress A ~ A slave voluntarily gives up all choices but one: to leave. While there is nothing wrong with narrating a relationship this way, in a literal sense, I find the idea of a slave giving up all their choices and having none to be impractical and unrealistic. Such a person who no longer makes any choices would be roughly on the same level as this coffee mug on my desk or as Rover phrases it, "a sack of taters". I prefer to think in terms of a slave being "a person who has given me the authority to intervene and make choices for them as I see fit" I find the first definition to be unrealistic because if a normal day were to go by and I were to allow my slave to make choices regarding when she will wake up for work, her clothing for that day, how many brush strokes she will make when cleaning her teeth, whether or not to use the bathroom prior to waking, how long to scrub her body and hair in the shower, how long to cook her eggs for breakfast, and what time to leave for work, then is this person not really a slave? Or in my defintion, if I only choose to exercise a small percentage of my authority, would this make her less of slave than someone who exercised a larger percent? Personally, my own defintion of a slave in my personal lifestyle has very little to do with concern over what choices I make for them, but rather my own personal protocols that changes this person's behaviors into my own personal vision of a slave. However, for me to apply that definition in a universal sense, then any Master who has different protcols than mine would not have a "real slave". I find it really impossible to think we can come up with a universal definition that sets the standard of "slavedom" for all varying dynamics and personal lifestyles. And the one presented here doesnt flesh out completely in a logical sense. It might help to think of it this way: All of a slave's choices belong to me. I can choose to make all of them for her if I wish. This would be micro-managing her life. However, since I own all her choices, I can choose to give some of them back, either as a one-shot deal or on an ongoing basis. But she doesn't own these choices. I can take them back and make them for her if I wish (translation: if I deem it necessary for her well-being). *The only choice she owns is to leave. As she is a slave, and thus serves 24/7, she is never entitled to make a choice I'd disagree with (aside from leaving). Were she a submissive, she'd have the freedom to make all of her choices any way she wishes, whether I agree or disagree. This is, of course, according to the definitions I learned back when I started in my craft.

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 1:13:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtysubK i don't see a thing wrong with bringing up these often debated topics again . i understand that those of you with 23469678372 posts may be tired of seeing the same old thing. But a fresh perspective can't be all bad, can it? my Master and i had some long discussions about the difference between submissive and slave at the beginning of our relationship because He let it be known from the start that He wants a slave, not a submissive. We both agree that to us, when i decide to be His slave, that's basically the last decision i make on my own. In theory. He realizes that His control will not extend to my work or my relationship with my family. i am not at a point yet where i feel that i can call myself His slave. we just haven't gotten to that total power exchange yet. But that's what it means to us and that's how we are comfortable defining it. Your milage may vary You are describing the relationship I had with my wife. We worked that out thus: I gave her the authority to make decisions regarding work and family relationships providing they did not significantly impact our life together (with me being the judge of what is "significant"). There were very few such incidents, the most frequent one being too much overtime. Sometimes I accepted her decision, sometimes not, depending upon how fatigued she seemed to be from the work, and how important the work was to her (for she loved her work and it was good for her self-esteem). So we would talk when I had concerns, and either she came to realize it really wasn't necessary, or I came to realize it was for her happiness. That didn't make her less a slave, as she was still obliged to consider me and our relationship before all else, and I was still the final authority over all matters in her life. But it worked very well for the ten+ years we were together.

MadRabbit -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/25/2007 1:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin It might help to think of it this way: All of a slave's choices belong to me. I can choose to make all of them for her if I wish. This would be micro-managing her life. However, since I own all her choices, I can choose to give some of them back, either as a one-shot deal or on an ongoing basis. But she doesn't own these choices. I can take them back and make them for her if I wish (translation: if I deem it necessary for her well-being). The only choice she owns is to leave. As she is a slave, and thus serves 24/7, she is never entitled to make a choice I'd disagree with (aside from leaving). Were she a submissive, she'd have the freedom to make all of her choices any way she wishes, whether I agree or disagree. This is, of course, according to the definitions I learned back when I started in my craft. Aww, thank you. The clarification is much more in aligns with my own definition. I wasnt so much trying to be argumentative, but rather point out the misconception that often comes with that personal definition.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.099823E-02