Bobkgin
Posts: 1335
Joined: 7/28/2007 From: Kawarthas, Ontario, Canada Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
When all is said and done, what will you regret? That you never really lived? Or there was so much living left to do? For those interested: pics and poetry have been added to my profile.
|