RE: SLAVES VS SUBS

RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (Full Version)

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

Message

slavegirljoy -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 1:39:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kikinymph this is the definition that I gave. MY THEORETICAL IDEAL DEFINITION OF A SLAVE: A slave is a person who can, or will, give up any prior committments that they have in order to be in service to the Owner. This is including committments to job/career, children, spouses, family. Kiki This definition might work for some but, not for this slave. When my Master took ownership of me, He didn't require or want me to disconnect myself from the other people in my life. i came to Him with all of my possessions, with all of my history, and with all of my obligations. i didn't stop being the person i already was, in order to become some anonymous slave to Him, with no past or outside interests. i didn't take on some whole new identity, like in the witness protection program, where no one who had known me before would have any idea how to contact me. If that were a requirement to being a slave, i never would have wanted to become an owned slave. i don't have much family or a lot of friends but, the ones that i had before becoming a slave, are still in my life and will continue to be in my life. They still know me to be the same person i have always been. As far as they are concerned, the only thing that has changed is where i live and who i live with. There is no conflict of interest for me in being a full-service slave to my Master, while also being fully involved with my family and friends, as well as with His family and friends. If that means, to some, that i don't "qualify" as a slave, then so be it. Maybe someone would be kind enough as to inform my Master of this. He is still of the opinion that i am His slave. slave joyOwned property of Master David "Commitment transforms a promise into a reality."

slavepeter33401 -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 3:06:32 AM)
To me distinguishing the difference between a slave and a sub is simple, at least insofar as a mistress is concerned. A sub will insert and remove her tampon, but a slave will lick it clean.

HardnRuff -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 5:24:25 AM)
A submissive chooses If she wants to submit to something , and a slave chooses HOW to submit to something . A sub chooses to retain her will and submit where My will becomes a slaves will . All slaves are submissive but not all submissives are slaves .A sub retains her will and distance from her Master as opposed to a slave gives her all as well as her freedoms to her Master . Obediance has become a major factor in her life . I think this sums it up good = There appears to be no right or wrong way, one can be a slave or submissive. It depends on the needs and desires of the individuals involved. Some Masters don't want a slave and some don't want a submissive.

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 5:25:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I've seen more than a few subs display a great deal of venom at the suggestion that one must be virtually without limits to be a slave. And for good reason, from their point of view. Once a "slave" is defined as "one who has no limits" he/she becomes far more desirable to many of us than any sub could hope to be. This appears to be the reason why the word "slave" has now come to mean anything subby. It's sort of like those generic brands trying to look like a popular brand so as to fool people into buying the knock-off rather than the geuine article. Some of us still read the labels, however, and will not be fooled by imitations [;)]

puella -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 5:35:51 AM)
"Chestnuts roasting on an open fire...." Do you think these old chestnuts seem more important when POSED IN ALL CAPS AND BOLDED? That might be a better question for us to ponder...or at least a new spin on the same old same old hehehehe

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 5:38:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave Almost everything has been said in previous posts. Personally I would prefer if slave and submissive were not used inter-changeably. The last is often the case. BDSM theorists have covered the topic extensively (e.g. www.steel-door.com/Submissive_vs_Slave.html). It would be nice if Masters require good and precise language use from their slaves or submissives. I do, but that only extends as far as my authority reaches. And it does bother me that subs who negotiate everything claim to be "slaves", thus comparing themselves (in my mind) to those with no limits. I'd be curious to hear what word subs would assign to a 'sub' who has no limits, to distinguish him/her from those other subs who have all kinds of limits. My bet is they don't have a word to cover that, which to me would simply confirm my belief as to why the word "slave" lost its original meaning.

Bobkgin -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 5:44:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire...." Do you think these old chestnuts seem more important when POSED IN ALL CAPS AND BOLDED? That might be a better question for us to ponder...or at least a new spin on the same old same old hehehehe Is this discussion not interesting enough for you that you feel the need to stir useless shit? Perhaps you might consider opening such a discussion as you propose in the Off-Topic forum, rather than try and hijack a thread here. Just a thought.

puella -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 5:49:09 AM)
Oh, Bob...don't get upset... hijacking is par for the course, especially given this particular topic... the nice thing about hijacks is that they reinforce that we are all entitled to our opinions, even if they piss you off, and you can always choose to ignore or participate...don't get so cranky and sensitive yet, Meet The Press hasn't even started! [;)] Have a great one!

WhiplashSmile -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 7:07:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: puella Oh, Bob...don't get upset... hijacking is par for the course, especially given this particular topic... the nice thing about hijacks is that they reinforce that we are all entitled to our opinions, even if they piss you off, and you can always choose to ignore or participate...don't get so cranky and sensitive yet, Meet The Press hasn't even started! [;)] Have a great one! He has probally already put you on block by now. He actually blocked me for something far less when I was 100% on the topic and being respectful in another thread. I'm still clueless as to why he blocked me, and he himself in one of his own posts states to another user he does not remember why he put me on block.

Twicehappy2x -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 7:09:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavepeter33401 To me distinguishing the difference between a slave and a sub is simple, at least insofar as a mistress is concerned. A sub will insert and remove her tampon, but a slave will lick it clean. OK, that is way more than i wanted to know.

Mercnbeth -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 10:32:42 AM)
I now I have a standard reply whenever this thread appears. Heard an interesting comment on this question last week. The difference between submissive and slave is that a submissive includes two "I's" and a slave has none - both literally and philosophically. Now if I can only get LA to add this quote whenever she lists the archive search listing the powered bones of previous slave v. sub threads.

devotedsylph -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 10:41:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit 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". But for some people, that is sort of their goal - to be objectified and turned into just another owned possession. Simply, sylph

breatheasone -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 10:42:56 AM)
To the OP, i would agree with you to a point. I personally identify as a slave. I could explain if pressed to i guess, but i doubt if anyone would agree with my definition or explanation LOL. It ruffles my feathers if Master refers to me as His sub lol

came4U -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 10:48:50 AM)
The difference between subs and slaves to me?? If a slave says 'no' she actually means it, if a sub says 'no' it is considered 'play'. aka: a true slave would fight back for life and limb a sub giggles knowing she is fairly safe. A big difference, In reality.

Mercnbeth -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 10:56:10 AM)
quote: If a slave says 'no' she actually means it, Wow - A slave with permission to say 'no'! I'm stunned. Beside the 3rd person speech restriction beth isn't even allowed to use words where the letters 'n' and 'o' appear together. The downside, of course, is that she can't refer to me as being "all kNOwing - kNOw it all!". Not only appropriate, but in addition the way I want it and like it.

redheadedpet -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 11:07:01 AM)
so long as he calls me his, i could care less if he defines me as submissive or slave. and anyone else's definition - including my own - dims by comparison.

gypsygrl -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 11:08:50 AM)
quote: The difference between subs and slaves to me?? If a slave says 'no' she actually means it, if a sub says 'no' it is considered 'play'. aka: a true slave would fight back for life and limb a sub giggles knowing she is fairly safe. A big difference, In reality. This is a really intriging, if cryptic, take on the distinction. It strikes a bell with me, but I'm not sure why. Please expand?

Kimveri -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 11:09:21 AM)
Fast Reply Hello, folks, I am a surrendered woman who is submissive to the man whose life I share. The fact that he has chosen to not exercise mastery over me is the single thing differentiating me from a slave. So for me the answer to the OP is simple -- Active exercising of mastery (cause) leads to enslavement (effect), thus the submissive woman becomes a slave. Of course, your mileage may vary, ~Kimveri edited for spelling

CuriousLord -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 11:11:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy quote: ORIGINAL: kikinymph this is the definition that I gave. MY THEORETICAL IDEAL DEFINITION OF A SLAVE: A slave is a person who can, or will, give up any prior committments that they have in order to be in service to the Owner. This is including committments to job/career, children, spouses, family. Kiki This definition might work for some but, not for this slave. When my Master took ownership of me, He didn't require or want me to disconnect myself from the other people in my life. i came to Him with all of my possessions, with all of my history, and with all of my obligations. i didn't stop being the person i already was, in order to become some anonymous slave to Him, with no past or outside interests. i didn't take on some whole new identity, like in the witness protection program, where no one who had known me before would have any idea how to contact me. If that were a requirement to being a slave, i never would have wanted to become an owned slave. I believe the idea is more that a slave is one willing to give these things up at her Master's order, not that she has to give them up even if her Master doesn't command it. The basic idea here is that a slave follows her Master's orders, that her Master doesn't have to barter with her or try to convince her to do something like a Dom may have to with a sub.

CuriousLord -> RE: SLAVES VS SUBS (8/26/2007 11:19:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: If a slave says 'no' she actually means it, Wow - A slave with permission to say 'no'! I'm stunned. How liberal! Perhaps this community should take a turn for equal rights? slaves can order Masters around half of the time? subs can put Dom's over their knee and spank them for being naughty little Dom's?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02