Pets?

Pets? (Full Version)

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

Message

petcerina -> Pets? (8/6/2005 3:45:06 PM)
i know i'm new to the message boards, but i do have a bit of experience. Today however, i ran into someone who informed me there is another type of submissive called a pet. And that the umm.. "order" if you will, goes submissive ----> slave----> pet. Can someone please inform me what this person is talking about? i have never heard of it. i've heard of depersonalization where a person pretends to be an animal or furniture, but not the term pet in which that person doesn't really come out of that state. What it sounded like to me was two people really into depersonalization who were just a Master and a slave who incorporated parts of depersonalization into their everyday life like people do with age play and many other things. Just curious as to what everyone thinks. i'd love to hear your imput :).

IronBear -> RE: Pets? (8/6/2005 4:07:36 PM)
The only way I can see this being used is similar to the Gorean kajira of which there may be various levels from “kettle slave” (one who is a domestic only), to the general kajira who is a normal slave and then many Goreans may consider the ultimate is a “pleasure silk” level where the kajira is trained and an accomplished “pleasure slave”. Other than that “pet” may be referring to a slave who wears a personal collar and is her Master/Mistress’s favourite or pet. However I may well be totally wrong in my assessment here.

Faramir -> RE: Pets? (8/6/2005 5:20:57 PM)
Please see this thread for several answers. My answer: Here;s how my friends use the term (it's not one I use): It means to them a type of D/s relationship that is not peer to peer, but not Owner to property - it is an intermediary power relationship with ownership, but that ownership acknowledges some independence of the "s" in the relationship. The idea is that Master/slave is an owner to property relationship, where the the slave is essentially chattel - maybe not in an enforcable legal sense, but conceptually. "Pet" implies an owner to beloved pet relationship. There is an owner, but the pet isn't chattel - the pet, for all her dependence on and devotion to the Master, is still in some way independent as an entity, is submitting in response to the relationship, to the care and protection of the Master. Try and imagine the first wolves who came into a campfire, and noble and independent as they were, willing to serve these gods with fire (and perhaps serve conditionally, in response to right treatment). I think Jack London describes the realtionship perfectly in Whitefang: quote: Having learned to snuggle, White Fang was guilt of it often. It was the final word. He could not go beyond it. The one thing of which he had always been particularly jealous, was his head. He had always disliked to have it touched. It was the Wild in him, the fear of hurt and of the trap, that had given rise to the panicky impulse to avoid contacts. It was the mandate of his instinct that the head must be free. And now, with the love-master, his snuggling was the deliberate act of putting himself into a position of hopeless helplessness. It was an expression of the perfect confidence, of absolute self-surrender, as though he said: “I will put myself into thy hands. Work thou thy will with me.” Try and imagine a powerful man or woman, a head of household. They have an estate, and perhaps they have slaves who help administer the household. In addition to the slaves the Master owns, the Master also has a beloved dog, a companion who is devoted to the Master, serves the Master, but has a special connection beyond that which the slaves have. The slaves never lie at the Master's feet in their study, or go off with the master into the Woods when they need time to think. All of the household is under the Master, but the Pet has a special bond the servants and slaves don't have.

smilezz -> RE: Pets? (8/6/2005 5:39:08 PM)
Thorns calls me His pet. It's a term of Endearment....His name for me. I have never heard in all the years in the scene that there is any "order" as it was stated. I suppose to each their own. ~smilezz~

nella -> RE: Pets? (8/6/2005 9:08:18 PM)
There is many ideas as to what sobmissive, bottom, slave and pet means, but to me, it means a beloved submissive or slave that is more a tressured, well yes, pet and plaything than a servant.

tade -> RE: Pets? (8/7/2005 4:02:51 PM)
We call our subs "Pets" when we are treating them well. That is the way we think of them when not "using" them in some other way. If we talk about them between ourselves we call them our pets, but we don't actually treat them that way (not allowed on the furniture, eating from dish on the floor)....well...not all the time anyway.. Tade

sultryvoice -> RE: Pets? (8/7/2005 4:39:11 PM)
Pet, as I have read and heard, in the years I have been in the lifestyle, is a term of endearment and nothing more... Respectfully, sultry

ChereeAmoor -> RE: Pets? (8/8/2005 7:12:37 AM)
I am called "pet" as a hard-earned endearment, and usually when we take a break for something to drink or a bite to eat, I get handfed. No bowls on the floor, and no assumption that my level of understanding has dropped to that of an animal.

littleone35 -> RE: Pets? (8/8/2005 8:09:26 AM)
My Late Master used to call me pet it was an eneadrment it does not mean he treate me as a pet. littleone

Padriag -> RE: Pets? (8/8/2005 11:46:59 PM)
The answer is pretty short and simple. A pet may simply be a term of endearment, or it may refer to pet roleplay, or it may refer to someone who gives up their human identity to be come a "pet" (being treated as an animal). As for there being an order, few would recognize any such order as being official. Some have postulated that there are different degrees of submission based on how much freedom the submissive gives up, and that could form an "order." Here are links to two essays that illustrate that theory. Spectrum of Submission Submission, Service, Slavery, Surrender However, keep in mind this refers only to the degree of submission, how much freedom is given up, etc. It does not imply that slaves, for example, are superior to submissives. Pets in the sense of someone who consents to being transformed into an animal, literally a pet, might be considered to be furthest to the right on the scale since they give up all their freedom and their identity as well. This might be what the person you spoke with was referring too.

nella -> RE: Pets? (8/9/2005 6:23:24 AM)
One thing that have been on my mind for some time, why are pepole so concerned aboute labels, at least when we can not agree what those labels mean. i am a sub that live in an light 24/7 relationship, by light i mean, we both choose movies, i deside for myself what to wear, and many desitions we take together. i do not exist totaly for my Dom, or is the relationship all aboute him. But he deside and have final word, aboute somthing like what is found on this site. http://www.takeninhand.com/ we mix this whit a bit of BDSM and are quite happy, He calls me slave or pet or his little witch, on this forum i call myself a submissive becouse it seam to fit what most put into that word, but i can not say that i fit totaly into any one chategory, and neither do i belive anyone else do. The word pet can mean a million different things, depending on who says it.

BeachMystress -> RE: Pets? (8/10/2005 10:59:40 PM)
The only place I've heard of pet as meaning someone lower than a slave is in Laurel K Hamilton's Anita Blake series. She uses it to describe someone who almost can't function without the direction of a Dominant. I've never heard it used as other than an endearment in a real life situation. I'd say your person is taking their knowledge of BDSM from popular fiction...

KennelMaster05 -> RE: Pets? (8/11/2005 9:59:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tade We call our subs "Pets" when we are treating them well. That is the way we think of them when not "using" them in some other way. If we talk about them between ourselves we call them our pets, but we don't actually treat them that way (not allowed on the furniture, eating from dish on the floor)....well...not all the time anyway.. Tade Exactly. That's how I have treated my subs. Although I do collar them (literally) and sometimes treat them just as I would a dog or cat, but that can change at anytime depending on my mood. I've never heard of an "order" though. To each his/her own.

Rubyb -> RE: Pets? (8/13/2005 5:16:25 PM)
I've not ever heard of any "order". Just different definitions for different labels. And of course, every label has zillions of definitions. Just see the many ways the word pet can be used in this and the thread Faramir recommened. I think the www.petgirls.com types of sites and starting to have more folks equate the word with those who choose to scene or live as a pony boy/girl, puppy boy/girl, etc, lend to the confusion.

nella -> RE: Pets? (8/14/2005 2:33:53 AM)
like most terms in this lifestyle, i means whatever you and the other involved in your relationship wants it to mean.

GrayGhost -> RE: Pets? (8/14/2005 6:32:45 AM)
I agree with what one lady said....simply a term of endearment.

fastlane -> RE: Pets? (8/14/2005 2:03:05 PM)
PetSmart is the best store in the whole wide world! I take all my pets there to pick out their collars and other various toys[:D] as a term of endearment!

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125