FemmeSensei
Posts: 1
Joined: 12/14/2007
Status: offline
|
I wouldn’t be surprised if every submissive-wired (or even switch-wired) individual heard the question at one point or another inquiring whether they are a slave or a submissive, especially if you are looking for a relationship on whatever level that meets your needs. I have been asked on occasion if I am looking for a slave or a sub, and have been asked “I’m not a slave, do you think that’s bad?” or “Do you think I’m a submissive and not a slave?” I think a lot of people struggle with the concept. I have heard individuals say “I am not a slave, I just think it’s wrong to abuse someone that way” and “I am not a slave because I am not a doormat” or any number of other responses, made with passion, indicating there’s more misconception than direction in this arena.
I believe that you can be a slave and have a good head on your shoulders, be independent, and strong. I believe you can be a doormat and a submissive but not a slave. I think tops and forums on this subject have only added to the confusion with self-directed extremes. I have heard it declared that a slave has no mind of their own and no autonomy what so ever, that they are rewritten completely and changed forever. This is very extreme, and some people really wish that to happen, but in its extremes it alienates a lot of people. I have heard it said that submissives are only submissive in the bedroom or they are often brats or secretly in control and “topping from the bottom”. I think this is also a little extreme the other direction. There are hundreds of different extremes and ideas and opinions voiced and a lot of individuals like to be the experts when they apply specifically to what they are looking for with no attempt to universalize their definitions.
I think most girls and boys that find they are “bottom wired” are somewhere in the uncharted gray areas between the extremes presented of slave and sub, and there are no easy labels to aspire to. We banter around TPE now, and “brat” and a dozen other terms that all fail to create a reasonable scale. With the extreme slave on one side scaring people, and the extremely casual submissive on the other side lacking the control someone may desire, many find themselves in the lifeless gray area, unable to say yes to submissive or slave.
I hope to alleviate some of that doubt with a clear definition.
I believe there is a singular important criterion that makes a submissive a submissive, and a slave a slave, and it has everything to do with the act of submission. In this definition you can have an extreme submissive that wants to be tied up for hours and any other scene you can imagine, and you can have a slave that wishes to be a domestic and have very little other activity, avoiding pain and everything else. Both can exist, so what is the clear-cut way to define it?
The answer may lie in examining the roots of what it is to be a slave. It goes beyond the slavery of the 19th century that gave the US the Civil War, and I would argue few people would even desire that model in real life. Instead we journey back to days of antiquity, to the days of Alexander, of the reign of Pharaohs, to the Asian Dynasties and harems. Perhaps even to the servants of ancient Greece. These are more often the models I think individuals fantasize about when inventing a scene in their minds. The girl with the silken outfit, a collar around her neck, dancing with jangles to the delight of her lord and his favor later that evening and the men who were sworn protectors of their queen and saw to her every need in and out of closed doors both fit the modern model fairly well. We can reach back into the artistic work of Boris Vallejo and to the world of Gor and Ann Rand for additional models that are adapted to real life.
In this classical view of things we really find the slave’s predicament and where some of modern BDSM bottom’s fantasies merge. A slave in a classic sense was either captured or purchased by a powerful or wealthy lord. The picture I see is a girl in a cage peering out at potential owners and hoping a nice person purchases her. In the modern sense this translates into abduction fantasies and forced training fantasies, all compelling but most are too afraid to actually make such things real. Nevertheless they are compelling fantasies in a lot of people, scene-wired or not.
A slave’s predicament is that they will be bought and purchased. Their opportunity to make a difference in their owner is limited to trying to catch the eye of someone they feel might be a good owner, and to attract them enough to make the purchase. When they are bought they are owned and it is as simple as that. In a classical sense a free slave would likely just get captured by someone else (who could be worse than the first owner) and authorities would even return a slave to the rightful owner. In every sense of the word they were property.
This does not mean even in a classical sense that a slave was mistreated. Some slaves were lovers of their Lords or Ladies, some were labor, some protection, and every role in between. Let’s discuss this from a purely business standpoint since truly, owning a slave was a business transaction (or military campaign, but nevertheless the argument withstands). A slave is an investment. It is in the best interests of the owner to improve the slave for later resale, to make them more efficient at their task, to make them stronger, smarter, healthier, while maintaining control so they don’t escape. It would be a bad owner, and a bad business person, who would harm or ultimately kill a slave so long as the slave was providing monetary gain. If a slave was COSTING the owner money it may be a wise decision to off the slave, sell the slave, or perhaps to invest something to improve them. Again, so long as the slave was providing more value than it was costing it makes no business sense to abuse them. They are a commodity, simple as that.
This world still holds in the modern sense with one substantial difference: In the modern sense the slave still has a choice (at least in free-world countries like the United States, Britain, most of Europe and Canada, and many others). This choice is whether to serve and who to serve. In a classical sense this choice did not exist…they were captured or they were purchased and the choice was just the fleeting chance to catch the eye of someone or risk escape. Aspire as we will to fantasy worlds or classical models what we have is reality and the reality is the slave has a choice.
So what does this mean in the argument of a slave vs. a submissive?
The key factor is when does a slave exercise this right to choose, and when does a submissive exercise this right to choose?
I believe the key difference is that a submissive exercises the right to choose to submit whenever asked, forced, coerced, or in a situation to do so. A slave makes one choice in the beginning of the relationship with his or her owner and that choice carries from that point forward.
Does this mean a submissive has lots of limits and a slave has no limits? The answer is no. Remember that a slave has the right to choose who to submit to and can determine if their owner has the same limits that they do. At the point they submit their destiny is in the hands of the owner and they have to rely on making a good decision. A submissive may have no limits at all however as a submissive they exercise their right to submit each and every time the situation arises.
In a sense this definition further defines the parameters of serving for a slave and a submissive, and it is not a negative or a positive to either side. When a submissive is in service the focus is on the act of submission, the gift of making the choice to submit. For a slave, the submission is already done, and instead the focus is on the service itself and the devotion to the act of serving. Submission is out of the way, obedience to some extent is out of the way, and it is rejoicing in the service. It is a slight difference in the focus of the person that has submitted.
Does this definition mean that a slave cannot be a brat? The answer to this is also no. Even in a classical sense the slave sometimes could resist or even just be a brat to their owner, and it is well within the parameters of the definition. A slave can brat but when the owner exerts his or her will on the slave the slave backs down and submits…again, the choice was made long before. Is there still room to be forced? Yes. Is there still boundaries to be stretched? Sure. But the contest of wills ends shortly after it begins based on the fact that the slave has chosen to be a slave. There may even be comfort in the fact that the slave knows already they will not win, though they could alter the parameters by speaking up and being heard. In a submissive role it isn’t a guarantee that the submissive will submit each and every time and for some the struggle for submission might even be part of the thrill.
Can a slave turn into a submissive and can a submissive turn into a slave? The answer to this, based on the definition, is a resounding yes in the free world. A slave can choose to convert the relationship to a submissive-based relationship, though this would likely be more the act of the owner than the slave based on the desire to submit just once. For a submissive all they would need do is decide they are through resisting and give the ultimate surrender and let that choice govern their future choices. Again the owner would have to carry their end of the bargain in this case, and realize the submission is there instead of looking for the resistance each time.
Do a submissive and a slave require a different style of owner? I believe they do. This topic opens a whole new treatise so I will not go deeply into it now, however I believe the slave equation breaks down if the owner is not of strong will and the relationship lacks the necessary structure, and I believe that the Master/Mistress of a submissive needs to pose the question for submission and be prepared for even a token resistance in the case of a submissive. Again, a discussion for another time.
Does this at all imply a submissive or a slave is more loving or more devoted? No, not at all. In every sense this is a definition of what serving is about and more importantly where the act of submission takes place for the individual. It doesn’t have to do with the level of devotion or the level of trust, but instead the choice of submission and destiny for the subject. The slave gives it once and surrenders the choice while the submissive continues to choose and remains autonomous.
|
Are you a slave or are you a submissive? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread