RE: So, you are a "slave"

RE: So, you are a "slave" (Full Version)

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

Message

julietsierra -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 3:32:16 AM)
Ah well... from the reluctant slave: When I was on my own, I held every single one of my preferences, likes, dislikes, hatreds, "oh no way in hell are we going there!" views as sacred. Why not? I was looking for someone I could appreciate and respect. I had limits upon limits and some were soft, some were hard and some were tungsten (harder than hard). These things were who I was. And since I didn't belong to anyone, the only person I had to be true to was me. So, if that meant I was looking for someone who held the same idea as I did about things like piercings, et al, then so what? To me, that's exactly what I SHOULD have been doing. It's rather confusing to me to say that because someone doesn't want their nipples pierced that they do not understand TPE and then say that when coming into a relationship, people had darn well better know what they want. If, coming into a relationship, I didn't want my nipples pierced, I'd damn well state that on the front end of things. If getting my nipples pierced was some indication of my slavery to the person I was contemplating, I'd damn well expect him to state this on the front end as well. And if he waited until he was at the piercers to let me know this, then the both of us had failed in some pretty significant ways to explore what our views on slavery were - before getting out in public for me to have to embarrass him and myself by saying no. But then, you see, I'm the reluctant slave. I love what I do - no doubt about that. But I don't think, no, I KNOW that in the beginning, I never thought I'd EVER want to be here in the position I am. But here I am. And thankfully, nipple piercings WERE discussed on the front end - when I wasn't committed to him as his slave. And that way, the WOMAN that I am could decide upon the MAN that he is, just as the MAN could decide upon the WOMAN. Everything else, we built from there. Even if I'd never done it before and so was clueless. (And there were LOTS of times I was clueless. I presume there will be plenty more.) I understand what RS is saying and on some level, I agree. But I also maintain that walking in to a slavery situation, BOTH people should be making it clear to the other what is possible and what isn't - BEFORE declaring "I am your slave" or "You are my slave." The responsibility for either the success or failure of the potential relationship - to me, the reluctant slave - is shared. juliet

Twicehappy2x -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 4:33:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gypsygrl I just got back from a week long visit with a poly-house hold which went very well. When I got back here to my local community, people were concerned that there was no play during my visit, and took that as a sign that I should re-think my assessment or go for a second visit which included play. Wow, wonder what they would think of me then? Scooter and i, though we had sex approximately 20 minutes after i was in their house, did not engage in any type of play or scene at all until after i accepted a collar. Play is the icing on the M/s cake, not the core reason for the relationship, at least not for us anyway. As for being a pleasure slave, i just don't get it. I get off a lot more than he does simply because girls can have multiples a lot easier than guys. I enjoy/want/need sex as much as he does.

sirsholly -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 6:03:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist I have to wonder at times. People who post all about how much a slave they are in a profile. But nothing about any skills they have? Is it all about playing then? What does it matter? Unless and until she is owned, she is not a slave. so if she is not a slave until she is owned, is he not a master until he owns?

ShiftedJewel -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 6:20:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gypsygrl I have to wonder to, only I come at it from the other direction. Other than play, D-types often don't seem to have given much thought to what they want a slave for. Seriously, play's nice, I like it, and its fun. But, even with daily or twice daily play there's a lot of hours left in the day. What am I supposed to do with those hours? I wouldn't make a good pleasure slave, so I ask these kinds of questions. Its rare that anyone has an answer. I just got back from a week long visit with a poly-house hold which went very well. When I got back here to my local community, people were concerned that there was no play during my visit, and took that as a sign that I should re-think my assessment or go for a second visit which included play. Personally, I don't see the problem. I'm not looking for a play relationship--I have that where I am and, if I were satisfied with it, I wouldn't be looking. *Damnit... you mean tormenting you with the washing away of some of the sand wasn't considered playing??? My bad... lmao.* quote: She didn't say "no", she said "That said, I wouldn't let you pierce my nipples either." If she said no she could have had a nice whipping and pay recompense. If she wasn’t in control, he could pierce her nipples anyway. But this satatement is made by a mind that is IN CONTROL and that is not a slave mindset. No slave has the ability think these words “wouldn't let you”. *RS... I really like the way you phrased this, thank you.* quote: so if she is not a slave until she is owned, is he not a master until he owns? *That is correct sirsholly. Just like I wasn't a Mrs. until I was married. It's a title. Ok, in my own opinion...* *Jewel*

UR2Badored -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 6:20:53 AM)
I agree that there are basic definitions we should adhere to when describing a sub or slave otherwise the sky is not blue but flourescent orange if I say it's true. However, defining a slave (edited to add "or Master/Owner") in such a way that the other person is solely to blame when a relationship goes wrong is very convenient. The tricky part of defining such terms in a relationship has to take the point of view of the "two" (or more) involved because no other insights will really matter. Such things as not having limits in a specific dynamic and not having limits at all are two very different things. Getting back to my analogy of the sky being orange. It is all in the perspective as color has no meaning to a blind person nor should it have any meaning outside of the the two (or more) involved in the relationship. If a relationship becomes a slave/Master dynamic overtime in a marriage behind close doors and never comes to the collarme forums for validation of their preferences and roles--Are they any less a slave and Master because cm members are not chiming in with an opinion?[8\|]

ShiftedJewel -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 6:25:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UR2Badored I agree that there are basic definitions we should adhere to when describing a sub or slave otherwise the sky is not blue but flourescent orange if I say it true. However, defining a slave in such a way that she is solely to blame when a relationship goes wrong is very convenient. The tricky part of defining such terms in a relationship has to take the point of view of the "two" involved because no other insights will really matter. Such things in not having limits in a specific dynamic and not having limits at all are two very different things. Getting back to my analogy of the sky being orange. It is all in the perspective as color has no meaning to a blind person nor does it mean anything anyone outside of your relationship. I probably missed that part, not surprising, this thread is hard to keep up with... but I really don't understand that concept? I can't see how having the title of slave makes anyone more or less responsible for the death of a relationship? Or how it would be convenient? In my experience in the breakup of a relationship everyone always blames everyone else no matter what the truth of the matter is... that seems so much more convenient... *Jewel*

sirsholly -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 6:30:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel quote: so if she is not a slave until she is owned, is he not a master until he owns? *That is correct sirsholly. Just like I wasn't a Mrs. until I was married. It's a title. Ok, in my own opinion...* *Jewel* I do not want to hijack here...and if that is what i am doing please ignore this.. I understand where ShiftedJewel is coming from...but i have always thought of subs/slaves/masters/doms as born...not made. I think of it in the same way as sexuality. I was born a heterosexual...so does this mean i am not a heterosexual until i am having sex?

UR2Badored -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 6:30:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel *In my experience in the breakup of a relationship everyone always blames everyone else no matter what the truth of the matter is... that seems so much more convenient...* *Jewel* Unfortunately, I do see your point. There is a blaming game on both sides.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 6:55:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel quote: so if she is not a slave until she is owned, is he not a master until he owns? *That is correct sirsholly. Just like I wasn't a Mrs. until I was married. It's a title. Ok, in my own opinion...* *Jewel* I do not want to hijack here...and if that is what i am doing please ignore this.. I understand where ShiftedJewel is coming from...but i have always thought of subs/slaves/masters/doms as born...not made. I think of it in the same way as sexuality. I was born a heterosexual...so does this mean i am not a heterosexual until i am having sex? No, it means that you are a virgin until you have sex. You may have been born with a desire to only have sex with men and you may have been born with a submissive type personality, just like I was born able enjoy sex with either gender and I have a dominant personality. But until the time that I have an slave in my possession I am still only a dominant individual. If I didn't own a car I wouldn't be considered a car owner... no home... not a homeowner. It's a title, plain and simple. We are all born with our personalities and those personalities are honed throughout our lives, but what position we eventually hold isn't a given, isn't something we are born too... well, for most anyway. Even a king was born a prince... in most instances anyway. *Jewel*

sirsholly -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 7:08:26 AM)
[sm=goodpost.gif][sm=thanks.gif]

gypsygrl -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 7:35:00 AM)
quote: Damnit... you mean tormenting you with the washing away of some of the sand wasn't considered playing??? My bad... lmao. I tried to explain it, though I used the examples of the filters and you throwing the empty ciggarette pack at me when my attention lagged, not the sand. But, it seems that, in some peoples eyes, if it doesn't involve me screaming out in pain, its not play. The idea that dusting etc can be 'play' escapes some people. :)

Prinsexx -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 7:44:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist Slave – no control, non negotiable surrender but basic human rights. Think of it as being in the military service, you have the same anti cruelty rights as livestock would. including the branding iron? apologies just rejoined the fracas and felt i needed a poke.......

poisonedprogress -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 8:32:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I am beginning to think that you are trying so hard to pigeonhole My definition to match that of yours that you will try to come off with every exception possible. Not at all. I'm just trying to find out how you define it, because during my time here I've noticed everybody seems to have their own personal definitions for various roles... I'll also point out that I've yet to provide my own definitions on this forum. quote: For your benefit, however, I call an unowned slave a slave who has, in some way, lost their prior owner. When I say "lost" that covers all reasons that a slave might no longer be with an owner, be that by intent, design, or death. I do hate to disappoint you, but we are not going to agree on the issue. By My definition, a person is not a slave who has not had an owner. If it makes you feel any better, I have strict definitions for the other side of the kneel as well. Not everybody agrees with Me, which is fine. I do not live their life and they do not live Mine. By saying that these definitions are indeed your own you are actually agreeing with me, as my point was that these positions are all subjective and relative. We'd disagree if you started telling me that my definitions were bunk because you're old or "real" or possess some kind of divinely mandated authority in the realm of my life. quote: One thing that always does amaze Me when these kind of threads come up. Some are so willing to say 'everyone's definition should be acceptable' until someone comes around who says their definition might be a little more rigid. I could not give much less of a shit about how anybody defines any of this crap. I have no problem at all with anybody's definition. What I don't like is when they stomp around claiming theirs is the end-all-be-all; that I'm not a master because I don't micromanage, or that my slave is not a slave because she won't consent to potato sodomy. Pay no heed to the fact that she absolutely must consent to the slavery to begin with, along with everything that slavery entails, and that such consent can be removed at any time for any reason with the full backing of legal authorities. The slave retains control by default unless you're participating in the highly illegal and morally reprehensible version of slavery... are you? Is anybody here?

LaTigresse -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 9:30:43 AM)
Most of us participate in illegal activities. Moral.........wellllll that depends upon whom you ask now doesn't it?

CruelDesires -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 9:45:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: poisonedprogress I could not give much less of a shit about how anybody defines any of this crap. I have no problem at all with anybody's definition. What I don't like is when they stomp around claiming theirs is the end-all-be-all; that I'm not a master because I don't micromanage, or that my slave is not a slave because she won't consent to potato sodomy. Pay no heed to the fact that she absolutely must consent to the slavery to begin with, along with everything that slavery entails, and that such consent can be removed at any time for any reason with the full backing of legal authorities. The slave retains control by default unless you're participating in the highly illegal and morally reprehensible version of slavery... are you? Is anybody here? What the OP and RS are saying is by that definition then, they are NOT slaves. You are trying to view what they are saying by using D/s and vanilla world perspectives. In the D/s world as well as the vanilla world, the person who enters into bondage has the final say as if they want to leave or not. They have the final "veto" or can make the decision to leave or stay. In the M/s world that slave would make the decision to enter into that bondage and would then have *given up* all those rights. Not thru outside influences or vanilla laws... but from what they feel that comes from within. That is what makes them a slave. C-D

ResidentSadist -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 10:14:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Prinsexx quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist Slave – no control, non negotiable surrender but basic human rights. Think of it as being in the military service, you have the same anti cruelty rights as livestock would. including the branding iron? apologies just rejoined the fracas and felt i needed a poke....... Dear Prin, No branding exceptions in this house! LOL Thanx for the humor. This thread and my eyes need a lot of Band-Aids. I truly think my eyes are bleeding and that’s not from the castle realm joke either. It’s from witnessing the very real insanity of people lying to themselves about the meanings of the words they speak so they can sustain some deluded fantasy or self image. Jesus… if you are D/s then be D/s. If you are TPE then be TPE. If you are vanilla kink just role playing, then kink away baby! There is no mystery, there is no magic, there is no indefinable boundaries between the general lifestyles found within the BDSM community. The defining lines are rather clear to those of us that haven't gone blind from having CM bullshit rubbed in our eyes. Either you is or either you isn’t. This whole thread reminds me of why I don't often come and read or post in the General BDSM Forums. I do not dislike newcomers. And in the real world I am usually quite active in my local BDSM society, helping to sponsor specialty groups and workshops as well as dungeon parties, hosting websites and writing the newsletters. These are all very helpful things for newcomers. However we have a system in the real world, it’s called mentorship. Our readers all know what that is don’t they? Maybe we should hijack this thread even further and start to argue about the meaning of mentorship? Nonetheless, the point is mentorship is where people who know what the fuck they’re talking about help newcomers who don’t know what they’re talking about yet. Which is quite unlike these forms where people who are clueless and have never had anything but an online experience name themselves “lords such and such” and dispenses bad advice that will steer the even the most astute newcomer of a cliff or into the total confusion of a reality conflict. I actually saw these people here tell some single noob who wanted to meet a Dom that “wearing a collar as fashion” to a BDSM event would be a good idea because “collars are pretty”. They defended their advice with the same bullshit about “not boxing in definitions” and being “free” to call a blue sky orange. I did point out that wearing a collar to a BDSM event would have the same impact on her social life as wearing a wedding ring to singles social… but the din of the idiots drowned me out and the OP seemed to think collars were cool and fashion was important. Thank God for Darwin… dumb ass people like that didn’t get to breed in the old days and it is now only a modern problem. However, as often happens here at CM, just when I think the general masses are beyond hope, I see a few comments that inspire hope. Hope from someone other than those of us I already recognize as “weal & twue”. It is nice to see someone mention that using the proper definitions of words and “describing a sub or slave otherwise the sky is not blue but flourescent orange if I say it's true” and someone else propose “it means that you are a virgin until you have sex”. It is nice to read posts from people that speak English with meanings that can be found in a dictionary. Thank you for injecting a little sanity and humor into this community that is exponentially growing more confused every day . Best Wishes, Kalon Eric

gypsygrl -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 10:17:33 AM)
quote: In the M/s world that slave would make the decision to enter into that bondage and would then have given up all those rights. Not thru outside influences or vanilla laws... but from what they feel that comes from within. That is what makes them a slave. The human retains the right to leave (and all other civil rights--even RS admitted this) but in order to excercise that right, the slave must first dissociate themselves from the slave mind-set which means, in effect, stop being a slave. I don't know about others, but if I'm feeling threatened, I go into self-protect mode something I can't combine with slave mode. If my sense of safety is threatened, I snap out of my slaveyness and will walk away from a relationship. Self-protect mode is 'me-centered' and is always triggered by something external. Whether I'm in or out of slave mode isn't my choice. Its a reaction to a set of stimuli. The other thing that will make me walk is my conscience--if I have to refuse an order, directive or desire on ethical grounds. So, slaves can step out of bondage but in the process of doing so, they stop being slaves.

ResidentSadist -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 10:20:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Most of us participate in illegal activities. Moral.........wellllll that depends upon whom you ask now doesn't it? Shhhhhhhhhh… I though that whole illegal acts thang was supposed to be a secret. Fellatio, sodomy, cunnilingus are all illegal acts. In fact in the great state of Michigan, it is a 20 year felony to commit to marriage with the intent of having sex. For those legal buffs, if I recall correctly, you’ll find in the MCL pandering section somewhere.

Twicehappy2x -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 10:26:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gypsygrl quote: Damnit... you mean tormenting you with the washing away of some of the sand wasn't considered playing??? My bad... lmao. But, it seems that, in some peoples eyes, if it doesn't involve me screaming out in pain, its not play. The idea that dusting etc can be 'play' escapes some people. :) Guess they would not consider a Harley ride or tarring the roof foreplay either then?

Emperor1956 -> RE: So, you are a "slave" (7/30/2008 10:31:45 AM)
FR: We are getting circular, again. The post a few above this one (#195) has the two points of view pretty well laid out for the 111th time -- poisonedprogress cites the fact that "slavery" is pretty much impossible with reference to modern legal restricitions, Cruel Desires says "slavery comes from within". There is nothing new here. And dissing those on either side because they are too young, or because they are too old, or because they aren't "twue enough", or don't do it "for real" or do do it "for real" is just unbecoming. And yes, about 90% of you are becoming unbecoming. How about this -- We can refer to "external slavery" vs. "internal slavery". When we talk about "external slavery", then all of the obsessive lawful types will know that we are referring to human trafficing in Laos, and not the lovely couple using the St. Andrew's Cross at the club last night. When we talk about "internal slavery" then all the obsessive chaotic types will know that we are referring to the deep inner need their partner has for them to Master/Mistress them -- and not deal with the fact that in the end "slavery" is a construct. E. (While I'm on this -- having read this entire thread a couple of times, I note that people in D/s relationships who post on here seem to be suffering from the Shirley Maclaine syndrome. No one who believes in their own past life ever talks about being a mediocre, chief assistant to the assistant chief, type. They were a king, a lord, a courtesan of high rank, a princess...or something of note. No one says "I was reincarnated from a shlub." Similarly, apparently no one has a rough day in her submission, or a tough time being on Top. Even some of the people I think write the most perceptive comments on these boards fall into this gushy place in this thread. The Masters/Mistresses all have perfect slaves who do the Top's bidding happily, without hesitation, and in perfect 3/4 time. Every slave has found her/his perfect place with no qualms, no errors and 100% perfect multiple orgasms. And Leatherist, you worry about poseurs? In fact, I've entered into a new relationship with a perfect baby girl grin I'm just not gonna tell YOU about it!)

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625