|
leadership527 -> RE: Slaves who are subs (8/7/2008 1:33:00 PM)
|
To Philospher13:
OK, first to your needle play example. So what you're suggesting is that if my wife was going to have a hard limit around needle play, then she can't be my slave? In fact, if she has ANY hard limit, then she cannot be my slave? So the only thing that constitutes a slave is someone with no hard limits? Someone who will never, ever, under any possible circumstances say "no"? If I were to command mine to do needle play with me, even if she complied, it would break her. So then is that what I want out of her? Obedience at ALL costs? Even at the cost of our marriage? Thanks but no thanks. Personally, as the dominant, I prefer the safety net of knowing that she will reject such commands when I inevitably screw up by issuing them. That is a part of how she serves me (and herself)... by remembering that my #1 priority is not being her Master, it is our marriage.
Now, trying to read into your post and try to understand your concepts....
To you, it appears that BDSM is only sex/kink. For me, it includes the middle part... D/s and a M/s relationship is a subset of D/s relationships. Now, I grant you, that in common usage, it appears that the phrase BDSM is primarily used by people who hit or like to get hit. It is for that reason that if someone were to ask me, "Are you into BDSM?" I would say "no" despite the fact that my wife wears my collar, obeys me, etc. So I think that yet again, you are applying definitions to these thigns that are not shared by everyone else... or at least not by me. In the interests of not being vague, here's my definition for what it's worth (insert mandatory disclaimer here).
A submssive obeys another within the limits and boundaries as defined by the submissive. Those limits and boundaries are owned and protected by the submissive and if they morph over time, it is with the submissives active agreement. A slave is a submissive who has entrusted the care of those boundaries and limits over to her Master. This doesn't mean that they don't exist and that there are not consequences for stepping over them. It just means that the Master is now responsible for them and for ALL the consequences that flow from their management -- both good and bad.
That is my definition. FOR ME, I find it internally consistent and practical as I said above. I know for a fact that it is not shared by a TON of other people. Using that definition, if I were to command my wife to engage in needle play, then the mistake was on my part, not hers. I did not honor the trust she placed in me when she handed her limits and boundaries and, in fact, her very self over to me. If anything, I would say that I was a bad master, not that she was a bad slave.
You clearly also have such definitions and that's fine also. You're only mistake is in thinking that your definitions can or should apply to anyone else. In the end, as has been said a zillion times in such threads, labels such as sub and slave can never actually capture a human anyway. They are only useful as an initial starting point for a conversation to try to make some sort of uneducated guess as to whether two people are even in the same ballpark or not. Even then, they are fallible tools.
In this case, you and I do not agree and it's unlikely that we ever will. Neither of us will ever be right or wrong because there is no outside party... no canonical source... to ever make a ruling on that. We can only draw what insights we can from the other person's views which may or may not modify or our own in some way.
|
|
|
|
