Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
Can a slave be defined by sexual preference? sure, why not? there are some folks that are purely sexual slaves--they provide NO other level of service, just like there are service slaves are not interested in providing any other level of service, then there are service slaves who provide no sexual service whatsoever. quote:
Is this a "limit" as described to me by one? Would this not make the person more of a submissive than a slave if there is such a limit? it would sure make sense that way, wouldn't it? unfortunately, it isn't as easy as that. a while back this slave suggested taking the whole slave word out of circulation and replacing it with submissive. those that identify as submissive could call themselves permissive, since to this slave, that more closely describes the difference. that viewpoint was no more embraced by everyone any more than a simplistic "submissives have limits, slaves don't" sort of description. this slave ended up with the opinion that someone could call themselves a purple spotted goat if they want, it makes no difference to this slave, but it might surprise someone who really IS looking for a purple spotted goat to find out that description doesn't match the person's sexual orientation, relationship goals, personality, species, genus, etc. why should it even matter to this slave what others refer to themselves as or why they define themselves that way? quote:
I believe that to place such a limit on ownership would be to define oneself as a submissive and not a slave. that's great that you have a working definition of "slave" and "submissive" to suit your purposes. if you are looking for either, you should probably plan on explaining that definition to avoid confusion. quote:
I would prefer to hear comments on this one narrow aspect of sexuality or sexual preference and not open this to a discussion about limits and whether any slave has any. Good luck. it would seem to this slave that it would be incredibly hard to have such a discussion and not touch on the concept that submissives have personal limits separate and apart from what their Master desires and slaves adopt their Master's limits and have none to call specifically their own. then there will be those who resemble neither yet refer to themselves as such---more power to them, if it works for them, but please don't expect them to see it as you do, even if you point it out. personally and this is in the spirit of attempting to comment narrowly, this slave believes that either as submissive or slave, she would be able to voice an opinion on sexual preference. as a submissive, this slave would be able to retain veto power over any sexual liaison Master desired and He would accept that. as slave, this means that any decisions about who is having sex with who and when is His alone and this slave enthusiastically waits to or actively serves in whatever sexual capacity He desires, there is no right of refusal, no veto power. that's how it works for US, though, not for everyone. Edited to Add by Merc: A "slave" is someone who, in real time, has been taken in as a possession of another person who then becomes a "Master". From that moment on, the slave has no "limits" other than those of the Master. Included in that statement is consideration to sexual "limits".
< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 1/10/2006 12:11:36 PM >
|