RE: Definition of "slave"

RE: Definition of "slave" (Full Version)

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

Message

BearNFirelight -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/27/2006 8:06:56 PM)
quote: i've been wondering this for quite a while; what traits does a Master consider neccessary to earn the title of slave? I slave I am currently considering said it as well as I ever could.... "A submissive submits all the time, a slave submits only once." Being a slave is the depth of one's submission. All slaves are submissives who want, need, desire to serve at a complete level of submission. They remain a submissive till they find a Master to give such submission to, thus becoming a slave to that Master/Mistress. Just as a Dominant is just a Dominant till they have one to be the Master/Mistress of. quote: i'm confused because to me a slave isn't allowed to have thoughts, from my understanding she is to be more robotic than human (id on't know much yet, but from what i've been told so far, this is the feeling i get from it)...but then what is a girl called if she has a Master who wants to be able to converse with her, share opinions and beliefs with her and what if she feels she needs that as well, will she never be a slave? Okay...first off, a slave with no thoughts is an exhausting drain on a Master. That means he has to think for her and no one can think for another 24/7 without suffering massive burn out. A Master gives the slave direction and the slave uses her 'mind' to follow that direction, thinking for herself within the bounds defined by her service to her Master. It is a foolish Master/Mistress that ignores the mind of a slave. quote: Or is being a slave really about the fact that she wants to please Him in every shape and form that He desires, so if He wants her to be more human than machine-like, she is fulfilling/satisfying Him, and thus she is still a slave in His eyes? Now you have the idea! A slaves over riding desire is to be all her Master/Mistress wishes of her (or him). That alone defines your behavior and actions.

Evanesce -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/27/2006 9:00:21 PM)
quote: All slaves are submissives who want, need, desire to serve at a complete level of submission. They remain a submissive till they find a Master to give such submission to, thus becoming a slave to that Master/Mistress. Don't be too sure about that. I'm probably the most decidedly NON-submissive slave in the entire state of Indiana. I don't need to serve. I need a bigger, badder dominant than I am to take charge and keep me in line. If I were not a slave, I would own one of my own. In fact, I'll probably own one, anyway, eventually. Submissive is a personality trait. A slave is property. That's the difference between submissive and slave. To be a slave is not a deeper level of submission.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/27/2006 9:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Evanesce quote: All slaves are submissives who want, need, desire to serve at a complete level of submission. They remain a submissive till they find a Master to give such submission to, thus becoming a slave to that Master/Mistress. Don't be too sure about that. I'm probably the most decidedly NON-submissive slave in the entire state of Indiana. I don't need to serve. I need a bigger, badder dominant than I am to take charge and keep me in line. If I were not a slave, I would own one of my own. In fact, I'll probably own one, anyway, eventually. Submissive is a personality trait. A slave is property. That's the difference between submissive and slave. To be a slave is not a deeper level of submission. Your post confuses me a bit. To be a slave is not a deeper level of submission than what - a submissive who is NOT a slave? How is that, if a submissive decides what she will submit to, and a slave has no choices, yet does so freely and happily for the pleasure of her/his owner? If she does so without a deeper level of submission, then she does so out of obligation only? What would the fulfillment be in that? i would say my level of submission is far deeper than when i was a submissive and not yet slave. This is not a competition however, of who submits better. It only means that as a slave i am not only willing but compelled to do anything, whereas when i was a submissive but not a slave i was selective and what i would do was, at times, negotiated. By "deeper," i mean the pull in me is stronger. i will disagree, however, with whomever said a slave has a stronger commitment, as anyone's level of commitment to any relationship has to do with the individual and not what title or station they hold.

RavenMuse -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/27/2006 10:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kyraofMists I had to smile as I read your post... my Lord often uses a hammer to resolve issues; it doesn't matter if it is on the boards or face to face, he calls it like he sees it. That can put people off. I have had the same comment from people who have been on the wrong side of me. I recognise that it is things we have in common rather than things we differ on that would likely cause the clash. A little TOO similar in the wrong places[:D]

IronBear -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/27/2006 11:18:40 PM)
Hammers are good thiings to use... You can rearrange some one's brain cells with a hammer. You can pierce ears and other bodily parts with a hammer (and a 6" nail).. But in a debate, sometimes... Just sometimes mind you, it is not necessary to hse a hammer, particularly a sledge hammer, to drive a tooth pick or match stick into a bed of sand.

RavenMuse -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/27/2006 11:32:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear Hammers are good thiings to use... You can rearrange some one's brain cells with a hammer. You can pierce ears and other bodily parts with a hammer (and a 6" nail).. But in a debate, sometimes... Just sometimes mind you, it is not necessary to hse a hammer, particularly a sledge hammer, to drive a tooth pick or match stick into a bed of sand. Very true and I rarely use a hammer unless dealing with a subject of sufficient denseness to warrant it[:)]

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/28/2006 5:55:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie If she does so without a deeper level of submission, then she does so out of obligation only? What would the fulfillment be in that? She said she's not submissive. So what she does has nothing to do with level of submission- but rather simply being true to herself. quote: It only means that as a slave i am not only willing but compelled to do anything, whereas when i was a submissive but not a slave i was selective and what i would do was, at times, negotiated. By "deeper," i mean the pull in me is stronger. That's fine and that's for you. That's why everyone has their own definition and their own definition really can't work for anyone but themselves. For some people the difference has nothing to do with "level of pull" or "depth of submission" but solely whatever individual situation they happen to find themselves in, in which they are aware that they simply ARE the slave, whether their personality or orientation would lead them down that path otherwise or not.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/28/2006 8:05:39 AM)
Interesting. i guess i never thought of the idea of a slave not being submissive.

Evanesce -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/28/2006 3:42:52 PM)
quote: Your post confuses me a bit. To be a slave is not a deeper level of submission than what - a submissive who is NOT a slave? How is that, if a submissive decides what she will submit to, and a slave has no choices, yet does so freely and happily for the pleasure of her/his owner? If she does so without a deeper level of submission, then she does so out of obligation only? What would the fulfillment be in that? The individual to whom I originally responded stated in his post that "all slaves are submissives who want, need, desire to serve at a complete level of submission." This statement implies that those who do not identify as slaves are somehow "less" submissive than those who are slaves. It's simply not true. I think some people tend to get caught up in romanticizing submission to the point they believe a slave is somehow the ultimate submissive partner. Again, it's simply not true. And it's certainly not true that all slaves are submissive, because history and experience, both past and current, would indicate otherwise. Case in point: myself. I don't serve Him solely to bring Him pleasure. It's a pleasant byproduct of my service to Him, to be sure, but I'm His slave because I can't NOT be His slave, and as my Master, He provides the incentive(s) I need in order to remain His slave.

Wolfspet -> RE: Definition of "slave" (2/28/2006 4:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Evanesce I don't serve Him solely to bring Him pleasure. It's a pleasant byproduct of my service to Him, to be sure, but I'm His slave because I can't NOT be His slave, and as my Master, He provides the incentive(s) I need in order to remain His slave. For literally years I have been tryng to state this , and I think you said it wonderfully, and better than I ever have. Some slaves are "owned dominants".

Interesdom -> RE: Definition of "slave" (3/4/2006 8:42:49 AM)
Definition on the Wipipedia open-content BDSM encyclopedia: http://www.wipipedia.org/index.php/Slave

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125