RE: Slave VS. Submissive

RE: Slave VS. Submissive (Full Version)

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

Message

xBullx -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 9:38:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: supportourtroops What do you consider to be a slave VS. a submissive? I have always called and considered myself a submissive as I have limits. The DOMs I meet always tell me I'm a slave to the bone. I've asked and their comments are, "I know a slave when I see one, and, you have slave written all over you" I would like to know how you decide and your honest opinions on the difference. Thank You, s. Greetings, These particular definitions in dynamics only get difficult when there are those attempting to define a term in order to support, defend or create their own version of a supposed truth or ideology. Often enough the reiteration and state of confusion for this particular question is inspired by various degrees of hypothetical circumstance. The woman Kimveri came the closest to assisting you all in understanding a set of clear and concise definitions. It is always best to keep things simple. Yet there are those that would rebut her commemts for whatever their self conceived reason(s) might truly be. Many want to create a dimension of understanding that is simply their own and therefore in turn injecting perplexity and speculation as to their meaning or intent. In other words some people just want to be different or most likely as they see it, be original. Several human subcultures have attempted to take these specific terms, as well as a few others and manifest a sort of caste system. There is nothing wrong with this act; it simply creates confusion as to actual intent of terminology. This in turn inspires the same question, over and over again; what is____? So in a for what it’s worth segment, I shall provide this my opinion on the purposed question. “A submissive” is or at least should be a person that has a primary reaction of submission to another individual. So if you are using it as a descriptive title, one must assume that the person in question is generally submissive in all that they are and do, at least with regards towards the person that inspires that submission or submissive nature. It’s really nothing more complicated than that. When the term submissive is used to describe an individual, but more specifically their social reaction is an internal condition implanted within our DNA stands by nature itself; in other words it is for most, an intended survival mechanism. Now various social groups tend to imply different standards to the above said definition and this in turn creates the perceived confusion. I could sit and list all the various forms of term ideology but I have noted sufficient concepts in the posts prior to this one to give you all an idea of what I am referring too. The fact is that submission as a defense mechanism is within every human being alive today. It has greater influence and is more readily visible in those persons we title as submissive, but even the dominant carries within his/her DNA strands the ability to submit if need be. Denying this is simply denying the person that you are, in other words, lying to or deceiving yourself. Nothing to masterful in that, now is there. Using the term submissive to describe a dominant’s subordinate partner is all well and good so long as they know who they are, though that fact is often left in question by many casual observers. It has little to do with limits and what you are allowed to call or be called; it has to do with fantasy versus reality. The word slave as commonly used to describe the subordinate partner within certain BDSM relationships is often little more than a romantic gesture of fantasy. The fact is that slavery being illegal and a much harsher ideology to adhere to, most would shudder at its reality; and when I imply most, I’m also speaking of the dominants that would be expected to maintain the condition as well. Slavery when applied to the human condition would be a legal form of enforced servitude and confinement. The slave is not a party by choice. I assure you that slaves do exist in all societies, whether we agree of not. But that does not mean that most of the individuals we see advertising themselves as slave actually are. What is often called slavery and what most of you live according to is the mastery of your subordinates. Using the Gorean ideology for an example (since that is what I know best): To just own a female is not the ultimate objective of slavery (keep in mind that within the make believe society of Gor slavery is legal, but this legality of subject is not what we are discussing here) within the Gorean context. It is to conquer her will and inspire her absolute and unconditional love, devotion and ultimate surrender. We see examples of this at times within all of the various forms of alternative lifestyles. It is not unheard of to see these “slaves” that have no visible limits of service. Their service to their “master” is unconditional and complete. This isn’t something that is automatic even in a Leather or Gorean concept. The conquest of will is much more than simply assigning a title, term or word to a subject. Using my life as an example, I have two females that are submissive to my authority. The first if my free companion, she is a woman that maintains a great deal of autonomy and self determination. She by her very nature is a submissive female. But her interaction with me tends to, in part, define her existence. Natalie by her own personal nature, and like a great many women out there is a female that loves to make people happy and seeks to do so, even by submitting to their lead. Note I said lead and not their will. She still maintains the sovereign right of choice. Ishy on the other hand is my “slave”, or as I like to call her my “mastered wench”. When interacting with submissive folk and weaker “dominants” she is actually more dominating in her nature at times than Natalie is. She requires a firm hand and a greater degree of control, but she feeds off and actually lives for this control to be imposed upon her. Her devotion towards me and her growing devotion towards Natalie is from the mastery over her will that we enforce. In the pages of those Gorean books that seem to annoy such a large number of you, There are two forms of slavery, the first is a penal brand inflicted on those that have been found for whatever reason subject to the sentance of servitude. But secondly Norman implies that the Gorean man doesn’t just necessarily want to own women for the sake of owning them or because he believes that all women are slaves. Rather he exacts a formula where men assume their role and meet the conquest of those whose very nature compels them to chains, those that find freedom within those imaginary iron confines of blissful servitude. The final dilemma is determining just who is to be mastered and with which master, if any, this result can be realized. So surmize what you will from my above opinions and conclusions. They are little more than my visions of the concepts in question.

leadership527 -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 9:42:01 AM)
Porcelaine: As you know, you and I see eye to eye on a great many things. But in this, I'm going to have to disagree. The fact of the matter is that you and I perceive the "slavery" concept very similarly. But I readily acknowledge that that is only happy coincidence between the two of us. In fact, myself and NZ also are largely in alignment -- at least in terms of end-state although we differ wildly in terms of methodology for getting there. It is always possible to find a group of like minded folks, as you have done ("of those I converse with"). But it is the dictionary definition of parochial to assume that that definition is, in some way, universal or even ought to be. No, I could NOT apply the same theory to vocabulary in general. In general, we DO acknowledge canonical sources to resolve such things. If I want to know what the definition of a word is outside of the BDSM context, I can go to the dictionary of my choice. If I wish to understand it further, I can investigate it's roots via etymology or it's current status via slang dictionaries. But none of these things exist in the BDSM sphere. And no, you did not demonstrate any difference, nor did you answer the OP's question in my opinion. You demonstrated differences in YOUR definitions of those concepts... ones I happen to agree with. But in no way did you get to what the people speaking to the OP may or may not have meant. Without a canonical source, you never can. I agree that the value judgements which get applied to these terms muddy the waters greatly but that isn't the problem, it's only one of the contributory factors preventing a solution. In the end, I know what I think about a lot of these concepts. But I do not think that my thinking is "right". I wouldn't even know how to make that assessment -- "right" against which criteria?

NihilusZero -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 10:01:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kimveri G'morning, quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Witness Kimveri's post below. For her, it is a question of where the driving force for the submission is. She feels that somehow, slavery is imposed from the outside which would, by definition, rule out all consensual slavery. To me, a person consenting to the process of enslavement imposed upon them by another most certainly qualifies as "consensual slavery". It does not remove the requisite external force for the subject of such force to be a willing & active participant. A slave needs the contribution of another party to bring that potential to fruition, much like a woman seeking to be pregnant. Wanting it, searching it out, being willing are all well & good but without that contribution from the external force, it ain't gonna happen. :-D Well wishes, ~Kimveri In essence, I agree with the point you're making here: that "slave", as a status term, needs a relationship element with another in order to be in effect the way a "wife" needs the "husband" element. But then we'd have to come up with some sort of word for the type of person who seeks a full-surrender relationship while they are not yet in one, and trying to go down that path (slave-hopeful? fledgling slave? near-slave?soon-to-be-slave?) would be eternally complicated (as if it isn't already!). The reason why I don't think it matter much to still be able to use the words "slave" for someone not in a relationship is because we already have descriptors to specify their availability (single/owned/unowned/partnered). "Slave", like "submissive", should be as useful a descriptor of what authority dynamic the individual wants.

NihilusZero -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 10:04:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP The truth is that it doesn't matter. To those in relationship (who are not openly looking for or open to anyone else), yes. I agree. Whatever use of terms, wild and crazy as they may be...so long as they bring happiness to the relationship, are ones that should be used.

porcelaine -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 10:06:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 As you know, you and I see eye to eye on a great many things. But in this, I'm going to have to disagree. The fact of the matter is that you and I perceive the "slavery" concept very similarly. But I readily acknowledge that that is only happy coincidence between the two of us. In fact, myself and NZ also are largely in alignment -- at least in terms of end-state although we differ wildly in terms of methodology for getting there. It is always possible to find a group of like minded folks, as you have done ("of those I converse with"). But it is the dictionary definition of parochial to assume that that definition is, in some way, universal or even ought to be. i don't view it as coincidence at all. in fact, considering how you came to this path i'd say we'd probably be more likely to disagree, which isn't the case as you're aware. quote: No, I could NOT apply the same theory to vocabulary in general. In general, we DO acknowledge canonical sources to resolve such things. If I want to know what the definition of a word is outside of the BDSM context, I can go to the dictionary of my choice. If I wish to understand it further, I can investigate it's roots via etymology or it's current status via slang dictionaries. But none of these things exist in the BDSM sphere. it is my belief the confusion was not always existent. i see it as a result of growth and other influences that seek to redefine, augment, customize, or whatever terminology one may wish to apply. quote: And no, you did not demonstrate any difference, nor did you answer the OP's question in my opinion. You demonstrated differences in YOUR definitions of those concepts... ones I happen to agree with. But in no way did you get to what the people speaking to the OP may or may not have meant. Without a canonical source, you never can. I agree that the value judgements which get applied to these terms muddy the waters greatly but that isn't the problem, it's only one of the contributory factors preventing a solution. my comments specifically stated that my words applied to defined paths within the spectrum. which were based upon my practice and/or familiarity with each. if the op has a different leaning it is probable they may not be applicable to their circumstances. quote: In the end, I know what I think about a lot of these concepts. But I do not think that my thinking is "right". I wouldn't even know how to make that assessment -- "right" against which criteria? if asked by a dominant how i define myself and why the other associations are not applicable, i am able to articulate this without a moments hesitation. i cannot speak for others, but it is something i invested time in discovering. the result was the development of respect and a favorable opinion of each. i believe there's something to be appreciated in the various paths and find that mindset promotes learning and tolerance. porcelaine

NihilusZero -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 10:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus I use the Civil War model for my definition and... Why would you use the context of a term that is entirely irrelevant to the dynamic/situation you're addressing? A discontent homosexual couple doesn't cease to be homosexual because I use the 1940s model of the word "gay".

Acer49 -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 10:13:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: supportourtroops What do you consider to be a slave VS. a submissive? I have always called and considered myself a submissive as I have limits. The DOMs I meet always tell me I'm a slave to the bone. I've asked and their comments are, "I know a slave when I see one, and, you have slave written all over you" I would like to know how you decide and your honest opinions on the difference. Thank You, s. Some may tell you are a slave because they believe you to be stupid and easily manipulated into doing things that others would not do. Others may say you are a slave because you exhibit extreme depth and trust in your ability to submit, while others may tell you something entirely different. I would suggest you decide what characteristics and abilities you which to have and not worry about the label. You are you, nothing more, nothing less

NihilusZero -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 10:16:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero If I suddenly decide to call myself a giraffe, however, it does not magically erase the differences between giraffes and humans. I have yet to see that someone IDing as a slave to be so physically different in their bodily construction from someone IDing as a submissive that I could instantly tell who was who. When even physical gender can come into question, it seems entirely logical not wish to define people's relationships for them. I never said there was an "instant" way to tell if one is more a submissive than a slave. There are ways, the primary being which of the two has a greater scope of facets of life surrendered. Other aspects are formed more by the requirements of the potential Dominants the submissive might enter into relationships with. And I've not tried to define anyone's relationship at all. I've specifically made mention how the terms people use when in relationships are entirely up to their prerogative. Which is why I mention "giraffe"...because if calling themselves giraffes make their relationship work, then that should indeed be the primary motivator. Obviously they are likely not not be giraffes to anyone else and advertising themselves as such if either of them sought out another person would be informatively silly. What this thread has been enlightening of is the recurring theme that many submissives who do not ID as slaves, in the right dynamic and with the right partner, could actually yield entirely to the point where they are. But that's best kept for another thread, I suppose.

porcelaine -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 10:25:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero What this thread has been enlightening of is the recurring theme that many submissives who do not ID as slaves, in the right dynamic and with the right partner, could actually yield entirely to the point where they are. But that's best kept for another thread, I suppose. which i've mentioned before on some thread i can't recall. some are willing to explore that depth with an individual and find the achievement of slavery is possible because of Him, but would not offer the same degree of surrender to another. which i define as relational based slavery instead. then there are some who will always have a desire to submit in this manner regardless of the dominant they're involved with. it is merely how they yield. anything less would be unsatisfying. porcelaine

leadership527 -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 10:44:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine it is my belief the confusion was not always existent. i see it as a result of growth and other influences that seek to redefine, augment, customize, or whatever terminology one may wish to apply. Really? So you believe that there was, at some point, a period in the history of mankind when we all used the word "slave" in any context whatsoever and meant the same thing... or even that a proponderance of people did? When and where do you think that occurred? I'm not being a pill on this question, I'm genuinely intrigued. My understanding of the history of BDSM shows no time before the recent past wherein there was even a large enough grouping of folks for such a thing to occur. Before the internent... before the anonymity and therefor safety it brings... before the steadily greater acceptance from larger society, what was there exactly but small groups of people here and there? Any time I've talked to folks old enough to go back into "old guard" type days, that's always the picture I get from them... disjointed, fragmented communities driven underground by larger society. Don't get me wrong.. I personally would LOVE some canonical source to actually define these terms in a way which was internally consistent (so no logic fallacies like the oxymoron, consensual non-consent). I really don't give a rat's ass whether my marriage is one thing or another but I'd very much like to be able to communicate with others clearly. I'd dearly love to be able to talk about my relationship with others without a raft of "no you're nots" getting into it. But if you're going to appeal to some golden age of the past, I want to know when and were you're talking about or else it is just made up pseudo-facts. Oh... and yes smiles it is non-coincidental (and more than a bit amusing to me) that you and I see so eye to eye given the vastly different paths we travelled. But I don't think that is an artifact of our inherent correctness so much as it is a statement about our brains working similarly.

porcelaine -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 11:38:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Oh... and yes smiles it is non-coincidental (and more than a bit amusing to me) that you and I see so eye to eye given the vastly different paths we travelled. But I don't think that is an artifact of our inherent correctness so much as it is a statement about our brains working similarly. it is pretty darned swell indeed. which means you've got some nifty wiring up there. incoming. [;)] porcelaine

AquaticSub -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 11:42:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I never said there was an "instant" way to tell if one is more a submissive than a slave. There are ways, the primary being which of the two has a greater scope of facets of life surrendered. Other aspects are formed more by the requirements of the potential Dominants the submissive might enter into relationships with. And I've not tried to define anyone's relationship at all. I've specifically made mention how the terms people use when in relationships are entirely up to their prerogative. Which is why I mention "giraffe"...because if calling themselves giraffes make their relationship work, then that should indeed be the primary motivator. Obviously they are likely not not be giraffes to anyone else and advertising themselves as such if either of them sought out another person would be informatively silly. What this thread has been enlightening of is the recurring theme that many submissives who do not ID as slaves, in the right dynamic and with the right partner, could actually yield entirely to the point where they are. But that's best kept for another thread, I suppose. Yet when saying that surrendering X amount of facets makes one a slave one does create a standard to hold others up to that they may not wish to be defined by. One of the reasons that I so strongly feel the terms are basically interchangable is because there are plenty of us who, while we might count as slaves to many people, object to the term itself and don't want it applied to our relationships because of the cruelty historically associated with it. I am on the fence on that issue myself and we tend to avoid the entire mess by simply defining me as a submissive to sake of other's understanding that I submit and his girl as an all-encompassing term as to what I really am to him. With that - would someone who falls under your defination of a slave still be referred to as such? And, from another point of view, I have heard it said that obedience does not always matter. One who is a slave is a slave no matter what, such as in the old times when a slave was still a slave regardless of how much they disobeyed or ran away.

agirl -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 11:48:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: supportourtroops What do you consider to be a slave VS. a submissive? I have always called and considered myself a submissive as I have limits. The DOMs I meet always tell me I'm a slave to the bone. I've asked and their comments are, "I know a slave when I see one, and, you have slave written all over you" I would like to know how you decide and your honest opinions on the difference. Thank You, s. I'm probably in agreement with NZ on the surface of it. Degree of what is surrendered. If I hung onto any bits of my life and excluded his control from any of them, then I would not consider myself a slave. Depending on who you're talking to, a slave is all sorts of things, has all sorts of different mindsets and attributes, half of which I don't have. It gets loaded with all sorts of things which usually include some attitude of service. I have NO idea what a submissive is, as it varies from one person to the next. The same could be said of slave(in terms of title)......but I suppose the bottom line, for us, is that I'm owned...in entirety......that includes the whole shebang. Everything that is good in me, he owns..everything that is bad in me , he owns. I'm not submissive but I ceded to him the right to have authority over me and all that's attached to me. He can alter any part of my life with a sweep of his hand. If I ever thought * you have NO right to.........* then, nah , I wouldn't be a slave. I might ask why....I might grumble about it, I might stamp my metaphorical foot in frustration .......but I never , and I mean never, question his right to do whatever he does. As a clarification to all the above ....the fact that the term slave is so loaded with people's own perceptions of what it is, likewise submissive(though not as much)......I don't identify with either term, frankly. agirl

alittleevil -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 11:50:19 AM)
Hi, To me, "submissive" is an adjective and an orientation. I choose the word "slave" to refer to myself in places like this because i am one: owned in the general parlance. Master-ed, enslav-ed in practice. I actually rather prefer "mastered" and "enslaved" because it takes the attention, and the onus, off of me and what i do. I am submissive by inclination, also, particularly vulnerable to and best-suited to the type of dynamic that results in this: quote: You're a slave if you are in a relationship in which you are completely owned property with no rights or control except those given to you by your owner, rights which can be taken away at his or her whim. (Lovely post, CaringandReal. Thank you.) In my general observations, when one who is not owned/mastered/enslaved refers to themselves as "a slave" it is a way to reflect this desire, this vulnerability. Also in my observation it is not necessary to consider yourself "a slave" in order to eventually find yourself for all intents and purposes enslaved when a relationship just works itself out that way. Again, it isn't always so much up to (the generic) you and what you think you are. If you are "slave to the bone" then you might find yourself mastered to the bone, no matter what you thought about it in the beginning. (The converse is also true, of course: no matter how deeply submissive one is, one can't master oneself.) Wishing you well, aj

mnottertail -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 11:51:43 AM)
slave is less keystrokes than submissive. (count em if you dont believe me, you dont have to take my word for it). Ron

NihilusZero -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 12:06:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Yet when saying that surrendering X amount of facets makes one a slave one does create a standard to hold others up to that they may not wish to be defined by. That's how relationships work. Like "monogamous" requires a partner to uphold a standard of fidelity. If someone is unsure of how much they could surrender or does not want to be held accountable to acting in line with their words, I'd suggest adopting "submissive" (perhaps with a addendum of "possibly able to work towards 'slave'). All of this, of course, is assuming they aren't already in a relationship which is not seeking others (in which case it's pointless) and that they are trying to advertise themselves honestly to potential suitors. quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub One of the reasons that I so strongly feel the terms are basically interchangable is because there are plenty of us who, while we might count as slaves to many people, object to the term itself and don't want it applied to our relationships because of the cruelty historically associated with it. I'm not sure why the term, in the context of a WIITWD relationship, needs to be associated with cruelty. That sounds more to me like a personal issue with the historical tint a word has rather that what it's supposed to mean in this community/lifestyle/group/whatever. quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub I am on the fence on that issue myself and we tend to avoid the entire mess by simply defining me as a submissive to sake of other's understanding that I submit and his girl as an all-encompassing term as to what I really am to him. What you are to him would trump any necessary interpretation, yes. Would it upset you to be viewed as a slave if your relationship with him is one where you effectively act as one? quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub With that - would someone who falls under your defination of a slave still be referred to as such? I wouldn't personally go out of my way to shove a word in someone's face that upset them on a personal level, but for my own internal filing purposes, yes, I'd categorize the person as someone that, in that relationship, is a slave and could possibly be so in another relationship (if applicable). quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub And, from another point of view, I have heard it said that obedience does not always matter. One who is a slave is a slave no matter what, such as in the old times when a slave was still a slave regardless of how much they disobeyed or ran away. Except that slavery, in this context, must be begat by consent (at least). Obedience is a primary determiner in assessing whether someone acts like a slave...but there are people, D-types and s-types alike, who actually thrive by having their submission and dominance reinforced by conflict...the D-type by having situations in which Xhe can exert Hir will and force and the s-type by having situations in which xhe is put in hir place forcibly. That is just another variable, but I still think in those situations that the understanding is that the slave has willingly surrendered those aspects to the dominant...they just prefer manifesting it in different ways.

NihilusZero -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 12:08:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: agirl Depending on who you're talking to, a slave is all sorts of things, has all sorts of different mindsets and attributes, half of which I don't have. It gets loaded with all sorts of things which usually include some attitude of service. I may have actually been guilty of this at some point based on expectations that I would have when, upon further inspection, I realize that it's just another variable. The question of whether one is a slave or can be one is very different from whether one acts is a "slavely" or "submissive" fashion.

agirl -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 1:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: agirl Depending on who you're talking to, a slave is all sorts of things, has all sorts of different mindsets and attributes, half of which I don't have. It gets loaded with all sorts of things which usually include some attitude of service. I may have actually been guilty of this at some point based on expectations that I would have when, upon further inspection, I realize that it's just another variable. The question of whether one is a slave or can be one is very different from whether one acts is a "slavely" or "submissive" fashion. Agreed. I agree with your idea of what a slave is .....to all intents and purposes. The part I've always found irksome (about the term) are all the attributes someone is supposed to have to BE a slave. It's poppycock, basically. There's not a single attribute of mine that would convince M that I'm enslaved to him , other than ACTUALLY doing it. I could be the slaviest slave of Slaveyland in everyday life, when it's not TOO much of a problem , when it doesn't cause TOO many ripples in my life.................but if I don't accept that he has the right to tell me to sell my house, get a job, alter my life in any way he chooses, then I would not be a slave to HIM. I'd be someone he has influence over. I'd still be retaining my right to do what I think is best. Nothing looks the same when you peer back and look at where people have started from. If you've been married for donkey's years , like Jeff and Carol, there's TONS of things that can be taken as read .....there are things that don't HAVE to be spelt out. If I met you last week, Nope, I'm not going to sell my house, not going to apply your ideas of how I should raise my children, Nope , I'm not a slave to you..........NOT because you aren't excellent, not because you can't .......not because I can't or am unable ......but because I don't know you. agirl

leadership527 -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 2:05:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: agirl Agreed. I agree with your idea of what a slave is .....to all intents and purposes. The part I've always found irksome (about the term) are all the attributes someone is supposed to have to BE a slave. It's poppycock, basically. chuckles Trust me on this... no more irksome than the hundred jillion rules about being dominant. I've come to the conclusion that my short-term memory isn't good enough to be a true dom. There is no way in hell I could ever remember all the things I'm supposed to do or not do, all the clothes I'm supposed to wear or not wear, all the thoughts I'm supposed to have and not have.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Slave VS. Submissive (10/25/2009 2:07:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: agirl Agreed. I agree with your idea of what a slave is .....to all intents and purposes. The part I've always found irksome (about the term) are all the attributes someone is supposed to have to BE a slave. It's poppycock, basically. chuckles Trust me on this... no more irksome than the hundred jillion rules about being dominant. I've come to the conclusion that my short-term memory isn't good enough to be a true dom. There is no way in hell I could ever remember all the things I'm supposed to do or not do, all the clothes I'm supposed to wear or not wear, all the thoughts I'm supposed to have and not have. Postit notes can help you with that....

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875