xBullx
Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
Live well,
Bull
I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...
"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."
Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.
|
RE: Slave VS. Submissive - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread