|
MrKing -> RE: Anger between two little words(slave or submissve) (2/6/2004 9:43:59 AM)
|
I have a working definiton for me that seems to work fairly well in sorting other people out.
Domanance and submissiveness are charactor traits, usually, but not always sexualized in some way. We all have some mixture of the two; it's rare to meet a "pure" Dominant or submissive type, and when you do, unless they are very much into corrective headwork and very self aware, you are more likely to think "asshole" or "doormat." In fact, I've met one such Dominant sadist, who got into BDSM entirely because he needed an ethical framework to allow him to be himself without creating reflexive chaos and hurt feelings. He just fucked with people reflexively until he got his leathers.
Master and slave are more chosen roles and statements of relationships. Unlike a personality trait, there's choice involved, at least to some degree.
But at the same time, there are personalilty traits involved, which is related to Dominance and submission, but it's more pack-related; the idea of a secure relitive position and types of responsiblity.
I've known slaves who are not at all submissive.
I'm a little more submissive than dominant, but I'm definitely a Master type; I've been called a "service-oriented" Master. T'was intended as an insult, I believe, but I find it quite accurate and not at all offensive.
My style of mastery dosen't look the same as a more naturally dominant person's but it's quite effective, and it's always backed by an ability to dominate at need. It's just that, when it comes to that, for me, it usually means I've screwed up some way. :)
I sometimes refer to my Mastery as "Picard-Style" leadership.
But the point is, that since these are in part personality traits, you have to allow for them in order to effectively master, or even top another. (and vice versa).
Even when you make the choice, "I will be an owner of human beings, or I will be a real slave," you still have to allow for that. I've owned slaves that were not particularly submissive at all - but they absolutely NEEDED to be owned, and feel owned. Which is not at all the same as feeling dominated. That appears to be a separate thing, and woe betide you if you mistake the one for the other.
I think the biggest difference between D/s and M/s though is the fact that M/s has to be done at a level of intensity that can be maintained consistantly, in public and in private. Now I know the line between the two is fuzzy indeed, confused by people using terms interchangably and all, but in essence, I have to, as Master and Owner, be able to maintain ALL the responsiblities toward all that I own, all the time, either by delegation or directly. Because, in TPE, they don't HAVE any responsiblities, they have duties. And the buck stops here.
If a slave screws up, it's my fault. If a submissive screws up, it's her fault. I guess that's the way I'd put it.
I don't consider one sort superior to the other, and indeed, one can be both submissive and slave. I consider them different things, different mindsets, appealing to different people.
Me, I don't get a rush from controlling behavior, desinging rituals of submission and such; the thing that turns my crank is knowing that this is my property and I can do with it as I wish. If I feel resistance, if I have to force compliance, I don't feel like an Owner; I start feeling more like - well, as if someone left a five dollar bill on the dresser afterwards. I feel used.
...Hey, we don't call them "kinks" for nothin'...
I guess the real purpose of such discussion is not to resolve the argument - there really is none - but rather to find those who's mindset agrees enough so that, well, heh, so that one can get usefully and properly laid. :^>
She that has ears, let her hear. :>
|
|
|
|
