quote:

  ORIGINAL: la90066

Respectfully, one can not deny that the level of trust one has in another equates to the amount of control they are willing to hand over.  But more importantly, it is not I that am using "trust" as "currency", as you say -- others are -- nor have I stated that slave is better than sub, again... others are rushing to that judgement.

You and others are welcome to read that into my post, but that would be an incorrect assumption in my position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: skinnykitten

quote:

  ORIGINAL: la90066

Respectfully, one can not deny that the level of trust one has in another equates to the amount of control they are willing to hand over.  But more importantly, it is not I that am using "trust" as "currency", as you say -- others are -- nor have I stated that slave is better than sub, again... others are rushing to that judgement.

You and others are welcome to read that into my post, but that would be an incorrect assumption in my position.

I find your OP an admirable and eloquent summary of your perspective of the differences and similarities between M/s and D/s structured relationships.  I think you should be careful though, to not make broad homogenizing statements - your perception of the comparative mentality of submissives and slaves is just that, your perception. 

Yup... It is "my perception".

I take issue with the above quote, for two reasons.  First, it in no way follows that the amount of control a submissive/slave is willing to hand over to their Dominant/Master is directly congruent with the level of trust the former has for the latter.  With respect, I think you are forgetting that some people simply do not desire a total power exchange.  For example, though I trust my partner completely, I have no wish for such an arrangement.  As such, the amount of trust I have in my partner is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that an M/s arrangement is just not my thing.  In this sense it can even be argued that D/s and M/s dynamics are separate 'kinks' entirely...

Actually no, I never said I thought all "desire" a TOTAL power exchange.
 
Hmmm... Interesting perspective on the "separate kinks" thing?!!

Secondly, and despite your protests to the contrary, the logical implication of your words is that a D/s structured relationship involves less trust, and is therefore less intimate or complete than a M/s structured relationship.  This is diminishing to those in very real and equally intimate D/s relationships.

Respectfully, we will have to agree to disagree on this point -- again, I've never once mentioned that either dynamic is better or worse than the other.  In fact, the BIG PICTURE of that portion of my post, which I believe only ONE person has commented on, is the issue where a "sub" will identify herself as a "slave-wired sub", as opposed to a "slave", because she fears by labeling herself a "slave" that she is to now give up everything in order to serve another.  Again, a premise I do NOT support or believe to be true, as I've owned 3 prior identified "subs" (which later identifed themselves as "slaves") that all felt this way at first and changed their minds later.  THAT, to be blunt, is the primary theme of that portion of my post, but many seem to be ignoring that aspect in favor of the whole "trust" debate.

Congrats on a really decent profile

Thank you so much... Truly, that was VERY kind of you to say!  (insert KISS icon here)
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: RiotGirl

i go on and off alot.  Its quite a ride actually.  The hot water runs out and it turns to cold water and you stand there shivering going wtf, then it gets burning hot and you're like wtf.  Eventually get sick of the shower changing temps and you say screw it and go cold.  But of course the hot water heater has other ideas (of course just as you're adapted to the cold) and it gets all damn hot again. 

i need a new water heater

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

i have quasi followed this thread and can't seem to grasp my mind around a few things.  While it's true i have been distracted by some life issues this week that seem to be causing my thought process to malfunction (heh), please forgive me if i am just "not getting it."  Here are my thoughts....so far:

* The OP talks about "kink."  slave is full time kink, sub is part time kink.  This statement originally had me just peruse the OP without much thought because i do not consider who and what i am to be a "kink."  The word "kink," to me, sets a mood - a tone if you will - of play only and not necessarily a core passion.  i am a slave to Master, but that means i am his 24/7 servant and property, and kink if he wishes to explore a kink, but slavery in and of itself is not a kink to me.  That troubled me while reading.

* ON/OFF.  While it is true i must compartmentalize things in my mind to simply function (otherwise i could not have done my job this week, or served my Master this week, or taken care of myself this week), i have no "submission switch."  Yes, moods and reactions can be easily triggered, and while it is true i do not go to the grocery store on my knees, i still disagree with this On/Off premise, unless i am totally misunderstanding it, which could be the case.  i am slave to Master, 24/7, and submissive to no one else, unless he instructs me to submit to somebody.  But my slavery to him is what drives me - it is who i am - it is my mindset and heartset.  While i do not grocery shop on my knees (that would make it impossible to reach items on the top shelf), in my mind i am always at his feet and in place.  How i interact with others stems from my slavery to him.  i am required to be strong and intelligent and compassionate and thoughtful and and and.... While i may be conducting other people at work and making all kinds of decisions, that strength comes from my slavery to him.  While my mood may suddenly be altered when i am in his presence, my slavery is always on.  There is no switch.

* Trust is what differentiates slave from submissive?  i'm trying to comprehend that, also.  While my trust to Master enables me to do or receive or accept that which i otherwise could not, i am driven from my core to be slave to him.  There are plenty of people out there who are submissives but not slaves, who have the same trust but a different internal and instinctive drive.  Put them in the same intense or edgy circumstance a slave may find her/himself in, and they would very well trust their Dominant enough to get them through, but because they are not so driven to hand all of their power over to someone, does not necessarily mean a different level of trust.  Perhaps in some cases it does, but then i have seen varying levels of trust amongst slaves, as well.

* slave vs. slave-wired.  Just my opinion here but i believe one who is slave wired is one who has that internal drive to surrender all power to another as his/her slave, but has not yet developed sufficient trust in the Master/Mistress to do so, or who has not yet learned or explored his/her own slavery.  When Master first began working with me, i felt his grasp of my power, and i knew i would be his slave, but i did not yet fully understand slavery, so i asked if he would train me to become his slave.  Thus, i became his "slave in training" and could not yet call myself slave.  The drive and instincts were there, the knowledge, awareness, understanding and trust were not.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post. :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

beth's at the doctors office today getting surgery on her foot. Pain will be involved, but it's still a vanilla activity. While going through the procedure she's still my slave. Let me put it this way, she will not be thinking that she is NOT my slave. In the same context, if I broke my leg and had to pee sitting down, a thought wouldn't go through my mind that I was not a man.

BTW - As a "silver lining", we look at her having to crawl for the next few days after this operation instead of walking is just a M/s 'bonus'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveladyj

I can turn off when I"m playing, time to get to work, or whatever, but I can't turn off my mind, and in my mind I'm always thinking of serving.