quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejali

I see a few flaws, or contradictions in your view.

quote:

You see, neither sub or slave, or Dom or Master for that matter, can be all kink, all day, every day -- that's just not realistic?!!

Untrue. I am slave to Master even when Im not being submissive. Example: Im not a robot, some things he tells me to do, I might give another option, or, I might whine, or I might say "Do I have to?" or I might ask "Why?" That is just me offering my thoughts to him as they naturally occur instead of pretending they dont exist. What I"m doing is communicating with him, it doesnt make me less a slave..and it doesnt mean Im switching on and off being a slave...from my own experience..a Master/slave relationship can be 24/7..that is how Master and I live it.

Gonna post this,, i got distracted, this reply has been sitting here for ages unposted lol

quote:




So here is how I REALISTICALLY see it... I see D/s or M/s much like a LIGHT SWITCH:

Switch is OFF -- She goes to work, hangs with family and friends, takes care of day to day stuff like shopping, having her nails done, gabbing with her friends, etc. and just leading her life normally -- which may or may not include protocols and permissions, etc., as that's determined by each individual couple.

Switch is ON -- When He indicates she is now to assume that "role", she submits and serves her Owner to the degree she is willing to do so, which is either within the slave or sub mindset.  And again, to me the only difference is in the degree of TRUST she has to either just follow direction (i.e., giving up all control) or contemplate first, then follow direction (i.e., giving up only a certain amount of control) -- with the slave being the former, rather than the latter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejali

oh...

Sorry about that, rereading..kinda busy with work here (excuses excuses I know) lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
An interesting argument. I don't have an on/off switch myself nor is what I 'am' a role, it's just what I am.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

I like 'natural role' much better. ;)

I think what would improve your piece is to mention anticipation as an aspect of service. Proactive service as opposed to reactive service. As a slave, proactive service is vital to my position, so Himself doesn't have to deal with micro-management on a day to day level.

Anyway, just a thought - I do like your OP.

Celeste

quote:

That's kinda what I meant when I refer to "Growth" and how that better serves Him, but yes... Definately.  Also, remember this really isn't an "essay", just the my Toppy rantings, ideas and beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
An interesting argument. I don't have an on/off switch myself nor is what I 'am' a role, it's just what I am. I serve because I must.

quote:

ORIGINAL: la90066
 It's simply the MENTAL aspect that's different.  The slave simply TRUSTS her Top more than the sub -- i.e., when instruction is given, the slave just "follows", where the sub may contemplate first, then follow -- or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: la90066

So here is how I REALISTICALLY see it... I see D/s or M/s much like a LIGHT SWITCH:

Switch is OFF -- She goes to work, hangs with family and friends, takes care of day to day stuff like shopping, having her nails done, gabbing with her friends, etc. and just leading her life normally -- which may or may not include protocols and permissions, etc., as that's determined by each individual couple.

Switch is ON -- When He indicates she is now to assume her "natural role", she submits and serves her Owner to the degree she is willing to do so, which is either within the slave or sub mindset.  And again, to me the only difference is in the degree of TRUST she has to either just follow direction (i.e., giving up all control) or contemplate first, then follow direction (i.e., giving up only a certain amount of control) -- with the slave being the former, rather than the latter.

As such, by thinking of it THIS way, it lends clarity to those who see themselves as having the same trust level as a slave (i.e., "slave-wired"), but have hesitated to call themselves a "slave" for fear that it means they seek to be left stripped, kneeling and chained to a wall all day.  Again, not realistic or productive, as even a slave should GROW in herself to better suit her Master's needs -- thus, allowing her to better serve Him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: classykindasassy

There may be a dynamic of the physical that has been overlooked - not as a point of contention, but just to add a dimension to the discussion. There are M/s and D/s couples who operate in the absence of safewords or the right to use them. I've found this much more in the M/s community. I would say that this represents a great deal of difference inside what is to happen to that kneeling sub or slave. What may physically look one way, may encompass a greater field of liberty for one in comparison to another.

Agreed, but this supports my assertion of the "mental" aspect being the defining difference..

As with any of our constructs, the definitions lie mainly with the person constructing their world and negotiating with others to join it. It is up to them to fine-tune what they both mean and imagine when they use the terms and constructs in conversation. Having attended M/s conferences and meetings as an exploration, I would not be so quick to define D/s as a diluted M/s thing, or to make small of the construct of M/s in relation to D/s. You may not have intended such a portrayal, but I get from your general tone that there is "much ado about nothing" with regard to defining the construct of such relationships. There are sometimes great differences in the amount of physical liberties, but it depends on individuals, not necessarily definitions.

I made "small" of nothing, nor did my "tone" allege "much ado about nothing".

So I agree with ackowledged slaves who have posted. It is not implicit that it's just trust that makes the difference. And it's not implicit that D/s is part time.

We can agree to disagree.  To me, all control, whether "safe words" are used or not, etc. all stem from one thing -- trust.  Without it, little control is given, nor should it be.

Asserting anything about the dynamics of other's style or nomenclature in relationship is merely argument for something that in the end is just opinion anyway. But then that's the fun of the boards.

Yes, my post is my "opinion".

I find it is best to refrain from expounding at length upon something like this until one has gone to some length to educate oneself inside the distinctions of it. Otherwise you risk insulting the intelligence or beliefs of those who choose a particular lifestyle, and perhaps revealing one's own gaps in education.

Respectfully, however veiled, that's rather insulting. While others are welcome to share their "opinions", a seminar here and there does not qualify anyone to judge another's experience or education.  And yes, I have had/owned both subs and slaves -- and this is where my "opinions" come from.
 
But again, all opinions and points of view are very much welcomed and appreciated, so thank you very much for your post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

quote:

ORIGINAL: la90066
 It's simply the MENTAL aspect that's different.  The slave simply TRUSTS her Top more than the sub -- i.e., when instruction is given, the slave just "follows", where the sub may contemplate first, then follow -- or not.

To consider that a slave trusts her Top more than a sub is rather narrow and only seems to make less those individuals who in D/s relationships... that somehow in there relatinoships there is less trust existing. 

I am in a M/s relationships with two girls... I have authority in any aspects of there lives that I choose to exercise it in.  Trust thou important is not the only quality that has allowed it to happen.  But, most of all, it is my girl's intrinsic motivation to hand over authority over their power to me.  They choose me not because they "Trust" me but because of other factors as well...like my own intrinsic motivations.

A D/s relationship doesn't equate to a sub having less trust... infact.. it takes great trust on the part of the submissive to surrender many aspects of their life and "Trust" that the Dominant will not violate his authority by trying to exercise it in areas that is not agreed upon.

You use the currency of "Trust" only to elevate the slave over the sub.  Granted a slave is very much what you and I may desire in our primary relationships, but it doesn't indicate slaves trust more than a subs.  It just means that our specific slaves will trust us more than others do... and we in turn trust them more as well.