RE: Un-owned "slaves"

RE: Un-owned "slaves" (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 11:30:58 AM)
It's true! I always enjoy these little debates, if only to see what others are thinking and how their self perceptions affect their choices.

UniqueRaven -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 11:40:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bondmaid123 Some people seem to think that "slave" is the same as "uber submissive". I have NO CLUE how that weird connotation got started but I HATE it. Many people also seem to think slave = "no brain or independent thought." That also makes no sense to me. I can see, though, how people who think those definitions are valid would say "I am ultra submissive, therefore I am a slave". And this is one of the main reasons i see a difference between the titles "submissive" and "slave." i am not "uber submissive" - i am a slave (even though i am also very submissive as appropriate). There is a difference between the two to me and others who think like me. i'm happy being whatever i am - and i think others should call themselves whatever is right for them as well. Until we have a word that means "person-wired-to-be-slave-but-currently-unowned" i'm happy with "unowned slave" - especially since that's the choice on the other side of the site as well. People don't always have to fit into neat little boxes - we just all do the best we can. [;)]

aldompdx -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 12:28:37 PM)
It all depends upon the nametag which you attach to your soul. Instead of a defining a term to limit yourself, consider thinking and feeling a term which is unlimiting. A title indicates a degree of egotism, which is unbecoming of one who purportedly chooses a path of surrender, which includes humility. How should one label or clothe a naked heart?

AQuietSimpleMan -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 12:31:49 PM)
~FR~ Sure why not lots of women call themselves Ladies and don't act like it in the least. Guys call themselves Gentelmen and aren't. If we use Submissive as an Noun and Master as a Noun why get tight on Slave? I mean under most definition of the word under the history of the word a Large majority of slaves who use the word actually aren't depending on how you use the definition. I perfer to call myself the Queen of Sheeba. QSM

pdv99 -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 12:57:25 PM)
I agree with much of what the OP says, semantically - since slavery implies ownership - but if you don't like the usage of submissive as a noun, what word would you use to describe someone seeking to be dominated or owned? "free persons inclined to pursue authority-based dynamics" does not trip readily off the tongue at a club or in chat! After all, Dominant is an adjective but has become accepted usage for Dom or Domme, perhaps because as a gender neutral contraction of "dominant partner/person" is is useful. thus language evolves - words shift to become other parts of speech... :) Google it :)

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 1:25:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pdv99 I agree with much of what the OP says, semantically - since slavery implies ownership - but if you don't like the usage of submissive as a noun, what word would you use to describe someone seeking to be dominated or owned? "free persons inclined to pursue authority-based dynamics" does not trip readily off the tongue at a club or in chat! After all, Dominant is an adjective but has become accepted usage for Dom or Domme, perhaps because as a gender neutral contraction of "dominant partner/person" is is useful. thus language evolves - words shift to become other parts of speech... :) Google it :) I guess that part of the issue, for me, is that whole idea that generates the kind of mindset where someone could say "Oh, xhe calls hirself a -slave-, so xhe has to answer to me, even though xhe isn't MY slave" or "Oh, xhe calls hirself a -slave-, so xhe has no rights!!!"... and then all the self-purported slaves get all up in arms about being treated that way, but STILL insist that they have to be called "slaves" -- and I think it gets just as confusing as not having the supposed "right" title for what one is. I think, in part, that being -more- general, and then letting the relationship determine the rest is more productive than the more specific, but more semantically confusing means. I guess that I really don't understand what is wrong with aligning onself as "submissive" (regardless of whether one considers it a noun or an adjective), rather than "slave"... or "dominant" rather than "master/mistress/keeper" on the other side of the kneel. So for those for whom "submissive" isn't "accurate enough", what is it about considering yourselves "slaves" that makes it -more- accurate than calling yourselves "submissive"? quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP So someone in a M/s dynamic who was married to her M, who is now mourning him no longer has the right to think of herself as his? Nope, not in my book. As for the issue of the example given about the individual who was owned, but who is grieving a lost owner -- I consider that to be a separate situation... When one of my Keepers died, I -still- belonged to him for many, many months after his death... I can completely understand how someone could say "I am the slave of Keeper M, who died 6 months ago." To me, that person is still owned, because the circumstances of not being owned any longer still haven't resolved within the unhealed heart... I consider that a special circumstance that really has no bearing on the question at hand, until the point where the individual in question has grieved, moved on, and is back out in public looking around for a new situation... at which point even xhe has admitted that xhe is no longer "owned" or xhe wouldn't be out looking again. Calla

lally2 -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 1:32:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamerdreaming I was an "un-owned" slave, if you want to call it that. I don't. Its a misnomer. Slaves who are not owned by another, are owned by their own selves. So they are owned, always. There's never a time when they are without an owner. Its just that sometimes the owner is another person, and sometimes not. I owned myself, then as now. i like this explanation. for myself i can identify as both but i call myself neither specifically - for myself i was simply looking for someone i connected with and so my self identity is vaguely moot. i am whatever i need to be to make him happy, my title within the relationship is irrelevant to me since my surrender is what he requires and it makes no difference what its called. but i go with dreamerdreaming and the others who identify as unowned slaves. after my Ms relationship ended i continued to identify as a slave because after experiencing Ds before, i knew i was far happier in Ms - it was a descriptive i identified with. so far as my new relationship is concerned my depth of surrender can go as deep as He wants it to go. it can go TPE if He wishes, it can go Ms if He wishes, but i dont think He does - what He wants is my total surrender to Him, which He has - i might identify with the emotions involved as closer aligned to slave than sub but it doesnt matter. what im trying to say here, rather convolutedly is - as a slave type i can roll whichever way He wishes, that is my orientation and i will respond to His desire for my complete surrender, but i do not need to be called a slave to be a slave. i dont need to be considered owned or unowned in a relationship to be enslaved - my orientation naturally gravitates that way anyway. so, its not a title i use or need, its simply what i tend to be.

LadyPact -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 2:06:05 PM)
I tend to see this as the opposite side of the way I see the term Master/Mistress. Someone who has never been a slave isn't one any more than someone who has never been married is a spouse. If for some reason a slave is no longer owned, that doesn't take away their experience and knowledge of having lived the term. They are just currently without an owner other than themselves. Let Me put this another way. I'm a leather person. If for some reason clip no longer belonged to Me, I wouldn't be seen any differently. None of My earned leather would go back to their original owner(s) and I don't suddenly lose the knowledge that I've acquired from owning someone in this lifestyle. It is the very same thing for a person who has been owned, but is no longer owned by some circumstance.

IronBear -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 2:16:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pdv99 I agree with much of what the OP says, semantically - since slavery implies ownership - but if you don't like the usage of submissive as a noun, what word would you use to describe someone seeking to be dominated or owned? "free persons inclined to pursue authority-based dynamics" does not trip readily off the tongue at a club or in chat! After all, Dominant is an adjective but has become accepted usage for Dom or Domme, perhaps because as a gender neutral contraction of "dominant partner/person" is is useful. thus language evolves - words shift to become other parts of speech... :) Google it :) I will agree what you so incisively state, as being quite fine for some. For others however, myself included, the way I stated it works fine. The point being is the individual's mind set. Mine is similar to our Gorean kin (having been one for so long) and it suits for the Victorian Lifestyle from my perspective. But if I were going to be absolutely precise and within the Victorian frame work I should perhaps refer to them not as slaves but as servants and one unowned/collared would correctly be a servant not in service where as a servant belonging to a home would be a servant in service.

juliaoceania -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 2:18:05 PM)
quote: I tend to see this as the opposite side of the way I see the term Master/Mistress. Someone who has never been a slave isn't one any more than someone who has never been married is a spouse. If for some reason a slave is no longer owned, that doesn't take away their experience and knowledge of having lived the term. They are just currently without an owner other than themselves. I was married once, I am divorced, so I am no longer a wife... therefore the analogy does not hold up when talking about a released slave.... I suppose the person could be an "ex-slave"

hereyesruponyou -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 2:40:21 PM)
I think there are different opinions in different contexts, so this just can't be a black and white issue. On CM if you are on the s side your choice are submissive or slave. Determining which in your own opinion will give others the better understanding of who YOU think you are, is what tends to make someone choose the box they check. In reality the same person may be able to fit either category when in a defined relationship based on the nommenclature used within that relationship. My personal reaction to slave vs ssubmissive when hearing how someone decribes themselves affects how i feel my level of responsibility will be altered. From the other side, I refuse to be called Mistress except by someone I have a personal relationship with whom I have given permission to do so. At that point FOR ME, the relationship has changed, they are now owned. before then I am Maam. Again, this is my choice. Until I choose to own someone, I do no take that title because for me I then take a new level of responsibility, and i am not willing to do that until we are both ready for that committment.

LadyPact -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 2:52:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I was married once, I am divorced, so I am no longer a wife... therefore the analogy does not hold up when talking about a released slave.... I suppose the person could be an "ex-slave" Yes, and that completely works for Me, julia. I also have no issue with anyone who would like to tag the term in any way they feel reflects them. There are certainly folks out there who feel they have a slave's heart, but haven't found the one to give it to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as I would hope folks would choose wisely. The fact that you are divorced now doesn't negate the fact that you were a wife once. It's a part of your history.

mstrjx -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 4:12:42 PM)
You've heard of a bobblehead. Since I've started posting again, I feel like a babblehead. I know sorta-kinda what I want to say, but since I'm thinking while I'm typing I don't know if it's coming out terribly cohesive. In my updated profile (nope, not begging for views), I say that I'm probably looking for someone who identifies as slave. Certainly I'm not looking for currently owned slaves, but someone (not in a relationship) that considers themself a slave or 'slave material'. I don't believe, nor am I trying to imply, that a submissive is less than the 'uber' being that a slave is, not by any stretch. And I'm certain that it is possible that some submissives consider themselves capable of becoming a slave (if labels are of any relevance and it is known and agreed upon by the masses of what the difference is (kidding)). I do think there is a mindset difference, however, in those that consider themselves submissive and those that identify as slaves(-to-be). It seems like a preparedness somehow. A submissive-identified person seems to set up far 'more' or 'greater' boundaries in the form of limits, safewords, levels of trust and the like. That is NOT to say that those things are not (or could not be) part of a slave-identified person, but there seems to be an implicit understanding that the barriers to ownership are less. I'm going out on a limb here, but I wonder if a difference is that a submissive is more self-centric than owner-centric. I think in terms of being a little more open-minded, which is another phrase I use in my profile. Maybe 'surrender' is the difference. Maybe a slave-type feels more compelled or ready for that than a submissive-type. So I babble. Jeff

juliaoceania -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 4:23:06 PM)
I would identify as a bottom if I could, why? Because I do not like the expectations of what the content of a relationship will be. I want it to be organic, with a slow discovery of where our mutual boundaries are. I just think that the labels cause this preconceived idea of who I should be, and who they should be, and I just want someone that when we are together we are genuinely ourselves... I think that this is a barrier to the labels they give us on the other side.... but still we have to sooner or later say "forget the label, what is it you want, what is it you need, and where do you see this sort of relationship going"... the labels are only a starting point in my mind

mstrjx -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 4:33:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I would identify as a bottom if I could, why? Because I do not like the expectations of what the content of a relationship will be. I want it to be organic, with a slow discovery of where our mutual boundaries are. I just think that the labels cause this preconceived idea of who I should be, and who they should be, and I just want someone that when we are together we are genuinely ourselves... I think that this is a barrier to the labels they give us on the other side.... but still we have to sooner or later say "forget the label, what is it you want, what is it you need, and where do you see this sort of relationship going"... the labels are only a starting point in my mind I don't disagree, and I'm not trying to label you (cause that would negate you). But I think that each of us see 'potential' in ourselves. You might say that in your single-ness you probably fantasize (if you want to call it that) about where you could go or what you would be willing to endure or give of yourself to someone if they were to find their way to your 'potential'. Not everyone can; some might not want to; and you might be perfectly happy (on enough other levels) to be with someone who doesn't find that far-off 'potential'. Jeff

juliaoceania -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 5:08:51 PM)
I understand your points...which was why I stated that we have to start with some sort of label.... and I do not feel negated by the way you use labels to cut through the red tape to find what it is you seek.....I was just pointing out the problem with all labels is that they are tremendously limiting unfortunately... even moreso when we s-types have only two criteria to label ourselves... as far as far off potential, I don't see it as a far off potential, I see it as an evolving relationship that isn't static, nothing remains the same, the potential isn't far off. I suppose we have the type of relationship we envision having one day, but that takes a long time to realize with any relationship. I do not see level of submission as a meter of the trust I have in a mate, but whether or not it meets mutual needs for independence, togetherness, etc etc.... vanilla people have similar levels of trust or distrust as lifestyle relationships do

mstrjx -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 5:40:40 PM)
I used to call anything in the 'getting to know you' part of a relationship, before any sort of commitment, 'the Dance', because that seems to describe it fairly well. Since we are public figures as a result of these forums and/or have profiles on the other side, anything we do here helps to describe ourselves better. If we display honesty, emotion, humor, outright snark, philosophical insight, we better display ourselves. If we toss labels out about ourselves or others, we better display ourselves (if we are all relatively on the same page as to what the labels actually MEAN). If we fill out interest lists, we better display ourselves. Taken as a whole, these entities are part of our repertoire of how we Dance. It is certainly possible that labels can mislead. It is possible that, despite labels, we might find traits in one another that are appealing because of how we see ourselves (from my tagline) and how we see others (projected) relative to ourselves. Par of the Dance might mean reading between the lines. But not everyone can do that, or cares to. So, for some, labels are all we have. Sigh. Jeff

cassandria -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/2/2010 10:43:51 PM)
About ten years ago, when I was led into the bdsm world, I immediately identified as having the title of 'submissive'. It was kinda an obvious fit. Fast forward those years. I changed, over the years. Evolved, if you will. Discovered a freedom within a relationship where I had zero power, including that over my own life. For me, that was freeing. And while I'm not so sure that that's possible in this part of the world, it is, there. I lived as a slave. And if I wasn't one when I arrived in the ME, I was when I returned to Canada. Initially I wasn't happy to realize that, I fought it at first...but I can't go backwards. Something in me was bared and I no longer would feel at peace with anything less. I identify with the term "unowned slave" because I don't know how else to share, easily, where my heart is at. People seem to differentiate between "slave" and "submissive", so I just kinda went with what the masses seem to concur with. I understand what the OP is getting at, can appreciate it in fact - I think I've commented on it before in conversation when the subject has come up as well - but what it comes down to, for me, is placing a label that immediately suggests a type of persona, upon myself. Whether it's completely "correct" or not, it's meaning is understood.

lobodomslavery -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/3/2010 12:20:25 AM)
i identify as unowned slave because nobody currently is seeking to own me but i would like to be owned. However from a financial point of view it is not viable at the moment. A lot of Mistresses seem to want cash and i cant provide that at the moment. i just hope i can serve someone for free soon. After all why should serving someone cost the server but thats another thread for another forum kevin

lally2 -> RE: Un-owned "slaves" (7/3/2010 12:45:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I would identify as a bottom if I could, why? Because I do not like the expectations of what the content of a relationship will be. I want it to be organic, with a slow discovery of where our mutual boundaries are. I just think that the labels cause this preconceived idea of who I should be, and who they should be, and I just want someone that when we are together we are genuinely ourselves... the labels are only a starting point in my mind i agree that a relationship should be all about growing organically and maybe never really reaching the end in the sense of two people changing and changing together. the thing is you identify as a bottom to start with and if i have to identify as anything it is probably a slave, its just a different point of refferrance. whatever the identity doesnt really matter because as you rightly say, the relationship is all about growing organically. my D will never think of me as His slave, i dont think, largely because to Him titles or labels are irrelevant in a relationship, its just that thats how i operate and i cant change that, even if i wanted to and i dont. its how i morphed. in a way jeff is right in that my submission fast tracks to slave when i feel safe.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125