hopelesslyInvo
Posts: 522
Joined: 2/10/2008 From: the future Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lally2 im begining to think that maybe a submissive is someone who is only submissive when in a relationship - whereas a slave is maybe someone who identifies with being a submissive type all of the time. i think if they identified as being submissive all the time then 'submissive' would be what they called themselves, but they defensively draw a line between the two saying i'm not submissive, i'm (a) "slave". i think it's nonsensical to compare a person's personality traits or natures with roles they can assume, or to say those traits determine which roles they can assume in life. it would be like comparing the usage of black and white in terms of color with the cultures of blacks and whites in terms of race, or like saying "women can't be managers in the workplace". we're comparing apples to orange scented glade plug-ins. the air freshener is intended to smell like fruit, and it does so only with plastic, gel, and a heating agent; not because it's actually made from fruit. a submissive is intended to display and act on properties commonly found in someone who is submissive, but they can do so without actually being the socially-awkward-inherently-passive archetype itself. a 'submissive' acts on protocol, a 'submissive person' acts on instinct; the results of their actions are what you can legitimately compare. i'm going to try a different approach and see how this one rings. in bdsm context- a (consensual) slave is someone who sees something, for one reason or another in the notion of having a lack of personal freedom. a submissive is someone who sees something, for one reason or another in willfully following the oppression of someone else, despite being free not to.
_____________________________
great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
|