|
enani17236 -> RE: Difference Between Submissive & Slave?. (3/3/2011 3:14:31 AM)
|
Wow, what a lot of not-very-nice replies - and replies that are completely misunderstood.
Sure, all relationships can make their own definitions of what the difference is between a slave and a submissive, but let me clarify the semantic facts related to those two words:
1. A SUBMISSIVE is a person who shows submissive behavior, also called submission. Submissive behaviors are very common in the animal world, and we humans are not at all alone about using them. Submission is a behavor that is TRIGGERED by another individial's show of DOMINANCE, and the purpose of the submission is to mitigate the threats that are aways included in dominant behavior. This means that submission is aiming at making peace with the dominant, having the dominant accept the presence of the submissive, and protect it instead of chasing it away.
Notice, it is a BEHAVIOR, or a set of behaviors. It is NOT a personality trait. The use of these behaviors is determined by other people's behavior, and there is no problem in a given individual being submissive one moment and dominant the next. It all depends on WHOM we interact with.
2. A SLAVE is a person who is stripped of his/her legal rights. Historicaly, completely without consent, by pure application of force. In a relationship, hopefully with consent. But it is a description of an individual's social status. It has NOTHING to do with choice of behaviors, altough a slave in many cases can be FORCED to show submission, on a fake basis, in order to avoid cruelty and pain. But a submission that is forced is not, in behavioral science, SUBMISSION. It is nothing more than faked theater.
The two have NOTHING to do with each other - they are incomparable, like apples and rocks. One does not include the other or exclude the other. Trying to classify certain humans into two distinct categories called "Slaves" and "Submissives" is utterly nonsense when considering the true meaning of those words.
A slave can be submissive at times - and can definitey also live a full life as slave without ever showing any signs of submission whatsoever! On the contrary, a slave can very well show a lot of dominant behaviors! And a lot of fear behaviors...
A person showing submission can be completely enslaved - or be completey free to make his/her own choices. It has nothing to do with his/her socal/legal status, but has everything to do with the possible presence of a dominant individual that will demand or invite the submission. In the absense of a dominant, submission is meaningless and not possible. A slave can be confined in a cell, completey alone, whether or not he/she shows submission. Showing submission has no relevance to the status of having no freedom; it does not take the presence of anyone. It is not a behavior. And it is not a personality trait either. It is a legal status.
So, OP, no wonder you are confused, because just about everyone in the BDSM world abuses the meaning of those words and creates some jargon out of them that really is completely "internal" - and therefore not at all consistent with anything you can relate to.
The only way it can be justified to use those two words in comparison of each other is by considering the time element involved in both of them. Submission is a instant behavior that is triggered by events in the environment - and it lasts only for the time the interaction between the two individuals will be physical. Because slavery is a status that is not expected to change ever, it does not have any element of "temporary" associated with it, as the act of showing submission certainly does.
This naturally tempts certain folks to refer to submission when "things are not really serious" and to slavery "when it is really serious", sort-of accepting that a "submissive" can say "no" and a slave cannot. But this is truly inconsistent BS, because saying "no" is not at all a submissive behavior, so a person saying "no" is NOT submissive! A slave, however, can say "no", as much as he/she wants - it isn't going to change his/her status one single bit... It might have some very unplesant consequences in the form of a savage punishment, but that does not change the slave's status - or make the slave submissive.
So, this will probably act like a slap in the face on many "old-timers" who will claim that I have not understood anything of this. Very true - when "this" is their internal jargon that completely deviates from the standard definition of those English words.
And because there are as many jargons as there are relationships, you have to ask specifically when you want to know in each specific case - or make your own definition in your own relationship. There is no common standard, other than the one given in the English language - but that is NOT what people use.
Citing Albert Einstein: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Without knowing it, you violated that rule with your question... :-)
|
|
|
|
