|
MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Learning (5/15/2011 12:39:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Beckysbottom
Can someone explain to me what the diffrence is between being submissive, bottoming or being a slave?
While I'm sure there will those who disagree, here are my personal views on the topic...
Okay, this one has been kicked about on kink boards and by many for as long as I can remember -- and of course, just about everyone has their own definition. Now, many feel the difference between "sub" and "slave" is the slave consents to give up all control of her life to her "Master", where the sub (submissive) consents to give up only certain portions of her life to her Dom (Dominant). Thus, you have the two dynamics: the Master/slave (or M/s) dynamic and the Dom/sub (or D/s) dynamic. (Note: "D/s" is also short for Domination and submission... it just depends on the context in which it's being used.)
As such, many view the slave as consenting to give up more control of her life than the sub, with some arguing that the slave then trusts her Master more than the sub trusts her Dom because the sub is giving up less control than the slave. This of course causes all kinds of disagreements between those who refer to themselves as subs or slaves because the subs maintain they trust their Doms just as much as the slaves trust their Masters -- the sub simply elects not to give up control over ALL aspects of her life, where the slave often does. Thus, perceiving the difference between sub and slave in this way implies the slave has given up her goals, career, interests, etc. in favor of serving her Master's wants and needs -- leaving many to classify themselves as "sub" instead of "slave" because they desire an education, career, a life of their own, and so forth. In my opinion, THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG!!!
Essentially, the many view a slave as living a life of service to her Master, and not her own -- of course, this is based on the dictionary definition of "slavery" at its most basic level. However, given we all know that BDSM is CONSENSUAL, in reality there are no REAL slaves or Masters under the dictionary definitions of Master and slave. As such, it's often her physical actions (i.e., following orders, sexual and non-sexual service, limitations upon her freedom, and so forth) that many view as slave-like behavior. Again, in my opinion, this is where many get it wrong -- as it's not the PHYSICAL, but the MENTAL/EMOTIONAL that separates the two.
Personally, here's how I view the sub/slave thing... to be a slave does NOT mean that one is tied up in a cellar somewhere, kneeling 24/7 in cuffs, or giving up her dreams, career, educational and/or vocational pursuits, aspirations, etc. While many BDSMers think that's what it means to be a "slave", I disagree. For me, being a "slave" or being "slave-wired" is simply a MINDSET... it goes to where her PRIMARY motivations, happiness, and so forth begin and end -- where her PRIMARY drive and fulfillment is derived from.
A sub, though submissive, tends to give equal weight to HER fulfillment from submitting to another, where a slave tends receive her PRIMARY fulfillment from HER MASTER's pleasure from her submission -- it's where the focus is, and has ZERO to do with any particular activity(ies). It's all MENTAL/EMOTIONAL... where does her PRIMARY drive and fulfillment come from? From HER submission, or HIS pleasure in her submission. If it's the latter, then that's slave-wired.
As such, if her PRIMARY motivation for this dynamic comes from:
* HER pleasure in her submission, that's sub-wired
* Her MASTER's pleasure in her submission, that's slave-wired
Note: I'm absolutely NOT stating a "sub" does not seek to please her Dom, nor am I stating a "slave" does not receive pleasure from her submission/service -- it's simply where her PRIMARY focus and motivation for this dynamic comes from. And yes, while I'm sure there are those who both (i) identify as "sub", and (ii) may read the above and feel they fit my description of "slave-wired", my personal feeling is that far too many are simply afraid to self-identify as a "slave" because of all the goofy stuff on the internet about what a slave is supposed to be -- i.e., that said slave has no life, no career, is bound naked 24/7 in a cellar, has no limits, and other similar nonsense.
Here's an example that might help clarify things a bit... picture two girls kneeling. Just looking at the two, the action itself (i.e., the physical act of kneeling) is the SAME -- so which is the sub and which is the slave?!! You can't tell, can you? Again, that's because it has ZERO to do with the physical -- it's all mental/emotional. If she's kneeling because her submission primarily gives HER pleasure to do so, she's likely "sub-wired", whereas if she's kneeling because her fulfillment is derived from pleasing her Master -- again, she's focused on the pleasure HE receives from her submission, service, and obedience -- she's likely "slave-wired".
Moreover, I also know there are those that see the two (sub and slave) on a sliding scale of sorts (i.e., progressing from sub to slave), but I don't personally subscribe to that theory, instead seeing the two as apples and oranges -- and very different in the way they approach this dynamic from a mental/emotional standpoint. Generally speaking, one cannot "train" the way another is mentally/emotionally wired -- it would be akin to trying to "train" someone to be heterosexual/homosexual. You can't... you just are what you are, as is the case with whether one is sub or slave wired -- you simply are what you are.
It's for this reason that I disagree with those that view the two on a sliding scale. Again, I feel those that view the two in this way are simply attributing certain physical activities, freedoms, limits, and so forth with being a "sub" or a "slave". As an example, they falsely assume if their girl submits to being collared, leashed, and used at will, that this renders her a "slave", or if their girl does not submit to every whim that this defines her as a "sub". Once again, they're focusing on the PHYSICAL, and not the mental/emotional. The determining difference is not IF or HOW she submits, but WHY she submits. Period... with neither sub or slave being better or worse than the other, just different.
Additionally, some have incorrectly held the perception that a "slave" is weak, passive, and a "doormat" of sorts. NOTHING could be farther from the truth, and in fact, most "vanilla" women (i.e., those not interested in the power dynamic) would view a "sub" in the same fashion that many subs view a "slave". More often than not, most slaves are EXTREMELY intelligent, strong-willed, perfectionists, and often possess great clarity, as a slave's PRIMARY objective is NOT held in the BDSM acrobatics (i.e., costumes, kinky play, cuffs, floggers, etc.) found in most D/s (Domination and submission) circles, but rather in the deep desire to PLEASE another -- giving her Owner/Master control over her (hence the term, "Power Exchange") from a place of TRUST and STRENGTH under the guise of an M/s (Master/slave) dynamic/relationship.
Neither subs or slaves are weak, unintelligent, or passive people in any way, shape, or form -- and some of the STRONGEST and most ACCOMPLISHED women are subs or slaves to another. There's absolutely nothing weak about either. The problem is that many have put forth this silly notion that a "slave" is one that is prancing about the house naked and in chains 24/7 awaiting use, or that a sub/slave is unable to care for herself and NEEDS a Dom/Master to do so. Not only is this thinking nonsensical, but rather insulting. Now, do these types of dynamics and/or individuals exist? Of course... but that's less of a sub/slave thing and more of a fantasy crowd, low self-esteem/self-confidence, or even social issue thing than an M/s or D/s thing.
Additionally, just as a "sub" chooses her "Dom", so too does a "slave" choose her "Master" -- and that choice is often based on mutual/common interests, limits (or lack thereof) and so forth. So while it may APPEAR as if a slave has no control, it's simply not the case. Things have often been pre-negotiated and/or addressed PRIOR to her ownership.
Remember this expression... "consensual non-consent". If it's "consensual", then the slave (or sub) has CONSENTED to the dynamic, where the infamous "doormat" is one who generally endures NON-CONSENSUAL behavior (irrespective of if she's of the vanilla, sub, or slave sort) from a place of low self-esteem, low self-respect, or even fear -- including fear of loss or retribution. Thus, since a slave has given her consent (i.e., it's her choice), for this reason alone, she is not a "doormat". Those who routinely endure that which they have not consented to are neither subs or slaves, but rather, someone in dire need of therapy. (It's also worth noting here, that for many, they find HONOR in being their Owner's "doormat")
It is for the above reasons that many girls will shy away from the term "slave" -- because of the silly connotations and nonsense the fantasy folks associate with it about losing all of her freedoms, goals, aspirations, or being a "doormat". But again, the physical does not a slave make -- it's the mental/emotional.
As to the "bottom"? Generally speaking, it often refers to one who enjoys BDSM elements in the bedroom only, but seeks equality with his/her partner outside the bedroom. As to the word "bottoming", it generally implies the act of submitting to another.
Again, these are my personal views on the topic... any and all are free to agree, disagree, share their own views, or add nothing. Said views have been offered in direct response to the OPs question, and not for the intent of personal debate, as my views on this particular topic absolutely will not change.
|
|
|
|
