MistressMelissa
Posts: 226
Joined: 11/21/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: strongnsubmissiv Equal: Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another. I regularly flip through profiles here at collarme, and amongst the many things in Dominant profiles that make me shake my head, one is the notion that submissives are not seen as equals. This perplexes me and i can't imagine myself being in a relationship with anyone who doesn't think of thier partner as an equal. Consider this thought: Equal in value, but not in station. Webster's: 1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : EQUIVALENT b : like in quality, nature, or status c : like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities> 2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : So while they may be equal in value, they are not equal in station. The President of the United States and I are not equal in station. We are both of equal value under the law, but we are not equal in social standing or station. quote:
Perhaps it's the meaning of equal that is sort of lost in translation. Surely, by engaging in a D/s relationship, it would appear that the freedom of actions and choices of a submissive are restricted, yet i fail to see how that has anything to do with "worth" or "value". Actually the value of the sub/slave is in their ability to submit. By restricting their freedoms and actions, I provide them with what they desire. By placing them in a structured environment with a clear set of rules, the sub/slaves finds freedom within their bonds. So while a sub/slave is a highly valued member of my house, they are not my equal by their own desire to be a sub/slave. If you want to be someone's equal, go live in a vanilla relationship. The reason they come to me is because they understand that I don't want them to be my equal, I want them to be a slave. quote:
For me, this lifestyle is all about two people in love, who's sexualities perfectly compliment each other, equally. Actually BDSM is a very wide umbrella and Ds, aka dominance and submission, does not have to invole love or even sex for that matter. What it does require is that someone dominantes and someone submits. I knew a respected slave of many years who told me if her master ever informed her that he loved her, she would beg release. She identified as a lesbian, and she served a male dominant. Their relationship was not based on sex or love, but on domination and submission.While it is common for couples to add BDSM to their relationship, there are also Ds relationships based purely upon the power exchange. Phoenix who has served me these last 3.5 years was given to me by her last master. He did not ask her what she wanted, he told her she now belonged to me. She obeyed and serves my house well. I know several Dominants and slaves that will tell you it is just wrong for a dominant to have sex with their slaves. That would be like the Mistress of a Victorian Manor House screwing the staff. It is all a matter of perspective of what you want. What I want is two slaves that understand their slavery and are looking for the power exchange. If your counting that would give me three subs/slaves in my house. It's about how I want to live and finding others that share my desire. If I desided to play (play is bondage or SM, Ds is how I live) with my property that's purely up to me. They serve me because they desire to live a life of service and slavery gives them that. They serve me for their own satisfaction of serving. All I do is provide the world they desire to live in and in return I get to live like a queen. Come to think of it, it's really not a bad deal for them. Melissa Mistress of Ds Haven www.dshaven.com
< Message edited by MistressMelissa -- 5/26/2006 3:37:19 PM >
|