Just a sub?

Just a sub? (Full Version)

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

Message

mistoferin -> Just a sub? (5/29/2006 6:30:18 PM)
I have seen countless times on these message boards where a submissive will say "I'm not a slave, I'm just a sub" or "I'm not slave material, I"m only a submissive". I have seen slaves who will say in their advice to others "Maybe you aren't ready to be a slave, maybe you should just be a sub" or "she's not a slave, she's just a sub". I've seen Dominants and Masters refer to the "just a sub" thing. Just today I've seen it implied that slaves need to be more mature. I've also seen this phenomenon in real life. "She calls herself a slave but she is really just a sub". So, what do you mean by "just a sub"? Do you think slaves are more mature? More dedicated? More submissive? More committed? Higher up on the ladder? Do you see slavery as a goal that you strive to reach that comes somewhere after submission? Are slaves more elite? Better than? Just what is meant by this "just a sub" thing.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 6:38:05 PM)
It always seems to come down to a competition. Neither is better than the other, but they are different. There are different levels of submisison, and one would have to define submissive vs. slave, which, since there have been countless threads on that topic, can not be universally agreed upon in this forum. Neither is more or less dedicated than the other. Neither loves more or less than the other. Neither is necessarily weaker or stronger than the other. Both submit, but differently. Nobody is "just" or "only" anything, in my opinion. You ask if slaves are more elite, other asks if slaves are more doormat'ish. The fact is, we are what we are, and whatever that is should be valued.

krikket -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 6:40:50 PM)
When i read your question i couldn't help laughing as it brings back memories that have nothing to do with D/s. After all i'm "just a secretary"..however, i'm a darn good one and proud of it as well. i look at being "just a sub" the same way. i'd love one day to have that special person in my life -- who doesn't put a label on me, except when he looks at me and says "mine". Love ~ Peace ~ Joy jiminie (i really need spell check on here..lol)

puella -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 6:45:59 PM)
Personally.. I identify myself as simply a submissive woman. I am not owned, and in my concept of understanding slavery requires ownership. I have been owned, I was a man's slave.. as completely as is possible, but.. am not now. I try to keep out of the caste system that gets bandied about with the slave and uber slave business..

juliaoceania -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 6:48:12 PM)
Erin, I wouldnt take this too seriously... There are plenty of dominants that do not desire slaves. These are the types you and I need in our lives. It is not a deficit in us that we do not require or need to be slaves (whatever this means). I am a submissive by self definition. I do not find this to be less than or more than those who identify as slaves. I like me the way I am. I have found the Yin to my Yang, so it really doesnt matter what others think does it? There will be those who prefer slave types, and those doms we are not suited for. There are a plethora of dominants out there to choose from... different styles, different personalities, different experience levels, and they alll have different needs. Find one that suits you! This other stuff is just people expressing their opinions and desires... they are allowed to them, just as we are allowed to ours.

mistoferin -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 6:56:45 PM)
ahhh julia, Just to clarify....this is not about me nor am I having any issues with the way I view myself. This is merely an observation. I see it all the time and I really would like to know if it is something that some say without realizing the implication of their words....or do they really feel that "sub" is less than "slave".

4u2spoil -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 7:01:30 PM)
I think "just a sub" can be fine, but overall think it's a level. For me, bottoms are people who enjoy having BDSM activities (spanking, whipping, etc) done to them, but are not looking to give up any power or control. The activity is the purpose of play or a relationship. Submissives are people who enjoy BDSM activities as a reminder of the power exchange and/or loss of control that can take place in a D/s interactions. For subs the power exchange and pleasing is the purpose, the physical activity just becomes a way to demonstrate it. Also, this is the one thing that describes someones nature. As debated in other threads, submissive can be a noun or adjective. A person can be submissive whether serving someone or not. Slaves are generally submissives who dedicate themselves to a person or group, and the power exchange is absolute. It's not just during a certain period of time, or during a certain act, submission to the dominant partner(s) rules and desires is a way of life. Just my definitions. Edited for spelling

fullofgrace -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 7:06:35 PM)
i think my relationship with my Dominant, what He requires of me, is more suited to a submissive, in that there are some areas in which i wish to serve that He does not wish it...i feel as though i'm probably more of a slave, but i've always self-identified as submissive just because squabbling over labels doesn't do much for me. i am what i am. but...the "just a sub" thing cracks me up. slaves are no better than submissives, or no worse. in fact, what is a slave to one person might be a submissive to another - in the sense that different people take the words to mean different things.

NastyDaddy -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 7:11:06 PM)
The ON state for a sub is typically less than 100%, meaning there are gaps (OFF states) in their service. The On state for a slave is tytpically 100% and there is no OFF state. One has utility/value all the time while the other only part of the time. Would you consider a condo by the beach more valuable than a timeshare in the same building? Using that logic, one could surmise a slave's knowledge and experience may typically be higher by virtue of their full time position. If a sponge is left in water it will absorb 100% of it's capacity and keep it. However if you place that same wet sponge anywhere else, what it has absorbed will then drain away. In the military a similar situation often exists in reference to, or between full time troops (regular GI's) and part time troops (Guard/Reservists)... oh, he's just a weekend warrior! All these reasons and many more stirred into the online BDSM gumbo pot have given rise to derivitive uses of labels and fuzzy definitions. Is one who cannot say no higher up on the totem pole than one who can say no? What happens 12 hours later when the totem pole is pointed south, and their positions reversed? Oh I see, the totem pole must be relative to the center of the earth... ok then, so must sub/slaves... and in that respect I'd say they are approximately equal.

puella -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 7:22:38 PM)
Hmmm.. I don't know that I can personally agree with that assessment. I am submissive as a part of my natural make up as a human being.. that is something that is a constant 24/7. It does not require me to be owned by anyone to be true, much as it does not require another person for me to be.. intelligent, kind, stubborn, etc. I was owned, I was a slave. I gave that man 100% of myself.. were there times when perhaps I was tired or crabby.. sure... did I get punished for something that effected my service.. sometimes.. if it was something that was not due to something situational ... say.. Waking up at 5 to serve the family, working all day, shopping, coming home, cooking, cleaning, and then its 9:00 and the laundry room was shut and I just was too tired to go take it somewhere else.. he would let it go... he was a good Master and knew he had a real live woman in his hands, not a crank up Stepfordwife. I find it really dangerous to try to categorize a woman as to how super duper slavey she is. Again, this is just my opinion. It places, sometimes, unrealistic expectations upon her and perhaps within her own psyche. Most submissives will directly respond to how well they are being mastered... I think that is a very real issue too. You want a super duper slave... then you better be a super duper Master who can bring out the qualities in the person that you want and need. Who knows, I could just be too sensitive about labels ;)

RavenMuse -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 7:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fullofgrace in fact, what is a slave to one person might be a submissive to another - in the sense that different people take the words to mean different things. Even better, someone who IS a slave to one person might smack someone else in the mouth for trying to pull the 'kneel bitch' routeen Waves hi to bita [;)] From my perspective a slave is likely to be better in one respect.... namely we are more likely to be compatable than someone who identifies as sub, simply because the kind of relationship I offer is more likely to suit them. That however is the only way in which I would use the term better. I have had wonderful relationships with slaves, wonderful relationships with subs, wonderful relationships with girls who considered themself mostly vanilla or even in one case mostly Domme.... but where submissive to me. Just the likelyhood of being compatable decreases the further away from slave you get. The term 'just'? Well there is MY girl and then 'just' everyone else [;)]

shyfem -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 7:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: krikket i'd love one day to have that special person in my life -- who doesn't put a label on me, except when he looks at me and says "mine". Well said jiminie [:)] ~shy -------------------------------------- May all who tread here find what they seek!

thetammyjo -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 7:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I have seen countless times on these message boards where a submissive will say "I'm not a slave, I'm just a sub" or "I'm not slave material, I"m only a submissive". I have seen slaves who will say in their advice to others "Maybe you aren't ready to be a slave, maybe you should just be a sub" or "she's not a slave, she's just a sub". I've seen Dominants and Masters refer to the "just a sub" thing. Just today I've seen it implied that slaves need to be more mature. I've also seen this phenomenon in real life. "She calls herself a slave but she is really just a sub". So, what do you mean by "just a sub"? Do you think slaves are more mature? More dedicated? More submissive? More committed? Higher up on the ladder? Do you see slavery as a goal that you strive to reach that comes somewhere after submission? Are slaves more elite? Better than? Just what is meant by this "just a sub" thing. I should hope I never say "just a sub" as though it were a judgement of quality. But I do see submissive, slave, bottom, and masochist as different things (other roles too like pet or little girl/boy, etc). To me, being a submissive is about being submissive in attitude and in need -- needing direct guidance, needing attention so that you have something to submit it, a consistant bending to another's active will. To me, being a slave is about serving another person. Being submissive can be part of this but it can also get in the way of things because I think being of excellent service means being assertive and being able and happy to manage very much on one's own without direct activity on the part of the owner. To me, being a bottom is about being focused on oneself and the sensations one feels and experiences. A masochist then is someone focused on what commonly thought of as painful sensations. These are just my definitions; not meant to be general or for anyone not in a relationship with me.

OsideGirl -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 7:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin So, what do you mean by "just a sub"? Do you think slaves are more mature? More dedicated? More submissive? More committed? Higher up on the ladder? Do you see slavery as a goal that you strive to reach that comes somewhere after submission? Are slaves more elite? Better than? I always find this funny since the society that I was brought into regarded a submissive as higher than a slave. Slaves were regarded to need constant direction, submissives served with out requiring direction. They would view slave as being a step down from submissive. Most of the "slaves" that I've met couldn't pass the requirements to earn a submissive's collar. So, I do find it funny that some slaves think they're more than submissives. Submissives can be owned, submissives, can participate in TPE, submissives don't selectively choose to submit. So, bottom line, is whatever you feel comfortable calling yourself, go for it. Just don't denegrate someone else's choice.

FloridaISIS -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 7:51:22 PM)
In my humble opinion, a sub or slave is never "just" a sub or slave. I feel to use "just" negates their value, and makes them no better than a common vanilla. This is the path and life they've chosen, for them it's who they are to their very core. I know some Dominants view them as no more than mere objects, and some subs and slaves feel that way about themselves. I can't judge them one way or another for this. Personally, I am not of that belief. I feel subs/slaves are to be valued and treasured. They give us their all and offer themselves up to us--the ultimate sacrifice so to say. "Just" a slave or sub? Sorry, but that just doesn't fly with me. These are My feelings only and just that, My 2 cents.

piscess -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 9:03:00 PM)
In my opinion they are "just" labels. I am submissive, that is what I am and I am proud of who I am. I do not feel I am better or worse than anybody else and feel way to much weight gets put on labels. Because I do not consider myself a 'slave' does not make me any less submissive than a 'slave' feels and for a 'slave' to feel her worth is better........well, now I will just shut up. 'JUST' piscess.

Brosco -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 9:06:20 PM)
mmmhhh the ole slave (vs) sub debate that never has a resolution. To me the difference between a sub and slave is how you feel yourself. If there are truly degrees of submission, then I can testify that I have known subs that are 'more' submissive than some who call themselves slaves. Many people have a definition fixed in their head as to what makes one a slave or a sub, the reality is, the definition usually only works for themselves and (hopefully) their partner. Brosco

juliaoceania -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 9:07:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: piscess In my opinion they are "just" labels. That says it all from my perspective....

feastie -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 9:08:28 PM)
I've posted this before, but I will post it again, because I find it to be perhaps the most honest description of the different levels of submissiveness I've found to date. http://www.westom.com/leather/nine_degrees_of_submission.htm Read the list, find yourself within its descriptions. I personally identify between two of them. The idea that one level is somehow better than another is ludicrous and honestly, quite obnoxious of the person having the superior attitude. The most important thing is being honest about the level with which you identify yourself.

OsideGirl -> RE: Just a sub? (5/29/2006 9:12:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: feastie I've posted this before, but I will post it again, because I find it to be perhaps the most honest description of the different levels of submissiveness I've found to date. http://www.westom.com/leather/nine_degrees_of_submission.htm Read the list, find yourself within its descriptions. I personally identify between two of them. The idea that one level is somehow better than another is ludicrous and honestly, quite obnoxious of the person having the superior attitude. The most important thing is being honest about the level with which you identify yourself. <chuckling> Yup, cuz, I was basically at 8 and I consider myself a submissive. That's why the labels don't work.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875