RE: The difference between a sub and a slave

RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (Full Version)

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

Message

OsideGirl -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 10:40:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I like LW's definitions. I think the subtle definition of sub/slave where the slave gives permission just the once at the beginning of the dynamic but for the sub, it doesn't necessarilly follow that whatever was last time is automatically assumed this time round (hence seeking permission etc almost every time). I don't think whether it's limited or 'no limits' really comes into it. For me, the idea that a sub is role-playing at each venture rather than having very little (if any) choice in the matter is the crucial difference and that is where the permission/discussion points and their frequency (or lack of) makes all the difference. Also, that little fact that in most cases, the sub has final veto whereas the slave wouldn't. So, IMHO, we have two distinctly different words because they really do have somewhat different meanings rather than a description of degrees of the same thing. Does that make sense?? lol. Not to me. I'm a submissive. I consented once. I'm in a consentual non-consent, TPE relationship. I do not have "veto" power except when it comes to allowing other people into our relationship.

Spiritedsub2 -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 11:05:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt <snip> I think very few subs consent each and every time. I would say subs have more veto power in the relationship than do slaves. This makes the most sense to me based on everyone's responses here (and in previous threads on the same topic). In truth, even if slaves' only choice is to leave the relationship or submit, they make that choice, consciously or not, with every occasion of non-automatic submission. I don't know if this is overly romantizing the D/s or M/s relationship, but I hope to find one in which the internal evaluation (submit or leave) fades away as the relationship grows.

JeffBC -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 11:10:42 AM)
I agree OsideGirl. The whole concept that "submissive" implies some sort of "role playing" seems ridiculous to me. If I was looking for a third I'd be describing what I want in words not in labels. And really, as I've thought about that myself it doesn't even matter. If I had a socially submissive third (eg: someone who submits as a default viewpoint) what would determine my span of control wouldn't be some agreement we made. It'd be how well the relationship is working. In the beginning it'd be more or less vanilla. If things worked well over time she'd end up like Carol. So in real life I'm looking for a personality type not someone who THINKS they want to agree to give up some amount of authority. Happily, a well written profile gives usually gives me a good sense of the personality behind it so the label can be safely ignored.

graceadieu -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 2:12:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I like LW's definitions. I think the subtle definition of sub/slave where the slave gives permission just the once at the beginning of the dynamic but for the sub, it doesn't necessarilly follow that whatever was last time is automatically assumed this time round (hence seeking permission etc almost every time). I see this definition a lot, but I do have a problem with it. As long as the relationship is consensual and both partners are free to leave if they wish - everybody consents every time. It's just a matter of whether, as you say, consent is assumed or not, and a matter of how much a refusal would upset or end the dynamic. M/s dynamics do seem to generally go for assumed consent and refusal significantly upsetting or ending the dynamic.... but plenty of 24/7 D/s dynamics are the same way. I think M/s is just a narrower term.

anaturalsubmiss -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 2:22:29 PM)
I had one couple contact me telling me that if I were a submissive, I could leave, but not if I were a slave.

JeffBC -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 2:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anaturalsubmiss I had one couple contact me telling me that if I were a submissive, I could leave, but not if I were a slave. The "cannot leave" thing is an entire topic unto itself and it means many things to many people. But yes, I've heard that also particularly in the Owner/property groups.

OsideGirl -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 2:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: anaturalsubmiss I had one couple contact me telling me that if I were a submissive, I could leave, but not if I were a slave. The "cannot leave" thing is an entire topic unto itself and it means many things to many people. To me it means that they lack touch with reality.

xLaChienne -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 2:34:41 PM)
To Me these are all just labels. Much like the word fat. One persons fat is anothers average is another morbidly obese is anothers 10lbs over ideal. We all see fat differently. The key thing is to ask, as you did, what they infer or mean and then decide from there if you fit either. You may well not. Even better is to explore and figure out for yourself what it is you identify with and describe it in terms that make sense to you. When you find a good fit, it makes sense to both. How would you describe sub? How would you describe slave? There is no universal given with either. There is only what you and your partner agree to.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 2:45:17 PM)
Anyone in any type of D/s or M/s dynamic is able to leave unless they are caged or chained against their will. No contract, written or otherwise, is ever going to be legally binding on either party. For those in a permanent, monogamous relationship, there is probably little or no difference in the use or definition of either terminology as they could easily be used in any situation between the two of you. But I personally feel that if you are of the mind of 'owning' someone as property, that to me at least would denote the 'property' as being a slave rather than a sub. In the case of LW or Jeff, or similar other dynamics, your partner knows you well enough to trust and obey you (or vice-versa) because the dynamic has evolved beyond just owning or being 'property'. The dominant one takes into consideration (generally) that of their property and wouldn't ordinarilly do things that deliberately upset them or the dynamics. The same can usually be said for the subservient person. I think thats where there is a distinct definition problem that cannot be nailed into just one word or the other. That situation wouldn't always apply to a triad or quad/multi-based arrangement where such close ties aren't always the 'norm'. Unless someone can prove otherwise - apart from their own dynamics? Otherwise, how would any of us know the difference... Unless you are saying there isn't any??

JeffBC -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 2:53:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl To me it means that they lack touch with reality. Yeah, it used to mean that to me also until two things happened. The first of those was that I ran into a couple in real life who had this as a part of their dynamic and they explained it all quite clearly and reasonably in entirely pragmatic terms. The second was that in more theoretical terms it sort of happened in my marriage -- although I need to squint a bit to see my marriage that way.

OsideGirl -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 2:58:48 PM)
I get the whole internal enslavement thing, but the reality is that if things got to a point where that situation became unbearable, the "slave" would eventually decide to leave unless there is something psychologically wrong with that person. But part two of that is this: Instead of telling someone that they don't have the choice to leave a relationship...why not strive to be the type of person that the "slave" wouldn't want to leave?

Aswad -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 3:56:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl I get the whole internal enslavement thing, but the reality is that if things got to a point where that situation became unbearable, the "slave" would eventually decide to leave unless there is something psychologically wrong with that person. Anyone in any situation can act in any manner. Yet, consistently, predictably and with near universality, people act in a specific manner. If you foster a certain attitude in someone, with their consent, that attitude can become an effectively insurmountable barrier to that person. I've seen this in positive and negative incarnations. Positive where people actually mesh well and the effective inability to leave serving as a reinforcing element in a good dynamic. Negative where people have distinctly wanted to leave for an extended period of time, but been unable to do so until family and friends intervene to get them to a shelter. As I said in a thread in the Gorean section, Sophie Scholl had a choice and acted in a sovereign manner. Most people in practice could never have done what she did under those circumstances. The term slave seems inappropriate if you can leave in practice. quote: But part two of that is this: Instead of telling someone that they don't have the choice to leave a relationship...why not strive to be the type of person that the "slave" wouldn't want to leave? Is this an either/or question in your view? IWYW, — Aswad.

Moonlightmaddnes -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 4:11:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I like LW's definitions. I think the subtle definition of sub/slave where the slave gives permission just the once at the beginning of the dynamic but for the sub, it doesn't necessarilly follow that whatever was last time is automatically assumed this time round (hence seeking permission etc almost every time). I don't think whether it's limited or 'no limits' really comes into it. For me, the idea that a sub is role-playing at each venture rather than having very little (if any) choice in the matter is the crucial difference and that is where the permission/discussion points and their frequency (or lack of) makes all the difference. Also, that little fact that in most cases, the sub has final veto whereas the slave wouldn't. So, IMHO, we have two distinctly different words because they really do have somewhat different meanings rather than a description of degrees of the same thing. Does that make sense?? lol. Not to me. I'm a submissive. I consented once. I'm in a consentual non-consent, TPE relationship. I do not have "veto" power except when it comes to allowing other people into our relationship. Personally I am in a grey area somewhere in between. I trust my husband enough to know he would never do anything harmful. He is the one who wants my input. When he says this is how things are going to go, I do it without question but he does not always want things his way. When someone asks me if I am straight up submissive or a slave I have to shrug and say somewhere in between. Then of course in day to day life there are times I will not agree with him and say so. That is another area I am unsure of. Are slaves 24/7 or not.

littlewonder -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 9:09:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko FR Just for kicks, I just looked up the definition of "slave." And there it states one definition as "A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person." And to "dominate" is to, among other things, "Rule over; govern. To exercise an elevated or commanding position." Nothing about "consent." Well, not necessarily, anyway. So if I stopped there, I would think that the difference between a slave and a sub is the amount of control another has over him/her. And I would think there are very, very, very few true slaves. But then I think, even just retaining the legal right to walk away detracts from being "entirely under the domination of" someone, doesn't it? That is why I agree with OsideGirl. As she put it, I don't believe in consensual slavery, so in my mind everyone is a submissive. Yeah...I actually tried to walk away about a month ago because I was having a very difficult time and I felt like I sucked as his slave and he deserved much better. Took off my bracelets, tried to hand them back to him..... That didn't work out so well........thankfully lol. quote: Original MoonlightMadness: Are slaves 24/7 or not. For us it is. It's up to you and your partner though. It's whatever you two communicate it to be. Talk and talk some more and talk again until you guys figure it out.

Moonlightmaddnes -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 10:38:57 PM)
He has made it clear he does not want someone who will simply say yes master to every little thing he says. If I do not agree with him he wants me to say something, If I do not want to or I am not in the mood he wants me to tell him so. LOL sometimes he works a little harder and I get into the mood but mostly he says he understands those days when I am feeling puny especially now being 7 months pregnant. My brain is willing many times, but my body is tired.

littlewonder -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/1/2013 11:00:16 PM)
aaahhh....being pregnant changes absolutely everything! LOl....and not just bdsm stuff.

Pyramus -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/2/2013 12:29:54 AM)
A sub is back to normal after you cum (at least during the short refractory period), while a slave is still a slave.

dollenburg -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/2/2013 12:59:18 AM)
Whats a refractory period?

Aswad -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/2/2013 2:18:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dollenburg Whats a refractory period? The time after getting off when it's harder to get off again. More of an issue with men than women, usually. IWYW, — Aswad.

WomanlyWiles -> RE: The difference between a sub and a slave (1/2/2013 4:22:40 AM)
If someone's only a sub because his cock is hard, I'd say they're more of a kinkster than a sub.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875