quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

You keep saying that real slaves are not people, but the law says otherwise. According to your narrow definition no one here has or is a real slave because we can't be killed or sold on Ebay.

We're tried to explain that in kink communities, slave means simply someone who allows someone else to make any decision they want to that affects our lives. The Man can make any decision he wants. He also has to deal with the consequences. He has not just the rights but the responsibilities that come with being the person in charge. So yeah, he could decide he wants me to have sex with someone else. The consequence is that I'd be highly distressed as a result, that I would make the other person unhappy because I would be clear that I was being coerced, and he'd also have to deal with the consequence that I wouldn't trust him in the future. That I wouldn't ever desire him sexually.

Since he knew I was monogamous going into this, he's not suddenly going to demand something totally different. And since he wants me to enjoy sex with him, he's not going to do something that would prevent that.

The Man can make any decision he wants. However that doesn't mean he has to make any of them. It's his choice.

Having just checked your profile, yup you are as young and clueless as you appear. You want micromanagement. Really? You ever do that for a weekend even? You available every minute of the day to answer her texts giving her permission to pee or have a drink of water or answer a phone call from her mother? Don't ever want to go to a movie with your buddies or have a pick up football or basketball game? Because the more she has to do, the more you have to. I strongly suggest you try earning someone else's submission and prove to them that your decision making skills are of such high caliber that you merit further submission in more areas of her life. You can't go to the store and buy someone who loves and trusts you. You have to deserve that. Do you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven


I'm not confused in the last. I simply live in the actual world.

Evidently, you believe that a slave must be an inanimate object. Or at least incapable of being human in the eyes of the law; chattel. That's not the case.

Let me give you an analogy. The federal government has laws. The states also have laws. However, in the event of a conflict, the federal laws override state laws. For example, in Loving vs State of Virginia, the federal government's claim was upheld that states could not enforce laws that banned interracial marriage. Similarly, when a BDSM law conflicts with established civil law, then the civil law overrides. In other words, it matters not what words are placed into a Master/slave contract as far as marriage is concerned - marriage is a civil construct and as such ignores the M/s contract. The two contracts exist in harmony by recognizing that the married relationship overrides the M/s contract from a legal POV, in the event of a conflict.

Thank you for providing me with your definition of slave and submissive. Please note that your definitions are not universally accepted. You will incur far fewer arguments if you accept that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

I make a differentiation between Slave and Submissive. No one else here does, is my point. A Slave is submissive, but a Submissive is not a Slave. Submissives agree to soft and hard boundaries of their own design, while Slaves agree to their Master's boundaries. Because the axiom of the Slave is that they have no agency (or at least very, very little compared to Submissives), and they trust their Master to fulfill their needs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal
A spouse is something of an equal in a relationship yes?

Not necessarily, I mean that's trendy these days but it's a very new concept. As recently as my grandparents generation M/f D/s was the accepted norm and if you go back it bit farther marriage was essentially a property transaction between two men.

And once upon a time Slave's were labor that you worked to death.

So this is a board filled with Slave labor enthusiasts?


I understand your point, but that old-fashion way to have a relationship is called abuse now.

quote:

think I see the actual problem with this thread

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xnawtyx

Urgh drama

Why do people need boxes and labels to feel secure

Ainhal although you are putting on a good act of being polite and enquiring.....it's obvious from the way you are pushing that you want a reaction from people..
Does it really matter if others are real or not as per your own terminology?
It doesn't really effect you does it, what other people are doing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


I don't think you can make that statement generally. There are many many marriages where the balance of power is by no means equal.

---

I can't help wondering whether you're being completely honest with us here.

If you are sincerely here not to bash on how other people live their lives, I'd encourage you to re-read your OP very carefully, and ask yourself whether there is any chance that someone could have come to the mistaken impression that you were being pretty fucking judgemental?

quote:

ORIGINAL: InHisHeart


Who's living a fantasy? Your posts scream of fantasy land.

First, I do not live a fantasy life, my life is very much reality thank you. Second, I never once said in this post, any other post or in my profile that I am a slave or that my relationship is a Master/slave relationship.

To answer you're question and according to the definition link you provided........

Slave:

1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. None, a person cannot legally be the property of someone else.

2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: There are people that are entirely under the domination of someone else but that's for as long as they choose to be and it's very rare. If you really want to get nitty gritty, by being entirely under the domination of another, that's saying everything the slave does including what/when to eat, what to wear, taking a shower, using the bathroom, etc. is under the control of someone else but that is by choice. Unless they're being held against their will, they CAN walk away from the relationship whenever they want.

You can define slave, submissive, Master, Dom in any way you want. Just make sure whoever you're with defines them the same way and wants to live the same way you want to live because even a "slave" has the choice to follow your rules or walk the fuck away at any time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeekingTrinity

~FRing it~

OP, you should just buy a parrot or one of those digital voice recorders. The parrot can be trained to just spew back words you want to hear and the recorder will predictably play your words right back to you. Because it seems like nothing short of just regurgitating what you want to hear is what you are looking for out of anyone here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

You keep saying that real slaves are not people, but the law says otherwise. According to your narrow definition no one here has or is a real slave because we can't be killed or sold on Ebay.

We're tried to explain that in kink communities, slave means simply someone who allows someone else to make any decision they want to that affects our lives. The Man can make any decision he wants. He also has to deal with the consequences. He has not just the rights but the responsibilities that come with being the person in charge. So yeah, he could decide he wants me to have sex with someone else. The consequence is that I'd be highly distressed as a result, that I would make the other person unhappy because I would be clear that I was being coerced, and he'd also have to deal with the consequence that I wouldn't trust him in the future. That I wouldn't ever desire him sexually.

Since he knew I was monogamous going into this, he's not suddenly going to demand something totally different. And since he wants me to enjoy sex with him, he's not going to do something that would prevent that.

The Man can make any decision he wants. However that doesn't mean he has to make any of them. It's his choice.

Having just checked your profile, yup you are as young and clueless as you appear. You want micromanagement. Really? You ever do that for a weekend even? You available every minute of the day to answer her texts giving her permission to pee or have a drink of water or answer a phone call from her mother? Don't ever want to go to a movie with your buddies or have a pick up football or basketball game? Because the more she has to do, the more you have to. I strongly suggest you try earning someone else's submission and prove to them that your decision making skills are of such high caliber that you merit further submission in more areas of her life. You can't go to the store and buy someone who loves and trusts you. You have to deserve that. Do you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

And it isn't to pick on this hypothetical person or people like this hypothetical person; this lifestyle is very delicate. There is a lot to consider when you're dealing with the amount of trust this lifestyle requires.

---

I make a differentiation between Slave and Submissive. No one else here does, is my point. A Slave is submissive, but a Submissive is not a Slave. Submissives agree to soft and hard boundaries of their own design, while Slaves agree to their Master's boundaries. Because the axiom of the Slave is that they have no agency (or at least very, very little compared to Submissives), and they trust their Master to fulfill their needs.

---

But in a Master/Slave relationship beyond moral semantics about innate Human equality there is a very specific agreement that one is lesser than the other, it is essentially the entire point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

OP, I lived with my prior s for 10 years, during that time I helped many chosen individuals explore the lifestyle at will (playmates and virgins). Most of them I cared not to know beyond playtime.
We parted ways because he got outgrew the lifestyle due to his old age, and he wanted me to find someone I can establish a long term lasting bond with, he felt like he was depriving me of such a pursuit.
That was 2 years ago and most I have come across with on the s side, yes, they seem like kinksters but none of the courage to be truly submissive.
I have since explored other dynamics, as an s and casually vanilla dating. I am only as attached to the lifestyle as the person I am with and if I can't have it on my terms I rather not have it at all. I have options.
I am more than happy to offer my advice to newbies within the lifestyle as I would like to see it thrive and explored despite my personal feelings about those I have encountered.
My D/s dynamic was extremely successful, the only issue was the age difference as we both got older. We both loved each other immensely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Fella, have you noticed that Every. Single. One. of us is getting the same idea from reading your posts and your profile.

Every. Single. One.

May I ask how you got from that to your idea that the communications issues are 100% due to us not comprehending you?

Work on your self-awareness and your communication skills. Try to understand that your theoretical constructs, cool though they may be, could stand to be tempered by those with actual, real life experience.

I'm still gobsmacked that a 24 year old with no apparent experience would join a kink site, dictate how the lifestyle should work to experienced lifestylers on his very first day, and then chew us out for not understanding him the way he wants to be understood.

You have two ears, fella. Learn to use them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

Submissives agree to soft and hard boundaries of their own design, while Slaves agree to their Master's boundaries. Because the axiom of the Slave is that they have no agency (or at least very, very little compared to Submissives), and they trust their Master to fulfill their needs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miyani

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

Submissives agree to soft and hard boundaries of their own design, while Slaves agree to their Master's boundaries. Because the axiom of the Slave is that they have no agency (or at least very, very little compared to Submissives), and they trust their Master to fulfill their needs.

Here is where you're running into issues.

The idea of a slave as someone who does not have their own soft and hard boundaries, and solely accepts their Master's, is incorrect. The DICTIONARY definition of slavery that you are so fond of refers to non-consensual slavery, which is illegal, and not the form of relationship practiced in D/s. In the real world, as these posters live it, a slave chooses their Master. They choose someone who they WANT to obey and follow. It stands to reason, does it not, that they would choose someone whose boundaries are the same as, or very similar to, their own.

Just as a submissive does. They choose someone whose likes, dislikes, and limits are compatible with their own. Slave or submissive, if they are not happy in the relationship, if their boundaries are consistently disregarded, they can and will walk.

A submissive does not have to be a slave. A slave is a KIND of submissive. B is A, but not all A are B.

If it helps, though this is problematic in its own right, you can think of slavery as a certain depth of submission. Someone who is able to relax and say "I don't need to specify my boundaries, because they are so in line with yours that the way you guide our lives will fulfill me too."

I am NOT saying that people who ID as slave are "better" submissives, or submit more. Just trying to help provide a context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miyani

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

Submissives agree to soft and hard boundaries of their own design, while Slaves agree to their Master's boundaries. Because the axiom of the Slave is that they have no agency (or at least very, very little compared to Submissives), and they trust their Master to fulfill their needs.

Here is where you're running into issues.

The idea of a slave as someone who does not have their own soft and hard boundaries, and solely accepts their Master's, is incorrect. The DICTIONARY definition of slavery that you are so fond of refers to non-consensual slavery, which is illegal, and not the form of relationship practiced in D/s. In the real world, as these posters live it, a slave chooses their Master. They choose someone who they WANT to obey and follow. It stands to reason, does it not, that they would choose someone whose boundaries are the same as, or very similar to, their own.

Just as a submissive does. They choose someone whose likes, dislikes, and limits are compatible with their own. Slave or submissive, if they are not happy in the relationship, if their boundaries are consistently disregarded, they can and will walk.

A submissive does not have to be a slave. A slave is a KIND of submissive. B is A, but not all A are B.

If it helps, though this is problematic in its own right, you can think of slavery as a certain depth of submission. Someone who is able to relax and say "I don't need to specify my boundaries, because they are so in line with yours that the way you guide our lives will fulfill me too."

I am NOT saying that people who ID as slave are "better" submissives, or submit more. Just trying to help provide a context.

I literally addressed that misconception above you.


In the future if you want to reply constructively to a conversation, you should understand what the conversation is about, and what's already been said.


I am not an advocate for non-consent, AKA abuse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miyani

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miyani

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

Submissives agree to soft and hard boundaries of their own design, while Slaves agree to their Master's boundaries. Because the axiom of the Slave is that they have no agency (or at least very, very little compared to Submissives), and they trust their Master to fulfill their needs.

Here is where you're running into issues.

The idea of a slave as someone who does not have their own soft and hard boundaries, and solely accepts their Master's, is incorrect. The DICTIONARY definition of slavery that you are so fond of refers to non-consensual slavery, which is illegal, and not the form of relationship practiced in D/s. In the real world, as these posters live it, a slave chooses their Master. They choose someone who they WANT to obey and follow. It stands to reason, does it not, that they would choose someone whose boundaries are the same as, or very similar to, their own.

Just as a submissive does. They choose someone whose likes, dislikes, and limits are compatible with their own. Slave or submissive, if they are not happy in the relationship, if their boundaries are consistently disregarded, they can and will walk.

A submissive does not have to be a slave. A slave is a KIND of submissive. B is A, but not all A are B.

If it helps, though this is problematic in its own right, you can think of slavery as a certain depth of submission. Someone who is able to relax and say "I don't need to specify my boundaries, because they are so in line with yours that the way you guide our lives will fulfill me too."

I am NOT saying that people who ID as slave are "better" submissives, or submit more. Just trying to help provide a context.

I literally addressed that misconception above you.


In the future if you want to reply constructively to a conversation, you should understand what the conversation is about, and what's already been said.


I am not an advocate for non-consent, AKA abuse.

No, dear, you said that slaves give up their agency, and are closer to property than anything else. Slaves and submissives can be and are property to the same degree. Which is, as much as they and their Master want them to be. They are also walking, talking, thinking beings, with needs and likes and loves and limits. They will choose someone whose boundaries mesh with theirs. That is not the same as not having boundaries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

One of two things are going to happen in a healthy kink relationship of the extreme we're discussing.

Either the Submissive/Slave agrees to the Master's boundaries; which is what I actually said, and is IMO the more common situation. Or the boundaries are already identical in the first place.

Anything else is borderline if not complete abuse.

Agency is what it means to make your own free choices.

We've already addressed I'm pro-consent; so the only agency a Slave retains is the choice to leave. That is the essential dynamic in the M/s relationship.


I'm glad you actually read my posts (to some extent), but I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miyani

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

One of two things are going to happen in a healthy kink relationship of the extreme we're discussing.

Either the Submissive/Slave agrees to the Master's boundaries; which is what I actually said, and is IMO the more common situation. Or the boundaries are already identical in the first place.

Anything else is borderline if not complete abuse.

Agency is what it means to make your own free choices.

We've already addressed I'm pro-consent; so the only agency a Slave retains is the choice to leave. That is the essential dynamic in the M/s relationship.


I'm glad you actually read my posts (to some extent), but I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at.

Well, now that you've talked in circles for a good long while, you seem to be coming around the the group's point of view. Although you're still wrong on some counts.

If a slave is not happy with their relationship, yes, they can leave. Or they can talk to their Master about it, like an adult. Their Master can make the choice to change and keep them, or refuse to change and let them walk.

If a submissive is not happy with their relationship, yes, they can leave. Or they can talk to their Master about it, like an adult. Their Master can make the choice to change and keep them, or refuse to change and let them walk.

The difference is that slave is spelled S L A V E, and submissive is spelled... well, differently. There's also the matter of pronounciation. Both make their own free choices, in the same ways. You even used them interchangeably in your response to me, above.

Did you have other questions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miyani

It's sweet that you think having discussions about the needs and wants of either party is "taking liberties." I want my slave to tell me when something's not right, or even if there's something in particular he wants to do. The choice is mine, whether to adjust to meet his needs, or let him walk.

Likewise, if I feel something isn't right, I talk to my slave about it. He doesn't HAVE to change. No one does. The choice is his, to adjust to meet my needs, or let me walk.

You are now using submissive and slave interchangeably. THAT was our point. You were confused as to the difference. The difference is in how they and their owners identify them. There are degrees of submission. Slavery could be said to be one of them. But that doesn't change the fact that they are equal in value to other submissives, AND to their owners.

I've read the thread. And I'm happy that you're coming around, even if you can't admit that what you're now saying is what we had been telling you. I hope you continue to learn and grow, and one day find the sort of relationship you want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aihal

But in a Master/Slave relationship beyond moral semantics about innate Human equality there is a very specific agreement that one is lesser than the other, it is essentially the entire point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I'm disengaging. Life's too short to argue with a 24 year old with no experience who knows the lifestyle better than I do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I'm disengaging. Life's too short to argue with a 24 year old with no experience who knows the lifestyle better than I do.