an old question

an old question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive

Message

elainee -> an old question (10/5/2006 10:39:48 PM)
I'm sure this must be an old topic, but I'm interested in hearing other's ideas. What is the difference between a submissive and a slave and can they both be collared?

mstrjx -> RE: an old question (10/6/2006 3:54:03 AM)
This is an old topic, and unfortunately I'm not the staff librarian that can point you to the past discussions on this topic. I have a one-word distinction between the two, but I'll go a little slower and work my way towards that. In either a D/s (dom/sub) relationship or an M/s (master (or mistress)/slave) relationship, trust is a very big key to keeping the relationship intact. But in a D/s relationship, the submissive determines the boundaries of what parts of their life they want the dominant to have control of. It could just be for the duration of a scene, it could be for a weekend, it could be just inside the bedroom. It could be limited to things not including finances. It could be a lot of things. In other words, the submissive defines some sort of 'box'. Inside the box, the dominant can have ultimate authority to make the rules, the decisions. Outside the box, the submissive maintains autonomy. It is possible for the box to get bigger. More and more of the submissive's existence (the amount of space inside the box) is fair game for the dominant. Which means there are fewer issues outside the box. This shifting in the box has to do with an increased level of trust. The dominant illustrates to the submissive that they can handle that responsibility of making more determinations for the life of the submissive. Conversely, the dominant has to be willing to accept this responsibility. There is a definite distinction between the headspace of a dominant and an owner. So, what makes the box disappear? How does the submissive determine if slavery is appropriate for them? My in-a-word term is 'surrender'. Surrender occurs when the submissive recognizes that the Master/Mistress/owner understands the submissive thoroughly, can handle the responsibilities of ownership, and has no worries that the decisions and choices that are turned over to the owner will not be treated badly. Does this make sense? Jeff

catize -> RE: an old question (10/6/2006 4:41:57 AM)
quote: But in a D/s relationship, the submissive determines the boundaries of what parts of their life they want the dominant to have control of. It could just be for the duration of a scene, it could be for a weekend, it could be just inside the bedroom. It could be limited to things not including finances. It could be a lot of things. In other words, the submissive defines some sort of 'box'. Inside the box, the dominant can have ultimate authority to make the rules, the decisions. Outside the box, the submissive maintains autonomy. It is possible for the box to get bigger. More and more of the submissive's existence (the amount of space inside the box) is fair game for the dominant. Which means there are fewer issues outside the box. It is my experience that there are many dominants who do not wish to become masters; the dominant is the one who determines how much control they wish to have and the amount of surrender they wish from the submissive.

zebrastripes -> RE: an old question (10/6/2006 5:47:39 AM)
There will be so many differences in how this question is answered. Here is mine. I am a submissive, I give the Dom/Master control to a certain point. There are limits that I have that I choose not to ever give up so I maintain some control. It does not make me less, just makes me different than a slave. The slave (in my opinion) surrenders without those limits placed. That does not mean she/he never had limits, just that she/he is willing to put it all on the table for the Owner to decide. Simply put, but it is early.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: an old question (10/6/2006 7:21:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elainee I'm sure this must be an old topic, but I'm interested in hearing other's ideas. What is the difference between a submissive and a slave and can they both be collared? They can both be anything. The problem with any definition that someone brings up here is that I could bring up hundreds of examples that refute their definition. Which isn't to say I don't harbor my own definitions, and I think mine are superior to the others you'll read here. http://www.collarchat.com/m_515303/mpage_1/key_slave/tm.htm#515333 What is the difference? http://www.collarchat.com/m_308296/mpage_1/key_slave%252Csub/tm.htm#309867 sub or slave? http://www.collarchat.com/m_342405/mpage_1/key_slave%252Csub/tm.htm#342794 ~slave vs sub~ http://www.collarchat.com/m_410567/mpage_1/key_slave%252Csub/tm.htm#410982 slave or sub http://www.collarchat.com/m_497775/mpage_1/key_submissive%252Cslave/tm.htm#497977 I'm new to this but... http://www.collarchat.com/m_366860/mpage_1/key_slave%252Csub/tm.htm#366893 Difference bet/submission and slave? http://www.collarchat.com/m_365776/mpage_1/key_sub%252Cslave/tm.htm#366767 slub question http://www.collarchat.com/m_281198/mpage_1/key_slave%252Csub/tm.htm#281512 difference between slave and submissive http://www.collarchat.com/m_251014/mpage_1/key_sub%252Cslave/tm.htm#251062 definition of "slave" What's the difference between slaves and submissives? Submissive or slave? Slaves versus submissive Submissive or slave? (2) Submissive vs slave (2)

littleone35 -> RE: an old question (10/6/2006 7:24:31 AM)
I am a submissive but i am a collared submissive. So submisives can be collared and i have limits which Master respects. I have heard (and i could be wrong) that the only limits slaves have are the ones their Master sets for them. I hope that helps a little. Matt's littleone

sweetnurseBBW -> RE: an old question (10/6/2006 7:37:46 AM)
Nothing is cut and dry when it comes to definitions of a sub or slave. Everyone has their own opinion and definition. Both can be collared. Look at the archives and that may be helpful.

SirMoi -> RE: an old question (10/6/2006 5:58:54 PM)
It depends on whether you wish to relinquish control over the sexual aspect of your life or whether you wish to relinquish control over everything. My 2 cents worth.

babysburnin -> RE: an old question (10/6/2006 9:17:23 PM)
I "personally" define the difference as having a say or not. And it's all a fine line because we all have the luxury of having a say in reality .. it's just whether you and Yours pretend that you do not have a say.

Mavis -> RE: an old question (10/6/2006 9:58:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mstrjx Does this make sense? Jeff Bingo. You now have like 17 points Jeff. i'm watching You. <grins> (disclaimer! While that is exactly my interpretation of the slave/submissive differences and progression of things, points are also given for those who feel completely different, but express them as well!)

pinkee -> RE: an old question (10/7/2006 7:10:46 AM)
Can i ask why this topic continues reapppearing so often? The entrance of new posters by itself would not seem to completely account for it, since a members' early posts seem to cover the landscape. Are S/some P/pl just needy when it comes to labeling T/themselves or O/others? pinkee

Aileen68 -> RE: an old question (10/7/2006 7:34:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkee Can i ask why this topic continues reapppearing so often? The entrance of new posters by itself would not seem to completely account for it, since a members' early posts seem to cover the landscape. Are S/some P/pl just needy when it comes to labeling T/themselves or O/others? pinkee If it's something that doesn't interest you, then why feel the need to even post an opinion? Perhaps you should start a poll if you need to know how needy some people are.

CrappyDom -> RE: an old question (10/7/2006 8:15:39 AM)
About the same as between a blond and a brunette.

Arpig -> RE: an old question (10/7/2006 9:18:55 AM)
ARRRRRGGGGGG!!!! There is no difference, a slave is a sub who identifies herself as a slave, and a sub is a slave who identifies as a sub. They can both be collared or uncollared, they can both be pampered princesses or well-beaten workdrudges...it is irrelevant what label is applied to them.

pinkee -> RE: an old question (10/7/2006 11:36:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen68 quote: ORIGINAL: pinkee Can i ask why this topic continues reapppearing so often? The entrance of new posters by itself would not seem to completely account for it, since a members' early posts seem to cover the landscape. Are S/some P/pl just needy when it comes to labeling T/themselves or O/others? pinkee If it's something that doesn't interest you, then why feel the need to even post an opinion? Perhaps you should start a poll if you need to know how needy some people are. Perhaps i was unclear. i did not mean to sound sarcastic....i really do wonder why this topic in particular reappears so often. i did state a hypothesis as to why that might be, but i don't have any information to test the hypothesis on.....so it is not my opinion atm. pinkee

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: an old question (10/7/2006 11:48:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinkee Can i ask why this topic continues reapppearing so often? The entrance of new posters by itself would not seem to completely account for it, since a members' early posts seem to cover the landscape. Are S/some P/pl just needy when it comes to labeling T/themselves or O/others? pinkee Well you started a few threads on bisexuality and safety, those things meant something to you. People put a lot of value into labels, specially as a confused newbie who is yearning to feel BELONGED and SPECIAL. And since these two words are the most commonly used with the least clear definitions, the first thing they want is clarification. Of course they are asking the wrong questions and one hopes they figure that out quickly.

BitaTruble -> RE: an old question (10/7/2006 12:08:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elainee I'm sure this must be an old topic, but I'm interested in hearing other's ideas. What is the difference between a submissive and a slave and can they both be collared? The word "submissive" is an adjective which describes one of the character traits an individual may possess and one need not be involved in BDSM to be a submissive person. My sister is a submissive person, but she is not into BDSM at all and does not recoginize any sort of power exchange with her husband. Usually, she will get him a soda or something if he asks, but when she doesn't feel like it, she won't and there is no consequence for the refusal. The word 'slave' is a noun and generally, within BDSM, defined by the individual on what it 'means' to them rather than what it is, which is just a person in a particular circumstance like a clown is a person in a particular circumstance - clowns are generally found at the circus or entertaining at a birthday party wearing a red nose and big shoes as opposed to a slave who is found in a dungeon with a red butt and no shoes. [8D] Celeste

Daddysredhead -> RE: an old question (10/7/2006 12:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littleone35 I have heard (and i could be wrong) that the only limits slaves have are the ones their Master sets for them. Littleone35, this is exactly the way that my Master describes the difference. [:)]

CoadmanNlilc -> RE: an old question (11/2/2006 7:33:00 AM)
i am submissive thats because i do have limits,..as i get to know my Sir (because W/we are still very new together) and as time and more trust is established i am willing to work on relinquishing limits. lilc

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125