quote:

Isn't that already the case? aren't there people who just don't fit in the box? so, when someone says that those seeking labels or definitions are afraid of not fitting in isn't it really that they, themselves, are afraid not to fit in if definitions were given to these words?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

quote:

Isn't that already the case? aren't there people who just don't fit in the box? so, when someone says that those seeking labels or definitions are afraid of not fitting in isn't it really that they, themselves, are afraid not to fit in if definitions were given to these words?

Well yes I think you are right. Maybe I misunderstood but I thought the point of deciding on clear definitions was so everyone can determine and state clearly who and what we are. My point really was that no matter what terms we come up with, it's not really going to change anyone's behavior. We are what we are.....even if we don't quite "fit".

quote:

Maybe I misunderstood but I thought the point of deciding on clear definitions was so everyone can determine and state clearly who and what we are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

Ok, I might be engaging in blasphemy, but I really want to discuss some of the base notions in those definitions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: topcat

quote:


Slave- A] a submissive who submits not for their own pleasure, but to please another.

How does motivation change a person's role? If someone is submitting, how can they no longer be a submissive? Is slave, in this definition just a subset of submissive?

quote:

quote:


B] an owned or ‘collared’ submissive.

Why does the person have to be an owned submissive. What if the owned person isn't submissive at all? Does that make them any less a slave?

quote:

quote:


D] a ‘submissive’ gives consent on a case by case basis- a slave gives it once, and only retains the option of serving or leaving

I think this definition is the one that irks me the most. Consent is implied in all BDSM activites. Negotiation of consent does not make one a submissive, any more than lack of negotiation makes one a slave.

I guess the true issue is that my primary kink is slavery, not submission. In my mind, almost all of the definition I see of slavery relate it in some way to submission, yet they are not, at least for me, in any way connected.

My primary desire, in this lifestyle, is to own a slave. Dominating her is not all that important to me. I am a service top, I like to pamper those I care about. So when someone describes a slave in terms of submission, it disregards my kink...and perhaps the kinks of others as well.

Taggard

Being submissive 24/7 does not make you a slave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: panthergoddess
For instance:

Water Sports- very general term refering to the play surrounding urination.

One can say they are into "water sports" in their general discussion and profiles etc. But when having the discussion with their potential partner(s) can narrow it to specific urinating activities suck as being the pisser or pissee, whether they allow or wish to drink or simply wish to have it done in a certain spot or certain way.

quote:


My point is that there are the generalities but to define the generalities further could hamper the fun of having those more intimate discussions with yoru potential partner(s) could it not?!?!

quote:

ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176
It's my opinion, based on what I've read of your thoughts on the defining difference(s) between submissives and slaves, that you're attempting to redefine the most common understanding of what a BDSM slave is for reasons of your own.

quote:


I think you would find less resistance if your definition of slave was more closely aligned with the accepted understanding of the term.

quote:


Those who are currently in M/s relationships can speak most clearly on this subject, but those I interact with on a regular basis agree on a basic assumption: A slave is one who has agreed to completely surrender to the will of their master.

quote:


By this definition, one can extropolate that a submissive is not a slave because she has not agreed to completely surrender to her dominant's will.

quote:


There are two distinct dynamics at play that share some common characteristics which serve to cause some confusion when one tries to categorize others one isn't involved in.
I personally don't see this being a hugely misunderstood subject. Most of the experienced people I know ascribe to the common understanding of what constitutes a slave. The few I know who don't feel they are capable of surrendering completely to a master who shares her limits, thereby negating the areas where they are not willing to surrender. It is a interesting point of philosophy but not truly worth arguing about, IMO.

quote:


Those newbies who ask about the difference between slaves and submissives seem able to comprehend the meaning of complete surrender in that context. I think it serves well as a working definition that most accept. As I've stated on similar threads, I don't believe there will ever be complete agreement with any given set of definitions but this appears to work well for the majority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

Good points!

quote:

ORIGINAL: panthergoddess
For instance:

Water Sports- very general term refering to the play surrounding urination.

One can say they are into "water sports" in their general discussion and profiles etc. But when having the discussion with their potential partner(s) can narrow it to specific urinating activities suck as being the pisser or pissee, whether they allow or wish to drink or simply wish to have it done in a certain spot or certain way.

This is a very good analogy. If one were to say there were into being a "slave", it would not have the same level of meaning as one who said they were into "watersports", and that is, IMNSHO, the problem. Watersports involve piss play, but just what does being a "slave" involve? For some, it is deep 24/7 submission. For others it is ownership. For others, it is who knows what. The word "slave" has been so overloaded with meaning that it has simply lost all meaning whatsoever.

I suppose my desire is to recover a specific meaning for the word "slave." But, as I have stated before, perhaps it is better just to let the words Master and slave continue their journey to meaninglessness and replace them with words that have no emotional baggage, like property and owner...

quote:


My point is that there are the generalities but to define the generalities further could hamper the fun of having those more intimate discussions with yoru potential partner(s) could it not?!?!

If slave were to be defined as one who wants/needs/enjoys being owned, it certainly wouldn't eliminate those more intimate discussions of just what being owned means to the interested parties.

Taggard

quote:

sub categories

*groans at the pun*

quote:

*groans at the pun*

quote:

The same could be done for submissives, Dominants etc. However, I think you would still find that people would still be debating over whether they were a Level 3 or a Level 5. I think that is just an intrinsic part of human nature.

ah... you mean... like the 'true sub'... and the 'realslave'?


Sorry I am in a really silly mood...

quote:

quote:

The same could be done for submissives, Dominants etc. However, I think you would still find that people would still be debating over whether they were a Level 3 or a Level 5. I think that is just an intrinsic part of human nature.


ah... you mean... like the 'true sub'... and the 'realslave'?

Actually Angel......I proposed this in hopes that others might see what an exercise in futility this would be.....not that I think it would actually answer any questions or solve any debates.


Sorry I am in a really silly mood...

quote:

Most only care about Dominance and submission

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

Question.

If your kink isnt about dominance, then how can you have a slave or even a submissive, even if its just a short term 2 hr relationship?

quote:

And why do You list yourself as a dominant?

quote:

Let's say I sign a 2 hour contract with a "piece of property." She agrees to belong to me for those 2 hours, stipulating just what use I will have of my property during that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin
The simple act of agreeing to be owned for those 2 hours, regardless of what usage there will be, is in my opinion an act of submission. One can not submit to anything other than a position of Dominance so therefore your position would then be the Dominant one. You can not have a yin without a yang.

quote:

You see, for me, slavery has nothing to do with dominance and submission. I can own, and yet not need to dominate or have my property submit. The thrill is in the ownership, not the submission. It is a different kink, and one which the current definitions neglect to include.

Let's say I sign a 2 hour contract with a "piece of property." She agrees to belong to me for those 2 hours, stipulating just what use I will have of my property during that time. It might be that my property will submit to my dominance during those hours, but that is not what the contract (and much of my thrill) is about.

OK... this is cool... see I do listen!...

OK... whilst I understand your frustration because technically... (Your kink isnt on the 'too do ' list of most definitions and your satisfaction isnt in the dominantion but in the ownership)... you are still dominating... even if you are not Dominant? Does this make sense? But thats just my opinion...

Goodness... now this is just going to take away from the thread. *Humble apologise to everyone* I am really interested in this tho Taggard... I find it quite interesting(your kink i mean)... I don't know if its appropriate to discuss it on this thread in the forum. If You don't mind, then please continue... but if You feel it more appropriate then I am happy to talk on another thread, or mail.

I am really interested how You 'Dominate without dominating'... as it were...

love and peace

quote:

Yep. The current definitions as used by the majority of people do not work for one, such as me, who enjoy ownership without dominance.

quote:

quote:


Those who are currently in M/s relationships can speak most clearly on this subject, but those I interact with on a regular basis agree on a basic assumption: A slave is one who has agreed to completely surrender to the will of their master.


That is a silly and anti-historical use of the word slave. Slaves have existed for thousands of years. They have been used for all sorts of things from building Egyptian monuments to satisfying the sexual lusts of sailors at sea. Throughout human history, slavery has little to do with surrender of will, be it complete or otherwise. The surrender of will has much more to do with submission, than slavery. How is it that slavery has become to mean complete submission???

quote:

So are you saying that a submissive can not agree to completely submit? That acheiving the ultimate submission makes one no longer a submissive? Now that is just silly...but it is the prevailing thought, isn't it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

Question.

If your kink isnt about dominance, then how can you have a slave or even a submissive, even if its just a short term 2 hr relationship?

Ah ha! Perhaps this might actually get us to the root of my issue.

You see, for me, slavery has nothing to do with dominance and submission. I can own, and yet not need to dominate or have my property submit. The thrill is in the ownership, not the submission. It is a different kink, and one which the current definitions neglect to include.

Let's say I sign a 2 hour contract with a "piece of property." She agrees to belong to me for those 2 hours, stipulating just what use I will have of my property during that time. It might be that my property will submit to my dominance during those hours, but that is not what the contract (and much of my thrill) is about.

quote:

And why do You list yourself as a dominant?

Because the word to describe what I am hasn't been adequately defined or standardized...see my problem???