definitions (Full Version)

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



Message

steelsheath -> definitions (1/28/2005 9:25:06 PM)

can an experienced Master answer this question for a novice sub? what is the difference between sub and slave? how does one know which she is????




steelsheath -> RE: definitions (1/28/2005 9:26:09 PM)

p.s.,

i amnot vanilla, i am sub. as far as i know, only 1 1/2 yrs into lifestyle....



SirTyson -> RE: definitions (1/28/2005 9:48:01 PM)

There has been a long ongoing debate about this. Everyone has their own definition of the meaning and differences between the two. Some will tell you there is a firm definition of the two, other will tell you it's what the two people int he relationship, or the sub/slave wants it to mean. I suggest do a search here on the board for "differenece between a sub and a slave" or "sub/slave". Im sure proudsub will jump in and offer you some link to other threads on this discussion as well.



Moleculor -> RE: definitions (1/29/2005 7:01:43 AM)

Just say what you like doing and/or have done to you. Everyone will label that differently. The label is not important. What is important is what you are looking for.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (1/29/2005 8:06:41 AM)

Ok, this question really has been done to death, and there is no "right" answer. However, if we, as a group, can't come up with some standard definitions for our words, how on earth are we supposed to represent ourselves to a not-so-accepting public in any consistent manner???

To that end, I have started pushing these definitions of slave and sub, and the difference between the two:

A slave is one who enoys being owned. S/he seeks to please her master or owner because s/he belongs to them, not because s/he is forced to please them.

A submissive is one who enoys being forced. S/he seeks to be dominated through the physical or mental will of a Dominant.

I will keep pushing my idea of the meaning of these words in our lifestyle...maybe they will catch on.

Taggard



onceburned -> RE: definitions (1/29/2005 8:12:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirTyson
Im sure proudsub will jump in and offer you some link to other threads on this discussion as well.


I think she is taking a well-deserved break from her duties. So I will offer this thread which as some good discussion of what a slave is: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE

Some people actually compare subs and slaves, but if you know what a slave is... well, I guess the rest can be figured out.



proudsub -> RE: definitions (1/29/2005 9:25:00 AM)

quote:

Im sure proudsub will jump in and offer you some link to other threads on this discussion as well.


Here are just a few of the threads on this:

slave/sub/servant

subbie or slave?..........

what is the real difference.....

are you slave, sub.....

could someone please explain the difference..,

quote:

I think she is taking a well-deserved break from her duties. So I will offer this thread which as some good discussion of what a slave is: Slaves, slaves, slaves EVERYWHERE


Thanks onceburned. I'm not really taking a break, just get lazy sometimes.[:)]



SirTyson -> RE: definitions (1/29/2005 11:07:31 AM)

You can try and push your ideas on others, but when it comes down to it, it's what they want it to be. And dont take this the wrong way, but who says your ideas are the correct ones?

The debate can be made that there is a true definition of a slave, its in the dictionary. Some say a slave has no limits and a sub does. Some subs dont like to be forced but give there subission and do things willingly with certain limits.

True this debate has been beaten to death, but what it comes down to is each persons definition of the two and what they want for themselves. Like Moleculor said, its not the label which is important, it's what you're looking for.



ProtagonistLily -> RE: definitions (1/29/2005 12:37:00 PM)

quote:

A slave is one who enoys being owned. S/he seeks to please her master or owner because s/he belongs to them, not because s/he is forced to please them.

A submissive is one who enoys being forced. S/he seeks to be dominated through the physical or mental will of a Dominant.

I will keep pushing my idea of the meaning of these words in our lifestyle...maybe they will catch on


I was collared and owned by a Dom and I wasn't a slave. I was his submissive.

Sorry to punch holes in your theory my friend ~wink~
L



darkinshadows -> RE: definitions (1/29/2005 1:09:18 PM)

It is strange.
I love this Lifestyle for the diversity. For the individualism. For the fact that on the whole, people do not need a pigeon hole to be placed within. That each kink is unique, has its own degrees... that each fetish is personal and has its own effect upon a person- from comforting, to sexual, or to accepting a fear within them.
Definitions have their place, but I entered this Lifestyle with my eyes and heart open to new exciting differences in people, not to be placed in a box thats only opened on special occasions.

A person can push all they like. But it doesnt mean it will be accepted. I know there are many Dominants who would be offended to think that their ways were questioned, just because it made life 'easier'. I choose who I submit to and what I submit to, for I have that will. At this time my will belongs to another. And I know that He would be unhappy if I accepted an ethos that is a generalization.

I am owned.
I submit to His Will.
I had the choice who I submit to.
Once I submitted, I have no choice.
I take enjoyment from being owned.
I am pushed and my limits passed when He wills it.
I am dominanted by the Physical and Mental Will of my Master.
I am never forced, nor would I particularly enjoy being forced, but if It is my Masters will, then as I submit without condition, I obey.

If You met Me, I doubt very much that you would identify me as a slave. People rarely do. I would identify myself closer to a submissive, if I am asked. But thats only to help people feel more comfortable. (Labels blah...etc...) Why do I need to be recognised by a word when my actions and demeanour can relate what and who I am, to a person?

I am just myself. And myself is whatever Master wills me to be.



SirTyson -> RE: definitions (1/29/2005 1:13:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

Why do I need to be recognised by a word when my actions and demeanour can relate what and who I am, to a person?




Excellent way to put it dark~angel, I always enjoy your posts as you are always very elequent in the way you write!!



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (1/30/2005 2:40:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ProtagonistLily
I was collared and owned by a Dom and I wasn't a slave. I was his submissive.

Sorry to punch holes in your theory my friend ~wink~
L


Hey Lily,

You didn't punch holes in my theory, you just gave a great example of how there is no standardization of terminology in the BDSM culture. You called yourself a submissive, and that is great. It is just unfortunate that we have no standard, objective measure of what it actually means when you say, "I am a submissive."

For you, it meant one who is owned and collared. Well, is it then hard to understand why people who are new to this lifestyle (not to mention those looking at this lifestyle with prejudiced eyes) are confused by what it is we do?

I could walk around saying I was a "gay dominant." You've met me, and you know that I actually am a rather gay fellow, if we use an out-of-date definition of the word "gay." Yet, I wouldn't be surprised if others miscontrued my use of the term, nor should those who simply decide they are "submissives" or "slaves" without any obective definition of the word.

To that end, I propose an objective definition, one to which a test can be applied, and people categorized. Definitions are wonderful things, and allow a culture and language to grow and flourish.

So I will keep pushing my definition, not because they are "right", there is no such thing in linguistics, but because they are useful.

Taggard



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (1/30/2005 2:51:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

Why do I need to be recognised by a word when my actions and demeanour can relate what and who I am, to a person?



Because it is useful. Because it makes a really complex lifestyle choice a bit more comprehendable. Because your actions and demeanour might take weeks to become apparant, and a single, obectively defined word might take a moment.

When people ask me of my political views, I ask them, "Do you know what a 'libertarian' is? If they don't, I say, "I am one of those." If they do, I tell then what I really am, which is a zen anarchist. I could spend hours explaining the nitty gritty of my political belief structure, but it is so much easier to reference an already existing body of work to do the explaining for me.

One of the problems with the BDSM culture is that everyone feels free to make up their own definition and use the words, like Humpty Dumpty, to mean exactly what they want them to mean, no more no less. Not that I have a problem with that, as I am doing it myself, yet in most cases those who use the words to mean exactly what they want, don't bother trying to tell they rest of the world just what they mean when they use those words.

Words are powerful things, and we, as a culture, fail to understand the power we throw away by misusing the language.

Taggard



darkinshadows -> RE: definitions (1/30/2005 3:17:09 PM)

quote:

Because it is useful. Because it makes a really complex lifestyle choice a bit more comprehendable. Because your actions and demeanour might take weeks to become apparant, and a single, obectively defined word might take a moment.


Whilst I agree with you in certain aspects, I still cannot comprehend why people need to make things quite so complex. The Lifestyle is about freedom of expression, about peace and selfindulgence and about selflessness. One persons slave is another persons submissive... one persons Dominant is another persons switch.

(From a personal point of view, might I add I thrive on patience and taking my time. I guess that if I meet someone who cannot cope with such aspects, then they move on and may never know 'me'. But I would say I have learnt from even a passing moment with them, whoever they are.)

Why do people need to belong? Why can they not exist as themselves?



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: definitions (1/30/2005 3:41:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel
One persons slave is another persons submissive... one persons Dominant is another persons switch.


Why then do we bother communicating at all? Why do we have language and meaning to words? This relatavistic approach to life might work in a touchy-feely way, but try building a car (or performing a heart transplant) when words don't have an obectively agreeded upon meaning.

quote:


Why do people need to belong? Why can they not exist as themselves?


This is most likely a product of evolution through natural selection. Humans who "needed to belong" formed groups/packs/clans and members of these groups had a better chance of survival than those who went it alone.

Taggard



jillwfsub4blkdom -> RE: definitions (1/30/2005 5:22:45 PM)

Taggard,
Isn't the bottom line truly it matters not what we call ourselves but how our Masters view us. i don't really give two hoots what anyone else would say. Yes it does make life easier by trying to categorize things but if noone can agree on a standard then we can't really pigeonhole it into our own belief system.

jill



SirTyson -> RE: definitions (1/30/2005 5:50:39 PM)

So let me ask you this then, say you do standardize the two words. What happens then with new comers who see your definitions and dont feel they fit into one definition or the other. I think that would only put them off on to learning about the lifestyle.

Not only do you want to standardize the words, but if you do it doesnt stop there. What's next, does everyone now have to conform and change themselves to fit into one definition or the other? You'll never get a majority of people to agree on the definitions of these words.

Where does it end?? And why is it just the definitions od a sub and a slave. You could make the same case about what is the difference between a Master and a Dom. So then we have to make firm definitions of those and then conform to those meanings as well?

To me, and it seems like others here as well, it doesnt matter what others think , all that's important is what the two people in the relationship think.



darkinshadows -> RE: definitions (1/30/2005 5:51:53 PM)

quote:

Why then do we bother communicating at all? Why do we have language and meaning to words? This relatavistic approach to life might work in a touchy-feely way, but try building a car (or performing a heart transplant) when words don't have an obectively agreeded upon meaning.


We communicate because we desire a better understanding. But words mean nothing without the physical pressence to manifest their forms. We would not be able to call a heart, a heart... if it wasnt in front of us to see it. We could describe it to the best of our ability, but not all hearts are the same size, shape or colour. And not everyone can build a car... or a wardrobe, simply by reading instructions. People construct them with the knowledge they have gained over much study of the real thing, hands on approach and verbal explainations...and experience. I have seen lives been saved, not because someones read medical booklet, but by using the 'touchy-feely' way to guide them to removing obstructions.

As for hunting in packs and groups... if this is so true and so evolutionary, then why do people need to be alone? And why are groups and packs ridiculed and slandered? Why does someone always have to find fault in groups, whatever they may be, if they are so 'powerful'?

As for myself... I get by quite happily as a unique individual. I have no 'need' to belong - as I already do.

Peace and Love



SirTyson -> RE: definitions (1/30/2005 5:58:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

As for myself... I get by quite happily as a unique individual. I have no 'need' to belong - as I already do.

Peace and Love[/center][/size][/font][/size]


And I think most of us would agree, we love you just the way your are angel!!!



ShadeDiva -> RE: definitions (1/30/2005 6:36:33 PM)

I am one of those that doesn't think that language is supposed to be easy or even make things easier.

*smile*

I think it's supposed to take effort and time, and I think those that have issues the most with definitions varying are those that don't want language to take time or effort in general.

Language is NEVER stagnant, period. Some folks might wish it was, but that;s not the case, and is one reaosn I love it so much.

It's always evolving, ever changing, and thank goodness for that!

Nothing we use means *just one thing* and definitions are added *all the time*.

This is what prupose slang serves, to evolve our language into even more complex formations.

If you refuse to grow - well, you'll get left behind.

Pretty soon you won't have a clue what folks are saying to you - not so long ago bad only meant something , well bad. Now it means something good too. Is it really all that difficult to gather from cues and context if they are using the word bad to mean good or bad? Is it that hard to ask for clarification if you aren't sure? I don't think so.

Last thing I'd want is dumbing down of our language. Why do folks seem to want to revert to grunts and snorts? I enjoy and love the complexity and everchanging nuances of our language, its part of it's beauty to me.

Then again, I have NO issue with it taking more work or effort for me to really know what someone is telling me and actually taking the time to make sure I'm comprehending what they mean to be conveying. I never thought communication was meant to be easy or quick though, so maybe it's in one's philosphies/concepts on what language should accomplish or do that makes that difference.

~ShadeDiva



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875