twicehappy
Posts: 2706
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosanegra
I see a Master/Mistress as someone who has earned the right to be called such, not by virtue of having a submissive or slave, but by virtue of commanding a certain Mastery over various elements of BDSM. It is, and should remain so IMHO, a name given to those deserving the respect of all in our community based on their skill, reputation, and abilities. You can be a Master/Mistress without having a sub/slave... it just commands a certain level of understanding of our lifestyle.
If you read them again you will see that the definitions for Dom/domme and submissive do contain to some degree what you stated. We were working on a basic brief set of definitions.
The issue with how you define Master is who decides? So you are a whip master, then if your society or group if you will wants they can call you Master of whips.
We were giving a general definition.
Anybody can master the use of nipple clamps, do we now name them Nipple Clamp Masters? Who decides? To borrow Mnottertails sig line
"'There is no center for the promulgation and maintenance of kinky values, no pope of rope, or magistrate extraordinary of sadistic affairs.' Jack Rinella "
quote:
I think the defining characteristic of a true, "slave," is that their limits are defined by their owner. I believe it is a level you reach in a relationship after you have been with someone long enough to trust them implicitly, no holds barred.
In the beginning of a slavery prior to any collaring most slaves do state their limits. Not all slaves become slaves over the course of a long courtship (two weeks from hello to collar for me and i am still in it, in my prior collar it was one day from hello to a collar, we were together eighteen years).
Even those that do wait are still operating under the agreed upon limits or have been in the relationship long enough to, as you put it, trust that their owners limits are the same as theirs.
This statement "I think the defining characteristic of a true, "slave," is that their limits are defined by their owner" is a dangerous one, the only worse one i can think of is a "no limits slave" .
This is not to say that limits cannot be or are not often expanded, but everybody has hard limits. By your definition then nobody is a slave.
You are a slave, imagine one day after a year or so, your owner decides your limits now include being an amputee. He has just developed a fantasy about a one armed slave girl.
As a "true" slave, are your limits still being defined by your owner?
Do you let him remove your arm?
Or do you leave or refuse? Either way by your definition you are not a slave because you just defined your own limits.
A doormat really has no place in the BDSM dictionary. I buy mine at Wal Mart.
All in all though a well written, well thought out post.
Welcome to the boards. Have you sent your tribute of goats, gold, mead or a nubile virgin to the Forum God of Mischief yet?
_____________________________
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
The human heart is not a finite container but an ever expanding universe with all the stars contained there in.
|
RE: D/s vs S/m vs s/M - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread