M/s versus D/s

[*gia*]

This is the first time I have posted here and I am fairly new, a year here online. I would like to better understand the difference between M/s and D/s. Also, while I know a slave is submissive and I know a Master is dominate, is there any distinct differences between each? Are the needs of each unique or is the level of experience and knowledge different? Do slaves have different needs than subs and do Masters have unique needs from Doms? I have been told by several that I am a sub with a slave's heart. And then I often hear from others, well he is not a real Master. What makes one so? I find this part of the bdsm equation to be most confusing.

[MajesticFae]

I can only answer a few of your questions, in my own opinions, as I'm interested to know the answers to the ones I can't help you with.

I think that most of the questions you asked are relative to the people involved. To me, a Dom/sub are equals and there isn't any distinct differences between them as people, but again it depends the people. There are some Doms out there who think subs are like second class citizens and some subs who think Doms are a cut above the rest.

For me as a submissve I long to be controlled and dominated and from what I've learned and understand Doms have a need to control and be served. It should be a win win situation for each party. The Dom gets pleasure from having the submissive's gift of submission and being able to control her/him and the submissive is happy because s/he makes the Dom happy. Atleast, that's how it works in my book.

It depends on the people and their experience in the lifestyle as to the level of experience and knowledge. There are a lot of subs out there who are more experienced than some Doms, and vice versa. No one ever know everything and a D/s or M/s could should continue to learn from one another through out their entire relationship.

[nk_lion]

Wow, uptil now I've never even heard of M/s and I've been here for a few months. Proves to show that I still have to learn the basics.

Btw, welcome gia, hope you post more often in the forums.

[*gia*]

Smiles, well ty lion. I know I still have much to learn and do plan on taking full advantage of the forums here. M/s refers to Master/slave btw.

[gloombunny]

The distinctions are poorly defined and not really meaningful. I say don't worry about it.

[lily27]

I think that everyone has a slightly different definition... and it is just a matter of picking what works for you.

For me, I consider an M/s relationship to be one that is 24/7 total power exchange ("TPE"). There is no switching in and out of roles. I consider a D/s relationship to be anything less than TPE... i.e. the partners are in their roles something less than 24/7... could be just in the bedroom, weekends-only, or just from time to time.

That is how I view it. I personally consider myself a slave... but I didn't start out that way. For some it is a natural transition to go sub --> slave, or Dominant --> Master, while others never have a desire to redefine their roles. For some Doms they feel that they can't be called a "Master" until they learn and perfect certain skills. But this isn't a hard and fast rule.

As for you question about slaves having different needs than subs... well, i think all slaves and all subs have different needs from each other. It all depends on the person. It isn't a case of "subs need x, and slaves need y." It all depends on needs, wants, desires, fears, experiences, challenges, etc.

So.. I hope I added some much needed cloudiness!

[gagged_Louise]

There is an ongoing discussion - though it doesn't often get up clearly in public on a web forum suich as this, it's more run in personal talk and at bdsm parties - that you might call the "old school/new school debate". The whole spectrum of bdsm changed with the internet, and with the new ways of contact and service that the web has brought along. In the old days, it could be maintained a slave was, in general, a live-in, full-time slave who had written a contract, surrrendered all his/her money and property and given up their person to be the Dominant's chattel - a creature out of Justine or the Story of O and the need to have a full-time Master was very pronounced because without that you simply didn't get far inside the culture, the tribe. of course, not all slaves actually lived like that in the old times, but it was sort of a widely-held ideal. The "lifestyle" was like an underground church.

Some of this is applicable in online D/s also, but the idea that slavery has to be physically expressed and shown at all times doesn't seem helpful to the new generations of Dominants and subs/slaves who have found their way in by the web, who are every bit as committed as the "old school" but who can't or won't move to live under the same roof as their Dominant, or give up their old life (it's also much less easy to "live in your pockets" and in a kind of grey zone outside of ordinary society now than it was back in the day, let's say in the 1970s - today you've got to pay your rent and your bills regularly and without marking time even a few days, you get kicked into the street and branded if you don't). So the concept of being a slave isn't always realized as a live-in creature.

The difference between slave and sub was always a dim one, but I feel it's useful to see the difference between self-image (the image and idea of who you are, what you need) and outward life. Everyone defines these things for themselves, but often...well, a sub is the kind who needs to be punished, used and spanked,to feel controlled and to taste being a bottom, but who may not be heavily into serving their Dominant, at least not with non-sexual tasks, while a slave has a need to define some aspect of themselves totally from the Dominant, to give up control firmly (by a contract, a rulebook or some other means?) and to affirm that they're owned and moulded/re-moulded by their Dominant. Slaves, I think, tend to see their BDSM life as an initiation, an irrevocable change in who they are and what they want to be, even if it doesn't happen full-time, and that's something many submissives may feel less strongly.
Again, this doesn't apply to all slaves and submissives in any sense, its a general trend in how the words are used.

[Rhabbi]

Tough question that truly has no answer except on a personal level. Let it be in your own heart and you will always be happy.

[Alex Bragi]

I see this debated/ discussed regularly in bdsm circles but I've never seen it resolved.

I think, when it's all boiled down, it all just about semantics and how individuals view various terms and/or words. For instance, "master and slave", for me, still tends to conjures up images white supremacists and cotton picking Negros living two hundred years ago, south of the Mason-Dixon line.

As Shakespeare's Julliet told Romeo: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

[tessa]

I see this debated/ discussed regularly in bdsm circles but I've never seen it resolved.

I think, when it's all boiled down, it all just about semantics and how individuals view various terms and/or words. For instance, "master and slave", for me, still tends to conjures up images white supremacists and cotton picking Negros living two hundred years ago, south of the Mason-Dixon line.

As Shakespeare's Julliet told Romeo: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

I love reading Alex Bragi-isms. Jewels in words.

[Mad Lews]

From my POV the difference is largely semantic. in both instances the slave/sub gives up control to the Master/Dom (Mastradom?). As in any human endeavor there's a mater of degree.

I suppose by 17th century common law the slave is the property of the Master and he/she would be totally responsible for his/her property. Once a M/s relation starts the decisions about the relation are all the responsibility of the Master.

A sub would need to be more involved in the decision making offering her/his gift of submission to her/his Dom on a constantly renewable basis.

Just the passing fancy of a

Mad Lews

[tessa]

Just the passing fancy of a
Mad Lews

Quite the fancy to watch pass by, Mr. Mad.

Astute POV, IMO.

skotc, ttfn, lol and all that other cyber-language stuff-
tessa :wave:

[Mad Lews]

skotc, ttfn, lol and all that other cyber-language stuff-
tessa :wave:
SKOTC??, TTFN?
Sloppy Kiss on the cock?
tessa's tits finally nibbled?
Good lord they should have made you super Mod ages ago.
(and I thought I was a pervert)
Umh not to be too picky butt,
When you're bent over holding your ankles you need to keep your feet 24" apart.
It's just something we've come to expect from a super moderator. ;)
I'm just trying to be helpful here.
Mad

No he's not, he just wants to stare.
Lews