Nine Levels of Submission

[Rhabbi]

I came across this online recently and remeber reading it before. This is another thing that I do not necessarily agree with, but thought it might promote some discussion here.


Within the S/M subculture, different people use the words "submissive and slave" to mean many different things. When submissives say "I want to be your slave," sometimes they mean only that they want to be tied up and whipped. Many professional dominants routinely refer to their (usually not very genuinely submissive clients) as "slaves." At the other extreme, there are people who want to be full-time personal servants, and who truly want to exist solely for their Dom(me)'s use, pleasure and convenience. And there are many shades in between these two extremes.


1. The outright non-submissive masochist or Kinky Sensualist

Not into servitude, humiliation or giving up control; just pain and/or spiced-up sensuality, on the masochist's own terms and for the masochist's own direct pleasure (i.e. turned on solely/_toply by one's own bodily sensations rather than by being "used" to gratify one's partner's sadism).

2. Pseudo-submissive non-slave

Not into even playing "slave," but into other "submissive" role-playing, e.g. schoolteacher scenes, infantilism, "forced" transvestitism. Usually into humiliation, but NOT into servitude, even in play. Dictates the scene to a large degree.

3. Pseudo-submissive play slave

Likes to play at being a slave; likes to feel subservient; may in some cases like to feel one is being "used" to gratify partner's sadism; may even really serve the dominant in some ways, but only on the "slave's" own terms. Dictates the scene to a large degree; often fetishistic (e.g. foot worshippers).

4. True submissive non-slave

Really gives up control (only temporarily and within agreed-upon limits), but gets her/his _top satisfaction from aspects of submission other than serving or being used by the dominant. Usually turned on by suspense, vulnerability, and/or giving up responsibility. Doesn't dictate the scene except in very general terms, but still seek _toply her/his own direct/ pleasure (rather than getting one's pleasure _toply from pleasing the dominant).

5. True submissive play slave

Really gives up control (though only temporarily; only during brief "scenes" and within limits) and gets _top satisfaction from serving/being used by dominant-but only for FUN purposes, usually erotic. May/may not be into pain. If so, is turned on by pain indirectly, i.e. enjoys being the object of one's partner's sadism, on which the submissive places very few requirements or restrictions.

6. Uncommitted short-term but more than play semi-slave

Really gives up control (usually within limits); wants to serve and be used by the dominant; wants to provide practical/non erotic as well as fun/erotic services; but only when the "slave" is in the mood. May even act as a full- time slave for, say, several days at a time, but is free to quit at any time (or at the end of the agreed upon several days). May or may not have long-term relationship with one's Mistress, but, either way, the "slave" has the final say over when she will serve.

7. Part-Time consensual - but real slave

Has an ongoing commitment to an owner/slave relationship and regards oneself as the dominant's property at all times. Wants to obey and please dom(me) in all aspects of life-practical/non erotic and fun/erotic. Devotes most of time to other commitments (e.g. job) but Dom(me) has first pick of the slave's free time.

8. Full-Time live-in consensual slave

Within no more than a few broad limits/requirements, the slave regards herself/himself as existing solely for the Dom(me)'s pleasure/well being. Slave in turn expects to be regarded as a prized possession. Not much different from the situation of the traditional housewife, except that within the S/M world the slave's position is more likely to be fully consensual, especially of the slave is male. Within the S/M world, a full time "slave" arrangement is entered into with an explicit awareness of the magnitude carefully, with more awareness of the magnitude of power that is being given up, and hence is usually entered into much more carefully, with more awareness of the possible dangers, and with much clearer and more specific agreements than usually precede the traditional marriage.

9. Consensual Total Slave with NO Limits

A common fantasy ideal which probably doesn't exist in real life (except in authoritarian religious cults and other situations where the "consent" is induced by brainwashing and/or social or economic pressures, and hence isn't fully consensual). A few S/M purists will insist that you aren't really a slave unless you're willing to do absolutely anything for your Dom(me), with no limits at all. I've met a few people who claimed to be no-limit slaves, but in all cases I have reason to doubt the claim.


Written by Diane Vera and published in Lesbian S/M Safety Manual, edited by Pat Califia, from Alyson Press (still in print).

[gloombunny]

:rolleyes:

[Dragon's muse]

The one bad thing about the internet is that drivel never dies.

i am collared property, and refuse to even acknowledge the right of anyone other than Master to put me in any category or put a label on me.

Labels are for packages.
Pigeonholes are for piegons.

Just my tuppence, your mileage, as always, may vary.

rose
:rose:

[Rhabbi]

I agree with you muse. We do not need labels, just ourselves. My biggest beef with the author of this article is that she obviously does not understand what this is about for me. I am into D/s, not S/m.

[myri_SN]

The one bad thing about the internet is that drivel never dies.

i am collared property, and refuse to even acknowledge the right of anyone other than Master to put me in any category or put a label on me.

Labels are for packages.
Pigeonholes are for piegons.

Just my tuppence, your mileage, as always, may vary.

rose
:rose:

applauds :wave:

and looks a bit confused at the suddenly black colour of the forum:confused:

[Kuronue]

Much love to Rhabbi for posting this. Whether we agree with it or not (and there do seem to be some issues), it's a good launching point for a definitive answer. It's just needs some expansion.

Actually, I am very grateful for this post. *bows before the almighty Rhabbi* My pet and I had just been talking about how I needed to know that this was definitely the lifestyle he wanted (he's been saying "yes" the whole time, but I keep making sure). Then this list came up, and we sat down and read it... and discovered that while I thought he was at one stage, he said he was a completely different one! Imagine our surprise. A late-night discussion, a discovery of one of Sir_Russell's posts (his checklists), and some tickling later, we've gotten everything settled and worked out, and we're happy as ever.

As for the post and the classifications, it seems to me that with a bit of imagination and taking them at their BROADEST range, they might be semi-applicable. Ignore what doesn't suit your lifestyle, have a discussioon about it with your sub, and for fun, edit the list to your heart's content. Heck, post the revisions here and let's see if we can't get something better going.

Best wishes, all!

[gagged_Louise]

Quite useful as a starting ground for discussion about wjhat kind of relation you're in and what is wanted. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be seen as a sort of definite Holy Writ about what kinds of submission there are, nor as a ladder ("you start at level 1 and become more and more accomplished"). Most of us have been turned on at the start by the ultimate, fantasy-like depictions of BDSM, like The Story of O and stories of kinky dungeon life (or by the glamorous seventies?); whether you find those around in your neighbourhood or not, it's useful to consider how much and what of the "package" works for me, for us?

It would be nice to know when this was written? It could apply to both online and real-life D/s, but the possibilities of online contact in realtime (web talk, Skype, instant sharing of reports and images) have transformed the BDSM world, and this has really happened in the last ten years.

[Rhabbi]

Much love to Rhabbi for posting this. Whether we agree with it or not (and there do seem to be some issues), it's a good launching point for a definitive answer. It's just needs some expansion.

Actually, I am very grateful for this post. *bows before the almighty Rhabbi* My pet and I had just been talking about how I needed to know that this was definitely the lifestyle he wanted (he's been saying "yes" the whole time, but I keep making sure). Then this list came up, and we sat down and read it... and discovered that while I thought he was at one stage, he said he was a completely different one! Imagine our surprise. A late-night discussion, a discovery of one of Sir_Russell's posts (his checklists), and some tickling later, we've gotten everything settled and worked out, and we're happy as ever.

As for the post and the classifications, it seems to me that with a bit of imagination and taking them at their BROADEST range, they might be semi-applicable. Ignore what doesn't suit your lifestyle, have a discussioon about it with your sub, and for fun, edit the list to your heart's content. Heck, post the revisions here and let's see if we can't get something better going.

Best wishes, all!

First, congratulations on the next step in your realtionship.

And I agree, if anyone thinks thaey can do better at this, lets give it a shot and see if we can end up with something definative that will actually work.

[Rhabbi]

It would be nice to know when this was written? It could apply to both online and real-life D/s, but the possibilities of online contact in realtime (web talk, Skype, instant sharing of reports and images) have transformed the BDSM world, and this has really happened in the last ten years.

Have no idea when it was written as the source did not include that. I actually think it predates the internet by a long time.

[gloombunny]

something definitive that will actually work.
I'm pretty sure this is a contradiction.

[TomOfSweden]

What I don't like about it is that there's an implicit hierarchy. Happiness is the key, not level of acomplishment as a slave.

Even if the hierarchy is centered around level of given control it's confusing. Why is forced transvestitism a less submissive act than foot worship? It's just inconsistant. It's one persons judgement on what that person feels is more submissive. It's hard to aply it on anyone else. If you are a foot fetishist, worshiping feet isn't particularly submissive is it? It also confuses masochism with submission.

I've got a million issues with this. Too many to mention.

[coookie]

i agree with you TomOfSweden, there is a feeling of you start at A and progress to J ... on the other end of it though it is nice to know that others are with you in what you deem as your submission (this is obviously not directed at Tom any longer).

[Dragon's muse]

And I agree, if anyone thinks thaey can do better at this, lets give it a shot and see if we can end up with something definative that will actually work.

i would not even venture a try at coming up with definite terms for anyone's relationship but mine. Every relationship is different and their parameters for submission are fluid. i am not sure it is possible to come up with definitions that would fit the vast spectrum of people that do what it is that we do.

As always, just my tuppence.

rose

[gagged_Louise]

Yes, I'm in with you Muse that there's no single definition (any more than there's a clear definition of "hetero vanilla sex") only I don't think that's the intention of the writer, nor the point of Rhabbi in posting this. To my mind, it works as a starting-point to try and gauge: what's my turn-on in this? How far do we really want to go, now or in the near future? If one is on a high and having a great time, bound, gagged and totally turned on, yeah right often one will feel "I'll do absolutely anything for this guy, serve Him in anything..." without really meaning it full-on perhaps (if your Master grew mentally ill, though stiil undiagnosed, what then?)

You know as well as I do people in the BDSM community make very different use of words like slave or owned: to some it implies total. live-in control and basically no limits (no other conditions), to others it's something that really demands an on-going consensual factor, checked tightly: the slave may be pushed, whipped, used, but can't really be regarded as mute dumb property. I don't think either of us would buy the view that to be a slave you have to give up évery right to object to your Dom/me, to keep any limits, or to have a life outside of your slave service (and btw I think the point where the author of the document above says the traditional housewife role "basically equalled a sex slave" - because rape within marriage was not recognized and the wife worked at home? - is really misleading; she's relying on radical lesbian polemics against the traditional family here).

It works as a sort of white paper to get down to see some of the patchwork of things you're into and what might be coming next. Being a branded slave with long experience you clearly don't have much need for this kind of thing, I feel it clearly needs to be worked over a bit too, but it seems a useful discussion to me.

[Rhabbi]

Thank you louise.

I do not think anyone would view this as a heirachy. No one would progress through these from 1 to 9. Some of them do not even belong to D/s. Those who are in level ! would proably never get past it, because waht turns them on is the kink, not the more important aspects of D/s.

[gloombunny]

I think to even talk about whether or not people progress from one level to the next is missing the point about why this concept sucks. Any attempt to arrange every variety of D/s onto a single one-dimensional scale is fundamentally and intensely flawed. It is just far too complex a subject to be described with such a simple model.

[gagged_Louise]

NatalieD: The title is "Nine levels of submission" - okay, but I don't even see it stated anywhere in the text that these nine groups form a definite progression, with the meaning that one step/group is inherently better than the ones that were mentioned before. You can read that into it, to some Doms (especially) it will be a reflex to read that in, but in my view she is rather trying to ferret out different kinds of submissive longing and commitment - there's no implication that they're clear-cut or that one is better than all the rest. In fact, the way she describes the 9th "class" (what you might loosely call "total slavery") she seems to have strong reservations about that one - she says it might only exist in fantasy and sees it as probably a by-product of brainwashing or misleading religious ideas. Do keep in mind that being a (radical?) Lesbian, she is very probably arguing with "standard M/f BDSM" and its ideas here and there in her piece.

I see her trying to use some parameters (scales) to bring out those different kinds of subbiehood:

consensual at all moments - willing to give up consensuality for some time and surrender yourself totally
short-term - long-term - life-time
focused on own enjoyment/thrill - on Dom/me's enjoyment
sexual services - other services too

and so on. My own bond with Liz doesn't really fit any one category here, partly because there's no mention of switches (which she is) or trans people (me) and also because this outline predates the internet. but that's just one reason why I think it's a useful starting-ground for discussion.

[gloombunny]

You could not have missed my point more.

[gagged_Louise]

I don't even see it stated anywhere in the text that these nine groups form a definite progression, with the meaning that one step/group is inherently better (---) In fact, the way she describes the 9th "class" (what you might loosely call "total slavery") she seems to have strong reservations about that one - she says it might only exist in fantasy and sees it as probably a by-product of brainwashing or misleading religious ideas.

Could it be said clearer that she's not putting up a ladder where one kind of submission is always finer than the ones that came before?


My own bond with Liz doesn't really fit any one category here, partly because there's no mention of switches (which she is) or trans people (me)

I honestly don't see my own kind of submission to be a total match to anything she describes - and it seems to me that's a major point both you and Dragon's muse have against her: you both feel she'd be trying to squeeze you into her scheme. I don't think the text does that, and it uses a number of independent parameters, not just one which would run the whole show. In any case, seems plain your dissent is with her text rather than with me.

[elyse]

My brain is fuzzy today, please bear with me?

If you go to the market and buy two jalapeno peppers, take them home and taste them, they will frequently each have a different amount of heat. But they're both of them real, true jalapeno peppers -- not pseudo-peppers or part-time peppers -- and each of them is has within itself the perfect level of heat and spice for someone out there.

[gloombunny]

My brain is fuzzy today, please bear with me?

If you go to the market and buy two jalapeno peppers, take them home and taste them, they will frequently each have a different amount of heat. But they're both of them real, true jalapeno peppers -- not pseudo-peppers or part-time peppers -- and each of them is has within itself the perfect level of heat and spice for someone out there.
Spiciness is a simple quality which can be measured numerically with a single dimension.

Submissiveness isn't, no matter what Diane Vera thinks.

[elyse]

someone could not have missed *my* point more.

Yes, the Scoville scale measures the capsaicin in a pepper, but it can't quantify any of the other qualities -- such as visual or textural appeal -- that the peppers bring to the table, so to speak. Both peppers are real, genuine peppers, regardless of where they fall on the Scoville scale.

If one's only criteria for a pepper is heat, then one should probably just buy a bottle of hot sauce.

[gloombunny]

That's a good point, but it has nothing to do with what you actually posted. Which was entirely about the heat of the peppers.

edit: And it still has the same problem that I've been trying to talk about, as far as I can tell.

[Rhabbi]

I think to even talk about whether or not people progress from one level to the next is missing the point about why this concept sucks. Any attempt to arrange every variety of D/s onto a single one-dimensional scale is fundamentally and intensely flawed. It is just far too complex a subject to be described with such a simple model.


I think I see your point here, and I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing. D/s is a complex subject, and anyone that says that submission is a progressive thing totally misses the point. But I d think that a simple model exists that will explain it, this just is not it, nor do I know what it is.

I know that right now you want to jump me about there being a simple model, but my experience has shown me that ultimately things are preetty simple. Even the most complex things in nature cn be expalined using simple terms, once we understand them. I refuse to believe that people are inherantly impossible to understand, so I beleive that we can expalin motivations once we stop looking at things the wrong way.

[Dragon's muse]

i think there might have to be two (or more) models to make them simple. There are those whose relationship is more kink oriented D/s, and some whose is more service oriented D/s. Then there are those (like mine) that blend the two without there being a strict line of demarcation. No one kind is better or worse than another, just different.

Then you can throw in Switches, masochistic Dominants, and all the other variants out there.

Oy, the mind boggles. i think i just gave myself a headache.

[gloombunny]

Looking back, I apologize for my tone in this thread. I was getting frustrated at the course of the conversation, but that's no excuse for being bitchy.



I think I see your point here, and I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing. D/s is a complex subject, and anyone that says that submission is a progressive thing totally misses the point. But I d think that a simple model exists that will explain it, this just is not it, nor do I know what it is.

I know that right now you want to jump me about there being a simple model, but my experience has shown me that ultimately things are preetty simple. Even the most complex things in nature cn be expalined using simple terms, once we understand them. I refuse to believe that people are inherantly impossible to understand, so I beleive that we can expalin motivations once we stop looking at things the wrong way.
Actually, I don't think it's necessarily impossible to find a simple but accurate model. What I am sure of is that no model as simple as a one-dimensional spectrum will be accurate. I think you would need at least three axes to measure submissiveness with any reliability, and likely more.

[Dragon's muse]

i just have a problem with this tendency to want to put definitive labels on everything. We are who we are. We do what we do. We look for people who are compatible with us. That is the main reason that i use "collared property" instead of submissive or slave, it seems to have less pre-conceived definitions attached to it.

[Eponine]

Thanks for sharing, Rhabbi.

I found it very interesting- I did see it as seeming to have a sense of progression also, and I didn't care for the titles of each level,
BUT
I found the descriptions useful to me in trying to discover what I really do need/ want/ am able to be...

And on the #9... I think there probably are truly limitless slaves... but that doesn't mean the Master/ Mistress will abuse their property...

[Rhabbi]

Thanks for sharing, Rhabbi.

I found it very interesting- I did see it as seeming to have a sense of progression also, and I didn't care for the titles of each level,
BUT
I found the descriptions useful to me in trying to discover what I really do need/ want/ am able to be...

And on the #9... I think there probably are truly limitless slaves... but that doesn't mean the Master/ Mistress will abuse their property...


Personally, I agree with the author about the limitless slaves being more fantasy than reality. I have met people who calim that this is true, but my reservations still exist. I find it hard to believe that someone would allow themselves to be auctioned off if they have a healthy mental attitude. Not saying it is impossible, just that I do not believe it.

[gagged_Louise]

Well, Armin Meiwes (the german "Mr. Cannibal") got several responses when he announced for people who were willing to let themselves be killed and eaten. And the guy he picked actually pulled through, although Armin is said to have complained about the quality of his flesh. Though that was a one-off and while the idea is weirdly thrilling somehow, I admit I find it hard to understand how a sane person would allow him/herself to sign off for life any right to speak unless permitted, the right not to give sexual services to everyone ho is Master's guest, and accept to be tortured on a daily basis.


There was a celebrated and truly bizarre murder trial in Sweden three years ago where a young nanny girl working in the house of an extreme pentecostalist Reverend had killed his wife (the woman she was supposed to stand by) and then made an almost-successful attempt at the man living in the next house (whose wife, like the nanny herself, was in love with, and had been adulterous with, the Reverend; both women were highly in awe of him). The nanny girl had bnever killed anyone before, not even held a gun, but she pulled through what she had ben obliquely commanded to do like a targeting. cold robot, essentially a slave of her lover the reverend - who,. in his turn, coldly calculated on that she would confess and go to jail for the killings (see Knutby murder at Wikipedia for this amazing case). If the neighbour had died too, the scheme might have hit home....Of course that girl was in a half-psychotic state, living in a realm of erotic and religious hypnosis, but she was not unintelligent; her testimonies during the trial were very cohesive and detailed, and could be confirmed.

[Eponine]

...I admit I find it hard to understand how a sane person would allow him/herself to sign off for life any right to speak unless permitted, the right not to give sexual services to everyone ho is Master's guest, and accept to be tortured on a daily basis....

I think that people many times assume that a limitless, or true, slave, is owned by an uncaring, evil person...
which doesn't have to be the case...

In the end, yes, of course, it's all completely consensual... and if the slave feels the master/ mistress has broken promises and is not loving or sensitive to the slave as a human being, an object of master/ mistress' deepest affections and love... then... it should be over...

But inside of that love framework, i think there are slaves out there who would do anything their master/ mistress wanted.

And i really like Dragon's muse's post and description of her own relationship with Dragon.

[Dragon's muse]

Offhand, i cannot think of anything that Dragon is capable of asking me to do that i would refuse. He has never chosen to share me with anyone, we have the same hard limits (minors, animals, snuff, scat), so in a certain sense i could call myself a no-limits slave.

All that being said, if Dragon told me to step in front of a bus, i would say
"Respectfully, Sir, fuck you." But that feeds back into the first line of this post, it is something that he would not ask of me.

rose

[Rhabbi]

Well, Armin Meiwes (the german "Mr. Cannibal") got several responses when he announced for people who were willing to let themselves be killed and eaten. And the guy he picked actually pulled through, although Armin is said to have complained about the quality of his flesh. Though that was a one-off and while the idea is weirdly thrilling somehow, I admit I find it hard to understand how a sane person would allow him/herself to sign off for life any right to speak unless permitted, the right not to give sexual services to everyone ho is Master's guest, and accept to be tortured on a daily basis.


There was a celebrated and truly bizarre murder trial in Sweden three years ago where a young nanny girl working in the house of an extreme pentecostalist Reverend had killed his wife (the woman she was supposed to stand by) and then made an almost-successful attempt at the man living in the next house (whose wife, like the nanny herself, was in love with, and had been adulterous with, the Reverend; both women were highly in awe of him). The nanny girl had bnever killed anyone before, not even held a gun, but she pulled through what she had ben obliquely commanded to do like a targeting. cold robot, essentially a slave of her lover the reverend - who,. in his turn, coldly calculated on that she would confess and go to jail for the killings (see Knutby murder at Wikipedia for this amazing case). If the neighbour had died too, the scheme might have hit home....Of course that girl was in a half-psychotic state, living in a realm of erotic and religious hypnosis, but she was not unintelligent; her testimonies during the trial were very cohesive and detailed, and could be confirmed.


Offhand, i cannot think of anything that Dragon is capable of asking me to do that i would refuse. He has never chosen to share me with anyone, we have the same hard limits (minors, animals, snuff, scat), so in a certain sense i could call myself a no-limits slave.

All that being said, if Dragon told me to step in front of a bus, i would say
"Respectfully, Sir, fuck you." But that feeds back into the first line of this post, it is something that he would not ask of me.

rose

These two post serve to illustrate the reason why I doubt that a no-limit slave exist in a healty relationship.

Dragon and Muse have a healthy relationship. She trusts him implicitly because she knows that he has her, and their, best interests at heart. She thus will do anything he asks her to do, knowing that he will not ask aanything of her that she would not do.

The example that luoise posted is an example of brain washing and a level of control that is not healthy. The man in this relationship took advantage of his position to turn the woman into a robot. This was done deliberately and without any concern for her well being. He then used her to accomplish his purposes.

Healthy relationships are always Safe, Sane, and Consensual.

[caligirl{Rob}]

big huggles to Rhabbi for beginning this interesting thread...i am one that always runs from labels as well as i would pick parts of each level and find some things i thought were missing entirely and tomorrow would probably feel differently...for all parties involved are continually changing and growing, learning and exploring, we move forward at times by moving back, so while i would not want to be labeled as being in one particular level, i am interested in the different views...*smiles* as in all of life an alternate lifestyle is still made up of diverse people and thoughts...

huggles again!
cali

[Eponine]

Offhand, i cannot think of anything that Dragon is capable of asking me to do that i would refuse. He has never chosen to share me with anyone, we have the same hard limits (minors, animals, snuff, scat), so in a certain sense i could call myself a no-limits slave.

All that being said, if Dragon told me to step in front of a bus, i would say
"Respectfully, Sir, fuck you." But that feeds back into the first line of this post, it is something that he would not ask of me.

rose


Yes!! That's exactly what I mean, and how I think...
so maybe this is getting into semantics now...
what does "truly limitless" mean?
I would consider, and Dragon's muse calls herself a no-limits slave... but
the point is ... okay... the master and slave have the same limits... because they love each other...sorry i'm repeating myself now...

But I was also thinking about how some of these "levels" use the word "consensual" whereas others don't... which struck me odd because it's all consensual... lol...

So, yeah, there are definitely flaws with the levels, but again, Rhabbi, thanks for stimulating some dialogue.