Printable View
Hi All,
i've been playing with aspects of BDSM for about 10 years, but i find i'm wanting to get more and more involved in it. However, one aspect i'm a bit confused about is what a submissive is as opposed to what a slave is. In my head, i always put a slave down as someone who does it 24/7, but i don't think that's necessarily true.
You all seem to be rather knowledgeable and experienced, can you help me understand the difference?
Cheers :)
Why don't you decide? It's your sex life.
For me submissive is a mind-set where being a slave is something you do.
i always thought there was a clear difference in the two. So for you a submissive is purely a mental thing whereas if you act on it, you're a slave?Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
i mean no disrespect with that, that just confused me.
I think the difference is mostly one of degree. Let me start with the general defintion and go from there. A sub has limits, a slave does not.
To me this simplistic because it implies a level of obedience that would be all but impossible to a self respecting person. A sub is someone that has decided that she wants to experience submitting to someone eles. This can be a limited type of submission, ie, "I wil do whatever you want me to tonight." Or a LTR with clearly defined limits, whatever they might be.
A slave is someone who is comfortable enough with the Dom that the limits are basically set by the Dom. In other words, a slave woud be someone who decides to obey a Dom no matter wht the circumstances because the level of trust is such that the slave and the Dom know each others limits and respect them.
I do know of slaves who will tell you that the Dom knows what is best, and that though that person would normally not perform a certain task, they would do so if told to by the Dom. As I said, this attitude is one that I would have some serious questions about.
I know this is an awkward explanation, but I hope it does clarify things for you. As a sub you have a safe word, but as a slave you give that word back to your Dom.
I'd agree with my countryman Tom that submssive is sometimes more denoting of a mindset than slave but sure most subs *do* express their attitude, their relation in actions and services more or less imposed by their relation. We're really talking semantics here to some extent - and the OP would be happy to check her pm box.
I know people who are or have been prominent on this forum who will see themselves as slaves even though it's exclusively a distance affair that is brought along by phone, internet or letters - and who are not really thinking about moving into a live-in relationship. That's totally okay by me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
I agree with your whole post but that one line.
I see two levels/degrees within submissive .
Submissive
Slave as stated above ...... much less less options and input ... Things are usually clearly defined in consenting relationships before hand and as the two get to know each other.
( some ( -- nc) think it's all about Whatever is said by the Dominant one. I have wondered if there should even be levels within being slave or not. -- I question this type of slave relationship as unhealthy in my view point. )
Pet .. known for playfulness, given more range of freedom and input .. just as you can't always control cat - kinda very much in common here. I don't expect that kind of control from a pet. If you walk away from a cat or dog.. you can't be sure to some extent what they will or will not do over longer periods. Laughs.
( knows full well this thread could get explosive. )
There's not really a strict denotive difference between the two terms, as they are typically used in the community. Some people use them interchangeably, but I suspect that for most people there is a difference in connotations. I've known some subs who drifted between the two, depending on mood.
As a dom, if someone told me that they wished to be my slave for a session, my style would be pretty different than if they told me they wished to be my submissive. For the slave there would be direct orders, few questions, very little teasing and conjoling and more threats and punishment. The slave would be ridden hard and put away wet. With submissives, I like to foster inner turmoil and shame. I like to put them in predicaments and make them choose their own particular flavor of degradation or suffering. I like to tease and praise and give hope and take it away. I like to make them beg for reward or release.
Of course this is all at the hypothetical level. I would need to know a lot more about a person than whether they wanted to be a slave or a sub before I played with them, and all of those things would factor into the style of play. My point is just that to my mind, the differences between the two aren't as much about the duration or even the intensity of the arrangement -- it's more about the starting point of the arrangement. Do you start at "I'm a free-willed person who wants you to make me want to serve you" or do you start at "I'm your property to do with as you see fit"?
Personally, I prefer the submissive style. I like the idea that throughout the whole thing there is an internal struggle -- a constant choice to submit even though they might be thinking "I don't have to take this shit. I can walk out right now." To my mind, when someone declares themself a slave, they've already made the decision that they do have to take this shit. I don't mean that in some sort of dramatic way, like a slave has no self-esteem. I just mean that they've made the decision that they are going to act as if they are bound to servitude and are therefore that inner struggle between "I can't take this anymore" and "...but I really want more" may be less evident.
Anyway, that's just my take on the whole thing. For the folks who have completely different meanings for the terms, I'm certainly not suggesting you're wrong. That's just the interesting thing about language. And that was Tom's point: it's up to you (with or without other people, as you see fit) to decide what they mean.
Just about every person you ask will have different definitions of the two terms. Sadly, there is not a "Big Book of BDSM Terminology". Actually, that is probably for the best.
i identify as a slave or collared property, but there are some who would argue that i am not because i do have a job, my own bank account, etc.
(i feel as though the argument was settled when i got branded, but that is just me.)
:eek: you got branded? wow. Now I'm impressed. Somebody is in love :) When when when?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon's muse
On the 10th anniversary of my collaring. And it was done with me ungagged, unbound, and i did not flinch or scream. i was very proud, especially since it was in a ceremony with a number of our friends present. It was nice that He trusted me not to embarass him in front of our friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
This has always intrigued me....in fact, when I was submissivewife here a while ago, I posted pretty much the same question. Here's my thoughts:
http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4791
Rhabbi, would you explain a bit more about what your thoughts were in regards to this statement? Please? I'm curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhabbi
To the original question, I have to say that you'll best understand it when you decide what the terms mean for you. Not an answer, I know.
And rose gets to answer in whatever the hell way she wants to. Branded! :pray:
I think its all about your personal perception to me a slave have way less choice in what they have to do and whats done to them and i hope this was agreed on beforehand.As far as a sub they have more imput and choice and they do what they do willingly and freely. What can i say but thats my opinion and i am sticking to it. So in short its up to you to define it for yourself what works for me might not work for you. Well plus i do not personally like the term slave but again thats me
It's the difference between a lobby and a foyer.
Slave: Person who gives up a great degree of control in an ongoing D/s relationship, sometimes with few remaining limits. Often those who identify as "slave" have a great desire for being of service to their dominant, sometimes referred to as "service-oriented submission."
that is what wiki has to say on the matter.
I fully agree with Dragon's muse. It isn't that a "Slave has no self respect. They know and love there "Master/Dom/Lord/King" to the point that they have little to no fear of them going past their limits. About the time a Sub lets me put my brand on her I will call her slave. At that point she is mine for ever and always. I am also hers forever and always.
okay, I will throw in my 2 cents on this.
Most people accept and recognize 3 levels of submissive and Dominants
if all you do is scene or play without any further comitment to each other then they are bottom and Top.
If there is a further comitment to each other beyond the scene or play then they are sub and Dom
If there is a long term wide ranging comitment to each other where the Dom has the last word in all things and the submissive can't bear the thought of NOT BEING OWNED then they are slave and Master.
Most progress from the lowest level to the sub Dom level and go no further but for those that consider themselves to be 24 7 then they have made it to the highest level slave and Master.
I don't agree that a slave can't have a safe word, that is insanity what happens if she has a physical problem during a heave session, I have had the experience, she need that safeword but since she is slave she will not use it unless there is an extreme need.
Russell
I've never heard it explained like that before, Russell, but it makes a lot of sense. In my own experience (not nearly as much as yours) bondage was the trigger in a relationship that ultimately led to marriage. We were married nearly twenty years with the last seven or eight of them as participants in the wider kink community (real life - not online).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Russell
BDSM for us was a social, fun thing more than it was a 'lifestyle' and subsequently we only ever labeled ourselves as top/bottom. Of course, it wasn't strictly true because the BDSM aspect of our relationship was as constant and 24/7 that real life committments would allow however, as I mentioned, I don't believe we took its 'rituals' and 'protocols' as seriously as many of our friends. Thus, top/bottom was simply a label of convenience used out of respect for those who took the lifestyle far more seriously than us.
anonymouse
These definitions make sense, which is more than I can say for most people's definitions of the terms. But they're quite different from everything else I've ever heard about the difference between slaves and submissives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Russell
NatalieD
Thank you these definations took a while to develop. I have an advantage that most here are too young to enjoy, I been at this for 37 years. That of course predates the internet as it is today. Today there is a huge amount of fantasy about bdsm that is now accepted as truth. A slave in most countries is strictly a voluntary thing that can be ended with a choice and an action. So a slave with a checking or saving account becomes a decission for the Master and the slave. I expect morgan to have a carreer, hell she will probably out earn me, her own accounts and all the life protections she can have.
Fantasy is fine but living M/s is hard on both parts.
Russell
i dont know that there can be a clear cut answer and i agree with those that state it is a personal interpretation....my perception is my reality, so to speak.
i consider personality to be submissive in that i enjoy pleasing others, take care of others needs before my own, etc but i consider myself Master's slave even though i work full time outside our home and He is not always 'into' Master mode.
To me, and this is only my opinion, being submissive is a personality trait - like being outgoing or shy...being a slave is my choice.
i never really spent a lot of time pondering the definitions of these words. i know what i am and therefore, it doesnt matter to me what label people want to put on me. Either they understand or they dont and either way, im still His slave and that's what is important.
respectfully
orchid
agreed orchid if I could boil that down and add it to my description I will. You have given your total comitment to him as Master the rest is just living the life in a manner that works for you both
Russell
Y'know, I think what annoys about the "slave" thing is that it type-casts submissives in inaccurate ways.
Ok, that didn't quite make sense, let me try again.
People use slave to mean "like a submissive, but more so", more or less. But I think there are different kinds of submissives, and the kind that people call a slave when the submission is intense enough is only one of those. I don't quite like that the other kinds are lumped into the "less serious" category like that.
NatalieD
A slave is a submissive so are bottoms and subs.
You may choose to use terms in a fantasy that have little bearing to real life but till I hear better breakdowns of submissiveness I will stick with these.
My slave one day decided to compliment me by telling me I was the best Top ever and was surprised that I took insult to it. Today she has learned the difference based on how I took care of her when others would have run away. I take responsibility for her and have given her my comitment that I am her friend lover Master
Really, all of your replies have just been wonderful - and helpful. Thank you all for giving me food for thought :)
Going back to Cage's definition of slave/sub, I was intrigued at the concept that the sub decides to a degree what their position is, based on their committment to their Master. Would that be a fair comment and would at least some submissives agree with it? Also, Dragon's muse, WOW! I've just writen about a slave being branded based on research and what I've read from the Gor series of John Norman's, but to take it without flinching is impressive!!!!!!! That idea never occurred to me. To actually receive that much pain and not move or cry out? WOW!!!!
Going back to Cage's definition of slave/sub, I was intrigued at the concept that the sub decides to a degree what their position is, based on their committment to their Master. Would that be a fair comment and would at least some submissives agree with it? Also, Dragon's muse, WOW! I've just written about a slave being branded based on research and what I've read from the Gor series of John Norman's, but to take it without flinching is impressive!!!!!!! That idea never occurred to me. To actually receive that much pain and not move or cry out? WOW!!!!
Hey, that's cool! Got a double-dose of the question!
Crikey,
Mind over matter, stubborness, and a determination to make Dragon proud of me. A powerful mixture. The smell got to me more than anything.
these are all very good definitions of the terms and i would assert that in my opinion there is no right or wrong definition because it is very dependent on the dynamics of you and your Dom. I have personally always disliked the term slave probably due to historical meanings and therefore my Master and i have came up with a term we feel is appropriate ...i am his slavmissive ;)
hehe eheheh @ slavmissive
I am a slave to Benz and not submissive but some might frown that because I am slave i dont have opinions or anything.
which I do....
not only am I slave to my Master I am also his girl.....his fiancee and his partner. The day I recieved my collar was the day i went from sub to slave. being totally owned by him ... i am his property