Printable View
"The bottom line is I don't care if you use the title slave, you can call yourself Praxion from the planet Ziffania for all I care."
I'm brand new to the site and I love reading your stuff, I learn so much from you. Your humor especially, and your honesty.
"The bottom line is I don't care if you use the title slave, you can call yourself Praxion from the planet Ziffania for all I care."
I'm brand new to the site and I love reading your stuff, I learn so much from you. Your humor especially, and your honesty.
First off let me just say how much I enjoy and respect everyone's opinions here.
Next I see that it has been a long time since anyone has posted to this thread... but felt the need to do so myself.
Now my eloquence does not come in written form, but I will do my best to get my thoughts in as straight a line as possible.
What is a submissive or slave? For myself the need for a title went out the door a long time ago. I have found that i am many things at different times, scenes, settings, etc. To put myself in one category would be like seeing in only black and white...
The D/s and/or BDSM world is so vast that it would take an infinite amount of lifetimes to experience all that one could think up.. in other words, we are only limited by our imaginations and willingness to learn, grow and experience.
My Master and I define who and what we are every day that we are together... a constant journey, ever changing and expanding. Bottom line is... I am His.
His what, some might be asking. Well, I would have to say that I am whatever He wants me to be at any given moment. Whether it be sub, slave, pet or table. It is what I chose for myself, and give freely over to Him. He understands the enormity of the commitment and responsibility I have placed at His feet. In return, I understand my place as I kneel before Him, ready to perform any task He sets before me, with respect, love and honor.
Hmmmm perhaps I can best sum it up in: i am His tehya.
Well I guess I have rambled on long enough...
Master's tehya
You may not think you're eloquent, but i think you put this really well, in fact, this is one of the bests posts on this thread, IMO. It makes perfect sense when you think about it, that in a personal Ds relationship, you just are what you are to your dominant.Quote:
Originally Posted by tehya
Nice one tehya! :)
sl
I agree. Sometimes too much emphasis is put on labels and titles. What you feel inside is what really counts. I believe tehya put has it best so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by slavelucy
Nikka & slavelucy,
Thank you both so much... being this was my first real post, i appreciate your kind words. It is hard sometimes to voice my opinion... fear of ruffling feathers and all. LOL Anyway, i enjoyed it immensely and look forward to sharing my opinions and ideals with everyone. I am sure there will plenty who disagree, but it is nice to know that others think along the same lines as well. I look forward to my time here as one of great learning and growth.
Master's tehya
lol...sharing your personal views on a subject such as this would hardly step on anyone's toes or ruffle any feathers. You are a very well spoken, clear headed individual and any and all posts you contribute I'm sure will be well received by this community.Quote:
Originally Posted by tehya
Nice to meet you, and I hope you post more on the boards :)
Fetish101
Fetish101,Quote:
Originally Posted by fetish101
Thank you and perhaps "ruffling feathers" doesn't apply to this particular post, but I read many of the others threads... Ruffled feathers can and do happen..LOL Anyway, it is great to be welcomed into a new community. I think i will enjoy my time here!
Master's tehya
I think this one was a good piece. Maybe some new members would care to have a look and see if anything here is worth replying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide
Agreed TG. It is good. :)
I find myself agreeing with FF on the use of the word slave. I have never liked it and have trouble using it as a title. It just doesn't sit right. :confused:
tehya I have to agree with you too about titles. I don't find much use for them either, and not just in BDSM. Those who know me have never seen me use one. Often I find people use titles as a quick way to explain to others how they practice the lifestyle or wish they did. Given the proliferation of titles, particularly to the right of the / it becomes hard to even interpret. Too often I fall into the trap of using the wrong title to describe someone. Given my roots its usually the word "submissive" and its followed by a loud cry of "I'm not submissive and never will be" or something flying across the room. In the last couple of years I don't even try.
A good example would be a lesbian couple who are in an S&m relationship that involves uniforms and very physical play. They describe themselves as "Daddy" and "boy". While it does an adequate job of describing their play style it sure doesn't fit any traditional definition I know of the words. :dunno:
One of the main things my years have taught me is that there is no one right way to practice the lifestyle. While many wrong ones abound. :idea: It all boils down to the fact we are all people, and should be granted the respect for our choices even if they don't fit into our little molds.
from what i have listened, watched and learnt, S/some view slavery as one who is submissive and signs over all freedoms, rights of choice and being should one be chosen, there are no safe words, just complete total power exchange, absolute trust and a unity of T/two working towards being O/one in completeness.
Would this be romantisizing BDSM? i think so yes in some form, T/they live together, T/they live the life 24/7 and are very commited within T/their lifestyle, yet so at peace, so really with this as an addition, i dont think there would be any harm in romanticising in a different form.
He keeps telling me i am a slave at heart, but i am not ready to accept this, simply a submissive with much to learn and always growing
:rolleyes: :cool:
It never ceases to amaze me how posts of slave vs sub always turn to discussions of abuse and how the word slave is degrading because of our history of slavery. Let's take a look at the official definition of slave:
# One bound in servitude to a person or household.
# One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence.
Well those two definitions are who I am. They describe my station in life exactly. Therefore Master has every right to call me His slave.
On the other hand, submissive... Well, that's not even a noun. Should we therefore find another word for those who enjoy submitting to another?
I also wonder why you never see similar discussions about Dom vs Master. If you follow the logic of the arguments against the word slave, then Master shouldn't be used either.
What it comes down to is this: As humans we all enjoy the feeling of belonging to something and create labels to signify this. We're husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, slaves, subs, Doms and more.
It's hard enough to find a place in this lifestyle without having others put you down for something like a label.
Quote:
Originally Posted by embre
You mean discussions like this one?
I'm glad this thread was 'refreshed' as there has been some very interesting comment, but there is a point that does not seem to have been picked up.
I see submission as more than just a role that someone chooses to play in the context of power exchange. It is a sexual orientation, more than just a role or state of mind. It is a need, a position, and it reflects a psychological makeup that is very different from that of a person who can be dominant.
Slavery, on the other hand, is a way to put submission into practice. It is a status in a context that involves other people. Submission can remain just an unsatisfied need, although the role that a submissive will be naturally inclined to play in power exchange is predefined.
Slavery as a status is not necessarily consensual. Consensual slavery requires extreme submissive tendencies on the part of the slave, a need to be utterly controlled. A slave may not accept this status. It can be abusive. Non-consensual slavery does exist in the lifestyle and does not require the slave to have a natural inclination towards the submissive role. Slavery does not necessarily involve sex. but it always involves power play. Slavery is by definition a status that applies 24/7, or for an extended duration.
Objectification may seem like an extreme form of sexual slavery, but from the descriptions in this thread it is more about the way a submissive is treated, or wants to be treated. The duration is unspecified. Unquestioning obedience is not enough. The treatment is necessarily degrading. It involves the total subjugation of both body and mind. Permanent harm in many forms is not excluded. This kind of treatment can equally be applied to a person who is not naturally submissive, because objectification does not require any form of consent. Curiously, there are many people out there who derive sexual satisfaction from being treated like that, or even just thinking about it. Unfortunately there are also people out there who are treated like that, derive no sexual or other satisfaction from it, and cannot escape from their situation.
Naturally inclined submissives require a form of relationship that applies a form of constraint, physical or mental, for the full expression of their own sexual orientation. A person's preferences can be very complex, but I think there should always be love and respect for the other partner underlying any form of power exchange. The submissive partner should never be exposed to sickness, injury or any other kind of permanent harm on a non-consensual basis. If that happens the dominant should be locked up!
Thanks for the link. I've never seen a discussion like that before. Figures it would be on the one board where I say I'd never seen one :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide
Okay, I'm probably missing something here, but "Non-consensual slavery does exist in the lifestyle" doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of this post. Also, I don't agree with the statement. If it's non-consensual, it's criminal, and not part of 'the lifestyle' as that phrase is generally used in this Forum. The essence of BDSM is 'safe, sane, consensual'; if it's non-consensual, it's assault, rape, kidnapping, etc. :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitman
Curtis, you are preaching to the converted - however, the 'lifestyle' does not only exist within the boundaries of this Forum. Unfortunately the idealistic attributes 'safe, sane, consensual', which I believe I endorsed very strongly in my statement, are not universally accepted by all practising dominants. I felt it necessary to state facts, because of the nature of the question posed by this thread, which might have been taken as suggesting that submission, slavery and 'objectification' can be compared on the same level playing field. I do not consider that they are comparable on this basis, or equally acceptable, and I believe I explained my reasoning rather clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis
We also have the same kind of problem that exists with other forms of domestic violence. The victim is often reluctant to pursue a complaint through the courts. Being submissive, taking such a form of positive action can often be psychologically difficult for a person whose ego has been systematically trampled on, even when the situation becomes intolerable and actual bodily harm has occurred.
Nobody can deny that many people who enjoy relationships involving bdsm experience gratification of a kind, or an intensity that otherwise does not occur. As in any loving relationship, I would like to think that the more effort is devoted to the pleasure of the partner, the more enjoyable it is. If one partner has no interest in the gratification of the other, as you rightly pointed out, the relationship is abusive, and legal sanctions should apply. The success of marriages or partnerships that do not involve bdsm is just as dependent on the unselfish attitude of both partners.
I believe that what I posted was both accurate, and directly relevant to the issues previously discussed in this particular thread. Hopefully what I have added was complementary to the previous discussion, and useful.