Myths about Slaves.

[denuseri]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people have assigned some kind of derogatory misnomer or misconstrued additive to sub-define something that used to be one of the highest ideals to uphold in the art (for the initiated).

I am sure there are going to be a lot of the "true" or "real" adjetives thrown around, but sometimes that is unavoidable.

I see a lot of people make assumptions about what a slave is or isnt in bdsm as well as in historical "vanila" subtexts and how one may or may not differ from the more contemporary politically correct term of "submissive" in a bdsm terminology capacity.

So....I figured it would be a good idea to start a thread on what a slave in the context of a safe, sane,,and yes.."consensual" practices of BDSM is and is not all about so people could air what they think the myths are and are not and discuss and learn together perhaps a little bit about ourselves.

Which brings up Myth #1:

"The slave can not consent, or has no choice about anything having "surrendered" all forms of consent or having had all forms of consent taken or removed as such, is incapable of consent."

Something which is completely and utterrly false imho, (in both a bdsm and vanila setting historical or otherwise btw). Plenty of people made the conscious choice to become slaves for a much wider variety of reasons than many will believe.

Everyone, regardless of titular distinction makes choices and or consents or does not consent to this or that as a human being on a case by case, moment by moment basis.

The way I was tuaght, one didn't make the choice to become a slave in a bdsm context until one had dedicated themselves to the path of submission over that of other paths that they may be pursuing (it was kind of like becoming a specialist in the arts of submission and didnt happen until one had been at it for several years,) but also didnt mean you did not top others as and when needed in a bdsm context or vanila one. It was just that your focus was beyound such considerations of "roleplay" where in your relationship to your Owner would be conserned.

The slave was one, who was actually "collared", as opposed to only wearing a collar while submiting. The slave was one who had surrendered in total to his or her self first before offering oneself as well as one's submission to one's Master or Mistress.

Which brings us perhaps prematuraly to Myth #2:

"True" slaves "will not" or "can not" top or dominante another.

Again,, utterrly false, both in bdsm and historically in the vanila world imho.

Again just becuase you take on the titular distinction of a slave, doesnt mean you submit to everyone and everything all the time. Your still human. You still will excersise what dominion you hold other those that you can hold it over, the difference is you are now also willfully and lovingly within the direct dominion of another authority whom you submit to as higher than your own, not becuase you are forced, but becuase you must in your heart submit. Not only for the sake of your Owner...but for yourself as well.

But I shall wait until more people have responded on #1 & #2 before expounding further. I am sure more Myths will come to mind as the debate progresses and or they are brought up by others, and please remember to keep it civil my fellow kinsters, we are not all from the same traditions etc.