Submissive vs Slave vs Subordinate

I've been thinking about myself, and aside from the fact that I consider myself a switch, when I am sub, I think I am more subordinate than submissive or like a slave. I want my Dom to be like a mentor to me, an older brother, a teacher, or the person of higher rank in the army. I think mentor is the best term for it. I want somebody to help me find my desires, which most likely often include pleasing him or her.

I am not exactly sure what that means, because I am not exactly sure what is the difference between them.

What do you think?

Especially, what is the difference between a slave and a submissive?

And has anyone felt subordinate rather than slavish or submissive?

This is a common question and frankly I am not sure if there even is a question. You are what you feel you are, whatever the name given to that state by the lifestyle.

If we are dealing with strict definitions then I would say that a submissive is a person who submits to a Dominant - whether that be for one session or forever, whether they be a switch or always a sub and regardless of the Dominant involved. A slave, on the other hand, is ALWAYS submissive to a particular dominant as they are THEIR slave but may be a sub to others if their Dom allows.

However, there are many different definitions of the above terms and there are bound to be some who disagree mine... :)

Subordinate is something I would more associate with a Dom/me in training - someone who works with a Dom/me on another sub, performing some of the Dominant functions of the relationship. i.e. someone who does the work of tying someone up while the real Domme 'supervises' from a comfy seat. In this case, both are subs because they are taking orders from the Dom/me but one of them is also acting as a Dom/me themselves and may one day be a Dom/me in their own right.

Thanks, I think that explains a lot.

I have no wish to be a slave, although I do wish to sub, and I would like a subordinate relationship because I really do want to be trained so I can eventually be a good Dom.

I certainly understand where you are coming from. Personally I prefer a subordinate to a submissive. I don't want to get into slave/sub definitions here but I think it's generally accepted that the slave is 24/7 and has no rights whereas the sub can have limits and parameters within which to serve.

But to add a different dimension to the post, I would think an element to consider is how pleasure is derived. The submissive, in theory, should derive pleasure from the master getting pleasure. So the question is, if you were ordered to do something that you do not like but your master/mistress liked intensely would that turn you on, would you get pleasure from doing it.

This is one reason why I prefer a subordinate. For me the sub's pleasure is a component in my pleasure. If a sub simply says she likes what I like, well that ain't for me. There is a great scene in the Eddie Murphy movie Coming to America where his arranged bride answer every question about her likes with "I like whatever you like". Would drive me nuts just like it did Eddie Murphy.

I would disagree that a slave has no rights. In the modern context this is not true as legally you have every right to walk away from a relationship. No contract which asks you to give up that right (or any legal or constitutional rights) would stand up in a court of law. A slave is simply someone who voluntarily agrees to serve one person 24/7 for a period which is, in theory, permanent but which in reality may be terminated at any time by either party. This is one of the reasons why I often equate slavery to a marriage where 'til death do us part' is often translated as 'til divorce do we part' :)

Marriage and slavery (in the BDSM context) are often similar, in fact. Long term relationships where you promise to remain faithful to one person and many of the long term 24/7 TPE couples I have talked to in my life certainly come across like married couples (in fact many of them are married as well).

As for being ordered to do something you didn't like because the Master/Mistress likes it? Hmmmmm... again, these marriage analogies just keep mounting up :) Compromise is the basis of a good relationship. You might not like being used as a footstool but it makes your Mistress comfortable, you may not enjoy giving your wife a foot rub or following her around a shop while she buys clothes but its part and parcel of being married. In any relationship you end up doing things you may not enjoy but do them anyway because the other person does and it works both ways. Mistress may not like using a strap on on you and your wife may not actually enjoy giving you a blow job or watching football with you but they do it because you enjoy it. Its a very interesting point you made there.

The trick is to find someone who enjoys more of the things you do and less of the things you don't so there is less to put up with.

And I don't think anyone would disagree with the point about 'I like what you like'. Its really annoying (and I say this even though I have done it myself... :) ). This is why it is always good in a BDSM relationship to get the chance to be 'out of character' in order to give feedback to a Dom/me without fear of reprisals and also to negotiate a scene beforehand by telling a Dom/me what you do/don't like and what your limits are. A Dom/me may choose to ignore your 'requests' but at least they know in advance what you do like.

I would disagree that a slave has no rights.
Of course we need to establish in what context we are using the word slave. Sex slaves do exist in the modern world and they certain don't have rights, mind you it is normally not consensual. I still maintain that in theory a slave in the bdsm conmtext has no rights but in reality you are right that is not the case. You definition of simply serving 24/7 could include domestics and house servants. Many in the bdsm world use the term loosely just as an office slave doesn't really mean slave or when a dom says the slave is his "property" he doesn't literally mean that.

No contract which asks you to give up that right (or any legal or constitutional rights) would stand up in a court of law.
You are correct of course but I'm not sure what has law got to do with it. When the criminals draw up the robbers contract to determine how the loot is to be split that would not "stand up in court" but it is a contract valid within the criminal world. Incidentally I read that the drawing up of a slaves contract is in itself illegal in Europe.

Compromise is the basis of a good relationship.
Erm not too sure there. Compromise often results in neither being happy. But I know what you mean and take the point. But are bdsm relationships based on compromise? If so, what then does submitting to somebody's will mean if you have negotiated and amended that will through compromise.

As for being ordered to do something you didn't like because the Master/Mistress likes it?
My point was not whethere or not you do it, but whether or not you gain pleasure from doing it because it gives your master/mistress pleasure.

The trick is to find someone who enjoys more of the things you do and less of the things you don't so there is less to put up with.
Yes and this is why many relationships fail. People rush into Vegas style marriages (to take your analagy) before really knowing the person then a week later as they slowly find they don't share the same interests it's a quickie divorce. Makes a mockery out marriage in my view.

And I don't think anyone would disagree with the point about 'I like what you like'.
And as I recall Eddie Murphy in the film tried to be cunning and said "I order you to tell me what you like" but still could not get an answer. He ended up going to New York for his partner and so as it happens did I:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

I would disagree that a slave has no rights.
Of course we need to establish in what context we are using the word slave. Sex slaves do exist in the modern world and they certain don't have rights, mind you it is normally not consensual. I still maintain that in theory a slave in the bdsm conmtext has no rights but in reality you are right that is not the case. You definition of simply serving 24/7 could include domestics and house servants. Many in the bdsm world use the term loosely just as an office slave doesn't really mean slave or when a dom says the slave is his "property" he doesn't literally mean that.

---

Indeed. We need to distance ourselves from the whole illegal sex slave thing as that is immoral, illegal and nothing to do with us...

This is also why I say there are many definitions of 'slave'. I have heard some I would consider to be subs calling themselves a slave. Its their definition and there is no universal one that I am aware of in the lifestyle.

I would say that a BDSM slave is more like a Greek or Roman slave - who actually had a lot of rights and there were rules etc about how they could be treated - as opposed to the more recent meaning of the word in the context of the African slave trade.

Quote:

---

No contract which asks you to give up that right (or any legal or constitutional rights) would stand up in a court of law.
You are correct of course but I'm not sure what has law got to do with it. When the criminals draw up the robbers contract to determine how the loot is to be split that would not "stand up in court" but it is a contract valid within the criminal world. Incidentally I read that the drawing up of a slaves contract is in itself illegal in Europe.

---

It becomes very important if a once slave took their former master to court over an issue to do with the contract. As you say, it is illegal so the Master would have no rights to claim anything from the slave.

A BDSM contract is valid in the lifestyle, though normally only between those who sign it, but it has no weight in law.

Quote:

---

Compromise is the basis of a good relationship.
Erm not too sure there. Compromise often results in neither being happy. But I know what you mean and take the point. But are bdsm relationships based on compromise? If so, what then does submitting to somebody's will mean if you have negotiated and amended that will through compromise.

---

You cannot have any relationship without giving up something and that is where the compromise lies. As I said, the trick is to find someone where what you give up is minimal and what you gain is a lot so that you barely notice the compromise. You are right that neither is 100% happy but then nor should they be 100% unhappy.

In BDSM it is generally the case that someone who wants to be dominated finds someone who wants to dominate. The compromise is still there but it is subsumed under the overall desires to serve or be served.

Quote:

---

As for being ordered to do something you didn't like because the Master/Mistress likes it?
My point was not whethere or not you do it, but whether or not you gain pleasure from doing it because it gives your master/mistress pleasure.

---

That is the essence of the submissive mind there... a submissive should feel pleasure because their Dom/me feels pleasure. But I am not sure this is always the case for all subs and in all cases. Its an ideal not necessarily a reality.

Quote:

---

The trick is to find someone who enjoys more of the things you do and less of the things you don't so there is less to put up with.
Yes and this is why many relationships fail. People rush into Vegas style marriages (to take your analagy) before really knowing the person then a week later as they slowly find they don't share the same interests it's a quickie divorce. Makes a mockery out marriage in my view.

---

A true connection takes time to find and even when you find it things often change with time. Wanting to be collared straight away is a bad thing, you should always look around and make sure you are certain before you make a committment. Yes, I am equally olod fashioned in this respect :)

Quote:

---

And I don't think anyone would disagree with the point about 'I like what you like'.
And as I recall Eddie Murphy in the film tried to be cunning and said "I order you to tell me what you like" but still could not get an answer. He ended up going to New York for his partner and so as it happens did I:)

---

Yes, I remember that film... :)

I was a slave once, a long time ago, but I am now a submissive. However, I am subsmissive all the time and am in a 24/7 relationship with my Master, who is also my husband. I really don't like using labels, because I once belonged to another forum where everyone insisted that they were slaves and when I mentioned that I was a sub and not a slave, they treated me like I was a lower lifeform. There are times when I am a slave to Master, like for a weekend. But I'd had enough of an experience being a slave to know that that wasn't what I wanted to be anymore. I mush prefer being "just" a sub. It suits my personality better.

Its all a matter of personal perspective. True chattel slavery is ilegal allmost everywhere. Economic slavery has a variety of forms, from share croppers to sweat shops and is ilegal in most western cultures at this time.

And just a note for historical clarity: Alltough the Romans did eventually constitute laws regarding exactly what could and couldnt be done to thier property (slaves etc) and some slaves even had the right to apeal in court, During the period of the entire Republic and the vast majority of Imperial Roman history the Pater Familias ruled supreme with the full right of life and death at his whim to held over all that he held dominion over including his family members sons daughters wife etc, even the slaves. It is in fact from the romans that we get the words Domino and Domina, later to be romanticsized as Dom and Domme. (slaves also had no sexual right of refusal) Most laws reguarding slavery in Rome were not constituted until well after the christian era began and had influenced the empire suficiently.

The Greeks also didnt have well wrought laws until the same time period in the majority of thier cities. Classical Greeks (prior to Alexander) had different laws depending on which citystate one resided in, yet for the most part two examples suficed to describe allmost all. In Sparta for instance for the longest time no one could own a slave, they were owned by the State, (see Helots), in Athens state owned and individual owned slaves existed,nieather variety had the right to refuse sexual advances or file a complaint. In fact in Athens a married man couldnt be found guilty of adultery unless it was with another mans residing wife or daughter. The men could stick it where and how ever they chose, including into consenting young boys. A corperal offence in the Roman Legions. lol Those prudish Romans. (not that they weret decadent behind closed doors)

My owner and i prefer the term kajira when used in reference to myself and basically any female slave, or with some affection to female submissives (potential kajira even exist in dominants clothing according to most Goreans)

As for titles and thier definitions, the site has an excellent section for common deffinitions of bdsm terminology, i suggest everyone give it a good read delia really did an awsome job on it, here is the link

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=16059