Hi Sir Russell,

Perhaps your definitions should be qualified as definitions within a consensual relationship since they mention pre-agreed limits.

You make a good point. As a "master", one takes on the roles of top and dom, they are sub-sets of the larger role.

Thus when your "slave" was complimenting you as a top, she wasn't negating your other roles.

The definitions were common with many BDSM glossary's, yet I enjoyed your slant about the desires that drive each relationship.

What threw me was this line:

Most slaves in my opinion are ...

This is where placing labels can lead to elitism.
Whether some one is a sub/slave/switch/dom or whatever role they choose to take, its doesn't make them better or worse, stronger or weaker, than any other role.

In an SSC or RACK relationship, it's all about choice.

I didn't see your definitions related to different levels of committment to the life, but more different levels of committment to a BDSM relationship.

Because of the magic of the Internet & phone, one can be completely submerged in a master/slave or dom/sub relationship, yet have no physical contact with their partner. Do we say then, that these people aren't in the lifestyle? They are in the lifestyle, though they may be practicing it more publically or privately than others.

Times change, philosphies update, yet having a good working set of concepts helps everyone play by a set of rules.

Am looking forward to more of your insights,

Ruby

PS

BDSM has been practiced in one form or another since our earliest recorded history.

Secret societies, like the legendary Hell Fire Club, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hellfire_Club,
have added an aura of mystery.

They've also added a complicated set of bragging rights for clubs who want to claim lineage that dates back to them.

Having a sub who escaped from one of those clubs, I tend to get a little cranky when I hear words like "trained" by such a group. All of my internal alarms go off. Like any club, such training could be an advantage or a detriment.