COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

the marks of a slave

eastern sun said:
I have to return here again, Velvet.

The experience of being traded in for a new model after years of faithful service is no joke. Especially if he's used you pretty rough and pretty hard.

In my experience (and I'm almost 50 years old), this has been the hardest of the hard things to face.
Click to expand...

It is a real fear. Very much so.

As a slave, I have given so much of myself to him, I have moulded myself to become whatever it is he decides he wants. I would find it very hard to be released.

Also, we have no children and no plans for any whatsoever. There is nothing to glue us together but us and how well we function as a couple. I'm not saying that kids are some kind of relationship insurance policy, far from it, but I do worry that as time passes we'll find it hard to keep our spark.

He could take an additional slave if he wanted to and if he ever decided to take us into polyland, I would give it my very best shot. I don't want to limit his options or stand in the way of his happiness, far from it, but I'm still selfish enough to want my own happiness and security. I would like to think that if things really weren't working, I would accept that and deal with it. The longer I remain L's though, the harder it will ever be for me to accept that we might have reached a point where we had tried our very best for each other, and still failed.

I used to say that if something happened and I became single again I would cope like an adult but these days, I just don't believe myself any more.
 
eastern sun said:
I always feel such burning, stinging shame when I come face to face with my desire to be seen. Like I'm always asking for more attention than is my due. Like I've breached some boundary of social decorum. And I honestly can't tell if I have, or not.

Since I have strong exhibitionistic desires (and I'm a performing artist to boot), this is a recurring theme in my life.

I think we all want to be noticed. And have our truth recognized.

But I carry so much old shame . . . and then generate new shame with my egotism and clumsy blunders . . . this is not an area where my vision is unclouded.
Click to expand...

I'm also an exhibitionist. Or extrovert, more accurately. Not really a sexual exhibitionist. I don't see it as bad or good, just who I am. I do find it important to dig beneath desires to find out what is driving it though. It comes up often in my relationship because my PYL is a complete introvert. Makes life interesting. :)
 
eastern sun said:
I'd be curious how people in other M/s relationships view the ownership rights. I think it is open to different interpretations, but there may be underlying "rules" I'm not expressing.
Click to expand...
You may find this thread useful. My own answer (copied from post 43) was as follows.

The property thing doesn't interest me personally, but I'll be happy to pass on some of what I've heard from hetero guys on this subject.


The most frequent reason given for ID'ing as a Master of owned property is what I'll call the "badass factor." From a BDSM cultural perspective, Masters are frequently granted more respect by peers, and further, there is often a tremendous amount of pressure on submissives in certain circles to be collared - as sort of the ultimate way of having arrived in the BDSM sense.

"The Master designation gives me exalted status in the community, makes her happy, turns her on, and does fit at least some aspects of our relationship, so why the hell not?" That seems to be the gist of it, for most of the guys I've talked to privately. What is achieved with the M/s ID (relative to regular D/s) is: perceived status in the community, and enhanced arousal and satisfaction within the relationship.


The second most frequent reason given for ID'ing as a Master of owned property is what I'll call the "ultimate control goal." The guy on Top wants to retain the right to exert either latent or active control over every aspect of his mate's life, as well as their interaction with one another. In many cases, there are significant areas in which latent control never becomes active - and the relationships therefore bear marked de facto resemblence to other unions that do not ID as M/s. But the sense of "well, I could if I wanted to...." brings added comfort and satisfaction to all.


Another reason given for wanting to own women as property is what I'll call "ultimate objectification", or "the chair thing." The guys I have spoken to who embrace this dynamic seek access to a woman whom they can use in whatever manner they please, whenever they choose to, without having their behavior constrained by the obligations of marriage or their choices limited by the fact that the quality of the relationship might suffer from her disappointment or other emotional reaction if they do X, Y, or Z.

This isn't to say that they don't prize or even care deeply for their "property". But they get off on treating her like I do the chair in my den. I may leave it for months at a time to hang out on the deck in the summer, invite friends over to use it at will, sell it when I'm ready to redecorate, etc. I don't expect my chair to complain, display emotional distress, or in any other way attempt to restrict my behavior with regard to any of those decisions - and the same expectation holds true as the goal for the human "property" in this dynamic. It may be difficult to understand why some women would want to be used this way, but there are in fact some who do.
 
Ha ha, cackling over here at this. Maybe Netz is my fantasy owner. I have been scratching my head at the car analogy, but with shoes I think, ohhhh, totally, makes perfect sense thank you.
 
Thanks for the link JM, I enjoyed reading through the thread again.

Just don't know whether I'm brave enough to tell Netz that there are no euros in Dorset. :D
 
JMohegan said:
You may find this thread useful. My own answer (copied from post 43) was as follows.
Click to expand...

Good link, JM. It's great to get a snapshot of my own thoughts from a year to compare against now.

Interestingly enough, I still have troubles codifying and describing ownership.

A few months back, MIS had the hiccups, and was whining mightily. After about 45 minutes of this, I gave her The Look, and snapped "Stop!"

And she did. No more hiccups.

Ownership. :D
 
Homburg said:
Good link, JM. It's great to get a snapshot of my own thoughts from a year to compare against now.

Interestingly enough, I still have troubles codifying and describing ownership.

A few months back, MIS had the hiccups, and was whining mightily. After about 45 minutes of this, I gave her The Look, and snapped "Stop!"

And she did. No more hiccups.

Ownership. :D
Click to expand...

I wish this worked with my car. ;)
 
eastern sun said:
I'd be curious how people in other M/s relationships view the ownership rights. I think it is open to different interpretations, but there may be underlying "rules" I'm not expressing.
Click to expand...

Much the same as you do, it sounds like. I agreed, in the beginning, that I don't have the right to permanently transfer her ownership to anyone else. Aside from that, it's as complete as any other sort of ownership.

I think that something that's missed in drawing the distinction between most D/s relationships and M/s is that D/s are based almost entirely on the agreements between the two people. It may be bedroom only, or be bound by a large number of rules governing both parties. A M/s relationship isn't so much that way. As I said, I can't permanently transfer her ownership, but everything not specifically forbidden is allowed to me. D/s doesn't have that as the default.

BTW, I find the suggestion that the main reason for the distinction (between D/s and M/s) is one of social standing within the BDSM community, to be appalling. We have very little interaction with the BDSM community at large... a few friends, a few munches, some trips to the Folsom Street Fair, but nothing where we care about what other people think of our relationship. It's no more the BDSM community's business than it is the vanilla community's. I'm saddened to think that people would define the relationship between themselves primarily to impress others. Relationships are too important to treat in that trivial fashion.
 
Zoots_owner said:
BTW, I find the suggestion that the main reason for the distinction (between D/s and M/s) is one of social standing within the BDSM community, to be appalling. We have very little interaction with the BDSM community at large... a few friends, a few munches, some trips to the Folsom Street Fair, but nothing where we care about what other people think of our relationship. It's no more the BDSM community's business than it is the vanilla community's. I'm saddened to think that people would define the relationship between themselves primarily to impress others. Relationships are too important to treat in that trivial fashion.
Click to expand...

We're on the same page in this one. I don't usually talk about what sort of relationship we have, though both girls call me Master. I dislike the idea of societal cachet based on relationship titles.
 
Zoots_owner said:
I think that something that's missed in drawing the distinction between most D/s relationships and M/s is that D/s are based almost entirely on the agreements between the two people. It may be bedroom only, or be bound by a large number of rules governing both parties. A M/s relationship isn't so much that way. As I said, I can't permanently transfer her ownership, but everything not specifically forbidden is allowed to me. D/s doesn't have that as the default.
Click to expand...
I lol'd at "a large number of rules governing both parties." Misconceptions abound, clearly.
 
VelvetDarkness said:
Thanks for the link JM, I enjoyed reading through the thread again.

Just don't know whether I'm brave enough to tell Netz that there are no euros in Dorset. :D
Click to expand...
Haha - I think you just did!

What I want to know is whether ITW's ready for that gang rape scene that ends with her skewered on a giant dildo. ;)
 
eastern sun said:
I always feel such burning, stinging shame when I come face to face with my desire to be seen. Like I'm always asking for more attention than is my due. Like I've breached some boundary of social decorum. And I honestly can't tell if I have, or not.

Since I have strong exhibitionistic desires (and I'm a performing artist to boot), this is a recurring theme in my life.

I think we all want to be noticed. And have our truth recognized.

But I carry so much old shame . . . and then generate new shame with my egotism and clumsy blunders . . . this is not an area where my vision is unclouded.
Click to expand...


I don't agree that we all want to be noticed. I for one am happiest when I am left to believe I am invisible, not dragged into the spotlight in the belief I might feel left out if not, and basically could happily live a hermit existence...this was also how I was in mainstream life. LOL, I do that hermit thing pretty well as it is, but to be honest, whenever I think of my dream location in the world geographically, it is far from people, somewhere where I do not have to deal with people basically except for the basics of food etc...probably why I have found internet a dream come true.:D

Just the same, there is nothing wrong with those who do need and crave attention, though sometimes I may think there are better ways of achieving that than some choose, but once again that comes down to personal opinion and subjectiveness. My previous statement was more about all those in a particular relationship, more so than an individual. It also was about my observation over the years of those who seem to place more importance in what others think, being noticed, being thought well of in the community, being seen etc., than they do in just being. For some, if they did not interact with others, did not get that recognition in whatever form, did not have others who knew the dynamics of their relationship and what they do, the relationship would lose its charm.

For us, we do not mix with others in the community, but even if we did, it would not be an important part of us and our relationship, nor define it...it manages to do fine without the approval of others, interaction with others even in a social sense, and comes back to us always as a couple, not part of a community. IOW, if no-one in the world knew we lived this lifestyle, it would not make any difference to how we experience each other, how much we get out of our relationship and the dynamics, who we are.

Catalina:catroar:
 
JMohegan said:
Haha - I think you just did!

What I want to know is whether ITW's ready for that gang rape scene that ends with her skewered on a giant dildo. ;)
Click to expand...

That's right, just that other funny deflated currency that you folks insist on.
 
JMohegan said:
Haha - I think you just did!

What I want to know is whether ITW's ready for that gang rape scene that ends with her skewered on a giant dildo. ;)
Click to expand...

Pardon? Oh Jesus. Do I need to read to the end of that thread? I know I said something at some point on these boards about not being as hardcore as some, and I believe a dildo-skewer was mentioned.

The guy around these parts known for those scenes is still at it, btw. Plenty of ladies still lining up. Me, I was just stoked on my little ol' needle corset scene.

ETA: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=552173&page=3

Ha hah ha hah. First of all, that thread reminds me: I am just so funny! I really have to force myself to write more often. Speaking of funny, I will give props where props are deserved - good one with the "slippery slope" comment, JM.

I was really not in a good space with my local group at that point. But lately I'm in such a good groove. I have a couple of regular playmates, lots of friends, and my limits are respected and then some. I still lead a pretty different life from most of the people in the group. I can't party every weekend, and wouldn't want to anyway. But that's perfectly ok. The last party I went to was the best one yet.
 
Last edited:
JMohegan said:
You may find this thread useful.
Click to expand...

Thank you, JMohegan. I'm impressed by the heat generated in those exchanges.

And I loved your response in the end that since slavery doesn't really exist in the United States, it's ultimately all in our heads, and by definition subject to our definition.
 
his dream

He woke up this morning as I was getting dressed,

asking "did I offer to get you a cup of coffee?"

"No, I was just going to get some."

"I must have dreamt it then."

And he told me his dream.

He had offered to buy me a cup of coffee.

And found himself walking through a condo,

glancing through the windows

at an old couple playing cards and

another old woman with a huge butt

drying herself off after the shower.

He wandered into someone’s house

looking for “Stuck in the Middle with You”

on their Itunes account

and dozed off until I came in,

pissed off about the coffee,

and starting doing their laundry.

So he stole their clothes

and started putting them on. . .

and woke up not knowing whether he’d offered to get me coffee or not.
 
eastern sun said:
Thank you, JMohegan. I'm impressed by the heat generated in those exchanges.

And I loved your response in the end that since slavery doesn't really exist in the United States, it's ultimately all in our heads, and by definition subject to our definition.
Click to expand...


Cop pulls a guy over for speeding. Finds a bag of buds tucked under the seat. Starts to put the handcuffs on the guy and read him his rights.

Guy says, "Hold it, officer. As we both know, it is illegal to own marijuana in the United States. Therefore, by definition, I do not own that marijuana."

Cop shakes his head and continues reading rights.

Guy says, "Ok then. Look at it this way. Since owning marijuana is illegal in the United States, then it's ultimately all in our heads and by definition subject to our definition. And I define myself as not owning that marijuana."

You tell me what the cop does.

I do not know how this concept of the fact of the illegality of slavery makes the reality of slavery impossible ever gained traction in the d/s community. But it is an idea that is (show me where I'm mistaken, please) completely out of the realm of reality.

It is illegal to jaywalk. Therefore, if I jaywalk..... I don't really jaywalk. Or even if I do, I'm not a *real* jaywalker. I'm a pretend jaywalker.

And so on.
 
a confession

I've been using this thread to avoid cleaning the toilets. I literally look at the toilet, and walk over to the computer. You must know how bad that can get.

Absolution is possible only with a bottle of bleach and a sponge.

(I've been banned from the computer until tomorrow night. :eek:)


May my sins be washed clean.
 
SinfulSailor said:

Cop pulls a guy over for speeding. Finds a bag of buds tucked under the seat. Starts to put the handcuffs on the guy and read him his rights.

Guy says, "Hold it, officer. As we both know, it is illegal to own marijuana in the United States. Therefore, by definition, I do not own that marijuana."

Cop shakes his head and continues reading rights.

Guy says, "Ok then. Look at it this way. Since owning marijuana is illegal in the United States, then it's ultimately all in our heads and by definition subject to our definition. And I define myself as not owning that marijuana."

You tell me what the cop does.

I do not know how this concept of the fact of the illegality of slavery makes the reality of slavery impossible ever gained traction in the d/s community. But it is an idea that is (show me where I'm mistaken, please) completely out of the realm of reality.

It is illegal to jaywalk. Therefore, if I jaywalk..... I don't really jaywalk. Or even if I do, I'm not a *real* jaywalker. I'm a pretend jaywalker.

And so on.
Click to expand...

Lol. You have no ownership rights in marijuana, true. If someone steals your pot, you can't sue. But if you possess marijuana, you are breaking the law. It's not that the illegality makes slavery nonexistant. It's just unenforceable by law.
 
eastern sun said:
I've been using this thread to avoid cleaning the toilets. I literally look at the toilet, and walk over to the computer. You must know how bad that can get.

Absolution is possible only with a bottle of bleach and a sponge.

(I've been banned from the computer until tomorrow night. :eek:)


May my sins be washed clean.
Click to expand...

Hate cleaning the toilet. Try that blue stuff. Ten thousand flushes?
 
JMohegan said:
You may find this thread useful. My own answer (copied from post 43) was as follows.

The property thing doesn't interest me personally, but I'll be happy to pass on some of what I've heard from hetero guys on this subject.


The most frequent reason given for ID'ing as a Master of owned property is what I'll call the "badass factor." From a BDSM cultural perspective, Masters are frequently granted more respect by peers, and further, there is often a tremendous amount of pressure on submissives in certain circles to be collared - as sort of the ultimate way of having arrived in the BDSM sense.

"The Master designation gives me exalted status in the community, makes her happy, turns her on, and does fit at least some aspects of our relationship, so why the hell not?" That seems to be the gist of it, for most of the guys I've talked to privately. What is achieved with the M/s ID (relative to regular D/s) is: perceived status in the community, and enhanced arousal and satisfaction within the relationship.


The second most frequent reason given for ID'ing as a Master of owned property is what I'll call the "ultimate control goal." The guy on Top wants to retain the right to exert either latent or active control over every aspect of his mate's life, as well as their interaction with one another. In many cases, there are significant areas in which latent control never becomes active - and the relationships therefore bear marked de facto resemblence to other unions that do not ID as M/s. But the sense of "well, I could if I wanted to...." brings added comfort and satisfaction to all.


Another reason given for wanting to own women as property is what I'll call "ultimate objectification", or "the chair thing." The guys I have spoken to who embrace this dynamic seek access to a woman whom they can use in whatever manner they please, whenever they choose to, without having their behavior constrained by the obligations of marriage or their choices limited by the fact that the quality of the relationship might suffer from her disappointment or other emotional reaction if they do X, Y, or Z.

This isn't to say that they don't prize or even care deeply for their "property". But they get off on treating her like I do the chair in my den. I may leave it for months at a time to hang out on the deck in the summer, invite friends over to use it at will, sell it when I'm ready to redecorate, etc. I don't expect my chair to complain, display emotional distress, or in any other way attempt to restrict my behavior with regard to any of those decisions - and the same expectation holds true as the goal for the human "property" in this dynamic. It may be difficult to understand why some women would want to be used this way, but there are in fact some who do.
Click to expand...


Irrespective of the fact that "Master" is a term connoting ownership and/or authoritative power of control which has been used in that context in the English language for.... how long? Over two hundred years, I'm confident. Longer? Probably.

It did not come about that I was called "Master" as part of a badass concept, or as part of an ultimate control goal, or as part of an objectification fetish. It came about because it is a time-tested descriptive noun that was applicable when it was first used to refer to me. I presume it continues today for the same reason.

Irrespective of the fact that it is what it is......

I was called that before there were more than one or two (or maybe three) (NY, LA, SF maybe back then? Don't remember when those started meeting.) publicly available d/s "groups" in existence. I'm claiming rights under the "Grandfather" clause/concept.

Edited to correct grammar my English teacher would not have liked.
 
Last edited:
P.S. We all seem to get turned on by it, so it works in my life. Seems like a pretty good reason on top of some pretty good reasons.
 
SinfulSailor said:

Cop pulls a guy over for speeding. Finds a bag of buds tucked under the seat. Starts to put the handcuffs on the guy and read him his rights.

Guy says, "Hold it, officer. As we both know, it is illegal to own marijuana in the United States. Therefore, by definition, I do not own that marijuana."

Cop shakes his head and continues reading rights.

Guy says, "Ok then. Look at it this way. Since owning marijuana is illegal in the United States, then it's ultimately all in our heads and by definition subject to our definition. And I define myself as not owning that marijuana."

You tell me what the cop does.

I do not know how this concept of the fact of the illegality of slavery makes the reality of slavery impossible ever gained traction in the d/s community. But it is an idea that is (show me where I'm mistaken, please) completely out of the realm of reality.

It is illegal to jaywalk. Therefore, if I jaywalk..... I don't really jaywalk. Or even if I do, I'm not a *real* jaywalker. I'm a pretend jaywalker.

And so on.
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the post she referenced, so you may put it in context.

What I actually said was:

"I know there are people on this board who blather on about 'roleplayers' or 'wannabes' or those who allegedly have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to kink.

But that is essentially just the reverse of the 'true Dom' or 'true sub' nonsense that everyone gets their panties in a twist about, and I for one don't see a difference in level of offensiveness.

My response to your comments is to repeat the obvious and state that there is no such thing as actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States. Therefore, as someone said on the other thread, though the effects of the 'ownership' concept may be very tangible and real within our relationships, the concept itself is all in our heads, for every one of us - and no one person's take on the subject is any more valid than another's.

There is an enormous difference between asking about what people do, and questioning what they do. If I'm sitting down talking to a guy over a few beers, the only time I would be comfortable with the latter would be if he seems unhappy about what's going on, or if I suspect abuse within the relationship.

Neither of those apply to you, so I honestly can not fathom why I (or anyone else) would view your opinions on the concept of ownership as 'wannabe BS'."






Regrettably, there *is* such a thing as real slavery in the U.S. Actual, non-consensual, illegal, slavery. You're right, SS. But non-consensual slavery was not the subject of my post.
 
intothewoods said:
Hate cleaning the toilet. Try that blue stuff. Ten thousand flushes?
Click to expand...

Leftover dialysis fluid/solution is great for cleaning the toilet - I only have to brush once a week now :)
I guess whether we're slaves or subs the dunny still needs cleaning ;) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Martles
Learning cock punishment
Replies
0
Views
295
Martles
Martles
Showmewhatchugot84
Question for women in FLRs
Replies
12
Views
380
sweettalk4u
S
M
Diving into bdsm whithout damaging a relationship
Replies
14
Views
396
Bella857Donna
B
Lumiere_Amie
Should I change the category?
Replies
1
Views
112
PaxNurgle
P
T
Looking for rough statistics for the BDSM scene in the US
Replies
0
Views
186
Tomh1966
T
Back
Top