Do Masters want a sub or a slave?
- Thread starter ali0610
- Start date
seela
Quark Thief
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Posts
- 10,400
That would depend on a person asked and how they define the words.
I pair Master with slave = M/s, and Dominant with submissive = D/s, but usage of the terms varies a lot. And then there'd Top/bottom, too, but I'm sure Stella or someone else will come and explain the differences more eloquently than I can.
Don't get too hung up on branding yourself with a certain label, especially if the label you choose is solely based on what other people want.
EDIT: The terms that many people on this board use are PYL and pyl.
PYL = Pick Your Label for Dominant, Master, Top etc.
pyl = pick your label for submissive, slave, bottom etc.
I pair Master with slave = M/s, and Dominant with submissive = D/s, but usage of the terms varies a lot. And then there'd Top/bottom, too, but I'm sure Stella or someone else will come and explain the differences more eloquently than I can.
Don't get too hung up on branding yourself with a certain label, especially if the label you choose is solely based on what other people want.
EDIT: The terms that many people on this board use are PYL and pyl.
PYL = Pick Your Label for Dominant, Master, Top etc.
pyl = pick your label for submissive, slave, bottom etc.
Last edited:
sardoniclaugh
Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Posts
- 87
One of the things that I dig about BDSM is that everything is negotiable. Whatever you call yourself, it's up to you and your PYL to decide what works for y'all.
Though, the typical pairing of terms is Dom/sub and Master/slave, so maybe a Master would be more likely to want a slave.
The real question is "do you want Him(or Her) and vice versa?"
because the best time to discuss terminology is when you're bound and blindfolded and trembling in anticipation of the next touch
Though, the typical pairing of terms is Dom/sub and Master/slave, so maybe a Master would be more likely to want a slave.
The real question is "do you want Him(or Her) and vice versa?"
because the best time to discuss terminology is when you're bound and blindfolded and trembling in anticipation of the next touch
Lizzie_Borden
Real & Spectacular
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Posts
- 4,157
You know, some don't even want a sub or a slave.
neci
flagged
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Posts
- 38,120
Lizzie_Borden
Real & Spectacular
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Posts
- 4,157
bhndblueyes88
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Posts
- 2,236
Hmm. so THAT'S what PYL/pyl stands for. I like that best of all I believe.
neci
flagged
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Posts
- 38,120
Lizzie_Borden
Real & Spectacular
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Posts
- 4,157
SimonBrooke
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Posts
- 1,139
This is all definitional. There are no real accepted definitions for any of these words, you use what suits you. Generally people who use the word 'slave' are playing with the idea that the 'slave' can be compelled to do things - that her consent does not need to be obtained for every particular scene. In good relationships with a loving bond and a sensitive 'master' who gives plenty of aftercare this can work well, but there is a real potential for abuse and I think there's no doubt that some wannabe 'masters' and 'doms' are really just abusive people.
My present plaything wears a collar when we are together, and when she is wearing the collar 'can be compelled' (except that she has a safeword) - but the things that I 'compel' her to do are generally things we've discussed before hand and I know she wants to try. We both like compulsion as a game, but I wouldn't 'compel' her to do anything which I believed she would not do willingly.
If this was a full time exclusive relationship (which unfortunately it isn't) I'd want her to wear a permanent collar she could not remove herself, and in that context might use the word 'slave' if it worked for us (in her case I think it might, although she is anything but a docile submissive!)
SinfulSailor
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Posts
- 143
Welcome to the world of obfuscation!
Since you're new, I'll clue you to what you're dealing with when you get answers to your question. Hopefully, that will help you sort through the responses you get.
As you note, "slave" and "sub" are different. As in most things human, however, there can and will be overlaps in practical application and recognition of those differences. That does not change the fact of the differences.
Above, you are counseled to ignore the difference between "slave" and "sub". ("Sub" being an abbreviation of "submissive", which is itself an abbreviation of "submissive person". The usage is to simply drop the noun (so as to save typing or verbiage) and use the adjective (or its abbreviation, "sub") as a noun.)
So! Considering the above, you can simply refer to a dictionary to learn the basics of the difference between a slave and a sub.
Since you are new, I will point out that there are a great many people who will counsel you that each descriptor (slave/sub) is what you want it to be, that you are free to define these terms for yourself as you happen to choose. That is, of course, ridiculous. We do not accept the application of that confusing language philosophy with other vocabulary, and we should not accept it with slave/sub. Those who would practice this obfuscation have developed a big toolbox full of obfuscating levers and smokescreens. These people tend to get riled up pretty quickly and easily when someone points out the flaws in their thinking. If that follows in this thread, I may not respond to them. Do not interpret an absence of response as me conceding the point. It is simply the case that the logic and rationality of recognizing both the definitions of things and the essence of things (or illogic and irrationality of denying definitions and essence) is clear. If a person chooses to turn his or her back on that reality - hey that's their problem. But you are new. And being new, you deserve to know when you are being led astray.
It is both convenient and superficially fulfilling to buy in to the philosophy that you can define slave and sub as you like. I mean... you can claim any title you like and never have to pay the dues!!!! Pretty sweet, huh? But in the end, things are what they are and I think that practicing self delusion is counter productive in the long run. Other personal philosophies will vary from mine.
As to what "masters want" - that is of course a matter of preference. As you gain more experience, you may discover that many (most?) "masters" don't give a damn as long as they get laid.
I leave it to your own judgment to decide whether that is "mastery".SS
ownedsubgal
lost little girl
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2003
- Posts
- 2,996
Since you are new, I will point out that there are a great many people who will counsel you that each descriptor (slave/sub) is what you want it to be, that you are free to define these terms for yourself as you happen to choose. That is, of course, ridiculous. We do not accept the application of that confusing language philosophy with other vocabulary, and we should not accept it with slave/sub. Those who would practice this obfuscation have developed a big toolbox full of obfuscating levers and smokescreens. These people tend to get riled up pretty quickly and easily when someone points out the flaws in their thinking. If that follows in this thread, I may not respond to them. Do not interpret an absence of response as me conceding the point. It is simply the case that the logic and rationality of recognizing both the definitions of things and the essence of things (or illogic and irrationality of denying definitions and essence) is clear. If a person chooses to turn his or her back on that reality - hey that's their problem. But you are new. And being new, you deserve to know when you are being led astray.
It is both convenient and superficially fulfilling to buy in to the philosophy that you can define slave and sub as you like. I mean... you can claim any title you like and never have to pay the dues!!!! Pretty sweet, huh? But in the end, things are what they are and I think that practicing self delusion is counter productive in the long run. Other personal philosophies will vary from mine.
As to what "masters want" - that is of course a matter of preference. As you gain more experience, you may discover that many (most?) "masters" don't give a damn as long as they get laid.
SS
*ladylike quiet applause*
i agree with the above in full. there would be no point whatsoever in language if words can mean whatever anyone wishes them to at the moment. it is beyond absurd, but sadly that does seem to be the popular message now.
i also second the suggestion to consult the dictionary in understanding the differences between submissive and slave. also understand of course that the two can overlap...a submissive may be a slave. also understand that a slave need not be submissive at all (no dictionary definition of "slave" will include the term submissive). and don't forget the concepts of Top and bottom...these are more BDSM and "scene"-specific terms that fit just right for many who do not particularly identify as either submissive or slave-minded.
as for "master," personally i think of the term in one of two ways: as someone who has become an expert in their particular art or vocation (i.e. "master craftsman") or someone who owns/has complete authority over another person.
BiBunny
Moon Queen & Wanderer
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Posts
- 12,194
Welcome to the world of obfuscation!
Since you're new, I'll clue you to what you're dealing with when you get answers to your question. Hopefully, that will help you sort through the responses you get.
As you note, "slave" and "sub" are different. As in most things human, however, there can and will be overlaps in practical application and recognition of those differences. That does not change the fact of the differences.
Above, you are counseled to ignore the difference between "slave" and "sub". ("Sub" being an abbreviation of "submissive", which is itself an abbreviation of "submissive person". The usage is to simply drop the noun (so as to save typing or verbiage) and use the adjective (or its abbreviation, "sub") as a noun.)
So! Considering the above, you can simply refer to a dictionary to learn the basics of the difference between a slave and a sub.
Since you are new, I will point out that there are a great many people who will counsel you that each descriptor (slave/sub) is what you want it to be, that you are free to define these terms for yourself as you happen to choose. That is, of course, ridiculous. We do not accept the application of that confusing language philosophy with other vocabulary, and we should not accept it with slave/sub. Those who would practice this obfuscation have developed a big toolbox full of obfuscating levers and smokescreens. These people tend to get riled up pretty quickly and easily when someone points out the flaws in their thinking. If that follows in this thread, I may not respond to them. Do not interpret an absence of response as me conceding the point. It is simply the case that the logic and rationality of recognizing both the definitions of things and the essence of things (or illogic and irrationality of denying definitions and essence) is clear. If a person chooses to turn his or her back on that reality - hey that's their problem. But you are new. And being new, you deserve to know when you are being led astray.
It is both convenient and superficially fulfilling to buy in to the philosophy that you can define slave and sub as you like. I mean... you can claim any title you like and never have to pay the dues!!!! Pretty sweet, huh? But in the end, things are what they are and I think that practicing self delusion is counter productive in the long run. Other personal philosophies will vary from mine.
As to what "masters want" - that is of course a matter of preference. As you gain more experience, you may discover that many (most?) "masters" don't give a damn as long as they get laid.
SS
I made an offhand comment to this effect (not about sub/slave, but something else) last week and got my ass crawled. So expect snippy-ass comments in 5...4...3...2...1....
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Snippy-ass!
Okay, that's taken care of.
I'm going to go along with SinfulSailor. "Obfuscation!" Good word!
Especially his last couple of lines;
BiBunny
Moon Queen & Wanderer
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Posts
- 12,194
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
I would agree with SS on this one. Every Dom/Master/whatevertheywanttocallthemselves is looking for something different. I will say though, that while slave is a fairly clearly defined word, "submissive" is rather general, in that there are many different ways a person can submit to another.Welcome to the world of obfuscation!
Since you're new, I'll clue you to what you're dealing with when you get answers to your question. Hopefully, that will help you sort through the responses you get.
As you note, "slave" and "sub" are different. As in most things human, however, there can and will be overlaps in practical application and recognition of those differences. That does not change the fact of the differences.
Above, you are counseled to ignore the difference between "slave" and "sub". ("Sub" being an abbreviation of "submissive", which is itself an abbreviation of "submissive person". The usage is to simply drop the noun (so as to save typing or verbiage) and use the adjective (or its abbreviation, "sub") as a noun.)
So! Considering the above, you can simply refer to a dictionary to learn the basics of the difference between a slave and a sub.
Since you are new, I will point out that there are a great many people who will counsel you that each descriptor (slave/sub) is what you want it to be, that you are free to define these terms for yourself as you happen to choose. That is, of course, ridiculous. We do not accept the application of that confusing language philosophy with other vocabulary, and we should not accept it with slave/sub. Those who would practice this obfuscation have developed a big toolbox full of obfuscating levers and smokescreens. These people tend to get riled up pretty quickly and easily when someone points out the flaws in their thinking. If that follows in this thread, I may not respond to them. Do not interpret an absence of response as me conceding the point. It is simply the case that the logic and rationality of recognizing both the definitions of things and the essence of things (or illogic and irrationality of denying definitions and essence) is clear. If a person chooses to turn his or her back on that reality - hey that's their problem. But you are new. And being new, you deserve to know when you are being led astray.
It is both convenient and superficially fulfilling to buy in to the philosophy that you can define slave and sub as you like. I mean... you can claim any title you like and never have to pay the dues!!!! Pretty sweet, huh? But in the end, things are what they are and I think that practicing self delusion is counter productive in the long run. Other personal philosophies will vary from mine.
As to what "masters want" - that is of course a matter of preference. As you gain more experience, you may discover that many (most?) "masters" don't give a damn as long as they get laid.
SS
I don't personally put much weight into the semantics; just make sure that you and any "master" you are interested in have the same understanding of the words.
YourCaptor
Cute Girl Connoisseur
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Posts
- 4,550
M/s = Master / slave
callinectes2
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Posts
- 216
Welcome to the world of obfuscation!
Since you're new, I'll clue you to what you're dealing with when you get answers to your question. Hopefully, that will help you sort through the responses you get.
As you note, "slave" and "sub" are different. As in most things human, however, there can and will be overlaps in practical application and recognition of those differences. That does not change the fact of the differences.
Above, you are counseled to ignore the difference between "slave" and "sub". ("Sub" being an abbreviation of "submissive", which is itself an abbreviation of "submissive person". The usage is to simply drop the noun (so as to save typing or verbiage) and use the adjective (or its abbreviation, "sub") as a noun.)
So! Considering the above, you can simply refer to a dictionary to learn the basics of the difference between a slave and a sub.
Since you are new, I will point out that there are a great many people who will counsel you that each descriptor (slave/sub) is what you want it to be, that you are free to define these terms for yourself as you happen to choose. That is, of course, ridiculous. We do not accept the application of that confusing language philosophy with other vocabulary, and we should not accept it with slave/sub. Those who would practice this obfuscation have developed a big toolbox full of obfuscating levers and smokescreens. These people tend to get riled up pretty quickly and easily when someone points out the flaws in their thinking. If that follows in this thread, I may not respond to them. Do not interpret an absence of response as me conceding the point. It is simply the case that the logic and rationality of recognizing both the definitions of things and the essence of things (or illogic and irrationality of denying definitions and essence) is clear. If a person chooses to turn his or her back on that reality - hey that's their problem. But you are new. And being new, you deserve to know when you are being led astray.
It is both convenient and superficially fulfilling to buy in to the philosophy that you can define slave and sub as you like. I mean... you can claim any title you like and never have to pay the dues!!!! Pretty sweet, huh? But in the end, things are what they are and I think that practicing self delusion is counter productive in the long run. Other personal philosophies will vary from mine.
As to what "masters want" - that is of course a matter of preference. As you gain more experience, you may discover that many (most?) "masters" don't give a damn as long as they get laid.
SS
Sorry, but I disagree. OSG would say I am not a submissive much less a slave but my PYL says I am very submissive to the point of being slave-like. It is all a matter of perception. At the end of the day the labels don't mean diddly as long the two people in the relationship are on the same page.
RJMasters
workaholic
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Posts
- 4,298
Welcome to the world of obfuscation!
Since you're new, I'll clue you to what you're dealing with when you get answers to your question. Hopefully, that will help you sort through the responses you get.
As you note, "slave" and "sub" are different. As in most things human, however, there can and will be overlaps in practical application and recognition of those differences. That does not change the fact of the differences.
Above, you are counseled to ignore the difference between "slave" and "sub". ("Sub" being an abbreviation of "submissive", which is itself an abbreviation of "submissive person". The usage is to simply drop the noun (so as to save typing or verbiage) and use the adjective (or its abbreviation, "sub") as a noun.)
So! Considering the above, you can simply refer to a dictionary to learn the basics of the difference between a slave and a sub.
Since you are new, I will point out that there are a great many people who will counsel you that each descriptor (slave/sub) is what you want it to be, that you are free to define these terms for yourself as you happen to choose. That is, of course, ridiculous. We do not accept the application of that confusing language philosophy with other vocabulary, and we should not accept it with slave/sub. Those who would practice this obfuscation have developed a big toolbox full of obfuscating levers and smokescreens. These people tend to get riled up pretty quickly and easily when someone points out the flaws in their thinking. If that follows in this thread, I may not respond to them. Do not interpret an absence of response as me conceding the point. It is simply the case that the logic and rationality of recognizing both the definitions of things and the essence of things (or illogic and irrationality of denying definitions and essence) is clear. If a person chooses to turn his or her back on that reality - hey that's their problem. But you are new. And being new, you deserve to know when you are being led astray.
It is both convenient and superficially fulfilling to buy in to the philosophy that you can define slave and sub as you like. I mean... you can claim any title you like and never have to pay the dues!!!! Pretty sweet, huh? But in the end, things are what they are and I think that practicing self delusion is counter productive in the long run. Other personal philosophies will vary from mine.
As to what "masters want" - that is of course a matter of preference. As you gain more experience, you may discover that many (most?) "masters" don't give a damn as long as they get laid.
SS
I appreciate the candor of this post.
Unfortunately Webster's been taking it up the ass so much of late, the only thing he can do is burp sprem bubbles.
Therein lies the big problem with any reasonable dialog today. One simply has to adopt their own definitiion of things so as to be always right. This always leaves us someplace between..."can't we all just get along?" and "who gave you the right to define me by your own standards?"
For me I tend to like things to be black and white but I am smart enough to know that human beings fall upon a whole spectrum of gray. Your post makes it clear that in your mind you have established clearly what is and what is not a submissive or a slave. No doubt, that kind of resolve has come to pass not from a definition read in a book, but through experience and time.
So in addition to your advice to read the definition in the dictionary to learn the basics, I would also add...be patient as it will take time and expereince to learn and understand how submissives and slaves are alike and and how they tend to be different. Like each of us, over time a person will come to settle the matter in their own mind.
It is my hope that they will reach a point where, whether a person is a slave or submissive, they can admire and appreciate the person for who they are and for their own distinctiveness without petty defensiveness or agressive vanity.
RJMasters
workaholic
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Posts
- 4,298
Want or need?
Perhaps the secret to contentment for me lies in the answer to the above.
I will say submissive with a bit of vanilla because I know that best completes me, or balances me.
Last edited:
SimonBrooke
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Posts
- 1,139
*ladylike quiet applause*
i agree with the above in full. there would be no point whatsoever in language if words can mean whatever anyone wishes them to at the moment. it is beyond absurd, but sadly that does seem to be the popular message now.
OK, yes, 'slave' is a clearly defined word. It means:
Oxford English Dictionary said:
So, how many people here fit that description? That would be none, then. If you want to insist 'slave' is a real word with a real meaning, yes, it is, and it applies to precisely no-one in the BDSM community. Therefore any use we make of it is necessarily figurative, playful and not literal, and one playful use is as good as another.
SinfulSailor
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Posts
- 143
An astute and incisive observation! I'll remember that.
If you want to send me a link, I'll read it and see if I can contribute something more sensible than the responses you describe.
On the off chance that you actually want to examine this topic logically, on the chance that you do not have an obfuscatory axe to grind to which you are joined at the hip, I will point out:
The axe I have to grind is "Truth, Justice and The Kinky Way".
Or, to be more precise (and quote myself, just to keep the record straight) the axe I am grinding is:
I find no fault with the euphemistic use of the words slave or sub (or any other words for that matter). But to say that every person who uses these words uses them euphemistically is to impose your own usage on other people. Seemingly strangely, it is not the people who use these words literally who practice an imposition on others. (For those people do not demand that the words only be used literally.) Rather, it is the people who deny and proclaim the impossibility of the literal use of these words who impose their own definitions on others! (While at the same time, often ostensibly protesting that others' definitions may not be imposed on them!!!)
Obfuscatory, indeed.
But to the precise complaint:
I do not have access the OED. (One of these days I'm gonna subscribe to the OED.) However, the semicolon in your definition(s) indicates that you (or the place you found the OED quoted) ran two definitions together. That won't work. For example (using the online dictionsary):
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/doctor
The word "doctor" is defined as follows:
"1. A person, especially a physician, dentist, or veterinarian, trained in the healing arts and licensed to practice.
2.
a. A person who has earned the highest academic degree awarded by a college or university in a specified discipline.
b. A person awarded an honorary degree by a college or university.
3. Abbr. Dr. Used as a title and form of address for a person holding the degree of doctor.
4. Roman Catholic Church An eminent theologian.
5. A practitioner of folk medicine or folk magic.
6. A rig or device contrived for remedying an emergency situation or for doing a special task.
7. Any of several brightly colored artificial flies used in fly fishing."
To follow your logic as you applied it to the word "slave", then I can not be a doctor unless I meet all the requirements of all the definitions. Of course that is ridiculous. I can be a doctor even if I do not practice folk magic, or even if I am not a fly fisherman.
The definition I find for "slave" is:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slave
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" (Edward Gibbon).
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component
It is not necessary that a person become a machine or be controlled by a machine in order to be a slave.
While I recognize the validity of you choosing to use the word "slave" playfully and euphemistically, and indeed I recognize the validity of you choosing to use the word "slave" exclusively playfully and euphemistically, I bristle when you tell me I can not experience a slave "bound in servitude as (my) property".
Don't tell me I can not do something that I can and do - do.
