Submissive vs. Slave

[TexasJennie]

What's the difference between being a Dom's sub and being his slave?

 

[bdsm_librarian]

What's the difference between being a Dom's sub and being his slave?

Hello TexasJennie

You will find a myriad of valid responses on this topic.

In the interim you may find exploring the BDSM Library of some use. I also recommend this post by serijules. These links are not intended to dissuade in an manner from an ongoing thread dialog and are offered as information as an adjunct to your topic.

~ Rebecca

 

[h_i_s]

What's the difference between being a Dom's sub and being his slave?

How about we first outline what is NOT the difference? Because, you know, I hope.... that the topic is almost guaranteed to go up in flames with the heavy stench of holier than thou screams of passion, at some point? heh

NOT the difference: Better.
Better than is NOT the difference.
Also not the difference: Not as good as.
Not as good as is NOT the difference.

Submissives, slaves , doms...... ALL are people. People are not all the same. They do not have neat little labels sutered to the napes of their necks which read: ONE size fits ALL .

Even if we take just one , say submissives perhaps...... even among submissives, as a group.. we still will find many many differences (with regard to likes, dislikes, and especially in HOW they serve). However, the basics which set the foundation for who they are is a constant (for me at least). All apples are round, have brown seeds, have a white inner flesh. But some are sweet, some tart, some red, others green or yellow. But.. they are ALL apples. And they don't grow in neat little segmented sections like ALL oranges do. Each has similarities. Each has differences. And both are different, and not better than the other. Unless you happen to dislike oranges. Opinions opinions opinions.. blah blah blah.

Different is just that, DIFFERENT.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Apple, orange, blah blah blah.

And on to the topic as it has been proposed for discussion:

The answer really depends on what that particular 'dom' has decided those differences are. The answer will differ from one to the next.

If you are asking 'me' what the difference is to 'me':
1. Rights vs priviledges.
2. Limitations.

To 'me':
Both can be concidered to be owned, that is not the difference. Both can be collared, or not, that is not the difference, either.
A 'submissive' will retain the right to negotiate how they will serve. A 'slave' may be allowed the privilege of negotiating how they will serve, and initial agreements in consenting to the 'rules' (expectations etc) of the relationship will deny them the 'right' to that option.
Submissives retain rights.
Slaves do not retain rights.
This is one of the differences.

To 'me':
If property is obtained with preset limitiations, it's more likely been aquired 'short term' , like a lease or rental property.
If the 'dom' is restricted in it's use of their 'submissive' they don't have 'full access' to that property (to me this includes actually living at the same address, at least.
If the sub/slave is under an other roof, the owner doesn't have instant and immediate access. This limits that 'dom' in how much use they have of the property, to some degree.
How a submissive serves the 'dom' is limited, [to 'whatever' degree .. the mileage will vary].
How a slave serves the 'dom' is not limited by the slave [the owner CAN limit whatever the hell they want though, which is the point of being owner of said slave.. i would think].


***Any out there who may find themselves offended by this post [and yeah, I KNOW you are out there.] GO back. READ this post again, and pllllease note where it says (more than a few times) TO ME. Keep reading until the offended brain cells negenerate. Thank you, much.

 

[h_i_s]

Hello TexasJennie

You will find a myriad of valid responses on this topic.

In the interim you may find exploring the BDSM Library of some use. I also recommend this post by serijules. These links are not intended to dissuade in an manner from an ongoing thread dialog and are offered as information as an adjunct to your topic.

~ Rebecca

Great job you are doing with the library, form what little we can see from this viewpoint, Rebecca... by the way.

There are points of serijules' 'label explaination' that are not at all fitted to everyone, and their beliefs. That article which she has written can't and doesn't speak for me, for one.
No offence, serijules, and I appreciate the effort and time you have put into that article...... and well, we just don't share the exact same definitions for a few of the basics. But, we can't all agree.. I'm with you on that point.

And I agree, as I always have that, people who are here now who were not during previous discussions of this topic...may want actual back and forth dialog rather than just reading what has already been said.

So .. let the dialog begin. I have volunteered to stick my toe in first.

 

[Netzach]

For me, slavery is defined by ownership and internalization of the Dominant voice and will. I disagree about Sinn with access (without being offended, haha) - it's one model, but I'm more interested in use than in perfect total transparency. It's expedient and more *useful* for me for my property to live offsite, so he does.

I very rarely have to correct H at all, because doing what I want is his main priority without a lot of noise and conflict over that, internally. He's pretty well sorted out for himself what kind of relationship he wants with me, he's been a slave before to someone else, the internal struggle and "oh no, I want to give up my power" thing is pretty played out for him. He *knows* he needs to have no veto power to my ideas and I can honestly know and trust that he lives that in DC as much as here.

To me, with a submissive who is not a slave (like my husband) that's never entirely settled, that person is always reconciling himself to a personality trait and not really a status, there's more ebb and flow and more give and take. To me "submissive" doesn't mean "I'm totally submissive all the time and you can expect all my reactions to neatly fall in line with that" so much as it means "I tend toward submission, enjoy that as you can." It gives me something to work with and work for, something I have to coax and seduce out with less predictable result.

M, as a submissive, holds veto power over certain things, but it's always a "veto at your own risk" because with enough refusal I will withdraw and feel like I'm in a no-win titular situation as the Dominant. I've seen this happen a LOT to a LOT of people who are then described as weak when they're painted into a BS corner of the sub's invention.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

As Sinnocent said, labels like sub and slave are highly personal and mean different things to different people. I can therefore speak only from my own perspective as an insight into how 1 couple have allocated and viewed their labels.

I was my partner's first sub and he was my first D/s relationship. Because of this, when we first started out chatting online we considered it appropriate that I call him Sir. He referred to me as his sub and later his pet, as we became more familiar. After we met and started a RL relationship we kept those titles. We were in a LDR and saw each other most weekends.

We became closer as a couple, although we fell in love almost straight away. Trust was built and our kinky play got more adventurous as we became more confident in our chosen roles. We eventually decided to move in together after just under a year together.

Before we moved in together we sat and had a long talk about where we wanted the relationship to go, both BDSM and everything else wise. We agreed that we wanted to cement our D/s dynamic and formalise it in a way that was enduring and required little re-negotiation. I wrote a formal contract signing myself over as property to my Sir, with agreed limits and responsibilities on both sides in place. He then became my Master. When we moved in together he bought me a collar and leash and a necklace that symbolised a collar for public wear. Until then I had not been collared.

So now I am his slave. I am his property and retain few rights of my own. Some slaves retain no rights but I still have a safeword and if he went completely psychotic on me I could still leave. Master has power of veto over every aspect of my life although what aspects of my life he chooses to get involved with is also his decision. I do not raise my voice to him or treat him with anything but respect.

Slavery does not mean an abdication of responsibility. I take equal responsibility for decisions that he makes and stand by them willingly. He is also very aware of the responsibility he has for ensuring my voice is heard and not riding roughshod over my wishes.

So far, 3 months later, it's all going more or less to plan. Those are the differences as we have defined them during our relationship.

Hope that helps.

 

[Homburg]

This is one of those areas where I am reminded of the old saw about pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

Looking at what sinn, serijules, and Netzach wrote, I'm pretty happy with the way it is being described. The one thing that I will add is that there are plenty of people out there that call themselves submissives that I honestly believe should be hitting the label slave. Yeah, I know, it's uncool to disrespect someone else's self-identity. Whatever, I'm not really trying to do that. It's just a case where I know at a very deep level the reactions I have to someone that is a slave, and I get that reaction with certain people that are self-identified as submissives. And frequently that person is not happy in their current relationship. Maybe a trip to M/s land would set them right, but, hey, not my life, you know?

I'm not expressing this well because it is referring to deep, gut-check primal responses in my own emotional make-up. I just know that the folks I've met that described themselves as slaves, and had the something that made that label really honest, were immediately people that I got.

Are they better? Nah, just different. I love my slave gal to death, but I also enjoy bratty submissives, willful bottoms, wicked switches, and even my fellow toppy types. Slave is just a flavour.

ETA: While I am one that is of the opinion that it is pointless to call onesself a Master/Mistress sans an actual relationship in which that label has meaning, I do consider slave to be free-standing. There is such a specific mindset, set of personality traits, etc that I do think it apt to describe a slave as a slave even without current ownership. I say this because of the aforementioned emotional responses that I get to slaves, actualised or not.

Then again, maybe the lovely folks on the other side of the M/s line could provide some enlightenment to me. Do you get that recognition response to PYL's that screams "Master/Mistress" compared to some that says "Dominant"? Is there a gut-check difference between PYL's?

 

[TexasJennie]

Thanks so much!

Thank you all for the information and the suggested reading. This has helped me quite a lot. i'm in a Dom/sub relationship, and He wants to move to the next level. He asked me to research this and report back to Him if i feel ready to do this. Thank you all so much!

 

[subbielez]

First off, keep in mind I'm a lezzie. I don't know if that makes a diff - it shouldn't, but maybe it does. Like I said, I dunno.

But I've always thought of a slave as being a slave girl that does certain things and gets rewarded with something for them, like polishing all of her mistress' shoes and then being allowed to bring herself to orgasm; her mistress would oversee this. Then the mistress would do whatever else she wanted to do with the slave.

I however consider myself a submissive, not a slave. I don't know if mine's a weird case or not, but for me my domme is also my lover. Most of what we do is she dommes and I sub, but we also have 'normal' oral or anal sex on occasion. Basically, my definition of a sub is someone that has a lot more choice in what goes on. In both sub play there are safe words of course, and my impression is that a slave won't get to set limits at the start whereas a sub will. I also think a slave would be a slave off-site as well, not just around the mistress.

Now of course, I do things for my domme out of scene as well and in that I do play the part of a slave sometimes, but I don't consider myself a 'full-time' slave. Like one thing my domme often makes me do is wear a butt plug when she's not around; I'm totally okay with this and actually enjoy it.

I have to reiterate what everyone else has been saying though: it's different for everyone. My tastes and definitions could be totally different from yours, and I've certainly heard several differing opinions on the matter.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Thank you all for the information and the suggested reading. This has helped me quite a lot. i'm in a Dom/sub relationship, and He wants to move to the next level. He asked me to research this and report back to Him if i feel ready to do this. Thank you all so much!

If you are being asked to consider whether you are ready for this next step, I would advise making sure you are both on the same page as to what that next step entails and means. It is of little use to ask others what they define as a sub or slave if those definitions do not fit what he is hoping to make a reality for you both.

As to personal definitions, the simple answer for us is a sub retains rights and choices and the freedom to walk if things begin to sour etc., while a slave gives up those rights and freedoms and remains as long as the PYL retains ownership of them. Unlike subbielez, carrying out what has been ordered or is expected has little to do with being rewarded for doing so. If he chooses to reward me occasionally, that is his choice but certainly not my expectation or his obligation, nor is it a constant. We all differ in what the labels mean, and as sinn said, difference does not necessarily equate to better than in a blanket sense, though may be better than on a personal level simply because it answers the needs of those involved more consistently than the alternative would.

Catalina

 

[h_i_s]

First off, keep in mind I'm a lezzie. I don't know if that makes a diff - it shouldn't, but maybe it does. Like I said, I dunno.

But I've always thought of a slave as being a slave girl that does certain things and gets rewarded with something for them, like polishing all of her mistress' shoes and then being allowed to bring herself to orgasm; her mistress would oversee this. Then the mistress would do whatever else she wanted to do with the slave.

I however consider myself a submissive, not a slave. I don't know if mine's a weird case or not, but for me my domme is also my lover. Most of what we do is she dommes and I sub, but we also have 'normal' oral or anal sex on occasion. Basically, my definition of a sub is someone that has a lot more choice in what goes on. In both sub play there are safe words of course, and my impression is that a slave won't get to set limits at the start whereas a sub will. I also think a slave would be a slave off-site as well, not just around the mistress.

Now of course, I do things for my domme out of scene as well and in that I do play the part of a slave sometimes, but I don't consider myself a 'full-time' slave. Like one thing my domme often makes me do is wear a butt plug when she's not around; I'm totally okay with this and actually enjoy it.

I have to reiterate what everyone else has been saying though: it's different for everyone. My tastes and definitions could be totally different from yours, and I've certainly heard several differing opinions on the matter.

I would say that sexual orientation, to include being lesbian, doesn't differentiate whether a person fits the 'submissive' label or whether it fits the 'slave' label. Being lesbian, heterosexual or bisexual are all very different and shouldn't matter, regarding the topic at hand, just as sexual gender shouldn't matter.

D/s isn't all about sex or bondage or spanking, or sceneing or play, etc, for everyone. For some it's not about sexual acts, or S&M etc, at all.

And it's a good thing it's not, or those of us who don't just view this stuff as 'something we do' 24/7, and fall more in the idea of it being 'who we are' 24/7, would never have energy left for anything else. As much as I'd love to do nothing day in and day out other than kneel at His feet while serving His oral desires, it's not a realistic expectation. We have to stop and eat sometime. That means someone has to stop and write a grocery list, drive to the store, buy the food. Someone has to cook it up, and serve it. Someone has to do laundry because we need wear clothing when we go to that store......... etc ect. Real life always fucks up our fantasies in one way or another.

Sounds like your relationship is defined, regardless though .... so, just saying.

 

[subbielez]

lol Yeah, it's pretty well-defined. And yeah, I do other things too not just being manhandled and tortured and fucked (but they're still fun!! ^_^ ). I have a life too. But like I said, differing opinions an' all. And yeah, it's a good way to relieve stress, ironic as that may sound. I dunno I just feel the way a kid feels with his security blanket I guess when I'm subbing. Some people read, some people play video games (and I totally rawk at Star Wars Battlefront II btw ))...I sub and get manhandled. ^_^

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Apologies to OP for minor deviation from the topic ...

Great job you are doing with the library, form what little we can see from this viewpoint, Rebecca... by the way.

There are points of serijules' 'label explaination' that are not at all fitted to everyone, and their beliefs. That article which she has written can't and doesn't speak for me, for one.
No offence, serijules, and I appreciate the effort and time you have put into that article...... and well, we just don't share the exact same definitions for a few of the basics. But, we can't all agree.. I'm with you on that point.

And I agree, as I always have that, people who are here now who were not during previous discussions of this topic...may want actual back and forth dialog rather than just reading what has already been said.

So .. let the dialog begin. I have volunteered to stick my toe in first.

Thank you for the compliment Sin it's appreciated

I would however like to address some of your comments from my perspective.

Even with the Librarian profile I was clear from the outset, "You will find a myriad of valid responses on this topic.". I also concluded with "offered as information as an adjunct to your topic.". It was food for thought until a discussion ensued. The most comprehensive over a general spectrum of labels that's fairly recent and that came to mind at the time. In best practice when all sections of the library are complete I have no intention of referring to direct posts. I know quite well what a loaded topic this is & my linking was done in good faith with no political agenda .

 

[graceanne]

Everyone has different definitions for their label. I label myself a sub, because me and K's relationship is not a TPE (total power exchange). He does not have total power - we have equal power over the kids. Add to that, I have a lot more 'power' than a slave (by my definition) would have. For example, K has a really bad temper. If he picks a fight with me, I will finish it, and he doesn't get to do shit about it. Period. Also, if I disagree with a punishment, and think he's handing it out cause he's in a nasty mood he has to wait 24 hours to give it. Partly cause if he changes his mind once he cools off, it won't be to late. The other reason is their's no way in HELL he's coming near my ass when he's pissed off.

 

[doveofserenity]

i have always considered myself submissive. It is an ingrained part of me to give. Give of my feelings, trust, emotions, body and soul; to another for Their pleasure. Which in return gives me pleasure, knowing that i have made that One happy.

IMO only, being submissive means you still have the right to choose whom you wish to be with; knowing that both are aware of your "Hard Limits" and respect and won't go past them. And always having your "Safe Word" as a final stop to everything when playing, scening, or whatever maybe occurring in the relationship.

For me, there are certain things i could NEVER give up all my rights to, freely. Those being especially decisions concerning my children, because no other knows them as well as i do. And due to my heritage; i could never have One tell me i have to cut my hair short. Seems strange yes, but even when i have had that done; i have always collected and braided the hair, put it in a sealed bag with other of my braids. So that at death, it goes to the funeral pyre with me.

IMO only, being a slave to a Master/Mistress is giving up of all of the above mentioned rights. And the PYL being the only one to have the right to determine what you shall or shall not do, wear, eat, go, and all things within your life.

But as others have stated, this is "Just my own opinion and life perspective".

 

[EmpressFi]

I dont know really what to add that hasnt been said..

I consider myself a submissive and to me a slave is someone, as I believe has been mentioned before, who gives up the right to negotiate.

My opinions have changed since meeting Sinn and IYM, and mostly that was because of what I'd seen elsewhere. Before, I saw a M/s in such a way that the master treated his slave without regard to feeling, they were an object. I realize she is his property, his slave. He picks out her makeup, picks out her clothing, etc, but (and I could be wrong) but I've never seen him treat her as anything but a treasured little girl. Just wanted to say that

 

[Guest]

Well, hell, I'll muddy the water a bit. My Beloved Mistress said something once that takes the whole idea of role definition back to the attitude of the PYL:

"A submissive loves to serve. A slave lives to serve."

 

[subbielez]

LOL There ya go. Now that actually makes sense. ^_^

 

[Caitlynne]

ETA: While I am one that is of the opinion that it is pointless to call oneself a Master/Mistress sans an actual relationship in which that label has meaning, I do consider slave to be free-standing. There is such a specific mindset, set of personality traits, etc that I do think it apt to describe a slave as a slave even without current ownership. I say this because of the aforementioned emotional responses that I get to slaves, actualized or not.

I find this to be a fascinating observation. I'm not sure what to say about it right now other than to acknowledge it. I think I have to ponder what my reaction to it is/was and then ponder if I have anything to say. Or maybe I'll just nod my head in agreement.

 

[Guest]

LOL There ya go. Now that actually makes sense. ^_^

Yeah, it does. Scary, isn't it?

 

[Homburg]

I dont know really what to add that hasnt been said..

I consider myself a submissive and to me a slave is someone, as I believe has been mentioned before, who gives up the right to negotiate.

My opinions have changed since meeting Sinn and IYM, and mostly that was because of what I'd seen elsewhere. Before, I saw a M/s in such a way that the master treated his slave without regard to feeling, they were an object. I realize she is his property, his slave. He picks out her makeup, picks out her clothing, etc, but (and I could be wrong) but I've never seen him treat her as anything but a treasured little girl. Just wanted to say that

What am I, chopped liver? =P


-----------------------------------

I find this to be a fascinating observation. I'm not sure what to say about it right now other than to acknowledge it. I think I have to ponder what my reaction to it is/was and then ponder if I have anything to say. Or maybe I'll just nod my head in agreement.

Thanks, any chance I can get some observations on the second part of the edit (reposted below)?

Then again, maybe the lovely folks on the other side of the M/s line could provide some enlightenment to me. Do you get that recognition response to PYL's that screams "Master/Mistress" compared to some that says "Dominant"? Is there a gut-check difference between PYL's?

Nobody has stepped up to answer that one yet. Do we not have enough self-identified slaves on here? Or am I just that off the mark?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Nobody has stepped up to answer that one yet. Do we not have enough self-identified slaves on here? Or am I just that off the mark?

Have to say I have, though they are few and far between. There are more who like to think they are than those who can actually authentically live it.

Catalina

 

[Homburg]

Have to say I have, though they are few and far between. There are more who like to think they are than those who can actually authentically live it.

Catalina

Thank you. I was wondering if the other side of the coin had similar experiences, and am interested to see that it does run true.

 

[graceanne]

.....

 

[Bandit58]

Have to say I have, though they are few and far between. There are more who like to think they are than those who can actually authentically live it.

Catalina

I have been told in the past that I'd make a good slave, but prefer to identify as a submissive. As dove said, there are some things I could never give up control of no matter how much I trust I have in my Dom. One that springs to mind is finances....I would never be able to turn my money over to anyone. On a lighter note, Sir only gets the TV remote when I go to bed....