the marks of a slave

[00Syd]

Me, too. I tried to do the slave thing. I can't. I'm too bitchy. We should start a pet thread.

Hey, why not? The slaves have one, and the Daddy's little girls have one...two...three...at least.

Don't mind me; I have nothing relevant to add to the discussion.

Yeah! That would be great But it would probably just be the two of us, unless there are some other pets on the board that I've failed to notice.

 

[BiBunny]

Yeah! That would be great But it would probably just be the two of us, unless there are some other pets on the board that I've failed to notice.

Surely someone would be interested and want to ask questions/make comments, even if he/she didn't self-identify as a pet. And you never know who might come out of the woodwork.

ETA: Someone like eastern sun!

 

[00Syd]

Surely someone would be interested and want to ask questions/make comments, even if he/she didn't self-identify as a pet. And you never know who might come out of the woodwork.

ETA: Someone like eastern sun!

Haha, yeah. Well, if you start the thread, I will totally respond and participate.

It's sometimes hard trying to explain to someone what I see as the difference between being a pet and any other type of pyl, or how I see being a pet as different from pet play, but I'd love to give it another shot. And, hey, you never know, talking about it might help

 

[HisAloneToUse]

Evening all...

I know what you mean 00Syd. My Master refers to me as "My pet" and even here on Lit. W/we are not into pet roleplay... just what He likes to call me. Perhaps He'll chime in at some point.

Sorry if I am way off on a tangent and this is not what you are referring to. But as far as pet, puppy roleplay, I haven't come across references to it here.

 

[BiBunny]

Haha, yeah. Well, if you start the thread, I will totally respond and participate.

It's sometimes hard trying to explain to someone what I see as the difference between being a pet and any other type of pyl, or how I see being a pet as different from pet play, but I'd love to give it another shot. And, hey, you never know, talking about it might help

As you wish!

 

[eastern sun]

Surely someone would be interested and want to ask questions/make comments, even if he/she didn't self-identify as a pet. And you never know who might come out of the woodwork.

ETA: Someone like eastern sun!

I have identified as "slave" and "toy," but I've never thought of myself as a "pet." In my mind, pets require more care than "slaves" and "toys," and I've never felt cared for in that way. For that reason, I'd love to read the thread. It would offer insight into a realm of experience I don't fully understand.

And who knows? Maybe I will identify more than I thought I would! (I did always think of myself as a cat as a little girl. )

 

[HisAloneToUse]

eastern sun... I always love looking at your AV...

 

[eastern sun]

eastern sun... I always love looking at your AV...

thank you Your signature song has always spoken to me, too.

 

[HisAloneToUse]

thank you Your signature song has always spoken to me, too.

You are most welcome, and thank you. Alas, I change my .sig from time to time.

I have recently found new meaning in "Blackbird" lyrics. Bittersweet and, oh, so inspiring.

 

[Homburg]

First, just to be clear, I’m not suggesting for one moment that s types are not whole, creative, talented, vibrant human beings, not at all. What I was suggesting is that some people – and by “some people” I mean me – would find it difficult to be creative under certain circumstances.

To an extent, it's a null question, and one that continually boggles me when it comes up. There are a lot of people finding reasons why they could never be slaves, and I honestly don't get it.

Not everyone is cut out for the role.
Not everyone would be happy that way.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

You, dearest Hommy, seem to be very intuitive about inter-personal relationships. I’m sure you’re very good at reading the moods of your girls and judging wants and needs. You are also artsy yourself, so you “get it”. Under your roof, an artsy type would probably fare very well. But my guess is that not all M’s are like you and that there are probably some s’s who have to find ways to express themselves creatively within defined parameters.

When it comes to art stuff, L doesn’t “get it”. He doesn’t. That doesn’t make him a bad person or husband, it’s just not his way. Now, if I were to hand over the reins, completely, I guarantee he would not exercise the kind of sound judgment and restraint that you do.

/nod

That is, in my eyes, the single most important question that needs to be answered when one is contemplating turning over the reins. Not whether or not you'd be happy, not whether or not you can handle. Nope, more basic than that is whether or not the person you are thinking about handing those reins to is responsible enough to hold them.

he point in bold, yes, I understand. Real life intrudes all the time, I don't throw a hissy fit about it. But I do have serious long term goals to succeed in a very difficult industry and in order to do that I must make my creative endeavors more important than just about everything else, whenever possible.

Eh, a job is a job, and shouldn't be screwed with. You gotta pay your rent. Or, in this case, you gotta put the work in so that you can eventually pay the rent.

 

[intothewoods]

To an extent, it's a null question, and one that continually boggles me when it comes up. There are a lot of people finding reasons why they could never be slaves, and I honestly don't get it.

Not everyone is cut out for the role.
Not everyone would be happy that way.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

It does tend to come up a lot. I guess that when you're trying to figure out your D/s relationship flavor, it may help to "try on" different roles in your head and see how they feel.

/nod

That is, in my eyes, the single most important question that needs to be answered when one is contemplating turning over the reins. Not whether or not you'd be happy, not whether or not you can handle. Nope, more basic than that is whether or not the person you are thinking about handing those reins to is responsible enough to hold them.

Keroin's posts remind me about areas in which I bristle at his big D-presence. I feel good about placing control in his hands. He is responsible. But he's also human. So it's possible to feel that a person is generally pretty darn good at this D-thing, while also feeling that there are a few areas where you want to push back.

Then again, maybe I'm still adjusting to those areas where it's challenging to submit.

One of my big challenges is letting go of my ego. If we are having a discussion, and it's a topic where I feel like I know a thing or two, I really don't like to back down. It makes me bonkers. His personality is like a steamroller sometimes. But the thing is - it only bugs me because I'm the same way. So I'm learning to calmly and quietly explain my point of view.

If I can express myself, and also support him at the same time, fab.

 

[Homburg]

It does tend to come up a lot. I guess that when you're trying to figure out your D/s relationship flavor, it may help to "try on" different roles in your head and see how they feel.

I guess my sticking point is that it seems with some, and I'm not alluding to anyone here, they are trying to convince themselves that it's not a good idea. I don't really get that. Generally speaking, it's not a good idea. I would think this is evident, but I would also think that someone not involved in it would not need to convince themselves. It's not a progression.

Keroin's posts remind me about areas in which I bristle at his big D-presence. I feel good about placing control in his hands. He is responsible. But he's also human. So it's possible to feel that a person is generally pretty darn good at this D-thing, while also feeling that there are a few areas where you want to push back.

Then again, maybe I'm still adjusting to those areas where it's challenging to submit.

One of my big challenges is letting go of my ego. If we are having a discussion, and it's a topic where I feel like I know a thing or two, I really don't like to back down. It makes me bonkers. His personality is like a steamroller sometimes. But the thing is - it only bugs me because I'm the same way. So I'm learning to calmly and quietly explain my point of view.

If I can express myself, and also support him at the same time, fab.

I dunno. Again, I'm going more off of the RL M/s relationships I know personally, but if the s knows more than the M, literally every s I know will find some way to tell their M. That's part of service.

If I am going to bake, for example, and I am flat fucking it up, viv can make a comment or two and it helps me. That is service. If I tell her to zip it, then it is on my head. But if she sees me fucking the cake batter up and says nothing, is that service? Not in my book.

To me, the s' knowledge and experience are valuable, as is the viewpoint the s brings to the discussion. I don't want a set of willings holes attached to a mute. Conversation is as important as anything else in a functional relationship.If I own that s, I also expect to own the use of that knowledge and experience. It's part of the package.

And, honestly, if they're feisty and expressive at the start, they're likely to stay that way. That's part of the whole compatibility thing. Hell, it's often part of the attraction. The s part comes in when the order is given to tone it down, and the s tones it down.

 

[intothewoods]

I guess my sticking point is that it seems with some, and I'm not alluding to anyone here, they are trying to convince themselves that it's not a good idea. I don't really get that. Generally speaking, it's not a good idea. I would think this is evident, but I would also think that someone not involved in it would not need to convince themselves. It's not a progression.

Well, I know the word "slave" is troubling for some. The idea of person as property has never really worked for me in my head, although I've never really come up with a good reason. It just doesn't fit. But again, I think it's still a where-do-I-fit issue.

I know what you mean about progression, although I have to say that I do relate a bit more to M/s now that we're married and living together. That really may be neither here nor there, but I have noticed it. On the other hand, I don't really see us redefining our relationship anytime soon. So who knows. He uses the term "slave" for me from time to time, but it's more abstract for him. Well, the term. His reality is still, I want what I want the way I want it.

<snip>The s part comes in when the order is given to tone it down, and the s tones it down.

Yes, that's what I'm working on. And in our case, it's discussions about politics, or education or exercise for weight loss. Just stuff. I'm not going to be silent - he would think I'd been bodysnatched by a quiet breed of aliens - but trying to "overpower" him with volume or intensity or whatever is futile. It's futile with everyone. It's not a good method of persuasion.

 

[Netzach]

If I am going to bake, for example, and I am flat fucking it up, viv can make a comment or two and it helps me. That is service. If I tell her to zip it, then it is on my head. But if she sees me fucking the cake batter up and says nothing, is that service? Not in my book.

To me, the s' knowledge and experience are valuable, as is the viewpoint the s brings to the discussion. I don't want a set of willings holes attached to a mute. Conversation is as important as anything else in a functional relationship.If I own that s, I also expect to own the use of that knowledge and experience. It's part of the package.

And, honestly, if they're feisty and expressive at the start, they're likely to stay that way. That's part of the whole compatibility thing. Hell, it's often part of the attraction. The s part comes in when the order is given to tone it down, and the s tones it down.

Are you my long lost adopted out sib? This is always how I've seen it. I think the only times I've doled out a "zip it" have been for the hell of it, not because I'm being challenged in some way. If I can't handle a challenge, how exactly am I in control?

 

[Homburg]

Well, I know the word "slave" is troubling for some. The idea of person as property has never really worked for me in my head, although I've never really come up with a good reason. It just doesn't fit. But again, I think it's still a where-do-I-fit issue.

This is another one of those things that I don't get, and I don't think I ever will.

I do not "fit" anywhere. Period. Never have and never will.

I'm too social and too physical for geeks.
I'm too geeky for my fellow lifters.
I'm too coarse and free-spirited for the social crowd.
I'm either too hard-core or not hard enough for most BDSM'ers.
Etc etc.

I fit with occasional individuals, and that is it. And it doesn't bother me. While viv and MIS call me "Master", I sure as hell don't identify as such. While others call me "Dominant", and I accept the descriptor, I don't wear it proudly like it means something. If asked to self-identify, I say "Top" and leave it at that. I figure that's the most generic, but it's not like it is the only thing I do.

But, at the end of the day, I don't feel the need for some tidy label. It's why I just don't get it when people get so wound up over labels and lack thereof. Yeah, if someone uses a blatantly incorrect label on you, I can understand the desire to correct, but taking offense? I don't get that. That person either doesn't know the individual they're describing, or *gasp* they have a different understanding of that label.

I know what you mean about progression, although I have to say that I do relate a bit more to M/s now that we're married and living together. That really may be neither here nor there, but I have noticed it. On the other hand, I don't really see us redefining our relationship anytime soon. So who knows. He uses the term "slave" for me from time to time, but it's more abstract for him. Well, the term. His reality is still, I want what I want the way I want it.

So is mine. We just use different language for it

Yes, that's what I'm working on. And in our case, it's discussions about politics, or education or exercise for weight loss. Just stuff. I'm not going to be silent - he would think I'd been bodysnatched by a quiet breed of aliens - but trying to "overpower" him with volume or intensity or whatever is futile. It's futile with everyone. It's not a good method of persuasion.

That was a freakishly difficult lesson for me to learn. Not that I'm quiet, or even trying to be, just that I tend to be forceful.

 

[Homburg]

Are you my long lost adopted out sib? This is always how I've seen it. I think the only times I've doled out a "zip it" have been for the hell of it, not because I'm being challenged in some way. If I can't handle a challenge, how exactly am I in control?

This. This. This.

Yeah, I think we're related through Karmic DNA or something.

 

[eastern sun]

Regarding the property issue . . .

I am his woman. In being his, I do not stop being a woman. I do not suddenly become an inanimate object. He can treat me like a fuckdoll. I may act like a fuckdoll. But, in fact, I am much more complex, I am a woman, and that's what he wants. That's what he wants me to be.

As his woman, I offer a lot to him. Sexually. Domestically. As the mother of his children. As his companion. I do not suddenly become a piece of furniture (even though he assumes I will always be a part of his house).

To me, being owned means that a certain freedom of choice has been lost. I am not free to leave. I am not free to act against his wishes without suffering the consequences. And I am expected to provide him access to myself - physically, emotionally, intellectually - and my property. I cannot keep anything from him that he wants. (But I still give him grief when he loses my reading glasses. )

Being owned doesn't actually change me in any way. It just reflects a certain mental attitude we take towards our relationship.

In the same way that giving power to him hasn't taken my power away.

To me, the defining characteristic of M/s over D/s is the lack of a safeword.

 

[Homburg]

Regarding the property issue . . .

I am his woman. In being his, I do not stop being a woman. I do not suddenly become an inanimate object. He can treat me like a fuckdoll. I may act like a fuckdoll. But, in fact, I am much more complex, I am a woman, and that's what he wants. That's what he wants me to be.

As his woman, I offer a lot to him. Sexually. Domestically. As the mother of his children. As his companion. I do not suddenly become a piece of furniture (even though he assumes I will always be a part of his house).

To me, being owned means that a certain freedom of choice has been lost. I am not free to leave. I am not free to act against his wishes without suffering the consequences. And I am expected to provide him access to myself - physically, emotionally, intellectually - and my property. I cannot keep anything from him that he wants. (But I still give him grief when he loses my reading glasses. )

Being owned doesn't actually change me in any way. It just reflects a certain mental attitude we take towards our relationship.

In the same way that giving power to him hasn't taken my power away.

To me, the defining characteristic of M/s over D/s is the lack of a safeword.

QFT.

 

[HisAloneToUse]

Regarding the property issue . . .

I am his woman. In being his, I do not stop being a woman. I do not suddenly become an inanimate object. He can treat me like a fuckdoll. I may act like a fuckdoll. But, in fact, I am much more complex, I am a woman, and that's what he wants. That's what he wants me to be.

As his woman, I offer a lot to him. Sexually. Domestically. As the mother of his children. As his companion. I do not suddenly become a piece of furniture (even though he assumes I will always be a part of his house).

To me, being owned means that a certain freedom of choice has been lost. I am not free to leave. I am not free to act against his wishes without suffering the consequences. And I am expected to provide him access to myself - physically, emotionally, intellectually - and my property. I cannot keep anything from him that he wants. (But I still give him grief when he loses my reading glasses. )

Being owned doesn't actually change me in any way. It just reflects a certain mental attitude we take towards our relationship.

In the same way that giving power to him hasn't taken my power away.

To me, the defining characteristic of M/s over D/s is the lack of a safeword.

THANK YOU! I agree and love every word!

And that mental attitude is everything. He knowing His place and me knowing mine. That is the core. Without that, it all falls flat.

 

[Keroin]

To an extent, it's a null question, and one that continually boggles me when it comes up. There are a lot of people finding reasons why they could never be slaves, and I honestly don't get it.

Not everyone is cut out for the role.
Not everyone would be happy that way.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

See, I think there's a bit of sensitivity in this community. When I say, "I could never be a slave because of x,y or z" it's not a judgement call, nor is it a attempt to define myself. It's merely an observation.

For example, last night I went to a girl's sleepover with my female buds here. I am the only one of the group who does not have kids. This morning, I was listening to my friends talk about some "kid issues" and I commented on how much responsibility it seemed like and how I am definitely not cut out for motherhood. Now, this doesn't mean I think there's anything wrong with being a mom, I love moms, I think it's a job that deserves a lot more respect and appreciation. I don't need to define myself as "not a mom" because I know I'm not and that I never will be a mom. It was just an observation that these women are something that I, for a number of reasons, could never be.

Simple as that.

I could say the same about lots of things in life:

I'm not cut out to work 9 to 5 in an office or a store.
I would be a lousy soldier.
I'm a bad candidate for big city living.
I'll never be a fashion model.

Etc, etc, etc. Only observations, nothing more.

Does that make sense?

 

[ownedsubgal]

Yes. But you are exceptional. It is a very difficult state to sustain.

A question - how do you work with yourself in those moments when you feel you've failed to live up to his expectations and/or demands?

it's so funny to me when people say things to me like "you are exceptional," or any other compliment in regard to my slavery, because the truth is i feel extreme inadequacy and failure practically ALL the time. i never feel quite good enough, certainly not nearly good enough for HIM. there is what he deserves, and there is what i actually give him, and it feels like such a vast impassable mountain between the two.

so, to answer your question, because i feel that way so often, i simply keep on trying. i try not to allow myself to drown in self-pity or loathing, and focus on doing all i can for him. it is what i am on this planet for after all, so what else can i do? what else matters?

 

[ownedsubgal]

Regarding the property issue . . .


To me, being owned means that a certain freedom of choice has been lost. I am not free to leave. I am not free to act against his wishes without suffering the consequences. And I am expected to provide him access to myself - physically, emotionally, intellectually - and my property. I cannot keep anything from him that he wants. (But I still give him grief when he loses my reading glasses. )

Being owned doesn't actually change me in any way. It just reflects a certain mental attitude we take towards our relationship.

In the same way that giving power to him hasn't taken my power away.

To me, the defining characteristic of M/s over D/s is the lack of a safeword.

i too would describe being owned as a lack of basic freedoms and choices. however i do not believe safewords have anything to do with it...as if i were someone's unowned submissive, i would have no greater ability to safeword than i do now. perhaps i would describe the difference between non-ownership D/s and slavery as the difference between following my own will, and following his will. as a slave, my own will is rendered moot and meaningless if it goes against his. as an unowned submissive, i would expect my will to carry some weight and be prioritized to some degree.

as a slave i have no such expectations, only hopes that i will be strong enough to bear his will.

 

[JMohegan]

Regarding the property issue . . .

I am his woman. In being his, I do not stop being a woman. I do not suddenly become an inanimate object. He can treat me like a fuckdoll. I may act like a fuckdoll. But, in fact, I am much more complex, I am a woman, and that's what he wants. That's what he wants me to be.

As his woman, I offer a lot to him. Sexually. Domestically. As the mother of his children. As his companion. I do not suddenly become a piece of furniture (even though he assumes I will always be a part of his house).

To me, being owned means that a certain freedom of choice has been lost. I am not free to leave. I am not free to act against his wishes without suffering the consequences. And I am expected to provide him access to myself - physically, emotionally, intellectually - and my property. I cannot keep anything from him that he wants. (But I still give him grief when he loses my reading glasses. )

Being owned doesn't actually change me in any way. It just reflects a certain mental attitude we take towards our relationship.

In the same way that giving power to him hasn't taken my power away.

To me, the defining characteristic of M/s over D/s is the lack of a safeword.

This is just beautifully written.

M/s practitioners give varying descriptions of the property thing; yours makes more sense than any other I've heard or read.

I get off on the "could leave any moment, but chooses to stay" dynamic, so what you describe doesn't work for me. But there's a lot, in the choosing, that seems remarkably similar.

See, I think there's a bit of sensitivity in this community. When I say, "I could never be a slave because of x,y or z" it's not a judgement call, nor is it a attempt to define myself. It's merely an observation.

In most kink-oriented communities, M/s is treated as some sort of pinnacle, and the sensitivity tends to run the other way.

There's often a tremendous amount of pressure to be edgier, more hardcore, more in terms of the scope of control, and all of that tends to push people toward at least considering M/s at some point.

There's also the tendency of some, who have newly embraced M/s and found it increased the bond in their own relationships, to get sort of evangelical about it and start trying to convince other people that M/s would also work for them.

 

[Homburg]

See, I think there's a bit of sensitivity in this community. When I say, "I could never be a slave because of x,y or z" it's not a judgement call, nor is it a attempt to define myself. It's merely an observation.

Absolutely, and that was why I clarified in a different post that I wasn't pointing at anyone specifically. I don't think that is the case with you, yet I have seen it time and again.

 

[intothewoods]

This is another one of those things that I don't get, and I don't think I ever will.

I do not "fit" anywhere. Period. Never have and never will.

I'm too social and too physical for geeks.
I'm too geeky for my fellow lifters.
I'm too coarse and free-spirited for the social crowd.
I'm either too hard-core or not hard enough for most BDSM'ers.
Etc etc.

I fit with occasional individuals, and that is it. And it doesn't bother me. While viv and MIS call me "Master", I sure as hell don't identify as such. While others call me "Dominant", and I accept the descriptor, I don't wear it proudly like it means something. If asked to self-identify, I say "Top" and leave it at that. I figure that's the most generic, but it's not like it is the only thing I do.

But, at the end of the day, I don't feel the need for some tidy label. It's why I just don't get it when people get so wound up over labels and lack thereof. Yeah, if someone uses a blatantly incorrect label on you, I can understand the desire to correct, but taking offense? I don't get that. That person either doesn't know the individual they're describing, or *gasp* they have a different understanding of that label.

I don't get being offended either. That would be weird.

I can relate to not feeling like I quite fit in anywhere, but I do like having a sense of community. I accept that I'm not wholly one thing or another.

As far as wanting a label, it's pretty meaningless for me now, since I'm not looking for a relationship.

So is mine. We just use different language for it

That was a freakishly difficult lesson for me to learn. Not that I'm quiet, or even trying to be, just that I tend to be forceful.

Evidently I can tend that way too, though there has to be something that sets me off or interests me.

Regarding the property issue . . .

I am his woman. In being his, I do not stop being a woman. I do not suddenly become an inanimate object. He can treat me like a fuckdoll. I may act like a fuckdoll. But, in fact, I am much more complex, I am a woman, and that's what he wants. That's what he wants me to be.

As his woman, I offer a lot to him. Sexually. Domestically. As the mother of his children. As his companion. I do not suddenly become a piece of furniture (even though he assumes I will always be a part of his house).

To me, being owned means that a certain freedom of choice has been lost. I am not free to leave. I am not free to act against his wishes without suffering the consequences. And I am expected to provide him access to myself - physically, emotionally, intellectually - and my property. I cannot keep anything from him that he wants. (But I still give him grief when he loses my reading glasses. )

Being owned doesn't actually change me in any way. It just reflects a certain mental attitude we take towards our relationship.

In the same way that giving power to him hasn't taken my power away.

To me, the defining characteristic of M/s over D/s is the lack of a safeword.

See, but this is what makes me go round and round in circles. We have a similar structure in our relationship, but do not really id as M/s. Perhaps the notion that I retain a safeword, even if I wouldn't use it, is important.