Toy or Slave, what is the difference??

[Stella_Omega]

i tend to feel they're most romantic when not even trying. like when he gives you the softest, most tender of kisses after delivering a sound blow to the face...fingering your tears and applying painful pressure to that sore spot, while pushing up your chin and bending to your lips as sweetly and innocently as a parent kisses a child. how much more romantic can you get really?

Aww, that's so sweet!

 

[ownedsubgal]

Aww, that's so sweet!

hey i can be mushy too.

 

[YourCaptor]

i tend to feel they're most romantic when not even trying. like when he gives you the softest, most tender of kisses after delivering a sound blow to the face...fingering your tears and applying painful pressure to that sore spot, while pushing up your chin and bending to your lips as sweetly and innocently as a parent kisses a child. how much more romantic can you get really?

See this is why you're hot.

 

[YourCaptor]

Toys are for fun, slaves are serious business.

 

[chy_girl]

You know, I don't really care one way or another about the romance/wine/dine/flowers part. It's the little things that they do that show me they care. The sticking with me even when I'm struggling with personal growth and being a childish, pain in the ass. The taking enough time to earn the trust needed to quiet me when I hit a bad subspace. I don't know if I could submit so deeply without that.

 

[CuteBrat]

Here's where the terms start breaking down if you can simply call yourself anything you want.

Toy and slave both imply ownership. And, drawing from their "real life" counterparts, they also implicitly suggest the expectations the owner might reasonably have.

As an owner, I would treat a toy and a slave differently. Personally, I would want to play with a toy, create imaginative games, shelve it or leave it in the bin when I had to work, and then expect it to be where I left it when I came back. On the other hand, I would expect labor from a slave that I wouldn't expect from a toy. I would expect obedience, and I might potentially be more harsh in my discipline. I would feel less need to cater to a slave's needs. etc. etc. etc.

People do use these terms interchangeably. But I think, to avoid confusion, we should use different words in order to point to real differences in the types of relationships that can come under the BDSM umbrella.

I agree with all of this except the "imply ownership" part. I am slave to The Masters. They own me, expect me to do the chores and errands I am given, and basically expect complete obedience.

For them, I am a slave. But when I am loaned to their friends, I am a toy. Their friends have no expectation of me completing a list of chores and errands (unless that is what I was loaned for). For them, I'm something to be played with and enjoyed before being given back to The Masters.

I love being a toy...but I think I need the discipline of being a slave to not run amock!

 

[eastern sun]

I agree with all of this except the "imply ownership" part. I am slave to The Masters. They own me, expect me to do the chores and errands I am given, and basically expect complete obedience.

For them, I am a slave. But when I am loaned to their friends, I am a toy. Their friends have no expectation of me completing a list of chores and errands (unless that is what I was loaned for). For them, I'm something to be played with and enjoyed before being given back to The Masters.

I love being a toy...but I think I need the discipline of being a slave to not run amock!

I agree with you, and I'm glad you pointed it out. (I was going to edit my post.) Toys don't have the same binding ownership as slaves. But people do have favorite toys.

 

[CuteBrat]

I agree with you, and I'm glad you pointed it out. (I was going to edit my post.) Toys don't have the same binding ownership as slaves. But people do have favorite toys.

I hope I'm on some favorite lists...

 

[rida]

I'm the slave in my marriage's D/s dynamic, but I do not feel my Hubby's slave. If that makes sense.
He does not own me. I do obey, I do all the chores, I do my best to make him happy, but it is not because he owns me. I love him and I'm committed to my marriage to the end, and due to the power dynamic between us, it is my duty to take care of the running of the house, and his satisfaction. It was not much different before we introduced the power exchange. The difference being that before I would bitch and moan about it being unfair, while now I just accept it.

With the Sadist, I'm a toy, a part-time slave kind of toy.
We are not a couple and he does not wish to control me outside of the time we spend together. When we are together though I'm his to do as he pleases and I'm expected to obey totally and fully to his whims and desires.
Of course he cares about me, but at the same time, as a toy, I know I'm not what he really wants. The Sadist wants full ownership of a slave and I cannot be that slave due to my marriage. But as I toy, I can hope that he would keep wanting to play with me, even if he did have a slave. And so far that seems to be the case.

i tend to feel they're most romantic when not even trying. like when he gives you the softest, most tender of kisses after delivering a sound blow to the face...fingering your tears and applying painful pressure to that sore spot, while pushing up your chin and bending to your lips as sweetly and innocently as a parent kisses a child. how much more romantic can you get really?

Yep. Totally agree. That is my kind of romantic

 

[rosco rathbone]

You know, you're so completely full of shit. Yes, I'm a romantic. Yes, I'm a sadist. No, no-one's going to laugh me out of a munch.

To stick with my menswear analogy, since I'm getting good mileage out of it....you might also leave the house in a sweatshirt and loon pants. No one's going to arrest you, but if you try to get into an upscale restaurant, they are going to be snickering at you.

I know you people are a bunch of internet libertarians and no-one wants to be told anything, but that doesn't alter the basic facts. BDSM norms exist, and at the very least you ought to know and respect them before you start flaunting them.

 

[SimonBrooke]

To stick with my menswear analogy, since I'm getting good mileage out of it....you might also leave the house in a sweatshirt and loon pants. No one's going to arrest you, but if you try to get into an upscale restaurant, they are going to be snickering at you.

I know you people are a bunch of internet libertarians and no-one wants to be told anything, but that doesn't alter the basic facts. BDSM norms exist, and at the very least you ought to know and respect them before you start flaunting them.

Bollocks. Every single last word of this is just complete bollocks. Have you ever actually been to a munch? Have you ever met anyone who's into BDSM? Seriously, you should try it some time - you might find your eyes opened.

 

[00Syd]

To stick with my menswear analogy, since I'm getting good mileage out of it....you might also leave the house in a sweatshirt and loon pants. No one's going to arrest you, but if you try to get into an upscale restaurant, they are going to be snickering at you.

I know you people are a bunch of internet libertarians and no-one wants to be told anything, but that doesn't alter the basic facts. BDSM norms exist, and at the very least you ought to know and respect them before you start flaunting them.

Bollocks. Every single last word of this is just complete bollocks. Have you ever actually been to a munch? Have you ever met anyone who's into BDSM? Seriously, you should try it some time - you might find your eyes opened.

Uh. Yeah. What SB said. None of what RR is saying is rooted in any reality of the scene that I know of. Maybe that's the case in one of those Story of O roleplay societies, and maybe to a certain extent in the Leather scene (Netz or Stella could maybe help me out with that?), but certainly not the case anywhere else that I've ever seen.

 

[where]

To stick with my menswear analogy, since I'm getting good mileage out of it....you might also leave the house in a sweatshirt and loon pants. No one's going to arrest you, but if you try to get into an upscale restaurant, they are going to be snickering at you.

I know you people are a bunch of internet libertarians and no-one wants to be told anything, but that doesn't alter the basic facts. BDSM norms exist, and at the very least you ought to know and respect them before you start flaunting them.

well not that I'm likely to ever be seen dead in a munch, but if there is such a high level of intolerance in them as you seem to imply, I don't think I'd want to go one. They sound like shit.

 

[SimonBrooke]

well not that I'm likely to ever be seen dead in a munch, but if there is such a high level of intolerance in them as you seem to imply, I don't think I'd want to go one. They sound like shit.

Well, I can't speak for munches in your part of the island, although I hear Bristol is good. But the Glasgow munch is very open and accepting, and it's nice to meet up with other kinked people in a non-play situation and just blether. I mean, I'm not knocking play clubs either - they're definitely worth sampling, and an interesting experience - but because a munch happens in a public setting it is a good place to just talk and flirt and share the craik.

 

[chy_girl]

To stick with my menswear analogy, since I'm getting good mileage out of it....you might also leave the house in a sweatshirt and loon pants. No one's going to arrest you, but if you try to get into an upscale restaurant, they are going to be snickering at you.

I know you people are a bunch of internet libertarians and no-one wants to be told anything, but that doesn't alter the basic facts. BDSM norms exist, and at the very least you ought to know and respect them before you start flaunting them.

Not if you're one of the well known and respected chefs, they aren't. Hell, not if you're an employee.

And I would really like to know what these BDSM norms are that you keep talking about. So please... enlighten us.

well not that I'm likely to ever be seen dead in a munch, but if there is such a high level of intolerance in them as you seem to imply, I don't think I'd want to go one. They sound like shit.

It varies a bit by community as to how it works. Around here a munch means a bunch of kinky people get together in a public restaurant and have dinner. The conversation might or might not be kink related depending on who is there and what information they need.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There are always a few folk that show up at every munch and demo with a metaphorical clipboard under their arm. usually that clipboard is their only companion on the way home, too.

The men's leather scene as we know it came out of the motorcycle clubs that formed from men recently out of the armed forces after WWII especially. There was a big emphasis on being dressed to a standard; neat and clean slacks, shined boots, long pants never shorts. As time went on, those standards relaxed. Even now, wearing one piece of leather-- a simple open vest, for instance-- is a signal that you are part of the scene.

The men's clubs were also very hierarchal, mimicking the services. You were invited into a club after the top dogs had vetted you for a while. Young guys were bottoms by default, and rose to top status after putting in their time. The action was more like rough sex than the BDSM practices we think of-- nobody bothered to use floggers, which sort of hadn't been invented yet!

When the scene moved to stationary clubs, some of those rules didn't make the same kind of sense. There were strict customs about tops and bottoms; a bottom could only talk to a top after having been given permission, and the tops never spoke to each other in public. Bottoms were never officers in any club. It soon became apparent that having officers who didn't speak to each other was a real bad idea. It also became obvious that many bottoms were, in fact, accomplished leaders, who could keep books and take care of communications... My friends who remember those days do so with a little bit of embarrassment.

The thing is, the hetero scene doesn't need all that stuff, because there is already a 'natural' line drawn between male and female. Hets tend to assume that their sub or dom desires are part of their sex-- a woman who gives herself to a man is doing what comes naturally, and a man who gives himself to a woman is worshipping the Goddess or some such notion. And there's not much armed services background in the het tradition.

I have never, ever, noticed any sort of strict rules or customs in hetero scenes, beyond the safety issues. Those? Those are very strict.

Let me say one more thing; back in the 80's me and my partner were members of a semi-exclusive nightclub. One night we got there as the doorman was turning away a group of people. he told them they didn't meet the dress code. We were wearing nearly the same thing, and swept right past these folks, who, naturally, got pretty angry about it. The doorman told them that he knew they couldn't see the difference, but he could. The fact was that by their bearing and body language it was real obvious those people were not going to have a good time.

I wonder if Rosco has gotten the same attitude from some metaphorical doorman? If so, I assure you-- it wasn't your clothes they were snickering at.

 

[BiBunny]

There is no I in TEAM and no R in BDSM.

If you want romance get a boyfriend.

You're a mean one, Mr. Swift....

 

[where]

Well, I can't speak for munches in your part of the island, although I hear Bristol is good. But the Glasgow munch is very open and accepting, and it's nice to meet up with other kinked people in a non-play situation and just blether. I mean, I'm not knocking play clubs either - they're definitely worth sampling, and an interesting experience - but because a munch happens in a public setting it is a good place to just talk and flirt and share the craik.

Not if you're one of the well known and respected chefs, they aren't. Hell, not if you're an employee.

And I would really like to know what these BDSM norms are that you keep talking about. So please... enlighten us.




It varies a bit by community as to how it works. Around here a munch means a bunch of kinky people get together in a public restaurant and have dinner. The conversation might or might not be kink related depending on who is there and what information they need.

I'm not much of a joiner. Also given the way a lot of BDSM stuff seems to work, I really do not think I could be all deferential to some guy or gal just because they decide that their label and my assumed label says I should.

There are always a few folk that show up at every munch and demo with a metaphorical clipboard under their arm. usually that clipboard is their only companion on the way home, too.

The men's leather scene as we know it came out of the motorcycle clubs that formed from men recently out of the armed forces after WWII especially. There was a big emphasis on being dressed to a standard; neat and clean slacks, shined boots, long pants never shorts. As time went on, those standards relaxed. Even now, wearing one piece of leather-- a simple open vest, for instance-- is a signal that you are part of the scene.

The men's clubs were also very hierarchal, mimicking the services. You were invited into a club after the top dogs had vetted you for a while. Young guys were bottoms by default, and rose to top status after putting in their time. The action was more like rough sex than the BDSM practices we think of-- nobody bothered to use floggers, which sort of hadn't been invented yet!

When the scene moved to stationary clubs, some of those rules didn't make the same kind of sense. There were strict customs about tops and bottoms; a bottom could only talk to a top after having been given permission, and the tops never spoke to each other in public. Bottoms were never officers in any club. It soon became apparent that having officers who didn't speak to each other was a real bad idea. It also became obvious that many bottoms were, in fact, accomplished leaders, who could keep books and take care of communications... My friends who remember those days do so with a little bit of embarrassment.

The thing is, the hetero scene doesn't need all that stuff, because there is already a 'natural' line drawn between male and female. Hets tend to assume that their sub or dom desires are part of their sex-- a woman who gives herself to a man is doing what comes naturally, and a man who gives himself to a woman is worshipping the Goddess or some such notion. And there's not much armed services background in the het tradition.

I have never, ever, noticed any sort of strict rules or customs in hetero scenes, beyond the safety issues. Those? Those are very strict.

Let me say one more thing; back in the 80's me and my partner were members of a semi-exclusive nightclub. One night we got there as the doorman was turning away a group of people. he told them they didn't meet the dress code. We were wearing nearly the same thing, and swept right past these folks, who, naturally, got pretty angry about it. The doorman told them that he knew they couldn't see the difference, but he could. The fact was that by their bearing and body language it was real obvious those people were not going to have a good time.

I wonder if Rosco has gotten the same attitude from some metaphorical doorman? If so, I assure you-- it wasn't your clothes they were snickering at.

the bolded bit, I just can't get my head round why I have to treat a man with any more respect than I treat a woman, or a Dom with more respect than a sub. They aren't ~my~ doms, so why should they get the same deference as he does?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not much of a joiner. Also given the way a lot of BDSM stuff seems to work, I really do not think I could be all deferential to some guy or gal just because they decide that their label and my assumed label says I should.

the bolded bit, I just can't get my head round why I have to treat a man with any more respect than I treat a woman, or a Dom with more respect than a sub. They aren't ~my~ doms, so why should they get the same deference as he does?

Because they NEED you to?

You know how important men's NEEDS are. So important they'll call themselves Doms to get them met.

Naw, just tugging your nuts, guys.

No, honestly, the next part of my comment is more bold-worthy, IMO;
I have never, ever, noticed any sort of strict rules or customs in hetero scenes, beyond the safety issues. Those? Those are very strict.

 

[00Syd]

I'm not much of a joiner. Also given the way a lot of BDSM stuff seems to work, I really do not think I could be all deferential to some guy or gal just because they decide that their label and my assumed label says I should.

the bolded bit, I just can't get my head round why I have to treat a man with any more respect than I treat a woman, or a Dom with more respect than a sub. They aren't ~my~ doms, so why should they get the same deference as he does?

I've never seen anything like that put into practice at any munch or scene event that I've ever been to. I don't think you need to worry about that happening, ever. If those sorts of expectations were the norm, I would have never gotten involved in the scene, but as it is, I am very involved.

 

[00Syd]

There are always a few folk that show up at every munch and demo with a metaphorical clipboard under their arm. usually that clipboard is their only companion on the way home, too.

The men's leather scene as we know it came out of the motorcycle clubs that formed from men recently out of the armed forces after WWII especially. There was a big emphasis on being dressed to a standard; neat and clean slacks, shined boots, long pants never shorts. As time went on, those standards relaxed. Even now, wearing one piece of leather-- a simple open vest, for instance-- is a signal that you are part of the scene.

The men's clubs were also very hierarchal, mimicking the services. You were invited into a club after the top dogs had vetted you for a while. Young guys were bottoms by default, and rose to top status after putting in their time. The action was more like rough sex than the BDSM practices we think of-- nobody bothered to use floggers, which sort of hadn't been invented yet!

When the scene moved to stationary clubs, some of those rules didn't make the same kind of sense. There were strict customs about tops and bottoms; a bottom could only talk to a top after having been given permission, and the tops never spoke to each other in public. Bottoms were never officers in any club. It soon became apparent that having officers who didn't speak to each other was a real bad idea. It also became obvious that many bottoms were, in fact, accomplished leaders, who could keep books and take care of communications... My friends who remember those days do so with a little bit of embarrassment.

The thing is, the hetero scene doesn't need all that stuff, because there is already a 'natural' line drawn between male and female. Hets tend to assume that their sub or dom desires are part of their sex-- a woman who gives herself to a man is doing what comes naturally, and a man who gives himself to a woman is worshipping the Goddess or some such notion. And there's not much armed services background in the het tradition.

I have never, ever, noticed any sort of strict rules or customs in hetero scenes, beyond the safety issues. Those? Those are very strict.

Let me say one more thing; back in the 80's me and my partner were members of a semi-exclusive nightclub. One night we got there as the doorman was turning away a group of people. he told them they didn't meet the dress code. We were wearing nearly the same thing, and swept right past these folks, who, naturally, got pretty angry about it. The doorman told them that he knew they couldn't see the difference, but he could. The fact was that by their bearing and body language it was real obvious those people were not going to have a good time.

I wonder if Rosco has gotten the same attitude from some metaphorical doorman? If so, I assure you-- it wasn't your clothes they were snickering at.

Thanks for the info!! As much as I think I've learned about the history of the leather scene, there is always more to find out.

 

[where]

Because they NEED you to?

You know how important men's NEEDS are. So important they'll call themselves Doms to get them met.

Naw, just tugging your nuts, guys.

No, honestly, the next part of my comment is more bold-worthy, IMO;
I have never, ever, noticed any sort of strict rules or customs in hetero scenes, beyond the safety issues. Those? Those are very strict.

other doms have other subs to meet their needs. I have my hands full as it is meeting his needs.

I've never seen anything like that put into practice at any munch or scene event that I've ever been to. I don't think you need to worry about that happening, ever. If those sorts of expectations were the norm, I would have never gotten involved in the scene, but as it is, I am very involved.

didn't you say that you went to munches aimed at younger people, though? I'm sure those will be different.

I'm so unsure of myself in this area and of what role I have or if I even have one, the idea of going to an organised event (which I hate anyway) and then one which is so label driven.... gives me the eepues.

 

[SimonBrooke]

I'm not much of a joiner. Also given the way a lot of BDSM stuff seems to work, I really do not think I could be all deferential to some guy or gal just because they decide that their label and my assumed label says I should.

the bolded bit, I just can't get my head round why I have to treat a man with any more respect than I treat a woman, or a Dom with more respect than a sub. They aren't ~my~ doms, so why should they get the same deference as he does?

You don't, and shouldn't. Treat everyone with exactly as much respect they've earned in your eyes. Your dom deserves more, because he has earned it. Other people you know may earn it in time. But anyone who expects to be accorded respect without having to earn it is just an arsewipe, and only fit to be shat on.

Slightly more robust language than I normally use!

 

[where]

You don't, and shouldn't. Treat everyone with exactly as much respect they've earned in your eyes. Your dom deserves more, because he has earned it. Other people you know may earn it in time. But anyone who expects to be accorded respect without having to earn it is just an arsewipe, and only fit to be shat on.

Slightly more robust language than I normally use!

are you getting angry? *shivers*

 

[SimonBrooke]

are you getting angry? *shivers*

Not with you, Kitten.