Do Masters want a sub or a slave?

[ownedsubgal]

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.

SS, just where oh where have you and your voice of reason and logic been all of my online life? lol.

 

[KoPilot]

I'm gonna say something that's not going to come out very well after it's filtered through the word-making part of my brain, and that I probably won't have the stamina to back up very well later, but here's my stance on the whole thing. (Sorry, but I explain myself best in analogies.)

Just because you squat in a house, that doesn't mean you own it.

Likewise, I could go shuffling around on my knees all day and swear by everything under the sun that I was 18" tall, and even if S treated me accordingly, would that really make me any shorter than I am?

 

[ownedsubgal]

I'm gonna say something that's not going to come out very well after it's filtered through the word-making part of my brain, and that I probably won't have the stamina to back up very well later, but here's my stance on the whole thing. (Sorry, but I explain myself best in analogies.)

Just because you squat in a house, that doesn't mean you own it.

Likewise, I could go shuffling around on my knees all day and swear by everything under the sun that I was 18" tall, and even if S treated me accordingly, would that really make me any shorter than I am?

the house analogy went over my head, sorry. the second one was clearer...and the answer would be, of course not. are you saying that you don't actually believe a person can actually be bound in servitude to another person, or completely subject to the will of another person? that such a thing is a literal impossibility? because if that is so, then according to you i shouldn't even be posting, as i am a mere figment, much like the unicorn.

 

[KoPilot]

the house analogy went over my head, sorry. the second one was clearer...and the answer would be, of course not. are you saying that you don't actually believe a person can actually be bound in servitude to another person, or completely subject to the will of another person? that such a thing is a literal impossibility? because if that is so, then according to you i shouldn't even be posting, as i am a mere figment, much like the unicorn.

No, I'm not saying that you and your circumstance doesn't exist, I'm saying that it will never be as real as you or anyone else in a true M/s dynamic would like. In the western world, at least.

 

[ownedsubgal]

No, I'm not saying that you and your circumstance doesn't exist, I'm saying that it will never be as real as you or anyone else in a true M/s dynamic would like. In the western world, at least.

something is real, or it is not, so i'm a little confused on exactly what you mean there. a circumstance being either legally binding or supported by society-at-large does not make it any more "real," though it could definitely make things a bit easier. it's only because we do live in western society that we have to be M/s at all...outside of it, i could be just a wife, or just a daughter, or even just a female. and that would be pretty awesome...the slave label doesn't give me any extra tinglies.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I'm pretty new to bdsm...and my understanding is that a slave and a sub are different. Which one do masters want?

 

[Braschi]

I'll submit to being a bit confused about the original question, in the hopes of keeping this on topic. What exactly is she asking, again?

OK, enough of on topic, back to the fight!

Words are imperfect, they are crude approximations to the ideas we have in our heads. They are woefully insufficient, which is why we routinely paste pictures, graphs, diagrams, animations and even smilies in our text presentations in the hopes of conveying a little more meaning.

Naturally, people will "bend" their definitions a bit, or use euphemisms or approximations to try to best convey their idea. Nothing wrong with that. But that's all possible because there is some "base" of a definition that we all understand. We all have a working understanding of the word "slave" for example. However, in order to convey a specific idea in the world of BDSM, it's used in a certain contrived manner.

Which is normal for certain groups or areas to use different "meanings" for a word, although still attached to the dictionary definition. For example, a "screen" in a DIY shop has a different meaning from that of a computer store. But no computer geek will walk into the hardware store and start arguing with the employees and construction workers that their definition isn't "true" or "real". If he was sane, at any rate.

So, the question is, what does "slave" mean in the BDSM context.

Regardless of what each person might think of the word "slave", there is still a consensus in the BDSM world about the euphemistic use of the word and it's particular definition as applied within the group. In other words, it's "technical definition."

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

Do I sense the presence of a Detective Inspector of the Grammar Police?

 

[Marquis]

Who wouldn't want a slave?

Such nonsense.

 

[Braschi]

Who wouldn't want a slave?

Such nonsense.

Isn't it?
Sips tea.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Who wouldn't want a slave?

another slave?

 

[intothewoods]

Slavery that is supported by the law, officially or unofficially, and by society, is slavery without consent or avenues for escape. A society in which women are legally the property of their husbands also does not allow for women's consent.

In this country, even if a slave gives her Master a power of attorney or guardianship over herself, that position can be reviewed by a court, reported to the authorities, etc.

 

[Braschi]

another slave?

Shush and bring the Marquis and I some more of these lovely biscuits.

In this country, even if a slave gives her Master a power of attorney or guardianship over herself, that position can be reviewed by a court, reported to the authorities, etc.

I'm not a lawyer, but a little technicality: In Western societies, or ones that have adopted Human Rights, you can't "give away" your right to freedom. It can't cease to exist, but rather you can choose to not exercise it in each case. Technically, it means you can never be "not free", even though you are put under duress, tied up, immobilized or whatever. If you accept -consent- to the situation, all's well; but if you aren't, then whoever is doing that is committing a crime, and then it becomes the responsibility of the Courts to stand up for you.

In other societies, that right simply doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that they are any less or more free in practical terms, but that if their freedom is forfeit, they don't have any other recourse than their own to defend themselves.

 

[intothewoods]

Shush and bring the Marquis and I some more of these lovely biscuits.


I'm not a lawyer, but a little technicality: In Western societies, or ones that have adopted Human Rights, you can't "give away" your right to freedom. It can't cease to exist, but rather you can choose to not exercise it in each case. Technically, it means you can never be "not free", even though you are put under duress, tied up, immobilized or whatever. If you accept -consent- to the situation, all's well; but if you aren't, then whoever is doing that is committing a crime, and then it becomes the responsibility of the Courts to stand up for you.

In other societies, that right simply doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that they are any less or more free in practical terms, but that if their freedom is forfeit, they don't have any other recourse than their own to defend themselves.

Yes, of course, there is no legal construct here to create slavery.

 

[ownedsubgal]

a legal construct is not needed in order to "create" slavery. slavery need not be supported by law in order to exist, although that seems to be what you and Braschi are getting at.

 

[intothewoods]

a legal construct is not needed in order to "create" slavery. slavery need not be supported by law in order to exist, although that seems to be what you and Braschi are getting at.

I was going to add legally enforceable (as in legally enforceable slavery), but I thought that was clear. I was responding to Braschi's point regarding the law and the notion that we are all free.

In my post, I was referring to legally and/or socially enforceable slavery. I'm not saying that M/s love-based or romantic relationships don't "exist," merely that they are different from legally or socially enforceable slavery, as I described in my post.

 

[eastern sun]

It's interesting that the "reality" of slavery is only tested when the person doesn't want to be a slave. At that moment, the slave in some countries has no recourse to outside support. In others, s/he does.

So, here are slaves that don't wish to test the reality of their slavery. They don't want to leave, nor do they feel they have the choice to leave. The question of their legal standing in court is never at issue.

The argument might be then that the relationship was chosen voluntarily, which in fact is an essential element of slavery in BDSM. It is chosen as a life-path, a way of being. Once chosen, if fully embraced, it no longer matters in the minds of the master and the slave what the laws of the land are in regards to their right to own property. They are owned and owner.

Obviously laws are different in different countries. In Mexico, a woman I know was killed by her husband in front of her children for having an affair with a younger man. Her husband will probably not be prosecuted. The younger man then "killed himself" on her grave. Most people involved think it more likely that he was killed as well.

In the United States, this man would do time for murder, whatever the cause. It's one of the reasons people want to live in this country, including me. I am virtually certain that my husband will not kill me, in large part because he doesn't want to go to jail.

Why are we so concerned about the use of the term "slave" as used in BDSM? Is it because we think that what a few people do in the U.S. when they define their sexual relationship will have a negative impact in the world? desensitizing people to the inequities and lack of freedom in other parts of the world? If that's so, then we should have that argument. Not this endless debate on whether slavery can or cannot exist.

Slavery of both the voluntary and involuntary kind does exist, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. Legal systems exist, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. Should there be a law against voluntary slavery to regulate the behavior of those few who would like to give up their freedom and rights?

 

[KoPilot]

On that note:

I call being a pygmy from now on.

/lack of stamina to beat dead horse despite feeling the need to voice her opinion on the matter at some point

 

[Braschi]

We shouldn't go proposing laws willy-nilly, especially when we already have ones that are specific to the purpose.

The current legal system -again, I'm not a lawyer, and would greatly appreciate it if one could correct me here- allows people to forgo exercising their rights in certain circumstances, and "subordinate" themselves in certain conditions. For example, the employer-employee relationship, where in the context of the job, the employer may tell the employee what to do, say, how to act and even how to dress. That's not considered slavery.

The use of "slave" and "Master" within the context of BDSM can be likened to the use of affectionate nicknames within relationships, like "dear" or "honey". Just because you call your spouse "honey" doesn't automatically turn him into honey. Nor would we claim that calling partners "honey" would lead to confusion as to what is the exact definition of honey. Even the most corrective of grammar police would have to concede the euphemistic use of the word and not return to the dictionary definition is such cases.

Slavery as an institution has be broadly eradicated from the Western world -in some places, it was never legal- including some of it's similar forms, such as vassalage and serfdom. Which has given space for some people to create a new construct that they call "slavery" as the closest word to represent the idea they are trying to convey. This would not be possible in a society where institutionalized slavery was still carried out.

Which is the brilliance of rights versus laws; because with a right you can choose to exercise it or not, while a law must always be obeyed. By providing a fundamental right to freedom to people, the legal system is already satisfying those who want to be free, at the same time those who want to "give up" those freedoms. They simply don't have to exercise the right.

Just because they legally have the option to be "free" doesn't mean that their "slavery" is any less "false". Whether or not people should do that is a matter of ethical debate, I'm sure; but the law allows it, simply because we as a people need leaders. And leaders, need followers. From the Head of State down, or from the CEO down, someone is in charge, someone gives orders. How far those orders are limited is a matter of trust by the person who choses to obey.

The main difference being that in the Western world, people like osg have a choice of whether to become a "slave" or not: people in other parts have no choice.

Mexico: Killing your spouse in Mexico is just as illegal as it is in the US; I don't see why that man wouldn't be prosecuted. Mexico has a justice system as well, you know, with faults, just like the American one.

a legal construct is not needed in order to "create" slavery. slavery need not be supported by law in order to exist, although that seems to be what you and Braschi are getting at.

From a philosophical ethics point of view, that position could be contested. But we're basically in agreement that without a legal system like the one in place in Western democracies, slavery perfectly well can -and does- exist.

Also, where are my biscuits!!?

In my post, I was referring to legally and/or socially enforceable slavery. I'm not saying that M/s love-based or romantic relationships don't "exist," merely that they are different from legally or socially enforceable slavery, as I described in my post.

Applies for me, as well.

 

[KoPilot]

I've got an idea: how about we just use "thrall" instead of "slave" in the BDSM context? "Thralldom" doesn't really have much of a social stigma attached to it, and besides: it sounds cooler.

 

[RJMasters]

I've got an idea: how about we just use "thrall" instead of "slave" in the BDSM context? "Thralldom" doesn't really have much of a social stigma attached to it, and besides: it sounds cooler.

lol That's funny

 

[intothewoods]

It's interesting that the "reality" of slavery is only tested when the person doesn't want to be a slave. At that moment, the slave in some countries has no recourse to outside support. In others, s/he does.

So, here are slaves that don't wish to test the reality of their slavery. They don't want to leave, nor do they feel they have the choice to leave. The question of their legal standing in court is never at issue.

The argument might be then that the relationship was chosen voluntarily, which in fact is an essential element of slavery in BDSM. It is chosen as a life-path, a way of being. Once chosen, if fully embraced, it no longer matters in the minds of the master and the slave what the laws of the land are in regards to their right to own property. They are owned and owner.

Obviously laws are different in different countries. In Mexico, a woman I know was killed by her husband in front of her children for having an affair with a younger man. Her husband will probably not be prosecuted. The younger man then "killed himself" on her grave. Most people involved think it more likely that he was killed as well.

In the United States, this man would do time for murder, whatever the cause. It's one of the reasons people want to live in this country, including me. I am virtually certain that my husband will not kill me, in large part because he doesn't want to go to jail.

Why are we so concerned about the use of the term "slave" as used in BDSM? Is it because we think that what a few people do in the U.S. when they define their sexual relationship will have a negative impact in the world? desensitizing people to the inequities and lack of freedom in other parts of the world? If that's so, then we should have that argument. Not this endless debate on whether slavery can or cannot exist.

Slavery of both the voluntary and involuntary kind does exist, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. Legal systems exist, both in the U.S. and elsewhere. Should there be a law against voluntary slavery to regulate the behavior of those few who would like to give up their freedom and rights?

The issue is not what is real, it is the suggestion that non-consensual slavery is the same as consensual slavery. If there is no such suggestion, then I have no objection to the word used in the romantic or bdsm context.

I can't imagine that many non-consensual slaves or people who are treated like property and suffer consequences as a result of that status would not want to leave or have the option of freedom. It's the consent that makes it an entirely different animal. It's not that love-based slavery isn't real, it's just different from non-consensual slavery.

 

[intothewoods]

We shouldn't go proposing laws willy-nilly, especially when we already have ones that are specific to the purpose.

The current legal system -again, I'm not a lawyer, and would greatly appreciate it if one could correct me here- allows people to forgo exercising their rights in certain circumstances, and "subordinate" themselves in certain conditions. For example, the employer-employee relationship, where in the context of the job, the employer may tell the employee what to do, say, how to act and even how to dress. That's not considered slavery.

The use of "slave" and "Master" within the context of BDSM can be likened to the use of affectionate nicknames within relationships, like "dear" or "honey". Just because you call your spouse "honey" doesn't automatically turn him into honey. Nor would we claim that calling partners "honey" would lead to confusion as to what is the exact definition of honey. Even the most corrective of grammar police would have to concede the euphemistic use of the word and not return to the dictionary definition is such cases.

Slavery as an institution has be broadly eradicated from the Western world -in some places, it was never legal- including some of it's similar forms, such as vassalage and serfdom. Which has given space for some people to create a new construct that they call "slavery" as the closest word to represent the idea they are trying to convey. This would not be possible in a society where institutionalized slavery was still carried out.

Which is the brilliance of rights versus laws; because with a right you can choose to exercise it or not, while a law must always be obeyed. By providing a fundamental right to freedom to people, the legal system is already satisfying those who want to be free, at the same time those who want to "give up" those freedoms. They simply don't have to exercise the right.

Just because they legally have the option to be "free" doesn't mean that their "slavery" is any less "false". Whether or not people should do that is a matter of ethical debate, I'm sure; but the law allows it, simply because we as a people need leaders. And leaders, need followers. From the Head of State down, or from the CEO down, someone is in charge, someone gives orders. How far those orders are limited is a matter of trust by the person who choses to obey.

The main difference being that in the Western world, people like osg have a choice of whether to become a "slave" or not: people in other parts have no choice.

Mexico: Killing your spouse in Mexico is just as illegal as it is in the US; I don't see why that man wouldn't be prosecuted. Mexico has a justice system as well, you know, with faults, just like the American one.


From a philosophical ethics point of view, that position could be contested. But we're basically in agreement that without a legal system like the one in place in Western democracies, slavery perfectly well can -and does- exist.

Also, where are my biscuits!!?


Applies for me, as well.

No, your spouse is not literally honey, but a clear acceptable definition of the word is a term of endearment, in addition to a sweet, sticky substance.

This conversation is getting silly.

 

[ownedsubgal]

The issue is not what is real, it is the suggestion that non-consensual slavery is the same as consensual slavery. If there is no such suggestion, then I have no objection to the word used in the romantic or bdsm context.

the difference between having had the opportunity to choose one's place in life, and not, is pretty frickin' huge. obviously consensual and non-consensual slavery are not "the same," beyond the fact that they are both some form of slavery. it's those who vehemently deny that slavery can even exist outside of non-consent who really burn my bum.

I can't imagine that many non-consensual slaves or people who are treated like property and suffer consequences as a result of that status would not want to leave or have the option of freedom. It's the consent that makes it an entirely different animal. It's not that love-based slavery isn't real, it's just different from non-consensual slavery.

what is "love-based" slavery? my status as slave is certainly not based on the love i have for my Master...a love which did not even exist until well over a year into the dynamic. my slavery to him is not based in love, trust, or any other such warm fuzzy thing. it's just where i need to be..***** as a "free" person was slowly crushing me to death.

but of course i recognize that i consciously gave up something which many others would be willing to sacrifice anything in order to have...freedom. now my so-called options as far as a way out are no different than many held in bondage against their will...(something else difficult for many to believe, perhaps until they see it or live it for themselves). but i can look back on that final choice without regret, guilt or shame because i recognize the fact that not everyone thrives under freedom.

 

[ownedsubgal]

The use of "slave" and "Master" within the context of BDSM can be likened to the use of affectionate nicknames within relationships, like "dear" or "honey". Just because you call your spouse "honey" doesn't automatically turn him into honey. Nor would we claim that calling partners "honey" would lead to confusion as to what is the exact definition of honey. Even the most corrective of grammar police would have to concede the euphemistic use of the word and not return to the dictionary definition is such cases.

um, i absolutely would not liken the terms Master and slave to endearments. but then i don't claim to be in a "BDSM relationship." again for me personally, the dictionary suffices in this case.

as for your cookies...did you mean the sweet chocolate-chippy kind or the fluffy southern buttermilky kind?

*offers one of each just in case*

 

[bhndblueyes88]

I've got an idea: how about we just use "thrall" instead of "slave" in the BDSM context? "Thralldom" doesn't really have much of a social stigma attached to it, and besides: it sounds cooler.

Except then I'd think they were all Orc War Chiefs, struggling to maintain the Horde in the face of great conflicts and Catacly--

Ohhhhhhh eeee. I'm sorry did my geek show?? *covers* I am so sorry. *blushes*