It has been said,

[Ebonyfire]

that a slave is a submissive, but a submissive need not be a slave.

What you do you think? Are there any folks out thee who have been BOTH, slave and submissive? Can you switch between the two as circumstances permit?

Dom/mes? Subs? Switches? Care to discuss?

Ebony

 

[Cirrus]

I am submissive, but definetly NOT a slave, nor have I ever been. Would I be? Doubt it. The idea of serving someone 24/7 just doesn't appeal to me. I'm too strong willed for that. Sometimes I want what I want when I want it and that's it.

I definitely agree though, that to be a slave one must be submissive. How could you serve and dominate at the same time?

I think you could switch between the two, though, depending on how you define "slavery". To me, a true slave is someone who serves their Master/dominant at all times in all ways, sexually and otherwise. However, if you define slave as sexual only, then that's something I've actually done in scene.

 

[Ebonyfire]

However, if you define slave as sexual only, then that's something I've actually done in scene.

I have to ask? What is a sexual slave anyway?

Ebony

 

[SexyChele]

I know that some regard this only as an exercise in semantics, but I truly feel there is a difference between a slave and a submissive. At this stage in my life, where I am now, I could not be a slave. Though, I do think that if I were involved in a relationship where the trust had developed to such a point where words and feelings were known without speaking them, then perhaps I could take on this aspect.

For me, a slave is one who has given up all rights. Everything he/she does, is, says is at the direction of their Master/Mistress. I would say that to be truly involved as a slave, every aspect of one's life would be controlled by their Dom/me. While I suppose that all things are possible, I don't see this as being particularly probable, though I'm sure there are ways around this. A slave has no limits, no boundaries. This is why I believe it takes a tremendous amount of trust to engage in this type of relationship. A slave must know and realize that his/her Master/Mistress will not push them any further than they can possibly go, and that there will not be a misuse of power.

A submissive does not relinguish their limits, nor do they give up the right to stop a scene because they are in pain, uncomfortable (such as in a cramp or restraints cutting off blood supply), or some other emergency. Submissives can negotiate a scene or lifestyle before engaging in it. A slave cannot.

As I said, for some this will come down to semantics. But this is my opinion, based on what I feel the meanings of the words are.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I know that some regard this only as an exercise in semantics, but I truly feel there is a difference between a slave and a submissive. At this stage in my life, where I am now, I could not be a slave. Though, I do think that if I were involved in a relationship where the trust had developed to such a point where words and feelings were known without speaking them, then perhaps I could take on this aspect.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Rubyfruit]

I think being 24/7 would be exhausting for both parties, but that's just me.

 

[Cirrus]

I have to ask? What is a sexual slve anyway?

Ebony

Well, what I personally perceive a "sexual" slave to be is the same as any other slave, but strictly in a sexual connotation.

Whereas a full time slave is expected to serve their Master in all ways, all the time, sexually and otherwise (in addition to sex, doing chores, preparing meals, sometimes grooming, etc, often involving rituals), a sexual slave serves their Master sexually whenever and however the Master desires.

I consider a sexual slave to be a slave only in that aspect, and to live others parts of their life outside of the role of a slave.

 

[P. B. Walker]

that a slave is a submissive, but a submissive need not be a slave.

What you do you think? Are there any folks out thee who have been BOTH, slave and submissive? Can you switch between the two as circumstances permit?

Dom/mes? Subs? Switches? Care to discuss?

Ebony

I think you are right on the money here. A slave is a submissive, but a submissive is not necessarily a slave. There are many examples of this obviously. I think another key is that all submissives can, if they want and feel the need to do it, can become slaves. I think most would not want or wish to. And I don't think this has anything to do with levels of submissiveness or anything like that. I think it's just a matter of will.

For me, I think you can be submissive in the bedroom only. You can be a total bad-ass outside the bedroom, but turn into a total submissive in bed. I think that is where the term sexual slave comes into the picture.

Anyhoo... this post feels jumbled and incoherent, but I'm too tired to fix it. Sorry.

PBW

 

[WriterDom]

A slave has no limits, no boundaries. This is why I believe it takes a tremendous amount of trust to engage in this type of relationship. A slave must know and realize that his/her Master/Mistress will not push them any further than they can possibly go, and that there will not be a misuse of power.

A submissive does not relinguish their limits, nor do they give up the right to stop a scene because they are in pain, uncomfortable (such as in a cramp or restraints cutting off blood supply), or some other emergency. Submissives can negotiate a scene or lifestyle before engaging in it. A slave cannot.

As I said, for some this will come down to semantics. But this is my opinion, based on what I feel the meanings of the words are.

We've had the slave argument on other threads. If a slave knows their Master wont color outside the lines, than I see it as nothing more than role-playing. A true slave could be sold to the highest bidder.

 

[artful]

Chele

For me, a slave is one who has given up all rights. Everything he/she does, is, says is at the direction of their Master/Mistress. I would say that to be truly involved as a slave, every aspect of one's life would be controlled by their Dom/me. While I suppose that all things are possible, I don't see this as being particularly probable, though I'm sure there are ways around this. A slave has no limits, no boundaries. This is why I believe it takes a tremendous amount of trust to engage in this type of relationship. A slave must know and realize that his/her Master/Mistress will not push them any further than they can possibly go, and that there will not be a misuse of power.

A submissive does not relinguish their limits, nor do they give up the right to stop a scene because they are in pain, uncomfortable (such as in a cramp or restraints cutting off blood supply), or some other emergency. Submissives can negotiate a scene or lifestyle before engaging in it. A slave cannot.

As I said, for some this will come down to semantics. But this is my opinion, based on what I feel the meanings of the words are.

<snip>

I snipped your quote to save space. As usual, your posts are enlightening and informative. I respect the time and thought you always seem to put in them, as well as your opinions.

To me,...in this modern day and age, in this society, (USA), the word 'slave' and 'slavery', have particular grey areas in which they are defined purely on the perspective one chooses to place upon those words.

To me,...owning MY slave, (as pertains to MY lifestyle), in the context of BDSM, comes with a lot of responsibilities on my part.

1)-It can only be accomplished with consent by both parties, (the slave must willingly submit to my authority).

2)-It is a negotiated understanding between those two parties.

3)-Owning a slave is not tantamount to directing their every move, thought, action, verbal expression, etc.

4)-I might choose to have a slave, for purposes of maintaining my household, (non-sexual).

5)-I might choose to have a slave, for service oriented duties only, (bring me coffee, give me a massage, dress or undress me, shine my shoes, bathe me, etc.).

6)-I might choose to have a slave, only for sexual purposes.

7)-My slave would receive certain rewards for whatever services I required of her.

8)-Her duties might be one, all of the above, a varied mixture of what I stated above, or any other mix I might choose.

9)-For ME,...I would not bring a slave into my house who only wanted to sweep the chimney, (I have no need of such a slave).

10)-My Dominant needs, will match her submissive needs, and it will be a consensual participation by the two of us, in fulfilling those needs.

 

[LadyHeart]

that a slave is a submissive, but a submissive need not be a slave.

What you do you think? Are there any folks out thee who have been BOTH, slave and submissive? Can you switch between the two as circumstances permit?

Dom/mes? Subs? Switches? Care to discuss?

Ebony

I know I'm going to echo the other posts here, but I wanted to share my feelings on this subject.
I definately see a clear difference between a slave and a submissive. A slave being a person that enters into a contracted 24/7 relationship, wherein she has no rights of any kind unless she is given them by her Master. This has always seemed like communism to me, looks great on paper (read fantasy), but doesn't often work out well when put into practice involving real people.
A submissive, on the other hand, gives to her Dom/Master/Top freely while retaining her identity. She has opinions, feelings, rights, and a regular life away from her submission. There are many different levels of submission and each relationship is different.
I think some submissives could be slaves if they desired, and some slaves could be submissive outside of a slave relationship. But I don't think that all submissives could or would be a slave, and some people that are slaves wouldn't function well as submissives without the control they had been accustomed.
I personally have never liked use of the term slave, but respect the right of other people to use or apply it to themselves. I tend to consider them all submissives of varying degrees. On the flip side of that, use of the term Master is sexy in my mind, and I use it as easily as Dom/me.

I shouldn't really need to say this, but these are my personal views. I'm in no way suggesting that the way other people view themselves or their relationships is incorrect in any way.


LadyHeart

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: It has been said,

I know I'm going to echo the other posts here, but I wanted to share my feelings on this subject.
I definately see a clear difference between a slave and a submissive. A slave being a person that enters into a contracted 24/7 relationship, wherein she has no rights of any kind unless she is given them by her Master. This has always seemed like communism to me, looks great on paper (read fantasy), but doesn't often work out well when put into practice involving real people.
A submissive, on the other hand, gives to her Dom/Master/Top freely while retaining her identity. She has opinions, feelings, rights, and a regular life away from her submission. There are many different levels of submission and each relationship is different.
I think some submissives could be slaves if they desired, and some slaves could be submissive outside of a slave relationship. But I don't think that all submissives could or would be a slave, and some people that are slaves wouldn't function well as submissives without the control they had been accustomed.
I personally have never liked use of the term slave, but respect the right of other people to use or apply it to themselves. I tend to consider them all submissives of varying degrees. On the flip side of that, use of the term Master is sexy in my mind, and I use it as easily as Dom/me.

I shouldn't really need to say this, but these are my personal views. I'm in no way suggesting that the way other people view themselves or their relationships is incorrect in any way.


LadyHeart

It's just semantics anyway cause slavery is illegal in the US. thanks for posting.

Eb

 

[LadyHeart]

Re: Re: Re: It has been said,

It's just semantics anyway cause slavery is illegal in the US. thanks for posting.

Eb

You know, I am quite aware of that fact. I apparently misunderstood that the question was put out to generate answers and/or opinions. It seems it was just a set up to have the posters curtly dismissed.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It has been said,

You know, I am quite aware of that fact. I apparently misunderstood that the question was put out to generate answers and/or opinions. It seems it was just a set up to have the posters curtly dismissed.

Why did you get that impression? I certainly did not dismiss you and it is a thread I started. I just threw out the statement. Why did you take it defensively?

Ebony

 

[Goddess Helena]

Yes

To me,...in this modern day and age, in this society, (USA), the word 'slave' and 'slavery', have particular grey areas in which they are defined purely on the perspective one chooses to place upon those words.

To me,...owning MY slave, (as pertains to MY lifestyle), in the context of BDSM, comes with a lot of responsibilities on my part.

1)-It can only be accomplished with consent by both parties, (the slave must willingly submit to my authority).

2)-It is a negotiated understanding between those two parties.

3)-Owning a slave is not tantamount to directing their every move, thought, action, verbal expression, etc.

4)-I might choose to have a slave, for purposes of maintaining my household, (non-sexual).

5)-I might choose to have a slave, for service oriented duties only, (bring me coffee, give me a massage, dress or undress me, shine my shoes, bathe me, etc.).

6)-I might choose to have a slave, only for sexual purposes.

7)-My slave would receive certain rewards for whatever services I required of her.

8)-Her duties might be one, all of the above, a varied mixture of what I stated above, or any other mix I might choose.

9)-For ME,...I would not bring a slave into my house who only wanted to sweep the chimney, (I have no need of such a slave).

10)-My Dominant needs, will match her submissive needs, and it will be a consensual participation by the two of us, in fulfilling those needs.

Wonderful topic, Ebony.

Wonderful post, Art.


Helena

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Yes

Wonderful topic, Ebony.

Wonderful post, Art.


Helena

I think it is a great topic too Helena.

Eb

 

[LadyHeart]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It has been said,

Why did you get that impression? I certainly did not dismiss you and it is a thread I started. I just threw out the statement. Why did you take it defensively?

Ebony

I think we sorted this out privately. I hope so anyway.

LadyHeart

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It has been said,

I think we sorted this out privately. I hope so anyway.

LadyHeart

Yep
Eb

 

[Goddess Helia]

Wow! I have never really thought about the differences in being a slave vs. being a submissive.

24\7 is unrealistic in my world. It would be fun for a weekend or on a Saturday or something. But my life is too filled with other demands to give my life so completely to my Honey.

I also find that I at times simply cannot and will not let another choose my fate. Whether it is a simple decision on what shoes I buy or something big like what I do for a living.

I guess I’m a switch who is currently predominately submissive.

Thanks for making me think Ebony.

Respectfully,
Helia

 

[Ebonyfire]

Wow! I have never really thought about the differences in being a slave vs. being a submissive.

24\7 is unrealistic in my world. It would be fun for a weekend or on a Saturday or something. But my life is too filled with other demands to give my life so completely to my Honey.

I also find that I at times simply cannot and will not let another choose my fate. Whether it is a simple decision on what shoes I buy or something big like what I do for a living.

I guess I’m a switch who is currently predominately submissive.

Thanks for making me think Ebony.

Respectfully,
Helia

Not everyone wants 24/7, that is true. And that is ok. It is all good in my mind. I have two part-time boys who do not and are not seeking 24/7 domination.

That is ok with Me. Then there is proud. He and I was setting O/ourslves down the road of 24/7 TPE. It is a good thing for U/us.

Everyone seeks (hopefully) what they need.

Ebony

 

[Goddess Helia]

That is so cool that your living arrangements permit you to have a 24\7 thing.

Just to clarify when I said it was unrealistic in my world, I meant literally my own life.

I live with my man, but spend so much time at work that we only see each other right before I go to work in the morning and an hour before we go to sleep. That hour before bed is if we are lucky. The only *REAL* time I see him is on the weekends. When I'm not at work that is. Hell I'd settle for just being able to talk in person rather than on the phone with him at this point.

Plus we are only really just exploring this stuff. What I want and what he wants isn't defined clearly at this time. I'm a bit confused on what it is that I want.

I guess some of it is about trust also. 24\7 the trust needs to be in place firmly. If I was really honest I'd have to say I don't trust my man to make all my choices for me... at this time. (Some of it is due to bad advice he tries to give me about work sometimes. )

I don't see there being a right or wrong with any of this. It's really about what each individual or couple wants.

Your post about everyone seeking what they need is very true.

I sometimes think I *need* a bit more guidance with everything in general. I guess at some point you just have to have faith in your partner. Faith just isn't something I have I suppose.

Respectfully,
Helia

 

[Ebonyfire]

That is so cool that your living arrangements permit you to have a 24\7 thing. Helia

W/we are working toward that end. W/we are in a long distance mode now, across the US from each other. W/e are working on it.

It is not easy.

Eb