SheDevilShay
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Posts
- 269
Here's something I found on it, and I realized after reading it.. holy shit, thats why I suck at being a submissive.. Im NOT a submissive.. im a slave. I don't submit.. I surrender... and it finally clicked into place!!! RAWR
The Difference Between Submissives and Slaves
This is some material which originally was printed in the newsgroup alt*****style.master-slave regarding the difference between a submissive and a slave, the oldest argument in the contemporary BDSM scene. It is interesting to note that not only is the original poster new to the scene, but English is not her first language. (She's French.)
Like the rest of the site, this is a work in progress and will change over time. Here's how to figure out the development:
Words in italics are the words of the original poster.
Words in bold are my original responses.
Words in plain text are expansions on the original text.
More seriously, I feel split. I always thought that if I allow a man to treat me like a submissive slut sexually, it would mean, that deep down it's the way he thinks of me all the time. I can't see how I could call someone master (or something equivalent) when sexually involved and treat him as an equal in any other situations ?
This is the fundamental difference between being a "submissive" and being a "slave." Submissives submit when it pleases them, for reasons that please them, for as long as it pleases them. Usually, this is only during sexual situations. (Although what is a "sexual situation" is of course almost infinitely variable.)
Sissy maids, human furniture, ponygirls and boys, and such like, although they are not literally preparing for intercourse, I would regard as being "sexual situations." There is no reason for human beings to submit to such other than that it titillates them, or to please someone whom such titillates. Thus, even though these are extreme examples of submission, they are submission, not slavery, because for the most part they are being done for the submissive's gratification and at their whim. In that sense, almost all submissives could be said to be "topping from the bottom," in that fundamentally itâs about what they want, not what the dominant wants. Iâm not denigrating this: a fair exchange between parties with mutually compatible wants is a joyous thing, and not to be dismissed out of hand. But it is simply not the same thing as slavery. Although, on the other side, in a modern society since slavery is unenforceable unless youâre a father who canât make his child support/alimony payments, even slaves do get that one choice, whether or not to be slaves. But all the rest is gone.
The following is a long quote from a message posted on the Gorean Public Boards by Marcus_of_Ar in response to a message posted by neema{Thar}. It is an eloquent reply to an eloquent post and I am pleased to share it with you. (Bold Italics indicate the actual quote.)
You have defined, in a few simple words, the difference between what might be called BDSM submission and the totality of Gorean slavery.
You said, and I quote:
"It is choosing to give up your choice...surrendering instead of submission."
"Surrender, rather than submission." Four simple words which I have sought for the last three years, but which have eluded me. Finally, a way to explain the mindset of the Gorean slave in a way which can be easily understood and which makes total sense.
The submissive submits. The kajira surrenders.
Let us look at those two words, according to Webster:
submit: To yield, as something, in surrender, compliance, or obedience; to refer or present for the decision or approval of another or others.
surrender: to yield to the power of another or relinquish possession of; to abandon; to give or deliver up upon compulsion or demand; to give up or yield to another's supremacy or power.
She who submits merely yields something, during the time she is compelled to yield it. She merely complies. She refers or presents herself for the decision or approval of others. But she does not abandon her control... she does not surrender her power; she simply submits herself, and her actions, for approval.
She who surrenders yields completely to the supremacy of the Master's power over her. She gives or delivers upon compulsion or command. She abandons herself totally to the control of another. She relinquishes all right to resist.
With my slaves, I do think of them as submissive all the time. They are submissive all the time. This does not lessen their worth, but in fact raises it. I think much more highly of them than I do of most people. They know what they want, they don't try to lie about it to themselves, and they do it well.
Slaves are slaves because that is what they are. Whatever the arrangement between master and slave, slaves are slaves all the time. They are never "equal" to the master. (No two human beings are "equal" at anything, but that's another argument.) In some things, my slave is superior to me: she has a lovely singing voice, she's a wonderful cook, and she's much, much better at "Snood" than I am. ("Snood" is a video game like a combination of Space Invaders and Tetris.) We are both just human beings. But she accepts, to the bottom of her toes, that she wishes to submit herself to me.
Her opinion is important to me: she's very intelligent, well educated, and has a different approach to problems than I do. Only a fool wastes talent, and I don't waste time with stupid slaves. But my word is her law, in the end. I don't think she's "less" than I am. There's no comparison, no way to MAKE a comparison, as to whose "worth" is the greater. But we are DIFFERENT. Fundamentally, profoundly different. In this case, the master is different from the slave. In the words of Imnak, "Only one can be first."
I'm sure many, many people try to be equals in relationships. I'm even willing to admit that there might be some people who make a go of it without killing each other. But I have never seen a happier, more compatible couple than we are - and the more she embraces her slavery, the happier she gets. The only ones I've seen that were close were - you guessed it - other master/slave relationships. I even mind me, and I know this is purely anecdotal, of one couple who decided to give UP a more pronounced D/s, if not M/s relationship in favor of being more vanilla. Now they have a nice house in the western suburbs, nice kids, and she told me the other day that they haven't had sex in a year. They just radiate unhappiness. It's painful to be around. But hey, they got what they wanted.
Don't fight your nature. If you are a slave, find a master who deserves you. Good slaves are hard to find. But don't try to compartmentalize yourself. It never works well, and ulcers are no fun, take it from me. (Before someone says, "If you're so wise, what's with your ulcer," in this case, it's a congentital genetic condtion. *smile*)
That was the end of the first exchange, and then she wrote back with some additonal comments.
From what I remember you were explaining that the key difference between a sub and a slave is that the slave remains slave all the time where as a sub is a sub on her/his own terms. I thought that the difference was that the slave would go further (would accept more from her master) than the sub, there was in my mind no limit in time.
A probably equally valid approach. However, I prefer the "on whose terms?" distinction because I know subs who, when in sub mode, will literally do ANYTHING they are told, and I know slaves who won't. Technically, a slave can't say no. However, I suspect that if, say, I told my slave to walk into a room with a hundred dirty yucky people and told her to give them all tongue baths, or something, I'd be looking for a new slave. This is Earth, after all, and it's not like you can just kill them for refusing. Likewise, the only true "pain sluts" (as in, "hurt me as hard as you want and I'll still like it") I have ever met were both subs, not slaves.
From what you said, I seem to be more sub than slave because I need to be treated as equal outside sexual situations ; however I have not found out yet how far I could go as a sub. I have not found my limits. I find it hard to talk about that to my partner because I don't believe he would like to go in this direction and I suspect than he could try being the sub himself.
You cannot cannot cannot make someone something they are not! I myself am a "mellow" master. I don't make her hop, skip and jump to my every whim, though if I told her to you better believe she would. I've tried being more militant. Not for me. If he has it in him to be a dominant, that's one thing. If he doesn't, you can't put it in there. Likewise, if you are a slave, you are. If you're not, you're not. (Won't get into "all women are slaves, all men are masters" argument, worthy as it is.) If you're a switch, be happy with it. Lots of people are looking for whatever you are. Don't try to make yourself something you're not.
Here's the link to his website.
http://www.dreamstrike.com/subslv.html
The Difference Between Submissives and Slaves
This is some material which originally was printed in the newsgroup alt*****style.master-slave regarding the difference between a submissive and a slave, the oldest argument in the contemporary BDSM scene. It is interesting to note that not only is the original poster new to the scene, but English is not her first language. (She's French.)
Like the rest of the site, this is a work in progress and will change over time. Here's how to figure out the development:
Words in italics are the words of the original poster.
Words in bold are my original responses.
Words in plain text are expansions on the original text.
More seriously, I feel split. I always thought that if I allow a man to treat me like a submissive slut sexually, it would mean, that deep down it's the way he thinks of me all the time. I can't see how I could call someone master (or something equivalent) when sexually involved and treat him as an equal in any other situations ?
This is the fundamental difference between being a "submissive" and being a "slave." Submissives submit when it pleases them, for reasons that please them, for as long as it pleases them. Usually, this is only during sexual situations. (Although what is a "sexual situation" is of course almost infinitely variable.)
Sissy maids, human furniture, ponygirls and boys, and such like, although they are not literally preparing for intercourse, I would regard as being "sexual situations." There is no reason for human beings to submit to such other than that it titillates them, or to please someone whom such titillates. Thus, even though these are extreme examples of submission, they are submission, not slavery, because for the most part they are being done for the submissive's gratification and at their whim. In that sense, almost all submissives could be said to be "topping from the bottom," in that fundamentally itâs about what they want, not what the dominant wants. Iâm not denigrating this: a fair exchange between parties with mutually compatible wants is a joyous thing, and not to be dismissed out of hand. But it is simply not the same thing as slavery. Although, on the other side, in a modern society since slavery is unenforceable unless youâre a father who canât make his child support/alimony payments, even slaves do get that one choice, whether or not to be slaves. But all the rest is gone.
The following is a long quote from a message posted on the Gorean Public Boards by Marcus_of_Ar in response to a message posted by neema{Thar}. It is an eloquent reply to an eloquent post and I am pleased to share it with you. (Bold Italics indicate the actual quote.)
You have defined, in a few simple words, the difference between what might be called BDSM submission and the totality of Gorean slavery.
You said, and I quote:
"It is choosing to give up your choice...surrendering instead of submission."
"Surrender, rather than submission." Four simple words which I have sought for the last three years, but which have eluded me. Finally, a way to explain the mindset of the Gorean slave in a way which can be easily understood and which makes total sense.
The submissive submits. The kajira surrenders.
Let us look at those two words, according to Webster:
submit: To yield, as something, in surrender, compliance, or obedience; to refer or present for the decision or approval of another or others.
surrender: to yield to the power of another or relinquish possession of; to abandon; to give or deliver up upon compulsion or demand; to give up or yield to another's supremacy or power.
She who submits merely yields something, during the time she is compelled to yield it. She merely complies. She refers or presents herself for the decision or approval of others. But she does not abandon her control... she does not surrender her power; she simply submits herself, and her actions, for approval.
She who surrenders yields completely to the supremacy of the Master's power over her. She gives or delivers upon compulsion or command. She abandons herself totally to the control of another. She relinquishes all right to resist.
With my slaves, I do think of them as submissive all the time. They are submissive all the time. This does not lessen their worth, but in fact raises it. I think much more highly of them than I do of most people. They know what they want, they don't try to lie about it to themselves, and they do it well.
Slaves are slaves because that is what they are. Whatever the arrangement between master and slave, slaves are slaves all the time. They are never "equal" to the master. (No two human beings are "equal" at anything, but that's another argument.) In some things, my slave is superior to me: she has a lovely singing voice, she's a wonderful cook, and she's much, much better at "Snood" than I am. ("Snood" is a video game like a combination of Space Invaders and Tetris.) We are both just human beings. But she accepts, to the bottom of her toes, that she wishes to submit herself to me.
Her opinion is important to me: she's very intelligent, well educated, and has a different approach to problems than I do. Only a fool wastes talent, and I don't waste time with stupid slaves. But my word is her law, in the end. I don't think she's "less" than I am. There's no comparison, no way to MAKE a comparison, as to whose "worth" is the greater. But we are DIFFERENT. Fundamentally, profoundly different. In this case, the master is different from the slave. In the words of Imnak, "Only one can be first."
I'm sure many, many people try to be equals in relationships. I'm even willing to admit that there might be some people who make a go of it without killing each other. But I have never seen a happier, more compatible couple than we are - and the more she embraces her slavery, the happier she gets. The only ones I've seen that were close were - you guessed it - other master/slave relationships. I even mind me, and I know this is purely anecdotal, of one couple who decided to give UP a more pronounced D/s, if not M/s relationship in favor of being more vanilla. Now they have a nice house in the western suburbs, nice kids, and she told me the other day that they haven't had sex in a year. They just radiate unhappiness. It's painful to be around. But hey, they got what they wanted.
Don't fight your nature. If you are a slave, find a master who deserves you. Good slaves are hard to find. But don't try to compartmentalize yourself. It never works well, and ulcers are no fun, take it from me. (Before someone says, "If you're so wise, what's with your ulcer," in this case, it's a congentital genetic condtion. *smile*)
That was the end of the first exchange, and then she wrote back with some additonal comments.
From what I remember you were explaining that the key difference between a sub and a slave is that the slave remains slave all the time where as a sub is a sub on her/his own terms. I thought that the difference was that the slave would go further (would accept more from her master) than the sub, there was in my mind no limit in time.
A probably equally valid approach. However, I prefer the "on whose terms?" distinction because I know subs who, when in sub mode, will literally do ANYTHING they are told, and I know slaves who won't. Technically, a slave can't say no. However, I suspect that if, say, I told my slave to walk into a room with a hundred dirty yucky people and told her to give them all tongue baths, or something, I'd be looking for a new slave. This is Earth, after all, and it's not like you can just kill them for refusing. Likewise, the only true "pain sluts" (as in, "hurt me as hard as you want and I'll still like it") I have ever met were both subs, not slaves.
From what you said, I seem to be more sub than slave because I need to be treated as equal outside sexual situations ; however I have not found out yet how far I could go as a sub. I have not found my limits. I find it hard to talk about that to my partner because I don't believe he would like to go in this direction and I suspect than he could try being the sub himself.
You cannot cannot cannot make someone something they are not! I myself am a "mellow" master. I don't make her hop, skip and jump to my every whim, though if I told her to you better believe she would. I've tried being more militant. Not for me. If he has it in him to be a dominant, that's one thing. If he doesn't, you can't put it in there. Likewise, if you are a slave, you are. If you're not, you're not. (Won't get into "all women are slaves, all men are masters" argument, worthy as it is.) If you're a switch, be happy with it. Lots of people are looking for whatever you are. Don't try to make yourself something you're not.
Here's the link to his website.
http://www.dreamstrike.com/subslv.html
