Sub or Slave Traits

[00Syd]

I agree that there is a continuum, but I would describe it in tangible, practical terms - i.e., how much authority is actually being exerted, how much tangible control is ceded, how much deferring of preferences is really taking place.

The people who ID as slaves are not necessarily at the "more" end of that spectrum. [/b]Plenty are in relationships in which they "feel owned" - but for all practical purposes, in most aspects of their lives, are not subject to active control.[/b]

Yes I feel, maybe not "owned," but like I am his (if that even makes a difference). But I feel like I'm his in the same way that a pet cat would be his. Like, I can do really whatever I want, but at the end of the day, I am his, and he can do whatever he wants with me. I can struggle, but he is still bigger than me, and I'm still in his house.

That's why the term "pet" works for me.

 

[ataxia.girl]

Yes I feel, maybe not "owned," but like I am his (if that even makes a difference). But I feel like I'm his in the same way that a pet cat would be his. Like, I can do really whatever I want, but at the end of the day, I am his, and he can do whatever he wants with me. I can struggle, but he is still bigger than me, and I'm still in his house.

That's why the term "pet" works for me.

Yup. This.

 

[eastern sun]

The people who ID as slaves are not necessarily at the "more" end of that spectrum. Plenty are in relationships in which they "feel owned" - but for all practical purposes, in most aspects of their lives, are not subject to active control.

I agree with this, but want to add that, even in those aspects of my life when I am not subject to active control (i.e. micro-managed), I am usually acting on behalf of my husband - doing things that he would either have to pay someone to do or do himself. I am free to accomplish those jobs as I see fit, but he directly benefits from my labor.

Only a few friendships and my relationship with my family fall outside of his domain.

 

[ataxia.girl]

i feel owned but Daddy exerts very little control over most of my life. When we are together he controls everything. When we are apart, which is the vast majority of the time, he does not care to control me very much. Its not so much that he doesn't want to, i think he might, but the return on investment would probably not be high enough to justify it. He does exert control over my sexuality however even when we are apart.

 

[jenniferbaby]

Though they all denote ownership, I used to distinguish between "toy," "pet," and "slave" according to the connotations each carries.

I've been called each of these names at one time or another, all by the same man depending on his mood. When I was "toy", he was feeling playful and would tease me and go rather easy on me. When I was "pet", he was giving me advice, teaching me something, or being protective. When I was "slave", he was driving me hard, putting off my pleasure to satiate his. I adored each of these aspects of him and of our relationship and I picked up on these moods and became whatever he wanted me to be in that moment.

"toy" connotes objectification and play
"pet" connotes domestication and/or training
"slave" connotes labor and captivity

These are great definitions, concise and providing lots of room for interpretation and context.

 

[BiBunny]

Domestication? Check. Captivity? Check. See, slave-pet really does fit.

 

[ataxia.girl]

i'd be curious to hear eastern sun's definition of "little girl"

 

[eastern sun]

i'd be curious to hear eastern sun's definition of "little girl"

"little girl" doesn't denote ownership so much as the need for someone to take responsibility

"little girl" connotes inexperience, lack of discipline, immaturity and/or innocence in need of protection and/or guidance, often eager to please but also easily corrupted or taken advantage of

I'd be curious what your definition is, ataxia. You've probably thought about it much more deeply than I.

 

[ataxia.girl]

"little girl" doesn't denote ownership so much as the need for someone to take responsibility

"little girl" connotes inexperience, lack of discipline, immaturity and/or innocence in need of protection and/or guidance, often eager to please but also easily corrupted or taken advantage of

I'd be curious what your definition is, ataxia. You've probably thought about it much more deeply than I.

i'd say that's about perfect.

 

[Bandit58]

I'm quoting the post below by gigi because I believe it relates to the topic of this thread:

From the What Pissed You Off thread:

That my sir, writes poetry and posts them to his online slave where I get to read it over and over again as our friends comment how nice it is etc....

I know I get the private messages, poems and actually get play time with him, but that still does not make me happy. He does not post them online so that others see them. I know I am just his sub, and she is his slave but shouldn't consideration go both ways. Our friends all know I am in his life, it shows when we are together. So why do I get bent out of shape about this?

I do not rub it in her face that we play, or post pictures that show him. I do not wish to rub it in her face. I know she was collared to him first, but I am real life and she has never played in reality. She is desperate to show that she can play, as she does self bondage and posts the pictures to show how the "lifestyle" is for her....she had played with candle wax as well, all over her pussy and posted those pictures as well. Well hell, to me that is just extreme masturbation. She was asked to attend local munch by her MASTER and has not attended. Not even met with a few she considers friends online but will not meet. So how does she think she could handle real time play. Anyone who has actually done play, knows self play is a lot different than play with a partner.

Sorry this is long, I needed to get this off my chest. But dammit it pisses me off.

gigi - were you feeling just a little "second best" when you wrote this? Did you feel inadequate, and "not good enough", like "just a sub" was inferior to being a slave? That this other girl, even though the relationship is online only, is somehow better than you, subbier than you, more slavier (is that a word?) than you? So you think that if you give up more control, that you won't be considered "just a sub", and that being a slave is better?

I fell into that trap early on. Then I realised that it really doesn't matter what I call myself, what I identify as, what label I put on myself - what matters is if the relationship you are in is working, that both partners are happy and that everyone is getting their needs met.

I will say that it did take me quite a while to work that one out, and you're not alone in what you are feeling

 

[00Syd]

That this other girl, even though the relationship is online only, is somehow better than you, subbier than you, more slavier (is that a word?) than you?

I believe the word you are looking for is "slavish."

 

[gigi1968]

I'm quoting the post below by gigi because I believe it relates to the topic of this thread:

From the What Pissed You Off thread:



gigi - were you feeling just a little "second best" when you wrote this? Did you feel inadequate, and "not good enough", like "just a sub" was inferior to being a slave? That this other girl, even though the relationship is online only, is somehow better than you, subbier than you, more slavier (is that a word?) than you? So you think that if you give up more control, that you won't be considered "just a sub", and that being a slave is better?

I fell into that trap early on. Then I realised that it really doesn't matter what I call myself, what I identify as, what label I put on myself - what matters is if the relationship you are in is working, that both partners are happy and that everyone is getting their needs met.

I will say that it did take me quite a while to work that one out, and you're not alone in what you are feeling

Bandit, I think you summed it up completely. I do know that I have finally realized that is between the two of them and not me. we are taking our relationship slow, one step at a time, more because I have seen so many D/s M/s relationships blow up because communication was not made a priority. I also finally got the nerve to tell him how I felt about things. It was the best thing I could have done. He commented that he wondered why I waited so long to talk to him about it and proud because I finally did. I still am not completely sure where I am on the sub/slave issue, but the more involved I get, the more slave like I feel.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Bandit, I think you summed it up completely. I do know that I have finally realized that is between the two of them and not me. we are taking our relationship slow, one step at a time, more because I have seen so many D/s M/s relationships blow up because communication was not made a priority. I also finally got the nerve to tell him how I felt about things. It was the best thing I could have done. He commented that he wondered why I waited so long to talk to him about it and proud because I finally did. I still am not completely sure where I am on the sub/slave issue, but the more involved I get, the more slave like I feel.

Was it your new slavelike feelings that kept you from complaining because if so, I'd be careful of that. It can feel like going against the dynamic to articulate that something is not working for you but if you don't furnish your guy with accurate information about your feelings, he can't act on that knowledge. It's more than possible to vocalise worries, doubts and negative feelings without overstepping the dynamic. He may not always choose to resolve things as you would wish, but at least you would know he was aware of your feelings. Guys are not telepathic. If you behave as though you're happy with something, they'll generally assume you are. It may feel like service but it's also a little deceitful and stores up resentment that the dom isn't even aware of. If he owns you, he has a right to your thoughts and feelings too.

 

[gigi1968]

Was it your new slavelike feelings that kept you from complaining because if so, I'd be careful of that. It can feel like going against the dynamic to articulate that something is not working for you but if you don't furnish your guy with accurate information about your feelings, he can't act on that knowledge. It's more than possible to vocalise worries, doubts and negative feelings without overstepping the dynamic. He may not always choose to resolve things as you would wish, but at least you would know he was aware of your feelings. Guys are not telepathic. If you behave as though you're happy with something, they'll generally assume you are. It may feel like service but it's also a little deceitful and stores up resentment that the dom isn't even aware of. If he owns you, he has a right to your thoughts and feelings too.

Actually he knows more about me, and my thoughts than I have ever given anyone. Actually there is only one other person who has even come close, and we were discussing my relationship with that person last night. He asked me point blank "if he also knows you this well, are you sure the there is nothing else I need to worry about", concerned that I would leave him for this other person. He has no worries, as this person is from my past, and there are other reasons why I could never be with him. When I see my sweet sir today I will explain those reasons with him, so that he can look into my eyes and realize I speak the truth.

 

[KittyLaRue]

Umm Sounds so Good

i'd say that's about perfect.

Oh Yes, that sounds like just what I am seeking! Perfect!

 

[Imahavah]

I think of myself, at least in terms of my current relationship, as a pet. But for us the connotations are less along the lines of property and chattel as they are along the lines of loved, cared-for, play-thing, etc. But when you look at it, those two definitions are really one and the same, but just looked at through a different lens.

It's funny how we can take the same word and look at its definition and take such differently feeling meanings from it (property vs. cherished play thing), even though they essentially mean the same thing.


If that even makes sense.

Yeah.

Definitely makes sense.