Submissive vs Slave

[Dr_Strabismus]

But I do not have an interest in a relationship with someone who subjugates herself to me in all or even most aspects of her life.

Well, being a parent is a bit like that -- minus the sex, but hey you can't have everything.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Sexy terms to me- Top/bottom, Daddy/boy(or girl) (and a Daddy can be of either sex) Master/Mistress/slave
Dom- same as JMohegan, I always think of De Luise!
And Domme is a job title, in my experience- Dommes will tell you; "I'm a professional domme, and I top for fun" (or bottom as often as not!)
PYL is a new one to me- Why wouldn't you just say "partner"?

Makes sense to me.

In the dynamics of almost all relationships - gay, lesbian or straight - there is a submissive and a dominant partner. It is not playing, it is part of the relationship dynamic and nothing really close to BDSM. It exists only in the psyche and is much more than sexual.

A CEO who frequents a domme or a successful female who wants to feel the sting of the quirt are not submissive or slaves - they are sensual people.

Slave is a silly term, IMHO, because the essential concept of being owned and having no human staus is just unacceptable. The fact that it can only be play pulls the rug from reality, surely.

Sorry, just a burst from someone who's trying to make an erotic story out of a stylized lifestyle. Need help.

 

[3113]

PYL is a new one to me- Why wouldn't you just say "partner"?

When I was writing up my leather stories, I had my character use the word "partner" in reference to his slave. My very knowledgable editor informed me that it's not commonly used, in fact some people in the scene would really find that word wrong. Why? Because it implies equality, and the Master/slave relationship is all about inequality--especially in regards to the leather world where they really want to know who's on top and who's on the bottom. Most Masters, evidently, don't think of their sub/slave as their "partner," and most slave/subs would never disrespect the Master by refering to him/her as their "partner."

Of course, she then informed me that some Doms do use the word for their sub/slave.

It's the on-going contridiction of the BDSM world--on the one hand, there is a desire for "rules" on how things are done, and some of those get spelled out (like, if a sub/slave is collared, they're off limits unless their Dom says otherwise). On the other hand, every couple makes up their own rules.

So while the group might haggle over using the word "partner," individual Doms may have no problem with it at all.

 

[3113]

In the dynamics of almost all relationships - gay, lesbian or straight - there is a submissive and a dominant partner.

Well, yes and no.

1) In non-BDSM relationships it is rarely spelled out as to whom is Dominant, who submissive. The couple often has to find out via trial and error who's going to be in charge of what. For example: I like to cook and the kitchen is my domain. It's VERY hard for me to give up control of the kitchen--and I'll hover and annoy my husband if he's in there using MY utensils and spices. So, in the kitchen, I'm dominant. But when it comes to driving, I'm completely submissive. I sit in the passanger seat. No backseat driving, no trying to tell him which route to take--he's totally in charge. And he'd hate it if he wasn't.

We worked that out. It wasn't like we met and I said, "Hi, I'm a submissive. I want you to take control of everything but the kitchen...."

2) The above also shows more equality than is common in most BDSM relationships. In this sphere I'm dominant, in that sphere he's dominant and in bed maybe we switch? Or maybe there is no D/s in the bedroom. There doesn't have to be.

Remember was was said by JMohegan. If his sub doesn't do as he says in regards to those areas where he's Dom (like sex--he wants it, he gets it, as he likes it), he'd view it as similar to infidelity.

In a non-BDSM relationship, however, the husband and wife might well give each other what they want when they want (more or less), and if one or the other can't provide it that day, well, it wouldn't be seen as infidelity, just an off-day for the husband/wife. It's altogether possible for people to engage in very equal minded sex, no D/s involved.

Likewise, it's altogether possible for most couples to discuss things and compromise how they're going to be done rather than one taking complete control and the other going along with it.

I can tell you, I have no doubt at all that I'm a Dom married to a Dom. Neither one of us is entirely or even mostly submissive, however willing we might be to let the other take control in circumstances where we know they excell (like cooking or driving).

My point is--YES, there is dominant/submissive elements to all relationships. And some relationships are D/s even if they don't know that's what they are. BUT just because most relationships have some elements of D/s in or out of the bedroom, doesn't mean that ALL relationships can be said to have that dynamic.

 

[Liar]

If you're asking about post 40, I'd say that sounds like the average mainstream relationship.

Maybe I didn't quite describe it well enough then. Just because there were no outspoken terms, no verbal or physical contract of sorts and no BDSM lingo involved, it would be quite off to call it either average or mainstream. I've had me summa that too, and this was undoubtedly something...um...else.

Anyway, there seems to be enough hair-splitting on terminology that it won't really matter what definitions I use in my writing, someone will always claim it's wrong. So I might as well invent my own.

 

[JMohegan]

My point is--YES, there is dominant/submissive elements to all relationships. And some relationships are D/s even if they don't know that's what they are. BUT just because most relationships have some elements of D/s in or out of the bedroom, doesn't mean that ALL relationships can be said to have that dynamic.

That was a great post, 3113.

Maybe I didn't quite describe it well enough then. Just because there were no outspoken terms, no verbal or physical contract of sorts and no BDSM lingo involved, it would be quite off to call it either average or mainstream. I've had me summa that too, and this was undoubtedly something...um...else.

Anyway, there seems to be enough hair-splitting on terminology that it won't really matter what definitions I use in my writing, someone will always claim it's wrong. So I might as well invent my own.

In both your fiction, and your relationships, I say invent absolutely *everything* according to whatever works best for you. Seriously. Because no matter what you do, you are absolutely right that there will always be someone who thinks you're doing it the wrong way.

There are some people who jump up and down and get upset if they see others referring to things in a way that doesn't match their definitions or view of the kinky world. But I am not one of them.

The only reason I gave you my definition of the noun submissive was that you asked whether others found your distinctions "plausible", and the only reason I provided a description of your relationship was that you asked me to.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I second JMohegan again!
If you read 3113's work, her character speaks for himself- quite eloquently, at that. You know that Mason will call his sub a partner if he feels like it, and he can make it clear to the reader why he chooses to do so.
What I like about 3113's stories is they enlarge on one person's view of his world- the writer doesn't give you somehuge panorama. And the action is always realistic, and touching.
And fanning-myself-hot- i just got a flash of that poker-playing scene!

 

[Trinique_Fire]

Of course, this is a writer question. Writing a BDSM story at the moment, and this question has come up for me. I think we might all have different ideas as to the different words : submissive vs. slave, but what do you all feel, as writers?

I think a submissive is one who volunteers their services when they want and takes the same services away when they want (tops from the bottom, anyone?) ... a slave is someone who doesn't volunteer so much as give up their own selves - they have no services to offer other than ... (Simplified I know, and for the purpose of the thread) Thoughts?

I agree but keep in mind a submissive and bottom are two different things.