Submissive vs Slave

[dr_mabeuse]

For me "submissive" describes a sexual role. "Slave" describes a social role.

Submissive doesn't connote any sort of social inferiority. Slave does.

 

[Fibble]

submissive..!

 

[Hisquietone]

i would have to say that i disagree with those who say submissive is in sexual situations...i myself am submissive...in all situations...i am not a slave and wouldn't consider myself to be such...my submission lies with who i am...how i react and how i live...

a submissive is someone who gives of her/himself freely with out hesitation...because that is who they are...they choose who they wish to Master/Dominate them...

a slave is someone who may be submissive but in the end they do not give free of themselves...they give what is needed when it is needed because that is what is expected...in this case...there is no choice in the Master or the One who Dominates...

you can be a slave without being submissive...and you can be submissive without being a slave

 

[3113]

i would have to say that i disagree with those who say submissive is in sexual situations...i myself am submissive...in all situations...i am not a slave and wouldn't consider myself to be such...my submission lies with who i am...how i react and how i live...

Obviously, we're getting down to real hair splittng here. HOWEVER, I would argue that what a lot of folk who feel exactly the way you do LIKE to define themselves as "slaves" rather than just "subs."

Putting it another way, I know of no person in BDSM who calls themselves "slave" who has not, like you, *freely* choosen that role, and *wants* to give their Master whatever he/she desires. Everyone of them would say exactly the same thing you just said, that is is who they are are, how they react and live.

Which means that when it comes down to being a lifestyle, the choice of being called "sub" or "slave" is a matter of personal preference.

Don't believe it? Consider: You find the Master of your dreams, the one you adore pleasing in everyway, the one you want to serve for the rest of your life. He/she says to you, "I want you to refer to yourself as my slave. I want you to THINK of yourself that way from now on."

Would you still come here and argue that you were a submissive and not a slave?

 

[Stella_Omega]

If we're going to talk about slave Vs. Submissive as far as self-titlement goes- I just don't find the term "submissive" a sexual turn-on, and "slave" is.
Too... I don't know, clinical-sounding somehow.

But that's just me and my own preferences.

edited to add- and I'll call myself what I damn please!

 

[hmmnmm]

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?

First I apologize for chiming in here, since I'm not really a writer.
But (and sorry again for stating the obvious) in the strictest terms, a slave is property. Where there is property there is at least one owner.

So if I were a writer who wished to write something along these lines, I might imagine being taken back in time to a Roman orgy or something. I would probably see some participants who were voluntarily in submissive roles for the sake of mutual pleasure. And I will guess that a few of the participants would not be voluntary at all - they'd have no choice. And if any pleasure is had by them, then all the better, but they exist solely for the pleasure of the owner.
If the slave failed to measure up or be sufficiently obedient, the owner could - among other things - sell the slave.

That's thin and terribly worded.

Never mind.

Thanks.

 

[controllinghand]

I know of no person in BDSM who calls themselves "slave" who has not, like you, *freely* choosen that role, and *wants* to give their Master whatever he/she desires.

That's the nub of it, I think. What's called D/s "slavery" is an extreme form of voluntary submission, a point at the far side of a continuum.

The Master/Mistress' "ownership" exists only in the context of that voluntary and revocable relationship; it's not sanctioned by the state (at least in nearly all modern societies). Unlike a real slave, a D/s slave can unilaterally change her/his status merely by choosing to withdraw from the relationship.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

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'm going to make a value judgement here, but fuck it, you asked.

A dominant/submissive dynamic is something present in most if not all relationships, to various levels, namely sexually. Submissiveness, in this case, describes a comfort zone more than a life choice, and is fluid enough to allow a more or less normal balance of power - the top from the bottom, as you said, or different modes the two people naturally fall into at different times and situations.

A master/slave dynamic is more, in my opinion, than taking the dominant/submissive thing a step forward; it's something completely different. The two people involved in such a relationship have willingly decided to sacrifice the richness and diversity of the relationship in favour of depth. That depth can be incredibly powerful and binding, but the more intense it is, the more reduced is its scope.

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

All that Master/slave stuff is just for people who can't deal with the full complexity of relationships. It's much healthier to be adaptable and learn to compromise.

 

[kendo1]

SubStrab.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

All that Master/slave stuff is just for people who can't deal with the full complexity of relationships. It's much healthier to be adaptable and learn to compromise.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant to say. It sacrifices that full diversity and complexity of relationships and reduces the scope of the relationship to one single aspect.

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

SubStrab.

shh...

 

[3113]

edited to add- and I'll call myself what I damn please!

%#*! Dominants!

 

[shy slave]

I consider myself a slave.

I choose this handle before I had someone in my life who saw me as such.
This is my view on sub/slave. It is not the only view out there lol

Slavery in BDSM terms is voluntary.
The bottom line is that anyone who considers themselves to be a submissive/bottom/slave can legally walk away from a relationship.

The difference for me is that a submissive is a purely sexual role within the bedroom/dungeon/whatever.

Neither of us read the word slave to have the sub-text of doormat.

At the beginning of our relationship we discussed limits, safe words and all that good stuff. But outside of a hard limit he has the final say.
If I don't want to do it, I don't, and in making that choice I risk my relationship. Therefore I do it, and I do it because I want to please him. My needs/wishes are secondary.

For example I hate any form of exercise, really hate it. But he wants me to be fitter and healthier so I do it. It is not an option, I do as he dictates. I can have a POV, I can give an opinion but ultimately if he states it, I do it.
Whereas if I were his submissive and hated the gym, I would say no; but within a sexual context I would still submit.

Sexually, as his slave my needs are secondary. He if wants a fuck he gets a fuck. If he wants to inflict pain on me, he does. My orgasm is of lesser/no importance. That is what I want. If I didn't I would not be his slave.

A slave mentally feels owned by another person 24/7.
Not necessarily micro-managed by a Dom, that seems to be more fantasy than a sustainable reality, but mentally, physically and emotionally being led by another person.
If the owner of a slave says 'We are going to .....' then it happens. It doesn't have to be sexual, it is part and parcel of the life that couple have.

I strongly disagree with Lauren and Dr Strabimus. A D/s relationship does not sacrifice the complexity and diversity of a relationship it adds to it.
It is not a dictatorship, it includes all the boring mundane aspects of life like grocery shopping. It also includes full screaming arguments, nothing in life is missed out. When we go out in public I do not walk three steps behind him or crawl on a collar and lead. But wherever we are and whomever we are with, I am in no doubt that he can control or comment on my actions.
Perhaps both of you should wander over to the BDSM boards and ask people there if they are missing out on life's complexities. Many there would be able to explain it so much better than I can.

I hope that helps to give another POV.

 

[Liar]

At the beginning of our relationship we discussed limits, safe words and all that good stuff.

And that, if you ask me, is why you're a slave. You have an outspoken agreement with specific, agreed upon limits and terms.

I had a relationship with a self titled sumbissive woman. And it was actually not as much a sexual thing as an emotional thing in general. She looked to me for guidance, stability and an amount of control in all aspects of the relationship and her life, for reasons deeply rooted in her person and history.

But it was never outspoken and it was always a flexible dynamic. The control and submission dynamics varied from day to day depending on our mood, from nothing at all to total dependancy. It all just sort of...happened. No rules, no obligations, no sense of ownership, but ever so often she asked me to make desicions for her, and ever so often, she went out of her way to please. It was a role I could take, even though the sometimes almost parental mandate and responsibility she was lookng for in me took some time to get used to, and to combine with the role of a lover.

 

[JMohegan]

Question for those in the know:

I imagine that slavery, in this voluntary context, is an outspoken agreement. ("Wanna be my slave?" "OK!" "Goody! Here are the rules...")

Whereas submission/dominance (or top/bottom), sexual or emotional, is something that more or less just happens spontaneously when the right personalities hook up.

So:
Slavery - explicit.
Submission - implicit.

Am I close? Trying to base a little writing on this, so I'd like to know if I have distinctions that are at least plausible.

From my perspective, no. "Implicit" submission is not plausible.

In a D/s or BDSM context, my working definition is as follows.

submissive (n.) = someone who overtly & explicitly cedes control in one or more areas of a personal relationship, and is happy, fulfilled, and aroused by doing so.


Most relationships, of any flavor, have clearly understood "rules" in place from the beginning, right? Something like: We are no longer going to date anyone except each other.

These rules form the framework of the relationship. Violating them would therefore put the relationship itself in jeopardy.


In a D/s relationship with me, the rules include the following:

- I decide when, where, and how we have sex.

- I decide who's doing which chores, and when.

- I retain veto power over any clothing, hair, or makeup decisions made by my partner.

- I reserve the right to control a partner's diet and exercise, should I decide this is necessary.

These rules are not put in place spontaneously. They are established at the inception of the relationship and function as the framework for our interactions.

Refusal to obey these rules would have roughly the same effect on a relationship with me as infidelity in a typical non-D/s relationship. A deal's a deal, and if you break the terms of the deal we are essentially back to square one.

An appropriate partner for me is a submissive. I have no interest in a relationship with a slave, because I have no desire to own a human being as property. I have no desire to control a woman's education, career, and hobbies, or her financial decisions, interactions with friends and family, etc.

If we're going to talk about slave Vs. Submissive as far as self-titlement goes- I just don't find the term "submissive" a sexual turn-on

God, I agree! It sounds ghastly.

The only term I hate more in the lifestyle is the abbreviation "Dom". Always makes me think of DeLuise, and feel as if I should be starring in a Mel Brooks movie or something.

 

[rgraham666]

Oh great. As if writing BDSM wasn't difficult enough.

Now I have to tap dance through the minefield of all the differing interpretations of the words used.

 

[JMohegan]

Oh great. As if writing BDSM wasn't difficult enough.

Now I have to tap dance through the minefield of all the differing interpretations of the words used.

Ha, ha!

If you really want to dance, slide on over to the BDSM threads and join a discussion on vocabulary.

The subject of labels and their meaning has apparently left so much blood on the floor that many Lit forum regulars now employ the following acronyms:

PYL = Pick Your Label. A catch-all to refer to Doms, Dommes, Tops, Masters, etc.

pyl = pick your label. A catch-all to refer to submissives, bottoms, slaves, etc.

Used, as in: "My PYL is skilled with a flogger."

And how sexy is that!! LOL.....

 

[3113]

Used, as in: "My PYL is skilled with a flogger."

And how sexy is that!! LOL.....

Oh, THAT'S what it means! Thank you so much. I got that a year or so back in a response to some post or other and I scratched my head, googled and got nothin' and thought maybe it meant "pony lad" or somthing odd like that.

I feel enlightened

 

[Liar]

The subject of labels and their meaning has apparently left so much blood on the floor that many Lit forum regulars now employ the following acronyms:

PYL = Pick Your Label. A catch-all to refer to Doms, Dommes, Tops, Masters, etc.

pyl = pick your label. A catch-all to refer to submissives, bottoms, slaves, etc.

Used, as in: "My PYL is skilled with a flogger."

And how sexy is that!! LOL.....

Okay...so the thing i described a few posts up is niether slavery or sumbission, but... something else? And the difference between the submission you described and slave is...what specifically? That you don't use the word "own"? Which is role-play anyway, since anything else is legally impossible.

Oh my goodness. Suddenly thankful that I'm not "in" any scene as such whatesoever. My brain would fry.

 

[rgraham666]

Ha, ha!

If you really want to dance, slide on over to the BDSM threads and join a discussion on vocabulary.

The subject of labels and their meaning has apparently left so much blood on the floor that many Lit forum regulars now employ the following acronyms:

PYL = Pick Your Label. A catch-all to refer to Doms, Dommes, Tops, Masters, etc.

pyl = pick your label. A catch-all to refer to submissives, bottoms, slaves, etc.

Used, as in: "My PYL is skilled with a flogger."

And how sexy is that!! LOL.....

Sorry, been there once.

People complain about the AH being cliquish. It's nothing compared to the BDSM forum.

 

[JMohegan]

Oh, THAT'S what it means! Thank you so much. I got that a year or so back in a response to some post or other and I scratched my head, googled and got nothin' and thought maybe it meant "pony lad" or somthing odd like that.

I feel enlightened

LOL..... and, you're welcome.

Okay...so the thing i described a few posts up is niether slavery or sumbission, but... something else? And the difference between the submission you described and slave is...what specifically? That you don't use the word "own"? Which is role-play anyway, since anything else is legally impossible.

Oh my goodness. Suddenly thankful that I'm not "in" any scene as such whatesoever. My brain would fry.

If you're asking about post 40, I'd say that sounds like the average mainstream relationship. There is no such thing as a perfectly equal partnership in terms of power dynamics, and just because someone is relatively submissive (adj.), that does not mean they would agree to permanently cede control in a relationship as a submissive (n.).

As for the difference between submissive (n.) and slave, I can not really improve upon the distinction that was made here:

ownership is a crucial distinction between the two. Master/slave is all about owning/being owned. It's a sort of distorted parent/child relationship.

submissiveness/dominance is about who's the boss.

I'm just a guy who wants to be in control in certain aspects of my personal relationships. I don't want to put up with disagreement or negotiations over whose turn it is to unload the dishwasher, and when I want sex.... well.... I want sex! I have a need for some types of control and am aroused by exerting it. That's why my relationships are D/s.

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. The difference, as I see it, is both in the *extent* of control and the underlying attitude. "This person is mine to do with as I wish" is a Master/slave mindset that just doesn't interest me.

 

[JMohegan]

Sorry, been there once.

People complain about the AH being cliquish. It's nothing compared to the BDSM forum.

Sorry, man. Didn't mean to hit a nerve.

My suggestion was made in jest.

 

[Stella_Omega]

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"?

 

[JMohegan]

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

"Partner" is exactly what I always write, making the assumption that the reader can pick up the dynamic from context.

As far as I can tell, the PYL/pyl thing was invented on the Lit BDSM forum. I have never heard it used anywhere else.