Submissives vs. Slaves
- Thread starter Ebonyfire
- Start date
NemoAlia
Voracious
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Posts
- 1,434
I think that the popular theory, expressed in this article, that submission begins in a slightly-kinked bedroom and finds its ultimate actualization in a TPE 'slave' relationship is not always accurate. Of course, every theory has its exceptions; but I believe that in this case the number of exceptions disproves the theory.
For many people, submission happens in their daily lives without its ever becoming part of their sex lives. I wonder: why do most BDSMers consider the path into submission beginning with lightly-kinked sex and lead to a change in lifestyle? For many people, the process goes the other way: They naturally find happiness in serving other people. They find their inner discipline is strengthened by the more dominant personality of their partners. Nevertheless, they might balk at the idea of sexual submission in the way that some sexual submissives might balk at the idea of subsuming their own wills to the will of another.
Articles like the one that Ebonyfire has posted reinforce a definition of submission that I believe is only partially true.
Nevertheless, it's a thoughtful article with a positive message: tolerance. Definitely worth a read!
For many people, submission happens in their daily lives without its ever becoming part of their sex lives. I wonder: why do most BDSMers consider the path into submission beginning with lightly-kinked sex and lead to a change in lifestyle? For many people, the process goes the other way: They naturally find happiness in serving other people. They find their inner discipline is strengthened by the more dominant personality of their partners. Nevertheless, they might balk at the idea of sexual submission in the way that some sexual submissives might balk at the idea of subsuming their own wills to the will of another.
Articles like the one that Ebonyfire has posted reinforce a definition of submission that I believe is only partially true.
Nevertheless, it's a thoughtful article with a positive message: tolerance. Definitely worth a read!
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
NemoAlia said:
Nemo, that is why I posted it. From the very first day I posted here, this particular theory of BDSM was the prevalent one. I am primarily a service Domme. That means sexual submission is not the primary activity. I require submissives who have a need to serve; meaning they can find just as much satisfaction in washing my dishes as they do worshiping My "shrine".
Eb
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
The full meal deal
Here is a full meal deal archive of information for the would be submissive/slave.
It is focused on a woman, but men should be able to get a lot out of it.
Submission Full Meal Deal
Here is a full meal deal archive of information for the would be submissive/slave.
It is focused on a woman, but men should be able to get a lot out of it.
Submission Full Meal Deal
~Dream~
Loving My Soulmate Scott
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Posts
- 18,275
The easiest way to discover a person's placement within the community, be it through gender, sexual orientation, top, bottom, sideways etc... is to politely ask them. You can simply say, "What way would you prefer to be addressed?" This offers the individual the choice to tell you what they prefer so that you will not appear discourteous. By the way...courtesy is the key. You are not required to respect any unknown person. You are required to use common courtesy. Additionally, there is no right or wrong to being or believing yourself to be anything. It is not better to be one thing or the other and people should not be discriminated against for those choices they make. I offer common respect to all persons until and unless they take an action that I find disrespectful. At that point I generally elect to have no further converse with them.
______________
That certainly rings true for me,common Courtesy should definately play a key... and as for the following part..:
The slave is beyond the last level of the submissive. The slave vacates limits. To be a slave is to offer of self fully and without reservation. From my perspective very few individuals fall into this category. Those that do, that I know personally are generally with their Dominant for a very long period of time. Trust has been long ago established, limits and range discovered and a relationship of personal strength has emerged which allows the submissive to transcend to this level. This is a level without safewords, without limits. The slave lives with their Dominant on a full time basis and may or may not have a life external of serving their mate. The slave generally selects a Dominant with parallel limits. By this I mean that the final action of trust is the vacating of set limits. In order to do this the individual must fundamentally know that their partner shares the same 'natural' or 'inviolate' limits as they do. A Dominant has limits just like a submissive. That which falls within their natural range and desire is their arena.
"This is a level without safewords, without limits. The slave lives with their D>> while it is true ,we are planning on living together,IMHO All safe ,sane consensual relationships and Most importantly Master/slave there should ALWAYS be safewords and Limits or we are talking opportunity for Abuse.. He is entitled to His viewpoint ,but I have now expressed mine also..
______________
That certainly rings true for me,common Courtesy should definately play a key... and as for the following part..:
The slave is beyond the last level of the submissive. The slave vacates limits. To be a slave is to offer of self fully and without reservation. From my perspective very few individuals fall into this category. Those that do, that I know personally are generally with their Dominant for a very long period of time. Trust has been long ago established, limits and range discovered and a relationship of personal strength has emerged which allows the submissive to transcend to this level. This is a level without safewords, without limits. The slave lives with their Dominant on a full time basis and may or may not have a life external of serving their mate. The slave generally selects a Dominant with parallel limits. By this I mean that the final action of trust is the vacating of set limits. In order to do this the individual must fundamentally know that their partner shares the same 'natural' or 'inviolate' limits as they do. A Dominant has limits just like a submissive. That which falls within their natural range and desire is their arena.
"This is a level without safewords, without limits. The slave lives with their D>> while it is true ,we are planning on living together,IMHO All safe ,sane consensual relationships and Most importantly Master/slave there should ALWAYS be safewords and Limits or we are talking opportunity for Abuse.. He is entitled to His viewpoint ,but I have now expressed mine also..
Re: Another point of view
"In my opinion they are not submissives at all, not having the basic criteria of a 'desire to serve for the pleasure of another' that is the fundamental trait I identify as submissive and Dominant."
This is an interesting statement. It seems this author is saying that she believes that the fundamental trait of dominance is a 'desire to serve for the pleasure of another.' I do believe that this is what motivates the submissive, but I do not think a dominant is motivated to dominate because she/he has a desire to please another.
What do you think about this statement?
Ebonyfire said:
"In my opinion they are not submissives at all, not having the basic criteria of a 'desire to serve for the pleasure of another' that is the fundamental trait I identify as submissive and Dominant."
This is an interesting statement. It seems this author is saying that she believes that the fundamental trait of dominance is a 'desire to serve for the pleasure of another.' I do believe that this is what motivates the submissive, but I do not think a dominant is motivated to dominate because she/he has a desire to please another.
What do you think about this statement?
kristydoll
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Posts
- 205
sub vs slave
This whole issue of sub vs slave is an area I have gotten into too many times .... maybe because it always sparks such different views. To me, I find it more to be net labels - either for articles, discussions or as a description of oneself . Labeling myself in this manner would be for me to say "I am an empowered sub, with slave tendencies."
I find that, through munches and events, most people find these two terms (subs and slaves) just words - interchangeable almost. What the "label" is usually comes from the relationship involved and the limits/perimeters set.
kristy
This whole issue of sub vs slave is an area I have gotten into too many times .... maybe because it always sparks such different views. To me, I find it more to be net labels - either for articles, discussions or as a description of oneself . Labeling myself in this manner would be for me to say "I am an empowered sub, with slave tendencies."
I find that, through munches and events, most people find these two terms (subs and slaves) just words - interchangeable almost. What the "label" is usually comes from the relationship involved and the limits/perimeters set.
kristy
Re: Re: Another point of view
I don't know how valid my opinion is, as I am unable to connect to the link provided and cannot view what the author has written.
I do believe, however, that dominants are motivated to please another. Not to serve, certainly. But to pleasure? Yes, I do believe so. Maybe not all dominants, as it depends on the type of relationship a dominant has with his/her submissive. But, as one dominant told me, "If I don't work at bringing you pleasure just as much as you work at giving me pleasure, you won't want to have me around." That statement hit me like a ton of bricks when he said it, as I'd never thought of it like that before. I'd only thought of dominants in positions of contol, period.
However, if a dominant is only after control, or the satisfaction of his/her own pleasure (unless previously agreed upon with their submissive), then what is my motivation to serve them? None. Yes, I do get an enormous amount of satisfaction in serving a dominant. Even the silly simple stuff: making certain his life is as comfortable as possible, doing stuff so he doesn't have to sweat the small stuff but can concentrate on the big stuff. However, if it is all just about me giving to him, then it ain't gonna last very long at all before I bail.
I'm sure there are submissives out there who can please a dominant and never want anything in return. I'm not saying this arrangement is wrong, but it would have to be something discussed in depth at the beginning of a relationship.
Now, I hope I've not totally misread something!
MsWorthy said:
I don't know how valid my opinion is, as I am unable to connect to the link provided and cannot view what the author has written.
I do believe, however, that dominants are motivated to please another. Not to serve, certainly. But to pleasure? Yes, I do believe so. Maybe not all dominants, as it depends on the type of relationship a dominant has with his/her submissive. But, as one dominant told me, "If I don't work at bringing you pleasure just as much as you work at giving me pleasure, you won't want to have me around." That statement hit me like a ton of bricks when he said it, as I'd never thought of it like that before. I'd only thought of dominants in positions of contol, period.
However, if a dominant is only after control, or the satisfaction of his/her own pleasure (unless previously agreed upon with their submissive), then what is my motivation to serve them? None. Yes, I do get an enormous amount of satisfaction in serving a dominant. Even the silly simple stuff: making certain his life is as comfortable as possible, doing stuff so he doesn't have to sweat the small stuff but can concentrate on the big stuff. However, if it is all just about me giving to him, then it ain't gonna last very long at all before I bail.
I'm sure there are submissives out there who can please a dominant and never want anything in return. I'm not saying this arrangement is wrong, but it would have to be something discussed in depth at the beginning of a relationship.
Now, I hope I've not totally misread something!
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Re: Re: Another point of view
I could go along with it if it said the dominant has a need to serve for the mutual satisfaction of both parties.
If you look at service as the need to be useful and in this case, the service is dominance, it can work.
Eb
MsWorthy said:
I could go along with it if it said the dominant has a need to serve for the mutual satisfaction of both parties.
If you look at service as the need to be useful and in this case, the service is dominance, it can work.
Eb
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Re: Re: Re: Another point of view
I do not think you are misreading anything. I think that the David Stein article I posted in the "What slaves need" thread, discusses the role of a dominant.
Dominants and subs have to align themselves correctly. They are two sides of the same coin, yin and yang.
The best way for a sub to get their needs met is to find dominant who has corresponding needs. They have to balance each other.
What is too much control for one, may not be too much for another.
So it is imperative for each side to take the time to get to know each other, so see if in fact they do have corresponding needs.
These articles are just here to give those who have not thought about who they are and how they see themselves as subs or Dom/mes something to think and hopefull talk about within their own relationships.
Ebony
SexyChele said:
I do not think you are misreading anything. I think that the David Stein article I posted in the "What slaves need" thread, discusses the role of a dominant.
Dominants and subs have to align themselves correctly. They are two sides of the same coin, yin and yang.
The best way for a sub to get their needs met is to find dominant who has corresponding needs. They have to balance each other.
What is too much control for one, may not be too much for another.
So it is imperative for each side to take the time to get to know each other, so see if in fact they do have corresponding needs.
These articles are just here to give those who have not thought about who they are and how they see themselves as subs or Dom/mes something to think and hopefull talk about within their own relationships.
Ebony
Re: Re: Re: Another point of view
This is not quite what I meant. I, like other dominants, want to pleasure my partner, and I am, certainly, aware that my partner will not want to stay with me if her needs are not being met.
My point is that I do not think a dom/me is motivated to dominate because she/he wants to please, make happy, fix/improve, bring orgasms to, or in any other way make life more fun for her/his submissive. That these things do occur is the result of conscious decisions, skills that are learned, methods/manipulation used to get the dom/me's way, and other secondary goals.
The primary goal is to live life your (the dom/me's) way. To have control over any/all aspects of life that are necessary for your (the dom/me's) happiness.
I think a dominant dominates because she/he needs to control. The dom/me believes that her/his way of living is most fulfilling for her/him and works to find (and keep) a partner who agrees with her/his way of living, and who feels safe, secure, loved, special, cared for/about, and is nourished by this type of lifestyle (one in which control/responsibility is given up and there is agreement with the dom/mes philosophy of life).
It seems to me, that this statement made by the dominant to you:
"If I don't work at bringing you pleasure just as much as you work at giving me pleasure, you won't want to have me around."
demonstrates my point. Is he/she not saying that he/she must works to bring you pleasure so that you will bring him/her pleasure? Would this not indicate that his/her primary goal is to keep you around (or keep you wanting him around) and the secondary goal (a goal that is in place only as a means of satisfying the primary goal) is to bring you pleasure?
The motivation to serve, as I stated above, comes from a desire/need to feel safe and loved by one who is perceived as having a good understanding of what life offers and what is best (most effective method to achieve this type of happiness) based on that belief, and has the strength (will) to make it work.
In my opinion, it is a mistake to believe that the primary goal/motivation of a dominant is to please/pleasure a submissive. A dominant certainly knows that in order to achieve her/his goals she/he must satisfy her/his partner and meet most of her/his needs, but this is not her/his primary motivation for dominating.
I think this pov becomes clearer when you think of a life without sex. Is a d/s relationship still viable when sex is no longer a large part of your life? Is d/s only about sex? Is it primarily about sex?
A strong libido will not be present your entire life. Menopause occurs, impotence creeps in as you get older, and sex simply becomes less important in your life as you age. If d/s is primarily about the sexual expression of the self, then I certainly agree with your viewpoint, Chele; however, if d/s is your lifestyle, sex must not be your primary focus, instead, your primary focus must be an agreement of life philosophies.
SexyChele said:
This is not quite what I meant. I, like other dominants, want to pleasure my partner, and I am, certainly, aware that my partner will not want to stay with me if her needs are not being met.
My point is that I do not think a dom/me is motivated to dominate because she/he wants to please, make happy, fix/improve, bring orgasms to, or in any other way make life more fun for her/his submissive. That these things do occur is the result of conscious decisions, skills that are learned, methods/manipulation used to get the dom/me's way, and other secondary goals.
The primary goal is to live life your (the dom/me's) way. To have control over any/all aspects of life that are necessary for your (the dom/me's) happiness.
I think a dominant dominates because she/he needs to control. The dom/me believes that her/his way of living is most fulfilling for her/him and works to find (and keep) a partner who agrees with her/his way of living, and who feels safe, secure, loved, special, cared for/about, and is nourished by this type of lifestyle (one in which control/responsibility is given up and there is agreement with the dom/mes philosophy of life).
It seems to me, that this statement made by the dominant to you:
"If I don't work at bringing you pleasure just as much as you work at giving me pleasure, you won't want to have me around."
demonstrates my point. Is he/she not saying that he/she must works to bring you pleasure so that you will bring him/her pleasure? Would this not indicate that his/her primary goal is to keep you around (or keep you wanting him around) and the secondary goal (a goal that is in place only as a means of satisfying the primary goal) is to bring you pleasure?
The motivation to serve, as I stated above, comes from a desire/need to feel safe and loved by one who is perceived as having a good understanding of what life offers and what is best (most effective method to achieve this type of happiness) based on that belief, and has the strength (will) to make it work.
In my opinion, it is a mistake to believe that the primary goal/motivation of a dominant is to please/pleasure a submissive. A dominant certainly knows that in order to achieve her/his goals she/he must satisfy her/his partner and meet most of her/his needs, but this is not her/his primary motivation for dominating.
I think this pov becomes clearer when you think of a life without sex. Is a d/s relationship still viable when sex is no longer a large part of your life? Is d/s only about sex? Is it primarily about sex?
A strong libido will not be present your entire life. Menopause occurs, impotence creeps in as you get older, and sex simply becomes less important in your life as you age. If d/s is primarily about the sexual expression of the self, then I certainly agree with your viewpoint, Chele; however, if d/s is your lifestyle, sex must not be your primary focus, instead, your primary focus must be an agreement of life philosophies.
Last edited:
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another point of view
Yep. Well put. I think that is why I said that the service ( being of use) a Dom/me provides is the mutual satisfaction of needs. the more comprehensive the needs, the more successful the relationship is apt to be.
Eb
MsWorthy said:
Yep. Well put. I think that is why I said that the service ( being of use) a Dom/me provides is the mutual satisfaction of needs. the more comprehensive the needs, the more successful the relationship is apt to be.
Eb
Grvdigger
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2002
- Posts
- 117
[What the "label" is usually comes from the relationship involved and the limits/perimeters set.
]
I agree kristydoll. I think most use the terms as being interchangeable. But it really needs to come from the two involved and not from others outside to determine. What I think of as My slave may differ from Others view. Also the sub or slave has to be comfortable with the term. If she/he cringes from the thought of being called a slave or desires that then does it matter what anyone defines it to be.
]
I agree kristydoll. I think most use the terms as being interchangeable. But it really needs to come from the two involved and not from others outside to determine. What I think of as My slave may differ from Others view. Also the sub or slave has to be comfortable with the term. If she/he cringes from the thought of being called a slave or desires that then does it matter what anyone defines it to be.
another POV
I found another article on this topic that I think is interesting. Based on the author's definition of slavery, I prefer a submissive in a relationship, and a slave in my (bdsm) bed.
Below, I have picked out the sentences that added clarity to my thinking in this area. For the full article: http://www.iron-rose.com/IR/docs/slavevssub.htm
"The primary difference for me is that there is less ongoing negotiation with slaves. Owning slaves, for me, means that they have less input once the initial negotiations are done. I may or may not choose to allow them to have input as to where we go next. We renegotiate when I feel it's necessary, but it's much less often and more rare than with a submissive. We review our relationship a minimum of annually, on our collaring anniversary, where with a submissive I review a minimum of quarterly.
Slaves do more servitude in my ownership. Interestingly enough, I am also more likely to bestow sexual favors upon a slave versus a submissive. [If I am not given slavery in the bedroom, she is much less likely to be granted sexual satisfaction]
[A]t any moment I can exert my will on a slave and I expect no argument or even a squeak of protest. I wouldn't expect, for example, to silence a submissive if we were at a vanilla party. And yet, I do it to a slave."
In this description, I see my own expectations when it comes to bdsm sex with my partner. In life, in general, I am much more open to compromise and discussion, renegotiation and slow testing of limits, but in the sexual arena I want complete autonomy once initial negotiations have occured.
Can one have a submissive partner and expect her/him to be a slave in bed (sex)?
What do you think? Opinions?
I found another article on this topic that I think is interesting. Based on the author's definition of slavery, I prefer a submissive in a relationship, and a slave in my (bdsm) bed.
Below, I have picked out the sentences that added clarity to my thinking in this area. For the full article: http://www.iron-rose.com/IR/docs/slavevssub.htm
"The primary difference for me is that there is less ongoing negotiation with slaves. Owning slaves, for me, means that they have less input once the initial negotiations are done. I may or may not choose to allow them to have input as to where we go next. We renegotiate when I feel it's necessary, but it's much less often and more rare than with a submissive. We review our relationship a minimum of annually, on our collaring anniversary, where with a submissive I review a minimum of quarterly.
Slaves do more servitude in my ownership. Interestingly enough, I am also more likely to bestow sexual favors upon a slave versus a submissive. [If I am not given slavery in the bedroom, she is much less likely to be granted sexual satisfaction]
[A]t any moment I can exert my will on a slave and I expect no argument or even a squeak of protest. I wouldn't expect, for example, to silence a submissive if we were at a vanilla party. And yet, I do it to a slave."
In this description, I see my own expectations when it comes to bdsm sex with my partner. In life, in general, I am much more open to compromise and discussion, renegotiation and slow testing of limits, but in the sexual arena I want complete autonomy once initial negotiations have occured.
Can one have a submissive partner and expect her/him to be a slave in bed (sex)?
What do you think? Opinions?
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Re: another POV
I can't answer without sounding like a broken record.
I do not have sex with my current submissives, and my sex life has nothing to do with BDSM.
I just have a sex life, and I do not need a slave to meet my sexual needs.
Eb <YMMV>
MsWorthy said:
I can't answer without sounding like a broken record.
I do not have sex with my current submissives, and my sex life has nothing to do with BDSM.
I just have a sex life, and I do not need a slave to meet my sexual needs.
Eb <YMMV>
luvsubbbbb
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
- Posts
- 167
Ebonyfire said:
i found the above to be a very interesting and well written article, Ms Ebony.....while i find myself agreeing with much of its content, i would strongly disagree on the issue of the permanence of slavery....
just because someone is a slave and owned property WITHIN the power exchange, doesnt mean that one should not be entitled to OPT OUT if the relationship falls apart....once the relationship is terminated, the property should no longer remain property in my opinion..........obviously the REAL determination of this is between the 2 parties involved, but it seems to me that forcing a slavery to continue which is no longer consensual has moral and ethical problems with it, not just legal.......
i differentiate a sub from a slave from a "limit" perspective.....a sub can pick and choose the activity he/she agrees to perform, while a slave better choose the right Master/Mistress because once he/she becomes property in the BDSM sense, the ONLY decision that can be made is terminating the relationship or agree to be "sold"........of course a submissive CAN and often DOES develop and become a slave within an existing relationship, but that is how i see the difference between the two dynamics.........
the purchase and selling of slaves is another thing that i am entirely against, unless the slave is given the right of consent and/or veto...........
i wonder what other people think about this?
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
Re: Re: Submissives vs. Slaves
I think you've summed it up wonderfully, and I agree with each point you've made on a personal level.
In agreeing to being owned, it is with the knowledge that hard limits, interests, goals and basic philosophies are parallel - when a hard line is drawn, it *is* the Dominant's way or the highway - but I believe the right to end the relationship should remain for both parties.
Like any commitment, not lightly, at the first problem or disagreement, but it seems it should be a basic human right (BDSM slave or not) to end a relationship.
If I were to feel the relationship I am in seriously needed to be ended, and there was no abuse, I would need to openly and honestly talk to my Mistress first and ask for release - if there was no common ground to work with, and the request was sincere, I know it would be honored. (The thought of being "sold" borders on the ridiculous, to me personally - I would never agree to that.)
luvsubbbbb said:
I think you've summed it up wonderfully, and I agree with each point you've made on a personal level.
In agreeing to being owned, it is with the knowledge that hard limits, interests, goals and basic philosophies are parallel - when a hard line is drawn, it *is* the Dominant's way or the highway - but I believe the right to end the relationship should remain for both parties.
Like any commitment, not lightly, at the first problem or disagreement, but it seems it should be a basic human right (BDSM slave or not) to end a relationship.
If I were to feel the relationship I am in seriously needed to be ended, and there was no abuse, I would need to openly and honestly talk to my Mistress first and ask for release - if there was no common ground to work with, and the request was sincere, I know it would be honored. (The thought of being "sold" borders on the ridiculous, to me personally - I would never agree to that.)
eastTNbbw
Simple Desires.....
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2002
- Posts
- 7,675
Ebonyfire,
Thanks for the articles. I have been doing a great deal of reading over the past month or so and these articles help to make me think and again reassess where I feel I fit.
I have no experience other than to say that I enjoy very much pleasing and serving. There are some 'activities' that I have participated in that are usually thought of as D/s and I enjoyed them. It is because of the desire that this stirred that I have come to feel the need to research, study, and evaluate where I would/do fit.
In doing this, and in reading these articles too, I think the most important thing is not so much the label you place on yourself or accept for yourself but it is the way in which you bond in your relationship with another. I hope I haven't completely missed the mark, but the same communication, trust, and respect that make any relationship work (whether a work, family, or vanilla relationship) is exactly what makes any BDSM relationship work.
I do appreciate your sharing through the threads. Thank you.
ETB
Thanks for the articles. I have been doing a great deal of reading over the past month or so and these articles help to make me think and again reassess where I feel I fit.
I have no experience other than to say that I enjoy very much pleasing and serving. There are some 'activities' that I have participated in that are usually thought of as D/s and I enjoyed them. It is because of the desire that this stirred that I have come to feel the need to research, study, and evaluate where I would/do fit.
In doing this, and in reading these articles too, I think the most important thing is not so much the label you place on yourself or accept for yourself but it is the way in which you bond in your relationship with another. I hope I haven't completely missed the mark, but the same communication, trust, and respect that make any relationship work (whether a work, family, or vanilla relationship) is exactly what makes any BDSM relationship work.
I do appreciate your sharing through the threads. Thank you.
ETB
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Re: Re: Submissives vs. Slaves
I think David Stein was talking about his own experiences in that he has been owned by the same person for a long time.
We have discussed this in that (in the US) slavery is not enforcible by law, so we are not taking a literal view. Since slavery is illegal, I would hope it would go without saying that a slave is not really a slave in the classic or literal sense. A BDSM slave can always "walk" away. The power exchange is always consentual, and consent can always be withdrawn.
Eb
luvsubbbbb said:
I think David Stein was talking about his own experiences in that he has been owned by the same person for a long time.
We have discussed this in that (in the US) slavery is not enforcible by law, so we are not taking a literal view. Since slavery is illegal, I would hope it would go without saying that a slave is not really a slave in the classic or literal sense. A BDSM slave can always "walk" away. The power exchange is always consentual, and consent can always be withdrawn.
Eb
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Consentual Slavery
*Bump*
Well what do you know. I found this website.
Consentual Slavery Web Directory
*Bump*
Well what do you know. I found this website.
Consentual Slavery Web Directory
Shadowsdream
Dream Maker
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 3,173
Re: Consentual Slavery
Damn You for finding this site...Now I will be reading it with the morning coffee instead of the Canadian newspaper.
Ebonyfire said:
Damn You for finding this site...Now I will be reading it with the morning coffee instead of the Canadian newspaper.
