Do you have too...

Do you have too... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

MissAidan -> Do you have too... (8/9/2007 6:35:58 PM)
I was reading through some threads on another site I am on, and there was a question of ownership, and the old debate about Master/slave relationships vs. Dom/sub relationships was brought up. It got me thinking...does one have to considar themselves a slave to have a Master? Does one have to be a slave to be owned? Or can one have both of these things and considar themselves a submissive. I know how I feel about all this, just want to see how others feel about it. I look forward to the responses! Miss Aidan

earthycouple -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 6:41:37 PM)
This, for me, is semantics again regarding labels. I personally don't care what anyone calls themselves or wants to be called so long as my slave knows what I expect. It matters not if he calls himself slave, submissive, boy, bottom or Judy Garland. I don't care as long as he knows what I expect. I don't care too much about what I am called, by my slave either as long as it is respectful. That's what I feel.

MissAidan -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 6:45:47 PM)
Lol, a slave boy named Judy Garland...that would be funny. This isn't so much about what one person calls another in an individual relationship...more do people think one must be a Master/Mistress or slave to be in an "Owner/owned" type of relationship. Can one be property without being a slave.

darchChylde -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 6:51:25 PM)
Ma'am is my Dominant, not my Mistress or Master; i am Her submissive, not slave... but all the same, until She and/or i decide otherwise, i am Her property... period

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 6:52:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: earthycouple This, for me, is semantics again regarding labels. I personally don't care what anyone calls themselves or wants to be called so long as my slave knows what I expect. It matters not if he calls himself slave, submissive, boy, bottom or Judy Garland. I don't care as long as he knows what I expect. I don't care too much about what I am called, by my slave either as long as it is respectful. That's what I feel. ok i am going to say this cause it needs said we all need labels it is how the human mind dose sorting and organizing into rational thought.. with out labels might as well be all be shades of Grey and taste like bad coffee

MasterMike04103 -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 6:56:39 PM)
Its a matter of how one wants to precieve it.. Sorta Old Guard vs. New Guard leather, I know some people will say that there was no old guard and that what people call old guard is just a theory or way of looking at things, but I think that its more than that... I personally don't care what my girl calls me in private, like the other poster wrote, its a matter of preference... A Daddy Dom can have a person under then who is a slave wired masochist but the Daddy Dom might never be a classical Master by many peoples definition... So yeah its a matter of prespective... Mike

Padriag -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissAidan Lol, a slave boy named Judy Garland...that would be funny. This isn't so much about what one person calls another in an individual relationship...more do people think one must be a Master/Mistress or slave to be in an "Owner/owned" type of relationship. Can one be property without being a slave. In my personal view, being a slave means being owned as property... so the two are intertwined, likewise I see a link between master and owner. But that really only matters to those who need to understand my usage of those terms in specfic situations or who are looking to be part of my life (i.e. as my property/slave).

sweetnurseBBW -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissAidan I was reading through some threads on another site I am on, and there was a question of ownership, and the old debate about Master/slave relationships vs. Dom/sub relationships was brought up. It got me thinking...does one have to considar themselves a slave to have a Master? No, Master/Mistress is just a name. A slave, sub, bottom, switch can all have someone they call Master or Mistress. Does one have to be a slave to be owned? NO, calling oneself a slave has nothing to do with ownership. It is just how someone identifies themselves by their own definition, in my opinion. It isn't the same for everyone. Or can one have both of these things and considar themselves a submissive. I know how I feel about all this, just want to see how others feel about it. Anyone can use any word they want to identify themselves. It is all about how they define each term and identify. It has nothing to do with certain feelings. It is an individual thing and how those in the relationship identify. I look forward to the responses! Miss Aidan

Phin -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:08:37 PM)
labels and perspective pretty much wrap it up for me. Latex does somewhat have a point, If we could not throw labels on people, music, objects, etc many of us would just go nuts. but I disagree about tasting like bad coffee, and I would take a shade of grey over rigid black/white any day before the singer for LiVe found religion they were a Neo-Hippie band (yes I know... a label...) They wrote a great song called Beauty of Grey on an album called Mental Jewlery. (first album, yes, before Throwing Copper)

sweetnspicysub -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:12:26 PM)
Although I'm no stickler for labels, I tend to want to put the terms Master and slave together. Much the same for Dominant and submissive, or bottom and top. I don't really consider myself a "Master", mainly because nobody calls me that, if someone considered me to be their master, that's what I'd be. I guess this fits in with the "it's relative" view. Joseff

MissAidan -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:17:19 PM)
Well, yes, the two do tend to go together. Do you think that this means a sub can not have a Master, or be owned, that one has to be a slave to have these things? Hehe, poking around in peoples brains is fun.

Joseff -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:18:01 PM)
That was strange... Nice to be me again. Joseff

earthycouple -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:23:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissAidan Well, yes, the two do tend to go together. *Do you think that this means a sub can not have a Master, or be owned, that one has to be a slave to have these things?* Hehe, poking around in peoples brains is fun. No, I don't believe that at all. I think if someone wants to call himself slave and his dominant wants to call himself the dominant, that's fine. If I want to call my owned sub and he wants to call me owner....great. I just don't equate slave goes with owner or sub goes with dominant or top goes with bottom. Everyone percieves these differently. I personally want a mix of slave/sub (as I define each one) so geez...what are we now called? Slub and Dominowner? S

Joseff -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:24:24 PM)
Well, I guess technically that's what the terms mean, if they mean anything at all. Master and slave implies ownership to me, just by definition. As far as anyone's relationships go, I think its however they see it. There are no set rules. Joseff

spankmepink11 -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:24:58 PM)
I don't think being in a relationship defines our orientation.....we simply are what we are.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:25:17 PM)
IMO slave in the Ms sense is an orientation. So, just like a bisexual doesn't need to be having sex with both a man and a woman in order to consider themselves a bisexual, a slave doesn't have to be IN a relationship as a slave in order to consider themselves a slave. It's what form of relationship they are ORIENTED towards which matters- not what relationship they happen to be or not be in at any particular moment. If that were the case that one must be owned in order to be a slave, then the term "owned slave" or "collared slave" would be redundant. And "unowned slave" would be nonsensical.

Padriag -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:31:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissAidan Well, yes, the two do tend to go together. Do you think that this means a sub can not have a Master, or be owned, that one has to be a slave to have these things? Hehe, poking around in peoples brains is fun. That's pretty much my personal view. To elaborate, goes something like this. Top / Bottom - roles assumed by people for purposes of a specific scene are are limited to that context. Anyone can be either, they are not orientations. Dom / Sub - specific expressions of dominant or submissive orientations, limited to specific, agreed upon areas of a relationship or other specific context. Master / Slave - another specific expression of dominant or submissive orientations, generally broad in scope and affecting potentially all areas of the relationship, attempts to have as few restrictions as possible, what limits exist most frequently come from practical considerations. So given that, and given that I view being owned as a condition with few or no restrictions, it shouldn't be hard to understand why I associated it exclusively with Master / Slave. But as I said, these are my definitions / labels only. Latex is correct in that it really only matters when someone is trying to understand my usage of those labels. There are times I wish we did have universally accepted definitions... it would at least end many of the seemingly endless arguments about slave vs sub, dom vs master, etc. But it ain't gonna happen. I'd invent new terms, but I find the existing ones still have sufficient utility.

completenz -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:51:39 PM)
hi He is my Dom, not my Master and i am His sub, not His slave. We have found whats works for us. We are a loving affectionate couple that appear very vanilla to those around us ...BUT.... He is in control, pure and simple. He often whispers in my ear that He owns me and that is how it feels to both of us. So , in our case, you do not have to be a slave to be owned. hugs c

MissAidan -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 7:53:08 PM)
Hmm...slub...I like that term. As goofy as it sounds, I think that might actually fit what I am to Him, lol. In my upside down little corner of the universe, a sub can be Padriag's definition of a slave and call themselves a sub, just because they prefer that terminology. And yeah...sometimes universal terms would make things so much easier. I am, however, enjoying hearing different folks views on all this. I'm a firm believer in YKINMY-BYKIOK, and I love the chance to see what others think.

thetammyjo -> RE: Do you have too... (8/9/2007 8:53:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissAidan I was reading through some threads on another site I am on, and there was a question of ownership, and the old debate about Master/slave relationships vs. Dom/sub relationships was brought up. It got me thinking...does one have to considar themselves a slave to have a Master? Does one have to be a slave to be owned? Or can one have both of these things and considar themselves a submissive. I know how I feel about all this, just want to see how others feel about it. I look forward to the responses! Miss Aidan In my household, submissive and slave are not the same. However Mistress is a title that could be applied to both a dominant and an owner -- I personally want it used only for owner and Milady for me when I'm just a dominant. However I could also see owning a pet or property if those words had a lot of value for someone and seemed to fit him/her and our dynamic better. I personally consider the word slave to be more encompassing a term than submissive, pet, or property meaning I think it has more variety in regard to personality type, duties, attitude, and motivation. That just me. This entire response is just me based only on my experiences. (and I'm up so late for me cause it's still too warm in the house to sleep well -- I hate this weather! yes, I used the word hate on purpose)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875