RE: Simply a slave?

RE: Simply a slave? (Full Version)

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

Message

Noah -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/21/2007 10:35:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie My views seem to be different than the views of others. Sure, "simply a slave" works for me because to me a wife is of a more equal stature than a slave is. I am not his equal. A wife is his equal. I am simply his slave, and I will never be more than simply his slave. I do not view this as a negative. I think it is wonderfully positive, in fact. Because being his slave holds me to a much, much higher standard in his eyes than being his wife. In turn, being his wife could be referred to as "simply his wife," as she will never achieve for him the things I do. Lemme see if I get the calculus here. Since you are his slave you are less than him. His wife would be equal to him, but you are greater than his wife could ever be. How am I doing? quote: I see a lot of people get sucked into the compare and compete thing around here. I never really understood it. Well yeah. You, for instance, in this thread, comparing yourself to his wife (actual or hypothetical) and singing your own relative praises, telling us of the higher standard you meet and how a wife could never measure up to you (although as noted, she is or would be his equal and he is greater than you.) Can you sort this out for me?

ownedgirlie -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/21/2007 10:52:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah Lemme see if I get the calculus here. Since you are his slave you are less than him. His wife would be equal to him, but you are greater than his wife could ever be. LOL Noah, I love your questions. I am not his equal, and my power in this relationship is less than his. His wife is his equal, and her power in the relationship is equal to his. This does not make either of us better/greater/uber/whatever. It means in terms of the relationship dynamic to him, she does not submit to him and I do. Therefore, her decisions and such are jointly made, as equals. Let's say she has equal authority in the relationship. I do not. However, I can achieve things for him that she can not, but I am not greater than she, because she is his equal. Level of achievement and what each relationship is able to provide for him does not mean greater or less than, or better or worse. To him, wife and slave are different entities. Each provides something unique. One is equal in power and authority, and one is not. She provides things I can not; and I provide things she can not. Therefore, as in my original example, the word "simply" can be applied in either direction. Capiche'? quote: How am I doing? About a C. But only that high because you gave ample thought to your question, even though your premise was flawed. quote: Well yeah. You, for instance, in this thread, comparing yourself to his wife (actual or hypothetical) and singing your own relative praises, telling us of the higher standard you meet and how a wife could never measure up to you (although as noted, she is or would be his equal and he is greater than you.) Can you sort this out for me? Sure I can. I'll start by saying I think you missed my entire point. Where did you get that she will never measure up? Where did you get that saying I can provide things for him that she can't...means I am praising myself? If I am willing to do unthinkable things for him, solely for his amusement, and she is not, this makes us different. Neither better, neither worse. Just different. It still means I am providing something that she can't/won't. It is a factual statement. If you think it praiseworthy, well thank you, but I do not. It simply is what it is. So, basically you're kinda joining the sheeple there, Noah, with assuming everything is a better/worse comparison. Edited: I see where I misspoke in my previous post, with this quote: "Because being his slave holds me to a much, much higher standard in his eyes than being his wife." I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote it, because it surely did not come out as intended. He holds me to a high standard as a slave, and expects things of me he would not want of his wife. He expects things of his wife he would not want of me. I really don't know what drugs I was on when I wrote that, but it was in error. Apologies for the miscommunication. I take it back - you're not a sheeple. [;)]

juliaoceania -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/21/2007 10:59:07 PM)
quote: Where did you get that saying I can provide things for him that she can't...means I am praising myself? If I am willing to do unthinkable things for him, solely for his amusement, and she is not, this makes us different. Neither better, neither worse. Just different. It still means I am providing something that she can't/won't. It is a factual statement. If you think it praiseworthy, well thank you, but I do not. It simply is what it is. I understand what you are saying... I have an unmentionable, I have a mother, I have a sister, I have a Dom, I love all these people. They have different parts of me, they are all different forms of love. One is not more than the other. I do not measure the people I love up against each other like that... Oh yes, I understand all too well the above statement, and you are right from my perspective. No two people could ever hold the exact same place in a person's heart. It is a good thing that the heart just grows to make more room metaphorically speaking of course[:D]

ownedgirlie -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/21/2007 11:00:31 PM)
Thanks, Julia, but my previous post was confusing, because the words I used gave the impression that I am somehow better, and I don't think that at all. I'm still scratching my head at having written that - - weird.

juliaoceania -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/21/2007 11:03:35 PM)
I did not catch that, but the sentiment in my post remains[;)]

ownedgirlie -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/21/2007 11:19:37 PM)
To the OP, you may want to check the thread you quoted from, as the poster of that quote explained his meaning of it.

amayos -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/21/2007 11:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: julietsierra "The idea of a slave bride is a beautifull thing. Of course, this makes her more than simply a slave." This was in another thread and I thought I'd just ask people... Is this how you perceive those who claim and who you might call "slave?" juliet Hello, Juliet. Explanation of my original comment can be found here. I do hope this clears things up for you.

adaddysgirl -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 4:18:01 AM)
i checked it out and really, all i am seeing is that the slave now also holds the title of wife and and i'm still not seeing how 'there's more to it' yet. Being a wife makes things legal, changes a name and yes, does mean there has to be a divorce in the result of release....but i don't see any change in the power dynamic at all. i think Celeste summed that up pretty well. But maybe this is because i lean toward a Domestic Discipline dynamic where most of the couples are married anyway. The husband is the Head of Household, the dominant one and pretty much the equivalent of a Master as far as Authority goes. The wife/submissive defers to him. So when i think of marriage, i don't see it in the vanilla sense of equality. i don't really see any difference in anything other than what i mentioned above. Now if a married couple is vanilla first then over time their relationship develops into some type of D/s, now there i can see where she is more than simply a wife because the whole authority (or power) dynamic has changed. But i just don't see where the opposite is true. i don't see where the dynamic actually changed or the wife is more anything but a slave and wife now. Clear as mud, no? DG

SlaveAkasha -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 4:34:40 AM)
I think it would matter the context in which that term was used. I have had Doms where I was their slave, but not anything more to them. Two of them were married, but didn't get this part from their wives. They didn't love me and I didn't love them, we were "only" Master and slave. The Master I have now, I am more than his slave, I am his lover, his girlfriend, and someday his wife. We have a relationship where if the slave part was gone, we would still have what we have now, without the M/s part. With those other two Doms, once we weren't M/s anymore, we weren't "together" as a couple because that was how our relationship was based. It's not really any different than when I have had friends with benefits.. we had sex when we wanted, but we knew it wasn't going to be more than that ever. It's not that one relationship (if that's what you want to call them) is better than another, I think each one can be wonderful if it's right for you at the time... it just means that each one is different..with different dynamics and expectations of what will come out of it. When I explain it to someone, I might say.. "I am more than his slave...." that doesn't mean being a slave is "less than", it just means I am explaining our dynamic compared to dynamics I have had in the past where a slave was "all" I was to them. (Hope that made sense.) Kasha

marieToo -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 6:12:46 AM)
General Reply: I think traditionally wives have been considered sweathearts, equals and lovers to their husbands, while S-types aren't. Putting aside the obvious difference legally between a wife and an S type, there are for some people very cut and dried lines or differences between the two. I resonate very much with what Ownedgirlie said. I knew exactly what she meant, because in my world wife and S type are very much different. Neither better or worse, but different and actually non-comparable. Each brings something different to the man's life that the other simply cannot provide. I suppose 2 people can have whatever type of relationship they decide to have whether married or not. Maybe some men find in one person a wife and an S type. But I still have a hard time wrapping my head around such a relationship, as I had spent the better part of my adult life married (it was a vanilla relationship) but it was marriage and I cant see how a Ds dynamic could possibley survive in it's full potency in an environment such as marriage. Even if it starts out Ds-like, I would imagine it would eventually become more and more watered down. I would like to believe that we could wrap everything into one relationship where someone could be 'slave' and 'sweetheart' to another person and maybe such relationships do exist but for me it's very hard to imagine.

becca333 -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 6:33:09 AM)
I think a whole lot of people spend a whole lot of time formulating definitions that prove that their take on BDSM is more 'real' than anyone else's. Why is there this constant friction between 'sub' and 'slave', anyway? And why is it so important to define which has more status? Different strokes for different folks, I say. (Cane strokes, crop strokes, paddle ... sorry, lost the thread for a moment.)

marieToo -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 6:36:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: becca333 I think a whole lot of people spend a whole lot of time formulating definitions that prove that their take on BDSM is more 'real' than anyone else's. Why is there this constant friction between 'sub' and 'slave', anyway? And why is it so important to define which has more status? Different strokes for different folks, I say. (Cane strokes, crop strokes, paddle ... sorry, lost the thread for a moment.) Was this your general reply to the subject matter? Or a complete misinterpretation of my post in particular?

goodpet -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 6:42:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl quote: ORIGINAL: goodpet The statement "... this makes her more then simply a slave. " is a valid one. I am a slave and live it 24/7 inside and out, upside and down.. and... my Owner and i are domestic partners. Being in the spouse or domestic partner role adds to the dynamics then when our relationship was "simply" Owner and slave. It does not mean less then or better then, only that there is more to it now. So i guess this is the part i am trying to understand. How is there more to it now? (in your relationship of course) DG Well in simple terms it is more time and effort. When i was doing service my focus was on what the tasks were, what i was to do. The relationship was more like employer and employee. there was care and concern, and a friendship base, but more of it was on the doing aspect, not as much on the future relationship. kind of hard to explain. Now that we are partners there is more emotional involvement which has been added, relationship issues of running a house together, managing money together, making future plans together, dealing with long term goal, work, house and hobbies. Example: Two Doms i have served. Both good friends and wonderful Doms. I served Ben as His house girl for about a year. Not collared to Him but did house service. that was the extent of it, He said do this, i did it. He gave me finanical help and guidance but my money was my own. My employment was my own decission but with His guidance also. I serve Griffin in house service AND we are partners, such as on a 27' sailboat, He the Captain, i the first mate. That adds to the duties and the relationship by adding the boat needs. In addition to the house service i do (like with Ben), i am also a mate on the boat and have duties there too. and now He controls where i work and what money i bring into the relationship, so the emotional and planning is more. not better then, just literally more to it.

becca333 -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 6:46:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo quote: ORIGINAL: becca333 I think a whole lot of people spend a whole lot of time formulating definitions that prove that their take on BDSM is more 'real' than anyone else's. Why is there this constant friction between 'sub' and 'slave', anyway? And why is it so important to define which has more status? Different strokes for different folks, I say. (Cane strokes, crop strokes, paddle ... sorry, lost the thread for a moment.) Was this your general reply to the subject matter? Or a complete misinterpretation of my post in particular? This is a general reply based on being up way too late and not wanting to leave to go to bed. There's so many threads about definitions of terms, and every time they end up with almost everyone staying with their own views. So many people see their brand of BDSM as subtly superior to the others. Which is also the feeling I got from the OP quote - that even within the slave branch of BDSM there's some kinds that are somehow more valid or important than others. But despite sleep deprivation I didn't mean to offend anyone, I'm just at the free associating stage before going off to bed.

adaddysgirl -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 6:48:10 AM)
But you do understand that for some, the dynamics you describe are already in place without the marriage certificate? That some, after marriage, will be serving in the same capacity as they had before? For you it might have been different...it may have somehow changed your dynamic. But for others, their type of service didn't change at all after the marriage. Do you see what i am saying? And thanks for the reply [:)] DG

goodpet -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 6:51:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs I didn't take it to mean more as in greater than a slave. C~ Thank you. "more" does not have to mean better than. "simple" does not have to mean less status. Why is everyone so afraid of terms and labels? To quote one of the all time greatest philosophers... “Good Grief” i have been "only" a house girl before. i have been "simply" a party server before. i have been "just" a slave. None of the titles or duties were more important or less status then any of the others.. just different. and we try to use different titles to explain each role.

goodpet -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 6:52:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross We all know this is how it goes in the bdsm heirarchy (from lowest to highest): switch bugs lizards service top top bottom dominant sex submissive submissive masochistic submissive polyamorous masochistic submissive master slave masochistic slave polyamorous masochistic slave TRUE polyamorous masochistic slave REAL polyamorous masochistic slave slut wife who pretends to be a slave whenever convenient for the husband I really think bugs deserve a higher status. IMHO that is.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 7:10:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo General Reply: I think traditionally wives have been considered sweathearts, equals and lovers to their husbands, while S-types aren't. Putting aside the obvious difference legally between a wife and an S type, there are for some people very cut and dried lines or differences between the two. Actually traditionally wives have been considered much closer to s-types/slaves. The concept of courtly love, the woman's ability to choose for herself, or the wife having a non s-type status is actually a fairly new one historically. In fact, it's still extremely prevalent today in the US where the woman believes it is "her place" to serve the husband.

marieToo -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 7:10:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: becca333 quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo quote: ORIGINAL: becca333 I think a whole lot of people spend a whole lot of time formulating definitions that prove that their take on BDSM is more 'real' than anyone else's. Why is there this constant friction between 'sub' and 'slave', anyway? And why is it so important to define which has more status? Different strokes for different folks, I say. (Cane strokes, crop strokes, paddle ... sorry, lost the thread for a moment.) Was this your general reply to the subject matter? Or a complete misinterpretation of my post in particular? This is a general reply based on being up way too late and not wanting to leave to go to bed. There's so many threads about definitions of terms, and every time they end up with almost everyone staying with their own views. So many people see their brand of BDSM as subtly superior to the others. Which is also the feeling I got from the OP quote - that even within the slave branch of BDSM there's some kinds that are somehow more valid or important than others. But despite sleep deprivation I didn't mean to offend anyone, I'm just at the free associating stage before going off to bed. I appreciate your response. Apparently others felt similar to yourself. The whole 'real', and 'better than' stuff wasn't where I was coming from in my comment, thats why I asked. Thanks.

marieToo -> RE: Simply a slave? (1/22/2007 7:21:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo General Reply: I think traditionally wives have been considered sweathearts, equals and lovers to their husbands, while S-types aren't. Putting aside the obvious difference legally between a wife and an S type, there are for some people very cut and dried lines or differences between the two. Actually traditionally wives have been considered much closer to s-types/slaves. The concept of courtly love, the woman's ability to choose for herself, or the wife having a non s-type status is actually a fairly new one historically. In fact, it's still extremely prevalent today in the US where the woman believes it is "her place" to serve the husband. I'm speaking of modern day tradition (past decades perhaps). As opposed to the 1700's for instance. I'm not sure I agree with your statement that it's 'extremely prevalent' today where the woman believes it's her place to 'serve' the husband. I think its more prevalent today that spouses are equal. In my own mileage anyway, having been married myself, and of the tons of married couples that I know personally and interact with, Id say I've seen more equality than the mindset of 'wife serves husband'. Each plays a part on the team, 'serving' the other. Though I would agree that even in vanilla marriages one or the other party is usually a bit more in control than the other; which one that happens to be seems to be random from the married couples that I've seen. Of course your mileage may vary.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875