Being a submissive...

[JMohegan]

Wrong and wrong. I find nothing about your lifestyle or about consensual slavery distasteful, whatsoever. I'm endlessly tolerant of people's choices, (key word, choices).

My issue is with the assertion that "no" is not an option. Just because you, or anyone else, chooses for it not to be an option, does not change the fact that it is. This is what I find insulting in regards to those for whom "no" - to any request, however impossible or horrendous - is actually not an option.

Now, you have explained that there are acts you would find physically or psychologically impossible and that, however absurd the notion, if you were ordered to perform them you would attempt and fail. To quote you, "...failure is okay (punishable, but okay)...refusal is not." Therein lies the difference between you and the less fortunate slaves - for them, failure is not an option. When you know members of your family will be beaten, tortured, or murdered, you do what you're told, even if that means committing an act you find psychologically impossible. Savvy?

Every consensual slave has made a choice. And, whether you want to believe it or accept it, every consensual slave has the "option" to say no. That you choose to ignore the existence of that option is your prerogative. Of course, saying no would likely end the consensual slavery but that doesn't mean the option does not, hypothetically, exist.

Saying the only difference between you and the poor girl from Nepal, sold off by her family, raped and forced into slavery for the rest of her life is that you chose your lifestyle and she didn't is...wow...my heart is bleeding.

Keroin, walk away!

But...

Walk away, it's not worth it.

You're right.

If you're so upset about that girl from Nepal, why not spend your time doing something that might actually help her. Volunteering for Women for Women or something.

Otherwise, chill.

As an aside with regard to the bolded paragraph, you realize that you just said *nonconsensual* slaves have a choice - right? Your assertion is that they choose to obey in order to protect their families. A hellish choice, certainly. But a choice nevertheless.

 

[eastern sun]

"To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part."

Lots of people, in relationship flavors of all kinds, make that type of commitment.

Many people, including some who embrace consensual slavery, break that type of commitment.

I'm not trying to disrespect your level of commitment as an individual, ES. I'm just saying that defining relationship flavors by level of expressed commitment doesn't make sense to me.

Now, I don't see this as "possible" within the M/s framework, unless the slave takes back some element of control, and hence is not a slave.

Maybe the phrase "expressed commitment" is confusing, because we can say all kinds of things but not act on them. I want to use the phrase in its behavioral context, where the commitment means you don't leave. Even when you're afraid. Even when you doubt the experience. Even when you dislike the outcome.

I understand that a number of people enter into short-term contracts of a year or so. And some people are part-time slaves, available on demand. I can't really speak to these situations, but I assume that they are acting on the commitments they've made.

And I agree that many people in a marriage make long-term commitments and keep them. So what's the difference between a marriage and an M/s relationship? In my opinion, the power exchange. Most married women I know do not concede total power to their husband.

 

[eastern sun]

i would disagree with this also. a slave is not necessarily a submissive, and a submissive can be a slave. i am one of the latter. and i know of many very much unsubmissive slaves. now...the difference between being an unowned submissive in a D/s relationship and a slave in a M/s relationship? imo, nothing except that one person is owned and the other is not. it is the difference between being free and able to shape your own destiny, and having those things in someone else's hands. what this translates to in day to day life can vary greatly depending on the individual dynamic/relationship. but that is the core of it...not any level of commitment, not trust...just ownership.

I understand what you mean that a slave is not necessarily a submissive. Though I wrote the opposite above, I actually agree with you. I stand corrected.

I also believe that a submissive can be a slave, and did not mean to imply otherwise. We should create the slave/submissive Venn diagram to define this properly.

I'm very curious about your thoughts on ownership, ownedsubgal. There is an internal experience of being owned that is not dependent on the external contracts, chains, beatings, force, or person, don't you think? It's the way we contribute to this dynamic.

I've been trying to find a way to express it clearly for a while now. Using language that is as slippery as an eel.

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

It's always amazing to me that we all talk about choices yet get into this debate of slave vs. submissive and choice vs. no choice every few months or so (yes, myself included).

Why can't we just accept that fact that each of us made an active choice, at one time or another, to get into the type of relationship we got into, and take that fact one step further and say that every one of us is a slave to something...even if its just what fuels our desire to live.

We talk about not wanting labels and argue over who is better and what dynamic works for who but the heart of the matter, along with the fact that we all had a choice in something, is that we should just be concerned about who we are, how we choose to live, and what parameters we have to live the life that we chose.

So I'm a slave. That doesn't make me any better than another slave or even a submissive, and it doesn't make me a slave to anyone but the one that I call Master. It's the life that I chose to live with Master, and what makes our relationship what it is, is that I chose to live it with him the way I do regardless of whether or not anyone else thinks how we live it is right or wrong. What we should all think about within the scope of our own lives is if how you live making you happy?

If yes, great. You are one step ahead of the game and live the American dream of our Declaration of Independence- the right to the pursuit of happiness.

If not, I feel sorry for you because we should all have the chance to live how we choose to live...and be happy regardless of how others think our life should be.

By the way, thanks for the link JM.

 

[Keroin]

If you're so upset about that girl from Nepal, why not spend your time doing something that might actually help her. Volunteering for Women for Women or something.

Otherwise, chill.

As an aside with regard to the bolded paragraph, you realize that you just said *nonconsensual* slaves have a choice - right? Your assertion is that they choose to obey in order to protect their families. A hellish choice, certainly. But a choice nevertheless.

You are assuming I'm not involved in this cause.

Don't.

The end. I'm out.

 

[BiBunny]

I don't really think "slaves can't say no" is the defining thing here.

I can say "no." I can say it any damn time I want to. But it's up to Master and Mistress if they want to pay me any attention or not.

Besides, unless my vocabulary is totally revamped, "no" is going to be the answer to some questions.

"Have you ever gone skydiving, slave girl?"

No way to answer that one without saying "no" to Master and Mistress.

I know I'm being overly simplistic, but I think looking at slavery in that manner is rather simplistic in and of itself.

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

Couldn't resist hi-fiving you on this one Bunny

I don't really think "slaves can't say no" is the defining thing here.

I can say "no." I can say it any damn time I want to. But it's up to Master and Mistress if they want to pay me any attention or not.

Besides, unless my vocabulary is totally revamped, "no" is going to be the answer to some questions.

"Have you ever gone skydiving, slave girl?"

No way to answer that one without saying "no" to Master and Mistress.

I know I'm being overly simplistic, but I think looking at slavery in that manner is rather simplistic in and of itself.

 

[eastern sun]

It's always amazing to me that we all talk about choices yet get into this debate of slave vs. submissive and choice vs. no choice every few months or so (yes, myself included).

Why can't we just accept that fact that each of us made an active choice, at one time or another, to get into the type of relationship we got into, and take that fact one step further and say that every one of us is a slave to something...even if its just what fuels our desire to live.

We talk about not wanting labels and argue over who is better and what dynamic works for who but the heart of the matter, along with the fact that we all had a choice in something, is that we should just be concerned about who we are, how we choose to live, and what parameters we have to live the life that we chose.

So I'm a slave. That doesn't make me any better than another slave or even a submissive, and it doesn't make me a slave to anyone but the one that I call Master. It's the life that I chose to live with Master, and what makes our relationship what it is, is that I chose to live it with him the way I do regardless of whether or not anyone else thinks how we live it is right or wrong. What we should all think about within the scope of our own lives is if how you live making you happy?

If yes, great. You are one step ahead of the game and live the American dream of our Declaration of Independence- the right to the pursuit of happiness.

If not, I feel sorry for you because we should all have the chance to live how we choose to live...and be happy regardless of how others think our life should be.

By the way, thanks for the link JM.

I think these debates allow us to express ourselves, and define our perspective and values to ourselves as much as to anyone else. We're all creating our lives here to one extent or another, feeling more or less in control of the circumstances we find ourselves in. Not one of us is any more or less than any other of us. Except maybe in our own mind.

To the pursuit of happiness!

 

[ownedsubgal]

Wrong and wrong. I find nothing about your lifestyle or about consensual slavery distasteful, whatsoever. I'm endlessly tolerant of people's choices, (key word, choices).

My issue is with the assertion that "no" is not an option. Just because you, or anyone else, chooses for it not to be an option, does not change the fact that it is. This is what I find insulting in regards to those for whom "no" - to any request, however impossible or horrendous - is actually not an option.

Now, you have explained that there are acts you would find physically or psychologically impossible and that, however absurd the notion, if you were ordered to perform them you would attempt and fail. To quote you, "...failure is okay (punishable, but okay)...refusal is not." Therein lies the difference between you and the less fortunate slaves - for them, failure is not an option. When you know members of your family will be beaten, tortured, or murdered, you do what you're told, even if that means committing an act you find psychologically impossible. Savvy?

Every consensual slave has made a choice. And, whether you want to believe it or accept it, every consensual slave has the "option" to say no. That you choose to ignore the existence of that option is your prerogative. Of course, saying no would likely end the consensual slavery but that doesn't mean the option does not, hypothetically, exist.

Saying the only difference between you and the poor girl from Nepal, sold off by her family, raped and forced into slavery for the rest of her life is that you chose your lifestyle and she didn't is...wow...my heart is bleeding.

Keroin, walk away!

But...

Walk away, it's not worth it.

You're right.

as you have mentioned above and JMohegan has so kindly pointed out, you acknowledge the fact that even nonconsensual slaves must make choices. they can choose to obey, or choose not to obey and face the consequences. well, the same is the case for me. i would never choose not to obey my Master, i would never refuse him, but let's say for kicks that i did...my "no" would not mean an end to our relationship, it would mean some very severe and permanent negative consequences which absolutely may include my suffering serious physical injury (just for starters).

 

[ownedsubgal]

I understand what you mean that a slave is not necessarily a submissive. Though I wrote the opposite above, I actually agree with you. I stand corrected.

I also believe that a submissive can be a slave, and did not mean to imply otherwise. We should create the slave/submissive Venn diagram to define this properly.

I'm very curious about your thoughts on ownership, ownedsubgal. There is an internal experience of being owned that is not dependent on the external contracts, chains, beatings, force, or person, don't you think? It's the way we contribute to this dynamic.

I've been trying to find a way to express it clearly for a while now. Using language that is as slippery as an eel.

yes, absolutely. and you are right, it's a concept and state of being that's very difficult to express in words. if i had to choose a word for it, a word to describe what makes slavery real on an internal level (for those of us who are consensual slaves), that word would be acceptance. not commitment, expressed or unexpressed. not devotion. not even fear...although all of these things may be very important, it's acceptance that really nails it for me.

for the first year, perhaps even the first two years, of my slavery to Daddy i had NOT internalized the fact that i was a slave, and was a slave only in those external ways of being isolated, my movements in the outside world and behaviors being severely restricted, frequent beatings for any minute infraction to instill a deep fear within me, etc. but inside, in my heart, i rebelled. i was terrified of this path i had chosen, i was at times even angered by some of my Master's decisions and actions, and at times very depressed at the thought of living the rest of my life as property. i did not accept it. i was afraid i was losing self, and i did not want that to happen. i could not accept it, i could not let go.

and then...suddenly i did. not in a moment, not because of some grand experience. one day i just realized that the internal struggle simply wasn't there anymore. maybe it had been successfully conditioned into me...whatever the case, i had reached the state of total acceptance, for better or for worse. and that is when i became a slave in heart and spirit and not simply in body. and by accepting that i am his slave and everything that means, i do my part in keeping the relationship a successful one.

 

[intothewoods]

I think accepting what you cannot control in life isn't slavery, it's zen budhism. Anyone can aspire to let go and accept who they are, where they are, etc. And so round and round we go again. I think most of this is all in our heads.

Btw, I totally agree with eastern sun that the discussion can be interesting. Or it can be boring and repetitive, depending on the post and my mood. On any given day, I have no idea what I am. I generally stick with submissive and just try and make my man happy. At this point it is becoming less and less about my identity by the minute, and more about growing our relationship (did I just say "growing our relationship"? ).

 

[eastern sun]

yes, absolutely. and you are right, it's a concept and state of being that's very difficult to express in words. if i had to choose a word for it, a word to describe what makes slavery real on an internal level (for those of us who are consensual slaves), that word would be acceptance. not commitment, expressed or unexpressed. not devotion. not even fear...although all of these things may be very important, it's acceptance that really nails it for me.

for the first year, perhaps even the first two years, of my slavery to Daddy i had NOT internalized the fact that i was a slave, and was a slave only in those external ways of being isolated, my movements in the outside world and behaviors being severely restricted, frequent beatings for any minute infraction to instill a deep fear within me, etc. but inside, in my heart, i rebelled. i was terrified of this path i had chosen, i was at times even angered by some of my Master's decisions and actions, and at times very depressed at the thought of living the rest of my life as property. i did not accept it. i was afraid i was losing self, and i did not want that to happen. i could not accept it, i could not let go.

and then...suddenly i did. not in a moment, not because of some grand experience. one day i just realized that the internal struggle simply wasn't there anymore. maybe it had been successfully conditioned into me...whatever the case, i had reached the state of total acceptance, for better or for worse. and that is when i became a slave in heart and spirit and not simply in body. and by accepting that i am his slave and everything that means, i do my part in keeping the relationship a successful one.

Yes. Thank you. Acceptance is a good word. I looked it up just to see what the dictionary said - "the act of consenting to receive or undertake something offered, the willingness to tolerate a difficult or unpleasant situation." It also means to me a willingness to face the truth, to do what needs to be done, and to dwell in the presence of forces bigger and stronger than my self.

Thank you for describing your experience. In the beginning, I was filled with internal rebellion too. And I have a very benevolent dictator. (I'm actually relieved to hear you say that you felt this way, because from previous posts I've read I had assumed you were submissive - internally - and accepting - from the beginning and never experienced this kind of internal conflict. It made me feel weak in contrast.)

I think I've been choosing to focus on commitment, because of the importance of staying focussed until the acceptance occurs.

But I can't help but noticing that commitment is a much more active word than acceptance.

I'll probably spend the next few weeks trying to figure out what "acceptance" really means, inside my own experience.

 

[eastern sun]

I think accepting what you cannot control in life isn't slavery, it's zen budhism. Anyone can aspire to let go and accept who they are, where they are, etc. And so round and round we go again. I think most of this is all in our heads.

Btw, I totally agree with eastern sun that the discussion can be interesting. Or it can be boring and repetitive, depending on the post and my mood. On any given day, I have no idea what I am. I generally stick with submissive and just try and make my man happy. At this point it is becoming less and less about my identity by the minute, and more about growing our relationship (did I just say "growing our relationship"? ).

It's all about making someone happy, isn't it?

 

[nh23]

I don't really think "slaves can't say no" is the defining thing here.

I can say "no." I can say it any damn time I want to. But it's up to Master and Mistress if they want to pay me any attention or not.

Besides, unless my vocabulary is totally revamped, "no" is going to be the answer to some questions.

"Have you ever gone skydiving, slave girl?"

No way to answer that one without saying "no" to Master and Mistress.

I know I'm being overly simplistic, but I think looking at slavery in that manner is rather simplistic in and of itself.

*nods* and kisses the bunny. The biggest changes for me from going from D/s to 24/7 M/s (Master and I live together) was that I had to give up any hard limits I previously had, and I'm not allowed to say no to things I don't want to do.
Now with that being said, I am still physically capable of saying no. The word comes out of my mouth just like any other. By saying that I'm not allowed to say no means that there are consequences to me saying it. The biggest one, is being let go.

If I'm free to just say no to anything that I don't want to do without fear of losing the relationship that I'm in..then it's not really M/s is it. I unlike some others I suppose am free to tell Master that I don't want to do something or tell him my feelings about things. He then can make the decision he thinks is best. If his decision is for me to go ahead and do said thing, I'm expected to do it. Saying no in that instance would probably mean the end of the relationship.

I will say of me and I'm not speaking for anyone else. I can choose to leave this relationship. I have the means, I'm not locked up, he's not holding my children ransom etc.. The reason leaving is never an option for me is that I've made a commitment to him, and I take that very seriously. I choose not to say no because I want to be true to that commitment. I know my relationship is not like others say for example osg, but I can see her points as well as some of Keroin's.

 

[JMohegan]

Now, I don't see this as "possible" within the M/s framework, unless the slave takes back some element of control, and hence is not a slave.

Maybe the phrase "expressed commitment" is confusing, because we can say all kinds of things but not act on them. I want to use the phrase in its behavioral context, where the commitment means you don't leave. Even when you're afraid. Even when you doubt the experience. Even when you dislike the outcome.

I understand that a number of people enter into short-term contracts of a year or so. And some people are part-time slaves, available on demand. I can't really speak to these situations, but I assume that they are acting on the commitments they've made.

And I agree that many people in a marriage make long-term commitments and keep them. So what's the difference between a marriage and an M/s relationship? In my opinion, the power exchange. Most married women I know do not concede total power to their husband.

I like your definition of "expressed commitment."

I personally know both non-kinky and D/s couples who had made expressed commitments and kept them, long-term, right up until one partner's death. Some of these expressed commitments were made in a marriage context, some not.

The last paragraph in your post is really my point. If expressed commitments are not unique to M/s, then a different definition of consensual slavery becomes necessary. "Total power exchange" or "owned property" or whatever.

This exchange is prompting a question. What commitment does your master/owner make, as a husband? Does he promise to stay in the marriage until he changes his mind/decides it's not worth it/whatever? Or has he made an expressed commitment, through marriage vows, as well?

 

[JMohegan]

By the way, thanks for the link JM.

Quite welcome.

 

[eastern sun]

I like your definition of "expressed commitment."

I personally know both non-kinky and D/s couples who had made expressed commitments and kept them, long-term, right up until one partner's death. Some of these expressed commitments were made in a marriage context, some not.

The last paragraph in your post is really my point. If expressed commitments are not unique to M/s, then a different definition of consensual slavery becomes necessary. "Total power exchange" or "owned property" or whatever.

This exchange is prompting a question. What commitment does your master/owner make, as a husband? Does he promise to stay in the marriage until he changes his mind/decides it's not worth it/whatever? Or has he made an expressed commitment, through marriage vows, as well?

He has also made a commitment, through marriage vows, that he intends to honor.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I think I've been choosing to focus on commitment, because of the importance of staying focussed until the acceptance occurs.

you know, that's a really great idea. it is extremely important when you are starting out in this journey to remain focused, keep the eyes on the prize so to speak, and if commitment is what keeps your head up and in the game until you've reached that state of acceptance i say use that. i think the reason why commitment has never held quite so much weight in my own journey is because of that whole power issue. if my commitment alone is what keeps the M/s relationship solid and thriving, then i have just as much power as the Master. for me it's more comforting to know that my commitment, while important, does not make or break this relationship. if i were to ever break my commitment to my Master, he would still continue to actively control my life and do whatever was necessary to bend or force me to his will.

 

[ZRT]

What I mean by that is: The consequence of refusal would be my assumption that the s is no longer interested in continuing the relationship, because she had violated the terms on which the relationship itself is based.

Which is exactly how I feel about it myself. One 'no' will kill the bargain, but the option must stand and the consequences accepted.

I'm comfortable with the rest of the way M/s plays out, because the consent for the control was given at the outset.

I'm speaking from the full expectation that my next relationship will be 24/7, mind.

 

[eastern sun]

you know, that's a really great idea. it is extremely important when you are starting out in this journey to remain focused, keep the eyes on the prize so to speak, and if commitment is what keeps your head up and in the game until you've reached that state of acceptance i say use that. i think the reason why commitment has never held quite so much weight in my own journey is because of that whole power issue. if my commitment alone is what keeps the M/s relationship solid and thriving, then i have just as much power as the Master. for me it's more comforting to know that my commitment, while important, does not make or break this relationship. if i were to ever break my commitment to my Master, he would still continue to actively control my life and do whatever was necessary to bend or force me to his will.

Why is it that when I think I've finally learned something, I end up back at the beginning again?

I want to think a little about your comment about commitment. Though I think I understand intellectually what you're saying, I don't really get it in a real life kind of way. Are you implying that it's only your Master's activity that keeps you "truly" powerless in the relationship? That your commitment to cede power to him is still too much involvement on your part? Maybe I'm not understanding you.

 

[intothewoods]

It's all about making someone happy, isn't it?

I think so. There's a lot of complicated philosophical questions one can ask - which are interesting, don't get me wrong - but the first things I recognized in myself as submissive were getting turned on by orgasm denial/control and being a pleaser.

 

[Kianna104]

Because I am new to the “life” I'm not sure how useful my thoughts on the matter will be but the only way to grow as a person is to share what you know and grow from there . Someone said earlier in the thread, ad I'm sorry but I cant look it up to see who said it since I'm composing off line, that it really doesn't matter how much you share or don't because we don't know you and won't judge you. That is very very true however it came off to me a little bit like we where each disposable. I'm sure that was not the intention of the author but for clarities sake I'm saying that to me each member of Lit matters because we all bring something different to the giant plate that is this community.

One of my teachers along my path has said to me that if a potential relationship can't stand up to the basics of friendship your better to cut your losses. I agree with that sort of, the flaw in the logic being that friendship even a simple one established here is some form of relationship. And I think relationships need rules or one person will end up being trampled to death in it.

My dear mentor also said to work on myself. I'm taking that a step further in my life then it was intended. I've decided to work on ME the overall package my health my work what I love to do the things that challenge me, basically become a better me so that I can be part of a great couple when my time comes.

All that having been said I still have a few basic rules on how I want to be treated and I'm going to make sure they get met. Or that person is off my list. This makes sense to me now I just pray that it makes as much sense on the thread.

 

[Adakgirl]

Once you send him that nude photo, or join him alone in his basement, all those negotiations, limits, and agreements mean *nothing* unless he chooses to grant them credence.

It doesn't matter if you define your relationship as M/s, D/s, or non-kinky. Same thing holds true.

I'm not saying that negotiations, etc., are pointless. In honorable hands, they are key. I'm just urging people to realize that the "expression of trust" is in the sending of the photo or the walking down those basement stairs, not in the making of any agreement.

Oh, I am fully aware of that JM, in my descriptions I was assuming that everyone entering a relationship does realize it. But now that you mention it, I suppose there may be people who really don't.

 

[Adakgirl]

The actual definitions in my Roget's Thesaurus are

Submission
The quality or state of willingly carrying out the wishes of others obedience
The act of submitting or surrendering to the power of another surrender

Submissive
The willingness to carry out the wishes of another obedient
Submitting without objection or resistance passive

'Submit"
To commit to the consideration or judgment of another surrender
To undergo capture, defeat, or ruin succumb
To give in from or as if from a gradual loss of strength
To conform to the will or judgment of another out of respect or courtesy


So it seems to me that easternsun was correct when she said that slave is a submissive.

 

[ownedsubgal]

The actual definitions in my Roget's Thesaurus are

Submission
The quality or state of willingly carrying out the wishes of others obedience
The act of submitting or surrendering to the power of another surrender

Submissive
The willingness to carry out the wishes of another obedient
Submitting without objection or resistance passive

'Submit"
To commit to the consideration or judgment of another surrender
To undergo capture, defeat, or ruin succumb
To give in from or as if from a gradual loss of strength
To conform to the will or judgment of another out of respect or courtesy


So it seems to me that easternsun was correct when she said that slave is a submissive.

this is where the whole noun/verb thing gets confusing. while it is true that a slave submits (the verb/action), it is not true that a slave must be submissive (the noun). you must separate the act from the personality trait. because anyone can submit, anyone. we all submit everyday to someone or something. that does not make us all submissives.

the standard dictionary does not recognize such a thing as "a" submissive or "a" Dominant, and it won't, at least not in our lifetimes.