Submissive vs. Slave

[Caitlynne]

^ Yep. Made perfect sense.

 

[JMohegan]

There is a kind of devotion that springs for a different place. It doesn't come from the perfect ideal fantasy driven place. Using the same analogy, not all the servants of the Pharaohs were entombed because they thought their Masters were perfect. They did it because they were devoted. It was not the perfection of their Master that fueled the devotion, it was the passion of the servant. It is in fact the one thing that I still own--my passion.

I'm not sure the servants of the Pharaohs had a choice.

As for what happens in modern times, I'll note that some who lose a partner experience a rapid decline in health and die themselves a short while later. Others commit suicide, and still others desperately want to, but deny themselves out of concern for loved ones such as their parents. Some of these people may be slaves, but others are non-kinky. Some are even Dominant.

I only mention this because your earlier post equated this level of devotion with a slave ID.

Devotion comes in many flavors. It takes many forms. It's a human thing, not a slave thing, in my view. Same goes for passion.

 

[BiBunny]

Devotion comes in many flavors. It takes many forms. It's a human thing, not a slave thing, in my view. Same goes for passion.

I agree. I'm not a slave by anyone's definition, including my own, but I can be most devoted. Dominant me is even quite capable of being devoted to a sub.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm not sure the servants of the Pharaohs had a choice.

Geez, no kidding! Talk about romanticization!

 

[Homburg]

I only mention this because your earlier post equated this level of devotion with a slave ID.

Devotion comes in many flavors. It takes many forms. It's a human thing, not a slave thing, in my view. Same goes for passion.

It wasn't associated with slave ID so much as slave character in that post. And I do not in any way see where there is an implication in her posts that slaves have the market cornered on devotion. The language was such that it spoke of a different style of devotion.

 

[JMohegan]

It wasn't associated with slave ID so much as slave character in that post. And I do not in any way see where there is an implication in her posts that slaves have the market cornered on devotion. The language was such that it spoke of a different style of devotion.

Just to be clear as to which post I referenced, click me.

That level of devotion..... that kind of devotion..... that style of devotion.... has nothing to do with slave ID or slave character, in my view.

 

[cati]

I do love it so when people refuse to read one's
entire post.... in my view.

 

[Homburg]

Just to be clear as to which post I referenced, click me.

That level of devotion..... that kind of devotion..... that style of devotion.... has nothing to do with slave ID or slave character, in my view.

Nothing? It's one thing to imply that slaves are devoted by nature, but to say that devotion has nothing to do with slave character? Slaves are not devoted to their owners? Can you expound on that?

I would personally see devotion as core to the slave character. If anything, devotion is the one trait that I've personally found to be most consistently present in slaves that I've dealt with.

 

[BiBunny]

Nothing? It's one thing to imply that slaves are devoted by nature, but to say that devotion has nothing to do with slave character? Slaves are not devoted to their owners? Can you expound on that?

I would personally see devotion as core to the slave character. If anything, devotion is the one trait that I've personally found to be most consistently present in slaves that I've dealt with.

I think he's saying devotion's not limited to people who are slaves. Slaves can be devoted, but so can Dom/mes, subs, switches, and vanilla people. Everyone who's devoted is not a slave.

 

[Netzach]

(which is why devotion isn't part of my def, rather "I'm happiest when you treat me as you would your phone or purse)

 

[JMohegan]

Nothing? It's one thing to imply that slaves are devoted by nature, but to say that devotion has nothing to do with slave character? Slaves are not devoted to their owners? Can you expound on that?

I would personally see devotion as core to the slave character. If anything, devotion is the one trait that I've personally found to be most consistently present in slaves that I've dealt with.

Knock off the deliberate twisting of words and meaning, Homburg.

Go back and read my post - my *entire* post 52. The issue is: would devotion so strong that it leads to the urge to follow a deceased partner to the grave be indicative of a slave ID or slave character? My answer is: no.

 

[JMohegan]

I think he's saying devotion's not limited to people who are slaves. Slaves can be devoted, but so can Dom/mes, subs, switches, and vanilla people. Everyone who's devoted is not a slave.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Caitlynne]

I'm not sure the servants of the Pharaohs had a choice.

As for what happens in modern times, I'll note that some who lose a partner experience a rapid decline in health and die themselves a short while later. Others commit suicide, and still others desperately want to, but deny themselves out of concern for loved ones such as their parents. Some of these people may be slaves, but others are non-kinky. Some are even Dominant.

I only mention this because your earlier post equated this level of devotion with a slave ID.

Devotion comes in many flavors. It takes many forms. It's a human thing, not a slave thing, in my view. Same goes for passion.

Actually, I didn't mean to equate it with a slave ID exclusively, and certainly any human can feel the passion I was talking about. I only meant to try and describe what *I* feel as a reaction to certain types of PYL's.

The slaves to the Pharaohs were only a analogy, and no they did not have a choice. I was trying to evoke a particular emotion to illustrate what *I* feel as a trigger since I couldn't really find the words to describe it. It was only an effort to respond to Homburg's question. Nothing more. And certainly only my POV on the topic.

But, since you bring it up, I find that expressing an opinion sometimes evokes this kind of response. You get a kind of "what about this and what about that.. " It's all valid and true of course, except it side tracks the discussion away from the topic and into the countless ways something can present itself. Like I said all valid, but not all of the countless ways devotion can manifest were germane to the question of whether or not a pyl is triggered by the differences in PYL's. We were talking about slaves, and so I answered from a slave's POV. I wasn't answering as a mother, or a lover, or a Democrat, or anything else.

This isn't a criticism of you and your remarks, I can see that I needed to clarify, but let me just state for the record, that when I say IMO, I really mean it. I'm not speaking for anyone else or any other label. Love, devotion, sacrifice aren't the exclusive territory of anyone, and certainly not a slave's.

 

[Homburg]

Knock off the deliberate twisting of words and meaning, Homburg.

Go back and read my post - my *entire* post 52. The issue is: would devotion so strong that it leads to the urge to follow a deceased partner to the grave be indicative of a slave ID or slave character? My answer is: no.

I honestly was not trying to, Jack. Originally, we weren't far off from agreement. All I was saying was that she did not imply ownership of the trait. Then you said it had nothing to do with that slave character, it honestly confused me, as it went contrary to your previous post.

No twisting of words there.

 

[JMohegan]

Actually, I didn't mean to equate it with a slave ID exclusively, and certainly any human can feel the passion I was talking about. I only meant to try and describe what *I* feel as a reaction to certain types of PYL's.

The slaves to the Pharaohs were only a analogy, and no they did not have a choice. I was trying to evoke a particular emotion to illustrate what *I* feel as a trigger since I couldn't really find the words to describe it. It was only an effort to respond to Homburg's question. Nothing more. And certainly only my POV on the topic.

But, since you bring it up, I find that expressing an opinion sometimes evokes this kind to response. You get a kind of "what about this and what about that.. " It's all valid and true of course, except it side tracks the discussion away from the topic and into the countless ways something can present itself. Like I said all valid, but not all of the countless ways devotion can manifest were germane to the question of whether or not a pyl is triggered by the differences in PYL's. We were talking about slaves, and so I answered from a slave's POV. I wasn't answering as a mother, or a lover, or a Democrat, or anything else.

This isn't a criticism of you and your remarks, I can see that I needed to clarify, but let me just state for the record, that when I say IMO, I really mean it. I'm not speaking for anyone else or any other label. Love, devotion, sacrifice aren't the exclusive territory of anyone, and certainly not a slave's.

Thank you for the clarification, Caitlynne. I appreciate this post very much.

 

[Caitlynne]

Thank you for the clarification, Caitlynne. I appreciate this post very much.

You're quite welcome.

 

[Homburg]

I think he's saying devotion's not limited to people who are slaves. Slaves can be devoted, but so can Dom/mes, subs, switches, and vanilla people. Everyone who's devoted is not a slave.

I can dig this, and I got it from the first post, just not the second.

The core issue here, in my opinion, is that lack of inclusion does NOT imply exclusion, and that it the tack that this thread is headed on. No one said slaves own devotion. And we're all adults. We don't need to be told that we can be devoted to even though we're not a slaves. And I'm honestly not trying to be snide when I say that, even if it sounds that way. (I can't reword that as not-snide without gutting the point, my apologies.)

This board is very inclusive. I dig that. But, damn, there is no reason to look for exclusion where none exists. Let's face it, if I tell you, Bunny, that you have gorgeous hair (and you do), that does not mean that Netzach does not have gorgeous hair. If I say Jack is a damned smart guy (and he is), it does not mean that VelvetDarkness is not smart. By the same token, if I say that slaves show great devotion, would it not stand to reason that I've not said a blessed thing about submissives, switches, dominants, etc?

None of this is inclusive language, sure, but does it need to be? If people get fired up every time a given group is not acknowledged in the discussion of a positive trait, we're going to have a whole lot of additional noise obscuring signal around here.

ETA: This post as a whole is sounding more pointed than intended. Please do me the favour of reading it conversationally, as that is how I intended it.

 

[JMohegan]

I honestly was not trying to, Jack. Originally, we weren't far off from agreement. All I was saying was that she did not imply ownership of the trait. Then you said it had nothing to do with that slave character, it honestly confused me, as it went contrary to your previous post.

No twisting of words there.

I accept your word on this, and hope that subsequent remarks cleared up any confusion as to my point of view.

 

[intothewoods]

Actually, I didn't mean to equate it with a slave ID exclusively, and certainly any human can feel the passion I was talking about. I only meant to try and describe what *I* feel as a reaction to certain types of PYL's.

The slaves to the Pharaohs were only a analogy, and no they did not have a choice. I was trying to evoke a particular emotion to illustrate what *I* feel as a trigger since I couldn't really find the words to describe it. It was only an effort to respond to Homburg's question. Nothing more. And certainly only my POV on the topic.

But, since you bring it up, I find that expressing an opinion sometimes evokes this kind of response. You get a kind of "what about this and what about that.. " It's all valid and true of course, except it side tracks the discussion away from the topic and into the countless ways something can present itself. Like I said all valid, but not all of the countless ways devotion can manifest were germane to the question of whether or not a pyl is triggered by the differences in PYL's. We were talking about slaves, and so I answered from a slave's POV. I wasn't answering as a mother, or a lover, or a Democrat, or anything else.

This isn't a criticism of you and your remarks, I can see that I needed to clarify, but let me just state for the record, that when I say IMO, I really mean it. I'm not speaking for anyone else or any other label. Love, devotion, sacrifice aren't the exclusive territory of anyone, and certainly not a slave's.

I've encountered this reaction around here before and it kind of chaps my hide. It's just an analogy. Fine, but I don't think it's a particularly good one.

 

[Homburg]

I accept your word on this, and hope that subsequent remarks cleared up any confusion as to my point of view.

Quite so, thank you.

 

[Caitlynne]

I've encountered this reaction around here before and it kind of chaps my hide. It's just an analogy. Fine, but I don't think it's a particularly good one.

And of course you're entitled to your opinion--chapped hide and all. [Although I don't quite understand why my analogy irritates you so much, I'll accept that somehow it did and does.]

 

[Millificent]

To the OP: my two cents

In agreement with Sinn...the core difference (in my opinion) is that a sub retains certain "rights" while a slave does not have them. To me, that's it. After that it is all dependent on the individual relationship.

eta- it can be a little worky going from a D/s relationship to an M/s relationship, depending on boundaries set for you. For me, some things were very easy to transition to while I'm still working on other areas.

 

[intothewoods]

And of course you're entitled to your opinion--chapped hide and all. [Although I don't quite understand why my analogy irritates you so much, I'll accept that somehow it did and does.]

Really? You don't understand why analogizing a consensual relationship to government slavery is completely insensitive?

 

[Netzach]

Ok, like Antigone and her principles. Better example probably.

 

[Caitlynne]

Really? You don't understand why analogizing a consensual relationship to government slavery is completely insensitive?

Well, now I see what your irritations is. Thank you for your response. I pretty much think that any discussion about slavery, consensual or non-consensual, is good grist for another thread though. I'd be happy to participate if you want to discuss it.

As to my insensitivity, you'll just have to suffer my shortcomings. I do have them and they do show up every now and then.