Submissives vs. Slaves

[sweetnpetite]

Re: 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.

I think that what is so wonderfull about this lifestyle is the honesty. I was reading one of the articles on 24/7 slaves:

http://www.iron-rose.com/IR/docs/wanttoslave.htm

and what I realized is that many people live this type of lifestyle involentarily. Even in this day and age, women live in situations where the focus of there life is to make there husbands life eisier and he controls what she wears, and what types of music she listens too, and every other aspect of her life. And she is not happy but is trapped in various ways. Of course this is not a voluntary BDSM relationship, it is an abusive one, but from the outside, it may look very similer. The difference, and the problem, is that the abuser does not care weather or not the victim is happy with this sort of lifestyle. They do not search for someone who is willing to be the sub. They simply make there partner into a sub. They do not have a "too each his own" attitude, but rather a "this is the way its supposed to be" attitude. (Think, sleeping with the enemy.) I had a friend (yes, really a friend) who was in a relationship like this. She thought the the more she did *for* him, the more he would love her, but instead, the more she did, the more he despised her. I'm sure this is no news to any one, but I was thinking that it might make an interesting thread: The line between Bondage and Abuse, or something like that. I think that the person who voluntarily becomes a Dom/mme is much more honest with self and a healthier individual. (Despite the fact that many think that this lifesyle is "sick" yet thing nothing of the "southern baptist" male privilage lifestyle) What do you think?

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another point of view

I The difference, and the problem, is that the abuser does not care weather or not the victim is happy with this sort of lifestyle. They do not search for someone who is willing to be the sub. They simply make there partner into a sub.

The difference is that an abuser is an abuser. He or she is not a dominant. They have no interest in BDSM or D/s, they just are predators.

There is no basis for comparison to a relationship between two consenting equals. an abusive relationship is not a D/s relationship.

Eb

 

[WynEternal]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another point of view

Wow. Very deep thread with some thoughtful articles.

The difference is that an abuser is an abuser. He or she is not a dominant. They have no interest in BDSM or D/s, they just are predators.

There is no basis for comparison to a relationship between two consenting equals. an abusive relationship is not a D/s relationship.

Eb

I agree, Eb.

In a D/s relationship, either party has the option available to dissolved that relationship. Whereas in an abusive one, that option is not there, and oftentimes, carries a threat of physical violence. Not that I'm saying all D/s relationships are perfect. I realize that there are some abusers out there who wrongly call themselves Dominants.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another point of view

Wow. Very deep thread with some thoughtful articles.



I agree, Eb.

In a D/s relationship, either party has the option available to dissolved that relationship. Whereas in an abusive one, that option is not there, and oftentimes, carries a threat of physical violence. Not that I'm saying all D/s relationships are perfect. I realize that there are some abusers out there who wrongly call themselves Dominants.

Exactly. Just because someone calls themselve a Dom/me that does not make it so.

However, I doubt an abuser in a marriage or traditional relationship would call themselves a Dom/me. They probably think that they are correcting the wrong behaviour of someone they claim to "love". It is not play, but punishment to smarting off, perhaps treating a spouse like an unruly child.

 

[amsubone]

Wow!! Really good discussion.

my own experience causes me to agree with the last points. there is a world of difference between dominance and abuse. Seems we've even seen television hop on that band wagon recently.

"Becoming a slave is not somethign that just happens overnight. It takes a lot of time, energy, patience, love, understanding, tolerance, communication, openess among many other things to develop into an M/s relationship. It is not something you enter into lightly, and it is certainly not the kind of lifestyle choice many submissives tend to want."

While this quote from the original article points toward slaves i also believe it is true for submissives. Trust takes time, work and good communication to build.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another point of view

Exactly. Just because someone calls themselve a Dom/me that does not make it so.

However, I doubt an abuser in a marriage or traditional relationship would call themselves a Dom/me. They probably think that they are correcting the wrong behaviour of someone they claim to "love". It is not play, but punishment to smarting off, perhaps treating a spouse like an unruly child.

Ok, I think you missunderstood me. Sorry if I touched a tender spot. I am not talking about abusers calling themselves dom/me. I am talking about how it is relatively accepted by mainstream religion or what-have-you (not that mainstream religion is a big concern mind you) for a woman (in particular) to be in a submissive or subserviant role not through her choice or her desire but basicly to promote the whole male power structure. (God, Church, Man, Woman, Children, Animals) (not always 'abusive' in the traditional sence, but in MHO it is) It is not her true desire to be submissive and serve, it is only what she has been taught that she *should* desire. (her husbands pleasure above her own) Yet these same people will do anything they can to prevent consenting adults, who really desire to be "mastered" from being able to live the life they choose. (especially, I think if the traditional male female roles are reversed, but add a little leather and a little kink and its 'unnaturaly, or sinfull, or perverse or what-have-you [in there eyes, not mine]

Now, from the perspective of a sub (particularly female) I think you have to be very carefull which type of relationship you are getting into and are you trully sub, or do you just think that you are supposed to be, or that the only way you will be able to find and keep a man is if you let him rule your world? When dealing with a female Domme, I'm thinking its probably a lot less likely for that situation to arise, because you are going against the societal expectations to begin with.

I'm sure that a good Dom/mme carefully screans there subs to be sure that they have a true desire to serve, but what I am speaking of mainly is a subs responsibility to examine themselves. Some very submissive subs may have trouble distinguishing between submisive and abusive, or submssive and push-over. Perhaps this does not belong on this thread, and I will start one else where. I mearly wanted to clear up the confusion over what I said. It was in response to an article that I went to when I clicked on the slave vs sub link. I meant no disrespect, and I hope that none was taken. From what I have read here, I do not see any abuse amoung the posters to this board. I hope this post makes sence and is not too badly recieved.

 

[amsubone]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another point of view

..........<snip>
I'm sure that a good Dom/mme carefully screans there subs to be sure that they have a true desire to serve, but what I am speaking of mainly is a subs responsibility to examine themselves. Some very submissive subs may have trouble distinguishing between submisive and abusive, or submssive and push-over. <snip> [/B]

i think the difficulty can come when the sub doesn't, for whatever reason, understand the difference or believe in their own inherent worth. i'm think mostly about guys, but it's pretty easy for them to use up a person in the name of D/s or M/s without any regard for that person's needs or wellbeing.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I would like to add that I have seen on lit, profiles of woman who seem to think they are sub, but really are nothing more than doormats. They think "you can do whatever you want to me" is sexy (and of course to a preditor it is). IMHO a true sub wouldn't say that, maybe "I live to serve you" or something, but not something that reflects an utter lack of self-worth. If these people post stories, I certainly don't read them. And I would add that I do enjoy a certain level of humilliation and dishrag type treatment in the right circomstance. I right stories where my characters say, "use me like I'm a piece of trash" But I don't advertise myself as a dish-rag or a piece of trash, ect. Would you agree that a true sub is submissive but retains there self worth? And that they serve because it is where they find there own pleasure? These are just my observations. What do you think?

 

[amsubone]

I would like to add that I have seen on lit, profiles of woman who seem to think they are sub, but really are nothing more than doormats. They think "you can do whatever you want to me" is sexy (and of course to a preditor it is). IMHO a true sub wouldn't say that, maybe "I live to serve you" or something, but not something that reflects an utter lack of self-worth. If these people post stories, I certainly don't read them. And I would add that I do enjoy a certain level of humilliation and dishrag type treatment in the right circomstance. I right stories where my characters say, "use me like I'm a piece of trash" But I don't advertise myself as a dish-rag or a piece of trash, ect. Would you agree that a true sub is submissive but retains there self worth? And that they serve because it is where they find there own pleasure? These are just my observations. What do you think?

i think this kind of person appeals to "wannabes" and can become a very dangerous relationship. i admit liking to be humiliated myself and to liking (no loving) the control when it was in my hands, but the whole thing works best when it is based on a trust relationship.

 

[Richard49]

bumb

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another point of view

Some very submissive subs may have trouble distinguishing between submisive and abusive, or submssive and push-over.

I have very submissive subs and they have no trouble distinguishing between being submissive and abuse.

I think that there may be personality types who have that trouble, regardless of the fact that they may be submissive or vanilla.

But my sub base is male, and they are very assertive in their outside endeavors. And show submissive behaviour only to the One they have submitted to.

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

Very interesting discussion. I don't know how unique my perspective is, but I'm going to throw it out here, damn the torpedoes.

I spent many years in what I would consider an abusive marriage. I was definitely a doormat. He was extremely controlling, manipulative, and while not physically abusive, emotionally and mentally abusive. I was deep into my addiction to alcohol, very unhappy with myself, and not at all the person I am today. I was not accepting of my sexuality in any way, shape, or form....either my bisexuality, or my submissiveness.

I got straight, which royally pissed him off. I was no longer a doormat. He much preferred me drunk and pliable. We divorced, and I left. I began the long process of introspection and discovery of myself, and who and what I am. I came to love myself for who I was. I met someone who awakened things inside me that amazed me, such as being submissive. After all those years of "doormatting" one would think it would be the last thing I would be.

One is as far from the other as night is from day. A doormat is the victim of abuse. A submissive is the willing participant in a consensual relationship. One is full of fear every minute of the day. The other finds pleasure in service to a Dom/me. I find no trouble whatsoever in making the distinction.

~Anelize

 

[Shadowsdream]

Very interesting discussion. I don't know how unique my perspective is, but I'm going to throw it out here, damn the torpedoes.

I spent many years in what I would consider an abusive marriage. I was definitely a doormat. He was extremely controlling, manipulative, and while not physically abusive, emotionally and mentally abusive. I was deep into my addiction to alcohol, very unhappy with myself, and not at all the person I am today. I was not accepting of my sexuality in any way, shape, or form....either my bisexuality, or my submissiveness.

I got straight, which royally pissed him off. I was no longer a doormat. He much preferred me drunk and pliable. We divorced, and I left. I began the long process of introspection and discovery of myself, and who and what I am. I came to love myself for who I was. I met someone who awakened things inside me that amazed me, such as being submissive. After all those years of "doormatting" one would think it would be the last thing I would be.

One is as far from the other as night is from day. A doormat is the victim of abuse. A submissive is the willing participant in a consensual relationship. One is full of fear every minute of the day. The other finds pleasure in service to a Dom/me. I find no trouble whatsoever in making the distinction.

~Anelize

~~smile~~
eloquently put...from the standpoint of experience...personal experience...
your pride in yourself is evident through the growth past weaknesses and into the strength needed to be a submissive of insight and perspective.
Thank you for a glimpse into a *real* reality life as seen through the eyes of one who has been there done that!

 

[Ebonyfire]

<snip>
I got straight, which royally pissed him off. I was no longer a doormat. He much preferred me drunk and pliable. We divorced, and I left. I began the long process of introspection and discovery of myself, and who and what I am. I came to love myself for who I was. I met someone who awakened things inside me that amazed me, such as being submissive. After all those years of "doormatting" one would think it would be the last thing I would be. ~Anelize

Isn't it strange that the very ones who claim to "love" us and "want what is best for us" are the very ones who are resistant to any change we may have. The status quo is prefered to their learning to deal with the "new and improved" version of us.

The analogy I like to use is this: If you are going on a diet, every present you get will be candy or some kind of fattening food.

 

[Valcorie]

Thank you...

--------------------------------------

 

[Aurora_Took]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another point of view

(Despite the fact that many think that this lifesyle is "sick" yet think nothing of the "southern baptist" male privilage lifestyle)

Thank-you for this thread. It is very informative.

It stuck me as funny that while I grew up with that male privilage, hating it and the restrictions it imposed on me, I know I need to be submissive in the bedroom to enjoy myself.

 

[psiberzerker]

I like the term Subject, it conjours thoughts of an art work, like a canvas to be painted on rather than the connotations of forced identure. I've also heard concubine, I kind of like that. It denotes bound sevice to me, but can also include love (Lady Jessica, and Duke Leto Atriedes in Dune).
It's all semantics, but I'll never accept a "Slave".

 

[sweetnpetite]

I like the term Subject, it conjours thoughts of an art work, like a canvas to be painted on rather than the connotations of forced identure.

It also sounds kind of medival, like queens and knights- servitude but also honor.

 

[ownedsubgal]

i think too many people try and make this lifestyle into some sort of fairy tale, full of good, caring people, and if someone isn't good, they're NOT D/s, or NOT bdsm. they're "abusers". but imo, being Dominant does not make one this pillar of moral or ethical character. Dominants can be jerks, Dominants can be abusers...doesn't make them any less Dominant, just makes them less desirable to some.

as for the difference between submissive and doormat, i would agree that a doormat obeys/submits out of fear. but a submissives submits because it's simply who he/she is. i don't agree that submitting is necessarily a choice...it's certainly not for me. i don't choose to be submissive any more than i choose to be 5 feet 6 inches tall. it's just how i was made/born. many have called me a doormat because my submissiveness is not a choice...well, that's their dumb old opinion, lol....i'm simply me.

and in my personal opinion, a slave does not have the right to terminate a relationship with the Master. a slave may ask or beg to be released, but if the Master says no, then that slave may not leave. at least that is how it is in my union, and feels right to me/us.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

and in my personal opinion, a slave does not have the right to terminate a relationship with the Master. a slave may ask or beg to be released, but if the Master says no, then that slave may not leave. at least that is how it is in my union, and feels right to me/us.

I would only add to that one simple exception: if, due to a serious change in situation(like drug abuse), the Master becomes a threat to the life of the slave. Otherwise, being a slave is like marriage, you can't just walk away because you feel like it.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I would only add to that one simple exception: if, due to a serious change in situation(like drug abuse), the Master becomes a threat to the life of the slave. Otherwise, being a slave is like marriage, you can't just walk away because you feel like it.

i wouldn't compare our relationship to a marriage of this society, in this day and age...those are pretty simple to terminate, and one person has as much right to end the relationship as the other...but say a marriage of times gone by, or of cultures today which are still male Dominated...yes, that is very much like Daddy and i.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

i wouldn't compare our relationship to a marriage of this society, in this day and age...those are pretty simple to terminate, and one person has as much right to end the relationship as the other...but say a marriage of times gone by, or of cultures today which are still male Dominated...yes, that is very much like Daddy and i.

Well, yes, of course, I meant what marriage should be, and rarely is. I'm happy to know that you have found what you need to fulfill your needs.

 

[sweetnpetite]

as for the difference between submissive and doormat, i would agree that a doormat obeys/submits out of fear. but a submissives submits because it's simply who he/she is. i don't agree that submitting is necessarily a choice...it's certainly not for me. i don't choose to be submissive any more than i choose to be 5 feet 6 inches tall. it's just how i was made/born. many have called me a doormat because my submissiveness is not a choice...well, that's their dumb old opinion, lol....i'm simply me.

I think a doormat is someone who is submissive and/or overly-nice because they are afraid of not being liked, loved or accepted. I don't know if you fit in that category or not- but I know many people who do. Women who think they will never find a man unless they are willing to do what ever he wants and let him do whatever he wants. This is diferent from knowing that people will like you even if you don' t always let them have there way, but purposley seeking out someone to be in charge because you truly desire to serve or please.

 

[psiberzerker]

I'm not really a Fairy tale kinda guy, hense the monicer. The terms subject, and subjegation don't really apply to the medieval concepts of indenture to me because I just don't think that way. But hey, whatever blows your skirt up.

 

[Ebonyfire]

i think too many people try and make this lifestyle into some sort of fairy tale, full of good, caring people, and if someone isn't good, they're NOT D/s, or NOT bdsm. they're "abusers". but imo, being Dominant does not make one this pillar of moral or ethical character. Dominants can be jerks, Dominants can be abusers...doesn't make them any less Dominant, just makes them less desirable to some.

The same can be said about submissives. It takes two to tango.