the pyshological side of the "slave"

[Homburg]

I just feel like "bottom" is just as inaccurate as submissive, and maybe more so. But its true that it is a much easier catch-all with less expectations.

Oh I agree. You and I have discussed this before. I actually think "bottom" is innaccurate as well. Buuuuuut, way less baggage. Let's face it, people might look at someone and say, as has happened to the OP, "You're too opinionated/stubborn/etc to be a submissive," but you won't hear anyone say things like that about someone that identifies as a bottom. What is someone going to do, challenge your, um, spank-receiving abilities? Whatever.

 

[nh23]

I'm all about self-analysis and honesty in relationships. I'm absolutely a pleaser but I certainly articulate my wants and needs. I would say my instict is not to put myself first but to make it win-win for everyone. In fact, that's totally a theme in my life. Make everyone, including myself, feel satisfied.

*nods* Win win to me is for him to be happy. Bunny and I were just talking about some of this. I have a martyr type of thing going on. And believe me it's kicked my ass in the past. I've done things to make a PYL happy that were emotionally and physically unhealthy for me.

I do have my own wants and needs, however if I did what I wanted in the end I would get no happiness from it. I'll explain it . Sometimes I do just want to do what I want..badly. But if I just did what I wanted instead of what he wanted I would feel incredibly guilty and beat myself up over it, and not be happy in the end anyway. That's why I say his happiness is my happiness.

 

[intothewoods]

Oh I agree. You and I have discussed this before. I actually think "bottom" is innaccurate as well. Buuuuuut, way less baggage. Let's face it, people might look at someone and say, as has happened to the OP, "You're too opinionated/stubborn/etc to be a submissive," but you won't hear anyone say things like that about someone that identifies as a bottom. What is someone going to do, challenge your, um, spank-receiving abilities? Whatever.

I think the ack what am I really phase does pass. I don't discuss what I am with my PYL except in jest. It doesn't come up. I rarely am asked about it at the local group, though recently some guy did ask me if I was "just a bottom" about 30 seconds after meeting me. In the first ten he asked me if I was fucking or a submissive "or what" to the guy I was talking to. I laughed and said "it's private." I guess that bitchy answer relegated me to "just a bottom."

*nods* Win win to me is for him to be happy. Bunny and I were just talking about some of this. I have a martyr type of thing going on. And believe me it's kicked my ass in the past. I've done things to make a PYL happy that were emotionally and physically unhealthy for me.

I do have my own wants and needs, however if I did what I wanted in the end I would get no happiness from it. I'll explain it . Sometimes I do just want to do what I want..badly. But if I just did what I wanted instead of what he wanted I would feel incredibly guilty and beat myself up over it, and not be happy in the end anyway. That's why I say his happiness is my happiness.

Yes, me too! I hate conflict and don't like when people are displeased with me. Recently out of nowhere Mister Man said, ok, you know what? You need to do x, even though I said not to before. I was so relieved and happy and I thought geesh, why didn't I just ask for that earlier!? Well, because I didn't want him to be unhappy.

 

[00Syd]

Maybe we could make up a new label..and name it after you! Sydmissive

HAHAAA I missed this when I last looked at the thread. I do so enjoy having words coined from my name...

 

[Homburg]

Maybe we could make up a new label..and name it after you! Sydmissive

100% gold.

--

Because bottom doesn't refer to the power exchange.

Erm, it doesn't? Top and bottom, as words themselves, carry a solid positional connotation, and those positions refer to a power relationship. The top is on top and the bottom is on bottom. Power exchange. We just see it as not describing power exchange because we are used to those terms used to refer to scene-only players. If I remember correctly, the leather world uses them a bit differently.

That said, I'd say it was useful to not refer to the power dynamic here. The power dynamic, and how she fits into it, is core to Syd's issues with the term "submissive". Remove the label, and those questions go away.

At the end of the day, these labels only really matter to the degree we allow them to. I don't think of myself as "dominant" or "top" or "master" at all. I am just me. I use those labels, or variants thereof, to describe my relationships and predilections to others outside my relationship. This is where they are handy, and only there.

If Syd feels comfortable thinking of herself as a submissive within the context of the relationship (and it does not appear that way), then go for it. But if she wants to remove some social anxiety from outside expectations, the term "bottom" does so in a tidy fashion.

 

[00Syd]

That is too cute!
Pet? That's my default label, even if the HNGs have kinda turned into something stupid and cloying.

Actually, we've both (Seb and myself) started to get the feeling that 'pet' might actually be the most appropriate.

 

[nh23]

I think the ack what am I really phase does pass. I don't discuss what I am with my PYL except in jest. It doesn't come up. I rarely am asked about it at the local group, though recently some guy did ask me if I was "just a bottom" about 30 seconds after meeting me. In the first ten he asked me if I was fucking or a submissive "or what" to the guy I was talking to. I laughed and said "it's private." I guess that bitchy answer relegated me to "just a bottom."



Yes, me too! I hate conflict and don't like when people are displeased with me. Recently out of nowhere Mister Man said, ok, you know what? You need to do x, even though I said not to before. I was so relieved and happy and I thought geesh, why didn't I just ask for that earlier!? Well, because I didn't want him to be unhappy.

Yup. Although I don't give a crap if the rest of the world is displeased with me. I'm not a people pleaser. I'm a Master pleaser. But even with my kids. They have tons of clothes. A walk in closet FULL. I'm wearing clothes I had in high school. Why? I would feel horrible if I bought myself something new, they might need something.

 

[nh23]

HAHAAA I missed this when I last looked at the thread. I do so enjoy having words coined from my name...

100% gold.

 

[00Syd]

At the end of the day, these labels only really matter to the degree we allow them to. I don't think of myself as "dominant" or "top" or "master" at all. I am just me. I use those labels, or variants thereof, to describe my relationships and predilections to others outside my relationship. This is where they are handy, and only there.

If Syd feels comfortable thinking of herself as a submissive within the context of the relationship (and it does not appear that way), then go for it. But if she wants to remove some social anxiety from outside expectations, the term "bottom" does so in a tidy fashion.

Well, I do feel comfortable thinking of myself as submissive within the context of the relationship, but its trying to describe (or explain?) myself to other people where the problems arise. The way I know I am in the relationship, and what I am in the relationship to the person in the relationship, is submissive. But it might not appear that way to other people.

But like I just said, Pet might really be the best descriptor for me at the moment.

 

[intothewoods]

100% gold.

--



Erm, it doesn't? Top and bottom, as words themselves, carry a solid positional connotation, and those positions refer to a power relationship. The top is on top and the bottom is on bottom. Power exchange. We just see it as not describing power exchange because we are used to those terms used to refer to scene-only players. If I remember correctly, the leather world uses them a bit differently.

That said, I'd say it was useful to not refer to the power dynamic here. The power dynamic, and how she fits into it, is core to Syd's issues with the term "submissive". Remove the label, and those questions go away.

At the end of the day, these labels only really matter to the degree we allow them to. I don't think of myself as "dominant" or "top" or "master" at all. I am just me. I use those labels, or variants thereof, to describe my relationships and predilections to others outside my relationship. This is where they are handy, and only there.

If Syd feels comfortable thinking of herself as a submissive within the context of the relationship (and it does not appear that way), then go for it. But if she wants to remove some social anxiety from outside expectations, the term "bottom" does so in a tidy fashion.

I generally hear top and bottom used to describe kinky s&m play and not D/s, not power exchange. You could say the top has the power, but it's limited to play.

 

[nh23]

Well, I do feel comfortable thinking of myself as submissive within the context of the relationship, but its trying to describe (or explain?) myself to other people where the problems arise. The way I know I am in the relationship, and what I am in the relationship to the person in the relationship, is submissive. But it might not appear that way to other people.

But like I just said, Pet might really be the best descriptor for me at the moment.

And you know..it might change tomorrow. I always identified as submissive. Homburg and I got into some deep discussions almost arguments because he kept saying slave, I kept saying no way. Got into a M/s relationship and am happier than I have ever been. Maybe one of the labels will fit better later on, maybe not. Plus they don't always mean something. I id as slave. Master will tell you I'm his slave, but know what he calls me all the time? Pet. I've only heard him say my given name a handful of times. I don't fit the description of pet, but I like him to call me that.

 

[BiBunny]

You also have to figure that different people are in different dynamics. I don't mean like D/s, M/s, T/b, D/lg, O/p, or whatever.

For example, the dynamic between me and my Owners is a service-oriented one. The thought of them "ordering" me to do anything is hilarious to me. But for someone in a more obedience-oriented dynamic, it's a way of life. I basically just do things to make them happy. I don't have a set of rules I have to follow or anything.

I think the difference in dynamics is a big thing. If you're surrounded by a bunch of people who do it one way, it makes you feel weird that you do it the other way.

 

[00Syd]

You also have to figure that different people are in different dynamics. I don't mean like D/s, M/s, T/b, D/lg, O/p, or whatever.

For example, the dynamic between me and my Owners is a service-oriented one. The thought of them "ordering" me to do anything is hilarious to me. But for someone in a more obedience-oriented dynamic, it's a way of life. I basically just do things to make them happy. I don't have a set of rules I have to follow or anything.

I think the difference in dynamics is a big thing. If you're surrounded by a bunch of people who do it one way, it makes you feel weird that you do it the other way.

Oh, word. Yes.

 

[eastern sun]

Believe it or not, I've never really thought of slavery in psychological terms.

I think I learned as a very young woman that if I simply pursued my own desires, I'd end up in trouble. Whereas if I put myself in the service of others' interests, I make great choices and feel good about myself.

This early discovery, which has continued to be true for 25 years, has found its expression in my marriage as a TPE. It takes other forms in my career, parenting, friendships, etc.

I am a very strong person. I have a lot of energy, will, and endurance. When all that force is channeled into the pursuit of my own desires, I am unstoppable. But I am also often arrogant, insensitive, pushy, and addicted.

Like most arrogant people, my self-esteem is shaky. I am aware of my own limitations. Even though I have tremendous confidence, I am also plagued with self-doubt and self-criticism. And my tendency towards perfectionism gives me plenty of ammunition to launch at myself.

When I discovered that I could like myself when I stopped pursuing my desires as though "I'll die if I don't get what I want" and started offering myself for guidance in the service of others, service became its own reward. I felt better about myself and about what I was doing with my life.

25 years later, here I am. I'm still strong-willed, stubborn, and opinionated. I'm still a force to be reckoned with in my little community.

But I know that submission (which means to me, in addition to its sexual connotations - serving, yielding, surrendering ground, generating humility, trying to give pleasure instead of trying to get pleasure) allows me to live more comfortably.

And, as is probably clear by now, so what? there are no rules.

 

[eastern sun]

Oh, and I wanted to add . . . that there are many, many fish in the sea.

 

[kiss_of_sin]

Thank you soo much for all of the information. I believe reading the personal opinions and thoughts give insight more thoroughly than any book could ever. I have alot to consider and decide within myself. It humbles me that so many of you are willing to put other's first, so completely unselfish. I thank you.

 

[kiss_of_sin]

lol. pyshological.... hahahaa. wow it was late last night when i posted that.

 

[00Syd]

It humbles me that so many of you are willing to put other's first, so completely unselfish. I thank you.

*Quietly resisting the urge to comment*

 

[rida]

Maybe we could make up a new label..and name it after you! Sydmissive

good one

I feel like if more people were true to themselves about what they want and the way they think, and were able to analyze themselves to some small extent, there would be less submissives and someone would have come up with a word that better describes myself.

pet cat

As you said in your other thread: still submissive to your owner (as in pet-owner, not slave-owner) but with a strong will of your own and an independent streak.

 

[rida]

From reading around, it seems that a slave mindset is a service oriented one, a mindset that does not view him or herself as the one making decision or having a say in what happens to them and in their lives. The scope of such control varies but ultimately a common theme seems the inability (real, perceived or reinforced) to say "no" to anything.

In the BDSM usage of the word "slave" thou, the fact that one of the original aspects of slavery is that it is not voluntary is often dismissed together with the fact that it is illegal to have a slave in modern society.

Still I remember reading someone that considered the desire to break free of their "slave" pyl, part and parcel of their M/s dynamic: the Master claims the slave; the slave pull on her chain/leash as far as she can get away with. (Before someone screams abuse, it was a married couple and it worked for them).

Regarding the "giving of oneself selflessly" as a sign of a slave and/or submissive I think that it is not only a generalization but at times it is not honest either: if you get pleasure out of putting someone else first, you are doing it for yourself as much as you are doing it for them. So it is not totally selfless, in my opinion. The result appear selfless, but the reality is that both sides get what they want/need out of the dynamic.

At the end of the day, what matters is the satisfaction of the parties involved. At the end of the day it is a relationship and as such can only be successful if it is symbiotic. Where that symbiosis take place might not always be evident nor mainstream.

 

[MisterSir]

Isn't the reason we came up with the term pyl to avoid squabbling over whether one was a bottom or a slave or whatever flavour of the month term somebody conjures up? Works both ways - Syd can call herself a Sydmissive in her own head, everyone else can attach one meaning or another to that and we all go home happy. Except the fundamentalist religious types, they're never happy.

It humbles me that so many of you are willing to put other's first, so completely unselfish.

Ehhh, unselfish probably isn't the right word. People, and I'm not even going to guess who because I'd get it wrong and irritate them, have noted that what the pyl gains from being in this relationship is all the general good stuff relationships offer and the happiness they feel from submitting. If that entails putting others first, then it seems like they'll do it to make themselves happy, short-circuiting the selflessness of the act. Horrible generalisation, I know, but that's the only way to make a point around here because if I took the time to remark on every possible different facet then I'd still be typing this tomorrow.

 

[Netzach]

I coined a little term that worked for me "conditionally submissive." I'm not submissive to anyone but one person. Furthermore, I never really sat around thinking about being or wanting to be submissive in general. None of my fantasies involve submission unless this person shares air time in them.

I really just see myself as a person enjoying the full range of her sexuality. Dominant still fits better for me if I have to pick, Switch implies more flexibility than I feel.

Also, honestly, there's really no conflict of will in this relationship. He likes things ways that I find perfectly reasonable to like. I pay attention to that. It doesn't test me, torment me, or put me out all that much. Just because someone's easily pleased, does putting their pleasure first make it less submissive?

 

[myinnerslut]

I coined a little term that worked for me "conditionally submissive."

conditionally submissive. huh. i think its a brilliant way to put it

 

[myinnerslut]

And you know..it might change tomorrow. I always identified as submissive. Homburg and I got into some deep discussions almost arguments because he kept saying slave, I kept saying no way.

you know, we had that same discussion/argument. for months. i was adamant i would never be a slave, it wasnt for me, it wasnt who i was. and we all know how that turned out.

 

[nh23]

Regarding the "giving of oneself selflessly" as a sign of a slave and/or submissive I think that it is not only a generalization but at times it is not honest either: if you get pleasure out of putting someone else first, you are doing it for yourself as much as you are doing it for them. So it is not totally selfless, in my opinion. The result appear selfless, but the reality is that both sides get what they want/need out of the dynamic.

This is very true. I may not want to do x like he tells me to, but in doing what he asks I get satisfaction and happiness. It's one of the many reasons I hate the whole gift theory.

you know, we had that same discussion/argument. for months. i was adamant i would never be a slave, it wasnt for me, it wasnt who i was. and we all know how that turned out.

Well he's two for two!