This page sponsored by Madame S, San Francisco    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : M/s D/s O&P : "When is a slave not a slave?" 1 2 3 When is a slave not a slave? (21) This post is on the M/s D/s O&P web board. Sat 21 Aug 10, 1:12 PM tainted_desire UK, 7 yrs After replying on a topic in Fetlife, the question originally posted got me a thinking. If your Master were to release you, would you still class yourself as a slave? What is slavery to you? Is a slave still a slave without a Master? Infact is a Master still a Master without a slave, or are they both just extremely submissive/Dominant? MY ORIGINAL ANSWER ON THE THREAD For me becoming my Master's slave wasn't a conscious decision, it is what the relationship has evolved into over the three years we have been together. So to me slavery is more a natural process, as we grow and begin to learn about each other, and the trust within one another increases. I am always extremely sub (in the right situation) and if my Master released me I would probably give the whole BDSM/M/s/D/s thing a break for a few months. But I know I would be back eventually, it's who I am, it's in my blood, it's an inherent part of my nature, I could no longer spend the rest of my life being 'vanilla' than I could not to breath. To me slavery isn't an overnight thing, it happens gradually, naturally, no forcing it along it's way, and that takes time. I believe in the saying, 'you cannot be a slave without a Master and a Master cannot be a Master without a slave' You can be extremely submissive or extremely Dominant, but slavery to me isn't something you are, it's something you feel towards your one, and it doesn't happen with every Dominant you may have a relationship with over your time. It is what it is, when it happens, celebrate it :o) I know I could never give myself to another quite as much as I have given over to my Master, have invested to much of myself in my current relationship, I doubt could invest myself as thorough to another relationship, in a way he's spoilt me, if ever released would take one hell of a Dom and a special guy to turn my head again. td 21 Aug 10, 1:53 PM slave_emma US(OK), 6 yrs Y! Personally, I have never considered myself as a slave when I was not owned. I stated that I as seeking to be a slave but I classified myself as a submissive. I have had two M/s relationships in my life. One, I went all or nothing into slavery and that ended poorly. The one I am now, I took my time and let things develop naturally from being a submissive to a slave. So far my relationship has been working out pretty well. My Master and I have been together for 7 years now and we couldn't be happier. That being said, someone doesn't have to be submissive to be a slave. So no I don't think someone who is not owned is just 'extremely submissive.' I don't even consider myself extremely submissive, but I am defiantly submissive and a slave. I have never asked my Master if he considers himself to be 'extremely dominant', but I would contend the answer is no he does not. He likes moderation in all things. I think sometimes people use the term slave or Master when they are seeking to make it clear what exactly it is they are want. I don't think that is a bad thing. The better one can explain his or herself and what he or she is seeking the better someone's chances of finding what he or she is actually looking for. Best wishes, slave emma Master Howard's little girl 21 Aug 10, 2:04 PM tainted_desire UK, 7 yrs Thanks for your reply, Maybe 'extreme' is the wrong word, maybe just submissive or Dominant would have fitted better. Yes, have heard many slaves talk about how they don't have a submissive bone in their body, so then one wonders what brought them along this bumpy road to enslavement, if they were not coming from the role of submissive. td 21 Aug 10, 2:06 PM charlotte AU, 2 yrs i was only sub to my other Sirs, with my new Master i was sub, then sub/slave but now i see myself more slave, if i was to b released i wouldnt say i was a slave, as i have no Master to be slave to, i wouldnt be able to go to long without looking for another Master, i could never go back into the vanilla world, 21 Aug 10, 9:43 PM curious_bina US(TN), 2 yrs http://www.slaveregister.com/posts/179880/ This discussion was previously discussed in length on TSR about 6 months ago. You might find it interesting. Bina's opinion was written there. -Bina Always the curious one ~ His bina 21 Aug 10, 11:47 PM bitchgirl DE, 21 mths Y! Girl thinks about herself as a slave, even not owned currently. But that might not be the propper way tolook at herself. It's true, that a slave is owned by definition. And girl isn't owned right now. But girl is looking for ownership. For girl "slave" describes what she wonna be, what she is looking for. Thats slavery, nothing else. There is no discussion about that, no other way. Its a final decission girl did in the past. Being taken, girl will be property! If Someone dosnt want her for property, there will be no relationship. Period!Might be, that no one will claim girl for property, ok, then girl will stay an unowend slave for ever. 24 Aug 10, 9:23 PM petitchat UK, 2 yrs My relationship developed similarly it wasn't a conscious thing it just sort of happened. But I think that is the best way to do things as the relationship has solid foundations that many Ds ones just don't have x 25 Aug 10, 9:29 AM mia UK, 11 yrs slave_emma wrote: I think sometimes people use the term slave or Master when they are seeking to make it clear what exactly it is they are want. I don't think that is a bad thing. The better one can explain his or herself and what he or she is seeking the better someone's chances of finding what he or she is actually looking for. I agree with this. I wouldn't feel comfortable calling myself or describing myself as a slave, if i were not owned. I am a submissive person and would describe myself as a 'sub'. Likewise, i wouldn't think of a dominant person as a Master unless they were the Master/owner of someone else. I would of course use whichever names people gave themselves when with them, so as not to cause offence. m, x 25 Aug 10, 11:23 AM Sir_Aldric 5 yrs tainted_desire wrote: If your Master were to release you, would you still class yourself as a slave? If you are in a gay or straight relationship and your partner leaves you, do you then stop being gay or straight? No. It is all about a state of mind, about being genetically preprogrammed. You don't need to be in a relation, you don't need anyone's blessing. If you want to know if you are a slave or not, just look into the mirror and see the reflection of your soul. If you feel you are slave, you are. Sir Aldric Relax, life is too short to get upset. 25 Aug 10, 3:02 PM mr_dave UK, 3 yrs Y! Agree completely, you don't stop being who and what you are no matter what external factors may affect your lifestyle or circumstances. In the simplest sense, a stapler doesn't stop being a stapler just because I am currently using it as a paperweight. .................... Or, “When it's a jar” maybe? 25 Aug 10, 8:56 PM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs mr_dave wrote: In the simplest sense, a stapler doesn't stop being a stapler just because I am currently using it as a paperweight. I agree. But "stapler", like "man", "woman", etc, identifies the thing on its own terms. "Slave" is a relationship dependent description, similar to "husband", "wife", "daughter", etc. To say one has submissive tendencies, or the nature/knowledge/desire to be a slave makes sense to me. But to describe one's self *as* a slave while having no owner/master is equivalent to claiming to be a doctor without having a license to practice or a Christian without believing in Christ as the son of God. For example, if nature/knowledge/desire were all that's required, I could then logically describe myself as a master - I have equal psychological tendencies in either direction. I do appreciate the appeal of claiming the "right" to self-title based on personal desire and I do know that being an alternative culture, there are instances where it's useful to amend our language for clarity. But I think it's important to do so sparingly and only where it's plainly necessary. I don't think this qualifies. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) Edited 25 Aug 10, 8:57 PM by EvaMaria Next page