Sub Vs Slave
One of the biggest debates is the issue of the submissive vs the slave. Personally i believe this issue will never be settled, but i offer another opinion on the ever going debate.
To simplify the debate of sub vs slave one can easily say that a slave has no rights PERIOD end of story. However can that truly be possible? Can a person give up there rights totally without question. In my opinion this is impossible for there will always be a thing which all of us have called a mind. A brain that reasons, makes descisions rationalizes every situation maybe not in the same degrees as others..but ones mind will always make desiscions. So if one chooses to give up everything or their "rights"..that was a right they chose to do, but there will always be the underlying "rights" that each of us have. For example no matter how much control a Dominant has one can never take the right of thought away, the right of fantasy, the right of living, breathing, simple rights which we all possess..although they can somewhat be limitied. A slave, if you want to use that term, has the right to choose if they want to be a slave or not..that is their choice that is there right.
One thing that troubles me is the use of the word slave itself. For it is a term which can set false limits, or stereotypical views of what a slave is. Same would be the use of any such terms..submissive, masochist, bottom, slave...each is different in there meaning..yet cant they be one in the same(?)..with a little variations in between...then again BDSM is a lifestyle with much variety that is distinguished by the union of the M/s (Master, Mistress/sub, slave) it is this union together which creates their own personal lifestyle of BDSM.
Slavery is just a deeper form of submission. There can be various levels of submission, how much power a person will give to there Dom/mes will distinguish this level. Remember..whether sub or slave..it is an equal power exchange. One can only recieve the ammount of control they give up. So if you give up everything totally..then one can be called a slave. But a question does come to mind is does slavery depend on the "slave" themselves or the Dominant in charge. In other words...not only is there different levels of submission but there are different levels of Domination as well..and if a "sub/slave" would absolutly do anything there Dominant says no matter what..but in reality the dominant would never put them through something that is totally against there "personal limits"...would that person be a slave? For isnt it true a slave will do no matter what?..yet in this case a the "slave" could be nothing more then a submissive...a reflexion of the Dominant who does not control as much as another.
An example which is an interesting point about slavery... if the sub/slave is allergic to say peanuts..and eating peanuts would be deadly..and the Master orders that person to eat peanuts..if he/she does eat them..then in a sense that is a slave, for the person is willing to give up life completely for the Master no matter what. Well i know this is devils advocate here..but in this type of situation not only is this not a healthy BDSM relationship..and the person is a slave in the "slavery sense". Realistically speaking a situation like this is proabably unlikely...but one never knows..but in a sense that slave has a limit..a simple one..No peanuts...for if they have any they will die. And a true Master would never subject there sub/slave to that kind of torment/death.
In that example..not only is that act something of pure devotion is it also of comeplete suicide. I am not saying that this is a normal everyday occurance with the M/s relationship..for that would just be stereotyping as well...but with the M/s relationship and that is complete and absolute trust. Whether a sub or a slave..trust, communication, honestly, openess, is a MUST...SSC, (safe, sane, consenual) ironically although this is thought to be the most important aspect of BDSM the SSC debate comes into question when talking about slavery..for the question is...is slavery safe sane and consensual?...then again going back to my original point..i dont believe that one can be a slave at all..it is just various levels of submission..and dependance upon how much control the Dominant has.
If one wants to call themselves a slave i am not disputing..but i am questioning the meaning of slavery. This leads to an interesting question about the Gorean slave. For the Gorean slave, although has its basis on historical slavery, as well as many aspects of BDSM...the "society" itself is completely fictional. There are "real-life" Goreans who practice the ways in "real life"..but what about "online Gorean slaves"..realistically speaking...one cant hold the Nadu for 24 hours straight that is impossible...after 15 min..one is starting to feel it painfully especially if held in correct position...even after 5 min for amatures just to hold the Nadu..is a killer. Can one actually call an entirely fictional practice slavery?...Especially if only practiced online?
One point on this issue which i have to say is an interesting idea to distinguish a sub vs slave is the point that a sub is there to please themselves by pleasing a dominant..meaning..they gain pleasure knowing that they please there Master/Mistress. A slave on the other hand no matter what MUST please the Master/Mistress..whether they want to or not. But in a sense doesnt the slave enjoy pleasing the Master/Mistress as well...why would anyone do something that they are not pleased with in the long run...meaning a slave is a slave because they like to be. Even if they dont like it at that time..in the long run they love to be a slave.
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
One of the biggest debates is the issue of the submissive vs the slave. Personally i believe this issue will never be settled, but i offer another opinion on the ever going debate.
To simplify the debate of sub vs slave one can easily say that a slave has no rights PERIOD end of story. However can that truly be possible? Can a person give up there rights totally without question. In my opinion this is impossible for there will always be a thing which all of us have called a mind. A brain that reasons, makes descisions rationalizes every situation maybe not in the same degrees as others..but ones mind will always make desiscions. So if one chooses to give up everything or their "rights"..that was a right they chose to do, but there will always be the underlying "rights" that each of us have. For example no matter how much control a Dominant has one can never take the right of thought away, the right of fantasy, the right of living, breathing, simple rights which we all possess..although they can somewhat be limitied. A slave, if you want to use that term, has the right to choose if they want to be a slave or not..that is their choice that is there right.
One thing that troubles me is the use of the word slave itself. For it is a term which can set false limits, or stereotypical views of what a slave is. Same would be the use of any such terms..submissive, masochist, bottom, slave...each is different in there meaning..yet cant they be one in the same(?)..with a little variations in between...then again BDSM is a lifestyle with much variety that is distinguished by the union of the M/s (Master, Mistress/sub, slave) it is this union together which creates their own personal lifestyle of BDSM.
Slavery is just a deeper form of submission. There can be various levels of submission, how much power a person will give to there Dom/mes will distinguish this level. Remember..whether sub or slave..it is an equal power exchange. One can only recieve the ammount of control they give up. So if you give up everything totally..then one can be called a slave. But a question does come to mind is does slavery depend on the "slave" themselves or the Dominant in charge. In other words...not only is there different levels of submission but there are different levels of Domination as well..and if a "sub/slave" would absolutly do anything there Dominant says no matter what..but in reality the dominant would never put them through something that is totally against there "personal limits"...would that person be a slave? For isnt it true a slave will do no matter what?..yet in this case a the "slave" could be nothing more then a submissive...a reflexion of the Dominant who does not control as much as another.
An example which is an interesting point about slavery... if the sub/slave is allergic to say peanuts..and eating peanuts would be deadly..and the Master orders that person to eat peanuts..if he/she does eat them..then in a sense that is a slave, for the person is willing to give up life completely for the Master no matter what. Well i know this is devils advocate here..but in this type of situation not only is this not a healthy BDSM relationship..and the person is a slave in the "slavery sense". Realistically speaking a situation like this is proabably unlikely...but one never knows..but in a sense that slave has a limit..a simple one..No peanuts...for if they have any they will die. And a true Master would never subject there sub/slave to that kind of torment/death.
In that example..not only is that act something of pure devotion is it also of comeplete suicide. I am not saying that this is a normal everyday occurance with the M/s relationship..for that would just be stereotyping as well...but with the M/s relationship and that is complete and absolute trust. Whether a sub or a slave..trust, communication, honestly, openess, is a MUST...SSC, (safe, sane, consenual) ironically although this is thought to be the most important aspect of BDSM the SSC debate comes into question when talking about slavery..for the question is...is slavery safe sane and consensual?...then again going back to my original point..i dont believe that one can be a slave at all..it is just various levels of submission..and dependance upon how much control the Dominant has.
If one wants to call themselves a slave i am not disputing..but i am questioning the meaning of slavery. This leads to an interesting question about the Gorean slave. For the Gorean slave, although has its basis on historical slavery, as well as many aspects of BDSM...the "society" itself is completely fictional. There are "real-life" Goreans who practice the ways in "real life"..but what about "online Gorean slaves"..realistically speaking...one cant hold the Nadu for 24 hours straight that is impossible...after 15 min..one is starting to feel it painfully especially if held in correct position...even after 5 min for amatures just to hold the Nadu..is a killer. Can one actually call an entirely fictional practice slavery?...Especially if only practiced online?
One point on this issue which i have to say is an interesting idea to distinguish a sub vs slave is the point that a sub is there to please themselves by pleasing a dominant..meaning..they gain pleasure knowing that they please there Master/Mistress. A slave on the other hand no matter what MUST please the Master/Mistress..whether they want to or not. But in a sense doesnt the slave enjoy pleasing the Master/Mistress as well...why would anyone do something that they are not pleased with in the long run...meaning a slave is a slave because they like to be. Even if they dont like it at that time..in the long run they love to be a slave.
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
To simplify the debate of sub vs slave one can easily say that a slave has no rights PERIOD end of story. However can that truly be possible? Can a person give up there rights totally without question. In my opinion this is impossible for there will always be a thing which all of us have called a mind. A brain that reasons, makes descisions rationalizes every situation maybe not in the same degrees as others..but ones mind will always make desiscions. So if one chooses to give up everything or their "rights"..that was a right they chose to do, but there will always be the underlying "rights" that each of us have. For example no matter how much control a Dominant has one can never take the right of thought away, the right of fantasy, the right of living, breathing, simple rights which we all possess..although they can somewhat be limitied. A slave, if you want to use that term, has the right to choose if they want to be a slave or not..that is their choice that is there right.
One thing that troubles me is the use of the word slave itself. For it is a term which can set false limits, or stereotypical views of what a slave is. Same would be the use of any such terms..submissive, masochist, bottom, slave...each is different in there meaning..yet cant they be one in the same(?)..with a little variations in between...then again BDSM is a lifestyle with much variety that is distinguished by the union of the M/s (Master, Mistress/sub, slave) it is this union together which creates their own personal lifestyle of BDSM.
Slavery is just a deeper form of submission. There can be various levels of submission, how much power a person will give to there Dom/mes will distinguish this level. Remember..whether sub or slave..it is an equal power exchange. One can only recieve the ammount of control they give up. So if you give up everything totally..then one can be called a slave. But a question does come to mind is does slavery depend on the "slave" themselves or the Dominant in charge. In other words...not only is there different levels of submission but there are different levels of Domination as well..and if a "sub/slave" would absolutly do anything there Dominant says no matter what..but in reality the dominant would never put them through something that is totally against there "personal limits"...would that person be a slave? For isnt it true a slave will do no matter what?..yet in this case a the "slave" could be nothing more then a submissive...a reflexion of the Dominant who does not control as much as another.
An example which is an interesting point about slavery... if the sub/slave is allergic to say peanuts..and eating peanuts would be deadly..and the Master orders that person to eat peanuts..if he/she does eat them..then in a sense that is a slave, for the person is willing to give up life completely for the Master no matter what. Well i know this is devils advocate here..but in this type of situation not only is this not a healthy BDSM relationship..and the person is a slave in the "slavery sense". Realistically speaking a situation like this is proabably unlikely...but one never knows..but in a sense that slave has a limit..a simple one..No peanuts...for if they have any they will die. And a true Master would never subject there sub/slave to that kind of torment/death.
In that example..not only is that act something of pure devotion is it also of comeplete suicide. I am not saying that this is a normal everyday occurance with the M/s relationship..for that would just be stereotyping as well...but with the M/s relationship and that is complete and absolute trust. Whether a sub or a slave..trust, communication, honestly, openess, is a MUST...SSC, (safe, sane, consenual) ironically although this is thought to be the most important aspect of BDSM the SSC debate comes into question when talking about slavery..for the question is...is slavery safe sane and consensual?...then again going back to my original point..i dont believe that one can be a slave at all..it is just various levels of submission..and dependance upon how much control the Dominant has.
If one wants to call themselves a slave i am not disputing..but i am questioning the meaning of slavery. This leads to an interesting question about the Gorean slave. For the Gorean slave, although has its basis on historical slavery, as well as many aspects of BDSM...the "society" itself is completely fictional. There are "real-life" Goreans who practice the ways in "real life"..but what about "online Gorean slaves"..realistically speaking...one cant hold the Nadu for 24 hours straight that is impossible...after 15 min..one is starting to feel it painfully especially if held in correct position...even after 5 min for amatures just to hold the Nadu..is a killer. Can one actually call an entirely fictional practice slavery?...Especially if only practiced online?
One point on this issue which i have to say is an interesting idea to distinguish a sub vs slave is the point that a sub is there to please themselves by pleasing a dominant..meaning..they gain pleasure knowing that they please there Master/Mistress. A slave on the other hand no matter what MUST please the Master/Mistress..whether they want to or not. But in a sense doesnt the slave enjoy pleasing the Master/Mistress as well...why would anyone do something that they are not pleased with in the long run...meaning a slave is a slave because they like to be. Even if they dont like it at that time..in the long run they love to be a slave.
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
One thing that troubles me is the use of the word slave itself. For it is a term which can set false limits, or stereotypical views of what a slave is. Same would be the use of any such terms..submissive, masochist, bottom, slave...each is different in there meaning..yet cant they be one in the same(?)..with a little variations in between...then again BDSM is a lifestyle with much variety that is distinguished by the union of the M/s (Master, Mistress/sub, slave) it is this union together which creates their own personal lifestyle of BDSM.
Slavery is just a deeper form of submission. There can be various levels of submission, how much power a person will give to there Dom/mes will distinguish this level. Remember..whether sub or slave..it is an equal power exchange. One can only recieve the ammount of control they give up. So if you give up everything totally..then one can be called a slave. But a question does come to mind is does slavery depend on the "slave" themselves or the Dominant in charge. In other words...not only is there different levels of submission but there are different levels of Domination as well..and if a "sub/slave" would absolutly do anything there Dominant says no matter what..but in reality the dominant would never put them through something that is totally against there "personal limits"...would that person be a slave? For isnt it true a slave will do no matter what?..yet in this case a the "slave" could be nothing more then a submissive...a reflexion of the Dominant who does not control as much as another.
An example which is an interesting point about slavery... if the sub/slave is allergic to say peanuts..and eating peanuts would be deadly..and the Master orders that person to eat peanuts..if he/she does eat them..then in a sense that is a slave, for the person is willing to give up life completely for the Master no matter what. Well i know this is devils advocate here..but in this type of situation not only is this not a healthy BDSM relationship..and the person is a slave in the "slavery sense". Realistically speaking a situation like this is proabably unlikely...but one never knows..but in a sense that slave has a limit..a simple one..No peanuts...for if they have any they will die. And a true Master would never subject there sub/slave to that kind of torment/death.
In that example..not only is that act something of pure devotion is it also of comeplete suicide. I am not saying that this is a normal everyday occurance with the M/s relationship..for that would just be stereotyping as well...but with the M/s relationship and that is complete and absolute trust. Whether a sub or a slave..trust, communication, honestly, openess, is a MUST...SSC, (safe, sane, consenual) ironically although this is thought to be the most important aspect of BDSM the SSC debate comes into question when talking about slavery..for the question is...is slavery safe sane and consensual?...then again going back to my original point..i dont believe that one can be a slave at all..it is just various levels of submission..and dependance upon how much control the Dominant has.
If one wants to call themselves a slave i am not disputing..but i am questioning the meaning of slavery. This leads to an interesting question about the Gorean slave. For the Gorean slave, although has its basis on historical slavery, as well as many aspects of BDSM...the "society" itself is completely fictional. There are "real-life" Goreans who practice the ways in "real life"..but what about "online Gorean slaves"..realistically speaking...one cant hold the Nadu for 24 hours straight that is impossible...after 15 min..one is starting to feel it painfully especially if held in correct position...even after 5 min for amatures just to hold the Nadu..is a killer. Can one actually call an entirely fictional practice slavery?...Especially if only practiced online?
One point on this issue which i have to say is an interesting idea to distinguish a sub vs slave is the point that a sub is there to please themselves by pleasing a dominant..meaning..they gain pleasure knowing that they please there Master/Mistress. A slave on the other hand no matter what MUST please the Master/Mistress..whether they want to or not. But in a sense doesnt the slave enjoy pleasing the Master/Mistress as well...why would anyone do something that they are not pleased with in the long run...meaning a slave is a slave because they like to be. Even if they dont like it at that time..in the long run they love to be a slave.
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
Slavery is just a deeper form of submission. There can be various levels of submission, how much power a person will give to there Dom/mes will distinguish this level. Remember..whether sub or slave..it is an equal power exchange. One can only recieve the ammount of control they give up. So if you give up everything totally..then one can be called a slave. But a question does come to mind is does slavery depend on the "slave" themselves or the Dominant in charge. In other words...not only is there different levels of submission but there are different levels of Domination as well..and if a "sub/slave" would absolutly do anything there Dominant says no matter what..but in reality the dominant would never put them through something that is totally against there "personal limits"...would that person be a slave? For isnt it true a slave will do no matter what?..yet in this case a the "slave" could be nothing more then a submissive...a reflexion of the Dominant who does not control as much as another.
An example which is an interesting point about slavery... if the sub/slave is allergic to say peanuts..and eating peanuts would be deadly..and the Master orders that person to eat peanuts..if he/she does eat them..then in a sense that is a slave, for the person is willing to give up life completely for the Master no matter what. Well i know this is devils advocate here..but in this type of situation not only is this not a healthy BDSM relationship..and the person is a slave in the "slavery sense". Realistically speaking a situation like this is proabably unlikely...but one never knows..but in a sense that slave has a limit..a simple one..No peanuts...for if they have any they will die. And a true Master would never subject there sub/slave to that kind of torment/death.
In that example..not only is that act something of pure devotion is it also of comeplete suicide. I am not saying that this is a normal everyday occurance with the M/s relationship..for that would just be stereotyping as well...but with the M/s relationship and that is complete and absolute trust. Whether a sub or a slave..trust, communication, honestly, openess, is a MUST...SSC, (safe, sane, consenual) ironically although this is thought to be the most important aspect of BDSM the SSC debate comes into question when talking about slavery..for the question is...is slavery safe sane and consensual?...then again going back to my original point..i dont believe that one can be a slave at all..it is just various levels of submission..and dependance upon how much control the Dominant has.
If one wants to call themselves a slave i am not disputing..but i am questioning the meaning of slavery. This leads to an interesting question about the Gorean slave. For the Gorean slave, although has its basis on historical slavery, as well as many aspects of BDSM...the "society" itself is completely fictional. There are "real-life" Goreans who practice the ways in "real life"..but what about "online Gorean slaves"..realistically speaking...one cant hold the Nadu for 24 hours straight that is impossible...after 15 min..one is starting to feel it painfully especially if held in correct position...even after 5 min for amatures just to hold the Nadu..is a killer. Can one actually call an entirely fictional practice slavery?...Especially if only practiced online?
One point on this issue which i have to say is an interesting idea to distinguish a sub vs slave is the point that a sub is there to please themselves by pleasing a dominant..meaning..they gain pleasure knowing that they please there Master/Mistress. A slave on the other hand no matter what MUST please the Master/Mistress..whether they want to or not. But in a sense doesnt the slave enjoy pleasing the Master/Mistress as well...why would anyone do something that they are not pleased with in the long run...meaning a slave is a slave because they like to be. Even if they dont like it at that time..in the long run they love to be a slave.
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
An example which is an interesting point about slavery... if the sub/slave is allergic to say peanuts..and eating peanuts would be deadly..and the Master orders that person to eat peanuts..if he/she does eat them..then in a sense that is a slave, for the person is willing to give up life completely for the Master no matter what. Well i know this is devils advocate here..but in this type of situation not only is this not a healthy BDSM relationship..and the person is a slave in the "slavery sense". Realistically speaking a situation like this is proabably unlikely...but one never knows..but in a sense that slave has a limit..a simple one..No peanuts...for if they have any they will die. And a true Master would never subject there sub/slave to that kind of torment/death.
In that example..not only is that act something of pure devotion is it also of comeplete suicide. I am not saying that this is a normal everyday occurance with the M/s relationship..for that would just be stereotyping as well...but with the M/s relationship and that is complete and absolute trust. Whether a sub or a slave..trust, communication, honestly, openess, is a MUST...SSC, (safe, sane, consenual) ironically although this is thought to be the most important aspect of BDSM the SSC debate comes into question when talking about slavery..for the question is...is slavery safe sane and consensual?...then again going back to my original point..i dont believe that one can be a slave at all..it is just various levels of submission..and dependance upon how much control the Dominant has.
If one wants to call themselves a slave i am not disputing..but i am questioning the meaning of slavery. This leads to an interesting question about the Gorean slave. For the Gorean slave, although has its basis on historical slavery, as well as many aspects of BDSM...the "society" itself is completely fictional. There are "real-life" Goreans who practice the ways in "real life"..but what about "online Gorean slaves"..realistically speaking...one cant hold the Nadu for 24 hours straight that is impossible...after 15 min..one is starting to feel it painfully especially if held in correct position...even after 5 min for amatures just to hold the Nadu..is a killer. Can one actually call an entirely fictional practice slavery?...Especially if only practiced online?
One point on this issue which i have to say is an interesting idea to distinguish a sub vs slave is the point that a sub is there to please themselves by pleasing a dominant..meaning..they gain pleasure knowing that they please there Master/Mistress. A slave on the other hand no matter what MUST please the Master/Mistress..whether they want to or not. But in a sense doesnt the slave enjoy pleasing the Master/Mistress as well...why would anyone do something that they are not pleased with in the long run...meaning a slave is a slave because they like to be. Even if they dont like it at that time..in the long run they love to be a slave.
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
In that example..not only is that act something of pure devotion is it also of comeplete suicide. I am not saying that this is a normal everyday occurance with the M/s relationship..for that would just be stereotyping as well...but with the M/s relationship and that is complete and absolute trust. Whether a sub or a slave..trust, communication, honestly, openess, is a MUST...SSC, (safe, sane, consenual) ironically although this is thought to be the most important aspect of BDSM the SSC debate comes into question when talking about slavery..for the question is...is slavery safe sane and consensual?...then again going back to my original point..i dont believe that one can be a slave at all..it is just various levels of submission..and dependance upon how much control the Dominant has.
If one wants to call themselves a slave i am not disputing..but i am questioning the meaning of slavery. This leads to an interesting question about the Gorean slave. For the Gorean slave, although has its basis on historical slavery, as well as many aspects of BDSM...the "society" itself is completely fictional. There are "real-life" Goreans who practice the ways in "real life"..but what about "online Gorean slaves"..realistically speaking...one cant hold the Nadu for 24 hours straight that is impossible...after 15 min..one is starting to feel it painfully especially if held in correct position...even after 5 min for amatures just to hold the Nadu..is a killer. Can one actually call an entirely fictional practice slavery?...Especially if only practiced online?
One point on this issue which i have to say is an interesting idea to distinguish a sub vs slave is the point that a sub is there to please themselves by pleasing a dominant..meaning..they gain pleasure knowing that they please there Master/Mistress. A slave on the other hand no matter what MUST please the Master/Mistress..whether they want to or not. But in a sense doesnt the slave enjoy pleasing the Master/Mistress as well...why would anyone do something that they are not pleased with in the long run...meaning a slave is a slave because they like to be. Even if they dont like it at that time..in the long run they love to be a slave.
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
If one wants to call themselves a slave i am not disputing..but i am questioning the meaning of slavery. This leads to an interesting question about the Gorean slave. For the Gorean slave, although has its basis on historical slavery, as well as many aspects of BDSM...the "society" itself is completely fictional. There are "real-life" Goreans who practice the ways in "real life"..but what about "online Gorean slaves"..realistically speaking...one cant hold the Nadu for 24 hours straight that is impossible...after 15 min..one is starting to feel it painfully especially if held in correct position...even after 5 min for amatures just to hold the Nadu..is a killer. Can one actually call an entirely fictional practice slavery?...Especially if only practiced online?
One point on this issue which i have to say is an interesting idea to distinguish a sub vs slave is the point that a sub is there to please themselves by pleasing a dominant..meaning..they gain pleasure knowing that they please there Master/Mistress. A slave on the other hand no matter what MUST please the Master/Mistress..whether they want to or not. But in a sense doesnt the slave enjoy pleasing the Master/Mistress as well...why would anyone do something that they are not pleased with in the long run...meaning a slave is a slave because they like to be. Even if they dont like it at that time..in the long run they love to be a slave.
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
One point on this issue which i have to say is an interesting idea to distinguish a sub vs slave is the point that a sub is there to please themselves by pleasing a dominant..meaning..they gain pleasure knowing that they please there Master/Mistress. A slave on the other hand no matter what MUST please the Master/Mistress..whether they want to or not. But in a sense doesnt the slave enjoy pleasing the Master/Mistress as well...why would anyone do something that they are not pleased with in the long run...meaning a slave is a slave because they like to be. Even if they dont like it at that time..in the long run they love to be a slave.
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
To try to conclude this issue on sub vs slave..in my opinions there is no such thing as slavery...unless one was taken by force against there will and force to serve completely then one can say they are a slave..but being that BDSM is consensual and a person chooses to be a slave..in a sense that is non existant. Just calling a person sub or slave in my opinion doesnt matter...a person is what they want to be whether they are a sub or a slave..as long as they are devoted to the person whom is their Master or Mistress should it matter what there title is? and finally..this statement goes for many issues..but as they say Your BDSM is not my BDSM...so to close the issue of sub vs slave..It is what YOU make of it.
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
If any one has any questions comments or concerns about this issue please e-mail me at [email protected] would love to hear your opinions.
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
Thank You
little moonbeam of light AJS
little moonbeam of light AJS