Slave or Submissive?
» F/m Weblogs
When I first read this my response was that the label doesn’t matter. Then I realized I deliberately chose the term slave for this site. Though probably many a lifestyler would deny me the term. For me it sums up where I want my mind and heart to be when I do get to surrender. For once I’ll give up my natural impulse to run everything through a semantic meat grinder.
Few days ago, Mistress mentioned that I may not be a slave but a submissive as She allows me way more freedom than others living the lifestyle and I act and work like submissive too. I argued with Mistress and did not agree to it but later I realized that She is right.
I’ll have to own I do partly envy spirit’s goal to become a true male slave. But I know that isn’t going to be the fate of this man. An issue too complicated to go into. Though anyone who has read enough of this site’s articles probably has a good notion of my relationship with my beloved.
I’ll have to say that spirit is one of the most eloquent male webloggers in a F/m relationship I’ve discovered and think you may enjoy reading: O/our Journey into D/s
Comments
This is a dichotomy I have trouble with too.
I used the term “pet” with my last partner. I couldn’t quite stomach the term “slave,” not did it seem appropriate. “Submissive,” on the other hand, did not seem to express the depths of what we did.
I owned him. I have seen the term “owned submissive,” but it doesn’t really resonate.
Posted by: R | October 21, 2005 5:18 PM
What has struck me most is how militant some people can be about the One True Way of using the terms.
From what I remember reading a submissive can say no but a slave can’t. Which is silly since anybody should always be able to refuse. Even if it ends the relationship.
I chose slave because when we play I deeply need to feel owned.
When you first mentioned the word “pet” it really resonated with me. I think perhaps because a pet is property. But it is free of all the accumulations of BDSM lore.
With Alexandra (and she’d have to supply her own feelings) when I’m her pet I feel that I have the leeway to, say, lick her boots. As her slave I don’t do anything without express permission or command.
I guess these words are best left to the context of the two people involved.
Posted by: Richard | October 21, 2005 5:33 PM
Seems to me that words are irrelevent, even inadequate for describing the nuance of individual relationships. Each one is different anyway, no matter what “label” they slap on it.
Maybe it’s just english, but words seem limited in evoking the entirety of human relations…
Posted by: Her | October 24, 2005 1:55 PM
Whether someone is a ‘slave’ or ‘submissive’ is an ancient BDSM debate. In the case of spirit I could’ve more fairly called the entry Eloquent Man.
Since some meeting sites ask if you are one or the other there’s a case for trying to fix the meanings so that they don’t blur attempts to communicate or describe yourself.
Not that I don’t agree with your point. It is the old issue of the map not being the territory.
Posted by: Richard | October 24, 2005 2:34 PM
I’m for slave and find it a honor to be called that by my Misttess. slave jim
Posted by: slave Jim | March 3, 2007 4:52 PM
The evil here is in one word (or two) trying to take the place of many. I think the only way to state what you want out of D/s is with a lot of soul-searching and a bunch of carefully crafted paragraphs on the matter.
Posted by: Alexandra | March 3, 2007 9:27 PM