Myths about Slaves.

[MasterShamrock]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people have assigned some kind of derogatory misnomer or misconstrued additive to sub-define something that used to be one of the highest ideals to uphold in the art (for the initiated).

I am sure there are going to be a lot of the "true" or "real" adjetives thrown around, but sometimes that is unavoidable.

I see a lot of people make assumptions about what a slave is or isnt in bdsm as well as in historical "vanila" subtexts and how one may or may not differ from the more contemporary politically correct term of "submissive" in a bdsm terminology capacity.

So....I figured it would be a good idea to start a thread on what a slave in the context of a safe, sane,,and yes.."consensual" practices of BDSM is and is not all about so people could air what they think the myths are and are not and discuss and learn together perhaps a little bit about ourselves.

Which brings up Myth #1:

"The slave can not consent, or has no choice about anything having "surrendered" all forms of consent or having had all forms of consent taken or removed as such, is incapable of consent."

Something which is completely and utterrly false imho, (in both a bdsm and vanila setting historical or otherwise btw). Plenty of people made the conscious choice to become slaves for a much wider variety of reasons than many will believe.

Everyone, regardless of titular distinction makes choices and or consents or does not consent to this or that as a human being on a case by case, moment by moment basis.

The way I was tuaght, one didn't make the choice to become a slave in a bdsm context until one had dedicated themselves to the path of submission over that of other paths that they may be pursuing (it was kind of like becoming a specialist in the arts of submission and didnt happen until one had been at it for several years,) but also didnt mean you did not top others as and when needed in a bdsm context or vanila one. It was just that your focus was beyound such considerations of "roleplay" where in your relationship to your Owner would be conserned.

The slave was one, who was actually "collared", as opposed to only wearing a collar while submiting. The slave was one who had surrendered in total to his or her self first before offering oneself as well as one's submission to one's Master or Mistress.

Which brings us perhaps prematuraly to Myth #2:

"True" slaves "will not" or "can not" top or dominante another.

Again,, utterrly false, both in bdsm and historically in the vanila world imho.

Again just becuase you take on the titular distinction of a slave, doesnt mean you submit to everyone and everything all the time. Your still human. You still will excersise what dominion you hold other those that you can hold it over, the difference is you are now also willfully and lovingly within the direct dominion of another authority whom you submit to as higher than your own, not becuase you are forced, but becuase you must in your heart submit. Not only for the sake of your Owner...but for yourself as well.

But I shall wait until more people have responded on #1 & #2 before expounding further. I am sure more Myths will come to mind as the debate progresses and or they are brought up by others, and please remember to keep it civil my fellow kinsters, we are not all from the same traditions etc.

I agree to ALL of these. Aslong as they don't try Toppong from the bottom with another Dominant (without permission) than they can be an Alpha or Omega sub or Alpha or Omega Slave.

[didoanna]

Umm, I think the whole issue revolves around the term 'slave'. Everybody brings their own thoughts to it and their own ideas as to what the word really means to them.

Thus, because the BDSM Community is such a broad church, it's inevitable that words like slave and Master develop very different meanings for different people.

For example, I don't consider myself a slave, but yes I fully admit the two people who work ever so hard to keep me on the straight and narrow and are helping me to be a much nicer person have control over key points and situations in my life. That's just the way it is and it works for us.

Sorry, if I've not made myself clear but I've tried to get across the idea, that for me, it's not really the description that matters, it's very much more about how the person acts and interacts with others.

[thir]

Well said! :-))

[denuseri]

I think you have made perfect sence didoanna.

[slaveheart]

Let me preface by saying i'm brand new here and have no wish to offend. i have a comment and a question re: this fascinating thread.

my comment: Parts of this discussion remind me of a long-standing debate in the queer community over whether one can "truly" be gay or lesbian if one is not currently in a same-sex relationship. Can a slave self-identify? Put another way: is "slave" something i do, or something i am at my core? Is this a matter of defining the term slave vs submissive? Is "slave" something some subs evolve into, a deeper level perhaps as you seem to suggest, denuseri?

If i knew in my heart, from my life experiences, dreams, desires, the very lens through which i perceive myself and my world, my way of Being in the world, that i loved women, their bodies and minds, romantically and erotically, i wouldn't let anyone tell me i wasn't a "true lesbian" because my current life circumstances only permitted online exploration and relationships.

And my question: "The slave was one, who was actually "collared", as opposed to only wearing a collar while submiting. The slave was one who had surrendered in total to his or her self first before offering oneself as well as one's submission to one's Master or Mistress."

This is so beautiful and intriguing. Would you be willing to expand on it a bit? What does it mean, to "surrender in total to" oneself?

with thanks
sh

[denuseri]

I don't think its all the same as identifying one's self as gay or straight.

There is a big difference between thinking one knows what one's path is, and walking upon the path without any reservation.

And yes, in the way in which I was taught, as previously mentioned, no one is capable of actually being a slave from day one in that manner, though in todays PC world many do indeed make such a claim.

One can think they are, one can hope they are, but one won't know for sure until one has not only put one's self out there for real at the full mercy of another (which can only really be done face to face) and "actually" done it, and not only kept doing it for some time, but also been "tempered" by the challenges such a journey brings and finally leaving all doubt about who and what one really is within one's self behind.

[davina_]

I'm sorry but I have to ask, is there really such a thing as a "slave" by definition? I only ask that because I don't think anyone honestly submits without "agreeing" to submit unless it is in some awful abusive situation. And doesn't that make them more of a "voluntary" slave as opposed to a real slave? I can't imagine actual slavery in any real heathy relationship.

[Xmaster1]

denuseri I think you rock. Your master is very lucky to own you. Cannot wait to read all of this. But please remember your kink is not better than my kink. Online slaves can be just as real.

[ksst]

And my question: "The slave was one, who was actually "collared", as opposed to only wearing a collar while submitting. The slave was one who had surrendered in total to his or her self first before offering oneself as well as one's submission to one's Master or Mistress."

Just wondering, how many submissives out there aspire to be part time slaves (bedroom, or other private place only) and how many want to be in full time slavery as their ideal if they found the right person, and if they could make it work practically? Probably nobody has done a poll, but what are the feelings of those on the forum who want to contribute?

I put myself in the first category, bedroom/ sex scene only.

[davina_]

Just wondering, how many submissives out there aspire to be part time slaves (bedroom, or other private place only) and how many want to be in full time slavery as their ideal if they found the right person, and if they could make it work practically? Probably nobody has done a poll, but what are the feelings of those on the forum who want to contribute?

I put myself in the first category, bedroom/ sex scene only.

That is a really good question IMO. I think the fantasy of total 100% submission is great but I just can't imagine it in reality. I guess if I had stumbled upon the right Mistress when I was younger, I might have been able to consider the full-time submission but what are the odds. I have the perfect wife but she wants me to play both roles so part time is the only thing that is practical.