Friday, 17 October 2008


Some submissives refer to themselves as slaves rather than subs.

For some this may just be how they like to perceive themselves. It may be an expression of their total commitment and submission to their Master. Many like to talk of being "owned".

Clearly if anyone was being held in slavery against their will any of us would be the first to inform the police. So in a sense this is voluntary slavery.

For many this is a genuine and total commitment. A sign that they love and trust their Master so much they would do absolutely anything for them. Would obey any command whatever it was and give themselves totally.

I worry a little though when some in a relative short term relationship describe themselves in such a way. It may be that they wish to emphasise the depths of their submission.

I wonder though in such circumstances what are the limits of their submission. Would they genuinely follow any command of their owner?

If they would, should a Master put himself in such a position of power over another? It must take supreme confidence to believe that one can always know the best interests of another and that their commands will always be right. Is there an arrogance in such a position? To believe one is moral enough not to abuse such power? Or is this arrogance?

I am sure such arrangements can work. There is a seduction in wanting to be involved in such. A greater love can imply a desire for the domination and the submission to be more complete - to become total.

But is it healthy for either party?

Or is this an ideal to strive towards?


Anonymous said...

I've heard of "Top's disease" where some Doms get punch drunk on the power they have over that one person in their lives and attempt to extend that power into other areas of their lives, like at their jobs. I'm not a Dom, but I think it takes a very self-aware person to be in a postion of total control and I can see how some could get "drunk" with that power and it could lead to possible abuse of that power. I've been married for 12 years and I've been his slave for the last 4 of those years. I define the difference between "sub" and "slave" as this: A sub has limits and can say yes or no, but a slave does not have limits and can not say yes or no. Very simple. Now, saying that and even saying that I'm a slave - I have limits. My limits are my kids and anything illegal. If he wanted our kids to go live with Grandma because they're in the way, even as a slave I would not say "Yes Master" and do it. Some things in life are more important than even being a "good" slave. If we were dead broke and he said "Go rob a bank", I would not say "Yes Master" and do it. I value my actual freedom too much and I know he does too and wouldn't ask such things of me. I have serious doubts about people who have been together for say, 6 months and she's already calling herself his slave and would do ANYTHING he asks of her....slave or not, everyone has limits and the only difference is she hasn't been asked to do something that compromises her principles yet. It's also important to really know the person you are giving yourself to, to know that they are self-aware, in control of themselves and won't go off half cocked, punch drunk with their almighty power. It sounds like a total contradiction that I said slaves can't have limits and then turned around and said that as a slave - I have limits. I do think the "no limits" dynamic is possible, but for both people to be happy there has to be a lot of communication about what "no limits" actually means to both of them. Some people think "no limits" and think it applys to sex - she's consenting to him doing anything to her sexually he wants to. Others hear "no limits" and think it applys to every single thing in life and if her Owner were to one day say "Go rob a bank" that she'd have to comply with his wishes. That doesn't jive with *my* definition of "no limits" because we all know that our rules only apply to us and the court system could care less that she was just following orders and trying to be a good, no-limits slave. Just my two cents worth and I really like the way you open up your blog by asking questions for everyone to give their opinions on. :)


Pygar said...

Thank you Rose. I think your discussion of what "no limits" really means gets right to the heart of the question.

I'm pleased you like the blog - thank you for joining in.


Pygar said...

I may not be able to reply to any new comments for a few days - but I promise I will be reading them so please do not feel I am ignoring you.


MJ's Slave said...

This and the post prior regarding domestic abuse have really resonated for me. i used this piece as the center point for my most recent blog post.

i hope you don't mind.

Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to the "collective consciousness".

~MJ's slave nik

Pygar said...

You are very welcome nik.


Pygar said...

You can find nik's very open and thoughtful response on her blog here.


Anonymous said...

I think you raise a very good point. I've followed varied and sundry posts on slaves/subs/tops/bottoms/younamethepermutation....sometimes what it comes down to is that if feels as if you are not taken seriously (and really folks...why do we all want to be so serious anyway?) if you are not a slave. You are "just playing" at something real Masters/slaves live. So while we (yes, I am a submissive and NOT a slave) open our hearts and holes (to be graphic) in service, we still seem to lack something a real slave has. We are less. I read tonight of a post wherein many eshewed the BDSM community, disassociating with those of us who serve in a way true to ourselves. His point being that He is the Master. So who is doubting? He himself?

I don't hold with "no limits." Real slavery is not joyful. The annals of history will show many examples of suffering beyond bounds. I am sure this is not what most M/s couples have in mind, so I guess there really are limits.

I think the idea is seductive and yes, romantic, but we don't live in novels.

Pygar said...

Thanks sweetmoana.

Oh to live in a novel!

I don't think any should pass judgement on others as being not a real slave and not taken seriously. There is enough judgement from outside without having to take it from within the community.

I may try to take up your point about "no limits" in a post soon.


Eliot said...

I don't know if you do memes or are interested in doing one, but I was tagged by a fellow blogger and I've tagged you now as well. :)

Pygar said...

Thank you Eliot.

Will you forgive me if I pass this on to my alter ego Beau to do this instead.

He has been known to do "memes" but on occasion has exacted punishment on those who tagged him!

Eliot said...

Of course I'll forgive you. :p

Pygar said...

You will find Beau's attempt here Eliot.


MasterZ said...

Although, I'm a little late to your blog, I found this short quote a while back that I feel is relivant to your discussion.

"Submissives need to be told what to do. Slaves need to do what they are told." - Unknown

I enjoy your blog and will be back again soon....thx

Pygar said...

Thank you for your comment MasterZ. Better late than never!

Thank you for your contribution and your kind words. It is always good to have new thoughts. I'm still pondering the quote!

- P

Unknown said...

ok...First things first: I don't think even slaves are without the 'yes' or 'no' option, because then is it still consensual? I know there's such a thing as consensual non-consent, but just as it says -it's still consensual.
Like bloodsweattears say: If a slave was asked to rob a bank or jump off a cliff, should she do so? Of course not! (well, in my opinion atleast. Isn't the definition of D/s and difference between that and abuse, as discussed in previous posts, that in TTWD is about good? To make one flourish and feel good and be safe? Does such a command as one suggested above comply with that? I think not.Does it not then go from D/s to undue exertion of power? To me, that is the same as abuse.
Just my thought -about 2 yrs too late! *LOL*