Why do people look down on slaves or do they ?

[Guest llmdhv]

I am not really sure if it is actually the right place to post. I apologies in advance if it isn't

 

I do not know why but after spending a couple of days on the forum, I get the feeling that people look down on slaves. I might be completely wrong on coming to that assumption but it feels like they somehow get the feeling that it is kinda beneath them.

I'd like to know the thoughts of other people. Does someone else get that feeling or is it just me ?

 

FYI : I have nothing against them. I actually admire them on how much trust they have in there respective partners

 

[junebug0325]

Heya,

 

So, I don't think I've seen much of people looking down upon the Slave aspect. That's just my general opinion. I think people might not understand someone's submission, which is totally fine.

 

I think what happens sometimes is that Littles are often correlated with Brats and Princesses and less as Slaves or Submissives (again, this is just my opinion), because I personally don't see a lot of Little Slaves. 

 

I would be interested to have a further conversation regarding this, because I think it would be interesting!

 

Thanks for posting!

 

 

 

 

Junebug x.

[baby_k]

I think it can come off as looking down on slaves when littles get offended/take their ground when someone is trying to push them to be slaves or expect behaviour like that OR dismiss their opinions and wants.

 

This has imo nothing to do with slaves but about consent and healthy relationships: no one has right to push anyone into a role they don't want to be in, make assumptions on how one should act based on some role. And every person is important, has right to their opinion and pursuing happiness. So, when someone is defending their basic rights, they may say things like "i'm not a slave" either referring to "I don't want to do everything the other person wants", "I have my own mind too!" or "I'm not going to be doing all housework and everything while the other person just lazies around". It's therefore more of saying than referring properly to slaves of bdsm.

 

Edit: fixed some sentences as messy

Edited November 4, 2020 by baby_k

[princessfreckles]

I am not really sure if it is actually the right place to post. I apologies in advance if it isn't

 

I do not know why but after spending a couple of days on the forum, I get the feeling that people look down on slaves. I might be completely wrong on coming to that assumption but it feels like they somehow get the feeling that it is kinda beneath them.

 

I'd like to know the thoughts of other people. Does someone else get that feeling or is it just me ?

 

FYI : I have nothing against them. I actually admire them on how much trust they have in there respective partners

I honestly don't think it's a matter of people here 'looking down on' slaves. I think it's more attributed to not knowing enough about a M/s dynamic, being misinformed, and overall the site is ddlg forum as opposed to master/slave forum. Kink as a whole isn't a one size fits all, or all people in a specific role have the same list of qualities. It honestly is the ability to pick and choose what works best for the individuals and the dynamic they consented to be in.

 

I know littles and subs who have slave like tendencies, despite not calling themselves a slave. Some of the same ones don't like the terms master and slave because they're too harsh. Daddy, Monster, Duke, etc are used for the leader of the relationship. For myself Master used to conjure up all sorts of negative, serious, and overall not fun thoughts of what the leader of the dynamic looks like. I wasn't turned on, I was afraid. I had the same negative connotation about slaves being mindless drones who could never say no, didn't have control over their life. and didn't consent to any of the treatment they received. Basically they were pushed into the dynamic, they had no choice or say. Then I actually went to munches and met people in those dynamics that I felt so negatively about and I quickly learned I was so wrong about all of my preconceived notions.

 

I now know Masters and slaves, in most cases that is a Total Power Exchange (TPE), and that can be intimidating and have an extremely negative connotation like I previously mentioned to people who are simply uniformed. What is not seen or discussed is that a TPE doesn't happen overnight. There is vetting for leader and follower, extensive negotiation, tons of communication of physical/mental health issues, emotional triggers are discussed, trial and error to see what works for that dynamic. Rules are changed and amended through the time of trial and error. Another thing is that the dynamic may not have always been a M/s TPE, it could've started as something else, and eventually morphed into one because that's what both parties communicate and consent to wanting. 

 

No matter what type of dynamic people have, the importance of communication and clear minded consent (not drunk, high, or otherwise unable to think clearly) can't be stressed enough. So while some here may not understand what a M/s dynamic or TPE looks like or all that it takes to be in one, it's as valid as any other dynamic out there. Also, the dynamics have a lot more in common than people may realize. At the end of the day it's about what works for the Big letter (Master, Dom, Daddy, Mistress, etc) and little letter (little, sub, slave, etc). No one else knows all of the ins and outs of a dynamic except for the people involved in it. 

Edited November 5, 2020 by princessfreckles

[maddycakes]

Hmm..I've never felt like people look down on slaves. When you say people think it is "beneath them" I feel like it's more of people simply expressing that that is not their dynamic. It is difficult to communicate tone over the internet, so in that sense better to be more emphatic than not emphatic enough. M/s is definitely a dynamic that is less common among DDlg, but it's here, and I have definitely seen slaves being respected on here when they do post. Do you have anything you could share that seems "anti-slave" that you have seen? I think most of us on here want to be as inclusive as possible, so maybe if you point out the specific things that come off that way we could be more aware of them and reword or rework? 

[Guest llmdhv]

I mean I've seen the following quote on multiple personals referencing to not doing something or behaving a certain way

 

i'm not a slave

I completely agree that they are free to do what they like and define the boundaries of their relationship but saying something like that makes me wonder if they expect people who identify themselves as slaves would be ok doing something.

It gives off the impression that they would. Maybe it's me who's seeing something that's not there but that's how it comes across

[maddycakes]

I totally see where you're coming from that people just put that on their blogs when they don't put any other thing they are not (ie I haven't seen anyone write "I'm not a rope bunny"). That's something hopefully people who see this will be aware of and maybe can reword? I do think the likely reason people specify that they are not slaves is that they may be seeking a dom, and they want to put that out there right away so doms looking for slaves know from the start they are incompatible. There are plenty of things that one is or is not that can be negotiated on both sides, but the M/s dynamic is not typically one of those things. Taking rope as an example since I already used it - if someone is or is not a rope bunny/rigger, that is not going make or break most relationships, whereas a dom looking for a slave is not likely to settle for anything else, and a little who is not a slave is unlikely to become one. Just my thoughts, but of course I can't say for sure. Hopefully more people will chime in!

[Guest llmdhv]

There are plenty of things that one is or is not that can be negotiated on both sides, but the M/s dynamic is not typically one of those things. Taking rope as an example since I already used it - if someone is or is not a rope bunny/rigger, that is not going make or break most relationships, whereas a dom looking for a slave is not likely to settle for anything else, and a little who is not a slave is unlikely to become one. Just my thoughts, but of course I can't say for sure. Hopefully more people will chime in!

I partially disagree with your argument. Lemme explain :

 

If you primary identity is rope bunny would you be ok being with someone who isn't a rigger ?

Or would a little be OK with someone who doesn't engage in ddlg ?

 

I personally believe it depends on your personal identity and what you are willing to compromise to make a relationship work. I cannot speak for other but I would never be comfortable giving up a facet of my personality to be someone. Subduing it and limiting it ? Maybe. But entirely keeping it in the dark ? I would never be content or truly happy if I had. I am not sure if everyone feels the same

 

Back to the discussion, I appologise for not talking the time earlier to answer each of your points

 

I now know Masters and slaves, in most cases that is a Total Power Exchange (TPE), and that can be intimidating and have an extremely negative connotation like I previously mentioned to people who are simply uniformed. What is not seen or discussed is that a TPE doesn't happen overnight. There is vetting for leader and follower, extensive negotiation, tons of communication of physical/mental health issues, emotional triggers are discussed, trial and error to see what works for that dynamic. Rules are changed and amended through the time of trial and error. Another thing is that the dynamic may not have always been a M/s TPE, it could've started as something else, and eventually morphed into one because that's what both parties communicate and consent to wanting. 

 

No matter what type of dynamic people have, the importance of communication and clear minded consent (not drunk, high, or otherwise unable to think clearly) can't be stressed enough. So while some here may not understand what a M/s dynamic or TPE looks like or all that it takes to be in one, it's as valid as any other dynamic out there. Also, the dynamics have a lot more in common than people may realize. At the end of the day it's about what works for the Big letter (Master, Dom, Daddy, Mistress, etc) and little letter (little, sub, slave, etc). No one else knows all of the ins and outs of a dynamic except for the people involved in it. 

I completely agree with your point. I think people are intimidated by the prospect of TPE or even the M/S dynamic and they often fail to realize that these takes ages to be established. They require extensive communication and constant modification of the agreement between the two consenting individuals. However, I have a feeling that most people expect it to happen overnight and that is why there is so much negativity directed at this type of relationship

 

I think it can come off as looking down on slaves when littles get offended/take their ground when someone is trying to push them to be slaves or expect behaviour like that OR dismiss their opinions and wants.

 

This has imo nothing to do with slaves but about consent and healthy relationships: no one has right to push anyone into a role they don't want to be in, make assumptions on how one should act based on some role. And every person is important, has right to their opinion and pursuing happiness. So, when someone is defending their basic rights, they may say things like "i'm not a slave" either referring to "I don't want to do everything the other person wants", "I have my own mind too!" or "I'm not going to be doing all housework and everything while the other person just lazies around". It's therefore more of saying than referring properly to slaves of bdsm.

 

Edit: fixed some sentences as messy

Maybe that's true but yeah. I do think they probably refer to literal meaning of the word rather than the identity itself but it could be that people who identify themselves as slaves might not be comfortable as publicly stating their identity

 

[maddycakes]

Ohhhh, no, my intention wasn't that you would forego your identity, just that some of the more skill-based identities are easier for people to learn/live with. Ahhhhh I can't explain right now D: Basically, if you really like rope and your partner doesn't identify that way it's easy enough to learn. It's not something most people are specifically opposed to doing, even if they may not be proficient or it isn't their favorite thing. I hope that makes sense! Obviously there are exceptions of people who require their partner(s) to be experienced in a certain skill, but that's not most people. 

 

And I would argue that DDlg would have the same status(?) as M/s if we were on a general BDSM website - meaning that if there were other (non-ddlg) people around, folks would definitely specify about it on their profile. I have definitely seen people on fetlife that have "no DDlg" in their profiles. I think this is because M/s and DDlg are truly unique lifestyles/personalities. Not simply something one "likes" or "dislikes", it's a part of who you are, and if you are *not*, it would be difficult to assimilate into that lifestyle. 

[Guest llmdhv]

Ohhhh, no, my intention wasn't that you would forego your identity, just that some of the more skill-based identities are easier for people to learn/live with. Ahhhhh I can't explain right now D: Basically, if you really like rope and your partner doesn't identify that way it's easy enough to learn. It's not something most people are specifically opposed to doing, even if they may not be proficient or it isn't their favorite thing. I hope that makes sense! Obviously there are exceptions of people who require their partner(s) to be experienced in a certain skill, but that's not most people. 

 

And I would argue that DDlg would have the same status(?) as M/s if we were on a general BDSM website - meaning that if there were other (non-ddlg) people around, folks would definitely specify about it on their profile. I have definitely seen people on fetlife that have "no DDlg" in their profiles. I think this is because M/s and DDlg are truly unique lifestyles/personalities. Not simply something one "likes" or "dislikes", it's a part of who you are, and if you are *not*, it would be difficult to assimilate into that lifestyle. 

:Facepalm: I apologize. I should have been more clear. I just meant to use that as an example saying that If I am not willing to do it , I suppose there a quite a few people out there who'd feel that.

 

I am not so sure about it. I think in the world of BDSM there are more slaves as Littles. Or at least more people willing to admit to it. Maybe that's is how it was.

 

Pet/Owner, Primal/prey are also some of the rare dynamics among those I have come across

[maddycakes]

Gotcha! lol it is so difficult to explain something exactly as you intend it over text (or with words tbqh, but tone really helps me with understanding).  

 

I don't know if there are more slaves than littles. Maybe. I think also a lot of newer subs get swept up and want to identify as a slave because they think it's the pinnacle of submission (that's the way I felt when I started out anyways..) and yeah, I agree that there are probably more people who are unwilling to publicly identify as littles than slaves. 

 

Hmm, I definitely agree that I would love to see more Primal/prey stuff, but I've seen lots of Owners/pets, both here and in the wider kink community. Maybe I'm just a kitten magnet tho

[daddymind]

Slave is naturally a very loaded and contentious word. I prefer "service submissive", not because of political correctness, but because it more accurately describes the desires of the person in that position. Once you understand that the person in a position of submission WANTS to be in that position, WANTS to serve, the word slave becomes a bit inadequate. They have as much power and autonomy to enter into such an arrangement as the dominant. And when the two worlds meet consensually, amazing things happen for both parties. This is a mature, well considered arrangement in most cases. Ironically, being a "slave" in a healthy, consensual way is a form of liberation - completely antithetical to the fundamental concept of a slavery. You are free to leave at any time but you choose to engage in the dynamic because it makes you feel things you want or even need to feel. It is a part of your being. And perhaps only within a monogamous, intimate relationship. Not towards other people at work or in society in general. You can be philosophically a libertarian in every aspect of your life, but completely submissive to the person you love, and those two things can work congruously.

 

For me, the idea of being treated like a slave (especially as a daddy) fires up so much positive energy within me, I cannot justify it with the word slave. It's far more than that. And it's not entirely unselfish either. The sub gets as much from it as the dominant does. And that's what critics of the dynamic would do well to understand. This is two adults engaging in a mutually beneficial arrangement. You don't have to understand the intricacies of it to understand the outcome, which is contentment (the pursuit of one's own happiness) and positive energy that would have otherwise been suppressed or released in UNhealthy ways. And nobody wants that, trust me.

Edited November 15, 2020 by daddymind

[BrassyBabyGirl]

Love this discussion. I have noticed in the bdsm community a distaste for littles/middles and ddlg in general. I have had a plain straight up Dominate that had to decide if he wanted to learn to be a middles Daddy. Different dynamic. I think a lot of the confusion and subconscious sneering is based on assumptions. I think the big word here is spectrum and that is the beauty of the dynamic.

[Guest llmdhv]

Slave is naturally a very loaded and contentious word. I prefer "service submissive", not because of political correctness, but because it more accurately describes the desires of the person in that position. Once you understand that the person in a position of submission WANTS to be in that position, WANTS to serve, the word slave becomes a bit inadequate. They have as much power and autonomy to enter into such an arrangement as the dominant. And when the two worlds meet consensually, amazing things happen for both parties. This is a mature, well considered arrangement in most cases. Ironically, being a "slave" in a healthy, consensual way is a form of liberation - completely antithetical to the fundamental concept of a slavery. You are free to leave at any time but you choose to engage in the dynamic because it makes you feel things you want or even need to feel. It is a part of your being. And perhaps only within a monogamous, intimate relationship. Not towards other people at work or in society in general. You can be philosophically a libertarian in every aspect of your life, but completely submissive to the person you love, and those two things can work congruously.

 

For me, the idea of being treated like a slave (especially as a daddy) fires up so much positive energy within me, I cannot justify it with the word slave. It's far more than that. And it's not entirely unselfish either. The sub gets as much from it as the dominant does. And that's what critics of the dynamic would do well to understand. This is two adults engaging in a mutually beneficial arrangement. You don't have to understand the intricacies of it to understand the outcome, which is contentment (the pursuit of one's own happiness) and positive energy that would have otherwise been suppressed or released in UNhealthy ways. And nobody wants that, trust me.

Hey there,

 

I personally believe every term that is coined in the world of BDSM is a very much an umbrella term and should be used in th emost literal terms as such. I have abslotely no issue with your choice of term. but for the discussion here I will continue to use the term slave.

 

Again, This is my personal opinion and I am not saying everyone should be doing as I think it is the right way. The more we dig into any particular dynamic, we realize that it is pretty much a bottomless well and that each person/couple end of establishing a dynamic that is specific to them and serves them good. (Which is the right way to go about it) but using that relationship alone or a few more to define the entire dynamic. Again a personal opinion.

 

I complete agree with the following

 

The sub gets as much from it as the dominant does. And that's what critics of the dynamic would do well to understand. This is two adults engaging in a mutually beneficial arrangement. You don't have to understand the intricacies of it to understand the outcome, which is contentment (the pursuit of one's own happiness) and positive energy that would have otherwise been suppressed or released in UNhealthy ways. And nobody wants that, trust me.

 

 

However, I do see this often that critics (Or even people within this world) actually mistake that submission is due to the fact that that person cannot actually do it on there own. Submitting to someone because they a really need someone making those decisions since they are really incapable of doing so and wanting a partner to make those for them is, in my opinion, a completely and entirely different case. Not really sure I am actually capable of getting into a discussion regarding that

 

I see it as more a choice and willingness to trust their respective partner to make the right one. (Even in cases of TPE or whatever other similar examples you think of) I strongly expect that a good Top (Umbrella term again) equally weight both perspectives equally and then decide. I would often recommend that the bottom's needs takes precedence over the top's even if it means choosing something his preferences (As long as it's something is within the boundaries of the agreement between the two of them)

 

If it keeps happening too often, I would argue that they might not really be compatible with each other.  

 

I am not entirely sure If am making any sense. I can use an example if it would make it easier

Edited November 19, 2020 by llmdhv