- by slave marsha
"What's the difference between a submissive and a slave?"
And after you've seen the question argued, hashed out, discussed thoughtfully, flamed, revisited, beaten into the ground, answered from a perspective of personal experience, answered by people who have never had ANY experience, and generally looked at from nearly every conceivable angle….
Well, your first reaction is to cringe when someone asks it one more time. At least, that's my reaction.
But it shouldn't be. The question really is an important one.
I know there are lots of people out there who will disagree with me - because the first answer that's always given/posted to the question of what is the difference between a submissive and a slave is something like, "What does it matter? Why do we have to label everyone? Why can't we just be who we are?" I'm sympathetic to that approach, I really am. But for me, a huge part of living as a slave is discovering and defining and understanding who I am - and doing that is going to require using words to describe and yes, to "label" me. It means understanding how I am similar to others - and how I am different. Remember - "different" doesn't mean "less" or "worse." It simply means "not the same as."
At the end of the day, for my journey as a slave, I need to be able to explain (if only to myself) what I view as the difference between that identity in the leather/SM community known as "submissive" and the one known as "slave." In fact, I actually believe that for those of us who identify as submissives/slaves/boys/bois/girls (and any other variation I left out), engaging in an honest and thoughtful examination of what makes us different can be a unifying experience. Because as we identify those areas where we are different, we also will identify those areas where we are the same. And at the end of the discussion, if we've been "generous" in the way we listened and spoke, and did it with the goal of understanding ourselves better, my bet is that we'll find we have more in common than we think --- and that we can be comfortable with, even supportive of, our differences.
Of course, what I have to say about the difference between a submissive and a slave is not holy writ, not the last word, not revealed wisdom, and possibly not even "right" (whatever that means). What I will share are simply the definitions Master Jim and I have formulated, to help us make sense of our own Master/slave journey. If something I say helps you, great! Use it, with blessings. If nothing I say speaks to you, not a problem. Develop your own definitions, ones that work for you. The important thing is to be able to speak your truth when someone asks you, "Who are you and why do you do what you do?"
Before embarking on this journey to define the difference between a submissive and a slave, like a good lawyer, I made all the necessary disclaimers - you know, that "different" doesn't mean "less" and that what I have to say isn't revealed truth, just my truth. That was Part 1. Now let's get to the real heart of the discussion - defining the terms.
Frankly, it's always been very difficult for me to define the difference between a submissive and a slave. Over the years, I've come up with a number of definitions and discussed them with Master Jim. I've tried a few out, and then discarded most of them as inaccurate or unworkable. In the end, I keep coming back to a definition that Master Jim and I developed years and years ago… once again proving that the first thing you think of may be your best thought!
So what is the definition? Well, it all comes down to control.
I started with this question: what is it about those people who identify themselves as submissives and slaves that makes them "different" from other people? It seems to me that both submissives and slaves want some kind of "control" exercised over their lives by another person. That control may take many forms: it may mean someone else taking the lead in sex, it may mean someone else deciding what the person can wear, it may mean requiring someone to sit or stand a particular way, it may mean someone else determining what the person can and cannot do in a given day, it may mean controlling the person's entire life. Whether the control is over one small area of life or the person's entire life, submissives and slaves all experience control over their lives in some way. That's what makes them different from other people, and similar to each other.
Okay. So both submissives and slaves have control exercised in their lives. But what makes them different from each other? Hang on… because first I've got to say something about the term "submissive."
I hate it.
Why? Because too often our community confuses the action of "submitting" with the (supposed) personality trait of being "submissive."
Let's start with a short frolic and detour around the word "submit." According to Webster's Dictionary, submit simply means "to yield to governance or authority" or "to yield oneself to the authority or will of another." Someone who is "submissive" is one who is "submitting to another" - in other words, a submissive is someone who yields him or herself to the authority or will of another. Now notice what is not in these definitions - there's not a word in there about being passive, shy, unable to make decisions, "small" or "little" in personality, or childlike. There's no reference at all to personality traits.
This is the really critical, core point that too often in our community is overlooked or flat out denied - no personality type is precluded from "submitting" and being "submissive." And yet, some or all of these personality traits are often - too often - wrongly viewed and taught in the leather/SM community as the very ones that define who is a "submissive!"
Because of its frequent misuse by the community, I really dislike the term "submissive." (And I especially dislike the many diminutive forms of the term including "sub" and "subbie." But that's a discussion for another day….) However, given the fact that no one is going to stop using the term "submissive" just because I say so, and because the term is widely used in the community, it's always been important to me that I be able to define what I mean when I use it.
Frolic and detour over - on to defining the terms. Keep in mind what I said earlier - "different" does not mean "less" - it only means different.
I believe that in defining these terms, control is the key: slaves are people who have chosen to hand over total control of their lives to another. No exceptions - not for jobs, not for children, not for family, not for friends, not for anything. Total control. That control does not have to equal micromanagement, but it does have to mean that in the end, the Owner has control.
Okay, everybody take a deep breath before you start yelling at me that you know slaves who have retained control over some part of their lives and who the hell do I think I am and what the hell do I know? I also know people who I consider slaves who have retained some control over some minimal part of their lives. But for me - for ME - the key is the amount of control retained has to be fairly minimal. If you start carving out big chunks of your life and bringing them back into your control, at some point, you just aren't a slave. You're something different - not less, but different.
Let me make this point a little more personal. I have given over control of my life to Master Jim. He controls my finances, whether and where I work, my relationship with Cougar, my relationship with my biological family, how I dress… everything. Having said that, he doesn't micromanage me -- I have varying amounts of latitude in doing things in my daily life, but he can, of course, step in at any point and directly control anything. Having said that, he has elected to not exercise control in one area in my life, and that has to do with my job as an attorney. By his choice (not by my demand), he does not make decisions for me in my cases, and he does not require me to breach the attorney/client privilege by telling him all about my cases. But where I work as an attorney? Under his control. Whether I work as an attorney? Under his control. Whether I work at all? Under his control. Whether I accept a promotion or even try for one? Under his control.
So if that's how I define slave, what about submissive? To me, a submissive is a person who has turned over some, but not all, control of his/her life to another, and who has retained control of the identified part(s) of his/her life as a condition for being in the relationship. So if I had told Master Jim I would be in service to him but I would retain control over my career or my finances or my relationship with Cougar, I would not identify myself as a slave, but rather as a submissive.
These definitions of slave and submissive are pretty straightforward, but they always cause a big kerfluffle (to use a Cougar word) because people assume they contain a value judgment. In other words, people seem to believe that I (or others) believe it's inherently better to give up all control than to give up some control. In fact, I only believe it creates a way of living that is different in some ways from giving up total control, and similar in others.
As I struggled with the concepts of slave v. submissive, I found myself thinking as I often do about men and women who feel called to devote their lives in some way to religious service. In most religious practices, you'll find a group of men and women who have completely turned their lives over to their faith. Their lives revolve totally around worship and work for their religion. You'll also usually find a group of men and women who are equally spiritual, but for whatever reason, they haven't been called to devote their entire life directly to a religious order. In the Catholic church, for example, you'll find monks and nuns, men and women whose every minute of every day is directly controlled by their church. You'll also find people called "oblates" - men and women of equally deep faith, but who are called to work and live without the constant direct control of their church. Both kinds of people are necessary to the survival of a religious practice. Both kinds of people are serious and deeply spiritual. Neither is "better" than the other - they simply have been called to live and express their spirituality in different ways.
And so when I hear or read someone opining that slaves are somehow more "real" or "better" than submissives, or that submissives are just "playing" at what they do, I'm deeply angered. On the other hand, when someone claims to be a slave yet proudly announces all the areas of their life that they still control, I'm deeply saddened by the failure to acknowledge the different paths of submissive and slave.
I believe those who identify as a submissive (or a boy or girl or whatever name you give it) are walking a path both different from and similar to my own as a slave. I believe neither of us is better than the other. I believe I can learn as much from someone faithfully walking the path of a submissive as I can from any slave. I believe if we as slaves and submissives acknowledge the differences in our paths while supporting each other on our similar journeys, it will make us all stronger and better.
So in the end, what's in a name? Everything… and nothing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
To read more of Master Jim and slave marsha's writings, visit Edgeliving
Return to Menu