Are slaves clean and pure?

[John863-5309]

Are slaves considered clean and pure (spiritually and sexually) in the eyes of their masters/mistresses? I am asking because I incorporate Catholicism in my lifestyle

[Deleted Member]

I think it's more whatever the master/mistress wants them to be.

[Deleted Member]

I agree^^^

[Deleted Member]

this is the point of a slave, become what you decide to be for them, providing you understand the high hard responsibility within your role.

[ey****]

do you consider them to be? is it that you want subs/slaves who you can consider clean and pure?  If so, fair enough.

I guess not everyone is everything. No one size fits all.

[Carnelian2]

Depends on personal hygiene, I suppose?

I think that question is laden with controversy as it depends on the perspective fro which you define "clean and pure" - are societies that frown on certain behaviours "clean and pure"?

Even from a Christian perspective, there are very different perspectives on this dependent on the branch of Christianity and the country in which you live. Mormons and Lutherans, albeit both Protestant would have completely divergent views on this, for example.

[Ky****]

dirty as their owners want them to be

[Dreamaway]

Are you clean and pure?

[Ky****]

Just now, Dreamaway said:

Are you clean and pure?

if that was addressed to me clean as I can be except my mind and mouth, pure as graphite before it becomes a diamond lol

[cautiousswitch]

That all depends on the fantasy being played out.

[pocketcamera]

The purity of cleanliness of a submissive does play a big part of the relationship.

 

Due to past events for many dominants, if they loose the mental image or feeling that their submissive is still clean, pure, loyal, they can no longer trust the submissive and the relationship as it is, crumbles to a turd pile

[Carnelian2]

ahem, in a consensual relationship should the Dominant also not be clean and pure?
The fundamental concept of submission is to do so with trust and faith that the Dominant will have the wellbeing of the submissive in mind. Hence, an impure Dominant may not be a good choice. Just a thought!

[Carnelian2]

ahem, in a consensual relationship should the Dominant also not be clean and pure?
The fundamental concept of submission is to do so with trust and faith that the Dominant will have the wellbeing of the submissive in mind. Hence, an impure Dominant may not be a good choice. Just a thought!

[Ky****]

12 hours ago, pocketcamera said:

The purity of cleanliness of a submissive does play a big part of the relationship.

 

Due to past events for many dominants, if they loose the mental image or feeling that their submissive is still clean, pure, loyal, they can no longer trust the submissive and the relationship as it is, crumbles to a turd pile

only if its a monogamous ds relationship

[ey****]

honestly; I can see what loyalty has to do with trust - but I have no idea what "clean" or "pure" has to do with trust.    This is sounding a little bit like grooming to me.....

[Th****]

14 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

honestly; I can see what loyalty has to do with trust - but I have no idea what "clean" or "pure" has to do with trust.    This is sounding a little bit like grooming to me.....

*Braces himself for the coming of The One True Way* 

[pocketcamera]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2020 at 2:18 AM, eyemblacksheep said:

honestly; I can see what loyalty has to do with trust - but I have no idea what "clean" or "pure" has to do with trust.    This is sounding a little bit like grooming to me.....

When a Dominant has personal standards for a submissive to meet, and at the same moment a need for the submissive to project a specific sort of feeling about themselves...

 

Best case  scenario is that if a person owns a shop that sells high end suits, they aren't going to want to hire a new salesman that gives the air and general impression of "I sell the finest suits youll find in a dark alley"

[ey****]

So. OK.

I get the idea that a Dominant might have certain standards and the sub must continuously meet them.  Whilst this can vary between relationships - I agree with the principle.

I can get not taking a sub on who clearly does not meet those standards.

But I have no idea what "clean" and "pure" means to do with anything?  And if this "clean" and "pure" is just a mental image within the Dominant that can change at any time; that's hardly fair on the sub.

[Th****]

3 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

But I have no idea what "clean" and "pure" means to do with anything?  And if this "clean" and "pure" is just a mental image within the Dominant that can change at any time; that's hardly fair on the sub.

Is it possible that the "clean" reference is literal. As in a reference to health and hygiene. In which case I can see fitting under the "certain standards" heading.

Pure - still left me with a very puzzled look as I agree it seemed at best very subjective.

Happily there is a definition of Pure Person on yourdictionary.

"adjective. The definition of pure is something that is not mixed with any other elements, that is not contaminated in any way or a person who has no sins or who is wholesome. An example of pure is what that has not been mixed with anything else. An example of pure is a nun who is moral and virtuous."

That fits with the OP's description but still leaves me a little confused on how one might maintain this state in a D/s context. 

Despite that I am with you on the subjectivity of the Pure description @eyemblacksheep.

[pocketcamera]

5 hours ago, Thebian said:

Is it possible that the "clean" reference is literal. As in a reference to health and hygiene. In which case I can see fitting under the "certain standards" heading.

Pure - still left me with a very puzzled look as I agree it seemed at best very subjective.

Happily there is a definition of Pure Person on yourdictionary.

 

Despite that I am with you on the subjectivity of the Pure description @eyemblacksheep.

"adjective. The definition of pure is something that is not mixed with any other elements, that is not contaminated in any way or a person who has no sins or who is wholesome. An example of pure is what that has not been mixed with anything else. An example of pure is a nun who is moral and virtuous."

That fits with the OP's description but still leaves me a little confused on how one might maintain this state in a D/s context. 

 

purity and wholesomeness are not supposed to be absent in any relationship, not even in a bdsm one. IN bdsm purity, and wholesomeness really are needed.

 

Its like this, one group of people thinks its ok for your wife to go fuck a random stranger at 7-11 and claims it is fine and dandy and has no impact on the husband.

 

other group says its a no go, thing only skanky trash would do.

 

what group is right? well if you have a need for your woman to stay wholesome for you, her fucking strangers, or anyone else, would be a no go.

[ey****]

1 hour ago, pocketcamera said:

Its like this, one group of people thinks its ok for your wife to go fuck a random stranger at 7-11 and claims it is fine and dandy and has no impact on the husband.

other group says its a no go, thing only skanky trash would do.

what group is right? well if you have a need for your woman to stay wholesome for you, her fucking strangers, or anyone else, would be a no go.

Right.

So, you're saying if you and a sub/partner have an exclusivity agreement then breaking that is a breach of trust and the relationship is likely to end?    Yeah, I thought that'd be obvious.  

[Ky****]

maybe it means pure punishment, not punished for anything the sub has done-just for the punishment itself that wouldn't be mixing the whipping with anything else

[ey****]

So. I started to do a couple of Googles.

First off the bat, I wanted to seek clarification - because there was something I was hoping wasn't implied; because the idea of a sub (or person in general) of being "clean/pure" effectively meaning virginal.  And that is something that's creepy and, well, also, you can have the sub do something with you and then decide they're "unclean" or "impure" and as I say, that's unfair.

So, yeah - I did a few googles and got some bible passages - and I think again

A lot within the Bible is obviously subjective and that carries it's own risks.  I have absolutely no problem with any form of religion, at all, but I sometimes feel that old passages are often misrepresented.

I think it's of course important to be clear what you expect in a relationship or dynamic and that it's fair.   If you think, say, masturbation is "unclean" then it's important this rule and reason is clear and that a breach of it isn't met with any form of overreaction.

It's also important that the sub is very clear on what the rules are - so they're not punished to one degree or another for breaking a rule they didn't know existed - because that's ***.