"She's not a REAL slave if she doesn't...."

[Deleted Member]

Today has not gotten off on the right foot. It seems to be the same for everyone around me today. Perhaps a case of the Mondays had bled into the entire week, I am unsure.

However, a conversation between myself and another Dominant struck a chord and I find myself compelled to discuss it.

I have a huge distaste for Masters who make themselves such a priority that the convince themselves slaves have no rights, agency, or obligations to anything or anyone but their Master in question.

I understand that certain dynamics are arranged that way by consenting individuals. This obviously excludes those couples.

My focus is strictly on single Dominants or even Domimants in partnerships that openly make a point to dehumanize and gaslight their subs into feeling like their limits, safe zones, comfortability levels, and desires put their "slave status" into question.

You see them often in forums and even writings. They proclaim the same undertones of negging and orthodox behavior.

"A REAL slave would..."

"A REAL slave would not.."

"A REAL Master would..."

"A REAL Master would not..."

And the list really does go on and on.

I find it highly interesting that people assume chattel slavery is comparable to a consenting dynamic. A slave who consents is not actually bound to serve you at your every whim. No law protects this.

Because actual slavery as some seem to imagine it, is illegal.

However, that does not mean an individual who is seeking to be a slave to a Master is seeking to be robbed of all agency and furthermore put on trial because of certain limitations or certain things that may cause a lapse in service ability.

I literally just had a Dominant explain to me how a slave he was once with (keywords here being "once with") often suffered migraines and stress induced anxiety from her career path. He made it proudly and implicitly clear that she was not allowed to refuse sexual service, ever.

And he was proud of the fact that it was his way or the highway on the matter because : "real slaves don't say no to their Masters".

If I may do so, I'd like to offer something as a caveat :

I've spoken before on this matter. Yes, the difference in Ds dynamics and Ms dynamics is the repercussions of the word "No."

Using some excerpts from the book "Master/slave Mastery Updated handbook of concepts, approaches, and practices By Robert J. Rubel, Ph.D. and M. Jen Fairfield", I will explain to you where I am coming from on this matter.

"The slave loses the right to say “no” to Master: in its place, slave may say, “Sir, if it pleases you, Sir” to mean: “Master, I really rather would not do that.” or “Sir, only if it pleases you, Sir” which is as close to “no” as slave is permitted. (Note: Master has an ethical obligation only to push through such a reply so long as Master thinks that doing so remains in the slave’s best interest. Requiring a slave to proceed through an "only if" command on Master’s whim violates the basic Master/slave pact on Master’s part and represents a contract ***.)"

So in this little blurb, we can see that it is indeed true the word "No" can be seen as a voluntary act of disobedience. But to refuse the use of the word "No" is NOT to tell a slave they may never show signs of discomfort and unease, or even revoke consent. There are safe and fair ways to remove the word without removing signaling in that something makes slave uncomfortable, unhappy, unsafe, or uneasy.

In the same context, it is also the duty of the Master or Mistress in question to know what is best for their slave and ensure that is acted upon when the time calls for it. In the case of the aforementioned Dominant who was so proud to *** his submissive to provide sexual service during times of illness, we can see this is a good example of poor leadership and in it's place lies egoism and self-serving behavior that borderlines ***. He is not doing what is best for his slave, he is doing what is best for HIMSELF.

That, I feel, is not being a proper leader.

Master is 100% responsible for all aspects of the slave’s wellbeing—mental health, physical health, finances, education, training, etc. The more you actually read into Ms dynamics, the more you begin to understand that Master’s role is not to be the center of the slave’s world. That is something Master cultivates within the slave by working to serve slave’s interests and needs. There is a purpose to his or her leadership and it does not begin with "because Master says so and if you're a real slave, you'll do it with a smile and stuff your feelings down." but in most cases, it certainly ends with that.

Leadership is designed to serve a greater purpose. It's not a selfish position that is designed to serve the leader. A leader chooses to lead because he or she truly holds the interests and progress of those who follow them with great honor, love, respect, and a sense of nurturing. One does not lead simply because they want everything to themselves. That is normally a leader very few end up wanting to follow in the long run. In a nutshell, selfish leaders commonly fake who they are. They can be well-mannered and likable leaders because they are good at manipulating people. They want it all for themselves and they will go to extreme actions to get it. However, these leaders fall into their own traps sooner or later.

I think when people who are new or don't know much about Ms dynamics hear of them, this kind of "leadership" and the fallout from it is why people have such an apprehension to this kind of dynamic. I think it also contributes to the stigma of it.

People also tend to forget how hard it is for someone to surrender their own personal autonomy to someone just to find out that person is a poor fit for the role, possibly even toxic and abusive, and then has to re-navigate this sea of a lifestyle alone. I will keep that a topic for another day, as this one is already going to be a long one.

I have grown to realize that being a good Master is not about being worshipped and having your cock sucked the moment you command it. It isn't about ego and self-serving patterns of behavior or attitude. It's about giving, about self-less leadership, the loyalty and dedication a Master experiences by leading a slave comes as a result of good leadership that is balanced and places the needs of the slave first and foremost.

We are facilitators of their journey. Not the other way around.

Just my two cents.

-Master Asmodeus aka FtmSirx

Edited April 30, 2021 by Deleted Member

[ey****]

"Real" (along with "Genuine" and "True") are amongst some of the most misused words in the lifestyle/community/etc

Often, they're used with a view to either coerce someone into doing something they don't want to do - or - to neg them

 

[Deleted Member]

5 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

"Real" (along with "Genuine" and "True") are amongst some of the most misused words in the lifestyle/community/etc

Often, they're used with a view to either coerce someone into doing something they don't want to do - or - to neg them

 

I wholeheartedly agree. 

[Deleted Member]

This is the problem with different generations changing definitions and especially via social media.

The traditional definition is a slave doesn't have any rights or choices. They have vetted, learned about and trusted their D-type enough to become Master/slave. Dynamics shouldn't start as M/s because... well, you can't possibly know someone that well.

There is no "a true slave should do..." because they simply should do whatever their Master wants. Their limits are not theirs as they are their Master's

[Ma****]

Very well said

[In****]

Obey of course. Especially if she would be getting off and pleasured and as I know knowing it. Then adjourn