As my first, official post for this blog, I would like to pick up where Yiva left off in her post about the difference between submissive and slave.
Some see slavery — the total surrender of one’s rights to a Dominant who then becomes one’s Master — as the logical conclusion to a journey of submission. I beg to differ.
A journey of submission and one of slavery need not be seen as the latter being the fulfilment of the former – as if, in some way, slavery is the only complete and true submission. Slavery is not suitable for all submissives, nor is it a necessarily desirable outcome as the fulfilment of years of submission. Instead, a meaningful, committed submission can be as fulfilling and meaningful as a complete surrender to the will of a Dominant, becoming not only their property but also their possession.
The beauty of this lifestyle is that “the rule is that there are no rules”. There is no standard, “right way” to Dominance, any more than there is no standard, “right way” to submission.
Establishing where a D/s dynamic might go to is not something determined by a playbook; rather, it varies from case to case, the path being set by both Dominant and submissive through three tools: Communication, respect, and trust.
Whilst this trinity of values is important for all relationships, within the context of a D/s dynamic it becomes even more important, because of the added intensity that giving away some (or all) personal freedoms adds to the dynamic.
Within that context, if a D/s pair decides that a path of submission is more compatible with their kinks and/or lifestyles than seeking to reach complete surrender, then that reality is just as acceptable.
I digress; the point I am attempting to drive is that the tracks of submission and slavery need not be one continuation of the other, but rather parallel tracks that along the road may or may not merge.
About Author
