I got a comment from Sara of Finding Sara the other day that I wanted to answer… But I found I’d probably have way too much to say for just a comment reply. (Oh, I know, I was shocked too. I’m usually the epitome of brevity.)

Writing this post made me think. A lot. So thank you, Sara.

Hi Chloe, I have a question for you. I have for some time been trying to understand why some people choose the term “slave” to describe themselves. What it connotes to them that is different than “Submissive”. How can you be “owned” when at the end of the day, the power to submit (or not) is yours? Yes, your Master respects your limits, but if he did not…then you would change things. You agree that it IS in your power to do so. My connotation of slave was someone who was owned and had no say, no limits of their own, could be even killed if their owner decided to do so. The slaves of the south 100 years ago and the slaves in Roman times, etc…they were truly slaves. Are you not just in a relationship in which you are more submissive than I am in mine? So why call yourself slave then? I am not trying to challenge you here, but really just trying to understand. I had some of this discussion with swan sometime ago…and your post reminds me that my knowledge and understanding is still lacking. Thanks, Sara

I am going to go out on a limb here and say my answer will not reflect the views of many (quite possibly any) other slaves or submissives. I tend to invent my own ideas and theories about things, so I don’t expect this post will be enlightening on a community level. (It might not even be enlightening on a Chloe-level. We’ll see.)

I’ve struggled with how to organize my responses to the questions. Maybe I should just go in order?

How can you be “owned” when at the end of the day, the power to submit (or not) is yours? Yes, your Master respects your limits, but if he did not…then you would change things. You agree that it IS in your power to do so.

I do agree that it is within my power to walk away from this relationship. It is not within my power to reorganize the relationship dynamic, but is it in my power to up and leave? It is.

However, I don’t know that I agree that my Master respects my limits. (This has been really difficult for me to think about, and I will probably have to revisit it in the future.)

He certainly respects his limits. But mine? I don’t think so.

It may appear he does, but that is only because I committed myself to a man who shares the same core, deal-breaker limits with me. We agree that things like bestiality, infidelity, incest, suicide, homicide, pedophilia, and necrophilia are off limits, period. But he’s not respecting “my” limits, there. Not by a long shot. He’s respecting his own. That’s why, for me, it was so important to find a man who felt this way. I would never have been able to truly belong to a man who didn’t. And my goal was never qualified submission. It was being owned.

I’ve written for a LONG time, writing and backspacing, about my other “limits” and I realized I’m not quite ready to have that discussion. I can’t make myself clear because I’m not clear in my head. My apologies for that, but it’s something I’ve got to think about a lot more before I know how to discuss it. It’s not even that relevant… well, yes it is very relevant… But, A-N-Y-W-A-Y…

My connotation of slave was someone who was owned and had no say, no limits of their own, could be even killed if their owner decided to do so.

To me, that’s just a connotation of slavery, not the connotation. The nuanced and personal nature of connotations means that words and phrases and ideas can have different meanings across societies, communities, individuals, and situations.

Granted, if someone says “a slave” outside the BDSM lifestyle, the most likely connotations coming to mind are that of the enslavement of Africans in the Americas, the products of Mesoamerican wars, the conquered peoples in the Roman Empire, etc. You’re exactly right. That’s a majority-of-the-time type of connotation.

But of course I am not a slave in the way the slaves of the south or the slaves in Roman times were slaves. For a thousand reasons, no, it’s not like that. And by saying I am a slave, I am not trying to equate myself with people who were forcibly enslaved and were the victims of unspeakable acts.

Just as equally, when I say slave… I am not referring to slaving a hard drive, a slave clock that answers to a master clock, the band Slave, or the card game.

I’m referring to a dynamic in a romantic relationship. Now, of course, the question remains… Why is THAT the best term for my dynamic? Why NOT submissive?

(This “ways the word slave is used” discussion leads me to an idea…. You know how some people equate owning animals as a form of slavery? Maybe that’s the best way for me to say “THAT kind of slavery.” I really am his pet. Alive and free-thinking. Devoted and dependent. The choice, at the end of the day, is mine whether I want to stick around. But without him? I’ve been domesticated. I’ve been trained. I could run away, but I’m REALLY dependent on him. And I want and need to stick around and be owned, much more than I want or need any kind of freedom that he doesn’t grant. I want to be fed and be loved and feel safe and protected and cared for by him. And I might not like performing all of the tricks, but I LOVE the look on my Master’s face when I do.)

So why call yourself slave then?

Well, I already talked about the pet/slavery idea briefly. But there are other reasons.

For one thing, if you look up definitions for the terms, based on the denotations of the words and my personal feelings, I feel I am primarily a slave, not submissive.

The second definition Merriam-Webster has for a slave is: “one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence.” And yes, exactly. That’s me.

Submissive is a bit harder to find an accurate definition because it gets thrown around as a noun, and it’s not. It’s an adjective. I’ll use its main entry, “submit.” Some of the definitions (like presenting something, as in “I’m submitting this for approval”) clearly make no sense. Ones like “to yield oneself to the authority or will of another” sound really close, right?

But those definitions are semantically equated with surrender. In fact, “surrender” is right there in the dictionary entry as a definition for the word “submit.”

And that’s not what my relationship is. This is not, primarily, a relationship built on surrender. To me, this is a relationship built on belonging.

In short, I see it as such: One who is a slave belongs to another. One who submits, surrenders to another. I belong to my Master. Do I submit to him sometimes – am I conquered? Yes. But is that my main relationship dynamic? No. Belonging to him, being owned by him, is.

I’m not saying I’m going to achieve a perfect state of “being property” (though I’d like to). I’m not saying I’m a slave in the way the slaves of the south were.

I guess all I’m saying is this: I don’t look at him and think “I submit to him” or “I am submissive to him.” I look at him and I think “I belong to him.  He owns me.”

That’s the difference, to me.

(There is probably a whole lot more I could say.  There are a million other thoughts in my head… But for tonight, that’s what my muddled and tired brain is thinking.)