<KaaB> do you mean between a Dom and a Master?
* DOMinick sits back and lights his pipe.
<julia1> there are many differences between both
<PMolur[d]> Yes
* Torrid sits back and sips her drink...
[<PMolur[d]> julia1, what do you see the differences as?
[<julia1> well Ma'am a Dom has a different attitude than a Master not only does a Master want total submission, but wants much more
<Torrid> How does a sub refer to a Dom and how does a sub refer to a Master? What does she say?
<julia1> a slave actually has no say
<Torrid> So when a sub goes to do the Dom's bidding doe she respond "Yes, Dom" or Yes Master?
<KaaB> Yes Sir
Torrid winks at Dom
<julia1> it depends on the Dom or Master how they want to be addressed
<KaaB> I think a Master in the purest sense of the word is more experienced
<court{A}> are u saying that all masters are experienced?
<julia1> I don't agree with that KaaB

<court{A}> even the new ones learning? I agree with julia to disagree with you
<abigail1> Sir is a term of respect I think im right at calling either Sir
<DOMinick> the term "Dominant" (either Dom or Domme), is more of a generic term. All types of course, from wannabes to the most experienced.
<KaaB> I don't think all Doms are Masters
<MsAmelia> there are many who will accept the moniker Mistress/Master who are far from confident in that role
<DOMinick> but I should think the term "Master" should be reserved for just one. And that one being one sub's Master.
<PMolur[d]> but AS A SUBMISSIVE IS NOT AT THE SAME LEVEL AS A SLAVE. Is A Dom AT THE SAME LEVEL AS A master.
<DOMinick> lol
<abigail1> master deems ownership right???
<julia1> no Ma'am I thin they are different
<KaaB> the ones that are learning are not Masters
<julia1> yes sis it does
<DOMinick> not a question of levels, Pmolur
<court{A}> two different entities, PM
<court{A}> a sub is different than a slave
<DOMinick> not necessarily, abigail.
<PMolur[d]> Yes. But is Dominate still a Master. And what would make the two different
<KaaB> think of the word Master, what does it say?, it means top of the game, champion, Master's degree, it means more experience, and expertise
<DOMinick> well, in olden days, the term "Master" meant the young scion of a family.
<PMolur[d]> A deeper depth of the dominate/submissive relationship?
<KaaB> a Master is an experienced Dom
<DOMinick> age anywhere from 14 on down.
<DOMinick> let us hope that is also true, KaaB.
<PMolur[d]> No. I have met some very experienced Dom/Dommes that were not Masters/Mistresses
<julia1> same here PMolur[d] Dom males want total submission Master's want more than submission. Submission is a gift as well.
<PMolur[d]> A Dominate has so much control of the submissive. While the Master has almost, if not complete control of the slave
<court{A}> wait julia, if male DOMs want total submission
<PMolur[d]> And what do Dommes want?
<court{A}> and Masters want more than that.. What is it? What is more than total submission to a Dom or a Master?
<julia1> more to be a slave just to pleasure the Master
<court{A}> I think I understand
<julia1> the Dom wants submission but also to please and is not selfish
<PMolur[d]> A submissive is there to pleasure the Dom
<DOMinick> good question maybe; why IS a submissive there? or here?
<court{A}> what is a submissive to a master that a slave isn't? Or what is a slave to a Master that a submissive isn't?
<DOMinick> just to pleasure the Dominant?
<julia1> no I think the Dom pleasures both parties but is more into the subs heart and soul
* DOMinick smiles at julia1, and is about to say: "Domming is hard work!
<Torrid> because submissive females and males prefer not to be used the way a slave does. They have a voice in what they do and what they are involved in...
<court{A}> so is being a submissive :)
<PMolur[d]> The submissive/slave was an interesting conversation. What makes the Dom/Domme a Dom/Domme and a Master/Mistress a Master/Mistress?
<julia1> that is exactly what I was trying to say Torrid :)
<court{A}> if they are to grow in their submissiveness.. Then yes to do :)))
<Torrid> I am Dominant because I said so!
<MsAmelia> it appears PM that the slave/submissive makes the Dom/Domme a Master/Mistress
* Torrid grins
* DOMinick thinks we're headed toward discussion of motivation now.
<julia1> both parties should always grow together that's what a relationship is
<PMolur[d]> So it would still be the bottom deciding the role of the Dom/Domme/Master/Mistress?
<PMolur[d]> As to how far they, the bottom, wishes to go
<Torrid> Personally...I see subs referring to their DOM/MES as Master/Mistress...
<PMolur[d]> That is a title only
<court{A}> Torrid
* court{A} looks at DOM now
<DOMinick> Molur; both decide I think.
<julia1> I believe the Dom or Master has to earn the title
<MsAmelia> it is heavily effected by the submissive
<PMolur[d]> a sub or slave can refer to the Top anyway the Top wishes
* court{A} then thinks
<Torrid> Yes, court...
<court{A}> to DOMinick I was his submissive to Arnie^, I am his slave its a matter of semantics
<DOMinick> semantics?
<court{A}> yes :)
<DOMinick> If that's all it is, then it doesn't matter to you.
<court{A}> you taught me that
<PMolur[d]> Any relationship should always continue to grow
<julia1> its personal choice I suppose
<PMolur[d]> But how do they differ, if at all?
<DOMinick> anyway, titles don't make the Dom/me. Or the Master/mistress.
<Torrid> The teachings are different too...who you learn about D/s from...or where you learn it from.
<DOMinick> but respect makes the sub. some in another channel refer to me as Sir DOMinick. others as Master DOMinick. But I'm satisfied with a simple "Sir".
<julia1> respect for both parties its mutual respect
<PMolur[d]> No. they are just words to banter about. But a Master/Mistress is a keeper of slaves, in the stricter sense and a Dom/Domme has submissives
<DOMinick> plural, Molur? Lol
<julia1> I would address you as Sir first until you said otherwise
* DOMinick smiles at julia
<Torrid> I like the way you think...Molurus :) plural hehehe
* DOMinick rolls his eyes.
<PMolur[d]> Plural or singular. Talking as groups in general
* julia1 would only want her Dom to have 1 sub
<DOMinick> at a time.
* julia1 smiles fondly back at DOMinick
<PMolur[d]> There are many Dom/Dommes with more then one sub and the same with the M/m relationships
* {P_M}dacy agrees with julia
<julia1> that is true. I would say before things got serious certain items would have to be agreed upon or discussed first
<PMolur[d]> As to what? Multiple subs/slaves? That again is for another time
<court{A}> no that should be discussed at the beginning of a relationship
<DOMinick> limits, I think she means.
<julia1> yes, and among other things as well
<PMolur[d]> What would be the core difference between the Dom/Domme and Master/Mistress?
<julia1> yes limits Sir. I think a Dom is more compromising then a Master and is more open than a Master
<PMolur[d]> Does that make him/her less demanding?
<julia1> no
<Torrid> I think that there unseen or unwritten classes to distinguish between those with more experience.
<PMolur[d]> But, Torrid, it is that all that marks the differences?
<MsAmelia> I would think that the level of trust needed between a slave and a Master/Mistress would include a depth of openness and communication ... or why would a slave give up her/his choices ?
<Torrid> I do not see a difference in the Dominants..I see the difference in titles with the subs...
<Torrid> because that is his/her desire to be a slave...some wish to be used...
<{P_M}dacy> [Domination] is the desire to exert control over a consenting partner for the purpose of mutual gratification.== Different Loving, p. 77 Brame, Brame, and Jacobs Published by Villard Books
<Torrid> in ANY way the Dominant wants to use them.
<DOMinick> yes, I'll buy that one, dacy.
<PMolur[d]> I do. I have seen many different interactions with Masters and Doms between their submissives
<julia1> consenting is the key word her I believe
<Torrid> consenting is a good word...for here, good job dacy :)
<MsAmelia> to take the chance of that gift of trust and loyalty being abused by a rogue Dominant seems pretty reckless but then each to their own :)
<PMolur[d]> a Master, to me seems more apt to put greater restrictions on the slave then a Dom does with a submissive. Generally speaking
* julia1 claps as her sis dacy
<{P_M}dacy> Domination isn't defined as what you do, but rather by what YOU are.
<MsAmelia> yes you are often right PM ... a Dom with a submissive does compromise to a degree ... although as a Domme I'd set the limits of how far I'd compromise
<PMolur[d]> It is what you want to do, as I read it A Mistress would set stricter limits, for the most part?
<{P_M}dacy> some of my reading shows that Domination is An exchange of power flowing from the bottom up
<MsAmelia> with a slave definitely PM
<PMolur[d]> There would be less of a feeling of give and take. And more of a surrender and control?
<Torrid> regardless if I am top or bottom, Im top.
<PMolur[d]> LOL
<MsAmelia> that is generally the meaning of submitting ... to surrender control.... the question is more degree than if * MsAmelia grins at Torrid
<PMolur[d]> And the power is still granted for the bottom. Even thought they may be on top at the time
<MsAmelia> the bottom grants the power through the gift of submission
<PMolur[d]> And how much of a submission determines the "status" of the Top? As a D/D or M/M
<MsAmelia> that I would think is determined by the willingness of both parties ... whether the sub will be slave or the M/M willing to be Dominant to sub
<PMolur[d]> So you meet in the middle ground to find your Top or bottom? Sort of rising to your own mutual level
<PMolur[d]> Sort of rising to their own mutual level...even
<MsAmelia> mostly PM .. I know what I will and will not accept from a submissive ... and I expect most submissives know how far they will be willing to travel so to speak
<PMolur[d]> And will approach or retreat as they feel necessary?
<wild{V_P}> initially yes, Ma'am... but we've surpassed it…willingness, it changes as the relationship changes.. deepens in the better cases
<court{A}> I agree with wild
<PMolur[d]> Does that mean a Dom/Domme will eventual become a Master/Mistress? As the relationship grows?
<Torrid> I for one would not like to be so willing to set rules in stone...I am the type that will try anything once, and 2 times if I like it. If not, I don't do it the second time.
<DOMinick> nods.
<MsAmelia> willingness must be there from the start .. and yes it is to be expected that it would deepen with trust ... the other aspect is in some cases a sub may be beyond or want to go beyond where a Dominant is .. the Dominant needs to recognizes that and determine if the relationship is in both their best interests
<PMolur[d]> I like to try it at least twice. The first time might have been a fluke
<MsAmelia> the rules and expectations I set Torrid have mostly to do with behavior and deportment
<{P_M}dacy> Things that are desirable in a Dom/me=TRUSTWORTHINESS, CONFIDENCE, SELF-CONTROL, WISDOM, HONESTY, COMMUNICATION SKILLS, CAPACITY TO LOVE, DESIRE TO TEACH, COMPASSION, SENSE OF HUMOR,
<PMolur[d]> A Master/ress?
<wild{V_P}> that is true Ma'am, as well as if he can accept the deepening, the willingness, the intensity. If the Dom/Master/Mistress/Domme can deal with it
<MsAmelia> well.... I'm honest... I'll have to work on the rest <G>
<DOMinick> the best policy, MA.
<MsAmelia> definitely wild ... it is not right for a Dominant to hold a submissive back from their needs and desires
<abigail1> I agree with u dacy
<PMolur[d]> In the long run or short run MsAmelia?
<wild{V_P}> sometimes the subs "needs/desires" are not in their own best interest though
<PMolur[d]> What makes the differences between a Dom and a master to you wild?
<wild{V_P}> I don't think that is quite what I meant MA Ma'am....
<Torrid> I do not believe that being submissive works into slavery either. They are different ways of submitting to a Dominant.
<abigail1> learning is a much from a Dom but communication is right up there too
<MsAmelia> both PM .. the exception being if the Dominant truly feels the submissive is not quite ready to go where he/she is trying to leap from a physical and emotional safety standpoint
<wild{V_P}> a Dominant is a person that has the Dominant traits and seems to control their surroundings. A Master/Mistress is personal, and does so specifically with me and with my acquiescence
<MsAmelia> I agree Torrid ... although from what I've seen many go through submissive to get to slave
<wild{V_P}> perhaps Tori, Ma'am... the term "submissive" is easier to accept at first, maybe underneither they were and wanted slave all along
<wild{V_P}> yes they are different. Submissive responds more to the mind, slave more to the physical influence of the Dominant.
<PMolur[d]> So a Master/ress would be a more physical controller the a Dom/me?
<wild{V_P}> you would think they would correlate... but it doesn't to me
<PMolur[d]> Then what is the difference between a Master/ress and a Dom/me?
<wild{V_P}> Dom is generic.. Master is specific
<abigail1> that's what I thought sis
<PMolur[d]> How so?
<wild{V_P}> to Dominate means to have influence over... to Master is to have intimate knowledge and greater mastery of... to me... I don't connect the Dom/sub Master/slave...
<PMolur[d]> Words of wisdom?.. hmmm.. That is about the best definition I have heard yet
<wild{V_P}> smile... thank you PM
<abigail1> :) leave it to wild to come up with just the right words
<wild{V_P}> I've been told I have a wicked pen... so to speak.. Thank you.. Must be all the termination and counseling letters I have to write
<PMolur[d]> So Dom/mes have a control over the submissive and the Master/ress has a greater control and deeper connection to the slaves life?
<wild{V_P}> but I don't equate.. That a Master/ress must be with a slave
<PMolur[d]> How so? We are not talking titles such as Sir, Ma'am, Master, Mistress
<wild{V_P}> I have a harder time defining sub and slave.
<PMolur[d]> what a bottom calls a Top is not an issue
<wild{V_P}> A sub is caught and kept (so to speak) is through the mind. A slave.... through physical manifestations. Or expectations of those manifestations... from the Top
<PMolur[d]> Then you are losing me somewhere here So a Master/ress can have a submissive with out that submissive being a slave?
<wild{V_P}> exactly...
<PMolur[d]> And a Dom/me can have a slave?
<wild{V_P}> yes
<PMolur[d]> That I don't believe is, generally speaking, true
<wild{V_P}> a slave will respond to more Dominants than a submissive will. The submissive gives out of their mind. a slave keeps their thoughts more to themselves
<wild{V_P}> there is some intermingling though...
<PMolur[d]> I can be called Master by a submissive. But to exercise the control that the slave wants, or not to exercise the control the sub does not want...
<wild{V_P}> specially with each relationship being unique
<PMolur[d]> Would determine the type of dominate I am? All this is in general.
<wild{V_P}> a submissive wants control... but she wants to think she is giving it
<PMolur[d]> A submissive wants to be controlled...but they want to think it is being done to them instead of allowing it to be done? but they want to think it is being done to them instead of then allowing it to be done? Okay?
<wild{V_P}> more in the line of two types of employees..... one wants to know why and take ownership of the task as their own... the other wants plain orders and very specific
<PMolur[d]> But how does that differentiate between a Dom/me and a Master/ress?
<wild{V_P}> as a submissive... give me a task.. And what you want as the outcome. As a slave.. Give me a task and detailed instructions on what you want done... doesn't matter what the outcome is
<^Vlad_P> the way I look at it is that the sub(s) must know and fit into what I want, and it is different for each
<PMolur[d]> That is fine as far as that goes. But what differentiates a Dom/me from a Master/ress?
<wild{V_P}> Dom is general... Master is specific... same definition I gave before
<PMolur[d]> I still have a problem with your definition of a Dom/me having slaves and a Master/ress having subs. but that can be for another night
[21:51] <PMolur[d]> In other words no it does not make much sense to me, as you have it explained.
<Wild{V_P}> PM.......a Dom and Master can be the same person.... Dominant in general to others, Master in specific to certain person(s) a sub and a slave cannot be the same person...
<PMolur[d]> But what makes that difference. That you answered very well but did not elaborate. You reverted back to a discussion on the subs/slaves Why? Why can a sub and a slave not be the same person if a Dom and a Master can be? You can be a slave to one Master but submissive to many dominates
<wild{V_P}> I see more distinction in sub and slaves
<{P_M}dacy> I agree Master..
<PMolur[d]> I see more distinction in both sub/slave and Dom/Master
<wild{V_P}> I don't believe so PM... a submissive would not deal well with the same dealings as a slave
<PMolur[d]> Nor a Master and a Dom
<jenny`> a Master knows what a submissive needs, he has had much experience, and is not only able to control the sub, but can teach her about herself, he knows a woman's body like she does, but in some ways better, and teaches her things about her soul. a Master is not concerned about sex that much, he wants to know the mind of the sub, to know her very soul

Session Close: Tue Mar 30 23:26:46 1999