Then it's not a Master/slave relationship. A slave has definition and it's not this one that fags love to bastardize.
In the modern world, the slave does have to submit and surrender but as a slave, it does as is ordered under the control of its Master. If it doesn't want to be a slave and love as a slave then perhaps it's more a boy in designation and role.
Gay men have this tendency to make stuff up and change it it goes along. If you want to be a slave of a Master then act and love as one. If a slave can pick and choose what it wants to do then it's not a "slave".. period. Be a bit, be a faggot, what ever but STOP this notion that a Master/slave relationship is built on anything mutual. For those of us who are living the true Master/slave life, those who are trying to redefine what it means only works to weaken what mine stands for.
Gay men have serious identity issues and are some of the most temperamental queens i've ever encountered.
You either submit and surrender to the control of a Master or you don't. If I were a Master and the slave started making demands and refusing orders, it's cut lose. I'd never hurt anyone but many of the things these boys who call themselves "slaves" today aren't cut out to actually be one. By trying to dominate from the bottom is to say that aren't online with their Master and should be cut lose. Int he 35 years I've been part of this lifestyle the biggest reason these loves break up is the subs inability to commit to his place and wants to call shots and chose when to serve. And when you drill down, it's not because they were asked to accept poor treatment, rather, it's because they just didn't want to.
Stop trying to rationalize piss poor behavior bus boys who have no real place in this lifestyle. Perhaps they're better suited in roleplay sessions and stay out of this community.
