Slave/Submissive what is the difference?

[iluvXTRMcbt]

Curious to see what answers I get here.

This question is for anyone.

In your mind, what is the difference between a submissive and a slave?

[Endu]

There is honestly no distinction for me.

The only time I distinguish between the two is if the person I'm with does. Some words have certain connotations that not everyone likes.

I run in terror from the word "girlfriend", for example, but "slave" or "sub", "master" or "dom", are all very benign to me.

[Edit: Bad Endu. You promised not to do that anymore.]

I'm saying all this as the Captain Obvious fanfare blares in the background.

[meeacaroline]

A submissive has a choice. Is allowed to say no. Can pick and choose things. Is almost an equal but likes to be controlled.

A slave relishes in the control. Has to do what is said. Can only decline in the case of danger or hard limit. Is committed to one person and is barely thought of as a person themselves.

That's my take on it.

[iluvXTRMcbt]

I will give my answer to this.

a submissive is someone who actually has most of the control in a BDSM scene because they set the limits, decide what will/will not happen, and can stop the scene at just about anytime they want.

a slave is the person who literally gives complete control to another person. this is generally something achieved over time and as trust builds between people. the slave will trust the Master/Mistress to respect limits even without expressing them directly. However, the slave is also open to streaching of the limits and expanding the experiances for the pleasure of the Master/Mistress. a slave will usually only have a few hard set limits and those are usually something like legal, damage, etc.

most relationships in the BDSM roles start with a Dom and submissive, but over time can turn into Master/Mistress and slave relationships. This change depends on the two parties involved.

[Star Shadows]

While, in technicalities there are differences, and I should know, I was pretty tight laced on it and used to be incredibly fussy about it. But for the vast majority of cases and purposes there is no difference, and those differences that do exist are not important. I personally would consider myself a submissive but thats more out of a preference of how it sounds than any legitimate reasoning behind the meanings of the word.

[Anjelen]

Personally i feel the difference between 'slave' and 'submissive' is largely a semantic one, further muddled by my preferring to refer to my submissive as my slave - because the Dutch Language, in my opinion has no equivalent for 'submissive' that carries the same load.

hehe. i said load.

All joking aside - 'Submissive', in my opinion, is a label, a marker, a (self-applied) identity modifier. If i can make a sweeping generalisation here; All slaves are submissive - not all submissives are slaves.

Or, to steal a cliché; 'Submissive' is one's -nature-, while being someone's slave largely depends on the depth to which the submissive experiences that nature. Utter and total devotion to one (set of) Dominant(s) makes one a slave - to whichever degree this devotion is carried out.

I personally draw a similar distinction between my clients and my submissives - while i would not dare interfere or introduce myself into the lives of my clientéle outside their coming to me - i will not lay down the law in their house unless i have been invited to do so for the purpose of a session, i would not do so for a submissive. My submissives (and slaves), however, often have no such luck.

To me - a submissive is someone who identifies as such; the label of slave is earned by someone's devotion to one, or more Dominant(s) and the interplay in this relationship.

To horribly oversimplify what i stated above - 'submissive' is how a slave self-identifies. 'Slave' is how their Dominant(s) identify their submissive.

[Changel]

To shorten it to a sentence: A submissive has limits; a slave does not.

Personally, I think a lot of people can be submissive, but I think being a slave is ingrained into you (if that makes sense!). A lot of people use the words interchangeably, but I definitely think there's a difference, and without a long explanation, I've summed it up above (for me, anyway).

[vulcan]

Some of my views on the differences between Doms and subs and Masters and slaves are set out in thread 102807 but there are a couple of things I've noticed in this thread.

Firstly I think Anjelen makes the point about the semantic issue very well and then I am curious about Changel's comments. Changel, you say, and I quote 'A submissive has limits; a slave does not', however at the bottom of your message you list your limits, even though you deem yourself an 'owned and collared slave'

I have no problem with any of this, but I am interested in how you reconcile these apparent paradoxes in your own life.

[CalmInControl]

Originally Posted by iluvXTRMcbt

In your mind, what is the difference between a submissive and a slave?

Originally I was going to write a post similar to what has already been said in the sense that I feel a submissive has a lot more freedom to accept and decline tasks when compared to a slave.

However, interestingly as a dominant I much prefer the terms dominant and submissive because in my mind the relationship shared by a dominant and submissive is a much more reciprocal approach.

Although it's probably not entirely correct I view a dominant/submissive relationship to be more nurturing from the dominant's perspective as compared to a master/slave relationship. In my mind a dominant essentially serves a submissive by ensuring their health and well-being whereas a master would not look out for a slave.

In short my warped view is that a dominant will take into account the development and growth of the submissive whereas the master commands the slave solely for their own pleasure.

[Changel]

Originally Posted by vulcan

Some of my views on the differences between Doms and subs and Masters and slaves are set out in thread 102807 but there are a couple of things I've noticed in this thread.

Firstly I think Anjelen makes the point about the semantic issue very well and then I am curious about Changel's comments. Changel, you say, and I quote 'A submissive has limits; a slave does not', however at the bottom of your message you list your limits, even though you deem yourself an 'owned and collared slave'

I have no problem with any of this, but I am interested in how you reconcile these apparent paradoxes in your own life.

I was more talking about offline, rather than online. I agreed to be a dare slave for a member on this site and they dared me to put that in my sig; it's not what I would personally call a slave. I wouldn't call myself a slave, more a submissive, because at the moment I do have limits.

[vulcan]

Thanks for the clarification Changel,

[Changel]

Originally Posted by vulcan

Thanks for the clarification Changel,

No worries; I can understand the confusion