The differences

[Kitten]

What do you feel the difference is between a Dom(me) and a Master/Mistress, and a slave and a submissive?

[fromo]

Dominant, someone who asserts them self over another, where as I see a master who is someone more controlling, where as a dom tends to keep things to single time basis (aka sessions) A master takes control of elements of another's life, that's where I personly start to define the two, might not be the right way to look at them, but its how I look at them.

Sub/Slave. I see the slave, as someone who not only lets them self's be played with, but literary lets them self's be at the whim of another person in every way (though there are often various limits) but the slave, alows there life to be ruled by the other, where as the sub, takes it in a more off hand manor, not giving up so much control, whiles a sub may give away elements of control, they keep them self's separate.

Not exactly the best way to write this out, but, this is my thoughts on the differences. I'm curious to see what others say to this, see what others use to define the types.

[XxxMistress]

Dom/Master is the same to me, Though a Master tend to get more .. physical.

Sub; As same as a slave beside having limits, But The sub actually get the right to use the 'safe word'
Which is a word the owner & the sub agrees on, If the sub couldn't handle more pain/humiliation/anything really.

Slave; In the BDSM wise he/she got no limits, Other than the obvious ones. Also he doesn't get the right to use the 'safe word'.

P.s There are no 'slaves online' Only subs. (IMO)

[fromo]

Originally Posted by XxxMistress

Dom/Master is the same to me, Though a Master tend to get more .. physical.

Sub; As same as a slave beside having limits, But The sub actually get the right to use the 'safe word'
Which is a word the owner & the sub agrees on, If the sub couldn't handle more pain/humiliation/anything really.

Slave; In the BDSM wise he/she got no limits, Other than the obvious ones. Also he doesn't get the right to use the 'safe word'.

P.s There are no 'slaves online' Only subs. (IMO)

... I just imagined you breaking out into dance then, to 'lets get physical' lol. Though, i do see your points there.

[TensionRoom101]

I'll start with how I see myself as a dominant man. I own a sub so for some that would be seen as a master, but the difference is I don't tend to have a need to own my subs- she is owned because she needs to be owned, not because I require it of her. I am naturally very laid back and give my subs much freedom, don't over assert my wants, but it is clear I am the one in control. Not driven by ego- I don't have anything to prove- but by a wanting for things to be well for my subs.

A master, like a dominant, is also in control, but also tends to be more controlling too. A master's needs are normally paramount in a circumstance. Mistress I can't comment on so much, because almost all of the mistresses I know are pro-dommes and very different rules apply.

Submissives are free people who need or crave direction from another person. A slave has no or few freedoms, and those that they do have they have by the grace of their owner.

Mike

[Belowyou]

I use those terms interchangeably

[Counterfeit_Fantasy]

The relationship between a Dom and a sub is complex to say the least. However, you can pare it down to certain essentials.

To my way of thinking, there exists between a Dom and a sub what is in effect a social contract. It stipulates the duties of both the one who rules and the one who is ruled, or controls and is controlled, or whatever set of terms you want to use.

This is by definition going to include a certain set of ethics, a certain morality to it, because it implicitly has responsibilities for both sides. In other words, the sub comes to expect certain behaviors and such from the Dom, just as the Dom come to expect certain things from the sub.

The negotiation for power exchanges, in whatever fashion they are done (implicit, explicit, written, whatever) forms the basis of the social contract. The more implicit, the more easily misunderstandings can creep in that cause things to fall apart, or appear to fall apart.

So I could just as easily say, that the sub is expected to follow my commands, and I am expected to not require anything of the sub that crosses their hard limits or goes against their core values. Within this framework, if the social contract holds up to the test of time, the trust and commitment is going to deepen. Yes, I know this is a gross oversimplification.

If things go very well indeed, the sub may eventually say something like "I am yours, as much as you want for as long as you want." If this is actually truly meant, then the sub has in effect said that she wishes to abrogate her right to end the relationship.

Abrogate: 1. To annul by an authoritative act; to abolish by the
authority of the maker or his successor; to repeal; --
applied to the repeal of laws, decrees, ordinances, the
abolition of customs, etc.

This doesn't mean that she cannot then choose to end the relationship should she need to, but in the event that she ever reaches that point it indicates that there has - for some reason - been a failure of the social contract between the Dom and the sub, even if the negotiated terms have been held to. I want to emphasize this strongly - should the slave reach the point she wishes to end the relationship, it means the social contract has already broken down. If the social contract is being adhered to, and the Dominant is doing his job properly, then this is the absolute last headspace that the slave ever wants to reach.

A submissive is going to submit on an everyday basis and has the ability to say no. As a sub, they don't particularly need to be owned to be a submissive. However, a slave can't be a slave if they are unowned, any more than one can - in my opinion - be a Master in the bdsm sense without having someone who calls them Master.

A slave always starts out being a submissive, and eventually - if the Dominant handles things correctly - the subs lack of need to say no develops into what is an inability to say no. To my mind, this is also one of the distinctions between a submissive and a slave.

Once a sub has become a slave, they have in effect agreed to be owned - they are now the property of the Dom, and have effectively noted that they no longer have (no longer wish to have) control over anything; and do not even want to have the control to say "I want to end this."

Many people equate a Master/slave relationship with micromanagement, i.e. the slave makes absolutely no decisions at all. However, I don't include micromanagement in my definition, and instead choose to focus on the sense of ownership that occurs. In my opinion, the judgement and intelligence of the slave are also resources that are mine to use as I see fit.

If I want my slave to exhibit a certain independence of action because micromanagement is (to me) a pain in the ass, then that's absolutely my decision to make - and should the slave exercise that independence of action in a fashion that I dislike, then training - or re-training - will occur. If needed, I can always take away that independence of action - it becomes, according to the social contract that exists, my right to be able to do so should I choose to do so.

To me, it's much more useful to have a slave that thinks, exercises her judgement, and has opinions - I can bounce ideas off of her and use her as a resource to reach better decisions. After all, her differing ideas and her comments on things are going to allow me to think about things in different ways than I would be able to all on my own; by thinking about it on my own first and then obtaining her opinions, reactions, and so on, then I am going to think things that I never would have thought of purely on my lonesome. Many times, I come to make better decisions when a slaves mind is available to me as a resource.

He explains that in huge detail...
tl;dr: Submissive and Dominant relationships are based, but not always completely, from trust and agreement.
Slave and Master relationships are based, but not completely, on trust and obedience.

Both have different mindsets and perimeter so that definition is based on the person and their viewer. Usually a sub defines herself as free in mind as well as chained, by mind, believe that though they love their Dom, the Dom doesn't make them who they are. Usually they are accompanied by limits and safe words that set up and stay firm beforehand. Slaves are committed to their Masters (in their minds at least, I've seen some pretty serious subs) more than subs. Their limits are discussed and set up during their time with the Master, the relationship is bond by a sort of invisible (or actual) set of terms and the slave has a strong belief they are their to serve, as desired.

[Counterfeit_Fantasy]

Not experience enough in Domme(-ing?) so have another quote!

My take on it differs from the responses I have read thus far. I identify as a Top always, a Domme usually, and a Mistress often, depending upon context. All of those titles can feel true simultaneously. A bottom can also identify as a sub or slave simultaneously.

From my point of view, a Top runs a scene and may or may not be in any other relationship with the bottom. A Dominant runs a scene in collaboration with a bottom, with whom there is some sort of relationship, which may or may not be committed. A Mistress/Master runs a relationship in collaboration with a bottom with whom there is a commitment, which may or may not be full-time. 'Runs' is relative in that there ought to be negotiation in any case, to varying degrees as is appropriate.

Also IMO, a bottom is a person who likes to receive sensation. A sub is a person who likes to serve, be it sex, play, or usefulness. A slave is a person who is dedicated to serve one Dominant, be it sex, play or usefulness. All of the previous statements are simply my opinion based on observation and experience, but in no way speak to my thoughts on how other people self-identify.

And shorter quote

dominant - someone to whom a bottom submits (or someone to whom a bottom has submitted in the past); the act of submitting in this case would be defined as bottoming for the purpose of power exchange rather than just enjoying, keeping to just the spanking example, having their arse smacked

master - a kind of dominant into ego-trip (there's nothing offensive about that, incidentally) or a kind of dominant that prefers the total subversion of another into their will-to-power

[vulcan]

It seems to me that even the differences are different to different people, lol, if that makes any sense at all.
For me it's about the basic nature of the relationship,please bear in mind these are just my personal take on it.

Doms/Dommes and subs have a relationship which is based on Bdsm practices and sex. In other words Without Bdsm and all that it involves there would be no Doms/Dommes and subs.
Masters/Mistresses and slaves have a different basis for their relationship. It is based on control. Now to be fair there is almost always an interest in and practice of bdsm as well, but the relationship doesn't absolutely require it. I have known Master/slave relationships which involve no sex at all, though they are unusual.
Obviously there is a great deal more to both types of relationship than this, but I belive this is the core difference, though of course not everyone would agree

[TensionRoom101]

Originally Posted by vulcan

In other words Without Bdsm and all that it involves there would be no Doms/Dommes and subs.

This has not been my experience.

[The Game Master]

I view Dom/Master and Sub/Slave as the same thing.

[Endu]

You can't compartmentalize them.

It's like saying, "I like bondage" or "I like to be humiliated". Well, both of those are very broad ideas that could literally mean anything the person wants.

I'm going to be pretentious and quote Alexis de Tocqueville, a random guy in history that was quoted to me in a video game, but whose words are no less profound.

Tocqueville said:

"General ideas are no proof of the strength, but rather of the insufficiency of the human intellect."

I'm going to contradict Tocqueville here and say he's wrong.

I would say complex ideas are proof of the insufficiency of the human intellect.

Those people who try to rationalize, intellectualize, quantify, compartmentalize, are usually the ones who understand the least.

It's easy to get confused, as some people here might be, when you try too hard to understand subjective ideas objectively.

In other words: When you know who you are, things don't require rigid definitions. Definitions might even become interchangeable.

But that's why people ask these questions, right? They're searching for who they are and how they fit in.

The remedy for this is to just do and not worry about what it is you're doing. Feel your way through, logic and rationale can only get you so far.

[Kitten]

Originally Posted by Endu

Tocqueville said:

"General ideas are no proof of the strength, but rather of the insufficiency of the human intellect."

I'm going to contradict Tocqueville here and say he's wrong.

I would say complex ideas are proof of the insufficiency of the human intellect.

My english is a little crummy sometimes but I think you're actually just repeating what Tocqueville said?

[Endu]

Originally Posted by Kitten

My english is a little crummy sometimes but I think you're actually just repeating what Tocqueville said?

In a way, you're right. It depends on how you look at it.

My point wasn't actually to contradict Tocqueville, but to take what he said out of context to illustrate another point.

It's all in the lesson.

[RST]

It seems to me that dom/sub are more generalized terms for parties in a relationship based on dominance than master/slave. The latter seem to express an extreme type of submission that is not altogether voluntary and more extreme. Then again in a BDSM context partners might like to exaggerate their play with these terms.