Submissive verses Slave

I know for me the difference lies in a few factors. This is the model that works for me though and I've generally found my interpretation of it isn't the 'in vogue' way in the modern scene.

For me the primary measure is autonomy. How much autonomy is the sub/slave surrendering? I personally measure this in my own M/s by whether I exert conttol (or have the right to) over 'big life' elements. If I can determine what happens with finances, property, social interaction or permanent body changes then to me uou've most likely got a slave. This for me ties into the idea of authority transfer. My current slave runs everything by me unless in predefined scenarios such as unexpected absence or medical emergency where the dynamic becomes 'reduced' or even on hold. It doesn't make sense in my concept of a slave if they can just decide what they are or want to do. If I'm in a D/s I'm well aware of where I can (and cannot exert) authority.

The secondary considerations is motivation. A submissive is more likely in my experience to want a more limited scope of service than a slave. A slave will almost slways want to be proactive and looking to serve in any way big or small. A sub will probably want to in limited or specific scenarios or durations.

I don't like the notion that a sub 'evolves' into a slave. I've met subs who I respect immensely and have been in BDSM for decades who won't consider M/s or being a slave becsuse it doesn't work for them or they have no interest. It's invalidating and insulting to them in my mind to insist they must or 'should' be a slave. To do so slso diminishes the worth of dubmissives as an archetype.

They're totally different motivations and mentalities required. You can't routinely switch slaving on and off and realistically expect it to be seen as slave. However it's insanely tough to be a slave and I honestly do nog blame most s-types for not wanting to commit to that

Love this, Rianai.

To summerize (And this is just my opinion)

SLAVE: No-strings- attached housework. No-strings attached chores. Considered "property" much like slaves in the classical sense. Basically indentured servant. NO romance/love or affection. Little, if any, kink or fetish play.

SUBMISSIVE: May do housework and chores but, depending on the relationship, does so willingly to please their partner. NOT considered property in as strict a sense as a slave. However, still follows orders and defers to their dominant. Kink/fetish play are usually part of the dynamic. Romance, love, and affection can also be part of the relationship. In other words, less strict than a slave.

a DOMINANT plays with their submissive, and cares for them as a partner, considers them subservient, but still equal.

A MASTER orders their slave around and expects to be obeyed without question. They care for them only as property, or at best, as a boss cares for their employees. But usually not as a partner, and never as an equal. Again, there is no romance involved.

The dominant/submissive dynanic is more sensual than the Master/slave dynamic.