Is everyone aware of the fundamental and primary differences between the two?
As i understand it - submissives surrender themselves (submit) to their Dominants #willingly, after their Dominant (Dom/Daddy/Sir/One or Domme/Mommy/Ma'am/One) has earned ... AFTER their Dominant has #EARNed their Trust, and there is cogent discussion between the two when something (or someone) new is or may be added or when the submissive wishes to add to their dynamic.
As i understand it - slaves, once they agree to be with the asking Master/Mistress, they have NO say-so, whatsoever, in what goes on with them. As i understand it, there is no 'cogent discussion' WITH the slave should Master/Mistress decide to make changes to their dynamic, no matter how severe or mundane.
Tell me, oh wise and knowledgeable ones , am i correct in my understanding? Or have i missed the mark along the way?
i look forward to Your/your replies.
Thank You/you, in advance, for participating in my little query. i only wish to know what it is i do not know.
My opinion is that a sub is someone who decides by it's own to submit while a slave is a property. So the main difference would be that the slave denotes a more serious, even forced, commitment and less freedom.
That being said, I don't actually see too much difference as here there is no actual slavery so any slave is free to leave the relationship when she wants and the only that prevents this to happen is the will to submit. The only difference is on the mind of each one: some people use the terms sub and slave as synonyms while others don't consider themselves slaves as for them it implies a strong possession and a limitation of their freedom.
I believe the difference between sub and slave is the mindset of the sub or slave and not their role in the relationship. I've seen subs who have "acted" like slaves and slaves that have "acted" like subs.
The one thing to know is that slavery is illegal and you can not hold or be held against your will. If a sub or slave wants to get out of a relationship they can. They are not held or bound by any laws or contacts. Any contacts a sub or slave did sign are not legal biding contracts.
I would say that the difference between the two is that they are two different frames of BDSM relationships. In both frames the s part gives away some of their power to the D part of the relationship but the quantity of the power given away in the two cases is different, and that in turn makes the relationship a different one.
In my opinion the difference is not the 'congent discussion'. For example, in a D/s relationship, the wishes of the D part that don't breach the initial agreement (eg the limits of the s part and so on) are not to be negotiated. Let's say that for the first time in this relationship the D part what the s to rim them and rimming is not outside of the s part's limits. If this was to be discussed at that moment (or before the scene) submission would go out of the window. In contrary, the s part has either to obey to the D part's wish or use the safeword.
The same mechanism and framework applies to a M/s relationship too, with the difference being that the power the s part gave to the M part extend to other parts of s part's life, eg in their professional life, family decisions and so on.
But here is a caveat for the D or M part: it is their responsibility to know, understand and have laid out a concrete plan on what they ask from their s counterparts. The Mistress/Master title doesn't refer only to ownership but also to skill and effort .
Of course, outside the BDSM framework, these two people (in each of the two cases) are completely equal in legal terms and free to do whatever they like within the boundaries of the law. But this detail is irrelevant in a discussion like this. People participate freely and voluntarily to BDSM activities.
In my experience it is always best to evolve into a Master/slave relationship over a long period of time. If you suspect that you may want to become your Dominant's property you should question him extensively. His base limits need to be similar to yours.
None of it is about titles. It is about commitment on both sides. If you are going to commit to give up your voice and trust his judgment wholeheartedly he has to be committed to take on the role. Many Dominant men want a slave but they do not understand the level of responsibility that comes along with this. A slave is not part time. That's not saying that you need him to tell you how and why to tie your shoes, but he has to be willing to make sacrifices too.
I am a submissive that freely gives myself, of my own free will to my Master. I have become after years of service a slave again by my own free will. This has been my choice, never has it been a demand from my Master.
As is the BDSM lifestyle, it is by choice and by my own free will that I live this way.
But I am not weak, I am strong and no one can ever make me do what I don't want to do.
Master loves me and cares for me because of my total commintment to him and his happiness! Just a slaves opinion! Peace!
In Italy se use sub ("sottomessa") and slave ("schiava") with two different meanings:
a sub, like a Dom, is a declaration about your preferences. What you are. A slave is the declaration of a role recognized in the community. "slave" is a collared sub, recognized as such by community members. For example, during a party or munch is normally accepted for a Dom to ask a sub to play, but if you want to interact with a slave you must ask his Master.
I think this lifestyle is mostly about "total" and permanent power exchange in order to reach stability. Anything less than this level should evolve in this direction if both of them are genuine. It's a very serious commitment, much more serious than marriage.
A real submissive should primarily find his pleasure in "serving" his Dom/Domme and nothing else. It's not the responsibility of the Dom/Domme to learn about the sub's fetishes and satisfy them.