quote:

ORIGINAL: chattelmansub

Whichever you are please define exactly what either of those terms mean to you and are they interchangeable are separate servile descriptive terms?

quote:

ORIGINAL: personagrata

quote:

ORIGINAL: chattelmansub

Whichever you are please define exactly what either of those terms mean to you and are they interchangeable are separate servile descriptive terms?

A submissive is someone who accepts the superiority of another, or who feels certain others are superior, and wants to interact with those others in a submissive way.
Slave goes beyond that, in as much as one is subservient to the extreme. Ownership, absolute obedience, unconditional surrender, are traits.
They are not interchangeable. A slave has submissive traits, but goes beyond. And one is not a slave without an owner (or master/mistress…,). I have used the terms “slave to” or “potential slave”, rather than “slave” only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

quote:

ORIGINAL: personagrata

quote:

ORIGINAL: chattelmansub

Whichever you are please define exactly what either of those terms mean to you and are they interchangeable are separate servile descriptive terms?

A submissive is someone who accepts the superiority of another, or who feels certain others are superior, and wants to interact with those others in a submissive way.
Slave goes beyond that, in as much as one is subservient to the extreme. Ownership, absolute obedience, unconditional surrender, are traits.
They are not interchangeable. A slave has submissive traits, but goes beyond. And one is not a slave without an owner (or master/mistress…,). I have used the terms “slave to” or “potential slave”, rather than “slave” only.

I would disagree, as most submissive folk are only submissive to one who they believe is capable of leadership in their particular relationship. This does not mean I feel a dominant in my life is superior in any way.
And where exactly is this "beyond''where a slave may go that a submissive cannot or will not? Is that like the old world maps "HERE there be dragons" ????

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

Perhaps it is a matter of definitions, but 'superiority' to me would be that the dominant/master is infallible but guess what, they are human. I would much rather follow someone who takes my thoughts into consideration; who sees me as a person with a brain who can be delegated to and trusted to do what the dominant deems best for the relationship.
Also, submissive is certainly not 'less than' in any way shape or form.

Defining the difference between submissive and slave is like trying to define “what is a dog?”
We can say a dog has 4 legs and fur but so does a cat or a squirrel.
We can say a dog has 4 legs and fur and barks-- but not all dogs bark.
We can say a dog has 4 legs and fur and barks, but what breed is it? A chihuahua? A rottweiler? A mutt?
Would it not be an unfortunate pairing if the chihuahua and great dane are mated?

If I say I own a dog, you may be able to have a general idea that I have a 4 legged furry barking creature in my home, but until I inform you what sort of dog I own you can't know anything more than that. Perhaps I am a dog person who just wants a dog, or perhaps I prefer poodles as suiting my tastes- the dominant men in my life did not want to be a master, and therefore did not want a slave. As you say, it is a choice between each couple what 'title' they prefer.


Even a slave, whether they believe so or not can choose to leave if they find their situation untenable.
So again, I ask where is this 'beyond' where slaves go and submissive folk cannot? To me this indicates that you think slave is somehow BETTER THAN submissive. I most heartily disagree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

You're allowed to define words for yourself. However, since the rest of us don't share your definition, what's important is that you don't stop with just giving the label. You need to define it for potential partners.

Me? I define sub as someone who has turned over authority in certain negotiated arenas of his or her life. Slave, someone who has turned over authority in all or almost all arenas. What you're missing in your definition is that many owners do take into account the preferences of their partners. Because that's what people who love each other do. So The Man isn't going to demand I go to a horror flick festival since he knows I won't sleep as a result. And since he cares about me, he's not going to demand things that will give me anxiety attacks. That's him making the decision to take my preferences and well being into account. And thus, when I demur going to a movie, I'm doing so with the authority he delegated to me.

I said almost all since you can't turn over authority that others have over you or that you have over others, unless those others are capable of giving and do give informed consent. Meaning your owner can tell you to quit your job, but he can't tell you how to do it. Your manager is the only one with that authority. You can't, and shouldn't, give over authority over your children. Because they haven't accepted your new partner as a parent yet, and allowing the new partner to make decisions could well cause them major difficulties and that's wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chattelmansub

Whichever you are please define exactly what either of those terms mean to you and are they interchangeable are separate servile descriptive terms?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

IMO, voluntary slavery is an oxymoron. So, submissive.

quote:

IMO, voluntary slavery is an oxymoron.