slave or submissive?

A question was posed via broadcast email through one of the local groups I belong to recently. It was a query regarding the difference between a submissive and a slave. I was in awe of the variety of answers that came across my email which seemed to indicate a belief that they were similar and about obedience. The general assumption regarding their difference however, seems to have been that submissives are retaining control and part time while slaves have a spiritual relationship.

Well.. frankly speaking.. thats just crap. The similarities between a submissive and a slave end at a mutual proclivity to submit. From there, the differences are vast.

A submissive submits to a Dominant partner as they have mutually agreed upon. The submissive has delineated the areas in which she will or will not submit, the timing of her submission and to whom she will submit. Ergo, in all reality, the submissive has maintained full control of herself even through her submission. Further, the very act of submission is defined by the submissive herself including focus on play and limitations. Thus, in a Dominant / submissive relationship, the Dominant partner is truly an instrument to the submissive.

In contrast, a slave is owned property of her Master. As property or chattel, the slave subjugates herself to her Master's will at all times, in all ways and is obedient to His command without hesitation. A slave in this type of relationship is afforded only so many choices and decisions as her Master gives her and those may be removed at His discretion. A slave's submission is a need fulfilled by service to her Master. There are no limits to that service. Unlike a Dominant partner, a Master is to His slave the entirety of her world, the definition of it.. all things flow through Him. Beyond this, a slave has no opportunity to leave her Master without his approval while a submissive may go at her own accord.

I dont believe the differences between the Dominant / submissive and Master / slave relationships are merely able to summed up between which one is of a spiritual nature and which one is more control oriented. Rather, in a Dominant /submissive relationship the submissive defines the relationship while in a Master / slave relationship that is the responsibility of the Master.

I believe that both relationships can be based on love and can have a strong connection. That being said, there is a special vulnerability a slave bears to her Master as his property. She has placed all her proverbial eggs in one basket so to speak by placing blind trust and faith in Him. With that though, she fulfills her own need to serve beyond measure. This is not about submitting in between the sheets. Slaves serve day in and day out regardless of their desire to complete the assigned chore because it is through their immediate obedience that they fulfill their Master's need.

Can a Master be a Dominant to a submissive? yes.. Can a Dominant be a Master to a slave? not necessarily.. Its the old square is a rectangle but a rectangle isnt necessarily a square rule..
To extend that further though.. Can a submissive be a slave to a Master? no.. Can a slave be a submissive to a Dominant? no again.. Why the difference here? Because of need.. a submissive needs to maintain control to a certain degree and a Master needs to own all of it.. While a slave needs to be owned and to have no control.. her world would be in disorder with a Dominant.

Are submissives fun? Absolutely. Are slaves entertaining? You bet you're bottom dollar. Can you just walk up to either one of them and grab them off the shelf and have instant success? No way Jose. At their core, they are inately different as defined by their needs.. their need for or to release control.. their need to obey.. and the intensity of their feeling to subjugate themselves.. Neither is better or worse.. Nor is this a spiritual matter..

Its all about need.. hunger.. desire.. Before you define yourself, you should define yours.