Slave/Submissive - What is the difference??

I think you'll get as many answers as there are people here to answer as I think just about everyone views it differently.

My views have changed over the years that I have belonged to my owner and might change further in the future as I learn more about myself and others.

First and foremost, I believe that submissive is a verb to describe either the behavior, reaction, or the nature of a person (or all of the above). There are some people who are submissive in some areas of their life and others who are submissive by nature.

When it comes to the lifestyle context, while I don't like using it as a noun, I view the term "submissive" as someone who is interested in or who by nature prefers being on the bottom end of a D/s or M/s relationship. They might not necessarily be submissive in nature all the way around, but within the dynamic of lifestyle relationships, they are inclined to be the person who is dominated or controlled rather than the dominator or controller. It is a convenient label to let people know what aspect of the D or the s that person is interested in.

A slave to me, is simply someone who is owned. They might be a submissive person - they might not be a submissive person. In order to fit into my (and Webster's) definition of slave, however, they must be abjectly subservient to another individual(s) i.e. their owner. They don't have to be submissive to the mailman, the grocer, or anyone else who claims to be a Dom or Master unless required to behave that way by their owner.

I no longer believe that limits have anything to do with the definitions of either slave or submissive nor do I think it depends on various levels of submission. A submissive might be an owned slave. She might be someone interested in being owned and she might be someone who is more inclined to incorporate D/s into only some aspects of her life. There are no levels to me. A slave is owned. A submissive may or may not be owned. If she is owned, then she is also a slave.

The BDSM lifestyle has created its own bit of jargon which in many cases leaves a lot of gray area to be filled in by personal interpretation.

I agree with the line of thought that says that a slave doesn't have to be submissive in nature. They must, however, be owned and in being owned, must be subservient to that particular owner.

I am not a submissive woman by nature. I'm not submissive to all Doms, Masters, Mistresses, etc. I am, however, submissive by nature to strong, confident, dominant men. I have surrendered to one man only and through his enslavement of me, he defines my limits. My reaction to him is submissive because of who he is and who I am.