All I have to say is that personal preference for B/both parties involved should be considered. I for one do not like using the term slave in reference to one I hold dear to My heart. The word has historical negative conotations and I personally do not like the term.

However, I do completely respect the term for O/others to use as they will. For Me it is only a matter of taste, and personal preference.

As TG, said before the technical definition of slave vs sub is that a sub can negotiate. *shrug* Perhaps, but does not, int he beginning a slave/sub still need to negotitate thier own levels or lack of levels of independence with the would be Dom/me?

Again, I feel that the level of control the Dominant has over the "s" should be a negotiated thing of complete conscent by both parties from before the beginning as it were. Consensual should always be a part of everything that happens within every relationship. IMHO.

To clairify, (if I can), I would add that at the beginning of the relationship in the ngotiation prosscess, a "s" could allow her/himself no freedom of negotiation followign agreeing to the contract. Whether, the "s" in question is refered to as a submisive or a slave, or something different entirely, as the tastes of B/both parties concerned agree upon.

I see a "submissive" taking tht name and givign herself no fredom as acceptable. Also, someone wishing to be called a "slave" having a degree of freedom and independence as acceptable. SO long as it is agreed to by B/both parties involved.

For me the title is not important. IF a "s" desired to be entitled as a "used car", so be it. Not exactly my taste. I would prefer a slave to that title, but if that is what you and Yours agree to. That is fine with Me.

LT