Recently, I had a conversation with a submissive person in which I attempted to clarify the semantic differences between the terms "MASTER" and "OWNER". This person claimed that both denominations were synonymous, which led me to reflect on the topic, as from my perspective, they are not equivalent concepts.

If we consult the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, the definition of "MASTER" refers to the person who exercises decisive dominance or ascendancy over another or others. In turn, "dominance" is defined as the power or superiority that is held over someone through a dominant force.

On the other hand, "OWNER" refers to the person who possesses dominion or lordship over someone. "Dominion" or "lordship" is understood as the power to dispose of and use one's own property. In a legal context, this would be similar to full ownership of a slave, implying its use and enjoyment.

It is true that, in practice, slavery contracts are often signed in which both expressions are used interchangeably, as well as in the rules related to the delivery of the slave to their MASTER or OWNER. However, it is crucial to consider a resolution of the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD), which establishes that the contractual formalization of the games or roles developed in these sexual practices could be legally invalid for contravening a fundamental right such as human dignity.

In this sense, although in certain contexts they are used interchangeably, I consider that the connotations of "OWNER" approach a possession with the capacity for total disposal, while "MASTER" emphasizes a relationship of power and ascendancy. The legal implication mentioned by the AEPD highlights the importance of carefully analyzing the language used in this type of agreement, given its potential collision with fundamental principles of law.