RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever...

RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

KatyLied -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 10:32:08 AM)
Where to go with this. Why can't there be different types of "ownership"? Not every relationship is going to last forever. Heck, rare will be that relationship, regardless of what you call it. People define relationships for themselves. Just because something may be of a short-term duration, that doesn't necessarily cheapen it. Just as something of long lasting duration may amount to a lot of nothing in the end. I think there are a lot of "owners" looking for their "property", often. Because the "property" that looked so appealing, just didn't work out.

Archer -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 10:33:40 AM)
Well you're really reaching on some of these guy. 1. you HOLD a patent you don't own it. 2. and your discription of "short term ownership" is constructed in the same way a car lease is so to my mind it is much closer to a lease agreement than ownership. The difference is clear to see if you use logic, if there is a set end date to your control then it is not ownership. 3.Very closed thinking, in the legal sense yes you own the dog, but in the mental sense the dog would still feel and think they are owned by me, and it goes towards the owning their heart and mind, which does not transfer instantly the way a body might. Because it is psycologicly impossible. I'm not arguing to change your mind it's obviously closed on the subject, I've only argued the concepts so that others reading can see that your sermon from the mount isn't the only one. Presenting other ideas and letting them make the decission. In Leather Archer

Elegant -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 10:38:32 AM)
quote: I suppose the real issue is that real honest to goodness slavery can not be consensual...consensual slavery, no matter how you look at it, is just so much play. The concept of consensual slavery means, to me, that someone must consent to being a slave before entering slavery. Once that consent is given then the consensual part ends. A car cannot give consent to be owned. A patent cannot give consent to be owned. Your analogies to inantimate objects defy consensual.

Wildfleurs -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 11:04:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty It is a rather common notion (held by at least a few, probably many, and possibly most of the denizens of this community) that when a Master takes a slave, it only be done with the intent of making that relationship work over a very long time. "Owning" a slave is akin to traditional matrimony, and should be given at least as much respect (if not more) than that old weather-beaten institution. To me, if you are owning something valuable, why wouldn’t you want to own it for a long time? If I owned a ferrarri and I had taken the time to detail it, and customize it precisely to my liking why would I get rid of it after six months? Its also an issue of loyalty for me. The family cat who I’ve had since I was just about to head into my teenage years is now getting pretty old but I could never see getting rid of her. She’s mine and she’s my responsibility and I’ll take care of her properly until she dies. Obviously my cat is incapable of talking to me and demanding that I take care of her until she dies, so this is just my ethics base that I am loyal to my cat and will take care of her until then because she is my cat. quote: When I wrote of my desire to own a slave for a very short period of times (from mere hours to a few months) I was told that this was not "ownership" it was merely "borrowing". I was called a RolePlayer (as though that were some sort of insult, though I think that everyone plays many roles, some more seriously than others). I was told I only wanted to own a slave temporarily because I had a fear of commitment, or I hadn't found what I wanted, and that I would never really know the true joys of a Master/slave relationship until I owned a slave with the intent of owning her forever. I was told of the emotional hardships that Masters such as myself had caused on unexpecting newbie slaves. I think that’s a lot of reaching to figure out your motivations. But frankly I don’t understand how you can own someone for a few hours. That sounds like you want to play with someone and role play that you own them. quote: Being "owned" (if it is forever) really isn't the risky proposition that being "owned" (in what I see as the traditional sense) would be. Knowing that you will not be sold, traded, or given away (or even returned after six months of use) gives the slave a comfort and security that rivals the happiest of marriages. Defining "ownership" as something different when refering to slaves, allows them to control the relationship. From my perspective I would steer clear of someone who wanted to own from a few hours to a few months because my experience with my owner is that over the 8 years it has been a very long process to get to this point. Six months is still very much into the honeymoon phase when not much is cemented. If you want to jump from new to new that’s your choice, but that would not be the kind of owner I want. I also don’t want to promise forever and I’m just not that person that would expect to hear a promise of forever. I think promising forever just sounds a wee bit juvenile and unrealistic since people change. And my position is an earned one, not one that I get for just sitting around and looking pretty. But I would never go into a situation of being owned for only a few hours to six months. Its just not terribly stable. quote: Ownership has always been my primary kink. So much so, that much of what I desire doing to my slave revolves around the proof of said ownership. I would loan my slave out to those I trusted, because you can't loan something out that is not yours. I would sell my slave or trade my slave for another, as you can not sell or trade that which you do not own. I would test the limits of ownership, just to prove to myself that it was real. It is what drives me in this lifestyle. Have you actually ever had a slave? And if so, for how long? It didn't feel like a waste of time to lay groundwork for enslavement (although in a short period of time I'm having problems seeing how that could happen with a turnaround for selling) just to sell them - and then to have to find another slave that fit whatever your requirements were? C~

Mercnbeth -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 11:28:46 AM)
Taggard, Rarely do I agree 100% with a post, but I agree with everything you say regarding a Master/slave relationship. 100% ownership = 100% responsibility; for life and beyond if such a thing exists. I have the ability to let others "borrow" beth - (remember?). I am not threatened by it in the least. I just rarely provide the privilege. Under the circumstance of my relationship it would be impossible to have a 3 hour or 3 month "ownership". It would be more of a "lease", with all "ownership" rights implied for the leasing period. But again during the time of the lease you'd be 100% responsible for the maintenance, damage, and the care & feeding. Maybe that aspect falls into a semantic argument. But it could be debated that your "kink" is simply a "mind-fuck". Still, no problem with that. Your test of "proof" is one that would be difficult. Just to prove to you, my ownership fell under your definition, would I have to let you "borrow" beth for 6 months? Would I have to take an offered "trade" as proof? It's like the "test" for a slave. As a Master I could order beth to jump off a cliff. After she does it the proof is there but beth isn't. I prefer having beth and leaving the doubt in your mind. quote: LuckyAlbatross: Most masters and slaves however don't want that sort of dynamic. Agree! Which indicates to me most "masters" and "slaves" aren't.

justatoy2 -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 11:39:42 AM)
nothing is forever. No collar or marriage comes with a guarantee...jsut like any relationship. Call ownership whatever you want. Its just not forever....

mistoferin -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 11:46:14 AM)
Goodness. Every night at 6 o'clock I put food on the table. Some people will insist it's dinner...some people will insist it's supper. It doesn't change what it is...nutritional sustenance on the table at 6 o'clock. You are in charge of your own world to the extent that if you choose to call your pencil sharpener a table saw and your refrigerator a toilet, you have every right to do so. But if someone comes in asks you where the toilet is and you direct them to the fridge or wants to borrow your table saw and you hand them a pencil sharpener...don't be surprised when that utter look of confusion comes across their face. So long as the involved parties are in sync in their views of what is transpiring and they are getting from it the desired result...then everything is as it should be and doesn't really matter if you call it differently or never even take the time to name the interaction at all. Personally, I can't understand your concept of ownership in periods of 5 hours or 5 day increments. I would call those scenes, trysts, fantasy fulfillment, a short term affair...maybe even a vacation. I can understand that I may relinquish all control to you for that period of time and that in doing so that would mean that you are then indeed in control....but my mind simply can not comprehend that as ownership of any kind. But just because I don't see it the same way you do...is that going to in any way change how you see it...or make you conduct yourself in a different manner? I think most likely not. So we could all battle this out until the second Tuesday of next week and nothing will really be solved.

KatyLied -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:15:22 PM)
quote: So long as the involved parties are in sync in their views of what is transpiring and they are getting from it the desired result...then everything is as it should be and doesn't really matter if you call it differently or never even take the time to name the interaction at all. This is how I see it. I tried to convey this thought in my message, but I left out the dinner/supper part. [;)]

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:15:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elegant Fire play is risky if done by those who do not have the knowledge of such or done with no thought to psychological impact to the receiver. Fire play is risky, period. I would never play with anyone who did not understand its inherent risks. "Playing with fire" is a cliche for a reason. When I play, I have this mini fire-extinguisher that I keep handy just in case, and I tend to have a slave standing by keeping an eye on things. Never underestimate how quickly fire can spread and do serious damage. Taggard

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied Why can't there be different types of "ownership"? That really is my question...and one in which I am earnestly trying to get an answer. I do not know why "ownership" must be forever, but I think it has something to do with the seriousness of one's commitment, and how it cheapens the Master/slave dynamic if it is not... Taggard

thetammyjo -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:25:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo It could also be a bigger risk of never having as good a slave again. You can own junk or you can own average or you can own quality -- giving away quality may be a foolish choice because there is no guareentee you'll get taht quality again. I get what you are saying, but isn't this supposed to be a "risky" lifestyle. We are the edge players, the dangerous ones, the adreneline junkies, no? Fire play and breath play and dangerous body mods, predicament bondage and rape scenes...these risks are common place...but are there no real risk takers in the M/s portion of the lifestyle??? Taggard Some of do this because its part of our personality. Ownership is part of Ds more than SM -- above you are using SM examples in my opinion. If I wanted risk on an emotional or psychological level, I'd force myself to be vanilla....

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:31:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer 1. you HOLD a patent you don't own it. You are misunderstanding the terms of art as I am using them. What I was refering to was the ownership of intellectual property, not of a patent. A patent (much like one of my contracts) provides the structure for temporary ownership, in its case, of intellectual property. No one said you own a patent, what I said was that a patent gives you temporary ownership of intellectual property. quote: 2. and your discription of "short term ownership" is constructed in the same way a car lease is so to my mind it is much closer to a lease agreement than ownership. The only thing my description of "short term ownership" and a lease have in common is that they are both short term. A lease does not provide for actually exchange of ownership, my description does. You refuse to acknowledge that there is even such a thing as short term ownership...why? quote: The difference is clear to see if you use logic, if there is a set end date to your control then it is not ownership. That is not logic, that is the logical fallacy of "circular reasoning". It starts with an arbitrary definition of "ownership as only ownership if it is forever (or intended or optioned to be so)" and ends with "if there is a set date to your control then it is not ownership." Logical fallacies often seem logical, but they are, in the end, flawed. quote: 3.Very closed thinking, in the legal sense yes you own the dog, but in the mental sense the dog would still feel and think they are owned by me, and it goes towards the owning their heart and mind, which does not transfer instantly the way a body might. Because it is psycologicly impossible. And here is the real crux of the issue, no? I couldn't care less about owning the heart and mind, I want to own the slave. Your heart and mind ownership is very romantic, and works for a great many people, but it does not allow for my kind of ownership...why? quote: I'm not arguing to change your mind it's obviously closed on the subject, I've only argued the concepts so that others reading can see that your sermon from the mount isn't the only one. Presenting other ideas and letting them make the decission. That is a little like saying you are arguing in favor of the existence of god at a church meeting, just to counter my arguments against. I think far more people agree with your idea of ownership then agree with mine. I just don't understand why you can not allow that they can co-exist. Taggard

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:39:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Ownership is part of Ds more than SM -- above you are using SM examples in my opinion. Which is precisely why I asked if there were any risk takers in the D/s portion of the community. The SM and BD portions are known for their risk takers, and even their acceptance and support (through workshops and such) of those risk takers. Yet I do not see acceptance, much less support, for the risk takers on the D/s portion. Taggard

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:41:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I have the ability to let others "borrow" beth - (remember?). Do I!?! I think I even have a few pictures to prove it!!! Taggard

Elegant -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:52:53 PM)
quote: Fire play is risky, period. I would never play with anyone who did not understand its inherent risks. "Playing with fire" is a cliche for a reason. When I play, I have this mini fire-extinguisher that I keep handy just in case, and I tend to have a slave standing by keeping an eye on things. Never underestimate how quickly fire can spread and do serious damage. A new subject which should be taken elsewhere but I will respond here in two ways: 1. Do you know and/or understand irony? You first statement just rephrased what I have already said 2. No need to inform me of your own fireplay techniques. Master and I both teach this skill to many groups, organizations and individuals. Yes, we have a fire extinguisher and a second person always standing by, although this task is not always appointed to a slave. We also keep a bucket of ice water, a first aid kit and a blanket.

thetammyjo -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:53:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Ownership is part of Ds more than SM -- above you are using SM examples in my opinion. Which is precisely why I asked if there were any risk takers in the D/s portion of the community. The SM and BD portions are known for their risk takers, and even their acceptance and support (through workshops and such) of those risk takers. Yet I do not see acceptance, much less support, for the risk takers on the D/s portion. Taggard I'm sorry but I haven't seen anyone who isn't supportive of folks who do edgy SM or bondage IF they know what they are doing and do it well in this thread. Ownership is about Ds not SM or bondage so I'm still not clear why you use those examples. Now if someone has said you can't own someone except for a lifetime then they are really stating their personal opinion though they are probably not caution or careful with how they are saying it. If they have said this to you then I'm sorry it hurt you but that is not an excuse for criticizing other ways of doing things which I fear is how your original post and the responses (yours and others) to it are currently spinning things. I know a lot of folks who are slaves for scenes or for a short period of time and I even know one man who purposely has negotiated to be traded around so that he gets different experiences. Being a slave is a matter of what you define yourself to be and what your owner defines you to be. I have every right to say they are not my slave or that that definition would not work with my own but I don't have a right to say they are not slaves (though I can think silently whatever I darn well wish!).

Elegant -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 12:58:26 PM)
quote: And here is the real crux of the issue, no? I couldn't care less about owning the heart and mind, I want to own the slave A question then. If you do not care to own the mind or heart of a slave does that mean you want an empty slave: a person that does not think or feel..a person who does not learn or emote..a person who has no substance and no loyality?

caitlyn -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 1:08:01 PM)
Why is any of this even important? It seems like we go over this same topic, or some variation of it, again, and again, and again. Relationships are personal between the people in them. Trying to determine what perameters they fit in, is a path that leads nowhere. Gee, I wonder if that's why this topic comes up in some variation, again and again, and again? [;)]

thetammyjo -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 1:11:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Why is any of this even important? It seems like we go over this same topic, or some variation of it, again, and again, and again. Relationships are personal between the people in them. Trying to determine what perameters they fit in, is a path that leads nowhere. Gee, I wonder if that's why this topic comes up in some variation, again and again, and again? [;)] Maybe some people need to find validated by finding out that others share their opinions or definitions? Maybe some people have been hurt emotionally and are reaching out for comfort? Maybe some people just like to stir things up? Maybe some people are bored and need something to do? I'm sure there are many more reasons.

sweetnessforsir -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 1:12:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer To be ownership the option (read that word OPTION two or three times) of forever has to be there. If the contract (verbal or written) has a closeing date then it is not ownership it is borrowing/ leaseing. The central thought objecting to the idea that a 5 hour or even day M/s relationship simply isn't anything except a roleplay game, is that idea that it lacks the Option to be forever. Archer this entirely changes my position on this thread . . . i agree . . . if i rent an apartment chances are i will never own it . . . and any fundamental changes i make must be okay with the owner. that is an entirely different dynamic than owning a house . . . when i decide how i want to change it, care for it, and if needed, discard it . . .. i am not taking a position on whether or not is a agreeable to me to be leased or owned, simply that there is a difference. perhaps a lease option in the future sometime ;) s.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875