quote:

ORIGINAL: MizSuz

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

<snip>

This concept of "ownership" has always baffled me, and when I would present my idea of what ownership would be, I was quite astonished to find the ferocity of the defense of "ownership" as stated above. 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.

Again, I was baffled by this response. Why did the simple idea that ownership could be ownership even if it was not forever so threaten those who held an opposing notion? Why was it so impossible for them to accept that there could be more than one kind of ownership, and that temporary ownership was as valid as long-term ownership?

<snip>

Thoughts?

Taggard,

It sounds to me like you've been attacked by the "shoe-horn a vanilla relationship into a D/s dynamic mold but never admit it even to yourself" set. It's a common thing (that I find rather disappointing). They are usually vicious about maintaining that illusion, too. In fact, it's that viciousness that I use to gauge who I probably wouldn't be a good match with (for friendship or otherwise).

That particular mindset also is very effective for the 'enslave them with my slavery' set, which I think you've alluded to in your post. Also another very effective red-flag, early warning system.

I usually thank them for their passionate response (and for doing my homework for me), then move along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos

"Dance, puppets, dance!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: PlayfulOne

Rubbish, complete and total

quote:

ORIGINAL: truesub4u

Even if one believes in reincarnation.... I may come back as someone else.. but this person is dead and gone forever.. only to exist in anothers thoughts and memories....

quote:

ORIGINAL: truesub4u

MeatLoaf said it best.. in Paradise by the Dashboard Lights... "I swore I would love you till the end of time..... NOW I"M PRAYING FOR THE END OF TIME!!!!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadiesBladewing

quote:

ORIGINAL: truesub4u

Even if one believes in reincarnation.... I may come back as someone else.. but this person is dead and gone forever.. only to exist in anothers thoughts and memories....

(Apologies in advance... I saw this and I -had- to respond... I couldn't resist it-- a Universal compulsion... )

Actually, I believe in reincarnation and it doesn't look like this at all. For us (Illuminance Fellowship), you -always- come back as the same person... the -body- (package/physical form) may look different, but all of the things that make the person who they are are intact... the person changes forms, but the piece of us that is Universal is constant and always existing, whether or not it has a physical body at any given time. OH.. and for us, it is also possible to live, work, and interact on all planes of existence, including this one, with or without a physical body -- thereby "reincarnating" without accepting a physical form at all -- merely manifesting as an existence of one's immortal Universal segmentation -- so much more than being nothing more than a thought or memory in the meat mind of another meat form. *grins*

Lady Zephyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: PlayfulOne

Welcome to the party true. Things seem to have gotten a wee bit out of hand, lol. WE have the a slave is not a slave unless we deem it so proclaiming from their mountain top if you have any emotional involvment your really vanilla and should be beaten out of here group conflicting with the if your having a 5 hour "ownership" its a playpartner and when did love and affection become deadly sins group

I can't figure out why everyone is so concerned with the relationships of others.

I've gpt popcorn. Is it to early to mix a drnk?

K

quote:

ORIGINAL: truesub4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: PlayfulOne

Welcome to the party true. Things seem to have gotten a wee bit out of hand, lol. WE have the a slave is not a slave unless we deem it so proclaiming from their mountain top if you have any emotional involvment your really vanilla and should be beaten out of here group conflicting with the if your having a 5 hour "ownership" its a playpartner and when did love and affection become deadly sins group

I can't figure out why everyone is so concerned with the relationships of others.

I've gpt popcorn. Is it to early to mix a drnk?

K

Mr Kyle....

I agree....

It just seems lately... this forum is more about people trying to get others to believe in their way of thinking mostly... and if you don't... then you're wrong.

Even I think Lady Elizabeth has seen this and has tried to strike up.. and succeeded.. in making more fun and interresting threads to jump on. The joys of meeting... toys... places... etc... at least there in those threads... SO FAR.. you can't be right or wrong about thing you like.. want.. or do....

What can this one get you to drink?... Making fresh martini's for when MHOO arrives.. LOL... got the JD, tequilia, Cpt Morgan.. whatever you like... LOL



Edited to add:.............. IronBear....smiles... MEATLOAF ROCKS!...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

I can concive of the situation where a person desiring to be a slave to a Regarded Master, could be taken as a slave and be told by the Master that they will be held in ownershipfor X amount of time. The choice to end can be predetermined by the Master! But, the moment the slave begins to negotiation this particular aspect...

Perhaps I missed a post, and as I only have 11 mins till my curfew to be in bed, I can't reread the whole thread or the thread which started this one, but I don't recall Tall ever saying anything about the slave negotiating the end time, whether it was for 5 hours or 6 months. If I am incorrect, I apologize, but if that's the case, it seems that you are agreeing with him. Am I wrong?

Celeste

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos

"Dance, puppets, dance!"

LOL i'll sit this one out....

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Actually with an example much older than your civil war slavery, Greco Roman slavery, and biblical slavery both had slavery where the heart of the slave was owned not in every case but in enough cases that literature and historic documents cite it.

Again, you prove my case. When a slave falls in love, they no longer care about ownership. They stay, even when the ownership is legally terminated. They are no longer owned, at least in a legal sense.

Surely you realize that the examples of slaves who stayed with Masters when they could be free are the exception, right? Men were marked on the ear as a sign of shame, not as some sort of badge of honor.

Where, in history, do you have men (or women) entering into non-consensual slavery for love or whatever?

Surely you will admit that in the course of human slavery, love has had an insignificant part to play...right?

Your version of slavery is much more like the freed slave who stays...once freed, there is no longer ownership...just staying.

Taggard

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

you premises is not stating who determines the temporary nature of the ownership. A slave has no authority in a relationship. If said slave is given opportuntiy to predetermine the ending of the M/s relationship outside of the will of the Master.... then the person has authority that disqualifies the person as a slave.

quote:

It just seems lately... this forum is more about people trying to get others to believe in their way of thinking mostly... and if you don't... then you're wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists
Premise 1 Slavery is the Ownership of one person by another
Premise 2 Ownership puts complete authority into the Hands of the Owner IE Master
Premise 3 Ownership ends/continues by the will of the Owner

Therefore... the relationship can be forever or temporary... The key is that the Master makes the determination not the slave! Your premise allows for it to be temporary but such premise allows the slave to detemine it to be temporary, giving the slave authority which in of itself disqualifies the person as a slave to the Master.... Therefore what you have is the potential of a D/s or roleplay situation and not a M/s situation by your logic.

Your second premise and third premise are subjective definitions, and no one but you has a stated belief in them. Please provide evidence for both of them.

As counter evidence to your second premise, I present the purchase of a condominum. Most condos do not give their owners complete authority, despite being wholly accepted as ownership.

As counter evidence to your third premise, I present a foreclosure, which is the legal termination of ownership by means other than the will of the owner.

I have provided evidence for my second premise, and can provide evidence for my first (though my first premise is your first premise, so I assume I do not need to).

I look forward to your replies.

*smile*

Taggard

Yes, I am a bit of a debate festishist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenixslave

i have read and reread Taggard's post. While he lays out his own theory, the gist of it to me was asking why people who don't share his views get so offended by it. Seven pages so far of mostly people offended by it. i'm as touchy feely as they come and would not thrive in his world but i have read many posts by Taggard and i respect his wit and his wisdom even when i disagree. i am a bit surprised at the reactions here which seem to bolster the question...why are people so threatened by his view? And why hasn't Meatloaf put out more albums?