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

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



Message

ownedgirlie -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 10:58:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos

"Dance, puppets, dance!"




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



slave4Darby3d -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/17/2006 11:44:19 PM)

It sounds like you are very much the free spirit. I get a keen sense that you view marriage as the woman owning the man... While certainly there are some relationships of that nature I don't share that view.

You express your sense of ownership in the power that "ownership" grants you - the freedom to do with property how and when you see fit. Much the same as you own tennis shoes, for example. (not slamming you...) You change them, loan them out, maybe sell them on ebay for a couple of buck and then off to the next set that interests you. Certainly nothing wrong with that - but it's for you.

For me, I have been married before. I was owned by the responsibility, but not the relationship. I was raised that vows mean forever and the husband is in charge. Now, being a core submissive this fell right into my core needs - unless of course you find yourself married to someone more submissive than yourself. In my case, I stepped up and worked, took care of the family, made the money - did the right thing... until I couldn't breathe. I can't live in charge of a relationship with a man. I just can't.

But, being owned, yes owned, by my master is a freedom I have only dreamed about. I feel more married to him (with the same positive vibe of a good one, the commitment, the genuine intersest and support of HIM) than I ever felt before. So, for me, my relationship with Master (entered into first totally innocently vanilla - who knew!?) is ideal for me.

Would I marry him? absolutely! but I don't think it will happen, and that's ok. what we have is strong and good the way it is. And, yes, the feeling that he could just trade me away one day, despite how we feel about each other, sits off my left shoulder - keeps me on my toes. I have to earn my spot at his side every day.

So, go on and do your own thing. It's good for you. Feeling married to this man I worship works for me. Controlling every facet of my life works for him. Loving each other works for us.

your results may vary...



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 12:05:08 AM)

I'm not seeing how documents from other countries like poland are relevant.

Here's the crux of the argument on patents. The government grants Patents. You don't automaticly get one or protection of the work. And if you don't get a patent, anyone can duplicate your work and you'd have little recourse. Trademarks, books, etc... are handled differently and protection is implied upon creation but still for a finite time, closer to ownership than patents. As far as patents go they are "granted" by the government for a set period of time. Notice they use the word granted, that implies they are giving you control of something with stipulations, basicly you have to tell everyone how you made your invention(as stated below), and you agree you only have rights over it for a predetermined amount of time. After that time anyone can reproduce it without breaking any laws, thus legally you don't own it after that time expires, it's not that the government isn't just not protecting it, they are saying it is alright for others to make it. So, essentially, the government grants you exclusive rights for a period of time after that anyone can build or directly duplicate the patented item legally. If you owned it why would they use the terms "grant" "rights" and stipulate a time line for exclusive use. It's because the term ownership is different from being granted rights for a finite time.

I still don't believe that one truly owns Intellectual Property in a true sense, especially in the case of patents. Because there is no possiblity of holding it longer than the government tells you, among other stipulations attached to receiving the right of temporary non-competition. Whereas with any other type of ownership, you can possibly own it until you die, and pass it from generation to generation or until it ceases to be anymore in case of living organisms.

So I guess, I'm in favor of the view that ownership implies that one would have the right to keep whatever they wanted for whatever amount of time they wished. Patents don't allow that thus it's more a anti-competition protection granted as a reward for being innovative, but the actual concept of the patented item will be handed over to the general public, whether you want it to your not.

Here is a article from from a government website that states as much.

Patents

One might say that a patent is a contract between society as a whole and an individual inventor. Under the terms of this social contract, the inventor is given the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, and selling a patented invention for a fixed period of time -- in most countries, for up to 20 years -- in return for the inventor's disclosing the details of the invention to the public.

Many products would not exist without patent protection, especially those that require substantial investments but, once sold, can be easily duplicated by competitors. At least since 1474, when first granted by the Republic of Venice, patent protection has encouraged the development and distribution of new technologies.

When patents are not available, technology is closely held. If inventors had to rely on secrecy to protect their inventions, much important but undisclosed information often would die with them.

Patents, however, are not easily obtained. Patent rights are granted not for vague ideas but for carefully tailored claims. To avoid protecting technology already available, or within easy reach of ordinary artisans, those claims are examined by experts. Because patent claims vary as much in value as the technologies they protect, applicants must negotiate claims of appropriate defensible scope. (Defensible scope means that applicants must be careful in setting the boundaries of what their invention consists of and what can be protected from infringement in their invention.) This often takes two or more years and is expensive.

Thanks

Anyway, we disagree on ownership, this thread is getting way off topic.

You say ownership can exist even when it is forced to end by a set in stone time. And I say ownership can only end when the owner says it ends.



KnightofMists -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 12:07:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Here's the difference in your example, You never in the USA have true Ownership of Intellectual Property. The government does, you don't. You are granted exclusive rights for a set period of time to use it as you see fit. Then the government removes your exclusive rights after a period of time. In that example the Government owns all Intellectual Property, we as individuals are only granted temporary rights, that can be revoked by the U.S. Government if they feel the Intellectual Property is vital for the nation. So, the flaw in your logic is you are assuming false ownership. You never owned it even in the weakest sense of the word, you were "granted"(similiar to lease) exclusive "rights" by the Government(True Owner) for a period of time. Just because you have temporary rights, isn't the same as ownership. It sucks but that's the way it works.


Ok, if I am able to sell it, I must own it, right?

I sell something to someone, and they use it. It then expires. Whatever I sold to them, they only owned for a temporary time. And they owned it, cause they could sell it too. But they only owned it until it expired.

I disagree with your statement that the Government owns the intellectual property. That simply isn't how it works. The holder of a patent owns that intellectual property. If you want to argue that the government doesn't really take away ownership once a patent expires, I might agree with you. The government simply stops protecting your rights of ownership. So you could say that your ownership of said property is permanent (unless you sell/trade/give away), and just that the protection of that property is temporary.

So you want to know of some property that is normally possessed for a short period of time, other than my example...I will think on it and see if I can find an example.

Taggard

Edited to add some examples of temporary ownership as used on the WWW (thank you Google):

Apparently in Azerbaijan, a lease is considered temporary ownership:
quote:


748-2.1 Object of leasing, transferred to lessee for temporary ownership and use, shall be a property of lessor.

748-2.2. Ownership rights and the right to use the object of leasing shall fully be transferred to lessee, unless otherwise is specified in the leasing agreement



Here is some legal document that discusses the ramifications of temporary ownership:
quote:


These clients have been told by others (including some persons
at the Department of Justice) that their temporary ownership of the
public accommodation is a consideration in determining whether or
not there is an affirmative obligation to remove barriers under the
cited sections.


Apparently they have temporary ownership in Poland:
quote:


27. Under Article 7 of the 1945 decree, former owners had the right to lodge an application for temporary ownership of their plots (własność czasowa). The authorities competent to deal with such applications first had to examine whether the plots concerned had not been designated for public use. If they considered that granting temporary ownership to former owners would not be incompatible with public use, a decision could be made in favour of the former owner.



mmmmmm ok so you have all these terms for owning THINGS, .... Last time I check... a Person is not a thing. All these legal terms have nothing to do with Consensual Slavery! If you want to talk about things, great lets talk things.... but we are talking about ownership of a Human Being. Two forms... Consensual and Non-Consensual! But in this lifestyle, we are talking about Consensual Slavery, therefore Non-consensual slavery historical references really have no relevence! You keep making references to issues that are way out of context of Consensual Slavery. You are of the opinion that Consensual slavery can be predetermined to be Temporary. So what is the logic that supports it? I am still waiting to hear the case that supports it.

I don't say that consensual slavery must last forever, But, it's end will not be predetermined or even expected by the equal power of both Master and slave thru negotiation. The expectation is that the Master will own the slave until the Master chooses to end the relationship or the slave ends the relationship due to the Harm to the slave's Well-Being by negligent cause of the Master. This doesn't state the relationship will be forever... but it does state it will only end by choice of the Master or the Master's negligent cause of Harm on to the slave. The power of authority rest soley with the Master in a M/s relationship... even when the relationship ends. If the Master is negligent in the use of his authority, He will lose it. Only the actions of the Master will cause a M/s relationship to end. He could choose to have it last as long as possible or last 6 months. The slave doesn't make this choice. 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... We are falling into a D/s or Role Play situation. For the slave is being given authority to end it, without regard to the Will of the Master. This is the crux to me. A slave's will is enslaved! They have no authority!




NeedToUseYou -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 12:26:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos

"Dance, puppets, dance!"




LOL, It's fun to dance, try it sometime.



BitaTruble -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 12:52:34 AM)

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



ExistentialSteel -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 1:10:13 AM)

Ownership is hard to understand until you find yourself in such a relationship. It does not come from words entered onto legal forms in an attorney’s office with leather covered chairs, but it has more power than those documents would. Owning someone does not begin on a stated date or in a specific location, but the contract is made deep in the psyche. For a Master it takes time and costs a great deal in awareness of the effect your use has on the other. It is not agreeing on a BDSM checklist and an interview.

Intimacy, psychological dependence, desire, companionship and friendship all drive the vehicle of ownership. It is not petty or pompous and is more real than any concrete cell. Confront my possession with laws, documents, rituals, societal tenets or physical threats and my ownership will shatter any such artificial impediment.



littlesarbonn -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 4:57:29 AM)

This is one of the things that has always intrigued and bugged me about the Internet. In the older days, we didn't spend hours and hours discussing the semantics of words. If you stated you were in an owned relationship, the community you were part of either accepted it, or they didn't. It wasn't until I actually became part of an Internet community (back before we were seeing pictures on the web) and I started to notice that when I was in an "owned" relationship, people would start to take offense to the wording, claiming that I was not really owned because I didn't fit either their definition, or the infamous definition of Webster's.

Since those early days, I have seen no end to the dispositions and inquisitions of people who claim to be one thing or another in the bdsm community and MUST put forward an agenda towards others. I was once in a 24/7 relationship. But to hear the response from those who were "experts" in the community (just ask them on the Internet, and they automatically claimed expertise, even if their expertise was from reading a lot of listservs and discussion group forums), I most definitely could not claim to be in a 24/7 because NO ONE could claim such a designation unless you jumped through Hoop 157 and had a contract that indicated Clause 28.33. People would go nuts over someone else being happy with claiming they were one thing or another. The fact that a Mistress and a slave considered themselves to be in a specific relationship wasn't enough; they always feel the need to put in their two cents and DEMAND that you see $14.00.

That's why the whole "ownership unless..." kind of commentary leaves me often wondering at why we have to keep putting labels on what is what.

Does ownership have to be "forever" to be ownership? Well, if you believe that, then yes it does. If you don't accept that, then it doesn't. Of course, that's not good enough for most people on the Internet these days because everyone is an expert except the one person actually living the "claimed" semantic.

I find this similar interesting dynamic with "slave" vs. "submissive". We're not comfortable until we've compartmentalized everyone in one way or another, and quite often we're not comfortable until we've proven that everyone else is living a lie.

That, to me, is one of the "benefits" of our open dialogue known as the Internet. In the old days, we were working really hard to free ourselves from the constraints of not being heard as a voice, even within our own communities (most people have either never lived through the beginnings of discussion on the Internet, didn't participate but think they did because they inherited it after the battles, or just don't believe there was ever anything fought in the early days because with myspace, facebook and yahoo groups it's "always" been there). Today, now that everyone does have the voice that was fought for in the very beginning, we're now doing what we all should have expected in the beginning would have eventually happened: Criticizing each other over semantics while pretending we're continuing to make strides forward.



IronBear -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 5:28:50 AM)

I’m going to wade in here regarding owning slaves. I’m a Gorean Master as you all know. As far as I am concerned, if I collar a girl she is owned by House Iron Bear until or unless either Lady Neets or I chose to re-collar her with a personal collar. How the dynamics of the house works is on no interest here and in any case such discussions belong on the Gorean forum if I chose to share that information.

As for the hoohaa about the legitimacy of ownership, I really don’t give a flying fruit bat what anyone else thinks it is. What happens in my home and between the “property” and myself that matters. I or the House will own the slave totally until I decide to either sell her or release her. Such occurrences will be mostly due to a mutual agreement. I can’t see a slave remaining with us indefinitely, however it can happen and if it does then all well and good. If not then we have had some great times and all parties have learned. Let no one have any doubt that as far as I and the House are concerned, a slave in our collar is OWNED. It will be what she wants and what we want. Argue all you want, pour crap on the waters, flame and call us fakes all you want. It is like water off a duck’s back. We know what and who we are and we stand true to our ideals and beliefs against all aspersions cast.



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 5:48:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I'm not seeing how documents from other countries like poland are relevant.


Why am I not surprised? I am sure I could dig up more documents from the United States, (Notice I said "more", the second link is to a US Department of Justice document.) but somehow I am sure you wouldn't find them relevant either. *smile*

quote:


I still don't believe that one truly owns Intellectual Property in a true sense, especially in the case of patents.


A google search reveals about 232,000 hits for the exact term "ownership of intellectual property." It is a common notion in the IP community that intellectual property is owned, just like any other property. Why do you think they call it property???

quote:


One might say that a patent is a contract between society as a whole and an individual inventor. Under the terms of this social contract, the inventor is given the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, and selling a patented invention for a fixed period of time -- in most countries, for up to 20 years -- in return for the inventor's disclosing the details of the invention to the public.


One might say a fish is a bicycle, but it doesn't make it so.

Again, I withdraw my intellectual property example, but not because of what you have said, but rather in the understanding that ip ownership does not expire with government protection. However, I do submit the second link in my previous post as an example of the legal concept of temporary ownership...where's my cookie?

quote:


You say ownership can exist even when it is forced to end by a set in stone time. And I say ownership can only end when the owner says it ends.


Right, this is getting to what I am really after!!!

To be more precise, I say ownership can exist when it is forced to end by a set is stone time and ownership can end when the owner says it ends. You insist that only the latter is true. But why?

Why do you insist that ownership can only be ownership if it is forever??? Why can't ownership exist as I say it does and as you say it does?

I fully acknoledge your understanding, why does mine conflict with yours in such a way as to make it impossible?

Taggard



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 6:11:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

You are of the opinion that Consensual slavery can be predetermined to be Temporary. So what is the logic that supports it? I am still waiting to hear the case that supports it.


Here is that logic in the form of a deductive argument:

Premise 1: Slavery is the ownership of one person by another.
Premise 2: Ownership can be predetermined to be temporary.
Conclusion: Slavery can be predetermined to be temporary.

So far, most of the discussion that has interested me (and the actual topic of this thread) revolves around the second premise. Can ownership be ownership if it is not forever???

I have provided my thoughts and links to outside sources, in support of that premise, do you have a counter argument?

Taggard



KnightofMists -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 6:30:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty


quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

You are of the opinion that Consensual slavery can be predetermined to be Temporary. So what is the logic that supports it? I am still waiting to hear the case that supports it.


Here is that logic in the form of a deductive argument:

Premise 1: Slavery is the ownership of one person by another.
Premise 2: Ownership can be predetermined to be temporary.
Conclusion: Slavery can be predetermined to be temporary.

So far, most of the discussion that has interested me (and the actual topic of this thread) revolves around the second premise. Can ownership be ownership if it is not forever???

I have provided my thoughts and links to outside sources, in support of that premise, do you have a counter argument?

Taggard


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.

My logic in the form of a deductive arguement

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.



Chaingang -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 6:40:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty
You are of the opinion that Consensual slavery can be predetermined to be Temporary. So what is the logic that supports it? I am still waiting to hear the case that supports it.


There can be no proof. And you are getting very close to receiving the "Wank of the Day Award."

As has been pointed out as early as the fourth post (my own), much of the debate here becomes a semantic game around the specific meanings of certain words. As the meanings of such words is very much in question here, any logical proof based on them is the product of a logical fallacy (i.e. "begging the question").

The precise meaning of "ownership" is very slippery in this context. In terms of private relationships "ownership" only means what you think it means for you but not necessarily for anyone else.

You think you are turned on by proof of ownership in your relationships. But you aren't. You are turned on by what you think "ownership" means in your own highly idiosyncratic fashion.

It's all in your head, and not necessarily in anyone else's.





LadiesBladewing -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 6:40:40 AM)

I really like this. One thing that I try to teach our servants is that life is a -process-. We become ourselves through our experiences, and that process of becoming may change a person to the point where what they -used- to find fulfillment and comfort in, they may not any longer. Everything in life flows.

Our House has an ownership agreement for those who have been with us long enough to be able to make an informed choice about turning everything over. One of the things that is turned over is any right to decide how long they are owned by us. I am a product of that agreement. I was owned for almost 10 years when my Owners informed me that I had changed so much that being owned was no longer in my best interests, and therefore, no longer in -their- best interests. They offered me the option of taking my place among them as equals or leaving the Household completely, but remaining there as an owned servant was no longer a choice, as they believed my growth would have stagnated. To me, this has always been one of the keys of good stewardship (which is a word I prefer to "ownership", but since it is not commonly understood, I don't think it would be useful as an explaination to newcomers about what we do/are). I consider that the Owners of House Bladewing were good stewards, and I hope that I am able to continue that trend. Those who serve us may not always understand, at the time, how loving stewardship is reflected in what we ask of or tell our servants, but it is the focus, and hopefully is reflected in the long-term outcomes.

Romance is a wonderful thing, and it is not only good but appropriate that those who are romantically involved be honest and forthright about what they dynamic is between them when they are making the choice to join. There are other permutations of relationships that are just as valid. In the end, relationships are not static, and any attempt to force a "permanent" dynamic on a relationship is ineffectual, as the relationship cannot remain static as long as there is life in the relationship. Living is fluid, and grows and changes. A living relationship changes with the growth of the people within it.

For the OP, there is -nothing- wrong with short-term consentual ownership. Setting the parameters for you, and respecting yourself enough to stick to them, is important, but in the end, you will create what is right for you. No-one outside of your relationships have the right to make a ruling. Far too often, we listen to and expect feedback from individuals who cannot possibly provide us with useful feedback, simply because their perceptions of the world are so different from ours that they don't even see the same world -- and yet, we are willing to judge ourselves and our choices by their criteria. You seem like the kind of person who sets his or her own criterie... so respect that in yourself, and know that you, better than anyone, can judge the type and style of relationships that will suit you.

Lady Zephyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

"Ownership" is a semantic game. What others are defending has to do with ownership as it implies long durations of time and intimacy. I think the resistance you are getting is the obvious lack of intimacy implied by the arrangements you would seem to prefer or are interested in.

To be honest, the idea of owning anything is kind of absurd. It's just a pretend game we play in life, in law, and maybe even in our private lives. But unless your owned slave is jumping in on top of the funeral pyre, I'd say you can't take him/her with you. You are just travelling through, everything is borrowed.

The tighter your grip the more that slips through your fingers...

Personally I consider ownership less important than loyalty. I like my word to be obeyed because of the devotion I have earned, not just because it has fallen from my lips.



IronBear -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 6:47:53 AM)

Tal Lady Zephyr,

It would seem that we have similar concepts in what we see in this matter pertaining to our two Houses...

BTW I love your tag line:

quote:

"Should have", "could have", "would have" and "can't" may be the most dangerous phrases in the English language.


My father used to say that very thing. He used to add that there is no such word as Can't. All he would accept from any body was "I am unable to do this at this time."



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 7:00:05 AM)

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.



LadiesBladewing -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 7:01:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear
My father used to say that very thing. He used to add that there is no such word as Can't. All he would accept from any body was "I am unable to do this at this time."


I like words. *grins* I will often say something like "I don't understand how it will be possible for me to do that. I'm happy to listen to your suggestions if you know of a way that that can be done without screwing up all our lives." *LOL* Of course, as a writer/teacher/minister/lecturer, I live by the philosophy "why use one word, when six are so much prettier." *laughs*

Honestly, though... the phrases in my tag are the phrases that I try to keep out of both my language and out of the way that I evaluate people. We learn by our mistakes, but not by rehashing them for what we might have done differently, but by making new choices when faced with similar experiences (and even then, we might make a choice that doesn't turn out the way we thought it would.... oh well....)

I hope that I may often learn from your wisdoms. I've often appreciated what you've shared, and how you think... and I've thoroughly enjoyed the lessons learned from the times that we've butted heads as well.

Lady Zephyr




PlayfulOne -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 7:09:29 AM)

Taggard

I stopped by my little ones place after work a couple of days ago. I was tired and worn from a long stressful day wanting only to sit and gather myself. My little one seeing this, placed herself silently at my feet took off my shoes and socks and started rubbing my feet working her best to make things better. Yes much of her service to me is out of love and devotion, you speak as if this is some terrible creation that ruins the very fibers of this life. I do not need to hold the threat of sendng her off for her to obey. I am the Master of this realm and she does as I ask, and yes I said ask, I do not need to bark and swagger to have my wishes followed (though at times I do just because its fun). There are levels of service and interaction that exsist in a more emotional long term enviroment than anything that can be found in a 5 hour ownership. Then again if you are happy and find slaves willing to participate it is all good, is it not? Does it matter what others think and why should it?

I will say all you seem to mention is physical play and the ability to give one away and if thats what trips your trigger have at it. Taking the pre civil war reference you threw out earlier, the Master also had other obligations. Food, housing, clothing, etc.. They were resposible for the complete well being of the slave, which would seem to be a part of the "real" slave context no 5 hour ownership period can approach.

K



IronBear -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 7:13:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PlayfulOne
Taking the pre civil war reference you threw out earlier, the Master also had other obligations. Food, housing, clothing, etc.. They were resposible for the complete well being of the slave, which would seem to be a part of the "real" slave context no 5 hour ownership period can approach.

K


In a situation within a Gorean ownership where the Master earned sufficient income, this is exactly what would happen. Our house will be like that when and if I can convince the IRS and the ATO to unfreeze my Zuric bank account.



MizSuz -> RE: Ownership is not ownership, unless it is forever... (2/18/2006 7:14:20 AM)


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.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875