Ownership

[serijules]

The phrase is used metaphorically in a variety of ways....

Many phrases are, in all aspects of our life JM. To nitpick them because they are not word for word legal fact is really quite...pointless.

Should an adopted child not call their adoptive mother "mom" or refer to her as his mother because the term is really only metaphorical? She isn't REALLY his mother because she didn't give birth to him. Go try that argument/comment in an adoptive support group and see how well received you are. Why is it any different here? Why the need to be so anal? I like you a lot, really, but on this topic you make me want to shove your head in a toilet or something.

We all know that the term "ownership" or "slave" does not mean what history and webster defines it as. We get it, we know. That doesn't make it any less valid or acceptable of a concept for those that live it. I am owned property, regardless of how well it matches your exacting definition. Since my (or anyone elses') owned property status has zero to do with you and you will never "own" someone...why is it such an issue?

Yes, I'm picking on you...because it seemed clear to me that this thread was intended for those of us that do embrace the concept of ownership to share a more realistic and positive view of it, not to brow-beat it yet again.

I'm really annoyed slash amused at how easily people accept the mis-use of other terms in our lives but harp on this one because they are not as comfortable with it.

Sometimes you all make dictionary thumping a sport, I tell ya.

 

[Lancecastor]

yup.

99.9% of owned slaves, if they found out their master was a pedo and had a kiddy, ready to be abused and murdered, hidden in the spare room? i'm thinking they'd not think twice about turning him in and walking away.

That's why I lease my subs from Stockholm Syndrome Sexslaves...they're guaranteed to stick with you up to and after a terrorist highjacking...or your money is refunded, you get a replacement sub of equal or better value and they provide a free lawyer for the trial.

 

[NALA CAYENNE]

Very well said..

Thank you Sweets

 

[dolf]

That's why I lease my subs from Stockholm Syndrome Sexslaves...they're guaranteed to stick with you up to and after a terrorist highjacking...or your money is refunded, you get a replacement sub of equal or better value and they provide a free lawyer for the trial.

and a free toaster?

 

[JMohegan]

Many phrases are, in all aspects of our life JM. To nitpick them because they are not word for word legal fact is really quite...pointless.

Should an adopted child not call their adoptive mother "mom" or refer to her as his mother because the term is really only metaphorical? She isn't REALLY his mother because she didn't give birth to him. Go try that argument/comment in an adoptive support group and see how well received you are. Why is it any different here? Why the need to be so anal? I like you a lot, really, but on this topic you make me want to shove your head in a toilet or something.

We all know that the term "ownership" or "slave" does not mean what history and webster defines it as. We get it, we know. That doesn't make it any less valid or acceptable of a concept for those that live it. I am owned property, regardless of how well it matches your exacting definition. Since my (or anyone elses') owned property status has zero to do with you and you will never "own" someone...why is it such an issue?

Yes, I'm picking on you...because it seemed clear to me that this thread was intended for those of us that do embrace the concept of ownership to share a more realistic and positive view of it, not to brow-beat it yet again.

I'm really annoyed slash amused at how easily people accept the mis-use of other terms in our lives but harp on this one because they are not as comfortable with it.

Sometimes you all make dictionary thumping a sport, I tell ya.

I'll be more blunt this time, since my point was obviously missed. Please check the post to which I was orginally responding.

I see some people saying things that sound an awful lot like: "Well, MOST people who use the phrase are just wannabe slaves, but MY commitment is real" or "MOST people who say they're owned aren't really in a relationship with that much control" etc.

I'm calling bullshit on that sort of elitist nonsense.

Everyone has their own interpretation of that phrase, none more legally valid than the other, and each an expression of emotional bond backed by varying degrees of day-to-day devotion.

As for the adoptive mother - actually, legally, she is a real parent. That's the point of the adoption process. There is no comparable way to register slave ownership - popularity of Internet registries, tattoos, and collars notwithstanding.

 

[serijules]

I'll be more blunt this time, since my point was obviously missed. Please check the post to which I was orginally responding.

I see some people saying things that sound an awful lot like: "Well, MOST people who use the phrase are just wannabe slaves, but MY commitment is real" or "MOST people who say they're owned aren't really in a relationship with that much control" etc.

I'm calling bullshit on that sort of elitist nonsense.

Everyone has their own interpretation of that phrase, none more legally valid than the other, and each an expression of emotional bond backed by varying degrees of day-to-day devotion.

As for the adoptive mother - actually, legally, she is a real parent. That's the point of the adoption process. There is no comparable way to register slave ownership - popularity of Internet registries, tattoos, and collars notwithstanding.

Point taken, although the example still has a point. Again, why beat a dead horse ?

I agree on the bullshit elitist. There is a lot of that here (and on every BDSM forum I've ever been on), but it's no different for ANY of the labels. I see just as many submissives claim their shit stinks less than their neighbors, just as many dominants, etc. I see more people pick on the 'poor slaves' than I do any other chosen path and almost always use the "it's not real" card for an excuse. That's no more or less bullshit elitist than the original bullshit.

Just sayin!

 

[Homburg]

Due to recent happenings, "v" and I have been reevaluating and reworking our relationship. Her desires were that we move towards a M/s dynamic. We talked, and are talking, about what this means to both of us, and appear to be reaching an accord. Is it going to be what someone else thinks M/s is? Fuck if I know, or care. If we wanna wear pink bunny suits while we mambo-jamba down to the banana patch, well, it's our business.

That said, I will use words like "ownership" in relation to her because that, quite simply, is the simplest way to describe the dynamic. Yes, I can use 15 dozen words to explain, in depth, the dionysian dichotomy that is the phrase "consensual slavery", but I see no reason 99% of the time. It's just like the kinks thread where I talk about sadism being something I enjoy, and the reasons don't matter. She is deeply satisfied by the concept of being "owned" and the reasons don't really matter.

And, yes, she can walk away any time she wants. Short of doing things that will cause men with badges to be unhappy with me, I can't do jack about it. And? Ownership is a social construct. It is meaningless externally. There is nothing in your life or mine that we can say we truly own that is outside of our minds, and, to a lesser extent, the reach of our hands. But we, as a culture, engage in meaningless ownership rituals all the time. How many actual "til death do us part" relationships part because of death?

It's all role play, just like every other social action in your life. You play your roles every day, just like I do. In this case, our roles have a particular label, and are wound up in our kinks. And I've said in a previous post a few months ago that I hold the leash, but she owns me as surely as I do her. As other people have said in this thread, anyone you love deeply owns you. My kids own me. What does that matter? We are involved in a lifestyle that revolves arround power exchange and unequal relationships, yet we talk about both parties being equal and bringing equivalent contributions to the relationship. We talk about how much we love our submissives, yet we hurt them, humiliate them, and make them cry. We accept a great many prima faciae contradictions in our lives, and the ownership contradiction is just another one to resolve.

 

[catalina_francisco]

It is illegal to own a human as property in 21st century America. The phrase is used metaphorically in a variety of ways, but in *no* case is ownership an actual fact.

I'm not sure this argument flies for me..apart from being in a relationship where I am owned and viewed as property, and see myself as such, if the argument is it can't be a fact and reality because it is illegal, then everything else which falls under the illegal umbrella including pedophilia could be claimed to not be fact and I am sure we all agree that is not so...and would be a great relief to all those destined for the courts and cell block.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

I'm not sure this argument flies for me..apart from being in a relationship where I am owned and viewed as property, and see myself as such, if the argument is it can't be a fact and reality because it is illegal, then everything else which falls under the illegal umbrella including pedophilia could be claimed to not be fact and I am sure we all agree that is not so...and would be a great relief to all those destined for the courts and cell block.

Catalina

I can believe I am a tree, but if I and my partner are the only people who believe this to be true, people are not going to water me and let their dogs pee on my feet. Unless maybe you explain a LOT and they happen to be receptive and of like mind. It's a fact and a reality in one context and if you shift context into the public it is neither.

Which doesn't make it not a fact and a reality in the first context.

I don't know anyone who is anything across the board at all times. We're always moving around in different contexts, so to me it's kind of silly to negate it because you have to go get groceries or something.

 

[h_i_s]

Yeah yeah well....

I am more submit and owned than anyone else in the lifecycle because my dominance man has a harem of unmentionables in our basement and I am still here with him, anyway.

Gimme a break.

There's always someone who pops up in a discussion like this one and plays the card of 'you would be gone if your PYL did A B C or D'.....
I find it humorous at best that they must grasp at straws [aka those all too popular hard limits which are shared by 99.999%] for their examples in any attempt to discredit the reality of others and thier relationships.

To mock the relationships of others who DO identify with being owned is no frigging better than looking down upon their kink.
It's one thing to say 'not for me'. It's a whole other can of worms to attempt to define thier limits FOR them. That to me makes some look more rucking fidiculous than anyone else.

I really enjoy your posts dolf, and that is the most backwards thing I've seen you post. Just being real and up front about it because that's how I am. Nothing personal. I'm not being 'snarky' as some would say. I'm just being honest about it... and hate making people read between the lines. Not my style at all...

 

[intothewoods]

Many phrases are, in all aspects of our life JM. To nitpick them because they are not word for word legal fact is really quite...pointless.

Should an adopted child not call their adoptive mother "mom" or refer to her as his mother because the term is really only metaphorical? She isn't REALLY his mother because she didn't give birth to him. Go try that argument/comment in an adoptive support group and see how well received you are. Why is it any different here? Why the need to be so anal? I like you a lot, really, but on this topic you make me want to shove your head in a toilet or something.

We all know that the term "ownership" or "slave" does not mean what history and webster defines it as. We get it, we know. That doesn't make it any less valid or acceptable of a concept for those that live it. I am owned property, regardless of how well it matches your exacting definition. Since my (or anyone elses') owned property status has zero to do with you and you will never "own" someone...why is it such an issue?

Yes, I'm picking on you...because it seemed clear to me that this thread was intended for those of us that do embrace the concept of ownership to share a more realistic and positive view of it, not to brow-beat it yet again.

I'm really annoyed slash amused at how easily people accept the mis-use of other terms in our lives but harp on this one because they are not as comfortable with it.

Sometimes you all make dictionary thumping a sport, I tell ya.

Well, the OP did begin her post by saying she's uncomfortable with the term "ownership."

Fwiw, I'm also uncomfortable with it. I gave it a lot of thought at one point, and it was very hard to wrap my head around. If it makes you (general you) happy, go on with your bad self. Really, I have better things to do than interfere with consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

But there are many aspects of 24-7 M/s relationships that trouble me. Being a parent and a slave is a giant one for me. But let's put that aside, because I'm tired of being all milf-y. Not everyone (by a long shot) is this extreme, but here are some of the things that I just can't fathom: letting someone have complete control over your finances, or your career or other important life choices, not having any privacy, even to go the bathroom, not being able to say no. I think it's just so antithetical to how I view my goals and purpose in life. I have things I want to accomplish, things I want to learn. I want to really and truly become something - this person that I envision - and I can't do that if someone else is making the choices for me.

Please don't take this as hostile and tell me, well, it works for me, so fuck up. I get that it works for you, and I'm not trying to stop you. Just trying to understand how one gets into that headspace.

 

[h_i_s]

I'm not sure this argument flies for me..apart from being in a relationship where I am owned and viewed as property, and see myself as such, if the argument is it can't be a fact and reality because it is illegal, then everything else which falls under the illegal umbrella including pedophilia could be claimed to not be fact and I am sure we all agree that is not so...and would be a great relief to all those destined for the courts and cell block.

Catalina

It is illegal to be a slave, and while a contract of voluntary servitude may not sound as romantic and exciting, it is not illegal.

Serious.

And I really hate how labels and words complicate the whole deal..

 

[Netzach]

Well, the OP did begin her post by saying she's uncomfortable with the term "ownership."

Fwiw, I'm also uncomfortable with it. I gave it a lot of thought at one point, and it was very hard to wrap my head around. If it makes you (general you) happy, go on with your bad self. Really, I have better things to do than interfere with consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

But there are many aspects of 24-7 M/s relationships that trouble me. Being a parent and a slave is a giant one for me. But let's put that aside, because I'm tired of being all milf-y. Not everyone (by a long shot) is this extreme, but here are some of the things that I just can't fathom: letting someone have complete control over your finances, or your career or other important life choices, not having any privacy, even to go the bathroom, not being able to say no. I think it's just so antithetical to how I view my goals and purpose in life. I have things I want to accomplish, things I want to learn. I want to really and truly become something - this person that I envision - and I can't do that if someone else is making the choices for me.

Please don't take this as hostile and tell me, well, it works for me, so fuck up. I get that it works for you, and I'm not trying to stop you. Just trying to understand how one gets into that headspace.

I'm not going to argue much with you except to state that Harvey has never had to ask me to go to the bathroom and I have never had him do anything that conflicted with him finishing his book deadlines with his publisher other than cheer him on, but that's how I choose to operate.

 

[Chris_Xavier]

I am not a slave, I'm a submissive but I do consider myself owned. It was something he insisted on from the beginning. It took me a little while to really comprehend exactly how he defined the word and his expectations for me.

I enjoy his intense possesiveness. Also his pride in ownership. As we see it--when a person owns something they take care or it, watch over it, protect it. Much more then if he was "renting" it. Before I was owned my husband and I were a little into the wifesharing lifestyle. After I met my Dom he said that would have to stop. He owned my body and I couldn't share or give away what I no longer owned.

It brings much joy to me to know that I am his possesion.

Very well said

 

[catalina_francisco]

As other people have said in this thread, anyone you love deeply owns you. My kids own me. What does that matter?

I'm not sure this works for me either. I know some feel that you cannot be M/s and 'in love' for it to work because it makes you vulnerable to that person, and subsequently able to be controlled by that love. For me I see that as subjective to the people involved. I love my children to bits, but there have been moments when I have had to call manipulation for what it was and as hard as it was, not give into that manipulation. Similarly, if I pulled the same shit on F he would do the same, not cave in because he is in love with me...and if he did, that love would be seriously brought into question and a lot of talking required. Walking is not an option, so we work on it, but his love for me does not mean the M/s dynamic is under threat or compromised....not personal, just I have been reading the posts claiming it is not possible and until now not been upright enough long enough to answer from our experience and perspective.

Catalina

 

[intothewoods]

I'm not going to argue much with you except to state that Harvey has never had to ask me to go to the bathroom and I have never had him do anything that conflicted with him finishing his book deadlines with his publisher other than cheer him on, but that's how I choose to operate.

Right. I don't think all M/s relationships are so extreme.

 

[lux221]

Yeah yeah well....

I am more submit and owned than anyone else in the lifecycle because my dominance man has a harem of unmentionables in our basement and I am still here with him, anyway.

Gimme a break.

There's always someone who pops up in a discussion like this one and plays the card of 'you would be gone if your PYL did A B C or D'.....
I find it humorous at best that they must grasp at straws [aka those all too popular hard limits which are shared by 99.999%] for their examples in any attempt to discredit the reality of others and thier relationships.

To mock the relationships of others who DO identify with being owned is no frigging better than looking down upon their kink.
It's one thing to say 'not for me'. It's a whole other can of worms to attempt to define thier limits FOR them. That to me makes some look more rucking fidiculous than anyone else.

I really enjoy your posts dolf, and that is the most backwards thing I've seen you post. Just being real and up front about it because that's how I am. Nothing personal. .. course.

i don't know. i think if you are owned then you're owned - you can't have conditions upon the relationship. but we all have them. your owner meets your criteria so you get together. if your owner stopped meeting your criteria, would you stick around?

 

[catalina_francisco]

It is illegal to be a slave, and while a contract of voluntary servitude may not sound as romantic and exciting, it is not illegal.

Serious.

And I really hate how labels and words complicate the whole deal..

...And we shouldn't get started on the recent cases of police in the UK rescuing real life slaves brought in from Eastern Europe (not just sexual, but also in manual labour)....I am sure they would not like being told that their state was not real.

Catalina

 

[Lancecastor]

and a free toaster?

The toasters are for lesbian conversions, everyone knows that.

 

[catalina_francisco]

i don't know. i think if you are owned then you're owned - you can't have conditions upon the relationship. but we all have them. your owner meets your criteria so you get together. if your owner stopped meeting your criteria, would you stick around?

My answer is yes, and has been tested. For us it goes beyond 'I am your slave as long as you are the person I want you to be and you do to me the things I like/want/enjoy..if not I'm outta here'.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

...And we shouldn't get started on the recent cases of police in the UK rescuing real life slaves brought in from Eastern Europe (not just sexual, but also in manual labour)....I am sure they would not like being told that their state was not real.

Catalina

Comparing someone in a relationship with a person they vetted for months and picked to someone shipped involuntarily or misleadingly from China to NYC to work in a sweatshop is apples/oranges.

No, apples/pomeranians.

 

[lux221]

My answer is yes, and has been tested. For us it goes beyond 'I am your slave as long as you are the person I want you to be and you do to me the things I like/want/enjoy..if not I'm outta here'.

Catalina

so if your owner decided he/she wanted to have a 'nilla relationship, you'd stay?

 

[h_i_s]

Well, the OP did begin her post by saying she's uncomfortable with the term "ownership."

Fwiw, I'm also uncomfortable with it. I gave it a lot of thought at one point, and it was very hard to wrap my head around. If it makes you (general you) happy, go on with your bad self. Really, I have better things to do than interfere with consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

But there are many aspects of 24-7 M/s relationships that trouble me. Being a parent and a slave is a giant one for me. But let's put that aside, because I'm tired of being all milf-y. Not everyone (by a long shot) is this extreme, but here are some of the things that I just can't fathom: letting someone have complete control over your finances, or your career or other important life choices, not having any privacy, even to go the bathroom, not being able to say no. I think it's just so antithetical to how I view my goals and purpose in life. I have things I want to accomplish, things I want to learn. I want to really and truly become something - this person that I envision - and I can't do that if someone else is making the choices for me.

Please don't take this as hostile and tell me, well, it works for me, so fuck up. I get that it works for you, and I'm not trying to stop you. Just trying to understand how one gets into that headspace.

For what it is worth.... I just peed. No one was looking.. I had all the privacy I needed.

ITW, not all owners have an interest in micromanagment of thier charges.
That's one of the more common myths I have come across with those who can't wrap thier heads around the whole ownership thing.

Also, many slaves 'become something'. Ownership is not all about limiting the property. Many owners promote the personal growth and experience and education and achievements of skills etc ect ... of thier property.

I am owned, and since being owned have grown bigger and better and with more momentum than prior to being owned.

There's so much about this type of relationship that many just can't wrap thier heads around. Until people who don't have this type of relationship get past falling so quick and easy for the myths, it won't change. It's just another symptom of what wannabes, fakes, posers, and roleplayers have brought to the table of ownership relationships. Sucks but that is how it goes.

 

[JMohegan]

My favorite use of the word "owned" is employed by my nephew. [Actually, he pronounces it "powned" and spells it "pwned" - though why, I don't really know. Teen slang, I suppose.]

When his team wins a game in a rout, he walks off the field with a huge grin on his face and declares: "Uncle Jack, we pwned noobs!!!"

Literal though my brain may be, I know exactly what he means and why it fits in that context. The verb is used as a synonym for "dominated", in a game in which one team controlled the other so completely that nearly every offensive move was thwarted, and every defensive effort overrun.

The appeal of owning or being owned, in the context of a kinky scene or in a sexual sense, seems comparable to me.

 

[lux221]

OT!! OT!! ALERT

pwned is internet gaming slang - not really confined to teen speak.