Ownership

[DeservingBitch]

And, as an aside, I have 'owned' her for far longer then we've talked about this M/s thing. She's mine, if not precisely in the 'canonical' D/s sense. I'm seriously possessive of her, as I've described in other threads. This may be one reason why I don't currently see any major changes. Let's face it, it's not like I she was allowed to wander around before this. Mine, period.

See, to me, ownership (in the mainstream and D/s sense of the term) is antethical to my idea and practice of love. I do not want to own someone I'm in love with. And I also don't want them to need/want to be owned by me.
But I'm starting to be able to see how I could want to own someone that I care about, but not be in love with.

 

[DeservingBitch]

The cake thing? I'm thinking maybe the saying comes from the fact that women of older times would often bake and decorate elaborate cakes for functions, their family, neighbors...etc...but rarely got to enjoy the spoils of their hard work themselves? Who knows, interesting to research it though, I might have to do that.

Interesting explanation. I should look more into it myself. It's been bothering me since the first time I heard that expression.

And here I am, hijacking my own thread!

 

[catalina_francisco]

I don't believe that slavery and marriage are a good mix because of the tendency for the love and marriage part to be put first.

I think it depends on the people involved and what they are looking for in a relationship. For us it is always clear that the M/s dynamic comes first and foremost, and was what we were both seeking in a relationship when we found each other. Marriage, though based for all the right reasons on our love and need for the same type of relationship, probably would not have happened from the first moment if it had not been for the added advantage it gave when shifting continents, bringing a child as well, and seeking official permission to do so.

It is not meant to minimise our marriage as I believe it to be just as based in love as any other which is, but it is like I said earlier this evening in that some people think more in mainstream ways such as putting the marriage first and that being fundamental to the love, while others think in a way in that M/s is what they sought, found and based the relationship on and without it being possible to do so, there would never have been a meeting, relationship, or marriage in the first place.

Catalina

 

[serijules]

Interesting explanation. I should look more into it myself. It's been bothering me since the first time I heard that expression.

And here I am, hijacking my own thread!

Since you already hijacked it, I won't feel guilty

Wiki says...


have one's cake and eat it too or simply have one's cake and eat it (sometimes eat one's cake and have it too) is to want more than one can handle or deserve, or to try to have two incompatible things. This is a popular English idiomatic proverb, or figure of speech.

The phrase's earliest recording is from 1546 as "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?" (John Heywood's 'A dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue') alluding to the impossibility of eating your cake and still having it afterwards; the modern version (where the clauses are reversed) is a corruption which was first signalled in 1812.

Comedian George Carlin once critiqued this idiom by saying, "When people say, 'Oh you just want to have your cake and eat it too.' What good is a cake you can't eat? What should I eat, someone else's cake instead?".

Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University points out that the original and only sensible version of this saying is “You can’t eat your cake and have it too,” meaning that if you eat your cake you won’t have it any more. People get confused because we use the expression “have some cake” to mean “eat some cake,” and they therefore misunderstand what “have” means in this expression.[1]



I liked my explanation better. LOL

 

[Netzach]

Yeah, I think Master and I are a little limited in our dynamic but it's the one that makes us happiest so that has it's compensations.

Doesn't really strike me as limited if it's what you are aiming to do...

 

[catalina_francisco]

See, to me, ownership (in the mainstream and D/s sense of the term) is antethical to my idea and practice of love. I do not want to own someone I'm in love with. And I also don't want them to need/want to be owned by me.
But I'm starting to be able to see how I could want to own someone that I care about, but not be in love with.

It is interesting the different angles we all come at it from. For me, I would not feel as strong a connection or even a desire to be owned by someone I didn't love and F is the same in that he wouldn't see a reason to invest so much of his time and energy into someone who he was not in love with. I think for both of us it would amuse for a very short time and then it would become boring. Also contrary to popular thought, I think it is far easier to tweak someone in a deliciously humiliating or subservient way where deep love is involved if only because it is they you want to please above all others....add the ownership card and for me ti goes much deeper and darker than it would with someone I only saw occasionally and had love or caring for but not in love. I imagine it all comes down to the various ways our brains are wired, our triggers, and partly past environments.

Catalina

 

[serijules]

I think it depends on the people involved and what they are looking for in a relationship. For us it is always clear that the M/s dynamic comes first and foremost, and was what we were both seeking in a relationship when we found each other. Marriage, though based for all the right reasons on our love and need for the same type of relationship, probably would not have happened from the first moment if it had not been for the added advantage it gave when shifting continents, bringing a child as well, and seeking official permission to do so.

It is not meant to minimise our marriage as I believe it to be just as based in love as any other which is, but it is like I said earlier this evening in that some people think more in mainstream ways such as putting the marriage first and that being fundamental to the love, while others think in a way in that M/s is what they sought, found and based the relationship on and without it being possible to do so, there would never have been a meeting, relationship, or marriage in the first place.

Catalina

I know it works differently for others. I was speaking for myself. I doubt I could be married and in love with someone who owns me, because even if the M/s came first, I have different ideals and desires and needs in a marriage and partnership that includes that level of love. Mainly monogamy, something that D certainly would never be willing or able to give me.

I don't think I will have the pleasure of love and marriage again now that I belong to D, because the two worlds just don't mesh for me, and it isn't a possibility for many reasons besides the obvious fact that we COULDN'T legally marry. That is one of the things for my future I've given up by entering this relationship.

I have other reasons for not believing in marriage and slavery, but sharing them would seem too much like belittling those that do have that kind of relationship and I have no interest in doing that. Simply a your-kink-is-ok-but-it-isn't-my-kink type thing.

Marriage ain't my kink no more. LOL

 

[Homburg]

See, to me, ownership (in the mainstream and D/s sense of the term) is antethical to my idea and practice of love. I do not want to own someone I'm in love with. And I also don't want them to need/want to be owned by me.
But I'm starting to be able to see how I could want to own someone that I care about, but not be in love with.

*shrug* Don't ask me. I'm new at this

In my eyes, I've owned her ever since she said "Yes, I'll marry you". Putting the rings on her just solidified that feeling, and the collar made it steel-reinforced-concrete solid.

In trying to work this out internally, I'll try to establish a spectrum.

I own a cat. Yes, I know the old saw that you can't own a cat, but Kato, my cat, is as submissive as "v" is, and he is utterly devoted to me. I could probably tie him up and spank him if I wanted to. He's a dog in cat clothes. Regardless, I own his little ass, and I love him to death. I'll be a shattered wreck when he finally shuffles off this mortal coil.

I have four kids. Legally, they're chattel. Seriously. I own their little butts. I also love them to death; they're my kids. I love them, I care about them deeply, and in excess of how much I care about myself. I still own them, legally.

I have a wife. 16 years we have been together, and have weathered rough times as often as good. We're still going strong, and are happy with one another. I have thought of her as "mine" for 16 years now. I've put two rings and a collar on her. I've staked my claim in the courts of the land, in a house of god, and in front of our peers. Now we are adding a 'canonical' M/s level of ownership to that.

So we have three different types of ownership here, two recognised by the state, one not, though the unrecognised one is a relationship that is still legally binding.

I look at ownership here from a couple of perspectives, and the biggest issue amongst them is this vague idea of 'canonical' ownership. I still don't get it, as I've never seen a definition that really nails the idea down. Still, I look at catalina and F and don't think for a second that he does not own her, and also don't think for a second that they do not love each other.

The core disconnect for me is trying to understand why ownership seems to imply objectification and depersonalisation for people. I'm lost. To pick an example (and I'm not picking on said example) Netzach talks about shoes, and relates those shoes to slaves, yet I've seen her make posts relating some pretty clear worry about H during a recent medical issue. I've not seen any posts hoping that her Manohlo Blahniks do well at the cobblers

Seriously though, I'm sure there are people out there that give not an instant's thought to the people that serve them. Not seen too many people like that around here (well, at least not in any form that I consider credible. Short-term trolls that sound as credible as my cat don't count). I guess I am trying to say that ownership is a spectrum. On one end we have the theoretical hard-core sociopathic uber-owner that treats their slave like utter shit. On the other end we have owners that honestly love and are in-love with their slaves and treat them like cherished, and human, property. The former end of the spectrum would be indistinguishable from people we tend to put in jail. The latter end would probably be largely indistinguishable from a normal D/s couple.

And all of this is stream of consciousness rambling, as I try to work some of these issues out for myself.

(Netzach, I'm really not picking on you. You've said you love H, and I know that. I was using your comments because they were an appropriate example if you don't *cough* look too closely.)

 

[serijules]

I think understanding this concept and why it works for people the way it does or why it doesn't work for others has a lot to do with how you define "love".

What Cat just said, which I thought I quoted but apparently did not and am too tired to go back and quote.....the intensity and want to please and all that for D and I is very intense. We do love one another. Likely just as much as any couple that is "in love". Yet we are not in love.

Love has for too long, in my opinion, been something that couples hold too much exclusivity over. The love between a brother and a sister, or a parent and a child or two long time friends....is just as intense and binding and encouraging and inspiring of a love as the "in love" of a romantic couple. Heck, maybe even more so, since parental and family and friendship bonds seem to last longer than romantic ones many times.

Love comes in many awe-inspiring forms. None of them are any more or less workable in this M/s dynamic than the other. All depends on what the people involved need from each other and what they believe in.

 

[serijules]

Just an afterthought...

The thing that a lot of people often seem to overlook when discussing this topic is that we humans in general highly value our property. Be it a pair of shoes, a cat, a person or a triple layer german chocolate cake.

We value those things. We take care of them, we want them, we savor them. We even love them, despite not taking their every whim and desire into consideration while we care for, want, savor and love them.

Seems to be a pretty high compliment to something that is just "property", hmmm?

I think that was something of the point Netzach was trying to make with her shoe/slave analogy.

(ok ok the cake was overkill, but I couldn't resist)

 

[DeservingBitch]

The thing that a lot of people often seem to overlook when discussing this topic is that we humans in general highly value our property. Be it a pair of shoes, a cat, a person or a triple layer german chocolate cake.

We value those things. We take care of them, we want them, we savor them. We even love them, despite not taking their every whim and desire into consideration while we care for, want, savor and love them.

Yes, that totally make sense to me. Except for the cat. I don't know what kind of cat you people have, but it is very clear to me that in my relationship with my cats, I'm the bitch, and they're the bosses. But I digress.

 

[SubKekiLee]

*shrug* Don't ask me. I'm new at this

In my eyes, I've owned her ever since she said "Yes, I'll marry you". Putting the rings on her just solidified that feeling, and the collar made it steel-reinforced-concrete solid.

In trying to work this out internally, I'll try to establish a spectrum.

I own a cat. Yes, I know the old saw that you can't own a cat, but Kato, my cat, is as submissive as "v" is, and he is utterly devoted to me. I could probably tie him up and spank him if I wanted to. He's a dog in cat clothes. Regardless, I own his little ass, and I love him to death. I'll be a shattered wreck when he finally shuffles off this mortal coil.

I have four kids. Legally, they're chattel. Seriously. I own their little butts. I also love them to death; they're my kids. I love them, I care about them deeply, and in excess of how much I care about myself. I still own them, legally.

I have a wife. 16 years we have been together, and have weathered rough times as often as good. We're still going strong, and are happy with one another. I have thought of her as "mine" for 16 years now. I've put two rings and a collar on her. I've staked my claim in the courts of the land, in a house of god, and in front of our peers. Now we are adding a 'canonical' M/s level of ownership to that.

So we have three different types of ownership here, two recognised by the state, one not, though the unrecognised one is a relationship that is still legally binding.

I look at ownership here from a couple of perspectives, and the biggest issue amongst them is this vague idea of 'canonical' ownership. I still don't get it, as I've never seen a definition that really nails the idea down. Still, I look at catalina and F and don't think for a second that he does not own her, and also don't think for a second that they do not love each other.

The core disconnect for me is trying to understand why ownership seems to imply objectification and depersonalisation for people. I'm lost. To pick an example (and I'm not picking on said example) Netzach talks about shoes, and relates those shoes to slaves, yet I've seen her make posts relating some pretty clear worry about H during a recent medical issue. I've not seen any posts hoping that her Manohlo Blahniks do well at the cobblers

Seriously though, I'm sure there are people out there that give not an instant's thought to the people that serve them. Not seen too many people like that around here (well, at least not in any form that I consider credible. Short-term trolls that sound as credible as my cat don't count). I guess I am trying to say that ownership is a spectrum. On one end we have the theoretical hard-core sociopathic uber-owner that treats their slave like utter shit. On the other end we have owners that honestly love and are in-love with their slaves and treat them like cherished, and human, property. The former end of the spectrum would be indistinguishable from people we tend to put in jail. The latter end would probably be largely indistinguishable from a normal D/s couple.

And all of this is stream of consciousness rambling, as I try to work some of these issues out for myself.

(Netzach, I'm really not picking on you. You've said you love H, and I know that. I was using your comments because they were an appropriate example if you don't *cough* look too closely.)

BRAVO well said..

 

[Homburg]

Yes, that totally make sense to me. Except for the cat. I don't know what kind of cat you people have, but it is very clear to me that in my relationship with my cats, I'm the bitch, and they're the bosses. But I digress.

Serious, Kato is a dog in a catsuit. He comes to me when I call him, and I've gotten the sort of consistent responses out of him that tell me I could train him to do tricks if I felt like it. He's soooo submissive. Buttercup, my wife's cat, is very much the other way. And her little furry butt cedes right of way to me because she knows I way bigger than she is, and I have cheater thumbs that she lacks. The look in her eyes makes clear that I'm not th eboss of her. I'm just bigger than she is.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I have a wife. 16 years we have been together, and have weathered rough times as often as good. We're still going strong, and are happy with one another. I have thought of her as "mine" for 16 years now. I've put two rings and a collar on her. I've staked my claim in the courts of the land, in a house of god, and in front of our peers. Now we are adding a 'canonical' M/s level of ownership to that.

The core disconnect for me is trying to understand why ownership seems to imply objectification and depersonalisation for people. I'm lost. To pick an example (and I'm not picking on said example) Netzach talks about shoes, and relates those shoes to slaves, yet I've seen her make posts relating some pretty clear worry about H during a recent medical issue. I've not seen any posts hoping that her Manohlo Blahniks do well at the cobblers

See, the disconnect for me is to 'own' someone that I love (rather than care for, or have love for). Which is very much related to my reasons for being poly: I don't believe in love which restricts/limits the sexuality of said object of love.

To be able to own someone, I would need to be able to objectify them, as in, see them as there to please me, me, and me. Period. I can't do that with someone I love.

Your example of your kids actually resonate perfectly to what I'm talking about. Yes, you do 'own' their little buts, in some ways. And sure, you certainly make decision for them that don't always please them. But i'm pretty sure that you would also put your life on the line for them. Which to me, is antethical to ownership: i do treasure and take care of my properties (the non-human kind), but i'll never put my life on the line for them. I would -- and did -- for people i love.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Serious, Kato is a dog in a catsuit. He comes to me when I call him, and I've gotten the sort of consistent responses out of him that tell me I could train him to do tricks if I felt like it. He's soooo submissive. Buttercup, my wife's cat, is very much the other way. And her little furry butt cedes right of way to me because she knows I way bigger than she is, and I have cheater thumbs that she lacks. The look in her eyes makes clear that I'm not th eboss of her. I'm just bigger than she is.

If I've ever been Dommed by someone, it's by my cats. There's no doubt in their mind that I'm here to serve their needs, and when not needed, that I should mind my own business in the most undisturbing (for them) way possible. And the oldest one, Charlie, also makes it clear on a regular basis that yes, I may be bigger and have thumbs and shit, but he's an experienced hunter with sharp claws.

 

[Homburg]

See, the disconnect for me is to 'own' someone that I love (rather than care for, or have love for). Which is very much related to my reasons for being poly: I don't believe in love which restricts/limits the sexuality of said object of love.

Hrm, well, difference in core definition here. Can you be in a D/s relationship with someone you are in love with? Would that relationship not be placing limits on them, by default?

On the other hand, it is not love that restricts. It is the M/s dynamic, and D/s before that, and my own bloody-minded possessiveness alone prior to that. None of these have a bit to do with love per se.

To be able to own someone, I would need to be able to objectify them, as in, see them as there to please me, me, and me. Period. I can't do that with someone I love.

When it gives them the most sublime pleasure to do just that? I'm not saying I objectify my gal, but she is here to please me, by her own definition, and that gives her great satisfaction. Why would I not wish to give her this ultimate gift?

Your example of your kids actually resonate perfectly to what I'm talking about. Yes, you do 'own' their little buts, in some ways. And sure, you certainly make decision for them that don't always please them. But i'm pretty sure that you would also put your life on the line for them. Which to me, is antethical to ownership: i do treasure and take care of my properties (the non-human kind), but i'll never put my life on the line for them. I would -- and did -- for people i love.

I would not put my life on the line for my shoes, but I do have possessions that I would put my life on the line for, and have. I have risked my life to protect my home. Why? Because I saw the risk as acceptable compared to the potential massive loss that was prevented by my actions.

I would run back into a house fire to try to save our cats. Does it lessen my ownership? Do you really think that if you had a slave, you would not take risks to preserve that slave's life? Frankly, I have put my life on the line for total strangers, and for properties that I was beholden to protect due to jobs I've had. *shrug* I don't see the big deal in risking my life to save others, or to discharge my duties as agreed to. Done it more than once.

 

[Netzach]

Love has for too long, in my opinion, been something that couples hold too much exclusivity over. The love between a brother and a sister, or a parent and a child or two long time friends....is just as intense and binding and encouraging and inspiring of a love as the "in love" of a romantic couple. Heck, maybe even more so, since parental and family and friendship bonds seem to last longer than romantic ones many times.

As per usual we are in loads of agreement, this bit being especially well said. The boundaries I have with H are for the good of the relationship and both our benefit, they're not me holding out or being mean. I even have a set of boundaries with M and with my bull which are also good for those relationships - they're just different boundaries.

 

[JMohegan]

Owners: care to share your thoughts with me? Why do you want to and/or why do you own property? What is it that you get from this dynamic that you wouldn't/don't in other D/s dynamics?

The property thing doesn't interest me personally, but I'll be happy to pass on some of what I've heard from hetero guys on this subject.


The most frequent reason given for ID'ing as a Master of owned property is what I'll call the "badass factor." From a BDSM cultural perspective, Masters are frequently granted more respect by peers, and further, there is often a tremendous amount of pressure on submissives in certain circles to be collared - as sort of the ultimate way of having arrived in the BDSM sense.

"The Master designation gives me exalted status in the community, makes her happy, turns her on, and does fit at least some aspects of our relationship, so why the hell not?" That seems to be the gist of it, for most of the guys I've talked to privately. What is achieved with the M/s ID (relative to regular D/s) is: perceived status in the community, and enhanced arousal and satisfaction within the relationship.


The second most frequent reason given for ID'ing as a Master of owned property is what I'll call the "ultimate control goal." The guy on Top wants to retain the right to exert either latent or active control over every aspect of his mate's life, as well as their interaction with one another. In many cases, there are significant areas in which latent control never becomes active - and the relationships therefore bear marked de facto resemblence to other unions that do not ID as M/s. But the sense of "well, I could if I wanted to...." brings added comfort and satisfaction to all.


Another reason given for wanting to own women as property is what I'll call "ultimate objectification", or "the chair thing." The guys I have spoken to who embrace this dynamic seek access to a woman whom they can use in whatever manner they please, whenever they choose to, without having their behavior constrained by the obligations of marriage or their choices limited by the fact that the quality of the relationship might suffer from her disappointment or other emotional reaction if they do X, Y, or Z.

This isn't to say that they don't prize or even care deeply for their "property". But they get off on treating her like I do the chair in my den. I may leave it for months at a time to hang out on the deck in the summer, invite friends over to use it at will, sell it when I'm ready to redecorate, etc. I don't expect my chair to complain, display emotional distress, or in any other way attempt to restrict my behavior with regard to any of those decisions - and the same expectation holds true as the goal for the human "property" in this dynamic. It may be difficult to understand why some women would want to be used this way, but there are in fact some who do.

 

[catalina_francisco]

See, the disconnect for me is to 'own' someone that I love (rather than care for, or have love for). Which is very much related to my reasons for being poly: I don't believe in love which restricts/limits the sexuality of said object of love.

To be able to own someone, I would need to be able to objectify them, as in, see them as there to please me, me, and me. Period. I can't do that with someone I love.

Your example of your kids actually resonate perfectly to what I'm talking about. Yes, you do 'own' their little buts, in some ways. And sure, you certainly make decision for them that don't always please them. But i'm pretty sure that you would also put your life on the line for them. Which to me, is antethical to ownership: i do treasure and take care of my properties (the non-human kind), but i'll never put my life on the line for them. I would -- and did -- for people i love.

I think this is what trips up a lot of people in terms of how they think of and approach the idea of ownership. Presumably, when talking in terms of objectifying them, many have ideas in their head of traditional forms of slavery as experienced in the US, UK, and many other places and still experienced today...first thing to acknowledge when doing that is that the heartless, cruel abusive Owner was not always the reality in those historical situations. There were instances of real love between Owner and owned, and there were Owners who would do more than most to ensure the health, happiness and well being of their property (without having to love them) despite what others thought of them for that quality and wisdom...and some paid with their lives for being such and so could be said to have laid their life on the line for their property. Did it mean that the object of their love didn't have to work for them anymore? Usually not and to the unenlightened observer no difference in service was noticeable.

Equally important, if you own someone who is happy to be owned, craves being objectified, why isn't it possible to do that when you love them...isn't it a way of displaying your love for each other without compromising the very real terms of ownership? Do we have to keep thinking in terms of if you love someone you couldn't possibly objectify them? I'm just not one who likes to go along with what the most popular or obvious thought and idea is and often step outside the box to live the unexpected but by no means any less real.

I also don't agree it limits anyone sexually, unless they are people who are limited in the first place or still in a place where numbers are more important than quality. I can honestly say I have had my share of sexual partners in vanilla land, to the point of no longer knowing what the actual number is long ago. Did that bring me happiness? No. Did it bring me great sex? Usually not. Did it bring me freedom? Only when thinking in traditional terms of being free to fuck anything that moved which I found out really didn't bring me freedom except in terms of increasing the total, not the quality. Now I am owned I have much more freedom to have not only the type of sexual play which works for me on all levels, but far more and far better quality with someone who is much better than millions of others. So no, I am not heartbroken I can no longer go out and find something new to fuck...boring.

I am shared at times which also doesn't particularly rock my boat, nor does it add quality to the mix. He is free to fuck anyone he wants but doesn't basically because like me he has realised it bores him for the most part and seems redundent...we may add another to play at some future time, but not in terms of a relationship between one of us and them, just more so as a casual play extra so once again, it is not restricting us. We both had enough of mindless fucking before getting together, why would we feel restricted now because due to our love for each other we no longer feel we want that so-called freedom? The freedom we have to explore, and the intensity of what we have far outstrips any casual encounter, or even less than casual relationship we had before...which is more restrictive? I think the bottom line for both of us is we are extremely emotional and passionate beings...now we are together in every sense, it takes all our energy and time...too decide to expand beyond just ourselves to go poly would mean a watering down of us and how we feel for each other simply because it would be physically and emotionally impossible to maintain it at the present level and have other relationships...doing that would cheat him of the level of service he now has and the level to which I serve and neither of us can see an attraction in that.

And yes, I know these are only my views, but if others had not shared their thoughts and opinions along the way, I would not have the happiness I have today simply because like most people, I didn't always see everything from a variety of angles.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I would not put my life on the line for my shoes, but I do have possessions that I would put my life on the line for, and have. I have risked my life to protect my home. Why? Because I saw the risk as acceptable compared to the potential massive loss that was prevented by my actions.

I would run back into a house fire to try to save our cats. Does it lessen my ownership? Do you really think that if you had a slave, you would not take risks to preserve that slave's life? Frankly, I have put my life on the line for total strangers, and for properties that I was beholden to protect due to jobs I've had. *shrug* I don't see the big deal in risking my life to save others, or to discharge my duties as agreed to. Done it more than once.

Excellent point!!

Catalina

 

[JMohegan]

The core disconnect for me is trying to understand why ownership seems to imply objectification and depersonalisation for people. I'm lost.

It isn't that ownership "seems to imply" objectification. It's that, for some, objectification is the primary point of the construct.

The guys I've spoken to who are into this flavor of the dynamic don't sit around talking about how much they love and cherish their human "property."

Instead, they talk about the myriad practical and erotic ways they get to use that property.

Left unsaid, but still clear in most cases, is the fact that the owner values the property - in the same way I value my laptop or Swiss Army knife or car. That goes without saying, partly because affection is not the distinguishing feature of the dynamic, and partly because, frankly, one would think such a point would be obvious.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

The second most frequent reason given for ID'ing as a Master of owned property is what I'll call the "ultimate control goal." The guy on Top wants to retain the right to exert either latent or active control over every aspect of his mate's life, as well as their interaction with one another. In many cases, there are significant areas in which latent control never becomes active - and the relationships therefore bear marked de facto resemblence to other unions that do not ID as M/s. But the sense of "well, I could if I wanted to...." brings added comfort and satisfaction to all.

This is very true of my Master and I. He does not choose to interfere in most aspects of my life; my work, my family, friends, personal finances etc. I am perfectly capable of functioning without micro-management and he would see it as burdonsome rather than adding to the depth of our relationship. Having said that, he retains power of veto over all things. He expects to be the primary consideration in all my decision making and does, on occasion, 'put his foot down' and change my plans for me.

This works well for us because I am very service oriented and naturally factor Master into whatever daily choices I make. I also have freedom from seeking constant permission and reassurance that I am acting according to what he would wish.

Another reason given for wanting to own women as property is what I'll call "ultimate objectification", or "the chair thing." The guys I have spoken to who embrace this dynamic seek access to a woman whom they can use in whatever manner they please, whenever they choose to, without having their behavior constrained by the obligations of marriage or their choices limited by the fact that the quality of the relationship might suffer from her disappointment or other emotional reaction if they do X, Y, or Z.

This is an integral part of our dynamic. Master does care deeply for me and won't jump my bones if I'm ill or otherwise unable to serve him but then you don't run a car if it's broken because you'll make the problem worse and disadvantage yourself as a result. I deeply crave being objectified by him in this way because I find it so powerfully erotic. Everything he does is according to his mood, hardly ever is mine taken into account. I wouldn't change that at all.

This isn't to say that they don't prize or even care deeply for their "property". But they get off on treating her like I do the chair in my den. I may leave it for months at a time to hang out on the deck in the summer, invite friends over to use it at will, sell it when I'm ready to redecorate, etc. I don't expect my chair to complain, display emotional distress, or in any other way attempt to restrict my behavior with regard to any of those decisions - and the same expectation holds true as the goal for the human "property" in this dynamic. It may be difficult to understand why some women would want to be used this way, but there are in fact some who do.

This is where we draw lines. Master has no interest in sharing me, although like most men he want to set up a threesome with another woman one day. We are not members of a local community or anything so there is really nobody Master could just hand me over to or bequeath me in his will to. He does care about my emotional state and so on but it's really mostly in relation to getting the best service out of me by maintaining my needs as one puts oil in a car and gets it serviced regularly.

 

[JMohegan]

This is where we draw lines. Master has no interest in sharing me, although like most men he want to set up a threesome with another woman one day. We are not members of a local community or anything so there is really nobody Master could just hand me over to or bequeath me in his will to. He does care about my emotional state and so on but it's really mostly in relation to getting the best service out of me by maintaining my needs as one puts oil in a car and gets it serviced regularly.

Sexual sharing is not necessarily a part of "the chair thing." It depends, as you say, on the preference of the one on Top. But if he said: "My buddy needs help getting ready for a big party, please go clean his house" - you'd do that without question, right?

As for the handing over or bequeathing comment, every single guy I've ever spoken to who embraces this flavor of ownership has insisted on retaining the right to at least discard (or "release") his property, should he decide to do so, whether or not she wants to be released.

Obviously I haven't spoken to every objectification fan on the planet, but it does make sense that the property's inability to lay claim to perpetual ownership is a critical part of the contrast and appeal in the dynamic.

As for your last line quoted here, I'd say that's a great analogy that fits well in most cases. However, as an aside I'll note that many objectification fans have a clear preference for human "property" whose emotional needs might best be described as low maintenance.

 

[Netzach]

The property thing doesn't interest me personally, but I'll be happy to pass on some of what I've heard from hetero guys on this subject.


The most frequent reason given for ID'ing as a Master of owned property is what I'll call the "badass factor." From a BDSM cultural perspective, Masters are frequently granted more respect by peers, and further, there is often a tremendous amount of pressure on submissives in certain circles to be collared - as sort of the ultimate way of having arrived in the BDSM sense.

"The Master designation gives me exalted status in the community, makes her happy, turns her on, and does fit at least some aspects of our relationship, so why the hell not?" That seems to be the gist of it, for most of the guys I've talked to privately. What is achieved with the M/s ID (relative to regular D/s) is: perceived status in the community, and enhanced arousal and satisfaction within the relationship.


The second most frequent reason given for ID'ing as a Master of owned property is what I'll call the "ultimate control goal." The guy on Top wants to retain the right to exert either latent or active control over every aspect of his mate's life, as well as their interaction with one another. In many cases, there are significant areas in which latent control never becomes active - and the relationships therefore bear marked de facto resemblence to other unions that do not ID as M/s. But the sense of "well, I could if I wanted to...." brings added comfort and satisfaction to all.


Another reason given for wanting to own women as property is what I'll call "ultimate objectification", or "the chair thing." The guys I have spoken to who embrace this dynamic seek access to a woman whom they can use in whatever manner they please, whenever they choose to, without having their behavior constrained by the obligations of marriage or their choices limited by the fact that the quality of the relationship might suffer from her disappointment or other emotional reaction if they do X, Y, or Z.

This isn't to say that they don't prize or even care deeply for their "property". But they get off on treating her like I do the chair in my den. I may leave it for months at a time to hang out on the deck in the summer, invite friends over to use it at will, sell it when I'm ready to redecorate, etc. I don't expect my chair to complain, display emotional distress, or in any other way attempt to restrict my behavior with regard to any of those decisions - and the same expectation holds true as the goal for the human "property" in this dynamic. It may be difficult to understand why some women would want to be used this way, but there are in fact some who do.

Wow. The first part of this keenly explains part of the dynamic that causes me to avoid the scene as much as I have been. I really can count on one hand, and hold the ties I have to such couples quite dear, the number of M/s relationships I know in which the slave is not running every moment of the show. In spite of her protestations to the contrary - you have a easygoing type B person whose entire relationship is being molded around the submissive neeeeeds of the person he supposedly controls. (I've seen it happen with FDoms too, just not remotely as often) Frankly it grosses me out and I feel bad for these guys, and I tend to like them a lot. But they're kind of prisoners of their own need to ID as something more badass, and the balls-out nuttiness of the partners they have. I'm talking about people who probably never would have taken SM outside the house, never would have gotten into the levels they're at had their s/o not pushed and pushed and pushed and the result doesn't seem that much better for THEM.

I know we ALL know some people like this if we go out into the mainstream of the scene.

I'd say a lot of people actually DO NOT enjoy treating the spouse as the chair nearly as much as the spouse has made it clear that if she isn't treated like the chair a certain amount of the time she's going to sulk and be so insufferable that you'll wish you were dead.

 

[Netzach]

Equally important, if you own someone who is happy to be owned, craves being objectified, why isn't it possible to do that when you love them...isn't it a way of displaying your love for each other without compromising the very real terms of ownership? Do we have to keep thinking in terms of if you love someone you couldn't possibly objectify them? I'm just not one who likes to go along with what the most popular or obvious thought and idea is and often step outside the box to live the unexpected but by no means any less real.

Why that doesn't work for me, is that it feels like complete roleplay falseness for me to mentally arrange a situation in which H is made to feel beneath me, beneath contempt, and a complete worm and thing in relation to me and then get pulled into bed with me. It's just too fake in my framework. You've talked about your own aversion to roleplaying and anything less than 100 percent - I have an aversion to saying one thing one moment and doing something 100 percent antithetical to it the next.

I do have a certain amount of *real* aversion and *real* distaste for the man, which I've managed to turn into an erotic source for myself - his eroticization of this gave me a large amount of green-light to do this. I manage to see it as a facet of the relationship. It works in a friendly way, but as I've told him, you and I are friendly, but we are not friends.

I've never had a relationship in which its contradtictions remain as delicious, ripe and intense as this one. But those contradictions only stretch so far for me or for him before the tension between A and B becomes too much a stretch for believability.

It's a lot of a stretch that I have coffee with him and put my head on him when I'm relaxing on the couch. A lot of a stretch that once in a blue moon I'll use him sexually and then remind him that I must be hard up and desperate to do that. His reaction is literally priceless. I don't know why his being turned on by something so inverted turns me on - it just does.

Going out and deep kissing and holding hands is a message that I personally cannot absorb into what I just laid out.

We've tried the romantic thing, even. Both of us were like "well, let's not do that again" for a variety of reasons. It's not like me to clamp down on the "no" end of things for lack of considering the alternatives.

I also don't agree it limits anyone sexually, unless they are people who are limited in the first place or still in a place where numbers are more important than quality.

I said it limited ME. Not anyone else, not her, not you, ME. I have no conclusions drawn about anyone else, other than the fact that you really seem hell bent on putting down anyone who doesn't want what you want for yourself.

Look, what you are doing is in the majority what most M/s couples want as an ideal. Honestly. F has control over you, I don't think you are one of the couples who isn't living it but wants to think they are, you are madly in love and it works. Why are you so pissed off every time someone else outside the overwhelming MAJORITY of people who want to do romantic coupling AND M/s at the same time pipes up to say "not my scene?"

No one's saying you're not real, you're not owned, it doesn't work.

I'm just saying this is why the overarching holy grail of romantic marriage M/s all rolled into one is not what I'm after personally. I had no idea one instance of poly bi weirdness was that powerful as to possibly dissauade people wanting M/s monogamous marriage.