Ownership

[intothewoods]

Interesting, Netz.

In my local group, those in M/s relationships, who loudly announce themselves as such, are, well, "uncool" is the word that comes to mind. It's the complete opposite of what JM describes:

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.

It's really what I like about the group - there isn't quite as much pressure to self-identify, and all the pomp and circumstance. On the other hand, I find there's a good measure of pressure to be quite edgy in your play.

 

[Netzach]

Interesting, Netz.

In my local group, those in M/s relationships, who loudly announce themselves as such, are, well, "uncool" is the word that comes to mind. It's the complete opposite of what JM describes:



It's really what I like about the group - there isn't quite as much pressure to self-identify, and all the pomp and circumstance. On the other hand, I find there's a good measure of pressure to be quite edgy in your play.

I'm still in the Midwest after all....

 

[intothewoods]

I'm still in the Midwest after all....

I always forget, and think you're in NYC. I know, you just grew up there, right? I can't seem to get that through my head.

 

[Netzach]

I always forget, and think you're in NYC. I know, you just grew up there, right? I can't seem to get that through my head.

You can take the girl out of New York...

anyway, yeah there are regional variances and not all groups are very M/s centric. I just happen to be in a place where they are, and most of the places I've gone to have been same. Those not in M/s look at those who are in hushed awe, which I don't really understand at all, while the people who are held in hushed awe are usually complaining that all this technique isn't really that important and their subtle forms of interaction are not validated as part of the whole scene. I've never understood the mutual contempt or the willingness of the people who are not into M/s to be made to feel less authentic by people who are - that's just weird. I kind of see myself in the bridging of this, in that M/s is something I do, but it's not the framework for everything I do, and I consider myself as much a fetishist and top as a Domme and as much a Domme as a fetishist and top. Though I think if you held a gun to my head a good solid caning would win, even if I had to do it as a favor to someone.

 

[JMohegan]

Interesting, Netz.

In my local group, those in M/s relationships, who loudly announce themselves as such, are, well, "uncool" is the word that comes to mind. It's the complete opposite of what JM describes:



It's really what I like about the group - there isn't quite as much pressure to self-identify, and all the pomp and circumstance. On the other hand, I find there's a good measure of pressure to be quite edgy in your play.

Reading what Netzach wrote, my reaction was yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I know *exactly* what she means.

If you've found a group in which the majority of submissive females don't harbor romantic longings to be collared and treated as cherished property, ultimately behaving in the way Netzach described, I'd say you're very lucky. My personal experience with those who ID primarily as Tops and bottoms is that they are often much easier to get along with, though you're right that there is often pressure toward edgeplay, and sometimes a hierarchy of perceived rank based on experience and skill.

Of course, my observation is that most organized groups or general communities are characterized by either explicit or implicit hierarchies of some sort.

 

[JMohegan]

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.

This is so fucking funny ('cause it's so fucking true!), but humor aside I want to clarify something here.

The guys I know who give "the chair thing" as the primary reason for owning property are rarely, if ever, referring to a spouse or even someone with whom the owner cohabitates.

A certain amount of distance (in terms of both time and space) seems important to the dynamic, and the reason most often given for the distance is the one you just mentioned. Having the "property" hanging around and interacting when he's not interested in using it as such makes the whole dynamic feel like roleplay falseness.

 

[intothewoods]

Reading what Netzach wrote, my reaction was yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I know *exactly* what she means.

If you've found a group in which the majority of submissive females don't harbor romantic longings to be collared and treated as cherished property, ultimately behaving in the way Netzach described, I'd say you're very lucky.

Really? Wow. Yeah, I can think of maybe one or two submissive females in the group who meet that description, and a handful of het male tops who are looking to collar someone similar.

My personal experience with those who ID primarily as Tops and bottoms is that they are often much easier to get along with, though you're right that there is often pressure toward edgeplay, and sometimes a hierarchy of perceived rank based on experience and skill.

Of course, my observation is that most organized groups or general communities are characterized by either explicit or implicit hierarchies of some sort.

The hierarchy is definitely based on skill, and experience. Interesting group, but for me, I'm not quite up for a gang rape scene that ends in me skewered on a giant dildo.

 

[Netzach]

This is so fucking funny ('cause it's so fucking true!), but humor aside I want to clarify something here.

The guys I know who give "the chair thing" as the primary reason for owning property are rarely, if ever, referring to a spouse or even someone with whom the owner cohabitates.

A certain amount of distance (in terms of both time and space) seems important to the dynamic, and the reason most often given for the distance is the one you just mentioned. Having the "property" hanging around and interacting when he's not interested in using it as such makes the whole dynamic feel like roleplay falseness.

And that clinches it. I am a chair guy.

 

[JMohegan]

The hierarchy is definitely based on skill, and experience. Interesting group, but for me, I'm not quite up for a gang rape scene that ends in me skewered on a giant dildo.

Beware the slippery slope.

 

[DeservingBitch]

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.

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?

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.

OK, let me clarify what I wrote there.

When writing that my conception and practice of love is anthetical to ownership, and made the connection to my being poly, I was referring to some of your earlier comments where you made it clear that with or without the D/s or M/s aspect in your relationship with V, you see her as 'yours' and are very possessive of her. As you said, owning her in the M/s sense is just but a deeper, added level to your ownership of her in your relationship (please, feel free to let me know if I got this all wrong and I'm taking out of my ass).

So, what I'm saying here is, in a similar way that I don't buy the idea of monogamy, exclusivity, and traditional understanding of marriage as the only and true way of love (where 'ownership' in a mainstream sense of the word is very much associated to the idea of romantic love), I can't wrap my head around 'owning' (in the D/s sense of the word) someone that I'm in love with. Basically, I'm poly because i don't want to 'own' my romantic partners, nor do I want them to expect that of me. I'm not possessive of my partners, I don't want to be, I don't want them to want/need me to be, and I certainly don't want them to be possessive of me.

Which goes to address your other point: but if this is what makes your partner happy, if this is what s/he needs and wants, why would I not want to give her/him that? Well, because it goes against pretty much everything I believe in, and is not what I want/need from a romantic relationship. So, it would just means that we aren't a good match.

My point about putting our lives on the line for people we love, and not for property was a bad example. Yes, I would probably take great risks to save a stranger's life. Yes, I would surely go back in my house in fire to save my cats. So, I agree with you, my point was badly illustrated.

What I was trying to say is this: to own someone, I would need to be able to make abstraction of their own needs/desires/wants and/or go against their needs/desires/wants to satisfy mine. To be able to think me, me, me, me, me, I need to not think about how I may be displeasing them -- even if in the grand scheme of things, this is what they need/want from me.

To give you a 'play' related example: when playing with a romantic partner who say, hates nipple torture (a fav of mine), no matter how much of a sadist I am and how much i like nipple torture, I know that save for the occasional times where I would be able to think "ok - your turn to give and be GGG", i wouldn't make nipple torture a focus of our play. Call it self-censoring if you want, but I know myself enough to know that I wouldn't be able to 'objectify' my partner to the point that i would need to be able to not care about their aversion for nipple torture. But give me a play-partner with whom i share no such romantic feelings, and unless it is on their hardlimits list (which, in a M/s context wouldn't be there, at least not in my book), I won't give a shit whether or not they're into nipple torture. Even better actually if they hate it - more fun for me. Why? because in this context, I am able to objectify the person i'm playing with and not care at all about pleasing or displeasing them. Unless they walk away, it's my show, it's for me, me, me, me, me.

 

[DeservingBitch]

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?

I just addressed your first point in my previous post. *I* cannot and don't want to 'own' and 'objectify' someone I'm in love with because it goes against everything I believe in, and because this is not what I want/need from a romantic relationship. But this is a moot point, since *I* would not commit to a romantic relationship with someone who needs/wants this from me. And yes, I would have to walk away from a relationship if my partner was to bring up this need/desire as something she now wants from our relationship.

Also, just to clarify my reason for mentioning my inability to connect romantic love with ownership: I brought this point only as a reflection that my difficulty to understand M/s and what's in it for the owner was probably related to the fact that *I* kept thinking about it in a monogamous framework (and in a context where the M/s relationship is the same as the romantic relationship), which doesn't compute with my poly mindframe. In other words, I was just saying, "OK, yes, if I think about it in a poly context, where the person I would be owning would NOT be a romantic partner, then this ownership thing and what's in it for me is starting to make sense to me". Basically, while i may not be able to relate to yours or Homburg's relationships, I can totally relate now to Serijule's or Netzach's ones -- mostly because I'm working from the same poly framework as they are, and because their M/s do not involved the kind of romantic love that yours does. I was not making a jugement on your or Homburg's or anybody else's way of living M/s -- I was making a comment on my thought process.

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.

We apparently have very different perspective on what the mainstream, most popular and most common thought and idea about love is -- from where I'm sitting, the objectification of a romantic partner is very much at the core of mainstream ideas of love. Monogamy and traditional ideas of mariage and love very much rely on the notion that 'true' love comes with the ownership, the possession, of said object of love. How many times did I hear that me or my partners must not 'really' love each other if we are ready to 'share' each other with other people? Or that once I will find 'true' love, I will want to 'keep' my partner all for myself? If that is not objectification and desire for ownership (which work together) in mainstream, popular conceptions of love, I don't know what is.

*ETA: We could also talk about the very mainstream and popular notions that if you 'really' love your partner, you would want to do everything you can to make them happy, even if it goes against what you need/want. Why don't I want to objectify and own my partner if this is what they crave, need, and demand? Because that would be living a lie to me, that would be going against what I believe in and desire and want. This is one of the many reasons why I'm poly. Because I don't believe that one partner can satisfy nor should be held responsible to satisfy all my needs and desires, or that I can do it for them.*

Do I think that these ideas about love are problematic, on a socio-political level? Yes.
Do I want to have my own romantic relationships define by these ideas? No.
Do I believe that other people should conduct their own lives and relationships based on my own believes? No.
Do I think that you can be happy and believe that you are happy in whatever way you choose to live your life, even if it goes against everything I believe in? Yes.

 

[Homburg]

Before I respond to this post, I want to make something clear - I do not identify as a "Master". I consider the term to be meaningless as an identifier, as it should only have meaning to the person or persons with whom I am in a realtionship such that they should use that term. I do not identify my wife as a/my slave. Again, the term is meaningles outside of our personal relations with one another. I personally find it a bit ludicrous that there is some sort of societal mystique attached to the terms, and have no desire for anyone to treat me, or her, any differently because we are at a different point on the D/s spectrum than anyone else. Whatever.

Insofar as I am concerned, the basic respect due to anyone in a D/s relationship is all that I can legitimately expect, and all that I want, an donly out of those who are aware of our relationship and involved in the lifestyle. And I only expect it because it is the same respect that I offer them.

--

OK, let me clarify what I wrote there.

When writing that my conception and practice of love is anthetical to ownership, and made the connection to my being poly, I was referring to some of your earlier comments where you made it clear that with or without the D/s or M/s aspect in your relationship with V, you see her as 'yours' and are very possessive of her. As you said, owning her in the M/s sense is just but a deeper, added level to your ownership of her in your relationship (please, feel free to let me know if I got this all wrong and I'm taking out of my ass).

You are spot on, DB.

So, what I'm saying here is, in a similar way that I don't buy the idea of monogamy, exclusivity, and traditional understanding of marriage as the only and true way of love (where 'ownership' in a mainstream sense of the word is very much associated to the idea of romantic love), I can't wrap my head around 'owning' (in the D/s sense of the word) someone that I'm in love with. Basically, I'm poly because i don't want to 'own' my romantic partners, nor do I want them to expect that of me. I'm not possessive of my partners, I don't want to be, I don't want them to want/need me to be, and I certainly don't want them to be possessive of me.

I understand, and, frankly, you have a healthier attitude. I am actually not of the opinion that my attitudes towards this are all that healthy. In point of fact, as described in other threads, the whole gorilla thing can be a bit scary.

I personally prefer your attitude

Which goes to address your other point: but if this is what makes your partner happy, if this is what s/he needs and wants, why would I not want to give her/him that? Well, because it goes against pretty much everything I believe in, and is not what I want/need from a romantic relationship. So, it would just means that we aren't a good match.

Makes perfect sense. Kudos to you for being self-aware enough to know that.

My point about putting our lives on the line for people we love, and not for property was a bad example. Yes, I would probably take great risks to save a stranger's life. Yes, I would surely go back in my house in fire to save my cats. So, I agree with you, my point was badly illustrated.

Okay, I didn't think that you were really trying to make that point. Hopefully I didn't sound snarky in my reply.

What I was trying to say is this: to own someone, I would need to be able to make abstraction of their own needs/desires/wants and/or go against their needs/desires/wants to satisfy mine. To be able to think me, me, me, me, me, I need to not think about how I may be displeasing them -- even if in the grand scheme of things, this is what they need/want from me.

To give you a 'play' related example: when playing with a romantic partner who say, hates nipple torture (a fav of mine), no matter how much of a sadist I am and how much i like nipple torture, I know that save for the occasional times where I would be able to think "ok - your turn to give and be GGG", i wouldn't make nipple torture a focus of our play. Call it self-censoring if you want, but I know myself enough to know that I wouldn't be able to 'objectify' my partner to the point that i would need to be able to not care about their aversion for nipple torture. But give me a play-partner with whom i share no such romantic feelings, and unless it is on their hardlimits list (which, in a M/s context wouldn't be there, at least not in my book), I won't give a shit whether or not they're into nipple torture. Even better actually if they hate it - more fun for me. Why? because in this context, I am able to objectify the person i'm playing with and not care at all about pleasing or displeasing them. Unless they walk away, it's my show, it's for me, me, me, me, me.

I am the exact opposite. I am FAR less likely to do someone that a casual play partner hates. It's casual, so we're all out to have a good time, and that is the only goal. With "v", I don't care. Much as I said in the thread on the "use me" problem, I don't mind being a utter bastard to her because I know that I will utterly demolish her sexual desires the next time around, or the time after that, or whenever. She is going to come back for more, and won't be going away, so the onus to satisfy her needs, or even to acknowledge them, is vastly less.

In short, I am so much more likely to do whatever the hell I want because I know she'll be satisfied whenever I get the urge to satisfy her.

With a play partner, however, I have an onus to not be a dick. First off, if I am just a callous prick, the odds of that person wanting to come back are less. Secondly, if it happens often enough, word will likely get around. Sure, in some cases, that's a perfectly fine rep to have, but it is not one I am interested in.

 

[Homburg]

We apparently have very different perspective on what the mainstream, most popular and most common thought and idea about love is -- from where I'm sitting, the objectification of a romantic partner is very much at the core of mainstream ideas of love. Monogamy and traditional ideas of mariage and love very much rely on the notion that 'true' love comes with the ownership, the possession, of said object of love. How many times did I hear that me or my partners must not 'really' love each other if we are ready to 'share' each other with other people? Or that once I will find 'true' love, I will want to 'keep' my partner all for myself? If that is not objectification and desire for ownership (which work together) in mainstream, popular conceptions of love, I don't know what is.

Do I think that these ideas about love are problematic, on a socio-political level? Yes.
Do I want to have my own romantic relationships define by these ideas? No.
Do I believe that other people should conduct their own lives and relationships based on my own believes? No.
Do I think that you can be happy and believe that you are happy in whatever way you choose to live your life, even if it goes against everything I believe in? Yes.

Well put. I did not get the feeling that you were judging. Frankly, you were presenting your own viewpoint, and did so in a non-judgemental way in my eyes.

And I think the idea here about the commonality of objectification in vanilla monogamy is tight. That said, we did do a bit of time in a poly setting when I had "w" involved in our relationship. I was very much in love with her, and she was with me, and I was still very much in love with my wife. It taught me that it is entirely possible for me to be poly. Oddly enough, I did not feel so rampantly possessive over "w". Knee-jerk reaction was possessive, but once I examined it, I didn't particularly feel the need to possess her. I just wanted her in my life, and was supportive of her desire to search out a more normative relationship. "v" was still mine the whole time though. While it was a paradigm shift for me in many ways, it had no net affect on my ownership of "v", or claim on her.

In short, I'm capable of being poly in the sense that I can love more than one person, but I do not identify as poly for the reasons stated previously. And, honestly, it was a fuckload of work. Damn, poly is rough.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I am the exact opposite. I am FAR less likely to do someone that a casual play partner hates. It's casual, so we're all out to have a good time, and that is the only goal. With "v", I don't care. Much as I said in the thread on the "use me" problem, I don't mind being a utter bastard to her because I know that I will utterly demolish her sexual desires the next time around, or the time after that, or whenever. She is going to come back for more, and won't be going away, so the onus to satisfy her needs, or even to acknowledge them, is vastly less.

In short, I am so much more likely to do whatever the hell I want because I know she'll be satisfied whenever I get the urge to satisfy her.

With a play partner, however, I have an onus to not be a dick. First off, if I am just a callous prick, the odds of that person wanting to come back are less. Secondly, if it happens often enough, word will likely get around. Sure, in some cases, that's a perfectly fine rep to have, but it is not one I am interested in.

Well, maybe I should add that when I choose my play-partner and agree to play with someone, it is very clear for both of us that what I'm looking for is to get *my* rocks off, and whatever they get out of it is side-benefit. But I'm also talking about regular play-partner, not someone I'm doing a one time only scene with. So, basically, when looking for a regular play-partner, I'm looking for someone who gets off on the idea of being there only for the purpose of pleasing and amusing me. So, while I may not care about their personal likes and dislikes (within the confine of their limits of course), I'm still not being an 'asshole' since at the end of the day, I'm giving them what they need/want, ie, objectification.

 

[Homburg]

Well, maybe I should add that when I choose my play-partner and agree to play with someone, it is very clear for both of us that what I'm looking for is to get *my* rocks off, and whatever they get out of it is side-benefit. But I'm also talking about regular play-partner, not someone I'm doing a one time only scene with. So, basically, when looking for a regular play-partner, I'm looking for someone who gets off on the idea of being there only for the purpose of pleasing and amusing me. So, while I may not care about their personal likes and dislikes (within the confine of their limits of course), I'm still not being an 'asshole' since at the end of the day, I'm giving them what they need/want, ie, objectification.

Ah, I'm with you now. I was definitely describing the sort of casual play partners that I occassionally make use of. Insofar as a long-term regular plaything is concerned, what you say makes perfect sense.

And it sounds like you're halfway to ownership there. You just don't want to clean up after their emotional messes, or let them form messy attachments

 

[sexycaz22]

OK, as a "newbie" to the BDSM lifesytle....this all confuses me even more! *laughs*

Finally I thought I got what ownership means, at least to me, but now after reading this thread, it gives me more thought on what ownership means.

Ownership....first of all, I have been having some fantasies of being a Domme, even though I know for deffo that I like to be on the receiving end. (ie submissive or bottom, not sure what to label myself..yet!) But the funny thing is that, I do want to owned by a Dom, in a caring way, and in a loving way, where he would have control over certain things as such as in the bedroom and possibly outside the bedroom, but deffo not in the domestic way, as I know I won't make a good domestic service submissive.

Like Humburgh and some others were saying about objectification, I don't think I could handle being handled like in a objectification way....but then I could be wrong here.

However, as a Domme, I think it is very hot to treat subbie boys in a objectification, and to own their asses, and knowing that they are there to please me in any way, to do what I want, and of course I will take their limits in consideration, but in the end, I want to make the final decision.

But as a submissive/bottom, I am quite happy to hand over the control to Dom but in the bedroom and possibly outside the bedroom - but I want to be independent as well, to work in my field, and to achieve my dreams.

I don't know if this makes sense or whether if my rantings are on topic?

 

[DeservingBitch]

Ah, I'm with you now. I was definitely describing the sort of casual play partners that I occassionally make use of. Insofar as a long-term regular plaything is concerned, what you say makes perfect sense.

And it sounds like you're halfway to ownership there. You just don't want to clean up after their emotional messes, or let them form messy attachments

Yes, I was actually thinking the same thing when writing my last comment.

I think that more than not wanting to deal with the work of M/s, it's only that so far, both my play-partners and I have been in it only for the SM play, and not for the more D/s aspect of it. For instance, none of my two previous regular play-partners, or the one I am considering right now were/are interested in 'service', outside of being my toys for a few hours of SM scening a week. None were interested in being owned, nor was I interested in such ownership of them.

 

[DeservingBitch]

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. ... So no, I am not heartbroken I can no longer go out and find something new to fuck...boring. ... 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?
Catalina

Sorry, I'm addressing your post in pieces, which is probably not doing it justice.

But what you are suggesting there is one of those mainstream, popular myth about poly love that drives me batshit crazy.

Why do you assume, from my comment about not wanting to restrict/limit my and my partners' sexuality with a monogamous framework that all I am and they are after is mindless, casual fucks (not that I have anything about mindless, casual fuck mind you)? Why the assumption that if I find this monogamous framework limiting, it's because I'm in a place where number are more important than quality (with the implicit assumption that I should/will eventually grow out of it and get to a 'better', more mature place)? Why this quality vs. quantity hierarchy? Who said that I can't have both quality AND quantity?

It's because I want/desire/expect quality relationships that I'm poly. Because I don't believe that one person can address all my needs and desires, nor that I'm entitled to expect or demand that of them. Because I believe that I can never be nor give everything that my partners need and desire to be happy. But I want them to be happy. So I encourage them and give them the space they need to go find it somewhere else with someone else. And yes, I'd rather that my romantic partners have the space to make a choice -- really make a choice -- whether or not to have a casual fuck with that cutie they just met, than not fucking that cute piece of ass because it would be 'wrong' according to some mythical conception or romantic monogamous love and would somehow mean that they love me less.

Just to be clear: I am NOT saying that the preceding is why you and F have made the choices you made, or that your choices are not as valid as mine. What I AM saying thought is that the assumptions you are making there seem to me to be very much influenced by the same traditional and popular logic and conception of love that you are at the same time decrying.

 

[rida]

I find this thread very interesting and it has provided good food for thoughts.

I am always being wired for poly, although I finally understood it and accepted recently. And the reasons are pretty much the one stated by DB:

.....
It's because I want/desire/expect quality relationships that I'm poly. Because I don't believe that one person can address all my needs and desires, nor that I'm entitled to expect or demand that of them. Because I believe that I can never be nor give everything that my partners need and desire to be happy. But I want them to be happy. So I encourage them and give them the space they need to go find it somewhere else with someone else. And yes, I'd rather that my romantic partners have the space to make a choice -- really make a choice -- whether or not to have a casual fuck with that cutie they just met, than not fucking that cute piece of ass because it would be 'wrong' according to some mythical conception or romantic monogamous love and would somehow mean that they love me less.

....

And as a vanilla girl, I am not jealous at all. I know I am in love with him and he is in love with me. But he can also be in love with someone else and the same for me, and it does not take away anything from our relationship. Actually it enhances it as if we are satisfied, we are nicer people and more ready to satisfy each other.

On the other hand, if you add the D/s or M/s dinamic, I am a submissive personality ...and in that mindframe I wish I could be everything my PLY needs. And I could feel irrationally possesive and jealous. But at the same time I would accept Him having more ply if that is His wish.

In regard of being owned ... if my hubby would tell me in a vanilla contest that he owns me, I'll look at him as if he is out of his mind. But if Hubby would tell me the same in a M/s type of contest ... I would just love it and melt away ...
And I think the reason is because I give two totally different meaning in the two contests. The first more like : fuck what you need and is better for you; and the second : fuck what you want, I know what you need and is good for you.

As for objectification ... I love and can deal with being viewed and used as a sexual object. But being seen as a chair or any other inanimate object that is just there and you pay no attention to, even if just for a scene ... I think it is a hard limit for me.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Sorry, I'm addressing your post in pieces, which is probably not doing it justice.

But what you are suggesting there is one of those mainstream, popular myth about poly love that drives me batshit crazy.

Why do you assume, from my comment about not wanting to restrict/limit my and my partners' sexuality with a monogamous framework that all I am and they are after is mindless, casual fucks (not that I have anything about mindless, casual fuck mind you)? Why the assumption that if I find this monogamous framework limiting, it's because I'm in a place where number are more important than quality (with the implicit assumption that I should/will eventually grow out of it and get to a 'better', more mature place)? Why this quality vs. quantity hierarchy? Who said that I can't have both quality AND quantity?

It's because I want/desire/expect quality relationships that I'm poly. Because I don't believe that one person can address all my needs and desires, nor that I'm entitled to expect or demand that of them. Because I believe that I can never be nor give everything that my partners need and desire to be happy. But I want them to be happy. So I encourage them and give them the space they need to go find it somewhere else with someone else. And yes, I'd rather that my romantic partners have the space to make a choice -- really make a choice -- whether or not to have a casual fuck with that cutie they just met, than not fucking that cute piece of ass because it would be 'wrong' according to some mythical conception or romantic monogamous love and would somehow mean that they love me less.

Just to be clear: I am NOT saying that the preceding is why you and F have made the choices you made, or that your choices are not as valid as mine. What I AM saying thought is that the assumptions you are making there seem to me to be very much influenced by the same traditional and popular logic and conception of love that you are at the same time decrying.

Umm, I didn't assume that...I spoke from the only form of poly (which I don't actually think of it as) that we ourselves engage in, from my perspective and feelings and experience, and the fact I have reached a point in my life where one person can fulfil me more than anyone who came before and V V for him. And yes, it was partly in response to your statement about being in a monogomous or relationship with one primary person as being restrictive which to me was assuming a lot from a perspective you know, but which is not the only one or the only reality. For me, and F, when we love someone as we both do each other, there just is no energy, desire or time for any other relationships of similar nature. What you do is your choice based on your needs and choices, what we do are ours based on similar criteria. Who knows, when you become ancient like moi you might also feel the way I do.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

Who knows, when you become ancient like moi you might also feel the way I do.

Catalina

Shall we then remind you that when you're even more ancient you might turn into something your're not about - something you're not in the least about now? Are you sure you want to live out your seventies as a woman even? You know, the are other genders out there, maybe you'll change your mind. Maybe D/s will bore the crap out of you or you'll find your latent Domme side. I mean one is never too old, are they?

Or can you possibly deal with the fact that someone might know something about how they function and what they need?

Seriously, it's remarkably insulting. You would have called bullshit on it in your thirties. There were a whole cadre of feminists telling you you didn't know what was right for you and you'd see the light - did you?

 

[DeservingBitch]

Umm, I didn't assume that...I spoke from the only form of poly (which I don't actually think of it as) that we ourselves engage in, from my perspective and feelings and experience, and the fact I have reached a point in my life where one person can fulfil me more than anyone who came before and V V for him. And yes, it was partly in response to your statement about being in a monogomous or relationship with one primary person as being restrictive which to me was assuming a lot from a perspective you know, but which is not the only one or the only reality. For me, and F, when we love someone as we both do each other, there just is no energy, desire or time for any other relationships of similar nature. What you do is your choice based on your needs and choices, what we do are ours based on similar criteria. Who knows, when you become ancient like moi you might also feel the way I do.

Catalina

Excuse me, but saying the following IS making the assumption that I'm poly because I am (still) putting more emphasis on 'quantity' rather than 'quality', with the not-so-implicit suggestion that 'quality' is better than 'quantity' and that both are mutually exclusive, AND suggesting that I should/will eventually come to a better way of doing relationships:

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.

And you confirmed that later (offensive) assumption in your last post, by suggesting again that I will eventually grow out of it, once I get older, more experienced, more mature, or whatnot. But Netzach has already said what I'd want to say about it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Excuse me, but saying the following IS making the assumption that I'm poly because I am (still) putting more emphasis on 'quantity' rather than 'quality', with the not-so-implicit suggestion that 'quality' is better than 'quantity' and that both are mutually exclusive, AND suggesting that I should/will eventually come to a better way of doing relationships:


And you confirmed that later (offensive) assumption in your last post, by suggesting again that I will eventually grow out of it, once I get older, more experienced, more mature, or whatnot. But Netzach has already said what I'd want to say about it.

You read words the way it suits you from the way your mind is working..notice when you reread the quote you used of my words that I started with "I spoke from the only form of poly (which I don't actually think of it as) that we ourselves engage in, from my perspective and feelings and experience, and the fact I have reached a point in my life where one person can fulfil me more than anyone who came before and V V for him.."...note the operative words here 'I" and "our" and "my", not "yours". You started a thread saying you wanted people who lived in Ownership type relationships to take part in a discussion to hopefully help you understand it and what it was you were missing as in it not appealing to you. You then posted this statement;

"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."

Unfortunately I have not seen much which displays a desire to increase your understanding as much as your wanting to continually voice and promote why you do not see it as 'appealing' or possible to include love. Let's forget the statements you made loosely comparing slaves to your cats, and stating you would not see yourself putting your life on the line for a possession, thus part of your issue with slaves being owned property and which despite the ick factor these and many of your words raised in me, I repeatedly tried to overlook and politely contribute to your discussion in your so-called pursuit of widening your understanding of Ownership. I'm begining to see it is a lost cause as you have already made up your mind, you know all about it and why poly is so much better, and why you are right.

You were the one who said in your own words that you live poly because you believe it to be a way of loving which is not restrictive and limiting of your partner's sexuality with the counter inference (well actually stated in the same paragraph) that to own someone you love is restrictive and limiting their sexuality. I addressed that assumption and misconception politely saying that IMO and experience being owned and loved has been freedom in terms of sexuality, not restrictive and limiting as you assumed it to be, and further that I had a lot of sexual experience with huge numbers of multiple partners which though adventurous and fun (sheesh, I do remember fucking 2 brothers at the same time, though not together at one point), usually beyond the experience of most people in terms of sexual activities pursued, was far more restrictive in a variety of ways than what I have now in being owned by someone who I love and who loves me. You assumed and that being poly does not necessarily mean you are not being restrictive. I OTOH can see many ways it can be restrictive...it is all about opening your mind to see both situations from a variety of perspectives, and then remembering that whether any type relationship and said activities is restrictive and limiting is largely up to those involved, not the type relationship....I know people who are poly who still do not have variety in their sexual activities and basically do the same thing, just with more than one person...it doesn't necessarily free you up in terms of sexuality unless you make it so, thus for me personally all it would have to offer is different partners, not really anything I haven't tried before or can't do with F, thus I really don't see it as high on my list of what floats my boat these days....been there, done that.

And yes, I did say without any malice or assumption that perhaps when you are my age (a few short months off 50), with a few more life experiences, the usual changes of thinking and experiences incurred, you might be closer to seeing how I live my life in a similar way to how I do than it is possible for you to do right now. Sorry to have to tell you this but life has a way of making us grow, helping us see things differently (often the complete opposite way or at least inclusive of it alongside your present views), adding experience to our plate...if not there is little point in being alive IMHO because what growth do you have. Personally I can honestly say I see things differently to how I did when I was 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45....I have allowed myself to be open to growth, have learned knowledge is about experience and growth and gaining a wider focus and what I feel and know now will likely change even more in the next year, in 5 years, when I am 60, 65, and 70 or at least I hope so. From your perspective for whatever reason you take a statement about growth to be an assumption and personal, and yet even on this board alone I see most people talk of the changes that have happened with their thoughts and approaches to relationship dynamics over the years, everyday...Netzach, serijules, Bandit 58, sinnOcent, Homburg, Marquis to name a few...it is called life.

Catalina

 

[Homburg]

From your perspective for whatever reason you take a statement about growth to be an assumption and personal, and yet even on this board alone I see most people talk of the changes that have happened with their thoughts and approaches to relationship dynamics over the years, everyday...Netzach, serijules, Bandit 58, sinnOcent, Homburg, Marquis to name a few...it is called life.

Catalina

Yes, mine is in flux even now, and one of the reasons I attended this thread so closely was that it has been rather assistive for me in organising my own thoughts and feelings on the issue.

To be frank, what I call ownership, at this stage, would very likely strike a number of the people here are roleplay, or wannabe BS. Whatever. I don't sel-identify as a Master or Owner, and I don't care for any theoretical status that comes along with that title, or an M/s dynamic. In my eyes, and in my world, my relationship dynamic with my gal matters only between us, and those we choose to invite into our lives. For everyone else it matters as much as tits on a board, to swipe Mazuri's line.

It is not so unimportant that it is not worth discussing, and it is not so unimportant that others can't possibly learn something, and I will certainly learn something. So I discuss it. If it weren't for my own desire to talk through my own issues, I would keep my yap shut. I'm not expert, and have jack for experience in this area. Still, I find it helpful to discuss the concept how I understand it, and within the context of my life. Sure, it's a het relationship and M/f, and thus dead boring, heteronormy, mainstream. Sorry, I'll try to sex it up for you guys somehow =)

Moreover, I am willing to show the possibly unpleasant sides of my personality. Such as the fact that I have had ownership feelings towards her far before we began to call what we do BDSM, or the fact that the idea of other men touching her is enough to quicken my pulse and make me get edgy and aggressive. I would rather present a holistic picture of me as a man, and thus provide context for my words on ownership (or anything else for that matter).

And, at the end of the day, the most valuable knowledge for me is self-knowledge, and it is the hardest won. I am trying to get my own thoughts and feelings sorted on this so I can better express what is going on here. So far, it has been just a couple of degrees off from where we've been for years. That kind of bugs me, and makes me wonder if we're somehow holding back, yet, by the same token, I feel like doing anything to really emphasise the M/s thing would be pointless self-aggrandisation. No thanks.

 

[JMohegan]

To be frank, what I call ownership, at this stage, would very likely strike a number of the people here are roleplay, or wannabe BS. Whatever.

Homburg, I know there are people on this board who blather on about "roleplayers" or "wannabes" or those who allegedly have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to kink.

But that is essentially just the reverse of the "true Dom" or "true sub" nonsense that everyone gets their panties in a twist about, and I for one don't see a difference in level of offensiveness.

My response to your comments is to repeat the obvious and state that there is no such thing as actual, literal, ownership of humans in the United States. Therefore, as someone said on the other thread, though the effects of the "ownership" concept may be very tangible and real within our relationships, the concept itself is all in our heads, for every one of us - and no one person's take on the subject is any more valid than another's.

There is an enormous difference between asking about what people do, and questioning what they do. If I'm sitting down talking to a guy over a few beers, the only time I would be comfortable with the latter would be if he seems unhappy about what's going on, or if I suspect abuse within the relationship.

Neither of those apply to you, so I honestly can not fathom why I (or anyone else) would view your opinions on the concept of ownership as "wannabe BS."