26 Jun 09, 11:50 PM
Forsaken1
UK, 6 yrs
 |
Syberian wrote:
I think it's a terribly overused and easily misunderstood concept. Many seem to use it for shorthand when they are in a D/s relationship regardless of the true depth of feeling or intent. Insecure Dims seem (in my experience)to use it as shorthand for controlling a sub's contacts and interactions.
For me it takes time to own someone, to get into their mind and know that they kneel *in their head* as well as with their body. It takes effort and it takes time to connect with someone on that level, and both sub and Dom need to be sure they're not just projecting their own desires on the other person, calling themselves owner or owned without truly understanding what depth they need to achieve for that to really be the case.
Ownership isn't just about checking your sub's memos on IC, or telling your Dom that he owns you three weeks after you get jiggy with it...
|
And there was me with my fine wine analogy, this answers the question IMO, very well written, very well said. Resident play piercer at Velvet Eden
"Is oral sex a taste of things to come?"
|
27 Jun 09, 5:20 AM
SinPar
US, 11 yrs
 |
The_Slave_Forum wrote:
How far can Ownership reach? If you are in a M/s relationship, is it body, mind and soul?
Is it more common to relinquish control/take control of the physical being? How many of you in this kind of relationship feel as internally linked as you are externally?
|
It reaches as far as I am willing to let it go- into me and into the slave candidate- that's my job as the dominant.
My intention and tendency is to not indulge myself in a lot of woo-woo mystical/spiritual manifestations about how the business of M/s:TPE is conducted. I'm also not much for following other people's rules for *How Things Should BeŽ*.
I think that there has to be substantial devotion between the parties involved in a very energy in=energy out sort of way along with the fact that the dominant makes the rules and limits. All the rules and limits. It is the most simple-sounding difficult thing you will ever do because it feels like life against nature for both of you. It is strong and fragile in equal measure and you both have to work to keep the sum of your flaws from overwhelming the sum of your goodness.
It is not a thing to be set up on a shelf and admired. It is a thing to be taken out of the box to be flexed and used and bathed in sweat and tears and blood. But that's just what has worked for me.
SinPar
--
The weak are the most treacherous of us all. They come to the strong and drain them. They are bottomless. They are insatiable. They are always parched and always bitter. They are everyone's concern, and like vampires they suck our life's blood. (Bette Davis)
|
27 Jun 09, 7:01 AM
Mr_Jones_Again
UK(CM), 3 yrs
|
The_Slave_Forum wrote:
What does Ownership mean?
How far can Ownership reach? If you are in a M/s relationship, is it body, mind and soul? |
Yes.
If you own someone it is mind body and soul.
The slave must devote themself totally to the Master or Mistress. The slave will obey the will and whims of the Master without thought for thier own wishes desires or needs.
A slave, once owned has no rights or freedoms other than those the Master or Mistress permits.
It is also a two way process.
The Master or Mistress has, once taking the slave, has a responsibility for their wellbeing.
And unless the slave is made aware that the ownership is for a limited period, or that there are limitations to the ownership, it is for life. (Limited ownership in my opinion is just play. And to let a slave believe it is more is abuse of thier feelings)
In my eyes, once a slave is branded (in this day and age a tattoo with some significance is the equivalent) the ownership and relationship is forever.
Any slave entering an owned relationship with a Master or Mistress should only do so if they understand the meaning of permanent.
Any Master or Mistress entering such an arrangement should do so with the same understanding.
And yes, it is a requirement for the slave to love the Master or Mistress and it is necessary for the Master or Mistress to love the slave for it to remain successful.
Edited for grammar. And spelling Jones 1st Rule: Every action or inaction (conscious or subconscious)has an irrevocable and resultant consequence, determined by the Master and accepted by the slave.
Jones 2nd Rule: A slave is for life, not just for Christmas.
Jones Observation: Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars, kes is from Pluto
Edited 27 Jun 09, 7:04 AM by Mr_Jones_Again
|
27 Jun 09, 7:09 AM
Telesto
UK, 7 yrs
|
The_Slave_Forum wrote:
Please note, only people named clearly as moderators on T_S_F profile page can post under this name and in future, will state who is posting if on public boards.
|
that didn't last long...
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/240975/
|
27 Jun 09, 8:25 AM
Sunhillow
7 yrs
|
Mr_Jones_Again wrote:
The_Slave_Forum wrote:
What does Ownership mean?
How far can Ownership reach? If you are in a M/s relationship, is it body, mind and soul? |
Yes.
If you own someone it is mind body and soul.
The slave must devote themself totally to the Master or Mistress. The slave will obey the will and whims of the Master without thought for thier own wishes desires or needs.
A slave, once owned has no rights or freedoms other than those the Master or Mistress permits.
It is also a two way process.
The Master or Mistress has, once taking the slave, has a responsibility for their wellbeing.
And unless the slave is made aware that the ownership is for a limited period, or that there are limitations to the ownership, it is for life. (Limited ownership in my opinion is just play. And to let a slave believe it is more is abuse of thier feelings)
In my eyes, once a slave is branded (in this day and age a tattoo with some significance is the equivalent) the ownership and relationship is forever.
Any slave entering an owned relationship with a Master or Mistress should only do so if they understand the meaning of permanent.
Any Master or Mistress entering such an arrangement should do so with the same understanding.
And yes, it is a requirement for the slave to love the Master or Mistress and it is necessary for the Master or Mistress to love the slave for it to remain successful.
Edited for grammar. And spelling
|
I agree wholeheartedly about the responsibility of the Master or Mistress for the wellbeing of their 'property'. IMHO those who don't take such responsibilities seriously and treat slaves as disposable commodities should be treated with extreme caution. Such people should be ashamed to think of themselves as a Master or Mistress.
~ If you must pick the lesser of two evils; choose the one you've never tried before. ~
|
27 Jun 09, 10:31 AM
Adverse_Camber
UK, 3 yrs
|
i have highlighted the relevant quote in bold, as you appear to have misread it. T_S_F is not a public board, it is members only. From time to time, general interest threads may be posted on there by T_S_F for discussion, as they may not be of personal interest to the poster.
As far as i am aware, you are not a member, so assume this does not concern you? If this policy is an issue to any members, please memo T_S_F to make your feelings known and this will be reviewed.
That that don't kill me will only make me stronger...
|
27 Jun 09, 11:05 AM
x_Thunder_x
UK(E), 9 yrs
  
  |
Mr_Jones_Again wrote:
The_Slave_Forum wrote:
What does Ownership mean?
How far can Ownership reach? If you are in a M/s relationship, is it body, mind and soul? |
Yes.
If you own someone it is mind body and soul.
The slave must devote themself totally to the Master or Mistress. The slave will obey the will and whims of the Master without thought for thier own wishes desires or needs.
A slave, once owned has no rights or freedoms other than those the Master or Mistress permits.
|
<Snip some interesting stuff>
On this, at least, you and I agree (as it applies to a Master/slave relationship)
^Thunder^
For those who wish to discuss M/s D/s issuesThe Slave Forum[
Edited 27 Jun 09, 11:07 AM by x_Thunder_x
|
27 Jun 09, 11:11 AM
Lady_Lucan
UK(L), 4 yrs |
SinPar wrote:
I think that there has to be substantial devotion between the parties involved in a very energy in=energy out sort of way along with the fact that the dominant makes the rules and limits. All the rules and limits. It is the most simple-sounding difficult thing you will ever do because it feels like life against nature for both of you. It is strong and fragile in equal measure and you both have to work to keep the sum of your flaws from overwhelming the sum of your goodness.
It is not a thing to be set up on a shelf and admired. It is a thing to be taken out of the box to be flexed and used and bathed in sweat and tears and blood. But that's just what has worked for me.
SinPar
|
Excellent post.
They that love not Tobacco & Boies were fooles.
|
27 Jun 09, 4:32 PM
Telesto
UK, 7 yrs
|
leashed_cougar wrote:
i have highlighted the relevant quote in bold, as you appear to have misread it. T_S_F is not a public board, it is members only. From time to time, general interest threads may be posted on there by T_S_F for discussion, as they may not be of personal interest to the poster.
As far as i am aware, you are not a member, so assume this does not concern you? If this policy is an issue to any members, please memo T_S_F to make your feelings known and this will be reviewed.
|
You are correct: I'm not a member of TSF. But I read that post on a public board. Dunno who posted it.
No biggie. Just tickled me that it was posted so soon after the edit to this TSF thread. Seemed a tad inconsistent, that's all.
|
27 Jun 09, 4:37 PM
Adverse_Camber
UK, 3 yrs
|
Telesto wrote:
leashed_cougar wrote:
i have highlighted the relevant quote in bold, as you appear to have misread it. T_S_F is not a public board, it is members only. From time to time, general interest threads may be posted on there by T_S_F for discussion, as they may not be of personal interest to the poster.
As far as i am aware, you are not a member, so assume this does not concern you? If this policy is an issue to any members, please memo T_S_F to make your feelings known and this will be reviewed.
|
You are correct: I'm not a member of TSF. But I read that post on a public board. Dunno who posted it.
No biggie. Just tickled me that it was posted so soon after the edit to this TSF thread. Seemed a tad inconsistent, that's all.
|
It came up on the blogs page, which again are not the public boards, due to me not realising that posts in that name show on weblogs..i know now, and will be aware of this in future. Thank you for your input and bringing this to my attention.
That that don't kill me will only make me stronger...
|
