This post is on the D/s & M/s web board.
| 30 Jun 09, 12:49 AM SinPar US, 11 yrs  |
 SP
-- 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) | ||
| 30 Jun 09, 10:58 AM Ms_Valentine UK, 3 yrs  |
Ownership is a consensual agreement that you own someone. That seems like the easy part. The rest is the difficult bit, getting the relationship to work well with ownership as the dynamic, day in, day out, week in, week out etc. Ownership to me has nothing to do with collaring someone. I have a collar ( well actually a chain but who is worried about the difference) on my sub p but he is not owned by me.It is however a lifelong commitment and he has no rights. Ownership means one person, the dominant wishes to 'own' the sub as human property, and so if the sub agrees, that is what they become, human property. You can also be a slave if you are human property but can just be property and not be a slave. All these definitions are difficult. All slaves are human property but not all human property are slaves. Collaring sits outside that and is perhaps what may happen in addition to the 'ownership' process but again is not a requisite part of it. You can be owned without wearing a collar. 24/7 subs and slaves can and do live similar lives, it is only the concept of 'ownership' which separates them. | ||
| 30 Jun 09, 11:49 AM Backdooruk UK(BA), 12 yrs |
In your view, what distingushes those who are property but not slaves from slaves? Is it just a matter of the style of ownership perhaps? - Chris
This is my voice, my weapon of choice | ||
| 30 Jun 09, 12:20 PM Ms_Valentine UK, 3 yrs |
As far as I know in ownership subculture, those who are property but not slaves are those where their owner does not like the word slave and it's non consensual connotations past and present or where the owner prefers concepts like 'pet'. I think it is an act of clarifying the basis on which one defines the relationship semantically which may or may not lead to a certain ownership style. I am just reiterating here what has been written by those who are owners but of property, not slaves elsewhere. I have no personal experience so cannot say if calling a person 'slave' or 'property' has any effect upon how the relationship is run. I would imagine not much differs in practice between the two. 24/7 subs and slaves can and do live similar lives, it is only the concept of 'ownership' which separates them. |
