O_and_P's profile . O_and_P's homepage . O_and_P group posts
 |
| Tanos |
on Thu 8 Oct 09, 8:24 PM to the O_and_P group.
Since O&P is built up using concepts of property, it is natural to use property itself, in the form of the house, as a metaphor for the relationship.
The idea of using "houses" to embody familial relationships that are greater than the sum of their members isn't new. Not just aristocratic houses in the past, but also far more modest bankers, merchants, craftsmen, and now publishers and even fashion designers might use "house" in preference to "business" or "partnership". And with structure as a third member even of monogamous O&P relationships, they do add up to more than the people involved as individuals.
Indeed some dominants find the house to be a useful way of thinking about the structure they have established and their responsibility towards it. For example, asking themselves whether a particular compromise in fact compromises what their house stands for. Of course this is really loyalty to themselves with the house as a proxy, but it is nevertheless still clarifying for some dominants, including myself. (Other dominants use the collars they give in a similar way, as a symbolic object whose meaning they have a duty towards.)
Houses and households are also terms that can accommodate a wide range of relationship patterns, including poly, temporary members and guests. Some people in the Leather scene in the US use "family" in the same way (and some use house itself) but "family" has connotations of age-play and is too familiar for some of the more impersonal relationships styles, such as servants, which O&P can include.
Finally, these terms can invoke the ancient customs of hosts and guests, with the concepts of respect for property brought into the domestic sphere. People still understand this when guests in private homes, and usually at parties. But I believe that where people think of themselves as guests rather than customers in other venues, a lot the negative politics of the wider BDSM scene can be avoided. And after all, friendship can be withheld just as much as custom, but you don't go on "Watchdog" to complain about your friends: it's not dignified.
Regards,
Tanos
Edited Thu 8 Oct 09, 8:30 PM by Tanos
| 11 Oct 09, 10:42 AM hollythedolly UK(NN), 2 yrs   |
Am I the only one who is finding this part of O&P manifesto difficult to understand is this why a debate hasn't started. | ||
| 11 Oct 09, 11:52 AM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs   |
I did think about putting a disclaimer at the end of the OP. I know houses are less familiar than collars, say, but it's a similar idea: something physical with a meaning. And part of the intention of the manifesto is to give more prominence to some neglected ideas. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk | ||
| 11 Oct 09, 11:57 AM hollythedolly UK(NN), 2 yrs |
Well that's easy to Understand Doh
| ||
| 11 Oct 09, 1:57 PM kashyk UK(AL), 3 yrs |
Sorry, but I am still none the wiser.
| ||
| 11 Oct 09, 2:28 PM TheFalconer UK(S), 6 yrs |
I think I understand some or most of what Tanos is getting at here, but I agree that it does feel a bit like something which is very familiar to him but not to others (it seems to be drawing to some degree on US Leather traditions which are not commonly known in the UK). When I first read the O&P manifesto this was the part I had the strongest reaction to, as it seemed to require a degree of poly behaviour I have no interest in. Reading it again with this post as additional background I get that feeling to a lesser degree. If O&P means being open to the idea of taking other submissives under my control if they visit me, or allowing my girl to serve another, then I'm not O&P. Which is of course fair enough, and possibly not too surprising given that my D/s relationship is a love-based one.
I still find it interesting to discuss these concepts though and so will continue to hang around in the group "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." - Oscar Wilde | ||
| 11 Oct 09, 3:59 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs |
There is a bit of that, yes, and Victorian ideas even more so.
Yes, it's not meant to imply being open to poly at all. It is a term that can accommodate poly and mono people, in the same way "partner" can accommodate married and unmarried couples, but it's really more about structure again. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk | ||
| 11 Oct 09, 4:46 PM TheFalconer UK(S), 6 yrs |
Looking at it through a Victorian lens I see where you're coming from. I wonder if maybe given the fact that your introducing a term which people are less familiar with in a D/s context, it might be worth separating things out in to two bullets on the topic of household? That way you could being by defining the term such that it's clear to the reader ("In O&P, the standard relationship is that of a household headed by a dominant. The dominant will have one or more submissives who are in permanent or temporary service as members of their household, and this number may change over time", etc.), and then have a second item along the lines of what you have now in the manifesto which then takes the concept of the House and pushes it a bit further (visitors, guests rights, etc.) At the moment based on the comments here it seems like you're confusing people as they read it due to a lack of familiarity with the terms. "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." - Oscar Wilde | ||
| 3 Nov 09, 9:51 AM De_Luxe UK, 5 yrs |
Victorian 'house' thinking was still alive and well as late as the seventies and maybe early eighties. You could still see adverts by small farmers looking for an employee which said "Live as family" meaning you had a bedroom, meals were cooked for you and everyone not on duty ate round the kitchen table. It didn't, of course, mean being poly. I don't think Tanos means that if you are O&P that you must use a house concept and nothing else but that it is logical if we speak of O/p, M/s and D/s in the same terms to avoid misunderstandings. So if you came to visit me you would hopefully ask if I had any domestic/house rules about taking shoes off at the door, likewise you could tell me that in your dynamic/house your girl may be instructed to serve tea but your relationship/house is monogamous. A third idea of House is seeing it as a kind of 'invisible friend' or 'book of your principles' to consult before making a decision but with some of the emotional bias prevented from getting in the way. Mine is a love-based and mono relationship too. | ||
| 5 Nov 09, 2:41 PM TheFalconer UK(S), 6 yrs |
Yeah I think I get more where Tanos is coming from with the concept now after the clarifications and I don't have a problem with it. It's not a terminology I would have defaulted to using myself but I understand what it's there to signify. "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." - Oscar Wilde | ||
| 8 Nov 09, 7:39 PM x_flaire_x UK(OX), 10 yrs |
We use the term 'Us' to represent a concept that is greater than the individuals. Wants are sacrificed for the benefit of 'Us' and decisions are always made with 'Us' as the primary factor. I suppose it is the collective, the whole being greater than its parts. However, I think the term 'house' is more elegant and more appropriate as we do have 'house rules', as we call them, which are the standing rules that govern my daily life... ...and in my flights of fancy, I do describe myself as 'the housekeeper'. I manage the house on his behalf. His occasionally teases me by calling me either a 'kettle and mat girl' (too much Gor, too young I say!) or 'the maid of all works'!
I think one complains on 'The Jeremy Kyle Show' about friends - which could never be described as a fine display of dignity! f x
|
