The Possession in O&P (17)

O_and_P's profile . O_and_P's homepage . O_and_P group posts

Tanos
Posted by Tanos on Thu 5 Nov 09, 10:26 PM

Possession is the only really new concept in the O&P Manifesto, and approximately represents the "D/s" half of O&P.

"O&P" itself is partly intended as a single name that includes almost all M/s and many D/s relationships. A name like "M/s+D/s" for this would be both clumsy and inaccurate, since some D/s takes the form of things like roleplay. There's also the issue of people using the name "D/s" to mean the whole of BDSM, which further confuses discussions about these subjects.

What kind of D/s is "possession" talking about? It's helpful to read it as "being in possession of" rather than "a possession", since it's not meant to be another word for "property" or "slave". Fundamentally it's about the dominant being in control and the submissive being there for the dominant's purposes.

One useful analogy is with renting a house. You sign for the keys and then you are in possession of the house. You don't own it, but it's yours to do with as you please within reason while you have the keys. You can certainly rearrange the furniture and have parties whenever you want in a way you can't do in a hotel. Even if you have to behave responsibly or lose possession of the house (eg because it burns down), the house is fundamentally there for you and not vice versa.

One of the aims in spelling all this out with O&P is to create a space within D/s where it is ok to say that these dominants and submissives are not equals. That these dominants are the superiors of their submissives, just as an employer is their servant's superior. These ideas are commonplace in M/s - the Ownership half of O&P if you like - but less so in much of D/s and BD/SM. "Possession" is a deliberately asymmetric word with which to signpost spaces and relationships where these attitudes are ok in D/s too.

Regards,

Tanos

Edited Fri 6 Nov 09, 12:24 PM by Tanos

Replies

6 Nov 09, 11:55 PM
socair
UK, 4 yrs
This is going to show a certain ignorance but does the superior part mean to suggest a global superiority? Or does it mean superior only in terms of authority?
It's relatively easy to accept that in D/s the people involved are not equals. However most of us are used to superior = better than. Despite an increasing interest in more formal D/s, it's this part that's difficult to accept.
Of course all this may mean is that O&P is for others but not me
Thanks.
"Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself".

7 Nov 09, 10:07 AM
x_flaire_x
UK(OX), 8 yrs

socair wrote:
This is going to show a certain ignorance but does the superior part mean to suggest a global superiority? Or does it mean superior only in terms of authority?

I think it means the later. Mister Tanos uses the example of the employer/employee relationship. Your boss is your superior, they give orders and you obey them. But that doesn't mean you're 'less' of a human being then them. You may have skills and talents that are of value to them and as an employee, you have the right to be treated with dignity.
As a submissive, I have skills and talents that are of value and use to my Dominant. I suppose, the act of submission is of value and my willingness to obey him too. He is my superior because I obey him, because I have given him that authority over me.
f x

Cookie Monster In Bondage!

7 Nov 09, 11:48 AM
De_Luxe
UK, 4 yrs

socair wrote:
does it mean superior only in terms of authority?
It's relatively easy to accept that in D/s the people involved are not equals. However most of us are used to superior = better than.
I think that would be superior in terms of authority, like a military commander is known as a 'superior officer' in relation to one who is given orders and obeys the rules in what they dress etc.
To me this means the D and s are not equal in power but they can be equal in value for what they contribute to the dynamic or relationship.

7 Nov 09, 12:39 PM
Tanos
UK(M), 12 yrs
Y!

x_flaire_x wrote:
Your boss is your superior, they give orders and you obey them. But that doesn't mean you're 'less' of a human being then them.
I think there's a strong and valid desire in these kinds of discussions to avoid any association between being a submissive and being a "low quality person", or that there's something lacking in you that makes you have to be a submissive.
However, I also think this goes too far the other way sometimes, with people running away from words like "unequal" and "superior" completely. We've seen threads like that on IC in the past.
O&P is trying to find a way of steering clear of the "low quality person" implications without ditching some of the important inequalities that do exist. My phrasing of "the dominant is the submissive's superior, just as an employer is their servant's superior" was a first shot at that for superiority.
I think we can go further though, as there is more to it than just authority. For instance, I would say that almost all submissives seeking this kind of relationship look for a dominant they can look up to. However, I don't think that many dominants look for a submissive they can look up to, even though most want a submissive they can be proud of.
So to me, that reads like some superiority that does go beyond authority and the imbalance of power.
Regards,
Tanos
www.tanos.org.uk
O&P on IC: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Dignity. Authenticity. Structure. Rituals.
Edited 7 Nov 09, 12:47 PM by Tanos

7 Nov 09, 3:52 PM
socair
UK, 4 yrs
Thank you all for your explanations.
You've helped clarify things and provided a few ideas for further thought
"Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself".

7 Nov 09, 4:10 PM
dorine_van_Frank
NL, 16 mths

Tanos wrote:
One of the aims in spelling all this out with O&P is to create a space within D/s where it is ok to say that these dominants and submissives are not equals.
Although i need more time to find out about the whole O & P, it is hard to let go off older concepts i'm used to and have integrated in the way i speak about our relationship, i see the need for better fitting concepts...
To me this part is especially helpfull to spell out so explicitely. For me this is so obvious in our kind of relationship - which i call in generall terms 'D/s' with difference in power as big as possible- that in my earlier very naive years i failed to see why others couldn't understand or just accept it...i learned though...
It needs a lot of explanation so it seems. Like: "what, he can play with other people and you can't? That's not fair!"
And it is a good idea imho to be very clear about what it means. in my experience what helps sometimes is to call it "selfchosen inequality". It starts out with a need in all parties involved.
To use words like not symmetric or asymetric helps too - i'm just not sure about the English spelling
dorine

7 Nov 09, 7:22 PM
ClassAct2005
UK, 5 yrs
All people are equal. HOwever some are prettier than others. Some have a higher IQ. Some are nicer. Some more stable. Some healthier. But the fundamental equality ought to be recognised. I wouldn't want a dominant who didn't accept I was as valuable and in a sense as needed to him as he needs me. I might well recognise him as more professionally successful or having a higher income or IQ or fitter or better looking than I am so I suppose in that sense I would accept he exceeded me in those areas but even then I would not use the word not equal to.
Superior.... I think dom and sub have as much to give to each other and neither is better. I don't like the use of that word either. I suppose it probably comes from a latin word, not that I've ever done latin, and probably means "over" and in the sense that I accept the authority of someone "over me".

7 Nov 09, 7:25 PM
cinder
5 yrs
So does that make us lot lower in the hierarchy "inferiors" then?
I'm curious...did people start off with a hierarchy from day one or does it grow over time?
N the Inferior x
PS Every time I read the title of this thread it reminds me of a horror film title!

Edited 8 Nov 09, 7:30 AM by cinder

8 Nov 09, 8:56 AM
polly_uk
UK, 5 yrs
I posted this back in August 07 , in a rather heated discussion about superiority, and thought i would resurrect it since my feelings haven't changed.
"It would be nigh on impossible for me to submit to someone i did not perceive as more able than myself in many ways, someone who i could not admire, not defer to and who i was not confident had the ability to make decisions for me.
If i am going to abdicate my power to make decisions in every aspect of my life to someone else then i want to be bloody sure they are at least as capable...hmmm no more capable than i am at doing so. If that is not the case what the hell do i need ,or want, them for. I might just as well retire to vanilla land and take on the responsibility myself (something i am more than capable of doing).
I think it is all down the the way equality is perceived. I think it is a relationship of equals in an unequal relationship. I do not feel less valuable than Nick, but i am not his equal."
This debate regarding equality has been around for many years and it has become frustrating sometimes to have to continually "defend" ,what is to me, the basic premise (and it is basic for me although i accept that this premise has become rather unfashionable in recent years) that a D/s, M/s, 0 and P relationship, whatever label you give it is by it's very nature one of inequality.
An article written in 2002 by sajah and published on the site domsubinfo addresses this subject in a very logical and reaistic way and accurately reflects my own felings especially this :-
"This concept of 'egalitarian D/s' is one that perpetuates a dilution of protocols and respectful gestures, and, as a whole, takes power from the Dom and hands it back to the sub. It is a concept that is expressed passionately to newcomers and vanilla folks as a safety net-to make D/s look more mainstream. There's a problem with the concept, however. D/s is not mainstream. It is fundamentally a different type of relationship (hence, that is why it is a "D/s" relationship, and not a "normal" relationship). This attempt to force equality among Dominants and submissives fosters an attitude of self-righteousness in the submissives, and powerlessness in the Dominants. The result is something far removed from the authority structure that D/s relationships are built on.
This power structure is based on a division of responsibilities and authority. Think of it in terms of a workplace environment-a Dominant is an effective manager, the submissive an effective subordinate. The Manager will delegate jobs, instruct and advise, and has the final say on most issues. The subordinate trusts the Manager's ability to do these things, and concentrates on the jobs he/she's been given, not having to divide their attention between the task at hand and big picture decisions-thereby being a more productive worker. When all is said and done, the Manager takes responsibility for the actions of both himself and the subordinate (both positively and negatively). By dividing skills, the result is a cooperative team. Each party has different strengths and weaknesses, which is namely why they were hired into their respective positions. To say they are 'equal' is misleading. They certainly don't do the same jobs! You could say they both work equally hard, or are equally intelligent, etc-but their positions are not equal. And it is the same with D/s. Dominant does not equal submissive, Master does not equal slave."
This might sound as if i am some sort of down trodden ineffectual person who is incapable of managing her own life or making her own decisions, however, nothing could be further from the truth, nor do i spend my entire life grovelling on my knees - i am getting on a bit and the old knees aren't what they were People who know us see (i hope!) a couple who are very comfortable with each other and very ordinary - and for me our dynamic is very ordinary.
I made a choice and i have never regretted it, although i cannot say it has always been easy, but then the best things often are hard to achieve.
I did shy away in my original post from the word "superior" but now i can accept that if the definition of the word is - The quality, state, or condition of being superior; as, superiority of rank - then i feel comfortable with being inferior
I chose inequality.
Polly

"Indifference to me, is the epitome of evil. Be a sound not an echo"

8 Nov 09, 1:55 PM
dorine_van_Frank
NL, 16 mths

polly_uk wrote:
I posted this back in August 07 , in a rather heated discussion about superiority, and thought i would resurrect it since my feelings haven't changed.
"It would be nigh on impossible for me to submit to someone i did not perceive as more able than myself in many ways, someone who i could not admire, not defer to and who i was not confident had the ability to make decisions for me.
If i am going to abdicate my power to make decisions in every aspect of my life to someone else then i want to be bloody sure they are at least as capable...hmmm no more capable than i am at doing so. If that is not the case what the hell do i need ,or want, them for. I might just as well retire to vanilla land and take on the responsibility myself (something i am more than capable of doing).
I think it is all down the the way equality is perceived. I think it is a relationship of equals in an unequal relationship. I do not feel less valuable than Nick, but i am not his equal."
This debate regarding equality has been around for many years and it has become frustrating sometimes to have to continually "defend" ,what is to me, the basic premise (and it is basic for me although i accept that this premise has become rather unfashionable in recent years) that a D/s, M/s, 0 and P relationship, whatever label you give it is by it's very nature one of inequality.
An article written in 2002 by sajah and published on the site domsubinfo addresses this subject in a very logical and reaistic way and accurately reflects my own felings especially this :-
"This concept of 'egalitarian D/s' is one that perpetuates a dilution of protocols and respectful gestures, and, as a whole, takes power from the Dom and hands it back to the sub. It is a concept that is expressed passionately to newcomers and vanilla folks as a safety net-to make D/s look more mainstream. There's a problem with the concept, however. D/s is not mainstream. It is fundamentally a different type of relationship (hence, that is why it is a "D/s" relationship, and not a "normal" relationship). This attempt to force equality among Dominants and submissives fosters an attitude of self-righteousness in the submissives, and powerlessness in the Dominants. The result is something far removed from the authority structure that D/s relationships are built on.
This power structure is based on a division of responsibilities and authority. Think of it in terms of a workplace environment-a Dominant is an effective manager, the submissive an effective subordinate. The Manager will delegate jobs, instruct and advise, and has the final say on most issues. The subordinate trusts the Manager's ability to do these things, and concentrates on the jobs he/she's been given, not having to divide their attention between the task at hand and big picture decisions-thereby being a more productive worker. When all is said and done, the Manager takes responsibility for the actions of both himself and the subordinate (both positively and negatively). By dividing skills, the result is a cooperative team. Each party has different strengths and weaknesses, which is namely why they were hired into their respective positions. To say they are 'equal' is misleading. They certainly don't do the same jobs! You could say they both work equally hard, or are equally intelligent, etc-but their positions are not equal. And it is the same with D/s. Dominant does not equal submissive, Master does not equal slave."
This might sound as if i am some sort of down trodden ineffectual person who is incapable of managing her own life or making her own decisions, however, nothing could be further from the truth, nor do i spend my entire life grovelling on my knees - i am getting on a bit and the old knees aren't what they were People who know us see (i hope!) a couple who are very comfortable with each other and very ordinary - and for me our dynamic is very ordinary.
I made a choice and i have never regretted it, although i cannot say it has always been easy, but then the best things often are hard to achieve.
I did shy away in my original post from the word "superior" but now i can accept that if the definition of the word is - The quality, state, or condition of being superior; as, superiority of rank - then i feel comfortable with being inferior
I chose inequality.

You said it very well. thank you! These discussions are everywhere when it comes to equality...i can relate to having to defend my way of seeing it!! Maybe it is easier to say what it is not: i'm not less important to the relationship. Nor am i an inferior human being. But my place is not on an equal level with Frank, nor is our relationship about symmetry: we both have different duties, tasks and responsibilities.
But maybe it is more about the word 'inequal' that makes people so angry. Because sometimes, no explanation seems to help...
i can relate to the fact that i wanted someone to look up to. He's not perfect (although that is hard to deal with for me sometimes- lol), but i love it when he is and i love it when he is stronger and funnier then me! The first time he came up with a very intelligent joke that left me speechless- a wonderfull moment!!!
dorine (quite strong herself, but hey, do i have to explain that?!!)

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent

Standard version