Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Voting (46)

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

Replies

9 Feb 10, 4:20 PM
Tanos

UK(M), 14 yrs

popi wrote:
Now i can understand "possession" in the context of working towards Ownership, a means to an end if you like. I think my post on this thread and elsewhere reflects that. I see how relationships start off as "P": why they would and also why they should to some extent. What i don't understand is the concept of "Possession" relationships which are not working towards Ownership and in which it is acceptable to maintain veto's. How does that differ from D/s relationships where the Dominant has control in certain circumstances but not necessarily all the time or about all things.

Yes, they don't really differ. "Possession" in that sense can be another word for those types of D/s relationship, especially the ones that are 24/7 but have contracts etc, where people don't feel that "ownership" or "slave" are the right words to use.

Why the different terminology...... what is it I'm missing here?

If I said "M/s + D/s", people would wonder whether that included bedroom D/s, or roleplay scenes involving elements of D/s. Or even the "D/s = BDSM" that really means bondage and SM.

But there are people in D/s relationships who don't like M/s terminology (ownership, slave etc) but for whom these words from the Manifesto apply and even resonate:

"having control and use for one's own purposes of that which is possessed, involving some or all of the rights associated with property ownership. This is asymmetric and unequal in status. While the submissive is in the dominant's possession they are fundamentally there for the dominant, obeying the dominant, and subject to the dominant's decisions. The dominant is the submissive's superior, just as an employer is their servant's superior."

So I wanted to have a name for this "M/s + some D/s", that's focussed on relationships, especially people living their lives this way. I think there's more overlap than difference in practice, and basing it only around words like "slave" is unnecessarily divisive. Hence "O&P".

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk
@Manchester ?

Edited 9 Feb 10, 4:23 PM by Tanos

9 Feb 10, 4:30 PM
socair
UK, 6 yrs

mia wrote:
How does this work in your relationships?

After much thought and some discussion, i realised that my faith and my right (but i call it a duty, generally) to vote are as important as my family - which run alongside my relationship, rather than fall within it.

However, i'm thinking more and more that if i trust someone enough to get into all of this, then should i trust them enough with my political duty too?

I just wondered about your thoughts on this and how it might work in your relationship?

Thanks,

mia, x

What an interesting topic

It's something I've thought a lot about too and believe as you do that it's a serious responsibility we all have. It's one of a million “what if” questions that can drive you mad, although that doesn't stop the thinking! Voting, contact with family and friends, and remaining a vegetarian have been my three “favourite” imagined conflicts which caused temporary insanity

On one hand if something is so very important to you ideally a dominant would match you in that area. But if it's just one thing that becomes a sticking point, is it worth the aggravation over it? Arghhhh

I suppose part of the trust involved in handing someone your “political duty” is the knowledge that they won't abuse it? But then does that just mean they do as you would wish? What if you were asked to vote BNP? To abstain completely? To deliberately sabotage your vote? What if, what if, what if!

But you know sometimes I think part of the internal conflict isn't in the details: it's in the withholding, the unknown, the resistance. We worry and deliberate and imagine the worst and torture ourselves and that's where the uncertainty and stress really live. Damn it though there's no escape because some things do need to be thought about fully.

Time for two paracetamol.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society".

9 Feb 10, 6:36 PM
mia

UK(M), 4 yrs

popi wrote:

if you allow yourself exceptions to begin with won't this only hinder the process?

Yeah, that's why i'm thinking about it. It's not something that's been asked for but i automatically said i could never give it up, which then got me thinking as to why and is that appropriate, given the circumstances.

At the end of the day the more important something is (which is completely subjective) the harder control is to relinquish, somethings i image take a lifetime and a Dominant worth his salt will no doubt pick his battles wisely, but the "thing" itself should be irrelevant in theory.

popi x

Yes, in theory i should be happy to hand over everything, trusting someone to make the right choices, where necessary. This just feels like it's something different though. Hmmm... More thought is needed. *puzzled face smiley*

mia, x

"Passion should believe itself irresistible. It should forget civility and consideration and all the other curses of a refined nature. Above all, it should never ask for leave where there is a right of way." @Manchester

9 Feb 10, 6:40 PM
mia

UK(M), 4 yrs

x_maude_x wrote:
Perhaps you are property only in the context of your relationship with your Dom, whereas voting is part of your relationship with the State.

That is pretty much where we are now, yes. However, as things change, my status as 'property', or his as 'owner', will mean things are different. This then highlights the O and P-ness of the situation: the whens, wheres and hows of control.

mia, x

Edited to add word 'as'. Ha!

Edited 9 Feb 10, 6:57 PM by mia

9 Feb 10, 6:46 PM
mia

UK(M), 4 yrs

FatAlbert wrote:

Good grief, I'm not sure who to feel more worried about!

You're getting your knickers in a knot over an infinitesimally small aspect of a more fundamental issue, the submissive's right to think.

I don't see it like that. I can also think about what i want to wear, what i want to eat, what toxins i want to put in my body, what i want to watch on TV, what charities i want to donate to, ad nauseum, it doesn't mean i have the right to decide these things, given the boundries of our relationship. I have political and opinions and beliefs (and religious ones too!). I am just looking to debate whether or not giving up the right to vote is an essential tool in power exchange. Your post would suggest you don't think so, but your tone (and excuse me if i have misread it) reads like you would condone those who think otherwise.

mia, x

Edited 9 Feb 10, 6:58 PM by mia

9 Feb 10, 6:48 PM
mia

UK(M), 4 yrs

dorine_van_Frank wrote:

i realise voting is something many people feel strong about. it is just like monogamy though: if you've given up all of your rights, then you cannot draw the line and say: but he cannot have other women! (just to compare this to something else many women feel strong about )

interesting topic dorine

Hmmm... Pretty much my thoughts on it at the minute.

Oh, and thanks

mia, x

9 Feb 10, 6:51 PM
mia

UK(M), 4 yrs

Tanos wrote:
In that picture, the submissives who assign their votes, in amongst lots of other rights, to a dominant whom they trust with their life, are acting perfectly reasonably.

Yes, that's true too.

mia, x

9 Feb 10, 6:56 PM
mia

UK(M), 4 yrs

socair wrote:

What an interesting topic

On one hand if something is so very important to you ideally a dominant would match you in that area. But if it's just one thing that becomes a sticking point, is it worth the aggravation over it? Arghhhh

I suppose part of the trust involved in handing someone your “political duty” is the knowledge that they won't abuse it? But then does that just mean they do as you would wish? What if you were asked to vote BNP? To abstain completely? To deliberately sabotage your vote? What if, what if, what if!

But you know sometimes I think part of the internal conflict isn't in the details: it's in the withholding, the unknown, the resistance. We worry and deliberate and imagine the worst and torture ourselves and that's where the uncertainty and stress really live. Damn it though there's no escape because some things do need to be thought about fully.

Time for two paracetamol.

Thank you so much for this post.

My bold - to repeat over and over to myself.

mia, x

PS - sorry for the multiple replies - they were all so interesting posts that i couldn't not reply to them individually.

9 Feb 10, 11:30 PM
Romola
UK, 7 yrs

I see voting, like jury service, as being part of your public life as a citizen. As such, I couldn't support an M in an M/s relationship effectively having 2 votes, any more than I could support them dictating their partner's verdict in a court case. Obviously, it's fine to discuss, influence, educate or argue one's own allegiance in an election, which would not be acceptable for anyone to do with a juror, but to dictate a vote is beyond the pale.

It's only a weblog

9 Feb 10, 11:44 PM
clare
11 yrs

Tanos wrote:
For a start, a lot of submissives seek out dominants who are more intelligent than themselves, that they can look up to.

Regards,

Tanos

Sorry but eh?? Surely there are a ton of worthwhile reasons to admire somebody or be admired other than an inferiority complex.

Isn't it better for your intelligence to be admired by someone who has the intelligence to appreciate its nuance. (please excuse the rhetorical but temporary sycophancy).

Next page