13 Jul 10, 2:43 PM
De_Luxe
UK, 5 yrs
 |
Belasarius wrote:
De_Luxe wrote:
Belasarius wrote:
Strong stuff. Agree strongly: central to me.
Now - ownership and possession: Herself is shared, therefore i possess her, when she is with me.
I think i own some of her though - for example, her hair: the colour, length, style and whether it is to be cut or not is mine to decide and influenced neither by her nor by her OSO.
Can ownership and possession be mixed?
|
Sorry to be intense about things that interest me deeply. Bad habit being passionate 
Knowing your situation, having met you in Manchester, I would agree that you own some parts of c_b, her hair for example and if you and c_b agree such parts are yours, in your control for you to decide what you do with them, you would own them even when you are apart.
|
Thank you. It feels to me (and her) that I do. And that feeling is incredibly important to me, and helps me with the sharing - as does her determination to be possessed (but not have fits nor fire in the eyes or ejaculate green slime) when she is with me.
|
 Aye, the green slime sort of being possessed could require serious spending on rubber sheets.
I completely agree with you, it isn't just a matter of external agreement but that internally we feel it and the conviction in our minds is that this is how it is develops.
Malbon mentioned IE, which is, as I understand it, the Dominant knowingly and intentionally causing the internalisation of enslavement to occur. Now, I wouldn't say that I had intentionally created IE, but I was aware that the environment and conditions that create IE would be there and would have the effect that my boy would internalise his position of being owned. It doesn't mean he cannot ever think of terminating the relationship but he has no cause for the thought to arise. |
13 Jul 10, 3:19 PM
Belasarius
UK(M), 8 yrs
  
  |
De_Luxe wrote:
Malbon mentioned IE, which is, as I understand it, the Dominant knowingly and intentionally causing the internalisation of enslavement to occur. Now, I wouldn't say that I had intentionally created IE, but I was aware that the environment and conditions that create IE would be there and would have the effect that my boy would internalise his position of being owned. It doesn't mean he cannot ever think of terminating the relationship but he has no cause for the thought to arise.
|
I think this, to an extent is what happened with us. I did not set out to do it, but I did set out to be consistent in my use and treatment of her and I learnt not to be hesitant in being demanding. She, some time later, decided she was a posession. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior)
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99
|
14 Jul 10, 12:08 PM
Tanos
UK(M), 14 yrs
 |
Malbon wrote:
I recall the theory of IE which Tanos used to talk about, which I understood as the notion that the enslavement of an individual to a dominant was effectively a mental construct, which could in certain circumstances have an approximately equal weight alongside our understanding of the ownership/possession terms in the mainstream games. I wonder if that is still considered a part of the O&P philosophy?
|
I posted something about the relationship between O&P and IE earlier in the year:
http://www.ownership-possession.com/weblog/17984...
Regards,
Tanos www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
O&P on IC: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Service. Dignity. Authenticity. Rituals.
|
14 Jul 10, 12:09 PM
Tanos
UK(M), 14 yrs
|
Malbon wrote:
Is this not what Tanos is saying in the preamble to the Manifesto? That O&P is intended to create a broader church than traditional terms like D/S or M/S where we might divide over submission vs enslavement?
"Possession" feels to me very much like it connotes the current observable state of affairs. The object is "with" me, it is to hand, I have it here, it is located within the boundaries of my property. I may own it, but not necessarily.
"Ownership" seems to me more to do with the rights I have over the object. It is much more potent than possession, a stronger claim over the object, which can be defended by recourse to the power structure I inhabit.
|
That's a good summary of how I use the words, yes.
Regards,
Tanos
www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
O&P on IC: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Service. Dignity. Authenticity. Rituals.
|
14 Jul 10, 12:29 PM
Tanos
UK(M), 14 yrs
|
Malbon wrote:
I'm very much in favour of redescription, and the O&P manifesto appears to me to be very much a classic instance of it.
|
That's very much the intention, and why I keep stressing it's a new way of looking at existing ideas. I've almost called it a "refactoring", a term from software engineering, but that's even more obscure.
There's an interesting parallel in this between O&P and Ultraviolence, terms that emerged in the last year with groups that made their way up the list of groups on IC together. Ultraviolence is also a redescription, this time of certain kinds of edge-play.
|
I suppose my only reservation with this sort of thing is the slight feeling that, as with most redescription, we tend to end up simply reshuffling the same pack of cards, rather than introducing any new ones. ...
Is the O&P use of the term possession - "involving some or all of the rights associated with property ownership" actually valid? I don't see a problem if we are content with its provisional nature within this particular language game. The rights are assigned by the consenting individual and do possess a real weight within the relationship, as long as it persists.
|
I would say that the concept of possession is the one newish idea in O&P, as opposed to new terminology. I'm not aware of anyone using possession in M/s+D/s before now except as a (frequent) synonym for ownership. I've never seen the distinction made between ownership and possession in M/s+D/s before, and yet there's a clear distinction in law etc.
Just imagine for a second, the clear distinction between the owner of a hire car and the possessor of that hire car. It's clear that when hired out, owner and possessor are two different things, even though the possessor has many of the rights that most car owners have (where to go, where to park, whether to get a ticket and pay the fine )
Sometimes I see people guessing O&P is something like "Ownership and property" or "Ownership of possessions". But I could almost have written it "Ownership OR Possession". In fact, if I didn't have the idea of possession, then it might well have been "Ownership OR Dominance" to make the M/s+D/s nature of it clear. However, I think the Ownership vs Possession distinction is useful enough, when spelt out by things like the Manifesto that it's good to have the two terms there.
Regards,
Tanos
www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
O&P on IC: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Service. Dignity. Authenticity. Rituals.
Edited 14 Jul 10, 2:53 PM by Tanos
|
14 Jul 10, 5:03 PM
Belasarius
UK(M), 8 yrs
|
Tanos wrote:
Malbon wrote:
I'm very much in favour of redescription, and the O&P manifesto appears to me to be very much a classic instance of it.
|
That's very much the intention, and why I keep stressing it's a new way of looking at existing ideas. I've almost called it a "refactoring", a term from software engineering, but that's even more obscure.
There's an interesting parallel in this between O&P and Ultraviolence, terms that emerged in the last year with groups that made their way up the list of groups on IC together. Ultraviolence is also a redescription, this time of certain kinds of edge-play.
|
I suppose my only reservation with this sort of thing is the slight feeling that, as with most redescription, we tend to end up simply reshuffling the same pack of cards, rather than introducing any new ones. ...
Is the O&P use of the term possession - "involving some or all of the rights associated with property ownership" actually valid? I don't see a problem if we are content with its provisional nature within this particular language game. The rights are assigned by the consenting individual and do possess a real weight within the relationship, as long as it persists.
|
I would say that the concept of possession is the one newish idea in O&P, as opposed to new terminology. I'm not aware of anyone using possession in M/s+D/s before now except as a (frequent) synonym for ownership. I've never seen the distinction made between ownership and possession in M/s+D/s before, and yet there's a clear distinction in law etc.
Just imagine for a second, the clear distinction between the owner of a hire car and the possessor of that hire car. It's clear that when hired out, owner and possessor are two different things, even though the possessor has many of the rights that most car owners have (where to go, where to park, whether to get a ticket and pay the fine )
Sometimes I see people guessing O&P is something like "Ownership and property" or "Ownership of possessions". But I could almost have written it "Ownership OR Possession". In fact, if I didn't have the idea of possession, then it might well have been "Ownership OR Dominance" to make the M/s+D/s nature of it clear. However, I think the Ownership vs Possession distinction is useful enough, when spelt out by things like the Manifesto that it's good to have the two terms there.
Regards,
Tanos
|
Using the concept of possession rather than ownership or property has helped me and mine a lot, in terms of understanding how we feel about eachother, our dynamic and our sharing situation.
it did feel new when I came across it - and helped me explain to myself the beautiful pickle I was in.
Thanks Tanos. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior)
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99
|
