RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property?

RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 4:30:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Slaves??? You possess MORE than one [:D] ? Ummm...yes. Right now, I have two under contract. As of 6pm this evening, I will have 4 under contract. (Although one bristles at the term slave, so she will be contracted as an owned slut.) Elle, I and the two new slaves will be at the Fetish Masquerade in Toronto tonight if any one is in the GTA. We should be doing at least one wax scene and probably a bit of Violet Wand play. Taggard

KnightofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 7:59:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub [Depends on how you look at it. You own a cat, but if you beat it you will be arrested and taken to jail. You own a table and if you smash it to be bits nobody cares. ok... lets get something straight here... Cats' don't have owners... they have servants. Dogs have owners. w

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 8:14:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists ok... lets get something straight here... Cats' don't have owners... they have servants. Dogs have owners. w Spoken like a man who has served a cat... smile Taggard

SimplyMichael -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 8:15:06 AM)
All this talk of what "shows" ownership the most is WAY off the mark to me for a couple of reasons. It is NEVER the action but the motivation behind it that provides meaning to the act. Just like a woman sleeping around thinking it will bring love shows up insecurity, so does loaning your woman out IF (and there ARE other reasons to do so) you do so hoping it will bring you respect. I have loaned my women out to bring respect when I was new, I have loaned them out against their will to a dear friend because he (unlike many friends in my youth) was too jealous to have threesomes (despite not having luck with women as a kid, I had a LOT of threesomes) and I just wanted to do it PLUS I wanted to show him it could be done without jealousy. I may or may not do it with my current partner. Motive not action defines the act, ESPECIALLY in bdsm. Besides, there were wives in the south who were treated worse than slaves (in SOME cases), I mean look at the slaves out founding fathers took to bed, they took pretty good care of some of them. So simply "using" a woman doesn't make her more "slavey".

KnightofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 8:17:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Agreed. I'm sick of this martyr complex floating around. Obeying is obeying. He orders, I obey. It might "mean more" when I don't like doing it, but that doesn't mean he is going to go out of his way to make me miserable. God I'm glad I have an owner who actually likes it when I'm happy and doesn't try to make me miserable. I agree... Obeying is Obeying. But... the effort to exerted to Obey "May" denote a greater value to a person and those in the relationship. It also might not ... infact... it just might bring the relationship down. To me... the only thing that denotes.. Ownership.. Is Obedience. The emotions gained from said obedience is different issue all together. As a Sadist... some Obedience will please greatly my sadistic streak. I will get off on the suffering, pain and struggle. These thoughts and feelings don't to me denote any great feeling of Ownership. It is their Obedience ! Now Lucky made an extremely good point. Some individuals have alot of difficult don't things that please them. In fact, for some, it is actually easier to suffer, pain and struggle rather than pamper, please themselves. So.. I don't put alot of stock in the pain, suffering and struggle is Ownership. I do believe that Ownership is denoted by Obedience and the internal value is gained by the effort required to Obey. Keeping mind the effort exerted is actually a subject thing that is not really possible to measure in any objective manner.

KnightofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 8:35:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: SexyRed Not sure I understand this. Why do you need proff about something you are doing? Proof about what? that you really own a slave, not just "think" you do? This is exactly it! I want proof that I am not just imagining the nature of my relationships. Call it insecurity or what have you, but I want to *see* (on the outside) my power over my slave, and not just *feel* it (on the inside). Taggard "Knowing I do".. and "Thinking I do" is two entirely different things. I can appreciate that Taggard wants to KNOW! and not be wrapped up in some self-delusioned idea that he "Thinks he does". I appreciate it.. becuase I share this mindset. I don't want to delude myself.. in thinking that I own them. I don't want my girls deluding themselves Thinking they are owned.. Ownership needs to be Exercised... and so does Obedience. Now... HOW the Ownership is exercised will affect the effort of Obedience. I KNOW that I own my girls by the subject value I associate the efforts they must make to Obey! Sometimes it's more effort to obey in doing the things that pleases them to do it. Sometimes its' more effort to obey to the things that causes them pain or suffering. It's the effort I value and not the feelings and thoughts associated with the Obedience. I also believe that Exercising Ownership and Obedience has a very positive effect on the relationship. I own some books... I have yet to read them... they sit there on myself. They give me no measurable value sitting on the self. It will be when I read them that I will realize their value. I own a dog... If I had just left her outside and had someone else fed her... would we have any sort of bond? As a living being... there needs to be interactions between the two of us for it positive value on our relationship together. I own a couple slaves... I need to use them to realize their value as well. As I write out my thoughts. I come to a realization. As Obedience denotes that Ownership exists. It is also the Exercising of Ownershp that realizes the Value of said Ownership.

KnightofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 8:43:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub I have to agree. Valyraen and I feel that if you have to prove you own someone, you really don't. That is nonsensical. How can testing something invalidate it's truth value? I can certainly see the point that you don't need to test something for it to exist, but testing for existence can not validate existence. It can either provide evidence for existence or not. It seems to me that you are basing your relationship on a kind of faith that is destroyed when the scientific method is applied to it. Taggard a big DITTO to this one

dawntreader -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 8:43:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub [Depends on how you look at it. You own a cat, but if you beat it you will be arrested and taken to jail. You own a table and if you smash it to be bits nobody cares. ok... lets get something straight here... Cats' don't have owners... they have servants. Dogs have owners. w i can so relate to this [:D]

KnightofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 8:49:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: This is exactly it! I want proof that I am not just imagining the nature of my relationships. Taggard, You're asking for someone else to give you confidence. I don't understand that he is seeking to gain confidence from someone else. I understand that he is seeking to gain confidence in what believes by testing the said beliefs. It is my belief that in new relationships.. we do this all the time. We test the belief that this relationship is "real". But as the relationship trots along... the drive to test the belief will subside. It will do so.. becuase the Confidence in the Belief will be more than the Doubts of the relationship.

KnightofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 9:30:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael All this talk of what "shows" ownership the most is WAY off the mark to me for a couple of reasons. It is NEVER the action but the motivation behind it that provides meaning to the act. Just like a woman sleeping around thinking it will bring love shows up insecurity, so does loaning your woman out IF (and there ARE other reasons to do so) you do so hoping it will bring you respect. I have loaned my women out to bring respect when I was new, I have loaned them out against their will to a dear friend because he (unlike many friends in my youth) was too jealous to have threesomes (despite not having luck with women as a kid, I had a LOT of threesomes) and I just wanted to do it PLUS I wanted to show him it could be done without jealousy. I may or may not do it with my current partner. Motive not action defines the act, ESPECIALLY in bdsm. Besides, there were wives in the south who were treated worse than slaves (in SOME cases), I mean look at the slaves out founding fathers took to bed, they took pretty good care of some of them. So simply "using" a woman doesn't make her more "slavey". I agree with you.. In that Motives are a Key.... However.. Motives are Demonstrated by Action. Unfortunately.. Demonstrated Actions can be examples of lot of various motives. So how does one understand what the motives are in the first place? So.. it comes down to our Perception of the given actions/behaviors. Our perceptions that relates to us an understood motive. Taggart relates his motive to doing X and he gains Y type validations for doing X. Of course... there is the slave(s) in this mix as well. Are their motives the same as his? Maybe yes, Maybe no. I suspect that Taggart is very good in communicating to his slaves what his motives are by the actions/behaviors (commands) he gives his slaves in this particular case. Because they understand and appreciate this motive.. then the actions/behaviors are going to have a impact upon themselves as well. Frankly.. this is a rather lovely dance of relationships. Micheal.. I think you made the best point so far in this thread raising the thought of Motives... I only add to it by suggesting that such motives need to be communicated within the relationship for it's value to be realized.

KnightofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 9:31:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists ok... lets get something straight here... Cats' don't have owners... they have servants. Dogs have owners. w Spoken like a man who has served a cat... smile Taggard FUCK... ok my secrets is out!! oh man.. I feel so much better not having to keep this hidden anymore. editted to add My compliments to you Taggart for bring this topic to a thread of it's own. The thoughts and Ideas shared was a good read. However, I think more than a few are making assumptions and drawing conclusions beyond what you are actually saying. This concept is only a part of the relationship not the whole of it. You share a window of your own approach... nothing more .. nothing less.

angelic -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 9:49:58 AM)
~fast reply~ i have been reading this thread (more than once) and here's the thing i do not understand. Why must property suffer? i own things. For example, i own a car... it is my property... if i make my car suffer, eventually my car will stop performing properly for me and i will soon be out looking for another car. What is wrong with treating your property with respect and consideration? This is what i do not get... if i am property... why do i have to suffer to prove i am property. Something else i have been thinking about while reading this thread: What if i am property that does not let you know i am suffering. It seems to me that in the analogy that it isn't that i am suffering or not... it is that you must think i am suffering because that is how you define being an Owner. Seems a bit odd to me. Quite possibly i missed the point (most certainly would not be the first time).

BitaTruble -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 9:56:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelic What is wrong with treating your property with respect and consideration? Absolutely nothing. One can treat their property with respect and consideration and still make them suffer. The two are not exclusive nor must they entwine. You get to do it however you want. quote: This is what i do not get... if i am property... why do i have to suffer to prove i am property. You don't have to suffer. Some dominants want their property to suffer, some don't. Make the best choices to match your ideas and the point becomes moot. quote: Something else i have been thinking about while reading this thread: What if i am property that does not let you know i am suffering. It seems to me that in the analogy that it isn't that i am suffering or not... it is that you must think i am suffering because that is how you define being an Owner. Seems a bit odd to me. Quite possibly i missed the point (most certainly would not be the first time). That just sounds dishonest to me. Celeste

KnightofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 9:58:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelic ~fast reply~ i have been reading this thread (more than once) and here's the thing i do not understand. Why must property suffer? i own things. For example, i own a car... it is my property... if i make my car suffer, eventually my car will stop performing properly for me and i will soon be out looking for another car. What is wrong with treating your property with respect and consideration? This is what i do not get... if i am property... why do i have to suffer to prove i am property. first... who said that Property Must suffer..... In some relationships that will happen and others not so much... but I don't think anyone is projecting that this is to be an absolute. I also don't agree with an absolute that a relationship should be without suffering. If my slave is of the sort that enjoys and is enhance by going through suffering, pain and struggle... am I respecting her if I keep that from her? What's wrong with showing respect and consideration for your slave? what's wrong with giving them suffering, pain and struggles.. the very thing that causes them to grow and feel empowered as a result. quote: Something else i have been thinking about while reading this thread: What if i am property that does not let you know i am suffering. It seems to me that in the analogy that it isn't that i am suffering or not... it is that you must think i am suffering because that is how you define being an Owner. Seems a bit odd to me. Quite possibly i missed the point (most certainly would not be the first time). Perceptions is a huge thing.. not enough people consider it's value. What I perceive might not be what you percieve. But, if our perceptions are different.. doest it have any effect on the situation. In some cases.. no.. in other cases yes.

angelic -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 10:03:53 AM)
Let's say for the sake of argument, that i am 'your' property. There is absolutely nothing 'you' can do or ask of me that i consider suffering, because i am 'your' property. Yet, because i know 'you' define 'your' ownership of me by my suffering, am i being dishonest or simply being a good piece of property?

angelic -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 10:22:47 AM)
Perception is a very big part of it. If the Owner believes that suffering must occur for the slave to grow, but there is nothing the slave perceives as suffering because everything she does, she does for the Owner, gladly, happliy and without question, what then? i am not trying to be argumentative, i am really trying to understand. Personally, i do not need to suffer in order to grow.

Keshia1969 -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 10:31:03 AM)
this one says yes you are really owned if not owned ,regardless if you have a owner or not your still what you are and who you are,your heart, body ,mind ,and soul...are bound for life ...without having a Master does not make you not a slave.being owned is giving all you got to make it become realty....so this one thinks yes your owned...regardless.with or without.

Keshia1969 -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 10:33:42 AM)
you are property regardless as well if not owned...we still have to serve every Free if were not owned so yes that still makes us property.

KnightofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 10:46:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelic Perception is a very big part of it. If the Owner believes that suffering must occur for the slave to grow, but there is nothing the slave perceives as suffering because everything she does, she does for the Owner, gladly, happliy and without question, what then? It's called... Incompatiability..... Hopefully.... those involved had shared a deeper understanding of what there perspectives of such a relationship is before they jump into it and find such an incompatiability

kyraofMists -> RE: Are you really owned if you are not treated like property? (7/21/2007 10:49:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelic Perception is a very big part of it. If the Owner believes that suffering must occur for the slave to grow, but there is nothing the slave perceives as suffering because everything she does, she does for the Owner, gladly, happliy and without question, what then? i am not trying to be argumentative, i am really trying to understand. Personally, i do not need to suffer in order to grow. From my own personal experience I can gladly, happily and without question suffer through something for him. I do not think the concepts are mutually exclusive. However, it may depend on how you define suffering. As an example, he recently made a new protocol where I have to ask permission before eating any junk food. To add to it, a coworker's mom is visiting from Belgium and brought me a box of my favorite chocolate, Cote d'Or Black of Black Mignonnettes. He knows this is my favorite and he satisfies his sadistic desires by having me take out a piece of chocolate, smell it and then put it back. Just the smell makes my mouth start to water and I crave to have a piece. The desire for the chocolate is keenly felt and I suffer through the craving. However, the pleasure that he gets out of this just makes me laugh. The act of him controlling this thing that I crave enhances my perception of our authority dynamic. This fulfills me. To crave it and be denied creates a challenge for me to work through and also creates joy in watching him be so pleased. The dichotomy of it is not something that I try to figure out; I accept it and appreciate it for what it gives me. Knight's Kyra

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875