RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel"

RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

CreativeDominant -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 7:47:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation pu quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I do believe myself to be his property. I am not an object that could easily be replaced. "Property" in our world is a position of great honor. It means that I MEAN more to him than anything else in this world. It means that I am NOT disposable or replacable in his eyes. "Property" in our world is a testament to commitment. that's how it is between Daddy and i. at first i had a hard time hearing Him say i'm His "property" because i didn't understand what He meant by "property" and viewed the word as a negative description of myself. however after discussing this more with Him, i was finally sold (excuse the pun) on the idea of being His "property" - meaning i'm His beloved and cherished daughter ...i will always come first in His life and He'll always be there for me. i'm Daddy's property for life. Just to clarify and help me understand a little better. If you are his daughter are you still his sub /slave? If not can you be property as a daughter? Especially considering you have said elsewhere you are not in a D/s relationship with your daddy. I'm going to piggyback on top of missturbation's question since you and I have argued a variation of this question before: if you are your "Daddy's property" while not being involved in a D/s relationship with him...and the ones you take on as lovers/pets/Dominants are aware of this...how exactly is this supposed to make them feel? I cannot speak for the lovers or the pets mindset but coming from my own mindset, I know that I would not walk into any situation wherein MY submissive considered herself to be another's property first and foremost...even before she considered herself mine.

missturbation -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 7:48:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl so if someone else is a daughter to Daddy - they cannot be a submissive/slave too? wow i've learned something new today. Please show me where i stated that and i will be the first to apologise. quote: just to clarify another thing, i have been in this relationship (long distance as it may be) for 2yrs with Him however we call it "togetherness". Cool. quote: it's totally amazing how words/titles can be so interchangeable these days and still mean the same thing exclusively to us - i'm His property, daughter, submissive, friend, rock star celeb, etc etc etc. Very true and in my world i own a brewery [;)] quote: perhaps you and others should take your meds too.... am i one or the other or both? as i said titles are so interchangeable these days, does it really matter to you, her or anyone else if i consider myself His daughter more than property some days or a little of both on others? Meds for what? Remembering other posts you have made? *No it really doesn't matter what you are on any given day (nice get out by the way), but it does make it easy for others to call BS* on some of your statements.**

opposingtwilight -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 7:53:45 AM)
Alright I'm not part of any clique and even I have expressed curiosity about your relationship ... And been shot down for asking. You are a bit prickly, love. :)

Alumbrado -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 8:01:42 AM)
And good luck trying to get her to explain how she and Abbie Hoffamn and Junior were able to hang out together at the 1996 convention...[:D]

IronBear -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 8:07:29 AM)
Property v Chattel: Property (Noun) ~ Something owned; any tangible possession that is owned by someone Chattel (Noun) ~ Personal as opposed to real property; any tangible movable property (furniture or domestic animals or a car etc) Seems to me that slaves whilst refered to endearingly as Property, are more correctly and legally Chattels even though some find this term distastfull. Howeevr Goreans will not argue as they refer to slaves as beasts akin in value to beasts of the field (cows etc) and in the home have about the same ststus as pet dogs. (In my home our dogs have a higher place in the pecking order than slaves). IB (The incorrigible, irrepressible and irreverent Bear)

leadership527 -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 8:09:14 AM)
Well, I think mine and myself are pretty much aligned with Darcy and the Dark -- just a few chapters earlier in that book. I declare mine as my "slave" but she is not yet. That is the target that we are navigating towards so it's the terminology we use. But I agree completely that such a thing takes time... even when it's being built on top of a decade long relationship. Insofar as being property or chattel, I know I like to consider mine as my property. But, I'm the first to acknowledge also that this is just one role that she occupies vis-a-vis me and I value her role as my wife, friend, and life partner as much as I do her role as my property. Insofar as she is concerned, I honestly don't think she cares about it at all. Sometimes I think her submission comes so naturally to her that it's like trying to get a fish to talk about water... it's not something it really notices.. it just is. She gets easily bored with all the hair splitting. She just likes to be whatever it is that she is that makes me so happy.

Mavis -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 9:12:46 AM)
"Property" to me is a reminder of my Function. I like knowing that as long as I perform as expected, my position is assured. Hink that up, and well, I've made my own choices and accept the fallout/ consequences of that. Just like replacing a car with a bad engine, might miss that car for the happy memories, but ya still need transportaion! (Repair is the obvious first choice, isn't it?) However, I know my wedding ring was "property" but it had enormous value to me. When I lost it, I was (and still am) very upset! We can buy a new one, but it isn't ever going to be the one we used at that ceremony on that day. :: sniffles ::: When my house burned down, all that was within was "property". Sure, we moved, got a new place, life went on, but I had lost something dear to me. As has been said several times.. Property has value, and what I love about the term is.. good stuff appreciates in value! And me being just smug enuf to believe I AM good stuff...

LaTigresse -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 9:17:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado And good luck trying to get her to explain how she and Abbie Hoffamn and Junior were able to hang out together at the 1996 convention...[:D] There are some things I just think are better left uninvestigated. I will stick to my own little piece of reality and let others have theirs........whatever that may be. As for the OP.........I completely understand the difference in thought. I think that perhaps it is those two variances and the degrees thereof, that causes alot of disharmony in the discussions about what a "real true" slave is.

IrishMist -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 9:25:21 AM)
I am going focus my answer on what you said here quote: I have seen many who view themselves as property here describe it in a way that places them on the same level as their Master's car...or favorite chair. As though they are little more than an object or thing. A thing that can easily be replaced or rejected. This, I can relate to on a certain level. Though my late husband and I were together for many years, there was never any doubt in my mind that had he wanted to replace me; he would have in a heart beat without a second thought. This was something that I accepted as part of our relationship. There were several times that I crossed that invisble line only to have him pack my clothes, place them outside, and tell me 'there's the door'. Now some may see this as uncaring; but I see it differently. I know he cared for me; he would not have kept me around otherwise. He was not the overly romantic kind who needed to prove his love to me; it just was; I accepted that. This did not change the facts though...I was property to him; something that had he decided to replace, he would and could have. If that makes us seem hard and uncaring to the rest of the world; that's ok, I can live with that. [8D] He was a cold, hard and at times unfeeling man; for me though, it was that coldness that broke my barriers down. It had nothing to do with 'this is my kink' and everything to do with the two of us making up a whole; despite the fact that he could have made a whole with anyone else [:D]

NuevaVida -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 9:51:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: softness This is something that recently became an overwhelming struggle for me, Its not secret that I adore being meat, being treated with the same status as my Owner's car or favourite chair. I still do, no question of that at all. I am one of those people that finds it a kink in and of itself. I was in a relationship where the status of meat was the central enduring theme. Living meat, to serve in any way asked. Great. Fantastic. Yay. Problem began to emerge. I started to see that the needs and desires that were being satisfied by being treated like meat, could be satisfied in other ways, by other means. I also found that I was able to give service and not be meat and have open, loving, indulgent affectionate attention without having to earn it or grovel for it. Now I knew these relationships exist, but I never saw them existing for me. I never saw myself being comfortable and blooming in such relationships. So then I see that in fact I can be happy without being meat ... (though still adoring that treatment, just not wanting to live off it) ... and I find myself increasingly hurt by the "meat treatment" rather than feeling contented by it. I have come to see this about myself. I don't want to be 24/7/365 meat. I want to be an Owned and controlled woman who serves the person who owns her with love, affection and devotion. I want to be someone who is held in affection, and cherised, who is invested in emotionally. I also want to be pushed (on occassion) to that cold, remote place where I am meat and nothing more to prove for both of us the lengths I am willing to go for our relationship and mutual contentment. I have had to step away from chattel, because it would have destroyed my happiness eventually. I just wish I hadn't had to step away from the relationship as well. I am quoting this because in so many ways I can relate to it. The relationship I had with my former Master centered on the fact that I was his object - his property and chattel. And yes, I believe the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. Over time, I came to want (need?) to be loved in a way he could not provide, and being solely an object - where it used to really ignite my fire - began depressing me more than fueling me. I used to feel I didn't need to be loved, but now I see how much love the world has to offer (yeah yeah, rainbows & unicorns) and I want a piece of that. My Master freed me so I could go find it. I won't mind being property again. But being chattel - an object, unloved, dealt with toughly all the time - won't work for me anymore.

heartfeltsub -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 9:58:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida quote: ORIGINAL: softness This is something that recently became an overwhelming struggle for me, Its not secret that I adore being meat, being treated with the same status as my Owner's car or favourite chair. I still do, no question of that at all. I am one of those people that finds it a kink in and of itself. I was in a relationship where the status of meat was the central enduring theme. Living meat, to serve in any way asked. Great. Fantastic. Yay. Problem began to emerge. I started to see that the needs and desires that were being satisfied by being treated like meat, could be satisfied in other ways, by other means. I also found that I was able to give service and not be meat and have open, loving, indulgent affectionate attention without having to earn it or grovel for it. Now I knew these relationships exist, but I never saw them existing for me. I never saw myself being comfortable and blooming in such relationships. So then I see that in fact I can be happy without being meat ... (though still adoring that treatment, just not wanting to live off it) ... and I find myself increasingly hurt by the "meat treatment" rather than feeling contented by it. I have come to see this about myself. I don't want to be 24/7/365 meat. I want to be an Owned and controlled woman who serves the person who owns her with love, affection and devotion. I want to be someone who is held in affection, and cherised, who is invested in emotionally. I also want to be pushed (on occassion) to that cold, remote place where I am meat and nothing more to prove for both of us the lengths I am willing to go for our relationship and mutual contentment. I have had to step away from chattel, because it would have destroyed my happiness eventually. I just wish I hadn't had to step away from the relationship as well. I am quoting this because in so many ways I can relate to it. The relationship I had with my former Master centered on the fact that I was his object - his property and chattel. And yes, I believe the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. Over time, I came to want (need?) to be loved in a way he could not provide, and being solely an object - where it used to really ignite my fire - began depressing me more than fueling me. I used to feel I didn't need to be loved, but now I see how much love the world has to offer (yeah yeah, rainbows & unicorns) and I want a piece of that. My Master freed me so I could go find it. I won't mind being property again. But being chattel - an object, unloved, dealt with toughly all the time - won't work for me anymore. This question is not meant to offend, so if it does, that was not my intent. i have found myself having gone through the same type of transition from wanting, needing deep objectification to wanting for the most part more of a loving interaction with some deep objectification from time to time. i found that it occurred as i healed more internally from insecurities and lack of self worth. And i'm wondering if that is the case for others who have made the same transition. Is the move from being just an object to being more loved something that you tie to emotional healing or do you think it is just a "natural" progression? heartfelt

daddysprop247 -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 10:01:05 AM)
chattel...property...slave...these are not so very different in this household, i am all of these. being loved does not make one any less owned, any less a piece of property that can be sold/bought/traded/destroyed at the will of the Owner. being an object also does not necessarily equate to being easily replaced. as Susan mentioned, there are many inanimate objects one can become deeply attached to and could never replace, why not then human property?

NuevaVida -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 10:13:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub This question is not meant to offend, so if it does, that was not my intent. i have found myself having gone through the same type of transition from wanting, needing deep objectification to wanting for the most part more of a loving interaction with some deep objectification from time to time. i found that it occurred as i healed more internally from insecurities and lack of self worth. And i'm wondering if that is the case for others who have made the same transition. Is the move from being just an object to being more loved something that you tie to emotional healing or do you think it is just a "natural" progression? heartfelt No offense at all, heartfelt, and it's a fair question - one I have been asking myself lately, actually. The thing is, I don't know. I suspect I transitioned from an abusive environment to "safe abuse?" although I loathe to use that term or to portray my former Master in such a light. I think I am just evolving as my own person. There was a time when it was OK for me to not be loved because I didn't think I needed or deserved it. Someone accepting my own love was enough. But now I want a taste of that. I know I can be loved, and I want to experience that in my life. My former Master is a great man, but was not capable of giving me that. The more I continued to go without, the more I felt something very critical was missing. Make sense? Perhaps both of your options are the case here - I healed some things and the next natural progression was to want more (or, different).

heartfeltsub -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 10:23:18 AM)
that makes sense and thank you for answering my question. heartfelt

velvetears -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 10:24:40 AM)
i know exactly what you are talking about and the heartache that comes from wanting something from someone incapable of giving it you. You deserve to be loved and have the kind of relationship where you can blossom and flourish... good luck to you and may you find your bliss one day.

NuevaVida -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 10:33:32 AM)
Thank you both. [:)]

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 10:38:08 AM)
Actually, this becomes more of a sentimental argument than a factual argument if the definitions of the words are actually considered. "Property" includes any belongings of an individual, and includes unmove-able things like land or houses. "Chattel" includes belongings of an individual that are moveable or can be removed from standing property. Because of this, if it were a matter of the proper semantics being held to, an owned human would, indeed, be 'chattel' and not 'property'. Unfortunately, for some reason (perhaps because this terminology may leave the individual feeling like nothing more than equal to the pots and pans) using the proper terminology obviously bothers some individuals. For myself, I avoid this whole issue. I recognize that I cannot legally own a person in any case, so avoid the discussion by considering the individuals who submit to me as 'servants', who are individuals in their own right. I basically treat them as employees (in the case of our collared servants, as indentured employees who receive nothing in return for their service aside from what is agreed upon in our verbal contract and in the case of uncollared bottoms, as individuals whose 'payment' for their services is "in kind"). As servants, their status is higher than the furniture -- they have a mind, can think, can grow, and can choose. We are in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship where I choose to accept their submission, and they choose to submit -- an act of will on both parts. They are considerably brighter than the carpets (ok, most of them have been...we had some pretty bright carpets for a while and I'm not entirely certain that _I_ was brighter than the carpets at that point [;)]), and are capable of thought and recognized by law to have free will to stay or leave according to their preference. Thus, the whole issue of whether they are 'property' or 'chattel' becomes moot, as they are neither. Calla Firestorm

IronBear -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 10:41:24 AM)
I agree with you Calla, which is why I refer to slaves as staff or servants which meets the basics in a Victorian Home. IB (The incorrigible, irrepressible and irreverent Bear)

charlotteS -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 11:05:45 AM)
Both Master and I often use the car analogy when we talk about slavery. For me it isn't meant to suggest that I'm "just an object" or easily replaceable though. It is a way of comparing the use of one kind of property to the use of another. I know I generally mention a car because I DON'T really think of it as easily replaceable. Maybe I'm just too poor to think of getting the "newer model." I just wanted to point out that just because someone compares themselves to an animal or a car does not always mean they're trying to say their worth is low. It can be more of a comparison of uses and status than worth. My status is below the cats in this house in some ways. They are allowed to sit on the furniture without permission. [:D] This doesn't mean I think that he considers my worth to be less than theirs, just my status in some areas. charlotte

softness -> RE: "Property" vs. "Chattel" (8/28/2008 11:07:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub This question is not meant to offend, so if it does, that was not my intent. i have found myself having gone through the same type of transition from wanting, needing deep objectification to wanting for the most part more of a loving interaction with some deep objectification from time to time. i found that it occurred as i healed more internally from insecurities and lack of self worth. And i'm wondering if that is the case for others who have made the same transition. Is the move from being just an object to being more loved something that you tie to emotional healing or do you think it is just a "natural" progression? heartfelt No offense at all, heartfelt, and it's a fair question - one I have been asking myself lately, actually. The thing is, I don't know. I suspect I transitioned from an abusive environment to "safe abuse?" although I loathe to use that term or to portray my former Master in such a light. I think I am just evolving as my own person. There was a time when it was OK for me to not be loved because I didn't think I needed or deserved it. Someone accepting my own love was enough. But now I want a taste of that. I know I can be loved, and I want to experience that in my life. My former Master is a great man, but was not capable of giving me that. The more I continued to go without, the more I felt something very critical was missing. Make sense? Perhaps both of your options are the case here - I healed some things and the next natural progression was to want more (or, different). to add my thoughts .. for me the transition from one to the other was a combination of healing a few things, and leaning a few things I started out with DV very hostile towards and frightened of being emotionally entangled with a play partner/Dominant/Owner ever again. That going in hand with my loner personality m,eant a relationship that was based on service and use rather than affection made a lot of sense to me. AS I healed a few old wounds, and learned some new things about myself I saw more space for the warmth and affection I had not wanted to be involved with my BDSM. As with Nueva ... I would have been over joyed to find that with my previous Owner, sadly it was not the case.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875