|
Interesdom -> RE: whats the difference? (3/15/2009 11:36:05 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyredhead1957
quote:
ORIGINAL: IronBear
The collar is an outwards sign that a slave is oiwned and the tags on it (if any) will tell you who owns the slave. The collar can also have an extreemly strong emotional and psychological effect on a slave too and in some cases may be considered similar to wedding ring. Of course the ideal situation is to both collar and brand the slave.
i did a search because i, also, have been wanting to know the same thing.....the difference between the two.....and have enjoyed reading all these answers. So being owned is like being married, where being collared is like wearing the wedding ring? So what if one is owned but does not wear His collar? Is it something the Master gives? The slave/sub must earn and beg for? or how does that work?
No. Owned is not like being married, nor is a collar like a wedding ring. What IronBear was talking about was an often-encountered phenomena of the emotional and psychological effect of ownership and collaring. And I'd agree with him that branding takes matters to a deeper level again. The practicalities of ownership are very different - and, I think, more difficult and more rewarding - that those of marriage.
It works the way any two people want it to work. Don't try putting too much into something that is merely convention: different folks do things in different ways. The only time I have given a collar is on releasing a slave who asked to have it as a momento, because up until that time the collar was mine, just like she was.
Let's get one thing straight: a slave is a person who is owned. Therefore, the phrase 'owned slave' is, strictly speaking, tautology. I can only see any meaning in the phrase when it is used to compare to people on a site like this searching for an owner, who perforce describe themselves as 'slave' because there is no option for them to say they 'want to be a slave'. For people trying to make it clear that they are not a want-to-be-slave but actually have an owner, they may choose to say they are a 'collared slave' or an 'owned slave'.
The time was, of course, when no one who was not owned would tolerate having a collar on them. In those days, not all slaves wore collars. So we come from a history where slavehood was more likely than being collared. Of the slaves I know personally, only one wears a permanent (metal) collar, though I have seen another of them with a leather collar on at a function. I have seen many other girls wear collars almost as fashion accessories (and I've noticed a lot of vicars wear them, too), which is fine but not to be confused with the OP's meaning when they talk about a 'collared slave'.
|
|
|
|
