|
Rover -> RE: collar - is it literal or figurative (12/5/2008 4:03:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: babygurlrides
Assuming that collaring implies ownership, what do you think is more important... the decision/committment to 'collar' a sub/slave or the physical collar itself?
It really depends upon the individual relationship. I have seen plenty of power exchange relationships in which the owner did not place much value at all in either the relationship, or property they owned. I'm not saying that's wrong... it may work perfectly well for them. But in terms of importance or value, I'm not sure which was more prized; the relationship or the collar. The value of any relationship is only as much as each of the partners make of it.
Similarly, as a symbol of ownership, a collar's value or importance is highly relative. Not usually for it's monetary value or cost, but for what it represents. Those who value their relationships often place great value on the symbol of that relationship. But in general, I believe that a collar is considered an object, and no matter how symbolic and valued, it's worth does not exceed that of a partner or relationship (as might be the case with a religious artifact or symbol, for example).
As to the value of collars in general, I often hear rhetorical references to them being more meaningful than wedding rings. And while that may indeed be the case for some folks, it's obvious to me that it is not the case for the majority of folks. And no, it's impossible for everyone to be the exception to that generality.
I have always asserted that when collars come with the same responsibilities as wedding rings.... when dissolving a power exchange relationship means parting with half the house, half the retirement fund, half the the assets... there will be considerably fewer collars being offered.
John
|
|
|
|
