|
KnightofMists -> RE: what is ownership? (1/11/2006 4:40:43 PM)
|
The question of Ownership and property is a complex issue, It complicated by the fact that we are attempting to take mainstream definitions and kink-ify them. The following definitions are pertinent to my post and I believe are most applicable to a discussion of O/p
Ownership (n) the state, relation, or fact of being an owner
Own (vb) a : to have or hold as property : POSSESS b : to have power over : CONTROL
Property (n) a : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP b : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable
Contract (n) a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties
To own is to hold as property! To be property it is regarded as a “Thing”. But, a thing is a non-living object, it doesn’t feel or think. However, we do claim ownership of our slaves, which obviously are not things. I believe that we have power over our slaves, But do we hold them as property? This is where the second definition of “Property” seems to apply best. “one under contract whose work is especially valuable
Therefore, “To own is to have or hold as property and have power over. Property being one that is under contract whose work is valuable.” What I tend to see in this lifestyle is individuals that try to incorporate an O/p relationship that considers the property as a thing. No matter how we attempt to dehumanize ourselves, we can never debase our self to just a thing. We can’t expect that humans will be without emotion or thought. It is this type of O/p relationship that I reject and see as unrealistic. To often individuals are actually romanticizing the concept of Ownership/property relationships and are often left feeling rejected when it doesn’t work out. It can’t work because they can’t be a thing! They are human!
The aspect of contract is of importance in this agreement. The definition itself doesn’t reflect that the arrangement in any specific form. It only indicates that it is between persons or parties and that such agreement is binding. The definitions also open to establish not only what form the contract will take but also what binds it together. The obvious consideration is of a legal nature. But, we can also be bound by our principles and values. Our trusts, our love that binds us can be just as powerful as any legal contract. We can also be bound by the power of one over the other. Power in of it self can be in various forms. The definition of “contract” also doesn’t reflect that there are no rights with in a contract. It is these thoughts that reflect to myself that a Master/slave or Dom/sub relationships can both be an Ownership/property arrangement. Since in particular, the definition of contracts doesn't reflect that rights can't exist in the binding arrangement. In fact, it is very likely that rights can be attributed to both sides of the agreement.
I therefore do not agree with the concept of of Ownership/property as the OP suggests.
|
|
|
|
