quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

"what is" can transcend beyond what the law determines is appropriate or legal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Even when speaking of objects, what is ownership?  If I don't "own" my dog, for example but I take it to a dog-restricted beach, I'm the one who pays the fine, not the dog.

If I buy a house but fail to pay the property taxes, the house it taken away from me.  If I buy a car and fail to pay for registration and tags, I am prevented from using the car, and if I insist on using it, it will be taken from me.

So what then is ownership in modern society?  My guess is that ownership is having direct control over something.  In the above examples I am expected to have direct control over the dog, the home, the car.  In that regard, my Master truely owns me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
(referring back to the OP)
I do agree that it makes sense to parallel the use of the term with a certain degree of objectification, yet I don't think objectification necessarily must imply emotional impartiality (how many people have nicknames for their cars?). Also, I think the certain abrasiveness of the term is useful to exemplify a very heavy power exchange dynamic in terms of how much control is surrendered to the dominant party.
My pedantic brain, however, does kind of side with the itchiness you seem to be mentioning (even though I think it was I who mentioned the word during a conversation)...yet the clinical objectification that the word can imply doesn't seem to be my initial reaction so much as how it expresses how complete the power exchange is and how thorough my control either is or will be based on the goals set.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

No big dilemma, just introducing the following as a point of conversation.  :> 

During a conversation the other day, the person to whom I was speaking referenced something about when they own a person.  The statement was innocuous, just a person using their preferred terminology.  I mentally squicked at the utilization, though didn't note it aloud (It wasn't relevant to the discussion and I wished to ruminate on it further). 
When I had occasion to indulge said thought process, I went to the idea that I don't even say that I own my pets; I consider myself their keeper or even in a parental role toward them; theirs are lives over which I have accepted stewardship. 
When I think of a person who is Mine, I don't ever go to the idea of ownership, rather responsibility for them/to them (Regardless of the side of the kneel) and certainly a possessiveness without the idea that they are a possession. 
To me, owned seems to connote to objectification which, in general, isn't something that 'does it' for me and I think that's a big chunk of why I don't like it, along with the fundamental idea (From my years of animal welfare involvemet) of the belief that no living thing can be a possession/owned. 
My thoughts on the matter are not meant to demean those who use, dig, or otherwise feel warm and fuzzy about the term: in fact, I'm starting the thread to open a dialogue about peoples' perceptions of the term.  :> 

Happy Saturday, folks!  :>
  Davan

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

I guess I sort of prefer the term "kept" when it comes to conscious beings. I mean, you can keep a dog chained up or a cat caged, or keep a person tied to you by external circumstance (taking away their outside contact, money, clothing, etc.), but the thing is, unless their desire is to be with you, whether you hold the body or not, they're already gone. I guess that I don't want to label my own relationships in such a way that does not accurately represent what is possible in those relationships, and I don't think one can "own" any animate, conscious thing, including human beings. We can keep them, tend them, lead them... but in my mind, even if we -pay- for them, we -can't- truly "own" them.

Dame Calla