|
LillyBoPeep -> RE: Stuff about stuff (12/8/2011 3:41:59 AM)
|
Well, you have rights/stuff/etc if your M decides you should have them, or doesn't really care to take them away.
And FF, I agree that pets are beings, not things, but I never said anything about giving my pet away. I said I was okay with him giving me new rules for the dog to change bad habits.
Basically, like Kana said earlier, the authority to "do something" with the s-person's stuff may exist, but is controlled by the M's sense of morals and right and wrong.
The Dude was not at all interested in harming the dog; that would've conflicted with his feelings about animals. Separating an old dog from the person who had taken care of him his entire life would not have been good for him.
And the thing with consensual M/s relationships is, well we hitch our wagons to trains going places we agree to go. :p you can attach yourself to someone with ideals you respect, because being unable to respect that person, for many of us, makes them unsuitable, right? You enter into it after careful consideration of the terms. You don't just signn up with anny Tom, Dick, or Harry.
And one guy/chick/whoever gender-neutral might think of owning the person+stuff, and another might think of owning the person and controlling the use of stuff. There's no accredited university that defines all of this for us, and even historically, slaves existed in a myriad of ways.
One way I do think of it, though, is that the M is like a particular particle in a set of similar particles but with a particular charge, out in space. Whatever the particle's charge is, it'll attract or seek out another particle that fits.
Example, my previous M wanted to have a ton of kids, so he wanted a girl who'd be interested in them, and thus a better mom. A girl who hated them would've been a bad fit.
Meanwhile, some people prefer keeping emotional distance between themselves and people they own - all the "does love weaken Mastery" threads, with people on either slashie side agreeing and disagreeing - lots of different ways it can be done.
So... while there are some differences between people who want ownership relationships and people who don't, I'm not so rigidly attached to what those relationships have to look like. Other people don't have to qualify their relationship to me. I don't automatically assume someone's roleplaying just because I don't agree with a facet of their consensual relationship. If one M defines it differently than another, whose right is it to say "nah you're a roleplayer because you don't do it the way I do?"
I'm kinda glad that the first time around, I was kind of just feeling around in the dark with someone I trusted to lead me. Sometimes it seems like definitions and verbage and "blah blah blah" matter more thann just making it work, whatever "it" is. Sure, there are some things that just don't look like M/s to me, and when you try to talk to people with a wildly different perspective, no matter the title, it's usually pretty clear. But I dunno that it's my business or my job to care what someone else calls their relationship.
|
|
|
|
