Ownership

So, I've been reading a few threads that deal with ownership (however you define it). And somewhat strangely, while I can wrap my head around why and how it can be or is desirable from the owned-one perspective, I'm still trying to understand what's in it for the owner.

Maybe it's just that I'm still unclear about how those of you who are in a Owner/owned relationship differentiate your relationship dynamic from other D/s dynamics.

Owners: care to share your thoughts with me? Why do you want to and/or why do you own property? What is it that you get from this dynamic that you wouldn't/don't in other D/s dynamics? And for those of you who are owned: can you talk from your Owner perspective?

Full disclosure: My asking this question is largely related to the fact that so far, the idea of ownership does nothing for me. But there are quite a few cool people around here that I look up to who have this kind of relationship, so I'm wondering what it is that I'm missing here.

I'm not sure if it is something you can get a liking for or whether it is just there. I know for F the attraction is about possession, control, total power over, and his need for this type of relationship to be happy and content. Being a D/s relationship where I as the submissive had limits and choices just wouldn't work for either of us as it isn't enough to fulfil our needs....sort of like watering down your alcohol or Cola...there is a spark of the full flavour there, but seriously missing that which gives it that extra strength. There is a peace and contentment that can't be found in any other way.

Catalina

I really don't think I can really speak for my Dom other than what he has told me. Ownership to him means that I am not just a submissive but his submissive. It is a level of committment to him that is more than just a plain D/s relationship.

Blood sweat and tears. And cash on demand. And foot rubs. And whatever I want.

And holy shit, a rush of power and sadistic oomph.

But I'm pretty literal about the slave/chattel thing. I use H. To my own advantage and sometimes to his distinct disadvantage, save for the fact that he has a need to be and feel used.

catalina_francisco said:

I'm not sure if it is something you can get a liking for or whether it is just there. I know for F the attraction is about possession, control, total power over, and his need for this type of relationship to be happy and content. Being a D/s relationship where I as the submissive had limits and choices just wouldn't work for either of us as it isn't enough to fulfil our needs....sort of like watering down your alcohol or Cola...there is a spark of the full flavour there, but seriously missing that which gives it that extra strength. There is a peace and contentment that can't be found in any other way.

Catalina

Click to expand...

Yeah ok -- that I can sort of relate to. Like me getting a little taste of SM in 'vanilla' sex or relationships -- but it's never enough to make it tasty enough for me.

ETA: Or rather, it can be good in itself -- but not if what I'm after is SM play.

Netzach said:

Blood sweat and tears. And cash on demand. And foot rubs. And whatever I want.

And holy shit, a rush of power and sadistic oomph.

But I'm pretty literal about the slave/chattel thing. I use H. To my own advantage and sometimes to his distinct disadvantage, save for the fact that he has a need to be and feel used.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think I get that.

But what I'm not sure I get is how this is different from, for instance, your dynamic with your husband. Or rather, what is it that you get from owning/using H. that you can't/don't get with M. (if I remember well your husband's initial)?

Or does it just boils down to the 'being in love with' aspect you were discussing in another thread? As in, 'being in love with' being antithetical for you with 'owning'?

DeservingBitch said:

Yes, I think I get that.

But what I'm not sure I get is how this is different from, for instance, your dynamic with your husband. Or rather, what is it that you get from owning/using H. that you can't/don't get with M. (if I remember well your husband's initial)?

Click to expand...

It's a fair question. They're such radically different people that if you sat us all down at once you'd see and sense it though, the apples/oranges nature of it. Suffice it to say, my husband retains the right to say "no really don't" where H does not, other than the vote with the feet possibility, I guess, maybe. That is appropriate to that person and that dynamic, whereas with M it's not - any more than it would be with ...my mom or something.

I know that my Master gets the same kick from knowing that I am his possession and he can demand of me whatever he wants, that I get from being an owned slave. We shared a dynamic as dom and sub within the bedroom only at first and it was so intense and such a bonding experience that when we shifted back to equal roles the rest of the time it felt like we had lost something. That's not to say that we are held together by shared kink alone but the D/s became more and more a natural part of how we interacted with each other on a daily basis that TPE became a logical step.

Some people feel like they are acting a role when they first experiment with kink because they aren't used to it and so it feels false, a bit like role-play. With Master and I things progressed until the opposite happened and anything less than a total exchange of power felt false.

DeservingBitch said:

Yes, I think I get that.

But what I'm not sure I get is how this is different from, for instance, your dynamic with your husband. Or rather, what is it that you get from owning/using H. that you can't/don't get with M. (if I remember well your husband's initial)?

Or does it just boils down to the 'being in love with' aspect you were discussing in another thread? As in, 'being in love with' being antithetical for you with 'owning'?

Click to expand...

Yes.

I am not in love with my closet full of shoes. I polish them, I don't drag the good ones through shit just 'cause I CAN - I am elated about wearing them and show them off. But I don't want to marry them.

I know this is cold and clinical and removed from other people's ideals of slavery - that's grand, they don't have to be with me.

Netzach said:

That is appropriate to that person and that dynamic, whereas with M it's not - any more than it would be with ...my mom or something.

Click to expand...

VelvetDarkness said:

Some people feel like they are acting a role when they first experiment with kink because they aren't used to it and so it feels false, a bit like role-play. With Master and I things progressed until the opposite happened and anything less than a total exchange of power felt false.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking that ownership doesn't really resonate with me or do anything to me because there's just nobody I've met with whom that dynamic felt appropriate or something else than 'role-playing'. So I'm probably trying to understand something that is (for now at least) just to far away from my realm of experiences and understanding.

DeservingBitch said:

I'm thinking that ownership doesn't really resonate with me or do anything to me because there's just nobody I've met with whom that dynamic felt appropriate or something else than 'role-playing'. So I'm probably trying to understand something that is (for now at least) just to far away from my realm of experiences and understanding.

Click to expand...

Maybe. It was a bam upside the head kind of meeting for me, kind of like falling in love in terms of power, drive, determination, weirdness!

Netzach said:

Yes.

I am not in love with my closet full of shoes. I polish them, I don't drag the good ones through shit just 'cause I CAN - I am elated about wearing them and show them off. But I don't want to marry them.

I know this is cold and clinical and removed from other people's ideals of slavery - that's grand, they don't have to be with me.

Click to expand...

That actually makes a lot of sense to the shoe-fetishist/lover that I am.

Maybe what I actually can't wrap my head around is the combination of 'being in love with' and ownership. I get 'being in love with' and D/s. I can see myself in this kind of relationship/dynamic. I think I also get wanting ownership over someone. But I can't put the two together.

DeservingBitch said:

That actually makes a lot of sense to the shoe-fetishist/lover that I am.

Maybe what I actually can't wrap my head around is the combination of 'being in love with' and ownership. I get 'being in love with' and D/s. I can see myself in this kind of relationship/dynamic. I think I also get wanting ownership over someone. But I can't put the two together.

Click to expand...

Neither can I for the life of me. Other people obviously have made it work for them. I love H, he delights me, I talk to him as much as I can, I want him to live closer to me but not in my house, still in his own quarters as it were. That is my ideal. A slave who comes around when needed, works, loves being needed and cultivates himself when not needed. H's primary relationship to me is vis-a-vis service. And I give opportunity for service, opportunity for expression, time and investment and care and friendship, it's not one-sided, but yet in some ways, it very much is. And that's how he *wants* it, too.

Netzach said:

Yes.

I am not in love with my closet full of shoes. I polish them, I don't drag the good ones through shit just 'cause I CAN - I am elated about wearing them and show them off. But I don't want to marry them.

I know this is cold and clinical and removed from other people's ideals of slavery - that's grand, they don't have to be with me.

Click to expand...

I love the way you put things.

I've never been one for casual liasons or poly relationships. There is something in my psyche that will make me forever a one man woman. OTOH I have always admired people who can separate sex from love and enjoy one without the other. That's not to belittle your relationship with your slave but I am assuming that it is on a different plane to your marriage? I get the apples and oranges analogy too, some things are just incomparable.

DeservingBitch said:

I'm thinking that ownership doesn't really resonate with me or do anything to me because there's just nobody I've met with whom that dynamic felt appropriate or something else than 'role-playing'.

Click to expand...

I guess it all depends on what you want. I was really nervous going into TPE because we were moving in together after an LDR and it was all very intense. I wondered if I could really live up to it. A month down the line I've never been happier and we are convinced that we made the right choice.

Unless you meet someone you connect with like that it really is inconceivable. I remember being a newbie here and being thoroughly shocked by Catalina and Fransisco's relationship dynamic. I couldn't understand it at all. Even six months ago I would never have imagined taking this step. It's a bit like marriage. You can't ever see yourself doing it unless you meet the right person, then it just seems like a natural progression.

Hmmm... now I'm wondering if being poly as something to do with not being able to wrap my head around 'being in love with' and ownership. As in, I expect, want, and need different dynamics with different people/relationships? And at the moment, I just haven't been with or met someone I'd want to own.

VelvetDarkness said:

I love the way you put things.

I've never been one for casual liasons or poly relationships. There is something in my psyche that will make me forever a one man woman. OTOH I have always admired people who can separate sex from love and enjoy one without the other. That's not to belittle your relationship with your slave but I am assuming that it is on a different plane to your marriage? I get the apples and oranges analogy too, some things are just incomparable.



I guess it all depends on what you want. I was really nervous going into TPE because we were moving in together after an LDR and it was all very intense. I wondered if I could really live up to it. A month down the line I've never been happier and we are convinced that we made the right choice.

Unless you meet someone you connect with like that it really is inconceivable. I remember being a newbie here and being thoroughly shocked by Catalina and Fransisco's relationship dynamic. I couldn't understand it at all. Even six months ago I would never have imagined taking this step. It's a bit like marriage. You can't ever see yourself doing it unless you meet the right person, then it just seems like a natural progression.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to identify with being very much into single exclusivity and wondering if I'd be with a slave or not - it's kind of making my head explodie to try and wrap around it. It's an interesting question though, because I do feel like I need that kind of relationship, one of ownership, but I also feel like I'd be horribly and miserably limited in it and it alone, as much as I was by vanilla.\

I think this only proves that I'm poly, not much more.

DeservingBitch said:

Hmmm... now I'm wondering if being poly as something to do with it. As in, expecting, wanting, and needing different dynamics with different people/relationships?

Click to expand...

Simul-post. Too funny.

Netzach said:

Simul-post. Too funny.

Click to expand...

Yeah - I was editing mine while you wrote yours. Funny.

Netzach said:

I'm trying to identify with being very much into single exclusivity and wondering if I'd be with a slave or not - it's kind of making my head explodie to try and wrap around it. It's an interesting question though, because I do feel like I need that kind of relationship, one of ownership, but I also feel like I'd be horribly and miserably limited in it and it alone, as much as I was by vanilla.\

I think this only proves that I'm poly, not much more.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think Master and I are a little limited in our dynamic but it's the one that makes us happiest so that has it's compensations.

Dawnie is poly and has various other subs, play partners, whathaveyou. I am the only one she owns, her only slave.

What I offer her that the others don't or can't is purely a sense of unlimitedness, so to speak. She doesn't have to worry about my limits, my wants, my desires....unless she wants to worry about them. It's the nature of what I offer her, what I WANT to offer her. Not to say she doesn't care about me, she does very much...but she doesn't care if I'm not liking something she's doing or whether an order upsets me or if I'm too tired to "play".

With others, she doesn't have that control, at least not in the capacity she does with me. It provides a different kind of dynamic and thrill and enjoyment because it really IS all about her and what she wants, playing out her edgiest fantasies, and knowing I will take it gladly because my desire is pleasing her. What I offer her isn't better than what others offer, but it is very different and rather unique.

It's like having your cake and eating it too.

serijules said:

Dawnie is poly and has various other subs, play partners, whathaveyou. I am the only one she owns, her only slave.

What I offer her that the others don't or can't is purely a sense of unlimitedness, so to speak. She doesn't have to worry about my limits, my wants, my desires....unless she wants to worry about them. It's the nature of what I offer her, what I WANT to offer her. Not to say she doesn't care about me, she does very much...but she doesn't care if I'm not liking something she's doing or whether an order upsets me or if I'm too tired to "play".

With others, she doesn't have that control, at least not in the capacity she does with me. It provides a different kind of dynamic and thrill and enjoyment because it really IS all about her and what she wants, playing out her edgiest fantasies, and knowing I will take it gladly because my desire is pleasing her. What I offer her isn't better than what others offer, but it is very different and rather unique.

It's like having your cake and eating it too.

Click to expand...

Yes yes, this is starting to make sense to me. In a poly context. And with someone I would care for, but not be 'in love' with.

Maybe so far I couldn't wrap my head around it because I kept thinking about it in a monogamous situation.

I'm totally into having my cake and eating it too.

On a side note, this expression has always seemed non-sensical to me. What am I suppose to do with my cake if I can't eat it? Look at it? In french, the expression is "you can't have the butter and the money from the butter" -- in other words, either you eat your homemade butter, or you sell it, but you can't have both. That makes sense. But having a cake there just to be looked at? What's the point?

DeservingBitch said:

Owners: care to share your thoughts with me? Why do you want to and/or why do you own property? What is it that you get from this dynamic that you wouldn't/don't in other D/s dynamics? And for those of you who are owned: can you talk from your Owner perspective?

Click to expand...

I'm trying to wrap my head around it too. "v" was, and is, submissive to me. We are married, and have been together for 16 years. She brought up the idea of D/s a few years ago, and we got into it. I lost track for a while due to life being unpleasant, but found our way back in. Now we are set and solid, and doing FAR better than ever before.

We hit a bump in the road, and had to reevaluate and rebuild our relationship. And that rebuild, at her heartfelt request, has become a move towards a Master/slave dynamic.

And I am still trying to understand what I get out of this. The primary thing I get at this point is a very sublimely happy "v". To be frank, that, in itself, is pretty much sufficient for me initially. If being owned, being my slave, is enough to really make her this happy, then damned if I am not going to really give it a serious, heartfelt chance at working.

Our dynamic has changed. It is subtle stuff, mostly, and I could probably list twenty different things and still not give proper context. But I do note a difference in both of our attitudes. Still, it is far too early for me to give cogent thoughts about either her role or mine in this dynamic. Suffice to say that it is working for us, even though we are in what can best be termed a transitional phase moving towards M/s.

And, as an aside, I have 'owned' her for far longer then we've talked about this M/s thing. She's mine, if not precisely in the 'canonical' D/s sense. I'm seriously possessive of her, as I've described in other threads. This may be one reason why I don't currently see any major changes. Let's face it, it's not like I she was allowed to wander around before this. Mine, period.

DeservingBitch said:

I'm totally into having my cake and eating it too.

On a side note, this expression has always seemed non-sensical to me. What am I suppose to do with my cake if I can't eat it? Look at it? In french, the expression is "you can't have the butter and the money from the butter" -- in other words, either you eat your homemade butter, or you sell it, but you can't have both. That makes sense. But having a cake there just to be looked at? What's the point?

Click to expand...

Simple. We lend the cake to Shanks to have hot pictures taken of it. This is what I tend to think of doing with free-range baked goods.

VelvetDarkness said:

Yeah, I think Master and I are a little limited in our dynamic but it's the one that makes us happiest so that has it's compensations.

Click to expand...

Is it limited, or just different based on what suits you both right now?

Catalina

DeservingBitch said:

Yes yes, this is starting to make sense to me. In a poly context. And with someone I would care for, but not be 'in love' with.

Maybe so far I couldn't wrap my head around it because I kept thinking about it in a monogamous situation.

I'm totally into having my cake and eating it too.

On a side note, this expression has always seemed non-sensical to me. What am I suppose to do with my cake if I can't eat it? Look at it? In french, the expression is "you can't have the butter and the money from the butter" -- in other words, either you eat your homemade butter, or you sell it, but you can't have both. That makes sense. But having a cake there just to be looked at? What's the point?

Click to expand...

I'm sure my opinions on this would be different if I were not in a poly relationship, if Ma'am and I were "in love" and exclusive. I don't believe that slavery and marriage are a good mix because of the tendency for the love and marriage part to be put first.

We love one another, for certain. It's just not an equal role, passion induced, i-want-to-make-you-happy sort of love. It's a more boring but just as solid we-make-one-another-happy-for-different-reasons sort of love.

The cake thing? I'm thinking maybe the saying comes from the fact that women of older times would often bake and decorate elaborate cakes for functions, their family, neighbors...etc...but rarely got to enjoy the spoils of their hard work themselves? Who knows, interesting to research it though, I might have to do that.