February 6 2005 EhBC Online Discussion

February 6, 2005 EhBC Online Discussion

<ModBot> This message is generated by Moderator Bot, ModBot for short. I've set an automatic message that reads as follows...
<ModBot> Welcome to or regular Sunday night discussion. Please refrain from sending "hi" and "bye" messages until after 10 pm. Also note that the discussion is being logged. If you wish to remain anonymous, you should change your nick. Tonight's discussion topic is "Rights of Ownership". The discussion is unmoderated. Enjoy!
<nightmans> so what is "the rights of ownership ??/
<Achilles{a}> What is a 'right' and what is 'ownership'?
* abitbent *shrugs*
<nightmans> that is are set topic
<Achilles{a}> Leave your dictionaries in your desks.
<spirited_fem> some would dibute ownership is nto i right its a privilage
<Achilles{a}> Without understanding your terms or at least coming to a common agreement of what they mean for the purposes of the discussion how can such a questions even be discussed?
<nightmans> why you see it as a privilage spirited_fem
<abitbent> perhaps we might start by what it's not
<spirited_fem> becuse teh benigits of ownership is a tow ay leash
<spirited_fem> way^
<nightmans> um ok
<spirited_fem> benifits^
<Achilles{a}> Translates: Because the benefits of ownership is a two way leash.
<spirited_fem> aorry about my dislexiac typing
<nightmans> so your saying the dom don't just own the sub but the sub own's the dom as well
<abitbent> it would seem to me that assuming certain rights come with "ownership" in a D/s relationship, would be a dangerous thing.
<nightmans> it could be
<spirited_fem> im, saing that the every thing tha is apart of ownership gows both ways
<spirited_fem> be it benifits
<spirited_fem> reponcabilities
<spirited_fem> pleasures
<spirited_fem> pains
<jewel`{F}> i would also think that the "rights" a dominant has would be different from relationship to relationship, each couple finding what works best for themselves
<kierana{DRFL}> wouldn't these "rights" have been discussed and agreed upon before ownership occurs?
<nightmans> growth spirited_fem
<nightmans> i think so kierana{DRFL}
<spirited_fem> ir leads to growth
<Achilles{a}> Would they kierana{DRFL}.. or might they evolve as the relationship does. Being added to and modified as the connection develops?
<`Poseidon-celticmist> cm- i think that they evolve into what works for each relationship
<kierana{DRFL}> i see Your point Achilles Sir, but, ownership has to start with some "rights"/"boundaries" agreed on first, right? you shouldn't enter any relationship blind
<shadoe> so.. what exactly would we consider a "right"?
<Achilles{a}> The conditions under which I might be said to 'Own' anyone in the BDSM context can change as time passes and with those changes the agreed upon rights which I exercise over My partner might grow and change. Whether these are 'rights' or not...
<abitbent> Rights: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled
<spirited_fem> ahh but if it wre a car it is not our right to own it
<spirited_fem> or a pet
<spirited_fem> it is our privilage
<nightmans> would it spirited_fem
<spirited_fem> if we abuse ti it gets taken away leagaly
<Achilles{a}> Such things as rights change from nation to nation... culture to culture. Are there any such "Human Rights" and do they apply in this dicsussion?
<shadoe> abitbent.. thank you.. but in this context.. i think we need to stray away from the 'written'
<shadoe> ergo..what is considered a right .. in BDSM lingo
<abitbent> hmm.. ok shadoe..
<abitbent> responsibilities perhaps?
<kierana{DRFL}> the right to guide, train, take-care of...
<shadoe> responsibilities is good
<nightmans> responibilities i could see
<spirited_fem> it is if we are reponcable that we gain the privilage to own
<cailinTitann> agree that it takes two even a Master and a slave to make a relatioship work
<shadoe> so if a dominant has the right of ownership.. He/She needs to understand their responsibility to that?
<nightmans> like sub has the right to any med care if thay feeel it is req
<spirited_fem> yes and each role has seperate reponcabilities to make t work
<abitbent> who chooses these topics anyway?
<nightmans> i think right's is to pin pointed
<cailinTitann> a Owner needs to know hwo to take bcare of what He/She owns
<nightmans> i don't know abitbent
<nightmans> that is not a right thow cailinTitann
<dana_foreveralways> perhaps an example of what a "right" is?
<nightmans> maybe the right to conrol a seen in a safe manner
<shadoe> i'm in a long term relationship.. does my dominant of a LOT of years.. still have the right to tell me to serve another?
<jewel`{F}> the dominant may have the "right" to dictate how the sub dresses
<nightmans> it could jewel`{F}
<shadoe> does He still have the right to tell me He wants to play at 3 a.m.
<spirited_fem> a sub needs to know how to be ownable
<shadoe> or not play ever again?
<kierana{DRFL}> if that is your agreement shadoe, then yes
<paperclip> my answer is yes shadoe
<shadoe> does He have the right to tell me where my RRSP contributions go?
<cailinTitann> goes back to the afreement between the Owner and the sub
<nightmans> i would say yes shadoe under per set limt's
<shadoe> paperclip.. are you in a long term relationship? what if your owner suddenly gets diagnosed with dementia?
<paperclip> i don't think there's such thing as true ownership these days. i think society and the way ppl are these days makes it impossible.
<paperclip> i think ownership is something we call our enjoyment of certain behaviours and preferences
<sexyy2004> may i ask a question .... are You meaning Master/slave..... or Dom/sub ?
<shadoe> i think ownership is about obedience
<abitbent> would it be wrong for a dom/me to assume they have the "right" to do anything because they've collared a sub?
<nightmans> eather one sexyy2004
<Titan> absolute obedience
<spirited_fem> if a domminate is reponcable iam likely to give over many aspects of me for his consideration
<shadoe> i think that a dominant can own a slave/submissive.. but unless that slave/submissive truly buys into the concept of obedience.. it's a moot point
<kierana{DRFL}> i have the right to obey, as Master's sub...He has the right to correct me when i'm wrong...*shrugs*
<nightmans> i would say no Titan i have talk to dom who like sub to act out at time show's that have spirit
<dana_foreveralways> kinda wonder if that would be a submissive then shadoe?
<nightmans> good one kierana{DRFL}
<shadoe> it would be dana.. a submissive and or slave.. totally devoted to one's master..wouldn't hesitate on the obedience
<tareena{DA}> Ownership I personally don't see so much as anything but Control. The control my Master has over my body, my reactions, my mind etc.
<cailinTitann> agrees tareena
<dana_foreveralways> that i agree with...
<nightmans> that sound good tareena{DA}
<sexyy2004> what if the sub knows RRSP's and is in banking... and the Dom is in another business... what then ?
<shadoe> assuming of course that said master isn't asking one to jump of the burlington bridge
<kierana{DRFL}> i have the right to question Him...in private...i do not have the right to embarrass Him, in any way
<paperclip> i heard the theory that being owned ends ones right to say no. however you still have the option to end the relationship.
<nightmans> i have the right to say no if i due not feel safe????
<shadoe> gah.. paperclip.. i'm "owned" as it were.. and i say no, but.. all the time
<kierana{DRFL}> sexy...if the Dom is smart, he will listen to his sub about rrsp's when she is the expert in that field
<tareena{DA}> Master may allow me input into situations, privately quietly. But I give input his decision is however final and may not take my input into consideration. In all that all I have the right to is to be cared for, loved, cherished.
<motoki> saying "no" and having the "right" to say "no" may be two separate things
<`abi{A}> I see ownership as prenegotiated expectations ... and implicit within that is obedience and responsibility
<TOPSM69> thats what a safe word is for
<shadoe> the difference is.. in previous relationships.. i'd say "bite me... i'm not doing that"
<spirited_fem> i sid no to my protector inthe lifesyelteh other day
<shadoe> now i say "bite me.. errr... i'd rather not... errr.. Sir!"
<shadoe> "please"
<kierana{DRFL}> lol shadoe
<sexyy2004> ahhhh, but kierana , that is saying that " each " has a say in things
<paperclip> lol
<spirited_fem> He refused to hear me out about an ishue i was having
<cailinTitann> but isn't a Master supose to bring You passed Your limits
<`abi{A}> the correct response would be "please Sir, would You bite me" shadoe ;)
<Titan> grns that i do well
<jewel`{F}> not all limits are pushable or passable cailin
<shadoe> okay abi..i'm not perfect .. sheesh
<shadoe> LOL
<`abi{A}> ;)
<paperclip> i don't think it's prerequisite to ownership cailinTitann...just something most tend to do. no?
<kierana{DRFL}> we do, sexy...i know more about some things than Master does...He asks for input and makes His decisions based on what He feels is right...that is part of Oour agreement
<nightmans> may it's the right's to dom that sub/salve with out feer of outher's
<shadoe> cailin.. Masters are human too.. they only have so much energy
<cailinTitann> true smiles
<nightmans> know that sub will turn to you and no outher
<spirited_fem> thats why the reponcability for the power exchange is equil
<spirited_fem> diferent but equil
<sexyy2004> i thought the limit was to discuss.....ahhh... exactly, kierana * i agree on that * He has final say ( that is different )
<cailinTitann> it takes two
<nightmans> spirited_fem i would think it's more dom side but if there is a problem sub has final word
<Titan> Ive allways pushed her beyond what she "thought" she couldnt do
<spirited_fem> i dont agree with you ModBot
<spirited_fem> nightmans
<nightmans> no why noit?
<kierana{DRFL}> but sexy...there are things changing in the relationship right now, as Master has just moved in...certain rights i had, taking care of my own home, i now am losing...which is only right
<shadoe> so.. rights of ownership
<spirited_fem> if i clip a leash to my collar what right do you have to hold it
<spirited_fem> what qualifyes you
<shadoe> does the dominant have the right to tell you to change jobs (assuming it's a wonderful job!)
<shadoe> simply because it's 5 steps further away than he/she prefers
<cailinTitann> see that would be hard for me to do
<paperclip> this is why i say there's no such thing as true ownership.
<spirited_fem> what quilifues me to be at teh ens of htat leash
<sexyy2004> kierana.... i would think alot would change, the patterns would be different, too
<jewel`{F}> if it is part of the negotiated relationship shadoe, i would say yes
<spirited_fem> we both develop diferent skills neeeded to meke the reltionship work
<spirited_fem> the reponcability falls on bitthe sub and dom equilly
<tareena{DA}> shadoe depends upon the dynamic of the relationship. It's all going to come down to how we each define it. Some of us just might change jobs given the relationship we're in, some might tell said Dom to jump in a creek first hehe
<shadoe> jewel.. as a relationship evolves .. there's a whole bunch of stuff that wont have been negotiated
<kierana{DRFL}> lol tareena
<paperclip> i'd ask them to rethink their decision and if they were set on it then the relationship would be over becuz i'd say no to changing my job and therefore we then lose the dynamic of what we are.
<sexyy2004> would it not be the responsiblity of the Dom, to be sure that the job was the " right job " not the distance to it ?
<princess{Jaysker}> besides which, any Dom who told you to change jobs when you're in a good situation isn't really looking out for your best interest, are they?
<shadoe> i think you are expecting too much from the dominant..
<`abi{A}> specifics may not have been negotiated shadoe, but quite likely 'areas' of control would have been
<`abi{A}> which is not to say that re-negotiation couldn't happen
<shadoe> i keep seeing "it's the dom's responsibility
<jewel`{F}> but thats just it shadoe, it has evolved, changed, the rights, responsiblities and limits have also changed
<shadoe> and you know what? they won't do most of it
<spirited_fem> the reponcability falls on both shadoe
<cailinTitann> agrees both
<sexyy2004> Mm shadoe, you are right.. i did not phrase that correctly
<shadoe> and i'd argue that most of the responsibility falls on the submissive
<shadoe> to make sure that the dominant is aware.. and approves
<shadoe> of whatever course is being taken
<spirited_fem> then we argue cus i dotn agrewith you shadoe
<shadoe> be it a change of career..
<Titan> I have seen ones who say dont want to do this or that then as time pass's they give over complete control in all aspects as their submission grows with their Master
<shadoe> or a change of curtains
<kierana{DRFL}> but is responsibility and "right" the same thing?
<nightmans> no
<shadoe> no... it's not
<spirited_fem> ownershipis not a right though
<sexyy2004> no
<shadoe> you are right kierana
<`abi{A}> rights are given, responsibilities are taken
<spirited_fem> its a privilage
<spirited_fem> baced on reponcabiility
<TOPSM69> its a privilage
<nightmans> abi under that what right can a sub offer a dom
<shadoe> dominants have the right of ownership.. but from what i've been hearing tonight.. most of what is expected.. is the responsibility of the submissive
<Titan> being responsible is essential
<motoki> i don't agree that a right is a privilege
<paperclip> i'm confused, are you ppl saying you can be owned and still have the right to say no to what you want to?
<cailinTitann> for a slave/sub to give up control it takes trust and a Master has to know that is a privilage
<`abi{A}> now if a submissive offers 'rights' to a dominant who isn't willing to take responsibility...then s/he's a fool ... but that
<princess{Jaysker}> Does the situation change if the partners entered the BDSM phase of their relationship after they came together romantically as opposed to starting at the same time?
<`abi{A}> is another issue
<spirited_fem> ownershiip is a privilage
<nightmans> shadoe the dom would be in charge of the sub helth and over all well being
<kierana{DRFL}> nightmans...the right to make the dom proud of them...the right to obey...the right to run Their bath...the right to make His/Her coffee...etc
<abitbent> any relationship has privileges doesn't it?
<nightmans> there you go kir that's what this topic is about
<motoki> certainly a slave always has the right to say "no" - but it may come with consequences that aren't that savory, such as losing respect or even losing the relationship if the basic premise of ownership is not accepted
<spirited_fem> the topid is rights of ownershipownership
<motoki> or it may just be an answer to a question
<shadoe> nightmans.. i agree.. the dom is in fact in charge of the sub's health etc.. and the sub makes sure the dom knows what needs to be done
<`abi{A}> nightmans ... a submissive offers a dominant rights .. she doesn't offer the dominant, although I can think of some circumstances under which there would be takers, if that were the case
<shadoe> the sub is responsible for the information
<nightmans> i would say the right to say no is just price of mind if the dom is safe and helpfully it may never be used
<kierana{DRFL}> i have the right to say no if i feel that something isn't safe, or sane...or i just want to get a spanking
<spirited_fem> o owna cat
<spirited_fem> i am reponcable to feed my cat
<spirited_fem> if i dotn feed my cat
<shadoe> that has nothing to do with ownership kierana
<spirited_fem> teh cat can be leagaly taken away
<spirited_fem> itis nto my right to ownthe cat
<spirited_fem> its my privilage
<nightmans> if the right's of that cat have been abused
<tareena{DA}> As a slave I may say 'no' however, my Master fully expects an explaination for why I would possibly tell him no. And my explaination better be good.
<sexyy2004> << watching intently... good point, spirited
<Titan> agrees tareena
<`abi{A}> actually...it's your right to own the cat spirited_fem ... it's just that it's not a right which can't be taken away ... that's the case with many rights
<motoki> is it not a right of ownership to use what is owned as the owner sees fit?
<shadoe> the implication of ownership suggests that.. if the dominant wants to keep you in the bedroom.. to idle away hours until ready to bother with you..then that's what happens\
<spirited_fem> i donty agree thatit is a right
<kierana{DRFL}> not if it falls under the label, abusive, motoki, imho
<padma{Jaysker}> (asked before, I think it got lost in the dust): Does the situation change if the partners entered the BDSM phase of their relationship after they came together romantically as opposed to starting at the same time?
<spirited_fem> i do not owna car
<shadoe> exactly motoki
<motoki> it's still the owners right - it isn't necessary legally or morally proper, but it's a right
<spirited_fem> i am not willing ot pay for its upkeep
<paperclip> agreed motoki
<spirited_fem> i would be a lousy car owner
<Titan> cailin gave me the right to own her and also we trust one another that makes it work well
<paperclip> just becuz something is reprehensible does not make it less a right.
<sexyy2004> padma.. i think htat would be negotiated along the way ?
<`abi{A}> it may change the rights which are offered and/or the responsibilities which are taken padma{Jaysker}, but not necessarily so
<paperclip> and what's so bad about having to lay around not worrying about anything but the next play session? lol
<padma{Jaysker}> I'm not suggesting it would or wouldn't - I have no experience, just trying to ask something that might enlighten me...:)
<nightmans> maybe the right to use a sub body with in per set limte's
<`abi{A}> in that situation, you are looking at 'changing' the groundrules for a relationship ..you can attempt to invoke whatever changes you agree to
<paperclip> i think if you agree to ownership then put limits on the owner, that's not true ownership
<motoki> i'd agree that it all boils down to ground rules, even in evolving relationships
<padma{Jaysker}> right...that makes sense. I'm curious is all; the 24-hour lifestyle isn't for me, but I'm interested in how people make it work.
<spirited_fem> no mater what changes you make you aboth reponcable to carry them though]
<`abi{A}> all ownership has limits paperclip
<`abi{A}> just because I own something, doesn't mean it will be something it isn't
<motoki> if the ground rules are "i get to beat you up at play parties but i won't see you in between so you manage your life accordingly", then the ownership and rights thereof will look VERY different than if the ground rules are "you are my property, 24/7, period"
<paperclip> this is why i keep saying there's no such thing as true ownership. what limits would you mean `abi{A}?
<Achilles{a}> I can't torture My cats but I own two. I can't light My car on fire but I own that. I can't burn down My house... that's Mine too.
<Titan> aye their are ground rules but as the relationship has grown new limits have been reached that were not at the beginning
<`abi{A}> because it has limits does not make it less 'true' or less 'real' paperclip
<sexyy2004> if hard and soft limits change in the ownership.... why not the dynamics of financial ?
* Achilles{a} shrugs
<motoki> Achilles, Sir, sure you can
<paperclip> then they do not own all of me as i see it.
<motoki> if you're willing to accept the consequences that is
<paperclip> if i have the choice to say no, where is the ownership?
<shadoe> paperclip has a point
<`abi{A}> it is the 'true' nature of ownership that everything has limits ... whether it's an oject or a person or an objectified person
<spirited_fem> but ifyou abuse yoru cat or burn down your hous Achilles{a} Sir you are stil reponcable
<cailinTitann> i never say no but do explain why it bothers me
<motoki> how many people "own" a house, but pay the bank mortgages - that is ownership within limits
<shadoe> no.. paperclip has a point.. if the one owned has any say.. then they arent' 100% owned
<paperclip> i think once i have the right to say no to my owner, i've changed the power of the relationship...the dynamic is then lost.
<padma{Jaysker}> To be fair, paperclip, even if you renounce the right to say no, you can't really; you still, de jure and de facto, retain the right to say no by simply ending the relationship.
<Titan> grins at cailin
<Achilles{a}> No I can't motoki... I would be charged with various animal cruelty laws for the cats, pollution, fire and disposal laws for the car and safety, fire and property nedangerment laws for the house. There are limits.
<spirited_fem> i rent an apartment
<tareena{DA}> paperclip, just because I might say 'no' Doesn't mean it's going to stop whatever action was about ot occur. Unless there is a sound reason that my well being is threatened..my Master will continue with what he desires. But that is my relationship
<motoki> you can still do it, Sir ... if you're willing to accept those consequences
<paperclip> ok peeps , let me read all your responses lol
<motoki> can ownership be for set periods of time
<spirited_fem> lol
<padma{Jaysker}> That's basically how we work it, motoki;
<motoki> for example, "i'm yours for this play party"
<Achilles{a}> I also pay ongoing taxes on My house, registration and licenses on My car and licenses for My cats. (OK, not really for the cats) so do I "truly" own any of it?
<padma{Jaysker}> Jaysker has a code phrase she uses to tell me we're in playspace, and from that point that's where we are.
<paperclip> padma{Jaysker}...that's exactly how i see it, i say no = ending the dynamic/relationship. i see this as a black and white issue...ownership to me has no gray areas
<shadoe> i think paperclip is onto something
<motoki> perhaps "true ownership" is an impossibility
* bountiful_lady greets
<paperclip> yay!
<`abi{A}> yes, you do .... but you could lose that ownership ... there is no such thing as unconditional ownership .. not of anything ... if you screw it up, you'll lose it ... period
<padma{Jaysker}> But then you're not =really= owned, are you? You can't, under any circumstances, get rid of your right to say no. You can choose never to use it; but it's still there.
<bountiful_lady> I do wonder if this is an open forum?
<Achilles{a}> Wow.. gee.. that sounds just like BDSM ownership. Wow!
<spirited_fem> lol
<MstrRock> ownership is intersetingly enough a shifting concept depending on the country & the date
<padma{Jaysker}> In the end, you're still always choosing to be where you are - the ownership can only ever be a fiction, but we willingly suspend disbelief, and try to 'forget' that we can say no.
<MstrRock> it really is a quesion of what happens legally
<padma{Jaysker}> LOL, Achilles.
<motoki> how about existential ownership
<paperclip> i've said this a few times now...this is why i don't believe there is the ability to have true ownership of a sub/slave these days. coming from my point of view on this, i don't see it as a situation where i can say you only own this part of me and i have control of this part. it's black and white...you're owned and ultimately He/She has final say on everything or they do not.
<bountiful_lady> what do you mean, motoki?
<`abi{A}> isn't that the case with ownership of anything padma{Jaysker}?
<MstrRock> for example, if you don't destroy a shanty on your property in central america, you give away teh right to the land
<MstrRock> but not in the US
<motoki> like that age-old one we know and love ... "submission as a gift" ... but how can be give a gift of something we cannot fully own ... and what *can* be fully owned anyway
* motoki consults her zen bible
<abitbent> well this topic got legs didn't it?
<bountiful_lady> egads! I don't see submission as a gift any more OR less than dominance it
<sexyy2004> did i miss a discussion about Master/slave... and D/s ? because to me, each of those means something totally different
<Achilles{a}> Ownership can certainly be black and white if you like.. if it is and you feel there can be no ownership then you might as well leave a discussion about Rights of Wonership. you have no grounds for discussion and have the 'right' to decide it is a null discussion.
<padma{Jaysker}> we "give" a near-vow to be under the other's control, that we won't seriously try to challenge that.
<`abi{A}> wekk sexyy2004... I don't know how you could have missed it, because that discussion has been had a few million times ... and there isn't ever an agreement
<motoki> lol
<MstrRock> I agree with paperclip, I don't believe there is 100% ownership, not in this general locale & date
<paperclip> nope nope
<motoki> similarly, there's rarely an agreement about ownership, "total power exchange", being a "slave", and so on
<Achilles{a}> Sure there is abi... I'm Master and you're a switch who isn't allowed to Dom. Easy.
<abitbent> 100% ownership of a human being is morally wrong isn't it?
<motoki> lol
<sexyy2004> * smiling at abi *
<`abi{A}> thank you so much Master....so much for that rumour being put to rest
<bountiful_lady> why abitbent?
<shadoe> but what if i asked nicely to be dommed by abi?
* Achilles{a} chuckles
<abitbent> it violates basic human rights
<shadoe> cause lord only knows i like abi!
<padma{Jaysker}> In case it's unclear, I'm not saying there's no such thing, per se; just that it's a fiction we use in whatever way seems fit.
<spirited_fem> i likeyou Achilles{a}
<nightmans> sub give a dom owner ship over them but thay set litme' to if are broken thay can end the owner ship what would you hafe to brake for that
<Achilles{a}> Who would you ask shadoe?
<bountiful_lady> I don't see it as possible, but why would it be morally wrong?
<Titan> think 98.6% nothing is 100% chuckles
<shadoe> my Sir first
* Achilles{a} chuckles with shadoe.
<paperclip> i didn't get your point Achilles{a}. you saying becuz i see this as black/white i need not discuss it?
<`abi{A}> well shadoe, if I ever decided to switch, your lovely butt would be one of first I asked for
* motoki wiggles her butt, feeling neglected
<Titan> grins
<Achilles{a}> Thanks spirited_fem. It's fun to bring the English language out for a romp now and then. It needs lots of room to play.
* jewel`{F} pinches the wiggling bottom
<spirited_fem> my but is unowned
<`abi{A}> perhaps second, but only because abitbent comes first alphabetically speaking
<bountiful_lady> I will /never/ be 'owned'
<abitbent> lol
* motoki picked the wrong name
<Achilles{a}> OK paperclip... feel free to read it as many times as it takes. We'll wait.
* paperclip gives Achilles{a} a look...smartass now?
<motoki> shadoe, do you characterize yourself as "owned"?
<Achilles{a}> Reasonably clever.
<paperclip> lol
<shadoe> yes i do
<paperclip> perhaps that should be next weeks topic Achilles{a}.
<shadoe> and yes i argue with him.. but i NEVER win
<motoki> abi, do you? (please don't let someone's presence here influence how you answer LOL)
<Achilles{a}> Feel free. I will be at KNANO.
<paperclip> lol here or in person...my words would not change
<`abi{A}> yes, I do motoki ... and I have a personally specific understanding of what that means to me and to him ... which is all that really matters
<motoki> yes indeed - that was going to be my next point
<bountiful_lady> What is KNANO?
<abitbent> ahmen abi
<motoki> you saved me some typing
<Titan> holds the leash to cailins collar
<padma{Jaysker}> abi, may i ask - would you characterise it as 24-hour, if you will?
<cailinTitann> smiles
<motoki> and when i was collared, i considered myself owned
<shadoe> my own experience suggests that no matter how much i feel independant.. ultimately if he decrees a different decision.. i obey
* `abi{A} smiles at padma{Jaysker} ... I just knew that would come back to haunt me ;)
<Achilles{a}> Discussion in a public context like this has little to do with how I define My relationship with abi.. it is more like an opportunity to see if anyone else has different perspectives on it that might be introduced as food for thought. Stuff to consider. Kinky play techniques are also worth stealing from others but I call it "research".
<shadoe> and he's always proven right.. which ticks me off hugely
<padma{Jaysker}> No secret payload...I really am simply curious.
<motoki> lol shadoe
<Titan> submissives get ticked off?
<Titan> chuckles
<shadoe> of course
<motoki> so, to those who do consider themselves owned, what, for you, are the "rights" that go with that ownership (from your persepctive and from the Dominant's)?
<abitbent> i have to say the attendance here tonight is great.. as are the different points of view.
<shadoe> last time i checked we were human
<bountiful_lady> yes Titan, they do
<Achilles{a}> They had better get ticked off when it is needed.
<Titan> I know well
* motoki gets screaming mad
<`abi{A}> I haven't quite finished with wrestling with that 'definer' padma, but is the ownership 24-hour? ... yes ... because the dynamic doesn't change and the expectations don't change and the perimiters of ownership don't change
<cailinTitann> smiles
<spirited_fem> tickinf is ok its whentheygo boom you worry
<Achilles{a}> Oh, is that when you're mad motoki? I had misunderstood the noise.
<Titan> good shows they have some fire in their belly
<motoki> lol ok ok, sometimes i scream for other reasons
<cailinTitann> then i have alot my Master smiles
<Titan> laughs
<`abi{A}> it's okay motoki ... I believe screaming is a right
<padma{Jaysker}> Fair enough. Listening to the discussion here tonight has made me review whether or not we might consider ours 24-hour, and I think perhaps yes, given that she could use our code at any time of day or night, invoking playspace.
<motoki> lol abi
<ModBot> There are only about five minutes left in the formal part of tonight's discussion. Does anyone have any last-minute thoughts on the subject?
<Achilles{a}> Screaming is a duty.
<motoki> or at least a carnal need
<motoki> but let's not get lost in a debate about "needs", too
* Achilles{a} grins evilly
<motoki> so is biting, Achilles, Sir
* motoki chomps at the bit
<Achilles{a}> Nawww, I do that for fun.
<`abi{A}> I think padma, that you have embarked on a process of defining ownership for yourselves and within the framework of that ownership, you already have a consistancy
<padma{Jaysker}> Interesting. I think you're probably right.
<paperclip> so, is the overall consensus in here then that an owned person has the right to say no?
<nightmans> so for are last 5 min's what is right's of onwership ????
* paperclip thinks that is just wrong for the record
<shadoe> i'm owned. i have a full time and independant career.. i make decisions.. people answer to me.. and then i make decisions about how i will help my children.. but you know.. he's usually there first.. helping me.. helping them.. deciding that we all need the step up.. and i come home from work and he's at the stove.. creating (as he doesn't just 'cook') and i get changed before 8 pm as i know i'm supposed to.. and well hey.. i'm owned..
<padma{Jaysker}> Right to, yes, in that such right can't really ever be waived, but the will not to, also.
<bountiful_lady> The problem i have with the seemingly varied definitions is that if we all 'define things as we want'...it makes the discussion of things difficult
<nightmans> good insite shadoe
<motoki> yes indeed - welcome to our world
<shadoe> it's not a tangible 'thing' you can put your finger on.. you just know that you 'are'
<motoki> agreed shadoe
<motoki> and you know when you aren't, too
<`abi{A}> no bountiful_lady, it makes discussion possible...if we all agreed, there would be no discussion
<Achilles{a}> Part of the definition of ownership in a BDSM context is the degree of that ownership and one aspect of that is the 'rights' of the Dominant/Master/Top to His submissive/slave/bottom.
<padma{Jaysker}> But bountiful_lady, that's the nature of language; it is never pure, but always filtered through the perceptions and experiences of both the speaker and the auditor.
<paperclip> so Achilles{a}, you believe ownership comes in degrees?
<bountiful_lady> You can agree on definitions, which would make the discussin quite easier, frankly
<spirited_fem> well it was interesting
<spirited_fem> be well all
<sexyy2004> nodding head agreeing with padma
<tareena{DA}> right of ownership both ways, volunteery ownership, is a mutual satisfaction of base needs. However that might manifest itself. Complete contorl or a little here and there. We're satisfying needs not definitions.
<`abi{A}> well, if it were easy, everyone would do it ... easy doesn't usually happen here and personally, I kind of like that
* Achilles{a} reads over His comment aggain and realizes, yet again, that He does not need to re-answer paperclip's question
<motoki> you know, my dogs (which i own) have the right to bite me - hard - just as i (if owned) would have the right to say "no"
<motoki> of course, the consequences of both of those actions would not be terribly savory
<nightmans> right motoki
<motoki> but that doesn't negate the right
* paperclip is getting the distinct impression that Achilles{a} thinks i'm an idiot. it is always nice to be in the situation of being underestimated.
<motoki> and in some cases, the bite would be a wake-up call
<Achilles{a}> I don't think dogs are as good at realizing the implications of their actions as humans. Then again.. I've known some humans with definite issues in that area too.
<motoki> and not at all "bad"
<ModBot> Well, that's it for the formal part of the discussion. The discussion log is now closed. It should be processed and uploaded to the www.ehbc.ca website soon. Please feel free to continue chatting informally. Have a good night, everyone!
<ModBot> Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion.
<Titan> "`There is something about being owned, and belonging to another, which is very meaningful to a woman,' she said. `It is also, in a way that is hard to make clear to a man, profoundly satisfying.'"