This page sponsored by Mr. S Leather, San Francisco    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : O&P : "The Possession in O&P" 1 2 The Possession in O&P (14) This post is on the O&P web board. 9 Nov 09, 7:36 PM masterfiremaam US(WV), 5 yrs Perhaps it comes down to a matter of authority. By renting the house, we have the authority to do the things that you mentioned with and in it. In these kinds of relationships, the status of the partners is unequal because the Masters have been given the authority to make it that way. Master Fire **The power of who we are can be intoxicating.** **The power of who we could be is humbling.** **Yet, we are assured we are exactly as we should be.** 10 Nov 09, 12:43 AM Tanos UK, 14 yrs Y! thegildedlili wrote: Do you intend to "market" the O&P concept and terminology that you discuss in the manifesto in such a way that it becomes part of everyday language when referring to these types of relationships? Well, I'm promoting the O&P framework as something useful when talking about this area of "M/s + some D/s" common ground, and I am hoping it will become useful to lots of people (in the way the Internal Enslavement ideas have been over the last decade now.) The O&P blog and the groups on Informed Consent, Fetlife and here on TSR are ways of doing that. In the UK, there's also a very practical issue in that there isn't a single good place where people in these kinds of relationships talk to each other. The D/s+M/s board on IC is the closest, but threads there do get hijacked by people with other D/s dynamics (or none!) who will not accept inequality in other people's D/s for instance So a secondary aim of the O&P group on IC is providing such as space. Also, how do you think the misuse of the O&P terminology in the same way that M/s and D/s are often misused or used "incorrectly" can be avoided? The manifesto is a tool for dealing with that: it means anyone can "win" an argument about "O&P" being misused by just quoting the wording of the manifesto. Incidentally, that's why I always write it "O&P" and hardly ever write it out in full. "O&P" written like that is a new name so I (or rather the manifesto) gets to define it, unlike "ownership" for instance. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk O&P: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Dignity. Authenticity. Structure. Rituals. 10 Nov 09, 11:56 AM De_Luxe UK, 3 yrs I think each part of O&P could be discussed if people knew, and bore in mind, each part is part of a wider context. I agree with you Tanos wrote: Fundamentally it's about the dominant being in control and the submissive being there for the dominant's purposes. "Possession" is a deliberately asymmetric word with which to signpost spaces and relationships where these attitudes are ok in D/s too. And that this happening isn't such a terrible thing as some may imagine. I think there are deep seated beliefs that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" which those of us in happy O&P type relationships know isn't the case. I believe it is as Eva said Eva wrote: I don't know if it's due to what we see in most of our politicians and other authority figures, but most are resistant to the notion because they don't believe it can be approached with benevolence and responsibility. Sometimes it frustrates me, although I don't suppose I can blame them. It sometimes frustrates me too and no I don't suppose we can blame anyone for having shattered confidence. We are just not all like that. thegildedlili wrote: I do see my needs as secondary to that of my D/O/M, but I certainly don't think this is universal in D/s. Not universal no, I think it is not widely understood. Possibly there is fear that 'not equal' automatically means being treated as if the submissive or property don't matter and that they would be left disadvantaged and unfulfilled with needs not considered. Again I agree with Eva. Eva wrote: A state of possession doesn't alter basic human needs and in the absence of the submissive's own active abilities, the responsibility to see that they're still met must fall to the dominant. The section on Responsibility that Tanos proposes should help to clarify that there is a responsibility on the dominant's part to identify and in an appropriate way meet their own submissive's needs. 7 Apr 10, 5:19 PM thineown UK, 5 yrs I don't and never will consider myself inferior to anyone and actually do not accept that any individual is inferior to another. I do accept that some people do see it that way or chose to consider themselves or their partners that way. That doesn't mean that I have to agree or that they have to care whether or not I do. I would not want my Master to be in a relationship with someone who was inferior and I would not want a Master who considered himself superior. He and I are very different but equal.