This page sponsored by Extreme Restraints    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : O&P : "O&P v M/s i'm being a bit thick - please help!!!" O&P v M/s i'm being a bit thick - please help!!! (7) This post is on the O&P web board. Sat 20 Nov 10, 9:27 PM 978-291-889 2 yrs Hi guys I was having a conversation this afternoon with Master about the O&P meet in Manchester and a friend of mine and her dynamic... i explained that it was more O/p than M/s. He asked me to quantify this (as i see it) with regards to our dynamic and, well i struggled. I am owned, His property - this is constant - but He said i am not always His slave... and well, this confused me. Granted i am easily confused and this week has been long and difficult in many ways... so it could just be blonde brain fry. But then i remembered i have read some posters write that their relationship has changed from M/s to O/p. I have revisited the wiki definition and the O&P manifesto - and well, this has just served to confuse me more. I know that you dont know the full inner workings of our relationship but i am asking a general question - what are the main differences? are there any differences or is it just what works for one? *i am aware that there are many variations and themes (daddy, kitty etc) but i am more wondering about the slave aspect I know the O&P manifesto came about as a 'giant umbrella' due to the many differences in dynamic, but i'm just sat scratching my head in a state of confusion.... That possibly isnt worded with the best English, but i'm hoping someone understands what i am asking and can translate!!! Thanks The cuffs and ropes might have to be removed in the morning... but the bonds of love stretch as far as 2 people can roam. 20 Nov 10, 9:50 PM mia UK, 11 yrs The O&P meeting is for anyone interested in M/s, D/s, O/p or O&P relationships, so you'd be more than welcome to come along. As for the differences in your relationship, your Master is probably the best person to explain what he means when he says you are not always his slave, but you are always his posession. The way it works for me is that i am always his slave, but i don't always need to 'feel' this as i am often his submissive too. I often do things because i want to and because i enjoy them or i enjoy doing something for him, but sometimes the fact i am his slave means that i do things i do not enjoy because i either know i have to or because he forces me to. m, x 22 Nov 10, 1:08 PM Tanos UK, 14 yrs Y! 978-291-889 wrote: I was having a conversation this afternoon with Master about the O&P meet in Manchester and a friend of mine and her dynamic... i explained that it was more O/p than M/s. If it's any help, this is how I use the words. I use "property" and "slave" interchangeably: a slave is human property. I use both "Owner" and "Master" as words for the person a slave belongs to. So for me "O/p = Owner/property" is exactly the same thing as "M/s = Master/slave". But "O&P = Ownership (ie M/s or O/p) and Possession". Think about houses: you can own your house, or you can rent it. Either way, you're in possession of it, and running a household is similar whether you rent or buy. In the same way, lots of D/s (Possession without Ownership) relationships are very similar to M/s (Ownership) relationships. O&P puts it all under one roof so we don't need to worry about the exact boundaries. As mia has said, this is very handy for events like the O&P Open in Manchester next month. This is in the same way that "BDSM = BD/DS/SM" put B&D, D/s and SM under one roof to avoid arguments about whether tying up and spanking, for example, was bondage, discipline, domination, or sadomasochism. :T: www.tanos.org.uk O&P: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Service. Dignity. Authenticity. Rituals. 22 Nov 10, 4:00 PM mutable 2 yrs 978-291-889 wrote: I am owned, His property - this is constant - but He said i am not always His slave... and well, this confused me. I think this is a really good question and I've been thinking about it because *instinctively* I feel there is a difference also. I know this is just my opinion but here's how I see it: M/s is Master/slave. I see these more as behaviours than titles, meaning that a master does masterly things and a slave is, well, slaveish. How this is manifested differs from relationship to relationship, but the emphasis is on the behaviours of both. O/p is Owner/propery. I see these as titles for distinct roles within a relationship, but not necessarily as behaviours. This means that although one is property, they don't always behave as a slave (because we all own something that doesn't work as it *should*) and, perhaps more importantly, nor are they always required to behave as a slave. Regardless of this they are *always* owned property. Now, certainly one can be in BOTH a M/s and O/p relationship or perhaps just one. Also, because lines are rarely straight, there is likely blurring and overlapping. I know that maybe I just don't understand things properly, but this is (currently) why and how I differentiate. 'We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are' Anais Nin 22 Nov 10, 4:20 PM DarkSado 4 yrs As Tanos said O/P & M/s are interchangeable. As for your Master saying that sometimes you are not His slave, this is something for Him to explain to you. DarkSado 3 Dec 10, 4:32 PM SirWayne US(FL), 18 mths Y! I tend to agree with all that has been said on this thread. What concerns me is that these statements are all referring to an authority. (Webster's Dictionary, Internet, or a group post definition that has been agreed upon by the group). This group definition generally conforms to the generally accepted authorities, such as Webster's and the like. However this is not always is the case. When a mother tells a child he is a “bad” boy. The child does not take his mother's statements as meaning he is cool, a good member of the group or admired because he is “bad.” If the same statement had come form a member of street friends the meaning would be quite different from that of his mother. Groups shall continue to define the terms used within the group, publish the terms and meanings and we as members of the group shall think and say this is a good use of the term and will incorporate the term in our daily usage. This is ever more common in a dynamic relationship. The relationship defines the terms as they wish to use and the relationship agrees on the meaning. “Cheating” as defined in one relationship may not be “cheating” in another. 3 Dec 10, 4:41 PM Valyrian101 US, 18 mths SirWayne wrote: I tend to agree with all that has been said on this thread. What concerns me is that these statements are all referring to an authority. (Webster's Dictionary, Internet, or a group post definition that has been agreed upon by the group). This group definition generally conforms to the generally accepted authorities, such as Webster's and the like. However this is not always is the case. When a mother tells a child he is a “bad” boy. The child does not take his mother's statements as meaning he is cool, a good member of the group or admired because he is “bad.” If the same statement had come form a member of street friends the meaning would be quite different from that of his mother. Groups shall continue to define the terms used within the group, publish the terms and meanings and we as members of the group shall think and say this is a good use of the term and will incorporate the term in our daily usage. This is ever more common in a dynamic relationship. The relationship defines the terms as they wish to use and the relationship agrees on the meaning. “Cheating” as defined in one relationship may not be “cheating” in another. Very well said. Respect is default. Communication is mandatory. Understanding is enlightenment. 3 Dec 10, 6:51 PM mia UK, 11 yrs SirWayne wrote: I tend to agree with all that has been said on this thread. What concerns me is that these statements are all referring to an authority. (Webster's Dictionary, Internet, or a group post definition that has been agreed upon by the group). This group definition generally conforms to the generally accepted authorities, such as Webster's and the like. However this is not always is the case. When a mother tells a child he is a “bad” boy. The child does not take his mother's statements as meaning he is cool, a good member of the group or admired because he is “bad.” If the same statement had come form a member of street friends the meaning would be quite different from that of his mother. Groups shall continue to define the terms used within the group, publish the terms and meanings and we as members of the group shall think and say this is a good use of the term and will incorporate the term in our daily usage. This is ever more common in a dynamic relationship. The relationship defines the terms as they wish to use and the relationship agrees on the meaning. “Cheating” as defined in one relationship may not be “cheating” in another. Whilst i agree that terms used *within* a relationship are defined by those in them, if you use terms to explain to others what you are about, then generally accepted terms are useful and especially when people have worked hard to give a solid definition for those who are unsure of these lifestyles, or for those looking for a clearer definition. x