Thinking About "Ownership"

I've been thinking further about the questions raised by magdala in her recent discussion of issues of "ownership" in power exchange relationships here:
http://slavemagdala.blogspot.com/2005/11/your-mileage-may-vary.html

Some of that thinking took me back to reread the work done by Gabriel around the concepts of "continuous consent" and "ethical ownership/Mastery" that culminated with His "Pygmalion" post over at "Once Bitten" here:
http://keeperandkept.blogspot.com/2005/10/pygmalion-factor.html

I find that there is an argument posited that "ownership" implies and almost demands a concomitant responsibility to maintain the owned item. With the acceptance of that premise there then follows a whole set of requirements placed upon the owner to care for the "property" in specific ways or else risk earning the labels of "bad, irresponsible, neglectful, etc."

I disagree with the premise.

Ownership refers simply to the act of possessing. It may imply some legal status, although, clearly, when we speak of it in reference to consensual erotic slavery, that is not the case. However, ownership occurs when one obtains the actual legitimate possession of some property. Period. It does not hinge upon the manner in which said owner chooses to treat or care for the property. That discussion devolves to an entirely different set of vocabulary:

maintenance
stewardship
leadership

and things like--
guardian
protector
warden
keeper
mentor
monitor
teacher
guide...

The list might go on and on and on.

The reality is that if one owns a piece of property, the decisions about how to treat that property are ALL within the range of choices belonging to that person. It is entirely possible to buy a finely crafted piece of furniture and stick that lovely piece in a cold, damp, dusty barn where it will gradually, and inevitably crumble into a splintered pile of rubble. There is no requirement to do otherwise. The piece in questions remains owned property throughout.

Similarly, a Master might own a slave and choose to completely ignore that slave's needs at every level -- physical, emotional, social, spiritual. Those choices, theoretically belong entirely to the owner in a Master/slave dynamic. We can, reliably, predict the likely outcome in terms of the health and well-being of the slave and the relationship in the long-term under those circumstances, but the reality is that such a possibility could occur within the context of an Owner/owned agreement.

I did not enter into slavery against my will. Nor did I enter into it suddenly one day, an object plucked off a shelf. Ours was a dynamic that evolved slowly and organically from who we were with one another. It came to be our truth, and eventually simply had to be acknowledged.

I am cared for with great tenderness and deep love and affection. However, His choices and decisions drive the dynamic. There is no requirement for Him to care for His property in specific ways. That does not result from the fact of His ownership.

I have always found it disconcerting when submissives and slaves insist that Dominants and Masters, if they are worthy of the title, must cherish their possessions as if they are "great treasures." Many do. However that declaration and implied judgment seems to me out of place and simply topsy turvy in a world where some would bend to the hand of those who "own."

Somedays, Master's gaze falls on me with great intensity and warmth and I am all aglow. At other times, His attention and energy is, and must be elsewhere. It is as it should and must be. I know, still, who I am and to whom I belong -- always and all ways. He does not HAVE TO tell me or show me.

swan