Post Office

I made a short trip to the post office early this afternoon to mail some packets of material to board members for His agency. He gave me the agency credit card to use to pay for the necessary postage. The card has His name and His signature on it.



After waiting for what seemed like forever in a ridiculous line at the post office, I finally made it to the counter. The clerk was friendly and helpful -- pleasant surprise. He weighed each of the 3 packets, affixed the appropriate postage, and told me that it would be $6.99. I handed him the credit card.

He looked at the card; looked at me; looked back at the card; once more to me... Finally he said, "I guess you're Tom's?"

I blinked, a little stunned. I finally caught up with him, and responded, "That would be true."

He nodded. Ran the card. Handed me the slip to sign, and we were on about our days.



So much for that "hiding in plain sight" trick.




swan

Words -- Master/slave, Ownership, Power Exchange

Words.

As long as I have done this, people have wrestled and wrangled over the meanings and definitions of terms and words. There's a raging debate going on about the nature of "true" Dominance and submission on a list that I read right now. Another conversation is trying to sort out the differences, if there are any, between "Owners" and "Masters" and "Daddys."

I am of a mixed mind about this. I believe that words have power. Words can shape our thinking and our perceptions. I like words that can be used with precision and intention to structure meaning. I think that we use words to communicate, and that when we are clear about what we mean when we use a particular word or expression, it makes it easier for us all to talk reasonably about what it is that we do. On the other hand, I've seen the labels used far too often as clubs to bash people over the head, create stratification, elevate gurus, and solidify factionalization where there didn't need to be any. So, I know that words can be used to harm. So, here's some of what I've been thinking about some of those kinds of things:

I dislike "One-True-Way-Ism." Whether we are talking about BDSM, or religion, or politics, or cooking, or fitness, or fishing, or how to sort socks, I hate it when someone tries to tell me that their way is THE way and my way is therefore, by definition, not THE way. My way (or more correctly, His way) is THE way for me, and if you have some issue with that, then I don't actually have any reason to waste my breath talking to you. I am continually bemused, as I read and converse with people in "cyberia" who have a few months of experience (maybe), and then put themselves out as the judge of everything and everyone. If there is one thing that I've learned along the way, it is that I know way more questions than I do answers at this point. About all I can offer, by way of wisdom, for the most part anymore, is a series of inquiries into what people have tried, what they've found so far that works and doesn't work, and where they would like to explore next... beyond that, I'm happy to share stories, always with the caveat that it is all "MY" story, and may have nothing at all to do with anyone else's experience or reality.

He and I say that what we do is Master/slave. That is the description of our relational power dynamic that seems to fit. It is not a thing that we set out to create or achieve. It is something that evolved for us as we spent time together. We came, over time, to accept that description of what was the reality between the two of us. Our M/s dynamic is, generally, very informal, without many specific protocols, although there are situations where we are much more formal with one another. I refer to Him in writing as "Master" mostly because it is simple. At home, I use His name, or I call Him "Sir," or "Dear" or "Honey." We seldom use the term "Owner," although He will express that T and I are "His" or "His property." Clearly, there is an understanding of ownership within our dynamic.

I'm not sure exactly what the delineation between "Owner" and "Master" is. If I check the definitions, I find that an owner has the right of possession or title, whereas the word master seems to imply a level of expertise or skill or finesse -- as in master swordsman, headmaster, masterpiece... When I consider the two in that context, it makes the two words fit our dynamic like layers. He "owns" me in the sense that He has the right of possession over me, and He is my Master because He has the skills and knowledge that is required to manage the complex and challenging process of shaping, managing, and maintaining me (optimally) in His service.

For us, it began and remains about the power exchange -- the energy that flows between and through us when we consciously and deliberately take our individual and collective power and choose how to use it for our mutual pleasure and benefit. We channel that and balance it and work with it together. It takes awareness and understanding and deliberate choice. It is about creating intentional inequities that spark the flow of energy and drive our desires forward. It is powered by our continual care for one another and scaffolded by our trust in ourselves and in each other.

swan

...And I'm Not Owed Anything Because I'm Owned

Picking up where I left off when all that "heart" stuff intervened, I want to continue babbling about the distinctions I was trying to sort out between obligations and responsibilities.

As He and I talked about the "theoretical" distinctions between the "obligations," or more correctly lack of obligations that a Master incurs in relationship to a slave, and the possible "ethical" responsibilities that may result from assuming ownership of human property, He reminded me that however finely I drew those distinctions, I was still not owed any of it BECAUSE I was owned.

It is an important point. One which I think is too often missed.

He may choose to indulge me in a variety of ways -- because it pleases Him to do so. He may choose to develop my talents and employ my abilities to serve in a wide range of capacities in the larger society because that is how He chooses to use His assets (among which I am one), and that is how He operates as a person.

I may see those choices and understand them as "ethically" responsible with regard to the world and the society, but I must not misunderstand and assume that they constitute a responsibility or an obligation to me. Within the context of our relationship and our power dynamic, I am not owed anything BECAUSE of His ownership of me. What He grants to me is given at His entire discretion, and out of His generosity alone.

swan

More Obligations, Responsibilities and Limits...

Sometimes I can get going on an almost obsessive internal stream of consciousness, and can't quite let it go until I unravel all the tangled up thinking and follow all the trails to their ends. That seems to be where I am with the bits and pieces of ideas that I laid out in this Last Rambling Post. I'm just not done with it all yet. There is this sense that I haven't gotten it clear in my own mind, and surely haven't expressed it for myself clearly yet. The words are in there -- wrestling around with one another. I have this feeling that I have the idea, but when I look at it straight on, it vaporizes and goes, "POOF!" into thin air so that I cannot get a clear sense of what it is I'm trying to say exactly. That just makes me crazy. That is the sort of thing that is going to cause me to keep talking to myself about it until it sorts out into something halfway coherent. So, if you don't want to tune into this convoluted internal chatter... change the channel now.

So... I have argued, often in my "Devil's Advocate/Gadfly" persona, that Masters (or Owners) do not have any defacto obligations to their slaves arising from the simple condition of ownership. I have often been bemused, over the years by the notion that the fact of Ownership somehow implies a set of obligations to treat the property in a particular fashion. When I first came to this, it was common to read submissives/slaves who wrote about being "cherished and treasured and valued" above all else in their Master's or Dominant's life. Those kinds of sentiments are romanticized ideals that, if they get repeated often enough, can set up a sort of expectational norm that simply does not logically follow from the premise of a Power relational dynamic.

If I find someone who simply cannot be shaken from their insistence on the cherished/treasured property model, I am sometimes inclined to launch into my "table" parable which goes like this:

A very wealthy and powerful man lives in a fine and elegant mansion filled with the most beautiful objects and furnishings, every piece chosen by hand to satisfy his every whim and desire. The table that graces his dining room is an heirloom of the most pristine quality and finest woods. It is a rare and priceless piece that glows with beauty, polished with purest oils by dedicated servants, but he finds no joy in its presence and one day he asks his staff to have it moved to the barn at the back of his estate. There the lovely table is relegated to a dark corner. Over time, dust comes to gather on its surface, and boxes of household items are stacked on top of it. The denizens of the barn; the small spiders and crawling creatures, climb around and over its elegant legs and turned feet. The glowing wood loses the deep sheen that brought such joy to so many during the time it served in the great and elegant dinng hall. Silent, dull, dusty, unremembered -- the now humble and barely serviceable table remains, as it always was, property.

It is that little story that I keep in my mind to remind myself that I am property. Perhaps I am not a "table or a bath towel," as magdala and I once discussed at length, but I do try to remain mindful that "in absolute terms, if one enters into a dynamic wherein the definition of the status is 'property,' then there is a realistic potential that an owner really does not have any greater level of obligation than to any other owned object."

Now, lest there be any misapprehension of the truth of my life, I am never, ever left to feel like a table. There are power dynamic relationships where such objectification is the intent and the goal, but that doesn't happen around here, either intentionally or otherwise. I AM loved, cherished, and cared for, and for that I am deeply and humbly grateful. However, I know and understand that I am given that love and care -- I am not owed it because I am owned.

There ARE times when I cannot be the center of attention, nor should I be. He has many demands on His attention and His energy. I need to self-direct, self-monitor, self-soothe, self-maintain. I've also learned (especially through the difficulties of this last year) that I need to be careful not to withhold from Him the opportunity to hold the reins. The delicate balance of our inward/outward lives is demanding to maintain, but it must be maintained -- and maintained with grace, honor, dignity, and integrity.

As to the (in my mind) different issue of "responsibility, as I think about this further, I think there are really two different parts to this for me: the "Top" side (Masters), and the "bottom" (slaves). I need to separate the two if I'm going to talk about them clearly.

So, when I contemplate the notion of "responsibility" in relationship to Masters, I think I'm really in mind of the view of "moral responsibility" that is drawn out at length here. A slave is not, in fact a table. A slave is, in fact, a human with the ethical capacity to make morally responsible choices. If one understands or acknowledges a slave in that context (at least prior to entering into the power exchange relationship), then in my view a Master does take on a level of moral responsibility to compensate for whatever diminishment of choice comes as a result of the dynamic. It is this "compensation" that ups the ante in terms of the responsibilities for one who takes on the mantle of Ownership with human property. The Owner of human property is, from a social, ethical perspective, morally responsible to use that property "well;" creating, improving, developing, perfecting... The Owner assumes the responsibility, from an ethical perspective, to use that resource in ways that serve His pleasure, certainly, but it seems to me that there is the concommittant responsibility to answer the question of how the resource is to be used in service to the larger world.

If the Master does that, and does that well, the slave becomes (in every sense) entirely free to fulfill all the responsibilities of BEING for the Master. And, when that happens, the synergy makes the result into something more than there was before the power exchange existed -- the manifestation of Master and slave standing and acting as One in the and (ideally) for the world.

So, I do protect and care for His property. I care for His clothing, for His home, for His knives, for His toys (most of the time -- really), for His medications, and for His slave... Unless He tells me otherwise, I'm going to continue to do that. I watch my diet, I take my medications, I see the doctors He tells me to see -- on the schedule that I need to.

I work hard at presenting myself in public in ways that bring Him honor and pleasure and make Him proud. So it was that last Wednesday evening I made the "Clark Kent in the phone booth" transformation from chalk dust besmirched school teacher to (hopefully) elegantly dressed dinner-party presentable board member for the annual dinner for Master's agency. Even though He must act as if we barely know each other at such events, His look as I walked into the place made it clear that I'd done exactly as I should have.

Sometimes, protecting and caring for His property means saying, "no." A couple of years ago, when Master's evening indulgence in the "Irish" was not confined to Irish tea (as it is these days), there was a night when, quite late, He eyed me blurrily, and declared -- "Alright, the six of you have been cruising for a spanking for weeks, and now you are going to get it. So just line up!" The "six of us" calculated quickly, evaluated the safety factor, talked quietly among ourselves, and decided to go hide in a dark corner in another room... The "Irishman" fell sound asleep, and the six of us, slept curled up, shivering in a corner in the dark -- but we were safe. Perhaps there are those who might have made a different choice that night. Perhaps, on another night, I'd have made another choice (there were many times when He and I played when He was not entirely sober and I never thought a thing about it). I know I've never regretted making that call that night. I did what I believed was the best thing for Him and for us. I served Him in the best way I knew how under those circumstances. It was my judgement, in that moment, that He would not knowingly have me injured, and that He would have advised me to take those "other five girls" and go hide from the Irishman that night.

Perhaps, as kaya comments, this is all "a different perspective than what (I) have given in the past." She may be right. I'm not sure that it is entirely different because I believe that most of those parts and pieces are things that I've had kicking around for a long while. It does feel to me as if I am understanding it at a different level. Or from a different point of view. Maybe that makes sense -- I don't suppose that all of the angst and struggle from the last year could have been expected to have passed by without having left its mark on my thinking. I do think that I've changed and evolved from where I was when I came to this new and starry eyed over seven years ago. I know I'm much different than I was two years ago. I don't know that change is "good" or "bad" -- it is, I imagine, simply the condition of being alive. I'm not trying to convince anyone else -- just wandering the trails in my mind. Chasing the wispy bits that are teasing me from the shadows...

swan

Obligations, Responsibilities, and Limits

I've been known to argue that the condition of ownership does not create a constellation of obligations. In absolute terms, if one enters into a dynamic wherein the definition of the status is "property," then there is a realistic potential that an owner really does not have any greater level of obligation than to any other owned object -- a sofa, or an automobile, or a set of golf clubs for example. I do not believe that an Owner in a power dynamic has an obligation to entertain, or otherwise engage the property except on His own terms and purely for His own use and pleasure.

We might posit that an owner could choose, for good and sensible reasons, to care for and maintain property, but that is a matter of maintenance to preserve the investment and value -- not an obligation confered by the fact of the ownership. The (hypothetical) owner still has the absolute right to allow property to fall into utter dilapidation if that suits his whim or mood, and doing so does not diminish the fact of ownerhship in the slightest.

That is the plain reality of, and unvarnished definition of what does and does not devolve from the fact of ownership.

It was asked, a long while ago, eloquently and at some length, by Gabriel Montana (when we were still graced by His presence in our midst), what responsibilities an owner assumed for the human property in His or Her care -- an entirely different question. He argued, from an ethical and philosophical perspective (and I use those terms in the academic sense) that there are responsibilities that fall to one who takes on the mantle of the ownership of human property. I cannot begin to recreate His arguments here, and I (sadly) did not keep copies of what He wrote before He vanished from the cyber realm. I hope I might be forgiven if I very briefly summarize the idea that an Owner of human property has the responsibility for "creating" and developing and perfecting and protecting -- that the right to use comes with concommitant responsibility to leave the property improved in the exchange. Not everyone agreed with that premise, and I (most likely) don't do it justice.

The other side of the dynamic, on the other hand, takes on a whole host of "obligations" and responsibilities. It is the inherent "inequity" of the owner/owned exchange. There are obligations that relate to honesty and obedience and service and presence on a whole range of levels. To be honest, to be obedient, to serve, and to be truly and humbly present are seemingly simple undertakings -- until those become actual day to day realities lived out. Then begins the slow, deliberate, conscious remolding and shaping of the heart and mind to what is wanted by the One who becomes the focus... As that focus turns ever more away from what the world teaches and toward what is more pleasing to the owner.

There are responsibilities for those who take on the personal path of property. Of course there are responsibilities (usually) laid on the property by the Owner -- things to be done. Those are the simple ones: the chores. Those things are easy to see and easy to identify and easy to categorize. The deeper responsibilities are the ones that are less visible, less apparent, more subtle. There is the responsibility to stay vigilant against errors in thinking, assumptions that are rooted in social norms that don't apply, expectations that set up resentments, comparisons that create jealousies, and a dozen other mental tricks that take us out of our proper heart's place. There is the responsibility to continue to work to maintain the property, to keep learning, to discover the things that will bring pleasure and joy and delight in the mind and body and heart of the Master's property. There is the responsibility to be certain that in all things and in all places, we represent the Owner well to all we meet, and that in all we do, our work brings honor to the One who sends us out into the world.

And then there is the question of limits. Some declare, "NO LIMITS!" It sometimes gets looked at as a badge of honor. A measure of courage. A way to see who is and is not "real." There's a "strutting" sound that goes with that "no limits" boast, sometimes.

Not always. Philosophically, the urge to honestly surrender control drives some to say, "you can't give up control and then pull it back at some point -- can't give up control only so far..." Hence, no limits.

It sets up a variety of dilemmas. "No limits" can engender a competitive sort of pride that endangers the kind of humble presence that one who aspires to the slave path most needs to cultivate. No limits may even create a sort of continual "up the ante" fervor that generates its own drives and dynamics and potentially takes the control away from the very ones who should be in control. No limits can make it hard to meet the responsibility to "protect the property." There very well may be places where a careful slave would determine that the prudent stewardship of the owner's property would dictate the establishment of a reasonable limit.

There are ways to feel about the dynamics between us. Ways to think about it. Ways to follow the path. We are beings that are wholly integrated bodies, hearts, minds, and spirits. The balances need to be attended to . If we lose sight of the various parts, tending too much to one side or one bit and not enough to the others, the entire structure can get out of kilter. Best to balance all the parts and all the energies.

swan

Ownership and Being Owned

I've been following an intense discussion going on in the last few days. The whole exchange has been lengthy and complex and interesting on a lot of different levels, and I've not been an active participant. I do think that magdala summarizes a lot of the salient points well in this post and the one that follows it. The discussion has been wide ranging, and it is interesting because it is being carried on by a number of people who are involved in living the life.

I've been watching and thinking about it. Wondering what there was for me to say. As usual, I've been struck by the enormous surface differences between my life, and magdala's, and kaya's. Surely, there is very little that makes their paths and mine look the same. Yet each of us self-define as "slave." Perhaps that is important. Perhaps not.

I agree with kaya that words do mean something. It is valuable to define our terms. If we simply say that "slavery" in the sense that we use it within the lifestyle means whatever people say it means "for them," then it very quickly comes to mean nothing at all, and we lose the ability to use it to convey anything by the words. If, when we speak of power exchange, or "power forfeiture," it doesn't denote something that, at least in general terms, we can all point to and say, "that is it," then we have no way to speak to our lives at all.

With that said, I want to take a different approach to this discussion here. Rather than posit the extremes, let me paint the notion that in ownership dynamics -- which is what we are discussing, there is the necessity of focusing on the core member of the dynamic: the Owner. Almost always, when I hear/read discussions of what would or would not be "OK" within these relationships; what would be what magdala refers to as a "deal breaker," things usually devolve to the point of where would it have to go for the "owned" partner to say "no." In my view, the more critical issue, from the outset (and always), is what path or vision does the Owner have in mind. Within ownership driven relationships, the real operative issue is does the Owner have the right/power to envision an outcome, and then move toward bringing forth that creation.

Given that definition, kaya lives within a "real" and valid ownership dynamic where the One who owns her has the right and power to implement His vision in bringing forth the creation of His slave as He sees that reality. So does Magdala. So do I. The fact that kaya may spend most of her time locked in a small basement room while I am sent out to "mold and shape young minds" is a comparison that is perhaps analogous to the differences in techniques used by DaVinci and Picasso -- different Owners with different ultimate creative outcomes in mind. Tomorrow, kaya could find herself trudging off to classes to learn how to teach, and I could find myself locked in the closet. Each of us would likely experience some significant "property" style cognitive-whiplash should that actually happen, but it is within the realm of possibility. Each of us have Owners who could see a different vision with the sunrise.

I will argue that the driving force in "ownership dynamic" relationships must be the Owner. Under that model, all the fussing about which slave is the most slave-like (based on who handles the highest levels of pain, or spends the most time chained to the bedpost, or has the fewest choices with regards to clothing or hair style or employment, etc.) becomes academic, because the real question in each case is, "what does the particular Owner choose or want from the slave?" Just as, in other arenas, some might choose to own Fords, or Hondas, or BMW's, so in the realm of lifestyle slavery, Owners will make decisions about how to model/shape the nature of the dynamic with their individual slaves.

Like magdala, I find kaya's declarations that she has no "deal-breakers" disquieting, and disturbing. I understand the depth of committment and passion and trust that drives that statement. I think I even understand what it means to come to a point in your life where you simply decide to stop equivocating and say something definitive. So, I believe that what is really going on here is an attempt to state that the point of entering into an Ownership dynamic relationship is that the consent to becoming "property" is a one-time thing. Done. Over with. It is not an on-going negotiation. So quit asking, or operating on some other set of assumptions. Fair enough.

Still.

I do not entirely believe that there is no breaking point. No point where there would be "too far." No limit. AND, I do not believe it even has to get as horrific as the sort of life and death, taboo, sort of scenarios that magdala proposes. I believe, in my heart, that those of us who enter into ownership dynamics do so with a certain and sure understanding of those with whom we create those bonds. We trust that the earth will not shift radically under our feet; that the Master will not change the definitions totally so that the world that we find ourselves living in "down the road" is entirely outside the realm of what we anticipated.

But, since we are engaging in hypotheticals, let's play "what if." Owners have the power to create their world's the way they want them to be. This is hot and squishy and intriguing when it is titillating. However this isn't always sexy. What if we take the future, hypothetical shifting of "Ownership" demand out of the sexy realm? What if any or each of us were to get this sort of direction from the One to whom we have pledged our obedience?

I've had a revelation.
I've been on the wrong path.
I understand that SM is "bad, sick, and abusive."
So, the first thing that you must do is pack up and discard all of the paddles, whips, clamps, clips, and other "toys."
Dismantle all of the restraints and bondage gear.
From now on, I want our relationship to contribute to the well-being of mankind and the earth, so each day your "tasks" will be as follows:
Monday -- volunteer at the homeless shelter
Tuesday -- voulnteer for a local agency for people with developmental disabilities
Wednesday -- volunteer for an agency that works for the environment
Thursday -- volunteer for the local Headstart
Friday -- volunteer for a local agency for the aging/elderly
I expect you to journal about each of your daily activities just as you have been doing.
Oh yes, I've also decided that as part of my ongoing spiritual quest, I am adopting the practice of celibacy, so please dispose of the bed and purchase two simple twin beds for the bedroom."

Which of us, slaves, would stand by that "no deal-breakers" stance?

swan

What About Intention?

In a comment to the discussion about "Ownership" magdala left this gem:

"am I trying to figure out how ownership, simple possession of an object, resolves itself when the owner desires to keep the object available for the use he intended?"

It is that concept of INTENTION that has me thinking this morning, because it seems to me that, in fact, it is the intent of the Master in the M/s dynamic, that shifts the direction of His/Her action upon the slave from that of possession to something "other." Without intent, there would be no real reason for anything much else to occur beyond the mere possessing itself. Perhaps, in fact, it is the intent, and not the ownership that is most germane to the whole dynamic in the first place...

Magdala paints the pictures of the bath towel (playing off of metaphors that I set up earlier) that needs washing to remain useful, and of sterling flatware that requires polishing upon use, and careful storage to retain the luster that makes it so lovely. If I understand the question behind the pictures, she is attempting to make some sense of what the responsibilities are for maintenance and upkeep of "owned" objects that are INTENDED for use, and not merely acquired and then put away and forgotten or kept indefinitely unused. The further question I think, in the case of slaves (like me, or like her) in this context, is who bears that responsibility? She is perhaps edging toward the answer she is looking for, I suspect, in the concept of INTENT.

For me, maybe (and perhaps not for magdala or anyone else), that is to understand what my Master intends for me to be and do in this moment. I do not need to know what His overall plan is; what His long-range goal for me might be; what He expects of me next week or next month or next year. I need to do my best to comprehend what use He has for me in this present time, and how He intends that I should fulfill that role. I then need to work to accomplish that work in whatever way I can best do so. That is likely to include, but not be limited to, doing some self-maintenance and self-improvement in the mix.

It is entirely possible, even probable, that His INTENT will bring Him to act toward me in ways that bring about my betterment. He will seek my health, my happiness, my overall well-being. These actions on His part will serve His intentions for use of His property in my person. That reality does not impinge on my service to Him. It is His side of the equation; out of my control entirely. Energy that I invest in thinking about what He "should" or "ought" to be doing in that regard takes me away from my own focus and service.

There is some humbling in that division and realization. It is hard at some level to know that the decisions for and about your own care are made at two different levels: that you are given a degree of responsibility for self-maintenance BECAUSE you are property, and that the overall decisions for your care and well-being derive from the intention of One who chooses to care for you BECAUSE you are property.

Settling into that reality can bring struggle or peace.

swan

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