Sunday, May 2, 2010

Thoughts On Being Owned By A Woman …

The subject is obviously fascinating to many men, and I suppose, to some women who are on the submissive lesbian side. I was reading an older post whose writer brought up the subject at Things I Think Thursday :

“For me, having a woman declaring ownership of me is one of the most exciting aspects of femdom. It thrills me for her to think of me as an object she owns to use whenever and wherever the hell she wants. Even in my countless vanilla relationships, when the woman sternly told me, “I don’t share. You belong to me.” I would instantly get a hard on. I’m surprised the femdom ritual of verbally declaring her ownership is not a larger part of the femdom discussion.”

I happen to like everything this man writes for the reason that I have many of the same feelings and desires. What I find odd, however, is that some men fully expect to find a woman who will own them in such way. It is a great fantasy. I have even written a book that deals with that. It is a common wish in real Female Led Relationships, and most common in fake blogs whose writers purport to be a woman’s slave or property.

The problem with the idea is too big to resolve simply by the woman saying, “I now own you.” The idea is understandable. The extent of it is difficult to define. The reality of it is entirely impractical.

Understanding the idea is easy, you can look up the meaning of words and phrases in legitimate reference material (I don’t mean sex forums and blogs). Trouble begins when one tries to define the ownership in the particular circumstance of this couple. She must go to some detail in defining the rules of ownership, and the rules of her owned object. It does not take long before the whole attempt is mired in contradictory, redundant, and ill-defined terminology and silly rules too difficult to remember by either party. Most of the rules would have to do with the man’s or woman’s sexual fantasy, for the reality of the rest of their everyday lives cannot be binding by these rules.

Take for instance an ideal scenario in which a man and a woman enter this relationship. They are young but experienced, married or committed to the relationship; neither has children, family obligations, major loans, etc. The owner/object relationship can kick in overnight, and could be some fun for a while. However, there will be clouds over the horizon soon. Who is earning the living for the both of them? Who is paying the rent? Who is paying the bills? Who has a stake in the household? Who is planning for investment for his or her later years? Who is paying the taxes? If the woman is completely in charge, she has a huge job to do. Does she want to give explicit directions to her object about everything trivial? Does she want to monitor his behavior and punish him if he deviates from the complex rules? When is she going to relax and just use her object as described in this fantasy? Yet, this is the ideal scenario, not some lesser version.

What if they are not in the ideal scenario?

What if there are children from various litters between them? What if one of them becomes ill or falls to an accidental injury? What if the provider loses his or her job? What if her object realizes that he is being screwed but not in a good way? If the owner dies, does the object become destitute?

Reality will soon smack her object in the lips, and he will want to change things. Then again, the owner (she) may tire of the constant responsibility that only she has, after all, her object is not allowed to do anything other than what she orders.

The ridiculousness of the scenario should be obvious by now. Being owned by a woman is a wonderfully satisfying game as long as they both are willing to play it. However, it is not going to be 24/7 for very long. Both parties will hit the road with their butts as they fall off the fast moving conveyance of this sexually charged fantasy. Unless the two of them remain eternally young, healthy, carefree, unattached, and willing to play the game, at some point the game will be over. That is when family, civic, and community responsibility will surface. Lawyers, realtors, employers, and bill and tax collectors will begin to interfere with the game. At some point thoughts of (gasp!) age, retirement, insurance, medical needs will become important. The ownership/object relationship cannot provide that. What it can provide is an occasional game that serves to release tension of everyday life from time to time. Meanwhile somebody needs to be in charge, but both will have real responsibilities not as owner/object but as man/woman who share a life. Without that, even the game will not last.


anna louise said...

Those are some excellent points you brought up.I have a sub and we have often talked about what it might be like to live 24/7 and how you could maintain a relationship like that.
I can see how difficult it might be with everyday life.
Since we both have other partners it is not likely we will get to find out.So,we are content to have our own little private world.So,when we meet and he enters the room he belongs to me.But,when he leaves his soul is still mine but he must continue to fit in and conform in his other life

Susan's Pet said...

anna louise,

That could work!

By the way, I am glad to see you still interested. You were silent too long.

Miss Jaye said...

I agree that a 24/7 scenario of ownership/property is one that reality can destroy. However, an ownership/property relationship can be defined without the use of finite definitions but with general rules that are flexible with the ebbs and flows of all relationships. Aren't rules/guidelines inherent in all relationships? Aren't those rules fluid with the capability to change as the dynamics or circumstances of the individuals or relationship change?
Beyond that ownership can be defined differently to accomodate life circumstances. For instance, I know of a Femdom who requires her male to work and provide an income. His paycheck is deposited directly into an account she controls - he is her property (by their definition) so all financial gains generated by him belong to her. In the event of an emergency he can gain access to the funds, but because she controls the money he feels owns. Who is to question if he is or not by any other definition than theirs?

Susan's Pet said...

Miss Jaye,

Thank you for your comment. Please don’t think that I am jumping on you. I blame myself for not making my message clear, and I will try to remedy that here.

I will not argue with facts. If a relationship works I would be the last one to suggest to break it up. How do we know that it works? Well, if the participants are happy with it, then it works. Of course, that excludes those relationships where the participants are relying on some other person or persons to support it. We assume viable, self-reliant, and sane adults here. People who have nothing, and don’t expect to have anything for the rest of their lives are free to enter into any relationship. But life is seldom that simple.

My treatise deals with ultimate responsibility in a relationship very much like the one you cite in the last part of your comment.

I am married, have worked all my life, have children, own property, have been contributing to a retirement account, never divorced or had children outside of my marriage. You might say that my life is simple and planned. It is conceivable that I could sign everything over to my wife, and she and I would enter into a legal agreement where she owns me body and soul. For one, she would not want the responsibility. But more importantly, tax and inheritance laws would devastate our holdings if she were to die before me. The complexity (and ridiculousness) of the situation is demonstrated by the fact that most responsible people enter into estate planning which covers all contingencies, such as long term care for a partner in the case he or she becomes disabled, who can do what, who inherits what, and how the holdings are awarded to the heirs. If you don’t do this, the courts, the state, the feds, and the lawyers will suck up most of the property.

I am not suggesting that I am rich by any means. The reason for estate planning is to keep as much of what we have for each other, and for our children for when the inevitable happens. My wife and I could still enter into a private agreement of owner/object relationship, but that would be just a layer over reality, and would not undo anything legal and rational. We could live my fantasy or hers, and nobody would care. She could control my finances, my life, or anything to any extent to which we agree. But when stuff happens, we would not be caught in an unworkable fantasy scenario.

I realize that most young people don’t think of this, which is exactly why I posted this treatise. They need to think of it, for life will not remain fun and games forever. Things will happen that will disturb or even destroy that owner/object relationship, and it may be too late then to try to salvage it.

My suggestion is this: experience your fantasy in a limited context; otherwise, try to live your life, not your fantasy.

Her Majesty's Plaything said...

Hi SP:

I find the thought of belonging to Her Majesty deeply romantic and tremendously erotic! Her ownership of me is a romantic prism through which we view the relationship. We don't obsess about making the practical realities of the relationship mirror the fantasy. For example; I belong to her but we maintain separate bank accounts. She expects me to act like an adult, think independently, make decisions and take equal responsibility in this thing called life. That said I defer to her will in most things and we both prefer it that way. Arguments in our relationship are extremely rare! ;-)

Susan's Pet said...


I am with you on that. It can be fun, satisfying, fulfilling, and right on!

Miss Jaye said...

Hello SP,
Thank you for your additional thoughts, I believe we are in agreement but saying it differently. :)
I abhore the idea of slavery as a concept. I find diminishing the value of a human being to property lasting more than a scenario, a fantasy lived out for a short duration of time, to be a waste.
I find submissives more interesting when they are productive individuals than mindless beings that require direction to even use the bathroom. Beyond that, what you say is true; reality of laws, earning a living, ownership of property, parenting responsibilities and financial considerations of possibilities such as disabilities and death make the fantasy of 24/7 slavery an impractical impossibility.
I respectfully disagree that living out one's fantasies should be wholly sacrificed as a balance of reality and fantasy can be struck in living one's life. Fantasy can enhance one's life experience in a multitude of ways.
The trick is to recognize what is reality and what is fantasy and to not confuse the two.