The Ownership Flag and Icons    [other banners]

	SD! : Web boards : IE Theory : "Finances" 1 2 3 4 Finances (39) 10 Jul 08, 5:28 AM 662-935-655 US, 2 yrs Actually Master had serious problems balancing His checkbook - overdrawn alot - and asked me to help HIM with His as well as mine. Something He did take back over and do reasonably well with. But i would say if a Master wants the slave to run the money because He's no good with money, well, i don't think it makes the slave any less of a slave. At least it didn't with me, but it's quite humbling. by the way, there's no living with my ego - i found out an online article in the days of BBS-dom here in the states that i wrote 18 flipping years ago is still preserved and online on another (religious - NeoPagan) subject. i figured i'd warn you all that there might be no living with my ego for a while - as Master and i agree, Humility never was my strong point. Perhaps i need to go to one of those slave schools ........ (GRIN - of course not really, one honors one's oaths and one's body is not up to it) j/L Papa's owned always: still proudly wearing His Collar and Ring, rest in peace Beloved Master/Husband! "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose" Janis Joplin 10 Jul 08, 12:07 PM Ms_Valentine 8 mths Domme_deluxe wrote: Red_Spark wrote: Ms_Valentine wrote: If IE and TPE imply slavery then financial assets must become the property of the owner as does the slave itself. By definition, property cannot own anything in it's own right. I agree with the principle of the above, but it is up to the Mistress/Master/owner whether they allow the slave to retain a personal account(s), how much control they choose to exercise over finances, etc. The principle remains the same at its heart but might not always be exercised to the full, depending upon individual relationships. I agree. Finances may not need to be micromanaged. If a slave lives by the spirit of not having control of assets it doesn't matter (as far as I'm concerned) who has legal ownership. I think it is simply taking due care and responsibility to ensure that should the Master/Mistress/Owner suddenly die then the slave is not left in a vulnerable position. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying anything about micromanagement. Once ownership has been established, then how the relationship runs from that point on is entirely up to the individual Master/Mistress. They may allow slaves only a little pin money or they may insist they do all the financial control for the household. My point was that slaves forgo their rights to own things when they become slaves. What happens after is up to their M-types. I may well be being controversial here but why be a slave if you don't want the things that slavery requires. It seems some people pick and choose so that the have their own set of requirements, limits etc and will ONLY be a slave if those things are adherred to. Surely being a slave is about giving up everything, all rights,limits and you only do that when you trust your owner with everything including your chequebook. If someone is not ready to give up everything, stay calling yourself a sub, it isn't a badge of shame. 10 Jul 08, 12:21 PM anjuli UK, 18 mths I have to agree at one level here with namaste and MsV. It's not actually TPE if it's not Total is it? Now that's not to say that power exchange and submission are not good things! PE that has some limits is not even LESS in some way (other than less than total! ) it's just a different set of choices and criteria. Just as ongoing voluntary submission is a good and valid choice, negotiation of limits to submission and picking and choosing what is right for you and your dynamic is good and valid. What it is NOT is absolute slavery. A slave for discussion purposes here - not necessarily representative of absolutely everyone and not even a pedestal to aim for! - just a definition to aid clear discussion, is... A person who is owned: that is, someone in a relationship with an owner who has ultimate authority over them, and from which the slave cannot remove themselves. ...and surely be definition if you are owned and in a relationship where you relinquish ultimate authority to your owner, then you cannot own things or possess money. As has already been said, that does not rule out the owner making good and sensible arrangements for the slave or for allowing a personal account or some spending money, or even requiring that the slave takes responsibility for money in some form. What it does preclude is control over finances, surely? anjuli Edited a messy para ... and another! lol ~~~ “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naive or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” - Anais Nin ~~~ Edited 10 Jul 08, 12:25 PM by anjuli 10 Jul 08, 2:10 PM ColdHarbour UK, 14 mths Y! Ms_Valentine wrote: If IE and TPE imply slavery then financial assets must become the property of the owner as does the slave itself. By definition, property cannot own anything in it's own right. This is a tricky one! I mean, in principle, I agree — in taking Ownership of a slave, you take Ownership of the whole package: mind, body, soul & all their worldly wealth right down to the clothes on their back. However, philosophy aside, it seems to me that for TPE to be truly total in our Society, it must allow for the sensibilities of the vanilla world, just to be practical. Which is why, personally, I always decline to take possession of a slave's assets. With so many vanillas already labelling slave-Owners 'abusers', why give them another stick to hit Us with? So how do I resolve the dilema? I simply take possession of the slave's naked body. No more. No less. Whatever assets may have been owned by the free female who gave herself to be my slave, I hold in trust against the possibility that the slave may one day return to freedom. Until that day comes, I have absolute control over the trust-fund and manage it as wisely as I know how; the slave's sole financial contribution to her enslavement being via a sort of Income Tax calculated so everyone contributes towards joint expenses according to their means. It works! The slave owns nothing, but I can think of one not long ago who, when her Contract expired and she chose freedom, found a five-figure sum in her bank accounts with which to build herself a new life. Oh I am such an abuser of power! Not!!! You cannot run away from what is inside you — African proverb 10 Jul 08, 2:42 PM anjuli UK, 18 mths Well, you cannot knock that on any grounds, can you? And that's precisely what I mean by a difference between what you consider right and good, and the out and out definitions we agree upon. I actually like to think that J owns it all - that all the trappings are his to fret about - and I am helped in that I had a major clearing of the decks before I came to him so 'my car' is actually his in reality for instance. Because of my history and a lack of security in my past financially, it took me a while to 'give up' my savings. Now whilst money may sit in an account with my name on it I know it's his and what to do with it is his call. That actually works for me and helps me. I feel freer and lighter without it. But you do have to work out for yourself what you want and what works and I think CH's approach is admirable and well thought through too so it has my respect. anjuli ~~~ “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naive or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” - Anais Nin ~~~ 11 Jul 08, 11:46 PM 621-375-058 6 mths when compared to the wonderous joys i receive from serving Master, i feel all financial and material posessions are nothing but dust in the wind. i would freely, and gladly, give them to Master if he so desired it. that is part of giving yourself completely to the one who Owns. ~*it is better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not*~ 12 Jul 08, 5:18 PM 879-717-990 UK, 2 yrs Ms_Valentine wrote: If IE and TPE imply slavery then financial assets must become the property of the owner as does the slave itself. By definition, property cannot own anything in it's own right. As your profile states that you "don't do slaves or ownership", can i ask if you have owned a slave in the past in real time and what financial arrangement you had with them? slave tsina 13 Jul 08, 8:11 PM 173-682-895 US(NY), 21 mths Master holds the bank accounts, but i have power of attorney on them. He controls the money and decides what bills get paid when, etc. i usually don't have money on me, unless Master has given me some pocket money, but He does accept my input/ideas for consideration. it all works out, and He revels in the control and i am relieved of the burden i carried for years as a single parent. it is very freeing. Master especially enjoys me handing over the envelope of cash when i cash my paycheck, heh. Y/you are never more alive as when Y/you are at risk. Master's ~one~ 15 Jul 08, 12:55 PM Ms_Valentine 8 mths 879-717-990 wrote: Ms_Valentine wrote: If IE and TPE imply slavery then financial assets must become the property of the owner as does the slave itself. By definition, property cannot own anything in it's own right. As your profile states that you "don't do slaves or ownership", can i ask if you have owned a slave in the past in real time and what financial arrangement you had with them? slave tsina I have never 'owned' a slave in the sense of the ownership culture we use here for meaning. However, with my 24/7 real time sub, I control all the finances. Spending on non essential items is strictly controlled by me. He has his own bank account (which if I should wish it would become joint) but we share a mortgage etc. He is not allowed to spend more than £20 on any non essential or personal item for himself without my permission. In practical terms, the depth of control I have over my sub is exactly like that of many slaves in their relationships. If I wished, my sub would happily give up all his property to me. I don't wish that and in our relationship it isn't necessary. I have all the control I wish to have. My comments on the way that property can not 'own' its own property comes from logic, not experience. One does not have to have experienced owning a slave to know what, by inherent definition, slaves can or cannot do. Writing just from one's own subjective experience is always as limited as that experience is. Thinking through concepts and being objective can open up debate very productively. 15 Jul 08, 2:00 PM anjuli UK, 18 mths 879-717-990 wrote: Ms_Valentine wrote: If IE and TPE imply slavery then financial assets must become the property of the owner as does the slave itself. By definition, property cannot own anything in it's own right. As your profile states that you "don't do slaves or ownership", can i ask if you have owned a slave in the past in real time and what financial arrangement you had with them? slave tsina It seems I'm on peace missions today! And this is another festering disagreement which seems to be spilling over into every thread in which you both participate. Why is this a valid question? It seems very aggressive and even rude to me altho it was answered with moderation, thankfully. The implication is that without experience one cannot have a valid view which means that you are ruling invalid the views of a large number of people here to learn and who you have elsewhere said you would defend. By this light, anyone who considers themselves a slave by nature who is seeking an owner cannot have a view on slavery because they are not one. Which would neatly hoist by your own petard, on another discussion, I think. And what about you? Are you prepared to offer up your 'credentials' for judgement by the members of this forum? I don't see that you have to and I'm surprised that you got such an open answer to be honest. You have also elsewhere mentioned manners and the lack of them. This pointed questioning of another's status seems to me to be one of those things that is just not done here. I've rarely seen it except in the case of the most obvious trolls. We prefer to take people on their word here and then let them demonstrate their level. The good ones will shine and those who are fakes will hang themselves soon enough so it's a good unspoken rule I think. Can we not just calm things down a little and make discussion a little less confrontational? It is possible to state views and disagree with others without metaphorically smacking them in the mouth - all it takes is a little thought about words and phrasing and a minimum of diplomacy. That way people are forced to think about what they are writing and arguing rather than descending into personal attacks which is all to the benefit for everyone who's here to learn and share. I want to hear from you! I like getting an opposing view that I can debate with someone. So take your own advice and if you really don't like anything one particular person says, then skip her posts and move on? All this confrontation only adds to the fears you talked about for some newbies about posting - and at the moment it's you doing it! Kiss and make up? anjuli ~~~ “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naive or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” - Anais Nin ~~~ Edited 15 Jul 08, 2:02 PM by anjuli Next page