In a prior post I reflected on why so-called "Masters" end up begging their "slaves," for money; and how, on account of that, "slaves" end up dominating "masters" by telling them what to do in exchange for money (because ultimately slaves pay for something). If the two parts enjoy being in that position, that's fine. Who cares? But I guess the very idea of Tribute (which is supposed to mediante slave-master relationship) fades away to be replaced by a mere Tip. A tribute must come from the slave's deepest necessity to satisfy his master and make him happy. Maters should never ever ask their slaves for money. Slaves should always offer tributes, not plain money. Of course money can be a tribute but the meaning of tribute should not be limited to just $$. A slave must know what makes his Master happy. A tribute can take the shape of money, but it needs to come from the slave's will and the deepest of his heart without being asked for. It cannot be an exchange although at the end the slave will feel accomplished because he has made his Master happy. The nature of being a slave has found meaning, purpose and raison d'être. That must be enough for the slave. But it will never be enough for the Master. Tributes feed slave-master relationship. Plain Money for the sake of money turn it into a market transaction between a buyer and a seller. Why is it so difficult to find a slave who understands that?
Lots of slaves apparently dream of being dominated, controlled and owned "in all aspects of life" and several Masters long for a slave of that sort. But when it comes to cash slavery I've noticed that these intentions ("in all aspects of life") get blurry and I am not sure whether the Master is actually controlling the $lave or it is the other way around. What kind of slave is that who sets "terms and conditions" to his master and decides when to worship and tribute him? What kind of Master is that who only wants his $lave's money? I guess in this case there is no real ownership, control, or domination at stake. It's just the "$lave" paying his "Master" to entertain him. The "$lave" ends up controlling his "Master" and making him play "Master" in exchange of some coins. I know, I know, there is no only one single way to be in a slave/master relationship and as long as the two of them are happy and satisfied that's more than ok. I also know that most of this type of relationships are confined to the realm of fantasy and imagination. That's more than ok as well. But this gives me the feeling that not everyone really sees ownership as a state of mind "in all aspects of life", but as a role-playing game. What a shame.
I have noticed that a lot of people think that a Dom/Sub relationship is the same thing as Ownership. I disagree with that, but that's just my personal opinion, which is based on my own experience. I see Dom/Sub as a type of relationship that revolves around sex, and ownership as a mental state. Of course, ownership usually involves sex, but that cannot be the only way to materialize it. Of course, Dom/Sub can turn into something beyond sex, but it grows out of sex and does not necessarily involves other aspects of everyday life. Ownership is a state of mind insofar as it permeates your whole life and reaches the deepest of you. Being owned entails giving in, giving up, and the loss of both will and autonomy. Yet, to own entails the responsibility to set boundaries, govern, and conduct in a wise manner. Ownership is as much about desire and emotion as it is about rationality and common sense. That's why I consider degradation and derogatory approaches as against ownership because you don't destroy what belongs to you. That's irrational. Discipline was created to maintain order, but that order needs to be built upon a minimum rational agreement. So ownership, I believe, works as long as it is fueled by your mind, your heart, and your desire at once. That's why Dom/Sub relationships are meaningless to me because they're more of sexually-driven power relations that are devoid of any solid rationality and prospect. Nothing is more disappointing that someone who approaches you for the first time with a pic of their ass hole in a submissive position. Some people meet and enjoy that and that's totally fine. But don't call that ownership. This is just my opinion.
Ownership is usually associated with humiliation, aggression, derogatory approaches, and unfair authority. If this is such a widely accepted idea is because it works very well for many. And that's cool. But I recently had a different experience. I owned a slave who not only wanted to serve me but also to find protection and affection. He loved me because I was everything to him but also because I treated him with affection. Affection made him docile, loyal, like a little innocent dog. He lost his will, he devoted himself to me with love. He knew he was mine and he served me with so much pleasure and joy... He wanted to be in my arms and feel that I protected him. I was everything to him. Being owned was his most important achievement. Ownership was the most important form of affection to my beloved slave.
