Link: http://j.mp/wp-ownership
Consent that can be withdrawn at any time generally is. There’s no real ownership or even power in pandering just to consent. Consent is the initiator, and it’s often spoken about as if there’s only one universal form of it, but there are two very different kinds of consent: the consent to being used, treated in a certain manner with limits outlined and respected. This is extrinsic consent, the consenting to external power, treatment and influence. There is no dependence here: the sub or slave can withdraw consent to any particular treatment, which may or may not end in termination of the service or session.
But for ownership as property to be fully realised what a sub or slave also needs to consent to is internal imprisonment, having no independence of self, no immediate escape, for only then can real ownership and the Master’s real power begin. This is intrinsic consent and the dependence it creates is not so easy to withdraw from. Intrinsic consent is a lot more common than many realise. It exists in equal loving relationships, too. The partner who cheats and gets forgiven is often forgiven because the cheated partner can’t stop loving the cheat and doesn’t want to go through life without them. Intrinsic love, that person’s “heart”, we say, is holding that person prisoner to the cheat – when cheating is something you’d think was cast iron proof the love wasn’t equal – and if the cheated partner wasn’t in love, that person would be able to withdraw all extrinsic consent and walk away.
The Owner/property relationship model has a similar form of intrinsic consent which creates a deep psychological dependency, and from the Bible and the Roman Empire to the modern world, you guessed it, it’s achieved through physical and financial means:
Male property today may have a nest egg, one maintained by the Owner, savings, wages that are handed over to the Owner, but if the owned party can’t directly get to those funds, they are dependent and they are owned. They may have items that the Owner allows them to use, borrow or even ‘own’ (including any clothes that may be worn), but being fully owned property, in real terms, that’s all subject to his Owner’s approval at all times. The property may be kept indoors or only allowed to work from home with all movement monitored. He may be fed as and when the Master decides, even the use of a toilet or shower may be conditional on the slave’s submission and behaviour. Freedom of speech? Freedom of thought? They’re for equal independent humans, not intrinsically owned dependent property. If someone intrinsically owned as property has them at all, it’s subject to the Owner’s approval or whims and moods.
If the saying that property can’t independently own property is true, then a person as property can’t own things and if that property needs certain items in order to function in certain capacities and the only source for those items is the Owner, then that property can consider itself dependent on that Owner, and when those things include the basics such as food, shelter, sleep, (going back to the basic animal ‘eat, shit, and sleep’ model) that person is truly owned down to the bear necessities of life.
I can’t imagine this being comfortable reading for many but we are talking about ownership here, of turning free people into property. So whatever the rights and wrongs are, we’re back at defining ownership as property in pecuniary/financial and possessed terms, which historically, in the Roman Empire and the Bible, is what it was all about.
Great when history goes full circle, isn’t it, Sir?
I’ll get the whip now, Sir 🙂
—
Chapter 1: Why Masters Can’t Find Male Property
Chapter 2: Purchase Your Own Male Property