Players vs. Owners (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

sapphirepleasure -> Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 4:57:09 AM)

 I have to give credit to Mstrjx for making me aware of this distinction.  In fact, when I am sorting out my impressions of various doms I encounter, that's one of the questions he asks me:  "Is he a player or an owner?"

It seems that many doms are looking for play only--interludes of D/s without the privileges and responsibilities of ownership.  In some cases, this shift to ownership may happen over time, but I think that there are certain doms who really only seek a play relationship, or to be a 'bedroom dom' with a 'bedroom' submissive.

I am curious about others' thoughts on this matter.  Are there players who 'grow into' owners over time?  Or is there an 'owner mindset' that a more serious dominant has even when playing, looking to eventual ownership of the right slave/sub?  What experiences have you had along this line?

sp



justanotheclaire -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 5:22:53 AM)

my unfortunate experince is some players dream of being owners only to find there sick wives draw them bakc into the fold of nilla life leaving subbie un owned, and trapped by her own unwanted freedom
____________________
 
me? bitter and twisted? the marks of the cane are a friendlier foe than the pain of being unowned.



sapphirepleasure -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 5:28:04 AM)

You bring up a good point, claire, that some doms are not in a position of being an owner for various reasons (real life commitments being one), even though they 'talk the talk' and oftentimes draw a sub/slave into a 'relationship' that can go only so far.

I'm sorry that you were hurt, and I hope you find your heart's desire.



justanotheclaire -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 5:38:01 AM)

shit happens lol
my addvice nowadays is beware married men who promise the world, it is not theres to give



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 6:45:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sapphirepleasure
I am curious about others' thoughts on this matter.  Are there players who 'grow into' owners over time?  Or is there an 'owner mindset' that a more serious dominant has even when playing, looking to eventual ownership of the right slave/sub?  What experiences have you had along this line?

sp

How are you defining player?  It's key to realize that some of the best-known "stars" of the bdsm community, the lecturers, the demo-ers, the activists, etc- are also some of the biggest play sluts with reams of lists of play partners they have had over the years, with absolutely no intention to slow down.

So it's important to realize that someone can have lots and lots of play partners AND still have serious committed relationships simultaneously.

However, I think what you are getting at by "player" is someone who doesn't want any sort of committed relationship at all, JUST the play.  There's nothing at all wrong with this.  In fact I wish far more people enjoyed just playing rather than feeling pressured to commit or make it into some huge deal.

I think it goes both ways- I think some people start off just playing and later realize they have to shit or get off the pot.  I think some people start out way seriously and then realize they don't have the constitution for it and relax into a less rigid commitment.

As always, find someone who works for you.  I don't divide people into "player" and "owner"- I say "Does this feel right for where I am right now?"



mistoferin -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 6:50:47 AM)

I don't think it's any different here than it is outside of BDSM. There are many men....and women....who aren't looking for anything more serious than physical gratification. They find it easily too....both inside and outside of WIITWD because there is a neverending supply of people who are willing. The problem arises when one uses the "dangling carrot" of the possibility of more when they really have no desires or intentions in that direction. Those people have learned that they can easily get what they want by dangling that carrot....and that there will be a neverending shortage of gullible people who will gladly line up and lay down for them. Of course, those gullible people are the ones who are hurt in the end....but usually not enough for them to wise up and not "lie down" for the next opportunist that comes along.



sapphirepleasure -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 7:04:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

How are you defining player?  It's key to realize that some of the best-known "stars" of the bdsm community, the lecturers, the demo-ers, the activists, etc- are also some of the biggest play sluts with reams of lists of play partners they have had over the years, with absolutely no intention to slow down.

So it's important to realize that someone can have lots and lots of play partners AND still have serious committed relationships simultaneously.

However, I think what you are getting at by "player" is someone who doesn't want any sort of committed relationship at all, JUST the play.  There's nothing at all wrong with this.  In fact I wish far more people enjoyed just playing rather than feeling pressured to commit or make it into some huge deal.

I think it goes both ways- I think some people start off just playing and later realize they have to shit or get off the pot.  I think some people start out way seriously and then realize they don't have the constitution for it and relax into a less rigid commitment.

As always, find someone who works for you.  I don't divide people into "player" and "owner"- I say "Does this feel right for where I am right now?"


Thanks so much for your clarification and insight, LA.

You're right about my definition of 'player', and by rights it shouldn't have a necessarily negative connotation.  And as you pointed out, one can be an owner and a player simultaneously. 

Being new to the lifestyle, I am learning to sort out motivations and desires of those who would be involved with me, and determine if we are both wanting the same thing.  In the meantime, I am enjoying engaging with various doms in play, which I think is helping me discover what I want ultimately in a more committed relationship.

I do like your question of 'Does this feel right for me where I am now?'  Sometimes a wonderfully dynamic play relationship is much preferable to a prematurely committed 'ownership' which is not taken seriously.  I am learning to realize though that sometimes it just won't ever move beyond play, even if the dynamics are incredible, because that is not the mindset or desire of the person.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 7:19:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sapphirepleasure

 I have to give credit to Mstrjx for making me aware of this distinction.  In fact, when I am sorting out my impressions of various doms I encounter, that's one of the questions he asks me:  "Is he a player or an owner?"

It seems that many doms are looking for play only--interludes of D/s without the privileges and responsibilities of ownership.  In some cases, this shift to ownership may happen over time, but I think that there are certain doms who really only seek a play relationship, or to be a 'bedroom dom' with a 'bedroom' submissive.

I am curious about others' thoughts on this matter.  Are there players who 'grow into' owners over time?  Or is there an 'owner mindset' that a more serious dominant has even when playing, looking to eventual ownership of the right slave/sub?  What experiences have you had along this line?sp


This is a time when I agree with L.A..  There are many players out there, be they vanilla or BDSM-oriented.  I know... I went through my own time of being labelled as one.  But, just out of curiousity,  let's look at a couple of the reasons someone might get  labelled a player:  A dominant tells submissives that he is interested in a LTR.  Said dominant and submissive get into a relationship.  Along the way, the dominant finds too many things that he has to keep correcting with the submissive or too many times the submissive wants to set the submissive role aside and 'be serious' over this issue because it doesn't 'really involve' D/s but rather the two humans or that he and the submissive are unable to resolve philosophical/spiritual/financial/etc. beliefs and so he ends the relationship and moves on.  Now, in this submissive's mind and perhaps that of others, he is a player.  Maybe for him, it WAS all a game used to get what he wanted for awhile.  Pretty elaborate but maybe that's what it was.  Or maybe, he in all honesty knew that it would not work over the long haul and so, rather than keep hanging on to something that wasn't fulfilling his needs...or hers, he moved on after attempting to fix it.   Nahhhhh, he's a player.
Submissive wants a relationship but not to the extent of ownership or marriage.  She makes this clear from the outset.  Dominant enters into relationship with her.  Begins trying to coerce her into more serious relationship...examples of coercion:  "MOST women really do want to be married".  "Think of how much more sure of each other we'd be with some kind of legitimized standing".  "Think of how hard this is on your kids...not knowing what I am to you."  Submissive decides she's had enough of coercion and shows said dominant the door.  Moves on to another dominant who is more understanding of exactly what she is seeking.  In the first dominant's mind, she is a "player".  Or a gold-digger.  Or a rea-life slut (not the good kind).  Or all of the above, making her a "real player". 
Are these two people...the dominant in the first example and the submissive in the second example...players?  To the ex-partners described above, yeah.  To some other people, yeah.  To others, no.  Like I noted, yeah...there are players.  There are those out there who come across as very serious, thus getting their foot in the door, who have no intention other than playing for awhile.  There are others who make it quite clear that they like to play a lot, with various partners, but who maintain a serious relationship.  As L.A. noted, many times these people are labeled as players but are they really?  Or are they labelled that way by people who think their way of life is wrong?  There are also those out there who know what they want and are quite specific about it but who, because they don't measure up to someone else's expectations and so they move on, are labelled this way unfairly. 

I've learned to be real careful in my life about who I would label in this way. 



Viper001 -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 8:00:32 AM)

quote:


I have to give credit to Mstrjx for making me aware of this distinction. In fact, when I am sorting out my impressions of various doms I encounter, that's one of the questions he asks me: "Is he a player or an owner?"

It seems that many doms are looking for play only--interludes of D/s without the privileges and responsibilities of ownership. In some cases, this shift to ownership may happen over time, but I think that there are certain doms who really only seek a play relationship, or to be a 'bedroom dom' with a 'bedroom' submissive.


Being a player *and* an owner, I fail to see where one is better or worse than the other. Perhaps I'm having a "dense moment", but as long as the expectations of the relationship/play are clearly understood by both parties involved - and the terms of the negotiations are adhered to - there should be no problem.
On the flip side, I've run into a few situations where the other person's expectations/desires changed over the course of time. This *did* create problems.

A local, single, submissive requests that she is allowed to be "in service" to me whenever all of us happen to be in the same dungeon/club/playparty (frequency varied, but averaged once or twice monthly). Not a problem for either myself or my wife/slave, the negotiation/understanding was clear and defined. "Ownership" limited to a specific circumstance. In my own mind, this is more play than genuine ownership, as my influence and responsibilities don't extend beyond the club/party.
Several months down the road, this is no longer enough interaction for the submissive. She now wants more PE during her/our daily lives.
My own expectations/understanding had not changed. Her's had. Am I then a "player", in the negative connotation, for standing by the terms of the original negotiation?

immho, "player vs. owner" isn't always a valid synonym for "right vs. wrong" or "bad vs. good".
Clear expectations/communications and integrity (or lack thereof) would seem to be more important than the label.

Regards,
RFJM








MasterFireMaam -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 9:50:20 AM)

Many, many people begin as players. I did and it was satisfying for quite a while. I am now an Owner. Of course, stating such makes no comment on where I feel I am, or how well I feel I am doing, on that journey.

Master Fire



Lordandmaster -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 9:52:53 AM)

Interesting question.  I used to be more of a player when I started out, but I don't think that's because I "grew into" being an owner.  I think I was always an owner, and it just took me some time to understand the difference and to move away from something that wasn't fulfilling me.

It's a great distinction.  Whose terminology is it?  Mstrjx's?



BrutalAntipathy -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 10:11:56 AM)

Interesting thread. I seem to remember one similar to it from before. I also have some advice from that one. Whatever you do, don't offer the opinion that you consider the players to be weekend ass slappers!. I got reamed by every week....umm.....player on here for that one, heh heh! You are allowed your own opinion only so long as it conforms to the general mindset of the herd.
 
Just my dos pesos.



Elegant -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 10:14:17 AM)

Some people have no interest in D/s or M/s..they are just sadists. Nothing wrong with that.

Some people have no interest in S/m play...D/s or M/s is their thing. Yes, it's true!

Takes all kinds.



popeye1250 -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 10:17:10 AM)

I got all the "playing" out of my system years ago.
I like the feeling of being an Owner more now and just to one sub/slave.
I just don't think I could be a Master to more than one. Some can do it I guess, there are those in this site that own more than one slave.
I'm not poly so it just wouldn't work for me and it wouldn't be fair to my sub/slave I think for me to have her and be concentrating on another.
And yes, there's a lot of players in this and other sites of course, married guys who just like to fool around.



thetammyjo -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 10:17:41 AM)

I don't think its a matter of one being something you grow into or not. Its a matter of what you want, what you can do, and whether or not you find a compatible partner.

Just wanting to be an owner means nothing if you have no one who is willing and desires to be owned.

Wanting to play means nothing if you have no one to play with.

Then there is the matter of how much you want BDSM to be intergrated into your life.

For most people this is really just fun, sexy, hot, fun. They may want certain fetish components or role playing scenarios that just aren't going to fly on a 24/7 basis. Better to enjoy the play than become bummed cause it isn't what you wanted.

For a few it really is more about the dynamics of the relationship, any playing is just frosting on the cake, something they could take or leave.

For others they try to balance things either within one relationship or with multiple relationships.



subgrrl222 -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 10:30:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sapphirepleasure

I do like your question of 'Does this feel right for me where I am now?'  Sometimes a wonderfully dynamic play relationship is much preferable to a prematurely committed 'ownership' which is not taken seriously. 


i very much agree with this statement.  Speaking from a personal standpoint, i am not able to enter into a committed type of ownership.  i divorced last year from 9 years of marriage and am hesitant to enter into another any time in the near future.  Although i do have a committed relationship with Sir, i am not owned (a very subjective term that will mean very different things to everyone) and would hesitate to do be so since extenuating circumstances would not allow me to give a majority of myself into my ownership.  And although i would take such an ownership seriously, i wouldn't be able to give it the attention it demands and deserves. 
Sir and i have a wonderful play relationship and He is also my best friend.  But i would consider us neither owners or players.  It works out well for us right now.



Viper001 -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 12:36:14 PM)

quote:

Sir and i have a wonderful play relationship and He is also my best friend. But i would consider us neither owners or players. It works out well for us right now.


Congratulations. [:D]
For being in a relationship that works for you. And for nailing the bottom line - if it works, it doesn't really matter what label is applied or by whom.

With respect,
Viper_001



Wildfleurs -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 12:36:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sapphirepleasure
I am curious about others' thoughts on this matter.  Are there players who 'grow into' owners over time?  Or is there an 'owner mindset' that a more serious dominant has even when playing, looking to eventual ownership of the right slave/sub?  What experiences have you had along this line?


I think as individuals we have a large capacity to be many things to different people. 

When my owner and I first began dating a long time ago we were both fresh from relationships so neither of us wanted anything serious.  Over time and life happening things changed in ways that I don't think either of us expected or planned.

So I wouldn't suggest assuming that someone who likes to play casually can become an owner, but on the other hand sometimes things happen.

C~



Bearlee -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 12:49:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I got all the "playing" out of my system years ago.
I like the feeling of being an Owner more now and just to one sub/slave.
I just don't think I could be a Master to more than one. Some can do it I guess, there are those in this site that own more than one slave.
I'm not poly so it just wouldn't work for me and it wouldn't be fair to my sub/slave I think for me to have her and be concentrating on another.
And yes, there's a lot of players in this and other sites of course, married guys who just like to fool around.


Hmmmmmmmm... I often use the word 'play' to define what I do in my garden, or when I cook, or even hiking in the woods.  I say I play in the dirt, I play in my kitchen, I play in the woods; I play with friends.
 
Were I to ‘scene’ with a friend at a club or in private; I’d likely call it play.  I dunno why, but scene seems ‘contrived’ to me…perhaps like roll-play.  I don’t have much experience with that.  So…I use the term ‘play’.
 
Were I to someday belong to someone, I doubt I’d be playing with others…but I would certainly hope he’d play with me now and then!  LOL  I likes floggers and whips and canes and things!!!
 
In THIS context...would you 'play'?
 
beverly



mstrjx -> RE: Players vs. Owners (8/24/2006 1:51:34 PM)

I think most who have responded here have a sense of what is being said, labels or not.

When you enter into a 'relationship', what is your expectation going in?

Years ago when I had more of a public presence I would be asked from time to time to 'entertain' another Dom's sub.  Sometimes the Dom would be present, other times not.  Loosely speaking, this is still a relationship of sorts.

So going back to the question, when you go to meet someone, are you looking to get together for an afternoon or evening of 'whatever', then part friends?  To use Bearlee's wording, scening.  If that's what everyone wants, all well and good.

If you want something more like a long-term relationship, or a 24/7 situation, then that is something else.

No, this isn't a 'one is better than the other' sort of discussion.

The OP is about expectations.  Yes, expectations can change.  Growth together can occur.  People can move in opposing directions as well, and relationship fail.  It's not much different than when people start dating considering marriage and one person wants children and the other person doesn't.  Doesn't that smack of poor negotiation from the get-go?

LAM, yes this distinction is one that has come from me to assist sapphire in determining her future endeavors.  The use of the term 'owner' CAN imply in the M/s  sense, because that is how sapphire identifies, but in the broader sense 'owner' really implies an established couple (or more) relationship.

I think it's fair, if a person wants a LTR or more situation to consider whether getting together with someone for 'play' or to 'scene' a value to their time.  I say this because I know that, to give an example, the way that I play creates the potential for an emotional bond rather quickly.  For myself, I would much prefer a relationship than a series of play partners.  So I, responsibly, evaluate my opportunities as ones which are likely to grow vs. ones that are not.

I would think everyone would have (or give) the same consideration.  But then, we do live in the fantasy realm, don't we?

Jeff



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.2207031