Control is not Ownership

[lostInSwizzerland]

There is something fascinating about the dynamics of power in BDSM, but I think there is also something people sometimes misunderstand.

Control and ownership are not the same thing.

Control is something you negotiate, something you give and receive within boundaries. Ownership, at least in the D/s world, can be a much deeper psychological connection. It can represent trust, belonging and the desire to surrender a part of yourself to someone who understands the responsibility that comes with it.

But here’s where things get interesting.

How can you claim control over someone if you don’t know how to respect their limits?

For me, a Dominant isn’t defined by how much authority he demands, but by how responsibly he handles the power someone chooses to give him.

Consent isn’t the boring conversation that happens before the fun begins. It’s what makes the entire experience possible.

Knowing someone’s limits, understanding their vulnerabilities, recognising when to stop and being able to distinguish between a playful resistance and a genuine boundary are not signs of weakness. They’re part of the responsibility.

And perhaps the most interesting contradiction is this:

A submissive may surrender control, but that doesn’t mean they surrender their right to choose.

So I’m curious about your perspective:

Is ownership about having someone, or about being trusted with something that person willingly gives you?

And where do you personally draw the line between dominance, control and possession?

[st****]

Some people don't even understand control. Control is given, not taken.

[da****]

Great question. From the perspective of a sub, dominance, control and possession can exist together and is given not taken. My perspective is that the line is individual based on the subs experience and desires. The line is crossed when it becomes undesired. It becomes abusive when it goes beyond the subs desires and boundaries at that point it is taken not given.

Another way to think about it is within the definitions of how you treat people. PASSIVE; giving up your rights. PASSIVE-***; manipulating others into your will. ASSERTIVE; asking for what you want while respecting the rights of others. Including accepting “no”. AGGRESSIVE; taking what you want without consideration of the rights of others.

[lostInSwizzerland]

7 minuti fa, daytimeplayer said:

Great question. From the perspective of a sub, dominance, control and possession can exist together and is given not taken. My perspective is that the line is individual based on the subs experience and desires. The line is crossed when it becomes undesired. It becomes abusive when it goes beyond the subs desires and boundaries at that point it is taken not given.

Another way to think about it is within the definitions of how you treat people. PASSIVE; giving up your rights. PASSIVE-***; manipulating others into your will. ASSERTIVE; asking for what you want while respecting the rights of others. Including accepting “no”. AGGRESSIVE; taking what you want without consideration of the rights of others.

I like your perspective, especially the distinction between what is given and what is taken.

But I would add one thought: perhaps the real test of dominance isn’t how much control someone is willing to give you, but how responsibly you handle that control.

Anyone can enjoy being obeyed. It takes a different kind of confidence to respect a boundary, accept a refusal and still remain dominant.

To me, submission is an act of trust, not a surrender of personal worth. And a Dom who understands that doesn’t need to prove ownership by pushing limits.

Power may be offered, but the responsibility that comes with it cannot be ignored.

[da****]

Yes. Agreed 100%. Everything your saying is wrapped up in respecting your sub. It is a skill set that requires the DOM to have self-awareness of their own personality and responsibilities that impact the dynamic. No one is perfect but the ability to hear and consider feedback can be crucial. Which in and of itself is a skill. In the same breath a subs ability to say what they mean and mean what they say is also a skill. (Applies to both actually). Very dynamic as in any relationship.

[da****]

Love Bern BTY! Favorite place in the world so far is Junfrau region.

[da****]

*BTW

[da****]

*Jungfrau

[BZ****]

I think the fundamental point is that submission has never been about powerlessness. Quite the opposite. It is about having the self-awareness, confidence and freedom to make a conscious decision to give someone a degree of power over you because you consider that person worthy of receiving it.
A submissive does not surrender their worth, identity or autonomy. They offer something that belongs to them, and that offering is a privilege, not an entitlement.
For me, the distinction between control and ownership lies precisely there. A Dominant does not become worthy of someone's submission simply because they demand authority, nor does the submissive become powerless because they choose to yield it. The power exists because it is willingly given, and the responsibility lies with the person receiving it to honour that trust.
And perhaps that is the most beautiful contradiction of submission: the submissive retains the ultimate power of choice, even when choosing to surrender control.

The is a poster I read somewhere and said it perfectly:
Being submissive has never been about being powerless. It is about the conscious decision to gift that power to the person you deem most worthy of it.

I would add just one more thing: not everyone who wants to hold that power has earned the privilege of receiving it. And knowing the difference is perhaps the greatest strength a submissive can possess.

[lostInSwizzerland]

49 minuti fa, BZBEE said:

I think the fundamental point is that submission has never been about powerlessness. Quite the opposite. It is about having the self-awareness, confidence and freedom to make a conscious decision to give someone a degree of power over you because you consider that person worthy of receiving it.
A submissive does not surrender their worth, identity or autonomy. They offer something that belongs to them, and that offering is a privilege, not an entitlement.
For me, the distinction between control and ownership lies precisely there. A Dominant does not become worthy of someone's submission simply because they demand authority, nor does the submissive become powerless because they choose to yield it. The power exists because it is willingly given, and the responsibility lies with the person receiving it to honour that trust.
And perhaps that is the most beautiful contradiction of submission: the submissive retains the ultimate power of choice, even when choosing to surrender control.

The is a poster I read somewhere and said it perfectly:
Being submissive has never been about being powerless. It is about the conscious decision to gift that power to the person you deem most worthy of it.

I would add just one more thing: not everyone who wants to hold that power has earned the privilege of receiving it. And knowing the difference is perhaps the greatest strength a submissive can possess.

I agree with you, especially with the idea that submission is a gift rather than a surrender of identity or self-worth.

But I would add one thought: being worthy of someone’s submission is not something a Dominant earns once and keeps forever. It is something that must be demonstrated continuously, through consistency, awareness and responsibility.

Trust can open the door, but behaviour determines whether someone deserves to remain inside.

Perhaps true dominance isn’t about how much control you can obtain, but about how carefully you handle the power someone has chosen to give you.

[BZ****]

1 hour ago, lostInSwizzerland said:

I agree with you, especially with the idea that submission is a gift rather than a surrender of identity or self-worth.

But I would add one thought: being worthy of someone’s submission is not something a Dominant earns once and keeps forever. It is something that must be demonstrated continuously, through consistency, awareness and responsibility.

Trust can open the door, but behaviour determines whether someone deserves to remain inside.

Perhaps true dominance isn’t about how much control you can obtain, but about how carefully you handle the power someone has chosen to give you.

I agree …. There is a devotion and deep reverence I have for a Sub that can trust another human …

A Dom is only worthy of surrender once he/she understands and truly feels that reverence and gratitude.

Surrendering is not a weakness … on the contrary - it takes extreme courage to surrender oneself to another !

Very few Doms ever achieve that understanding ! Glad to see you understood ❣️

[lostInSwizzerland]

2 minuti fa, BZBEE said:

I agree …. There is a devotion and deep reverence I have for a Sub that can trust another human …

A Dom is only worthy of surrender once he/she understands and truly feels that reverence and gratitude.

Surrendering is not a weakness … on the contrary - it takes extreme courage to surrender oneself to another !

Very few Doms ever achieve that understanding ! Glad to see you understood ❣️

🖤thank

[Oh****]

I agree. Giving up control and surrendering is completely different. I can give control pretty easily. I have yet to find a Dom that understands the difference. I haven't stopped looking but I'm starting to question if it's actually worth it. Maybe someday.

[Mi****]

I agree with your thinking. Especially about the responsibility to a sub. I am always under the belief that a sub is never really a sub until they trust you to take the reigns. Possession/ownership is a category unto itself and can exist inside of and outside of a dom/sub relationship, and can be a good or bad thing. And being a Dom does not mean ownership, nor does it have to mean mutually exclusive to that sub and vice versa.

[Sw****]

Dominance is a characteristic it doesn’t automatically mean you can make every sub submit.

Control is variable and deeply linked to consent. A sub can always withdraw their submission taking away a doms control. They have a right to adjusting the control offered according to the limits they consented to and the ones they might discover. As for the brats they will always test your control. 😏 Spicy little fuckers. Even so we should remember the human first, know your sub. Sometimes a routine scene can impact them differently or they forget to use a safe word. Control is nice but keeping a good sub is better.

Possession/Ownership can override control but only because a sub has established such a deep connection that they may trust a dom to control the environments and scenes around them. This requires the most responsibility and trust because subs can offer so much it harms themselves if given to the wrong person. Ownership isn’t obtained by having a sub, the sub must choose you. Submission is a gift not a guarantee. The sub always has power in a dynamic.

[Te****]

OP, I really like your way of thinking and how well you seem to just *Get* it. It's beautiful and all too rare, so reading your thoughts lights a little flame of hope in my heart that perhaps, some day, I will find myself a partner who thinks like this, too. And he will not regret it, because of the ocean of love and service and pleasure that'll await him in my arms when he earns my trust.❤️🙏🕯️

[ce****]

To me, a sub with full self mastery and understanding of their own psyche is setting the rules of engagement by the amount of control over the process that they allow. A good Dom should respect the level of control given, not ownership, but pleasure out of the amount of psychological surrender submitted. I've noticed many call themselves D's but are looking for ownership vs respecting the sovereignty and ability of a sub to knowingly, willingly give over control of the psyche and then gently be led back into control. That's a TON of power and trust to hand over to someone. It should be respected and handled responsibly.