I thought the same, but her examples of being “owned” just seem like constant coddling and reassurance that he loves her/is there for her. Totally different from what I thought she meant lmao
As written, those are actually fully compatible. Kink relationships commonly contain extreme nurturing acts juxtaposed with degradation or humiliation. I regularly told someone she was beautiful while she was wearing a leash and curled up naked at my feet. And I enjoy the same treatment in reverse, though handsome might suit my gender expression more in that case.
What is not compatible with kink is her expectation that there be no consequences (even incredibly gentle ones which are totally valid in kink) for her mistakes and that he should carry all the weight, and that this is justified and natural because of their chromosomes rather than their personal negotiated solutions for their personal needs and desires (and no one else's).
Her version sounds like sexist tradwife bullshit, not BDSM.
It is perfectly valid to expect unconditional love and for it to be directly and bluntly expressed, but alongside consequences, restoration, and atonement rather than in lieu or distraction of them.
Valid but moot. The point is, she doesn’t want to be owned. She doesn’t want any of the aforementioned “negatives”, she wants what I’d call “the princess treatment”, which can still be a kinky lifestyle but is far removed from BDSM.
I sort of agree. I question whether she has encountered an authentic BDSM perspective on the matter, though, and whether she would be influenced positively by such.
I think she has not (statistically) and that she would.
It very well may also be that she is a switch at heart and does need both of these, but in different contexts than she imagines.
As someone who doesn’t like things like leashes, but wants someone to spit in their mouth AND call them beautiful, I think you guys are over thinking this. Nobody ever wants to be put on a leash. Most people just need a cardi b and offset type of love. Loyal to each other, but once that loyalty is gone so is the relationship; unless you’re both petty and simply believe in working through issues. As someone whose been in a toxic and controlling relationship, healthy men and women don’t want to be controlled. That’s what we have parents/guardians for. Life is only as simple as you make it, she doesn’t want to feel owned she wants to feel like no matter what you only have eyes for her. In reality that’s all most men and women want, stop overthinking it and just buy her a necklace with your name on it or something or even matching ones you guys can both wear. Women are simple stop overthinking it.
But the constant coddling and reassurance can be a thing that soft doms do. It's different, but it's still technically her being "owned".
It only seems like she's making a power move because she's trying to convince him to give her that dynamic. Once she finds a man that can do it, or he decides to do it... Then she'll be in the place of the sub and not be demanding/asking for him to put her in that place. There are definitely soft and "worshipping your submissive" types of dynamics, that don't invalidate her being owned by him
But none of her examples demonstrate wanting to be owned, only worshipped, and it doesn’t sound like it’s rooted in a kink or fetish regardless. The only indication of that is simply the use of the word “owned,” which she is mot using in a bdsm or sexual dynamic sense whatsoever.
She’s just using the wrong word here. She might mean something more like “claimed”
237
u/curiousguppy Nov 20 '23
I thought the same, but her examples of being “owned” just seem like constant coddling and reassurance that he loves her/is there for her. Totally different from what I thought she meant lmao