Dear jessi:

I took great care to be clear regarding the context of My post and addressing things like government or employers owning people takes it way out of that context.  I think it would be a lot of fun and delightfully entertaining to go down that road with you, but in a separate thread if you’d like.  If you Google Merriam-Webster Dictionary you should have no problem finding it.  You will see the definition they give is “To have power or mastery�?and the example they give of applying this definition is someone wanting to own one’s life.
 
As I looked through credible sources such as the Cambridge, Oxford, American Heritage, and Merriam Webster dictionaries, I found most of the old familiar definitions that define owning or ownership in terms of legal property.  Like many other words, however, own and its derivatives have more than one definition allowing for a variety of applications, independent and distinct from each other.  For example, this definition might be applied accurately with regard to a hockey game; “the outcome of the game was decided by their ownership of the neutral zone;�?describing how someone might taunt an opponent by saying “I own you;�?or referring to a musician as in “he owned the audience with his stellar performance.�?nbsp; It simply means to have power, influence, control, or mastery over.

By not describing ownership in terms of legally held property, any concerns over the exclusion of free will or the independence of choices and actions are rendered moot by this definition and its applications.  These aspects are simply non-issues and, therefore, do not require linguistic gymnastics to establish validity of the definition.  Furthermore, this definition is not contingent on any measure of completeness or totality of one’s power or influence.  Your comments that we can “own a piece of another's heart�?or “take some ownership in another's actions�?are accurate, valid, and well said within this definition.

The definition’s succinct simplicity and purity I noted previously becomes even clearer when it is applied in the context of D/s.  It easily and accurately embraces an aspect of power exchange that many experience without sinking into the quagmire of qualifying terminology like no limits, no rights, or consensual non-consent.  It is not encumbered by the weight of creating an explanation of slavery, which is irrelevant to the accurate application of the definition.

Moreover, it dispels the notion that anyone who experiences something she identifies as a state of ownership or possession is merely some silly girl dallying in fantasy and romanticism by submitting to the power, control, and/or mastery of another.  It might just be a competent, strong, intelligent, fully grown woman, maybe like annie for instance, who by freely choosing to yield to the power and mastery present in her relationship, recognizes, even momentarily, she is owned.  Just as that exchange of power and mastery are real and valid, so too is the experience of being owned or possessed by it.

Finally, just for a tease jessi, I wonder if some business owners might feel owned by local or state government’s never ending imposition of regulations, codes, and requirements.