Thinking hurts.

For a considerable time, seems like for ever actually, I have been pondering some thoughts about the label  'Owner/ property relationships' . In the FL O/p group, for the sake of commonality, we define our group being for co-resident, 24/7, TPE, consensual non-consent slaves and owners. In principle, I have no real issue with this, but I do feel it leaves a lot of room for not only interpretation but also in relation to the extent of the power exchange.

Ever a person who is a walking contradiction, I dislike labels but also feel there needs to be a common understanding for the sake of discourse, and perhaps one label may not be sufficient to cover such a wide range. In the O/p group there are a very diverse range of O/p relationships. This is of course absolutely fine, as diversity is a good thing, we are all individuals and each of our relationships are unique to ourselves. But I do sometimes wonder if Owner/ property is actually the best label.

For a start, a person can own something but have limited or no control over it. The 'property' may be at the same location but there may be limited activity or no activity at all in relation to the power exchange. I keep asking myself different questions, but there is no absolute. Things like, if a person tells another they want to be their property and the other person accepts, if the owner never or rarely exerts any power over their property is an O/p relationship? Under the group definition as long as they were co-resident, 24/7 and agreed to the TPE, then it would fit, but would it actually be a power exchange relationship in anything other than name?

If a person is permitted a wide range of free will, are they in a TPE relationship? Or should it perhaps more accurately be described as a partial power exchange relationship?

If an owner, only ever requires their property to do things they either want to do or are comfortable with is this a TPE relationship ? Is it sufficient for there to be just the intent rather than the actual operation of the TPE?

Basically, if I was permitted to pretty much do as I please, to what extent would I be property, even if my owner was happy for this? Conversely, if a property does not do as it is told is it still in an O/p relationship or does it depend on the outcome eg whether they are either eventually forced into doing it or have to be disciplined for non compliance and then made to do it?

There are those who believe they are slaves even though they have no Master/ Mistress or anyone else influencing their lives, so how does this differ to property that might not be actively required to actually yield any control?

It is not a case of someone being slavier than someone else, it is more a case of defining the differences. It certainly seems to me that O/p has gone the same way as the original M/s and D/s definitions, ie they are now used on the internet to mean whatever anyone wants them to mean or are applied willy nilly by people, particularly the wannabees.

What seems to me to be a constant in any of the relationship types is the power exchange, at one end of the scale there is 'time' and 'extent' limited power exchange, such as a 'scene' through to relationships where there is no limit on time or extent of the power exchange.

The other factor which perhaps may influence the differences might be the extent of how much and how often a property is utilised against what would have been considered to be their chosen activities/ behaviours etc eg how much control is actually active, as opposed to a more passive type of PE.

I would think there might be some significant differences between the stresses, reactions, problems and physical strains placed on a property who is actively utilised and one in a more passive/less active role. If only 10% of time is spent on doing things a person might not like/ enjoy/ find difficult etc it might be easier to deal with the O/p relationship as opposed to someone who has greater percentage usage. Is that relevant?

Maybe, the key lies in defining the extent of the power exchange rather than the persons involved. If this was the case then at one end of the scale would be partial power exchange and at the other TPE where there is no limits on time, extent of the power exchange ie no limits and the power exchange is always active both in a physical and psychological context.

So I've raised myself a lot of questions, but come to no conclusions.