quote:

When two people "work together", there is movement from both people towards the other (I submit this is true by definition).  Such movement, to my way of thinking, requires a middle ground of some kind...in effect, a third outcome, a third alternative to the draconian dictum of "Obey or Leave".

Where is the bilateral movement in "Obey or Leave"?    What is the third alternative this dictum establishes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I am curious how you get to "two people working together" from "Obey or Leave". 

quote:

When two people "work together", there is movement from both people towards the other (I submit this is true by definition).  Such movement, to my way of thinking, requires a middle ground of some kind...in effect, a third outcome, a third alternative to the draconian dictum of "Obey or Leave".

Where is the bilateral movement in "Obey or Leave"?    What is the third alternative this dictum establishes?

CL,
I'll respond assuming the disobedience was systemic and not the result of a; "don't peek from behind the blindfold" type, one time, situation.

In that case, the third isn't an alternative, but rather a pragmatic statement of fact. Dissolving the union is only a formality once the basic dynamic is gone. If "obey" is a relationship requirement and "disobey" becomes the norm - 'Elvis has left the building' anyway. The physical departure is only a formality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I am curious how you get to "two people working together" from "Obey or Leave". 

quote:

When two people "work together", there is movement from both people towards the other (I submit this is true by definition).  Such movement, to my way of thinking, requires a middle ground of some kind...in effect, a third outcome, a third alternative to the draconian dictum of "Obey or Leave".

Where is the bilateral movement in "Obey or Leave"?    What is the third alternative this dictum establishes?

CL,
I'll respond assuming the disobedience was systemic and not the result of a; "don't peek from behind the blindfold" type, one time, situation.

In that case, the third isn't an alternative, but rather a pragmatic statement of fact. Dissolving the union is only a formality once the basic dynamic is gone. If "obey" is a relationship requirement and "disobey" becomes the norm - 'Elvis has left the building' anyway. The physical departure is only a formality.

I quite agree with this.  It is also the difficulty I have had with the hypothetical scenario originally stated.  Granted, I am quibbling over semantics, but the basic premise of "Obey or Leave" in my mind just doesn't leave much room for a relationship dynamic.

Fundamentally, I just don't see that MadRabbit's original premise works well as a foundation or even a basis of understanding for the relationship.  It is narrow and categorical, and relationships (if they are healthy) are anything but.

Perhaps this is why I notice that, in answering his original post, each of us has modified the scenario at least somewhat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
I am not so narrow minded or black and white a person as to think relationships work in such simple terms.

quote:

I wouldn't get into an obey or leave dynamic. Most people do not want to be owners, they want to be service receivers. If they have to dominate anyone the dynamic falls to pieces, because they can't. Emotional blackmail of obey or you are gone is the best they can do. I'd take that as a sign that no dominant lived there, thank my lucky stars I figured it out and glady take my leave. Anybody can attempt to control someone with threats of abandonment, I'd hardly call people who do dominant though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

quote:

I wouldn't get into an obey or leave dynamic. Most people do not want to be owners, they want to be service receivers. If they have to dominate anyone the dynamic falls to pieces, because they can't. Emotional blackmail of obey or you are gone is the best they can do. I'd take that as a sign that no dominant lived there, thank my lucky stars I figured it out and glady take my leave. Anybody can attempt to control someone with threats of abandonment, I'd hardly call people who do dominant though.

Such a lovely example of the intolerance that is exhibited on this board.  My kink is okay and your kink sucks.

Thank you for once again reminding me how unrealistic it is to actually expect people to have open minds and not try to insult others for the choices they make in their lives.

Knight's Kyra

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

quote:

I wouldn't get into an obey or leave dynamic. Most people do not want to be owners, they want to be service receivers. If they have to dominate anyone the dynamic falls to pieces, because they can't. Emotional blackmail of obey or you are gone is the best they can do. I'd take that as a sign that no dominant lived there, thank my lucky stars I figured it out and glady take my leave. Anybody can attempt to control someone with threats of abandonment, I'd hardly call people who do dominant though.

Such a lovely example of the intolerance that is exhibited on this board.  My kink is okay and your kink sucks.

Thank you for once again reminding me how unrealistic it is to actually expect people to have open minds and not try to insult others for the choices they make in their lives.

Knight's Kyra

Dont forget the "narrow minded part" regarding "Obey or Leave" dynamics as merely a utilizaiton of emotional blackmail.

Its amazing how those two phrases constantly conicide..."narrow minded" and "close minded"

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile
My mind is spinning now...
Tonight is the night I finally learn or discover the truth, this folllows up with my earlier posting on this thread, and a couple of threads I've created in the last couple of monthes. 

As fate would have it, this one I've been having a struggle with is "Married", however she's had a bad abusive marriage and her husband has terminal cancer.  She has been dealing with a lot and not sharing all this with me.  All of which I know is not good, to be lied to.  However, this brings complete and suddenly clarity to everything.  Like I tried to tell her a 100 times over, the truth always comes out eventually. 

There are some many thoughts on my mind at this hour it's not funny.   Within the last couple of weeks I did met somebody new that has caught my attention, and even interests.  Yes, somebody I really like.

There's a lot that can be said for closing and opening doors in life.  Well I got the holy grail truth...  my head is spinning.  A lot can be said about throwing things away or working past it.   A human element of do we give on somebody, completely throw them out of our lives or work past it, perhaps turning it into a simple friendship.

See everything about this is a huge screaming blinking red LED billboard sign saying "Not in a place to start a new serious commitment"  The mere fact that it's abusive to me says that she needs to choose to stay or leave that situation before she can commit to ANYTHING else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

The recent thread regarding "SLAVE VS SUB" got me to thinking so I have a hypothetical situation to present to the group regarding an M/S relationship.

For the purposes of this hypothetical situation, I'll need to establish a definition for the dynamic of the M/S relationship. I realize we have a multitude of different styles and dynamics on this forum, but for the parameters of this discussion I am using the most common definition I see which is also my own.

I work off the axion of "Obey or Leave". The contigency that makes my M/S relationship an M/S relationship is that the slave cannot willfully defy me. By willfully defying me, she is saying that she is no longer my slave. Without this contigency, we're simply another vanilla couple.

The hypothetical situation is that you are a Master in such a relationship and the relationship has lasted for several years (This situation wont be hypothetical for all people, of course). Then, one day a problem occurs and the slave willfully defies you.

How would you handle it?

Would you throw away a relationship that has extended years for the sake of perserving your own power/authority?

Or would there be alternative methods you would try to keeping the relationship and dynamic going and intact?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

~fr~

When the dynamic no longer exists, it no longer exists. If the dynamic was the foundation of the relationship, the relationship no longer exists. But a lot of relationships have something more to them, which may be salvageable, and it may be just as viable to start over with the same person as to find another person and start from scratch, depending on the reasons the dynamic stopped working. The clue being to put as much effort into finding out why it crashed and burned (and fixing that) as one would put into starting a relationship with a new person.

I favour working past things. Figure out whether you're on the same page with regard to where you want to be, and go back to the drawing board, whether that means changing the dynamic, using behavioural modification, taking more time to work past an obstacle, spending more time on reinforcing the dynamic, rebuilding trust, or whatever. All too often, people throw in the towel before it is time to do so. Would I be upset at infidelity or disobedience? Yes. Would I throw away all the effort we had put into it- along with a person who had been a companion (of whatever sort the dynamic implies)- over such a thing? No. YMMV.

Willfull disobedience in a relationship with someone who actually wants to be a slave (in the same sense that the Master uses that word) can occur for a variety of reasons, ranging from poor communication (e.g. insecurities, need for reassurance that has not been met) to outright resentment, or even something as simple as feeling that "it's not real" (which, if not dealt with, pretty much means it isn't). Most, if not all, of these entail at least an element of temporary failure on the part of the Master. And when "no" is not an option for the slave, failure should not be an option for the Master. All this IMO, usual disclaimers apply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie
Kyra and Rabbit,

I have no issues with being called either of those things and I don't mind being called intolerant either, there are lots of things in the world I don't agree with. Funny when its something we agree on, I'm not "close minded"  or "intolerant" then or maybe when we agree on things you are "close minded" and "intolerant" also..hmmmm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

That is a really excellent point and no, I wont give an order that crossed a boundary or blame them for not following threw with something that they couldnt do.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

The reason I ask, for the purposes of  this discussion, is that (as others have pointed out) if either of the two parties is willing to communicate, this is a quick way to end the relationship.  Much of what we need to look at are motivations.  I doubt very much I would own a slave who would directly disobey me with the express intent of terminating the relationship.  I don't permit relationship suicide.  Either the relationship is worth working out, or it's not. 

'Do or die' approaches to relationships just don't work for me.

Regards,

Stephan

_____________________________

Nosce Te Ipsum

"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer

Men: Find a Woman here

(in reply to MadRabbit)

quote:

  You choose to speak for the people who enjoy this type of relationship (i.e. that we are being emotionally blackmailed or are emotionally blackmailing) without even knowing us.  That is close minded to me.  If you had said "I would feel emotionally blackmailed in a relationship like that" I would not have viewed it as close minded. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstrSkyWoIf

We all live in the real world and truth even if we don't want to admit it to ourselves is a slave is only a slave to us by her choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile

Aswad, I enjoyed this posting of yours and it resonates well with my own beliefs.