Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
toservez: I should also point out what you rip is actually consider the correct way to say no in Eastern culture. This triggered a memory. I remember an uncle from NY, wanting me to say yes or no instead of shaking my head, telling me that in some cultures, I recall him referencing Turkey, that nodding yes actually meant no. His story was that an occupying force made it a habit of accosting people in the streets holding a hand over their mouth so they couldn't scream, and a very sharp knife to their throat and asking the person if they we loyal to the new regime. If the person shook their head no, the sharp knife would cut their throat; however if they nodded yes - it would have no effect. As a result nodding became synonymous with no in that culture. Who knows if it's an story or fact. But I digress... quote:
Dnomyar: To many people are waffling here. A yes is a yes and a no is a no. It seems that a lot of people don't get that concept. There have sure been some references of that being the case; providing more support of not trusting the written word. Quotes from the various posters: "i will admit to the 'yeah-sure' answers", "things on my profile do have caveats", "I try to be as honest", "my first reaction was ... You betcha!", "I'm also pretty darn good at the caveats", "I often say; absolutely but mean no not really", "I really try to be more than a "yeah, sure" type of person", "I'm pretty literal" "Quite a few.", "I am actual pretty literal". Thanks to all for the candor and honesty, and I know some of the quotes our out of context, but it acknowledges the condition exists with most even if it is only admitted to subliminally. I enjoyed the confidence of seeing a Dominant say a very direct, "quite a few" and submissive having a gut reaction of "you betcha!". I don't see any right answer or dogma coming from this. "Yeah - sure!" self denial would be akin to refusing to say you ever told a lie. I'm trying to understand it from the perspective of how it impacts an ever evolving and deeper growing relationship. I also think it is a more prevalent from the dominant side of the flogger. It almost must be because a "yeah - sure!" from a submissive grants the power. It is the dominant's decision not to carry it out. Which takes us to this great insightful quote from RRafe; "It's always more fun to have a girl come to you with lube running out of her cunt-holding the stuff you like to use with her-and begging with great sincerity-to do it. Rather than having to chase her down and make her do it-grudgingly." There it is. That is the both the dilemma and the worst consequence of a spoken or written "Yeah-sure!" that has a meaning of "not really", or a list of "yeah buts..." implied. Time and familiarity come into play, as well as emotions which I'll address separately. Initially it's mostly about sensations. Most of the "yeah-sure!"s in the beginning of a relationship, or casual interaction such as a meeting at a club or play party, are regarding negotiated sensations. "Can I use a wooden paddle on your ass?" "Yeah-sure! Just don't leave any marks, Okay?" "Yeah-sure!" At the end of play, the submissive observes some broken blood vessels and screams at the dominant, who replies with "yeah buts...". "...I didn't know you bruised so easily!", "...I thought you meant purple bruises!" Next thing you know there is a thread on CM wanting to know how to report and "abusive dom". The longer the relationship goes on the more control shifts to the dominant and the issues aren't so sensation based or driven. The consideration starts to include feelings, emotions, affection; dare I say - "love". LA can tally the number of threads that seek answers to questions in this nature; "Can a Master love a slave and still enforce and maintain discipline, and/or keep or raise the intensity of play?" I say yes, but there is more "yeah but..." than "yeah sure!" to consider in that statement. On this site I have only read of one relationship represented that there is no "yeah but..." hiding behind a unqualified "Yeah-sure!" representation. Whether she's real or not, and I'm saying that only because I've never met her or her owner in person, there has been nothing but consistency behind the relationship represented by 'daddysprop247'. But is that what we want or a desired goal? I see myself as a very pragmatic man. I try to align my personal and philosophical believes behind reason and logic that is flexible enough to be amended in the face of changing conditions, environment, or facts. I know and have complete confidence is what I can do. I know what I want to do. I know I have the 'power' to make it happen. My "yeah buts..." are self generated; and stem from the "fun" reference of RRafe's quote. I'm in this lifestyle and have been for all of my adult life because it is FUN for me. I enjoy the hell out of every aspect of it from the down and dirty, messy, sweaty, sex orgy sensory overload sensations; to "intellectual" debates on 'limits' or the distinguishing characteristics between the labels 'sub' and 'slave'. For me it's all FUN, to the point of having often being accused of not taking the "lifestyle" seriously. Quite the contrary, I take my FUN very seriously. When it or people take themselves too serious I usually have FUN pointing it out to them. What's NOT fun is partaking in any activity where the person or people involved have expressed or inferred by voice inflection and/or body language, the other word bold-ed from from RRafe's quote - "grudgingly". What FUN is that? Is it a matter of 'TRUST' that "key" element most often expressed as a requirement for a relationship? No, not really because a grudgingly given "yeah-Okay lets do it"; provides access and ability. This isn't a case of going back on your word. However to make it reality one party has to take on the act knowing that the other party is doing it "for them". From either end of the flogger - Would you do it? Can you do it? Would you accept a "yeah-sure!" act knowing your partner is "acting" when "being true to yourself" is second only to "TRUST" as a relationship standard? quote:
Rover: A unique (and much appreciated) way of saying that it's relatively easy to consent when fantasizing and/or theorizing about a thing. And quite another when faced with the reality of it. Thanks John. - And yes, determining to use power is much more difficult a decision than taking it in the first place.
|