RE: makeup or no makeup (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

OsideGirl -> RE: makeup or no makeup (9/28/2005 8:54:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nephandi

i dont see it as being different whit an protesis, if the Master say jump around in public the slave had her order, protesis, make up whatever the Master have final word.


So basically, you think it's okay if a Master orders his submissive to do something that could cause psychological damage?



luvlysmile -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/1/2005 12:57:23 AM)

quote:

You are who you are and you look like what you look like and if you cannot live like that in this world then ask your Master to call me and I will beat you if he can't.

He finds you pretty without the mask. You are pretty I warrant, and fat too. So what are you doing about your weight? Obcess on that if you need something to obcess on. Be real with the one you love.



quote:

If your Master wants you to walk around without a single drop of makeup on your face, my advice to you would be to simply say Yes Master and obey. He has His reasons, and your only concern should be to obey him and please him in every way you can. We all have our own insecurities, but we need to find ways to get over them and in the long run this will be beneficial to you, don't hesitate or contemplate what to do, just do as you are told. You will be much happier for it in the long run, and most importantly, you will make your Master happy and proud of you.


Well said, Both of You.

i'm not a Master, but feel compelled to try and help.
my Master is my Master because I trust him in all things. He has my best interest in mind at all times. i have doubted him on a few things (it's human nature), and did them just because he wished it. i thought i would feel, and react in a negative way, or things would turn out bad, but when it was over i learned he was right i found it was better for me to do it His way, i grew more as a person, and gained more respect for him as my Master.

i also have blotchy skin, maybe not the same severity as yours, but I also did not go in public without make-up.
W/we were going somewhere one day and I said let me put on my make-up, He says you don't need it, you are beautiful just how you are. That day i went out with no make-up, and i didn't feel any different, didn't even remember i wasn't wearing it until i looked in the mirror later that day. So anyway now i wear it, or don't wear it, i would't put it on just to go shopping. Unless he wished me to.
He is proud to have me by his side make-up or not, and i am proud to sit at his feet.

Maybe you should ask Him if you can try it for a short while, a week or two. Then re-evaluate B/both of your feelings.

If your only concern is getting into a legthy conversation about you previous medical condition, just say i'm sorry i don't like to talk about it.



CanisMajor -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/1/2005 6:13:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl
So basically, you think it's okay if a Master orders his submissive to do something that could cause psychological damage?


(My emphasis.)

Do you mean "could" or "would?"

It is obviously perfectly ok (to most of us) for a dom to order a submissive to do something that could cause psychological harm. There are all sorts of things that could cause harm - theoretically - but which are pretty mainstream here. Ordering someone to kneel could psychologically harm some people, including some people who are submissives. Substitute any act that would be found trivial by most subs in place of kneeling - ordering a sub to call someone sir or ma'am, ordering a sub to close their eyes - any small order could be psychologically damaging to some fraction of submissives. Subs, as well as doms, run certain risks of various kinds of harm in this lifestyle (or any other they might adopt).

It is what "would" cause psychological harm that is proscribed. If a sub has a dread of jumping in public (like hopping at a mall?) then obviously that would not be an appropriate order to give. There are only three ways I see to determine what would harm a submissive. The first way would be to pay attention to the negotiation (and resulting contract, if you play that way). The second way would be a result of the dominant knowing the submissive well - knowing the submissive personally, and observing and understanding how they react to various circumstances. The third way would be through the sub's safeword or other appropriate indication that things are "not OK."

Without that safeword being employed, the dominant can only discern to some probability what is likely to psychologically harm a submissive. Errors in judgment occur, and these are not moral issues if reliable foreknowledge about what would be harmful wasn't present even though appropriate steps were taken to discern such items beforehand. It is also apparent that some people have sensitive natures: it is obvious from the resulting gossip that a huge number of quite ordinary orders given by bosses to employees in the workplace are psychologically harmful to the workers. Those with such sensitivities - e.g., phobias about jumping in the presence of others - are as morally obligated to disclose them as dominants are to forswear them as orders.

As far as the OP goes, obviously going without makeup could psychologically harm her. But that isn't of primary importance to the ethical question. The ethical question can only be settled by her, and it boils down to two considerations: whether going without makeup would harm her psychologically (this being quite distinct from mild embarrassment, self-consciousness, or a small blow to her pride), and (assuming she's decided there would be no real harm) whether she finds it desirable to submit on this issue. There's a discussion going on in which people have different opinions, and that's fine, but nobody is committing an ethical breach as far as I can see.



IronBear -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/1/2005 6:24:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: nephandi

i dont see it as being different whit an protesis, if the Master say jump around in public the slave had her order, protesis, make up whatever the Master have final word.


So basically, you think it's okay if a Master orders his submissive to do something that could cause psychological damage?



I have two points here for consideration.

1. Provided the Dominant is fully aware of the possible damage and the reasons why, I’d find it hard to understand why he would force the situation. However should he go ahead and force the no make up rule in this case, I’d expect him to be monitoring the situation closely.
2. A working compromise may be reached if the objection is based on a personal dislike for wearing makeup. There is a whole range of makeup which when applied correctly, look as though the skin is natural and makeup free. This allows the skin preparations such as moisturisers and nutriments to still be used without looking made up.



FLButtSlut -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/2/2005 12:50:28 AM)

For some reason, simply calling yourself "master" deems one qualified to determine what is or is not detrimental to one's profession. How interesting. Anyone who works with the public, and especially given the fact that maybe maintains her own travel agency is indicative of how this will adversely affect her profession. Anyone who thinks otherwise quite simply doesn't have enough professional experience to grasp the concept of how much her appearance counts.

IronBear,

Your responses make the most sense, probably because you quantify them as being what occurs in your house. Those entering your house know that you will choose their limits and agree to that.

This is not the case here, and I also feel you understand that.

It is interesting that the majority who have taken the position that maybemaybenot must do what "he" says simply because he is her "master" are all under 25 and have been "owned" for 4-5 years or more. All the life experiences of that group are, I am sure, astounding.

This has never been a "no limits" situation, yet most everyone quickly says, "you must obey" as though it is. "Specific areas" in life where you will not accept someone else's control is a wonderful concept, but sometimes it is nothing more than that, a concept.

Perverseangelic,

You make mention of my contacts vs. glasses as not something that would interfere with my life. Well, I can tell you that you have no clue what you are talking about. For some, one over the other makes not a lot of difference, for others, such as myself, a world of difference. I have worn contacts since high school and until this post, never would have even considered making them a "limit" of any kind. So how would it be handled? If it were to ever come up, I would simply explain the REALITY of the situation and that is all there is to it. That is what is happening with maybemaybenot. She is explaining the reality of the situation, and yet everyone else thinks that her concept of reality should be changed in accordance with someone else's concept of reality.

CanisMajor,

You are quite right in saying that there is a big difference between what "could" cause damage and what "would". Ultimately, the person who may suffer that damage is the only one who can realistically assess the difference and what is right for them.

This is not about "mild embarrassment, self-consciousness, or a small blow to her pride". This is about the fact that "he" doesn't see her viewpoint and for whatever reason has chosen this issue as a "test" to see how far he can push things when right at the beginning, he was told this was not an issue he was given control over.

For those of you who choose to accept the rules being redefined on the uninformed whim of your master, that's great for you. For those of you who think that a master ordering you to go without your prosthesis because he thinks it will help you "deal" with your real life situation, I hope for your sake that you never suffer real physical hardship and have to suddenly struggle with the reality of the situation.



IronBear -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/2/2005 1:41:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FLButtSlut

For some reason, simply calling yourself "master" deems one qualified to determine what is or is not detrimental to one's profession. How interesting. Anyone who works with the public, and especially given the fact that maybe maintains her own travel agency is indicative of how this will adversely affect her profession. Anyone who thinks otherwise quite simply doesn't have enough professional experience to grasp the concept of how much her appearance counts.

IronBear,

Your responses make the most sense, probably because you quantify them as being what occurs in your house. Those entering your house know that you will choose their limits and agree to that.

This is not the case here, and I also feel you understand that.

It is interesting that the majority who have taken the position that maybemaybenot must do what "he" says simply because he is her "master" are all under 25 and have been "owned" for 4-5 years or more. All the life experiences of that group are, I am sure, astounding.

This has never been a "no limits" situation, yet most everyone quickly says, "you must obey" as though it is. "Specific areas" in life where you will not accept someone else's control is a wonderful concept, but sometimes it is nothing more than that, a concept.

Perverseangelic,

You make mention of my contacts vs. glasses as not something that would interfere with my life. Well, I can tell you that you have no clue what you are talking about. For some, one over the other makes not a lot of difference, for others, such as myself, a world of difference. I have worn contacts since high school and until this post, never would have even considered making them a "limit" of any kind. So how would it be handled? If it were to ever come up, I would simply explain the REALITY of the situation and that is all there is to it. That is what is happening with maybemaybenot. She is explaining the reality of the situation, and yet everyone else thinks that her concept of reality should be changed in accordance with someone else's concept of reality.

CanisMajor,

You are quite right in saying that there is a big difference between what "could" cause damage and what "would". Ultimately, the person who may suffer that damage is the only one who can realistically assess the difference and what is right for them.

This is not about "mild embarrassment, self-consciousness, or a small blow to her pride". This is about the fact that "he" doesn't see her viewpoint and for whatever reason has chosen this issue as a "test" to see how far he can push things when right at the beginning, he was told this was not an issue he was given control over.

For those of you who choose to accept the rules being redefined on the uninformed whim of your master, that's great for you. For those of you who think that a master ordering you to go without your prosthesis because he thinks it will help you "deal" with your real life situation, I hope for your sake that you never suffer real physical hardship and have to suddenly struggle with the reality of the situation.



I’d like to make a couple of observations here based on your comments. In doing so I’m going to use my personal experience in numerous areas where I have lived.

Let’s start with your reference to contacts v glasses. Depending on the occasion and of course they style of the glasses, the image effect can be simply stunning for some people, for others, glasses just don’t work. There are many cases where glasses are not just a nuisance but may be hazardous (sport etc). However regarding professions, irrespective how brilliant the person and how good their track record, most professions have customary dress codes which they deem to be acceptable. Certainly in many cases those who do not follow the dress codes will not lose their jobs, but they will be overlooked for promotions or the best cases. This is a sad fact on both sides of the duck pond. To add more grief, there are a number of partners/husbands who don’t like what their significant other needs to wear for her work and make her life hell in that regard. Certainly some women deal with this by changing at work, but most suffer in some form. (If she lost her job, the partner would never accept the responsibility of being the cause of this). I do my share of counselling in this area with it becoming an increasing problem. In most cases some form of compromise can be affected and even with the significant other being persuaded to make it a game so that she is dressed for work and not for play. E.g. I had been with my bank for 15 years and when I let my hair grow (It hasn’t been cut for 3 years now), I suddenly found that I was being treated like a 3rd class citizen. Meetings with the manager were no available any more. Clerks and assistant managers treated me as though I was semi literate. Now they have on record my educational and professional qualifications as well as having me listed as the first call professional counsellor to be called in the event of an armed hold-up. At that time my income was still good. I found that others who no longer fitted into the mould were being treated as badly. Yet when I attend conferences or visit the Hospitals as a psych counsellor, I wear the same dress, I dark grey pinstriped suit, black highly polished shoes, a dark blue or white business shirt and either a plain maroon tie of my alumni tie. I am welcomed in all places except my bank. I have now changed banks and been the instigator of an official investigation of their practices by their head office.

Any Master/Mistress worth their salt will need to know and indeed understand all the ins and outs of his property’s work life and what is expected of her. I would expect him/her to support this and not interfere, but to ensure that she was following the work requirements to the letter. The problem, which the younger generation faces, is simple that they do not have sufficient life experience to, at times, be able to deal with all the mores of such situations. This is to say that they and now less feeling or perceptive or even caring, but life experience is a wonderful database from which to draw information on which to fine workable ways.

You think dress and appearance matters at a professional level? Hell Yes!



perverseangelic -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/2/2005 12:50:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FLButtSlut
Perverseangelic,

You make mention of my contacts vs. glasses as not something that would interfere with my life. Well, I can tell you that you have no clue what you are talking about. For some, one over the other makes not a lot of difference, for others, such as myself, a world of difference. I have worn contacts since high school and until this post, never would have even considered making them a "limit" of any kind. So how would it be handled? If it were to ever come up, I would simply explain the REALITY of the situation and that is all there is to it. That is what is happening with maybemaybenot. She is explaining the reality of the situation, and yet everyone else thinks that her concept of reality should be changed in accordance with someone else's concept of reality.


I appologize if I said that it wouldn't interfear with -your- life. Of course I have no idea about -your- life. I was making a general statement, trying to further what I've beens aying from the begining.

However, having worn both, I can honestly say I don't see that (outside of situations like sports competeitons or other occations where glasses are dangerous) that wearing contacts instead of glasses or glasses instead of contacts would make a drastic difference in an individuals life. And even if it did, that still doesn't address my point--that one needs to realistically consider what controll could be exerted.

Again and again I've tried to say that I don't think she's in the wrong, at all. That would be silly, because I have no intimate knowledge of her situation. I AM saying that he's not in the wrong either, and that it is very important to be aware of what you are surrendering when you surrender.

With the glasses v contacts thing, it's the same deal--being aware of what you've given up, and what you don't want to give up, and communicating that to your dominant partner.

As I see it, there are three "types" of things- the things that one's tells one's dominant parnter at the outset he/she cannot control, things which come up during the relationship and require re-negotiation of control, and things one just doesn't want to do, but are still in the realm of the partners control.

For the first- If wearing glasses will dirrectly interfear with something you have stated thta your dominant parnter has no control over, well, the it isn't his/hers to control. It's been pre-negotiated, and trying to assert control over that is violating what you'd agreed on. For me, my education goes here. My partner and I have agreed that he is not able to have any controll over my education and how I proceed with it.

For the second- After the relationship progesses, you're asked to begin wearing contacts, but wearing contacts will cause you severe eye pain and make it difficult for you do to anything. You realize that you dont' want your partner to control your health or your eyecare or whatever you'd call it, because it isn't in everyone's best interest. Well, here there needs to be a conversation re-laying out boundaries. Not a bad thing. Relationships evolve. If you saying that you don't want controll to be exerted here is a deal breaker, then it is. Also not a bad thing, and totaly the perogative of anyone invovled. Obivously, this is where the makeup/no makeup thing falls for the OP and the glasses/contacts thing for you.

The third? Something you don't want to change, but you realize it won't hurt you. To -me- and from my perspective, this is where glasses/contacts fall. I prefer wearing glasses but switching to contacts won't hurt me. If my dominant partner requests it, I do it, even though I don't want to.

This is what I've been trying to say from the begining. Also, that to say the dominant person here is a bad, evil, wrong person for doing as pleases him, and telling his girl to do what pleases him bothers me. Perhaps he's off base, or not doing what will actually be best for her. However, to say that he is bad for being controlling...well...I think controlling is what most of us signed up for.



FLButtSlut -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/2/2005 3:23:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic

I appologize if I said that it wouldn't interfear with -your- life. Of course I have no idea about -your- life. I was making a general statement, trying to further what I've beens aying from the begining.

However, having worn both, I can honestly say I don't see that (outside of situations like sports competeitons or other occations where glasses are dangerous) that wearing contacts instead of glasses or glasses instead of contacts would make a drastic difference in an individuals life. And even if it did, that still doesn't address my point--that one needs to realistically consider what controll could be exerted.


This isn't furthering what you are saying at all, other than comparing it to your own very limited experiences. You also completely ignore my point in saying that some things are such natural parts of our lives, we don't immediately think of them as negotiating factors in a D/s relationship. Although you do admit that the issues when they do arise need to be addressed realistically, you just don't seem to give the sub/slaves "reality" the same weight as that of the dominant simply because of the relationship dynamic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic
Again and again I've tried to say that I don't think she's in the wrong, at all. That would be silly, because I have no intimate knowledge of her situation. I AM saying that he's not in the wrong either, and that it is very important to be aware of what you are surrendering when you surrender.


You are dismissing the fact that this discussion occurred between the parties in the beginning where he was told that this was NOT something he could control, apparently because saying "this is something I will not change" is not the equivalent of saying "this is a hard limit". Further, if his "stated" reason and the "real" reason behind his "demand" are vastly different, he is even more wrong. Doing something for your own personal reasons and disguising it as a "lesson" is not only wrong, but deceitful. The fact that no one seems able to consider this possibility is quite curious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic

As I see it, there are three "types" of things- the things that one's tells one's dominant parnter at the outset he/she cannot control, things which come up during the relationship and require re-negotiation of control, and things one just doesn't want to do, but are still in the realm of the partners control.


Interestingly enough, I just DON'T WANT eat shit. So this falls into all 3 of your "types" of things. I tell you at the beginning, if you bring it up later, we "re-negotiate" where I tell you again, and it is just something I don't want to do whether my partner feels it can be within his "realm of control" or not. This is quite similar to maybemaynot's issue. She told him in the beginning, she told him again when he approached the issue again, and he still thinks it is within his realm of control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic

For the second- After the relationship progesses, you're asked to begin wearing contacts, but wearing contacts will cause you severe eye pain and make it difficult for you do to anything. You realize that you dont' want your partner to control your health or your eyecare or whatever you'd call it, because it isn't in everyone's best interest. Well, here there needs to be a conversation re-laying out boundaries. Not a bad thing. Relationships evolve. If you saying that you don't want controll to be exerted here is a deal breaker, then it is. Also not a bad thing, and totaly the perogative of anyone invovled. Obivously, this is where the makeup/no makeup thing falls for the OP and the glasses/contacts thing for you.


I used the glasses/contacts thing as an example of something mundane that most would not normally consider at the outset of beginning a relationship. The "makeup/no makeup" thing does not fall within these bounds because it was discussed before hand. Furthermore, when you become an adult, you sometimes have to worry only about YOUR best interest regardless of its effect on others. For example, you say your education is important. If there is a class that you must take, but it is at a time that interferes with a regularly scheduled time with your partner, you are considering only YOUR best interest in taking that class. If you choose to not take that class, then only your partner's best interest in taken into consideration. I'm sure you will try to argue this point, but that seems to be because you don't understand the concept of "perception". When you "perceive" what is in your best interest, and your partner's "perceives" your best interest to be different, ultimately only YOU can know what is indeed in your best interest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic
The third? Something you don't want to change, but you realize it won't hurt you. To -me- and from my perspective, this is where glasses/contacts fall. I prefer wearing glasses but switching to contacts won't hurt me. If my dominant partner requests it, I do it, even though I don't want to.


Again, this is nothing more than your perception. You know only how YOUR eyesight works. You know only how YOUR view of makeup is, and your perception of makeup does not include the need to mask any type of deformity. Therefore, you have no real concept of what type of "hurt" could potentially be involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic
This is what I've been trying to say from the begining. Also, that to say the dominant person here is a bad, evil, wrong person for doing as pleases him, and telling his girl to do what pleases him bothers me. Perhaps he's off base, or not doing what will actually be best for her. However, to say that he is bad for being controlling...well...I think controlling is what most of us signed up for.


To tell someone to do something for your pleasure with little or no concern for their viewpoint goes beyond being controlling. His inability to understand what is best for her, and making a demand for stated reasons contrary to what the real reasons are IS wrong. There is no way around that.




Hallittlelolita -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/2/2005 4:18:10 PM)

Master prefers me with no makeup however if We/we are going out on the town or people coming over to visit i will wear natural colored eyeshawdow followed by a couple of coats of mascara and bright ruby red lips which is my beauty trademark. Master loves ruby red lipstick on his slave He says i look like a dolly and that i am His little dolly lolita[:)][;)][;)]

Sincerely andie and her Master Hal



perverseangelic -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/2/2005 5:15:32 PM)

Of -course- I'm only speaking from my perspective. What other perspective can one have?

I figure that it's a given that I'm only speaking from the possition I'm in, and the experiences I've had, as no one can speak from anything other than that. It doesn't change one's feelings, nor invalidate them. I am asserting what works for -me- not what's going to work for everyone else. However, I don't see that as a bad thing. What you say comes from what works for you, and I take it as such.


quote:

ORIGINAL: FLButtSlut
Although you do admit that the issues when they do arise need to be addressed realistically, you just don't seem to give the sub/slaves "reality" the same weight as that of the dominant simply because of the relationship dynamic.


You're very right. I don't. Because in my relationship it doesn't have the same weight. Again, what works for me. I don't project that value onto someone else, but I do express that from where I'm sitting this is what works.

quote:


You are dismissing the fact that this discussion occurred between the parties in the beginning where he was told that this was NOT something he could control, apparently because saying "this is something I will not change" is not the equivalent of saying "this is a hard limit". Further, if his "stated" reason and the "real" reason behind his "demand" are vastly different, he is even more wrong.


Fair enought. This wasn't clear to me in the OP, however through further corespondance with the original poster, it's become clear. I read her discussion as different than it actually occured.

quote:


Doing something for your own personal reasons and disguising it as a "lesson" is not only wrong, but deceitful. The fact that no one seems able to consider this possibility is quite curious.


I think it's not that we don't consider this, it's that many of us disagree.

quote:

Interestingly enough, I just DON'T WANT eat shit. So this falls into all 3 of your "types" of things. I tell you at the beginning, if you bring it up later, we "re-negotiate" where I tell you again, and it is just something I don't want to do whether my partner feels it can be within his "realm of control" or not. This is quite similar to maybemaynot's issue. She told him in the beginning, she told him again when he approached the issue again, and he still thinks it is within his realm of control.


To me, that "just don't want" sounds pretty much like 'you can't tell me to do this." I view them as two distinct things, and believe there's a need to vocalize them as such.

For me, to say "I don't want to eat shit" does NOT mean "I will not eat shit, and you cannot tell me to this because I will not obey/will leave." Perhaps it's that I have a need to be very clear with what I'm saying, but I find it important to say the second, not the first, because if said without caveats, the first isn't a hard limit, just a desire.

quote:

I used the glasses/contacts thing as an example of something mundane that most would not normally consider at the outset of beginning a relationship. The "makeup/no makeup" thing does not fall within these bounds because it was discussed before hand.


Agreed. I was trying to move to the abstract and away from the circumstances in the OP, because it seems like there are some things being discussed here that are't realted to the OP at all.

quote:


Furthermore, when you become an adult, you sometimes have to worry only about YOUR best interest regardless of its effect on others. For example, you say your education is important. If there is a class that you must take, but it is at a time that interferes with a regularly scheduled time with your partner, you are considering only YOUR best interest in taking that class. If you choose to not take that class, then only your partner's best interest in taken into consideration. I'm sure you will try to argue this point, but that seems to be because you don't understand the concept of "perception". When you "perceive" what is in your best interest, and your partner's "perceives" your best interest to be different, ultimately only YOU can know what is indeed in your best interest.


Again, agreed. I haven't disagreed with this at all, in anything I've said. I -have- stated the necessity of -clearly- verbalizing your best interests to your partner, and laying out that no matter the partner's desire, you -will- be pursuing your own best interests in some matters.

I don't think you should -not- have some self-centered aspects. It is, as you said, a necessity of being an adult. However, I think it's very very important that, especially in a power exchange situation, you are very forthright about which aspects you need to be self centered about.

quote:

Again, this is nothing more than your perception. You know only how YOUR eyesight works. You know only how YOUR view of makeup is, and your perception of makeup does not include the need to mask any type of deformity. Therefore, you have no real concept of what type of "hurt" could potentially be involved.


Well, of course it's my perception. That's all anyone has.

I do have a grasp of the kind of hurt that is invovled. Believe it or not, I have some kind of empathy and have been in similar situations.

Regardless, I've beent rying to make statements about things -other- than the OP, because it seems that we've established that whether or not it's the dominant's right, it isn't in the OP's best interest, in her view.


quote:

To tell someone to do something for your pleasure with little or no concern for their viewpoint goes beyond being controlling.


...it's also the essence of some power exchange. Not my kink, perhaps, but not damanging, if it's consented to. AGAIN, in the original situation, this probably isn't the case, however to say that -all- actions along these lines are bad is incorect.





EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/2/2005 6:57:21 PM)

I think we're picking on the wrong points. No one here is suggesting she SHOULD have had a "no make up rules" limit at the outset of the relationship. Especially in first relationships, there are often new grounds that NEITHER partner even thinks to worry about until they smack you in the face (no pun intended).

But we are saying that both she and her dom recognize this as a struggle NOW and have to decide NOW whether it's in their best interests to work this issue out (however they decide to do it) or whether it's an issue that will decide they need to end the relationship.

And NEXT time, whether together or not, both partners will be able to recognize this as a hot button issue to explicitly discuss, or at least make sure of an understanding beforehand. THis is still no promise that someone won't change their mind in the future and have to work it out again, but that's what the learning curve is all about.

This is their relationship, and ultimately their call to make.



FLButtSlut -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/2/2005 11:38:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic
What you say comes from what works for you, and I take it as such.


Actually it isn't about what works for me, but I understand how you would reach that conclusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic
Fair enought. This wasn't clear to me in the OP, however through further corespondance with the original poster, it's become clear. I read her discussion as different than it actually occured.


And that has been my point all along. I can't explain why I saw it in the original post and you didn't, although obviously that was the case. I did confirm it as have you. The "mindset" that "master" is always right just because he is "master" should never be considered a good thing.


quote:


Doing something for your own personal reasons and disguising it as a "lesson" is not only wrong, but deceitful. The fact that no one seems able to consider this possibility is quite curious.


quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelicI think it's not that we don't consider this, it's that many of us disagree.


You disagree that it is wrong for a master to be deceitful? I understand that sometimes it is all about "his" personal needs, but don't lie about it and try to disguise it in a lesson for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic
To me, that "just don't want" sounds pretty much like 'you can't tell me to do this." I view them as two distinct things, and believe there's a need to vocalize them as such.


On that issue, it isn't like "you can't tell me to do this". Not only do I not want to, but if you try to tell me that it is going to happen, protect yourself. I feel a bit stronger than "hard limit" on this one. Some things go beyond "hard limit" and into "you are risking your physical well being if you pursue this". Also in that category is trying to make decisions regarding my son. For you it could be your religion or your education, but we all have things that go beyond "hard limit" into the "just don't go there if you value your life".

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic Perhaps it's that I have a need to be very clear with what I'm saying, but I find it important to say the second, not the first, because if said without caveats, the first isn't a hard limit, just a desire.


This is indeed a very good point. Obviously, sometimes clarity is a necessity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic
Agreed. I was trying to move to the abstract and away from the circumstances in the OP, because it seems like there are some things being discussed here that are't realted to the OP at all.


It did indeed. It seemed to become the all frightening "master is right simply because he is master". The title does not mean "all knowing" and seeing it confused as such is really frightening.




quote:

To tell someone to do something for your pleasure with little or no concern for their viewpoint goes beyond being controlling.


quote:

ORIGINAL: perverseangelic
...it's also the essence of some power exchange. Not my kink, perhaps, but not damanging, if it's consented to. AGAIN, in the original situation, this probably isn't the case, however to say that -all- actions along these lines are bad is incorect.



My point, is that sometimes it IS damaging. In this original situation, it IS damaging, because a violation of trust is always damaging. If your master violates your trust, that doesn't go away overnight with an apology and a discussion. It took time to build that trust and when it is damaged, it doesn't immediately heal from talking.

This is a situation where a bunch of armchair counselors seemed to go on and on about "you must trust him", "he is doing what he feels is best for you", "obey your master", and "he obviously sees something you don't". In reality, he was conducting an "experiment" to assess his own feelings, and then trying to tie it up in a pretty little package about HER inability to cope with things.

This is a place people come to seek advice, to learn and to hopefully educate others. Teaching them that "master" is always right or knows best just because he is master not simply ridiculous, it is dangerous. Advising to discuss, discuss and discuss some more is always good advice. Advising to blindly follow a path of self destruction is just ignorant. I am not saying perverse that this is what you personally did, but you know as well as I do, that this has been a common theme on this thread. It is sad that it was the Masters who realized that they shouldn't be blindly followed all the time.



tarnishedhalo777 -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/3/2005 3:26:40 AM)

Is there not a way to comprimise on this issue? Perhaps in the workplace or doing errands you could apply make-up but not where it at home or when you are with him?



IronBear -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/3/2005 4:58:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tarnishedhalo777

Is there not a way to comprimise on this issue? Perhaps in the workplace or doing errands you could apply make-up but not where it at home or when you are with him?


I think that this would however bring in the question of honesty, obedience and morality, both are very personal aspects and you'd have be sure that you could live with the consequeses if discovered and your self. I'd not want to sit in judgement on that one. perhaps it is better to have the matter settled out in the open. We dont know all the issues and peramaters here. The situation may be the tip of the ice burg and sadly the ending of a relationship. Such things do happen, which is fine if both parties can then move on in a positive manner.



Focus50 -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/3/2005 8:24:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hallittlelolita

Master prefers me with no makeup however if We/we are going out on the town or people coming over to visit i will wear natural colored eyeshawdow followed by a couple of coats of mascara and bright ruby red lips which is my beauty trademark. Master loves ruby red lipstick on his slave He says i look like a dolly and that i am His little dolly lolita[:)][;)][;)]

Sincerely andie and her Master Hal

Since this is now page 5, I thought I'd just quote this little passage from the OP. This is NOT a simple question of makeup or preferences for the sake of vanity or fashion.
quote:

maybemaybenot:
*snip* ....I was diagnosed with a medical condition and was on Prednisone and Cytoxin < steroid and chemotherapy> for three years. One of the side effects that occured was permanant facial and neck discolouration/blotching.

Nor is it just about discolouration or blotches, though they are a significant issue in their own right.... They are obviously a side effect from something much more serious and sinister! Hands up anyone who's not familiar with the implications of CHEMOTHERAPY?
Now what price a little makeup?

Focus51.



CanisMajor -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/3/2005 8:27:24 AM)

quote:

CanisMajor,

You are quite right in saying that there is a big difference between what "could" cause damage and what "would". Ultimately, the person who may suffer that damage is the only one who can realistically assess the difference and what is right for them.


I agree.

As a small qualifier I'd say the person who has the greatest assurance of reliability in making that assessment is the person who may suffer the damage. I'd certainly say that I can assess whether some things would be emotionally harmful to my friends, but I'd also say that their judgment on the matter would always be better than mine. We are all making these assessments all the time in all our relationships, and we all have seen that many examples of hurt feelings are the result of incorrect assessments rather than malice.

quote:


This is not about "mild embarrassment, self-consciousness, or a small blow to her pride". This is about the fact that "he" doesn't see her viewpoint and for whatever reason has chosen this issue as a "test" to see how far he can push things when right at the beginning, he was told this was not an issue he was given control over.


If that is so, then obviously the dom should not try to alter the sub's makeup practices, nor should the sub alter them. It just isn't 100% clear to me that this is a perfect description of the situation.

First, I do not understand exactly what the dom is asking for. What I've read about that is this:

quote:

Out of the blue, about a month ago, he began a discussion that involves his desire for me " to get over it" and wants me to cease wearing make up publically.


What that tells me is that the OP was caught by surprise (but I don't think a period of hint-dropping is a moral prerequisite to opening a discussion), and also that the dom's desire has either not been expressed (by the dom), or repeated (by the sub) with sufficient precision as to understand the full scope and nature of the request. Which is important because:

Secondly, I see contradictory indications from the OP. She's said that it was not stated as a hard limit. This makes it unclear whether it is true that "right at the beginning, he was told this was not an issue he was given control over," as you say. She's also stated (and repeated in another post) that she doesn't wear makeup when going out with friends, lending ambiguity to the nature of the OP's objections. On the other hand she's said she's not giving in, and that she thinks the dom is using a well known vulnerability to make her feel insecure, thus making it very clear that this is a very serious issue. Mistoferin and several others have posted indications that they are or were also confused on other subjects, some of which I'm also confused about.

What she has said that is pretty unambiguous to me is

quote:

My Dominant is not cruel. We have a disagreement.


That tells me that there is a discussion going on, not a moral issue involving activities lacking consent and resulting in undue risk to health. This is what I thought OsideGirl was suggesting - and I think OsideGirl is a really sharp, smart commentator on lifestyle matters, not given to undue presumption. So I thought I'd explore the issue of could vs. would and see where it went.

Now, my opinion about the OP's situation does not matter. As far as I can tell, neither does yours. Neither of us know her (as far as I can tell), nor can we be certain we actually know all the facts and motives at issue. I don't think you actually know enough to be certain the dom is playing the game you suggest. More importantly, neither of us are her. Look right at the top of this post where you and I both agree that only the OP can with ultimate reliability assess whether this would be harmful to her. As I've said, if she thinks it would, then she should stand firm. That decision is not for me to make. But I've not heard anything unambiguous to the effect that her dom has treated her non-consensually by ordering her to do something that resulted in harm to her health.


(edited to fix typo)



OsideGirl -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/3/2005 8:54:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tarnishedhalo777

Is there not a way to comprimise on this issue? Perhaps in the workplace or doing errands you could apply make-up but not where it at home or when you are with him?



She's already doing this. She said that she doesn't wear make-up around the house or with close friends and family.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CanisMajor


That tells me that there is a discussion going on, not a moral issue involving activities lacking consent and resulting in undue risk to health. This is what I thought OsideGirl was suggesting - and I think OsideGirl is a really sharp, smart commentator on lifestyle matters, not given to undue presumption. So I thought I'd explore the issue of could vs. would and see where it went.



Aww, thank you!

My concern is this is something that is emotionally distressing for her. Fears, phobias and our own little neurosis aren't things that can be "Dommed" out of us. They take a lot work and they never go away, they just come under control. My personal view is that we shouldn't have to list those things as limits, they fall under the "Do not harm" clause for me. I have a reasonable handle on my fear of heights, but Master still won't drag me to an observation tower and force me to look over the edge. He understands that a freak out session could still occur and that the effects of it would linger with me for a quite awhile, not to mention shake my faith in him.

My "could cause harm" comment was in response to someone who was treating the matter lightly because it's make-up. The reality is that to outside people those fears, phobias and neurosis can appear silly. In school, we watched the counseling tapes of a woman who was deathly afraid of forks. The fact that a fear of forks is silly did not diminish the effect it had on her or the emotional response that she had. For a Dom to deliberately toy with a hot spot is entering the realm of playing with fire. It could be fine, it could be a major disaster.



maybemaybenot -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/3/2005 12:14:06 PM)

After a long day and a half over the weekend of communicating with my Dominant.....I am sharing the events that occured . I am gong to try and be brief, will paraphrase and not be litereal unless I use quotation marks. And if anyone feels the need to say it goes deeper than this.. or such and such should have or must have been said. Just assume you are correct.. It was a long long talk.. and I could not... NO.. I would not share every intimate detail of our discussions.

This was not about make up
This wasn't becasue he thought I looked better without make up < he clearly told me, he preferred me with my softer, even complexion>
This was not about humility.
This was not about him wanting others to see me thru his eyes < which,btw, I had never thought of.. so I adressed it>
This was not about me "learning to deal with it" < he came to admit that>
This was not about my emotional stablity.
This was not about limits.

What it was about <my take from it> is a Dominant who had some fears, misgivings, and self doubts about whether or not he could handle me coming out of remission and going thru treatment. And was unable to tell me these things without proding and digging on my part. And came up with a very flawed plan to test himself, not me.

Facts:

1 -He said.. a few months ago he began having doubts and fears about being able to live with me, if my accounting of what happened during the three years of treatment were true. He said, it's not that he didn't believe me, but that sometimes the person going thru it doesn't see it objectively because it is they who are going thru it. Kind of like " the forest thru the trees". Fair enough and very understandable to me.

2-He began doing some research on my disease and talking on a message board with others to see what they went thru and were going thru. He also went to talk to a specialist in my disease. Again .. fair enough. I wish he had included me in this learning phase, but I do understand where he was coming from. He learned that my accounting of my changes were " probably true", as many told him their experience, some lesser, some greater than mine. The specialist confirmed what I had told him about the medications and how they effect the mind and body. Specialist also confirmed what I and my own MD told him... I may have a re currance.. right now I have been holding my own < so to speak> and the longer one can maintain a remission the less likely a recurrance.

3- Now armed with this info.. he was a little more ill at ease about his own ability to deal with things that occured <I think, and he semi confirmed,> He was hoping I was exagerating and things weren't as unpleasant as my eyes saw them.
This next thing I am about to say is the tricky part.. because it is hard to give briefly..

He felt " guilt" about not his own doubts of himself. He said he would " hate himself" if he stuck around, I became ill again... and jumped ship after telling me he could handle it. He wanted an indicator of how HE would re act. He wanted to see what life was like with me, when I wasn't my " usual self".

4- He came up with a very flawed plan. The crux of it being.... he was going to have me go without make up for a period of three months, me not knowing this was a finite act, and see my reactions and what changes occur when I have an altered body image. In his mind this would be an "indicator " of how he would react to me, how he would support me, how he would handle different things that arouse. And if he had the guts < my word> to stick it out.

He is very cognizant now that he used poor judgement. I asked him if he had discussed this with others on the MB or with the specialist or with anyone before acting. He said he had not. I told him if he had what he probably would have heard was this..... You cannot re create a mind state of illness, any changes you bring about at your own hands to try will not have the same effect on the person as when the body does it to itself and that he certainly could not bring about the emotional and mental changes that the medications have.

From that point on... our discussion, I choose not to share in an open forum.

I will say this... for me.. this is a matter of trust and honesty. I completely understand being ill at ease regarding your own weaknesses. I understand that some/many would not be able to handle a situation such as mine. I understand insecurities. I understand not being able to fully disclose your fears immediately, there is a process to that.
But to mask your own fears, by using anothers vulnerabilities is just plain wrong. I won't even bother to use my feeling of being "the guinea pig for his lab". That one should be obvious.

The bigger question is do I stay or do I leave.. well. I have left. I returned to my own home last evening. Altho we lived together 99.9% of the time, I maintained my own home, which I would have sold if things were going well after a year and a half. This was a financial decision on both our parts, so spare me the " you weren't really comitted" speech.

There is more to discuss between us, but not of me returning. I do and have forgiven him. He had human fears and emotions, those are understandable. What he did with those feelings are not acceptable, to me.

Perhaps I see life differently.. as I repeatedly said.. our own realities are dependent on our own experiences. In life and even in D/s .. if something is soooo viscerally "wrong" or " out of sync" to you.. you need to look closer. You are probably right.
I never did prescribed to the theory that simply due to his Dominance, he is correct about everything and that you should just take your licks and forget about anything other than giving him his way. Ahhhh but that is another discussion.

For me, and me alone.... To follow blindly, I would need to be blind.. and I am not blind, nor deaf, nor dumb. There is a theory about communication that one of the tricks is to read what is not being said and to know when this is happening. In my case... I am thankful for having been able to see past the surface.. had I done as some suggest, I would have been miserable, and I assure you I would have made his life miserable also. And yes, with that would come punishment.. but I am creative and could have done it within the structure of our relationship. And beyond the structure and just taken the punishment.. I am a stubborn bitch at times.

And what would that behavior on my part have accomplished??? Nothing, it would have made a bad situation worse and destroyed the core of the relationship. I choose not to disrespect myself or him.

maybemaybenot






mistoferin -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/3/2005 12:35:53 PM)

quote:

In life and even in D/s .. if something is soooo viscerally "wrong" or " out of sync" to you.. you need to look closer. You are probably right.


I am quoting this because I think it bears repeating. I am glad that you are finding resolution, even if it is not exactly what you had hoped it might be. I believe you have learned an awful lot from this experience even if you didn't set out looking for a lesson. As I said to you....and to many others....listen to your inner voice. Learn to trust in it.

I am sure that you will be fine as there is nothing that you have said that would lead me to any conclusion other than you are a very strong, competent and capable woman who is well equipped to deal with life on life's terms. I do hope that one day you will find yourself on the road that leads to where you ultimately want to be.



FLButtSlut -> RE: makeup or no makeup (10/4/2005 11:26:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CanisMajor


Now, my opinion about the OP's situation does not matter. As far as I can tell, neither does yours. Neither of us know her (as far as I can tell), nor can we be certain we actually know all the facts and motives at issue. I don't think you actually know enough to be certain the dom is playing the game you suggest. ...... But I've not heard anything unambiguous to the effect that her dom has treated her non-consensually by ordering her to do something that resulted in harm to her health.




Actually, one of us has come to know her, and when I posted about his "games" it was after it was discovered that "games" was indeed what was going on, and posted with the OP's full permission.

What was the most bothersome of this whole thing was not even this poor man's misguided "experiment", but that so many people here just behaved as though because he was "master", he must be right. The "master ALWAYS has my best interest in mind" speech ad nauseum. The fact that it was more the MASTERS here giving an intelligent guiding voice, admitting that they are not always perfect.

erin,

You are so right about that "inner voice" as well as maybemaybenot's "out of sync". My "inner voice" saw something wrong right from the first post, and I acted on it. I will be forever grateful that I did, I made two new friends out of this, one being the OP, whom your opinion of a strong woman is dead on erin. A man is just a man, even if you call him master. Never be foolish enough to think he can't make mistakes.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875