RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

DarkVictory -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 6:46:25 PM)

So I'll reply .... but hopefully only once.  Softness did mention that she felt like she was getting her head kicked in on this thread, so I may well forbid her to even read it any longer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

A few days ago in the “Procuring” thread, softness made the following comment in her original post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: softness

... Sir has told me again and again that I am secure in my position as long as I am pleasing.

... He will not seek to replace me as long as I am pleasing ...



At that time, I knew this comment niggled at me, but as it wasn’t really relevant to that particular thread.  I also wanted to give it some time and consideration before I voiced my thoughts.

Generally, the idea that a dominant would only keep a slave or submissive so long as he or she is pleasing seems to be a reasonable requirement… though not exclusively from a dominant perspective.  I would posit that most people, regardless of orientation or lifestyle choice, would have a difficult time staying committed to someone who behaved in a manner they did not like.


So, you do (in part at least) get that the statement merely makes overt what is present but covert in all other relationships.  Good. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I suppose the underlying difference, though, is the impression that there would be less leeway with a dominant.  Not that they require perfection, but, due to the nature of the D/s relationship, there is a higher expectation of compliance and behaving in a pleasing manner placed on the submissive.


Not really.  Mistake one.  All relationships impose absolutes.  "Don't do crack in front of the kids or I'll leave you."  It may be unstated, but it's present.  Bottom line is that people do *not* stay with people they can't abide.  Even in the cases of staying together for the kids, there's a functional and unstated divorce of affection present.  Parents not sharing a bed, pretending to like each other but affection being missing.  It's all a real and effective alienation of affection.  Every single relationship has boundaries.  Every one.  In the case of D/s, the boundaries are simply more prominent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Another prominent difference is that this is more likely an upfront and spoken condition placed upon the relationship.  I would imagine it is rare for a man to propose marriage to a woman with the caveat that he would only stay married to her for as long as she is pleasing to him.


Mistake Two.  It's the single greatest demand any person has for their mate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

There is also the commonly accepted concept that, like marriage, collaring a slave is a lifelong commitment.  Though, also like marriage, it is generally accepted that it may not work out.  It’s just not typically voiced when people get married.

Which brings me to the crux of why softness’ statement “bothered” me… because it is voiced, it is an ultimatum.  Please me or you will be replaced.

That's the *unstated* but exactly the same requirement in any relationship.
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Ultimatums, in and of themselves, are not really a problem.  Whether recognized or not, we live with ultimatums all the time.  If you do not get a license, you cannot legally drive a car… if you do not meet entrance requirements, you cannot attend college… if you do not show up for work, you will not get paid… etcetera.

What is different about this particular ultimatum is that it isn’t absolute.

As I intimated above, it would be unusual for a dominant to require perfection from his slave or submissive.  Unless DV was one who required absolute perfection from softness, then his statement to her isn’t true.  Otherwise, one simple act by her that he found displeasing would have him looking for her replacement.

Next mistake.  You confuse or at least confound contexts.  There's the momentary context, and the context of a relationship.  In any given moment, softness may well be a complete cunt, like any woman.  (or man for that matter)  It's only in the context of the relationship as a whole that the absolutes come into play.  I'd in fact argue that a D/s relationship has more outlets for momentary displeasure than a vanilla one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I doubt that softness’ position is that unsecured.  I suspect that DV allows for her to make mistakes and to occasionally displease him.

However, that brings up the second difference with this particular ultimatum… it isn’t specifically defined.  At what point do the little displeasures earn softness replacement?  Where can softness ever find security in her relationship if she doesn’t know if the very next screw up will send her packing?

This is the biggest mistake.  Your strawman argument de-facto posits that some relationship somewhere is secure.  It isn't.  Life isn't secure.  Sorry.
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I would imagine that most dominants would defend this ultimatum by claiming that the willingness and effort to please is what counts in the end… that as long as the submissive or slave was making a genuine attempt to be pleasing, that the error would not be counted against her.  While I would question just how absolute that particular statement would be (if a slave or submissive consistently failed to please… no matter how much she wanted to and how much she tried… I suspect there would eventually be a point where the dominant would give up or lose interest), it still serves to emphasize that the original ultimatum wasn’t accurate.

In D/s relationships where truthfulness and trust are so highly vaunted, I question the wisdom of a dominant making such an ultimatum… one that, for all intents and purposes, is not true.  Since it seems to be a common ultimatum, is there some other purpose for this that I am missing?



Yes.  You're missing the entire context.  She wanted to know what I wanted from her.  What I want and wanted is for her to strive to be pleasing, and to be constantly at work on that.  Nothing more.  When she can't be bothered to be interested in pleasing me, the relationship is already dead.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 7:01:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory
When she can't be bothered to be interested in pleasing me, the relationship is already dead.



Six pages of mostly BS in here and it's all summed up (for me, anyway) in the very last sentence I read.  This is exactly the point.  When one can not be bothered to put forth effort into the relationship, there is no point to the relationship.

Maybe, like in my case, "being pleasing" means striving for greatness, always putting the relationship first, and always giving it your best effort?  It's always been clear to me that the point of my Master having a slave is so he can be pleased by his slave.  He also made it very clear as to what is pleasing to him - a genuine, sincere best effort that comes from the heart.  No insecurity for me there. 

Lately I have been told I have pretty well earned a place with him for as long as I want to be here.  Apparently he has liked my effort.  That doesnt' mean I slack off now; I want nothing more than to give him my best effort.  He deserves it. 

Even throughout our relationship, if I was less than pleasing, he would work with me to correct that.  It's a pretty extreme thought to go with the notion - one fuck up and you're gone.  I think that's a pretty rare occurance, actually.

As for softness, once again she held herself with poise and grace as her relationship was questioned endlessly. 



xxblushesxx -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 7:01:29 PM)

By the same token, I expect HM to be pleasing to me...

When He is no longer pleasing to me, we may have serious problems.

eta this was in reply to DV



RedMagic1 -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 7:24:53 PM)

I haven't read all the posts here either, but what I gather is that in this thread -- and others I haven't read -- softness is getting a lot of static for her choice of relationship.  I've been quiet about this, though I sent a note on the other side, but I'm now getting sick of this shit, and it's time things stopped.

Anyone with a beef about softness's relationship can fuck off and get over themselves.

Before softness committed to DV, I talked with her a fair amount, and she also invited me to a private blog where she wrote about conversations with him, and what she hoped for her future.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she has made the right decision for what she needs at this stage in her life.  I have no idea if the two of them will live happily ever after, and I don't care.  I know that she is pursuing a dream, and that she made her decisions after a maturity of consideration that most posters on these boards are incapable of achieving.

It is time for everybody to back off and put more energy into improving your own damn relationships.



MadRabbit -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 7:46:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

Yes.  You're missing the entire context.  She wanted to know what I wanted from her.  What I want and wanted is for her to strive to be pleasing, and to be constantly at work on that.  Nothing more.  When she can't be bothered to be interested in pleasing me, the relationship is already dead.



Man, now if only some guy had said this exact same thing about the ultimatum in post #3....




TreasureKY -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 8:20:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit


I enjoyed your post and Charlotte's. It's just a shame they got lost in 4 pages of clutter.
 


MadRabbit, Stephann and charlotteS,

I agree that it is a shame that all your thoughtful posts went generally unacknowledged in this thread.  I do apologize for that... unfortunately I became somewhat distracted when it became apparent that softness may have felt targeted, and it appears many others were, as well.  I'm also reluctant to make post after post in a thread of my own... it can appear self-important, as if what I have to say on a subject is holds some particular significance.  That, or it can look like I'm just trying to drive the page count up.   [;)]

Be that as it may...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

... Thus in this case, if the guideline was "to be pleasing or else", then when I told her to wear a certain outfit, she can safely assume that I find this outfit pleasing and that she should take wearing it for me seriously.

It still provides some degree of expectaction which is better than no expectation and both people operating in how they think the relationship should be.


It seems apparent from your explanation that this type of ultimatum given in conjunction with additional guidelines makes much more sense than simply taking the ultimatum as a stand-alone demand.  Of course, one would hope that there would be sufficient communication within a D/s (or M/s) relationship so that a submissive or slave would know just what would be pleasing to the dominant and what would not.  There are those times when guesswork must happen, but with good general guidelines and an understanding dominant, misunderstandings don't necessarily have to end with displeasure, but rather become learning situations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlotteS

What if a Dominant who says this doesn't equate "pleasing" with "perfect?"

... To use the old car analogy we don't kick our cars to the curb and go buy a new one everytime the oil needs changing or a tire goes flat.  It's when the car starts breaking down every month, is no longer reliable and we're putting more money into it than the service we're getting back that we look to replace it.  If Master were miserable with me more often then he was happy, or displeased with me more often than he was pleased I would hope that he would replace me.  No one should stay in a relationship that is bringing more negative aspects to their life than positive.  I trust that if Master started to feel that way he would talk to me.  He wouldn't just kick me to the curb and say "cunt, you forgot to do the laundry one too many times."  That is the symptom of an unhealthy relationship vanilla or D/s.


What a great analogy and analysis.  I think that more often than not, when we consider whether we are pleased with our partner, it is the overall percentage that is thought of and not specific incidents.  I don't really believe that any dominant in his right mind expects flawless behavior at all times, however my point was that a flat ultimatum does sound as if it implies no errors are allowed.  And as NorthernGent pointed out, "being pleasing" isn't exactly something that is tangible or measurable... unlike doing the laundry. 

I realize I am being somewhat stubborn and particularly picky on the point of how this requirement is made.  But imagine, if you will, a dominant who makes a rule and declares that it will be followed or else the submissive will be released... what message would the submissive receive if the first time she breaks a rule (or the second, or the third), she is not released?

Of course, we would hope that the dominant is simply showing patience and understanding... and as you suggest, communicating to the submissive along the way about his concerns regarding her performance.  But I suppose my question has been, why frame the requirement as an ultimatum in the first place if it really isn't an ultimatum?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

I can fully understand why people often equate D/s relationships with marriage; the problem is that this is one aspect of those relationships where there's simply no equation.  For some people, the promise of "till death do us part" is a vital component; yet this isn't true for all relationships.  In my relationship, I do need commitment; I need to feel it from my partner, and I need to feel I can share my commitment to her.  Yet, the collar isn't a symbol of my commitment; the collar is a symbol of her commitment.  The only commitment I have as a slave owner, is to treat her as a slave.  This may sound harsh, uncaring, and unfeeling, but this has more to do with the way the BDSM community has come to equate D/s with love.  I don't love my slave, because she is my slave; I love her, because of the fantastic person and relationship partner she is for me.  If she no longer served my needs as a slave, this doesn't mean I would toss her out in the street; on the other hand, I certainly wouldn't keep her as a slave, if she was a terrible slave.  I would acknowledge that our relationship had fundamentally changed, and adapt with it.

There's honestly another issue here, though; the assumption that a ring or a promise will somehow make a relationship work.  It isn't a promise of forever that keeps my slave bound to me; it's the promise that I will only be with her, if we are happy, that makes any relationship work.  Promises don't make relationships work, people do; with their day to day choices, efforts, and genuine sharing of goals and needs.  I struggled with this, with my last slave; I felt that her commitment towards marriage was vital to the survival of our relationship.  In the end, I learned that being married to her wouldn't have made it work any better; if anything, it would be like trying to use scotch tape to hold a roof up.  Today, I firmly believe that marriage will be something that comes from acknowledging that a commitment already exists, that we are already inseperable, and it's clear that won't likely ever change. 


A beautiful sentiment, Stephann, and well said.  I would like to clarify that I didn't intend to equate a D/s relationship with marriage... I only wished to draw a parallel in order to illustrate my point.



Stephann -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 8:32:34 PM)

Hi Treasure,

Thank you for the kind words.  Briefly, I'd only like to mention that such ultimatums exist in all relationships.  There are a number of rules in place, often unspoken, that say "if you do X, it's OVER."  A big one in vanilla relationships is often cheating; my slave knows if she cheats on me, I will probably release her.  This isn't because I am concerned about her sexual activities; it's the implicit lie and/or deceit that is associated.  Another thing I've told her is that if, in the course of her work as a model, if she ever uses an illegal substance (i.e. drugs) I will release her.  Not just cut her loose; I'll literally have her things sitting by the front door when she comes home, and change the locks on the door.  That's a pretty strong ultimatum; I've had similar rules in my 'vanilla' relationships in the past.  I dated a dancer, and told her if she ever went home with a client, she'd find her things by the front door.  She did, and she did.  She told me that she knew that rule would end the relationship, and at the time, that's what she wanted to do.

Ultimatums are fine, I think, so long as everyone in the relationship feels they are acceptable.  It's tricky in M/s relationships; ultimately, an own slave has chosen to be in a relationship where she has no final say.  Yes, sometimes this gets abused; unfortunately, it's not for the peanut gallery to decide how it works.

Stephan



CruelDesires -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 8:41:28 PM)

I don't call them ultimatums. I refer to them as "deal breakers". Things that someone does that will end a relationship . Either a new and budding one, or one that is well established.


CD



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 9:41:56 PM)

I like what Owned said and will add my thoughts.  It really depends on how literal and what perspective you are taking to the term "pleasing."

I personally wouldn't use the term pleasing because when literally applied it doesn't work out for me.  For me it's much more about FULFILLMENT.

I've often noted that my partner is most often pleasing when he says NO to me, when he tells me things I know I won't like, when he tells me things HE knows I won't like, when we get through the displeasing times together.

That pleases me greatly.

But I admit, the moment we no longer fulfill eachother, that would be the moment we need to seriously discuss changing how we commit together or end it altogether.  That's not a threat, that's not a way to extort submission or acquiescence.  In fact for me it's the ultimate statement of love- I love you too much to even attempt to stifle who you are and prevent you from finding what fulfills you. 



TreasureKY -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 9:53:08 PM)

DV, thank you for adding your comments to this thread... it is appreciated.  However, I must ask in advance that you please forgive any tone of impatience in my reply to you... as much as softness finds this thread difficult for her, I find it equally frustrating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

So, you do (in part at least) get that the statement merely makes overt what is present but covert in all other relationships.  Good. 


That is what I very clearly and without hesitation stated at the beginning of my discussion and reiterated throughout my comments.  I don't believe there was any "part" I might have displayed confusion about or disagreed with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I suppose the underlying difference, though, is the impression that there would be less leeway with a dominant.  Not that they require perfection, but, due to the nature of the D/s relationship, there is a higher expectation of compliance and behaving in a pleasing manner placed on the submissive.


Not really.  Mistake one.  All relationships impose absolutes.  "Don't do crack in front of the kids or I'll leave you."  It may be unstated, but it's present.  Bottom line is that people do *not* stay with people they can't abide.  Even in the cases of staying together for the kids, there's a functional and unstated divorce of affection present.  Parents not sharing a bed, pretending to like each other but affection being missing.  It's all a real and effective alienation of affection.  Every single relationship has boundaries.  Every one.  In the case of D/s, the boundaries are simply more prominent.


I fail to see any mistake as I don't believe any part of my statement even implied that not all relationships impose absolutes.  In fact, as I indicated in my comment above, I have clearly stated several times that the concept of ultimatums on behavior is not unique to D/s relationships.  If you will re-read what I wrote, I said that there is an impression of higher expectations by dominants.  This impression could very well be because of the more prominent boundaries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Another prominent difference is that this is more likely an upfront and spoken condition placed upon the relationship.  I would imagine it is rare for a man to propose marriage to a woman with the caveat that he would only stay married to her for as long as she is pleasing to him.


Mistake Two.  It's the single greatest demand any person has for their mate.


I'm sorry... your comment doesn't really make sense to me.  What is the single greatest demand? 

As for claiming a mistake, I'm not sure what you could be disagreeing with.  I believe what I said is pretty much the equivalent of your comment above, "In the case of D/s, the boundaries are simply more prominent."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

There is also the commonly accepted concept that, like marriage, collaring a slave is a lifelong commitment.  Though, also like marriage, it is generally accepted that it may not work out.  It’s just not typically voiced when people get married.

Which brings me to the crux of why softness’ statement “bothered” me… because it is voiced, it is an ultimatum.  Please me or you will be replaced.

That's the *unstated* but exactly the same requirement in any relationship.


Yes.  I believe I've said that several times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Ultimatums, in and of themselves, are not really a problem.  Whether recognized or not, we live with ultimatums all the time.  If you do not get a license, you cannot legally drive a car… if you do not meet entrance requirements, you cannot attend college… if you do not show up for work, you will not get paid… etcetera.

What is different about this particular ultimatum is that it isn’t absolute.

As I intimated above, it would be unusual for a dominant to require perfection from his slave or submissive.  Unless DV was one who required absolute perfection from softness, then his statement to her isn’t true.  Otherwise, one simple act by her that he found displeasing would have him looking for her replacement.


Next mistake.  You confuse or at least confound contexts.  There's the momentary context, and the context of a relationship.  In any given moment, softness may well be a complete cunt, like any woman.  (or man for that matter)  It's only in the context of the relationship as a whole that the absolutes come into play.  I'd in fact argue that a D/s relationship has more outlets for momentary displeasure than a vanilla one.


Again, I'm unclear as to just exactly where you see a mistake.  It would seem difficult for me to confuse the contexts when I've not mentioned the context, at all.  The general ultimatum as I've identified it contains no context; it simply is what it is.  The underlying implications of when and under what specific conditions that the ultimatum applies are relevant only to the individuals who employ it.

As for your assertion that D/s relationships have more outlets for momentary displeasure may very well be true, but it seems an irrelevant point to this discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I doubt that softness’ position is that unsecured.  I suspect that DV allows for her to make mistakes and to occasionally displease him.

However, that brings up the second difference with this particular ultimatum… it isn’t specifically defined.  At what point do the little displeasures earn softness replacement?  Where can softness ever find security in her relationship if she doesn’t know if the very next screw up will send her packing?


This is the biggest mistake.  Your strawman argument de-facto posits that some relationship somewhere is secure.  It isn't.  Life isn't secure.  Sorry.


Perhaps you don't quite understand what a strawman argument is... at any rate, again I fail to follow your reasoning.

While you might have understood what I said to infer that security exists, I don't believe you understand the context.   The security that I'm referring to is the security that comes with knowledge... it is not a guarantee. 

As NorthernGent put forth, "being pleasing" isn't exactly tangible or measurable.  While Firm has an expectation for me to always be pleasing, that expectation was not framed as an explicit, "be pleasing, or else" ultimatum.  If it had been, I would have insisted upon knowing the specific criteria that would invoke the "or else" part before I ever agreed to become his.  If my behavior is to be judged so critically as to bring about the pre-determined sentence of "goodbye"... no if ands or buts... I want to know just how it will be measured. 

As it is, Firm and I have a common understanding that neither of us wishes to be entangled in a relationship where we find our partner displeasing.  That may seem to be essentially the same as "be pleasing, or else", but the difference is that by not couching it in ultimatum terms, we've left ourselves room to be human, make mistakes, and be indecisive.  There's no guarantee... as you said, "life isn't secure"... but there is some measure of security in knowing that I'm not out on my ear the moment I do something he finds displeasing, and he has the same assurance.

You and any other couples who might employ the ultimatum, may also enjoy the same room for error and discussion... my question is and always has been, why use the "be pleasing, or else" terminology when it really isn't that cut and dried.  I'm simply advocating "say what you mean and mean what you say".

As for my somewhat rhetorical question of "Where can softness ever find security in her relationship if she doesn’t know if the very next screw up will send her packing?"... if it is your contention that this is a strawman, you would be wrong.  Just so you know, it actually came from softness' own words, "Sir has told me again and again that I am secure in my position as long as I am pleasing."   Apparently she is under the impression that there is some security.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I would imagine that most dominants would defend this ultimatum by claiming that the willingness and effort to please is what counts in the end… that as long as the submissive or slave was making a genuine attempt to be pleasing, that the error would not be counted against her.  While I would question just how absolute that particular statement would be (if a slave or submissive consistently failed to please… no matter how much she wanted to and how much she tried… I suspect there would eventually be a point where the dominant would give up or lose interest), it still serves to emphasize that the original ultimatum wasn’t accurate.

In D/s relationships where truthfulness and trust are so highly vaunted, I question the wisdom of a dominant making such an ultimatum… one that, for all intents and purposes, is not true.  Since it seems to be a common ultimatum, is there some other purpose for this that I am missing?



Yes.  You're missing the entire context.  She wanted to know what I wanted from her.  What I want and wanted is for her to strive to be pleasing, and to be constantly at work on that.  Nothing more.  When she can't be bothered to be interested in pleasing me, the relationship is already dead.


I can understand that, and there is nothing unreasonable about it.  I suspect that this is what most dominants mean when they make the "be pleasing, or else" ultimatum.  Again, though, if that is what you want, why say it any other way?




DarkVictory -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 10:22:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

DV, thank you for adding your comments to this thread... it is appreciated.  However, I must ask in advance that you please forgive any tone of impatience in my reply to you... as much as softness finds this thread difficult for her, I find it equally frustrating.

Then why continue?
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Another prominent difference is that this is more likely an upfront and spoken condition placed upon the relationship.  I would imagine it is rare for a man to propose marriage to a woman with the caveat that he would only stay married to her for as long as she is pleasing to him.


Mistake Two.  It's the single greatest demand any person has for their mate.


I'm sorry... your comment doesn't really make sense to me.  What is the single greatest demand? 

As for claiming a mistake, I'm not sure what you could be disagreeing with.  I believe what I said is pretty much the equivalent of your comment above, "In the case of D/s, the boundaries are simply more prominent."

Your mistake is imagining it to be rare.  I posit, above, that all relationships have that caveat.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I doubt that softness’ position is that unsecured.  I suspect that DV allows for her to make mistakes and to occasionally displease him.

However, that brings up the second difference with this particular ultimatum… it isn’t specifically defined.  At what point do the little displeasures earn softness replacement?  Where can softness ever find security in her relationship if she doesn’t know if the very next screw up will send her packing?


This is the biggest mistake.  Your strawman argument de-facto posits that some relationship somewhere is secure.  It isn't.  Life isn't secure.  Sorry.


The strawman argument that you make is a) enough little displeasures will accumulate to a big one, b) That it *is* possible somewhere to find security in a relationship, as an absolutist construct, and c) that the lack of specific definition implies that softness cant add.  Then you argue based on that argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Perhaps you don't quite understand what a strawman argument is... at any rate, again I fail to follow your reasoning.
  Nice, what's next, an ad-hominem attack?  You misstate my position in order to make it easier to argue against, then accuse me of ignorance.  Classic.
You'll find below that you put forward the position as being

a) Be pleasing or else, and
b) That softness has no room to be human.

Neither of those is an accurate representation of our relationship, but it's *much* easier to attack.  That's cheap debating even in junior high school.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

While you might have understood what I said to infer that security exists, I don't believe you understand the context.   The security that I'm referring to is the security that comes with knowledge... it is not a guarantee. 

As NorthernGent put forth, "being pleasing" isn't exactly tangible or measurable.  While Firm has an expectation for me to always be pleasing, that expectation was not framed as an explicit, "be pleasing, or else" ultimatum.  If it had been, I would have insisted upon knowing the specific criteria that would invoke the "or else" part before I ever agreed to become his.  If my behavior is to be judged so critically as to bring about the pre-determined sentence of "goodbye"... no if ands or buts... I want to know just how it will be measured. 

As it is, Firm and I have a common understanding that neither of us wishes to be entangled in a relationship where we find our partner displeasing.  That may seem to be essentially the same as "be pleasing, or else", but the difference is that by not couching it in ultimatum terms, we've left ourselves room to be human, make mistakes, and be indecisive.  There's no guarantee... as you said, "life isn't secure"... but there is some measure of security in knowing that I'm not out on my ear the moment I do something he finds displeasing, and he has the same assurance.

You and any other couples who might employ the ultimatum, may also enjoy the same room for error and discussion... my question is and always has been, why use the "be pleasing, or else" terminology when it really isn't that cut and dried.  I'm simply advocating "say what you mean and mean what you say".

As for my somewhat rhetorical question of "Where can softness ever find security in her relationship if she doesn’t know if the very next screw up will send her packing?"... if it is your contention that this is a strawman, you would be wrong.  Just so you know, it actually came from softness' own words, "Sir has told me again and again that I am secure in my position as long as I am pleasing."   Apparently she is under the impression that there is some security.


Your posts waver back and forth from asking useful questions to being snarky and bitingly critical.  Why?



FirmhandKY -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 10:46:18 PM)

I posit that ipso facto a strawman fallacious argument sounds snide and snarky and high-schoolish and can be covertly overt. A priori languages constructed with assumptions of context and meaning fail to delve the depths of epistemology.

(Or is that epidural-ology).

Yeah ... that's the ticket.

Here. Have another stick-pin. [:)]

Firm

(geeeezze, some people)



LadyHugs -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 11:11:05 PM)

Dear TreasureKY, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
"Be Pleasing, Or else..." is very general.  I like to think, that it also has much to do with the 'spirit of intent' in which this statement is made.  Some do such severe statements as to remind the other that the behavior is approaching the boundaries of which are never to be crossed.  At times people say this in jest--yet, without the reflection of the voice and the person's 'spirit of intentions' when saying such; it can easily go off into many directions based on assumptions, second guessing and or manipulating all the 'what ifs.'
 
I personally am a flawed human being. I cannot ask a slave to be any less than I.  However, I would only say such words; "Be Pleasing, Or else..." if a slave was going beyond boundaries of tolerable and or acceptable behavior.  These words, I would rarely use in humor but, only that of seriousness; to which there will be no mistake that my grievences against a slave is real, threatening to the relationship and full focus on what the relationship's negotiations meant.
 
I do have expectations for slaves; however--there are real life issues that; at times, thwart the success of a slave pleasing me.  But, I must communicate clearly of what expectations I do have; as well as priority to said expectations and the absolute boundaries that will not be manipulated and or crossed.
 
If a slave is not 'pleasing me.'  Which, I may add -="pleasing me" is again very generalized and broad; not specific--it is upon my duties as a Dominant to express what is and or is not pleasing me.  It may be just a small adjustment and or a huge undertaking to change; with all that fall in between both points.  Communication is paramount in these situations; as to clear up any misunderstandings and re-define what constitutes 'pleasure' to me.  To have a common understanding of what creates 'pleasure/pleasing' behavior and or expressions; both parties must come to the mutual understanding of what it means to 'please' and or be a 'pleasure' and or those which fall under the terms 'displeasing' and or 'deal breakers.'
 
Just some thoughts.
 
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs
 
 



DarkVictory -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 11:13:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I posit that ipso facto a strawman fallacious argument sounds snide and snarky and high-schoolish and can be covertly overt. A priori languages constructed with assumptions of context and meaning fail to delve the depths of epistemology.

(Or is that epidural-ology).

Yeah ... that's the ticket.

Here. Have another stick-pin. [:)]

Firm

(geeeezze, some people)


And now her owner steps in to rescue her from dealing with her snideness.

Lovely tactics there, attacking the grammar and expression.  Nice.

Done in this thread, stick a fork in it.




GreedyTop -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 11:27:54 PM)

Lady Hugs.. nicely said :)

*gropes DV*

I've always understood the idea of 'be pleasing or else' to be a fluid thing.. now, I havent read the whole thread (some of the random posts I've read have been insightful,  some have been snarky).. but personally.. my take on the whole thing is softness and DV UNDERSTAND each other, and have a mutual understanding of the concept. Therefore, THEIR relationship is above reproach, here on the forums.  It works for them, so the rest of us can sod off.

For other people, I'm enough of an optimist to hope that the same principle applies: it works for THEM.  Let it be.

just sayin....




Leatherist -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 11:39:35 PM)

Seems to be a recurring pattern. [:D]



TreasureKY -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/24/2008 11:47:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

Then why continue?


lol... Because I'm a masochist? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

Another prominent difference is that this is more likely an upfront and spoken condition placed upon the relationship.  I would imagine it is rare for a man to propose marriage to a woman with the caveat that he would only stay married to her for as long as she is pleasing to him.


Your mistake is imagining it to be rare.  I posit, above, that all relationships have that caveat.


I would have hoped that anyone reading those two sentences in the same paragraph would understand that they are related.  I did not propose that that particular caveat was rare in all relationships... I postulated in the second sentence that (as opposed to the first sentence) it was probably rare that a man would make an upfront and spoken condition like that attached to a marriage proposal.  It's just a guess, of course, but if men typically asked women to marry them and verbally explained that they would only stay married for as long as they were pleased, I doubt many men would end up getting "yes" as an answer.  [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

The strawman argument that you make is a) enough little displeasures will accumulate to a big one, b) That it *is* possible somewhere to find security in a relationship, as an absolutist construct, and c) that the lack of specific definition implies that softness cant add.  Then you argue based on that argument.


Unfortunately, my comments aren't a strawman argument as you suggest.  My questions were rhetorical in nature and serve to illustrate only that I consider the ultimatum to be undefined and vague.  It is not an argument but rather a statement of my opinion.

And I never implied anything about softness' mathematical abilities.  [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

Nice, what's next, an ad-hominem attack?  You misstate my position in order to make it easier to argue against, then accuse me of ignorance.  Classic.


Ahem... first of all, an ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.  If I had attempted to discredit your position by attacking your character, then it would have been an ad hominem attack.

Now, if I had misstated your position as you claim and then argued against that, it would have been a strawman attack.  A strawman fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Perhaps this link will help you in the future.  Logical fallacies 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

You'll find below that you put forward the position as being

a) Be pleasing or else, and
b) That softness has no room to be human.

Neither of those is an accurate representation of our relationship, but it's *much* easier to attack.  That's cheap debating even in junior high school.


Despite what you believe, the position that I've put forward from the beginning is that the idea I've seen put forth by many dominants... that a submissive's position is secure as long as she is pleasing to the dominant... is a vague ultimatum and implies that her position is forfeit should she cease to be pleasing.  I've acknowledged all along that I understand that this threat of "be pleasing, or else" is deceptive as it most likely is meant to allow latitude for mistakes and human error.  I've also said repeatedly that this concept is not unique to D/s relationships but that most all relationships work with the understanding that the partnership will end when the partners are no longer able to or are interested in pleasing each other.

While softness' comments were the catalyst for this particular thread, it is not and never has been about your relationship, let alone representing it accurately.   I know only of your relationship from what has been posted in these forums and have not concerned myself with how you live your lives.  For all intents and purposes, what you do works for you and that is great.

The point has always been that, considering all the thoughts outlined in my original post, it appears to me that the "be pleasing, or else" ultimatum is an empty threat.  Why would a dominant flat out make it and set his or herself up to appear disingenuous when pretty much everyone understands and accepts the concept anyway?  Especially in light of the generally accepted idea that truthfulness and trust are so important for a healthy D/s relationship?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

Your posts waver back and forth from asking useful questions to being snarky and bitingly critical.  Why?



Does how you judge the character of my comments somehow invalidate them?

Edited to remove an extra "that".  Sometimes saying "that that" works in a sentence... in this case, it did not. 



FirmhandKY -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/25/2008 12:08:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

And now her owner steps in to rescue her from dealing with her snideness.


Mistake Number One.

Matthew 7.5

FYI ... Treasure doesn't need rescuing around here. She is more than capable to handle her own discussions. It's one of the reasons I like her so much. She actually has a much higher threshold, and more patience for bullshit and bullshiters than I do. I tend to go for the jugular too quickly (which is why I and the lovely Mod 11 exchange missives on a fairly regular basis [:D] )

[sm=modxiiswatching.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

Lovely tactics there, attacking the grammar and expression.  Nice.


Mistake Number Two.

Not attacking the grammar and expression. Highlighting the pomposity and pretentiousness. Did I mention the bullshit? [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkVictory

Done in this thread, stick a fork in it.


Fine by me. A fork works as about as well as a stick pin.

Firm



FirmhandKY -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/25/2008 12:25:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

Seems to be a recurring pattern. [:D]


Perhaps there is a lesson in that for you, Homestead.

Oops. I mean Caretakr.

Darn! It's late. I mean Leatherist!

Firm



Leatherist -> RE: Be Pleasing, Or Else... (6/25/2008 12:28:14 AM)

Deja vu abounds.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625