RE: Is this dominance to you? (Full Version)

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



Message

secretsub1957 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 5:38:14 PM)

In submission no never the woman would do what she wants. In slavery,she gives up her right to say no,but still has hard limits like,no scat etc. In either case there is almost no submission that is not agreed to by both parties.



MadRabbit -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 5:39:11 PM)

When I first got started, one of the people who had a large influence in my understanding of D/S and M/S relationships was a Leather guy with a strong philosophy on corporeal punishment. For awhile, I used to be all for it, but over time, it has filed down and out of my own style outside of a nice cold hard slap when someone gets abrasive with me.

Can it work and be effective? Sure, I know quite a few long term and very happy M/S relationships including the one above where it is utilized it.

This just isn't the simply the case in this particular scenario.

Is this dominance? Sure, if we count severe bully tactics in the definition of dominance.

It's just irresponsible, ignorant, and a completely ineffective use of corporeal punishment.

Using corporeal punishment when someone says "No" to get them to say "Yes" is beating someone into submission, in my eyes. That is drastically different than using it when someone agrees to do something, but does it wrong or half ass as is the case with...well....everyone I have ever met who uses it.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 6:11:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

So, D and S types both... is this acceptable behavior?  Do you find this to be "forceful dominance" or something different?


Ok, I may have a different perspective, since I've spent a good deal of time working with Ds folks and fetish folks and kinky folks, and slave folks and on and on. I've seen a number of successful households where this wouldn't be considered "bad" or "wrong" by any stretch of the imagination, provided that, after the fact, both parties still wanted to be in the relationship.

Personally, I don't handle things this way. I don't limit my perceptions to only having one servant to serve me, but to me, if this was something I really wanted, I would have probably discussed it ahead of time and made sure someone I was considering as a servant would be interested in at least -trying- what I wanted. If it wasn't something I knew I wanted until after our negotiations were over, or if I decided I wanted it on the spur of the moment and I discovered later that the servant wasn't inclined to it, I'd either assign it to another servant who didn't mind, OR I'd do it myself or do without until I could find someone to suit... If it was a pattern of "oh, I've submitted to you, but I really don't want to do anything you want me to." I wouldn't use corporal punishment (actually... I sort of save that kind of stuff as a treat or spiritual/mind-altering experience, frankly). Instead, if it -was- a pattern, I'd start the proceedings to send the -former- servant on her merry way.

The fact that there are reprehensible human beings who will use their -claimed- position as a dominant to abuse body, mind, and trust, doesn't surprise me in the least. We have no idea if this is the case here, though -- we simply don't have enough information from which to judge. We've heard one side of the story, and have no idea how accurate it is, or how much padding is being done to increase the sensationalism or to justify someone wanting to walk away from a relationship. I will say, though, that even though this isn't -my- style of domination, there are successful D/s pairings where corporal discipline for disobedience is considered a -desirable- aspect of the relationship.

If that isn't the case for this girl, OR if she's just discovered that she isn't happy in the relationship and is trying to use sensationalized versions of what happened to find justification to leave the relationship, then she should be prepared to step away from the relationship -- truthfully, a person doesn't need advice from a bunch of strangers (even for me, I consider my job as a pastoral care provider to help people face what they already feel about a situation) -- if a relationship isn't working, and there isn't any motivation on both peoples' parts to fix/change it, then it's time to put on the walking shoes.

Just my half-dozen cents.

Calla Firestorm



Huntertn -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 6:27:26 PM)

Let me be frank..I really don't care if she gave her so called permission or not at the first.Beating ones sub or slave into the ground is something I'd not even do to a Dog,or any other creature.  Just what the hell does it prove or teach anyway????? And If you asked for and received an safeword..Just who the Hell is He to ignore it anyway?

Once she said the safe word, then thats it..As any Dom of any sex would tell you that Period. I once saw a brute of a so called Man smacking the shit out a little girl once, till I tacked his ass and beat the shit out of him over it.  When the bobby's pulled me off it was to 1. thank me and 2. arrest his sorry behind.  so if you don't or can't call the cop..what the hell..take him out from behind..that shit is for the lowlifes.AS a fictional story , thats one that kind alike really trips my triggers..lol



daddysprop247 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 6:59:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

So I was trolling around on another site, not a BDSM one, and came across a post that I responded to.  But that response got me to thinking two things...

a)  This question isn't all that uncommon from people just considering submission.
b)  In the various responses, there was a general assertion that the "BDSM crowd" would attest that this was not just OK, but desireable.

So I thought I'd ask.  Do you find this scenario acceptable?
  • The submissive has submitted to the dominant in a full, no holds barred, sort of way (call it what you want).
  • The dominant issues a command which the submissive very strongly does not want to do.
  • The dominant then proceeds to corporal punishment.
  • The submissive starts crying and screaming for him to stop, including uttering whatever passes for safe words if any exist.
  • The dominant, at this point, ups the intensity of the corporal punishment
  • The submissive tries to get away, but cannot
  • At the end of the story, the submissive still doesn't want to obey (big surprise there)


Please assume no hidden agendas in these items.  This wasn't "funishment".  She really, genuinely, truly wanted him to stop despite her previous blanket consent.  She was not getting some hidden kink satisfied here.  She is not a masochist.  She does not have some "fear dynamic" kink.  She does not have a "control kink".  Plain and simple, he beat her till she complied (or he got tired anyway) against her clear and express wishes at the time.

So, D and S types both... is this acceptable behavior?  Do you find this to be "forceful dominance" or something different?


this scenario confuses me on many different levels. first, the submissive has supposedly submitted totally/fully to this Dominant. perhaps she is a slave, or some near equivalent. got it. said Dominant then issues a command which said submissive does not wish to obey. fine, happens to us all, we're not going to wish to do everything our Dominants/Masters demand of us. you then say the Dominant physically punishes the submissive...this is confusing because it is never stated whether or not she obeyed the command? just because a submissive may not wish to obey, does not mean that she would make the decision NOT to obey.

anywho, moving on from that thorn...we'll just assume she disobeyed. now WHY she would willfully disobey, when supposedly she has given her complete submission to this Dominant, is another huge question. so then here comes the physical punishment, and she proceeds to cry out and beg for him to stop, even using a "safeword." (which poses the question of why one who had submitted totally has a safeword, but i digress...) why is she trying to safeword/beg out of a punishment? she disobeyed, the punishment is therefore warranted, what is she thinking?? the Dominant then proceeds to complete the punishment. at the end, she still has no desire to obey. but the purpose of punishment is retribution for her disobedience, not to create a desire to obey. and again, having no desire to obey a particular command is not reason enough not to heed said command, not if you are a submissive in a D/s dynamic, and certainly not if the submission is "total."

was the submissive's behavior in this scenario acceptable? absolutely not, imo. was the Dominant's? as described, yes, absolutely.



Wildfleurs -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 7:20:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

So I was trolling around on another site, not a BDSM one, and came across a post that I responded to.  But that response got me to thinking two things...

a)  This question isn't all that uncommon from people just considering submission.
b)  In the various responses, there was a general assertion that the "BDSM crowd" would attest that this was not just OK, but desireable.

So I thought I'd ask.  Do you find this scenario acceptable?
  • The submissive has submitted to the dominant in a full, no holds barred, sort of way (call it what you want).
  • The dominant issues a command which the submissive very strongly does not want to do.
  • The dominant then proceeds to corporal punishment.
  • The submissive starts crying and screaming for him to stop, including uttering whatever passes for safe words if any exist.
  • The dominant, at this point, ups the intensity of the corporal punishment
  • The submissive tries to get away, but cannot
  • At the end of the story, the submissive still doesn't want to obey (big surprise there)

Please assume no hidden agendas in these items.  This wasn't "funishment".  She really, genuinely, truly wanted him to stop despite her previous blanket consent.  She was not getting some hidden kink satisfied here.  She is not a masochist.  She does not have some "fear dynamic" kink.  She does not have a "control kink".  Plain and simple, he beat her till she complied (or he got tired anyway) against her clear and express wishes at the time.

So, D and S types both... is this acceptable behavior?  Do you find this to be "forceful dominance" or something different?


Seems like an asshole fully within his rights as outlined in the relationship.

C~



variation30 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 7:32:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

So I thought I'd ask.  Do you find this scenario acceptable?
  • The submissive has submitted to the dominant in a full, no holds barred, sort of way (call it what you want).
  • The dominant issues a command which the submissive very strongly does not want to do.
  • The dominant then proceeds to corporal punishment.
  • The submissive starts crying and screaming for him to stop, including uttering whatever passes for safe words if any exist.
  • The dominant, at this point, ups the intensity of the corporal punishment
  • The submissive tries to get away, but cannot
  • At the end of the story, the submissive still doesn't want to obey (big surprise there)
I don't find it acceptable...but the real question is whether or not the woman in question finds it acceptable. if she stays in the relationship after this...it's not my place to judge.



Racquelle -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 7:35:28 PM)

Reminds me of the Carol Smith/Cameron Hooker case.  Bottom line is, when we put measures in place to indicate consent and non-consent, and one party disregards those measures, it is no longer consensual.  WE as a group have done a fairly good job of having a common vocabulary with which to discuss consent.  That people who have NOT participated much in kink-play or in "the community" can still be confused owes to the vociferousness of a certain posturing asshole fringe, most of whom do not play the way they claim to, if at all.  There are tons of things I don't ask Frenchy to do because its not what we negotiated and he just isn't into it.  I am not going to beat him into doing it either.  Making my sub detest me and want to escape seems counter intuitive to me.



ShySubbie2ServeU -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 7:57:35 PM)

 As someone very new to being a sub (and still looking for the one to whom she is to be submissive), I don't see that behaviour as dominance but abuse. Truthfully the scenario scares the bejeebers out of me. So much advice recommends using safe words which obviously as this example proves does not necessarily keep one safe. It does make me seriously reconsider my decision to become a submissive to someone.



mbes -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 8:18:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShySubbie2ServeU

As someone very new to being a sub (and still looking for the one to whom she is to be submissive), I don't see that behaviour as dominance but abuse. Truthfully the scenario scares the bejeebers out of me. So much advice recommends using safe words which obviously as this example proves does not necessarily keep one safe. It does make me seriously reconsider my decision to become a submissive to someone.

Perhaps it should only make you consider more carefully WHICH someone, and what levels you are willing to go to with the one you do choose.

To the original, was she in some way assured that if she didn't want to do something, she didn't have to? and then that was broken? Otherwise, I'm not sure what she's bitching about. There are things I don't want to do either, but I'm ok with the idea that flat refusal is likely to get my ass kicked. I wouldn't like it. And it may or may not be effective (not likely in my case). But it would be "fair".



graceadieu -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 8:22:29 PM)

If they had a safeword, it's not really no boundries no limits submission, is it? And if they had a safeword, it should be abided by.



Tantriqu -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 8:27:32 PM)

Very simple.
Nothing dominant about it, just sadistic.  Safe word not only ignored, but the sociopath increases the corporal punishment = assault.




natasha66 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 8:29:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IamElise

If someone is in a consentually sexual relationship and for some reason, one of the participants decides that they don't wish, for whatever reason to have intercourse and the other partner forces themselves on them sexually, it's called rape.

If a submissive does not wish to be beaten, no matter the previous agreements, and the dominant beats them up anyway, it's called assault. And the police should be called.

Being a dominant does not give license to brutality. If anything, it's more of a reason to be protective.

My humble opinion.


i would agree.  This whole topic gives me chills.  No means NO in my book. 



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 8:30:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

If they had a safeword, it's not really no boundries no limits submission, is it? And if they had a safeword, it should be abided by.


However, since we don't know the situation, we don't know the parameters under which use of a safeword was authorized. I have known relationships where the use of a safeword was only authorized for new types of play that hadn't been tried before, to establish the boundaries of that play, and where a safeword was -never- allowed to end corporal discipline for disobedience.

We just don't have enough information to be judging this situation at all.

Calla Firestorm



mistoferin -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 8:31:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

If they had a safeword, it's not really no boundries no limits submission, is it? And if they had a safeword, it should be abided by.


But it's only EVER no boundaries, no limits submission....until you reach a limit. It's a nice sentiment....but the reality is that we all have limits....even if some just haven't had anyone actually take them to one.



coupleowl -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 8:34:39 PM)

Sounds like a sick-prick. The Dominat must possess self-control and be aware and respectful of the well being of his/her submissive. 



catize -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 8:49:07 PM)

I had many of the same questions, Prop. 
But to the OP’s question: Is this dominance?  I’d say no, I’d call it sadism.  (of the 'non-fluffy' kind)



Lashra -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 9:02:19 PM)

To me no it isn't dominance but it is a betrayal of trust as she used her safe word and he kept on going. He wanted his way clearly, whether she was ready to comply or not. Sounds more like a temper tantrum at the sub's expense. My advice to her is run not walk to the nearest exit on this one.

~Lashra



Jeffff -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 9:05:26 PM)

It is not Dominance. this isn't even domineering... it is assault,,,, plain and simple

While I am not a huge fan of the term "Lifestyle".. this is the kind of thing that should make us all cringe

Jeff



Racquelle -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 9:06:22 PM)

Is actual death a hard limit?  When you kill a sub, does that mean he or she wasn't a "weel and twue" sub after all?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125