RE: Is this dominance to you?

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

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

Message

Jeffff -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 9:08:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Racquelle 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? She should go as far a a kidney............ but with out anestheisa.......... those are thre rules! Jeff

aperversetwist -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 10:58:29 PM)
It's assault. The bottom's "blanket consent" was withdrawn when they used their safeword. If the bottom chooses to press charges, the top should end up in jail.

dreamerdreaming -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 11:23:37 PM)
NO. Its ABUSE.

ElectraGlide -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 11:23:53 PM)
Was there a skilled mediator, that could tell this was abuse, and stopped it, if this was a dungeon scene ? The original post just raises more questions. If it was in a club and security and no one knew her safe word, it may have looked like part of their scene.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 11:31:28 PM)
Seems like we all agree that the scenario is not OK.

RCdc -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/3/2008 11:41:30 PM)
The scenario isn't acceptable, but I also do not believe it is all the dominants 'fault'. Incompatability and miscommunication is all that can be said really, as we have no idea about their individual agreement and what occured previously, or even after. the.dark.

aperversetwist -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 12:24:54 AM)
My first response was made without reading anything but the original post. I often do that then read all of the other posts, most of which seemed to be rational responses. However a couple of posts, much to my surprise, actually thought what was described was acceptable, some even blamed the bottom for what happened. To which I say; Stop drinking the kool aide. The whole idea that the bottom in this case wasn't a "real submissive" is disappointing. There are some folks out there who think real submission means doing anything your top says without question, and that once submit yourself fully and completely you have no further say in what happens to you, none whatsoever. That is not real submission. Real submission is a gift, which if not used properly can be taken away by the one who gave it. I for one have no desire to play with a "submissive" whose self esteem is so low or non existent that they allow themselves to be subjected, no holds barred, no questions asked, to whatever whim their top has without discussion or way of saying no. Just as there are people in this world who are abusive there are some people in this world who seek to be abused, to be victims. That is not BDSM. BDSM in all of it's many forms is, at it's root, fantasy role play between consenting adults. Punching bags don't give consent and they are not at all interesting as play partners. The described scenario falls under definition B of sexual sadist, that is not a good thing and it is not BDSM. The abuser in the described scenario is not a top or dominant or master etc. From the DSM-IV Sexual Sadism A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person. B. The person has acted on these urges with a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

MissIsis -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 1:12:08 AM)
It wouldn't be acceptable to me.

Secretslave1138 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 1:18:35 AM)
Absolutely No!!! i do not practice safe words because i am a slave and my Master knows my true limits. So for me, there is no need. However, this sounded like a horror story, that poor girl. A Dominant IMO is a Dominant because of trust. So, trust was tossed out the window with the screaming of safe words. Safe words are to protect submissives. Wow...that was a pretty bad story.

DreamsOfSpider -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 2:08:46 AM)
Secretslave, I believe the story is actually a hypothetical one. No actual s-types were harmed in the making of this discussion. When asked for more details, the OP said the following: "Yes, it is full bore Master/slave. Authority transfer without boundary (at least when pre-negotiated) Obviously, that changed..... assume that she clearly and convincingly said "no".. the moral equivalent of a safeword." But is "no" really the moral equivalent of a safeword, if you're a slave? Isn't slave v. submissive all about "no limits" -- including obeying orders the slave "very strongly" doesn't want to do? Including corporal punishment that the slave doesn't masochistically enjoy? At what point is the line drawn between "a Master doing what Masters are allowed to do to their slaves" and "abuse"?

Secretslave1138 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 2:14:42 AM)
Oh, i understand that. i know it was just a senario. i was simply stating a real life response. But, i know it was a senario. Hugs!!!

missturbation -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 4:08:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Seems like we all agree that the scenario is not OK. Not at all. I am actually quite shocked and appalled at the amount of people crying abuse and call the police. The submissive has to hold her share of the accountability too and hardly anyone other has mentioned this. The situation described is far to vague and contradictory to make a full analysis of.

eyesopened -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 4:39:26 AM)
I agree that the senario is way too vague. Seems everyone saying it's not ok is assuming the worst. What if the senario was: Dominant: "Girl, make me a cheese sandwich!" Submissive: "I just painted my nails and they'll be ruined." Dominant: "I don't care. Make me a cheese sandwich or get a spanking." Submissive: "I'm not making a damn sandwich with wet nails!" Dominant then puts girl over knee and starts spanking, she cries and fusses and "safewords" and he spanks her harder. That senario fits with the OP and you'd call the cops?

IrishMist -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 4:46:15 AM)
quote: Plain and simple, he beat her till she complied (or he got tired anyway) against her clear and express wishes at the time. quote: So, D and S types both... is this acceptable behavior? For myself...absolutly. I see nothing wrong in it...FOR ME...simply because when I was in my relationship, this was a normal occurance for us [8D]...not one I wanted or provoked just so he would beat the shit out of me...but normal because I tended to defy him quite a bit and there was a huge difference in our 'fights' and 'his anger over my defiance'

RCdc -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 4:58:14 AM)
quote: Real submission is a gift Except when it is not. quote: Sexual Sadism A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person. B. The person has acted on these urges with a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. Then a majority of BDSMers should be commited now. Call the white vans Dr. Why do I blame the submissive in this scenario? I didn't. I said there was not enough information to gleam whether she communicated badly and it isn't all the dominants fault - that the s-type is also in error. If she cannot cope, then she shouldn't be negociating such a 'contract'. It's not about 'being submissive enough' it is about not submitting to shit until you know yourself well enough to be able to give up full authority(which leadership confirmed later in the thread). This is an ideal case to present to many s-types on the reason of why you shouldn't just give away consent without being sure and knowing yourself and your boundries. Yes the dominant could be totally crap - or he could simply be exercising his authority which had been enforced. The whole scenario has no ending. Did the s-type walk afterwards, or is she still with the dominant? How many times hasthis action occured? How many times has she removed consent before this particular act? Why did they not communicate clearly before becoming a full on relationship? The s-types has to be accountable for her actions and reactions just as much as the d-type. If you cannot understand that, then you are living in unicorn land where everything about BDSM is about fantasy and submission is a gift. .Oh. the.dark.

IrishMist -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 5:23:38 AM)
quote: If she cannot cope, then she shouldn't be negociating such a 'contract'. It's not about 'being submissive enough' it is about not submitting to shit until you know yourself well enough to be able to give up full authority(which leadership confirmed later in the thread). This is an ideal case to present to many s-types on the reason of why you shouldn't just give away consent without being sure and knowing yourself and your boundries. Dayum....[sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif] quote: If you cannot understand that, then you are living in unicorn land where everying about BDSM is about fantasy and submission is a gift. /snort LMAO Fuck...coffee everywhere...you owe me a new monitor [8D] for not giving warning first

seababy -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 5:44:22 AM)
quote: ney............ but with out anestheisa.......... those are thre rules! quote: ORIGINAL: DreamsOfSpider Secretslave, I believe the story is actually a hypothetical one. No actual s-types were harmed in the making of this discussion. When asked for more details, the OP said the following: "Yes, it is full bore Master/slave. Authority transfer without boundary (at least when pre-negotiated) Obviously, that changed..... assume that she clearly and convincingly said "no".. the moral equivalent of a safeword." But is "no" really the moral equivalent of a safeword, if you're a slave? Isn't slave v. submissive all about "no limits" -- including obeying orders the slave "very strongly" doesn't want to do? Including corporal punishment that the slave doesn't masochistically enjoy? At what point is the line drawn between "a Master doing what Masters are allowed to do to their slaves" and "abuse"? Right up unto the time she withdrew her consent. To me her saying stop in this case is saying I "withdraw my submission". She knows she is in a TPE but she stills uses a safe word. I'd assume she was serious. I'd certainly stop to make sure! So if she withdraws her submission why the hell is he still beating her ass?! We are able to do the things we do because of consent. Slaves do leave masters, and slaves can and do withdraw consent. The slave in question may have to face the fact that the relationship may then be dissolved but no matter how deep the slavery the one choice she always has is to walk away. The whole TPE is such a tricky issue, (and yes I understand that my opinion is drawn from the shallow kiddie pool of my experience.) You may say that you have given yourself over completely and irrevocably, but isn't it really still; "I have given myself over completely and irrevocably , unless you pass a limit that I consciously or at the moment of agreement unknowingly have." My limit may be "Omg I only eat DOUBLE choc chip ice cream, and you got the wrong brand, I'm not eating that generic brand crap and my submission to you is over!" A "twue" submissive or slaves limit may be "Omg you've been having sex with my sister, mother and neighbors cat, and you want me to cut off limbs so you can explore the possibility you may have an amputee fetish...my submission to you is over". In the end she reached her limit, withdrew her consent = it was no longer consensual, all past agreements null and void. umm did I get off track and start rambling? Started thinking about chocolate ice cream...then punishments...then being covered in ice cream, topping and sprinkles and handed over to very angry, hungry Dominant lesbians on a PMT induced chocoholic frenzy. Made it very hard to finish this post. I think I'll run down the shop for chocolate. (they don't stock lesbians unfortunately) (and yes I know, every time limb amputation is bought into a BDSM discussion to prove a point ,a kitty dies)

RCdc -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 5:57:53 AM)
I apologise.[:)] More coffee?[sm=coffee.gif] the.dark.

leadership527 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 6:00:36 AM)
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. Actually Shy... THAT is why I thought this was an important question. The scenario I described above was theoretical. It was exactly the sort of "scare story" that a person just pondering whether they might possibly be submissive starts to think about. I personally have heard this same scare scenario about 5 times now and I hardly ever speak to subs. In my opinion, what it represents is the "gloom and doom what if" scenario. It's not exactly reasonable, however, to let such scenario's determine your life. The exact same thing could happen in a vanilla relationship... or at your local gas station... bad guys hang out all over the place. You can read the responses here for yourself and see that for the most part, people here do not see continuing past the point of withdrawal of consent to be appropriate. I'm going to be interested to keep reading, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you're going to find the subs here being the "hardcore" ones. Myself, and ALL dominants that I know personally, face to face, in real life, would see this as a criminally abusive situation and act both with a 911 call and more.. uh... direct methods if possible. Now, I don't know that many dominants up close and personal and I'm not suggesting that that's the only way to view it. Obviously, some people on this very thread read it differently. But using the dominants whom I know for real as a guide, this situation would never come up. The responses on this board support that conclusion barring for a small percentage (so far). ~Jeff

leadership527 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 6:06:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW 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 And that's why I find this fascinating Calla. Both legally and ethically, in my own head I knew everything I needed to know the moment that a credible "stop" statement was given and no stopping happened. I don't honestly care whehter she swore to be a sub, slave, or cucumber. I don't really care about anything at that point other than "no means no". In my mind, this is incredibly cut and dried, per my ethical system. But that's what I'm checking here is how other people's ethical systems process it. Obviously, yours is very different. For all of my dominant ways, I do not actually want to roll the clock back on women's lib. My wife has a choice to submit to me and I'd like to keep it that way.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125