RE: Is this dominance to you?

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

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

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 11:31:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 Calla, first i do understand that the issue many seem to have with this scenario is the fact that he continues to physically punish her after she begs him to stop/uses a safeword, etc. my confusion lies in exactly why this would automatically lead to labels of "abuser! evil bstard!"...especially when it has been established that the submissive in question is owned (aka a slave), and especially considering the fact that she is being punished for blatant disobedience (a perfectly justifiable reason to punish a slave), and then trying to beg out of that punishment (something totally inappropriate in any D/s or M/s dynamic i know of). but as we've established, we all have our different codes of ethics, values, personal philosophies, etc., which will color our opinions on a situation like this. It leads to those labels because many people make judgments about others based on their own experiences or ethical constructs, rather than refraining from judging where they do not have sufficient information to do so. I spent my time as a no-holds-barred servant, and it would have been outside of the bounds of my ethics and self-respect to (1) breach my contract by denying my Keepers that which I had contracted to -- which was unlimited service with the one exception of involving those who could not or would not give active consent to their involvement, and (2) to attempt to renege on a deserved punishment, obtained by my own failure to complete the terms of my contract. That's not to say that there weren't times that I -wanted- to say 'no' or walk away... or not have to take a punishment that I had earned by my own disobedience -- but, as an ethical person, I could not bring myself to go back on my given word. I don't give my word easily or quickly... so having done so, I considered myself bound to the level of my spirit. What was speculated on in the OP would be completely outside of the bounds of my experience for someone who accepted a no-holds-barred situation. However, in order to continue to function as an Arbiter -- a role that I spent over 10 years in the Seminary studying for, I -also- have to acknowledge that for -some- "no holds barred" relationships, there -is- still the option of safewording out of a given situation, or even leaving at will with no warning and no further discussion, and that, if that situation exists, the safeword must be acknowledged if it is used. If an Owner/Keeper/etc. has no intention of accepting that a safeword may be activated at any point once given, the boundaries on that safeword use must be clarified up front or the safeword must be absent from the picture entirely. Otherwise, it muddies the water to the point where the whole issue is just one big, cloudy, mess. And here begins a long-winded discourse... feel free to ignore it if you are so inclined* For those who are wondering how I came to my assessment, and why I am so sticky on this issue, despite the fact that I, myself, in my own relationships, would absolutely have stopped progressing the relationship at the refusal of the submissive party to do as she was told, and certainly at the point at which a safeword or facsimile was used if I ever used one (or, in my case, at the moment anything remotely resembling "no" was used), and the fact that I don't use pain as a punishment in my own relationships, I'm including a picture of my thought processes. My assessment of the situation was based on a few assumed points. (1)This was a no-holds-barred relationship, as noted by the OP. (2)For whatever reason, the dominant party -did- allow the use of a safeword under certain circumstances and provided the submissive party with that safeword or a facsimile thereof, as noted in the OP. (3)We were not provided any information on the boundaries or limitations of the safeword, or the parameters of the dynamic in terms of the management of disobedience. (4)The dominant party clearly ignored a safeword when it was used. (5)We have no idea whether ignoring the safeword was discussed during their negotiations, and whether or not the use of the safeword during punishment was allowed. Because there are simply too many variables possible, and far too many ways that a relationship could be shaped that would take this relationship across a broad spectrum from absolute dominion to abuse, it is impossible to render a judgment. Because of this, I am clear in stating that I -cannot- presume that this is an abusive situation, and that it is not a matter of injecting outside moral or ethical standards onto hypothetical relationship... if a judgment is to take place, IMO it can -only- take place when full information is available on which to base the judgment. It also compels me to refrain from action, because to act without the capacity to make a valid, just, assessment, I am liable to infringe on another person's right to hir own free existence, and the right to make hir own decisions (including the decision to yield hirself up in a no-holds-barred relationship on poorly defined terms, or any other form of ill-considered foolishness) and live with the consequences, which, to me, may be the worst of all crimes-of-ethics. Calla Firestorm

sirsholly -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 11:38:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzDeadlyRed holly, to answer you. You stated : if a Dom has to give a rule to establish authority he is not a Dom and then in response to my interpretation of that said : so if a rule is unspoken the sub/slave is aware of it......how? Which is it then? Rules or no rules? Written or unwritten? Spoken or unspoken? A Dom should have authority prior to giving any rules. The way i read it was the rules equal authority and i highly dispute that.

leadership527 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 11:46:02 AM)
You're welcome daddysprop247. Yes, you've summed up my ethical system nicely and I'm pretty sure I get where you are coming from also. I think it's simply that we don't interpret "consent" the same way. I honestly wish you and yours a wonderful day. It sounds like you have a great relationship. Sincerely ~Jeff ps: thank you so much for keeping such a potentially inflammatory discussion "clean"

MzDeadlyRed -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 11:53:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: ORIGINAL: MzDeadlyRed holly, to answer you. You stated : if a Dom has to give a rule to establish authority he is not a Dom and then in response to my interpretation of that said : so if a rule is unspoken the sub/slave is aware of it......how? Which is it then? Rules or no rules? Written or unwritten? Spoken or unspoken? A Dom should have authority prior to giving any rules. The way i read it was the rules equal authority and i highly dispute that. I fully and completely agree with that. 100% without a doubt. Rule never make the Dominant.

MzDeadlyRed -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 11:57:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 Calla, first i do understand that the issue many seem to have with this scenario is the fact that he continues to physically punish her after she begs him to stop/uses a safeword, etc. my confusion lies in exactly why this would automatically lead to labels of "abuser! evil bstard!"...especially when it has been established that the submissive in question is owned (aka a slave), and especially considering the fact that she is being punished for blatant disobedience (a perfectly justifiable reason to punish a slave), and then trying to beg out of that punishment (something totally inappropriate in any D/s or M/s dynamic i know of). but as we've established, we all have our different codes of ethics, values, personal philosophies, etc., which will color our opinions on a situation like this. It leads to those labels because many people make judgments about others based on their own experiences or ethical constructs, rather than refraining from judging where they do not have sufficient information to do so. I spent my time as a no-holds-barred servant, and it would have been outside of the bounds of my ethics and self-respect to (1) breach my contract by denying my Keepers that which I had contracted to -- which was unlimited service with the one exception of involving those who could not or would not give active consent to their involvement, and (2) to attempt to renege on a deserved punishment, obtained by my own failure to complete the terms of my contract. That's not to say that there weren't times that I -wanted- to say 'no' or walk away... or not have to take a punishment that I had earned by my own disobedience -- but, as an ethical person, I could not bring myself to go back on my given word. I don't give my word easily or quickly... so having done so, I considered myself bound to the level of my spirit. What was speculated on in the OP would be completely outside of the bounds of my experience for someone who accepted a no-holds-barred situation. However, in order to continue to function as an Arbiter -- a role that I spent over 10 years in the Seminary studying for, I -also- have to acknowledge that for -some- "no holds barred" relationships, there -is- still the option of safewording out of a given situation, or even leaving at will with no warning and no further discussion, and that, if that situation exists, the safeword must be acknowledged if it is used. If an Owner/Keeper/etc. has no intention of accepting that a safeword may be activated at any point once given, the boundaries on that safeword use must be clarified up front or the safeword must be absent from the picture entirely. Otherwise, it muddies the water to the point where the whole issue is just one big, cloudy, mess. And here begins a long-winded discourse... feel free to ignore it if you are so inclined* For those who are wondering how I came to my assessment, and why I am so sticky on this issue, despite the fact that I, myself, in my own relationships, would absolutely have stopped progressing the relationship at the refusal of the submissive party to do as she was told, and certainly at the point at which a safeword or facsimile was used if I ever used one (or, in my case, at the moment anything remotely resembling "no" was used), and the fact that I don't use pain as a punishment in my own relationships, I'm including a picture of my thought processes. My assessment of the situation was based on a few assumed points. (1)This was a no-holds-barred relationship, as noted by the OP. (2)For whatever reason, the dominant party -did- allow the use of a safeword under certain circumstances and provided the submissive party with that safeword or a facsimile thereof, as noted in the OP. (3)We were not provided any information on the boundaries or limitations of the safeword, or the parameters of the dynamic in terms of the management of disobedience. (4)The dominant party clearly ignored a safeword when it was used. (5)We have no idea whether ignoring the safeword was discussed during their negotiations, and whether or not the use of the safeword during punishment was allowed. Because there are simply too many variables possible, and far too many ways that a relationship could be shaped that would take this relationship across a broad spectrum from absolute dominion to abuse, it is impossible to render a judgment. Because of this, I am clear in stating that I -cannot- presume that this is an abusive situation, and that it is not a matter of injecting outside moral or ethical standards onto hypothetical relationship... if a judgment is to take place, IMO it can -only- take place when full information is available on which to base the judgment. It also compels me to refrain from action, because to act without the capacity to make a valid, just, assessment, I am liable to infringe on another person's right to hir own free existence, and the right to make hir own decisions (including the decision to yield hirself up in a no-holds-barred relationship on poorly defined terms, or any other form of ill-considered foolishness) and live with the consequences, which, to me, may be the worst of all crimes-of-ethics. Calla Firestorm Calla, I have always enjoyed reading your posts. Easy to follow and concise. Thank you.

daddysprop247 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 11:57:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW Because there are simply too many variables possible, and far too many ways that a relationship could be shaped that would take this relationship across a broad spectrum from absolute dominion to abuse, it is impossible to render a judgment. Because of this, I am clear in stating that I -cannot- presume that this is an abusive situation, and that it is not a matter of injecting outside moral or ethical standards onto hypothetical relationship... if a judgment is to take place, IMO it can -only- take place when full information is available on which to base the judgment. It also compels me to refrain from action, because to act without the capacity to make a valid, just, assessment, I am liable to infringe on another person's right to hir own free existence, and the right to make hir own decisions (including the decision to yield hirself up in a no-holds-barred relationship on poorly defined terms, or any other form of ill-considered foolishness) and live with the consequences, which, to me, may be the worst of all crimes-of-ethics. Calla Firestorm agreed, 100%.

kiwisub12 -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 3:15:35 PM)
I went back and reread the original post - I still contend that as posted ,this would constitute assault. Further more, i have a major problem with the dom not interacting with his sub about the refusal to follow an order, other than beat the sh*t out of her. What happened to talking or communicating. For myself it would have to be a really distasteful order for me not to follow it, and if i refused, i am fairly sure that we would actually talk about it. As for punishment - if my Sir was to punish me physically, then i would expect him to go past what i would find acceptable - or it isn't punishment. However, we have an established, long-term relationship and both of us know what to expect if i am ever seriously out of line. From the OP, i didn't get a sense that this was an established relationship. I guess it could be, but it wasn't explicitly stated one way or another - which is one reason i consider the situation as assault - afterwards the sub was upset, not a maschocist etc. This didn't sound like the reaction of someone who knew what she was getting into.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/4/2008 3:50:50 PM)
What LA said here is closest to my own view. One give-away that this is a manufactured scenario is that a slave who supposedly enters a "no-holds-barred relationship" no longer has a safeword to use in the first place. So as far as I'm concerned, this wasn't really a no-holds-barred relationship. She got involved in something deeper than she was ready for. The other thing I'll say is that the response to a slave who pointedly refuses to carry out an order is not to whip her harder. It's to say "Bye." If there's a reason why you can't carry out an order, you ask permission to STATE your reason. Then you wait for the master to make his final decision, and you obey--or stop being a slave. quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross I'mn ot one crying for the cops here, but I'm not sure how the sub should hold any more accountability? She communicated that she no longer was willing to "go there." She safeworded which we can presume to be a signal they both agreed to as a sign to "stop, really, somethings wrong." What exactly does a person need to do to say "Really, this isn't ok with me anymore, stop, now, yes NOW, bad wrong, stop" and be reasonably accountable in your eyes? Yeah it might be kinda sucky if she made all these claims about submitting and "going there" and is now withdrawing consent, but that's life. Being accountable does not necessarily mean we get it all right immediately at the time of consent, it can and does also mean communicating awareness as it arises- she became aware that THIS thing was not ok with her, communicated it and was ignored, communicated AGAIN and was ignored.

tsatske -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 5:45:56 AM)
quote: I don't like this scenario. I REALLY don't like it. Yes, I know. There is some really F-ed up vanilla dreams/prejudices about our lifestyle here. The pieces just do not fit together, unless you force the hell out of them. But, if someone can thunk it up, someone somewhere is doing it, so there you go. quote: 1. What exactly is the relationship? Is it actually no limits as described? If not, have the limits been defined? Exactly. Even the most 'no limits' relationships are actually 'nearly no limits'. No limits to ME usually means that she does not have the right to make the final decision - and it usually means she is a dedicated sub who wants to please her Master and is loathe to say 'No'. Those two, put together, IMO, SHOULD mean that a Dom stops and takes a careful look when things push so hard that such a girl would say 'No.' I don't use a safeword. And, no, it is not because 'no' or 'stop' are my safewords - i am the kind of player that those don't work for, in the right kind of play, I can spend the whole time screaming "No, NO, Please please stop, I'll sell you my children if you just stop!' (the last part was hyperbolous.) Once in the middle of some fairly intense play, while chanting franticly 'No, please stop, your killing me, i can't do this!' somewhere in the middle of that came 'Red'. It is the only time it has ever happened. We both acknowldge that I don't have a safeword. So, what did He do? He STOPPED. He came around, untied me, checked on me - I said, 'I don't have a safeword. WHy did you stop?' He said, 'You never said that before. I decided that you had been pushed far enough if you said THAT.' Do I have a safeword? No. I don't have an agreement that he will stop at some particular word. He just knew that if my subconcise took over and started chanting potentail safewords - 'Geronimo. Red. Papaya. Mackentosh.' I might be approaching my limit and he made a sensible decision based on that, that time. I trust Him to make sensible decisions for me, - and now you can see why. In this story, I am imagining a sub who would seldom say no, has suddenly said no. What the Master had BEST do is grind to an abrupt halt and start talking, and find out WHY. In this story, what he did was 'punish' her. quote: 2. Was the Dom in control? Was he just pissed off and beating the crap out of her, or was there a point to the punishment? And let's define punishment. Apparently, this was a punish till i get compliance, not a punish for the misbehavor thing. Whatever it takes, IOW. I know some people who do something like this as a game - but not in real, daily life. That seems excessively dangerous to me. And it reminds me too much of Doms who have a set in stone hyarchy of what is a hard order and what is an easy order, in their mind. It doesn't work. You can order a sub to do something simple, and it might be impossible for her. Order her to kneel - did you stop to find out she had a knee replacement and can no longer kneel? order her to do the dishes - did you give her a chance to tell you that she has already been in your kitchen long enough to see your dishsoap, and it is the brand she is allergic to? No matter how simple the order, there CAN be a reason it won't work with THIS sub, right NOW. communication and an open mind are required, and are no where in evidence in this story. quote: 3. Were there agreed upon safewords? Some people have a dynamic in which they have safewords, but safewords are suspended for punishment. Although I try not to hold oppinions on others dynamics, the truth is, i don't approve. If you are used to counting on safewords to keep you safe, it seems fool hardy to abandon them just cause 'this ain't play.' She knows she is being punished and should safe word not as quickly as she might otherwise - not when 'this is no longer fun', but the Dom is used to having the safe word, if something goes truly bad, how does he stop? it might be hard for me to understand because in our dynamic, the focus of punishment is that I disappointed him and have to be punished - beating the shit out of me is saved for playtime. quote: Fault on both sides. She gave a blanket consent either without understanding what she was doing or else having an idea but with no real experience. He pushed her way too far too fast and didn't make her feel safe and cared for. The relationship's probably over already and each will blame the other. definatly. Blanket consent should be given with care - and slowly, in stages. And, for all the reasons many people have stated in this thread, not the least of which is he ignored a safeword, she should walk.

Missokyst -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 9:34:54 AM)
Ahh... but that would mean that people should have common sense before agreeing to hand over their rights. I used to know a nice sub male who thought I might make a great dominant for him. He said he was a no limit sub and would turn his life over to me to do as I wished. I said, ok, let's go to my lawyer and you can sign over your power of attorney to me. If I am going to take control I want the whole thing. Funny thing is he never got back to me on that. Hmm... I haven't heard from that guy in a few years. Kyst quote: ORIGINAL: tsatske Blanket consent should be given with care - and slowly, in stages. And, for all the reasons many people have stated in this thread, not the least of which is he ignored a safeword, she should walk.

scarlethiney -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 9:57:47 AM)
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? It is absolutely not acceptable and what I would consider abusive and an abuse of authority. scarlet

NihilusZero -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 10:01:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missokyst Ahh... but that would mean that people should have common sense before agreeing to hand over their rights. I used to know a nice sub male who thought I might make a great dominant for him. He said he was a no limit sub and would turn his life over to me to do as I wished. I said, ok, let's go to my lawyer and you can sign over your power of attorney to me. If I am going to take control I want the whole thing. Funny thing is he never got back to me on that. Hmm... I haven't heard from that guy in a few years. Kyst 25 points. "People have no grasp of what they do." ~James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom

NihilusZero -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 10:07:31 AM)
I think the reaction to the blurting of the safeword equivalent is where things go awry. It should be within the Dom's right to punish the slave for essentially compromising the construct of the TPE dynamic she surrendered to (as far as the relationship is concerned, she violated a hard limit). My reaction to the sudden attempt to plead out of her vow would have not been continued corporal punishment (if I sensed she genuinely was 'changing her mind'). Why would I wish to put forth further personal effort to someone who (I'm assuming without prior communication) has willy nilly backed out of promises made? Unless I really felt compelled to try and salvage something of the relationship (unlikely for me), I'd walk away and not look back.

scarlethiney -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 11:59:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I think the reaction to the blurting of the safeword equivalent is where things go awry. It should be within the Dom's right to punish the slave for essentially compromising the construct of the TPE dynamic she surrendered to (as far as the relationship is concerned, she violated a hard limit). My reaction to the sudden attempt to plead out of her vow would have not been continued corporal punishment (if I sensed she genuinely was 'changing her mind'). Why would I wish to put forth further personal effort to someone who (I'm assuming without prior communication) has willy nilly backed out of promises made? Unless I really felt compelled to try and salvage something of the relationship (unlikely for me), I'd walk away and not look back. So let me please get this straight. It is not ok in your opinion and many others for a submissive to possibly have reached a limit where she felt things had gone beyond her ability either mentally or physically to handle and to ask that said punishment be stopped???? That in your opinion constitutes breaking a vow and then would rightfully in your mind negate any commitment to this person you had (we are assuming here) and walk away???? Yes, I agree there is limited knowledge of the true dynamics in this relationship but I'm quite surprised at the number of people who view submission as an all or nothing (my opinion here) role without question. My way or the highway attitude. Let me make sure I am not misunderstanding you. This behavior or her inability to accept your punishment would be a deal breaker for you??? For many here??? instead of a redirection or need for more training?? or a training issue that perhaps said Dominant may need to improve upon??? or even more importantly a severe lack in communication?? I guess I am taking issue with the absoluteness of what I am detecting in your response. scarlet

NihilusZero -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 12:17:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney So let me please get this straight. It is not ok in your opinion and many others for a submissive to possibly have reached a limit where she felt things had gone beyond her ability either mentally or physically to handle and to ask that said punishment be stopped???? It's not a matter of "okay". It would either be or not be. The submissive had surrendered entirely into a TPE relationship...thereby making her staunch and continued refusal a violation of the relationship, warranting punishment. If the punishment exceeds her threshold for being able to handle it, then there is no point in continuing it for either party. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney That in your opinion constitutes breaking a vow and then would rightfully in your mind negate any commitment to this person you had (we are assuming here) and walk away???? Her disobedience specifically alters the entire foundation of the relationship. Would you feel as softly to someone who had vowed to be monogamous to you upon finding them in bed with some other random stranger when you got home? quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney Yes, I agree there is limited knowledge of the true dynamics in this relationship but I'm quite surprised at the number of people who view submission as an all or nothing (my opinion here) role without question. That is precisely the dynamic being hypothetically presented. We aren't talking about every/any potential sort of D/s interaction. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney My way or the highway attitude. Let me make sure I am not misunderstanding you. This behavior or her inability to accept your punishment would be a deal breaker for you??? For many here??? Not her inability to accept the punishment. Her refusal to do as she was told when those were the very guidelines that were agreed to. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney instead of a redirection or need for more training?? or a training issue that perhaps said Dominant may need to improve upon??? or even more importantly a severe lack in communication?? Depending on how much investment I had, I probably would try to see if the situation could be adjusted. But the refusal demonstrates a dire issue in the dynamic. Clearly, the sub/slave wants to alter the arrangement she already agreed to while still in the relationship. It's a violation of trust and, if it was something she seriously had been thinking, should have been brought up in a very serious, sit-down talk environment...not by the random sudden refusal to obey. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney I guess I am taking issue with the absoluteness of what I am detecting in your response. It is absolute in proportion to what was expected of the sub/slave, according to the story as it has been presented.

scarlethiney -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 12:50:48 PM)
quote: Her disobedience specifically alters the entire foundation of the relationship. Would you feel as softly to someone who had vowed to be monogamous to you upon finding them in bed with some other random stranger when you got home? quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I hardly equate this situation with monogamy or on the same level. And if the entire foundation of the relationship could be destroyed by this one instance of "disobedience" ( for the record I don't see it as disobedience) then I don't personally think there was a strong foundation to begin with. It's not a matter of "okay". It would either be or not be. *It isn't my intention to offend you, but that sounds pretty absolute to me* The submissive had surrendered entirely into a TPE relationship...thereby making her staunch and continued refusal a violation of the relationship, warranting punishment. If the punishment exceeds her threshold for being able to handle it, then there is no point in continuing it for either party. I do know the level of punishment and the level of sensual pain I can handle may differ depending on many things. I agree there is no point in continuing it why would that negate the need for adjustment or understanding?? quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney Yes, I agree there is limited knowledge of the true dynamics in this relationship but I'm quite surprised at the number of people who view submission as an all or nothing (my opinion here) role without question. That is precisely the dynamic being hypothetically presented. We aren't talking about every/any potential sort of D/s interaction. *I was* quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney My way or the highway attitude. Let me make sure I am not misunderstanding you. This behavior or her inability to accept your punishment would be a deal breaker for you??? For many here??? Not her inability to accept the punishment. Her refusal to do as she was told when those were the very guidelines that were agreed to. *So suck it up and take it is what you would expect. I guess I can see where this would be an opportunity for learning. I still feel it's pretty harsh.* quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney instead of a redirection or need for more training?? or a training issue that perhaps said Dominant may need to improve upon??? or even more importantly a severe lack in communication?? Depending on how much investment I had, I probably would try to see if the situation could be adjusted. But the refusal demonstrates a dire issue in the dynamic. Clearly, the sub/slave wants to alter the arrangement she already agreed to while still in the relationship. It's a violation of trust and, if it was something she seriously had been thinking, should have been brought up in a very serious, sit-down talk environment...not by the random sudden refusal to obey. There in lies the answer...............it will always depend on your view of the situation. If a step away from the agreement of or the inability to accept either mentally or physically the punishment then it becomes for some a "dire" issue. The word unbending comes to mind and is nothing more than an observation. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney I guess I am taking issue with the absoluteness of what I am detecting in your response. It is absolute in proportion to what was expected of the sub/slave, according to the story as it has been presented. I am beginning to get this .................the only "view" that matters is yours in this dynamic. Surely, the same response my Master would give me on this subject and in fact just confirmed for me. scarlet

marieToo -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 12:55:24 PM)
To me, no, this wouldn't be ok. Firstly, I don't care if someone comitted to a "no-holds-barred" relationship or not. Although a submissive may want and try to be no-holds-barred, it goes against reality to think that she's never going to screw up. It could be that what he requested caused a flash back for her, or caused some kind of fear that she didn't think she could get past. The thing is, when we commit in this type of relationship, there is no way we can expect it will go smoothly all the time without ever hitting a bump in the road. It's not as simple as "I command, you obey", and we live happily ever after in our perfect romanticized power exchange. Submissives faulter, as do doms. For either to expect perfection from the other isn't realistic. In my case, when I've agreed to a "no negotiation" type of relationship it was also considering that I trusted my dom to know me well enough to know how far to push and how fast. Given that doms aren't perfect either, it could be that the dom pushed for something before she was able to carry it out. Or she could have been experiencing some kind of mental blockage that kept her from moving past the order. This is why it leads back to having realistic expectations and understanding that, as in any other relationship, sometimes issues arise that have to be dealt with. Beating her beyond her threshold isn't going to get to the root of "why" she couldn't/didn't comply. Further, if they believed in safe words and had agreed upon one, he should have stopped when she used it. No questions asked. He could of course tell her to fuck off after that, but regardless, he still had an obligation to stop if she had withdrawn consent, not beat her harder.

onthedarkside -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 1:22:34 PM)
This is abuse, in my opinion. Regardless of an agreement of absolute control (which is something I would never accept as a Dom), once a sub encounters, in real time, a hard limit, the Dom's responsibility is to stop. My sub and I have hard limits and we have flexible boundaries which are subject to pushing when the mood is right. This was not a flexible boundary for the sub. Play should definitely have stopped at the point of crying and screaming. I found it interesting, but far from surprising, that the non-BDSM crowd would have such a clear (and wrong) opinion about what is 'acceptable and normal' BDSM practice.

NihilusZero -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 2:53:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney ate this situation with monogamy or on the same level. And if the entire foundation of the relationship could be destroyed by this one instance of "disobedience" ( for the record I don't see it as disobedience) then I don't personally think there was a strong foundation to begin with. That you would not see the parallel is of no consequence and also is a display of personal projection onto a dynamic, I take it, that you have no interest in or familiarity with. You may as well say: "**And if the entire foundation of the relationship could be destroyed by this one instance of "cheating" then I don't personally think there was a strong foundation to begin with.** It shows a crucial misunderstanding of the difference between the mistake and what the mistake implicates. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney I do know the level of punishment and the level of sensual pain I can handle may differ depending on many things. I agree there is no point in continuing it why would that negate the need for adjustment or understanding?? Because the issue has nothing to do with the punishment, but the alteration of the mindset of the sub/slave. The punishment was just a natural protocol the Dom went through based on an incident of disobedience...until it became apparent that the sub/slave essentially wanted to re-work her contractual agreement. quote: We aren't talking about every/any potential sort of D/s interaction. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney I was Then you're in the wrong thread. The OP was clearly making mention of a TPE relationship. That's what we're discussing. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney *So suck it up and take it is what you would expect. I guess I can see where this would be an opportunity for learning. I still feel it's pretty harsh.* Learning what? The sub/slave has not (if we are to follow the story) displayed an instance of wanting to learn, but rather a covert demand of changing things to get her way presumably because she didn't realize what she was agreeing to in the first place. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney There in lies the answer...............it will always depend on your view of the situation. If a step away from the agreement of or the inability to accept either mentally or physically the punishment then it becomes for some a "dire" issue. The word unbending comes to mind and is nothing more than an observation. Despite your aversion or inability to understand the parallel...try again to imagine a scenario where your partner has violated a hard limit and expects, essentially, for you to re-work your expectations based on it. What is your reaction?? quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney I am beginning to get this .................the only "view" that matters is yours in this dynamic. Then you're misunderstanding the situation. The sub offered up her "view" by refusing to adhere to the rules set forth. The Dom, in this instance, is simply reacting to what her actions imply as far as her ability to serve in the manner she was supposed to. The Dom is not magically, automatically mandated to accept a demotion in the level of servitude he's agreed to accept, as you would like to suggest. Some sort of affirmative action for the submissive? It's entirely the decision of the Dom to gauge whether he's comfortable changing gears and making amends or whether the violation is severe enough to warrant his removal. quote: ORIGINAL: scarlethiney Surely, the same response my Master would give me on this subject and in fact just confirmed for me. If you cannot see how you are preempting the decision the Dom has to make in such a situation because you feel the sub in the story has some special right to leniency that has not been agreed to beforehand (on what appears to be solely on the ground that one should endeavor to work at a failing relationship rather than be honest about where it's going), then I don't know how you can impart any serious trust to someone you would submit to (unless you specify in your agreements that you reserve the right to keep that safety net for yourself).

NihilusZero -> RE: Is this dominance to you? (9/29/2008 3:00:03 PM)
While I don't agree that punishment should have continued after the use of the essential pseudo-safeword (and I don't think anyone else is either), this topic, in not being geared specifically to M/s folks, is highlighting the vast divide of understanding that segregates those on opposite sides of that power exchange line. It was made clear from the outset that: quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 The submissive has submitted to the dominant in a full, no holds barred, sort of way (call it what you want). Some of the non-TPE crowd, however, seem incapable of looking outside of their projected anthropic preferences to parameters that might apply to someone else's relationship (and the dynamics therein). Consequently, you'll get responses that mirror this.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875