Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Is this dominance to you?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Is this dominance to you? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 3:11:09 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

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  He could of course tell her to fuck off after that, but regardless, he still had an obligation to stop if she had withdrawn consent, not beat her harder. 

I thoroughly agree with this.


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to marieToo)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 3:23:17 PM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline 		~fast reply~

One other thing that strikes me here is the laissez-faire treatment of a promise, a vow, a bond, a commitment. The s-type in this scenario made a promise to a 'no holds barred' relationship. She then proceeded to refuse to obey a command from the dominant. Technically, in the no-holds-barred relationship, there is no place for refusal to obey a command from one's Keeper. That is the -foundation- of the relationship, and the key and essential element that makes that relationship what it is. The fact that there is a safeword at all is almost unheard-of in most no-holds-barred relationships. The fact that the girl -used- the safeword, in particular during a punishment for disobedience is the act of an oathbreaker.

Now... as I've said before, were she mine, I would certainly have stopped-- in our House, it would never have gotten to punishment, because at the point at which a bond-servant refused a command from one of the Keepers, that bond-servant would cease to exist in our eyes. Admittedly we have no idea how long this person was in this relationship. I know that becoming a bond-servant in our Household takes at -least- two years of active, full-time service, which is plenty of time to figure out whether or not we can be trusted with a life that is turned over to us. However, at least in part my ceasing would have been because I do my best to refrain from allowing oathbreakers a place in my life and, even more importantly, in the House that I have been commissioned to lead from and protect. I have heard a few people here say that this is nothing like breaking a vow of monogamy -- but in my mind, it is EXACTLY the same. This is a deep commitment and a life-long vow made between individuals where one essentially offers hir life, and all of its aspects, to the Keeper(s), to be used as the Keeper(s) see fit. In refusing to obey and then refusing the punishment for her disobedience, she is -absolutely- "breaking faith" with the promise that she made. It is appalling to me that a person might take a promise like this so very lightly --first by entering into it without full awareness of what xhe is doing, and then by breaking hir oath and failing to follow through on the promise made. It is -exactly- like entering into a monogamous marriage and then discovering that the promise means nothing, and that your partner is unfaithful and, rather than being -sorry- for it, whines that it is all -your- fault for having unrealistic expectations and not giving hir time to manipulate your relationship into what she -really- wanted in the first place.

Calla Firestorm


_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 3:38:12 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

~fast reply~

I give up.

There's no point in me devoting time to address topics on the boards if you're just gonna come in afterwards and show me up with a more concise, thorough and poignant deduction to the issues, Calla.




_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 3:51:20 PM   
stella41b


Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline 		I'm coming in late here..

Replace 'corporal punishment' with 'sexual intercourse'.

I wouldn't call it rape because there would appear to be an issue over consent, but I would certainly consider calling it sexual assault.

Just by way of analogy.

< Message edited by stella41b -- 9/29/2008 3:52:22 PM >

_____________________________

CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 3:58:35 PM   
marieToo


Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline 		Food for thought;

What if, just what if the order given included breaking the law or hurting another person. 

Let's say the subs priorities and code of ethics are ordered this way:

Obey the law
Never harm another person.
Obey my owner.

Would this make the sub unethical for not obeying the owner, if the command went against her basic code of ethics?  

We were only given a hypothetical to work with which didn't include what the command was, or why the sub couldn't/didn't comply.  I realize my example of breaking the law may be a lurid one, but I think this type of conversation when dealing with absolutes lends itself to considering an example that may be out of the ordinary.

We can't just assume that the owner ordered her to go clean the bathroom or drop to her knees and suck him off.  We can't assume that he's necessarily a man of ethics.  Even if he once was, maybe he's changed for some reason. Maybe he's broke and can't pay the rent.

If the sub were told to go rob the local 7-11, and refused, would she then be marked as one who isn't comitted to her relationship?  One who isn't capable of keeping a vow?  One who is unethical? At what point does a sub/slave, even one in a very black and white tpe stop thinking with his/her own mind in the name of comittment?

I'm not really on either side of this, I'm just throwing things out there that crossed my mind as I read some of the more absolute opinions.





_____________________________

marie.


I give good agita.









(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 3:59:20 PM   
scarlethiney


Posts: 492
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

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 a display of personal projection onto a dynamic, I take it, that you have no interest in or familiarity with.
That is supposition on your part; you know nothing of me or my level of interest or familiarity. Obviously it's of enough consequence that you take the time to be insulting.

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. to you yes.

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.
The issue was for many about the punishment, the misunderstanding and the supposed act of disobedience and the contractual agreement. Every one isn't going to have your opinion or see it your way. And that should be ok.It's unfortunate you don't think so.



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. Physical or mental refusal to accept a punishment does not imply a refusal to learn.(thats your opinion) A limit may have been met and the person may not have been able to withstand the punishment and certainly has the right to say so.  She may not have realized what she agreed to in the first place and that would have been a gross misunderstanding on the Dominant's part.

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.  Again NZ you know nothing of me or my understanding. You have no idea what aversions I have if any so please stick to the post and stop the personal attack.
Actually, I do understand the parallel. I understand an unbreakable rule and I do understand expectations based on it and how difficult it might be to rework expectations based on that limit or rule. I just happen to think some issues deserve some flexibility and this in my opinion is one of them.

What is your reaction?? I would of course be disappointed that my expectation hadn't been met. But I've been disappointed before mainly because people aren't perfect,nor is perfection ever going to be met. I would have re-evaluated the situation and my expectations and the punishment. I think redirection and discussion would be in order.  Rules or not punishment or not if someone says no, or stop regardless of previously arranged contractual agreements, NO means just that. 

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?  I do not agree . I respect that this is a hard limit for you NZ. The Dom isn't required to do anything, there are lot's of things he could choose to do. Your version  is the one I would consider hardlined. That is my opinion. It doesn't mean I don't understand why you take issue with this.

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.
Yes it is. The Dom can be unbending in his decision to continue the punishment, even to increase the intensity because he is embarrassed or upset at the submissives refusal to comply with the agreement. Or he could have decided there was obviously an issue here that warranted re-direction and discussion and not taken it as a personal affront to him or his authority.

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).

The dynamic of my relationship was decided upon by my Master and myself. It works beautifully for us and no I don't expect you to understand it. Why wouldn;t the sub in the story have some special right to leniency or have the right to expect it??? What about a D/s relationship in your mind makes that undesirable or I should ask why does it make it undesirable??? Why is the subs refusal to comply seen as a failing in that relationship and not an issue to work on? Relationships take great work. People will fail, fall and intentionally or unintentionally hurt you. All or most as a result of miscommunication and expectations that are unrealistic.
Let's just agree to disagree. If I have in any way offended you I apologize. It was never my intention.  I have appreciated and enjoyed your verbal jousting. This is one subject I think we've exhausted. I'm optimistic.........sorry.

scarlet


_____________________________

"The words 'I am...' are potent words; be careful what you hitch them to. The thing you're claiming has a way of reaching back and claiming you." - A.L. Kitselman.


see my profile masterkspet

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 4:21:00 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
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?


No, I do not find it to be acceptable behavior on the dominant's part.  It is neither forceful or "responsible" on the part of the partner who is supposed to be in charge of the dynamic and nurturing/caring/respectful of his "property".  While it can be argued that the submissive perhaps...PERHAPS...had an "inner, rose-colored glasses" view of "no-holds barred" submission that was surely set into more correct focus by what
happened and has surely made her rethink the idea of "no-holds barred" submission and what exactly it entails, his handling of a problem with a "no-holds barred" submissive would have been wrong in dealing with ANY kind of submissive.

(in reply to leadership527)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 4:45:24 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

That is supposition on your part; you know nothing of me or my level of interest or familiarity. Obviously it's of enough consequence that you take the time to be insulting.

Clearly. I thought the "I take it" conveyed as much. How is it insulting that I take your commentary, and what appears to me to be a disdain for the type of M/s dynamic being discussed, as suggestive of the fact that you, in fact, don't have and/or seek out that level of power exchange?

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney
to you yes.

Did we lose the entiure crux of that portion of the discussion:

--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.--

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

The issue was for many about the punishment, the misunderstanding and the supposed act of disobedience and the contractual agreement. Every one isn't going to have your opinion or see it your way. And that should be ok.It's unfortunate you don't think so.

If your argument is going to boil down to an "agree to disagree" plea, why are we even trying to discuss the logic and merits of differing viewpoints?




quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

 Physical or mental refusal to accept a punishment does not imply a refusal to learn.

In this case, by bringing it up in the middle of a punishment rather than discussing (what surely must have been a topic swimming in the sub/slaves head for some time) beforehand in an honest sit-down talk is a refusal to learn.

I suppose it's possible that something in the act of initial punishment somehow triggered something the sub had not previously anticipated...but I think it's takes some excessive special pleading to allow that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

A limit may have been met and the person may not have been able to withstand the punishment and certainly has the right to say so. 

We are in agreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

She may not have realized what she agreed to in the first place and that would have been a gross misunderstanding on the Dominant's part.

Please explain to me how it's a "gross misunderstanding" on the part of the Dom if the sub/slave signed up and agreed to something she was not actually ready for or capable of handling?

quote:

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.
quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Again NZ you know nothing of me or my understanding. You have no idea what aversions I have if any so please stick to the post and stop the personal attack.
Actually, I do understand the parallel. I understand an unbreakable rule and I do understand expectations based on it and how difficult it might be to rework expectations based on that limit or rule. I just happen to think some issues deserve some flexibility and this in my opinion is one of them.

There was no insult intended. And, considering this response, you seem fine with attempting an objective viewpoint.

The key here is that what constitutes an "issue" that may deserve more leniency than another is entirely based on the constructs of a relationship. This is exactly why I mentioned a "hard limit"...because what that hard limit is becomes irrelevant if we just look at it from it being something we personally understand as a hard limit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

I would of course be disappointed that my expectation hadn't been met. But I've been disappointed before mainly because people aren't perfect,nor is perfection ever going to be met. I would have re-evaluated the situation and my expectations and the punishment. I think redirection and discussion would be in order.  Rules or not punishment or not if someone says no, or stop regardless of previously arranged contractual agreements, NO means just that. 

Then, if "no" is so important as to throw the stability of the relationship in question, surely the violation of a hard limit demands as harsh a reaction (not physically) too, no?


quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

 I do not agree . I respect that this is a hard limit for you NZ.

This is a hard limit for the hypothetical relationship in question. We are talking about "them".

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

The Dom isn't required to do anything, there are lot's of things he could choose to do. Your version  is the one I would consider hardlined. That is my opinion. It doesn't mean I don't understand why you take issue with this.

Fair enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Yes it is. The Dom can be unbending in his decision to continue the punishment, even to increase the intensity because he is embarrassed or upset at the submissives refusal to comply with the agreement. Or he could have decided there was obviously an issue here that warranted re-direction and discussion and not taken it as a personal affront to him or his authority.

Treating this as an issue of "embarrassment" and "personal affront to his authority" is just as unfair as treating infidelity as an issue of "jealousy" and "personal affront to his possessiveness".

Calla hit the nail on the head by pointing out that one type of "hard" vow being broken (just because it may not be yours) does not deserve any more leniency than what you would consider a "hard" vow of yours own being broken.

Even then, people will have different opinions as to how much they value desperately holding on to a relationship, trying to salvage it, rather than cutting their losses.

I once had someone tell me that they would gladly welcome their SO cheating on them because it could potentially be a bridge towards building a stronger foundation in the relationship.

Maybe so...but not for me or most anyone I can think of. How far do you excuse not just mistakes...but blatant disregard for promises made and whining about wanting to change what's been agreed upon? Where's your/mine/anyone's breaking point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

The dynamic of my relationship was decided upon by my Master and myself. It works beautifully for us and no I don't expect you to understand it.

I don't need to "understand" it. I can still be happy for you. I can understand that you function within the limits you've decided upon and hold true to those values and rules. Maybe that even goes so far as to forgive the other if a hard limit is broken...I don't know. And even if that is your view, it's certainly yours to keep and I would hope it is one shared by your Master as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Why wouldn;t the sub in the story have some special right to leniency or have the right to expect it???

Because that was specifically not something she agreed to. It is implicitly said in the example that it was a full on, no holds barred surrender.


quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

What about a D/s relationship in your mind makes that undesirable or I should ask why does it make it undesirable???

Nothing would, if that is what I and another had agreed upon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Why is the subs refusal to comply seen as a failing in that relationship and not an issue to work on?

Because, in this case, the violation was one that hit at the very core of what the relationship was founded upon.

It's no different than having a partner tell you they want a lifelong monogamous relationship, offer you marriage, agree to it...and then, a year down the line, decide they want a sexually open relationship instead. And, instead of sitting you down to talk about their feelings with you, it comes out in the middle of what you thought was just a minor spat between you two.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Relationships take great work. People will fail, fall and intentionally or unintentionally hurt you. All or most as a result of miscommunication and expectations that are unrealistic.

Some relationships are worth salvaging despite mistakes. Some mistakes are fixable. Some mistakes are forgivable. And some are not.

It seems to me that you are, a priori, considering the expectations unrealistic because they seem that way to you.

They are not unrealistic if they are agreed to beforehand by both parties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Let's just agree to disagree. If I have in any way offended you I apologize. It was never my intention.  I have appreciated and enjoyed your verbal jousting. This is one subject I think we've exhausted. I'm optimistic.........sorry.

I'm not at all offended and I apologize if you felt I was unfairly prodding at you.

I'd like to think I'm optimistic too. But I've also been in relationships where I could tell when the cracks began to show. I think we all have good internal meters to gauge when something has crossed over the line of being save-able. For each person this will be different, but the one universal thing I think always applies, is that people will create for themselves their own "hard limits" with the expectation that they will be free to leave if they are broken.

In the instance described, that's how I view the exchange. I do not advocate the continued punishment at all in that scenario. But the entire mess seems like one bad recipe better left to the past than one of reconstruction.

Even if the couple tried to work things out, there is his broken trust in her commitment and her broken trust in his self-control to deal with...and I can't imagine both those combined as being something surmountable.

*offers happy truce macadamia nut cookie*



< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 9/29/2008 4:53:17 PM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to scarlethiney)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 4:51:44 PM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

Food for thought;

What if, just what if the order given included breaking the law or hurting another person. 

Let's say the subs priorities and code of ethics are ordered this way:

Obey the law
Never harm another person.
Obey my owner.

Would this make the sub unethical for not obeying the owner, if the command went against her basic code of ethics?  

We were only given a hypothetical to work with which didn't include what the command was, or why the sub couldn't/didn't comply.  I realize my example of breaking the law may be a lurid one, but I think this type of conversation when dealing with absolutes lends itself to considering an example that may be out of the ordinary.

We can't just assume that the owner ordered her to go clean the bathroom or drop to her knees and suck him off.  We can't assume that he's necessarily a man of ethics.  Even if he once was, maybe he's changed for some reason. Maybe he's broke and can't pay the rent.

If the sub were told to go rob the local 7-11, and refused, would she then be marked as one who isn't comitted to her relationship?  One who isn't capable of keeping a vow?  One who is unethical? At what point does a sub/slave, even one in a very black and white tpe stop thinking with his/her own mind in the name of comittment?

I'm not really on either side of this, I'm just throwing things out there that crossed my mind as I read some of the more absolute opinions.



I do see your point. This is why one of the things I find appalling is the idea that someone would enter into a commitment of this magnitude with someone that xhe did not know well enough to be certain that they shared a compatible foundational ethical framework. If a person made this kind of promise without thought, and without making sure that the person to whom xhe was yielding hir life shared hir ethics to the point where it was foundational to the relationship that xhe would not be forced to shatter her own ethical foundation, then yes, xhe is still an oathbreaker. Xhe made the promise without truly understanding and accepting it, and then broke it when it was not convenient to hir to uphold it any longer. That is one route to being an oathbreaker.

We are clear with our bond-servants, when one indicates that xhe is ready for that step, that hir -only- law at that point is to obey hir Keepers. Therefore, xhe yields up hir life to -our- ethical framework. It is imperative, therefore, that a servant in this position knows our ethical framework and has sufficient trust in us to be certain that the same concepts that would be anathema to hir are also outside the realm of consideration for us. I would not ask my servant to take a life. It is anathema to me to do so myself, and it would not even cross my mind to ask it of someone -else-. The same goes for my darling. Therefore, a servant in our household would not have to worry that we would command her to take a life--it wouldn't even occur to us to do so. In the same way, I do not steal... ideas, music, movies, time from my boss, my mate's candy bars... it is not in my nature to be able to do so. Therefore, a servant, knowing me, would know that I would not be able to find it in my nature to command -hir- to steal. Xhe could feel comfortable laying hir life in my hands, because xhe would know that I would not command such a thing of her ---

On the other hand, I will -also- not command my servant to interfere in the free-will choice of another, even if I do not like what the person is doing, and I am liable to actually forbid my servant to interfere. If I had a servant who felt compelled to interfere in situations that xhe felt were inappropriate, xhe should -never- yield hirself to me as a bond-servant, because there is every chance that when her ethical framework calls hir to act, I would forbid that action.

Thus, in a very long answer to your question, yes, I would still consider her an oathbreaker and say that she did not give sufficient care to her relationship, as, if that were the case, she would clearly not have examined the ethical framework of the person that she was yielding her life to do before having done so, and by my standard, that is acting carelessly with a promise -- something that I cannot find it in myself to abide, especially as I must answer to the hardest critic of my ethics every single day, when I must face myself at the end of the day and examine my actions against the ethical foundation I have created for myself..

Calla Firestorm


_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to marieToo)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 6:19:31 PM   
scarlethiney


Posts: 492
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

That is supposition on your part; you know nothing of me or my level of interest or familiarity. Obviously it's of enough consequence that you take the time to be insulting.

Clearly. I thought the "I take it" conveyed as much. How is it insulting that I take your commentary, and what appears to me to be a disdain for the type of M/s dynamic being discussed, as suggestive of the fact that you, in fact, don't have and/or seek out that level of power exchange?
Again respectfully NZ your assuming something about me you have no valid information about.
quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney
to you yes.

Did we lose the entiure crux of that portion of the discussion: Possibly

--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.--

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

The issue was for many about the punishment, the misunderstanding and the supposed act of disobedience and the contractual agreement. Every one isn't going to have your opinion or see it your way. And that should be ok.It's unfortunate you don't think so.

If your argument is going to boil down to an "agree to disagree" plea, why are we even trying to discuss the logic and merits of differing viewpoints? Geez......perhaps I'm not a big proponent of verbal battles. It's obvious we aren't going to agree on the dynamic of this relationship. You aren't going to have an epiphany suddenly and decide you agree with me nor I you.  We do have very different view points. I don't see that changing and actually I'm ok with that.





quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

 Physical or mental refusal to accept a punishment does not imply a refusal to learn.

In this case, by bringing it up in the middle of a punishment rather than discussing (what surely must have been a topic swimming in the sub/slaves head for some time) beforehand in an honest sit-down talk is a refusal to learn.
Ok I'll give you this one.

I suppose it's possible that something in the act of initial punishment somehow triggered something the sub had not previously anticipated...but I think it's takes some excessive special pleading to allow that. I'll agree with this one too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

A limit may have been met and the person may not have been able to withstand the punishment and certainly has the right to say so. 

We are in agreement.  Alert the media

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

She may not have realized what she agreed to in the first place and that would have been a gross misunderstanding on the Dominant's part.

Please explain to me how it's a "gross misunderstanding" on the part of the Dom if the sub/slave signed up and agreed to something she was not actually ready for or capable of handling? Perhaps she wasn't yet aware of what she was capable of handling, or not handling. Perhaps it was much more intense than she anticipated and her protests were fear based. NZ how is she supposed to "know" she's ready for something unless of course she's already experienced it. Perhaps she initially trusted this Dom and the intensity scared her and she lost her trust and realized her expectations were unrealistic. How would she communicate this with out breaking the agreement? What's wrong with having a clause that might state that in this event we can redirect your punishment?

quote:

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.
quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Again NZ you know nothing of me or my understanding. You have no idea what aversions I have if any so please stick to the post and stop the personal attack.
Actually, I do understand the parallel. I understand an unbreakable rule and I do understand expectations based on it and how difficult it might be to rework expectations based on that limit or rule. I just happen to think some issues deserve some flexibility and this in my opinion is one of them.

There was no insult intended. And, considering this response, you seem fine with attempting an objective viewpoint.
Good grief your related to my father aren't you?

The key here is that what constitutes an "issue" that may deserve more leniency than another is entirely based on the constructs of a relationship. This is exactly why I mentioned a "hard limit"...because what that hard limit is becomes irrelevant if we just look at it from it being something we personally understand as a hard limit.
Ok I get this....................so whip me I'm a tad slow sometimes. The limit is just that and is not based on the relationship or dynamics of the two people.
Maybe I don't have any hard limits.  I'm a mother we don't have hard limits except where our children are concerned and I just answered my own question. I now see what you mean. Damn. The limit with regard to my child is unmovable and circumstances matter not. I hate to be wrong. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

I would of course be disappointed that my expectation hadn't been met. But I've been disappointed before mainly because people aren't perfect,nor is perfection ever going to be met. I would have re-evaluated the situation and my expectations and the punishment. I think redirection and discussion would be in order.  Rules or not punishment or not if someone says no, or stop regardless of previously arranged contractual agreements, NO means just that. 

Then, if "no" is so important as to throw the stability of the relationship in question, surely the violation of a hard limit demands as harsh a reaction (not physically) too, no?  Yes when I look at it in the context I now understand then yes it makes sense.


quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

 I do not agree . I respect that this is a hard limit for you NZ.

This is a hard limit for the hypothetical relationship in question. We are talking about "them". But you are viewing them through your eyes and your expectations ................aren't you??

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

The Dom isn't required to do anything, there are lot's of things he could choose to do. Your version  is the one I would consider hardlined. That is my opinion. It doesn't mean I don't understand why you take issue with this.

Fair enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Yes it is. The Dom can be unbending in his decision to continue the punishment, even to increase the intensity because he is embarrassed or upset at the submissives refusal to comply with the agreement. Or he could have decided there was obviously an issue here that warranted re-direction and discussion and not taken it as a personal affront to him or his authority.

Treating this as an issue of "embarrassment" and "personal affront to his authority" is just as unfair as treating infidelity as an issue of "jealousy" and "personal affront to his possessiveness".  Ok I can see this point too.

Calla hit the nail on the head by pointing out that one type of "hard" vow being broken (just because it may not be yours) does not deserve any more leniency than what you would consider a "hard" vow of yours own being broken.

Even then, people will have different opinions as to how much they value desperately holding on to a relationship, trying to salvage it, rather than cutting their losses.  I guess being the optimist I am I don't believe in quitting or giving up. So this is hard for me to understand.

I once had someone tell me that they would gladly welcome their SO cheating on them because it could potentially be a bridge towards building a stronger foundation in the relationship. I can understand this.

Maybe so...but not for me or most anyone I can think of. How far do you excuse not just mistakes...but blatant disregard for promises made and whining about wanting to change what's been agreed upon? Where's your/mine/anyone's breaking point? My son is the only breaking point I have. The only hard limit. I'm sorry but I believe in forgiveness even in the face of promises broken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

The dynamic of my relationship was decided upon by my Master and myself. It works beautifully for us and no I don't expect you to understand it.

I don't need to "understand" it. I can still be happy for you. I can understand that you function within the limits you've decided upon and hold true to those values and rules. Maybe that even goes so far as to forgive the other if a hard limit is broken...I don't know. And even if that is your view, it's certainly yours to keep and I would hope it is one shared by your Master as well. It is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Why wouldn;t the sub in the story have some special right to leniency or have the right to expect it???

Because that was specifically not something she agreed to. It is implicitly said in the example that it was a full on, no holds barred surrender. Sigh .........are there not exceptions to every agreement and rule?  So does that statement in your mind mean even in fear she is not allowed to say no or not allowed to ask that it stop. She is supposed to accept the punishment even if she thinks she can't handle it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

What about a D/s relationship in your mind makes that undesirable or I should ask why does it make it undesirable???

Nothing would, if that is what I and another had agreed upon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Why is the subs refusal to comply seen as a failing in that relationship and not an issue to work on?

Because, in this case, the violation was one that hit at the very core of what the relationship was founded upon.

It's no different than having a partner tell you they want a lifelong monogamous relationship, offer you marriage, agree to it...and then, a year down the line, decide they want a sexually open relationship instead. And, instead of sitting you down to talk about their feelings with you, it comes out in the middle of what you thought was just a minor spat between you two. Alright I can understand your point on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Relationships take great work. People will fail, fall and intentionally or unintentionally hurt you. All or most as a result of miscommunication and expectations that are unrealistic.

Some relationships are worth salvaging despite mistakes. Some mistakes are fixable. Some mistakes are forgivable. And some are not.

It seems to me that you are, a priori, considering the expectations unrealistic because they seem that way to you.
So because I haven't agreed with you, you surmise it is because I am inexperienced in this type of relationship or dynamic?

They are not unrealistic if they are agreed to beforehand by both parties. Agreeing on beforehand by both parties does not necessarily mean that someone to use your term who might be a priori isn't experienced enough to not know they can't handle a certain situation. It's obvious from the post that this woman decided for whatever reason that she couldn't handle the situation. That suggests to me that the expectations of one or both people were unrealistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Let's just agree to disagree. If I have in any way offended you I apologize. It was never my intention.  I have appreciated and enjoyed your verbal jousting. This is one subject I think we've exhausted. I'm optimistic.........sorry.

I'm not at all offended and I apologize if you felt I was unfairly prodding at you. Is that what you call it lol.

I'd like to think I'm optimistic too. But I've also been in relationships where I could tell when the cracks began to show.( so have I) I think we all have good internal meters to gauge when something has crossed over the line of being save-able. For each person this will be different, but the one universal thing I think always applies, is that people will create for themselves their own "hard limits" with the expectation that they will be free to leave if they are broken. I imagine many feel this way  but it almost sounds like hard limits could be used as an out and a refusal to work on an issue.

In the instance described, that's how I view the exchange. I do not advocate the continued punishment at all in that scenario. But the entire mess seems like one bad recipe better left to the past than one of reconstruction. Yes if I were dealing with a personality that were out of control that would be hard to work on.

Even if the couple tried to work things out, there is his broken trust in her commitment and her broken trust in his self-control to deal with...and I can't imagine both those combined as being something surmountable. Yes, I see his self control issue as being the issue that might be the deal breaker. Her trust and commitment certainly in question but able to be worked on.

*offers happy truce macadamia nut cookie*Accepts your truce.Thankyou




_____________________________

"The words 'I am...' are potent words; be careful what you hitch them to. The thing you're claiming has a way of reaching back and claiming you." - A.L. Kitselman.


see my profile masterkspet

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 6:23:26 PM   
Aynne88


Posts: 3873
Joined: 8/29/2008
Status: offline 		ARGH....stop making us all read these blasted long humongous quotes. Pleaseeeee..... We are all capable of following along.

_____________________________

As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together.
—Isaac Bashevis Singer, writer and Nobel laureate (1902–1991)



(in reply to scarlethiney)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 7:18:37 PM   
sravaka


Posts: 314
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline 		I'm so glad you posted this, Calla.   I've been following the thread with great interest, but also discomfort whose source I couldn't put my finger on, and now I get it. 

The fact that he doesn't stop the corporal punishment gets a great big shrug from me provided he doesn't maim her or something.  If it's a no-holds barred relationship, that seems to me to be his right.  (I guess I put myself in the minority on this.)

The part of the scenario that bothers me is in the vicinity of the command which the slave *very strongly does not want to do*.  (This is going to involve some reading between the lines, but a point may emerge in the end.)

First of all, not wanting to do something is not the same as not doing it.  I care less about what exactly the command was than how and why the not wanting to obey was expressed.  Maybe I am reading too much into the specific phrasing.... but I keep coming back to the idea that she *may not yet have failed to follow the command* may only have communicated not wanting to do it, and I'm wondering about the implications if that were the case. 

Even the most wonderful TPE-inclined submissive is only human, is going to have things that disturb or frighten him/her (short of being asked to commit crimes, even.)  This is quite different from "I don't want to because I don't feel like it."  The domly-type retains the right to force the issue, or punish inappropriately expressed reservations, or whatever, regardless, but...

I think Mr. Domly has obligations here too.  Not to quit beating her when she asks, not to not punish her when warranted....  but, to know her well enough to anticipate or recognize genuine trouble, and to help her get past it, for the sake of both of them.  And, to have made crystal clear both his expectations and the basis on which she can/should trust him with absolute control.  These things need to have been done in advance, and preferably reinforced over a period of time (as in what Calla describes).  If these conditions haven't been met, he's almost as deeply implicated in the overall failure as she is.  (Isn't he?)

Here are my conclusions:  1) they are both morons and have no business being in a no holds barred relationship.  2) this is not dominance.  If it were, he'd have gotten what he wanted. 

(Coming soon to a thread near you:  a fascinating disquisition on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.)

--sravaka


_____________________________

Miseries hold me fixed, and I would gladly cut these roots to become a floating plant. I would yield myself up utterly, if the inviting stream could be relied upon. --Ono no Komachi

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 7:44:15 PM   
marieToo


Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

I do see your point. This is why one of the things I find appalling is the idea that someone would enter into a commitment of this magnitude with someone that xhe did not know well enough to be certain that they shared a compatible foundational ethical framework. If a person made this kind of promise without thought, and without making sure that the person to whom xhe was yielding hir life shared hir ethics to the point where it was foundational to the relationship that xhe would not be forced to shatter her own ethical foundation, then yes, xhe is still an oathbreaker. Xhe made the promise without truly understanding and accepting it, and then broke it when it was not convenient to hir to uphold it any longer. That is one route to being an oathbreaker.


I understand what you're saying, and agree in a general sense.

But maybe she understood the ramifications only to the extent that the owner made them clear to her.  Then maybe something came up that they had not previously discussed before she took this oath.  Maybe she never thought to ask if he would someday expect her to do something illegal (or whatever).   Or maybe the owner changed, faultered, or fell from grace in some way.  Or maybe the sub/slave screwed up or was having an inner conflict that she couldn't override.  Or maybe she's just a moron who didn't consider the magnitude of her decision. Who knows. There are just too many variables. But I can't even imagine being able to discuss/predict  every last possibility under the sun before commiting to complete obedience, since things sometimes come up during relationships that we had never imagined or didn't expect (whether it's something crazy like robbing the 7/11 or any other example you want to insert here.)  And both parties are always changing and evolving in one way or another, therefore random circumstances never before addressed may come to the surface and cause some type of "breach" of contract, on either of their parts.

I guess my feeling is that both parties are human and subject to making a bad judgement call or a mistake now and again.  And I think it's important to consider that there could be any number of various extenuating circumstances surrounding the act of defiance (on both or either of their parts).  Given that none of that was presented, I wouldn't be comfortable concluding that the sub in question behaved without ethics or isn't capable of commitment.  But that's just me. 
I realize there are a lot of people who view this type of thing in a much more absolute way than I do, however.   It's interesting to see the two schools of thought here on the thread though.   There's really been no gray area for anyone.  People seem to feel that it was completely acceptable, or completely unacceptable. 

Thanks for the response.  :) 







_____________________________

marie.


I give good agita.









(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 8:40:44 PM   
LadyHugs


Posts: 2299
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		Dear leadership527, Ladies and Gentlemen;

You wrote:

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?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal observations and comments on the aboved inquiry as to what is desired, acceptable and so forth; is as follows:
1.  Though a slave may 'think' they know 'all' of what is, can be, may be and or could be; within a lifestyle relationship between a Master-slave; there are often boundaries untested until the time comes.  It is impossible to know how each slave will handled a situation when it is approached.  Although the slave wants to please, to be accepted and be desired--what a slave wants and is 'able' to do are two separate things.  This is where the Dominant must put boundaries upon themselves; as not to take advantage over a slave who really has never been beyond the boundaries beyond wishful thinking, dreams and fantasies and or reasonable behaviors and expectations of the relationship.  Too often, I witness people making rules as they go--a blank check is the excuse to break the rules just as much as staying realisticly within the rules within the duties, responsibilities, ethics and good custodianship as a Dominant. 

2.  There will always be those moments when a slave strongly refuses to do something.  And? --  Unfortunately, for those slaves who have strong convictions and have not written that into the contract, negotiated this before the relationship was bonded and sealed; why a slave digs their heels in deeply is worthy of concern.  How a Dominant approaches this--is telling on the 'Dominant.'  Regardless, this lifestyle is all about 'consent.'  Respect for one another as well as communication is paramount.  A Dominant must 'expect the unexpected;' as the situation may not have remotely entered their mind but, in an instant or a memory recall; may trigger strong responses and a deep seated resolve to oppose any approach to this area.  This is the time to try communication as to find the roots to the disobedience.  Sometimes it may not make sense to others but--makes sense to the one who is suddenly entrenched and dug into a huge barrier against progress and or obedience.  For example; I rode my horse and was an extremely obedient horse and willing hunter/jumper.  I had come to a fence and nearly fell off as the horse suddenly stopped and refused to budge an inch.  The horse couldn't tell me what had him upset and refuse what appeared to be a normal jump.  I had to trust my horse--he had never, ever given me cause to doubt his obedience.  The next person took the jump and took a very bad tumble and mangled both horse and rider--the horse so medically injured had to be destroyed as to stop the suffering.  Someone had put a stack of razor barbed wire in front of the thicket that covered the fence.  My horse saved us both.  Now, humans have instincts and have memory recall as well as reasoning powers.  I would want to communicate first before I determine if it is justified disobedience or not.  Even if it is not justified to me--how the slave justifies it, requires communication and understanding and working with the slave to overcome their reservations, doubts and fears.

3.  It is unfortunate that the Dominant immediately resorts to corporal punishment.  I can understand frustration and patience worn thin.  But, I must ask myself as a Dominant as to why the disobedience, the roots to it and if it is out of fear or out of manipulation; this behavior warrants punishment.  I would want to use the least amount of force to re-enforce my rules and boundaries of accepted behavior and obedience.  I don't need a slave's disobedience to give me permission to be a sadist or, they the masochist. 

4.  Although the slave may cry, protest and such -- is expected and normal.  When the line is crossed though--is when the safe word / safe code has been used and the Dominant violates that trust and agreement to cease all things immediately when it is used.  True, often slaves use safe words/codes to thwart punishment but, this is often resolved by ignoring the slave completely and releasing the slave by removing the collar and letting them find another who might be a better match.  Those who use the safe word only as to avoid just adjudication of punishment and when no physical harm was beyond their abilities to manage it--it is manipulation and control games.  But, that said --this is where communication comes in and it must be absolutely clear that the safe word must never be used as a 'manipulation' tool but, as the safety net when things get out of hand--regardless if the Master says the safe word or the slave using the safe word.

5.  The slave unable to get away, once uttering the safe words; any actions by the Dominant who is in control of the situation now, commits assault and is subjected to criminal charges.  Once 'consent' is withdrawn--all acts must cease and freedom and control restored to the slave immediately.

6.  At the end of this 'punishment' scene, the slave still does not want to obey--is a rebellion.  With no breach of the negotiations and or contracts; expectations and clear understanding of boundaries; if a slave won't obey within reason--then it won't be a person who will be changed into obedience with breaching the respected limits and the use of force and or by assault and or threat.  The time would be to release the person from their collar and the relationship is evident, given this scenerio.

Now--if this all was a pre-planned 'scene scenerio' and all an act-- it would cause concerns indeed.  One has to be careful in judging such said scenes--as once the scene is over; like a kidnapping/rape scene scenerio--the outsider has no idea that this was done with planning and consent.   Judgment then must be withdrawn as it was a pre-planned scenerio or a what if scenerio written.  However, if this happened to unfold without consent and or pre-planning--to my point of opinion -- this was not a good thing that happened to the pair of them.  Time to go in different directions as it clearly is not a good match.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs

(in reply to leadership527)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/29/2008 11:19:20 PM   
sistermargaret


Posts: 101
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline 		"The problem is all inside your head", she said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover

She said it's really not my habit to intrude
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued
But I'll repeat myself, at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover
Fifty ways to leave your lover

You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free

Ooo slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just listen to me
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free

She said it grieves me so to see you in such pain
I wish there was something I could do to make you smile again
I said I appreciate that and would you please explain
About the fifty ways

She said why don't we both just sleep on it tonight
And I believe in the morning you'll begin to see the light
And then she kissed me and I realized she probably was right
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover
Fifty ways to leave your lover

You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
and get yourself free

Slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just listen to me
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free"

Paul Simon

No one must endure abuse, ever. M/s, D/s semantics and ego fodder. Unless the subbie is really chained and locked away, she/he can just walk.
sm
 
All it takes is absolute surrender, unless one of U/us is an asshole, then it takes correction of some sort  ;)

(in reply to leadership527)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/30/2008 12:48:45 AM   
WyldHrt


Posts: 6412
Joined: 6/5/2008
Status: offline
quote:

While it can be argued that the submissive perhaps...PERHAPS...had an "inner, rose-colored glasses" view of "no-holds barred" submission that was surely set into more correct focus by what happened and has surely made her rethink the idea of "no-holds barred" submission and what exactly it entails, his handling of a problem with a "no-holds barred" submissive would have been wrong in dealing with ANY kind of submissive.


This touches on something that bothered me a bit as I perused this thread. Missokyst also touched on it, in her own (very funny) way. In many posts here, people have said things along the lines of "a sub/slave in over her head" or "a sub/slave who doesn't understand what she's gotten herself into". This begs the question: would a responsible D accept "no holds barred" submission from someone who was too inexperienced, too frenzied, or too whatever else to know what they were getting themselves into? I'm not a D, and have absolutely NO wish to take on that responsibility. That said, if I for some reason did wish to, I would for damned sure know the person inside out before I agreed to take complete responsibility for his or her welfare in exchange for obedience to my wishes. This is not to say that the sub should not be responsible for his/her actions, just that a D hearing "Anything for you, Master", "You own my life Master" or any other variation should really know the s in question and where s/he is coming from before they happily give the "okie dokie".

That said, if consent was clearly revoked (I would like to think that the D in a TPE would know their partner well enough to at least be able to tell the difference between "I really don't like this" and "Something is REALLY WRONG"), the D in question sure as hell should have stopped. The s-type isn't the only one who can call a halt and walk away, and common sense goes both ways.

I'm with the OP; once consent is withdrawn, continuing (not to mention escalating) punishment crosses the line.


_____________________________

"MotherFUCKER!" is NOT a safeword!!"- Steel
"We've had complaints about 'orgy noises'. This is not the neighborhood for that kind of thing"- PVE Cop

Resident "Hypnotic Eyes", "Cleavage" and "Toy Whore"
Subby Mafia, VAA Posse & Team Troll!

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 9/30/2008 6:48:15 AM   
BittersweetDomme


Posts: 4
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		What you describe, appears to me, to be yet another example of a violent, out of control, idiotic abuser using the guise of Dominant to hide behind.

Whilst I have ways of making you hurt, am described as being sadistic at times, am happy with the mantle of pervert - I would never lower my own standards to the position of being such a pathetic excuse for a human being.  I have pride in my Dominance. 

_____________________________

Mistress's dont grow on trees you know and the more you shit on them the thornier they grow.................but I dont hold grudges lol!

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 10/1/2008 6:01:01 AM   
tsatske


Posts: 2037
Joined: 3/9/2007
From: Louisville, KY
Status: offline 		NiHilus,
I have read your posts that came after this one, it justed seemed easier to go back to the earlier one here to ask the questions.
I am not bashing, I am just asking for further clarification and discussion.
Did you read the story in my post about the 'accedentally' blurted safe word during play that was stretching me?
So my question is - would you have 'walked', in that case? Do you feel I broke my commitment to Master to have a full power exchange, no limits relationship? (a vow I take every single morning and every single night, btw). We both acknowledge that it was not, in fact a safeword - he did not have to stop. IMO, he simply used it as information, just like my screaming gives him information, and he decded to stop. My first question was, 'why did you stop?' but, then, i suffer with a sort of immedeate, guilt induced sub-drop (over quickly when Master holds me and reassures me) when i feel i have 'made' him stop ( a thought that can only occur in such a post play, addle brained state - 'make him'. now that's a laugh.)
I don't know - there are a lot of things I am trying to communicate here, and I don't know how to say them all.
I am free to say anything I want to Master. because we both know he is the boss, in the end, he makes the descion. I can say, teasingly, 'hey, you can't do that!' I suppose I *could* say, 'No, Sir, I won't do that' - but that is just askign for trouble, I'm more likely to have *that* discussion a bit more respectfully. But, no matter what I *say*, we both acknowldge, i am expressing an opinion, the descion is ALWAYS His to make.
secondly, do you acknowldge that, 'no limits' is, to a small degree, symbolic language. That every one has things that they *can't* do, and other things that will finally get true refusal out of them, and that a wise Dom stops to talk to find out what is going on when He is making descions? You can order me to fly, and I will try like hell - but, in the end, i'll just break my neck jumping off the damn roof. It wasn't unwillingness.
You can order me to do things, as someone here said, that are illegeal, dangerous, whatever. I will take the time to make sure I understand the order - that we understand it the same way - that we either agree on the risks involved - or we disagree, but you acknowldge what I think they are - then, after confirming the order, I will obey.
But there are things I *wouldn't* obey. Order me to harm a child - it is not within me, i literally COULD NOT. I'm sorry. Walk if you want to. This is not meant to be a 'well, of course, if that's your example' thing - i'm saying that everyone has that place, where they are physically capable, but they just can't. when you hit that place - do you walk, or do you talk it out and try to see if you can deal with it? I am talking about a dedicated sub who serves you and does not go around saying no - suddenly, to your surpirse, you hit the spot she just won't go, no matter how no limits she thinks she is.
let me give you another example. Order me to drink - i just won't. Now, Master takes my recovery seriously and would never order me to do that. In fact, i feel safe in my sobriety making jokes about 'having a drink' - but i no longer do it, because, early in our relationship, i did so, and got punished. i understand how it must have felt to him, to hear what was meant to be a joke, so i don't do that anymore.
but, my take on drinking is going to offend some, but, nonetheless - Master has every right to kill me. it states as much in my contract. I am his - I am property. I have said in plain English to him that if he were to wish to dispose of the girl, she would cooperate in creating an alabi for him. (No, He is not going to kill me. If I thought He was, I wouldn't belong to Him. But it is important to me that we acknowldge that He has the right, for many, many reasons)
So - He can kill me, but not order me to drink a beer? yup, that's right. Because if he orders me to drink a beer - it will kill me. But not today. Slowly, horribly, after stripping me of everything I care about, everything I love, and everything I am. Including his ownership. Because I do not believe anyone can stay around an active alcoholic like that. So, eventually, He would have to release me, after much damage to himself, and then I would crawl off and finish my horrible death. It doesn't matter if you belive this - what matters is that I believe it, and, as a result, would refuse an order to have a simple drink. What I am saying is that every sub has these, hidden somewhere inside her. What she just can *not* do. And maybe if you encounter them, you can work through them, and she *will* be able to do it, with your help, in time. (not suggesting that I *should* be willing to take a drink - but other subs may have different 'Big Red "NO" Buttons', and some of those may be good to work through - maybe it's a fear of hieghts, or whatever.) Would you just walk away from a dedicated sub who served you well, just because you found the place she did not feel she could go, or would you talk about it, make what you felt was a rational decision to either stay away from that for her or help her work through it, ect.?

_____________________________

“If you never did you should. These things are fun and fun is good”
~Dr. Seuss quote

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 158
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 10/1/2008 6:52:09 AM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline 		You ask some valid questions, and I'd like to take a moment to answer from my own thoughts on these.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

{clipped}In many posts here, people have said things along the lines of "a sub/slave in over her head" or "a sub/slave who doesn't understand what she's gotten herself into". This begs the question: would a responsible D accept "no holds barred" submission from someone who was too inexperienced, too frenzied, or too whatever else to know what they were getting themselves into?


No, we wouldn't. I enjoy working with s-types who are -very- eager to yield and who haven't really reached a great deal of discrimination about what they do and do not like, and/or are or are not ready for. Because of that, I have an extensive probation period, where opportunities are provided to experience a number of things, experience what it means to live under the terms they -think- they'd like, and to see if it is really something that s-type is looking for. Honestly, I'm not all that stressed that I don't have a "permanent" s-type just for me. The whole concept of submission and dominance and the expression and exploration of that is what rocks my world. It's not about romance, not about sex... so it frees up the opportunity to really explore the D/s relationship as its own entity.

Honestly, not many s-types over the years have been ready or willing to move into complete surrender. Many, once they had a taste of it, decided that it wasn't going to work for them, and others never even got that far. We have a "transition" between baseline submission and the point at which -everything- is yielded. It is a conscious decision to enter into that transition -- and not everyone gets all the way through. Because it -is- such a huge deal, for both parties, it really is important to make sure that everyone is on the same page through the process. That's not to say that discomfort won't be expected and that there won't be some pressure behind a servant to move forward and work -through- the pressure. By this point in a relationship (at least a couple of years together, for me), the s-type knows that I'm going to encourage growth, but that if xhe said "I really can't go any further... this isn't helping me grow, it's ripping me apart", I'm going to hear that, and we'll either stop where we are, or go back to a point where xhe feels whole again. Now, if xhe stopped talking and just started disobeying -- or if xhe'd never indiciated that xhe was uncomfortable, and suddenly, after agreeing to yield everything (a couple-month process at least, with lots of 'pause points' to evaluate) she just defied me, I'm sorry, that would be the end. Yes, I've made a huge investment in this servant... and we took our time... which is why, if that happened with one of ours, I would -know- that it was just outright oathbreaking, and not fear.


quote:

That said, if consent was clearly revoked (I would like to think that the D in a TPE would know their partner well enough to at least be able to tell the difference between "I really don't like this" and "Something is REALLY WRONG"), the D in question sure as hell should have stopped. The s-type isn't the only one who can call a halt and walk away, and common sense goes both ways.

I'm with the OP; once consent is withdrawn, continuing (not to mention escalating) punishment crosses the line.



I agree with you here, only to the extent that the parties agreed that, if consent was withdrawn, the D-type would stop, which would be nearly anathema to the kind of relationship being considered, and I am -only- offering this much agreement because of the dichotomy of this particular s-type even -having- a safeword or a chance to say 'no'. Yes, most of the D-types that I know who work with s-types who have gone this far -do- know when the s-type is pushed to the snapping point... but it is the D-type's decision whether to stop or continue.. and the s-type accepts that there is a chance that the D-type will decide to move forward and will shatter hir world. I'm sorry, but that is the biggest risk -and- the biggest -draw- of TPE/FIS/NHB relationships... that realization that the s-type has NO control over whether or not xhe is shattered/broken. To me, to consciously choose to break one's valuable property is pretty foolish, and I don't know any d-types who have taken this road who -would- consciously choose to damage their property, but the -thrill- is that accidents -can- happen, and misjudgements -may- take place.

This is the biggest misconception that I've seen promoted on this thread, and the ONLY thing I can think of is that it is because people really don't understand what it -means- to enter into a TPE, Full Immerson Servitude, or No-Holds-Barred relationship. See, for most of these relationships, once consent is given at the point at which the relationship moves into TPE, that is the -last- time that s-type has the right to either give or withdraw consent. In most of these relationships, that s-type has given up the right to say 'no'... has voluntarily waived hir rights to walk away or to deny any order or action on the part of hir Keeper. That is why these kinds of relationships are so scary to so many people (as well they should be), and it is -also- why these relationships are so sought after... because this really -is- the end of the line when it comes to getting as close as we can to the experience of owning and being owned by another person. Even in these relationships, it -is- possible to extricate oneself... but by the time a person gets into that mindset, xhe often really doesn't even consider that possibility... and if xhe is going to go down that road, and say "I have given up -everything-, then that is EXACTLY right for that choice. Really, this is a case of "call a spade a spade". If one is going to call it "no holds barred" or "TPE" or "Full Immersion Servitude", then that is exactly what it is... all the way under... nothing is held back, and consent becomes a thing of the past.

I can understand that this is NOT a path that many people would be interested in taking, but it is not possible to assess a TPE/NHB/FIS relationship by the standards one uses for the more common consensual D/s type relationships. Doing so -completely- misses the point of -being- in a FIS relationship, since the very last thing one would -ever- give away... the thing that makes this what it is... is that right to withdraw consent. I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall here, because people seem insistent on ignoring this one KEY aspect of the whole issue. I know that most folks would like to pretend that FIS/TPE is only theoretical or that it doesn't really exist... but if that is the case, then one can't call it FIS/TPE/NHB... because it -isn't-... something is still being held back by the s-type, and it -isn't- full immersion... it is skating on the edge of the precipice, or something like that, but it -isn't- jumping in and feeling the servitude close over one's head.

Calla Firestorm

< Message edited by CallaFirestormBW -- 10/1/2008 6:59:22 AM >

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to WyldHrt)
Profile   Post #: 159
RE: Is this dominance to you? - 10/1/2008 10:27:24 AM   
lateralist1


Posts: 886
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		I am utterly rendered speechless at what I have just read.
Surely we have moved on since 'Aristotle'.
Unfortunately some women do have a perpensity to actually believe what some or all men tell them.
Please please please read what you have written and understand the gender bias in it.
Really I don't care what you think but limit it to yourself not females in general or even female submissives/slaves in general.
I'm sure one of my previous male partners who beat me nonconsensually would agree with you but I and thousands of women who are trying to stand up for their rights not to be beaten will not thankyou for your viewpoint.

(in reply to MzDeadlyRed)
Profile   Post #: 160
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Is this dominance to you? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.137