quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealSub58

Not all relationships are built on..........negotiations.

This statement seems misguided. Surely any agreement involves a negotiation of values.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Opalescence

Within my own personal preferences, the man I would call Master would be very, very, very selfish. He doesn't owe me any respect and the relationship is whatever he deems it to be. He makes the rules and they are subject to change at his whim.

From your post OP, I think that's a very negative way to approach things. Why not instead look at it this way; I chose to submit to this person, I trust him/her and his/her actions. If they change the dynamic, so what? Have you not surrendered in the first place? If it's something you do only in the bedroom that's one thing but, if you choose to truly submit (never mind the labels of submissive/slave) then why shouldn't you trust their judgment on changing things?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealSub58

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealSub58

Not all relationships are built on..........negotiations.

This statement seems misguided. Surely any agreement involves a negotiation of values.

You are correct NG.  Negotiations are part of contracts if a relationship is based on one.I didn't negotiate with my Sir, we discussed.  Negotiation implies compromise. If a Dom/me demanded a change in the relationship without even informing the sub, then there are no negotiations. The forums I have come across have both scenarios.The Dom/me makes the change without discussion ORthere is discussion.But generally I tend to read, he made the change whatever he wants/demands I do.  So I tend to think not all of these general demands and changes are consensual but become consensual cause the sub doesn't want out. I'll given an example commonly read on CM:  the D went behind the s's back and found a girl to play with and the only choice the original s has is to accept it or leave.  Then the "poly" discussion comes up.  The s has another choice.  How can any of these D changes have been negotiated when the s knew nothing? PS I think I am hanging myself using discussion and negotiation interchangeable at times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


But that isn't what I was addressing, agirl.  I was addressing the idea...as proposed by the OP in a vague manner...that the dominant making changes within the dynamic without "consulting" the submissive first shows a lack of respect for both the dynamic and the submissive.

For myself, I believe that a "big" idea like suddenly going from monogamy to poly-play is something that needs to be discussed and is not a likely candidate for unilateral imposition by the dominant.  Telling my submissive that instead of her bowing her head to me when I get home, I now want her to kneel is not something I would necessarily feel the need to discuss with my partner and yes, it WOULD be a change I feel I could make "because I can".  I would have reasons behind it as I usually do behind most of what I do...but even if I did not have any other reason other than I can...it is not a big enough change to the dynamic that I would have to explain myself.

So basically what you're saying is...."it depends."

I tend to agree with that, but, it depends.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

The submissive in question in the original post strikes me as one of those submissives who wants what sounds suspiciously like a non-D/s relationship...everything discussed and negotiated as it comes up while giving the illusion of the dominant having all the control of the dynamic.  I say illusion because I would be willing to bet dollars against donuts that when a change is imposed on the dynamic that the submissive in question approves of or makes her happy or doesn't push her to the limit of her comfort zone, BUT not into her uncomfortable zone, then she may not require discussion to take place.