RE: Master/slave questions

RE: Master/slave questions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

sirsholly -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:50:20 AM)
quote: But nothing in TPE stands for permenance, Nor does it indicate the sub/slave is a mindless ninny. If there is a breakdown in the relationship and she feels there is a threat to her well being, physically or emotionally, she needs to leave.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:51:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: But nothing in TPE stands for permenance, Nor does it indicate the sub/slave is a mindless ninny. If there is a breakdown in the relationship and she feels there is a threat to her well being, physically or emotionally, she needs to leave. Quite

barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:54:08 AM)
quote: if a slave leaves against the masters wishes or no longer feels his mastery, then by definition, his control is not total. Michael you are absolutely right and its what people have been SAYING to you. When she CAN leave its because the variables no longer exists that hold her to his determinations she determines her existence not him any longer -- THE TPE *NO LONGER* EXISTS. So yeah logically and what everyone else seems to get but you don't believe they are -- when this occurs his control is no longer the DETERMINING FACTOR in her life and therefore the TPE no longer exists. It doesn't mean it didn't EXIST in totality when all the variables existed. I am really trying to figure out, if you are trying to argue a point everyone else seems to agree with for the sake of proving something or are you being your usual obtuse self and are trying to prove a point you CAN'T and believe you are lol. angel

barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:58:42 AM)
Holly -- to me, when a woman starts THINKING instead of reacting is when she places herself in danger. To me, its when she tries and maintain what she believes to be the TPE without the variables of his determination and mastery maintaining the dynamic is when she starts second guessing should i stay or should i go go..... which then has her placing a non-existant concept as a reason to stay when she shouldn't. I always say a slave has to main instincts and reactions -- one will tell her to stay and one will tell her to get out -- if she starts second guessing either one of these with logic or definition is when she will find herself in trouble. The mindless ninny part to me comes in when women don't react on instinct and reaction to his mastery and him, but instead tries to hold herself to a concept of what SHE believes the slavery is and yeah, unfortunately i have encountered online especially women who have some pretty crazy ideas of what slavery is to a Man lol and it utterly amazes me the stress they put themselves through trying to define it instead of just live the actuality instead of some idea. angel angel

sirsholly -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:59:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael If someone has total control, then their partner can't disobey so they by definition have no reason to leave them and their partner can't leave them because they don't have the control to say no. They by definition would be a Blow Up Doll.

BitaTruble -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:02:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Bita, you are right about marriage nobody is arguing that the vows of marriage actually MEAN forever but the argument for TPE is TOTAL control, if a slave leaves against the masters wishes or no longer feels his mastery, then by definition, his control is not total. He was in total control of whether or not he Mastered his slave. If he doesn't and she leaves, that was his choice, not hers. I can't 'make' someone Master me. They will or will not. If you cannot or will not Master me, but still want me to do everything as if I were Mastered, then that's living a lie and wearing a mask.

barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:05:01 AM)
quote: If someone has total control, then their partner can't disobey so they by definition have no reason to leave them and their partner can't leave them because they don't have the control to say no. Michael sorry to the moderators lol but you are full of shit. I was a slave for 8 years to a Man offline, i wasn't perfect, i wasn't a robot, there were days i obeyed and days i didn't -- control doesn't mean REMOTE CONTROL Michael, my goodness. You really need to bow out of this discussion Michael because in your ignorance you are advocating a fantasy world because you seriously have no clue what you are talking about and i would really hate for some new woman who wants to be a TPE slave getting the wrong idea based on your ignorant statments and they may not understand you are not speaking from experience of having had such a relationship. angel

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:05:21 AM)
That was very brave and very honest. Thank you for writing it. It did help to clarify some things for me. heartfelt

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:12:07 AM)
Thank you again for your response. Given my nature (grinning) i do have an additional question, if i may. quote: Him trying to control things that he can only control based on my ability to control myself are a risk to our relationship. The whole reason why I am a slave is because I'm not able to control myself. Him depending on my self control to follow micromanging rules is asking for trouble, because the possibility that I would screw up would be to big, and if I did, there isn't really any direct action he can take to prevent it from happening again. In a situation like that, disobedience could soon become a habit, and me feeling like I can disobey him without consequences would be the beginning of the end. Since neither of us is pretending that he has control, there is just no point in him planning out my day for me, and making me follow a million little rules that he can't keep track of anyways. Things are different while I'm with him though, because there he CAN follow up on anything he demands of me. i get that while you are living in Europe and He is here, that He isn't trying to control your behavior because that would be relying on your self-control to fulfill those commands. So does that mean that when you are living with Him in 7 days, that He will double check that you have obeyed on every thing that He commands you to do? Is that kind of management what is needed for you to remain under His control? heartfelt

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:19:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel quote: If someone has total control, then their partner can't disobey so they by definition have no reason to leave them and their partner can't leave them because they don't have the control to say no. Michael sorry to the moderators lol but you are full of shit. I was a slave for 8 years to a Man offline, i wasn't perfect, i wasn't a robot, there were days i obeyed and days i didn't -- control doesn't mean REMOTE CONTROL Michael, my goodness. You really need to bow out of this discussion Michael because in your ignorance you are advocating a fantasy world because you seriously have no clue what you are talking about and i would really hate for some new woman who wants to be a TPE slave getting the wrong idea based on your ignorant statments and they may not understand you are not speaking from experience of having had such a relationship. angel Actually he raises an interesting question, if someone has total and complete control of someone else, how can that someone else ever disobey? And please understand i am not trying to be argumentative here, it is a valid question. When i think of the concept of absolute total control, then i see something akin to a robot or automaton who can't disobey the orders that i would give it because i completely control it. Otherwise if i have said do a.) and the person that i have complete control over does b.) then i didn't control their actions. i may control the consequences of their chosing to do b instead of a, but i couldn't make them do a. heartfelt

barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:32:00 AM)
[sm=banghead.gif] Folks, ACTIONS DO NOT DEFINE THE DYNAMIC OF TPE. Just because i was disobedient to his determination didn't mean his mastery didn't exist over me, it didn't mean the dynamic didn't exist, it simply mean i was disobedient in an action or a command. My god people its really not this complicated and if you start taking it apart and saying well, if he said think orange and you think purple well he didn't have total control over you, you will NEVER understand the DYNAMIC --- let me say this again -- TPE is a DYNAMIC, its a CONCEPT OF WHERE THE POWER OF THE RELATIONSHIO EXISTS its not specific actions, but something that exists on variables AS A WHOLE CONCEPT. I mean seriously, if you want to define the individual words instead of the dynamic as a whole -- i can't help you. If you want to understand THE DYNAMIC as a whole, then that is where your understanding will come in. If you want to focus on actions as if they exist separate and distinct from the whole -- you will never get it. angel

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:50:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel [sm=banghead.gif] Folks, ACTIONS DO NOT DEFINE THE DYNAMIC OF TPE. Just because i was disobedient to his determination didn't mean his mastery didn't exist over me, it didn't mean the dynamic didn't exist, it simply mean i was disobedient in an action or a command. My god people its really not this complicated and if you start taking it apart and saying well, if he said think orange and you think purple well he didn't have total control over you, you will NEVER understand the DYNAMIC --- let me say this again -- TPE is a DYNAMIC, its a CONCEPT OF WHERE THE POWER OF THE RELATIONSHIO EXISTS its not specific actions, but something that exists on variables AS A WHOLE CONCEPT. I mean seriously, if you want to define the individual words instead of the dynamic as a whole -- i can't help you. If you want to understand THE DYNAMIC as a whole, then that is where your understanding will come in. If you want to focus on actions as if they exist separate and distinct from the whole -- you will never get it. angel i am NOT saying that the dynamic did not exist. That was not my point at all. My point and my question was different and now is morphed to another question. If the dynamic is not defined by the actions of the people in the dynamic what is it defined by? When i say that i am in a Dominant/submissive relationship, my actions (ie that i actually submit) define that relationship. He Dominates, i submit, hence the D/s relationship. Now to define TPE, if it can not be defined by the actions of the people involved that kind of relationship, what is it defined by? If someone says that they are in a Total Power Exchange relationship, although i personally like the term Total Authority Exchange better, and the one not holding any power exercises something that they aren't supposed to have "power" to do something that they don't have authority to do, how is that total? i guess my problem is with the Total part of the equation. i don't have a problem with power exchange or authority exchange, it is the total part of the equation that is the stumbling point. And how does one define the word total except through actions? heartfelt

ishyB -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:51:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub i get that while you are living in Europe and He is here, that He isn't trying to control your behavior because that would be relying on your self-control to fulfill those commands. So does that mean that when you are living with Him in 7 days, that He will double check that you have obeyed on every thing that He commands you to do? Is that kind of management what is needed for you to remain under His control? heartfelt Greetings heartfelt, first of all, I really liked downkitten's post. She described almost exactly how I feel as well. I'm as she is kept as a slave, because my whole personality is a character flaw, which makes me unable to take personal responsibility for my own decisions. As to Master checking me on everything I do. Yes and no. Especially in the beginning I was with them, I got checked a lot and small corrections were made every time on the way I did things. Once I started getting it right to their specifications, control eased up, but with most things it's still fairly easy to see if I followed commands or not. "Clean the house, do the laundry, mow the lawn." Yep I'm pretty sure they noticed if I didn't obey without them really have to spend a lot of time checking up on me. I really don't have a lot of commands that I even COULD not follow without them noticing eventually. In fact I'm having serious trouble even thinking of one that wouldn't be pretty obvious if I would disobey. I guess they really just don't see much point in trying to control the little quirks or my day to day life when those do not influence them or aren't notable. That doesn't mean that they run behind me the whole day, checking everything I did, but they live in that house as well. Not doing something right would always come out after a while. As to what kind of management is needed to keep me under control, that's pretty simple: the knowledge that if and when I would disobey or not respond exactly to their specifications, that will ALWAYS have consequences. As soon as they let faults slip without consequences, my good behavior starts diminishing fast because I start (unconsciously) testing how far I could push it. As soon as there are again consequences applies, my behavior starts improving again in vast leaps. My slavery is a reaction, which means that the stricter they are with bad behavior, the better I behave and in turn the more 'freedom' I get to just do what I'm supposed to without them checking up. Reversely, the more they let control slack, the worse I behave and the more they need to keep check of me all the time. It's always better if they are strict with me, it makes everybody in the house so much happier, including me. And paradoxically enough, the stricter they are with applying consequences, the relaxer my day to day life and rules are. I wish you well, ishy

IrishMist -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:52:04 AM)
LOL I tried to tell you Miss Angel You might want to invest in a couple of walls to beat your head against because...you will need them [:D]

NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:54:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub Actually he raises an interesting question, if someone has total and complete control of someone else, how can that someone else ever disobey? They don't, else the construct dies. If we want to spiral down this rabbit hole, we have to be prepared to realize it affect every aspect of submission. It technically suggests that submission and/or dominance cannot exist at all in any aspect because of the variability of human action. It would also call into question the existence of any interpersonal dynamic or agreement that could potentially change based on the possibility of one of the participants seceding from said dynamic or agreement. Every relationship...everything is life is transitory and ephemeral. The fact that some people can point at TPE (or anything else) as if those who practice or understand it somehow do not realize this in order to debunk the entire idea is ridiculous.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:54:53 AM)
Thank you for answering my question, that makes absolute sense to me. heartfelt

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:56:32 AM)
This is making my head hurt. The more I read it the more I think that actually TPE is a bunch of letter that makes the relationship have no more or less power exchange than anyone who defines themselves as D/s simply that it is yet another obsession by human beings to label shit to death

SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:57:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel [sm=banghead.gif] Folks, ACTIONS DO NOT DEFINE THE DYNAMIC OF TPE. Just because i was disobedient to his determination didn't mean his mastery didn't exist over me, it didn't mean the dynamic didn't exist, it simply mean i was disobedient in an action or a command. angel Perhaps that is where we differ, I feel my actions, good or bad, define my relationship, not my words or intent.

ishyB -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:01:07 PM)
Oh and for the record, I don't consider myself to be in a TPE. My Master calls me 'his mastered woman' (not even his slave) which is about all the defining I need in my relationship. His control isn't total in the sense that I am unable to disobey him. I have before, and I probably will again. His control over me is total in the sens that he is able to apply whatever consequences he wants to my behavior, and thus mold me to be what he wants me to be. Our relationship is also conditionally, but none of those conditions are place by me, or even demanded by me. They are either in place because of the nature of our relationship, or in place because he put them there.

Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:01:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Bita, you are right about marriage nobody is arguing that the vows of marriage actually MEAN forever but the argument for TPE is TOTAL control, if a slave leaves against the masters wishes or no longer feels his mastery, then by definition, his control is not total. I don't know Michael, I can't tell if this is just more rhetoric to score debate points, or whether you really have a fundamental misunderstanding of what TPE means. As has been said (accurately) several times in this thread, what separates TPE from not TPE is the absence of pre-negotiated and agreed to limits to the authority (and ultimately, yes, control) of the dominant party over the submissive party. No negotiations have been made, no "hard limits" or even "soft limits" "safe words" or "time out signals" have been established. The submissive party submits without preconditions. I'm not sure what part of that is so difficult for you to understand. Authority and control are not the same thing. Yes, you can rebel against authority. Slaves sometimes do. They might disobey at times. They might even get defiant at times. By accepting the authority of the dominant over them, however, they have agreed to be subject to the dominant's discipline and be brought back to heel when they disobey or defy, about ANYTHING. Lets use a hotbutton example to illustrate: TPE: Dominant says "ok kids, straighten up what you're doing there and get ready for bed". Submissive says "no, I set their bed time at 10:30, and it's only 10:15. They can stay up another 15 minutes". The submissive in this case is dead wrong. Doesn't matter if they are the submissive's biological kids, or the dominants. The submissive party has defied the authority of the dominant, to which she submitted unconditionally. He or she is probably going to be "in trouble", and, hopefully, learn not to do that again. Ultimately, yes, unless the submissive chooses to "opt out" or the dominant chooses to boot him or her out for their defiance, the dominant has ultimate control over the kids. Not TPE: Dominant says "ok kids, straighten up what you're doing there and get ready for bed". Submissive says "um... could I see you in the kitchen for a minute? We agreed that I would set the rules for the kids since they are my kids, I need you to back off please and not interfere". In this case the submissive is not subject to discipline. The kids were specifically exempted from the dominant's authority over him or her when the arrangement was made. Ultimately the dominant does not have control over the kids. His authority is limited in that area. If someone told you that TPE means turning another human into an absolute automoton, they were ill informed, and I guess they made you ill informed too. That's not what TPE is all about, or has it ever been about that. I hope this helps.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125