RE: Master/slave questions

RE: Master/slave questions (Full Version)

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

Message

NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:02:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally 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 Not really. We spoke about that "range" earlier, remember? TPE should just be that range pushed to the farthest limit. How that limit is defined and the specific nuances relevant to it is a matter probably good for another discussion, but there are posters here doing a good job of defining it at least as how it was/is pertinent to them

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero 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. That is not what i was trying to do. i was not trying to debunk the concept of TPE, i was trying to understand how the T part fits in. As i said to Angel, i get the concept of power exchange or authority exchange, i need that kind of relationship in my life, i seek out those kinds of relationships where the authority in the relationship is held by the Dominant partner in the relationship. In the D/s relationships that i have had, i rarely ever disobeyed, in a 4 year relationship, it probably happened 5 times. But i would not classify that as total because i had the ability to disobey. my question of Angel is that she said she was in a TPE relationship but still had the internal will and power to disobey, i don't understand that. It is simply the idea of totality that i don't understand. i understand not being able to leave a relationship. So is that the mark of a TPE? Not being to leave it. i am trying to figure out, what if not absolute obedience is what makes a TPE different than my D/s relationships where i almost always obeyed but i did so because i chose to obey based on the commitment that i made to obey. heartfelt

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:04:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas 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. SO the fact that I have never had a safe word nor ever spoken about limits when in a relationship means I was always TPE? I don't do any of that because generally I tend to pick people on the same wavelength as me. So for me its about compatibility not amount of power exchanged.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:05:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ishyB 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. Again something that completely makes sense to me. Thank you.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero 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. You essentially wrote because I just showed that something is flawless that it can't exist at all, which is both nonsensical and not at all what I wrote. quote: Every relationship...everything is life is transitory and ephemeral. I agree quote: 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. So are you saying you realize the "total" part is nonsensical or are you saying something about my debunking the "total" part is ridiculous? As I have said over and over, I think a talented dominant can have an amazing amount of control but the total part is at best rather rare and when it is present in a relationship over 6-10 years old, I even believe it.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:07:49 PM)
Thank you, that i understand. heartfelt

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:08:34 PM)
Mail NZ

barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:09:27 PM)
Irish NO KIDDING -- people love to make crap complicated when its very simple. I guess its like trying to explain what having a mental illness is like -- when you can only observe it, you nitpick what you see or what is explained but you never really know what it means until you experience it as a whole. lips twitch, it reminds me of what i tell the many women -- quit thinking about it so much and just be. It then comes together in understanding. lol until i found online and BDSM etc, i simply didn't realize everything had so much labels and definitions to them. angel

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:09:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas 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. SO the fact that I have never had a safe word nor ever spoken about limits when in a relationship means I was always TPE? I don't do any of that because generally I tend to pick people on the same wavelength as me. So for me its about compatibility not amount of power exchanged. Interesting question, one i hope that Leonidas answers.

NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:12:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub That is not what i was trying to do. i was not trying to debunk the concept of TPE, i was trying to understand how the T part fits in. I didn't mean to imply you were doing so. From what I've seen you've been quite neutral and curious about the discussion. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub As i said to Angel, i get the concept of power exchange or authority exchange, i need that kind of relationship in my life, i seek out those kinds of relationships where the authority in the relationship is held by the Dominant partner in the relationship. In the D/s relationships that i have had, i rarely ever disobeyed, in a 4 year relationship, it probably happened 5 times. But i would not classify that as total because i had the ability to disobey. Angel and Leonidas have addressed this point very well. Leonidas acutely differentiated between "control" and "authority", which I think is a rather pertinent facet of this. quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub my question of Angel is that she said she was in a TPE relationship but still had the internal will and power to disobey, i don't understand that. It is simply the idea of totality that i don't understand. i understand not being able to leave a relationship. The wording is tricky here. Technically (and legally) anyone can leave any relationship. that's part of human reality. IT seems to me some people point to this as a contradiction to TPE because of the fact that they are ascribing inhuman properties to a human dynamic. Maybe if TPE was rephrased as "human TPE" so as to make it understood that it still has to address the foibles and flaws of humans, yet, within that construct, can be "humanly total" then it would make more sense? [:D] Also...ishyB had a very good post dealing with being compelled not to leave, as far as the chemistry and dynamic of a relationship is concerned. quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub So is that the mark of a TPE? Not being to leave it. i am trying to figure out, what if not absolute obedience is what makes a TPE different than my D/s relationships where i almost always obeyed but i did so because i chose to obey based on the commitment that i made to obey. I go back to Leonidas' use of the term "authority" and say that TPE is the surrendering of every decision-making process unto the authority of another. For the length of time that it is all being surrendered, TPE is in effect.

NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:16:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael As I have said over and over, I think a talented dominant can have an amazing amount of control but the total part is at best rather rare and when it is present in a relationship over 6-10 years old, I even believe it. You are intentionally applying the term "total" in an inhuman fashion and then decrying TPE as non-existent for humans because of it. You may as well say an amputee cannot be involved in a TPE relationship either because "total" cannot possibly apply to the limb they no longer have.

Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:18:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally SO the fact that I have never had a safe word nor ever spoken about limits when in a relationship means I was always TPE? I don't do any of that because generally I tend to pick people on the same wavelength as me. So for me its about compatibility not amount of power exchanged. You were wise to choose folks who seemed to share your values and preferences. Makes life a lot easier. Was it understood, within the bounds of your relationship, that these folks had unconditional authority over you? Was it their right, and did you accept it as their right, to make decisions for and about you regardless of the context, and even when you might disagree with those decisions (granted that it probably happened less often if you were "compatible")? If so, yeah, you were doing TPE. If on the other hand, you reserved the right to say "hey, i'm not going along with that, it doesn't fly with me, we need to talk this over", you weren't. By reserving the right I mean that it wouldn't be considered by you to be disobedience or defiance to do it, rather, it would just be asserting your right to disagree and choose to do something else.

NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:19:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Mail NZ Check. [sm=cool.gif]

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:20:59 PM)
Fair enough, so it is about explicitly knowing? Ahh and now I also understand the disobedience thing also, yeah well that to me is what submitting is about, I choose the person I am with and then do as I am told, if I get it wrong I get punished, simple really I just think of that as d/s but now I get it. Thanks

Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:25:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Fair enough, so it is about explicitly knowing? Ahh and now I also understand the disobedience thing also, yeah well that to me is what submitting is about, I choose the person I am with and then do as I am told, if I get it wrong I get punished, simple really I just think of that as d/s but now I get it. Thanks It is just d/s. I agree. The only thing that makes it TPE or not is whether you say "I accept your total authority over me about ANYTHING" or you say "I accept your authority over me except when it comes to the kids, my weight, and my job".

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:30:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Fair enough, so it is about explicitly knowing? Ahh and now I also understand the disobedience thing also, yeah well that to me is what submitting is about, I choose the person I am with and then do as I am told, if I get it wrong I get punished, simple really I just think of that as d/s but now I get it. Thanks It is just d/s. I agree. The only thing that makes it TPE or not is whether you say "I accept your total authority over me about ANYTHING" or you say "I accept your authority over me except when it comes to the kids, my weight, and my job". Fair enough :) Thanks.

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:31:54 PM)
Thank you for this response. What you said made complete sense to me, but one point did raise a question. quote: I go back to Leonidas' use of the term "authority" and say that TPE is the surrendering of every decision-making process unto the authority of another. For the length of time that it is all being surrendered, TPE is in effect. i can understand doing that initially turning over the right whether by force of one's own personality or by decision to another. Is this what you meant when you said the minute one disobeys, it is over. i think i'm paraphrasing. Because if i chose to take authority to make a decision different than the one that the Master/Dominant has made, and for most disobedience, unless it is in response to a buried trigger over which a person doesn't have control, most disobedience is based on deciding to disobey, am i not snatching back the authority (even if there are consequences to that action) temporarily? So then my initial question remains for which i got semi-blasted by Angel, if one's actions are disobedient, how can one still claim to be in a TPE? Because the way i look at it, for me to be disobedient (even in the kind of relationships that i have which i don't classify as TPE), i am taking back authority, control to do what i want to do disregarding the will of the person who i said that i was giving total power, authority to? So how can that be total, or rather how could i say i'm in a TPE and disobey, because disobeying is taking back control or authority, even if it is temporarily. Again i am not saying that the Dominant person doesn't have absolute right to deal out the consequences of my actions on me, that is true in the D/s relationships that i have. So i can (thanks to Leonidas's post) see how a TPE can be started, by the submissive/slave giving whether through force of personality or choice complete authority to make decisions for that s-type. i don't see how it is maintained with the same title when, at least as i am seeing it, each disobedience temporarily takes that authority or control out of the hands of the Master/Dominant. Thanks again for your responses, they have been very helpful. heartfelt

heartfeltsub -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:33:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally SO the fact that I have never had a safe word nor ever spoken about limits when in a relationship means I was always TPE? I don't do any of that because generally I tend to pick people on the same wavelength as me. So for me its about compatibility not amount of power exchanged. You were wise to choose folks who seemed to share your values and preferences. Makes life a lot easier. Was it understood, within the bounds of your relationship, that these folks had unconditional authority over you? Was it their right, and did you accept it as their right, to make decisions for and about you regardless of the context, and even when you might disagree with those decisions (granted that it probably happened less often if you were "compatible")? If so, yeah, you were doing TPE. If on the other hand, you reserved the right to say "hey, i'm not going along with that, it doesn't fly with me, we need to talk this over", you weren't. By reserving the right I mean that it wouldn't be considered by you to be disobedience or defiance to do it, rather, it would just be asserting your right to disagree and choose to do something else. Thank you for this response Leonidas, it was very helpful.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:36:19 PM)
quote: SO the fact that I have never had a safe word nor ever spoken about limits when in a relationship means I was always TPE? I don't do any of that because generally I tend to pick people on the same wavelength as me. So for me its about compatibility not amount of power exchanged. Ok, Lilly, I've watched you here for a little while, but I don't really know you, or the relationship you're in, so I have a question to ask you. Is there ANY area of your life that you would tell the person to whom you submit "If we're going to be in a relationship, this thing is "Hands-off"... you can't have control over THIS thing."? Is there any activity that you would 'forbid'? (Poly, needles, control of what you wear, eat, or your daily schedule, control of whether or not you have an outside job?) If the answer is "No, the person I submit to could have control over -any- aspect of my life that xhe chose... xhe could decide any of these things for me.", then whether or not you have -ever- used the phrase, you -are- participating in what most would consider to be a 'comprehensive authority' (TPE) relationship. If there is any area that you withhold the right to control, then it can't be comprehensive authority, because there are aspects that are not now, and can never BE under the dominant's control, even if xhe wishes them to be... It doesn't matter whether, in the end, xhe -chooses- to exercise that authority--what defines TPE or non-TPE is whether or not there is any restriction in place to keep the dominant party from exercising authority over something if xhe chooses to. Does that make any sense? Dame Calla

TurboJugend -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 12:36:33 PM)
no offense..but TPE sounds like a strict vanilla family where the male says "I bring the money..I wear the pants...you listen to me wife..if not I slap your face." So I am wondering..what makes it special...or is it the same?

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875