RE: Master/slave questions

RE: Master/slave questions (Full Version)

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

Message

BitaTruble -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 1:25:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub Isn't most disobedience the wrestling of power or authority away from the person who is supposed to be holding all of it to do something that that person hasn't given you the right, authority, or permission to do. No.. it's the 'attempting' of it. That clear things up for you? Do you mean like will He let me take this power/authority back? and if He doesn't then the total authority/power exchange holds. And if He does allow it, then the total authority/power exchange does not, because He allowed you (the generic you) to keep that power or authority? So that the only thing that makes it total versus non-total is is there an area in my life that i won't allow him authority over? And yes if the above statement (meaning the previous paragraph that i typed) is true to the definition of TPE, then yes it cleared it up immensely. heartfelt *edited for clarity sake Now ya got it. [:)]

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 1:27:39 PM)
quote: Isn't most disobedience the wrestling of power or authority away from the person who is supposed to be holding all of it to do something that that person hasn't given you the right, authority, or permission to do. Disobedience is the -attempt- to defy the authority of the one who, rightfully, by the terms of the agreement, holds that authority. It's been my experience that disobedience occurs in -every- relationship. In the end, it isn't about obedience or disobedience... it is about -who holds the designated authority- in the relationship. In a TPE relationship, the dominant individual is confirmed as holding the authority for as comprehensive a list of things in that submissive individual's life as they can come up with, or as rise during the course of living. The dominant party may choose to keep the authority hirself, or may delegate it, and whether kept or delegated, it is still TPE because the decision of which to do lies with the authority holder -- the dominant party. On the other end of the scale, the submissive individual may choose to -willingly- obey that authority, or may fight the process and disobey and require the dominant individual to compel obedience, but as long as the agreement is between them that the dominant holds the -right- to require obedience to hir authority, comprehensively, whether or not the submissive individual obeys, there is still a TPE dynamic in place. Now, if the servant is persistent in disobeying, and is clearly not intending to yield to the Keeper's authority, then it is -my- opinion that the TPE-style dynamic should be set aside, if for no other reason than because I am a stickler for being honest, including with myself, and if I have a servant who is consistently not obeying, then I am deluding myself to think that I actually have authority over hir -- in reality, if hir disobedience is comprehensive and not simply situational in one or two areas, xhe is not really submissive to me at all. If it is only in a couple of areas, then xhe clearly wasn't able or willing to truly let go of those things... in either case, I am only deluding myself if I do not deal with the issue and acknowledge that the comprehensive authority dynamic is not functioning for us in this case. Dame Calla

Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 1:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth ~ Fast Question ~ Do all of you put as much effort in your relationships as you do in defending, or attacking, specific word references or terms that define it? ~ Fast Reply ~ Would be nice if it took that little effort. You are absolutely right though, I should probably give a fuck a lot less than I do. I guess there's something about coming along and setting things straight after an asshole with an axe to grind spouting trite disinformation that never gets old. Personality flaw of mine.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 1:41:00 PM)
I am not going to enter into the fray of debate over TPE and PPE and APE...one thing I have seen on the forums is that there are certain words that just bring out an almost-primal reaction, either in defense of a term/lifestyle/dynamic choice or in the decrying of it. I know how I envision the dynamic I want to have...I've made it clear to submissives I've spoken with...I have no problems explaining in detail what I want and how I see that. But I do have a question, based on what Leonidas said in post # 264. For those who don't remember...big surprise, given the number of posts on this thread...he said this: "I personally think that these relationships work best when the submissive genuinely feels that they would be better off under the discipline, control and leadership of the dominant than they would under their own. If they aren't, the core reason to submit in such a profound way at all starts looking a little suspect to me, and the parties may be much better off just keeping the D/s play in the bedroom. " Couldn't the same be said for any D/s dynamic, not just TPE, that exists outside the structure of the bedroom? If the submissive feels that they are no better off under any of those factors...discipline, control, leadership...of the dominant than they would be on their own, then could it not be argued that their submission is not to the dominant but to the structure of the D/s dynamic and the satisfaction/safety that structure brings?

leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 1:42:12 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. Bingo. In the end, it is the compatibility that's going to define the amount of authority transfer possible anyway. If Carol did not love me, respect me, and trust me then it would not be possible for her to submit as she does whether or not she wanted to. To me, when someone says "TPE", what they are really saying is that their interest is in exploring how deep the rabbit hole is. It is not an absolute measure of the authority transfer involved.

downkitty -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 1:44:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub i hate to be repetitive, but i still don't understand how one can call a relationship a TPE and have disobedience occuring. i am not trying to be deliberately obtuse. Isn't most disobedience the wrestling of power or authority away from the person who is supposed to be holding all of it to do something that that person hasn't given you the right, authority, or permission to do. As i previously said, i do understand having the guidelines that says, there is not one area in my life that i am restricting your authority in and i get how that can be called TPE. What i don't get and would really like to be able to understand is how does disobedience factor in, how does it affect the total part of the dynamic, because in disobedience, the disobedient person has snatched back authority or control, at least temporarily. Or are y'all saying that because there are consequences for doing so, it is still TPE? heartfelt When I am disobedient, which is very rare, it is due to misunderstanding, knee-jerk reaction, or immediate influence of another. I do not try to take control or authority back. It is my belief that my best chance for survival is to be kept by the man that currently owns me. To disobey is to risk losing my value to him. If I begin disobeying, it starts that slippery slope which may ultimately lead to so much disobedience that the scales tip from "she is more beneficial than she costs" to "she is more trouble than she is worth." Respectfully, amy

downkitty -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 1:58:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I am not going to enter into the fray of debate over TPE and PPE and APE...one thing I have seen on the forums is that there are certain words that just bring out an almost-primal reaction, either in defense of a term/lifestyle/dynamic choice or in the decrying of it. I know how I envision the dynamic I want to have...I've made it clear to submissives I've spoken with...I have no problems explaining in detail what I want and how I see that. But I do have a question, based on what Leonidas said in post # 264. For those who don't remember...big surprise, given the number of posts on this thread...he said this: "I personally think that these relationships work best when the submissive genuinely feels that they would be better off under the discipline, control and leadership of the dominant than they would under their own. If they aren't, the core reason to submit in such a profound way at all starts looking a little suspect to me, and the parties may be much better off just keeping the D/s play in the bedroom. " Couldn't the same be said for any D/s dynamic, not just TPE, that exists outside the structure of the bedroom? If the submissive feels that they are no better off under any of those factors...discipline, control, leadership...of the dominant than they would be on their own, then could it not be argued that their submission is not to the dominant but to the structure of the D/s dynamic and the satisfaction/safety that structure brings? Much like tons of things in life, I suspect it is a sliding scale. I have a warped survival instinct that is pretty easy to trigger, then I reactively submit. Honestly, I'm fairly easily mastered and generally happy and content by default. Wind me up and point the direction and I will motor on happily humming away. I do require tighter controls, however, as I am easily swept by someone else's influence. I am on one end of the sliding scale. Most submissive people will require a stronger person to compel them, or a person with a specific set of traits, or a person who's general outlook or morals are specifically aligned with their own. If those conditions are not met, they feel better off on their own than "settling" for someone outside their parameters. They will fall along various points towards the other end of the sliding scale. Respectfully, amy

SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 2:03:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas What I think makes it special is that folks enter into the arrangement because it is genuinely how they feel they want and need to live, rather than it being a pre-determined cultural expectation into which they may or may not fit so well. Another thing that can make it special but isn't always present is when the dominant party has certain qualities and character to which the submissive aspires, but recognizes that they probably wouldn't ever achieve by self-motivation and self-discipline alone. They submit to their "master" in order to evolve toward the person they'd like to become. In that sense, these kinds of arrangements can take on some very pretty spiritual overtones reminicent of eastern student/guru relationships. I personally think that these relationships work best when the submissive genuinely feels that they would be better off under the discipline, control and leadership of the dominant than they would under their own. To bad we couldn't just hang that on the wall and call it a day rather than argue over how much control fits on the head of the "total" pin.

downkitty -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 2:07:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly 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. Maybe ... but I'm a blow up doll with an amazing sense of humor at least! ;) Jokingly, amy

SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 2:09:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth ~ Fast Question ~ Do all of you put as much effort in your relationships as you do in defending, or attacking, specific word references or terms that define it? My next partner is going to be local with the rather immediate goal of co-habitating and in all likelyhood my online interactions will fall to nil, lots of trips to LA, and a whole lot of time in the bedroom.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 3:47:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: downkitty quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant I am not going to enter into the fray of debate over TPE and PPE and APE...one thing I have seen on the forums is that there are certain words that just bring out an almost-primal reaction, either in defense of a term/lifestyle/dynamic choice or in the decrying of it. I know how I envision the dynamic I want to have...I've made it clear to submissives I've spoken with...I have no problems explaining in detail what I want and how I see that. But I do have a question, based on what Leonidas said in post # 264. For those who don't remember...big surprise, given the number of posts on this thread...he said this: "I personally think that these relationships work best when the submissive genuinely feels that they would be better off under the discipline, control and leadership of the dominant than they would under their own. If they aren't, the core reason to submit in such a profound way at all starts looking a little suspect to me, and the parties may be much better off just keeping the D/s play in the bedroom. " Couldn't the same be said for any D/s dynamic, not just TPE, that exists outside the structure of the bedroom? If the submissive feels that they are no better off under any of those factors...discipline, control, leadership...of the dominant than they would be on their own, then could it not be argued that their submission is not to the dominant but to the structure of the D/s dynamic and the satisfaction/safety that structure brings? Much like tons of things in life, I suspect it is a sliding scale. I have a warped survival instinct that is pretty easy to trigger, then I reactively submit. Honestly, I'm fairly easily mastered and generally happy and content by default. Wind me up and point the direction and I will motor on happily humming away. I do require tighter controls, however, as I am easily swept by someone else's influence. I am on one end of the sliding scale. Hmmmmmmmm...if you are easily swept by someone else's influence and the only way the dominant has of averting you from another's influence is be exercising tight control, then couldn't one say that you do not allow his dominance to be what it is but rather that his dominance is determined by your level of submission rather than the other way around? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I am in all actuality curious. Many submissives, including you below, state that it takes a stronger person than they themselves to compel submission but if the level has to constantly be monitored by the dominant and must always be kept tight by the dominant, then is the submission to the dominant OR to the situation as presented by the dominant at that moment? Or is this just a theoretical/philosophical debate? quote: Most submissive people will require a stronger person to compel them, or a person with a specific set of traits, or a person who's general outlook or morals are specifically aligned with their own. If those conditions are not met, they feel better off on their own than "settling" for someone outside their parameters. They will fall along various points towards the other end of the sliding scale. Respectfully, amy In other words, compatibility.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 4:31:11 PM)
FR See a fair bit of this seems to imply that submissives are unable to operate properly under their own steam, can it not be that simply they prefer to be lead? I know that is the case for me, I do not cease to function when single, I can make my own choices however for me personally I prefer to be in a situation when I do not have to.

SlyStone -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 4:34:01 PM)
quote: 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. I don't know the person you are attacking, I am pretty sure I would not want to, but I find it kind of sad that now you can call someone full of shit and ignorant with an apology to the moderators and all is forgiven?. Is that what we want here? And by the way, having supposedly done something for 8 years means jack shit to me and I would guess to most of those women you are worried about, we live in a world of what have you done lately not what did you used to be. I am not impressed by declarations of realness anymore then by the ability to spew out TPE 101 on command. The truth is we are limited by our own experience , we know what we know, but some of us want more, we want to understand the world around us, not just the little piece upon which we exist. My take on on this board is that the more people are posting the less they are living a real life and the less regard I would place in anything they would have to say, and that includes anyone who spends more time talking then doing, regardless of who they used to be or who they now proclaim themselves to be.

Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 4:38:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael To bad we couldn't just hang that on the wall and call it a day rather than argue over how much control fits on the head of the "total" pin. See, I guess the disconnect is that I don't think I'm arguing over that. Maybe you are. Someone says "TPE" to me, assuming we both understand what that means, he doesn't have to give me a very lengthy explanation of how things go at his house. And it's not as if a more detailed explanation would be any less controversial. No matter what you say about what you do, you're going to get one of three reactions from some folks: 1. You're doing it wrong, cause the "rules" say... 2. Your description makes me feel inferior, so I'm going to attack it. 3. You don't go nearly as far as I do, so now I feel superior, and I want to tell you about it. Doesn't much matter what you say. I can say "my slave wears a locked on steel collar 24/7" 1. You really shouldn't impose your kink on the non-consenting public. Everyone knows that. 2. Just because your slave wears a collar all the time doen't mean she's any more of a slave than someone who only wears theirs in the bedroom. Besides, I really doubt that she wears it 24/7. I think you're one of those internet frauds cause I never see you at a leather event. 3. I used to have my slave wear a lock collar, but we're way beyond that now. I have implanted a suggestion in her mind that not only is she wearing a lock collar, but that I can tighten it with my mind. All I have to do is give her "the look" and she panics and starts to choke. Ya can't win. For the reasonably sane who want to use the shorthand "TPE" to describe a relationship where one of the parties calls the shots all the time, no matter what, I'll gratefully nod my head and bask in the glow of straightforward communication.

barelynangel -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 4:54:38 PM)
feel better now slystone? [sm=shame.gif] Bursts out laughing are you serious? Geez, DAD ARE YOU ON COLLAR ME?[sm=rantint.gif] First of all what i said to Michael was no where NEAR how rude, crude and obnoxious he can be, so i doubt my little telling him he is full of shit dented him or scarred him for life. So again, do you feel better? But you are right, i should have passive agressively said Michael you are full of IT and of course, no one would have a clue what i was speaking about because we all don't say bad words lol. grins or should i be feeling alll forlorn and such cause you really PUT ME IN MY PLACE lol. WAIT they have a smiley for that yes?[:o] snifs now i need a hug. [sm=needahug.gif] grins if you think what I said was bad lol you are going to have a REALLY tough time on this board. You do realize you can probably buy a thicker skin at Walmart but quality ones you will have to go to Neimans. grins, SlyStone - - just to save you further stress -- there is a little button on the bottom of all my posts and its called HIDE - see you are mistaken if you think i NEED you to read my posts lol. When you matter -- i will let you know. pats you on the knee. Just wiggle it dude!! [sm=yahoo.gif] angel

SlyStone -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 5:31:35 PM)
Edited because this is to sad to continue. Take care.

BeingChewsie -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 6:18:26 PM)
quote: This is why the phrase, "If you CAN leave, RUN!" resonates with me. It is not love and devotion that compels me to serve a man. It's purely instinct, self-preservation and selfishness. I am just as likely to respond this way to a total asshole as I am to a respectable person. . Amy, I could have written every word that you wrote in your post, it is me to a "T". It actually made me cry because it is such an accurate reflection of who I am and what drives me in slavery. Thank you for sharing, you are not alone.

leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 6:29:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I don't see a TPE dynamic as being over when disobedience happens. Only when secession happens. Heh, I hate to say it, but I do. The moment Carol would directly and knowingly disobey me is when she is no longer mine. Actually, I would have to assume that I lost her before then and I'm just finding out about it in that moment. To me, to progress beyond that point in a TPE model is "playing games". To me, at this point, we already know that it isn't total or anything even remotely like it. So I'd just go ahead and call a spade a spade. Also, to those who went down the "unable to leave" path, I have some concerns with that. I don't think Carol has ever been able to leave me. I don't think that has anything to do with me "mastering" her. I think it has to do with leaving me being a dumb-assed choice and her being too smart to make it. For that matter, I have no idea how or why I'd leave her. Does that make me her slave? Heh, I do like to say that a 6' leash is 6' in both directions. But seriously, the whole "unable to leave" angle seems a bit... specious... when you pick it apart. Frankly, that seems like an artifact of any functioning relationship.

BitaTruble -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 7:36:25 PM)
quote: But seriously, the whole "unable to leave" angle seems a bit... specious... when you pick it apart. quote: Also, to those who went down the "unable to leave" path, I have some concerns with that. I don't think Carol has ever been able to leave me. I don't think that has anything to do with me "mastering" her. I think it has to do with leaving me being a dumb-assed choice and her being too smart to make it. For that matter, I have no idea how or why I'd leave her. Can you explain the seeming contradiction because I'm not getting it? I've bolded what's confused me. Carol is unable to leave because she's too smart. I'm unable to leave because I'm too Mastered. Why is one okay and the other not? You have no idea how you, yourself, would leave .. but those of us who think exactly like you are being specious? Why does 'why' make a difference? I'm truly curious and utterly confused. I'm going to repost something I wrote quite a while ago regarding choices, options and leaving. Feel free to pick it apart.. maybe it will clear up my confusion. ::repost:: "I think it's important to understand about choices and options. I know I've heard a hundred times if I've heard it once, ... you always have the choice to leave. When I examine that in depth, I find that it's not the choice that's even the issue, it's the consequence of the choice that matters. To leave means I am stripped of my own truth, my core, the essence of who I am. To leave is a lie and a betrayal of trust to my word, my being and my soul. To be other than myself is to wear a mask and fake my life. Depending on your perspective life is either too damn long or too damn short to fake it. Can I physically walk out the door, get in a cab and go somewhere else? No, I cannot. The shell of my body can, certainly, but that shell leaves behind everything that's important, everything that really matters, that does make me unique and the body walking out that door is someone else entirely. It's not me. Not now, not today, not in this moment. I'll be someone new tomorrow though and tomorrow will bring what it will bring and it could all change in the blink of an eye. Tomorrow I may very well be able to make a choice to leave and have it be 'me' who walks out the door because I am no longer a slave, no longer Mastered. Growth works in funny ways and I'll accept it no matter what form it may take."

leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 7:44:39 PM)
Hrrrmm, you misinterpreted bita.. hence your confusion. Let me try to clarify. What seemed "specious" to me was not the individuals in this situation... I would more be inclined to use the word "magical". The specious part had to do with attempting to use that inability to leave as a differentiating factor in the whole TPE/slave thing. Either that or it's going to need to be clarified to me because as I said, I'm not seeing how it's any different than any happy well-functioning relationship.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875