RE: TPE

RE: TPE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

CaringandReal -> RE: TPE (8/31/2009 7:34:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet ~FR~ May I turn this on its head without reading much of the thread? Too bad, I'm doing it anyway! LOL What if a slave has 10 things she greatly desires, but will be denied them within a TPE relationship with a given Master? Is it still TPE? Let's see what would happen in that case. There is absolute refusal on the Master's part. The slave begs and pleads over a long period of time for him to reconsider. The Master is unmoved. The slave then begins to ask if he would allow her to experiences these things, that they both knew she desired going into it, with someone else either under his supervision or with someone who does that form of play and he trusts. Again the Master is unmoved. These are HIS hard limits and he has his reasons. Now she is left to either attempt a topping from the bottom or to give them up. Okay, so the ubersubly thing to do would be to give them up. These are VERY important to the slave, however, so she tries to get these desires met some way. Now, if the Master makes any move on the matter, he is essentially transferring control back to the slave because his no was supposed to be absolute after all. lovingpet I would think (or maybe it's hope?) that if a potential slave really cared so deeply about those 10 things to the point that they conflicted with her desire to be owned, she wouldn't go into a TPE in the first place. She'd realize she wasn't ready to potentially give up everything. If not, I'd expect (or maybe again it's hope) her potential master would have the perception and sense to spot the conflict early and realize she wasn't ready for this sort of relationship. If neither do the bare minimum of necessary preparation to begin with, then what sort of power exchange can they actually expect to have?

lovingpet -> RE: TPE (8/31/2009 7:43:54 PM)
That's kind of my point. I would think the same would apply to limits as well. If there are major pieces that are hold out, then it is not "total" in any sense, so claiming to enter into it is delusional at best. We weren't talking soft limits or, in my example, tolerated things. These were HARD limits and desires that may even go so far as to be needs. If they don't match, then there can never really be a full exchange in the way TPE would require. I will say that hard limits can become not so hard over time, so actually I care less about limits and more about someone having to give up things. The whole thing here is that the dominant is giving up something he/she enjoys because of a slave's limits. If a dominant has a hard limit on something, then whether the slave "lives for it" or not, he/she will have to do without it. It is just the flip side of the same coin. This isn't a theoretical game at all. It's just plain old fashioned compatibility no matter how it is gussied up. lovingpet

GotSteel -> RE: TPE (8/31/2009 10:25:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist as if That's the semantic word games. These long drama filled threads about the correct definition of terms which are based on a fantasy definition of the word slave to begin with seem rather silly to me. p.s. The end of your last post was quite disturbing.

NihilusZero -> RE: TPE (8/31/2009 10:31:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel This is where you've entered fantasy land. Real life has limitations, such as not being able to own human beings as property. Referring to your significant other as a slave is a fantasy, anything otherwise is semantic word games. Part of "real life" is the inclusion of linguistics and interpersonal relationships. In the same way that two people can be emotionally bound in a relationship/marriage without any legal paperwork to substantiate their relationship, having a slave is just as "real".

Malkinius -> RE: TPE (8/31/2009 11:07:21 PM)
Greetings aldompdx.... quote: ORIGINAL: aldompdx Total, absolute, 100% surrender or "exchange" of power is death. The end result of such a fantasy serves the paraphilia of necrophilia or pathological violence and abuse. A corpse is the total objectification of another person. (See related thread on communication, and respondent's opposition to direct expression of feeling). Work backwards from that, and you may be able to distinguish the difference between fantasy and pragmatic reality. In real BDSM (SSC, RACK, SSICK), one delegates authority to exercise power. They can never transfer their personal power to another, because the choice to surrender is ongoing and is made from the personal power of self will and free choice. What would make it "unreal?" The absence of informed consent, under which conduct is unlawful. Presumably, this site is not about supporting a criminal community. Thus, everybody has limits. By definition, all limits are "hard." A supposed "soft" limit is a preference, not a limit. Let me make this perfectly clear to you. You are wrong. I read fantasy, I don't do it. I pretty much don't do BDSM either. I certainly don't follow SSC, RACK or SSICK. I train slaves. The worst damage by far that has ever happened to a slave of mine (technically she still was at that point) involved learning why you don't try to dance a Hora in a long wedding train when you have bad knees and ankles to begin with. She left her wedding reception in an ambulance. Yes, the final wedding picture is the back of the ambulance with a Just Married sign on it. She was down before I could stop her from trying to do it. The only good things that happened after that were that she was transferred as planned to her current owner/husband and I got to entitle the story "A Hora-ble Accident". Sorry for the digression but it really has been the worst thing to happen to any slave I have owned or trained and I do not allow slaves to put limits on me. I put more limits on myself than they usually want. The point is that yes, you really can have a situation where the slave has only the choices to obey, disobey or stop being a slave. It is not a fantasy and it doesn't have to be physically dangerous for the slave. I do agree that doing this without the full consent of the slave would be illegal. No, not all limits are hard limits. Some limits are things to overcome and often the slave wants to overcome them but until they do they are still limiting. You are thinking too narrowly and limiting yourself to the politically correct BDSM party line so you can't see that it really can work just fine being done in other ways. Be well.... Malkinius

Malkinius -> RE: TPE (8/31/2009 11:16:24 PM)
Greetings naughtysubK quote: ORIGINAL: naughtysubK My Dominant and I are not in a TPE type of relationship at the moment, but that is what he would like us to move towards. I told him from the beginning that I will never ever fuck a dog or a horse for him, and that I will absolutely not even entertain the thought of him poo-ing on me. If I undertand you correctly, you are saying that even though he has no interest whatsoever of either poo-ing on me or getting me to fuck a dog or a horse, that because I have these limits, I will never actually be his slave? Yes, you are correct. As long as you can place limits on him and enforce those limits, you are in control of the relationship. By definition a slave is not the one in control. I have a question about one of your limits. Have you ever changed a baby's diaper and have them let loose on you? It happened to me a few times when I changed my son's diapers some 20 years ago. <grins> Is that different? Or is it only different because the infant doesn't have any control and it isn't being done for erotic reasons? Be well.... Malkinius

naughtysubK -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 3:08:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malkinius Greetings naughtysubK quote: ORIGINAL: naughtysubK My Dominant and I are not in a TPE type of relationship at the moment, but that is what he would like us to move towards. I told him from the beginning that I will never ever fuck a dog or a horse for him, and that I will absolutely not even entertain the thought of him poo-ing on me. If I undertand you correctly, you are saying that even though he has no interest whatsoever of either poo-ing on me or getting me to fuck a dog or a horse, that because I have these limits, I will never actually be his slave? Yes, you are correct. As long as you can place limits on him and enforce those limits, you are in control of the relationship. By definition a slave is not the one in control. I have a question about one of your limits. Have you ever changed a baby's diaper and have them let loose on you? It happened to me a few times when I changed my son's diapers some 20 years ago. <grins> Is that different? Or is it only different because the infant doesn't have any control and it isn't being done for erotic reasons? Be well.... Malkinius nope I have never changed a diaper. I guess I will have to let him know that I can't ever be his slave because I have some hard limits even though they would never be an issue anyway because they have to do with things that don't interest him. Oh well

RavenMuse -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 4:23:18 AM)
The problem in this thread is too many people projecting. There is a world of diffrence between saying "Thats not how I see it" and saying "That isn't slavery because it is different than what I do" Baseline premise... We are all different, Our Dynamics are all diffrent, what works for Me maybe won't work for you but what counts is compatability. If whatever you have works for you and your girl WTF does it matter wether I see it as barely submissive let alone slave. Because My definitions are based on what works for Me!

LillyoftheVally -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 4:28:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malkinius Yes, you are correct. As long as you can place limits on him and enforce those limits, you are in control of the relationship. By definition a slave is not the one in control. Seems a little dramatic, all or nothing is it? If you don't want to have your arm chopped off (anyone remember that thread?) Then you are in control of the relationship? No middle ground? None at all?

naughtysubK -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 4:42:59 AM)
maybe if I had lied in the beginning and told him that I would fuck his dog if he wanted, knowing that he wouldn't be interested in that, maybe then I could aspire to one day be his slave?

LillyoftheVally -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 4:43:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtysubK maybe if I had lied in the beginning and told him that I would fuck his dog if he wanted, knowing that he wouldn't be interested in that, maybe then I could aspire to one day be his slave? Its as I said earlier, just don't call them limits then its ok with everyone else

stella09 -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 4:46:47 AM)
[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m27.gif[/image][image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m28.gif[/image][image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m19.gif[/image][image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m21.gif[/image]

lally2 -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 8:17:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malkinius Greetings aldompdx.... quote: ORIGINAL: aldompdx Total, absolute, 100% surrender or "exchange" of power is death. The end result of such a fantasy serves the paraphilia of necrophilia or pathological violence and abuse. A corpse is the total objectification of another person. (See related thread on communication, and respondent's opposition to direct expression of feeling). Work backwards from that, and you may be able to distinguish the difference between fantasy and pragmatic reality. In real BDSM (SSC, RACK, SSICK), one delegates authority to exercise power. They can never transfer their personal power to another, because the choice to surrender is ongoing and is made from the personal power of self will and free choice. What would make it "unreal?" The absence of informed consent, under which conduct is unlawful. Presumably, this site is not about supporting a criminal community. Thus, everybody has limits. By definition, all limits are "hard." A supposed "soft" limit is a preference, not a limit. Let me make this perfectly clear to you. You are wrong. I read fantasy, I don't do it. I pretty much don't do BDSM either. I certainly don't follow SSC, RACK or SSICK. I train slaves. The worst damage by far that has ever happened to a slave of mine (technically she still was at that point) involved learning why you don't try to dance a Hora in a long wedding train when you have bad knees and ankles to begin with. She left her wedding reception in an ambulance. Yes, the final wedding picture is the back of the ambulance with a Just Married sign on it. She was down before I could stop her from trying to do it. The only good things that happened after that were that she was transferred as planned to her current owner/husband and I got to entitle the story "A Hora-ble Accident". Sorry for the digression but it really has been the worst thing to happen to any slave I have owned or trained and I do not allow slaves to put limits on me. I put more limits on myself than they usually want. The point is that yes, you really can have a situation where the slave has only the choices to obey, disobey or stop being a slave. It is not a fantasy and it doesn't have to be physically dangerous for the slave. I do agree that doing this without the full consent of the slave would be illegal. No, not all limits are hard limits. Some limits are things to overcome and often the slave wants to overcome them but until they do they are still limiting. You are thinking too narrowly and limiting yourself to the politically correct BDSM party line so you can't see that it really can work just fine being done in other ways. Be well.... Malkinius you talk about youre version of whatever it is, RS the same. may i ask a question. in youre movements amongst the lifestyle, do the slaves that approach you know of you, know who you are, do they know what they are entering into simply by dint of having heard of you, within youre community. i ask this because i get the same impression from RS, that you both are part of a community that has its own reputation, you have youre own reputation and people, slaves, willl come up to you in the spirit of absolute TPE because they know absolutely how you play/train/conduct youreself. presumably you have a rep that you wish to maintain and protect.. this, with respect, is a little different to full on committed TPE, Ms relationships.

HalloweenWhite -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 8:30:33 AM)
To Me Total means just that, but I've never been in a TPE relationship and I don't personally know A/anyone who has (not that I've asked people I'm friendly with in the scene) but I doubt it means that to O/others, I'm sure there's a lot of flexibility in these kinds of relationships.

seeksBBW2serve -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 1:17:35 PM)
I think a lot of you are assuming that the TPE relationship is going to be based around bdsm. I can't talk from any great experience as i have only been involved in one d/s relationship, but, in a way it was TPE on the domestic and personal side. But there were strict limits on the bdsm. Does that make sense? Probably not. But then i don't actually believe anyone in their right mind would agree to a true TPE relationship. And when i read some of the profiles on here? i do sometimes worry about the authors sanity. Anyway that's my opinion.

leadership527 -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 1:43:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Seems a little dramatic, all or nothing is it? If you don't want to have your arm chopped off (anyone remember that thread?) Then you are in control of the relationship? No middle ground? None at all? Does there really need to be any middle ground Lily? Consider, I only see 3 options here... a) I issue some commands and she obeys them - TPE b) I Issue some command and she does not obey - not TPE It's really pretty simple. The 3rd choice you're talking about is a special case... c) The sub spends time in the privacy of her own mind enumerating scenes from the most recent Saw movie and deciding those are hard limits. - not TPE. In this case, I consider such a person "not TPE" because they aren't even remotely in the mindset to enter into a TPE relationship. All of those designations are temporary. I expect such things to change dramatically depending on largely on the health of the relationship the sub is involved in and the competence of the dominant in question.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 2:08:46 PM)
Jeff, I wasn't talking TPE I was just saying that claiming the implementation of limits means that the sub is in control seems a little all or nothing to me

leadership527 -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 2:26:16 PM)
Well, in that context I agree (and I wonder if I got my wires crossed from the obey and TPE threads chuckles), it certainly is not all or nothing. To the extent that the sub defines and enforces limits, then she is in control. But it is absolutely a sliding scale. There are more choices than "zero control" or "all control". To use your example, "If the sub doesn't want to have her arm chopped off, then she is in control of her own amputation schedule." She may well want no control in any other area.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 3:54:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CaringandReal Sure, but couldn't that faith occur during the "getting to know you well enough to..." stage and by the time the collar (or insert your own symbol) goes on, they know perfectly well what they're getting into (and so do you) and can do it with open eyes and a glad heart? Ok, again, this is just my opinion (and certainly colors how _I_ handle things like comprehensive-authority relationships), but -yes-, I think that it -can- occur during the "getting to know you" phase, especially where people enter with the understanding that comprehensive authority transfer is the goal... However, again, JMO, but I don't think it can happen in a relationship where the individuals are not -living together- under some terms where they are actually -participating- in the relationship while they get to know one another... I don't know if that made any sense but... examples: 1. An individual is interested in the concept of comprehensive authority. Xhe meets someone who is -also- interested, and they begin a relationship. They start the process of transferring authority in bite-sizes that are comfortable for both of them, with the -goal- that, somewhere down the road, the submissive individual will know and trust the dominant individual enough to let go of those last vestiges of self-authority, in the form of those 'hard limits'. Xhe places even those things in hir dominant partner's hands, and is comfortable doing so. At this point, the dominant individual, the last issue of whether or not the relationship will shape up into what xhe wants, offers the collar, which is accepted by the submissive individual, both of them satisfied with the arrangement. 2. A submissive individual, also interested in the concept of comprehensive authority exchange, meets a dominant-oriented individual online who is also interested in the concept of comprehensive authority exchange. They get to know one another, but for a variety of reasons, are unable to begin actually -working through- the relationship in person, where the dominant individual has complete access to the submissive individual, under gradually increasing levels of authority... until they can, it is my opinion that there will always be a hesitation, because until you have actually -lived- under someone's authority, if you are a person who -holds- boundaries, you won't be comfortable letting those go sight-unseen (or experience un-experienced). In a relationship where the parties are physically estranged from one another, there is a built-in escape clause... in that one party or the other can choose to sever communication without it impacting the material, physical existence of either party. Mind you, I am not saying that online and telephone relationships are not "real"... what I am saying is that, if one is going to yield all boundaries in a situation where the other individual has access to force those issues, then having a 'history' that does not include that access will -not- provide, for most people, sufficient experience to be able to let go of those hard-limit boundaries. Full acknowledgment is given that your mileage may vary. Dame Calla

CaringandReal -> RE: TPE (9/1/2009 5:32:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: CaringandReal Sure, but couldn't that faith occur during the "getting to know you well enough to..." stage and by the time the collar (or insert your own symbol) goes on, they know perfectly well what they're getting into (and so do you) and can do it with open eyes and a glad heart? Ok, again, this is just my opinion (and certainly colors how _I_ handle things like comprehensive-authority relationships), but -yes-, I think that it -can- occur during the "getting to know you" phase, especially where people enter with the understanding that comprehensive authority transfer is the goal... However, again, JMO, but I don't think it can happen in a relationship where the individuals are not -living together- under some terms where they are actually -participating- in the relationship while they get to know one another... I don't know if that made any sense but... examples: 1. An individual is interested in the concept of comprehensive authority. Xhe meets someone who is -also- interested, and they begin a relationship. They start the process of transferring authority in bite-sizes that are comfortable for both of them, with the -goal- that, somewhere down the road, the submissive individual will know and trust the dominant individual enough to let go of those last vestiges of self-authority, in the form of those 'hard limits'. Xhe places even those things in hir dominant partner's hands, and is comfortable doing so. At this point, the dominant individual, the last issue of whether or not the relationship will shape up into what xhe wants, offers the collar, which is accepted by the submissive individual, both of them satisfied with the arrangement. 2. A submissive individual, also interested in the concept of comprehensive authority exchange, meets a dominant-oriented individual online who is also interested in the concept of comprehensive authority exchange. They get to know one another, but for a variety of reasons, are unable to begin actually -working through- the relationship in person, where the dominant individual has complete access to the submissive individual, under gradually increasing levels of authority... until they can, it is my opinion that there will always be a hesitation, because until you have actually -lived- under someone's authority, if you are a person who -holds- boundaries, you won't be comfortable letting those go sight-unseen (or experience un-experienced). In a relationship where the parties are physically estranged from one another, there is a built-in escape clause... in that one party or the other can choose to sever communication without it impacting the material, physical existence of either party. Mind you, I am not saying that online and telephone relationships are not "real"... what I am saying is that, if one is going to yield all boundaries in a situation where the other individual has access to force those issues, then having a 'history' that does not include that access will -not- provide, for most people, sufficient experience to be able to let go of those hard-limit boundaries. Full acknowledgment is given that your mileage may vary. Dame Calla Great answer, so I'm leaving the whole thing there in the quote. But I am shocked and mortified that you don't believe in "TPE at First Sight." :p Yeah, milages do vary, but not that often, I don't think. It did, however, work differently for me, my first (and only) time. I had no experience, he was remote, but I'd been waiting for a moment like that all my life and I don't think I held/hold a lot of boundaries. None he didn't walk right over, anyway. He was very experienced, and I guess he recognized my sincerity or maybe the lack of those boundaries. Our "bite-sized chuncks" phase (yes, there was one, I think) lasted, at most, a week? After that it was pretty much all or nothing, control-wise and both of us wanted all. A few months and a couple of visits later he took me as his. After that I was still remote, but only in terms of miles. It was just a matter of logistics: arranging the details so we could live together. We were lucky: the economy wasn't like it is now so it took only another 3 months or so, including the part where each of us extracted ourselves from an unfulfilling relationship. I obeyed him, during that period and then I obeyed him when we were living together and it was a little different than what I had imagined (I hadn't imagined the love or how very affecting his presence was in other ways), but not control-wise. Prior to living with him, I had one moment of crisis, but it occurred long before I officially became his. I think it worked because we lucked out: we just happened to be really close to (if not perfectly) what the other was looking for, so a lot of the careful checking and qualifying and testing didn't have to be done. We talked a whole lot about all the important stuff, and in all ways he was absolutely irresistable/unresistable to me. :) You're right that living with someone who controls you completely is very different than not living with that person, but if you have a broad imagination, you can anticipate it to a good degree. I have many faults, but I've never been lacking in the imagination dept. :D If he had insisted upon controlling me remotely and never living with me, I'm not certain it could have worked, but being him, he knew for a fact that this would never work (nor be very much fun!) and so he brought me to his side just as soon as he possibly could. I doubt it will happen the same way the next time I do this, as the dom will be a completely different person and have a different agenda/approach/reaction to me. Things will proceed on the dom's schedule, whatever that happens to be. The ways you are suggesting makes a lot of sense to me and I can of course tell they're based on extensive experience. I think the courses you are suggesting is the safest for both parties, assuming a situation in which there are lots of unknowns to uncover or questions/uncertainties/boundaries to deal with. Often people new to being comprehensively controlled (great phrase, gets us away from all that toilet paper exchange!) react in surprising ways to it, and it's very good to discover those surprises before they're your responsibility.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125