RE: Can't vs Won't

RE: Can't vs Won't (Full Version)

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

Message

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 6:13:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize quote: I think the point here was that the automatic assumption of impure motives on the part of the submissive is offensive and inappropriate in a well established relationship. quote: There are a million ways to say "I'm not sure if I can comply" in a manner not so abrasive as "I won't". Thanks, yes, that is my point! When knowing that the submissive desires to please within that relationship, if the time comes when he/she says “I won’t” (making the statement prettier doesn’t change the meaning, btw) and the dominant automatically suspects that it is based in disobedience rather than a problem of substance, it does call into question the level of trust. And at least for me, the ‘tone’ of the dominant’s questions tells me a great deal about whether I can trust that they will listen and really hear me. Yes I am speaking from a D/s rather than M/s point of view. I don't think, in this particular matter, D/s vs M/s really makes any difference. As a matter of fact, I would say that, given the extreme level of trust on the part of the submissive and the extremely intimate knowledge the dominant would have of the submissive, in M/s it is even MORE unacceptable. If my partner couldn't trust that my motives and intent were as pure as possible, then I do not see why he would bother with the dynamic at all. I may not always understand my own misgivings, but I expect that he appreciate that I am doing my utmost to be as honest with both him and myself as I am able. It is not an unreasonable expectation and one that has been forged through the fires of many trials before it. One could argue that I have no claim to any expectations from my partner, but that is just unrealistic in the face of simple human nature. lovingpet

DesFIP -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 6:31:36 AM)
What loving pet said. If because I'm upset I word things less than prettily and his first response is to assume that I'm untrustworthy, then we don't have a relationship worth anything and it might as well end. He knows I wouldn't refuse if I didn't have a reason that made sense to me. Even if that reason is just revulsion to an extreme degree. Those dominants here who assume your partner is deliberately being disobedient, who don't even bother asking what's wrong, how can you have a relationship when you so distrust her?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 7:07:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 ~fast reply~ You know, this is one of those threads that has now taken on a life of it's own. We started from a very careful proposition and now we're debating safewords and dominance. Are 3/4 of you lawyers in your day jobs? I'm gonna go start a thread about how undominant it is to give a back massage just to draw attention away from this thread. Don't forget the "undominance" of kissing a submissive's feet or wanting a finger in your ass[;)]

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 7:10:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 ~fast reply~ You know, this is one of those threads that has now taken on a life of it's own. We started from a very careful proposition and now we're debating safewords and dominance. Are 3/4 of you lawyers in your day jobs? I'm gonna go start a thread about how undominant it is to give a back massage just to draw attention away from this thread. Don't forget the "undominance" of kissing a submissive's feet or wanting a finger in your ass[;)] giggles.... Just remembering how the last person who kissed my feet turned me into a subly pile of goo. Oh and this is the same person who always insists on a finger up the bum! [8D] lovingpet

CreativeDominant -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 7:20:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Is there really a difference? Submissive A says "I can't do electroplay, I have a pacemaker." Submissive B says "I won't do electroplay, it's a complete turnoff." The end result is no electroplay so why are there so many posts in the vein of "It's okay if s/he can't do it, but if s/he just won't then it's a problem"? “I won’t” can mean many things, ranging from ‘ewww, icky’ to ‘I am capable physically but it will cause me too much distress/harm emotionally.” There is much discussion that a submissive should have trust in the dominant and assume they will not harm the submissive. Yet it is my experience that a great percentage of dominants do not trust what the submissive is saying and will assume the first reason rather than the second. Why is that? Here is where my view diverges greatly from the majority. Yeah, I ‘get it’ that a D/s dynamic by its very nature is not egalitarian. But I believe the issue of trust should be, needs to be, equal, If I must trust the dominant to keep me safe, then he/she needs to have the same level of faith that when I say “I won’t” I have a valid reason. I said much the same in my earlier post, catize...but to play dominant's advocate for a moment, how does a dominant decide that the "I won't/can't" is valid and of the "second" variety that you speak of rather than the first without asking? In asking for explanation, does the dominant automatically show that he/she does not trust the submissive OR is the asking a valid dynamic-based way to ascertain information? Trust IS a two-way street but trust is something that is built not just on yesterday's actions and behavior but on today's actions and behaviors. A submissive who says I can't should have a legitimate physical/mental/emotional reasoning behind it and be able to express that. A submissive who says I won't should be able to prove that their answer is actually of the "I can't" variety rather than of the, as has been noted, "I wish to give all that I can to you ... as long as it fits what I want in MY world, not yours or ours" variety. After all, one of the many vaunted things about D/s and M/s is communication. No one is saying that communication is easy and some hard things to hear will probably come out of it. However, I am of the belief that hard things can be said and while they won't all be pretty, the choice to get to all information possible does not have to result in a lack of thought over how best to express yourself within the dynamic.

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 7:29:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: catize quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Is there really a difference? Submissive A says "I can't do electroplay, I have a pacemaker." Submissive B says "I won't do electroplay, it's a complete turnoff." The end result is no electroplay so why are there so many posts in the vein of "It's okay if s/he can't do it, but if s/he just won't then it's a problem"? “I won’t” can mean many things, ranging from ‘ewww, icky’ to ‘I am capable physically but it will cause me too much distress/harm emotionally.” There is much discussion that a submissive should have trust in the dominant and assume they will not harm the submissive. Yet it is my experience that a great percentage of dominants do not trust what the submissive is saying and will assume the first reason rather than the second. Why is that? Here is where my view diverges greatly from the majority. Yeah, I ‘get it’ that a D/s dynamic by its very nature is not egalitarian. But I believe the issue of trust should be, needs to be, equal, If I must trust the dominant to keep me safe, then he/she needs to have the same level of faith that when I say “I won’t” I have a valid reason. I said much the same in my earlier post, catize...but to play dominant's advocate for a moment, how does a dominant decide that the "I won't/can't" is valid and of the "second" variety that you speak of rather than the first without asking? In asking for explanation, does the dominant automatically show that he/she does not trust the submissive or is the asking a valid dynamic-based way to ascertain information? A submissive who says I can't should have a legitimate physical/mental/emotional reasoning behind it and be able to express that. A submissive who says I won't should be able to prove that their answer is actually of the "I can't" variety rather than of the, as has been noted, "I wish to give all that I can to you ... as long as it fits what I want in MY world, not yours or ours" variety. At least for me, I would provide the information surrounding my concern without prompting. I would fully expect further questions. That doesn't bother me at all. It is the kind of air that has been in this thread that a can't or won't is ALWAYS a submissive's way of getting over on the dominant that bugs me. Some will use it that way, but if I have a good history with my partner, him still making that automatic assumption is really hurtful. I can see things being suspect early on, but over time his doubts should fade right along with mine. I work hard to show I am trustworthy and it would be absolutely devestating to discover he never could trust me in such matters. The decision is always his. All I want is to be heard and believed when I offer up my fears and concerns. I don't think that is too much to ask. lovingpet

Elisabella -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 10:38:46 AM)
quote: A submissive who says I can't should have a legitimate physical/mental/emotional reasoning behind it and be able to express that. A submissive who says I won't should be able to prove that their answer is actually of the "I can't" variety rather than of the, as has been noted, "I wish to give all that I can to you ... as long as it fits what I want in MY world, not yours or ours" variety. I think you're verging into the territory of 'no limits submission' - there seems to be a general consensus here that a can't is a 'limitation' and not a 'limit' which leaves the won'ts as the 'limits' - if there's no good reason to say no except for actual inability to comply, wouldn't that be full on no limits submission? I don't really think it has to be anything extreme to offer a valid no - just a decision that that isn't the type of life the submissive wants. Of course then the dominant can break up with the submissive but that also leads to the question "is lack of complete unconditional surrender worth giving up my relationship" and the similar question, "will I ever meet someone who is willing to completely surrender unconditionally or am I just a picky bitchstard who is going to die alone?" Now I know there are some people who will surrender unconditionally, but I also know there are plenty of submissives who, say, are willing to submit in a 1950's household sense but say no to swinging...or submissives who are willing to submit to anything as far as sexuality is concerned but don't you dare expect them to quit their career or clean your apartment. Or less extreme examples - a submissive who would do the vast majority of what the dominant wanted, but won't do anal sex. Not for any medical reason, just because s/he finds it completely repulsive. Presuming it would be a wonderful relationship in all other regards, how important is the anal sex? How important is the unconditional absolute surrender? To put it another way, I'm sure 9 out of 10 vanilla wives would want a husband who didn't drop his boxers 2 feet from the clothes bin and leave hair in the sink every single time he shaves. That doesn't mean it's worth breaking up over, even though if you extrapolate it to "the principle of the thing" you could say that it meant her husband was inconsiderate of her feelings and selfish...just like you could say a submissive's one "no sorry not happening" is a sign s/he is unwilling to submit totally...but in relationships, there is generallysome sort of compromise. I don't understand this general idea that being a dominant translates to not having to compromise on anything, ever. And again I'd like to clarify that IMO D/s and M/s are two different things. I pretty much agree with the idea that slaves have two choices - do what they're told or leave. But I've always seen D/s as first and foremost a relationship, and second to that a power transfer dynamic. "Slave" is a complete identity, everything else stems from "slave" - "submissive" on the other hand is one of many adjectives to describe a personality. I guess I'm wondering, of all the people who say they have a problem with the wont's, are you holding out for someone who has no hard limits at all and refusing to consider anyone who has hard limits?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 11:33:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: A submissive who says I can't should have a legitimate physical/mental/emotional reasoning behind it and be able to express that. A submissive who says I won't should be able to prove that their answer is actually of the "I can't" variety rather than of the, as has been noted, "I wish to give all that I can to you ... as long as it fits what I want in MY world, not yours or ours" variety. I think you're verging into the territory of 'no limits submission' - there seems to be a general consensus here that a can't is a 'limitation' and not a 'limit' which leaves the won'ts as the 'limits' - if there's no good reason to say no except for actual inability to comply, wouldn't that be full on no limits submission? I don't really think it has to be anything extreme to offer a valid no - just a decision that that isn't the type of life the submissive wants. Of course then the dominant can break up with the submissive but that also leads to the question "is lack of complete unconditional surrender worth giving up my relationship" and the similar question, "will I ever meet someone who is willing to completely surrender unconditionally or am I just a picky bitchstard who is going to die alone?" Given what has already been said, I think you already have an answer to this. Let's go ahead with the idea that the "I can't" is a valid limitation. Based on your original question and the answers received since, that does not automatically mean that the only time a submissive would say "I won't" is because the dominant has crossed over into "limits" territory. As stated early on, sometimes the submissive will say "I won't" NOT because it is a limit but for a variety of reasons...because it doesn't suit them at that time, because they think it is "icky" or it doesn't turn them on, because they've made plans to do something else at the time the dominant wants "this" done. A simple example of this would be a dominant telling his submissive that he wants her to go to the mall without panties. This is a new area of exhibitionism and humiliation that he wishes to explore and, in discussion, she has noted a liking of humiliation and a lesser liking of exhibitionism...she has not listed them as hard limits. She says "I won't". He, being very thorough, asks her if it is due to being on her period...no. He asks her if she has a fear of being arrested...no. He asks her a series of questions with that same answer coming forth from her. When he finally asks "then why will you not do this?", all she answers is that she doesn't "feel" like it today. Now then, would you call that a "limit" or is the submissive choosing to run the dynamic in her direction in this area? This is not to say that "I won't" is never due to a dominant crossing into "limits" territory, it is to say that not every "I won't" is because he has. And to go back to my post, how will he know whether he has crossed into limit territory without communication? quote: Now I know there are some people who will surrender unconditionally, but I also know there are plenty of submissives who, say, are willing to submit in a 1950's household sense but say no to swinging...or submissives who are willing to submit to anything as far as sexuality is concerned but don't you dare expect them to quit their career or clean your apartment. Or less extreme examples - a submissive who would do the vast majority of what the dominant wanted, but won't do anal sex. Not for any medical reason, just because s/he finds it completely repulsive. Presuming it would be a wonderful relationship in all other regards, how important is the anal sex? How important is the unconditional absolute surrender? To put it another way, I'm sure 9 out of 10 vanilla wives would want a husband who didn't drop his boxers 2 feet from the clothes bin and leave hair in the sink every single time he shaves. That doesn't mean it's worth breaking up over, even though if you extrapolate it to "the principle of the thing" you could say that it meant her husband was inconsiderate of her feelings and selfish...just like you could say a submissive's one "no sorry not happening" is a sign s/he is unwilling to submit totally...but in relationships, there is generallysome sort of compromise. I don't understand this general idea that being a dominant translates to not having to compromise on anything, ever. And again I'd like to clarify that IMO D/s and M/s are two different things. I pretty much agree with the idea that slaves have two choices - do what they're told or leave. But I've always seen D/s as first and foremost a relationship, and second to that a power transfer dynamic. "Slave" is a complete identity, everything else stems from "slave" - "submissive" on the other hand is one of many adjectives to describe a personality. I guess I'm wondering, of all the people who say they have a problem with the wont's, are you holding out for someone who has no hard limits at all and refusing to consider anyone who has hard limits? I think I answered this last part of your post with the above but I will note this...I don't think most dominants have a problem with limits, we expect them and they generally tend to come out during discussion. Hard limits...soft limits. But I don't believe that is what most of the dominants on here, including myself, were addressing. I'd be pretty much a stupid ass to expect compliance with something that has already been given as a hard limit to me. But something that has been given as a soft limit? Yes, I would push at that, given TIME in the dynamic/relationship. Something that has not been given as a limit at all but which the submissive is balking at? Yes, I would ascertain why.

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 11:40:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: A submissive who says I can't should have a legitimate physical/mental/emotional reasoning behind it and be able to express that. A submissive who says I won't should be able to prove that their answer is actually of the "I can't" variety rather than of the, as has been noted, "I wish to give all that I can to you ... as long as it fits what I want in MY world, not yours or ours" variety. I think you're verging into the territory of 'no limits submission' - there seems to be a general consensus here that a can't is a 'limitation' and not a 'limit' which leaves the won'ts as the 'limits' - if there's no good reason to say no except for actual inability to comply, wouldn't that be full on no limits submission? Why? Would that be a distressing idea for you? In most cases, this level comes with time. I could say I have "hard limits", but the reality is that given the right tools and the safety of a strong relationship, I can foresee erasing them all. Now if that is so and I am in such a relationship, why bother with saying I have hard limits to begin with? No, my partner didn't wait around for a gal with no hard limits to come along. He worked with one that suited him to help her drop her preconceived limits one by one by building trust, communicating, and teaching where needed. lovingpet

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 11:51:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Those dominants here who assume your partner is deliberately being disobedient, who don't even bother asking what's wrong, how can you have a relationship when you so distrust her? A submissive who refuses to obey is deliberately being disobedient. The question is whether xhe has a legitimate reason for not only being disobedient, but also phrasing it in a confrontational manner. And, there will always be two interpretations of how legitimate a certain reason is. And when ridiculous reasons get paraded out as legitimate, then whose interpretation should be yielded to?

sunshinemiss -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 11:56:25 AM)
You know, sometimes fear can be ugly.

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 11:58:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant to play dominant's advocate for a moment, how does a dominant decide that the "I won't/can't" is valid and of the "second" variety that you speak of rather than the first without asking? In asking for explanation, does the dominant automatically show that he/she does not trust the submissive OR is the asking a valid dynamic-based way to ascertain information? Trust IS a two-way street but trust is something that is built not just on yesterday's actions and behavior but on today's actions and behaviors. This is why I've been defaulting to an M/s dynamic; because the expectations are a bit more clear. If the D/s dynamic is based on submission from the s-type strictly in the bedroom, then it's absolutely a situation where the sub can dictate won'ts. In the example above, it seems we must assume that the sub has not actually submitted to hir dominant in terms of a general decision making process, because to do so would imply an inherent trust in the dominant partner to make the best decision. Either that or said submission is done with caveats. quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant A submissive who says I can't should have a legitimate physical/mental/emotional reasoning behind it and be able to express that. A submissive who says I won't should be able to prove that their answer is actually of the "I can't" variety rather than of the, as has been noted, "I wish to give all that I can to you ... as long as it fits what I want in MY world, not yours or ours" variety. A distinction which makes sense in theory, but falls apart in practice because most problems concerning this never really happen because the dominant is secretly a bastard and the sub has just discovered it, but because the sub has categorized the act as a "can't" and the D-type sees it as a "won't". And a submissive who refuses to release control of making interpretations for the value of acts hasn't surrendered the decision-making process to hir D-type, completely at least.

agirl -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 12:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella I guess I'm wondering, of all the people who say they have a problem with the wont's, are you holding out for someone who has no hard limits at all and refusing to consider anyone who has hard limits? If I had a pacemaker it wouldn't be my can't......he'd see it as HIS or OUR can't. I wouldn't have to make a single move to explain anything to him about something like that. I have asthma, I haven't ever told him I can't do anything because of that. It's * it's best if we don't do such and such. Best for me , best for him, best for us. If people are new to each other, then there's going to be all sorts of things to discover, find out and understand. That takes a LOT of time. There's NO way that ME and all the weird things attached to being me, as a package, can be known* by a list of any kind...or by a few weeks spent talking to me, or even a few months. When I asked if M would take me on, there were no limits. It wasn't even discussed. He wouldn't have entertained them if I had. Either I wanted him to be in control or I didn't, it didn't come with any buts. Either I trusted him enough to be in control , or I didn't. There were never any half measures. agirl

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 12:00:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss You know, sometimes fear can be ugly. Meaning...?

UmbraDomina -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 12:09:17 PM)
Hopefully issues such as can't or won't would have come up way before the actual playing with each other stage. In my own life if someone I was interested in could not participate in a activity I enjoyed, I would then weigh the pro's and con's of going forward. If someone for example could not be bound, based on past trama's or could not partake in impact play becouse of a physical condition, that would effect if I went forward with a S&M type of relationship with them, but not effect if I enjoyed their company. On the other hand if in the growing and discussion part of getting to know a person, they had a laundry list of things they would not try, had no interest in, that covered things I enjoy,then I would probably tell them it was a pleasure meeting them.

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 12:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella just like you could say a submissive's one "no sorry not happening" is a sign s/he is unwilling to submit totally...but in relationships, there is generallysome sort of compromise. True. But consider that the entire basis of D/s is built on the compartmentalization and selection of parts of life that the submissive chooses to not have be open to compromise. That's what D/s is. However, since D/s can cover such a wide spectrum of options and variables, we need to determine what surrenders have been made. Perhaps sub Z has chosen differences of opinion as a facet of hir life that is not being given up in the authority transfer. If that were the case, I'd like to think that this awareness would be one discussed and shared by both parties beforehand so that expectations are clear. quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella I don't understand this general idea that being a dominant translates to not having to compromise on anything, ever. Because, concerning the facets that the sub has chosen to surrender, the D-type has no responsibility to compromise. It would defeat the entire purpose. It would be like a painslut who advertised wanting a harsh sexual relationship from a partner getting upset that he doesn't ever cuddle. This is not to say that the D-type won't compromise, but that is entirely Hir prerogative at that point.

sunshinemiss -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 12:14:04 PM)
Hello Nihilus Zero, I mean that fear can cause us to say "NO" in ugly ways. Fear can create panic and stress and it doesn't mean any kind of disrespect or disobedience. It sometimes looks like and IS disobedience. But it comes from survival. It doesn't mean there is any kind of "can't" or "won't" ... there is not even the ability to express that. There is just a viceral ugly non-verbal THING that can happen. I've talked in the past about how so many women I know that are s-types have expressed thier fears as "limits" or even as "disobedience" but it was merely survival. Some folks know themselves well enough to say "won't" because they know that it leads to "can't" and they don't want to go through the ugliness of that path. With support, trust and caring, "won't" can change from the "true can't" to an "I trust you to decide". How many M-type people are that patient? And at what point in the relationship is that patience available and then able to shift? Small steps to movement ... but until even the thought of possibly changing is handled, the "NO" - whether won't or can't - can look very ugly. *Am I making sense? sunshine

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 12:20:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella I guess I'm wondering, of all the people who say they have a problem with the wont's, are you holding out for someone who has no hard limits at all and refusing to consider anyone who has hard limits? i'm going to honestly answer your question from the slave's perspective, which are my personal beliefs on this topic. if i've entered a dynamic and it is understood between both He and i that i will exist as His property, and He has taken the time to explain what that implies, i will adhere to this. my understanding of the word property suggests that the Owner is the controlling party and i follow His command. in all practicality this makes sense because my possessions have no control over me and that is what i am to Him. in regard to limits, those are the things that He is uncomfortable or unwilling to do. since the goal of this dynamic is for me to embrace His will over my own, it would stand to reason that theoretically my limits are His. however, on the personal end when you consider what i entered the relationship with, i must be willing to set them aside and surrender them to Him. now this is where my beliefs take a sharp turn, since i aspire towards something more absolute. if my Owner decides we will not engage in polyamorous relations because He is not comfortable with that dynamic. it is a limit that He has assessed and therefore one i have as well. however, this does not imply that i cannot surrender any ambivalence or hesitance that i might hold for the act and rest comfortably behind His decision. if i elect to hold on to these things it suggests that i have not surrendered that to Him, which i find unacceptable. whether He chooses to exercise that authority doesn't absolve me from giving it to Him. i can truthfully confess that this was one of the most difficult things for me to do. i was a holdout for years on this subject and routinely turned down prospective dominants who sought such. however, my opinion has changed and i no longer believe it is acceptable to withhold aspects of myself by selecting individuals who will never encroach upon areas i find uncomfortable. doing so only thwarts the surrender i seek. it is in these moments when i confront what is seemingly impossibly and find the courage and strength to set aside my fears for Him, that i experience a deepened state of servitude and the tightening of my bond to Him. porcelaine

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 12:21:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss Hello Nihilus Zero, I mean that fear can cause us to say "NO" in ugly ways. Fear can create panic and stress and it doesn't mean any kind of disrespect or disobedience. It sometimes looks like and IS disobedience. But it comes from survival. It doesn't mean there is any kind of "can't" or "won't" ... there is not even the ability to express that. There is just a viceral ugly non-verbal THING that can happen. This is a fair point and perhaps I'm just drawn more to the personalities that, when confronted by fear, are more "flight" rather than "fight". quote: ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss With support, trust and caring, "won't" can change from the "true can't" to an "I trust you to decide". How many M-type people are that patient? And at what point in the relationship is that patience available and then able to shift? Small steps to movement ... but until even the thought of possibly changing is handled, the "NO" - whether won't or can't - can look very ugly. Another good point. This gets into murky territory because we are talking about "patience" in the sense of waiting for someone to get to where you'd want them to be...without the guarantee that it will happen. How do we measure how worth our time it is to take that step? If a lady started a thread about how she's trying to be patient with her sex-addict husband who cannot seem to stop having illicit affairs, I don't suspect the general verdict would be one of "patience"...but perhaps it should be if there are sufficient enough other reasons to try and make it work. I think the problem with "won't" in D/s is that it is an act/decision that, by a submissive, seems to naturally contradict the very role they have chosen to be in. And when basic expectations like that come out into the open, it draws into question whether the dynamic is even functional, at which point options of either to try and continue or to part ways should be considered. quote: ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss *Am I making sense? sunshine Yes, thank you. [:)]

CreativeDominant -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 2:39:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant to play dominant's advocate for a moment, how does a dominant decide that the "I won't/can't" is valid and of the "second" variety that you speak of rather than the first without asking? In asking for explanation, does the dominant automatically show that he/she does not trust the submissive OR is the asking a valid dynamic-based way to ascertain information? Trust IS a two-way street but trust is something that is built not just on yesterday's actions and behavior but on today's actions and behaviors. This is why I've been defaulting to an M/s dynamic; because the expectations are a bit more clear. If the D/s dynamic is based on submission from the s-type strictly in the bedroom, then it's absolutely a situation where the sub can dictate won'ts. In the example above, it seems we must assume that the sub has not actually submitted to hir dominant in terms of a general decision making process, because to do so would imply an inherent trust in the dominant partner to make the best decision. Either that or said submission is done with caveats. To your last statement, I say I am in agreement. As to what comes before that statement...even if the submissive is into bedroom-only submission, it could be argued that while she has the right to dictate "can'ts"---which are based on limits, as discussed earlier--- it can be further argured that dictation of, and making the decision as to when to use them, "won'ts" makes her more of a "bottom" than a submissive, even if the submission is bedroom only. Or a bottom playing at "submission in the bedroom. Limiting your "submission" to the bedroom does *not* take away from the fact that "to submit" means "to yield" unless there is a valid reason for not doing so, hence leading to the "can't" vs. "won't" discussion once more and...in my world, at least...communication. quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant A submissive who says I can't should have a legitimate physical/mental/emotional reasoning behind it and be able to express that. A submissive who says I won't should be able to prove that their answer is actually of the "I can't" variety rather than of the, as has been noted, "I wish to give all that I can to you ... as long as it fits what I want in MY world, not yours or ours" variety. A distinction which makes sense in theory, but falls apart in practice because most problems concerning this never really happen because the dominant is secretly a bastard and the sub has just discovered it, but because the sub has categorized the act as a "can't" and the D-type sees it as a "won't". And a submissive who refuses to release control of making interpretations for the value of acts hasn't surrendered the decision-making process to hir D-type, completely at least. True...and I think you would find that the decision-making she has surrendered revolves around those things she does not care about or cares little about or has no vested self-interest that she is protecting contained therein.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875