CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
|
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.
|
RE: Can't vs Won't - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread