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

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



Message

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 10:58:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Surrenderwithin

However, on that same note if one were to call me extreme. On the other side of the coin how would they feel about being called dabblers or some other minial term?


well done. that was the point of my post. if i made remarks of that nature it would be considered judgmental. but the reverse is acceptable because we're "different."

porcelaine



NuevaVida -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 11:04:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Surrenderwithin

I would not consider it to be an insult that one would see how I live as an extreme. It does not seem an extreme to me until I compare it with choices of others. However, on that same note if one were to call me extreme. On the other side of the coin how would they feel about being called dabblers or some other minial term?


There is an entire group on FL that contains post after post of just that - in a most disgusting way, in fact.  In fact, they have a very lengthy thread for the sole purpose of ridiculing those less "extreme" (for lack of a better word) than they are.  The intention behind the words is what I find offensive.  I have been called "extreme" before and it meant little to me.  Yet, speaking to or of others in a derogatory manner, from whichever side of the coin (extreme/dabbler), is insulting. 

Unless I missed it, I did not see any intentional insults here.



Surrenderwithin -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 11:07:30 PM)

I did not see anything intentionally insulting either. I still don't. My main point is that there are varying levels on the entire continuum....This is just another thing that comes back labeling. I think labels are fine so long as they arent intended in a demeaning way, rather to describe.



porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 11:30:52 PM)

i have spoken to the person in question on more than one occasion. i don't believe his words were malicious. but that wasn't the point. interpretation differs for everyone. i'm fairly certain if i applied my standard to other people's practices and labeled things as bdsm light, taken in hand, domestic discipline, or simply bedroom kink instead, it is probable that the response i'm going to get will be unfavorable.

perhaps those of us with practices that are supposedly more extreme have thicker skin or are more tolerant. what i note is the expectation that we are okay with the label and that it is acceptable to say this is extreme. however, when doing so, the reverse must apply as well. i have a hard time believing the extreme individual making similar statements would be given the benefit of doubt.

porcelaine



Surrenderwithin -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 11:45:20 PM)

i have a hard time believing the extreme individual making similar statements would be given the benefit of doubt.


I must admit I agree with you on this one.



NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 1:27:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

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.

I try to be fair with the use of the term "sub" by someone who is on any point of the submission spectrum. If a person relinquishes nothing but just what movies xhe is allowed to watch, I would still grant the applicability of the title (if xhe actually cared to have it at that point).

Now, the presumption that a submissive, by choosing that role, would be doing it with a semi-default understanding that xhe is to yield to the dominant in decisions isn't some non sequitur leap of logic, but obviously there are plenty of subs who wouldn't see that as being the case. So, in the end, you're right. It will all come down to communication and a mutual understanding of expectations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

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.

Agreed.



NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 1:30:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

what we miss on this forum is a structured alternative to the "extremist " (as in pushed to its last consequence, not with negative connotations) power exchange. Something I would call "humanistic power exchange" which takes into consideration that all people have limits, hard, soft or in between, and that all people have limitations too, even masters, dominant or whatever you want to call them.

You say that as if the "extremists" are not already well aware of this and have already taken steps to seek out those whose "limitations" and, more importantly, mindsets are compatible with theirs.



NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 1:45:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

I guess that I just get tired of the fact that in D/s when a dominant says “you will” there is, in these type discussions anyway, a propensity for the majority to say it would be arrogant and unacceptable for the submissive to ask ‘why must I?’  Is that lack of trust or simply a request for more information?

If the answer would always be "Because you chose to surrender to me with the presumption that my decisions and judgments were ones you'd trust."

How that question would come across will vary greatly depending on how it's spoken and with what tone. A sub/slave who asks it with a half-hidden roll of the eyes and an exasperated exhale indicates a clear difference in mindset from a sub/slave who asks the same question with a piqued, yielding curiosity.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

“I won’t” is information.

It's a decision, not information. It's a decision made by the sub/slave which effectively usurps that act/control from the dominant partner. Whether it is a sensibly permissible act or not depends on what the expectations and dynamics of the relationship are.


quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

If I want to go through the pain of dealing with my bogeyman I will pay a professional.

This isn't meant personally at all nor is it meant as an intentional dismissal of such issues, but this point brings up a potentially important question of how much baggage is too much for someone to have to realistically be in an authority dynamic relationship.


quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

Wishing to give all that I can does not mean that I am willing to compromise my integrity and self-worth.

This is an empty statement because "integrity" and "self-worth" and not universal values. Furthermore, they are willingly spawned concepts. they are not the magical cores of our persona that we would want them to be...they are just more arduously held preferences. And if we treated them as such, it would go much farther in the communication process between people.

One person's degradation is another person's self worth. Like the infamous "love" word, it's useless without a descriptive frame of reference upon which to understand what it meant when each individual says it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

I submit fully up to a certain line.  If my line is not acceptable, with or without explanation, if it is viewed as selfish, it is best to move on.  Both R. and S. focus on all the ways I do submit, and have repeatedly expressed their satisfaction with the relationship(s) we have. 


Then that is a testament to the compatibility of your relationship(s) and of a sufficient mutual understanding of expectations..



NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 1:48:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

The problem here is that what may be a paramount item to me could well be ridiculous to you.

I'm terrified of duct tape on skin, especially as a gag. Most people think this is ridiculous and told me they would not accept this as a hard limit. The fact that it doesn't give them a panic attack doesn't change the fact that it does do so to me. So being told my reason is ridiculous, that my feelings are of no validity, and that he is uninterested in how this effects me is something that to me is unacceptable.

And those things happen, yes. And the fact that it is found to be mutually unacceptable should indicate that an ending of the endeavor should follow.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

But then I never said I was in a obedience based relationship nor a service based one. Mine is based on emotional transparency and as such, my feelings being accepted, me not being invalidated is a sticking point. Because without that, I won't be here. This is the first time in my life where I am always heard and that matters to me.

And you won't find me having any relevant argument with someone who can profess to be happy where they are.



NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 1:58:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

NZ, I know a lot of very heavy masochists and pretty extreme submissives who have tickling as a limit due to bad experiences with it in childhood. I think it's perfectly reasonable, even though I mostly like getting tickled, but several of them have had potential partners try to "push" that limit or outright do it when it has been set as a hard limit, because "oh, it's silly."

Which is an interesting topic. Either there are no goalposts and every conceived thing could be genuinely traumatic (an especially murky issue when dealing with the human psyche and its aptitude for creating things for itself) or there are some means by which to determine if someone is just overreacting to a dislike or expressing a serious psychological issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

I don't tend to phrase things quite as baldly as "I can't," or "I won't," nor quite as floridly as porcelaine did (not that there's anything wrong with being poetic). We had a few in-depth discussions about limits before I became owned by my Master. Instead of making blanket hard limits for the most part, I tried to isolate the specific aspects that were an issue.

A mindset worth 20 points. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

There were other things that weren't hard limits, or which I even referred to as limits, but had had a bad experience with, or was fearful of, such as needles. I'd almost passed out the one time I'd had a playpiercing, even though I'm fine with shots and donating blood. A little over a week ago, he inserted 5 needles in me, and it was a wonderful experience. He didn't pressure me into it at all, it was actually more that my playpartner wanted me to do them to her. So, I got brave and offered to give it another try. We tried to address all of the possible causes of the problem the previous time. In general, I'm very much willing to be molded, and to do things I dislike/don't want to do. He's not especially interested in high protocol, but if he developed an interest, or wished it of me for an event/etc., I'd be happy to comply. I'm not a fan of S/slashy s/Speak or Weird Capitalisation of Pronouns, and if he had demanded them right off the bat, I would have worried that he was primarily or only experienced online. However, if he felt like having me do so, I'd comply, even though I think it's a bit silly (and there are some people I respect a lot who *do* have a lot of real-time experience, like LadyPact, who use the capitalisation protocol online).

I think you bring up a great personal example (not the story, just you being you). Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I think I recall reading that your current relationship is relatively new, yes? So, it strikes me quite pleasantly that how you speak and the way you approach things seems to show a "can do/will try my damndest" attitude without having to have years of comfort to ease you into that mindset.



catize -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 5:36:04 AM)

quote:

 This is an empty statement because "integrity" and "self-worth" and not universal values. Furthermore, they are willingly spawned concepts. they are not the magical cores of our persona that we would want them to be...they are just more arduously held preferences. And if we treated them as such, it would go much farther in the communication process between people.

One person's degradation is another person's self worth. Like the infamous "love" word, it's useless without a descriptive frame of reference upon which to understand what it meant when each individual says it.  


 
I wasn’t speaking universally; I was speaking on a personal level. My integrity, my self-worth is vital to my well being.  And I decide what that means to me.
Whether one defines it as “core values” or “arduously held preferences” goes to the question of who knows me better than I know myself?  If I were to do certain acts, whether on my own or at the behest of another, it would change the person I view as myself and I would be diminished.
I don’t pretend to understand the concept of total surrender nor have I ever offered it to anyone.  I believe you and I are looking at this from different areas of the spectrum.  



CaringandReal -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 5:38:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

Elisabella,

what we miss on this forum is a structured alternative to the "extremist " (as in pushed to its last consequence, not with negative connotations) power exchange. Something I would call "humanistic power exchange" which takes into consideration that all people have limits, hard, soft or in between, and that all people have limitations too, even masters, dominant or whatever you want to call them.

Be seeing you,

Henry


Hi there,

I think that structured alternative is there, and consistently expressed by some posters in here. Lots of posters express what I would call "humanistic power exchange" ideas (that is a catchy phrase, by the way). I am not one of those people, I guess I am in the extermist camp because my needs take me there, but I certainly see them posting and I frequently like/respect the way they state this view. Well, Ok, such ideas are not exactly "organized" as far as I can tell, so forget the structured part, but in most cases they are quite clearly stated.

It's human nature to see the opposing views more clearly than the ones that agree. I suspect there is a chemical reason behind it. You see opposing view and it bothers you/elevates your blood pressure slightly, causes an emotional reaction in the brain (chemical is emitted). That makes an imprint and the experience is more likely to be remembered than an experienece of reading an agreeing opinion which does not cause the emotional/chemical spike.

And THAT is why new people come to this forum all the time and post their rather pathetic "Why Don't X's Do Y?" posts! (At one and the same time you'll have someone claiming that X's always do Y and another person swearing the X's always do Z--the opposite of Y. I've often wanted to put two such posters in the same boxing ring, er. thread, and see who wins. :D) Anyway, where was I? These posters have the chemical/memory imprint reaction to profiles they do not like but do not experience this chemical memory aid when reading the profiles they do like and this one-sided memory causes them to believe that the entire website is comprised of primarily the type of profile they do not like!

Eureka! I've just solved one of the greatest collarme mysteries. You can hand me the Nobel Prize for Peace, please. (puffs cigar) ;)



Andalusite -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 8:12:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
Either there are no goalposts and every conceived thing could be genuinely traumatic ... or there are some means by which to determine if someone is just overreacting to a dislike or expressing a serious psychological issue.

I don't think there's an objective answer, it's far more useful to discuss motivations and concerns about the limit/problem/concern. Phobias aren't necessarily at all rational - someone can be afraid of sharks even if they live in the Midwest and will never encounter one, a lot of people are more afraid of flying than driving, even though they're more likely to get killed or injured in the car than the plane, a lot of people are terrified of public speaking even though they aren't at risk of bodily harm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
I think you bring up a great personal example (not the story, just you being you). Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I think I recall reading that your current relationship is relatively new, yes? So, it strikes me quite pleasantly that how you speak and the way you approach things seems to show a "can do/will try my damndest" attitude without having to have years of comfort to ease you into that mindset.

That is very much the mindset I have, and we've done several other "caution: handle with care" things within the first month or so that we were together. He really established trust before I became owned, and his approach is very encouraging and patient while I take baby steps. Once I'm a bit comfortable with it, he becomes much more forceful and demanding. He trusts me and gives me the benefit of the doubt if I am having difficulty, and usually we can make a minor adjustment or two, or take a break for a few seconds, then dive right back in. Yes, we're pretty new to each other - I've been owned for 4 months, and we dated for 2 months before that.



Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 8:18:16 AM)

porcelaine,

I am afraid my post wording was unclear or that you read it very fast.

I said that when I wrote "extremist", I meant only "as pushed to its last consequence not with any negative connotations. And I ask for an humanistic, not human alternative.

If you give me enough of your attention to reread my mail, you will see that in no way do I insult or put in question or challenge your lifestyle.

What I call for is a structured alternative to TPE, which would better fit my type of domination than TPE. Looking for an alternative does not mean invalidating the existing. I think that a structured alternative, that I call Humanistic Power Exchange(I like the acronym HPE too), will also ease the debates here.

So please read my post again. If still upset you, I offer to you my apologies.

Best regards

Henry


quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

what we miss on this forum is a structured alternative to the "extremist " (as in pushed to its last consequence, not with negative connotations) power exchange. Something I would call "humanistic power exchange" which takes into consideration that all people have limits, hard, soft or in between, and that all people have limitations too, even masters, dominant or whatever you want to call them.


what we're lacking is the ability for people to understand that their reality isn't someone else's. just because that is YOUR view of the lifestyle and someone elects to practice differently doesn't imply they are extreme or lacking humanity. the reverse could be said about your practices and when placed under a microscope and dissected one could surmise and question who's really in charge. but again, that structure works for you and that's fine. it needn't be acceptable to me because i'm not on the kneel.

furthermore, it is ridiculously insulting to assume that my choice is extreme because an individual lacks that capacity, desire, or for some the balls to step up and take control or surrender in that vain. i have heard every imaginable adjective applied to this form of exchange and i've begun to wonder if the dissenters real issue stems from a lack of ability to do the same versus the capacity of grasping that we're individuals and not garish clones mimicking one another.

porcelaine






Andalusite -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 8:21:07 AM)

Falkenstein, I don't see any need for a widespread adoption of your views. A lot of people are already in similar relationships, without using the acronym, and have as much or as little structure as they like.



porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 8:36:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

What I call for is a structured alternative to TPE, which would better fit my type of domination than TPE. Looking for an alternative does not mean invalidating the existing. I think that a structured alternative, that I call Humanistic Power Exchange(I like the acronym HPE too), will also ease the debates here.


perhaps you can explain what you're proposing in detail. because i happen to believe that already exists. i don't pretend that tpe and absolute oriented power exchanges are the proper dynamic for all. in fact i feel most are quite content exchanging in other ways that allow wider latitudes than those power structures. so why is it necessary to coin yet another term when the premise of D/s encompasses what you're stating?

porcelaine



Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 8:45:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein
what we miss on this forum is a structured alternative to the "extremist " (as in pushed to its last consequence, not with negative connotations) power exchange. Something I would call "humanistic power exchange" which takes into consideration that all people have limits, hard, soft or in between, and that all people have limitations too, even masters, dominant or whatever you want to call them.
Henry:

I agree that to some extent, there is a bit of who can be the domliest/slaviest. Humans tend to compete with each other. But really, pretty much everyone here would agree that there is no prize for having more or less limits. There's no competition anywhere and nothing to win. I don't hink anyone's going to argue with you that for a LOT of people, something way less than total is going to be the best answer.

But I also feel like you read into some of these posts things that are not there. Honestly, my marriage is happy and filled with love. We live together in a tiny little cottage and, apparently, can spend all day with each other, day in and day out. There's nothing inhuman about it. My personal opinion is that we live the very normal, very vanilla marriage that poets write about. That is the baseline truth for at least my marriage. No matter how "extreme" the authority dynamic looks, it's all about love.

It is my suspicion that way more women that you'd think would be happy to give me the submission Carol provides... thrilled even... to get what she gets in return. And I'm talking about normal, vanilla, never-posted-on-collarme, type women.



Jeff,

Reading things that are not there? How can you accuse me of being a communist agent?! [:D]
Frankly, I would not deny the possibility.

As for your marriage, I am sorry to say, but being able of spending all day with each other after so many years of marriage is truly exceptionnal and few experience this bliss I congratulate you and Caroll for your luck. Sadly The "normal" marriage nowadays ends with a divorce.

Finally, two points of vocabulary:

I speak of "extreme" and "extremist" as about willing to go to the ultimate consequence of one's thinking. I wrote it several times,and I repeat myself without any negative connotations. If somebody as a better word please go ahead.

"Humanistic" and human are not synonyms and a non-humanistic approach is not inhumane. For example, Rousseau was the typical humanistic philosopher but was inhumane with his children. The wiki article in English about humanism is BS. (The French version is slightly better). With "humanistic", I refer to the philosophical current of the Renaissance, which produced my preffered authors. I do not know yet how a "Humanistic Power Exchange" would look like, if the construct is viable at all, and if in fine, it will have anything to do with my preffered authors, but I have an intuition.

Be seeing you!




Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 8:55:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

Falkenstein, I don't see any need for a widespread adoption of your views.


Andalusite,

Me neither.

Or do you think that I will get the Peace Nobel Price for a new BDSM acronym[:D].

I just like to reflect upon BDSM, and build thought systems, if people are interested and like them great, if not it is OK too.

I am always very flattered when people tells me they like this or that piece of me, but I am afraid that I write first and foremost because I like it, not for the betterment of mankind.

I hope you are not too disappointed with this selfishness.


Be seeing you,

Henry
PS Do you know by any chance anybody at the Nobel Prize Commity?



Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 9:10:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

What I call for is a structured alternative to TPE, which would better fit my type of domination than TPE. Looking for an alternative does not mean invalidating the existing. I think that a structured alternative, that I call Humanistic Power Exchange(I like the acronym HPE too), will also ease the debates here.


perhaps you can explain what you're proposing in detail. because i happen to believe that already exists. i don't pretend that tpe and absolute oriented power exchanges are the proper dynamic for all. in fact i feel most are quite content exchanging in other ways that allow wider latitudes than those power structures. so why is it necessary to coin yet another term when the premise of D/s encompasses what you're stating?

porcelaine



porcelaine,

First, are we both agreeing that I did not try to insult you or at least are my apologies accepted by you?
You know I how much care about your opinion.

To answer your question: I do not know. I have an intuition that a clear thought model of a "temperate power exchange" would be very useful, at least for me.

Be seeing you



porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/21/2009 9:28:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein

First, are we both agreeing that I did not try to insult you or at least are my apologies accepted by you?
You know I how much care about your opinion.

To answer your question: I do not know. I have an intuition that a clear thought model of a "temperate power exchange" would be very useful, at least for me.



indeed i do and i accept your apology. the purpose of the post was to highlight a common occurrence i've noticed in verbiage. i don't think in your case any malice was intended, but that isn't always so. i appreciate your willingness to explain.

the temperance you've mentioned already exists in my mind in the D/s model. the ability to negotiate and define what works for your dynamic is one of the things many enjoy. where the fallacy arises is the belief that it is non existent for exchanges with tighter constraints. on this side the same occurs except the agreement is that more will be handed over and the onus is placed on the dominant to manage everything. which would be impossible to do without some measure of discussion occurring before the relationship is undertaken.

i understand what you're grasping at. we've discussed this privately and i will confess the harsher points were difficult for me in the past. but i was also grappling with an internal conflict of my own and an inability to accept that i desired His cruelty. i no longer have that dissension. even though it causes me pain, there's a measure of contentment that i'm unable to articulate but take comfort in immensely. my reference to cruelty extends beyond the physical. the mental and emotional kind leave a deeper impression that i find more intoxicating.

porcelaine



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 [12] 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875