RE: Can't vs Won't

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

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

Message

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:17:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero If that questioning is even arising in the first place, things either need to go back to a vanilla square-one or things need to end because I can't devote my complete focus and thoughts on making the best decisions if my thought-processes are getting undermined by someone afraid of losing themselves when they have chosen a relationship role where they handed themselves over in the first place. i am not cognizant of anyone i have ever spoken with in that capacity that would permit such. this isn't to say they wouldn't assist and attempt to help me settle in and work through my challenges. but if i shared those beliefs it is probable i would be released. i'm aware that other dominants might behave differently. porcelaine

CreativeDominant -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:18:41 PM)
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"? There is a difference between the two. There's been many explanations given as to what the differences are and there's been many statements made as to the importance the degree of difference between those two statements increases or decreases dependant upon the level of the relationship. In my opinion, in the first statement above, there is a legitimate health reason given. In the second case, unless it is a hard limit, it seems to be a case of a submissive choosing to please herself rather than her dominant. I say seems because the boundaries within the dynamics of this hypothetical relationship are not know. I've faced "can't do it" and I've faced "won't do it" with my submissives. To show the importance of the context and the situation, this girl was a long term submissive/romantic partner that I had living with me and who I wanted to marry. In her case, the submissive/romantic partner was released and sent home after much discussion around her use of both statements in regards to a certain situation and because of those statements, there was nowhere us for us to go in terms of moving either the dynamic or the relationship along further. In another case, the "I can't" was actually used in place of "I'm not sure I can" and referred to a specific sexual act that she had not done before and was not physically or mentally prepared for. With time, the mental and physical roadblocks were removed and she was able to do so. This will probably sound "not all that dominant" to some but for me, it can't all boil down to the same outlook on a submissive's "no"...there are too many variations that can occur due to the circumstances of the dynamic and, if you share one, a relationship ...length of existence, depth of the dynamic/relationship, etc., etc..

ranja -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:20:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist No offense, but most slaves are inherently selfish. They surrender for one reason and one reason only. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. It is about them and their own desire to surrender. What comes after is up to how those in the relationship wish for it to develop. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH Irish, not so loud.... and i think that is exactly why He started on about this boogie thing in the first place....

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:21:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse So are you saying that unless there is struggle, there is not "true" submission??? Though the question was posed to NZ, I will say that, in my view, if there are never any commands that are difficult to obey, it is not the kind of submission I am accustomed to displaying or desiring. It is all well and good to obey in the easy, fun stuff, but the test is whether one can follow through in the tough, uncomfortable stuff. I will not say it has to be a constant struggle (that would equate to major compatability issues to me), but a few hard commands every once in a while are a good thing to me. I think we both value those times far more than we do when it all comes so easily. These are the moments when trust and respect can grow. lovingpet

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I don't think anyone is saying that none must come from within ANY relationship. I won't even say that it wouldn't come from some future relationship I might have. What I am saying is that it should not be a measure of "better than" which I am am picking up from you. I have heard this exact accusation before, although it's not usually me it's being directed at. The reason this happens is because I'm calling into question the applicability of the term "slave" when used by some people and, consequently, displaying how some viewpoints are not at all indicative of a slave mindset. To genuinely be saying one person is "better than" another, I would have to say that being a slave is better than being a submissive which is better than being a bottom which is better than being vanilla which is better than being a prude... (etc.). I'm not. Every individual is just fine being whoever they want to be and whatever they are. But when people describe themselves with titles that are supposed to have at least some semblance of definitive definition, I would expect them to actually mirror the expectations wrought from that title (note: I'm speaking in general here, not about anyone specifically). In a debate on astrophysics, the could be three "scientists" discussing the topic. But if one is a cosmologist, one is a quantum physicist and one has a degree is social sciences...someone's input isn't really that applicable. quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Perhaps I am wrong but that is the feeling I am getting in reading your posts. That somehow if this molding and struggle does not exist, it is not a "true" M/s relationship. Sort of, but not quite. I go back to the Mary Tyler Moor quote. Perceived virtues are measured in degrees of their exposure to their antonyms. Celibacy is measured in the amount of temptation one has been exposed to. Courage is measured in degrees of how often cowardice was an available option. And submission is measured in degrees of how often the option to disobey was not chosen. There is, however, a distinct difference between a greater degree of submissiveness and a better one. "Better" is just a term to determine how functional it is in a relationship. As far as that's concerned, if all parties in that relationship are happy, then it's "better". "Greater", however, is an objective measurement of how much is being surrendered. That may be "better" for some and not for others, but it is always "greater" than the person who is surrendering less. quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse You can certainly have an ideal for YOUR M/s relationship that makes it a real M/s relationship for YOU, but to say that your ideal is what makes mine, Aileen's, Irish's, or anyone else's relationship a real M/s relationship is asinine. I'm not dictating how anyone should live their relationships. But we wouldn't be having this conversation if, say, the topic was someone who advertised themselves as "monogamous" who actually sought out affairs on the side because it was "part of who they are". quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Molding and/or suffering, does not make a relationship a M/s relationship for all. Neither the existence nor lack thereof. It doesn't need to, no. But any relationship banking on compatibility and smooth sailing to be its foundation does not seem very safe to me. It's like taking a rowboat that works just fine in calm weather out into the open ocean. I'd rather not spend all my time with my fingers crossed hoping for serene seas.

agirl -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:30:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: agirl [The end result isn't necessarily the same. The result will depend entirely on what type of relationship you have. *An I won't* would find me facing the activity a*t the very next opportunity. It would be foolish for me to say I won't* because it'd ensure it WOULD happen.I won't would be a challenge if it came from ME, to HIM and we both would know it. An * I can't* is ALWAYS met with a Why can't you? From there, he'd expect to hear all and any any relevant information......and then HE decides whether I can't or whether I can. Here an I can't would be accepted since he knows I wouldn't lie to him. And a request for more information would be made. An I won't would involve us discussing it once we were dressed and the threat of it being forced on me did not exist. But no specific activity here is considered worth damaging the relationship or causing resentment which can easily be avoided simply by exploring what the problem is, or appears to be. He ordered me once to do a table dance which got an I won't. When he asked why not, he damn near fell over laughing when I said I would fall off the table in those heels. Once the problem was solved, I did it. Hey, I've never been to a strip club, how was I to know? But for us, the situation is always faced by asking for more information without an emotional overtone. It really doesn't matter to him if he does it today or in six months when I can do it as long as no damage is done to the relationship. So if it needed five minutes to explain or six months to get me over my fears, that's what would happen. Since he knows I would not refuse him for no reason. And that's where knowing your victim matters. I said... An * I can't* is ALWAYS met with a Why can't you? From there, he'd expect to hear all and any any relevant information......and then HE decides whether I can't or whether I can. It obvious to me that no-one, apart from him and I, can ascertain whether he's being an abusive, mean and hideous git when my * I can't* is worth shoving. He's no more intention of ruining my trust and destroying something he's spent more than half a decade building than I have. So the proof ends up in the pudding. I can think of more than a few occasions where I had an * I can't* ........where I actually could. An * I can't* gets his perusal......if he thinks I can, then I do. Maybe a risky approach if you don't know someone rather well........but that's the case here. agirl

LaTigresse -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:32:00 PM)
Of course I am sure you know I am playing devil's advocate because I cannot imagine the perfect utopia I present. AND I do like to see some pain and suffering in my own happy little world. I am simply making the case that I cannot make less of a relationship that does not operate the same as MY version would. I do not see change and/or suffering as being key to a sucessful M/s dynamic.

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:38:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I do not see change and/or suffering as being key to a sucessful M/s dynamic. How about the ability to seamlessly and fluidly deal with change and suffering to where the surrendering party is acting in accordance with that surrender? The weird thing here for me is that I wonder if people who are not pleased with change and suffering secretly have a view of humanity or possibly, consequently, partners to where they fear those things being intentionally thrust upon them for malignant reasons. I mean, if the relationship has arrived at a good place, shouldn't the slave's mindset be: "My M-type would not thrust upon me X change or Y suffering if xhe didn't have a fruitful, genuine reason for it and, difficult as the task may be, I trust hir intentions." ?

pyroaquatic -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:48:19 PM)
I see change, yes NZ. But not suffering. Suffering implies that there is no positive aspect of the action the Dominant is handing out. In healthy relationships that pain has a positive influence that will better both parties. How can that be suffering?

GabrielleSlave -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:50:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP But for us, the situation is always faced by asking for more information without an emotional overtone. It really doesn't matter to him if he does it today or in six months when I can do it as long as no damage is done to the relationship. So if it needed five minutes to explain or six months to get me over my fears, that's what would happen. Since he knows I would not refuse him for no reason. This is exactly how it is here too. Things may be left, but they are always come back to at a later point, for discussion and perhaps action. This is surely the only way forward in a caring M/s relationship x

LaTigresse -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 12:55:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I do not see change and/or suffering as being key to a sucessful M/s dynamic. How about the ability to seamlessly and fluidly deal with change and suffering to where the surrendering party is acting in accordance with that surrender? The weird thing here for me is that I wonder if people who are not pleased with change and suffering secretly have a view of humanity or possibly, consequently, partners to where they fear those things being intentionally thrust upon them for malignant reasons. I mean, if the relationship has arrived at a good place, shouldn't the slave's mindset be: "My M-type would not thrust upon me X change or Y suffering if xhe didn't have a fruitful, genuine reason for it and, difficult as the task may be, I trust hir intentions." ? Oh absolutely to all the points above. I know that if someone was not going to be able to meld into what I saw as being best for us and them, they would not be a good fit for me. All too often I am contacted by slaves that have such a preconceived idea of what slavery should be. The acts they must be "forced" to do, the actions I must take, that they have created such a rigid ideal I cannot imagine anyone fitting it. However, they will gladly accept those malignant reasons, but only if they align with their own kink and preconceived ideals. Very untrusting, narrow, small picture point of view rather than the big picture, "I trust M-type to lead me where we need to go, even if I cannot see where that might be right now." For me, there only has to be shared core goals and values and a general agreement on how to get to those goals. Know that there will be struggle, likely for all involved, not just the s-type. Either they are going to trust me to make good choices, regardless of pain and struggle, or they are not.

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:00:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic I see change, yes NZ. But not suffering. Suffering implies that there is no positive aspect of the action the Dominant is handing out. In healthy relationships that pain has a positive influence that will better both parties. How can that be suffering? i disagree. people suffer everyday to achieve a goal, honor a commitment, complete a task, etc. sometimes they undergo it voluntarily, athletes come to mind. in other instances it is a necessary component to what they're seeking. what you fail to take into account is the mindset of the party who is suffering. if it is negative, the act will be viewed with contempt and drudgery. however, one that embraces the struggle and focus on the gains as opposed to what it takes to get there, will have a much more fulfilling experience. i willingly embrace the sufferance my slavery brings. it has brought me to a wonderful place. now i'm able to reach out and grab hold of things that seemed incomprehensible in the past. that are merely part of the path of surrendering to Someone else's will. whether He elects to make these demands or not isn't what is most important. but my ability to surrender the ambivalence to the act and leave the decision of enforcement in His hands where it rightfully belongs. porcelaine

LaTigresse -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:00:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic I see change, yes NZ. But not suffering. Suffering implies that there is no positive aspect of the action the Dominant is handing out. In healthy relationships that pain has a positive influence that will better both parties. How can that be suffering? Have you ever gone through any sort of counseling? Dealing with heavy emotions, things that were extremely painful to think about, let alone discuss with someone? Talking about those things made you cry because the pain of discussing them was so much so you felt it physically? Yet, once you discussed it and got it all out, released the pain, you felt freed? There is extreme suffering in that process but the end result is amazing.

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:00:35 PM)
*votes for all subs "molding" their doms to their liking instead of vice versa[>:]

LaTigresse -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:01:40 PM)
How about we mold your butt to the print of my sneaker?

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:02:42 PM)
Sneaker print?? I can't even get a boot print??? Now that is just offensive!

LaTigresse -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:03:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly Sneaker print?? I can't even get a boot print??? Now that is just offensive! My way, not yours. And today, my way is sneakers.

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:06:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic I see change, yes NZ. But not suffering. Suffering implies that there is no positive aspect of the action the Dominant is handing out. In healthy relationships that pain has a positive influence that will better both parties. How can that be suffering? It becomes "suffering" when the dominant party has positive intentions but the submissive party cannot or will not see the possibility of them.

DesFIP -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:07:13 PM)
If you know she's already doing the best for you that she can, then telling her it isn't good enough is telling her that she isn't good enough. As far as your comparison to table manners go, someone who has only ever eaten at a fast food restaurant shouldn't be expected to figure out automatically which is a salad fork versus a fish fork. Unless your purpose is humiliation, you teach better manners ahead of time, giving the person a chance to practice and make mistakes where it is safe. As far as what appears to me to be deliberately putting roadblocks in a sub's way, that isn't dominance. It is sadism. Which is not the same although frequently they both coexist in the same person. Unfortunately it would help if the person themselves knew if they were doing things to indulge their sadism and communicated it as opposed to making the sub feel that they are a failure.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:08:28 PM)
Yes. Yes I have been to council. I find the reverse of that to be true.... keeping it inside was displeasure. Letting it out was blissful. A relief. Uncomfortable at first due to trust issues but once the bridge had been built the rest of the way... well. the world seemed a bit brighter afterward. Food tasted better.... and what is this? I am alive? I do not see it as suffering... as pain. –verb (used without object) 1. to undergo or feel pain or distress: The patient is still suffering. 2. to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss: One's health suffers from overwork. The business suffers from lack of capital. 3. to undergo a penalty, as of death: The traitor was made to suffer on the gallows. 4. to endure pain, disability, death, etc., patiently or willingly. –verb (used with object) 5. to undergo, be subjected to, or endure (pain, distress, injury, loss, or anything unpleasant): to suffer the pangs of conscience. 6. to undergo or experience (any action, process, or condition): to suffer change. 7. to tolerate or allow: I do not suffer fools gladly. But that is just me.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625