RE: Can't vs Won't

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

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

Message

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:10:29 PM)
yeyeyeeea your way I love ya tooooooooooooo

pyroaquatic -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:15:35 PM)
And if the submissive cannot or will not see the positive attributes of this 'suffering'... it could imply that the sub is thick headed and selfish, there is a breakdown of communications, or something else i cannot think of. If a dominant I know and love were to give me a task I would find unpleasant I would not find suffering and pain in it.

ranja -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:17:50 PM)
yeah, and some suffering is required just because the Master has an evil streak and likes to inflict some bad stuff just for His pleasure, no positive intentions other than his own desire, no greater good to be achieved, no big revelations to be made... just some basic sado stuff 'can't' and 'won't' will be shoved on occasion by certain D types... it has to do with the power exchange... (vague term)

LaTigresse -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic 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. So you may be one of the s-types that I was debating the issue for. That to please, in whatever way, may negate any possible suffering another might find in the process. Then there are those like the sassy butterfly up there that would probably do a fair bit of suffering before they saw the light.[:D]

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP 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. That's one way to look at it and I would absolutely endeavor to be objective about how I approach this because if she isn't "good enough" despite the fact that I can be pleased by her intents, then it just means we must figure out if that incompatibility would best be suited by a parting of ways. quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP 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. Even Julia Roberts knew enough to request being tutored for the role of a classy lady at the dining table if she knew she wasn't capable of actually playing it. I only would expect people to act in accordance with what their words indicate I should be able to expect. quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP As far as what appears to me to be deliberately putting roadblocks in a sub's way, that isn't dominance. It is sadism. Please indicate to me where something I've said comes across as suggesting the "deliberate" putting of roadblocks in a partner's way. And, even barring that, isn't every situation where a D-type requests something of the s-type that they don't like "putting roadblocks"? Why is the D-type to blame for doing what xhe will when the slave chose to be in a role that involves surrendering to hir will? If someone prefers the 'do-me sub' style of "do to me what you will so long as it's what I would also want", that's entirely their prerogative. Having someone advertise themselves as a slave and then for me to find out their thoughts reflect that instead, however, would not make me very content.

sblady -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:30:08 PM)
In my relationship, can't and won't are intertwined and yes, Sir was well aware of this before He asked me to be his. We've been together for over two years and thankfully haven't encountered any insurmountable issues. I used the checklist method when approached by potential Dom's as my goal was to find someone with a similar mindset and with whom I was compatible. Some of my hard limits are in place because of past issues and unless a Dom is a qualified therapist, these limits are well......off limits. Other hard limits are there because certain activities (for me) are too extreme or not my cup of tea. This is another reason why compatibility is very important (for me). Having this mindset limited the pool of potentials when I was seeking which was fine. Being patient definitely worked in my favor. ~smile

shadowowl -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:49:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist It says " I am no longer wanting you so become this instead" If a slave thinks xhe is a better determiner of hir life direction than hir M-type would be, why bother surrendering in the first place? Actually this is something I think about a lot cause although I am a sub and slave under the right conditions I only do so if I think they are better at determining the direction of things should be. If I think I can do it better myself then I start to question why submit at all... and I can control my life better then most D's ever could since most D's are just as selfish as most subs it's human nature to be selfish and if we didn't want something or need something from our partner we would probably all be alone doing our own thing. If I think I'm better then my M at determining the course of action the D/s relationship starts to fall apart. on the flip side if I'm not helpful enough to make it worth their time to have me around (ie not submiting enough or doing enough to please them) then that too will make the D/s relationship fall apart. The key is to find a balance and have a decent relationship outside of the D/s dynamics to help carry you through times when you "won't" do something until a point where that "won't" changes to a "I'll try for you" then maybe to a "I will for you" or to a "Can't" I won't is a term to be used for something that is not ready to happen and forcing the issue can cause psychological damage if you are not very familier with the person in question. I "won't" can eventually change to either "I will" or "I can't" but that has to do with relationship dynamics and time.

Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 1:56:29 PM)
Cuffkinks, we are obviously not from the same generation. A man of my generation understands that when a woman says "no" it means just that "no". Now I know that we are in kink etc. that some women are supposed to love to say no and in reality mean yes. Using the same logic we can infer that some women say yes and actually mean no. In doubt I would abstain. Also, I may misunderstand you, but you talk a lot about your pleasure and not a lot about hers. Been there done that? Be seeing you Henry

LaTigresse -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 2:00:52 PM)
I am going to take a wild guess and say that the woman he owns would not agree with you.

agirl -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 2:01:39 PM)
FR.. And back to communication and understanding. When you've been with someone a long while, the majority of this stuff is just debate-material. If someone is doing the best they can, then they are doing the best they can. I often do the best I can but it isn't the best I'm capable of. That's been proven to me so many times. It's not MY idea of what I can that matters here.......it's HIS idea of it. That didn't happen overnight, nor in any negotiationy-type conversations, it happened over time. When it comes to change, it comes down to what sort? . Taking the speaking example ...... Yep, if he decided tomorrow that from now on, I had to adopt third person speech , or speak in a way I didn't like or found horrible .....we both KNOW I'd do it. It's simply not about the thing, it's about him, what we have have and what we continue to want and have. It has a POINT...........it might not be obvious to anyone else outside of our relationship but as long as WE know the point , that's all that matters. He knows what to expect from me and I know what to expect from him. agirl

hejira92 -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 2:08:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Falkenstein Cuffkinks, we are obviously not from the same generation. A man of my generation understands that when a woman says "no" it means just that "no". Now I know that we are in kink etc. that some women are supposed to love to say no and in reality mean yes. Using the same logic we can infer that some women say yes and actually mean no. In doubt I would abstain. Also, I may misunderstand you, but you talk a lot about your pleasure and not a lot about hers. Been there done that? Be seeing you Henry Whoa! Do you realize what kind of site this is??? This ain't no vanilla. We're talking about an established Power Exchange relationship here. Or, even better, an Authority Transfer Dynamic. I certainly have no need (or authority) to defend Him, but as you state, you may misunderstand. You do, you do. I made my decision when I took His collar, and my pleasure is in serving Him and seeing Him happy and pleasured. And that includes His sexual and sadistic needs.

hejira92 -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 2:11:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I am going to take a wild guess and say that the woman he owns would not agree with you. You got there before me. [:D] And, you are, oh, so right.

Wolf2Bear -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 2:17:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Falkenstein Cuffkinks, we are obviously not from the same generation. A man of my generation understands that when a woman says "no" it means just that "no". Now I know that we are in kink etc. that some women are supposed to love to say no and in reality mean yes. Using the same logic we can infer that some women say yes and actually mean no. In doubt I would abstain. Also, I may misunderstand you, but you talk a lot about your pleasure and not a lot about hers. Been there done that? Be seeing you Henry Falkenstein....let me just say that I had the pleasure of meeting Cuffkinks and his girl, hejira and I can testify that it is extremely obvious that she serves him not from fear nor from a sense of duty but out of the sheer desire and love she has for her Master. Granted Cuffkinks way of working his relationship with his girl may not be agreeable to your yet, having had the chance of speaking with him a few times this past February, it is plain to see that his methods work for him and for her and that is all which matters. Though they deeply love each other, the power dynamics are still firmly in place; he is the Master and she serves him heart body and soul.

Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 2:33:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: aldompdx Both options are choices. Unfortunately, too many here seem to think that death is the only valid limit which one can choose to assert. Surrender is a free choice made with self will from strength. A master who disrespects the exercise of free choice only disrespects themself -- as so unworthy of receiving the gift of surrender that they must forcefully impose their will upon another. This makes no sense. It is fundamentally an argument for topping from the bottom. I'd go so far as to surmise that plenty of s-types would actually be appalled at the notion that they should be thinking that their "gift" of submission to their d-type should be considered so magical a surrender that it affords them the freedom to demand any post hoc preferences they like. Well it makes sense to me, Nihilus, free choice is something permanent that start with 18 starts and with death ended. Well at least, in my country. If a sub, slave, whatever decides that she does not want something, well I am afraid that the dominant, master, whatever, has only one course of action: to accept it. There is no contract , promises made or whatever which can change it, because none is either legally binding, and its breach does not hurt anybody. If a master feels hurt, wounded, because his sub decided that she did not like electroplay, then my heart bleeds for him. Here is my kleenex for him. Now, you and your better half may decide to have to have a different modus vivendi. Your choices are none of anybodies here business. But in the generic terms set by Elisabella, the point made by aldompdx is perfectly correct. It is based upon the notion of unaliable free will, a concept that nobody in the free world really disputes. Be seeing you!

Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 2:55:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hejira92 quote: ORIGINAL: Falkenstein Cuffkinks, we are obviously not from the same generation. A man of my generation understands that when a woman says "no" it means just that "no". Now I know that we are in kink etc. that some women are supposed to love to say no and in reality mean yes. Using the same logic we can infer that some women say yes and actually mean no. In doubt I would abstain. Also, I may misunderstand you, but you talk a lot about your pleasure and not a lot about hers. Been there done that? Be seeing you Henry Whoa! Do you realize what kind of site this is??? This ain't no vanilla. We're talking about an established Power Exchange relationship here. Or, even better, an Authority Transfer Dynamic. I certainly have no need (or authority) to defend Him, but as you state, you may misunderstand. You do, you do. I made my decision when I took His collar, and my pleasure is in serving Him and seeing Him happy and pleasured. And that includes His sexual and sadistic needs. Dear Hejira92, Yes I do realise on which site we are, thank you very much for asking. I respectfully disagree with you about what we are speaking about: it is not about "established Power Exchange relationship here. Or, even better, an Authority Transfer Dynamic" but about a post made by Elisabella who never mentionned PER, ATP etc. You choose your life, I choose mine, in the middle the discussion is open. I did not critisize your lifesyle, I critisize the general view held by your other half. If he had started his word "when hejeira does not want to do electroplay, I electrocute anyway" it would have been your personal business, and a grea rhyme ;-) I would be out of my place. But your SO said "My response would be to look her in the eyes, smile and say..."To who?" which is generic. Thus we are in the common ground, and I maintain that when a woman says no, it should be understood so. BTW, when a man says no, at least I would like to be understood so. Be seeing you! Henry

Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 3:04:56 PM)
Wolf, Bear, See my answer lower. I gave an answer to a general comment, not his personal life. Is way of dealing with his wife has not to be agreable to me or to the next ants colony. It is their life after all. However his opinion are open in the field, like mine. Can we just stop for a minute to think that any opinion means a direct critic to another's person lifestyle? The discution, and thus the life of this forum will disappear in the second we cannot disagree anymore.

Kimveri -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 3:16:47 PM)
Afternoon, folks, This thread has been an intriguing read, & there are a couple things I'd like to comment on, so here goes: quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus There are legitimate can'ts. There are no legitimate won'ts. There are 'legitimate' can'ts AND 'legitimate won'ts, both. Example: An authority figure commands a parent to silence a squalling baby. Some might reply with a "can't", some might reply with a "won't" & all may be legitimate within specific circumstances. This does not become some "absolute law" which can then be immediately & unilaterally applied to every living soul. All of us CAN & WILL, under the requisite circumstances, do things we would never imagine, let alone consider. For further illustration, I reccommend the episode of M.A.S.H. where Alan Alda discovers the cause of his issue with chickens... As for the clash over the concept of a D-type pushing for 'change', or expecting stoic suffering in the line of an s-type's duty, I view it this way: Within any dynamic there will be moments of adversity. It's not a question of 'how to avoid them', but rather a question of how to overcome them, together OR separately. Of course, I also do not view it so much as "change" as growth. Growth is good, though sometimes difficult & painful. Change is not always 'good'. I also think 'change' has an underlying suggestion of removing one thing & replacing it with another, while, for me, 'growth' is about adding layers & levels to what is already there, no need for 'removal' of anything...be it intrinsic or not. I also agree with NZ's point about choosing a 'title' that is most apt, rather than one that feels good but doesn't fit. Well wishes, ~Kimveri

Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 3:19:38 PM)
Creative, as far I can read you you just did not roll over her like Red Army tanks, or rolled her over with phony arguments like a Red Kommissar. why should is sound "not all that dominant", except of course self-control is not de rigueur anymore for a Master. Be seeing you

Wolf2Bear -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 3:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Falkenstein Wolf, Bear, See my answer lower. I gave an answer to a general comment, not his personal life. Is way of dealing with his wife has not to be agreable to me or to the next ants colony. It is their life after all. However his opinion are open in the field, like mine. Can we just stop for a minute to think that any opinion means a direct critic to another's person lifestyle? The discution, and thus the life of this forum will disappear in the second we cannot disagree anymore. That wasn't the point to my post...but oh well. Ain't the first time what I wrote was misunderstood and won't be the last, ces la vie.

Elisabella -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 3:46:09 PM)
-FR- A lot of replies have referenced 'a sub/slave' or 'if s/he says s/he's a slave' etc, personally I think there's a difference between a sub and a slave. If you're a slave, then yeah you'll pretty much do anything the M-type commands, but a submissive? There's a reason why I put 'a submissive' in the OP, because it's a much fuzzier line than slavery. I wonder where the line is drawn between 'submissive' (meaning, one who submits, in the general sense - they could only submit about a few things and it would still make them submissive in that role) and 'a submissive' (meaning, one who submits, as a defining aspect of their personality that warrants noun form rather than adjective.) FYI this was just a hypothetical question, when I was thinking it up I was imagining two people meeting and deciding if they were compatible, but it works equally well with people in a longterm relationship when the dominant discovers s/he has a kink previously unknown and the submissive is like "ummm...I didn't sign on for (insert kink that squicks here)" - like AnimusRex said there's a decision of "leave or yield" that has to be made, first by the submissive and then by the dominant. Personally, the variance in answers suggests to me whether one is primarily looking for a submissive (one who submits in certain areas) or a slave (one who surrenders their will) - and also NZ where did you get the cool pronouns-that-have-the-letter-x-in-them because I am SO sick of using "they" as a gender-neutral singular third person. I think the 'changing tone of voice' thing is a perfect example - it seems to epitomize the whole 'changing part of yourself' thing without bringing sexuality into it. In my opinion, a submissive who refused to do that for their dominant is an incompatible submissive; a slave who refused to do that for their master/mistress would be an uncooperative slave. Because I feel the difference between a slave and a sub is that a slave surrenders wholly, while a sub submits in certain areas.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875