RE: Can't vs Won't

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

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

Message

Elisabella -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 3:47:28 PM)
quote: 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. Kimveri, I agree completely with this. Growth leads to change, however slight, but change does not always lead to growth.

CaringandReal -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 4:15:06 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"? Well, what about the relationship where you can't say won't? (hums carosel tune: "I'm just a girl who can't say..." ) In that sort of relationship these two words could make a big deal of difference. Although, in my experience in such relationships, the can'ts are examined pretty closely as well, and soemtimes reclassified into won'ts, which then with a little encouragement (if needed) become wills.

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 4:20:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Falkenstein 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. i'm left to wonder why you'd bother engaging at all if she's at liberty to say no at whim. it brings into question who's really in control. in the scenario provided i'd view the dominant as nothing more than a figurehead instead. we're exchanging power, not courtesies. porcelaine

CaringandReal -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 4:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic 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. Ok, I am not sure what the previous discussion was about (I am skipping around in this thread) but here's a what-if situation based on what you said above: What if the thing your dom(me) made you do was more than merely unpleasant? What if it was, say, to train for a marathon and you were a wimp or very out of shape? Getting in shape enough to perform in that sort of event is usually pretty physically painful--especially if there is a short deadline. Would you say that it didn't hurt as you as you ran your daily 10 or 20 miles or whatever it was? Sure there would be positive aspects in the suffering, you're training because your dominant ordered it after all, but it would also hurt, you would feel bodily pain or wouldn't you? (Remember you're not Mr. Athlete--you're The Wimp.) So how would you parse that?

Elisabella -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 4:29:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: Falkenstein 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. i'm left to wonder why you'd bother engaging at all if she's at liberty to say no at whim. it brings into question who's really in control. in the scenario provided i'd view the dominant as nothing more than a figurehead instead. we're exchanging power, not courtesies. porcelaine Maybe in a relationship without safewords. But to me, if a submissive decides s/he does not want something, and s/he uses the safeword, the dominant has absolutely NO right to keep pushing and force the action on the submissive. How the hell do you get the idea that someone is less dominant if s/he ignores a genuine "no" - ie a safeword?

DomImus -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 4:40:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GabrielleSlave quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus There are legitimate can'ts. There are no legitimate won'ts. Sorry, but that makes you look like a mindless idiot and i am sure that was not your intention.... If I was concerned about what you or the rest of the forumites thought of me that might be a problem. When a submissive is the one who is deciding what she will and won't do... she is no longer the submissive and that fits a good many of the D/s situations out there. Much of what I have seen from talking to folks in person and corresponding with people online indicates that a majority of submissives practice some form of conditional submission. Submission on their terms. Isn't this the point in the discussion where you would offer up examples of murder, dismemberment and barnyard animals?

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 4:51:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Maybe in a relationship without safewords. But to me, if a submissive decides s/he does not want something, and s/he uses the safeword, the dominant has absolutely NO right to keep pushing and force the action on the submissive. How the hell do you get the idea that someone is less dominant if s/he ignores a genuine "no" - ie a safeword? where in the portion that i quoted did you see the term safeword? because i didn't put it there. he made a statement and i asked a question. he never indicated the no that was exercised was a safeword! how did you make the stretch to that? she could say no, i'm not doing the laundry. now what? and maybe she isn't ill, tired, or anything else but not in the friggin' mood to do it. does honoring her no still stand? where do you get the idea that every dominant, submissive, or slave even uses a safe word? if that comment was directed to me you'd have no basis at all. porcelaine

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 4:55:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus When a submissive is the one who is deciding what she will and won't do... she is no longer the submissive and that fits a good many of the D/s situations out there. Much of what I have seen from talking to folks in person and corresponding with people online indicates that a majority of submissives practice some form of conditional submission. Submission on their terms. Isn't this the point in the discussion where you would offer up examples of murder, dismemberment and barnyard animals? i just love when a discussion heads down a familiar path. [;)] porcelaine

leadership527 -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 4:56:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Falkenstein 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. I gotta admit.. seeing as we've been married for over a decade and collared for 2 years, we should qualify as "establisehd". But "no" still means "no" in our household. In my case it has nothing to do with asserting my will. It has to do with not playing games. I expect Carol to say what she means. If she wants to say "no", then no it is... granted, that's also a removal of the collar but she can still decline a command if she wants. In our marriage, Carol saying "no" and me proceeding could only end in one of two ways: a) She didn't really mean "no" in which case not only did she get released for the "No", but she very well might've gotten divorced for fucking around with me in that way. b) She divorces me and probably locks me up in jail for rape because she really DID mean no. As agirl noted though, such situations are only debate fodder for us and I assume any established couple.

Elisabella -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 5:08:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Maybe in a relationship without safewords. But to me, if a submissive decides s/he does not want something, and s/he uses the safeword, the dominant has absolutely NO right to keep pushing and force the action on the submissive. How the hell do you get the idea that someone is less dominant if s/he ignores a genuine "no" - ie a safeword? where in the portion that i quoted did you see the term safeword? because i didn't put it there. he made a statement and i asked a question. he never indicated the no that was exercised was a safeword! how did you make the stretch to that? she could say no, i'm not doing the laundry. now what? and maybe she isn't ill, tired, or anything else but not in the friggin' mood to do it. does honoring her no still stand? where do you get the idea that every dominant, submissive, or slave even uses a safe word? if that comment was directed to me you'd have no basis at all. porcelaine Well to me there are only two kinds of no's - a genuine no (the kind that if pushed results in a safeword - safewords aren't just for SM activity, they also apply in D/s when you want to make it clear that no means no) and a 'make me' no - the kind where you say no no no no ow stop it oh ok yes. I assumed that if you're going with a 'no means no' stand then it's a case of a genuine no, not a 'no i'll do it later' which to me is just a 'not now.' ETA - where do you get the idea that I said every dominant and submissive and slave uses a safe word - considering the part you quoted said "maybe in a relationship WITHOUT SAFEWORDS"

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 5:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Well to me there are only two kinds of no's - a genuine no (the kind that if pushed results in a safeword - safewords aren't just for SM activity, they also apply in D/s when you want to make it clear that no means no) and a 'make me' no - the kind where you say no no no no ow stop it oh ok yes. I assumed that if you're going with a 'no means no' stand then it's a case of a genuine no, not a 'no i'll do it later' which to me is just a 'not now.' i'm well versed on the safeword phenomenon. it works and applies for some dynamics, but not those that i participate in. i respect that others think and feel differently about that topic. i'm piggybacking off the original comment to ascertain if there are situations where saying no is acceptable and others where it is not. he didn't specify. which is why i posed the question. porcelaine

Elisabella -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 5:15:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Well to me there are only two kinds of no's - a genuine no (the kind that if pushed results in a safeword - safewords aren't just for SM activity, they also apply in D/s when you want to make it clear that no means no) and a 'make me' no - the kind where you say no no no no ow stop it oh ok yes. I assumed that if you're going with a 'no means no' stand then it's a case of a genuine no, not a 'no i'll do it later' which to me is just a 'not now.' i'm well versed on the safeword phenomenon. it works and applies for some dynamics, but not those that i participate in. i respect that others think and feel differently about that topic. i'm piggybacking off the original comment to ascertain if there are situations where saying no is acceptable and others where it is not. he didn't specify. which is why i posed the question. porcelaine nods That's what I was getting at with my comment - saying that a D/M who accepts a no is losing authority only works if it's a no safeword relationship (ie if there is no genuine "no" in that dynamic), otherwise I'd say that the D/M has every obligation to stop at a genuine no.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 5:16:54 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"? Let me just say this about that..... When a sub has an issue relating to a pacemaker.....that's kind of a can't. (Anything else is a "won't"). (Pacemakers are kind of a dividing line....just a thought to consider). (It's kind of that whole "death and dying" thing that kind of throws me into a tither).

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 5:19:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella How the hell do you get the idea that someone is less dominant if s/he ignores a genuine "no" - ie a safeword? problem number one was the fact that you turned the discussion toward safe words. i did not introduce this in my comment. furthermore your tone was ridiculously accusatory over something you brought up and i never mentioned. quote: ETA - where do you get the idea that I said every dominant and submissive and slave uses a safe word - considering the part you quoted said "maybe in a relationship WITHOUT SAFEWORDS" i'm going to assume that you understand the purpose of quoting text. perhaps if you'd read before replying you would grasp why i posed the question and what i was addressing. in addition, i was seeking his response since he made the comment. unless you have insight on his thoughts as well? porcelaine

CaringandReal -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 5:19:13 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. These discussions get so confusingly paradoxical sometimes. I agree that most slaves are inherently selfish. We're human and humans are raised to think about themselves. Survival and all. But to me most slaves are selfish about wanting to be unselfish. That's what we crave and try to acheive... isn't it?

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 5:42:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Falkenstein 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. I also have the free choice to abdicate any further choices to another of my choosing. You can't really have one without the other. To invalidate one person's choice is to indirectly stamp out others' options as well. quote: 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. The parties have agreed that he has other options at his disposal regardless of what the law of the land states. It is a tricky area because the submissive could cry foul to the legal system and win, but we are talking about a relationship in which there is supposed to be some established level of trust and respect as well as open communication. It doesn't have to be legally binding to cut someone's heart to pieces when it is broken. When you trust someone about things that matter deeply to you, it hurts when they violate that trust. It is not the decision she does not like electroplay that wounds him, but the fact that she has apparently lost faith in him or no longer places his fulfillment of high regard that breaks his heart. I would be sincerely offering him a kleenex. quote: 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! Once again, unaliable free will is based upon people's choices being upheld, regardless of what those choices are. Some people choose to lay down any further control at the feet of another. If you truly believe what you wrote, then you have to also honor that decision. lovingpet

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 5:57:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine quote: ORIGINAL: Falkenstein 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. i'm left to wonder why you'd bother engaging at all if she's at liberty to say no at whim. it brings into question who's really in control. in the scenario provided i'd view the dominant as nothing more than a figurehead instead. we're exchanging power, not courtesies. porcelaine Maybe in a relationship without safewords. But to me, if a submissive decides s/he does not want something, and s/he uses the safeword, the dominant has absolutely NO right to keep pushing and force the action on the submissive. How the hell do you get the idea that someone is less dominant if s/he ignores a genuine "no" - ie a safeword? Even when I was offered a safeword, it was the case that it wasn't to be used just because I didn't wanna. I had to be in some form of distress (about to "break" in some way). It was not there for me to use to control the play and if I had ever attempted that, he would not have taken too kindly to it. Now I don't use safewords. This was a unilateral decision I made with his approval. He did not insist upon it, but I am to the place where I do not need it anymore to know how to communicate need. I also don't use the concept of limits. It is all his, the whole thing, and he will determine the proper management of that resource I have given him. He knows what I can handle and what things may irreparably damage me. I don't need to worry about those things. I trust him. I wouldn't say the person is less dominant, but less far down the path perhaps. I only mean that as in they have not established enough history, background, and other foundational matters for the submissive to not need these things. There will come a time where, if the submissive has a safeword he/she may be hard pressed to know what it is because it hasn't been used so long and is never needed anymore. My situation is like that. I still have it if I want it, but I don't find it to be necessary, so basically I don't have one. Limits function similarly. Until one has learned all the why's behind various limits, it is best to let them be. As it becomes clear that a limit exist due to baseless fears, lack of knowledge, or other issues that can be mitigated, it is time to close those gaps and push that boundary. Some limits will be easier to push and eventually break than others. Learning that this will be done based on intimate knowledge and genuine care will lead to no further need to define limits, just areas of concern, fear, etc. These things take time and safewords and limits are great ways of filling the gap between the beginning and that time where there is such an unspoken trust. Of course, this is how it works for me and only my opinion, but I don't think there is any such thing as a genuine "no" in a healthy, functional D/s or M/s relationship. lovingpet

littlewonder -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 6:05:28 PM)
Shudders to think of what would happen to her if she said "won't" to Master plus the way she would feel emotionally by just saying those words to him. <cringes> All around it wouldn't be a good thing to either of us.

leadership527 -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 6:05:40 PM)
~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.

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 6:11:38 PM)
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. LOL!!!!! You know, Jeff, I don't find it at all undomly to give back massages, so feel free to visit Virginia post haste. [:)] Yes, I see where everything has gone astray, but honestly, once the train is derailed, it's not the track that becomes interesting. Yes, some of these folks are, in fact, lawyers in their day jobs too, fyi. I'm not one of them which is why I will probably join you on that back massage thread. [:D] lovingpet

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875