RE: Can't vs Won't

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

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

Message

littlewonder -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 6:15:23 PM)
quote: 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. You can be anything ya like if I could get one of those back massages! [:D]

aldompdx -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 7:23:48 PM)
quote: I also have the free choice to abdicate any further choices to another of my choosing.... Some people choose to lay down any further control at the feet of another. One may choose to surrender or refrain from exercising power now. However, further choice to surrender remains an ongoing choice to continue their consent now. In the context of this discussion, one is never inextricably bound by a past decision to surrender or consent. To hold otherwise is to deny a person from growing and changing -- to deny the inalienable right of life over time. That is, if the power to abdicate or not choose is enduring, then the power to choose also remains enduring and extant. As I have repeatedly said, one never exchanges their personal power or the standing inalienable rights which grant extant authority to exercise personal power. One may only choose to delegate their authority to exercise power. The power endures. The choice to exercise, or not exercise choice to delegate power endures. The validity of one's choice to exercise power is limited only by their authority to act within the jurisdiction of their abode. That authority does not affect one's ongoing power to choose, delegate choice, abdicate choice, or un-abdicate choice. At all times, every person retains their personal power to choose, to not choose, or to repeal a choice to not choose. This forms one of the fundamental tenets of B.D.S. or M. or any permutation thereof -- SSC, RACK, or SSICK (safe sane informed consensual kink).

DavanKael -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 7:49:14 PM)
There is a HUGE difference between can't and won't. Having been in a marriage where almost everything I asked of my spouse sexually was a won't, I am hyper-cognizant of the difference. Won't is often selfishness and that is sometimes a negative thing. It is my opinion that my parner and I should be able to do just about anything with one another and won'ts speak of restriction and I despise such. I give more credence to wont's that involve others beyond the people in the relationship. Davan

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 7:53:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella 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 totally stole them from Calla. She habitually uses them. [:)]

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 7:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aldompdx quote: I also have the free choice to abdicate any further choices to another of my choosing.... Some people choose to lay down any further control at the feet of another. One may choose to surrender or refrain from exercising power now. However, further choice to surrender remains an ongoing choice to continue their consent now. In the context of this discussion, one is never inextricably bound by a past decision to surrender or consent. To hold otherwise is to deny a person from growing and changing -- to deny the inalienable right of life over time. That is, if the power to abdicate or not choose is enduring, then the power to choose also remains enduring and extant. If I have chosen wisely, then I do not need a renewable consent. I will grow because he who is caretaker over me sees to it. Sure, both exist, but if it is made certain that there is no need of choosing again, it just becomes a forgotten relic. quote: As I have repeatedly said, one never exchanges their personal power or the standing inalienable rights which grant extant authority to exercise personal power. One may only choose to delegate their authority to exercise power. The power endures. The choice to exercise, or not exercise choice to delegate power endures. The validity of one's choice to exercise power is limited only by their authority to act within the jurisdiction of their abode. That authority does not affect one's ongoing power to choose, delegate choice, abdicate choice, or un-abdicate choice. A delegation, yes, but not necessarily revokable. Abstractly, perhaps, but people are more complicated than the very concepts they create. There comes a point where it is completely possible to have entered into irrevokability based less on what is real, but on the reality of the individuals. I can have as many legal, social, and individual options as I like, but my preferences, knowledge, understanding, and practices will limit which ones I am most likely willing or able to use. I have the option to run my own life, but I have found some degree of lack of ability to do it better than my partner. In some ways, abdiction is out of necessity. Survival is not really a choice, but rather an imperative. quote: At all times, every person retains their personal power to choose, to not choose, or to repeal a choice to not choose. This forms one of the fundamental tenets of B.D.S. or M. or any permutation thereof -- SSC, RACK, or SSICK (safe sane informed consensual kink). That is fine in a theoretical sense. It just doesn't carry any real usefulness in my own practice. Consent is a tenuous concept at best. Perhaps consider it not as an "initial" consent, but as an acceptance of a premise upon which my consent no longer matters. I could care less if he proceeds when I do not desire it. My fulfillment is in his pleasure. If he steps forward with my blessing, then I am still fulfilled by the same thing and not the pleasure I receive. It really doesn't matter. lovingpet

catize -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 8:06:20 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"? “I won’t” can mean many things, ranging from ‘ewww, icky’ to ‘I am capable physically but it will cause me too much distress/harm emotionally.” There is much discussion that a submissive should have trust in the dominant and assume they will not harm the submissive. Yet it is my experience that a great percentage of dominants do not trust what the submissive is saying and will assume the first reason rather than the second. Why is that? Here is where my view diverges greatly from the majority. Yeah, I ‘get it’ that a D/s dynamic by its very nature is not egalitarian. But I believe the issue of trust should be, needs to be, equal, If I must trust the dominant to keep me safe, then he/she needs to have the same level of faith that when I say “I won’t” I have a valid reason.

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 8:16:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aldompdx In the context of this discussion, one is never inextricably bound by a past decision to surrender or consent. To hold otherwise is to deny a person from growing and changing -- to deny the inalienable right of life over time. That is, if the power to abdicate or not choose is enduring, then the power to choose also remains enduring and extant. your point of view may reflect your understanding of the lifestyle and how you elect to practice it. but it is not representative of all parties. i assure you my Owner will not inquire if i'm choosing to consent today or the next. once the decision has been made it will be expected that i will abide by it and make no attempt to usurp His authority on this day and all those that follow. that reality endures. quote: At all times, every person retains their personal power to choose, to not choose, or to repeal a choice to not choose. This forms one of the fundamental tenets of B.D.S. or M. or any permutation thereof -- SSC, RACK, or SSICK (safe sane informed consensual kink). tenets i neither practice or acknowledge in my relations which makes them non applicable. a poet once wrote: there are a million ways to kneel and kiss the ground. -rumi one size doesn't fit all and it never did. porcelaine

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 8:19:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize 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"? “I won’t” can mean many things, ranging from ‘ewww, icky’ to ‘I am capable physically but it will cause me too much distress/harm emotionally.” There is much discussion that a submissive should have trust in the dominant and assume they will not harm the submissive. Yet it is my experience that a great percentage of dominants do not trust what the submissive is saying and will assume the first reason rather than the second. Why is that? Here is where my view diverges greatly from the majority. Yeah, I ‘get it’ that a D/s dynamic by its very nature is not egalitarian. But I believe the issue of trust should be, needs to be, equal, If I must trust the dominant to keep me safe, then he/she needs to have the same level of faith that when I say “I won’t” I have a valid reason. The highlighted portion, I couldn't agree more! Trust is so often viewed as a one way street. It simply isn't. I don't think asking for clarification on a statement of can't or won't is a lack of trust, but I do believe automatic assumptions that it is meant malevolently is. To know me better than I know myself and realize my can't or won't is not actually so, isn't a lack of trust either. It is when someone just assumes I already knew that and declined anyway that they are showing mistrust. This has a lot of merit! Thanks for posting it! lovingpet

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 8:20:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize If I must trust the dominant to keep me safe, then he/she needs to have the same level of faith that when I say “I won’t” I have a valid reason. Perhaps I am again speaking from a perspective farther into the M/s realm than D/s, but my slave shouldn't be offering up a "reason" why she "won't" do it. She should be offering up information that makes clear it may be difficult for her to perform the task and I, with the full spectrum of pertinent information, would then make the decision. There are a million ways to say "I'm not sure if I can comply" in a manner not so abrasive as "I won't". Calling "trust" into play can be argued both ways: for instance, I could just as easily say that it is the sub who should trust hir Dominant by knowing that all xhe has to do is share all the relevant information and that the Dominant will then make the best decision. Having to say "I won't" implies a mistrust in the judgment of the D-type.

NihilusZero -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 8:23:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet It simply isn't. I don't think asking for clarification on a statement of can't or won't is a lack of trust... Actually, I see lack of willing clarification on the part of the submissive before it's even requested as a lack of trust on the part of the submissive.

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 8:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero my slave shouldn't be offering up a "reason" why she "won't" do it. She should be offering up information that makes clear it may be difficult for her to perform the task and I, with the full spectrum of pertinent information, would then make the decision. there's the magic word. she doesn't decide that the activity will not occur. she provides information which allows Him to make an informed decision about what should or should not take place. pertinent details aside, the final call is always His. i'm the servant, not He. quote: There are a million ways to say "I'm not sure if I can comply" in a manner not so abrasive as "I won't". i am not acquainted with anyone that would have tolerated either statement. we both know you're much nicer than most that i communicate with. if the comments were uttered by me i'm positive corrective measures would have been taken, and the ramifications would be most unpleasant. for someone in my station to suggest that i won't follow a directive is highly unthinkable. it would be viewed as insubordinate and worthy of all that would follow. porcelaine

MMagic -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 8:43:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: catize If I must trust the dominant to keep me safe, then he/she needs to have the same level of faith that when I say “I won’t” I have a valid reason. Perhaps I am again speaking from a perspective farther into the M/s realm than D/s, but my slave shouldn't be offering up a "reason" why she "won't" do it. She should be offering up information that makes clear it may be difficult for her to perform the task and I, with the full spectrum of pertinent information, would then make the decision. There are a million ways to say "I'm not sure if I can comply" in a manner not so abrasive as "I won't". Calling "trust" into play can be argued both ways: for instance, I could just as easily say that it is the sub who should trust hir Dominant by knowing that all xhe has to do is share all the relevant information and that the Dominant will then make the best decision. Having to say "I won't" implies a mistrust in the judgment of the D-type. There is still the issue of perception to consider. I was often accused of not wanting to or refusing to do something when I did just what you're suggesting, which was to offer up information as to why it was difficult to perform a task. On a lot of occasion I'd find a way to do it, just to avoid the retribution that came with even trying to explain why it would be difficult to do a task and I was still reprimanded for the way I found a way to do something. So while a sub/slave may try to offer up information, if the Dom in question is not understanding or just plain out being an ass, he'll only say sub/slave is providing excuses. Just my two cents.

porcelaine -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 8:51:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MMagic So while a sub/slave may try to offer up information, if the Dom in question is not understanding or just plain out being an ass, he'll only say sub/slave is providing excuses. leaders are not infallible. there's the possibility of this occurring based on a variety of factors including past experience, attitude when presenting the information, disposition about completing things that are difficult, patterns of obedience and resistance, and so on. what is more telling is how she chooses to respond if he suggests that she is making excuses. does she reply in a surrendered vain or become argumentative instead and dispute his claims? there's also the reality that this can happen in other walks of life. if we view those situations as permanent or things we're committed to we may attempt to state our cause and leave it up to the discretion of the party in charge to determine if they found our words believable or not. sometimes you simply have to suck it up and go on. there's also the possibility of tabling the topic for the moment and revisiting it later when both have calmed their heels. porcelaine

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 9:22:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet It simply isn't. I don't think asking for clarification on a statement of can't or won't is a lack of trust... Actually, I see lack of willing clarification on the part of the submissive before it's even requested as a lack of trust on the part of the submissive. If all information had to be requested I would agree with what you say, but I specifically stated "clarification". I can give the information, but if more is needed, like a dominant, I am not a mind reader and requesting the important pieces he/she needs to reach a decision is not a fault on either party's part. It is just good communication. lovingpet

lovingpet -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 9:32:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: catize If I must trust the dominant to keep me safe, then he/she needs to have the same level of faith that when I say “I won’t” I have a valid reason. Perhaps I am again speaking from a perspective farther into the M/s realm than D/s, but my slave shouldn't be offering up a "reason" why she "won't" do it. She should be offering up information that makes clear it may be difficult for her to perform the task and I, with the full spectrum of pertinent information, would then make the decision. There are a million ways to say "I'm not sure if I can comply" in a manner not so abrasive as "I won't". Calling "trust" into play can be argued both ways: for instance, I could just as easily say that it is the sub who should trust hir Dominant by knowing that all xhe has to do is share all the relevant information and that the Dominant will then make the best decision. Having to say "I won't" implies a mistrust in the judgment of the D-type. I wouldn't state things in either way. I would simply offer up my uncertainty and the issues surrounding it. If he could help with those issues, he would and I would comply. If he couldn't, but still required it, I would comply. If he took the order off of my shoulders, I would accept that and be thankful for his consideration. We would likely work toward a time when I would be able to handle it and, in so doing, grow. I think the point here was that the automatic assumption of impure motives on the part of the submissive is offensive and inappropriate in a well established relationship. lovingpet

Cuffkinks -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 10:34:11 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 To each their own. If you can recall from my post, I said..."In my world." Which means just that. Anyone else can do or say whatever works for them. I'm certainly not going to tell anyone how they should live their life. Quite frankly, I don't care how the next couple live their life. So if you hear the word "no" and back down, good for you. It doesn't necessarily work that way for us. I prefer to push rather than "abstain." Having said that...I've taken the time to learn her and I know my little girl better than she knows herself. So...the "doubt" you speak of would never come up. Also, you did misunderstand me, but I'm not here to brag about the pleasure my little girl suffers by my hand. (Or anything else.) I will tell you this...My little girl is a very happy little girl. "Been there done that?" Ohhh yeahhh! (By the way...Thank you LaT and W2B)

Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/19/2009 11:56:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear 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. Welcome to the club! or as in a famous exchange between a French journalist and a French politician: Politician: "blablabla.." Journalist: "but it was not my question" Politician: "I know, but it is my answer" Have une vie longue et prospère Henry

Falkenstein -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 12:10:19 AM)
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 porcelaine, The OP was vague enough to start a good discussion, but it has the limitation that it includes relationships with and without safeword. I understand your passion, and I respect it. However, I do not think that some far reaching way of lifes should be considered the norm or something everybody should thrive for. And in doubt yes, "No" means "no", even if it is a mooding "no". Af for the question why I would bother with a no-saying sub: Love is a first answer, and usually no woman says "no" to me for very long (arrogant and mischievous grin)

catize -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 4:56:50 AM)
quote: I think the point here was that the automatic assumption of impure motives on the part of the submissive is offensive and inappropriate in a well established relationship. quote: There are a million ways to say "I'm not sure if I can comply" in a manner not so abrasive as "I won't". Thanks, yes, that is my point! When knowing that the submissive desires to please within that relationship, if the time comes when he/she says “I won’t” (making the statement prettier doesn’t change the meaning, btw) and the dominant automatically suspects that it is based in disobedience rather than a problem of substance, it does call into question the level of trust. And at least for me, the ‘tone’ of the dominant’s questions tells me a great deal about whether I can trust that they will listen and really hear me. Yes I am speaking from a D/s rather than M/s point of view.

CaringandReal -> RE: Can't vs Won't (10/20/2009 5:44:32 AM)
Original quote: There are a million ways to say "I'm not sure if I can comply" in a manner not so abrasive as "I won't". quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine i am not acquainted with anyone that would have tolerated either statement. we both know you're much nicer than most that i communicate with. if the comments were uttered by me i'm positive corrective measures would have been taken, and the ramifications would be most unpleasant. for someone in my station to suggest that i won't follow a directive is highly unthinkable. it would be viewed as insubordinate and worthy of all that would follow. porcelaine Addressing the "I'm not sure if I can comply" option. Are you saying that even if you really are not sure that you can comply with something you would not tell your dominant that? Why or why not? And would your dominant consider it untruthful to withhold such information, especially if the lack of disclousure resulted in you failing to be able to complete a task you'd been given? I realize this is corner-painting; you've already said that not following a directive is unthinkable in your relationships. But there's this middle gray ground in which you're pretty sure it's impossible or that it's going to be fucked up if you do it, and you know why these things are true, and you beleive if you tell your dominant the details he may want to revise his strategy. There's a great deal of this gray territory in a new relationship when you dominant or master doesn't know everything important about you, especially if the relationship starts out completely or partially distant (in milage); less so as it matures and you become a known quantity to him, obviously. In a war, let's say a skilled general issued a command. A subordinate/advisor had some knowlege of why this command would totally fail and their side would take a huge loss. So wouldn't it be more loyal, obedient, and correct to provide that information to the general up front. information which could imply that the subordinate does not think it will work, rather that just suck it up and "Yes Sir" him without saying anything and thus allow the general to perpetrate a potential disaster? Shouldn't at least some essential information be provided that might allow the ultimate decision maker design a more sucessful strategy that maybe won't take hundreds or thousands of lives or result in a resounding defeat? I chose a war example not because I think bdsm is like discipline in an army (I think that's an extremely false and deceptive idea, as a matter of fact: these are two very different beasts) but because a very great deal rides on a decision like this, and I'm assuming a sincere submissive will feel the same about any orders she is given. But she's the expert on the front, which is herself. However omnipotent he is, he cannot be her, know her from the inside. So isn't it incumbent upon her to provide information she percieves he does not know, if such information will postively affect the outcome of his orders? Sometimes you will screw up with this: you'll tell him something he already knows or that he has factored into his decision, but sometimes you just don't know this, especially at the beginnings of things. As you grow to know his decision-making methods, you learn to percieve better what he does know and what he might not know and only provide the second sort of information, if it's relevant. There are plenty of ways and manners (humorous and obesequious come to mind) to present such information in a way that is not insubordinate, is not a refusal, or that does not say something rude or disrespectful. And prompt obeying of the order, even if he waves aside your concerns, should reassure him that empowering him, not a power struggle was your intent in providing the information. So, what would be the problem with saying "I am not sure I can comply...and here's why"?

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875