RE: One strike and out (Full Version)

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



Message

HisSweetElysium -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 4:08:32 PM)

quote:

Andalusite


Thanks Andalusite, yes, I believe we do too. In those times it happened (2x in 6 months) it was under extreme duress on my part, and I made amends for it both in His way and in mine.  BTW, I told Him all about this thread last night, and He agreed with me 100%. 



LaTigresse -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 6:40:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Perhaps it isn't a threat.


if its not a threat then its a promise -

if you promise something then you have to abide by that promise or lose face.  if the promise is that the first failed task you undertake will remove you from service, without preamble, without finding out if there was a perfectly good reason, if the sub had really tried hard but still failed then surely youre stuck with youre promise and the loss of a sub who had tried but for some reason wasnt able to complete the task.




I don't see it as either really. What I see is the foundation for a relationship dynamic. Remove the foundation and the house/relationship crumbles.

When I see people getting their backs up about the concept, I see people that are over simplifying and creating a drama where there shouldn't be.

On one hand submissive women go on about wanting a man that is strong, uncompromising, knows what he wants, is her rock.......etc etc etc...... but let him, or anyone, suggest he actually be strong and uncompromising......OMG the sky is falling.

In my opinion either an M-type leads and creates a guideline for the relationship or the s-type does and the M-type is just pretending.



DWCskitten -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 7:06:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse
In my opinion either an M-type leads and creates a guideline for the relationship or the s-type does and the M-type is just pretending.

What She said.



lovingpet -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 7:09:49 PM)

I think we have to go back to the monogamy example again.  How many times would it be okay to make the "mistake" of having sex outside of that relationship?  None.  That is agreed upon and pretty upfront when the relationship was established as monogamous.  One indiscretion is enough to be justified in ending that relationship.  Some may choose not to do so, but that has then become a distinct possibility.  Can the two people decide together to change that part of the dynamic and open the relationship or become full on poly?  Sure.  That means, however, they have shifted the foundation and the structure of the relationship will have to be adjusted to accommodate it.

Now what about something a bit smaller than all out sex?  Let's say, one partner is spending less and less time with the other because they are spending so much time with this new person.  Can a monogamous relationship recover from that?  Sure.  The issue will have to be addressed and a satisfactory resolution found, but it is possible to repair any damage and move on.  The foundation didn't change.  Addressing this issue ensured that.  The closer to the foundation the problem goes, however, the less likely the damage can be repaired and the more likely it is that, if it is repaired, that the relationship will not be the same because of a shift in the foundation.

That, to me, is what we are talking about here.  A M/s dynamic is built on the founding principle that one is in control and the other is not and that they both can trust each other to both lead responsibly and to follow to their absolute best at all times.  That doesn't mean that there won't be occasional lapses.  These two people are still merely human.  The dominant could miss something in giving an order and the submissive could come up short on following.  The dominant states they want dinner on the table at 6 pm.  If he said that in the morning before leaving for work, and the submissive piddled around all day and gasped when it was 5:45 and nothing was thawed, much less cooked, that would be more serious than if he called on his way home at 5:30 and said he had to be back out the door quickly and wanted dinner on the table by 6.  She may not have enough time, even if she had done everything right all day long to be able to accomplish that.  That's not so serious and easily worked out.  Even in this example, it is far to small and isolated to fall into this one strike category.  If he asked her in the morning to have dinner on the table at 6 pm and she said, "No!  What do you think I am?  Your slave?", that would be different.  Clarifying where it's all coming from would probably be a good place to start, but in reality, if the power exchange is gone, then that is a shift in the foundation.  The relationship will either crumble or be rebuilt to accommodate the change.  If it is rebuilt, then obviously the power exchange is gone and then what's the point unless NOT being M/s is what the couple really has come to desire?  It is like shifting from monogamy to poly.  It is shifting from M/s to D/s or even straight up "vanilla".  It simply is NOT M/s anymore.  Then again, that shift has created and instability and it has opened the door to one staying firm on the original foundation and that means the other has to crumble away.

It is all about the idea of some things in a relationship being basic.... foundational.  Some things you just can't mess with and still have the same relationship at the end.  If it is a change that is good for everyone involved, then that's great.  If it isn't, then that fundamental change means staying is accepting something that does not fit.  It would be unhealthy in the end.  It isn't a matter of being hard.  It is a matter of being realistic and even compassionate to the needs of all involved in the relationship.

lovingpet 

  



lovingpet -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 7:14:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse


What I see is the foundation for a relationship dynamic. Remove the foundation and the house/relationship crumbles.

When I see people getting their backs up about the concept, I see people that are over simplifying and creating a drama where there shouldn't be.

On one hand submissive women go on about wanting a man that is strong, uncompromising, knows what he wants, is her rock.......etc etc etc...... but let him, or anyone, suggest he actually be strong and uncompromising......OMG the sky is falling.

In my opinion either an M-type leads and creates a guideline for the relationship or the s-type does and the M-type is just pretending.


Exactly...to all of it, but especially the bolded portion.  It really confuses me to no end.

lovingpet



Andalusite -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 7:28:49 PM)

Aylee, that's not the kind of situation I'm concerned about. I can't imagine being willfully disobedient over something as minor as eggs, or anything of that sort. So far, I haven't felt at all rebellious, but I do sometimes struggle internally with things my Master wants of me. I would *HOPE* with all my heart that if it happens, I can maintain enough composure to handle it well, to express myself well, but I recognise that I'm human, and I might someday truly resist him, if only very briefly. I don't want that to happen, but if it does, I would very much hope that he would handle it like Elysium's Master did, rather than just deciding that the dynamic was broken, so he was going to kick me to the curb. If he had come straight out and ordered me to do some of the things I have done for him, that I struggled internally to get there, without any prep work, I might indeed have dug in my heels and gotten stubborn momentarily. He knows me well enough to approach it in a way that I *didn't* struggle with him, but in a new relationship, we might well have had an honest miscommunication about it. Those were things I had genuine fears about, where I felt at the time it was a "can't" rather than a "won't." If he had demanded them and backed me into a corner, especially within the first couple of weeks that I was his slave, I would not have been ready to go there. Now I do so joyfully, happy and secure with him, even though there's still a little bit of "Eek, am I really doing this?!" turmoil in my mind.

Maybe I'm just taking it too literally, but with something as important as a breakup, I think it would be stupid of me not to.

lovingpet and LaT, I don't want someone who is uncompromising and inflexible - I do want to serve, trust, and obey, but I wanted my Master to be willing to listen to my concerns as well, and perhaps find a compromise or baby step that allows me to get where he wants me to go, without a fight!



catize -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 7:30:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse


What I see is the foundation for a relationship dynamic. Remove the foundation and the house/relationship crumbles.

When I see people getting their backs up about the concept, I see people that are over simplifying and creating a drama where there shouldn't be.

On one hand submissive women go on about wanting a man that is strong, uncompromising, knows what he wants, is her rock.......etc etc etc...... but let him, or anyone, suggest he actually be strong and uncompromising......OMG the sky is falling.

In my opinion either an M-type leads and creates a guideline for the relationship or the s-type does and the M-type is just pretending.


Exactly...to all of it, but especially the bolded portion.  It really confuses me to no end.

lovingpet

It's the proverbial "be careful what you ask for---you just might get it"!



GotSteel -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 8:33:16 PM)

I'm not sure why you feel the need to justify your dynamic to the rest of us. If you want to kick out a long term significant other over a single bad day where she couldn't cope with being perfectly obedient, go for it. I'm sure the rest of us who are a little more tolerant will be happy to have her.



lovingpet -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 8:39:26 PM)

That's kinda out of left field there.  I somehow doubt we are talking about ditching a long term good thing over a bad day.  That's the kind of exaggeration that confuses the issue.  I also think we can talk about dynamics without defending or trashing our own or someone else's. 

lovingpet   



Aylee -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 8:51:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I'm not sure why you feel the need to justify your dynamic to the rest of us. If you want to kick out a long term significant other over a single bad day where she couldn't cope with being perfectly obedient, go for it. I'm sure the rest of us who are a little more tolerant will be happy to have her.


Wow.  And I got the distinct impression that he repeatedly said that he was there to help her and work with her. 

[8|]



GotSteel -> RE: One strike and out (3/24/2010 8:57:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Wow.  And I got the distinct impression that he repeatedly said that he was there to help her and work with her. 

Looks like we got very different impressions from this statement:
quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse
if she EVER digs her heels in that way, it's over.




lally2 -> RE: One strike and out (3/25/2010 2:44:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse


quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Perhaps it isn't a threat.


if its not a threat then its a promise -

if you promise something then you have to abide by that promise or lose face.  if the promise is that the first failed task you undertake will remove you from service, without preamble, without finding out if there was a perfectly good reason, if the sub had really tried hard but still failed then surely youre stuck with youre promise and the loss of a sub who had tried but for some reason wasnt able to complete the task.




I don't see it as either really. What I see is the foundation for a relationship dynamic. Remove the foundation and the house/relationship crumbles.

When I see people getting their backs up about the concept, I see people that are over simplifying and creating a drama where there shouldn't be.

On one hand submissive women go on about wanting a man that is strong, uncompromising, knows what he wants, is her rock.......etc etc etc...... but let him, or anyone, suggest he actually be strong and uncompromising......OMG the sky is falling.

In my opinion either an M-type leads and creates a guideline for the relationship or the s-type does and the M-type is just pretending.


for what its worth i do agree with you - totally - with the blue bit.

i dont happen to be someone who wishes for an uncompromising man however.  that said, once in submission i have no wish to compromise Him or place him in a position of having to compromise His way to please me - absolutely not! -

but as DesFip was saying - lets be realistic here - sometimes prioritising means putting the D or M further down the list - and yes its beholden upon the sub or slave to turn to their D or M and ask them what they should do.  its when they stop turning to their D or M that their perceived automony in a Ds or Ms relationship starts to undermine.  i think thats what RM is saying here too.  i think -

we can all have bad days when nothing goes right.  for those who stick staunchly to their 'one strike and out' no matter what the circs is unrealistic - was what i was trying to say.



RavenMuse -> RE: One strike and out (3/25/2010 4:31:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse
I don't see it as either really. What I see is the foundation for a relationship dynamic. Remove the foundation and the house/relationship crumbles.

When I see people getting their backs up about the concept, I see people that are over simplifying and creating a drama where there shouldn't be.

On one hand submissive women go on about wanting a man that is strong, uncompromising, knows what he wants, is her rock.......etc etc etc...... but let him, or anyone, suggest he actually be strong and uncompromising......OMG the sky is falling.

In my opinion either an M-type leads and creates a guideline for the relationship or the s-type does and the M-type is just pretending.


*Blows LaT a kiss* When the heck are You gonna hop the pond and collect all these hugs? They are piling up over the years waiting to be collected and making the place look untidy! [:D]

But Yep... they are neither threat nor promise... they are a known consequence.

Step off a cliff = your gonna fall
Put hand in fire= your gonna burn
Wilfully disobey=your gonna be out on your ass

she knows this and doesn't jump off cliffs, doesn't hold her hand in a fire... and doesn't wilfully disobey

As said, I've taught her what problem solving mechanism works in this household, she has confidence in that, she trusts in that... and she trusts in Me.... therefore she never needs to wilfully disobey.... We are getting there on the saying what you mean rather than what society taught you to say in order to hide the fact that you are scared, or confused, or whatever. But then I do check what she damn well means, but she knows she gave up the right to wilfully disobey Me when she walked into this, if she ever does so, the ONLY way that can happen is she has already left the Dynamic...

she trusts My reliability when it comes to the positive stuff, she knows when I say X, it means X......things that give her world security.....she knows ex-girls of Mine, she has seen a now ex-playpartner not take consequences seriously and why they are now and ex.... she KNOWS it isn't a threat.



RavenMuse -> RE: One strike and out (3/25/2010 4:49:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2
i think thats what RM is saying here too.  i think -

we can all have bad days when nothing goes right.  for those who stick staunchly to their 'one strike and out' no matter what the circs is unrealistic - was what i was trying to say.


It isn't unrealistic at all... and no it wasn't what I was saying. You think My girl hasn't had a bad day in 2 and a half years... or My last proper long term in 10 years?

There is NOTHING unrealistic in wilful disobedience being one strike and out...

When I had a girl who had a kid, she knew the rule... from Me, not from her requirements... was that kid comes first... that's the way I think, one of the points of compatibility, one of the reasons she trusted Me.

Oh gosh, that's the main route of what you where thinking about for reasons for wilful disobedience rather out the window isn't it?

There is NO situation out there that can occur between a Master and slave in a working healthy Dynamic where the only option is for the girl to wilfully disobey. Remember "I can't" is not the same as "I won't"!

If My girl comes across a situation where she isn't sure about something and I am not there to ask.... she gets herself through best she can, We discuss it later and if she got it wrong, We talk further about what should happen.... then next time she is in a similar situation she knows what I expect of her.



wandersalone -> RE: One strike and out (3/25/2010 4:59:18 AM)

I am in the early stages of a relationship and his one strike and you are out rule is that I am not allowed to say no.  Before agreeing to be his submissive you can bet your bottom dollar that I felt 100% confident that he knows me well enough and more importantly that I trust him to not ask me to do anything that I would feel that I absolutely had to say no to.



RavenMuse -> RE: One strike and out (3/25/2010 5:19:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wandersalone

I am in the early stages of a relationship and his one strike and you are out rule is that I am not allowed to say no.  Before agreeing to be his submissive you can bet your bottom dollar that I felt 100% confident that he knows me well enough and more importantly that I trust him to not ask me to do anything that I would feel that I absolutely had to say no to.


Bingo.... you trust your Master to handle things realisticly. If you hit a problem that means you CAN'T then you take the problem to Him for His help in finding a way round it. "Won't" is a choice, it is a decision, a refusal to work with Him.



wandersalone -> RE: One strike and out (3/25/2010 5:23:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

Bingo.... you trust your Master to handle things realisticly. If you hit a problem that means you CAN'T then you take the problem to Him for His help in finding a way round it. "Won't" is a choice, it is a decision, a refusal to work with Him.



that is pretty much what he said to me [:)]



RedMagic1 -> RE: One strike and out (3/25/2010 5:30:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse
she knows she gave up the right to wilfully disobey Me when she walked into this, if she ever does so, the ONLY way that can happen is she has already left the Dynamic...

Yeah.  "Release" isn't the dom being a hardass.  It's the dom acknowledging reality.

I had a conversation recently with a friend who in some ways is an awesome person, and in others is a hell of a flake.  I said, "I won't constantly chase you.  If I leave messages and you never respond, I will stop trying to be your friend.  I'm willing to do some work, because you're important to me, but you have to put in effort also, or you will lose me."  She thanked me, and said nobody had ever been so direct to her in her entire life.  It's the same principle as what is being discussed in this thread.  This isn't just a kink thing, or an M/s thing.  All human relationships require mutual participation, or they collapse into something toxic.



sunshinemiss -> RE: One strike and out (3/25/2010 6:15:32 AM)

quote:

Hmmmm How many times does some girl come on here saying their 'master' has been doing something.... hit her in anger, ignored her needs, cheated on her, lied to her, etc..... and you lot who are squealing like a stuck pig over the notion that the Master might have "dealbreakers that He won't accept" have been advising the girl... get out, don't walk away... run!


Hello Raven,
I've not read all the other replies, so do forgive if I'm repeating here... I think you've hit a chord here. It's someething that comes up on a fairly frequent basis of telling folks to get out. It's rather easy, when one is not a part of a situation, to judge the situation rather harshly. Often we forget that relationships of any sort (even beteween parents and their adult children, between siblings, between friends) require sacrifice. It is just reality. However, all healthy people, and most unhealthy people, do in fact have dealbreakers. people who say they don't are either mentally ill or liars, or both.

Also, as perhaps a side note, the people who are so gung ho about "leave" are often young and / or inexperienced. I like to think that those of us, a bit older have more life experience and if not wisdom at least some recognition of what happens in particular situations.

My own absolutes are a part of my day to day reality. There are a few things I absolutely do not ever tolerate, a few things I will tolerate only in those I love and who have earned some slack in difficult situations. I think that is true for most people.

Best,
sunshine



ishyB -> RE: One strike and out (3/25/2010 7:11:50 AM)

Greetings Master,

I understand why somebody would feel the need for such a dynamic, the same I would understand why somebody would absolutely enforce monogamy, but for me -just like monogamy wouldn't- such a dynamic wouldn't leave enough flexibility.

I first and foremost expect the man in my life to stand by his words, which means that if he would tell me: "one instant of willful disobedience and you are out" I would actually expect him to stick by his words, as rigidly as he has said them, which wouldn't leave room for circumstances (and I'm not talking about can'ts or accidents here, but even willful disobedience can have circumstances.)

My Master and I are in a dynamic where he put forward from the beginning: "you WILL obey me or suffer the consequences."
While in this statement, he has the room and prerogative to decide that the consequence for my disobedience is release; it also leaves him the room to just punish disobedience, or deal with it any other way that he likes.

Should he have a "one strike you are out" rule, I wouldn't be here today, seeing that there are at least a few times in our relationship where I have actively chosen to disobey him on something. Every time I did so, he evaluated the situation, fixed it and kept me, because he felt that, because of the circumstances, my disobedience was understandable, though not permissible.

It's very hard to give an example of this, without splattering too much personal information on the boards, but for the sake of this discussion, I will try. My apology if this remains too vague to make sense of.

The first time I ever disobeyed him, it’s because I had gotten the idea, for a number of reasons, that his wife no longer wanted me here. Not only did I feel she wanted me gone, but I also felt like I was driving them apart, which was the last thing in the world I wanted to do.
Because of circumstances, I was unable to talk to him for quite a while when this was going on, and by the time I did get a chance to express my feelings to him, my mind was made up: there was no way this situation could be mended, and the only possible result I could imagine coming from it was that I would have to leave them.
I didn't want to do this, but saw no other way.

Furthermore I had gotten the idea into my head that if I would fully express my feelings to him, he would get angry and upset at me, and our break-up would be on bad terms. I still loved him, and couldn't bear the thought that I would have to leave him while he hated me, so I ended up going to him and told him that I wanted to leave.
When he asked me why, I absolutely, categorically refused to tell him about my feelings and just maintained a mantra of "I want to leave but I won't tell you why".

He was very angry at my refusal to tell me what was wrong, and refused to let me go until I did and we ended up in a situation where I actively, over the course of a day, tried to pit my will against him, and refused to obey the command to talk to him.
Meanwhile, my obedience in all other things was still the same as it always had been, and he took advantage of that by forcing me to kneel at his feet while he tried to question me.

It took him the better part of a day to finally break through the wall I had put up, trying to shut him out, and when he did; it turned out to all just be a misunderstanding.
He fixed the situation, and continues to keep me this very day.

The problem with a "one strike you're out" rule in such a situation would have been that it left him nothing to work with.
He would have been honor bound by his own word, at that point, to kick me out, because he absolutely categorically told me that would happen in such a situation.
Instead, because his rule has always been that disobedience WILL have consequences (which may or may not include release) he had the option of dealing with the situations another way.
I was punished terrible for my refusal to obey him, but in the end, it all worked out for the better this way, for all parties involved.

I wish you well,

ishy



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625