Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive



Message

aldompdx -> Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 4:27:31 AM)

The fundamental BDSM tenets of SSC, RACK, and SSICK mandate consent. Within the dynamic of polarized interaction, one must certainly consent to the control of another. However, I posit that one may unilaterally choose to surrender, without the consent of a controller.

Do you surrender and engage in behavior toward a controller, to which they have neither explicitly nor implicitly consented?

Does this present an assymetrical authority dynamic in BDSM?

Do you choose to serve without the express consent of the beneficiary?

Additional thoughts or experiences?




DesFIP -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 4:58:07 AM)

Dommes get this all the time, guys groveling and calling them mistress when they haven't even exchanged hellos. It's rude to do this to someone else. The fact that they may want to control one person doesn't mean they want to control you.



DarkSteven -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 5:03:20 AM)

I had one sub who had released herself come to me and beg me to take her back.  Twice.  (The first time, she had just been a bit cranky when she left and I took her back.  The second time, she had been a bitch for a week and I declined.)

So, yes, it does happen.



GoddessImaginos -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 5:11:17 AM)

From the viewpoint of a Domme: DesFIP is right. Now, I am a fan of protocol and good manners, and there again, this is only one Domme's opinion, but here is a clue: before messaging a Domme for the first time, read Her profile and try to get a feel for how that person may wish to be addressed. We are not all the same and do not even sort of have all the same preferences. Whereas one Domme is more hardcore in Her demeanor and may actually enjoy the grovelling and whatnot, another who is more laid back may not. Also, reading the profile first and showing up on that person's viewed list shows attentiveness, a quality which is almost always appreciated. Another suggestion, if even after reading the profile you remain uncertain: message Her politely and say something like "Good morning Ma'am, this slave has visited your profile and wishes to speak with You, if You will allow it; how may this slave address You to Your pleasure?" This imparts your status and your accedance to Her will without being quite so grovelly (is that a word?), until or unless She writes back and states Her wishes to you. Then, you have satisfied your need to please without being obnoxious or anything.
I hope this helps.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 8:56:44 AM)

My initial response is to consider most of religion- their followers surrender themselves to a being they have never seen, directly contacted or had any real proof of existence whatsoever.

When it comes to flesh and blood beings however, it's still possible but often presumptuous and annoying.  Although many fem subs seem to find it cute and charming.



leadership527 -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 9:42:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aldompdx
The fundamental BDSM tenets of SSC, RACK, and SSICK mandate consent. Within the dynamic of polarized interaction, one must certainly consent to the control of another. However, I posit that one may unilaterally choose to surrender, without the consent of a controller.
Well, Carol did so your theory is proven. I could've stopped it by divorcing her or lying to her. I was unwilling to do either.



lovingpet -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 4:31:52 PM)

What is considered consent in this equation?  A first meeting?  A first playtime?  A collar?  What exactly constitutes dominant consent?  I would say that most of the time a dominant is working with a submissive and receiving surrender and giving control long before they determine they want it for the long term.  At what point in all that does it go from basically a chemistry thing (I seem to become submissive around this person no matter what I try to do) to a demanded/expected/consentually based thing (I am submissive to this person because it is my place as this person has so determined)?

I am trying to figure out right now how one is supposed to BE someone's slave when they have not and will not take ownership without someone BEING a slave.  It makes my head hurt.  I guess I'm just supposed to be super duper, abjectly as submissive as is possible and hope that does the trick.  I dunno.  Dominant consent such as what the OP is discussing is a tricky thing.  I don't want to be the type to shove my submission upon somebody more or less dominating them into dominating me.  I also have to make some sort of showing of who I am, what I want, and that I would like to receive what I want from a particular person.  How do balance them?  I asked.  No one seems to know exactly.  I can say that I am a slave and even that I am THAT PERSON'S slave, but if they don't claim ownership, it's for nothing.  If I get really rowdy and persistent about it I just wind up looking like a yappy little puppy that someone would want to just kick over the horizon.

Honestly, that is what I want to know more.  It seems to me the exchange would go something like this:

D:  I think we could make a great couple.
s:  I think so too *blink blink swoon*
D:  Ooooo I like that.  Now crawl to me.
s:  *crawls*  Only you could make me do such a thing.  I want you to own me.
D:  I want to own you too, but first I want to know if you really are a good little slave.
s:  What can I do?  Anything.  I will do it for you.  I want you to own me.
D:  I dunno.  Just BE a slave.
s:  I don't know how.  Please tell me how.  I want to be your slave.
D:  Then you aren't truly ready to be mine.
s:  *scratches head blink blink stress induced burp*  mmmmkay.  *wanders off confused*

Okay, the million dollar question folks (sorry, if you get it right the best I can do is a cyberhug, sorry), HOW does one BE a slave to someone who has not chosen to own them yet without crossing into yappy dog territory?  Sorry if this winds up a hijack, but I think it is vital to the OP actually because it is an ackward phase a lot of people run into.  Do I do a little something to show my interest and intent or do I just sit here quietly and hope I'm the one picked?  I don't know.  Someone please explain what dominant consent IS and HOW it is obtained and maybe these ackward moments can be avoided by a great many in the future. 

lovingpet 

      



GoddessImaginos -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 4:37:18 PM)

I don't think that's a hijack, pet, I think it has everything to do with the OP's question.. well worded and thoughtful too, I might add..



slaveatia -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 9:32:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aldompdx

The fundamental BDSM tenets of SSC, RACK, and SSICK mandate consent. Within the dynamic of polarized interaction, one must certainly consent to the control of another. However, I posit that one may unilaterally choose to surrender, without the consent of a controller.

Do you surrender and engage in behavior toward a controller, to which they have neither explicitly nor implicitly consented?

Does this present an asymmetrical authority dynamic in BDSM?

Do you choose to serve without the express consent of the beneficiary?

Additional thoughts or experiences?




While I cannot speak for others, I know that for myself there have been times that I have wanted a Dom to just look at me and say "You are MINE" However, it is only a certain type of Dom that would be able to do this with me. It could not be one of the trolls that we find in plentiful supply on this site. It would have to be someone that has gotten to know me on some level, that is already establishing trust.

To answer your other questions, as for myself; once again it depends on the level of trust that has begun to be established. They way both parties present themselves etc. If  it is just a random person then I would have to say yes! There absolutely has to be consent first. But then I am a different type of submissive or slave in comparison to most from what I have been told. There are also some Doms that would (I have seen this in chats) be offended by a submissive trying to serve them without their express consent. In my opinion this is more of a personal choice by each individual involved.



jbcurious -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 9:33:03 PM)

I would think that trying to submit to or serve someone who has not expressed the desire for you to do so, could be pretty self destructive as the person would be under no obligation to consider your best interests... at the least you would be setting yourself up for rejection.

The only way that I would submit or serve would be within a relationship that was mutually agreed upon.

Even during the getting to know you stages or dating, while I may be submissive as far as letting them take the lead, deciding what we do or where we go...while I may submit to them within a play session or sex, I still wouldn't be commited and actually giving them control until we had reached a point that we both felt good about moving forward in the relationship.




tazzygirl -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 10:20:04 PM)

~FR

to me, surrendering to someone who does not want that surrender is, in fact, surrendering to the idea and not the person. in essence, you are surrendering to yourself.



porcelaine -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/19/2010 10:50:25 PM)

aldompdx,

quote:

However, I posit that one may unilaterally choose to surrender, without the consent of a controller.
If he hasn't consented to the act, are we speaking of a situation where it's mutually understood the behavior is desired, or her Lone Ranger approach instead?

quote:

Do you surrender and engage in behavior toward a controller, to which they have neither explicitly nor implicitly consented?


I think submission and surrender are two different animals. What you're implying has a huge element of risk, which I'm not necessarily denouncing. But the one plunging to the depth better be prepared for the possibility of that surrender to be denied or rejected. Assuming the worst, now what?

quote:

Does this present an assymetrical authority dynamic in BDSM?


I'll try to see your perspective. I understand she's taking a step and allowing this to happen. Where I'm having a problem is that the journey isn't being orchestrated by him. At some point he has to be at the helm or definitely behind the scenes pulling the strings. If her decision to let go is the result of things he's put into place to make that happen, we're okay. But if she's consciously chosen to go there without his input in any respects, we're having a different conversation. It all boils down to how he views the act. Proactive surrender or her simply getting ahead of herself and him.

quote:

Do you choose to serve without the express consent of the beneficiary?


I don't think I can force anyone to accept that from me. Either he desires it or he does not. I can convince myself that surrender is in my best interest. However, if I ascribed that line of thought I'd always be cognizant of the fact that it may never come about. And I don't know many people that would stick their necks out to that degree without some measure of certainty - yes he wants this - or a profound drive within to be his. Can it happen? Of course.

If that burning need exceeds her fear or the consequences of the situation not turning out as planned, she might do it without a moments hesitation. The other thing you're failing to touch upon is the large degree of self control and self-direction this would require. Perseverance comes to mind. At some point those needs must be satisfied and they're momentarily fulfilled in other ways. It's quite the head trip if you see it from a different glance. Especially if we're not referencing an established pairing. She isn't serving him. The idea of service has been transferred but her desire is the beneficiary. That doesn't change the truth that others have shared. She's serving the idea in the end.

~porcelaine



lally2 -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/20/2010 5:14:37 AM)

in a way i did it today.  my ex is just back from australia and his personality is such that i tend to respond to him as i always responded to him (submissively) though he neither asks or expects it from me anymore and up to a point it annoys me each time i do that.

but i make him tea withuot him asking for it and i fix up his bed when he comes to see our son without him asking.  he questioned something i got in the post this morning and i straight away phoned up the people who'd sent it to me and questioned them, something i wouldnt have done off my own bat. i hasten to add it isnt in any grovelling way it just feels wrong to me if i dont respond to him.

while he was away i told myself i wasnt going to do this anymore, but bingo, right off the bat i fall straight back into it - shrug



jbcurious -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/20/2010 5:22:26 AM)

Lally, those are things that I would do for anyone in my home.... hell, if they're staying the night I layout fresh towels and put a pitcher of water and a glass on the nightstand.

I see that more of being a good hostess or being nurturing rather than submissive.



Elisabella -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/20/2010 6:22:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jbcurious

Lally, those are things that I would do for anyone in my home.... hell, if they're staying the night I layout fresh towels and put a pitcher of water and a glass on the nightstand.

I see that more of being a good hostess or being nurturing rather than submissive.


I'd say that's more dependent on whether she would do it for any guest or if it's a reaction to that individual.



slaveatia -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/20/2010 7:19:17 AM)

Aldom and I were corresponding via email about this topic and while I did not consider this point before I have considered it since. Every single day, all of us Dom/me and submissive alike give our servitude without consent. Many of you are probably appalled at that idea. Now let me explain to you the manner in which every single human is submissive without consent.

You're right I do submit to the needs of my child among many other things. But then it is a large part of my nature. Since I do not have a Dom/Master/whatever you choose to call it I must find other ways to serve. They are not as fulfilling but they help none the less.

I think most people take that type of surrender/submission for granted. They are so caught up in everyday activities, life, or their own world that it becomes an unconscious effort when they pick up a soda can left behind on the side walk or open a door for an elderly person etc.

Some believe it too just be mannerly and that their parents have taught them that to open a door for someone is to have good manners. In reality it is that their parents have taught them submission at an early age and it has stuck with them even in the most mundane of activities.



jbcurious -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/20/2010 7:47:34 AM)

I have to disagree with this idea...to me submission involves giving up control to another.

As a parent, regardless of what I do for my child, I am in control and while that caregiver mode feeds my need to nurture I don't see it in any way as submissive, I am in charge.

As far as common courtesy and manners go, again, where is the power exchange? I don't see it, in fact as regards to door opening, you'll find that some women find it to be condescending and feel it takes power from them.




rideemwet -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/20/2010 8:01:45 AM)

It seems that surrender is typically a progressive thing and not an on/off lightswitch (note I said typically).  If so, then this just becomes a question of who puts more initial energy into building the d/s relation, and I think both ways (a sub offering herself first or a dom asserting himself first) are workable approaches. A sub can certainly offer herself up for surrender without explicit or implicit consent.  If we try to make surrender a black/white issue, start by deciding what level of gray qualifies as black, and what qualifies as white ...

So perhaps the question is "Does offering herself up for surrender constitute surrendering?".




leadership527 -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/20/2010 8:19:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovingpet
Okay, the million dollar question folks (sorry, if you get it right the best I can do is a cyberhug, sorry), HOW does one BE a slave to someone who has not chosen to own them yet without crossing into yappy dog territory?

OK, I have to admit, my head works more in the "no-consent" space nowadays, but perhaps some insight here...

Carol has served me every single day from the very moment we go together. This was true long, long before we knew anything about BDSM. She did it quietly, gracefully, and (much to my later embarrassment when I figured all this out) largely invisibly. She did not need any particular acknowledgement for this. It was just being who she was. There was no symbol that was attached to it for the same reason. When I find myself looking at other people nowadays and sizing them up as potential slaves for me, this is what I'm looking for.

If you want my guess, you don't want to be a slave -- you can do that all on your own in the privacy of your own head. You want to be acknowledged as being his slave. That's an entirely different thing.

quote:

Someone please explain what dominant consent IS and HOW it is obtained and maybe these ackward moments can be avoided by a great many in the future.
OK, watch me go way the fuck out on a limb here and use the phrase "real dominants".

Real dominants... that is to a person who is socially dominant within the context in question... direct things. That is the very nature of being a dominant. To fail to do so is to automatically not be dominant. So then, how does one obtain "dominant consent"? So by definition, if you are serving a dominant personality and it is not being stopped, then it is being allowed and the dom has consented. If that is not true, then the dom isn't dominant in this situation, YOU are.



slaveatia -> RE: Does Surrender Require Mutual Consent? (5/20/2010 8:30:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbcurious

I have to disagree with this idea...to me submission involves giving up control to another.

As a parent, regardless of what I do for my child, I am in control and while that caregiver mode feeds my need to nurture I don't see it in any way as submissive, I am in charge.

As far as common courtesy and manners go, again, where is the power exchange? I don't see it, in fact as regards to door opening, you'll find that some women find it to be condescending and feel it takes power from them.




To submit is not necessarily to give up control. A Dom/me would not have the control over a submissive unless the submissive chooses to give them that control.  Hence, submissives are always in control.  If we decide that we are no longer comfortable with a specific Dom/me because they have done something to lose our trust do we not leave them and take back our control? So who is the true controller in the situation? I submit too you that it is the submissive that is the true controller.  Without being give our submission a Dom/me could not control us. We pick and choose whom we submit (give up our control too) until such time as they break the trust and we decide to usurp their power and control.

Yes, even in mundane things of everyday life we submit to the will of others. Do you not work or go to school? Even that is a power exchange. One MUST submit to the will of their boss or be fired, one Must submit to their school's rules or be expelled. A parent MUST submit to the needs of their child or children's services will take that child. You cannot sit here and convince me that to submit is to give up control even to a child.

I am a mother and while I make the rules that my son must follow I also submit to him in that I make sure all his needs are provided as well as his wants. E.g. You are walking through a store and a toy or outfit catches your eye.  As a parent your first thought is "Wow, little Sophie would really love that dress. It would looks so cute on her." Does little Sophie need the dress? No, she has a closet and dresser full of clothes but you buy it anyway because you know she would like it. That my friends IS submission without consent! Little Sophie is not there to ask for it yet you buy it anyway even though you have just bought her 20 new outfits for her birthday last week. You buy it because YOU KNOW it will PLEASE her. Are you still in control? Yes! But at the same time you are giving your submission.

Are you all so blinded by what society (even the BDSM society) considers submission/servitude/power and control that you cannot see how you submit in the mundane as well. You think to submit to someone is merely too do as they ask. There is far more too it than that. And by your definition that to submit to someone is to give up your control to do as they wish you too or to make their coffee, turn down their bed make them breakfast, etc .. Do you NOT do that for your child as well? Wait, I understand you are blinded to it and consider it to be good parenting because that is what has been bred into you. NO IT IS SUBMISSION at its finest. It is submission at its heart and its most basic fundamental sense.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875