CallaFirestormBW
Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
So, if slave has any hard limits and if the Master agreed not to ever break them, can this relationship still be considered TPE? Personally, I would still consider the relationship to be a full-scope authority-based relationship (what some would call TPE). I don't use the term TPE any more because I don't think that there is -ever- a "total exchange" of power -- rather, it isn't power that is shifted... it is authority... and even in cases where one party holds what amounts to -all- of the practical authority in a relationship, there are still boundaries that are intrinsic to the individual which don't tend to be flexible... THESE are the "hard limits"... the places where, if asked to bend that far, the person would, even if xhe tried, end up broken. The most effective authority-based relationships, in my experience, come from a place where everyone involved is open and aware of the majority of those boundaries, and where the boundaries are compatible between all parties involved. In my household, for example, someone who had an unbreachable boundary about protocol (in other words, xhe choked every time xhe tried to utter "ma'am", or "sir", or some such honorific or balked at uniforms or doing things precisely in a certain way) would not be happy, and I wouldn't enter into a contract with a person like that, because xhe'd be ill-suited to our household. So the 'screening' for what allows for full-scope authority-based relationships comes, at least in part, in not having to test those kinds of limits. Just as an example, suppose someone came to serve me and had a "hard limit" against adult baby play and scat... it would be a non-issue for us, even if the other person had that limit, because it would NEVER come up -- I absolutely don't do adult baby play or scat... so there would never be an occasion of conflict where the servant's boundaries and my own desires would conflict. Similarly, if that servant had a limit that I -have- done, but don't really care about one way or the other or only did one time to try it out... one that I could willingly ignore... the fact that the limit was in place would be moot. Really, such relationships are based on trust. If a servant tells me, early in the relationship, that xhe has an absolute aversion to, say, blood play, and xhe knows that I participate in blood play, but I let hir know that I won't require such of hir, and xhe trusts me enough to believe that I wouldn't knowingly force hir to do something that xhe was adamantly opposed to, we would be fine with a full-scope authority-based relationship... however, if xhe didn't trust me to keep my word and wanted to have it expressly spelled out that I did not hold authority in this area... well then, it pretty much speaks for itself that we don't have a full-scope authority-based relationship... because xhe has withheld authority from me and holds it hirself... does this make any sense? That being said, this is the reason that I don't bring people directly into full-scope situations... these kinds of relationships take time to build, while both parties assure that, in yielding and accepting authority, they will be able to function together. It takes time to build that kind of trust in one another, and time to feel secure that one's boundaries are compatible. If it is meant to be, there is no hurry... and if there is a rush to get to the "absolute", then it is likely that the sense of "absolute" is more illusion than reality. Calla
_____________________________
*** Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!" "Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer
|