RE: Initial Negotiations

RE: Initial Negotiations (Full Version)

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

Message

SusanofO -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/21/2006 3:12:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos The peppy mantra of "Safe, Sane and Consensual" is indeed a nebulous concept to gird dominance and submission around. One of my girls once wrote an article on that very subject that describes in surface terms how relative it really is ( http://www.humbledfemales.com/ssc.html ) Reading this article further illuminated for me something I'd suspected is very true - especially the last paragraph. Appreciate the website reference.

obis -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 2:15:43 AM)
You ask a great question and received a lot of good answers. I would agree with most that while you don't need to ask 1,000 questions, it certainly doesn't hurt. But most of the big things can be handled by broad categories. For example, you don't have to ask about ear cutting, just establish that anything that leaves a permanant mark is a limit, that's pretty common, and you can negotiate exceptions down the road (tattoos, branding, scars, whatever) as you get to know/trust each other. Establishing rules particular to bringing others into play is also common, and is one of the few areas where many of the masters I know insist the slave must be participating voluntarily and not just to please master. Archer is correct that really you should spend more time worrying about underlying philosophy and approach than the details of specific acts. If somebody is out to find a loophole, they will, so you need to spend time learning about the person you're submitting to rather than trying to make an ironclad contract. quote: ORIGINAL: ladychatterley One of the doms argued for the "modicum of initial consent" theory which basically said that if she hadn't specifically specified it as a limit, then she couldn't add it as a limit later, even if she didn't know what she was in for. I look forward to seeing how well that argument goes over when he's arrested for assault. Everything we do is based on consent, and some of it is illegal even WITH explicit consent. If you want to change your limits at some point, a master certainly can refuse to accept you as a slave anymore and dismiss you, but just doing it to you against your will is NOT an option.

SusanofO -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 6:13:29 AM)
I look forward to seeing how well that argument goes over when he's arrested for assault. Everything we do is based on consent, and some of it is illegal even WITH explicit consent. If you want to change your limits at some point, a master certainly can refuse to accept you as a slave anymore and dismiss you, but just doing it to you against your will is NOT an option. [/quote] Good point (I have a sister who is an attorney, and am sure she would agree). And I am sure there Are people who say things akin to: "Hey - you knew the job was dangerous when you took it" seemingly assuming the other already knew that to begin with... -susanofO

SusanofO -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 6:16:35 AM)
If you want to change your limits at some point, a master certainly can refuse to accept you as a slave anymore and dismiss you... *Sounds like continuing communication is key.* -susanofO

JohnWarren -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 6:26:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO If you want to change your limits at some point, a master certainly can refuse to accept you as a slave anymore and dismiss you, but just doing it to you against your will is NOT an option. "Not an option"? I'm a bit confused just how a slave could prevent a master from dismissing him or her on a whim. It's not like one can write an enforceable contract.

SusanofO -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 6:37:40 AM)
Can't write a legally enforceable bdsm contract. Of course people probably have explicit stated (even if broad) expectations for a slave they'd not have for a submissive (the "line of demarcation", from what I've observed, can be nebulous here too for some). I gathered this from all the topic headings at CM stating things akin to: "What is the difference between a submissive and a slave?". The OP identifies as submissive (I do too, for the time being. Not sure if that's here or there, but my subjective interpretation is that it might make a difference in whatever people perceive as "Initial Negotiations" (when people may be asking eachother many questions).. My impression (so far) is that if one is opting for slavery, then afterwards there isn't really much more "negotiation" happening (in my conception of an "ideal" interpretation of that term). Deciding if there's a "mesh" or a "match" between two people (more if it's a household I guess) has been already done, and a submissive has decided she indeed wants to devote herself heart and soul to the other(s) Regardless of whether that is 24-7, or occasionally, with or without others involved - I perceive the bottom line as: What the Master says he wants (or the submissive intuits He (or She in the case of a Mistress) wants is something the submissive has decided they can "live with"and devote themselves to heart and soul at the deepest most intimate level - and want to - and thus become a slave (please don't anyone flame this last comment . I am still "new")[:D] Still leaves open the question of whether they'll be able to do it to perfection all the time (and so they can be dismissed) - a slave can walk away if they've "begged for release". A submissive can just leave. This is my understanding. I've resolved the difference between "slave" and "submissive" (for myself)in my own head (it took about a week of reading here and elsewhere to do it, and these boards have been very helpful). Re: Legality and contracts. I can envision a situation perhaps involving an unmentionable's custody, for example, where one person tries to argue their legally unenforceable contract should be "valid" in the eyes of the law. Good luck to those folk (they'll need it). Hopefully, people have communicated enough to know what another's underlying philosophy really IS; read: Approach to developing and keeping (or not) relationships - and have gone into it with their eyes as wide open as possible. This has been a clarifying thread for me. - susanofO

fyreredsub -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 7:01:32 AM)
actually there was a case not long ago where the contract of M/s was brought into evidence and the s seeking the protective order did not get it based on said contract -- kind of hard to establish 'fear' when said contract exists. the particular case is in the threads here under alt lifestyles in the news

SusanofO -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 7:52:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fyreredsub actually there was a case not long ago where the contract of M/s was brought into evidence and the s seeking the protective order did not get it based on said contract -- kind of hard to establish 'fear' when said contract exists. the particular case is in the threads here under alt lifestyles in the news *Interesting (and not surprising - to me) Thanks for the article location reference.* *-susanofO*

SusanofO -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 7:59:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO If you want to change your limits at some point, a master certainly can refuse to accept you as a slave anymore and dismiss you, but just doing it to you against your will is NOT an option. My comment referred to the comment made above mine by obis. Maybe should clarify that (and perhaps should have used my quote feature when I commented on his comment). My tendency is to read entire threads before I make a comment. And I inferred obis was speaking to the OP in general terms, as well as trying to be helpful. I also suppose it depends on whether the people involved desire a written contract[:D]. - susanofO "Not an option"? I'm a bit confused just how a slave could prevent a master from dismissing him or her on a whim. It's not like one can write an enforceable contract.

Chiana -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 8:23:19 AM)
the thing i use that pretty much covers all eventualities in that way is 'no health risks or permanent damage

Clothespingirl -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 8:44:15 AM)
quote: Lady Chatterley wrote: we discussed possible future three-ways, which I wanted to be open to considering, but then found out later that he considered condoms inappropriate--it would be withholding some form of participation, even in a situation with multiple partners. This was a hard limit for me, but one I hadn't realized until challenged because I just assumed everyone would use condoms with multiple partners. I think it's important to say that here we crossed over from any discussion of limits to pure-dee evil. Those people aren't just playing Russian Roulette with their own lives, they're deliberately risking the lives of any future partners and children. It's fun for folks to sneer at "Safe, Sane and Consensual" as a "peppy mantra" and what not, but here's the other side, and it's ugly. And a right to cut people's body parts off, even if they don't want to? I think I'll just claim that as a general human right, and start my testicle collection with those guys. Jeez!

JohnWarren -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 10:03:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Still leaves open the question of whether they'll be able to do it to perfection all the time (and so they can be dismissed) - a slave can walk away if they've "begged for release". A submissive can just leave. This is my understanding. This is one of the things that gets just a bit vague since anyone can "just leave" be he or she slave, submissive, serf or bondsman. Is it in your mind that if someone just leaves and doesn't go through the formality of "begging for release" it proves they aren't a slave after all? I recall a noted gay author who saw himself as a slave but who still had to break a window and run naked down a San Francisco street to escape an abusive relationship. Knowing the man, I'm not sure I have the nuts to walk up to him and say "you aren't a slave because you did this."

MrMister -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 10:15:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO Still leaves open the question of whether they'll be able to do it to perfection all the time (and so they can be dismissed) - a slave can walk away if they've "begged for release". A submissive can just leave. This is my understanding. This is one of the things that gets just a bit vague since anyone can "just leave" be he or she slave, submissive, serf or bondsman. Is it in your mind that if someone just leaves and doesn't go through the formality of "begging for release" it proves they aren't a slave after all? I recall a noted gay author who saw himself as a slave but who still had to break a window and run naked down a San Francisco street to escape an abusive relationship. Knowing the man, I'm not sure I have the nuts to walk up to him and say "you aren't a slave because you did this." Common sense and good health should ALWAYS dictate. Unfortunately, this seems to be a bit lacking at times with a few folks.

SusanofO -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 10:59:10 AM)
Once again proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are exceptions to anyone's conception of what "ruling someone" means. [;)] susanofO

pgqosk -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 11:47:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists ... she was struggling to talk let alone use a safe word. In the end... I suggest you learn as much about your partner as possible. Not just what they like to do... but the standards, morals, principles, etc etc that they live by. Understand what it means to them about consent... understand what they thing a limit is... and boundaries... what do they think are soft limits.. if they exist to them etc etc etc. learn and ask questions. Know the person... Not just the Play! If you are heading into a relationship of any length, this is a super way to look at limits. You talk about the basics, make sure everyone is on the same page. You are learning the person as much as their desires and needs. You feel and think about who they are before you play. You get the sense of if they will respect your limits, and will work you slowly to explore things you are unsure of, and stop things if you need that to happen. Now, if you are just going to a club, meeting someone for the first time because you like the way they do X, Y or Z... then a written list you exchange and discuss might not be that bad of an idea. Plus, if there is staff on hand, and they do a good job as you hope they would, you have a safety net of calling out for help if things start to take a turn for the worse. Plus, lest we forget the lifestyle definition of time... "Never is about 6 months in the lifestyle". Things you say are hard limits one day... about 6 months later you might have seen others play it out, gotten to know yourself better, expanded upon things you wondered about, and be saying to your Dom/Domme... "Hey, can we try X tonight... i really think i would enjoy it"... followed by, "Sorry, that is a limit of yours". Ugh... LOL ;-) Steven--

obis -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/22/2006 5:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO If you want to change your limits at some point, a master certainly can refuse to accept you as a slave anymore and dismiss you, but just doing it to you against your will is NOT an option. "Not an option"? I'm a bit confused just how a slave could prevent a master from dismissing him or her on a whim. It's not like one can write an enforceable contract. Sorry John, I think we got twisted on quotes, I was saying that just going ahead and cutting her ear off even if she adamantly refused was not an option (assuming the guy wants to stay out of jail). Of course dismissing her is always an option! The initial question was about whether becoming a slave voluntarily was some sort of "gotcha" clause that would allow a master to do whatever he wanted with no possibility of repercussions.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/23/2006 5:13:16 AM)
I'm going to focus on the key word being "initial" here. Initially, I am of the belief it is reasonable and prudent to establish broad terms that are ageeable to both (or however many are involved) parties. With reference to the EAR example, one of our standing "limits" is NO PERMANENT DAMAGE...pretty much takes care of off the wall examples such as this. As to the condom use, we are a "closed" poly household, so that is covered by the dynamic, when we specify closed, we mean it, so this subject doesn't even enter into the equation normally. If by chance there was the opportunity and desire to involve someone outside of the family in an activity where there was the possibility of fluid exchange, everyone involved would need to be in agreement on what precautions should be taken. We have several other "limits" such as this that we feel are obvious, but they do need to be brought up initially. We try to be as widespread as possible while still allowing flexibility. As the relationship builds, much of this is covered by open communication and a sincere understanding between all parties involved, but the wide umbrella "limits" are a great place to start. For someone to think they have to list each and every possible thing that they would not want done to them, would be nearly impossible.

ladychatterley -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/23/2006 7:14:28 AM)
Terrific advice here--thank you!

ownedgirlie -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/23/2006 11:00:53 AM)
Obis this is SO off topic but every time I see that picture of you laughing it makes me chuckle. Thanks for spreading the cheer. ~ And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming....

murmur -> RE: Initial Negotiations (4/23/2006 12:11:33 PM)
That was a very usefull thread....thanks a lot at the OP and people who posted [:)]

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125