RE: no limits period

RE: no limits period (Full Version)

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

Message

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 4:33:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain And one way he can precipitate the divorce is by cheating on you. He can also just plain say "I want a divorce." But by cheating, with the full knowledge that it will lead to divorce, he is, barring you changing your mind, forcing you to make the decision. The final control is his (unless you change your mind about the divorce, in which case final control is back to you). I'm not at all sure how you're using this logic to the conclusion that the submissive is inevitably in control. The actual conslusion of this train of thought is that it leaves both parties in equal "control" in the same way a mexican standoff does. However, reducing it to that type of caricature completely disregards the psychological, consensual, honesty-related, and pursuit-of-happiness elements that are always in play with human romantic/dynamic interactions.

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 4:33:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Dominant walks into the room, looks at his submissive of 20 years and says, "You're too old and can't serve me the way you used to, the way I require you to serve. You are released." Are you saying that the submissive actually has the final say on whether or not she is released? That's not the kind of scenario we are talking about. We are talking about this: Dom walks into the room, tells his sub "You need to be punished for transgression 'X.' 20 lashes with my belt." Sub says "Nope," knowing dom will end the relationship. Dom says "You're released." Final call, to submit to the lashes or end the relationship, rested with the sub. In the scenario you spun, the dom's decision is not a reaction any particular act or failure to act by the sub. Either party is obviously free at any time to say "This relationship is finished, I'm leaving" simply because they are tired of the other person. That's no different than a vanilla relationship ending for similar reasons. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero However, reducing it to that type of caricature completely disregards the psychological, consensual, honesty-realted, and pursuit-of-happiness elements that are always in play with human romantic/dynamic interactions. The only one reducing it to that kind of caricature is you, and your analogy completely flawed. quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 the trite and tiresome argument that the sub or slave has the ultimate control invariably comes from people who dont have the first clue how a sub or slave works internally. The only one who doesn't have a clue here is you, with your evident implication that I have no clue how a submissive works internally. I ask again, you specifically, if you say no to your dominant, what is his legal recourse, other than to end the relationship? And what have you done, by saying no, if not precipitating his actions to end the relationship? You are always free to say no. There is nothing anyone, other than you, can do anything to prevent you from saying no. Therefore, however trite you think it is, the truth is, you are ultimately in final control. I know you don't want to play that way, but that's just the way it is in the U.S., etc. Whether you choose to ever say no is an entirely different issue. And if the best answer you can come up with is "That would never happen," don't bother.

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 4:45:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 a submissive is entirely wired to please and serve. Just to be picky, that isn't always the case. Frankly, my own preferences are for submissives/slaves who do demonstrate such traits, but plenty of people choose a submissive role just for the fun of it or for the feel of restriction when battled against and don't necessarily have much inclination to see things from a "please and serve" mentality at all. However, for the context you are presenting (that there are such s-types and they do function in a way thats negate the 'argument from hypothetics'), you're quite correct. [:)] thanks.... i think [:D]

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 4:50:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The only one reducing it to that kind of caricature is you, and your analogy completely flawed. You mention logic enough to at least be able to demonstrate it. You are measuring the context of a willingly sought relationship by two people who (presuming their honesty with each other and self-honesty) are displaying an effort to play a role. You are using the the fact that hypothetical possibilities still exist to discount actual interactions and how psychological desires actually move people. I addressed this earlier by using the "logic" to the conclusion that faithfulness does not exist because someone can always choose to cheat. And the mexican standoff analogy is precisely correct. The dominant in the previous example could have "wanted" to place the sub in a position where they would likely refuse, thereby ending the dynamic (which means the dominant was really in control!). It's a ridiculous "first mover" hypothesis that can be traced backwards indefinitely and that, for some reason, you decide to let fall solely on the submissive for no logical reason.

BitaTruble -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 4:56:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain final authority rests with the submissive or slave A slave or submissive can end authority, not usurp it.

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You mention logic enough to at least be able to demonstrate it. Your evident lack of ability to see (or acknowledge) my logic does not bother me all that much, amazingly enough. quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble A slave or submissive can end authority, not usurp it. Gosh, I think we agree. Perhaps I should use the phrase "final decision-making power."

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 the trite and tiresome argument that the sub or slave has the ultimate control invariably comes from people who dont have the first clue how a sub or slave works internally. The only one who doesn't have a clue here is you, with your evident implication that I have no clue how a submissive works internally. I ask again, you specifically, if you say no to your dominant, what is his legal recourse, other than to end the relationship? And what have you done, by saying no, if not precipitating his actions to end the relationship? You are always free to say no. There is nothing anyone, other than you, can do anything to prevent you from saying no. Therefore, however trite you think it is, the truth is, you are ultimately in final control. I know you don't want to play that way, but that's just the way it is in the U.S., etc. Whether you choose to ever say no is an entirely different issue. And if the best answer you can come up with is "That would never happen," don't bother. that would never happen [:)] in Ds relationships ive said no and because it was Ds the thing was worked around. in my Ms relationship there were plenty of times when i wanted to say no, but if i had the relationship would have ended and i didnt want it to end. and then a whole course of things happened that i couldnt handle anymore and i asked to be released. it wasnt about power, it was about the sad end of an otherwise amazing relationship. He made the rules and He chose to take a path i couldnt follow. in the end it was His choice to go that route even knowing that i found it hard, knowing i might need to leave, because it was what He wanted and i could either accept it or leave. i tried to work with it but it became untenable in the end. it wasnt about me saying 'no i cant do this' in the hope that it would change, that would never have happened and He would never have allowed me to manipulate Him in that way. He played intensely, sometimes way too intensly for me. He was the one who punished me that one time and it was severe. never at any time did i ever say no to Him, though im no massochist i can assure you. no is not or at least should never be a word uttered by a slave to gain control or power over the Master. and when a relationship ends there is no power struggle involved and there is no ultimate control - its merely two people having to let go of what they had.

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:05:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 that would never happen Yeah.

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You mention logic enough to at least be able to demonstrate it. Your evident lack of ability to see (or acknowledge) my logic does not bother me all that much, amazingly enough. You're not presenting any. Or, at least, any that isn't entirely superficial. It's like developing a sound mathematical hypothesis of how people function by using parameters based on the characters of a video game, and then suggesting the solidity of that initial logic means it is also applicable to the human playing the game. Your logic is great from the perspective that all people are two-dimensional.

Elisabella -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:07:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 the trite and tiresome argument that the sub or slave has the ultimate control invariably comes from people who dont have the first clue how a sub or slave works internally. The sub/slave has the ultimate control over his or herself, and his or her actions and choices. Nobody has "ultimate control" over a relationship because a relationship needs two people to exist.

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:08:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You're not presenting any. Or, at least, any that isn't entirely superficial. Don't make me repeat myself. You know how much I hate that. I hate repeating myself. quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Nobody has "ultimate control" over a relationship because a relationship needs two people to exist. In the right kind of scenario, either partner has ultimate control, because either can at any time say "I'm done, bye-bye." What I'm talking about is the submissive's right, at any time, to refuse to acquiesce to the dominant's demands. That's the submissive's ultimate veto power.

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 that would never happen [:)] But it COULD happen! It could, it could, it could! And you also instantaneously morph into a zebra! It COULD happen! So don't get too attached to that "human" label.

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:11:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella The sub/slave has the ultimate control over his or herself, and his or her actions and choices. But only ephemerally. Because, if not, then someone can inwardly control themselves into acting as if they do not have said control...no? [;)]

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:12:59 PM)
to be honest i dont give a damn about the rules of whatever land im in with regard to my relationships and how i wish them to be. when i hand over my submission to someone it has come after a while of contact, deliberation and careful thought. when i give it i give it in toto and the law can hang itself after that. no law in the land will tell me its my right to say 'no' if the word 'no' is anathama to me. you can keep youre law as an added addendum to this argument. it has no relevance to me once im in submission and im happily enslaved within TPE. if at any time i need to leave for my health or sanity then i shall, but that has nothing to do with power or ultimate control/power over someone else. its just me leaving for my health and sanity.

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:13:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain In the right kind of scenario, either partner has ultimate control, because either can at any time say "I'm done, bye-bye." What I'm talking about is the submissive's right, at any time, to refuse to acquiesce to the dominant's demands. That's the submissive's ultimate veto power. I'm sorry. I must have missed this earlier . I apologize for the previous comments. I failed to realize you were working from the perspective that D/s relationships function in one-way "giver/receiver" directions. Based on this new evidence, your logic is contextually sound.

Chulain -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero But it COULD happen! It could, it could, it could! And you also instantaneously morph into a zebra! It COULD happen! Really? It could? quote: So don't get too attached to that "human" label. You're analogizing "saying no in a consensual interpersonal relationship" to "morphing into a zebra." If you keep it up, you'll be able to stop wondering why I don't bother to reply to you all that often.

Elisabella -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:17:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Nobody has "ultimate control" over a relationship because a relationship needs two people to exist. In the right kind of scenario, either partner has ultimate control, because either can at any time say "I'm done, bye-bye." What I'm talking about is the submissive's right, at any time, to refuse to acquiesce to the dominant's demands. That's the submissive's ultimate veto power. Right, that falls into the category of "ultimate control over his or herself and his or her actions and choices" not control over the relationship. The reason is because it can play out in multiple ways that don't end the relationship.

NihilusZero -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:17:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain You're analogizing "saying no in a consensual interpersonal relationship" to "morphing into a zebra." If you keep it up, you'll be able to stop wondering why I don't bother to reply to you all that often. No, that was humor. Exaggerated parallels happen in humor. Would 3 additional smileys help you with being able to discern humor from analogy in the future? How about a written disclaimer?

lally2 -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:18:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: lally2 that would never happen Yeah. oh wow, i finally have his agreement on something, not sure what exactly and i cant help feeling he has twisted my words inside his head to suit his bias. but none the less, i can now go to bed released from this madness! good night my friends and good luck!

BitaTruble -> RE: no limits period (1/31/2011 5:19:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain Perhaps I should use the phrase "final decision-making power." Well, the submissive is still reacting to the decision of the dominant but the gist I get from your argument is not that the semantics are important but that submissive should know they have the legal right to end their relationship. I'm pretty sure most of us are aware of that already. [;)]

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875