RE: Thanks for the permission (Full Version)

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



Message

chiaThePet -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 9:45:19 AM)


Next thing you know, submissives will be demonstrating and rioting in the streets,
demanding the resignation of all Dominants and the implementation of Democracy.

Wheel of Fortune and Ice Cream for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chia* (the pet)



SexyBossyBBW -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 9:50:51 AM)

Precisely why I don't do chastity.   You allow a boy to cum on a regular basis (well,  or you compell him to), he's more likely to hang around, and not become rebellious, wanting to overthrow the leadership...   The chastity boys assure me the exact opposite is true though.

*Ponders, what I should be allowed to do, as "Her Royal Goddess, The Queen."    



Missokyst -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 10:12:54 AM)

As a submissive I allow my partner to do action A, B, C. I allow it because my partner wants it, and because "I" am ok with what he wants, even when I don't particularly enjoy it. When those things that he wants are no longer what I can tolerate.. I will no longer allow it and will walk.
How is that any different from leaving the dynamic?



quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact




I allowed her
"The sub allows the Dom


I make decision X.
I expect clip to submit to decision X.
If clip doesn't submit to decision X, he is free to leave the dynamic.

So, let's talk about dynamics where the submissive is giving permission to the Dominant.  Thoughts?





leadership527 -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 10:17:46 AM)

It's all word games to me.

Carol and I don't exactly give each other permission to do things or prevent each other from doing things. We come to a conclusion about what we're going to do then we do it. If someone was staying over for the night and Carol had serious reservations about it those reservations would weight heavily into my thinking. If I had no such reservations and in the end we decided that the person would in fact stay the night, then I suppose if I squint right I could call that "her giving me permission".

Carol and I exist as a system, not as individuals. The system finds it's equilibrium however it does. What I can say with absolutely certainty is that the ACTUAL method by which that equilibrium is found is way the hell more complicated then "blow me bitch".



DesFIP -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 10:39:49 AM)

We're monogamous. But those who aren't, frequently have rules in effect to protect the primary relationship, in these cases the sub is given veto power so that the dom doesn't get involved with anyone who gives the primary sub bad vibes. In these cases the sub is dominant to the third, at least in this way, even if she is otherwise submissive to the dominant. She is using the power he delegated to her.

In exactly the same way that Mr P has given his permission to Lady P to be poly, with the understanding that if he feels it is needed for your marriage to continue that you no longer have a poly relationship, you wouldn't. LP, you're dominant but you operate inside a framework of rules that allows your marriage to thrive. Why is it so hard to understand that others do exactly the same?



littlewonder -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 10:48:42 AM)

our dynamic works exactly like yours so when I see posts like you mentioned I just figure they're not in an M/s relationship but a top/bottom relationship.





lally2 -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 10:58:02 AM)

FR


hey Lady P [sm=cute.gif]

you know i caught myself almost writing something like that on 'dissapointing master' and stopped myself.

inside me its not about giving a Dom permission by 'allowing' something, when i nearly wrote that, in my head, it was still all about the submission - but when using that word allow i would have meant, acquiesced, submitted, accepted - the word allow in this context is wrong i agree, which is why i stopped myself and because in this context it felt wrong to write, but for me anyway, it isnt about permission - thats already a given through my submission - its about accepting and submitting. 

did that make sense [8|]



LadyPact -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 11:00:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

LP, i don't know much about the dynamic of submit or leave -- in fact i really don't understand it because to me its an ultimatum concept not a submission or dominant concept.  But can you explain how your dynamic of submit or leave is really any different than what your OP speaks about except yours isn't a verbal type of permission but by clips decision to submit he is in fact giving you non-verbal permission.

I guess i am not seeing a difference between what you are commenting on in your OP and what you state your dynamic is except for one is a verbal concept of permission and the other is non-verbal.

angel

For one, I thought it was a discussion on semantics that I thought might be interesting.  During which, people have the opportunity to discuss how things work in their own dynamics. 

Also, I see a bit of exploration here regarding submission in and of itself.  When clip doesn't like a decision that I've made, I really do expect him to arrive at a place of acceptance and then submission.  Now, if that was happening on a constant basis, I'm led to think there might be something of a compatibility issue and the people involved may want to examine that.  However, even when it doesn't happen often, I thought it might be interesting to see how others viewed it.  Is it submission or permission?



Twoshoes -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 11:06:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
That's the bottom line for us.  It's either submit or don't.  There is no he 'gives Me permission' to do anything.  Knowing the terms of what this dynamic entailed before he became collared to Me was when he had to decide if he could live with it or not.   Anything that he can't live with now means that he needs to release himself and I find someone who will.

So, let's talk about dynamics where the submissive is giving permission to the Dominant.  Thoughts?


Well, not everyone has a dynamic based on authority.



LadyPact -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 11:19:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

We're monogamous. But those who aren't, frequently have rules in effect to protect the primary relationship, in these cases the sub is given veto power so that the dom doesn't get involved with anyone who gives the primary sub bad vibes. In these cases the sub is dominant to the third, at least in this way, even if she is otherwise submissive to the dominant. She is using the power he delegated to her.

In exactly the same way that Mr P has given his permission to Lady P to be poly, with the understanding that if he feels it is needed for your marriage to continue that you no longer have a poly relationship, you wouldn't. LP, you're dominant but you operate inside a framework of rules that allows your marriage to thrive. Why is it so hard to understand that others do exactly the same?


It's not difficult for Me to understand at all when people have a relationship that is based on equal authority.  It also makes complete sense to Me when we're discussing an area that is a change from what people knew, accepted, and agreed was the way the dynamic would work.  Without intending to, I think you hit the nail on the head.  MP "lets" Me because he has just as much say in our marriage as I do.  In clip's case, he doesn't and submits instead.



LadyPact -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 11:22:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twoshoes
Well, not everyone has a dynamic based on authority.

What would your alternative be?  If it's a D/s dynamic which isn't based on authority, what is the D/s based on?



RapierFugue -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 11:23:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
What would your alternative be?  If it's a D/s dynamic which isn't based on authority, what is the D/s based on?


Food stamps? ;)



barelynangel -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 11:41:43 AM)

Yes its semantics of the observer --- not necessarily the participants in the relationship.


i remember an example i once saw, you have a Master say hey bitch go get me a beer.  The slave starts bitching at him to about not getting his own damn beer and he is a lazy bastard  and that she is only getting this beer because SHE wants too etc as she walks to the fridge and gets his beer, cusses him as she walks back and hands him the beer she opens as she walks saying there i got you your beer and then sits back down.  He drinks the beer and says good girl.

LP, for many people its more than just authority, its a concept of power that builds and holds the dynamic in place, one can have authority without power, but one cannot have power without authority.  To me the ultimatum dynamic takes away the power but leaves the authority until its not.

angel



windchymes -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 12:23:10 PM)

From a semantic angle (I think.....)

In the hospital, nurses, phlebotomists, whomever, don't touch a patient without consent or permission. Say we walk in early in the morning to draw their blood. Many times, they keep dozing, but they hold their arm out for us. That's considered implied permission, even though they didn't verbally consent, they didn't refuse, and they didn't get up and leave the room.

Based on what I've done in my 20-plus year career, I go with the "they didn't leave, they didn't refuse, so they gave me permission" philosophy. [:)]

I also think some of that "the sub "allowed" the dom to do X" type language might just be the language of someone who lives by the "the sub is really the one in control" philosophy. Hey, we got all kinds :)




soloswan -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 12:31:44 PM)

interesting, a sub chooses whom and how she submits, a slave only chooses whom she submits to.



DesFIP -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 12:51:07 PM)

We're more like Jeff and Carol. The decisions are made with an eye on what is best for the relationship. And if that includes delegating authority to me, so be it. Here how it works out is that I am required to do what's best for him, so when he asks for tea at 10:00 PM I give him decaf. He doesn't like the taste of it nearly as well, but he takes it unless he knows he's working on something through the night at which point he has to specify regular. I allow him to drink real tea instead of the herbal at that hour because I know he's got a deadline.  I don't allow him to drink regular late at night or drink regular coke instead of the diet. I do this because he knows he won't pay attention to these things and will do things that are bad for him, so he's given me the authority in this matter.

But it is important to us that the relationship continues. We are monogamous and in love, neither of us feels that we are expendable and easily replaced. Perhaps that's the difference, that it's my way or the highway only if you don't care if the other person chooses the highway?



lally2 -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 1:05:13 PM)

i also think its about 'allowing' youreself to submit - particularly something unpleasant like punishment, for the sake of the relationship, because its what is expected.

im still trying to extrapolate where the word 'allow' came from in my head.  it isnt semantics so easily.

even a slave keeps their head and their brain in tact at all times, even in the deepest state of submission there are times when you have to give youreself that little push and 'allow' youreself to accept what happens next.

maybe its just me, but i dont just blindly potter along, its a mindful business very often and there is that element in me at times when i struggle a bit.

'allowing' therefore is as much tied up in my submission as their dominance - its standing on the threshold of something horrible and allowing youreself to accept and allowing the process to happen because of youre submission and youre committment to youre relationship.

maybe it is that split second moment when a sub or slave could just say 'no' and pushing beyond that to submission.

i realised something obvious the other day.  months ago i truely believed there wasnt a single man capable of dominanting me, and there wasnt, because i was not prepared to submit.  now that ive worked out my gremlins and sorted out where i am, i am open to the possibility of submission and now i can feel the pull that Dominants exert.

therefore, for me, the word 'allow' is in allowing myself to step forward, accept, submit and in doing that i am, i suppose, allowing the Dominant to be that authority in my life.

but it really does come from me allowing myself first and from there the submission follows.

so..., 'allowing' the dominant is all tied up in the submissive allowing themselves to submit.

... still as clear as a foggy day [&:]



leadership527 -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 1:11:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
What would your alternative be?  If it's a D/s dynamic which isn't based on authority, what is the D/s based on?
OK, so here I am seriously not wanting to be a pill, but my answer to that would be "dominance and submission". Authority is what I get via my dominance. But it isn't what anything is based on.



LadyPact -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 1:14:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

OK, so here I am seriously not wanting to be a pill, but my answer to that would be "dominance and submission". Authority is what I get via my dominance. But it isn't what anything is based on.


In your opinion, can you have dominance without authority?

From what I know of you, I happen to think that you being Dominant and Carol being submissive is part of your initial attraction.  It's why you fit together so well.  Had you been more submissive in nature, do you think Carol would have been attracted to you in the same way?



DesFIP -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/30/2011 2:00:41 PM)

A dominant can allow the sub some freedoms which will limit the dominant's authority in the same way the dominant may choose to limit him or herself in other ways. You can choose to forego the chocolate mousse cake even though you want it because you know it is the best thing for you. You can choose to forego exercising your authority fully because you know that certain things would end the relationship.

I'm straight and I'm monogamous. He chooses to forego chasing other women and demanding I have sex with them because these are my limits. And he wants the relationship with me more than he wants the freedom to keep chasing others.



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

Valid CSS!




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