RE: Thanks for the permission

RE: Thanks for the permission (Full Version)

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

Message

CreativeDominant -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 12:39:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain quote: ORIGINAL: Sundowner I run my company effectively by asking others for their ideas and views and by recognising and accepting the frequent occasions when their input is better than mine. But there's never been the slightest doubt about who's in charge. Of course you don't run an interpersonal relationship, D/s or vanilla, the way you run a company. But see...here again is someone noting something that, for the most part, female dominants disagree with and an awful lot of male dominants would like to be able to disagree with. In a D/s dynamic, there should NOT be a question of who is in charge. That is one of the things implied/stated/agreed to...however you want to put it...when a submissive agrees to submit (to YIELD); that acceptance of the dominant being (ostensibly) in charge. However, as LaT noted above, that is not what holds true in some D/s dynamics, moreso in male Dominant/female submissive dynamics.

RCdc -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 12:41:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain Whether you believe in it or not, the law does, and as far as the law is concerned, you can withdraw your consent at any time. Whether you choose to do that is up to you, obviously. But you can't disbelieve consent away. You could try to implement changes in the law, if you're so inclined. Like I said, consent and non consent is pointless within the context of BDSM and relationships in general quite frankly. Thank you for exampling. quote: The point is, as far as the law is concerned, the only thing holding you to him is your desire to remain so. Without the force of law to back up any claims or remedies he may seek, it will always be nothing more than your desire which holds you. Just out of interest, in your opinion, where would that place a married Ds couple?

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 12:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCdc Like I said, consent and non consent is pointless within the context of BDSM and relationships in general quite frankly. Thank you for exampling. The law says you have the power to consent and withdraw consent. There is nothing you can do, short of changing the law, to change that. And because you have the power, under the law, to consent and withdraw consent, the only thing hold you is ... your consent. You can deny it all you want, you play in the bedroom that you do not have the power to withdraw consent, but you have it. quote: Just out of interest, in your opinion, where would that place a married Ds couple? That depends on what the law says about married couples. Years ago, for example, it was legally impossible under Anglo-American common law for a man to rape his wife. It was also not legally possible to rape a male. That's changed now, but I can't answer your question without knowing the specifics of the law in any particular jurisdiction.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 12:54:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact This does lead Me to wonder if, due to the circumstances of numbers, that some are more lenient in their expectations of obedience for different periods. Something for Me to mull over. I've missed several pages of the thread so I don't know if I'm repeating what's already been said. But it seems that the above is the problem in your understanding. You are assuming that all d/s relationships are based entirely on obedience. And that's not true, at least not for all M/f relationships. I know those who are based on obedience, those based on service, and those based on emotional transparency. Mine is the last. I'm not supposed to obey him regardless if it causes me to distance myself from him. I follow because he's a superior leader. But he doesn't want me to follow if it's going to negatively impact me loving him. One of the problems though, Des...and this has been spoken of in other ways on this thread and others...is that many times, a female submissive's love IS affected negatively by the male dominant "daring" to give an order she disagrees with but which "ISN'T" within her hard limits, "ISN'T" against her morals, "ISN'T" against anything but which happens to rub her the wrong way. As I have said before...and which LaT noted...this tends to happen more in male Dominant/female submissive dynamics. quote: He was this way when he managed over a hundred people, he wanted people to first come talk to them. He counted it a failure if they did what they were told and quietly looked for another job. Training someone is costly in time and money and he wanted employees who were happy to work for him. The same is true in our personal relationship, love is paramount, he wants me to want to be with him, to be happy to be there. But as I know I've said elsewhere, he's not a sadist so he doesn't get off seeing me suffer. In any way. And I know that it's different if you are a sadist, that then you give orders designed to make the sub suffer. And this is a point that I think gets overlooked, that making a sub unhappy is often what the dom wants in order to feed his/her inner sadist. That doesn't exist here. I am a sadist. I am also a realistic human being. For the most part, I don't get off on giving orders that make my submissive suffer. I DO get off on the idea that she agreed to submit and that what she agreed to submit to wasn't a dynamic that was built solely on her input...a dynamic such as which LaT noted and which I have described elsewhere. Yet, that is what exists more in the male Dominant/female submissive world than it does in the female Dominant/male submissive world. I don't expect a submissive to like every single order I give her...and neither am I stupid enough to make sure every order I give her makes her suffer...but I AM tired of hearing from many on the submissive side...when you discuss this with them ALONG with everything else you feel about D/s...this statement: "Is that the control you get off on most? Giving orders that I have to struggle with?"

LadyPact -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 12:56:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I've missed several pages of the thread so I don't know if I'm repeating what's already been said. But it seems that the above is the problem in your understanding. You are assuming that all d/s relationships are based entirely on obedience. And that's not true, at least not for all M/f relationships. I know those who are based on obedience, those based on service, and those based on emotional transparency. Mine is the last. I'm not supposed to obey him regardless if it causes me to distance myself from him. I follow because he's a superior leader. But he doesn't want me to follow if it's going to negatively impact me loving him. He was this way when he managed over a hundred people, he wanted people to first come talk to them. He counted it a failure if they did what they were told and quietly looked for another job. Training someone is costly in time and money and he wanted employees who were happy to work for him. The same is true in our personal relationship, love is paramount, he wants me to want to be with him, to be happy to be there. But as I know I've said elsewhere, he's not a sadist so he doesn't get off seeing me suffer. In any way. And I know that it's different if you are a sadist, that then you give orders designed to make the sub suffer. And this is a point that I think gets overlooked, that making a sub unhappy is often what the dom wants in order to feed his/her inner sadist. That doesn't exist here. Don't feel bad about not hitting all of the thread. It's gotten rather long now. Have to say that I'm happy about that because folks have wanted to contribute their thoughts to it. There really is a difference between understanding different dynamics and saying different dynamics wouldn't work for Me. I think you use an excellent example. I would not be a good Dominant for you and you would not be a good submissive for Me. That's over and above the gender thing, the poly thing, and other issues that even if they were looked at as non issues, there would absolutely be the incompatibility in type of dynamic thing. This is not to say that I don't respect the way that other people have structured their dynamics (even though they wouldn't work for Me). Heck, I can even say that about equality based relationships and all other types. Different priorities for different people. Someone else just started a really good thread which used the words power, authority, and control. Frankly, those three elements in a dynamic are more important to Me than My sub always being happy with My decisions. That isn't about feeding My inner sadist. (I have better ways to do that.) It has much more to do with the way our dynamic is structured. If My primary concern was that My sub was never unhappy, I don't think I could consider authority to have the highest importance.

RCdc -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 1:01:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain The law says you have the power to consent and withdraw consent. There is nothing you can do, short of changing the law, to change that. And because you have the power, under the law, to consent and withdraw consent, the only thing hold you is ... your consent. You can deny it all you want, you play in the bedroom that you do not have the power to withdraw consent, but you have it. Consent/nonconsent in any personal relationship is pointless and misleading. Like I said. quote: That depends on what the law says about married couples. Years ago, for example, it was legally impossible under Anglo-American common law for a man to rape his wife. It was also not legally possible to rape a male. That's changed now, but I can't answer your question without knowing the specifics of the law in any particular jurisdiction. Was just 'in general'... most people stick to their own areas.

LaTigresse -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 1:32:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Don't feel bad about not hitting all of the thread. It's gotten rather long now. Have to say that I'm happy about that because folks have wanted to contribute their thoughts to it. There really is a difference between understanding different dynamics and saying different dynamics wouldn't work for Me. I think you use an excellent example. I would not be a good Dominant for you and you would not be a good submissive for Me. That's over and above the gender thing, the poly thing, and other issues that even if they were looked at as non issues, there would absolutely be the incompatibility in type of dynamic thing. This is not to say that I don't respect the way that other people have structured their dynamics (even though they wouldn't work for Me). Heck, I can even say that about equality based relationships and all other types. Different priorities for different people. Someone else just started a really good thread which used the words power, authority, and control. Frankly, those three elements in a dynamic are more important to Me than My sub always being happy with My decisions. That isn't about feeding My inner sadist. (I have better ways to do that.) It has much more to do with the way our dynamic is structured. If My primary concern was that My sub was never unhappy, I don't think I could consider authority to have the highest importance. The paragraph I bolded is exactly 'it' for me.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 2:19:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCdc Consent/nonconsent in any personal relationship is pointless and misleading. Like I said. It is there whether you like it or not. The fact remains that you always can exercise your right to withdraw consent. You play how you want in private, of course. quote: Was just 'in general'... most people stick to their own areas. I cannot possibly answer that question "in general" without knowing how the law in a particular jurisduction regards a married couple.

DesFIP -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 6:28:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact It has much more to do with the way our dynamic is structured. If My primary concern was that My sub was never unhappy, I don't think I could consider authority to have the highest importance. Absolutely a very important point. You consider authority to be more important than anything else. It isn't that way for me. And obviously I'm not going to always be happy, but having him want to make me unhappy for no other purpose but to have me be miserable isn't something that attracts me. Because of things in my past, I couldn't handle that. It's very rare for him to tell me to shut up and do what I'm told because almost always that makes me feel unheard and unvalidated. Bad emotional triggers for me. The other thing is that I don't pay blackmail. If someone said "my way or the highway" I would automatically choose the highway. I'm interested in a win/win solution. I don't see too many male dominants that are, they so often seem to set things up as an adversarial relationship where for them to win, the sub has to lose. I don't know if that's sadism or lack of self esteem, either way I don't fit with anyone like that.

catize -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 7:11:34 PM)
quote: The other thing is that I don't pay blackmail. If someone said "my way or the highway" I would automatically choose the highway. I'm interested in a win/win solution. I don't see too many male dominants that are, they so often seem to set things up as an adversarial relationship where for them to win, the sub has to lose. I don't know if that's sadism or lack of self esteem, either way I don't fit with anyone like that. And yet, if your spouse woke up tomorrow and told you that he was going to look for another submissive or two; wouldn't you tell him “My (monogamous) way or the highway”?

NihilusZero -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 7:44:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP The other thing is that I don't pay blackmail. If someone said "my way or the highway" I would automatically choose the highway. I'm interested in a win/win solution. I don't see too many male dominants that are, they so often seem to set things up as an adversarial relationship where for them to win, the sub has to lose. I don't know if that's sadism or lack of self esteem, either way I don't fit with anyone like that. And, on the other hand, I find the need to retain a mindset of potential suspicion about the decisions of a partner to whom decision-making has been yielded in the first place (presumably for good reason) to be adversarial. Surely, everyone is free to categorize the areas they are interested in yielding versus those they are not, but choosing to yield in a general sense and then needing to allow for an escape clause sounds like "Well, yes I'm making the decision to trust you as far as making decisions is concerned...but in case I happen to question your competence somewhere down the road..."

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 7:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP The other thing is that I don't pay blackmail. If someone said "my way or the highway" I would automatically choose the highway. I'm interested in a win/win solution. I don't see too many male dominants that are, they so often seem to set things up as an adversarial relationship where for them to win, the sub has to lose. I don't know if that's sadism or lack of self esteem, either way I don't fit with anyone like that. My vote is lack of self-esteem. Any male dom with the attitude of "I shall be your Lord and Master, and take my pleasure from you and punish you as I see fit and you will enjoy every nanosecond of my attention" is sorely lacking in self-esteem. They are not so much doms as they are frightened little boys trying to bluster their way through. I think these are what some people call twue doms, 'cause they're such pwecious little guys, oh, yes, they are. I don't do games, either. And if I encountered the attitude of "my way or the highway," my reply would be as Spongebob's was to Plankton: "Well, good luck with that."

NihilusZero -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 7:56:47 PM)
. [image]local://upfiles/672415/4A728925AC7D4737BAB534D13E927B94.jpg[/image]

Ishtarr -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 8:02:07 PM)
LOL NZ! [:D] Brilliant...

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 8:03:05 PM)
Hey, look, another message from NihilusZero, Mr. Anti-Spock. What deviltry will he dream up next? Maybe a nice you tube link. You're moving even so much closer to twue domdom yourself, sparkilicious.

NihilusZero -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 8:10:53 PM)
..

NihilusZero -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 8:12:01 PM)
Actually, I thought about this and my picture was admittedly not perfect. This more appropriately emblemizes the mentality in question: [image]local://upfiles/672415/9745F8A359044846B21EE36B3461B81C.jpg[/image]

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 8:19:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Actually, I thought about this and my picture was admittedly not perfect. This more appropriately emblemizes the mentality in question: Ooo, I get to be the guy on the horse. You can be the horse. You know you wanna.

NihilusZero -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 8:23:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chulain Hey, look, another message from NihilusZero, Mr. Anti-Spock. What deviltry will he dream up next? Maybe a nice you tube link. You're moving even so much closer to twue domdom yourself, sparkilicious. Your sock-puppet is losing kinks in its armor. The Spock reference was too soon a stretch for someone who's known me (online, no less) for less than a week. [;)] Try back-stepping to commentary about my writing style. That's more indicative of someone who's only recently met me.

Chulain -> RE: Thanks for the permission (1/31/2011 8:32:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Your sock-puppet is losing kinks in its armor. The Spock reference was too soon a stretch for someone who's known me (online, no less) for less than a week. [;)] Do you even know what a sock-puppet is? quote: Try back-stepping to commentary about my writing style. That's more indicative of someone who's only recently met me. I have met you dozens of times, over and over and over again, going back 15 years, on message boards dedicated to computer games, BDSM, The X-Files, Blade Runner, Lord of the Rings, Dune, beer and more. You have many names. Your current is but the latest.

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875