quote:

On the boards I have heard people referring to "total power exchange" or having "no limits", but I am wondering ... is this ever really the case?  I mean, you will always still have power ... if a Master/Mistress does something that you REALLY do not like, or whatever ... surely there is always the option of walking out, or of leaving? It might be difficult, but you always still have some degree of power?

quote:


The same with no limits ... if, for example, a Master/Mistress does something that you realise is something you simply can't go through with - you can say no, and if they ignore your wishes, walk away?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PurpleCoconut

Hi,

I'm very new to the scene, and so am still very much learning.  I do apologise if this is a stupid question, but I am curious, and keen to learn as much as I possibly can :)

On the boards I have heard people referring to "total power exchange" or having "no limits", but I am wondering ... is this ever really the case?  I mean, you will always still have power ... if a Master/Mistress does something that you REALLY do not like, or whatever ... surely there is always the option of walking out, or of leaving? It might be difficult, but you always still have some degree of power?

The same with no limits ... if, for example, a Master/Mistress does something that you realise is something you simply can't go through with - you can say no, and if they ignore your wishes, walk away?

Perhaps I am being naive, but I realise this could be a possibility, and am keen to educate myself :)

Thank you for reading, and hopefully, replying!

quote:

"Many Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists think we lifestylers to be varying types of dangerous lunatic." -whothehellRU1, trying to ruffle feathers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

"Many Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists think we lifestylers to be varying types of dangerous lunatic." -whothehellRU1, trying to ruffle feathers.

He was fun while he lasted. I've never seen so many threads yanked so quickly. Admin power!

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
To a poet: In the more figurative sense, "total" can be appropriate. At some point, when it's all working out well, you spend more time looking at the road ahead of you then the various ways you might drive off it. "Total" is a good enough word to describe Carol and I. I could get more specific and say, "It's been total so far -- she has never disobeyed -- and it's likely to be total in the future because I'm not an idiot."

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

i think total power exchange is possible; it's something that's created between two people, but not necessarily a definable state that you can point at and say "see, that's TPE!"
it's something that happens over time, not something instant. one day you wake up and realise "omigosh, i really can't leave this person." but you don't want to anyway. =p
i dunno, it's hard to explain. TPE and IE (internal enslavement, if you dunno what that means) are very subjective/personal states of being, at least in my opinion. it would be difficult to define for anyone else.

i agree with leadership's interesting discussion of absolute vs. subjective definitions of "total" -- what does total mean to you? i walk and breathe by my own power, but i might make decisions on things (or not make decisions at all) because of giving away that power to someone else. or the power is simply having the POSSIBLE ability to exert control, even if they don't want it. =p you may make all sorts of decisions on your own, b/c your D allows you, but you do it in the knowledge that the D could assume control of that if s/he wanted.

blah blah blah...

quote:



_____________________________

"Many Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists think we lifestylers to be varying types of dangerous lunatic." -whothehellRU1, trying to ruffle feathers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twoshoes
It's only, exactly as total as your belief. And there is nothing else of consequence to examine, since the pleasure, safety, terror and danger all come from feeling owned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer

For us, it's the difference between "can" and "should".  Because we have negotiated a TPE, by the terms of our agreement, I CAN choose do to horrible, reckless, stupid, unhealthy, dysfunctional, harmful things to my human property.  Because I am not stupid or insane, and because I am generally a pretty calm and responsible leader who values family health and stability and the long term picture, the decisions I actually make for my household are sensible, sane and mature. 

If I was not a responsible leader, and the kind of person who quite sensibly values a happy and stable household where all of our needs are met in a safe and comfortable environment, I doubt either of them would have been willing to hand over that level of ownership.  So you could certainly argue that since their "no limits" agreement will never be tested in reality by my pulling out the chainsaw, it only exists in our mutual fantasies.  And your argument might well have merit.  But it is what works for us. 

I do value the fact that I CAN do whatever I want with my absolute human property, even if I have no desire to exercise those rights in any kind of extreme sense in real life.  If  I was the kind of person who would do them harm, I would not have been given that right, because my boys are much too smart for that.  So because I wouldn't, I can.   Except I won't.  Does that make any sort of convoluted sense? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
Well, not exactly... only in the kinky sense of dominance and submission and ownership. For Carol and I, things are quite a bit different. Carol doesn't "feel" owned at all... nor does she "feel" submissive. I actually DO feel my ownership of her but I do not feel "dominant".

quote:


In my world, dominance and submission are real, quantifiable things and they have direct, [mostly] predictable results.

• people asking themselves "how total?" are ignoring the fact that "total" is as abstract a concept as "infinity".
  
• people trying to list things horrific things they'd never do to prove a lack of 'totality' are missing the fact that 'totality' is a belief, not a measurement or something subject to checklists.