quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Where is the line in your opinion?

quote:


There was an incident where she got extremely emotional, packed her things, and stood at the door crying. She then turned around and said she couldn't leave because she did not have permission to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyred1
I agree with this above. People always hate the term "consensual non-consent" but it is true in many cases; that is what we do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyred1

So OP, how do you view something like that, choice and consent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Where is the line in your opinion?

So in the spirit of offering a very subjective opinion, and on the understanding that I have no insight into the depth and breadth of your relationship, here's my take...

First I'll have to admit to a "gut reaction". When I read...

quote:


There was an incident where she got extremely emotional, packed her things, and stood at the door crying. She then turned around and said she couldn't leave because she did not have permission to.

My instinctive reaction was to think - "What the fuck?". My immediate sense was that if she is in so much unhappiness that she wants to leave, but feels incapable of doing so because of the psychological dependency that exists (however it was developed) then the line has been crossed so far that it's probably a tiny fucking speck on the horizon.

quote:


But... I know nothing about your dynamic, so it would be foolish of me to judge it on the basis of this tiny bit of information. But yeah... the word "abuse" certainly popped into my mind.

quote:


Is there a way to define where the line is? Yes, I think so - Subjectively of course. For me there are two components.

The first relates to the controlled person's ability to say no to things that are harmful to them in the long term.

quote:


The second relates to the instant the controller places his or her long term well-being above the controlled person's.

quote:


I freely acknowledge that both of these are chock full of subjective judgement - And I'd struggle to define it more precisely, but I'll tell you when I see it.

quote:

That is most people's gut reaction. The assumptions is that she had the emotional episode because she was extremely unhappy with the relationship. The other is, when someone has an emotional episode they do not always act in a rational manner.

To further explain that episode, there were several factors where she reached a frustration level with life and was attempting to throw a "fuck it" on everything. The conditioning kept her from walking out, because that door only swings one way when you use it like that. So in that case, it wound up being for a positive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

The thing I learned in talking to that other "flight risk" couple was that the actual personalities involved matter. Trying to map Carol's and my behaviors onto their circumstance just doesn't work. Conversely, when you look at option (C) above, some of those same people would interpret that as me being either "not dominant" or "not loving". Again, a mistake of mapping their personalities into our situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

quote:


But... I know nothing about your dynamic, so it would be foolish of me to judge it on the basis of this tiny bit of information. But yeah... the word "abuse" certainly popped into my mind.

That word pops into many people's minds, as we have all been led to believe that to be normal and okay, we must all be within defined parameters. we have also been led to believe that abuse is a certain thing. I am sure we have all seen the list, and controlling is one of the vanilla worlds red flags.

quote:

Sure, I agree that for the vanilla world "controlling" can often be perceived as a red-flag, my sense though is that we're talking about something that's a little beyond simply controlling?

quote:




Is there a way to define where the line is? Yes, I think so - Subjectively of course. For me there are two components.

The first relates to the controlled person's ability to say no to things that are harmful to them in the long term.

You would have to define harmful in each situation. Obvious one's are a no-brainer, but others may not be so easy. Also, what if that degree of control exists, but is not executed.

quote:

Yes, I agree that you'd have to define harmful in each situation (which makes it not over useful as a definition, I acknowledge). To your second point, where the degree of control exists but is not executed, I'd say that that situation isn't harmful in itself so it wouldn't cross my subjective line.

Although I did ponder for a moment the harm test in the context of "What if you had the ability to stop someone from driving drunk and chose not to.."

quote:


The second relates to the instant the controller places his or her long term well-being above the controlled person's.

Above, or in place of? I am pretty sure I know what you mean, but many people believe that if you do not put someone above your well being, then you do not love them.

quote:

Ok, so this is gnarlier when you look at it in more detail. I suppose I start from the position that, irrespective of the power dynamic that is in place, both parties to a relationship should be given equal consideration when it comes to their well-being. When one party places his/her well-being above the other's then there's an imbalance that has the potential to be negative.

When you bring "Love" into the equation, many bets are off, not least because "Love" isn't entirely rational. But looking at my own (subjective) experience, I'd say that it goes back to the equal consideration thing... if both parties "Love" means that they'd put the other person's needs above their own, then you've got "healthy". If one party would put the other person's needs above their own, while the other would not then you have the potential for "unhealthy" (it only being unhealthy if the person with the "power" abuses it.).

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Before I start I'd like to make it totally clear that I am not makign any sort of qualitative judgement here.... there's no implication of "more true" or "less dominant" or whatever. I'm exploring differences as I see them. As I say a lot, "better" in my mind isn't "more D/s". It's "more smiles".

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNDommeK
The second they give consent to belong to Me.

This is that thing I don't really understand. I call it "D/s by agreement" or "BDSM D/s". But what happens when consent isn't really a part of the equation? What happens when it's basically down to, "I want to and I can so I do." ? In the model you're talking about there is a point when consent is achievable. In the model I'm talking about (and I think the one Orion is talking about) consent was never particularly relevant from the very beginning. All you have is a "stronger" personality overshadowing a 'weaker" one (although I dislike those terms). There's no agreements. There's no limits or boundaries. There's no "the slave should protect herself" -- because that simply isn't feasible. All there is, to quote Aswad, is simply two people interacting and neither can choose to be someone different than they are. Then, if you build on that base by aggressively shaping the slave you end up at "internal enslavement" or <insert term du jour>.

I don't think one should give that much power over to someone who they feel might cross that line
Same conceptual shift It's a different thing if you're talking about the slave deciding how much power to give. What I'm talking about doesn't involve the slave making that decision. The better question is, "How much power is the master able to take and how much does he want?"

Now when any slave who is willing to break that bond and say " I want out of this "....that is the FINAL and ONLY say they have with Me.
Same difference... if Carol was able to make that sort of decision on her own then she already wasn't mine long, long before that.

In other words, any model which relies on "free will" and "consent" is anathema to the thing I call "dominance" and "submission".

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
Both you and evesgarden have said essentially this. It makes me wonder if we are using different definitions for the word "manipulation" and/or "healthy"

quote:

Could she leave? She was physically able to leave, but did she have the willpower to leave and decided not to? Was it that she could not garner the willpower to do something she had been conditioned not to do, in the absence of something life threatening? You say there is no maybe, but how can you say that about someone else and their mental state?
Yes someone has the option to leave, but does that always been they can make that choice? Are you sure for others, or just yourself? Pavlov's dog maybe?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
As a specific example. Carol did not used to have a poly mindset. The idea of bringing another slave into my house was threatening to her in all the ways you'd expect a monogamous, vanilla wife to think of that -- deeply threatening in a visceral sort of way. Had I tried to do so 2 years ago she would have not consented. Now, she sees many upsides to having a partner in crime and her general thought is, "I'm his and he'll choose wisely if he chooses to do that." So she would "consent" to it.

Now do you see why we have a disconnect on "consent"?

quote:

It included rowing in ways I thought were dumb, in directions that were upwind and at times when I was too darn tired to row. I had to change my opinions, let go of 'my' money and put it in 'our' money and help parent kids even after years of dutiful birth control. I had to let go of anger at the peak of self-righteousness, acknowledge his better ideas, forgive his mistakes and kiss him when I could've slugged him. T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
This really sounds like a good and healthy Vanilla Marriage. You and Jeff are cute as a couple, and just such a grounded real relationship.