RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (Full Version)

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



Message

LadyPact -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/9/2016 7:36:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP
Devil's advocate though, if I've agreed (as I have) that he is the better decision maker, then that also says that he's going to be better at making this decision

Which gives him the right to decide if I'm making the right decision or not by ending it

And if you take your decision making power back?

quote:

Some of the m/s or o/p groups on fet have had this discussion, you might find it enlightening reading

That's partially where this comes from. I started reading this through my friend feed. So, not a fantasist thing or just online drivel. Some of the threads are quite interesting. I just happen to lean more on one side than the other.

quote:

In almost all the times people have brought up not being allowed to leave, it's been clear that it was not a thought out decision

Have I ever told you how my last husband got a divorce? He asked for one. Did he say it in the heat of the moment? Yep. Did he regret it? Yep.

quote:

And yeah, why do I even own a car when nobody ever lets me drive? Between him and my daughter, I might as well give up the license

I don't have to say a word here.

quote:

Which is another decision of this magnitude: if someone has authority over your money, if they can demand you cut up your license, make you quit your job or take one you don't want, and you trust them enough to believe they are making the right decision even when you don't agree with them, then why is it that the only time it's the wrong thing to do is when you are upset and decide on the spur of the moment to end the relationship?

All of those things you can change if you are not someone's prisoner.

quote:

As far as relationships where one person is unhappy and the other thinks things are fine - they happen all the time
You've never known a man to say he didn't see it coming when he got served with divorce papers? Because I have

Blindsided at the moment, I will give you. After a while, I think most people can look back at the relationship and see that the other person isn't happy. If not, those are some serious rose colored glasses or somebody is one heck of an actor/actress.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/10/2016 6:55:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DocStrange


The gift of submission is not a physical gift. It is not a physical object that can be taken, hoarded, put on a shelf or thrown away. The gift of submission is a gift of trust. And when that trust is broken, the s has every right to walk away.

The predication that the M has all rights and the s has none is a faulty argument. The ability for the s to walk away is his/her right. No one can take that away. You make the presumption that all M’s know what is best. The reality is the world is full of people who make bad decisions. There are many M’s who make bad choices for their s’s. There are many M’s that harm their s’s.



Of course it's not a physical thing. Which is precisely why it's not a gift.

English has two definitions for the word "gift":

gift
ɡift/
noun
1.
a thing given willingly to someone without payment; a present.
"a Christmas gift"
synonyms: present, handout, donation, offering, bestowal, bonus, award, endowment; More
2.
a natural ability or talent.

Trust is not a thing, and it's not an ability or talent. Therefore having trust in somebody isn't a gift.

You don't decide to just give somebody trust out of nowhere, you do it because they have XYZ qualities you trust. You exchange your trust for their qualities.

Really, we have perfectly good words to describe the dynamic of submission in English. Words that work. Words that have a defined and accepted meaning that communicates exactly what it is submission is, and how it works.

There is absolutely no need to be going and making shit up, using words that clearly, by definition, CANNOT apply, all because it makes you feel better because it sounds more flowery and romantic.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DocStrange

When someone puts their love, life, happiness, and unwavering trust in you and you violate that trust, then you have no rights at all. You gave up your gift and have no right to it.



This is down right idiotic. If somebody violates your trust, they broke the exchange by which they EARNED your trust (trust is earned cupcake, it doesn't appear out of nowhere).
So when they stop EARNING your trust, of course they lose it.
Does one earn a gift? I'll give you a hint: the answer is 'no'.

However, losing trust not some magical dynamic where magical gifts-that-are-not-really-things-and-are-only-given-when-they're-earned-in-exchange-for-something-else suddenly magically return to the sender. You lose trust because you stop earning it (you stop having the qualities they were exchanging for their trust), just like you lose your paycheck (that you boss didn't 'gift' you btw) when you stop working.

Again, we have perfectly good words for this in English.
No need to make shit up just because you think it sounds better.

The funniest thing about this whole business about you wanting to make 'the gift of submission' sound better than it really is, is that in actuality, you're devaluing it.

If submission is this gift, that's bestowed on people, then the Dom becomes less valuable, because they didn't earn shit, they just happen to be there to receive the gift.

And then the submissive becomes less valuable, because now, instead of going through a rigorous process of setting her standards, holding to them, and then finally exchanging her submission with a man she finds worthy, now she's nothing but this helpless creature dolling out gifts to people in the hopes that eventually she'll get something back and it will all work out.

Very romantic of course, to imagine this cute submissive, hopping around bestowing gifts on dudes, until she finds the one that magically appreciates her gift with the appropriate level of decorum, and they live happily ever after... but it's not quite flattering for either party when you look at it that way.

I'd much rather deal with the reality where people should do due diligence, and when they deem somebody worthy, enter into a mutually beneficial exchange. But of course, when stating it that way, the love-poem aspect is kinda lost...

Kinda hard to write a poem starting with: As I knelt at his feet, and seized him up, I decided that he was a man who had the qualities I needed, so that I was able to have confidence in the fact that he'd live up to my expectations, so I told him that I was willing to exchange my submission for his commitment, leadership, and ethics.
Rather than writing: As I knelt at his feet, his dominance overpowered me, and I gifted him my submission...




ReMakeYou -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/10/2016 10:07:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Devil's advocate though, if I've agreed (as I have) that he is the better decision maker, then that also says that he's going to be better at making this decision...


Are you asking about scene level decisions, or relationship level decisions?

The former, I'll repeat that it's very dangerous not to leave yourself an out. Given that we're talking about a short span of time and that you can always try again later if this time doesn't pan out, there's no reason to ever not have a safeword or similar escape clause.

Relationship level stuff, this really isn't too different from the vanilla analogue. You're going to want some private space of your own, because everybody needs some alone time and a spot to call theirs from time to time. If you take time to sleep on the issue, think it over, and realize that they were in the right, you can say that the next morning. If you've had time to go over the issue with a cool head and you still disagree, that's something that any halfway decent D should at least take into account. So while you can both agree that something said in the moment doesn't actually mean you're through, there should be a way to communicate that this is something you've thought over and still want to do.

Then again, while a CNC scene is easy to picture, I'm having a hard time imagining a CNC relationship that doesn't go to very scary places, very fast.



littleladybug -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/10/2016 10:49:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ReMakeYou


Then again, while a CNC scene is easy to picture, I'm having a hard time imagining a CNC relationship that doesn't go to very scary places, very fast.


Using the definition of CnC that LP gave at the beginning, I can certainly see such a relationship not going to "very scary places". Even without knowing the terminology, I've been in such relationships- not scary in the least.

While HM and I haven't defined our relationship as such, how LP described it pretty much is what it is. I have consented once to his authority. With that being said though, I will also say that my consent was fully informed. I have given him authority over my life after us both coming to an understanding that we agree fully on the things that are fundamentally important to us. Could our perspective on those things change? Sure. Should this happen, we would, I hope, speak about it and come to some new solution or understanding. However, if there is a change on these "big things", it goes beyond the blanket consent that I gave to him at the outset.

When I first came across the concept of CnC as such, my first inclination was to think that it was a way for some people to describe their relationship as "better" or "more" than others. I still think that way to an extent. I see it put out there quite often as a goal. But, really, not my circus, not my monkeys. There's been a lot recently on Fet about this- and people getting hurt from all angles because others are either trying to dictate (or being seen as dictating) what other people's relationships are. I personally find it interesting to read about what others do in their relationships- and take it with the appropriate amount of salt. If someone feels that they cannot leave, that's their prerogative.




Kana -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/10/2016 2:43:51 PM)

quote:

The concept of consent/non consent dynamics, as understood by me, is as follows:

Upon entering the dynamic, the submissive/slave consents one time. From that point on, as long as the dynamic is viable, the /s has agreed to be under the other person's control. They have yielded their authority to another. To bend to their will to align with the person in charge. Decisions are no longer theirs to make.

Except one.

This is the only way I do relationships. Exactly this

quote:

(This is the part that gets me in trouble with some CnC folks.)

I contend that, even in CnC relationships, the s-type holds one decision. That is, to leave the dynamic. They can withdraw their consent in exactly the way they originally gave it. The door they walked in is the same one that they can walk out. As soon as they say they are done, they are free. If they want to leave, they can. All previous agreements are null and void.

(Even more trouble from certain segments of the CnC crowd.)

On some CnC threads, there is a percentage of folks engaging in these dynamics that proclaim, if the s-type leaves, the M has every right to bring them back. This is not so! When your dynamic is over, no one has any claim on the other, and whatever M/s thing that was going on before ceases to exist. No one is entitled to "drag" the other person back against their will. (Yes, I've seen some people really say that.) There is no pulling a person back kicking and screaming. The minute they want to leave, all of the kinky reindeer games are over. That includes sex, BDSM, TPE, D/s, S/m, or any other part of the alphabet soup that we use for our little acronyms.

CnC is NOT consent for life. It is consent ONLY while the dynamic is viable.


I'll pile on by saying that door better be open. If not, in America the least charge is likely Unlawful Detainment and the highest will be Class A kidnapping in accordance with a sex crime which, seeing how she is clearly unwilling, will likely be Class A rape.
Do this puppy in the wrong state, IIRC, you could fry.

Again, Me and LP see eye to eye.
I'll also add that she always has the option to leave, but it is clearly understood that should she exit, that door maybe, likely, will never open for her again.

Have I ever mentioned how much fun it is to taunt a slave with that simple fact.
Torturing the piss out of the meat. It's wailing crying, sobbing, begging.
Breaking.
That's when I like to mention that it can always leave, that it is free to depart at any time...and that failure to do so only demonstrates what a degraded cunt it is and how much more it needs to be hurt for being such a degenerate slut.
Yeah, that's lots of fun there. Big fucking time.
Crucify the slave on the cross of her own desire.
Good times



shiftyw -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/10/2016 3:49:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Which is why those sorts of terms are a non-starter and somewhat "non sequitur".

It is too open-ended and open to mis-interpretation and abuse of the most dangerous kind.
Anything negotiated that is as loose as this needs to be tightened up so it is no longer ambiguous.



^ BAM. The dino said it.
Warning- strong opinion of a rape victim- I will not be easily convinced I'm wrong in this.

I think CnC in general opens up some serious cans of worms.

I never agree to a CnC relationship. I never agree to even be a sub.

Here's why I think this "The only decision you can make is to leave" thing is a bunch of shitty garbage.

It takes a woman an average of 7 tries to leave an abusive relationship. (I admittedly don't know the stats for men...I should- I will look them up when I'm done typing)
I think the pressure of "he really loves me!" and the courage it takes some to walk away is already high enough without "this stuff" muddying the waters. But then I just seem to have a softer spot for victims of domestic abuse- since I'm sure I'll get some "BUT THEY SHOULD PULL THEMSELVES UP BY THEIR BOOTSTRAPS!" responses.

I also think the sub can say fucking no to whatever sex they want in the eyes of the law. And if this is someone you view as a gift or a treasure or what have you...if they say no and you continue to disgrace them, are you really treating them as such? Do you really want to be like "Welp, its either you leave or I rape you...your choice!"? Then they consent because you've just broken down their self esteem THAT much- so its not really rape? like...woof.

I don't think it should be called "consentual non consent" and I think the whole "theory" behind it is pretty flawed.

I CERTAINLY don't think the sub "has" to come back.

But it brings me back to the same question these things always do- namely- why would you want to be with someone who runs from you? Why would you want to force someone into being with you? Isn't a better sign of dominance that they willingly bring down their walls? That they willingly stay by your side? That you don't have to present them with "Rape or leave!" and they just LET you do those sick pervy things to them? ISNT CONSENT SEXIER?

But if those questions were easily answered- rape and abuse wouldn't exist. I suppose.

Thats not to say I think this type of stuff isn't on some level alluring to people. I think its mislabelled and think its mislabelling is done to make it intentionally "more hardcore" and make everyone get a boner for how cool and progressive they are. Or how much more sexually enlightened they are or what have you. Many MANY of my kinky friends are into this- and say that they are. I think ravishment play or...even rape PLAY is a much more convincing label- but they sound like they're out of romance novels so I guess its a little less cool?

I think that the bottom or sub not having ANY control beyond leaving is a bad plan and just NOT what people are really doing in most cases. Everyone here stresses communication- do we all really think this is an effective communication? If I call my safeword or say stop or whatever are you REALLY gonna just blow by it and not talk about it because I "consented to anything at the beginning of the relationship"- like fuck no- no one is going to do that because it would make them a real in the flesh rapist. The sub has more choices, if they don't- I kinda am apt to think thats abuse. If I have no voice beyond that first intial "consenting"- I don't think communicating with my partner is really happening.



crumpets -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/10/2016 5:56:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

The inspiration from this thread comes from another thread. The subject: Consent/non consent.

(Promised I would. I'm going to get my @ss handed to me.)

The concept of consent/non consent dynamics, as understood by me, is as follows:

Upon entering the dynamic, the submissive/slave consents one time. From that point on, as long as the dynamic is viable, the /s has agreed to be under the other person's control. They have yielded their authority to another. To bend to their will to align with the person in charge. Decisions are no longer theirs to make.

Except one.

(This is the part that gets me in trouble with some CnC folks.)

I contend that, even in CnC relationships, the s-type holds one decision. That is, to leave the dynamic. They can withdraw their consent in exactly the way they originally gave it. The door they walked in is the same one that they can walk out. As soon as they say they are done, they are free. If they want to leave, they can. All previous agreements are null and void.

(Even more trouble from certain segments of the CnC crowd.)

On some CnC threads, there is a percentage of folks engaging in these dynamics that proclaim, if the s-type leaves, the M has every right to bring them back. This is not so! When your dynamic is over, no one has any claim on the other, and whatever M/s thing that was going on before ceases to exist. No one is entitled to "drag" the other person back against their will. (Yes, I've seen some people really say that.) There is no pulling a person back kicking and screaming. The minute they want to leave, all of the kinky reindeer games are over. That includes sex, BDSM, TPE, D/s, S/m, or any other part of the alphabet soup that we use for our little acronyms.

CnC is NOT consent for life. It is consent ONLY while the dynamic is viable.

Let the games begin!



Having been "only" a bedroom kinkster, this entire C/NC or meta-consent or blanket-consent situation is wholly new to me (although I've often studied "true" historical slavery among human cultures whenever I could, ever since I was in my college days - where I realized that some form of slavery is part and parcel with the human condition).

Given that (a) this concept is foreign to me, and (b) not everyone will agree, I will take each post separately to try to clarify, for myself, what exactly is being said.

If I may be permitted the option of simply summarizing what LP said above, is this the gist of her statements?
  • A single consent (in a certain format) by the /s yields agreed-upon power to another; while,
  • A single dissent (in that same format) regains the freedom of the /s.

    One question that immediately pops up is what is the "format" & "scope" of the consent?

    I presume it's a physical "contract" such as this contract:
  • CnC Contract

    But, is that the format & scope of consent that the OP had in mind?

    [image]http://kinkipedia.wdfiles.com/local--resized-images/wiki:consensual-non-consent/image.jpg/medium.jpg[/image]



    • catize -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/10/2016 7:31:58 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: shiftyw


    ^ BAM. The dino said it.
    Warning- strong opinion of a rape victim- I will not be easily convinced I'm wrong in this.

    I think CnC in general opens up some serious cans of worms.

    I never agree to a CnC relationship. I never agree to even be a sub.

    Here's why I think this "The only decision you can make is to leave" thing is a bunch of shitty garbage.

    It takes a woman an average of 7 tries to leave an abusive relationship. (I admittedly don't know the stats for men...I should- I will look them up when I'm done typing)
    I think the pressure of "he really loves me!" and the courage it takes some to walk away is already high enough without "this stuff" muddying the waters. But then I just seem to have a softer spot for victims of domestic abuse- since I'm sure I'll get some "BUT THEY SHOULD PULL THEMSELVES UP BY THEIR BOOTSTRAPS!" responses.

    I also think the sub can say fucking no to whatever sex they want in the eyes of the law. And if this is someone you view as a gift or a treasure or what have you...if they say no and you continue to disgrace them, are you really treating them as such? Do you really want to be like "Welp, its either you leave or I rape you...your choice!"? Then they consent because you've just broken down their self esteem THAT much- so its not really rape? like...woof.

    I don't think it should be called "consentual non consent" and I think the whole "theory" behind it is pretty flawed.

    Thats not to say I think this type of stuff isn't on some level alluring to people. I think its mislabelled and think its mislabelling is done to make it intentionally "more hardcore" and make everyone get a boner for how cool and progressive they are. Or how much more sexually enlightened they are or what have you. Many MANY of my kinky friends are into this- and say that they are. I think ravishment play or...even rape PLAY is a much more convincing label- but they sound like they're out of romance novels so I guess its a little less cool?

    I think that the bottom or sub not having ANY control beyond leaving is a bad plan and just NOT what people are really doing in most cases. Everyone here stresses communication- do we all really think this is an effective communication? If I call my safeword or say stop or whatever are you REALLY gonna just blow by it and not talk about it because I "consented to anything at the beginning of the relationship"- like fuck no- no one is going to do that because it would make them a real in the flesh rapist. The sub has more choices, if they don't- I kinda am apt to think thats abuse. If I have no voice beyond that first intial "consenting"- I don't think communicating with my partner is really happening.



    I also wonder what happens to the communication mantra so many of us espouse; My Way or the Highway doesn't seem to encourage communication at all. Is there any such thing as a temporary withdrawal of consent; as in: may we talk this over before you do XYZ to me?

    I think one of the disconnects here is that the folks who talk about a CnC dynamic have been in a long term relationship and the important stuff has already been discussed thoroughly. CnC is not for people just starting a relationship. But I can't fathom a state of D/s that never hits a snag of some kind, where the submissive never has hesitations or second thoughts about their consent.



    DesFIP -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/10/2016 8:34:46 PM)

    I don't think every divorce in this country is the result of abuse

    Most TPE relationships I know of look like every other vanilla relationship. We raise families, visit grandkids, discuss what we want to do, and so on. The difference being that he can overrule my decisions if he wanted to.

    Unfortunately, there's a tendency for people who haven't ever been in one of them to bring it down to "what if he decided to amputate your limb?". The answer to that is the same one my vanilla friends would give if you asked about their husbands doing that. We don't pick creeps to get into relationships with. He's a good person and wouldn't do things that would violate his moral code.

    I know lots of people who own chainsaws. None of their wives sits there worrying that the men will decide to enact a horror movie/snuff film on them. They're all about "thank God he's finally dropping that half dead tree".

    I've never been in an abusive relationship. Not boyfriend, not husband, not anything. It's always been important to me to know my own boundaries and to strongly enforce them.
    As a result, I don't pick abusers for partners. Since I only pick other people who also are big on self awareness and having healthy boundaries, these things you folks worry about are non events for me.

    To circle back to the original question, as a result of him being this really good person, he wouldn't want to be with someone who felt horrible being with him. He wants to be with someone who loves him as much as he loves her. That's important to him. So if it was made clear that I had been lying to him for months, pretending to still want him when I actually had come to loathe him, then he wouldn't keep me there. Why should he when it wouldn't give him anything?

    But that's a lot different than seeing your partner isn't able to think clearly and taking steps to keep them safe until they could think clearly again.

    And if he did act totally out of character and start chasing me with a chain saw? I'd assume he had a stroke and needed medical care. And I'd get it for him in exactly the same way that he would get me the help I needed if I suddenly acted out of character and ran away.



    LilJuly76 -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/11/2016 3:26:39 AM)

    bingo I don't think CnC should be at the start of a BDSM relationship either. When I come across newer submissives both male and female coming into it, I always stress get to know the person first before you make that kind of commitment, a lot of them come in and say "oh yes Master I'll do whatever you want Master just fuck me real hard and slap me Master." Next thing you know some asshole convinces them to sign over their house, car, bank accounts to them. True story, I actually came across someone that actually happened to them and no matter how much I tried to tell them to go to the police, they stated "well my Master says I'm not allowed."



    BitaTruble -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/11/2016 9:09:06 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: catize



    I also wonder what happens to the communication mantra so many of us espouse; My Way or the Highway doesn't seem to encourage communication at all.


    I like My Way or the Highway because for me it seems to be the best form of communication. It clearly spells out exactly what he wants, seeks, expects.. that seems pretty clear to me. That allows someone who doesn't find the path to their liking to move along to the next one and the one who does like it to go ahead and follow. What is doesn't allow for is compromise.. a big difference.

    Along with the right to leave, you also need the ability, will and desire to leave otherwise the rights are useless. Might as well trade them in for an Xbox. (Don't give rights away for a PS4.. an Xbox has an X and a box .. trust me.. it's way sexier and, besides, you should already have a PS4.)




    shiftyw -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/11/2016 2:55:49 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: catize



    I also wonder what happens to the communication mantra so many of us espouse; My Way or the Highway doesn't seem to encourage communication at all.


    I like My Way or the Highway because for me it seems to be the best form of communication. It clearly spells out exactly what he wants, seeks, expects.. that seems pretty clear to me. That allows someone who doesn't find the path to their liking to move along to the next one and the one who does like it to go ahead and follow. What is doesn't allow for is compromise.. a big difference.

    Along with the right to leave, you also need the ability, will and desire to leave otherwise the rights are useless. Might as well trade them in for an Xbox. (Don't give rights away for a PS4.. an Xbox has an X and a box .. trust me.. it's way sexier and, besides, you should already have a PS4.)




    What I'm saying is- to me- and we've seen it here dozens, nay, hundreds of times- people change expectations.
    I think it is incredibly unrealistic to expect everyones limits and desires to stay the same throughout their lifetime.
    When I got into this with my guy- anal was off the table for both of us. He broached the topic, we discussed it. It wasn't a big pouty "Well I want anal now and if you don't like that you can leave!"- I'm personally- a lot more likely to get to a place where I am open to doing something without shitty ultimatums over my head. As a manager- in my every day life- I would NEVER treat an employee like that. I get final say over them working there- and they can leave whenever they want- but I don't think I'd be a good manager if something (not life or death or safety risk) didn't go the way I wanted it to- I told them its either do this- or leave. I'd take them aside, and work it out instead. Anyone can be bossy- but to me- keeping someone willing to follow your orders is a much better management style.

    Take it or leave is a cop out to me.

    While I understand that hundreds of people own chainsaws- and their wives aren't worried about being chopped up- CERTAINLY some of their wives are.
    Certainly SOME CnC people ARE creeps. Some TPE is abuse. Where that begins and ends- for me- is blurry. We've allllllll seen shit on here that really proves that. Consent isn't as clear as making someone tea- even though we all wish it were.

    I guess I just think keeping the discussion to "Well if you don't like this *insert act here* then you can leave" is really a method of shutting down communication rather than opening it up. Its not how I would start a dialogue about anything. (Unless it were like "If you can't not shake this baby, then you can leave"- obviously exceptions to every rule...)



    newatdis -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/11/2016 3:13:45 PM)

    Informative, and I have wondered about some of the things you have discussed.



    UllrsIshtar -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/11/2016 4:39:14 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: shiftyw

    Certainly SOME CnC people ARE creeps. Some TPE is abuse. Where that begins and ends- for me- is blurry.


    The difference between an abusive, and non-abusive TPE relationship (or any relationship really) comes down to: Is the relationship symbiotic, or parasitic?

    As long as it's a symbiotic relationship, where both parties are getting (somewhat approximating equal) benefit out being together, and are both getting (somewhat approximating equally) their needs met, it's not abusive. In a symbiotic relationship, both members thrive.

    Once that table turns, and the relationship becomes parasitic, one party feeds of the other one at great cost to the 'victim', without the 'victim' getting benefits, it's abusive. In a parasitic relationship, one party thrives, while the other one withers away.

    Thinking about whether a dynamic is parasitic or symbiotic, is a great way to get past the fact that we have all different needs. What would be right for me, and is symbiotic for me, might very well be bad for you, and parasitic for you.
    However, when you put yourself in the mindset of both parties involved, and judge whether it's parasitic or symbiotic for them, instead of for you, and you look whether it's both, or just one of them, who is thriving, the difference between abuse or not usually becomes quite clear. Even if it's a relationship you personally wouldn't thrive in.




    dreamlady -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/12/2016 1:33:11 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: shiftyw

    What I'm saying is- to me- and we've seen it here dozens, nay, hundreds of times- people change expectations.
    I think it is incredibly unrealistic to expect everyones limits and desires to stay the same throughout their lifetime.
    . . .
    Take it or leave is a cop out to me.
    . . .
    I guess I just think keeping the discussion to "Well if you don't like this *insert act here* then you can leave" is really a method of shutting down communication rather than opening it up. Its not how I would start a dialogue about anything.

    I think that you and I see eye to eye on these issues. I am not comfortable with CNC -- it's that "non-consent" part which really rubs me the wrong way. I'm also not comfortable with any sort of Once-and-For-All D/s negotiation which becomes sempre e per sempre; and although there are submissives who go for that kind of M/s version of D/s, I believe a caring Dominant would know better than to invariably take a "My Way or the Highway" approach to an intimate relationship.

    As for limits changing, I hear most submissives saying their limits have shifted and relaxed over time; a good number of Dominants will insist upon pushing limits.

    What would be patently wrong (unfair to the D/s relationship) would be for a Dominant who is cut from this kind of cloth to choose a submissive who is not amenable to being pressured into "consenting" to ad hoc CNC ultimata.

    That's when the potential for matters to go south in a downward spiral is a predictable outcome more often than not.

    DreamLady



    littleladybug -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/12/2016 7:45:05 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: shiftyw

    I think that the bottom or sub not having ANY control beyond leaving is a bad plan and just NOT what people are really doing in most cases. Everyone here stresses communication- do we all really think this is an effective communication? If I call my safeword or say stop or whatever are you REALLY gonna just blow by it and not talk about it because I "consented to anything at the beginning of the relationship"- like fuck no- no one is going to do that because it would make them a real in the flesh rapist. The sub has more choices, if they don't- I kinda am apt to think thats abuse. If I have no voice beyond that first intial "consenting"- I don't think communicating with my partner is really happening.



    In our case, it's certainly NOT a question of me having "no voice". I am, in fact, encouraged to let him know what is going on- both good and bad.

    What I've given him is the power of veto in very many things. I am not interested in having to deal with discussions and negotiations at every turn.



    UllrsIshtar -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/12/2016 7:48:24 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: dreamlady

    I think that you and I see eye to eye on these issues. I am not comfortable with CNC -- it's that "non-consent" part which really rubs me the wrong way. I'm also not comfortable with any sort of Once-and-For-All D/s negotiation which becomes sempre e per sempre; and although there are submissives who go for that kind of M/s version of D/s, I believe a caring Dominant would know better than to invariably take a "My Way or the Highway" approach to an intimate relationship.
    DreamLady


    I personally don't engage in consensual non-consent relationships of the type LP laid out in the OP (once you consent you're not allowed to revoke consent or leave).

    However, I do engage in CnC play.

    In this type of play, I negotiate that, for the duration of play, I consent, and that any withdraw of consent is invalid, and can be ignored by the Top.
    In this type of play, limits, and the duration of the play is heavily negotiated, and I only engage in it with people whom I implicitly trust (to not pull out chainsaws).

    The times where I've actually engaged in it are rare, especially considering how risky it is for the Top in question. It's essential that they can fully trust me to stand by my word that I really do want this, and that if the shit hits the fan, and they miscalculate, and we hit a serious issue, I'm not going to accuse them of being some horrible abuser later for making a mistake, and instead we'll get through it together without involving third parties.

    The reason I engage engaging in this type of play is because I'm physically incapable of enduring some of the harder type play that I love to do, without me hitting the point where -in the moment- I feel like I can't take it anymore, and attempt to make them stop, including using safewords. While if they do stop, it always results in disappointment later.

    Agreeing to CnC for a heavily negotiated play session allows me the freedom to not hold back my natural responses, even if those natural responses are attempting to get them to stop with every fiber of my being.

    Pushing myself past the boundaries of what I feel I can take, and what I can maintain a full consent to in the moment, has actually helped me to get to be able to enjoy some types of play now without CnC agreements, where before, I couldn't get past the pain and panic long enough to find out "I'm really okay doing this, even if it's scary and it hurts".

    Anal is a big example (huge trigger for me). For the most part, I really want to enjoy it, but every single time, initially it hurts enough that it drives me to a panic that I used to be absolutely unable to push past without safewording. Giving certain people the blank permission of: "I want you to do this, and I want you to not stop until you cum, regardless of what I say and do, including safewords", has given me the opportunity to not only find out that, after I get past the initial panic and pain, and finally 'give in' and start to relax, I really enjoy it, but it's also allowed me to be able to control my feelings enough in certain circumstances so that I can get to the point of relaxing without panicking and safewording.

    CnC is something that I use to explore the boundaries of what I'm physically capable of, past the point of what I feel -in the moment- I'm physically capable of.

    However, in a relationship dynamic I hold that somebody is generally not able to give up the right to revoke consent (though they're able to lose the ability to revoke consent) because if one is choosing to give the Top the right to ignore a revoke of consent when somebody wants to leave, and they really want to leave badly enough, eventually it will escalate to getting law-enforcement involved.

    It's different when it's a temporary episode of somebody freaking out, and the other party refuses to let them leave until they're settled down. Hell I've done that with Ullr, when he was freaking out, by taking his car keys away because I deemed him 'not safe to drive', and we're not even remotely in a CnC relationship.
    But in a TPE relationship based on CnC, where the slave wants to leave for weeks/months, and the Top stubbornly holds to the fact that they can use force to prevent that, and force to bring the slave back when they 'run away', and that the slave is NEVER allowed to leave, eventually the cops are gonna get called.

    Pretty much the only way to prevent that is permanently locking them in a basement or something (and not saying that doesn't happen, because it obviously sometimes does) and when that's your path to a "BDSM relationship" I seriously have to start wondering how you're any different from somebody kidnapping random strangers off the street to hold them captive...

    No matter what you've agreed to in the beginning of the relationship, if somebody can revoke consent, and they want to, they're going to. And if you insist on maintaining that you have the right to force them not to leave after they have revoked consent, you've pretty much decided that keeping them is worth going to jail over... which doesn't really seem like a sensible decision to me...





    BitaTruble -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/12/2016 9:08:43 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: catize



    My Way or the Highway doesn't seem to encourage communication at all.


    Well, when someone tells me they are into cutting off nipples with chainsaws, that does make me react a certain way and it's not to open up my mouth and pretend there's actually a discussion regarding cutting of my nipples which needs to take place. Imma pass on that one. ::chuckles:: Highway works really well for me when chainsaws are used in the same sentence as nipples. ;P I guess I see it as trying to talk someone out of something they know they want. Compromise is fine and dandy, but for me, it makes me feel icky to ask someone to give up something they really want just because I don't want it especially when the odds are there is going to be someone out there who doesn't need to compromise to give someone what they want.

    I want someone who wants the same things. I don't want someone who has to wear a mask or pretend they like or don't like something. That never lasts. I'd rather know up front so that neither of us waste time.

    quote:

    Is there any such thing as a temporary withdrawal of consent; as in: may we talk this over before you do XYZ to me?



    I still see this as an issue of compromise and negotiation with the end result being exactly the same. After all the talk is complete, after all is said and done, dominants get their way and their followers get to choose whether or not that 'way' is in sync and if it's not in sync, then.. hit the Highway.. what choices are there, really, when compromise is not an option? My Way or the Highway is the 'end' of.. when the talk is all done. What's the action which takes place?

    Stay or go?

    quote:

    I think one of the disconnects here is that the folks who talk about a CnC dynamic have been in a long term relationship and the important stuff has already been discussed thoroughly. CnC is not for people just starting a relationship.

    I agree with this and I wouldn't get involved 'now' in a relation that didn't have that potential but I've been around the block a time or two.

    quote:

    But I can't fathom a state of D/s that never hits a snag of some kind, where the submissive never has hesitations or second thoughts about their consent.

    Relationships hit snags. That's pretty par for the course when dealing with humans trying to interact. Michael and I had two major blowouts in the time we had together. One over his health and the other over mine.. both of those took place before our relationship settled into CnC.

    We were about 90% awesome, 5% suckage and 5% too exhausted from the 90% awesome that we didn't worry too much about the 5% suckage.





    shiftyw -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/12/2016 5:56:43 PM)

    "those took place before our relationship settled into CnC."

    ^ That to me- means it wasn't my way or the highway. Take it or leave. That to me sounds like a renegotiation. Which as I understand it- isn't a part of this dogma.

    So I guess thats what I don't understand- it isn't "here's the deal, consent once and we're good"? But I've heard MANY of my very domly friends here say they won't renegotiate. So which is it? Its confusing- and wishy washy- and unrealistic.

    If it isn't 100% my way or the highway- then it isn't without renegotiation, right? Like am I so dense that I'm not understanding that?

    Like I already said though- I think CnC is a messy, tricky, can of worms. I understand its a common kink, I understand I have good friends into it, and I understand that a lot of people aim for "my way or the highway". I get that I am going to get a lot of "You don't do it- so you don't get it." and maybe thats it, but I just usually end up rolling my eyes. You don't actually want the "non consent" of someone you're supposed to love. I think the rhetoric opens the door for a whole bunch of dick swinging newbs to become abusers or subs become abused. I think the "macho" image that has become associated with it does a disservice for healthy and good relationships. And I think ultimatums are, in most reasonable situations that a relationship might face- pretty much unnecessary (again, exceptions to every rule- if I want a baby and he doesn't- I'm out the door full stop). I just think some of the rhetoric and image associated with it is false, overblown, and kinda silly, yet at the same time- dangerous.

    This whole question- Does the sub HAVE to come back? Should that be how its done? is a dangerous thing in my opinion- it frightens me that a Dom would have their bluff called on them by the sub and they would want them back after a digression was made so large that they considered ending the relationship. Or the idea that a sub might feel some obligation to return to what I would consider a dangerous relationship with someone who considers their kink or whatever it was you didn't want to do so badly that you ended things, above your feelings.



    Kaliko -> RE: Let's get it on... The CnC thread (2/13/2016 4:50:50 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: shiftyw

    "those took place before our relationship settled into CnC."

    ^ That to me- means it wasn't my way or the highway. Take it or leave. That to me sounds like a renegotiation. Which as I understand it- isn't a part of this dogma.

    So I guess thats what I don't understand- it isn't "here's the deal, consent once and we're good"? But I've heard MANY of my very domly friends here say they won't renegotiate. So which is it? Its confusing- and wishy washy- and unrealistic.



    We didn't "negotiate" anything, so really, there's nothing to renegotiate. I think anybody would describe our relationship as CNC (though we haven't actually applied that label to ourselves) but that doesn't mean I can't say "I don't want to do that." I can tell him why, he listens, he makes a decision, and then that's what happens, even if I'm ever so unhappy with it. You could call that a renegotiation, I guess, and if people in a relationship are claiming that this bit of communication never happens, then I think they're not being entirely truthful. As you say, it's unrealistic, in my opinion.

    quote:



    If it isn't 100% my way or the highway- then it isn't without renegotiation, right? Like am I so dense that I'm not understanding that?



    Maybe I'm not understanding what your friends are saying. Because again, I just can't imagine going my entire life without ever looking at him with my brow furrowed and a quizzical expression and maybe some exhaustion or irritability and saying "What...really? Really??" LOL And then we talk about it and he makes a decision and maybe he changes something about his expectations. Or we don't talk about it and he does what he wants with me or to me anyway. It's up to him, and that is what never changes. His authority at all times is not up for (re)negotiation.



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

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    6.201172E-02