Brutal insensitivity
- Thread starter Marquis
- Start date
RJMasters
workaholic
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Posts
- 4,298
I'm going to go with brutally uncompromising within the box of consent for 500 alex.
Within any relationship, there are some givens. Consent is given when both people want to be in the relationship. Things then operate from inside that box of consent. But consent is only given when things are known as to what to expect. There are pseudo promises formed based on expectations of what one will get from out of the relationship. Therefore it is paramount that honesty upfront be made, and ongoing communication when changes begin to occurr throughout the relationship so that consent can also change in an equal fashion.
It is unrealistic to enter into a relationship based off an understanding that the realtionship will be X, Y and Z, and then the other partner changes x, y and z and then says the other partner is just going to have to deal with it, from an insensitive stand point.
Brutal insensitivity carries with it the connotation that the Dominant in the relationship is not accountable for their actions. They can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. In my opinion, this is a romantic notion and does work out well in real life.
What if a Master decided that from this day forward they no longer wanted to live as a D/s or M/s couple but vanilla. Can the relationship survive if the Master is insensitive to what the sub/slave wants? No. They did not consent to a vanilla relationship.
Does this mean the Dominant has to consult with the submissive or slave in the decisions that they make? Of course not, but to make decisions without caring or being insensitive to the affects(effects?) it will have upon them is not gonna fly either.
Honesty - upfront
Uncompromising - Within the box of consent
Consistency - in behavior
Rinse wash repeat.
I think Insensitivity is the wrong way to approach anykind of relationship. If a dominant gets to the point where they feel Insensitivity is required, then I would say something got twisted back in the honesty and consenting phase and its time to sit down and talk about it because someone is not living up to what they consented to or someone is not taking responsibility for their actions.
Is it the right of the Dominant to do what they want? Yes. But keep in mind that depending what that is, a submissive or a slave may not be able to follow. Being insensitive to that fact will end the relationship, and that is not the fault of the submissve/slave for not submitting. The Dominant may still feel its the right decision for them, but they better be prepared for the consequences of such a decision and not try to shift blame.
As an example, if it is agreed upon to have a monogimous relationship, but later the Dominant wishes to to add another submissive or slave, Such a decision cannot be made with insensitivty. If it is done, then it is a decision that falls outside of what the other person consented to.
Likewise if in a poly relationship, consent is given, but stipulations are put in place to govern it, The dominant/submissive cannot break those stipulations without consequences, because that is what the consent was based upon to begin with.
So in conclusion...uncompromising within the box of consent...sure. Being insensitive to go outside the box of consent...nope.
Within any relationship, there are some givens. Consent is given when both people want to be in the relationship. Things then operate from inside that box of consent. But consent is only given when things are known as to what to expect. There are pseudo promises formed based on expectations of what one will get from out of the relationship. Therefore it is paramount that honesty upfront be made, and ongoing communication when changes begin to occurr throughout the relationship so that consent can also change in an equal fashion.
It is unrealistic to enter into a relationship based off an understanding that the realtionship will be X, Y and Z, and then the other partner changes x, y and z and then says the other partner is just going to have to deal with it, from an insensitive stand point.
Brutal insensitivity carries with it the connotation that the Dominant in the relationship is not accountable for their actions. They can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. In my opinion, this is a romantic notion and does work out well in real life.
What if a Master decided that from this day forward they no longer wanted to live as a D/s or M/s couple but vanilla. Can the relationship survive if the Master is insensitive to what the sub/slave wants? No. They did not consent to a vanilla relationship.
Does this mean the Dominant has to consult with the submissive or slave in the decisions that they make? Of course not, but to make decisions without caring or being insensitive to the affects(effects?) it will have upon them is not gonna fly either.
Honesty - upfront
Uncompromising - Within the box of consent
Consistency - in behavior
Rinse wash repeat.
I think Insensitivity is the wrong way to approach anykind of relationship. If a dominant gets to the point where they feel Insensitivity is required, then I would say something got twisted back in the honesty and consenting phase and its time to sit down and talk about it because someone is not living up to what they consented to or someone is not taking responsibility for their actions.
Is it the right of the Dominant to do what they want? Yes. But keep in mind that depending what that is, a submissive or a slave may not be able to follow. Being insensitive to that fact will end the relationship, and that is not the fault of the submissve/slave for not submitting. The Dominant may still feel its the right decision for them, but they better be prepared for the consequences of such a decision and not try to shift blame.
As an example, if it is agreed upon to have a monogimous relationship, but later the Dominant wishes to to add another submissive or slave, Such a decision cannot be made with insensitivty. If it is done, then it is a decision that falls outside of what the other person consented to.
Likewise if in a poly relationship, consent is given, but stipulations are put in place to govern it, The dominant/submissive cannot break those stipulations without consequences, because that is what the consent was based upon to begin with.
So in conclusion...uncompromising within the box of consent...sure. Being insensitive to go outside the box of consent...nope.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
RJMasters said:
Good post RJ.
Catalina
ObsidianRose
I alone tempt you
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Posts
- 2,164
Marquis said:
Brutal insensitivity is, perhaps, a relative term, no? Interesting from one who intimates that he finds relativity to be risky business.
Still, what is one considers brutal insensitivity might very well be an adorable little quirk to another. Apparently not to your former submissive...but you know what I mean.
I am sorry for your break up, Marquis.
Here's to hoping you don't get shanked for starting this thread! LOL Thus far, it has made for a fascinating discussion.
Last edited:
ObsidianRose
I alone tempt you
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Posts
- 2,164
RJMasters said:
Damn, that RJ is sexy, ain't he?? I love a man with some home trainin'.
Well said, RJ.
RJMasters
workaholic
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Posts
- 4,298
Thank you all for reading it and understanding what I was trying to say. I think in part the reason why I was able to write the post was because I have been wrestling with the forced submission issue which I started in the other thread.
It is curious to me that there are similarities between the two.
When you put them side by side:
Brutal Insensitivity --- Forced Submission
Each give off two distinct odors. One that smells false and the other which smells true. As I have been trying to write my summation for the "forced submission" thread, the false ordor seems to originate from "not caring" whether or not the submissive wants to submit or not. Whereas the odor which smells right, has at the heart of it a definate "caring" as to whether or not the submissive wants to submit or not.
Netzach made such a great post about forced submission
Consider the following two perspectives.
A submissive/slave says to the their dominant: "I am yours to do with as you will"
A dominant says to their submissive/slave: "You are mine to do with as I please"
Admittedly both of the above statements could mean alot of things depending on the context when each is said, however in the context of this disucssion, the first makes it clear it is within the box of consent even if the dominant is being uncompromising. The later takes the wrong fork in the road and gives the conotation that I don't care if this is something you consent to or not, I am going to get my way.
Which of the two will deepen the trust and strengthen the relationship, and which will lessen the trust and erode the relationship?
Sometimes a person has to do what they have to do regardless, but they should not equate that as the same as dominating another. And understanding the difference is very, very important. Perhaps that is one of the key truths in understanding the difference between being just a dominant and being a Dom/Master to another human being.
It is curious to me that there are similarities between the two.
When you put them side by side:
Brutal Insensitivity --- Forced Submission
Each give off two distinct odors. One that smells false and the other which smells true. As I have been trying to write my summation for the "forced submission" thread, the false ordor seems to originate from "not caring" whether or not the submissive wants to submit or not. Whereas the odor which smells right, has at the heart of it a definate "caring" as to whether or not the submissive wants to submit or not.
Netzach made such a great post about forced submission
Consider the following two perspectives.
A submissive/slave says to the their dominant: "I am yours to do with as you will"
A dominant says to their submissive/slave: "You are mine to do with as I please"
Admittedly both of the above statements could mean alot of things depending on the context when each is said, however in the context of this disucssion, the first makes it clear it is within the box of consent even if the dominant is being uncompromising. The later takes the wrong fork in the road and gives the conotation that I don't care if this is something you consent to or not, I am going to get my way.
Which of the two will deepen the trust and strengthen the relationship, and which will lessen the trust and erode the relationship?
Sometimes a person has to do what they have to do regardless, but they should not equate that as the same as dominating another. And understanding the difference is very, very important. Perhaps that is one of the key truths in understanding the difference between being just a dominant and being a Dom/Master to another human being.
Marquis
Jack Dawkins
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2002
- Posts
- 10,462
I want to open this topic back up with a recent example.
C is in the kitchen now, cleaning up after a meal I made for us. Part of the agreement in our breakup was that she would no longer do extraneous cleaning, only that cleaning which stems from a common nucleus of related fact. OK, I just wanted to throw in some legal shit, the agreement was that she clean only things relating to her activities here.
In any case, she came in to make a big announcement that she was not making the bed, since she did not sleep in it last night.
Wait a minute...
that lying bitch, she DID sleep in it last night!!! I'll be right back..
as I was saying.
I could've said "fair enough" and let it go. Seems that would be the fair thing to do. She's obviously not feeling like she's not getting her fair part of the bargain in this relationship, and it isn't right of me to leave her shorted.
So what did I do? Make the bed myself?
Nay, I beat her ass with a heavy brown leather belt until she cowered in a corner and stuck her palms out defensively, which I then struck with the strap like Goldie the Mack.
Now she made my bed, and I think, no I know, that she is a little more at peace. Better to live in an unfair world, consistently, then to have absolute freedom with nothing you can count on.
Am I even making any sense?
What I'm trying to say is that the bed needs to be made. I know she wants it made, it bothers her not to have it made, and I ain't doing it. At least she didn't do it willfully. At least she HAD to do it.
Forget all the lollypop soda shop domination being peddled all over the internet like spam. This is how it gets done baby! Yeah!
Suck my dick.
C is in the kitchen now, cleaning up after a meal I made for us. Part of the agreement in our breakup was that she would no longer do extraneous cleaning, only that cleaning which stems from a common nucleus of related fact. OK, I just wanted to throw in some legal shit, the agreement was that she clean only things relating to her activities here.
In any case, she came in to make a big announcement that she was not making the bed, since she did not sleep in it last night.
Wait a minute...
that lying bitch, she DID sleep in it last night!!! I'll be right back..
as I was saying.
I could've said "fair enough" and let it go. Seems that would be the fair thing to do. She's obviously not feeling like she's not getting her fair part of the bargain in this relationship, and it isn't right of me to leave her shorted.
So what did I do? Make the bed myself?
Nay, I beat her ass with a heavy brown leather belt until she cowered in a corner and stuck her palms out defensively, which I then struck with the strap like Goldie the Mack.
Now she made my bed, and I think, no I know, that she is a little more at peace. Better to live in an unfair world, consistently, then to have absolute freedom with nothing you can count on.
Am I even making any sense?
What I'm trying to say is that the bed needs to be made. I know she wants it made, it bothers her not to have it made, and I ain't doing it. At least she didn't do it willfully. At least she HAD to do it.
Forget all the lollypop soda shop domination being peddled all over the internet like spam. This is how it gets done baby! Yeah!
Suck my dick.
bridgeburner
threadkiller
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 2,712
You sounded great until you said "Suck my dick!" and then I got an image of you morphing into Demi Moore. ;->
ObsidianRose
I alone tempt you
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Posts
- 2,164
Stuponfucious said:
Oh, damn.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
Marquis said:
That about sums it up.
Man, lose that @#$% "av". It makes me feel like crying.
sincerely_helene
Pending Approval.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
Marquis said:
Did your pants fall down?
Guess so.
ObsidianRose
I alone tempt you
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Posts
- 2,164
Marquis said:
You did no such thing! LOL
Marquis
Jack Dawkins
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2002
- Posts
- 10,462
Stuponfucious said:
I always get called the worst things by the worst people.
I am going to give you a tool young man, listen.
This is something you can use to help yourself for the rest of your life.
Never lie, but be very careful of what you say, and what you do not say.
Mystery is a powerful tool.
ObsidianRose
I alone tempt you
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Posts
- 2,164
Crackin' up over here. God, you're KILLIN' me, Marquis. Seriously.
God, my side hurts now. Thanks a lot, buddy!
God, my side hurts now. Thanks a lot, buddy!
