Ignoring as a punishment.

[Homburg]

This is a good example. MIS is damaged. I recognise and acknowledge this. Yet she has never told me not to do this, as it is not her place. She has explained the situation, and I know the risks. She also knows that shunning is a punishment I use in dire situations. Does that mean that I should not shun, or that she should work to assure that things do not get pushed to that point?

I don't do this because she failed to make the bed. I don't do this because she was mouthy with me. I do this level of punishment because something truly fucked has happened and anything else might lead to reactions I don't want to foist on anyone. In other words, I'm pissed almost beyond control, and removal of my presence is both punishment and a means of protection for both of us.

So should I not use this technique? Should I not acknowledge that there are a very few things that can push me to the edge of control, and I should subject us both to that possibility because she is damaged? We're talking about serious shit too, not common minor things. This has happened once in the past seven years or so across all of my D/s relationships.

There is a disconnect in this thread. The question was about ignoring as a specific punishment, and a lot of the damage responses are from people who were ignored in non-D/s relationships, or outside of punishment in a D/s relationship. The ignoring was part of a pattern of emotional neglect, not a specific targetted punishment. As a result, I personally think that we're talking apples and oranges in a way.

Some people may call it a deal breaker, but I say that in a healthy relationship, being pointedly and explicitly ignored for an evening (or whatever amount of time), with full knowledge of how long it would last, and why you are being ignored, would be a very effective, and serious punishment for an appropriately serious offense. Knowing that it was a possibility would be a motivator. MIS knows that this sort of punishment is in my repetoire, no matter how much _I_ hate it too.

That said, shunning is a weapon of last resort for me. It is the final line. It is less a punishment and more a lesson. You have failed me utterly and deeply, and I am going to remove myself from your presence as much as possible. It's a warning. Continue this behaviour and you will experience this on a more profound level as I will remove myself completely.

 

[intothewoods]

For the people who are saying "btdt and it damaged me so much I'd never accept it"

are you honestly saying that you can't possibly see the same action having a totally different implication in a good relationship, versus in prior bad relationships?

Also, the same action will have a different effect on different people, who may not even see it as ignoring.

In my past relationships up until the time I got married, I panicked if I didn't hear from the person often enough and receive a certain level of attention. I felt like it meant he didn't really love me.

I am not equating this to abuse, mind you. Just that I see this reaction a lot in people with emotional or self esteem issues. Just my opinion, but I think it's worth doing some work on this for yourself. You cannot control the behavior of anyone else, and you cannot control the outcome of your relationship. Your partner can remind you 400 times a day that he or she loves you, and it still might fail.

I see these fearful, frantic posts around here so often from people who are scared to death of being abandoned. Face the fear of being alone. It can be very freeing.

 

[Caitlynne]

There is a disconnect in this thread. The question was about ignoring as a specific punishment, and a lot of the damage responses are from people who were ignored in non-D/s relationships, or outside of punishment in a D/s relationship. The ignoring was part of a pattern of emotional neglect, not a specific targetted punishment. As a result, I personally think that we're talking apples and oranges in a way. [emphasis added by cait]

Some people may call it a deal breaker, but I say that in a healthy relationship, being pointedly and explicitly ignored for an evening (or whatever amount of time), with full knowledge of how long it would last, and why you are being ignored, would be a very effective, and serious punishment for an appropriately serious offense. Knowing that it was a possibility would be a motivator. MIS knows that this sort of punishment is in my repetoire, no matter how much _I_ hate it too.

That said, shunning is a weapon of last resort for me. It is the final line. It is less a punishment and more a lesson. You have failed me utterly and deeply, and I am going to remove myself from your presence as much as possible. It's a warning. Continue this behaviour and you will experience this on a more profound level as I will remove myself completely.

I agree. I think the topic has developed into two different conversations. One is the issue of neglect and the other an issue of the use of shunning as a punishment.

Emotional neglect in relationships is damaging. There is no question of that.

Shunning on the other hand is one of the most effective ways to modify behavior known. It works better than physical punishment. There are whole cultures based on the use of shunning to modify behavior.

The problem I think we're having in this discussion is that the line between emotional abuse through neglect and possible punishment through shunning is razor thin for some submissives. It could be a trigger for some subs.

I want to add something here. Something I'm not sure I understand completley, so bear with me and know I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm only asking questions.

The thought of telling a Dom that he can never ignore me is kinda impossible for me to wrap my brain around. I mean for those that say it is a hard limit, isn't it really a demand for constant attention? I know the emotional complications and implications you subs are referring to, but in the end, isn't it a constant demand for attention? Isn't that demand in essence then running the relationship?

I just can't understand how anyone could comply with a "never ignore me". All people need time and space to themselves. Sometimes he/or she explains that need, sometimes they don't. It's still a human need to withdraw and be unto oneself. Dominants are no different. Heck, they just might want to spend time with other people. That can be a form of rest and relaxation too.

I'm not talking about the abusive kind of ignoring. I know too well what that can do to a person. But I am talking about the solution to that abuse in future relationships. Is it really viable to say "ignoring me is a hard limit?"

I ask this because when I was new in the scene, I had "yelling at me" as a hard limit. I carried a lot of damage around and it was triggered by a raised voice. As I look back on that hard limit, I can see that although I indeed was triggered by yelling, it was an impossible limit to honor in the end. It essentially guaranteed me that no matter what I did, he could never yell at me. And believe me when I was younger I did things .... well, let's just say, I didn't hold up my part of the bargain in D/s.

It's not that yelling wasn't a trigger; it was. It's that I made it a hard limit and it ended up being a something that tried to regulate his behavior. It wasn't like any other hard limit; i.e., I don't do scat, etc. It was actually a limit that was going to modify another's behavior. So I was running the relationship in a way.

Now, that I'm grown up, LOL [or at least more experienced], I know to let a Dominant know what my triggers are and then submit, trusting that he knows what he is doing and will keep me safe and/or deal with the consequences if a trigger is activated.

This whole ignoring thing feels a lot like my yelling thing.

Did any of that make sense?

 

[Caitlynne]

A

I am not equating this to abuse, mind you. Just that I see this reaction a lot in people with emotional or self esteem issues. Just my opinion, but I think it's worth doing some work on this for yourself. You cannot control the behavior of anyone else, and you cannot control the outcome of your relationship.

OK, you said what I really meant. LOL. I should have just waited a few minutes as we posted simultaneously.

 

[ataxia.girl]

The thought of telling a Dom that he can never ignore me is kinda impossible for me to wrap my brain around. I mean for those that say it is a hard limit, isn't it really a demand for constant attention? I know the emotional complications and implications you subs are referring to, but in the end, isn't it a constant demand for attention? Isn't that demand in essence then running the relationship?

i agree completely. i hate being ignored, i mean really hate it and i am careful to find out if a potential Dom likes to do that for that very reason but i would not try to tell a Dom i trusted that it was off the table. i have noticed that most Dominants who like to use ignore to modify behaivor throw out the threat of ending relationships if they are displeased very quickly. my abadonment radar goes off and i take a very hard look at whether i want to be involved with this person, usually i don't. In fact i can't think of anyone who has even hinted they might leave the relatioship if i misbehave that i have continued to play with simply because i know i will do whatever it is just to test them. i'm a tester. i have to know that i can trust them to stick it out and make it work even if i do x, y or z.

i have no problem with a Dominant i trust using controlled ignoring for either sadistic or punitive purposes. i don't like it and if done too often there may be some chaotic consequences they probably won't like having to deal with later but i wouldn't tell them they couldn't use it.

my preference is always to submit out of a place of devotion and desire to make my Dominant happy, not out of fear of being punished, ignored, or abandoned. On the other hand if the Dominant wants to see me submit out of fear after trust has been established i'm really fine with that. Maybe fear and loathing is something they want to play with. Once committed i don't really like anything to be off the table. That doesn't mean i don't choose carefully going in and try to avoid those who i don't think would use the fear card responsibly with full knowledge what they were doing, but really if someone is going to play a no-rules game like that with me then they need to be prepared for every card i have in my hand as well.

 

[Caitlynne]

^ Excellent post!

 

[ataxia.girl]

^ Excellent post!

thanks

i have been thinking of something else as well that is not ignoring really but i do think ties in. i do think there are subs who misinterpret controlled contact for being ignored because what they crave is constant attention and it hurts not to get it *waves hand*. i have grown to very much appreciate D's who are able to exercise restraint and self control and really take charge of the quantity of communication early on in a relationship so that things don't get crazy and i don't feel like i am a burden to them because they are simply not letting me be.

my Bastard Daddy was not good at this. He was good at a lot of things but this wasn't one of them. There would be frenzied contact for a week or two (several hours a day) and then almost no contact for a week or two. He would allow me to become very emotionally dependent on his presence in my life and then expect me to shift gears and just be okay without him at the drop of a hat. i have found i much prefer less contact that is more steady and regular than this sort of sporadic on again, off again which i think errodes the level of surrender and trust i am able to achieve. Even if he warned me the crash from all the time to nothing felt very severe. It also meant we spent way too much time doing damage control.

i enjoy communicating with my Dominant even if it goes through periods where it is mostly one way. Its a release for me to be able to have someone to express myself to. Like if i can get it out there i can stop fretting about it. For some this may violate the "do not ignore" limit but for me i actually like it. It helps me know i can't get them spinning too easily and that is important in order to trust them.

 

[Caitlynne]

i have grown to very much appreciate D's who are able to exercise restraint and self control and really take charge of the quantity of communication early on in a relationship so that things don't get crazy and i don't feel like i am a burden to them because they are simply not letting me be.

I'm the same way. I want the control to be there. if it is limited but steady and regular, I won't mind at all. In fact, it's something I can grow to trust and rely on. If a sporadic roller coaster develops, I'll begin to spin. I need structure. I'm talking about chronic roller coaster behavior, not spontaneous changes to play with my 'expectations'.

I guess we all have our needs and our preferences now don't we.

 

[Netzach]

Also, the same action will have a different effect on different people, who may not even see it as ignoring.

In my past relationships up until the time I got married, I panicked if I didn't hear from the person often enough and receive a certain level of attention. I felt like it meant he didn't really love me.

I am not equating this to abuse, mind you. Just that I see this reaction a lot in people with emotional or self esteem issues. Just my opinion, but I think it's worth doing some work on this for yourself. You cannot control the behavior of anyone else, and you cannot control the outcome of your relationship. Your partner can remind you 400 times a day that he or she loves you, and it still might fail.

I see these fearful, frantic posts around here so often from people who are scared to death of being abandoned. Face the fear of being alone. It can be very freeing.

I just heart you like 5000 times more.

I've been needy in relationships. I've also been accused of being emotionally distant, and when I need to be unavailable for a duration, being told "you CANNOT be" is a form of emotional hostage-taking I will not stomach either.

Being told that I *always have to be* emotionally and attention-available is a total dealbreaker. It doesn't just set parameters for my dominance, it hobbles me as a full human being.

I'm GOING to let you down. I'm GOING to yell at you. I'm GOING to drop the ball and be an ass, and negating it with "hard limits" is a hard limit for me.

The bottom line is that if I'm in a relationship I need to trust the other person not to dwell on my failure, not to think of it as the sum total of the relationship, to believe that, if you peel back all the layers of it, my intentions are pretty clean at the end of the day. I'm going to fuck up, but not enough that it fucks them up.

And if you can't handle me having a rough week at work and forgetting about everything else, that's not abuse. It's incompatibility.

 

[Caitlynne]

I just heart you like 5000 times more.

I've been needy in relationships. I've also been accused of being emotionally distant, and when I need to be unavailable for a duration, being told "you CANNOT be" is a form of emotional hostage-taking I will not stomach either.

Being told that I *always have to be* emotionally and attention-available is a total dealbreaker. It doesn't just set parameters for my dominance, it hobbles me as a full human being.

I'm GOING to let you down. I'm GOING to yell at you. I'm GOING to drop the ball and be an ass, and negating it with "hard limits" is a hard limit for me.

The bottom line is that if I'm in a relationship I need to trust the other person not to dwell on my failure, not to think of it as the sum total of the relationship, to believe that, if you peel back all the layers of it, my intentions are pretty clean at the end of the day. I'm going to fuck up, but not enough that it fucks them up.

And if you can't handle me having a rough week at work and forgetting about everything else, that's not abuse. It's incompatibility.

What she said!!!

 

[Homburg]

The thought of telling a Dom that he can never ignore me is kinda impossible for me to wrap my brain around. I mean for those that say it is a hard limit, isn't it really a demand for constant attention? I know the emotional complications and implications you subs are referring to, but in the end, isn't it a constant demand for attention? Isn't that demand in essence then running the relationship?

I just can't understand how anyone could comply with a "never ignore me". All people need time and space to themselves. Sometimes he/or she explains that need, sometimes they don't. It's still a human need to withdraw and be unto oneself. Dominants are no different. Heck, they just might want to spend time with other people. That can be a form of rest and relaxation too.

I'm not talking about the abusive kind of ignoring. I know too well what that can do to a person. But I am talking about the solution to that abuse in future relationships. Is it really viable to say "ignoring me is a hard limit?"

I ask this because when I was new in the scene, I had "yelling at me" as a hard limit. I carried a lot of damage around and it was triggered by a raised voice. As I look back on that hard limit, I can see that although I indeed was triggered by yelling, it was an impossible limit to honor in the end. It essentially guaranteed me that no matter what I did, he could never yell at me. And believe me when I was younger I did things .... well, let's just say, I didn't hold up my part of the bargain in D/s.

It's not that yelling wasn't a trigger; it was. It's that I made it a hard limit and it ended up being a something that tried to regulate his behavior. It wasn't like any other hard limit; i.e., I don't do scat, etc. It was actually a limit that was going to modify another's behavior. So I was running the relationship in a way.

Now, that I'm grown up, LOL [or at least more experienced], I know to let a Dominant know what my triggers are and then submit, trusting that he knows what he is doing and will keep me safe and/or deal with the consequences if a trigger is activated.

This whole ignoring thing feels a lot like my yelling thing.

Did any of that make sense?

Made perfect sense to me, and it was what I was trying to get at, and also what sinfulSailor was saying (I think, not trying to speak for the Sailor). Telling someone that Scat is a hard limit is one thing. Telling them that a completely normal vanilla-acceptable behaviour like yelling or taking a cooling off period is another thing entirely. The former limits a single behaviour, the latter is acomplete modification of how one acts and reacts.

I will not be told that I must pay attention to someone all the time. A submissive can negotiate some act that I cannot do. They are not going to get away with mandating behaviour that I must always do.

 

[Homburg]

I'm GOING to let you down. I'm GOING to yell at you. I'm GOING to drop the ball and be an ass, and negating it with "hard limits" is a hard limit for me.

QFT. No, not just QFT. QFMFT. Quoted For Mother Fucking Truth. I've had people pull stuff like this on me, and I thought it was absolutely silly. Yes, I'm dominant. I also happen to be human.

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Have you had this punishment used upon you,

no, MP luckily did not believe in ignoring me as punishment. we agreed on this subject. it would have killed me to have been ignored by him and probably would have broken some trust and caused more psychological damage than anything.

Do you believe that this is a acceptable form of punishment?

it may be acceptable for some, but for me? no, not at all it would leave me feeling terrible about myself and like i said probably end up causing me to lose trust. i am one of those submissives who do have self esteem and abandonment issues.

Do you believe 'time-out' is a better alternative to ignoring?

yes, i think "time out" is a much better alternative. in time out i would know he is just calming himself down and giving us time to deal with the issue level headed.

 

[intothewoods]

I just heart you like 5000 times more.

Be still my heart!

 

[ataxia.girl]

I'm GOING to let you down. I'm GOING to yell at you. I'm GOING to drop the ball and be an ass, and negating it with "hard limits" is a hard limit for me.

So so so true. A lot of these "limits" we put on normal vanilla behaivor as Homburg said are basically just the ultimate attempt to Top from the bottom IMO.

i refrain from having hard limits and prefer my owner (if i have one) to know me well enough to decide what those are for me. i have to have it this way because i know that i DO Top from the bottom and its the only way to come close to preventing me from doing it. On the other hand since i set no limits i also feel completely justified in whining about anything.

 

[minx1]

Firstly you are right, there seem to be a number of dicussions going on here, so please excuse me if I have lost track or am slightly confused in terms of what people are referring to. Also this is a difficult subject for me to remain objective about, but for what its worth this is my opinion.

I think its two fold. I am sure that for some people (PYLs and pyls) its an extremely effective form of punishment. I am sure it can be used in some relationships to maximum effect, with lessons being learned and no long lasting or permanent harm done.

Having said that for me, if it was ever going to be done, I would need it to be done in a measured and controlled manner and have the timescales and reasons laid out. To know what was happening. If a PYL was unable to do that, because they don't know for example, how long they want to ignore me form then I wouldn't have them as my PYL. It would be my feeling that if they weren't in control of their own anger or disappointment and be able to tell me what form the punishment will take, then how could they control me?

Even this more 'diluted'' method of ignoring would have a massive impact on me. Knowing he was disappointed and wanted time away would be punishment in itself.

But, if however it was done in any other way, then yes for me it would become a deal breaker. That would be a hard limit. Just as I would find it an unacceptable practice for me in a vanilla relationship.

Is it a need for constant attention? No. I don't get constant attention from my PYL. I never have done. He has a life and a busy one at that and so do I. To me, its a completely different issue.


Caitlynne, I think it was you who said you weren't talking about the abusive kind of ignoring. That you were talking more about the solution to that abuse in a future relationship. Forgive me if I have misquoted you, or am way off line; I am trying to do it from memory. Perhaps you could clarify. Are you saying that for those of us who have been abused in the past, that ''non abusive'' ignoring may actually help us overcome our trauma or fears?

If that is the case, well I am no psychologist and neither is my PYL. Neither is it something that I feel able to try, or for that matter would want to dabble in, at the risk of my mental well being.
And of course it could be said in the same way, that the reverse of that would be just as effective in ridding us of the after effects.

I think those of us who posted were talking about the abusive type of ignoring and for some of us its irrelevent if its the ''abusive'' kind or not. The fact is they have already suffered the abuse previously and the psychological factors are deep rooted with many triggers. To them ignoring in any guise in not an option, for the sake of their own sanity.

Is it viable to have it as a hard limit? In these cases absolutely it is.

I saw the reference to scat, which confuses me slightly. Are people suggesting that scat is an acceptable hard limit when this, which comes as a result of an abusive episode, is not a good enough reason? That abuse and its aftermath; having to constantly deal with its far reaching effects and try to manage it on a day to day basis isn't valid? That its inappropriate?
I was under the impression that that is what hard limits are for; for protection of ones self.
Or perhaps I have misunderstood and the thought is that its not an appropriate or reasonable hard limit for someone who has not been abused?

I can't speak for the others, but I am pretty certain that when they say its a hard limit, its based on much more that a passing '' oh I don't think I fancy the idea of that, I'll stick it on my hard limit list''

It''s not being needy. Its not an excuse. Its not a cry for constant attention. Abuse is abuse is abuse. Its a legitimate reason as many who has suffered it and are trying to live with the legacy, can testify.
Its a case of, this is a hard limit for me because of a past traumatic experience and if you do it, it may just break me or have serious implications for my well being.
Thats why its a hard limit for us.

It doesn't mean the pyl is running the relationship or topping from the bottom. It means they are protecting their mental health. I would imagine as in Bandits case and her Master, that PYLs have other strings to their bows? Surely in cases like these, there are other less damaging methods of punishment to be implemented, that are just as effective?

And of course not ever relationship is the same. Of course I know that. To be perfectly honest after my own experiences, if I didn''t truly believe that I would never have had another. I have also opted for periods of time on my own too. In other respects I am a strong, well rounded woman, eager to serve and submit but this is one area that is crucial to my well being and I have a choice, just as the PYL does if he doesn't care for it.

I may get my head bitten off for saying this, but I will take my chance and speak plainly just as everyone else does. As its already been said on here, PYLs are only human. Yes they are and consequently they don't always know best about everything, including what is the best way to deal with the after effects of abuse.
I completely admire PYLs who admit that they get it wrong sometimes, who know that they are learning too and who can see when some of their own behavioural traits or outlooks may need modifying too.
in my opinion, sometimes, just sometimes there are occasions when a whim or ''just because I can'' isn't a valid enough reason to implement something that could be potentially damaging to a pyl.

 

[EmpressFi]

<snip for space>
in my opinion, sometimes, just sometimesthere are occasions when a whim or ''just because I can'' isn't a valid enough reason to implement something that could be potentially damaging to a pyl.

*loud standing ovation of applause*

There will be at least one person who doesnt bite your head off about this. You said it with much more eloquence than I ever could

 

[minx1]

*loud standing ovation of applause*

There will be at least one person who doesnt bite your head off about this. You said it with much more eloquence than I ever could

Thankyou so much Fi, that means a lot to me when I struggle to even talk about it sometimes. But it hits a nerve with me

 

[Homburg]

Having said that for me, if it was ever going to be done, I would need it to be done in a measured and controlled manner and have the timescales and reasons laid out. To know what was happening. If a PYL was unable to do that, because they don't know for example, how long they want to ignore me form then I wouldn't have them as my PYL. It would be my feeling that if they weren't in control of their own anger or disappointment and be able to tell me what form the punishment will take, then how could they control me?

I don't get this. If someone serving me pisses me off to the point where I need to remove myself so as to have time and space needed to cool down, I am probably not in the best frame of mind at that moment. And there is no way I am going to know precisely how long it is going to take for me to cool. You are, in effect, asking someone who is bloody angry to predict the future.

You, as a person, have had some really rough times recently. Could you, during those rough times, have looked someone in the eye and told them precisely when you were going to be back to normal enough to deal with more stress?

I saw the reference to scat, which confuses me slightly. Are people suggesting that scat is an acceptable hard limit when this, which comes as a result of an abusive episode, is not a good enough reason? That abuse and its aftermath; having to constantly deal with its far reaching effects and try to manage it on a day to day basis isn't valid? That its inappropriate?
I was under the impression that that is what hard limits are for; for protection of ones self.
Or perhaps I have misunderstood and the thought is that its not an appropriate or reasonable hard limit for someone who has not been abused?

I can't speak for the others, but I am pretty certain that when they say its a hard limit, its based on much more that a passing '' oh I don't think I fancy the idea of that, I'll stick it on my hard limit list''

This is not hard limit territory because it is not a limit. It is a behaviour demand.

(picking slightly different example)

Hard limit: being put in the closet or other closed spaces due to claustrophobia - This means I don't do play involving closets or closed spaces. Avoid claustrophobia triggers and we're cool. This translates to "You must not do this individual thing".

It's a hard limit. As a top, you don't fuck with it, you don't get near it. You don't look at "hard limit: claustrophobia" and think "Well, she really doesn't mean it today, so I'll toss her in a coffin on her just this once" or "It's not a punishment, so it's okay." This is because of damage or psychological issue, but it affects a limited range. It is active all the time and has nothing to do with situational stuff as it is a psychological issue. This hard limit must always be respected, but still only modifies a small number of possible activities.

Hard Limit: Ignoring me - This means that I have to pay attention to you when you want it, period. This translates to "You will act a certain way. You will adopt this behaviour".

This, in our case here, is a result of damage or psychological issue, and is likewise always on, always affecting. I can't look at it and think "Well, she'll be okay with me ignoring her today," or whatever. I have to look at this person who has said that she is so very damaged that she cannot tolerate being ignored, and realise that I am required to give her attention any time she wants it lest I fuck with the hard limits I accepted during negotiation. This is no longer a small range of behaviours that are prohibited, but a set of behaviours that are demanded of me.

And, as you said, I am not a psychologist. I'm not competent to say what is damaging or not in this case. I have to take the hard limit at face value and compromise my behaviour in very common areas as a result.

It''s not being needy. Its not an excuse. Its not a cry for constant attention. Abuse is abuse is abuse. Its a legitimate reason as many who has suffered it and are trying to live with the legacy, can testify.
Its a case of, this is a hard limit for me because of a past traumatic experience and if you do it, it may just break me or have serious implications for my well being.
Thats why its a hard limit for us.

First, no, abuse is not abuse is not abuse. We are all walking, talking, living, breathing examples of that. If I were to pick up a vanilla gal at a bar, take her home, spank the hell out of her, and do a cutting, she would report my ass to the police. Same if I did it with to vanilla girlfriend or wife. Yet if you and I discussed it beforehand and agreed to it, the spanking and cutting would be a hot night for both of us. Abuse is in the eyes of the victim, plain and simple.

As to constant attention, no, it's not a cry for constant attention. It's a cry for on-demand attention.

"Daddy, I want some attention"
"Sorry, baby, I'm working on something right now"
"Daddy, I want attention!"
"Not right now, little one, I'm working"
"Ignoring me is a hard limit, you promised!"

It doesn't mean the pyl is running the relationship or topping from the bottom. It means they are protecting their mental health. I would imagine as in Bandits case and her Master, that PYLs have other strings to their bows? Surely in cases like these, there are other less damaging methods of punishment to be implemented, that are just as effective?

I am not saying that the issue should not be discussed. I'm not saying that a good top should blow it off. I'm saying that it is not legitimate hard limit territory because it's not a limit on behaviour, it is a demand for a set of behaviours. It is not a "you must not", it's a "you must".

in my opinion, sometimes, just sometimes there are occasions when a whim or ''just because I can'' isn't a valid enough reason to implement something that could be potentially damaging to a pyl.

While I agree with you on the statement overall, I'm honestly not sure where this is coming from. I've yet to see anyone here say that they would ignore their pyl simply because they feel like it. The majority of references I've seen to it, and the ones I've made for sure, have been of the "I'm about to blow my top and am going to cool off before I do/say something rash" variety. Not a whim.

Me personally? I'm in a relationship with someone that just left a blatantly abusive relationship, who has been told by her therapist that she's suffering from PTSD. While she has no limits, even when she did have limits she did not list ignoring her as a limit. And her ex, as she's said, ignored her constantly. This issue was handled in discussion, not as some sort of limit.

In short, limits should be reserved for actual limits. Behaviours that must be avoided. Simple negatives. Treat your PYL like an adult, expect him or her to treat you like an adult, and treat issues like this as items of discussion. Not demands for certain behaviours. Putting it in the limits arena cheapens the effectiveness of limits by diluting the concept IMO.

And, honestly, if you (generic) are at a point in your life where you need a limit like "don't ignore me" or "don't yell at me", maybe therapy, time on your own, and not being in a D/s relationship is a good idea. I'm not saying this to be snide or snarky, just, as the self-esteem thread pointed out, if the trauma is that severe, maybe it's best to take the time to get therapy etc to get that issue resolved before you jump into a relationship with that level of constraint added.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm not suggesting that anyone accept anything they don't want to in a relationship. If you and your partner are happy and it works for you, more power to you (general you). And I wasn't calling anyone out here either.

Quite honestly, I just don't want to glorify the stereotype of a fragile, damaged, ultra-delicate pyl. And I am not saying that those who have said here that it's a hard limit are like that. I can see that limit being a perfectly reasonable one, and I can also see where someone enters a D/s relationship expecting Daddy to heal them and lead them to enlightenment.

 

[intothewoods]

Homburg, I don't think you're being entirely fair to minx here.

Every relationship is different. So mis doesn't have limits. I believe you both have posted that you are in pretty constant contact with each other. Pretty much daily? Is that right? I'm the same with Mister Man. So that there is no "don't ignore me" limit is a moot point.

I don't think because a pyl states explicitly that he or she does not want to be ignored it is automatically so different from no breathplay, for example. Perhaps ignored is defined as five days with no contact. And that may be perfectly fine in some relationships, and not fine in others.

There is no one way, as we all know, I was just suggesting that we think about why it's a limit. Actually, I think the larger point for me is that I wouldn't characterize ignoring as abuse. It can certainly be the behavior of a giant asshole, but that doesn't mean it's abusive.

 

[Homburg]

Homburg, I don't think you're being entirely fair to minx here.

Erm, I was just using her comments as a springboard to discuss the idea that "Don't ignore me" is outside the realm of limits, and better, in my opinion, as something that is best handled by discussion and agreement. How is that being unfair?

Every relationship is different. So mis doesn't have limits. I believe you both have posted that you are in pretty constant contact with each other. Pretty much daily? Is that right? I'm the same with Mister Man. So that there is no "don't ignore me" limit is a moot point.

I don't think because a pyl states explicitly that he or she does not want to be ignored it is automatically so different from no breathplay, for example. Perhaps ignored is defined as five days with no contact. And that may be perfectly fine in some relationships, and not fine in others.

You kind of lost me. My point was that it's a poor choice of things to assign the word "limit" to.

As to MIS, yup, daily. Multiple times each day. Significant time spent. That does not make "don't ignore me" moot as a limit. Such level of contact could easily be because of such a limit.

And, to be frank, I've been in a relationship with a woman that listed this as a limit. I have a bit of experience with this "limit". I was explicitly told that I could never shun her, as it would "destroy" her. It never became a situation where that was a dealbreaker, but I did have to keep that in the back of my mind at all times, and it did modify my behaviour. In retrospect, it was bothersome, stultifying, and annoying. At the time, I didn't notice, as there was so much more to worry about than that issue

The "five days" example is another reason I have issues with this. If you say that a cool off period is cool, but ignoring isn't, what becomes ignoring? Where is the cut off? It's a huge judgement call issue, and it is either legislated to death in negotiation, or it is left to the judgement of the players. Recipe for disaster in my eyes, especially when one is talking hard limits. Hard limits should be hard things, not subject to soft judgement calls. "Hard limit: fireplay" means don't use fire on me. Pretty simple. Yeah, definition of what is fireplay can be argued (cell popping?), but with nowhere near the variance that is intrinsic to "hard limit: don't ignore me".

There is no one way, as we all know, I was just suggesting that we think about why it's a limit. Actually, I think the larger point for me is that I wouldn't characterize ignoring as abuse. It can certainly be the behavior of a giant asshole, but that doesn't mean it's abusive.

I agree with your posts here, ITW. You have put forth some killer stuff, I just think that this is not limit territory per se. The semantics alone are enough to gall me.

And, no, ignoring, by itself, is not abusive. It is neglectful, and can be part of a pattern of abuse, but it is not inherently abusive. This is another reason why I have problems with the idea that it should be a hard limit because of previous abusive relationships.

 

[minx1]

First, no, abuse is not abuse is not abuse. We are all walking, talking, living, breathing examples of that. If I were to pick up a vanilla gal at a bar, take her home, spank the hell out of her, and do a cutting, she would report my ass to the police. Same if I did it with to vanilla girlfriend or wife. Yet if you and I discussed it beforehand and agreed to it, the spanking and cutting would be a hot night for both of us. Abuse is in the eyes of the victim, plain and simple.


And, honestly, if you are at a point in your life where you need a limit like "don't ignore me" or "don't yell at me", maybe therapy, time on your own, and not being in a D/s relationship is a good idea. I'm not saying this to be snide or snarky, just, as the self-esteem thread pointed out, if the trauma is that severe, maybe it's best to take the time to get therapy etc to get that issue resolved before you jump into a relationship with that level of constraint added.

I'll probably respond to your post tomorrow, my D has just been and I'm going to bed shortly. But I have to say I think this speaks volumes.

You see I would say it is also in the hand and mind of the abuser.

Where am I coming from? I'm responding to comments made in threads, thats where I am cominmg from. I am setting out my point of view just as everyone else has. As I said if I have misunderstood then I apologise, but I responded to the feeling I got from it. I will watch with interest to see if anyone else has as well.

As for the last paragraph, thanks for the suggestion. Whether its snide or snarky, it has no impact on me. If anything I find it slightly patronising, but however you meant to deliver it, is your choice. Its rather presumptious to think that I or any of the others haven't had therapy and time out etc. Having said that maybe we just prefer to set our limits; the ones that we think are necessary and look for partners who can understand, take it into account and deal with it with the sensitivity it warrants.

 

[minx1]

I don't get this. If someone serving me pisses me off to the point where I need to remove myself so as to have time and space needed to cool down, I am probably not in the best frame of mind at that moment. And there is no way I am going to know precisely how long it is going to take for me to cool. You are, in effect, asking someone who is bloody angry to predict the future.

oh and before I go, you said

but I say that in a healthy relationship, being pointedly and explicitly ignored for an evening (or whatever amount of time), with full knowledge of how long it would last, and why you are being ignored, would be a very effective, and serious punishment for an appropriately serious offense.

so which is it?

Perhaps this is where confusion arises?

 

[intothewoods]

Erm, I was just using her comments as a springboard to discuss the idea that "Don't ignore me" is outside the realm of limits, and better, in my opinion, as something that is best handled by discussion and agreement. How is that being unfair?

In reference to this:

And, honestly, if you are at a point in your life where you need a limit like "don't ignore me" or "don't yell at me", maybe therapy, time on your own, and not being in a D/s relationship is a good idea. I'm not saying this to be snide or snarky, just, as the self-esteem thread pointed out, if the trauma is that severe, maybe it's best to take the time to get therapy etc to get that issue resolved before you jump into a relationship with that level of constraint added.

Was this a general you and not to minx? In that case, you weren't being unfair to her, but I don't agree that anyone who has "don't ignore me" as a limit should not be in a D/s relationship.

You kind of lost me. My point was that it's a poor choice of things to assign the word "limit" to.

I disagree that it's always a poor choice of something to assign a limit to. I think don't ignore means I need to hear from you after 5 days, is pretty clear. I think it can be negotiated in a reasonable way. There are a kajillion online "dom" dickwads that get their jollies off of showering someone with attention and then disappearing, reappearing, disappearing again, etc. It's not so bad to have that limit in the beginning if you are meeting someone you don't know from Adam. Just as a for example.

As to MIS, yup, daily. Multiple times each day. Significant time spent. That does not make "don't ignore me" moot as a limit. Such level of contact could easily be because of such a limit.

My point is that MIS doesn't have to say "don't ignore me." In practice, you don't ignore her. And you wouldn't do it on a whim. But maybe early on in a relationship that's not a given, and a person sets it as a limit. My point is I can think of situations in which it's perfectly reasonable as a limit, and situations in which it isn't.