The blank check of consent

[JMohegan]

I've done both.

It has always seemed to me that the less versed a girl is with bdsm, the more likely she is to want things to develop naturally, which is much to my style. The more experienced a submissive is, the more likely she seems to be to have a laundry list of demands for me to follow in order to be the ever mysterious "real Dom".

I haven't really done both in the context of a sustained relationship. Only the former.

I wouldn't necessarily describe my partners as having wanted things to develop naturally. It's probably more correct to say that they had no real concept of what "things developing" even meant in the context of a D/s relationship, and in the first few relationships neither did I.

I was sort of making things up as I went along. Never tempted to follow the script because I didn't even know it existed.

One of the reasons that I started paying close attention to your posts, Marquis, is that you don't seem to follow the script either. This is a hell of a lot easier to do if your partner isn't holding one in her hand and projecting her expectations onto the relationship.

But it also impresses me that you in many ways seem to resist the script and make a conscious effort to think creatively about what you need and how best to get it, within the bounds of an ethical relationship.

 

[Etoile]

you ask if I would murder another for him and which I always feel is something brought up by someone who either does not fully understand where we are coming from, has a very misconceived and ignorant idea of TPE

no-one is to be included in any BDSM act to which they have not consented, so I think you will agree, that largely covers all those ridiculous illegal acts thrown out to try and disprove something another cannot understand because it doesn't fit their world.

I acknowledge as always there are things he asks which I cannot immediately comply with, but they remain on the list of things I must find a way to do.

but it isn't something which anyone seriously sees as within the realms of D/s or BDSM in any form

I see a conflict here, perhaps you can clarify it for me.

You said you will do anything you are asked to do, even if you must get help to do it. So we're talking about things that are outside BDSM here, outside who's consented to participate, etc. If Francisco asked you to kill someone, would you do it? Don't say it's outside BDSM, don't say it's only being asked because I don't understand your reality, don't say it's ridiculous, don't say he'd never ask you to do it...these are all ways of getting out of answering the question. The question is very, very simple. There are no ambiguities of consent, legality, ability, D/s, etc. It's a yes or no question: would you kill a human being at his command?

 

[JMohegan]

I find myself contemplating two questions.

#1. Would I shoot my own father in order to prevent him from stabbing my niece, cutting her up into little pieces, and feeding her to the dog?

My answer to that question is yes. I would.

#2. Would I shoot my own father?

My answer to that question is no. Absolutely not.


Are these answers mutually exclusive? No, I don't think so.

Why not?

Because the concept of being mutually exclusive falls in the realm of logic. Logically speaking, two mutually exclusive statements can not both be true.

But also according the standards of logical reasoning, the premise underlying question #1 is fundamentally flawed, to the point of being nonsensical.

My father knows right from wrong, understands the consequences inherent in the legal system, abhors physical violence, adores his cherished granddaughter, and is a pet food control freak who doesn't believe in feeding the dog anything other than Iams premium products.

In this context, the fact that he "wouldn't do that" is not beside the point. It is the point. The entire point. And why the comparison of questions is nonsensical.

 

[callinectes]

To add to what you said above JM, you have also demonstrated why there is no black and white. Not with BDSM, not with life. Everything has context.

 

[JMohegan]

Everything has context.

Those three words would make a great title for this thread.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Those three words would make a great title for this thread.

I completely agree. And her statement made my point much more succinctly than I did in multiple paragraphs.

 

[amadaun]

I find myself contemplating two questions.

#1. Would I shoot my own father in order to prevent him from stabbing my niece, cutting her up into little pieces, and feeding her to the dog?

My answer to that question is yes. I would.

#2. Would I shoot my own father?

My answer to that question is no. Absolutely not.


Are these answers mutually exclusive? No, I don't think so.

Why not?

Because the concept of being mutually exclusive falls in the realm of logic. Logically speaking, two mutually exclusive statements can not both be true.

But also according the standards of logical reasoning, the premise underlying question #1 is fundamentally flawed, to the point of being nonsensical.

My father knows right from wrong, understands the consequences inherent in the legal system, abhors physical violence, adores his cherished granddaughter, and is a pet food control freak who doesn't believe in feeding the dog anything other than Iams premium products.

In this context, the fact that he "wouldn't do that" is not beside the point. It is the point. The entire point. And why the comparison of questions is nonsensical.

I appreciate this argument. No one exists outside of their personal history. It reminds me of a pacifist argument I read once where, when asked if he would shoot the man who was about to kill his wife, the pacifist replied "but I would never have a gun".

But it's also realistic to realize that sometimes people do unexpectedly find themselves suffering from mental illness; or, to be more crude, they go batshit insane. Or, as Geoff said, people who thought they knew their partners inside and out learn after years that they're child molesters. I think if you're going to make a statement like "I am incapable of leaving this relationship", it's worth considering (as I'm sure those of you who are in TPE have) under what circumstances that reality could actually cease to exist. Etoile's question is valid, I'd say, even if it is a pretty big what if.

 

[JMohegan]

I appreciate this argument. No one exists outside of their personal history. It reminds me of a pacifist argument I read once where, when asked if he would shoot the man who was about to kill his wife, the pacifist replied "but I would never have a gun".

But it's also realistic to realize that sometimes people do unexpectedly find themselves suffering from mental illness; or, to be more crude, they go batshit insane. Or, as Geoff said, people who thought they knew their partners inside and out learn after years that they're child molesters. I think if you're going to make a statement like "I am incapable of leaving this relationship", it's worth considering (as I'm sure those of you who are in TPE have) under what circumstances that reality could actually cease to exist. Etoile's question is valid, I'd say, even if it is a pretty big what if.

First off, I don't do TPE. Several reasons for this, including the fact that I have no interest in controlling a partner's decisions relating to employment, personal finances, and a few other things. The explicitly stated concept of a metaphorical door that is perpetually open for a partner's potential unfettered withdrawal is also a big part of a deal I make with myself in allowing my sadist to roam at will within the bounds I set in a personal relationship.

So I will leave any comments on the subject of "incapable of leaving" to those who feel that statement applies to them.

Turning back to my two hypothetical questions, my response to the batshit insane caveat is to note that these queries are being asked at a specific point in time.

Ask me later, after my father has fallen ill with a previously unimaginable mental disorder rendering him capable of the hypothetical described in question #1, and I would give a different answer to question #2.

At that point in time, my answer to both questions would be: If necessary, yes.

 

[liberatedslave]

I see a conflict here, perhaps you can clarify it for me.

You said you will do anything you are asked to do, even if you must get help to do it. So we're talking about things that are outside BDSM here, outside who's consented to participate, etc. If Francisco asked you to kill someone, would you do it? Don't say it's outside BDSM, don't say it's only being asked because I don't understand your reality, don't say it's ridiculous, don't say he'd never ask you to do it...these are all ways of getting out of answering the question. The question is very, very simple. There are no ambiguities of consent, legality, ability, D/s, etc. It's a yes or no question: would you kill a human being at his command?

I've been lurking and reading and learning and for me this question goes back to Catalina's post:

Fortunately we found each other, and we had similar ideas of where we wanted to go with the D/s aspects and the commitment of the relationship on romantic mainstream levels. That being said though, part of the reason we love each other so deeply is because of the D/s fit we have and we have discussed it and acknowledged if one of us no longer wanted to be TPE or D/s, they would no longer be the same person we fell in love with and the romantic relationship would suffer and probably die a horrible death. It doesn't mean we do not love each other deeply, but we love each other for who we are which just happens to be D/s and M/s more so than mainstream romantic ideals. Does that make sense?

IMO, if Fransisco ever asked Catalina to kill someone he would not be the person she fell in love with and gave herself to. Her obedience would therefore be forfeit and would signal the end of the relationship as a result. In this way, her obedience would have endured for the whole of the relationship until it ended, a TPE.

 

[Etoile]

IMO, if Fransisco ever asked Catalina to kill someone he would not be the person she fell in love with and gave herself to. Her obedience would therefore be forfeit and would signal the end of the relationship as a result. In this way, her obedience would have endured for the whole of the relationship until it ended, a TPE.

I agree with you that this situation would likely never happen, but like amadaun said - what if he went batshit insane? Catalina has said (elsewhere, if not here) that even if he went crazy, she would still belong to him, she has given up her right to leave.

That's why I'm saying that it doesn't matter about laws, conditionals, reality, any of it. The question could perhaps be rephrased thus: If Francisco went crazy and told Catalina to kill a disinterested third party, would she do it? I added the "disinterested" part so we're no tangled up in whether it's her daughter, Francisco himself, etc. Just a random person she was told to kill, with no reason other than his whim.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I see a conflict here, perhaps you can clarify it for me.

You said you will do anything you are asked to do, even if you must get help to do it. So we're talking about things that are outside BDSM here, outside who's consented to participate, etc. If Francisco asked you to kill someone, would you do it? Don't say it's outside BDSM, don't say it's only being asked because I don't understand your reality, don't say it's ridiculous, don't say he'd never ask you to do it...these are all ways of getting out of answering the question. The question is very, very simple. There are no ambiguities of consent, legality, ability, D/s, etc. It's a yes or no question: would you kill a human being at his command?

Sorry Etoile, I am not getting out of answering the question, but you are determined to interpret my words in a way which you want. It seems your understanding of TPE differs to mine in that you see some things as related to BDSM and some things as not related, but then you still want to apply the BDSM rules to what you interpret as non BDSM activities....this is where I see confusion. For me, everything in our life is related to D/s because it influences the most mundane things in life right down to how I wash the clothes. As you know, those who live this lifestyle take it seriously and do not believe non-consenting people should become part of our acts just because we want to do something...as I pointed out, all those acts which were raised are common ones brought up by those who say they do not believe anyone can have no limits and want to prove their point at any expense (next it will be 'then you would grow wings and fly him to the moon otherwise your not TPE ) and refuse to see they are things which because they include non-consenting people, are abuse, not BDSM or D/s, at least not in my world and those I know. There is a huge difference in our world between abuse and D/s and we don't see a reason to cross it to prove some point to those who do not understand it...as I said, they do not have my submission and I do not obey their orders and whims.

I also don't live a life where I say 'oh yes, I am TPE, but he just doesn't ask me to do anything I find particularly difficult but if he did I know I would without question'..that for me is sort of like saying I could be the world's best artist in all history, I just don't feel like it right now, but I know I really could be...I do get asked to do things which do not suit and which hurt in many ways, and often which go against who I am, and you know what, I do them as soon as I can get my head into the right space to be able to, and I am living face to face with it on a daily/nightly basis, not just on visits and dates and when they fit around my schedule and life, they have to fit his life full stop...of course it would be so much easier if he only asked the doable or easy and fun things, but that isn't what either of us ever wanted. I do think it is possible in a LDR and poly relationship, but I take offence when someone who says they have not been stretched to really do something which meant an examination of their ethics and morals and still expected to obey but know they could, and on a regular basis, then tries to invalidate what I do actually live and don't just imagine I could do with useless arguments about things which any self respecting authentic D/s participant would not include as a D/s element because it is widely accepted it is abuse and not D/s in any shape or form.

As to being told I can't say I know him well enough to know he would not ask me to kill another for him etc., I disagree and perhaps that is what comes from living with a person 24/7 for several years and knowing things and thoughts of theirs that no other living soul on earth knows, not to mention he has a cultural background where honour is a huge chunk of it, especially when you are the only male in the family and have the responsibility of living that role as is expected....he does it very well even when he would prefer to say 'fuck it', he holds to his code of honour and always has without question. Add to that he was a political refugee as a child, dodged bullets as part of that history, and from that and his upbringing, developed a strong ethic about killing others, abuse, discrimination, political oppression, and in general living a code of existance which holds no honour....so yes, I can say he would not ask it of me or anyone because of that strong honour code and ethic, and because he does not believe it falls under the right of a Dominant and has no part in BDSM and a big part in abuse of which he has seen enough to know he wants no part of. I'm sorry if you do not feel the same and see D/s as a licence to request and expect murder, rape etc., to be carried out.

So you are right, it is a simple question. While it becomes obvious some think it an acceptable command, our D/s varies obviously where we do not see abuse as equivalent or acceptable in terms of D/s and do not see it as a legitimate or even imaginable order by someone who holds themself to be a serious practitioner of the lifestyle. If you want to be with someone who would expect that, good luck, but personally part of deciding who I would commit to so deeply included finding a rare human being who amounted to more than trying to prove just how much power they have by preying on the non-consenting public as possible victims of their ego lust.

Catalina

 

[Etoile]

I think you are trying to get out of the question, and the reason you are giving is "that is not our way, he would never ask that." I find it interesting that you turn your evasion of the question onto me and try to blame me or ridicule me for asking a question you refuse to answer or even think about.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I agree with you that this situation would likely never happen, but like amadaun said - what if he went batshit insane? Catalina has said (elsewhere, if not here) that even if he went crazy, she would still belong to him, she has given up her right to leave.

That's why I'm saying that it doesn't matter about laws, conditionals, reality, any of it. The question could perhaps be rephrased thus: If Francisco went crazy and told Catalina to kill a disinterested third party, would she do it? I added the "disinterested" part so we're no tangled up in whether it's her daughter, Francisco himself, etc. Just a random person she was told to kill, with no reason other than his whim.

And that is ture. Etoile. If your wife got ill, and yes, I see mental illness as an illness and/or disability, would you see it as licence to leave and find someone healthy? I don't commit that way...sort of took those marriage vows of in sickness and in health seriously, as I did my D/s vow to be owned by F forever. One of the things we share is we have this huge hangup about honesty and commitment...we like them as a basis for who we are and don't turn them on and off on a whim.

My duty of care as his slave and wife is to support him whether he is ill or healthy, so if he developed a condition such as schizophrenia and he asked something like that of me in a psychotic state, I would do whatever I could to help him get well to a point where he could function with my support, not be stupid enough to brainlessly say, 'oh, he is Master, I must do whatever he tells me even if he is psychotic' and through doing so, leave him without a slave to serve and support him, as well as land him in a heap of shit as the person who ordered the murder. I just find myself wondering where people who see this as a legitimate question to prove someone's non-adherence to a TPE commitment received their guidance and training in terms of D/s because of all the people I met in RL and talked to online, not one of them felt this type of question was a legitimate part of BDSM or a way to prove someone's sincerity in living a 'no limits' relationship...they usually dismissed it as something which would come from someone who didn't really understand D/s or for some reason felt threatened by anyone who lived D/s differently to them.

We have been down this road on this forum several times, and usually the questions such as the legitimacy of murder in the name of obedience have come from people who do not have experience or much knowledge of BDSM, and have always been told are not a measure of obedience as they are not accepted as BDSM, so I am surprised it now comes from people who feel they have extensive experience and is treated as quite acceptable as D/s for a Dominant to order, but unacceptable for a sub/slave to obey. You can't have it both ways. I also find it strange, the mention of consent being an integral part of any D/s act keeps getting pushed aside except to prove if I won't kill I haven't given blanket consent and don't live TPE.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think you are trying to get out of the question, and the reason you are giving is "that is not our way, he would never ask that." I find it interesting that you turn your evasion of the question onto me and try to blame me or ridicule me for asking a question you refuse to answer or even think about.

Etoile, when you get real about this, we can discuss it, but you are so hung up on including non-consensual acts (as in people outside the relationship and who are to be included without consent) and don't want to accept my answers which have been so long I am sure everyone has got the message by now. I have answered it so many times I am bored, and I have thought about it which is why I could give such lengthy answers. What you mean to say I feel is 'you have not answered in the way I want as in accepting my claim you are not TPE and you do not consent to anything he orders, so I am not willing to stop until you do'. If you are that hung up on it, try it out for yourself...I certainly won't see it as proof you are TPE, but it will make one hell of a story for the tabloids when your trial comes up and you try claiming it was just D/s and then they call in a few people from the lifestyle to testify as to how it is accepted policy in the lifestyle that murder etc., is not on the agenda and including non-consenting people is also not an accepted part of the lifestyle. It hasn't worked for all those other cases we have discussed here where it was claimed it was M/s etc., but hey, if it works for you, you will be in all the history books!!

Catalina

 

[Etoile]

if he developed a condition such as schizophrenia and he asked something like that of me in a psychotic state, I would do whatever I could to help him get well to a point where he could function with my support, not be stupid enough to brainlessly say, 'oh, he is Master, I must do whatever he tells me even if he is psychotic'

Ah! Now that is a good answer. I really, really like that answer. Thank you for proving to me that it's not a yes or no question.

so I am surprised it now comes from people who feel they have extensive experience

I wonder if this refers to me? I certainly wouldn't say I have extensive experience. Maybe some, since I've been with Daddy for 6.5 yrs, but not extensive.

 

[Etoile]

Etoile, when you get real about this, we can discuss it, but you are so hung up [...] don't want to accept my answers which have been so long I am sure everyone has got the message by now.

I'm sorry you feel that my attempt to learn, understand, and have an interesting debate is indicative that I am trying to prove something. As I just said, there was an aspect I had not considered, and now I am satisfied with the answer. I was not trying to get you to say you are not TPE, I was trying to get you to say how you would handle the situation. Which you now have, and I'm happy.

If your opinion of me is diminished by this, or I've put anybody off by going on about it for so long, well, I am sorry. I can only apologize for not understanding sooner, but I didn't feel it had been answered clearly, so I still didn't get it. Now I do, and that's all I can say.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ah! Now that is a good answer. I really, really like that answer. Thank you for proving to me that it's not a yes or no question.


I wonder if this refers to me? I certainly wouldn't say I have extensive experience. Maybe some, since I've been with Daddy for 6.5 yrs, but not extensive.

Sheesh, must have finally written it in a way which was understood on some level...I said no way way back (not to mention we have both been on this board for years and both I and F have answered this same stupid question multiple times) because it is not D/s due to lack of consent from the other person...surely you didn't miss that in the multiple times I said it/!!. So let me ask you Etoile, you say YOU are TPE, and YOU have no limits, so are you telling us you would kill for your Daddy?

Catalina

 

[ownedsubgal]

While I understand the point seri and catalina are trying to make, I think my point was being missed.

Within the context of our relationships, there can be, and usually are, things that are "deal breakers." Lines that we, as human beings simply will not cross, not for ourselves, not for our children (if you have any), not for friends or family, not for love of country, not for an owner.

That's reality.

Yes, I am speaking of absolutes. Yes, in most cases it would be probably be an extreme circumstance, something you could not imagine your Owner doing in a thousand years. Something so out of character and far fetched that it hasn't crossed your mind to consider as a probability let alone a possibility.

Like a dear friend of mine who found out less than 3 months before walking down the aisle and marrying the man she loved, who she had been in a relationship with for 8 years, had lived with day in and day out for most of that time, was a pedophile and child molester.

Game over, consent was withdrawn, she said "see ya." That was a deal breaker.

Can any of you honestly tell me that you would commit murder on an order from your owner? Tell me you would consent to have sex with a minor? Tell me you would turn your own minor child over to your Owner to be a sex toy for the Owner?

Don't argue that your owner would never do something like that, that they would never ask that of you. Don't argue that you know them so well that your values and ideals are compatible. That's not a blank check of consent, that's conditional consent. If there exists one, single solitary act, regardless of how far fetched or extreme, that you as a human being would absolutely refuse to commit under any circumstances for yourself, let alone before doing it at someone elses request, then you have conditional consent in your relationship.

In my book it's that simple. You can't "carve out exceptions". It either is, or isn't, absolute. And so far, in my experience, I've never met anyone I would consider a healthy, complete human being, who didn't have some exceptions.

Therefore, no one has a "blank check of consent" to work with.

Yes, it's arguing semantics. The premise was for a "blank check". That means no exceptions, no conditions, no holding back. If there is nothing, absolutely literally, nothing you would deny your owner, then I will grant you have given them the blank check. Otherwise, you've just given them a lot of room to write the check, it really isn't blank.

i bolded the line above because i agree with it 100%. there is absolutely nothing, without exception, that i would REFUSE to do for my Master if he so ordered. as his slave, that was a privilege i gave up when i agreed to this thing. now, does that make him capable of giving any order or demanding any extreme? no. does it make me capable of obeying any order? no. i am still me, and i have my limitations, which imo defer greatly from limits. for instance, if he ordered me to lift 400 lbs, i would immediately rush to obey, but my physical limitations would prevent me from succeeding. however, that would not stop me from trying, and putting my whole self into the trying...WHATEVER the command.

i disagree with Catalina and Francisco on the point of abuse not falling the umbrella of D/s. D/s is not immune to abuse. abuse does not negate D/s. not in my world. D/s is life...***** with all of its beauty as well as all of its suffering. were my Master to abuse me (which he has every right to do)...abuse another (which he has no right to do)...he would still be my Master, and my life would still be in his hands.

perhaps this makes me, in Geoff's (and likely many others) eyes anyhow, a not sane, not healthy individual. oh well. luckily for me i found someone who appreciates my crazy arse, and wouldn't accept or tolerate anything different. of course, i feel quite confident that this person would never tell me to commit murder, molest small children, or become a serial rapist keeping his victims in underground cellars. but we weren't discussing reality right, just ridiculous extremes?

 

[catalina_francisco]

were my Master to abuse me (which he has every right to do)...abuse another (which he has no right to do)...he would still be my Master, and my life would still be in his hands.

We agree on the last part of this statement, but not completely on the first as for us, under the terms of my entering into this phase of our relationship where I gave up all rights and limits to him, it then over ruled abuse for me. I don't think F completely sees it the same, or I know he didn't in the past, but then a lot has changed since that discussion here and so I think he is closer to my understanding if not at the same point in that by giving up my right to consent, or to phrase it better, my agreement that I consent to whatever he wishes/orders/commands, there can be nothing where I would consider he was abusing me because I gave up the terms of a relationship where that would be applicable. For it to be abuse it then becomes a case of not being fair which he often reminds me has nothing to do with our relationship. Basically I am his to do with as he sees fit. I always understood that was where you were also at so perhaps I have misunderstood your wording in this post.


LOL, I missed this (of course, i feel quite confident that this person would never tell me to commit murder, molest small children, or become a serial rapist keeping his victims in underground cellars. but we weren't discussing reality right, just ridiculous extremes? )....you say it so much better than I in this case, and so much more economically.

Catalina

 

[callinectes]

perhaps this makes me, in Geoff's (and likely many others) eyes anyhow, a not sane, not healthy individual. oh well. luckily for me i found someone who appreciates my crazy arse, and wouldn't accept or tolerate anything different. of course, i feel quite confident that this person would never tell me to commit murder, molest small children, or become a serial rapist keeping his victims in underground cellars. but we weren't discussing reality right, just ridiculous extremes?

I believe the point is that ridiculous extremes DO happen. Maybe not often, but they are not unheard of either. How many times has the child molester turned out to be the minister everyone loved; The woman who everyone knew adored her kids..but killed them to be with another man; the rapist/murderer that was such a "good nice man". I daresay Lacey Peterson would have told you her husband would never kill her. The local pastor's wife of 25 years did not have the first clue her husband was into child porn and and was abusing their granddaughter. But guess what! Those ridiculous extremes happened.

 

[RJMasters]

To Geoff:

Step back and consider the same scenero only this time do not interpret "A blank Check" to mean unlimited or infinity. I know the phrase invokes that thought projection, but as I used it here, I meant it as comparitive phrase between the over-all consent that two agree to when making the "commitment" to enter into a D/s or M/s relationship and the day by day blow by blow actions. I too agree that when ever a decision is involved to obey, consent is part of the make up of such a decision.

A comment and question to Cat:

I interpret some of what you have contributed as saying....there came a point of time in your life in which you made a decision...this decision was one that you consider to be irreversible. You left no room from a personal aspect to change it once it was made, and you made it fulling knowing the consequences of making such a decision.

My Questions: So at that moment when you entered into this relationship, wasn't consent then also given with the same irreversableness attached to it?

If so I see this as a good example of how consent can be black and white at the relationship level, though the day to day living of it may at times be grey-ish in nature. I also see that your motivation is not stemming from, will I consent, but rather I have already consented, now it is a matter of trying hard to live up to that consent?

I see a clear difference from giving up all power and then striving to live up to that, and say a person who enters into a relationship with "limits". The first offers submission and obedience without conditions attached and tries one best to live up to the level of commitment. The other offers submission and obediece with strings attached where obedience and submission henges upon whether or not it falls within stated parameters.

It seems that some believe that everyone has parameters therefore everyone must fall into the second category at one point or the other from a logical perspective. I don't agree. I think that part of being a slave is the giving up power of all parameters, where as others retain the power to such parameters.

As I understand it, you as a person may still have limits in what you can or cannot do, but you have given up the right exercise any power in regards to them, which is quite different than a person who has the same limits and chooses to maintain decision making control over them rather than trust another to do it.

The last paragraph is about as clear as I can state it according to my understanding and I wonder if you agree to that assessment.

Dang....got to head out to work...catch you all later.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I believe the point is that ridiculous extremes DO happen. Maybe not often, but they are not unheard of either. How many times has the child molester turned out to be the minister everyone loved; The woman who everyone knew adored her kids..but killed them to be with another man; the rapist/murderer that was such a "good nice man". I daresay Lacey Peterson would have told you her husband would never kill her. The local pastor's wife of 25 years did not have the first clue her husband was into child porn and and was abusing their granddaughter. But guess what! Those ridiculous extremes happened.

yes, sometimes ridiculous extremes do happen. i was personally subjected to the ridiculous extreme of 7 years of physical and sexual abuse throughout the early years of my childhood. so i know they happen. my comment was aimed more specifically at the fact that everytime the issue of TPE, slavery, no limits, etc., is raised on a message board or in a chat room, someone always throws out extreme scenarios to "prove" that such a lifestyle is not possible or real.

anywho....i addressed the potentiality for those extremes, however ridiculous, in my post above.

 

[RJMasters]

I find myself contemplating two questions.

#1. Would I shoot my own father in order to prevent him from stabbing my niece, cutting her up into little pieces, and feeding her to the dog?

My answer to that question is yes. I would.

#2. Would I shoot my own father?

My answer to that question is no. Absolutely not.


Are these answers mutually exclusive? No, I don't think so.

Why not?

Because the concept of being mutually exclusive falls in the realm of logic. Logically speaking, two mutually exclusive statements can not both be true.

But also according the standards of logical reasoning, the premise underlying question #1 is fundamentally flawed, to the point of being nonsensical.

My father knows right from wrong, understands the consequences inherent in the legal system, abhors physical violence, adores his cherished granddaughter, and is a pet food control freak who doesn't believe in feeding the dog anything other than Iams premium products.

In this context, the fact that he "wouldn't do that" is not beside the point. It is the point. The entire point. And why the comparison of questions is nonsensical.

This was really a great post.

I think in the world where we live today in which the concept of everything being relative is widely accepted, one of the things that suffers most from this is the abilty to have discourse with a common context in mind.

It takes skill to put aside your own semantical differences and for the sake of discussion assume another's definition of words in order then to have a common base with which to discuss.

Just my thoughts....great post JM

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think if you're going to make a statement like "I am incapable of leaving this relationship", it's worth considering (as I'm sure those of you who are in TPE have) under what circumstances that reality could actually cease to exist. Etoile's question is valid, I'd say, even if it is a pretty big what if.

Actually for me I never said I was 'incapable of leaving' but that is was not an acceptable possibility, especially given some people have a list of things (which are not in the realms of extreme) which would displease them and in that instance give them an excuse to feel justified in leaving whereas I don't have any list. That is not our way of living TPE. As to 'what if's' you can go on forever without acheiving anything I consider useful....just as in my example where I said someone could say I was not actually TPE because I can't grow wings and fly him to the moon if he asks and osg gave the example of being asked to lift a 400lb weight she is physically incapable of doing...they are examples of posed scenarios I see as grasping at straws to prove something does not exist simply because the person posing them does not see it as a possibility for themselves so does not see how anyone else can honestly do so....fortunately we are all different and what one person finds acceptable and possible and is happy with, another recoils in horror at the thought...that does not make it a fallacy though, just not their cup of tea.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm sorry you feel that my attempt to learn, understand, and have an interesting debate is indicative that I am trying to prove something. As I just said, there was an aspect I had not considered, and now I am satisfied with the answer. I was not trying to get you to say you are not TPE, I was trying to get you to say how you would handle the situation. Which you now have, and I'm happy.

If your opinion of me is diminished by this, or I've put anybody off by going on about it for so long, well, I am sorry. I can only apologize for not understanding sooner, but I didn't feel it had been answered clearly, so I still didn't get it. Now I do, and that's all I can say.

No it isn't diminished, as you know I believe in healthy debates. I actually was typing the reponse while you were typing your other response so it became confused. Guess it is a sore point as it comes up over and over as osg said and some days you just don't feel like going through the whole thing all over again when it seems so futile or unbelieveable.

Catalina