The blank check of consent

[JMohegan]

The things M and H do that drive me *totally batshit* both stem from things not in their control. Or in my control. In one case: ADHD and its associated coping behaviors and in the other case lifelong abandonment issues and depression.

Removing myself from the situation more often comes in the form of taking a long deep breath and reminding myself that I'm not dealing with totally functional puppies I myself am not the most functional puppy, and remembering to try try TRY to be kind. It doesn't mean I will tolerate any and all bullshit, but I will try to come up with apropriate *workarounds* so I can get what I want without having to get a headache.

Do I get angry? Yes. I'm more inclined to be the asshole in the wrong trying to drive home the last point, so curbing that on my part is really the key thing. Honestly there are more problems in my relationships attributable to me getting really mad than other people, it's my ongoing struggle. I come from a place where, if you're not yelling, you may as well not talk, because no one cares.

This is a really great post, and highlights one of the most important (but often most difficult) things that the person on Top needs to learn.

You can't control everything about your partner. Some things just *are*.

And it's really, really important to keep that in mind.

 

[JMohegan]

BUT..if the argument was the result of his breaking our agreement, let's use infidelity as an example in my relationship, then why should I be expected to obey when HE was clearly in the wrong?

I can only remember one time when I ever got that angry, and I was actually the one that kept insisting we continued the conversation later. He got violent with me, which was something that was not apart of our relationship and I ended up removing myself by means of locking myself in the bathroom and him on the other side trying to break the door down.

I believe in the concept of forfeiture of a Dominant's rights.

If he breaks the terms of the original agreement, then angry or not he has no right to be issuing commands, forcing the issue, or taking any action that "stings."

At that point, everybody's back to square one.

 

[the captians wench]

Hi, Wench.

Some people thrive on volatility. Know what I mean? I'm not one of them, but these people do exist and there's nothing wrong with that personality type.

One thing RJ wrote that I really could not relate to was the comment, "hell half the time you all do things which deserve it anyways and you know its true."

That's actually not a fair description of the women I choose as partners. But that doesn't mean they are more or less submissive. It just means they have different personalities.

For me, one characteristic of a truly wonderful relationship is one in which I am rarely angry, and almost never to the point I described above.

However, no two people will ever agree on all points and all human beings have times when they get on each other's nerves. I understand your point about what's damaging, and why, but I also agree with RJ's point that it is not always the submissive's place to be able to say "I'd rather....".

If the Dom is angry and wants to "make it sting," I believe it is his right to do so. Of course, his behavior is also bound by the mental & emotional limits of his partner. And unless he doesn't mind losing her, he will take care not to go too far.

You're right, most often it's not my place to say "I'd rather...", but I can choose people to play with who I think are more likely to do what I'd rather have hapen than what I would not.

Those I play with know what my relationship with my ex was like towards the end. They know about my abandonment issues and about my almost constant need for some form of attention, and they work with it.

That's not to say that I haven't been punished by being left in a room alone, but never more than 10 mins and never for any serious offence. I always knew that he was not that upset with me and there for this was acceptable in my mind and I didn't freak out like I might have if he had really been angry.

He does have every right to just go blank, or leave the room, or something along those lines when he's really pissed off. But I would not be able to handle that, it wouldn't just sting, it would break me. Which is why I would be more comfortable the scene RJ presented.

But there are others here who have expressed the opposite. It's one of the reasons you really have to know who you give such power to, and who you accept such power from.

 

[Etoile]

This is a really great post, and highlights one of the most important (but often most difficult) things that the person on Top needs to learn.

You can't control everything about your partner. Some things just *are*.

And it's really, really important to keep that in mind.

Yes. It has taken my Daddy a long, long time to begin to understand that I am not willfully out of control when I am having a panic attack; in the past e would get really pissed off about it. But now e realizes it's something neither of us can control, and that getting angry just mades it worse.

 

[serijules]

The things M and H do that drive me *totally batshit* both stem from things not in their control. Or in my control. In one case: ADHD and its associated coping behaviors and in the other case lifelong abandonment issues and depression.

Removing myself from the situation more often comes in the form of taking a long deep breath and reminding myself that I'm not dealing with totally functional puppies I myself am not the most functional puppy, and remembering to try try TRY to be kind. It doesn't mean I will tolerate any and all bullshit, but I will try to come up with apropriate *workarounds* so I can get what I want without having to get a headache.

This sums up Ma'am pretty well too, with me. The things that I do that drive her fucking mad stem from abandonment issues and depression as well. When I miss a pill and start turning into raving-crazy over here, she usually just takes a deep breath and lets me go about my ways until I come to my senses. No sense in her getting caught up in it and giving herself a migraine when it isn't something she can control and knows it isn't something under my control.

It took me a long time to learn that her silence was not abandonment, but actually a hell of a lot of support. She was still there, she was willing to listen and let me rant and rave and move on without reacting herself in ways I'm sure she had to struggle to contain but just were not worth her effort. I know there are times when I am in this bad place where she'd rather slap the hell out of me and tell me to stop being so damn stupid, but she refrains, cuz she's nice like that. She WILL tell me how silly I was being and how exasperated she was later on when I'm back to normal and my reactions are back under control.

There are limits to that of course. Recently in the midst of a missed-doses-induced fit I suggested maybe it would be better for her if we took a break. I haven't seen her that angry in a long time, and don't care to ever again. I was clearly informed that wasn't my decision to make, or my place to suggest.

 

[Etoile]

*smacks head*

Y'know, I think I just figured out what people in this thread, especially Catalina, have been saying. The topic is "the blank check of consent - as in, "I consent to whatever you are going to do to me." Not "I consent to whatever you are going to tell me to do."

Damn, that was a big clue-by-four I just whacked myself with.

 

[Netzach]

This sums up Ma'am pretty well too, with me. The things that I do that drive her fucking mad stem from abandonment issues and depression as well. When I miss a pill and start turning into raving-crazy over here, she usually just takes a deep breath and lets me go about my ways until I come to my senses. No sense in her getting caught up in it and giving herself a migraine when it isn't something she can control and knows it isn't something under my control.

It took me a long time to learn that her silence was not abandonment, but actually a hell of a lot of support. She was still there, she was willing to listen and let me rant and rave and move on without reacting herself in ways I'm sure she had to struggle to contain but just were not worth her effort. I know there are times when I am in this bad place where she'd rather slap the hell out of me and tell me to stop being so damn stupid, but she refrains, cuz she's nice like that. She WILL tell me how silly I was being and how exasperated she was later on when I'm back to normal and my reactions are back under control.

There are limits to that of course. Recently in the midst of a missed-doses-induced fit I suggested maybe it would be better for her if we took a break. I haven't seen her that angry in a long time, and don't care to ever again. I was clearly informed that wasn't my decision to make, or my place to suggest.

You could probably record our phone calls sometimes and get damn close to the same transcript - this all sounds remarkably familiar.

I do expect, and have gotten, as I bet she has, a generally upward trend in terms of self-awareness and the ability to step back and see that I'm not going anywhere. If the crazy gets more and more crazy there does come a point where there's never enough I could do for the person, in theory. Happily that's not happening.

 

[catalina_francisco]

*smacks head*

Y'know, I think I just figured out what people in this thread, especially Catalina, have been saying. The topic is "the blank check of consent - as in, "I consent to whatever you are going to do to me." Not "I consent to whatever you are going to tell me to do."

Damn, that was a big clue-by-four I just whacked myself with.

LOL, true in part as I think it is probably the biggest part of most peoples scenes and duties, but for me it also extends to things I am expected to do which do not sit well with me as a person or are not easy for me in a variey of ways.

Catalina

 

[serijules]

You could probably record our phone calls sometimes and get damn close to the same transcript - this all sounds remarkably familiar.

I do expect, and have gotten, as I bet she has, a generally upward trend in terms of self-awareness and the ability to step back and see that I'm not going anywhere. If the crazy gets more and more crazy there does come a point where there's never enough I could do for the person, in theory. Happily that's not happening.

*gets that "oh shit I've been caught" look on her face and discreetly removes the taps from Netz's phones*

*cough* anyhow...

Yes, yes...it doesn't usually take me long to get to that point where I realize how stupid I am being and often there has been some slight "damage" done in the meantime in the sense of me saying things I really do not mean or really are not as big of a deal as I'm making them out to be. However, I apologize, I outline where I went wrong so she knows I recognize that, I make an effort to avoid the triggers in the first place, and we move on. How I wish, and I'm sure she does as well, that those moments wouldn't even happen at all, but alas, they do and we just accept it is part of who we are.

No totally functional puppies in this circle either. Or ponies as my case may be.

I finally got diagnosed for depression and accepted a script (something I scoffed at for a long time due to my unpredictable reactions to medication sometimes). Life is easier for both of us now.

God bless Lexapro.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Bullshit indeed. I agree.

<snip>
As to the broader point, what you are describing here is a critical distinction between D/s and non, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't want to have to put up with protracted arguments or endless negotiations or manipulative bullshit that some guys endure. If I want to put my foot down, I'm gonna put my fucking foot down. And if she doesn't like that fact, then she's not the woman for me.

This was my take on RJ's statement as well. In the first place, while I enjoy a good back and forth debate, I'm not a stomp-my-foot-and-yell kind of person when I don't get my way. In fact, I'm not much for arguing unless I feel really strongly about something - and there isn't much that I do feel that strongly about that wouldn't have been dealt with at the get go so that we were in agreement about those issues. So, again, RJ, the bottom line in my mind about the entire discussion is that it really depends on the dynamics involved in your relationship. I'm reading what JM wrote here in blue and I think that's the point you seem to be getting at. I think the reason I'm having such a hard time picturing myself in that situation is because I just don't do that. Period. I guess my question is this: As a Dom, why would you allow the argument to get to that point to begin with?

I guess part of it boils down to my personal definitions of Dominant and submissive. While I am a very strong willed, opinionated person, within my personal relationships, if I'm upset about something and it seems to be an unending argument, I'm the one who typically gets quiet and drops it. If it's something I feel strongly about and I don't feel that my position is being considered and continued discussion will turn into further argument, I tend to write it down so that I feel I get my position out without being interrupted. Once I've done that, if the decision is still to not give me whatever it is I'm trying to get, then I don't have much choice in the matter, do I? And really, if it's something I feel that strongly about, then it's probably an issue that deals with my kids or my job. Otherwise, there really isn't much else that I feel that strongly about that I'm willing to go against his wishes on - and I guess I'd probably still be pushing the issue because I don't want to go against his wishes, I want him to see and agree with my position.

So RJ, to lighten things up a bit here, just what kind of girls are you hanging out with these days, hon?

 

[RJMasters]

This was my take on RJ's statement as well. In the first place, while I enjoy a good back and forth debate, I'm not a stomp-my-foot-and-yell kind of person when I don't get my way. In fact, I'm not much for arguing unless I feel really strongly about something - and there isn't much that I do feel that strongly about that wouldn't have been dealt with at the get go so that we were in agreement about those issues. So, again, RJ, the bottom line in my mind about the entire discussion is that it really depends on the dynamics involved in your relationship. I'm reading what JM wrote here in blue and I think that's the point you seem to be getting at. I think the reason I'm having such a hard time picturing myself in that situation is because I just don't do that. Period. I guess my question is this: As a Dom, why would you allow the argument to get to that point to begin with?

I guess part of it boils down to my personal definitions of Dominant and submissive. While I am a very strong willed, opinionated person, within my personal relationships, if I'm upset about something and it seems to be an unending argument, I'm the one who typically gets quiet and drops it. If it's something I feel strongly about and I don't feel that my position is being considered and continued discussion will turn into further argument, I tend to write it down so that I feel I get my position out without being interrupted. Once I've done that, if the decision is still to not give me whatever it is I'm trying to get, then I don't have much choice in the matter, do I? And really, if it's something I feel that strongly about, then it's probably an issue that deals with my kids or my job. Otherwise, there really isn't much else that I feel that strongly about that I'm willing to go against his wishes on - and I guess I'd probably still be pushing the issue because I don't want to go against his wishes, I want him to see and agree with my position.

So RJ, to lighten things up a bit here, just what kind of girls are you hanging out with these days, hon?

Jeesh where to start with all these responses.

I guess I will start here and just respond that in your response you seem to lead that this somehow was personalized. So I will make it clear that it wasn't, at least not in the way in which you mentioned it.

I altered the scenero as I mentioned in the post I altered it for the sake of discussion. Basically I am throwing out a situation which is framed within what normally would be consented to, but there is a question as to consent being present in the moment. By placing oneself into that situation, it is interesting to see how they would respond both top and bottom alike.

I am fully aware of a few things when I purposed this thread and have changed the scenero slightly. One is, that for many, they never reach that point nor do they push to that point and if it does happen, then it is very very rare. I even admitted that for myself I haven't had such an thing happen in about 8 years, so I know its very possible and given the nature of D/s or M/s it doesn't surprise me that many simply shrug and say N/a in my situation because I just never let it go that far. That is a fair enough answer.

Another thing I am aware of, and ageeing with you, the dynamic of the relationship is going to be a big part in how things go. But we could just say that about any topic almost and skip the discussion altogether.

Another thing which I agree and am also aware of is that the context of the aregument will play a big part as to whether this would be a good idea or a bad one. For example 's post about the argument maybe as a result of the Dom breaching an existing trust, in which case I would agree with her, but then she change the scenero in order to provide the response she did which is totally fine too.

As to the type of women I have been hanging around lately...her name is Dell XPS. I take her with me everywhere I go. She is very low mateinance, but still requires a lot of hands on to get her to do what I want. When we have an argument she usually wins, but I always have the last play because I can just restart her or shut her off when I have had enough.

 

[RJMasters]

Normally I reinforce "I said LATER" by removing myself from the presence of the offender. Or better yet, the offender from me - I've literally said "get out of my house now."

I like kneeling and fellatio to be fun things in my rel. and adding a lot of negative connotations to both seems at odds with that.

I understand your points in not wanting to add negative conotation to these two things.

As to leaving or removing the offender, I understand that as well, although that is not any option in my world. you have no idea the magnitude or the scope this seemling no brainer approach has altered my entire life.

Earlier today I wrote a very long post describing how exactly this apporached changed my life so drasticly, but decided that it would detract from this thread. So instead I will post it to another thread and if you so choose you can read it there.

 

[RJMasters]

LOL, it takes a lot more than this to make my jaw drop and I'm not even able to come up with something which might make it possible!! So to answer your questions....the first one for me would bring about disappointment, confusion, sadness, breaking the dynamic and stepping back into a life I no longer want. The second one would mean a dissolving of trust and respect, more confusion, resentment, anger, and a total breakdown of the relationship unless a lot of talking and work were put back into it. Of course some are going to think that is a poor outcome, but then I tend to think that comes from a vanilla or mainstream mindset where it is not so important if the power exchange is lost or damaged, for us it is the basis of our relationship and without a firm foundation, the walls soon begin to crumble.

Catalina

So are you saying that by me startig this thread and posing these sceneros for discussion, that I have a vanilla or mainstream mindset where power excahnge is concerned? Becareful that's a trick question.

 

[RJMasters]

Bullshit indeed. I agree.

The Dom is allowed to get angry, and he is allowed to express his anger in a way that suits his own personality and his view of the needs of the relationship.

Check out hypothetical #1 in post #5 by Marquis. He wrote: "With every appearance of being nonconsensual, this sort of action would not only be acceptable but quite likely appreciated by the kind of perverse females I fuck with. It's not something I would pull every day, but transcending the immediate argument there is a more important understanding, that she is my woman and I'm allowed to take control."

Once again, I agree.

But also be sure to check out Beachgurl's earlier remarks about people in relationships being well-matched. What is acceptable and ultimately appreciated by one type of woman would devastate another and destroy the relationship in no time flat.

As I said earlier on the thread, when provoked and angry in a personal relationship, I become cold and quiet. At times, passive in the extreme. I'm not gonna shove my cock down her throat or even order her out of the building. I'll stand there, completely motionless, with an ice-cold look on my face.

Sometimes it can sting like hell and tear your world apart to see him standing, immobile, refusing to utter even the simplest command.

As to the broader point, what you are describing here is a critical distinction between D/s and non, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't want to have to put up with protracted arguments or endless negotiations or manipulative bullshit that some guys endure. If I want to put my foot down, I'm gonna put my fucking foot down. And if she doesn't like that fact, then she's not the woman for me.

There is a lot to address in this post....I wouldn't know where to begin.

I will be gin by saying that i did and do agree with beachgurl's comment about compatibility. In part that makes up the consent that i see established at the relationship level....you know what I mean by that as I explained it. It also is waht i refered to as the blank check. The inference to blank check did not mean infininte or unlimited, but more of the idea that this over-riding or pre-existing consent to the nature of a D/s or M/s relationship which is entered into by two people(hopfully two extremely compatibile people) would cover the balance when day to day events happen.

Without the confidence of this over-riding consent being in place, I would think it would be very counter productive. Sometimes it doesn't handle the grey areas and this of course requires sober approach in those cases, but I think there are grey areas that do arise in which that over-riding consent takes care of.

What is clear or evident by the responses in this thread is that everyone has a different idea or concept of how much that over-riding consent should cover and what it shouldn't.

Why I find that important is what seems to hang in the balance and has been expressed by those who feel it should cover it, that it is fine and works within the dynamic make up of the relationship, while others who say it isn't fine, find it to be abusive, and then there is a thrid group which says it fits within the dynamic of the relationship, but it is still abusive and damaging.

It would be really interesting to find out what mainstream would consider more abusive. A husband whipping his wife with a whip? or a husband who forced his wife to her knees over an argument?

Given the present climate I am not sure which mainstream would actually pick, however I think by a good margin it is clear around these parts. And the length some have gone to rationalise that has been impressive. Wheather right, wrong or indifferent, I think its noteworty as well as interesting.

The sceneros I put forth for this discussion are much like those ink blots that people look at and then are suppose to answer, what they see, only here they put themselves into the scenero and respond.

As far the reality of actually forcing my wife to her knees or making her suck my cock during and argument is not likely to ever happen. It for me is more fantasy in which I consider hot, and last I checked it was ok to share what you find hot on this board. The reality for me, would be more like what Spectre T said or like what you expressed here. The last thing on my mind during an argument with the person I love is sex. Purposing to my wife during an argument doesn't count...lol.

The answers that have been given have been pretty predictable but what is more interesting to me is the rationalization people used and how they qualified the answers they gave. To me that is what has made this discussion so interesting.

I guess now that the cat is out of the bag, the discussion will most likely end and we can go back to talking about the size of cock rings or something.

 

[JMohegan]

I will be gin by saying that i did and do agree with beachgurl's comment about compatibility. In part that makes up the consent that i see established at the relationship level....you know what I mean by that as I explained it. It also is waht i refered to as the blank check. The inference to blank check did not mean infininte or unlimited, but more of the idea that this over-riding or pre-existing consent to the nature of a D/s or M/s relationship which is entered into by two people(hopfully two extremely compatibile people) would cover the balance when day to day events happen.

When I refer to compatibility, I am talking about people whose personalities and fundamental needs are well-matched.

For example, it is inconceivable to me that one of my partners would ever slap me across the face or yell something outrageously disrespectful like, "You bastard!" Is this because I am the King of Respectability, or Most Inspiring Dom? Of course not. The women I date have certain personalities and ways of expressing themselves, and *that* is what explains the inconceivability of the slapping or yelling.

I don't think I am disagreeing with you on anything here, RJ. I am just clarifying my position in order to make sure we're on the same page in this discussion.

Without the confidence of this over-riding consent being in place, I would think it would be very counter productive. Sometimes it doesn't handle the grey areas and this of course requires sober approach in those cases, but I think there are grey areas that do arise in which that over-riding consent takes care of.

What is clear or evident by the responses in this thread is that everyone has a different idea or concept of how much that over-riding consent should cover and what it shouldn't.

By "over-riding consent", I assume you mean the boundaries of the relationship. Everyone has a different idea about this, because the boundaries of each relationship are different. Again, I don't think we are in disagreement here.

When discussing boundaries at the beginning of a relationship, I have never once phrased things in terms of what we are (e.g., Me Dom, you sub, let's go). Instead, I talk about my expectations for what we will do.

I try to outline as carefully as possible the areas in which I want to maintain control, and I explain as clearly as possible what control itself means to me. One thing I have found very interesting about your comments on the thread and your initial hypothetical, RJ, is that you are essentially describing something I do, very early on in a relationship, in order to help my partner understand my expectations and as a way for me to understand just how compliant she is willing to be.

I take an activity that I know she usually enjoys very much (and a blowjob is actually a good example of this), and I purposefully pick a time when I know she is really, really not in the mood to give a blowjob, and I tell her to do it.

In every case, there has been an initial expression of shock, surprise, and a certain amount of disbelief on her face in response to this initial untimely request. It is absolutely clear that she's thinking: He can't possibly expect me to do this when I am so exhausted, or when he's interrupting me in the middle of something important, or when I'm in a really bad mood from a truly ghastly day at work.

I stand there calmly, and I wait. Then the look of surprise and confusion passes, and she realizes: Oh. *This* is what he meant when he was talking about control.

That is a critical turning point in the relationship. With some women, it ends right there.

And that's a simplified example of how I establish boundaries in a relationship. Explain as carefully as possible what my expectations are and then check for understanding, consent, and the capacity of a partner to give me what I need.

[Of course, what she needs is important too. The process is obviously far more complex than I am making it seem here, but I assume you're getting the general idea.]

Why I find that important is what seems to hang in the balance and has been expressed by those who feel it should cover it, that it is fine and works within the dynamic make up of the relationship, while others who say it isn't fine, find it to be abusive, and then there is a thrid group which says it fits within the dynamic of the relationship, but it is still abusive and damaging.

It would be really interesting to find out what mainstream would consider more abusive. A husband whipping his wife with a whip? or a husband who forced his wife to her knees over an argument?

Given the present climate I am not sure which mainstream would actually pick, however I think by a good margin it is clear around these parts. And the length some have gone to rationalise that has been impressive. Wheather right, wrong or indifferent, I think its noteworty as well as interesting.

I believe that abuse is defined by the effect of the action on the subject at hand. It is not the action itself that makes it abusive, and it is not the absence of consent.

I am not disagreeing with anything you wrote in this post, RJ. (At least, I don't think so.) I am just trying to make the point that violating the boundaries of the relationship and doing something that ends up being abusive may, in some cases, be two entirely different things.

Behavior that causes material and sustained deterioration in the subject's mental and physical health and happiness is abuse. This can happen in an instant, or it can result from actions taken over a sustained period of time.

Look at that first example given by Marquis. "I grab her by the hair, wrestle her to the ground and fuck her while she protests, physically and verbally." Many, if not most, would call that rape and abuse. Why is it not?

Because, though she may not appreciate it in the moment, she ultimately *does* understand, accept, and appreciate what he did. They have a more volatile and physically aggressive relationship (on both sides) than most. That is what satisfies and works for them.

Take that exact same action of grabbing, wrestling, & fucking under protest, and do it to a different type of woman, and you could obliterate her trust in the individual and in men in general for a long, long time.

 

[april-wine]

Some very interesting posts in this thread, I read thinking of my own response. While some posts brought a knee-jerk NONONO, while reading and thinking I have drawn very different conclusions.

When the girl and I began this journey we set some very hard limits, and the longer we are together they change and flux.

As her Domme, I would never ask her to murder someone. It would not only cause her much physical and mental damage, but our relationship would be damaged beyond repair. While this is an extreme example, it also applies to the limits we set as a D/s couple.

Would I demand sex even if she wasn't willing, yes and I have on occasion. She is mine to use. Even in these moments she can protest, yet she will submit. We set these limits and we live to them.

 

[JMohegan]

Why I find that important is what seems to hang in the balance and has been expressed by those who feel it should cover it, that it is fine and works within the dynamic make up of the relationship, while others who say it isn't fine, find it to be abusive, and then there is a thrid group which says it fits within the dynamic of the relationship, but it is still abusive and damaging.

It would be really interesting to find out what mainstream would consider more abusive. A husband whipping his wife with a whip? or a husband who forced his wife to her knees over an argument?

Given the present climate I am not sure which mainstream would actually pick, however I think by a good margin it is clear around these parts. And the length some have gone to rationalise that has been impressive. Wheather right, wrong or indifferent, I think its noteworty as well as interesting.

The sceneros I put forth for this discussion are much like those ink blots that people look at and then are suppose to answer, what they see, only here they put themselves into the scenero and respond.

As far the reality of actually forcing my wife to her knees or making her suck my cock during and argument is not likely to ever happen. It for me is more fantasy in which I consider hot, and last I checked it was ok to share what you find hot on this board. The reality for me, would be more like what Spectre T said or like what you expressed here. The last thing on my mind during an argument with the person I love is sex. Purposing to my wife during an argument doesn't count...lol.

RJ,

I realize that I have already responded to this post, but I've been thinking about it while out & about and have returned to add two things.

First, I read the hypotheticals in your posts #1 and #134 as describing details that do not relate to your marriage per se. You were very clear about that from the beginning. However, if some other guy had popped on and said he forces oral during an argument in the context of a relationship similar to the one described by Marquis, I would have made the exact same response as I did to Marquis' first hypothetical. And of course I see nothing wrong with fantasy.

In short, I hope you did not read any personal criticism of you into my remarks, because absolutely none was intended.

The second point is more of a question, and it relates to your Rorschach test. I am interested to know what, in your opinion, my responses tell you about me and I don't mind you being explicit. If I think you are right, I'll say so and if I think you are off base, I'll note that too.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Jeesh where to start with all these responses.

I guess I will start here and just respond that in your response you seem to lead that this somehow was personalized. So I will make it clear that it wasn't, at least not in the way in which you mentioned it.

I know that it wasn't personalized, RJ. I felt you made that very clear earlier in the thread. However, my point is that each response you receive will be personalized - we all have our own perspectives and experiences that we bring to the table here. My discussion of not being the kind of girl who would actually be in the situation you described was to explain that my responses were in some ways as hypothetical as your original premise. Although I will probably never be in the specific situation you describe, I can still address the question of blank check of consent. But it will be from MY perspective, which may be different from yours.

I altered the scenero as I mentioned in the post I altered it for the sake of discussion. Basically I am throwing out a situation which is framed within what normally would be consented to, but there is a question as to consent being present in the moment. By placing oneself into that situation, it is interesting to see how they would respond both top and bottom alike.

I am fully aware of a few things when I purposed this thread and have changed the scenero slightly. One is, that for many, they never reach that point nor do they push to that point and if it does happen, then it is very very rare. I even admitted that for myself I haven't had such an thing happen in about 8 years, so I know its very possible and given the nature of D/s or M/s it doesn't surprise me that many simply shrug and say N/a in my situation because I just never let it go that far. That is a fair enough answer.

Another thing I am aware of, and ageeing with you, the dynamic of the relationship is going to be a big part in how things go. But we could just say that about any topic almost and skip the discussion altogether.

Another thing which I agree and am also aware of is that the context of the aregument will play a big part as to whether this would be a good idea or a bad one. For example 's post about the argument maybe as a result of the Dom breaching an existing trust, in which case I would agree with her, but then she change the scenero in order to provide the response she did which is totally fine too.

As to the type of women I have been hanging around lately...her name is Dell XPS. I take her with me everywhere I go. She is very low mateinance, but still requires a lot of hands on to get her to do what I want. When we have an argument she usually wins, but I always have the last play because I can just restart her or shut her off when I have had enough.

Yes, it is a fair enough answer, however, you could change the action to almost anything and then people will start to say, yeah, but . . . You can see that through the discussion that ensued about TPE. In many ways, I lean very closely to Cat's version of TPE. It doesn't sound like it here, but I know that I do. When I reach the level of trust in a relationship that I desire, my level of TPE will be very close to Cat's level - because all of these things will have been weeded out early on so that I wouldn't have to be concerned about where things were going. For me, it's not about a physical act so much as it's about breaching a principle. Everyone has principles, morals they hold to regardless of situation. By carefully choosing your mate, and knowing that your principles line up, and that your personalities line up, then the type of question you pose, RJ, is really moot.

Sure, the unexpected will happen, that's part of D/s and M/s. The D holds the power. So things will be thrown out there that are unexpected - much as JM's example of the blowjob. From my perspective, when you've come together and the dynamics are right - personalities are in sync, principles and moral values are in sync, etc. - then that blank check of consent does exist and it means I've consented to everything. (I'm purposely leaving out the whole discussion on mental illness that occurred earlier as I find it to be a special circumstance situation.) And because I trust that the intent of the action isn't to disrespect me, while I might get angry or upset that I've been ordered to do something like that in the middle of an important argument, well, I'll still do it.

I guess for me the question of consent is a little different from some I've read here. And I think it lines up in many ways with what Cat was saying earlier. Consent in a TPE really can't be situational. If it is, then it isn't TPE. And that's why Francisco wanted Cat to truly think about the whole thing before he was willing to accept it with her. Because in TPE, it's not situational. You can't just go back and say, oops, shouldn't have agreed to that. However, should you be directed to do something that breaks your moral code, in my mind that would put it into another realm - because I came into this expecting a certain moral code. That doesn't make consent situational, it means that a major breach of trust has occurred and that breach of trust negates the consent. Remember - I'm not talking about him staying out all night with his buddies and not calling you. I'm talking about a breach of your moral values. There is a very big difference between the two things, in my mind. And I think it is something that Geoff and Etoile alluded to earlier. There are things that your moral compass won't ever allow you to do under any circumstances, or maybe only under the most extreme - yes, I would kill for my children if it were necessary for their safety without question. So when that breach of trust occurs, I believe fully that it negates consent.

The dynamics I talked about earlier define that compatability. I'm not going to submit to someone whose moral code is very different from mine. I'm not going to submit to someone whose personality doesn't mesh with mine. Just as JM said that the sub in his life would never get angry and slap him across the face - because the personlity of the sub he would have in his life wouldn't do something like that. Just as I said earlier that I wouldn't stomp my feet and yell in an argument. However, that doesn't mean that we can't all see the blank check that you're talking about.

In final answer to your original post, RJ, I'll repeat what I said above. For me, when I reach the point with someone that I have decided to give that blank check of consent, I know that the important things have alligned properly between us - principles, morals, personalities, dynamics, whatever you want to call it. Because of that, yes, that blank check does exist and truly is a blank check of consent. At that point, I have given up the ability to say no.




Yes, but can Miss Dell make coffee in the morning?

 

[Etoile]

As to the type of women I have been hanging around lately...her name is Dell XPS. I take her with me everywhere I go. She is very low mateinance, but still requires a lot of hands on to get her to do what I want. When we have an argument she usually wins, but I always have the last play because I can just restart her or shut her off when I have had enough.

*snickers*

 

[RJMasters]

The second point is more of a question, and it relates to your Rorschach test. I am interested to know what, in your opinion, my responses tell you about me and I don't mind you being explicit. If I think you are right, I'll say so and if I think you are off base, I'll note that too.

1- I don't do Master/slave, and a partner of mine retains the right of refusal at all times.

2 - She refuses by uttering a single word. "Red". When that word comes out of her mouth, I am honor bound to stop whatever I am doing. She is honor bound to have a damn good reason for safewording.

3 - A woman who calls Red over a blowjob because she's in a bad mood, grumpy, tired, irritated with my behavior, or ticked off about something I just said, is not a woman who would remain long in a relationship with me.

I agree that consent is a grey concept, particularly as it relates to non-sexual issues, areas on the edge of a partner's physical or mental limits, questions relating to informed consent, crossing the line of coercion, extortion, etc., etc., etc.

But consent over a simple blowjob in the middle of a "spat"? This is D/s 101, as far as I'm concerned.

In non-D/s relationships, the woman gives blowjobs when she's in the mood to do so. In my flavor of D/s, the woman gives blowjobs when I tell her to, unless she has a damn good reason for refusal.

Irritation over a petty quarrel is not something that I consider to be an adequate reason for refusal. If that were the standard, the relationship might as well be non-D/s because you'd basically be back to: whenever she's in the mood.

There is no adequate substitute for a sane and ethical Top/Dominant who genuinely cares for his mate, and no safeword or set of limits or demands on the part of the submissive/bottom that can make up for lack of the same.

I actually have spent a considerable amount of time contemplating the difference between being an abusive partner and a responsible mate.

Frankly, the idea of a Dominant who does *not* wrestle with this issue on a periodic basis gives me considerable pause.

I would say that the only black & white rules I have are the ones I lay down for myself. These are not technically established as part of an agreement between a partner and myself, but rather a deal I make within my own head in order to give myself permission to function as a sadist in a personal relationship.

One example is: I do not lie to a partner. Ever.

No lies of convenience. No mindfucks. No exaggerated or empty threats.

This is a huge part of the way I build trust, and it is also an important element of my own personal line between acceptable and unacceptable coercion.

You are a relationship based Dominant with a sadistic side. You have and operate by a code of ethics which you have created for yourself as a result of self reflection, experience and solid knowledge of what you want. Because you operate from a code of ethics, you expect and require any woman you would be with to also operate from a code of ethics. You also have a good idea of the type of women you would most likely be compatible with, which would include your code of ethics and her code to align and also share simillar views about what power exchange is.

In the situations disucessed in this thread, "certain uses of force" are seen as a right or a perogative rather than stemming from any sadistic desire or need. As long as the force being applied meets with your code of ethics. Exploring this use of force is not topping your list of things you want to explore or even push, as it is more of a power/position exhchange issue than it is a sexual or sadisitc one.

Though you state with certainty that a woman who struggled with giving a blow job upon command without a good reason wouldn't remain in a relationship with you for long, I think this would pove to be a much more difficult situation for you to handle in reality.

Your intellect is one of your more dominant traits and you rely heavily upon it. However at times you rely upon your intellect too much and when that happens you tend to become domineering rather than display a Domly quality with it (ask me how I know this, grinz.)

You bring a lot of good things to the table as a dominant and would make a good match to a submissive who sees her submission equally as both devotion and duty. Satisfaction to you would equate to how well she can balance those two.

 

[RJMasters]

Yes, but can Miss Dell make coffee in the morning? [

Nope she can't. Nor can she wear a smokin AV like the one you got on either. She told me she's jealious that you have two buttons to reboot your system. I told her though it was ok because you couldn't put a cd in your slot and spin it at 4800 rpms either.

Well not that I know of anyways....does a double take....

 

[catalina_francisco]

You are a relationship based Dominant with a sadistic side. You have and operate by a code of ethics which you have created for yourself as a result of self reflection, experience and solid knowledge of what you want. Because you operate from a code of ethics, you expect and require any woman you would be with to also operate from a code of ethics. You also have a good idea of the type of women you would most likely be compatible with, which would include your code of ethics and her code to align and also share simillar views about what power exchange is.

In the situations disucessed in this thread, "certain uses of force" are seen as a right or a perogative rather than stemming from any sadistic desire or need. As long as the force being applied meets with your code of ethics. Exploring this use of force is not topping your list of things you want to explore or even push, as it is more of a power/position exhchange issue than it is a sexual or sadisitc one.

Though you state with certainty that a woman who struggled with giving a blow job upon command without a good reason wouldn't remain in a relationship with you for long, I think this would pove to be a much more difficult situation for you to handle in reality.

Your intellect is one of your more dominant traits and you rely heavily upon it. However at times you rely upon your intellect too much and when that happens you tend to become domineering rather than display a Domly quality with it (ask me how I know this, grinz.)

You bring a lot of good things to the table as a dominant and would make a good match to a submissive who sees her submission equally as both devotion and duty. Satisfaction to you would equate to how well she can balance those two.

OK, RJ...have you been doing those online questionaires which claim to know exactly who you are inside out? LOL, sorry, but it just sounded like something which would come from such a quiz when the evaluation blurb came up.

Catalina

 

[Etoile]

Though you state with certainty that a woman who struggled with giving a blow job upon command without a good reason wouldn't remain in a relationship with you for long, I think this would pove to be a much more difficult situation for you to handle in reality.

I'm inclined to agree with this (though I'm not sure who "you" is). Someone who is so certain of this belief must, by necessity, have a very broad definition of "good reasons." The fact is, we are all human. If you want someone who will always drop to her knees and suck, every time, then you have to get a dick-sucking robot, not a human being. To expect that a submissive never be pouty, or have a bit of tummy upset, or be annoyed because you're interrupting something she's working on, is to set yourself up for disappointment.

Now, maybe it's just a matter of frequency; maybe as long as she is willing most of the time is enough. As long as she only displays her poutiness once in a while, you'll keep her. But to say "she better have a good reason every time she grumbles, or she's out the door" is going to make life harder for you than for her.

(So who's the you we're talking about, anyway?)

 

[BeachGurl2]

Nope she can't. Nor can she wear a smokin AV like the one you got on either. She told me she's jealious that you have two buttons to reboot your system. I told her though it was ok because you couldn't put a cd in your slot and spin it at 4800 rpms either.

Well not that I know of anyways....does a double take....

[mini-hijack]
Why thank you, kind Sir.

I'm sure there are a few things you could put in my slot that would make me spin, but I don't think a CD is one of them.
[/hijack]

 

[JMohegan]

You are a relationship based Dominant with a sadistic side. You have and operate by a code of ethics which you have created for yourself as a result of self reflection, experience and solid knowledge of what you want. Because you operate from a code of ethics, you expect and require any woman you would be with to also operate from a code of ethics. You also have a good idea of the type of women you would most likely be compatible with, which would include your code of ethics and her code to align and also share simillar views about what power exchange is.

In the situations disucessed in this thread, "certain uses of force" are seen as a right or a perogative rather than stemming from any sadistic desire or need. As long as the force being applied meets with your code of ethics. Exploring this use of force is not topping your list of things you want to explore or even push, as it is more of a power/position exhchange issue than it is a sexual or sadisitc one.

So far, so good.

Though you state with certainty that a woman who struggled with giving a blow job upon command without a good reason wouldn't remain in a relationship with you for long, I think this would pove to be a much more difficult situation for you to handle in reality.

No. It's really not difficult.

I think you misunderstood the implication of what I meant when I said, "A woman who calls Red over a blowjob because she's in a bad mood, grumpy, tired, irritated with my behavior, or ticked off about something I just said, is not a woman who would remain long in a relationship with me."

She can struggle with this, of course. But if she *refuses* without a good reason then she really, really is not the right woman for me.

In this context, the definition of good is both subjective and situational. But it's mine, and that's the point.

Consider Shy's comments in post 17:

The most challenging aspect of D/s for me, is not doing the consensual, fun, erotic etc things when I want to but when he wants to. It is pretty easy to do things when you are excited or aroused, it is not so easy at other times.

It is an easy situation to fall into. It mirrors the vanilla 'I have a headache' scenario. It is up to both partners to ensure that the agreed dynamic is maintained or changed by open agreement and not by underhand tactics. It is fair to say that the dynamics in a relationship sometimes change by stealth without either person realising what is happening, but at the point it is realised it needs to become an open honest discussion. No matter how difficult that may be to deal with.

That's very insightful as far as I'm concerned, and key to the distinctions I make between D/s vs. non and between actual D/s vs. playing a game.

Your intellect is one of your more dominant traits and you rely heavily upon it. However at times you rely upon your intellect too much and when that happens you tend to become domineering rather than display a Domly quality with it (ask me how I know this, grinz.)

*grinning back.

Okay. How do you know?

And also - per your definitions, what is the difference between domineering and Domly?

(I'll reserve further comment on this portion 'till you get back to me here.)

You bring a lot of good things to the table as a dominant and would make a good match to a submissive who sees her submission equally as both devotion and duty. Satisfaction to you would equate to how well she can balance those two.

This is a distinction that I have never contemplated.

The way I see it, it's all about the interest in, and capacity for, devotion to me as an individual. "Me" in this context is the whole package, including my rules and expectations.

I don't look at this as duty so much as the totality of "me" becoming what she craves and needs.