A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Quint said:
Changing (or challenging) comfortable behavior is not always a bad thing nor an abusive thing. I think that is why you (like many of us) "happen to like it."
Unhealthy Dominance
- Thread starter A Desert Rose
- Start date
Changing (or challenging) comfortable behavior is not always a bad thing nor an abusive thing. I think that is why you (like many of us) "happen to like it."
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
lilnymph28 said:
Indeed, to your entire post. When you have spent months and months being told that if you don't submit to this or that, the relationship is over, it is hard to trust anyone again. And it makes it very hard to be true to yourself in any future relationships.
But emotional blackmail is only one part of the checklist.
Pure said:
I do not expect someone else to know what is best for me, or to understand my needs and desires better than I understand them. I think it is my responsibility to know what is best for me and to understand my own needs and desires, and then find someone whose needs and desires are compatible with my own. I am not submissive because I want to indulge someone's perverse or cruel desire, but because submission meets my own needs as well as the needs of the person I submit to.
Magdalene
Shadowsdream
Dream Maker
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Posts
- 3,173
magdalene said:
Bingo!
Understanding your own desires and facing them honestly and openly will be the best building blocks in the foundation of a sustainable relationship. On both sides of the whip...
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
hi magdalene,
thanks for your clarification:
I do not expect someone else to know what is best for me, or to understand my needs and desires better than I understand them. I think it is my responsibility to know what is best for me and to understand my own needs and desires, and then find someone whose needs and desires are compatible with my own. I am not submissive because I want to indulge someone's perverse or cruel desire, but because submission meets my own needs as well as the needs of the person I submit to.
Magdalene
I believe I understand what you're saying: each party is, like, 'shopping' with a view to getting his/her needs meet. Then a kind of bargain is struck, kinda like 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours.' It might be called an 'exchange' view of relationships (or encounters). It obviously applies in many cases.
Of course I don't object to anyone, including a kinky person, 'shopping' , then 'exchanging.' A humiliates B; B keeps A in furs.
My question, as in my first posting, why say of this 'shoppper' that he or she is *submitting* to another[A] in any way, or that he or she's *surrendering* to the other's domly desires, *giving over control to another,* etc. Certainly this shopper is not, in the common term, any kinda 'possession' of the other.
And on the other side of the coin, why say that the other shopper [A] is 'dominating' or 'having his way' or 'controlling'.
After all, a deal's a deal. I wanna be a 'patient' and you wanna be the evil gynecologist and so we strike a deal.
I'm really puzzled by a kinda tendency in this thread, as I see it, to 'want it both ways', i.e., healthy and perverse.
J.
PS I like Dogen; also Bankei.
thanks for your clarification:
I do not expect someone else to know what is best for me, or to understand my needs and desires better than I understand them. I think it is my responsibility to know what is best for me and to understand my own needs and desires, and then find someone whose needs and desires are compatible with my own. I am not submissive because I want to indulge someone's perverse or cruel desire, but because submission meets my own needs as well as the needs of the person I submit to.
Magdalene
I believe I understand what you're saying: each party is, like, 'shopping' with a view to getting his/her needs meet. Then a kind of bargain is struck, kinda like 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours.' It might be called an 'exchange' view of relationships (or encounters). It obviously applies in many cases.
Of course I don't object to anyone, including a kinky person, 'shopping' , then 'exchanging.' A humiliates B; B keeps A in furs.
My question, as in my first posting, why say of this 'shoppper' that he or she is *submitting* to another[A] in any way, or that he or she's *surrendering* to the other's domly desires, *giving over control to another,* etc. Certainly this shopper is not, in the common term, any kinda 'possession' of the other.
And on the other side of the coin, why say that the other shopper [A] is 'dominating' or 'having his way' or 'controlling'.
After all, a deal's a deal. I wanna be a 'patient' and you wanna be the evil gynecologist and so we strike a deal.
I'm really puzzled by a kinda tendency in this thread, as I see it, to 'want it both ways', i.e., healthy and perverse.
J.
PS I like Dogen; also Bankei.
Last edited:
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Simple, to be perverse is healthy!!
Catalina
Catalina
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Pure said:
.... an interesting and telling sentence by you, Pure.
(Can't you just picture him in a white suit, blue tie and white bucks, his shiny, white teeth in the middle of your television screen, conjoling *just* $19.95 a month out of you, in the name of all that is good and holy, while he prays for your salvation from this slippery slide into the abyss of perversion?)
To begin with, in order to respond to him I would have to agree with Pure that D/s is perverse and therefore, unhealthy. Since I don't see this as a perversion or unhealthy, and most of the rest of you do not either, it is impossible to talk to his comments.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hey I'm all for self acceptance and all, but ADR's posting does raise a question.
Leaving aside cases of great harms to others, does she think any of the (generally labeled) perversions are 'unhealthy'?
ADR said,
/To begin with, in order to respond to him I would have to agree with Pure that D/s is perverse and therefore, unhealthy. Since I don't see this as a perversion or unhealthy, and most of the rest of you do not either, it is impossible to talk to his comments./
Leaving aside cases of great harms to others, does she think any of the (generally labeled) perversions are 'unhealthy'?
ADR said,
/To begin with, in order to respond to him I would have to agree with Pure that D/s is perverse and therefore, unhealthy. Since I don't see this as a perversion or unhealthy, and most of the rest of you do not either, it is impossible to talk to his comments./
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Re: I think it is an exchange
Yes. Every relationship is a power exchange, to varying degrees. (And I know someone like you, does not need me to agree with you.) What makes D/s different, or in Pure's words, perverse, is that one person is given over the control of the relationship. That in itself is perverse and unhealthy... according to him.
(He thinks he is the bullshit baffler extraordinaire evangelist of bdsm and there is fresh meat on the board to dazzle, i.e. you, Magdalena.)
magdalene said:
Yes. Every relationship is a power exchange, to varying degrees. (And I know someone like you, does not need me to agree with you.) What makes D/s different, or in Pure's words, perverse, is that one person is given over the control of the relationship. That in itself is perverse and unhealthy... according to him.
(He thinks he is the bullshit baffler extraordinaire evangelist of bdsm and there is fresh meat on the board to dazzle, i.e. you, Magdalena.)
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Pure said:
Why don't you start a thread about that and I will be glad to post to it, my opinions?
Here's some help with your thread topic:
What are the generally labled perversions and who did the general labeling? These perversions you refer to, are perverse according to whom and to what criteria?
(How can I answer a loaded question like yours when you have provided me no information to base an answer on? Oh yes... that's because you *are* baiting me. Goofy me... that is your MO after all, in regard to me, at least.)
I would be most interested in posting to that thread topic.
That is not the topic of my thread.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Magdalene,
I had said,
I believe I understand what you're saying: each party is, like, 'shopping' with a view to getting his/her needs meet. Then a kind of bargain is struck, kinda like 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours.' It might be called an 'exchange' view of relationships (or encounters). It obviously applies in many cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magdalene said,
Isn't this a form of power exchange? The exact forms of power and the way it is exchanged will vary from relationship to relationship, of course, but isn't it always an exchange?
I personally don't use the term 'power exchange'; it's a slogan used, but often not understood, as far as I'm concerned.** If you 'give over' or 'give up' power to someone, of course you retain it.
You might induce someone to excercize physical power over you, say, tie you and whip you, but I see no 'power exchange.'
But I question whether a general view of relationships as 'exchange based' -- I shop till I find someone who'll meet my needs, in exchange for meeting theirs-- is compatible with saying there is 'control' or 'surrender' etc.
J.
**There a few good essays on the topic, but not many, imho.
I had said,
I believe I understand what you're saying: each party is, like, 'shopping' with a view to getting his/her needs meet. Then a kind of bargain is struck, kinda like 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours.' It might be called an 'exchange' view of relationships (or encounters). It obviously applies in many cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magdalene said,
Isn't this a form of power exchange? The exact forms of power and the way it is exchanged will vary from relationship to relationship, of course, but isn't it always an exchange?
I personally don't use the term 'power exchange'; it's a slogan used, but often not understood, as far as I'm concerned.** If you 'give over' or 'give up' power to someone, of course you retain it.
You might induce someone to excercize physical power over you, say, tie you and whip you, but I see no 'power exchange.'
But I question whether a general view of relationships as 'exchange based' -- I shop till I find someone who'll meet my needs, in exchange for meeting theirs-- is compatible with saying there is 'control' or 'surrender' etc.
J.
**There a few good essays on the topic, but not many, imho.
Last edited:
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:
TPE Total power exchange is not giving up power to anyone; it is exchanging power for something you need. If you look at it in a very hypothetical cold way it can be compared to buying a loaf of bread in a bakery.
You exchange money for the bread, you do not get your money back nor do you give it away. You exchange it for a loaf of bread. The same applies to TPE. The submissive exchanges power as payment for having their needs fulfilled. Although a very cold hearted view of the matter in essence this is TPE.
It is an exchange of power, power flowing from the submissive to the dominant. The exchange of power is beneficial for both parties involved. The dominant receives power so he can dominate the submissive and the submissive releases power so she can be dominated. There is no big mystery to it, once the 'deal' has been signed in TPE normally speaking it is final, unless of course there is a contract which has been broken or when the agreed period has been reached.
But even in relationships that are based on a timeframe, the power that has been released during the specified time cannot be returned. Can the caning be turned back? Can time suddenly flow back and the events that have occurred be undone?
About BDSM or D/s being an unhealthy perversion, I for one cannot imagine anyone in the lifestyle considering the acts they are doing unhealthy, and staying in BDSM or D/s.
Edited to add:
The last statement is not meant to single out any member of the board, it is a generalization.
Francisco.
Last edited:
Challenging comfortable behavior is part of the foundation to why some people want to be a Master and others a sub. When you give yourself totally to someone else that is indeed an exchange of power and that is where some feel that is perversion which is only unhealthy in the eyes of the beholder. But to the giver and the receiver is is not only right but it is healthy.
When I hear the words "Do with me what you will," I know that respect is there as well as a challenge.
When I hear the words "Do with me what you will," I know that respect is there as well as a challenge.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Francisco,
you said in part (see the whole, below):
The submissive exchanges power as payment for having their needs fulfilled. Although a very cold hearted view of the matter in essence this is TPE.
It is an exchange of power, power flowing from the submissive to the dominant.
My learned friend.
This is horsefeathers. BDSM Urban Myth, if you prefer. A tall tale about 'feel-good domination.'
With all due respect.
Here is a statement that's far closer to the truth, imo, than yours:
[Tanos:]
Finally, power or authority is not "exchanged". It is unilaterally taken by the dominant from the submissive. Even if we wish to say that the submissive does gain some form of "power", this does not come from the dominant (it is not part of his power) even if he enables the submissive to achieve it. For example: if the submissive acquires the power to accept his decisions gracefully. Consequently, power is transferred in one direction, rather than exchanged both ways.
-----
While I don't entirely agree with the Internal Enslavement (IE) folks, I believe they are quite sophisticated in many ways, in their understanding.
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/tpe.html
=======
Francisco's whole post:
TPE Total power exchange is not giving up power to anyone; it is exchanging power for something you need. If you look at it in a very hypothetical cold way it can be compared to buying a loaf of bread in a bakery.
You exchange money for the bread, you do not get your money back nor do you give it away. You exchange it for a loaf of bread. The same applies to TPE. The submissive exchanges power as payment for having their needs fulfilled. Although a very cold hearted view of the matter in essence this is TPE.
It is an exchange of power, power flowing from the submissive to the dominant. The exchange of power is beneficial for both parties involved. The dominant receives power so he can dominate the submissive and the submissive releases power so she can be dominated. There is no big mystery to it, once the 'deal' has been signed in TPE normally speaking it is final, unless of course there is a contract which has been broken or when the agreed period has been reached.
you said in part (see the whole, below):
The submissive exchanges power as payment for having their needs fulfilled. Although a very cold hearted view of the matter in essence this is TPE.
It is an exchange of power, power flowing from the submissive to the dominant.
My learned friend.
This is horsefeathers. BDSM Urban Myth, if you prefer. A tall tale about 'feel-good domination.'
With all due respect.
Here is a statement that's far closer to the truth, imo, than yours:
[Tanos:]
Finally, power or authority is not "exchanged". It is unilaterally taken by the dominant from the submissive. Even if we wish to say that the submissive does gain some form of "power", this does not come from the dominant (it is not part of his power) even if he enables the submissive to achieve it. For example: if the submissive acquires the power to accept his decisions gracefully. Consequently, power is transferred in one direction, rather than exchanged both ways.
-----
While I don't entirely agree with the Internal Enslavement (IE) folks, I believe they are quite sophisticated in many ways, in their understanding.
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/tpe.html
=======
Francisco's whole post:
TPE Total power exchange is not giving up power to anyone; it is exchanging power for something you need. If you look at it in a very hypothetical cold way it can be compared to buying a loaf of bread in a bakery.
You exchange money for the bread, you do not get your money back nor do you give it away. You exchange it for a loaf of bread. The same applies to TPE. The submissive exchanges power as payment for having their needs fulfilled. Although a very cold hearted view of the matter in essence this is TPE.
It is an exchange of power, power flowing from the submissive to the dominant. The exchange of power is beneficial for both parties involved. The dominant receives power so he can dominate the submissive and the submissive releases power so she can be dominated. There is no big mystery to it, once the 'deal' has been signed in TPE normally speaking it is final, unless of course there is a contract which has been broken or when the agreed period has been reached.
Abusive Dom(mes)
I admit that I didn't read the whole thread, so if I repeat anything, well, maybe it needed to be said twice.
Withdrawal of affection or becoming unavailable, either emotionally or physically, can be used as punishment in a limited fashion without becoming abusive and/or totally irrelevant. A "time-out" can be a good thing, letting a person get his/her emotions under control. Either party can use this (the Dom(me) sending the sub away or simply putting them in the corner and forbidding them to speak or move). I believe the difference between a positive use of it and a negative use is the effect it has on the relationship. If it allows the two to come together and understand each other better, then it is a good thing. If it leaves one or the other confused and unsure of where they stand, then it is not a good thing.
There is a difference between domination and being a big baby. Most adults will understand that, and the ones that don't might think about their behavior.
The need for domination/submission can be a healthy expression of your personality. It can also be a pathelogical problem that leads you to engage in incredibly dangerous behaviors. The line can be exceptionally thin at times.
Females are as guilty of this as males. In some cases, maybe even more so.
Assholes exist of every race, color, creed, and gender.
Makes me wonder how a Bhuddist would approach BDSM, though....
I admit that I didn't read the whole thread, so if I repeat anything, well, maybe it needed to be said twice.
Withdrawal of affection or becoming unavailable, either emotionally or physically, can be used as punishment in a limited fashion without becoming abusive and/or totally irrelevant. A "time-out" can be a good thing, letting a person get his/her emotions under control. Either party can use this (the Dom(me) sending the sub away or simply putting them in the corner and forbidding them to speak or move). I believe the difference between a positive use of it and a negative use is the effect it has on the relationship. If it allows the two to come together and understand each other better, then it is a good thing. If it leaves one or the other confused and unsure of where they stand, then it is not a good thing.
There is a difference between domination and being a big baby. Most adults will understand that, and the ones that don't might think about their behavior.
The need for domination/submission can be a healthy expression of your personality. It can also be a pathelogical problem that leads you to engage in incredibly dangerous behaviors. The line can be exceptionally thin at times.
Females are as guilty of this as males. In some cases, maybe even more so.
Assholes exist of every race, color, creed, and gender.
Makes me wonder how a Bhuddist would approach BDSM, though....
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Re: Abusive Dom(mes)
LOL...though not in daily meditation as to the learnings, I follow a Buddhist philosophy and belief system far more than anything else...perhaps equating to 85% of what I hold to be relevant to my understanding of all that is....I strive to conquer that other 15% and then some. At this point I do not find it's concepts to be at loggerheads with my 24/7 lifestyle, but admit to having to read, analyse, and meditate upon this to understand it's congruence.
Catalina
Ms_Kat said:
LOL...though not in daily meditation as to the learnings, I follow a Buddhist philosophy and belief system far more than anything else...perhaps equating to 85% of what I hold to be relevant to my understanding of all that is....I strive to conquer that other 15% and then some. At this point I do not find it's concepts to be at loggerheads with my 24/7 lifestyle, but admit to having to read, analyse, and meditate upon this to understand it's congruence.
Catalina
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Pure said:
Tanos is an interesting fellow, I agree with him on many things and I disagree with him on many others.
To start with, it is impossible to unilaterally take power without breaking a dozen law not to mention consent. I know that Tanos does not want to be associated with people like Jon Jacobs & Polly Peachum. So I personally think he should rewrite that part.
For the rest there is not much difference between what he says and I say.
Francisco.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Re: Interesting
What if they don't use the safe word though?
Catalina
fallon2 said:
What if they don't use the safe word though?
Catalina
Is
Is there a gag in their mouth?? Just kidding . . .
Listen, in the "play" 99.9% of the individuals understand their roles and responsibilities. At time I have purposely stopped play with a sub to make sure all is right. There are assholes out there who are sons of bitches (my apologies to all bitches) who care nothing for the other person. That is where respect for the other person has to come in.
Is there a gag in their mouth?? Just kidding . . .
Listen, in the "play" 99.9% of the individuals understand their roles and responsibilities. At time I have purposely stopped play with a sub to make sure all is right. There are assholes out there who are sons of bitches (my apologies to all bitches) who care nothing for the other person. That is where respect for the other person has to come in.
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Re: Is
That is true.
fallon2 said:
That is true.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
fallon2 said,
//Interesting
Interesting thought about power as being real or is it a perception? Case in point . . . when a sub uses the safe word and the Master stops does that show the sub having power? I think so!//
I think so too. There is no real 'transfer' or giving up, if the giver can stop or veto what's being done, at any time. Think of it like 'power of attorney'; you give someone the right to carry out your business, banking, etc. BUT, you may revoke it at any time. This means you have the power, and it never was 'given away', merely seconded or allowed to someone during a period of your choosing.
OTOH, if you join the army (an expression of 'initial consent', one might say), you do give them great power over you, including life and death, e.g, through trial in military court.
The army officers have power because they can issue and enforce orders and (if things go awry) make things quite unpleasant for you if you refuse. BUT (see below) their intent is, in the routine course of things, to be able to AVOID using force or coercion. (Same holds of guard in a prison; the well guarded prison only rarely shows naked force--guards making prisoners do something at gunpoint.)
BTW the army analogy helps explain tanos' concept of unilaterally taking charge, making it NOT quite what you say, Francisco.
There is initial consent, then the army molds you, to 'carry out orders'. At some point NOT carrying them out is unthinkable (authority has been 'internalized'). This situation is not at all illegal nor analogous to 'forcible confinement' and other criminal acts you may have in mind. This interpretation is evident in the words I've quoted at the end of this posting.
J.
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/iefaq.html
[Objections/Questions and the IE person's answer]
[Objection]This is immoral. Slavery is evil!
Making someone a slave without their consent, abusively denying their needs and preventing them from growing as an individual is both evil and fundamentally contradictory to the IE approach. IE is based on consensual non-consent.
Isn't consensual non-consent a contradiction in terms?
Not really, since it means giving legally valid consent to start the process of enslavement, in the knowledge that the process will remove the ability to withdraw consent in the future. Outside of military recruitment, Western societies tend not to acknowledge the possibility of handing over your personal freedoms to someone else, but this is ethically what we're talking about.
//Interesting
Interesting thought about power as being real or is it a perception? Case in point . . . when a sub uses the safe word and the Master stops does that show the sub having power? I think so!//
I think so too. There is no real 'transfer' or giving up, if the giver can stop or veto what's being done, at any time. Think of it like 'power of attorney'; you give someone the right to carry out your business, banking, etc. BUT, you may revoke it at any time. This means you have the power, and it never was 'given away', merely seconded or allowed to someone during a period of your choosing.
OTOH, if you join the army (an expression of 'initial consent', one might say), you do give them great power over you, including life and death, e.g, through trial in military court.
The army officers have power because they can issue and enforce orders and (if things go awry) make things quite unpleasant for you if you refuse. BUT (see below) their intent is, in the routine course of things, to be able to AVOID using force or coercion. (Same holds of guard in a prison; the well guarded prison only rarely shows naked force--guards making prisoners do something at gunpoint.)
BTW the army analogy helps explain tanos' concept of unilaterally taking charge, making it NOT quite what you say, Francisco.
There is initial consent, then the army molds you, to 'carry out orders'. At some point NOT carrying them out is unthinkable (authority has been 'internalized'). This situation is not at all illegal nor analogous to 'forcible confinement' and other criminal acts you may have in mind. This interpretation is evident in the words I've quoted at the end of this posting.
J.
http://www.enslavement.org.uk/iefaq.html
[Objections/Questions and the IE person's answer]
[Objection]This is immoral. Slavery is evil!
Making someone a slave without their consent, abusively denying their needs and preventing them from growing as an individual is both evil and fundamentally contradictory to the IE approach. IE is based on consensual non-consent.
Isn't consensual non-consent a contradiction in terms?
Not really, since it means giving legally valid consent to start the process of enslavement, in the knowledge that the process will remove the ability to withdraw consent in the future. Outside of military recruitment, Western societies tend not to acknowledge the possibility of handing over your personal freedoms to someone else, but this is ethically what we're talking about.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Catalina said (agreeing, apparently, that a safe word gives the 'sub' power.)
//What if they don't use** the safe word though?//
Well, the other way the sub retains power is if 'she' can say, at any time: "Look, Lord X, this isn't working for me. My needs aren't being met. I find your punishments amount to abuse, and don't really deal with me in a way that's considered 'constructive' by professional psychologists and counsellors. At this point I will listen to your opinion, but if it doesn't sway me, I'm outta here."
Conclusion: through safe words and overall bail out provisions, almost all who are labelled 'subs' have retained power, and in exercising it, show their control of the alleged 'surrender' situation.
By the way, this refers back to the first posting of the thread, and illustrates the problems of the sub setting a list of 'don't's' over the dom/me (i.e, 'dont do this, it's abusive'.)
J.
**I assume that Catalina here means that the sub does not HAVE a safeword; no such word has been agreed on. I assume she does NOT mean that the sub and dom/me have an agreed safeword, which the sub is routinely choosing not to 'use.'
//What if they don't use** the safe word though?//
Well, the other way the sub retains power is if 'she' can say, at any time: "Look, Lord X, this isn't working for me. My needs aren't being met. I find your punishments amount to abuse, and don't really deal with me in a way that's considered 'constructive' by professional psychologists and counsellors. At this point I will listen to your opinion, but if it doesn't sway me, I'm outta here."
Conclusion: through safe words and overall bail out provisions, almost all who are labelled 'subs' have retained power, and in exercising it, show their control of the alleged 'surrender' situation.
By the way, this refers back to the first posting of the thread, and illustrates the problems of the sub setting a list of 'don't's' over the dom/me (i.e, 'dont do this, it's abusive'.)
J.
**I assume that Catalina here means that the sub does not HAVE a safeword; no such word has been agreed on. I assume she does NOT mean that the sub and dom/me have an agreed safeword, which the sub is routinely choosing not to 'use.'
Last edited:
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Well I guess the point is submissives do not routinely engage in TPE as understood in this context which is the one which works for me, nor do some slaves, while others do and live according to their commitment to their word to give 100% power to another, and yes this for them does include life and death decisions made by the one who holds that power.
C
C
