Who's the Dom?

[YourCaptor]

Ha ha!! No the sub is not the dom, that’s ridiculous. She got a safe words because I don’t want to hurt her, that’s it. Limits are those things she is afraid off, repulsed by, etc, they are changeable. The only limits I always adhere to are my own, and causing the sub any kind of bad harm is included.

A BDSM relationship is not a bureaucracy, it’s far more romantic.

When the sub says no, as a dom I am very disappointed in our relationship, and in myself. I think it’s my roll as a dom, to facilitate the environment in which our bond can thrive, no means I didn’t do the job. However that starts a whole new chapter of fun, furthering my influence on her and watching her trust grow as she tentatively takes another step forward, allowing me to consume her more.

I think the safe word, limits misconception stems from the thought that respect and fear empower, and that when she fears, respects her own limits more then the doms she is taking control. I don’t believe that, I believe the ultimate power comes from love, if she says no she just doesn’t love me enough yet, which means there is still more of her to win, and their always will be more. That’s what makes it so wonderful.

Of course I speak form a 24/7 kind of POV.

If there was a request made, I would take it as a request, nothing else. If there was a demand made somebody is asking to revisit sub 101, this time around with far less sympathy.

 

[Lalah]

Ha ha!! No the sub is not the dom, that’s ridiculous. She got a safe words because I don’t want to hurt her, that’s it. Limits are those things she is afraid off, repulsed by, etc, they are changeable. The only limits I always adhere to are my own, and causing the sub any kind of bad harm is included.

A BDSM relationship is not a bureaucracy, it’s far more romantic.

When the sub says no, as a dom I am very disappointed in our relationship, and in myself. I think it’s my roll as a dom, to facilitate the environment in which our bond can thrive, no means I didn’t do the job. However that starts a whole new chapter of fun, furthering my influence on her and watching her trust grow as she tentatively takes another step forward, allowing me to consume her more.

I think the safe word, limits misconception stems from the thought that respect and fear empower, and that when she fears, respects her own limits more then the doms she is taking control. I don’t believe that, I believe the ultimate power comes from love, if she says no she just doesn’t love me enough yet, which means there is still more of her to win, and their always will be more. That’s what makes it so wonderful.

Of course I speak form a 24/7 kind of POV.

If there was a request made, I would take it as a request, nothing else. If there was a demand made somebody is asking to revisit sub 101, this time around with far less sympathy.

But unless you are holding your sub against her will, every day she stays with you is a day she has decided to grant you that power. It's her decision to let you do these things, and it's a decision she take daily, every breathing moment.

Everything she lets you do to her is something she decided would happen. She's taking just as many decisions as you, except her decisions are more passive, behind the scene ones and so you don't notice it. She let you live the fantasy that you are the only one taking the decisions.

 

[FungiUg]

Could it be that the so called “sub” in a relationship is actually the “dom”? In most Sub/Dom relationships where the sub “sets the limits” and has a “safe word” ... is that not truly establishing the sub as dom?

There is an old argument that the submissive is the one truly in control.

The answer to this dilemma is... well, there isn't one (I think). Dominance is often perception. When I control a submissive, I only do so within bounds. Yes, she may have set some of those bounds. But so too does the society I live in. So too does my need to hold down a job and hence can't spend all my waking hours playing with a submissive. So too does the force of gravity and the limits of human joints. So too with the fact that my neighbours might not be accepting of piteous screaming at 3 a.m.

Control is often a myth. It's the perception of control that's the important thing. And if two people have a shared perception, then that's the important aspect. Not the "reality".

 

[FungiUg]

But unless you are holding your sub against her will, every day she stays with you is a day she has decided to grant you that power. It's her decision to let you do these things, and it's a decision she take daily, every breathing moment.

But the reverse is also true. Every day the dominant stays with a submissive, he or she is granting the submissive the right to serve. The submissive is no more in control from that respect than the dominant is. The extension of a relationship depends on the willingness of all participants.

 

[Caitlynne]

Everything she lets you do to her is something she decided would happen. She's taking just as many decisions as you, except her decisions are more passive, behind the scene ones and so you don't notice it. She let you live the fantasy that you are the only one taking the decisions.

I think you're still missing the point of submission. Consent is an important part of submission. It's one of the few decision s/he can/does make. I've never known a Dominant/Sadist/PYL not to understand that in the beginning 'consent' is one of the equally held powers between the two people.

But I think you're confusing consent with power. A sub doesn't have power. S/he can give consent to certain activities that might or might not be engaged in. S/he can run down a list on a checklist, or basically explore boundaries and limits with a Dominant. That's fun and those limits can sometimes be pushed. Hard limits are discovered, etc, and the areas of consent are defined for both parties.

But consent isn't determining what happens in a scene or a bit of play. It just doesn't happen that way in my experience. AND more importantly a submissive, doesn't want it to happen her way. She's not "letting a Dominant do to her what she wants", because part of what she wants is to NOT be in control. You're not going to 'get' this unless you understand the role power and control play between BDSM partners. A sub wants to surrender her control for the most part.

Now, there are bottoms who do stay in control. "Do me" bottoms control the scene and get what they want from the Top and vice versa. But that isn't a power exchange, and it isn't D/s. It's kinky and fun, and people sure get what they need out of it, but the question of power isn't an element. People negotiate what they want and go for it. One is on top, another on the bottom.

I'm also almost certain that you are viewing this from a vanilla POV. In the vanilla world women state rather emphatically what they will do and what they won't do. It's seen as a power in that kind of relationship and women exercise it all the time either passively or aggressively. And in that context, it is power. It's power because power [other than the inherent power dynamics that exist all the time] isn't an issue or part of pleasure. It's not a fetish for either.

But power is an issue [and a fetish] for people in BDSM. It's a BIG part of the dynamic for many [maybe even most]. Power becomes polarized in these dynamics and that's the way the participants want it. No submissive is struggling over the issue you're presenting [well maybe some are--I hate to discuss things using absolutes]. We want to surrender. It's part of what we desire, just like oral sex is something that many women desire.

More than anything it is really a perception and a POV. Using your example, if a woman has the POV that she is "letting" a man do to her what she wants, then that is what she is doing. She's kept her power. She hasn't surrendered it. But, if a woman is submissive, she actually is going to surrender her power. She does that because that is HER desire. It gets her off, and it pleases her partner. It can look like the same thing is occurring in both examples, but in reality they are VERY different. They're different because the power is held by different people in each case.

I'm sorry there just aren't any simple answers to this. Power is an illusive quality. You can't draw a picture of it or hand it over in a little box. It is a quality that some people wield effectively and others respond to.

In most non-BDSM relationships that I've observed [and my career is connected to all kinds of relationships] power remains a fluid thing and is sometimes contested. Most fights between partners boil own to a conflict over power.

But in a BDSM relationship, power dynamics are settled for the most part. Power is held by the PYL and surrendered by the pyl. It's settled. The only thing not settled is the limits to power, and even those are often pushed. And that is enjoyed by all concerned in healthy D/s relationships. [if healthy is the right word to use.]

So, if you're looking for a definitive answer it might be this: For you, it sounds like you retain the power. You're doing a favor for the men you are intimate with. Which is cool, but you're not gonna find many submissives that feel they have the same POV as you do, even if the process might look similar.

The difference is that the submissive has not retained her power. She has surrendered it as part of the process. That's an intangible and not easily observed by someone outside of the dynamic. But it is a real thing in power relationships and not just some role play or 'feel good' thing we do for our men because 'they want to feel all Alpha and such'.

It has everything to do with the mind set of the woman in question and not the events occurring. A woman like yourself, retains her power. That is your mind set, and so it is true for you. A submissive doesn't want to keep her power. Her mind set is geared towards surrender, and for her that is her truth.

There aren't any sure fire absolutes when it comes to power exchange. But, in my experience if you fall to the polar opposites and need power to be at play in a relationship, then D/s works for you. If not, then it's probably not gonna makes your toes curl. You know what I mean?

 

[Caitlynne]

There is an old argument that the submissive is the one truly in control.

The answer to this dilemma is... well, there isn't one (I think). Dominance is often perception. When I control a submissive, I only do so within bounds. Yes, she may have set some of those bounds. But so too does the society I live in. So too does my need to hold down a job and hence can't spend all my waking hours playing with a submissive. So too does the force of gravity and the limits of human joints. So too with the fact that my neighbours might not be accepting of piteous screaming at 3 a.m.

Control is often a myth. It's the perception of control that's the important thing. And if two people have a shared perception, then that's the important aspect. Not the "reality".

LOL, I could have saved a whole lot of keystrokes if I'd just let you answer. Maybe in this case "less is more".

Great post.

 

[YourCaptor]

But unless you are holding your sub against her will, every day she stays with you is a day she has decided to grant you that power. It's her decision to let you do these things, and it's a decision she take daily, every breathing moment.

Everything she lets you do to her is something she decided would happen. She's taking just as many decisions as you, except her decisions are more passive, behind the scene ones and so you don't notice it. She let you live the fantasy that you are the only one taking the decisions.

Ah, but you are missing the foundation to this relationship.

She cannot leave, she simply cannot live without me. She needs it, I infected her, I made her sick that way. If she wants my love then she must do whatever I wish, and I am just as sick, so my wishes are not to be taken lightly.

In the end, any power she has I gave her.

 

[Lalah]

...

Great post Caitlynne, very instructive. If you want to know my own personal angle, I'm one of those persons that like to be abused but still see myself as the one in power. I don't know what tag fit to me, if any.

When I was growing up and during my teenage years I was "that kid". The kid who got harassed and humiliated by everyone at school and in the teenage social network. It lasted many years, and I can tell you teens can be very cruel when in a group. Eventually I realized I didn't have to let them do these things to me, and since then I don't take shit from anyone.

But I crave humiliation, I love being used. It turns me on a lot, and it feel great to know I'm the only one who can humiliate myself, even if I do it by proxy. I'm the one in control.

I have posted a true story about one of the moment I'm most proud of in my life, the time when I took things up a notch. Some people think it's a little extreme, but I'm not really satisfied unless I bring myself to tears. Click on my profile link in my sig if you want to know what I like.

 

[_kiana_]

She cannot leave, she simply cannot live without me. She needs it, I infected her, I made her sick that way. If she wants my love then she must do whatever I wish, and I am just as sick, so my wishes are not to be taken lightly.

In the end, any power she has I gave her.

Phew! *fans herself* I think it got a little bit hotter in here. Does anyone else think so?? Oh yes..definitely a little warm.

*wanders off...*

 

[RJMasters]

I have been contemplating this question quite a bit recently. Could it be that the so called “sub” in a relationship is actually the “dom”? In most Sub/Dom relationships where the sub “sets the limits” and has a “safe word” ... is that not truly establishing the sub as dom? Is not the “sub” in effect telling the “dom” to dominate me actually in fact telling the submissive dom what to do thereby making the dom the sub in the relationship... especially when limits are set? Would not a true submissive accept his/her masters domination without limits? I would like once to experience being truly dominated... forced to do those things I would never do... no limits.... even denied orgasm to be used solely as my partner’s enjoyment... and be punished ... again no limits... if I fail to bring that pleasure to her/him.

Ok try this on for size, I don't know if the analogy I am going to use will make any sense or not, but I will give it a shot.

Taking your same logic that you apply in your post, you could also say then that a private in the army is really the general. Even though the General gives the orders, the private ultimately has the power of choice to obey or not to obey, further it is understood that the general cannot issue such orders which are deemed unlawful.

You see when a person joins the army, they are making a decsion to enter into agreed upon conditions. However by making such a decision they understand that they must follow orders and respect those who are in authority over them. This is why entering into such a commitment is not to be taken lightly at all.

Now of course a relationship is not the same thing as joining one of the armed forces, but I do think it gives an idea of what we mean wehn we talk about power exchange. Understanding what is meant by power exchange is IMO the answer to your question.

Yes a submissive has power, just like in any relationship both partners have power, however in the D/s type of relationship, power is yeilded up to the other person. The other person has to take and use that power for there to be a completed exchange.

When a submissive tries to superimpose thier will over that of the dominant, this is usually called topping from the bottom and is frowned upon. The result usually ends in either punishment, or the flat out refusal by the dominant to exercise any power whatsoever in the relationship.

I would suggest that if you are truly interested in delving further or deeper into this subject, that you use the library and look up Power Exchange(PE) and Total Power Exchange(TPE). I think as you learn more about those subjects, it will give you a broader perspective from which to make your own conclusions regarding this topic.

 

[Guest]

By asking, "Wouldn't a true submissive..." (emphasis added) you're implying (IMO) that someone who's self-identified as a submissive would be totally submissive to the whims of his or her Dominant.

But people are much more complex than a single role or label. Dominants are not dominant to absolutely every person they meet in the course of their day--if they try to be, they move from being "Dominant" to being "Asshole" to being "Incarcerated." Does that mean that there are no "true" Dominants?

By the same token, submissives are generally (and I'm sure there are some exceptions) not submissive to absolutely every person they know or meet.

So, we're talking about tendencies toward one behavior or another that are pronounced enough for a person to pick a label. But no one is cut from whole cloth. As Walt Whitman wrote, "I am vast... I contain multitudes."

With both Dominant and submissive tendencies in very nearly everyone--albeit to vastly differing degrees--and adding in the idea of common sense to help avoid permanent injury, disfigurement, incarceration, or embarassment and loss of status in the community (i.e. Safe, Sane & Consensual), it's not surprising to me at all that someone who identifies as submissive would still have limits on what they're willing to do or have done to them.

Sorry for the ramble, but as a collared submissive in a 24/7 for seven years, I get a little tired of the "true submissive" stuff. How about a thread asking what makes a "true" Dominant?

 

[snowbyte]

Good thread.

I and my pet are going through another periodic realignment (or "renegotiation," if you prefer). Each time this happens, the closer we drift towards TPEx24/7. It becomes easier for her because she understands more fully what my kinks and limits are and trusts me more not to make bad decisions. It becomes harder for me because of the increased responsibility. 24/7 is an acquired skill, more so than I previously realized.

But "topping from the bottom" (I haven't hear that phrase in years doesn't happen with us. I may ask for input from her at various times on specific things, but there is never even the illusion that she in any way is driving any aspect of the relationship or the activities therein. I've seen people in relationships where that is de rigueur, but that is definitely not the case here.

Back to the original question: Could it be that the so called “sub” in a relationship is actually the “dom”? Yes, definitely. When someone tries to pull that shit with me, however, they either accept the punishment they deserve for being so presumptuous or they close the door on their way out. That's a simple B&W non-decision for me.

 

[snowbyte]

By the same token, submissives are generally (and I'm sure there are some exceptions) not submissive to absolutely every person they know or meet.

Nor should they be, at least from my POV. Unless I keep my sub chained in the basement at all times, she is going to have to function IRL. She can't go into auto-sub mode with everyone she interacts with. If I ever even suspected that she sub'd to someone else without my permission there would be a very unpleasant hell to pay. She knows that and is beginning to understand why. She has a natural tendency to defer/submit to people around her that she perceives to be 'strong' or in positions of power and this tendency is being addressed.

Being submissive does not mean being weak.

 

[madetotakeit]

As I have read some of these responses and considered my own preferences, it also came to my mind that in my professions, I am totally dominate as those professions demand me to be. When it comes to play time... I prefer to take the back seat... I'm tired of making gdecisions and setting the rules, thus at play I prefer to be submissive. I wonder how many other so called subs are also in this predicamenr.

I am definitely one. I spend twelve hours a day at work telling my shift mates how to do their jobs. I decide which unit goes to which call. In what order the units are sent. I tell people what to do on the phone until help arrives and in some cases if they don't follow exactly what I said someone can die. I deal with the emotional repercussions of when it doesn't end with the best outcome. My middle name is a hyphenate...stress-decisions.

Perhaps you miss my point.... I consider myself bi-curious and submissive. But if I should go to a dom partner and say “Force me to suck off another guy.” am I not in truth dominating my partner telling her what I want her to make me do and in effect in this relationship the true dom? I understand that there needs to be trust in a sub/dom relationship to in effect “be safe” including no transmission of disease or permanent injury.

If you create your list of things you want to do, that is just being intelligent to stay within the limits and better the odds for a good relationship. If you say, "I want to do "XYZ" and I want it at this time." then you are topping from the bottom, which to me defeats the purpose. IMO it should not be the pyl's decision if and when that happens. The PYL knows what you want to experience only by being told at some point. After that, it should be at the pleasure of the PYL if ans when you go there.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Hmmm, I see where you are coming from, but I would be careful about defining what self respecting PYL's should and would do. Personally I am in a TPE no limits relationship which means just that, not that I have made clear I will be 'no limits' as long as he sticks to the list I expected him to when I agreed to it. When I offered to take this step (it was planned, but for much further in the future than I offered it), F did not initially accept it and made me spend some time thinking about exactly what I was agreeing to...IOW, he did not intend to keep to a list of things I considered OK, nor was he going to guarantee there would not be things expected of me which at that time were within his limits, and yes, he has added things which previously he had no attraction to, nor wanted to do.

I understand that and I take your point.

I have no limits with Master but at the same time, I trust him to know what is and isn't in my best interests, his and ours as a couple. If he told me to something I didn't want to I'd obey him. I would trust that he knew what he was doing, knew it would be a difficult step for me and was prepared to deal with that.

That's a lot of trust though and trust like that doesn't happen overnight. Also, I was speaking generally and I accept that 24/7 TPE is outside of most people's experience, even within the 'lifestyle.' I wasn't speaking for myself, I accept that my dynamic is a whole other ball game.

 

[Marquis]

It would be awesome if it were still say, 400 AD and we could ride through villages putting the menfolk to the sword and sowing the fields with salt.

And bearing away all nubiles to lives of sexual bondage.

The truth is that we exist as doms on the sufferance of females these days, and if they want to fuck us, all they have to do is call the cops and say "he beats me: look at the bruises."

Deal with it.

Police v. Rival Vikings

Stalemate.

 

[Caitlynne]

G

But I crave humiliation, I love being used. It turns me on a lot, and it feel great to know I'm the only one who can humiliate myself, even if I do it by proxy. I'm the one in control.

First, I'd like to commend you for knowing exactly who you are and what you desire. I see too many people who don't have a clue as to how they tick.

Second, what you describe isn't inconsistent with a lot of women in BDSM. I think it's easier to understand and explain if you avoid labels of submissive, bottom, etc at the beginning. I'm not sure labels help.

From your description, I'd say yes, you are keeping your power. You are not submitting in a way I'm familiar with, although some people might disagree. Who knows.

What is important for this discussion [I think] is to recognize that some women do surrender their power. The analogy by RJ is a good one. One I've used to explain submission to lots of people. Soldiers give up their own will to follow the orders of their chosen leaders. It happens all around the world and no one thinks anything of it. For whatever reason, men [and women] surrender their free will in order to accomplish the goals of leaders. That is a perfect example of submission.

Even the boot camp analogy for "training of a submissive by a particular Dominant" is an apt comparison. Some habits are torn down and then the soldier/submissive is rebuilt and molded to fit the needs of the military/Dominant. There is a period of adjustment when the will of the individual is challenged and surrendered. The soldier can always disobey an order. S/he has that power. But would s/he? Very few do.

As to your own description of what you desire, I'm not going to label it, only acknowledge that I have seen, met, and befriended women who self describe exactly the way you do. I end up calling them "kinksters" just for brevity [and because it avoids the boxed in labels we often enforce in our community]. LOL They have kinky tastes that do fall under the umbrella of BDSM, but don't fall into D/s or M/s. But it makes cait cry to define it more than that. [ ]

In short, you and I might both like life on the bottom, but we do it for different reasons. Which is cool. In fact I like that we are all just a little different in our needs and such. It makes life interesting, and leaves me feeling as unique as I ever did.

Nice to meet you and chat.

 

[Betticus]

She cannot leave, she simply cannot live without me. She needs it, I infected her, I made her sick that way. If she wants my love then she must do whatever I wish, and I am just as sick, so my wishes are not to be taken lightly.

In the end, any power she has I gave her.

I may steal that and quote it.

They say that the submissive is truly the one in control because she chooses to give control to him. That's a pretty safe thing to say, would make a lot of people thinking of entering a D/s relationship feel more safe. Isn't that the opposite of the reality which they are seeking in the first place. When one person is in control the other is not.

Your submission is a gift? I hope you will forgive me for not crawling about on my hands and knees, mewling out my thanks for this gift. This "gift" of yours, that you make something that is already part of you a gift is awe inspiring.

Why do people continue to try to twist being a submissive into something else? Are they embarrassed? Did someone tell you that submissiveness was bad? Are you attempting to please society and those around you who do not understand?

 

[panda7606]

Perhaps you miss my point.... I consider myself bi-curious and submissive. But if I should go to a dom partner and say “Force me to suck off another guy.” am I not in truth dominating my partner telling her what I want her to make me do and in effect in this relationship the true dom? I understand that there needs to be trust in a sub/dom relationship to in effect “be safe” including no transmission of disease or permanent injury.

If I go to my Dom and say I want you to make me do A, B and C and he does then sure, I might be in control. But that isn't how it works. Sometimes he makes me do things that I love, that's true, but sometimes he also makes me do things that I hate or he makes me do something that I love but at a time when I just don't feel like doing it. If I don't do it I will be punished.

My hard limits list is pretty short and coincides nicely with his. There is nothing that I absolutely refuse to do that he would even want me to do. But there are things that I strongly dislike. For instance, and this may seem silly to some, but for what ever reason I hate when he cums on my face. I don't know why, I can't explain it, but I just hate it. I always have. But he still does it whenever the fancy strikes him. It isn't up to me and you can bet that if I was the one in control he would never get to do that again! But it doesn't matter that I don't like it because he does like it. And, even though I hate the act itself, afterwards I feel incredibly happy because I know that by complying with his wishes I have pleased him and made him happy and that is really all I want. I get off on giving him what he wants even if it isn't what I want.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Ranther than re-invent the wheel, I just ripped this off of one of my Yahoo groups that was having a discussion about use of safewords, topping from the bottom, etc. I posted it earlier today infact. Though the subject, safewords and topping from the bottom are not directly the topic at hand, the use of safewords, and the illusion of control they provide, is very much on topic. My word will be in DarkRed the OP's from the mail list in Navy. So, without further ado...

Hi folks,

What follows is my opinion only, it's not law, fact, or written in stone tablets anywhere (even if _I_ think it should be! *grin*). Feel free to agree or disagree. Use what works for you and yours, and discard the rest. Now... On to the points...

First off, let's de-mystify the mythical "safeword". Just what _IS_ this safeword people keep talking about? A "safeword" is a way to communicate "Something is wrong" or "I'm in trouble" or "Hey, Dumbass, watch the wrap!". It's using a codeword as a way to communicate, it's nothing more, it's nothing less.

Here is a controversial thought for some of you. Safewords do not stop a scene. A safeword never has.

Let me repeat that thought with emphasis:
SAFEWORDS DO NOT STOP A SCENE.

The Top _hearing_ the safeword (or seeing a safe signal) stops the scene IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. Any Top, in any scene, anytime, anyplace, anywhere, has that choice to abide by the safeword or to ignore it and continue the scene. ALWAYS. They are the one who is doing, and the Top is in control of the scene.

The bottom, if not bound in someway, has the option of physical removing themselves from the scene if the Top chooses not to stop. But never, Never, NEVER _NEVER_ make the mistake of thinking that just because someone agrees to use a "safeword" means that they are safe players, that you will be safe playing with them, or that you will not come to any harm or that you will have your limits respected.

A safeword is only as "safe" as the person hearing it and honoring it.

This also bears repeating.

A safeword is only as safe as the person hearing it and _HONORING_ it.

Verstanze?

The idea behind the "safeword" is that it's a way to get the Top's attention using a word that would not _normally_ be said to indicate there is a problem or that you want the scene to stop. Hello, some folks _want_ to keep playing when they are screaming "STOP! Don't DO THAT! OMG THAT HURTS!" etc. The "safeword" is there to let the Top know that something outside the bounds of the scene is going on and that something needs to be done/changed/corrected to get things back on track. Or that perhaps it's time for the scene to come to a screeching halt for physical or emotional reasons.

It is incumbent on ALL PARTIES (Top(s), bottom(s), helpers, etc) to take responsibility for good, two-way communication during the scene. They need to communicate means and desired outcomes of the scene before play, establish where/when/_IF_ consent ends, and how to communicate physical or emotional distress that is NOT PART OF THE SCENE. If you want to use a safeword to do that, great.

Personally, I find it more useful to get "Hey! The rope on my right wrist is too tight, it's cutting off feeling..." or "I've got a cramp in my calf..." or "OMG, OMG, OMG, I was raped when I was 17 and I can see his face..." Telling me what's wrong from the jump seems better than getting my attention with "YELLOW!"

"Yellow? What's wrong?"

"The rope on my right wrist is too tight, it's cutting off feeling..."

Now that we've established where my thoughts are coming from on the subject...

X X <xxxxxxxxxxxxx@...> wrote:
>
> Some people talk about playing without safewords...
> when have you done this and/or under what circumstances
> would you do this?

I have, and will continue to play without safewords, with long standing play partners. These are people I know and trust, people who will give me feedback and input during the scene, people who I know take their responsibility for their own care and safety as seriously as I do. They know when enough is enough and will tell me. I know their bodies and their reactions well enough to know when the body is saying "yes, Yes, YES!" even when their mouth is saying "No, No, No!"

> What is the attraction to giving up a safeword?

Giving up a safeword is a trust and communication issue. When you have established the requisite trust, to _KNOW_ without a doubt that the Top you are playing with will not harm you (Harm, in my book, meaning "damaging someone to the point of requiring outside assistance to heal, or repair, or inflicing marks, wounds, or other things that will attract unnecessary, unagreed to, unwanted attention from family, friends, co-workers or law enforcement), when you surrender that safeword, you are saying "I trust you with my life". Literally.

That's heady, powerful stuff.

Do NOT give up a safeword to that hot hunky guy with a whip you just met at the dungeon... And for Pete's sake, don't give it up to some CyberDom you've been chatting with online for the last 12 months but you've never met face to face before. Helllllooooooo! Reality check here! If you've never seen them play, never met them face to face, all you know is what they've told you over the internet or phone or in letters and it could ALL be a pack of lies. That level of trust is EARNED through words and deeds, until they do the doing, hold off on giving them that much trust.

>
> If you do give it up, and something gets out of hand,
> what recourse do you have, physically, emotionally, socially?

Depends on the scene, doesn't it? If you are bound and gagged and it gets out of hand, you are, quite literally, at the mercy and desires of the Top. You are along for the ride until he or she decides to stop.

If you are not bound, you can move, dodge, run, attempt to escape. If dorknuts doesn't take a hint, when you get off the cross that should pretty well signal "scene over".

But BE A FREAKING ADULT, ACCEPT YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUTTING YOURSELF THERE. Think of it like a white water rafting trip. Once you get in the little rubber boat, you are going where the river takes you. You hope and pray that your Guide will get you through to the end safe and sound, and you do what they say and paddle like crazy and enjoy the ride. You do NOT blame the Guide for taking you down that crazy ass river... YOU put yourself in the rubber boat and helped push it out into the river.

There should be aftercare, if that was negotiated as part of the deal. There may be medical expenses and if the Top is responsible for the injuries then they should be willing to help with the healing and repairs, after all.

If the Top was negligent, or willful, in causing harm, then by all means feel free to seek civil damages if they don't willingly accept their share of the responsibility, and if they are so outside the box that you feel criminal charges are necessary then please notify the police. If a certain bottom hadn't gone to the police regarding her encounter with John Edward Robinson, "slavemaster" might still be luring victims into his web of deceit and killing them.

It's a case-by-case situation. What were the circumstances? What was agreed to? How, _exactly_, did things go to far or out of control? Was the scene and what happened actually agreed to, and is the bottom now suffering from "after-scene-remorse"?

If the bottom is feeling guilt and/or regret for having done the scene in the first place, that doesn't make it the Top's problem to deal with, doesn't mean the Top was out of control or that the boundaries of the scene were exceeded. "Well the Top _should_ have known better..." Bullshit. Last time I checked, we Tops were not equipped with the mind reading option installed.

> When you see someone playing, and they say they don't
> use a safeword, what is your first reaction?
>

Literally, it's "So what?" Then I look at the circumstances. Experience level of the Top and bottom (as individuals and with one another), kind of scene, how good are they at communicating with one another, etc. Again, it's case-by-case. What works for one situation, one scene, may not work for another.

> If you were the dungeon monitor, would you allow such play?
>

Again, depends on the circumstances. I certainly would not rule it out as a general practice. In my home, "mayday" and "red" are the house safewords. NO ONE plays in my house without being given those safewords. It is not because I don't trust the players with one another (though that may be true) but because as the host, _I_ need to know if there is a physical or emotional situation that needs immediate care/attention. The TOP can use the house safewords to summon assistance if needed, just as much as the bottom can.

> Even if y'all are superslave and UberDom, is there a
> time when using a common safeword is useful to communicate
> real distress, even if your agreement is that the dominant
> doesn't have to respect it? Or does that skate the edge of
> topping from the bottom?

Okay, another hot button phrase here "Topping from the bottom". Asking for something is not "topping for the bottom". Telling your Top what you like, enjoy, want more of, need, don't like, don't need, don't want, telling them what is happening to your body or going on in your head, or what you are feeling is not "topping from the bottom". It's _COMMUNICATION_! ! !

Hello! Ding-ding-ding! May I have your attention please? When the bottom is saying "Harder please!" or "I have a cramp!" or "I'd really like that chocolate cake with vanilla ice cream for dessert." the bottom is NOT "topping from the bottom". That is giving your Top/Dom/Owner information, and the Top may then choose to respond however they wish. They may hit harder, or softer, or rub the cramp, or beat it with a cane, or tell you "Sorry, but that cake and ice cream aren't on the menu tonight."

Topping from the bottom is the use of deception, manipulation, emotional blackmail, witholding information, or outright lying, on the part of the bottom, to coerce or trick the Top into doing or giving the bottom something the bottom wants. ASKING is communication. LYING is topping from the bottom.

If information is being presented by the bottom and it allows the Top to make an informed decision, it's a good thing. IF mis-information is being presented, or information is being witheld so that that Top is NOT making an informed decision, THAT's topping from the bottom.

If the bottom calls out a safeword in the midst of a scene where it was agreed that no safeword was to be used, helloooooo, something is going seriously wrong. Either the bottom is in real distress, or maybe that "no safeword" the Top understood wasn't what the bottom was actually agreeing to. In any case, agreed to or not, the TOP makes the decision to respect that safeword or not. Whether it's been agreed to use one or not use one.

Now if the bottom was just calling out a safeword to see if it would be honored after agreeing to a no safeword scene, THAT's topping from the bottom. It's all about the circumstances.

> What about those who take saying "no, no, please don't
> do that" and go a step further, asking you to ignore
> anything that sounds like a safeword? Do you choose to
> play with them?

Consentual non-consent is a hot, exciting area to play in. It is not for novice players. It's edgey, it's good. For me, it depends on who's asking and why and how well we negotiate beforehand before I would agree to play without a way for them to call the scene (it would not have to be a "safeword" per se). And I'm STILL going to use _MY_ judgement on when to call the scene. They may be hollering "Green! Green you bastard! HARDER!" And I may decide "That's enough, any more and I'll harm them..."

You jump in the rubber boat and the ride is over when the ride is over...

>
> Just curious....books tell you how things are ~supposed~
> to happen, but when you start moving outside of those, the
> rules get a lot more vague....
>

Indeed they do. Books lay out a foundation upon which to build. As a Top or bottom, you educate yourself, you learn the basics, you learn more advanced techniques and when you reach a certain level you are beyond what you can learn from a book or a presenter or mentor. You are in the realm of "on your own" and you get to play and adjust on the fly.

The Book says "Don't hit the kidney area". Well duh. Because there are idjits out there that don't have the sense God (or Goddess) gave a housefly, who would use a heavy cane or flogger and beat someone on the kidneys and do internal damage if they were not told "Don't hit the kidney area." But with experience and judgement, a good player can learn what they can and can't use to hit your kidney area all night and not do any harm.

The bottoms depend on the judgement of the Tops who are wielding the toys to know where, and when, and how hard to play, how tight to bind, how long to play... The TOPS on the other hand, are depending on the bottoms to tell us "I can't take anymore", "I need it harder", "That last swat took me out of my happy place", "This scene isn't working for me tonight"...

This is a dance, with two (or more) people. There's a reason we call it a Power EXCHANGE, folks. It ain't all one sided. The Tops are getting something they want/need, the bottoms are getting something they want and need too. If a Top breaks their toy then the toy stop playing with them. Break enough of them and the word will get around and no one will agree to be your toy...

Of course, on the flip side of that... Happy toys spread the word and you will find lots of toys volunteering to be played with.

Ding-ding-ding.

Class dismissed. *grin*

YIK,
- Geoff

Hope some of you find that useful in figuring out who, exactly, is in control of the scene.

 

[BiBunny]

Ok, I just had a whole bunch of stuff that's been rattling around for awhile click in my brain. Thank you to Caitlynne and EG for your posts, since that's what made it happen.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I've skipped most of this thread, because I'm lazy and tired, but I'll throw my $0.02 in just for the halibut.

When discussing the dynamic of a limited D/s or M/s relationship, I tend to do it with this analogy:

If the relationship is a plot of land, the pyl in his/her limits sets the "boundary posts" of the plot. "It shall begin at this point, and run in this direction for a certain distance, to this point, where it will turn in this direction for another certain distance to this point," etc. Therefore, the pyl sketches out the broad outlines of the place the couple (or triad, or whatever) will occupy. Thereafter, the PYL determines that the house will be built here, in this design, of these materials, etc., the garden shall be here... You get the point.

So, does the pyl control/dominate the relationship, or does the PYL? Or do they control it in partnership, with the pyl setting boundaries (and expanding them if he/she wishes) and the PYL determining what happens within those boundaries? I think you know what my answer is.

 

[Lalah]

So, does the pyl control/dominate the relationship, or does the PYL? Or do they control it in partnership, with the pyl setting boundaries (and expanding them if he/she wishes) and the PYL determining what happens within those boundaries? I think you know what my answer is.

I don't... what is it?

 

[Yasashii_Kaze]

I've skipped most of this thread, because I'm lazy and tired, but I'll throw my $0.02 in just for the halibut.

When discussing the dynamic of a limited D/s or M/s relationship, I tend to do it with this analogy:

If the relationship is a plot of land, the pyl in his/her limits sets the "boundary posts" of the plot. "It shall begin at this point, and run in this direction for a certain distance, to this point, where it will turn in this direction for another certain distance to this point," etc. Therefore, the pyl sketches out the broad outlines of the place the couple (or triad, or whatever) will occupy. Thereafter, the PYL determines that the house will be built here, in this design, of these materials, etc., the garden shall be here... You get the point.

So, does the pyl control/dominate the relationship, or does the PYL? Or do they control it in partnership, with the pyl setting boundaries (and expanding them if he/she wishes) and the PYL determining what happens within those boundaries? I think you know what my answer is.

I agree with SW here. While the roles may be different, I believe that each person has the same amount of control and responsibility to the other person to ensure that a happy, healthy relationship exists.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I don't... what is it?

Since I know I can sometimes be a little difficult for those who aren't very familiar with me and my ways of thinking to figure out:

"...they control it in partnership, with the pyl setting boundaries (and expanding them if he/she wishes) and the PYL determining what happens within those boundaries."