TPE Ethics, hypothetical situations, power and responsibility

[catalina_francisco]

Thank you all for your answers; it is a pleasure to read so many well defined answers to what I consider very difficult questions.

I think if someone has a hard limit, there is a reason. What is not inhumane to one person can be to another. To someone who has an irrational fear of spiders, being locked up in a cage with a tarantula can be considered inhumane, to another it means nothing. So it is difficult to say if it is inhumane or not.

I have to agree with Etoile and OSG. I think the Dominant has the right and the power to do this. The slave has agreed to give the power to the Dominant to break the hard limits, so the hard limits turn into soft limits.

My dilemma with my prescribed situation is the following; yes, if the Master is of higher morals and is wise and knows his slave, the Dominant will know when and if he can break through the hard limits…but if the Dominant is a bastard, simply speaking the Dom/me has been playing a role and has convinced under false pretences the slave to become their property, what then?

Normally speaking a slave chooses their owner, based on common characteristics, and criteria, but what if the slave has been scammed and the Master is just a very good actor?

The Dominant now owns another human being, will this invalidate the agreement, is there a way out for the Slave. When the Dominant is a saint (like me) it is easy, but when he is a human being with faults and frailties, and even worse, what if he is a demon in disguise?

And what if we know about a situation very similar as the one discussed, are we morally obliged to act, should we act or not, what is the wisest course?

Francisco.

 

[shy slave]

Francisco

Am I being naive to think that a demon Master trying to scam as a Master destined for sainthood would take a great deal of time, effort and an excellent memory.

It has been mentioned on several other threads, that in time, people (Doms and slaves) show their true colours; as is the same in a vanilla relationship.

Am I also being naive to think that before agreeing to a TPE life, you would know this person over a long period of time and during that time would understand every aspect of Him in order to serve Him.

In knowing Him you would know if He is a saint and a sinner.

I have never been in a situation like your scenario but if I had trusted Him that far I hope I would trust Him to keep me safe, although I would wonder why He had not planned this aspect or prepared me for it.

Please accept this as hypothetical ramblings in an effort to learn and understand more about trust, safety and TPE.

shy slave

 

[catalina_francisco]

OK Yes and No.

An experienced submissive would pick up on those things, but what about an inexperienced one. Also there are profesional scam artists who live on portraying themsleves to be what the scammed wants them to be. Those persons make it a way of life, anyone can be fooled especially if the other person wants to be fooled by their own dreams, hopes and fantasies.

And although the Demon Master is unlikely, what about the Master who has lied, who have used a couple of white lies.

I remember from my dark days before I learned how stupid it is to boast and exaggerate, I on one occasion bragged to one sub what a brave and sadistic fellow I was and how good I could use needles, thinking that a piercing is so horrendous I could never be asked to perform one.

Being young, inexperienced, stupid, proud and did I mention stupid it lead to me without having a clue actually trying a piercing. Thank god the submissive was smarter than me and stopped me on time.

Sometimes the lies catch us and we are driven by circumstances. Now could this also not lead to a Owner getting himself into problems, just follow the same logic.

Francisco

 

[Pure]

Sunfox,

//I don't tell him I have a hard limit lightly. When I have said something is a hard limit... I mean diamond hard. I cannot deal with that particular act, for some reason in my mind. Animals, because it is a horrendous cruelty and abuse in my mind to do that to an animal. Scat, because it just makes me vomit repeatedly to even think about it, much less do it. //

Having a diamond hard limit is not consistent with the agreement you made, which specified the following:

Slave has the following hard limits: pain from others, scat, and animals.
The slave at entering the TPE relationship gives up all of their rights to have hard limits, but did inform their owner about it.

You gave up 'all rights to have hard limits.'

The Dominant agreed to take the hard limits into account but made clear that the decision was always theirs to make on the slaves behalf.

You agreed that the D would have the final decision, which 'takes into account' a hard limit, but is [I think this interpretation is clear] not necessarily bound by it.

There's nothing wrong with 'diamond hard' limits, whether there are 2 or 92. But having and insisting on them means that you never 'totally' surrender power, which is the essence the example contract. And no one says you should.

Incidentally, that a supposed total surrender isn't such would probably NOT be unique to this situation of 'yours' we're looking at.

 

[Esclava]

The Dominant now owns another human being, will this invalidate the agreement, is there a way out for the Slave. When the Dominant is a saint (like me) it is easy, but when he is a human being with faults and frailties, and even worse, what if he is a demon in disguise?

Francisco.

Unfortunately, I know the demon in disguise...and if anyone has met one as I have, you know they are VERY good actors.

Esclava

 

[shy slave]

sigh

At some point I want to try r/l as oppose to on-line but the more i read the less I realise I know, Thanks for such a great thread, it has given me much to think on.

Thank you esclava for saying you have met Doms who are not as they seem

shy slave

 

[sunfox]

Sunfox,

//I don't tell him I have a hard limit lightly. When I have said something is a hard limit... I mean diamond hard. I cannot deal with that particular act, for some reason in my mind. Animals, because it is a horrendous cruelty and abuse in my mind to do that to an animal. Scat, because it just makes me vomit repeatedly to even think about it, much less do it. //

Having a diamond hard limit is not consistent with the agreement you made, which specified the following:

Slave has the following hard limits: pain from others, scat, and animals.
The slave at entering the TPE relationship gives up all of their rights to have hard limits, but did inform their owner about it.

You gave up 'all rights to have hard limits.'

The Dominant agreed to take the hard limits into account but made clear that the decision was always theirs to make on the slaves behalf.

You agreed that the D would have the final decision, which 'takes into account' a hard limit, but is [I think this interpretation is clear] not necessarily bound by it.

There's nothing wrong with 'diamond hard' limits, whether there are 2 or 92. But having and insisting on them means that you never 'totally' surrender power, which is the essence the example contract. And no one says you should.

Incidentally, that a supposed total surrender isn't such would probably NOT be unique to this situation of 'yours' we're looking at.

As I said, I trust him not to violate something that would harm me mentally, not just physically. If he thought so little of me that he would wish to force me to have sexual contact with animals, knowing that it would probably make me catatonic in horror... well then, imo, the trust is violated, and I am not bound by him.

My definition is not everyone's, and I don't expect it to be. I merely answered according to my personal interpretation.

Whether or not that appears to you to be a total surrender is your interpretation. I have my own, and what works for us doesn't have to work for you.

 

[Shadowsdream]

As I said, I trust him not to violate something that would harm me mentally, not just physically. If he thought so little of me that he would wish to force me to have sexual contact with animals, knowing that it would probably make me catatonic in horror... well then, imo, the trust is violated, and I am not bound by him.

My definition is not everyone's, and I don't expect it to be. I merely answered according to my personal interpretation.

Whether or not that appears to you to be a total surrender is your interpretation. I have my own, and what works for us doesn't have to work for you.

Bravo!

 

[Pure]

Whether or not that appears to you to be a total surrender is your interpretation. I have my own, and what works for us doesn't have to work for you.

I don't want to niggle over words. What works for you can be called by you, absolute, total, organic, or cosmic!

I merely pointed out that you couldn't in good faith sign the example contract [labeled 'a normal TPE contract' by Francisco] any more than I, who insist on eating the occasional steak, can sign the membership 'pledge' of a vegetarian society.



PS. There's reason to think that a consensual contract for 'total' surrender of one to the other cannot be logically conceived or drafted.

 

[catalina_francisco]

As I said, I trust him not to violate something that would harm me mentally, not just physically. If he thought so little of me that he would wish to force me to have sexual contact with animals, knowing that it would probably make me catatonic in horror... well then, imo, the trust is violated, and I am not bound by him.

My definition is not everyone's, and I don't expect it to be. I merely answered according to my personal interpretation.

Whether or not that appears to you to be a total surrender is your interpretation. I have my own, and what works for us doesn't have to work for you.

Hello Sunfox,

Your answer is basically what I am having so many difficulties with, traditionally speaking you do not have the right to refuse, but I agree with your logic.

I think if you push a person to the verge of breaking someone’s personality, the trust is broken, and the relationship is broken. Unconditional means unconditional to me, but some things should not be conditions or made part of the relationship.

My way out of it has always been the choosing of your partner, making sure that your other part is compatible.

Francisco.

 

[sunfox]

Bravo!

Thank you very much, Ma'am

 

[sunfox]

Whether or not that appears to you to be a total surrender is your interpretation. I have my own, and what works for us doesn't have to work for you.

I don't want to niggle over words. What works for you can be called by you, absolute, total, organic, or cosmic!

I merely pointed out that you couldn't in good faith sign the example contract [labeled 'a normal TPE contract' by Francisco] any more than I, who insist on eating the occasional steak, can sign the membership 'pledge' of a vegetarian society.



PS. There's reason to think that a consensual contract for 'total' surrender of one to the other cannot be logically conceived or drafted.

Absolutely I could sign that contract, if it were worded to suit my relationship. The fact that I wouldn't/couldn't sign a stock contract that would utterly fail to address the particulars of our relationship only makes me an individual, and non-conformist... which I think in a lot of ways, all of us are very non-conformist.

And I agree with your PS, personally. There is always a breaking point for anyone. It just may never be crossed, thus making the 'total' surrender appear complete.

 

[sunfox]

Hello Sunfox,

Your answer is basically what I am having so many difficulties with, traditionally speaking you do not have the right to refuse, but I agree with your logic.

I think if you push a person to the verge of breaking someone’s personality, the trust is broken, and the relationship is broken. Unconditional means unconditional to me, but some things should not be conditions or made part of the relationship.

My way out of it has always been the choosing of your partner, making sure that your other part is compatible.

Francisco.

Definitely so, Francisco. Quite honestly, I don't feel anyone could ever take away completely my right to refuse. But were I to sign a contract or simply make an agreement to become a TPE relationship with him... I would not refuse.

In the previous example, I didn't say I would refuse in so many words. I may do what he asked me to do, but it would destroy me... and as you say, some things should not be conditions or made a part of the relationship.

Even TPE is still a living, changing thing, contingent upon the people involved in it. I doubt any two will be exactly alike.

 

[catalina_francisco]

In the previous example, I didn't say I would refuse in so many words. I may do what he asked me to do, but it would destroy me... and as you say, some things should not be conditions or made a part of the relationship.

This is a very interesting remark Sunfox, basically even though you know that it should fall outside the relationship, knowing that your partner does not have the right to ask that of you, knowing that it would destroy you, you are still not sure if you could disobey and from your words I gather you would probably obey.

Bravery is not the absence of fear but the control of it, the same can be said about submission.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

The closest actual existing legal entity I know of that would approximate the TPE contract, and provide for total surrender of one person's power, would be the papers one signs, say, in enlisting in the army, or the French foreign legion for 20 years.

Note that in neither of these cases does there exist a right to say to an order 'doing that would seriously harm me; no thanks'-- I mean, to get away with that, without punishment, in certain cases, execution.

 

[Esclava]

IMOHO, Masters should not want slaves who obey them out of fear.

I obey out of respect for Master's authority and do so without question because of my deep, abiding love for him. I can only hope to find a r/l Master that would not force me to choose between obedience and self-preservation. In the hypothetical scene, if Master did not make me feel that he would protect and shield me as if I were in the palm of his hand - even though I am being flogged by another - it would trigger my primitive survival instincts. They are not pretty because they do cause me to become catatonic and my will to live shuts down.

If Master knows this and proceeds anyway, I cannot stop it, but it would change the relationship as we knew it because then I would be a slave that obeys out of fear and not love.

Which is it that Masters prefer?

Esclava

Edited to add the word "be" as inserted in red. E

 

[Nackereia]

IMOHO, Masters should not want slaves who obey them out of fear.

I obey out of respect for Master's authority and do so without question because of my deep, abiding love for him. I can only hope to find a r/l Master that would not force me to choose between obedience and self-preservation. In the hypothetical scene, if Master did not make me feel that he would protect and shield me as if I were in the palm of his hand - even though I am being flogged by another - it would trigger my primitive survival instincts. They are not pretty because they do cause me to become catatonic and my will to live shuts down.

If Master knows this and proceeds anyway, I cannot stop it, but it would change the relationship as we knew it because then I would a slave that obeys out of fear and not love.

Which is it that Masters prefer?

Esclava

If I were to Master someone (which I really wouldn't want to do, mostly out of fear that I'd hurt them or get out of control or something would go wrong), I would want them to obey out of love and not fear.

 

[catalina_francisco]

IMOHO, Masters should not want slaves who obey them out of fear.

I obey out of respect for Master's authority and do so without question because of my deep, abiding love for him. I can only hope to find a r/l Master that would not force me to choose between obedience and self-preservation. In the hypothetical scene, if Master did not make me feel that he would protect and shield me as if I were in the palm of his hand - even though I am being flogged by another - it would trigger my primitive survival instincts. They are not pretty because they do cause me to become catatonic and my will to live shuts down.

If Master knows this and proceeds anyway, I cannot stop it, but it would change the relationship as we knew it because then I would be a slave that obeys out of fear and not love.

Which is it that Masters prefer?

Esclava

Edited to add the word "be" as inserted in red. E

Just to make sure Esclava, I am not saying submission equals fear or submission has anything to do with fear.

I was trying to make an analogy which seems to have failed completely.
I was using a very well known quote about bravery, it not being the absence of fear but the control of it, and trying to make it into a quote about submission. I am trying to say in that, submission is not the lack of natural responses/instincts or feelings, but being able to control those feelings or influences.

Fear does have its place in BDSM, but not as means of controlling your partner.

Francisco.

 

[Shadowsdream]

~Fear does have its place in BDSM, but not as means of controlling your partner.~

Francisco

I agree that fear has its place in BDSM and in My opinion the holder of the fear factor is also the One with the power to build or destroy the emotional stability of their submissive/slave.

My slave has a healthy fear of Me but below the surface he knows that anything he endures for My pleasure will strengthen not weaken him.

Once again it comes back to making compatible matches.

 

[Esclava]

Just to make sure Esclava, I am not saying submission equals fear or submission has anything to do with fear.

I was trying to make an analogy which seems to have failed completely.
I was using a very well known quote about bravery, it not being the absence of fear but the control of it, and trying to make it into a quote about submission. I am trying to say in that, submission is not the lack of natural responses/instincts or feelings, but being able to control those feelings or influences.

Fear does have its place in BDSM, but not as means of controlling your partner.

Francisco.

I do understand, Francisco and your analogy did not fail. Perhaps I should have said what I meant:

Originally posted by Esclava
IMOHO, Masters should not want slaves who obey them out of fear.

IMOHO, Masters should not want slaves who obey them out of fear - with fear (of whatever is most hurtful or frightening to slave) being the driving force behind their obedience.

I have heard that analogy of bravery often - it is a staple in those thoughts that keep me sane. It is not only true, but has stood the test of time for me and was one of the most important self-talk remedies that carried me through those 2 yrs with my former.

The analogy works for submissives IMO. I don't have to decide to obey or not obey when the fear strikes me; I have to decide if I will allow the fear to control me to the point where I don't take the correct steps in the correct direction. If I were in the referenced situation, I would thank Master for his confidence in me and ask him for a safeword - because neither of us knows the limits of the stranger who will be wielding the flogger. The Master I serve now would give me one immediately and trust me to use it if I needed him to intervene. That would be serving him in love.

If he did not give me a safeword, I would accept his decision and do the best I could to accept his decision and, pretty much, wait for the despondency to set in - and take me to a place where I won't know or feel what happens next. But, I will never be the same again because, in my mind, Master would have disregarded my safety and placed me in jeopardy at the hands of another. From then on, I would, very likely, serve him out of fear that he may never again consider my safety - THAT is what cultivates the most fear in me.

Granted, Master may not allow my greatest fears to come to fruition - in which case he will call a halt to the flogging before I cross the point of no return. In that case, he will have succeeded in pushing me past a - once declared hard limit - and deepened my trust in his knowledge of my limits. That continues to allow me to serve him in love.

In order for the latter of those two scenarios to play out, I - slave, must be brave enough to face the fear that I may be injured at the hands of another (a defined limit for me) and also be willing to believe that Master loves me enough to take care of me even though I don't understand his methods.

Esclava

 

[catalina_francisco]

~Fear does have its place in BDSM, but not as means of controlling your partner.~

Francisco

I agree that fear has its place in BDSM and in My opinion the holder of the fear factor is also the One with the power to build or destroy the emotional stability of their submissive/slave.

My slave has a healthy fear of Me but below the surface he knows that anything he endures for My pleasure will strengthen not weaken him.

Once again it comes back to making compatible matches.

I have to fully agree with you Shadowsdream.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

SD said: Once again it comes back to making compatible matches.

On the one hand it seems commonsense.

But doesn't it generate the Shopping Paradox: For the would-be sub to 'shop around' for a Dom/me is to control the situation; esp. if 'sub' retains the right to 'fire' him or her.

Imagine the irony of this would be sub 'grilling' the dom-applicant:
Would you ever ask me to do X? Y? Would you give me a safeword? I'm terrified of spiders, how would you handle that?
I really hate brocolli; would I ever be made to eat it?

While I do see that this questioning makes sense for medical conditions, asthma or diabetes for example; it seems paradoxical in most other cases.

It's a bit like being a Catholic, and thinking you may have something to confess [say, using birth control pills], then 'shopping' for a confessor who is known to approve.

 

[Esclava]

SD said: Once again it comes back to making compatible matches.

On the one hand it seems commonsense.

But doesn't it generate the Shopping Paradox: For the would-be sub to 'shop around' for a Dom/me is to control the situation; esp. if 'sub' retains the right to 'fire' him or her.

<snip>

It does come back to making compatible choices. But, how can a sub be assured of a compatible choice if they are not allowed to question the would be Dom? And if they are seeking a Master - how can a slave be expected to give any control/power to someone they don't know?

IMOHO, if a sub accepts the Dom-ship of one, they do not "retain" the right to fire them - same with a Master/Mistress. The slave/sub can be released, but the Master/Dom cannot be fired for dissatisfaction (or anything else). HOWEVER, I do believe the slave/sub MUST have some way of ascertaining whether they will be compatible with the person they want to call Dom/Sir/Ma'am or Master/Mistress.

Until the slave/sub has agreed to BE a slave/sub to Master/Dom, they still have the right to say, "No, I don't want to accept that." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Master/Dom cannot exercise power over a slave/sub that has not given their power up to Master/Dom.

Do you have suggestions on how to accomplish this "seeking" out of a Master/Dom without it seeming as though the slave/sub is in control of the situation?

Esclava

 

[Pure]

Esclava said,

Do you have suggestions on how to accomplish this "seeking" out of a Master/Dom without it seeming as though the slave/sub is in control of the situation?

For some reason this reminds me of the perennial question,

"How do I get my fiance to marry me without seeming as if I'm pushing him into the marriage?"

Esclava I have particular view as to what most 'doms' and 'sub' are up to, which it's not my place to set out here. But the short answer, attempting to be tactful, is that if mutuality is aimed for, as it appears to be by many persons like those prominent in this thread, then all the usual methods of 'selection' of partner should be applied, without seeming too obnoxious about it.

Determine, through investigation and experience: e.g., are they capable of give and take, admitting error, etc. Do they have a criminal record or would they (but for their ex's fears)? Do they have any stable relationships in their past? etc.

Probably your caution should be greater, the greater are the claims of this 'dom/master' as to his uniqueness, prominence in the world; or in the bdsm community (or lack thereof due to the jealousy of his inferiors.) And the greater his hurry to enlist and/or collar you.

Besides these, I once wrote about the standard precautions of online meeting and dating in a posted essay (in this forum), esp. in view of bdsm encounters, "How to deal with the tigers in the internet zoo."

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164665

 

[Joseki Ko]

To see naked Pics of Sarahhh vote a 5 here.


I have a bet with Sarahhh. The Lowest rated story in the Earthday thread wins posted naked PICS of the loser. So if you want to see her naked vote a 5 on her story, or at least a 4

Thanks for your help.