RE: Master/slave questions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

BitaTruble -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 7:53:16 PM)

That does clear it up. Thank you, Leadership.



NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:26:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
I don't see a TPE dynamic as being over when disobedience happens. Only when secession happens.

Heh, I hate to say it, but I do.

Yes, but you and I know that your relationship is built on the reinforcement of the dynamic via passive obedience. You have no punishment dynamic, so disobedience (to the point where you feel it truly infringes on your relationship) becomes a more direct all-or-nothing issue...which essentially would = secession, which still makes my point. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

The moment Carol would directly and knowingly disobey me is when she is no longer mine. Actually, I would have to assume that I lost her before then and I'm just finding out about it in that moment.

In which case, as I mentioned, the secession was in place, if only in latent form.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

Also, to those who went down the "unable to leave" path, I have some concerns with that. I don't think Carol has ever been able to leave me. I don't think that has anything to do with me "mastering" her. I think it has to do with leaving me being a dumb-assed choice and her being too smart to make it. For that matter, I have no idea how or why I'd leave her. Does that make me her slave? Heh, I do like to say that a 6' leash is 6' in both directions. But seriously, the whole "unable to leave" angle seems a bit... specious... when you pick it apart. Frankly, that seems like an artifact of any functioning relationship.

Agreed. But, I don't think I've seen anyone arguing on the more 'pro' side of TPE saying that inability to leave was a mandatory prerequisite for it. I seem to recall only situations where they recounted how that was a part of their dynamic (maygbe I missed someone arguing otherwise).



leadership527 -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 10:54:09 PM)

quote:

In which case, as I mentioned, the secession was in place, if only in latent form.

Agreed. That's exactly the way I'm perceiving it which is why I don't want to mess around with punishment. If she's already stopped being mine, then not only do I have no right to punish her, I also have no reason to do so.

I sometimes speculate though what it'd be like with a different woman. Posit, for instance, a generally strong and assertive woman who's submissiveness is expressed only to me and perhaps with some difficulty and 'putting in place' required. It's tempting to say I'd never have such a woman but that's ridiculous. Who knows what other wonderfully endearing attributes she might bring to the party that would make me inclined to deal with what, to me, appears to be a crappy leadership situation. I'm sure I'd learn a lot from the experience anyway and my then new opinions would be very different than those I hold now.



NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/28/2009 11:31:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

Agreed. That's exactly the way I'm perceiving it which is why I don't want to mess around with punishment. If she's already stopped being mine, then not only do I have no right to punish her, I also have no reason to do so.

I sometimes speculate though what it'd be like with a different woman. Posit, for instance, a generally strong and assertive woman who's submissiveness is expressed only to me and perhaps with some difficulty and 'putting in place' required. It's tempting to say I'd never have such a woman but that's ridiculous. Who knows what other wonderfully endearing attributes she might bring to the party that would make me inclined to deal with what, to me, appears to be a crappy leadership situation. I'm sure I'd learn a lot from the experience anyway and my then new opinions would be very different than those I hold now.

You may be braver than I. I'm not sure how I'd manage a dynamic where I had to consistently 'enforce' my dominance in order to effect her submission. Unless that's already part of someone's style, it would seem to me like a relationship built around topping from the bottom.

Meh. I'm pretty sure I don't need to try peppermint and green bean flavored ice cream to deduce I wouldn't enjoy it much. Besides, I doubt many subs/slaves who would enjoy that dynamic would choose to share it with someone who was just trying it on for size...but I guess everyone has test drives.



Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 3:10:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

Also, to those who went down the "unable to leave" path, I have some concerns with that. I don't think Carol has ever been able to leave me. I don't think that has anything to do with me "mastering" her. I think it has to do with leaving me being a dumb-assed choice and her being too smart to make it. For that matter, I have no idea how or why I'd leave her. Does that make me her slave? Heh, I do like to say that a 6' leash is 6' in both directions. But seriously, the whole "unable to leave" angle seems a bit... specious... when you pick it apart. Frankly, that seems like an artifact of any functioning relationship.


I can see where you'd think of the two as the same thing.  The inability of a slave to exit slavery does exist as something separate and distinct from what you are talking about though.  It's a conditioned failure response, more or less.  It can either be trained on purpose or it can happen accidentally.  After several "trials" of fully intending to leave but then begging to be taken back, the slave begins to experience themselves as "unable".  Thoughts of leaving get chained to feelings of inability and failure, and the humiliation of having failed and having to beg to be taken back.  Et viola! Slave thinks of leaving.  Slave's internal state and physiology go into "failure mode".  Slave can't.  An option that you cannot exercise ceases to be an option.  The slave becomes "bound" by his or her own internal "programming". 

It's dangerous.  It's easily abused.  It's something that I hesitate to mention on a forum like this where you don't know what manner of asshole is reading along.  It is real, though.  Some of the people who claim to experience it are bullshitting you.  Some aren't.  If you do it on purpose, you're taking on an enormous responsibility, not the least of which is undoing it if for whatever reason you want to let the slave go. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Agreed. But, I don't think I've seen anyone arguing on the more 'pro' side of TPE saying that inability to leave was a mandatory prerequisite for it. I seem to recall only situations where they recounted how that was a part of their dynamic (maygbe I missed someone arguing otherwise).


They are not related at all as far as I'm concerned.  The practice of TPE has to do with the dynamics of the relationship, not the ability or inability to leave it.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 5:40:10 AM)

Many of the assholes already know about it. My girl's former owner knew about this, trained it into her, and fully exploited it. Took me several months when we first met to find things that would oopose the conditioning. Now a few years afterwards, she basically has some holes in her memory during the times she tried to leave, and then finally left. She finally only left because she surrendered to me, and I made all the decisions for her to follow.

A previous slave I owned had it, and it was difficult in the extreme when I had to release her. Now afterwards, she has altered her own memory of the events so that her mind can cope. Yes it is dangerous, but most will think it bullshit. Hell years ago I thought it was bullshit until I read several essays on it, and tried the techniques myself.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

It's dangerous.  It's easily abused.  It's something that I hesitate to mention on a forum like this where you don't know what manner of asshole is reading along.  It is real, though.  Some of the people who claim to experience it are bullshitting you.  Some aren't.  If you do it on purpose, you're taking on an enormous responsibility, not the least of which is undoing it if for whatever reason you want to let the slave go. 




SlyStone -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 5:53:33 AM)

quote:

fter several "trials" of fully intending to leave but then begging to be taken back, the slave begins to experience themselves as "unable". Thoughts of leaving get chained to feelings of inability and failure, and the humiliation of having failed and having to beg to be taken back.




Leonidas can a TPE exist only for a day, and end and begin again? Is time at all an element in the relationship?

I ask this because this seems to be where we are having a disconnect. If The TPE has no element of time, and exists in a kind of vacuum, then what you are saying makes sense. But if the expectation of a TPE is that the slave is owned until the owner ends it, then we are still left with the problem of how it can be a TPE if the slave can make the conscious decision to leave, and have the power to do so if she or he so chooses, and then beg to come back.

To me it is like when you plug a lamp into a socket the light goes on and if you move it around the light will flicker and if you take it out the light will die. If you cannot keep the lamp plugged in there is no power, and if you cannot keep a slave from leaving I fail to see how it  is a TPE, unless it is being defined as no more permanent then any other D/s dynamic, in which case I still fail to see what exactly differentiates it from any other D/s dynamic, other then different needs and expectations, nor do I understand why that possibility makes people so defensive.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 6:29:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

Leonidas can a TPE exist only for a day, and end and begin again? Is time at all an element in the relationship?

I ask this because this seems to be where we are having a disconnect. If The TPE has no element of time, and exists in a kind of vacuum, then what you are saying makes sense. But if the expectation of a TPE is that the slave is owned until the owner ends it, then we are still left with the problem of how it can be a TPE if the slave can make the conscious decision to leave, and have the power to do so if she or he so chooses, and then beg to come back.

To me it is like when you plug a lamp into a socket the light goes on and if you move it around the light will flicker and if you take it out the light will die. If you cannot keep the lamp plugged in there is no power, and if you cannot keep a slave from leaving I fail to see how it  is a TPE, unless it is being defined as no more permanent then any other D/s dynamic, in which case I still fail to see what exactly differentiates it from any other D/s dynamic, nor do I understand why that possility makes people so defensive.



I know that I'm not Leonidas, but I may be able to shed a little light on this from another perspective. See, we have had several servants, over the years, who have entered into our equivalent of a TPE relationship with the household. On at least one occasion, each of them has had to step down from that TPE relationship, and has returned to it later on. The thing is that TPE, despite the acronym, at least in our household really isn't about "power" -- it is about -authority-. Either we have comprehensive authority over virtually every conceivable aspect of a servant's existence or we don't. When we -have- that authority, we are in a comprehensive authority dynamic (our version of TPE). When we don't, then we are in our "non-TPE" authority dynamic.

If we had a servant in a TPE-style relationship with us, and that servant up and left, at the moment that xhe reclaimed hir authority over hir own life, we would no longer have that TPE-style relationship. If xhe came -back-, and yielded up that authority again, then it would, once again, be established as a TPE-style relationship. I would hesitate to say it could only last a day -- but conceivably, it's possible. Perhaps, after a day, a servant was so overwhelmed by the whole deal that, at the end of the day, xhe took back the authority xhe'd yielded up. At that point, the relationship would no longer be TPE-ish... if xhe slept on it, came back the next morning, or two or three days later, and yielded hirself again, then once again, the relationship would be restored to its TPE-style format. I don't think I could handle the yo-yo of someone who couldn't decide, if they kept bouncing back and forth between the two, though. After two or three rounds of this, I would either have to put it out that xhe had to choose one way or the other and -stay- there for a committed trial period (I usually say 4-6 weeks, unless an emergent situation develops), or =I= would choose the non-TPE relationship for both of us, since xhe wasn't able to consistently commit and it was driving me batty, but that's just me.

I see TPE-style situations as a mutual situation. In order to have authority over something, one must either -yank- that authority away, or have it yielded up by the individual who currently holds it. Yanking it away isn't reasonable when discussing an essentially -consensual- relationship, so proposing that there is some binding that forces a submissive individual in a TPE-style relationship to stay there once xhe's no longer vested in that relationship, just because the dominant individual in the relationship hasn't said "ok, you can go" seems... well... poorly thought out, if nothing else. Attempting to force the situation may -seem- 'powerful', but in reality, it isn't particularly functional (at least in my experience) over time. Therefore, it makes sense that TPE really sort of exists without a particular time constraint, and that its mechanism is one of who holds the authority, by mutual accord, and its limiting factor starts and ends when that comprehensive authority is given up or taken back. Now -- you'll always find those who insist that, even though they clearly do not hold the authority in a given situation, they are still in a "TPE relationship" because -they- said so and they insist that that means that it is until they all -die-, regardless of what any submissive person in their sphere thinks (or even, in at least on situation I've encountered, regardless of whether their submissive person has already walked out the door)... but really, how many of us couldn't see right through that scenario to its essential nature?

Dame Calla



SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 7:42:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone

if you cannot keep a slave from leaving I fail to see how it  is a TPE, unless it is being defined as no more permanent then any other D/s dynamic, in which case I still fail to see what exactly differentiates it from any other D/s dynamic, other then different needs and expectations, nor do I understand why that possibility makes people so defensive.


I agree and the reason they get defensive is people do not like their illusions challenged.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 7:50:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

The inability of a slave to exit slavery does exist as something separate and distinct from what you are talking about though.  It's a conditioned failure response, more or less.   Some of the people who claim to experience it are bullshitting you.  Some aren't.  If you do it on purpose, you're taking on an enormous responsibility, not the least of which is undoing it if for whatever reason you want to let the slave go. 



Since we all know what an asshole I CAN be, please take what follows as my best attempt to be both polite and genuinely interested in your response.  For the record, I think what you are saying can be done, but I am curious why one would want to and what it means if you do.

I am NOT saying it is abusive but how does that pattern differ from an abuser who undermines the self esteem of someone and each time they run away and come back they lose even more self esteem and feel they can't do better and stay?

She seems bound to you then not because she would stay if she were free to go but because she has wanted to leave but can't.





SimplyMichael -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 8:01:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

As I have said over and over, I think a talented dominant can have an amazing amount of control but the total part is at best rather rare and when it is present in a relationship over 6-10 years old, I even believe it.

You are ... decrying TPE as non-existent for humans because of it.


Where in that sentence do you see me as saying TPE is non existent?  What part of "when it is present in a relationship over 6-10 years old, I even believe it" means anything other than I believe it exists?   Its a bit difficult to have a discussion when I make a rather clear statement and you see the complete opposite in it.




Nihilus, I gave it a day and waited till you had posted in the thread again before I reminded you about this little bit of housecleaning.  



NihilusZero -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 8:22:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

As I have said over and over, I think a talented dominant can have an amazing amount of control but the total part is at best rather rare and when it is present in a relationship over 6-10 years old, I even believe it.

You are ... decrying TPE as non-existent for humans because of it.


Where in that sentence do you see me as saying TPE is non existent?  What part of "when it is present in a relationship over 6-10 years old, I even believe it" means anything other than I believe it exists?   Its a bit difficult to have a discussion when I make a rather clear statement and you see the complete opposite in it.




Nihilus, I gave it a day and waited till you had posted in the thread again before I reminded you about this little bit of housecleaning.  


Ever think it's maybe 'cause I was avoiding you? Why didn't you just do what you always do and send someone a private CM mail insulting them based on my not having gotten back to your post in a specified amount of time that would make your disproportionate ego happy?

Right! Forgive me. I'll readjust my previous comment so it is more clear:

You are ... decrying TPE (at those "90%" moments where you wish to do so because your application of the "total" definition you are espousing suggestively nullifies the dynamic because it is not eternal, or at those moments where you have not specifically met with the individuals and given them your stamp of approval) as non-existent for humans because of it.

So, thank you for giving all us plebes the enlightenment of twue "believable" TPE parameters:
  • It must have lasted at least 6 years.
  • It must be witnessed by SimplyMichael in person.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 8:33:02 AM)

quote:

...I am NOT saying it is abusive but how does that pattern differ from an abuser who undermines the self esteem of someone and each time they run away and come back they lose even more self esteem and feel they can't do better and stay?

She seems bound to you then not because she would stay if she were free to go but because she has wanted to leave but can't...


from this slave's experience the difference is in the "wanting to leave"...as in, to not even consider it as an option...as opposed to recognizing the option, desiring to leave, but being unable to from a place of fear or insecurity or whatever.



Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 8:54:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlyStone
I still fail to see what exactly differentiates it from any other D/s dynamic, other then different needs and expectations, nor do I understand why that possibility makes people so defensive.


I thought I explained a couple of times what differentiated it.  Maybe check out my posts further up?  It's only different in that the submissive accepts that the dominant's authority over her is not restricted by agreement or negotiation.  The concrete example that I gave above was children.  In some, as you say, "D/s dynamics", certain areas, like children, are, for some, considered "out of bounds" or off-limits in terms of the dominant's authority over the submissive.  In those "D/s dynamics" those things are usually pre-negotiated, and either in a formal contract, or part of the verbal conditions that were agreed to.  In a TPE 'dynamic" there are no "out of bounds" areas where the dominant may not exercise their authority.  Everything is under the dominant's authority.

That's the nature of TPE, and how it differs from D/s arrangements that aren't "TPE".  It's really pretty black and white whether you're doing TPE, or not.  Whether the submissive has the option to leave doesn't really have anything to do with it.  If she leaves, then obviously the dominant's authority over her has terminated.  TPE isn't about whether the submissve can leave or not.  It's about what goes on while they are there.

I agree with you, I don't see why people get defensive about it either.  You should do what's best for you, or what you're comfortable doing, whether that's TPE, or having pre-negotiated "limits".



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 8:59:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas


I agree with you, I don't see why people get defensive about it either. You should do what's best for you, or what you're comfortable doing, whether that's TPE, or having pre-negotiated "limits".




It is often the way that people use judgmental language, and I think is something that is highly exacerbated online. It is like so often the discussion comes down to what is true and what isn't people feel that they are getting told that who they are is not as good, that is why people get passionate and that is why debates get so heated, if people really did believe the whole live and let live philosophy then there would be no value judgments, there are on both sides.



Leonidas -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 9:01:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Since we all know what an asshole I CAN be, please take what follows as my best attempt to be both polite and genuinely interested in your response.  For the record, I think what you are saying can be done, but I am curious why one would want to and what it means if you do.



What it means if you do is that the slave physically can't leave unless you take steps to force them out or reverse the state that they are in.  If you can't figure out any ethical reason why you would want to do that, don't do it.

quote:

I am NOT saying it is abusive but how does that pattern differ from an abuser who undermines the self esteem of someone and each time they run away and come back they lose even more self esteem and feel they can't do better and stay?


Again, if you cannot differentiate it from abuse, please, do not try it, because if you can't, it probably is.

quote:


She seems bound to you then not because she would stay if she were free to go but because she has wanted to leave but can't. 


Yep.  And if you can think of no circumstance where both master and slave would ethically agree that that would be in the slave's best interests, do not even consider these kinds of practices.

I'm not being purposefully obtuse to deprive you of your fun, Michael, I do think that what we're talking about is just edgy enough that giving folks too many ideas to run off and try in their garage isn't a good idea.



marie2 -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 9:24:09 AM)

GR

People are "slaves" to relationships all the time.  It really isn't exclusive to ds dynamics or what people coin as "TPE".  This isn't some deep dark underworld secret that only a chosen few "know about" or have experienced.  We have people "stuck" in non-ds relationships and/or marriages for decades because they believe (for whatever reasons good or bad) that they can't make it on their own or don't want to.  Sure, sometimes it happens accidentally over time by our own doing in our own minds, other times one partner exploits the other partner's weakness because he/she too feels they can't make it alone, or don't want to make it alone. 

Who alive has never had this feeling or experience; the feeling of "I need him/her, I can't live without him/her, I don't want to live without him/her etc etc.  But when this condition of human nature happens in a ds relationship it's all about a total power exchange?  The only slight difference that I can see is that sometimes the intentional manipulation of a "slave's" mind by a "master" in a ds relationship can be more overt and intentional, and there is likely more awareness of it happening in some cases, but the end result isn't any different than any other relationship where a person feels "bound" to the other. 



maturesub42 -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 9:30:13 AM)

As I am rather new here, i'd love to learn more about "conditioning" a woman into slavery. It cannot be a Pavlov thing like we do with dogs... how does it work ? The dog doesnot want to be trained or conditioned, the woman may wish (and must wish) to be trained. Training/ versus conditioning?



downkitty -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 9:55:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Hmmmmmmmm...if you are easily swept by someone else's influence and the only way the dominant has of averting you from another's influence is be exercising tight control, then couldn't one say that you do not allow his dominance to be what it is but rather that his dominance is determined by your level of submission rather than the other way around?  I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I am in all actuality curious.  Many submissives, including you below, state that it takes a stronger person than they themselves to compel submission but if the level has to constantly be monitored by the dominant and must always be kept tight by the dominant, then is the submission to the dominant OR to the situation as presented by the dominant at that moment?   Or is this just a theoretical/philosophical debate?


As far as I can tell, his dominance is what it is, regardless of me.  He was who he is before I met him and will be the man he is (or becomes) with or without me.  I am sure I have some kind of influence over him just like other environmental factors have influence on people.  He does not change his requirements of me due to my nature, so I would not say his dominance is determined by my level of submission.  He does, however, control situations and my exposure to some things in order to make it possible for me (with my quirks and flaws) to successfully serve him well. 

For example:  He directs that I remain monogamous to him.  He knows that my instinct is to submit in order to avoid conflict.  I naturally take the easy way out of a lot of situations, so I have often submitted sexually (before being owned by him) rather than create conflict by insisting that I don't want to.  If I say "no," and the guy persists (even if it is just to keep verbally trying to convince me), I just give in.  So, Master was selective in the job he allowed me to take and is selective in the social situations he allows me outside his presence.  He would never allow me to be a bartender, for instance, as that would be a recipie for disaster, and he knows it.  He does not change the requirement, though, despite my nature.  I know that without a doubt, if I were to submit to another sexually, my ass would be out the door in a heartbeat.  It is not allowed, not tolerated.  Those are his terms, and while he does assist in my being successful in abiding by his terms, he will not alter the terms unless HE wants to for his own reasons.  I have no indication from him in over 5 years that "his reasons" would ever be "it goes against her nature."  All of my indications have been the opposite.  Despite my nature, if I disobey that directive, I'm gone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

In other words, compatibility.


I think compatibility is probably the most important ingredient in any successful relationship.

Respectfully,

amy



downkitty -> RE: Master/slave questions (7/29/2009 10:01:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeingChewsie

Amy,

I could have written every word that you wrote in your post, it is me to a "T". It actually made me cry because it is such an accurate reflection of who I am and what drives me in slavery. Thank you for sharing, you are not alone.


Chewsie,

[sm=cute.gif]

Hugs,

amy



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02