RE: To all Masters (Full Version)

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



Message

UllrsIshtar -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 9:41:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

and where "submission" means "I do what the Top says only when I approve, agree and don't think it's a dumb ass rule", then be my guest, but that doesn't mean that it suddenly magically becomes true in the English language.

And yet that is EXACTLY how it works in real life, as what you have described is in fact the whole process of negotiation.


Oh and, it's not how the process of negotiation works in any relationship I've been in.

The negotiation process usually is more akin to:

D-type: These are my values. These are things against my values. If you submit to me I'm going to expect you to obey in things that are within my values, and not to things outside of my values.
s-type: What about X? ABC aren't clear to me. Would you ever?
D-type: Clarifies.

Rinse and repeat until both parties feel comfortable.

s-type: Okay, I want to submit to you.
D-type: Issues instructions.

Tess currently has gotten several dozens orders she flat out disagrees with, she still obeys them, and is expected to. Virtually non of them where discussed or negotiated with her beforehand.

Some examples:
- No coffee after 6pm.
- In bed by 9:30pm.
- No electronics in bed.
- First response to any command is "Ja Meester/Meesteres" questions, clarifications, etc, happen after the acknowledgement of a command.
- Cross Fit limited to once daily.
- No power lifting and Cross Fit on the same day.
- No under-eating at meals, and then making up for the lack of calories with sugar between the meals.
- Not eating the exact same 5 things for every meal.
- No brushing teeth 15 times a day (after ever single bite of food).
- No to half of her beauty product/hair product routine (basically, no stripping skin down to bare exhaustion, and then smearing cream on to make up for the lack of natural oils).
- Sunglasses to be worn when going outside, even if just to go to the car to retrieve something (this is CO after all, and the sun at this altitude causes heavy crowfeet wrinkles by the age 35 when you don't wear them religiously).


And that's just a small sample of the rules she's so far gotten -in less than a month- that she doesn't like, disagrees with, and that weren't negotiated with her in the slightest. They were just given, and she's expected to obey them.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 10:39:44 AM)

quote:

I can assure you, that is not (necessarily) how it works. I've been known to disagree with even his most sensible rule, never mind the ones I might mutter about. And yet, I still find myself responsible for adhering to them, no matter how much I may not want to at the time.

I can assure you that thatis how it works, because you have already negotiated that degree of obedience, yes?



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 10:41:15 AM)

quote:

Rinse and repeat until both parties feel comfortable.

Exactly what you are claiming does not happen in any relationship you have been in. Please note the operative phrase here: "until both feel comfortable"



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 10:43:53 AM)

quote:

Virtually non of them where discussed or negotiated with her beforehand.

And yet the fact that she was to be issued inane and meaningless micromanaging orders such as those you listed was negotiated, was it not?



UllrsIshtar -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 11:15:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Virtually non of them where discussed or negotiated with her beforehand.

And yet the fact that she was to be issued inane and meaningless micromanaging orders such as those you listed was negotiated, was it not?


Nope. It wasn't negotiated at all.

What was negotiated that she would obey, and that the orders would be given with her well fare in mind. Further the negotiation entailed that when she felt that an order goes against her own well fare, she is allowed to raise the issue after acknowledging the command, but that in the end, if she was overruled, obedience would still be expected.

Micromanagement was not discussed in the slightest. The type of commands listed above weren't discussed in the slightest (well beyond the fact that she would be allowed to continue to work out in some form or another, the fact that the amount of working out she does would be drastically decreased because she overworks herself came as a total shock to her).
Most of the stuff listed was completely unexpected to her, and her first reaction on all of them was to resent the orders and balk at them.

Aside from general usage type negotiations "yes, you'll be used sexually, domestically, will initially continue to work a job, etc" not a single specific command was actually discussed or negotiated on.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 11:32:36 AM)

quote:

Nope. It wasn't negotiated at all.

What was negotiated that she would obey

LOL
You just contradicted yourself.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 4:04:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Nope. It wasn't negotiated at all.

What was negotiated that she would obey

LOL
You just contradicted yourself.


Yeah... not quite.

You asked if the fact that "inane and meaningless micromanaging orders" would be given was negotiated.
It wasn't. In fact, it didn't even come up in the negotiations.

What was negotiated was the fact that she'd have to obey. Nobody negotiated anything in regards to what type of commands would be given (aside from the fact that they'd generally have her well fare in mind).

The fact that this included what you call "inane and meaningless micromanaging orders" came as quite a surprise to her, and was somewhat of a shock, that she's getting used to.





submit2ufreely -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 4:18:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Virtually non of them where discussed or negotiated with her beforehand.

And yet the fact that she was to be issued inane and meaningless micromanaging orders such as those you listed was negotiated, was it not?


This is Tess (Ishtar's slave girl). Even though I didn't like these rules at first, my Mistress has a very good reason for each of them. I do not consider them inane or meaningless. None of these rules were discussed ahead of time. And even though my initial reaction is to balk at the rules I don't like, especially when I do not agree with her reasoning at first, it turns out that they have all been beneficial.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 5:22:36 PM)

quote:

Yeah... not quite.

Correct, not quite, exactly

quote:

You asked if the fact that "inane and meaningless micromanaging orders" would be given was negotiated.

No I didn't. I didn't ask that at all.
quote:

What was negotiated was the fact that she'd have to obey

Exactly, and that included whatever inane micromanaging rules you might want to dream up.
quote:

The fact that this included what you call "inane and meaningless micromanaging orders" came as quite a surprise to her

So you misled her. Go you.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 5:24:25 PM)

That's all wonderful for you, but also completely irrelevant to what I am discussing. But thanks for the input all the same.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 5:38:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

The fact that this included what you call "inane and meaningless micromanaging orders" came as quite a surprise to her

So you misled her. Go you.


Totally. The exact same way that every time something comes up in any other relationship that is unexpected and unplanned for, one of the parties has misled the other one...

You got me... I didn't sit down with her and negotiate every single thing that could possible occur, which obviously means I misled her.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 5:47:37 PM)

No, you did not explain that you were into that sort of micromanagement, you glossed over it. I am pretty sure you knew exactly what sort of rules you intended to put in place, and yet you did not make that clear, ergo you misled her with regards to the sort of dynamic you had in mind.
Either that or you have been less than honest in your remarks here, take your pick, I personally really don't give a fuck.



Kaliko -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 6:21:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I can assure you, that is not (necessarily) how it works. I've been known to disagree with even his most sensible rule, never mind the ones I might mutter about. And yet, I still find myself responsible for adhering to them, no matter how much I may not want to at the time.

I can assure you that thatis how it works, because you have already negotiated that degree of obedience, yes?



Well, I suppose it would depend on what you consider "negotiation." Did we negotiate anything? No. I knew the type of man he is, he knew the type of woman I am, and that was pretty much that.

However, if you are considering the fact that I'm even in the relationship with him as a form of negotiation - that either of us could leave, and the fact that we don't is negotiation in a way, then okay. Still, though, it makes me think of my grandparents. I'm fairly certain that they weren't expressly D/s, but there was definitely TPE going on. They just were those people. I consider people in relationships like mine to be like that, except we happen to have a name for it. (And sure, for all I know, my grandparents were kinky as fuck behind closed doors. But let's not think about that.)

Regardless, my impression of what you were saying was that it was relative to individual rules popping up throughout the relationship, and that the opportunity for negotiation takes place each time the submissive is unhappy about it. That's what I was responding to.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 7:43:29 PM)

So you never discussed how your dynamic would work? OK, fair enough, that is, to my understanding very unusual.
quote:

Regardless, my impression of what you were saying was that it was relative to individual rules popping up throughout the relationship

You're impression was incorrect.



LadyPact -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 11:46:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reinertsslave75
What types of punishments do you dish out for when your slave disobeys and plays with herself.

Gender doesn't matter in this case. What were the stipulations of the dynamic? If the other person is in control of the s-types orgasms, why is this any different than anything else the other person wasn't supposed to do? If we're talking about willful disobedience, it really shouldn't matter. Consequences tend to depend more about the situation, than the infraction. If the person is disobeying with the intent of doing so, what do I care if the infraction is about rubbing one out, or she ate the snicker's bar she wasn't supposed to be sneaking behind my back?

quote:

Also how would you discipline them if they backtalked you, called you Sir when you told them it's Master not Sir.

Again, what were the circumstances? Somebody who has been in a dynamic for seven days isn't going to be dealt with the same way as somebody who has had the rules for seven years. I tend to be harsher if there's been a period of longevity. Is the person, specifically, attempting to be less than pleasing. Intent matters.



The rest of this is more interesting than the original. [:)]

Allow me to say first that I'm not Gorean in any way, though, every once in a while, I see similarities between leather folks and Goreans. One of those similarities does tend to be that we don't always look at the M/s thing the way other people do. There are very specific examples of where M/s isn't this touchy, feely thing that a lot of people base their dynamics on. M/s isn't necessarily based on being "in love' or the stuff that a lot of people find to be the priority in their interactions. (By the way, there is nothing wrong with anybody saying they could not be an s-type without the emotional attachment being the priority. If it's not for you, don't do it.)

At the same time, there are dynamics where authority/obedience take precedence. It's very much like employer/employee interactions. My job is to be in authority. Your job is to obey. It's not a negotiation thing. I have X position available. If you fit into position X, service, obedience, etc, that's what is expected of you. If you f^ck that sh^t up, I'm going to let you go just as fast as any other employer would, which is *exactly* what you should expect.

I get told all of the time that people dislike my D/s and/or M/s comparisons to a job. However, how many folks in their employment got to "negotiate" their responsibilities? Is it what you want or what your boss wants?






Lucylastic -> RE: To all Masters (5/1/2016 11:53:29 PM)

quote:

What types of punishments do you dish out for when your slave disobeys and plays with herself. Also how would you discipline them if they backtalked you, called you Sir when you told them it's Master not Sir.

Boxing gloves or waist belt and cuffs and a gag.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: To all Masters (5/2/2016 12:34:50 AM)

quote:

If it's not for you, don't do it.

Yeah, that's kinda the point, despite what some others have said.



LadyPact -> RE: To all Masters (5/2/2016 1:43:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
Yeah, that's kinda the point, despite what some others have said.

Well, not exactly.

For example, some folks on this board honestly don't get how I can run *some* of my dynamics without the romantic element because to them, it's a requirement. To me, it's totally cool that they can't imagine themselves doing such a thing. Just like some people are perfectly content to do the FWB thing and other people won't engage in a sexual relationship without emotional attachment.

Both are "right" depending on who you are dealing with.




submit2ufreely -> RE: To all Masters (5/2/2016 8:36:01 AM)

.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: To all Masters (5/2/2016 8:38:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

I am pretty sure you knew exactly what sort of rules you intended to put in place, and yet you did not make that clear


Yeah, in a general sense that's true. Yet the fact that we're micromanaging to this degree, and have these type of rules, comes as a complete surprise to us as well. It wasn't planned. In fact, going in, we had no intention to micromanage her to this degree.
I'd expected, from what she had said, that she was pretty well as self-managing her health. As such, I wasn't really expecting to have to have any rules in place in that regard.
Shortly after moving in, it didn't only become clear that she wasn't at all good at self-managing health (she overdoes healthy stuff to the point of being detrimental to her health) AND that the more structure she was given (to the point of micromanaging), the better she performed).

Hence, our plans (Ullr's and mine) got drastically because we were suddenly faced with a situation where not only we needed to plan on how to manage her health (which wasn't expected) we also needed to adapt the training plans/rules we had had to become far more strict and precise than anticipated.

So no, in the sense that you're meaning, we had no idea that we would be implementing ANY of these rules... In fact, I haven't had time to get around to actually implement most of the rules I -personally- actually WAS intending to implement, because I've been far too busy with figuring out this other, unexpected, stuff.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02