To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Friday, December 4, 2015

Limits

Even those who seem to have no limits......have limits. 

I love to think theoretically about things. After all how far would we have come as a species if we could only think and discuss the things familiar to us personally? You'd have to toss out quantum physics for sure. But D/s is not as complicated as quarks.

One thing I feel is an interesting topic is that of TPE and "prior consent". My personal feeling is that what most of us call "prior consent" really is an agreement to minimize conflicts at the time a punishment is declared when the sub doesn't fully like or understand it. If there is anything of trust, or honor in the sub's mind, they will most likely use their 'prior consent' as a helpful tool in allowing them to submit in that moment. But, they ARE submitting in that moment.

The exception would be the sub who literally is running away from their Top and is caught, physically restrained, and punished. (risky business) Now, certainly a sub who runs the way a scared child might run, knowing they are wrong, and knowing their Top is right, but just not having the courage to submit on their own, maybe an understanding of self and trust in the authority figure makes the described scenario seem more appropriate and less like abuse. But where's the line in such a situation?

If a sub has truly agreed to let themselves be caught and punished and the Top knows this and does it. What happens when the running away is genuine and not merely the result of cowardice in the face of justice? What if the Top is not right? Or not in control of their anger?

17 comments:

  1. Well, I'd venture that legally, consent to being "battered" (which would include corporal correction) can be withdrawn at any time, it wouldn't matter if the submissive partner had previously agreed, even in writing, to accept such punishment from the dominant one. Just like a losing boxer 'throwing in the towel,' the submissive can change his/her mind about undergoing discipline at any time.

    Of course, whether the relationship could survive that kind of defiance against the dominant is another issue, but attempting to forcibly impose corporal punishment could well result in him/her being charged with assault and battery, here in the U.S.A. anyway.

    There's a difference between discipline not being desired, if the submissive feels that it's unfair or unjustified but is grudgingly willing to endure it under protest nonetheless, because that's an important element of the relationship, and it not being consented to and thereby resisted. (Seriously running away from punishment would be an obvious form of resistance, I'd figure.)

    Like a 'vanilla' relationship, a D/s one should be subject to reevaluation by either partner, and a submissive partner evading an unjust or out-of-control dominant one would be doing that, I'd say... --C.K.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well put, CK, and pretty accurate as well. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Not only can consent to an assault be withdrawn at any time, but many states do not acknowledge consent to certain levels of punishment as valid. From a legal perspective, whether it was "cowardice in the face of justice" or genuine running away is irrelevant.

      Again, from a legal perspective, even in states that would allow consent as an affirmative defense, the running away and allowing oneself to be caught would be treated as a factual issue for a jury to consider as to whether there was actual consent. It would be a hard position for the punisher to argue if someone ran to escape and did not give express verbal consent.

      The issue of whether there was duress in the situation that led the disciplined party not to resist (i.e., due to the fear of greater retribution) would also come into play.

      Delete
    3. All good points. I've noticed that the 'prior consent'-thing is a bigger point of contention and departure with the DD-ers than it is with BDSM-ers.

      (Also, it's fine to be "anonymous" here but next time please just add a fake tag name at the end of your post so we know which "anonymous" we're talking to.)

      Delete
    4. That does seem to be the case. It may be because BDSMers are more likely to use safewords as a way of withdrawing consent in the moment. I get the impression that most or all DDers don't do that. Also, perhaps because BDSMers are usually engaging in "scenes" that are discrete and agreed upon, whereas DDers are submitting to real punishment for alleged transgressions which seems to feel less consented to, at least when it's actually taking place, and the notion of "prior consent to non-consent" somehow makes it feel consented to overall (even though the idea of consent to non-consent would have no legal effect as it would make consent to an assault irrevocable).

      JD

      Delete
    5. You state that pretty accurately, JD.

      In many cases definitions blur through imprecise use. Consequently very common terms like 'want', 'like', 'need' get used inaccurately. I've seen discussions go on for ages when people discuss DD spanking in terms of "but you like it" or "no, I need it", and "oh if you need it you must want it which means you like it".......when want, needing, and liking are very different things.

      "Consent" is another word that gets thrown about even as the definition blurs.

      Delete
    6. That is true. There's also a dynamic issue. There is "liking," "wanting," or "needing,": in the moment something is happening versus before or after the fact. Spanking can be enormously fun (or at least very exciting) to think about before and after, but often not so much in the moment.

      JD

      Delete
  2. Shilo gave consent when we first started, and it was blanket (CNC) consent. Shilo has run away from punishment only once, and he paid dearly for it (Don't look at me, I did nothing!)

    Our agreement is that I can and will punish him for certain things whether or not he feels it is "fair." However, we do take time to discuss it afterwards (later that day or the next) and if he feels the punishment was arbitrary, we can discuss it like reasonable adults, and if I really am wrong, I will apologize. Still. it doesn't give him a free pass to misbehave.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, and as for limits, he has a few (and I respect them) but I actually have more limits than he does!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, perhaps I'm getting into semantics here, but if your husband has limits which you always respect, then do you truly have "blanket consent" to punish him in any way you decide to?

      I'm presuming that "CNC" stands for "consent to non-consent," but that term strikes me as rather oxymoronic (contradictory). In actual practice, it seems to mean "consent despite non-agreement," yet that's still basically consent, isn't it?

      What's the point of one partner being considered the disciplinarian/head of household, unless his/her judgment is indeed deemed to be superior overall and therefore to be enforced despite the misgivings of the disciplined one? The "consent to non-consent," as it's actually practiced, strikes me as the recognition of that unequal aspect of the relationship.

      So is there any serious discussion of a genuine disagreement BEFORE discipline is administered, even within the understanding that the disciplinary partner's ultimate decision will be carried out, with the cooperation (albeit perhaps grudging) of the disciplined one if it results in punishment?

      I'd certainly wish to be able to present my sincere perspective to my potential chastiser in order to avoid what I considered to be unjust discipline, rather than merely being given an apology afterward, once we'd discussed it only after I'd already been punished.

      Open-minded discussion hardly means that the disciplined partner will be given a "free pass," he/she would still have to be damned convincing to avoid a punishment which the disciplinary one was originally planning on carrying out, wouldn't he/she? --C.K.

      Delete
    2. I don't mean to answer for Merry, but I do think in discussing this here and elsewhere, there is a difference between the semantics or even logic of 'consent' and how things feel or play out in the moment or in our minds.

      And I have said elsewhere, most of the time we all refer to CNC it's more about getting around the reluctance to submit to what is generally accepted as deserved, I tend to think a loving couple with any prior agreement of any kind hopefully values their relationship more than a rule. Such a couple would handle a very sincere and serious issue with care....even if the ultimate decision is to proceed with a punishment eventually.

      At least that is how it works with Rosa and me.

      Delete
    3. @ Crimson Kid: For example, Shilo has a limit about face slapping. I wouldn't do it anyway, but some limits are necessary for the safety/comfort of my slave/husband. I'm also not going to defecate on him. Most of the limits we have/discussed are common sense, but most of it has to do with health (both physical and mental) and safety.

      Yes, my judgement is "law", but the limits are there for the protection of the both of us. There is much more than punishment in my relationship with Shilo. We practice BDSM, and that is mostly where the CNC comes into play.

      Delete
  4. I am curious. The time he 'ran away' how would you categorize it? A sort of loss of nerve to face consequences, or an outright disagreement over the consequences?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It was so long ago, I had to ask him. He told me (today) that he was angry and disagreed that he deserved punishment. He embarrassed me in public, and I was so upset, I walked out of the store. This was early in our marriage.

    He followed me out, and I told him he was going to be punished for it when we got home. We finished our shopping, and he emptied the groceries. I told him to get naked and in the corner so I could decide how to hand;e it. About 5 minutes later, I noticed he hadn't come out of the bedroom. Turns out, he snuck out the window and drove off, and in the process twisted his ankle.

    When I realized this, I was furious! When he returned home, I made him stand in the corner for an hour and sing "Twinkle twinkle little bat" over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Something to note: I NEVER punish when I am angry at him. I did that once, early in our relationship, and I was shocked and appalled by the damage I did.

    If I'm really that angry, I send him to the corner until I cool down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see. So fate got to him before you did.

      Delete
    2. Exactly! He was so afraid of what he thought would be my reaction that he didn't tell me about the injury until later that evening.

      Delete