When is NO really NO?

[JMohegan]

What's kinda weird is lately I've been having these unbidden thoughts about cannibalism. Not sexual, but actually hungry.

Not really "kinda." That is weird, yes.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Not really "kinda." That is weird, yes.

They come to me unbidden with thoughts of recipes.

 

[ownedsubgal]

They come to me unbidden with thoughts of recipes.

just be mindful of the cooking method. i hear boiled/stewed human will stink up the whole neighborhood.

 

[Netzach]

I tend to translate "hard limits" as "shit that it's possibly totally unproductive to bother with." Sometimes there simply is such stuff, and it's exactly where the stated limits are. With M it's something like a full hood with breathing tube - there's simply nothing to be gained there for me, even though I find such devices erotic globally, on a person who's going to freak out there's no point.

Some other things like "no I think you peeing on me is gross" - I decided that would happen anyway. And it did. Readily and easily - what's nasty during checklist sessions sure isn't when you're close to pussy in the tub.

If ass sex is life and death, then maybe it will be worth the wait and the patience and the work. If it's *really* important, it may just be easier to fuck another girl up the butt.

I also tend to adopt a long-range vision when confronted with "no."

No in the context of established relationships is "if you get me horny and secure enough."

But I see myself more like a Roman siege than a sly Casanova. I'll still be here and fed and watching when you're ready to call it in. I don't see it as manipulation or witholding. I'm a reasonable woman who responds to the pace of my prey.

 

[JMohegan]

If ass sex is life and death, then maybe it will be worth the wait and the patience and the work. If it's *really* important, it may just be easier to fuck another girl up the butt.

Fucking another girl up the butt would be easier in most cases involving genuine ass resistance, sure.

For me, it would also be largely beside the point.

I can't put it any better than Rosco already did. "Must prove that I can't be denied."

Ultimately, it's not about the ass, it's about the control.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Fucking another girl up the butt would be easier in most cases involving genuine ass resistance, sure.

For me, it would also be largely beside the point.

I can't put it any better than Rosco already did. "Must prove that I can't be denied."

Ultimately, it's not about the ass, it's about the control.

Exactly. I don't even care much about anal, but it's like "what???: "no"? Fuck that!"

 

[JMohegan]

They come to me unbidden with thoughts of recipes.

Any you care to share?

 

[Netzach]

Fucking another girl up the butt would be easier in most cases involving genuine ass resistance, sure.

For me, it would also be largely beside the point.

I can't put it any better than Rosco already did. "Must prove that I can't be denied."

Ultimately, it's not about the ass, it's about the control.

I get it. Read what I said about peeing.

I think the only difference is one of nuance, and probably slightly gender brain based, but my peeing example comes to mind.

I like the last one standing feeling I get when "no" becomes "yes" on second thought. I enjoy the attrition mindset. It makes *me* feel primed and better on my own terms.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Exactly. I don't even care much about anal, but it's like "what???: "no"? Fuck that!"

what if you never get a "no," but rather an honest admission that x activity or decision would be emotionally devastating?

 

[Netzach]

Fucking another girl up the butt would be easier in most cases involving genuine ass resistance, sure.

For me, it would also be largely beside the point.

I can't put it any better than Rosco already did. "Must prove that I can't be denied."

Ultimately, it's not about the ass, it's about the control.

I think we're also in agreement though, on the areas of non-productivity theory.

I personally have *extremely* small patience with the handholding shrink now I must undo or live with the drama of whatever sleeping demons I woke up role, or "oh shit I can't put it back in the box."

Some guys LIVE for that in their interpersonal relationships.

I'm FINE with not-perfectly-normal and I've often described M as "like marrying Monk" but there's a certain resilience that I need and I'm not going to be compatible with certain behaviors-as-impasse.

It would be a cold day in hell that I'd get with someone who couldn't have things in his butt as a matter of personal preference. Physical issues arise, but the willing spirit is another matter in this particular case.

 

[Netzach]

what if you never get a "no," but rather an honest admission that x activity or decision would be emotionally devastating?

This is what I mean about non productivity. Is it productive for that person to go through the upheaval? How about me?

It would probably be off the table, but I don't know that I'd need to say "oh by the way it's off the table."

 

[rosco rathbone]

what if you never get a "no," but rather an honest admission that x activity or decision would be emotionally devastating?

I've never had someone say "ok, you can do that to me, but it will be devastating" so I really don't know.

 

[ownedsubgal]

This is what I mean about non productivity. Is it productive for that person to go through the upheaval? How about me?

It would probably be off the table, but I don't know that I'd need to say "oh by the way it's off the table."

this response makes sense to me. it's the Dominant's prerogative, and some would even say responsibility, to weigh the risks and benefits of crossing these kinds of lines and determining whether or not it's really worth it (to the Dominant, to the relationship overall) to go there.

i also agree that i as the submissive partner don't need to be told that something's off the table. to the contrary, a key part of my slavery is learning to accept that anything may happen.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I've never had someone say "ok, you can do that to me, but it will be devastating" so I really don't know.

okay, let's say they are not able to articulate this quite so plainly. you go ahead with a particular decision or activity, and see clearly that is mentally or emotionally devastating to your partner. they are accepting, but suffering. then what?

i guess what i'm really trying to learn here is, are you triggered to manipulate or "seduce" by the verbal "no," or by the existence of the limit/boundary/breaking point itself?

 

[rosco rathbone]

okay, let's say they are not able to articulate this quite so plainly. you go ahead with a particular decision or activity, and see clearly that is mentally or emotionally devastating to your partner. they are accepting, but suffering. then what?

i guess what i'm really trying to learn here is, are you triggered to manipulate or "seduce" by the verbal "no," or by the existence of the limit/boundary/breaking point itself?

More by resistance I think. If they said "do with me what you will, but it will destroy me", then that wouldn't be the red flag to the bull that "no" is.

 

[midwestyankee]

As I've already said, multiple times, I don't believe in the traditional BDSM notion of hard limits. It will therefore probably help our discussion if you try to think of these issues without using that phrase.

<snip>

I describe learning to take it up the ass as a matter of "basic physiology" because I know how that physically works. And the distinction I make between that and wiring is really a matter of my perception of the effort involved in overcoming any emotional resistance to the act itself.

You may not believe in hard limits but many of your potential partners do. I would guess, then, that determining if a woman either does not have any hard limits or is willing to forego them for the sake of having a relationship with you is a part of your upfront analysis when you assess a potential partner.

In a sense, then, for you, having to contend with hard limits is a hard limit.

 

[JMohegan]

You may not believe in hard limits but many of your potential partners do. I would guess, then, that determining if a woman either does not have any hard limits or is willing to forego them for the sake of having a relationship with you is a part of your upfront analysis when you assess a potential partner.

In a sense, then, for you, having to contend with hard limits is a hard limit.

Let's put it this way.

If I met a woman and invited her to dinner, and she slapped a checklist down on the table, it is highly unlikely that a repeat invitation would be extended.

And if I met a different woman, we started dating, and in the course of our getting-to-know you conversations we had a discussion similar to the one you and I are having on this thread, and I explained my perspective as I have to you here, and she was completely unable to drop use of the phrase "hard limits" and acknowledge the essence of what I was trying to say..... then I would assume that we would be very poorly matched, for multiple reasons.

 

[midwestyankee]

Let's put it this way.

If I met a woman and invited her to dinner, and she slapped a checklist down on the table, it is highly unlikely that a repeat invitation would be extended.

And if I met a different woman, we started dating, and in the course of our getting-to-know you conversations we had a discussion similar to the one you and I are having on this thread, and I explained my perspective as I have to you here, and she was completely unable to drop use of the phrase "hard limits" and acknowledge the essence of what I was trying to say..... then I would assume that we would be very poorly matched, for multiple reasons.

JM, I continue to use the phrase "hard limit" because that's the concept under consideration. I can call it George if you'd prefer.

What I think I hear you saying here is that you won't enter into a relationship in which the submissive retains any control whatsoever. Or maybe you allow her to have some control but you haven't specified where your boundaries are in this regard. I also get the sense that you retain the right to maintain boundaries of some sort in your relationships even though you will intentionally take pleasure from breaking down your submissive's boundaries. Perhaps that is, for you, much of the essence of power exchange.

In any event, our approach to relationships is clearly different. What you call "good" or "great" manipulation, I still see as a potentially negative influence on a relationship. Whether I or a potential partner use a checklist in advance or not, we're still assessing the quality of the potential match. If there isn't enough commonality of interest, I'd rather go elsewhere than enter into a months long campaign to win her over. That's too much work for me. I don't have time for games like that and they just don't thrill me the way such things used to do.

 

[JMohegan]

JM, I continue to use the phrase "hard limit" because that's the concept under consideration. I can call it George if you'd prefer.

What I think I hear you saying here is that you won't enter into a relationship in which the submissive retains any control whatsoever. Or maybe you allow her to have some control but you haven't specified where your boundaries are in this regard. I also get the sense that you retain the right to maintain boundaries of some sort in your relationships even though you will intentionally take pleasure from breaking down your submissive's boundaries. Perhaps that is, for you, much of the essence of power exchange.

In any event, our approach to relationships is clearly different. What you call "good" or "great" manipulation, I still see as a potentially negative influence on a relationship. Whether I or a potential partner use a checklist in advance or not, we're still assessing the quality of the potential match. If there isn't enough commonality of interest, I'd rather go elsewhere than enter into a months long campaign to win her over. That's too much work for me. I don't have time for games like that and they just don't thrill me the way such things used to do.

Actually, the topic of this thread is "no." When is no really no.

You want to relate this topic to the stylized language and expectations of cultural BDSM. Fine, that's how you roll.

I don't roll that way. I've tried to explain my response to no on this thread. If you don't get it, so be it. I don't know how to explain it any other way.

 

[midwestyankee]

Actually, the topic of this thread is "no." When is no really no.

You want to relate this topic to the stylized language and expectations of cultural BDSM. Fine, that's how you roll.

I don't roll that way. I've tried to explain my response to no on this thread. If you don't get it, so be it. I don't know how to explain it any other way.

That I don't behave in the same way that you do means neither that I don't get what you're saying here nor that I ascribe to what you call the "stylized language and expectations of cultural BDSM." To suggest otherwise is arrogant.

 

[JMohegan]

That I don't behave in the same way that you do means neither that I don't get what you're saying here nor that I ascribe to what you call the "stylized language and expectations of cultural BDSM." To suggest otherwise is arrogant.

I can tell that you don't get what I'm saying, by what you are writing in response.

As for what you ascribe to, the only thing I know is that you are working to repair damage to your 30 year marriage, and have little experience with D/s. When I said "that's how you roll," I therefore should have written: "that's how you've framed this discussion." My apologies for failing to do so.

 

[graceanne]

Well, that settles it. I'm just a bitch, then, as the second part of that statement is awfully naive of you.

You say bitch like it's a bad thing.

i need plainspeak all the time.

I wouldn't say I need plainspeak, but I prefer it. I have a very low bullshit tolerance. Like the conversation I had with K about not pretending I'd been 'bad' so he could spank me. He can spank me just cause he wants to.

I snuck into your house last night and stole all your brains.

All your brains are belong to me.

On another note, apparently, 'snuck' isn't a real word. >_<

Don't worry. The baby will suck those out your boobs, too.

No one is advocating it. No. Completely unacceptable.

But someone is fantasizing about it.

Dude! You need to post a spew alert!

Not really "kinda." That is weird, yes.

QFT

just be mindful of the cooking method. i hear boiled/stewed human will stink up the whole neighborhood.

I DO NOT want to know how you know that.

 

[neci]

What's kinda weird is lately I've been having these unbidden thoughts about cannibalism. Not sexual, but actually hungry.

i think you need some fire roasted cunt.



i read through this quickly, and i have a lot of thoughts... it's going to have to wait for later though dammit.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I DO NOT want to know how you know that.

umm, like i said, i heard it someplace...

 

[intothewoods]

What's kinda weird is lately I've been having these unbidden thoughts about cannibalism. Not sexual, but actually hungry.

Have you heard of that NYC Domme named the Baroness? I read in a book that she roasted some guy on a spit for hours. *shudder*