When is NO really NO?

[MasterPhoenix]

MWY- I am truly sorry to hear of your issues with your wife. I hope you are able to have a complete reconciliation.

However, in my relationships, the woman is always aware that it is her place to be submissive to me. As JM and RR said earlier, a No is a "Not right now." For me, ultimately, it comes down to her surrendering her resistance and giving me what I want, if for no other reason than because I want it.

 

[Netzach]

Or........ Wouldn't it just be easier to say: Note to self - don't date criminals, the ethically challenged, or people with habits that you find seriously creepy?


.

Because then it's not magical subcultural woo and it's liable to reveal a need for common sense.

 

[Netzach]

MWY- I am truly sorry to hear of your issues with your wife. I hope you are able to have a complete reconciliation.

However, in my relationships, the woman is always aware that it is her place to be submissive to me. As JM and RR said earlier, a No is a "Not right now." For me, ultimately, it comes down to her surrendering her resistance and giving me what I want, if for no other reason than because I want it.

Are there points where it's just not fucking worth making YOUR point though?

What MWY said about expending energy makes sense to me. I'm sick. I'm exhausted. I don't need to make my life into a daily power play - I don't have that luxury at this time, I need a partner as much as I need to know that I can assert myself over him as She Who Must Be blah blah. God, that all seems very distant and quaint at this moment.

I know it won't stay that way. And I know that little things, like "when we get up and where we're going" are my call and that's a secure feeling - but the idea of throwing down a "get lost" over something like "tonight you must fuck me!" seems comic at this point, to me.

 

[where]

I always wonder what exactly people mean by this. It's okay if the guy fucks kids, cats, and corpses - as long as he doesn't make you join in?

Really?

If that first part's not actually okay with you, then why not add wanking after axe murdering, charging the neighbors for blowjobs to raise money for Republican candidates, or exhibitionism during armed robbery to the list?

Or........ Wouldn't it just be easier to say: Note to self - don't date criminals, the ethically challenged, or people with habits that you find seriously creepy?


.

I see your point but to imagine that people who are criminal, ethically challenged and creepy seldom reveal it at the start, do they? I very much doubt that Ian Brady said to Myra, 'hey babe, I'm really turned on by torturing and murdering kids... fancy a go?' on the first date.

To me a hard limit is something you cannot conceive of doing EVER because to you it is immoral, illegal, or whatever. For vanilla fuckers a hard limit could be bondage and humiliation (which could also be illegal in some places) or for a strict catholic wanking.

At 83 years old He finally broke her last limit. Wheeling her into the men's room at the state run old folks home, a sense of joy and accomplishment overwhelmed Him. He positioned the wheel chair in the handicap stall next to the hole He had specially carved. Slowly, His old cronies began lining up outside the door. she removed her teeth, wrapping them in a silk napkin, and placed them in her pocket. Positioning her wrinkled mouth at the hole, they came to her one by one. she sucked every cock dry that night. Even the cocks that could no longer rise were given their proper attention.

After everyone else had finished, He took her for His own. His last hurdle, jumped. she sucked and sucked, and she swallowed every last drop of his cum - coating her throat and mixing with the rest in her belly. As He wheeled her back to their room, he placed his frail hand on her shoulder. "you did a perfect job, little one. How are you?"

she looked up at Him. her eyes sparkled. her head drunk with sperm. In a whisper she replied, "You should really start drinking the cafeteria's pineapple juice."

Oh bless you!

 

[Marquis]

As a matter of plain realism, all humans need to be "okay with not getting 100% of what they want" in a personal relationship.

I should think that would be obvious.

Not that obvious, I think. More and more of my peers that I went to high school or college with are having the conversation with me about how to make a relationship work. These are guys who are in their late 20's and may have never had a serious girlfriend. They can get laid, they're not undesirable, but the belief that they all seem to share is that one day God will place the perfect woman, custom designed for them in their path, she will love them immediately and any shortcomings she may have are fair and clear indication that she be a false messiah.

I don't know, sometimes it really surprises me how many people don't seem to get it.

When a woman tells you that she is not submissive and your experience with her confirms it to be the case, is that not simply a hard limit that a D would want to break down over time?

Well, JMo is a lot closer to your age than I am, but with my very limited understanding of your situation I think what I've quoted here is a very courageous and ambitious way to look at it.

Keep in mind the key difference may be one of actions v ontology. You're never going to be able to change who she is, but you may very well get her to do things she doesn't currently do.

Would that work?

"Anal is for closers" ahaa I slay me.

I include animals under "children" and corpses under "poo".

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.

A jester and a sage, as always RR.

2. Again, this is not an "ewww, not really into this" situation, she told me I can share this: her reasoning for NO anal intercourse is she had a partner force it upon her (aka rape her anally) about three years ago. The were having sex, he asked, she said no, and he held her down and forced it. This was not a bdsm situation, planned/mutally agreed/etc scenario.

This is a situation, not reasoning. It is a very sad and unfortunate situation but has no bearing on the anal sex you and your submissive could be having. If anything, shame on analraper for analraping but shame on your sub for giving him the power to fuck with the man she is currently with, who does not just shove it in anyway, but gets on to an internet messageboard trying to figure out a way to get his poor anal starved dick a little butt action.

Are there points where it's just not fucking worth making YOUR point though?

Yeah, no doubt, I mean it always feels good to manifest our desires but maybe do that shit in front of the mirror or something y'know.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

Are there points where it's just not fucking worth making YOUR point though?

What MWY said about expending energy makes sense to me. I'm sick. I'm exhausted. I don't need to make my life into a daily power play - I don't have that luxury at this time, I need a partner as much as I need to know that I can assert myself over him as She Who Must Be blah blah. God, that all seems very distant and quaint at this moment.

I know it won't stay that way. And I know that little things, like "when we get up and where we're going" are my call and that's a secure feeling - but the idea of throwing down a "get lost" over something like "tonight you must fuck me!" seems comic at this point, to me.

I do agree with the bolded part. my point was about taking a longview and watching those 'no's become 'yes's.

 

[JMohegan]

I see your point but to imagine that people who are criminal, ethically challenged and creepy seldom reveal it at the start, do they? I very much doubt that Ian Brady said to Myra, 'hey babe, I'm really turned on by torturing and murdering kids... fancy a go?' on the first date.

To me a hard limit is something you cannot conceive of doing EVER because to you it is immoral, illegal, or whatever. For vanilla fuckers a hard limit could be bondage and humiliation (which could also be illegal in some places) or for a strict catholic wanking.

I was unfamiliar with that couple, so I googled. According to Wiki, "In 1961, the 18-year-old Myra Hindley joined Millwards as a typist. She soon became infatuated with Brady, despite learning that he had a criminal record."

So maybe that's not a good example to make your point, but I'll take your point in general anyway. Someone bent on deception won't be upfront about his nefarious leanings.

But if he's bent on deception, what good will stating your own "hard limit" do anyway?

This is really how I feel about the entire checklist/hard limits/safeword topic. It seems as if they are intended to protect the s in question, but in fact they are, or would be, totally useless if the s gets tied up in private by a guy who is willing to risk incarceration and doesn't give a fuck.

No matter what you say, write, or otherwise declare at the outset, the fact of the matter remains: There IS no adequate substitute for a guy who knows you well and cares about you, your mental/physical well-being, and the relationship itself.

If he does care, then of course he's not gonna do the equivalent of a traumatizing "fuck you, I'm shoving it in" - even if you never came right out and declared "you're not allowed to make me an emotional wreck." Why? Because he doesn't want to make you an emotional wreck in the first place!

And if he doesn't care, well, guess what, you're fucked either way.

 

[JMohegan]

This is a situation, not reasoning. It is a very sad and unfortunate situation but has no bearing on the anal sex you and your submissive could be having. If anything, shame on analraper for analraping but shame on your sub for giving him the power to fuck with the man she is currently with, who does not just shove it in anyway, but gets on to an internet messageboard trying to figure out a way to get his poor anal starved dick a little butt action.

Ohh, you're a natural! This made me lol.

 

[ownedsubgal]

No matter what you say, write, or otherwise declare at the outset, the fact of the matter remains: There IS no adequate substitute for a guy who knows you well and cares about you, your mental/physical well-being, and the relationship itself.

If he does care, then of course he's not gonna do the equivalent of a traumatizing "fuck you, I'm shoving it in" - even if you never came right out and declared "you're not allowed to make me an emotional wreck." Why? Because he doesn't want to make you an emotional wreck in the first place!

And if he doesn't care, well, guess what, you're fucked either way.

i totally agree with you on the basic concept that someone who lacks honor or has bad intentions is not going to honor checklists/limits/safewords etc., and the fact that the truly important thing is an adequate knowledge of, respect and concern for one's submissive partner.

however i must disagree with the sentence in bold, as a Dominant going ahead with his will despite knowledge that it will traumatizing in some way for the submissive does not necessarily indicate lack of caring. it could merely indicate sadism, infliction of a stern punishment, or any number of things.

 

[JMohegan]

i totally agree with you on the basic concept that someone who lacks honor or has bad intentions is not going to honor checklists/limits/safewords etc., and the fact that the truly important thing is an adequate knowledge of, respect and concern for one's submissive partner.

however i must disagree with the sentence in bold, as a Dominant going ahead with his will despite knowledge that it will traumatizing in some way for the submissive does not necessarily indicate lack of caring. it could merely indicate sadism, infliction of a stern punishment, or any number of things.

Right.

I was trying to make the point that a guy who had no desire to make his partner an emotional wreck would not make his partner an emotional wreck, whether or not any "hard limits" had been declared at the outset.

"Traumatizing" is clearly a word with a range of possible meanings. The point I was trying to make here relates to the old "broken toy" concept.

And yes, I know that in your case you feel your master has the right to break his "toy." At that point, he may not be "nefarious" in the same sense as the deceptive closet axe-murdering type, but clearly he would not care about your mental/physical well-being.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Right.

I was trying to make the point that a guy who had no desire to make his partner an emotional wreck would not make his partner an emotional wreck, whether or not any "hard limits" had been declared at the outset.

"Traumatizing" is clearly a word with a range of possible meanings. The point I was trying to make here relates to the old "broken toy" concept.

And yes, I know that in your case you feel your master has the right to break his "toy." At that point, he may not be "nefarious" in the same sense as the deceptive closet axe-murdering type, but clearly he would not care about your mental/physical well-being.

my favorite omelet pan has a broken handle. we've gotten a couple of new ones since, one rather fancy and expensive. i rarely use them. the broken one makes the best omelets by far, in part due to balance from lacking that handle.

"broken" isn't always a bad thing. sometimes a Dominant may break/traumatize his submissive in order to build her back up in his image, so to speak. He may break her to highlight and increase her helplessness and dependence. He may break her even because he loves and needs her very much, and wants to ensure she remains his. as long as he has the inclination, desire and strength to care for a broken submissive, and as long as she feels valued, then such a bond can be a beautiful thing imo. what you view as a lack of caring can actually be an expression of it.

 

[JMohegan]

my favorite omelet pan has a broken handle. we've gotten a couple of new ones since, one rather fancy and expensive. i rarely use them. the broken one makes the best omelets by far, in part due to balance from lacking that handle.

"broken" isn't always a bad thing. sometimes a Dominant may break/traumatize his submissive in order to build her back up in his image, so to speak. He may break her to highlight and increase her helplessness and dependence. He may break her even because he loves and needs her very much, and wants to ensure she remains his. as long as he has the inclination, desire and strength to care for a broken submissive, and as long as she feels valued, then such a bond can be a beautiful thing imo. what you view as a lack of caring can actually be an expression of it.

If he deliberately causes material and sustained damage to her physical or mental health, then by definition he does not care about her physical/mental well-being.

He may love the arrangement, her willingness to enter into such a situation, whatever. Sure.

 

[ownedsubgal]

If he deliberately causes material and sustained damage to her physical or mental health, then by definition he does not care about her physical/mental well-being.

He may love the arrangement, her willingness to enter into such a situation, whatever. Sure.

i was not referring to the Dominant loving the arrangement, the submissive's willingness to enter in such a situation, etc.

He may care greatly about his submissive's physical, mental and emotional well-being. Him making the conscious decision to damage/traumatize his submissive in such ways does not negate caring. caring does not always equate to "i will never break you." sometimes it is quite the opposite.

an example: my Master is greatly concerned about my health and general physical well-being. every cough gets a raised eyebrow, an "i don't feel well Daddy," is followed by a trip to our g.p. the next day, every check-up from vision to dental to gynecological is regular and right on schedule.

at the same time, during a beating he will carefully choose to strike firmly in an area (say the most recent...shoulder) which he knows will likely result in a sprain or dislocation. the pain of recovery is part of the lesson he wants to instill at that moment, and because he cares about my physical well-being he will do everything possible to ensure an injury heals properly. and when necessary, he will do it all over again.

clearly, it is not the way you personally demonstrate caring, but that does not make it out of the question for those wired differently. obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[JMohegan]

i was not referring to the Dominant loving the arrangement, the submissive's willingness to enter in such a situation, etc.

He may care greatly about his submissive's physical, mental and emotional well-being. Him making the conscious decision to damage/traumatize his submissive in such ways does not negate caring. caring does not always equate to "i will never break you." sometimes it is quite the opposite.

an example: my Master is greatly concerned about my health and general physical well-being. every cough gets a raised eyebrow, an "i don't feel well Daddy," is followed by a trip to our g.p. the next day, every check-up from vision to dental to gynecological is regular and right on schedule.

at the same time, during a beating he will carefully choose to strike firmly in an area (say the most recent...shoulder) which he knows will likely result in a sprain or dislocation. the pain of recovery is part of the lesson he wants to instill at that moment, and because he cares about my physical well-being he will do everything possible to ensure an injury heals properly. and when necessary, he will do it all over again.

clearly, it is not the way you personally demonstrate caring, but that does not make it out of the question for those wired differently. obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

The point, osg, is that every human being has a line that can not be crossed without causing irreparable damage.

If he cuts off one of your arms and discards it, you can't grow a new one again. And there's a mental equivalent to that act.

Your mental/emotional line is clearly much farther out than most other people's. No problem. But you do have line, somewhere. Just by virtue of being a person.

So you can spin all these scenarios involving trauma and subsequent recovery. Happiness, sense of grounding, etc., intact. Fine. But that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[eastern sun]

i totally agree with you on the basic concept that someone who lacks honor or has bad intentions is not going to honor checklists/limits/safewords etc., and the fact that the truly important thing is an adequate knowledge of, respect and concern for one's submissive partner.

however i must disagree with the sentence in bold, as a Dominant going ahead with his will despite knowledge that it will traumatizing in some way for the submissive does not necessarily indicate lack of caring. it could merely indicate sadism, infliction of a stern punishment, or any number of things.

QFT. "Fuck you, I'm shoving it in" does occur in loving D/s partnerships.

Even so, I think an understanding still needs to exist between the partners, recognizing that non-consent of the this-is-not-a-fantasy kind might occur.

 

[JMohegan]

QFT. "Fuck you, I'm shoving it in" does occur in loving D/s partnerships.

Even so, I think an understanding still needs to exist between the partners, recognizing that non-consent of the this-is-not-a-fantasy kind might occur.

I don't think this type of understanding is enough.

Also necessary is a sincere belief on the part of the D that whatever he's doing will not push her over that 'material and sustained emotional and/or physical damage' line. If he doesn't give a fuck about that line, then he doesn't give a fuck about the damage. You can call that a loving D/s partnership if it suits you, but you can't say he cares about sustaining her health because his behavior belies that assertion.

 

[eastern sun]

I don't think this type of understanding is enough.

Also necessary is a sincere belief on the part of the D that whatever he's doing will not push her over that 'material and sustained emotional and/or physical damage' line. If he doesn't give a fuck about that line, then he doesn't give a fuck about the damage. You can call that a loving D/s partnership if it suits you, but you can't say he cares about sustaining her health because his behavior belies that assertion.

You are more familiar with the D's perspective than I.

 

[ownedsubgal]

again JMohegan, we simply have to disagree. you seem to have the idea we are discussing two different concepts or that i am failing to comprehend your point. i understand what you are stating, i just happen to know that these things are not as absolute as you believe, as the life i have lived for the past 10 years flies in the face of such beliefs.

yes, everyone has a line, myself included, where if crossed irreparable harm will occur...physically, emotionally, mentally. there are also lines long before such a point, where if crossed the damage may not be irreparable, but the healing process will be long and arduous. i am saying that in either case, the Dominant choosing to cross those lines does NOT have to indicate a lack of care for the submissive's well-being. acts of intentional, calculated harm can be committed within the most loving of relationships. the good health he vigilantly safeguards any other day can be consciously compromised, because a sick or lame submissive is what he needs that day/week/month. the heart and spirit he adores so much can be willfully crushed, and he will cherish those broken remnants. one can love, protect and cherish the very thing* one breaks or even destroys.

and btw, my mental and emotional "lines" are not "much farther out than most other people's." to the contrary, due to myriad issues pre-dating this relationship, i am far more fragile and easily broken in those areas than your average normally functioning person.





*to be totally clear, "thing" above refers not only to the submissive herself but also her physical well-being, safety, mental and emotional stability.

 

[ownedsubgal]

The point, osg, is that every human being has a line that can not be crossed without causing irreparable damage.

If he cuts off one of your arms and discards it, you can't grow a new one again. And there's a mental equivalent to that act.

Your mental/emotional line is clearly much farther out than most other people's. No problem. But you do have line, somewhere. Just by virtue of being a person.

So you can spin all these scenarios involving trauma and subsequent recovery. Happiness, sense of grounding, etc., intact. Fine. But that's not what I'm talking about.

that's not what i'm talking about either.

if he cuts off an arm, i'll not only be left with a permanent visible physical disability, but be seriously emotionally screwed up over the knowledge of what he was willing to do to me, not to mention the thought of having to live out the rest of my days with one arm.

you would conclude from this that obviously he didn't give a flock about my arm, my physical health and ability to function, or my emotional stability. and i am saying that this would be a false conclusion. He loved the arm and what i could do with two arms, but it had to go. He loves when i am emotionally stable and secure, but for whatever reason that stability had to be broken.

 

[JMohegan]

again JMohegan, we simply have to disagree. you seem to have the idea we are discussing two different concepts or that i am failing to comprehend your point.

We actually ARE discussing two different concepts.

Your concept of what it means to care for someone's physical and mental and health bears no relationship whatsoever to my concept of that type of responsibility.

I can not conceive of a scenario in which that arm "HAD to go" or "that stability HAD to be broken."

There's no excuse I can fathom to justify that, and no way I can consider that to be part of loving, caring behavior. I would conclude many things, including the fact that he didn't give a "flock" about your physical and emotional health, yes.

What you write makes no sense to me. But that doesn't mean it makes no sense to you. Whatever you're saying, I sincerely wish you the best.

 

[Bustymagoo]

This is a situation, not reasoning. It is a very sad and unfortunate situation but has no bearing on the anal sex you and your submissive could be having. If anything, shame on analraper for analraping but shame on your sub for giving him the power to fuck with the man she is currently with, who does not just shove it in anyway, but gets on to an internet messageboard trying to figure out a way to get his poor anal starved dick a little butt action.

First off, I would like to say that I am neither male, nor dom. I am also not "J" herself, just someone who wanted to post this subject to spark a friendly discussion and maybe hear some constructive advice. Maybe reserve your judgement for times when you hve the full picture?

Secondly, if trying to figure out issues (especially sexual ones) on this forum is so pathetic, then what the f@&K was this forum started for? And what are you doing on it?

Oh, and lastly, excuuuuse me for misusing the English language. You are right, I should of used "reason" insteading of "reasoning".

:/

 

[sb2009]

this thread illustrates for me how there is just no set way to do all *this stuff we do."

I like bruises, soreness, marks, all that...I would not like a sprain or a break, that to me is a hard limit. Not to mention he'd hate to have to take me to the dr and nurse me back the health if it was avoidable.

 

[neci]

what ever happened to "whoops! you moved and I went into the wrong hole?"
accidents happen.

 

[minx1]

what ever happened to "whoops! you moved and I went into the wrong hole?"
accidents happen.

lmao....oh those where the days

......and now that I'm in here

 

[where]

I was unfamiliar with that couple, so I googled. According to Wiki, "In 1961, the 18-year-old Myra Hindley joined Millwards as a typist. She soon became infatuated with Brady, despite learning that he had a criminal record."

So maybe that's not a good example to make your point, but I'll take your point in general anyway. Someone bent on deception won't be upfront about his nefarious leanings.

But if he's bent on deception, what good will stating your own "hard limit" do anyway?

This is really how I feel about the entire checklist/hard limits/safeword topic. It seems as if they are intended to protect the s in question, but in fact they are, or would be, totally useless if the s gets tied up in private by a guy who is willing to risk incarceration and doesn't give a fuck.

No matter what you say, write, or otherwise declare at the outset, the fact of the matter remains: There IS no adequate substitute for a guy who knows you well and cares about you, your mental/physical well-being, and the relationship itself.

If he does care, then of course he's not gonna do the equivalent of a traumatizing "fuck you, I'm shoving it in" - even if you never came right out and declared "you're not allowed to make me an emotional wreck." Why? Because he doesn't want to make you an emotional wreck in the first place!

And if he doesn't care, well, guess what, you're fucked either way.

Well, given that some people involved in BDSM do stuff that would assuredly give a 'vanilla' man a prison sentence, it's not actually a bad example. and if you take a possibly inexperienced woman being attracted to a man who she ~knows~ gets his kicks from physical and/or mental 'abuse', then it isn't actually that dissimilar. Hell I took the risk!

But on the whole, I agree with you. Hard limits shouldn't include stuff which is actually illegal unless it is consensual (though you may trip over this when it comes to bestiality), but it makes a useful shorthand especially in the early stages of a relationship. But even then an intuitive and experienced person knows when they are pushing limits beyond what is psychologically safe. So I have a safeword, but he knows that "stop!" said in a certain voice is different from "Stop! (fuck, what is my safeword?)"