Posted by DR on July 30, 2005 at 03:12 [67.83.76.91]
In Reply to: Re: Stories by Hal posted by L.E. on July 29, 2005 at 15:30
L.E., you wrote:
"I admire the finesse by which a dominant moving step by step can have a woman ready to say yes to things she would never have imagined saying yes to when she started"
Very hot. So you like to *cajole* women in a sense. Through your Dominance, you're slowly eliminating her barriers and getting her excited about perhaps... babyhood, her diapers, bottlefeedings, Daddy's love, etc. Does that touch on what you're interested in?
We're not so completely different L.E. Myself, I'm into "cornering" my slave. I'm not speaking literally, as in putting a slave in a corner, but rather speaking figuratively about *trapping* her every move with excruciating punishments until she breaks down and cries with hopelessness and helplessness. In my dynamic, I want nothing more than to break a slave. Watching her *snap* is the high point for me.
This is accomplished by setting up difficult rules to follow -- rules which she will absolutely want to break -- and then giving her one standing order, "Obey every rule completely." When she tries to break out, she's punished, and driven back into her "corner." Again she tries, but is punished again, until at last she's trapped, helpless, hopeless, and every ounce of her resistance has been washed away and she can do nothing else but cry and soil herself like a 2-year old. Really, my dynamic is about *imprisonment* -- not only of the body, but of the mind, the spirit, and of her last hope.
Now based on your comment:
"...but if he ever goes from ingenious bending to brutal breaking I regard the story as crap unless he winds up toast!"
L.E., it sounds to me as though you would feel *bad* about breaking a submissive -- as though the Dominant deserves some sort of counterpunishment for torturing her so.
Its common to feel that way, but I don't. I don't feel at all bad about torturing my slave. Quite the opposite really. Torturing her makes my cock rock hard and gives me warm feelings in my heart. To each his or her own!
In real life its very difficult to adhere to my above dynamic. My slave and I are a 24/7 Master/slave couple, but we've also got our respective families and careers, so I don't keep her in diapers 24/7, and I don't constantly trap her into a corner. Nevertheless, whereever she is, she has certain *subtle* rules which she must follow, and when at home, the rules are much more obvious. Have I broken her? Several times over. Its fun to give her a glimmer of hope and then later to take that away. :)
Now to your question about non-consensuality. "Non-consensual" really means many things. In its absolute, it means where one or more parties never agreed to participate but is/are forced to do so. Sort of along the lines of Hal's stories. Note that I'm not discussing the ethics of absolute non-consensuality here, save to say that absolute non-consensuality is not necessarily unethical.
But some BDSM'ers enjoy what they call a "non-consensual" Master/slave dynamic -- meaning that a modest initial consent was offered, and subsequently the slave must always and completely defer to and obey the Master. My slave and I have such an arrangement: obey or leave. As mentioned, some couples drop the "leave" part -- leaving the slave with only one option: obey.
In reality, a slave could leave such a relationship through continuous disobedience, forcing the Master to either continue punishments, or to make her leave. So even in these "non-consensual" dynamics, the slave can *direct* her wishes.
But there are many other forms of "non-consensuality" in kink. Even your form L.E., *cajoling* could be considered "non-consensual" by those who conclude that consent means "absolute consent" without influence. Consent is a slippery stone.
Thanks for sharing your POV about consent L.E. I'd like to learn more from you about that if you care to expand.
Email: