O_and_P's profile . O_and_P's homepage . O_and_P group posts
 |
| Tanos |
on Mon 16 Nov 09, 11:49 PM to the O_and_P group.
The O&P Manifesto tries to strike a balance between the power acquired by dominants and the responsibility they must possess. I've made a deliberate attempt here to provoke more discussion about more "hardline" types of D/s (along with M/s) where the submissive is there for the dominant's agenda in an unequal relationship. The concepts already discussed which embody desirable (or essential!) qualities of competent dominants in O&P, of dignity, authenticity, consent, and respect are there to provide necessary counterweights to that power. Responsibility is the most important of these within this kind of relationship.
In fact, I believe that almost all competent dominants enjoy responsibility anyway, since it's intrinsically connected to power and authority, and being the one who makes the ultimate decisions and deals with the consequences. However, the sense of responsibility that is a requirement in O&P focuses on the needs that the submissive has, since needs cannot be left unaddressed over time, by the definition of "needs" themselves.
The cold, hard justification is that with all property, if it is not looked after over time, the ability to use or own it is lost. But in practice, I would include all sorts of things in "needs", including social contact and even the kind of purposefulness provided by a career in some cases.
Regards,
Tanos
| 17 Nov 09, 1:04 PM Ms_Valentine UK, 3 yrs |
Quite a while ago I thought about the question of what 'needs' and 'wants' paul has and created a list so we could always check back against should there ever be conflict or confusion. I am in full agreement that a Dominant in full possession of a sub must accept they have responsibilities. Life is not one big pampering session and it involves an understanding of how you must attend to the needs of your sub or risk the relationship failing. The list we created is as follows. maybe others have their own or may find it an interesting exercise to do as we did. So far, we have had no situations arising which do not fit into the categories created. NEEDS: Basic clothing/shoes. Basic food and water. Shelter. Employment. Control and Domination. Basic exercise. Sleep. Love and emotional support. WANTS Entertainment: Home based entertainment-Music/TV/DVDs/Books and reading Going out entertainment –Cinema/Theatre trips/ Museums/art galleries Relaxation: Holidays and travel Socialising with friends Enjoyable exercise - Cycling- road or mountain and other Pleasure: Eating out Favourite foods and drink (alcohol) Fun bdsm Sex and sexual release Material items - Nice clothes/shoes/ new boy's toys etc Pleasing and attending to Mistress Pets 24/7 subs and slaves can and do live similar lives, it is only the concept of 'ownership' which separates them. Edited 17 Nov 09, 1:06 PM by Ms_Valentine | ||||
| 17 Nov 09, 6:22 PM De_Luxe UK, 5 yrs |
As I make the ultimate choices for him and he relies on me which needs get fulfilled and when my list is a sort of 'Maslow's Hierarchy' but with bells on. I have a mental constantly moving bar chart for 'mine's needs. NEEDS Adequate food, nutrition, water, clothing and sleep. Safety and security (financial, physical and emotional). Control, domination, organisation, order, Career. Affection and Together time in private, public time as part of the non-BDSM community. Family, friends, other group membership. Direction to serve, achieve and opportunities to gain approval. ------------- WHAT I WANT FOR 'Mine' Conditions for learning, growth and self-actualization includes discussions, tasks and days out. Safe unpredictability, room for the spontaneous and fun, creativity in tasks. ------------ WANTS Takeaways, biscuits, blackcurrant jam, alcohol, books, non-essential clothing, holiday, Television, DVD's. A cat.
Edited 17 Nov 09, 6:24 PM by De_Luxe | ||||
| 18 Nov 09, 8:36 PM socair UK, 6 yrs |
It really is encouraging to read the details of how such relationships work in reality, so thank you. It's great to see the focus on responsibility and in such a sensible way. Sometimes its importance seems to be under estimated, yet without it how could someone submit knowing they could make better decisions themselves? "Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself". | ||||
| 5 Dec 09, 5:38 PM Zarabeth UK(TW), 3 yrs |
Would it be correct to say that a responsibility on the part of the Dominant would be a right on the part of the submissive?
I have noticed on other threads that many Dominants also consider it a moral imperative, as opposed to (only) a practical necessity. Does O&P encompass such a moral component?
Zarabeth | ||||
| 11 Dec 09, 5:09 PM De_Luxe UK, 5 yrs |
Q 1. Not necessarily. A right generally extends only as far as it doesn't damage another's right. For example, a sense of responsibility focussed on the submissives needs; a need for safety if the house was on fire would take precedence over his need to sleep. To allow him to remain asleep if the house was on fire would run contrary to my sense of responsibility regarding his well-being and my moral imperative, to wake him up. Q 2. Quoting Tanos, O&P is a name "meant to be a "Big Tent" that can accommodate the whole range of D/s and M/s relationships" "where the submissive is there for the dominant's agenda in an unequal relationship" it isn't a set of rules or a moral code that I think I must follow, or else be judged immoral, apart from the ethical requirement set out in the Consent section. The dominant's agenda may be highly moral, or as immoral as the individual dominant is judged by the submissive I think. In their relationship that's who counts. I think O&P covers what might be regarded as essential, desirable or worthwhile but sagely leaves it up to each Dominant and submissive to agree on the fine details that both consider to be moral. To return to Q 1 re rights or entitlements O&P is a massive "tent" so I think it's a matter of doing what works for you. Your (general your) morals dictate what is acceptable. Was there a specific right you had in mind Zarabeth? | ||||
| 11 Dec 09, 5:22 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs   |
It depends on the relationship. If the relationship aims to leave the submissive without any rights with respect to the dominant (eg they're a slave), then they don't have a right to demand responsible behaviour. That sounds quite cold when written out like that, but that's part of the problem with having rights - it turns relationships into quasi-legal cases. The Manifesto is trying to say: even if the submissive has no right to a particular kind of behaviour, doing that is part of being a good dominant, and good dominants will do it for themselves and may also be shunned by their peers if they don't. This is the kind of thread that inspired this aspect of O&P: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/254414/2#... (although that thread post-dates O&P, it was part of a run of them around the time.)
I think that depends on the dominant: O&P just says dominants should be responsible. Regards, Tanos
www.tanos.org.uk Edited 11 Dec 09, 5:23 PM by Tanos | ||||
| 12 Dec 09, 2:03 PM relaxed1 UK(BR), 6 yrs  |
It's all well and good for dominants to be responsible, and to accept responsibility - that is implicit in ownership - but what if the dominant appears not to be responsible, seems to be uncaring or careless? There are times when we all screw up, through no intent or negligence. This can leave the slave feeling uncared for and can bring about the termination of the relationship because the slave feels they have no option due to the lack of ongoing negotiation. It is a significant shortcoming in the O&P dynamic, where the slave feels unable to discuss an issue, or even to complain at the time, because of the dynamic. This seems to me to be an intractable problem in O&P, which would perhaps be less of an issue in a D/s relationship. The depth of submission felt by a slave versus a submissive is starkly different, and whilst either can of course result in the termination of a relationship, it seems to me more likely in an M/s relationship. I'm not sure if I am expressing myself clearly, perhaps I need to regroup and blog this. "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars" | ||||
| 12 Dec 09, 7:42 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs |
Sorry, I don't understand that distinction you're making between O&P and D/s relationships. For example, I don't see that the type of D/s relationship that has hard limits, contracts, vetos, time-outs etc couldn't also be an O&P relationship. O&P isn't just M/s or Ownership. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk | ||||
| 12 Dec 09, 8:00 PM De_Luxe UK, 5 yrs |
I think it does sometimes appear that the dominant isn't responsible, seems to be uncaring or careless. Words like 'Owner', 'property' and 'slave' seem to conjure up false images for some people. Repeatedly I see people say that slaves or property cannot, for some reason, discuss an issue, either due to the dominant or due to the dynamic. This is not true in every case. But some slaves still feel strongly that it is wrong to raise an issue in case it influences the dominant's decisions. I would say it was much worse to not communicate honestly in the false belief that a Dominant can read minds, can never be wrong, never makes a mistake and has never inadvertently left the house with the zip on the trousers undone. I'd also say that it is taking control from the Master or Owner if a slave/property/sub/servant won't or can't honestly communicate. If I don't communicate with him and I didn't get honesty and transparency from him I couldn't possibly be aware of an issue before it became a complaint or a deal-breaker. Lack of being able to speak up I think may put a relationship in peril. Also I think it is "false entitlement" to be believe that piping up respectfully will control the dominant. I'd dissolve such thinking because I prefer him to trust me to see reason if he makes a good case to change my mind and trust me not to be swayed from my decisions by an invalid or trivial disagreement. It's not a bad slave but possibly some ideas about what a slave in an M/s or property in an O/p dynamic can say or do aren't due to the dynamic or the dominant at all. Perhaps the ideas are influenced by bald or cold sounding definitions, what they read into something that isn't there, what they hope is darker and more exciting than what is there, erotic fiction, fantasy-driven lists of rules or imaginary slavedom passed off as real life, or real slavery tweaked to get kudos of being 'more slavey than thou', or the work of a troll. So if communication, one person reaching the other and being heard and understood, is a problem whether it is some fear or self-esteem issue or false idea and slave's head says 'don't raise issues' that really needs tackling to remove that blockage. Communication is good partly for intimacy and the bond and more practically so that things don't become unresolved issues until they cause an implosion. I've been there in vanilla and it wasn't a good place. There is no reason that I can see why a good and healthy M/s or O/p type of O&P relationship should have a shorter life than any other good and healthy sort but I'm open to hearing a good case why someone does not agree with me. I'm not sure what you meant by depth of submission so I'm leaving that out. Regards, D. Edited 12 Dec 09, 8:05 PM by De_Luxe | ||||
| 12 Dec 09, 8:27 PM Tanos UK(M), 14 yrs |
These are such good points I think a lot of the "machinery" developed for assertiveness training is also very relevant to this. Unfortunately, "assertiveness" is another word (like "slave") that gets misinterpreted, but really it just means asserting (ie stating) your wants or needs in an appropriate way. It's not about getting your own way, but rather about making sure there's a chance for an outcome that suits everyone. Of course in O&P relationships, "an appropriate way" might involve begging, asking respectfully, explaining in the journal your dominant reads, waiting for a weekly "family meeting" or whatever. Regards, Tanos www.tanos.org.uk |
