Responsibility in O&P (20)

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars"

I understand some of the points that you tried to make and why shouldn't you question what O&P means that is what this group is here for.

I had in mind more the general concept than any specific rights. I was thinking this through and kept stumbling over the idea that if the Dominant agreed that X was a responsibility of His/Hers, then X would constitute a right of the submissive.

I think Tanos sifted out the error in thinking by pointing out that my above approach was more in line with legal than O&P concepts, since in a legal contract, a responsibility on the part of one party is a right of the other (the right to have the responsibility fullfilled).

Your point about the priority in case of conflicting rights was also good.

So several responces were helpful, but now a couple of new questions have come to mind. I need to reflect a bit more before I can put them into words, though.

Zarabeth
"Every day is another chance to turn it all around."

Please don't think you have erred in posting here. I too understood your points and thought your questions were good, as I had wondered about some of them myself.

I understood your remarks below (my bold) to be comparing M/s to D/s rather than comparing O&P to D/s?

I think Tanos' reply was merely clarifying that the term O&P is a wider term encompassing both M/s and D/s (and is therefore not exclusively about slave relationships), rather than any suggestion that what you wrote is not an appropriate O&P topic.

I hope you will keep posting your thoughts about whichever aspects of O&P interest you, as I feel you are a good and thought provoking contributer.

Kind regards,

Zarabeth
"Every day is another chance to turn it all around."

I am glad you mentioned assertiveness. This has been an area of focus for me lately in many parts of my life - work, personal relationships, and even on social networking sites (ie being bold enough to post on more serious subjects and to ask some of the questions that I want to hear others' views on).

I have to admit I always thought "assertiveness" to be excluded from "submissiveness," but now that I have reflected a bit, I see that I was mistaken. I always thought I was simply not "submissive enough" whenever I had issues in D/s relationships, but it makes sense to think that the same concern I am having in other areas would be impacting my D/s relationships as well.

Zarabeth
"Every day is another chance to turn it all around."

The OP refers to “more "hardline" types of D/s (along with M/s) where the submissive is there for the dominant's agenda in an unequal relationship”, which was what prompted my train of thought.

I was using the terminology that I used simply because, for me, those terms denote the type of inequality in a perhaps more 'hardline' relationship versus one that is less so, but of course they also may have indicated a reference back to the differences in understanding that the O&P manifesto seeks to address. I also use the female form when referring to the submissive simply for ease.

I'm not entirely sure that this expresses it any more clearly, but I will try to put it in terms that I hope are more in tune with the intent of O&P.

My point was that, regardless of the implicit or explicit contract between dominant and submissive, there is still the possibility of the dominant doing something that the submissive perceives as beyond her level of tolerance, beyond what she has consented to, or feels that it represents a disregard by the dominant of the duty of care and responsibility that might be expected of a competent dominant. If the submissive feels that she does not have the right to complain – because she is owned, in an unequal relationship – then the only option for the submissive is to terminate the relationship.

Now, that ought not to be the case, since all relationships should of necessity contain active and continual open and honest communication, but the reality is that not all submissives will think in the same way, or will feel comfortable with the concept of pointing out when a dominant 'screws up', or otherwise fails in his responsibilities.

So far as I can see, the O&P manifesto focuses on the rights and responsibilities of the dominant, but does not address 'dispute resolution'. Now in a sense perhaps this is irrelevant, as in a utopian world the dominant makes no mistakes of any consequence and the submissive exists to serve the dominant's will. In reality, of course, there will always be instances where differences arise that need to be resolved. Or am I missing some fundamental point?

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars"

Tanos wrote: These are such good points

Thank you.

I said in my post about dissolving thinking that is behind communication blockages. To expand on this a safe environment for stating needs and wants is one where the submissive feels secure and confident that it is ok to have them and state them or talk about them in an appropriate way.

If there is still a communication blockage something along the lines of assertiveness training is an intelligent solution.

We might relate to the above as being in the realm of logical problem solving, training, nurturing, teaching, enabling or something else.

Yes, and I think that is an aspect of the responsibility for making sure that needs are addressed that's explicitly in O&P. But of course, the details of how that is done depend on the type of relationship (eg a contract-based relationship could have a weekly debrief in as a requirement) and the personalities involved (some submissives are better than others at coming out with important things, unprompted.)

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk
O&P on IC: Possession. Ownership. Consent. Responsibility. Respect. House. Service. Dignity. Authenticity. Rituals.

And some doms are better at reading their sub's body languages and minds to know when their is a problem.

Hello

Maybe not so much missing a fundamental point as worrying over something which is implicit in the manifesto anyway? I see the responsibly part of the manifesto (among others) as covering dispute resolution. A responsible dominant is unlikely to want to leave problems lying (for various reasons), for one thing the outcome of doing so is too unpredictable for people who enjoy control

As much as any hint of confrontation is hated by some people, in a stable and satisfying relationship, almost anything is preferable to walking away and people do find alternatives, some of which have been mentioned. A submissive involved with a responsible, authentic, honourable dominant has a bloody good motivation to stay, whatever difficulties crop up - maybe that helps overcome a dislike of bringing up problems? I would guess too that such a submissive probably has a fairly high tolerance for “mistakes” so perhaps there are fewer important disputes to resolve anyway?

Nobody and nothing is perfect (at least for any length of time). If we accept that then an occasional “screw up” in a rewarding relationship can be seen as less than disastrous.

"Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself".