O_and_P's profile . O_and_P's homepage . O_and_P group posts
 |
| Degenerate |
on Fri 9 Jul 10, 6:42 PM to the O_and_P group.
Hi all.
Have posted about this previously elsewhere but as I've just seen it mentioned in an O&P thread I wanted to ask whether this is a genuine O&P concept, as someone has said. As it left me feeling a bit sad. Last time I raised this it dropped like a brick, so I won't be surprised if it does here too!
This term (to me) does not make sense, and although I think I understand what people mean by it, I feel it undermines the crucial and clear concept of informed consent which O&P depends on in the first instance (and as it develops), as described in the O&P Manifesto.
If a submissive is a possession or property, they have consented to this type of relationship, and outside of any protocols and rules which are set out to address problems with their dominant, they have consented to be controlled and maintained as the dominant decides, honourably.
Genuine O&P submission (as opposed to playtime submission or limited scene time or the acting out of fantasies) is not just a state of deference, or being asked to submit to doing things the submissive wishes, it is a complete state of obeying your owner or dominant... Whether the submissive actually wishes to do the thing concerned at any time or not. Within the terms originally consented, or grown into together.
That is not consensual 'non consent', that is something they have agreed to during whatever period of consideration occurred previously : it IS consensual and there is no real non consent involved. Further consent is not required to do such things, it is already given. Maybe inner struggle, yes. Maybe resistance. Maybe disinterest or boredom or even disgust or fear at times. It may take more effort and devotion and skill... But none of these are non consent, these are basic submissions.
Someone asked me regarding this, last time I posted on the matter (in a grumpier fashion) - "But what if the submissive has to be *made* to submit to something terrible?" My response to this is two things - 1. more training is required to perfect such interactions from both sides. and 2. this is consensual FORCE, not 'non consent' as these conditions should they be happening have been consented to already.
one of the things I warn submissives of is that not only will they be required to do things they may not relish, that in time they will be trained to gain some pleasure from doing so, for a variety of reasons.. not least because it takes effort under these circumstances to continue to submit with grace and dignity, which can a be skill some submissives need to learn to have through training/practice. And they instil pride in their knowing owner or dominant, even when it might go unnoticed by the unknowing. Moments like that are precious jewels.
Then I was asked in PM - 'but then what can we call it called when the submissive willingly does things they do not want to.' Quite baffled, my response was 'This is what I call SUBMISSION'.
I have often thought that submission is felt most in the moments when the submissive is required to do something not of their own choosing and does so willingly, quickly and without error and are at least striving to do so. After all, to do something one already wants to do on request is not much of a submission, it's a service yes and a lucky co-incidence 
to do something whether one wants to or not (as I said within the agreed and/or developed boundaries) is the crux of feeling submission (to me at least) as to feeling one is merely servicing.
I am not suggesting submissives should mostly do things they don't appreciate, I also see no reason in having submissives trained to do things which are pointless inm,y opinion , or for them (in my opinion).. but I do feel submission is not very meaningful unless it is possible to submit whether one wishes it in a given context or not, and that ability is regularly practiced.
Can someone clarify that it's not correct that we use this definition of 'non consent' in O&P? I have not seen it and I feel it's very negative for a number of reasons including that it makes dominants sound a bit abusive and as if we dont completely understand what consent means - imo submissives actively and knowingly consent to this in o&P so there's nothing concerning non-consent to mention...:/
Am I missing something, as I am aware these days the terms is becoming well used on this site, so there is surely reason for it)? Does anyone have any thoughts about what I have said?
Cheers and in solidarity!
De
PS just for clarification, this is not intended as a dig at anyone in particualr, lots of people use this term (and clearly I don't). If I have said anything which has offended someone I really haven't intended it that way - I just don't understand why this confusing terms is being used, so I am trying to explain why it doesn't make sense to me (and why I think it won't win us any friends, and may be unnecessary).
Edited Fri 9 Jul 10, 8:02 PM by Degenerate
| 9 Jul 10, 8:41 PM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs       |
I think I may have used the term in the previous thread. I take it to mean that she consents to allow me to control aspects of her and that I no longer need her consent to do so (and that her objections can now attract retraining or punishment). Reading D's above was a small epiphany. I was wrong. De is right. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) | |||
| 9 Jul 10, 11:46 PM jules9 UK(CH), 3 yrs    |
I use the phrase myself, but when I use it, it is simply a short hand way to describe the above, which De has done so eloquently. I'm not entirely sure I associate such negative connotations to it, but I can completely understand where De is coming from. XxX | |||
| 9 Jul 10, 11:49 PM pinkylucy UK(M), 9 yrs  |
This bit is absolutely classic and the crux of the whole thing really. Apparently submission has been largely redefined as 'doing things you really wanted to do all along anyway whilst putting an exciting label on it'.
To be honest, it's how I handled 'submission' for about 15 years. And then along came De. Bloody hell that was a steep learning curve.... You mean submission actually involves well, um..., SUBMITTING to things?? She's got some crazy ideas you know. "Don't Dream It - Be It" - The Rocky Horror Show 1973 | |||
| 11 Jul 10, 10:09 AM Degenerate UK(M), 5 yrs  |
 And of course... I forgot to mention it is particularly satisfying to see people who have struggled submit for real.. special... it's worth the painstaking training to see the change and the ensuing satisfaction for both parties. *puts on haughty look*
Unless the person is your ex in which case one has absolute right to detest them for being a scumbag and full of shit, (even when they write very funny messages which are true and they are right) Dennis
Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk | |||
| 11 Jul 10, 10:48 AM Diablos_patience UK, 6 yrs |
I would use the term too, unfortunately it does seem to get bandied about to mean that its ok to do stuff which the majority of us wouldn't ever dream of doing. For me personally consent raises big issues, i do not see how you can actually consent to something fully unless you have gone through what is going to happen in some fine detail exactly as it is when we legally assess someone's capacity to consent. Generally i do not know what is going to happen when im engaging in a scene as a submissive, i go and he does as he wishes... as far as im concerned the fact that i have gone is me generally giving him a blanket consent... the fact i do not know what he will do means that i am unable to fully consent to the things he does... it would kill the headspace for one thing... so to me that is consensual non-consent.... it may even be that afterwards i wish i hadn't experienced whatever happened, but tough... and if i had any aspect of control over what was happening it wouldn't mean the same thing to me and thus there would be no point. ~* Raku wa ku no tané; ku wa raku no tané. *~ | |||
| 13 Jul 10, 1:29 AM just_cassie UK(BN), 4 yrs |
Sorry but I find this to be bordering on offensive... at least it would be if I cared about what other people thought. I am not 100% sure but I am fairly sure it was me who asked the original question "what can we call it when the submissive willingly does things they do not want to"... in response to a somewhat aggressive post by De on another thread... albeit that I also suspect I phrased it slightly differently... Whatever... What I was referring to was nothing to do with "putting an exciting label" on something... nor indeed, a way of "handling my submission"... Oooh... I really want to do this... but I'm going to pretend someone else made me... Sorry... just not my style... and never has been... MY submission comes from genuinely submitting to what someone else wants... often NOT what I want... I don't deny, at it's most basic, superficial level, it's simply submission... But I also believe it's something more... and deserves a more significant label if you like... Some people submit because they want to... need to... and, whether it is their prime objective or not... get something in return... Others submit because they simply have NO alternative... and it ceases to be consensual in any normally recognisable sense... THAT... to me.. is consensual non-consent... It may not be PC... it may not be easy to explain... to so-called BDSMers... let alone those outside of this world... but to deny that it exists... to trivialise something so fundamental to some of us... is quite frankly unbecoming of those who claim to be so open-minded. Cassie x
*If it's not rough... it isn't fun...* | |||
| 13 Jul 10, 9:44 AM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs |
I don't think it was intended to be offensive, I think it was more a debate about the definition and meaning of terms - and I think the rest of your post contributed to that. I'd like to know more though, about "if I cared about what other people thought". I find lots of people here say things like this - as if other people don't matter. This puzzles me a lot - cos it's my personal view that, Dom or sub, you get the greatest satisfaction knowing that you meet the other person's needs by not caring about your own and by concentrating on theirs - yet so many here scream "It's all about me". I am not saying that is how you think - but I am interested to understand this. Best to you. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) | |||
| 13 Jul 10, 10:10 AM just_cassie UK(BN), 4 yrs |
Ummm... when I refer to not caring what other people think... I mean people *outside* of any relationship/liaison in which I may be involved. I would have thought that was rather obvious... especially given some of my comments in my previous post on this thread... but clearly not... Cassie x
*If it's not rough... it isn't fun...* | |||
| 13 Jul 10, 10:21 AM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs |
It's OK - just me taking my usual slightly autistic approach to my latest bugbear. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) | |||
| 13 Jul 10, 10:29 AM just_cassie UK(BN), 4 yrs |
Grins... well yes I must admit, I did think you were somewhat deliberately misconstruing what I had said, in order to prove a different point entirely
*If it's not rough... it isn't fun...* |
