Total power exchange or lifestyle d/s?
Lady Sun
There is no intent as usual on arousing flames here, I just seek some
answers. If my writing, intent, or word choice isn't clear please just ask
me for clarification. If you are interested in flame throwing please pass
this post.
I was looking over the website on "submissive women speak" which was a
hyperlink from this site: http://www.lovingds.org/introframe.htm and I came
across some conversations with Jon Jacobs and others and a small reference
to "total power exchange". I started to wonder what TPE is all about and if
that is who I really am. I have always called myself a lifestyler but I
wonder if saying I am into TPE is more accurate. I consider myself a
lifestyler because I not only play BDSM games but I also enjoy control and
domination in everday situations. I enjoy making the decisions, acting as
guide, teacher, etc. to my submissive.
Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any between being
a lifestyler and being into TPE?
Smiles and Blessed be,
Lady Sun.
--
To use you, is to love you.
Lady Sun
Tanos - remove X wrote in message ...
>[Followups set in case this thread, mentioning TPE, Jon Jacobs and
> Gloria Brame attracts the flamers ...]
Please excuse my ignorance but what does the above mean?
>http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm takes you directly to Jon
>and Polly's "Submissive Women Speak" site.
Thanks for the direct link!
>The key thing is the totality of power exchange in TPE (or Absolute
>Power Exchange as they prefer) and this is more a change in the sub's
>perception than something you can just decide to be.
Hmmm.. this sounds intriguing. So what I understand is that the sub would
perceive me as having total power over them? Is this similar to me
considering myself as lifestyle? I will read the url you sent along, thanks
again!
>For more see: http://gloria-brame.com/absol.htm#absol
Smiles and blessed be,
Lady Sun.
David Weinshenker
>
>
Hello there Lady S. - I think I can clarify at least part of
your question perhaps!
>
>
> Tanos - remove X wrote in message ...
> >[Followups set in case this thread, mentioning TPE, Jon Jacobs and
> > Gloria Brame attracts the flamers ...]
>
> Please excuse my ignorance but what does the above mean?
Well, Gloria Brame is relatively unknown to me (I suspect she
should be near the top of my BDSM-reading-list-to-do, along with
Pat Califia's "Sensuous Magic" and "Diesel Fuel") ... and I haven't
seen any of JJ's posts myself, but I've put in a link to something
Steven Davis wrote about him below. I get the impression that Tanos
considers him to be the subject of potential future (as well as
historical) flamewars.
Therefore the message has a "followup to: ssbb" header even though
it is crossposted to ssbb and ssbb.femdom, so that if you use your
news program's "reply-to" feature it will automatically just write
in ssbb in the reply field, instead of both newsgroups. Sounds like
a reasonable flame-containment precaution.
The idea is that if the message does stimulate an angry reply
and someone posts a reply to that, the news software default
will be for the messages only to post to ssbb, and the argument
will stay in one newsgroup, leaving the .femdoms to whatever
it is that they do over there. :)
(Someone, please, what's the deal with Gloria Brame? She's someone
I've heard of as some sort of 'feminist BDSM author,' but I don't
understand what's flammable about her as a topic...)
Here's SD's bit about JJ...
http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/jj.html
Hope I've clarified things a bit...
-dave w
Tanos - remove X
Gloria Brame attracts the flamers ...]
Lady Sun <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There is no intent as usual on arousing flames here, I just seek some
> answers. If my writing, intent, or word choice isn't clear please just ask
> me for clarification. If you are interested in flame throwing please pass
> this post.
>
> I was looking over the website on "submissive women speak" which was a
> hyperlink from this site: http://www.lovingds.org/introframe.htm and I came
> across some conversations with Jon Jacobs and others and a small reference
> to "total power exchange".
http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm takes you directly to Jon
and Polly's "Submissive Women Speak" site.
It's mostly an archive of Countess Velveeta and Rosie posts to
alt.sex.bondage, but with some more recent articles as well. It's
pretty much all worth reading, whether you agree with it or not.
> I started to wonder what TPE is all about and if
> that is who I really am. I have always called myself a lifestyler but I
> wonder if saying I am into TPE is more accurate.
> Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any between being
> a lifestyler and being into TPE?
The key thing is the totality of power exchange in TPE (or Absolute
Power Exchange as they prefer) and this is more a change in the sub's
perception than something you can just decide to be.
For more see: http://gloria-brame.com/absol.htm#absol
Take care everyone,
Tanos
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| alt.lifestyle.master-slave information page: Charter,links,web2news |
| gateway,FAQ: http://www.owner-slave.com/alt.lifestyle.master-slave/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip the Foole
David Weinshenker: (Someone, please, what's the deal with Gloria Brame?
She's someone
I've heard of as some sort of 'feminist BDSM author,' but I don't
understand what's flammable about her as a topic...)
Foole: She is the co-author of "Different Loving: The World of Sexual
Dominance & Submission," along with William D. Brame and Jon Jacobs. I
don't personally have any problem with Gloria, and I've done a favorable
review of one of her erotic fiction works. Her co-author Jon Jacobs is
sometimes perceived as being an exponent of the "One True Way" (his way)
to do D/s. Steven Davis has a summary of the JJ debates at his
website.
JJ's psycho girlfriend, Rosie/Countess Velveeta/Sophia Eisor ("Eisor" =
"Rosie" backwards) pops up here occasionally under a variety of aliases
to attack my alleged cruelty to "intelligent submissive women" and to
try to create the impression of a mass movement in support of her
honeybunch against those who practice "faux" BDSM.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Janet Hardy
Lady Sun wrote in message ...
>Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any between
being
>a lifestyler and being into TPE?
TPE is more a goal than a reality, as I understand it. The idea is that the
sub has *no* control over any aspect of his life unless the dom chooses to
give it to him -- the dominant controls anything she cares to control: his
work, his family life, his health habits, everything. In Jacobs-style TPE,
the sub also does not have the right to end the relationship.
Jacobs' views on TPE are highly controversial, as is Jacobs himself. You
might want to run a Deja search on his history on s.s.b-b.
Verdant
mady
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>TPE is more a goal than a reality, as I understand it. The idea is that the
>sub has *no* control over any aspect of his life unless the dom chooses to
>give it to him -- the dominant controls anything she cares to control: his
>work, his family life, his health habits, everything. In Jacobs-style TPE,
>the sub also does not have the right to end the relationship.
Another person's version of TPE can be seen at
http://www.powerotics.com/hans/hd.htm
>Jacobs' views on TPE are highly controversial, as is Jacobs himself. You
>might want to run a Deja search on his history on s.s.b-b.
One of his more controversial statements was a speech given a few
years ago. It can be read in it's entirety at
http://www.mouse-works.com/subnatione/speech.html
mady
--
madylarian OCL(OCF)
*take hobinrood out of email address to reply*
#Kill all spammers! Neuter/spay so they can't breed!#
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Philip the Foole
Foole: JJ's co-author for that speech, "Polly Peachum" is, of course,
yet another pseudonym for Rosie/Sophia Eisor/Countess Velveeta. Their
central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites above, is
that anyone not practicing their particular brand of D/s isn't doing the
*real* thing. The multiple name game deception by Rosie/Sophia
Eisor/Countess Velveeta/Polly Peachum might work better if each of them
didn't claim superiority based on the same "seven and a half years" with
her master.
I guess that trumps my twenty-two years with Lady Foole. Of course,
we're still not doing BDSM the *right* way, but I ain't givin' up.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Five hundred trips and they've *all* been bummers. But I ain't givin'
up.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by the Forty-year-old Hippie.
RJ-
}> mady: One of his [Jon Jacobs'] more controversial statements was a speech given a few
}years ago. It can be read in it's entirety at
}http://www.mouse-works.com/subnatione/speech.html
}
}Foole: JJ's co-author for that speech, "Polly Peachum" is, of course,
}yet another pseudonym for Rosie/Sophia Eisor/Countess Velveeta. Their
}central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites above, is
}that anyone not practicing their particular brand of D/s isn't doing the
}*real* thing. The multiple name game deception by Rosie/Sophia
}Eisor/Countess Velveeta/Polly Peachum might work better if each of them
}didn't claim superiority based on the same "seven and a half years" with
}her master.
}I guess that trumps my twenty-two years with Lady Foole. Of course,
}we're still not doing BDSM the *right* way, but I ain't givin' up.
That's what happens when your synapses are wired in series rather
than parallel.
RJ
Tanos - remove X
>
> > mady: One of his [Jon Jacobs'] more controversial statements was a speech given a few
> years ago. It can be read in it's entirety at
> http://www.mouse-works.com/subnatione/speech.html
>
> central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites above, is
> that anyone not practicing their particular brand of D/s isn't doing
> the *real* thing.
More accurately, that submission with limits and safewords isn't
"submission", because of the element of control the sub retains.
Now I don't agree with them, but they argued their case rationally,
despite the mob mentality they were faced with in alt.sex.bondage, and
they're entitled to have an opinion on how to define words like
submission, just as much as anyone else.
One of the nice things about the web is that they have the opportunity
to express that opinion, free of attempts to silence them:
http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
Lady Sun
David Weinshenker wrote in message <37A3B6B9...@grin.net>...
>Hope I've clarified things a bit...
As always you did! *s Hope you are keeping well...
Warmest smiles and blessed be,
Lady Sun.
Lady Sun
Janet Hardy wrote in message <7o1pcl$dfi$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Lady Sun wrote in message ...
>>Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any between
>being
>>a lifestyler and being into TPE?
>
>
>TPE is more a goal than a reality, as I understand it. The idea is that the
>sub has *no* control over any aspect of his life unless the dom chooses to
>give it to him -- the dominant controls anything she cares to control: his
>work, his family life, his health habits, everything. In Jacobs-style TPE,
>the sub also does not have the right to end the relationship.
I have to admit that I do *try* to control these things. I view myself as a
Matriarch. In my household I am bossy. I like to care for the people in my
life and I want what is best for them. That is not to say that I don't take
their opinion into account, their reasons for not agreeing or that they
can't think for themselves. I do enjoy, however, final veto power. It is
important that they are an individual because they need to survive and
thrive when I am not with them. Furthermore they are of no intellectual use
to me if they are a drone just following orders. Humble intellect is
necessary in my relations with subs.
The power and control that the sub gives to me should come freely and
without overt coercion. *s The sub can leave when they want but I expect
that thru constant honest communication that issues need resolving would
come up and discussions would take place and that he would be too
deliciously happy in subspace<<okay, so that is the ideal and this is my
dream. I am allowed! *s. The way I look at it, if a sub just gets up and
leaves then he wasn't worth my time in the first place and it's best that he
goes on his merry little way before wasting anymore of my time.
>Jacobs' views on TPE are highly controversial, as is Jacobs himself. You
>might want to run a Deja search on his history on s.s.b-b.
I will, but I still trying to figure out if I am into TPE or a lifestyle
Domme or maybe there is no difference.
Smiles,
Lady Sun.
-^-^spectrum-^^-
>Philip the Foole <p...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > mady: One of his [Jon Jacobs'] more controversial statements
>> >was a speech given a few
>> years ago. It can be read in it's entirety at
>> http://www.mouse-works.com/subnatione/speech.html
ptf:
>> Their central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites
>> above, is that anyone not practicing their particular brand of
>> D/s isn't doing the *real* thing.
Tanos:
>More accurately, that submission with limits and safewords isn't
>"submission", because of the element of control the sub retains.
>
>Now I don't agree with them, but they argued their case
>rationally, despite the mob mentality they were faced with in
>alt.sex.bondage, and they're entitled to have an opinion on how to
>define words like submission, just as much as anyone else.
They (primarily Jon Jacobs) argued the case, but not rationally.
Calling *any* D/s that wasn't his version of Total Power Exchange
"faux D/s", calling others who express their opinions of the One
True Way TPE statements "deluded" and "junior", is *not* a rational
argument. Jacobs was deliberately and excessively brusque and rude
in his postings. I point out to him that his manners were defeating
his goals, and was called "deluded."
As I remember, he also said that he would allow that a brief period of
"trying things out" would be acceptable, but that it had to move to TPE
very shortly or it wasn't True D/s. He was in essense staking claim to the
term D/s as *his* way and his way only.
and Janet Hardy wrote in message
<7o1pcl$dfi$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>TPE is more a goal than a reality, as I understand it. The idea
>is that the sub has *no* control over any aspect of his life
>unless the dom chooses to give it to him -- the dominant controls
>anything she cares to control: his work, his family life, his
>health habits, everything. In Jacobs-style TPE, the sub also does
>not have the right to end the relationship.
Even more so: he maintained that the sub *cannot* even *conceive*
of leaving the relationship. If the sub had that amount of free
will, it wasn't TPE or real D/S, but only tha faux version. He was
asked what the difference between TPE and brainwashing was, and
did not answer to the satisfaction of most here. As I remember,
his answer was to the effect that only those acutally doing TPE
could understand the difference. The rest of us were incapable of
comprehending it.
>Jacobs' views on TPE are highly controversial, as is Jacobs
>himself. You might want to run a Deja search on his history on
>s.s.b-b.
ASB. He last showed up in late 1996 to "discuss" things, and
sometime in early 1997 posted a pointer to his web page.
-^-^spectrum-^^- spectrum@magenta..COM
Tales of ASBWorld and Pervhome: http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/spectrum
"Absolute Power corrupts...but Total Power Exchange perverts."
RJ-
Phillip T. Foole opined:
}> Their
}> central contention, well expressed in the piece Mady cites above, is
}> that anyone not practicing their particular brand of D/s isn't doing
}> the *real* thing.
}
}More accurately, that submission with limits and safewords isn't
}"submission", because of the element of control the sub retains.
}
}Now I don't agree with them, but they argued their case rationally,
}despite the mob mentality they were faced with in alt.sex.bondage, and
}they're entitled to have an opinion on how to define words like
}submission, just as much as anyone else.
}
}One of the nice things about the web is that they have the opportunity
}to express that opinion, free of attempts to silence them:
} http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
Tanos, interesting bit of revisionism you have going there. As I
recall, no one attempted to "silence" any of the posters (to with:
no one got ahold of JJ's ISP and tried to get his account canceled
nor did anyone try to cancel his posts). People disagreed with him,
loudly and energetically, that's all. And it wasn't even for his
personal definition of what dominance or submission meant to him.
No one objected to JJ defining what submission meant for himself or
those people in a direct relationship with him. What inspired lots
of critical replies and flames was his attempt to offer a "one size
fits all" definition for anyone and everyone involved with D/s. To
those that disagreed with him, he would loudly declare that people
who didn't follow his definition, weren't "really" doing D/s.
Just to clarify.
RJ
Karl Kleinpaste
> JJ's psycho girlfriend, Rosie/Countess Velveeta/Sophia Eisor ("Eisor" =
> "Rosie" backwards) pops up here occasionally under a variety of aliases
You neglected at least the additional aliases "Polly Peachum," under
which she operated in several venues for well over a year (e.g.
"Latches" mailing list) as well as "Bambi Bottom."
Don't forget that "Bambi" was "interviewed" for Brame & Jacobs'
_Different Loving_, of course. He didn't use (couldn't find?) an
unbiased, not-personally-involved subject for that piece. One can't
help but wonder how much of the "interview" was simply "Bambi" writing
down whatever Jacobs told her to write. If one examines the site
surrounding _Different Loving_, finding that Rosie, Velveeta, Bambi,
and Polly are all cross-quoted to one another (that far back, the
"Sophia" alias didn't exist), one begins to gain the realization that
Jacobs can't actually find a whole lot of supporters beyond the 4
exterior walls of his own house.
I make this contentious observation as one who nonetheless advocates
and practices a serious no-way-out variety of D/s. I regret having
had brief, personal dealing with Jacobs outside ASB & SSBB, of a
professional nature, and I am annoyed and disgusted to report that
Jacobs is as willing to step into arrogant One True Way-ism
professionally as he is in regards to D/s relationships. There are
one or two areas of my field where I am truly the sole authority, and
Jacobs, in his abject ignorance, saw fit to try to talk up his
supposed high ranking, before he went conspicuously silent upon being
informed of my position superior to his own.
He is arrogant, disrespectful, arrogant, foolish, arrogant, ignorant,
arrogant, self-impressed, and arrogant. A certain measured arrogance
is, in my opinion, a positive attribute of anyone who professes to
take control of other people, but Jacobs' version has no measure, no
limit. It is not checked by a proper, natural self-awareness that
ought to accompany it.
--
SSBB Diplomatic Corps, Pittsburgh & s.w. Pennsylvania
Dennis Novak
> I still trying to figure out if I am into TPE or a lifestyle Domme or maybe
> there is no difference.
It may be a semantic difference. For me, "Lifestyle," refers to the constancy
of the relationship. If ti's more-or-less always in gear, it's Lifestyle.
"TPE" refers to a facet of the intensity. If it refers to totality of control,
it's TPE.
I have difficulty with TPE, except when viewed through the glass of willing
suspension of disbelief. I don't believe that totality does or can exist, or is
even a good goal. But if you substitute "a helluva lot," for "total," then I
have no problem at all. In practice, I think that a helluva lot is what is
practiced.
Another way of looking at TPE, is that it is an extreme PPE relationship that
has not been tested to destruction. Considering that you can only test to
destruction once, that is probably a good thing.
-Dennis novak
RJ-
Spectrum wrote:
}> Jacobs was deliberately and excessively brusque and rude
}> in his postings. I point out to him that his manners were defeating
}> his goals, and was called "deluded."
}
}Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
}has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
}suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
What YKINOK attitude are you thinking of? Other than JJ's towards
anyone who questioned his desire to define "real" D/s for everyone?
}Staking claim to the __term__: he acknowledged that different styles
}of what almost everyone else calls D/s, might be just right for other
}people.
}
}To those without emotional investment in the alt.sex.bondage attacks
}on Jon Jacobs and his ideas:
} If you're interested in these issues, go to his website and read
} what he actually says _for_yourself_:
} http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
} Make your own decisions about what makes sense and what doesn't,
} and which bits are applicable to you, and which aren't.
}
}For example:
}
}"Shedding the comforting cloak of fantasy, just as a child gives up
} his security blanket when he gets too old for it, is the first hard
} step that a person who really wants to live a real-world BDSM life
} style must take. You must realize that most people in the S&M cyber
} society around you will not take that step, and, in fact, not only
} do not want personally to take that step but do not want you to take
} that step, as they feel that your doing something different from them
} will invalidate their life choices."
So, JJ compares non "real-world BDSM" to childish indulgences?
Fascinating.
And then he closes out with an unsupported claim that "cyber S&M"
folks will oppose those "real D/s folks" because they are scared by
"real D/s."
Yep, JJ is really the voice of calm, open0minded reason.
Different year, same attitude.
RJ
Tanos - remove X
>
> Tanos - remove X <Ta...@informedconsent.Xc uk> wrote:
> >
> >"submission", because of the element of control the sub retains.
> >
> >Now I don't agree with them, but they argued their case
> >rationally, despite the mob mentality they were faced with in
> >alt.sex.bondage, and they're entitled to have an opinion on how to
> >define words like submission, just as much as anyone else.
> Jacobs was deliberately and excessively brusque and rude
> in his postings. I point out to him that his manners were defeating
> his goals, and was called "deluded."
Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
> As I remember, he also said that he would allow that a brief period of
> "trying things out" would be acceptable, but that it had to move to TPE
> very shortly or it wasn't True D/s.
Or rather, his position favoured brief periods of TPE - ie TPE with a
time limit but no other limits. (This flies in the face all my "trial
and error" instincts, but hey, we're talking about his right to hold
opinions and why certain people want to rubbish his ideas, not just
about whether he's right.)
> He was in essense staking claim to the term D/s as *his* way and his
> way only.
Staking claim to the __term__: he acknowledged that different styles
of what almost everyone else calls D/s, might be just right for other
people.
To those without emotional investment in the alt.sex.bondage attacks
on Jon Jacobs and his ideas:
If you're interested in these issues, go to his website and read
what he actually says _for_yourself_:
http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
Make your own decisions about what makes sense and what doesn't,
and which bits are applicable to you, and which aren't.
For example:
"Shedding the comforting cloak of fantasy, just as a child gives up
his security blanket when he gets too old for it, is the first hard
step that a person who really wants to live a real-world BDSM life
style must take. You must realize that most people in the S&M cyber
society around you will not take that step, and, in fact, not only
do not want personally to take that step but do not want you to take
that step, as they feel that your doing something different from them
will invalidate their life choices."
Take care everyone,
Tanos - remove X
>
> On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Tanos - remove X wrote:
>
> Spectrum wrote:
> }> in his postings. I point out to him that his manners were defeating
> }> his goals, and was called "deluded."
> }
> }Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
> }has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
> }suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
>
> anyone who questioned his desire to define "real" D/s for everyone?
The YKINOK attitude displayed in ASB. In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm,
s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) wrote:
|>
|>There was, once, the principle of antiYKINOKism on
|>BDSM newsgroups, admittedly never as widely practiced as some of us
|>would have liked (and TPEers have plenty of reason for feeling
|>that we never lived up to that principle as regards their kink).
As I said:
> }To those without emotional investment in the alt.sex.bondage attacks
> }on Jon Jacobs and his ideas:
> } If you're interested in these issues, go to his website and read
> } what he actually says _for_yourself_:
> } http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
> } Make your own decisions about what makes sense and what doesn't,
> } and which bits are applicable to you, and which aren't.
Take care everyone,
Tanos
Spyral Fox
<Ta...@informedconsent.Xco.uk> writes:
>Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
>has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
>suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
Actually, it always struck me as more of a "YKIOK, but unrealistic."
Sort of like JK, really. JJ talked about TPE as if it were a goal we
should all strive for and the only "real" D/s, which was bad enough,
but then he also admitted that he & his partner didn't live in some
little dream universe where everything he said went. He actually
admitted in one of his posts to having arguments with his partner
-- if it were "real TPE," how would she possibly disagree with JJ?
JJ's attitude led to more conflict than was IMO "needful" -- I personally
have no trouble with someone defining what they do as "slavery"
or as "TPE," but it's helpful to recall that in almost the entire
planet you can't really keep someone against their will, and that
-- all promises aside -- if the Dom gets too weird the sub has a
legal right to leave, and that "battered women's syndrome" can
keep a sub in plave long after the line to abuse has been crossed.
- - Spyral Fox
--
Official Depooty of the Sheriff of Nettingham's Charter Enforcers (CLG)
Member, SSBB Diplomatic Corps.
Owned & Operated by Lord Richard. ("Ani l'dodi...")
San Diego Munch info & resources: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
Steven S. Davis
: In article <37A65A7C...@informedconsent.Xco.uk>, Tanos - remove X
: <Ta...@informedconsent.Xco.uk> writes:
:
: >Given the YKINOK attitude of ASB (and now SSBB) toward APE/TPE - which
: >has recently been admitted by one of those involved - do you find it
: >suprising that he was "excessively brusque and rude"?
:
: Actually, it always struck me as more of a "YKIOK, but unrealistic."
There were (at least) three parts to the criticism of TPE (and
specificly Jacobin TPE):
Part of it was criticism of JJ and his acolytes for maintaining
that "total" or "absolute" were achievable (it's this sort
of thing which leads to the "hot poker to the eye" arguments).
Sensible people know, of course, that the absolute exists only
in theory. Jj & company would never admit this. FWIW, in
some of his articles JJ seemed to be saying that someone with
a goal which is absolute must pretend the goal is achievable
or zie will be unable to pursue it. I think that underestimates
people quite badly, as many do understand the value in the
striving for an unobtainable goal.
There was also the criticism of the goal (and the approach close
to that approachable but unachievable goal) as being unhealthy.
IMO, most of the YKINOKism regarding TPE relates to this criticism.
And there was (and is) the body of opinion which rejects irrevocable
consent. People holding this view state that any consent which is
not always withdrawable at any time is not valid. This view is in
direct contradiction to the basis of TPE, so people with this view
reject TPE as either impossible or nonconsensual. This view
is connected to the second objection, as people holding it feel
that some of those measures[*] used to prevent someone from revoking
zir consent are unhealthy and/or abusive.
[*] - e.g. to remove the ability or to diminish it until it
is removed under all normal circumstances (that is, yes,
under extreme pressure the slave may be able to revoke
zir consent, but not until then; one RL examble was the
slave who remained with her TPE master as his orders to
her broke promise after promise that he had made before
she submitted, but who broke free when he ordered her
to bring her small children to him to sexually service
him)
: Sort of like JK, really. JJ talked about TPE as if it were a goal we
: should all strive for and the only "real" D/s, which was bad enough,
Quite true.
: but then he also admitted that he & his partner didn't live in some
: little dream universe where everything he said went. He actually
: admitted in one of his posts to having arguments with his partner
: -- if it were "real TPE," how would she possibly disagree with JJ?
Because never was it said that TPE meant never disagreeing, never
arguing, never being angry or resentful, or never thinking that
the owner was wrong. That's one of this differences between the
"brainwashing", that some people would liken to TPE, and TPE. Being
committed and conditioned to obedience doesn't mean that one can't
disagree, or feel anger or resentment, or, within certain bounds,
argue. Keeping the will and desire of one's owner in one's mind
at all times, while it would, in most cases, tend to incline one
to agreement with one's owner, does not mean that one will at all
times and in all things agree with one's owner.
: JJ's attitude led to more conflict than was IMO "needful"
I certain agree. JJ, however, claimed that his "agit-prop"
produced exactly the effect he wanted, which was to keep
his words and ideas constantly present in the newsgroup.
And he did succeed in that. So while being an obnoxious,
dishonest, OTWist SOB may well be a role for which JJ is
ideally suited, it also seemed to suit his objectives, which
did not include rational discussion or helping other people
to understand TPE, but rather were focused on finding
"his people".
Whether other TPE types, even JJ's acolytes, were engaged
in agit-prop (and whether JJ really was engaged in such,
or made the claim to rationalize tactics which reflected his
obnoxiousness rather than a rational plan), I don't know.
However, a great many (though by no means all) TPEers are
immensely obnoxious, superior, and dissmissive of other styles.
This may, to some extent, be explained (though not excused) by
the frequency with which they are met with misunderstanding
or hostility, by people either informing them that their
kink is impossible fantasy, or claiming that they are either
abusers or weak and unhealthy doormats (which is to say that
some BDSMers regard TPEers very much as ES regards BDSMers)).
But it doesn't help their cause very much.
: -- I personally
: have no trouble with someone defining what they do as "slavery"
: or as "TPE," but it's helpful to recall that in almost the entire
: planet you can't really keep someone against their will,
Well, not w/o due process of law.
Which is irrelevant, as the idea in TPE is to control their will.
: and that
: -- all promises aside -- if the Dom gets too weird the sub has a
: legal right to leave,
True, but also irrelevant, as the issue was not rights but power.
JJ himself discussed participations in interventions to remove
slaves from dangerous situations from which they did not have
the will or power to extricate themselves.
: and that "battered women's syndrome" can
: keep a sub in plave long after the line to abuse has been crossed.
Very true. And the fact that some of what was discussed as
techniques for the development of TPE were for some people
so uncomfortably reminiscent of techniques abusers use (and.
to be frank, if the TPE dominant is unethical or uncaring,
they're sometimes the same techniques) was one thing that
bothered some people about TPE.
The critical difference is that, in TPE, the goal is one
which both people are aware and both people agree to seek.
The slave wants zir will bent to that of zir owner and
wants zir power taken by zir owner, and zie not only agrees
to it but zie actively, knowingly, and willing collaborates
in the process.
And, if zie's chosen well, the owner doesn't exercise zir
power over the slave in a destructive fashion, as does an
abuser, but rather seeks to build, enhance (even as zie is
made small), and even empower the slave zie loves (for those
interested in paradoxes, there are a couple delicious ones
(and, like all true paradoxes, they contain truth) in TPE:
enhancement through dimunition (and dimunition w/o diminishment),
and empowerment through powerlessness.
As for the original question in this thread, perhaps it's not
an inappropriate time to repost this:
On 10 Aug 1997, in article 5sj3uf$9di$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu, in the
Newsgroups: soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm, s...@magenta.com (Steven S.
Davis) wrote, on the Subject: "24/7" & "TPE" (was Re: Youth and
submissiveness):
james noonan (Rou...@webtv.net) wrote:
: I'm pretty new to all this...what is a 24/7 relationship?
And various things were said in response.
It being more than 30 days since these articles were posted, and the
question of "24/7" and "TPE" having arisen again (and, FWIW, both
non-24/7 and non-TPE relationships are very bit as "real" as
relationships which are 24/7 and involve TPE), let's replay some
past posts:
From: s...@magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) / Newsgroups:
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm,alt.sex.bondage / Subject: Re: 24/7
Lifestyle - Questions / Date: 25 Jun 1997 10:10:52 GMT / Message-ID:
5oqqrc$ndm$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu
Laura Goodwin (lal...@spamtrap.com) wrote:
: >The Question: How do YOU define a 24/7 relationship?
[snip]
: I don't think that "24/7" and "total power exchange" are the same.
FWIW, in the TPE debates, TPE relationships were often described
"absolute lifestyle d&s relationships" (OK, "absolute" is no more
accurate than "total", but that's another topic; attach "near" to
either "absolute" or "total" for more plausible terminology) with
"lifestyle d&s relationship" meaning essentially the same as "24/7".
The distinction being that a "non-near-absolute d&s relationship" can
be one that is lasting (or as lasting as are any volitional human
relationships) and have the power element always present, while still
having explicit limits and conditions on that power, such limits and
conditions being antithetic to TPE relationships, aka "(near)absolute
lifestyle d&s relationships".
******
OK, translation: A 7/24 relationship is a relationship in which the
power relationship between the partners is always present. People in
7/24 relationships may be said, in one sense, to either never "scene"
or to always be in scene in the sense that they don't enter and leave
scenes the way other BDSM partners do, but that does *not* mean that
they are always engaged in what would be recognizable as BDSM
activities (which is to say, that yes, they have lives to conduct just
like everyone else), nor does it mean that they never set aside
playtimes or that they don't (necessarily; some will, some won't) have
any change in their mental/emotional "space" during play.
That a relationship is 7/24 says nothing about how or how "heavily"
people play, nor about whether the relationship has any contracts, or
has negotiated limits, or employs safewords.
A TPE (Total Power Exchange) relationship, sometimes described as an
absolute lifestyle d&s relationship (that such relationships can
actually be neither "total" or "absolute" is agreed; these are ideal
states to be worked towards but which will not be achieved, which is
why TPE may be better seen as a process or goal than as a state), is
a relationship in which no impediment to the exercise of the owner's
power is accepted (some may, of course, exist, and what prudent owners
do is to avoid direct collisions with these impediments, while working
to overcome those that can be overcome (since the laws of gravity
can't be overcome, a sane owner isn't going to ask a slave to fly (w/o
appropriate equipment, of course), nor will a sensible owner try push
a slave into things that are hard limits for hir (but the owner
*might* push a slave up against what the slave thinks are hard limits
but which sie can in fact overcome)). Such things as safewords,
contracts, negotiated limits, and anything else which
recognizes/acknowledges/formalizes limits on the owner's power are
inimical to TPE.
***************
From: s...@magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) / Newsgroups:
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm / Subject: TPE / Date: 5 Jul 1997 11:12:09
GMT / Message-ID: 5pla69$o4c$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu
Andre Ay (a...@student.uni-kassel.de) wrote:
: Laura Goodwin wrote:
begin LG quote:
I don't think that "24/7" and "total power exchange" are the same. For
example, a pair of switches could have a 24/7 d/s relationship without
it ever solidifying into a TPE situation.
end LG quote
begin AA quote
Very nice explanation. But could you just please tell me what TPE
means? I'm not so used to English BDSM-terms.
end AA quote
Ooohh boy.
Weeeell, what it means could take awhile. What it stands for, however,
is a lot easier. TPE stands for Total Power Exchange.
TPE is a variety of d&s in which all power has been offered to and
taken by the dominant, and in which there are no limitations or
conditions upon the exercise of the dominant's power. Other than
consent to entering a TPE situation, there is no question of consent
in TPE.
Whether TPE is possible or not is a frequent argument. As an end
state, TPE is not, IMO. However, as a goal (one that is approachable
if never quite achievable) and a process, TPE is quite plausible.
There's also frequent debate about whether it's consensual, which
focuses on whether consent can be given irrevocably, or if consent
only exists so long as the right to withdraw consent exists. IMO, the
right to consent includes the right to waive the right to consent, and
so consensual nonconconsent, which is an essential element of TPE, is
ethicly legitimate.
This irrevocability (on the submissive's part; the dominant can
release the submissive (slave, actually; anyone on the submissive side
of a TPE relationship would be a slave) if sie feels that such is for
the best, which FWIW happens quite often; it should be noted, however,
that because of the degree of commitment given and the degree of
dependence that can develop, an ethical and responsible TPE dominant
cannot simply release a submissive because sie doesn't feel like going
on with the relationship) makes TPE a very serious choice, one not to
be made lightly or quickly and that requires complete trust between
owner and slave, a trust that can only be given on the basis of
thorough knowledge (i.e. one doesn't answer an ad to become a
stranger's TPE slave; one might, however, answer an ad from someone
interested in beginnning a process that will hopefully lead to a TPE
relationship (which, as said above, is itself also less a state than
a process and goal (it's a journey *and* a destination, or perhaps
better, a journey to a known destination (even if that destination
will never quite be reached)))). Some would say that TPE
relationships are high risk, which is true in many ways. But in
another sense, since for some people TPE is the only way to be happy
and fulfilled (if it's not the only way for you, then it's probably
the wrong way for you), and since the choice that offers a chance of
happiness must be better than one that offers the certainty of misery,
TPE is for some people the safest choice (the choice of dominants
remains critical, and something not to be rushed no matter how badly
one wants such a relationship, as the choice of a TPE dominant who
isn't well-matched to the slave - or the choice of a dominant who
isn't what one thought sie would be - can have extremely unfortunate
consequences).
TPE relationships, sometimes called absolute lifestyle d&s
relationships ("absolute" because there are no limits; "lifestyle d&s"
because every moment of one's life is lived within the strictures of
d&s (this doesn't mean that one is constantly in what other people
would recognize as a scene, but rather that the power relationship
between dominant and submissive - whatever that might be for those
partners is always in force (or, as sometimes said, is 24/7))) are
difficult, extremely difficult to those not tempermentally suited to
them, and while the fantasy can be hot for many TPE is really suited
to very few - but for those few it can be essential to happiness.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
sabreen{SABRE}
this question, But I will give it my Best shot!
Master and I are in a TPE Master/slave relationship, and to
me a lifestyle sub retains some amount of control in her
life. In my case Master retains Full control of my life,
from what I wear everyday, what I eat, what time I go to
bed, how I wear my hair, whether or not to wear make-up,
Who I am allowed to speak too or if I'm allowed to speak to
anyone at all. He has this total power because I gave it
too him and have Full Trust in Him and His decisions. This
type of relationship isn't for everyone! It is hard to find
the right person that you trust enough to give Full and
Unconditional control of your life! I feel I was Extremely
Lucky to have find myself the Master I Love so many years
ago. I hope this will help to shed some light on what some
of us concider to be TPE.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Lady Sun
That was great post and helped me understand where I am and where I am
going. Thank you!~
Peace,
Lady Sun.
Steven S. Davis wrote in message <7o79tu$t23$1...@links.magenta.com>...
A lot of snips of a post which looks at the many sides of a cane. :)
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com
add a comment or two anyway.
As soon as one mentions "TPE" a lot of hackles go up on the topic.
Historically this seems to be because TPE as it has been advocated
implies (or at times says explicitly) that those who are not
exercising absolute control over a submissive, are simply 'playing at'
domination, and not doing the real thing. You can imagine what kind
of flamefests this has fueled in the past.
I would like to sidestep the TPE discussions and address your original
question from a somewhat different angle. That question was:
> Does anyone know anything about TPE and the difference, if any
> between being a lifestyler and being into TPE?
"Lifestyle" means you do some aspect or aspects of bdsm as an
integral part of your life. You may even consider that it is not "what
you do", but rather, "who you are".
"Lifestyle" covers the gamut, from pro dommes to fetishists to
hardcore SM tops who abhor D/s. To be lifestyle does not speak at all
to the extent - minimal or extreme - that you exercise control over
another human being (or, on the sub side of the fence, permit yourself
to be controlled).
To engage in TPE is to strive for an ideal of extreme control as
constant subtext (and when appropriate, in-your-face reality) in the
relationship. This does not mean the dom/me is micromanaging hir
brains out every breathing moment: the point is that the dominant has
the *option* to control whatever sie pleases, and to delegate
responsibility to the slave wherever/however sie pleases.
Most people do not have the control kink or the powerlessness kink to
the extent that living at this extreme of the D/s spectrum is
essential to their happiness. For people who are kinked this way, no
lesser degree of D/s will make them happy.
Semantics aside, I find that an extreme type of totally-controlling
power exchange is indeed lived by a large number of Master/slave (or
Mistress/slave) couples in RL. It is also of interest to me that this
kind of D/s relationship has been taken for granted in the gay leather
community for many long decades. There are no lengthy philosophical
hairsplitting debates over whether TPE is really doable or not,
either. People so inclined just do it.
-Teramis
p&e'd
*********
Check out Femsubs: women-only mailing list for discussion of D/s
relationship issues. Email for subscription information to:
Ter...@teramis.com
Sockermom9
>power exchange is indeed lived by a large number of Master/slave (or
>Mistress/slave) couples in RL. It is also of interest to me that this
>kind of D/s relationship has been taken for granted in the gay leather
>community for many long decades. There are no lengthy philosophical
>hairsplitting debates over whether TPE is really doable or not,
>either. People so inclined just do it.
I seem to have stumbled into an interesting exchange with not one, but two
dominants who have challenged me to respond to the question, "What the the
sub/slave get out of it?" Odd that they should ask me, because I don't qualify
as TPE or any variant thereof, but it is a question that gets my wheels
spinning.
Any ideas on how to explain this?
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Lady Sun
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com wrote in message
<37bf16a5...@news.slip.net>...
>As soon as one mentions "TPE" a lot of hackles go up on the topic.
When I posted I didn't know there was so much hackling about it.
>You can imagine what kind of flamefests this has fueled in the past.
Yup! :)
>To engage in TPE is to strive for an ideal of extreme control as
>constant subtext (and when appropriate, in-your-face reality) in the
>relationship. This does not mean the dom/me is micromanaging hir
>brains out every breathing moment: the point is that the dominant has
>the *option* to control whatever sie pleases, and to delegate
>responsibility to the slave wherever/however sie pleases.
It seems to me that I am a TPE'er albeit an understanding one. I can always
hear a *no* as long as it comes with valid(anything but "just because I
don't want to") concerns. I may not be happy to hear it but if it causes
mental or physical anguish than I will defer to the sub(also considered
slave).
>Most people do not have the control kink or the powerlessness kink to
>the extent that living at this extreme of the D/s spectrum is
>essential to their happiness. For people who are kinked this way, no
>lesser degree of D/s will make them happy.
I do have this control kink and you are so right in saying that nothing
lesser will make me happy.
>Semantics aside, I find that an extreme type of totally-controlling
>power exchange is indeed lived by a large number of Master/slave (or
>Mistress/slave) couples in RL.
I strive for this in my relationships. It is very hard and at times
painful. It requires extreme communication.
>It is also of interest to me that this kind of D/s relationship has been
taken for granted in the gay leather
community for many long decades. There are no lengthy
philosophicalhairsplitting debates over whether TPE is really doable or not,
either. People so inclined just do it.
I wonder why the gay community feels that way. hmmm
Thanks for your post Teramis!
Smiles and Peace,
Lady Sun.
Dreamer
> mental or physical anguish than I will defer to the sub
Is this your ironclad rule or something you decide on a case by case basis? If
case by case, have you ever disregarded the sub's refusal/request?
If it is an ironclad rule, either literally or de facto, I wonder how you
reconcile the sub's then quite real power to the fact that you claim to live in
a Total Power Exchange?
I wish you well.
Dreamer
Lady Sun
Dreamer wrote in message ...
>> I may not be happy to hear it but if it causes
>> mental or physical anguish than I will defer to the sub
>
>Is this your ironclad rule or something you decide on a case by case basis?
If
>case by case, have you ever disregarded the sub's refusal/request?
It's ironclad, however depending on the sub I may disregard the
refusal/request if it isn't valid(subjective and if it is a 'basically I
just don't want to attitude', some invalid claims would for example be "i'm
a little tired" instead of "i'm exhausted" or "i'm a little cranky" instead
of "I had a terribly bad day(with reasons)".) The bottom line is that it
has to be valid and detrimental to the sub's physical and emotional well
being. If it isn't I won't defer. If he doesn't accept it then a
re-evaluation of the relationship is in order.
>If it is an ironclad rule, either literally or de facto, I wonder how you
>reconcile the sub's then quite real power to the fact that you claim to
live in
>a Total Power Exchange?
Well based on what the posters have written and what I have read about TPE,
I would say that I am a TPE'er instead of a lifestyler. I strive for TPE
but it doesn't mean I am always gonna get it. In a perfect world I would
always love to have my submissive defer to me. Since I don't live in
fantasy land I know that from time to time my submissive will not always be
submissive and I will not always be dominant. I just need to roll with it
in order to have a happy life. What is most important is that at least 80%
of the time I click and connect with my submissive and vice versa. That is
why it is very important to choose your Dominant and submissive well. I
also believe in individuality and that a submissive should have a time in
his life separate from his dominant. I believe that a submissive can power
out in extreme long term control situations and this is not my intent. I
approach my relations so that I have to rarely defer to my submissives.
Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
responsibilities to each other. In my opinion in a TPE relationship
choosing a Dominant is one of the few concrete choices a submissive can
make. If you are a serious, loving, firm, in control, understanding, safe,
informed Dominant then you will gain trust from your submissive and they
will literally be eating out of your hands if you say so. TPE is about a
lot of extreme communication, patience and trust! I don't think it is for
everyone.
Now I could be wrong in my interpretation of what TPE is all about, if I am
please come forward and state your case. :)
>I wish you well.
You too, and thanks for the non judgemental q's!
Peace,
Lady Sun.
Ter...@nospam.teramis.com
>I seem to have stumbled into an interesting exchange with not one, but two
>dominants who have challenged me to respond to the question, "What the the
>sub/slave get out of it?" Odd that they should ask me, because I don't qualify
>as TPE or any variant thereof, but it is a question that gets my wheels
>spinning.
>
>Any ideas on how to explain this?
>
>Lynn
Always with the easy questions, huh, Lynn?
I can only speak for myself (well, and for the Vitos at
FooleCo)....though I know my experience is similar to that of other
slaves in TPE relationships. So I will take a stab at answering your
homework assignment <g>.
What does the slave get out of a D/s relationship where the Dominant
has final say, *always*, and pervasive control of the slave?
It is an opportunity to express one's fullest, deepest devotion to and
love for One.
It is a partnership that is intensely bonded, intensely intimate (even
for slaves for whom the relationship is non-sexual, the emotional bond
is extraordinarily intimate).
It is getting to "do" for the Dominant, in all kinds of ways that are
personally meaningful (as well as many that are not, but that make the
Dom/me happy ;)
It is finding one's niche in a heirarchy, joining an Army of One,
becoming Someone's indispensible right hand. It is accepting final
decisions even if you don't agree with them, because your loyalty is
to the greater thing you are building between you; its success does
not hinge on singular instances of disagreement (or agreement) between
you, but on the accord and harmony you build over time, and this is
predicated on trust.
It is about developing and exploring profound depths of trust, and
intimacy.
It is about transcending ego.
It is about finding the freedom, in slavery, for a fuller expression
of self. (That is a very difficult one to explain briefly and I won't
try; if you want more explication let me know and I will go on at
terrible length ;)
It is finding one's place, at last, by a special Someone's side, and
having the nurturance and protection and for many slaves, guidance,
that makes one feel safe and loved and cared for in an unshakeably
enduring way.
That's a start, but it is also, perhaps, the essence, and the end.
-Teramis
Ter...@teramis.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Keep in mind always the present you are constructing.
It should be the future you want." ~Alice Walker
Duane Gundrum
Lady Sun <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> Now I could be wrong in my interpretation of what TPE is all about, if I
am
> please come forward and state your case. :)
>
I think this is where the argument has come about in the past, and as I've
made the statement over and over again (although it does seem to fall on
deaf ears), this is probably the most important statement as well. TPE is
what you as an individual desire it to be. If you are involved with another
individual, and both of you call it TPE, then you should be satisfied that
that is what it is. What has happened over and over again is a group of
people who are "experts" of TPE come on line and then tell you that you are
NOT in a TPE relationship, and suddenly it becomes a major flame war that
serves no one or any purpose other than give people the satisfaction of
stating that they have no redefined, in their own image, what TPE is.
I am a major proponent of TPE relationships. But at the same time, I've had
those who claim to know better state that I've not been involved in a TPE
relationship, even though my partner and I may have agreed that's what we
had. Who cares what some outsider says? Because that's what it boils down
to. And on the other side of the coin, I've had those who are anti-TPE
relationships argue that previous relationships of mine have been "bad"
because the TPE didn't seem consensual. Uh, yeah?
That's what it comes down to. People are going to be arguing over this topic
for the rest of time, and as Teramis mentioned, there's not really been a
problem with the gay leather community concerning this particular subject.
It seems to have become a problem since it was put in words (thus, the
internet).
Anyway, just a rant before I have to head off for another type of TPE
relationship (the first meeting of a grad assistantship at my new
university).
--
Duane Gundrum
du...@penguinlogic.com
http://www.penguinlogic.com/duane.htm
for information about duane, the submissive
--
Now, The Cell's Door, written by Duane, is available for purchase from
Quality SM at http://www.qualitysm.com (using a credit card). The Cell's
Door, the story of a man who surrenders his entire life to slavery only to
discover that reality can be quite more than expected. For further
information, including ordering directly from the author, visit
http://www.penguinlogic.com/Celldoor.htm.
Dreamer
<du...@penguinlogic.com> wrote:
>
> Lady Sun <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>> Now I could be wrong in my interpretation of what TPE is all about, if I
> am
>> please come forward and state your case. :)
>>
>
> I think this is where the argument has come about in the past, and as I've
> made the statement over and over again (although it does seem to fall on
> deaf ears), this is probably the most important statement as well. TPE is
> what you as an individual desire it to be. If you are involved with another
> individual, and both of you call it TPE, then you should be satisfied that
> that is what it is. What has happened over and over again is a group of
> people who are "experts" of TPE come on line and then tell you that you are
> NOT in a TPE relationship, and suddenly it becomes a major flame war that
> serves no one or any purpose other than give people the satisfaction of
> stating that they have no redefined, in their own image, what TPE is.
There is a rule when writing patents that "the applicant may serve as his
own lexicographer." In other words, if I want to refer to a wheel as a
"narrow cylindrical section member," I can. However, if I try to refer to a
wheel as a "box," the examiner will make me write the patent over again.
Why? Because there is a limit to how far one can torture a definition.
Making everybody who reads the patent, starting with the examiner, remember
that for EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD, a box is a box, but for ME, a box is a
narrow cylindrical section member, is not reasonable.
The phrase "total power exchange" is a simple phrase made of simple words
which are commonly understood to have a certain meaning. If you want to
debate whether something is or is not a total power exchange, or whether one
is even possible (technically it's not in the vast majority of the world as
slavery is illegal) that's one thing. But the phrase "it means whatever you
want it to mean" fills me with fear and dread. If we have to resummarize
what each word means every time we try to discuss, that makes EVERY message
in EVERY discussion a message about definitions. Unwieldy. Annoying. And
ultimately, it means that every message begins every discussion all over
again, because if my definitions don't match yours, by swapping the
meanings, I've essentially rephrased the argument to match my point of view,
erasing any progress that might have been made.
Not that this will make ANY difference whatsoever. But I felt it needed to
be said.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
Cutter John's Theory of Temporo-Natal Irrelevance:
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood!"
If you live near Chicago, you should check out "Galleria Domain," a
BDSM/Fetish club open nightly. It's way cool. See it at:
http://www.galleriadomain.com
This is a totally unsolicited testimonial, but the operators are friends of
mine, if that makes a difference.
----------
Dreamer
In article <rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Lady Sun"
<Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dreamer wrote in message ...
>>> I may not be happy to hear it but if it causes
>>> mental or physical anguish than I will defer to the sub
>>
>>Is this your ironclad rule or something you decide on a case by case basis?
> If
>>case by case, have you ever disregarded the sub's refusal/request?
>
>
> It's ironclad, however depending on the sub I may disregard the
> refusal/request if it isn't valid(subjective and if it is a 'basically I
> just don't want to attitude', some invalid claims would for example be "i'm
> a little tired" instead of "i'm exhausted" or "i'm a little cranky" instead
> of "I had a terribly bad day(with reasons)".) The bottom line is that it
> has to be valid and detrimental to the sub's physical and emotional well
> being. If it isn't I won't defer. If he doesn't accept it then a
> re-evaluation of the relationship is in order.
The philosophy I use - and in the end it might be that mine mapped to yours
1 to 1, dunno - is that it's not logical to damage your own property. If
doing something to or with her would excessively damage her, I don't do it.
However, *I* am the sole judge of what constitutes excessive damage. Her
opinion is completely nonbinding. If her opinion were binding, I would not
consider her a slave nor ours to be even a theoretical TPE, as it would not
be T.
>>If it is an ironclad rule, either literally or de facto, I wonder how you
>>reconcile the sub's then quite real power to the fact that you claim to live
>>in a Total Power Exchange?
>
>
> Well based on what the posters have written and what I have read about TPE,
> I would say that I am a TPE'er instead of a lifestyler. I strive for TPE
> but it doesn't mean I am always gonna get it. In a perfect world I would
> always love to have my submissive defer to me. Since I don't live in
> fantasy land I know that from time to time my submissive will not always be
> submissive and I will not always be dominant.
An interesting approach. I am *always* dominant, in that there is never a
time when I submit or when I forget who is what. She's always mine. However,
there are times, absolutely, when I don't feel like being bothered with her.
I'm a pretty mellow person anyway, not into micromanagement.
Similarly, there are times when she's begging to serve and times when she'd
be just as happy to sit and read a book. However, I don't care where she is
on the continuum, I expect service, and I expect it right now, when I ask
for it. So she is a slave all the time, even if she's not wearing silks and
collar and chained up on her knees.
> I just need to roll with it
> in order to have a happy life. What is most important is that at least 80%
> of the time I click and connect with my submissive and vice versa.
Any particular reason you picked that number?
> That is
> why it is very important to choose your Dominant and submissive well.
Not knowing what you're getting into is the cause of approximately 125%* of
all problems in all relationships. Let alone BDSM ones, where it usually
becomes obvious a lot faster.
*Some error due to rounding.
> I
> also believe in individuality and that a submissive should have a time in
> his life separate from his dominant.
I'm all for the occasional night out. However, even if I sent her to Paris
for a week by herself, I expect all my rules to be obeyed and my commands
followed.
> I believe that a submissive can power
> out in extreme long term control situations and this is not my intent. I
> approach my relations so that I have to rarely defer to my submissives.
I simply make it clear that I will *not* defer to them. Ever. They have to
decide for themselves if what I am likely to demand is more than they can
tolerate. I don't tone it down before I accept them: what they see is what
they get.
That doesn't mean I won't be sympathetic to physical or emotional problems.
It means it is MY DECISION whether to do so, how much, and for how long.
> Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
> responsibilities to each other.
I have no responsibilities to them. None whatsoever.
They knew that up front.
HOWEVER, once having claimed them as my property, I will take what I
consider to be reasonable care of my property. That's logical. However, if I
decide to take my television out on a whim and blow it up, so long as I
don't endanger anybody and I pick up the mess, that's my prerogative.
Likewise, if I decide to be IRRESPONSIBLE with them, that's tough luck on
them: they can submit, or leave. Those are their choices. If they thought
that was a serious risk, they would not have submitted to me.
> In my opinion in a TPE relationship
> choosing a Dominant is one of the few concrete choices a submissive can
> make.
That is the ONLY decision they can make. Once they have made that one, their
choices then are done.
> TPE is about a
> lot of extreme communication, patience and trust! I don't think it is for
> everyone.
I agree completely.
> Now I could be wrong in my interpretation of what TPE is all about, if I am
> please come forward and state your case. :)
I don't really have a case: the words have fairly standard meanings. I've
answered your points above as struck my fancy. If you're happy, I'm happy
for you.
Tobie
I was merrily reading away when *this* whacked my sensibilities
Dreamer wrote:
>
> ----------
> In article <rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Lady Sun"
> <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
> > responsibilities to each other.
>
> I have no responsibilities to them. None whatsoever.
>
Well..I must say, that's about the goofiest thing I ever heard
of!
You have no responsibility to see to their health? To make sure
they work outside the home or not? To make sure they have
personal hygiene items if you handle the money? You have no
responsibility to be some where to pick them up if you don't
allow them to drive?
I sure do hope I mis read the intention and tone behind the
black and white of what you said. :/
I really, really do.
Even in my relatively simple D/s relationship, we have
responsibilities to each other, much less the depth that a TPE
can go...
Tobie
the red cabbage
Sockermom9
>Always with the easy questions, huh, Lynn?
What can I say?
The answers I gave the person who asked me, and the responses I've gotten from
folks I've asked, have come down to a couple of common themes, which are not
what I'd wanted--I wanted to give him a well-written, intellectual theses,
preferably using lots of Big Words, that would enlighten him and make him one
with the everything. (Sorry, been reading Terry Pratchett again.)
>It is an opportunity to express one's fullest, deepest devotion to and
>love for One.
This was one theme. "This is how I express my love."
>It is finding one's niche in a heirarchy, joining an Army of One,
>becoming Someone's indispensible right hand.
This was one aspect of another--"since this is an elemental part of me,
allowing me to express it is freeing, and accepting my serive is honoring me.
>It is about finding the freedom, in slavery, for a fuller expression
>of self. (That is a very difficult one to explain briefly and I won't
>try; if you want more explication let me know and I will go on at
>terrible length ;)
Same basic idea--this is the core of *me*, giving it free reign affirms by
basic identity and (in a world that doesn't have much respect for either
service or non-standard sexualities) is my safe harbor.
>It is finding one's place, at last, by a special Someone's side, and
>having the nurturance and protection and for many slaves, guidance,
>that makes one feel safe and loved and cared for in an unshakeably
>enduring way.
The person who originally asked me the question also went into some detail as
to how concerned he was with being sure that someone he loved was happy and
fulfilled in their relationship. For someone who seemed so bright and caring,
I was amazed that I had to point out that just having someone *be* so
concerned, to know that they cared enough to meet your rather unusual needs,
was an incredible rush.
It also made me wonder, since I have, if not an erudite, intellectual
understanding of the submissive's dynamics, what is in it for the dominant?
That one I don't have much empathy for (though it's improving--slowly).
gra...@deletethisaffordable-leather.co.uk
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:15:07 -0500, "Dreamer"
<dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote:
>There is a rule when writing patents that "the applicant may serve as his
>own lexicographer." there is a limit to how far one can torture a definition.
Do definitions get safewords? ;-)
Cheers,
Graham.
Dreamer
wrote:
> *picking my chin up off the floor here*
>
> I was merrily reading away when *this* whacked my sensibilities
>
> Dreamer wrote:
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <rX3w3.71681$jl.45...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Lady Sun"
>> <Lady1Su...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
>> > responsibilities to each other.
>>
>> I have no responsibilities to them. None whatsoever.
>>
>
> Well..I must say, that's about the goofiest thing I ever heard
> of!
Goofy is in the eye of the beholder. You'll note I don't go around referring
to myself as a vegetable. Not that there's anything wrong with doing that,
but it does point out that our relative goofy scales might be a little
different. First, I'll insert the relevant parts of my original message:
>>> I believe that a submissive can power
>>> out in extreme long term control situations and this is not my intent. I
>>> approach my relations so that I have to rarely defer to my submissives.
>>
>> I simply make it clear that I will *not* defer to them. Ever. They have to
>> decide for themselves if what I am likely to demand is more than they can
>> tolerate. I don't tone it down before I accept them: what they see is what
>> they get.
>>
>> That doesn't mean I won't be sympathetic to physical or emotional problems.
>> It means it is MY DECISION whether to do so, how much, and for how long.
>>
>>> Space is crucial. Both for me and him. That doesn't mean that we ignore
>>> responsibilities to each other.
>>
>> I have no responsibilities to them. None whatsoever.
>>
>> They knew that up front.
>>
>> HOWEVER, once having claimed them as my property, I will take what I
>> consider to be reasonable care of my property. That's logical. However, if I
>> decide to take my television out on a whim and blow it up, so long as I
>> don't endanger anybody and I pick up the mess, that's my prerogative.
>> Likewise, if I decide to be IRRESPONSIBLE with them, that's tough luck on
>> them: they can submit, or leave. Those are their choices. If they thought
>> that was a serious risk, they would not have submitted to me.
That being said, I'll respond to your post:
> You have no responsibility to see to their health?
I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
> To make sure
> they work outside the home or not?
I'm not sure what this means: specifically, I don't see how it's related to
my "responsibility" towards them.
> To make sure they have
> personal hygiene items if you handle the money?
I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
> You have no
> responsibility to be some where to pick them up if you don't
> allow them to drive?
That's just silly. If I don't allow them to drive, how did they get there?
Why would I allow a certain form of transport TO a place and not back? If
there was some general area of responsibility implied here, like looking
after their safety:
I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
Otherwise please elaborate.
> I sure do hope I mis read the intention and tone behind the
> black and white of what you said. :/
Responsibility implies obligation. I have no obligation towards them. Is
that black and white enough for you?
As a rational person, I take reasonable care of things which I enjoy owning.
If I didn't enjoy owning them, I'd get rid of them. If I didn't think I'd
enjoy owning them, I'd never have taken them in the first place.
That doesn't mean I dump them at the first inconvenience. Have you never
known a person who had an antique sports car or a motorcycle or a piano?
Something they had to put time and money into on a more or less constant
basis so they could continue to enjoy and/or improve it? Then why is it so
unbelievable that I take what I consider proper care of them, expending
time, effort, and money to do so, not because I am Responsible for Their
Inner Slavehoods, but because it pleases me to do so, because they are mine?
> I really, really do.
I'm not sure you do, actually, but this is the way I am and the fact that it
distresses you is Way Down There on my list of reasons why I might want to
change it. I'm happy. They're happy. Why is that not enough?
> Even in my relatively simple D/s relationship, we have
> responsibilities to each other, much less the depth that a TPE
> can go...
That's YOUR relationship. You seem to be implying a progressive function:
since your relationship is a simple D/s relationship (didn't know there was
such a critter, but I digress) and you have responsibilities to each other,
since I live in a 24/7 M/s relationship, we must have even greater
responsibilities.
Incorrect.
The responsibilities flow ONE WAY. They are responsible to me. For
everything. I am responsible to them for nothing. Again, one must be
rational: if I expect them to fix dinner, I should provide the means for
doing so. If I tell them to perform certain dances, I should tell them what
I expect them to learn, how fast, and the means for doing so. One cannot
make something out of nothing. But if I give them a command and the means to
achieve it are within their grasps, I expect it followed or I expect their
collars. Removed. At which point I will melt them down. My way, or the
highway.
There is an interesting message which is fairly relevant here:
http://www.pantheus.com/forum/posts/11708.html
Although that is a Gorean discussion board that particular message is not
Gorean and in fact was written by a non-Gorean submissive. I commend it to
you.
I wish you well.
Dreamer
--
So I wish you first a sense of theatre;
only Those who love illusion and know it will go far:
Otherwise we spend our lives in a confusion;
Of what we say and do with Who we really are.
(Many Happy Returns , W.H. Auden)
Tobie
Dreamer wrote:
> > Well..I must say, that's about the goofiest thing I ever heard
> > of!
>
> Goofy is in the eye of the beholder. You'll note I don't go around referring
> to myself as a vegetable. Not that there's anything wrong with doing that,
> but it does point out that our relative goofy scales might be a little
> different. First, I'll insert the relevant parts of my original message:
Aye ::grin:: But I have always said I was goofy.
> That being said, I'll respond to your post:
>
> > You have no responsibility to see to their health?
>
> I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
Reasonable care isn't the same as responsibility, and
reasonable care can differ quite a bit from one moment to the
next, depending on mood and situation.
Let's make sure we don't start another word war here, please
tell me how you see this:
I take reasonable care to get my kids on the school bus.
I have a responsibility to get my kids on the school bus.
Which of those would apply to you?
If we're looking at daffynitions differently, then it's just a
misunderstanding.
>
> > To make sure
> > they work outside the home or not?
>
> I'm not sure what this means: specifically, I don't see how it's related to
> my "responsibility" towards them.
I may have missed something, Are you on a different topic, or
is this conversation about TPE relationships? If it's not about
TPE, again, we've crossed wires. If it is, then as bottom line
nay sayer, you have responsibilities whether you like admitting
it or not. If you say, "You can't have a paid job." You have
responsibilities to that person. Not reasonable care...Aide's
in nursing homes give "reasonalbe care". Most of those folks
that have family in those nursing homes, think the Aide's
reasonable care, really sucks. I think that I've always thought
that that phrase was a cop out for people that didn't like
committments or responsibilitues. Of course, that isn't going
to be the case all of the time.
> > You have no
> > responsibility to be some where to pick them up if you don't
> > allow them to drive?
>
> That's just silly. If I don't allow them to drive, how did they get there?
Walking, a friend picked them up? Took a bus? Any number of
ways.
> Why would I allow a certain form of transport TO a place and not back?
If they were walking, it may have started raining hard, ot the
heat may have rizen unexpectdly fast. If a friend picked them
up, the friend may have had an emergency and had to go. This
doesn't take much imagination.
> If
> there was some general area of responsibility implied here, like looking
> after their safety:
Ahh ok, a general responsibility, I can go with that.
>
> I said that I took reasonable care of my property.
ohh, never mind, you negated it again.
>
> Otherwise please elaborate.
>
> > I sure do hope I mis read the intention and tone behind the
> > black and white of what you said. :/
>
> Responsibility implies obligation. I have no obligation towards them. Is
> that black and white enough for you?
You are in a TPE and feel no obligations or responsibilities??
Sure, that's black and white enough. Ugly, but black and white
enough.
I'm still hoping we're seeing the daffynitions differently and
that answering the kids & bus question will clear this up.
>
> As a rational person, I take reasonable care of things which I enjoy owning.
> If I didn't enjoy owning them, I'd get rid of them. If I didn't think I'd
> enjoy owning them, I'd never have taken them in the first place.
>
> That doesn't mean I dump them at the first inconvenience. Have you never
> known a person who had an antique sports car or a motorcycle or a piano?
> Something they had to put time and money into on a more or less constant
> basis so they could continue to enjoy and/or improve it? Then why is it so
> unbelievable that I take what I consider proper care of them, expending
> time, effort, and money to do so, not because I am Responsible for Their
> Inner Slavehoods, but because it pleases me to do so, because they are mine?
Ok, I accept the we do indeed see things differently and it
looks like we might not even be able to find middle ground. I
don't see people as a whole as things. Humans aren't brainless
lifeless objects, however fun that might be in a scene.
>
> > I really, really do.
>
> I'm not sure you do, actually, but this is the way I am and the fact that it
> distresses you is Way Down There on my list of reasons why I might want to
> change it. I'm happy. They're happy. Why is that not enough?
I didn't say it wasn't enough, nor did I ask you to change
anything. I posted a polite response to something you said that
bothered me, and you seem to be getting edgy over it. If you
don't want to be questioned about such strong statements, then
either don't make them or put a footer in you post that says,
"Don't bother asking me about this"
>
> That's YOUR relationship. You seem to be implying a progressive function:
> since your relationship is a simple D/s relationship (didn't know there was
> such a critter, but I digress) and you have responsibilities to each other,
> since I live in a 24/7 M/s relationship, we must have even greater
> responsibilities.
>
> Incorrect.
I dissagree.
>
> The responsibilities flow ONE WAY. They are responsible to me. For
> everything. I am responsible to them for nothing. Again, one must be
> rational: if I expect them to fix dinner, I should provide the means for
> doing so. If I tell them to perform certain dances, I should tell them what
> I expect them to learn, how fast, and the means for doing so. One cannot
> make something out of nothing. But if I give them a command and the means to
> achieve it are within their grasps, I expect it followed or I expect their
> collars. Removed. At which point I will melt them down. My way, or the
> highway.
Ahhh...so to clear things up a bit further. Can I take it that
you don't do this for or because of "relationships"? Hrmmmm,
no, that can't be because TPE is all about the relationship.
::shrug:: I'll wait till you tell me how you see it, cause I'm
still not understanding how your attitude can in any way
compliment a TPE. I still have much to learn about non-love
bdsm relationships.
>
> There is an interesting message which is fairly relevant here:
>
> http://www.pantheus.com/forum/posts/11708.html
Thanks! I'll go read it as soon as I get this post off. It was
kind of you to get the url for me.
>
> Although that is a Gorean discussion board that particular message is not
> Gorean and in fact was written by a non-Gorean submissive. I commend it to
> you.
>
> I wish you well.
And you ::smile::
Tobie
the red cabbage
Tobie
> There is an interesting message which is fairly relevant here:
>
> http://www.pantheus.com/forum/posts/11708.html
I went to read it, again, my thanks. I don't see that as
related in any way to *this* though. A service situation is not
the same as a TPE at all. For a service situation, I can see
where your stand comes from, makes sense to me. If the slave
isn't working out, get a new one. I don't see TPE in that same
view. Do you, or did the subject line not get changed when the
conversation took a turn?
Tobie
the red cabbage
Kook Monitor
<7prodq$s71$1...@flood.xnet.com>, "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com>
wrote:
>There is a rule when writing patents that "the applicant may serve as his
>own lexicographer." In other words, if I want to refer to a wheel as a
>"narrow cylindrical section member," I can. However, if I try to refer to a
>wheel as a "box," the examiner will make me write the patent over again.
No, no, no, I have it on good authority from a well-known and highly
disrespected regular poster on SSBB, that you're absolutely wrong!
His "definitive" quote was, "The rules will say whatever you wish them
to say." [1]
Accordingly, all you have to do is to copy this rule to a website
somewhere, and edit it to show that a wheel *is* a box. Then submit
your patent application in the normal way and everything will be just
fine.
Regards, Serion
Volunteer Kook Monitor
Lexicological dyslexicographer for the Official Usenet Cabal.
[1] Johnathan "Screw waiting till I have mastered the language" Kay,
in case you didn't know.
Binder
>
> Teramis writes:
{boodles of wonderfull verbiage snipped]
> It also made me wonder, since I have, if not an erudite, intellectual
> understanding of the submissive's dynamics, what is in it for the dominant?
> That one I don't have much empathy for (though it's improving--slowly).
Lynn, for myself, I'd suggest you reread Teramis's post on why submissives
want to be such. Take the inverse of those dynamics, and that's what's in
it for me. (In short, to be worthy of those gifts from another.)
Binder
--
" 'Tis better to Wield a Good Ruler than to Bend before a Bad one."
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA -- to reply, remove the idjit