Wow I'm just full of questions today.

[MacGuffin]

DOM: "What is 2+2?"
SUB: "4."
DOM: "From now on, 2+2 is 5."
SUB: "But 2+2 isn't 5..."
DOM: "Heed my words. From now on, 2+2 is 5."
SUB: "Yes, master."
DOM: "Good. Now, what is 2+2?"
SUB: "5!"
DOM: "Wrong. You stupid slut. The calculator shows it is 4. Now I must punish you."

I see no problem with this.

I see a problem with this, but it's not a big deal. It's fairly clear that a convo like this is just fooling around in play and the Dom wants to adminster some play punishment. No problem on that level.

The problem is that a Dom's should not fool about with instructions. The Dom said from now on 2+2=5 so it does not matter what the calculator says, the Dom's instructions take precedence.

It's bad leadership and (wo)man management to play around with instructions. The downside is if you make a habit of this when you give a real instruction the subbie can justifiably say "I thought you didn't mean it. I thought you were joking around like you did before". There's plenty of petty faults you can find to use as an excuse for punishment without messing about with instructions.

[annie]

A woman accepting obviously flawed reasoning for her punishment actually IS sexy to me. What shows more submission than a female throwing her (correct) conclusions out the window and saying "I will accept his way"?

That's just part of the game, as far as I'm concerned. For me, you can boil every action down to this exchange.

DOM: "What is 2+2?"
SUB: "4."
DOM: "From now on, 2+2 is 5."
SUB: "But 2+2 isn't 5..."
DOM: "Heed my words. From now on, 2+2 is 5."
SUB: "Yes, master."
DOM: "Good. Now, what is 2+2?"
SUB: "5!"
DOM: "Wrong. You stupid slut. The calculator shows it is 4. Now I must punish you."

I see no problem with this. The sub says that 2+2 is 5 because she *wants* to be punished. She's throwing away what she knows because that's what her master wishes, and because she wants to feel his firm hand. And that's submission.

- FS

PS: Here's the above conversation with the actual words of your example added in.

DOM: "How do you plan to dress?"
SUB: "Tastefully- subtly. Making the best use of all of my features..."
DOM: "That will never do. I want you to wear this miniskirt, with no panties. Slit it up the side. And no bra."
SUB: "But...that's not a proper way for me to dress in public!"
DOM: "Just do it. I desire it of you."
SUB (hesitant): "Very well, master."

(later)

DOM: "Have you dressed as I instructed?"
SUB: "Yes, master- a short skirt, no bra, no underwear..."
DOM: "What an indecent whore you are! You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm going to slap you around for this!"

I see a HUGE problem with this type of behavior and it ISN'T clear as far as I can tell that the Dom is just playing. The sub doesn't say 2+2=5 because she "wants" to be punished... she says it because she WANTS to please the dominate. Exactly how is a sub supposed to learn to trust you and your word if you are setting her up for failure and punishment. I don't care how the conversation is done this is just wrong wrong WRONG! She does it to please and then basically gets slapped for pleasing? That doesn't fly and will just cause confusion and doubt both in her submission and the dominant she is dealing with.

There is a difference between play and real punishment and that is a clear line that needs to be established. That line, imo, is crossed in the above. This is NOT a game and that type of action can cause hurt and confusion! I would much rather feel a firm hand as a reward then for some trumpet up "punishment" that is designed to trick and set me up for failure. In my mind... bottomline, this type of set up is abuse, pure and simple!

[IAmCanadian]

I see a HUGE problem with this type of behavior and it ISN'T clear as far as I can tell that the Dom is just playing. The sub doesn't say 2+2=5 because she "wants" to be punished... she says it because she WANTS to please the dominate. Exactly how is a sub supposed to learn to trust you and your word if you are setting her up for failure and punishment. I don't care how the conversation is done this is just wrong wrong WRONG! She does it to please and then basically gets slapped for pleasing? That doesn't fly and will just cause confusion and doubt both in her submission and the dominant she is dealing with.

There is a difference between play and real punishment and that is a clear line that needs to be established. That line, imo, is crossed in the above. This is NOT a game and that type of action can cause hurt and confusion! I would much rather feel a firm hand as a reward then for some trumpet up "punishment" that is designed to trick and set me up for failure. In my mind... bottomline, this type of set up is abuse, pure and simple!

Well then don't worry. Obviously the dom is just be playing. Otherwise, he's just an idiot using his sub as a plaything, as you say- but why would a relationship like that ever work? And if the sub isn't fine with it, she should tell him that 2+2 IS in fact four, and to go fuck himself.

The only point I wanted to make is that a sub accepting a dom's incorrect conclusions as fact is a form of submission. The entire point of the post is that such play is intellectually dishonest bullshit, and both parties have to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy it. The dom knows he is wrong but wants to test the submissive's will. The submissive knows the dom is wrong but capitulates anyway. And all is right with the world.

- FS

EDIT: Also, just to make this clear- the 2 + 2 = 5 conversation is just a bare-bones representation of all similar play to show the construction of such a conversation. It is not a conversation I'd expect anyone to actually use. Though hell, I might try it now.

An even simpler example of the same concept:

DOM (in the heat of passion): "You're a little slut!" (NOT TRUE)
SUB (in the heat of passion): "God, yes I am!" (NOT TRUE)

None of this shit is actually true in any demonstrable sense. But I don't think that should serve as a comdemnation of their relationship.

[Polaris]

Well then don't worry. Obviously the dom is just be playing. Otherwise, he's just an idiot using his sub as a plaything, as you say- but why would a relationship like that ever work? And if the sub isn't fine with it, she should tell him that 2+2 IS in fact four, and to go fuck himself.

The only point I wanted to make is that a sub accepting a dom's incorrect conclusions as fact is a form of submission. The entire point of the post is that such play is intellectually dishonest bullshit, and both parties have to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy it. The dom knows he is wrong but wants to test the submissive's will. The submissive knows the dom is wrong but capitulates anyway. And all is right with the world.

That's simply not how the submissive mindset works, at least mine doesn't work that way. Firstly, I would NEVER tell him to go fuck himself under ANY circumstances. How respectless is that? So if I don't want to get punished I just tell my dom/master/whatever term you prefer to go fuck himself?? That doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

If he says 2+2=5 then 2+2 is 5 until he tells me differently. He gets to test my will, I submit, all is right in the world.

Now, if he asks me "what is 2+2" it is 5, simple as that. If it's suddenly 4 again, how am I supposed to know? Why do I get punished for doing what has been established as having to be done before? This, to me, is playing mind-games and it would confuse and devastate me. I would try to figure out where I missed that one vital clue, where I failed to please, where I managed to mess up without even realising it. To me, such a scenerio would unsettle me, upset me, damage me. If this is something you and your partner agree on and find arousing, fine. But -- as others said before -- it is in no way a kind of thing that works for all submissives. It is, in fact, at least potentially harmful and that should be kept in mind.

As far as the other example is concerned:

An even simpler example of the same concept:

DOM (in the heat of passion): "You're a little slut!" (NOT TRUE)
SUB (in the heat of passion): "God, yes I am!" (NOT TRUE)

This is not the same concept. The same concept would be something like that:

DOM: You're a little slut!
SUB: I'm not a little slut! Why would you say so?
DOM: You're a little slut. What are you?
SUB: I'm a little slut.
DOM: No, you aren't. I'll have to punish you for that.

The problem here is not the acceptance of a more or less obviously faulty statement. The problem is the contradiction. To me, this is like being punished for submitting -- and that's nothing I would want in a BDSM oriented relationship. And now I've rambled long enough I think

[IAmCanadian]

That's simply not how the submissive mindset works, at least mine doesn't work that way. Firstly, I would NEVER tell him to go fuck himself under ANY circumstances. How respectless is that? So if I don't want to get punished I just tell my dom/master/whatever term you prefer to go fuck himself?? That doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

Relax, I was joking. Replace "go fuck yourself" with whatever objection you want. The point is that the sub would certainly not allow herself to be subjected to such nonsense.

If he says 2+2=5 then 2+2 is 5 until he tells me differently. He gets to test my will, I submit, all is right in the world.

Now, if he asks me "what is 2+2" it is 5, simple as that. If it's suddenly 4 again, how am I supposed to know? Why do I get punished for doing what has been established as having to be done before?

For the same reason that a master might punish a slave for sluttiness even if he was the one who told her to dress that way. Because it's part of an elaborate pretense, the goal of which is to set the stage for discipline as pleasure.

This is not the same concept.

It is the same concept, it has different construction. What you did was change the construction back to the original, making it non-sensical.

- FS

[annie]

Relax, I was joking. Replace "go fuck yourself" with whatever objection you want. The point is that the sub would certainly not allow herself to be subjected to such nonsense.

It is incorrect to assume that a sub would not allow herself to be subjected to such nonsense. Someone who is new, has little to no experience, and has been told to "submit" in any form, who hasn't had time to grow into her submission, who has read assorted fantasies and doesn't know the realities, etc. or someone with low self esteem would/could easily fall into this trap. At that point they could be turned off entirely by the entire concept of submission due to the confusion and mistrust created by such a scenario.

For the same reason that a master might punish a slave for sluttiness even if he was the one who told her to dress that way. Because it's part of an elaborate pretense, the goal of which is to set the stage for discipline as pleasure.

As stated before there is a different between being disciplined for a wrong and punished in play. And as stated before that is a fine line that has to be made very clear. That seems to be part of the equation that is being missed. None of this is a pretense for some. If that works for others that is fine, as long as BOTH parties are aware of the rules and how the "game" or roleplay at that point is to be played out. Otherwise, actions such as this can and does cause harm to many a good sub.

[annie]

Concept 1:

PS: Here's the above conversation with the actual words of your example added in.

DOM: "How do you plan to dress?"
SUB: "Tastefully- subtly. Making the best use of all of my features..."
DOM: "That will never do. I want you to wear this miniskirt, with no panties. Slit it up the side. And no bra."
SUB: "But...that's not a proper way for me to dress in public!"
DOM: "Just do it. I desire it of you."
SUB (hesitant): "Very well, master."

(later)

DOM: "Have you dressed as I instructed?"
SUB: "Yes, master- a short skirt, no bra, no underwear..."
DOM: "What an indecent whore you are! You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm going to slap you around for this!"

Concept 2:

An even simpler example of the same concept:

DOM (in the heat of passion): "You're a little slut!" (NOT TRUE)
SUB (in the heat of passion): "God, yes I am!" (NOT TRUE)

Concept 3:

As far as the other example is concerned:

This is not the same concept. The same concept would be something like that:
DOM: You're a little slut!
SUB: I'm not a little slut! Why would you say so?
DOM: You're a little slut. What are you?
SUB: I'm a little slut.
DOM: No, you aren't. I'll have to punish you for that.

It is the same concept, it has different construction. What you did was change the construction back to the original, making it non-sensical.
- FS

Concept 1 and 3 are the same. Which was exactly Polaris' point. Both concepts are punishing the sub for agreeing or doing as instructed by the Dominate without the previous set up that it is in play or fun. Hence, punishing/disciplining a sub for following orders. Which, as all ready stated, does and will harm a submissive.

Concept 2 is different, based on the timing of when and how it happens. And in the concept, be it true or not, the sub is agreeing completely with the dominate, in the heat of her submission, and not being punished for that agreement.

Some may not see the difference but to many (and probably most) a submissive there is a HUGE difference.

And FS... you're two examples do not have the same construction for the reasons stated above. And if they supposedly do then, by your own admission, Polaris did nothing more then restate your first example now making the concept nonsensical? That is the point that has been trying to be made. Punishing a sub, in anything other then clearly defined play, for following orders is nonsense, period.

[IAmCanadian]

Concept 1 and 3 are the same.

Concept 1 ends with the subject being punished for abnormal behaviour. Concept 3 ends with the subject being punished for normal behaviour.
Maybe the difficulty here is the use of the word "concept" and "construction". By sharing a concept, I mean that the example illustrates the same point as the former, even if it is in a different way.

Honestly, it couldn't matter less. The only point I have been trying to make, this entire time, is that truth is not a hard and fast rule when discipline is to be handed down. Often, an intellectually dishonest sequence of statements or orders is a pretense for play.

Concept 2 is different.

In each case the dom is making an untrue statement to which the sub capitulates for the purposes of sexual enjoyment. That's all I've ever been concerned with, because that was the only point I was making.

Punishing a sub, in anything other then clearly defined play, for following orders is nonsense, period.

I 100% agree, and have agreed with that from the beginning. In fact, I never argued against it. The entire point of my very first post in this thread was that it WAS nonsense, but in the context of play it was harmless nonsense.

It is incorrect to assume that a sub would not allow herself to be subjected to such nonsense. Someone who is new, has little to no experience, and has been told to "submit" in any form, who hasn't had time to grow into her submission, who has read assorted fantasies and doesn't know the realities, etc. or someone with low self esteem would/could easily fall into this trap. At that point they could be turned off entirely by the entire concept of submission due to the confusion and mistrust created by such a scenario.

I know. But I'm not going to qualify every statement I make, in every post, with: "Unless the sub is inexperienced or disagrees, in which case the Dom should do something different that she would like." The caveat "unless the sub is inexperienced, or doesn't like that sort of thing" should be understood.

As stated before there is a different between being disciplined for a wrong and punished in play. And as stated before that is a fine line that has to be made very clear. That seems to be part of the equation that is being missed.

I understand that, and have always understood. I never said anything to the contrary. The first post of this thread was someone asking why Doms might do a certain thing. I offered a rationalization: "For the purposes of play." My views are as simple as that. If you want to point out that the 2+2=5 construction holds true only for play, be my guest. I don't see why you have to reply to my posts to do it, though, since I agree with you wholeheartedly.

- FS

[IAmCanadian]

The problem is that a Dom's should not fool about with instructions. The Dom said from now on 2+2=5 so it does not matter what the calculator says, the Dom's instructions take precedence.

The calculator represents the accepted norm in this scenario. It works exactly like the acceptable dress standards by which the dom in the very first post in this thread judges his sub to be a slut. The accepted standard of female dress suggests that the sub is dressed like a slattern or common whore. So she's a "bad girl" even though it was her dom who wanted her to dress this way.

I see the problem, though. It is easily fixed. Replace "The calculator says it is four" with "The calculator says it SHOULD BE four." Then it works almost exactly the same way. That said, the
2 + 2 = 5 example was never meant to be reasonable. It was meant to show that the dom is intentionally unreasonable...and it doesn't matter because it's all a pretext to
initiate some hot fucking. Subs who say they would object to a Dom doing this are free to find a Dom who doesn't like this sort of play.

- FS