Wow I'm just full of questions today.

[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

[Polaris]

I don't mean to be a pain, and I don't mean to attack anyone...but I have some serious trouble wrapping my brain about these concepts (or constructions)...

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.

So, umm, dressing the way your dominant demands/desires of you is abnormal behaviour? Agreeing that you are a slut if your dominant demands/desires is normal behaviour?

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.

Again, if this is what works for you that's fine -- as long as everybody involved knows the rules to play the game, as annie so eloquently put it. And again -- are we talking about discipline or play punishments? I'm personally not a big fan of play punishments, simply because he can do this if he chooses to do it simply because he wants to...but I can see why it is fun for others. I would be very careful, however, as far as 'real' punishments are concerned. Don't punish your sub for things she/he didn't do wrong. If you do I'll guarantee that sooner or later you'll get responses that are, indeed, non-sensical and definitely undesired. So, it matters. A lot. At least to some of us, apparently.

I agree that truth is not a hard and fast rule. Still, there is a big difference between what you call a 'dishonest sequence of statements or orders' as a 'pretense for play' and being punished for reacting to this dishonest sequence in a logical, reasonable way. It is not the 'you're a little slut' part that bothers me here. It is the 'I'm going to punish you for agreeing with me' part that gets to me. I'm afraid I can't put it any better than I already did, so I'll just stop my ramblings....for now!

[IAmCanadian]

So, umm, dressing the way your dominant demands/desires of you is abnormal behaviour? Agreeing that you are a slut if your dominant demands/desires is normal behaviour?

Dressing like a slut is abnormal for the bulk of society. Not referring to oneself as a slut is in line with normal society. That was the only point of those two statements. It was not a commentary on the behaviour of subs, or their relationships with their masters.

Again, if this is what works for you that's fine -- as long as everybody involved knows the rules to play the game, as annie so eloquently put it. And again -- are we talking about discipline or play punishments?

*I* am talking about faux punishments for imagined infractions for the fake purposes of setting a scene. I explained that the Dom's desire to participate in these was likely the reason for the sorts of whispers/messages the original poster was receiving.

Since then, people keep responding to my posts as if I'm making blanket statements about all discipline, and then proceeding to reiterate again that there is a difference between play punishment and real discipline, as if I didn't understand it.

I agree that truth is not a hard and fast rule. Still, there is a big difference between what you call a 'dishonest sequence of statements or orders' as a 'pretense for play' and being punished for reacting to this dishonest sequence in a logical, reasonable way.

There it is again. I agree with this and have agreed with it since I first posted.

It is not the 'you're a little slut' part that bothers me here. It is the 'I'm going to punish you for agreeing with me' part that gets to me. I'm afraid I can't put it any better than I already did, so I'll just stop my ramblings....for now!

Yes. Legitimately punishing a sub for agreeing with him is stupid behaviour on the part of the dom, and a sub should look into leaving him if he continues to do it despite her objections. It is cruel, dishonest mental trickery. I continue to agree with this.

And people continue to reply to my posts to say it.

I have to take a very hard look at how I am communicating here to find where what I am saying is breaking down. Maybe my use of the word "punishment" is wrong. When *I* say punishment in this thread, I mean the sort of "punishment" a sub would find orgasmic, titillating, a positive experience. Positive reinforcement. The opposite of an actual, legitimate punishment. A sex act masquerading as a punishment. I'm sorry if I've just been confusing everyone this entire time. I thought I was being really clear, but I guess I've overestimated my ability to communicate, not knowing the full implications of some terminology.

- FS

[Polaris]

Thanks for clarifying, FS. It was not my intention to put you in any drawer at all, and I apologise if this is the impression I left. I believe we've been talking cross-purposes a little bit. No harm (or judgement) intended, though!

[MacGuffin]

It is not the 'you're a little slut' part that bothers me here. It is the 'I'm going to punish you for agreeing with me' part that gets to me. I'm afraid I can't put it any better than I already did, so I'll just stop my ramblings....for now!

I agree with you. The Dom should be encouraging and rewarding obedience and the sub in the 2+2=5 case obeyed the Dom's command. In my view there are some basic principles - laws if you will - you should not play around with to get your jollies. There is no need to, the Dom could quite easily have said "you answered too slow" or anything that did not compromise the integrety of instructions and obedience, the cornerstones of Ds.

I would have caught the sub by handing her a calculator and asking her to calculate 1852279*2 and give me back the calcultator. Then I hold the calculator upside down and when I find the numbers seems to spell the word "ASShOLE" I go ballistic and accuse her of insulting me. Other "magical" numbers that looks like words are:

83507 LOSER
558.618 BIg.ASS
5318008 BOOBIES

Do all of them on her and she's got to give up. I mean one insult you can forgive but four in a row, no way can the Dom stand for that.