Wow I'm just full of questions today.

[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.