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