Painting with very broad strokes, there are two ways to negotiate a scene: inclusively and exclusively.
In an inclusive negotiation, the Top and bottom (pluralize, as necessary) negotiate exactly which things will be allowed in the scene. Anything else is off the table.
In an exclusive negotiation, certain things are ruled out. The main category of things ruled out is simply hard limits. But also, things might be ruled out one or both parties simply aren’t in the mood for and/or can’t handle right now. For example, face slapping is a huge turn on for me, but when I was dealing with TMJ and the attendant jaw pain, I had to place some limits on it. However, anything not explicitly ruled out is left on the table. Especially for public play, there is a general sense of where the scene will go (“We’re going to do a flogging tonight”), but it may also include things outside of that.
Inclusive negotiation is generally considered the safer way to play, and it’s highly, highly recommended for those new to the scene and/or new to a particular play partner. And I agree with both those statements 100%.
But it’s not how I play.
For the vast majority of my scenes, I am an exclusive negotiator. I will let my Top/s know my hard limits. And yes, for a public scene, we will talk about what in general is on the table. (Besides me. Heh.) But that is, in many ways, a pragmatic thing: short of my Top/s bringing every toy in their possession, an impact scene isn’t going to evolve into an impromptu fire scene.
Other than that, though, I leave the door wide open. If I haven’t made something a limit, and you want to try it, go ahead. And yes, that makes me very vulnerable. What if they try something I’ve never thought of before, and I don’t like it? That is a risk I willingly choose to take, because vulnerability is really important for me when I play. I LIKE it. It enhances my headspace. Also, I’ve discovered a few amazing kinks this way when someone unexpectedly tried something new on me.
However, one thing I think doesn’t get acknowledged nearly enough is this: while that might sound like a dream for a Top, the knowledge that they can scratch almost any itch they might have, it also makes them very vulnerable. Inclusive negotiations tend to be preferred by Tops, too, because it makes them less likely to be accused of a consent violation later. As long as they keep to the letter of what was negotiated, that’s fairly good protection.
But here is why exclusive negotiation works well for me: I believe strongly in PRICK, Personal Responsibility in Consensual Kink. I don’t practice exclusive negotiation because I am naive enough to think that I know my every hard limit, and that everything else that anyone could possibly do to me is something I will enjoy. Not at all. But I accept that risk and take personal responsibility for playing the way I do.
I promise my Tops my personal responsibility in two ways:
1. If you do something to me that I truly don’t like as it is happening, I will use my safeword. I will let you know so that we can switch directions or even stop altogether if necessary. The latter has never happened, but I do promise to give you my communication.
2. If I allowed something to happen during a scene without using my safeword but then have mixed feelings about it later, I won’t accuse you of violating my consent. I will certainly talk to you about it, so we can discuss why it didn’t work. Depending on how exactly I feel after our discussion, it could potentially become a new item on my hard limits list. But I won’t try to retroactively make it one.
And this works for me. I’m not saying it works for everyone.
Nor am I recommending it for everyone!
Let’s be very clear about that. You do negotiations that work for you. Exclusive negotiations definitely do not work for everyone, nor in every situation.
But for me, the vulnerability of setting a minimal amount of parameters makes my scenes feel more fulfilling. My kink is intensely sexual, and the more control I give up, the more of a turn on it is for me. Of course, I will add in as much inclusive negotiation as my partner/s want, because as noted above, no matter how much I promise them the above two things, until they know me enough to trust they are true, negotiations are as much about protecting them as they are about protecting me. But my favorite way to negotiate is to say:
These are my hard limits. Outside of those, do whatever the fuck you want to me.
The Leather Mermaid 
This is interesting, and a rare recognition of the vulnerability of Tops. Even if someone has given me license to do whatever I want, I need to have enormous trust in the bottom to allow myself to share certain things. It’s what they want, often, to please those very secret parts. Even just to know those secret parts. Unlike most subs, Masters do not thrive on vulnerability, and this is a complexity that not enough recognize.
I know how I attempt to seduce the vulnerability of subs. But it begs the question. How does a sub seduce the vulnerability of a Dom, so necessary to fulfilling that deep role, usually against a Dom’s visceral resistance? I don’t think submission is enough — and that is a mistake many subs unwittingly make.
LikeLike
I think the only answer to that question (although I wouldn’t consider it a matter of “seducing”) is: surrender. I think that’s how we earn the trust that allows our Doms/Master to be vulnerable in that way, to show us the darkest and most dangerous parts of themselves. Our submission and obedience are an important part of building a relationship, but it is our surrender that truly builds trust. When we give everything and say, “I will follow you anywhere,” that means we will follow you even into those dark, dangerous places. And when your will becomes our own, it means those dark and dangerous places become our own as well.
I do think that the vulnerability of Tops/Doms/Masters is a subject that is not discussed NEARLY enough. We create something akin to a caricature when we don’t acknowledge that the left side of the slash comes with a lot of vulnerability. Just as much as we do when we don’t acknowledge the strength on the right side. There’s so much complexity to our roles, and in many ways, I feel we are as similar as we are different – it’s simply that we manifest certain core traits in very different ways.
LikeLike
I feel like I should add:
I understand what you meant by the word “seduce.” I suppose I balked at it a bit simply because the word seems to suggest that my intent in surrendering is to draw out that vulnerability. And I definitely wouldn’t say that is the case. I don’t surrender as a means to an end. I surrender simply because it is a deep need for me. However, that end may occur nonetheless. And I find that each time I see a little deeper into him – my surrender deepens along with it. It seems to be a self-reinforcing cycle of a sort.
LikeLike
Seduction in M/s strikes me as a complex topic, and while the word feels right to me, I understand that it can sometimes have negative undertones of manipulation. To me, “seduce” suggests subtlety, and does not — necessarily — imply deceit. I have had far more success with a balance of directness and seduction than either approach alone. Ultimately, I guess, I doubt there is any way for a slave to access the vulnerability you speak of without seducing it from me.
Could you agree with the following? At least part of your intent in surrendering is to provide an environment where your Master can express his vulnerability.
That doesn’t seem to me to be all that far from an intent to draw it out, although I recognize the distinction. And doesn’t success in having your Master express some of that vulnerability intensify your surrender, the reinforcing cycle you mention, so that you become even more seductive to him? Isn’t it fair to say that you surrender not simply because of your personal need to do so, but because of the effect your surrender has on your Master?
There are those for whom an M/s relationship based only on command and obedience is satisfying. Not me. I find that superficial, and certainly insufficient to prompt me to expose the deepest parts of myself. I need the complexity of seduction because I know it is the only way to progress beyond the surface level of mere obedience.
I don’t think we are actually terribly far apart in what we are saying. I just want to seduce an admission from you that you are a seductive creature.
LikeLike
Somehow, I never saw the notice of this new comment! So I apologize for the 9-day delay.
I do agree with you that we aren’t terribly far apart at all in what we are saying. In fact, I think we may be saying exactly the same thing and primarily disagreeing over semantics. And while at times, I think the language we use can be VERY important, especially when it’s because we’ve never considered the implications of the words that we choose, in some cases, it truly is just semantics – two people express the same idea with different words.
As to this: “Could you agree with the following? At least part of your intent in surrendering is to provide an environment where your Master can express his vulnerability.”
Yes, but with a caveat. The caveat is that his vulnerability is not, in and of itself, somehow gratifying to me. However, I do find it such an important service to offer him that environment where he can be vulnerable. For the very reason you cited earlier: vulnerability does not come easily to most Doms/Masters. It feels contrary to the role that you take within your relationships, and oftentimes, even in the greater world. And yet…I believe that we ALL need a space to be vulnerable. If someone has no fears or insecurities or deep questions about life and right and wrong – that’s a person who lives a very superficial life and doesn’t put much effort into the decisions they make, so it’s certainly not the kind of person I could surrender to. But bottling up those fears and insecurities and questions can eat away at you. So I think it’s important to have at least on person you can share those things with in safety. It’s deeply gratifying to my need for service to be able to provide that place
Was that enough of an admission? Or do you need to keep seducing me? (I’m definitely easily seduced into a discussion over M/s philosophy and how we use words…)
LikeLike