To accuse falsely. To call into question, require verification, explanation or justification. To express that one is unjust or invalid. To accuse, to reproach or object.

To offer challenge is to call into question the reasoning, motivation and indeed thought processes of someone else. This accusation of impropriety is often leveled when the recipient of the decision objects or determines that the choice or decision being offered is in apparent opposition to their personal goal or desire.

Many people seek out and experiment with BDSM relationships under the expectation of reward for the presentation of certain behaviors. This expectation governs the structure of the relationship within the mind of the individual. They are ‘permitting’ themselves certain behaviors and compromises based on the concept that these ‘goods’ so traded will act as coin in the trade for the attainment of the prize at the conclusion of the deal. By considering these actions as ‘goods’ or ‘gifts’ the individual retains the concept of leveraged control. That, should their expectations not be met in the manner they have predetermined as correct then they will withdraw the ‘gifts’ as challenge to the veracity of their partner who in their opinion has not met with their needs or expectations.

By holding that their ‘behaviors’ of submission or domination are intrinsically attached to this expectation of reward, the individual indicates that their behavior is indeed separate from or not innate to their nature. This false presentation becomes the bartered trade of the relationship, an inherent deceit. This form of deceit can and does occur on both sides and is not more prevalent on either side. It is traditional interpersonal manipulation that we prefer to identify as a vanilla response as if to indicate that this traditional behavior is entirely vacated when a person elects to become non-vanilla or actively live within a different community. Each person has been raised and taught to trade one commodity for another. These lessons do not disappear by making a mental choice to live within an alternative lifestyle. We as human beings tend to do what we know. We know how to manipulate, lie, deceive, cheat, steal and in all forms dishonor each other all under the auspices of attaining the goal of our desire.

Repetitive challenge is a form of overt disrespect. Each time a choice or decision is called into question the person challenging is openly stating that they have determined that the person making the decision is unjust, invalid, improper or simply wrong. By so doing they indicate to themselves and to the decision maker and any other person present that the validity of the decision making ability of the decision maker is to be disregarded or dismissed.

No human being, be they Dominant or submissive is ever entirely right or entirely wrong. They each take a myriad of details, both information, emotion and thought to draw upon when formulating the choices and decisions they make. Outside viewpoint can challenge any decision as an opposing opinion or side can always be produced. Any decision can be viewed as a percentage of right to wrong. If the decision prevails toward a positive outcome then its overall worth would generally be considered to be in the right.

This action of disrespect is far more important than the individual choices or decisions under challenge. If it is necessary to identify to your partner that you find them incompetent to formulate rational, just decisions then you are actively stating that from your viewpoint the agreement to trust in their ability to make such decisions no longer exists. If your relationship is based on distinct decision making boundaries, this type of challenge is an overt negation of that structure or a way to say that the structure is just a game, an illusion, a false window. If your relationship is then based on something that does not exist then in essence your relationship does not exist within your mind.

If you determine that your partner is unable to make ‘good’ decisions then you will withdraw your permission for them to make these decisions for you and revert to making decisions toward your needs without consideration of their desire. Actions of challenge can be viewed as a means of ‘removing relationship.’ By creating a platform of ‘justifiable action’ the individual can withdraw from a relationship back to independent status while ‘retaining face’ with peers, friends and family.

All actions are service to will including actions of challenge. Each choice made and executed as an action is an expression of exactly what the true will of the acting individual desires. The choices made serve the individual. A person should not be viewed on the rhetoric of their presentation or their protestations of service, they can only be viewed on what they actually physically do. Actions should not be ‘interpreted’ or subject to complex understanding but should be viewed in their simplest form. The idea of ‘giving slack’ or ‘making allowances’ is merely a way to obscure the innate simple raw truth of an action. To some extent the question ‘why’ must be left on the shelf as meaningless. By allowing the action to remain simple the truth becomes equally simple.

If you enjoy challenge or conflict you are expressing an inability to trust or offer respect. Relationships do not survive well without expansive quantities of both.