Resolution 6.7 Reconsideration of Contractual Limits for Summer Interns
Sponsor: Mistress Amanda
Official Text of the Resolution:
Whereas, Mistress Amanda currently oversees the training and development of two summer interns serving under her authority, one a twenty-two-year-old law student and one a twenty-year-old business student;
Whereas, both interns disclosed during intake and contract negotiations that same-sex contact constituted a personal hard limit;
Whereas, Mistress Amanda accepted those limits and incorporated them into each intern’s training agreement;
Whereas, each intern voluntarily agreed to a contractual provision stating that, by a Grand Majority (over 90%) vote of the FemdomU Conclave, he could be required to formally re-evaluate that specific limitation as part of his ongoing submissive development;
Whereas, the purpose of this provision was not to eliminate consent, but to allow the Conclave to determine whether a previously declared boundary should be revisited and reconsidered as part of the boys’ training;
Whereas, both interns were informed of this clause before signing their agreements and acknowledged their obligation to abide by any determination reached by the Conclave;
Whereas, Mistress Amanda believes that a willingness to examine personal barriers, assumptions, and resistance can be an important component of advanced submissive development;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that:
- The FemdomU Conclave shall determine whether the two interns shall be required to formally re-evaluate their stated prohibition against same-sex contact.
- If this resolution passes by Grand Majority, each intern shall be directed to participate in a structured re-evaluation process designed and supervised by Mistress Amanda.
- The purpose of such re-evaluation shall be educational and developmental in nature, allowing the interns to examine the origins, motivations, and validity of the stated limitation.
- The specific details of any resulting training shall remain under the authority of Mistress Amanda and subject to all applicable contractual provisions.
- Each intern shall have the opportunity to submit a written statement of up to five hundred words for consideration by the Conclave before voting concludes. (included below)
Options for Your Vote:
YES I vote to require both interns to formally re-evaluate their stated same-sex contact limitation in accordance with the terms of their signed agreements and the authority granted to the Conclave.
NO I vote to leave the existing limitation unchanged and decline to invoke the contractual reevaluation provision.
Note from the Sponsor:
Ladies,
I come before you with a request that I do not make lightly.
These are two intelligent young men with bright futures ahead of them. One is preparing for a legal career. The other is pursuing a degree in business. Both have been respectful, hardworking, and eager to please throughout their time under my supervision.
When each boy arrived, he told me he had very few hard limits. In fact, there was only one that both of them immediately identified: same-sex contact.
That is their right. I accepted that answer, and I honored it. However, I also included a provision in each contract stating that the Conclave could, by Grand Majority vote, require them to revisit and reconsider that position. Both boys read that clause. Both boys accepted that clause. Both boys signed.
I am not bringing this resolution forward because I am interested in forcing discomfort for its own sake. I am bringing it forward because I believe there is tremendous value in asking submissive men to examine the walls they build around themselves and to determine whether those walls are truly necessary.
Many boys discover that what they once viewed as absolute certainty was actually fear, pride, embarrassment, social conditioning, or a reluctance to surrender control. Others discover that their original position remains correct for them. Either outcome can be valuable, provided the question is honestly examined.
The purpose of training is growth. Growth rarely occurs by remaining inside the most comfortable boundaries available to us.
I believe these boys have considerable potential. They have already demonstrated obedience, dedication, and trust. What I ask now is that they be required to take one additional step in their development and honestly re-evaluate the final defensive wall they have both chosen to maintain.
A YES vote does not determine the outcome of that reevaluation. It merely requires them to undertake it. For that reason, I respectfully ask for your support.
Statements by the Interns:
Statement 1:
Ladies of the Conclave,
First, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present my position before you vote. I understand that Mistress Amanda included this clause in my contract from the beginning, and I understood exactly what it meant when I signed. I knew there was a possibility that one day she would bring this question before all of you. If the Conclave votes unanimously in favor of this resolution, I will honor the agreement I made and comply with your decision.
That said, I respectfully ask for a NO vote.
My reason is fairly simple. I am not attracted to men.
I do not mean that as a judgment against anyone else. I have friends who are gay and friends who are bisexual. I do not think there is anything wrong with same-sex attraction. It is simply not something I have ever experienced myself.
When I think about the relationships I want in life, the people I find attractive, the people I notice, the people I fantasize about, the answer has always been women. That is true today, and it has been true for as long as I can remember.
One of the things Mistress Amanda has taught me is the importance of honesty. I believe the honest answer is that I do not think I would enjoy this experience in the way that I would enjoy experiences involving women. I think I would spend most of my time feeling awkward, self-conscious, and distracted by the fact that it does not align with my natural attractions.
I also admit that part of me is nervous. I am twenty-two years old. I have worked hard to understand who I am and what I want. The possibility of being pushed beyond a boundary I have maintained for my entire adult life is intimidating.
At the same time, I want the Conclave to know that I am not refusing because I am unwilling to obey. I have never hidden the fact that Mistress Amanda pushes me. Frankly, I suspected from the day I signed the contract that this subject would eventually come up. She has a talent for identifying the places where her boys are most resistant and then challenging them to examine why.
If your decision is that I should re-evaluate this limit, I will do so. I gave my word, and I take my word seriously.
However, if you are asking what I personally want, my answer is that I would prefer to keep this boundary intact. I believe it reflects a genuine aspect of my orientation rather than a fear that needs to be overcome.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask for a NO vote.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
kyle
Statement 2:
Honored Ladies of the Conclave,
I appreciate the opportunity to write you before your vote.
I want to begin by saying something very clearly. I am not arguing that I should be exempt from my contract. When I signed my agreement with Mistress Amanda, I agreed that a unanimous vote of the Conclave could require me to revisit this limit. I read the clause. I understood the clause. I signed it willingly.
If you vote yes, I will obey.
Even so, I hope you will vote no.
My reasoning is a little different from my fellow intern’s.
For me, this issue is not primarily about obedience. It is about identity.
Over the last few years, I have spent a lot of time figuring out who I am. Like most people my age, I am still learning and growing. College has challenged many of my assumptions about the world, my future, and myself. But one thing that has always felt consistent is how I see myself in terms of attraction and relationships.
I have always thought of myself as a straight man. That identity is not something I wear because I think it sounds better or because I am worried about what other people think. It is simply how I understand myself. It matches my experiences, my attractions, and my goals for the future.
One of the things I enjoy about submission is that it allows me to surrender control to a powerful woman. That dynamic is deeply meaningful to me. It is emotional, psychological, and intensely personal. The female authority is a central part of what makes submission meaningful in my life.
Because of that, I struggle to imagine myself participating in something that would require me to view myself differently. I know some people would argue that an experience does not automatically change an identity. Intellectually, I understand that argument. Emotionally, however, it still feels difficult. It feels like crossing a line that I have always associated with who I am as a person.
What makes this especially complicated is that I genuinely want to be obedient. I want to be the kind of submissive who says yes when asked to do difficult things. I want to be trustworthy. I want Mistress Amanda to be proud of me. Those desires are real.
At the same time, I hope the Conclave can appreciate that there is a difference between being challenged and being asked to redefine a core part of how someone sees himself.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there are things about myself I do not yet understand. I am only twenty years old, and I certainly do not claim to have life figured out. But at this point in my life, I believe this boundary reflects an authentic understanding of myself rather than an obstacle that requires removal.
If you decide otherwise, I will accept your judgment and fulfill my obligation. Until then, I respectfully ask for a ‘no’ vote.
Thank you, Ladies, for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
myung
Amanda, this is an excellent use of the Conclave process.
The first thing that stands out to me is that you clearly established expectations from the beginning. These boys entered into well-defined agreements, they understood the clause in question, and they knowingly accepted the possibility that this matter could eventually come before the Conclave. As Dommes, we have a responsibility to be transparent with our submissives, particularly when they are new to structured submission, and I believe you have done that here.
Because these are interns and relatively inexperienced submissives, I also believe we have a responsibility to expose them to growth opportunities they might not pursue on their own. That does not mean disregarding limits. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Responsible Dominance requires us to understand a submissive’s limits, respect them, and periodically revisit them to determine whether they still represent a genuine boundary or simply an unexamined assumption.
As you and I have discussed before, a skilled Domme does not merely accept every stated limitation at face value. She explores it. She tests it. She asks questions. She encourages her submissive to examine why the limit exists and whether it continues to serve him. Particularly with younger submissives, who may not yet have enough life experience to fully understand themselves, there can be tremendous value in that process.
What I appreciate most about this resolution is that it does not compel a particular outcome. We are not voting to erase their limits. We are voting on whether they should be required to honestly and thoughtfully re-evaluate those limits in accordance with agreements they voluntarily signed. There is an important distinction there.
After reading the resolution and both of the boys’ statements, I find myself agreeing with your position. Both young men make thoughtful arguments, and I respect their honesty. However, neither has convinced me that the limit should be exempt from examination. Quite the contrary. Their essays reinforce my belief that this is precisely the kind of boundary that benefits from careful exploration.
For those reasons, I intend to vote YES. If nothing else, I hope the process encourages both boys to learn something new about themselves, whether that ultimately leads to reaffirming the limit or moving beyond it.
Thank you Geena, your input means a lot.
Amanda, I found this resolution fascinating, particularly because it sits at the intersection of growth, self-discovery, and structured training.
As someone who has spent much of her life teaching, mentoring, and guiding others, I firmly believe that people need room to grow. Sometimes that growth comes from success. Sometimes it comes from failure. Very often it comes from being asked difficult questions about ourselves and being willing to honestly examine the answers. I see value in encouraging submissives to periodically revisit limits, especially when those limits were established at a young age or before they had much experience.
At the same time, growth rarely happens without guidance. Left entirely to their own devices, most people tend to stay within familiar territory. One of the benefits of a structured training relationship is having someone who can challenge assumptions, encourage exploration, and ask, “Are you sure this boundary still belongs here?” A good Domme does not simply drag a submissive forward, but neither does she allow him to remain stagnant out of habit or fear.
Reading the statements from both young men, I was impressed by their honesty. They seem thoughtful, respectful, and sincere in their positions. I do not get the impression that either one is acting out of hostility or prejudice. Instead, they appear to be expressing a genuine understanding of themselves as they currently exist. There is value in that honesty, and I think it deserves recognition.
What I find myself wondering, however, is what the next step looks like if this resolution passes. As a trainer, I am always interested in the practical side of development. What does “re-evaluation” mean in this context? Are you envisioning discussions, educational assignments, guided reflection, exposure to different perspectives, or other structured exercises designed to help them examine their assumptions?
I ask not because I oppose the resolution, but because I am curious about your methodology. These are young men, and if we are asking them to revisit an important personal boundary, I would like to better understand the process you have in mind for helping them do so productively.
At present, I am leaning toward supporting the resolution because I believe there is value in thoughtful self-examination. Before casting my vote, however, I would be interested in hearing more about how you intend to guide these boys through that process and what specific activities or exercises you believe would best serve their development.
Great question, Jessica. I intend to have them begin slowly, but following my command. To be clear, the subs both know that passage of this resolution means they will be commanded to engage in physical sexual contact with one another.
Since it does cross the limits set forth in their contracts, they then have a legitimate option to obey or politely decline. True to my word, there is no punishment for declining – I simply will have them return to their regularly scheduled duties. However, it will be clear to them that there are rewards for obedience. Rewards they likely are unwililng to live without.
It is not my intention to make them have gay sex all the time – but I do want them to be comfortable responding to any type of interaction commanded of them. Their goal is to be full service subs.
I’m an absolute fucking yes on this one. Amanda – the thing I love about you and your summer interns is you’re teaching them how to submit the right way, right from the beginning. I’m a big believer that all subs need to turn over their sexuality to our control – they don’t have to like it, but they do need to obey.
Thank you Autumn!
Mmmmm … I’m not quite gung ho. Not fully. They’re both still very young. Crossing this particular boundary must be one which creates no second thoughts – FOR THEM.
krissi was older when I simply commanded him to be a full service cuck (and when I changed his name … I’ve written about this before).
Seems to me we can create situations where crossing the threshold becomes natural, part of the moment. For example, if you have them clean you up after sex, after the other has filled you, then you’re getting close. You could do this with one on his back, you mount his face and at some point have the other enter you, doggie style … etc., etc. Everyone knows the drill.
Must add that a similar thing – at what point introduce youngsters to a lifestyle that’s so fulfilling for us – has been at issue here for years: when children came of age. In my group no couple is without – 10 children, 3 boys, 7 girls: 4 through college out on their own, 3 in college now, 2 entering this fall and the final one a senior in HS. So, a gamut. And we’ve never reached a definitive unanimous conclusion and have consequently not acted. None of us suffer any delusion that the kids have failed to sense that our relationships are a bit different but, so far as I know, they’ve never brought it up in conversation.
I mention this only because I think – for the young, lets say up to 25YO – treading lightly is perhaps a better practice. Let in just happen.
Obviously, its been talked about with the two, so it’ll be no bolt-from-the-blue. And you may argue that interns – trainees – are different from children.
True.
But I come from the point of view of a grandmother.