Punishment implies prior disobedience to a rule, and its intention is to create some degree of real discomfort in the submissive. This discomfort will then cause regret for the disobedient act and thereby also work to dissuade the submissive against any future disobedience. Punishment is therefore a method of correction, a means of molding the submissive into an obedient and compliant participant in the ongoing evolution of the D/s relationship. As long as the submissive wishes to remain in the relationship she must accept the punishment resulting from her disobedience.

In order for this to be a fair and consensual agreement, the rules must be clear and within the ability of the submissive to follow. Insisting upon remarkable acts of intuition, unreasonable alterations of personality, superhuman tolerance for pain or immobilization, total disregard for the social consequences of public acts, or the absolute abandonment of her willfull and independent self is not only absurd but foolish, and proves a capacity for fantasy far beyond an understanding of the very real complexity of human nature.

For a 24/7 lifestyle D/s relationship to succeed the Dominant cannot allow his fantasies to overwhelm him. He must have self-restraint. His submissive is not a fictional construct, capable of all that he may desire. She is as fully human as he, and no matter how deeply devoted to her Master she may be there are limits to her capacity to serve.

Punishment, in order to be affective, must be real. Actions that in another context are experienced by the submissive as erotic may work as punishment for some submissives, but for others the only recourse is an experience marked in her psyche as always unpleasant no matter the context. Care must be taken, though, to avoid the replay of traumatic memories or other zones of psychological harm. A Dominant without compassion is likely to overstep the boundaries of morality and imagine himself of deeper insight than in fact he is. In his pursuit of self-gratification he may loose sight of the submissive's unique character and enforce an act of punishment that has no positive relation to her actual self.

The intention in punishment is not simply to assert a particular category of control, it is to pursue the goal of not needing to punish at all. If the psychological stance of carrying out a punishment is a pleasure in itself to the Dominant, something that he desires apart from any disobedience in his submissive, he must nevertheless take care to satisfy this desire only within the context of real disobedience, lest he abuse the trust of the submissive in his essential goodwill. To punish without wrongdoing is to disregard the inner structure of the relationship created by the rules. What those rules may be is something worked out in the evolution of the relationship. Kneeling at designated times may be a rule or it may be only an occasional command. If the command is not in fact a rule, to punish for not kneeling when no command is given is to disregard the purpose of punishment and to indulge in self-gratification where the consequence can only be to work against the potential growth of the relationship.

A submissive in service to a capricious Dom can never learn how best to serve him except to be the passive object of his unrestrained desire, because any act of real punishment imposed upon her can have no connection with prior disobedience: it will be nothing but another form of control. The problem with this is that punishment is a derivative category contingent upon the concept of obedience. If there is no way to obey, because nothing explicit has been demanded, no punishment can logically be enforced; and because the experience of being punished sets up an aversion to what caused it, if there is no clear cause for the punishment, the aversion will in time simply refer to the presence of the Dom.