RE: "Under Consideration"

RE: "Under Consideration" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

dawntreader -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 10:57:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: So what would be the vanilla equivalent of "under consideration"? dating Thanks, you validated the term "under consideration" :-)

szobras -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 10:59:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinksugarsub What does the phrase "under consideration" mean to Y/you? Simply for me, it means that I feel we have reached a point that I have thought about, and desire to pursue a mutual committment on some agreed level. For me, it is something that happens during the process of getting to know someone, and when it does I need to communicate that feeling openly and clearly. I need to know if she feels the same, talk about it, and come to an understanding of what it means to both of us together.

KatyLied -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:00:35 AM)
quote: Thanks, you validated the term "under consideration" :-) Um, no I did the complete opposite. Why use a special term when one that everyone understands works as well?

dawntreader -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:14:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: Thanks, you validated the term "under consideration" :-) Um, no I did the complete opposite. Why use a special term when one that everyone understands works as well? Because when we are determining compatibility in BDSM it is a bit different than the vanilla world. Many terms are different based on the activities. One can certainly date a Dominate to determine compatibility, but much of what i do "under consideration" while equivalent in theory to a vanilla in seeking a longterm relationship, is far different in terms of actions and thoughts. So to me, "under consideration" is equivalent to dating but different enough to require another word from its vanilla counterpart. Why should the term be met with so much hostility? And when i said above that you validated the term, you did by equating it with a perfectly acceptable process :-) And ofcourse, it goes back to tolerance of others and the relinquishing of "my way is the right way" of thinking

KatyLied -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:22:26 AM)
quote: Why should the term be met with so much hostility? I don't think it's hostility as much as "why is it necessary"? It certainly isn't for me. And obviously for many others as well. If couples need it to feel secure, it's good that they have something that works for them. If someone approached me and wanted to put me "under consideration", I would shrug and say "no thanks."

dawntreader -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:29:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied I don't think it's hostility as much as "why is it necessary"? It certainly isn't for me. And obviously for many others as well. i can understand this term is not for anyone, but as to why the difference - i go back to my above post - it is the realm we are in - and it is not vanilla. i suppose if we took this farther we could question the terms : owned or collared - why not just engaged or married? They are not the same as their vanilla equivalents but they hold similar power and commitment and are certainly more accepted~

MadRabbit -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:32:36 AM)
Well, for one, dating tends to imply romantic involvement and that isnt always the case when it comes to service based relationships. I make the analogy to it being dating, because for me and what I want, it essentially is. We're on a very vanilla level and the authority transfer is on a very casual level. I am in that stage at the moment with someone and its not very different from dating. I might have a task that I am not asking her, but telling her to see how she reacts or have a simple little protocol to see how enthusiatic she is, how well she keeps up with it, how often I have to correct her, and how motivated she is in being sucessful of the requirement. I'm testing the water and getting an idea of what I am in for and how compatible we are for a relationship. However, some people I have met, when they say "under consideration", it has very little connection to dating at all. Essentially, the person is being considered for how suitable they will be as a domestic servant in the person's household.

KatyLied -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:35:34 AM)
In that sense I can understand it, and I know that a lot of people are providing service and not in what I would consider a "relationship." I'm definitely looking for more of a dom as boyfriend relationship as opposed to an ownership arrangement.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:42:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HenryIX For a while I've held -- and voiced in private -- quite strong views on this topic. Nothing so far posted on this thread even begins to dissuade me from them. As a Mentor, I always advise a sub as follows If a soi-disant Dom wants you to post "Under Consideration" in your profile, I have two pieces of advice. You should do both of them. Rule One: insist that he do the same. Rule Two: mention his ID in your profile, so that others can check that he is following Rule One. This simply follows a principle that has always been central to my own credo. If I may, I'll quote it from my profile at another site. My question would be- Why are they choosing to be considered by someone they can't trust? I certainly agree that it just makes good sense to post in a profile whether you are under consideration or considering someone else- but I wouldn't make a rule over it. If the other person doesn't want to do it...well that says all I need to know about the whole consideration thing right there.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:44:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dawntreader One can certainly date a Dominate to determine compatibility, Dominant. And no, it isn't a vanilla relationship. But it does require mutual consent, JUST LIKE vanilla relationships do. Because of this, the actual process is exactly the same. Just like the whole question of "Who asks to be collared?" Since everyone involved has to say yes at some point no matter what, who actually asks is just a matter of personal preference. Use whatever jargon you want and it's fine, but understand the feedback you will get about your chosen term.

LadyHugs -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:44:54 AM)
Dear KatyLied, Ladies and Gentlemen; In regard to "Under Consideration" -- you stated in part, that it is not for you --which is fine really. Yet, you asked why is it necessary. In my mind's eyes I see, there has always been a need to divide "us" from "them." Different words used in different circles, is a discrete manner to identify the lifestyle culture and where we may be in that level of culture that is not 'vanilla.' It really has been a pleasant realization, when individuals listen to my presentations and or holding conversations with me; they can pretty much identify the time I was in the scene, as well as my level at the time and the area of which I was in at that time. There are unique levels in time where different protocols, manners and behaviors were used and became popular. Even those protocols rarely used, a keen individual or a person from that period can immediately identify a kindred spirit. A collar of consideration had it's purpose in my salad days. If those who choose to be out of fashioned and wish to use said steps--I have no disputes. It was used successfully for years. It even bled into the Heterosexual culture in the 1980's. It provided a function. Although a person may not choose to use it, that is fine but; those who wish to use such more refined protocols of the past, should be given respect for their choices as well. Each must do what is right for them. Those who are so eager to be collared, the consideration collar might be worth another look, where it is a stage where removing it does no harm and progressing to a training collar, as to move in time into a slave collar, those who follow a collar protocol of times past may feel more meaning to each collaring stage. Again, each couple must do what is right for them. Just some thoughts. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

KatyLied -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:52:48 AM)
I think my approach to the lifestyle is probably different than most. I consider myself reality-based. My life is full, kink and submission is one part of it, but not always the most important part. That is one reason why I'd prefer to have a relationship first, without having to worry about collars and protocols. I've always been more of a "let things develop as they are meant to (or not meant to)" without forcing things or contriving artificial means to hold on to them. That's how I think, and I know that's not the usual throught process. But I sort of pride myself in being different. [;)]

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:56:00 AM)
'Under the Protection of ' ..under protection from what? I believe in " in mentorship"to coin a new word. would be more to the point,collar of consideration just seems so bland and leaves so many interpretation of the word,of courses just this ol'masters views

KatyLied -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:58:51 AM)
quote: 'Under the Protection of ' Don't even get me started on that one!

dawntreader -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 11:59:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: dawntreader One can certainly date a Dominate to determine compatibility, Dominant. Thanks :-) i knew eventually i would type so fast i misspelled that word!

BoiJen -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 12:00:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinksugarsub What does the phrase "under consideration" mean to Y/you? Do Y/you think it's like an engagement ring for a collar? How should the P/parties involved deal with third persons who don't know about the "under consideration" O/other? Is "under consideration" a two way street between the Dom/me and the subbie or slave? My view and my view only...I didn't use the terms "under consideration" and I still don't. I don't use it for a collar or whatever. However, I did use the terms "under contract negotiation" Since then, we've decided not to go forward with contract because we communicate so fluidly that there isn't the feel that one is needed. When "under consideration" one is already entered into a relationship...the depth of the relationship is what's being considered. For me collars are collars are collars. A collar is a sign of ownership to me...and frankly it's none of my business the depth of that ownership. It's not my relationship. Ownership is shown in a variety of ways. One might get pierced instead of "formally collared" whichever suits the individuals involved. If you mean "other parties" being a Dominant or submissive who approaches the "considered" individual involved, I think honesty is the best approach. "No, thank you. I'm involved" works well. It keeps a certain air of proper manner and it says a clear "no" in there too. As for the term engagement ring....that's a stretch. D/s relationships were not traditionally romantically based. So a comparison to marriage is an inacurate one. My opinion there. And finally, considering a Dominant...hmmm...well frankly the person who has something to prove is the submissive. The person giving the service. The person who is supposed to show the effort not protect the effort. One doesn't make an approach to a Dominant out of the blue...there has to be something that attracts them about that individual. And THAT is what the intiation is. I just don't tend to think too much of Dominants who chase afetr bottoms anyways so my own feelings come into that. And with that there's my opinion take it leave it throw it in the trash I don't care. Be safe. The Boi

BoiJen -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 12:03:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Well, for one, dating tends to imply romantic involvement and that isnt always the case when it comes to service based relationships. Thank you..I don't "date" the woman I serve. I don't want romance with her. Sex is fine...love is cool in a non-romantic way...but frankly I've got more important things to deal with than my girlfriend drama. So definatly a big reason to have a different set of terms. The Boi

BoiJen -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 12:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER 'Under the Protection of ' ..under protection from what? I believe in " in mentorship"to coin a new word. would be more to the point,collar of consideration just seems so bland and leaves so many interpretation of the word,of courses just this ol'masters views Mentorship to me is totally different. That comes from a place of peership ad equality. D/s relationships are balanced but not equal. And D/s situations are relationships not always romantic but that doesn't negate the fact that they are relationships.

LaTigresse -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 12:10:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pinksugarsub What does the phrase "under consideration" mean to Y/you? Do Y/you think it's like an engagement ring for a collar? How should the P/parties involved deal with third persons who don't know about the "under consideration" O/other? Is "under consideration" a two way street between the Dom/me and the subbie or slave? I see it as, yet another, internet relationship thing.

softness -> RE: "Under Consideration" (5/16/2007 12:11:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen And finally, considering a Dominant...hmmm...well frankly the person who has something to prove is the submissive. The person giving the service. The person who is supposed to show the effort not protect the effort. One doesn't make an approach to a Dominant out of the blue...there has to be something that attracts them about that individual. And THAT is what the intiation is. I just don't tend to think too much of Dominants who chase afetr bottoms anyways so my own feelings come into that. IMO the Dominant has just as much to "prove" as the submissive. I am taking this to mean that one party must demonstrate by evident action their validity and integrity to the other party. When I have in the past started out on new relationships or got to know a D, there is just as much time spent in me stepping back and examining their actions as them doing the same to mine. It takes time to be able to take someone at their word, and that is as a result of examining and evaluating their action. As a slave i can only trust and respect a D because they have demonstrated that trust and respect given them is not misplaced, their actions have shown them worthy of respect and trust

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625