quote:

ORIGINAL: Lewcifer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark
Not all marriage is indicated with a ring.   I know at least two couples who use a collar.

Citing minority exceptions does not change the norm.  The normative and traditional practice is to indicate marriage through use of a wedding ring (symbolism).  If you disagree with this statement in any way, please state Y/your evidence (beyond knowing two or more couples who don't use rings in the traditional sense) in support of a different majority representing the norm.

Some people are married to more than one, depending on their religion.

Not legally, they're not.  My original words were very clear and concise... "legally enforceable financial responsibility."
Explain how someone with an invalid legal marriage (poly) has created "legally enforceable financial responsibility" through the use of marriage (don't quote wills or trust papers, which separate instruments and not germane to the discussion at hand).

Even if your not legally married, if you have legal papers indicating wills etc, then people can be 'covered'.

The discussion isn't about wills, trusts or other testamentary inter-vivos documents.  My argument stands... a collaring does not create any legally enforceable financial responsibility.  A marriage, on the other hand, does - in and of itself.

Depends entirely who you are with as to what 'the norm' is.

Wrong.  The norm can be computed statistically, with a valid sample size.  It has no bearing on "who you are with."

Generalisations rarely work - if you want to restrict yourself to them, good for you.  Black and white in the world - like perfection - just doesn't exist - thank the godz.

Generalizations which cite normative values (and thus support the norm at the expense of the exception) are prefectly fine.  Counter-arguments based on citing the exception rather than the norm rarely work, and are easily defused.  The law, when it comes to instilling certain enforceable legal rights on the parties, is black-and-white.  The legal ramifications of collaring (of which none exist) are also black-and-white.  To prove this point, do Y/you have any doubt that collaring, in and of itself, does not convey legally enforceable rights?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lewcifer

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
Usually when people say "Nice try though!", its a clear sign that they think I am out to discredit what they are saying. I was simply clarifying that I wasnt.

Generally, when someone disagrees and responds, they do so to enforce their own point of view and discredit the other's.  There's nothing wrong with that, per-se... unless the response contains ad-hominem attacks (which they did not).

I can have the equivalent of a wedding right now. I can spend all the money, invite all my friends and family, and go threw all the steps. But without that legal document at the end, the wedding and the marriage created by it is not any different than whats created by a collaring ceremony. The marriage presented here doesnt create anymore binding legal obligations then the collaring.

Y/you can have the equivalent of a wedding... but not a marriage.  In the above statement, Y/you seem to use the terms interchangeably ("wedding... marriage").  Perhaps you're not aware of the commonly accepted definition of marriage:

marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

The fact that you can stage a wedding ceremony is immaterial.  You cannot stage a marriage without entering into a contractual relationship recognized by law, and thus are afforded certain legal protections per-se.

I can have a collaring ceremony, I can "collar" my slave, I can create a collar that has as much binding legality as the wedding ring does because at the end, I have the documents needed to do it. Whether the state calls it a "marriage" or I call it "being collared" makes little difference. A can of Coke is still a can of Coke.

Exactly... a can of Coke is still a can of Coke.  Y/you, however, choose to call it something else for some reason.  If Y/your collaring results in the issuing of a marriage certificate by the state, it is a marriage regardless of how you've chosen to describe it.  The symbol used (ring, collar, petrified feces) is immaterial and not germane to the discussion.  It is still a marriage, just as "a can of Coke is still a can of Coke."  I guarantee Y/you the state-issued marriage certificate will not say "collaring certificate."

It personally doesnt matter what the norm chooses to call it and how they choose to conduct the ceremony.

Perhaps Y/you're right - and the reason W/we're arguing is because normative values or commonly accepted definitions really aren't important to Y/you.  It is nearly impossible to communicate with someone whose definition (and thus interpretation) of commonly accepted words conforms to no standard except their own, much less so when they don't even care what words really mean.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaamJay

... it would be damned hard to argue that a collar, as physical/emotional evidence of a power exchange relationship, wasn't credible evidence of that level of commitment!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefertariReborn

And that My dear MR was a veiled ad hominem attack at the end if I ever saw one. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefertariReborn
And that My dear MadRabbit was a veiled ad hominem attack at the end if I ever saw one. 

Any veiled attacks made by either of us was from miscommunication regarding our viewpoints.
He was using normative values to try and communicate the significance of a relationship that had legal obligations versus one that doesnt.
I was saying that the normative values dont equate to a relationship with legal obligations and are only linked by association.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefertariReborn

And that My dear MR was a veiled ad hominem attack at the end if I ever saw one. 

Any veiled attacks made by either of us was from miscommunication regarding our viewpoints.

He was using normative values to try and communicate the significance of a relationship that had legal obligations versus one that doesnt.

I was saying that the normative values dont equate to a relationship with legal obligations and are only linked by association.

People argueing with him and Rover seem mostly caught up on the "Collar vs Wedding Ring" thing....that one is less significant then the other as a symbol. They arent really saying that...they are focusing on the legal obligations that just so happen to be associated with one symbol.

Both of them have aggressive debate tactics and I can easily understand how they can ruffle a few feathers, but...they are far more productive than some of the debate tactics used by other people around here.

Try having a discussion with your fellow Aussie citizen Focus50 sometime if you want to see unproductive and pointless.

You know...I'm kind of starting to think its an Australian thing to keep reciting the same viewpoint over and over again without amending it in like of new information and other viewpoints being presented.

The points they are trying to make and express are valid and important. In the United States...where a lot of us live...you cant equate a relationship with legal obligations to a relationship without them...regardless of how much we dislike the fact that our personal symbols arent socially associated with those obligations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDsbabygirl

I am fairly new to this and fell into it quite by accident; my Dom and I met as just friends in a vanilla world but after a while we fell into a romantic relationship. As he has been into BDSM for most of his adult life, he recognized certain qualities in me and we have been greatly enjoying exploring those traits.
 
Now, this is where it gets more complex; outside of sex, we are basically equals. It's in me to defer to him on certain things and that's how I did it in my two vanilla marriages so I don't think of that as being a sub, especially since I actually abhor being told what to do and can only suspend that hatred for the bedroom.
 
I went into this long preface so you can see my mindset; I think as a vanilla person except in the bed.
 
Now, my Dom wants to collar me and while I thrill at just the idea of such a thing, there's the vanilla part of me that wonders why HE doesn't have something to show he's "taken"; the last time I was married, I actually stopped wearing my wedding ring because my husband wouldn't wear his and I didn't want to be the only one 'marked'.

How do I get over this desire to feel equal in terms of showing the world who belongs to whom? I am actually looking forward to being collared but I don't want it ruined because I resent that he has no 'mark' other than hickies (!)

Thank you to all who respond.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD

Personally, I feel the OP needs a better understanding of collars and their use.  Most subs beg for a collar. 

Regards, MissSCD

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

You are note equals. You are complamentary but not equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardnRuff

A collar IS the signifigance of a wedding ring.

quote:

A collared sub becomes untouchable unless her Dom/ Master gives His permission.

quote:

A collar is not just a piece of jewelry that comes off.. I prefer a locking collar that Only I have a key to and one for her for emergencies only..

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

You are note equals. You are complamentary but not equal.

Unless the OP has a dominant like mine. Then she may very well be his equal, save that her role is different. My role is to obey, but I am his equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover


But equal does not mean identical.  While they are equal roles, they are obviously not identical.  Something akin to a pound of steel and a pound of feathers being equal, but just as obviously not identical.
 
John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

Unless the OP has a dominant like mine. Then she may very well be his equal, save that her role is different. My role is to obey, but I am his equal.

I like to think of Dominant and submissive as equal partners in a balanced relationship (ie: one cannot take more than the other is willing/able to give, and one cannot give more than the other is willing/able to take).