RE: Someone elses rules

RE: Someone elses rules (Full Version)

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

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 8:56:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: antipode The other thing is that I personally only deal with the person I want to speak to. If the two of you, for instance, have whatever arrangement between you about who asks what of whom, that's between the two of you, does not involve me in any way, shape or form. I want to talk to A. so I have to explain to B. why I want to talk to A? Pfff. That is at best torturous, at worst a ritual. And in my view, a ritual that doesn't do anything,. My sub wants to talk to someone? Talk. My sub wants to tell me about it? Talk. Not? I got plenty of stuff to do. I don't want to read her email, either. There's part of this that I don't really understand. It seems to me that, when interacting with other people, it is courteous to respect their personal rules and boundaries, and a horrible waste of potential to discard a person because one does not agree with that person's particular idiosyncrasies surrounding communication. I was raised with "When in Rome, do as the Romans.", so if I'm communicating with someone involved in WIITWD, it makes perfect sense to me to be courteous when that person says "I would love to talk with you, but you'll have to speak with my Keeper first." Why is that so hard? What does it strain us to be gracious about respecting the subtleties of another person's life. I would hope that people would be willing to do so where -my- boundaries were concerned, so why should I get all "high and mighty" about not wanting to jump through someone else's 'boundary hoops'? Good manners and reasonable courtesy, apparently, are a long lost art.

VampiresLair -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 9:00:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Evility quote: ORIGINAL: VampiresLair They get tired of it and tell him they dont like dealing with "someone else's rules". I really don't understand what you do not understand about this. They asked for permission, engaged him in conversation and tired of the boundaries so they moved on. Does asking for permission to talk to him somehow obligate them to continue talking with him for all eternity? They ask permission and they get offended he has rules. Thats what I dont get. Not that they get tired of the boundaries. Honestly, if you are really that interested in trying to cross his only 2 rules then I dont want him talking to you that much anyway. Like I said, there are only 2 rules. No talking about his specifics of his training and no talking about our sexlife. So, maybe my problem is why do so many people have the burning desire to hear about such things to the point of badgering him and then telling him they are tired of dealing wiht my rules? I could easily understand it if there were a ton of rules. Even a handful that were inconvenient. But there are 2

VampiresLair -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 9:11:22 AM)
To the many that ask, yes, when people contact me for permission to chat with him on messenger, I do tell them he has the 2 rules. Nothing other than that. He has to ask to chat with them if he is doing so when I am home, but thats just courtesy not really a conversational point. He is not allowed to talk about our sex life and he isnt allowed to discuss the specifics of his training. I dont know about anyone else, but I have had conversations on here and off with people for YEARS without ever asking them about those 2 things. If you are contacting someone as a "friend", and it is someone you do not know well yet, why on earth would those topics come up? He has chatted with some of them for weeks, then they slip in one question about hs training and he says he sint permitted to discuss it. Then, after one answer no, they say they are tired of all his rules. I am probably preaching to the choir here, I realize that. Honestly, how many of us here would bring those 2 things up if we were talking to someone as a friend, but early in the friendship? Just like it would be innapropriate to ask intimate details of him about me, i feel the same holds to his training and our sex life. The rules were agreed upon between us, so he doesnt have to justify himself in conversations. He is the type that is too giving sometimes, and with enough encouragement might divulge the information were it not something I ruled out.

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 9:22:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DiurnalVampire We both agree that hypothetical situatons about his service to others is innapropriate. In general, I don't disagree at all with your assessment and I have no idea why people would take issue with your rules if their motives were pure. That said, I can see how refusal to anser a question about his hypothetical service could be frustrating and, ultimately, stand in the way of otherwise platonic conversation. If I were to ask, for example, how Fox might react if he were in service to me and I did or said X or how he would like me to respond to Y situation, it's not necessarily a poaching expedition on my part. Chances are far greater that I'm asking for his POV as a submissive and that I'm only interested in his reply in that context. Not because I have any ulterior motives. If he refused based on your rules for him, then I might find that irritating. If I were required to contact you prior to asking the question or receiving the answer, that would be more trouble than the answer is worth. A pleasant exchange has just come to a screeching halt. I can see how inflexibility for that rule could be a stumbling block in a conversation. However, I rather doubt that's the case with the majority of the "problem children" you've encountered. I would certainly never suggest you amend a rule that's working for both of you.

antipode -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 9:58:05 AM)
quote: it is courteous to respect their personal rules and boundaries I do. I will not accept them involving a third party, who is not in any way part and parcel of what I am looking for. This is not meant in an disrespectful way, I just don't ever do anything that I think is silly or stupid, whether or not the other person insists I do. I can be mercenary, and say I see no reason why they cannot respect my rules. This is one. They want to enforce theirs, they can walk away. And if they have other people in their life they want to discuss me or my advances with, that's fine with me. Doesn't mean I have to.

DiurnalVampire -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 10:05:18 AM)
I respect your position Antipode, and you would not have issues with Fox becasue you would never get to the point of asking me for permission. I have no problem with that, nor does he. There are quite a few who do not wish to be bothered with that step. In response to Sylvere, a hypotetical where you ask him "If I were dominating you and you disobeyed this way, do you think X punishment would be appropriate" is not what I would consider hypotetical service situation. You are not asking him what he would do for you if he were serving you at the time. They hypoteticals are wank fodder, and he knows how to spot wank material as opposed to actual curiosity. There is a huge difference in the two, and one i find completely innaproprite, the other is just fine. This is why he knows his rules. He can make the judgement for what does and doesnt fall under them. If you ask him, for instance, if he and I have ever had sex in a certain position, he can answer yes or no. However, if you go on and dig for details, he will say he is not permitted to discuss them. The rules are a basis, I trust his judgement beyond that. DV

thetammyjo -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 10:12:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VampiresLair He has chatted with some of them for weeks, then they slip in one question about hs training and he says he sint permitted to discuss it. Then, after one answer no, they say they are tired of all his rules. Ah, now I have a theory. After a few weeks they may feel more like friends and with their friends they may share these sorts of information. When the rules are brought to their attention again two things may be happening. First, they feel foolish for not remembering. Second, they feel foolish for thinking that they had the type of friendship with your Fox that they are used to having with others. Either way they attempt to counter this feeling by attacking. I think their feelings makes sense and so does their reaction even if it isn't the most mature or positive.

beargonewild -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 2:38:19 PM)
~FR~ I may be looking at this completely skewed and off since 100 % of the time when I am talking with a person through here or on IM it is solely to continue a type of friendship which is completely above board. This also applies to if they are owned or not. Granted, if they do have ground rules to what topics are taboo to discuss, I do abide by their wishes and that is a line I do highly respect.

IronBear -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 4:34:39 PM)
quote: bullshit quote: ORIGINAL: antipode quote: it is courteous to respect their personal rules and boundaries I do. I will not accept them involving a third party, who is not in any way part and parcel of what I am looking for. This is not meant in an disrespectful way, I just don't ever do anything that I think is silly or stupid, whether or not the other person insists I do. I can be mercenary, and say I see no reason why they cannot respect my rules. This is one. They want to enforce theirs, they can walk away. And if they have other people in their life they want to discuss me or my advances with, that's fine with me. Doesn't mean I have to. I respect your views antipode, although we shall I believe have to agree to disagree. My protocols are bassed in aristocratic tradition which generally means not a jot in the colonies and ex-colonies, but which do mean a great deal not just to me or my extended family but to my wider family including aunts and uncles and sub clan chiefs. I simply see it as a matter of good manners if soimeone wants to talk with my property they ask me first and I will advise them of any restrictions I have imposed if applicable similar as if that person wants to borfrow a took of boat of mine or to either cross my land or have a picnic on it afrer mushrooming. Slaves like my guns, bows and a myriad of medieval working weapons, dogs cars boats, buildings on my land and my land are all my property I require by common curtesy, good manners and common law require my approval before being used even as a conversation partner. It is one rule in which I am inflexable and defend with generations of both common and crown law (which applies to servants and bonded persons) supporting me in this. In my book, those who can not accept that I have the final say and make the decisions regarding my property including slaves, probably are better off voiding Bruin Cottage and its occupants.

candystripper -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 4:40:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper We've got to 'step foot inside a real meeting, munch or demo' or else we're fakes? Huh. I guess I missed that bulletin. Shucks. candystripper [sm=pole.gif] Not what I said or what I meant to imply. Since you mistook what I said, I obviously didn't say it well enough. Let me try again. What I DID mean to imply is that, for the vast majority of people, where they learn the rules is online...and these rules sometimes aren't the rules we learn offline...such as those about how to respectfully interact with the Dominants and Owners of subs and slaves we wish to speak to. What I DID mean to imply is that the vast majority of people who are online, and online only, are here because they like to role play online. "Vast majority" does not mean "all". It leaves room for the exceptions such as yourself and others (who are probably active on the boards). You know that I avoid make sweeping generalizations; they are simply rarely true. Master Fire Yr quite right, Master Fire. I enjoy reading your posts -- and I did 'misheard' what you had said. Thanks. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

antipode -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 5:41:56 PM)
quote: My protocols are bassed in aristocratic tradition Puhleeze. I am Dutch, my bloodline traces back to 1463, according to the cousin who spends his time researching these things. I am awash in Count and Countess relatives, and they made me spend my summers in Cambridge when I was in high school. It is kind of rich invoking the former colonial status of the Americas - from a Commonwealth country. I feel a loud "duh" coming on.

DisenchantedLife -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/4/2008 6:00:01 PM)
DV Its simple. Everyone wants what they want when they want it. They're just throwing tantrums

JustDarkness -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/5/2008 1:58:55 AM)
I respect peoples rules....and I want them to respect mine (if I have them..lol) One I do hate is when Dom(mes) forbid their subs/slaves to talk anymore to their male friends. My god...I hate that shit rule. Shows so much their weakness. (But it is up to them, the subs/slaves, to decide to accept it. Else I guess...they weren't friends afther all)

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Someone elses rules (11/5/2008 7:24:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: antipode quote: My protocols are bassed in aristocratic tradition Puhleeze. I am Dutch, my bloodline traces back to 1463, according to the cousin who spends his time researching these things. I am awash in Count and Countess relatives, and they made me spend my summers in Cambridge when I was in high school. It is kind of rich invoking the former colonial status of the Americas - from a Commonwealth country. I feel a loud "duh" coming on. Spurious argument, antipode... you are choosing -not- to make use of aristocratic tradition in your relationship... which is fine, but declaring that IronBear's traditions are BS, just because -you- are not choosing to uphold the aristocratic protocols of your own history is nothing more than a distraction. Whether or not you choose to use your own aristocratic history with its protocols as a resource for your relationships is irrelevant in IronBear's use and acceptance of these protocols, and, in fact, you prove his point in showing the general disdain currently in place regarding the manners and protocols of aristocracy, even for those who -do- have aristocratic history behind them. (This brings me to mind of those 'rescue' places -- the places that save the cast-off and abused beasties -- I think I will be an "Aristocratic Protocol Rescue" person... chuckles ...rescuing the forgotten manners and protocols of prior years and nursing them back to health-in-culture.)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875