RE: Set of rules...

RE: Set of rules... (Full Version)

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

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: Set of rules... (12/4/2008 3:49:31 PM)
quote: It's one-dimensional to believe that the only way of guaranteeing subservience to the rules, is through punishment/discipline post rule breaking. If that was what we were talking about, you would have a point.

alianora -> RE: Set of rules... (12/4/2008 7:03:11 PM)
Personally, I find nothing unrealistic in having rules that govern a relationship. Rules are wonderful things; they teach us responsibility, right from wrong; they give us structure and help us to become acquainted with the consequences of breaking ‘said rules’. For all of those who are belittling the OP for actually taking the time to attempt to write down what he sees as possibilities at a structured relationship; take a minute and write down what you do every day from the minute you wake up, to the minute you go to sleep. Then, take another minute to write down WHY you do each of those things. What you will have is a structured set of rules that you live by. And I can guarantee that your lists will be a lot longer than what this young man has written here. In regards to the OP: What you have written here has the beginnings of a good start at understanding how you would like your relationships to be structured. As many others have stated though, it is almost impossible to adhere to many of the rules that you have written here simply because no two people are ever the same. Add in the fact that relationships are never rigid; they constantly change, flow, and evolve. A better start would be instead to sit down and think about only what you absolutely, NEED in a relationship to be happy and content, within realistic expectations. A good example is for myself, I NEED physical touch in a relationship to be happy and content. This does not mean sex, it simply means that I need to be able to ‘reach out and touch’ at will; sort of like a reminder to myself that someone is actually there. So, if I was a Dominant, I would list this for myself as being ‘submissive/slave must always be ready and accepting of my touch”. Now, when you really look at it though, such a rule for myself or another might be unrealistic when you take into account moods, health, and just life in general. For those in relationships, there comes a time when you begin to understand and correctly interpret the moods of your partner; in other words, you understand when they just want to be left alone; and if you are a ‘good partner’, you will give them this time that they so badly are in need of. This may seem like it automatically breaks the rule that is set; but if you really think about it, it does not. The rule is still there, it has not been broken…it has just become flexible to include that little thing called life. What I am trying to say is keep the rules you set for yourself flexible enough so that when the outside world ( also known as life ) intrudes…and it will….you are able to ‘contort’ the rule around it. Another thing to remember is keep the list of rules ONLY as a reference/outline of possibilities. And always keep in mind that no rule is ever set in stone, nor should it be. Even the ever present rule that is heard so often of ‘ obey’ is flexible enough to include the intrusions of life. I wish you luck with what you have set before yourself; and I commend you for having the guts to come on a public board with it, knowing you would most probably be roasted.

MadRabbit -> RE: Set of rules... (12/4/2008 7:21:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Right. But by setting these rules in stone and saying no exceptions no matter what, he won't get a relationship. Because he's putting the rules before the relationship. What you call having a process in place to deal with times they can't reach you, we call having a tiered set of rules. Meaning if two rules collide one is more important. The problem is it's not entirely a list of rules. It's a mixture of rules and protocol. For me, rules are contigencies for the relationship and protocols are defined behavior, particularly behaviors I like. The only solid rule I have that isn't dependant on the relationship is the one that's at it's core. Obey. Everything else is formed based on what's needed. I don't make arbitary rules like "Call me at 2:45" and go "Okay! These are rules!" Protocol, on the other hand and what I am going to expect from someone as a dominant doesn't change that much. A collar is going to be worn in all my relationships. Responding to me with "yes,sir" remains static. If I have to change my expectations and preferences to get a relationship, then I am not really getting MY relationship or MY submissive.

mc1234 -> RE: Set of rules... (12/4/2008 7:43:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici IMHO to come to the table with predefined rules is stupid, simply stupid. Most rules are to make the Dominant appear to be the Dominant--puhleez, I dont need that. I don't have to beat My chest to ensure I am in charge-each relationship is different, each interaction between two people are different-one's goose is not another's gander. A D/s relationship should not read like something out of the gestapo manifesto. Your rules here, pffftttt, fantasy babe, I'd buy a My size Barbie as they won't break them-the rest--dude its called negotiations or better relationship development--remember IF you have a submissive--they are human too, not a doormat. I've been doing a lot of thinking about this thread today. I had an experience with a prospective Dominant, and it didn't work out. We were suited on many levels, except for one very important one. BUT one of the problems that I see is all the rules he had instilled for any relationship he was in - what I was to wear, bring, where I was to walk when with him, he speaks first to me when we meet, after he inspects my attire, not to talk to the waitress, he'll do it for me; ask prior to drinking my tea or going to the bathroom; we had moved from my calling him Sir to calling him Master today ... and I slipped several times with 'yes, Sir's' rather than 'yes, Master's'; hands behind my back at all times, even when walking. All of this was within a two hour window of time. And he assured me that little slip-ups would be dealt with, but he also told me what the big no-nos were, and that I understood completely. And he assured me that he didn't want me being afraid to make a move in case I screwed up. uh-huh. Well, that's exactly what happened. I felt tongue-tied the first time I addressed him incorrectly. I got more nervous the second time. I found myself almost mute, being the doormat that I abhor. We played in a BDSM manner for awhile ... which became clear to both of us that he was a heavier sadist than I'd had in the past. (seriously, the marks left on me today amaze me, not really in a positive way). But it was once we got into the more sensual play, then I finally felt I was loosening up and becoming myself, and making a stronger connection, feeling like I was on more solid ground and that I felt more free to reveal myself more to him. And it was at that point that I called him 'Sir' again instead of 'Master' which sealed the deal for him and we parted. He said he just wasn't feeling it, and didn't want to take advantage of me by going further, which was fine with me. Even after this negative experience, the funny thing is ... I don't have any problem with his rules. Perhaps giving them out less quickly would allow a slave to react better and give a more positive performance. Rules make me feel secure ... until I find myself feeling like a dolt falling over myself to be walking on the right side or drinking my tea without permission. Another mistake made was his not being clear enough on the extent of his sadism, which is where we were at a mismatch, because he started out with a full 60 stroke lashing with his belt with no warm-up (and I haven't felt pain for several months now). A steady warm-up would have made it much easier for me to cope physically with what he wanted me to. So ... all in all a dissatisfactory and depressing afternoon. And yet, I still can't say that rules are bad. I think it's all in the way it's done, they way they're presented to the submissive, the way they should be adapted for the submissive. And the Dominant should know what his top 3 or 4 rules might be and let her learn those for a time. Don't expect perfectionism right off the bat. But without having the initial set of rules, how is the guy gonna know where he wants to go with a relationship? Edited to add; my conclusion after this experience is simply that we're not made for one another. No one is at fault for it not working out. Sure my feelings were hurt but I'll put my big girl panties on and figure it out quickly enough. Strict adherence to his rules, his ways is something very important to him ... he should find the woman who can perform those for him.

LaTigresse -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 4:18:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Right. But by setting these rules in stone and saying no exceptions no matter what, he won't get a relationship. Because he's putting the rules before the relationship. What you call having a process in place to deal with times they can't reach you, we call having a tiered set of rules. Meaning if two rules collide one is more important. The problem is it's not entirely a list of rules. It's a mixture of rules and protocol. For me, rules are contigencies for the relationship and protocols are defined behavior, particularly behaviors I like. The only solid rule I have that isn't dependant on the relationship is the one that's at it's core. Obey. Everything else is formed based on what's needed. I don't make arbitary rules like "Call me at 2:45" and go "Okay! These are rules!" Protocol, on the other hand and what I am going to expect from someone as a dominant doesn't change that much. A collar is going to be worn in all my relationships. Responding to me with "yes,sir" remains static. If I have to change my expectations and preferences to get a relationship, then I am not really getting MY relationship or MY submissive. MR, you seem to say that you see rules and protocols as two very seperate entities. I am struggling to see the difference. Even when I look both up, the word "rule" is used to help define protocol. Could you explain for me, to help me understand, how you see the two being different? I am struggling here.

Rover -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 5:22:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit The problem is it's not entirely a list of rules. It's a mixture of rules and protocol. *It's not "the" problem (presuming there is* a problem, which there's not if you're into that sort of thing), but you're spot on. John**

persephonee -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 5:33:09 AM)
mc.... Seriously...i completely understand that you are posting this as an example of how too many rules just gives too many opportunities to fail...but krispykrackers....what a tool. i can not believe how much i cant stand that guy....i am not even close to kidding. ...Just sayin.... perse

Rover -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 5:33:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse MR, you seem to say that you see rules and protocols as two very seperate entities. I am struggling to see the difference. Even when I look both up, the word "rule" is used to help define protocol. Could you explain for me, to help me understand, how you see the two being different? I am struggling here. Obviously, I'm not MR and can't reply for him. But I'd like to offer my own two cents on the question. 1. Protocols tend to be far more numerous than rules. As you have read in this thread, the sheer volume of rules listed would have been a deterrent to many who might consider a relationship with this guy. 2. Protocols tend to be taught personally, as a part of training while a relationship deepens, rather than listed in rule format. 3. Protocols tend not to have the same consequences associated with rules (ie: punishment, dissolution, etc.). It's just assumed that when someone is taught how to make a desired cup of coffee, that they're capable of doing it. Mistakes happen, and no one is going to suffer if the coffee is made incorrectly, or has to be made again. But you can't apply the same standard to someone that sleeps around, and breaks the monogamy rule. 4. How well a protocol is learned tends to reflect the quality of the teacher as much as the quality of the student. 5. Protocols tend to be our personal preferences in everyday life. And as the OP exemplifies, you can't legislate the entirety of life. I imagine that MR (and other folks) can come up with additional examples. These were a quick few of my own. John

mc1234 -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 6:05:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: persephonee mc.... Seriously...i completely understand that you are posting this as an example of how too many rules just gives too many opportunities to fail...but krispykrackers....what a tool. i can not believe how much i cant stand that guy....i am not even close to kidding. ...Just sayin.... perse Thanks, perse. I appreciate that - more than you know this morning. I don't want to make the thread all about me. (you have mail on the other side) It was just odd to me how this thread was going on and I'd experienced something very similar and how it all backfired. But I think it was more in the approach rather than in his wanting things structured his way - I'm still not anti-rule. lol

thishereboi -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 7:59:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Good point. And for me a lot depends on the rules themselves. Is there a reason behind them? If I think someone is just making up a bunch of rules so they can feel powerful, without any reasoning behind the rules, then I am going to be less likely to follow them. The thing is, for people who get into high-maintenance, high-protocol, high-management relationships, part of the kick is -being- in that kind of relationship and having those rules, and having that micromanagement... and the rules don't have to be particularly reasonable (though it is, IME, helpful for the rule-maker to have a plan for how the rule will be implemented, how it will be monitored, and what repercussions will be for rules that are broken, as well as the time and energy to follow through). There have been an awful lot of folks dissing the whole idea of high-management, high-protocol, relationships. I can understand if its not your thing, but why bother responding on a thread that is about something you have no interest in, if the only response is "this is stupid and I'd never do it" (which is distinctly not helpful)? I am sorry. I did not realize that only people who loved the idea were supposed to respond. Maybe the OP should have been clearer on that, because when I read it. I seemed like he was asking for everyones opinion.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 8:10:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover 1. Protocols tend to be far more numerous than rules. As you have read in this thread, the sheer volume of rules listed would have been a deterrent to many who might consider a relationship with this guy. John A deterrent against many? So? It would then be a turn on for those who desired it. Considering how many lists of rules are posted all over the internet, it is certainly clear that this is hot for many. So, while you and I agree that at our stage, we tend to look at this stuff differently, it doesn't mean that it isn't hot for others and he only needs one or two women to like it anyway. quote: 3. Protocols tend not to have the same consequences associated with rules (ie: punishment, dissolution, etc.). It's just assumed that when someone is taught how to make a desired cup of coffee, that they're capable of doing it. Mistakes happen, and no one is going to suffer if the coffee is made incorrectly, or has to be made again. But you can't apply the same standard to someone that sleeps around, and breaks the monogamy rule. Really? The guy who loves to twist and turn everything and never met a definition he liked is now going to take a stand on what protocol is verses rules AND how they are each punished/enforced? Sir, your Sophistry is showing...

persephonee -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 8:17:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mc1234 quote: ORIGINAL: persephonee mc.... Seriously...i completely understand that you are posting this as an example of how too many rules just gives too many opportunities to fail...but krispykrackers....what a tool. i can not believe how much i cant stand that guy....i am not even close to kidding. ...Just sayin.... perse Thanks, perse. I appreciate that - more than you know this morning. I don't want to make the thread all about me. (you have mail on the other side) It was just odd to me how this thread was going on and I'd experienced something very similar and how it all backfired. But I think it was more in the approach rather than in his wanting things structured his way - I'm still not anti-rule. lol Oh, i am not anti-rule...im all about the structure...give me discipline or give me death...[8D]

Rover -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 8:20:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Sir, your Sophistry is showing... Michael, not so much as your inability to read "tends" in each of my points, and not to interpret that as some absolute.. Far be it for me to be perceived as making any hard and fast definitions. Given the infinite variability inherent to people and their preferences, I thought it was necessary and appropriate to make generalizations (it's the best that any of us can do). So if you'd like to take issue with my generalizations, please do so for reasons that are legitimate. John

mc1234 -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 8:31:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: persephonee Oh, i am not anti-rule...im all about the structure...give me discipline or give me death...[8D] lol! OK, death may be pushing it just a wee bit. [;)]

MadRabbit -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 8:50:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse MR, you seem to say that you see rules and protocols as two very seperate entities. I am struggling to see the difference. Even when I look both up, the word "rule" is used to help define protocol. Could you explain for me, to help me understand, how you see the two being different? I am struggling here. In a literal sense, they are more or less the same thing. I tend to make a distinction between the two for the purposes of semantics and to highlight differences in structure in a relationship. A rule for me implies a problem. Hence, this is a problem therefore I am going to make a rule that deals with the problem and if the rule is broken, there will be negative consequences. For example, "If you don't shave your legs by 2pm every other day, then you will be punished." That's a rule. Because of the nature of rules, making a long list of rules prior to having a partner is pointless, because the rules are arbitrary. It assumes that there will be a problem with shaving the legs thus the need to create a rule. How does one know if that problem will exist if there isn't a relationship present for the problem to form? It's as arbitrary as creating a rule that says "If you don't breathe regularly, you will be punished." So given that, as many posters have pointed out, rules need to be formed based on the issues that arise with the individual your with in order to deal with them. A protocol on the other hand is just a defined behavior. There is no negative consequences associated with it. It's not a contingency. It's just an established behavior, a personal preference, and an expectation. It's "You will shave your legs on a regular basis." or "You will wear a collar." No consequence associated with it. It's just a behavior that will be expected to be completed in the relationship. The notion that a dominant shouldn't develop protocols prior to having a relationship, because he won't get a relationship does not ring true to me. In fact, by doing so, I would go as far to say that you would be getting a relationship, but not getting a submissive. Given, of course, we are talking about a power based relationship where a person is submitting to the will of another and changing their behavior to meet the standards set forth by the dominant. It doesn't seem so shocking or flawed to me for a dominant to develop personal preferences prior to a relationship that he gasps expects the supposed submissive to conform to and follow. In fact, I think figuring out your personal preferences, expectations, and what exactly you want this person who is going to do whatever you want to do should be figured out before finding a partner. What's also being suggested in this thread bears absolutely no resemblance to any other social relationship that involves authority. When I got hired for my job, they had a predetermined list of protocols I was expected to follow. Shave my bread, keep my hair short, wear a clean uniform, wear a cutting glove while holding a knife, wear an apron, etc, etc. There was no negotiation. I didn't get to sit down and say "Well, geez, I really want a beard, long hair, and to wear my dirty jeans with torn knees to work so you guys will have to change your expectations in order to get this work relationship with me." It was "Do it or don't have a job." If a supposed submissive thinks they should be able to say "Hmm, I want to be with you, but wearing a collar and shaving my legs doesn't really work for me" and expect a dominant to change his preferences and expectations to hers, I would say they are either incredibly naive or looking for the wrong relationship.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 10:20:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Sir, your Sophistry is showing... Michael, not so much as your inability to read "tends" in each of my points, and not to interpret that as some absolute.. Far be it for me to be perceived as making any hard and fast definitions. Given the infinite variability inherent to people and their preferences, I thought it was necessary and appropriate to make generalizations (it's the best that any of us can do). So if you'd like to take issue with my generalizations, please do so for reasons that are legitimate. John Oh but you take such joy in other people's generalizations, you love seeing them as absolutes. Clearly you see yours as special and worthy of respect, unlike theirs. Just thought I would hold up the mirror with the hope you might see the hypocricy there but perhaps not.

kyraofMists -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 10:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse MR, you seem to say that you see rules and protocols as two very seperate entities. I am struggling to see the difference. Even when I look both up, the word "rule" is used to help define protocol. Could you explain for me, to help me understand, how you see the two being different? I am struggling here. Our perspective of the differences between the two... A rule tells me what I can and cannot do. Protocol tells me how I am to do something. As an example, the rule is that I cannot sleep in his bed without permission. The protocol defines what behavior is acceptable in order to get permission. Violating that protocol is liable to get me sleeping on the floor, so for us there are negative consequences for not following the proper protocol. Knight's Kyra

LaTigresse -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 11:14:07 AM)
Okay, I think I am beginning to see how some view the difference. Since protocol is viewed more as a positive action (what I am supposed to do and how), and rules are viewed by some more as a restriction (for lack of better word in my sleep deprived brain) therefor seen as a negative by some. Which perhaps, is why the idea of rules brings a more negative response. I am just floating a few brain processes out here, trying to figure out how others see it and why the more negative response to rules rather than protocol.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 12:51:36 PM)
Actually, protocols get a pretty bad rap, too. It still seems weird to me that, in a community so heavily vested in relationships where one person has the authority and the other yields to that authority, so many people would have so many issues with being told what to do and how to do it, but shrugs... My take on this is that rules are the things I set down about what I want to happen. Protocols are the -way- I want things to happen. There are some things we have rules for, but no protocols (ie, as long as this gets done, I don't care how you do it). There are other things that we have protocols for, but no specific rules (ie., here are the options for handling this group of situations). There are other things that have both rules -and- protocols (ie; these are the terms by which you may address us. These are protocols of address for when we are alone, when we have company, and when we are in public..., and this is how we expect to be greeted and for you to ask to be excused.) Of course, most of life goes by without any formal protocols -or- specific rules, but I tend to be more rule/protocol oriented than not.

Rover -> RE: Set of rules... (12/5/2008 3:47:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Oh but you take such joy in other people's generalizations, you love seeing them as absolutes. Clearly you see yours as special and worthy of respect, unlike theirs. Just thought I would hold up the mirror with the hope you might see the hypocricy there but perhaps not. Michael, I sincerely do not believe that I portray other people's generalizations as absolutes, though if you're able to provide specific examples (quotes, please) then I not only will stand corrected, I'll make a public apology for having done so. I'm not perfect, so it would be sophistry (I knew you'd like that) to say that I could not have been in error in this regard. If I did so, I was wrong for doing so. No hypocrisy there. And I presume that in the absence of that evidence, you'll provide the same public apology to me for making this public accusation. It seems only fair. Anxiously awaiting your reply. John

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625