quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
I haven't experienced such a scenario personally nor does it appeal to me in thought.  It seems as if there would be a push-pull and inevitably conflicts in terms of pleasing one over the other would arise.  Also, very few people are able to relate with multiple partners sans jealousy, so I see that being a particular concern in the kind of scenario of which you speak.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
I haven't experienced such a scenario personally nor does it appeal to me in thought.  It seems as if there would be a push-pull and inevitably conflicts in terms of pleasing one over the other would arise.  Also, very few people are able to relate with multiple partners sans jealousy, so I see that being a particular concern in the kind of scenario of which you speak.

confused now.

Aren't you both poly and switch Davan? I would've thought that such a scenario was well within your list of potentials.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
confused now. Aren't you both poly and switch Davan? I would've thought that such a scenario was well within your list of potentials.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
Are you pickin' on me, Jeff or are you being serious?  :>  Indeed, I am poly- and switch but serving 2 Masters...aaaack!  I'm good but that just tweaks me, not in a good way. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
I'm trying to ponder this as if you're seriously questioning the veracity of my balking at the scenario personally in light of the afore-mentioned descriptors.  Going to view this within the context of the poly- circumstance in which I loved both of the males with whom I was involved.  One, no dynamics (But, my husband, so defaulted to my inclination to serve him as much as possible), one me on the D-side.  There were still instances when their wants and needs came into conflict.  Did I do my bestest to do what needed doing for each of them, you betcha.  It made me happy to have my boys happy.  Is it possible that things could have come to some sort of solidity and lack of push or pull between them, possibly.  Not likely.  Jealousy, possession, inherent competition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
See, the whole poly thing, while an identifier for me isn't an inherently a necessity, it is what is: I have loved more than one simultaneously, thus, part of who I am.  The switch piece, I think you can see evidenced rather well above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
Now, could I share someone on the s-side of the kneel with one of my partners (This is a hypothetical, as I do not have a partner, let alone partners at this moment) where my partner and I behaved in a D-fashion toward them.  Sure.  I don't have any sort of negative visceral reaction at all to that.  I see an equality or stratification as being easy. 
It's the whole being pulled in multiple directions thing along with the formality of those pulls being called Master (Which is a very significant designation in my Universe) that squicks me here.  Master, in my most natural interpretation equals husband, so if I had 2 Masters, 2 husbands vying formy service, I feel like it would inherently come into conflict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael
I feel like the situation would inherently set me up to fall short in my service and I find that a highly displeasurable thought.  In the situation noted above, I don't feel as if I could do right by my boys all of the time (And, you may argue that this is me taking on responsibility that I do not own, Jeff).

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527Ahhh, of course. I had forgotten that some of your past efforts in this space were two doms who were not operating as a team. Yeah, that'd be hellish. I was actually pondering this in light of our upcoming new living situation in which two doms will each have 1.5 subs -- I laughingly refer to Carol as "mine" and the other girl as "half mine". The differrence in this situation is that myself and the other dom are consciously acting as a unit and, if push comes to shove, there is still a clear hierarchy between us for each sub in question.

****Well, they weren't 2 Doms in the identified sense, in fact, in D/s parlance, one would have acknowledged me as Domme.  What is the case with those two is my love for each and dedication to them.  Stratifying wasn't easy there because, in truth, I viewed them more as dual primaries. 
Stratification, as we discussed, is, I think a major point.  Where there exists stratification, it's easier to have those distinctions of his wishes come first, his wishes come second.  Hierarchy, I think makes it easier. 

quote:

*nods* I had thought that with all that flexibilty, there'd be virtually nothing that wasn't at least potentially within your scope. Again, I'd forgotten about the bad experiences you'd had and agree that without the doms in question consciously coordinating and some sort of conflict resolution strategy in place, it'd be a disaster.

****Thank you for the nods to my flexibility and, in theory, you're right but in practice, if everyone's not in synergy, it's not nearly so neat and tidy.  I would contend that most choose not to be in that level of synergy.  

.

see above I certainly hope not at least for my own personal setup. But then again, we've given it a bit more thought that the situations you were previously in. 

****I hope that things work out well for your set-up too!  :>  Have given it more thought than I gave mine?  Lol, Jeff, you know me better than that: I think about anything that matters to me waaaaaaay too much.  Thing is, all of the thought in the world doesn't help when people are hell-bent on their own agendas or their own feelings to the exclusion of other things and other people. 

quote:


Why would I argue that? EVERYONE owns the responsibility for pleasing their partner. Failure to deliver on that responsibility is called "divorce". It hardly matters if it's vanilla or some other relationship type. The penalty for failing to provide for your partner's needs and at least a good whack out of his/her wants is going to end the relationship so who's "responsiblity" it is doesn't much matter. I would say, however, that the situation doesn't necessarily enforce failure. It would be the two dominants who make this successful or not. If they end up having a unified leadership stance, then no worries and the redundancy is a wonderful thing. If not, then you're fears materialize and it becomes unworkable. Or, at least, I hope for the sake of me and those I care about that it can be done reasonably.
~Jeff

****I was thinking you may tell me I was taking on more responsibility than was simply mine in that scenario.  Divorce indeed.  I agree that when a partner ceases to care about their partner's needs and for meeting them as a partner should, that's pretty much the end (If they're practical and don't bleed it out ad nauseam). 
Agreed, actually, that the situation isn't inherently set to fail but that the parties involved must see to it to succeed or fail.  I would go further to note that all parties have to be committed to success as even one not bieng so dooms the enterprise. 
I have faith in your intent and your thought processes, Jeff...and, your practicality in having a Plan B.  :> 

  Davan

_____________________________

May you live as long as you wish & love as long as you live
-Robert A Heinlein

It's about the person & the bond,not the bondage
-Me

Waiting is

170NZ (Aka:Sex God Du Jour) pts

Jesus,I've ALWAYS been a deviant
-Leadership527,Jeff

(in reply to leadership527)