RE: Banned Friendships

RE: Banned Friendships (Full Version)

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

Message

Toppingfrmbottom -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 3:06:29 PM)
Not every one who's kinky or in the "lifestyle" is going to want to or does practice SSC, some go by the acronym RACK, risk aware consentual kink. It's kind of silly to think every one under the umbrella of kink would follow the same motto or that it'd be the pillar of the community, when every one is different and every one's beliefs are different. I feel a lot of stuff is safe that a lot of people wouldn't tuch with a 400 foot pole. . Now maybe it's largely what a lot believe I'd agree with that. quote: ORIGINAL: Firebirdseeking and it was my understanding that SSC was one of the pillars of "the Lifestyle". "Sane" being obviously open to interpretation.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 3:12:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Firebirdseeking General reply: Then we might as well say it is ok, for example, to drink and drive because it is a personal decision to do so, and the drunk person is aware of the risk. And that we should not drive cars because we might meet up with a drunk driver. I realize I am somewhat off the topic here. I believe values are a part of a relationship, as is responsibility, and it was my understanding that SSC was one of the pillars of "the Lifestyle". "Sane" being obviously open to interpretation. You are off topic, I'm afraid. What you're doing is taking examples of behavior that are undeniably dangerous and irresponsible, and undeniably wrong (driving while drunk), and comparing them with behaviors that can be dangerous and irresponsible, and using that flawed comparison to support your opinion that isolation is also wrong. To make it even harder, you're also lumping them together with examples of behavior that are undeniably dangerous and irresponsible, but not necessarily wrong (if people want to have multiple partners without practicing safe sex, and everyone involved knows what's going on, then it's stupid but not necessarily "wrong"). Three entirely different topics that all belong in three entirely different categories, and you can't support an opinion about any of them by conflating it with the others.

LadyPact -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 3:15:20 PM)
Believe it or not, I'm actually siding with those who have banned certain friendships. The key word in the original question was "healthy". Not all friendships are healthy, even when the friend outside of the D/s dynamic thinks that they are. It may not even be that the friend in question is a bad person or intentionally attempting to sabotage the dynamic. Some people just don't know how to cultivate healthy relationships/friendships to begin with and are detrimental to other people. Training periods aside (because I think that really is a separate issue) if a Dominant needs to restrict contact with one friend in particular for whatever reason, they might be seeing something that the sub isn't seeing.

NuevaVida -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 3:20:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Firebirdseeking I realize I am somewhat off the topic here. I believe values are a part of a relationship, as is responsibility, and it was my understanding that SSC was one of the pillars of "the Lifestyle". "Sane" being obviously open to interpretation. I'm afraid you have misunderstood. However, SSC is also subjective.

sweetgirlserves -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 3:29:06 PM)
I think it is really a matter of what the two people involved want out of the relationship. Some couples want to really be so focused on each other that they exclude much of the rest of the world to do so. Some men want a slave who is totally devoted to his needs only, and not distracted with other things (friends, other activities, etc). This is not really a kink issue... it is just a relationship issue. My parents have been very, very happily married for 45 years... they primarily focus on each other. They don't have lots of friends. There is nothing 'kinky' about their life.. it is just very 'inwardly' focused. Some people/relationships thrive under this kind of paradigm. Other people would not be able to handle the isolation. It comes down to individual needs and preferences, along with the couple's desire for their dynamic. It makes sense that if someone wanted this and you are not the kind of person that could deal with it, than it is not for you. But that doesn't mean that is true for everyone. Some people thrive in a 'bubble'... where most outside influences are highly limited, and limited to only those people/activities that have a positive impact on the person. Sometimes, it takes a dom/Master to help create the 'bubble', because the person isn't strong enough to establish acceptable boundaries, or to rid themselves of people who are basically just 'users'. Again, it may not be for everyone, but that by no means makes it wrong. ~sgs

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 3:47:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici I could not be more with you on this one C&R, which is why I'm mystified---a sub/slave willingly denounces friends and family on a "command"--said Dominant dies, said sub gets in a car accident or worse--is there an expectation that family will just freely come to the rescue? I think not in most cases---or the relationship ends---where does one go? Why not? I come from one of the 10 Most Dysfunctional Families on Planet Earth, and over the years I've drifted away from all of them to the point where I exchange Christmas cards with 3 or 4 of them and haven't laid eyes on most of them in over a decade. When my father died last year, I had familiy coming out of the woodwork. I wasn't expecting it, but they were everywhere, offering help and support and just generally rallying around. Then when it was all over, they boarded the saucer and vanished back to Planet Dysfunctional, and I haven't heard from any of them since. Which is perfectly fine for all of us. I'll catch up with them all at the next funeral. I think most families would tend to behave pretty much the same way, but even if not, I don't think it's really a very strong reason for choosing a relationship structure that, for whatever reason, both parties want.

Toppingfrmbottom -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 4:00:03 PM)
My brother and I are like that, It can be years since we spoke and then he'll pop up and say hi, and if he's not being his typical assholic self, I will talk to him and even enjoy it. I had not heard from him nor seen him in years, and then one time in october a few years back now, he asked me to walk in his wedding. And he also asked if I'd escort his daughter who was 3 at the time, to him from sacramento to Marksvill. Her mom flew her into sacto to meet me at the airport andI sad yes I would went to his wedding he was a complete assshat to me, and I have not heard from him or seen him since then, with the exception of 2 times speaking on yahoo when he needed something. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici I could not be more with you on this one C&R, which is why I'm mystified---a sub/slave willingly denounces friends and family on a "command"--said Dominant dies, said sub gets in a car accident or worse--is there an expectation that family will just freely come to the rescue? I think not in most cases---or the relationship ends---where does one go? Why not? I come from one of the 10 Most Dysfunctional Families on Planet Earth, and over the years I've drifted away from all of them to the point where I exchange Christmas cards with 3 or 4 of them and haven't laid eyes on most of them in over a decade. When my father died last year, I had familiy coming out of the woodwork. I wasn't expecting it, but they were everywhere, offering help and support and just generally rallying around. Then when it was all over, they boarded the saucer and vanished back to Planet Dysfunctional, and I haven't heard from any of them since. Which is perfectly fine for all of us. I'll catch up with them all at the next funeral. I think most families would tend to behave pretty much the same way, but even if not, I don't think it's really a very strong reason for choosing a relationship structure that, for whatever reason, both parties want.

jeninvegas -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 5:34:53 PM)
Insecurities and selfishnes...

pridedenied -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 6:54:14 PM)
I know someone who forbade contact with a friend. It was painful and baseless and it ultimately blew up into a huge thing ruining more relationships than I care to mention. If a Dom/me feels the need to ban a relationship s/he better have a damn good reason otherwise it is just about insecurity or a power trip either of which are stupid and petty. Now I know in D/s relationships , it's important for the sub to obey but when the Dom/me is being a butt it should even be a question. As you can tell this is a button for me. The only time a relationship should be forcably ended is when it is harmful to the people in it. End of story.

NihilusZero -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 7:02:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pridedenied If a Dom/me feels the need to ban a relationship s/he better have a damn good reason otherwise it is just about insecurity or a power trip either of which are stupid and petty. So...if you're in a relationship with a Domme who (by virtue of you being in a relationship with her) you've devoted merited trust to...who, then, is the arbiter of what a "damn good reason" is?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 7:43:46 PM)
That is an easy one. The CM boards of course. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: pridedenied If a Dom/me feels the need to ban a relationship s/he better have a damn good reason otherwise it is just about insecurity or a power trip either of which are stupid and petty. So...if you're in a relationship with a Domme who (by virtue of you being in a relationship with her) you've devoted merited trust to...who, then, is the arbiter of what a "damn good reason" is?

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 7:57:23 PM)
Ok, I had this really long post typed out but decided that I'd just go with the short answer. For a time, yeah, I would "ban" outside influences, family not included. I would never try and keep someone from their family. The past being what it was/is changed my thinking on the whole thing. So until that s-type and I had a fair opportunity to bond there would be no "friends" contacts. Been there, done that, got the scars to prove it. Jewel

NihilusZero -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 8:53:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf That is an easy one. The CM boards of course. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: pridedenied If a Dom/me feels the need to ban a relationship s/he better have a damn good reason otherwise it is just about insecurity or a power trip either of which are stupid and petty. So...if you're in a relationship with a Domme who (by virtue of you being in a relationship with her) you've devoted merited trust to...who, then, is the arbiter of what a "damn good reason" is? [:D] 20 points.

variation30 -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 9:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf That is an easy one. The CM boards of course. any and all relationships should be brought before the cmforums tribunal to determine whether or not they are 'doing things wrong'.

GreedyTop -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/21/2009 9:16:43 PM)
well, that DOES seem to be the attitude of some people....

DomImus -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/23/2009 5:35:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Firebirdseeking It was my understanding that SSC was one of the pillars of "the Lifestyle". "Sane" being obviously open to interpretation. If at least one third of it is open to interpretation then why bother with the whole SSC schtick at all?

Firebirdseeking -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/23/2009 7:12:12 PM)
good question. Whats the answer?

marcceylp -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/23/2009 7:30:23 PM)
INSECURE and DOMINATE do not go together..rethink this fast,

GotSteel -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/23/2009 8:25:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici One of the things I am always intrigued about is the "banned friendship" aspect that I see all too often in this life--now I get it if the friend or relative creates drama or destruction in the submissive, but banning contact with friends, relatives because... well what would be a reason to isolate a submissive from seemingly normal yet vanilla friends or for that matter other friends in the life be they D or s? The only answer I can come up with is insecurity---am I way off base? I'd like some enlightenment... "In order to increase your dependence on him, an abusive partner will cut you off from the outside world. He may keep you from seeing family or friends, or even prevent you from going to work or school. You may have to ask permission to do anything, go anywhere, or see anyone. Source: Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, MN" http://www.helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm Perhaps a dominant partner might be trying to help their sub by disconnecting them from an unhealthy relationship. For all I know there could be some cases where it's a "legitimate" fetish in an otherwise healthy relationship. I don't know, all I can say is that this is considered a very bad sign by the rest of our society.

MsValentine -> RE: Banned Friendships (6/24/2009 12:55:31 AM)
I am not into banning my sub from seeing any particular person or having friendships with anyone. Why do I take this stance? Well, I have known my sub for seven years now, all of them as sub/Dom and two and a half with us living together. I have slowly learned a lot about him, his tastes, attitudes, skills,and judgement. he is a mature, intelligent and successful man in his life and career and I see absolutely no reason on this earth why I would start to ban certain associations and friendships. No one in his life is treating him badly, using him, undermining him and generally being a problem. He is and has shown himself completely capable of picking people he be friends with good sense and discrimination. I see no reason why I should then start 'mending things that aren't broken' by insisting he stops this or that friendship. I did fall for him in part because he was so emotionally and mentally strong and sensible. he didn't need me sorting out any of his problems. That is not what I wanted in a sub and I shy away from those who are weak, helpless, damaged as I do not think they would be a good submissive match for me. My subs have to submit from an original position of equal strength, intellect and inerpersonal skill. They submit, accept the position and set about serving me and making me happy. Simple. So, with subs like that, there is no need for me to go around changing things in their life. If he did make a friend I disliked, I would leave him to it, confident, in the end, the friend would be exposed for the idiot he was and my sub would have to learn better in the future without me doing all the hard work for him. He would take the knocks and become stronger for learning valuable lessons in life. I see banning friendships as a way of mollycoddling, protecting the sub from themselves, not forcing them to do better and become more adept in the world. Sub or Dom, we all need to develop and maintain our life skills and I would not create a process and relationship in which the sub was effectively treated like a baby and banned from seeing a certain person. Much better they learn the hard way about how to work through problems and find their own solutions. Goodness, I am even quite happy that he sees his ex-wife and helps her out when she needs it. Mind you, that did take a bit of hard schooling of my own worst instincts to get over myself and allow that. Dominants sometimes have to work hard on their character and attitudes :-)

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875