I Trust You, But...

I Trust You, But... (Full Version)

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

Message

lovingpet -> I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 7:46:53 AM)
When it comes to trust, it really ought to be a rather simple thing. Either you trust someone or you don't. Right? Granted, it may take some time to get to the point where trust is well established and developed in most, if not all, areas of life with another person. All in all, though, it seems to me that trust is one of those most stripped down things around. Trust with strings attached seems like something other than trust. Then again, aren't there always "strings" of some kind? Whether it be a continued overall positive track record, doing the next step in building it further, repairing any damage that may have happened along the way, it is all the same thing. They are things that are done to acquire, keep, or reestablish this trust which is supposedly such a stand alone virtue. Some of these things may not really be viewed as hold outs. How about if those reservations (that aren't really reservations mind you) were quite a bit more concrete? Reality is, there are some things that are a little too big to be wagering on faith and pixie dust. Some things just require a bit more of a formal pronouncement of intent and responsibility. I am thinking in terms of something similar to the age old battle of the "prenup". One says well if you trusted me you wouldn't need one. The other says if we are both trustworthy, then having one in place shouldn't be necessary to ever execute, so why not just do it. They both have a point. How do you feel about contracts (even legal ones) and their role within a D/s or M/s relationship? Is it fair to ask and still maintain pure trust? Or does it taint that trust to even consider such a thing? I know opinions will vary and I am sure there will be some who will see a distinguishing when it comes to the dynamic itself (D/s vs M/s). I also know it is different for each according to their own personal relationships. General impressions are most appreciated! lovingpet

VirginPotty -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 8:05:06 AM)
[sm=book.gif] <<<Reading contract [sm=writing.gif]<<<Signing contract on all the required dotted lines. Kinda cold & impersonal to me & not a good indicator of trusting someone.

leadership527 -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 8:10:41 AM)
I guess I don't see trust as an all or nothing deal. Like most human things, trust is actually quite complicated. For instance, I trust Carol a great deal. But I can guarantee you that she'll show up to the airport late pretty much no matter what. In real life, I trust her a great deal in some areas and in others, I trust her less. It would never occur to me to think that someone else ought to be perfectly trust worthy in every regard. For me personally, a contract is not a way to improve trust. It's a way to document your mistrust. So I avoid them. How we went about gathering trust was to ... you know... dip our toes in the D/s pool. As Carol found me trust worthy with smaller pieces of authority, she was willing to offer me ever-larger ones. Trust based on actual past performance is so much more stable than trust based on a signature on a piece of paper. Overall, I think that seaching for pure anything among us fallible humans is a quixotic quest. Carol is a very trust worthy indivdual. But she's also flawed and I've had 15 years now to learn all about those flaws.

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 8:36:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VirginPotty [sm=book.gif] <<<Reading contract [sm=writing.gif]<<<Signing contract on all the required dotted lines. Kinda cold & impersonal to me & not a good indicator of trusting someone. Would this apply to such things as a marriage or adoption papers? I agree generally, but then again it is stuff similar to this that I wonder about. lovingpet

IrishMist -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 8:49:21 AM)
I look at 'trust' a bit differently than some would. By that I mean that I make a split second decision on whether or not to trust a person...if I decide to trust them, then I do...no strings, stipulations, manipulations, restrictions attactched. Perhaps its because my chosen career demands ( yes, demands ) that I trust a person on such short notice, or perhaps it's just because I have seen enough and been through enough in my life that I prefer not to waste time 'building up' to something. Now granted, if my trust is broken , there is not much that will ever 'rebuild' it. I am the kind of person who does not think that second chances should be given ( this is for myself, personally ); but that is just me. As for contracts; I can take them or leave them. They really have no actual bearing on whether or not I trust someone.

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 8:51:21 AM)
I don't think any contract can truly protect against people just simply being human. There isn't enough ink in the world! And that's for a person of reasonable integrity. People are certainly flawed and no one can really claim to be right on top of every single thing all the time. Like the airport thing, there are some things that aren't even a matter of trust, just ability. I would love to say I could be "trusted" to be on time and organized for every single thing I am to accomplish each day. The truth is, some days that's just not in the cards. Documenting mistrust? I am going to approach this from a certain angle just to not confuse the issue any more than I have to, but say a submissive trusts her dominant completely. He asks something of her that can have long term consequences, some of which he may not be able to face for her. I would view it as protective to what is his to make sure the legalities and contigencies are covered. It may be a cold thing, but it may be necessary. I can see where some will believe that the submissive shouldn't NEED such a thing and asking it of him would evidence some deficiency in the relationship. Then again, to offer it or even insist upon it from the dominant side seems quite wise. I am not talking about the everyday matters of a relationship. I don't even know I trust the concept of slave contracts. I am talking more along the lines of life event type things where financial, custodial, and/or other issues come into play. I am rather divided on this issue...clearly. On the one hand, it is so great to think things are going to go according to the 'happily ever after" clause. Then again, real life happens. Something of this nature wouldn't be about not trusting each other (though that's the gutteral reaction to it). It would be about not trusting life and those things out of both of parties' control. What about a will? Life insurance policies? What about documents that protect UMs in the event of death or separation? This is hard real life stuff and I don't know that I see it getting resolved without some similarly hard action. lovingpet

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 8:56:00 AM)
I, too, tend to get an instant sense of people. Some I trust utterly, some up to a point, and others they could NEVER win me over. I don't like anything that looks like strings on intimate relationships. I had too much of such things in the past. The problem lies in the fact that sometimes strings are not functioning the way they appear. They are not necessarily there to pull to release someone when the going gets rough, but rather to be sure they can weather together or to secure each other when the other can no longer be there to hold on to. I've got things all turned around in my head. If I could do one thing, it would be think a bit less sometimes! LOL lovingpet

leadership527 -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 8:58:26 AM)
Ahhh, my bad. OK, so ignoring "slave contracts" for a moment and just talking about pragmatic things, I can only tell you that FOR ME: a) I myself would never want a pre-nuptial agreement. If I've invited someone into my home, heart, and bed, then I already know everything I need to about how they'll handle a break up. b) I have no concerns if someone else wants to document such things. My intention, in the event of breakup, would be to conduct myself with integrity and honor. I'd see no reason not to put that down on paper. I haven't had to worry about such things because I live in California where the default community property laws mirror my own thinking give or take. The only purpose for the will is to keep the state's fingers out of the pie.

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:04:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 I'd see no reason not to put that down on paper. The only purpose for the will is to keep the state's fingers out of the pie. See, and I think both are very BIG reasons for putting it down on paper. Since you plan to conduct yourself well, then there is no risk of signing on ye ole dotted line. As for the will, making sure that your assets go to whom they are supposed to go is a huge issue when making provisions for each other. The coldness aside, it's necessary. lovingpet

BitaTruble -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:04:48 AM)
~FR~ I am old school.. if you shake on it, that's good enough for me. If your word is no good, a piece of paper isn't going to make it any good, so, no contracts for relationships for me. Business is another story.

Mercnbeth -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:08:09 AM)
quote: How do you feel about contracts (even legal ones) and their role within a D/s or M/s relationship? Is it fair to ask and still maintain pure trust? Contracts have nothing to do about trust. They are benchmarks and references. There greatest value is at the inception of a relation. When the spoken word of expectations is put in written form, it serves to clarify and document responsibility. It documents terms and conditions within the relationship, not trust. Six years after agreeing to our contract, we still value it. It lets us know where we came from and what we were thinking back when we didn't know each other as well as we do now. It reads silly in some cases, serious in others from today's perspective. beth crawling and attaching chains to her cuffs; made a lot more sense in our first small apartment. The sexy and erotic parts are still sexy and erotic! Trust doesn't come from any document, it comes from people fulfilling the fundamental concept the document represents. A contract will not enable you to trust your partner any more, or any less. It will provide a clear point of discussion in a situation where an accusation of trust may be interpreted as a misunderstanding. If anything it serves to focus the individuals in a time of stress to issues instead of feelings. We've told people who don't like the idea of drawing up a 'contract' to write out independent expectations, combine them, talk about them, amend them, and if signing them and considering the word 'contract' (we called ours 'Life Rules') too impersonal just keep them as they are in a drawer somewhere. Someday, you may find them and they are likely to generate a smile.

DavanKael -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:10:12 AM)
I'm a fan of the form of contract in which the parties involved already feel the commitment and stand before folks and say "I do" with accompanying state acknowledgment there-of. I am a fan of contracts that approximate the rights given by the above-form when the state doesn't recognize the union, for whatever reason. M/s and D/s contracts strike me as something that ought not need to be put down on paper but if other people wish to do so, it's not harming me or mine. Davan

subtlebutterfly -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:11:12 AM)
If I end up trusting a person I trust them until they proof differently. Prenups have nothing to do with trust. When people divorce then that trust is broken, if not then prenups still make things easier when splitting up so I believe it's purpose is to simply make your life easier in case something goes wrong, it's a backup. Trust has nothing to do with whether one decides to have backup or not. Common sense means that you do make those backups if you want to play safe. I don't care for contracts that don't have legal values so d/s ones are pointless to me but hey, whatever floats your boat.

VirginPotty -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:11:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovingpet quote: ORIGINAL: VirginPotty [sm=book.gif] <<<Reading contract [sm=writing.gif]<<<Signing contract on all the required dotted lines. Kinda cold & impersonal to me & not a good indicator of trusting someone. Would this apply to such things as a marriage or adoption papers? I agree generally, but then again it is stuff similar to this that I wonder about. lovingpet Good point but those are legal documents and an agreement document bet. a D/s isn't legal and you can't be held legally accountable for anything you may or may not do that's spelled out. Morally yes, legally no. To answer your question, I believe some D/s's NEED everything written out in black/white and for them that's fine. Personally, I don't need it. If I go renig on anything he will point out an email exchange where I said I would do said activity and would want to know why I changed my mind. That's our "contract" which we will refer back to but rarely because we trust each other to fulfill our obligations. Same for asking for release. You can't legally be held against your will so in reality it's just a formality. Eta my comment about contracts being cold & impersonal reflects the thought of sitting down & spelling out your limits, hard limts etc. Too much like applying for a loan. I can't see where a document would establish trust. That comes from knowing the person

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:11:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble ~FR~ I am old school.. if you shake on it, that's good enough for me. If your word is no good, a piece of paper isn't going to make it any good, so, no contracts for relationships for me. Business is another story. I agree. Still for some things within a relationship, there is little to no getting around certain written documents. lovingpet

Venatrix -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:13:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 For me personally, a contract is not a way to improve trust. It's a way to document your mistrust. So I avoid them. That's exactly my sentiment. Why start a committed relationship with someone already planning its demise? If someone asked me to sign a pre-nup, I'd walk away, simply because the relationship's demise is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. May as well get it over with sooner rather than later. Same thing with a slave contract. If he's not going to do what I want because it makes him happy to do it, a piece of paper isn't going to help any.

LaTigresse -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:14:17 AM)
I agree with Bita but can also understand what Merc is saying too. I think it depends on the individual relationship and the individuals. Trust is a different subject. There is no "all or nothing" for me. Personally I see that as setting someone up to fail in a relationship. I like to be realistic. I think I understand human nature pretty well. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. I simply trust a person to be themself, whatever that is. It is my responsibility to understand what that "self" is, so that I don't place false expectations.

GraciousLady -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:19:25 AM)
Some things can be made legal and some things can not. Example: Marriage is made legal to protect material property and children if a divorce happens. You can not legally force trust because it is not a material thing. However, in the case of a D/s or M/s relationship a contract can be an outline of what is expected but is no guarantee since likes and dislikes are not material things and tend to change. How can you sue because someone did not tie you up like you like to be tied up?

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: How do you feel about contracts (even legal ones) and their role within a D/s or M/s relationship? Is it fair to ask and still maintain pure trust? Contracts have nothing to do about trust. They are benchmarks and references. There greatest value is at the inception of a relation. When the spoken word of expectations is put in written form, it serves to clarify and document responsibility. It documents terms and conditions within the relationship, not trust. Six years after agreeing to our contract, we still value it. It lets us know where we came from and what we were thinking back when we didn't know each other as well as we do now. It reads silly in some cases, serious in others from today's perspective. beth crawling and attaching chains to her cuffs; made a lot more sense in our first small apartment. The sexy and erotic parts are still sexy and erotic! Trust doesn't come from any document, it comes from people fulfilling the fundamental concept the document represents. A contract will not enable you to trust your partner any more, or any less. It will provide a clear point of discussion in a situation where an accusation of trust may be interpreted as a misunderstanding. If anything it serves to focus the individuals in a time of stress to issues instead of feelings. We've told people who don't like the idea of drawing up a 'contract' to write out independent expectations, combine them, talk about them, amend them, and if signing them and considering the word 'contract' (we called ours 'Life Rules') too impersonal just keep them as they are in a drawer somewhere. Someday, you may find them and they are likely to generate a smile. Contracts really and truly DON'T have to do with trust, but boy they stink an awful lot like they do sometimes. Setting things down in writing is just a way to make it a little more "graspable", for lack of the word I really want. It gives something to hold and see and even smell that is kind of a representation of that relationship. The words in it, some outgrown and some still as true as ever show history and I tend to want to see them derived from unified agreement from the beginning. They are a display of that union, not the binding force. It honors the trust and values that were shared long before pen hit paper. lovingpet

lovingpet -> RE: I Trust You, But... (9/3/2009 9:21:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael I'm a fan of the form of contract in which the parties involved already feel the commitment and stand before folks and say "I do" with accompanying state acknowledgment there-of. I am a fan of contracts that approximate the rights given by the above-form when the state doesn't recognize the union, for whatever reason. M/s and D/s contracts strike me as something that ought not need to be put down on paper but if other people wish to do so, it's not harming me or mine. Davan I like formal things, but I also like to have a free flowing emotional exchange that isn't contingent on the fact that somebody signed something or other. Nothing like trying to have your cake and eat it too. That was directed at myself, by the way. lovingpet

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875