ElanSubdued
Posts: 1511
Status: offline
|
onlyme32111 and Everyone,
quote:
ElanSubdued:
The first thing of concern in your ruleset is it's all about you.
onlyme32111:
If he finds fulfillment in these rules and if he follows these rules, clearly they are about him and his happiness too. Or else he wouldn't be there.
I considered this viewpoint and I think you're probably right. Embedded within the rules are likely things that address mutual desires and kinks. In principle then, with this understanding, the ruleset as given may be fine. However, in practice, my experiences as a dominant and as a submissive have been that narrow, solely BDSM-focused rulesets (with or without strong, matriarchal-minded or patriarchal-minded components), while hot on paper, don't stand up well over long periods of time and often don't serve the true needs of the people involved. Therefore, from the get go, I'd flag a ruleset of the type described by the OP as problematic. Even if the submissive partner initially signs up because this suits his needs and fantasies, my guess is that in the long term his actual needs are much more complex, as are likely the needs of the dominant and the mutual needs of the relationship.
Whenever I see rule-based arrangements in BDSM, I liken these to contract negotiation in general. If a contract appears largely one-sided, it's often difficult to convince the other party to sign. Even if the other party signs freely, willingly, and with great fervor, it's frequently the case the such contacts break down over time and must be enforced in ways not pleasant for the parties involved. In my relationships (business and otherwise), I try to avoid situations where the overriding flavour is more likely to become one of enforcement. For me, it's simply much more enjoyable when both parties desire and are able to fulfill their parts of the arrangement without micro-management and hard-handed overseeing.
When writing contracts, I try to put myself in the position of the receiver. What elements and subclauses protect the receiver? What elements protect me? What elements are there to protect the mutual interests of both parties? How inviting (in the overall sense) is the contract to the receiver and how likely are they to sign? As much as possible, if I write a clause that is specifically me-focused, I try to write a reciprocal clause that confers similar benefit/protection to the receiver. Certainly, there will be specific sections that exist to convey unique responsibilities and benefits to a given party (and indeed each party is likely to have specific responsibilities and benefits that the other may not have). Generally though, I find contracts are most successful when their overall flavour is win-win. As soon as I find myself having written "receiver pays this; receiver will pay extra in penance if; receiver must sign NDA; etc." and this is the bulk of the contract with no actual perks/benefits for the receiver, I've likely drafted something that is win-loose/loose-win and something that will become problematic in future.
It's not a bad idea to conduct a reasonableness check. Consider each rule and ask "how will this work/look/feel on a day-to-day basis"? In other words, what is involved in the various parties behaving as described and how will performance be measured to mutual satisfaction? Are the day-to-day goals reasonable and attainable? Are all the parties likely to be happy with the arrangement? If a specific element isn't performed, how will that element be corrected and/or enforced? By enforcing a given element, does this have potential to negatively impact the relationship a whole? If a given clause has more potential to negatively impact the relationship or require enforcement that will likely have negative impact, I prefer to remove that clause or to rework these parts such that they are more feasible and possible for all involved.
quote:
ElanSubdued:
More importantly, what rules provide for the needs and benefit of the overall, mutual relationship?
onlyme32111:
These rules could be what benefits him most and fulfills him as a submissive. He may derive satisfaction from pleasing her. He may need his submission to be all about her whims first and foremost in order to fill fulfilled as a submissive. Her satisfaction from his submission could be the primary drive which propels him to those rules.
I don't disagree with what you've written, but, per my comments above, I think such a ruleset as the primary and only design for a relationship is likely to become problematic at some point. Also, given that the rules are BDSM focused and BDSM is normally only an infinitesimal piece of what partners desire and need in a relationship, I see a boat full of holes. Depending on the size of the holes and their impedance mismatch with the crew, these may go unnoticed at first, but ultimately the ship will start to sink and the holes will need to be addressed.
While not quite on topic, I'll borrow four quotes (from author Tom Glib) that I often keep in mind when designing rules and contracts:
The fail-safe minimization principle:
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it on a large scale.
The keep-pinching-yourself-to-see-if-you-are-dreaming principle:
Don't believe blindly in one method or approach; use your methods and common sense to measure the reality against your needs.
The all-the-holes-in-the-boat principle:
Your design solutions must satisfy all critical attributes simultaneously.
The clear-the-fog-from-the-target principle:
All critical attributes can be specified in measurable, testable terms, and the worst acceptable level can be identified.
Looking at BDSM contracts, let's consider a newly starting relationship and a rule such as "Mistress is always right and there will be no backtalk from the submissive". Can any person fully know the needs and desires of another, and know how to manage another with this level of infallibility, particularly at the start of a relationship? Consider the "fail-safe minimization" principle. Now consider the "Mistress is always right" rule again. This is a setup for massive failure. Let's consider the "all-the-holes-in-the-boat" principle. It's likely there are holes in the boat that the domme doesn't know about and she won't become aware of these or be able to effect patches because her charge is prevented from communicating. Oops. This boat is sinking. Broadening our perspective to the entire ruleset, I'm guessing there are fundamental aspects of the relationship much more important than the protocols specified and these may get missed because they aren't specified clearly. In other words, Glib's insight helps again: there is a lot of fog around the target and this allows for miscommunication, mismatched expectations, and potentially unacceptable results.
In BDSM, there are many approaches for determining compatibility and for communicating desires, expectations, and goals. Rules and contracts are one way, but this is certainly not the only way. Given that we're examining a rule-based approach, it's my feeling (based on quite a bit of experience with BDSM relationships) that the OP's rules are lacking in several areas of effective negotiation and contract design, and in areas of relationship design and practicality. I mean no slight to the OP at all. In fact, I respect that the OP came here asking, effectively, for a peer review and seeking to learn. This says a lot about the OP and seemingly, while new, she's making some very sensible, mature, responsible choices (reading to gain knowledge, asking for advice, communicating with her partner, etc.).
Elan.
|
RE: A set of rules... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread