RE: the Loved Dominant

RE: the Loved Dominant (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

NihilusZero -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/21/2009 8:03:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists If I said... Poly relationships take more trust and acceptance than monogamist relationships...... I wonder how that would sit with Monogamist individuals! They'd have to suck it up, wouldn't they? Defying mathematics is a bit hard when trying to still square your view to reality. 3 oranges > 2 oranges (thus the innards of 3 oranges > the innards of 2 oranges) Now that I think about it, actually...it would take a feat of pompous presumptuousness for partners in a monogamous, 2-person relationship to claim their relationship has "more trust" that the relationship of a polyfidelitous, 3-person relationship. Assuming everyone trusts at equal degrees, both quantitatively and qualitatively, for the monogamous partners to even say they trust "as much" would imply that they think that, just between the two of them, they are out-trusting the individual output of the 3 poly people! Now that sounds like something said for an ego boost to me. [:D]

KnightofMists -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/21/2009 8:28:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero They'd have to suck it up, wouldn't they? Defying mathematics is a bit hard when trying to still square your view to reality. 3 oranges > 2 oranges (thus the innards of 3 oranges > the innards of 2 oranges) maybe... but someone that had more on the ball and maybe not so obtuse and verbose would appreciate that trust in of itself is not quantifiable in a universal sense. I suppose if one could actually quantify trust universally.. then one could measure it as a comparison to one relationship to another and one dynamic to another. But in the end... all we can do is subjectively gage it with any accuracy for our own selves for our own relationships... Hell... I couldn't even gage if I have more trust in my relationship than Alandra or Kyra have for the same relationship. All I know it's there... to quantify it or try to say there is more than X... well if that isn't an ego trip or an effort to say one is better than X... I am not sure what is. But you keep talking.... if notone else is listening... I am sure you are!

NihilusZero -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/21/2009 8:37:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists But you keep talking.... if notone else is listening... I am sure you are! If no one else is listening perhaps it's because there is no longer any wind in the sails of the supposition that "more trust" = "better relationship"? Or maybe because if we can't quantify trust then, at very least, we treat everyone's ability to trust (in potency and quantity) equally and we still end up with "more trust" in a 3-person poly relationship (as I've already stated). I appreciate the prod of accusatory solipsism, but it's not becoming of an attitude that's trying to treat this discussion rationally and without bias.

lally2 -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/22/2009 2:36:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero . quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists For the opinion that you think I was rude.... well I don't really care that you think it was rude or not. I speak to the issue "directly to the issue" on the opinion that was conveyed in universal tone that I am in strong disagreement to. I find such concepts to show a lack of thoughtfulness of other relationship styles and the end result that even if it's not intended undermind their value for ones own ego and feelings. You've been on this site longer than I, yet even in my time I can't recall lally ever being the type to toss out intentionally inflammatory comments for the sake of an ego boost. I strikes me a bit odd that other forum regulars would have jumped to that initial conclusion. quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists . thanks NZ - sending special christmas smooch! im glad you dont think i have an ego i need to splash about, i dont at all - i happen to respect everyone until im given a reason not to and i think thats the case for most people around here - occasionally a troll crops up - but generally speaking the people on these boards are appreciative and respectful of others. i get my 'tone' wrong and suddenly im an egocentric who thinks her opinion obliterates everyone elses - couldnt be further from the truth. i will watch my tone from now on, i have no desire to offend anyone with my opinions, pespective or thoughts - but i do find this judgementalism really aggravating. i try to generalise i try to avoid sweeping statements i try to keep things from my perspective only and sometimes i get it wrong - i think its a shame that regular posters who have proved to others that they are not out to belittle or mispresent have to still, continuously add disclaimers to their posts to avoid this sort of policing from other posters and in this case, get jumped on really rudely for it. aggressively judging someone for getting carried away on a topic is to my mind just as opinionated and egocentric - infact worse, mine was unintentional, his wasnt.

BigHeff -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/22/2009 2:42:35 AM)
hello i am new to this ...acually this is not my page it is my doms page and he has given me permission to use it... i appreciate your comment about, it is his area to know his sub ... but it is just my area to trust him... i have to say i have a grocery cart of issues like many women and my dom in the short time i have been collered has made me feel safe... for the first time in many years... i have much curriosity and he is extremly patient with me.. he never seems to get angered by my questions... at times i am sure he would much rather i just keep my questions to my self ... but he takes the time to answer them... thank you again for your insite suzi and collered

AquaticSub -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/22/2009 6:17:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub No, I trust him to make competent decisions. And, considering your dynamic, I don't think it is a stretch to say that you trust him with making the decisions in a wider spectrum of situations than your average vanilla friend. Not really but perhaps I simply have the good fortune of knowing vanilla friends who have a great deal of trust in their partners. While their partners can't command it, they feel secure that, if they were not around and the decision had to be made, their partner would act wisely. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub And if you don't trust them to make good decisions, why are you in a relationship with them? Vanilla people are in relationships where they don't trust their partner with certain things because of either enforced or agreed upon stipulations regarding the presumption that self-choice trumps all else. They are in relationships because they don't care about the relinquishing or obtaining of trust in areas that a D/s relationship would require. If I am in a relationship with a slave and I am in control of how she is to dress at every moment before going out in public, that is a facet of trust surrendered unto me which a partner in a vanilla relationship who doesn't want their partner to choose their clothes hasn't surrendered. I truly don't regard having someone pick my clothing as a matter of trust since I would have certainly discussed it with them before giving them that control so that I knew I could rely on them to dress me correctly for any given situation rather than trusting. And, for that matter, I don't think it's so unusual for a vanilla wife to lay out and pick her husbands clothes for him or for a vanilla husband to strongly encourage his beloved to wear a particular dress for an evening out. While neither are comanding (ok - I saw my Mom pick my Dad's clothes and it was pretty damn close to a command) it's still allowing other make the decision for you.

osf -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/22/2009 8:15:03 AM)
quote: Not really but perhaps I simply have the good fortune of knowing vanilla friends who have a great deal of trust in their partners. While their partners can't command it, they feel secure that, if they were not around and the decision had to be made, their partner would act wisely. how do you command trust? you can create a situation in which the other person is comfortable enough to trust you

lally2 -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/22/2009 10:41:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: osf quote: Not really but perhaps I simply have the good fortune of knowing vanilla friends who have a great deal of trust in their partners. While their partners can't command it, they feel secure that, if they were not around and the decision had to be made, their partner would act wisely. how do you command trust? you can create a situation in which the other person is comfortable enough to trust you actually osf, taking the thread off track and focusing on the topic of trust was hijacking it. perhaps you could start a thread on trust all of youre own - and erm, good luck with that. [:D]

osf -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/22/2009 11:00:06 AM)
thought i was following the thread

lally2 -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/22/2009 12:45:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: osf thought i was following the thread sorry, in a way you are, cept 'trust' wasnt the point of the discussion - knowing what makes a Dominant feel loved was the point of the thread. it really doesnt matter to be honest. but i think this thread has expired anyway - you might get a better response if you start a whole new one.

CaringandReal -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/24/2009 7:12:53 AM)
Oh good, I get to do math--the subject I am worst at. But I cannot resist. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero 3 oranges > 2 oranges (thus the innards of 3 oranges > the innards of 2 oranges) Well, not if the group of three are rotted or wormy on the inside while the pair of oranges is not. Unless you are implying that greater than only equates to a larger quantity. Which, admittedly is what mathemeticians do, when they have the luxury of dealing with pure numbers and not messy, parasitic reality "Assuming everyone trusts at equal degrees, both quantitatively and qualitatively, for the monogamous partners to even say they trust "as much" would imply that they think that, just between the two of them, they are out-trusting the individual output of the 3 poly people!" Even if you equate quality with quantity (as you can in some mathematical spaces...well at least ones that don't have certain practical applications such as "selling short"--thinks briefly about the implications of "selling short" in bdsm relationships...nope, I don't want to go there), one could aruge that--assuming everyone trusts equally--a monogamous pair's trust might equal or even exceed the poly triad's (or more-ad's) trust, because in addition to all the usual forms of trust, the monogamous pair also has to trust that their partners won't go poly on them! :o (yes this is pretty tonuge-in-cheek, which is precisely where one's tongue belongs when faced with a meal of three rotten oranges!)

CaringandReal -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/24/2009 7:17:32 AM)
"im glad you dont think i have an ego i need to splash about, i dont at all - i happen to respect everyone until im given a reason not to and i think thats the case for most people around here - occasionally a troll crops up - but generally speaking the people on these boards are appreciative and respectful of others." I've not seen you as an egotistical sort either, Lally. For some reason your question and comments or the way the thread went pushed some buttons (ones I don't quite comprehend, as I didn't have a similar response) and people are responding with the usually tricks they pull when they feel high emotion (the accusation of "one true wayism" being just one of those).

osf -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/24/2009 8:23:01 AM)
quote: "im glad you dont think i have an ego i need to splash about, i dont at all - i happen to respect everyone until im given a reason not to and i think thats the case for most people around here - occasionally a troll crops up - but generally speaking the people on these boards are appreciative and respectful of others." i display civility and reserve trust/respect

NihilusZero -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/24/2009 8:30:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CaringandReal Well, not if the group of three are rotted or wormy on the inside while the pair of oranges is not. This involves being assured that the 3 oranges are that way...which means deviating from the default position of treating everyone equally. This is just a hypothetical where you are suggesting the poly people are a more deficient bunch of people than the monogamous couple. Unless you're trying to say that you think poly folk are, in general, less trustworthy that monogamous folk I'm not sure why there was a need to make an informatively empty obvious hypothetical. quote: ORIGINAL: CaringandReal Unless you are implying that greater than only equates to a larger quantity. Which, admittedly is what mathemeticians do, when they have the luxury of dealing with pure numbers and not messy, parasitic reality. I was speaking about both. The catch is that "trust" is considered a spectrum. More trust is nearly universally considered always better than less trust, so the qualitative question is coupled to the quantitative question. What are we saying otherwise? "Oh, couple A...they have more trust between them than couple B, but couple B's "trust" is of a better quality!" Now that I think about it, I don't even think trust has a qualitative value at all. quote: ORIGINAL: CaringandReal Even if you equate quality with quantity (as you can in some mathematical spaces...well at least ones that don't have certain practical applications such as "selling short"--thinks briefly about the implications of "selling short" in bdsm relationships...nope, I don't want to go there), one could aruge that--assuming everyone trusts equally--a monogamous pair's trust might equal or even exceed the poly triad's (or more-ad's) trust, because in addition to all the usual forms of trust, the monogamous pair also has to trust that their partners won't go poly on them! :o That sounds suspiciously like a suggestion that poly people are less fidelitous than monogamous people; a supposition that would be fundamentally wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: CaringandReal (yes this is pretty tonuge-in-cheek, which is precisely where one's tongue belongs when faced with a meal of three rotten oranges!) I'm entertaining the hypothetical situation here...but am really starting to be curious if you view polyamorous people as negatively as this example suggests. I'm not making any pronouncements that that is the case, but a good chunk of your points here seem aligned in that direction.

osf -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/24/2009 9:54:22 AM)
is trust at any level a quantitatively straight line or is it sort of like a shoreline? i don't see people fixed in space and time

Chrys -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/25/2009 2:32:56 PM)
may i ask a question? i had a potential Master wish to strip me of my identity, even my name...i am an artist and writer Would not a true Master wish to nurture these God-given talents?

osf -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/25/2009 4:22:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chrys may i ask a question? i had a potential Master wish to strip me of my identity, even my name...i am an artist and writer Would not a true Master wish to nurture these God-given talents? first off a dom/master is just a man, some men are good some not so good some even bad, having a sexually dominant character doesn't change that so no, not all dominants want to nurture

NihilusZero -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/25/2009 4:49:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chrys Would not a true Master wish to nurture these God-given talents? Please erase the word "true", replace it with "compatible", and ask yourself.

osf -> RE: the Loved Dominant (12/25/2009 4:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Chrys Would not a true Master wish to nurture these God-given talents? Please erase the word "true", replace it with "compatible", and ask yourself. compatible doesn't fit into the fantasy

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125