RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it?

RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (Full Version)

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

Message

VaguelyCurious -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:38:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot VaguelyCurious, could you please consider this again. I wrote this in my very first post in this thread. quote: P.S. I'm not going to say that serving your partner in practical things is bad. Of course that you will do all the best for their wellbeing, including practical, utilitarian and economical support. I am only saying that you shouldn't be in a relationship in which you would be unneeded and undesired without this component. I saw it the first time I read your post. And the second time when you reposted it. And the third time when I reread your original post, after you said that I wrote as though I found your position ridiculous and I had to go back and double-check that I did genuinely find your position ridiculous... quote: This means that you shouldn't be in a relationship with someone if the ONLY thing he loves you for is your money or other practical, economic or utilitarian things you do to him or her. I know what it means. But you don't understand what I mean-it isn't your call to tell other people what factors they 'should' consider in their relationship decisions. It doesn't matter how many qualifiers you put in or how many times you write the word ONLY-you are still telling other people what they should and should not do, something which is (and I'm going to take a leaf from your book here and use capitals) NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. quote: So what if you get fired, or break your leg, or have an accident and become paraplegic? When you become unable to work for your partner you become useless, so the relationship will inevitably end if it is ONLY based on your money and the things you do for him/her. If you get fired or break your leg you can still paint your partner's toenails. Unemployment and broken limbs don't wipe out your entire ability to be useful to your partner. But I'd hesitate to use paraplegia as an example for first category love (from the two categories I set out above-I don't know the technical terms, if they exist). Do you know the marriage breakdown statistics for couples who marry for love if one of them becomes paraplegic? I don't, but something that devastating would put a strain on any relationship, no matter the source of the love. Edited for clarity and grammar. One day I will notice a grammatical error in something I've written and not feel the need to correct it while I still can. Today is not that day.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:41:57 PM)
I don't see why this is so hard to get tbh, some people like going to comic book fairs, they pay money for it, some people like to dress up in stupid outfits because its someones leaving do, they pay money for that, some people like to watch Keanu Reeves in films and they pay money for it, that all seems horrific to me but you know people pay for what gets their rocks off, indeed some people find that the simple act of spending money gets their rocks off (not much further away than someone buying a handbag costing more than fifty pounds) good for them, I wont do it, but I wont begrudge them it

laurell3 -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:53:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot VaguelyCurious, could you please consider this again. I wrote this in my very first post in this thread. quote: P.S. I'm not going to say that serving your partner in practical things is bad. Of course that you will do all the best for their wellbeing, including practical, utilitarian and economical support. I am only saying that you shouldn't be in a relationship in which you would be unneeded and undesired without this component. This means that you shouldn't be in a relationship with someone if the ONLY thing he loves you for is your money or other practical, economic or utilitarian things you do to him or her. So what if you get fired, or break your leg, or have an accident and become paraplegic? When you become unable to work for your partner you become useless, so the relationship will inevitably end if it is ONLY based on your money and the things you do for him/her. The question you have about relationships ending when that thing goes away is a good one. However, I'm going to suggest to you that a large number of marriages end when the sex stops being good, when one spouse loses their job, when one spouse becomes disabled every day. Is that superficial? Yes. Does it fit with the dream we are taught as kids that marriage should be? No. Are there examples where that isn't the case, of course. However, idealism is great in theory, it's not always applicable in life or consistent with reality. SN what I find is interesting is this type of argument or example is usually ongoing in the opposite manner on the forums, ie: if you are too nice you aren't a "true" Dominant...etc.... I think many people here have attempted to illustrate to you rather openly and kindly that the way you view things is too rigid. However, being rigid as you clearly are, you just don't seem to get it. What you should attempt to understand is that there is some cease fire agreement here on the boards..some unwritten understanding that yes I may think joeblow is a total ass for what he's doing to slavegirl mary and it's not something I would ever do, but unless it's really over the top, you're very unlikely to see people say that in such absolute terms. We all do things that may not be considered "normal" or even "sane" by many, and don't tend to judge each other (openly) on that basis, which really is what you are doing. You don't have to understand it and you don't have to do it, but please stop saying everyone else is wrong for what they feel is right for them. There is no "right" that applies to everyone here.

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:55:23 PM)
Can we separate pro domination from relationships? Paying to be dominated by a professional domme is perfectly sensible to me. Living in a long term relationship which is only based only on money and utility is not sensible in my opinion. That's why I gave the advice. I am not telling people what they should or shouldn't do. I gave a free advice. Those who consider it sensible will follow it, those who don't consider it sensible will not, some will be lead to some thinking and they will form their own conclusions from the whole this thread. Also, even in the title of this thread I wrote "An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it?" This implies that this is just an advice and not a Holy Scripture and just one possible way to look at things, by asking a question "do you agree with it" I encouraged you all to think and to come to your own conclusions.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 12:57:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot Can we separate pro domination from relationships? Paying to be dominated by a professional domme is perfectly sensible to me. Living in a long term relationship which is only based only on money and utility is not sensible in my opinion. That's why I gave the advice. I am not telling people what they should or shouldn't do. I gave a free advice. Those who consider it sensible will follow it, those who don't consider it sensible will not, some will be lead to some thinking and they will form their own conclusions from the whole this thread. Ok, so some people think wanting to be hit in relationships is mental, i dont agree, some people think giving money to your partner in relationships is mental, I dont agree You gave free unsolicited advice and are shocked at the backlash People are actually normally able to decide what they like and what they don't, thank christ for that

DomImus -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:03:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot I know that I am naive. I also have a big problem which is that I am an idealist. That's not a problem as long as you have realistic ideals.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:05:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot ...some will be lead to some thinking and they will form their own conclusions from the whole this thread... ..by asking a question "do you agree with it" I encouraged you all to think and to come to your own conclusions. Side note: do you have any concept of how patronising this sounds?

LadyPact -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:05:20 PM)
I'm really hoping that LadyNTrainer is still taking a look at this thread. I think she could help Me with this particular point. The piece that she wrote already was quite good in addressing this. quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot So what if you get fired, or break your leg, or have an accident and become paraplegic? When you become unable to work for your partner you become useless, so the relationship will inevitably end if it is ONLY based on your money and the things you do for him/her. If the relationship that you have is based on money, and then there is none, it is quite possible that, since the foundation of the relationship is gone, the rest of it no longer applies. The understanding between a prodomme and a client is one of exchange. The client pays for the prodomme's time. When he ceases to pay her, she's not going to continue. Not all clients get that. They confuse in their head that the prodomme is more invested in their client than they really are. That generally isn't the case. It's a business transaction, plain and simple. You can actually take this a step farther and apply it to other areas. For example, if a relationship is based on love, but then the love is gone, the people are no longer interested in being involved in a relationship. The very same way that, if I no longer had sadistic desires, My masochist of a slave and I would lose a pivital point of compatibility. No matter what you throw in that little slot of 'a relationship based on X' the same holds true. If X is no longer bringing the people together for benefit that they are receiving, they are going to find that benefit somewhere else.

DomImus -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot Do you agree with this? " You should be in a relationship only if your partner is interested in you even if he / she doesn't get any practical, economic or utilitarian benefits from you." No, I don't agree with it. It's probably a good model for me to follow but as a general rule I wouldn't hand out that advice. Simply put - people should involve themselves in relationships that make them happy and fulfilled. If the previously mentioned short, fat and wealthy businessman is happy in his marriage with the hot woman who would not have looked twice at him if he wasn't loaded then I say good for him. It is totally irrelevant that the relationship does not fall on your idealism radar. As long as both parties are getting what they want from the relationship it's all good and the dynamics of the arrangement are moot. Whether it is a relationship that you or I would engage in is totally irrelevant.

leadership527 -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:30:47 PM)
No, I do not agree with it. In rough numbers, the population on the planet earth is 6,821,800,000 humans. That breaks down to approximately 11,634,238,810,000,000,000 possible combinations and that does not count anything other than a 1:1 pairing. Whatever you think it is that is a rule will NOT apply to at least some of those combinations. And given the size of the pool, that number is likely to be large. Even something which would only work for 1 in a million couples would STILL work for over 11 TRILLION possible combinations. Fundamentally, this is why you need to give up on "rules". No, this is not a joke. Humans are freakin weird. I tend to judge actual relationships (when I have any need to judge someone else's relationship at all), not theoretical ones. And the way I judge them is based on whether they seem to be working out for the people involved.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:31:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I'm really hoping that LadyNTrainer is still taking a look at this thread. I think she could help Me with this particular point. The piece that she wrote already was quite good in addressing this. Yep, a client canceled this afternoon and I'm feeling too beat up right now to hit the weights myself. Maybe in an hour or two when I've absorbed some carbs and the headache is gone. So I'm here and bored at the moment. LOL quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot So what if you get fired, or break your leg, or have an accident and become paraplegic? When you become unable to work for your partner you become useless, so the relationship will inevitably end if it is ONLY based on your money and the things you do for him/her. My former primary had cerebal palsy. I was with him for some years. He wasn't rich, either; we split all expenses equally. The relationship ended, on friendly terms, for reasons other than his disability. I knew what I was getting into when I collared him, and I know that I can handle being with a disabled partner if he is a good person and a good submissive and meets my needs on other fronts. I have no problem splitting the bills and lifting all the heavy objects that need lifting. I thought about that before entering into that relationship, so it wasn't a surprise and I never resented it since I had the chance to decide whether or not I consented in advance. I would certainly have an adjustment period to go through if either of my current partners suddenly became disabled or lost their income. How we came out the other end would be based more on how they handled it than on external circumstances outside any of our control. I would do my best to be as supportive as I could be. The deal breaker for me would be if they gave up and got so focused on hating life and being angry and helpless that they couldn't be a good partner any more. As long as they kept doing their best for themselves and for the relationship even when life was seriously getting them down, I'd be hanging in there doing my best as well. It's about the quality and character of the person and how they handle adversity, not the shit that can happen to anybody. Speaking outside my poly triad, if it was a casual or professional relationship, it would be over if my needs stopped being met even for external reasons, if they stopped being able or willing to hold up their end of a fair exchange. I don't owe more than that to strangers. Inside it....well, when I collar someone it is damn serious, and I am deeply committed to my partners. It would take a very large and fundamental change in who they were, not in what was happening to them, to make me re-assess my level of commitment to the relationship. It's likely that if one of them were disabled, the other would end up being the one to meet more of my needs in some areas, and our triad dynamics would shift substantially around that as well as around the disabled partner's need for care. But since it is a triad, I don't forsee that any of us would have to walk away because our needs weren't being met by the one person who was disabled. One of the nicer benefits of poly is that you are not dependent on having 100% of your needs met by a single person, so you can get your needs met and still share your life with someone you love and cherish and value without being unfulfilled because you can't be everything to each other. Being another person's everything really is a pretty tall order. It can be done, but it's hard, and if one partner becomes disabled, it's even harder. Poly makes it a lot easier, especially in a situation like this. Family support is a good thing, even when it's a nontraditional family of love and choice. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact If the relationship that you have is based on money, and then there is none, it is quite possible that, since the foundation of the relationship is gone, the rest of it no longer applies. The understanding between a prodomme and a client is one of exchange. The client pays for the prodomme's time. When he ceases to pay her, she's not going to continue. Not all clients get that. They confuse in their head that the prodomme is more invested in their client than they really are. That generally isn't the case. It's a business transaction, plain and simple. As usual, LP makes much sense here. She has a good track record for doing that. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact You can actually take this a step farther and apply it to other areas. For example, if a relationship is based on love, but then the love is gone, the people are no longer interested in being involved in a relationship. The very same way that, if I no longer had sadistic desires, My masochist of a slave and I would lose a pivital point of compatibility. No matter what you throw in that little slot of 'a relationship based on X' the same holds true. If X is no longer bringing the people together for benefit that they are receiving, they are going to find that benefit somewhere else. Here, too. Ego congruo.

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:41:47 PM)
I am very fond of the dynamic you described in your poly triad, LadyNTrainer. However, as far as it seems to me, your triad is based on love, compatibility, and much more of other things then pure money and utility. So, my advice does not at all apply to your triad. I was only suggesting that it might be wise for people to avoid being in long term, serious relationships which are only based on money and utility, and I still hold to this opinion.

Jeffff -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:44:14 PM)
You're playing here aren't you? No one is this dense, not really. Kudos!

LadyHibiscus -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:48:16 PM)
Don't count on it baybee!

leadership527 -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:48:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff No one is this dense, not really. You're not very good at math either. 6.8 billion people on the planet. Yup, some of them ARE this dense...really. This is EXACTLY why I think we should all agree that MY way is the one true way. That way we could just cut these sorts of threads short. Someone could ask me. I could answer. Problem solved.

laurell3 -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 1:57:56 PM)
No, MY way....ironing and tarn washing for all Doms!

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 2:01:43 PM)
I don't know why are we arguing so much when everyone know only MY way is correct! If you are not an idealist in heart, we don't need to discuss anything! [;)]

laurell3 -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 2:02:37 PM)
I actually am at heart....but my rational mind catches that and pulls my stupid ass back into reality.

Jeffff -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 2:02:58 PM)
O.o. BDSM without love is a sham. It is both morally and ethically wrong ~smiles~

laurell3 -> RE: An interesting piece of advice - do you agree with it? (5/21/2010 2:04:24 PM)
Jefffffffffffffffff does it bother you that my focus is on your practical uses, ie: ironing, breakfast making and tarn washing?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875