RE: consideration?

RE: consideration? (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyPact -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 7:27:11 AM)
Here we go again. Every time this topic comes up, folks are so quick to jump to conclusions about the term. Personally, I find that a bit unfair to those of us who use it because it's the best way to describe our interactions and the way we run a household. If someone is considering joining My household and I am considering them, for that period of time where we are determining if it is a good fit, "under consideration" is the best term for it. I don't meet with people a couple of times and say it's a done deal. I also don't "date". In My case, it is the easiest way to describe the situation so that people will understand what I am talking about without having to give them some version of the relationship's history. (While we're at it, I also use the terms "in service to Me" and "in training".) In most cases these days, a good number of people have a profile on one kink site or another. Due to the fact that I run high protocol dynamics, and My belief that a period of consideration should be helping the parties to determine if they are a good fit for each other, that means the protocol part is in place during that time as well. The person who is looking to join My household isn't considered a free agent until all of the decisions are final. During that trial period, they need to be knowing exactly what they are getting into. Having that person list it on their profile is a very good way to get them used to the way things will be once they are owned. quote: As if any self respecting Dom/me is gonna skip through those hoops.... Focus. You'd be surprised. Most folks out there, even if they don't do high protocol dynamics themselves, absolutely will respect a dynamic that is in place. It's not a hundred percent of the kinky population, but the small fraction of folks who won't is so small that it's barely worth mentioning. Very much the same as how frequently it happens that another Dominant will walk into somebody's household and contradict the protocols of the house. Of course, things may be different where you are, if there is less exposure to leather and other high protocol households. In case anyone's forgotten, when clip first created his profile here, it read "under consideration of Lady Pact". If you're thinking that folks aren't respectful of that, you'd be mistaken. _____________________________ Proud owner of LPslittleclip. I really do appreciate your opinion and all, but My dynamic is not a democracy and you don't get a vote.

LadyPact -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 7:30:23 AM)
My apologies. Double post.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 7:32:03 AM)
I don't know. Sometimes I wish people would be a little MORE upfront about the fact they are "considering someone." Gotta say, it really sucks to be seeing someone, talking to them, getting to know them - only to find out from their fetlife upates, that they have just collared and moved in their new slave.... However, generally speaking, "Under Consideration" is viewed askance by many and for good reasons.

poise -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 7:32:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam More like 15 years but Im here now n that's what counts right? I'm one of those "pre internet" Doms. Indeed! Pardon the intentional math error. I have a hard time with anything more than 10. [:)]

coookie -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 8:04:12 AM)
I think under consideration mean .. "I call dibs BUT i still want to see if I can get anything better". Lady Pact I would not say that I disagree with you though unfortunately the term has been so grossly perverted that to most people it means nothing.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 10:17:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNDommeK I have often seen on profiles "under consideration by <insert name here>" Im just curious but what are your thoughts on consideration online? There are a lot of opinions on this. We use a "consideration" collar in our household at the point at which someone is with us and exploring life with us, but prior to the time that they've been accepted as full members. It works for us, especially with the complex structure of our household. Some folks think it's foolish -- for them, it probably is. It works for us, and while I'll explain how we use it, I feel no compulsion to defend its use to anyone else. For us, it makes sense. Everyone else can decide whether it makes sense for them or not. Calla

LadyPact -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 10:18:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coookie I think under consideration mean .. "I call dibs BUT i still want to see if I can get anything better". Lady Pact I would not say that I disagree with you though unfortunately the term has been so grossly perverted that to most people it means nothing. Close, but slightly different angle. This is a topic that we've beaten around here a lot. It isn't so much that it's been perverted that it means nothing. I'd say it's more often been used by those that have less than good intentions that people are more suspicious of it now than it used to be. When folks see it used by somebody they aren't familiar with, they do automatically assume that it's a bunch of crap because folks aren't aware of that person's methods. Often, the things that have been said on this thread will apply. More often than not, when it comes to the "under consideration" term, it isn't always about what is being said. It has a lot to do with who is saying it, too. It's kind of a knee jerk reaction to those folks who are using it for less than honorable purposes. For example, I highly doubt that Holly thinks I'm an idiot, but she's not exactly lumping Me into the category of folks that she's probably observed other people using the term who are a bit on the shady side. Truthfully, I come on threads that cover subjects of certain terminology (consideration, training, etc) as a reminder that some folks do use these terms and do so with a good intent.

AquaticSub -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 10:29:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: poise Would this explain the profiles that list Under Consideration by so and so, and yet there is no such so and so on there friends list (but lots of others) ? That often puzzled me. Same thing with many of the Owned By profiles. Could be but, you have to realize that not everyone in the lifestyle is on this site. I wasnt for a decade and a half. Those might be collared to/ownedby/under consideration by someone who just isnt on the site. This is true. It annoyed me that Fetlife won't let yourself be listed as in a relationship with someone unless they are on the site. Val had no desire, intention or inclination to join yet he had to make an account for me to list myself as 'owned'. While it wasn't a big deal and took all of 30 thirty seconds, it still irked me a bit that the site decided that unless he was on there as well it wasn't a 'real' relationship. I think the actual text that popped up was along the lines of "we do this because we don't think you can be in a relationship with someone you aren't friends with" because obviously all of my kinky friends are on fetlife. eyeroll And really, he only indulged me because we also have friends on there and it won't hurt his search for another girl to be listed in more than one place. If we weren't poly and/or our friends weren't on there, there is a reasonable chance that he wouldn't.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 10:31:39 AM)
quote: Truthfully, I come on threads that cover subjects of certain terminology (consideration, training, etc) as a reminder that some folks do use these terms and do so with a good intent. This. [sm=oddballs.gif][sm=applause.gif] Calla

AquaticSub -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 10:45:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact You'd be surprised. Most folks out there, even if they don't do high protocol dynamics themselves, absolutely will respect a dynamic that is in place. It's not a hundred percent of the kinky population, but the small fraction of folks who won't is so small that it's barely worth mentioning. Very much the same as how frequently it happens that another Dominant will walk into somebody's household and contradict the protocols of the house. Of course, things may be different where you are, if there is less exposure to leather and other high protocol households. What the smart lady said - about this and consideration. [:D] We're about as low protocol as one can get. It's just not our thing. But both Val and I still make reasonable efforts to respect other people's protocol. I mean... why wouldn't we? We ask that people respect how our dynamic runs - and sometimes it's as hard, or harder, to get respect for a low protocol dynamic than it a high one - so why shouldn't we extend the same? Granted that on the mail issue it means we are much more likely to not send mail. Because it's highly unlikely that we have something really important to say to someone who is under consideration and having their mail previewed who we don't already have a friendship with and can speak to directly. And sending a one-line joke to the domly dom to have it passed on just kinda kills to it to me. [:)] We, personally, don't much agree with having to send mail to someone else (for several reasons). But at the same time... doesn't affect us and it doesn't hurt us to extend some respect to their dynamic.

osf -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 11:18:28 AM)
I'm flexible, if she's worth it I'l consider her for some subbies it part of her package of fantasies and it sets up the tone of objectification

Focus50 -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 1:35:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact You'd be surprised. Most folks out there, even if they don't do high protocol dynamics themselves, absolutely will respect a dynamic that is in place. Well of course I respect such a dynamic. In so far as I roll my eyes and 'X' on outa there mumbling something about kiddies playing at being grownups.... Overall, I think you're a bit off base taking personal offense at what "under consideration" has become within the lifestyle. You've been around here long enough to know your very subjective, high protocol interpretation amounts to a percentage point or two compared to those "dom/mes" using it to lock a naive sub into exclusivity while they themselves may have half a dozen other subs "under consideration".... Focus.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 1:49:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Well of course I respect such a dynamic. In so far as I roll my eyes and 'X' on outa there mumbling something about kiddies playing at being grownups.... So you have the same opinion of using the term "under consideration" as I do of grownups writing in crayon colors. I don't have a high opinion of it, but other people have the right to express themselves any way they want to regardless of my opinion. quote: Overall, I think you're a bit off base taking personal offense at what "under consideration" has become within the lifestyle. You've been around here long enough to know your very subjective, high protocol interpretation amounts to a percentage point or two compared to those "dom/mes" using it to lock a naive sub into exclusivity while they themselves may have half a dozen other subs "under consideration".... So the fact that people demonstrably abuse this type of relationship in our lifestyle makes it an invalid type of relationship? Does the existence of velcro cyber collars and people who heavily abuse them mean that collarings are also ridiculous or meaningless? Consideration makes sense. It's dumb to jump right into a 24/7 D/s relationship commitment before you know each other well enough to be sure of compatibility. Yet if you've met someone you think may be right for you, acknowledging that and taking time to explore the possible connection, and being honest with others about what you are doing, is not a bad thing. It's clear communication. The usual red flags apply; if someone insists that you tell everyone you are under consideration, but they aren't saying the same thing themselves, then you don't know that they aren't playing the same game with a dozen other people. If it's reciprocal, what's the problem? Online only relationships are a whole other issue, and I'm not touching that topic with a ten foot strap-on.

Focus50 -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 2:39:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Well of course I respect such a dynamic. In so far as I roll my eyes and 'X' on outa there mumbling something about kiddies playing at being grownups.... So you have the same opinion of using the term "under consideration" as I do of grownups writing in crayon colors. I don't have a high opinion of it, but other people have the right to express themselves any way they want to regardless of my opinion. Not sure how my preferred font colour compares to locking the inexperienced or uninformed into a relationship that doesn't subject me to the same exclusivity. If I were paranoid, I'd think you had some other agenda in coming from this angle.... ;) quote: quote: Overall, I think you're a bit off base taking personal offense at what "under consideration" has become within the lifestyle. You've been around here long enough to know your very subjective, high protocol interpretation amounts to a percentage point or two compared to those "dom/mes" using it to lock a naive sub into exclusivity while they themselves may have half a dozen other subs "under consideration".... So the fact that people demonstrably abuse this type of relationship in our lifestyle makes it an invalid type of relationship? Does the existence of velcro cyber collars and people who heavily abuse them mean that collarings are also ridiculous or meaningless? Consideration makes sense. It's dumb to jump right into a 24/7 D/s relationship commitment before you know each other well enough to be sure of compatibility. Yet if you've met someone you think may be right for you, acknowledging that and taking time to explore the possible connection, and being honest with others about what you are doing, is not a bad thing. It's clear communication. The usual red flags apply; if someone insists that you tell everyone you are under consideration, but they aren't saying the same thing themselves, then you don't know that they aren't playing the same game with a dozen other people. If it's reciprocal, what's the problem? Online only relationships are a whole other issue, and I'm not touching that topic with a ten foot strap-on. I think you (and others) are clouding what should be a simple concept by smothering it in protocol and then using it to take offense. I'm actually fine with the notion of "under consideration" as long as it's mutually exclusive. I roll my eyes because mostly it's not - that fact trumps theory. A vanilla couple dates 2 or 3 times and makes plans for a 4th. Nothing formal; no rings etc - just two people dating.... They are reasonably under (relationship) consideration of each other. To me, including D/s (or M/s), this is how adults go about such things. Two people with a common purpose.... Then one announces they're gonna date others - or doesn't announce it and goes outside anyway. The other shouldn't feel aggrieved or betrayed, despite the lack of anything formal? It shouldn't change anything? To quote you from that other thread - "Puh-leeze". What I don't like is the D/s equation of it. That there are dom/mes who'll actually use their self proclaimed dom/me status to justify playing the field while locking in the sub to exclusivity. And that sub is almost always an inexperienced novice suffering from badly misplaced trust. A very-usual red flag.... Focus.

KatyLied -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 3:03:20 PM)
I think it's silly. But I also get that some people dig that sort of protocol in their newly (barely) formed relationship.

TNDommeK -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 3:11:01 PM)
perhaps I shouldnt have brought this particular topic up,lol... I was referring to online considerations. for instance I saw the same profile within three weeks saying "under consideration by" but it had two different names there(not to mention they were pic collectors). I firmly believe in a consideration collar when slave is physically there.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 4:44:50 PM)
quote: I'm actually fine with the notion of "under consideration" as long as it's mutually exclusive. Well, hmm. We have a potential individual "under consideration", and yes, we ask that they not look at other potential situations while they're under consideration with our household. Our reasoning is that it is difficult for an individual to be able to immerse themselves in OUR situation if they're bouncing between two or three other situations -- however, the House certainly may be looking at more than one individual at any given time... our reasoning on this... we have several Keepers and trainers available at any given time, and not all of our servants are active in all of our sub-houses. We're honest about that, and it makes sense for us -- but there certainly isn't any "mutual exclusivity" clause in there. However, it is still functional, and certainly not "a joke" -- at least not for any of those of us who are participating. quote: Then one announces they're gonna date others - or doesn't announce it and goes outside anyway. The other shouldn't feel aggrieved or betrayed, despite the lack of anything formal? It shouldn't change anything? To quote you from that other thread - "Puh-leeze". This I agree with. I think that it is important that the parameters of a relationship be discussed up front. If the period of consideration is going to be one-sided, then make it clear and let the chips fall where they may. But don't sneak about, fib, or withhold information to manipulate the situation. That isn't mastery and it isn't "consideration" -- it's deceit. Calla

LadyPact -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 5:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Well of course I respect such a dynamic. In so far as I roll my eyes and 'X' on outa there mumbling something about kiddies playing at being grownups.... Overall, I think you're a bit off base taking personal offense at what "under consideration" has become within the lifestyle. You've been around here long enough to know your very subjective, high protocol interpretation amounts to a percentage point or two compared to those "dom/mes" using it to lock a naive sub into exclusivity while they themselves may have half a dozen other subs "under consideration".... Focus. I would have no good basis to know what the percentage points might be. However, I will tell you that I think you are at a huge disadvantage due to location in not getting full perspective on the matter. Should you ever have the opportunity to visit over here, you might very well be interested in just how many attendees that leather fests and conferences pull in. On being exclusive, you're right. It doesn't work that way in My household. I'm poly. There is no option for being exclusive. Somebody would have to be outright ignoring what I tell them if they though it was.

FukinTroll -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 5:24:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coookie I think under consideration mean .. "I call dibs BUT i still want to see if I can get anything better". I don't remember having you under consideration before... but I must have. I gotta quit fukin drinken an chattin up tha sluts.

AquaticSub -> RE: consideration? (1/17/2011 5:46:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FukinTroll quote: ORIGINAL: coookie I think under consideration mean .. "I call dibs BUT i still want to see if I can get anything better". I don't remember having you under consideration before... but I must have. I gotta quit fukin drinken an chattin up tha sluts. But then you'd never call me...

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875