LadyNTrainer
Posts: 1584
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Focus50
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.
The comparison is an apt one. I see a grownup writing in what looks to me like crayon colors, and my immediate first impression is pretty negative. I tend to start thinking things about their level of maturity and professionalism that may not actually be true. I suspect you're doing the same thing when you see people use a "collar of consideration". In some cases you may be right, and in other cases you may be wrong and these individuals may be quite sober and serious and know what they are doing.
quote:
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.
I'm not taking offense so much as pointing out that people do use this term as an honest communication of their status. I have no freaking clue what the statistics are on what people do online, nor do I care as I'm not very interested in online kink. I only know what my friends in the community are doing, and at times they do use a "collar of consideration" or "under consideration" to designate a provisional relationship status. It has generally been used to mean that they're in the process of seriously negotiating a possible D/s or M/s relationship, but they still have some talking to do before deciding whether or not they will take that step. Which makes perfect sense to me.
I am not sure why it would fail to make sense to anyone else, though I suppose if people are rampantly doing a lot of stupid shit and playing drama games online, you could expect them to continue doing this no matter what they decided to call their relationship. The problem here is not with the idea of "consideration". It's with people doing stupid shit on the Internet.
quote:
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....
But we're not vanilla. So if there's a prospective relationship where you think you might be giving or accepting a collar in the future if everything goes well, and you want to communicate that to others, I don't see any reason not to use "under consideration". I don't think it's something that I would personally jump right into on the second or third or fourth date, but if I'd been seeing someone for awhile and built a solid enough relationship that I wanted to start talking about the possibility of a collar, I might refer to them as "under consideration".
quote:
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....
There's been a lot of discussion as to whether negotiated inequality works in a poly situation, specifically whether a dominant can be free to add more partners while a submissive does not have the same right. In non-kinky poly, it's referred to as mono/poly, not the board game. The most common consensus from folks who are actually doing it is that it can work, but like any other poly situation, it can also implode in bad drama if it is done poorly and anyone's core needs are not being met in the relationship.
Dominance is not a substitute for doing good poly in the sense of establishing solid foundations of honesty, trust and communication. There are no shortcuts for those things, any more than "On your knees, bitch," is a shortcut for establishing a D/s relationship. But D/s can mean negotiated inequality in a relationship, including in a poly relationship.
My owned submissives do not have the right to seek other partners without my say-so. That's what "owned" means; they are my property. I do have the right to seek other partners. In reality, I am unwilling to do anything that would make either of my committed partners unhappy, nor spend so much of my time and energy elsewhere that I could not meet their needs. Because I am responsible for their health as well as my own, I limit my play with others to primarily nonsexual and near zero risk activities (flogging, spanking, etc). In short, I actually do this thing that you are complaining about (eg, being a poly dominant who keeps their submissives as exclusive property), but I'm doing it responsibly and in a way that does not leave a destructive trail of unhappy people. I think so, and my boys think so, and as long as we're all happy with the way it works, other people don't get a vote.
_____________________________
Your dominant Personal Trainer for fitness and body shaping in the lifestyle. Let my fetish be your motivation.
|
RE: consideration? - 
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