RE: exclusivity

RE: exclusivity (Full Version)

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

Message

kiwisub12 -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 2:34:37 PM)
When i was newly single again, i was becoming acquainted with more than one dom at any given time. Part of it was for practical reasons - the more doms i met the more likely i was to find the one i was compatible with, and part of it was because i could. I didn't ever date more than one guy at a time when i was vanilla, and i have to say i enjoyed it! When i started seeing my honey, it became more and more clear to me that we were very compatible on more than one level, and i would be a fool to pass him up. He on the other hand was quietly waiting for me to see the error of my ways and commit to him, and his patience paid off. Oddly enough, very few of the doms even thought about me dating or seeing anyone else. The subject was never raised by anyone but me, and surprise was expressed by all, but to me, unless exclusivity is discussed, then how can it be assumed?

NorthernGent -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 2:40:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kiwisub12 When i was newly single again, i was becoming acquainted with more than one dom at any given time. Part of it was for practical reasons - the more doms i met the more likely i was to find the one i was compatible with, and part of it was because i could. I didn't ever date more than one guy at a time when i was vanilla, and i have to say i enjoyed it! When i started seeing my honey, it became more and more clear to me that we were very compatible on more than one level, and i would be a fool to pass him up. He on the other hand was quietly waiting for me to see the error of my ways and commit to him, and his patience paid off. Oddly enough, very few of the doms even thought about me dating or seeing anyone else. The subject was never raised by anyone but me, and surprise was expressed by all, but to me, unless exclusivity is discussed, then how can it be assumed? It is discussed by me. You're hedging your bets? That's fine. Crack on. But you're not for me. I don't get along too well with women who think 'the more doms I met the more likely I was to find the one I'm compatible with'. See, by the time I meet a woman I've worked out that we're compatible, I wouldn't meet a woman unless I've decided she has what it takes; and as I'm the judge and jury in these matters then that's all she needs to know.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 2:49:34 PM)
I think many men have that "she'd better focus on me" thing in the beginning, and in my opinion, way too early. Often, a man wants to take a female off the market immediately, b/c if she is any good at all she is going to be snapped up, and he knows it. He who hesitates is lonely. From the female perspective, only the desperate have to immediately focus on one person. I've never needed a man so badly I had to settle into a committed relationship before I was ready to. The man I am currently with played it perfectly. He made it abundantly clear he was interested in me and focused on me. He knew I had other men in my life and basically just ignored them. He never demanded exclusivity, and has never made any issue of my male sub. In fact we are all good friends. We are exclusive in terms of he is the only male I have sex with, and the only Dom I give (romantic) attention to. He never demanded this, I gave it b/c he inspired me to. Huge difference, and one I would consider in seeking a quality female.

NorthernGent -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 3:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Often, a man wants to take a female off the market immediately, b/c if she is any good at all she is going to be snapped up, and he knows it. He who hesitates is lonely. I wouldn't get involved with anyone who didn't meet my standards; in other words, my version of good. But, if you equate hesitation to taking your time then that's me, and I can't force any woman to take herself off the market - it's her call. Call it setting your stall out or call it arrogance, but my expectation is that she comes to me as someone who is off the market and I'll let her know when I've decided we're ready to take things a step further. And, I hold absolutely no anxiety around her 'being snapped up'. 'Good women' are like me in character - they prefer depth over breadth - so in the event she is thinking about 'being snapped up', then that's not my queue to bend over backwards to accomodate, it's my queue to shove her in the direction of where she needs to go, and that ain't with me.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 3:24:01 PM)
quote: Call it setting your stall out or call it arrogance, but my expectation is that she comes to me as someone who is off the market and I'll let her know when I've decided we're ready to take things a step further. Seriously, how is that working for you? Anyone of quality has standards, that goes without saying. However, what you have outlined above smacks of "I want someone to submit to me before they have any idea I can be a good leader for them. They are supposed to take me on faith, b/c I said so." Fantasy land, IMO. Unless you are looking for those who are so sub they will submit to ANYONE, and I have to say I don't get that. To each his or her own, I am sure, but I have never been interested in that sort of dynamic with a male sub, and I would imagine my results would be equally as lousy with a fem sub. Again, JMO, YMMV.

NuevaVida -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 3:33:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Call it setting your stall out or call it arrogance, but my expectation is that she comes to me as someone who is off the market and I'll let her know when I've decided we're ready to take things a step further. A few years ago I decided I wasn't going to be with anyone who didn't want me there. This isn't from a place of arrogance; rather, a place of self preservation and defining my own boundaries that were conducive to a healthy frame of mind. That said, I wouldn't take myself "off the market" for a man who wasn't even sure he wanted me. Life just doesn't work that way for me. We either want each other or we don't. The process of getting to know each other is a grey area. If I'm sure but he's not sure, I'm going to keep living my life until he figures it out. That may or may not include talking to or seeing other men. When the man above me came into my life, I wasn't even looking for a relationship. I didn't even want to be in one. My life was very full already, and I figured men just complicated things. Go figure, just a couple of months later, no other man even got a glance from me. But if he were still "undecided" at that point, I probably would have drifted off. I was giving myself to him because I very much wanted to be with him, not because I needed to. Fortunately for both of us, we melded together at a nice and slow pace, which worked well for us both.

NorthernGent -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 3:38:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt quote: Call it setting your stall out or call it arrogance, but my expectation is that she comes to me as someone who is off the market and I'll let her know when I've decided we're ready to take things a step further. Seriously, how is that working for you? Anyone of quality has standards, that goes without saying. However, what you have outlined above smacks of "I want someone to submit to me before they have any idea I can be a good leader for them. They are supposed to take me on faith, b/c I said so." Fantasy land, IMO. Unless you are looking for those who are so sub they will submit to ANYONE, and I have to say I don't get that. To each his or her own, I am sure, but I have never been interested in that sort of dynamic with a male sub, and I would imagine my results would be equally as lousy with a fem sub. Again, JMO, YMMV. Depth over breadth, as stated. I like that in a woman. Also, I stated that it's her call. What I didn't state, granted, is that it's up her to whether or not she accepts the offer; this is a given, which is why I didn't feel the need to spell it out. It follows that they are not 'supposed to take it on my faith'. Quite clearly, you don't believe in 'to each his own', because you've attempted to deride my position, unless, of course, your idea of 'to each his own' is to call someone else's stance 'fantasy land'. And, in the interests of clarity, I'm not looking for 'someone who will submit to anyone'; you couldn't be further from the truth, which is the whole point of steering clear from someone hedging her bets. You really need to be a touch more considered in your approach (at least when responding to me).

NorthernGent -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 3:53:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Call it setting your stall out or call it arrogance, but my expectation is that she comes to me as someone who is off the market and I'll let her know when I've decided we're ready to take things a step further. A few years ago I decided I wasn't going to be with anyone who didn't want me there. This isn't from a place of arrogance; rather, a place of self preservation and defining my own boundaries that were conducive to a healthy frame of mind. That said, I wouldn't take myself "off the market" for a man who wasn't even sure he wanted me. Life just doesn't work that way for me. We either want each other or we don't. The process of getting to know each other is a grey area. If I'm sure but he's not sure, I'm going to keep living my life until he figures it out. That may or may not include talking to or seeing other men. When the man above me came into my life, I wasn't even looking for a relationship. I didn't even want to be in one. My life was very full already, and I figured men just complicated things. Go figure, just a couple of months later, no other man even got a glance from me. But if he were still "undecided" at that point, I probably would have drifted off. I was giving myself to him because I very much wanted to be with him, not because I needed to. Fortunately for both of us, we melded together at a nice and slow pace, which worked well for us both. I assume every woman has the strength of character to say no when she has doubts, or, in other words 'decide she's not going to be with anyone who hasn't shown a healthy interest in her'. And 'if he's not sure' then he needs to be open about it, so the woman can make her choice. Planning goes a long way, and there are plenty of good women out there - meaning you can afford to take your time, watch how she carries herself and how she thinks, before introducing yourself. I would agree, I continue to live my life, but that isn't at odds with taking the time to weigh up a woman and ensure she has a good chance of meeting your criteria before starting the ball rolling.

leadership527 -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 3:58:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Often, a man wants to take a female off the market immediately Just to be clear, my view was a bit different. I wouldn't be taking the female "off the market" because I never would've seen her as "on the market" to start with. As far as I'm concerned, if there is another man in the picture then she's not available in any market I shop in. It's just not what I do nor is it what women compatible with me do. I'd never meet such a woman... at least not with the eyes of romantic interest.

PetiteOralSub -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 4:01:12 PM)
I'm in agreement on a number of points with porcelaine, dating is dating, it is not a commitment of any kind. I rarely date less than 5, all 5 are totally different, and enrich my lfe in 5 different ways. My feelings for one, in no way effect my feelings for any of the others. Having learned this, I can now understand that if a Master gets bored or is displeased, it is because of something I did, not something some other slave somewhere did. Another slave will not be the cause of the end of a relationship, I will be. While many vanilla men have wanted to, no Master has ever required exclusivity of me, no Master would do that once they know my nature. I would not be ignorant enough to request, require, presume, dream of or think that it would be a good idea for a Master to be exclusive to one slave. Masters should have as many slaves as they can draw and keep. Practical matters dictate this if nothing else, a good session takes 7-10 days to heal from. All that being said, without monogamy, there must be condoms. Which I despise, but deal with as a necessary evil.

sunshinemiss -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 4:22:31 PM)
NorthernGent At the very beginning. If she wants my time then she better focus on me. What am I? Just running round in the hope she does me a favour? Fuckin' hell, that sort of thing gets you dipped in a vat of acid. Is that how women treat you when they are getting to know you? Really? What kind of woman do you get involved with? I don't think that enjoying each others' company is "doing a favor" for anyone. I ain't one for competing with anyone for anyone's affections, and there's a bit of the conservative in me and the romantic in me when it comes to relationships. Where to begin? First, there was not / is not competition. Those men were not involved with anyone, I was not involved with anyone. We enjoyed each other and spent time together. Everyone knew that while we weren't meant to be together forever, why not spend time together now? Should I go sailing alone or take a spirited, passionate, fun friend? Maybe I should go to the theater alone instead of sharing my second ticket with someone who also enjoys the theater and who can have a grand conversation afterward over a nice pinot grigio. Oh there's that wonderful Cinco de Mayo festival at the park - maybe we could go together - I love seeing other people explore other cultures... who would be open to that? Oh no, I should obviously go alone since I don't want to compete for anyone's attentions. That's if I were foolish enough to follow your plan of action. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds? People are social animals (thank you, Eliot Aaronson). Just because "forever" isn't in the picture doesn't mean that "for the time being" can't be positive. Secondly, I'm fairly conservative in my relationships as well... when I'm in them. I'm deeply romantic. Just because someone is an extrovert doesn't mean they can't be conservative or romantic. Just because someone is enjoying other people's company doesn't mean they are going hog wild. It means they haven't found the right one yet... and they aren't going to just go out with their own gender. Utter nonsense. More importantly, I'm the type to focus on one person in depth, as opposed to spreading my time across a few; and I'd demand nothing less in return. And when Mr. The One showed up, I did the exact same thing. Within a few weeks, I didn't even notice other men. "Oh were there men at the party? I hadn't noticed." There was no one but him. I have never loved so deeply and thoroughly as I did that man. And now, we are not together. Other men have to meet that standard. Sadly, I find them woefully lacking, but now I know what I'm looking for. Edited to add: in the event you have the self confidence to know you have a lot to offer, more than most, then you're not going to entertain the idea of being just another horse in a field of ten with a 6/1 chance. Start as you mean to go on, and I'm a massive fan of intensity I know dang well I have a lot to offer, more than most. I am FABULOUS on many fronts. but I'm also a person who needs other people, a person who needs touch, a woman who wants and needs to flirt. Should I be a hermit until the right guy comes along? How would I ever meet him if I shut myself up in my room and didn't interact? I would say that anyone who has self confidence doesn't care if they are in a field of a thousand people. They know that they glow ... they know that the right one will see their glow. The right person will follow the path that leads to them. Or it wasn't meant to be. THAT'S self confidence. Requiring IN THE BEGINNING that you must be the only game in town is just... not self confident. best, sunshine

NuevaVida -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 4:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Planning goes a long way, and there are plenty of good women out there - meaning you can afford to take your time, watch how she carries herself and how she thinks, before introducing yourself. Absolutely. And the woman does the same, in reverse. At least this one does. I took my time, I observed him, I got to know him, and only when I started feeling the "wow factor" with him did I realize I wanted to be exclusive with him. I wasn't about to take myself "off the market" for him before this. quote: I would agree, I continue to live my life, but that isn't at odds with taking the time to weigh up a woman and ensure she has a good chance of meeting your criteria before starting the ball rolling. And many women do this as well, in return. I know I did. I am curious why you would want her to do something different and become exclusive to you while you're still weighing her up.

porcelaine -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 5:52:26 PM)
In my opinion people have their own approach to dating that reflects their preferences, lifestyle, goals, and moral code to name a few. What's acceptable to one can be abhorrent to the next. Making an attempt to fashion oneself into a mode that wouldn't fit is futile from my perspective. i believe well meaning onlookers offer their opinions on what the single types are doing incorrectly. Good intentions aside, all one can do is share helpful experiences and words of wisdom. Their applicability to the party in question is always hit and miss. There are too many nuances that make the seemingly wrong quite appropriate for someone else. i don't believe one needs to undergo gymnastic like contortions to find a partner, or perhaps i should state i'm unwilling to do so. Nor do i think i have to fill my week up with every imaginable possibility just in case i miss out on something wonderful. i'm far more discretionary with my private time but that approach is quite suitable for those that enjoy its appeal. i won't assign myself to an individual that 'appears' like a good candidate if that hasn't been solidified with tangible experiences that corroborate the notion. But it doesn't imply that i fail to recognize an amazing catch who might inspire me to step outside the box. It all boils down to chemistry, mental connection and a very strong compelling. If the three items are on the menu we have something to discuss. If one is absent no amount of wait and see will bring it forth. Some women enjoy a slower pace whereas i size men up rather quickly and know early on where i stand. i don't believe we should feel beholden to the other person but ideally there's something internally derived that inspires that kind of connection. Expectation from the other party wouldn't be enough without something from yours truly in the mix. Namaste, ~porcelaine

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 6:59:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Depth over breadth, as stated. I like that in a woman. Also, I stated that it's her call. What I didn't state, granted, is that it's up her to whether or not she accepts the offer; this is a given, which is why I didn't feel the need to spell it out. It follows that they are not 'supposed to take it on my faith'. Quite clearly, you don't believe in 'to each his own', because you've attempted to deride my position, unless, of course, your idea of 'to each his own' is to call someone else's stance 'fantasy land'. And, in the interests of clarity, I'm not looking for 'someone who will submit to anyone'; you couldn't be further from the truth, which is the whole point of steering clear from someone hedging her bets. You really need to be a touch more considered in your approach (at least when responding to me). That really did make me laugh out loud. Why are you so easily offended? B/c your game plan isn't working in terms of finding the quality "in depth" female you seek? You never did answer that question . . . . And you so clearly want to hedge YOUR bets "my expectation is that she comes to me as someone who is off the market and I'll let her know when I've decided we're ready to take things a step further." and yet she should not hedge hers? YOU hedging your bets does not detract from YOUR depth, but it does hers? I really don't care whether or not I offend you with my opinions, if you don't like them put me on ignore. I am merely pointing out that you seem to have a huge double standard going on in your early relations with females you don't even know if you want to get involved with.

DesFIP -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 8:40:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt From the female perspective, only the desperate have to immediately focus on one person. I've never needed a man so badly I had to settle into a committed relationship before I was ready to. The fact that I do better focusing my attention on one at a time doesn't mean I'm desperate. I also only read one book at a time, or only have one movie going on at a time. Maybe you think that's desperate also? To me it's a question of being able to focus and see what's there. It's mindfulness, not desperation.

SpiritedRadiance -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 9:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Depth over breadth, as stated. I like that in a woman. Also, I stated that it's her call. What I didn't state, granted, is that it's up her to whether or not she accepts the offer; this is a given, which is why I didn't feel the need to spell it out. It follows that they are not 'supposed to take it on my faith'. Quite clearly, you don't believe in 'to each his own', because you've attempted to deride my position, unless, of course, your idea of 'to each his own' is to call someone else's stance 'fantasy land'. And, in the interests of clarity, I'm not looking for 'someone who will submit to anyone'; you couldn't be further from the truth, which is the whole point of steering clear from someone hedging her bets. You really need to be a touch more considered in your approach (at least when responding to me). And you so clearly want to hedge YOUR bets "my expectation is that she comes to me as someone who is off the market and I'll let her know when I've decided we're ready to take things a step further." and yet she should not hedge hers? I think your misunderstanding him. I understand that comment as we talk one on one and we focus on each other and dont date anyone else while getting to know each other. If theres chemistry... Ill tell you and we will take things further on my terms (because He happens to be a Dom) or if theres not ill let you know so you can persue others. I only date one person at a time, and on a FIRST date I disclose to that person who I play with on a regular basis their genders the type of play and what I want or hope for from that person... If they say hey i wish i could fulfill that but i cant... then I move on...

porcelaine -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 9:21:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP The fact that I do better focusing my attention on one at a time doesn't mean I'm desperate. I also only read one book at a time, or only have one movie going on at a time. Maybe you think that's desperate also? No, but i can't fathom why you find the comment odd given your earlier remarks which suggested: "Most people I know who are dating numerous people at once aren't really ready for a monogamous long term relationship. Thus they spread their intimacy about to prevent committing to one. Sunny of course has huge self awareness, but most people don't." Rather than see their behavior as a personal choice that's in response to what works for them in their private lives, you elect to view them as ill prepared for a serious relationship. i can't understand how you can make gross generalizations about others and find them ill fitting when you're on the receiving end. Namaste, ~porcelaine

sunshinemiss -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 9:22:37 PM)
I've dated one person at a time... sometimes three dates in one day, but each date was with only one other person. [:)]

NuevaVida -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 9:24:53 PM)
quote: I understand that comment as we talk one on one and we focus on each other and dont date anyone else while getting to know each other. I didn't get that from the posts. I got that he expects her to not date anyone else while not offering the same in return, while they get to know each other. If I've misunderstood I'd welcome the correction, as that's what I've been responding to. NG? Can you clarify?

NorthernGent -> RE: exclusivity (4/18/2011 10:42:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss Utter nonsense. 'Could prove useful to reserve judgement until the conversation has reached its conclusion. quote: ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss I would say that anyone who has self confidence doesn't care if they are in a field of a thousand people. They know that they glow ... they know that the right one will see their glow. The right person will follow the path that leads to them. Or it wasn't meant to be. THAT'S self confidence. Requiring IN THE BEGINNING that you must be the only game in town is just... not self confident. best, sunshine And that's fine. Seems we have a different take on self-confidence. I would go with this: Providing you have interests, i.e. a source of conversation, and can find common ground with people, and I'm one of those with a broad range of interests and adaptable to the situation and as such can always find something to talk about with any person, and a sense of humour (open to debate whether or not I have one of those); then you're not going to struggle with women. Self-confidence to me is being patient in the knowledge that you don't have to play the numbers game. You set your stall out for what you want and you have the discipline to see it through to its conclusion. You're not just any old fella playing the numbers and dating game, leave that to the usual suspects, you set yourself apart from that because quite frankly that should be left to the pack, most of whom meander from one potential prospect to another. You're a discerning fella who estimates that 95% of women just don't interest him. The 5% have a novel and interesting way of thinking, and those are the ones to go after, and as they're not your average woman then you're going to have to be patient. And then there's the 'normal' way of doing things - I would rather die a slow, painful death than live my life according to what other people see as the 'norm'.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875