mp072004
Posts: 381
Joined: 12/22/2005 Status: offline
|
It's unfortunate when people enter relationships, BDSM or otherwise, without clearly defining their rules and obligations. Bad things happen, and, as the OP described, people get hurt. It seems that the couple described failed to adequately define their relationship. It was ill-done of the man defiantbadgirl discusses to fail to define his role in their relationship, and it was ill-done of defiantbadgirl to fail to define her role as well. This mistake is hardly characteristic of being new to BDSM; experienced BDSMers do it, vanillas do it. I don't know that there is a single definition of "trainer" among BDSM people. As a result, when I say I like incorporate teaching, or training, in my d/s relationships, I generally give an example of it. I say something like, "When I talk about training, I mean that I like helping people reach defined goals, usually involving learning, literacy and written and oral expression." I'll help people learn things in short-term, even one-day situations, but this is something that's important to me in a long-term relationship with a person who agrees to obey me. Defiantbadgirl wrote that "Trainers only want short-term and no amount of effort on the trainee's part will convince them otherwise." The fact that training is a short-term proposition is debatable, but I have a different objection. When I tell someone the kind of relationship I want, and he or she tells me the kind of relationship he or she wants, and they don't match, I might say, "We are mismatched, and would probably do better with other people. If you really, really like me, and want a relationship with me, we'll need to do the kind of relationship I want, because I don't want a relationship with you enough to do things your way." It's perfectly honorable to not do love relationships or long term relationships. It's also honorable to do long term relationships that don't involve love. It is, however, dishonorable to violate one's agreements. It's wrong agree to do a relationship that doesn't involve emotional obligation and involve emotional obligation in it, and it is similarly dishonorable to agree to do a relationship with emotional obligation and not involve emotional obligation in it. Using a more concrete example, if I agree that I'll give X flowers on Valentine's Day, I need to do it, or I'm being a bad partner, but if I agree that I WON'T give X flowers on Valentine's Day, I need to refrain from doing it, or I'm being a bad partner, too. Defiantbadgirl, it's unfortunate that you have been hurt, and it is unfortunate that the man described in your posts was hurt as well. You might find some solace in the recognition that this experience has taught you more about the sort of relationship you want, and has illustrated the importance of clearly defining your relational rules. Silver linings, you know. Monica
|