RE: Men and Fidelity

RE: Men and Fidelity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

LadyHugs -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 10:37:47 AM)
Dear MistrssM, Ladies and Gentlemen; To the first paragraph question--can men be faithful, I think it depends on the man. Some are driven by the little head dangling between the dangle berries and some men are driven by their hearts, minds and spirit. Those driven by the little dangle berries, will most likely look and will be tempted as they are looking sexually not in a relationship capacity. Those driven by their hearts, minds and spirit; will most likely be extremely focused on their lady. Devoted, loving, protective and the gentlemen to which a woman will wish to keep. But, partnership is a living work of art. It requires work and maintaining. And, the best way to keep fidelity, is to communicate and listen to what that man has to say and what in his mind's eyes constitutes 'fidelity.' In this, both can find common understanding of what fidelity means to each other and be honest about the potential temptations on both sides. Just some thoughts. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

Kramel -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 10:41:49 AM)
quote: Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, she spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge financial settlement. Shame really, because this didn't happen the way it was protrayed in the media. The woman wasn't driving the car, but was in the passenger seat. The car wasn't moving, but was stationary. The lady didn't spill the coffee, but the polystyrience container did melt because the coffee was unnecessarily hot. It didn't spill "a bit", but enough to scald her and leave severe burns in the crotch. The lady didn't sue for millions, but for less than $20,000 to cover her actual medical expenses. The jury decided that because McDonalds had been told on a number of occasions that the water they used for coffee was unnecessarily hot, yet did nothing to fix the problem, they should pay punative damages equaly to a proportion of their sales.

pixelslave -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 11:01:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsSonnetMarwood quote: ORIGINAL: pixelslave It seems totally counter-intuitive to me that a submissive male would be less faithful than a vanilla male. One would think. However, a large percentage of "submissive men" that I speak to are married or otherwise have someone in their lives....and are actively looking for a Domme behind their wives/SO's back regardless. While I've never tracked what kind of percentage it was, more often than not that is indeed the case. Go figure. In the situation you describe, would you say that man is being honest with either himself or his significant other in contacting you? I'd say that he isn't and in fact probably isn't necessarily all that submissive, but instead is a man who wants to try and live out his fantasies. Otherwise he wouldn't be doing it behind his significant other's back. [&:] quote: I'm not particularly hung up on monogamy these days, but "fidelity" is another issue altogether. It seems to me, that in order to be monogamous, one must also have learned the self-discipline that comes with having learned fidelity; both to one's self and to others. I'll admit I don't understand the poly lifestyle, but I feel that I do understand the meaning of fidelity. Exactly how one can hold an obligation of fidelity to more than one when the two obligations are in conflict with each other, unless it is agreed that they are not, is a bit beyond my comprehension. But I don't want to divert the discussion anymore than it already has been. [8\|] - pixel

adaddysgirl -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 12:18:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bandit25 Is that you LaM? You little scamp, you. Hahaha....that's what i thought too! What a hoot! [:D] DG

adaddysgirl -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 12:35:14 PM)
Now on a serious note...i recently ran a thread on monogamy and it was quite interesting. First of all, there were a lot of different definitions for monogamy.....from being completely exclusive to being able to 'play' with others with the partners consent....to even more extremes outside of the relationship. There were even examples of where one partner was monogamous (or exclusive) and the other wasn't....and that was okay with them. And there did seem to be some distinction between monogamy and fidelity (such as in case of 'poly fidelity' where they aren't monogamous but are faithful to those within the relatiosnhip). i learned a lot from that thread. i am monogamous (and desire the same in a partner) and realized from what others were saying, it seems it is just how some are 'wired'. Using that as a basis, i do believe that anyone so inclined (male or female, dom or sub) can be monogamous, faithful, exclusive, whatever you want to call it....regardless of other factors involved. Now easily finding one like that....well, that's another subject [:D] Edited to add that i did not read all the other replies before i posted this....in case i duplicated anything. Daddysgirl

Lordandmaster -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 5:41:32 PM)
Laughing...nope, that one ain't me. quote: ORIGINAL: bandit25 Is that you LaM? You little scamp, you.

Voltare -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 6:15:31 PM)
Rather than seem like the true nerd I am, here's the facts of that McDonalds suit. http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Oct/1/130834.html Fact is, nobody knows how much that little old woman got. But damn right, she's the one who spilled the coffee, and it's gonna buy her kids BMWs. See if I ever serve coffee in MY restaurant. Go ahead! Ask! Oh, um, sure men can be faithful. And women can be good drivers.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 8:07:42 PM)
I wouldn't exactly call that "the facts" of the case. That's a very brief analysis of the jury's decision. Not the same thing. To get "the facts" on your own, you have to look up Liebeck v. McDonald's et al. (i.e. 1995 WL 360309, New Mexico District Court). By the way, if you're opposed to punitive damages, you might enjoy this (I don't exactly agree with it, but at least it's serious): http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue2/heriot.pdf quote: ORIGINAL: Voltare Rather than seem like the true nerd I am, here's the facts of that McDonalds suit. http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Oct/1/130834.html

Voltare -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 11:23:37 PM)
Sorry, I had intended to paste two links, and forgot the second one. Here you go. http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm Personally, I dislike abuse of civil law. One could argue it's a broken wheel on a broken car, but this wheel is making a lot of lawyers (who claim a hefty percentage of these claims, in exchange for reduced or waved fees) rich, at the expense of consumers who have to buy the stuff. Remember that McDonalds doesn't actually pay their legal expenses - they charge their consumers for it in the rising cost of their burgers, fries, etc. This is applied throughout the industry: from higher costs at the gas pump (to pay the punitive damages in environmental lawsuits) to more expensive tupperware (from frivolous lawsuits against the retailer) to housing (from worker compensation claims worth twenty years of 'lost' work, even if the employee had never had a job for more than six months.) But none of this is on topic, so I'll start a new thread over in Off Topic for it.

LadyEllen -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/17/2006 11:44:09 PM)
I'm so disappointed that slavehardboner has gone, or might have been a hoax.... he sounded ideal for me. After all, I'm slim, pay my own way so wouldnt have to charge him, and would never be so foolish as to get pregnant; it'd be a major miracle if I did! Its equally disappointing for him I expect, and you frightened him off! I'd have been ideal for him too. 'Cause he'd have spent the rest of his life as he dreamed...... locked in chastity, with a nice floral pattern pink frock 24/7 (maybe a coat too, for the mall in winter, if I'm feeling nice), and so many stripes across his arse every day..... just to make up for his comments here! But the best part would be, when he was suitably strapped down to something secure, and I invited his ex round to discuss settlement; serious settlement! E

Lordandmaster -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 6:24:10 AM)
Well, yes and no--if they have so many legal problems that they have to raise their prices too high to cover their costs, they're going to become uncompetitive and shut out of business. The ONLY thing corporations tend to is the bottom line, and that's why the ONLY thing that influences their behavior is monetary damages. Everything a corporation does, from marketing to pricing to deciding whether to fight a lawsuit or settle it, is determined by the perceived impact on the bottom line. quote: ORIGINAL: Voltare Remember that McDonalds doesn't actually pay their legal expenses - they charge their consumers for it in the rising cost of their burgers, fries, etc. This is applied throughout the industry: from higher costs at the gas pump (to pay the punitive damages in environmental lawsuits) to more expensive tupperware (from frivolous lawsuits against the retailer) to housing (from worker compensation claims worth twenty years of 'lost' work, even if the employee had never had a job for more than six months.)

thetammyjo -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 7:15:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixelslave It seems to me, that in order to be monogamous, one must also have learned the self-discipline that comes with having learned fidelity; both to one's self and to others. I'll admit I don't understand the poly lifestyle, but I feel that I do understand the meaning of fidelity. Exactly how one can hold an obligation of fidelity to more than one when the two obligations are in conflict with each other, unless it is agreed that they are not, is a bit beyond my comprehension. But I don't want to divert the discussion anymore than it already has been. [8\|] People have fidelity to multiple things all the time -- individual members of their family, the family as a whole, a school, a city, a state, a nation, a religion, etc. Afterall, fidelity is being faithful or truthful in regards to obligations, duties, or practices and human beings always seem to have multiple obligations, duties, and practices. Part of it is being honest and open with all those areas of your life and if you have a heirarchy of where each falls in your mental list being very clear with that. Take me for instance. Tom, my husband, is first on my list -- we have legal obligations and we have been together the longest. I am clear about this with every partner so I am neither unfaithful nor untruthful with them. They then can make an informed choice of whether or not to get involved with me. However I'm not egalitarian even though my partners can have other partners too. Since Tom is first in my order of obligations I expect to be first in his. Anyone I accept as a slave, because of that role and it's meaning to me, must also put me at the top if their obligations. This is why I am unlikely to own someone in a current relationship or with children. Don't like that and don't think it's fair? Don't be with me. It really is that simple. (as an aside, I also expect every person to really have a duty to him/herself first -- in short to take care of him/herself so that other obligations may be met with full abilities)

Voltare -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 7:16:53 AM)
LoM, while I do agree with you, the precedence for multi-million dollar lawsuits for petty lawsuits won't stop at the 'evil corporations.' I dislike the business practices of McDonalds, Microsoft, and Wall Mart, but the rulers that are swung to hurt them will be applied to folks like me who could stand to lose years of hard work, risk, and careful living because I didn't think to hang the mirror in my restroom where a handicapped person could see himself well. BTW, I started a thread for this topic over here, so as not to intrude on the OP: http://www.collarchat.com/m_731669/tm.htm

pixelslave -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 8:01:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: pixelslave It seems to me, that in order to be monogamous, one must also have learned the self-discipline that comes with having learned fidelity; both to one's self and to others. I'll admit I don't understand the poly lifestyle, but I feel that I do understand the meaning of fidelity. Exactly how one can hold an obligation of fidelity to more than one when the two obligations are in conflict with each other, unless it is agreed that they are not, is a bit beyond my comprehension. But I don't want to divert the discussion anymore than it already has been. [8\|] People have fidelity to multiple things all the time -- individual members of their family, the family as a whole, a school, a city, a state, a nation, a religion, etc. Afterall, fidelity is being faithful or truthful in regards to obligations, duties, or practices and human beings always seem to have multiple obligations, duties, and practices. Part of it is being honest and open with all those areas of your life and if you have a heirarchy of where each falls in your mental list being very clear with that. Take me for instance. Tom, my husband, is first on my list -- we have legal obligations and we have been together the longest. I am clear about this with every partner so I am neither unfaithful nor untruthful with them. They then can make an informed choice of whether or not to get involved with me. However I'm not egalitarian even though my partners can have other partners too. Since Tom is first in my order of obligations I expect to be first in his. Anyone I accept as a slave, because of that role and it's meaning to me, must also put me at the top if their obligations. This is why I am unlikely to own someone in a current relationship or with children. Don't like that and don't think it's fair? Don't be with me. It really is that simple. (as an aside, I also expect every person to really have a duty to him/herself first -- in short to take care of him/herself so that other obligations may be met with full abilities) TammyJo, I think your examples, such as what I have highlighted and bolded in Red regarding Tom coming first, is consistent with what I have highlighted in Blue in my original statement. It appears that the two obligations are not in conflict in that you have made it clear to the others that your obligations to Tom take priority over any obligations that you are making to others; thus they are not in conflict. There is an informed consent and all are clear regarding the heirarchy along with their place in the "food chain". In my opinion, you are wise in expecting each person to have a duty to themselves first. It is obvious to me that one cannot meet their obligations to others, if they don't first meet their obligations to themselves. Unfortunately, too many see this as being selfish, when the only way they can assure others they will ultimately be available to them at some time in the future on an ongoing basis is by taking care of themselves first. This is difficult for someone in the submissive position to do, as unless they are "incapacitated", preventative action to take care of themselves, in my very real experience, is usually interpreted as failing to serve their Domme. [:o] I understand your feelings about men with children, and I also have experienced it affecting me personally in that I have two daughters who are an important part of my life and must come first before any commitments I can make to a Dominant. This has been a problem for me in finding a new Domme with which to begin a relationship and in maintaining one which I initially started a number of months ago, but in which those obligations were not respected. When put in a position where I was forced to choose, for obvious reasons, the Domme lost as I am a father to my daughters first. [&:] - pixel

PhDslave -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 8:11:00 AM)
i was married for a long time and never cheated. i'm a one-Woman man and find it easy to be faithful.

thetammyjo -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 9:20:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixelslave I understand your feelings about men with children, and I also have experienced it affecting me personally in that I have two daughters who are an important part of my life and must come first before any commitments I can make to a Dominant. This has been a problem for me in finding a new Domme with which to begin a relationship and in maintaining one which I initially started a number of months ago, but in which those obligations were not respected. When put in a position where I was forced to choose, for obvious reasons, the Domme lost as I am a father to my daughters first. [&:] - pixel I hope that one day you could meet a woman who could be both a mistress and a partner in that way. I know of a lot of people who do mix the vanilla partnership with the Ds in their lives I just can't. My husband is my husbands, my slave is my slave and those roles do not overlap at all.

AquaticSub -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 12:15:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlaveHardBoner I am a male submissive who is married and I will tell you right now that I cheat on my wife. I cheat in a vanilla sex sense and in a D/s play sense with Pro Dommes. The reason I cheat is simple: she gained weight after having our 4 kids and never lost it - this is a total turn-off for me. She makes the excuse that taking care of the kids is a full time job but that is all BS. I have really gotten into being a slave and I am on this site seeking a younger, thin, hot woman to be my Mistress but she will have to be a Non-Pro; I am not going to pay to be a slave because that is too expensive. I just joined and I am pumped about getting into this lifestyle. Cheating husbands and fathers who do that to their children deserve what they will get when their wives find out. I pray your wife catchs you quickly. From personal experience, I assure you: You will suffer.

AquaticSub -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 12:18:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlaveHardBoner That is not fair or practical for me - I would lose my house, have to pay child support for fours kids, and alimony. She is lucky to have me - I provide a good home for her and I allow her spending money and once a month she is allowed to go out with her girlfriends so long as her mother is around to watch the kids. I think you are being judgemental and closed minded. OH YES! She's so LUCKY to have a man who is disgusted by her who promised to love her during better or worse. I think you are a pig. Own up to the fact you don't love her and only want to bone hot women. Pay your price and get out. quote: She gained the weight - I did not. Plus I am not humiliating her because I cheat behind her back. Now that I am considering becoming a slave this will complicate things - especially if I have to wear some type of special outfit or uniform all of the time - I will have to explain that to my wife somehow. Oh you poor thing! Here's a tissue and a memo. BDSM relationships are based on TRUST AND HONESTY. You don't know a thing about either one.

AquaticSub -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 12:19:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SlaveHardBoner From my perspective any woman who gets cheated on got cheated on for a reason. You did something wrong to cause him to do that. Your objective in a relationship, whether you are a Domme or not, should be to keep your man happy........... Are you sure you aren't a "twue mastar"? You use the same backward "I can do no wrong" logic...

Emperor1956 -> RE: Men and Fidelity (12/18/2006 12:21:46 PM)
quote: LaM: That's the end of this conversation, right? Oh, as long as we're asking stuff like this, I have a question too. Is it possible for women to look over their shoulders before they change lanes? Just wondering. Sure it is. But they have to put down the eye liner and the cell phone and actually take hold of the steering wheel to do so. E.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875