I know I will regret this..................

[Purple Sage]

Suffice it say, you have misinterpreted my comments to a very large degree.Surely you do not expect me to respond to such an obnoxious question.

Alice

I don't 'expect' anything, but it's a legitimate question. Relevant, I think, to the issue of 'dangerous' relationships.

 

[Purple Sage]

No, I will not respond to the obnoxious question. However, I will clarify the remarks which he misinterpreted. To avoid confusion, I'll begin by extracting relevant comments from the recent conversation.

Clarifying remarks:

#1. We were discussing D/s relationships, not marriages. The image in my head projected by a total power exchange relationship in which women are dependent following the 1950's America model involves women placing themselves in the complete financial control of their SOs.

The Dom says: "Give me all your personal savings and I'll let you know when you can buy a new dress," I Love Lucy style.

In a non-marital relationship, I contend that this is a very risky and unwise thing to do. In a marriage, people have joint accounts all the time, of course! And for many couples of all kinds, one spouse makes all the financial decisions. Further, there are property and family laws to protect women in the event of death or divorce.

#2. There is a profound difference between giving advice & counsel, and dictating behavior. If a woman (married or not) is employed by someone outside the home, then SHE is responsible for her job performance. Not her Dom. He can advise her, guide her, etc. (Couples do this all the time!) But for him to attempt to directly control her behavior at work is, in my opinion, a very risky precedent for the pyl. Why? Because she needs to be able to maintain ultimate responsibility for her own behavior in the working world. She needs to be independent in her ability to provide for herself, because she may be alone and dependent ONLY on herself for survival one day.

FYI, for those who may be misinterpreting my comments as feminist extremism - I am currently a stay-at-home-mom. I have many jobs..... chauffeur, chef, homework helper, maid, etc...... none of which involve a paycheck. In other words, I am currently "dependent" in a quasi-1950's kind of a way.

Alice

Among other things- you seem to regard marriage a special class of relationship which justifies actions of trust not wise in other relationships. I see little objective support for this view. Everyone, married or not, may one day be dependent on only themselves for survival one day. I'm afraid I have to rush off, but I'd be happy to address this in detail later.

 

[alice_underneath]

I don't 'expect' anything, but it's a legitimate question. Relevant, I think, to the issue of 'dangerous' relationships.

Purple Sage,

It is a legitimate question, and it is absolutely relevant to a discussion of 'dangerous' relationships.

Unfortunately, I read the post in which the question was contained as aggressive, snide, and obnoxious in tone. I read your comments as not only misinterpreting my remarks, but also exaggerating their import in a very negative way. For example, when you wrote -

"Many people actually trust each other, rightly or wrongly, and for you to characterize this as dangerous comes across as presumptuous."

- you seemed to imply that I do not believe people could or should trust one another in a relationship.

I read your closing question as a snide attempt to reinforce this point.

There is a difference in my mind between a respectful and calm exchange of ideas and an aggressive debate. I am interested in the former, but not the latter.

As long as personal insults are avoided, I don't see anything inherently wrong with aggressive debate. But it's just not for me. I avoid conflict whenever possible, and will walk away if addressed in a tone that I view as aggressive or obnoxious.

In short: anyone looking for a sparring partner will need to pick someone else.

Of course, tone is easy to misinterpret in the electronic world. If I misinterpreted the tone or intent of your post, then I apologize profusely.

Alice

 

[alice_underneath]

Among other things- you seem to regard marriage a special class of relationship which justifies actions of trust not wise in other relationships. I see little objective support for this view. Everyone, married or not, may one day be dependent on only themselves for survival one day. I'm afraid I have to rush off, but I'd be happy to address this in detail later.

No, I do not regard marriage as a "special class of relationship which justifies actions of trust not wise in other relationships".

When discussing financial matters, the differences between marriage and other relationships are legal.

Property and family laws protect a spouse in many ways, but will do nothing to assist a girlfriend who has handed over her bank account to a Dom.

Alice

 

[Purple Sage]

Purple Sage,

It is a legitimate question, and it is absolutely relevant to a discussion of 'dangerous' relationships.

Unfortunately, I read the post in which the question was contained as aggressive, snide, and obnoxious in tone. I read your comments as not only misinterpreting my remarks, but also exaggerating their import in a very negative way. For example, when you wrote -

"Many people actually trust each other, rightly or wrongly, and for you to characterize this as dangerous comes across as presumptuous."

- you seemed to imply that I do not believe people could or should trust one another in a relationship.

I read your closing question as a snide attempt to reinforce this point.

There is a difference in my mind between a respectful and calm exchange of ideas and an aggressive debate. I am interested in the former, but not the latter.

As long as personal insults are avoided, I don't see anything inherently wrong with aggressive debate. But it's just not for me. I avoid conflict whenever possible, and will walk away if addressed in a tone that I view as aggressive or obnoxious.

In short: anyone looking for a sparring partner will need to pick someone else.

Of course, tone is easy to misinterpret in the electronic world. If I misinterpreted the tone or intent of your post, then I apologize profusely.

Alice

I'm sorry that you take my tone as snide. The words you quote are really quite straightforward. I would respectfully suggest that the rather sweeping generalizations you employed are the very definition of presumption, and that people living lives that could be described by these models might find them offensive. You can take this, of course, as a personal attack, but it's intended as a heads up that there are 'more things in this world than your philosophy can imagine', if I've quoted correctly.

It's entirely possible that I've misinterpreted your remarks- it's something that happens all the time, especially on the internet. I'd be more than happy for you to clarify them, as you have taken some steps to doing already. However, I must say that so far you seem to be confirming much of the interpretation I made originally- viz, that you consider placing financial trust in, or accepting direction about something relating to the work sphere from, a dominant partner in a D/s relationship is excessively dangerous and ought not to be done. If this is not what you meant to convey, please correct me.

In case my interpretation is correct, I'd like to say that I believe people have a perfect right to invest in risky relationships- and that in fact, this is what they do in all relationships. Some risks can be limited in various ways- legal documents, thorough understanding of your partner, FBI background checks, etc- but the statistics seem to indicate that there is a high degree of financial, emotional and physical risk associated with intimate relationships in general- especially vanilla marriage. The legal protections of marriage are not, in fact, very strong- there is little to nothing in the way of legislative definition of what marriage is- it is a contract without a contract. In practice, the person with the toughest lawyer and the least compunction tends to 'win' divorces. It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to say that for every protection that marriage affords one party, it creates a corresponding danger for the other. None of which stops people from getting married in huge numbers, for the simple reason that people rarely enter a marriage believing it will fail. But the same is true of most intimate relationships.

I'm not trying to tell people not to get married, these are risks that people have to evaluate for themselves. That just happens to be the way I feel about other, less legally sanctioned models of interpersonal relationships as well.

 

[jadefirefly]

While I have missed a great deal of the conversation, and therefore won't make any actual comment on the topic specifically, I did want to poke my nose in briefly...

Alice, what I read in Purple's comment was not that he felt it was wrong to trust one's partner in a relationship; only that many people -do- place trust in a partner when, in the end scheme of things, they probably should not have. Just from my pov, I didn't think it was meant as a snide or rude comment, and I actually got quite confused for a while, trying to sort out why you were upset!

Everything else is over my head for the time being, until I have time to go back and read the actual string of posts that begat the whole confusing mess.

My apologies if I have overstepped myself and interfered in a discussion that's either already been sorted out or none of my business. I like you both, and don't want to see anyone truly upset with each other, is all.

Great. Eight hours at work cooing over cute babies and I'm turning into a big mushpot. Who the hell stole my Sarcastic Bitch(tm) pills?

 

[MadamaMiniTopic]

[COLOR=[COLOR=Black]]Great. Eight hours at work cooing over cute babies and I'm turning into a big mushpot. Who the hell stole my Sarcastic Bitch(tm) pills?[/COLOR]

Irrasshaimase JadeFireFly

Please to hope this welcome gift make you smile in memory.
~ bows~

A New Present because Man get very Angry hehe...
​

.
.

 

[alice_underneath]

I'm sorry that you take my tone as snide. The words you quote are really quite straightforward. I would respectfully suggest that the rather sweeping generalizations you employed are the very definition of presumption, and that people living lives that could be described by these models might find them offensive. You can take this, of course, as a personal attack, but it's intended as a heads up that there are 'more things in this world than your philosophy can imagine', if I've quoted correctly.

It's entirely possible that I've misinterpreted your remarks- it's something that happens all the time, especially on the internet. I'd be more than happy for you to clarify them, as you have taken some steps to doing already.

Purple Sage,

You have indeed misinterpreted my remarks.

What you keep doing is taking very specific examples of what I consider to be risky behavior, and blowing them up into "sweeping generalizations".

People on this Board comment about levels of risk all the time. I will make an analogy here that might be helpful for you in understanding exactly how you are misinterpreting my remarks.

On a thread about breath play, a woman offers the opinion that breath play is very risky and she does not advise participating in this type of activity. She has had a friend die while engaging in breath play, so she knows something about just how dangerous this activity can be.

She is NOT saying that breath play is morally wrong, or that the participants are inferior to her in any way. All she is doing is offering advice to others on a subject that she thinks is critically important.

If someone took her comments as a sweeping condemnation of all BDSM activity, that would be the level of distortion that you, Purple Sage, are applying to my comments here.

However, I must say that so far you seem to be confirming much of the interpretation I made originally- viz, that you consider placing financial trust in, or accepting direction about something relating to the work sphere from, a dominant partner in a D/s relationship is excessively dangerous and ought not to be done. If this is not what you meant to convey, please correct me.

The generalizations you are making here do not represent the point of my very specific examples of risky behavior. I will repeat the examples here with different wording in an attempt to help you understand what I am saying.

Example #1. Sue and Joe are in a committed non-marital relationship. They have agreed to a relationship in which Sue is totally dependent on Joe. Sue has emptied her own savings account and handed the contents to Joe to be controlled as he sees fit. Sue is either unemployed or signs over her paycheck to Joe every month. In short, Sue has no assets of her own and is, financially speaking, at Joe's mercy.

Describing this as risky behavior is a simple statement of the obvious, not a sweeping condemnation of "placing financial trust in a dominant partner".

It is risky because if Joe dies intestate in a car crash tomorrow, Sue will have no legal recourse to the financial assets that Joe had taken into his own personal custody. If the relationship crumbles, Joe will have total control over how much, if anything, he gives to Sue when they split.

Please note that this is an extreme case, prompted by the discussion of a "1950's model" for a relationship. Identifying this extreme example of a single woman turning over every penny to the control of her SO as risky behavior is not the same thing as a sweeping condemnation of those who put financial trust in a partner.

Example #2. Jane works at a travel agency, and is in a D/s relationship with John. Like most couples, they talk about their jobs all the time. John hears about something going on at the agency and he decides that he knows how Jane should handle it, so he gives her an order on what to do. Not just a suggestion, not just a piece of advice, not just guidance, but an outright command to do exactly what he says.

This too is risky behavior. Why? First, since John does not actually go to work with Jane, he only has an indirect view of what's really going on. The chances of him being "right" in what he is commanding are therefore greatly diminished.

Second, abdicating ultimate responsibility for her own job performance robs Jane of the experience of making critical decisions in her own career. Evaluating all of the options, assessing the situation, incorporating advice from an SO & friends, and then reaching your own decision on how to proceed in your particular line of work are skills that everyone needs to practice.... even those with a Dom who generally gives good advice. Why? Same reasons as above. One day, the Dom may be gone, but Jane's career must continue nonetheless.

"Obeying a command" is an extreme form of "accepting direction", but in general it is absolutely not the same thing. Therefore, describing this extreme example as risky behavior is not the same thing as a "sweeping condemnation" of all those who "accept direction about something relating to the work sphere".

I hope this clarification has been helpful. If not, I honestly don't know what more I can say except to reiterate the following.

Like the woman in the breath play analogy, I am not saying that this behavior is morally wrong, or that the participants are inferior to me in any way. All I am doing is offering my opinion and advice to others on a subject that I think is critically important.

Alice

 

[alice_underneath]

This is really Part 2 of a two-part response to your post, Purple Sage.

I'm sorry that you take my tone as snide. The words you quote are really quite straightforward. I would respectfully suggest...

I apologize for misinterpreting the intent and tone of your previous post, and appreciate the fact that you are addressing me respectfully here.

I'd like to say that I believe people have a perfect right to invest in risky relationships- and that in fact, this is what they do in all relationships. Some risks can be limited in various ways- legal documents, thorough understanding of your partner, FBI background checks, etc- but the statistics seem to indicate that there is a high degree of financial, emotional and physical risk associated with intimate relationships in general- especially vanilla marriage. The legal protections of marriage are not, in fact, very strong- there is little to nothing in the way of legislative definition of what marriage is- it is a contract without a contract. In practice, the person with the toughest lawyer and the least compunction tends to 'win' divorces. It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to say that for every protection that marriage affords one party, it creates a corresponding danger for the other. None of which stops people from getting married in huge numbers, for the simple reason that people rarely enter a marriage believing it will fail. But the same is true of most intimate relationships.

I'm not trying to tell people not to get married, these are risks that people have to evaluate for themselves. That just happens to be the way I feel about other, less legally sanctioned models of interpersonal relationships as well.

I am, unfortunately, keenly aware of the emotional and financial risks one takes in getting married. Risks for the spouses..... risks for the children....

There is no such thing as a "safe relationship". Believe me, Purple Sage, you are preaching to the choir here.

Alice

 

[alice_underneath]

My apologies if I have overstepped myself and interfered in a discussion that's either already been sorted out or none of my business. I like you both, and don't want to see anyone truly upset with each other, is all.

No apology is necessary, Jadefirefly. I appreciate your input - as always.

And I like you, too. But you knew that already, right?

Alice

 

[MadamaMiniTopic]

Good Morning Honorable Ones

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/new.jpg


Please excuse interuption, just leave another picture to consider , please continue enjoy coversation.

~ bows ~ ​

 

[FurryFury]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/new.jpg


Please excuse interuption, just leave another picture to consider , please continue enjoy coversation.

~ bows ~ ​

LOL!

I used this picture for my Nosferatu (the ugly clan) vampire! That was what she looked like before she used her power to blend in with the crowd. At which point I used a very plain picture for her. Nosferatu are information gatherers. That is what the barter. Rarely should they stand out in a crowd using their magic IMO.

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/new.jpg


Please excuse interuption, just leave another picture to consider , please continue enjoy coversation.

~ bows ~ ​

Gracious, Madama, where on earth do you find these things?

This is a "3" for me. I did find it interesting to look at.... mostly because he (?) looks so happy, and I honestly can not imagine why!

(I'm not really into pain, Madama... can you tell???)

Btw.... oh dear.... I have some very unfortunate news.

Click on the link to your "gift" for Miss Firefly and you will see a message that makes one go:

Alice

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/new.jpg


Please excuse interuption, just leave another picture to consider , please continue enjoy coversation.

~ bows ~ ​

OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG I know this dude !!!! He started out really young. Ohhh let me check something.........brb......Ohhh yeh found it !!!


http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/BabyPiercing.jpg
​

 

[alice_underneath]

OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG I know this dude !!!! He started out really young. Ohhh let me check something.........brb......Ohhh yeh found it !!!


http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/BabyPiercing.jpg
​

LOL, Miss Rebecca!

Picturing the grandparents' faces.....

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

LOL!

I used this picture for my Nosferatu (the ugly clan) vampire! That was what she looked like before she used her power to blend in with the crowd. At which point I used a very plain picture for her. Nosferatu are information gatherers. That is what the barter. Rarely should they stand out in a crowd using their magic IMO.

Fury

Morning Miss Fury

Sweety in reference to above is that like got something to do with Tom Cruise hun or do I need more coffee please.

Love @}-}rebecca-----

 

[FurryFury]

Morning Miss Fury

Sweety in reference to above is that like got something to do with Tom Cruise hun or do I need more coffee please.

Love @}-}rebecca-----

It doesn't really have anything to do with Cruise who did a remarkably good job in Interview with a Vampire the movie.

What I meant was when I was playing an online game of Vampire the Masquerade by White Wolf. That is why I came online for recreation in the first place, to play that game more often than my table top buds wanted to.

My first character wasn't the Nosferatu but she did lead me to cyber and BDSM.

Ya never know what the permutations of your actions will be. I'm sooooo glad I started playing online though!

Fury

 

[MadamaMiniTopic]

Btw.... oh dear.... I have some very unfortunate news.

Click on the link to your "gift" for Miss Firefly and you will see a message that makes one go:

Alice

Ohhh thank you Alicesan ....hehe .....Clay very angry man yes ? Call Madama a ....... looks away all shy



http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/asshole.jpg

​

 

[jadefirefly]

Okay, so I've finally caught up on the mini topics at least.

Picture number 1, I kind of have to rate somewhere between a 2 and a 3. I really hate needles. But it -is- kind of pretty, in a way.

Picture number 2, I think is -totally- awesome. A 6, all the way. Although I think I would giggle at the thought of actually -doing- anything to/with it?

Picture number 3, I really don't know. I find it ugly, as cruel as it may be to say it, but it's like a car wreck... it's hard to look away. I wish I could ask 'why?', even if the only answer is 'because I can'. I don't hate it, but I certainly don't love it, either.

And thank you for the replacement pretty picture. I didn't get the message quick enough to see the first message.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Good Morning Honorable Ones

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/rebecca000/new.jpg


Please excuse interuption, just leave another picture to consider , please continue enjoy coversation.

~ bows ~ ​

Score 5 I am scoring this dude a 5 because he looks so comfortable in his 'skin'. Seems a happy content person if the expresssion caught in the picture and his eyes convey the truth of my perception . Does make me wonder where serveral aesthetic/sensual peircing crosses the line into this. That point aside its his deal he looks happy whats not to like huh. Same reflects in Shankara's posts on the BB. Obviously Shankara is in a different genre but he also emulates a joy and self confidence in his choices, its a confidence that makes me sit back and smile.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

Picture number 2, I think is -totally- awesome. A 6, all the way. Although I think I would giggle at the thought of actually -doing- anything to/with it?

OMG You wanna puff the Magic Dragon ?
ummnn ...bit embarassed but its kinda fetching huh....laughs......now if Gucci/Versace/PYD (Pick Your Designer) could just do a print for them ​

 

[alice_underneath]

Score 5 I am scoring this dude a 5 because he looks so comfortable in his 'skin'. Seems a happy content person if the expresssion caught in the picture and his eyes convey the truth of my perception . Does make me wonder where serveral aesthetic/sensual peircing crosses the line into this. That point aside its his deal he looks happy whats not to like huh. Same reflects in Shankara's posts on the BB. Obviously Shankara is in a different genre but he also emulates a joy and self confidence in his choices, its a confidence that makes me sit back and smile.

I agree with all of your comments here, Rebecca.

The problem for someone like me is that my queasy reaction to the idea of all those piercings in my own skin overwhelms my ability to look at the image objectively.

To avoid any possible offense at my comments here, I will point out the obvious fact that the "queasy reaction" is my problem, not his. It just means I have an aversion to needles, and should not be interpreted as criticism of this very happy dude.

Alice

 

[Purple Sage]

Purple Sage,

You have indeed misinterpreted my remarks.


Alice

Mmm... well... you wish your remarks to be interpreted in the narrowest sense- very well. I hope you can recognize, however, that when you describe Type X as 'very dangerous', it implies that the danger is elevated above the general dangers of the alternatives. There's also an implication that these dangers pervade the actual instances A,B, and C of Type X. The dangers you note are not exclusive to, in the case at issue, 1950's style relationships- in fact,they are prevalent in D/s relationships of all types, and can be seen with great frequency in vanilla relationships. The solution for you first concern- taking stupid orders in the workplace- probably has as much to do with partner-selection as lifestyle options. Not only is the same true of the financial issues you raise, there exist straightforward contractual remedies to most of them. Gay partners, and even married hets, avail themselves of these all the time for the simple reason that marriage is a poorly defined contract that offers little real protection to anybody, but creates unlimited negative exposures for some, but contracts define precisely what one is owed and obligated to do.

In this last regard, D/s relationships tend to be more carefully defined, even when not by legal contracts, than vanilla ones. The benefit of this seems to me to be that, even without the force of law behind them, the parties have a clearer understanding of what to expect from each other and themselves. This, I think, does more to minimize the dangers inherent in relationships than anything else.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

It doesn't really have anything to do with Cruise who did a remarkably good job in Interview with a Vampire the movie.

Agreed , pay no attention to me Miss Fury I was just being a brat. Ohhh how I wanted to be the Claudia character though...lol. Drink From Me And Live Forever ohhhh yehhhhhhhh Babeeeee

My first character wasn't the Nosferatu but she did lead me to cyber and BDSM.
Ya never know what the permutations of your actions will be. I'm sooooo glad I started playing online though!
Fury

Ohh Miss Fury thats a brilliant idea for a Thread. 'How did you become aware that BDSM,D/s,Kink, Fetish, PYD ( Pick Your Deviance) resources existed online' You started it , do you want to start a thread on it Miss Fury or will we throw it on as a 'Mini Topic' here later ?

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

I agree with all of your comments here, Rebecca.

The problem for someone like me is that my queasy reaction to the idea of all those piercings in my own skin overwhelms my ability to look at the image objectively.

To avoid any possible offense at my comments here, I will point out the obvious fact that the "queasy reaction" is my problem, not his. It just means I have an aversion to needles, and should not be interpreted as criticism of this very happy dude.

Alice

Ummmn Alice, may I please point out I have seen Picture 3 hundreds of times and my inital "queasy reaction" has long since abated. Hence I can just enjoy him as he is now. I still struggle with the needle play dude in Picture 1. I am not as familiar with that image. I did not for a moment interpret your post as a criticism for a second . IF it had been , what would the big deal be anyway, surely your entitled to it as we all are. How trite the World would be if we were all so homogenised and agreed on everything huh