alice_underneath
with malice toward none
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Posts
- 1,071
Mr. Sage, I am laughing so hard at this post! Not at you, but at my obvious inability to express myself to you in a coherent fashion.Purple Sage said: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.
What you are saying here is exactly my point! People typically took risks in the 1950s that could easily be avoided in 2006 with, for example, a contractual remedy!
That is the entire point of my extreme example involving Sue's financial dependence, as it relates to a 1950s model for relationships.
In short, we are in vehement agreement on this subject.
Sheesh!

Miss Fury
's for you !!!
Miss JadeFirefly 
