quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

<FR>

The problem with threads like these are that they create the "us vrs them" mentality. Which, of course, leads to the fallacy of anything that might be D/s. That being, that the s-type is supposedly in the more precarious position. They aren't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: moonmaiden1234

Met someone on line but not in person yet. Things were going quite well till I caught him in a lie. Do I procede? My gut says no. Thoughts anyone?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
I've said numerous times that IF a relationship gets to the point that there is mutual financial impact, THEN both parties would be crazy to not expect some sort of assurance that the other party is handling their finances responsibly.

That's got nothing to do with D/s, as a D-type can get fucked over financially as easily as an s-type can. However, what does have to do with D/s is the fact that it's much more likely that a D-type will tell the s-type at the start of a new relationship: "you will not get access to that type of information, take it or leave it". It's important, for the purpose of informed consent, that an s-type knows exactly what kind of impact "not having access" can mean.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
I've said numerous times that IF a relationship gets to the point that there is mutual financial impact, THEN both parties would be crazy to not expect some sort of assurance that the other party is handling their finances responsibly.

That's got nothing to do with D/s, as a D-type can get fucked over financially as easily as an s-type can. However, what does have to do with D/s is the fact that it's much more likely that a D-type will tell the s-type at the start of a new relationship: "you will not get access to that type of information, take it or leave it". It's important, for the purpose of informed consent, that an s-type knows exactly what kind of impact "not having access" can mean.

My apologies, UllrsIshtar. I seem to be having the same access problems that so many others have been experiencing. I always feel rude when I don't address comments to me made in conversation.

Some of this, we agree on. It can be just as easy for either side of the slash to take advantage of someone financially. It's really not terribly than vanilla when we start talking about supporting people, potential co-joined debts, etc. I mean, we all know the horror stories where people were severely taken advantage of. The D who took the s-types paychecks for years, (or completely ruined their employment history because they wanted them in the residence so they could serve) and then the dynamic was over and they had no where to go. The s-types who wanted someone to live off of, while they created debts that the D was responsible for, or they created a financial responsibility. This isn't terribly different than vanilla folks.

My position here is that anybody maintaining their own residence just doesn't hit the level of impact that creates this necessity. Some of the reaches just don't possibly apply to anyone. Nobody could ever have the concern about such things as inheriting debts from common law, because I'm already married, etc.

quote:

To use your example of play partners in a generic example, not necessarily applicable to you personally:
You're married, and get a first play partner, whom you become sexually intimate with. You tell your first play partner that you're interested in a closed, fluid-bonded poly, and expect him to be sexually faithful to you. You fuck him without condoms, you fuck your husband without condoms.
So far so good...
Now your husband starts dating a girl who works as a (legal) prostitute in Nevada. He decides that, because she gets weekly STD test anyways, he's fine fucking her without condoms.

I had a problem with this. You moved the goalposts to an extreme level. Nobody in their right mind could consider this a closed, poly, (sexual) relationship, which is completely different than where we started. There was an obvious change in the circumstances where there is no doubt that I have no control in the situation. (That's even if I hadn't utilized veto power.)

quote:

Your playpartner asks you what's "new in your life" and you decide not to tell him about your husband's new partner, and risks, because "it's none of his business".

Half and half. Depending on the circumstances, I wouldn't necessarily say my husband's partner is "new to *MY* life". Who he dates isn't necessarily pertinent to me other than I now have new concerns about sexual health. The terms of MP's relationship with the new person wouldn't necessarily have to involve every minute detail. For example, if they did a heavy degradation scene, my partner doesn't need a play by play of that, because that's between them. On the other hand, I, and my play partner have to reassess about what we want in our lives.

quote:

Same with you getting a new playpartner, whom you previously didn't fuck, but now decided to start fucking.

Same with everybody using condoms, because condoms don't prevent STDs 100%.

Again, this is about change. Again, we have to look at reasonable expectations.

quote:

The issue is informed consent... a person cannot give informed consent as long as they are not informed about all of the information relevant to make a decision.

At the same time, informed consent is about what's pertinent. In this, we have to look at what is over-reaching, as well.

quote:

Whether that information is financial, or sexual, or other doesn't matter. Where they are D/s wise in relationship to you does not matter.

What matters is that, when you do things that can -indirectly- impact the other people you're in a relationship with, that previously private information becomes their business. Withholding it out of privacy concerns, without making clear what the potential ramifications are of that lack or information is a consent violation.

Anybody could say that I caught a cold and that impacts any other person. If my house burned down, even if the s-type wasn't responsible for a dime, that person might be -indirectly- effected because they are stressed out if I have to deal with the insurance company. It doesn't mean that my insurance premiums are their business.

quote:

I don't have a problem with keeping information that doesn't impact other people private.
But as soon as it does impact other people, they have a right to do due diligence and verify that you're behaving in a manner they consider to fall under 'acceptable risk'. And they cannot do that if you're withholding information which impacts them.

I tried for this. I really did.

The best I could come up with was something that could affect someone in an abstract kind of way.

Several months ago, MP and I adopted Natasha. She's a dog.

I did ask, at the time, if Engie was allergic to dogs. Even though we already had a cat. In the event that there would be an issue with dog hair, rather than cat hair. You get the drill.

However, it wasn't up to me to PROVE to Engie that I could afford the dog, had access to the vet, where would the dog sleep, etc. MP and I made a decision in getting the dog that had relatively little to do with Engie. He was never going to have to renew the license for the dog, pay kennel expenses, or whatever. As long as it wasn't any form of responsibility for him, he doesn't get the same input.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
Well LP , You've made it pretty clear on several occassions that your sub is a second class citizen in your household so nothing along those lines is surprising coming from you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
Well LP , You've made it pretty clear on several occassions that your sub is a second class citizen in your household so nothing along those lines is surprising coming from you.

My sub isn't my primary partner, so yep, the term for that is secondary. If people want to interpret that as second class citizen, I would suggest that is on them. People tend to think of that as an offense. I don't see it as such.

Of course, if you really feel that you get to walk into another couple's home and have a say...

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl
Which is pretty much ironic considering that she thinks women are automatically subservient to men and that male subs are an aberration.

I refuse to get into such things. I just don't have the energy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: moonmaiden1234

Met someone on line but not in person yet. Things were going quite well till I caught him in a lie. Do I procede? My gut says no. Thoughts anyone?