A dangerous relationship?

[Ragoczy]

DowntownAmber - This is a public forum designed for discussion amongst members of what is posted here. You posted. We discussed. *shrugs* Seems reasonable.
Rope monkey posted a question and invited opinion. Mandy responded answering his question. That seems reasonable. You gave a brief answer to rope monkey's question before tearing into mandy's opinion. Whether or not that is reasonable is quite another matter.

I think it's reasonable to give your own opinion and respond to the opinions of others -- much as you just did. It seems somewhat disingenuous to question whether responding to someone other than the original poster, who you happen to disagree with, is reasonable at the same time you're doing it.

For someone asking a question like rope monkey's, disagreement, even heated disagreement, is valuable to see, because it gives one the real sense of how people, including rope monkey's partner, may feel and react to a topic. Denying the questioner that is a disservice.

We should all be sweetness and light and say "oh, honey, just do what makes you happy and what you think is right" -- then when the partner finds out and explodes the poor questioner is left thinking "but so many people told me it was okay"?

Do that and they might as well close up shop for everything but the Fun & Games posts, because the site'll be useless to anyone who actually wants the whole spectrum of opinion.

DowntownAmber - but if your vanilla girlfriend is still hurt and opts to walk out the door on you, are you really going to be more satisfied alone with your "definitions" of righteousness?
Yes I will be better of without her. If the slightest hurt to means she walks out the door then it's clear we were not compatible and it was only a matter of time before she walked. Nobody knows mandy's rl partner better than she does and in her view it's not a problem. I don't see how anyone, not knowing mandy's partner, is in a position to dispute her judgement.

I think the essence of so many posts on this topic has been simply that while you may consider it a "slightest hurt", the person's partner may consider it a major betrayal -- and their feelings and response should be considered.

There are two people involved in any relationship and that means making accommodations for how the other sees things as well. If the two views are incompatible, then the two people probably shouldn't be together -- but to simply ignore the other person's views as unworthy of consideration shows a singular lack of respect.

How would you view a dominant who told his partner "I know you have a hard-limit against piss-play, but I like it and I think it's 'slight' so I'm going to do it anyway"? This community would "tear into" such a person and "crucify" him -- one only needs to look around the forums to see such.

Why should the non-BDSM partner's limits be any less respected?

Because the limit is unvoiced? Nonsense -- some limits are implied, even in BDSM and traditional relationships don't explicitly state their limits ... should they be ignored simply because it isn't the common convention to state them?

Because it isn't physical harm? Again, nonsense -- because a BDSM limit on verbal humiliation causes no physical harm, but would still be considered wrong by the BDSM community.

Trust, consent and respect of a person's limits -- so important in the BDSM realm, but okay to ignore if the person being harmed is not a member of our community?

Ragoczy - Since your original post wasn't clear that all parties are aware -- in fact, the impression I got was that they weren't -- then it's natural that those who object to that would question it.
Personally if something is not clear to me I request clarification then base my opinions on the subsequent clarification. That seems a more natural way to go for me than simply assuming then condeming a person for something they never said. Guilt by "impression" is a dangerous road to go down.

I count five questions posed in this thread toward that post, two personal opinions in opposition and one partial agreement. The closest I see to "condemnation" is a comment that something is "a little counterproductive". One would have to be pretty touchy, I think, consider that condemnation.

Regardless, the post in question said nothing about the partner's knowledge or agreement, only statements that "I decided", "I wrestled with", etc. Nothing like "we talked", "we decided", "he agreed" -- I stand by my statement that the conclusion was reasonable, especially in the context of a discussion like this.

DowntownAmber - No, of course you can't. But shouldn't they have the option to decide? When did it become okay for one person in the relationship to dictate what the other "needs to know?"
Come down from those ivory towers for a second. When I go to to the pub and ogle at the barmaids tits should I come back home and tell my woman what I did because I don't have the right to dictate what she "needs to know". Get real!

If your partner feels that ogling barmaids is a violation of some term of your relationship and you then do it anyway without her knowledge or consent, then you've violated her trust and have not respected her limits. If she doesn't like it, but you've made it clear you're going to do it anyway and she's accepted that, then ogle away.

If she decides it's okay to suck some other guy's dick (or something you'd object to if you're okay with that), then it's okay for her to do it and keep it from you because you "don't need to know"? There's a formula for a relationship based on mutual respect. Now, maybe you don't want a relationship based on mutual respect -- and there's nothing wrong with that if that's actually what you want -- but the original post concerned traditional relationships and this is part of those.

Human relationships are based on trust and a degree of privacy. In mandy's view her ol relationship does not detract from her rl one. End of story. If her rl partner does not share her view or trust her then compatibility and trust will come up sooner or later in another area. Heaven forbid she has her own private bank account.

My partner trusts me not to give them an STD because she thinks we're monogamous, so I always use a condom when I have casual sex with strangers in bars. In my view, my actions don't detract from her safety, so it's all good. Right?

The private bank account's fine if they've agreed to have private bank accounts. Why the hell is it so hard for people in a community that talks so damn much about trust, consent and limits to accept that trust, consent and limits are important?

DowntownAmber - And a lie by deliberate omission is still a lie.
There is a difference between omitting a key detail when one is being asked and simply not raising the topic in the first place. Did Clinton lie when he omitted to mention the fact that Monica had been going down on him. The Senate obviously didn't agree with your deliberate omission is still a lie theory else they would not have acquitted him of perjury.

There are many important relationships not just romantic ones. There is the relationship and obligations to parents. I wonder how many people on this site have omitted to tell their parents about their bdsm activities. Presumably thats a lie and it's not okay for thm to dictate what their parents "need to know".

Are you actually expecting legal definitions to apply to interpersonal relationships? That's sadly absurd.

And your parental analogy is specious. Not all relationships are the same.

Want to use a parental analogy, fine: Your parents get old and give you power of attorney, they trust you to be a good financial steward of their retirement money because they've gone a bit 'round the bend. You start betting the horses with the money and don't tell them about it. Even if you win, you've violated their consent, betrayed their trust and broken their limits. Deciding "they don't need to know" is okay?

Rope monkey - Does anyone here believe you can explore one side of your sexuality online without it being an affront to the sexuality of your r/l partner?
Mandy was kind enough to answer rope monkey's question but because she had the audacity to express a view other didn't agree with she is lynched by the righteous mob. Hardly the way to encourage a broad view of opinions is it, crucify anybody who dares to have a different view.

The answer to that question that everyone here has given is: Yes, if your partner is aware of and consents.

What's been criticized is violating trust and not respecting limits.

And, frankly, asking questions, which is what most of the responses to Mandy's post were doing, is not lynching or crucifying.

As for broad opinions, some opinions are morally wrong.

Rope monkey, I'm sure you will excuse me if, for obvious reasons, I do not give you my response to you question.

If you can offer a different position and defend it, that would be valuable to the discussion and the original poster.