 |
| Grownup_Frankie |
I know - don't we all? - that there are many grey areas in life, and many different personal circumstances, and many ways of justifying what we chose to do. I know - and again, don't we all? We are not that innocent and unworldly-wise! - that there are people on ic decieving their partners.
But reasons, and motives - I don't see that they really come into the question thats been floating around, about a subgroup being established for the 'married and seeking'. Without needing to judge anyone I can see that creating such a group will undoubtedly facilitate some people who do not respect the principle of Informed Consent, or only respect it so far (which isn't to respect it at all).
This site has championed the principle of Informed Consent, which is a principle or philosophy that may be said to have come out of the thinking arising out of the D/S experience and the culture that this site serves. Its one of 'our' principles. Or if we didn't actually invent it then we have certainly took it to our hearts! Its embedded! Its a core principle.
There are adequate ways of being truthful on ic already, in what you say and make clear on your profile, there is no need to form a subgroup if you are married and seeking. Would that not be ghettoisation? Seperatism? If a form of Seperatism is in fact what is being asked for here, then should people not think about setting up their own website that better caters to their lifestyle?
I think they are otherwise asking for the impossible here, and people should see the impossibility of it, not in terms of judementalism, but on a very simple principle.
You know the one I mean.
Edited Sun 4 Dec 11, 12:10 AM by Grownup_Frankie
| 4 Dec 11, 12:18 AM MisstressvsSolicedog UK(NN), 17 mths |
you have touched on an aspect that is so true about society on a whole, we are becoming very selfish as a people and creating our own little segregation bit by bit little by little, weather it be religeon leather rubber single married black white etc etc, this endless parting is a distrubing tread, and is encouraged by purely self intrest and frankly the media and govenment, there have as you been threads about 'cheating' and some define cheating in a very black and white form but itself cheating take's on all manner of meaning's nothing is as simple as mearly a black and white issue, how many faithfull couples have not thought individualy about having sex with another while with their partner, emotional cheating ? Please excuse crap spelling cause i,m rubbish Edited 4 Dec 11, 12:49 AM by MisstressvsSolicedog | ||
| 4 Dec 11, 1:30 AM misunderstoodslave UK(OL), 2 yrs |
Well, the group wasn't necessarily for cheaters, just for people who couldnt commit to a fulltime relationship by reason of their marriage, which may have implied the full consent of the other partner to the marriage. I always took informed consent to relate to the concept of bdsm and power exchange relationships, and being in a position to consent to those clearly, not just be exploited or not realise what you are getting into. I'm not sure I can accept its extension, even though evidently approved by Admin, to include people who are not indulging in such activities but are third parties to them. Those choices we make for ourselves, and take the consequences if it's a bad choice or one our partners can't accept, and there are all kinds of reasons why people might be cheaters: If you feel that it would make your wife happier if you got your jollies elsewhere, or she's too ill, or there is so much of value between you but the sex doesn't work - who among us can judge, really? I'm sure that group was going to be set up because people can be so horribly judgmental on those issues on IC. Of course there are rubbish reasons as well, and people can be shits to their partners. (I certainly was, and the moral majority will doubtless rejoice that I have been punished by the breakup of my family; my decree absolute arrives any day now, as my husband was counting the days till he could apply.) But even my situation had its root in a long-term lack of sexual compatibility. Not that I am trying to excuse it, but nothing is ever completely black and white, not even love. I would have topped any poll for the person least likely to get divorced and/or fall in love with a married man. But things happen. And there are groups for cheese and cake and wine on here, as well as dear old Ultra violence. Why not married people? Of course I wouldn't be joining, as I will have left their ranks. | ||
| 4 Dec 11, 8:20 AM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs       |
I agree with this.
My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) | ||
| 4 Dec 11, 8:32 AM lisal 9 yrs |
Me too T'would also be interesting OP to know how far the principle of Informed Consent should extend. Should it include those who post here without their partner's knowledge or maybe go along to a munch or two on the qt - without necessarily looking for someone. Or some online flirting? All of these things could be very very upsetting to someone else
Edited 4 Dec 11, 10:13 AM by lisal | ||
| 4 Dec 11, 8:49 AM Shypeachybottom UK, 20 mths |
Very eloquently put. Nothing is ever black or white, there are always shades of grey. The question of truthfulness and honesty towards other partners is something to be discussed - if someone feels strongly about it - early in on any chatting regarding a possible D/s relationship. For some people it is important and will be discussed, for others it isn't, and who am I to say they should discuss it if it doesn't impact on me or people I care about? In my case, I am looking for something that can develop into a committed monogamous relationship. So by definition, the other person needs to be "free" and available to enter into such a relationship, so it is something I will bring up early in any discussion if I am doing more than simply bantering on a friendly basis with someone. I should add for completeness that I have on occasion played with close friends where neither of us intended for a more 'full time' relationship to develop beyond friendship, but again on the basis of being honest about what we were doing and what we were expecting. There's a somebody I'm longing to see, I hope that he turns out to be, someone to watch over me Edited 4 Dec 11, 8:51 AM by Shypeachybottom | ||
| 4 Dec 11, 8:51 AM wonderer UK, 5 yrs |
I don't think of "Informed Consent" as a philosophy or universal principle applicable to all situations; I think of it as a mechanism for use in certain circumstances (e.g. where there is high risk and unequal powers). It's used in academic research quite a lot, often more rigorously than some of the descriptions I've heard about casual club play. But even in academia it's regarded as a mechanism for certain circumstances, not a philosophy. Drawing on another of Frankie's recent blogs, I think the underlying "philosophical" principle is love. If we truly care for the well being of the person we're interacting with, then - if the circumstances justify it - we will do risk assessments, take the care to explain to them what we expect will happen and what risks are involved, and ensure that they understand, remind them they can withdraw at any time, and invite them (but not coerce them) to agree. But IC processes aren't always necessary or appropriate. Frankie seems to be weaving together in our minds the practice of Informed Consent and his preference for full transparent openness in certain sorts of relationships. It's a bit like trying to weave nylon thread with apple juice.
Quite. I had a cake at work the other day without my partner's full consent or knowledge, and in the expectation that she probably wouldn't approve either, my waistline not being what it used to be. There was no Informed Consent. "Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates) Edited 4 Dec 11, 9:11 AM by wonderer | ||
| 4 Dec 11, 9:24 AM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs |
Wonderer, this won't serve you well. Illicit cake is to infidelity as pinching a sweetie from a shop is to ram- raiding.
My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) | ||
| 4 Dec 11, 9:37 AM Admin UK, 14 yrs |
It's just applying informed consent to the vanilla marriage too: ie that the consent in that relationship is being abused by misleading them (including by omission) about the cheating. Admin Remember: it's only a website | ||
| 4 Dec 11, 9:49 AM Admin UK, 14 yrs |
If this is part of a wider pattern of deceit when you're lying to her face about not eating cake and not doing various other things, then that is violating the consensual basis of a marriage based on mutual trust. People have the right to know about these repeated and deliberate deceits as a warning that their partner is building up to something more serious: like hanging about on BDSM sites trying to get play dates on the sly. It's not the cake. It's the lying. Admin Remember: it's only a website Edited 4 Dec 11, 9:52 AM by Admin | ||
| 4 Dec 11, 9:53 AM SheilaBlyge UK(S), 4 yrs |
To be honest, despite the many rants and discussions regarding infidelity, I did actually assume the original premise of the group was to cater to married people generally, i.e. married and looking for a house sub, or married and looking for other couples, or married and open to play with others.... ad infinitum. There are plenty of married people around who are working well within the bounds of 'informed consent' no matter how anyone applies that. So I'm not sure the term 'ghetto' applies necessarily... it *could* apply, but it doesn't have to. It's obvious that such a group would also be the playground for the 'behind the back' brigade too, of course, but is IC not throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
|
