View Single Post
  #26  
Old 01-23-2010, 06:21 AM
LovingRadiance's Avatar
LovingRadiance LovingRadiance is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alaska
Posts: 5,425
Default

I said I'd work on what I think would be BEST. And so-I have. I'm not sure where the BEST place to start is, so bare with me on how long this is. I fear I may be back with more later as well.

And I'm confident that in my response that I am going much further out on "the limb" then RP did (or could). So please keep in mind that you both ASKED for ANY AND ALL input and said you would VALUE it as well "especially" mine.

I don't know how to break down the multi quotes AND keep the name of who wrote it in there, so I will add the names.

Quote:
(midnight sun) Background: I have *always* been an extremely sensitive, emotionally intuitive person.
I beg to differ. I think you are a very sensitive person, however you aren't REALLY an emotionally intuitive person, which would mean that you seem to KNOW a persons true feelings without being told; you tend to be too much of an optimist to TRULY intuit a persons emotions/intentions/thoughts. You often miss the clues that go "against the grain" of your natural optimistic outlook.
This has a HORRIBLE tendency to bite you in the ass on many occassions. Too many that I've personally witnesssed, and plenty that were in fact with me.

Quote:
(ms)I have always reserved sexual interaction for individuals with whom I feel a deep attraction and "chemistry" with and with whom I have developed a preliminary bond.
What does "sexual interaction" mean to you?
What does "deep attraction" and "chemistry" mean to you?
What does "preliminary bond" mean to you?

I ask, because it's become evident to me recently-that whatever your understanding of these words is, it's not the same as mine, so I can't speak to this paragraph without asking for clarification.

Quote:
(ms)I also prefer to have developed (or at least forsee developing) a meaningful bond with them.
THIS strikes me as a HUGE question mark. I can't define exactly why-but it does. I wonder what it is you mean by "developed OR foresee developing" because that seems like it would be a confusing thing for your husband (or any potential partners) to keep straight and understand. At what point can you or they "foresee" a "meaningful bond" developing and therefore know that it's ok to proceed with some sort of sexual interaction?

Is there some limit of sexual interaction here?
Like ok, I feel like we get along well so kissing is ok, but not intercourse or I feel like we understand each other now so it's ok for cunnilingus but not fellatio or what?

This is so vague that it would be damn near to impossible for your husband, a bf (or gf) or Dom or whatever to be able to make any move within this "boundary". It is simply not clear cut enough.

Quote:
(ms)About 4 years ago we began discussing the idea of involving other people in our sex life. I advised him then that I am "not capable" of having sex with someone that I don't feel that attraction, chemistry and preliminary emotional bond with. I placed that as a requirement on me participating in any sexual encounters with others, male or female.
This is clear cut. No sexual encounters for you with anyone else unless YOU identify that you are attracted (whatever that means to you), have chemistry (whatever that means to you) and a preliminary emotional bond (whatever that means to you).
But I wonder-were there "compromises" in some choices that may have led to a breakdown of communication which in turn led him to believe that you changed your mind? (not saying there WAS, just saying you need to look into that possibility too)

Quote:
(ms)Given that boundary, there shouldn't have been an issue. However, as I mentioned in my introductory post, Stewy's criteria of attraction are far wider than mine and, although he is not into "casual" sex with people he doesn't care anything for, he is capable of developing a preliminary bond much faster with a far larger demographic of individuals.
Not sure why this matters. I don't remember you writing anywhere that you said HE could not sleep with anyone he felt comfortable having sex with. YOU were not going to have sex with anyone who didn't meet your 3 requirements...

Quote:
(ms)Further complicating the situation is the fact that I'm submissive by nature.
Be it what it is, this is still YOUR responsibility to handle. In the big scheme of things you are responsible for taking care of YOUR OWN NEEDS and PROTECTING yourself from harm at all times, in all situations, with all people. There are no excuses for not doing this as a healthy, fully functional, intelligent adult.

Quote:
(ms)It is my driving force to wish to please others and to take pleasure in the process of them getting their needs met, my husband and my children being those people who's needs are most important to me, to the point of being paramount to my own.
While common-this is NOT A HEALTHY BEHAVIOR OR OUTLOOK. We (women) just as much as ANY other person, MUST TAKE CARE OF OUR OWNSELF before we can take care of another. When we allow ourselves to abuse our own selves-we TEACH OTHERS BY EXAMPLE that abusing us is not only acceptable, but preferential.

Quote:
(ms)Unfortunately, neither of us did much research into D/S at that point.
Already addressed, BUT again, when we're talking about two fully functional, intelligent adults, there is no excuse for agreeing to roles and activities together that you didn't research TOGETHER for dangers and to be sure there was clear understanding BETWEEN you.

Quote:
(ms)When my husband became attracted to individuals that I did NOT, and time began to drag on with no potential partners meeting my "high standards" he began to get frustrated.
Not really pertinent. He had the ability to discuss this with you. You had the ability to work with him on compromises. But beyond negotiating for freedom to explore on his own, this isn't really pertinent.
That said-it should be noted that many a person has talked on this board about significant others who SAY they are ok with poly and yet insist on setting requirements so impossible for their spouse to ACTUALLY be polyamorous. It would be a good idea for BOTH of you to consider this in terms of how you treat one another. If EITHER of you (or BOTH of you) are making demands that create an "impossiblity" for the other to "explore" sexually with others without "breaking your rules for them"-you are playing a very unhealthy game of manipulation.
(this is worthy of a WHOLE other thread so I'll drop it for now)

Quote:
(ms)He put pressure on me to lower my standards and stop being so "picky."
IMHO-this in and of itself is ok. The problem is "what the hell is picky?" As I already said-it's a common issue for a "less open" person to create rules/stipulations that are so impossible as to cause the "more open" person distress in the situation. It would be GOOD for you to look into this and ensure that your limitations were ONLY upon YOURSELF and not upon him.
HE should look into this and ensure that what he was demanding was ONLY pertinent to HIMSELF and not you (sounds like he was making a demand pertinent to your participation, but if you in turn had said only couples sex with others, then he wouldn't have a choice)

Quote:
(ms)As my "Dom" he gave me instructions that if I had an "opportunity" or we had an "opportunity" to have an encounter with someone I felt "comfortable" with, to take it.
How do you define "comfortable"?
How does HE define "comfortable"?
Because if you both define it as (that list you made of 3 things) then I don't see where you would have a problem if you were told to take an opportunity to be with someone who met those 3 requirements...

OR if you define it that way and he doesn't-then you had a responsibility to let him know that he was breaking boundary rules and that was NOT acceptable.

OR if he defines it that way-but you didn't, again you had the responsibility to clarify and not allow yourself to break a boundary rule based on your misunderstanding.

OR if NEITHER of you define it that way-you had a responsibility again to put your foot down and not allow your boundary to be breached.

That said-

HE had a responsibility to understand (whether by research or whatever other method) that when he takes the role of a "Dom" he takes on the same level of responsibility for his actions in regards to you as a scoutmaster to a scout or a priest to his parishioner. He has a RESPONSIBILITY to understand that as a "Dom" he CAN NOT tell you to do something without THINKING ABOUT ALL OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FIRST.
Also-he has a responsibility to understand, that by breaching your boundaries he automatically negates his authority and as I mentioned on the phone, there are a number of different BDSM groups that require "membership" and an act such as that is a GROSS ABUSE of authority and would result in being kicked out of not only THAT group, but likely any nearby groups as well..
And last as RP said-it's the equivalent of reducing your purpose to that of a prostitute which is beyond disrespectful and not only inappropriate in terms of BDSM or marriage, but in terms of ANY relationship between two caring people.
__________________
"Love As Thou Wilt"
Reply With Quote