RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad

RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

LadyPact -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/13/2010 7:10:15 AM)
quote: In my mind, changing from belonging to one Dom to two isn't necessarily making a poly family, but it's heading in that direction, to some extent. My understanding is that leather and poly households are different. If you don't mind My asking, exactly what makes you think this? By your own description, you certainly don't have a monogamous situation. The characters in your story are certainly becoming a triad, in the fact that they are all interacting with each other on some level, even if all three aren't playing together at the same time. Polyamorous, by definition, means more than one love or relationship. There's nothing about that which contradicts a leather lifestyle. Those of us who identify as leather do so because the dynamics that we are involved in follow a certain hierarchy and protocol. It doesn't have to do with the number of participants that may be in the household. Instead, it has everything to do with the level of authority of each person's place in the family unit. Think chain of command in the military. Even when you have two officers of the same rank, the person with the greater authority is the one who was promoted to that rank first, by date. Within the same leather family, that's how we determine who is the senior or junior leatherman. It's based on who has the greater amount of experience as a Master/Mistress in the leather lifestyle. The number of slaves has nothing to do with the style of the dynamic itself.

sunshinemiss -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/13/2010 8:02:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW HIJACK Sunshinemiss are you doing NaNoWriMo this year??? Calla Hi Calla, Yes I am. Here's the thread: http://www.collarchat.com/m_3438225/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#3468255 I wrote a short story a few months ago, and two of my dear friends both said - oh no, this is not a short story. This is a novel. So, I joined a writer's group, went to a retreat or two, and signed up for nanowrimo. I'm almost halfway to the prize! Woo hoo! Ok... end hijack of my own thread. oooo... maybe Vaa Vaa Vaa Voom will come in and tell me how naughty I've become. Oooo.... that might be worth .... :: swoon :: sunshine-a-grog

ejmichaels -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s threesome (11/13/2010 9:06:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: In my mind, changing from belonging to one Dom to two isn't necessarily making a poly family, but it's heading in that direction, to some extent. My understanding is that leather and poly households are different. If you don't mind My asking, exactly what makes you think this? I might be weak on terminology. I was under the impression that a leather household isn't necessarily a poly household. That was my only point. I was not referring to rank or numbers when I said that. I have some experience with poly arrangements, more so than with leather families. I thought having the relationship based primarily on the D/s aspects isn't enough to call it poly. The life-partnered Doms clearly have a non-monogamous relationship in physical terms, but emotionally, beyond the D/s aspect, that remains to be seen. That's another issue I would like to discuss sometime - things that happens when someone joins a couple like this, as a secondary partner, with the other two clearly being primary to each other. I probably shouldn't have used "triad" in the post title. It was too late to edit when I thought of that.

DesFIP -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s threesome (11/13/2010 12:32:34 PM)
In this case, since the sub is so much younger, I doubt it will become a true triad. However you never can tell. It isn't uncommon for the sub and the original dominant to move away and become a pair. Since frequently when people open up a relationship it is in an attempt to alleviate problems. And as bad an idea as is having a baby to improve the marriage. They could grow to become a true triad, all in love with each other. And they could still remain very unequal in value with the primary couple remaining just that. Not all love is for forever.

LadyPact -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s threesome (11/13/2010 9:52:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ejmichaels I might be weak on terminology. I was under the impression that a leather household isn't necessarily a poly household. That was my only point. I was not referring to rank or numbers when I said that. I have some experience with poly arrangements, more so than with leather families. I thought having the relationship based primarily on the D/s aspects isn't enough to call it poly. The life-partnered Doms clearly have a non-monogamous relationship in physical terms, but emotionally, beyond the D/s aspect, that remains to be seen. That's another issue I would like to discuss sometime - things that happens when someone joins a couple like this, as a secondary partner, with the other two clearly being primary to each other. I probably shouldn't have used "triad" in the post title. It was too late to edit when I thought of that. Your terms are rather poor. Even from this further explanation, I'm not especially sure that you're getting it. A leather household may or may not be a poly household. Leather has to do with the types of protocols used. Poly refers to the number of participants. One doesn't have to include the other, but it doesn't exclude it, either. For example, I have a leather protocol dynamic. Whether I have one slave or multiple slaves, the protocols don't necessarily change. It is still a leather household based on those protocols. Not any additional criteria. A dynamic where there are only two people involved, who are only involved with each other and no additional relationships with other people is what would negate the poly label. The other thing that would make the term incorrect would be when one of the people in the relationship don't know about their partner's additional relationship with someone else. (That's called "cheating" not "poly".) It has nothing to do with the protocols that they have structured. Many poly people have no authority dynamic or protocols in place. They just have relationships with multiple people. An authority dynamic isn't a necessary component, but it can be a part of the relationship. It's not either/or. The second sentence that I highlighted above is a complete disconnect on the terms that you're using.

ejmichaels -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s threesome (11/14/2010 11:37:29 AM)
About this: Poly refers to the number of participants. "Poly" is not just about numbers. (Yes, I know you didn't say that exactly.) If there isn't a qualitative component that includes certain elements essential to a relationship, having more than two people in a household doesn't make it "poly". Or did I get that wrong? Plus, people might define "poly" differently. I've spent a non-trivial amount of time among people considered knowledgeable about poly relationships (book authors, seminar presenters, actual lifestyle participants). I was attempting to refer to some specific things I read on the Internet about the differences between Leather and Poly, not something I made up. When I locate the sources again, I could quote some of it to avoid being unclear. The authors seemed to know what they were talking about. I was not trying to fully explain what I did and did not get about this topic. I was referring only to a very small point. I'm more of a leaf person than a forest person. I apologize for any negative tone conveyed here. I'm not trying to argue.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s threesome (11/14/2010 12:04:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ejmichaels About this: Poly refers to the number of participants. "Poly" is not just about numbers. (Yes, I know you didn't say that exactly.) If there isn't a qualitative component that includes certain elements essential to a relationship, having more than two people in a household doesn't make it "poly". Or did I get that wrong? You're right IN GENERAL, but IN CONTEXT, with the situation you described, it's pretty clearly poly. See, the qualitative thing that makes poly "poly" is that there is a familial, affectionate, and/or sexual relationship between everyone involved. In the situation you described, the fact that it was three individuals sharing a relationship together sufficient that the submissive would be yielding to both of the other parties, and they would accept that authority is sufficient to consider it to be a poly relationship. Period. Leather has nothing to do with it. As Lady P has said, "leather" is about the rituals, not about how many are participating. Two or twenty, if the protocols are not in place, it's not leather. Poly is about how many are participating in a committed and acknowledged manner.If there are only two participants, it's not poly -- if there are more, and they're more than just room-mates, co-workers- or friends, then it's poly. In the same way, Victorian, Gorean, etc., like leather, are about specific protocols and rituals, NOT about how many people are participating. You can have a Victorian Household with just two members.... or with a dozen. So if the -protocols- you're following in your story are "leather" (and I don't know you to know how familiar you might be with those, but if you're going to write about them, get informed and be accurate) -- and there are THREE people consciously entering into a relationship together, then yes, it is poly -and- it is leather.... does that make sense? Calla

ejmichaels -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s threesome (11/14/2010 12:49:27 PM)
Thanks for the explanation. None of this is actually new to me, except for the fact that I haven't been explaining myself well. I apologize for being careless. I mistakenly neglected to explain I understood about the basic distinctions, such as there being protocol or not. I have to remember that no one here knows me by anything other than what I have typed and I need to start at the beginning. I realize now I was making a big deal about a very minor distinction I read about. I thought it was meaningful at the time, but I'll happily drop the idea.

sweetsub1957 -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/14/2010 7:16:35 PM)
I'm not sure how anyone else would do this but, were I collared to one half of a Dominant couple, I would consider it up to my Owner that Collared me whether any activity went on between myself and the other Dominant. And that would include any collarings. I would never ask for His partner's collar. Any Collarings, play activity and/or sexual activity would be up to my Owner and would have to be initiated by Him, not me. Just my two cents. ~sweetsub~

xssve -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/15/2010 5:21:13 AM)
Just thinking out loud, but the answer lies beyond protocol, i.e., what a given dyad is comfortable with will generally arise during casual conversation, unless of course there is some prearranged and agreed upon protocol that states otherwise that all have agreed to adhere to - there is more than one of those, and on top of that, you can make up your own if it suits you. Personally, I prefer the sub ask, to me, that is the essence of the act of submission itself: you have to ask for it, it cannot be forced upon you. I hear tell this is current practice for a lot of pro doms, it is a bit different of course, but it does help resolve certain tricky issues in what is a legal gray area - the converse being the more proactive style of domliness that dictates that your personality is so overwhelming you can just take what you want and make it yours - this ethic however, is fraught with potential legal liabilities IMO, there is a not so fine line between domination and kidnapping and false imprisonment, which is not a line most true ("true" being used here to distinguish between the average dom and the common criminal) dominants wish to cross, IMO, and some have found themselves crossing inadvertently, with less than gratifying results - the law not always being perfect at discerning where that line is. From my personal point of view, like I said above, legal issues aside, I think the sub should do the asking, it is itself, an act of submission, and an honor to the dom. And, just quickly going over in my head what others have said, I think this is not uncommon - at best, the alternative is that the dom asks the sub if he/she wants to be collared, and the sub just has to answer yes or no, but I get the distinct impression that those who dimply demand someone to wear their collar are almost universally rejected, if not mocked outright - though technically, I suppose if that worked, you'd simply never hear from that particular sub again. Having said that, if a given dyad is comfortable with each there, it may be that the dom can sense the subs needs and collar them without asking - it's what makes making any kind of general rule about it difficult, since the internal dynamics of a given dyad are unique to that dyad, i.e., level of trust and communication, etc. Insofar as protocol goes, I'm not really into it much at this point, but I would reiterate what sweetsub said above: if a sub is already collared to one dom, they cannot ask for another's collar without that dom's permission - that seems like a no brainer in any protocol, and my impression that in this situation, the second dom is obligated to ask the first doms permission for interaction on any level beyond simple everyday socialization - again, that would seem to be a no brainer.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/16/2010 2:48:40 AM)
quote: I'm not sure how anyone else would do this but, were I collared to one half of a Dominant couple, I would consider it up to my Owner that Collared me whether any activity went on between myself and the other Dominant. And that would include any collarings. I would never ask for His partner's collar. Any Collarings, play activity and/or sexual activity would be up to my Owner and would have to be initiated by Him, not me. Just my two cents. I understand what you're saying here -- and at least in part, I agree. All of the Keepers in our household certainly vett any outside dominants who are asking about House servants before any discussion goes on between the submissive and the newcomer dominant party... but there is a particular sense of longing/yielding/vulnerability that I think comes from the submissive party asking to be kept. For us, we handle this by the House Keeper(s) who are involved doing pre-screening, so to speak. Once an individual is 'vetted' as a member of the House, the ones who end up moving into the more personal "individual collar" situation (less than 1% have ever ended up doing this anyway) do so because the preliminary groundwork has been OK'd by the dominant members involved... with the understanding that, anywhere along the chain, one of the people who holds authority could say "No, this is not going to be functional for the House as a whole". The process of establishing a D/s or M/s dynamic, especially where multiple individuals are involved, and where there are individual -collars- involved as well, can be complex -- in the end it all boils down to finding out what works within the context of a given relationship. Once the core relationship works, any protocols, etc., are really just frosting on the cake that make it look pretty to those who are participating. Calla

ejmichaels -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/16/2010 5:21:41 AM)
Thanks, Calla, sweetsub and xssve (and anyone I left out). Both the diversity and similarities of posts are very interesting. I am particularly glad to see that I wasn't just imagining it being acceptable for a sub to ask for the collar, at least in some situations. In the specific case I was originally writing about, Dom1 is interested, but he's not going to tell either his sub or Dom2 what to do. My original post briefly mentioned that all parties were already considering this next step, so it was just a matter of who/how. Dom1 tried to set things in motion by getting them together for a weekend. After reading all of these replies, I am re-writing the story to have Dom1 ask the sub for more feedback about the weekend with Dom2 rather than putting the sub in the position of bringing it up. I assumed it was understood no one was going to do something without his permission - that's a no-brainer, as said above. I also thought it went without saying that these people are communicating with each other about everything, that no single rule applies to anything, that protocol is only one factor, and that solutions are unique to the people involved. Since so many people don't communicate, maybe those concepts were worth repeating.

submittous -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/19/2010 9:13:06 PM)
Write the protocol to match what your book needs.... you know the answer to your question before asking it, there aren't 'normal protocols' in M/s there are relationships that work and those that don't... if you want this triad to work in your book than just write so it makes sense to YOU.... it is your book. If you're asking about old school protocols, my memory of the gay male bdsm scene in the 60's in west LA was slaves petitioned to be owned and Masters decided if they'd accept a slave but that was a couple of generations ago and long before the internet.... From my experience today's gay and hetero bdsm communities don't follow universal protocols.

dreamerdreaming -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/20/2010 3:05:35 AM)
Who gives a rat's ass what we would do? Why are you asking us? They're your characters, not ours. What would they do? Have them do things that are consistent with their personalities, motivations and temperaments. Duh. I would never in a million years come to an online forum and ask people who haven't read my stories, what my characters should do. That seems to me to be the height of laziness. If you can't figure out what your own characters would do, then how should we know? Imagination. Get some. Edit: Sorry so snarky. I just don't have much patience for what I see as lack of imagination, and laziness.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/20/2010 5:42:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamerdreaming Who gives a rat's ass what we would do? Why are you asking us? They're your characters, not ours. What would they do? Have them do things that are consistent with their personalities, motivations and temperaments. Duh. I would never in a million years come to an online forum and ask people who haven't read my stories, what my characters should do. That seems to me to be the height of laziness. If you can't figure out what your own characters would do, then how should we know? Imagination. Get some. Edit: Sorry so snarky. I just don't have much patience for what I see as lack of imagination, and laziness. Actually, I disagree with this statement profoundly. Coming to a place where people -do- what you're trying to -write about- is called "research", and it is FAR from lazy. Getting ideas with which you can go back and write is part of the writing process. After 30 years as a published author, I would, and still -do- go to forums, discussion groups, writing groups, etc., and ask people about why and how they do what they do, to help me accurately shape the characters, scenes, and places that I write about. Calla

DesFIP -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/20/2010 6:02:15 AM)
OP, poly involves love for everyone. Not necessarily sex. So you could have a primary couple who will play and have sex with others. That doesn't make it poly, it makes it open. So Dom A has a one night stand and his partner is fine with that, that's an open relationship. If however he brings that person to dinner, and Dom B grows to like him as a friend and then begins to love him as Dom A already has, that's poly. They might not be sexually compatible but they love each other.

barelynangel -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/20/2010 6:10:29 AM)
Umm stupid question here but aren't poly relationships simply that more than one relationship no matter WHAT its based on? and that all of the players know about the other relationships? I mean if someone has an sexual attraction with someone and they make that into a sexual relationship as well as one of the people having a primary relationship based upon whatever, isn't that still a POLY concept with the person who does have more than 1 relationship. NOT ALL relationships are based upon LOVE, but all relationships are well relationships, you can have sexual ones, M/s ones, play ones etc. And if you have one primary one and branch out with the rest -- it is in fact a POLY relationship and the people within same define what type of relationships they are. Please don't try and define what ALL poly relationships must be based upon. The concept of poly with regard to relationships is BASED UPON the relationship -- not what holds it together. So yeah, if two people have a sexual relationship and that is what creates and maintains the relationship, it damn well can be part of a poly based concept. angel

LadyPact -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/20/2010 6:41:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel Umm stupid question here but aren't poly relationships simply that more than one relationship no matter WHAT its based on? and that all of the players know about the other relationships? I mean if someone has an sexual attraction with someone and they make that into a sexual relationship as well as one of the people having a primary relationship based upon whatever, isn't that still a POLY concept with the person who does have more than 1 relationship. NOT ALL relationships are based upon LOVE, but all relationships are well relationships, you can have sexual ones, M/s ones, play ones etc. And if you have one primary one and branch out with the rest -- it is in fact a POLY relationship and the people within same define what type of relationships they are. Please don't try and define what ALL poly relationships must be based upon. The concept of poly with regard to relationships is BASED UPON the relationship -- not what holds it together. So yeah, if two people have a sexual relationship and that is what creates and maintains the relationship, it damn well can be part of a poly based concept. angel Good Morning angel, That's not a stupid question. Truthfully, depending on who you ask, you might get different answers depending on their own view. Poly is one of those shortened terms that people tend to use in the way they see fit. Kind of like some of the words that people use in BDSM. Good luck on getting folks to agree to the definition of a word like submissive, for example. The word polyamorous breaks down to poly (meaning many or several - Greek) and amorous (amor/love - Latin). This is where the personal interpretation starts. Some don't consider a sexual only relationship "love" if there is no emotional attachment. This is why the term polyfuckery gets used when some people are making the distinction between a situation where the arrangement is only based on sex from one where there is a form of love. Even in the "love" camp, people don't always agree. Every once in a while, folks will debate that only romantic love counts or that all members within the arrangement have to have some form of love for each other. (In other words, some folks don't recognize "V" type poly, because not all members have a 'loving' relationship with each other. This argument doesn't come up nearly as much.) There are various types of poly, so when folks use the word, it's not a bad idea to know what they mean by it.

txurinal -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (11/20/2010 8:45:43 AM)
SIR - This slave was once owned by 2 MASTERS. Our household would have consisted of Alpha Dom, Beta Dom and slave. Each MASTER wanted very different things form the slave. Alpha Dom wanted a slave HE could discipline, use sexually, and control completely. Beta Dom wanted a housekeeper. Each got exactly what they wanted from the slave. Alpha Dom enjoyed using the slave for sex. Beta Dom, however, only used slave for sex when Alpha Dom was involved. Not that it was not permitted, but Beta Dom just did not want a sex toy. Now Beta Dom was much "kinder" to the slave and was often criticized by Alpha Dom for Beta's lack of using the whip. The slave was often loaned to other MASTERS. These were not always for sexual service, slave was often loaned for housekeeping, bartending duties, etc. The slave could neither request nor deny this arrangement and there were some of these times the slave "enjoyed" more than others. When on loan, slave was instructed to be obedient and respectful. i do not think the slave ever got a bad report from one of these MASTERS. So i guess the point i am trying to make is the protocol of a slave is to obey and to make its MASTERS pleaseed to own it

ejmichaels -> RE: Protocol/structure question about a D/D/s triad (12/7/2010 1:28:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: dreamerdreaming Who gives a rat's ass what we would do?. . . Actually, I disagree with this statement profoundly. Coming to a place where people -do- what you're trying to -write about- is called "research", and it is FAR from lazy. Getting ideas with which you can go back and write is part of the writing process. After 30 years as a published author, I would, and still -do- go to forums, discussion groups, writing groups, etc., and ask people about why and how they do what they do, to help me accurately shape the characters, scenes, and places that I write about. Calla Thanks, Calla. I'm used to writers doing that sort of research and was unprepared for some of the reactions here. I should have left out the part about it being for a book since I'm also interested personally. If we followed the previous logic, there wouldn't be a need for any forums of any kind. Why would anyone's experience be useful to another person? As some people, but not everyone, noticed, I never asked what my characters should do. I asked for examples of common styles. My personal experience wasn't adequate for my fictional characters. quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP OP, poly involves love for everyone. Not necessarily sex. So you could have a primary couple who will play and have sex with others. That doesn't make it poly, it makes it open.. . . If I'm the OP addressed here (just checking), that's what I was trying to say when someone else was telling me my fictional arrangement was considered "poly". I usually use the term for a love relationship. Terminology is definitely challenging. I'd like to think we have an understanding in these forums regarding the variation of meanings and fluidity of terminology. I feel like I should write a paragraph-long disclaimer before posting anything. I just figured out the reply notifications were going into my spam folder, so I'm just finding the recent replies.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125