So, yesterday I got up after 5 hours of sleep to go hiking. I thought this was not necessarily a smart idea, but I sucked it up. I really wanted to spend the day with Puppy. The hike was a blast and loads of fun. I am glad I went. I do wish that I had put sunblock on. I am one crispy critter.
Then we went over to the kinky flea. I didn’t see anything inspiring (shocker) but I did get to speak with friends. We tried to go out to dinner with a group of people, but dinner didn’t arrive before we had to leave so we contributed $20 towards some salad and some bread. I think he may have had some of the calimari as well. But I left hungry and grumpy. (It was Buca di Beppo’s–that is why us leaving didn’t matter.) I also spent most of waiting for dinner feeling grumpy because I didn’t appreciate the comment of, “Maybe they would think you were a good girl if you actually were one.” I felt crappy and I just wanted to leave then instead of sitting there for another 35 minutes.
We went to the kinky rape survivor’s discussion group. If I had been a better person I would have really read the message sent out and I would have known it was for survivor’s only and I wouldn’t have brought Puppy. The group decided they were ok with him staying though and I am so grateful that they did. The discussion bothered me far more than I thought it would. I realized how much some recent stuff has been bothering me. I realized that I haven’t been taking good care of myself and that I have been letting people do things to me that actually hurt me and I feel really bad as a result. The group is going to try to meet once a month, I think I am going to make it a priority to go.
After leaving the meeting we walked back to my car to find out it was broken into. My passenger window was smashed and his backpack was stolen. Nothing else, thank goodness. I had a bag full of rope worth more than $250 in the car and I still have it and all my books. I wouldn’t have been able to replace them all. But now I get to replace my window. 🙁
Later in the evening Puppy and I had a long conversation about D/s and our relationship. Based on some of the things I talked about in the group he said that he would like to have final say on who I can play with. I haven’t decided how I feel about that yet. I told him reasons that I think it is a bad idea and reasons that I like the idea, but it is still up in the air. He specifically wants people to have to come talk to him before they do anything with me. I think that would be awkward for people I have been playing with for 5 years. 🙁 But many good things were talked about as well. We are still in discussion.
Then we took a bath together and he combed my hair and we slathered Aloe Vera all over one another. That was much soothing goodness. I had trouble falling asleep. I kept getting scared and crying and waking myself up when I would start to drift off. He pulled me close and held me against him and it got better. I eventually did sleep.
I am still under-slept from the weekend though. And I am emotionally raw from a lot of things. And I am really upset about my car. Fixing it is going to hurt financially right now. 🙁 I have no choice but to suck it up though.
“Maybe they would think you were a good girl if you actually were one.”
WTF??
You’re silly, sure. You’re active in your own life, sure. You are not passive, sure. But where the FUCK did that idea of theirs come from?
And another point: what did Puppy say when that was said? I hope he defended you!
PS: If you have laundry to do this week, I hope you’ll come do it at my house and visit with us. The deck is especially nice right now.
I have laundry facilities at my house you know.
actually, no, I didn’t. I assumed otherwise, based on something you maybe said once.
Okay, so I can’t entice you with laundry. And I won’t feed you cookies. But the deck is still nice – good for reading on.
Puppy didn’t hear the comment. He was having a conversation in the other direction.
And now we’re all curious to know what he thought of it?
(And does the man have an LJ?)
Puppy does not do lj. He refuses. (He really doesn’t have time…)
I would think that if they’ve been playing with you for 5+ years, they’ll understand, but that’s just me…
Sucks about the car. Insurance won’t cover it?
My feeling too.
I think it’s reasonable for Puppy to get the opportunity to be comfortable with your playmates. I would expect that even if he gets “final word” it would not be a decision made without a great deal of communication and negotiation.
My deductible is much higher than the cost of replacing it.
Sorry to hear about your car…that really sucks 🙁
I think that would be awkward for people I have been playing with for 5 years.
I disagree. I think it’s prefectly reasonable to expect people to renegotiate a play relationship when circumstances change, and it’s not unreasonable for one partner to have veto powers over another’s play partners, and to be involved in negotiations. I think he should be able to explain his comfort levels to your play partners.
This does not have to be a Ds thing. In fact, I think it should be reciprocal. You could, and should, have veto powers over his play partners, and should be able to explain your comfort levels to them before he plays with them.
Andrew
He is actually displeased with my unwillingness to veto partners of his that I don’t actually want him to have. He is very uncomfortable with me wanting to ‘suck it up.’
As he should be. That kind of thing just oozes out like pus later on.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
You ARE a good girl. And anyone who has trouble grasping that is only doing so because it’s hard to have clear perspective with your head up your ass.
But what I was going to respond to is this–
“…Based on some of the things I talked about in the group he said that he would like to have final say on who I can play with. I haven’t decided how I feel about that yet. I told him reasons that I think it is a bad idea and reasons that I like the idea, but it is still up in the air. He specifically wants people to have to come talk to him before they do anything with me. I think that would be awkward for people I have been playing with for 5 years…”
I have encountered this before, and grappled with it a bit from both sides of the equation. I don’t have any perfect answers to the situation, but one of the important things that you and he should remember– there are a lot of perfectly good and reasonable people who will not explore any kind of play activity with you if they feel that in order to play with you, they have to bottom to your primary top first.
I’ve got nothing against some kind of ‘checking in’ with someone else’s primary to make sure they know my intentions are clear and good. But any ‘hard’ requirement that I actually negotiate with them instead of the person I am going to play with pretty much sink the deal…unless, perhaps, it’s already my choice to do so.
If that kind of relationship is desirable to both of you, it may be simpler if the primary just has a simple up/down, yes/no veto.
My feeling is that if you can play with me (just for example), you can play with me and negotiate with me, and it’s up to you to tell me what your primary relationship allows and does not allow. It’s up to me to tell you what I want or am willing to accept in in our interaction, and what kind of boundaries are ‘deal-breakers’.
When someone says “Gee, I’d like to play with you, but YOU have to go and negotiate with/ask my top for permission first, what I hear is “I’ve got a Top who wants other people to bottom to him/her first before she/he will let them play with their toy.”
If I already know and like the Top, I would probably like to touch base with them anyway–but if I don’t, then I figure it’s perfectly acceptable for them to be in a position to give or deny consent–but the negotiation about what you can or can’t do needs to happen between YOU and THEM first, and -then- between you and I.
Telling me that I am *required* to go and ‘bend my knee’ to your primary partner/Top before I can do anything of significance with you pretty much -is- a deal-breaker. It’s up to *you* to have or get the consent, it’s up to me to choose to respect and accept (or not) the boundaries and limitations that come with it.
That of course is just my thoughts on the matter, and ‘your mileage may vary.’
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
Hi, I don’t know you (that I know of), and I hope I get to change that b/c you seem like a smart and reasonable person.
You’re making an assumption that Puppy wants L’s other partners to *negotiate* play with him. But what L said is this: “He specifically wants people to have to come talk to him before they do anything with me.”
That doesn’t say “negotiate” and it might not mean it, either. It might just mean, “I want to meet people before they do things to you so I know what they look like.”
But of course, neither of us is the final judge.
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
Well, there’s no way I can presume to discuss all of the possible variables in an LJ post, but I think we might have a basic semantic disagreement here.
The fact that he doesn’t use the word ‘negotiate’ doesn’t mean that’s not what it IS. When someone says ‘you -have- to come talk to ME before you can play with X’ that makes it a part of the negotiation process.
If that works for them as a couple, that’s fine. There’s nothing horrible or unacceptable about that as part of a relationship. My basic point is that there are people–skilled, safe, good players–who won’t necessarily accept that as part of a negotiation process. I would tend to be one of them. And that would be part of the price that L would pay for agreeing to that. If that price is agreeable to her–then that’s her decision to make.
I would have no problem with meeting someone else’s top -socially-, so they could suss me out, get a feel for me (and me for them), and perhaps inquire about a few references or skillsets. I would want to do that myself if our positions were reversed. But when it’s laid out for me as ‘you *have* to go talk to X-1 *before* you can do -anything- with X-2’, then it’s a command performance, and I for one, would not be interested. If X-2 says to me ‘*I* would really like it if you have a chat with X-1 and just check in with her/him before we go any further’… that puts it in a somewhat different context.
For me it boils down to the fact that it keeps it cleaner and keeps you out of the middle of THEIR relationship if you stick to negotiating with the person you are playing with. Either they negotiate cleanly or they don’t, but in any case you don’t get caught in a ‘he said/she said’ misinterpretation tug of war.
I’ve had a few unfortunate experiences with other people’s Tops who derived some kind of weird satisfaction by saying ‘Yes’ and then laying out hoops that had to be jumped through first, or planting obstacles or disrupting plans and schedules. I’ve avoided more by adopting the policy I have now.
That’s all.
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
I was doing something else and I had a flashback to his comment and I want to put it out there devils advocate-wise.
“I don’t give a fuck if they feel like they are submitting to me by asking me to play with you. They don’t hold you at night when you cry and have nightmares. They don’t love you like I do. I’m the one who needs to watch out for you.”
It is giving me pause.
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
It’s a fair and valid point. But unfortunately, they (the people you might want to play with) DO give a fuck about feeling like they are submitting to a third party.
It’s up to you if you want to pay that price or not.
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
It sounds to me like he is concerned that some of your play may be negatively impacting you. And from your comment about boundaries, I’m thinking, he may be right. Whether he can actually do that is a whole different issue. I have to agree that it is creating a very different sort of Ds dynamic to be placing him in this filter position. Doesn’t mean it’s bad, just different.
The impact of play is something I’d like to talk about more in another setting.
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
Up to a point, I agree with what you’re saying. On the other hand, if a couple have a requirement that the other partner gets to meet a potential new (or used) partner before anything happens, I think that’s reasonable. It’s mostly a matter of why the other partner is meeting the new partner. If it’s to “top” them, even just verbally, it’s something I’d avoid as a potential new partner. But if it’s a sanity check, or so that the primary can get comfortable with the new partner, that’s ok.
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
I think I more or less addressed this in my reply above to ‘genderfur’, but basically– I agree. Perceived motivation makes a difference. But essentially, I think there’s a real difference between ‘My partner would like to -meet- you before we can play’ and ‘You have to go talk to my partner before you can talk to me about playing.’
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
Well, you just laid out exactly what I was trying to say to you. So even though your reply to me didn’t feel like an agreement, I’ll assume it as one.
In my own marriage, my wife wants to meet any potential ongoing playpartners before the *second* time we play. It’s a social meeting, nothing more, so she can make an independent judgement of their sanity. And that’s how I read L’s comment above.
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
Heh. Like I said…a semantic disagreement.
A small but significant difference in our interpretations of what we read, and then the use of somewhat different words to say very similar things.
It may not have felt like agreement, but it doesn’t feel to me like we’re having a heated argument either. Seems like we’ve come close to something resembling clarity, so it’s all to the good. 😉
Your wife’s position seems quite reasonable and thoughtful to me.
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
I read your comment to Puppy. Thank you so much for making it. You said much more clearly what I was trying to express to him.
Based on your wonderful, fabulous comment we have a much better starting place to go from in negotiating this part of our relationship. I have traditionally abhorred this type of arrangement for exactly the reasons you have stated. I had to really struggle with my initial “hell fucking no” when he brought up this paradigm. I have declined play with many people over the years because I am unwilling to submit to their partners authority.
A big part of the reason that I think he wants to set this paradigm up is because of my own poor decisions in maintaining my boundaries over the past year. 🙁 I really really hate that someone wants to step in and “take care of me” in this way. I really hate that on some level I feel like I want to let him do it just because it would be so much easier for me. It is such a cop out though. On some level I believe that having the stop-gap set up that someone has to talk to him before we play will give me the time and space I need to actually independently evaluate if I really want to do it. But yeah, what you said Malixe. I think it should be up to me to negotiate with my partner–not people who want to play with me.
At this point Puppy is pretty nervous in general about me playing with anyone and I’m willing to bet that it is off the table for a while period. If only because we need to set up our relationship a bit more before we let other dynamics come into play. I don’t know that I am going to agree to his initial stated, “I want people to come talk to me and explain what they want to do to you so that you and I can discuss it and decide if it is ok.” That seems like a hoop I am not going to put in front of people who have been part of my life for a very long time. I think a lot of his thing is wanting me to have an easy out and way of saying no to people so that I don’t have to feel conflicted about it.
I’m wondering about some sort of grandfather clause for specific people. I’m willing to bet that his preference is going to be that no matter what I don’t play with people that he hasn’t at least met for a while. I am the one making this complicated by having so many people I want to play with. He has two friends that he wants the option of continuing to play with. One is currently out of the country and the other is getting ready to move back to the East coast. Soon, he will be completely and totally monogamous. Why am I pushing to still play in a poly fashion? Do I really want it that much?
Negotiating is hard.
Negotiating is hard…
Yes it is…but it’s also very satisfying when it’s done successfully.
Thank you for your sweet words.
I don’t know Puppy–maybe someday I will meet him and he won’t resent me too much for sticking my nose in. 😉
There’s definitely some value in having a partner who will do some of the heavy lifting for you in helping to make sure that things happen at a pace that you can be comfortable with. If that’s how it works out, then good.
You just need to be confident that any barriers thrown up are for your benefit, and not to protect the other person’s insecurities or irrational fears.
I know when I had a partner who wanted to play with others but had given me the ‘veto’, it was always hard to say ‘yes’. But I trusted her judgement for the most part, and my default was always going to be ‘yes’ unless and until I could clearly and logically state my objections and concerns and back them up with something rational besides my own fears.
And BTW, I think it’s perfectly natural for Puppy to want to minimize your outside play for a while, while you and he establish and stabilize the relationship that you and he are nurturing. And if you care about him, it’s natural that you should want to oblige for similar reasons. It’s always easier to say ‘yes’ or explain your ‘no’ when you feel confident and stable in a relationship. And it’s easier for you to express your own preferences as well, without having him feel threatened.
And if it comes down to it, playing the ‘bad guy’ is something the Top in a relationship needs to be willing to do every now and then. It’s part of the ‘being in charge’ thing. I occasionally have had partners refer people who were expressing an interest in them to me–solely because they weren’t comfortable about their ability to find a way to say ‘fuck off’ in a clear, positive and emphatic way. And I never enjoyed it, because it was always an exercise in dealing with people who were doing everything they could to avoid grasping the concept of ‘No’. But I did it, because it was one of the responsibilities I had accepted along with the benefits. In those cases though, there was never any uncertainty about what my partner wanted to have happen. 🙂
Anyway, yes–I would encourage you to take that step slowly and gradually. And I hope this relationship turns out to be everything you want it to be. Good luck, dear!
Re: Let me make one thing perfectly clear…
I don’t know Puppy either, but the only relationships I’ve seen with this kind of dynamic are master-slave relationships.
If Puppy isn’t ready to be your permission–that is, he decides whether or not you play–then I’d suggest looking at it as others here have described. i.e., people check in with you *and* Puppy, or you agree not to play with others until you and Puppy have talked about it and he’s met them.
There’s a difference, and while Puppy sounds like a great guy, personally I’d be leery of giving him that much control over you when the relationship is at such a new stage.
(Especially since, whether or not you and Puppy are choosing this right now, the flip side of “you don’t play without my permission” is “you play when I tell you to.”)
first, *hug* (if it feels safe and is welcome).
I think a kinky rape survivors thing is way cool, and I wish I’d known about them back when I was kink-identified (not only for myself, but because I played with lot of survivors).
One of the things that I adore about you, and that makes me interested in playing with you (*gulp*) is that you are someone who completely and utterly *gets* that “submissive” does not mean “will do anything you ask me to” and also does not mean “will not express thoughts or opinions when not in bottom space”. All of that is a long winded way of saying that if someone’s definition of “good girl” doesn’t include, then they have a definition that is no fun for me, and really, you don’t need to do anything more than metaphorically slap them and move on.
As for Puppy and negotiating play with you, I don’t have enough of an insiders view to get this…and admit I’m a little curious about what the monogamy-but-play-with-others means *and* also that I assume that in a M/s context, you’d be okay with even long term partners needing approval/consent/something (apologies if I use a term that is offensive in a BDSM context, but I am coming from a model more like “primary with veto power” in a poly context), but your relationship isn’t *there* (yet/currently), so the question may be where along the spectrum things are *and* if you are okay with losing any current long-term play partners because of that change. Side suggestion: would you be okay with checking with all your current partners to see how they’d feel before making that agreement with Puppy?
You are not being offensive at all and I am quite happy to have ginger hugs from you. (sunburn)
I don’t know where along the continuum we are. That is part of the ongoing discussion. I get the general impression that my definitions and the types of play that are ok are going to change a lot in the coming weeks, months…etc. There are things that I want from play that make Puppy nervous/uncomfortable and I think that part of being in a relationship is struggling with where the lines need to be in order for both partners to be ok. I think that some of the things I want just aren’t going to be ok with him. I need to decide how I feel about that.
I really think there are going to be a very small handful of people who don’t need to go through him (Dad, for example) and that everyone else will need to talk to him. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about that. There are going to be people like wonderful, fabulous, charming, and talented Malixe who will be unwilling to speak with him about playing with me. Am I going to be upset enough about that to change the rules of my relationship to accomodate them? I don’t know yet.
I’m not sure how to define ‘my current partners’ at this point. I have many friends that I have played with a few times and with whom I would negotiate with again if circumstances were amenable. But we aren’t exactly focused on it and we don’t do it regularly.
You say the sweetest things!
One last quick one– I just want to point out that there’s a difference between being ‘unwilling to talk to’ and ‘unwilling to ask for permission’.
I’m always willing to talk respectfully with someone who is willing to talk respectfully to me in return. And if I have a sense that I am dealing with someone who is inexperienced with this kind of interaction, or is just experiencing a normal level of insecurity about it, then it’s just good manners to address it, inquire about their concerns and boundaries, and show that you have some respect for, and no intention of deliberately doing harm to their relationship.
But ultimately, if I am playing with YOU, you are the one who has to HAVE consent, and GIVE consent to what we do.
Puppy read through all of the comments and was particularly impressed with your comments. 🙂
He said that he is trying to make sure that he and I talk about things before things happen and to make sure that I really want to do it. He is giving himself the option of being the bad guy if I need him to be–but he doesn’t intend to make people jump through hoops to touch me. Thank you so much for helping us clear up the negotiations there Malixe. 🙂 I wasn’t doing a very good job on my own.
Clarity is important in an agreement. I was working on that a bit last night…we are both actually doing more than we are agreeing to as a bottom line, which is part of what makes it hard to know where the bottom line *is*.
There is certainly a difference between meeting someone for a sanity check and making sure that the prospective partner knows that there is Some Other Existing Important Relationship versus an interview process or an opportunity to play mindfuck with the other top.
Based on some of the things I talked about in the group […]
In that context it’s perfectly reasonable that he should at least want to meet your play partners. You’re broken in some ways (aren’t we all?), and he thinks he might be able to spot those people who have potential to break you further.
People you’ve been playing with for 5 years should *want* to meet the current sweetie, if for no other reason than so they can check *him* out. I don’t see where it’ll be that big a problem, although I don’t know the people involved.
I hold off on my opinion about his having final approval, but I will point out that in some cases the kind of play you’re doing can be a *lot* more emotional and intimate than “just” having sex. If he’s got approval for one, it’s natural that he should want approval for the other.
*great big hugs*
I go through that too…
My apologies for the crack. I meant it as a tease but I should have known that that was inappropriate for you. I’m sorry to have brought you down and to have caused offense.