A question for Doms

[Si****]

"Did I make the right decision in releasing my submissive after discovering she was repeatedly going on a dating site, presenting herself as single, and messaging other Doms?

I questioned her behaviour multiple times and made it clear it was unacceptable, yet she completely disobeyed me and continued doing it regardless. I feel this was a blatant *** of trust and our dynamic, but I’d be interested to hear other perspectives.

Would you have handled it differently?"

[Hosch]

Once trust has been violated you have to move on.

[ta****]

In my eyes if she’s wasn’t respecting your dynamic as don sub and actively on dating sites looking for other dom she didn’t respect you and releasing her was best trust and respect are absolutely important in this life style

[ip****]

I guess it depends on if yall were in a closed or open relationship

[Si****]

Just now, ipokeyou2 said:

I guess it depends on if yall were in a closed or open relationship

Closed

[Th****]

I think you did. When you take on a sub there are rules. Things that are expected and a must. The fact you spoke to them several times and informed them of the wrong doing and they continued shows utter disrespect. This is the ultimate punishment which they brought on.

[knotsman]

I would say your stance is fair regardless of the dom sub dynamic. That is not ok behaviour in any respecting relationship of any kind (I.e. the repeatedly ignoring the other partner saying they don't accept a certain behaviour).

[Da****]

No I would have handled it similarly, if you had rules about such behavior. It seems that you did or warned/punished the sub for this *** and set expectations by telling the sub that his type of behavior was unacceptable in the dynamic. Did the sub ever explain why they were doing this…did they say it was something they needed or did they agree in a conversation with you as the Dom that they would stop, then break their word, if there is no trust then there can be no dynamic, their behavior seems to be what lead to the termination of the dynamic.

[Ve****]

Yes, if your arrangement is to be monogamous. Absolutely. The dishonesty would def be a dealbreaker for me.

[GeorgeTwo]

You need to give the rules. You did do the right things on this dynamic.

[Si****]

Thanks everyone, I just needed some reassurance that I made the right decision, as hard as it was. Trust is fundamental and although she said I should trust her, I didn't see any reason why she should want to be on a dating site. I'm certainly not going to wait around to be replaced, I do have some respect.

[Mo****]

You are right ! And correct decision ! Questioning your decisions is not the right thing to do! My sub asked if she can do meet with her ex dom or one of her ex hookups ! I refused and let her go ! It's not only a sexual connection ! It's obligation and commitment! Just flip the page !

[Si****]

6 minutes ago, Daddy4babygirl2nite said:

No I would have handled it similarly, if you had rules about such behavior. It seems that you did or warned/punished the sub for this *** and set expectations by telling the sub that his type of behavior was unacceptable in the dynamic. Did the sub ever explain why they were doing this…did they say it was something they needed or did they agree in a conversation with you as the Dom that they would stop, then break their word, if there is no trust then there can be no dynamic, their behavior seems to be what lead to the termination of the dynamic.

She said she's just checking messages and isn't messaging anyone. Then why bother? Didn't make sense. Unfortunately for her she messaged a Dom that knew me, silly girl lol

[ge****]

To give a definitive answer I'd have to hear *both* sides of the story from the individuals involved.
.
But based on the one side we have here, I'd say you have to go with your instinct and knowledge of the situation from being involved in it.

[ip****]

43 minutes ago, SirBDSM71 said:

Closed

Then I would say you made the right choice. Trust and Respect are key to a strong relationship in any aspect of it.

[Si****]

11 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

To give a definitive answer I'd have to hear *both* sides of the story from the individuals involved.
.
But based on the one side we have here, I'd say you have to go with your instinct and knowledge of the situation from being involved in it.

Yes I understand you only have my side of the story, the main issue I had was the fact that she was actively single on there, and she was the one instigating conversations with other Doms, there's only one reason for that in my opinion.

[ge****]

2 minutes ago, SirBDSM71 said:

Yes I understand you only have my side of the story, the main issue I had was the fact that she was actively single on there, and she was the one instigating conversations with other Doms, there's only one reason for that in my opinion.

As I said, you have to go with your knowledge and instincts of the situation, based on what *you* believe.

[My****]

Just let that one go and don't look back

[My****]

No amount of discipline will change the mind

[CopperKnob]

Is it really a D/s or "rules" issue, though, or more about expectations/agreement within any monogamous relationship.
Whilst im not condoning anyones actions from the account given, which is just part of the story, I struggle with the idea that a "rule" is issued by a D such as this. It shouldn't be a "rule." In my mind it's a basic part of a monogamous relationship, surely.

[der_Professor]

Every relationship is based on trust. A d/s relationship relies even more on trust because of the nature of the game.

And trust is like a piece of paper. Once it is crumbled…

So - you did the right thing in my eyes.

[Si****]

5 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Is it really a D/s or "rules" issue, though, or more about expectations/agreement within any monogamous relationship.
Whilst im not condoning anyones actions from the account given, which is just part of the story, I struggle with the idea that a "rule" is issued by a D such as this. It shouldn't be a "rule." In my mind it's a basic part of a monogamous relationship, surely.

Quite correct. It wasn't a rule per se, it was an agreement we had, and like any agreement or indeed rule, it shouldn't need to be. Surely basic respect and commitment to the dynamic or any relationship should automatically mean that staying on a dating site is unacceptable.

[knotsman]

39 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Is it really a D/s or "rules" issue, though, or more about expectations/agreement within any monogamous relationship.
Whilst im not condoning anyones actions from the account given, which is just part of the story, I struggle with the idea that a "rule" is issued by a D such as this. It shouldn't be a "rule." In my mind it's a basic part of a monogamous relationship, surely.

I really agree with this. A consenting and trusting partnership of any sort involves communication, boundaries, expectations, and trust. There was a behaviour your 'partner' was demonstrating which made you uncomfortable and broke a boundary for you. It doesn't matter what the behaviour was, what the boundary was, or that it occurred in a D/S dynamic. It matters that ther was a boundary that was communicated. It was broken or breached. You communicated that upset you. And the other partner continued regardless. That shows a partner who is not respecting agreed boundaries and not responding to being challenged about just that. And at that point knowing this is unlikely to change and walking away is for me the best step for all parties.... for what it's worth I wish I had done that when I first made the realisation.

[Se****]

Unless the reason for remaining in said site was completely benign.

I’m only playing devils advocate, but I would remain on (for example) here whether or not I was in a relationship. I have friends I connect with on here and I’d expect anyone I formed a relationship with to understand that.

That said, I’ve had more than enough bad experiences or people claiming not to be messaging others on sites such as this to make me exceptionally wary of it happening again. The flip side being that if they were going to do it on a dating site then they could be doing it anywhere, thus deleting the dating site would be a moot point 🤷🏼‍♀️

[ge****]

Out of interest and having just read your profile OP it appears to be written from the perspective of someone who is both single and open to multiple connections (now you may have changed it since the break up of course) - but on the assumption you've not - is it possible that perhaps there are some blurred lines at play here? Or perhaps thinking on their part that because you appear to be open to meeting others, it was ok for her to too.
.
As I've already said, without the other side of the story it's difficult to tell, so I may be surmising incorrectly (which is part of the problem with only having one side).