Non-monogomous doms

[DickGozinya]

I feel like a lot of people think being a Dom means they get free reign to be a POS to someone. And a lot of newer subs think it means they should just be a doormat. Neither of which is true.

The Dom/Sub relationship still has rules and boundaries. If a person can't abide by those then clearly it's not a real Dom/Sub relationship and more of a controlling toxic relationship, with elements of ***.

[Sc****]

I don't know why this is rocket surgery, it should all be sorted out between the parties involved prior to commencing the relationship..

[ge****]

No, no and once again NO - a submissive is absolutely NOT morally "required" to allow anything - whether that be their dominant having other partners or a specific activity.
.
Whilst a submissive may pass control to their dominant for a pre-agreed period (which may be 24/7 or may be for the duration of a scene etc) that control is held *only* within pre-negotiated and agreed limits of which the submissive has FULL control and input.
.
The submissive should never relinquish anything they don't want to.

[Oldbutgood]

3 hours ago, alpha420fet said:

Your title kind of defines your answer. Non-monogomous. Every relationship is unique and a negotiation of agreed terms. For instance, the tpe sub, 24/7 slave or toy would have no say, while a service sub would be allowed input if the interaction was in the service sub's area of responsibilities.

While ultimately, the dom does have the final say it's always best to be transparent, and communicating with all parties is key to harmony. Respect is the power a dom earns. Control is what the sub gives. Honesty and trust are your currency of trade.

You sir are completely wrong. Unless a dominant and a sub has agreed upon things like that ahead of time the dom and power that a dominant has, Is an illusion. Even total power exchange has agreed upon rules and boundaries ahead of time. As well as the fact that the sub can say fuck you I'm done anytime they want.

[pn****]

Well it’s all about communication even a sub has right to express their needs otherwise what is the point if you wish
To be exclusive and call it a monogamous relationship that’s a discussion to have with your dom it may not be something he/she/they are looking for with your Arrangement but you are definitely within your rights to bring it up if that is one of your boundaries I am extremely dominant myself but am happy to have that discussion with any of my subs any arrangement is about the happiness of both parties otherwise it simply won’t work 🤔😁✌️

[DH****]

Nope short answer
She’s not morally obliged to do anything she doesn’t want to do .

[No****]

It all depends on the construct of the relationship terms outlines guidelines and boundaries set the DOM sub relationship is still very much One that requires communication honesty and trust so if the terms guidelines and boundaries are set there shouldn't be an issue with communication. If you are uncomfortable with your Dom being involved with other people then you need to make that clear and then they have the option to continue the relationship/situationship if they so desire but you also have to be prepared that the decision they make may not be one that aligns with your personal desires. This is why setting guidelines and boundaries are essential from the very beginning.

[Sc****]

1 hour ago, Oldbutgood said:

the dom and power that a dominant has, Is an illusion

Brother, no truer words were spoken. My take is a lot, maybe even the majority, of "doms" don't get this.

[No****]

I've been in the dynamic for a really long time and understand the way that healthy DS relationships work. The problem is there are so many false doms out there who misrepresent the lifestyle when they do it's really just narcissistic *** from a lot of individuals.

[Si****]

2 hours ago, Oldbutgood said:

A dominant being a dominant is an illusion subs give the power to a dominant and can take it back at any time they want especially if they are doing things that you don't like. Any subs out there who are reading this if you have a dominant and they are not treating you right if they are not sticking to pre-negotiated things and they're not listening to you talk to them and if they do not change, take the power that you've given them back and go find a real dominant.

This is the way...
Monogamy/non monogamy is a separate construct to the power exchanged in a scene/exchange. If you're a sub wanting to be non-mongomous and your Dom is and is preventing you, then, perhaps you're with the wrong Dom and need to renegotiate the exchange.

[Bo****]

I think, it depends in the kind of relationship between dom and sub:
Is it open? Then both should be allowed to be with other people, but not only one of them. That doesn't mean, that both must meet other people.
Is it not open? Then both should talk about it and if one of the both want a monogamous relationship, both should stay monogamous.
Just my thoughts about it.

[No****]

That's basically what I was saying

[Li****]

I don't think you can generalise and say, you should or you shouldn't! Just as any other relationship is in the whole world it's down to the two people it's between and what is comfortable for them!!

[at****]

No that’s negotiable and should be talked about before establishing a relationship

[Ma****]

No.

Dep3nds on how you have set up your relationship.

But no. Not automatic.

[Ma****]

The short answer is no. Exclusivity or non-exclusivity is relative to the depth of the dynamic between both sub and Dom. Of course, these things should be discussed in advance, communication is key for the longevity of a relationship, so any desire for exclusivity should be communicated in advance. And if it suits both parties then it'll work. Morality is related to the value system upon which the D/s relationship is built, it's not unilateral.

[ru****]

Maybe I'm not understanding the question. If you are a stripper. And I meet you, AT THE CLUB. And we begin to date... do I then have a "moral obligation" to "ALLOW YOU" to continue to be a stripper?
No, but I also don't date strippers.
Because in that situation, I also don't have what we like to call a phuk'n leg to stand on.

If either of you were non-monogamous when ya got there. The time to establish whether that's appropriate for you or not is PRE-dynamic. Not 6 or 8 months down the line where you'd hope you'd have gotten over it by now.
If they were non-mon when ya got there... what would that conversation even look like?

And for the record, the idea that the Dom is "in control" is a fallacy. It's wrong. I have only the powers and authority I am granted by the sub.
A sub is a sub is a sub is a sub... they don't need us, to be what they are. A Dom is not a Dom UNTIL they are chosen and honored by the sub with the trust and power of the title and position. Before that, you just have a person with a domineering personality... and that... ain't the same thing.

[mL****]

Once you're in a serious relationship, even if it's a dom/sub relationship, of course you should talk about either of you having multiple (play)partners. If the Dom knows their sub who is their partner doesn't want them to do anything sexually with another person and still does it, it's still called cheating! I can imagine there's some doms out there who use their sexual dominance to be able to cheat while they know it makes their sub feel bad. Of course whenever you're aware and okay with that your partner is polyamorous and you two talked about it properly, no one has to get hurt.

[my****]

That’s something you setup long before you’re in that space. Personally I insist on monogamy. I don’t share my toys, and when I’m in a serious relationship I insist on getting tested then there’s no reason to be safe.

[30****]

Just here for the comments

[Co****]

An interesting and wholly incorrect statement by the OP “A sub, by definition , cannot allow or disallow anything”

It’s been expressed multiple times in the comments, a D/s dynamic is built on communication, negotiation, rules, boundaries, consent and trust among other things which works both ways.

Be it a short or a LTR dynamic the original “terms of agreement” of said “‘ship” does not wavier unless you have both communicated and consented to it.

[Sc****]

On 12/11/2024 at 8:16 AM, callipygian said:

Quite a vague question / post!   And as such the answers are in your own words.....  'carry on struggling..' or 'try a new way'....  the crux is are you prepared to do either.

 

Without knowing any other detail -i find any other response is kinda 'stabbing in the dark'....

 

 

57 minutes ago, Coco_De_Leche said:

An interesting and wholly incorrect statement by the OP “A sub, by definition , cannot allow or disallow anything”

It’s been expressed multiple times in the comments, a D/s dynamic is built on communication, negotiation, rules, boundaries, consent and trust among other things which works both ways.

Be it a short or a LTR dynamic the original “terms of agreement” of said “‘ship” does not wavier unless you have both communicated and consented to it.

I think some people in this thread might be conflating "sub" with "slave". Two wholly different arrangements.

[ey****]

59 minutes ago, ScalpelPrecision said:

I think some people in this thread might be conflating "sub" with "slave". Two wholly different arrangements.

In reality, the two are interchangeable.

I know this really upsets purists - but - the reality is they are interchangeable.

Does the person have the option to end the dynamic at any time? To stop play they genuinely do not wish to go through with? To leave the relationship?  

If yes, then it's not really slavery.

If no, then they're clearly doing things against their will and that won't end well in court.

Both "sub" and "slave" follow the same rules on negotiated dynamic.  Whilst even the term being used is what they feel fits.  Granted of course some folk like the idea of starting with one dynamic (i.e. "sub") and moving the dynamic with different/stricter rules (i.e. "slave") but the reality of why they get conflated is just that

[ny****]

I disagree completely. A sub can set whatever hard limits they choose. If the Dom is unwilling to abide by them then there is no dynamic.

[Sc****]

17 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Does the person have the option to end the dynamic at any time? To stop play they genuinely do not wish to go through with? To leave the relationship?  

If yes, then it's not really slavery.

I 100% agree that that's not slavery. However, there are people out there practicing in the way us purists use the term. The meaning has gotten diluted over time. Perhaps it's time for a new description of that arrangement? True slavery? Bonded slavery?