Isn't It Ironic

[Sarah]

So quid pro quo has no element of control to it?

No. At least it's not necessary. A legal contract has quid pro quo but is necessarily consensual or it's not a contract, by definition.

As I understand it, there is the unspoken threat of you won't get what you want if I don't get what I want, which is why it's used as a tactic in so many abusive relationships.

So?

That some people use it as a tactic for abuse does not make it in itself abusive, in the same way as a murderer using a knife to kill someone does not make the knife morally wrong.

I really don't understand why people have such a problem with the notion of quid pro quo (talking generally now, Eido, not specifically about you). We see it all the time in John's business -- people wanting and expecting something for nothing as if they are entitled to it in some way.

Fortunately we are both unbridled capitalists and libertarians, so people like that get short shrift (and referred on to our competitors).

Sarah xxx

[Anymouse]

I tend to agree with Sarah on this, though I am neither a capitalist nor a libertarian. (Gasp.)

Going with the knife example, rope is used to kidnap or hang people. It is also used to make a boat fast to a pier, or provide a line to hang clothes to dry. The object or action is not what makes something abusive, it is intent that makes something abusive.

Spank your girlfriend and she might howl for more. Spank your wife and she might call the cops. Spank them both at the same time and it is kinky. It's all relative. Abuse is also in context as well.

Quid pro quo is how just about any relationship works, a chaste one or no. And by definition, quid pro quo is consensual.

If you don't pay attention to your wife, hang out with the boys all the time, and demand all your meals home-cooked, you may soon find your meals home cooked with things you don't normally consider edible (around here that would be cow chips), and a summons to divorce court.

TANSTAAFL applies in every sort of relationship, whether it is a chaste marriage, a hanging-from-the-chandeliers never-ending round of sex-sex-sex, a business relationship, a friendship, or even within your own biological family (most people can name a sibling or cousin or someone similar that they would never have anything to do with because that person is simply a physical or emotional moocher).

But Miss Sarah, referring such people on to your competitors? You don't hate your competitors that much do you? (::
(By the way, TANSTAAFL stands for "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch," the lowbrow version of quid pro quo.)

[Sarah]

But Miss Sarah, referring such people on to your competitors? You don't hate your competitors that much do you? (::

Lol, it's a sound business strategy, and one John always advises his clients to adopt.

Sarah xxx

[eido]

So quid pro quo has no element of control to it?

No. At least it's not necessary. A legal contract has quid pro quo but is necessarily consensual or it's not a contract, by definition.

As I understand it, there is the unspoken threat of you won't get what you want if I don't get what I want, which is why it's used as a tactic in so many abusive relationships.

So?

That some people use it as a tactic for abuse does not make it in itself abusive, in the same way as a murderer using a knife to kill someone does not make the knife morally wrong.

I really don't understand why people have such a problem with the notion of quid pro quo (talking generally now, Eido, not specifically about you). We see it all the time in John's business -- people wanting and expecting something for nothing as if they are entitled to it in some way.

Fortunately we are both unbridled capitalists and libertarians, so people like that get short shrift (and referred on to our competitors).

Sarah xxx

The problem arises from exactly the examples you mention. Quid pro quo is a legal concept applicable to business arrangements. When used in a relationship it becomes exactly the sort of control mechanism that you claim to avoid, containing exactly the notion of withholding that you say, rightly so, it unhealthly to a relationship. The quid pro quo mentality leaves no room for compromise, or for unconditional love. It is a bean counting frame of mind more applicable to ordering lumber or mulch for your garden.

Of course I understand that there is give and take in a relationship and that some expectation of it is human nature. I also understand that some forms of play in a relationship require considerable effort, but your makes punching a clock and keeping an accounting ledger to bill your partner with the logical conclusion to this chain of thought.

Eido

[Sarah]

The problem arises from exactly the examples you mention. Quid pro quo is a legal concept applicable to business arrangements. When used in a relationship it becomes exactly the sort of control mechanism that you claim to avoid, containing exactly the notion of withholding that you say, rightly so, it unhealthly to a relationship. The quid pro quo mentality leaves no room for compromise, or for unconditional love. It is a bean counting frame of mind more applicable to ordering lumber or mulch for your garden.

Of course I understand that there is give and take in a relationship and that some expectation of it is human nature. I also understand that some forms of play in a relationship require considerable effort, but your makes punching a clock and keeping an accounting ledger to bill your partner with the logical conclusion to this chain of thought.

Eido

No it doesn't (and please don't tell me what I think and feel as if you know my own mind better than I do, because you don't, I assure you).

All it means is you get something back from what you give, which is just human nature. And it was around long before we had any kind of formal legal systems (see Cialdini and his work on reciprocity. We've evolved this way over hundreds of thousands and possibly million of years).

If you're not getting something from a relationship -- measured solely by your own yardstick -- why would you be in it? A sane person wouldn't.

Quid pro quo can become a controlling mechanism, but it doesn't have to. As I and the previous poster have already pointed out it's morally neutral. Please try to understand this.

Sarah xxx

[eido]

Then here's a quid pro quo for you. Don't tell me what I think and feel as if you know my own mind better than I do.

My experience has apparently been greatly different than yours and has informed my understanding in a different way.

Eido

[Sarah]

Then here's a quid pro quo for you. Don't tell me what I think and feel as if you know my own mind better than I do.

My experience has apparently been greatly different than yours and has informed my understanding in a different way.

Eido

How is this quid pro quo for me? You (even more) obviously don't understand what it means.

You said:

When used in a relationship it becomes exactly the sort of control mechanism that you claim to avoid, containing exactly the notion of withholding that you say, rightly so, it unhealthly to a relationship. The quid pro quo mentality leaves no room for compromise, or for unconditional love. It is a bean counting frame of mind more applicable to ordering lumber or mulch for your garden.

You are utterly and objectively wrong. Full stop. It can become so, but it doesn't have to and very often doesn't.

Your personal experience is just that: a personal experience. It does not comprise the sum total of everyone else's experience with quid pro quo.

More to the point, it has nothing to do with "unconditional love". How you feel about someone or how they feel about you has little to do with what you'll do for them or what you'll put up with from them. The parent of a drug addict might love the child but still won't go out and buy drugs for them.

Your experience might be that quid pro quo has failed for you.

That does not mean it fails for everyone as you implied above.

Sarah.

[happyman1]

My two and half cents, I am in chastity because it's something we both like. I wasn't "forced" into it or any other nonsense, we both consented to try it and found we both like. My wife works out of the home a minimum of 60 hrs a week, I work from home and my time varies as business varies. I have always done the vast majoriaty of the household chores, not because she demands or expects it, but because I'm here to do them, and i have the time. She doesn't expect or demand anything from me, nor I her in regards to my being locked. We enjoy it, but it's more like it's just 'there'. She likes to tease, and I like to be denied, but there never has been a "I'll let you cum if you wash my feet" type of thing. We are a pretty vanilla couple when it comes to our sex life. In all aspects of our lives outside of the CD, I am the more dominant one, i would say. We just enjoy chastity, there's no "I want this so you must do this for me crap. Just isn't us.

[Sarah]

My two and half cents, I am in chastity because it's something we both like. I wasn't "forced" into it or any other nonsense, we both consented to try it and found we both like. My wife works out of the home a minimum of 60 hrs a week, I work from home and my time varies as business varies. I have always done the vast majoriaty of the household chores, not because she demands or expects it, but because I'm here to do them, and i have the time. She doesn't expect or demand anything from me, nor I her in regards to my being locked. We enjoy it, but it's more like it's just 'there'. She likes to tease, and I like to be denied, but there never has been a "I'll let you cum if you wash my feet" type of thing. We are a pretty vanilla couple when it comes to our sex life. In all aspects of our lives outside of the CD, I am the more dominant one, i would say. We just enjoy chastity, there's no "I want this so you must do this for me crap. Just isn't us.

Quite. I think for most couples when it gets to using sex and whatnot as a currency, it rapidly begins to go downhill.

In most relationships the quid pro quo is implicit (in fact, when it has to be asked for, it's often a sign of an underlying problem).

For example, I handle the money and do most of the cooking and housework. The reason for the former is John hates the task, and for the latter it's simply a matter of convenience. He works much longer hours than I do at his desk -- he's the one who makes the vast majority of the money in the business.

But we never sat down and divvied things up. It's just how things evolved.

Sarah xxx

[DocSwitch]

For example, I handle the money and do most of the cooking and housework. The reason for the former is John hates the task, and for the latter it's simply a matter of convenience. He works much longer hours than I do at his desk -- he's the one who makes the vast majority of the money in the business.

But we never sat down and divvied things up. It's just how things evolved.

Sarah xxx

I really have to agree here. I'm a medical student, shortly to be a resident. Time is not something I have the constant luxury of. My KH has a very time consuming and demanding job as well but less so than me. I suspect as time goes on (as I've already seen thus far in the past 6 years of being together) things like chores and what not will wind up being done but who does what won't be on a list somewhere, unless I'm subbie at that time and she wants me to or vice versa and the latter is simply foreplay and not a permanent thing for us. The rest of the time our roles and chores just form and adjust organically as part of a loving relationship that evolves. I much prefer it that way.

On to the topic of Lori's site by the way I just finished going through a bunch of it. Some of it maybe fodder for fantasy/sales but there was one article she had on their that made me think maybe not. She posted an article written by someone else on her sight about a war being waged on women and dropping birth rates due to vaccination world wide. I read it and honestly...no offense meant if anyone here believes in it...but the ideas and conclusions in the article were so ridiculous I wanted to laugh but the idea of someone believing firmly in it and trying to stop vaccination programs made me want to hit something. So if one were inclined to really believe that article so much they'd post it on their site as a way of "spreading the good word" then even though they may be a master craftswoman they still may psychologically or intellectually have a few screws loose. Making a jump from their to some of the other thoughts on males and orgasms, etc. on that site isn't that far fetched.

Just my humble opinion.