RE: At what point?

RE: At what point? (Full Version)

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

Message

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 1:52:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Should the air ask you why you breath it, would "Because I'm a human" not surfice? Air analogy is completely off base, no real comparison there. And no, because I'm human would not suffice. He doesn't HAVE to give any reason at all- but "Because this is my orientation in personal intimate relationships" doesn't hold water. Neither would "Because I'm genetically what we consider human." quote: The guy may have reasons for what he did. Those reasons may not have just been "I'm a dominant". Still, he may be unable to either realize this reasons, or articulate them, so he resorts to the statement in question. I said he should not be held responsible for lacking reasons if he has them and simply fails to find words for them. I can only see this working if we're talking about someone retarded. Now, there are a lot of emotionally retarded people in the world, so I can see how this might apply. quote: Point being, he may've given an inadequate or false explanation. He may not be fond of long sentiments or articulating his feelings, or perhaps he's unable to do so. Still, the worst shouldn't be assumed for this reason alone. I agree that the worst shouldn't be assumed. But he still is responsible for the answers and their consequences. And I think the obvious is that if he's so badly inept with his life that he can't keep things in check, and can't understand or articulate his motivations and in fact feels a need to instead give empty excuses which amount to surrendering all sense of personal responsibility- he's not in a place to start any sort of serious relationship. This guy might just be a confused dude who wants to play out some stuff but lacks the social niceties on how to progess in a relationship. He also doesn't really understand what's going on and just grabs the first handy excuse that walks by rather than really understanding what's going on and might just need a good guiding hand and a bit of introspection to get him on the right path again. A lot of people are like that and there's no reason to horse and quarter him over it. But the lame excuse really doesn't make him very appealing.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 1:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord ..people think honesty and openness are some kind of right at Dom needs to earn from a sub? Openness is something gained over time between people forming any sort of relationship. Trust is a journey of leaps together- you don't get it or give it all at once.

LafayetteLady -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 1:59:11 PM)
ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Estrogen-based actions vs. testerone-based actions..? A lot posts before have sterotyped things as "testerone[-driven]"; I thought it was funny, so I flipped it around. If you took such offense to such a jest, perhaps you should reevaulate how easily you might be offended? I feel that this may even apply to your current "situation". When someone takes the "oh it's a woman thing" approach, it is nothing more than a sign of chauvenistic behavior. When someone thinks it's funny to do so, it just emphasizes the fact that they think that way. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord So what you're saying is.. he asked, completely disconcerned with the actual answer to the question, just trying to control you in forcing you to answer the question? What I am saying now, and have continued to say is that his reasoning for WANTING the answer was wrong. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord So you don't think it was jealousy, or concern about the nature of who he was going to commit to.. just.. and nothing but.. trying to dominante you against your will..? I do believe that part of it was jealousy, but it had nothing to do with the "nature of who he was going to commit to" ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Suppose not. Then again, this is a simple question.. something he wanted to know, and asked. Apparently, it was important to him? Or, maybe, he was interested and didn't realize your distress? In any case, are you truly aiming to build a relationship in which being able to get a truthful answer on a question is based off his dominance, and forthcomingness? It was his immature and childish desire that I drop everything I was doing at that moment to answer his question, deeming himself far more important than the conversation I was involved in that caused the problem. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I can assure you, my belief in being open and honest with your partner and talking things out is not based in D/s. I believe in being open and honest in ALL relationship, as that is the only way for them to be truly successful. As I said earlier, I would likely have told him who I was talking to and what about when I had completed my phone call. He felt that his receiving the information at that moment was the priority. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I can also assure you that keeping things to yourself and talking to other people about your problems, should you get responses like, as you put it, "great majority of" people have given, then drama will ensue, should anything continue. As I have also repeated (numerous times) I have had these discussions with him both in the past and after this particular incident occurred. It has nothing to do with "keeping it to myself". My seeking the opinion of others was due to nothing more than the fact that since I what I am searching for NOW is significantly different than relationships I have had in the past, I was simply wondering if the "rules" might be a bit different. What I have found out through this post is that they really are not any different. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord So then he's not a priority; at least, not one that compares to your phone conversation enough to answer his concerns..? At that moment, he was NOT a priority. I did not and do not feel it is necessary to go into any detail about the conversation I was having on the phone other than to say that obviously, if I told him that I was on the phone, that conversation needed and was entitled to my undivided attention. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I can see this going too far. I can see him pushing you for a while, demanding you get off the phone and have a conversation that instant after you answer his quick inquaries. I can see an insecure, hollering fellow whining that time should stop for him. But was this the case? Or did he ask you to hold on a moment? Actually that was exactly the case. He DID expect everything to stop while I answered his questions. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Relationships do involve compromise to work on things, you know. Sometimes, compromise means taking a moment out to talk to a distressed or concerned parner. Since he is NOT my partner, demanding that compromise was certainly ill timed on his part. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Now, orginially, you said he IM'd you, and sent some more while you were on the phone. I know a lot of people who talk on the phone and IM at the same time. I'm one of them. Being younger and used to both, so are almost all of my friends and college buddies. This is normal to us- not rude. So perhaps I'm failing to empathize. Could you explain to me how IMing you while on the phone was rude? It depends on the conversation I am involved in as to whether or not I will multi-task. Some conversations or instant messages require more undivided attention than others. Parents invented multitasking, and we are indeed quite used to it. However, if one of your college buddies called you up and was suicidal or seeking your serious advice on something, it would be quite rude to not be giving that buddy your full attention because you wanted to chat with some slave on line at the time. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I do believe the "I'm a dom" statement is more adequeate than often considered. Unless being a dominant is an act, doesn't dominance tend to show through? Not to say a dominant person might not retrain his personality for the sake of interacting peacefully, but does a dominant individual not seek control? But this is a side bit. Anyone who attempts to write off any and all inappropriate behavior with the blanket "I'm a dom" excuse is not saying that he is a dom, he is saying that he is egotistical and narcissistic. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord So are you more concerned with his actions, or the feeling that he didn't take you into consideration? The fact that he feels he can justify any action with the "I'm a dom" concept is a problem. The fact that he is not yet MY dom means that I do not need to jump through hoops every time he beckons. The belief that one should be rude to someone else to jump through those hoops is even more ridiculous. ORIGINAL: CuriousLord But what if something else does? I have seen first hand the damage that the green-eyed monster can do when it is not handled appropriately. Just like the "I'm a dom" approach doesn't justify that type of behavior. As adults, we tend to have "outside" lives that need our attention at times. If entering into a Ds relationship means that I would have to abandon the other people in my life at the whims of a dom, I would want nothing to do with the lifestyle.

CuriousLord -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 2:52:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Should the air ask you why you breath it, would "Because I'm a human" not surfice? Air analogy is completely off base, no real comparison there. I'd ask you reconsider. Why does a human breath air? Nature, correct? Why does a Dom dominate? Nature, is it not? Though I realize some are in this for roleplay (act dominant to fulfill the "Dom" role, but not actually dominant), I'd ask we consider the case of honest individuals as to avoid conclusions that only apply to sad and pathetic cases. quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross And no, because I'm human would not suffice. Why not? A human needs to breath, doesn't it? Of course, there are lungs, oxidation, etc. The true reason why people need Oxygen isn't known to most- they just have some vague notion. Does this mean such a person, saying that they are human, or need to breath, does not suffice to an educated audience? Or do you argue that such an audience might not be educated in simple English termonology? quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross He doesn't HAVE to give any reason at all- but "Because this is my orientation in personal intimate relationships" doesn't hold water. Neither would "Because I'm genetically what we consider human." So you think that both humans are unjustified in their breathing of the air and dominant people are unjustified in acting dominant? Or are you overlooking the nature of such things- a human, to be living, breathing air, or a dominant, by living as a dominant, acting dominant? (I do believe I just used "dominant" in a fair number of its various definitions!) quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: The guy may have reasons for what he did. Those reasons may not have just been "I'm a dominant". Still, he may be unable to either realize this reasons, or articulate them, so he resorts to the statement in question. I said he should not be held responsible for lacking reasons if he has them and simply fails to find words for them. I can only see this working if we're talking about someone retarded. Now, there are a lot of emotionally retarded people in the world, so I can see how this might apply. Retarded? Lucky, would you claim to fully know yourself, and thusly be able to justify yourself to a complete extent? Would you not see yourself ever doing something, at least in part, for a reason you didn't realize at the moment? Would this make you retarded? Since you tend to reply to things and discuss them, I'm starting to leave my poitns as incomplete. I'll take this further, but, first, I'd like to know smaller things. Like, here, I'm going to make the point that not fully understanding yourself is normal, and that it comes in varying extents. This will lead into another point; no worries, I'm not just showing you the error in thought just because I can, but because it serves the purpose. It's enjoyable, discussing things as opposed to having to spit out everything at once in a version so condensed that it's lost as esoteric. quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: Point being, he may've given an inadequate or false explanation. He may not be fond of long sentiments or articulating his feelings, or perhaps he's unable to do so. Still, the worst shouldn't be assumed for this reason alone. I agree that the worst shouldn't be assumed. But he still is responsible for the answers and their consequences. He's responsible for providing them. But not for implications made in the failure of this. Such as, say there's a couple living alone out in the country. One is found dead- stabbed to death. The other is unable to account for this. He is responsible for.. -his failure to communicate his intentions adequately, should they not believe him. He isn't responsible for.. -her murder, as he didn't actually do it. My point is you're responsible for your actions and your ability to speak them, yes. But the inability to do one does not necessitate the failure of the other. quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross And I think the obvious is that if he's so badly inept with his life that he can't keep things in check, and can't understand or articulate his motivations and in fact feels a need to instead give empty excuses which amount to surrendering all sense of personal responsibility- he's not in a place to start any sort of serious relationship. I love my point of view that I'm afforded through virtue of having a high intellect. I ask you consider this from my point of view for a moment- not that mine is the only, but I think there's something here to be seen. It's so easy, to look down from atop a pillar, and say that "badly inept", "retarded", "stupid", etc. people are unfit for such and such. I'd ask you consider my point of view: most people are retarded to me. Humor me in accepting such a notion, should you deny my claim of possessing it. Should one such as myself, should I be as I claim to be, stand to assert that those I see as retarded, or the majority of humanity, are unfit to enter personal relationships, among other things? I would argue that individuals maintain such rights, at their own level, despite their inability to fully understand. It would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise- I am, despite more aware, lacking in fully understanding even my own self. Still, I would argue that I have my own rights, would I not? To this end, I would argue that even an idiot might be free to suffer a relationship. quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross This guy might just be a confused dude who wants to play out some stuff but lacks the social niceties on how to progess in a relationship. He also doesn't really understand what's going on and just grabs the first handy excuse that walks by rather than really understanding what's going on and might just need a good guiding hand and a bit of introspection to get him on the right path again. A lot of people are like that and there's no reason to horse and quarter him over it. I'll agree that he shouldn't be quartered over it. quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross But the lame excuse really doesn't make him very appealing. I'll also agree that being unable to understand doesn't make him very appealing to many individuals that can understand. --- I believe we agree up on most points but one. I feel you believe that an individual can be lacking in adequate social understanding or not, while I would say that it's more of a relative issue of understanding and compatiablity. I believe it's quite possible for two complete dunces to be happy together, despite being unable to speak or even understand. I feel that the degree of a relationship is, at least in part, based on its strength, to include understanding of its partners.

CuriousLord -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 2:59:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord ..people think honesty and openness are some kind of right at Dom needs to earn from a sub? Openness is something gained over time between people forming any sort of relationship. Trust is a journey of leaps together- you don't get it or give it all at once. You've never given your trust completely quickly? Just felt you could open up and share everything with someone you just met? "Trust", in context, is trust to be able to be open. To speak your mind and such. Not "trust" as in you'd give them access to all your personal possesses, accounts, etc., or something else out of context. It's the trust to be open, since we're talking about openness. (Clarified since "completely trusting" someone right away can be a dubious prospect when "trust" is taken in its typical usage.)

KnightofMists -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 3:10:38 PM)
LafayeteLady... your OP to me reflects a Person demonstrating Jealousy issues and not a Dominant overstepping established boundaries.

LafayetteLady -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 3:21:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists LafayeteLady... your OP to me reflects a Person demonstrating Jealousy issues and not a Dominant overstepping established boundaries. I can certainly see that as a viable possibility. Having had to deal with uncontrolled jealousy issues in past relationships, this is just unacceptable to me. That kind of jealousy inhibits a person's ability to trust their partner, and in the end the other partner is suffocated by the jealousy and lack of trust. Statistically, those who are unable to react appropriately to their jealousy have a tendency to also become abusive. In a Ds relationship I believe that the line between domination and abuse can be so thin, and with the "because I'm a dom" reasoning already in play BEFORE an established relationship has begun is really a giant red flag for me.

CuriousLord -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 3:29:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Estrogen-based actions vs. testerone-based actions..? A lot posts before have sterotyped things as "testerone[-driven]"; I thought it was funny, so I flipped it around. If you took such offense to such a jest, perhaps you should reevaulate how easily you might be offended? I feel that this may even apply to your current "situation". When someone takes the "oh it's a woman thing" approach, it is nothing more than a sign of chauvenistic behavior. When someone thinks it's funny to do so, it just emphasizes the fact that they think that way. Yeah. And last time I laughed at a blond joke? Because, deep down inside, I truly believe all blonds to be stupid. Freaking Hitler- he got the hair colors all messed up for the master race! Still, my humor was on subject. The subject was that this is an overdramatic reaction.. such as the one you're having to my joke.. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady ORIGINAL: CuriousLord So what you're saying is.. he asked, completely disconcerned with the actual answer to the question, just trying to control you in forcing you to answer the question? What I am saying now, and have continued to say is that his reasoning for WANTING the answer was wrong. I believe you directly stated it was the state of reality, not his reasoning for it. I'm looking back at the entry: "this had nothing to do with his wanting to better understand me at all." (LafayetteLady, post 31.) quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady ORIGINAL: CuriousLord So you don't think it was jealousy, or concern about the nature of who he was going to commit to.. just.. and nothing but.. trying to dominante you against your will..? I do believe that part of it was jealousy, but it had nothing to do with the "nature of who he was going to commit to" Why do you think it has nothing to do with knowing who he's going to be in a relationship with? quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Suppose not. Then again, this is a simple question.. something he wanted to know, and asked. Apparently, it was important to him? Or, maybe, he was interested and didn't realize your distress? In any case, are you truly aiming to build a relationship in which being able to get a truthful answer on a question is based off his dominance, and forthcomingness? It was his immature and childish desire that I drop everything I was doing at that moment to answer his question, deeming himself far more important than the conversation I was involved in that caused the problem. Did he ask for the converssation to be dropped, put on hold, or did he just ask questions, allowing you to continue the conversation at the same time? quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I can assure you, my belief in being open and honest with your partner and talking things out is not based in D/s. I believe in being open and honest in ALL relationship, as that is the only way for them to be truly successful. As I said earlier, I would likely have told him who I was talking to and what about when I had completed my phone call. He felt that his receiving the information at that moment was the priority. Ah! Good. I thought you were upset about him asking the question. (From "In my opinion, we are not in a place where he is yet entitled to know everything I am doing," LafayetteLady, post 1) Still.. the above quote to your OP.. it sounds like you're saying you're not at a point where he can ask who you're on the phone with. That's what I'm addressing, in general, not if he brought it up at a bad time. Blah, sorry. My time just ran out.. dinner engagement this evening, and it's 6:28 PM EST. I have to run. I'll try to get back to this whenever I can get the chance tonight. Probably around 4 AM EST (Yeah, I know, sleep's healthy, but, ah wells). Have a good one 'n such.

Aswad -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 4:02:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Air analogy is completely off base, no real comparison there. I think you missed his point. The way I read it, CL was just saying that this may just be who he is, and that dismissing him for the same qualities that spawned the attraction in the first place might not be as constructive as just levelling with him. I may be the second odd one out on this, but in my experience, talking about my concerns in an honest and direct manner with the person in question usually gives me a lot better results than inviting a forum into our lives (without asking the other party, I might add) and asking them to sort it out for us. quote: And no, because I'm human would not suffice. Being human isn't an excuse, it's a reason. [:D] quote: I can only see this working if we're talking about someone retarded. Now, there are a lot of emotionally retarded people in the world, so I can see how this might apply. Thanks. [sm=trident.gif] quote: I agree that the worst shouldn't be assumed. But he still is responsible for the answers and their consequences. To some extent, yes. If I say "I hate the Voss football club" at Voss, meaning to say the Moss football club, I might very well be in an ambulance before I have time to clear up the misunderstanding. Those are consequences, and I might be responsible. For the most part, though, communication as a shared responsibility gives better results. A good rule is "assume good faith". If she thought the other person didn't have good intentions, I don't think she would have been talking to him in the first place. Hence, it makes sense to assume that, whenever something seems out of place relative to this, then one should assume the communication was at fault, not the intent. And from that assumption comes the resolution. If a person is saying things that don't conform to one's expectations of their intent, the logical thing would be to ask them. In short, to take responsibility by being an active participant in communication, rather than a passive recipient. quote: But the lame excuse really doesn't make him very appealing. There, at last, we agree on something. [:D] One would think, however, that he's built up some positive karma to counterbalance to that one thing. Otherwise, this wasn't going anywhere in the first place.

Aswad -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 4:11:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Openness is something gained over time between people forming any sort of relationship. Trust is a journey of leaps together- you don't get it or give it all at once. Seems CL isn't the only one out of the loop... Openness, to me, is a way of life. It's about saying what you mean, or not saying anything at all; telling someone you won't be answering their question, rather than evading it; being direct and forthright instead of vague and deceptive. Honesty covers a huge chunk of it. And I employ it in just about any positive interpersonal relationships, from square one. Trust, as you say, is earned. But it helps to start out with a little loan. Think of it as an investment. One lends the other person a little bit of trust, and sees whether they make the downpayments or not. If they default, there's nowhere to cash in, of course, so you reposess your attachment to them, and be done with it. Most often, though, it'll be paid in full, with interest. Of course, this is just how I do it. YMMV. Would remain my advice, though, worth what was paid for it...

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 4:49:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'd ask you reconsider. Why does a human breath air? Nature, correct? Unless you're prepared to say that a dominant person has no more control over exerting their dominance for sheer survival to live than they do over breathing, I completely call this off base. quote: Why does a Dom dominate? Nature, is it not? But "doms" do not dominate everything in everyway at all times. "Dominant" in Ds or Ms context means "in a consensual personal intimate relationship." Until you have that, saying you dominate because you are a dom is as pathetic as saying you rape because you are a man with a penis. Subs dominate, vanillas dominate, switches dominate- within particular contexts. Having an orientation of "dom" does not mean a person has literally no control over how they express themselves or act- that they can't help themselves acting like an asshole because doms just act like assholes? Just as being a heterosexual doesn't allow someone to be an asshole and say "Well I'm a heterosexual, it's my nature." Does not hold water in my world. quote: Retarded? Lucky, would you claim to fully know yourself, and thusly be able to justify yourself to a complete extent? Would you not see yourself ever doing something, at least in part, for a reason you didn't realize at the moment? Would this make you retarded? I'd still take responsibility for it. Hence the difference. And yeah, there's definitely things I'm retarded in- geography especially. quote: My point is you're responsible for your actions and your ability to speak them, yes. But the inability to do one does not necessitate the failure of the other. Agreed. quote: It's so easy, to look down from atop a pillar, and say that "badly inept", "retarded", "stupid", etc. people are unfit for such and such. I'd ask you consider my point of view: most people are retarded to me. Humor me in accepting such a notion, should you deny my claim of possessing it. Should one such as myself, should I be as I claim to be, stand to assert that those I see as retarded, or the majority of humanity, are unfit to enter personal relationships, among other things? Sure, I do it all the time- mostly when it comes to being parents. I'd say perhaps as much as 10% of humans born are fit to be parents and actually raise children, and that's being generous. People tend to get really pissed at me over that, I'm ok with that. I'm not going to try and stop them from having kids for the most part. quote: To this end, I would argue that even an idiot might be free to suffer a relationship. Agreed, but I'm still going to say they are an idiot. quote: I believe it's quite possible for two complete dunces to be happy together, despite being unable to speak or even understand.] You've met my former roommates, haven't you? quote: I feel that the degree of a relationship is, at least in part, based on its strength, to include understanding of its partners. Agreed- my issues were over the abdication of responsibility, both in the trouble it causes when they don't understand their motives AND suggesting their orientation somehow negates any control over their actions.

Aswad -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 4:50:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady When someone takes the "oh it's a woman thing" approach, it is nothing more than a sign of chauvenistic behavior. When someone thinks it's funny to do so, it just emphasizes the fact that they think that way. How is this chauvinistic coming from men, and *not* when coming from women? I think he's referring to the fact that a female member of the forum dismissed things in another thread as being testosterone-driven. That's the "oh it's a man thing" approach, which is equally chauvinistic. Or funny. I choose to find it amusing when women ascribe faults to masculinity, rather than the man, and when men ascribe faults to femininity, rather than the woman. Because either it was intended as a joke, in which case it's best to take it as one, or it was actually a chauvinistic comment (whether "male pig"-type or "female sow"-type; not my terms, by the way), in which case you can laugh at the person making the comment. CL probably intended it as a joke, but he may have expressed that poorly. Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence." The obvious corrollaries being that sex hormones will neither substitute for "malice" nor "incompetence". Either of those making the statement chauvinistic, after all. quote: It was his immature and childish desire that I drop everything I was doing at that moment to answer his question, deeming himself far more important than the conversation I was involved in that caused the problem. Since two people have apparently not "gotten it", with regard to the "deeming himself far more important" bit, perhaps something was not communicated clearly in this thread? As for me, I frequently IM people while they're on the phone. They can answer if they want to. Sometimes, I'll even ask about people disappearing, just so I know whether it'd be okay for me to run off and do something else, and whether I should wait, or leave it for later. I answer my own IMs while on the phone, most of the time. If not, the IMs will still be there when I get back. My generation does not consider any of this impolite, nor do my parents' generation here. The exception being those who haven't figured out how to turn off the noises and popups. For those, I fix the root problem: the IM settings. Then they're happy about it, too. quote: At that moment, he was NOT a priority. I did not and do not feel it is necessary to go into any detail about the conversation I was having on the phone other than to say that obviously, if I told him that I was on the phone, that conversation needed and was entitled to my undivided attention. Point being that it's hard to determine whether he was indeed being pushy, or whether you're just reading him wrong for some reason, without knowing more about what was said by him, how you've talked to him about it, etc. Having seen people thinking they've got things right when they actually have them all wrong, and having seen them thinking they've talked things over clearly when they haven't at all, and having made the mistake myself of taking their analysis at face value, I can quite see why someone would want to offer an alternative explanation in the absence of anything more concrete. (The mistake in question being twice's thread.) quote: Actually that was exactly the case. He DID expect everything to stop while I answered his questions. If you know that for sure, at least to the extent that it's worth staking a relationship on the balance of "know for sure", then the advice is simple enough: *tell him to sod off. It's just that bringing it up in a thread like this makes it seem like you're not sure, and might be looking for different veiws on whether there might be something else behind this problem. Because I'm assuming you didn't just come for reassurance. quote:* Since he is NOT my partner, demanding that compromise was certainly ill timed on his part. Sure. People do that sometimes. Screw up. If CM had it in the profile options, I'd flag myself as "Hates: Screwing up (Expert)". [:D] But does he otherwise seem worth it? If not, then which drop makes the water spill over is entirely academic. If he is, otherwise, worth it, however, it makes sense to put in the effort to correct his issues with communication. quote: However, if one of your college buddies called you up and was suicidal or seeking your serious advice on something, it would be quite rude to not be giving that buddy your full attention because you wanted to chat with some slave on line at the time. Been there, done that. I just leave the PC and the IM and devote my full attention to the phone. However, since you replied to his messages, he may have misinterpreted things by a mile. Again, blending Occam and Hanlon: "The explanation that presupposes the least malicious intent is usually right." quote: Anyone who attempts to write off any and all inappropriate behavior with the blanket "I'm a dom" excuse is not saying that he is a dom, he is saying that he is egotistical and narcissistic. Somewhat true, though that is kind of inherent to some doms. Would "I am what I am, and I screw up sometimes, can you live with that?" work? quote: As adults, we tend to have "outside" lives that need our attention at times. If entering into a Ds relationship means that I would have to abandon the other people in my life at the whims of a dom, I would want nothing to do with the lifestyle. That depends on the Dom, so pick the right one. Some are quite okay with it, some aren't, on both sides of the table. Nobody is forcing you to go with this guy. Just figure out if that's the way he wants things to work or not. If he does, tell him you're not interested and move on to someone else in the lifestyle. If he doesn't, talk about it until you find the place where his wishes and his actions are in conflict, and fix the problem together. If you didn't want to be in the lifestyle, you wouldn't be here, I suspect. But, like outside the lifestyle, people vary. One style does not fit all lifestylers. Just my 2 cents / advice. YMMV.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 4:54:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad It's about saying what you mean, or not saying anything at all; telling someone you won't be answering their question, rather than evading it; being direct and forthright instead of vague and deceptive. Honesty covers a huge chunk of it. And I employ it in just about any positive interpersonal relationships, from square one. A stranger asking why aren't I married and have kids- wrong, rude, and inappropriate. A casual acquaintance asking why aren't I married and have kids- wrong, rude, and inappropriate. A friend asking why aren't I married and have kids- acceptable My mom asking why aren't I married and have kids- welcome I do not have the same relationship with every single person in the world. This does not mean I am not an open person in general. But there are levels of social acceptance, bubbles of intimacy which take TIME to allow people into. If a rude person asks me about children, I won't lie. But I likely won't answer either. Their rudeness surrenders any expectation of such. If you press into the bubble before it's the right time, the whole thing pops and you're left in the cold.

windchymes -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 5:05:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I can certainly see that as a viable possibility. Having had to deal with uncontrolled jealousy issues in past relationships, this is just unacceptable to me. That kind of jealousy inhibits a person's ability to trust their partner, and in the end the other partner is suffocated by the jealousy and lack of trust. Statistically, those who are unable to react appropriately to their jealousy have a tendency to also become abusive. In a Ds relationship I believe that the line between domination and abuse can be so thin, and with the "because I'm a dom" reasoning already in play BEFORE an established relationship has begun is really a giant red flag for me. This paragraph makes things a little clearer. I don't think your issue is with a long-term friend who suddenly overstepped a boundary he didn't know existed. You issue is with a past hurt(s?) from "uncontrolled jealousy" from a past partner and you're not about to let that happen again. I'm not saying you're wrong to feel that way, not at all, it's a normal reaction. I tend to be very judgemental and leery of anyone who drinks alcohol in my presence, and as soon as their personality changes in the least when drinking, my red and yellow flags go up and I find myself watching their behavior like a hawk. Because my life got torn up by an out-of-control alcoholic a few years back. I repeat, I'm not saying it's bad for you to feel this way. In fact, it's good to recognize a potentially negative situation and nip it in the bud before it explodes in your face. I just hope you don't punish your friend for the sins of ghosts of the past. Two years is a really LONG time to have been "just talking". I'm not clear whether this is a relationship that is progressing towards being a committed D/s relationship, or will you continue to be "a dom" and "a sub" who happen to be good friends? Especially if you are or were progressing towards committment, I think it would be good for him to know exactly why you have such strong feelings about jealousy. Did he just make a momentary bad choice or was he truly "uncontrolled"?

windchymes -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 5:09:34 PM)
P.S. If we don't breathe air, we die. No one ever died from not dominating. [:)]

Aswad -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 5:13:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross [...] wrong, rude, and inappropriate. [...] acceptable. [...] welcome. In my experience, from studying these things (I never "got" them myself, so I had to study and memorize), people aren't consistent in where they draw such lines, and this leads to a lot of potentially positive relationships going the wrong way because people assume things differently. quote: I do not have the same relationship with every single person in the world. This does not mean I am not an open person in general. I never said being an open person requires having the same relationship with everyone. I said that being an open person, to me, means being open with everyone. Which does not preclude being a private person with strangers (I am). quote: If a rude person asks me about children, I won't lie. But I likely won't answer either. Their rudeness surrenders any expectation of such. To my mind, that seems unneccessarily confrontational. I prefer to say "I'd rather not answer that question, and don't feel that we know each other well enough for you to ask it at this time." Works for me, might not work for you. A lot of things people would take as rude, I don't. And conversely. That holds for everyone. So I try to stick to considering things rude if they appear intentionally so. quote: If you press into the bubble before it's the right time, the whole thing pops and you're left in the cold. Obviously. No argument there. Just saying the bubble needn't burst at a glance.

Aswad -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 5:15:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes P.S. If we don't breathe air, we die. No one ever died from not dominating. [:)] Probably not. A more apt analogy would be to say that humans interact. Nobody died from not doing that, either. Still in their nature, though.

LafayetteLady -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 5:32:00 PM)
To Curious Lord Being dominant is not a license to be overbearing and rude. Granted I have not posted the whole of all of our interactions, however, it is implied as well as stated (in the OP) that this was just ONE behavior that I was beginning to question. When discussions about bad behavior are brought up and the only "reasoning" for the behavior being "because I'm a dom", it is logical to assume that this is just natural behavior, not some intense interest or concern about who he may be getting involved with. If there answer was given because he is unable to articulate the real reason, then that creates a whole other source of issues. If it is because he is unaware of the real reason for the behavior, then that also creates a whole other source of issues. Any attempts to use your "domliness" as a valid reason for poor behavior, for insensitive behavior, for an inability to communicate is not valid. It is nothing more than using what may or may not be a natural personality trait to avoid taking responsibility for one's actions. Whether someone is a master or a dominant, they still need to operate in the real world with the real world's expectations. Quite honestly, if I decided NOT to tell him who I was on the phone with, it would have been my choice and right to do so. We are not in a relationship at this time and therefore, my private conversations, my income, or anything of that type of personal nature is not his business. You say, "I love my point of view that I'm afforded through virtue of having a high intellect." as well as earlier making the statement that most people are retarded to you. Making such condescending statements invalidates just about anything you have to say. It screams of a narcissistic personality. Narcissists tend to not have much understanding of the real world when it is isn't revolving around them. To Aswad While I am not familiar with the other post, the fact is that some things ARE testosterone or estrogen driven, as I am sure you are aware. Pointing out rude behavior is not a hormonal driven trait. Argumentively trying to assert your position does tend to be testosterone driven. Curious Lord's general approach to most posts tend to be "I'm smarter than all of you, watch me use big words and amaze and confound." He also gets more and more argumentative when his words fail to confound and when his analogies are proven to fall flat. That is not because of testosterone, but rather because of who he is. It is tough to walk through life with an "I'm better and more intelligent than everyone around me". Especially when many of the people he is dealing with are highly intelligent people as well. As we grow up, we learn that we are not the smartest person in the room all the time and learn to understand that we may not always be right in our thinking as no one is perfect. Your quote from Hanlon's Razor seems very appropriate there. As I mentioned on an earlier post, some conversations require and deserve your undivided attention. When you say to someone "just a moment, I'm on the phone", the appropriate thing to do is to hold all questions until you are off the phone and in a position to talk. It is like telling someone to hold on and they keep talking. After the last phone conversation where I again attempted to discuss these issues and got no where, I have told him to "sod off". In none of my other lifestyle relationships has this ever been an issue, but because I am now seeking a different kind of relationship, one that I know will ultimately be much more demanding of my time, I was looking for some clarification on what things are "common practice". In other words, while I was completely sure that his behavior was inappropriate in the world that I have been living, I was not completely sure that his behavior was inappropriate in the newer type of relationship that I am looking to have. Saying "I am what I am, and I screw up sometimes" would have been admitting that he had done something wrong, so yes it might have made a difference. Don't get me wrong, I am not expecting a dom to be perfect. But I am expecting him to be able to admit when he is wrong and offer and apology, and not believe that because he is a dom that it is ok not to.

LafayetteLady -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 5:45:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I can certainly see that as a viable possibility. Having had to deal with uncontrolled jealousy issues in past relationships, this is just unacceptable to me. That kind of jealousy inhibits a person's ability to trust their partner, and in the end the other partner is suffocated by the jealousy and lack of trust. Statistically, those who are unable to react appropriately to their jealousy have a tendency to also become abusive. In a Ds relationship I believe that the line between domination and abuse can be so thin, and with the "because I'm a dom" reasoning already in play BEFORE an established relationship has begun is really a giant red flag for me. This paragraph makes things a little clearer. I don't think your issue is with a long-term friend who suddenly overstepped a boundary he didn't know existed. You issue is with a past hurt(s?) from "uncontrolled jealousy" from a past partner and you're not about to let that happen again. I'm not saying you're wrong to feel that way, not at all, it's a normal reaction. I tend to be very judgemental and leery of anyone who drinks alcohol in my presence, and as soon as their personality changes in the least when drinking, my red and yellow flags go up and I find myself watching their behavior like a hawk. Because my life got torn up by an out-of-control alcoholic a few years back. I repeat, I'm not saying it's bad for you to feel this way. In fact, it's good to recognize a potentially negative situation and nip it in the bud before it explodes in your face. I just hope you don't punish your friend for the sins of ghosts of the past. Two years is a really LONG time to have been "just talking". I'm not clear whether this is a relationship that is progressing towards being a committed D/s relationship, or will you continue to be "a dom" and "a sub" who happen to be good friends? Especially if you are or were progressing towards committment, I think it would be good for him to know exactly why you have such strong feelings about jealousy. Did he just make a momentary bad choice or was he truly "uncontrolled"? I said that jealousy was a viable possibility. Yes, having dealt with that in the past, I am much more aware when someone exhibits that behavior. In all honesty, I let them know what they are doing and what the end result will be if it continues (I will end things). Having said that, I don't believe that his behavior WAS the result of jealousy. On several different occassions, he has sought information or responses from me that just were not appropriate for him to have, at that time. ALWAYS, I explained to him that at this point and time, I did not feel it was appropriate for him to be seeking that information and that I was not comfortable giving it. ALWAYS his blanket response of "I'm a dom" followed. That isn't jealousy. I have, as I said, after the last conversation where he still didn't "get it" ended things. I have quite a few people that I have talked with for years as simply friends. Some I would never even consider a relationship with because I value the friendship too much. Our conversations over that time were always pretty casual, so that "friendship" would really be more of an "aquaintence". In either case, I obviously started to see that certain issues would be ongoing and continual and chose not to have to deal with it.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: At what point? (6/12/2007 6:01:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad In my experience, from studying these things (I never "got" them myself, so I had to study and memorize), people aren't consistent in where they draw such lines, and this leads to a lot of potentially positive relationships going the wrong way because people assume things differently. Only if they lack communication or build false expectations. Expecting consistency is an unrealistic expectation to start with. quote: I never said being an open person requires having the same relationship with everyone. I said that being an open person, to me, means being open with everyone. OK well then you have the same sort of relationship IN THAT ASPECT with everyone. quote: Which does not preclude being a private person with strangers (I am). Which is what this thread is based on. He asked a question he thought was fine and public to ask, she had the reaction that this was private information. quote: To my mind, that seems unneccessarily confrontational. I prefer to say "I'd rather not answer that question, and don't feel that we know each other well enough for you to ask it at this time." Works for me, might not work for you. I didn't say I wouldn't give a response (Why do you ask? is always a good one), I said I wouldn't answer the question. quote: Obviously. No argument there. Just saying the bubble needn't burst at a glance. But you seemed surprised and not to understand when someone started talking about having different levels of openness/comfort/intimacy. Now you seem to act like you completely understand it.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875