RE: Cheaters!

RE: Cheaters! (Full Version)

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

Message

themischievous1 -> RE: Cheaters! (8/17/2007 1:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir My point is that for most play, commitment elsewhere simply isn't relevant. It's no more relevant than knowing how you've invested your life savings. It's a part of your life that I haven't yet been invited to share. Chastising you because you haven't volunteered that information over coffee just seems to me like someone's looking for an excuse to dismiss. My point is that for play or any kind of intimacy where you're going to be touching my body, your marital status and intimate involvement elsewhere IS important. I consider physical and sexual intimacy to be something that isn't shared with just anyone in a casual sense. I definitely don't want or choose to be involved intimately with someone who has multiple partners, (no matter how safe he or she thinks they're being). You are simply pointing out to me that I damn well better have an interview list of questions to ask every individual right off the proverbial bat, upon a first time meeting or shortly thereafter, in order to keep my own integrity intact along with my personal physical safety. If I don't ask exact questions about the std's and illnesses you may or may not have, marital status, intimate partners, etc. you won't tell me because you don't think it's relevant. This kind of mindset seems almost sociopathic, dangerous, irresponsible, and totally unconcerned with being respectful of other's feelings and physical well being. I dunno about anyone else but your perspective is exactly why I'm very thorough about investigating everyone I plan to become involved or intimate with well in advance of either. Though I don't think your perspective is common, I'm glad you're being so open about it. It's a good lesson/example to those who are reading to watch it out there and prepare their due dilligence right up front in advance of meeting anyone.

umisprite -> RE: Cheaters! (8/17/2007 4:25:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir If something like this is relevant to you, then it is your responsibility to ask. I really can't read anyone else's mind That's why I always ask, right up front, because to me it is relevant. But that's just me. There are so many different points of view how is anyone to know unless they ask?

Mystique567 -> RE: Cheaters! (8/17/2007 4:34:47 PM)
I think I am still gonna look at this as a joke and just giggle and move on.....so what color is your pussy?

TreasureKY -> RE: Cheaters! (8/17/2007 5:04:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir If something like this is relevant to you, then it is your responsibility to ask. Somehow, I suspect that your feelings with regard to this wouldn't be quite the same if, after you've enjoyed a hot and heavy sexual scene with a beautiful woman, you find out she used to be a man. [;)] Or do you routinely ask your dates if they've ever changed gender?

Griswold -> RE: Cheaters! (8/17/2007 5:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir Last month I was talking to this woman and everything was going great. So we agreed to have coffee. She was cute, there was mutual attraction, so we agreed to play at an upcoming party. So we did. And it was great! She came back to my place afterward and we had a really lovely time. But later that week, I found out that she drive a BMW! Can you believe it! She drives a BMW and she had the audacity to lie about it and hide this information from me! Stupid, lying, no good, CHEATERS! I'll never date or play with anyone again unless I verify via a reputable third party that this person doesn't drive a BMW. The online bdsm world is full of people like this - people who don't tell you that they drive BMW's before you get involved with them. There outta be a law. -- For the record, this is humor. Also for the record, if I happen to meet you at a party, talk, flirt, of propose play together, if I haven't mentioned something, like a wife, or a girlfriend, or a dog, or a BMW, or the name of my first grade teacher, it's because it hasn't occurred to me that it's at all relevant. If something like this is relevant to you, then it is your responsibility to ask. I really can't read anyone else's mind in order to know that the color of my cat might make a difference in whether you're up for a casual flogging. And if you don't like the color of my cat, or my relationship status, or don't believe me when I tell you what it is, then I would submit that we have communications problems already and really shouldn't be playing with each other at this point. (Yawwwwwwn)

TemptingNviceSub -> RE: Cheaters! (8/17/2007 5:55:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir quote: ORIGINAL: TemptingNviceSub Too simplistic and lack of relevance too convenient of an excuse, to the withholding of information..Tempting Ok, but by what mechanism to you intend to convey the message that this information, which seems completely irrelevant to me, is of such vital importance to you? I'm not withholding information if you haven't asked. You seem to have some expectation that people will volunteer random information, but you don't seem to suggest any means by which anyone is to know what random information you want. That seems to me like a setup for failure. The act of withholding information is an act of deception..You can wrap it up into a pretty box with bow and call it what you will or avoid it how you wish and it will still be deceptive..It is IMO a distasteful form of manipulation in order to achieve whatever goal you have in mind..You are a grown man ..you know without all this hoo haaa what is and is not relevant....Tempting

CuriousLord -> RE: Cheaters! (8/18/2007 12:30:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If someone has, say, a wife- in a, as far as she knows, monogomous relationship- and the husband cheats on her- of course others should care. The husband has demonstrated a willingness to lie to someone he married. Not only is this act morally reprehensible, but it also leaves in question the validity of any socially-contracted interaction with such an individual. This is to say, he's not above manipulation and deceit. I think you're making a huge leap by assuming that someone else's relationship is supposed to be monogamous. Or even that marriage means the same thing to them that it might to you. I'm speaking about the cases in which the marriage or similar relationship was supposed to be monogamous. This was about cheaters, afterall, correct?

CuriousLord -> RE: Cheaters! (8/18/2007 12:45:08 AM)
It appears you've responded to my same reply twice. Alright then. quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If someone has, say, a wife- in a, as far as she knows, monogomous relationship- and the husband cheats on her- of course others should care. The husband has demonstrated a willingness to lie to someone he married. Not only is this act morally reprehensible, but it also leaves in question the validity of any socially-contracted interaction with such an individual. This is to say, he's not above manipulation and deceit. Why should I care? Being sexually intimate with an individual that has demonstrated a disconcern for honesty when their own pleasure is at stake? Pft. You wouldn't be worried about such an individual wanting to do something to you? Such as, say, kill you? Or, more commonly, not be above mentioning an STD? (Please don't give me the tired line about condoms. Condoms or no, I want to know if I'm sleeping with one that has HIV.) quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir I don't, in general, care whether he sleeps on the left or the right side of the bed. Why should I care about any other detail of how he manages his relationships? Honesty. Disclosure. Emotional entanglement. Health. Then again, it's possible you simply don't care about any of these things. This, by no means, means no one else should. quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir I have a pretty high value for personal responsibility and for self determination. If he wants to cheat on his wife, I say that's his business. Not mine. It's not my responsibility to police his relationships. Would you care if the person you just sold a gun to is going to use it to shoot someone? Cheating probably isn't as reprehensible as murder. Nonetheless, it's along the same lines. If you honestly do not care for the pain and suffering you may cause another, I would recommend considering one's mental health. (Not as an insult, but if you have aspects of a sociopath, it would be important for you to know.) quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir Maybe that's part of the difference here. You seem to be thinking that marriage is a social contract and that it means the same thing to everyone who enters into it. Whereas I'm thinking that marriage is an (inter)personal commitment between people whose meaning can really only be known by those people. I feel you're limiting in, over simplifying a complex issue. (Human interactions are rarely so simple.) In any case, one has a personal interest in not engaging in acts of trust (such as intamacy) with another who has demonstrated a willingness to violate the trust of others, such as a cheater, if this one should value his health. I notice a reoccuring theme in your responses to mention that a relationship, such as a marriage, may be an open relationship. In context, this is about cheaters, so such relations are excluded from this. We're talking about those who violate their commitments, whether you chose to see them as personal or social, or, more aptly, some combination of the two.

welshwmn3 -> RE: Cheaters! (8/18/2007 11:02:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir My point is that for most play, commitment elsewhere simply isn't relevant. It's no more relevant than knowing how you've invested your life savings. It's a part of your life that I haven't yet been invited to share. Chastising you because you haven't volunteered that information over coffee just seems to me like someone's looking for an excuse to dismiss. I think I understand what you are saying. The opposite side of that coin though, is living in a predominately monogamous culture, people have expectations that you (general you) are monogamous unless you tell them. If they are monogamous (even if it's 'serial monogamoy'), and find out after the fact the (irrelevant data to you) that you are in a long term relationship, they will be upset and call you a cheater or whatever. Because the cultural default is 'monogamous', when the specific default is 'polyamorous in a relationship already', it's more up to the person who's poly/whatever to explain that. Because the monogamous people just don't even think to ask. I always tells potential play partners/lovers/doms/etc that I'm poly, collared by two doms and have or had other lovers, just to keep the potential for drama out of it. Yes, I might get the person who says, "You slut!", but for me, it's a lot better to deal with the original "You slut!" attitude than to deal with the whole, "OMG! She's cheating on everybody, and she didn't TELL me she was already in 20 relationships!" shrugs Just me, though.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Cheaters! (8/19/2007 9:30:51 AM)
Look at it this way Monogamy is like mastering your own craft. You work hard at it for years refining it like you would in martial arts or like an Olympic athlete. Like an athlete you do not train to get a bronze medal you work at to get the gold medal. This means giving a hundred and twenty percent. If you do have that drive to do it that is at anything then you will fail. With poly or people who want more then one thingy it is like a jack of all trades they can only do so much but will always fall short in the end. We are responsible for our own actions and are held accountable for said actions. No matter if we pick the wrong people or right ones we are only accountable to our selves key is finding those that have those same values and morals that we hold dear. That is what is important. Who wants to be around a cheater makes to much stress causes to much heart ache and will keep you on Prozac for a lifetime.. what dom or domme wants a wishy washy fickle sub going from person to person. Or a sub that has dom , domme going through subs like cotton candy. flavor of the week so to speak you can not grow in that environment what lesson is to be learned. that you are weak minded and have no commitments in your own growth other then sexual addictions.

welshwmn3 -> RE: Cheaters! (8/19/2007 10:52:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 Look at it this way Monogamy is like mastering your own craft. You work hard at it for years refining it like you would in martial arts or like an Olympic athlete. Like an athlete you do not train to get a bronze medal you work at to get the gold medal. This means giving a hundred and twenty percent. If you do have that drive to do it that is at anything then you will fail. With poly or people who want more then one thingy it is like a jack of all trades they can only do so much but will always fall short in the end. We are responsible for our own actions and are held accountable for said actions. No matter if we pick the wrong people or right ones we are only accountable to our selves key is finding those that have those same values and morals that we hold dear. That is what is important. Who wants to be around a cheater makes to much stress causes to much heart ache and will keep you on Prozac for a lifetime.. what dom or domme wants a wishy washy fickle sub going from person to person. Or a sub that has dom , domme going through subs like cotton candy. flavor of the week so to speak you can not grow in that environment what lesson is to be learned. that you are weak minded and have no commitments in your own growth other then sexual addictions. No. Polyamoury does not equal cheating if it's really poly. I understand that there are people who go around saying they are poly yet their SO doesn't know or hasn't agreed (in my opinion, that's cheating), but if done right, polyamoury isn't cheating. And as for a "wishy washy fickle sub going from person to person", well, it seems both my Doms don't mind. I have been in long term relationships with both Doms. My primary one for 10 years. My secondary one for 4 or 5 years now (and I knew him longer than that). I'd say that's neither fickle nor wishy washy. The fact that you are using serial monogamy examples (cheater, wishy washy fickle sub, dom that goes through subs like cotton candy) shows you really don't understand what polyamoury is about. Maybe you'd like to ask what polyamoury is, or do some research on it, before you give analogies that are meaningless. I don't denegrate your lifestyle choices (monogamy), please do not denegrate my lifestyle choices nor insult me.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Cheaters! (8/19/2007 11:10:47 AM)
um yes i do understand polyamory but i do not agree with the reasons given. there are tons of variables as why people are in polys poly means loving more then one person on a lot of different levels. please understand my whole post is for those that want to live a mono relationship for the rest of their life it can be done it has been done.. again left vs right what ever side of the fence your on just be true to it or in a sense it is cheating on your way of thinking yep yep

CreativeDominant -> RE: Cheaters! (8/20/2007 11:34:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant And you have a right to feel that way. I would imagine though that you have run into more people that think the information IS relevant and SHOULD be offered up by you than those who agree with your stance. I would also imagine that there have been more who have been angry when they have found out AFTER the fact than those who have been O.K. with it after the fact. Actually, the answer on both of those imaginings is "no". Really? How odd then that most of the posters on here agree that the information is relevant and should be offered up by you. I guess that most of the posters on this thread are different from the people around you every day and the people you meet. I am curious though...if the people you meet and play with agree with your stance that you having a significant other is not relevant to their decision to play with you, what made you bring this statement of your personal philosophy to the forums? Unless it was just to see how whether or not we would be like all those that you deal with in "real" life and their agreement with your philosophy of "non-relevance" concerning the involvement with a significant other. quote: You have a right to view such information as irrelevant. But, as has been noted, for most people it is relevant. I don't think your count is accurate and I don't believe that you speak for "most people". Actually, given the plethora of articles written about "cheating" and "swinging" and the fact that in these articles, those considered "cheaters" are those who do not bring up the issue of there being another involved. Somewhere in these articles, it is usually mentioned that, even if the partner who is playing is doing so with the full knowledge of their partner (even if not of this specific potential partner, at least of the fact that their "other" plays with others), if they do not inform the potential, they are generally considered to be lacking in character. Even in those articles about swinging, honesty and openness about all outside, current sexual involvements is considered the norm rather than non-mention of something considered by one to be irrelevant. Now as for my count on here, I think that if you will go back and read through this entire thread, you will find many more people who dislike the idea of not having another partner mentioned vs. those who agree with you that it is non-relevant. Finally, as for speaking for most...I did not attempt to...what I did was note the facts of both the thread count here and of the articles noted. quote: Is it on us to ask each and every potential partner we speak with whether they are involved elsewhere? Maybe...but is it possible that we might get a response such as "I don't see how that is relevant"? And then, if we choose to see that response as a clouding or a "Yes" , would we then get the argument that "I did not say whether I was involved or not...I just said it is irrelevant"? At some point, people have to take responsibility for giving out information that is considered relevant by many. I don't happen to think that people need to know my entire life story but for many of the things I choose to be involved in, that is exactly what I need to give them or do without their services. If you ask me whether I'm married, and I respond with "how is that relevant", then either you can explain how it seems relevant to you, or you can decide that you're not up for playing with me. I suppose you could also repeat the question if you preferred but if I was willing to redirect the first time, personally, I'm likely to redirect the second time as well. A common tactic among those who either feel they don't have to explain themselves or those who cannot explain themselves in a rational, reasonable, scientific enough manner to convince someone else that they are wrong. Personally...and note that I did use the term "personally"...I would state that it is relevant due to physical health issues and emotional issues and, for myself though possibly not for you, moral issues as I prefer not to play with someone who is involved elsewhere unless their partner knows it and knows that I am the one who is going to be playing with their partner. quote: However, I've played with literally hundreds of people and I've never once been asked if I was married before we played - even by people who claim that this information is vitally important to them. I have on rare occasions been asked, "Is there anyone with whom I need to check in or ask permission before I play with you?" And my answer has always been "no". Interesting, especially given that is one of the first questions I have been asked by prospective partners, both in the D/s world and in the vanilla world. And I don't believe it is just the rural area I live in now as I was asked that question when I was living in the fairly cosmopolitan areas of Minneapolis-St. Paul and in the Ft. Bragg/Fayetteville/Pope Air Force Base area. When I initially took my ring off and the ringline still showed, I expected it...to the point where, even after the ringline had long faded, I still expected it. quote: MOO...this speaks to me in a manner similar to those people that say the words they use are not relevant, they are just words when I get offended over being told "whatever" by my ums or when I hear my youngest refer to her best friend as "her bitch" or when my ex failed to tell me that she had contracted an STD and her reason for not telling me was that it "had been cleared up at least 6 months ago". I'm not seeing the similarity here. In one case, we're talking about whether you ask for information that is apparently crucial to your decision making process. In the other cases, well, I'm not seeing any pattern to these other cases other than that these people seem to be failing to live up to your (presumably unstated) expectations of them. I am not surprised that you fail to see a similarity. We disagree on the viewpoint as to whether or not such information is relevant and that it should be volunteered by the one who has a partner and wants to play with someone else. As long as we disagree over the relevance of the information and who is responsible for bringing it up, I doubt seriously that you would see the similarity.{/quote] quote: I seem to be hearing you express frustration that other people can't read your mind. And while I grant that might be convenient at times, I don't think it's a realistic expectation to place on other people in general. No...there is no frustration over someone being unable to read my mind. What you see expressed is a differing opinion as the morality of involving someone else in your life, no matter how casually, in an intimate manner but being, at least partially, able to do so by not telling them fully of your involvement elsewhere.

teamnoir -> RE: Cheaters! (9/6/2007 12:50:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir If something like this is relevant to you, then it is your responsibility to ask. Somehow, I suspect that your feelings with regard to this wouldn't be quite the same if, after you've enjoyed a hot and heavy sexual scene with a beautiful woman, you find out she used to be a man. [;)] Or do you routinely ask your dates if they've ever changed gender? No, I don't. And in this case, I'm honestly not sure how I'd react. I'm sure I'd be puzzled and find my own reaction strange, whatever it was. And I'm also dead certain that I wouldn't be blaming the other person for either being TS or for withholding information.

teamnoir -> RE: Cheaters! (9/6/2007 12:52:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TemptingNviceSub quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir quote: ORIGINAL: TemptingNviceSub Too simplistic and lack of relevance too convenient of an excuse, to the withholding of information..Tempting Ok, but by what mechanism to you intend to convey the message that this information, which seems completely irrelevant to me, is of such vital importance to you? I'm not withholding information if you haven't asked. You seem to have some expectation that people will volunteer random information, but you don't seem to suggest any means by which anyone is to know what random information you want. That seems to me like a setup for failure. The act of withholding information is an act of deception..You can wrap it up into a pretty box with bow and call it what you will or avoid it how you wish and it will still be deceptive..It is IMO a distasteful form of manipulation in order to achieve whatever goal you have in mind..You are a grown man ..you know without all this hoo haaa what is and is not relevant....Tempting No, honestly, I don't. But I would agree with you that if the information is important to you and you don't ask, that sort of withholding is indeed deceptive. That's right up there with failing to use a safe word when it's appropriate.

teamnoir -> RE: Cheaters! (9/6/2007 1:07:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It appears you've responded to my same reply twice. Alright then. quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If someone has, say, a wife- in a, as far as she knows, monogomous relationship- and the husband cheats on her- of course others should care. The husband has demonstrated a willingness to lie to someone he married. Not only is this act morally reprehensible, but it also leaves in question the validity of any socially-contracted interaction with such an individual. This is to say, he's not above manipulation and deceit. Why should I care? Being sexually intimate with an individual that has demonstrated a disconcern for honesty when their own pleasure is at stake? Pft. You wouldn't be worried about such an individual wanting to do something to you? Such as, say, kill you? Or, more commonly, not be above mentioning an STD? (Please don't give me the tired line about condoms. Condoms or no, I want to know if I'm sleeping with one that has HIV.) I will indeed resort to the tired line about condoms. Condoms work. If you are concerned beyond that, then I believe that it is intendant upon you to ask. There's no "disconcern" here. There's simply a different approach to safety. Your approach is not appropriate for me. I would consider it inappropriate and insufficient. And, if I'm reading you correctly, you're stating something similar about my approach. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir I don't, in general, care whether he sleeps on the left or the right side of the bed. Why should I care about any other detail of how he manages his relationships? Honesty. Disclosure. Emotional entanglement. Health. Then again, it's possible you simply don't care about any of these things. This, by no means, means no one else should. On the contrary, I feel very strongly about honesty, health, respect, and passion. Disclosure is a completely different issue, in my opinion. And emotional entanglement is also a distinctly separate issue. If someone isn't capable of becoming physically and/or emotionally intimate without becoming entangled, then I fully expect that we'll figure that out as we're getting to know each other. And at that point, we may very well decide that it's not appropriate for us to continue to develop our relationship any further. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir I have a pretty high value for personal responsibility and for self determination. If he wants to cheat on his wife, I say that's his business. Not mine. It's not my responsibility to police his relationships. Would you care if the person you just sold a gun to is going to use it to shoot someone? I don't sell guns. quote: Cheating probably isn't as reprehensible as murder. Nonetheless, it's along the same lines. If you honestly do not care for the pain and suffering you may cause another, I would recommend considering one's mental health. (Not as an insult, but if you have aspects of a sociopath, it would be important for you to know.) I see. So we're down to name calling? You can't discuss without attacking someone who has a different opinion from your own? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir Maybe that's part of the difference here. You seem to be thinking that marriage is a social contract and that it means the same thing to everyone who enters into it. Whereas I'm thinking that marriage is an (inter)personal commitment between people whose meaning can really only be known by those people. I feel you're limiting in, over simplifying a complex issue. (Human interactions are rarely so simple.) In any case, one has a personal interest in not engaging in acts of trust (such as intamacy) with another who has demonstrated a willingness to violate the trust of others, such as a cheater, if this one should value his health. I think you're making a huge leap here to make that claim about anyone other than yourself. This certainly isn't necessarily true for me. As you say, human interactions are rarely so simple. quote: I notice a reoccuring theme in your responses to mention that a relationship, such as a marriage, may be an open relationship. In context, this is about cheaters, so such relations are excluded from this. No, they really aren't. It's entirely possible to cheat within the context of any relationship. Cheating isn't about fucking anyone. Cheating is about saying you're going to do one thing and then doing something else. quote: We're talking about those who violate their commitments, whether you chose to see them as personal or social, or, more aptly, some combination of the two. Exactly. And that isn't restricted to people who are monogamous.

teamnoir -> RE: Cheaters! (9/6/2007 1:10:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: welshwmn3 quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir My point is that for most play, commitment elsewhere simply isn't relevant. It's no more relevant than knowing how you've invested your life savings. It's a part of your life that I haven't yet been invited to share. Chastising you because you haven't volunteered that information over coffee just seems to me like someone's looking for an excuse to dismiss. I think I understand what you are saying. The opposite side of that coin though, is living in a predominately monogamous culture, people have expectations that you (general you) are monogamous unless you tell them. If they are monogamous (even if it's 'serial monogamoy'), and find out after the fact the (irrelevant data to you) that you are in a long term relationship, they will be upset and call you a cheater or whatever. I hear you. I respect your approach. I simply disagree that it's appropriate on this basis - at least, not for me. I'll also argue that monogamous is not the default in our culture. I believe that the default in our culture is cheating. quote: shrugs Just me, though. You're welcome to it. :). I don't think there's anything wrong with your approach. It's just not mine.

teamnoir -> RE: Cheaters! (9/6/2007 1:24:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: teamnoir quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant And you have a right to feel that way. I would imagine though that you have run into more people that think the information IS relevant and SHOULD be offered up by you than those who agree with your stance. I would also imagine that there have been more who have been angry when they have found out AFTER the fact than those who have been O.K. with it after the fact. Actually, the answer on both of those imaginings is "no". Really? How odd then that most of the posters on here agree that the information is relevant and should be offered up by you. I guess that most of the posters on this thread are different from the people around you every day and the people you meet. I am curious though...if the people you meet and play with agree with your stance that you having a significant other is not relevant to their decision to play with you, what made you bring this statement of your personal philosophy to the forums? Unless it was just to see how whether or not we would be like all those that you deal with in "real" life and their agreement with your philosophy of "non-relevance" concerning the involvement with a significant other. I brought it to the forums because I'm tired of hearing all of the unfounded attacks. People seem to think that their own ignorance justifies attacking others. They're giving their power away and they're doing it unnecessarily. If something is that crucially important to you, then ask your partner. It's really just that simple. And yet I see post after post of people who didn't do this and now feel radically betrayed - which makes sense, except that they feel betrayed by their partner, which makes no sense to me at all. Yes, let's just blame other people. That'll make us all feel so much better! Pheh. Take responsibility. If something is important to you to know, then ask. quote: A common tactic among those who either feel they don't have to explain themselves or those who cannot explain themselves in a rational, reasonable, scientific enough manner to convince someone else that they are wrong. Personally...and note that I did use the term "personally"...I would state that it is relevant due to physical health issues and emotional issues and, for myself though possibly not for you, moral issues as I prefer not to play with someone who is involved elsewhere unless their partner knows it and knows that I am the one who is going to be playing with their partner. That seems like a fine response to me. And in this fictional negotiation we've been developing, I've just heard you tell me several things about yourself that let me know that you and I are not likely to become long term lovers, play partners, nor probably even friends. Our most probably best case scenario is likely to be polite social niceties when we're in the same place. You've also told me a lot about any event that you and I both happen to attend and about any event created by you or friends of yours. There's nothing wrong with any of this, of course. Not everyone has to love everyone else. And there's room in the world for a wide variety of different types of events. quote: quote: However, I've played with literally hundreds of people and I've never once been asked if I was married before we played - even by people who claim that this information is vitally important to them. I have on rare occasions been asked, "Is there anyone with whom I need to check in or ask permission before I play with you?" And my answer has always been "no". Interesting, especially given that is one of the first questions I have been asked by prospective partners, both in the D/s world and in the vanilla world. And I don't believe it is just the rural area I live in now as I was asked that question when I was living in the fairly cosmopolitan areas of Minneapolis-St. Paul and in the Ft. Bragg/Fayetteville/Pope Air Force Base area. When I initially took my ring off and the ringline still showed, I expected it...to the point where, even after the ringline had long faded, I still expected it. Nope. The default understanding in this area is that if you aren't available for play, for whatever reason, jealous spouse, headache, fatigue, fear, distrust, then you will say that you are unavailable for play when invited to do so. There's no assumption that play necessarily leads to a relationship or vice verse. A simply invitation to play at a play party isn't necessarily any more intimate of an activity than asking someone to dance. A lot depends on the type of play involved and there are many forms of play that are far less intimate than dancing. Personally, I find dancing much more intimidating than casual social play.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02