|
CaringandReal -> RE: The one month rule. How many could do it? (8/17/2009 5:49:41 PM)
|
I wouldn't do it. I'd also think the person telling me to do it was stupid. I don't think in a new relationship it's right to censor huge areas of conversation, particularly those that most interest two people attracted to each other. For me, it would put a huge artificial damper on the relationship and I'd feel uncomfortable to the point that I'd probably quickly stop talking to them.
You can, you know, get to know someone equally well by talking about sex. Besides learning about what they enjoy and whether they like things that you like, you get see how playful they are, or creative. Or (one hopes not) repetitious. ;) How they talk about sex tends to tell you as much or even more than what they talk about. Also, other aspects of their personalities emerge in talk about sex that do not in other kind of conversation, as those aspects may be very important to know about early, so that you don't dismiss them early as lacking traits you need, personality wise.
If you're a person who is seeking something very specific or unusual, early conversation about your sexual needs is essential to see if the other person is on the same page as you. If you need certain things as an essential part of a relationship and they happen to be things that lots of people lie about having, then if someone makes you wait an entire month to find out if they have it or are also lying, you are going to be pretty mad at them, no matter which way it turns out. I'm not thinking about random vanilla dating this situation. I'm thinking about a conscious deliberate search for someone or something very specific, often online, and in such searches one of the first things you talk about is whether your impression that this other person meets your needs is true or not. I need to know if a man I'm talking to is as extreme a dominant as I need. I don't trust what he's said on the profile, he's a stranger, remember? And he can say anything there without meaning it. Likewise he shouldn't trust what I say about myself. Istead, we should both TALK about these things, not pretend that something this enormous doesn't exist for 30 days. His talking about nonsexual topics will tell me nothing that I need to know and want to know. At any rate, the point is rather moot, because they people I choose to get to know have never felt this way. I've never once come across "the 30 day rule" online.
Maybe I feel so adamantly about this because I will only talk with one person at a time. I can't multi-task when it comes to dominants. All the rest take a number while I talk to the one I am talking to. So because I don't do "multiple projects" I could lose a lot of time if there is some artificial rule in place censoring me from finding out the things I most need to know. I am extremely flexible when it comes to outside interests and most sexual fetishes as well. Extremely. Flexible. But I do need to get the very essential issue of the nature of their core sexual personality out of the way as quickly as possible. It's the only incompatibility that could deal the nacent relationship a death blow. In bdsm that sexual personality is a rather large part of the person and the relationship. And I just can't relax and be my natural fun submissive self around someone if I don't know if they are the type of dominant I need or not.
I'm talking mostly about meeting people over the internet, obviously, not picking someone up in person. I think that's important to say because there are big differences between the ways you get to know people using these two methods, but even in person a 30 day, no-speakum-sex rule would strike me as incredibly rigid and dumb not to mention a huge waste of time, more often then not, when I discovered at the end of thirty days that here was yet another man not interested in the level and/or nature of relationship I was. No, I wouldn't bring sexual interests up on a first in-person date, but I also would not date someone that hadn't already described themselves as dominant or wasn't giving off very explicit "absolutely no guessing required" dominant signs.
About the outside interests issue: I've always had plenty of things to do and talk about with my partners, plenty of things to share and become passionate over. As well as having a wide repotoire of personal interests, I am quite capable of becoming utterly fascinated by anything my partner is interested in. So like slavekal, I think the "compatible outside interests" thing is something of a dodge. It's nice to know those things and share them but not at the expense of finding out the essentials. Additionally, what's to stop two people from learning about those outside interests and also talking about sexual compatibilty at the same time? One kind of talk doesn't negate the other! If two people share "sexuality, intellect, and temperment," there is just no way in hell they aren't going to have plenty of outside non-sexual things to do together or to talk to each other about, particularly if one of the people is submissive and very curious about all aspects of life (even knitting) if their dominant is into them. ;)
Thanks for starting such an interesting thread, by the way. :)
|
|
|
|
