RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin?

RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

came4U -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/18/2010 12:10:53 PM)
<now going to stalk Darling. (after I pee) no pics yet.

DarlingSavage -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/18/2010 1:52:21 PM)
Just found this and it made me think of this thread! [image]local://upfiles/875047/3017A15FA62D4AE1AFA452FF2B43A5EC.jpg[/image]

zenny -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/18/2010 2:31:44 PM)
You still miss the point. Neither you nor Jackal have enough information to make the judgment call about whether these were asked for, previously allowed, or previously disallowed by explicit statement or implication. Any attributions you add (those that allow you to so vehemently damn those involved) are your own. Not, in all likelihood, that which happened. Get over it.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/18/2010 3:37:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny You still miss the point. Neither you nor Jackal have enough information to make the judgment call about whether these were asked for, previously allowed, or previously disallowed by explicit statement or implication. No, YOU STILL MISS THE POINT... the past has ZERO to do with the present. I don't need any more "information" but to know if Person-A no longer welcomes Person-B doing X, and Person-A continues to do X, then this is UNWELCOMED. This ain't rocket science... at least not for those with more than three brain cells that aren't fighting. Example: Person-A has been fucking Person-B for five years. Person-B decides (in year six) they no longer want to be fucked by Person-A. Should Person-A persist to still try to fuck Person-B, then Person-A is going to jail, as Person-A's action(s) are UNWELCOMED by Person-B. Got it now, Sparky? The only "information" needed is Person-B doesn't want anything to do with Person-A. What transpired "previously" is irrelevant... the PRESENT is all that matters. Apparently common sense isn't. [8\|]

zenny -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/18/2010 4:07:31 PM)
"wow.. that was great!" "why thank you, I enjoyed it too! care to go play sometime?" "sure, how.. hmm.. can you pick my up when I get off work?" "sure, no problem." "alright, see you then!" "until then!" next day or whenever.. walks in.. "hey, ready to go?" "uh.. go away!" she calls up friend "god! this guy is stalking me! he showed up at my work!" A rather possible interaction between two people. Who knows the reason she went cold on the idea. In this situation he was perfectly justified in showing up - it was asked for - a past event which invited a future one. As I said. Anything you're attaching to the scenario is your own. I know the guy may have acted on impulse just as much as I know the lady may have led the guy on. In either case I put fault on a different person. But I don't know and thus cannot say, just as you cannot. Your "the past has ZERO to do with the present" made me chuckle by the way. Good one!

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/18/2010 4:15:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny "...go away!" And when you hear that... you do what? <insert Jeopardy music>... YOU GO AWAY!!! Got it?!! I'll bet you're still puzzled by the "No means no" thing, huh?!! Now... let's see if you've been paying attention... ready... here it comes... GO AWAY!!! [8\|]

LadyAngelika -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/18/2010 4:20:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: how does a person that you are in a consensual relationship with stalk you? By repeatedly showing up uninvited when the other person has asked them not to. Or by calling/texting/emailing/whatevering the other person an excessive amount in a short time span. IMO it's not 'stalking' until the person being 'stalked' has asked the 'stalker' to stop. It might be misguided but it's not stalking. I concur with this post entirely. That said, some people need to get a clue that they aren't wanted any more and others need to start asserting themselves and stating their boundaries in no uncertain terms. - LA

zenny -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/18/2010 5:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: zenny "...go away!" And when you hear that... you do what? <insert Jeopardy music>... YOU GO AWAY!!! Got it?!! I'll bet you're still puzzled by the "No means no" thing, huh?!! Now... let's see if you've been paying attention... ready... here it comes... GO AWAY!!! [8\|] You're either trolling me or you're really just that dumb... with some of your previous statements I'm inclined to think it's the latter. C'est la vie.. I hope your girl doesn't/hasn't suffered for it. Regardless, I'm inclined to agree with Angelika latter statement. To add I see a lot of conflict with a persons inability to see how they enable such issues or even actively invite them.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/18/2010 6:45:38 PM)
With all the talk about how some terms are misused, I'm kind of surprised at everyone's definition of "stalking." A person you are in a relationship with can not stalk you. They can spy on you (following you around), they can "surprise" you (showing up at work to take you to lunch), they can be "clingly" (calling/texting/emailing you a million times a day). But if you are in a relationship with them, they are NOT stalking you. Showing up at a "casual playmate's" work one time is not "stalking" in any way, shape or form, no matter how unwelcome it might have been. One instance will never equate to stalking. The OP gave no details of why he showed up at her work, which makes it even more difficult to judge the purpose. If he did it specifically to make her uncomfortable, he is, as I believe DesFIP said, an asshat. If he was simply in the neighborhood and dropped in to say "hello," she is over reacting. If he wanted to surprise her by taking her to a nice "playless" lunch, she is a fool for turning down a free meal, lol. As for the dominant who was annoyed by the girl he was in a relationship with messaging him so much, he, too is an asshat. D/s has nothing to do with being a grown up and telling someone that you are busy at work and you can't talk. I will often text my boyfriend throughout the day to tell him things. It used to be a problem because he thought that I wanted him to immediately jump and answer me, which I didn't. Once he understood that I was simply telling him something that didn't require a reply, it was no longer a problem. Obviously, if there is an emergency or I need an answer right away, I let him know. Does that make me a "stalker?" Of course not. A "stalker" is someone that a person is NOT in a relationship with. It could be someone you broke up with, or it could be someone you never even had a relationship with but maybe talked to, or they saw you someone and developed some attachment to you. Stalking is not merely "unwelcome" attention or contact. Hell, that would make every telemarketer a stalker. A stalker is going to show up everywhere you go AFTER you have told them you want them to go away. After you tell someone to leave you alone and they ignore you and keep contacting you, then they are entering into "stalker" territory. Having a sub who messages you too much is NOT a stalker. Tell them to stop, break up with them and they keep doing it, then they are a stalker. Having a Dom show up ONCE at your work uninvited: NOT a stalker. Continuing to do it after you tell them you don't want them to, they are possibly stalking you and definately creepy. Pestering someone online: NOT a stalker. Threatening them online: Stalker Sorry, but stalking is a serious problem and is often extremely dangerous for the person being stalked, one of the reasons we have anti stalking laws. Minimizing it by saying someone came to see you ONE time when you didn't invite them or claiming someone you are in a relationship with was a "stalker" because they "pestered" you with tons of messages isn't stalking. It isn't stalking until you ask someone to stop and they don't.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/19/2010 10:33:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: zenny "...go away!" And when you hear that... you do what? <insert Jeopardy music>... YOU GO AWAY!!! Got it?!! I'll bet you're still puzzled by the "No means no" thing, huh?!! Now... let's see if you've been paying attention... ready... here it comes... GO AWAY!!! [8\|] You're either trolling me... Don't need to "troll" a fool. You can't get something as simple as when someone tells you to "go away" and you don't, then YOU are the idiot, irrespective of anything that transpired "previously". What a complete dolt you are. [8\|]

LadyPact -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/19/2010 11:08:47 AM)
I'm going to agree with some of what LL said above. Especially the part about incorrect terms. "A Master the girl played with before" doesn't make him her Master. It makes him a play partner. Not necessarily the type of relationship where it's a good idea to 'drop in' on her at work. While I wouldn't have used the term stalker for this, there might have been some other colorful terms that I could use. (Yes, I'd have been pissed off if someone felt they had the right to invite himself to My work place, especially if he was just a play partner.) The other case just sounds like someone who doesn't know how to handle a relationship and what is or isn't acceptable in it. I never understand why one person just can't tell another that they are calling too often. Then again, I'm a more direct type. Speaking of being direct, I don't find this original to be one. At best, OP, you heard these things from a girl you were talking to. Of which, she was only directly involved in one of the stories and the other was no better than second hand to her. In other words, you got one side of the story (and a poorly phrased one at that) in one case, and one side of the story at least once removed in the second. I'd probably put more concern into better terminology and communication skills, rather than where D/s ends and stalking begins.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/19/2010 11:36:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady With all the talk about how some terms are misused, I'm kind of surprised at everyone's definition of "stalking." A person you are in a relationship with can not stalk you. They can spy on you (following you around), they can "surprise" you (showing up at work to take you to lunch), they can be "clingly" (calling/texting/emailing you a million times a day). But if you are in a relationship with them, they are NOT stalking you. Showing up at a "casual playmate's" work one time is not "stalking" in any way, shape or form, no matter how unwelcome it might have been. One instance will never equate to stalking. The OP gave no details of why he showed up at her work, which makes it even more difficult to judge the purpose. If he did it specifically to make her uncomfortable, he is, as I believe DesFIP said, an asshat. If he was simply in the neighborhood and dropped in to say "hello," she is over reacting. If he wanted to surprise her by taking her to a nice "playless" lunch, she is a fool for turning down a free meal, lol. As for the dominant who was annoyed by the girl he was in a relationship with messaging him so much, he, too is an asshat. D/s has nothing to do with being a grown up and telling someone that you are busy at work and you can't talk. I will often text my boyfriend throughout the day to tell him things. It used to be a problem because he thought that I wanted him to immediately jump and answer me, which I didn't. Once he understood that I was simply telling him something that didn't require a reply, it was no longer a problem. Obviously, if there is an emergency or I need an answer right away, I let him know. Does that make me a "stalker?" Of course not. A "stalker" is someone that a person is NOT in a relationship with. It could be someone you broke up with, or it could be someone you never even had a relationship with but maybe talked to, or they saw you someone and developed some attachment to you. Stalking is not merely "unwelcome" attention or contact. Hell, that would make every telemarketer a stalker. A stalker is going to show up everywhere you go AFTER you have told them you want them to go away. After you tell someone to leave you alone and they ignore you and keep contacting you, then they are entering into "stalker" territory. Having a sub who messages you too much is NOT a stalker. Tell them to stop, break up with them and they keep doing it, then they are a stalker. Having a Dom show up ONCE at your work uninvited: NOT a stalker. Continuing to do it after you tell them you don't want them to, they are possibly stalking you and definately creepy. Pestering someone online: NOT a stalker. Threatening them online: Stalker Sorry, but stalking is a serious problem and is often extremely dangerous for the person being stalked, one of the reasons we have anti stalking laws. Minimizing it by saying someone came to see you ONE time when you didn't invite them or claiming someone you are in a relationship with was a "stalker" because they "pestered" you with tons of messages isn't stalking. It isn't stalking until you ask someone to stop and they don't. All very good points. [:)]

LafayetteLady -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/19/2010 3:56:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I'm going to agree with some of what LL said above. Especially the part about incorrect terms. "A Master the girl played with before" doesn't make him her Master. It makes him a play partner. Not necessarily the type of relationship where it's a good idea to 'drop in' on her at work. While I wouldn't have used the term stalker for this, there might have been some other colorful terms that I could use. (Yes, I'd have been pissed off if someone felt they had the right to invite himself to My work place, especially if he was just a play partner.) The problem is we don't know where she worked. Did she work at a "Hot Topic" or something at the local mall and he came in shopping and she freaked? Is she a clerk in the grocery store, and he did his shopping and ended up in her line at the register? Does she work in an office and as I said, was in the area and thought he would surprise her with an offer for lunch? In the first two scenarios, she is probably more freaked out that people will ask her how she knows him, and reveal her "secret" (if she keeps her "proclivities" secret). In the second scenario, it might have simply been a poor choice on his part, and thinking that they also had a friendship of sorts, or better still, he wanted to be more than a playmate, and figured taking her to lunch was a nice gesture. Which, by the way, it is. If it was just a friendly lunch without any "play" involved. For whatever reason she didn't want him there, simply taking him aside and saying "thanks for stopping by, but I really prefer anyone coming by my work call first," should be sufficient. The point is though, in neither case was any "stalking" involved.

LadyPact -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/19/2010 4:55:09 PM)
I actually happen to agree with you. Your first two situations give examples of her being in some variation of dealing with customers. Your third may or may not, depending on what type of office that it is. I do see it as a poor choice, even if it's the friendly garden variety of an offer for lunch. Then again, I'm kind of old fashioned in that regard. I don't 'drop in' on folks without invitation or at least a call out of courtesy to ensure that My visit isn't an inconvenience in some way.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/19/2010 9:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I actually happen to agree with you. Your first two situations give examples of her being in some variation of dealing with customers. Your third may or may not, depending on what type of office that it is. I do see it as a poor choice, even if it's the friendly garden variety of an offer for lunch. Then again, I'm kind of old fashioned in that regard. I don't 'drop in' on folks without invitation or at least a call out of courtesy to ensure that My visit isn't an inconvenience in some way. I agree. I don't visit friends at work without a phone call first, except for friends who wait tables. I only have two people who I ever visit at work as it is, my boyfriend and a close friend. The close friend often runs errands for her job, so without a call, it might be a waste to stop by. My boyfriend, I only visit if I need something from him and then call to find out the best time. I gave the examples because the OP just said "stopped by her work" and then she called him a "stalker." We had no details about her job or why he stopped by. We don't even know how often they "played" or how friendly they were, although obviously, he thought they had more of a friendship than she did! Either way, I think most of us can agree it wasn't stalking in either situation.

CalifChick -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/20/2010 11:14:17 AM)
I find that the definition of stalking as used in the California law works for me. And because legalese makes me so farkin' wet, here it is: California Civil Code Section 1708.7. (a) A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort: (1) The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff. In order to establish this element, the plaintiff shall be required to support his or her allegations with independent corroborating evidence. (2) As a result of that pattern of conduct, the plaintiff reasonably feared for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member. For purposes of this paragraph, "immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any person who regularly resides, or, within the six months preceding any portion of the pattern of conduct, regularly resided, in the plaintiff's household. (3) One of the following: (A) The defendant, as a part of the pattern of conduct specified in paragraph (1), made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member and, on at least one occasion, the plaintiff clearly and definitively demanded that the defendant cease and abate his or her pattern of conduct and the defendant persisted in his or her pattern of conduct. (B) The defendant violated a restraining order, including, but not limited to, any order issued pursuant to Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prohibiting any act described in subdivision (a). (b) For the purposes of this section: (1) "Pattern of conduct" means conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "pattern of conduct." (2) "Credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that communicated by means of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family. (3) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code. (4) "Harass" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person. (c) A person who commits the tort of stalking upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294. (d) In an action pursuant to this section, the court may grant equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an injunction. (e) The rights and remedies provided in this section are cumulative and in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. (f) This section shall not be construed to impair any constitutionally protected activity, including, but not limited to, speech, protest, and assembly.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Where does submission end and stalking begin? (3/20/2010 2:20:48 PM)
Which pretty much supports the conclusion that the OP's listed situations were not stalking at all.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875