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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zenny

"...go away!"

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.

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!!!

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!!!

You're either trolling me...

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.

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.)

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.  

(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).

(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.