|
CallaFirestormBW -> RE: What would you do in this situation? (6/2/2010 2:37:36 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddysInkedSlut
I am honestly sitting here shaking my head at the thought that people go hunting for the OPs other posts so that he can be called on them in this thread. I am all for personal accountability but there are people like myself who havent read prior posts from the OP. Who take this OP at face value. Who don't have the time or inclination to go searching his past posts to proof he isn't a slave or a submissive.
quote:
She told me that i had to give Her my Xbox and the game as punishment (temporarily). i argued with Her a bit about this, i said because i didn't quite trust people with my things (i have been robbed before) but really i just didn't feel like giving up the console or the game.
I admit when I first read the OP I missed the highlighted part of the quote above.
However, that doesnt change my response regarding compulsive disorders. I will also say that "getting help" for such a disorder as someone pointed out he should even today still carries alot of stigma and unless you have insurance that covers therapy, therapy is very expensive and even if you do have insurance you have to be in a place were you are willing and able to face those compulsions and why they exist.
I will also add that if the OP truly does have a compulsive disoder that is not a get out jail free card for when he acts on those compulsions.
My problem with this is the tendency to use a "compulsion" as an excuse. Part of the point of having external controls in place for individuals who express compulsive behaviors like compulsive shopping/spending is to provide a 'stop', since they don't have an internal one... but this only works for as long as the individual has any interest in truly managing hir compulsive behaviors. In the case of the OP, it is apparent that, although he's given his dominant companion the right to place that "stop", he, in effect, "runs the stop sign" whenever he feels like it, and then lies both to her and to himself to rationalize why it is OK that he over-ran the external boundary placed on his compulsive behavior.
The process between himself and his dominant companion is no different than the process between an addict and a sponsor in Shoppers Anonymous, AA, or any of the 12-step program... it will only work for as long as the individual in question has any real interest in making the change. In this case, it is pretty apparent that the OP is less serious about resolving his issues than he may have appeared at the outset.
For myself, while I tend to take into consideration stressors that would impact behavior (in this case, the dental treatment), I would consider the fact that a servant called me and then did not wait for my response to be an indicator that xhe was setting hirself up with excuses. This is symptomatic of compulsion, but if xhe were really interested in resolving hir issues, the fact that hir dominant party did not answer the phone would have been read as a "stop", and, as hard as it might be, xhe would have made a different choice.
I don't know the OP, and haven't seen his previous postings. I can tell you, though, that he has already said, on this thread, that he was on probation. In our household, there are "stepped infractions", and direct defiance/disobedience is a 'top step' infraction. We have a two-strike policy for intentional disobedience, if it relates to unhealthy behavioral patterns that we are working to resolve. If you breach the "stop" point once in a rolling 30-day period, you're put on warning, and a more strict policy is set in place that further limits the ability to access the tools of that compulsion... if the "stop point" is breached a second time in that 30-day period, you are dismissed. There is no discussion or negotiation. The reason we do it this way is because we are not a professional rehab center, and if our methods are not helpful, or the servant is not capable of restraining hirself even enough to help with hir own recovery, then our household is not the right place for dealing with the problem. (Informationally, we have a one-strike policy for blatant disobedience where there is no existing plan to assist in managing an ongoing compulsion/addiction). In the OP's case, this could be perceived as a "first strike", because of the nature of the offense - however, if there have been multiple infractions leading up to this, I, too, would show this person the door.
Calla
|
|
|
|
