quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

p.s. I read Arturas's response to me as being quite tongue-in-cheek, so to speak, and my response was in kind.

There seem to be some (and I have been contacted by e-mail) who seem to think the exchange was meant seriously (!)

Anyway...

To clarify my first post on this thread. What I am saying is that men also need to be careful about screening women who they play with to ensure the women are stable, and actually ready to embark on a BDSM relationship - otherwise what happened in this case - a man imprisoned - can very easily happen, because until and unless the authorities can determine consent, they are going to put a man like that behind bars. That is the reality. Because without consent, one is not allowed to go around handcuffing people to radiators, let alone anything else. My point was that I correspond with many men on sites like this and others who don't seem to be interested in screening. And I always think, "gee, how do you know I am not some wacko who might do something crazy, and get you into trouble somehow". I hope this clarifies my point.

I read Arturas's response as a humorous one, i.e., given my screen name (haha) what did I expect. I assumed he was joking when he said he always scores the first go around (I mean, please, how can anyone take that seriously??).

To which, I gave what I considered a humorous response.

Some of you are taking this exchange far too seriously. I don't think he scores in the first go around with everyone, and no he didn't pass some test of mine - this exchange was all meant in a less serious way. And if Arturas was being serious (!?), well then I simply have no response to him.

I wouldn't have bothered with this additional post, but I am concerned that my message that each of us, regardless of gender, needs to screen those we play with, is getting lost amidst an exchange that is quite trivial....

quote:

ORIGINAL: scientistsub

Didn't he stay in jail for 4 months? 350,000 bail is not exactly drunk in public. It was set at a level that (clearly) this man could not meet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scientistsub

Didn't he stay in jail for 4 months? 350,000 bail is not exactly drunk in public. It was set at a level that (clearly) this man could not meet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
...And the surprising thing is, often, when I ask men if they have any specific questions for me, most of the time, they have absolutely NO questions for me (I am not exaggerating.)

Well, just to add a different perspective, I wouldn't have any questions for you. But then again, I wouldn't have any real questions about my safety in meeting you for coffee and that'd be ALL we were meeting for on a first meet. There'd be no "play" or sex or anything else that'd likely get me in trouble.

The reason I'd have no questions up front is that I prefer to ask them all face to face. I get SOOO much more information facial expressions and by the time I'd decided meeting you was a good thing I'd already have gotten as much as I thought it possible to get from afar. The questions I would be most interested in asking you would be things like, "How was your family life as a child?" and other things which would help me build up a life history of you as a person. It just doesn't seem all that risky.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheDomInTheHat

Beyond the problems of evolving notions of relationships and consent in our society not matching up to laws that assumed that a woman can only consent to her husband (and btw it was not that long ago that law held that consent was not revocable in that context), it is a bit unfair that this guy was jailed and had his name dragged through the mud while the alleged victim got to remain anonymous. Either both parties should be named by the press in these cases or neither party should be named until trial.