|
FantasyKisses -> RE: Dishonest Submissive (1/1/2012 12:24:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesFIP
Thoughts:
It's online only at which point she owes you nothing.
You've met but haven't discussed exclusivity, in which case she owes you nothing.
The other guy wants to be with her, but isn't and is too delusional to realize she's moved on.
Talk to her. For all you know, you're assuming she's with this other guy who she met once a year ago yet he has his profile stating he owns her when he doesn't.
But op, if you aren't able to call her up and say "what the hell does this mean?" then you don't have the necessary interpersonal skills to make a relationship work. Protocols, rules and punishments are not a substitute for effective relationship skills including but not limited to communication. Go learn them before your next train wreck.
I'm sorry, but I have to inherently disagree with this--if you cannot conduct yourself online as you do in the 'real' world, then you have no business being online and certainly not in the Life.
I have a problem when people think that hitting the magic power button gives them free reign to screw with people or to hide and live vicariously through characters they create. If you have no honor here, you have no honor in the mundane world and you have no honor period.
Any obligation entered into online--for instance, if the Gentleman I'm presently speaking to (who lives out of state--I'm in college) and I progress to a committed level, I am honor bound to uphold that commitment regardless of where I am or what I'm doing. Online, offline, sideways. It doesn't matter.
The problem becomes thusly when you have people who run around claiming Lifestyle experience who haven't even tried it outside of a screen or haven't been introduced to the D/s philosophy. How many people have you met that claim to be Masters or Doms that are actually Tops and in it for the sex? Same thing with bottoms--yet people aren't learning those terms that were set up by our community E/elders to help us define such things for safety purposes... And that is a problem. And that is dangerous--not just physically and for the obvious reasons, but emotionally.
Neither side of our dark coin should be attached to a power button--there shouldn't be an 'Off' switch. You are or you aren't. You're either honest and upfront, or you aren't. You're either real or you're not. I broke no difference and make no excuses for people just because it's trendy. And the idea also that collars are something disposable is another side effect of 'net thinking--one that's turning toward the real scenes out there. Such as with this case. In Maine, people, partners and collars are passed back and forth like bags of M&Ms at chocoholic conventions and no one seems to mind or notice...
I have a problem with that--from the STD aspect to .... aren't collars supposed to be the most sacred rite of our culture? Our darker and more committed version of the mainstream ring ceremony? Built on trust and faith and honesty? Every real time ceremony I've seen mentions those things. So why should the 'net allow for the tarnishing of such a thing?
And yes, I realize I adhere to the spiritual aspects of D/s and M/s more than the physical. And that some of it may indeed be idealistic, but ....
Eric, Sir, I say she did you a favor Sir. I don't agree with the way she did it, you seem like a nice Gentleman (we've been speaking through PM), but imagine how much worse it would be in six months, a year, three years, so on. Let the faithless harlot go and move on Sir. You don't need a pariah attached to your hip and are truly better off.
|
|
|
|
