RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic

RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 11:53:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness You've got a window of opportunity and if you fail to touch her during that window... you're pretty much gonna be a 'friend' for the rest of time. Bingo! quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Asking her for permission is about as socially inept as you can get - and if she explicitly requires permission then you've got a feminist nutter on your hands Exactly. Asking for permission to touch would never work. I don't make the rules. I just play by them. Interestingly, truth be told, I'm a bit Aspy (shock and awe, I'm sure), so, I actually BELIEVED them, in my college days, to the point of I've had her FRIENDS tell me to hurry up and that I blew my chances quite a few times, even thought I had tried and been rebuffed a half dozen times. MY PROBLEM was that I gave up after the first half dozen or dozen rebuffs, but, that was me just not getting the social cues until her friend told me to keep trying (she actually put my hand on her friend's buns one time, just to keep me going 'cuz I had already given up). Women never did what they said, so this bullshit about "asking for permission" sounds great; it really does. But it only works in a world that doesn't actually exist.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 11:58:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I don't make the rules. I just play by them. You are playing by the WRONG rules!!

Wayward5oul -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 12:10:05 PM)
Crumpets, here you go again, you poor bastard. Here we go: quote: crumpets I assume the myriad and sundry lurkers pay the bills, so my assertion to follow depends on that as an assumption (owners of clubs can certainly tell me otherwise as I take correction well). That makes the "regulars" the "talent". The regulars, who tend to have play partners and prepared scenes, are the "show". Otherwise, it's just a room full of people, which, I guess, is fine and dandy, but, they make bars for that purpose of meet and greet. Yes, without the people who are playing, there is no show and therefore no reason for people to go there as opposed to any other standard bar. Which is exactly why the players are the one that clubs want to protect, not clueless and creepy lurkers. So no, the lurkers do not pay the bills. The players pay the same money that the lurkers pay. The players attract lurkers. Without the players, there would be no creepy lurkers. Without creepy lurkers, there would possibly be even more players. So who is more valuable to a club-the players or the lurkers? Don’t know about you, but if I were a club owner, I wouldn’t give a flying fuck if the lurkers got their wittle feelings hurt. But I would make damn sure that the players had nothing but shiny happy feelings all around, so they would return and bring more people with them. quote: crumpets The DM is a volunteer, and the DM is busy, and they can't be everywhere, as you noted. So, while it "is" first the responsibility of the house (during orientation) to set boundaries, and then second the responsibility of the DM to enforce boundaries, it was left thirdly to you, as the concentee, to set the boundaries (and fifth, to the common sense of the lurkee). Agree-it is first the responsibility of the house to set boundaries prior to admittance to the play space. Agree-second it is the responsibility of the DM to handle things on the floor. (Provided they see it-as you acknowledged, that is not always the case.) Disagree-the responsibility of setting boundaries during a scene should never be the responsibility of the top or bottom involved. Tops already have the responsibility of the physical safety of the bottom, and all of their attention should be focused on the bottom and on the tools they are using-whether it be a feather tickler or hot wax, or flogger, bull whip, needles, knifeplay…need I go on? Responsible people recognize this. This is why the rules are created in the first place. This is why DM are trained and on site. Specifically so that the Top’s concentration won’t be broken in a scene and physical damage result. So while 1st responsibility is on the House, and 2nd responsibility is on the DM, the next level of responsibility is on the spectator. They have a responsibility to understand rules and understand how to act like a responsible adult with functioning brain cells, not a randy 16 year old who faked his way in and was so distracted by the blood rushing to his dick that he couldn’t hear the rules he was told. Anyone who can’t handle that level of personal responsibility has no business being in such an establishment. Frankly, they have no business possessing a driver’s license or even a credit card. They should have stayed in mommy’s basement. quote: crumpets Having said that the "system" is often to blame, I have never said that the guy himself wasn't to blame (as for all I know, he's the type to enter even if there was a "keep out" sign. The system didn’t fail- an adult chose to override it. Systems and procedures are reliant on all on involved elements working in unison. In this system, it was the ‘should have stayed in mommy’s basement dude’ that broke it. All the proper steps can be in place and some domass still screw it up. Ut that is on them, not the system that has managed to keep everyone else at bay. quote: crumpets A. There is a system in place, but it only works on the reasonable or knowledgeable people. B. For the unreasonable or unknowledgeable people, we have a system of steadily escalating penalties. True. And a vanilla example of this is a system outlining the proper way to behave in the movie theater, maybe. A first offense may be nothing but talking too loud, so a complaint is made and the moviegoer is shushed. If they them decide to play games on their phone and the light distracts others, then they are again warned, either by other moviegoers or by management that they will be asked to leave. They then start loudly bitching about others bothering their movie experience-they have earned getting ejected, whether by patrons or by management. That’s steadily escalating penalties. Initial offenses held no negative effects for others, other than annoyance, so warnings are sufficient for the time being. But if that person, out of nowhere, jumps up and starts yelling at other patrons, cursing and shouting racist statements, threatening others, etc? That would be an immediate ejection, first offense or not. And deservedly so. Other people become afraid for their own safety, and their movie-going experience has been ruined. Extreme actions require extreme response. Behavior in a bdsm club? There are systems for that as well. In the dungeon and talking so loudly you may be distracting others? You are asked to be quiet. Get bored so you take your phone out and start gaming or god forbid, take pics? Warned to put it up or else you will be ejected. Grope a half-nude spectator standing net to you? Third strike and you are out. But if your first offense is to go up and non-sensually grope a person who does not even know who you are or why you are doing that? Sorry, that’s extreme. Tell the bottom that may be frightened of public play after that, that it wasn’t that big of a deal. Tell a bottom that is suddenly jerked out of subspace and is affected emotionally and mentally by the events that it is no big deal. Tell the bottom in a knife-play scene that was just sliced by the knife when your touch scared them and they flinched, jarring the Top whose hand then went astray. The dungeon that I attend? You would be lucky to come out of that with so much as a stump left at the end of your arm. And no, there are no velvet ropes, no tape lines, no designated space that people don’t enter without warning. Because they were warned when they entered the building and listened to the rules, and agreed to follow them. You know, common sense in an adult situation. If you can’t handle that, you have no business there. These are people who are proficient with knives, other blades, fire, whips, needles, etc. And you want to fuck with them? quote: crumpets I take redirection rather well, but I'm an extremely strong "P" type, while you're likely just as strong a "J", which makes us on opposite sides of the spectrum (neither is good nor bad - just different). Quit using your personality type as an excuse for bad behavior. The purpose of educating people about things like that is about better understanding of your behavior and others’ behavior when dealing with them, so that you may do so more effectively. It is not about being able to explain to others why your own inappropriate behavior should be overlooked. While you may be able to deliver factual information regarding Briggs-Meyers, the larger lesson of knowing how to use it was obviously lost on you. quote: crumpets The lurker was taking his chances with an "interaction" and, nobody here (not even me) says it was appropriate. Every time you say that, you are insulting the male gender by implying that males cannot control themselves when it comes to their dick. It is like you are saying that if you did something inappropriate, that you should not be held responsible for your actions because you are after all, just a man pushing his boundaries. Instead responsibility should be laid at the feet of all the people that failed to plan for your every move and your every action. The failure is theirs, because they failed to deal with you appropriately, not the fact that you just didn’t behave appropriately. I know of 2 males that I used to let get away with mentality a lot. The first was my ex-husband. Whom I divorced for it. The second was our offspring. When he was three. quote: crumpets But people play the lottery all the time, and some people actually win. That's all he was doing. And some people murder hoping to get away with it. Some people rape hoping to get away with it. Doesn’t mean they were any less wrong for doing it. Doesn’t mean their responsibility should be mitigated. quote: crumpets quote: Greta75 Even at a swinger club, strip club or whatever. A decent human being will ask permission before touching. Not really. Sure, it's apropos. It's polite. It's definite. But, let's take the case of dating in my college days. And, let's take the case of a certain girlfriend, whom I dated for two years thereafter, but, let's just take the case of the first or second date, just so that I can get my point across. No, lets not. Because we are not talking about dating and established interactions. We are not talking about anything related to that AT ALL. Any point you would make regarding these dates would not be applicable or even relevant to any element of this thread IN THE LEAST. quote: crumpets I know this. That's why "I" don't even go through the door of dungeons nowadays. Not worth the price of entry. Considering the things you have said on these forums, I seriously doubt that the price of entry is all that keeps you away from dungeons nowadays.

Wayward5oul -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 12:11:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Women never did what they said, so this bullshit about "asking for permission" sounds great; it really does. But it only works in a world that doesn't actually exist. No, all that means is that you suck at doing it.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 12:22:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Women never did what they said, so this bullshit about "asking for permission" sounds great; it really does. But it only works in a world that doesn't actually exist. No, all that means is that you suck at doing it. We keep telling him that but he keeps coming back with other ways to explain his despicable behaviour. He won't accept that it is just not on these days. Period.

LadyPact -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 1:18:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Aside from the fact that 'asking' is weak, there's a complete set of interactions inherent in such a request that the less intellectually gifted just aren't aware of. Wasn't sure which was the better quote to go with, so we'll start here. You're saying weak (though I'm sure you are referring to male/female het situations) BUT in a top/bottom BDSM play scenario, you ARE going to be asking and negotiating boundaries. You have to do a little more than "do you want to play" get an answer of yes and then not discuss anything further. You're not specifically dating this person or having a sexual relationship, so remove that. quote: Let's say you ask such a question. (Which, by the way, is stupid). She is patently aware that her response mediates the view that anyone in earshot would have of her. Perhaps it's just you, perhaps it's others as well. Regardless, her saying "yes" affects how she thinks about herself and how observers - including you - would think about her. Aside from the idea of other people overhearing what's going to happen during a scene not being terrible, the fact that this was a female bottom was inconsequential. Had the bottom been male, I'd have reacted the same way. quote: Remember, the question is not, "Do you want me to touch your ass?", it's "May I touch your ass?". And aside from being somewhat of a blunder from your standpoint (and thus less likely for her to want you to), it's loaded with all of these reputation risks should she say "Yes". Had one of the candles that had been lit come off and rolled, I might have had to touch her ass to avoid a burn. That's different than sexual contact. quote: Not quite. That can work, but it's crude. What you do is MOVE her bounds. And you achieve this through slow escalation. By making her comfortable with your touch (and believe me, if she likes you, she's wanting you to touch her and expecting you to), you gradually expand her comfort level with you and the level to which she'll want you to go. We agree on crude. The bottom in the scenario had never spoken to the guy before, either. There was no "if she likes him". The onlooker was not her date, her top, or anything else but a fellow attendee at a club. quote: The only women who actually require that are ugly feminists who really don't get the option. In fact, it's ugly feminists who have no sexual power who attempt to police the sex lives of attractive women who actually do. No. If the same thing happened to a male top, he probably wouldn't have let some strange guy that he didn't know from Adam touch the woman either. I'm pretty sure you don't let men grab your partner if you are out somewhere. I'd be shocked if you went to touch another person's companion on the ass if you were not the person she was with.

OsideGirl -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 1:20:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Common courtesy is fine. But unless its a leather or high protocol event, thats what people get. Beyond that, what about the people at that party that are only engaging in BDSM without D/s? A Top isn't necessarily a Dominant. A bottom isn't necessarily a submissive. Hell, I'm a submissive and I've been known to Top at parties. Placing generic labels on things doesn't work.

crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 5:00:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 You are playing by the WRONG rules!! Actually, I'm sorry I brought up the vanilla-dating dynamic, because, while the point that consent occurs in many forms (almost none of which are explicit), is still apropos, there is no way to flesh out the vanilla dating dynamic without skewing this thread into OT territory. This is simply because the vanilla dating consent dynamic doesn't make sense logically because the way people act in real life is (far) more complex than simple answers provide. An eminent psychologist will have to actually decipher why it is that people do what they do during the vanilla dating dynamic; so, I'm dropping out of the vanilla-dating dynamic portion of this discussion. We will now return to our regularly scheduled program...

LadyConstanze -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 5:15:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite LadyConstanze I can't blame you, but I think most cases, the guy just got in the way. In that situation, he certainly deserved it (and switching whips so you didn't risk cross-contamination was wise). Not just that, I also wanted the one that hurt more THERE and leave him with something to remember what not to do

LadyConstanze -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 6:34:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness You've got a window of opportunity and if you fail to touch her during that window... you're pretty much gonna be a 'friend' for the rest of time. Bingo! quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Asking her for permission is about as socially inept as you can get - and if she explicitly requires permission then you've got a feminist nutter on your hands Exactly. Asking for permission to touch would never work. I don't make the rules. I just play by them. Interestingly, truth be told, I'm a bit Aspy (shock and awe, I'm sure), so, I actually BELIEVED them, in my college days, to the point of I've had her FRIENDS tell me to hurry up and that I blew my chances quite a few times, even thought I had tried and been rebuffed a half dozen times. MY PROBLEM was that I gave up after the first half dozen or dozen rebuffs, but, that was me just not getting the social cues until her friend told me to keep trying (she actually put my hand on her friend's buns one time, just to keep me going 'cuz I had already given up). Women never did what they said, so this bullshit about "asking for permission" sounds great; it really does. But it only works in a world that doesn't actually exist. You are aware that you are talking to the nutcase who thinks feminism is the root of all evil because some girls beat him up in kindergarden? If you touch without permission, it's no different than the gay guy touching you, how would that make you feel? My guess as creeped out as we feel if a strange guy gropes us without permission. Look, you don't just grope somebody, no matter which sex, you touch an arm first and in a non-sexual way, if she flinches or removes her arm, it's pretty much an indicator that she doesn't want to be touched, just like if you lean in for a kiss, she turns her head away and you kiss her cheek, it means she doesn't want to kiss you. Unless you were raised in a barn, it's not difficult, girls do the same, we just seem to be a bit more adept at social clues, if we touch a guy casually and he leans away, it means he is not interested, simple. A woman who wants you will lean into your touch, just like a guy will if a woman touches him and he wants her to touch him

Greta75 -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 6:46:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Women never did what they said, so this bullshit about "asking for permission" sounds great; it really does. But it only works in a world that doesn't actually exist. crumpets, you are not awareness. while he talks tough in here, I am sure he has spider senses to not physically maul just any woman. He knows how to decipher signals. I think his giving you terrible advice. You should ask permission. And no woman would think badly of you if you ask politely. It's gentlemanly. And if she rejects you, it simply means, she's not into you! As simple as that!

crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 7:17:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze You are aware that you are talking to the nutcase who thinks feminism is the root of all evil because some girls beat him up in kindergarden? Oh. No. I'm sorry. I am only aware of about 3 or 4 posters (those whom I communicate with often within via the mail mechanism or by phone), and, pretty much, everyone else is only what they write in that one post to me that I respond to. But, nonetheless, I was out of line. I really am sorry for bringing up the childish vanilla dating dynamic. I really am. I said some stupid things, mostly borne out of frustration from days long past. Very long past. Very very very long past. I don't go thru the same issues nowadays, when I meet people as the entire dynamic is nothing like that which I dealt with in college days. People women are (far) more mature now. Plus, my goals aren't at all to get in the sack (who even cares anymore about that, having done it thousands of times already?). What matters is different now. But, that damn dating dynamic in high school & college days DID drive me crazy because it didn't mesh with any logic that made sense to me. However so, this is not an appropriate OT tangent to this thread anyway. So, again, I apologize. I overstepped my bounds. I overstepped even my own words and thoughts. I was a schmuck. (I am a schmuck?) So, I apologize for many of my words, and, well, I can't take 'em back, but, I hope folks understand that, sometimes, pretty sentences related to "consent" are great in theory, but in practice, the games (immature) people play make things far more complex (and confusing) than my words can adequately convey.

crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 7:26:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 crumpets, you are not awareness. ... He knows how to decipher signals. While I agree that I don't know how to decipher the myriad unspoken/unwritten 'signals', I get around that, nowadays, simply by curling up by a fire reading a book instead of going out to dungeons. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I think his giving you terrible advice. I think I should stick to reading my tome on the causes and effects of WWII, which I actually put down in order to shoot my foot off in this thread (silly me). BTW, did you know the persuasive arguments that Japan did NOT surrender due to the atomic bomb? quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 You should ask permission. And no woman would think badly of you if you ask politely. It's gentlemanly. To tell the truth, nowadays, I have absolutely no problem with figuring out male:female interactions with people who are in their forties and fifties that I converse with. What I wrote prior, harkened back to the heady days of my teens and twenties, where I couldn't figure out "girls" at all. I have lots and lots of sisters, by the way (Roman Catholic and all that), but the interaction with them was different than with asking a girl on a date and then taking her on a day. To be honest, I was pretty clumsy back then. Very clumsy then (and, well, probably still so, now). Reminds me of why I should get back to that book on the causes and effects of WWII, which is something that at least I can wrap my head around to figure out.

Greta75 -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 7:37:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I think I should stick to reading my tome on the causes and effects of WWII, which I actually put down in order to shoot my foot off in this thread (silly me). I actually believe that if you can find a woman into all the same geeky things that you are into, who is as intelligent as you in those areas, you could have a pretty cute love match. Time so consider surfing forums that involves your intellectual interests. quote: BTW, did you know the persuasive arguments that Japan did NOT surrender due to the atomic bomb? Where i came from, our British colonials, surrendered, ran away, and didn't do shit to protect us from the Japanese and abandon our country to them. After that, all our new borns got thrown in the sky and stabbed by swords in public, all our women got enslaved into sexual slavery. They cruelly killed the babies to break the women into prostitution. Our men were all bundled up and executed by mass firing. So to us, we definitely loved and applaud the Americans for bombing the Japanese. I am aware there is another version of history where there was the belief that it was completely unnecessary as Japanese were depleted of weapons and supplies and would have been defeated anyway. But I think bombing them sent a greater message! That was more effective. To this day, we have a prosperous and peaceful Japan, where I think it's one of many Western people's favourite place in the world to visit.

crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 7:41:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 We keep telling him that but he keeps coming back with other ways to explain his despicable behaviour. He won't accept that it is just not on these days. Period. It's a sad day that I have to apologize even to you, so, I must state that I overstepped my bounds. However, my "behavior" that you call despicable was not my physical behavior (as I'm always a gentleman to a fault, which, those here who have actually met me can attest to) - the behavior was in what I wrote. Most of what I wrote welled up from frustrations in my early and late teens, when I was 'figuring" out girls (I use the word "girls" here because of the innate immaturity that I was dealing with, as a "boy" interacting with "girls". Nowadays, my interactions with women are almost completely on the cerebral level. So, I apologize that my ancient frustrations, being an immature "boy" trying to understanding immature "girls'" behavior welled up in my previous posts. I still think immature boys and immature girls act immaturely, but, that's not something that really adds any value to this discussion, so, I'm gonna try to shuddup' now.

Wayward5oul -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 7:48:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze You are aware that you are talking to the nutcase who thinks feminism is the root of all evil because some girls beat him up in kindergarden? Oh. No. I'm sorry. I am only aware of about 3 or 4 posters (those whom I communicate with often within via the mail mechanism or by phone), and, pretty much, everyone else is only what they write in that one post to me that I respond to. Let me suggest that you make it a goal to familiarize yourself with some regular posters more. Interacting with people on these boards is much more helpful if you have an awareness of the people you are exchanging messages with. I am not saying that you should start trying to get too personal with people-please don't. But I like to think I have a feel for a lot of people on the board, based solely on their postings. I can count on two hands the number of times I have exchanged private messages with forum posters in all the time I have been here. Not the number of people, but the number of actual messages. So my observations are based entirely from their public posts. Considering that you have Asperger's, it would take more effort on your part, but it can be done. And this would be a much more pleasant and rewarding site for you. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I really am sorry for bringing up the childish vanilla dating dynamic. I really am. I said some stupid things, mostly borne out of frustration from days long past. Very long past. Very very very long past. Some of the things that you said that were out of line had to do with comments regarding the play party as well. I truly hope you realize that. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets What matters is different now. But, that damn dating dynamic in high school & college days DID drive me crazy because it didn't mesh with any logic that made sense to me. However so, this is not an appropriate OT tangent to this thread anyway. My social skills are fine, yet I hated the whole dating scene in high school as well. The pretense, awkwardness, people trying to be what they thought others wanted, juvenile minds in raging hormonal bodies--the absurdity of it all drove me away from that very early on. Funny thing is, turned out to be one of the best times of my life, because of that. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets So, again, I apologize. I overstepped my bounds. I overstepped even my own words and thoughts. I was a schmuck. (I am a schmuck?) See, now you are just baiting us.[:D]

crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 8:51:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 if you can find a woman into all the same geeky things that you are into, who is as intelligent as you in those areas, you could have a pretty cute love match. All my current interactions with prospective ladies are on that upper-atmosphere cerebral level. Some of the best are with women a couple of thousand miles away, so, it's only on the level where we communicate electromagnetically. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Time so consider surfing forums that involves your intellectual interests. There's a time-honored truism on many of the deeply technical venues that I frequent which is that the active part of the Internet is composed only of men, and of men who pose as women. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 our British colonials, surrendered, ran away, and didn't do shit to protect us from the Japanese I don't know where you're from (I didn't look), but, I must agree that in many British & Dutch & French colonies (e.g., what is now Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.) the colonial powers didn't adequately protect their subjects. In fact, I am utterly appalled at Percival's unconscionable and almost inexplicably premature surrender to the vastly underwhelming forces of Yamashita. At least the self-serving MacArthur had Wainright fight until the supplies ran out, and, Vandergrift soundly kicked Hyakutake's butt where the forces splayed against each other were split roughly equally most of the time (disasters suffered by Nimitz at the hands of Tanaka notwithstanding). In short, the British were, for the most part, deplorable in their defense of their colonies (Burma being included). quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 all our new borns got thrown in the sky and stabbed by swords in public, I know too much about what the Japanese did to ever be able to understand them. In fact, when I last was in Japan, I was appalled at what I read when I asked to see some history books. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 hey cruelly killed the babies to break the women into prostitution. I have studied why the Japanese did what they did, and, I think I understand their strategic actions, but what they did tactically to the subject peoples was utterly appalling, and by no means did their actions lead to what they euphemistically referred to as the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". In tactical practice, nobody was more racist than the Japanese. Nobody. Only in reading Winston Churchill's autobiography was I even able to even understand their strategic intent, of which they stood zero chance of achieving by the tactics that they chose to employ (which makes understanding their intent all the more perplexing). Even so, despite years of study, I think understanding the causes and effects of WWII are EASIER than understanding the incomprehensibly illogical dating dynamics of teens-and-twenties girls and boys, at least when I went thru that phase. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Our men were all bundled up and executed by mass firing. So to us, we definitely loved and applaud the Americans for bombing the Japanese. yeah but. We destroyed the 68th city of Japan with a single bomb (if I remember the number correctly). There were 67 cities destroyed before that, and there were still another 40 on the upcoming list for conventional incendiary storms. The rain of ruin from the air the likes of which have never before been seen in the history of mankind had ALREADY occurred (think Tokyo firestorm, if you wanna get a perspective on that). The Japanense knew they had lost the war, but, in keeping with their initial strategic intent, they needed bargaining power to end it somewhat on their terms. They were using the Russians as intermediaries, but unbeknownst to them, the Russians had planned on invading at exactly 3 months to the day from the surrender in Berlin (as previously promised to the Allies). The moment the Russians invaded, the Japanese knew the gig was up that their strategic intent was blown to bits. There was no way of negotiating for better terms once the Russians got involved (the old enemy-of-my-enemy thing wouldn't work anymore when the Russians joined in on our side on the attack in Asia). But, of course, the Japanese had been misinforming their people all along, so, the "bomb" was a convenient "excuse" for what really was an instant strategic fail the moment the Russians crossed the line in Manchuria. I have read the war records of their meetings at the time of this attack, and it caused them the utmost anxiety. Not the bomb. Losing an entire city was so common by then in Japan that Hiroshima was nearly meaningless, strategically, to them. Nagasaki was even less meaningful. What was meaningful is that their entire strategic plan fell apart the moment the Russian boot crossed into Manchuria. The "bomb" was a (very) convenient excuse. Nothing more influential than that. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I am aware there is another version of history where there was the belief that it was completely unnecessary as Japanese were depleted of weapons and supplies and would have been defeated anyway. Actually, absolutely nobody, not even the Japanese, denies that. The greatest weapon, bar none, the US ever wielded against Japan was the US submarine fleet. (Likewise, the German submarine fleet was Winston Churchill's greatest threat - and he says so in his autobiography.) Island nations have a great weakness, which is revealed when you defeat their navy (or, as the case may be, when you deplete their naval aircraft of its pilots, which Japan utterly failed to replenish, and, which was therefore THE major factor in their naval defeat). quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 But I think bombing them sent a greater message! Heh heh ... Americans especially would love to believe that the "bomb" caused Japan to surrender. it didn't. Japan lost the war in 1943. Certainly by 1944 all they could do is wring out a strategic compromise. Losing cities to bombs was a fait accompli by 1945. What's the difference between the Tokyo firestorm and the partial destruction of Nagasaki? It has been proven that the ruling elite only were given reports of PERCENTAGES of each city destroyed. They knew they were powerless to stop the destruction. They didn't care. All they cared about was their strategic plan (the Japanese are not known for changing plans easily). And their strategic plan went to hell the moment a Russian boot stepped into Manchuria. Funny ... but this tactical/strategic WWII stuff is easier to comprehend than the motives of common dating behavior, but, only because we presume logic is in play. quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 That was more effective. To this day, we have a prosperous and peaceful Japan, where I think it's one of many Western people's favorite place in the world to visit. I had a very long discussion recently on WHY the hostile occupation of both Japan and Germany turned out so well, as compared to, say, a similar "occupation" of Iraq or Afghanistan, where, we concluded, tentatively anyway, that the difference was COMMON EXTERIOR forces, such as the Russians, were the real enemy of both Japan and Germany, while NOT COMMON INTERIOR FORCES are the current enemy of a stable Iraq and Afghanistan. However easy (by way of comparison) is it to understand the causes and effects of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to understanding the common dating dynamic, we must dutifully, if belatedly, return our viewers to their regularly scheduled program!

Andalusite -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 9:08:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul Some of the things that you said that were out of line had to do with comments regarding the play party as well. I truly hope you realize that. Precisely, and they're out of line in exactly the same spirit. Pushing boundaries whenever they can is inappropriate whether it is vanilla or BDSM-oriented interactions. quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets What matters is different now. But, that damn dating dynamic in high school & college days DID drive me crazy because it didn't mesh with any logic that made sense to me. However so, this is not an appropriate OT tangent to this thread anyway. My social skills are fine, yet I hated the whole dating scene in high school as well. The pretense, awkwardness, people trying to be what they thought others wanted, juvenile minds in raging hormonal bodies--the absurdity of it all drove me away from that very early on. Funny thing is, turned out to be one of the best times of my life, because of that. High school and even college dating are tough for lots of people, of both genders. I agree that some people are immature and unintentionally hurt or confuse each other. As to the logic part, see below. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets So, again, I apologize. I overstepped my bounds. I overstepped even my own words and thoughts. I was a schmuck. (I am a schmuck?) It comes across to me like you are overanalysing it on a logical basis, but that you still have a struggle with understanding that some of your hypotheticals are actively hurtful to people, and strongly imply that you plan to push boundaries whenever you think you can get away with it, and that you think that is reasonable/justifiable behaviour in other people. I hadn't had that impression of you before this thread, and really thought better of you. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Funny ... but this tactical/strategic WWII stuff is easier to comprehend than the motives of common dating behavior, but, only because we presume logic is in play. Expecting emotions to be logical and rational is illogical and irrational. [;)] I dated someone (before I got involved in BDSM) who had Aspergers (diagnosed while a child). You seem to share a lot of the thinking/approaches to relationships that he had. People with Aspergers or other neuro-atypical spectrum diagnoses need to be especially careful of consent, since they frequently have trouble reading body language. On the flip side, they seem to often struggle with knowing when people are interested.

Andalusite -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 9:14:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite LadyConstanze I can't blame you, but I think most cases, the guy just got in the way. In that situation, he certainly deserved it (and switching whips so you didn't risk cross-contamination was wise). Not just that, I also wanted the one that hurt more THERE and leave him with something to remember what not to do Welll....tbh it might have encouraged him instead, depending on just how masochistic he was!

crumpets -> RE: So, maybe I could have been more diplomatic (1/16/2016 9:32:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze If you touch without permission, it's no different than the gay guy touching you, how would that make you feel? The problem with answering that question is that this "permission" thing is cloudy in certain circumstances. When I was in the PE (we're talking a decade or more ago, by the way), the gay men were hounding me, inches away at all times, no matter how quickly I turned left, and right amongst those cubicles to get away from them. I had only gone up to that floor to see what was there (it was an exploration), but the whole time I was there (probably only a few minutes, in toto), I was trying to get AWAY from them so that I could accomplish my scouting mission. I wasn't able to complete my mission, and I got the heck out of there, to the relative safety of the heterosexual area, where, instantly, nobody paid me a second notice. Whew! Saved at last. I've been on Fire Island, when I was young and handsome, and there too, the gays hounded me. Likewise, when I first visited California, 30 or so years ago, I stopped at the first "Vista Point" on 280 South below the 380 interchange near the San Francisco Airport and the gay men in cars ogled me like I was a piece of meat at the turnout at the end of the access road (there is no vista, by the way, which is ironic). Feeling uncomfortable (and realizing the promised vista didn't exist anyway), I drove the rental car away from all the gay men sitting in the culdesac (why they all look for "fresh" meat is still beyond me, for the most part, since there were plenty there that could have gotten it on with each other such that they didn't have to bother with me), and then I stopped at the midway parking spot, to see where the trail went that was at that midway point. I walked down a maintained trail, which curved to the right, and then, about at the apex of that curve, since I'm an expert woodsman, I easily noticed a worn unofficial side path, which I took, being that I was on an exploratory mission ... and, almost immediately, I saw the tell-take cues of crumpled toilet paper and discarded underwear and trash that is so obviously a common trait at most of these areas of bedded down underbrush (they all look the same, after a while). Instantly realizing the common markings of relatively recent male-on-male sexual activities, I abruptly turned around. YIKES! WTF? There was a retinue of gay men strung out, maybe two of them or maybe three or four (not more, but not less) who had FOLLOWED me down the trail, and off into the side path, one of whom was basically only about fifteen feet behind me, the rest of which were strung out at something like fifty-foot intervals which extended back onto the main path. I was not comfortable at all. It wasn't like I thought I would have been accosted. It's just that they perceived signals that I definitely didn't provide. They were guessing, of course. They were hoping, for sure. But, they were dead wrong, as, well, I harbor a lot of anger over gay men, so, one would never be able to touch me and get away with it. Given my circumstances, I would, in fact, probably react far more aggressively protecting my ass from them than LP did, in her protection of her sub's ass as noted in the OP. But, my point was that it was highly uncomfortable. It was like. Shit. You can't even walk down a damn trail without some guy thinking he's gonna get fresh meat out of your hide. (I have since learned that almost all rest stops are gross and disgusting places of the same ilk - so I simply avoid them all - like I'd avoid the plague.) quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze you touch an arm first and in a non-sexual way, if she flinches or removes her arm, it's pretty much an indicator that she doesn't want to be touched, just like if you lean in for a kiss, she turns her head away and you kiss her cheek, it means she doesn't want to kiss you. I was trying to get that idea across, which is that you don't normally explicitly bring a written consent form with you everywhere you go, but that there are myriad social cues which take the place of written consent forms in day-to-day dating interactions. Luckily, you already knew it, but some people here don't seem to understand that literally "asking" isn't ever gonna (realistically) happen, at least not in the days were were in our teens and twenties. (It might work now, that we communicate differently and that we're more sexually mature, one might hope.) quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Unless you were raised in a barn, it's not difficult, Here's where I might beg to differ with you that it's not difficult. Personally, I find navigating at night by compass and moonlight in chaparral through ravines and mountains easier to figure out than where a twenty-something woman's headspace lies at any one moment (when I was also at that same age). Women never made sense to me. Everything else (eventually) does make sense (for the most part), when I try to figure it out. But not women. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze girls do the same, we just seem to be a bit more adept at social clues, While I don't ever disagree that women are fantastic at social cues (e.g., I won't tell you the number of times I'm informed, even here, of things that are going on, by people I've never met, but who pop in to warn me that I'm on thin ice), and i won't disagree that I suck at social cues ... I will say that I have TRIED to figure out women, and I have concluded they can't be figured out the way you figure other things out. I mean, I know how my pool chemistry and equipment works, even though it has a fancy supposedly automatic cleaning system that requires constant maintenance like my German car does, and I know intimately how engines work and of electromagnets and physics and even geology, etc., but I just can't figure out how women work when it comes to this thing called "dating" (particularly, I must constantly repeat - when I was in my teens and twenties). At this point, I've pretty much given up on vanilla "dating", and I still have rewarding experiences with friends, but, I think that women aren't as straightforwardly obvious as you might tend to be portraying them to be. They're enigmatic. And unpredictable. At least to me they seem to be. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze if we touch a guy casually and he leans away, it means he is not interested, simple. Guys give straightforward "signals", so, that's easy. Try it the other way around if you wanna find something challenging to do. I know nobody ever is confused about my intentions when I'm with them (I'm so easy that way). (Coy finesse isn't my strength.) quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze A woman who wants you will lean into your touch, just like a guy will if a woman touches him and he wants her to touch him If I want someone, I tell them that I like them and then I tell them what I'd like to do with them (e.g., go to a movie or get coffee or go on a picnic or kiss, etc.). But I work logically. So I'm easy to figure out. I think most men are easy to figure out (although, I will admit that I never 'dated' a man and I never will). I have dated women. I have never once figured 'em out. Now back to my book on the causes and effects of WWII, which is vastly easier to figure out.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625