|
losttreasure -> RE: Letting go...online (9/3/2006 8:58:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bearlee
When I say ‘let go’, I didn’t mean to give in and start cybering (necessarily), what I meant is he may have a valid point when he grouses at my regularly saying “…if all proves well…” and “…if we click…”. Perhaps it is MY method of slowing things down…or perhaps it is my method of showing distrust. I would prefer to trust people. My questions are about letting go and just trusting (as far as chatting online, I mean).
Hi Bearlee. I had wanted to respond to this thread yesterday, but got caught up in reading the chat logs from when FHky and I first started talking, and then didn't have the time. For a couple of reasons, I'm glad that I didn't respond then; by reading everything that has been said so far, I have a better idea of where you are coming from. Of course, I also just enjoyed the heck out of "reliving" mine and FHky's first communications.
To address the issue you've clarified above, I'd say that you definitely need to decide exactly why it is that you do use phrases like those and take a long look at how often you use them. I can understand the desire to keep things real and in perspective; it's nearly the very first thing that FHky and I talked about. However, there comes a point when stating the obvious becomes not only unnecessary, but starts to become annoying and counter productive. It's hard to stoke the flames of interest when someone keeps dousing the sparks.
We've all experienced the rush of excitement that comes from talking to someone new, and suffered the disappointment when things don't work out how we'd like. Noone likes to be compared to previous failures, though we all know deep down that our interactions are forever tainted by prior experiences. When qualifiers such as, "...if all proves well..." and "...if we click..." are used, it is a reminder that we are being measured against the past. In the early stages of trying to establish rapport, it serves to inject a certain amount of negativism, and indeed can quash an otherwise tentative association.
I'm certainly not against ensuring that all parties are on the same page with regard to communicating in a realistic manner. As I said, it was one of the first things that FHky and I solidified. But, once that understanding is reached, use of those kinds of qualifiers should be very sparing and only when absolutely necessary to bring things back down to earth. Otherwise, you're beating the other person over the head sounding as if you either feel they aren't competent to recognize that the certainty of your relationship hinges on future personal interaction, or that you simply want to rub their nose into the fact that you do not trust them.
I can't really add anything to the question of when to share things of an intimate nature. I believe it is a completely individual thing and depends upon the character of the relationship. Personally, I don't "do" cyber sex or cyber submission, and thankfully FHky isn't interested in those either. That doesn't mean that we've not discussed both our sexual desires and expectations, and those for a D/s relationship. In fact, that happened very quickly during the course of our initial getting to know each other. Let's face it, D/s may not be all about sex, but it plays a large part the same as it would in any romantic relationship. As important as it was to determine if we were philosophically, politically, and religiously compatible, it was just as important to discover if we shared similar sexual ideals, desires, and experiences.
Was it "masturbatory material"?
*laughs* Well, I'd be more than a little dismayed if, in the course of considering his sexual desires and contemplating how they would work with me, I didn't get physically aroused. I'd be equally disappointed if thoughts of me didn't arouse him, too.
|
|
|
|
