undergroundsea
Posts: 2400
Joined: 6/27/2004 From: Austin, TX Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mp072004 I don't care what the activity is, because the activity isn't the issue--fidelity is. I get the sense from your last paragraph of your first post that this is an activity to which he had agreed, knowingly and explicitly. You and he made some kind of conscious covenant dictating that should you ask him to do this disgusting activity, he would do it. In my opinion, there is not enough information to know whether the matter is one of integrity, and the information to make that call lies with the OP. I think there are scenarios that allow a different verdict: (1) a general agreement was made without realizing that this specific could occur, or (2) an agreement was made in good faith thinking it could be executed but when the time came, one found himself unable to continue. Let's suppose a friend calls and asks if I will help move a couch. I agree but arrive to find the couch to be made of cast iron which I am unable to move. Not being able to move the couch as I agreed does not make it a question of integrity but one of a boundary. In this example, the boundary is a physical one. In the one of the OP, the boundary might be a mental one. While the scenarios are not perfect parallels, they rely upon a common principle: inability to continue with an agreement because it is later found to run against a boundary. I sense from the last paragraph of the OP that the specific activity was not discussed and instead what was discussed was that there would be no limits. In my opinion, no limits is very broad, and different people have different ideas of what no-limits means. In my opinion, a true no-limits scenario is unlikely or rare. I think no-limits defines a general guideline that does indeed have some limits--although very few and some of which may simply rely on trust that they will not be broached--which will vary from person to person. Suppose we imagine another relationship that has no limits and the top asks the bottom to kill another in a way that is certain to allow the bottom to walk away without repercussions. In my opinion, a refusal to comply and leave is what should occur and, in absence of any consequences, this refusal has its roots in an emotional boundary. The points I wish to convey are that: (1) emotional boundaries matter and are different for different people, and (2) that an agreement made without specifics can bring complications. quote:
Whether he made this agreement because he was aroused and wasn't thinking very clearly is immaterial I think it is relevant whether the agreement was made while he was aroused and thinking unclearly, for I think it is not a good idea to rely on agreements made when one is not thinking clearly. For this reason, I would not think it to be a good idea to negotiate about limits after a round of shots ;-) I understand entirely that it could become frustrating if multiple agreements were later rescinded with a claim of thinking unclearly. I think what is most relevant here is intent and attitude, which I think is defined by overall presence than by one matter alone. If he seems to otherwise have a good attitude, and it seems he is trying to respond to the no-limits scenario, I think this incident is not a deal breaker. If there is a pattern of of negative behavior, that is another matter. My two cents. Cheers, Sea
|