RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation?

RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Submissive

Message

lilsubl -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 5:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: What's the point of NOT giving Susan his name 2 days out? I think he used the excuse of not disclosing his information to force a change of plans. It's all speculation. I still think it's ridiculous that we have to give advice that consists of don't fly off to an unknown person without knowing their information. To me it's common sense. When did the lifestyle become an excuse to abandon common sense? To me that is the larger issue. well, of course it seems "ridiculous" to those of us who know better, but not everyone does, so it never hurts to say the obvious...sometimes, even knowing better, some of us will exercise bad judgement & i don't think it has all that much to do with the bdsm lifestyle...i think it has more to do with meeting folks through the internet.....

SusanofO -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 5:40:10 PM)
I don't think it's all that uncommon for some folks to not ask for ID, at least locally. I've heard of it. I am not saying I'd do it (I probably wouldn't. Maybe. It would depend.) - but, it's not like it never happens. Actually, I do have some reliable sane folks I can rely on here to e-mail for sane advice. I am sort of a message board junkie, and spend a fair amount of time reading threads. And I did figure this whole episode might help somebody. It does go against reason to not insist on ID upfront, from the get-go, but it's not all that hard for me to believe someone else could get so wowed by someone they'd almost ignore common sense. Some folks would argue even letting somebody else tie you up and whip you, for instance, goes against reason, in and of itself. I mean, let's face it, that certainly isn't considered an everyday occurrence by many folks, either, getting tied up and spanked, whipped, etc., hehe. If it can happen to me, it can happen to somebody else, too. I am the bad example your mother warned you about. [;)][:D] Just kiddin'. I love you guys, you know I do. - Susan

angelic -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 5:48:03 PM)
There are some (i am one) that at one time or another just went on blind faith, i.e. the first meet was a hotel or his home. No, i am not saying this should be done, but sometimes it works, sometimes it does not and yes it is a very dangerous thing to do. i think it depends on how much risk one wants to take. Would i do it now? Absofuckinglutely not. Nor would i recommend ever that someone else do the same. Susan, i may be wrong, but i have gotten the impression that you are still undecided about going. The thing is (imo), what you have to weigh is if you do not go, can you live with the 'not knowing for sure'? Or will it eat at you?

lovingcouple17 -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 5:49:59 PM)
i met my Dom/Husband on the "net"...however, before i even thought of meeting Him i had his full name, address, home phone number, cell #, pager #, his place of business and his work #...He was still married at the time and i still knew i could contact Him day or night...and if i had outed Him...it would also have been a disaster... The first time He asked me to fly to Texas i knew His family, their names, etc....so...in a word...i don't care if He's the president of the United States...if He wants you to visit Him, you need some assurances He won't slit your throat...also...do you have your safe calls all planned? How will they know where to call you? and what to do if you don't answer????? Where will they tell the cops to go if they suspect you're in danger? smiles....softly...i had all those set up...for my 1st, 2nd and 3rd trip to Texas.... hugs...be safe, sane....sebrina

SusanofO -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 5:59:47 PM)
I am going to try to maybe find out if he'll agree to give me ID. I am still thinking that over, because I still think it's weird he said no in the first place. If he gave it to me before I left, than I wouldn't have a problem with going. But I am definitely not going to a town where I know nobody, w/no verfiable ID, no. I did have one safe call lined up, and if I'd decide to go, I'd have two lined up, instead. Locally, if it was somebody Id met and talked to a lot, for hours on end, at munches, etc., or met for coffee a few times, probably I'd have a much, much easier time with it. But I've never even seen this person, so no, unless I get ID. - Susan

Celeste43 -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 5:59:54 PM)
If there's anything worth doing in his area I would take the vacation anyway. But I would tell him I had changed my mind. I would find someplace different to stay. And then I would go out and enjoy myself.

SusanofO -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 6:01:29 PM)
I am thinking of doing that, too. - Susan

juliaoceania -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 6:40:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I am going to try to maybe find out if he'll agree to give me ID. I am still thinking that over, because I still think it's weird he said no in the first place. If he gave it to me before I left, than I wouldn't have a problem with going. But I am definitely not going to a town where I know nobody, w/no verfiable ID, no. I did have one safe call lined up, and if I'd decide to go, I'd have two lined up, instead. Locally, if it was somebody Id met and talked to a lot, for hours on end, at munches, etc., or met for coffee a few times, probably I'd have a much, much easier time with it. But I've never even seen this person, so no, unless I get ID. - Susan Here would be my compromise if it were me. He could date me in Omaha at the police station, and he could show them his ID and you could show them your ID, and if someone comes up missing a safecall person could be the one that calls the police and files a missing person report and they would know exactly where to look. This way he remains anonymous, you remain safe, and he has no excuses. If you are important to him, why doesn't he come to you? Why should you be the one to be put out for him? What is he willing to do to make this happen? He has not done anything from what you have related here. He is the cagey one, he should work out the solution if he really wants to meet you. In my view of things I would not want a one-sided relationship. I have been to that rodeo, and I have no intention of playing that game again. I know you do not want to feel obligated, but the economic burden of making this happen should have been split between you. If he decides he wants to meet you after this, he should assume the burden because he was the one that could not compromise in a way that would help you feel safe. It sounds as if you are attached, and you need him more than he needs you. He is asking you to compromise more than a position, he is asking you to compromise yourself . No one should compromise themselves, and that goes double for a relationship that is not a relationship yet. I could be wrong, but if I were in this situation the onus would be completely his to fix what has went wrong. If he did not want to do that I would consider myself lucky to know how little meeting me meant to him, because if you do not mean much before he gets your submission, it is doubtful that he would esteem you more for offering it up after the fact. Or maybe I am just old fashioned in thinking that men move heaven and hell when they want something. Listen to those lyrics "When a Man Loves a Woman".. they have some truth to them Susan. Why settle for any less than that?

SusanofO -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 6:58:00 PM)
juliaoceania: You are right. I know you are. This really has been a little one-sided. I offerred to go to him because I don't have a job right now, and he is working. He did offer to split costs; I didn't take him up on that because I was afraid I would end up feeling "obligated" somehow if things did not go well. Maybe he'd have come here if I'd asked, but by last Thursday (or whenever it was) that I asked for the ID and he didn't give it to me, and even seemed miffed I'd asked, I was just so ticked off, I didn't offer, I just said: "Don't contact me anymore, okay?" I was sort of thinking I said that maybe in the heat of the moment, and if he had a chance to maybe make it right, he would. But of course, if his position is that he's been right from the start (and it is), then he's not gonna do that. I mean, people have a right to do whatever the heck they wanna do, and to insist on whatever they want. By the same token, I too, have a right say, "No way." IMO, if he really wanted to "compromise" he'd have done it. This just let me know he considers his needs more important, right from the out-set. That the submissive one should be in "serve" mode is fine with me, and pretty much a "given" but not, you are right, when they are compromising things like fearing for basic possible safety. He knows that, if he's thoroughly thought it over. He's a very intelligent guy. He must have his reasons (he's told me a few), and they probably seem very sensible to him. Maybe if I were him, they'd seem really reasonable, too. I am not saying he is a monster. But he's not exactly giving me the opportunity to9 verify he's not. Plus, I am not him. I am me. You know juliaoceania, this makes me think of a conversation I had today with a woman who is studying to be a Presbyterian. This is not meant to start any anti-particular religion thread aside, or anything (I couldn't care less what religion anyone is, of if they even have one) but - The minister was teaching her the theory of "predesitination" - that religion believes that people have "pre-destined" lives, and end-routes for their souls, etc. and that they just play out their "predestined" roles while here on Earth; that people really are "pre-destined", even before they are born, for either heaven or hell, and that not much they do while they are on Earth is ever really going to influence where they go after they die (heaven or hell). That whole idea really sounds a little depressing to me, but anyway, on with the thought... Even though she will probably still become a Presbyterian, my friend just couldn't really get herself to believe all of this "pre-destination" theory. She couldn't get her head around it (I can't blame her, either, IMO, no offense to any Presbyterians out there) but anyway - she turned to the minister and asked: "But Dr. So-and-so, can you answer a question for me? **How is it even possible for you to tell me what I think?" It s a philosphical question, too. I mean - sure, it is possible to tell another person what you think they should think, maybe. But - that wasn't what she meant. See what I mean? She was really asking: How could you possibly ever be inside another's head and know what they are thinking? And therefore whether it is "bad" or "good"? You can't. I don't know what anyone's motives are, all anyone can do is go on what they think they see (part of that being verifiable ID info). How can a Dominant, (or anyone, for that matter) really tell me (or anyone else) what I think? (and therefore, whether I'd ever be destined for heaven or hell, before I was ever born, etc.? Or that what I thought (or asked for) was just not making sense? Or that it meant I was just not "good enough", or something? I suppose he could turn that notion around, to work for himself, too, just as easily (although it certainly makes more sense to me, from my perspective). Anyone who reads this, if they are a male Dominant, could read that comment and see big giant red-flag:, as far as my possibly being "cooperative" as in "Whoah! she is not all submissive" signs going off (I think I am a Switch, btw). But I think the notion applies, even if one is completely a submissive, too. I really do. I thought it was kind of interesting, as a question. And I am probably going waaaay off on a tangent here, and being unclear, to top it off. Bottom-line: I just don't think he can tell me I'm wrong to want this, no matter what his reasons are, really. - Susan

juliaoceania -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 7:33:41 PM)
quote: That the submissive one should be in "serve" mode is fine with me, and pretty much a "given" but not, you are right, when they are compromising things like fearing for basic possible safety. But is it necessarily a "given"? I mean what if he is nothing like you thought he would be? How can you be submissive to someone that you are not allowed to look at? Personally I need that connection at the very start, look into someone's eyes and see who they are. It was not a given that I would be submissive to Sinergy. Not in his mind, and not in mine. It seemed like a given as soon as we met, but not before that. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "its a given". Sinergy and I talked for almost as long as the two of you have before we physically met too. quote: He's a very intelligent guy. He must have his reasons (he's told me a few), and they probably seem very sensible to him. Maybe if I were him, they'd seem really reasonable, too. But I am not him. I am me. Perhaps the reasons he gave you are good in his mind, perhaps he is making the reasons up because he does not want you to know the real reason. I do not think it matters at this point. I think what matters is that when we do set a boundary and we stand up for ourselves it creates a different energy about us. This is something that you never have to experience again because part of the lesson is this: It is ok to set boundaries and to demand that those you have in your life treat you with the same respect they expect others to show them. It is not mean to demand that. It is fine if someone does not want to treat you the way that you want, but you do not have to accept them in your life. I can say that the universe offers up the opportunities to learn certain lessons, and once we learn them we move on to the next lesson. You are not being mean to expect to be treated in a way that will engender feelings of safety, being cared for, and needed. If someone is incapable about providing that, someone else will come along that can.

juliaoceania -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 7:46:46 PM)
quote: Bottom-line: I just don't think he can tell me I'm wrong to want this, no matter what his reasons are, really. - Susan He can think you are wrong, but it does not matter what he thinks as long as you are strong within yourself. Right or wrong do not come into it in my mind. He wants one thing, you want another... it seems a very basic issue of finding a place where compromise is impossible. To be honest, I think this is one of the deal breaker situations. Number one deal breaker for me with someone, I do not feel as though my safety means much to them. If I feel that way how could I possibly allow them to do the things that my dominant is given the right to do to me? How can I trust him to tie me up correctly, not endanger me? Make sure I am ok? If he is not even willing to compromise in the slightest to make me feel safe that is a deal breaker. It is more of a deal breaker than smoking, and smoking makes the short list of deal breakers for me. There are certain things that cannot be compromised for a dominant, my safety is number one on the list.

SusanofO -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 7:52:48 PM)
I really appreciate your posts, juliaoceania. I am the kind of person who can tend to feel "guilty" for stuff that shouldn't necessarily feel "guilt-provoking". I have tended to give people what they want much of the time, and tell them what they need to hear (or what I think they need to hear, anyway). Sometimes, just to avoid an argument. It isn't that he can't think I'm wrong - it's that it isn't going to matter, this time, if it compromises my basic need for safety. This has been a good lesson for me. I have been, at times, willing to compromise in some situations where I probably shouldn't have been. I think maybe some life lessons come along when a person needs to learn them - and moreover, is ready to learn them. I maybe should have learned this one in a few other situations - but this time, I am not budging. This time, I am paying attention to myself. Thanks for your comments. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/10/2007 8:00:40 PM)
Well, I feel a whole lot less upset, and a lot more relaxed about it all, than I did two days ago. All I can say is thanks. Hope everyone has a good evening. - Susan

Jobsdone -> RE: Please help me - Re: Non-disclosure; understandable? Or manipulation? (3/28/2007 2:03:56 PM)
Silly girl. If all was well or you didn"t have your doubts you would not have invited U/us into your decision making process. For the upteenth time go with your instincts. Hell...fly there and tell him you're there but you're playing with someone else. Tell'em you may catch him later when he's come to his senses.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 11 [12]

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

3.515625E-02