inyouagain
Posts: 427
Joined: 1/6/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EStrict For the life of me, I am wondering what I am missing. Why does everyone seem to be overreacting? She said he gets angry when asked for personal info, not that he is violent. For that matter, when he gets angry, he IGNORES her, not stalks her. What's the difference between angry and violent (specifically with regards to requesting personal info from an intimate partner)? IMHO, neither anger nor violence are redundant, predictable, coercive traits of a repectable lifestyle Dominant. Especially with regard to personal information, and when the Dominant has acquired a vast knowledge, to include 'vulnerable info/data' (could include pics?), phone number, and who knows what else from the sub. The way I saw it, the relationship had to be at least 'weeks old'. During the relationship, information exchange was obviously only 'sucked' upwards, and when info was requested downwards it encited anger from above. IMHO, I also saw signs of co-dependency and starvation for attention, as I could not envision how a sub could submit themselves fully to a 'faceless & placeless' Dom. My "boogerman spectrum" response was to her single naive question (which I quoted), of wondering "if he was married or had a gf". Her attention and awareness were romantic, and not realistic. She was trying to justify her faceless & placeless Dom's actions of anger... in a foolish romantic notion rather than in a human survival notion. Notice she did not ever ask if her faceless & placeless Dom may be a bogus Dom, hell no... she's sold on his validity, and has opened herself way way up to him... without the benefit of even knowing what he looks like. Perhaps you and others missed the level of her involvement, or lack of control that was evident in her post... just look at the title "aching to be released!" If this in fact was a sincere post, there was plenty of evidence provided to make observations of a sub in trouble, to which the biggest problem was realizations about herself she has not yet made. What does one do, throw benefit of doubt to this post being a joke? quote:
My advice is you flat out say: This lifestyle is about trust. For it to work, you must feel you can be open and honest in everything, and communication is a MUST. I am sorry, but I do not feel you are being open with me, so I feel it would be better if we both look elsewhere. I wish you well in your search. There is NO reason to *assume* the man will do anything other than go away. Stop making people paranoid to end things :) How could she get a word in edgewise, without his anger and 'isolation' mind control? Your advice seems to be based on a 'new meeting or acquaintance', not on her described situation of an existing "co-called relationship" in which she has already poured her guts out (and obviously became vulnerable in some way due to info provided) to her faceless & placeless Dom. I might add: There is NO reason to *assume* the man will NOT do anything and simply go away either. IMHO, erring on the side of caution is the better stance. As far as paranoia: IMHO, it is better to be paranoid than to always wish you had been... quote:
Oh, on a side note will, I think Estring was saying that a SN like hers make her sound like someone who is *playing* not serious, not that she should change it to hide. And, as she has no reason to believe she is in danger, to create a profile of lies will only make her look bad (as someone who isn't honest) in the long run. I took it as telling her she was not deserving of the prefix 'smart', a sort of spank telling her to look inward at herself, but not emphasizing a full blown self 'soul search'... akin to quit being stupid. I further emphasized her lack of being 'smart' by my reference to the 'con man' movie character's schemes, so she could see herself in better perspective. As far as advocating dishonesty, I never did. Inyouagain
|