How common is getting outed?

[FurryFury]

This is basically the conclusion I'm coming to as well. While I'm still working on finding a job, chances of someone recognizing me at a munch are reasonably slim, but once I have the job, and would be recognized by parents, I'll have to limit what I do where considerably more.

In the meantime, make hay while the sun shines. KWIM? Perhaps by the time you have a job you'll have found a person or persons you can entertain or vice versa privately.

 

[FurryFury]

I would have been cool with it given both places of origin but he wasn't. That's kind of sad IMO but what you could do ignore him?

It angers you because it is intensely and stupendously fucked up, and, as Tawny says, some things are supposed to be sacred.

She posted a thread about it when it happened, and general reaction here was inflamed outrage. Her therapist basically staged it as a full-scale intervention, surprised her parents with it, went to other doctors of hers without her knowledge (fortunately, those doctors did not cooperate with the stupidity).

It scarred her badly, and left her unwilling to even think about therapy for a long time. It took a VERY strong referral from a VERY trusted doctor of hers, and a a whole lot of convincing from me and everyone else to get her back. She still says the only reason she went was because I wanted her too, and it was months of appointments before she could walk into her therapists office without calling me for emotional support.

In the therapy world, what was done to her was criminal, but her reasons for not bringing it to light were very solid. Still, given that the therapist tried to bring other doctors in, and those doctors did not agree and saw the damage done to MIS, I would be very surprised if word did not get around. I can guarantee, at minimum, that she won't get referrals from MIS' doctors, and at least one is high profile in that area.

Personally, I'd love to backhand the shit out of that woman.

--



Exactly. We will be sharply curtailing public activities when she is employed, and even job-hunting. It's just not worth the possibility.

--

As an aside, it's been mentioned here that you "don't know" people from the munch outside the munch in a sort of "The first rule about fight club is that you do not talk about fight club" sense, but what do you do when you recognise someone that you know from outside the munch at the munch?

I ask because this happened to me. A chap that I knew lightly showed up at the munch when I was there, and we recognised each other. I greeted him warmly, sans names of course, and started talking to him. I could tell that he wanted to pretty much melt into the carpet from embarrassment. Now, this is a guy I knew from an unrelated social activity, and not very well. Said activity, RPG'ing, has its' own niche society, and weirdness about outsiders and such, so it is not that big a deal. And, in that setting, I was the organiser of the group, so it wasn't like he had to worry about some sort of repercussions there.

Still, he wanted to die. I figured cheerful conversation talking while giving the (honest) impression that it was a completely normal thing would calm him down. To my knowledge, he never showed up to the munch group again, and rarely came to game night after that. Not too much of a change, as he was a sporadic attendee at best, but still notable.

What do you all think about that sort of situation, reversed as it is?

 

[Harmony_1985]

Narrow mindedness is hard for me to understand, especially when it is none of thier business.

Wouldnt it be common sense to realize than people who explore thier "kinky" side, in a controlled manner, with consenting adults with the same ideas and wouldnt want to do it, publically around/with people who are not into it? Rhetorical question. I live in the south east and know how people are.

Ignorance breed intolerance my friend.

People are intolerant of it because they are ignorant of it.

And hitting someone, even consensually, is illegal where I am in MA.

Same here.

 

[Homburg]

I would have been cool with it given both places of origin but he wasn't. That's kind of sad IMO but what you could do ignore him?

That was my problem. I could tell that he was uncomfortable, but I couldn't ignore. That would have been FAR more damaging. I went the other route as was friendly. *sigh* Can't win em all, eh?

 

[JustaNobody]

That was my problem. I could tell that he was uncomfortable, but I couldn't ignore. That would have been FAR more damaging. I went the other route as was friendly. *sigh* Can't win em all, eh?

Personally, as a new person at the munch, I would have expected to be a lot more comfortable if I saw someone I knew from other social life there. Helps to reinforce that everyone there is just a normal person. I can imagine it would be different if it were a coworker or a clent(from a vanilla business, I mean), but a gaming buddy should make it safer, not worse.

 

[FurryFury]

True, you can't win them all.

 

[Homburg]

Personally, as a new person at the munch, I would have expected to be a lot more comfortable if I saw someone I knew from other social life there. Helps to reinforce that everyone there is just a normal person. I can imagine it would be different if it were a coworker or a clent(from a vanilla business, I mean), but a gaming buddy should make it safer, not worse.

LOL, yup. Oddly enough, it was a friend from that very game that got me connected with the munch group. She and her husband had been members for a good while, and she suggested them once she realised we were kinky.

 

[FurryFury]

Personally, as a new person at the munch, I would have expected to be a lot more comfortable if I saw someone I knew from other social life there. Helps to reinforce that everyone there is just a normal person. I can imagine it would be different if it were a coworker or a clent(from a vanilla business, I mean), but a gaming buddy should make it safer, not worse.

Yeah! I would have felt safer too!

 

[ShivanDragon00]

Interesting thread, the point of which, i believe at this point would be a suggestion to all to just go into a fulfilling career as a porn star, in that case there is no need to worry about being outed

 

[JMohegan]

She posted a thread about it when it happened, and general reaction here was inflamed outrage. Her therapist basically staged it as a full-scale intervention, surprised her parents with it, went to other doctors of hers without her knowledge (fortunately, those doctors did not cooperate with the stupidity).

That thread is worth remembering, because it took 4 pages and 83 posts before someone even considered the possibility that the root of the therapist's behavior had merit. Not the outing (which was clearly outrageous), but the underlying diagnosis itself.

We are going to defend our own proclivities.

Yes, and in general this is a positive thing. But sometimes we're going to be wrong.

 

[Homburg]

That thread is worth remembering, because it took 4 pages and 83 posts before someone even considered the possibility that the root of the therapist's behavior had merit. Not the outing (which was clearly outrageous), but the underlying diagnosis itself.

It's worth remembering because the first response was sympathy, not "Well, she could have been right"? Call me crazy, but I think a therapist outing a patient over 18 to her parents and healthcare providers was more than a bit memorable in itself.

As to diagnosis, it was correct, but not for reasoning. That therapist judged the whole of BDSM as abusive. It may be one thing to make cogent commentary on how BDSM and abuse are not mutually exclusive, and they certainly weren't in this case, but it neither excuses her conduct, nor the broad tarring of every one in the subset as abusive. Are you abusive? Am I?

I think that Marquis was spot on, but I don't see the number of posts prior to his comment as being worthy of commentary. The culture of this electronic neighbourhood is classically supportive. Someone making a post like that can expect to hear messages of sympathy well before cognitive commentary.

NOTE: I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm saying "people on Lit are nice". That's all.

Yes, and in general this is a positive thing. But sometimes we're going to be wrong.

This is why the list of example proclivities included NAMBLA.

 

[JMohegan]

It's worth remembering because the first response was sympathy, not "Well, she could have been right"? Call me crazy, but I think a therapist outing a patient over 18 to her parents and healthcare providers was more than a bit memorable in itself.

As to diagnosis, it was correct, but not for reasoning. That therapist judged the whole of BDSM as abusive. It may be one thing to make cogent commentary on how BDSM and abuse are not mutually exclusive, and they certainly weren't in this case, but it neither excuses her conduct, nor the broad tarring of every one in the subset as abusive. Are you abusive? Am I?

I think that Marquis was spot on, but I don't see the number of posts prior to his comment as being worthy of commentary. The culture of this electronic neighbourhood is classically supportive. Someone making a post like that can expect to hear messages of sympathy well before cognitive commentary.

NOTE: I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm saying "people on Lit are nice". That's all.

I'm not saying people were wrong to offer comfort. Nor were they wrong to express outrage over the outing.

What I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that turning non-kinky therapists into one-dimensional villains is necessarily supportive in the long run. There's an anti-kink bias borne of ignorance, of course. But it's also possible that the therapist sees behavior and emotional reactions in the victim that really do point to abuse. The therapist's observations reinforce and amplify the bias when the source is revealed, but that doesn't mean that the observations themselves were wide of the mark.

Obviously, I'm writing this with the benefit of hindsight - after having read posts like this, for example. I'm just throwing out the possibility that the diagnosis was correct for *partially* correct reasoning. It seems possible that a professional in private confidence with an abuse victim, over a sustained period of time, would recognize the signs of abuse - even if he/she didn't understand the source of the abuse itself.

 

[ZRT]

I'm not saying people were wrong to offer comfort. Nor were they wrong to express outrage over the outing.

What I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that turning non-kinky therapists into one-dimensional villains is necessarily supportive in the long run. There's an anti-kink bias borne of ignorance, of course. But it's also possible that the therapist sees behavior and emotional reactions in the victim that really do point to abuse. The therapist's observations reinforce and amplify the bias when the source is revealed, but that doesn't mean that the observations themselves were wide of the mark.

Obviously, I'm writing this with the benefit of hindsight - after having read posts like this, for example. I'm just throwing out the possibility that the diagnosis was correct for *partially* correct reasoning. It seems possible that a professional in private confidence with an abuse victim, over a sustained period of time, would recognize the signs of abuse - even if he/she didn't understand the source of the abuse itself.

Walking a fine line, treading on the dark side, pick your cliche. These sort of relationships are very risky, and speaking from my own experience they bring out very dark aspects of a person's character. That's why I make such a point of the fact that (for me) all submissive behavior given to me is consensual, and leave the 'no' escape route very firmly in place, even if a 'no' is the only option and breaks the entire deal. Likewise, I wouldn't do a relationship where my partner didn't have some sort of means to just walk away, as in a financial capacity to get out and go her own route. Dependency for direction is one thing, but complete and total life dependency is just way too damned easy to abuse, even unintentionally.

 

[Tawny_Temptress]

Without "seeing" what went on in therapy for ourselves, there is no way to know what the therapist thought. However, staging a full intervention instead of pursuing it harder in thearapy seems a bit much, unless she came in with obvious signs of 'physical abuse'.

Medical professionals can be judgmental, just like everyone else. It can just be more harmful.

Disclaimer: I am not saying anyone was abused, the therapist was judgmental, etc. etc. I just think the lady in question probably knows better than we do, especially in hind site, and if she says it was outing and not an intervention, I tend to believe it.

 

[Homburg]

I'm not saying people were wrong to offer comfort. Nor were they wrong to express outrage over the outing.

What I'm saying is that I'm not so sure that turning non-kinky therapists into one-dimensional villains is necessarily supportive in the long run. There's an anti-kink bias borne of ignorance, of course. But it's also possible that the therapist sees behavior and emotional reactions in the victim that really do point to abuse. The therapist's observations reinforce and amplify the bias when the source is revealed, but that doesn't mean that the observations themselves were wide of the mark.

Obviously, I'm writing this with the benefit of hindsight - after having read posts like this, for example. I'm just throwing out the possibility that the diagnosis was correct for *partially* correct reasoning. It seems possible that a professional in private confidence with an abuse victim, over a sustained period of time, would recognize the signs of abuse - even if he/she didn't understand the source of the abuse itself.

Timeline
Day One - MIS tells her therapist about the details of the relationship
Day Two - Therapist calls emergency meeting, brings in parents, etc

This is after being her therapist for years, and hearing about the relationship, sans BDSM elements, and had made zero commentary on said relationship in that direction. She heard it was BDSM, and, FULL STOP, called an intervention the next day.

This is not crucifying a non-kinky therapist. This is calling a bad therapist for being a bad therapist, and allowing her personal bias to occlude better judgement and professional ethics.

Hindsight is 20/20, yep, and I was one of the people telling her this guy was bad news and an abuser (not when she made this post, as I was not on Lit yet). It does not change the fact that her therapist for years decided to stage an emergency intervention because MIS told her it was a BDSM relationship. If it had been something that was brewing for a long time, I'd be more willing to side with you. From talking to MIS, no, it was a sudden switch, like night and day.

 

[ZRT]

Timeline
Day One - MIS tells her therapist about the details of the relationship
Day Two - Therapist calls emergency meeting, brings in parents, etc

This is after being her therapist for years, and hearing about the relationship, sans BDSM elements, and had made zero commentary on said relationship in that direction. She heard it was BDSM, and, FULL STOP, called an intervention the next day.

This is not crucifying a non-kinky therapist. This is calling a bad therapist for being a bad therapist, and allowing her personal bias to occlude better judgement and professional ethics.

Hindsight is 20/20, yep, and I was one of the people telling her this guy was bad news and an abuser (not when she made this post, as I was not on Lit yet). It does not change the fact that her therapist for years decided to stage an emergency intervention because MIS told her it was a BDSM relationship. If it had been something that was brewing for a long time, I'd be more willing to side with you. From talking to MIS, no, it was a sudden switch, like night and day.

Yeah, that's pretty clearly an idiot at work. Proof that the ability to score a degree isn't necessarily indicative of intelligence or ethic.

 

[intothewoods]

Timeline
Day One - MIS tells her therapist about the details of the relationship
Day Two - Therapist calls emergency meeting, brings in parents, etc

This is after being her therapist for years, and hearing about the relationship, sans BDSM elements, and had made zero commentary on said relationship in that direction. She heard it was BDSM, and, FULL STOP, called an intervention the next day.

This is not crucifying a non-kinky therapist. This is calling a bad therapist for being a bad therapist, and allowing her personal bias to occlude better judgement and professional ethics.

Hindsight is 20/20, yep, and I was one of the people telling her this guy was bad news and an abuser (not when she made this post, as I was not on Lit yet). It does not change the fact that her therapist for years decided to stage an emergency intervention because MIS told her it was a BDSM relationship. If it had been something that was brewing for a long time, I'd be more willing to side with you. From talking to MIS, no, it was a sudden switch, like night and day.

A therapist who has no clue her patient is in an abusive relationship is a bad therapist. As I said in the other thread, find a truly good therapist and a preference for bdsm will not be an issue.

 

[JMohegan]

Timeline
Day One - MIS tells her therapist about the details of the relationship
Day Two - Therapist calls emergency meeting, brings in parents, etc

This is after being her therapist for years, and hearing about the relationship, sans BDSM elements, and had made zero commentary on said relationship in that direction. She heard it was BDSM, and, FULL STOP, called an intervention the next day.

This is not crucifying a non-kinky therapist. This is calling a bad therapist for being a bad therapist, and allowing her personal bias to occlude better judgement and professional ethics.

Hindsight is 20/20, yep, and I was one of the people telling her this guy was bad news and an abuser (not when she made this post, as I was not on Lit yet). It does not change the fact that her therapist for years decided to stage an emergency intervention because MIS told her it was a BDSM relationship. If it had been something that was brewing for a long time, I'd be more willing to side with you. From talking to MIS, no, it was a sudden switch, like night and day.

"as many of you know, i was in a D/s relationship (at least we'll call it this to avoid getting into the abusive intricacies) for many years with somebody who we will refer to as A. after three years of systematic abuses, both physical and emotional, and often under the guise of BDSM, this ended."

Under those circumstances, I agree with ITW. If that therapist had failed to see signs of abuse in her patient's behavior, tone, emotional state, etc., then she was a crappy therapist for more reasons than the fact that she engineered an outrageous outing/attempted intervention.

This isn't about taking sides. This is about the broader point of what happens when a kinky person says: my therapist/sister/best friend/mom/grandpa found out I was in a BDSM relationship and went NUTS.

Sometimes - not always, but sometimes - the non-kinky observer can see that an abuse victim has been miserable, withdrawn, acting out, whatever. The non-kinky observer may not know why, but he or she can tell that something is wrong.

Going nuts is hardly helpful, but in some cases the non-kinky observer might have a point, in part. And that's worth considering, especially when the non-kinky observer has been in close personal contact with the potential victim for a sustained period of time.

 

[BiBunny]

But, right or wrong, there's still that pesky doctor/patient confidentiality thing.

 

[intothewoods]

But, right or wrong, there's still that pesky doctor/patient confidentiality thing.

Absolutely, although psychologists do have some duty to report when there is a serious risk of harm. It's a controversial and tricky issue, because most doctors are loathe to violate patient confidentiality, and yet the legal duty is there. I'm no expert on this, but I bring it up to say that there are competing interests here.

 

[Tawny_Temptress]

Absolutely, although psychologists do have some duty to report when there is a serious risk of harm. It's a controversial and tricky issue, because most doctors are loathe to violate patient confidentiality, and yet the legal duty is there. I'm no expert on this, but I bring it up to say that there are competing interests here.

What the therapist did was wrong. They should have lost their licensure over it. The problem is the woman she outed would have had to told a lot of people what happened, alone with a whole lot of other things, that are no ones business, to prove it to the medical board.

 

[intothewoods]

What the therapist did was wrong. They should have lost their licensure over it. The problem is the woman she outed would have had to told a lot of people what happened, alone with a whole lot of other things, that are no ones business, to prove it to the medical board.

I'm not talking about this therapist. Even if MIS was in serious danger from her now ex, the therapist obviously did not handle it the right way. I'm just pointing out that the confidentiality is not absolute.

 

[Homburg]

I'm not talking about this therapist. Even if MIS was in serious danger from her now ex, the therapist obviously did not handle it the right way. I'm just pointing out that the confidentiality is not absolute.

Absolutely. If you are dealing with an underage patient and start to see serious signs of abuse, neglect, etc, there is actually a legal duty to do something about it. Some states require same with other situations. And a therapist is able to consult with other providers for assistance with a given case so long as the patient's identity is properly protected.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Absolutely. If you are dealing with an underage patient and start to see serious signs of abuse, neglect, etc, there is actually a legal duty to do something about it. Some states require same with other situations. And a therapist is able to consult with other providers for assistance with a given case so long as the patient's identity is properly protected.

As far as consulting with other providers for assistance, the bolded portion above is key; the exception usually is if the patient is also a patient of the other provider(s), in which case it is presumed that the added knowledge will be beneficial to the consultee(s) in helping provide service(s) for the patient.

HOWEVER: In most (if not all) states, the law requires that a teacher/doctor/therapist/whatthehellever to notify the appropriate authorities if a student/patient/patient/whatthehellever reveals information that gives the teacher/doctor/etc. reason to believe that the student/patient/etc. currently poses or intends to pose a danger to him/herself or others, or to commit a crime (in many states, a felony only; in some, *any* crime). It does not PERMIT a teacher/doctor/etc. to notify the parents of a legally competent, majority age s/p/etc. that he/she is engaged in a "perverted" psychosexual relationship with another person and stage a freaking intervention.

 

[Harmony_1985]

Absolutely. If you are dealing with an underage patient and start to see serious signs of abuse, neglect, etc, there is actually a legal duty to do something about it. Some states require same with other situations. And a therapist is able to consult with other providers for assistance with a given case so long as the patient's identity is properly protected.

Yeah, but telling a patient's parents about their lifestyle choice breaks the ethics code.