Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Seri said, {revised 2/23 8:40 am EST}
The man knew very well how his actions were affecting me and knew I had consented to the scene having certain needs afterwards and agreeing how important they were. He choose to ignore them knowing fully well it would damage me in a very negative way (both physically and mentally...I still have the scars), and I don't find that acceptable. If he had told me or let me know that care after this particular scene might include him walking away and never talking to me again while I tended to bleeding open cane marks, I would never have consented to it.
So lack of aftercare or aftercare only provided at the dom's leisure is perfectly acceptable, but I feel it is the dom's responsibility to make sure the sub is aware of that and consenting to that. If the sub obviously needs a higher form of aftercare than a dom is willing or able to give, then they have no business sceneing unless the scene is nonconsensual by nature, which is a whole nother topic.
Later, she added,
Personally, I always discuss this beforehand....there are 3 things I discuss with anyone I play with or enter a relationship with before the fact, I don't leave the "responsibility" of these things or discussing these things to them. [...]
In the situation I shared a few posts up, I did all three of these things, and he choose to ignore and not respect two of them (my safeword, and the need of aftercare). Out of ignorance or a bad case of the assholes, I don't know.
====
Comments. Your anger and hurt are certainly understandable. At the same time you have incorporated into the possible session envisioned, prior knowledge, and (though it's not entirely clear) agreement
If such is the case, you were clearly wronged.
But lets look at two variations: 1) A and B have a discussion, and B mentions and explains B's needs (e.g., for aftercare). B's explanation doesn't create an obligation. That would me of "Jewish mother" routines: "you knew how much my birthday always meant to me, and yet you didn't call."
Similar is the 'vanilla' date situation where the second party, says, "You know I'm a very emotional person who can fall in love in one evening." I don't see any *obligation on the part of the first person, say, to call afterward. Nor moral justification for the second to complain, "I'd told him, and then he left, and I was just sick for months."
2a) A and B meet and learn something of each other and a sexual encounter happens with much passion and tenderness. Afterwards B receives only perfunctory communication from A: "Sorry I'm too busy to get together."
What's important to note here is that 'caddism' (assholish-ness) may indeed be vile. Yet we have all been through this (apparent) spark, followed by rejection/disappearance/indifference. And felt badly. Expectations were violated. Needs ignored. No gentle let down.
Yet though I'd offer the friend sympathy, I'd not sure I could say that the asshole had a _moral defect_--as if a promise was broken.
Further, 2b). Let us assume that the sexual desire in question is to inflict degradation (for the sake of argument). Then the second party should have even less expectation.
Here, the second party seeks degradation (implying subordination of needs). They can NOT thereafter get very much into complaining: "My further needs, however, are a,b, and c, and you'd better meet them." IOW, the second party has NO moral basis to expect what's appropriately comforting by their defintion.
There a matter of first party choice, as N said in another regard:
Clearly some minimum of humanesness may be in the first party's interest. It may ensure ongoing contact. Whose aim may be the even more thorough degradation of B.
Again, there is a vanilla analogy: If A wants a second encounter, another hot fuck, a few kind words and a bunch of roses for B are appropriate. But that's because A perceives an ongoing sexual 'thing' to be in A's interest.
Just my opinions, of course.
J.
PS: May all of us encounter much sunshine in life! That almost goes without saying. And a minimum of assholes. Yes!
This thread is NOT Miss Manners (etiquette), or Mr. Ethicist (moralizing). It IS aimed at understanding certain impulses and practices, in ourselves and others.
The man knew very well how his actions were affecting me and knew I had consented to the scene having certain needs afterwards and agreeing how important they were. He choose to ignore them knowing fully well it would damage me in a very negative way (both physically and mentally...I still have the scars), and I don't find that acceptable. If he had told me or let me know that care after this particular scene might include him walking away and never talking to me again while I tended to bleeding open cane marks, I would never have consented to it.
So lack of aftercare or aftercare only provided at the dom's leisure is perfectly acceptable, but I feel it is the dom's responsibility to make sure the sub is aware of that and consenting to that. If the sub obviously needs a higher form of aftercare than a dom is willing or able to give, then they have no business sceneing unless the scene is nonconsensual by nature, which is a whole nother topic.
Later, she added,
Personally, I always discuss this beforehand....there are 3 things I discuss with anyone I play with or enter a relationship with before the fact, I don't leave the "responsibility" of these things or discussing these things to them. [...]
In the situation I shared a few posts up, I did all three of these things, and he choose to ignore and not respect two of them (my safeword, and the need of aftercare). Out of ignorance or a bad case of the assholes, I don't know.
====
Comments. Your anger and hurt are certainly understandable. At the same time you have incorporated into the possible session envisioned, prior knowledge, and (though it's not entirely clear) agreement
If such is the case, you were clearly wronged.
But lets look at two variations: 1) A and B have a discussion, and B mentions and explains B's needs (e.g., for aftercare). B's explanation doesn't create an obligation. That would me of "Jewish mother" routines: "you knew how much my birthday always meant to me, and yet you didn't call."
Similar is the 'vanilla' date situation where the second party, says, "You know I'm a very emotional person who can fall in love in one evening." I don't see any *obligation on the part of the first person, say, to call afterward. Nor moral justification for the second to complain, "I'd told him, and then he left, and I was just sick for months."
2a) A and B meet and learn something of each other and a sexual encounter happens with much passion and tenderness. Afterwards B receives only perfunctory communication from A: "Sorry I'm too busy to get together."
What's important to note here is that 'caddism' (assholish-ness) may indeed be vile. Yet we have all been through this (apparent) spark, followed by rejection/disappearance/indifference. And felt badly. Expectations were violated. Needs ignored. No gentle let down.
Yet though I'd offer the friend sympathy, I'd not sure I could say that the asshole had a _moral defect_--as if a promise was broken.
Further, 2b). Let us assume that the sexual desire in question is to inflict degradation (for the sake of argument). Then the second party should have even less expectation.
Here, the second party seeks degradation (implying subordination of needs). They can NOT thereafter get very much into complaining: "My further needs, however, are a,b, and c, and you'd better meet them." IOW, the second party has NO moral basis to expect what's appropriately comforting by their defintion.
There a matter of first party choice, as N said in another regard:
Clearly some minimum of humanesness may be in the first party's interest. It may ensure ongoing contact. Whose aim may be the even more thorough degradation of B.
Again, there is a vanilla analogy: If A wants a second encounter, another hot fuck, a few kind words and a bunch of roses for B are appropriate. But that's because A perceives an ongoing sexual 'thing' to be in A's interest.
Just my opinions, of course.
J.
PS: May all of us encounter much sunshine in life! That almost goes without saying. And a minimum of assholes. Yes!
This thread is NOT Miss Manners (etiquette), or Mr. Ethicist (moralizing). It IS aimed at understanding certain impulses and practices, in ourselves and others.
Last edited:
salems lot was my first too.
