Chatting with the Clueless

[LanaBehave]

HIM: Hi Lana! Would you like to participate in some kinky obedience training?

ME: No


...and that's where it ended?

He didn't take the bait!

And this was in a Lit roleplay chatroom.

 

[Knoturnal]

Behave Lana, behave !

 

[vibes]

He obviously didn't know you wanted to play Hard To Get first

 

[seela]

HIM: Hi Lana! Would you like to participate in some kinky obedience training?

ME: No


...and that's where it ended?

He didn't take the bait!

And this was in a Lit roleplay chatroom.

The guy was not clueless. He did exactly what you're supposed to do in a situation like that. How could he have known that you were baiting him instead of just saying that you aren't interested?

No means no unless you have specifically agreed beforehand that your no can be ignored. Even in a Lit roleplay chatroom.

 

[LanaBehave]

The guy was not clueless. He did exactly what you're supposed to do in a situation like that. How could he have known that you were baiting him instead of just saying that you aren't interested?

No means no unless you have specifically agreed beforehand that your no can be ignored. Even in a Lit roleplay chatroom.

Yes. No doubt. But if he'd been just a little bit clever, he might have gone a little further, and found an interesting (and interested) partner.

Making a first impression in a chatroom involves a little bit of creativity, and imagination. In spontaneous chat, as in real life, not every possibility can be ironclad agreed in advance...

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Well, I’m seeing it this way. You learned something about him. You now have a pretty good idea that he’s not the one you want to have a relationship with, even if it’s just a chat room relationship. That’s what old-fashioned courtship was about, determining mutual compatibility.

Maybe, maybe he’s learned something, too.

Time to move on. Better luck next time.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

The guy was not clueless. He did exactly what you're supposed to do in a situation like that. How could he have known that you were baiting him instead of just saying that you aren't interested?

No means no unless you have specifically agreed beforehand that your no can be ignored. Even in a Lit roleplay chatroom.

THIS.

I’m floored at any suggestion that he didn’t respond perfectly. Seems like a gent who respects boundaries and understands consent.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes. No doubt. But if he'd been just a little bit clever, he might have gone a little further, and found an interesting (and interested) partner.

...or perhaps he's clever enough to opt not to play with people who expect him to be a mind-reader and ignore a stated "no".

 

[cascadiabound]

THIS.

I’m floored at any suggestion that he didn’t respond perfectly. Seems like a gent who respects boundaries and understands consent.

This.

His ability to believe "no" means "no" makes him someone I would respect and take seriously.

Isn't this what we (as women) keep saying we want in men?

 

[Conager]

...or perhaps he's clever enough to opt not to play with people who expect him to be a mind-reader and ignore a stated "no".

This^ slightly more than. . .

THIS.

I’m floored at any suggestion that he didn’t respond perfectly. Seems like a gent who respects boundaries and understands consent.

. . .this^

HIM: Hi Lana! Would you like to participate in some kinky obedience training?

ME: No


...and that's where it ended?

He didn't take the bait!

And this was in a Lit roleplay chatroom.

. . .and this is not atypical behavior. I do not find it uncommon for women to assume that men like a challenge, because they (stereotypicall) like a challenge. Me, I like eager compliance. If she isn't interested in complying, I just figure she's not interested in me. I'm not interested in people that aren't interested in me. This narcissistic viewpoint saves me a lot of needless effort.

I don't think he gets any points for simply taking a no as a no to any and all interest. If he wasn't interested enough to explore the edges of that no, why the expressed, specific interest?

I also don't think he has any obligation to pursue her of he was not getting any positive reinforcement.

I recently drove 220 miles on a whim because a friend I've known for 8 years (I played sequentially with two of her close friends. Friend one passed me off to friend two) brought up a friend of hers for the second time in six months and was rather specific about the idea that she felt that the friend would be interested. Since she brought it up a second time I realized this wasn't just a passing thought that she'd put some effort into this and when she said that she had discussed me with this girl quite specifically that I've never met and that the girl was definitely interested. I thought what the heck it makes a good story either way.

On the way down a text or two to the girl did not seem promising and I almost turned the car around. I should have. In person she couldn't get her nose out of her phone and I couldn't be less interested. It happens sometimes.

 

[Lascivity]

There's no "bait" in what you said. He asked if you'd like to chat. You said "no". He didn't continue chatting with you. That's a fairly normal human interaction.

I could understand your reaction here if what you said in ANY way implied that you actually would like to chat, but were teasing him. But it did not.

 

[WonderWoman1980]

No means no, even in chat rooms. And a NO should be respected.

If you wanted to play hard to get, which I can understand, you should’ve said “maybe” or even a “not really.”

You didn’t leave him any wiggle room and then get disappointed when he respects you?

 

[PaxNurgle]

HIM: Hi Lana! Would you like to participate in some kinky obedience training?

ME: No


...and that's where it ended?

He didn't take the bait!

And this was in a Lit roleplay chatroom.

So, if I understand correctly, you were "Baiting" him when you said no?

If I were "HIM" (and I am a "him" for the record) I would see that "no" not as "Baiting" but as "Go away and stop bothering me."

Interacting with strangers over the internet is different than interacting with people face to face. Most people would have taken your initial "no" not as baiting but as rejection, and would have moved on.
If you really did want more interaction with him but wanted to play a bit "hard to get" then I think it could have been done differently. Like, (for example) come back with a reply like "Obediance training? Are you a drill seargent?" or "I obey only myself, so what do you got?"

 

[Cumlover999]

You could at least have thrown in a ?

 

[LanaBehave]

I think all of you are right. And I really didn't expect a lot of interplay when I answered 'no'. I was merely trying, here in the forum, to point out the irony of reacting in a 'disobedient' way to somebody demanding obedience, and having that be the end of it. Irony.

There can be a fine line, though, when it comes to wanting something, even craving it, and having to *ask* for it, when coming from a submissive stance. If the sub has to *ask* for it, it loses much of its dominant power.

Very good input from y'all, I thank you. Every one of your points resonates with me--about consent, about the meaning of 'no', about being clear, about being teasy, about subtlety and explicitness.

I'll think these things over next time I get such an intriguing invitation!

Lana

 

[AlwaysFara]

I think all of you are right. And I really didn't expect a lot of interplay when I answered 'no'. I was merely trying, here in the forum, to point out the irony of reacting in a 'disobedient' way to somebody demanding obedience, and having that be the end of it. Irony.

There can be a fine line, though, when it comes to wanting something, even craving it, and having to *ask* for it, when coming from a submissive stance. If the sub has to *ask* for it, it loses much of its dominant power.

Very good input from y'all, I thank you. Every one of your points resonates with me--about consent, about the meaning of 'no', about being clear, about being teasy, about subtlety and explicitness.

I'll think these things over next time I get such an intriguing invitation!

Lana

I get what you were trying to get at... the humor of saying no and being “disobedient” right away.
He was a gentleman.

Tweak it a bit and you’ll do fine next time...

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

It’s also a case of the ever-popular limitations of the text world. Had you been face to face (or even talking by phone or Skype), he probably would have gotten the message within the message.

I would have acted as he did in this scenario, unless the “No” had been accompanied by an emoji, an “ahem” or a “JESUS, I do not MEAN THIS!! COME AFTER MY ASS HARD!! NOW!!!”

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think all of you are right. And I really didn't expect a lot of interplay when I answered 'no'. I was merely trying, here in the forum, to point out the irony of reacting in a 'disobedient' way to somebody demanding obedience, and having that be the end of it. Irony.

There can be a fine line, though, when it comes to wanting something, even craving it, and having to *ask* for it, when coming from a submissive stance. If the sub has to *ask* for it, it loses much of its dominant power.

Very good input from y'all, I thank you. Every one of your points resonates with me--about consent, about the meaning of 'no', about being clear, about being teasy, about subtlety and explicitness.

I'll think these things over next time I get such an intriguing invitation!

Lana

In D&D-style roleplaying, we have a thing called "moosing". Usually when I talk in-game, that's my character speaking. But when I need to talk as me, I can put my thumbs to my head, fingers splayed like moose antlers, and that tells the other players that it's Voice Of Bramble not Voice Of Bramble's Character.

I wonder if there's some way to adapt that to SRP. Online, maybe different fonts or something, to signal the difference between a real no and a "make me" no?

 

[Conager]

I think all of you are right. And I really didn't expect a lot of interplay when I answered 'no'. I was merely trying, here in the forum, to point out the irony of reacting in a 'disobedient' way to somebody demanding obedience, and having that be the end of it. Irony.

There can be a fine line, though, when it comes to wanting something, even craving it, and having to *ask* for it, when coming from a submissive stance. If the sub has to *ask* for it, it loses much of its dominant power.

Very good input from y'all, I thank you. Every one of your points resonates with me--about consent, about the meaning of 'no', about being clear, about being teasy, about subtlety and explicitness.

I'll think these things over next time I get such an intriguing invitation!

Lana

Reminds me of my favorite BDSM joke:

Masochist: ~plaintively~ Hurt me!

Sadist: ~cruelly~ No.

Everything in life is some sort of negotiation. Negotiations involving mind-reading generally don't go as well as one would hope.

Not just submissive, we all would prefer that our desires be magically and organically met. The other person on script for the script in our head.

There is a flip side to your preference to not have to ask. I don't mind being dictatorial but I don't really find any particular joy in telling someone twice. I'm not overly fond of bratty submissives but plenty of submissives want you to "make" them do this or that. Depending upon how much effort is required I may or may not play along.

Some of these things come down to chemistry and compatibility though. How you're likely to feel about an interaction that involves kink is largely dependent upon how you feel about interacting with that person.

 

[littlebirdjoy]

Well, I’m seeing it this way. You learned something about him. You now have a pretty good idea that he’s not the one you want to have a relationship with, even if it’s just a chat room relationship. That’s what old-fashioned courtship was about, determining mutual compatibility.

Maybe, maybe he’s learned something, too.

Time to move on. Better luck next time.

This comment needed more love. I actually applauded. As did DGE and Bramblethorn. ( my Master and I actually use this if we need an aside. If it is an action aside it is surrounded by * if it is a spoken aside it is in parentheses).

To the OP I respect you acknowledging the points made. Well done.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Back in the long, long time ago I used to play around in IRC and online chatrooms, and one of the first things I noticed was the emotional attachment a lot of people were putting into their online role playing.

SERIOUS emotional investment. To the point that the role-playing appeared to be, for the most part, an emotional reflection of the real person. The physical stuff obviously wasn't happening, but fuck all if people weren't getting into real emotional relationships.

I took that to heart. I even built my own relationships through online interaction that started as RP.

So I always do my best to treat people at "face value" and respect boundaries in online forums. A "No" means NO. That doesn't end all discussion, but it certainly puts a stop to a particular line/direction of conversation. If discussion continues, it moves to some other area.

Until and unless further discussion and negotiation turns that "no" into a maybe. Or a "Well, actually, it means yes because I want that rape fantasy going on..." that "would you like to play?" convo is done.

 

[Glazedcorneas]

I second the post above , I’m new to this realm, in hope to bond with folks mentally, emotionally, physically, etc. I’ve always been a man who immediately was turned off and pulled away if a partner said No. 90% of the time the girl would say she as teasing or playing, but to me, communication is 100% the glue to ensuring your partner is happy, satisfied, etc.


I’m throwing up in my mouth, I have a feeling I may never connect with any like minded women on these chats/ sites..

 

[LanaBehave]

It's good to hear--and have--differing ideas, voices, etc. That's why certain people fit better with certain other people.

I like creativity, imagination, variety and surprise in personal interactions, especially the erotic ones.

And some degree of uncertainty, therefore, is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Threadbare42]

I will second most of what has been said here. "No" on its own isn't ambiguous or "uncertain." No means no. That's the first thing we learn in BDSM, and the kind of men who do think a random person online needs "obedience training" for not participating in someone else's fantasy are the ones who make it a toxic environment and spoil it for everyone. That really needs to be made crystal clear because I don't want anyone to read the OP and get the wrong idea.

That said, with a little simple tweaking to indicate it's a playful "no" it could have worked a lot better. The way I am imagining it is something like this:


HIM: Hi Lana! Would you like to participate in some kinky obedience training?

ME: *Crosses arms and pouts stroppily* No

Voila!

 

[LanaBehave]

...something like this:


HIM: Hi Lana! Would you like to participate in some kinky obedience training?

ME: *Crosses arms and pouts stroppily* No

Voila![/QUOTE]

Brilliant!

(but...what is stroppily...seems like a word I should know...?)