Fear and Silence

[Canarr]

Dude, read this and educate yourself: [/url]

I thought this was a discussion forum, and therefore figured, background inquiries were acceptable. If you just wanted a pat on the back and an "Atta girl!", you should've said so in your very first post; I wouldn't have bothered with this thread, then.

The person who broke the rules has no excuse. He knew the rules. He knew he was breaking them. He MADE them. He needs to abide by them. Mood is secondary to safety. It may not be romantic to ask every time you do something, but its more important that those are the rules. Those are what EVERYBODY agreed to.

I like rules. Rules and me get along well (provided there's at least some degree of common sense to them), because I like knowing what's allowed, and what's forbidden. Then, I can still decide whether or not I want to follow the rules, or suffer the consequences for disobeying them.

What puzzled me here was just the (to me) apparent disparity between the established rules and the purpose of the event. And further, the fact that the guy breaking the rules was the very person who'd established them in the first place. That makes a special kind of not-sense; unless, of course, the very plan was to lure people into his home and his party by lulling them into a false sense of security, which really is a special kind of slimy.

[Ladeeda]

He's apparently done this kind of thing before, but no one's ever said anything about it. I only started hearing things after I started talking about my own experience.

Like people are afraid to lose friends and become an outcast because the guy gives good parties. One person has actually stopped talking to me, because the guy is her best friend.

Happily I never cared for her, anyway.

@HyenaDandy You've hit the nail on the head.

[siead_lietrathua]

Okay, I may be a bit naive on that - but I would have expected that, during a Swinger party, at some point someone would start opening bras. In Germany, a party or establishment donning the "Swinger" hat would be offering the opportunity to exchange partners - or pick someone up - for casual sex or other activities, as desired by the participants. In the course of such pursuits, a certain degree of physical contact and/or removal of clothes (own or others') would seem logical.

###

What puzzled me here was just the (to me) apparent disparity between the established rules and the purpose of the event. And further, the fact that the guy breaking the rules was the very person who'd established them in the first place. That makes a special kind of not-sense; unless, of course, the very plan was to lure people into his home and his party by lulling them into a false sense of security, which really is a special kind of slimy.

since you were asking for clarification in a way as to the purpose behind rules, i figured i would toss in my hat on it.

in any sex-oriented party, removal of clothes can eventually be expected. but you still have to ask. it may seem like the rules defeat the purpose of the event, i can understand that viewpoint, but both swinging and bdsm are built on heavy foundations of consent and rules for the safety of all partners.
when you throw in a bdsm mix in a swinger party, permissions can actually be very mandatory. you can't just touch any person you please any way you please, because they may be "owned" by someone. so you dont just have to ask their permission but also someone else's.
even after consent is obtained, the limits have to be figured out.
best example i can give off the top of my head is a swinger married couple that only allow eachother to engage in, say, oral at parties. that is the rules of their marriage. so if you attempt to have sex beyond that with either partner they will get upset for trying to push past what they are willing to do. you have consent, but only for certian things.
it may seem like having to talk about what sex acts are and arent allowed can ruin the mood or spontaneity of sexual encounters, but its really no different than asking your partner if they are on birth control or std free. just a few more questions on top of those basics.

oops. got rambling again... i'll stop now. hahaha.

[SkullKing]

I thought this was a discussion forum, and therefore figured, background inquiries were acceptable. If you just wanted a pat on the back and an "Atta girl!", you should've said so in your very first post; I wouldn't have bothered with this thread, then.

Yeah, but sometimes directing someone to an already written text is much more practical than writing a lengthy explanation on the spot.

[Canarr]

Yeah, but sometimes directing someone to an already written text is much more practical than writing a lengthy explanation on the spot.

Agreed. However, that can be done in different ways, and I didn't much care for the way that was chosen here: implying that I should educate myself elsewhere instead of asking in the very forum where the subject was broached.

[Eisa]

That's fucking awful, Ladeeda. Like Hyena Dandy said, particularly in BDSM settings, the rules are PARAMOUNT. And they don't ruin the mood.

[Kheldarson]

Agreed. However, that can be done in different ways, and I didn't much care for the way that was chosen here: implying that I should educate myself elsewhere instead of asking in the very forum where the subject was broached.

That might be part of how you're phrasing things. I kept reading your posts myself, wondering why understanding "the mood" was so important. Ladeeda already indicated in previous posts that the rules were broken and she felt violated. She's not discussing the rules; she's discussing her sense of feeling violated and unsafe.


All that being said, Ladeeda, I'm sorry for what happened to you. Even if the group doesn't come around to help you, I do hope you keep your distance from that creep! Or kick him where it hurts if he gets too close!

[Hyena Dandy]

That might be part of how you're phrasing things. I kept reading your posts myself, wondering why understanding "the mood" was so important.

Likely because his/her sexual experiences have, up until now, been entirely in monogamous, committed relationships where the mood of the moment was just as important to the experience as the actions.

[kibbles]

That might be part of how you're phrasing things. I kept reading your posts myself, wondering why understanding "the mood" was so important. Ladeeda already indicated in previous posts that the rules were broken and she felt violated. She's not discussing the rules; she's discussing her sense of feeling violated and unsafe.

I understood what Canarr was saying..they were merely curious about the BDSM setting and how rules fit into the equation, and I could understand being sort of put off by being told "read this link if you want to know about it" JMO.

[Hyena Dandy]

I understood what Canarr was saying..they were merely curious about the BDSM setting and how rules fit into the equation, and I could understand being sort of put off by being told "read this link if you want to know about it" JMO.

Especially the phrasing of it implying that Canarr should know. It wasn't "Read tihs link if you want to know." It was disrespectful and abrupt. Of course, the reaction is understandable, since you can read the wrong thing into Canarr's posts.

[Kheldarson]

For me, it wasn't even necessarily reading the wrong thing into it. It was just both of Ladeeda's responses to him were trying to redirect him to the topic she wanted to discuss, which was the fact she felt violated. She addressed him abruptly sure, but did respond with a direct answer. He was the one still pushing the other topic of the "mood" idea.

[Canarr]

Likely because his/her sexual experiences have, up until now, been entirely in monogamous, committed relationships where the mood of the moment was just as important to the experience as the actions.

His. And, correct.

@Ladeeda: I was merely trying to understand the context of the incident; the social contract involved in these parties, so to speak. If my questions or comments seemed inappropriate, I apologize. That was not my intention.

[Hyena Dandy]

For me, it wasn't even necessarily reading the wrong thing into it. It was just both of Ladeeda's responses to him were trying to redirect him to the topic she wanted to discuss, which was the fact she felt violated. She addressed him abruptly sure, but did respond with a direct answer. He was the one still pushing the other topic of the "mood" idea.

Is there a rule in the forum saying that the thread creator gets to decide what can and can't be discussed? She was trying to change the topic, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have a right to ask questions.

She didn't 'address' him, she 'dismissed' him. There's a difference.

And the reason he was still 'pushing' the mood idea is that, thus far, all of his sexual encounters have been monogamous, intimate encounters where the mood is as important, if not more important, than what actually happens. Its hard, if you don't have much knowledge of swinger/bdsm culture, to divorce mood from activity.

[AdminAssistant]

Even in an intimate encounter between two people, permission is more important than 'mood,' particularly if it's your first time being intimate with that person. Yes, it kind of ruins the mood to say, "Can I do this?" or "Is this okay?" but let's be honest...your first few times with someone are going to be clumsy and awkward and more hilarious than romantic. And better to ask permission than to seek forgiveness...especially if you're seeking forgiveness from a judge or jury.

I don't know much about BDSM or swinger culture, but even I can quickly grasp the concept of "Always ask permission before touching." I mean, it just makes sense. What is important to this particular discussion is that someone was violated because another person broke pre-established rules of engagement. Linking to a site with relevant information so as to not bog down the thread with "Gather 'round children, and I'll tell you how BDSM lovers like to party" is completely appropriate, IMO.

[Canarr]

Even in an intimate encounter between two people, permission is more important than 'mood,' particularly if it's your first time being intimate with that person. Yes, it kind of ruins the mood to say, "Can I do this?" or "Is this okay?" but let's be honest...your first few times with someone are going to be clumsy and awkward and more hilarious than romantic. And better to ask permission than to seek forgiveness...especially if you're seeking forgiveness from a judge or jury.

I do not believe that getting permission and enjoying a romantic mood must be mutually exclusive. I've known a few women who had no trouble at all communicating the night's limits to their partner, without the guy having to verbally ask for approval every step of the way. Not to mention the fact that, in theory, the male has the exact same rights to grant or refuse permission that the female enjoys. So, following the train of thought, you'd have two people trying to get closer to one another, asking each other every few minutes, "Is that okay? Can I do that?" That sounds more like slapstick to me than enything else.

Asking for permission can be done non-verbally, and can be granted or refused the same way. Of course, it does require reading your partner's body language, and taking things slowly enough that the partner has ample time to decide whether or not they wish to move things further, or if maybe the limit of their comfort has been reached. But it works; one on one, at least.

Of course, that different situations require different rules, and that anyone agreeing on a rule and then reneging on that agreement the way the OP related, is an asshole, goes without saying.

Linking to a site with relevant information so as to not bog down the thread with "Gather 'round children, and I'll tell you how BDSM lovers like to party" is completely appropriate, IMO.

Yes, it is. I didn't object to the link itself, only to the rude way it was done.

Is there a rule in the forum saying that the thread creator gets to decide what can and can't be discussed? She was trying to change the topic, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have a right to ask questions.

She didn't 'address' him, she 'dismissed' him. There's a difference.

Exactly. Thanks.