Go**** Posted January 30 33 minutes ago, ***OfLethe said: I said ‘up in your feels’ because of how you were wording things. That wasn’t pathologizing either. I didn’t say you were unstable or any such thing. Anyway, look, I know I stopped dating ‘straight’ men for the most part because of how they are about things. And I get some of the things you are touching on, but I am not suggesting that either party put themselves out there first. That’s the whole point of a first meetup being somewhere public. (This is the most obvious I can make my answer that you keep not catching.) If time is wasted that’s fine. I know I get mistaken for a man most of the time, thanks to societal pressures. But I don’t even have a dog in this fight so to speak. I’m mostly on here to see what might be happening that isn’t making it to fetlife. I’m just some aging nb that wishes I had the opportunity to express myself with much less consequence when I was younger. That being said, dropping 100s isn’t a sign of stability. That is a good chunk of my point. Unless you’re looking for someone that makes ‘fuck you’ ***, I guess. But like I said, the few people I’ve known of that just dropped cash for the chance to meet up seemed to have viewed things more transactionally than I know I would want were I the person dating him. If you absolutely have to have your date drop some silver on the date, just do that whole “can you pay for my gas and parking” or whatever. Anyway, I personally value decent thought processing over financial stability in the form of getting fronted 100 bucks. I can chat with a person and figure out if they’re generally financially stable. Took me a while to get to that point but that’s autism for ya. I keep hitting the same drum because you have not responded to it since I said it the first time: stability is not even hinted at by someone giving out 100 bucks to meet. I’ve thankfully never had anyone require that of me, but I’ve seen profiles that said it. It gives off a ‘I consider you sex work’ vibe, too, now that I think about it. Which would probably make the guy more unstable if he expected something he shouldn’t. But yeah, it’s not all about guys anyway, because there’s some lesbian/bi profiles I’ve seen requiring the same. It’s just something I consider a disturbing trend that doesn’t help anyone find what they’re looking for. humm , interesting , The aside about trans people actually rein***s my point. A “show of good faith” exists precisely because marginalized people absorb disproportionate risk: time, emotional labor, safety, and harm, when engaging with others. Filters are introduced when the cost of being wrong is high. That logic doesn’t suddenly stop applying outside the trans umbrella. Women in Femdom dynamics also face asymmetric risk when men are unstable, under-resourced, or looking to offload their chaos into a relationship or power exchange. So yes , good faith signals are valid wherever the cost of engagement is uneven. Financial capacity is one such signal. Not because mo ney is moral or not, but because instability is expensive, and someone always pays for it, so who will?. All of that brings us back ,again to the original inquiry that stayed unanswered: If none exist, then the objection isn’t about ethics. It’s about discomfort with exclusion, that's how i feel about this particular issue
Bl**** Posted January 30 12 minutes ago, Godessy said: humm , interesting , The aside about trans people actually rein***s my point. A “show of good faith” exists precisely because marginalized people absorb disproportionate risk: time, emotional labor, safety, and harm, when engaging with others. Filters are introduced when the cost of being wrong is high. That logic doesn’t suddenly stop applying outside the trans umbrella. Women in Femdom dynamics also face asymmetric risk when men are unstable, under-resourced, or looking to offload their chaos into a relationship or power exchange. So yes , good faith signals are valid wherever the cost of engagement is uneven. Financial capacity is one such signal. Not because mo ney is moral or not, but because instability is expensive, and someone always pays for it, so who will?. All of that brings us back ,again to the original inquiry that stayed unanswered: If none exist, then the objection isn’t about ethics. It’s about discomfort with exclusion, that's how i feel about this particular issue It never was ethics, correct. It’s the heuristic utility. If it is primarily for dating, I think that yeah it’s a problem in general. If it’s for play sessions with a domme that might not charge them or whatever if they find the person to be safe, yeah that’s a reasonable ask. Or if it’s a paid session same. Like I keep saying it’s all about what you those people are trying to accomplish. There’s a lot of nuance to be found in interpersonal relationships, that’s for sure. I was specifically not talking about your profile, just in case you felt targeted.
Recommended Posts