So, the ethical dilemma of the day, or at least mine: what does one do with someone who says they might be interested in exploring possible "friendly" options, but only for free, and anything further means monogamy will need to be involved?
(With the understanding that in this context, "friendly" means some level of sexual involvement.)
Let's set aside that's my avocation at present--we do get wanderers frequently who think Adult means free sex, and we have to explain repeatedly our rates. And we're used to that. SL, RL, there will always be men who think that paying for intimacy is beneath them, and moreover, we're wrong for even asking. It's the world we have, right now.
But it did strike me as odd--oh, not the interest, no. And really, not the insistence that he not be charged. The attitude does not impress me, but I have occasionally set aside my choice of employment for intriguing new friends. I doubt I'll change that.
No, what puzzled me was the whole monogamy issue. He said he'd read my profile, and if he wasn't just saying that, there are at least two places ON my profile where I mention being involved with others. So...where did he get the idea I would ever be monogamous?
And if all he was offering was friendly sex, then why the insistence on monogamy? Worse, perhaps, is that he didn't say I should part from anyoneI'm seeing now, just that I should be monogamous with him, and him alone. So...how can one be monogamous and still see other people?
It's too confusing for me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wanna live a vibrant life, but I wanna die a boring death
This is the..."Ham Tree"...at LORE . It's a group gift. Mesmer's love of meat where meat should not be is spreading... ...
-
Fire's high and the airbag's tight, Food's low but the skies are bright. Props spinning all through the night, ...we're low ...
-
Sometimes, playing Echo Bazaar ends up a uniquely trippy experience: A dream about a corridor lined with brass mirrors In the dream, the mi...
No comments:
Post a Comment