The Importance of
Taking Your
Time

One thing Jon and I have learned from our encounters with submissive women is how important it can be not to jump rashly or quickly into a power-exchange relationship, but instead to take the time really to know your potential dominant before committing to him. We have an acquaintance, J, who has been looking for a permanent master for several months via the online personals. She wants an absolute power exchange and is unwilling to settle for anything less. She is also unwilling to settle for anyone who is not what he claims to be: a dominant for whom the control of someone is all-important. Recently she met a dominant man who seemed to have this potential. J is a critically intelligent and analytical person: normally it takes only one or two email exchanges for her to disqualify a sure loser. But this guy, we'll call him Rich, actually seemed to have something going for him.

Often, a submissive woman who meets a dominant online who at first seems to be so compatible and to meet so many of her needs can't wait to give herself away to him. She falls madly in love-lust with him. She throws herself at his mercy and tries to give away her power as soon as he states a willingness to take it. Often it is a matter of a couple of weeks, or months, before she calls him Master or even lives with him as his slave "for life." While the act of giving herself away so quickly is immensely gratifying and a great relief to the submissive woman (let's face it, being masterless and looking is an unpleasant, stressful condition), the odds are against such instant matches working out in the long run. No person can possibly get to know another well enough to make an informed decision about whether a permanent relationship, let alone a permanent power-exchange relationship with him, would work in a few short weeks. People who make that decision at this early stage are, to put it bluntly, thinking with their genitals and not much else.

Our friend J tries very hard not to think with her genitals. She fully realizes the seriousness of the commitment she so longs to make. She realizes that the commitment must be to the right person or she'll be dooming herself and the family for whom she is responsible to misery. She asks her correspondents careful questions, she tells them as much about her past and her personal problems as they will let her, and she critically and carefully examines their reactions to all of this. She also has a mentor, a dominant friend, who looks after her (by partially controlling her) and prevents her from making a rash decision based primarily on an initial attraction.

At the time we take up this story, Rich has managed to make it through J's careful initial filters and also her mentor's. He is obviously dominant, and he also claims to have a clear understanding of J's hurt areas, her emotional difficulties, and has assured her mentor that "these wouldn't be a problem" for him.

This is the stage where many a submissive would choose to believe that her worries are over, that she's found her soulmate, the dominant of her dreams. But both J and her mentor know from experience that not enough time has passed for either of them really to know Rich well. So, while modestly encouraged, they are also biding their time, waiting to see how he reacts in various circumstances and in response to J's various moods.

Below, in four acts, is what happened with Rich.

ACT ONE:

J FINDS A GOOD ONE?

In the email below, J writes to her mentor about a dominant man whom she thinks has potential. After conversing with dozens of individuals over several months, he's one of the very few whom she's felt any hope about. This is right after J's first phone call with Rich.

Dear Mentor X,

Is it as exhausting talking to submissives all day as it is talking to dominants all night?

Now for Rich in Indiana. He's fun! What a relief! He's a lot more human than he writes. The kids were still there, on and off. He wasn't disturbed by it at all. Funny, I found his letters terribly confusing, but he doesn't sound confused at all. We talked about that problem I have with the *punishment* word and how it should or shouldn't be applied. At one point I actually got quite emotional about it and started crying. I'm surprised! He handled it, just fine. He wasn't upset by it, or critical of it, or even overtly reactive to it, but he addressed the problem that was causing it and put an end to it. Want to know something?

The only thing he said that really *did* cause me some emotional pain was a comment he made to the effect that I *did* understand that if a final commitment was made that my relationship to you would never be the same again. He said that anything that I wanted to say to you would have to be said through him. I don't know whether that should be alarming or not. Oddly, I don't think it causes all that much anxiety. It just hurts because I *know* I'm going to miss you at some point, either with Rich or with someone else. Anyway, it hurt.

He also said something about that being the end of my internet address. Actually, I think I reacted emotionally to a misunderstanding on my part. I don't think he meant that he didn't intend to give me access to the on-line world. I think he meant specifically that he would want to cancel out the address I had used to post the ad so I didn't get any more responses to it.

I have to admit though that the only reservation I have right now about Rich is that he shows a tendency to be possessive to the point of wanting to impose a great deal of isolation. For me, personally, that isn't a bad thing at all. I can live with a great deal +of isolation. I have to worry about the character and mental health about my captor in advance though. Isolated can be just lovely, but it can also be very unsafe.

Unlike our friend P., Rich actually helped raise his kids. He gets along well with his ex-wife. He seems to have been quite successful in everything he has tried to do. This is cute: he was almost apologetic when he started talking about the fact that he is currently working for a friend in a capacity that was more or less forced upon him. He made quite a point out of the fact that he has always worked for himself, and if this *job* didn't involve his total autonomy he couldn't take it. He said that he would actually prefer to be retired, and was until his friend (who is new to the tractor business) insisted that he needed him. I can't get the tone of the discussion in this, but there was a decidedly sweet element in there. I'm not even sure what it was, but it was just adorable, and was his irritation with his two male dogs, "one of whom is a bisexual," the other of whom is not, and who started to have a loud discussion about it in the background.

One of my children wanted to know how he felt about cats. He had a response. I sort of liked it too. He said that he loved cats, but that it didn't matter. He explained to me that as far as he is concerned, he's been looking for a long time for a very particular type of woman, and that he looks very carefully to see if she has all of the things he wants to have from her, and if she does then he has to live with the fact that she already has a life and other characteristics as well, and that it's all a package deal. The kids are part of the package. The pets are part of the package. The headaches are part of the package.

He really got me (g). I got to tell you this, Sir. If this guy is a fraud, he's a very good fraud. He seems to be in a bit of a hurry to me, but not to the point that it encourages any alarm on my part at all. He doesn't expect me to hop the next flight to his city, and he knows you have to approve first. BTW, you are probably going to hear from him before the week is out. He seems to have taken a real shine to me. I like him. He's funny. He's arrogant. He's bossy as hell. He's not willing to make *any* promises at all except to take me and everything that comes with me if that's what he decides to do. He doesn't accept safewords or negotiated scenes, or *his* slave setting the terms of her surrender.

I'm not so concerned about his use of the word *punishment* anymore. We talked about that for a long time, and he definitely *does* know the difference between pain play and pain. I told him about that incident with R. and the way I'd acting with you, and your response, and he only commented that he agreed with you that there is a big difference between disobedience and freaking out. I'm glad he's going to be writing to you soon and trying to establish connect directly, because if there is something wrong here it's subtle enough that I'm not picking up on it, and if he's acting he's doing a damn fine job.

He's pushy, but not enough to be offensive. He's got the art of erotic threat down pat. He understands pain and humiliation in much the same manner I do, and he laughs at almost all of the same things in the cyber and real life scene worlds that I would. He has, apparently, been looking a lot time. He's looking for a lot of things he doesn't seem to be seeing very often (including a brain worth communicating with, though he was less staightforward about saying that than P. was). He wants permanent. He wants power. He does not think of control as something completely passive, and has no problem with imposing force when he thinks force is needed. As far as he is concerned if I committed later on down the road, after I actually know him a lot better, that's the end of rights, decisions, freedom, in sum total.

He was very reasonable about discussing it. I had worried about his comments about not being allowed to ask questions. He said that perhaps what he should have said was *challange* him. He doesn't have a problem with the idea of my saying anything I want to, and he will probably *ask* for my opinions from time to time, but I would *never* be permitted to challenge his decisions once made. He's good. He has the tone. He has humor. He has humanity. He comes across and stern one moment, silly the next, philosophical the next, concerned the next, all without breaking stride or changing personality on me. I will be fascinated to see how you react to him. I think you may very well like him a lot. He sort of frightens me, but not in an altogether bad way. He handles anxious reactions very quickly, very directly. He has what appears to be a very straightforward personality. He didn't put on an act of being nonchalant when the dogs acted up on him . He excused himself for a minute, ordered the dogs out of the room, and swore a little. He didn't try to impress me with his control.

Oh, there was a funny incident. One of the dogs dropped his tennis ball beside Rich and in the effort to get it, the dog bit him on the butt. His only comment, after the ouch, was that he would rather be doing that himself, and not to the dog. He threatened me a lot. I sort of liked it most of the time.

J

ACT TWO:

RICH'S RESPONSE TO J'S CONCERNS

A couple of months have passed. Rich is thinking of bringing J to his home for a weekend visit in a few weeks. But J now has some concerns about the relationship, which she decides to voice after Rich's failure to call her when he promised to makes her feel confused and insecure. Below is Rich's reply to J's emailed concerns. J's remarks are in quotation marks and were originally quoted by Rich in his letter to her. His replies to her follow, and occasionally I've added a comment or two of my own to the mix. My comments are in italics.

Note how aggressive J's style is. That's just J. It doesn't mean that she's not submissive. In fact, she is one of the most profoundly submissive women I know. Aggressiveness is not the same as lack of submissiveness: they are two separate traits. Any dominant who wants to own J must understand this elementary fact and must also have the capacity to handle her behavior without turning into a defensive, spiteful little child: "Waah! You hurt me, mean lady, so now I'm going to hurt you!" The ability to handle J's fears is simply part of controlling her. We know dominants who would be amused, in the best sense, by her behavior as well as feel compassion for her in her fears, and who would respond with a "There, there, little girl; everything's OK" sort of message. Unfortunately, Rich, even after five decades of living, isn't quite grown up enough to do that.

First, Rich quotes J:

"I was very sorry that you did not call yesterday evening. Of course, I have no idea why you didn't call after saying that you would, but I assume that something came up."

RICH: Something did "come up". I went to X City (Indiana) Sunday AM. We flew out of here Three of us went and changed an engine (yes, another one). I got back about 5:00 PM today (Monday). No, I didn't call. Your phone number was here in my office and I had no way of know WHAT city you live in and I don't know if your last name is X or Y (?). Might have the second name wrong.

"At the moment there are several things that bother me quite a lot."

"1) The purpose of this trip in three weeks is supposedly so that *both* of us can explore the possibility of a full time d/s relationship. How is that purpose served by spending the time at restaurants and amusement parks? I'm afraid you will have to excuse me for this, but I have no intention of travelling all of the way to Indiana so that I can get better acquainted with a theme park, and then make a commitment to you. It sounds more like a date with kinky features. I do not decide to marry someone based on a date, and I do not decide to become someone's slave based on a date. In actual fact, I don't decide in any event. There will be no commitment until *after* I come back home and have had time to sort it all out with Mentor X, who will guide me to make what he considers to be the right decision."

RICH: If I don't LIKE you, that is, being with you in a "vanilla" world... then how can I possibly accept you as my sub/slave/whatever? I have met other subs who were perfect while in that role, but were disasters otherwise. Not a chance. Perhaps, what you need is to realize that there IS a world other than D/s. Like it or not, I wanted to see how we got along in that world. I would imagine that you would want us to do things like sight seeing, amusement parks, etc., at some point with the girls. Restaurants....you've got to be kidding!! I'll bet you don't, but I'd like to know that you don't eat peas with your fingers, burp and pick your ass during a meal. I want a "well-mannered" lady too. Of course, I'd insist that we leave the "room" and get out there. See how we interact out of a D/s situation.

"2) That missed phone call disturbed me, but not nearly as badly as finding that my mailbox did not even contain an e-mail from you about it. We have been discussing having a type of relationship in which I would be completely and totally at your mercy, and I find it very difficult to accept that possibility unless I feel absolutely confident on an emotional level that I don't have to worry that you will have "butter fingers." There is no *oops* in an absolute relationship, certainly not for me. I accept mistakes, but this is not a mistake. You said you would call. You did not. You did not write to offer a single word of explanation or comfort about it. I am supposed to accept that behavior from a man who claims to *want* me to trust him. How?"

RICH: Again, no phone number with me and certainly NO computer/e-mail capability.

"3) You asked me if Mentor X was still in control. Why on earth would he *not* be in control? What would a responsible dominant, mentor, friend, let go of that control. He has been in control for months, and you ask me if he had abandoned his control over me at the very time when that control is *most* essential for my safety and well being. You seem to assume that once I get to Indiana that will be the end of the issue. It will not be. I will *not* be making any commitments while I am in Indiana. Mentor X will not let go of me until I am actually committed to someone, and certainly not based on a few e-mails, a few phone calls, and a one hour discussion with him. He promised me that he would keep me safe, and Mentor X *always* does what he says he will do, without exception, at all times. Surely the time when I would need his protection and guidance most is when there is a serious possibility of something developing between myself and a dominant. It disturbs me that you asked the question. What was the point of that question? What was the assumption that made you ask it?"

RICH: I believe that if you think about it, I asked "if Mentor X was still making the call as far as ALL your activities went. I understand that Mentor X is still in control. He should be, he's perfect for you at this stage and you obviously need his control. Maybe you should send him mail before you send it to me. He can tell you whether or not it is appropriate and what sort of reaction it is likely to evoke.

POLLY: This fellow has known all along that J sends every email she writes to her mentor for pre-approval. He's either too stupid to remember that fact or he's so eager to play "slap the sub" (this term describes a game that many insecure men posing as dominants like to play with any submissive woman they happen to have an interaction with: it involves putting her down in some manner, through scolding, berating, or temper fits, in the hopes that this behavior will cause her to meekly apologize and promise never to question his authority again) that he conveniently overlooks that fact.

"4) I have found that you ask me almost nothing whatsoever about myself, about my former life, my former loves, my experience, my emotional and psychological fixations (and we all have them). This also disturbs me. You said in a letter that you already knew everything you needed to know. How could that be? At the time you said that to me you knew almost nothing about me, and you know very little more than that now. How can you possibly *control* what you do not know? Even in such relatively simple areas as inquiring about my sexual fantasies, you did not press for details. Surely it was obvious that large bits and pieces are missing and that I was being very general. I am *not* a simple person. Simplistic approaches are a highly ineffectual way of dealing with me. How can you ever hope to offer me the control and guidance I require if you don't think it is at all important who I am and what I am as an *individual?*"

RICH: I don't care about your previous life. I only cared about you now and who/what you are. It doesn't matter, I would be in control of what you do, how you do it, when you do it, how long you do it and how intently you do it. Mentor X told me that you misrepresented a few facts about your former life to him. He is all important to you and you know that. I come along and you have told me quite a bit about your past life. I have the printouts and have checked them.

POLLY: Actually, Mentor X told Rich that J had done this many months ago and that since that time she had been scrupulous in being honest both with him and with the people she corresponds with. Rich plays a sick and manipulative game with this remark. He tries to excuse his lack of interest in J or his inability to handle her by telling her that he thinks she's a chronic liar. He's probably learned that such hurtful remarks often do a pretty good job of shutting submissives up. J's not a naive or inexperienced waif, however. She's had this sort of game played with her dozens of times by putative "dominants," and she knows just how to handle this nonsense.

"5) It seems to me that you are still quite obsessive about retroactive punishment. This still concerns me. I will not permit myself to commit to someone who's primary objective in life is to punish me. I want to be loved, appreciated, disciplined, controlled, guided, and care for, not punished incessantly. I will *not* watch what I say, and I resent like flame the none to subtle threat of dire repercussions if I do not. If I do not feel safe enough to tell you *everything* without an internal censor at work on my words, I would rather not bother. You are not really providing me with that sense of being safe at all. You are making me paranoid about what I say, and I hate it. I want a relationship that is *more* intimate, in every sense, that what can be achieved in the vanilla world, not less."

RICH: Punishments, the type, time and severity are entirely in my control. Not yours!! Above you state, "I will not permit myself......primary objective is to punish..." To me that is in direct contrast to your earlier statement regarding getting out into the "vanilla" world. What do you want? Spend the ENTIRE weekend bound, gagged, being whipped, spanked with no regard to the possibility of developing "LIKE" which could easily become "love, appreciation, etc., etc.,? Shit, I can't go to Rent-A-Bitch and flog someone for a few days anytime. Am I supposed to like you only as a slave? Or do you want me to ALSO like you for the "other, vanilla" J AND her two children? Make up your mind!!

POLLY: Above, J expresses a serious concern. Instead of attempting to reassure her, or at least to talk honestly and with concern about where they may differ about this issue, Rich responds extremely defensively. He's not the least confident that he can control her. He's frightened and uncertain. He feels that he has to scream defensively at her about what is in his control. When a "dominant" starts to flap and wave his arms this way, it's a sure sign that you're dealing with a man who doesn't "get" power exchange even to the extent that he can deal calmly and rationally with a submissive woman. J needs desperately a dominant partner who can control her. Rich proves with the above remark that he is incapable it.

"I'm sorry, Rich, but I think there are some issues that need to be addressed here, and I think they will have to be addressed *before* I am willing to step on a plane. At the moment, I am upset by the phone call, or by the lack of a phone call, and I may well be over reacting emotionally to it. I still think that these are unresolved issues that need to be dealt with. The question that I need to have answered is: can I really trust *you* with my life, and the lives of my children? I don't know the answer to that question."

RICH: If the lack of a single phone call is going to get THIS sort of response, then maybe you are not who/what I thought you were. I find myself sitting here at the keyboard giving an explanation to a sub!! This is intolerable!! I will NOT do this again. I do NOT owe you an explanation. You could have waited until I called (I had planned to telephone this evening) and diplomatically ask about the "missing" phone call. But, no, you have to make this a confrontation. A confrontation and you are not here within my reach. Now, can you understand that I am VERY pissed? Can you now understand why there is such a thing as retroactive punishment? If I decide to send for you, do you honestly think that this behavior can be, will be, overlooked?

POLLY: This is written by a man who after Mentor X's careful questioning said he was quite capable of handling someone with as many emotional difficulties as J: that he saw no problem with this. And yet a letter like this, which, under all the aggression, merely asks for help and reassurance, manages to send him into a tailspin.

"PS: I'm sorry if I am coming across as confrontive, but I really need to have the question marks removed. I need clarity."

RICH: Why should you have any question marks removed. There should ALWAYS be question marks. If you require a notarized schedule, then find yourself another Master. I WILL NOT PLAY THIS GAME. Perhaps, this communication from you is an indication that we may not be so compatible. If you behaved this way AFTER a commitment, you would be whipped severely!! You have done this BEFORE a commitment and BEFORE we have even met. I will not be subjected to this sort of behavior when all I can do to correct it is write a fucking letter!!

POLLY: Right. A submissive should blindly commit her life to someone who's unwilling to reassure her and satisfy her concerns. Resolving serious conflicts and concerns is not the same as providing a notarized schedule.

RICH: I am sufficiently pissed that I will NOT call this PM. I would probably tell you to keep looking for a better candidate. I'll see how I feel in a day or two. If this disturbs you...well, I'm sorry, but that is not my primary concern right now. I am going to have to "chew" on this and decide if we are even on the same page. I certainly expect to "correct" misbehavior, but not so much at this stage.

POLLY: Good boy. Break another commitment to her. That will convince J of your reliability and dependability. She'll realize that she has nothing to fear at all and that you're perfectly trustworthy. Rich also demonstrates to J that he cannot control his temper (instead, it controls him) and that he will punish her with abandonment and lack of communication when he gets angry enough.

ACT THREE:

J'S ANALYSIS OF RICH'S LETTER

After receiving Rich's email, J writes her mentor about it. No additional comments from me: J says it all quite well.

Dear Mentor X,

I didn't need Rich's letter of this evening. He just didn't seem in control of himself to me, and it really struck me as just so much arm waving. I'm sorry, but I can't see it any other way. For him to tell me that it is perfectly okay for me to "confront" him now, before a commitment is made, and then have a fit less than a week later because I "confronted" him about something is off the wall. It really is. Rich was in many ways too good to be true. He was making a lot of the right noises and he certainly can be a very pleasant man on the phone, but there have from the beginning been some things I've been selectively skirting because I was so afraid I'd find out he wasn't for real. Like that story he told me about the submissive he met with and abandoned without doing *anything* with her. He laughed about that. I just don't see what she did or said that was so terribly wrong that he should have taken off on her like that, without so much as a good bye even, according to his own account. I suppose I've been trying to assume that there was more to the story than he told me. I don't think there was. He has a fantasy image of how a submissive is supposed to act, and if they don't live up to it, they're phony.

I am disturbed by his defense of the way he wanted to spend the weekend. The idea that he can't tell if he likes me or not without spending time running around doing vanilla fun stuff is preposterous. The way to find out if he likes me is to slow down and spend more time getting to know me, rather than trying to rush me into a commitment. I was willing to ignore the fact that D. was saying all the right things, except for the obvious emotional dishonesty. D. insisted that he "loved" me. Based on what? Rich was talking marriage. Based on what? We have *not* been in communication all that long. He simply does *not* know me, no matter what he says to the contrary. You don't get to know someone on a weekend, particularly not if you are limiting the amount of time you spend alone with them. He seems mighty defensive about this one to me. I think it was my assertion that it sounded like a date with kinky features rather than a meeting to determine serious compatibility. I *did* sound like that.

Now, this is a really silly point, but it has bothered me from the beginning that he was so obsessed with isolation, with not having anything to do with other lifestyle people even if he could find them. As you know, your slave would love to be able to have friends in *real life* who share that bond with her. It isn't a matter of needing to scene with them. It's a matter of having people who she can be comfortable with and share things with. Rich wants no part of it. His attitude toward the whole issue is that this is something that has to be kept relatively hidden. If you want to know the truth, I think he would find that lifestyle people would challenge his basic assumptions about what dominance and submissive are, and he wants no part of that. I don't really think he has any background at all in real life d/s. Sorry, but I don't. He's dominating, and he may very well be quite kinky as well, but I don't think he's ever *done* much of anything. I think he's looking for "O" and he isn't going to find her. He is much like R., about 20 years later, still looking for that pure submissive, who's only thought is for his pleasure, and who feels chronically guilt ridden and anxious about his good opinion. The way he carried on about electrical play, particularly that cattle prod (which actually does have some appeal for me, btw), indicates to me that he has never done it. He is simply too casual about the idea.

Rich did a lot of back peddling in this interaction. Every time I have called him on something, he has modified his position to fit in more with what he thinks I'm looking for. I don't think he actually understands what I'm looking for. He certainly doesn't understand the principle of psychological intrusion at all. He simply doesn't want to know what a submissive thinks. He doesn't want to know her secrets. He doesn't want to know about her pains and anxieties. In short, he doesn't want to know the things he would have to know in order to control her effectively, and to make her feel genuinely dependent on him for emotional support. Nobody enjoys having to clean up other people's messes, why should he? I don't blame him for that sentiment, but I do blame him for not understanding that this is probably going to be called for, not only in a d/s relationship, but in *any* relationship. You simply cannot divorce a human being from their life history. I am the sum total of all of my experiences, good and bad, and someone who simply doesn't want to know about any of that, is never going to know me either. Someone who doesn't even want to know who I am outside of the context of bdsm activities and vanilla social interactions is never going to have a clue as to how to control me.

His letter to me was an effort to control me. It was a profoundly ignorant effort as well. It was defensive, shrill, emotionally out of control, and at odds with what he's been telling me from the beginning in many areas. He is demonstrating to me that he simply doesn't know the difference between being firm with me, and acting like an idiot. His initial response to my statement about being upset by the lack of a phone call was all right. It was a bit defensive in tone (I think), but it stuck to the subject. If he had continued his response to that with: "You're being over sensitive, settle down," that would have been fine. He did not. I was anxious and upset about not getting a call, and he launched into a defensive rage about it.

He attacks my submissiveness. I am not reacting the way his fantasy submissive would react (having no real needs except for the ones he imagines I have), and therefore I must not be a submissive. I didn't just accept what he was saying, and he is concerned that I may be suspicious that he is lying to me. He covers for it by distraction. I'm the liar, you said so. I'm the fraud. If I were for real I wouldn't be confrontive, even though he gave me his permission to be confrontive. He offers no basic reassurance this time. It's all defense. It's all anger. It's all punishment. It's all coverup, big time coverup. He's a liar. I can feel it.

He's met submissives who were perfect in the role. Well, that more or less says it in my book. He sees submission as a series of acts, distinct from *real life.*

I think what I find most upsetting of all is his closing. He attacks whether or not I am genuinely submissive. He goes on to have a tantrum because he is explaining something to a sub. He might as well have added the "mere" to it. What I find most interesting, is that he is so genuinely disturbed about my reaction to his not calling me. That is far and away the least serious thing I said. It does challenge his basic honesty, but only if he is being dishonest. I merely stated that it was upsetting to me emotionally. I got upset when you and your slave were on vacation too, and your car broke down. I worried about you. I even wrote to G. about it. I don't recall you going into a tantrum because I was worried about what had happened, or because I asked about it. I didn't accuse him of being a liar or anything. I told him honestly that it is very hard for me to trust someone when I don't know him that well, and that incidents like this cause me some concern. He explained what happened, and if the explanation were a true one, then why would be so *angry* about it. And what is this *shit* about "sending for me" as if I were a can of imported something or other. He doesn't have the ability to "send for me" at all. Again, he makes the same sort of irrational punishment threat he has been making all along, but this time it is specific. I think he'll call tomorrow, because it *is* a game to him. And the rules of the game are simple. He has put me in my place, made me question my own submissiveness, made me question my right to ask questions, made me fear the consequences of challenging him on any issue, convinced me to keep my mouth shut and take whatever he chooses to dish out. At least, that's what he thinks.

I'm sorry, Sir, but I find his whole letter highly objectionable. I don't like anything in it at all beyond the mild explanation for why he didn't call. I just love the way he responds to the idea that *I,* of all the low lifes on the planet, would question him about anything. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much point in even discussing it with him. Maybe you see something I don't, but I can't imagine it. I think his response is all out of proportion. Most of what I said in that letter was a repeat of concerns I have already voiced, and not gotten sufficient clarification. I don't see the need for this fit of his at all. As far as being outraged that I would do this *before* there is a commitment, when should I do it? When it's too late? That's stupid.

J

ACT FOUR:

J'S RESPONSE TO RICH

J writes back to Rich. This time, Rich's comments are in quotation marks.

Dear Rich,

"Perhaps, what you need is to realize that there IS a world other than D/s."

J: Perhaps what you need to realize is that I am well aware of the fact that there is a world apart from d/s.

"I believe that if you think about it, I asked "if Mentor X was still making the call as far as ALL your activities went."

J: No, that isn't exactly what you said. You said what I have said that you said. It may not have been exactly what you meant, but it's what you said. Yes, he calls all of the shots at this time.

"Maybe you should send him mail before you send it to me."

J: I did. He told me this afternoon to go ahead and tell you off if I wanted to, and see how you would react.

"I don't care about your previous life."

J: You *don't* believe that a person is fundamentally a result of his/her past? What you are essentially telling me is that my identity is irrelevant to you.

"Mentor X told me that you misrepresented a few facts about your former life to him."

J: I'm sure he did, and I'm also quite sure that he told you a lot more than you are quoting him as saying. How convenient to be able to quote a comment out of context in order to make the other person feel defensive and lowly. Convenient, but not particularly effective. Mentor X and I worked all of that out long ago, and he reads every word I write. I haven't lied to you at all, or anybody else for that matter. So, whatever might be your motive in bringing this up in an irrelevant manner at this stage in the conversation?

"He is all important to you and you know that."

J: ALL IMPORTANT? What about my children, my friends, my family. All important? He is very important, but "all important." I think your opinion of his position in my life is far more grandiose than his opinion of his position in my life is.

"I come along and you have told me quite a bit about your past life."

J: I've told you very little. You must have an incredibly simplistic idea of who and what I am if you think you know that much about me based on a few e-mails. I must not have had any life at all if it can be contained so neatly and so compactly.

"What do you want? Spend the ENTIRE weekend bound, gagged, being whipped, spanked with no regard to the possibility of developing "LIKE" which could easily become "love, appreciation, etc., etc.,?"

J: I am saying that I have every right to *expect* that we would spend the time getting know each other, not getting to know the sights. Sight seeing is fine. I'm all for it. It does nothing to establish liking. Liking is based on the interaction of the personalities involved, not social distraction and being *busy.* I could go to a theme park with any reasonably congenial human being and have a good time, and it wouldn't make us friends/lovers/whatever. The test of compatibility is whether or not you can abide being the same room with someone when there are *not* a multitude of distractions. The problem, as I see it, is that you are unwilling to take the time it actually requires to build a friendship. I have maintained friendships for years and years, but I didn't go to some social function for a weekend with my friends in order to decide whether or not I cared about them, or could manage to like them. It simply isn't done that way.

"If the lack of a single phone call is going to get THIS sort of response, then maybe you are not who/what I thought you were."

J: I imagine that you have no idea who or what I am, given that you have already decided that you don't give a shit about anything having to do with my life, just how effectively you can boss me around. The old "you aren't really a submissive" because you don't give uncompromising trust to a total stranger based on a few e-mails and phone calls routine. I have always loved it. It's one of my favorites, and far and away the most common response of men who have no idea what it takes to sustain a power exchange relationship. Every sub you ever meet will fail to meet your expectations, because she will never spontaneously worship you for no reason.

"I find myself sitting here at the keyboard giving an explanation to a sub!! This is intolerable!!"

J: Of course it's intolerable. "Subs" aren't human. They have no needs. They have no feelings, no fears, no problems. How dare I ask you anything after you told me to, and how dare I confront you after you told me that it would be okay to do that at this point. You didn't mean one word of *that,* did you?

"I will NOT do this again. I do NOT owe you an explanation."

J: You have not explained very much of anything to me, but you have explained everything. You want a fantasy woman who doesn't exist. I'm not a real human being to you. I have no reality apart from your thoughts and your desires and your assumptions about something you know little to nothing about.

"But, no, you have to make this a confrontation."

J: Another little reminder about what *you* said to me, and not long ago. You told me in e-mail that I could ask anything now, but not later. When I confronted you about this idea that you somehow expected me never to have a question again, you clarified your position by saying that you felt that I should be free to be confrontive now, but that it would not be tolerated later. I guess I now understand how sincere that clarification was.

"I WILL NOT PLAY THIS GAME."

J: You arrogant ass. This is not a game. This is my life, and you will not shit upon it. I won't play *this* game. Go flap your arms someplace else, but leave me the hell alone. You are a liar, and a cheat, and a fraud. You want fantasy, not reality, and you are willing to lie and to misrepresent and to rage when someone expresses simple human doubts. No, I'm not compatible with you at all. I realized that while visiting the home page of another lifestyle couple (not Jon and Polly), and also while reading though some of the remarks by other lifestyle submissives on Jon's Web site. You don't want a real human being. Being a real human being is such a bother. It might take effort. It might take patience. It might even require some understanding and compassion. Those seem to be qualities you lack.

"I certainly expect to "correct" misbehavior, but not so much at this stage."

J: You aren't going to be correcting *any* behavior of mine at any time in the future. My letter to you expressed simple concerns, and your ego was so fragile you couldn't respond to it without acting like an ass. It never occurred to you that I might have anxieties about any of this, or that anxieties under the circumstances are normal, and they *are* your problem to deal with, not to "correct" but to deal with. Of course, having no interest in how anybody else feels about anything at all, why should you bother. Not giving a shit about my being molested as a child, or having been abused in situations where I was far more justified in feeling secure than I am with you, I should just fall into this lovely passive submissive *role.* Well, I don't *do* roles at all. Submissive is who and what I am, even in a vanilla context, and submissive *doesn't* mean passive. Fortunately, I have found out what a egotistical and insecure fraud you really are before making any serious mistakes. Too bad. I liked you before you turned stupid on me.

J

CONCLUSION

A submissive friend visited us during the weekend I prepared this page. When she heard the J and Rich story, she remarked that it seems to take about two months before an email dominant's true colors appear. She should know: she's just begun to look for a dominant, and already she's had two experiences very similar to J's, where the "dominant" turned out to be not at all what he presented himself to be. She and J are lucky in one important way: each made her discovery before they visited the dominant and thus avoided a disaster.

A charming older submissive friend of ours was not nearly so lucky. Her first in-person encounter with a dominant was nothing like she had expected (basically, he did not or could not dominate her--all he wanted to do was to sit around and talk). This woman had been tentative about D&S from the start: she had concerns about her age and about the appropriateness of attempting to respond positively to her submissive needs. The experience that she had with this utterly clueless person (he did nothing, absolutely nothing that he had promised in email and over the phone), was enough to drive her away from D&S entirely. She became terrified and discouraged and then completely disappeared. She decided that this one terribly unfortunate experience represented what all D&S is or would be like (at least for her), and she wasn't willing to have anything more to do with it. Does this story sound familiar to you? I am thinking of a specific woman when I write this, but I know at least half a dozen submissives who've had identically tragic experiences--all because their "dominants" at the time, knowingly or unknowingly, grossly misrepresented who they actually were and what they actually wanted and were capable of.