I tend to be direct.

Very direct.

I mean what I say, when I say it.

Sure, sometimes I’m wrong, or I change my mind, but generally, you can take my words, especially about myself, at face value.

You can also believe that I took care in saying exactly what I meant.

And when I say that I don’t want to speak sexually with a total stranger on the internet, that seems, to me, like it should be clear.

Apparently, it’s not. Case in point (bold is mine):

Duuuuude (second message):

Would You be interested in chatting? 🙂

Me

If by chatting, you mean talking sexually, no. If you mean having meaningful conversation about topics of mutual interest, maybe.

Duuuuude:

Alright, well I did mean chatting in the general sense.

But “talking sexually” is such a broad phrase, which can mean a wide variety of things. Do I want to role play? No. Do I want to cyber sex? No. Would I like to potentially explore a D/s dynamic if we happen to click? Probably. I’m up for all intelligent conversation, and since it seemed like you are also intelligent and listed as looking for a submissive, I assumed that “talking sexually” in the context of D/s would be acceptable and certainly not a red line from the get go?

I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and label your reaction as a disenchantment and displeasure with the way a lot of the guys on here correspond with you.

Me

There is no benefit of the doubt needed. I said exactly what I meant.

I am not, right now, consenting to sexual discussion.

It does not matter why or in what context. It matters that I said that.

As far as looking for a sub goes, I would still not talk with you sexually, until I chose to open the door to that. I choose my partners carefully, by liking them as humans, first, rather than by their sexual proclivities.

I also do not play outside of my relationships and tribe, except in cuckolding, and I already have a cuckold Pet and bulls I see.

So, take that as you will.

If you’d like to have a conversation about something you think may interest both of us, then let’s do it.

If not, I get it. Simply a lack of communication compatibility.

Duuuuude:

I also agree with you and always prefer to talk “as humans” first. I apologize if something I said in my first message triggered something, but I never intended to imply that I am only seeking sexual discussion.

But, it’s kind of ironic that you seem to be so closed off to discussing topics related to sexuality since you yourself write erotica and say in your profile that “you are not shy about sexuality” and that you “… enjoy talking about everything from sexuality to philosophy”.

So to me it seems like you’re imposing a bit of a double standard?

Again, I’m not the one who even attempted to initiate sexual conversation, yet somehow I have to convince the girl that publicly advertises her enjoyment of discussing sexuality and writing erotica that I have no intentions to even think about engaging in sexual conversation?

Me:

Let me explain something to you.

You validate my consent in the first paragraph, then say “but” and invalidate it all.

I choose who and when to discuss sexual topics. It is no double standard. You also get to consent, when that happens.

I think, perhaps, you are not clear on how all this works.

Duuuuude:

First of all, I’m not sure why you felt the need to “preempt” me by making it clear that sexual discussion is indeed out of the equation when I hadn’t even suggested such a conversation. It’s like trying to earnestly dissuade a vegetarian from eating at a steakhouse.

Of course you choose whether or not you want to have a sexual conversation. I was simply pointing out the irony in your unnecessary insistence on imposing these restrictions when it’s pretty clear from your profile that you are generally interested in talking about the very things you say you aren’t interested in talking about.

If you had qualified what you said by saying that you don’t want to talk sexually specifically with me then that’s fine. I would never tell a girl I’m not interested in dating generally after she contacts me after reading my profile on a site specifically for dating.

Me:

Wow, you have a lot to say about how I am allowed (in conversation with you) to speak my preferences.

I’m not interested in a dominant (or should that be , “I’m not interested in specifically you being a dominant to me”?).

Best of luck to you.

Duuuuude:

Of course you’re allowed to say anything you want (I’m not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I was implying that somehow you weren’t?).

I was simply pointing out how the way you communicated your preferences was inconsistent with what was written in your profile.

I’m VERY submissive and have never, and will never (most likely), look to be in a dominant position towards anyone.

With that being said, that does not mean I don’t appreciate intelligence, which I thought you had?

Ans again, you are clearly allowed to say anything, but being allowed to say something and saying something intelligent are two completely different things 🙂

Have a good one!

Me:

sighs

I made the point about dominance as a joke to try to make you realize how ridiculous your repeated points are. I overestimated you. My apologies for the confusion.

So again, you write to me giving me permission to say what I want, but qualifying it as not being very intelligent.

Because I simply stated that I did not want to speak sexually in our conversation.

So far, you’ve written hundreds of words on that topic, instead of just accepting it.

To be clear, I very much enjoy talking about sexuality. Just like I enjoy speaking about philosophy.

However, I don’t enjoy (or attempt to) talk philosophy with everyone. I don’t enjoy talking about deep philosophical matters just anywhere. I don’t enjoy talking philosophy at just any time.

Would you question me so closely about whether it were YOU that was the factor?

Would you care as much?

Or is it something specifically about sexuality that is sticking in your craw?

It doesn’t matter.

And speaking about sexuality (which I love) is a different beast than chatting sexually.

A point which you seem to be missing.

You are coming across as pushy and entitled by complaining so continuously that I made a simple statement of intent (which is inconsistent with your stated desire to NOT talk sexually right now, anyway).

To be crystal clear: I’m not interested in further engagement with you and I won’t respond again.

Best of luck to you in finding what you seek.

Duuuuude:

You were the one who initiated demarcation of the lines of conversation to exclude sexuality without me even having so much as hinted at wanting a conversation concerning that topic, so clearly there’s nothing specific about sexuality that’s “sticking in my craw”…quite the opposite!

If you had told me that philosophy is off the table as a topic of conversation, then I would have reacted the same way, but you were the first one to even mention sexuality.

I’m just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that since you get so many messages from guys that are unwanted and explicitly sexual, that you assume the worst about every guy who wants to engage with you that they are automatically wanting sexual conversations.

It’s unfortunate how your “defense mechanism” undermines opportunities for substantive dialogue.

Note how everything he has to say to me is about how it’s MY fault we are STILL talking about sexuality, when I don’t want to talk about it?

How I’m SOOOOO damaged that I “preemptively” block against something I love so much?

And such a horrible communicator that I did not make it clear I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about him in my conversations with him.

If only I were better at following directions…