How can you possibly trust a person who is in control of literally your life?

[Ach1ll3s]

I don't get it. I read these articles about "surrendering control" and stuff. And it doesn't make much sense. I get it when people are in a long-term relationship where trust is a thing. But these days, people meet on apps where every last thing may be a lie. I'm not trying to make a point that submissive people are irresponsible simply because it cannot possibly be that there are so many irresponsible people who don't care about their life or well-being. It's way more likely that there's something (that I know nothing about) that somehow convinces people that meeting a complete stranger in the middle of the night, going into their house, and letting them incapacitate you is a sound decision. What am I missing?

Thank you!

[ChristySub]

A true submissive won't submit to anyone on a whim. A true dom has to earn trust and the right to the submission.
Fucking someone after a few messages on a site isn't submission, it's just kinky sex

[ey****]

because full submission takes time to reach, it's not a "Day 1" thing

[CopperKnob]

The fact that this is not the hook up site that you've described and most if us aren't meeting in the middle of the night and letting people uncapacitate us

[St****]

I think it shows that you need a lot of communication between both parties.  And the submissive is always in charge.

[Ach1ll3s]

16 minutes ago, C-2942 said:

A true submissive won't submit to anyone on a whim. A true dom has to earn trust and the right to the submission.
Fucking someone after a few messages on a site isn't submission, it's just kinky sex

If it's just kinky sex and not the real submission, does it lower the probability of being killed or severely injured? Or am I missing something again?

[Ach1ll3s]

18 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

because full submission takes time to reach, it's not a "Day 1" thing

Does this mean that if a person decides to lie on "Day 1," they'll abandon the idea on "Day N"? Or do you mean that it's some kind of a spy game where one is trying to catch the other one lying over time?

[theporters]

Any submissive worth their salt knows how to properly vet someone prior to engaging in any scenes or dynamics. It doesn't happen immediately, rather requires time, trust, and good communication. Most of the time it also requires building a solid foundation outside of kink.

[lo****]

5 minutes ago, Ach1ll3s said:

If it's just kinky sex and not the real submission, does it lower the probability of being killed or severely injured? Or am I missing something again?

If someone were behaving as you described, very risky, could be hurt or worse. Is NOT a D/S dynamic.

[Ach1ll3s]

17 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

The fact that this is not the hook up site that you've described and most if us aren't meeting in the middle of the night and letting people uncapacitate us

So you are saying that people here are not like that and that you are sure that if you and I meet, I definitely 100% won't harm you. Do you really trust me that much? And why?

[CopperKnob]

4 minutes ago, Ach1ll3s said:

Does this mean that if a person decides to lie on "Day 1," they'll abandon the idea on "Day N"? Or do you mean that it's some kind of a spy game where one is trying to catch the other one lying over time?

No, I think it means that we realise when we're being trolled on day 1 and we abandon any further attempts to engage in silliness

[ge****]

Whilst there will be those that act as you suggest OP, and no I don't understand why they would take such risks either, I'm not sure it's "so many" people either.
.
Ultimately, for the majority, whenever a submissive hands over control and to what degree they do, is very much about trust and weighing up the risks.
.
My first ever "scene" was with someone I'd never met, but had chatted to for some time, so had a level of knowledge and indeed trust in her, even so there was agreement in place that any restraints would be symbolic more than actually restraining me to the point I couldn't escape.

[Ob****]

Hmmm, from the threads I’ve read on here and the responses I’ve seen from many subs, I highly doubt a lot of the people on this site are going into random peoples places and letting them incapacitate them.

[Ach1ll3s]

3 minutes ago, theporters said:

Any submissive worth their salt knows how to properly vet someone prior to engaging in any scenes or dynamics. It doesn't happen immediately, rather requires time, trust, and good communication. Most of the time it also requires building a solid foundation outside of kink.

Basically, what you are saying is that I'm "not worth my salt." Ok, I get that. But does it mean that if I were "worth my salt," no harm would ever be done to me because no one would ever be able to trick me? Right?

[Ach1ll3s]

6 minutes ago, locketheart said:

If someone were behaving as you described, very risky, could be hurt or worse. Is NOT a D/S dynamic.

Meaning that it's the wrong place to ask because this forum discusses a D/S dynamic only?

[ey****]

10 minutes ago, Ach1ll3s said:

Does this mean that if a person decides to lie on "Day 1," they'll abandon the idea on "Day N"? Or do you mean that it's some kind of a spy game where one is trying to catch the other one lying over time?

no, it's that all relationships take work to develop.  

[Ach1ll3s]

6 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

No, I think it means that we realise when we're being trolled on day 1 and we abandon any further attempts to engage in silliness

But if it's something more sinister than trolling, how would you know that?

[Ach1ll3s]

8 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Whilst there will be those that act as you suggest OP, and no I don't understand why they would take such risks either, I'm not sure it's "so many" people either.
.
Ultimately, for the majority, whenever a submissive hands over control and to what degree they do, is very much about trust and weighing up the risks.
.
My first ever "scene" was with someone I'd never met, but had chatted to for some time, so had a level of knowledge and indeed trust in her, even so there was agreement in place that any restraints would be symbolic more than actually restraining me to the point I couldn't escape.

How exactly did you weigh up the risks? What risks did you see?

[ge****]

12 minutes ago, Ach1ll3s said:

So you are saying that people here are not like that and that you are sure that if you and I meet, I definitely 100% won't harm you. Do you really trust me that much? And why?

That's not what CK is saying at all - and I think you've added context that simply isn't there.
.
Sure there are *some* people here who are as you describe, which is why most people won't put themselves in the position of submission immediately and will take time to build a sufficient level of trust before doing so, whilst acknowledging that there will always be a level of risk and mitigating that risk by gradually building to a point where they're confident to give over control.

[CopperKnob]

4 minutes ago, Ach1ll3s said:

But if it's something more sinister than trolling, how would you know that?

Gut instinct, for example, nothing sinister here on this thread, simply an OP who is bored an on a wind up asking ridiculous questions

[Ach1ll3s]

8 minutes ago, Obbork said:

Hmmm, from the threads I’ve read on here and the responses I’ve seen from many subs, I highly doubt a lot of the people on this site are going into random peoples places and letting them incapacitate them.

Meaning that these folks have purely virtual relationships? Because if it's not virtual, any place is random. Well, maybe if it's done in a police precinct with online broadcasting, that will guarantee one's safety. lol

[theporters]

3 minutes ago, Ach1ll3s said:

Basically, what you are saying is that I'm "not worth my salt." Ok, I get that. But does it mean that if I were "worth my salt," no harm would ever be done to me because no one would ever be able to trick me? Right?

No... I'm saying you might be uneducated on risk assessment. There is always some risk involved when engaging with someone in-person. I'll use a personal example for you-- I won't meet anyone in person who I have not personally verified the identity of repeatedly, spent probably... a solid month communicating with online, and filled out spreadsheets going over limits, experience levels, interests, etc... with. I don't rush into a dynamic or a scene because the process of submission takes time (at least for me) and trust being built outside of just kink-related topics. I also generally don't meet people off of the internet in person because I'm overly cautious, but in the few cases I do I've spent months ensuring that I have a full picture of the type of person I'm going to be spending time with. I suggest taking your time and looking up resources to use in the vetting process before jumping into any in-person sessions. Also community spaces are a great place to meet someone for the first time, where you know there will be dungeon monitors/ munch hosts present :). Hope this helps!

[ge****]

4 minutes ago, Ach1ll3s said:

How exactly did you weigh up the risks? What risks did you see?

Gut instinct, awareness of what potential risks there were, and many other common sense factors all played their part, the same way as they would in just about anything we do in life.

[Ach1ll3s]

3 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

That's not what CK is saying at all - and I think you've added context that simply isn't there.
.
Sure there are *some* people here who are as you describe, which is why most people won't put themselves in the position of submission immediately and will take time to build a sufficient level of trust before doing so, whilst acknowledging that there will always be a level of risk and mitigating that risk by gradually building to a point where they're confident to give over control.

What is a "sufficient level of trust"? How do you know when it's sufficient?

[CopperKnob]

Someone tag a Mod? The guys trolling and we've all fallen for it