[non-aces only] Do you feel like your body is part of your identity? (poll)

[mreid]

12 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

But I've already said multiple times that kink isn't just about pain 😕 that's just one type of kink.

Yes I know it's not just about pain, but you said it's being in a situation that requires trusting the other person. Pain is just an example.

 

13 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

Actual hetero sex (penis-in-vagina) is exactly the same because you still need to trust that the other person isn't going to suddenly do something cruel to you. Or are you saying all intimate interaction is staged due to the fact that you need to know the other person won't do something you don't want? 

I wasn't thinking about PIV in particular but I suppose it applies. But then, that's only because it's a situation where the other person can hurt you/humiliate you/break your trust, etc... and they don't and I assume that what you are saying is that that is what builds that trust.

 

I think the miscommunication here is that I don't see how those situations can create trust because the only reason that trust is created is that one person has the possibility of hurting or using you in some way but chooses not to... I personally don't see how trust can be created from such a situation because the only reason why that happens is because you give power to the other person over you and they are benevolent enough not to abuse it. I say it's an "artificial" situation because the only reason you feel you can trust that person is because you have put yourself in a situation where they have enough power to hurt you if they wanted to, and the only reason they don't is benevolence. So it's not like there is an external danger and you are both together against it, it's like the danger... comes from yourselves?

 

Does this make sense? It's a bit difficult for me to explain. The easiest way I can explain this is that I cannot feel love or trust for someone who has power over me because they get to create a situation where there is fear. Because then it's like... it's not like you actually trust the person themselves, it's that you are in a situation where... the other person you trust and the danger element of the situation exist in the same person, and you kind of trust one from keeping you from the dangerous side of themselves. Or something like this.

 

This is really difficult for me to explain but the point is, I can't trust someone who has power over me. That creates fear and I can't trust someone I fear for whatever reason.

 

28 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

The trust a soldier feels for his comrade when under enemy fire is very different than the trust a man builds for the woman he has given his heart to, regardless of what the couple does intimately whether kinky or not.

Maybe you can describe this better than I can. What is, in your view, the difference between those 2 kinds of trust? Where does this trust in the second example come from?

[ryn2]

11 minutes ago, mreid said:

I personally don't see how trust can be created from such a situation because the only reason why that happens is because you give power to the other person over you and they are benevolent enough not to abuse it.

Isn’t that ultimately where all trust comes from/comes into play?  If you’re never in a situation where someone else can hurt you, and/or can abandon you to be hurt by an outside force while saving themselves instead, what are you trusting?

 

Trust (in its many forms) is about feeling comfortable that you can be vulnerable in whatever way while reasonably expecting the object of your trust will “have your back” and not exploit you.

[ryn2]

13 minutes ago, mreid said:

I can't trust someone who has power over me. That creates fear and I can't trust someone I fear for whatever reason.

You don’t need to trust someone who doesn’t/cannot have power over you in any way, though.  By definition they cannot put you in or leave you to any situation in which you’d need to depend upon them.

[Lucinda]

I could give one example of a kinkster couple who had this spanking thing going on.  She trusted him before she ever mentioned it.  And it really wasn't about masochistic pain, but about the endorphin rush for her and her joint aches.

 

I think there was a post in this thread about why the psychology behind the kinksters isn't studied.  But it seems to me that it would be easy enough to do by just informally talking with them.

 

Lucinda

[Guest]

4 hours ago, mreid said:

I wasn't thinking about PIV in particular but I suppose it applies. But then, that's only because it's a situation where the other person can hurt you/humiliate you/break your trust, etc... and they don't and I assume that what you are saying is that that is what builds that trust.

It's more that you trust them in the first place which is WHY you do things with them that you wouldn't with anyone else, and those things create an even stronger bond. 

 

4 hours ago, mreid said:

I think the miscommunication here is that I don't see how those situations can create trust because the only reason that trust is created is that one person has the possibility of hurting or using you in some way but chooses not to... I personally don't see how trust can be created from such a situation because the only reason why that happens is because you give power to the other person over you and they are benevolent enough not to abuse it. I say it's an "artificial" situation because the only reason you feel you can trust that person is because you have put yourself in a situation where they have enough power to hurt you if they wanted to, and the only reason they don't is benevolence. So it's not like there is an external danger and you are both together against it, it's like the danger... comes from yourselves?

Like @ryn2 said, isn't that the same with literally any situation involving trust? And there doesn't even have to be danger involved. Like with adult nursing, it's a wonderful trusting bond you build together and you support each other through it etc (because it can be a lot of work inducing lactation if the woman hasn't given birth recently). Obviously you already trust each other or you wouldn't do something like that together, and being able to do it enhances the love and trust you both have for each other.

 

4 hours ago, mreid said:

The easiest way I can explain this is that I cannot feel love or trust for someone who has power over me because they get to create a situation where there is fear. Because then it's like... it's not like you actually trust the person themselves, it's that you are in a situation where... the other person you trust and the danger element of the situation exist in the same person, and you kind of trust one from keeping you from the dangerous side of themselves. Or something like this.

Like I said, it's certainly not always about danger or pain. You're doing things together that create pleasure even though they might be weird or strange or whatever, and the fact that you can do those things with that specific person (and you both get pleasure from it) strengthens the bond you already have.

 

4 hours ago, mreid said:

I can't trust someone who has power over me. That creates fear and I can't trust someone I fear for whatever reason.

But doesn't trust mean you know someone won't hurt you physically and/or emotionally? They won't tell lies about you behind your back? Won't attack you if you're alone with them? When you know someone, and you know they won't do those things to you, that's when you trust them. Even if it's just the lady who serves you coffee (you're trusting her not to poison you) or a teacher at school or your mum or a friend or whatever. Trust means you can feel safe with them. And when you're sharing the type of vulnerability that comes with shared intimate pleasure (through kink or sex or whatever you like), that builds on that trusting bond. There are different levels of trust, and trusting a coffee-shop worker not to poison your drink involves a lot less intimacy than telling the person you love that you want them do to you up the arse or whatever.

 

4 hours ago, mreid said:

What is, in your view, the difference between those 2 kinds of trust? Where does this trust in the second example come from?

The soldier has no choice but to trust that his buddy will have him covered, will try his best to keep him alive just as he will try to keep his buddy alive. If they both survive they know they can trust each other in combat to have each other's backs. It's a trust built through trying to keep each other alive,  but probably doesn't extend to them pleasuring each other sexually/intimately (unless they fall for each other of course). It's not a physically intimate kind of trust, it's a 'I know you can preform in combat' kind of trust.

 

The trust a man has for the woman he loves is more about trust built through shared intimacy, spending a lot of time together, getting to know each other really well. two people in love (if their relationship is healthy) will share their most intimate secrets together, and if both get off from kinky stuff (for example, if spanking get's her aroused enough to have an orgasm and turns him on too) they'll enjoy experimenting with different kinky acts that will enhance both of their pleasure. The acts themselves enhance their closeness because they're sharing vulnerability (their secret desires) and giving each other pleasure as a result. The trust I was talking about wasn't as basic as 'trusting the other person won't hurt you too much', it's the fact that you trust them enough in the first place to share such intimate secret desires with them that's important. That trusting bond is enhanced through the intimacy they share. (obviously that's true for a couple of any gender/s).

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Lucinda said:

She trusted him before she ever mentioned it.

Yes exactly. You need to really, really trust the person before you open up to them on that level. Then once you do open up to them, and you can both share that vulnerability together and give each other sexual and/or emotional pleasure as a result, that trust is reinforced and strengthened. It brings you closer together in a way that's unique from what you share with anyone else.

[mreid]

3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Isn’t that ultimately where all trust comes from/comes into play?  If you’re never in a situation where someone else can hurt you, and/or can abandon you to be hurt by an outside force while saving themselves instead, what are you trusting?

I understand that but I am talking about an external threat. What two consenting adults do in the bedroom doesn't include an external threat, it's just the two of them.

 

3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

You don’t need to trust someone who doesn’t/cannot have power over you in any way, though.  By definition they cannot put you in or leave you to any situation in which you’d need to depend upon them.

But it's exactly a person's refusal to put me in such a situation that makes me trust them. It's not about needing to trust, it's about knowing you can trust. You seem to imply trust is an act of faith, but to me it isn't. I trust someone because I get to know them well enough to know what they will and won't do and what kind of people they are. It's a rational decision for me, and I don't feel safe trusting anyone otherwise. I don't have to have faith in them nor do they need to put me in a situation where I need to have faith because it's not about faith, it's about reason.

 

15 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

It's more that you trust them in the first place which is WHY you do things with them that you wouldn't with anyone else, and those things create an even stronger bond. 

Then if you already know that they are trustworthy why do those things make them any more trustworthy? They are not showing you something you don't already know or feel, right?

 

20 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

Yes exactly. You need to really, really trust the person before you open up to them on that level. Then once you do open up to them, and you can both share that vulnerability together and give each other sexual and/or emotional pleasure as a result, that trust is reinforced and strengthened. It brings you closer together in a way that's unique from what you share with anyone else.

When I said before that these situations were staged what I was trying to say is that the only reason why you trust the other person is because you both created a situation where this other person is given some power over you and their not using this power is what creates trust, because there is always that implicit fear that they might betray you and abuse your vulnerability. However, if you remove the fear factor and take their power away from them, you have no reason to trust them. What I am trying to say is that what makes you trust them is not exactly who they are, it's the particular situation. That's why I say it is staged.

 

The difference between the example with the soldiers and the man and the woman is that in the former the threat is external, but in the latter it isn't. I understand now what @Serran meant on another thread when she said that sex builds that trust faster than regular romantic stuff, I assume she was referring to what you said.

 

The trust that is formed during intimacy is not real to me because 1) it is based more on faith than reason, 2) because of that it doesn't prove the person won't betray you in other situations, 3) you can't really trust someone just because they have the possibility of hurting and decide not to.

 

As for 3) that alone is not rational trust. It's blind faith.

As for 2) because it isn't rational, it doesn't prove anything about the other person's trustworthiness. How can you know whether they respected you in the bedroom because they are indeed trustworthy people who love you or because they simply like the sex and want to continue having sex with you? Or simply because they don't want a rape allegation?

 

I trust someone if I know them well enough to know, rationally, that they have no reason to betray me. That being said, someone who feels the need to put be in a position where they have power over me just to get me to trust them for not using it is not someone who I would trust at all. It's someone who is trying to make me use faith rather than reason.

 

And how can you know that just because someone respected you in the bedroom that means they have any kind of feelings for you? Maybe they just get off on watching you enjoy yourself because it makes them feel validated, not because they actually embrace your vulnerability.

[ryn2]

2 minutes ago, mreid said:

You seem to imply trust is an act of faith, but to me it isn't. I trust someone because I get to know them well enough to know what they will and won't do and what kind of people they are.

As much logic and reason as we apply, there’s always some element of faith in trust because we can never be completely sure what someone else will do.

 

When people face a shared external threat together they’re trusting, or building trust, that the other person will fight with/for them and not sacrifice them in self-protection.

[ryn2]

4 minutes ago, mreid said:

And how can you know that just because someone respected you in the bedroom that means they have any kind of feelings for you?

I don’t think I can know that, but I am not a trusting person.  I prefer an even balance to trust.

[uhtred]

4 hours ago, mreid said:

snip

 

I think the miscommunication here is that I don't see how those situations can create trust because the only reason that trust is created is that one person has the possibility of hurting or using you in some way but chooses not to... I personally don't see how trust can be created from such a situation because the only reason why that happens is because you give power to the other person over you and they are benevolent enough not to abuse it. I say it's an "artificial" situation because the only reason you feel you can trust that person is because you have put yourself in a situation where they have enough power to hurt you if they wanted to, and the only reason they don't is benevolence. So it's not like there is an external danger and you are both together against it, it's like the danger... comes from yourselves?

snip

Doesn't trust require that the other person be able to hurt you in some way?  If someone cannot hurt you, what does trust mean?  To me trust is relying on your belief in the other person's good nature when you have no other way to prevent them from harming you in some way.  It can involve all sorts of things:

I trust my wife not to steal our joint money.  I need to because she has access to it.  I don't need to trust my neighbor not to steal my money because he is not in a position to do so.

 

Trust can be both ways.  In the above example my wife also trusts me not to steal our joint money.  Each has power over the other.  Sometimes like this its exactly symmetric, other times it can be very different forms of power. 

 

A relationship where the power imbalance is all one way is probably not a good idea. 

 

A relationship where neither can in any way harm the other sounds like a business arrangement, not love. 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, mreid said:

Then if you already know that they are trustworthy why do those things make them any more trustworthy? They are not showing you something you don't already know or feel, right?

You're not doing the things to make them more trustworthy. You're doing the things because they feel good to you but are the sort of things you can only do with someone you're intimately involved with and very good friends with. You need to trust someone deeply already to be able to do (or even voice an interest in) a lot of the things I'm talking about - and your trust and intimacy will both become deeper if you can then begin to practice these things together.

 

27 minutes ago, mreid said:

However, if you remove the fear factor and take their power away from them, you have no reason to trust them. What I am trying to say is that what makes you trust them is not exactly who they are, it's the particular situation. That's why I say it is staged.

But I keep saying it's not always about power, or fear, or pain. You're sharing something deeply, deeply personal with someone because you trust them, and the intimacy you share as a result enhances the bond you already have. Maybe it's just something that can't be explained to someone who hasn't experienced it for themselves?

 

27 minutes ago, mreid said:

The trust that is formed during intimacy is not real to me because 1) it is based more on faith than reason, 2) because of that it doesn't prove the person won't betray you in other situations, 3) you can't really trust someone just because they have the possibility of hurting and decide not to.

You don't go into this kind of intimacy with someone you don't already trust (people have casual sex with strangers or prostitutes but I'm talking about something a lot more emotional). You trust them enough to share your deepest, darkest desires with them and you both then share pleasure and intimacy together as a result, loving each other enough to give each other these kinds of pleasures which may seem weird or creepy or strange to some. It's a unique kind of intimacy you can't have with just anyone. But the trust was there already. It didn't happen only as  a result of the fact that they could hurt you but didn't. 

 

27 minutes ago, mreid said:

That being said, someone who feels the need to put be in a position where they have power over me just to get me to trust them for not using it is not someone who I would trust at all. It's someone who is trying to make me use faith rather than reason.

You seem to be focusing very heavily on dom/sub, but that's only one aspect of kink. Not all kink is about power dynamics. And when people do practice dom/sub/pain/power together it's because it turns them on and they get off on it. They're not saying 'hey could you string me up by hooks so I can work out if I trust you?', they're saying 'I trust you and love you enough to be able to ask you to give me the pleasure of stringing me up by hooks, you have no idea how much that would mean to me on so many levels'. If that's something the other person desires to do, then they share that deep, secret desire back. It's a gift you give each other, a beautiful gift. But kink is certainly not always about power, or pain, or fear.

 

27 minutes ago, mreid said:

And how can you know that just because someone respected you in the bedroom that means they have any kind of feelings for you? Maybe they just get off on watching you enjoy yourself because it makes them feel validated, not because they actually embrace your vulnerability.

Like I keep saying, you already trust and love each other and your intimacy (kink or otherwise) enhances that bond. You don't just go into this sort of thing with some random. You really have to know and trust the person very well first (you have to be friends first, not just lovers). 

[mreid]

Also how do you know the reason they are embracing your vulnerability is not because they genuinely like you, but because they like the kind of blind faith you develop in them? Maybe it makes them feel flattered, which is why they do it. And one particularity of blind faith is that there is always that little voice that tells you that the other person might be using you because since it isn't rational it isn't something you can be sure of. So if the other person starts pulling away you get all these doubts and that's how people become "obsessed". Or you make all sorts of sacrifices because you need to convince yourself that there will be some reward. People do all sorts of things to avoid seeing the reality that they might have been just used. But ultimately that's always the goal of blind faith; it's to use people through a carrot and stick method.

 

And a lot of the stuff that is implied in this vulnerability talk is childhood stuff and personal issues. I believe someone who really cares about some will help the person sort those issues, not indulge them in them or coddle them because that keeps them dysfunction, and therefore they will always need them. There's this thing in psychoanalysis called transference-love where the patient starts seeing the doctor as a kind of father figure and falls in love with him. What good psychoanalysts do in those cases is explain the person where this transference love comes from, that it isn't really them they are in love with, and use it to get access to otherwise repressed material that helps heal the person. What shitty doctors do is convince the patient to start an affair with them, which screws up the treatment because it's the patients dysfunction that enabled the relationship to begin with.

 

It makes me wonder if this dynamic isn't the reason why some men prefer virgins and naive young women.

 

7 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

As much logic and reason as we apply, there’s always some element of faith in trust because we can never be completely sure what someone else will do.

Yes, but I'd say it's much more about logic than faith. This faith element is that 1%. However, when you know someone well enough to know what drives them and whether if they might have any reasons or not to betray you then it's not even really faith, it's more of a risk-reward thing that is ultimately rational.

 

6 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Doesn't trust require that the other person be able to hurt you in some way?  If someone cannot hurt you, what does trust mean?  To me trust is relying on your belief in the other person's good nature when you have no other way to prevent them from harming you in some way.  It can involve all sorts of things:

I trust my wife not to steal our joint money.  I need to because she has access to it.  I don't need to trust my neighbor not to steal my money because he is not in a position to do so.

 

Trust can be both ways.  In the above example my wife also trusts me not to steal our joint money.  Each has power over the other.  Sometimes like this its exactly symmetric, other times it can be very different forms of power. 

 

A relationship where the power imbalance is all one way is probably not a good idea. 

 

A relationship where neither can in any way harm the other sounds like a business arrangement, not love. 

I completely disagree. I would trust a spouse not to steal my money because I knew that if they did it wouldn't be advantageous for them (depending on the situation), and same thing with me. I wouldn't want it to be otherwise.

 

What you describe isn't trust, it's faith. It's the kind of mutual dependence that creates distrust and mutual surveillance. This kind of dynamic kills honesty because since it's based on faith you can't really know for sure that the other person won't betray you, and this forces you to be nice to them and hold yourself back when you want to criticize them as they might perceive that as you pulling away from them.

 

To me trust is refusing to be put in or putting someone in that kind of situation to begin with. You situation is the equivalent of each of you having a gun pointed at each other and knowing the other won't pull the trigger because they don't want you to pull the trigger. My idea of trust is two people with guns who aren't even pointing them at each other to begin with because they have no rational reason to do so, and because it's much more productive for them to save the ammunition for mutual enemies.

 

The kind of dynamic you describe is a kind of deterrence. It doesn't imply trust to me. One false step, even if you aren't planning to do anything against the person, and the other person pushes the red button.

 

I think the reasons anyone prefers this kind of dynamic is the feeling of power they have over someone else. Either that or they simply know the other person isn't trustworthy, so they create this artificial kind of trust to replace real trust.

 

I think love is giving the other person freedom to be themselves and do what they want. If their beliefs align with yours then that shouldn't cause you harm.

 

 

 

[Guest 80814]

-

[mreid]

@FictoCannibal. There is always an element of faith in those intimate situations you describe, kink or not. To me, faith kills trust rather than enhances it. I would be very suspicious of anyone who would want me to trust them blindly for whatever reason. To me it's always rationality or nothing and I get the hell away from whoever expects otherwise of me.

 

When you trust someone rationally you literally know they are not going to betray you for the reason that they have no reasons to do so. With faith you never know. If you got a situation of mutual faith like uthred described if the other person betrays you they win a lot if they can get away with it. Someone trustworthy would never want to put you in that situation.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, mreid said:

When you trust someone rationally you literally know they are not going to betray you for the reason that they have no reasons to do so.

That's exactly the kind of trust I'm talking about. You'd only do these things with someone you trust in that way. You wouldn't do it with someone who you think may betray you (because how could you trust someone if you think they'll betray you?!). You'd only do it with someone who loves and respects you enough that you know for a fact they'd never betray you. They're putting the same level of trust in you so it's completely mutual. As a result, you grow closer.

 

I'm not sure you'll ever be able to understand though as I've tried to describe it in so many ways and you just don't seem to understand. You have to remember I've actually done this, even with someone in this thread in an online capacity (not naming any names, haha), and you're looking at it as an outsider who doesn't seem to even fully grasp exactly what a lot of kink entails, let alone what goes on emotionally behind the acts themselves. 

 

You can't stage desire, desire isn't an act of faith. Kink is just a type of desire. When you can trust someone enough to reveal your kinky desires to them, and their desires match yours, you fall into a state of mutual kinky desire. You can experience the pleasure of those acts together and in so doing, enhance intimacy and deepen the trust you already have for each other. It's a gift you give each other. But the trust has to be there already, the trust is a vital ingredient in the enjoyment of the acts.

 

[mreid]

20 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

You have to remember I've actually done this, even with someone in this thread in an online capacity (not naming any names, haha),

I will reply to your post tomorrow, but now I am curious about that. I put my money on @80814.

[no-longer-in-use]

1. Yes to both.

2. In the 3rd person but my body is the same as my waking one. (Interesting but slightly unrelated note: I tend to be a younger version of myself in dreams, like 2-5 years younger, and I usually have long hair even though I cut my hair short several months ago. I wonder what this means?)

3. In the 3rd person but I don't participate in them

4. Moderately so

5. No... I think? I don't understand entirely what they are.

6. Yes.

7. I self-harm, extremely mildly, not enough to affect my health at all. No to the other things.

8. Not that I'm aware of.

9. No...?

[ryn2]

6 hours ago, mreid said:

Also how do you know the reason they are embracing your vulnerability is not because they genuinely like you, but because they like the kind of blind faith you develop in them?

Even if you have gone through an extensive rational exercise to establish that they are unlikely to hurt you, it’s still educated faith (rather than purely blind faith)...

 

...because you don’t know.  You trust that your partner or parent or whomever has access to your finances/knows enough about you to gain access to your finances won’t rob you.  You have done your research and gotten to know the person well and become acceptably comfortable that they’re not prone to robbing people, but in the end there is no way to guarantee they won’t.  You trust your closest friends not to betray you, again because you have vetted them out and observed how they retain what you’ve seen of their morals under pressure, but there’s no way to guarantee they won’t someday betray you.  In the end you always have to apply a little faith that they will continue to behave as you’ve known them to and that your skills and judgment in assessing them are excellent.

[ryn2]

6 hours ago, mreid said:

And a lot of the stuff that is implied in this vulnerability talk is childhood stuff and personal issues.

Ultimately we are all vulnerable in some way, whether we are fully actualized and have worked through our childhood baggage or not.  We are physically vulnerable to incapacitation, injury, and death.  We can be robbed of the material things we need to support ourselves independently.  We have secrets - not necessarily shameful ones; could be the plans for the new model of [item] that will save our jobs - someone else can find and reveal.  No matter how healthy we are mentally and physically, no matter how carefully we fortify ourselves against it, we can’t eliminate that vulnerability completely.

[Telecaster68]

We're (nearly) all vulnerable to feelings of being rejected too, and loneliness. Holding up a robotic lack of emotional connection to anyone else as an ideal seems unachievable and impoverishing to me.

[ryn2]

6 hours ago, mreid said:

When you trust someone rationally you literally know they are not going to betray you for the reason that they have no reasons to do so.

You can work through this and assume it’s true, but you can never really know someone else’s reasons.

 

It’s like trusting someone won’t betray you because they know you have more damaging information about them than they have about you.

 

You never know for certain something in their lives won’t abruptly change such that they suddenly do have reason to hurt you.

[ryn2]

6 hours ago, mreid said:

Yes, but I'd say it's much more about logic than faith. This faith element is that 1%. However, when you know someone well enough to know what drives them and whether if they might have any reasons or not to betray you then it's not even really faith, it's more of a risk-reward thing that is ultimately rational.

It’s still not zero.  No matter how carefully you scrutinize them there is always some risk.  Accepting that risk is the faith part, and there is no way to avoid it.

[ryn2]

6 hours ago, mreid said:

My idea of trust is two people with guns who aren't even pointing them at each other to begin with because they have no rational reason to do so, and because it's much more productive for them to save the ammunition for mutual enemies.

 

The kind of dynamic you describe is a kind of deterrence. It doesn't imply trust to me. One false step, even if you aren't planning to do anything against the person, and the other person pushes the red button.

The kind of dynamic you describe is also a kind of deterrence.  You and the person you trust have no rational reason to harm one another, and the lack of a reason effectively deters you from harming them/them harming you.

 

If anything changes and a new reason comes into play, the deterrent is no longer “guaranteed” strong.

[Guest]

One flaw in your logic - you never know the person won't harm you, rationally or not. You can trust and have faith that they won't. But, logically, the only way you'd be able to know for sure is to be able to read their minds. And no one has that power. Otherwise, there are a million reasons a person may do something harmful to you and some of those are probably very beneficial to them. I can think of rational reasons to betray my trust for basically everyone I have ever met, but because of their emotional ties to me, some do not, even though it would benefit them at times to do so from a purely logical standpoint. What you describe sounds more like trying to trust a sociopath (diagnosed high on the sociopathy scale is what his therapist said) like my brother - you have to know there is absolutely no reason he could benefit from something to know he won't do it, no matter what harm it would cause other people, you have to examine if it benefits him more than hurts him to know if he'll do it. And that is a toxic relationship that I would never choose to be in. 

 

And I have no doubts about the people i have faith in and trust. I don't need to check on them, or doubt them, or obsess on them. I don't trust the person I have to know has no rational reason to not do something against me, because it's a tiring cost/benefit analysis without all the facts, since I don't know what is going on in his head and I am not privy to every detail of his life. I can know he won't do X or Y because I know it wouldn't help him, but the second there is something that changes and it will benefit him, he'll do it in a heartbeat and that makes trust impossible. 

[anisotrophic]

Trust is amazing and powerful and precious. It creates communities. Like this one. The trust we have in people we don't know, and have no power over, who manage this site, to never reveal our identities.

 

Almost nobody is comprehensively aware of how much trust they place in others. It's not rational, and yet it creates amazing things. I hope I can always honor the trust others place in me. In a very real way, these forums are created by an act of trust, made by everyone that uses them.

[ryn2]

I had to stop before because I was risking making myself late to work.  

 

The theory that one can wholly rationally determine that people can be trusted is dependent on a few things:

 

1) certain types - and only those types - of people have both reason to harm you and the capability to enact that harm

 

2) the characteristics which define these types of people are either inborn or acquired through choice, which means people who aren’t these types are guaranteed not to become them at some point

 

3) these types of people can always be identified by observation, in a reasonable timeframe (i.e., you don’t need to observe them their whole lives)

 

4) your skill level when it comes to observing and detecting these types of people is very high, to the point it approaches perfection

 

5) those you have determined are not one of these types, and who therefore lack reason and/or means to harm you, are comparably skilled in #4 to you and can thus be trusted never to associate with the types of people you know to avoid

 

If any of the above is/are even “mostly true” rather than entirely true, faith creeps into the equation.  You can partially mitigate the risk by carefully studying people before trusting them, and by conducting yourself in a way that makes harming you less tempting/beneficial/etc., but you cannot eliminate it.

 

Having worked in emergency services for years, I can assure you #1 and #2 are not true.

[ryn2]

1 hour ago, Serran said:

One flaw in your logic - you never know the person won't harm you, rationally or not. You can trust and have faith that they won't. But, logically, the only way you'd be able to know for sure is to be able to read their minds.

The second flaw... even if you could read their minds, that only protects you in the present.  It doesn’t guarantee that, at some point in the future, things won’t change.  Even if it is possible to read minds and know for 100% sure person A is no threat now, that doesn’t prove they’ll still be no threat in six months or six years.  Meanwhile they still have the information or access you gave them back when your mindreading proved them trustworthy...

[ryn2]

7 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

You can experience the pleasure of those acts together and in so doing, enhance intimacy and deepen the trust you already have for each other.

This is broadly applicable, not just in kink and/or sex.  Before you make yourself vulnerable, you have to establish a certain degree of trust.  Each time your trust is validated - you trust that you can safely make yourself vulnerable, and that trust is justified when the person does not take advantage of you/the situation - you’re a little more reassured that your trust is well-placed.  Each interaction like this minutely strengthens whatever bond exists between you (whether it be a business relationship, a caregiver situation, a friendship, a QPR, a romantic relationship, a sexual partnership, or whatever).

 

Conversely, each time the person betrays your trust - even in small ways - the bond between you weakens.

 

This is common across human interaction in general, not limited to sexual and/or kinky settings.

[anisotrophic]

My professional work is very much entangled with trust. People who think they are untrusting/rational are often engaging in enormous acts of trust they aren't conscious of. In things they didn't think about. Which is to say, their sense of rationality in this process is illusory.

 

This forum is very much an act of trust in people you probably don't know, and one might reflect on how aware we are of that.

[mreid]

9 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

That's exactly the kind of trust I'm talking about. You'd only do these things with someone you trust in that way. You wouldn't do it with someone who you think may betray you (because how could you trust someone if you think they'll betray you?!). You'd only do it with someone who loves and respects you enough that you know for a fact they'd never betray you. They're putting the same level of trust in you so it's completely mutual. As a result, you grow closer.

You are missing the point. What I am trying to say is that any situation where you have to have blind (or mostly blind) faith in another person, where you put yourself completely in their hands and the only reason they don't betray you is benevolence is not something that should inspire trust. If you know, rationally, that the person is not going to betray you to begin with then the situation only confirms it and it the end it changes nothing because the reasons you trust the other person are rational reasons derived from knowing who they are as people and their motivations. An intimate situation where they don't betray you is just a reflection of that, so it changes nothing.

 

The kind of trust you are referring to that strengthens this bond is irrational, because you are in a situation where you believe they won't betray you, not where you know they won't. This "trust" is strengthened because your irrational belief is confirmed, not because there's actually real reasons to trust the person.

 

To summarize: real trust to me is based on knowledge, not experience. As in, knowledge that the other person has no motives to betray you. When that is the case, whatever it is that they do that verifies this rational trust you have of them doesn't change anything, because you know it can't or shouldn't be otherwise. Rational trust nullifies irrational belief.

 

The problem with irrational belief is that it needs constant acts of trust to be validated, or people start getting anxious that the trust is being broken because they simply don't know, they believe.

 

9 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

You can't stage desire, desire isn't an act of faith. Kink is just a type of desire. When you can trust someone enough to reveal your kinky desires to them, and their desires match yours, you fall into a state of mutual kinky desire. You can experience the pleasure of those acts together and in so doing, enhance intimacy and deepen the trust you already have for each other.

If the kinks in question stem from childhood stuff then that is not a healthy thing, ever. It gives both people an incentive to never overcome those things. And how do you know the other person actually shares your kink? How do you know they are not just trying out different stuff, or that they are pretending to share your kink because they want to have a fun story to brag about to their friends?

 

3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Even if you have gone through an extensive rational exercise to establish that they are unlikely to hurt you, it’s still educated faith (rather than purely blind faith)...

 

...because you don’t know.

I think I understand you viewpoint, and the difference between our viewpoints is the attitude. To be that is not blind faith, it's taking an educated risk after weighing the risks and the rewards. It's that little percentage where things may or may not go wrong.

But the main thing is that when I am in that situation and the other person doesn't betray my trust, I see the situation as necessary but still unpleasant. I feel a relief if they don't betray me, much like I feel a relief if I play some kind of lotery or chance game and win some money, rather than lose it. Does that increase my trust in that game? No.

 

Having faith, rather than rational trust, in someone gives them a huge amount of power over you because when people have that kind of faith they will do a lot of things to prove to themselves that they haven't been deceived. (Actually that's the stuff behind a lot of neurosis in psychoanalysis.)

 

With rationality that doesn't happen. When you prioritize reason situations where you are forced to have a bit of blind trust are unpleasant and you see them for what they are: ways for someone to have power over you and get you to love them through fear, rather than for who they are.

 

3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Ultimately we are all vulnerable in some way, whether we are fully actualized and have worked through our childhood baggage or not.  We are physically vulnerable to incapacitation, injury, and death.  We can be robbed of the material things we need to support ourselves independently.  We have secrets - not necessarily shameful ones; could be the plans for the new model of [item] that will save our jobs - someone else can find and reveal.  No matter how healthy we are mentally and physically, no matter how carefully we fortify ourselves against it, we can’t eliminate that vulnerability completely.

That's true but why is it that someone not abusing this vulnerability out of benevolence makes you trust them? The fact that they put themselves in a place where they can even do that to begin with if they wanted to and the only reason they don't is because they don't feel like it, or because they like you enough not to, doesn't seem trustworthy at all to me. Someone who genuinely cares about someone helps the other person overcome their vulnerabilities or at least helps them defend themselves without ever allowing themselves to have that kind of power over them, as that puts psychological pressure on them to appease them so that they won't betray them.

 

3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

We're (nearly) all vulnerable to feelings of being rejected too, and loneliness. Holding up a robotic lack of emotional connection to anyone else as an ideal seems unachievable and impoverishing to me.

And why does rationality have to be unachievable, impoverishing and conducing to a lack of emotional connection? The fact that someone refuses, to begin with, to put themselves in a position where they have power over you seems like a good reason to trust them. In that situation you get to speak your mind, and so do they and that's how you really get to know a person and whether they are trustworthy or not. A dynamic where you give someone else power against you kills honesty. Honesty is necessary for trust.

 

3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

You never know for certain something in their lives won’t abruptly change such that they suddenly do have reason to hurt you.

Exactly. Which is why someone's refusal to have that kind of power over me makes me trust them. It means they don't feel the need to make me feel anxious they might change their mind and betray me.

 

3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

It’s still not zero.  No matter how carefully you scrutinize them there is always some risk.  Accepting that risk is the faith part, and there is no way to avoid it.

No, it's rational. The difference is the attitude. I don't get any emotional feelings from it, just relief that the situation is over.

 

3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

The kind of dynamic you describe is also a kind of deterrence.  You and the person you trust have no rational reason to harm one another, and the lack of a reason effectively deters you from harming them/them harming you.

 

If anything changes and a new reason comes into play, the deterrent is no longer “guaranteed” strong.

But in that case no one loses anything, there is no back-stabbing and the other person doesn't get a dishonest advantage over you because they played on your naivete.

Either side is free to confront each other on equal terms.

 

3 hours ago, Serran said:

What you describe sounds more like trying to trust a sociopath (diagnosed high on the sociopathy scale is what his therapist said) like my brother - you have to know there is absolutely no reason he could benefit from something to know he won't do it, no matter what harm it would cause other people, you have to examine if it benefits him more than hurts him to know if he'll do it. And that is a toxic relationship that I would never choose to be in. 

What?! That's not at all what I said. It completely distorts my arguments.

 

And you are completely wrong. It's actually sociopaths who demand blind trust in them, rather than rational thinking, because they like power and knowing someone has this irrational belief in you gives you an enormous amount of power over the other person. It's a common PUA trick to get the woman a little drunk and to turn off her rational thinking (usually by creating arousal, alcohol, and by this trick they have of moving her from place to place and away from her friends) and take the lead as that makes her have faith in the guy, rather than know he is trustworthy. Then they "pump and dump" them and enjoy seeing her missed calls and she becomes scared he might have just played it her, and as she gets a little scared they call her back for sex to give her that little hope she might have not been used (again the faith thing), and so on, and that's how these creeps keep desperate women around. And they brag about the sort of things they get women to do in the bedroom through this kind of tactics. They also have a neat little trick where they pretend they have a lot in common with the woman and that because of that they really value her as a person.

 

This is just an example, women also have all sorts of little tricks they play on men. Point it, blind faith is bs no matter the situation. Reason above everything else.

 

And probably relevant, there's a plenty of guys, specially these PUA ones or those who use these kinds of tricks who will come up with a lot of romantic drivel, "vulnerability" this and that, "love", etc etc because they want to get in a woman's pants and they will say what they have to say to get laid. I am very suspicious of guys who come up to me with sentimentalistic talk. So far I haven't met one who didn't use that kind of talk for dishonest reasons.

 

And before anyone thinks I might have been played by one of these guys, I haven't. I just know guys like this up close and know their tricks and tactics. I also know a few "experienced" girls and women who sided with guys who tried playing that sort of tricks on me out of envy for my being younger and better looking than them. Always saw right through it.

 

3 hours ago, Serran said:

And I have no doubts about the people i have faith in and trust. I don't need to check on them, or doubt them, or obsess on them. I don't trust the person I have to know has no rational reason to not do something against me, because it's a tiring cost/benefit analysis without all the facts, since I don't know what is going on in his head and I am not privy to every detail of his life. I can know he won't do X or Y because I know it wouldn't help him, but the second there is something that changes and it will benefit him, he'll do it in a heartbeat and that makes trust impossible. 

Again that is not at all what I am saying. If the other person is someone with whom your beliefs align, you have the same mutual problems, your are similar people, you have no common enemies, and an alliance between you two is mutually beneficial then you have someone you can most likely trust. It's just that the world is such a scary, complicated place that similar people have to stick together. It's rational. And since they are allies it is also mutually beneficial that they help each other, which they only do out of their free choice, not because the other person has any kind of power over them or because they want to have power over the other person.

 

3 hours ago, anisotropic said:

Trust is amazing and powerful and precious. It creates communities. Like this one. The trust we have in people we don't know, and have no power over, who manage this site, to never reveal our identities.

But I don't see why that would create any kind of emotional bond. To me it's a rational judgement, nothing more.

 

 

To the others, when you talks about vulnerability what are you even talking about? Your kinks? Your flaws? Being in a position where someone has power over you but they decide not to use it?

If that is the case, why would it be a good thing to have that sort of thing "embraced" not only like it's a part of you, but also as if it's something good? It's not.

 

I will reply to @ryn2 later.