You’re killing me, smalls. I’m all kinds of LOL’ing over here.
I don’t follow this. I don’t think of myself as “helpless,” but it’s a plain fact that I am totally dependent on others to meet 99% of my physical needs. Every relationship I have in my life, especially romantic ones, are going to by necessity include some level of them taking care of me. Does that mean that my relationships are doomed or “poisoned?” I’m sure that’s not what you mean, but you are super smart and cool so I’d love to know what you do mean. Would you mind elaborating?
But what if it’s just my physical dependence (I’d like to say it’s perceived, but let’s be honest) that tickles his elmo? And not any overriding desire for me to depend totally on him in any other way?
Could he be a good dude who doesn’t mind if I’m assertive and ornery and strong-willed–he just likes that I can’t move?
And is that dirty and f*cked up, just because it’s weird? What’s wrong with being with someone who makes you feel valuable, albeit in a non-traditional way?
Can y’all tell I’m suddenly trying to justify this? LOL. I admit–I’m starting to like this guy, so my opinion is now probably too biased to count…le sigh
I don’t see the downside to just going ahead and seeing how things feel for you as the relationship develops. That’s what we all do in relationships, after all, AB or not.
It may be that you’re well-matched in addition to your dependency matching up well with his kink; it may be that you’re not. The only way to find out whether he’s the one, or just another might-have-been, is to jump in and find out.
If you decide for whatever reason, at whatever point, that this guy isn’t worth wasting your time on, you’ll pull the plug on the relationship, and walk out with the usual mix of good and bad memories and lessons learned. That’s life; that’s not a reason not to go there in the first place as long as you are enjoying this.
Not at all (and thank you). I have this thing when I write where I decide it’s way too long, like what do I think this is, and then I chop bits out of it and it ends up not making my point terribly effectively. What I mean is that emotional dependence and needing another person have sort of become shorthand for troubled romantic relationships: I’ll die without you - that sort of thing. And I think that all other things being equal (which they are, since I don’t know anything else about the dude), the fact that he’s actively seeking that kind of dynamic out, if he is, is points against “healthy.” If he is. And you’re saying maybe he’s not -
which as far as I know, sure, could be, and I don’t think that would be gross or fucked up. In my own personal life I think I’d err on the side of those things (the liking the physical dependence and liking emotional dependence) being at least somewhat linked, but I’m not an expert and you’re in a much better position to get a sense of it. All the other millions of reasons you should or shouldn’t date him are off the table while the rest of us are giving you our impressions, so obviously your opinion is the one that actually does count, which I wouldn’t even bother pointing out if you hadn’t brought up your “bias.” Your bias is based on actually having met him! You’ve got all the information about does he laugh at the right part in the joke, was he nice to the waiter, does he have the acrid musk of an oarsman, etc. I have what I think is one critical piece but not the whole picture. It’s like, if my buddy wants to introduce me to his friend who’s a felon and was raised in a cult, probably I’m busy that night. But maybe he means Winona Ryder! But maybe he doesn’t.
I stand by my “perceived,” though, and I think it’s the important part. What turns him on is you needing him, right; he doesn’t think it’s particularly hot that you need other people to be guardians. He’s the protagonist of that erotic adventure. He’s coming into the thing with a predisposition toward getting off on his own individual ass being the one you most need for comfort. That is what we call in the business of internet advice an ulterior motive.
Winona Ryder was raised in a cult?? And, also, you’re hysterical.
I haven’t asked him if he thinks it’s hot for my carer to do something for me, or if it’s only my needing him that’s the big turn-on. If he thought it was hot no matter who was helping me out, would that make a difference to you? I know you’re not a professional, and this is no therapy session, but I’m finding your opinions very interesting.
yes, stereotypical…a conversation. i forgot, you all like kittens and sparkly things. -i didnt realize a disability got in the way of that…not that i’m speaking from experience, of course.
are you worried this devotee’s reasons are merely because youre in a wheelchair? -that’d be kinda vacuous, wouldn’t it?
I can’t speak for Nawth, but I read your statement as implying that I’m so desperate to “land” a long-term bf that I’d take just about anybody on. That’s vaguely insulting to me personally, but also sounds a little bit like a stereotype of a desperate woman, in general. Of course, I assume you didn’t really mean that, but that’s how it came off.
Probably not. On some kind of commune, wikipedia says. It seems she’s also 40.
Yes. If he just thinks it’s sexy in a kind of isolated way that doesn’t have anything to do with him being your champion or whatever, that’s something completely different from what I think it is, and it’s not something I know anything about. I mean, it either is or isn’t something I don’t know anything about anyway, but it would be something I’d admit I don’t know anything about.
The phrase that stuck out to me was
which sounds to me like just a different flavor of the ill-conceived desire some guys have to be the only thing that matters to the objects of their secretly batshit affection. And – again, not to make a prediction about this one person – that’s a desire that I feel comfortable correlating with some pretty horrible behaviors. But if that isn’t what it’s about, and it’s just aesthetic, like the equivalent of a foot fetish or whatever that isn’t effectively just a limitation on you, then none of that applies. And to be fair, maybe there’s a possibility it really is about him, but it’ll just be OK anyway. He could have an attraction with the potential to be a problem that never becomes a problem because he’s just a good all-around guy. Especially if he recognizes it as a potentially destructive thing that he doesn’t want to become actually destructive. Like those monkeys that know how to ride dogs.
I’ve been reading the Dope for 12 years. Being virtually introduced to Umkay and Jimmy Chitwood this past week has made me love this place all over again.
I’m no lawyer, and I haven’t even gotten close to thinking seriously about this. But, basically, I think the pre-nup would protect my special needs trust, income, and other inheritance monies, even if I die (guess my parents would get them?). I could imagine a structure where, if I die before we’ve been married “x” number of years, he gets nothing. So any psychos considering proposing should think long and hard about whether they could hang in there for half a century before offing me to get their hands on that cash.
Interestingly, neither my parents nor I believe in pre-nups, in general. All my brothers have married without them (and my oldest brother is going through a sad divorce right now). But everyone agrees it’s the right decision for me, considering my extenuating circumstances.
Well, keep in mind that I’m not a lawyer, and this was all set up almost 13 years ago, when I was 14.
But, basically, the law provides for a trust to be set up for individuals with disabilities. This trust is special, because it can’t be counted as a part of my income in regards to disability benefits (though those don’t apply to me since I also work and have an inheritance–but if those went away somehow…). It’s also judgment-proof; should anyone ever sue me, my SNT is off-liimits. This trust is supposed to be used to protect my quality of life, no matter what happens. Money from the trust can go to anything that augments my life, though not for basics like food and shelter.
Anyway, it’s complicated and gives me a headache to think about. Plus, that’s about all I know about it.
It’d be nice of the Veterans Administration funded something like that for disabled vets at the beginning of their treatment; I imagine we’d have less homeless disabled vets. Nothing personal at you, merely brainstorming on something near to my heart.
Chica, I hope you date the heck outta this guy and find that your particular personality ‘puzzle pieces’ fit well together. If you two are happy, the naysayers can pack sand. There’s little enough love in the world w/o measuring it against some arbitrary norm created by the majority.
Trouble is that this kind of trust is called a supplemental needs trust, and is defined into existence as something that pays for what the government doesn’t - and that’s why it gets the special accounting. It only exists in the space created when the government defines certain benefits as basic or necessary, and certain other things as extra. So you’d have to pick between a situation where the stuff the veterans are getting is"extra" even while their basic needs aren’t getting met and one where all the people with supplemental needs trusts who aren’t veterans aren’t able to spend the money on anything that the veterans are getting, because the fact that the government is providing it means it isn’t “supplemental” anymore. Come on, that was interesting.
I’m not sure that bit about naysayers was quite fair. Ain’t no naysaying. These have been easily the most positive threads I’ve ever seen around here. It’s almost disturbing. It’s like a contest to see who can say less nay.
Speaking of which, winneee and umkay, those were really nice things to say. Thanks. However pleased you think somebody would be with himself about it, I’m actually way more pleased than that.
