Butches who don't bind

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I don't know stephfromMIT, so I can't speak to her intentions but reading the first post it seems as though she's stated the question, the rationale for asking it and her experience in the first sentence: binding came up in another thread, let's talk about it, and she goes on to say that she does not bind and why.

I don't know that anyone has the right to expect she should be baring her soul on this topic or any other. She expressed her experience and opened up a conversation.

AND like weatherboi, I have read the titles of the past two threads about butches who do not bind, or pack and I, too, have cringed.

My first reaction was "oh christ, here we go" And when I step back and examine my reaction objectively I know I cringe and roll my eyes because I (like most of us who have been around here and b-f.) know what kind of ugly butch- butcher- butchest nonsense is likely to rear its nasty head. Because, I, like many of you, know historically that divisiveness and negativity reign when these topics are raised.

I don't know if stephfromMIT knows that or not. I don't know if she's been around long enough to have witnessed it. I don't know if her intention was to stir the pot. AND Nor do you (general you).

The conjecture regarding her intentions and veracity, the assumption she's stirring a pot IS in and of itself - pot stirring.

If the intention of the OP isn't clear - ask a direct question.

I actually think reading between the lines on a public forum is a dodgy business, i think it leads to all sorts of miscommunication and reaction. And I think we've come to that conclusion 8 gazillion and 1 times.

I believe in clear, concise and direct communication - not presumption.

And if your hackles go up, if you've got a bad feeling, if you have read between the lines and don't like what you've seen - leave it be, ignore the thread, don't participate, block the OP or the posters if you feel really strongly. Because conjecture is not fact. And the invisible intent found between the lines is not a reliable source.

If a conversation becomes ugly and negative it is solely the responsibility of the people who contribute to it. We bring our stuff to each thread we engage in, we are responsible for it. Not the OP. Not the person who said something that offended me/you/him/her. Not the site owners. Or the moderators who did or didn't intervene. Not the poster's partner. Or his ex girlfriends 'cats' foster mom. :P

We are responsible for ourselves and our words.

I think we can all agree with much of your post, Sparkle.

I posted something inflammatory this morning and then deleted it because I did not wish to, as you say, stir the pot.

In my eyes there are WAY too many inconsistencies in Steph's posts. Some of them are glaring and others are easy to miss unless you are looking for them.

The thing that bothers me is that I, personally, have asked several times for what I consider to be simple clarifications, and have never received solid answers. Finally, I sent the OP a private message and received what I perceived to be a very juvenile, flippant and disrespectful response. My dad graduated from MIT...I feel like I have a legitimate interest.

Steph, you have started some fabulously inquisitive threads and if your intentions are not malicious, then I will be the first to apologize. But right now I question your intentions and quite frankly, I feel a little unsafe having you here. I don't like feeling this way, which is why I came to you personally for clarification.

I for one LOVE new community members and try to roll out the red carpet for all. But I am having trouble here and I feel like there is the potential for hurt when members are being told possible untruths. Especially when it comes to very personal issues like identity and spaces within our hearts.