|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
This is my first visit to the site, VERY INTERESTING. I will certainly continue to check out all the different parts of it.
I have a question, though. I read thru the stuff about you contacting John; the calls, the return message, the letters.
It seemed to me that what you did was pursue him, in order to give yourself a degree of satisfaction, no matter what it gave him (discomfort, fear, unhappy memories, risked or actual problems/suspicions or whatever at his workplace) due to the notable persistence. I could say more, but you know what I mean.
If I was pursued like that, I would have believed either:
1. If I was gay, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to out me. I would be trapped, unable to avoid you without risking an outing I didn't want. Yet, meeting or even talking to you would seem likely to feed your unreasonably persistent pursuit of me.
2. If I was straight, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to falsely "out" me, as you seemed to be threatening to do. John's work associates would not have to be rocket scientists to see something very "odd" about the messages in their number, frequency and wording, coming from another man.
UNDERSTAND: I am not demeaming anyone! I am merely saying that if you had pursued me that way, I would have avoided you like the plague, and I would have hated you and all other similarly self-centered people who must always satisfy their own feelings at the expense of others.
Unrequited love is not unusual in life. I am thankful that every man who ever loved my sister, my cousins or my mother did not force himself on their attention as you did to poor John. I think you knew all you needed to know after the first couple of calls, there was no need for what followed, except in your personal, selfish need.
I apologize for the tone of my words; I do not wish to offend you. But as I wrote, I realized more clearly how someone with behavior like yours would have damaged me, and my life. My right to privacy outweighs your need for "closure" or whatever, doesn't it?
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Mark wrote:
> I have a question, though. I read thru the stuff about you contacting John; the calls, the return message, the letters.
>
> It seemed to me that what you did was pursue him, in order to give yourself a degree of satisfaction, no matter what it gave him (discomfort, fear, unhappy memories, risked or actual problems/suspicions or whatever at his workplace) due to the notable persistence. I could say more, but you know what I mean.
You could well be right. Even so he did promise a meeting, in fact twice. Once he said "When I've finished this course" and the next time he said "Call me at the office, I have my diary there."
All he had to do was to say quietly at any point "no, I truly do not want to meet." He did so eventually.
>
> If I was pursued like that, I would have believed either:
>
> 1. If I was gay, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to out me. I would be trapped, unable to avoid you without risking an outing I didn't want. Yet, meeting or even talking to you would seem likely to feed your unreasonably persistent pursuit of me.
Again your point is well taken. And it may be that I was not as stable as I might have been.
>
> 2. If I was straight, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to falsely "out" me, as you seemed to be threatening to do. John's work associates would not have to be rocket scientists to see something very "odd" about the messages in their number, frequency and wording, coming from another man.
Actually the office where he works will often have had persistent people seeking to get through on all sorts of matters, almost all of which are business. He works in the probation service and specialises in peopkle with drug problems.
>
> UNDERSTAND: I am not demeaming anyone! I am merely saying that if you had pursued me that way, I would have avoided you like the plague, and I would have hated you and all other similarly self-centered people who must always satisfy their own feelings at the expense of others.
All he ever had to do was to saty "please go away". I imagine he has no feelings at all towards me in reality.
>
> Unrequited love is not unusual in life. I am thankful that every man who ever loved my sister, my cousins or my mother did not force himself on their attention as you did to poor John. I think you knew all you needed to know after the first couple of calls, there was no need for what followed, except in your personal, selfish need.
Again I hear you. I simply stand in a different place when viewing the situation. He and I were friends, once. And the initial conversations were light and friendly and actually encouraging towards a meeting. Of course my need was selfish. It was the only time I have ever been truly selfish
>
> I apologize for the tone of my words; I do not wish to offend you. But as I wrote, I realized more clearly how someone with behavior like yours would have damaged me, and my life. My right to privacy outweighs your need for "closure" or whatever, doesn't it?
Does it? Why would it have damaged you?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
I can see some of what you are saying. But by saying it, you seem to continue to defend or even promote the original selfishness.
In answer to your questions:
1. Yes, my right to privacy does outweigh your need for "closure" or whatever. This involves several factors.
First, consider the right of privacy as an isolated subject. The police and courts do not have the right to pursue John over frivolous or personal desires, as you pursued him. Second, if you pursued him in a similar fashion, but over a less explosive matter (say, which flowers he should plant in his yard) then he might have the lawyers (solicitors?) lay a restraining order on you, and might move quickly to enforce that order and have you in jail if that was what it would take to stop you.
Second, you claim that this was all about your love and friendship with John, yet your pursuit reflects nothing more than the need for self-satisfaction. In a relationship sense, what you did seems more like masturbating (self-satisfaction) than making love (sharing anything with John or showing any concern for his obvious desire to remain unentangled with you).
Third, you imply that John did something unusual by first seeming to agree to meet, then changing his behavior and trying to avoid you. But that is not unusual at all. You are unfairly holding him to a higher degree of honesty than everyday life or business requires, and you are doing it without his consent. He had no relationship with you that would justify you placing that burden of openness and honesty upon him. You were not really even friends, and though you may not have realized that at a tender age, you surely did by the age at which you began to pursue him.
Putting people off with vague words of a meeting or call at some future date is a time-honored method of sloughing off those for whom we have no time or no desire for contact. Example: An unwelcome, unexpected voice from the past calls John. John, caught by surprise, and not knowing what the hell this guy wants or is like, tries to get out of the situation by saying yeah sure to a meeting proposed by the unwelcome caller.
This happens a time or two or three, with John legitimately expecting that the caller, supposedly well intentioned and not (yet) known to be dangerous, will soon realize that John is just putting him off, and will therefore stop calling and will leave John alone. This scene is a well-known social ploy, and with reasonable people it usually comes out just as John is hoping it will. Unpredictable and unreliable emotions brought out by straight-forward rejection are avoided, and the caller goes away peacefully.
In sum then, you took advantage of John in a big way, and you continue to do so by blaming him for your own inappropriate behavior. Since being gay is such an explosive issue, John would not use the courts, for that would cast suspicion on him leading to thoughts like this among coworkers and whoever learned of the case:
..."if that guy has been pursuing John the way John claims, then the two of them probably did have something going on way back then; I bet John is queer...".
Going even further, by keeping up the pursuit, and threatening to call over and over forever, you tried to force John to meet with you. Why would he not suspect that you would come to the meeting with tape recorder, hidden camera, witnesses or whatever. You were forcibly invading his private life without adequate cause, in full knowledge that he was avoiding you, and though it has not been said or admitted, it is clear that you were basically trying to force or blackmail him into meeting with you.
2. In saying that I realized how your behavior would have damaged me, and my life, I made a typo; the word "would" should have been "could". So I meant that I feel that if someone like you directed that kind of pursuit toward me, it could have damaged my life. Being gay remains controversial. Being susceptible to gossip, suspicion, and innuendo remain as human frailties. Being nosy and curious also remain as human frailties. You claim that your messages would not have aroused suspicion or curiousity in John's workplace, for in his work many people call in similar fashion.
I dispute that. I think your pursuit is noticeably personal, I think that any number of unpredictable things could have happened to make a coworker look or thing twice, and I think you are not holding yourself to the same exta-high standard of honesty that you want to hold John to. Your own phone number and the specific wording in your messages would have told his coworkers that you were not a normal client of John's work. The simple fact is that whether he is gay or not, you risked getting him labeled that way, you did it recklessly and selfishly, then you publicly congratulated yourself for that behavior on this website, and now you continue to defend the claim that your behavior was essentially appropriate, and that your unfulfilled romantic longings are more important that another person's right to privacy.
And it is here that you can damage my life. I have my secrets, and I like to keep them secret. Having people in general disregard my right to privacy is a danger to me, for I lack your good luck.
When my secret comes out, my work & my family will disappear, some of my friends will disappear or lose their comfortableness around me, and other closeted gays that I know will avoid me, for being seen with me after I am outed will bring suspicion down on them as well. Don't even tell me now that I should come out of the closet, you don't have the right to decide that for me. Show me that you respect my right to decide. You should not put yourself in the position of risking hurting one of us, just because he lacks your luxury of being out and free.
Further, proclaiming and defending on this website that it is OK to invade my privacy to satisfy one's own desires is dangerous, for it may confuse and convince others that you are right. And in that way, we may end up with one of your readers deciding to pursue as you pursued John.
And this brings us to one final point where we disagree. You say that you "... imagine he has no feelings at all towards me in reality."
I doubt you are right. I suspect he has many feelings toward you, all of them negative, just as I would have if you pursued me that way.
And in the end, what did you gain: his negative feelings are simply matched by your negative feelings, for now you call John a jerk.
Respectfully,
Mark
timmy wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > I have a question, though. I read thru the stuff about you contacting John; the calls, the return message, the letters.
> >
> > It seemed to me that what you did was pursue him, in order to give yourself a degree of satisfaction, no matter what it gave him (discomfort, fear, unhappy memories, risked or actual problems/suspicions or whatever at his workplace) due to the notable persistence. I could say more, but you know what I mean.
>
> You could well be right. Even so he did promise a meeting, in fact twice. Once he said "When I've finished this course" and the next time he said "Call me at the office, I have my diary there."
>
> All he had to do was to say quietly at any point "no, I truly do not want to meet." He did so eventually.
> >
> > If I was pursued like that, I would have believed either:
> >
> > 1. If I was gay, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to out me. I would be trapped, unable to avoid you without risking an outing I didn't want. Yet, meeting or even talking to you would seem likely to feed your unreasonably persistent pursuit of me.
>
> Again your point is well taken. And it may be that I was not as stable as I might have been.
> >
> > 2. If I was straight, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to falsely "out" me, as you seemed to be threatening to do. John's work associates would not have to be rocket scientists to see something very "odd" about the messages in their number, frequency and wording, coming from another man.
>
> Actually the office where he works will often have had persistent people seeking to get through on all sorts of matters, almost all of which are business. He works in the probation service and specialises in peopkle with drug problems.
> >
> > UNDERSTAND: I am not demeaming anyone! I am merely saying that if you had pursued me that way, I would have avoided you like the plague, and I would have hated you and all other similarly self-centered people who must always satisfy their own feelings at the expense of others.
>
> All he ever had to do was to saty "please go away". I imagine he has no feelings at all towards me in reality.
> >
> > Unrequited love is not unusual in life. I am thankful that every man who ever loved my sister, my cousins or my mother did not force himself on their attention as you did to poor John. I think you knew all you needed to know after the first couple of calls, there was no need for what followed, except in your personal, selfish need.
>
> Again I hear you. I simply stand in a different place when viewing the situation. He and I were friends, once. And the initial conversations were light and friendly and actually encouraging towards a meeting. Of course my need was selfish. It was the only time I have ever been truly selfish
> >
> > I apologize for the tone of my words; I do not wish to offend you. But as I wrote, I realized more clearly how someone with behavior like yours would have damaged me, and my life. My right to privacy outweighs your need for "closure" or whatever, doesn't it?
>
> Does it? Why would it have damaged you?
timmy wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > I have a question, though. I read thru the stuff about you contacting John; the calls, the return message, the letters.
> >
> > It seemed to me that what you did was pursue him, in order to give yourself a degree of satisfaction, no matter what it gave him (discomfort, fear, unhappy memories, risked or actual problems/suspicions or whatever at his workplace) due to the notable persistence. I could say more, but you know what I mean.
>
> You could well be right. Even so he did promise a meeting, in fact twice. Once he said "When I've finished this course" and the next time he said "Call me at the office, I have my diary there."
>
> All he had to do was to say quietly at any point "no, I truly do not want to meet." He did so eventually.
> >
> > If I was pursued like that, I would have believed either:
> >
> > 1. If I was gay, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to out me. I would be trapped, unable to avoid you without risking an outing I didn't want. Yet, meeting or even talking to you would seem likely to feed your unreasonably persistent pursuit of me.
>
> Again your point is well taken. And it may be that I was not as stable as I might have been.
> >
> > 2. If I was straight, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to falsely "out" me, as you seemed to be threatening to do. John's work associates would not have to be rocket scientists to see something very "odd" about the messages in their number, frequency and wording, coming from another man.
>
> Actually the office where he works will often have had persistent people seeking to get through on all sorts of matters, almost all of which are business. He works in the probation service and specialises in peopkle with drug problems.
> >
> > UNDERSTAND: I am not demeaming anyone! I am merely saying that if you had pursued me that way, I would have avoided you like the plague, and I would have hated you and all other similarly self-centered people who must always satisfy their own feelings at the expense of others.
>
> All he ever had to do was to saty "please go away". I imagine he has no feelings at all towards me in reality.
> >
> > Unrequited love is not unusual in life. I am thankful that every man who ever loved my sister, my cousins or my mother did not force himself on their attention as you did to poor John. I think you knew all you needed to know after the first couple of calls, there was no need for what followed, except in your personal, selfish need.
>
> Again I hear you. I simply stand in a different place when viewing the situation. He and I were friends, once. And the initial conversations were light and friendly and actually encouraging towards a meeting. Of course my need was selfish. It was the only time I have ever been truly selfish
> >
> > I apologize for the tone of my words; I do not wish to offend you. But as I wrote, I realized more clearly how someone with behavior like yours would have damaged me, and my life. My right to privacy outweighs your need for "closure" or whatever, doesn't it?
>
> Does it? Why would it have damaged you?
timmy wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > I have a question, though. I read thru the stuff about you contacting John; the calls, the return message, the letters.
> >
> > It seemed to me that what you did was pursue him, in order to give yourself a degree of satisfaction, no matter what it gave him (discomfort, fear, unhappy memories, risked or actual problems/suspicions or whatever at his workplace) due to the notable persistence. I could say more, but you know what I mean.
>
> You could well be right. Even so he did promise a meeting, in fact twice. Once he said "When I've finished this course" and the next time he said "Call me at the office, I have my diary there."
>
> All he had to do was to say quietly at any point "no, I truly do not want to meet." He did so eventually.
> >
> > If I was pursued like that, I would have believed either:
> >
> > 1. If I was gay, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to out me. I would be trapped, unable to avoid you without risking an outing I didn't want. Yet, meeting or even talking to you would seem likely to feed your unreasonably persistent pursuit of me.
>
> Again your point is well taken. And it may be that I was not as stable as I might have been.
> >
> > 2. If I was straight, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to falsely "out" me, as you seemed to be threatening to do. John's work associates would not have to be rocket scientists to see something very "odd" about the messages in their number, frequency and wording, coming from another man.
>
> Actually the office where he works will often have had persistent people seeking to get through on all sorts of matters, almost all of which are business. He works in the probation service and specialises in peopkle with drug problems.
> >
> > UNDERSTAND: I am not demeaming anyone! I am merely saying that if you had pursued me that way, I would have avoided you like the plague, and I would have hated you and all other similarly self-centered people who must always satisfy their own feelings at the expense of others.
>
> All he ever had to do was to saty "please go away". I imagine he has no feelings at all towards me in reality.
> >
> > Unrequited love is not unusual in life. I am thankful that every man who ever loved my sister, my cousins or my mother did not force himself on their attention as you did to poor John. I think you knew all you needed to know after the first couple of calls, there was no need for what followed, except in your personal, selfish need.
>
> Again I hear you. I simply stand in a different place when viewing the situation. He and I were friends, once. And the initial conversations were light and friendly and actually encouraging towards a meeting. Of course my need was selfish. It was the only time I have ever been truly selfish
> >
> > I apologize for the tone of my words; I do not wish to offend you. But as I wrote, I realized more clearly how someone with behavior like yours would have damaged me, and my life. My right to privacy outweighs your need for "closure" or whatever, doesn't it?
>
> Does it? Why would it have damaged you?
timmy wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > I have a question, though. I read thru the stuff about you contacting John; the calls, the return message, the letters.
> >
> > It seemed to me that what you did was pursue him, in order to give yourself a degree of satisfaction, no matter what it gave him (discomfort, fear, unhappy memories, risked or actual problems/suspicions or whatever at his workplace) due to the notable persistence. I could say more, but you know what I mean.
>
> You could well be right. Even so he did promise a meeting, in fact twice. Once he said "When I've finished this course" and the next time he said "Call me at the office, I have my diary there."
>
> All he had to do was to say quietly at any point "no, I truly do not want to meet." He did so eventually.
> >
> > If I was pursued like that, I would have believed either:
> >
> > 1. If I was gay, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to out me. I would be trapped, unable to avoid you without risking an outing I didn't want. Yet, meeting or even talking to you would seem likely to feed your unreasonably persistent pursuit of me.
>
> Again your point is well taken. And it may be that I was not as stable as I might have been.
> >
> > 2. If I was straight, I would have believed that you were unstable and likely to falsely "out" me, as you seemed to be threatening to do. John's work associates would not have to be rocket scientists to see something very "odd" about the messages in their number, frequency and wording, coming from another man.
>
> Actually the office where he works will often have had persistent people seeking to get through on all sorts of matters, almost all of which are business. He works in the probation service and specialises in peopkle with drug problems.
> >
> > UNDERSTAND: I am not demeaming anyone! I am merely saying that if you had pursued me that way, I would have avoided you like the plague, and I would have hated you and all other similarly self-centered people who must always satisfy their own feelings at the expense of others.
>
> All he ever had to do was to saty "please go away". I imagine he has no feelings at all towards me in reality.
> >
> > Unrequited love is not unusual in life. I am thankful that every man who ever loved my sister, my cousins or my mother did not force himself on their attention as you did to poor John. I think you knew all you needed to know after the first couple of calls, there was no need for what followed, except in your personal, selfish need.
>
> Again I hear you. I simply stand in a different place when viewing the situation. He and I were friends, once. And the initial conversations were light and friendly and actually encouraging towards a meeting. Of course my need was selfish. It was the only time I have ever been truly selfish
> >
> > I apologize for the tone of my words; I do not wish to offend you. But as I wrote, I realized more clearly how someone with behavior like yours would have damaged me, and my life. My right to privacy outweighs your need for "closure" or whatever, doesn't it?
>
> Does it? Why would it have damaged you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Interestingly I am not allowed to answer you without receiving a hearty lecture. So, you have my answers. I am not going to indulge in a debate over this. You have decided what you have decided. My view differs. His we will never know.
I do object most heartily to your "known to be dangerous" comment, however. Additionally I object to the hectoring tone you are adopting. You are not uniquely entitled to be correct, nor am I. Perhaps you mighty look at the head of this board. Amomng other things it says: " Please use care and charity when you discuss here, and realise that absolutes are unlikely despite your or my certainty in them."
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Perhaps an apology is in order -- It was not my intent to adopt a hectoring tone, and I apologize for letting such a tone creep into what I wrote.
Also, perhaps another: For the use of the word dangerous.
I wrote: "This happens a time or two or three, with John legitimately
expecting that the caller, supposedly well intentioned and
not (yet) known to be dangerous, will soon realize that John is
just putting him off, and will therefore stop calling and will
leave John alone."
My intended meaning was that John had not yet realized how persistent the caller would turn out to be, and therefore had not yet realized the danger of the caller raising difficult questions or arousing the curiosity of co-workers.
I never intended to imply that the caller represented or threatened any physical danger. I should have chosen a better (calmer) word.
I acknowledge that my response was fairly lengthy. I had envisioned this discussion as possibly gaining useful input and insight from a number of different participants. To that end, I thought it useful to put in all of what I was feeling and thinking, for the sake of comparing and contrasting it with what others might right.
I guess your words about not indulging in a debate will have the effect of squelching any input from others, so I will just say so long, it was nice talking with you.
Respectfully,
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
If we can keep it civilised I have no objection to continuing. And I accept your apology
Please understand that I have spent much, most, of my life since I was 13 fighting this obsession, and that I have managed to turn it into a simple warm feeling towards this now unknown man.
I will not, I think, dive into the message I found hectoring. But you are welcome to raise the points again in a gentler manner.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
You know I have this picture in my head of your picture of the conversation with the switchbaord at his workplace.
"Please tell him I want sexual favours from him and that I want to seduce him!" That is what I see.
The truth? "We're trying to arrange to meet for lunch. He asked me to call him to set it up."
I do have tact, diplomacy and a full grasp of the possible impact of some fool from the past. So I was tactful, and diplomatic, and actually, while persistent, careful.
As a background to my being persistent, John had the reputation always of never, ever, returning calls, and never, ever picking up the phone himself. Not just with me, but with everyone. We always had to persist if we ever wanted to speak to him.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
