Chapter 17: Follow-up interview

At least Michael attends the follow-up interview with the Personality Compatibility Test consultant. I don’t ask Michael how he is doing, and he doesn’t make any enquiries about my welfare. That’s not a good sign if we hope to have a reconciliation. Personally, I’m not sure there is any way we can salvage our relationship, but I’m willing to try if Michael is prepared to do likewise. A lot depends on what this consultation reveals.

“We hardly saw each other in the scenario,” complains Michael when the consultant asked for our thoughts on how the scenario unfolded. “We were tricked into picking the wrong character.”

“There was no trickery, Michael. You and Lisa were immersed in two parallel scenarios that overlapped only when your respective character wanted contact with the other’s character,” replies the consultant. “Had either of you desired greater contact with the other, then the scenarios would have adapted to provide it. You interacted with the characters of your choice. The preliminary test you undertook ensured Lisa’s character matched your impression of her personality. If your personality is compatible with Lisa’s then you would be drawn to her avatar inside the scenario, and you would want to have more interaction.”

“But there were several characters who could have been Lisa,” says Michael.

“Yes, that was deliberate, and it is how the test works. Although similar, each character you met had several different traits to Lisa. Similarly, Lisa was presented with men who were similar, but not identical, to how she perceives you. If your personalities were compatible with each other, then you would have ignored those characters with the alternative traits.”

“Why was I a captive in chains?” I ask.

“Because that was what Michael’s test suggested would attract him to you the most. Your avatar being in some form of captivity is a common starting situation when one of those being tested is more submissive than the other.”

“But I was the only one in chains,” I say. “If that is what should have attracted Michael to me, then why didn’t he connect with me?”

“There were other characters who started the game in one form of captivity or another. I believe the character Michael chose also commenced the scenario as a prisoner.”

“And what about the collar and cage?” I ask. “Surely Michael never would have envisaged something like that? And was the chastity belt really necessary?”

“No, he didn’t choose the collar or cage. Those were unusual creations of your own mind. However, the chastity belt was created by the AI running the scenario. Tricks like a chastity belt are used when the subject is getting too sexually aroused by the scenario. We needed your mind to be clear enough to make rational judgements, rather than make decisions driven by sexual urges.”

“The collar could have strangled me. Surely I wouldn’t have dreamt up something that horrific.”

“There was never any risk of the collar killing you. The collar, and the torment you felt from it, was generated by your own mind. You could have ended the torment at any time by simply wishing it so. And from what our data shows, you gained sexual pleasure rather than pain from the use of the collar. I congratulate you on creating a very ingenious device.”

I wonder whether I should ask about me soiling myself in the cage, but I’m too afraid of what the consultant’s answer might be. I should be disgusted with myself at what my mind triggered, but strangely I feel empowered by a better understanding of my true self rather than shame at what happened inside the scenario.