Sometimes I see a statement and I just have to wonder how the vision gets so far from the verifiable reality. I have now seen it claimed that what defines a slave is that she is motivated by a dedication to her master that is far more intense than a submissive experiences. How does one even get to that point B from the point A of defining the term slave?! Here's the truth, slaves are motivated by fear. They may even enjoy their masters discomfort when it occurs, so long as they aren't the one punished for it. A slave fears her master.
A submissive is the one that is motivated by dedication. She is the one that feels affection and love for her master, dominant, partner, whatever she might call him. It never occurs to her to fear her master, though she might fear for him, because she knows he will sacrifice himself before he allows any harm to touch her.
Sometimes I just can not fathom what these people see when they look at a relationship like mine. Do they really think it is anything like theirs? Do they really believe decades of love arose from fear? Is it conceivible in their world that the dedication, loyalty, and support openly displayed by each of us for the others is anything related to fear? And if so, HOW? Do you suppose these people have any inkling how insulting and derisive their attitudes are to people like my Ladies and I? Probably not, but one wonders how that manages to elude them.
And once more I ask, WHAT THE.........?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Another problem not being D/s solves.....
Those who've read this blog for long at all will know I do not refer to myself as being part of "D/s". I am both disappointed and disgusted with what is now passed off as D/s, and I have no desire to misrepresent what I do by referring to it by that term and risking someone mistaking me for one of the pop-culture "Masters" parading around, falls of their overpriced, boutique provided flogger dangling from their rear pocket like some kind of badge of office. I also don't call my Ladies slaves, and in fact we never used the term. My Ladies are submissive.
My problem of late has been with the term slave, because so many seem so proud to call themselves that, and they so completely aren't. Now frankly, this post is not in response to the others I've seen in the last couple of days broaching this exact topic, but has been sitting in my drafts box for quite some time. I pull it out, work on it a bit, and then real life intrudes so I put it away again. However, I confess, the recent posts-at-large have motivated me to get the damned thing finished already. One of the reasons I have taken so long to post it is simply, I can't think of a polite way to put this. But, as is so often the case, that is because I insist on a greater level of reality than most. I use terms intending their meaning to be exactly what they have meant for the last 100 years, and I tend to stay away from slang and variants in meaning. When I say a thing is (Insert negative term here) it isn't to hurt feelings or insult an individual, it's because I mean what I said. So for instance, if I say something is a "Dumb" thing to do, I don't mean, "Gee, you are a real idiot". I mean it was an action "Lacking in intelligence and good judgement". By the same token, when I say slave, I mean "a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person". This in no way describes someone living as the consentual submissive partner in the context of a D/s relationship. Unless of course one is willing to allow an extreme amount of lattitude in one's meanings.
I've never quite gotten the whole rabid apeal of the "Slave" thing. Mainly because, in a lifestyle that purports to be based foundationally on consent, there is quite simply no way for there to be any level of "Slavery". Everyone is capable of leaving if they want to make the choice. As soon as they are physically held captive against their will, the consent rule is broken and they are no longer acting within a D/s relationship. The fact that it looks similar does not make it the same thing. Further, what's the soul wrenching appeal of claiming you are a slave, especially since those that proclaim it the loudest seem to be the ones that enact the most limits and have the most rules for their "Masters"? You are consentual submissives, what's the shame? No one has insulted my Ladies (At least lately) by insinuating they are somehow less because they do not refer to themselves as "Slaves" Which is just as well, because I don't get too goggle eyed over someone claiming they are a "Slave" anyway. I mean, if that's the fantasy you want to live, so be it, but don't think I have some obligation to jump down that particular rabbit hole with you.
I actually spent some time looking into this, because I have been repeatedly told that there were slaves with rights in the past. In fact, not really. At least no rights that weren't granted by the master himself at his whim, and could be removed just as easily. The closest thing I can find (And I note the irony) is Islamic Sharia law, which stated slaves were "...your brothers whom Allah placed under your hands. Feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear and do not impose duties upon them which will overcome them. If you so impose duties, then assist them. Whoever kills his slave, we will kill him. Whoever slaps his slave or strikes him, his atonement is to free him". Over the course of ages, it apparently became an accepted understanding within Islam that the natural condition of man was to be free, or so I read. Actually I could not verify this statement is actually in the Koran. However, I admit I am not Muslim, do not own a Koran, and have only the internet to lean on for this research. It may be there, or it might not be.
Everything else I found, from current trafficked sex slaves, to the slave trade in the U.S. in the 1800's, to the Greeks, to the Romans states that the person held as a legal slave is chattel property without rights by law. If there is no law recognizing that lack of any rights, then they are illegally held slaves that the law would free if they were found. People with rights were indentured (a contract by which a person, as an apprentice, is bound to service) not enslaved. These people were held for their labor by virtue of a debt. Often these people understood the terms of these agreements and entered servitude for a preset term of years immediately the loan had been made and the moneys transferred. At the end of the term they were free to leave. It was illegal to hold them longer, and the law would have protected them if they were not freed. Any investigation into Indentured Servants will show this.
European serfs were held by the master of the land, and were forced to work it on his terms and at his whim. However, they were not slaves, because they could not be bought and sold. If the Lord of the manor sold his property, the serfs stayed with the land. They could not be legally forced off, and their families could not be split up and sold off. If they could somehow manage to save enough, they could buy their freedom at any time. Peasants were legally capable of leaving if they wished to go live elsewhere. Of course, in the Middle Ages, there were very few options concerning where to go, but they did have the legal right, useless as it was. You can verify these things by investigating The Manorial System"
Roman gladiators were slaves, because they had no right to make their own choices. Most of these were criminals sentenced to the arena, their only hope for freedom being to survive for three to five years, at which time they were normally freed. Criminals convicted of capitol crimes such as murder were regularly sent into the arena unarmed, a virtual death sentence. A slave could be purchased and made a gladiator, but obviously no question he was a slave. He fought to survive, or he would be (And legally could be) executed. Finally, some free men chose to become gladiators. Here we find the closest thing to consentual slaves I've come acrossed. But slaves they became, because in order to become a Gladiator they had to take an oath in which they agreed that they would submit to a) being branded; b) being chained; c) being killed by an iron weapon; d) to pay for the food and drink they received with their blood; and d) to suffer things even if they did not wish to. I reiterate that they were required to agree to being killed. REQUIRED, or they were rejected. This constituted an official renunciation of their citizenship of Rome and all the social benefits that citizenship provided. This at a time when a traveling citizen was literally kept safe simply by proclaiming himself a citizen of Rome, because an attack on a single Roman could be seen as an attack on the Empire with dire consequences. Free men who entered the games by volunteering to fight for a wealthy sponsor understood that the sponsor would then legally own them for a term of years. The gladiator was then trained at the owners pace, and if that training killed him, no punishment would be offered that owner. If the gladiator did not fight well for his sponsor, that sponsor could order his execution with complete immunity, and in fact would be considered weak and lose societal respect if a gladiator that regularly lost his matches were allowed to live. When given the thumbs down sign, a gladiator was expected to kneel and lift his head to his opponent, so that the sword could be thrust directly through his throat and into his heart. This provided a relatively quick and painless death, at least by the standards of the time. And yet these men were well respected and honored. But they did not have any rights. Any search for the conditions of Roman Gladiators should be able to verify what I've said here.
In Greece, slaves were often abandoned babies saved from death by being taken into a wealthy home as a slave, or were the children of slaves born into slavery. They were assigned their names by their owners, and required the master's permission even to use the restroom. They were thought of as the property of their masters and were not recognized as citizens of Greece. A search on Roman slavery can verify this from many sources.
I could go on and on here, but I think you see my point. Slaves are people with no rights at all. They may have had some level of protection in a society, but not rights. And when they did have protections, they were the protections offered any private property by that society. A chariot, a horse, a water jug. A sponsor could order his own gladiators death with complete impunity and for no reason, but if his owned man cheated and injured or killed a competitor, the owner of the cheat might be punished by society. Not for murder, only for destruction of private property. And the consequences to the cheat himself were completely up to the owner.
Within the context of D/s, supposedly the worst possible act is to engage in some activity without consent, in other words, against the partners will. This requires the partners consent prior to any activity being engaged in. This requirement of consent absolutely precludes any potential for actual slavery to occur. So if folks out there want to proclaim themselves slave, certainly I will keep my mouth shut and let you play with your fantasies. But don't push things. Because when you get right down to it anyone insisting they are a slave involved in a D/s lifestyle is making a statement that is both contradictory and ignorant, and I'm prone to telling the truth even if that offends some people.
My problem of late has been with the term slave, because so many seem so proud to call themselves that, and they so completely aren't. Now frankly, this post is not in response to the others I've seen in the last couple of days broaching this exact topic, but has been sitting in my drafts box for quite some time. I pull it out, work on it a bit, and then real life intrudes so I put it away again. However, I confess, the recent posts-at-large have motivated me to get the damned thing finished already. One of the reasons I have taken so long to post it is simply, I can't think of a polite way to put this. But, as is so often the case, that is because I insist on a greater level of reality than most. I use terms intending their meaning to be exactly what they have meant for the last 100 years, and I tend to stay away from slang and variants in meaning. When I say a thing is (Insert negative term here) it isn't to hurt feelings or insult an individual, it's because I mean what I said. So for instance, if I say something is a "Dumb" thing to do, I don't mean, "Gee, you are a real idiot". I mean it was an action "Lacking in intelligence and good judgement". By the same token, when I say slave, I mean "a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person". This in no way describes someone living as the consentual submissive partner in the context of a D/s relationship. Unless of course one is willing to allow an extreme amount of lattitude in one's meanings.
I've never quite gotten the whole rabid apeal of the "Slave" thing. Mainly because, in a lifestyle that purports to be based foundationally on consent, there is quite simply no way for there to be any level of "Slavery". Everyone is capable of leaving if they want to make the choice. As soon as they are physically held captive against their will, the consent rule is broken and they are no longer acting within a D/s relationship. The fact that it looks similar does not make it the same thing. Further, what's the soul wrenching appeal of claiming you are a slave, especially since those that proclaim it the loudest seem to be the ones that enact the most limits and have the most rules for their "Masters"? You are consentual submissives, what's the shame? No one has insulted my Ladies (At least lately) by insinuating they are somehow less because they do not refer to themselves as "Slaves" Which is just as well, because I don't get too goggle eyed over someone claiming they are a "Slave" anyway. I mean, if that's the fantasy you want to live, so be it, but don't think I have some obligation to jump down that particular rabbit hole with you.
I actually spent some time looking into this, because I have been repeatedly told that there were slaves with rights in the past. In fact, not really. At least no rights that weren't granted by the master himself at his whim, and could be removed just as easily. The closest thing I can find (And I note the irony) is Islamic Sharia law, which stated slaves were "...your brothers whom Allah placed under your hands. Feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear and do not impose duties upon them which will overcome them. If you so impose duties, then assist them. Whoever kills his slave, we will kill him. Whoever slaps his slave or strikes him, his atonement is to free him". Over the course of ages, it apparently became an accepted understanding within Islam that the natural condition of man was to be free, or so I read. Actually I could not verify this statement is actually in the Koran. However, I admit I am not Muslim, do not own a Koran, and have only the internet to lean on for this research. It may be there, or it might not be.
Everything else I found, from current trafficked sex slaves, to the slave trade in the U.S. in the 1800's, to the Greeks, to the Romans states that the person held as a legal slave is chattel property without rights by law. If there is no law recognizing that lack of any rights, then they are illegally held slaves that the law would free if they were found. People with rights were indentured (a contract by which a person, as an apprentice, is bound to service) not enslaved. These people were held for their labor by virtue of a debt. Often these people understood the terms of these agreements and entered servitude for a preset term of years immediately the loan had been made and the moneys transferred. At the end of the term they were free to leave. It was illegal to hold them longer, and the law would have protected them if they were not freed. Any investigation into Indentured Servants will show this.
European serfs were held by the master of the land, and were forced to work it on his terms and at his whim. However, they were not slaves, because they could not be bought and sold. If the Lord of the manor sold his property, the serfs stayed with the land. They could not be legally forced off, and their families could not be split up and sold off. If they could somehow manage to save enough, they could buy their freedom at any time. Peasants were legally capable of leaving if they wished to go live elsewhere. Of course, in the Middle Ages, there were very few options concerning where to go, but they did have the legal right, useless as it was. You can verify these things by investigating The Manorial System"
Roman gladiators were slaves, because they had no right to make their own choices. Most of these were criminals sentenced to the arena, their only hope for freedom being to survive for three to five years, at which time they were normally freed. Criminals convicted of capitol crimes such as murder were regularly sent into the arena unarmed, a virtual death sentence. A slave could be purchased and made a gladiator, but obviously no question he was a slave. He fought to survive, or he would be (And legally could be) executed. Finally, some free men chose to become gladiators. Here we find the closest thing to consentual slaves I've come acrossed. But slaves they became, because in order to become a Gladiator they had to take an oath in which they agreed that they would submit to a) being branded; b) being chained; c) being killed by an iron weapon; d) to pay for the food and drink they received with their blood; and d) to suffer things even if they did not wish to. I reiterate that they were required to agree to being killed. REQUIRED, or they were rejected. This constituted an official renunciation of their citizenship of Rome and all the social benefits that citizenship provided. This at a time when a traveling citizen was literally kept safe simply by proclaiming himself a citizen of Rome, because an attack on a single Roman could be seen as an attack on the Empire with dire consequences. Free men who entered the games by volunteering to fight for a wealthy sponsor understood that the sponsor would then legally own them for a term of years. The gladiator was then trained at the owners pace, and if that training killed him, no punishment would be offered that owner. If the gladiator did not fight well for his sponsor, that sponsor could order his execution with complete immunity, and in fact would be considered weak and lose societal respect if a gladiator that regularly lost his matches were allowed to live. When given the thumbs down sign, a gladiator was expected to kneel and lift his head to his opponent, so that the sword could be thrust directly through his throat and into his heart. This provided a relatively quick and painless death, at least by the standards of the time. And yet these men were well respected and honored. But they did not have any rights. Any search for the conditions of Roman Gladiators should be able to verify what I've said here.
In Greece, slaves were often abandoned babies saved from death by being taken into a wealthy home as a slave, or were the children of slaves born into slavery. They were assigned their names by their owners, and required the master's permission even to use the restroom. They were thought of as the property of their masters and were not recognized as citizens of Greece. A search on Roman slavery can verify this from many sources.
I could go on and on here, but I think you see my point. Slaves are people with no rights at all. They may have had some level of protection in a society, but not rights. And when they did have protections, they were the protections offered any private property by that society. A chariot, a horse, a water jug. A sponsor could order his own gladiators death with complete impunity and for no reason, but if his owned man cheated and injured or killed a competitor, the owner of the cheat might be punished by society. Not for murder, only for destruction of private property. And the consequences to the cheat himself were completely up to the owner.
Within the context of D/s, supposedly the worst possible act is to engage in some activity without consent, in other words, against the partners will. This requires the partners consent prior to any activity being engaged in. This requirement of consent absolutely precludes any potential for actual slavery to occur. So if folks out there want to proclaim themselves slave, certainly I will keep my mouth shut and let you play with your fantasies. But don't push things. Because when you get right down to it anyone insisting they are a slave involved in a D/s lifestyle is making a statement that is both contradictory and ignorant, and I'm prone to telling the truth even if that offends some people.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
That's sweet but..............
Normally I wouldn't tell you this, but for the moment it is part of the context. So FYI, I'm ill. I wasn't feeling poorly yesterday morning really. I've had a bit of a tickle for the last few days but nothing serious. Why is this important you ask? I'll tell you.
Yesterday morning I had to literally push one of the Ladies from the bed, and I waited until the last possible moment because I was enjoying her presence. That being the case, I said "Don't make the bed, I'll do it today". Then the day hit me. I planned to go to work and then come home, get some chores done, and just move through the day. But one of the chores turned out to be a much larger fight than I'd planned, so I was a bit behind schedule and pretty soon it was 8:30. By then I was running a fever and feeling pretty piss poor. I had taken a bath, planning to get to the bed-making after, and without thinking downed some Nyquill (The nighttime sniffling sneezing sleep-on-the-bathroom-floor medicine. At least for me, this stuff works). As soon as I swallowed it I realized my clock was ticking, so I headed into the bedroom and started to sling the sheets over the bed. My Lady must have seen me, because the first sheet was still hanging in the air when she entered and proclaimed she'd do that. "No, you won't" I said. (I did allow her to help, that wasn't precluded by my statement) But here's the thing, I said I'd do it. I was sick just isn't relevant. I said I'd do it. I hadn't forgotten, I just hadn't gotten there yet. She wasn't waiting on me. And yes it was sweet of her to forget my statement, but I hadn't.
This post is the result of someone telling me that seems a little silly to them, after all, I was sick. It wasn't like I was breaking my promise or anything. But the fact is, it's EXACTLY like I'm breaking my promise, because essentially I am. Granted, I will allow there might need to be exceptions made on the rare occasion, but this wasn't one of them. I am not that sick. And that's one of the things I'm so disappointed about and tired of these days, is that just about everyone, even people that walk around talking honor and chivalry and so on, are completely blase' about blowing off a commitment. Late for work? What's the big deal? The company won't go under. No showed for a dinner date? Big deal! It's a free country, right? Didn't provide proper after-care? So what? She's a big girl, she ought to be able to take care of herself. Left an obvious bruise where coworkers can see which directly contradicts her limits and concerns she'd expressed? Give me a break, it was an accident. No one's perfect, O.K.?
No, it's not O.K. There needs to be some concern there. And while I know my pushing myself as hard as I do sometimes irritates my Ladies, I also know that when they hear of a sub who was "Accidentally" caused some major issue and not offered so much as an apology, much less any help dealing with it they are grateful for the way I think. I know when they show up for work and there's some major issue with one of their projects because a coworker "Overslept" AGAIN despite knowing about the all important meeting that morning, they understand why I feel as I do. And I know when they realize they are in need of help themselves, the can find comfort in the fact that I will absolutely be there for them, because that's just how it should be.
Yesterday morning I had to literally push one of the Ladies from the bed, and I waited until the last possible moment because I was enjoying her presence. That being the case, I said "Don't make the bed, I'll do it today". Then the day hit me. I planned to go to work and then come home, get some chores done, and just move through the day. But one of the chores turned out to be a much larger fight than I'd planned, so I was a bit behind schedule and pretty soon it was 8:30. By then I was running a fever and feeling pretty piss poor. I had taken a bath, planning to get to the bed-making after, and without thinking downed some Nyquill (The nighttime sniffling sneezing sleep-on-the-bathroom-floor medicine. At least for me, this stuff works). As soon as I swallowed it I realized my clock was ticking, so I headed into the bedroom and started to sling the sheets over the bed. My Lady must have seen me, because the first sheet was still hanging in the air when she entered and proclaimed she'd do that. "No, you won't" I said. (I did allow her to help, that wasn't precluded by my statement) But here's the thing, I said I'd do it. I was sick just isn't relevant. I said I'd do it. I hadn't forgotten, I just hadn't gotten there yet. She wasn't waiting on me. And yes it was sweet of her to forget my statement, but I hadn't.
This post is the result of someone telling me that seems a little silly to them, after all, I was sick. It wasn't like I was breaking my promise or anything. But the fact is, it's EXACTLY like I'm breaking my promise, because essentially I am. Granted, I will allow there might need to be exceptions made on the rare occasion, but this wasn't one of them. I am not that sick. And that's one of the things I'm so disappointed about and tired of these days, is that just about everyone, even people that walk around talking honor and chivalry and so on, are completely blase' about blowing off a commitment. Late for work? What's the big deal? The company won't go under. No showed for a dinner date? Big deal! It's a free country, right? Didn't provide proper after-care? So what? She's a big girl, she ought to be able to take care of herself. Left an obvious bruise where coworkers can see which directly contradicts her limits and concerns she'd expressed? Give me a break, it was an accident. No one's perfect, O.K.?
No, it's not O.K. There needs to be some concern there. And while I know my pushing myself as hard as I do sometimes irritates my Ladies, I also know that when they hear of a sub who was "Accidentally" caused some major issue and not offered so much as an apology, much less any help dealing with it they are grateful for the way I think. I know when they show up for work and there's some major issue with one of their projects because a coworker "Overslept" AGAIN despite knowing about the all important meeting that morning, they understand why I feel as I do. And I know when they realize they are in need of help themselves, the can find comfort in the fact that I will absolutely be there for them, because that's just how it should be.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
R E S P E C T. Find out what it means to me..... OR, A post motivated by Aretha
I've been thinking about the many times I've been approached by someone and told one or both of my Ladies have misbehaved in some fashion, or didn't behave as "Slaves" or "Submissives". The irony is I've also on a regular basis gotten comments on how perfectly they've behaved, and how submissive they are. I suppose it does seem an odd paradox at first, but the reality is actually very simple. They choose to obey. They are never forced to.
I've never really found a need for formal, intentional punishments. Successful relationships aren't based on punishment and reward, they are based on mutual respect and in adopting the role within the relationship you want to fulfill. That said, I've never pussy-footed around about whether I was satisfied with a specific behaviour or not. I can clearly remember having one of the Ladies approach me after the other had made a pretty glaring error and been told I wanted the task completely redone. I wasn't cruel, or rude, or even angry. This was an unusual situation, I didn't feel the failure was intentional, and I didn't assign any punishment other than doing the task correctly and never intended to. I also was not at all flexible. It wasn't good enough, it wasn't right, and it needed to be redone. This failure and my recognition of it left the Lady that had made the mistake a little depressed. Her sister seemed to think I should feel badly about that and cut her some slack. My response was "She let me down, she SHOULD be upset. If I'd let her down, I'D be upset. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?" I'm not certain she agreed, but no more was said.
Another time, the sister had not met the standard. This was pretty early in our relationship, and she basically said she felt it didn't matter how hard she tried, that nothing she did was ever good enough, so maybe she should just leave. My response was to point out to her that in our case "Good enough" had clearly been defined before she started. The standards had not wavered at all. They had not changed in any way. In this specific instance I had repeated what I expected to her three times. She had agreed to do it each time. She had not gotten it correctly done. I told her if she wanted to leave, that was certainly her prerogative, but I wasn't going to coddle her by pretending she had met the standard when she hadn't, and I wasn't lowering my standard. Obviously since we're still together she tried again, and this time succeeded. She's even come to me since and thanked me for being so hard on her in the beginning, because now she realizes she was capable of better, and just not willing to put in the effort until I insisted.
In fact they are each tough, brilliant, dedicated, loving, and loyal to the core. When I get a complaint about the behaviour of either of them, I usually listen. But the truth is it's usually a matter of some individual that doesn't even know us trying to apply his standards to the Ladies, and expecting I'll simply agree either as a courtesy or because it's some version of a standard within a style we don't adhere to (Think Gorean, for just one example).
The reality is that if the Ladies don't respect someone in fact, they aren't going to respect that person in action. And if that person thinks I will simply "Order" them to pretend to respect them, or to aquiesce to them out of respect for me, or some supposed D/s "Tradition", or some other silly, intangible, fantasy reason then they are in for a rude awakening. Further, trying to manipulate me into forcing the Ladies to do something just to prove I can is only going to result in me losing all respect for that person as well. Now the Ladies don't respect the complaining party, and I don't either.
In fact I'm quite certain the Ladies would do any number of degrading, debasing things, either sexual or not, to please me if I asked them to. But the thing is, I value and respect them far far far too much to play such a silly, moronic game. I simply get absolutely nothing out of that kind of activity in "Real life", and very little in "Scene play" situations. Now in play I can kind of understand it. I mean people like all kinds of different things. And if the a Lady likes a particular thing, I like to do that thing to some extent just because I like to see her slipping into her happy place from what I'm doing. But I've seen so-called "Dominants" require things just to prove their submissive would do it if ordered to. And I've seen the submissive do it, while giving off an aura of being totally horrified by the act. I can't fathom how that submissive has any respect for that dominant after the dominant has been so blatantly and easily manipulated into some action they otherwise wouldn't have taken, especially since the act basically gained neither party anything. I mean I just don't get that.
To my mind it comes down to respect. Yes, simple RESPECT for your submissive, or slave, or dirty little bitch, or whatever you call her in your personal dynamic. My dynamic happens to involve respect for my loving partners, but even if we are discussing one of those relationships where the submissive is nothing more than a thing to be used, the dominant partner should respect that. We should all respect even the THINGS in our lives, at least if we want them to be around for long. I don't care if it's your dog, your classic car, or your refrgerator, if you treat it with disdain, a lack of attention, and begin to take it for granted and offer it no maintenance then that thing will immediately start to deteriorate. It seems blatantly obvious to me that no matter what the dynamic of a relationship, mutual respect is critical to the continued success of the relationship. I would suggest that anyone that claims to be dominant but feels respecting their submissive somehow diminishes that dominance, isn't actually dominant at all.
I've never really found a need for formal, intentional punishments. Successful relationships aren't based on punishment and reward, they are based on mutual respect and in adopting the role within the relationship you want to fulfill. That said, I've never pussy-footed around about whether I was satisfied with a specific behaviour or not. I can clearly remember having one of the Ladies approach me after the other had made a pretty glaring error and been told I wanted the task completely redone. I wasn't cruel, or rude, or even angry. This was an unusual situation, I didn't feel the failure was intentional, and I didn't assign any punishment other than doing the task correctly and never intended to. I also was not at all flexible. It wasn't good enough, it wasn't right, and it needed to be redone. This failure and my recognition of it left the Lady that had made the mistake a little depressed. Her sister seemed to think I should feel badly about that and cut her some slack. My response was "She let me down, she SHOULD be upset. If I'd let her down, I'D be upset. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?" I'm not certain she agreed, but no more was said.
Another time, the sister had not met the standard. This was pretty early in our relationship, and she basically said she felt it didn't matter how hard she tried, that nothing she did was ever good enough, so maybe she should just leave. My response was to point out to her that in our case "Good enough" had clearly been defined before she started. The standards had not wavered at all. They had not changed in any way. In this specific instance I had repeated what I expected to her three times. She had agreed to do it each time. She had not gotten it correctly done. I told her if she wanted to leave, that was certainly her prerogative, but I wasn't going to coddle her by pretending she had met the standard when she hadn't, and I wasn't lowering my standard. Obviously since we're still together she tried again, and this time succeeded. She's even come to me since and thanked me for being so hard on her in the beginning, because now she realizes she was capable of better, and just not willing to put in the effort until I insisted.
In fact they are each tough, brilliant, dedicated, loving, and loyal to the core. When I get a complaint about the behaviour of either of them, I usually listen. But the truth is it's usually a matter of some individual that doesn't even know us trying to apply his standards to the Ladies, and expecting I'll simply agree either as a courtesy or because it's some version of a standard within a style we don't adhere to (Think Gorean, for just one example).
The reality is that if the Ladies don't respect someone in fact, they aren't going to respect that person in action. And if that person thinks I will simply "Order" them to pretend to respect them, or to aquiesce to them out of respect for me, or some supposed D/s "Tradition", or some other silly, intangible, fantasy reason then they are in for a rude awakening. Further, trying to manipulate me into forcing the Ladies to do something just to prove I can is only going to result in me losing all respect for that person as well. Now the Ladies don't respect the complaining party, and I don't either.
In fact I'm quite certain the Ladies would do any number of degrading, debasing things, either sexual or not, to please me if I asked them to. But the thing is, I value and respect them far far far too much to play such a silly, moronic game. I simply get absolutely nothing out of that kind of activity in "Real life", and very little in "Scene play" situations. Now in play I can kind of understand it. I mean people like all kinds of different things. And if the a Lady likes a particular thing, I like to do that thing to some extent just because I like to see her slipping into her happy place from what I'm doing. But I've seen so-called "Dominants" require things just to prove their submissive would do it if ordered to. And I've seen the submissive do it, while giving off an aura of being totally horrified by the act. I can't fathom how that submissive has any respect for that dominant after the dominant has been so blatantly and easily manipulated into some action they otherwise wouldn't have taken, especially since the act basically gained neither party anything. I mean I just don't get that.
To my mind it comes down to respect. Yes, simple RESPECT for your submissive, or slave, or dirty little bitch, or whatever you call her in your personal dynamic. My dynamic happens to involve respect for my loving partners, but even if we are discussing one of those relationships where the submissive is nothing more than a thing to be used, the dominant partner should respect that. We should all respect even the THINGS in our lives, at least if we want them to be around for long. I don't care if it's your dog, your classic car, or your refrgerator, if you treat it with disdain, a lack of attention, and begin to take it for granted and offer it no maintenance then that thing will immediately start to deteriorate. It seems blatantly obvious to me that no matter what the dynamic of a relationship, mutual respect is critical to the continued success of the relationship. I would suggest that anyone that claims to be dominant but feels respecting their submissive somehow diminishes that dominance, isn't actually dominant at all.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Once again I ask, what the......?
Call me crazy, but I have to say I find it odd that the person that was chewing my ass recently for refusing to accept that crap about men not wanting women as anything but a fuck toy is now looking for advice on where to get Victoria's Secret style lingerie. I know, I'm not supposed to notice things like that if I want to fit into polite society, but things like this are exactly how I end up asking.....
What The Fuck?
Since it's been made clear that I am simply too dense to ever be made to understand, I've decided to simply try to be amused by the irony in these kinds of things.
What The Fuck?
Since it's been made clear that I am simply too dense to ever be made to understand, I've decided to simply try to be amused by the irony in these kinds of things.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Probably irrelevant, but I wanted to get it off my chest.
I wanted to clarify something about the controversial prior post entitled "A truly offensive post". It isn't that I wanted to defend (Or attack) total objectification. And it isn't that I think the public groping of unknown women should be allowed. And there's an easy line to see being crossed there, it's consent. What I objected to was the idea that enjoying a woman's charms purely on their feminine appeal was somehow patently satanically evil. That "Objectification" is simply wrong on an ethical level in any form, and that as a man if I see a woman and know nothing about her, somehow I'm some kind of low-life jerk because I think she has a nice body, and therefore I might want to meet her. Notice I haven't groped her, not even ogled her, but just thought "DAMN she's good looking, I wonder what she's like?". That simple thought process makes me some kind of monster according to the theories postulated in the original post that I was objecting to. .
Maybe I took it personally. Certainly I have done exactly what was described. In fact, the lady Samantha that I spoke of in an earlier post was exactly that. I saw her in a lifestyle club almost wearing a sexy leather something-made-of-straps-and-nothing-else, and I decided I was going to meet her. I talked with her for about 15 minutes that night and when I left I had decided I was going to do all I could to seduce her. That led to a years-long very affectionate relationship that ended on a friendly note once it had run its course. The relationship is related in more detail in that earlier post, so I don't see the need to detail it again here, but I certainly don't regret it, and I have never had any indication she does. I still hold great affection for her. While I haven't seen her in years, if she ever should show up on my doorstep needing help I would absolutely reach out to her not just as a fellow human being that needed help, but as a woman I still care very much for on an emotional level. And yet, I blatantly decided to meet her based solely on her looks. I simply don't accept the argument made that I did anything wrong there, and I don't see who was harmed or where the evil lies.
I also object for the hypocrisy. These comments came from people whom at other times have sung the praises of exactly and specifically objectification. So apparently that type of thinking is O.K. at least part of the time, but only if the woman wants to play just then. I don't abide anyone that changes the rules as they go.
The irony is, I don't do objectification. No human furniture, no puppy play, pony girls, mummified statues as decoration, nothing even remotely like objectification really interests me. In fact, as you might be able to tell by reading the list I just wrote, I'm not even terribly clear on what qualifies as objectification and what doesn't. Nothing I've ever explored has ever been called any method of objectification. What I do know is that I adore femininity, and I adore seeing a woman when she is wanton, or when she is floating in what is usually called subspace. I presume that by now if I had any interest in something that qualified, someone, somewhere would have pointed out that the activity was considered objectification. I do not understand things like objectification, tears in play, pony and puppy play, and a dozen other things I've seen being done which seem to me to reduce the submissive partner to at best a stupid beast and at worst a mindless thing. I do though, respect others right to play as they wish so long as there is informed consent, so when I see something I don't understand or even plain don't like being consentually engaged in, I don't scream "Monster!" and then make sweeping derogatory generalizations. I just go in the other room.
I must say that I find it just plain disgusting that after having made such sweeping derogatory generalizations, no support to the idea was even offered. You know, STAND for something! Even if it's something I don't agree with or approve of, if you make a reasoned case and show me how all the parts fit, at least I'll understand it. If I can understand it, I can probably at least respect it at some level. If you can't do that, then don't expect me to go along just to be non-confrontational and easy going. Somehow I am offensive when I demand to see the logic, but it is in no way supposed to offend me that I am not allowed to question overly broad generalizations or "Folk wisdom". I don't understand that attitude and I don't respect it. And yet when I challenge it, somehow I am the bad guy, and of course THAT can't be explained either, I am just supposed to accept that I am.
I'm afraid I don't, and won't.
Maybe I took it personally. Certainly I have done exactly what was described. In fact, the lady Samantha that I spoke of in an earlier post was exactly that. I saw her in a lifestyle club almost wearing a sexy leather something-made-of-straps-and-nothing-else, and I decided I was going to meet her. I talked with her for about 15 minutes that night and when I left I had decided I was going to do all I could to seduce her. That led to a years-long very affectionate relationship that ended on a friendly note once it had run its course. The relationship is related in more detail in that earlier post, so I don't see the need to detail it again here, but I certainly don't regret it, and I have never had any indication she does. I still hold great affection for her. While I haven't seen her in years, if she ever should show up on my doorstep needing help I would absolutely reach out to her not just as a fellow human being that needed help, but as a woman I still care very much for on an emotional level. And yet, I blatantly decided to meet her based solely on her looks. I simply don't accept the argument made that I did anything wrong there, and I don't see who was harmed or where the evil lies.
I also object for the hypocrisy. These comments came from people whom at other times have sung the praises of exactly and specifically objectification. So apparently that type of thinking is O.K. at least part of the time, but only if the woman wants to play just then. I don't abide anyone that changes the rules as they go.
The irony is, I don't do objectification. No human furniture, no puppy play, pony girls, mummified statues as decoration, nothing even remotely like objectification really interests me. In fact, as you might be able to tell by reading the list I just wrote, I'm not even terribly clear on what qualifies as objectification and what doesn't. Nothing I've ever explored has ever been called any method of objectification. What I do know is that I adore femininity, and I adore seeing a woman when she is wanton, or when she is floating in what is usually called subspace. I presume that by now if I had any interest in something that qualified, someone, somewhere would have pointed out that the activity was considered objectification. I do not understand things like objectification, tears in play, pony and puppy play, and a dozen other things I've seen being done which seem to me to reduce the submissive partner to at best a stupid beast and at worst a mindless thing. I do though, respect others right to play as they wish so long as there is informed consent, so when I see something I don't understand or even plain don't like being consentually engaged in, I don't scream "Monster!" and then make sweeping derogatory generalizations. I just go in the other room.
I must say that I find it just plain disgusting that after having made such sweeping derogatory generalizations, no support to the idea was even offered. You know, STAND for something! Even if it's something I don't agree with or approve of, if you make a reasoned case and show me how all the parts fit, at least I'll understand it. If I can understand it, I can probably at least respect it at some level. If you can't do that, then don't expect me to go along just to be non-confrontational and easy going. Somehow I am offensive when I demand to see the logic, but it is in no way supposed to offend me that I am not allowed to question overly broad generalizations or "Folk wisdom". I don't understand that attitude and I don't respect it. And yet when I challenge it, somehow I am the bad guy, and of course THAT can't be explained either, I am just supposed to accept that I am.
I'm afraid I don't, and won't.
I guess it's like that.
For those brave souls remaining, there will be a new style to the blog. It's been made clear that no amount of explaining or instruction will ever bring my thinking into line with the accepted norm. Therefore I no longer intend to exert any effort to understand it. For the time being I will offer this blog for those poor lost souls that do agree with me, in order to demonstrate that they are not entirely alone. For those of you that find this, I wish I could offer you cheerier news, but I'm afraid it's as bad as you fear. For the rest of you, well, I harbor no ill will to you, for whatever that's worth.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
ROFLMAO
I notice I lost two followers today. Hmmm, just after the irate post. Hey, I told them not to read it. Pussies.
Friday, March 12, 2010
A truly offensive post, PLEASE do not read this.
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Rambling
So often I seem to see things opposite to the way the world seems to see them. Relationships are a good example. I've often heard of a relationship that went bad and it bothers the submissive that she wasn't enough for her partner. This is especially bothersome to submissives that seem to think they somehow “failed” to be the perfect “slave”, and there are so many doms that are eager to blame them. I have to say in most cases I think the sub is right, they weren’t the perfect slave, but I don’t see the failure part.
I’ve had relationships fail before. Some called D/s and some not. They failed because we weren’t compatible enough. And sometimes it was weird things that weren’t compatible. I had a partner I'll call Samantha in a previous relationship. At the time we identified as D/s, me the dom, she the sub. Samantha had almost all the qualities I look for in a woman. Intelligent, eager to please, bubbly and bright, self motivated, hard working, honest and I have to admit, the fact that she was a complete knock-out in the looks department was certainly a bonus. We were together for quite a while really. I think it was over two years. We ended for a lot of reasons. We lived in different cities. She was unemployed, getting by on modeling jobs she traveled around the state to do. My business was here in my town, and it seemed like a no brainer in my opinion that she would move to be with me, not the other way around. But she didn’t like it here. To slow a pace. I didn’t like her city either, to fast a pace. She felt we didn’t have enough sex (I know, hard to believe) but I was working 18 hour days getting my business up and running, and I thought once or twice a day when she was here was adequate. I thought she was at times incredibly naïve. People would use her and take advantage of her, hurt her and abandon her, and she would immediately forgive them and open herself to them again. I’m sure she thought I was at times a hard-hearted, insensitive prick who lacked understanding and compassion because with very few exceptions you only get the chance to screw me once. Eventually we parted amicably. I heard she married and was and is happy. I’m glad for her, she was a sweet woman and deserved happiness.
But she wasn’t perfect for me. If you look, I purposely put my perception of her point of view with mine in the paragraph above. You might notice I wasn’t perfect for her either. That’s not my fault, and it isn’t hers. That’s just reality.
People, you are you. Submissives are supposed to flex and bend, but they all have a core that is just inviolable. Some things are hard wired into their heads, and that’s that. Same thing with doms. Samantha was perfectly willing to gulp down my piss, for instance. An act I'm aware of but have never done nor had a particular desire to do. She also amazed me once when I teased her about cutting off her fingers. I was using a power saw, and it was some smart-assed comment that was obviously BS. But she looked at me for a minute and then said she would have to believe I was really committed for life, and then she’d consent. The thing is, I could tell she meant it seriously.
Pardon me?
Samantha had hair down to her thighs, and when I teased her about cutting it she got seriously pissed. THAT was a hard limit. Even discussing it was a hard limit. But fingers are negotiable? Sorry, but I like how a lady’s fingers feel wrapped around me. I have better uses for those than filleting them. The fingers stay.
On the other hand, I did choose the hairstyles both my Ladies wear. Color too. It always sort of irritated me that haircuts were a hard limit with Samantha. But the thing is, Samantha always had long hair. She was proud of her long hair. In her mind it set her apart from other women. In a way she defined herself with it. It was something that made her extra desirable, or so she thought. Certainly few women had hair like hers. Think the singer Crystal Gale. It was absolutely unique and most men’s fantasy. Honestly however, two things I learned from Samantha. Clit rings and really long hair are more trouble than they’re worth. But she was very proud of her body jewelry as well. She actually told me that touching her rings in certain ways really set her off. I don’t think she’d have cared to give that up. What she needed was a dom that enjoyed those aspects of her, rather than one who tolerated them. And what I needed was what I got. Ladies who like the fact that I make those choices for them, and who like the choices I make.
I don’t think it’s reasonable for anyone to expect another person OR themselves to be capable of being completely reinvented. You can’t inject your fantasies into her body and completely reprogram her already existing soul. And the older she is, the more things there are inside her set in stone. The more complex and rich her history, and therefore the more complex and rich the experience she offers, but only to someone sophisticated enough to appreciate it. You don’t become someone’s soul mate. You either are, or you aren’t. A dominant can make two kinds of changes to a sub. He can reveal to her parts of her very nature she had never been aware of, and he can reorganize her existing style to suit him better. All anyone can do is be honest with themselves about what they offer and what they want, and then try to find someone that fulfills their needs and wants. But you have to find that person. You can’t take a pretty package and force it to like what you want it too.
I’ve had relationships fail before. Some called D/s and some not. They failed because we weren’t compatible enough. And sometimes it was weird things that weren’t compatible. I had a partner I'll call Samantha in a previous relationship. At the time we identified as D/s, me the dom, she the sub. Samantha had almost all the qualities I look for in a woman. Intelligent, eager to please, bubbly and bright, self motivated, hard working, honest and I have to admit, the fact that she was a complete knock-out in the looks department was certainly a bonus. We were together for quite a while really. I think it was over two years. We ended for a lot of reasons. We lived in different cities. She was unemployed, getting by on modeling jobs she traveled around the state to do. My business was here in my town, and it seemed like a no brainer in my opinion that she would move to be with me, not the other way around. But she didn’t like it here. To slow a pace. I didn’t like her city either, to fast a pace. She felt we didn’t have enough sex (I know, hard to believe) but I was working 18 hour days getting my business up and running, and I thought once or twice a day when she was here was adequate. I thought she was at times incredibly naïve. People would use her and take advantage of her, hurt her and abandon her, and she would immediately forgive them and open herself to them again. I’m sure she thought I was at times a hard-hearted, insensitive prick who lacked understanding and compassion because with very few exceptions you only get the chance to screw me once. Eventually we parted amicably. I heard she married and was and is happy. I’m glad for her, she was a sweet woman and deserved happiness.
But she wasn’t perfect for me. If you look, I purposely put my perception of her point of view with mine in the paragraph above. You might notice I wasn’t perfect for her either. That’s not my fault, and it isn’t hers. That’s just reality.
People, you are you. Submissives are supposed to flex and bend, but they all have a core that is just inviolable. Some things are hard wired into their heads, and that’s that. Same thing with doms. Samantha was perfectly willing to gulp down my piss, for instance. An act I'm aware of but have never done nor had a particular desire to do. She also amazed me once when I teased her about cutting off her fingers. I was using a power saw, and it was some smart-assed comment that was obviously BS. But she looked at me for a minute and then said she would have to believe I was really committed for life, and then she’d consent. The thing is, I could tell she meant it seriously.
Pardon me?
Samantha had hair down to her thighs, and when I teased her about cutting it she got seriously pissed. THAT was a hard limit. Even discussing it was a hard limit. But fingers are negotiable? Sorry, but I like how a lady’s fingers feel wrapped around me. I have better uses for those than filleting them. The fingers stay.
On the other hand, I did choose the hairstyles both my Ladies wear. Color too. It always sort of irritated me that haircuts were a hard limit with Samantha. But the thing is, Samantha always had long hair. She was proud of her long hair. In her mind it set her apart from other women. In a way she defined herself with it. It was something that made her extra desirable, or so she thought. Certainly few women had hair like hers. Think the singer Crystal Gale. It was absolutely unique and most men’s fantasy. Honestly however, two things I learned from Samantha. Clit rings and really long hair are more trouble than they’re worth. But she was very proud of her body jewelry as well. She actually told me that touching her rings in certain ways really set her off. I don’t think she’d have cared to give that up. What she needed was a dom that enjoyed those aspects of her, rather than one who tolerated them. And what I needed was what I got. Ladies who like the fact that I make those choices for them, and who like the choices I make.
I don’t think it’s reasonable for anyone to expect another person OR themselves to be capable of being completely reinvented. You can’t inject your fantasies into her body and completely reprogram her already existing soul. And the older she is, the more things there are inside her set in stone. The more complex and rich her history, and therefore the more complex and rich the experience she offers, but only to someone sophisticated enough to appreciate it. You don’t become someone’s soul mate. You either are, or you aren’t. A dominant can make two kinds of changes to a sub. He can reveal to her parts of her very nature she had never been aware of, and he can reorganize her existing style to suit him better. All anyone can do is be honest with themselves about what they offer and what they want, and then try to find someone that fulfills their needs and wants. But you have to find that person. You can’t take a pretty package and force it to like what you want it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)