let me fix it, starting with me

Been kind of a busy couple of weeks for me mentally. One of my Ladies has been severely weakened by all the stress and fear of these last two years. At the moment she's on meds for it and so has been advised not to drive. This leaves her basically trapped in the house when her sister and I aren't here. Granted, she has alternatives, but all of them are at best inconvenient. Plus, and this will be important later, she hates to to be any trouble. "I don't want to be any trouble" she'll say. And if I'm not paying attention she'll do without rather than bother me. She tries to handle it alone. Not in a sneaky way, but to avoid being any trouble to me.

So the other day I come home, I'd taken a short term job on top of what I normally do to help make up for the income I've lost over the last couple of years. I'd worked 15 hours, and I'd driven a total of 3 more to do it, so I was ready to call it a day. But as soon as I'd eaten, I was informed my Lady needed some things from the store. She was polite, not at all out of line, but she'd been home all day with her sister who'd been off that day, and they'd already been out a couple of times. I really lost my temper. I mean, they couldn't handle this? I didn't yell or any of that. I got up and took her to the store, but I'm certain it was obvious I was angry. Intellectually I felt justified in my anger, but for some reason something nagged at me. Something felt like I was out of line to have taken issue with this situation. But I was tired, and I was scheduled for the same kind of day next day, so I just went to bed. My reaction bugged me for several days but I kept telling myself I was justified.

In previous posts I've mentioned my garden. It's large and pretty intricate. It's electrically lit by about half a dozen lights or so, but because of the layout there are pools of shadow as you walk through it. Unfortunately, the stress has caused my Lady to suffer a certain level of vision impairment, and pools of shadow are a serious issue for her. Not a big deal, a few cheap tiki torches and we're back in business. Except last night the torches ran out of fuel, and I didn't have any to refill them. Now for a while in the military, my job was expedient methods recovery. When they tested my team the evaluators literally removed everything they thought would be helpful in making our needed repairs, intentionally did damage, and then told us to fix it. We scored well by successfully using things that were in no way intended to be used the way we used them. Along comes this issue, and I am going to fix it. Hmmm, what to do, what to do?

Immediately Lady points out she has her flashlight. (Due to her condition I got her a couple of super-bright mini lights she is able to carry conveniently, and she is supposed to have them at all times just in case) I responded that I knew, and kept working on the problem. "But I have my flashlight" she says. "Good girl, I heard you". It occurs to me that I have some gel fuel in the house, that stuff you usually see under the chafing dishes at catered events. "But, I have my flashlight. I can just use that. Don't take any trouble". I respond "Sweetie, I KNOW, I heard you, thank you, now let me fix it the way I want to". So the gel fuel, with a bit of finagling, became a garden torch and the problem was solved.

Fortunately this time I pretty well hid that I was frustrated with her, because I knew she was just trying to be a good girl and no trouble. I needed to chill so I went in and popped in "Black Rain" by Ozzy (So now you get a sense of one part of my musical taste) and half way through this song pops up called "Lay Your world On Me". (Youtube video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqKF-0Xusr8) It's not my favorite song by any means, and it doesn't really apply overall to our relationship. But the first time I played the CD and heard it, it really grabbed my attention because I work a difficult schedule, and I have a LOT of responsibility at home as well. It is pretty intense a lot of the time, and the Ladies sometimes express concern for my well being. I always reply "Don't worry, I can carry the weight". The main refrain in this song is Lay your world on me, I can take the weight. And I realized that's been the problem these last two weeks. Last night she wouldn't let me pick up the weight. And she almost always tries not to. She doesn't hand it to me, I have to order her to give it to me. Her sister can be that same way in a different manner. She'll try to deal with her own personal problems because she thinks they aren't mine. And they are, that's the deal. If my Ladies car breaks down, that's my problem. If a Lady has a doctors appointment she's worried about, I go because that's my worry. I have told them repeatedly, they don't have problems, they have me. I have problems. I may ask them to fix the problem by doing exactly [this], but it's up to me to find the solution and make it possible to implement, via money, creating time in their schedule, or whatever. Stop taking my problem!! The irony is I don't find them an unwarranted burden until they try not to be a burden. Then they can be a real pain in the ass. I want that weight. I want to take care of both of them. That's part of what is fulfilling to me.

And then it occurred to me that maybe that's my fault. Last week in full view of her sister, one Lady layed her world on me, and I dropped the weight. Not only did I make it clear I was annoyed at the inconvenience, but I'm certain she felt like she had been a huge burden which would be just plain punishment to her. Absolutely not acceptable. So, I think it's time I applied a little self correction, and manned up. With apologies to The Hollies, they ain't heavy, their my Ladies.

The Hollies are here for you youngsters out there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KtScrqtbc

A nice relief

If you've read the blog for a while, you know life has been kicking us all this time. We've been hunkered down and simply enduring the onslaught, awaiting the time when fortune and opportunity turn our way again and we can counterattack. Lately we've even gotten in some solid counter punches. Something I learned in the military however, is to snatch what pleasures can be had even in the midst of tragedy and chaos. We had a local music-fest today, so I took the Ladies up to see it. A couple of my favorite local bands were playing and we grabbed seats in the shade and just stayed all day. The music was good, and lots of sexy young women were dancing around. I spent triple what it should have cost to eat the food you can only get a street fairs. We had a great time.

There were bittersweet moments as well though. There was a very young girl there, maybe three or four, and her father was letting her hold his hands as he twirled her around in the air while she giggled hysterically. Another time a girl of about eight was on the "dance floor" just doing what 8-year-olds do when they dance. Sort of a spastic jerking around. These were reminders that our Goddaughter has moved out. I had prepared myself for the fact that she would probably want to get her own place for college. It never occurred to me that she might choose to accept an offer to go to high school halfway acrossed the country from us. I used to twirl her, and carry her, and watch her dance. I wasn't ready to lose her yet. I love her, and I miss her terribly.

Still, it was good to hear the Ladies laugh and sing. It was good to eat ice cream in the beating sun and just be together. It feels good to love them so much.

It means "Go to Hell"

I'm a history buff. Tales of endurance and courage leave me spellbound. I have several favorites, but one I like pretty well is the tale of Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe, commander 101 Airborne Division (The Screamin' Eagles) during WWII. You may be familiar with it. At one point he and his men were cut off and surrounded. They were literally freezing because they had been rushed into the action and had not been issued winter gear, and now the worst winter weather in decades had descended on Germany. The German Army surrounding them prevented resupply by ground, and the weather prevented air operations. They were running out of ammo, food, medical supplies, pretty much everything. The German commander, after a week of bombardment against the Americans, sent a note demanding surrender. General McAuliffe sent back a one word reply, "Nuts". The Colonel delivering the message had to explain the meaning of the word to the Germans. He told them that "In plain English, it means go to Hell". I sometimes think about that outrageous act of defiance in the face of certain defeat when things get really bad for me.

I think of it because the men held out still, even after that demand. They did not surrender and they did not allow themselves to be overrun. They held the ground as ordered until General Patton's third army arrived. I find it interesting to note that most historians will say the Screamin' Eagles were rescued by Patton. However, the 101st Airborne Division itself points out to this day that their orders were to hold that ground until relieved and they did so. Their relief (Army ground forces) was merely late. Once the Army did arrive, the 101st was ordered to advance and attack, which they did, liberating another 4 towns in the next week and three more the week after that. The lesson I take from that is that no matter how bad things look, how overwhelming the odds seem, or how hopeless one feels defeat is never certain until one quits fighting.

I've been thinking about all my family has endured, all we've survived, and all we still face. I've thought about all the nay-sayers and disbelievers that thought the consummate good girl and stereotypical bad boy were doomed from the start, especially when we married less than a year after meeting. Of all those who insisted poly relationships never last when we began to explore this avenue. Of the many who snickered with satisfaction each time a poly partner did not work out for us, and of all those who yell the louder as year after year ticks by now with the Lady we found and bonded to. I'm afraid I must deliver to them bad news.

Today marks 21 years of marriage for my wife and I. The last decade we have shared with our partner. Our relationship is not on the edge of collapse. We are not at each others throats. While we have been laid low by life for a time we stand united as one still, and are growing stronger every day. To my Ladies I say I love you more everyday. Every night I think I could not possibly feel more love for you than I feel as I fall asleep, and every morning I awake to find I do.

And yet I know there are still those who hope we will fall. Who long to see us fail ourselves and each other. Who insist we have no chance. I hope they are listening now. I have something to say to them as well.

Nuts.

This topic was GG's idea, and it was a good one.....

Last night I read Greengirls latest post. In case you haven't read it, it's here: http://greengirl-whatiwonder.blogspot.com/2010/07/from-island-of-misfit-girls.html. In sum it basically discusses how she feels about never fitting in even as a kid, and how that affects her sometimes. I had a really strong reaction to the comments that had been offered by the time I read the post. I was a bit taken aback at the attitudes expressed in the comments, and that's what has motivated me to write this tonight. It’s important to remember that the views expressed here are mine and Greengirl will get them just as the rest of you do, when (And that’s IF) she even reads this blog. The views are mine, whatever you think of them. Please remember that. And Greengirl, I know I never asked but thanks for letting me crib your notes.

I thought I shared the pain of what GG was describing until I read the comments. But the comments seemed to me to just minimize the things that were described. The impact of them on a person. Advice saying just ignore the other folks and do what you do, just be yourself, just be happy. These types of statements fail to acknowledge the real struggle that living out of sync with the entire world can be. One doesn’t just CHOOSE to be fulfilled, one needs to be in an environment where they actually ARE fulfilled so they can feel it. My question is simply this; Where in all the great wide world are the other people like me? I want to meet other people like myself. When you leave the vanilla world for the world of misfits and edgeplayers, and you realize you don't fit into the misfits' world either, where do you go for companionship? Where do you go so you can NOT feel like the weird one, at least for a little while? Where can you go so that you can be truly comfortable "Being yourself" with absolutely no lingering feeling of a potential need for defensiveness? In these circumstances, where can you expect to truly be allowed to completely "Be yourself"? I don't know.

I’m an intelligent, articulate, fairly tolerant guy and I find that often people I meet come to like me. But I never seem to meet people that ARE like me. People that feel just what I feel and think just what I think. I enjoy meeting people with ideas that complement mine, but isn’t it possible that somehow, somewhere there are a few people whose ideas MIRROR mine? Again, I only speak for myself, but it occasionally feels like I’m the stranger in a strange land, unlike anyone else I will ever meet. Unable to make myself truly understood by the world at large because my ideas are just a little too foreign and just a little too different to ever be completely accepted. Different in subtle ways maybe, but so deeply different that there is no overcoming it. It’s like dealing with a constant case of culture shock. You are always a little on guard.

The comments seemed to either not understand that fact, or just not consider it. When I hear a group discussing “TTWD”, in my ears that rings a bit hollow because the closest thing to a “We” I find in the life is the group made up of my Ladies and I. I hear these kinds of statements and I think “Who’s this WE I keep hearing about? Where is this wonderful group?” Because it feels a lot like my Ladies and I are out here all alone, even among friends. And what that means is, it gets lonely. You don’t just ignore that and find joy and happiness in life. It leaves a hole that sometimes is noticeable. A hole I for one would like to fill, if only I could find what I need to do it.

So, GG, assuming I understood your post correctly let me say I understand how you feel. I enjoy my uniqueness and individuality, as I think you enjoy yours. But I sometimes long for the anonymity that can be found in being just another face in a very like-minded crowd, and the comfort of knowing I'm with a group of people among whom nothing I do or believe will be challenged, or questioned, or seem out of place or the least little bit shocking. A place where there is no unique aspect of my day-to-day life to steal attention from whatever topic I am discussing. I want to brag about my Ladies talents without the basic nature of our relationship becoming the center of attention, and I want everyone in the room to see their spectacular magnificence without any chance of our everyday lives being a distraction to it. Sometimes I feel the absence of the existence of such a place very keenly. When I do I know intellectually that it's a passing feeling and everything is really all right, but there really is no way to just shrug that feeling off. It's a terribly uncomfortable feeling and it can be very persistent.

When I attempt to discuss that feeling, or see someone else attempting to, and I then see several opinions that "What others think doesn't matter, just shake it off", my feelings of being different are actually increased, because once again, I seem to be the only one not in sync. Once again I'm the one that doesn't seem to fit in. Ironic, isn't it?

Captain's Personal Log; Stardate07282010

I think I've gained another smidgen of understanding into masochists, and therefore my Ladies as well. It's been a long day and I was tired when I got home. One Lady likes a fire in the pit out back, and I built her one even though it was late and had rained earlier. Wet wood isn't eager to burn, but I got it to do so. In the process I blistered and cut my hands a little. Lady 2 feels spoiled by virtue of having her coffee made in the morning. We have a machine that does it automatically. But tonight we are out of the usual bottled water, and I hate to use our tap stuff. So even though it was well after 11 and I get up early for work, off I went to the store. While there I noticed a guy looking at me, especially my hand. It was then I realized I was splitting wood and building the fire, then ran to the store, so I am dirty, smell like smoke, and this guy is staring at my hand because it's slowly dripping blood. It didn't really hurt, but it was bleeding. Intellectually I knew he was thinking I should be embarrassed. But the reality is I felt arrogant, cocky, even defiant. I felt like saying "Yes, my women are sitting in front of a crackling fire despite the earlier rain and the wet wood. They are enjoying that while yours is not because I bent a force of nature to my will for no other reason than I wanted it to be so. I will have coffee in the morning because I simply won't allow circumstances to decide otherwise for my Ladies. I wanted to tell this guy to his face that my Ladies were better off than whoever he happened to be with because I was stronger than him, and he couldn't have hacked it. I didn't of course, but it was really a powerful feeling. I don't plan on changing my life over this, but I think I get my partners better tonight than I did last night, and that's good.

Captain's Personal Log: Stardate 07172010

Life's been pretty good these last few days. I've had to sell all but one of my motorcycles, but I've gotten the last remaining bike out of storage and on the road and I've put in almost 200 miles in the last three days. I'm getting the budget back under control, and we've all agreed we want to re-establish the authority levels we used to enjoy before the storm I've mentioned began. But there's always a catch. One of my Ladies has a cousin that has been very ill and is not expected to last much longer. The Lady has gone to visit the cousin hoping to bring her some comfort. This means Fairlady 2 and I will be alone together, which for some reason invariably leads to a fight. I really don't know why, but it seems that every time she and I are in the "Traditional couple" roles, she get's nitpicky and naggy. It happened again, and I confess I shouldn't have been surprised but I was caught off guard. This time though I handled it differently. The complaint this time around had to do with the house not being kept to her satisfaction. This time I decided not to bother with logical arguments as to why I'd arranged things as they were. I just reorganized things so as to meet her newly expressed desires. Unfortunately this involves her being assigned a couple of tasks she really finds unpleasant, but when she pointed this out I responded that her sister and I had both had a shot at those particular chores prior to this, and clearly we couldn't manage them, so she'll just have to do it herself. I also listed several things as far as outdoor chores I handle that were not even mentioned in her list-of-things-we need-to-do-better just to show the time and energy put forth, and reminded her that I also decide the menu for dinner at home, do the shopping for the most part, and all the cooking. Oh, and by the way, even with the destruction wrought to my business by the storm, I still make about the same amount she does, so I think I'm pulling my weight. It's not like I'm sitting on my ass all day. So, we'll see how this goes. Either she'll decide her standards were too high and shut up about it, or I'll have an even cleaner house starting next week. Either way I win, and there was no fight.

An Experiment...

My intentions for this blog have changed quite a bit since it's inception. Part of that has been talking to folks I know, and part has been reading the blogs I either don't know at all or know only virtually. I've gotten quite a bit out of the blogs that are near-daily diary's, and recently I was told both that I need to put myself first more often and that I should try putting things in writing as a means of "Venting" that would have little or no actual consequence. SO, immediately following this I'll be posting the first (And fair warning, possibly last) diary style post. In order to differentiate these from the more typical commentary post I've decided to steal a page from one of my favorite TV series (You have to guess which one) and label them "Captain's Personal Log" with a date. I thought of making a second blog, but life's too complicated as it is, so I decided to "Put myself first" and leave the task of sorting between them to the reader. On the upside it's one less blog for you guys to manage as well. Thanks for being out there.

The reports of my demise are greatly exagerated (Which is sure to be a great disappointment to some...)

I know, I know, it's been quite some time since I've written anything here. In fact I've not even visited to read others blogs much actually. I've been dealing with some things here in real life that were taking precedence. It has to do with that storm of shit and razorblades I've mentioned a couple of times. We have won a significant battle on that front and that's a positive thing, but the cost of what has been inflicted on us has recently been underscored as well, and I think things will never be what they were again. However, the war is not over so at this point I can't tell you any more. I intend at this point to come back to the blog as I am able. I've not decided on a direction yet. I might change everything or nothing. I'm sure I will continue to be a moody, opinionated bastard, so for better or worse don't expect anything different on that score. I just wanted to let everyone know I was still alive and pushing back, the Ladies are still loyal to the core, and posts will begin to flow again soon. Take care all.

As the blog name says..........

I'm tired today. Not physically tired(Well, that too, but that's not the point). I'm sick and tired of being told we are odd in some way. I mean, exactly who isn't? Anyone know a long-term married couple that are ecstatically happy to be together? Because I know exactly one.

Granted, we live in a consensual triad, and that's unusual. On the other hand, there's the "Couple" (I guess that's still the correct terminology since they cohabitate) near us (All to near honestly)who have been divorced 25 years, but still live in the same house. They still argue, he still drinks and pretty much everyone around here thinks she's a bitch, although most of them humor her antics, I suppose because they think that's easier. They still argue a whole damned lot, quite often outside where the neighbors have to hear it. As far as I can tell the house has been effectively divided into individual territory, and he has a small apartment in one corner, though he's usually in the garage. He get's home after work and walks straight5 to the garage, and doesn't enter the house until midnight or 1 a.m. after she's gone to bed. His friends come to visit him out in the garage. Isn't that weird?

There's the woman down the street who I thought was single all these years. I was told by someone that would know recently that she's married, but the husband is rarely home. Hey, I can promise you he's only been home maybe three hours in the last three or four years, because from where I live I could tell if he was. Having met the wife, I can't blame the husband for always finding somewhere else to be other than home, but it still seems weird to me.

There's the guy I work with that speaks as if he despises the person on the phone with him, and wants that prson to know it from his tone and demeanor. He only speaks that way to one person as far as I can tell, normally he's pretty polite. I asked one day who it was on the phone. "My wife" he says. I just said "Oh", and moved on, but later I asked another co-worker if it was his ex after a bad divorced. "No, they're still married, why?" was the reply.

Oh, no reason.

Weird.

There's the guy I knew who wouldn't keep a girlfriend for 7 years, because that makes her a common law wife. I found this out when he mentioned one day he needed to break up with his current, whom prior to this he had seemed extremely happy to be with. They were one of the most happy and contented couples I knew from what I could see. Certainly she was attentive and very flirty with him, and she was smart and good looking to boot. I'd thought he was kidding, but three weeks later she was gone, moved out. Turns out he actually does have this personal rule that after 6 years he has six months to end a relationship, so that he doesn't end up "Married". According to his sister, the girl I met was the third to suffer this fate. Three perfectly happy relationships tossed away. Weird I tell you.

When I was in the military I knew a couple who had a rule that said if one spouse was more than 200 miles from home, they were allowed to "act single". The oddest part of this relationship to me was that the partner at home was never to know what the partner away had done. It was never to be discussed. I would want to know. Not because I'd be jealous or forbid it, but just in case that fling ever happened back into our lives. Life is funny and people happen to bump into you 30 years later more often than one would think. That could get really weird!

And of course there are the more typical relationships. Married but playing on the side, lying about it to the spouse and giggling over that fact with friends. Guys on the "Down Low", women with friends they "Are comfortable" with. Friends in both cases that the spouse doesn't know about. All that lying and sneaking seems weird to me.

In fact, it strikes me as ironic that I personally know of exactly one stereotypically "Good" marriage, one relationship where the man and woman never married but were dedicated and loving for 35 years until death parted them, one marriage in which the couple screams, yells, throws things, kicks holes in the walls and then makes up, one couple who divorced but never separated. I know two gay couples (One m/m, and one f/f) that are several years old and seem to be working well still, and I know of one situation where the woman and her first husband divorced, she remarried, and she lives now quite happily and peacefully with her ex and her current in their home. I don't know the sexual dynamics there, and shouldn't since who sleeps with who is none of my business in any relationship not my own, but look! A consensual triad that isn't ours! That makes two!! That means we are part of a larger whole. That means that in my experience the relationships that are most common are gay relationships and consensual triads like mine.

I know, right!? That is so weird!

Actually this is typical of me...

I was reading along, posts and comments, when I saw this sentence. Now this post has nothing to do with that comment or that post. In fact this sentence isn't really critical to the meaning of the comment or related to the post that was being commented on. But occasionally I will be calmly trotting through my day, and I will see or hear something that might as well be highlighted and hanging in the air as if it is in a movie because it is so blatantly true, and to my way of thinking covers so many different areas and situations. Here's the sentence I saw...

"I know it's semantics, except it's somehow important."

Yes indeedy. If only more people would recognize that simple fact, and a whole lot more often.

Because this post isn't a comment on that comment or the post being commented on I have not identified the person originally making this statement. But if that person would like me to I certainly will. Thank you all, and goodnight.

Again, short and to the point

So, I've had a long day, I'm exhausted, and after a nights rest I might think what I'm about to write is disjointed and nonsensical, but I just had the chance to sign on and I immediately ran into the announcement of the Boobquake event. In case you haven't heard it seems some Iranian cleric claims all earthquakes are the result of immodestly dressed women and the promiscuity they engage in. In response a woman named Jen McCreight offered the idea of all women everywhere dressing immodestly all at once tomorrow to test the theory. By Islamic standards as I understand things, "Immodest" ought to accidentally cover almost every female over the age of 3 months in the Western world as well as those naked savages in the third world countries, many of whom don't bother to cover their breasts at all according to National Geographic. I thought this was an excellent response to such an ignorant proclamation, but some of the criticism I think might actually be more stupid than the clerics original statement.

Most prominently, a clearly written, calmly made, well reasoned (As far as it went) response by a self described feminist who complained that this was exactly the opposite of Feminism, and that feminists should realize the oversexualization of women was what feminism was fighting. Therefore women baring their breasts for this cause was anti-feminism. She insinuates strongly that the men supporting this cause are engaging in "Show me your tits" behaviour, which is only typical and par for the course in these situations. She also pointed out that women should be able to wear whatever they want and be completely safe from male sexual advances in her complaint.

So let me get this straight. First off, Miss McCreight suggested SHE would show some cleavage, and others should dress in a fashion considered immodest BY THEMSELVES. So if a knee length skirt is racy to you, feel free to stop there. When did bare breasts become involved, and why was it a womans idea if it's the men with one track minds? No one was showing her tits until the feminist cried out! Next let's consider this. The Feminist positon is that a woman ought to be able to wear a thong bottom and nothing else while sunbathing and expect to be free of any male advance, and in order to support that ideal when faced with obviously sexist stupidity they should then respond by covering up as much as possible? Is it just me that sees that as being somewhat contradictory? If Feminism supports the idea that a woman should be free to dress as she wants without fear of inappropriate reaction, why is tomorrow suddenly subject to different rules?

There's more, but I'm tired. I'm tired of the blatant stupidity, the constant male bashing, and how completely acceptable it is. I'm going to go to bed now, and maybe there will be an earthquake while I sleep that will take out some of the stupid people. One can hope.

Just a quickie.....

I was reading through the various blogs I follow, and a topic was broached that breaks down to the idea that those involved in "TTWD" have some obligation to help newbies. On it's face this seems like a fine, communal, utopian ideal. In practice it's just plain moronic in my opinion.

The fact is, we are speaking of the most intimate parts of ourselves when we speak of our desires, hopes, and beliefs. These are things I have discovered to be both highly personal and potentially extremely controversial with the power to do real and serious harm if they are used against you. That being the case, let me put forth my opinion that the first duty of any person is to their families, then themselves, and if there is anything left over that can be conveniently and safely offered then it is a choice whether or not to help others. You have no duty to another person to help them find themselves. Certainly not just because they claim to share an interest with you in some alternative lifestyle. It's wonderful to find like-minded people, but you have no obligation to trust them with your most private and personal thoughts and feelings. This goes for people that were friends prior to discovering their newly found interest as well, and in my opinion doubly so. A stranger may decide they aren't as enamored with a specific lifestyle as they expected to be and just leave, but a "Friend" will try to "Save" you from your "Mistake". So to those of you that feel pressured to share your experience one on one, just understand the risks. The consequences could harm you, harm your family(including your children) and destroy the relationship and life you've built. Don't allow some guilt trip to push you into a risky decision. Don't assume that because you would have valued and honored a mentor when you were coming up, that anyone you offer your knowledge to now will respect you for it. You are placing yourself at serious risk every time you extend that hand. Don't do it without thinking it through. You may well come to regret offering that kindness more than any other decision you ever make in life.

The difference.

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.........?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ROFLMAO

I notice I lost two followers today. Hmmm, just after the irate post. Hey, I told them not to read it. Pussies.

A truly offensive post, PLEASE do not read this.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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.

AN open letter post, AKA Sorry about your penis......

I think everyone that follows this blog is familiar with Mouse. If not, let me say I have never met her in person, but I've followed her blog for a bit, and within that context exchanged ideas and thoughts via the comments section and so on. I've also spoken via the WWW with her master, Omega. She seems a wonderful, submissive woman, he seems quite "real" and appears to have his head screwed on more-or-less straight, and for the most part both of them seem to be on the same wavelength as I am concerning relationships and how things should be done so I think I get them a little bit. Mouse' most recent post was about (And here I quote her)

" A man contacted me via email and offered his opinion on what a bad slave I am."

Now maybe this is because I have such an absolute and ironclad idea of what D/s should be (And SO is not), or maybe it's because this exact kind of thing has happened to my Ladies, or maybe I'm just a puffed up prick that doesn't understand REAL D/s. Who knows, but I feel like answering this guy.

Who in the fuck do you think you are? I know I'm taking a risk here, because I don't know anything about anything outside of Mouse' post on the topic, but I want to start with that basic question. I start there because of some basic presumptions that would have to be true for your actions to be in any way acceptable. I presume you did NOT contact Omega to ask why he allows Mouse to behave so, because if you had he would have explained things to you and you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself. I presume you think you have enough understanding of Mouse' and Omega's relationship, not to mention a close enough personal relationship with Omega, to have a clear understanding of what Omega wants from Mouse as well as his leave to scold her on your own responsibility. I also presume you feel, and Omega agrees, that you have enough experience to be capable of instructing someone with the history and experience of Mouse. I presume that your actions do not in any way conflict with Omega's plans for Mouse and will not interfere with his achieving the goals he has for her. Of course it goes without saying that you are a personal friend of Omega's, and therefore understand perfectly what his end goal for Mouse is.

Actually, I don't presume any of that. In fact I believe you are just a limp dicked, wannabe, poser. A (So called) "man" that would treat a sub like that is the same kind of middle aged bozo that pulls up in a red sports car with a bought and paid for companion that put her collar on in the car and will be taking it off the same way this afternon. Thus the title of this post, because when I see guys like you that are so obviously compensating, I just want to say "Sorry about your penis" I can't help with that, but let me offer an alternative to your world view.

I have two Ladies. They would never hesitate to tell me when something I do irritates them. Most of the time, I even alter my actions for them. I have eliminated the word "Irk" from my vocabulary because one of the Ladies disliked that word. I have modified how I handle overseeing vehicle maintenance because one Lady was uncomfortable with my simply taking the car and modifying it or having work done to it without her direct involvement. This relates to her past and a need to be physically able to leave at any time. You have to respect how her experiences in the past make her feel right now, and you won't know that if she is afraid telling you will be a disappointment somehow. This Lady wants to know exactly when the oil is changed, when the tires are rotated, things like that. Now me? I don't want to do that stuff. But to be blunt, if I'm the boss that stuff is my JOB. Back when I called myself a dominant, I told the Ladies that submissives didn't have problems, submissives have dominants. Dominants have problems, and it's the dominants responsibility to see the problems are handled. I never cared for a minute that my Lady wanted to see to her own car care. I just never would have thought that was the case. Damned good thing she felt comfortable telling me, don't you think? Hell, if she wasn't so busy with her career, I'd assign her ALL the damned care for all the cars AND the motorcycles. Shoot, I'd put her in charge of everything right down to the lawn mowers and the weed whackers. I guess I'm just weak willed and that allows her to push me around.

Call me crazy, but I have been with one of my Ladies for over 20 years. That's right, two decades. And our partner? 9 years. I know, still just the Honeymoon, but we all have a good feeling that this will last. Just a hunch. And the crazy thing is, I believe that this success is a direct result of the fact that they are allowed to express their feelings, and I will listen. Now don't get me wrong, occasionally I just overrule them. And yes, they respect that and accede to my wishes (Usually)if I overrule them. But over all those years one thing has become extremely obvious. If they both think I'm making a mistake, I almost certainly am whether I can see it or not. I have on more than one occasion absolutely slammed on lifes brakes because they said I should. I have learned about myself, become a better person, and found new interests all because one or both of the Ladies said she wasn't happy with some choice of mine and offered an alternative. YOU mister "My slave wouldn't even THINK such a thing" are missing an awful lot. Since your "slave" would never tell you when you're being an ass, allow me point a few things out.

I don't know who you think you are, but you aren't him. First off, I don't need you undercutting my Ladies self confidence with your posturing and blabbering. I've had guys like you undo months of confidence-building work by planting the seeds of doubt in her mind. I don't coddle them. Believe me, I don't pull my punches, even the figurative ones. If she wasn't up to par, I'd say so. My Ladies don't need to have even one percent of their brain worried about what you said or trying to reconcile that opinion with what I taught them. Unfortunately, any submissive person is vulnerable to criticism, even moronic criticism. What you need to get through your skull is, they are mine. If you feel they are dressed inappropriately, acting inappropriately, or thinking inappropriately you need to remember one thing. I could not possibly care less about your opinions but I will care if you express those opinions inappropriately. If you feel slighted or offended in some way by the Ladies, you take that up with me and you do it at your own risk. I won't be coddling you either, and you're likely going to be told to get lost. But let me be very clear, if you do take it up with them you will find I've taught them exactly where the respect line is. They won't cross it, but it goes both ways. If YOU cross over it by disrespecting them the way you did Mouse, you're liable to get your ass handed to you. When that happens, do not expect me to make it all better by taking your side. The fact that you call yourself a dominant doesn't make you one, or entitle you to the respect you could earn if you managed to act like one. Not from them and certainly not from me. You are free to chat with them as you wish if they agree, but you do not directly criticize them AT ALL. Because the fact is, they choose to be with me, they don't have to be. They can leave anytime they want, and I have arranged things so that they have the income and property to be capable of doing just that. Each of them is capable of being wholly independent and self-sufficient immediately. They stay because I have a code I live by that they respect and admire, and part of that code says that as long as they wear my collar I'm responsible for them. They understand what guys like you don't seem to grasp. So long as they wear that collar I might say things they feel are critical or even insulting to them, but damned sure nobody else will.

My response to a response to my response to....wait, whose idea was this anyway?

I just finished reading Spiriteds second response to my latest blathering in response to her, and I'm still processing all that was (re) written there. I noticed one thing absolutely screaming at me from the page, and it just boggles my mind that so many seem to not see it. Consider this one paragraph. And fair warning, I'll be using an all caps phrase soon. In this instance I actually would be yelling those words (Out of frustration) if I were speaking instead of typing, so it seems apt. Here's the quote.....

"The thing is... they had rules... it was just that the rules fit so nicely with society that you could hardly notice they were there. The rules were there for one reason and one reason alone... not to make dominants feel more dominant or submissives more submissive... they were there to protect people against someone who was intent on harming another. Those rules made sure that any predator or player would be weeded out of their community right from the start."

Exactly! The rules were there for one reason alone, to weed out anyone they saw as a "predator or player" right from the start. They were there to EXCLUDE A SPECIFIC TYPE OF PERSON, and for no other reason.

End of discussion, story finished, done deal. No PC tolerance of others, no "It's all about what works for you" crap. Those rules were there to exclude certain people from that group, period. The reason they were hardly noticeable is because they represented common shared values that all those involved wanted their society to be conducted by. I guarantee the first steely-eyed, resolute, Gorean master or hardcore, steadfast, devoted Gorean slave girl to attend would have caused all manner of disruption, because they don't want to live like the described group did.

Look, we as a group have to deal with reality. And the reality is, we are a fringe group. If we want to make any progress towards being open in society at large, we have to face the fact that we scare some people. The fact that the fear is unfounded and unnecessary is irrelevant. If we want society at large to respect us, we need to do two basic things. We need to hold to values that prioritize safety, health, and consent. We also need to then demonstrate the courage of our convictions to publicly decry anyone that takes the fantasy too far into reality. No sane and healthy human being at even the most extreme levels of submission or massochism, even if they fantasize about amputation, bone breaking, actual forced slavery, being blinded, being starved (I've heard all these by the way) actually wants to experience them, though they might enjoy the fantasy. In their attempts to live the fantasy, some folks end up at risk from those that would use their fantasies against them, or simply dont protect their partners in their own pursuit of their fantasies.

If our little counter-culture group doesn't stand up and protect it's own from those that go too far, then society will never believe they do not need to protect themselves from us. In that event, none of us will ever be free to live as we want because society at large will never see a distinction between us and the BTK serial killer who took his initials from his motto "Bind, Torture, Kill". They will believe we are all crazy and dangerous, and they will try to eliminate us in any way they can. The easiest way we as a group could protect ourselves and advance our cause is to simply have rules and be loud about them so newbies, both dom and sub, would know where the limits are. If a new dom understood he was absolutley expected to protect and care for his scene partner, even if that partnership lasts just an hour, then many fewer would take sceneing so lightly. If more new subs were told at every turn that that is what they should expect from any dom they ever play with, no exceptions, then far fewer would end up as damaged than currently do.
It really is just no harder than that. And why it is made to seem so very complicated is a mystery to me. I can only believe the "Predators and players" out there are actively promoting all this PC tolerance though, because it does nothing but enable them to continue to use and discard those that amuse them for a moment without any chance of their being any serious consequences for their actions, at least not to themselves.

See? It ought to just be done my way....

Saw this on Spiriteds blog (Spirited Meanderings), and it made me think to post.



What would you do if confronted by a dom of the oppisite sex?


That's a very difficult question to answer in general terms. It would really depend on his intentions. I'm an owned slave and I don't have much respect for Doms who do not respect that. I also do not respect Doms who automatically think I will submit to them just because I'm submissive. To me, they are not Doms, but boys trying to pretend to be dominants.

To dominants who approach me in a disrespectful manner, I usually as calmly as possible tell them what I think of their behavior and just walk away. If they are being respectful, though, and just want to talk or have questions they want to ask me... then I have no issues with that.



The reason I decided to post is, this type of situation is a perfect example of why "The community" needs to have specific expectations and definitions of what is done. The reason any "Confrontation" would occur it seems to me, is because each party expects the other has their same values and expectations of one another. Spirited seems to feel she has no duty, obligation, or expectation to offer more than minimal courtesy to a dom confronting her, something I get the sense she would offer pretty much any human. I know another person though, that claims he is dom, is NOT Gorean, but does seem to honestly feel that women are property to be used as a man sees fit, that all women owe obeissence to a man simply based on gender, and that small tasks such as fetching drinks or food is something any woman should do at the request of pretty much any man. Larger tasks such as sexual "Use" he would negotiate with her "Owner" and she would simply be informed of what was expected, or even simply handed over and used without any explanation. This person was articulate, polite, and made a pretty strong argument.

I happen to think this type of person is the most dangerous to the lifestyle, since an articulate, intellectually capable fool is much harder to spot or counter than the typical shit-for-brains fool one normally stumbles over in the "Scene"You know, the guy with the flogger molded into his back pocket, falls dangling down his thigh? But see, here's the problem, I'm guessing Spirited feels the dom-in-question is rude, arrogant, and lacks an understanding of what the lifestyle is all about. But stop for a minute and think. The dom almost certainly feels the same things about her. And the reason is that neither of them can be told that their way is not the right way, because the PC Police insist "There is no right way, it's all about what works for YOU". Except it isn't about what works for you. Not on a lifestyle community level anyway. It's about what works for US as that community.

Ironically, this problem is another that seems to be entirely solved by my simply not calling what we do BDSM. Last time this happened to one of my Ladies and she told the dom where to get off, he (As would be expected I think) came to me and told me about my Ladies "Poor behaviour". The conversation went like this....


Me: "Don't you name yourself a dom, and one known for his experience and ability?"

Him: "That's right, and I don't think you're girl's behaviour was at all acceptable"

Me, giving a shrug: "Well I'm just a vanilla guy. Hell, if YOU can't handle her, I can't see how I can be expected to".

He just sort of blinked at me as I walked off.

What's needed, like it or not, is some basic, inflexible rules of engagement. Standards that are the same in Michigan and Minnesota. Kentucky and California. Until we get that far, there will always be these conflicts.

Just to share...

Just wanted to share the wit of one of my Ladies. She's reading some bodice-ripper romance novel, and in that novel there is a description which she shared with me of a gentlemen interesting to our ladyfaire main character. I will relate the conversation as it went.

She, reading aloud: "She thought, too, of his tall athletic figure, his strong jaw and cleft chin, his chocolate brown eyes".

Me, wretching slightly: "Stop it, or I'll send you out to make dinner right now and not let you finish that chapter! I suppose this fellow has a pecker that thumps him solidly in the chest as it rises!"

She, all deadpan and innocent: "Where did you suppose the cleft in his chin comes from?"



I just love her!!

There's a joke that goes like this.....

There's a joke that goes like this: "What do you call a man with two wives?"

Answer: "Insane!"

An aquaintance was discussing my lifestyle today, and it was clear he didn't really understand it. It was mentioned that I don't come off as a "Dom" kind of guy in the sense that I don't flaunt my relationship with two women, I don't act all that cocky, and blah blah blah. Something that made me laugh was when I was told I don't spout off about "My bitches" and so on. I thought I'd write a post for those just considering trying it about how it really is going to work, so they will know what they are getting into.

First off, if you are very lucky each woman will compromise about half of the time. Since there are three of you and each of them is taking turns, YOU will be compromising every time. Oh, you'll get some of what you want. At least in one sense that's what a compromise is. But when one lady wants to buy a new car in trade for the 17 year old beater you have, another wants the down payment money spent on new living room furniture to replace the stained and sagging stuff you've raised the kid on, and your hope was to get a little caught up on the credit cards, YOU will have no chance. This is true because as the team lead you really only have two options. You can disappoint one of them or you can disappoint both of them. How many women do you want sulking and pouting for the next couple of weeks? How many women do you want to catch heaving a patient sigh while casting longing looks at the object of their desire that you denied them. One, or two?

Well?

Not a difficult question is it?

Further, since you are the highest authority, it is your responsibility to see to it that they are keeping their lives straight (You know, in all the spare time you have outside keeping your own life straight). You have to make sure the cars get serviced, the household appliances are maintained, and that the driveway is passable after two feet of snow falls. You have to be at the medical appointments so you know what's going on, at the various family functions (Where you will be at your MOST charming at all times, even when insulted, because aunt Martha already hates your living arrangements), and at every school play, ball game, and orchestra concert where you will meet the teachers and mingle with the other parents. As family CEO, everything right down to everyone being up on time for work and school, and creating the bathroom shower schedule that can accomplish that, is ultimately your responsibility. You won't be spending a lot of time watching the game on the big screen with one scantily-clad babe running for beers while the other kneels holding the chips and dip for you demurely. You'll be (Do you see it coming?) slaving away.

Granted, you can stamp your foot and say "I'm the boss and we'll do it my way!" anytime you want, but you won't have a successful happy relationship. Real women don't put up with that shit forever, and most not for long. Some pack up and leave, others will eventually just kill themselves out of hopelessness, but they'll leave you one way or another. And one way or the other, a woman generally leaves a mess behind for you to deal with.

So basically the reality is this. You will work twice as hard at the relationship as any other man you know, and you will spend twice as much money doing it. You will compromise more often, get your own way much less, and unless you have one big-ass house you will be using the bathroom only when you are allowed to. You will have double the chance of forgetting a birthday or anniversary, in fact twice as many details of all types to keep up on. Oh, and you will have two "Her mom"s to deal with in some fashion.

Why do it? Well, you know that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you overhear your current partner bragging about you to a friend? Or when you come home from a long day and she's made your favorite meal? Or the pride when she solo's at a task you taught her how to do? That kind of thing?

Yeah, I get that twice as much.

Whenever anyone asks me about living this way, I quote the character Kay from the movie Men in Black, when he was asked if trading his whole life for that other one was worth it.

"Oh yeah! It's worth it. If you're strong enough."

Iyam what Iyam, you be too.

So in an effort to distract myself from my real problems, I have been reading about "D/s" relationships a bit. I've been seeing submissives talking about being "trained". They present themselves as a blank canvass or fresh clay from which the dom can make anything he desires. They claim that all they want is a man that will make them into whatever it is that he wants, so that they can be pleasing to him. Just for entertainment value I thought I'd post.

First off, submissives you have the right to seek whatever will make you happy, but not the right to complain if you get it. Far too often in my experience I have heard a woman ask for a man to make her anything he desires and then complain that he is not accepting her for who she is. To them I say this; if you offer yourself as no more than a pretty container that can be filled with whatever he would like, you are likely to get a man that likes the color of your eyes and the length of your legs and expects he can change everything else about you. You will be expected to cut and color your hair, maintain a certain figure, and learn to enjoy certain acts while never desiring others because that will suit his taste and your own is of no importance. That is what he was offered, so that’s what he expects. I grant you only one small concession, and that is that I believe the man should have ascertained more accurately what you were really offering before accepting you, and in that way it would be his fault. But understand even there that what I am saying is that you were nothing but a poor choice to begin with because you were either not honest about what you wanted, or not as self aware as you presented yourself as being. It will be the doms’ mistake, but his mistake will be in having believed you.

Now the rest of this is simply about my personal taste. I enjoy the full richness of a woman as a person. I don't want a toy, I want a partner. I want someone that meshes with me like a puzzle piece and adds to my life as I add to hers. What attracts me is someone that has her own experiences to share with me, new ways to please me, and skills I don't possess but that would benefit me greatly. To be honest, having to "train" her to much kind of ruins it for me. I don't want to learn what pleases her so that I can be sure to do it without regard to what I want, and I don't want to teach her to like every single thing I like while disregarding her own opinions. I want us to coincidentally like at least some of the same things. I don't mind at all if she expresses preferences and favorite activities. I don't mind at all offering my ideas and experiences while exploring an interest of hers that we share but that she has no experience with. I want it to be a natural flow though, not a forced routine that’s performed, even if it’s performed well. It’s my opinion that if the woman enjoys specific activities or pleasures, she ought to just be honest and let her partner know, D/s or not, and she should be respected even as he is obeyed. It really doesn't bother me that I didn't teach her EVERYTHING she knows, and usually the submissive seems pleased to be able to offer me something that is from her alone. Don’t get me wrong, I expect to change her, to help her learn (I prefer “Teach” to “Train”) But I want to add to all the positive things that are already there. Because there's really no way a woman is a blank canvass in this aspect of life. Anyone old enough to even be reading this blog about the topics we discuss is going to have lived enough life to have had experiences that affected and shaped them. Those experiences are the foundation of who a person is. That's what should be offered to a life partner, because that's what enriches a life.

A What the...? Question. Why do "Feminists" hate femininity?

You know, I don't believe feminists are correctly named. They ought to be called anti-feminists in my opinion, because they generally deride anything feminine. Their message seems to be that women are no different than men, unless of course it benefits them to notice that difference.

Feminist females are the first to attack the choice my Ladies have made to build a life with me. The male is in charge? Abusive! One man and two women? Degrading! Clearly they have self esteem issues and have been brainwashed, right? Now we're pretty lucky in this regard. My Ladies have careers with major organizations and they do pretty serious shit. A mistake by either can literally cost their organizations multiple HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars in any of a number of deals they handle everyday, and all of which they are handling simultaneously. My wife not only has a prenup agreement, but also can easily demonstrate many of the things that might be contested in a divorce were gifts. I mean things like the car and the house. Where I live, a gift is not subject to a divorce decree, as it is recognized as the sole property of the person receiving it regardless of marital situation or length of time between the gift and the divorce. Like that old song says "When you leave, don't take nothin', Cuz' not a damn thing belongs to you." Legally, I don't have much of anything. My name isn't even on her checking account. Our partner, aside from her career, has never had my name on her checking account, her car, or anything else really. In fact one of her limits is that I have to keep her informed of anything I do to her car. This ironically stems from a time when I would simply take her car to get it repaired or serviced without discussing it with her. It is my responsibility to take care of her, and the car was hers, and therefore my responsibility. That's radically different than thinking it was my car, but my just arranging it would piss her off. Turns out it left her a bit panic stricken. She had a bad childhood including the teen years, and had spent some time acutely aware that the car was her escape route if she needed it. Not being aware of everything involving it at all times left her nervous. To that end, I simply see to it that she's seeing to it, and I've never asked for any legal authority over it or anything else. She gave me a key, that's good enough for me. If she wants it back, all she has to do is ask.

The point of all this is, since in many legal ways I am actually at their mercy the feminist screeching tends to come to an abrupt halt when we encounter it. But why in the world does it exist? Shouldn't those seeking to elevate the power of the female in our society fight for the right of women to make any choice at all involving themselves? I jut recently found out that the US is in a sticky spot with the UN because in order to join some of the UN treaties, the US would need to legalize prostitution and completely let go any chance of ever making abortion illegal, because most other countries consider these womens rights issues, and women should have control of their own bodies. Apparently most first and even second world countries consider prostitution the womens choice, but have laws against pimping and trafficking. In other words, she can sell sex if she chooses, but no one can push her to do it. Now, if you can step back from the issues themselves, doesn't it seem reasonable to see these things as womens choice? Isn't it odd that the US of all places is the last country to grant a woman freedom over what she is allowed to do to and with her body? Where are the Feminists?

On a smaller scale, I just read JZ's post about showing or not showing cleavage. Isn't it sad it's an issue? Like JZ, I'm not talking about going to work with a bandaid on her nipples, just leaving the top two buttons on the blouse open. Does it strike anyone but me as terribly odd that an adult female (And no offense JZ, but I mean over 30 here) in a professional position should be forced to worry about the acceptibility of such attire in a world where the waist of jeans on (And I'm sorry again for the youngsters, but I'm old now) the waistband of jeans on a college KID absolutely requires that she be bikini waxed? And oh yes, the thong may well be showing. A whale tale is at worst a very minor fashion faux paux, and is quite possibly a fashion statement. So butt cleavage is OK but breast cleavage isn't in our world now? Or is it that the 20 somethings can show, but only until the age at which they should have graduated. Can grad students get a cleavage extension?

Cleavage is feminine, as are hips and, yes, a cute butt. Don't get me wrong, I think there's way to much societal emphasis on how women are supposed to look and not enough on their mental abilities and technical skills, but certainly the way a woman looks can create pleasure in a man. If a woman enjoys a glamour look, why can't she pursue that without somehow betraying the cause? Why is a gay woman perfectly acceptable to the feminist movement, but a plural marriage participant abhorrent? Shouldn't a feminist support femininity instead of trying to crush it? Shouldn't someone fighting for the Feminist Movement attack the 350 pound butch dyke in greasy jeans and leather with a cropped haircut and leave my pantsuit or skirt attired, lipstick and eye make-up wearing, demuring to me by CHOICE Ladies alone? In fact, shouldn't they be defending, if not my Ladies personally, at least their right to make the choice to be who they are? Why do the Feminists hate the feminine?