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.