What is OK in Public?

We had tickets to the ballgame on Saturday night.  It was a beautiful evening.  The weather was perfect, with a cool breeze blowing in from the river.  We had our usual seats behind home plate, and fairly high in the stands.  The view from there is pretty good, and we have come to anticipate being able to see and enjoy the game from that vantage point.

This outing was a shared "anniversary" treat for the three of us, and it was meant to be a pleasant and fun time.  We arrived at the ballpark on schedule, and found our way to our seats.  We got settled in and waited for the pre-game festivities to end.  Everything seemed just about perfect...  and then THEY arrived.

THEY appeared to be a group of once and former sorority girls, apparently out for a bachelorette party at the ball park.  Of the four, one was wearing a wedding ring, and then there was the "guest of honor," still intent on making sure that her diamond was on display at every possible opportunity.  The other two young women in the party were, apparently unattached.  One was quiet and unobtrusive, but the other was wild, hyperactive, noisy, and (as the evening progressed) increasingly drunk and disorderly.

The group of them had, as luck would have it, the four seats directly in front of us.  From the moment that THEY arrived, the evening took a turn for the worse.  THEY were loud and obnoxious.  They never sat still for a minute, bouncing up and down, leaning on one another and into one another.  They waved their giant beer cans in the air -- and of course took photos of all of it with their phones (even the beer cans).  They wrestled and tussled, pinching and poking each other, arms and legs flailing without the least concern for the fact that they were sitting in the midst of a crowded public place.  Every time they moved or squirmed, we each had to readjust to try to peer in between them so that we could see the game.  No sooner would we find a clear sight line, than the shenanigans would recommence, and the ball game would again be obscured in a flurry of boobs and butts.  Simply put, they were rude and inconsiderate -- and there was not one thing we (or any of the other people around them) could do about it.

After all, a public venue, like a ball game, is just that.  It is public.  We generally count on people to exercise good judgement and practice good manners in such a setting, so that everyone can enjoy being in whatever public place.  When people deliberately choose to behave badly in a public place, their behavior choices impact everyone around them.  The truth is, though, that, for most people, there is that option.  Those young women were able to choose to ignore our feelings, and simply indulge themselves in their self-absorbed nonsense -- and no one was going to stop them.  Being rude is not a crime.

Which has had me thinking...  Our family is careful to keep our lifestyle under wraps out in public.  We don't go out in public places dressed up in our fetish gear.  We don't practice bondage in public.  We don't carry paddles or floggers around attached to our belts.  We don't usually hold each other's hands, except as couples.  We are careful not to expose ourselves to any sort of persecution, and we are careful not to impose our lifestyle choices on anyone else, even insofar as to make those choices apparent to the casual or unsuspecting observer.

Why should that be so?

Why should it be "OK" for a bunch of ill-mannered, inebriated, privileged, young women to completely and utterly disregard the comfort and rights of others around them in a public setting, while it is somehow viewed as totally inappropriate for us to display the slightest signs or symbols of who we are?  In what ways does our "overt" display of our lifestyle choice violate the rights of other people in a public place?  Do we, in showing our true selves, obstruct their view?  Do we interfere with their enjoyment of the public facility?  Do we disturb the peace?

Am I the only one who sees the inequity?

swan

Disclaimers

One other thing --

It is just fascinating how some people, usually those who intend to be nasty, will open up their comments with some sort of disclaimer that only serves to elucidate their intention.

 Why would you think that starting off a comment with, "I'll be nice about this...," is going to somehow obscure the fact that you absolutely intend, from beginning to end, to be anything but nice?  "Nice" would sound pleasant, good-natured, and kind.  

That sort of blatantly dishonest disclaimer is in the same category as those that begin with things like:

• "I hope you don't take offense at this, but..."
• "Not meaning to sound rude, but..."
• "I don't want to sound judgmental, but..."
• "Please don't be hurt, but..."

The translation for each of those is so evident and so clear that it is amazing that anyone ever tries to get away with that silliness.  How much more honest it would be to simply declare from the outset that what will follow is, of course, meant to be offensive, rude, judgmental and hurtful.  People who begin comments, or conversations of any sort, with that kind of thinly veiled excuse for bad behavior, know better.  After all, we teach toddlers how to be "nice."  It is one of the earliest social skills that small humans learn.

I don't know.  It makes me just shake my head.  

swan

If You Comment -- Things to Consider

As usual, whenever we get back out into the deep, powerful, challenging work of living our lives (and sharing that in this forum), we have run afoul of the small minority of people who choose to comment while demonstrating a total lack of comprehension about what is and is not appropriate, polite, reasonable, or civilized within that context.  Most often, when that circumstance occurs, we are left to wonder what gets into these people, what can they possibly be thinking?  Rarely does that thought process get made clear -- apart from the pretty common assertion that this is a "public" site and therefore we should expect and accept that people have some sort of "right" to say whatever they want.  This time, though, we are given a lengthy, literate, and detailed essay on the motivations and thought processes of one of those "anonymous" commenters.  Reading her latest comment, I was just fascinated by the ideas and beliefs that get all wrapped up in the comments made here.  I really think there are lessons that we might all take away from the words "Miranda" left behind in our comment box.

I want to believe that most people want to help; want to find some way to make things easier or better; want to offer something of value.  It is terribly hard to sit with someone who is hurting, and just be there with them in their pain.  Being thrust into the role of witness, without the power or wherewithal to DO anything is not simply uncomfortable, it is frustrating.  So, the very human impulse is to try to fix it (whatever "it" might be).  There is, I imagine, something that borders on "compulsion" to find words to say what needs to be said to save the person on the other side of the computer screen; to rescue the fellow human dangling at the end of the words we read.  We all do it, to one degree or another -- the trick is to remember what we are about as decent persons, avoiding the precipice that takes us down into judgement and criticism and negativity.

Here are a few things to consider (as I see it) based on false steps / erroneous beliefs outlined in "Miranda's" comment earlier today:

...we feel like we know you. But ... we don't really ... we put ourselves and our own histories into your story. 

This is really important.  I write about my life here.  We write our stories in bits and pieces, all of us.  We've done it for a long, long time.  I can't imagine that there are many who have the time, inclination, or patience to go back through the archives and read the whole story.  However, even if a reader were willing to do that excavation into the story we've been weaving here for so many years, they would still only have snapshots of what and who we are.  There is no way to convey all the minutes, or all the thoughts, or all the interactions that would flesh out the picture for a reader.  You do not know me, and I don't know you (at least in the majority of cases).  We've never met.  We are not neighbors or colleagues, and to the degree that we consider ourselves friends, it is mostly an "online relationship," and likely to never include long, cozy, friendly chats over a nice cup of tea.  We are not close, and we are surely not the same.  We don't have that kind of access to one another.  The other part of that is that we are not simply mirrors for one another.  My life does not and should not be the looking glass that you use to measure or manage your own life.  So, don't make Miranda's mistake ... do not try to use me to mirror your history back to you.  Do not assume that you know what I'm doing ... and why.  

... it's hard for readers who only get bits and pieces of your lives ...

This is hard.  I continually struggle to maintain the balance between what we might share here, and what we really ought to keep to ourselves.  I know, from experience, that this blog does best; thrives even, when I write regularly and at some depth about what is happening in my own personal world.  But I am a busy person.  I have obligations inside of the family, and I maintain a demanding professional career.  I do not have time to give readers ALL of my life -- even if I were so inclined.  The picking and choosing of topics and subjects can vary depending on my moods, and the stresses of my days.  Readers will never have more than bits and pieces.

We read ... and we get angry ... we write to give ... support

Read.  Understand.  Keep a leash on all those emotional responses.  Strong feelings about what is, about who is right and who is not.  If, out of an abundance of sympathy and generosity, you find you want to offer support, consider how you might be supportive without taking sides; without declaring a "good guy" and a "bad guy."  Supporting me "against" Tom does not make things better.  It is not, honestly, supportive.  It undermines the very basis of my life.  So be careful.  I don't need rescuing.

A blog feels like a dialogue rather than a private journal. But it’s not ...

It is not a "dialogue."  Not classically.  It is more than a private journal for most of us, but it is not a dialogue.  What you find  here is private, personal, and terribly desperately intimate.  Be gentle.

... And would I be less anonymous if I made up a name to sign these comments?

Yes!  You are going to be more welcome here if you introduce yourself, and tell us how we might recognize you when we see you again.  Not all anonymous visitors are obnoxious and ill-mannered, but nearly 100% of all obnoxious and ill-mannered blog visitors are also "anonymous.  I know that what you choose to call yourself online will, most likely, be a pseudonym; a handy way of facilitating the social discourse while still protecting what should be protected.  

So there you have it.  I've ranted about anonymous commenters before, but I've seldom had the opportunity or space to help people get ready to participate here and elsewhere around the circle in ways that are positive and supportive.  Maybe the simplest way to think about that thing you are just dying to say -- if the situation were reversed, and you were the one in turmoil and pain, would you find your advice to be helpful?  If not, maybe the better thing would be to listen further, ask an honest question, offer something kind. 

swan

  

Let's Try This Again

Commenting on my last post, Kate said...

"You've been very clear that you do not wish to hear from anyone unless they are supportive and encouraging, and that any opinions short of unconditional positive regard are not wanted."

No.  Kate.  You have it wrong.

Support and encouragement are, of course always welcomed.  We have been through a very long, very difficult series of events, and those who find it in their hearts to hold us up are treasured.  Is there any human anywhere who doesn't appreciate being treated kindly when life seems challenging and dark?  We are no different, whatever you might think of us.

We do not, however, limit the participation here to only those commenters who are "supportive and encouraging."  Not everyone that comments here sees things exactly as we do, and there are surely those who hold ideas and opinions that vary from our own.  If the hallmark of that "unconditional positive regard" that you find so objectionable is a reluctance to confront us and offer differing opinions, then some of our longest-standing, most reliable commenters seem to be lacking in that quality.  They have no problem at all suggesting that we try something different, or encouraging us to investigate another path, or asking us to consider things from an alternative perspective.  We really don't have a group of rubber stamp friends.

What we do have is a group of people who understand the notion of respect.  These are decent people who understand that nothing is served by mean-spirited and abusive commentary.  They come here as visitors, and they behave like visitors.  They mind their manners.  They consider whether the things they want to say will contribute in some positive way to the dialog, and if the answer is no, then they don't say it.  They do not call names.  They do not try to set us against each other.  They don't take sides.  They own their own opinions, and they offer advice for what it is worth (taking no offense if we choose to not take what is offered).

I really don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand.  This is our place. We created it years ago.  We've kept it going with some 1200 posts to date.  We've poured our hearts out here, and we've nurtured this through a lot of ups and downs.  To us, this place is important and valuable.  It is a refuge; the place where we can safely pour out the confusions and worries and hurts along with the joys and triumphs and giddy moments.  We do defend it.  We reserve the right to have it be what we choose to have it be.  And... we fully understand that some people may not want to "play" inside of those constraints.  That's OK.  No one should feel compelled or required to be here.  There are probably hundreds and hundreds of blogs out there.  If somewhere else seems more congenial, then we will wish you well.

There are a few cyber denizens who seem drawn to our blog, and perhaps others.  They cannot seem to manage to say anything positive, or even polite.  They must find fault.  They are driven to be insulting.  They are disrespectful and ill-mannered.  They seem convinced that we somehow NEED them to point out our faults, failings, and pure fuck ups -- that their clear perception of our imperfections will, all by itself, endow us with the magic to turn everything around and convert us to the right path.

I imagine that these people would not accost some total stranger, out in a public place, and lambaste them with obnoxious and abusive nastiness.  Consider -- who among us would walk up to someone in a crowded grocery and begin to rail at them about being enormously fat and slovenly and disgusting?  Doing that would create a scene-stopping social crisis.  The target of such rudeness would be entirely justified in taking whatever actions were available and appropriate to protect themselves and end the assault.   We have commonly agreed upon social norms that almost always prevent that sort of scene from happening -- in real life.  Here, though, on the Internet, it seems that some forget (or choose to ignore) the customs of civil interaction.  Most often, here, the worst and rudest commenters will not only break all the rules, but then they will insist that it is their right to do that.   "How dare we react negatively to their abuse?" they will wonder incredulously.

That sort of thinking just causes me to shake my head in wonderment.  So, I am afraid, Kate that you will continue to be offended and disappointed in our recalcitrant insistence on having things our way here in our place.  I imagine our opinions and attitudes will continue to annoy and irritate you.  Maybe you will keep on coming here for some unfathomable reason.  We won't move to stop you...  And even when your opinions differ from ours, as today's so clearly did, we'll respect that.  Just keep it civil.  I don't think that is too much to ask.

swan

Repeating Old Lessons

A commenter on another blog ruffled things up just a bit by her phrasing and word choice recently.  I am certain that there was no intent to create a disturbance, or to be offensive in any way.  There was really nothing at all wrong with what was offered in the context of the discussion.  It was simply a matter of communication that implied (or maybe came right out and said) that things

SHOULD 

be handled in a particular way.    I've written out here in the blog universe for a long time, and I've "met" lots of people that I consider friends and companions -- AND, on any given day I will take exception if someone wanders into my space and sounds judgmental about what He and I do inside our relationship.

A long time ago, we encountered a lifestyle know-it-all who got into a wrangle with Master about the use of safe words.  She was quite sure that she knew how it SHOULD be done, and there was no convincing her that her way wasn't the "only" way.  We eventually gave it up, but I came away with a set of personal principles that I intended to put into practice in my own dealings with BDSM and kink.  I think that bit might be worth sharing here again...

• When someone says this is what I/we do, or this is how I/we am/are, I'll try to remember to listen carefully and openly. I'll watch myself for strong reactions that may lead me to make judgements that are grounded in my own biases and fears.

• I'll speak (and write), when I speak, respectfully and gently. I'll try to remember that the tone of my words can invite and welcome others to dialog -- or create distance and dissension.

• I'll be mindful that my experience is limited. I'll keep in mind that I am a learner, and that there may be others who have experiences that are beyond what I have seen, tried, experienced, or contemplated. When I encounter something new, I will recognize that I am seeing something that is outside my experience. I will feel free to explore and question things that I do not know or understand, but I will try to avoid moving to condemn or judge based on my own limitations.

• I'll understand that not everyone lives, practices, plays, or relates in the same ways as I do. I will assume that there will be some "ways" that will be outside of the boundaries of my comfort zone. When that occurs, I will understand that I may choose to not participate or endorse without any need to attack or tear down. 

swan

Since I've Started Down This Path

On Saturday afternoon, I went to the local big box hardware store to buy some chain.  I needed four 12-foot lengths of chain to complete the hanging of the porch swing (some may remember that the attempt to put that swing up last summer ended rather badly).  The place was wildly busy with people all over the place.  I waited for probably 15 minutes or so for the beleaguered employee working the area to finish helping a couple of other customers who were there ahead of me.  He apologized all over the place when he got to me, and went right to work dealing with a tangled up mess of metal links that was, predictably, the sort of chain that I needed for my project.  We chatted pleasantly about his plans to get away for the day on Sunday, and things were proceeding just fine.  Then, from the other end of the aisle, a woman approached; stuck herself in front of my nice chain guy; and demanded to know where she could find some sort of rubber end caps that could be put over the ends of screws.  Not an "excuse me," or even a polite nod to the fact that I was standing there, and no acknowledgment of the fact that the employee was busy -- just her self-absorbed requirement that her needs be met NOW.  I glared, but said nothing, and my guy (good retail service employee that he was), patiently pointed her back down the aisle and explained that she would find what she was looking for in the fourth drawer from the bottom.  Off she went, and we went back to our business.  Pretty quickly though, she was back having found a small plastic envelope of small black rubber washer-like rings.

"Will these keep my shutter screws from rusting?" she asked, thrusting her find into his face.

He once again, apologized to me, and then tried to explain to her that these would not prevent rust as the water could still get to the screw.  He told her of some other product that would work better for what she needed, and told her on which store aisle she would find what she needed.  Unbelievably, she put her hands on her hips, stuck out her chin, and said, "I can't figure that out.  You need to come show me."

At that point I'd had enough.  My drop dead glare was obviously not making the point, and so I asked her, "Lady, did you ever finish kindergarten?"  Well that caused her to wheel around and snarl -- "What?!?!"  And so I patiently explained to her that I knew that it would be kindergarten where she might have learned to wait in line and take her turn.  Predictably, she got furious; threw her baggie of black rubber thingys at my feet, turned on her heel and stomped off the way she'd come. 

I got my chains, thanked my nice young helper, and headed for the checkout.

Whatever you think about that story, here's my point:  That woman assumed that everyone owed her a level of respect and courtesy -- but felt no compunction about trampling everyone else in that regard.  Her face to face behavior is illustrative of the mindset that powers the commonplace response that I get whenever I confront bad behavior on the part of anonymous commenters.  They will, when called for their behavior always come back exactly as our most recent specimen did on that last post:

you snipe and whine and were rather ugly

Amazing.  Someone who spends good chunks of their time wandering around the blogosphere leaving nastiness in their wake, feels entitled to "nice" treatment from those they would victimize.  That would be funny if it were not so pathetic.  What it does do is identify that the anonymous types know what polite behavior entails.  Clearly, then, the move to be uncivilized is the result of a deliberate choice and not an error born of ignorance.

swan

A Place That Welcomes

Impish left an interesting comment on a recent post.  She wrote:

I have so enjoyed our discussions here. You, and Tom have been willing to answer questions when I felt stupid and naive, and I have tried to be respectful. At other times, I have felt that we are in parallel hormonal lives, or have similar/ dissimilar emotional bents and want to discuss. I hope that when it's not a good time, or good question, or you don't want to that I will know that rather that overstepping something I value.

I truly appreciate the thought that is conveyed there, and I believe that sentiment is representative of the vast majority of our visitors here.  Our readers have, by and large, been consistently respectful and open-minded -- even when there is disparity between "our way of life" and theirs.  We've tried to keep this place open and welcoming to any and all who come to converse, to ask questions, to learn, to enjoy the community that has grown up around us over these years. 

I sense that there are some of our readers who are feeling a bit of discomfort about the recent nastiness that has sprouted in our comments.  Resolving that discomfort is part of the reason that we have chosen to not tolerate that particular sort of presence here. 

To me, it seems analogous to a situation that developed years ago in the Colorado town where I lived.  At that time, my family enjoyed being able to go to a nearby movie theater that sold tickets for just a dollar.  That cheap ticket thing made it possible for my young and usually financially strapped family to enjoy an outing to the movies now and then.  It was a bright, welcoming place; well kept and staffed by friendly and competent folks. 

And then, a couple of different teenage gangs decided that the theater was "their turf."  Almost overnight the friendly welcoming little theater became a battle zone.  Hulking, sulking, sullen, angry young men prowled all over the place.  Fights broke out in the parking lot.  It became risky to leave your car parked there -- thefts were a commonplace.  The friendly, happy staff quit one by one. 

Soon, the families, retirees,  and young couples who had been the mainstay customers for the place stopped coming.  It was just too dangerous and uncomfortable.  Within six months, that neighborhood theater was out of business, and the windows were boarded up.  The last time I was back in Colorado -- it remained an empty, silent, sad-looking shell of a place.

Allowing hooligans to move in and occupy the space eventually led to its demise.  I don't know if anyone realized the impact of that at first.  I don't know if anyone considered what they might do about the problem in the beginning.  I don't know if the end of that enterprise was at all clear to those who were running it on the day that the very first gang banger slouched his saggy ass through the door.  What I do know is that it became very clear that failure to defend your place leaves you vulnerable to being overrun by outsiders who might destroy the sense of welcome and safety that people feel when they visit you.

That will not happen here.  Visitors are welcome here.  Friends and cyber-neighbors are surely welcome, but so are those who are merely sight-seeing or only curious.  We are even most happy to engage in discourse and debate with those who do not see the world the same way we do -- who might disagree (although we will insist that disagreement be expressed politely and with respect).  We value this place and the relationships that have been forged here.  We will endeavor to maintain it as a comfortable and hospitable venue for all who find their way to us.  Should any come with malicious intent and establish a destructive and negative presence, they will be removed -- banished forever.

This will remain a place that welcomes.

swan

41%

I'd like you to make a list before you read this post.  Take a few minutes, and list 100 people that you know.  They don't have to be good friends, but see if you can come up with 100 names of adults that you know.  Try neighbors and relatives; co-workers and old college chums; acquaintances from church and the PTA; clerks and hair dressers and mail carriers and the pizza delivery guy...  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

Ready?  OK.  Here's the story for today:  We were out walking last evening, and He told me that He'd seen a video piece on SPIKE TV reporting that about 41% of adults in the U.S. admit to having some interest or involvement in spanking (the number is much lower around the world).  Wow!  That's a pretty impressive segment of the population.  Take a look at your list and draw a circle around the names of the 41 people there that you think are "into" spanking.  Have fun!

SPIKE.COM: Check out the premier online destination for Men!


SPIKE.com

If that 41% number is accurate, then those of us who feel like our sexual/erotic orientation toward SM might find that we are actually not as much in the minority as we have thought.  There might just be a whole lot of us out there walking around looking just like the regular people that most of us think WE are.  That might mean that, over time, our kind of sexual and erotic choices might be treated more even-handedly in the marketplace and the media.  Perhaps, someday, we might even see the laws change to de-stigmatize our lifestyle choices.

As I contemplated that, it occured to me that perhaps there's an explanation wrapped up in that 41% number for some of the interpersonal dynamics that I notice more and more frequently, both here on this blog, and at other social networking fora where one encounters the larger kink "community."  I think that it is likely that if there really are significantly larger numbers of adults finding their way into adult spanking at whatever level, then some significant portion of those people are probably coming into the "lifestyle" with very little information, and almost no relevant real time exposure to members of the community.  That number means there are probably lots and lots of people busily spanking away with wooden spoons and paint stirrers -- completely isolated from anyone else who might share their orientation. That's unfortunate.

Out here, in the lifestyle community, we learn from each other, and we share a culture that is uniquely ours.  To learn about a culture takes time and it also takes deep immersion with the members of that culure.  I was lucky.  I opened up to my sadomasochistic nature at a point in time where there were ways to connect with others online, but before it was really reasonable or effective to try and learn and grow in the lifestyle by remaining entirely inside the privacy of my own home -- or within the confines of my own ordinary, and familiar life.  I had to reach out into the community around me, and find other people who were doing this in real time -- and then I had to put myself into a position to be able to learn from their experience and expertise.  Face to face with others who shared my kink, I learned the techniques and the details and the precautions of the lifestyle.  I also learned about the norms of protocol and etiquette that community members shared. 

There are all sorts of rules and expectations within our lifestyle.  We come out of a rich tradition, and at our best, we behave within very clearly defined expectations for good manners, gallantry, and civility.  Many of those expectations have to do with respecting other's space and property and privacy.  It is also the norm, within our community, that we respect and honor other people's personal choices -- even when we perhaps do not understand or approve. 

When I was new and wide-eyed and untutored, I was lucky to encounter those more experienced community members who taught me to hold my tongue when I encountered things that I didn't understand, or didn't like, or didn't want to participate in, or felt scared by, or didn't approve of.  I was taught that, if I was concerned by something I saw or experienced, that I was free to walk away, but I was not to ever, ever, ever impose my judgement on anyone else.  I learned that there were sometimes going to be situations that might cause me to be uncomfortable enough that the best thing I could do would be to simply take myself out of the situation.  I've done that.  More than once -- physically in realtime dungeons, and figuratively in the reading I've done around the cyber neighborhood we share.  I've walked away from things that made me uncomfortable and frightened me and sometimes even disgusted me.  I've honored those adults who chose to participate in things I didn't understand by assuming that it was their option and their choice to act as they might choose.  In my experience, and within the context of what I've been taught, that is behavior that is simply polite. 

I think that there are lots of people who are engaging in this thing that we do who have never had anyone to tell them what it is that we really belive in as a community.  No one has ever told them how absolutely essential it is to respect other people and their choices and proclivities.  They've never been taught that, as social outsiders, it is important to make a safe space inside our community for those with whom we share this lifestyle choice.  It is that lack of community-based groundedness that allows some people to engage in vicious personal attacks -- that sort of mean-spirited "gotcha" mentality that is so pervasive at sites like Fetlife.  There is no gallantry, no gentleness, no withholding of personal judgement, no reticence.  These new ones, untrained and untutored, display that lack of understanding of appropriate boundaries that causes them to know that when they are uncomfortable that is their reaction and their response and their responsibility.  The "old" ones would have told them to turn around and walk away.

swan

Sleazy and Stupid

Our world seems engulfed in quiet (well, sometimes quiet) chaos, and a low-hanging, pervasive sadness -- all tinged with exhaustion.  That is not likely to change anytime soon.  We are mourning; each of us coping with our sense of loss, and working our way along the path of grieving in our own ways.  We are working to support one another, share the burdens, manage the work according to our various skills and talents.  So... we are pretty boring just now.  I believe that we'll come through this part of the journey in time, and when we've healed and recovered, life will begin to brighten up and sparkle again. 

Until then -- perhaps our readers will forgive us if this space looks toward more abstract and theoretical topics, at least part of the time.

I've been peripherally aware of a variety of recent news items that revolve around public behaviors that seem, frankly, sleazy and / or stupid. 

I'll get to the "stupid" part of this, but let me first address the things that I find "sleazy."

Webster's dictionary defines the word "sleazy" this way:  "marked by low character or quality."  Perhaps it is a mark of my age, and I'm sure it goes to my upbringing, but I honestly find it shocking that seemingly normal, decent, socially prominent people routinely behave as if there were no customs or shared boundaries -- no taboos in our society.  Sometimes I wonder when it happened that we decided that there was no particular requirement for civilized and polite public behavior.

I am not a prude.  In my intimate life, I enjoy my sexuality, and His.  I love the ways we connect intimately, and I hope to be able to engage in those activities, and celebrate the connections we make for a long, long time.  Too, I've played in very intense ways in very public, scene-specific venues -- although we have never taken our lifestyle choices out into the "vanilla" public space.  We tend to hold to the notion that other people should generally be given the right to "consent" to participation in our kinks.  No consent means they don't have to play.  Period.  That's a foundational tenent of our BDSM practice.  And remember that society considers us "perverts."  If perverts like us can figure out the socially acceptable boundaries, then what excuse do some of these news hogs have?  Check it out...

Here's actress, Bethenny Frankel, on what I assume is a book signing tour.  I don't follow the reality TV craze, but apparently she's part of the cast for something called "Real Housewives of New York."  When He and I first saw this mentioned on the news, He was all perked up over the overt display of ass.  For my part, I observed that it seemed that her ass was more attractive than her face.  Whatever one thinks about that, surely most would figure this is a sleazy moment.  I much prefered a world where people were at least a bit coy about what they did or did not wear under their clothes.  In those "good old days," we universally wondered what a Scotsman might have on under his kilt? 

Then there is the whole sordid panoply of political folks of all persuasions that cannot seem to figure out what it might mean to behave with decorum or live lives marked by personal integrity and character.  We are therefore treated to the shameful antics of Jon Edwards and Mark Sandoval.  It isn't that I believe that monogamy is so essential to the living of a decent and moral life, but honestly -- if you espouse that as an ideal and a value for yourself and all the rest of us, then what on earth makes you believe that all of us should forgive you when you don't practice what you so vociferously preach?  Of course, those two are not alone in their pecadillos -- Bill Clinton. Newt Gingrich. Eliot Spitzer. John McCain. Rudy Guiliani.

Tiger might be a great golfer.  Maybe, he is even the greatest golfer ever, but he is right there with all the other sleaze-bags in public life.  The only salient difference, from my perspective, is that Tiger never has preached about the "rightness" of his proposed lifestyle choice. 

However, sexual infidelity, and ethical inconsistency is not the only form of sleazy behavior that runs rampant in today's society.  There's the kind of weird and entirely nasty sleaziness that is the stock in trade of media phenom, Rush Limbaugh.  Anything that Limbaugh hates is, by definition, wrong.  It isn't about some sort of "old time religion."  Rush teaches us that to be pissed off is to be morally superior.  Under the guidelines of ordinary, often religiously-based morality, we might consider the circumstances and burdens with which those who break the rules live. The poor, illiterate, and desperate, are pernhaps more sympathetic than ruthless lawbreakers would be. But since Rush never stops being angry, he never stops being right.  Like Sarah Palin, he lurks in the shadow of the human psyche, wallowing in anger, resentment, jealousy, and vindictiveness.  And, that is, in my view, sleazy no less than if the man were parading down main street with his dick hanging out.   

I'm not suggesting that we crack down on behaviors that some might define as lewd or crass or shabby.  I'd rather see greater freedom than less.  Still, I dearly wish we'd come to a place of personal and collective maturity that would compell us to determine that some behaviors, sexual and otherwise, are inappropriate for the public square.

And then there's stupid...  but I've gone on for a bit.  So, I'll save the "stupid" ones for another post.

swan

Inappropriate, rude, and disrespectful

When comments are made on any of our blogs, they are automatically emailed straight to Master. Sometimes it turns out that someone will comment on an older post, and given the way blogs tend to work, if He didn't get those email alerts, we'd never see those comments at all... After all, who goes cruising back through all those weeks and months and years looking for the random late appearing comment?



Today, interestingly, there were two comments on posts from "awhile back." Both comments were by the same person -- someone who goes by the nick "sixofthebest." I am about 95% certain that whoever this critter is, I'm probably not the only one to be treated to his less than savory attentions. I have this feeling that there are dozens, or maybe even hundreds of bloggers who have been approached even as I was...

• sixofthebest has left a new comment on your post "New Cane": Dear Swan, I would love to flog you, while you are on the 'whipping post'. Yes 'twelve of the best', with the pliable stinging cane, would be just perfect for that voluptous bare bottom of yours. Don't you agree?


• sixofthebest has left a new comment on your post "Buy Me Some Peanuts and Cracker Jacks...": Dear Swan, I am a Yankee fan, living just 15 minutes from Yankee Stadium. And since the Yankee's won the World Series, I would love to celebrate this occasion, by taking you over my knee, and bare your bottom, so that I can spank your voluptous 'derriere', thats French for bottom, painfully red.

My first reaction to that silliness is, "ewwwwwwwww!" Then, I wondered, how someone "in the scene" could be so totally clueless about simple matters of protocol and courtesy -- things like not messing with someone else's property, just for starters.

But... cluelessness is where you find it. So, let me try to lay this out for sixofthebest and anyone else of that ilk:

1) If you do not want to come off as a total idiot, it would pay you to read what is clearly stated, and made obvious to the most casual passer-by here at TheHeronClan -- I am the slave of Raheretic; His property; owned. Should you decide that you somehow want to have more than a conversational interaction with me, common courtesy dictates that you speak with my Master. Approaching me with suggestive talk is inappropriate, rude, and disrespectful.

2) In spite of the fact that I engage in alternative sexual practices, and in spite of the fact that our polyamorous lifestyle does not match up with the current social norms, I am a human being -- not simply some piece of meat or wisp of your overheated fantasizing. I have feelings. I have a mind. I have boundaries. For you to behave as if none of that is true is inappropriate, rude, and disrespectful.

3) Besides living the role of slave in a power exchange relationship, my sexual/erotic orientation is to sadomasochism, and I fall on the masochistic side of the continuum. Notice -- this is my sexual/erotic way of being in the world. It is not some silly game to me. It is not something I play at. If you talk about spanking me, then you are talking about sex. Opening a conversation with "how about I spank/cane/whip/fill-in-the-blank you?" is JUST THE SAME as if you walked up to me out of the clear blue and said, "hey, let's fuck." It is as if some totally strange fellow accosted your daughter with "hey, show me your tits," or grabbed your mother's crotch, or waved his dick at your wife. It is inappropriate, rude, and disrespectful. Not to mention probably illegal.

4) I like conversation. I think that relationships get built through the medium of conversation. I insist that conversations begin in a civilized fashion -- "hello" and "let me introduce myself" and "I'd like to get to know you better" are all entirely acceptable. Assuming that I have any interest in a sexual or erotic encounter with someone who I know nothing about is just too stupid to even believe -- oh yeah, it is also (obviously) inappropriate, rude, and disrespectful.

5) And speaking of stupid... If you use some word in your writing that you believe no one but you will understand; if you write so obscurely that you are convinced you have to explain your meaning; then you are a remarkably poor communicator. On top of that, your assumption that I am too ignorant to understand you is insulting. Get off your high horse! I'd imagine that there are plenty of people writing blogs that have more extensive and sophisticated vocabularies and language fluency than you do. Based on what I can see of your writing, I know I am in that number. Once again, your approach is inappropriate, rude, and disrespectful.

6) Basically, mind your manners. Failure to do that marks you as a wannabe or even the universally derided HNG (horny net geek). It is unattractive and unappealing, not to mention inappropriate, rude, and disrespectful.

swan

You Might Be a Wannabe

It seems that the occasional encounter with the proverbial Horney Net Geek is just part of the way life goes if you are in the lifestyle and out here where people can find you. I have some profiles at a couple of sites... solely so that I can go there to chat now and then. ALL of my profiles are very simple and succinct: "I am slave to Raheretic. We live in a 24/7 polyamorous triad household. I am looking for friends." But... the usual HNG cannot read. I am convinced. So this latest one popped up on my IM screen with a hello, and then went right to "You may address me as, Sir." LOL! He's gotta be kidding -- right? No. He's the "master" for me. So, I thanked him politely and explained that I already have a Master, and am not looking for a new one. Not especially bright, my HNG said that was OK -- he wanted to share me. Blech! I explained that, in that case, he would properly be conversing with Master and not with me. He asked "why?" and I zapped him off my screen. Sometimes there is just no reason to spend time with these idiots.



So, for all of you who are plagued by these characters (and I imagine that I am old enough that I have way less trouble with them than many do)... here's a collection of jokes I found at Ambosio's site. They aren't my original material, but they are public domain, and I think they speak to the condition of the BDSM Wannabe (enjoy) -- swan:



If you ever use the phrase "A real sub wouldn't have a problem doing that"... you might be a Wannabe
If you think the word "submissive" means the same thing as "easy"... you might be a Wannabe
If you think leading your sub around by a leash in the supermarket is appropriate entertainment for everyone... you might be a Wannabe
If you think it's perfectly acceptable to address all submissives as "slut"... you might be a Wannabe
If you think SSC stands for "See Submissives Cower"...you might be a Wannabe
If your vanity plate reads "MSTR-2-U"... you might be a Wannabe
If you enter a chat room and command all the subs to call you Sir... you might be a Wannabe
If you're trying to book a flight to GOR... you might be a Wannabe
If you think all subs put out on the first date... you might be a Wannabe
If you think the only purpose for nipple piercing is to have a place to hang your car keys... you might be a Wannabe
If you think the GOR novels are based in fact... you might be a Wannabe
If you can't understand why a sub refuses to meet you for the first time alone at your place... you might be a Wannabe
If you think limits are nothing you need to consider seriously... you might be a Wannabe
If you think safewords are for sissies... you might be a Wannabe
If you think placing a "Sir" or "Master" in front of your nick name automatically makes you a Dom... you might be a Wannabe
If you think R/L is just like cyber... you might be a Wannabe
If you think using lube for fisting or anal play is too kind... you might be a Wannabe (or a really mean sadist)
If you have to constantly refer to the owner's manual to use your toys... you might be a Wannabe
If you think Dom's can't show their feelings and need to be cold and aloof... you might be a Wannabe
If you have any reason to fear ATF Agents could confiscate your toys... you might be a Wannabe
If you think the KGB Interrogation Manual is the definitive "how to" book for BDSM... you might be a Wannabe.
If you think sterile needles for play piercing are too expensive to only use once... you might be a Wannabe
If household items don't inspire you (wooden spoons, clothespins, etc.)... you might be a Wannabe
If you think electricity play consists of plug in socket/exposed wires touching sub... you might be a Wannabe
If you think a bullwhip is the best choice for a warm up tool... you might be a Wannabe

We Got "Stood Up"

We had thought that we'd have guests for dinner last evening. We'd made invitations. Two. Invitations.

In both cases, these were people that we've not met in person before.

One was a young man that I met through a Fetlife group. He seemed interested in meeting people with experience in the lifestyle, and we'd discussed meeting for dinner and conversation. We always leave the door open for whatever might come out of these meetings, but there is never any expectation on our part beyond what people might choose for themselves and be comfortable with.

The other potential guest was a young woman that Master had made contact with. I don't know any details about their conversations, but He told me that she was a recent college graduate with only a little bit of lifestyle experience. I believe that, when He invited her, He left the invitation open to include any partner she might have wanted to bring with her.

Truthfully, we really didn't expect either to show since we'd heard nothing at all from either one of them in the days leading up to our planned dinner. Still, until the evening had arrived and passed, we were not at all sure.

It makes me wonder what happened, and it makes me speculate on the causes.

It could be simple rudeness, but I find it hard to convince myself of that possibility. I never had any contact with the young woman, but the young man seemed civilized enough. Surely, he did not appear to be the sort of "badly brought up" young person who would make a dinner date, and then not bother to show up or even send a note...

Maybe it is some nicety of social interaction that simply escapes me. I wonder if there is something to social interaction in these days of Facebook and Twitter and texting and all the rest that is simply different than what made sense in the world where I grew up. Perhaps these young folks are operating from a different "rule book" than the one that I understand.

Or perhaps it was just the pure size of the gap between our disparate ages. After all, we are all well into our 50s and 60s, and these young folks are in their 20s, even their early 20s. The fact of the matter is that, except for the youngest of the children that belong to our family, all of our own "kids" are older than either of these two. And who could blame such youth for choosing not to spend their valuable time with people old enough to be their parents -- perhaps even old enough to be their grandparents.

It makes a kind of sense.

But, then, if you had made a dinner date with your grandparents, and you could not make it for whatever reason, would you not call? Really?

swan

About "Rules"

Not long ago, from out of the wilderness of the Internet, a message came up on one of my lists from a person who identified as a "Master." The message was titled "For Discussion and Comment," and consisted of a list of rules for would be submissives.

OK.

I won't even get into the content of this little bit of writing. In my view, the rules that were listed were contradictory at best, and illustrated a lack of self-awareness and personal character in their darker aspects.

But then, I suppose I'd have seen a lack regardless of WHAT was written there no matter what. The reason for that is simple: I think conversations begin with "hello." I think that the foundation for power-exchange is some sort of relationship that connects two human persons, and it is my belief that relationship is not defined by rules, but by the kind of knowing that grows when we spend a bit of time with one another.

When did we all get into such an all-fired hurry that we came to believe that basic interpersonal courtesies were superfluous and entirely unnecessary?

I "get it" that knowing who you are and what you want/need is a really important part of building successful relationships. I have no problem with identifying that you are dominant or submissive or sadistic or masochistic or switchy or poly -- or whatever collection of labels you believe describe your particular orientation. That's a very good thing. I just do not agree that being X, Y, or Z releases any of us from being human, and humans are social creatures. We are more than our sexual/erotic orientations -- hence the value of beginning at the beginning with one another.

I like "hello." I like coming to know who you are beyond the fact that you own a whip. I like knowing what makes you laugh, what makes you angry, what you believe in, what you will work for in the world. How is it that people, and perhaps especially submissive people, allow themselves to be "taken in" by someone with a fancy name and a list of rules -- and nothing at all to offer of substance? That just amazes me. If there is one place in the entire constellation of my relationships where I do not want to be connected to "an empty shirt," that would be inside of my power-based dynamic. It is never particularly easy to maintain this kind of relating, but I believe it would be nearly impossible with someone who had nothing much to offer but a list of rules.

swan

The Way Things Work

We don't get a lot of negative commenting anymore. It is rare for people to engage in snarky behavior with us.

Sometimes though, someone will decide that something that gets written here is aimed at them, or is inappropriate somehow, or is perhaps negative in tone, or even that our whole way of arranging our lives is just wrong. Every now and then, we'll get wind of that kind of chatter in the background. It is, for me at least, an experience that causes me to go, "huh?" This has always been the place where we (but mostly I) write about us and our lives, so I am always a little taken aback when people react to whatever it is that I write here as if it were ABOUT them.

Maybe it is just that I haven't done one of those "Welcome to Our Blog -- Here's How it Works Around Here" posts for a long while. Let me see if I can rectify that situation...

"The Heron Clan," and the predecessor to it -- "The Swan's Heart," are personal weblogs that chronicle our lives and our opinions and our experiences. Both are the product of a directive from Master that I set up and maintain a place to write about my life, and my thinking, and my experiences. We write as a family, but far and away, most of what you read here is me.

I work very hard to write honestly. I endeavor to write from within myself, without undue focus on those of you who look in here. I appreciate those who read and comment, and I do monitor statistics, but I resist the urge to write TO the stats. This place has never been about "readership," and it is my hope that it continues to be a simple chronicle without the drive to pump the numbers up.

If you read here, you are going to get whatever I am thinking about in the moment. There is no guarantee that the things I write will be "polished" or easy to read. If something happens, or I have a fleeting thought, or something piques my interest or curiosity, then you will likely be treated to my ramblings about it. If I find an interesting bit somewhere else, and it gets me thinking, I might put it here. If I get a comment that causes a response in me, I may just take off in whatever direction that takes. No one in our family is a novice to what it is we do, and we do have some strong opinions. We don't make those secret, but we also don't prescribe for others. I'm not inclined to be deliberately provocative, but I don't screen my stuff against the possibility that someone might disagree with me. Disagreement is not discouraged or banned here. We've had those who have questioned, and sometimes openly disagreed with us along the way. I've never felt like those who find this discussion intriguing have to be in accord with everything I write.

I'm actually pretty mellow. Most interactions here are really just fine with me. Say what you think. However, I will not tolerated abuse, nastiness, or disrespect. Be polite -- this feels like my living room. If you behave like an uncouth lout with no manners or proper upbringing, I will likely say so right here in public. Too, if you have something to say, or a question to ask, do that in the open. Here. My comments are completely unmoderated, and we've never deleted any comments except our own (except for the occasional annoying spammer). It's good if you give us some sense of who you are when you comment. The ubiquitous "anonymous" commenter tends to get less notice from us than a person who is identifiable from the "pile." Too, if you are one of those who just loves to take your issues or concerns somewhere else and gossip and snipe, then don't be surprised when we dismiss you and your behavior as juvenile and unworthy of notice.

Oh yeah -- one other pet peeve of mine: write some reasonable approximation of English. I'm not a stickler for spelling, particularly. Too, I tend to write a "stream of consciousness" variety of the language here that I know would make a decent editor scream, so I can allow for all sorts of structural and grammatical variance. And, obviously, if English is not your native language, well, I understand. Really. Just don't get in here and type some mish mash of chat room-ese and expect me to take you seriously. I'm too old to go for all that cell phone style text messaging nonsense, so don't put it on my Blog if you want me to respond well.

Simple enough?

swan

It is Called "Sadism"

It all began innocently enough. A question was posed on a listserve that Master participates in (He has far more tolerance for this sort of thing than I do). The group identifies as a D/s Newcomers list, and the questioner asked if there was anyone who actually identified as a "sadist." Master responded like this:

I am an absolutely totally unrepentant sadist whose "infliction of choice" is spanking and related arts. I've never met a woman under the age of seventy I didn't want to spank...not as they want to be spanked so it will "feel good" to them, but as I enjoy it. Nothing is better than when my partner feels hysterically desperate to do anything to stop the blistering she is receiving and has absolutely no way to bring the spanking she is receiving under her control (other than her safe word and, alas, nothing is happening toher that is "unsafe" and she knows if she safes inappropriately she'll be even more severely punished.) I love being a sadist. I was born to it.

That was a couple of weeks ago. It really didn't cause much comment or reaction; one of those tidbits that gets dropped into the giant pond of online discourse and vanishes with hardly a ripple... At least, that was the way things stood until a person (who has apparently been "too busy" to keep up with things) checked back in in the last couple of days and came across His comments. This person, who identifies as "sweetiesub" but who shall be known for the remainder of this piece as "Little Miss Know It All," became seriously incensed and horrified over Master's description of His sadistic practice, and took it upon herself to set Him, and everyone else on the list straight. There has been quite an amazing dialog between them, and I have just been left shaking my head. I'm including the dialog, pretty much unedited, for your edification... I only wish I could convey to you the tone of voice that I hear when I read what she writes...

hi all, I've been back reading & catching up. I've been a bit too busy lately, and reading back-posts in the board has been both a diversion from other worries, *and* a point of contact (well, as far as contact on the Internet goes) with people who are doing more than leases, paint costs, electrical design costs, organizing dungeon cleaning/moving work parties, & keeping on top of twenty-seven levels of organizational issues! Not to sound overly important, it's just that everyone I am really close to is either involved in that (as I am too) or otherwise very busy. Many "fried" people. SO I've come back to try to divert my brain by catching up withNewcomers when I'm home. (I've also found fields of fireflies very therapeutic, at least until the Moon started to wax very Full.) Anyhoo. Did anyone else not pause to wonder what was meant in the below post? Can a person "safe inappropriately"? Does the dynamic of being punished more severely for safewording exist in anyone else's SM sessions? If this had been a description of a disciplinary action, aka punishment, would it have made more sense (as it would have to me)? (in D/s, Safewording during a punishment is really not an option unless one is being injured or having a severe freak-out whilst the D keeps on punishing.)
The concept that those with whom I practice BDSM follow is that a "safe" word is what it says. It is a word that is intended to keep one "safe." If a bottom partner is going blind, having chest pain, has lost sensation in her limbs, is unable to breathe, losing consciousness, or any other health and safety issue then the bottom partner is not only expected to use his/her safeword.....but is absolutely required to do so. The presumption is that the bottom partner has agreed to participate in a session of sadomasochism and realizes that means that pain is going to be inflicted on him or her. She has entrusted herself to her partner (i. e., me) and is entering into that session consensually and based upon a desire she has to experience what has been agreed to. It is also anticipated that the nature of what is to occur has been discussed and agreed to. In my sessions if one who has asked to receive pain then "safewords" not because they are in circumstances that are unsafe, but because they have decided that they now don't like what they agreed to, that is considered to be using a safeword inappropriately. The experiencing of pain when consensually playing with a sadist is not unsafe. Pain, in and of itself, is not unsafe. And yes, I do, and very much have punished women for using a safeword to end a session when there was nothing unsafe occurring to them. I have only once had someone safe appropriately. This is not because none of my partners have ever experienced health and safety threats during a scene, but because generally, I perceive those issues in my partners before they ever get to the point of "safewording," stop the scene, and do whatever is necessary to correct the situation. Quite frankly, if I get to the point where a partner has to "safeword" to head off a health/safety issue, I feel I have failed to practice appropriate empathic observation in the interest of my partner.
As a sadistic scene "issue", referring to her knowledge of inappropriately safewording to get out of the pain makes no sense to me ... and I play with sadists almost exclusively. I am a sadism-slut but pain does not always bring me pleasure, especially if I am being brought/pushed over the edge of my tolerance constantly in a scene.
As a sadistic scene issue using a safeword TO get out of pain makes absolutely no sense. If you want to avoid being subjected to the infliction of pain beyond your control then don't engage in sadomasochism. The infliction of pain beyond your control is the essence of the definition of bottoming in a sadomasochistic experience. If you want to have someone inflict pain on you in ways that you find to "feel good" for you, then hire yourself a "service top" who is not a sadist, and whose role is to serve you by creating your desired sensations as you control the scene. I'm a sadist. Your enjoyment of the pain in our scene (or not) is your responsibility. Not only do I not mind if you don't enjoy the pain. I enjoy it more if you do not. (There are certainly some times with my family members when I do play with them working to achieve mutual satisfaction, because it pleases me to, but then too, they do not safeword unless they are having a safety issue.) By the way much of the play I do is disciplinary style play and/or actual discipline. It is what I/we enjoy
Is this concept, incorporating the thought that a safeword if used might be "inappropriate," merely a different "play style" than mine &/or what I am used to in New England?
I'm a long standing practitioner and have had many partners from all over, including people from New England. There really is not a regional difference in this regard. I expect your style preference and perhaps experiential limitations have led you to these opinions.
I am not looking for universal condemnation of raheretic's choices.
How generous of you! I was so hoping you would not have me excommunicated by the National Association of Service Tops or something:)
For those he is involved with, this may be the "meat & potatoes" of any scene.
Yes, it is, and disgusting depraved perverts we are each and every one.
However when I read this I felt I was in quicksand, not understandingthe dynamics being referred to.
Expanding one's horizons is often feels that way.
Tom, you have misunderstood my point of view. Let me try to be between the two of us, since your misunderstanding is directed *to* me directly, in your reply. Anyone who wants to is welcome to read along.
I responded directly to you in that your original post was specifically about me and my described practice and questioned the degree of universal condemnation that should be sought of my practice.
My original post was *not* directed at you, but rather intended to inquire if others felt any similar lack of complete understanding to your view on inappropriately safewording. An appropriate question for a newcomers' group. Although I'm single & have not entered a service or submissive relationship in a longish while, I have sessioned to understand the general levels of what my body can tolerate & how I can process pain, and have learned a few things along the way about sustaining heavy bruising, & bleeding & scarring. I can offer more about the sadism my body has undergone, & which I've mentally processed, if anyone likes. First in response to your implications of my short comings in experience,
I never in anyway addressed shortcomings of yours in any way. I did say I suspect your perspectives are limited by your experience. All of our perspectives are limited by experience. I certainly, though very experienced, do not, nor would I ever, claim to know the experience of all or even most others. The fact is I know what I've experienced either directly or through learning from others. It has appeared at several points in both your posts that you are somehow far more omniscient and appear to believe you know the practices of huge numbers of people throughout significant regions of the world.
Tom: I session with sadists, though the ones I'm mutually interested in are by their nature actively interested in the positive responses a female body can have, as well as the sadistic pain responses. In other words, I do not session with sadists who'd never, in other moments with other partners, take pleasure in heightening the female hormonal reactions to body play.
I am glad for you and your partners that you have found mutually satisfying outlets for your sensual/erotic orientations. I must admit confusion in terms of what you are describing here. I'm likely being dense. I've read this sentence over several times and can get no sense of what you are trying to express.
IOW I don't session with people who are utterly dead to the appeal & rewards of pure pleasure, or whose degree of sadism simply leaves that out of the equation. I do session with men who get horny & hard from hurting me without having any sexual contact.
Would I assume that you are somehow categorizing me as being "dead to the appeal & rewards of pure pleasure"? And you have accused me of being condescending and judgmental!
I scene with sadists without sexual contact. What I get out of that is someone who's embraced the yin & yang of both sadism & their ability to invoke sexual desires, even if I never get to experience the latter side of the balance. What you describe regarding your sadism style is not only familiar to me, but familiar from firsthand experience, with the exception being the inclusion of punishment if I chose to end the activity. I don'tnormally suggest use of safewords, although I play with dominants who accept that they are de rigeur in a play environment & who do check if we are on the same page about them, so in a sense we do utilize safewords, though they don't come into use. I would be fine if they didn't ask about them, since I am certain already of the dominant's character & style, before asking/agreeing to session. My reply is taking a personal tack so far, because that is how your reply was designed - to suggest by implication & outright that I did not understand the realities of play with sadists.
There is nothing in my reply that in any way describes your understanding of play with sadists of any sort. You have in both your earlier post and in this one attempted to claim that since my BDSM practice is not one you are familiar with, it should be subjected to condemnation, is exploitive, is based on being dead to rewards of pleasure, and is unique to me and me alone, and contrary to the teachings of the entire East Coast of the United States. You must be awfully broadly experienced and hugely expertly knowledgeable to cast such judgments on others. And now you are claiming it was I who was condescending and offensive.
Now for the safeword issue. (Of interest to all, I'd think.) Why is it inappropriate to safeword to stop a session? 'Red' or whatever the strongest safeword may be, is the standard for:"Stop the session instantly, no more, not even one or two more, I need to get out of the scene,"
You'll get no argument from me. That is how I/we use safewords.
in my neck of the woods. Even if it all *is* synonymous for "I can't take any more."I find the "Red means stop what you are doing right now but don't endthe scene" safeword-style which some people use to be an inappropriate concept of safewording, but that is their choice. All that matters is that *they* understand what they are doing. (I even made it clear to all the readers in my post that the same variation of the standards might be true in your case.)
I don't find anyone's concept of safewording inappropriate for anyone other than for those with whom I am playing. If we have an informed agreement based on our relatedness that this is how we will play then that is what is appropriate for us. Quite frankly what others may think of the appropriateness of our choices is irrelevant. Likewise it is presumptuous in the extreme to decide whether or not others choices are appropriate of not.
But there *are* standards.
And who is it that sets these standards? I have been around this for decades and somehow have missed the BDSM Board of Arbiters who have established these standards you wish applied to the BDSM practice of me and mine.
The Red-means-the-session-ends standard's going to be the entry point for most newcomers into the world of sadomasochism.
I don't know how we got into this discussion of what is appropriate for new comers in the world of sadomasochism. I responded to a post asking if there were readers here who could identify with being termed a sadist. I made it clear that I wholeheartedly do identify as a sadist. In that response I described some very basic premises of my BDSM practice. That led to your attack. Certainly mentoring novitiates into "The Life" requires a developmental progression in learning to actualize their aspirations. I have mentored others and had the great good fortune to be mentored by some wonderfully experienced folks when I was new. But there was nothing in what I wrote, or in the request it was written in response to, that dealt with mentoring newbies regarding safewords or anything else. If our discussions may only use terms appropriate to the rankest new folks in response to any and all questions, the conversations here will need to change dramatically. The style of not allowing someone to use a safeword, & punishing them for it, is in all that I have ever heard or experienced, reserved to/for dedicated slaves to a specific family/house or dominant, never for general practice. (Except certain mysterious, off-the-BDSM-tourist-path Chateaus of Maledom/femalesub slavery which sound like extracts from The Story of O.)
Once again, why is it that your ".....all that I have ever heard or experienced," been exalted to a point that you may judge as appropriate or inappropriate the practice of others whose experience happens not to have been yours? I have encountered new practices at just about every one of the BDSM conferences I've attended over the years. I don't decide because they are not like anything I've heard of or experienced before, they must be wrong or inappropriate. Even if they would not be my choice, they are certainly appropriate for those who consensually choose them for themselves.
Not allowing safewords *at all* is something I understand. "D" is an example of someone who's often written a compelling treatise on this style, which has no safewords whatsoever. Punishment for safewording is something personal to you, and you've elaborated very well on it. Your explanation of how it means "safe" or"unsafe" is rational & clearly provides the context which your earlier post did not. So far so good. Your comments towards me about expanding my horizons was pure condescension, and IMO this should not happen in a newcomers' group.
Actually, no they were not condescending. The practice I've written about is not that rare, even if it is new to you. You expressed feeling a sinking feeling when you learned of this practice. It is not uncommon for people who first encounter a practice that is foreign to their experience to have similar feelings. It is also not uncommon particularly if that practice flies in the face of passionately held assumptions (and it would appear that my having made the mistake of describing my practice somehow violated some extremely passionately adhered to values of yours to warrant your vitriolic response) to develop reaction formation as a defense mechanism to attempt to resolve their resulting cognitive dissonance. There has been tremendous amounts of condescension in our correspondence, but it has not occurred on this end of the exchange.
We're all here to attract people & inform them.
Inform, yes, support certainly, but I see no reason to attract anyone........maybe the Christian right has us nailed. The evil BDSM'ers are out their trying to ensnare poor unsuspecting folk into lives of godless perversion:)


I'm not sure. I suspect the conversation that was sparked by all of that continues, and perhaps there are some who are actually getting "good" information out of all the nonsense

There's a part of me that is running an ongoing "lecture" in my head directed toward "Little Miss Know It All," giving her what I consider to be the benefit of my experience and wisdom as a lifestyle submissive and slave -- because, after all, I live this and I can point to dozens of places in her little diatribe where someone who claims to be "submissive" is way off the mark... The more reasonable, more (hopefully) mature, and graceful part of my brain is well aware how arrogant and inappropriate that would be.


So, maybe I'll use this little exchange to refresh the lessons that I knew or have learned along the way -- not for anyone else, but just for me:

• When someone says this is what I/we do, or this is how I/we am/are, I'll try to remember to listen carefully and openly. I'll watch myself for strong reactions that may lead me to make judgements that are grounded in my own biases and fears.

• I'll speak (and write), when I speak, respectfully and gently. I'll try to remember that the tone of my words can invite and welcome others to dialog -- or create distance and dissension.

• I'll be mindful that my experience is limited. I'll keep in mind that I am a learner, and that there may be others who have experiences that are beyond what I have seen, tried, experienced, or contemplated. When I encounter something new, I will recognize that I am seeing something that is outside my experience. I will feel free to explore and question things that I do not know or understand, but I will try to avoid moving to condemn or judge based on my own limitations.

• I'll understand that not everyone lives, practices, plays, or relates in the same ways as I do. I will assume that there will be some "ways" that will be outside of the boundaries of my comfort zone. When that occurs, I will understand that I may choose to not participate or endorse without any need to attack or tear down.

swan

I'd Sure Like to Dom u...

I have, lately, been accosted by a Yahoo Messenger "visitor." He is golden retriever eager, and self-identifies as "dom." He found me, it seems, through one of the group lists that I am part of, and, when he chooses to initiate conversation, he always begins at what I would consider the 6-week point (and I'm not even going to address the cyber-speak which, in my humble opinion, marks a person as too lazy to engage in simple English discourse):

"are u married?

are u submissive?
are u permitted to play with others?
I sure would like to dom u."

I find that I want to take this poor would be "dom," and shake some sense into him. Because it is clear he has no sense at all of where he is missing the boat in that little monologue.

In the first place, that eager, puppy, tail-wagging, can I please sound just does not "get it." If you expect to sell someone on the story that you are a "dominant," then act the part. Step up and take control. Assume the mantle of authority and responsibility. Don't whine, wheedle, plead, and beg. It is unseemly and inappropriate. If you are going to grovel like a sissy-maid submissive, take it somewhere else.

Another bit of advice that I want to give the poor fellow is that he needs to learn about some basic manners and rules of engagement. I wonder that he doesn't seem to understand that it is extremely bad form to attempt to play with someone else's toys without permission. From the very first time he approached me with his desire to "dom me," I made it clear to him that I was "owned," not looking for another "dominant," and encouraged him to contact Master about his interest in playing with me. He did actually have a chat with Master who made it clear to him that I wasn't interested in playing with him, and also was clear that I wasn't "up for grabs." Anyway you slice it, he doesn't "have permission."

But... even if there was "permission;" even if there was some sort of desire for the potential of D/s play between this person and me, that would develop from a relationship. I would have to know something about this person. Master would have to know something about him. There would have to be some information that told us something more about him than the fact that he thinks that he is a dom. How is it possible that this character fails to understand that this might need to begin with something as simple as "getting to know each other?" Is it so difficult to conceptualize that something as intense and vulnerable as a D/s relationship might be founded on something more than 20 words on an IM screen -- especially when half of those words aren't even written in what looks like legitimate English (oops -- is my bias showing here)?

I think that we are pretty open and welcoming people. I imagine that someone in our local area who took the time to get to know us, and who let us get to know them; who presented themselves in our world as a multi-dimensional, well-brought-up, civilized, respectful human being with some integrity, might quite easily find themselves invited to dinner -- and perhaps be welcomed to join in some levels of "play." We are not shy. We play in public dungeons whenever we have the opportunity, and we've actively sought out and welcomed "friends" into our lives and homes. But, we don't play on street corners with strangers. What we do is not something that we do lightly or without sincere consideration. We don't engage in it without knowing who we are and we don't "mess" with those who demonstrate that they have no concept of the true nature of what it really is -- or who seem to have no interest in growing into that understanding. Too, for us, friendship is a precious and treasured gem and we take it quite seriously. If you want to be included in our circle, you need to act like a "friend," and not like some "smash and grab" thief who is only interested in taking what you think you want.

swan