I found this article the other day when I was trolling Google after the Facebook/BDSM fiasco first started making the rounds in here (most of it is quoted in this blog)-
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/thinking-kink-female...
My first thought was, "Well fuck. No wonder female submissives have issue with submission if that's the shit they're being told."
My second thought- Or, OK, maybe it was like my 30th thought after a bunch of stuff that required a lot of cuss-words, eye-rolling, and general disdain- Was, "There is something seriously wrong with a ideaology that's supposed to be about empowering women to live a life that fulfills them when it says what fulfills you is 'WRONG'."
Seriously, wrong. Here's a quote from the article-
But is the reactionary media's tendency to seize on any excuse to dismiss female empowerment reason enough for women to avoid sexually submissive behavior, or at least fantasies of it? Norma Ramos thinks so: "I'm getting sexual pleasure from [submission], so what do I do about this? You work to change that. You have to challenge it," she says. For some feminists, the only answer to a pervasive culture of sexual violence is for women who enjoy playing the sub to rewrite their fantasies.
If you're having hot, sexy, submissive thoughts you need to stop it.
Now granted, I'm not always that firmly in touch with reality, but even I can grasp that there is a significant amount of difference between a bit of consensual play and "Violence against women." Pretty much that whole consent thing...
But wait, the article has an answer for that as well!
What of choice though, the concept simultaneously heralded and cursed by feminists? For some, choice is meaningless if it occurs in a system of oppression. Diana Russell dismissed the "consent defense" when she wrote about BDSM pornography: “Boiling candle wax was dripped onto a bound woman’s breasts. Had she consented beforehand? Even if she had, this is a violent act.” For anti-BDSM feminists, there can be no true choice in “responding to a model of sexual interaction that has been drummed into us throughout our lives.” Furthermore, by agreeing to play a sexually submissive role, a woman is actively damaging feminism by "reinforcing the legitimacy of power imbalances outside the bedroom.” (Nichols, Pagano & Rosoff as quoted by Margot Weiss.)
See? You can't consent to a violent act because you've been oppressed. Yeeeeeah... Basically you're too stupid and unenlightened to realize what's good for you. Good thing these folks have no problem telling you what that is.
Oh, and furthermore, if you do consent (which you can't really do, what with the oppression and all), you're "actively damaging feminism."
Yeah. They said it, "Damaging Feminism." How the actual fuck does someone damage another person's ideology? Do they get a Shrink-o-Matic, make themselves really tiny, crawl into another person's brain and chip away at it with an equally tiny pick axe? Or are these folk's personal convictions just so weak that by challenging them with another set of behaviors those convictions will crumble like a saltine hit by a sledge hammer? I do not get it. At all. But that might just be because I'm stupid and unenlightened and oppressed and shit.
Man, I guess that's what I get for joking about "setting the cause back 100 years..." someone took my snark seriously.
And OK, maybe I'm all oppressed and crap because I like guys. What about chicks who like chicks? That's got to be cool, right? They've thrown off the yoke of male sexual oppression because well, they're chicks. If a chick wants to play sexy games or have a D/s dynamic with another chick and there's no dudes in the picture, that's got to be cool.
(BTW, if you think I'm oppressing you by using "chick" feel free to replace it with whatever female adjective floats your boat. I just like the way the word sounds, plus, whenever I write it I get to go "peep" in my head which amuses me)
Not so much it would seem:
Lesbians who practiced BDSM didn’t escape condemnation either. As Jocelyn Borycszka puts it in her forthcoming book Suspect Citizens, they were accused of simply replicating “the very masculine power dynamics used to perpetuate women’s oppression.”
I guess if you're a girl who digs other girls but you like being the one in charge you're still oppressing your partner because you're acting like an Evil Man. Eeeeeeeeevil. Because dudes oppress chicks (peep), it's what they do. ALL OF THEM. Down with the male regime! Viva la vulva! Err... Anyways, you can't like being the D-type if you're a girl because then you're acting like a guy, even though you're a girl... So wait. Are you oppressed, or oppressing?
Ok, now to try and make this out-pouring of snark into a cohesive piece of writing-
I have no doubt that there is still a word of issues that need to be addressed concerning violence against whoever experiences it no matter what their gender, creed, color, belief-system, etc. And I have no doubt that there is still a lot of education necessary within the BDSM community so that the people within it can play safely and experience healthy relationships no matter what side of the slash they fall on...
But here's the kicker Uber-Feminist Crazy Ladies- By attempting to dictate what another woman is or is not allowed to do with her body or her life, you have become no better than the people and social constructs our Fore-Mothers battled against when they got us the right to vote, access to birth control, jobs in male dominated work places, so on and so forth. You have become the very thing you claim to despise, The Oppressor.
News Flash: Oppression is Oppression no matter what gender is doing the oppressing.
It's not women in consensual relationships that are "damaging Feminism" it's you. When you argue against our right to live the life that brings us fulfillment and joy you are no better than the society that would have kept us barefoot and in the kitchen, unfulfilled and longing for something more. I find it a crying shame that you are so set against anything but your notions of what is right *for you* that you refuse to see that your path is not the only one a woman should chose to walk.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
It's bad form to harass submissives that are not yours
Dear Uber Domly Dom, yeah... You.
The guy who thinks that he gets to boss around any female (or male) who identifies as a submissive because you're just so Domly and shit-
Guess what?
You don't.
Until that s-type person CONSENTS to being involved in a dynamic with you- (and in case that's too complex an idea for you, I'll simplify it. It means "Agrees to be yours"). They don't owe you shit because they're not yours.
They don't have to show you their naughty bits, call you whatever silly title you've given yourself, or agree to do any of the vile garbage you're spewing at them.
And all that nastiness that issues forth from your immature and imbicillic mind- Care to take a guess what that is without CONSENT (there's that word again!)?
It's harassment.
It's abuse.
It's bullying.
And do you know what else?
There are folks like me who will gleefully tear you apart. Yeah. Do you know how tickled I would be if folks decided to forward your nasty little missives to me so I could eviscerate them in a blog that EVERYBODY on the site could see? Oh, I'd be thrilled! It would be such fun! I already do it for the dimdoms who try to pull that shit on me... Though lately I haven't gotten any of those. I wonder why?
So here's an idea- Before someone actually thinks that sending someone like me your pathetic drivel is a good idea, try acting like you were not raised in a barn. Pretend those submissive's you're being a totally inept loser towards are people you're meeting at the grocery store, or better yet, church. Quit being a dickwad because it's not earning you any Dom Points, it's just making you look like an inept fool.
The guy who thinks that he gets to boss around any female (or male) who identifies as a submissive because you're just so Domly and shit-
Guess what?
You don't.
Until that s-type person CONSENTS to being involved in a dynamic with you- (and in case that's too complex an idea for you, I'll simplify it. It means "Agrees to be yours"). They don't owe you shit because they're not yours.
They don't have to show you their naughty bits, call you whatever silly title you've given yourself, or agree to do any of the vile garbage you're spewing at them.
And all that nastiness that issues forth from your immature and imbicillic mind- Care to take a guess what that is without CONSENT (there's that word again!)?
It's harassment.
It's abuse.
It's bullying.
And do you know what else?
There are folks like me who will gleefully tear you apart. Yeah. Do you know how tickled I would be if folks decided to forward your nasty little missives to me so I could eviscerate them in a blog that EVERYBODY on the site could see? Oh, I'd be thrilled! It would be such fun! I already do it for the dimdoms who try to pull that shit on me... Though lately I haven't gotten any of those. I wonder why?
So here's an idea- Before someone actually thinks that sending someone like me your pathetic drivel is a good idea, try acting like you were not raised in a barn. Pretend those submissive's you're being a totally inept loser towards are people you're meeting at the grocery store, or better yet, church. Quit being a dickwad because it's not earning you any Dom Points, it's just making you look like an inept fool.
Responsibility
Last night in my epic fit of continuing boredom I was skulking the web and I ran across this kid who's "Master" wanted her to find a female fuck buddy. She wasn't comfortable with the idea, and she wasn't sure how to go about this task, so she asked the community for advice.
And then a few responses into the thread she said:
"I guess what I was trying to get at, is that, I'm allowed to say no to him, right?"
This is what she got in return:
"Umm if you call him "master" and you mean it, then no you don't get a say in the matter.
If you are just playing at him being "master" then sure. Take away the power you gave him and say no any time the mood strikes you."
This is where responsibility comes in.
When I reply to a post, especially something that might be cause for concern (like someone asking if they can say "no.") I mine their profile for information. I want to give accurate advice. I don't want to say something that might inadvertently cause harm.
So I looked at the OP's profile.
She's 18.
She joined that site 11 days ago.
She was single and looking then.
Now she has a "Master"?
She doesn't know if she's allowed to say "no" to something she's not comfortable with?
And the "advice" she got... That unless she's just "playing" at M/s she cannot say no? Something inside me just went a little nuts.
It wasn't until later that I figured it out- Somewhere out there I could have a kid who's 18. A daughter. Maybe she's on a site like this, maybe she's uncertain, insecure, confused. And the idea that someone could be giving her a guilt trip and telling he that unless she's faking (and not a Real & True s-type) she's obligated to do whatever this "Master" wants... Irresponsible drivel!
That's what got me thinking about responsibility. I feel like I have a responsibility to provide sound advice, not only because it might help the person who's asking, but because it might help the community be a better place... And the person I'm advising- That's someone's kid. That could be my kid. And even though I don't know her I don't want anything bad to happen to her.
I don't want someone's irresponsible, bad advice to hurt her or anybody else's child.
So, to the question:
What responsibility do we have to the community, especially the young and vulnerable members, to help keep them safe?
This has been stewing in my brain or little while now and it finally came to a head, like a bloated zit that's been percolating painfully just under the skin for entirely too long until it erupts. The sort that you don't realize how much it hurts until it really really hurts.
Meh.
And then a few responses into the thread she said:
"I guess what I was trying to get at, is that, I'm allowed to say no to him, right?"
This is what she got in return:
"Umm if you call him "master" and you mean it, then no you don't get a say in the matter.
If you are just playing at him being "master" then sure. Take away the power you gave him and say no any time the mood strikes you."
This is where responsibility comes in.
When I reply to a post, especially something that might be cause for concern (like someone asking if they can say "no.") I mine their profile for information. I want to give accurate advice. I don't want to say something that might inadvertently cause harm.
So I looked at the OP's profile.
She's 18.
She joined that site 11 days ago.
She was single and looking then.
Now she has a "Master"?
She doesn't know if she's allowed to say "no" to something she's not comfortable with?
And the "advice" she got... That unless she's just "playing" at M/s she cannot say no? Something inside me just went a little nuts.
It wasn't until later that I figured it out- Somewhere out there I could have a kid who's 18. A daughter. Maybe she's on a site like this, maybe she's uncertain, insecure, confused. And the idea that someone could be giving her a guilt trip and telling he that unless she's faking (and not a Real & True s-type) she's obligated to do whatever this "Master" wants... Irresponsible drivel!
That's what got me thinking about responsibility. I feel like I have a responsibility to provide sound advice, not only because it might help the person who's asking, but because it might help the community be a better place... And the person I'm advising- That's someone's kid. That could be my kid. And even though I don't know her I don't want anything bad to happen to her.
I don't want someone's irresponsible, bad advice to hurt her or anybody else's child.
So, to the question:
What responsibility do we have to the community, especially the young and vulnerable members, to help keep them safe?
This has been stewing in my brain or little while now and it finally came to a head, like a bloated zit that's been percolating painfully just under the skin for entirely too long until it erupts. The sort that you don't realize how much it hurts until it really really hurts.
Meh.
Domly Knows Best
Like that? I thought it was a clever (ok, not-so-clever) play on that old US sitcom, Daddy Knows Best. Sometimes I really amuse myself.
Anyways- So my friend sent me a somewhat alarming message on Fet to get hold of her via FB pronto. She needed some advice. I, not being the shittiest friend ever (though I suspect I'm in the running), messaged her back as soon as I got up. Stupid third shift.
She told me that she was freaking out and riled up because the new Domly she was seeing had wanted her to print something and write "I'm Xxx's sub, he knows what's best" on it. One of her other sub buddies gave her the incredibly deep advice that she was having issues with this because it was an affirmation of her submission and friend just wasn't ready to surrender.
Hearing that she'd resolved the issue to her satisfaction was nice (I like my friends to be happy), but it got the gears in my little Squeaky noggin spinning...
What is it with the whole "Domly Knows Best" notion?
Because you know that it's highly improbable that one person will actually know best all the time. It's incredibly unlikely that someone will be able to accurately predict what is right for another person at all, unless they know them extremely well (and even then it's hit or miss). Even as well as I know Cookie (and I know him like I know the back of my hand) I wouldn't even begin to think that I would know what was best for him. Hell- Even being my kids mom I doubt I know what's really best (I just try to do my best for them. And there's a difference between the two).
Personally I can't help but feel it's that ugly "Poor Wittle Submissive" stereotype rearing it's vile head. You know, the one that makes all of us submissives sound like lost little lambs that have no clue how to take care of ourselves or make even the simplest decision about our lives without a Big, Strong, All-Knowing Domly to guide our poor wittle clueless selves.
*Snort, scoff*
What over-weaning drivel. And hubris. Though I suppose it would make the insecure sort feel all super-duper powerful. And it would help the sleazy sort avoid doing the communication thing...
"Um. Why do you want me to put you on my saving's account?"
"Don't question me! I know best! Now do it!"
*Sigh.*
Long story short- I told my friend that I'd take it as a serious affront to my intelligence and capabilities if Cookie pulled that shit with me. Because really, that's what it is in my mind. It's one adult telling another one that because they gave themselves a title they magically know what's best and I find that insulting. It's insulting to think that just because a guy is a Domly that he's this infallible font of knowledge and wisdom who knows what's "best" for a grown woman who's been taking care of herself just fine for YEARS before he came along. Like I said, hubris.
It's stupid and it annoys me.
And so I ranted.
Anyways- So my friend sent me a somewhat alarming message on Fet to get hold of her via FB pronto. She needed some advice. I, not being the shittiest friend ever (though I suspect I'm in the running), messaged her back as soon as I got up. Stupid third shift.
She told me that she was freaking out and riled up because the new Domly she was seeing had wanted her to print something and write "I'm Xxx's sub, he knows what's best" on it. One of her other sub buddies gave her the incredibly deep advice that she was having issues with this because it was an affirmation of her submission and friend just wasn't ready to surrender.
Hearing that she'd resolved the issue to her satisfaction was nice (I like my friends to be happy), but it got the gears in my little Squeaky noggin spinning...
What is it with the whole "Domly Knows Best" notion?
Because you know that it's highly improbable that one person will actually know best all the time. It's incredibly unlikely that someone will be able to accurately predict what is right for another person at all, unless they know them extremely well (and even then it's hit or miss). Even as well as I know Cookie (and I know him like I know the back of my hand) I wouldn't even begin to think that I would know what was best for him. Hell- Even being my kids mom I doubt I know what's really best (I just try to do my best for them. And there's a difference between the two).
Personally I can't help but feel it's that ugly "Poor Wittle Submissive" stereotype rearing it's vile head. You know, the one that makes all of us submissives sound like lost little lambs that have no clue how to take care of ourselves or make even the simplest decision about our lives without a Big, Strong, All-Knowing Domly to guide our poor wittle clueless selves.
*Snort, scoff*
What over-weaning drivel. And hubris. Though I suppose it would make the insecure sort feel all super-duper powerful. And it would help the sleazy sort avoid doing the communication thing...
"Um. Why do you want me to put you on my saving's account?"
"Don't question me! I know best! Now do it!"
*Sigh.*
Long story short- I told my friend that I'd take it as a serious affront to my intelligence and capabilities if Cookie pulled that shit with me. Because really, that's what it is in my mind. It's one adult telling another one that because they gave themselves a title they magically know what's best and I find that insulting. It's insulting to think that just because a guy is a Domly that he's this infallible font of knowledge and wisdom who knows what's "best" for a grown woman who's been taking care of herself just fine for YEARS before he came along. Like I said, hubris.
It's stupid and it annoys me.
And so I ranted.
Protector Man! (Now with laser-beam eyeballs)
I was reading through some old stuff on my profile and I saw something that riled me up at the time I responded to it, and then riled me up again when I re-read it, so I figured that because I have a few more hours to burn till Cookie gets home I'd go on a bit of a rant.
Today's rant is brought to you by the letter P (for Protector).
Personally, I don't see the need to have some person with a really meaningless label (which is saying something because of the inherent lack of meaning that accompanies most labels in the BDSM world) watching one's back. Especially as most of this supposed "back watching" goes on in The Realm of The Interwebs.
Seriously? What's there to be protected from online?
Some asshole sends you a shitty message?
That's what buttons like "delete", "block" and "report as spam" exist for. If you really cannot manage to move your mouse to where those buttons are located on your screen, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet at all.
Some guy decided to be all Domly and declare that you belong to him now?
Again with those handy clickable buttons. Or my favorite response- Verbally humiliate them in a blog so the entire world can see what inept twats they are.
There's A LOT of stupid online, but last time I checked nobody can jump through your computer screen and *BAM!* suddenly be all up in your house bossing you around. So really, what is so scary about the online world that you need to be protected from it?
And in real life? Ok, maybe I can see where someone having your back is a wise choice (who hasn't hauled a buddy along on a blind date?), but the whole "So and so is protecting me" thing... Know what? That doesn't make you sound like someone who shouldn't be fucked with, it makes you sound like prey. It makes you sound like an inept boob who can't take care of business on your own. It makes you sound weak and vulnerable.
It sends a very clear message: "I cannot protect myself, I need someone else to do that for me."
So here's a thought- Instead of abdicating personal responsibility for your own safety and looking like a chunk of Grade A Black Angus Grass-Fed Sirloin to a herd of hungry men who've just lighted up their Webbers for the first time since winter set in- Go take a few (or a lot, preferably taught by someone who's ex military special forces)classes in self defense. Learn to handle yourself and others who might try to put you in a compromising situation, because guess what? That "Protector" isn't going to be there when you're alone in a hotel room with some creep who's conned you into thinking he's a good guy. Protector's not going to have your back when you're not at his (or her) side.
This "Protector" business? When push comes to shove it's about as useful as warding off a Doberman with a Nerf gun.
Protect your own damn self.
Sheesh.
Today's rant is brought to you by the letter P (for Protector).
Personally, I don't see the need to have some person with a really meaningless label (which is saying something because of the inherent lack of meaning that accompanies most labels in the BDSM world) watching one's back. Especially as most of this supposed "back watching" goes on in The Realm of The Interwebs.
Seriously? What's there to be protected from online?
Some asshole sends you a shitty message?
That's what buttons like "delete", "block" and "report as spam" exist for. If you really cannot manage to move your mouse to where those buttons are located on your screen, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet at all.
Some guy decided to be all Domly and declare that you belong to him now?
Again with those handy clickable buttons. Or my favorite response- Verbally humiliate them in a blog so the entire world can see what inept twats they are.
There's A LOT of stupid online, but last time I checked nobody can jump through your computer screen and *BAM!* suddenly be all up in your house bossing you around. So really, what is so scary about the online world that you need to be protected from it?
And in real life? Ok, maybe I can see where someone having your back is a wise choice (who hasn't hauled a buddy along on a blind date?), but the whole "So and so is protecting me" thing... Know what? That doesn't make you sound like someone who shouldn't be fucked with, it makes you sound like prey. It makes you sound like an inept boob who can't take care of business on your own. It makes you sound weak and vulnerable.
It sends a very clear message: "I cannot protect myself, I need someone else to do that for me."
So here's a thought- Instead of abdicating personal responsibility for your own safety and looking like a chunk of Grade A Black Angus Grass-Fed Sirloin to a herd of hungry men who've just lighted up their Webbers for the first time since winter set in- Go take a few (or a lot, preferably taught by someone who's ex military special forces)classes in self defense. Learn to handle yourself and others who might try to put you in a compromising situation, because guess what? That "Protector" isn't going to be there when you're alone in a hotel room with some creep who's conned you into thinking he's a good guy. Protector's not going to have your back when you're not at his (or her) side.
This "Protector" business? When push comes to shove it's about as useful as warding off a Doberman with a Nerf gun.
Protect your own damn self.
Sheesh.
How To Train Your Dominant
There's so much bunk floating around on how s-types "need" training so, you know, we can be "good" s-types. But the thing I never see is the fact that Domlies don't spring fully formed and perfect into the BDSM world and perhaps they could benefit from some training as well. Cause the way it stands now, any Twit can go buy himself a flogger and proclaim "I Am DOMLY!" and the submissive trolls (thanks for that sweetcheeks) will fall over themselves to reinforce that idea. So, without further ado I give you:
1. Buying a flogger and a set of furry handcuffs does not make you a Dominant. It makes you a guy with a flogger and a set of furry cuffs who doesn't have a clue.
In order to get a clue you need to learn about stuff, like this: Handcuffs, even furry ones, suck balls. They're made for the police to restrain criminals, not for Domlies to use as a bondage implement. Why? Because they cause damage. They hurt (and not in a good way). They're more likely to cause nerve damage than leather cuffs or rope. So put them back in your toy box and buy a nice set of leather cuffs (preferably with rolled edges) or go out and buy one of The Knotty Boy's Books- They're EXCELLENT.
In fact, there are a bunch of decent books about Dominance out there. Go pick up a few (the folks at Barnes & Noble don't give a damn about what you're buying, so don't even try to use that as an excuse), join a few groups geared towards novices and D-types. LEARN SOMETHING.
2. Giving yourself a title does not make you a Dominant.
Well, I suppose it does in a way, but not in the way you're thinking it does. It doesn't make you God's gift to the s-types, it doesn't give you any rights over them, and it doesn't give you an excuse to act like a prick. It sure as hell doesn't mean that you can get in our s-typey pants just because you want to.
All it does is make you A dominant, which means jack to everybody except the submissive trolls and they're not who you should be taking pointers from. And while you're A dominant, you don't have any authority over anybody but yourself. You want some real authority, find yourself a nice s-type that you get along with well and then you can be her Dominant.
3. Dominant does not equal Jerk, Misogynist, Asshole, etc.
Acting like you were raised in a barn is a sure way to NOT impress the ladies. And yeah, some of us s-types might like our Dominants to be bossier than what we'd put up with from a vanilla guy- But they're not bossy to the point of being complete social rejects. D-types DO say thank you on occasion. They have been known to hold coats, doors, and pull out chairs. They express appreciation and acknowledge a job well done. In short: Dominants can, and often do, have nice manners and display courtesy.
Quite a few people LIKE a person who can do the pretty. Some don't- Some really get off on the misogynistic asshole vibe... But until you know who's who it's a good bet that you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
4. Being a Dominant doesn't guarantee you shit.
If you think it does you've been hanging around the submissive trolls for too long.
You are not entitled to any of these things from any s-type other than the one(s) who consent to be yours:
* Obedience
* Sexy Time Play
* Any Play
* Being referred to with your preferred title
* Sexy pics and/or videos
* ANYTHING someone doesn't feel like giving you.
(Do you see a pattern there?)
5. TRUE and REAL are BS terms.
There is not "real" and there is no "true." Those are terms used by people who want to manipulate someone by playing on their insecurity, or who are insecure themselves.
There is compatible and there is incompatible.
When you encounter some s-type who doesn't express a great deal of joy at doing whatever you want her to do because she has no interest in that or you, that's not the time for you to throw a hissy fit and say "You're not a true sub!" That's the time for you to be an adult and say, "OK, well I guess we're incompatible."
6. Learn to control yourself.
D/s, M/s, whatever- It's not ALL about controlling someone else, it's also about self control. And if you can't control yourself, how can you expect to control someone else?
-The same applies for s-types: If you can't control yourself, what makes you think someone else will be able to?
7. Real Life seldom resembles Porn.
Pron is written or produced with one goal in mind- To get your rocks off. That s-type who just loves being gang-banged by 50 linebackers? The s-type who can turn herself into a human pretzel and stay that way for hours? The one who likes a fist in every orifice? The ones who do the really freaky-deaky shit without batting an eyelid and even seem to be enjoying it?
Yeah... They're getting paid for that.
The rest of us? You might be able to find someone into all that, I'm sure she exists some where out there, but expecting all of us s-types to do the stuff you watched on Super Slutty Submissive Skankbots last night, or expecting it from a baby seal? Dude, you need to get a better grip on reality.
We don't all like the same stuff, we won't all do the same things, and expecting that we will is about as logical as thinking Spock would enjoy watching The Bachelor. And that's why it pays to actually TALK to us s-types before going all Dom-Fu on our asses. Figure out if we like the same things you like (compatibility), figure out if we're interested in the same kind of dynamic you are (more compatibility), figure out if our dream is a kinky 50's Leave It To Beaver episode with 2.5 kids and a house in the 'burbs or a Fully Equipped Dungeon complete with Uber Dungeony Over-Lord where talking isn't allowed and slithering like a snake is the only approved form of locomotion...
8. I'm so full of shit.
If a megalomaniac like me can say that, then so can you.
But seriously, a lot of that stuff up there^^^ Doesn't impress the s-types, it pisses them off. And if you piss them off they're not going to want anything to do with you. So pay attention. Oh, and that cock-shot avatar you're rocking? Ditch that. We've all seen weenies before, yours isn't anything special unless we're fond of it's owner.
Squeaky's Handy Dandy Guide to Dominant Training
(In no specific order what-so-ever)
(In no specific order what-so-ever)
1. Buying a flogger and a set of furry handcuffs does not make you a Dominant. It makes you a guy with a flogger and a set of furry cuffs who doesn't have a clue.
In order to get a clue you need to learn about stuff, like this: Handcuffs, even furry ones, suck balls. They're made for the police to restrain criminals, not for Domlies to use as a bondage implement. Why? Because they cause damage. They hurt (and not in a good way). They're more likely to cause nerve damage than leather cuffs or rope. So put them back in your toy box and buy a nice set of leather cuffs (preferably with rolled edges) or go out and buy one of The Knotty Boy's Books- They're EXCELLENT.
In fact, there are a bunch of decent books about Dominance out there. Go pick up a few (the folks at Barnes & Noble don't give a damn about what you're buying, so don't even try to use that as an excuse), join a few groups geared towards novices and D-types. LEARN SOMETHING.
2. Giving yourself a title does not make you a Dominant.
Well, I suppose it does in a way, but not in the way you're thinking it does. It doesn't make you God's gift to the s-types, it doesn't give you any rights over them, and it doesn't give you an excuse to act like a prick. It sure as hell doesn't mean that you can get in our s-typey pants just because you want to.
All it does is make you A dominant, which means jack to everybody except the submissive trolls and they're not who you should be taking pointers from. And while you're A dominant, you don't have any authority over anybody but yourself. You want some real authority, find yourself a nice s-type that you get along with well and then you can be her Dominant.
3. Dominant does not equal Jerk, Misogynist, Asshole, etc.
Acting like you were raised in a barn is a sure way to NOT impress the ladies. And yeah, some of us s-types might like our Dominants to be bossier than what we'd put up with from a vanilla guy- But they're not bossy to the point of being complete social rejects. D-types DO say thank you on occasion. They have been known to hold coats, doors, and pull out chairs. They express appreciation and acknowledge a job well done. In short: Dominants can, and often do, have nice manners and display courtesy.
Quite a few people LIKE a person who can do the pretty. Some don't- Some really get off on the misogynistic asshole vibe... But until you know who's who it's a good bet that you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
4. Being a Dominant doesn't guarantee you shit.
If you think it does you've been hanging around the submissive trolls for too long.
You are not entitled to any of these things from any s-type other than the one(s) who consent to be yours:
* Obedience
* Sexy Time Play
* Any Play
* Being referred to with your preferred title
* Sexy pics and/or videos
* ANYTHING someone doesn't feel like giving you.
(Do you see a pattern there?)
5. TRUE and REAL are BS terms.
There is not "real" and there is no "true." Those are terms used by people who want to manipulate someone by playing on their insecurity, or who are insecure themselves.
There is compatible and there is incompatible.
When you encounter some s-type who doesn't express a great deal of joy at doing whatever you want her to do because she has no interest in that or you, that's not the time for you to throw a hissy fit and say "You're not a true sub!" That's the time for you to be an adult and say, "OK, well I guess we're incompatible."
6. Learn to control yourself.
D/s, M/s, whatever- It's not ALL about controlling someone else, it's also about self control. And if you can't control yourself, how can you expect to control someone else?
-The same applies for s-types: If you can't control yourself, what makes you think someone else will be able to?
7. Real Life seldom resembles Porn.
Pron is written or produced with one goal in mind- To get your rocks off. That s-type who just loves being gang-banged by 50 linebackers? The s-type who can turn herself into a human pretzel and stay that way for hours? The one who likes a fist in every orifice? The ones who do the really freaky-deaky shit without batting an eyelid and even seem to be enjoying it?
Yeah... They're getting paid for that.
The rest of us? You might be able to find someone into all that, I'm sure she exists some where out there, but expecting all of us s-types to do the stuff you watched on Super Slutty Submissive Skankbots last night, or expecting it from a baby seal? Dude, you need to get a better grip on reality.
We don't all like the same stuff, we won't all do the same things, and expecting that we will is about as logical as thinking Spock would enjoy watching The Bachelor. And that's why it pays to actually TALK to us s-types before going all Dom-Fu on our asses. Figure out if we like the same things you like (compatibility), figure out if we're interested in the same kind of dynamic you are (more compatibility), figure out if our dream is a kinky 50's Leave It To Beaver episode with 2.5 kids and a house in the 'burbs or a Fully Equipped Dungeon complete with Uber Dungeony Over-Lord where talking isn't allowed and slithering like a snake is the only approved form of locomotion...
8. I'm so full of shit.
If a megalomaniac like me can say that, then so can you.
But seriously, a lot of that stuff up there^^^ Doesn't impress the s-types, it pisses them off. And if you piss them off they're not going to want anything to do with you. So pay attention. Oh, and that cock-shot avatar you're rocking? Ditch that. We've all seen weenies before, yours isn't anything special unless we're fond of it's owner.
T is for Titles
I identify as a submissive for ease of reference in social networks like this one. It gives folks an idea of who I am and frames a good deal of the things I write about with a clearly understandable context. It lets them know that in my dynamic that's the side of the slash I fall on.
DISCLAIMER: This is aimed at nobody in particular though it was triggered by someone's writing. I just used that as a jumping off point to express views that only apply to me and my dynamic.
Beyond that? It's meaningless. The only person I am submissive to is Cookie. He is the ONLY person I have consented to submit to and the only person who has any authority over me. I am a submissive, I am not your submissive, and I will not use any sort of title in reference to you because it implies an authority transfer dynamic I have not consented to.
And I've heard all the arguments, I've been around the block a time or two. I've heard the "respect" argument, and the "your place in the lifestyle" argument. I've heard about the proper (read: "Right") way to do things because well, you're acknowledging your place argument. I've seen the "Domlies like it" school of thought... And I call shenanigans.
The "respect" argument?
To me there is a world of difference between courtesy and respect. I do not "respect" people for the sole reason that they have given themselves a title that is as meaningless to me as mine should be to them. I will be courteous or civil but that's all anybody has the right to expect from me- A display of pretty manners that grease the wheels of pleasant society. "Sir" or "Ma'am" in a vanilla context? I will do that gladly, it's just good manners. "Sir" or "Ma'am" in a BDSM context- Implies consent to some authority exchange and I'm not cool with that.
Respect is something I reserve for people I hold in high esteem, and it's something that is granted because they've shown me that they a person who I can respect. There are a handful of people for whom I would use a title because I hold them in such high regard. They're the sort of folks for whom I think the phrase "Pillar of The Community" applies.
Odds are good that you are not them.
The "Your Place In The Lifestyle" argument?
My place is at Cookie's side and that's it. The thought that because I identify as a submissive means that I should, for some unfathomable reason, grant someone any consideration beyond that which I would give to any other stranger on the street- it boggles my mind.
Honestly, whenever I hear that argument and try to apply any logic to it- I can hear gears grinding; A paradigm shifting without a clutch.
I identify as a wife. That doesn't mean that I should give men who identify as "husband" the same consideration I afford to Cookie. He is my husband, They are not. I live a married lifestyle with him, I do not live a married lifestyle with them.
See the parallel?
The "Domlies like it" school of thought?
It's about as silly as saying all Dominants are Sadists. SOME D-types love being called by a title by anything that crosses their path. SOME D-types get a kick out of that sort of thing... SOME D-types cannot stand it.
My Dominant hates it. He says it feels as pointless as some random girl calling him her boyfriend. Without the relationship dynamic behind the word to give it meaning it's meaningless. Dominant is just a label he uses to relate to other D-types and he really prefers it if other s-types don't use it in reference to him because he has no authority over them and he feels that the word implies there is some sort of authority transfer dynamic happening. He does not like it, it makes him uncomfortable, it squicks him.
But his most compelling argument- HE DOESN'T CONSENT TO IT.
And he's not alone.
Finally, there's the "Right, Correct, Proper, True, Real, etc. Way To Do Things..."
(And this is my favorite)
No.
No, no, no, and no.
There is how you do things, there is how I do things, there is how everybody else does things. Their way is right for them. Your way is right for you. My way is right for me. None of us are any more right than the other, none of us are wrong (unless it's not BDSM but abuse of some type).
I don't give a fig about what you do in your relationship. I do not care how your dynamic works or even IF it works. That's on you. If it gives you fulfillment that's great, more power to you, blah blah blah.
But just because your dynamic works for you, that doesn't mean that it has to work for anybody else or that anybody else has to play by your rules. And even if your dynamic is the most commonly practiced form of D/s, M/s, BDSM/whatever- That still doesn't mean that you've got the monopoly on "right". It just means that your dynamic is common.
The rest of us? We might not (and probably will not) consent to being involved in your dynamic.
If your D-type thinks all D-types should be addressed by a title?
You can do that as it's part of your dynamic- But it's foolish to expect anybody else to do that as nobody else has consented to play by those rules but you. In fact, others may have a rule that they are NOT allowed to use titles on D-types that they're not in a relationship with.
And you might think that it's the right thing to do to use a title for any D-type whose path you cross-
But that doesn't mean the random D-type actually wants or consents to you using his title. It just means that the fact that consent in BDSM is a two-way street that is often over-looked.
THIS is what's right for me. It doesn't have to work for you and I'm not pretentious or foolish enough to think it should work for you. So grant me the same consideration and courtesy when the roles are reversed.
DISCLAIMER: This is aimed at nobody in particular though it was triggered by someone's writing. I just used that as a jumping off point to express views that only apply to me and my dynamic.
Beyond that? It's meaningless. The only person I am submissive to is Cookie. He is the ONLY person I have consented to submit to and the only person who has any authority over me. I am a submissive, I am not your submissive, and I will not use any sort of title in reference to you because it implies an authority transfer dynamic I have not consented to.
And I've heard all the arguments, I've been around the block a time or two. I've heard the "respect" argument, and the "your place in the lifestyle" argument. I've heard about the proper (read: "Right") way to do things because well, you're acknowledging your place argument. I've seen the "Domlies like it" school of thought... And I call shenanigans.
The "respect" argument?
To me there is a world of difference between courtesy and respect. I do not "respect" people for the sole reason that they have given themselves a title that is as meaningless to me as mine should be to them. I will be courteous or civil but that's all anybody has the right to expect from me- A display of pretty manners that grease the wheels of pleasant society. "Sir" or "Ma'am" in a vanilla context? I will do that gladly, it's just good manners. "Sir" or "Ma'am" in a BDSM context- Implies consent to some authority exchange and I'm not cool with that.
Respect is something I reserve for people I hold in high esteem, and it's something that is granted because they've shown me that they a person who I can respect. There are a handful of people for whom I would use a title because I hold them in such high regard. They're the sort of folks for whom I think the phrase "Pillar of The Community" applies.
Odds are good that you are not them.
The "Your Place In The Lifestyle" argument?
My place is at Cookie's side and that's it. The thought that because I identify as a submissive means that I should, for some unfathomable reason, grant someone any consideration beyond that which I would give to any other stranger on the street- it boggles my mind.
Honestly, whenever I hear that argument and try to apply any logic to it- I can hear gears grinding; A paradigm shifting without a clutch.
I identify as a wife. That doesn't mean that I should give men who identify as "husband" the same consideration I afford to Cookie. He is my husband, They are not. I live a married lifestyle with him, I do not live a married lifestyle with them.
See the parallel?
The "Domlies like it" school of thought?
It's about as silly as saying all Dominants are Sadists. SOME D-types love being called by a title by anything that crosses their path. SOME D-types get a kick out of that sort of thing... SOME D-types cannot stand it.
My Dominant hates it. He says it feels as pointless as some random girl calling him her boyfriend. Without the relationship dynamic behind the word to give it meaning it's meaningless. Dominant is just a label he uses to relate to other D-types and he really prefers it if other s-types don't use it in reference to him because he has no authority over them and he feels that the word implies there is some sort of authority transfer dynamic happening. He does not like it, it makes him uncomfortable, it squicks him.
But his most compelling argument- HE DOESN'T CONSENT TO IT.
And he's not alone.
Finally, there's the "Right, Correct, Proper, True, Real, etc. Way To Do Things..."
(And this is my favorite)
No.
No, no, no, and no.
There is how you do things, there is how I do things, there is how everybody else does things. Their way is right for them. Your way is right for you. My way is right for me. None of us are any more right than the other, none of us are wrong (unless it's not BDSM but abuse of some type).
I don't give a fig about what you do in your relationship. I do not care how your dynamic works or even IF it works. That's on you. If it gives you fulfillment that's great, more power to you, blah blah blah.
But just because your dynamic works for you, that doesn't mean that it has to work for anybody else or that anybody else has to play by your rules. And even if your dynamic is the most commonly practiced form of D/s, M/s, BDSM/whatever- That still doesn't mean that you've got the monopoly on "right". It just means that your dynamic is common.
The rest of us? We might not (and probably will not) consent to being involved in your dynamic.
If your D-type thinks all D-types should be addressed by a title?
You can do that as it's part of your dynamic- But it's foolish to expect anybody else to do that as nobody else has consented to play by those rules but you. In fact, others may have a rule that they are NOT allowed to use titles on D-types that they're not in a relationship with.
And you might think that it's the right thing to do to use a title for any D-type whose path you cross-
But that doesn't mean the random D-type actually wants or consents to you using his title. It just means that the fact that consent in BDSM is a two-way street that is often over-looked.
THIS is what's right for me. It doesn't have to work for you and I'm not pretentious or foolish enough to think it should work for you. So grant me the same consideration and courtesy when the roles are reversed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)