The castle of intimacy.
Many people equate intimacy with sex or sexual things. To the point that it has become a euphemism for sex. It is of course far more complex than that. Most things in human relations are. Intimacy, like the love that often accompanies it, takes more than one form. Society likes to focus on the Romantic Love / Sexual Intimacy forms and seems to ignore all other forms.
Intimacy is best described as the act of allowing another to access the vulnerable parts of self. The parts of ourself that we protect. This is more than just our genitals. It is everything from simple information like our names and phone numbers to deeper mor important things like our family information and history, sexual history, financial information, and where the bodies are actually buried. Basically intimacy is trusting others with anything that can hurt us. Everything we protect. Intimacy is the castle we protect ourselves inside of.
Like real castles it has different levels of access. From the perimeter to the moat to the towers, the treasury, the royal bed chambers , and the deep dark dungeon we regulate who gets access to these precious areas. Not everyone gets an all acess pass , nor should they. Traditionally we do not let friends into the royal bed chamber where sexual intimacy resides. We may let them into the royal treasury and loan money. We may let them into the mages tower to know the wisdom we have collected through our personal histories, triumphs and failures. We may even let them into the deepest darkest part of the dungeon where our inner demons live. Even when we allow others into the ballroom of being in social environments we are sharing a form of intimacy. Yet it is sex that we consciously connect intimacy with.
The other forms of intimacy do not get looked at as intimacy and as such having a great silent affect on relationships. In many marriages how money is spent, who makes it and who consoles it are NOT seen as an individual intimacy. An uncomfortable truth that no one likes to admit is that the wallet are a mans tits. Men are often judged, desired and valued but how well they can provide security in the same way women are often judged, desired and valued by how well they can inspire and provide offspring. However unlike a woman's body that is not considered property of the marriage (and rightly so) a mans income is assumed to be both the man and woman's. If you think this is not the case look at the law that governs it when the marriage ends. It is so engrained in society it is subject of humor in many situation comedy. When the man refers to the money he brings in by using the referential “my money” the wife assumes it is a claim of ownership and chaos comedy ensues. Silly man your money is the families not your own…. The financial intimacy is not recognized and valued. What if the the wife referred to her lady bits as “my vagina” and the man got upset? That's not comedy…. That's mysogistic ownership of women as chattel (And it is). Why? Because we see sexual intimacy and sexual access as a greater more sacred form of intimacy. The royal bed chamber is a more protected keep of the castle.
Even the “lesser intimacies” of after work drinks opens us up to being vulnerable. We leave the structured office with its rules on harassment, politically correct language, and dress code for the freedom of the real world. What we do and say in the bar opens up privilege part of our lives to our colleges. Topics give greater acess as drinks flow and tongs relax. We do not look at this as intimacy but it really is. It is why you miss one office mate but don't notice when the wallflower in the corner cubicle left six months ago. Intimacy increases value.
This castle of intimacy matters but we don't bother to teach our kids about it. We don't consciously as a society tend to look at the levels and intricate affects it has outside of who and why we have sex with. We don't realize or tend to the other forms of intimacy in the same way. Relationships suffer and die because we misunderstand the needs these intimacies feed. The office flirtation is often less about sex and more about intellectual, emotional, or recreational intimacy. It can, however, develop into a sexual intimacy because when we misunderstand the form or intimacy we refer it to the Indy thing we know like it sexual intimacy. This also may be at the heart of the “guys just want sex” myth because men are socialized to not be intimate in any other way. The snuggle or hug of a friend gets referred to sexual intimacy.
If we are to progress in so many ways as people we need to have a greater understanding of intimacy in all its forms. We need to tour our own castles of intimacy and understand their rooms.
Friday, 20 March 2015
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
World of Whorecraft or the games we play
I am Colonel Kink and I'm a 17th level dark elf inquisitor/ Fetromancer. Chaotic good with leathers of erotic enchanting, the crop of Azeroth, and a +20 Flogger of Subspacing. Now get on your knees and roll for initiative.
Did I loose you? Not one of those Dungeons and Dragons, World of Warcraft geeks? This is BDSM after all. There are no Orcs in BDSM. Lost of Dungeons and more Trolls in online communities than we can count but no Orcs. After all this isn't some Roll Playing Game.
Or is it? How many of the Masters / Mistresses really legally own their slaves. Come on… Let me see the title to your submissives ass. We may sign contracts, set rules and consequences for violation but in the end the government will not enforce a contract of human ownership. Apparently it's illegal to own another human being so you can't enforce an illegal contract.
Even the titles we use are adopted more than earned, with the exception of leather awards. Titles like Sir (doubtful a redneck in Alabama was Knighted by the Queen), Lady /Lord ( show me the royal lineage), Master ( is that ass title blue like a Texas auto title?) are all self given. They are as unreal as the titles of Warrior, Mage, Druid, Healer, Elf, Dwarf…. Except to us.
When we don our titles and roll play our “games” are we not that different than those huddled around their computer screens on their quests for the perfect dungeon raid. In fact I'd say that when we go on line and project our personas we have a tendency to be even more immeshed in our personas. No one believes they are actually a dark elf or a dwarf….. But we actually believe we are what our online profiles saw we are. Which on one hand is really cool and an expression of an aspect of ourselves but on the other is totally psychotic.
Just like that hot jiggly impractical armored warrior babe is probably really a dude on a caffeine and energy drink bender, that supper Dominant top on line may be really be a sweet and “nice guy” in most real life situations. The fact is no one is anything all the time and we run into issues when the expectation is that the cumslut is always the ready semen dumpster and never the mom with kids. Or when the Real Dominant is always the powerful dictator and never the vulnerable human being.
So we play our World of Whorecraft on line and build our empires of leather, submission, and community leadership. We believe that because we act out these personas they are as real as our professions and our legal status…. And at times they are. What we have to remember is that who we are on line is only a fraction of the real person behind the profile.
Oh you poor thing you miss your initiave roll. Roll D100 for lashes.
Did I loose you? Not one of those Dungeons and Dragons, World of Warcraft geeks? This is BDSM after all. There are no Orcs in BDSM. Lost of Dungeons and more Trolls in online communities than we can count but no Orcs. After all this isn't some Roll Playing Game.
Or is it? How many of the Masters / Mistresses really legally own their slaves. Come on… Let me see the title to your submissives ass. We may sign contracts, set rules and consequences for violation but in the end the government will not enforce a contract of human ownership. Apparently it's illegal to own another human being so you can't enforce an illegal contract.
Even the titles we use are adopted more than earned, with the exception of leather awards. Titles like Sir (doubtful a redneck in Alabama was Knighted by the Queen), Lady /Lord ( show me the royal lineage), Master ( is that ass title blue like a Texas auto title?) are all self given. They are as unreal as the titles of Warrior, Mage, Druid, Healer, Elf, Dwarf…. Except to us.
When we don our titles and roll play our “games” are we not that different than those huddled around their computer screens on their quests for the perfect dungeon raid. In fact I'd say that when we go on line and project our personas we have a tendency to be even more immeshed in our personas. No one believes they are actually a dark elf or a dwarf….. But we actually believe we are what our online profiles saw we are. Which on one hand is really cool and an expression of an aspect of ourselves but on the other is totally psychotic.
Just like that hot jiggly impractical armored warrior babe is probably really a dude on a caffeine and energy drink bender, that supper Dominant top on line may be really be a sweet and “nice guy” in most real life situations. The fact is no one is anything all the time and we run into issues when the expectation is that the cumslut is always the ready semen dumpster and never the mom with kids. Or when the Real Dominant is always the powerful dictator and never the vulnerable human being.
So we play our World of Whorecraft on line and build our empires of leather, submission, and community leadership. We believe that because we act out these personas they are as real as our professions and our legal status…. And at times they are. What we have to remember is that who we are on line is only a fraction of the real person behind the profile.
Oh you poor thing you miss your initiave roll. Roll D100 for lashes.
Monday, 23 February 2015
The Uncomfortable Truth About 50 Shades
The Uncomfortable Truth About 50 Shades
On Friday I went to go see 50 Shades of Grey with Sharon. I went not only because in order to form a a real opinion I'd have to see it for myself but as a member of the film community where it was made I wanted to support my fellows. Face it, no matter what schlock the film is someone fed their kids by working on it.
It seems everyone is sharing their opinion on this film. They are telling people the “truth” about Christian Grey and his “dominance”. The reality of the bad portrayal of BDSM. The abuse, the lack or violation of consent, the predation all are valid assessments of the story being told.
The story being told when looked at in the cold light of day is a “fantasy love story” of a sexual sadist continuing a cycle of child abuse with an immature and possibly infantilized woman. Although the tools and terms of the BDSM lifestyle are used the philosophy is totally absent.
No, this is not a BDSM story any more than John Wayne Gacey’s biography is a Clown story.
50 Shades is not BDSM. It's not relationship advise. It's not literary genius. Its fan fiction. It's sexual cartoons for soccer moms. It's a high polished Rocky Horror Fetish Show. when Grey tells Anna she gets “me” for her submission, I had to keep from shouting “ what's second prize?”. A move that would most likely result in a mini van draw and quartering in the cinema parking lot.
The film making is good on a technical level. It's lit,shot, and cut well. Jamie Dorhnan’s (sp) Christian Grey is a poor portrayal of a dominant but a great portrayal of a damaged man stuck as the sexually abused teen acting out the abuse cycle. On that level his performance is nuanced. If we come looking for our personal archetype of what a “Dominant” is then we will be disappointed, hypercritical, and offended to the point of missing the real flawed character being played.
If this is a character development story then the beginning characters will be noticeably flawed sick, and even “evil”. If there is one thing I have noticed about James’ writing is that it is not particularly mature or subtle as a writer. Both the Grey and Steel characters are a bit of a caricature of their rolls as lothario and school girl.
There is legitimate criticism about the depiction of bondage and discipline in both the book and the movie. The use of cable ties for restraint , for example, shows a significant lack of research on the part of the author as any restraint less than a minimal width of 1.5 inch (depending on the size of the person) can and will cause damage to the nerves vessels and carpel tunnel when the captive starts to struggle. The police use the restraints as a short term mass event basis only.
There is a deep seated fear in the BDSM community that the portrayal of the lifestyle will harm and lead to the vilification of a beloved practice. It is VERY easy to mis what is happening below the surface of any relationship but especially when the actions look like abuse. When Eyes Wide Shut came out the swing community went through much of the same “that's not how it is” uproar. The end result though was a normalizing of the topic. Same with Boys Don't Cry. It normalized the topic and awareness of transgender and fostered discussions. Now we are seeing this film foster some great discussions and awareness of not only BDSM but the nature and necessity of consent.
There is something to consider in filmmaking that affects the portrayal of anything. Directors look to the visual. “How dos it play” to camera. The gun expert may say “ holding the gun sideways isn’t right, it affects accuracy, controls and can damage the hand on recoil”. But the director may insist in it looking “cool” for camera.
In 50 Shades there are a couple glaring moments of bad play. What appears to be a slip knot capable of cutting off circulation is used to tie wrists. A crop traces nipples but is then brought down over the diaphragm opting of a more organ dangerous strike than a audience wincing sexual slap on the nipples. A heavier flogger is used on the abdomen a danger to internal organs. I have to believe that these things played better for camera than what the technical advisor suggested. So before condemning the technical advisor as an idiot or an amateur consider that they were an ADVISOR and not the final word. Since there were reshoots in the play room (being in the industry you hear things) I'm fairly sure the scenes were shot correctly but seemed to harsh or intense. The reality of film making is you rely on the audiences “suspension of disbelief”. Something I think they may have over estimated in this case.
The uncomfortable truth about 50 Shades of Grey is that, it is nothing more than an alpha male “take me now” bad boy fantasy that despite the women's movement still resonates with a large number of women and girls. Power based fantasy is common in sexuality. The part that make us squirm is the underlaying dichotomy of reconciling our darker and less “honorable” desires and fantasies with the ideals of consent, equality, and rejection of violence against woman. We are not comfortable accepting that people have fantasies that in real life are deeply unhealthy and disturbing. We have a really hard time accepting that another's reaction to spanking, being controlled, fear, or lain may be sexual excitement. We have a tendency to judge others by our own tastes and as incapable of separating fantasy from reality. Not all kids will drop safes on their siblings heads after watching the road runner but those that do have more issues than just the fantasy they like to watch. 50 Shades may be written like an eighth grade crush diary and be yet another soccer mom alpha male power exchange fantasy. The uncomfortable truth is that it holds a mirror up to ourselves and makes us look at unspoken dark aspects and desires in society. It may not be a great film … Hell it may not even be a good film , but it is an important film.
On Friday I went to go see 50 Shades of Grey with Sharon. I went not only because in order to form a a real opinion I'd have to see it for myself but as a member of the film community where it was made I wanted to support my fellows. Face it, no matter what schlock the film is someone fed their kids by working on it.
It seems everyone is sharing their opinion on this film. They are telling people the “truth” about Christian Grey and his “dominance”. The reality of the bad portrayal of BDSM. The abuse, the lack or violation of consent, the predation all are valid assessments of the story being told.
The story being told when looked at in the cold light of day is a “fantasy love story” of a sexual sadist continuing a cycle of child abuse with an immature and possibly infantilized woman. Although the tools and terms of the BDSM lifestyle are used the philosophy is totally absent.
No, this is not a BDSM story any more than John Wayne Gacey’s biography is a Clown story.
50 Shades is not BDSM. It's not relationship advise. It's not literary genius. Its fan fiction. It's sexual cartoons for soccer moms. It's a high polished Rocky Horror Fetish Show. when Grey tells Anna she gets “me” for her submission, I had to keep from shouting “ what's second prize?”. A move that would most likely result in a mini van draw and quartering in the cinema parking lot.
The film making is good on a technical level. It's lit,shot, and cut well. Jamie Dorhnan’s (sp) Christian Grey is a poor portrayal of a dominant but a great portrayal of a damaged man stuck as the sexually abused teen acting out the abuse cycle. On that level his performance is nuanced. If we come looking for our personal archetype of what a “Dominant” is then we will be disappointed, hypercritical, and offended to the point of missing the real flawed character being played.
If this is a character development story then the beginning characters will be noticeably flawed sick, and even “evil”. If there is one thing I have noticed about James’ writing is that it is not particularly mature or subtle as a writer. Both the Grey and Steel characters are a bit of a caricature of their rolls as lothario and school girl.
There is legitimate criticism about the depiction of bondage and discipline in both the book and the movie. The use of cable ties for restraint , for example, shows a significant lack of research on the part of the author as any restraint less than a minimal width of 1.5 inch (depending on the size of the person) can and will cause damage to the nerves vessels and carpel tunnel when the captive starts to struggle. The police use the restraints as a short term mass event basis only.
There is a deep seated fear in the BDSM community that the portrayal of the lifestyle will harm and lead to the vilification of a beloved practice. It is VERY easy to mis what is happening below the surface of any relationship but especially when the actions look like abuse. When Eyes Wide Shut came out the swing community went through much of the same “that's not how it is” uproar. The end result though was a normalizing of the topic. Same with Boys Don't Cry. It normalized the topic and awareness of transgender and fostered discussions. Now we are seeing this film foster some great discussions and awareness of not only BDSM but the nature and necessity of consent.
There is something to consider in filmmaking that affects the portrayal of anything. Directors look to the visual. “How dos it play” to camera. The gun expert may say “ holding the gun sideways isn’t right, it affects accuracy, controls and can damage the hand on recoil”. But the director may insist in it looking “cool” for camera.
In 50 Shades there are a couple glaring moments of bad play. What appears to be a slip knot capable of cutting off circulation is used to tie wrists. A crop traces nipples but is then brought down over the diaphragm opting of a more organ dangerous strike than a audience wincing sexual slap on the nipples. A heavier flogger is used on the abdomen a danger to internal organs. I have to believe that these things played better for camera than what the technical advisor suggested. So before condemning the technical advisor as an idiot or an amateur consider that they were an ADVISOR and not the final word. Since there were reshoots in the play room (being in the industry you hear things) I'm fairly sure the scenes were shot correctly but seemed to harsh or intense. The reality of film making is you rely on the audiences “suspension of disbelief”. Something I think they may have over estimated in this case.
The uncomfortable truth about 50 Shades of Grey is that, it is nothing more than an alpha male “take me now” bad boy fantasy that despite the women's movement still resonates with a large number of women and girls. Power based fantasy is common in sexuality. The part that make us squirm is the underlaying dichotomy of reconciling our darker and less “honorable” desires and fantasies with the ideals of consent, equality, and rejection of violence against woman. We are not comfortable accepting that people have fantasies that in real life are deeply unhealthy and disturbing. We have a really hard time accepting that another's reaction to spanking, being controlled, fear, or lain may be sexual excitement. We have a tendency to judge others by our own tastes and as incapable of separating fantasy from reality. Not all kids will drop safes on their siblings heads after watching the road runner but those that do have more issues than just the fantasy they like to watch. 50 Shades may be written like an eighth grade crush diary and be yet another soccer mom alpha male power exchange fantasy. The uncomfortable truth is that it holds a mirror up to ourselves and makes us look at unspoken dark aspects and desires in society. It may not be a great film … Hell it may not even be a good film , but it is an important film.
I have not bloged here in quite a while. Mostly , this is for personal reasons. Work, home life, life in general have been taking up most of my time. I have considered just taking this blog down entirely. After all "use it or loose it " right?
Today I recieved a message from the owners of Blogger.
"Dear Blogger User,
We're writing to tell you about an upcoming change to the Blogger Content Policy that may affect your account.
In the coming weeks, we'll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video. We'll still allow nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary or scientific contexts, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content.
The new policy will take effect on 23 March 2015. After this policy comes into force, Google will restrict access to any blog identified as being in violation of our revised policy. No content will be deleted, but only blog authors and those with whom they have expressly shared the blog will be able to see the content that we've made private.
Our records indicate that your account may be affected by this policy change. Please refrain from creating new content that would violate this policy. We would also ask you to make any necessary changes to your existing blog to comply as soon as possible so that you won't experience any interruptions in service. You may also choose to create an archive of your content via Google Takeout (https://www.google.com/settin
For more information, please look here (https://support.google.com/bl
Yours sincerely,
The Blogger Team
(c) 2015 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA"
Today I recieved a message from the owners of Blogger.
"Dear Blogger User,
We're writing to tell you about an upcoming change to the Blogger Content Policy that may affect your account.
In the coming weeks, we'll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video. We'll still allow nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary or scientific contexts, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content.
The new policy will take effect on 23 March 2015. After this policy comes into force, Google will restrict access to any blog identified as being in violation of our revised policy. No content will be deleted, but only blog authors and those with whom they have expressly shared the blog will be able to see the content that we've made private.
Our records indicate that your account may be affected by this policy change. Please refrain from creating new content that would violate this policy. We would also ask you to make any necessary changes to your existing blog to comply as soon as possible so that you won't experience any interruptions in service. You may also choose to create an archive of your content via Google Takeout (https://www.google.com/settin
For more information, please look here (https://support.google.com/bl
Yours sincerely,
The Blogger Team
(c) 2015 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA"
They will not allow "sexualy explicit" pictures or videos but will allow " artistic , educational, and scientific" nudity. Sounds mighty vague. Who's to say the image of a hand job isn't
Educational if the goal is teaching better sexual technique? Is the print from the karma sutra ok but the Pic of a CBT tie is " sexualy graphic". It seems a license for Censorship.
I also have to question why I recieved this notice. I do not recall posting pics with the blogs on leather and BDSM. I did mark the blog with adult content because kids bent need to stumble across things like crosses, whips, and leather..... Well outside of Sunday school. so just like other adult spaces like the pup and the club this is marked as "adult". After all I don't want to be the cause of little jimmy asking his mom " what's cock and ball torture"? I can only guess the message was a mass mailing to all "adult content" marked blogs.
I will be watching for further restrictions of content I the future as Net Nutrality is being sold off to the cable and ISO providers . I am sure to limit liability they will homogenize ans sanitize the content available and pressure larger providers like Google to restock adult content.
In the end it's their sandbox they get to say what sand is acceptable. Welcome to the new order.
Thursday, 7 February 2013
One Drop
There use to be a standard for being African American. One drop of Negro blood, to use the terms of the time, made a person a Negro under the law. The outer appearance of the person meant nothing. The shade of their skin didn’t matter. As featured in a fascinating radio program about East Jackson Ohio near Wavily Ohio found here:
http://www.prx.org/pieces/85361-pike-county-ohio-as-black-as-we-wish-to-be
http://www.prx.org/pieces/85361-pike-county-ohio-as-black-as-we-wish-to-be
Most of the residents appear Irish decent. Having one Negro ancestor, they are considered legally black. This speaks to the absolutism that governed race relations to this very day Being determined an African American placed you subject to all the biases, segregation and prejudices racist whites had to offer. Absolute hatred of a race defined any blood “polluted” with that race as inferior.
So what does this have to do with the fetish / swing / kink world? There is a similar bias about the sexual orientation of men. There seems to be a “one cock /one drop of cum” bias in general western culture as a defining mark of homosexuality. It is worse the more conservative you go. Hell even touching another mans junk, intentional or not , seems to miraculously change a man’s orientation as pop culture were concerned. The ass , especially on the football field, is fair game of coarse.
In studying CBT, Dominating a male or a MMF swing situation, if a man is less concerned about the sex organs and more concerned with the connections, ebb and flow of energies, or open to the experience at hand, as in my case, and comes in contact with another cock then they are by some accounts deemed in fact to be homosexual or at least bisexual. While this same convention often is also applied to females it is not as rigidly applied. Two girls kissing and touching can often be played off as “teasing the boys” while to boys kissing is often automatically and absolutely judged as “gay”.
I am not saying this as an altruism. There are those in society that are more understanding in the non ridged nature of human sexuality. That we in fact inhabit a range of orientation not just one absolute unchanging state. I am saying that socially men are more harshly regimented in sexual definition. So is it really a “one cock rule”?
Sunday, 22 July 2012
Consent, desire and needs: the dilemma
*SSC is sacred. It is a paramount cornerstone of trust. I would not question the practices of informed consent. This post is not about questioning consent. I want that clear from the start.*
I have been considering a Facebook group post. A woman's husband came home drunk and declared it was her "wifely duty" to fuck him when ever he requested. Oh corse this erupted into a deluge of angry responses. The husband was a misogynist, it was rape, what an asshole... and for the most part I agree. A persons body is their own to do with as they please. Consent is after all given and revokable at any time.
As I considered the issue brought up by the post. Specifically, I though on how interest and desire seem to wane in long term relationships and how consent is tied to desire. If only one has a desire than the other is either doing (knitting , fucking, antiquating, bottoming, what ever) things either out of pity, to please the other or just to get along..... is that really consent? I begin to doubt it.
Since consent involves desire or will to do something then if or when that will changes the consent changes. It is natural ... I get it.
In my past I have had Vanilla relationships go bad because after the desire was met my partners religious guilt welled up and suddenly the consent so freely given ... her desire to shove me down and ride me like a show pony... was reversed. Suddenly consent was now conjolled out of her and she "was talked into" it. As soon as the desire returned she was a willing horn dog again. This relationship has left me with a sense of impermanence to consent, a "retroactive revocability" if you will.
This is the terrifying territory of the "treacherous submissive". The dangerous one that begs for play but then latter claims violated boundaries or tell some sorted tale. Their consent abates with their desire.
The harder part is when the desire abates slowly. They become "less interested in BDSM or sex (remember I am speaking of all partnerships here not just Fetish ones) and more interested in tv, movies, computers, books .... distractions.
Many will say "I'm too Domtastic for that to happen to me" Trust me at some point a submissive has been tired of your Dom-Ass. You were either too arrogant or too busy looking for the next thing to notice. In the Lifestyle I have been through this on more than one occasion. it is natural for a relationship to go from roaring fire to warm hearth. The problem lies when that warmth holds comfort but no real desire.
So when the partner that was hot to play becomes the trusted friend , companion, lover that is comfy and no longer desires the same as the their mate / Top... where dose consent lie then? When the slightest hint of play brings on a yawn or , in the case of my ex a disapproving look over the top of her latest book, how can a good partner expect there to be real consent?
Remember you have needs you want fulfilled. Needs that have brought you to this person but with out mutual desire those needs become a burr in the saddle. If you aren't familiar with how bad that sucks ... ask a pony girl.
So here is the delema: How is the good partner to act in the face of flagging desire and consent considering their own needs. To demand, conjole, "negotiate", bater or force what one partner needs over the other is ,IMO, a violation of Consent. How should that drunken bastard really been? How do we meet our needs AND our partners in this kind of situation.
The Nilla hetro way is porn, divorce , cheating..... or religious self loathing. Many in the lifestyle, myself included, are in "open" or "Polly" relationships. But to us in the lifestyle with the Top being somewhat expected to drive the activity.... how do we balance the consent of less desires with our own needs? Sure 24/7 and TPE are less likely to be affected by this as openly as those not practicing D/s in that way. To be sure though there are days when either party is "just not up for it" and then it is not as much consent as commitments to meet.
There in lays the issue. While the desire to see their partner happy may replace their desire to play, serve of have sex with their partner it is a *duty bound* thing , a placation at best. I do not know about you but I have worked too hard at honing my skills as a lover, Dominant, and many other valuable things to be a "house hold chore".
In the end there is only one cure when faced with this issue: Honest, clear, communication. Not just between partners but also within. What is the reason behind the decreased desire? What are the permitters to getting needs met? How important are the needs that are not getting met? Is it in the end a deal breaker? Communicate honestly with yourself and find answers to share with your partner.... Then see where things stand. In the end Desire and the consent it brings ... can not be forced only understood and dealt with.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
Old Guard
There is much talk in the lifestyle about Old Guard Leather. It is a revered part of lifestyle history and to know where we have been is important in having a clue as to where we are going.
Old Guard reefers to an early Leather culture in the 40’s and 50’s that developed out of post world war II return of solders and was predominantly Gay. It centered around a set of values and was very exclusive. In it’s earliest incarnation it has been described as minority BDSM and was a focus around motorcycle clubs. It developed a higher protocol than today out of both the military background of many of it’s members and as a “secret society”. Being predominantly a homosexual community it followed guidelines meant to keep out of the public eye.
In the 1940 Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and was treated as such. Outed homosexuals faced prison under sodomy laws, “treatment” including castration and lobotomy in mental institutions, and physical assault in the general community. Is it any wonder that in an underground subculture there would arise a secrete society of strict protocol? It was not until the 70’s that the social climate change sufficiently to allow for Gay leather culture to shift to a public venue like leather bars.
The focus was on a set personal ethics expressed in the hierarchy, protocol and discipline. Interaction was highly regimented. Tops did not approach attached submissive. Attached submissive didn’t even look at Top. The “uniform” was highly regimented. This kept the general public from catching onto the existence of this subculture and yet allowed for subtle recognition among the members. Again this kept them safe from the hostile social climate of the time.
So why is it now that we in the “neo-guard” fail to understand or respect the Old Guard and look on them as “stuffy”. We see the old protocols as limiting or unimaginative. We forget the freedoms that we have are not how it has always been.
Many of us , especially in the straight leather community, grew up in a more inclusive time. Much of the Neo-Guard never knew a time when Homosexuality was not a “polite conversation” as my grandmother would say. A whole generation would not recall a time when a mohawk was a radicle statement. The modern information age has aided to erase many of the prejudices that existed not even ten years ago.
In the light of todays freedom many practitioners of BDSM forget the Old Guard protocols were there to set a standard. Like most etiquette it is there to keep things civil and codify respect. Reflectant of the times there was more etiquette expected of gentlemen and ladies of the 1940’s / 1950’s. I can not count the number of times i have witnessed a situation that had an ounce of respect via etiquette been given a big drama could have been avoided.
We as a Neo- Gard need to appreciate that some of the old guard rules still need to apply. We need not look to shock old ladies, in mass they are dangerous. It only takes a good “leather scare” to have the freedoms we enjoy disappear ( as the victorian morals movement or prohibition). We need to respect others D/s relationships, rolls, and levels of protocol. And really would matching colors really kill us? Embrace our freedom but lets not throw out the good the Old Guard teaches us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)