Persephone pointed me - almost accidentally - to a webcomic which currently appears to be stored on Deviantart. I have another entry done, but this... By the end of chapter one, I was laughing; by the end of chapter two, I was crying. For anyone interested in BDSM, you need to take a few hours and read this.
http://shiniez.deviantart.com/
http://shiniez.deviantart.com/gallery/35675685/chapter-1-completed
http://shiniez.deviantart.com/gallery/36852626/chapter2-completed
http://shiniez.deviantart.com/gallery/39094918/chapter3-completed
2014/09/30
2014/09/26
Friday Links!
For those of you who don't know, today is my birthday; and I've taken a couple of days off to relax with family. However, I didn't want to leave you all hanging... So instead I'll leave you with this article - a vanilla (more or less) reporter's experience visiting a local house which specializes in indulging both slaves and masters/mistresses. I hope you enjoy!
http://metroland.net/2014/09/18/a-place-to-play/
http://metroland.net/2014/09/18/a-place-to-play/
2014/09/23
My Relationship is NOT Just Pixie Dust and Leather!
So in Savage Love #295, Dan Savage gave the following quote:
"To 50 shaders, readers and people who are throwing shade on it, BDSM is cops and robbers for grownups with your pants off plus orgasms. People do it for fun; it is not a cry for help. Because there's some criticism sloshing around about the book, that the character who's kinky is portrayed as this psychologically damaged man who needs this woman to heal him and then he won't be kinky any more. [...] Some BDSMers take BDSM very very seriously of course, and strive to make it as real as possible; but it's still make-believe. [...] A marriage, for that matter, is only as real as the two people in it decide to make it. All human relationships are basically make-believe. I'm not saying that love ain't real, that marriage ain't real, but if the two people who are married to each other don't believe, they don't honour their commitment, they don't live up to the promises they've made to each other, they don't work to maintain that bond & those feelings of affection - it goes away. Marriage is a decision, it's a choice that people make, and it's a choice they don't make just once; they make it many many many times, hundreds of times, maybe even thousands of times over the course of a four, five, six decade marriage - to continue to believe in it. You know, a marriage is greater than the sum of its parts, a marriage is a kind of a Tinkerbell and you've got to clap, you've got to believe. Terry and I are married because we believe that we are; because we treat each other like we are, because we know ourselves to be. It's still a concept, it's still an idea of who we are and what we are to each other; and in that way, a marriage - even a successful one, a loving one - in that way a marriage is a kind of make believe."
Normally it makes me incredibly grumpy when he goes off on his "BDSM as make-believe" rants, because his attitude comes across as incredibly condescending; but in this context, I actually find myself agreeing with it. Relationships - any relationships - are exactly as real as they are to the people in them, no more, no less... No matter what type of relationship they are.
People get into relationships for all sorts of reasons. Ash and I get the question all the time; why did we get married? The answer (from me, at least) really comes down to "Besides the fact that she's incredibly good for me and my best friend? Well, we're planning on spending the rest of our lives together anyway, and government and private sectors extend almost no protections to non-spousal partners." It always feels a little mercenary to say you're marrying someone for the tax, insurance, and death benefits, but it's still true, at least in part - there's almost always a social pressure aspect to your relationships beyond the interpersonal one related directly to the two of you... Whether that pressure is familiar, personal, financial, legal, or something else.
When it comes down to it, though, the relationship you're in needs to work for you - for the people in it. A marriage of convenience is a relationship that works for you because of some benefit - financial or social status or a green card or whatever. A marriage for love is still a relationship that works for you because of some benefit - just the benefit is emotional rather than something else.
And of course most relationships are a mix. I like to imagine that most marriages are for love, but they still have social and legal and financial implications - generally, hopefully, good ones. There's nothing wrong with that, and anyone who isn't fooling themselves should realize that's the norm. But that doesn't mean the relationship necessarily means anything to anyone except you - the people involved in it. The benefits you get from it are yours; to everyone else, it's a label. It may be a label that affects your behaviour... But it's nothing more than that.
Unfortunately, it's very easy for people to look at their relationships and say "This fits social norms while yours doesn't, therefore your relationship isn't valid while mine is." They're forgetting that their relationship was a prioritization just as much as yours was; they prioritized their view of social norms, or financial benefits, or religious views, or whatever it might be over being single; just like you did. The perceived and actual benefits may be different, but it was the same decision.
Never let them talk down to your relationships just because they don't understand them. It's no different than their having a different favourite colour or preferring chocolate ice cream instead of strawberry or tea instead of coffee; they judged the situation by their own worldview and made a choice, just like you did. Never listen when they say your relationship isn't "real" just because the benefits are emotional rather than legal, or vice versa.
Being a sub or a slave is a mindset; it's a role that some people value. The fact that the majority of the world doesn't understand it puts them in the wrong, not you, for not seeing the prejudice they apply to you.
"To 50 shaders, readers and people who are throwing shade on it, BDSM is cops and robbers for grownups with your pants off plus orgasms. People do it for fun; it is not a cry for help. Because there's some criticism sloshing around about the book, that the character who's kinky is portrayed as this psychologically damaged man who needs this woman to heal him and then he won't be kinky any more. [...] Some BDSMers take BDSM very very seriously of course, and strive to make it as real as possible; but it's still make-believe. [...] A marriage, for that matter, is only as real as the two people in it decide to make it. All human relationships are basically make-believe. I'm not saying that love ain't real, that marriage ain't real, but if the two people who are married to each other don't believe, they don't honour their commitment, they don't live up to the promises they've made to each other, they don't work to maintain that bond & those feelings of affection - it goes away. Marriage is a decision, it's a choice that people make, and it's a choice they don't make just once; they make it many many many times, hundreds of times, maybe even thousands of times over the course of a four, five, six decade marriage - to continue to believe in it. You know, a marriage is greater than the sum of its parts, a marriage is a kind of a Tinkerbell and you've got to clap, you've got to believe. Terry and I are married because we believe that we are; because we treat each other like we are, because we know ourselves to be. It's still a concept, it's still an idea of who we are and what we are to each other; and in that way, a marriage - even a successful one, a loving one - in that way a marriage is a kind of make believe."
Normally it makes me incredibly grumpy when he goes off on his "BDSM as make-believe" rants, because his attitude comes across as incredibly condescending; but in this context, I actually find myself agreeing with it. Relationships - any relationships - are exactly as real as they are to the people in them, no more, no less... No matter what type of relationship they are.
People get into relationships for all sorts of reasons. Ash and I get the question all the time; why did we get married? The answer (from me, at least) really comes down to "Besides the fact that she's incredibly good for me and my best friend? Well, we're planning on spending the rest of our lives together anyway, and government and private sectors extend almost no protections to non-spousal partners." It always feels a little mercenary to say you're marrying someone for the tax, insurance, and death benefits, but it's still true, at least in part - there's almost always a social pressure aspect to your relationships beyond the interpersonal one related directly to the two of you... Whether that pressure is familiar, personal, financial, legal, or something else.
When it comes down to it, though, the relationship you're in needs to work for you - for the people in it. A marriage of convenience is a relationship that works for you because of some benefit - financial or social status or a green card or whatever. A marriage for love is still a relationship that works for you because of some benefit - just the benefit is emotional rather than something else.
And of course most relationships are a mix. I like to imagine that most marriages are for love, but they still have social and legal and financial implications - generally, hopefully, good ones. There's nothing wrong with that, and anyone who isn't fooling themselves should realize that's the norm. But that doesn't mean the relationship necessarily means anything to anyone except you - the people involved in it. The benefits you get from it are yours; to everyone else, it's a label. It may be a label that affects your behaviour... But it's nothing more than that.
Unfortunately, it's very easy for people to look at their relationships and say "This fits social norms while yours doesn't, therefore your relationship isn't valid while mine is." They're forgetting that their relationship was a prioritization just as much as yours was; they prioritized their view of social norms, or financial benefits, or religious views, or whatever it might be over being single; just like you did. The perceived and actual benefits may be different, but it was the same decision.
Never let them talk down to your relationships just because they don't understand them. It's no different than their having a different favourite colour or preferring chocolate ice cream instead of strawberry or tea instead of coffee; they judged the situation by their own worldview and made a choice, just like you did. Never listen when they say your relationship isn't "real" just because the benefits are emotional rather than legal, or vice versa.
Being a sub or a slave is a mindset; it's a role that some people value. The fact that the majority of the world doesn't understand it puts them in the wrong, not you, for not seeing the prejudice they apply to you.
2014/09/19
Personally, I Prefer Strawberry
In response to Tuesday's video, Ash was chatting about flavours of asexuality. Saying you're "asexual" can be a vague statement. There are plenty of other videos on YouTube - I've watched several, but they aren't hard to find - as well as various posts on Fetlife, on the AVEN forums, on blogs, and all sorts of other places talking about peoples specific forms of asexuality. I feel occasionally like a broken record with the "well, it depends..." line, but there really is a range of asexual flavours. Merriam-Webster (who would have thunk I'd use a dictionary in my blog?) defines asexual - for the relevant choice at least - as simply "devoid of sexuality". It can actually be referring directly to the person, or indirectly to them through their relationship preference; both would fit here.
Please note that, for purposes of this article, I'm lumping asexuals, demisexuals, "grey-A"s, and others on the asexuality spectrum together under the blanket term "asexual"; the discussion applies equally to all. After all, I self-identify as demi-sexual - I enjoy blow jobs and sucking nipples occasionally too much to be asexual - but it's simpler to use the one term than repeatedly trying to call them all out. I only ask you to temporarily forgive my laziness.
All the technical aspects aside... From my point of view asexuals really break down into four categories:
This isn't an exact science; for my own sake, I know I happen to fit into two of these - I have an unusually low sex drive, and a significant amount of the sex drive I have is tightly tied or channeled into my sadistic tendencies. Let's just hit on these each quickly, however.
Unsurprisingly the majority of asexuals seem to be those with little or no sex drive. Detractors and disbelievers frequently point out that diminished sex drive can be a medical problem; it's a side effect of some anti-depressants, for example, and can also be a symptom of hormone imbalances. There's nothing that says, however, that anyone who's perfectly healthy must therefore have a sex drive. Noone blinks at two people with sex drives at different levels, one above average and one below average... There's no particular reason why, when it reaches a certain level, it has to magically become a different animal; their sex drive is simply low enough to cause disinterest.
In a lot of ways this is both the hardest flavour to handle and also the biggest cause of many of asexuality's problems. Other flavours have a reason that's easy to latch onto; this flavour, that reason is simply "...Meh." The idea of romantic attraction without sexual attraction is too alien to most of the population; the lack of any graspable reason behind it just overwhelms peoples' little minds.
The second flavour I called out is actually the most rare from my experience and research - those who don't feel any attraction at all, making sexuality sortof superfluous or a purely logical/practical matter. This is the category where aromantic asexuals commonly fall (not to make too many generalizations - aromantics can be asexual as well). Sex simply loses context if you don't have relationships at all in a form where it's relevant - either recreationally or procreationally.
The third flavour are those where their sex drive exists, but is not aimed in the same direction as everyone else's. In my own case - and this has caused me no end of trouble over the years - my sex drive is actually far more closely linked to my sadism than it is to... Well... Sex. This category can include a lot of asexual fetishists and kinksters, which I suppose is true of me as well; if your arousal is too closely linked to that fetish or kink, either there can be real physical issues with staying aroused during vanilla sex, or the sex itself is simply... Not interesting. This can be upsetting for people to try and deal with, both the asexual in question and their prospective partner, and frequently requires some work and negotiation for both (or all, to be fair) of the people involved to get what they want and need. It's all too easy to end up being seen (or seeing yourself) as broken, rather than just... Different. Having someone to support you through that type of attitude is critical.
The last flavour I tend to consider is those who have specific aversions to sex, regardless of their sex drive or anything else. This can be almost anything from all over the board. Some people find genitals or sex icky and disgusting; some people find it embarassing for any number of reasons. Aversion to sex can be the result of trauma, physical or psychological - the result of injury, surgery, sexual assault, or something else. Severe vulvodynia or other medical conditions can make sex simply impossible because of the level of discomfort or pain caused.
The biggest problem with this category is that most asexuals falling into it have the aversion thrust on them by something outside their control, and it's very easy to see them as victims. Other people may very well see them that way, but the asexual may see themselves that way as well. It's critical to have a clear understanding of how it affects them and reacting accordingly. Most importantly understand that whether or not it's self-inflicted or just bad luck and fate, whether it's something they're in treatment for or something where treatment is impossible or simply doesn't apply, whether they're comfortable with it themselves or whether they see themselves as a victim, take them seriously. If the aversion is strong enough for them to overcome all their social conditioning in favour of sex... It's real, even if you think it's only real to them.
Whatever the flavour and whatever the cause, the most important aspect is that the people in question self-identify that way. It's not necessarily the product of anything being wrong; it's not necessarily a problem; it's not necessarily something that needs to be fixed... Sometimes it's just the way they are.
As an interesting footnote to close out, New York refers to asexuality directly in law: the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) specifically calls out "heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality, whether actual or perceived" as protected sexual orientations. It was the first (not the only; Vermont apparently added it later) US legislation I was able to find referring to asexuality, though Wikipedia calls out Brazil as protecting asexuality through law since 1999. I'm not 100% sure I agree with their classification - based on personal experience I don't think asexuality is the same type of descriptor as hetero-, homo-, bi-, or pansexual; you can be asexual but heteroromantic, or asexual and panromantic, or whatever. Either way, it's nice to know it gets some official recognition and - more importantly - protection.
Please note that, for purposes of this article, I'm lumping asexuals, demisexuals, "grey-A"s, and others on the asexuality spectrum together under the blanket term "asexual"; the discussion applies equally to all. After all, I self-identify as demi-sexual - I enjoy blow jobs and sucking nipples occasionally too much to be asexual - but it's simpler to use the one term than repeatedly trying to call them all out. I only ask you to temporarily forgive my laziness.
All the technical aspects aside... From my point of view asexuals really break down into four categories:
- Those who have low or no sex drive.
- Those who feel little or no attraction, thus having no sexual objects regardless of sex drive.
- Those who have a sex drive, but channel it into some other act than intercourse or target of affection other than humans.
- Those who have a sex drive, but avoid sex due to aversion of one sort or another.
This isn't an exact science; for my own sake, I know I happen to fit into two of these - I have an unusually low sex drive, and a significant amount of the sex drive I have is tightly tied or channeled into my sadistic tendencies. Let's just hit on these each quickly, however.
Unsurprisingly the majority of asexuals seem to be those with little or no sex drive. Detractors and disbelievers frequently point out that diminished sex drive can be a medical problem; it's a side effect of some anti-depressants, for example, and can also be a symptom of hormone imbalances. There's nothing that says, however, that anyone who's perfectly healthy must therefore have a sex drive. Noone blinks at two people with sex drives at different levels, one above average and one below average... There's no particular reason why, when it reaches a certain level, it has to magically become a different animal; their sex drive is simply low enough to cause disinterest.
In a lot of ways this is both the hardest flavour to handle and also the biggest cause of many of asexuality's problems. Other flavours have a reason that's easy to latch onto; this flavour, that reason is simply "...Meh." The idea of romantic attraction without sexual attraction is too alien to most of the population; the lack of any graspable reason behind it just overwhelms peoples' little minds.
The second flavour I called out is actually the most rare from my experience and research - those who don't feel any attraction at all, making sexuality sortof superfluous or a purely logical/practical matter. This is the category where aromantic asexuals commonly fall (not to make too many generalizations - aromantics can be asexual as well). Sex simply loses context if you don't have relationships at all in a form where it's relevant - either recreationally or procreationally.
The third flavour are those where their sex drive exists, but is not aimed in the same direction as everyone else's. In my own case - and this has caused me no end of trouble over the years - my sex drive is actually far more closely linked to my sadism than it is to... Well... Sex. This category can include a lot of asexual fetishists and kinksters, which I suppose is true of me as well; if your arousal is too closely linked to that fetish or kink, either there can be real physical issues with staying aroused during vanilla sex, or the sex itself is simply... Not interesting. This can be upsetting for people to try and deal with, both the asexual in question and their prospective partner, and frequently requires some work and negotiation for both (or all, to be fair) of the people involved to get what they want and need. It's all too easy to end up being seen (or seeing yourself) as broken, rather than just... Different. Having someone to support you through that type of attitude is critical.
The last flavour I tend to consider is those who have specific aversions to sex, regardless of their sex drive or anything else. This can be almost anything from all over the board. Some people find genitals or sex icky and disgusting; some people find it embarassing for any number of reasons. Aversion to sex can be the result of trauma, physical or psychological - the result of injury, surgery, sexual assault, or something else. Severe vulvodynia or other medical conditions can make sex simply impossible because of the level of discomfort or pain caused.
The biggest problem with this category is that most asexuals falling into it have the aversion thrust on them by something outside their control, and it's very easy to see them as victims. Other people may very well see them that way, but the asexual may see themselves that way as well. It's critical to have a clear understanding of how it affects them and reacting accordingly. Most importantly understand that whether or not it's self-inflicted or just bad luck and fate, whether it's something they're in treatment for or something where treatment is impossible or simply doesn't apply, whether they're comfortable with it themselves or whether they see themselves as a victim, take them seriously. If the aversion is strong enough for them to overcome all their social conditioning in favour of sex... It's real, even if you think it's only real to them.
Whatever the flavour and whatever the cause, the most important aspect is that the people in question self-identify that way. It's not necessarily the product of anything being wrong; it's not necessarily a problem; it's not necessarily something that needs to be fixed... Sometimes it's just the way they are.
As an interesting footnote to close out, New York refers to asexuality directly in law: the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) specifically calls out "heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality, whether actual or perceived" as protected sexual orientations. It was the first (not the only; Vermont apparently added it later) US legislation I was able to find referring to asexuality, though Wikipedia calls out Brazil as protecting asexuality through law since 1999. I'm not 100% sure I agree with their classification - based on personal experience I don't think asexuality is the same type of descriptor as hetero-, homo-, bi-, or pansexual; you can be asexual but heteroromantic, or asexual and panromantic, or whatever. Either way, it's nice to know it gets some official recognition and - more importantly - protection.
2014/09/18
Bonus Links!
I was speaking with Persephone today... I already should have linked to her most recent entry, which - as usual - I found fascinating and insightful:
http://mileagedoesvary.blogspot.com/2014/09/stereotypes-vs-realities.html
but she also pointed me on to another blog (which she found when it linked to her) that is worth reading:
http://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/reflections-on-the-use-and-boundaries-of-sex-favourable-asexual-as-a-term/
Two excellent essays on aspects of asexuality I recommend you go read.
Enjoy!
http://mileagedoesvary.blogspot.com/2014/09/stereotypes-vs-realities.html
but she also pointed me on to another blog (which she found when it linked to her) that is worth reading:
http://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/reflections-on-the-use-and-boundaries-of-sex-favourable-asexual-as-a-term/
Two excellent essays on aspects of asexuality I recommend you go read.
Enjoy!
2014/09/16
Tuesday Links
I have another entry I'd started, but I watched this yesterday and was quite struck by it. So I'll delay my otherwise scheduled, and offer you this video with minimal comment:
http://youtu.be/Xly3CZk_Ch8
http://youtu.be/Xly3CZk_Ch8
2014/09/12
Out in the Open
Folsom Street Fair is coming up in a few days. It's one of those events that fascinates me; I've never been to it, and I suspect I wouldn't actually enjoy it a huge amount, but I'm so intrigued that I want to go some year - just for the experience.
A lot of people are really upset by it, of course. Even in San Francisco, some people consider Folsom over-the-top. I suppose of anywhere in the country, SF may be the most accepting place they could find... I shudder to think the types of riots it may start in the south. Still, Folsom gets protests, and it shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Kink frequently has a terrible reputation in society in general, and there are a lot of reasons for it... Not the least of which is that it can be incredibly scary. There's a lot to be scared of. Just in the area of BDSM, there's loss of control; loss of privacy; pain, embarrassment, harassment, belittlement, discomfort, pain, and god only knows what else. More generally there's lack of tolerance or acceptance from society at large - a lot of people just aren't okay with the out-of-the-ordinary relationships that kinksters revel in.
Part of it is that kink is so often perceived to as not subtle. Either it's totally invisible, or so up-in-your-face that it scares you. That isn't true, of course; it's just that when it's not in-your-face most people don't notice it. A person in a collar and on a leash? Everyone on the street sees it, and most of them would be uncomfortable (at least on most streets). A person walking up the street with clamps on their body somewhere, or a butt plug in, or even more subtly heeling to their master? Most people would simply never notice. And that's an issue; subtle kink isn't recognized because it doesn't look like kink, while unsubtle kink is frequently more than a little obnoxious to those who aren't involved - or at least aren't interested.
Of course a huge part of this disconnect is the basic assumption society makes that anything that isn't obviously different therefore isn't different. This is what happens to bisexual folks all the time; a bisexual male married to a female is assumed to be straight, while a bisexual male married to a male is assumed to be gay... Even though it's never more than just an assumption. Similarly, anything that isn't obviously kinky is assumed to not be kinky... Even though often enough that isn't the case.
So when is it okay to be open about your kinks in public? And the answer is, of course, "it depends". What's totally acceptable in San Francisco at Folsom Street Fair could be totally unacceptable at a church in Cincinnati on a Sunday morning. Or anywhere near children. I mean, is it okay to go around in public with your sub or slave on a leash? It's legal, everywhere that I know of, but that doesn't mean it's okay. Many people won't appreciate it - won't appreciate having that world thrown in their face like that.
It's always going to come down to the area you're in and just how far you're pushing things. NYC cops still have to be reminded not to arrest topless women, even though it's legal. Something which is inherently legal can still cause you a great deal of trouble, with the police or otherwise - and honestly it's the "otherwise" that should scare most people. Like I discussed a bit back in the "poly and kids" area, letting the community around you know your actual lifestyle can get you - and your family - excluded and ostracized.
And there's definitely real danger here. What may seem innocent to you really may be private - even if that "privacy" is out in the open - and it's not fair to include other people in your private lives without their consent. Consent is a major piece of kink in general, and strangers on the street haven't given theirs. There's always a thrill to public play - some people enjoy it, some people don't - but that thrill is almost exclusively for the people involved. Mothers doing their grocery shopping mostly just don't want their afternoons interrupted, whatever the interruption may be... And some of them would be truly upset by a mostly-naked, bondage-leather-clad guy or girl on the street. Possibly most of them.
This is really a lot of empathy, and that can be incredibly hard. However much they don't want to hear it, most people aren't particularly empathetic, because it's hard to put yourself in someone else's position and see things how they might see it. Because it's hard to strip away all your preconceptions and assumptions and load yourself up with theirs.
If you're ever in doubt, just don't go public - or when you do, make sure it's subtle... As in "people don't notice it or can deny it in their own heads if they do". There are plenty of ways to exert ownership or control in public without being quite as blatant as most people would be in private - and it's far less likely to upset the muggles. It isn't so different from public displays of affection; in fact, really, it is public displays of affection... Just in ways normals may not recognize as affectionate rather than abusive.
And that, of course, is the real key. A person who sees a couple making out on the street probably won't do much. They may be vaguely offended by its being in public, but it's something they understand. If they're conservative and see two men kissing (read: homophobic), really, they're not upset that it's a couple making out; they're upset that they can't comprehend the couple who is making out isn't heterosexual - doesn't fit into their own world view. And seeing a Dom(me) leading their sub down the street on a leash... It's not affection; it's abuse.
So when in doubt, don't; you may not agree with their worldview, but everyone is entitled to their own. And then just be sneakier about how to get away with it. Instead of a collar, teach your sub to heel; instead of giving oral commands, teach them subtler hand commands or other signals. Make a game out of it. There's plenty of ways to kink in public without scaring the muggles!
A lot of people are really upset by it, of course. Even in San Francisco, some people consider Folsom over-the-top. I suppose of anywhere in the country, SF may be the most accepting place they could find... I shudder to think the types of riots it may start in the south. Still, Folsom gets protests, and it shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Kink frequently has a terrible reputation in society in general, and there are a lot of reasons for it... Not the least of which is that it can be incredibly scary. There's a lot to be scared of. Just in the area of BDSM, there's loss of control; loss of privacy; pain, embarrassment, harassment, belittlement, discomfort, pain, and god only knows what else. More generally there's lack of tolerance or acceptance from society at large - a lot of people just aren't okay with the out-of-the-ordinary relationships that kinksters revel in.
Part of it is that kink is so often perceived to as not subtle. Either it's totally invisible, or so up-in-your-face that it scares you. That isn't true, of course; it's just that when it's not in-your-face most people don't notice it. A person in a collar and on a leash? Everyone on the street sees it, and most of them would be uncomfortable (at least on most streets). A person walking up the street with clamps on their body somewhere, or a butt plug in, or even more subtly heeling to their master? Most people would simply never notice. And that's an issue; subtle kink isn't recognized because it doesn't look like kink, while unsubtle kink is frequently more than a little obnoxious to those who aren't involved - or at least aren't interested.
Of course a huge part of this disconnect is the basic assumption society makes that anything that isn't obviously different therefore isn't different. This is what happens to bisexual folks all the time; a bisexual male married to a female is assumed to be straight, while a bisexual male married to a male is assumed to be gay... Even though it's never more than just an assumption. Similarly, anything that isn't obviously kinky is assumed to not be kinky... Even though often enough that isn't the case.
So when is it okay to be open about your kinks in public? And the answer is, of course, "it depends". What's totally acceptable in San Francisco at Folsom Street Fair could be totally unacceptable at a church in Cincinnati on a Sunday morning. Or anywhere near children. I mean, is it okay to go around in public with your sub or slave on a leash? It's legal, everywhere that I know of, but that doesn't mean it's okay. Many people won't appreciate it - won't appreciate having that world thrown in their face like that.
It's always going to come down to the area you're in and just how far you're pushing things. NYC cops still have to be reminded not to arrest topless women, even though it's legal. Something which is inherently legal can still cause you a great deal of trouble, with the police or otherwise - and honestly it's the "otherwise" that should scare most people. Like I discussed a bit back in the "poly and kids" area, letting the community around you know your actual lifestyle can get you - and your family - excluded and ostracized.
And there's definitely real danger here. What may seem innocent to you really may be private - even if that "privacy" is out in the open - and it's not fair to include other people in your private lives without their consent. Consent is a major piece of kink in general, and strangers on the street haven't given theirs. There's always a thrill to public play - some people enjoy it, some people don't - but that thrill is almost exclusively for the people involved. Mothers doing their grocery shopping mostly just don't want their afternoons interrupted, whatever the interruption may be... And some of them would be truly upset by a mostly-naked, bondage-leather-clad guy or girl on the street. Possibly most of them.
This is really a lot of empathy, and that can be incredibly hard. However much they don't want to hear it, most people aren't particularly empathetic, because it's hard to put yourself in someone else's position and see things how they might see it. Because it's hard to strip away all your preconceptions and assumptions and load yourself up with theirs.
If you're ever in doubt, just don't go public - or when you do, make sure it's subtle... As in "people don't notice it or can deny it in their own heads if they do". There are plenty of ways to exert ownership or control in public without being quite as blatant as most people would be in private - and it's far less likely to upset the muggles. It isn't so different from public displays of affection; in fact, really, it is public displays of affection... Just in ways normals may not recognize as affectionate rather than abusive.
And that, of course, is the real key. A person who sees a couple making out on the street probably won't do much. They may be vaguely offended by its being in public, but it's something they understand. If they're conservative and see two men kissing (read: homophobic), really, they're not upset that it's a couple making out; they're upset that they can't comprehend the couple who is making out isn't heterosexual - doesn't fit into their own world view. And seeing a Dom(me) leading their sub down the street on a leash... It's not affection; it's abuse.
So when in doubt, don't; you may not agree with their worldview, but everyone is entitled to their own. And then just be sneakier about how to get away with it. Instead of a collar, teach your sub to heel; instead of giving oral commands, teach them subtler hand commands or other signals. Make a game out of it. There's plenty of ways to kink in public without scaring the muggles!
2014/09/09
Now you see it...
One of my coworkers and friends - let's call her Ace - was told last night by her girlfriend - let's call her Gwen - of three years that she wanted to break up because they were "sexually incompatible". Ace was not... Traditionally upset; but it's the first time I'd ever say that she looked shaky. It was strange to me because this was a couple who started dating very close to the time Ash and I did - if I remember right their first sortof-date was two days after ours - and they'd been talking about forever at one point. More than one point.
Granted I know the situation purely from Ace's point of view, but from her side it was almost a total surprise. They agree they're extremely compatible in almost every way. The only place Ace - or, according to her, Gwen - thinks they aren't compatible is in their sex drive; that is, Gwen would love to have sex every day, while Ace has a much lower interest. They'd been having some trouble a few weeks back due to an argument around being open or closed; or, more specifically, Gwen wanted to be open and announced she was going to be - with or without Ace... Leaving Ace defensive and confused and upset. They talked through it and agreed to work on it and ways they could satisfy both of them... But the fact that they aren't compatible sexually is the reason Gwen gave, and because she thought they were working on that, it took Ace totally by surprise.
So... There's a lot of aspects to this situation here, and I don't want to dig into all of them here; some of the details really aren't mine to share... But what it did make me think about was how little Ace trusts Gwen right now. A month ago, that would have been entirely untrue; but their interactions have just sortof led Ace to the point where she doesn't know what to believe. Several weeks ago she felt like she was being given an ultimatum; then she felt like she was being cheated on; then she felt like Gwen was looking for an excuse to get Ace to break up with her. Several weeks later, I'm forced to wonder if that thought back then was the right one - that Gwen was looking to find a way to force Ace to be the bad gal instead of her, and eventually just gave up and pulled the trigger when it turned out Ace was too much in love to actually do so.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never be 100% sure how much of this is truth and how much of it is lies and how much is just something we don't know about. It's worse for Ace, obviously, being the one in the situation; but I'm close enough to her to worry and sympathize and agonize of it as well.
By the time I separated from my ex-wife, any semblance of trust we had once had was totally shattered. She had managed to convince herself of several key things about me that weren't true (mostly, that I was cheating on her); and in return she lied to be me about being gay, cheated on me for more than half our marriage, and left me with years of doubt replacing what had previously just been trust and love. It's fascinating to me, looking back over it, how trust - or the lack thereof - changes your perceptions of past acts, both by you and towards (against?) you.
Unsurprisingly, I have a lot of regrets relating to my marriage; mostly around the possibility of having been naive. I don't know yet whether Ace will regret her relationship with Gwen, or at least aspects of it. Probably the better question is "how much", not "if", because it's human nature to regret things that could have been better - even if we don't know so until after the fact.
In some ways this has very much shaped my attitude towards new kinky (well, more to the point, new Dom/sub) relationships. It's much easier to ignore the risk and ignore the possibility of things going wrong and turning against you; but it's much safer not to trust. Unfortunately, any type of relationship - kinky relationships far more than most - desperately need trust to be functional and healthy.
The most basic building block of that trust is always going to be communication; I've hit on it before, and I'll continue to harp on it probably for the entire life of this blog. A more basic thing, though - and the moral of today's post - is to remember that you aren't the only person in your relationships. Whatever the power dynamic, however many corners there are in your love polygon, no matter what you do in the privacy of your home... Everyone else in the relationship is just as much a human as you are. Everyone else is just as much prone to being scared, or being angry, or feeling cheated, or feeling sad... Or not wanting to be the bad guy. Always remember that - think about what you're about to do from the other side. Once someone loses their trust in you, it's too late to get it back.
Granted I know the situation purely from Ace's point of view, but from her side it was almost a total surprise. They agree they're extremely compatible in almost every way. The only place Ace - or, according to her, Gwen - thinks they aren't compatible is in their sex drive; that is, Gwen would love to have sex every day, while Ace has a much lower interest. They'd been having some trouble a few weeks back due to an argument around being open or closed; or, more specifically, Gwen wanted to be open and announced she was going to be - with or without Ace... Leaving Ace defensive and confused and upset. They talked through it and agreed to work on it and ways they could satisfy both of them... But the fact that they aren't compatible sexually is the reason Gwen gave, and because she thought they were working on that, it took Ace totally by surprise.
So... There's a lot of aspects to this situation here, and I don't want to dig into all of them here; some of the details really aren't mine to share... But what it did make me think about was how little Ace trusts Gwen right now. A month ago, that would have been entirely untrue; but their interactions have just sortof led Ace to the point where she doesn't know what to believe. Several weeks ago she felt like she was being given an ultimatum; then she felt like she was being cheated on; then she felt like Gwen was looking for an excuse to get Ace to break up with her. Several weeks later, I'm forced to wonder if that thought back then was the right one - that Gwen was looking to find a way to force Ace to be the bad gal instead of her, and eventually just gave up and pulled the trigger when it turned out Ace was too much in love to actually do so.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never be 100% sure how much of this is truth and how much of it is lies and how much is just something we don't know about. It's worse for Ace, obviously, being the one in the situation; but I'm close enough to her to worry and sympathize and agonize of it as well.
By the time I separated from my ex-wife, any semblance of trust we had once had was totally shattered. She had managed to convince herself of several key things about me that weren't true (mostly, that I was cheating on her); and in return she lied to be me about being gay, cheated on me for more than half our marriage, and left me with years of doubt replacing what had previously just been trust and love. It's fascinating to me, looking back over it, how trust - or the lack thereof - changes your perceptions of past acts, both by you and towards (against?) you.
Unsurprisingly, I have a lot of regrets relating to my marriage; mostly around the possibility of having been naive. I don't know yet whether Ace will regret her relationship with Gwen, or at least aspects of it. Probably the better question is "how much", not "if", because it's human nature to regret things that could have been better - even if we don't know so until after the fact.
In some ways this has very much shaped my attitude towards new kinky (well, more to the point, new Dom/sub) relationships. It's much easier to ignore the risk and ignore the possibility of things going wrong and turning against you; but it's much safer not to trust. Unfortunately, any type of relationship - kinky relationships far more than most - desperately need trust to be functional and healthy.
The most basic building block of that trust is always going to be communication; I've hit on it before, and I'll continue to harp on it probably for the entire life of this blog. A more basic thing, though - and the moral of today's post - is to remember that you aren't the only person in your relationships. Whatever the power dynamic, however many corners there are in your love polygon, no matter what you do in the privacy of your home... Everyone else in the relationship is just as much a human as you are. Everyone else is just as much prone to being scared, or being angry, or feeling cheated, or feeling sad... Or not wanting to be the bad guy. Always remember that - think about what you're about to do from the other side. Once someone loses their trust in you, it's too late to get it back.
2014/09/05
Quick! Look over there!
This week has gotten away from me, and I was not able to complete my normally scheduled post. Fear not! We'll return to our normal content next week.
2014/09/02
Christopher Ryan on Sex
The below quote is from Christopher Ryan, author of Sex at Dawn (B&N Link, Amazon Link), and is actually transcribed from the Savage Lovecast - forgive me, I don't have the episode number handy but a quick Google search makes me think it was 194 or 210, probably 194. Anyway! This is a book that's on my reading shelf and I've just been very slow to get to; it would have been ideal to read and review with the series of Poly entries I've been working through, but I simply haven't been reading much lately except on my phone - physical books have been suffering in favour of puzzle magazines and 3DS games.
Either way... When I was listening I ended up transcribing this quote because it struck me so much. This is very much how I feel - love is about the two of you growing old together and sharing your life, and not necessarily about getting a good fucking. Sex is great, orgasms are lovely, but they aren't - have not been - never will be - the most important thing to me... Even though that puts me (us!) in the minority.
Anyway. For now, I'll leave this entry here; a lazy entry for a lazy holiday weekend, and depart with the promise that when I do read the book I'll review it fully for you in the blog. Hope you all had a great Labour Day!
Either way... When I was listening I ended up transcribing this quote because it struck me so much. This is very much how I feel - love is about the two of you growing old together and sharing your life, and not necessarily about getting a good fucking. Sex is great, orgasms are lovely, but they aren't - have not been - never will be - the most important thing to me... Even though that puts me (us!) in the minority.
The beauty of... Y'know, people say the book's not about... Ah, they talk about love, y'know. Jealousy is one issue, and then "what about Love", y'know, "you people are discounting love". But the thing about love... I don't know, maybe this will sound arrogant or something, but real love isn't about sex. If you're lucky enough in your life to find "love", you realize how relatively unimportant sex is, and you realize that you would never walk away from love for a blow job.
[...]
Y'know love is about getting old together, it's about raising a child together, it's about sharing your life. It's not about orgasms, and so many people confuse that; they think that, y'know, good sexual chemistry is love. Good sexual chemistry is a reason to, you know, sign onto a lifetime together, and then a few years down the road they find they've made a big mistake. So even though our book is about sex ostensibly, one of the points we're trying to make in the book is that people take sex way too seriously; and y'know; and we can chill about sex, we can have fun with sex, it doesn't always have to be sacred. It's like music; sometimes it is sacred, sometimes you heard god in the Bach toccata; but other times it's just for dancing and having a good time.
Anyway. For now, I'll leave this entry here; a lazy entry for a lazy holiday weekend, and depart with the promise that when I do read the book I'll review it fully for you in the blog. Hope you all had a great Labour Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)