The Other Side of Strength

The lovely Persephone and I have talked about our respective blogs quite a bit, and the possibility of writing parallel entries was floated. We agonized for a bit about what we might write about and eventually decided we'd write on different subjects - her from one side of an issue and myself from the other - and do a response afterwards, seeing how our different views and styles were reflected. Hers can be found over here, but for now, here's mine.

I've had an up-and-down with the way media portrays dominants. When I was young, the mental image I would have given you of a "dominant" was of a bare-chested, long-haired guy with a whip - almost like a more muscular Fabio on the cover of a saucy romance novel. Something about the macho image appealed to me - and a lot of other people, I suppose. This certainly never helps with the basic prejudice that dominance is the same as sadism.

You'd be amazed how many people just inherently equate submission and masochism. Or maybe you wouldn't - but it amazes me every time I encounter it. You'd think by now I wouldn't be surprised, but I always am. It happened again with one of my pen pals, just a day or two again... Though when I just asked Bettina now, she said they were separate, which makes me feel slightly less crazy... But I digress.

The point is, the image appealed to me - and appeals to other people - precisely because it's a sort of hyper-masculine view. It nicely fits into society's prejudices about the "ideal man" - the man who should be in charge. It wasn't until I was much older, until I was breaking away from my Domme, that I realized what absolute bullshit that was.

Strength, in various forms, is a big part of being the dominant in a D/s relationship. The biggest mistake my Domme made - and that many other Dom(me)s make - is to treat her strength as a given simple because I'd agreed to submit. To most dominants, their strength is their ability to force you to submit - to do what they want - in all too many cases, to beat obedience into the subs.

When it comes down to it there are many types of strength, and every one of them is either part of you before you gain a submissive/slave... Or not. Strength of character; strength of will; strength of resolve; strength of heart; strength of body. All of them are something you can offer to your submissive, to the person giving you their trust and devotion.

The strength of a dominant doesn't come from the fact that they are a dominant. Their strength doesn't rise from their ability to threaten or cow their sub into doing as they're told. Their strength comes from their ability to take responsibility, to care for those who look up to them, to be trustworthy, to be worthy of respect. Their strength is something that every dominant should have before ever accepting a slave in the first place. Their strength comes from the love they and their submissive share, grows out of their relationship. Their strength comes not from presumptions and immature demands, but from being worthy of a submissive offering themselves.

The Sun and the Moon

A story from the Krachi people of western Africa, as presented in Myths and Legends: Classical Greek, Celtic, Norse, Chinese, African, Native American & more (edited by Jake Jackson). Offered without much comment, but it came across very much to me (while reading as a bed-time story to my son, of all things...) as a relationship that would have worked out far better for everyone involved if it were Poly... Assuming everyone could work with that, of course. Then again, both of the people in this are significantly lacking in redeeming qualities, so maybe it wouldn't have worked out then either?

Any kind of poly relationship needs some basic trust, some basic communication, that the sun and the moon here are clearly lacking. This relationship was doomed by the fact that they didn't communicate or respect each other they way they needed to. So consider this your lesson for today.

Either way, have a nice bed-time story from me.

The sun andy he moon fell in love and decided to marry. For a time they were very happy together and produced any children whom they christened "stars". But it was not long before the moon grew weary of her husband and decided to take a lover, refusing to conceal the fact that she greatly enjoyed the variety.
Of course, the sun soon came to hear of his wife's brazen infidelity and the news made him extremely unhappy. He attempted to reason with the moon, but when he saw that his efforts were entirely fruitless, he decided to drive his wife out of his house. Some of the children sided with their mother, while others supported their father. But the sun was never too hard on his wife, in spite of their differences, and saw to it that their possessions were equally divided up.
The moon was always too proud to accept her husband's kindness, however, and even to this day, she continues to make a habit of trespassing on his lands, often taking her children with her and encouraging them to fight the siblings who remain behind with their father.
The constant battles between the star-children of the sun and the star-children of the moon produce great storms of thunder and lightning and it is only when she becomes bored of these confrontations that the moon sends her messenger, the rainbow, into the field, instructing him to wave a cloth of many colors as a signal for her children to retreat.
Sometimes the moon herself is caught by the sun attempting to steal crops from his fields. Whenever this happens, he chases after his estranged wife and if he catches her he begins to flog her or even tries to eat her.
So whenever a man sees an eclipse, he knows that things have come to blows once again between husband and wife up above. At this time, he must be certain to beat his drum and threaten the sun very loudly, for if he does not, the sun might finish the job, and we should certainly lose the moon forever.

Collaring, Part 3

With Collaring and Collaring: Part 2 turning into a real series (one's an accident, two's coincidence, and three's a conspiracy?), the lovely and talented Persephone suggested I might do one on different styles of collars - specifically in her case because issues with her neck make many traditional collars problematic. There are plenty of other reasons... And plenty of ways around it.

So first, why might you want an alternative collar? Oh, the list of reasons could go on for days and days. To name a few:

• Leather allergies
• Nickel (or other metal) allergies - many metal collars and the metal fixtures on leather collars are nickel alloys.
• Sensitive/easily irritated skin
• Bruising susceptibility
• Mental concerns - panic, anxiety, or bad associations either with specific types of collars or collars in general.
• Moral concerns - for example, a vegetarian/vegan - depending on why they choose that lifestyle - may object to a leather collar.
• Privacy concerns - wanting to be collared 24/7 but not being able to due to professional or personal limitations. 
• Medical concerns - severe alignment issues (poor Persephone!), breathing stoma, neck injuries, etcetera. 
• Aesthetic concerns - maybe you just don't like the damned things.

Obviously, depending on the specific reason you don't want a normal collar, you'll end up wanting something different. But before we get too deep into it, what exactly is a collar?

A lot of definitions focus on the vanilla aspects. Ask Google, and you get this:

1. A band of material around the neck of a shirt, dress, coat, or jacket, either upright or turned over and generally an integral part of the garment.
2. A restraining or connecting band, ring, or pipe in machinery.

Merriam-Webster adds lines for "a short necklace", "a band around the neck of an animal", "part of the harness of a draft animal", "an indication of control/token of subservience", and "protective or supportive device".  Look in Wikipedia under "Collar (BDSM)" and it goes into a little more detail about a couple of specific types of collars, some hints at alternatives to traditional collars, and some portion of the social significance of them. Look in other books or sources, and they go into discussions of the equivalence of collaring and marriage, the different forms of collars, the different reasons for them, the different sources, the different materials... The one thing they all have in common: no two places define them the same way. They have enormous amounts of overlap and they have lots of similar thoughts and ideas, but the only really underlying point is that every one is different because every one of them are coming at it from different points of view. A collar is a tool, a decoration, a symbol, or whatever the people involved think of it... And this is part of what complicates it so much. To that point, though, collars can grouped into two major groups - utilitarian and decorative.

The form of a utilitarian collar is driven directly by its use, and - to a lesser extent - its use is driven by its form. Probably the most common collar you will see is a simple synthetic or leather band with a plastic or metal buckle and a D-ring on the front; in other words, a dog collar, sized to fit a person. They can come in all different materials and shapes; some have O-rings rather than D-rings; some have two or three rings rather than one; some are rigid rather than flexible; some are hinged; some are lockable, some are not; some fasten in other ways. This is where they really start to differentiate themselves, and you need to seriously consider what you want it for. Posture collars, for example, tend to be very wide bands and intentionally make movement of the head very difficult; while thin metal bands are no more intrusive than a normal necklace. Something tighter will be better for control of position or movement of the head but has the inherent danger of applying more pressure, and therefore being more of a risk for someone sensitive to it - physically or mentally.

Some specific types of utilitarian collars include:

• Basic collars - Nothing more than a band with one or more attachment points. Basic and functional.
• Posture collar - as above, wide collars intended to make it difficult to move the wearer's head. Notorious for being uncomfortable and unforgiving to wear, especially over long periods.
• "Wolf collars" - collars with spikes on them, frequently decorative but usually also utilitarian - even if just for attaching a leash.
• Choke collars - collars which have a sliding ring rather than a buckle or latch, allowing it to contract when pulled.
• Pinch collars - Similar to choke collars, except instead they pinch or jab the neck when pulled.
• Martingale collars - essentially a cross between a choke collar and standard strap collar.
• "Gimmick"/device collars - those whose function comes not from the collar themselves, but from something attached to it.
• GPS collars - to locate people.
• Anti-bark/shock collars - occasionally used on humans, too.
• Vibrating collars - Similar to shock collars, but less painful.
• Rigid collars - solid rings of metal, wood, plastic, or some similar inflexible material.

With decorative collars, of course, form follows fashion - not function. Decorative collars have wormed their way into mainstream culture with chokers and tight necklaces - though of course most people don't see that way. A decorative collar is pretty much defined by its lack of utility; they aren't structurally strong enough to be used for bondage purposes. It's hard to describe these effectively, simply because they can be anything that a person can think of - the variety is too great. Use your imagination; these show up in books, movies, fashion shows, and on the streets of your town as well as clubs, private parties, dungeons and bedrooms.

Collars can be made out of almost anything. Some of the most common materials, with their pros and cons, include:

• Leather - very common, very popular. Prices range from dirt cheap (if you don't care about quality) to extremely expensive (if you do). Depending on quality and finish, can be very comfortable. Easier than most to cut, easy to decorate. Can cause irritation to some people.
• Fabric - nylon, rayon, polyester, velvet, silk, hemp, or others. Safest in that they're the easiest to cut off if it becomes necessary. Again, ranging from dirt cheap ($5 for a cheap synthetic one) to... Well, much much more for something fancy out of silk. Some people can be sensitive to some fabrics.
• Metal - solid metal or chain collars can be made out of almost any metal you're willing to pay for. Steel is the most common. Strong and durable, but some people can be sensitive to some metals - especially nickel.
• Plastic - not particularly common, because metal is more common for rigid collars and leather or fabrics are more common for flexible ones. They do exist, however. Their primary virtue is low price compared to other rigid collars... But because they're so uncommon, even then they're usually much pricier than a standard synthetic one.
• Wood - obviously only useful for rigid collars. Uncommon, easily damaged, frequently brittle, and generally expensive; however, it can be quite beautiful if done correctly.

One thing you'll notice is I didn't really list any of them as dangerous... For the simple reason that they all are. Any collar, used ignorantly, can lead indirectly or directly to injury or death. Any even partially rigid object around the neck can be deadly if the wrong type of force is applied. Any force applied to the front of the collar tends to pull against the spine - possibly causing damage - while any force applied to the back constricts the throat - possibly cutting off the wearer's breathing. Attaching a collar to something over the wearer's head can, in extreme cases, lead to accidental strangulation. As counter-intuitive as it may be, especially since most people immediately lead to "leashes" as a major use, attaching anything or applying any force to a collar is a questionable thing to do.

Be very careful playing with these things, kids. Don't take them for granted no matter what you do.

Decorative collars are frequently much safer, for the simple reason that any strong force is more likely to break them or tear them off rather than injure the wearer. A good rule of thumb, though, is that you should never put something on someone that you're unable to get off in a hurry while they're panicking. Safety scissors are a good idea, as are spare keys if you plan on locking them.

When it comes down to it, though, traditional collars aren't always what you want. In the case where they are more symbolic than functional, a collar may be made out of anything... Or not even a collar. Collars can be replaced with earrings, especially cuffs; nose-rings; rings on your finger; bracelets; anklets; necklaces; even tattoos. They can be hand-made to give them more personal meaning; learning to cut, punch, and rivet your own leather isn't excessively hard and can even turn into a nice little side business. Collars can be created out of woven cord, braided leather, crocheted yarn... I even know a couple where the submissive's collar was a two-foot-long segment of the first piece of rope her Master ever used to tie her up.

So when you're picking a collar, first identify what you want it for (is it to be utilitarian, decorative, or somewhere in the middle?); decide your budget (are you making it yourself, do you just want the cheapest nylon one in the pet store, or are you willing to spend hundreds on a meaningful custom-hand-made engraved masterpiece?); decide your style (locking, attachment points, decorated?); and then start looking. They can be found everywhere from Amazon.com to pet stores to clothing stores to department stores to accessory stores to specialized BDSM and sex shops. With a little research, you can find the perfect one for you, no matter who you are.

Book Review: Opening Up

I just finished Opening Up, by Tristan Taormino (Goodreads link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1128665.Opening_Up), and I'll admit that - as a first choice for a book to review here - I'm really happy with my choice. The thing is, though, once I finished it I found it hard to figure out how to review it... Mostly because I was an indifferent English student at best, and I just agreed with way too much of what it said. Going through the book, there were only one or two concepts I was not already conscious of and comfortable with; the main difference was her terminology, where she may use a different word or phrase than I did.

Tristan Taormino is an excellent author who writes in an approachable yet intelligent manner, and I was instantly comfortable with how she presented all the information. She found and interviewed a number of people in all forms of poly relationships as source, as well as seeking out all sorts of academic and popular books on the subject. Tristan lays out all the topics in a logical, well-ordered manner, splitting them up by chapter and addressing each concept in order; with relevant quotes and excerpts from her interviewees, each segment is easy to understand and easily relatable.

The biggest concept I'd never really heard of before is the idea of compersion, or taking joy in the joy of a loved one - essentially the antonym of schadenfreude. When it comes to polyamoury, it's a major part of many - if not most - functional relationships. If you aren't happy and comfortable with the idea of people getting joy externally to their immediate relationship with you, it's all too easy to fall into jealousy.

At its heart, Opening Up has everything you need to introduce anyone to all the major and most of the minor ideas involved in polyamoury. If you're new to it as a lifestyle, or simply want to ground some of your thoughts, this is a great book for you; more to the point, though, this is an excellent book to use to introduce other people who aren't involved to your lifestyle. I'd recommend this to anyone who is looking to learn more about it, and its approachable nature makes it perfect for someone trying to figure all of this out.

Collaring, Part 2

So with my last post getting so long, I let it go without actually answering my feelings on the matter. So how do I feel about collaring? As I said, I am actually of mixed feelings on the matter - or rather, depending on the context, I fit into both of the major categories I talked about last week.

On the one hand, I find collars exceedingly useful, and use them frequently when fooling around with someone. Ash and I, for example, have a metal choke chain and a nylon collar on our headboard which admittedly haven't been used in the last couple of months, but are convenient when we want to grab them. They're convenient for grabbing onto; both only have a single attachment point, but it's enough for a leash or a carabiner or a padlock or attaching to some convenient hook, when appropriate.

I actually used to have a very nice leather collar with two d-rings on it, which was part of a matched set with four leather manacles; sadly, they were all lost when a backpack with a number of my toys in it was lost to an unusually uncommunicative ex. Let this be a lesson to you, kids; never leave your toys at someone else's house, just in case they break up with you and you can't reasonably get them back...

My point is, though, that these collars have no significance to me other than their convenience in the area of attaching them to people or other things. They do that job very well, but signify nothing else.

On the other hand, when I have a serious submissive or slave, at some point - if we want it to be permanent - we will talk about collaring. I've never done a formal collaring ceremony myself; but it still has significance to me as a symbol of my control/ownership. A submissive I will typically buy the collar for; while a slave will buy the collar themselves and present it to me to put on them - symbolically, it's the only thing they actually own, having given up everything else to their new owner.

(Obviously, that doesn't hold any legal standing... But so little of the lifestyle does.)

So yes - just to make it even more complicated than it otherwise might have been, never forget that a collar is just a collar... Until it isn't, and then it's something far more and significant.

Tuesday Links - Sexual Submission in and out of the bedroom?

Today's Tuesday Link is another Quora question I answered. Actually, this one I was tagged and requested to answer... But either way, the original is here: http://www.quora.com/Are-sexual-submissives-always-emotionally-submissive-in-their-relationships-outside-of-the-bedroom. Question and answer:

Are sexual submissives always emotionally submissive in their relationships outside of the bedroom?

TGIF again and my thoughts turn toward frisky fantasies such as D&S and S&M. A couple of weeks ago, I asked: Could you maintain respect for a submissive lover who worshipped you in potentially disgusting ways? Quite a few of the responses made it clear they thought that only someone with low self esteem and a constant sense of submission 24/7 could ever engage in such submissive behavior. To numerous respondents, it seems it was inconceivable someone could enjoy such games sexually, but turn off their submissive steak outside the bedroom. While I have not been in such a relationship, and so do not know, my guess is sexual submission is not related to submission in things outside of sex. Are those who enjoy being submissive in the bedroom usually or always suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder Symptoms? Am I guessing correctly that many view it as a way to enhance their sexual play, but are able to separate submission in sex play from submission in everyday life?

The short answer is, no, not at all.

The important thing to remember here is that most elements of BDSM and kink are separate. They can be - and frequently are - closely related, but they don't have to be. They can relate to different pieces of your mind and your personality. It's always going to come down to exactly how you relate to it.

Is your submission tightly linked to your sex drive? If so, then odds are high that your submission won't extend beyond the bedroom. In my experience, most submissives really fall into this category - people who enjoy being spanked, being held down, being tied up to be fucked, being blindfolded, enjoy the fuzzy handcuffs... Whatever it might be. There's no connection between that and being a submissive outside the bedroom. There are dozens, hundreds of kinks that fall into the "submissive" category and will get someone off even while they feel ashamed or humiliated or totally uncomfortable with them in public, or just simply don't fit into their day-to-day lives.

Also be careful because "sexual submissive" is such a broad category. Saying "I'm a sexual submissive" could bring up any number of different things with different people. It can be everything from pet play to bondage to sadomasochism (which, of course, extends from spanking to blood and everything in between) to humiliation/degredation to... Well, whatever you can think of. Things that you may consider submissive may be perfectly commonplace and *not* submissive to someone else. Does your partner, for example, take their shoes off when they get home, but you put them by the door? Or do you always ask if the want a drink whenever you're in the kitchen? Or whatever. Things which are just "typical and domestic" to you may be "submissive" to someone else, and it blurs the edges, because my answer may not be the same as someone else's not because they don't agree with the idea -but because they don't agree with my definitions. What may be perfectly normal sex to you may be strongly submissive in someone else's opinion.

Bonus Links: Kinky Insects

Offered more or less without comment... But a fair amount of amusement.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/handcuffs-traps-and-spikes-shed-light-on-sex-lives-of-insects/