Mistress Sonata asked this of my Sir Conundrum post:

I wonder if you could maintain the subspace but have the sub say "Master/Mistress, may I request a sidebar" which is like a safeword and will always be granted, like a "light Red" where you can discuss something in scene. Say you ask your sub to do something you haven't discussed prior and your sub wants to get it across to you that while they're still in obeisance to you and don't want to stop the scene, they don't want to do whatever it is you're asking of them. Then you acknowledge and go back to the scene and do something else (rather than stop the scene entirely). Thoughts?

And of course I am more than happy to respond! The short version of my feeling is, though, "not really".
The problem is that subspace - any fixed or fixated mental state, really -  is going to be past the point of rational decision-making about the situation they're in. A lot of subs, when they're floating in sub-space, will have serious problems trying to do so. Some won't be able to form words at all; some won't be able to remember the safeword. Even if that isn't true... Someone in subspace, as a rule, won't want to "break character" - they're strongly disinclined, by the nature of what they're doing, from saying "No, I can't do that" and displeasing their top. Or, hell, maybe they're gagged.

Even if the sub is tracking straight enough and wants to stop and say "No please, Master, I don't want to stop but I'm not okay doing that..." (a difficult enough thing at the best of times, let alone when in an altered state!), what if the Dom/me is in their own head space and doesn't respond? Subs and slaves aren't the only ones who can get deeply into the scene. A top can get "in the zone" and miss it - or not recognize it - or just forget.

If all that works - the sub can remember it well enough and get the question out, the top can respond correctly - subspace can be fragile. The more you interrupt it - by essentially interjecting an entire conversation into the situation - the less likely it is for subspace to survive.

So... Can it work? Yes. But... Only if the scene itself is already essentially outside of subspace - if it's a person playing at subspace, rather than someone actually totally in the mindset.

A better alternative is just the old standby of having multiple words. The example I've always heard as most common is red/yellow/green: red for "Oh my god no we need to stop RIGHT FUCKING NOW"; yellow for essentially the situation you describe above, a "this is pushing me out of my happy place, we need to get back on track"; and green for "Yup, all systems go." It could also be "bronze/silver/gold" or just about anything - "asparagus/rutabaga/mushroom". Something you can remember and that won't otherwise come up in your conversation.

I will also say, in the way you have it phrased there, I think there's a serious failing going on - on the side of the Dom/me. Why, when you're deep into a serious scene or situation, would you pull out something potentially threatening or dangerous that you haven't already spoken about? To me, that's a serious breach of trust on the part of the Dom/me. That's a failing in putting them in the situation in the first place... And there's really no good way for the sub to respond. Either they're broken out of subspace enough to respond rationally, or their trust is being abused in a way which is totally unfair to them.

And of course the continuation of the thought is that, in an ideal world, safewords shouldn't be necessary. Not that they aren't necessary; not that they can't be useful and important; not that they aren't an exceptionally good tool for people still feeling their way through their relationship... But it's a top's responsibility to know their sub's state - to take care of them, to keep them safe. It's the top's responsibility to not throw their sub into that type of situation.

The moral? Don't spring surprises on them when they aren't prepared to handle it. It will only really work well in a tiny minority of relationships.

An apology...

I'm on vacation! It was my original intent to post some posts ahead, but work plus business trip plus family made that turn out to be impossible, so you'll just have to accept my apology for leaving you in the lurch this week. I will return to my regularly scheduled posts next Tuesday, unless I end up with a lot more sudden free time than I really expect in the next three days!

To the Ends of Comfort and Beyond...

I've had a number of conversations with Bettina recently on the subject of variations on Dom/sub relationships. It's nothing she's ever done before - in fact, before becoming friends with me, I don't believe she's ever actually thought about it. We've had discussions all over the spectrum, from deep full-ownership Master/slave relationships to incredibly light part-time playing around, and it's been quite fascinating to me. I've done a lot of educating people over the years - I've never thought of it that way before, but that's pretty much how it is - and yet I've never actually gone through the process with someone who had started without any real preconceptions. She's coming at it knowing that she doesn't even know what she doesn't know... And she doesn't know what she's comfortable with. More than once we've hit subjects where her initial reactions were negative - fear- or socially-based prejudice, mostly - but she realized eventually she was comfortable with them. Similarly, more than once she's realized over time that a concept she thought she was comfortable with was a lot scarier than initially thought.

On the other hand, Sunshine and I met originally in the context of her looking for a Master, and our relationship - from day one - was framed that way. She had had several long-term D/s relationships before we ever started talking, and was reasonably well established. She knew up front essentially everything she needed to know about her interests, the lifestyle, the risks and benefits... Everything except my own little quirks. And more importantly she knew, for the most part, exactly what she was - and wasn't - interested in and willing to do.

Everyone has limits, generally in every context, but in kink those limits are usually far more explicit than they might otherwise be. Limits are integral to BDSM relationships, and are usually one of the most important pieces of any negotiation leading into a formalized agreement. Some people will discuss them briefly, informally, and then simply rely on their partners' discretion; while others will write out extensive contracts detailing lists of "do's" and "don'ts". Some very common limits include things like "no knives", "no public play", "no urine/scat", "no animals", "no blindfolds/gags" and even "no sex".

Generally, people will separate them into two groups - "soft" and "hard" limits. A hard limit is something that is flat-out forbidden under any circumstances, while a soft limit is something allowed only with explicit consent. Exactly what falls into either category varies widely (some would say "wildly") based on the people involved. To me, neither of them is particularly more important than the other; however, most people seem to emphasize hard limits far more. The problem with that attitude is that soft limits can be the far trickier minefield to navigate. With hard limits, it's always clear where everyone stands; while with soft limits there's always shades of gray. Some people will always interpret a refusal to absolutely refuse as tacit acceptance. Soft limits can lead to guilt and being coerced into things you may not otherwise be comfortable with.

In a sense, negotiation of a formalized relationship can be seen as reducing all soft limits to either allowed activities or hard limits - after all, once a contract (written, verbal or whatever) is drawn up, it's uncommon to allow for stopping to gain specific consent from the sub at random intervals.This can be a good source of understanding of your partner before really diving into things - especially if your relationship is new rather than the evolution of an older one.

The biggest mistakes people make around limits usually fall into two extremes of the same problem - not taking them seriously and so never setting any when they should, or not taking them seriously and violating them after they're agreed upon. The first is simply naive. Not that it's a mistake to intentionally set no limits; I'd say, rather, it's a mistake to set no limits because you dismiss their importance rather than because of a carefully considered agreement that it's where you want the relationship to go. On the other hand, ignoring limits because of dismissing their importance is far worse - it's a severe breach of trust. That way lies unhappiness, anger, abuse, and sometimes crime. Beware of people who fit into this category - no good can come of it.

The advice here should be obvious; know your limits. If you don't know them, you'll never be able to communicate them to your partners; and if your partners don't know what they are, the likelihood of them being broken goes up sharply. Understand that not everyone has the same limits, and something perfectly okay or perfectly terrifying to you may be the opposite to a new partner. And never be ashamed to set your limits and stand by them; without them, you'll never feel safe and develop your relationships to the point they eventually may reach.

Demi wha?

The lovely Persephone Bell put up a post on her blog - http://mileagedoesvary.blogspot.com/ -  about her own relationship with relationships, so to speak. She self-identifies as a demi-sexual, and - in her normal, very intellectual and detailed manner - described it and analyzed it... Rooted somewhere in the frustration of having to describe it repeatedly to people.

I self-identify as demi-sexual as well. I'll admit I don't know how long Persephone has identified that way - consciously, at least - but for me it's been a relatively recent thing. I wasn't incredibly conscious of the entire asexual spectrum until some time last year;  well after I was living with Ash. I did quite a bit of research into it, following up on this suggestion she'd made that might help explain part of me. Persephone did an excellent job of a lot of the details around it, many of which apply directly to me... So instead of duplicating her work I'll simply steal it and take my post in another direction - or at least reflect more directly my own experience and beliefs.

Most people seem to differentiate between "friends" and "relationships"... And the shortest version to describe my relationships is that I don't. Everyone - to me - is some shade of "friend"; a positive friend or a negative friend, maybe, but always on the same scale. It's not a matter of type, but rather a matter of scale or magnitude.

Think of it this way; since I'm all mathey by nature, think of it as a coordinate plane - as a graph. On your X axis, you have "mental comfort"; on your Y axis, "physical comfort". The two are essentially independent. Many things can affect them, and they can sortof interact a little, but mostly they operate separately. My mental comfort's biggest component is always trust: if I trust someone totally (fairly rare) my comfort with them tends to be extremely high, while if I don't actually trust them much at all my comfort with them has a very definite upper limit.

Physical comfort is a bit more... Nebulous. It's not just a matter of attractiveness; it's a matter of body language, perceived safety, hygiene, and any number of other things. I can be very sensitive to crowds; I can be very sensitive to personal space and proximity; I can be very sensitive to some types of mannerisms and habits... And all of it together just sometimes means I'm perfectly okay hugging and cuddling and casually, no matter how little I'm attracted to them or how little I trust them, while at the same time I've had one person in the past where I trusted them implicitly, talked to them constantly and told them everything, but wasn't even comfortable being in the same room very often.

Combine that with the fact that my sex drive just isn't particularly high; the desire to get off simply isn't a driving force for me. Do I enjoy it? Yes, very much - at least sometimes. It can be relaxing, it can be extremely pleasant, and it's frequently a good way to help me go to sleep in the evening... But it's not a goal in life the way it seems to be for most people. If I get off... Sometimes good, sometimes meh; and generally incidental to the situation at hand.

Don't get me wrong, I still look at folks sometimes and think "wow, she's hot!" The difference, as far as I can tell, is that I never really progress that thought as far as the "...and I'd really like to fuck her!" which many people have implied in there. Someone can be hot without really engendering any form of desire in me... And someone not being particularly physically attractive is not necessarily a limitation on my desire to spend the rest of my time with them.

When it comes to my interest in fooling around with someone? It's mostly just a natural extension of some people that I'm particularly comfortable with. Hugging isn't very distant from cuddling isn't very distant from petting isn't very distant from kissing isn't very distant from... Well, who knows. My interest and willingness frequently top out below "sex", but with good friends my natural level of "okay" my natural level of physical intimacy is above average; since it's usually a matter of comfort and not typically desire, it seems natural to be intimate (to some limit) because the "friend" vs. "lover" differentiation just isn't mentally there.

The worst part of this was not realizing this for so long. I can see, looking back, how this has been true for better than a decade, including the entire time of my marriage and a number of girlfriends before and after. It took until just the last two years - since I started living with Ash and we discussed it pretty bluntly. Puts a lot of things into perspective.

I guess my conclusion here is, don't assume everyone sees relationships in general or your own relationship specifically the same way you do. Some of us are different enough that what seems so perfectly natural - even is normal, in society as a whole - just doesn't compute.

The complement, of course, to how to refer to one's Dom, is how that Dom refers to you. A lot of the same things apply - as a sub, your name says a lot about you. Much more than with a Dom, however, a submissive's name can also say a lot about the situation they're in.

Part of the problem here is that "submissive" is such a broad term. For the sake of this, I need to differentiate someone who acts submissive and someone who is a submissive. Someone who plays submissive games, gets handcuffed or spanked in the bedroom, is a totally different place - a totally different mindset - from someone who submits as part of their lifestyle to a dominant or master. Someone who lives it as a lifestyle is invested in the idea of being a submissive; someone plays that way only in the bedroom is far more likely to be insulted by it in most contexts than appreciate it or look forwards to it.

Submissives frequently end up with a large number of names related to exactly what's going on at the moment. First and foremost, a sub will most often have their own, original name - the name they were born with. Very rarely will a sub be so deeply integrated into their relationship that they don't express their normal personalities; most subs live their day-to-day lives, work, hang out with friends, visit their families, do the shopping, etcetera. Often, though, they'll have a new name as well - a name given to them as, essentially, their slave persona. The name reflects their ownership, their new life, and is typically used only when they're actually actively submitting... Or when their dominant chooses to remind them of it.

Beyond those, though, it's incredibly common for a Dom and sub to use a laundry list of other names along the way. As an example, when working with a slave I use a few specific terms. "Little one" or "pet" indicate pleasure, and are used to refer to them when I'm pleased and content with them. "Girl," as a rule, indicates I'm not entirely happy with them - it's usually used to reinforce an order to clarify something or correct a problem. "Slave", when used as a term, indicates I'm upset with them over something, and want them to know it.

Obviously, every relationship is different. Some dominants may use gentle pet names; some may lean heavily towards "slut", "bitch", and equivalent. A daddy will lean towards something like "baby" or "princess" - after all, his little needs a cute name! While the master of a slave who is primarily for objectification or service or abuse may very pointedly never refer to them directly at all.

That shaping, that mental space, is the most important piece of this. You hear a lot about "subspace" (or at least I do), and keeping your submissive in an appropriate frame of mind is one of a dom's primary responsibilities in taking care of them. Without their correct frame of mind, at best your sub will be uncomfortable or at worst they'll be miserable - and the mental framing offered by a name is critical to it.

Names are powerful, in all aspects of any relationship - and moreso than ever in a kinky relationship. They can direct moods, shape mental state, and offer the context and communications critical in this type of relationship. Nowhere is that more true than with a submissive, where that name - or which name is used - can mean everything. As a submissive, be sensitive to how you are being addressed and let it guide you to where your dominant wants you to be; and as a dominant remember  your responsibility to care for your sub... And use those names carefully.

Bonus Transcripts: The best insect sex advice this side of Indonesia!

Some of you know, I'm in the process of listening to the Savage Lovecast back episodes. Earlier this week I listened to episode 209, and the last call he played included this gem:

Hi Dan. I'm a science graduate student, and for reasons beyond my control I had to spend my entire day today watching fruit flies try to get it on in little lab chambers. I've been here in the lab for the past 13 hours, watched and scored 156 pairs of fruit flies have - or attempt to have - sex, and listened to 21 Savage Love podcasts. Taking in all that advice you dispensed from episodes 1-21 of the podcast in my fruit-fly-courtship-induced delirium, I started to think of sex advice for fruit flies! Here it is for the benefit of your underserved fruit fly listenership; and who knows, maybe some people might find it helpful also.
Okay.
1) If you make a copulation attempt on a girl without following her around for a while first, your ass is going to get rejected.
2) You can sing to a lady all day, but it's going to get you nowhere unless you have the balls to get in there and do a little tapping and licking.
3) And finally, if you find yourself in a little glass-topped ceramic well with a virgin female, you might as well get it on because you've only got 10 more minutes to live.
Hope that's helpful, and Dan, thanks again for bringing a bunch more sex - be it gay, straight, bi, or dolphin - into this long day I've spent in the lab.

The Sir Conundrum

It hasn't been very long since I had someone calling me "Sir".

I mean, there are actually two girls who call me that on most of our interactions. One is my most recent submissive, Sunshine - when I released her, we've stayed friends and she continues to refer to me that way out of respect. It's more than a little bit, however, because our entire relationship was framed around that dynamic - we weren't friends first. The other is Pearl; she's not formally mine, and in fact she has submissives of her own, but that discussion has happened extensively. She prefers the comfort of considering me that way, and while I don't take responsibility for her we interact most often with a D/s dynamic.

It's been several weeks - a month or two? I would have to go back and look - since Sunshine was actually formally mine, however. She is no longer obligated to refer to me that way... But any of my subs or slaves are. So why do they?

To me, it's a matter of mindset. Most of the time, subs are people with whom I was already friends, and we have established patterns of interaction. They may refer to me by my name, they may refer to me by a nickname, or they may simply never really directly reference me in conversation.

As an experiment, pay attention to how you refer to people when you're talking. Really listen to yourself in three situations - when you're talking to them; when you're talking about them while they're there; and when you're talking about them while they're not there. It can be illuminating.

My point, though, is that I find it's useful to enforce a method of address for creating a differentiation in their head. It's frequently easier to have a submissive with whom you had a pre-existing friendship - it gives you a solid basis to work from. Unfortunately, many of those habits are counter-productive in a lot of D/s relationships... But those habits and that basis is something you want to modify and build from, not destroy. Using names to define that relationship clearly is one of the most effective ways to do so.

When I have a submissive or slave (and yes, I do differentiate; that distinction is for another day, however) they are required - when "on duty" - to refer to me as "Sir" or "Master". The former is considered polite and respectful; the latter is considered formal and is only required under specific circumstances (negotiations; formal requests; or any time they want to be especially respectful and butter me up, I suppose). It's convenient in that regard. I know that if they're referring to me as "sir", they're responding as a submissive and not just as my friend; if necessary I can use that to adjust the situation as required, and either reassure them that they can relax or point out that they aren't being as respectful as they possibly should be.

That particular policy is entirely my own, however, and while I've never heard anyone (except Bettina) object to it, I've never actually found anyone who had independently come up with the same - which is fine, since every relationship is different, too. The really important thing is to either use the name to define the context, or use the context to choose the name.

One Tumblr I've been following recently is one maintained by a Little - by a woman in a "Daddy/Little Girl" relationship. It's not a type of D/s that I have ever been involved in, but I have been involved in a number of variations on "pet"-style submission rather than "servant"-style, which is probably the closest I've gotten... But I can certainly appreciate the appeal of the dynamic. You see a lot of this there - they almost never use "master" or "sir" or "slave" or equivalent; it's a lot of "Papa" or "Daddy" or "Papa Bear" on the one side, and "Princess" or "Darling" or "Little One" or "Little Girl" on the other. It's sweet, and gentle, and very clearly frames to both of them when they're in Little space vs. when they're not.

And in that regard, a name can almost be like a safeword. If I tell my slave to do something and she very grumpily responds "But sir, that would blah blah blah" and tries to convince me otherwise, I may listen to her or I may shut her down, but we're in the same space - our D/s space. If she instead turns to me and says "Mike, I don't want to do that..." I know something is wrong - I know that the order or her mood or the situation snapped her far enough out of sub space that I need to figure out what happened and make sure she's okay.

You can call your top almost anything - Dom(me), Sir/Ma'am, Master/Mistress, Empress, Daddy, Lord, or whatever else. I used to know a couple where formal address was "Bastard" or "Dick" or some other similar insulting address. The important thing is understanding why the name is there; being conscious of the situation it brings; and being comfortable with them. Whatever you call them, it should be something you look forwards to - not something that makes you nervous or snaps you out.