Using Your Seat at the (Metaphorical) Table

Whenever a group of people who considers themselves to be disenfranchised fights for recognition and acceptance, they often use the metaphor of fighting for a "seat at the table." They want to be thought of as equals to those who already are part of the cultural norm. They want their thoughts to be considered in the conversations and their needs to be regarded as important and addressed along with those thoughts and needs of those who are already at the table.

I must give an incredible amount of respect to those who have fought for gender, racial, and sexual equality for all. They often risked not only social ridicule and rejection, but also many times risked life and limb. They went through hardships that many of us have only read about and been left to imagine.

However, we are at another stage in our growth as a society. Because of the work of our predecessors, we have the ability to claim alternative lifestyles as our own, we are able to talk to/date/love people of other races and one of these days we will hopefully be able to marry whatever gender we choose and have it be recognized legally and politically.

Yet even though many groups have won a seat at the table, there are many with an older-generational mindset who now eschew that seat and the discussions and friendships that might follow. I call this an older-generational mindset rather than a chronological issue because it is an antiquated belief system rather than an issue of age of the person in question.

There are people who say that they don't want to go to a specific event because they don't feel comfortable mingling. There are people who don't want to make others uncomfortable with their presence. There are people who say that no one can really understand them because the others didn't live through what they did. There are people who don't come to the table because even though they wanted the right to be there, they don't really feel like going through the added fight that it sometimes becomes to hold one's own with those others who are already seated there.

I think that there are three unfortunate aspects that occur because people are unwilling to all sit down together at the same table.

The first is that we do not give credit to our fellow humans to grow and change. We assume that things will always be how they have been. We do not grant our neighbors the ability to have the empathy to see our suffering and find that thing in themselves which recognizes our suffering as their own. We do not give full credit to the fact that people fear that which they don't know, and mistrust groups of people where they might not if they saw them as individuals. We do not take the responsibility to be uncomfortable so that people might eventually see us in the ways which are "like them" as opposed to the ways in which we are different.

I can tell you from personal experience growing up in the very rural Red State that I come from that it is a very different experience to understand that African Americans are equal than it is to have friends who are black with whom you hang out socially. There was only one black family in my home town while I was growing up, and they only lived there for about a year. So it was easy for people to verbally denigrate a group who were not present. They didn't have neighbors who ate with them and whose children played with theirs. So unless people had a firm sense of social justice within them organically, the notion of black rights and issues had no resonance or importance to them. But people like this are part of the voting public...

I think that many of the people in my home town have the ability to change, however, when they start to have direct interactions with people who are different. I have seen this when people start to have family members who are gay or who have friends who are gay. I have seen this when kids come home from college with a sweetheart from a foreign country. It may not be comfortable for everyone to go through the growing pains, but they do (for the most part) grow. Most of the time they do so because they are able to see the human-ness of the other people or they do so because they are motivated to drop their negative judgments for the sake of those they love.

I know my father had to grow outside his comfort zone when my college roommate, who he had gotten to know and like, came out of the closet as a lesbian. He was genuinely puzzled as to why someone would chose that life, but he finally shrugged and decided she was the same person she had been and went on about his life. And she and her girlfriend came to Christmas at our house a few years later, and everyone had a lovely time. We all would have missed some wonderful interactions and a chance to be more open and loving people had we not moved forward with the belief that people can change.

The second problem I see with not sitting at the table together is that those in the younger generation do not get to see their elders working/living peacefully together, nor do they have access to the amazing teachers and leaders of each group. How much of the population's brilliance are we missing because we block them out of the conversation, and how much more do we lose because we do not see it as our responsibility to sit at our seat and be heard?

If we want our society to get to a point where racial/gender/sexual issues are not a point of contention, the younger people coming up have to be taught by example that it can be done. And I think by looking at the younger generation in the kink community that they are much more open and fluid than we ever were. However, they may lack the knowledge and wisdom that the older generation has, and it may set them up for a much harder life if they are forced to reinvent the wheel at every turn.

The final problem I see with not being at the table is that by refusing to be uncomfortable, we open ourselves up for persecution in the future. If we are not part of the political conversation, if we are not part of the social conversation, if we are not an active part of our communities and culture then we are mute and helpless when things go wrong. It is fine to say we like spending time with our own tribe, but we cannot segregate ourselves totally.

Many of you have seen this quote changed up, but here is the quote by Martin Niemoller regarding the Nazis:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."


Perhaps this may seem overly dramatic. But as a student of history, I understand that backward movement happens. I think of the Dark Ages. I think of the fact it only took 150 years for people to lose the ability and scientific knowledge to fix the walls at Constantinople. I think of the inquisition and witch hunts. And I don't want to have my world be that way.

It's hard to be brave. It's hard to be uncomfortable. It's hard to fight again when you are weary from a lifetime of struggle. But I have to believe it is worth it.

I am one of the people who is hungry to learn from those who have come before me and who longs for a table full of loud, boisterous, and opinionated people who are different but the same.

And I'm not going to get that if I'm not at the table and if you are not at the table.

The Awkward, Pimply Adolescence of my Dominance

I can’t take credit for this metaphor. It was given to me by a very savvy slave who was attempting to help me express more clearly the place I found myself at on my journey. As soon as the phrase was uttered, however, I knew that this was the most succinct statement I had heard to-date to describe my growth from a submissive into a Dominant.

Although some people find their space in the kinky world and never shift from that position, I am thankful that there is a tradition to look to which espouses the notion of taking on each of the positions one might have in the D/s world with the theory that the best submissives/slaves make the best Dominants/Masters. I have found a bit of frustration, however, that there is not more written on the period in between. We see writings from the submissive/slave point of view regarding their journey. Heck, most people I know on that side of the slash have written a response to Slavecraft or “to my future Dominant” at some point in their lives. I also see lots of writings from Dominants and Masters as to where they are now and their expectations of themselves and those who serve them. But it is more rare (though not unheard of) to find a Master-in-the-making discussing the process as they are going through it…

This is similar to the frustration I found when looking to find the path of learning how to be a Mystic. You have the texts from the Mystics, and you study them, and if you’re lucky, you find someone to mentor you. But there aren’t all that many modern Mystics running around. There are all sorts of new age gurus who would love to let you cling to their yoga pants. There are any number of teachers who hang out in patchouli-scented occult stores who will be more than happy to tell you how you should find enlightenment while selling you a pentagram and a stylish cloak. But for the most part, I have found that there are a lot of “wanna-be” mystics out there and one is, for the most part, better off reading the texts from the Mystics of long ago.

I feel this way when looking at some Dominants and their writings as well. There are many people who call themselves Dominants or Masters in the lifestyle, but most of their writing is a regurgitation of something they heard someone else espouse, but that hasn’t really been practiced in their own life with any success. Occasionally it is only the stuff of spank fantasies, which although I’m as big of a fan as the next person, it isn’t really helpful if you are looking at implementing serious D/s in a 24/7 context into your life or becoming the type of person who is able to confidently claim their place in the kink world. I have been quietly listening to the handful of Dominants that make sense to me and I see being able to put their words into actions in their own lives. And I’ve been trying to read the books which have been written on the subject.

But so much of all of this is a part of the growth process that one has to experience for themselves to have it mean anything. As the saying goes, no one can eat your food for you. I guess what I’m saying is that it would be nice to hear more of the reassurance from Dominants/Masters that they did not spring from Zues’ head fully formed. That I am not alone in having this Jr. High stage of growth.

My voice is changing. It cracks a little when I spit out a command. It sounds a bit hesitant when it tries to claim a seat at the table where the more mature kids sit. It has the zits of puberty in the guise of half-formed flogging skills. The clothes and boots don’t look quite right because I haven’t “filled out” yet. I’m not cocky enough to inform the cute boy (or girl) at the locker next to me that they should get with me while they can because I’m pretty sure that in a couple years, I’m going to be one of the best rides ever. I want to be more self-sufficient, but I still need my Mom to drive me places. I haven’t mastered the mysteries of money and work, and maybe I’m a little more interested in play than in either of those. I can’t tell you to look at my track record to prove how good I am because the one I have isn’t long or impressive. I can ask you to trust me, but if you do, it’s because you’re brave and willing to take a risk not because of any evidence I can give you. My moods swing wildly with each perceived victory and crushing defeat.

There’s a part of me that wonders if this period will ever end… I cling to the notion that if I show up every day and go through the motions, and maybe work really hard on the stuff I enjoy, that I’ll pass and get to go to High School. However, I have been told by some of the smart Dominants I know that it’s not just putting time in/hanging out in the lifestyle that makes a really good D type. It takes skills and sweat and focus, and wanting it really, really badly. Or maybe just realizing that you can’t imagine a life without having that aspect working for you.

Just like in Jr. High, I find I am a wee bit jealous of those who have always known they were Dominants and never (seemingly) had any doubts as to who they were and what they were doing in the kink world. I am reminded sometimes that this is just an illusion, that even if one has always known where they wanted to be in the D/s dynamic that everyone has worries about whether they are “doing it right” or “will ever be good enough.” I think this is why many of us recoil from anything that sounds like rules for being a “twu” sub/slave/Dominant/Master. We know it’s ridiculous, but… If it’s true, we are afraid we will be measured and found wanting. We cling to the ideas that bring us more rather than less self-confidence.

Because many of us don’t have anyone to confer a cap upon us or a specific “age” when we’ve put in enough time to be considered “grown up,” we are having to decide for ourselves when we feel educated/confident enough to take up the moniker of Dominant. And perhaps we are all quaking in our genuine leather boots that someone will call us out on our “non-dominance.” Perhaps the reason we learn how to brag and posture is so that no one will doubt our mastery of ourselves.

I don’t really have a lot of answers. Maybe, like the wisdom of the Mystic, I wouldn’t have any idea what to do with the answers if I were given them. Right now, all I can really say is that I’m willing to go through the work and “ugly period” to get to the good stuff.

But some days, I just wish I could grow up a little bit faster…

The First Guy I Ever Loved Is Now A Girl

We were teenagers. Seventeen to be exact. We were a little stranger than our contemporaries, though no one was probably aware how strange, not even ourselves. We were trying to navigate the pitfalls of rural life in a Red State.

And we loved each other. No matter what all occurred, I cannot bring myself to doubt that...

We made it through three years together. We lived through my senior year, my first year of college where we lived apart in different towns, and then the year I moved in with him and commuted to school.

We got engaged, something that everyone in our small town thought one should do when one has been dating for any length of time. I pushed for it, partially from the aforementioned social expectations and partially because my hopeless romantic mind had settled on him as the person with whom I would spend the rest of my life. I think there was a part of him that hoped by doing what was considered "normal" that it would make his heart and mind feel differently than it did.

There came a point where we had almost no physical or sexual intimacy. There was his intimation that if I were slimmer that we could experiment with sexual positions. There was the an infatuation on his part with a mutual friend of ours who had caught his eye with her feisty and fierce edges (mine had softened over time). There were many reasons that were given when he finally ended things between us. In the end, he wasn't wrong to do what he did, but at the time, I couldn't see that. All I could see was that the world I had imagined was crumbling.

Unfortunately, the stated reasons for the breakup stayed with me. They haunted my next relationship and my next... I took them to heart, believed in their truth, and let those beliefs shape how I viewed myself and my love life.

I still stayed in contact with him for a long time. I watched as he broke up with the mutual friend he dated after me. I was there at his wedding to a lovely girl I liked very much. He was one of the few people who I told I was into BDSM and was taking the plunge to move to a new city with my Master and his slave. And then, in the course of delving into my own life, I lost track of him.

The rumor mill in small towns is a killer, and at first I didn't believe it when I heard that he was coming into the town grocery store dressed as a female. I had been on the receiving end of some ugly rumors, so when my parents asked if I had heard anything, I assured them it was probably nothing more than either rumor-mongering or an extreme misunderstanding.

It wasn't until I was back visiting my home town in person that I bumped into an old mutual friend of ours who confirmed the news. Not only had my former fiance started dressing as a woman, but he had started the hormone and surgery process to become one.

By this time in my life, I had been exposed to Trans-folks in all differing stages, so it wasn't some huge shock in and of itself. However, it was the first time someone I had been so incredibly in love with and sexually intimate with had made that change. It took me a little bit to come to terms with because of that.

I finally called the number I had for him... now her... and a voice answered the phone. Unrecognizable and female. It was him. No, *her*.

She was nervous when I identified myself, not knowing why I called or what reaction her change was going to elicit. She told me the story of how she had gotten so depressed she was going to kill herself. How she stopped at the last minute and decided instead to be willing to suffer all that would come from daring to start a new life. She told me about her mostly amicable divorce from her wife. Of starting hormones. Of her new boyfriend (who I knew from our home town as well).

She also told me that she had wanted to be a woman, felt as though she was supposed to be one, from when she was much younger. She told me of a conversation between the two of us (which I have no recollection about) where she told me she had "girl thoughts" and I kind of "reared back" and she decided that she couldn't go ahead and tell me the truth. Knowing me, I'm pretty sure my response would have been the non-understanding reply of "Well, I have boy thoughts," by which I would have meant my stereotypically male desire for sex, beer, and watching football.

I like to think that if she had told me, that I would have understood. That I would have been accepting. But this may be giving my younger self way too much credit. I was still a product of the culture I lived in, and she would have been crushing my dreams just as much with that information. I don't actually know that I would have been able to be supportive and open-hearted. She may have been right assuming she wasn't safe...

The thing that I had to do now was to go back and re-write the pages of my history that I was so sure of before. I had to allow that there had been not as much wrong with me as the fact that I was a woman, and would not have worked as a life partner for him (now her) unless I was a man. All the assumptions I made, all the pain I took on, all of the "stories" I created about "reality" back then... none of them were true.

I am glad for her in her life as it is now. Everyone has the right to at least attempt to do what they can to make themselves happy.

And I am thankful for the gift of truth she gave me that allowed me to go back and let go of a lot of the emotional baggage I had taken on from during and after our relationship. Almost in an instant, what I had carried for almost my entire life melted away.

I wish that we had been able to feel safe with one another and to be honest back then. But we were young, and we did the best we could. Today, I am kinky and she is female. And I am glad we both made it here to see this moment.

Leather

I've been thinking for a while now about how one would describe what "Leather" is as a lifestyle and mindset. I have found that most of the written explanations tend to be unsatisfying either because the given definitions have such a large scope they tend to become so broad/vague they are useless as descriptors to the uninitiated or they focus merely on the obvious behavior or physical "leather" and become overly simplistic.

First, what I have come to understand is that the minds of Leatherfolk are very different than others in the lifestyle. They tend to be connected to notions that have been present for a very long time. Some people attribute this to the military influence in Leather, but I have found that this is also true of religions/philosophies whose lineage stretches back into antiquity. There are many characteristics in Leather that can be found in the monastic, military, and philosophical literature of countries like China dating back to the time of Buddha (and before). Some of these ideas relate to honor, order, justice, devotion, mindfulness, obedience, discipline (and disciple-ship), and the way Mastery is obtained through study, mentorship from a Master, and one's own practice.

This is not to say that others in the lifestyle do not share some of these notions, but there seem to be a much larger collection of those people in Leather and it is much more clearly woven through their actions and philosophies. The closest thing to this in a group in the lifestyle is with a small percentage of those who work in Rope, who honor and study the lineage of those who came before and take on some of the same characteristics noted above. They are also more formal and serious of mind than the garden variety "rope bondage enthusiast." In a room full of Rope people, they are the minority, and they are also very easy to pinpoint with just a small amount of conversation.

The second thing I have noted regarding Leather is a deep commitment to fostering community. This is organically helped along by the way in which knowledge is transmitted (disciple-ship) and by the emphasis on service, which requires one to consider how one's actions can better the life or endeavors of others. But it is also true that much of the activism in kink comes from folks who see the need to protect and promote our ability to live the life we choose in the world at large. It is always easier to create change in a world when we practice solidarity. It is not enough that the folk in Leather have thrown off the chains of societal expectations, but there are a number of these folk who feel compelled to make it a point of activism so that those who come after them are able to live more freely and openly in the world. Again, there is crossover in the sex-positive groups, but Leather seems to collect these sorts in greater numbers.

The third thing I've noted is in the "metacognitive" arena. Those in Leather tend to attempt to understand the way their minds work and what characteristics of mind and personality they find important. From there, they then codify those notions, creating protocols and rituals which promote the desired state of mind/headspace. Although Leather has fetishized things such as the cloth of leather and things like boots/vests, if you stripped away the accoutrements, you would still have a whole host of actions/thoughts/functions that connote Leather. If you stuck a group of naked lifestylers in a room, it wouldn't take long for the Leatherfolk to find each other. I see the focus on how one thinks as a difference between some of the other groups of fetishists who, if their items were taken away (shoes, latex, etc.), would not have any other element that would promote cohesion. I also see Leather as different from groups who practice some of the actions that the Leather community does (Gorean training/protocols/positions come to mind), but most of these groups do not spend so much time thinking about their own thinking (which is the definition of metacognition).

Finally, the thing that means the most to me regarding Leather is the focus on the growth and mastery of oneself as a human, regardless of where one falls in the "chain of command." It is equally important for submissives and slaves to strive for excellence as it is for Dominants and Masters. This reminds me of humanistic therapists such as Abraham Maslow, who promoted the notion of self-actualization as the pinnacle of the Hierarchy of Human Needs. Although it is true that some people use the D/s or M/s dynamic to hide or deny change/growth through the use of a formal, rule-driven system, many more see the dynamics as critical to facilitate further growth. One must do one's own self-improvement and skills/knowledge acquisition, but there comes a point where we need others to push us to most fully become what we have the potential to become. Again, one can still have solid D/s or M/s dynamics or receive mentorship and not be Leather, it just again seems that there are larger collections of like-minded people to be found in this one place, which is Leather.

I am not saying that there aren't problematic individuals who crouch under the banner of Leather, nor am I saying that there aren't stellar individuals who embody these important characteristics who do not affiliate with Leather. But I am saying that there is much which speaks well of those who identify as Leather. For me, it is important that those I surround myself with have a seriousness of mind, a respect for lineage, and a devotion to the growth of themselves as humans, their relationships, their communities, and their world.

If all the trappings of the world fell away, I would still be able to identify these folks as a tribe, and one which has many stellar qualities to recommend it. Do I look like I'm Leather? Probably not, as long as you are using only your eyes...

The Difference a Safeword Makes

Apparently the universe has been reminding us of lessons we have (or should have) learned long ago. This week I got what my former Master calls "an expensive lesson for a cheap price."

With more BDSM elements finding their way into the vanilla world, we are having some odd disconnects with things that in the lifestyle keep us safe but that don't have a vanilla counterpart yet. There is a goodly amount of porn that features rough sex and some humiliation. Now I have to say I find watching this hot. But the problem is if men and women are learning to have sex from this, they are missing some of the critical structures that we have in the lifestyle that are understood and agreed upon. For me, I see there being three very important ideas that are missing from the vanilla introduction into rough sex.

First up is the notion of consent. Most people in the vanilla world know you have to have someone's consent to have sex with them. But sometimes the lines blur about consent, as often people assume no direct dissent means consent. Or it's ok not to have verbal consent if you don't let things lag long enough for the other person to voice dissent.

The second important element is negotiation. In porn, we see actors engaging in behavior without seeing any discussion as to what is going to happen or what the limits are. We don't see it, but porn stars negotiate what acts they will and won't do and the pay that is to be given for each act. They have already (theoretically) negotiated.

From the consumer side, however, all we see are two people meeting up and having "spontaneous" sex. They engage in sex acts that don't require permission and move from one type of sex fluidly into another. There are no stops for further negotiation. And even though we know in the back of our minds that things are consensual, in some of the rougher videos we hear dialogue that sounds anything but...

I think there are now generations where people feel like a form of consensual non-consent is supposed to happen related to the sex act. By this I mean if you go to the dorm room with someone you have implied consent for whatever happens, or if you get in a car with someone, again, implied consent. You put yourself in a situation where you obviously wanted sex. So you must want everything that happens. And once you are involved in foreplay, you have consented to go wherever the other person wants to take you. You both can employ all of the rough sex visuals you have learned (both male and female here)and you are doing "what is normal."

But did you really want to do everything you saw in the video? Is face slapping ok? Rough anal? Verbal humiliation? And what happens if you want half of that but not all of that? There is a huge amount of cognitive dissonance going on when you are enjoying and want half of it but not all of it.

But I think that the final and most important thing that we have here in the BDSM world is the safeword. Granted there are predators and unethical people in the lifestyle who will disregard a safeword. But for the most part, everyone is committed to the idea of a safeword and it's ability to slice through whatever else is in play to stop a scene. We are able to relax into edge play activities because we know that in the end we have control over what we are doing and having done to us.

Theoretically the safeword in vanilla sex is "no." But there is a sense that you aren't supposed to say no when you are in the middle of things. You aren't supposed to bring the sexy time to a halt if you've been enjoying things up until this point. And sometimes it's easier to go along with something you don't really want than deal with the imagined repercussions of stopping things. The notion of implied consent is strong.

Add to this the problem of introducing non-negotiated acts, where the other person is just going with the perceived flow of things. It's hard to hear no when the person's face is buried in a pillow or you have your hand over their mouth. And obviously it's hard to say it. It's hard to know when you've crossed a line.

Although it's easier to see this sort of thing happening to whomever it is on "the bottom," I think there are also pressures on the "top" to perform or continue, even if the person discovers in the middle of a sex act that the action is distasteful or damaging to them. It may look sexy to slap a person in the face, but what happens if that action brings up things inside you that you just don't have a framework to deal with?

I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in BDSM relationships. But it is the idea that we try and limit these sorts of misunderstandings as much as possible. We have support networks to talk about what happens to us in a scene gone wrong. We are highly aware of all the things that can go wrong (or we should be), and we have consented to some acts and put limits on others.

I think it's important to educate the vanilla world in some ways if we are luring them down the dark rabbit hole to kinky sex. We need to encourage people not to be afraid to talk about what sorts of things they might like or not like BEFORE they are engaging in "deviant sexual acts."

And finally, we need to de-stigmatize stopping a sexual encounter in the middle if things are going on which are not desired/consensual. We in the lifestyle have made a commitment to the idea of a safeword. It is our honor that is on the line if we don't support this idea, and our honor means something to us. But those in the vanilla world have not made the same commitments we have. They don't quite yet understand how to handle the darker sides of sex, even if they are engaging in it.

It may not have yet become clear to the vanilla world that no matter what something looks like, the difference between rape and rough, consensual sex are these three elements. The difference in the world of kink between edgy foreplay and assault is the ability to say a word and make it all stop, even if that word is never uttered.

If we are going to share our lovely, dangerous vices with the curious vanilla world, we have a responsibility to also share our safety nets.

And if you think it's not your responsibility to do so, you might want to reconsider. After all, just because you're kinky doesn't mean you automatically consent to a person doing something to you just because it's on your fetish list. Making the world a safer place is everyone's responsibility.

Fear

When we are children, we are taught to fear things. Our parents don't want us to be hurt, and therefore try and instill in us fear of what might hurt us. We are told not to touch the stove, because we can get burnt.

But more than the words, we are given an emotional valence to go with it. We are instilled with an accompanying reaction that makes our lizard brain fire up all the "fight/flight" chemicals and shove them through the body, increasing our respiration and our heart rate. Our mind worries. We imagine vividly the pain of the event, experiencing the hurt when in fact no hurt has occurred. But in this process, we train the mind to instantly bring up all these responses when we see/hear/think about that which MIGHT hurt us.

And then we are adults...

If I were to say to you to fear the stove now, you would probably pat me on the head like the deranged auntie that everyone humors. But how many things in your life do you unconsciously think about that immediately make your mind worry and inspire the fear response right now?

It would be foolish to avoid the stove because it might hurt us. We would miss out on things like yummy, warm food. It would be foolish to walk a large circle around our stove to avoid it.

It is one thing to understand that things may hurt us. It is another to fear them.

Here's the downside to fear... in the world of energy, fear is powerful. It gives power to the object creating the fear and it takes power away from us.

My former Master and I were discussing Kevin Smith's response to the threats and picketing against his film Red State by the Westboro Baptist Church. He was jovial and invited them to his screenings, he reverse-picketed their picketing with signs reading "God Hates Press Screenings" and so forth. In the face of threats against his family and his life, Smith went along as he always does... with a huge dose of in-your-face humor.

This is seemingly either bravery or insanity when faced with a force which is obviously able to (and not afraid to) hurt you. And while there may be many reasons to condemn Smith's actions, what I can say is that I feel him refusing to show fear when faced with potential danger is a good role-modeling of how one might handle that which is dangerous.

I think it is important to show people that giving into fear only dis-empowers you and empowers that which you are afraid of.

I remember being really upset after 911 in the election year when I was at a baseball game and pamphlets were being passed out on how to handle a terrorist attack. It wasn't the fact that the pamphlet had information in it on making sure you had a water supply, blankets, first aid kits, etc. It was the fact that all of the faces on the pamphlet were horribly worried and the writing in it was highly charged to provoke fear.

The problem I have with this is that in most cases, if there is a problem, you can't really do much more than you can do (which in many cases is very little). You can be prepared in general, which is prudent, but otherwise, being afraid of any even is pointless. Just because it might happen doesn't mean you should worry about it happening all the time and be afraid. It might NEVER happen. And you would have spent your whole in a fear-state for NO REASON. It did not keep you safer. You experienced the catastrophic event in your mind and your body. But there was never any reality. And even if the event does occur, after having been in fear state for so long, your reserves are probably tapped out and you aren't in any better position to deal with it anyway.

So why make us afraid of things like this? Because it puts us in that child state again, and we are easily manipulated and lead.

Some might argue that the pulse-pounding rush of adrenaline is hot and fun. Ok. Fine. But that is a limited point in time while you're watching a horror flick or doing "fear play" in a scene. But living that way is consenting to have no power and to give your power to cope away. And where it goes in the spiritual/energetic realm is to the thing you are afraid of or to the people who are manipulating your fear.

One of the mantras in Reiki (written by Mikao Usui) is this:

"Just for today,
do not anger, do not worry,
Do your work with appreciation,
Be kind to all living things."

The translations vary a bit, but you can see the meaning. If I find I am battling against my own tendency to worry (or all the worry floating about in the ether), it is comforting to think that just for today, I can put down the worry. And if every day I affirm this, then every day I am letting go of fear...

If we are to give power to other people, things, or ideas, it should be done with our full intention and consent.

There is not much I am afraid of at this point. Don't get me wrong, I have a preference and I have the normal, knee-jerk reaction to try and avoid pain in many instances. But I work through all of that to be more in control of my reaction and where and to whom I grant my power.

To be a total geek, I often think of the scene in Dune where the Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother holds the Gom Jibar (a needle-like weapon) at the neck of Paul while creating excruciating pain in his hand through nerve pressure while it's in "the box." The notion is that it is a test of being human, the ability to save one's life through not giving in to the animal instinct against pain. In order to help his mind combat this urge, Paul repeats this mantra against Fear:

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."

Now just so we have levity in this, I will tell you I got an awesome sticker at Comic-con one year that was this mantra but with it being all about Beer instead.

I am purposefully adding geekery and humor to this because I want to practice what I preach.

I understand that life might hurt me. But I'm going to laugh at it for as long as I am able...

Fully Formed

The myth of the birth of Athena has the goddess of wisdom and warfare springing from her father's head fully formed.

When Buddha was born, he immediately began walking, and lotus flowers sprung up from where he stepped. We have stories of him having experiences leading up to his "sudden enlightenment" under the Bodhi tree, but as far as I can tell, he never really fucked up on his way to enlightenment.

Luckily for us, Buddha was able to set forth a way in which one could reach that same freedom. However, following such a path is not as easy as it seems. When we reach another educational milestone, we can often look back and see our missteps and the extra work we wouldn't have had to do if we had just known then what we know now...

We also do not know for certain what happened between Jesus' birth in the manger to when he showed up as the Messiah. We know the outcome, but we aren't quite sure what happened to get him from point A to point B. We don't get to see the mistakes, the corrections, the events which honed the character of this holy man.

Other figures in history (or myth) may have more of their early lives set down in print for us to study. We get to see how they were influenced, who they learned from, and how they "came into their own" eventually.

Many young monks study under Masters so that they can have a direct transmission of knowledge from those who have attained a certain level of distinction in the spiritual realm.

Because my path of personal growth involves both the spiritual world and the BDSM one, I often take the same questions from one into the other. There are many traditions, including Leather, where someone wishing admittance into this realm submits to a Master in order to grow toward either their highest form of submission/slavery, or to their own Mastery.

Although some of the more formalized paths to apprentice oneself have been lost in parts of the lifestyle, one can still find mentors. There are also groups which will help provide a template to judge one's progress in one's Mastery in the BDSM world. You can look at a rubric to determine how well you are progressing in skills acquisition, community service, household building, etc. There are classes you can take, books you can read, events you can attend...

Yet even though this progression towards one's highest calling (whatever that is) has a lineage and suggested possible "ways of becoming," there is still some notion that Masters should come fully formed. That although it's ok not to know things as a submissive or slave ('cause training is hot, yes?), if you desire to be a Master, you should have it all figured out.

Some of this might be because of a lack of good words to describe the growth process. I have heard some say they are "on the Master path," but what does one call a person who desires to be a Master, and yet has not attained a level to which they can claim Mastery? You can say you are a "Master in Training," of course. But are you really training under an actual Master? When do you know you have attained Mastery if you don't have an actual person mentoring you?

If there is no Leather gods to give you the title, I suppose you can look at the rubric and figure out if you've crossed off all the requirements. You can just put the title on your Fetlife page and not worry about it. You can wait until you have a person in collar that makes you feel like you can now prove you are Master.

I guess what always interests me as far as assuming titles is the "between times" when you are not a Master, and yet you are not truly a submissive or a slave either. I feel like everyone should always be learning things, and so education is never done. We all have room to improve until we're dead. But in the lifestyle, you are asked to chose words to describe yourself unless you are part of a unit which does that for you. Otherwise, it's up to you to decide when you have reached a state where you have earned the title you choose.

Again with the unstated beliefs, people don't usually feel like you "earn" the title of slave or submissive, which I think doesn't get talked about so much. You are one, and there is no level of attainment as far as title goes unless you want to "work your way up" to be a Master, which can imply something as well.

Half of what I know of M/s I learned from my former Master. He found Mastery to be his calling. He says that he thinks all Masters have doubts at some point about their abilities to accomplish things or to be the type of person they would like to be. But he never really doubted his desire to be a Master. It just felt right to him. He was able to learn and grow in tandem with his slave. However, they had known each other before the M/s dynamic came into play and perhaps they trusted each other more because of that.

He has said to me that you have to expect to fuck up. And you have the responsibility to make things right, no matter how long it takes. To him, Mastery is not the absence of mistakes, but the commitment to minimize them if one can and to correct what needs corrected.

This man was also my mentor in my zen studies. It is said that you can always tell who a student's Master is by the way the student thinks and is trained, as if there were a indelible mark left behind along with understanding. I also believe that it is a reciprocal state, that in any long-term relationship you begin to see the mark of the student on the Master as well.

My former Master gave me some advice concerning my growth in the spirit world. He said to not let fear keep me from learning what I need to learn, to take my time and not rush myself, and the thing he did not say (but I heard loudly) was to gain knowledge and understanding so that when you have power, you make quality, informed decisions that you hopefully will not regret. And if you screw up, you have the responsibility to fix whatever you have broken.

He also said that in teaching me things, he is extending his world view, his view of M/s, and his ability to affect positive change through me and my actions in the world.

I assume I will know it when I reach the points I'm supposed to reach, that I will step into the boots I'm supposed to wear in both worlds. Hopefully my growth and action will bring honor to him and to his house.

I am not stepping into this life fully formed. I am in the amorphous stage where there is much that is unknown. There is a discomfort to bear when one is shifting, approaching a "level up" energetically.

I take comfort in the fact I am not alone, and that I have been given the time and grace to grow...

Transparency on Both Sides of the Slash

There are always articles and blogs and posts about how people on the right side of the slash should be practicing transparency.

I believe that it is a very worthy goal to communicate the truth of our souls to another person or persons. We want the people with whom we are connected to have the deepest and most intimate bonds we can create.

We are terrified of people seeing our true selves and all the ugliness we are worried we have within us. We believe if they could see everything, they would be ashamed, repelled. They would leave us. And what this means to the lizard brain is what it meant back in ancient history; if we are cast out of the village, we will be alone in the forest and eventually be eaten by wolves. To our our ancient mind, rejection equals death.

When we begin to unfold our selves, we feel incredibly vulnerable. We do not know that we are safe. And sometimes, we aren't. But when we are able to open and not be hurt, we then are able to open more. It is a process of knowing someone...

Where I think we may get into trouble in the lifestyle is the the notion that it is only the business/work of the submissive or slave to work on their transparency. There are journaling activities, verbalizing practices, support networks, and so on, all targeted at getting the "s" types to open up and share everything with their partner(s).

But what about the other side of the slash?

I find that sometimes, Dominants and Masters don't always think that it's necessary to share with such openness. That it's ok to hide themselves from their partners for the sake of increasing the dynamic. The thinking goes that if my submissive or slave knows all of me or my mind/goals/plans, that they will be in a power position instead of me. The left side of the slash is maintaining their power by withholding knowledge. And as we know, knowledge is power.

This sort of secrecy works out to act as a blind to hide behind when a lower case letter asks about whether or not the upper case types were aware of something or had plans to do something. The upper case can then lie and say "Oh, yes, of course I knew that" or "I already had that planned, and you are trying to ruin the surprise/top from the bottom/be impatient." They get to appear smarter or better prepared because their counterparts are not let in to know their minds.

It is not always the case that Dominants are using non-transparency to hide lacking they might feel or to try to increase their power through opacity. Sometimes they are just not in the emotional habit of being vulnerable. Sometimes they have become a capital letter just so they don't ever have to feel out of control or emotionally vulnerable. A hint: it never works out that way, but most people don't listen to that hint...

I can tell you what the worst thing about working on transparency and openness is from my point of view. If I am trying to share my deepest self, and I send that out to another person and it is met with... a stone wall... I feel terribly alone. Or when I share my fear or joy and all I get back is, "Good girl. Thanks for sharing..."

There is nothing that makes you feel more alone in a "relationship" than placing all of yourself in someone's hands and being in receipt of nothing of themselves in return.

Some argue that the Dominant will know you and make decisions in your best interest and you don't really need to see them in the same amount of clarity. You just need to develop trust of their decisions and you will be fine.

But I always wonder who it is that I am putting my trust into? What are their fears? What are their joys? What are their hopes and dreams? Am I expected to wait until they give me an order and I will just do it and nothing further?

Maybe this means I am not good at being a lower case. But no matter what side of the equation I am on, I want to know the mind of the person I am serving or who is serving me. I want to be able to know how I can make their life better in ways that will matter deeply to them. I want to be able to offer them alternatives if I cannot give them directly what they need (and vice versa). I want to increase their joy. And if I cannot help them, I need to experience sorrow with them for the perceived lack.

And on a purely practical note, how will a submissive or slave know that their Dominant/Master has ethics and morals (or hell, even kinks) that align with theirs if they don't know who this person is on the deepest level?

How can you have true consent if you don't know what you are consenting to? How can you know you really want A SPECIFIC PERSON to serve or be served by you if you don't know who they are? Why would you want to give power to an unknown quantity? Do you let some person off the street hold a knife to your throat?

If all you want is your coffee given to you, then all you need to share is how you like your coffee.

But if you want to know the entire mind and soul of a person, then I'm afraid you need to be willing to give that in return.

Maybe what you want "ain't that deep."

But that doesn't work for me. I like getting deep. It's messy. It's scary. I get hurt and I hurt. I recoil and close, and then push myself to open back up. I ebb and I flow...

But without that vulnerability, without that openness and sharing, I can never have the kind of relationships I want. So I keep practicing transparency.

It is my work to be willing and able to be transparent, no matter what side of the slash I inhabit. It's hard. I admit, I'm not the best at it. But I assume I will get better, as will my counterparts. And one of these days, we will truly see each other.

And no one will be cast out of the village and be eaten by wolves:)

I Know What I Want

I know what I want.

It’s not uncomplicated.

I have often fought the two seemingly dichotomous desires for the simple life and an amazing life of adventure and magic. I have often thought that because some of my desires are uncomplicated and universal (the need for love and affection, for example), that I myself am uncomplicated. And to be sure, there are parts of me that are very straight-forward; I am pretty happy with the good food/good fuck/good nap model of things.

But on the other hand, I’m not sure why I thought that the rest of me is (or should be) uncomplicated. I apparently like the complicated side of life. But there has been some confusion of late as to exactly what my part of the D/s world looks like.

First and foremost, I think that labels are often lacking in depth of meaning and although they are a useful shorthand way to start a conversation, they do not accurately/completely describe complex human beings.

Here is what my world looks like at this time:

I am a submissive in service to the Universe. I do not use the word slave here, as there is always (and must be) the integral notion of free will. And it is not something you can say is totally out of your control, as you are always able to decide not to take the call when it comes. There are prices for that, but it’s always your choice.

I’m poly and love a lot of people. I also like to have multiple partners, but I’m not as much of a slut as some people think (or would like me to be). I’ve been in monogamous relationships and been perfectly happy, as long as the person in question didn’t mind that I still loved (but didn’t sleep with) other people. I like men and women, though it’s hard for me to be in a relationship with just a woman because I love the male energy and the penis so very much.

I have deep levels of slavery running through my veins, but also those of mastery and dominance. I attribute some of this to past lives of both types. Some of it has to do with the energy of the people I am with and what it calls out of me.

I am inspired to become more sometimes to augment my ability to serve and sometimes to augment my ability to lead/control.

Hell, all of it is service, it just depends on how that service looks and what label you’re putting on it.

I like to top and bottom in play. I don’t call myself a switch because some people make assumptions about what that means and they would probably be wrong on all counts.

Calling myself a submissive does not mean that your property is safe from me. What makes your property safe is my ethical stance and your property’s devotion to you…

But forgive me if I digress…

What I want. I know what that is. I don’t often share this because I’m fairly private for being as gregarious as I often am and as open as I try to be while living my life. But sometimes it feels like there are things that really are no one else’s business (besides those people with whom I’m involved). There are people who are on the “need to know” list. And you probably know if you’re on mine.

And I don’t often share my other lists of the things I want in a potential relationship because it’s not really a “job listing” sort of thing I’m looking to fill. But I do have lists, if nothing else but to maintain clarity in my mind of what it is I am requesting of the universe. This is not the place for posting lists, and if you are overly curious, perhaps we can have tea and conversation regarding these items. But now is not the time for that. I attempt to trust the universe will put people in my path who are interesting/interested and we can take it from there…

What is difficult is believing and trusting that the universe cares about me and my desires enough to help out with this issue. I have no problem having faith for other people…part of my job in service is to have faith for other people when their faith is flagging.

But I have found that it is always harder for humans to have this for themselves than it is for them to have it for others. It seems it is also easier for us to have compassion for others than for ourselves as well.

I am blessed to have wonderful friends who have faith for me when mine flags.

I had a wonderful lunch this week with one of my dear friends who worked me through my latest moments of doubt. She urged me to own what it was that I wanted. To have faith that the universe would be listening and that in making this statement of desire, I would cleanse the fog from my third eye and be able to see those things which before I had been missing.

So this is where I am now. I am not confused. I am not delusional. I’m not wishy-washy because the labels don’t stick on me the way they’re supposed to stick…

I’m just not uncomplicated.

And I know what I want.

Until We are Just Names... (friends who are just like us, but different)

I realize the human mind is divided in the way it functions...

Part of our mind likes to name and categorize and organize to make sense of the world. It is a function of how we learn. When we are first presented with new information that doesn't fit any schema, we must figure out everything we can about this thing so that when we are given another piece of information, we can know whether it fits with the earlier information or not.

As we age, most things are put in the specific boxes or files (or however you imagine your mental storage works) that already exists. Researchers say that it is actually good for us, however, to retain brain plasticity (neuroplasticity), which is the brains ability to reform its pathways (which most recently has been studied regarding people who have suffered brain damage of some sort). We don't have to have something traumatic happen to us to cause this rewiring of ourselves, though. New experiences, points of view, and neural challenges all aid in keeping our brain changeable and supple.

There has been a lot of segregation lately of different groups of people. It is always justified as necessary to give proper time and attention to those whom we term as "our own." But I have a problem with this. And it is that as long as there are camps of "us" and "other," it will always be easy to see the other as the enemy and not the friend who is just like us, but different.

I understand that using designations of straight, gay, leather, latex, poly, white, black, slave, Master, sadist, and so forth, all have some useful meaning. It allows us to have a vague notion of something in a very short amount of time. It gives us a schema for thinking about people and possible ways of approaching those people.


The problem comes when we believe we know everything about that person from those titles. We are tempted to think we know their entirety. We are also tempted to think that because they go into a separate box from us that they are "different" from us.

What happens when we have direct contact with people on a regular basis is that we start to notice how varied each of the people in our specific categories really are. I know a number of gay women. Each of them is very different, even if you start adding even more modifiers to them.

Or just to keep my ownership of this, let's take me for example. If I was going to try to start "self-identifying," I would say I am a middle-aged, white, heteroflexible, masochist, light sadist, polyamorous, occasionally submissive, urban, democratic female. I could go on with this list for a while. And it would tell you something about me. But it might not really tell you enough...

You're probably not going to know if you'd like to spend time with me until you meet me and we chat over a cup of tea. I have plenty of friends that are about as opposite of me as you can get, and I absolutely adore their company. So if it isn't always similarities that engender compatibility, what is it?

I think it is a most insidious thing, saying that exclusion of the "other" is ever a good thing. You may think you are not so much protecting your boundaries as keeping focus on your own back yard, so to speak. And that may be fine for a while...

But the problem comes when you no longer invite "others" into your backyard for BBQ. You never break bread with them. You say you have friends who are different, but if one were to look in your social circle, one would be hard-pressed to see those individuals. In the interest of being self-supporting, you have actually started to encourage a mindset that has potentially catastrophic consequences.

I once read a statement that said rape was a man's issue. Not in the way you might think at first blush. But it said that women could complain to other women until they were blue in the face about fighting rape, but it wasn't until you got men involved that it became useful at all. Men are the one who influence half (or more than half) of legal and social policy. Men are the ones who role-model for children what it means to be a man and how to treat women. And men are the ones who really are the key folks in making women feel safe in an environment.

I think that this is the same with "gay" issues. It's not until straight people sit down and decide that it's not acceptable to allow hate speech and discrimination that things actually start to move toward being different. There is power in numbers, and in standing in solidarity, we increase that power.

It is really easy to demonize those people we don't know. It is easy to lay blame at the doorstep of the neighbor whose children don't play with our children. It's easy to discriminate against someone who we don't see as "just like us."

If you don't think this is true, look at history. Go type the word "genocide" into your Google browser...

I appreciated the movie Bullworth, where Warren Beauty's character says, "Everybody just gotta keep fuckin' everybody 'til they're all the same color," when asked how racial issues might be dealt with. And while I love that notion, I know that homogeneity is not really the answer.

But I do think that there is real power in taking the time to get to know the actual people we meet before we shove them in a box and never think about who they really are again. I think there is power in knowing individuals, as opposed to blocks or types of people. I think our brains have the power to take a moment in it's organizational duties and attempt to think of the personal before the generic.

I use descriptors and titles to think about people, to be sure. My brain is just doing its job.

But I am looking forward to a time when I can sit down over tea, and all I'll be thinking about is "Isn't it nice that I'm having such a lovely time with Tim, who is just like me, but different."

My Energy Play Booklet on Kindle

My new booklet, "Energy Play in the Kinky World," is now available through Amazon Kindle.

http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Play-Kinky-World-ebook/dp/B008VL3YNU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344607099&sr=8-1&keywords=energy++play+in+the+kinky+world

This booklet was initially meant to be a free booklet, but Kindle doesn't encourage free downloads unless you make it only available through them for a specified length of time. Instead of doing that, I priced it at $.99.

If you would like a copy of it and don't have access to Kindle tech (you can download Kindle readers free of charge for your PC, tablet, and mobile devices, btw) or the funds to download it, send me an email and I will send you back a PDF of the book (skeevesdragon@hotmail.com)

If anyone has questions, comments, or suggestions, you can respond here or email me at the address above.

Hope everyone is having a stellar day!!

JT

Respect the Thin Line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrnkrQlgXIk


Often when you do work for/with people regarding their energy, you end up loving them. In some ways this is because we are forced to see their highest selves and push out toward that. It is also easier to catch the flow of energy when you are riding the waves of bliss, which come easily when you beckon them if you have a loving heart.

The toughest lesson for me, and one I am forced to re-learn, is that not everyone you work with is yours to keep. I don't necessarily mean this in the ownership category, though that could apply. But it does sometimes mean that you don't get to keep them in your life in any meaningful way.

I've been blessed to be able to keep many of the people I've worked with in my life as friends. But there have been a few that I may never get to see again. And those are the ones which cause me the most pain.

As I may have mentioned, I'm also a pervert, and I always have to ask myself what level of interaction with people is ethical when they are also in the lifestyle. Some people you can sleep with and it's not an ethical question, others it would be unethical to do so. The question has to be asked and answered on an individual basis, person-by-person. Will it negatively affect them and their energetic or spiritual progress? Is it necessary to sleep with them to aid their progress? Will it do harm to them, to you, or to someone else in their lives?

It's exceptionally important for me to honestly answer these questions before I act, and sometimes if my own needs aren't being met it begins to cloud the issues. I have people with whom I am becoming energetically intimate and I am needy and I begin to push in a way that threatens to cross the line...

Right now I am struggling because I have unmet needs that have to be addressed. At this point in time, I am only hurting myself, and I am trying to be careful not to harm anyone else. I keep saying I am not an emotional masochist, but apparently my actions would belie that...

I need to do everything I can to be harmless, as I want to keep everyone in my life that I can, especially people in whom I invest a lot of my energy and who I love.

I carry a laminated four-leaf clover in the change pocket of my purse as a physical reminder. It's not just that it's luck, and we can all use some of that. It was a small token that was given to me from a man I couldn't keep and who is no longer a part of my life. I miss him. I stalk him online every once in a while to make sure he's still in the land of the living.

But this small pressed piece of life reminds me that those preserved moments in time are precious, no matter what happens after.

And in the end, I don't serve for myself, though I need to make sure my own needs are getting met so I'm not playing the martyr card or becoming a husk of a woman.

In the meantime, I will be sad if I need to be sad, and try to respect the thin line.

Vulnerability and the Upper/lower Case Letters

What I'm going to talk about on this post may ruffle some feathers. I'm going to be talking about some psychology involving Dominants/Masters/Mistresses and some people think that one shouldn't assume to speak for (or about) those who don't fall into your own letter designation. So if nothing else, maybe this post will just offer some ideas to start the argument ("Oh, won't that be nice!")

Back in grad school during group therapy, I remember saying to my group that if there were a boot and a head underneath it, I wanted to be the boot. Now this was referring to things in life rather than a hot scene in the lifestyle. But what it said was that in a situation where there was an aggressor and perhaps a victim, if I got to choose I wanted to be the aggressor. This of course assumes that one must be involved in this dynamic, instead of there being a "conscientious objector" category. But at the time, I felt like if one had to choose, I would prefer to be the boot.

Why? I think that there is a feeling that if you are the one in the aggressor position that you are safe. That the things that get perpetrated upon you in life won't touch you because you are in control.

Now let me tell you I don't believe this any more. But I have often looked at some of the people in the lifestyle that have suffered from abuse in the past and wondered if their reason for choosing a specific designation in the D/s categories relied less on their organic way of being in the world and more because of what they perceived as a "safe" location in a fucked up world.

I think there are some people who feel like if they are the Dominant or Master that this safeguards them from having to deal with chaos, heartbreak, or any number of other woundings that life can bring. On the other side, some choose slavery as a way to make someone else responsible for them not for love or service, but for perceived safety.

This may keep a person from the slings and arrows of daily existence, but it doesn't keep anyone necessarily safe from emotional vulnerability. I have friends on the Capital letter side who really want a relationship which includes love, but they have been burned before and so try to safeguard themselves by not being emotionally vulnerable to their lower case relationship counterparts. This is also the case with some in the little "s" department who will give you service, let you beat and humiliate them, but will come unglued if you tell them they are loveable and loved.

The thing about receiving gifts of intimacy is that you have to allow yourself to open up to fully receive them. Which means that you are then vulnerable to the person who is giving this to you. This means that you both equally have the ability to hurt each other.

And no matter what side of the slash you're on, you are vulnerable.

For some people, this vulnerability means weakness. For some, this is automatically thrown in the "unsafe" category, even if your soft squishy parts (like your heart, I mean:) are being held very lovingly on the other side. And if your self-concept cannot let you be vulnerable, you cannot open up to receive the gifts that are being given.

I also think that it might seem easier to just happen to be vulnerable to someone than to consciously make the choice to become vulnerable to someone. It takes a huge amount of courage. You have to believe that you can recover from any blow they might make and that you are willing to take that risk on the chance that the gift is worth it.

There are many upper case types who say that a lower case type's full submission is a thing of great worth and something they crave deeply. However, I'm not sure that all of them realize what this asks in return. In order to receive that level of submission, you must answer in kind. In a perfect union, our counterparts make us be more rather than less in order to stay in harmony with them. In a perfect union, the level of openness in a submissive or slave is answered by the openness and care of their Master/Dominant.

I realize that the world is less than perfect, and even in healthy couples or groups we aren't always functioning in accord. I realize that people can be helped and benefited by relationships where they are only getting some of what they need in the long run. I understand also that I don't get to say whose relationship is healthy and whose isn't. People do what works for them, or at least what they perceive consciously or subconsciously is working for them.

I guess one thing the lifestyle gives us is theoretically a leg up on the communication spectrum from people in "less alternative sexual lifestyles." I know how hard it is in a vanilla-esque relationship to have to try and ask for what it is you'd like or need sexually. Talk about being vulnerable! You are possibly risking your relationship because your SO might be repulsed by your desires. Granted this can happen in a BDSM arena also, but we'd like to think that our openness about our strange desires and our openness to communication will spare us some of the hurts that this action might cause.

I have found that asking for what I want is extremely difficult. Some of this is the notion that I will be told no. And what will I do then?

I also find that I am vulnerable about any number of pedestrian things, such as will my lover or play partner find me pleasing or the experience I am having with them to be a satisfying one? And what does it mean if they don't?

What I mean to say in the end is that I want to have an authentic relationship where vulnerability occurs. If I am giving my soft, squishy parts into the care of an "other," then I want to be given theirs to care for as well. Perhaps how we care for each other looks completely different, but the desire to care for and protect one another should be present. Not because we fear hurt and cannot bear the idea of it ever happening, but because we trust that the person on the other end of the slash from us will try their very best not to hurt us, to be gentle with our emotions and practice compassion for us as much as they are able.

And we will probably hurt one another. And we will have to deal with that and make amends and learn to trust each other again.

But in the end, I prefer to risk being vulnerable, to choose it again and again, in order to have the chance, however small, to have something real.

The appearance of safety is an illusion we pay dearly for. And at this stage in my life I am no longer willing to trade an empty reassurance in exchange for that which will honestly free me.

Back when I was young and had my first real broken heart, I camped beside a creek in the middle of the wilderness for several days and read the love letters between Kahlil Gibran and one of the women who he loved, Mary Haskell. (http://www.amazon.com/Beloved-Prophet-Letters-Haskell-Private/dp/0394432983/ref=pd_sim_b_9).

I had grieved for the loss of my own love and had begun to heal, and it was time to move on in my life. The world was crystalline, poignant, greener and more filled with wonder than perhaps it had ever been for me. Something in me had sharpened, had been baked in the kiln of loss. And before I left this place, I wrote this on a sheet of paper. It isn't poetic, it's slightly redundant, but it meant the world to me at the time.

"Be that I may never give my larger self for some smaller comfort, for in the smaller comfort is the losing of my larger self."

Compersion and Loss

According to the Wikipedia (repository of all knowledge and wisdom:)

"Compersion is a state of empathetic happiness and joy experienced when an individual's current or former romantic partner experiences happiness and joy through an outside source, including, but not limited to, another romantic interest. This can be experienced as any form of erotic or emotional empathy, depending on the person experiencing the emotion."

This was a term originally coined at a commune in San Francisco, but has become a buzz word in the polyamorous community. When people talk about it, they often say it is the opposite of jealousy. Most people talk about common pitfalls of poly coming from the jealous emotions regarding bruised egos ("aren't I enough for you?"), inequity in time allotment ("you spend more time with him than you do me!"), fear of loss, the view that love is a limited resource (which then breeds competition), and finally, the notion of possessiveness ("this is my toy and no one else should be able to play with it!").

While all of these are valid human emotions, there are some other issues that come up for me and those I know who actually practice poly as opposed to simply open relationships where physical intimacy might happen, but not emotional intimacy.

Suppose you're fine with the notion of sharing your significant other(s) (or perhaps pervy like me and excited about the notion). You may run into issues of time management and getting what you need, but all in all it's a positive situation.

But one day the relationship ends. Perhaps it's a fairly amicable ending, but an ending nonetheless. Much of mainstream media tells us that when a relationship ends that our response should be anger, blame, and vilification of the the other. We are also never supposed to see them again, unless we bump into them accidentally.

I really hate to lose people out of my life that I love. Just because we aren't together, doesn't mean I don't love them and want them to have a wonderful life in the future. But I would like to see them in some capacity, most especially as a friend. I have had several relationships where the person in my life decided to go into a monogamous relationship and their significant other forbade them from seeing me. This was exceptionally painful, especially since I had no way to convince the new significant other that I had only good wishes for them in their new relationship.

But there are also times when the separation is so painful that just to see the other person hurts us in a deep way. And even though we wish the best for them, it is too hard to see it happen in front of our eyes.

Sometimes this is because we have invested so much in them, and to see them with another person to the exclusion of us brings up some feelings of perhaps being used or on the flip side, no longer needed (no longer of use in a positive sense) and it has been important to us to be needed by them in the past.

I have been thinking lately of this quote by Rilke: "“We need, in love, to practice only this: letting each other go. For holding on comes easily; we do not need to learn it.”

Sometimes we need to let someone totally go, to let them slip out of our lives for their highest good. We can only provide closure for ourselves, and find it in our heart to pray for their well-being.

At other times, we can remain a part of their lives and not have our former status as a lover impinge on their new lives. We can love them, and not be a "lover" in the sense of a sexual or more emotionally intimate partner. In this case, we need to learn how to change the parameters of our expectations, manage our feelings so our actions are now appropriate, and practice non-attachment to outcomes. Or if you want something slightly more modern, the song by 38 Special also works: "Hold on loosely, but don't let go."

Part of the problem is figuring out what is the highest good for everyone involved. And if the highest good for the person you love involves letting them go, then ethically you must do so. If you really love them, that is...

If you're going to love them only as far as they can give you back things (love, sex, submission/dominance, money, excitement, social integration), then you probably don't really love them. You _______ them, but you don't really love them.

This is like the parent who suffocates their child in the name of love. Is it loving or is it psychosis labeled as love?

So all I am saying today is that part of compersion, besides providing all sorts of love, sex, and comfort in one's life, also sets us up for loss. And if we are truly going to practice compersion, we need to not just be ok with, but embrace the notion of loss.

27 Shades of Dresses (and a dash of La Boheme)

I have a strange mashup of things in my head of late.

I've been listening to the audio book of 50 Shades of Grey, which has been an interesting and amusing experience. Then, on a sleepless night, I watched the movie 27 Dresses on late night television. Two days later, I went to see La Boheme at the opera house with my ex-boyfriend.

Let's start with the "literary" angle. Grey is an interesting book in the fact that it is part tacky romance (with all the tropes that genre uses), part erotica,part fan fic, and part BDSM 101 brochure. As I am listening to the book, I am struck by the sometimes purple prose side by side with obscure literary references (the partial Hamlet reference is my favorite so far; the full quote is from the character of Hamlet himself, in case you were wondering. "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.")

In the romance category, we have a virginal heroine, a dashing and very rich hero who is a dark and brooding (but will be eventually rescued from his emotional prison by the love of the heroine). They have the meet-cute of her tumbling through the doorway into his office and him catching her in his arms. There is immediate chemistry, the zing that comes with the touch of the beloved. The ages for both characters are a hard sell in this day and age. Anastasia is just graduating from college (and yet somehow has managed to remain chaste and at the same time have the natural aptitude to give a perfect blow job the first time). Christian is 28, a multi-millionaire, and totally in control of his shit. He is world-wise and a sexual pro, which would qualify him for the hero position in the romance genre. Not-so-reformed rakes are a favorite with the ladies.

I find it a little odd that Anastasia would fall into the lifestyle so easily when it seems as though she hasn't really ever had a lascivious thought in her head. Granted, Christian Grey is pretty tasty, but people I know who enter the lifestyle have some natural inclination to do so. The explanation of her virginal state is just that until she met Christian, she was never really interested in anyone before. I'm not saying that some relationships don't go from Zero to Fifty in 10 seconds, but to have someone so easily slide into a contracted relationship seems to be pushing it a bit.

And speaking of contracts, having the very long contractual language in the book was highly interesting to me. Not necessarily because of the thing in and of itself, but I am really curious what the ladies who work at the bank who are all reading this book are thinking at this point. I know that most anyone who has read much in the romance department is used to the borderline porn (read "erotica") that can come up in some works. They have also probably read rough sex scenes or those which would be called rape except that the heroine secretly wants the experience from the hero (I have read mainstream romance authors which have these sorts of scenes). So that's not really as shocking as an outsider to the genre might think. But the "red room of pain" and the implements/toys it contains are definitely outside the norm. The only time when I have read about these sorts of things in romance novels, it has been in the context of the fair maiden being captured by the evil villain of the book and she is to be tortured while in his clutches if not for the timely arrival of the hero.

But even so, I give the ladies at the bank the credit for having read some naughty books in their time. Or that they secretly like naughty books, and everyone else is reading this one so it makes it acceptable to read it as well.

However, how does the Dominant/Master submissive/slave contract look to those outside the lifestyle I wonder? First of all, I would think that the dry contractual language itself (in numbered points filling the page), would be a turn-off for many. Erotic buzz kill. Add to that the fact that ownership and lack of freewill aren't necessarily things that many women are rushing right out to sign up for (though a very rich man might change some of their minds, I suppose). Being a slave girl in a period romance is ok, but becomes aberrant as soon as it is seen as being anachronistic.

I find it almost cute though that there has been pains taken (as it were) to delineate possibly more acceptable kinks from other, more "unsavory" ones through the hard vs soft limits section of the contract. Anal fisting is ok, but make sure you don't use a violet wand on someone. And I wonder if this listing is helpful to the cause of making people more acquainted to BDSM or just as a point of derision ("why on earth would someone want to light someone else on fire?").

Regardless of all of this, I am still listening to the book, and managing my expectations when it comes to the writing style. It's interesting in a sociological sense, it's a fun book to pass the time, and it's sometimes unintentionally funny.

And sometimes, it's hot.

So now to return to my own headspace, intermixed with this fluffy BDSM-light grey adventure is the stereotypical romantic notions that were brought to the fore by watching 27 Dresses. This is a movie about unrequited love (with the wrong man), weddings, being authentic and truthful, and that notion of "the one." Whatever my other nasty predilections, I still am a sucker for the Rom-Com. And I am also a sucker for a quasi-musical number thrown in (which includes singing "Benny and the Jets" while dancing on a bar, in this case).

I admit, "hopeful romantic" applies to me (a term I attribute to Romancing the Stone). I cry at the parts that are obviously meant for saps in movies. I pack Kleenex as a necessity. And it makes for a very interesting world when this headspace meets up with the woman who also likes deviant behavior and practices polyamory. Where does romance fit when you're talking about anal fisting (it's crowded enough in there already!)? Where does love appear in the detailed contractual obligations of an M/s contract? Is it implied that care and tending to the needs of the Dominant or submissive means a type of love?

Can one be romantic with a Dominant long after the kinky courtship when much of the tenants of traditional romance require coquette behavior, chase rather than submission given, and a gaze that doesn't admit interest in anyone else in the world (unless it's being used to make the love interest jealous and is merely a ruse).

There are all sorts of reasons people enter into either marriages or M/s conracts. Some involve love, some don't. Some are well-thought out choices while others are the product of getting carried away on a whim or a romantic/sexual high. Sometimes people enter into these sorts of arrangements because that is just "what one does." And before someone tells me that BDSM is supposed to mitigate "have to" and "should" of mainstream society, I would just like to politely point to the level of formality and expectation laced throughout most all groups in the kinky world. Each group has its own expectations, which are no less of a "should/have to" than those pressures imposed socially on us in the vanilla world.

Before I get into a rant of the "freedoms" issue, let me interrupt myself and get back to the final dash of flavor in my head-soup, which is the Puccini opera, La Boheme. It is an odd blending of the notion of romance and "the one," with economic necessity and open relationships. There is still much jealousy at thinking of one's love interest with another person/people, but it introduces the fact that sometimes there's more of a "grey area" about what can be acceptable/desirable regarding sexual/romantic interactions.

It is perhaps more charitable to one of the women characters for being loose with her favors for monetary reasons (not prostitution, but being the mistress of more wealthy men) because of the "us against them" mentality created by the socio-economic stratification in Parisian society at that time. The notion of the poor artistic community running up against the people who are their patrons and lovers who allow them to continue to live and create art by giving them monetary support and artistic inspiration. The somewhat unintentional effect of this is perhaps more sexual freedom for women, which may be why the more tightly laced set frowns on the Bohemian lifestyle.

In the formal discussion one can attend before the opera, it amused me to hear that the press at the time was aghast at the checkered pants of the men and the shawls of the women in the opera, and a reporter at the time tried to argue that perhaps it was having to follow the dour but brilliant Wagner that most made Puccini's opera less palatable/fashionable. It's neither here nor there, but I do think Wagner's music was better, but probably La Boheme is more accessible for the general public (unless it's the Bugs Bunny cartoon version of Wagner, that is).

None of this post is meant to bring clarity to anything... I think the tea is still steeping on that one. But if nothing else, it highlights how very aware I am of the conversation of sex, gender, expectations, and freedoms in the art/film/opera I am being exposed to of late.

I think at some point I'm going to have more to say about all of this, especially as I come to the end of the Grey series. But for now, I will continue to enjoy the experiences and the artistic expression of others, and try to follow the advice of the poet Rainer Maria Rilke as much as possible:

"Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

Her Royal Highness's Matched Luggage

Warning: Possible overshare.

So today I was at a Weight Watcher's meeting. The leader in question is a woman who is good at digging a little more deeply into why people overeat to the point of being overweight and obese. She says that many people, afraid of the vulnerability of peeling the layers back, just say they eat because they like food. While this may be true, not all people who like food ingest so much of it that it is going to kill them sooner than later. So there is always something more to it than "I like food."

She shared that many people gain weight as a protective mechanism, especially if they have a history of some sort of abuse in their earlier life. She said that for her, the fat self knew how to stay safe in the world, how to handle things that were hard. This really keyed off something in me as well, due to my own past history.

Now when I was a younger girl, I was touched inappropriately by an older boy while I was at the public swimming pool. However, instead of this being horrible and traumatic, I actually enjoyed this activity and attention. This just goes to show you how much one's perspective and expectations of things makes a difference in what the effect of an action is (or isn't). I found the touching to be pleasurable, and I found it flattering that an older boy would be interested.

I realize now of course that this was probably not the healthiest thing in the world. But at the time, I felt wanted and beautiful, something I'm not sure I had felt from other interactions. (in case you were wondering, the boy in question ended up getting found guilty of child sexual abuse as a much older man, so apparently his target age didn't change as his own age did).

So for me, it is not a history that includes sexual abuse that is at fault for my weight gain. But there is much to be said about me feeling like the physically larger self knows how to handle things. First of all, you can't miss her. She is very difficult to dismiss or to make invisible. I find sometimes I have to relax and let my personality be a bit less 'forward' because I feel my sense of needing to be heard in a room or conversation rising to a point that isn't about being part of the conversation but being validated as having a right to be part of the conversation to begin with.

The larger self also has less fear of starving or there not being enough. Most all of us were told we needed to clean our plate because of the starving children in Africa. But for my family, there were times when there was the underlying fact that if I didn't eat what was on my plate there wasn't going to be anything else to replace it. There was a space for a while where my father hunted, not really because he enjoyed it so much but because that was how our family had food to eat. So I think that fear that permeated through my parents (even if it was unstated), came to live in me. I thought if I was bigger, I wouldn't have to worry about starving. (I also have this issue regarding money, which is related to the same underlying fear)

I have found that feeling hungry or poor has the ability to totally drop me into a fear mode that leads me to catastrophic thinking, as though in the next instant this means I will starve or be lying in the gutter clutching a bottle of paint thinner. Even when I realize that it isn't anywhere near the truth, it still has the power to affect me. Part of my work is being with the feeling, understanding that it isn't real in the NOW, and allowing it to pass through and out of me.

I also think that having a larger self helped me equate that with being stronger. It's not true of course, and now I see very clearly how those two things are different, but at the time there was a feeling that if I was larger (or older) that I would be ok.

Now I am a bit afraid of what the thinner, stronger, sexually potent woman looks and is like. It's a slightly different identity than where I am now. It's probably a good thing that it takes time for the physical reality to shift, as it will give me time to get used to not only my new "skin" but my new interior self.

What I am running into at this point is that I need to be physically stronger to be able to do everything I am called to do in my life, and to be able to channel all the energy I need to be able to channel through my physical form. I've noticed that a number of us are all being called to deal with our myriad of problems and divest ourselves of at least some of our baggage. We are being asked to take better care of ourselves and to "level up."

I'm not sure what we are all progressing towards, but I know there has been a feeling of "push" for many people I know to problem solve in the life category.

So I don't know if this resonates for anyone else, but many of us are being called to something, some future we can't yet see. I am trying to become stronger, and to become ok with everything that being stronger means.

It's taken me a long time to get here. I'm pretty hard headed. But I feel like I'm slowly making progress, having some Ah-ha moments and having some deep shifts in my life that are finally taking root. There has been a big difference for me in understanding something cognitively and to deeply knowing it and applying it to your life in a consistent manner. I guess it will take however long it takes, though I feel like now is the time to be working on it.

And of course, I'll let you know how all of it goes...

The Stand (King and why you need to take one)

So by now everyone is familiar with the notion of the dystopian future. We've had the Biblical take on it from the book of Revelations. We've seen the Zombie Apocalypse (one of my favorites). We have The Road, Children of Men, and Soylent Green. We've had killer robots, from Terminators to Transformers. We've seen everything from War Games to the Hunger Games. The thought of society at large taking a huge swan dive of destruction is constantly in the forefront of our imaginations. (check out the wikipedia page of films: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_films)

Every once in a while, we have a view of a sparkling and wonderful future, full of promise and adventure. We apparently have no problem envisioning what those worlds would look like as well. However, it seems like it makes more compelling drama if we are looking at the dystopian as opposed to the utopian futures.

Contemplating each of these brings about actual bonuses in "real life" as well. Star Trek TOS let us imagine a future where races were equal and brought us the first interracial onscreen kiss. And the recent love affair with zombies has actually got people to think about communicable diseases to the point that they are actually reading the CDC website (which decided that zombie apocalypse could help people avoid other types of ACTUAL threats: http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse/).

Right now I am thinking about the book The Stand by Stephen King. Basically if you haven't read it, there is some type of virus that sweeps the nation, killing most of the population. Those who are left are pulled inexorably toward either Vegas or Denver, depending on their valence of good or evil (though I think I'd like to see good people get to go to Vegas some times:P ) The problem is, good people are often vary passive, while evil is very active as far as taking good down in any way possible.

It's not that I think Dark Helmet was right when he said, "Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb." It's just that I think Good is more likely to rest on its laurels and bask in how good it is. Evil is active and very, very committed. For instance, compare the "willing to give your life for your cause" quotient. There are all sorts of religious groups that may or may not be nutters who say they are willing to risk their lives for a cause. What they really mean is that if pushed, they are willing to end your life and if it happens to get them killed in the process, so be it.

When I think of the people who were willing to risk their lives for peaceful social change, the list is short, and many of them died at the hands of others. Let's take roll call: Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Lincoln... I think maybe Buddha got out unscathed, but maybe that just goes down to the statement, "It's good to be king."

So if you want to be a force for Good, and you don't want to join one of the cults that tells you in order to spread light you gotta drink the Kool-Aid or mass-procreate soldiers in Gods Army ("What does God need with a starship?") what should you do?

I liked how in Terminator II Sarah Connors character actually acted as one might if one TRULY believed the end was coming. She prepared. She had a stockpile, she learned all about weapons, she became what other people would call nuts, but that was ok because she knew the truth. You can't really doubt it after you've been chased by a killing machine.

But this is the "what would you do" scenario for the dystopian future. If you felt like the utopian future was real, or that you were willing to put your chips in on the fact that the human race can pull its collective head out, what sort of things would you DO (think action verbs) to make sure that sort of thing happened and you were part of that process?

We are energetically facing something of this type right now as you are reading this blog. There are lots of places on earth where bad things happen. And here in America, we have this very subtle but deadly entropic cynicism creeping in and a paralysis that comes with feeling helpless, which is a lie, but a very compelling lie nonetheless. And we also have a lot of people who are good and shiny people, but they are not as active or committed as the possible forces of darkness.

I think many of us who are good people don't know where to start in the actions of being Good. Maybe you aren't cut out to be in a soup kitchen or working with the handicapped. I know I don't feel called to do that. We feel like we don't really trust our politicians, so instead of voting or running ourselves, we throw up our hands and say we don't believe in change through politics, so why try. We don't educate ourselves on what's really going on in the world, we just trust Fox News to package something for us that isn't anywhere near actual news. We are ok being good as long as it doesn't inconvenience us.

I am guilty of this. I stew in my writerly goody-two-shoes juices and wish for the world to be better. But I've been trying to figure out where I take my stand for things in the world. I have to start little, because I'm stunted from not exercising this particular muscle. I try to be nicer and practice compassion to my fellow men. I offer service to the people I love to make their lives better (hopefully). And I try to write things where either I am highlighting the perils of our current behavior so people could have that awakening moment and change, or conversely, to write things which help people imagine what a better world might look like.

I guess what I'm saying is if you can increase your actions in the service of Good, you're at least doing something. And don't stop doing things because you feel like if you really cared you'd shave your head and become a monk, go on a hunger strike, or quit your job and go volunteer in Africa. I don't think we're at that point yet. Perhaps you might consider that you were created with specific desires and strengths that are uniquely suited to a specific course of action that can make the world a happier place (and therefore more likely to be saved).

Do you make art? Music? Do you build incredible structures? Do you raise fabulous children? Do you grow healthy vegetables to feed people? It doesn't have to be saving the world. I think the world gets saved one small action at a time. It starts by doing what is in front of you that you know is the kind and right thing to do.

I just want us to be more active, because I know what can happen if we all get complacent and negativity wins. And I don't want that. First of all, because I don't want to have to go to Denver if that scenario goes down. And second... well, as much as I enjoy the notion of the zombie apocalypse, I really enjoy modern comforts and not being eaten by flesh eating monsters. Maybe I just would rather see the world look like Star Trek than I would The Road.

So that's it. Let's all just be more like Sarah Connor and prepare/create the future we want to see as if it's going to be REAL. Because technically, it is.