I had a conversation last night with someone I hadn't seen much of lately, and had gotten to talk to even less.
As much as I strive to not care about people's motives, I admit I find it difficult not to wonder. And, well, I usually ask about things when I wonder. It saves Me a lot of energy, long-term.
So I asked her why she'd been staying away of late.
she told Me that she was attempting to break with her old patterns of behavior, and that familiar places tended to create familiar responses. she needed to be less "rooted" so that her explorations, her "new way," could really take hold.
her answer made Me sad because I miss her but I couldn't argue much with the logic. And yes, I realize that any expectations created by a familiar place are as much self-created as not, but for all that they are nonetheless real. And very difficult to break free of.
Thinking more about it this morning, I ended up feeling better about things. This girl is someone I'd had more than a couple of conversations with about what I consider "spiritual" matters, or rather, things of a practical nature that I assign in My thinking to the spiritual realm. And her way of going about things right now is an implementation of many of the ideas that she and I have discussed, (even if she isn't necessarily comfy in labeling them the way I do).
Not that I take credit for any epiphany on her part -- everything is a result of the accumulation of multiple influences and sources of information, and in any event I don't trust epiphanies as a rule. But it did feel good to see certain things I've been saying over a period of months borne out.
And most importantly she seems genuinely happier and more at ease. And she told Me that she will be around more as it gets gradually easier to embrace the new, more fluid, her.
I'm glad I asked.
More Things
A few more items.
1. I'm going to make a real effort to not let the baseball blog fall by the wayside this season. So far so good but it's not even April yet. Time will tell.
2. A friend in this arena lost his mother recently, rather suddenly. My thoughts and wishes for what peace can be found in this event to be found as painlessly as possible go out to him.
3. I want to thank everyone who commented recently and reminded that they are still out there. I shouldn't ever forget/doubt that, but, well, stuff happens. Even to Me!
4. I did mean what I said about leaving more comments. As soon as I'm able to find some time to read some posts.
5. My best wishes to everyone . . . soon it will be spring in spirit as well as in fact, and that's pretty wonderful. KAHTATUS.
1. I'm going to make a real effort to not let the baseball blog fall by the wayside this season. So far so good but it's not even April yet. Time will tell.
2. A friend in this arena lost his mother recently, rather suddenly. My thoughts and wishes for what peace can be found in this event to be found as painlessly as possible go out to him.
3. I want to thank everyone who commented recently and reminded that they are still out there. I shouldn't ever forget/doubt that, but, well, stuff happens. Even to Me!
4. I did mean what I said about leaving more comments. As soon as I'm able to find some time to read some posts.
5. My best wishes to everyone . . . soon it will be spring in spirit as well as in fact, and that's pretty wonderful. KAHTATUS.
YouTube Tuesday: The Pick of Destiny
I love Jack Black. There is something about him that just makes Me laugh, even before he says a word. I liked him especially as the burnout brother in Orange County and as the pretend private-school teacher in School of Rock.
Now, Black seems to be trying to break into date=movie acceptability. While he actually is a very good actor and will probably pull it off I think it's a mistake. Jack is an over-the-top kind of guy.
Before there was "Jack Black" there was Tenacious D, an acoustic "rock" duo who brilliantly played up/exploited/lampooned every arena-rock cliche there is.
Last year Tenacious D got a shot at a movie, The Pick of Destiny. It bombed -- too much of an extended in-joke -- but this clip, the video of the title song/promo for the movie shows Tenacious D at their ridiculous best.
Anyone who can not only write, but actually sing a line like "and he who is groovy/must be in my movie" with a straight face has a lot going for him.
Now, Black seems to be trying to break into date=movie acceptability. While he actually is a very good actor and will probably pull it off I think it's a mistake. Jack is an over-the-top kind of guy.
Before there was "Jack Black" there was Tenacious D, an acoustic "rock" duo who brilliantly played up/exploited/lampooned every arena-rock cliche there is.
Last year Tenacious D got a shot at a movie, The Pick of Destiny. It bombed -- too much of an extended in-joke -- but this clip, the video of the title song/promo for the movie shows Tenacious D at their ridiculous best.
Anyone who can not only write, but actually sing a line like "and he who is groovy/must be in my movie" with a straight face has a lot going for him.
Two Items
1. If you click on the Lenora's Fiction link over on the sidebar, you'll see a new Index page, from which you can navigate to either the Lenora X detective stories or the category loosely termed "erotic fiction," where currently The Taking Of anni and the mini-erotica stories reside. Eventually the Planet of the Blondes story posts will find their way there too. (I know to this point that Planet of the Blondes isn't showing much in the way of "erotic," but trust Me, it's getting there.)
The new pages, as always, are the work of the lovely and talented tasha, who does a wonderful job, always. And it's not an easy job, trying to figure out what I actually mean by My vague statements about what I want, patiently explaining what can and can't work in a given graphical space, and somehow translating it all into the perfect visual representation of what I was thinking. Beautiful job, tasha . . . thank you again.
2. That two episodes of Planet of the Blondes have been posted without registering a single comment to this point touches on a point that is an ongoing source of frustration for Me.
Certainly I understand not leaving comments here there and everywhere -- I've written here, despite My joking (joking, really!) about link-whoring, about how I often write out a comment, edit it, then reconsider and end up not leaving it, feeling it was somehow unnecessary.
I am beginning to reconsider that stance, honestly. While I'm not looking for universal and total acceptance and agreement and appreciation of everything I write here, it can get to feeling lonely, sometimes. So, as a public service, start leaving more comments. And I promise to do the same, worrying less about how "necessary" it is and a little more about letting the author know that what I read inspired Me to say something. I very well might have been wrong in my previous stance . . . now, if I could just find the time to read all the blogs I want to read.
The new pages, as always, are the work of the lovely and talented tasha, who does a wonderful job, always. And it's not an easy job, trying to figure out what I actually mean by My vague statements about what I want, patiently explaining what can and can't work in a given graphical space, and somehow translating it all into the perfect visual representation of what I was thinking. Beautiful job, tasha . . . thank you again.
2. That two episodes of Planet of the Blondes have been posted without registering a single comment to this point touches on a point that is an ongoing source of frustration for Me.
Certainly I understand not leaving comments here there and everywhere -- I've written here, despite My joking (joking, really!) about link-whoring, about how I often write out a comment, edit it, then reconsider and end up not leaving it, feeling it was somehow unnecessary.
I am beginning to reconsider that stance, honestly. While I'm not looking for universal and total acceptance and agreement and appreciation of everything I write here, it can get to feeling lonely, sometimes. So, as a public service, start leaving more comments. And I promise to do the same, worrying less about how "necessary" it is and a little more about letting the author know that what I read inspired Me to say something. I very well might have been wrong in my previous stance . . . now, if I could just find the time to read all the blogs I want to read.
YouTube Tiesday: More Fun?
Equal time for the other side of the coin after the prolouge to Planet of the Blondes. This Mercedes-Benz ad looks like a US ad but I can't recall ever having seen it.
The Love Thing, Part 3
Her wrote:
"It's like...
Wanting to do all the things my wicked heart desires, but when I reach that moment of possibility I back down. Too afraid, too unsure of myself, too unsure of the reality of the situation.
I abhor this kind of feeling. I've lost control of my own control and it bugs the crap out of me. I'm a born domme, of that I have no question, but I do question my ability to take what I want and turn it into reality.
And I really fucking wish pet would keep his own anxiety to himself sometimes. As soon as his fears come out, I back down. When you love someone, the last thing you want to do is hurt them without consent. When he's asking to be hurt, then instantly balking when the opportunity arises, it leaves a big frustrated and confused knot in me. I can't deal with my own lack of self-acceptance and his at the same time. But I don't want him to stop talking to me--communication is so important.
Maybe I can deal with both, but dude, it is harder than I thought. Amazing after two years of this it only gets harder. More real, I imagine."
This touches on a theme I've written abut a couple of times: The "love thing."
While I know that I need to feel love in order to Domme the way I want/need to, I'm the first to acknowledge that it can complicate things, sometimes greatly. Her's post above is an example.
How to address that complication? There's a short answer and a long one.
The short answer: Put the hammer down. It's as easy and as difficult as that. If he is like 99.9% of submissives, it's what he really wants, surface reluctance notwithstanding.
The long answer: The submissive is afraid of what s/he really wants, and is relying on the Other to put the hammer down and thus render moot the "decision" to move forward. But this is where the "love thing" comes into play. The Other not only puts the hammer down, but, when the time is right (after), S/He leads the submissive through the entire thought process, to make the submissive realize/confront which of his/her emotions were in play leading up the hammer being put down.
Now, much as that process might sound like punishment (and at times it can feel that way, for either, or both), I think it's important. The submissive needs to know and feel from the One to Whom s/he's entrusting so much that it's not all about just putting the hammer down, about play; s/he needs to understand that the Other has gone through a process, a process motivated by love and concern, to arrive at what His or Her course of action ended up being. Similarly, the Dom/me needs to be sure that what S/He thinks was going on in terms of the submissive's motivation(s) was accurate. Unfortunately, it's usually not possible to find out ahead of time accurately.
I sympathize with Her's dilemma. But while love does it make it more difficult, that's only in the short term. Long-term it helps ensure that things will work out, the (often numerous and painful) speed bumps along the way notwithstanding.
"It's like...
Wanting to do all the things my wicked heart desires, but when I reach that moment of possibility I back down. Too afraid, too unsure of myself, too unsure of the reality of the situation.
I abhor this kind of feeling. I've lost control of my own control and it bugs the crap out of me. I'm a born domme, of that I have no question, but I do question my ability to take what I want and turn it into reality.
And I really fucking wish pet would keep his own anxiety to himself sometimes. As soon as his fears come out, I back down. When you love someone, the last thing you want to do is hurt them without consent. When he's asking to be hurt, then instantly balking when the opportunity arises, it leaves a big frustrated and confused knot in me. I can't deal with my own lack of self-acceptance and his at the same time. But I don't want him to stop talking to me--communication is so important.
Maybe I can deal with both, but dude, it is harder than I thought. Amazing after two years of this it only gets harder. More real, I imagine."
This touches on a theme I've written abut a couple of times: The "love thing."
While I know that I need to feel love in order to Domme the way I want/need to, I'm the first to acknowledge that it can complicate things, sometimes greatly. Her's post above is an example.
How to address that complication? There's a short answer and a long one.
The short answer: Put the hammer down. It's as easy and as difficult as that. If he is like 99.9% of submissives, it's what he really wants, surface reluctance notwithstanding.
The long answer: The submissive is afraid of what s/he really wants, and is relying on the Other to put the hammer down and thus render moot the "decision" to move forward. But this is where the "love thing" comes into play. The Other not only puts the hammer down, but, when the time is right (after), S/He leads the submissive through the entire thought process, to make the submissive realize/confront which of his/her emotions were in play leading up the hammer being put down.
Now, much as that process might sound like punishment (and at times it can feel that way, for either, or both), I think it's important. The submissive needs to know and feel from the One to Whom s/he's entrusting so much that it's not all about just putting the hammer down, about play; s/he needs to understand that the Other has gone through a process, a process motivated by love and concern, to arrive at what His or Her course of action ended up being. Similarly, the Dom/me needs to be sure that what S/He thinks was going on in terms of the submissive's motivation(s) was accurate. Unfortunately, it's usually not possible to find out ahead of time accurately.
I sympathize with Her's dilemma. But while love does it make it more difficult, that's only in the short term. Long-term it helps ensure that things will work out, the (often numerous and painful) speed bumps along the way notwithstanding.
YouTube Tuesday: All that copyrighted stuff is gone, really!
Tonight's clip, in honor of Viacom suing Google (youtube) for $1 billion, is an excerpt from the MTV show "The Hills." The clip itself doesn't matter (although The Hills is a pretty good show); any Viacom content (of which there is still plenty on youtube) would've done.
The lawsuit presumably is simply a way to kick-start stalled negotiations between Google and Viacom aimed at getting Viacom content on youtube with everyone's blessing. I have the feeling that like most media companies, Viacom is overvaluing most of its catalog -- the video culture that Viacom largely created, intentionally or otherwise, emphasizes newness and quickness above all else. The main audience for Viacom's content has come to regard anything more than 10 minutes old as more or less worthless; while that's good, as long as you can keep feeding the young masses something new continually, it's bad for claiming that your old stuff is worth very much.
This lawsuit never gets to court . . . they will come to an agreement. Neither side wants a trial and youtube is here to stay --- Viacom knows their content needs to be out there.
Anyway, an excerpt from "The Hills . . . "
The lawsuit presumably is simply a way to kick-start stalled negotiations between Google and Viacom aimed at getting Viacom content on youtube with everyone's blessing. I have the feeling that like most media companies, Viacom is overvaluing most of its catalog -- the video culture that Viacom largely created, intentionally or otherwise, emphasizes newness and quickness above all else. The main audience for Viacom's content has come to regard anything more than 10 minutes old as more or less worthless; while that's good, as long as you can keep feeding the young masses something new continually, it's bad for claiming that your old stuff is worth very much.
This lawsuit never gets to court . . . they will come to an agreement. Neither side wants a trial and youtube is here to stay --- Viacom knows their content needs to be out there.
Anyway, an excerpt from "The Hills . . . "
It's Just A Blog . . . Right?
Surfing the link list tonight I came upon a post wherein a blogger gets a phone call from an ex-boyfriend (who I'll call Waldo and to whom she gave another pseudonym). He tells the blogger that he's been reading her blog. She has written extensively about this ex, apparently, and according to her, "I have not been kind to Waldo in my writing."
Needless to say, Waldo wasn't happy about some of the ways he'd been written about. And he goes on to tell her that what really bothers him is "how mutual acquaintances have been calling me ‘Waldo’ in my presence and laughing."
There is a break between conversations, and the blogger has some time to think all this over. She comes to some conclusions that, frankly, confound Me.
1. She thinks it's strange that Waldo has been reading her blog. "it was deeply odd for him to have been reading my blog for a year. " She goes on to list all the exciting things going in Waldo's life currently and how those should mean that he'd have no interest in reading her blog.
2. All the news, fit to print or not. "For a variety of reasons, I feel very adamantly that I’m not going to be bullied into taking down posts, and so that wasn’t even a topic I would consider discussing."
3. Somehow it's Waldo's problem that she wrote about his and her love/sex life. "I felt that if people are referring to him as “Waldo” in his presence, the man here known as “Waldo” should take it up with them, not me."
As to #1, the author is way too smart to actually believe that an ex isn't going to find a blog written by his or her ex and not read it. It has nothing to do with life circumstances -- it's human nature. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that anyone who claims to know about the existence of a blog by someone they used to sleep with and claims not to have read it at least once is categorically, 100%, no doubt about it, lying. No exceptions.
The second point, ok. I can understand and endorse in the abstract the concept that one should never be bullied into taking a post down. One should never do anything in response to being bullied, really. But the fact is there are plenty of posts that should be taken down . . . I read at least one a week.
I am not talking about any form of censorship; heaven forbid that this medium functions as anything other than a gigantic litter box for everyone with an Internet connection -- America and the world would be damaged in some vague but I am assured very real way, otherwise. I am talking instead about My (very naive) desire that we could all be a little more thoughtful, a little less the worst we can be simply because (more or less) no one's going to know who we are or remember what we did. I least I know it's naive.
Her third point honestly is beneath someone of her obvious intelligence. And really, this gets at the reason for this post.
Is everyone in our lives fair game? Is everyone who comes into contact with us potential blog fodder?
My answer to those questions is an unequivocal "no."
I realize that there are no "standards" in this medium, and I don't know if it's been tested in court, but My guess is that if you slander, libel, defame, etc., someone in a blog that's going to be admissible if, as in the case we're discussing here, it's obvious to third parties who is being written about.
But My feelings about it go deeper than the legalities. Don't we do enough offline to make each other's lives miserable? Don't we already cause enough in-person pain to others in pursuit of our own self-esteem without putting the cyber-cherry on top?
In the end, the conversation with Waldo leaves the blogger realizing that there were things she could have done differently, some things she might have handled better. That is not the most horrible ending, but really . . . should it ever have been necessary?
Needless to say, Waldo wasn't happy about some of the ways he'd been written about. And he goes on to tell her that what really bothers him is "how mutual acquaintances have been calling me ‘Waldo’ in my presence and laughing."
There is a break between conversations, and the blogger has some time to think all this over. She comes to some conclusions that, frankly, confound Me.
1. She thinks it's strange that Waldo has been reading her blog. "it was deeply odd for him to have been reading my blog for a year. " She goes on to list all the exciting things going in Waldo's life currently and how those should mean that he'd have no interest in reading her blog.
2. All the news, fit to print or not. "For a variety of reasons, I feel very adamantly that I’m not going to be bullied into taking down posts, and so that wasn’t even a topic I would consider discussing."
3. Somehow it's Waldo's problem that she wrote about his and her love/sex life. "I felt that if people are referring to him as “Waldo” in his presence, the man here known as “Waldo” should take it up with them, not me."
As to #1, the author is way too smart to actually believe that an ex isn't going to find a blog written by his or her ex and not read it. It has nothing to do with life circumstances -- it's human nature. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that anyone who claims to know about the existence of a blog by someone they used to sleep with and claims not to have read it at least once is categorically, 100%, no doubt about it, lying. No exceptions.
The second point, ok. I can understand and endorse in the abstract the concept that one should never be bullied into taking a post down. One should never do anything in response to being bullied, really. But the fact is there are plenty of posts that should be taken down . . . I read at least one a week.
I am not talking about any form of censorship; heaven forbid that this medium functions as anything other than a gigantic litter box for everyone with an Internet connection -- America and the world would be damaged in some vague but I am assured very real way, otherwise. I am talking instead about My (very naive) desire that we could all be a little more thoughtful, a little less the worst we can be simply because (more or less) no one's going to know who we are or remember what we did. I least I know it's naive.
Her third point honestly is beneath someone of her obvious intelligence. And really, this gets at the reason for this post.
Is everyone in our lives fair game? Is everyone who comes into contact with us potential blog fodder?
My answer to those questions is an unequivocal "no."
I realize that there are no "standards" in this medium, and I don't know if it's been tested in court, but My guess is that if you slander, libel, defame, etc., someone in a blog that's going to be admissible if, as in the case we're discussing here, it's obvious to third parties who is being written about.
But My feelings about it go deeper than the legalities. Don't we do enough offline to make each other's lives miserable? Don't we already cause enough in-person pain to others in pursuit of our own self-esteem without putting the cyber-cherry on top?
In the end, the conversation with Waldo leaves the blogger realizing that there were things she could have done differently, some things she might have handled better. That is not the most horrible ending, but really . . . should it ever have been necessary?
YouTube Tuesday: Spam of the Month Club?
Tonight's YTT clip features what happens when you actually read your spam e-mail and think about what good use it might be put to.
Sophisticated spam bots take bits and pieces of "legitimate" text from all the Web and piece them together for getting around anti-spam filters. In the hands of an enterprising director these bits and pieces become something else entirely.
A cool little video, not least because it takes some irritating and useless and makes something funny out of it.
Sophisticated spam bots take bits and pieces of "legitimate" text from all the Web and piece them together for getting around anti-spam filters. In the hands of an enterprising director these bits and pieces become something else entirely.
A cool little video, not least because it takes some irritating and useless and makes something funny out of it.
Some Wells Temporaily Dry; Others Flowing Abundantly
Lately I haven't had a lot of "essay" material present itself to Me.
While D/s as a topic is more or less inexhaustible, for Me there are just times when there is nothing compelling to write about. A stroll down the now pretty long link list didn't prvide any inspiration -- which is a comment on how uninspired I feel, on the the content in those blogs.
It comes and goes. Lately, I'm more inspired to write fiction. When I'm in the "essay" frame of mind, sometimes one sentence, one part of a sentence, even, can inspire an entire post. But when it's not there, it's just not.
And I make it harder on Myself in some ways.
1. I feel as though things I've written before I don't need to write again . . . but that ignores a stark reality of most people's blog-reading habits: If it's not on the top half of the current page, it pretty much doesn't exist. I'd do well to bear that in mind more often and perhaps not reject certain post ideas on the basis that I've "done that."
2. I'm picky. I'd say that for every non-fiction post that ends up published, I think of 12 and actually start 6. That's partially because of 1., above, but mostly because in the non-fiction area I really do strive for a certain economy. The goal being to preserve the power of each individual idea by keeping them relatively "scarce."
3. I need to stay in this arena. I could write all sorts of posts about politics, technology, etc., but again I want/need this blog to be about sex, Dominance, submission, etc.
I wrote last week that I wanted the three main "features" -- essays, fiction, and slices of life -- to be in more or less equal proportion. I'm beginning to understand that while it might end up that way over the long haul, in the shorter term one or two of those is going to predominate over the other(s), until it changes around again.
While D/s as a topic is more or less inexhaustible, for Me there are just times when there is nothing compelling to write about. A stroll down the now pretty long link list didn't prvide any inspiration -- which is a comment on how uninspired I feel, on the the content in those blogs.
It comes and goes. Lately, I'm more inspired to write fiction. When I'm in the "essay" frame of mind, sometimes one sentence, one part of a sentence, even, can inspire an entire post. But when it's not there, it's just not.
And I make it harder on Myself in some ways.
1. I feel as though things I've written before I don't need to write again . . . but that ignores a stark reality of most people's blog-reading habits: If it's not on the top half of the current page, it pretty much doesn't exist. I'd do well to bear that in mind more often and perhaps not reject certain post ideas on the basis that I've "done that."
2. I'm picky. I'd say that for every non-fiction post that ends up published, I think of 12 and actually start 6. That's partially because of 1., above, but mostly because in the non-fiction area I really do strive for a certain economy. The goal being to preserve the power of each individual idea by keeping them relatively "scarce."
3. I need to stay in this arena. I could write all sorts of posts about politics, technology, etc., but again I want/need this blog to be about sex, Dominance, submission, etc.
I wrote last week that I wanted the three main "features" -- essays, fiction, and slices of life -- to be in more or less equal proportion. I'm beginning to understand that while it might end up that way over the long haul, in the shorter term one or two of those is going to predominate over the other(s), until it changes around again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)