Tonight's video is Falco's worldwide smash "Rock Me Amadeus." Aside from being a great, fun song, Falco makes a sharp comment on the nature of hero worship and opines that Mozart was the world's first rock star.
Falco died in 1998 and never tasted lasting success in the US, but he had a solid career in Europe and best of all, produced at least one bona fide 80s gem.
I have no idea how accurate this may or may not be, but Google translates the lyrics as:
He was a punker
And he lived in the big city
It was in Vienna, was vienna
Where did it all
He had owe because he drank
But he loved all women
And every exclaimed:
Come and rock me Amadeus Come and rock me Amadeus
He was a superstar
He was popular
He was so eccentric
Because he had flair
He was a virtuoso
Was a rockidol
And all cried:
Come and rock me Amadeus Come and rock me Amadeus
Amadeus, Amadeus .. Amadeus, Amadeus ...
It was around 1780
And it was in vienna
No plastic money anymore
The banks against him
Where did owe the
Was well known anyone
He was a man of women
Women loved his punk
He was a superstar
He was popular
He was so eccentric
Because he had flair
He was a virtuoso
Was a rockidol
And all cried:
Come and rock me Amadeus Come and rock me Amadeus
Amadeus, Amadeus... Amadeus, Amadeus ...
Rolling Your Own And Enjoying It Less?
A girl came into the room yesterday. A first-time visitor I'll call saturnia (not her real nickname). Those who have ever visited #Enchanted_Palms know that I really bend over backwards to be welcoming and gracious to first-time visitors (sometimes to My own detriment, but that's another story). I do have, however a few very simple rules.
So saturnia comes in . . . she seems pretty normal, nice, etc. Great.
One of My simple rules has to do with the use of "Sir" and "Ma'am" by submissives when addressing Dominants. [The purpose of this post isn't to explain why, but there is a short explanation and a long explanation. The short explanation is "because it's My room and I say so." The long explanation is considerably more enlightening, well thought-out, and, umm . . . longer.]
I do, however, attempt to convey what the rules are in the gentlest way possible. I honestly do find I catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
So, after waiting a couple minutes, and being addressed just by My name, twice, I say, and I quote:
Lenora smiles . . . it's Sir/Ma'am in here, saturnia . . . thank you
saturnia says "Oh!," "Bye," and leaves.
I understand there are bottoms and there are submissives. I understand that each person feels free to define his or her submission however s/he sees fit and to pursue opportunities to experience that uniquely-defined submission, in day to day life, on-line, in one's fantasy life, etc.
I get all that. And in and of itself it's perfectly reasonable and probably healthy.
But I do cling to the (apparently unpopular) notion that "roll your own"submission is inherently limiting. There is a value in submitting to a situation in which one is not being catered to to the nth degree.
When I say "submitting," I mean . . . bending one's will a bit, not surrendering. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between submission and surrender shouldn't be exploring any of this in the first place until s/he learns that difference.
Submitting to the situation means putting aside for a little while that idealized menu we all carry around in our heads, and looking, experiencing, considering, another way. Not to change everything about one's self, but simply to add something new to the inventory. Perhaps it's discarded soon afterwards, perhaps not -- in either case one is richer for the experience.
Exploring submission is not like learning basket-weaving or auto repair or real estate law. Unlike just about any other field of human endeavor, exploring submission of necessity entails moving outside of the totality of what one thought one wanted to do.
I am not talking about exposing one's self to anything illegal, dangerous, damaging, etc. I am talking about stopping a moment, considering the possibility that 100% self-defined submission might not be all there is, since it lacks the essential "other" element: that entity to be submitted to. And in that, the realization that there is not only a value, but a real beauty in simple, non-dramatic, garden variety, non-surrendering submission. And along with the beauty, afterwards, a quiet sense of accomplishment that can feel very warm and real.
So saturnia comes in . . . she seems pretty normal, nice, etc. Great.
One of My simple rules has to do with the use of "Sir" and "Ma'am" by submissives when addressing Dominants. [The purpose of this post isn't to explain why, but there is a short explanation and a long explanation. The short explanation is "because it's My room and I say so." The long explanation is considerably more enlightening, well thought-out, and, umm . . . longer.]
I do, however, attempt to convey what the rules are in the gentlest way possible. I honestly do find I catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
So, after waiting a couple minutes, and being addressed just by My name, twice, I say, and I quote:
Lenora smiles . . . it's Sir/Ma'am in here, saturnia . . . thank you
saturnia says "Oh!," "Bye," and leaves.
I understand there are bottoms and there are submissives. I understand that each person feels free to define his or her submission however s/he sees fit and to pursue opportunities to experience that uniquely-defined submission, in day to day life, on-line, in one's fantasy life, etc.
I get all that. And in and of itself it's perfectly reasonable and probably healthy.
But I do cling to the (apparently unpopular) notion that "roll your own"submission is inherently limiting. There is a value in submitting to a situation in which one is not being catered to to the nth degree.
When I say "submitting," I mean . . . bending one's will a bit, not surrendering. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between submission and surrender shouldn't be exploring any of this in the first place until s/he learns that difference.
Submitting to the situation means putting aside for a little while that idealized menu we all carry around in our heads, and looking, experiencing, considering, another way. Not to change everything about one's self, but simply to add something new to the inventory. Perhaps it's discarded soon afterwards, perhaps not -- in either case one is richer for the experience.
Exploring submission is not like learning basket-weaving or auto repair or real estate law. Unlike just about any other field of human endeavor, exploring submission of necessity entails moving outside of the totality of what one thought one wanted to do.
I am not talking about exposing one's self to anything illegal, dangerous, damaging, etc. I am talking about stopping a moment, considering the possibility that 100% self-defined submission might not be all there is, since it lacks the essential "other" element: that entity to be submitted to. And in that, the realization that there is not only a value, but a real beauty in simple, non-dramatic, garden variety, non-surrendering submission. And along with the beauty, afterwards, a quiet sense of accomplishment that can feel very warm and real.
YouTube Tuesday: Fast-Forward Bondage
A fun little clip of a girl getting tied up . . . very professionally done, but the speed has been turned up quite a bit. Seeing the normal speed version might actually be good as an instructional piece, but the frantically-paced clip is fun, and the music, "Tear You Apart" by She Wants Revenge, works nicely.
On Delurking, Feed Readers, and The Big Gap
Recently there was a "mass delurking" day in the sex blog world, a day when those who regularly read but never comment were supposed to leave a comment, letting the author(s) know they existed. It's a great idea . . . I know how many visits I get a day (100 or so, typically) and I know how many comments I get (one or two a week); it would be nice for more readers to make their existence known.
I didn't know about this particular delurking day and if I had I'd have made a "please delurk" post, but frankly, I wouldn't have expected much; I've asked people to delurk before and the response has been, shall we say, underwhleming in the extreme.
That got Me to thinking about My own lurking. We all (or just about all) read a lot more blogs than we comment upon. But I've found in My case, and I suspect the experience of others might be similar, since I started using a feed reader, I lurk even more and comment even less.
For those not totally familiar, a feed reader "pushes" new posts from each blog (or site) you subscribe to, so that you see the post in your feed reader screen (Google Reader, in My case), as opposed to having to visit (and remember to visit) every blog on My link list.
It's very convenient -- one never "leaves home," as it were, and automatically stays current with all the blogs one wants to.
But it has its drawbacks.
One, I think it encourages lurking. There is no way to comment upon the pushed post without navigating to the post in its original environment,. It's just an extra step and extra steps always limit use, at least to some degree.
Two, one can not see the comments left by others, only the original post. To see them means, again, going to the original post. See above.
Three, one doesn't see the layout of the original page. I enjoy seeing who has changed layouts and how often/why. There are many blogs on My link list for which I've read every post made the last three months but for which I have not landed on the actual site once since setting up the feed.
Three-A, not seeing the layout means not seeing the link list either. Some of My best finds were from the link lists of blogs I link to. As blogs appear and disappear, I miss that source of new inspirations.
So, the reader environment is convenient in the extreme, but limited and sterile.
The other differing aspect of using a reader is that I am not recording any "visits" to the linked-to blogs and thus not being shown in their counters for visits, page reads, etc. I assume that there are some stats being kept somewhere regarding how many "reads" there are via the feed, but it's not the same. By using the reader I have ceased to be part of that constantly-aggregating number at the bottom of the screen. And something about that I don't like.
So, if your blog is on My link list . . . I am reading, actually more faithfully than I was prior to setting up the feed reader (Piper -- set up a feed! yours is the only blog on My list I can't find a feed for!) . . . and I'll make a more concerted effort to jump over and comment more, and/or just to poke around and see what's new, graphically and link-list wise.
I didn't know about this particular delurking day and if I had I'd have made a "please delurk" post, but frankly, I wouldn't have expected much; I've asked people to delurk before and the response has been, shall we say, underwhleming in the extreme.
That got Me to thinking about My own lurking. We all (or just about all) read a lot more blogs than we comment upon. But I've found in My case, and I suspect the experience of others might be similar, since I started using a feed reader, I lurk even more and comment even less.
For those not totally familiar, a feed reader "pushes" new posts from each blog (or site) you subscribe to, so that you see the post in your feed reader screen (Google Reader, in My case), as opposed to having to visit (and remember to visit) every blog on My link list.
It's very convenient -- one never "leaves home," as it were, and automatically stays current with all the blogs one wants to.
But it has its drawbacks.
One, I think it encourages lurking. There is no way to comment upon the pushed post without navigating to the post in its original environment,. It's just an extra step and extra steps always limit use, at least to some degree.
Two, one can not see the comments left by others, only the original post. To see them means, again, going to the original post. See above.
Three, one doesn't see the layout of the original page. I enjoy seeing who has changed layouts and how often/why. There are many blogs on My link list for which I've read every post made the last three months but for which I have not landed on the actual site once since setting up the feed.
Three-A, not seeing the layout means not seeing the link list either. Some of My best finds were from the link lists of blogs I link to. As blogs appear and disappear, I miss that source of new inspirations.
So, the reader environment is convenient in the extreme, but limited and sterile.
The other differing aspect of using a reader is that I am not recording any "visits" to the linked-to blogs and thus not being shown in their counters for visits, page reads, etc. I assume that there are some stats being kept somewhere regarding how many "reads" there are via the feed, but it's not the same. By using the reader I have ceased to be part of that constantly-aggregating number at the bottom of the screen. And something about that I don't like.
So, if your blog is on My link list . . . I am reading, actually more faithfully than I was prior to setting up the feed reader (Piper -- set up a feed! yours is the only blog on My list I can't find a feed for!) . . . and I'll make a more concerted effort to jump over and comment more, and/or just to poke around and see what's new, graphically and link-list wise.
Sigourney Weaver?
Piper recently wrote about a funny thing that happened during sex. Piper had coaxed her partner into talking about a fantasy of his, and it involved Piper and another woman. Piper of course just has to ask who that other woman might be and gets the pull-up-short answer:
Sigourney Weaver.
My reaction was an audible "What the ----?" followed by a good laugh. I'm not sure why I laughed, but I do agree with Piper's assessment:
"No offense to Ms. Weaver. I actually think she is quite attractive. She has a unique look and is not the classic Hollywood bombshell. It's just that I could have guessed 100 actresses and she wouldn't have been a blip on my radar."
And there is just something really funny about her name being the answer to that question. I don't know what it is . . . but . . .
Look at the bright side. He didn't say someone really old, someone really young, or someone who's dead. He didn't mention anyone related to him, currently serving time for a violent crime, or related to you. He didn't say your best friend, an ex-, or your worst enemy (not that you'd actually have any enemies).
So in the grand scheme of things "Sigourney Weaver" is actually a pretty good answer.
But in general, Piper, the trial lawyers' dictum applies well here:Don't ask any question you don't already know the answer to.
Happy weekend, everyone. KAHTATUS.
YouTube Tuesday: The Perfect Pop Song, Irresistible Disco/Pop Division
Back we go in pursuit of the Perfect Pop Song, and tonight's entry is a strong contender, "Rock DJ" by Robbie Williams.
This is pop: Singable, dance-able, bouncy, infectious. Clever lyrics you just have to learn and then easily forget a week later.
This just might be the one.
Disclaimer: The video might be kind of disturbing to some. Let's say Robbie takes the concept of "stripping" to its (il-)logical conclusion.
"Singin' in the classes
Music for your masses
Give no head
No backstage passes
Have a proper giggle
I'll be quite polite
But when I rock the mike
I rock the mike (right)
You got no love then you're with the wrong man
It's time to move your body
If you can't get a girl but your best friend can
It's time to move your body "
This is pop: Singable, dance-able, bouncy, infectious. Clever lyrics you just have to learn and then easily forget a week later.
This just might be the one.
Disclaimer: The video might be kind of disturbing to some. Let's say Robbie takes the concept of "stripping" to its (il-)logical conclusion.
"Singin' in the classes
Music for your masses
Give no head
No backstage passes
Have a proper giggle
I'll be quite polite
But when I rock the mike
I rock the mike (right)
You got no love then you're with the wrong man
It's time to move your body
If you can't get a girl but your best friend can
It's time to move your body "
What Sounds Good . . . Is Good?
swan writes here on the subject of poly relationships. It's a longish post, and to really get the best out of it you'll need to also read an externally-linked short story, but the investment in time is well worth it.
swan discusses briefly, the "easy" notion that "more love makes more love":
Poly people are fond of saying that "more love makes more love." It is one of those cute, clever, insider slogan-ish bits that we toss off to try and make things sound bright and easy and palatable to all the ones from outside who would look into our lives and make negative judgements. It is right up there on a par with the ubiquitous BDSM slogan, "SSC" (Safe, Sane, and Consensual). It really doesn't mean nearly as much as it seems to on the face of it, and once you start to know a little bit about the reality of things, that quick, glib, clever little throwaway line starts to pale some.
I have to say . . . yes, and no. The reason we "make things sound bright and easy" is not only to deflect negative judgments. It's also because 1) being positively-oriented is inherently less draining than being negatively-oriented, and 2) we sense the grain of truth in the "easy" statement, and we can't help responding to that, even though the wizened, hardened folks we want to think the world has made us would dismiss the idea completely.
In some cases more love actually does make more love. All? Most? No, I won't go there. Life and jealousy and sickness and petty annoyances and all those negative (if mostly silent) judgments do get in the way. And certainly, as swan notes, there is no standard configuration, no neat, logically-consistent (albeit tenuous) hierarchy of infinities like those that govern transfinite mathematics. So, to say it trivially but truthfully, your mileage will vary. A lot.
But it occurs to Me that the most radical thing one can do in this is to be the romantic. Wow. I wonder how many of us are strong (or foolish?) enough, often enough?
In any event, I encourage you to read swan's post. Poly or not, you'll find it thought-provoking and intelligent. And the story she links is to pretty entertaining as well.
swan discusses briefly, the "easy" notion that "more love makes more love":
Poly people are fond of saying that "more love makes more love." It is one of those cute, clever, insider slogan-ish bits that we toss off to try and make things sound bright and easy and palatable to all the ones from outside who would look into our lives and make negative judgements. It is right up there on a par with the ubiquitous BDSM slogan, "SSC" (Safe, Sane, and Consensual). It really doesn't mean nearly as much as it seems to on the face of it, and once you start to know a little bit about the reality of things, that quick, glib, clever little throwaway line starts to pale some.
I have to say . . . yes, and no. The reason we "make things sound bright and easy" is not only to deflect negative judgments. It's also because 1) being positively-oriented is inherently less draining than being negatively-oriented, and 2) we sense the grain of truth in the "easy" statement, and we can't help responding to that, even though the wizened, hardened folks we want to think the world has made us would dismiss the idea completely.
In some cases more love actually does make more love. All? Most? No, I won't go there. Life and jealousy and sickness and petty annoyances and all those negative (if mostly silent) judgments do get in the way. And certainly, as swan notes, there is no standard configuration, no neat, logically-consistent (albeit tenuous) hierarchy of infinities like those that govern transfinite mathematics. So, to say it trivially but truthfully, your mileage will vary. A lot.
But it occurs to Me that the most radical thing one can do in this is to be the romantic. Wow. I wonder how many of us are strong (or foolish?) enough, often enough?
In any event, I encourage you to read swan's post. Poly or not, you'll find it thought-provoking and intelligent. And the story she links is to pretty entertaining as well.
YouTube Tuesday: Goth Girls Are Easy
A fun little music video I found while prowling around the dark corners of youtube this evening. The band is called Lesbian Bed Death . . . but fortunately they're better at music than at coming up with good band names.
As for goth girls being easy . . . I'm sure they're not all that way, but it's an appealing thought . . .
As for goth girls being easy . . . I'm sure they're not all that way, but it's an appealing thought . . .
Lesdership Styles In D/s, Part 2
I brought Part 1 to an abrupt end with this:
"The Leader (Coach/Manager/Dom/me) has to be confident enough to be flexible enough."
Flexibility is a very tricky area. Many (including Me, on this blog, on several occasions) mention the importance of consistency, particularly in D/s interactions because the emotions are so exposed and magnified. And consistency is hugely important. How then to be "flexible" and consistent?
I see two parts to the answer: 1) to understand that consistency of strategy doesn't have to always mean consistency of tactics, and 2) to have the confidence that 1) can be implemented and that whatever misunderstandings might ensue as a result can be worked out.
Disclaimer: There are a lot of Dominants who are confident in their abilities who actually shouldn't be. I'm going to embrace a rare (for Me) "consumerist" point of view here and caution all submissives that confidence is often inversely proportional to ability and understanding, and to be very careful.
Consistency of strategy vs. consistency of tactics . . . in other words, understanding that while the destination doesn't change, there can be many roads that lead to it. The danger is that the submissive may get hung up on the change in tactics and begin to feel set adrift, unsure of the ground beneath him or her. [I don't like to draw a lot of gender differences in these things but in My experience a female submissive it seems is more likely to fall into that trap.]
What prevents that from happening is the vigilance and understanding of the Dominant. It's incumbent upon the Dom/me to be watchful for changes in the submissive's behavior that signal that either 1) the different tactic isn't working, and/or 2) the submissive feels abandoned.
And of course the Dom/me needs to be smart and at a certain point stop what doesn't work. The good Dom/me is constantly "making things up," as in . . . finding new and different ways to deliver the same message; S/He isn't tied to one approach, one tactic, while the underlying message remains totally and comfortingly consistent.
Lastly, "communication" rears its venerable head. The Dom/me has to be confident enough to admit that S/He isn't possessed of all the answers, that S/He is constantly searching for the best way to lead and to communicate, and that S/He is committed to all those improvements, short and long term.
While we all have Our leadership styles, the important thing is to realize that the one(s) we lead, their well-being and growth, are more important than holding fast to a style. And that in pursuit of that, often, many different styles are necessary.
"The Leader (Coach/Manager/Dom/me) has to be confident enough to be flexible enough."
Flexibility is a very tricky area. Many (including Me, on this blog, on several occasions) mention the importance of consistency, particularly in D/s interactions because the emotions are so exposed and magnified. And consistency is hugely important. How then to be "flexible" and consistent?
I see two parts to the answer: 1) to understand that consistency of strategy doesn't have to always mean consistency of tactics, and 2) to have the confidence that 1) can be implemented and that whatever misunderstandings might ensue as a result can be worked out.
Disclaimer: There are a lot of Dominants who are confident in their abilities who actually shouldn't be. I'm going to embrace a rare (for Me) "consumerist" point of view here and caution all submissives that confidence is often inversely proportional to ability and understanding, and to be very careful.
Consistency of strategy vs. consistency of tactics . . . in other words, understanding that while the destination doesn't change, there can be many roads that lead to it. The danger is that the submissive may get hung up on the change in tactics and begin to feel set adrift, unsure of the ground beneath him or her. [I don't like to draw a lot of gender differences in these things but in My experience a female submissive it seems is more likely to fall into that trap.]
What prevents that from happening is the vigilance and understanding of the Dominant. It's incumbent upon the Dom/me to be watchful for changes in the submissive's behavior that signal that either 1) the different tactic isn't working, and/or 2) the submissive feels abandoned.
And of course the Dom/me needs to be smart and at a certain point stop what doesn't work. The good Dom/me is constantly "making things up," as in . . . finding new and different ways to deliver the same message; S/He isn't tied to one approach, one tactic, while the underlying message remains totally and comfortingly consistent.
Lastly, "communication" rears its venerable head. The Dom/me has to be confident enough to admit that S/He isn't possessed of all the answers, that S/He is constantly searching for the best way to lead and to communicate, and that S/He is committed to all those improvements, short and long term.
While we all have Our leadership styles, the important thing is to realize that the one(s) we lead, their well-being and growth, are more important than holding fast to a style. And that in pursuit of that, often, many different styles are necessary.
Leadership Styles in D/s, Part 1
Sports analogies carried forward into business and real life can be overdone and certainly often are. But every now and then something that happens in the world of sports gets Me thinking about situations in D/s.
As you may or may not know, the New York Mets recently blew a large lead in the last two weeks of the season and ended up out of the playoffs. The "collapse" was historic in its proportions. And what's a good collapse without assigning blame?
Listening to sports talk radio in the wake of this debacle, hosts and callers and "experts" have various theories about who should get how much of said blame. And many want to lay a good portion of the blame on the Mets' manager, Wilie Randolph.
One thing that the Willie-blamers say is that Willie's personality is too low key. He doesn't get in players' faces; he doesn't argue much with umpires; he's not the locker-room tirade after a bad loss type.
The classic response to those who want a more fiery Willie Randolph is: "He has to be who he is. It's not his nature to be 'fiery.' "
And there, finally, is the point (I could hear your impatience).
To those who toss out the old chestnut that "That isn't Willie," I respond:
A good leader is less concerned with holding to some abstract conception of Him- or Herself and more concerned with eliciting the desired results from those S/He is leading.
Meaning, in baseball, in business, in D/s, the boss has to do what's necessary, to be who S/He needs to be, to get those being led to respond. Within the normal strictures of course of what is moral/legal/safe bla bla bla . . . let's not lose our way in Disclaimerville.
The Leader (Coach/Manager/Dom/me) has to be confident enough to be flexible enough.
More on that in Part 2.
As you may or may not know, the New York Mets recently blew a large lead in the last two weeks of the season and ended up out of the playoffs. The "collapse" was historic in its proportions. And what's a good collapse without assigning blame?
Listening to sports talk radio in the wake of this debacle, hosts and callers and "experts" have various theories about who should get how much of said blame. And many want to lay a good portion of the blame on the Mets' manager, Wilie Randolph.
One thing that the Willie-blamers say is that Willie's personality is too low key. He doesn't get in players' faces; he doesn't argue much with umpires; he's not the locker-room tirade after a bad loss type.
The classic response to those who want a more fiery Willie Randolph is: "He has to be who he is. It's not his nature to be 'fiery.' "
And there, finally, is the point (I could hear your impatience).
To those who toss out the old chestnut that "That isn't Willie," I respond:
A good leader is less concerned with holding to some abstract conception of Him- or Herself and more concerned with eliciting the desired results from those S/He is leading.
Meaning, in baseball, in business, in D/s, the boss has to do what's necessary, to be who S/He needs to be, to get those being led to respond. Within the normal strictures of course of what is moral/legal/safe bla bla bla . . . let's not lose our way in Disclaimerville.
The Leader (Coach/Manager/Dom/me) has to be confident enough to be flexible enough.
More on that in Part 2.
YouTube Tuesday: PostSecret
By now most know about Post Secret, a website where collected secrets that people have sent in on postcards have been blogged.
There have been various video collections of postcard secrets made -- this one is one of My favorites, set to, appropriately enough, "Dirty Little Secret" by the All-American Rejects.
Like Post Secret itself, this clip is by turns funny, touching, off-putting, and heartrending.
There have been various video collections of postcard secrets made -- this one is one of My favorites, set to, appropriately enough, "Dirty Little Secret" by the All-American Rejects.
Like Post Secret itself, this clip is by turns funny, touching, off-putting, and heartrending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)