submissive vs. Dominant Blogs, Part 1

I was surfing the link list, looking for some inspiration, and clicking on links to links of links, and all of a sudden I came to the following realization, unspectacular though it may be:

There seem to be a lot more blogs by submissives than there are blogs by Dominants.

Part of this is that there are simply more submissives than Dominants. I have read, one place, that the number is something like seven subs for every 3 Dom/mes.

One might thus expect a baseline of 70% of D/s blogs to be by submissives, assuming that the blogging subset (!) exists in the same percentage as the D/s population at large. (And the much bigger assumption that the 7/3 ratio is accurate.)

By My anecdotal reckoning it's a lot closer to 90%.

Why should that be? Several possibilities:

1. submission is easier to write about than Dominance.
2. submission is more interesting to read about than Dominance.
3. submissives are naturally more introspective and analytical than Dom/mes.
4. submissives read more blogs, thus comment on more blogs, thus their blogs are better publicized and linked to.
5. A submissive can be ordered to do a blog, thus making submissive blogs more likely.

And any number of other possibilities.

I'm not sure I really put much faith in any of those I listed above.

If not those reasons, though . . . why?

That's Part 2.

Gratuitous Picture Post

   It's the blogging equivalent of a PTA bath.  You don't want to go another day without posting something.  But you stare at the mocking white new post screen for ten minutes and . . . nothing.  And you havn't got all night.

   In desperation you figure you'll toss a picture up there.   Just this once.   You'll be more inspired to do a real post next time.  


   The voice seems to come from a little red devil on your shoulder.

   "Go ahead . . . . it's going to feel good.  Do it.  You're having a rough week . . . you deserve a post off."

   Yeah.  You know . . . I do . . . I really do . . .


Phelps and A-Rod: Minority Report

  This past week, two sports stories transcended sports and found their way into the mainstream media.

   1.  Olympic swimming god Michael Phelps was photographed with a bong.

   2.  Sports Illustrated reported that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003.

  Phelps issued the expected corporate apology . . . I'm sorry I let down all the widows, orphans and baby koalas for whom I had been a role model, I promise never to do it again, I'll gladly narc on the person or persons the weed was obtained from, just ask me, and any fan who would like his or her car detailed please e-mail me and I'll send you a gift certificate to Jiffy Wash.

   It was a nice piece of PR hackwork -- for better or worse publicists have had a lot of practice issuing these endorsement-saving (they hope) apologies on behalf of athletes.  But most of them involve something more serious than being photographed with a bong.

   And that's the essence of Minority Report, Part 1.  Once, just once, could one of these guys just admit they smoke weed and skip the mea culpa, which, let's face it, no one believes anyway?  Phelps will smoke weed again -- he'll just be more careful about the circumstances and the company next time.

   I understand it's against the law . . . but consider -- of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana -- which has the highest social cost?  Marijuana is a distant third.  The "gateway drug" argument is easily debunked (or universally applicable, equally as devastating to the argument).  

  Anti-drug ads urge our children to "live above the influence."  I wonder, will an athlete ever live above the influence of sponsorship dollars?  I am guessing not.  Some addictions are way too strong to break.

* * * * *

   A-Rod tested positive for steroids in 2003.  This is a big deal because, a) it's A-Rod, b) he's on the Yankees, c) he's an easy target because he cares too damn much what people think, and d) he has denied using steroids (smartly, however, not in front of Congress, as Dumbest Living Human Rafael Palmiero did).

  Back in 2003 baseball did mass tests, for the sole purpose of determining if steroid use was widespread enough to warrant an actual "policy" and/or further steps.  5-7% of the players tested, tested positive.  The results were never meant to be published, in terms of who had tested positive and who hadn't.  In fact, a court order sealed the 2003 results.

  Well, someone leaked the A-Rod information to a reporter and the story breaks.  

  I assume the story is accurate.  Sports Illustrated is not looking to invite a massive lawsuit for reporting something so damaging and then having it turn out to be false.  A Rod has not denied it to this point.

  My problem comes in here.  Whoever leaked the information to the reporter knowingly broke the law.  The reporter accepted and relayed information she knew to have been illegally obtained.  
   Why doesn't that matter?  I understand it has no bearing on A Rod's guilt, innocence, or legacy.  But it's a small example of how the press, in its boundless arrogance, has lost touch with the common good, and with the people they so condescendingly claim to ultimately act on behalf of, when in fact they pursue career objectives with the same single-minded zeal as the most aggressive drug company sales rep.

   So, by all means, everyone who wants to trash A-Rod, have a ball.  But let's not pretend that it was "journalism" that caused the story to ever become a story.

[My thanks to iris, who contributed to this post.]

It's Not Personal, Sonny

  There's a great scene in The Godfather where the Corleone family contemplates an uncertain future.  Don Vito lies in a hospital bed, clinging to life after an assassination attempt by other forces in organized crime who see Don Corleone as standing in the way of their entry into the massively lucrative heroin business.

  At one point, a young Michael Corleone suggests to Tom Hagen, the consigliere, and to his older brother Sonny, running the family in the Don's absence, that their problems will be solved if they assassinate a certain New York City police captain and the mobster who's facilitating the Mafia's entry into the drug trade.

 Michael suggests that they agree to a meeting -- a meeting at which Michael will kill the police captain and the heroin distributor.  The following exchange then ensues:

Sonny: What are you gonna do? Nice college boy, didn't want to get mixed up in the family business. Now you want to gun down a police captain. Why? Because he slapped you in the face a little? What do you think this like the Army where you can shoot 'em from a mile away? No you gotta get up like this and, badda-bing, you blow their brains all over your nice Ivy League suit. C'mere. [Kisses Michael on the head
Sonny: You're taking this very personal. Tom, this is business and this man is taking it very, very personal. 
Michael Corleone: Where does it say that you can't kill a cop? 
Tom Hagen: Come on, Mikey... 
Michael Corleone: Tom, wait a minute. I'm talking about a cop that's mixed up in drugs. I'm talking about a - a - a dishonest cop - a crooked cop who got mixed up in the rackets and got what was coming to him. That's a terrific story. And we have newspaper people on the payroll, don't we, Tom? 
[Tom nods
Michael Corleone: And they might like a story like that. 
Tom Hagen: They might, they just might. 
Michael Corleone: [to Sonny] It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business. 

The scene is both funny and chilling.  Chilling because of the way Pacino somehow manages to convey the well-hidden steel beneath the surface, the subtle but absolute willingness to do absolutely anything, perfectly ordered and compartmentalized, even to the extent of murder.

I of course see a lesson in there . . . an important insight into the nature of Dominance.

When I look back at the mistakes I've made as a Domme, I can trace almost every one to a failure to separate "business" from personal.  

What exactly does that mean, though?  Especially since I Myself have written several times that I can't truly dominate without love being present, that the emotional aspect is so important?  

To distinguish personal from business means to separate what jeopardizes One's goals and what does not, when evaluating a situation.  It means to take into account everything that led up to the current moment, and to consider, then act, accordingly, with the wisdom and judgement the submissive has earned by committing him or herself to One.

If there is a situation, a mistake in judgement, some faux pas or other, the Dom/me needs to use the most important advantage the unequal power relationship affords Him or Her:  The power to take a brief pause, to allow that consideration and analysis to happen, before speaking or acting.  The Dom/me who punishes, physically or verbally, without taking that pause is making a mistake.

The distinction might seem picky, or strained.  These are interpersonal relationships, after all, not commercial enterprises.  But to Me, there is a mission, an objective, a desired future state to be attained.  And the pursuit of that desired future state, while it happens in an emotional arena,  is not in and of itself emotional.  And as such, when the One with the greater power lets His or Her emotions take precedence over the objective, then in a very real sense those being led are temporaril without a Leader.  And that's nowhere for one being led to be, even for a moment.

One does need to be able to express One's anger sometimes, of course.  But the wise Dom/me bears in mind that punishment should always be business, never personal . . . and that One needs, always, to find another outlet, another venue, to release that negative emotion.

Reputation And Substance, Part 2

"You don't like my music 
You don't have to use it 
Funkin is a thing that all of us release 
You don't have to get it 
All you do is let it 
Then you'll know exactly how to groove

from "Get The Funk Outta My Face," The Brothers Johnson

There's another side to last night's post.

Just as it's easy to lose the message, to lose sight of the important things and lapse into a kind of drearily ritualized half-listening, half-being . . . it's possible also that we're too quick to think, to sincerely believe, even, that we have lost sight of the important things and sadly, to then act accordingly.

And even more amazing, to Me, is the insidiousness of this (sometimes) false idea.  It's so subtle, so stealthy, so . . . nearly invisible, that this post didn't even occur to Me until this afternoon.

Consider.  I think about these things, these kinds of ideas, all the time.  And, I like to think I've got a brain or two.  I consider every word I publish on this blog, multiple times.  After posting last night's entry, I thought I'd nailed it.  I was sad, because the conclusion of that post, which seemed inescapable at the time, felt sad to Me.  But I felt that "Reputation And Substance" was all I needed to say on the subject.

In the words of a great philosopher, "Go figure."

It is just as likely that we only think we've lost our way as it is that we might actually have lost our way.  Even if it's really difficult to be able to tell when we're really lost and when we only think we're lost . . . that's cause for massive relief and celebration.  And thus the Brothers Johnson snippet that introduced this post.

"You don't have to get it . . . all you do is let it . . . "

Reputation And Substance

Everyone not living under a rock knows that Bruce Springsteen was the halftime entertainment at the Super Bowl last night.

Bruce is a source of some (good-natured) back and forth between iris and Myself.  iris is a huge Bruce fan;  I, on the other hand, feel that Bruce jumped the shark a long time ago.  I don't know if it's ever-unchanging wardrobe, the vapid forays into political commentary, or just that his music isn't nearly as good or powerful as it once was, but Bruce does little for Me these days.

So, last night, predictably, iris and I had diverging views about the halftime show.  [Disclaimer:  I missed almost all of the first song.]  iris loved it;  I thought the song selection was regrettable at best [the ultra-lame "Glory Days" as the closer?], and Bruce's performance at times veered between haphazard [a very raggedly "Born To Run" was close to disgraceful] and hokey [adjusting lyrics for the city/event and the tried and true audience vocal segment].

But it got Me to thinking.  Often, when we are listening to an artist that we've come to love, we not only forgive a lot, but we reach a point where if we're not careful, we find ourselves simply listening to the artist's reputation, and responding to that, instead of to the emotional intent of the music.  

It's something I wonder and worry about in D/s terms.  It's been a long time the girls have been with Me.  I say the same things, in different ways, granted, but I say them . . . a lot.  Does it get old?  Or have I made it old, worse yet?  What part of indifference belongs to the teacher and what to the student?  Have I lost the emotional underpinnings of all this?

Or am I completely off base here?  Maybe My worries are totally unfounded.  

"Glory days . . . "