The Question That Won't Go Away, Part 1

   Many times over the life of this blog I've thought and written about the question of whether there is any real "standard" for D/s, or is it completely roll-your-own, based on the unique relationship between a Dom/me and a sub(s)?

   My experience tells Me it's the latter, especially lately.  But in My heart of hearts I want there to be a standard.  If there is a standard, there is an objective way to tell good from bad, and a common basis for discussion.  If everyone's experience is equally relevant and completely anecdotal, then there is, logically, no point in writing/thinking about D/s.

  But every time I try to establish that there is a standard, I end up more or less proving the opposite.  But perhaps the investigation of the question can be its own reward.

   Lately I've been looking at the tumblr pages of many subs and Dom/mes.  And while I can't claim to have looked at them all, or even most, perhaps, and the usual disclaimers always apply, there are a few conclusions I come to.

     1.  D/s is almost completely a private activity.  To the extent that there was a D/s scene, it seems to have faded, at least from the notice or experience of people who create D/s tumblrs.
     2.  Few submissives are universally submissive.  Rather, they are submissive to One.  This demarcation extends to online interactions.
     3.  There is little discussion of the emotional aspects of D/s;  the sexual is much more heavily stressed.
     4.  There is a general lack of critical thinking about any aspect of D/s.

      Assuming that the above are even somewhat correct, they all mitigate in favor of the idea that D/s is a completely unique activity, based on each couple's (or group's, in poly situations) desires.  And if that's the case, the question certainly can be posed -- what's wrong with that?  If that's the way it is, then that's the way it is.

     The short answer is that nothing's wrong with it.  If it's a fact, then to argue against it is to be angry at the sun for setting, as the poem goes.

     The long answer is that if it's not 100% a fact, then something valuable is to be gained by identifying those things might be applicable to most or all situations.


     Part 2 to follow, shortly.

"Forces Of Chaos And Anarchy"

"We are forces of chaos and anarchy
Everything they say we are, we are --
And we are very proud of ourselves."

Those Jefferson Airplane lyrics are almost forty years old now. The 60s are longer ago than most people realize.

But on hearing the song by chance the other day, I got to thinking about D/s, and "forces of chaos and anarchy."

D/s clearly is a disruptive force in society, or could be, and I mean "disruptive" in the best possible way. That D/s is not a political entity is solely the result of its practitioners being overwhelmingly, tightly, closeted.

D/s people are not in a dissimilar place to where gays and lesbians were when the Jefferson Airplane was singing "We Can Be Together." And our society is just as uninterested and hostile to exposure to any form of alternative sexuality as society was 40 years ago regarding same-sex love. But D/s people rarely if ever feel like an oppressed minority, since most are happy to be private or at most involved with small groups of trusted like-minded people.

Nor are we monolithic; a D/s voting bloc is not ever happening -- I've met plenty of people in this life who I wished I lived in the same state as simply so that I could nullify their vote with Mine. I have no illusions that D/s people, numerous as we might be, will ever be a political "force" in traditional terms.

But as forces of chaos and anarchy? As an invigorating disruptor beam fired into the increasingly conformist, complacent and rapidly darkening, hardening, collective heart?

It's not an unappealing thought . . .

[In the spirit of anarchy, no YouTube Tuesday post tonight. Hey, it's a start!]

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.