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.
YouTube Tuesday (Plus 1): At Least It Hasn't Been Outsourced
Tonight's offering is a cute little piece about the first day on the job for a supposed "YouTube Customer Care" representative.
Yesterday devolved into the day from hell . . . and YouTube Tuesday was one of a few casualties.
Yesterday devolved into the day from hell . . . and YouTube Tuesday was one of a few casualties.
Update
1. Still smoke-free! It's just about a month now. To be honest, I don't feel markedly better, or even different. But I'm glad I did it. And yes, I was (sadly) right about one thing. People STINK, and when you don't smoke you're completely open to exactly how much people stink. I am seriously considering carrying little department store spritz bottles with Me.
2. Daily visits to the blog hit a low about a month ago, coinciding with the latter stages of the long Lenora X story. Visits at that time were down to about 110 daily. Lately they are back up and in fact higher than ever, verging on 150 a day. I attribute this largely to adding a number of links to the link list . . . and, wonderfully, I got a bunch of links in return without any actual link-whoring! But I won't let serendipity throw Me off course -- link-whoring can and must continue.
3. The girls are fine, and their usual wonderful selves. They are a continual source of pride, joy, and inspiration to Me. I gladly repeat Myself to say that I love them, so incredibly much.
4. Judging by the comments and allowing for the typical ratio of readers to commenters, the erotic fiction seems well-received. Which is nice. I am not sure exactly how long and where "The Taking of anni" will go; contrary to usual practice I just sort of tossed Part I out there without having any grand plan in mind. The little snapshots of Miss and anni will continue at least for a bit . . .
5. I have another Lenora X story forming, and a more structured D/s-type story on the horizon as well. And the one "mini-erotica" post I did is the first of hopefully many; I enjoy the short-short form. With the long stories it's a matter of time, and "spacing" -- as I was explaining to someone recently, I find that when I'm doing a story it's difficult to stop and do normal blog posts. And I don't want this to become strictly a fiction blog. My goal is to have the three main things in the title banner -- essays, fiction, and slices of life -- is more or less equal balance. It's a work in a progress.
6. I hope that everyone out there is doing well and blessed with all the love and happiness that is possible in life. KAHTATUS.
P.S. Please don't make Me write another pathetic post about how no one e-mails Me! I'm certainly not above it but I'd really rather not. Do your part!
Believing
I read a lot of blogs. I see at least some of the thoughts of many different people (all more or less in the very big tent that is sex/D-s/BDSM/spanko blogs).
And I read a lot of what could be construed as "cries for help."
I won't quote or link them here . . . anyone who reads enough blogs in this arena knows what I'm talking about.
Sometimes the cry for help is couched strongly in terms of "help is the last thing I need." The tone of these entries is basically "I'm fucked up and I like it."
Sometimes the cry for help is in the obliviousness of the author. S/he will describe hideously self-destructive behavior in a matter-of-fact, seemingly clueless, way. One reads it and feels as though the question "cry for help?" would be met with a sincere blank stare.
Sometimes the author understands quite readily that s/he needs help, but is resigned to being the way s/he is. Occasionally the author will post an entry where s/he allows a little glimpse into the real problem, the sadness and loneliness of his or her life, and then quickly and emphatically negates that in the next post, revelling in the fabulousness of it all.
There's a hundred different flavors. Reading it all, I end up at the same place, over and over: How much to believe?
Perhaps it's more of an issue for Me than for most people, because, on some deep level, I've come to realize that I want and need to believe that it's all true. Not because I want there to be actually be so many miserable people out there, but because I want (need) this place, the blogoshpere, to be about people reaching out, working their way through the issue(s) in their lives, with other people reading about it, caring, and offering through the anonymous distance of cyberspace their concern, their understanding . . .
My way of dealing with this is to act as though it is all true. There are a few cases where the blog author openly states that not everything presented is factual; those are obvious exceptions. But when people are writing about their lives, in the absence of any reason to not believe, I take it as the real thing.
Understand, I am not going around trying to "help people," at least not in the sense of suggesting they need help, or any other sort of intrusive or presumptuous action(s). I realize that what I read in someone's blog is at best part of the story, even if what's presented is 100% factual. If something I read makes Me think of a similar situation or experience, I offer My thoughts in the form of a comment or e-mail, in as unobtrusive a way as I can.
No, "believing" isn't for their benefit, directly . . . ultimately it's for Mine. Since it's what I need to believe it has value for Me in and of itself.
Before you start thinking that I'm a candidate for some professional help, let Me be clear. I understand completely that I might well be hopelessly deluded. My believing, My wanting to offer (mostly) silent support, My offering the brief word of encouragement here and there, etc., is Me offering Me, as I believe we all are.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I accept that. And being wrong will totally have been worth it.
KAHTATUS.
And I read a lot of what could be construed as "cries for help."
I won't quote or link them here . . . anyone who reads enough blogs in this arena knows what I'm talking about.
Sometimes the cry for help is couched strongly in terms of "help is the last thing I need." The tone of these entries is basically "I'm fucked up and I like it."
Sometimes the cry for help is in the obliviousness of the author. S/he will describe hideously self-destructive behavior in a matter-of-fact, seemingly clueless, way. One reads it and feels as though the question "cry for help?" would be met with a sincere blank stare.
Sometimes the author understands quite readily that s/he needs help, but is resigned to being the way s/he is. Occasionally the author will post an entry where s/he allows a little glimpse into the real problem, the sadness and loneliness of his or her life, and then quickly and emphatically negates that in the next post, revelling in the fabulousness of it all.
There's a hundred different flavors. Reading it all, I end up at the same place, over and over: How much to believe?
Perhaps it's more of an issue for Me than for most people, because, on some deep level, I've come to realize that I want and need to believe that it's all true. Not because I want there to be actually be so many miserable people out there, but because I want (need) this place, the blogoshpere, to be about people reaching out, working their way through the issue(s) in their lives, with other people reading about it, caring, and offering through the anonymous distance of cyberspace their concern, their understanding . . .
My way of dealing with this is to act as though it is all true. There are a few cases where the blog author openly states that not everything presented is factual; those are obvious exceptions. But when people are writing about their lives, in the absence of any reason to not believe, I take it as the real thing.
Understand, I am not going around trying to "help people," at least not in the sense of suggesting they need help, or any other sort of intrusive or presumptuous action(s). I realize that what I read in someone's blog is at best part of the story, even if what's presented is 100% factual. If something I read makes Me think of a similar situation or experience, I offer My thoughts in the form of a comment or e-mail, in as unobtrusive a way as I can.
No, "believing" isn't for their benefit, directly . . . ultimately it's for Mine. Since it's what I need to believe it has value for Me in and of itself.
Before you start thinking that I'm a candidate for some professional help, let Me be clear. I understand completely that I might well be hopelessly deluded. My believing, My wanting to offer (mostly) silent support, My offering the brief word of encouragement here and there, etc., is Me offering Me, as I believe we all are.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I accept that. And being wrong will totally have been worth it.
KAHTATUS.
More On That Personality Test
Yesterday I posted the results of a personality test I took. You can read all the details of the results in that post, but one item did get Me thinking.
The results showed that I exhibited "low authoritarianism."
That seems a little odd for a Domme. Doesn't it?
Dictionary.com defines authoritarian as follows:
–noun
OK, toss out #2. But #'s 1 and 3 . . .
"favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom."
"exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others."
On the face of it, that seems exactly what happens in an archetypal D/s relationship. One "exercises control over the will of another". One "favors complete obedience." "Individual freedom" is not highly valued in a submissive as an abstract goal (and, to be honest, is usually not actively sought by the submissive).
But of course, this isn't Gor or some other idealized existence. In matters of two people, there truly is "no government without the consent of the governed." And while I appreciate the simplicity of simple absolutes, I understand that to Dominate a real person calls for a whole mix of skills and behaviors.
And it turns out that the farther you go along the path with someone, the better you know each other, authoritarianism becomes increasingly less necessary in that mix of skills on a day to day basis. It is of course still needed at that times when the Dominant has to "put the hammer down" but as a rule the submissive over time develops a level of respect for the Dominant suh that His or Her "authority" is just . . . there, always present but rarely if ever mentioned or thought about because it's no longer necessary to invoke it.
And for the submissive, the state I seek to bring about for My girls is the state where the full nature of the paradox becomes not only apparent but the operating principle in their lives: Namely, that the less freedom they aspire to have, the more actual freedom they end up having. This is a very difficult point to get across, but in My experience the most effective way to do so is to rarely talk about it, but rather have them experience it. My "authority," in the end, is difficult to define yet it is unquestionably there. As is their freedom. And the growth of each stimulates the growth of the other.
The results showed that I exhibited "low authoritarianism."
That seems a little odd for a Domme. Doesn't it?
Dictionary.com defines authoritarian as follows:
| 1. | favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes. |
| 2. | of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people. |
| 3. | exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent. |
| 4. | a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles. |
OK, toss out #2. But #'s 1 and 3 . . .
"favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom."
"exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others."
On the face of it, that seems exactly what happens in an archetypal D/s relationship. One "exercises control over the will of another". One "favors complete obedience." "Individual freedom" is not highly valued in a submissive as an abstract goal (and, to be honest, is usually not actively sought by the submissive).
But of course, this isn't Gor or some other idealized existence. In matters of two people, there truly is "no government without the consent of the governed." And while I appreciate the simplicity of simple absolutes, I understand that to Dominate a real person calls for a whole mix of skills and behaviors.
And it turns out that the farther you go along the path with someone, the better you know each other, authoritarianism becomes increasingly less necessary in that mix of skills on a day to day basis. It is of course still needed at that times when the Dominant has to "put the hammer down" but as a rule the submissive over time develops a level of respect for the Dominant suh that His or Her "authority" is just . . . there, always present but rarely if ever mentioned or thought about because it's no longer necessary to invoke it.
And for the submissive, the state I seek to bring about for My girls is the state where the full nature of the paradox becomes not only apparent but the operating principle in their lives: Namely, that the less freedom they aspire to have, the more actual freedom they end up having. This is a very difficult point to get across, but in My experience the most effective way to do so is to rarely talk about it, but rather have them experience it. My "authority," in the end, is difficult to define yet it is unquestionably there. As is their freedom. And the growth of each stimulates the growth of the other.
YouTube Tuesday: A Classic, Deconstructed
Tonight's clip is the video of Devo's rendition of the Rolling Stones' classic "Satisfaction."
I look at this version as basically a "political" statement. It's not painting facial hair on the Mona Lisa, its creating a second painting below the original showing the model naked from the waist down. (For even more extreme "desecration" seek out the cover of "Satisfaction" by San Francisco art-rock freaksters The Residents).
It challenges without mocking, it defies without defiling. It walks some crazy line, somehow. It's art.
And it rocks.
I look at this version as basically a "political" statement. It's not painting facial hair on the Mona Lisa, its creating a second painting below the original showing the model naked from the waist down. (For even more extreme "desecration" seek out the cover of "Satisfaction" by San Francisco art-rock freaksters The Residents).
It challenges without mocking, it defies without defiling. It walks some crazy line, somehow. It's art.
And it rocks.
I Am An Amimated Idealist
I found this on a blog (unfortunately I can't remember which one or I'd glad give credit) . . . one of these personality test things. My results are as follows:
According to this test . . .
As an IDEALIST, you are distinctive for your integration of confidence, imagination, willingness to explore, and desire for competence over style.
You have a strong capacity to comprehend the inner workings of things, finding new ideas and innovative insights to feed your curious nature.
You are quite comfortable in the realm of abstract thought. You don't need a practical solution to every one of life's questions.
You are comfortable with the decisions you make in life. You don't need to second-guess yourself, or seek a lot of opinions before you make up your mind.
You enjoy the routines that you have created in your life, and don't feel the need to shake things up just for the sake of change.
You generally succeed at what you do, and others would describe you as successful.
It is important to you that products be efficient – looking good has to come second to working well.
You aren't the kind of person who needs to collect stylish items in an attempt to create an attractive environment – you know that what matters most is function, not style.
You're not afraid to let your emotions guide you, and you're generally considerate of others' feelings as well.
You prefer to have time to plan for things, feeling better with a schedule than with keeping plans up in the air until the last minute.
You do your own thing when it comes to clothing, guided more by practical concerns than by other people's notions of style.
You tend to believe that things happen for a reason, and that not everything is under our control.
You are outgoing, comfortable with others, and up for anything, which makes you ANIMATED.
Some people find crowds and parties exhausting, but not you! You are able to be yourself in many situations.
Sometimes it is hard for you to understand why others feel the way they do, but that doesn't stop you from trusting them or having faith that they are good people.
You know the world is complicated and that there is often more than one side to a story, so you are careful not to make judgments about others too hastily.
You would rather experience the world than sit back and observe it—you are not one to sit on the sidelines.
You are an independent thinker and don't get too worried about how others might perceive you—you are not self-conscious about being the active, engaged person that you are.
Although you have a keen understanding of different people's life circumstances, you occasionally have trouble seeing why people get so upset and emotional about things—they should just lighten up and have fun!
In addition to having faith in the world, you have faith in the people around you—you trust others to do the right thing and to be honest.
You're not afraid to let your emotions guide you, and you're generally considerate of others' feelings as well.
You prefer to have time to plan for things, feeling better with a schedule than with keeping plans up in the air until the last minute.
You do your own thing when it comes to clothing, guided more by practical concerns than by other people's notions of style.
I guess that's mostly accurate . . . . there's a few things I could quibble with, but, anyway it's a dun exercise and the test uses some clever little scaling things in certain sections (whether this is for greater accuracy or to take one's mind off the fact that you're being asked the same thing in different ways, I'm not sure.)
So . . . what are you?
According to this test . . .
As an IDEALIST, you are distinctive for your integration of confidence, imagination, willingness to explore, and desire for competence over style.
You have a strong capacity to comprehend the inner workings of things, finding new ideas and innovative insights to feed your curious nature.
You are quite comfortable in the realm of abstract thought. You don't need a practical solution to every one of life's questions.
You are comfortable with the decisions you make in life. You don't need to second-guess yourself, or seek a lot of opinions before you make up your mind.
You enjoy the routines that you have created in your life, and don't feel the need to shake things up just for the sake of change.
You generally succeed at what you do, and others would describe you as successful.
It is important to you that products be efficient – looking good has to come second to working well.
You aren't the kind of person who needs to collect stylish items in an attempt to create an attractive environment – you know that what matters most is function, not style.
You're not afraid to let your emotions guide you, and you're generally considerate of others' feelings as well.
You prefer to have time to plan for things, feeling better with a schedule than with keeping plans up in the air until the last minute.
You do your own thing when it comes to clothing, guided more by practical concerns than by other people's notions of style.
You tend to believe that things happen for a reason, and that not everything is under our control.
You are outgoing, comfortable with others, and up for anything, which makes you ANIMATED.
Some people find crowds and parties exhausting, but not you! You are able to be yourself in many situations.
Sometimes it is hard for you to understand why others feel the way they do, but that doesn't stop you from trusting them or having faith that they are good people.
You know the world is complicated and that there is often more than one side to a story, so you are careful not to make judgments about others too hastily.
You would rather experience the world than sit back and observe it—you are not one to sit on the sidelines.
You are an independent thinker and don't get too worried about how others might perceive you—you are not self-conscious about being the active, engaged person that you are.
Although you have a keen understanding of different people's life circumstances, you occasionally have trouble seeing why people get so upset and emotional about things—they should just lighten up and have fun!
In addition to having faith in the world, you have faith in the people around you—you trust others to do the right thing and to be honest.
You're not afraid to let your emotions guide you, and you're generally considerate of others' feelings as well.
You prefer to have time to plan for things, feeling better with a schedule than with keeping plans up in the air until the last minute.
You do your own thing when it comes to clothing, guided more by practical concerns than by other people's notions of style.
I guess that's mostly accurate . . . . there's a few things I could quibble with, but, anyway it's a dun exercise and the test uses some clever little scaling things in certain sections (whether this is for greater accuracy or to take one's mind off the fact that you're being asked the same thing in different ways, I'm not sure.)
So . . . what are you?
Lists, Etc.
spring wrote:
"I hate those smarmy lists like 'what a real dom is/isn't,' and 'guides for a true/natural submissive,' and 'natural submissives vs bedroom submissives' or 'submissives vs slaves' discussions.
They seem ok on the surface, like nice little guidelines to aim for, but when you really think about it, it's just another list of what a 'true' dom/sub is, and if you're not doing/acting what's on the list, then you're not 'there/real/doing it the right way.' "
This whole subject is really tricky and there have been endless debates about it whether there is a need or a force to any standards. I end up differentiating it as follows:
If there is a community, then there is some legitimacy to the concept of standards, norms, etc. If there is no community (or one is not a part of any community) then it is a totally one on one endeavor and standards and norms and terms like "true" submissive, etc., have no particular meaning.
Note that the community in question can be virtual. Since few people live in Gorean communes, The Other World Kingdom, The Estate, or The Femdom Ranch and Basket Weaving Cooperative, the notion of in-person community for most is severely limited. That's both a good and a bad thing. Since people feel invincible in what feels like the total anonymity of on-line, personality traits tend to get magnified. (For whatever reason the bad ones seem to get magnified more.) The norms that regulate in-person conduct are absent; in an arena like D/s that's emotionally charged to begin with that's especially dangerous, potentially.
So what about those lists, in this largely community-free existence?
I think spring had it right with her first impression: they are just nice little guidelines. Often when someone is writing about a topic that he or she is passionate about, the writing can take on a preachy, or dictatorial, or condescending tone.
But if one can separate out the tone, the passion, the incredible excitement that someone often feels after discovering the thing that makes his or her secret desire suddenly, magically seem OK, then honestly more often than not what you have is a bunch of motherhood and apple pie nice little guidelines. Common-sense things to aspire to.
A Ferrari and a Yugo require very different levels and kinds of maintenance, but both are capable of doing 60 in a 25 mph zone, and it's an equally bad idea for both. The speed limit sign doesn't offend us because it has no tone. If the sign said "if you were a truly good driver you'd be doing 25" the underlying message might be the same but there would be a lot of pissed-off drivers and nervous pedestrians.
"I hate those smarmy lists like 'what a real dom is/isn't,' and 'guides for a true/natural submissive,' and 'natural submissives vs bedroom submissives' or 'submissives vs slaves' discussions.
They seem ok on the surface, like nice little guidelines to aim for, but when you really think about it, it's just another list of what a 'true' dom/sub is, and if you're not doing/acting what's on the list, then you're not 'there/real/doing it the right way.' "
This whole subject is really tricky and there have been endless debates about it whether there is a need or a force to any standards. I end up differentiating it as follows:
If there is a community, then there is some legitimacy to the concept of standards, norms, etc. If there is no community (or one is not a part of any community) then it is a totally one on one endeavor and standards and norms and terms like "true" submissive, etc., have no particular meaning.
Note that the community in question can be virtual. Since few people live in Gorean communes, The Other World Kingdom, The Estate, or The Femdom Ranch and Basket Weaving Cooperative, the notion of in-person community for most is severely limited. That's both a good and a bad thing. Since people feel invincible in what feels like the total anonymity of on-line, personality traits tend to get magnified. (For whatever reason the bad ones seem to get magnified more.) The norms that regulate in-person conduct are absent; in an arena like D/s that's emotionally charged to begin with that's especially dangerous, potentially.
So what about those lists, in this largely community-free existence?
I think spring had it right with her first impression: they are just nice little guidelines. Often when someone is writing about a topic that he or she is passionate about, the writing can take on a preachy, or dictatorial, or condescending tone.
But if one can separate out the tone, the passion, the incredible excitement that someone often feels after discovering the thing that makes his or her secret desire suddenly, magically seem OK, then honestly more often than not what you have is a bunch of motherhood and apple pie nice little guidelines. Common-sense things to aspire to.
A Ferrari and a Yugo require very different levels and kinds of maintenance, but both are capable of doing 60 in a 25 mph zone, and it's an equally bad idea for both. The speed limit sign doesn't offend us because it has no tone. If the sign said "if you were a truly good driver you'd be doing 25" the underlying message might be the same but there would be a lot of pissed-off drivers and nervous pedestrians.
YouTube Tuesday: Sin City/Club Slut
One of My favorite things about youtube and its ilk is that they provide a forum for people to create and share the music videos that should have been officially made but never were.
Tonight's selection is a perfect example: Clips from the deeply flawed but engrossing film Sin City paired with the song "Club Slut" by Hot Action Cop.
It's a match made in . . . hmm, well, you get the idea . . .
Tonight's selection is a perfect example: Clips from the deeply flawed but engrossing film Sin City paired with the song "Club Slut" by Hot Action Cop.
It's a match made in . . . hmm, well, you get the idea . . .
Being yourself . . . yikes!
sprialsubmissive wrote:
"But what happens when the persona that you're asked to show is simply...yourself? From the beginning of our relationship, Sir has said that he only wants me to be who I truly am with him, that there is nothing I have to hide, nothing I have to craft. This has proven more difficult than it would seem."
This touches on one of the inherent paradoxes of D/s. I talk to My girls, often, about how there is a real "freedom" in their situation. The freedom to not have to decide. The freedom to focus on the one thing that matters at any given moment. The freedom to fail.
All that adds up to the freedom to be themselves. And as spiralsubmissive wrote above, that's not so easy. Especially when it's required.
In normal daily life, we have certain "versions" of ourselves that we show the world. It's necessary, of course. In order to get along in society, hold down a job, etc., we have to filter and buffer certain parts of ourselves. We usually have multiple configurations for various situations: one for work, one for family, one for acquaintances, one for close friends. For many of us perhaps that "close friends" version is very close to the "real" us.
In a D/s relationship, both parties, but especially the submissive, really need to work hard at doing exactly the opposite: that is, being totally ourselves. Being the real us, all the time.
That's not only difficult, it's scary. As I've written before, a Dominant often has to deal with His or Her submissive trying to be "too good," that is, not being him or herself out of a desire not to trouble the Dom/me with what are perceived to be petty issues, or not wanting to disappoint the Dom/me by backsliding on something that the Dom/me might think has been resolved, etc. The net result is the submissive ends up just using another "version" of him or herself, just like for work or Thanksgiving Dinner with the family.
And that, at least for Me, won't do. It bears repeating: Ownership, real ownership, is owning the whole, real person. Including everything -- the fears, the neuroses, the doubts, along with all the good things, too. I work to be strong enough to want that. one who is owned by Me must arrive at being strong enough to offer all that, and just that, all the time. I can't envision relationship D/s that could work any other way.
As spiralsubmissive wrote: " . . . that there is nothing I have to hide, nothing I have to craft." It is, one one level, just what it sounds like -- a license to be one's true self. And on that level it's a wondrous, powerful gift. But it is also like a magic spell that once cast can't be uncast, that transports both submissive and Dominant to a place where there is nothing to come between them. It is magical, but very difficult. And once glimpsed, once understood for what it really is . . . it means that nothing is the same, ever.
"But what happens when the persona that you're asked to show is simply...yourself? From the beginning of our relationship, Sir has said that he only wants me to be who I truly am with him, that there is nothing I have to hide, nothing I have to craft. This has proven more difficult than it would seem."
This touches on one of the inherent paradoxes of D/s. I talk to My girls, often, about how there is a real "freedom" in their situation. The freedom to not have to decide. The freedom to focus on the one thing that matters at any given moment. The freedom to fail.
All that adds up to the freedom to be themselves. And as spiralsubmissive wrote above, that's not so easy. Especially when it's required.
In normal daily life, we have certain "versions" of ourselves that we show the world. It's necessary, of course. In order to get along in society, hold down a job, etc., we have to filter and buffer certain parts of ourselves. We usually have multiple configurations for various situations: one for work, one for family, one for acquaintances, one for close friends. For many of us perhaps that "close friends" version is very close to the "real" us.
In a D/s relationship, both parties, but especially the submissive, really need to work hard at doing exactly the opposite: that is, being totally ourselves. Being the real us, all the time.
That's not only difficult, it's scary. As I've written before, a Dominant often has to deal with His or Her submissive trying to be "too good," that is, not being him or herself out of a desire not to trouble the Dom/me with what are perceived to be petty issues, or not wanting to disappoint the Dom/me by backsliding on something that the Dom/me might think has been resolved, etc. The net result is the submissive ends up just using another "version" of him or herself, just like for work or Thanksgiving Dinner with the family.
And that, at least for Me, won't do. It bears repeating: Ownership, real ownership, is owning the whole, real person. Including everything -- the fears, the neuroses, the doubts, along with all the good things, too. I work to be strong enough to want that. one who is owned by Me must arrive at being strong enough to offer all that, and just that, all the time. I can't envision relationship D/s that could work any other way.
As spiralsubmissive wrote: " . . . that there is nothing I have to hide, nothing I have to craft." It is, one one level, just what it sounds like -- a license to be one's true self. And on that level it's a wondrous, powerful gift. But it is also like a magic spell that once cast can't be uncast, that transports both submissive and Dominant to a place where there is nothing to come between them. It is magical, but very difficult. And once glimpsed, once understood for what it really is . . . it means that nothing is the same, ever.
Change Is Evil, But . . .
After much messing around, and thanks to tasha's help and patience and brilliance, as you can see the design's been changed. Let Me know what you think . . .
Thanks again, tasha . . . kissssssssssssss
Thanks again, tasha . . . kissssssssssssss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)