4' 33"

A question for other BDSM-types...

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:49:57 GMT

Say we have a dom and a sub, and that these two people are a couple. Then let's say that dom2 comes around wanting to engage in D/s with dom1's sub.

What is the appropriate course of action for dom2 to take in this situation?

My answer to this is that dom2 should go to dom1 to, first of all, ask permission to dominate the sub, and second, to ask about any rules or limits that dom1 has placed on the sub. Then and only then, dom2 and sub can discuss what they want to do while still abiding by any rules and or limits put in place by dom1.

Obviously, I'm dom1 in this situation, and dom2, who shall remain nameless, has violated every rule I've described here. For example, I said "no marks," and he proceeded to pick up a cane and leave bruises.

Everyone with whom I've talked about dom2 says that he's a great guy who knows what he's doing when it comes to BDSM. I have tried to explain, multiple times and in multiple ways, how he has violated my expectations. Have I done something wrong? Can I not in fact reasonably expect other doms to follow the rules I outlined above? If I follow these rules in a situation in which I'm dom2, would that make me an asshole?

Anyone?

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:11:27 GMT

"How could anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness?

Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own--in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source.

But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself-- THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"

--This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth."

The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES.

It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM." (Doubt every thing.)

For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their
seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below--"frog perspectives," as it were, to
borrow an expression current among painters.

In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity.

It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things--perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps!

But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous "Perhapses"! For that investigation one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent--philosophers of the dangerous "Perhaps" in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:02:56 GMT

"We are unknown to ourselves, we men of knowledge - and with good reason. We have never sought ourselves - how could it happen that we should ever find ourselves?

It has rightly been said: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"; our treasure is where the beehives of our knowledge are.

We are constantly making for them, being by nature winged creatures and honey-gatherers of the spirit; there is one thing alone we really care about from the heart - "bringing something home."

Whatever else there is in life, so-called "experiences" - which of us has sufficient earnestness for them? Or sufficient time? Present experience has, I am afraid, always found us "absent-minded": we cannot give our hearts to it - not even our ears!

Rather, as one divinely preoccupied and immersed in himself into whose ear the bell has just boomed asks himself: "what really was that which just struck?" so we sometimes rub our ears afterward and ask, utterly surprised and disconcerted, "what really was that which we have just experienced?" and moreover: "who are we really?" and, afterward as aforesaid, count the twelve trembling bell-strokes of our experience, our life, our being - and alas! miscount them.

-So we are necessarily strangers to ourselves, we do not comprehend ourselves, we have to misunderstand ourselves, for us the law "Each is furthest from himself" applies to all eternity - we are not "men of knowledge" with respect to ourselves."

No comment.

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:46:00 GMT

According to Wikipedia, Camden, NJ, is the sister city of.....Gaza City, Palestinian Authority.

Warren Ellis says...

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:39:25 GMT

...buy leather band-aids!

Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:27:28 GMT

But I keep trying. I'm a real go-getter. It's why I'm never wrong.

Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:24:15 GMT

Drinking doesn't work anymore because the part of my mind that I've trained to observe and analyze stops me almost at point x, x being the mathematical limit to which I can get closer and closer but never reach.

When keepin' it real goes wrong...

Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:44:35 GMT

"Roses are red;
Violets are blue.
That's what they tell me,
Because I'm blind."

Happy New Year, Chi-Town. Happy New Year, Bootsie. Happy New Year, Bruce Clementine.

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:00:15 GMT

Beating Sarah has become easier, and she described the last session as "more brutal" than before, whatever that means on a scale of 1 to 10. It feels like, when I think of that last experience, it feels like something is going to happen if we keep heading down this road, and I don't know what it is.

It's maddening that I can't be more specific; I just have the feeling that something is going to happen, either to her, or to me, or to both of us; there's no moral component to the feeling, it's not "good" or "bad" or "evil."

Feh. Any of you BDSMers out there, have you experienced this? Some strange break-through experience associated with the first stage of your ventures?

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:51:29 GMT

House is inaccurate, not because the title character figures people out too easily, but because in real life no one would believe him.

"I have done it," says memory.
"I cannot have done it," says pride.
Eventually.... memory yields.
- Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:38:51 GMT

It's always nice, I suppose, to have more evidence that I'm a bad person.

Highlights from Wicked Faire

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:48:40 GMT

1. It was pretty great hanging out in an atmosphere in which one could assume that all present were at least as perverted and debauched as oneself.

2. I beat Sarah with a riding crop, publicly. Considering, I've come pretty far in a short period of time.

3. The riding crop that I beat Sarah with turned out to not be for public use. I'm still horrified by that, although the crop's owner said I could make it up to him by showing him the welts on Sarah's butt. It's been a long time since I fucked up like that, and I was not at all pleased.

4. I also had to snatch a pipe out of the mouth of the riding crop owner's wife, due to a couple of fucking normies wandering in to a party at which they were not welcome. And I thought I could make a good impression with that pipe... Stupid normies.

5. If the two previously mentioned errors failed to sour the hosts' opinion of me, I might make some new and interesting friends. Plus, she really seemed to like Sarah, if you know what I mean, nudge (x2), etc.

6. Sarah and I bought a collar for her; I added a little lock on the buckle. Does this mean I've collared her? I have no idea, and Sarah gave two different answers at two different times, so, yeah...

7. Geoff's set was good, but he forgot to record it. But, it was good.

If you're in favor of banning abortion, then you are a bad person, and should kill yourself.

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:35:48 GMT

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=283931

As good an explanation as any for why I am rabidly pro-choice.

On limits.

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:24:41 GMT

As I've talked to people over the last couple of days regarding my excursions into the world of flogging, I've received one piece of advice consistently from everyone: don't push my limits too hard. And I have to wonder, why the hell shouldn't I?

If I announced to my friends that I wanted to, say, get over my fear of spiders, and that I planned to do this by first exposing myself to increasingly detailed pictures of spiders, then by sitting next to a terrarium containing a spider, then finally by handling the spider, I don't think that any of them would bat an eye. What makes BDSM worthy of such special consideration?

What I find most baffling about this is that the people who've told me this have all been subs. People, c'mon. I've seen what gets done to you, and you're worried about me? I assure you, I'm not gonna crack at the slightest provocation and end up in a loony bin. I just don't necessarily care about feeling "good."

I don't usually find the distinction between right- and left-hand magickal paths useful, but it provides a pretty good quick-and-dirty way to make my point, and I've never considered BDSM anything but part of the left-hand path. It's faster and less safe than right-handed workings, but I don't have time to wait. I have 50, 60 years, maybe, in which to accomplish everything I want. I don't have the luxury of time.

Then, of course, we have the fact that none of this, what I'm doing now or what I want to do, is unconsidered. Taking the time to visualize all this beforehand, which I did, counts for a lot. It took me a year, one year, to get from unceremoniously cutting all contact with anyone who was into BDSM to wishing I could move faster. It took me three days to get over my fear of flogging. Three days!

I'm doing ok.

I bet you all missed hearing about my various psychoses...

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:52:27 GMT

I don't care about answers such as "obedience," and I don't want to hear a recitation of qualities that a "good dom" has, such as "maturity" or "stubbornness." What does a top or a dom or a sadist feel in-scene? I've found interminable descriptions of a bottom's point of view, but nothing vice versa. Given that, if one judges by collarme.com, every dom in the world is a piece of human waste; still, there must be someone who's actually lived up to the the vulnerability and trust that everyone keeps telling me about by writing down what it feels like.

Not that I expect to like the answers when I get them, I suppose. Most of my friends are "female," in Cynthia Eller's definition of the term, just because I know what so many "men" are like. Does this mean I'll end up hanging out with all subs all the time? The cynic in me says "yes," but the rest of me says "yes."

A hellishly boring story...

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:27:16 GMT

As a result of child abuse, I find myself ill-suited, in some ways, to engage in BDSM.

The most blatant effect that my childhood continues to have on me has to do with aggression. Obviously, in a D/s relationship, if I'm the dom, I need to be able, at the very least, to communicate my desires, if not to take what I want, but this is exactly what my childhood taught me not to do. As anyone who's read the Genealogy of Morals can see, I've been taught to discharge any power I hold against myself, not against others, first by my unwitting parents, and then by myself, consciously, since I never expected to be involved in BDSM.

Oddly, S/M causes fewer problems for me, although after being beaten as a child, it's still extraordinarily difficult to strike someone else, particularly a partner. Still, I bought a flogger earlier this week, and I didn't dissociate while using it as I have with previous partners, which I guess is a good sign.

None of this should be read as if I don't actually want to dominate my sexual partners. I do, I'll admit that now. I've looked at pictures of fragiletruth, taken while she was in the middle of a scene, and I want to do that to her, too. I want her to look at me like she was looking at the guys who were flogging her.

I've built up a lot of defenses over the years to stop myself from doing these things. Now that I can't fool myself into thinking I don't want to do them, I don't know where to start dismantling those defenses.

Crossposted to male_dom.

Well, I certainly called this one...

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:13:28 GMT

The results of the Asperger's test.

Right in the middle, just where I thought I'd fall.

Stolen from watercolorblue and fragiletruth.

These stereotypes confuse and infuriate me.

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:16:25 GMT

I'm not sure what Sarah's vagina has to do with the frequency with which we talk. In fact, if genitals have something to do with it, I'd think my penis was the culprit, what with me initiating the "Let's talk about how we're doing as a couple." conversation 100% of the time so far.

Also, since when did posting an entry on a livejournal that Sarah reads become the opposite of communication?

In actuality, Sarah and I just hit an Asperger's limit. Sarah saw nothing, literally, beyond me getting all worked up about something she couldn't determine. (This "fight," bizarrely, took the same format as a House episode: problem presents, diagnosis is made and treatment implemented, problem gets much worse, new diagnosis is made and proves correct. As well, it took place without Sarah being aware that it was a "fight.")

And that's it. Everything has stabilized now.

One would assume I'd learned something useful over the last decade, but evidently not.

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:32:33 GMT

For a variety of frankly boring reasons, when conflict of any kind occurs between myself and a romantic partner, I have no method whatsoever for distinguishing between, "I'm upset with you and want to work it out," and "I'm upset with you and want to leave the relationship."

Sigh.

On Ars Memoria

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:44:09 GMT

Just did an online tarot reading for myself, with the Thoth deck. The spread (Celtic cross) lay as follows:

Card #1: XVI The Tower

#2: 6 of Wands "Victory"

#3: VIII Adjustment

#4: Knight of Disks

#5: VI The Lovers

#6: 3 of Cups "Abundance"

#7: XX The Aeon

#8: XI Lust

#9: 7 of Disks "Failure"

#10: XIII Death

#11: XXI The Universe

I think it speaks for itself, but if anyone wants to have a go at interpreting it, feel free.

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:08:11 GMT

Nietzsche doesn't directly support my contention that one can "become" a dom/me. However, he certainly does not provide a good argument against that possibility, and I think I can use two key points of his to make a pretty good argument in my favor.

We need two definitions before I get to the actual argument: first, of "der Wille zu Macht," the "will to power," and second, of "bad conscience."

I've observed a few people read Nietzsche for the first time over the last decade or so, and invariably, they interpret "der Wille zu macht" in terms of brute force or brute will to dominate. Nietzsche did not write for easy understanding, however, and like most of his other points, I think this one exhibits a few more subtle layers when you look closely.

Nietzsche says repeatedly that life itself is "will to power." This tosses the "caveman" interpretation right out; if we all have it, if all life has it, if all life consists of it, then it can't merely signify brute force of any kind.

We also have a translation problem with the phrase itself. "Der Wille zu Macht," usually translated "the will to power" signifies more in German than in English. One of the first verbs you learn when you learn German is "machen," the verb form of "Macht." It translates, in common usage, "to make, to do." In that context, "der Wille zu Machen" has to do with much more than just "power over;" if you want to capture the German sense accurately in English, you need to include the sense of "power," as in "a power plant." What does a power plant do? It produces energy with which we make and/or do things. Translating this into the context of BDSM, what does a dom do with a sub? Doms make things out of subs, or they do things to or with subs.

"Bad conscience" arises, according to Nietzsche, when an organism can no longer discharge its will to power externally. Remember, life itself consists of will to power; as long as an organism remains alive, it must discharge that power somehow, it must make or do something with it. If it can't do that externally, it must do it internally. Instead of mastering others, it must master itself.

(Interlude: A lot of first time readers become very confused by Nietzsche's attitude toward the Jews. He refers to them often as e.g. cruel. People tend to interpret this as anti-Semitism, but frankly, they're wrong. The Jews, as the prototypical example of a slave morality, were the first cultural group to develop the ability to have a bad conscience. As slaves, they had no other choice; they had to discharge their will to power against themselves, a process which does, in fact, include remarkable cruelty, toward oneself. This will become important in a few paragraphs.)

My mother suffers from rather severe bipolar disorder. During my childhood, by which I mean the entire period of time between my birth and my leaving home at age 18, she attempted to lessen her pain by discharging it against me. For the first 18 years of my life, in other words, I was unable to discharge my will to power in any external fashion. I compensated by discharging it against myself.

By becoming a dom, I'm still discharging it against myself. For years, BDSM has terrified me in a totally irrational and uncontrollable fashion. I've turned down at relationships because I couldn't even handle the exposure. There was a time when I would have been unable to go to your house for dinner, Lewis, because the panic would have been too overwhelming.

Finally, I decided that I was going to get over it. If I rephrase that in Nietzschean terms, the part of my psyche that wanted to get over my fear became strong enough to dominate the part of me that wanted to give in to my fear.

(Think about that in the context of, say, safewords. People need safewords when playing with each other because they can't read each others' minds, but I know my own boundaries better than anyone else, which means that that part of me which dominates my self doesn't give me a chance to rest; it brings me right up to those boundaries every fucking time.)

Anyway, the moral of this tale runs thusly: I don't need to learn how to dominate. I need to learn how to dominate people other than myself.

Finally, I'd like to address something Sarah pointed out: that the method(s) I'm using to do all of this are completely different from what anyone else has used to get into BDSM. Everyone else reads "Screw the Roses, Send Me Thorns;" and I'm reading treatises on how the ancient Romans felt about their slaves. Now, I do plan to read the former. I just will not do merely what everyone else has already done, which seems appropriate, seeing as how I am aiming to be a dom.

Test: inserting image in post. Also, basic update.

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:54:24 GMT

Should be picture of music I wrote in this post, below cut, if working correctly.

Feeling non-vocal the last week or so. Another cycle. Probably come back on an upswing soon. Don't want anyone to feel ignored, thinking particularly of Lewis. Reread first essay of "Genealogy of Morals" in order to respond, but unable to retrieve satisfactory words currently. Plan to attempt again over weekend.

Theme written 2/2007.

Sat, 26 May 2007 02:25:58 GMT

http://www.deadlychallenge.org/give.html

I want to write something about the excerpts from this book, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to say what I actually want to say at the moment. So, for now I'll just say that parts of it seem familiar, as in "I could see myself saying that to someone," parts I'd quibble with over details, and a much smaller part I don't get or care about.

Fuck if I know what that means right now.

Sun, 20 May 2007 16:23:37 GMT

From navitas2003, Kevin L., who doesn't fucking get it:

"But on a low side, I lost a friend of mine that I've known for a long time. She felt that I was pressuring her but didn't tell me... Bottled these feelings up for 2 months, and then when I went to say, "How have ya been?", it was a nuclear melt down. I love her and respect her, so I won't pursue this any more. I think that she has some personal issues to work out concerning this. I hope that she gets enlightenment. I also hope that she opens back up to me.... but I'm not holding my breath. I love you and miss you dearly. May you gain wisdom in your journeys."

I myself, with my own eyes, and my own ears, saw and heard Sarah tell you what was wrong no less than 5 times.

Your response seems to boil down to "bitches is crazy."

So I will explain one more time exactly why you have lost Sarah as a friend. And, to ensure that you can't just delete this comment, I'll post it on my livejournal as well: 4min33sec.

Kevin, the reason that Sarah is no longer your friend is that YOU FUCKING RAPED HER!!!!

Oh, yes, you heard me. It's really very simple. When a potential sexual partner doesn't want to have sex with you, yet you nag and cajole her into it anyway, that's called rape.

Again, so there's not fucking way you can misunderstand it:

1. You wanted to fuck Sarah.

2. Sarah didn't want to fuck you.

3. Sarah told you that she didn't want to fuck you.

4. You nagged, whined, and pouted until her defenses broke.

5. Then, you fucked her anyway.

For the slower members of the audience, that's called rape.

Are we finally clear? Have we, at last, disposed of the illusion that you love, care for, and/or respect Sarah? Because, y'know, raping her pretty much precludes any of those feelings.

Sun, 20 May 2007 03:30:15 GMT

I have not yet experienced any expected fear through my fetal exploration of BDSM. I mention this because I have not, at almost 28 years of age, experienced jealousy, either; I must, therefore, consider the possibility that I will move without incident into BDSM.

As Sarah has told me, Lewis (name spelling corrected after Sarah noticed it spelled incorrectly - MD) and Liz do not believe that it is possible to "become" a dom, only to be born one, and later recognize it. As Nietzsche conceives of the psyche as a number of drives, each striving to master the others, I have recently experimented with viewing my own psyche in that way. Therefore, I must, in submission to psychological honesty, admit that I have recently remembered tying myself up on one occasion in my childhood; although it would irritate me to be proven wrong, if Louis and Liz are correct, I cannot but admit it. Therefore, this anecdote.

I have noticed, I think, that my writing style becomes more archaic the more I drink.

I would also like to at least semi-publicly thank Leah for taking care of Sarah while she was sick this past week. I spent quite a bit of time haranguing Leah a few weeks ago, over an argument she and Sarah had had; I think that I must thank her now, with the same vigor:

Thank you, Leah, for taking care of Sarah over the last week or so...

Ok, I think I've said as much as that half-bottle of raspberry-flavored rum that I drank will allow. :-)