4/20/2010 11:00:27 PM: I see guys on here complain about girls/gyrls always expecting something more than just mutual enjoyment. Being one who has seen both sides of the fence, so to speak, I understand these guys frustration. Without a doubt there are ladies here who are working professionally and charge accordingly. However, I feel, as a public service, I need to translate into male why it is that ladies might think they deserve a little more consideration than being offered access to your brass plated zipper. Scene: Two guy friends talking about getting together to watch the big game. Guy 1: Hey, you gonna watch the game this weekend? Guy 2: Yeah, should be awesome. Guy 1: Why don't you come over to my place, watch it on the big 72' flat screen. Guy 2: Sounds great! I'll bring the beer. Guy 1: Cool, I'll order the pizza. And if you could stop off tomorrow and pick up the 72' flat screen, I'll leave a key. You'll probably need what, 2 hours to set up? So awesome of you to offer to buy the TV, bring the beer and do the set up. This game will be fantastic. But I know I need to hold up my end. What do you want on your pizza? And, scene. Guys, most ladies could buy several flat screen TVs for what it's cost for them to have the look that has captured your attention. And they spend a lot longer 'setting up' for a date than you ever will. Just show a little respect and consideration.

1/7/2009 12:16:54 PM: Flipping the Switch – It’s struck me for a while that the use of categories like “dominant” and “submissive,” while useful, also produce a lot of friction and poor communication. One of the better things about CM is that it is an open community in which people can identify preferences that may help attract and identify compatible partners. But it’s important to recognize that it is an ‘open community’ not a closed system with an established hierarchy. It’s not the military, not a company or a sports franchise. When someone lists themselves as dominant or submissive what does this mean? Dominant over all in the universe, submissive in every interaction? No. Experience shows this is never the case. In reality it means, “I get aroused in this role,” no more no less. And that’s a good thing. When dominants assume that choosing the label creates an entitled rank to be asserted, you just get friction and annoyance. Labeling yourself dominant is as definitive as labeling yourself “seductive”, maybe you are, and good when the chemistry is there, but when it’s not, neither are you. Submissives are the same way. I may get aroused from being in a submissive role with the right dominant, but what if I were to label myself as “delightful” – again, I would hope to be, but it depends on the interaction. Imagine if we instead had categories of “coach” and “player”… I could list myself as a coach, might even be the winningest high-school swim coach in my state. That doesn’t mean that if I run into Kobe Bryant at the movies I can tell him his last game sucked and he should drop and give me 40, because I’m a COACH. A coach has authority over his or her players, that’s it. It’s based on trust and experience and the sense that there is a shared motivation. The coach wants to get the best performance from the player and the player wants this too. But before that happens, there is a process, does the player want to be on this team? If what I’m saying here holds water then it should make sense that being a good dominant involves seduction, recruitment, and guidance and being a good submissive has elements of bringing delight, making commitment and performing. It’s not easy either way. Both roles are challenging, but when we assume that the roles are independent and not mutually arrived at, then the miscommunication produces the annoyance so well documented in journal posts around CM.