CarpeComa

You can’t unsee. Once you have peaked behind the curtain and seen the man pulling the levers, seen the true ‘wizard’ of Oz, you can never see the spectacle for more than what it is. Now that doesn’t mean that you can’t appreciate the spectacle, but the tinge of mystery from the unknown and the awe from wizard’s sound and fury are both gone. The rituals and tithing for which you once derived so much from, are now simply empty gestures. The procession lining up to pay homage to the wizard become both a wry amusement and pitiable; a sad joke playing out in front of your eyes over and over.

So sitting on the hill, watching the procession of people, you ponder the scene. First you tried to free them, to break the chains of their ignorance. Instead of welcoming understanding, you are ignored, if not reviled. Some want the meaning. That is what beckons them to the wizard. Others find your answers make them feel foolish. It is much easier to reject you than to face their folly. The rest are just incapable of understanding. They understand what the wizard expects from them. They don’t understand you. The wizard and his acolytes hate you too, as your truth threatens to disrupt the procession that elevates them. That's why you are the outcast sitting alone on the hill.

So sitting on the hill, watching the procession of people, you ponder the scene. Sure, you could go back down and go through the motions again, but you would feel silly. You don’t think you could keep a straight face. You could try to become a wizard yourself, but it seems unethical to prey on the ignorance of others. You would be perpetuating the lie that there is genuine meaning to be found here. Is there genuine meaning to be found anywhere?

So sitting on the hill, watching the procession of people, you ponder the scene. You wish there was someone on the hill with you. Someone who also has seen the truth about the wizard. If anyone else has, they either decided to keep going through the motions with the rest of the procession or have long since left. Company would be nice though. It would be a chance to discuss what you have seen with someone else.  Maybe the two of you could go off and build your own spectacle somewhere else, but with a knowing look and a wry smile. Sure, it wouldn't be quite the same as it was before you came to understanding, but at least it would be honest.

So sitting on the hill, watching the procession of people, you ponder the scene. You realize it is a cruel irony; once you truly understand, all meaning is lost. At the same time, in that understanding true freedom is finally gained. The mind is no longer occupied by mystery and confusion, the body is no longer confined to rituals by awe and ignorance. Is the price worth it though? What has understanding gotten you? Sitting alone on a hill, that’s what.

So sitting on the hill, watching the procession of people, you ponder the scene. So now what? You can’t go back. You can’t unhatch the egg, put the genie back in the bottle, or put hope back in Pandora's box. There is no forward to go to on your own. Your only choices are to walk away, or wait for someone else that has seen the wizard and been exiled to the hill. Maybe some curious soul will walk away from the procession to inquire about why you are sitting alone on a hill. You aren't hopeful though. They aren't here to talk with some random joe that'll tell them the wizard is scarcely more than a mirage, some sod that will dispel the illusion they want to believe in. They are here to be awed by the wizard's sound and fury, to derive meaning from his rituals and demands. You decide to wait for a while. Who knows, maybe you'll come to some solution that will allow you to move forward. You might get lucky and someone else gets exiled for peeking behind the curtain. Maybe you'll just get bored and wander off. Time will tell.

Contemporary BDSM and the Death of Dominance.

It has been a while since I have been moved to write here on a subject. However, while discussing things with someone, I voiced a gripe that I had in regards to how hyper focused a lot of women are on adhering to the fantasy they have developed in their heads. The gripe has been percolating for a while with some other stewing thoughts and has given birth to a realization: Dominance is a dying idea. The existence of masculine power is under murderous assault in western culture at large, and its wounds are reflected here.

First, what is masculine power and how is that different from feminine power? An over simplification is that masculine power is ‘push’ and 'command', while feminine power is ‘draw’ and 'entice'. At its root, masculine power is overt & direct, while feminine power is covert & indirect.

Some time ago, the ‘thought leaders’ (as it were) made a conscious decision to try to bring BDSM mainstream. In the process of doing so, it had to be made palatable to the same culture that has declared war on masculine power. That means that BDSM too had to declare war on masculine power. That war is being carried out by using consent as a bludgeon to beat male dominance to death. As I have tackled elsewhere, consent and power have an inverse relationship. By definition, power exists to the degree that consent is irrelevant. However, what are the two big frameworks being pushed? SSC and RACK. What is the key piece of both frameworks? The necessity of consent. Which means that both frameworks result in the minimization, if not elimination, of any element of masculine power imbalance in the relationship. Why isn't feminine power impacted? Because feminine power is based around indirect/covert behavior where action can be plausibly denied or consent can be assumed. The result of this has been the conversion of BDSM from mutual fulfillment to a female power fantasy.

To see how BDSM is being converted into a female power fantasy, let’s take a brief look at the latest incursion of BDSM into the mainstream; the garbage that is 50 Shades of Grey. Now I have not read this book cover to cover, however I have gotten enough details that I can see the problems from afar. 50 Shades of Grey isn’t a male power story, it is a female power story. You have a woman, whom by all accounts is nothing impressive, managing to command the attention of what would be one of the most powerful people in the world. She doesn’t only command his attention, but through the contract ‘negotiation’ (if you can really call it that), she defines the whole relationship. How is that submissive? She is scarcely more than a bottom, at best. How is it remotely plausible that some average bint ought to be able to command such attention, ought to be able to wield such sexual power to bend a veritable uber mensch to her whim? It is pure female power fantasy. This is what BDSM is devolving into.

By making consent central, the female gets de facto control of the relationship, as nothing happens without her approval. With masculine power forbidden, the only way the male can retain control is by playing her game, but that is generally seen in a negative light. So now the man has to play her game while giving the illusion that he is still playing his game, which is quite a tall order.

The irony of this shift is that as soon as the woman has realized that she is defining the relationship, she will become dissatisfied.  Why? Because one of the cornerstones of femininity is a lack of agency. When a woman realizes she is driving the relationship, she will begin to feel unfeminine. As she ostensibly signed up for a relationship where she wasn’t in control, that recognition will manifest as gut level feeling that things are not as they should. She will start to think that she should be able to do better, thus the seeds for the destruction of the relationship will have been planted. Feminine satisfaction can only be obtained through the minimization of her control, through the regular denial of what she says she wants. This is likely related to why contemporary BDSM relationships tend to be so short lived; the focus on consent dooms them to fail. Making consent a requirement is the death of D/s and reduces BDSM to just fetish indulgement. This in turn makes the relationship sex based, thus prone to disintegrating after the new relationship energy wears off and she realizes she doesn't have what she really wanted.

If I see a woman that isn’t unattractive and has been actively looking for more than a year, my first question inside my head is: “What is wrong?”. Inevitably, something is wrong. Either they want something improbable/impossible, they are trying to bat out of their league, they aren’t really interested in finding anything, or they have some form of attitude/relationship issues. If you are reading this and getting mad, perhaps it is time for some honest self-reflection, or for sending me a nasty-mail. I bet I know which one you won't choose! (which is why you’ll still be here next year as well!)

I generally don’t like posting critiques of other people’s behavior because I try to keep the journal positive.  However, I’ll give you an idea of the things that I see. I’ll be giving a message by message review of my thought process.

She leads with this:

“Hi, I think I am what you are wanting. Just if this would be an LTR , whatever play we do is just that. First, and foremost it's us.”

My thoughts: I state in my profile that I expected her to be able to write first so +2 points. I put a lot of information on my profile, yet the message is generic (-1), makes a demand in first message (-1), English is kind of weird (-1). Her profile states her age limit is 30, I turn 31 soon, so I’ll let her know.

My Reply:

“In that case, better talk fast. I'll break your age limit in a week and a half.”

Her Reply:

“I think 32 is a good number I should change that. Mostly I just don't want to not have too much of an age difference where no connection comes.”

My thoughts: Holy Triple Negative Batman! (-1) Plus, she got the age wrong. Her limit was 30, breaking that soon implies I’m turning 31 not 32. (-1) She lists herself as a college senior, so I’ll ask her about that.

My reply:

“I can hear the whimpering of the English language from the grammatical butchery of that last sentence.

What degree are you finishing up? Do you have a general career direction in mind?”

Her reply:

“Public relations”

My thoughts: She only answered one of my questions out of two and all I did was ask two questions. (-1) She replied with only two words. (-1) She didn’t get riled up over my pointing out the rather large error. (+1) She didn’t own up to the mistake either. (-1) Public Relations?  I fear for the press releases if she writes any. This is pretty bad over all, I’m going to drop a hint to pick up her game and give her an opening to get things back on a good track.

My Reply:

“You gain a point for not losing your cool over my poking fun at your grammar. However, you lose a point for a two word reply and not owning up to it. So it's a wash. On to round two:

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Amish Mafia? If so, please list your position and responsibilities.

What do you hope to do with your degree in public relations?”

Her Reply:

“Member of Delta Gamma. Sports PR for a team. I would control bad situations really.”

My thoughts: When did I ask about what sorority she was in? I asked about the Amish Mafia. -1 for poor comprehension, -1 for not showing any sense of humor. She finally answered the career question, but it’s kind of short. No points awarded or lost.

At this point. it's so far into the negative, I call it quits. I sent her a summarized version of above. Shockingly, she didn't appreciate it.

After hearing enough talk about the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in various BDSM circles, I went and watched the original version (not the American remake) and... I don’t get it. I do get it, but I still don’t ‘get it’. How was this supposed to be a movie with BDSM themes? Considering the amount of noise this movie generated in BDSM circles, I was expecting something quite different. I was expecting the titular girl to be a kept woman of sorts tied to some terrible secret ala Chinatown. Yes, there were a couple graphic sex scenes with one that was at least coercive (which considering her legal status, probably could have been successfully prosecuted as rape) and another that was rape/sadism. I’m fairly certain that it’s these scenes people are referring to and in that sense I get it. However I still don’t ‘get it’, because using those scenes as examples of BDSM is like using a slasher fic as example of knife ‘play’. Yes, there are superficial elements that are shared between the movie scene and the BDSM activity, but there are essential pieces missing. Perhaps the American version was different in some crucial way?

This is yet another entry in “Truths you don’t want to hear”, a series that is longer than you would like to admit. It is an unfortunate fact of life that certain desirable qualities tend to inversely related. Attractiveness and intelligence, assertiveness and empathy, strength and humility. For BDSM there is a big one which I see people trying to find over and over again: extreme and sane. Like the former three pairs of traits, there are reasons why these two traits tend to not coexist.

For starters, the definitions are mutually exclusive. The colloquial definition of sane is behaviour that is within socially expected and understood norms. Whilst extreme is behaviour that is significantly outside those same norms. So this is asking for someone to be both sane and not sane in the same breath.
 
“But” you say, “I just want the person to be extreme in this narrow band of behaviour, but normal otherwise”. Here’s the rub, the stronger the motivation, the more it will bleed into other areas. That is because the motivation for a behaviour is rarely the behaviour itself. We don’t eat to eat. We eat because we are hungry, bored, lonely, sad, etc and we are trying to relieve those symptoms. A person who’s extremely hungry won’t just be very eager to eat. They are likely to engage in other extreme behaviours constructed around that need (stealing, begging, killing for food, etc) as well as developing a mindset which validates and justifies their behaviours. People that do extreme things are usually driven by desires or demons powerful enough to warp their behaviours and perceptions across multiple areas of their lives. The more extreme the behaviour the more it will likely influence other aspects of their lives, the more their perceptions are likely to be warped around that driving factor, and the crazier they are likely to be. To expect it to be contained in a narrow spectrum of behaviour is simply folly.

All this goes for you as well. If you are looking for someone ‘extreme’, you are probably some degree of crazy yourself. So do yourself a favour. Stop trying find someone ‘sane’ (there are scant few of those people anyway), look for someone ‘tolerably crazy’ instead.

This is yet another entry in “Truths you don’t want to hear”, a series that is longer than you would like to admit. It is an unfortunate fact of life that certain desirable qualities tend to inversely related. Attractiveness and intelligence, assertiveness and empathy, strength and humility. For BDSM there is a big one which I see people trying to find over and over again: extreme and sane. Like the former three pairs of traits, there are reasons why these two traits tend to not coexist.

For starters, the definitions are mutually exclusive. The colloquial definition of sane is behaviour that is within socially expected and understood norms. Whilst extreme is behaviour that is significantly outside those same norms. So this is asking for someone to be both sane and not sane in the same breath.

“But” you say, “I just want the person to be extreme in this narrow band of behaviour, but normal otherwise”. Here’s the rub, the stronger the motivation, the more it will bleed into other areas. That is because the motivation for a behaviour is rarely the behaviour itself. We don’t eat to eat. We eat because we are hungry, bored, lonely, sad, etc and we are trying to relieve those symptoms. A person who’s extremely hungry won’t just be very eager to eat. They are likely to engage in other extreme behaviours constructed around that need (stealing, begging, killing for food, etc) as well as developing a mindset which validates and justifies their behaviours. People that do extreme things are usually driven by desires or demons powerful enough to warp their behaviours and perceptions across multiple areas of their lives. The more extreme the behaviour the more it will likely influence other aspects of their lives, the more their perceptions are likely to be warped around that driving factor, and the crazier they are likely to be. To expect it to be contained in a narrow spectrum of behaviour is simply folly.

All this goes for you as well. If you are looking for someone ‘extreme’, you are probably some degree of crazy yourself. So do yourself a favour. Stop trying find someone ‘sane’ (there are scant few of those people anyway), look for someone ‘tolerably crazy’ instead.

This is yet another entry in “Truths you don’t want to hear”, a longer than you would like series. It is an unfortunate fact of life that certain desirable qualities tend to inversely related. Attractiveness and intelligence, assertiveness and empathy, strength and humility. For BDSM there is a big one which I see people trying to find over and over again: extreme and sane. Like the former three pairs of traits, there are reasons why these traits tend to not coexist.

For starters, the definitions are mutually exclusive in this case. The colloquial definition of sane is behaviour that is within socially expected and understood norms. Whilst extreme is behaviour that is significantly outside those same norms. So this is asking for someone to be both sane and not sane at the same time.

“But” you say, “I just want the person to be extreme in this narrow band of behaviour, but normal otherwise”. Here’s the rub, the stronger the motivation, the more it will bleed into other areas. That is because the motivation for a behaviour is rarely the behaviour itself. We don’t eat to eat. We eat because we are hungry, bored, lonely, sad, etc and we are trying to relieve those symptoms. A person who’s extremely hungry won’t just be very eager to eat. They are likely to engage in other extreme behaviours constructed around that need (stealing, begging, killing for food, etc). People that do extreme things are usually driven by desires or demons powerful enough to warp their behaviours and perceptions across multiple areas of their lives. The more extreme the behaviour the more it will likely influence other aspects of their lives, the more their perceptions are likely to be warped around that driving factor, and the crazier they are likely to be. To expect it to be contained in a narrow spectrum of behaviour is simply folly.

All this goes for you as well. If you are looking for someone ‘extreme’, you are probably some degree of crazy yourself. So do yourself a favour. Stop trying find someone ‘sane’ (there are scant few of those people anyway), look for someone ‘tolerably crazy’ instead.

Be consistent.

Perhaps I take things too seriously (I am prone to that), but I think if you are going to espouse a philosophy or belief as justification, that you should be able to answer simple questions about your belief structure and you should be applying that belief across your life. Don’t do it half-assed.

For example, if you are a supremacist of some stripe, you ought to be able to;

1: Say why x is superior to y.

2: Self identify if you are an absolute supremacist, or a relative one. (all x are superior to y, or most x are superior to y).

3: Be able to navigate likely situations within the constraints of your beliefs. Example: If you believe a woman should always obey a man, what should she do if she gets conflicting orders?

If you cannot or will not do those things, don’t espouse the philosophy or the belief. It’s fine to say you really like the idea of x or you want a relationship based around the idea of x, just don’t claim or imply that you are an adherent *to* x. Why? Because the actual adherents will think you are an idiot because you don’t understand what you are talking about, the people that aren’t adherents are likely to ignore you because your views don’t mesh with theirs. At best, you are wasting people’s time and at worst you are posing a threat to yourself and others. The latter because if you pose as an adherent to some of the more extreme philosophies, you run the risk of an actual adherent taking you seriously and putting you in a situation that you are unable to handle.

Some time ago, someone wrote me a message that asked (in essence) 'What's the catch?'

Here was my reply:

What's the catch? I'm sure there are several. I'm human for one. While my profile talks about an ideal, I'm sure I fail to live up to it on a semi-regular basis. I've probably put on 15 pounds since the profile was put up (working 60 hrs a week doesn't leave much time for exercise, but I'm addressing it). I'm not the cleanest person (it's not 'oh my god!' bad, but you know it's guy living here). I hate cooking (takes too much time). I tend to be rather anal about details. I can be a know-it-all. I'm a bit of a loner. I tend to be too honest for my own good. Finally, judging from the responses I get, I write absolutely shitty introductory messages.

                                                Unspoken rules of BDSM

1: Everyone interested only in things less 'extreme' than you is a poser.

2: Everyone interested in anything more 'extreme' than you is crazy.

3: Take all stories and advice with a grain of salt.
4: 'BDSM' does not change nor excuse human behavior. If it is dickish, rude, and/or stupid to do normally, it is still dickish, rude, and/or stupid.

5: You are not a special snowflake.

7: There is no rule 6.

8: Despite there not being a rule 6, there are people who will insist that there is indeed a rule 6. Those people are morons and may also try to claim lineage with ancient European houses, secret slaveholding societies, and similar nonsense.

9: What works for you will disgust someone else. The reverse is also true. Remember that before you type/speak.

10: There will never be a universally agreed upon distinction between submissive and slave.

11: Ditto for dominant and master.

12: 'Training' is by and large bullshit used as a way to get NSA fun.

13: Something will go wrong. No amount of safety precautions will prevent this.

14: That person you are planning to meet online is probably a serial killer.

15: Yes, someone else gets off on the same things you do. Your desires are not unique. Stop asking. Please.

16: I know your next question. Before you ask, see rule 34.

17: A very large percentage of people are just trying to get laid and/or get attention.

18: No one will admit to being one of those people.

19: 'BDSM' will be used as a catch all term for anything that seems the slightest bit not mainstream.

20: Everyone is motivated by their own self interest. Even you. Remember that next time someone offers to do you a 'favor'.

21: You can contextualize any action as submissive or dominant.

22: Thou shalt not require or expect a female to ever give money they have earned to a male, regardless of their orientations. The other way around is always permissible.

23: If she says her submission is a gift, ask for the receipt.

24: You didn't actually do that, did you? If so, go straight to rule 35. Do not pass go. Do not get laid.

25: Male dominants must be either straight or gay. If they are not, their dominance shall be maligned.

26: Switches are simply 'confused' or 'just want play'.

27: All women are bisexual, regardless of protestations to the contrary.

28: Every guy thinks he is 'the right guy'.

29: Your genitals are special. While there are many like them, those are yours. You must celebrate their specialness by showing them off at every opportunity.

30: Dominant women secretly love it when you proactively expound at great length to them about your fetishes. Especially goatse and rainbow showers. Include photos.

31: If you combine the two in your photos, you'll be hers for sure.

32: "Ouch, that hurts!" is not a safeword.

33: Good judgment is valuable like a flawless pearl. Unfortunately, it is also about as common.

34: There is porn of it.

35: Repeat after me; I will not believe everything I read on the internet.

Hey you! Yes you. I see you reading this. It’s the season for giving, so I’m soliciting a gift from you; feedback. You are of the right gender and orientation, you’ve browsed the profile, and decided for whatever reason not to write. I’m curious as to why. Just send me a sentence or two explanation. I promise not to write you back (unless you ask) and you get to chalk up another good deed this holiday.

Thanks in advance,

CC

2/12/11 Update: It's been a month a half. *checks inbox*, *counts contents on fingers*. Not as many as I had hoped for, but about what I could reasonably expect. Thank you again to all that took the time to write.

"How does madness go by? Does it go quietly into the night? I imagine not. Rather, madess careens by naked and screaming about pickles." - a snippet of conversation.

I stumbled across this quote recently and I wanted to reflect on it;

?'The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.' He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: 'How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'

Winston thought. 'By making him suffer,' he said.

'Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.?

? George Orwell, 1984

(You can read the whole book for free here, along with the rest of his works. Highly recommended)

I agree with the spirit of the quote. The only way you can have objectively recognizable power over another is by being able to make the other person endure something which is against their will, or which is beyond their will. Any grasp lesser than that and your ?power? will always be at the mercy of their whim.

This is also why wielding power over another person and having their consent are antithetical concepts. To consent is to choose. To choose is an exercise of freedom. To apply power is to restrict choice. It is an exercise in removing freedom. A choice which isn?t made unfettered is forced to some degree and a person can not freely consent to being forced any more than a person can freely consent to something they don?t want. The person who makes the choice has the power and requiring consent means the consenter is making the choice. This is why I consider ?power exchange?, SSC, and RACK (when used in relation to d/s) as prime examples of doublethink. You can?t ?exchange power? anymore than you can exchange experiences. SSC and RACK do not fit in an actual power dynamic as they both use consent as a core concept, thus do not mix well with the realities of power. Inside the SSC and RACK conceptual frameworks you can have differing roles, but you cannot have an objectively applied power differential.

The Tyranny of the Drive-Thru

I wonder why people tolerate female supremacists. Why are they any less of a deluded bigot than a white supremacist or a male supremacist? Actually, I don't really wonder, I know why we tolerate them. It just annoys me that we do.

Though I must admit, getting my hands on one for a bit of attitude correction makes for a nice little fantasy... Not that they would likely to want to be within the same city as I, much less the same room.