Author Archives: enowned


emmie's scribbles

i can’t fight it
the things you do to me
the way i respond to you
you draw me in
you wrap me up
in your love and perversion
until i can’t have one without the other
i need the soft
and the harsh
to feel loved and wanted,
i want you to want me
to accept my surrender
my acquiescence,
sometimes thoughts of you terrify me
and i cry for want of you
i need the terror,
in what way am i warped and how did it happen
no one knows really
especially not me
who knows if childhood prepared me for you
for us
or if it is you alone
that draws from me the darkest depths
what matters is you, me , us
we matter beyond all else
the world is a backdrop to our story
people merely actors in our play,
yours is what i…

View original post 17 more words

Wanna Play?

emmie's scribbles

Do you want to play
A game with no rules
Play your cards right
There’s no way to lose

Whats your wager honey
Maybe a touch or two
Strip for me baby
I’ll strip for you

Lapdancing and laughter
Don’t take it too fast
we’ve got all night
Lets make this last

High stakes rollin’
That’s the only way to play
Keep your scorecard handy
It’s gonna be a long day

So much ground to cover
From your hair to your heel
This game never ends
All the bases
That’s what I plan to steal

There is no way to lose
When we play like we do
I’m Ready
Set to go
How about you

View original post


emmie's scribbles



And, overwhelmed

Hold me

Console me

Direct me

Protect me,

Don’t scold

Don’t argue

Don’t demand

Don’t disagree

Your fierceness is frightening

When it’s not for me,

Your time

Your attention

Your care

Your affirmation

I need it

I demand it

I crave it,

Pet my head

Hold my hand

Vanquish my dragons,

Tell me to never change

They try to tear me down

They try to deconstruct me

They try to make me assimilate,

You won’t let them get me

You and me always

Against them

Against the world

View original post

A delightful handful

emmie's scribbles

A delightful handful

I’ve heard it said,

But is the sentiment

The heart or the head?

Taken apart

The meanings no issue

Taken together well,

Madness ensues.

A delightful handful

Just what is described,


Or just the curve of a thigh.

Might be boobies

Or a nice tight bum

Could be sassiness

Or the wonderful sum

Of your parts

Which make you so you

A delightful handful

In both head and heart.

View original post

Reappropriating the Word “Authentic”

An interesting thing at the MasT meeting last night, especially for someone who is sensitive to the words people gravitate towards, was the repeated use of the words “real” and “authentic” in regards to how being in an absolute dynamic made one feel.

“Authentic” is especially interesting for me, as it is a key word in Heidegger. And while it’s one that a fair number of so-called Heideggerians avoid as much as possible to me it’s not a concept that can be lifted from Being and Time without leaving the book bereft of much of its import. With authenticity Heidegger is describing a state where one returns from one’s lostness in the world and consumption by the they-self. This consuming by the they-self is not something occasional, accidental, or to be avoided. It is simply a needful mode of being when one’s concerns and cares have to come first, and one cannot take the time to return to a more innate way of being. To make this more understandable, a carpenter may have all kinds of personal quirks and interesting features as a person, may think widely on all types of subjects and experience varied phenomena. But while involved in concernful carpentry he needs to be a carpenter, not just first, but from first to last. For the duration of his being-in-that-mode he cannot be a unique person, he has to be ‘a carpenter’ as fully as possible in order to do the work as well as possible.

Inauthenticity then is not something to be avoided. We all need to be “something” generic for certain periods in order to accomplish what’s needful in our world. It becomes an issue, though, when this temporary self-identification with the generic becomes constant. Out of fear of the realities of one’s authentic self, and very much at root out of fear of one’s mortality, one rushes headlong into pastime after pastime, being “something” generic for the duration of each pastime, and never returning to one’s self.

So it becomes interesting to me that, while in the midst of other “Masters” and “slaves”, at the very moment of apparently being “something” else generic, if not usual, people were talking about the moment of crossing the line into an absolute dynamic as making them feel, for the first time, “real” and “authentic”. While we may don the appelations of “Master” or “slave’, every absolute dynamic, by virtue of its absoluteness, also becomes unique in a certain way. There are plenty of “shoulds” floating about even in such a small community as far as behavioural norms for each role, but these “shoulds” play an insignificant part in the actual life of an M/s partnership. Eventually the reality of an absolute dynamic dictates only that the slave “should” do what the Master wants, whatever that may be, and that the Master “should” do only what the slave needs, whatever that may be.

This isn’t, however, unique to absolute dynamics. It’s simpler in form and therefore perhaps easier to flesh out than in a different type of relationship, but the germ of authenticity can grow within any relationship to the degree that the participants return to themselves, and do the things that are needful for the others, in the particular way that only they, as their own authentic selves, can do them. What I can do for mitda and emmie is not unique to me in any generic sense, but it is only when “I” do those things that they get the feeling of rightness and appropriateness that satisfies and makes one feel that one is where one ought to be. If I remain lost in the they-self that is needful for the work I do, no matter what actions I take that sense of the appropriate will never happen.

Making the Dynamic Absolute

Tonight we went to and enjoyed a MasT meeting. They can be hit and miss depending on the topic and who shows up. But tonight was fairly good, and got me out of thinking of work mode and into thinking about our M/s relationship. The topic was on how one gets into an M/s dynamic, what changes as you slip over that line from any other kind of relationship into an absolute dynamic.

While it was different for mitda and I vs emmie and I, there have been certain things in common. It’s one thing to agree to consensual non-consent, but the experience of it was striking for everyone involved, and I think is one of the keys to feeling that one’s dynamic is absolute. There are also those epiphanic moments, about which mitda spoke, realizing all-of-a-sudden something fundamental about our relationship, such as her lack of ownership of anything, including herself. For me I have had those moments, realizing that I can do anything I like with my girls, and realizing the awesome responsibility that entails.

Many Changes

Many changes

Since I last blogged we have made the huge step of splitting the households. This was done partly for space reasons – it’s difficult to find a place big enough for 5, and partly due to the fact that I don’t get along well with emmie’s child. We also wanted to be closer to, or preferably in, Austin, and a big house in Austin was not on the affordable list.

In the current arrangement we have two apartments, in two sides of the same complex. E and the child share a place and mitda and I share a place, while emmie spends 4 days a week here and 3 there. It’s not ideal by any means but it seems to be working out. After a bit, and especially with a schedule in place, emmie lost her fears that she was being abandoned. Our apartment is big enough for a decent bedroom, living room, play room and office. While E’s apartment is a little smaller (2 bdrm) the square footage isn’t terribly different.

I was spiralled into a bad depression over the weekend as a result of a certain medication. I’m taking something else to get out of it, but as always with me depression is easier triggered than cured. Add some shitty circumstances and it can spiral pretty fast. It drives me nuts that objectively I have a pretty good life, while subjectively I can’t imagine getting through another day.

M/s and Responsibility

In uncanniness Dasein stands together with itself primordially [ In der Unheimlich-keit steht das Dasein ursprünglich mit sich selbst zusammen ]. Uncanniness brings this entity face to face with its undisguised nullity, which belongs to the possibility of its ownmost potentiality-for-Being. To the extent that for Dasein, as care, its Being is an issue, it summons itself as a “they” which is factically falling, and summons itself from its uncanniness towards its potentiality-for-Being. The appeal calls back by calling forth: it calls Dasein forth to the possibility of taking over, in existing, even that thrown entity which it is; it calls Dasein back to its thrownness so as to understand this thrownness as the null basis which it has to take up into existence. This calling-back in which conscience calls forth, gives Dasein to understand that Dasein itself – the null basis for its null projection, standing in the possibility of its Being – is to bring itself back to itself from its lostness in the “they””

Responsibility and indebtedness, then, are possible because Dasein is ready for conscience, and is ready to be made anxious by its own uncanniness. This attitude of readiness Heidegger calls ‘resoluteness’ [ Entschlossenheit ]. Resoluteness is, in turn, “that truth of Dasein which is most primordial because it is authentic ” (1998: 343). It is in being resolute that Dasein devotes itself to its authentic Self, in the face of uncanniness, and

upon the basis of Being-guilty. As such, if the call of conscience risks detaching Dasein from its Being-in-the-world, it is resoluteness that places Dasein, as authentic Being-

one’s-Self , back in the world. “Resoluteness,” writes Heidegger, “is authentically nothing else than Being-in-the-world … Resoluteness brings the Self right into its current concernful Being-alongside what is ready-to-hand, and pushes it into solicitous Being with Oth-


«Dasein and the Philosopher: Responsibility in Heidegger and Mamardashvili»

by Andrew Padgett

Resoluteness allows Dasein to meet its responsibilities to others, but how does responsibility manifest differently in an absolute M/s relationship? The flipside of absolute enslavement is unlimited responsibility on the part of the Master for the slave. This unlimited responsibility is not horizontally applied, in such a way that the Master, by virtue of his/her responsibilities for his/her own slave(s) is thereby responsible for the fate of all slaves. However within the purview of his/her own slave(s) the Master is wholly responsible through the reality of mastery itself.

Any “discourse of mastery”, however decried in postmodern circles, implies a full responsibility by its author. In the development of an enslavement the Master engages in such a discourse through both speech and action.

Derrida’s disconcerting law of dissemination invokes a shifting of interpretive spaces or contexts. The result is a shifting interpretive topology where philosophical, political, ethical, or religious positions no longer remain protected by the exclusionary policy of a restricted

analytic economy.

The Unlimited Responsibility of Spilling Ink

Marko Zlomislic

Dissemination, however disconcerting, is at the heart of the Master’s enslavement of the slave. The Master shifts the “interpretive space” of the slave in order to bring the slave’s context in line with his/her own. The topology of the slave’s being or will, or topography even, is thereby modified along an axis that leads to the Master’s being and will.

Mastery implies resoluteness, in that someone lost in the they-self is engaged in evading responsibilities. This evasion results in a lostness in the they-self and a flattening of differences, a flattening incompatible with either mastery or enslavement. Resolute dissemination is unprotected in every way, flouting law and custom, and every morality that has been propagated through civilization’s history, yet it thereby founds itself within the realm of situational ethics and unlimited responsibility. This flouting is an-archic, in that common goals or the telos of society is not accepted. The anxiety that comes with flouting law and custom is part and parcel of the total anxiety required by the wanting-to-have-a-conscience.

Derrida proposes the unreserved tension of competing paradigms that take place in a

chiasmic communication. Such a position destroys in a constructive sense the claim to

unequivocal hegemony of one tradition over other traditions. Such a stance gives an

ethical account of the intolerance displayed by various interpretive communities,

The Unlimited Responsibility of Spilling Ink

Marko Zlomislic

Even within the BDSM community there are a host of interpretive communities that range from top/bottom play communities to Master/slave communities with no possible relative judgements between any of the myriad types of relationships possible. It could be argued that the interpretive community valid for any relationship consists of the members of that relationship itself, as there is no external method of normalization for the ethos of each relationship. The range of views and visions of one’s life implies unlimited responsibility for one’s own ethos, as one cannot refer one’s ethos to any authority but one’s own. Moving from within to without the BDSM community any attempted normalization could only be antithetical to the ethos of the individual consensual Master/slave relationship. The best a community such as the BDSM community can do is to try to protect the freedom to explore one’s own ethos and consummate one’s own responsibility, whatever that may be, and however antithetical it may be to other members of the community.

Absolute Enslavement – the Meaning of the Absolute

Complete M/s relationships have been characterized as a “Total Power Exchange” and also as “Absolute Power Exchange”. Notwithstanding the difficulties involved in exchanging power, I mean to look at the differences between “Total” and “Absolute” and thereby reveal part of the reason I have chosen the term “Absolute Enslavement” for complete, consensual M/s relationships.

Hegel talks about absolute knowledge, that represents the journeys end. In order to achieve this Absolute knowledge, “Spirit attains to a knowledge of itself not only as it is in itself or as possessing an absolute content, nor only as it is for itself as a form devoid of content, or as the aspect of self-consciousness, but as it is both in essence and in actually, or in and for itself.” Hegel believes that the human spirit is related to the Absolute Spirit in the beginning, but only achieves knowledge of it in the end.

He criticizes the Kantian notion that knowledge is an “instrument” that should be examined before used, “But the examination of knowledge can only be carried out by an act of knowledge. To examine this so-called instrument is the same thing as to know it. But to seek to know before we know is as absurd as the wise resolution of Scholasticus, not to venture into the water until he had learned to swim.” “

– Hegel’s Thoughts on Knowledge, The Philosopher’s Lighthouse

Relationships in the context of consensual M/s have for a number of years eschewed the notion that the enslavement of the consensual slave is “partial” or not totalizing. This is so despite the fact that it has been pointed out by numerous observers that a “total” enslavement is not, in itself, possible, that every person has limits, however much they can be pushed, for example. In using the term “absolute” rather than “total” I mean the term in the sense intended by Hegel in his discussions on absolute knowledge, where knowledge knows itself as such. This reflexivity of the absolute does not imply a totalizing of knowledge – the person with absolute knowledge may know only one thing rather than everything in the universe, but knows that one thing absolutely. By the same token the consensual slave “knows” his/her enslavement as such in a way that was not possible for the non-consensual slave of western history or the non-consensual slaves that still exist in other parts of the world.

While a necessary a priori however knowing one’s enslavement is only part of the issue, as it does not really introduce the proper reflexivity into enslavement that is required for an enslavement to become absolute. A term introduced originally to replace TPE, “Internal Enslavement”, can point the way out of this bind. In the sense of internal enslavement, where the slave internalizes or has internalized his/her enslavement the slave essentially becomes “enslaved” to enslavement, where his/her enslavement becomes a necessary part of his/her being who he/she is. This internalization is not wholly an act of the slave but is a consequence of the actions of the slave and the Master in consummating the dynamic of the relationship. It is also not something that happens “all at once” or even “once” at all, but is a tangential progression towards a particular goal, a path along which one gets ever closer to the absolute without ever actually touching it. This type of tangent is in mathematics “equivalent” to the point it is tangential to and it is in this sense that the path of absolute enslavement can be said to be “equivalent” to an actualized absolute enslavement.

Of Boards and Borderlines

Of Boards and Borderlines

Over the last while mitda and I spent some time on the board of a local group, being finally driven away by a narcissistic president and borderline board member. That particular board member is still driving us up the wall emailing and phoning friends of ours with all kinds of bogus allegations. If it were fiction it would be mildly amusing, unfortunately it isn’t.