Category Archives: Kink

“Lifers”

Recently I had a discussion with someone who had spent significant time in the scene, albeit in another city. He mentioned a non-group of people, since they didn’t get together or necessarily even know one another, that he referred to as “lifers”, i.e. people who lived a 24/7 M/s or similar dynamic but weren’t part of any “scene”, although most had been part of one scene or another at some point.

We discussed the reasons most of these people had no further interest in the scene: they had no interest in the mutual admiration performance art of a play party; they had no interest in the mutual justification societies of the BDSM / leather conference circuit; they had no interest in relationship-oriented groups since, just as individuals individuate and diverge from group interests, their relationship had individuated to the degree that group discussions about relationships had little to no relevance.

One of the reasons I found the discussion fascinating is that it articulated many of the things I feel about the scene and the various sub-scenes, and their relation to emmie and me.

I find no interest in playing publicly, the aspects of the way emmie and I actualize our fantasies are rather personal and playing publicly forces us to “tone down” what we do to the point of disinterest.

I haven’t enjoyed the conferences I’ve been to: the only areas of interest are largely for beginners and, it seems to me, necessarily so, since discussions on more advanced topics would be too specific to the people involved, without enough in common to attract any type of group.

I’ve lost interest in the relationship-oriented groups we’ve attended: I have very little advice to offer that is generally applicable, what we do is too personal and thus irrelevant to others; the inverse is also true, where what others who have been involved in this lifestyle as long or longer do things in such a substantially different manner that beyond mutual respect there isn’t much worth discussing; the idea of teaching or otherwise influencing those new to the idea of a 24/7 power dynamic is both repetitive, since what is common to this type of dynamic is very limited, and irritating, since people whose longest power dynamic has been measured in months or less are aghast at how emmie and I actually live and spend the time telling us that we’re doing it all wrong.

I have no interest in any of the established “groups” precisely because they, as groups, depend for their own survival on inculcating and maintaining group values and interests, while my own desires and interests have diverged further and continue to do so.

Although many of our friends, naturally, are in the scene, meeting at “scene events” gets annoying simply because we’ve said all we have to say to one another about “scene stuff”. While I enjoy them as people, the enjoyment of their company has to do with enjoying things that have nothing to do with M/s or BDSM from the perspective of non-vanilla people. Since people are busy though there is an unfortunate tendency to put off getting together with other people in the scene in non-scene situations, with the idea of “we’ll see them at such and such scene event in any case”.

It appears to be the last point that seals the effect where those my acquaintance referred to as “lifers” often know very few or even no people who share their lifestyle the longer they’ve been involved in it.


Marriage in an Egalitarian Situation and M/s Dynamics

The question of marriage came up the other day, mainly due to emmie’s family and their investment in the idea, whether it arises mainly from their Xian beliefs or their lack of trust, which is somewhat understandable given they’ve never met me.

The problem, though, with marriage in a situation where the two partners are legally equal is that it becomes a contract between two equal but separate parties, a contract that isn’t even particularly binding. The moment one of the parties feels they’re not getting what they want, they can simply file for divorce.

The historical reality is that marriage was often no more than that in many layers of society at any time, but the legality of the situation was different when marriage required at least some acknowledgement of responsibility, since the woman as chattel was inherently to some degree the man’s responsibility. Of course in many cases reality didn’t quite work that way (where the woman was from a wealthy family, for instance), and in others men didn’t live up to their responsibility. But at least theoretically there was a meaning to marriage, and a responsibility that ought to have been taken on.

Today’s marriage is simply a social convenience in areas where the law or individual moralism hasn’t kept up with reality. People remain emotionally invested, though, not in their particular marriage, which in most cases quickly becomes a socially convenient contract, but in the idea of marriage itself as meaningful, when it’s patently obvious to anyone that thinks about it without the blinkers of sentimentality that it isn’t.

An M/s dynamic is old fashioned in precisely the sense under which marriage might have been, for some at least, a meaningful event. But simultaneously it replaces marriage since it goes completely against the current form of marriage. In this sense it is a new relationship form, because it is a repetition of an earlier form in a changed situation, where the meaning of the act can no longer be what it was.

Marriage under those conditions seems not only superfluous, but by bringing in the current sense of the term, in my experience undermines the relationship by having it conform to a concept that is both meaningless and antithetical to the actual relationship.


Continuing from the last set of thoughts on community, a particular post made me think about community in a more general sense, specifically in terms of what kind of community do I want, what kind do we want, in line with my sense of the Self as simultaneously individual and shared.

From the outset, my approach isn’t founded on the Cartesian notion of the Self as an isolated subject, with community as creating some sort of external relation on this isolated “I”. For me a basic aspect of being human is being-with, that even when we are alone we experience that aloneness as a deficient mode of being-with. Being-with can take a number of distinct forms, the most basic is everyday being-with-others in whatever setting one is required to be in.

In this everyday situation being-with is mostly experienced in deficient modes, being-against, being-indifferent, ignoring, and perhaps the most insidious, being-against in the guise of being-for. As a result our basic being-with is a less than ideal starting point in terms of building a community where the mode of being-with is fundamentally a being-for those who one is with. On the other hand the Cartesian ‘problem of other minds’ and other solipsistic issues such as the question of what a ‘relation’ between two subjects actually consists in are not relevant. On the other hand, precisely the danger of being ‘lost in others’ is a strong potential. However being an authentic Self can’t consist in being alone, since that is also a deficient mode of being-with, so being authentic has to involve finding an authentic way of being-with others, an authentic community.

I can only speak about community from out of those communities I’ve experienced, but this includes those I was fully involved in and those I was periphery to. The experience in each case is a very different one, of course, but via analogy one can to a degree understand communities one is periphery to in terms of the community or communities one has been a part of.

The community I grew up in, primarily, was the Jesuit community. Since that community is not well understood, particularly here in the U.S., I’ll say a few quick things about it. Contrary to most ‘religious’ communities, being a Jesuit isn’t primarily a matter of having a shared belief-system, the notion of “once a Jesuit always a Jesuit” applies even if one doesn’t believe Jesuit theology, or even in Christianity or theism itself. For this reason, and others, there are some resemblances that are inherent in terms of being able to understand somewhat similar communities modeled as ‘brotherhoods’ that are not simply a matter of a shared belief system but a commitment.

Part of the implication of our average, everyday deficient modes of being with is that building a community is inherently a difficult task. One of the strongest temptations in inauthentic being-with is to desire that others have a fixed image of ‘who we are’ that relieves us of the burden of our own freedom. An authentic community, then, while it may have an ‘image’ to the public, may internally look very different from that public image, because the members are themselves not intending to be reified as that image. For instance in a leather or fetish community members may or may not ‘look the part’ at all times, even though both leather and fetish, as terms, are precisely a manner of dress. Looking the part doesn’t in itself demonstrate authenticity or inauthenticity: I could be dressed the part in order to give others a mental image of myself that in fact hides who I am; conversely I could be dressed the part because that’s how I feel most comfortable and most myself; a third and probably more common situation is that I dress the part when I’m going to be in a situation where I feel comfortable in it because it’s appropriate to the situation. Of course, members publicly representing the community, if it has a public face, or acting as representative of the community to itself, if it is private, are likely to dress the part simply because otherwise they wouldn’t be seen as representative of it. Within an authentic community, though, members are going to be judged as authentically part of the community over the long term by their demonstration of their ongoing commitment to it, not by their conforming to incidental representations.

The difficulty of creating community today is even greater, for the same reason as community is more needed by many people. The acid of rationalism and secularism, which dissolved many communities based on shared belief, is ironically now threatening the scientific community that most promoted it, as their shared praxes have been exposed as predominantly belief based and themselves not rational, and costly compared to knowledge work that doesn’t involve the shared praxes that make the scientific community a community. The same ‘efficiency’ concern has also successfully dissolved communities that were based on shared praxes in terms of labor, other than the few ‘professional’ unions such as the AMA and the Barristers’ association that are financially secure enough to maintain their organizations. The notion of the post-secular society, as a society based on newer thinking that has successfully undermined the dissolving rationalist worldview is still for the most part conceptual. We haven’t seen the emergence of new communities other than a few new fundamentalisms, the re-emergence of a few ethnicist groups, and scattered communities such as the various LGBT, leather, fetish and biker communities that have emerged, merged with others, dissolved, re-emerged and are now (at least in the leather/fetish area) trying to establish a more stable existence as a single recognizable community. There aren’t therefore many models to go on, and cultish, shared belief as a foundation is not a reasonable option for most of us, nor is ethnicism a choice we either can or want to make. Exactly how various communities, or what might better be described as proto-communities, might establish the type of shared praxes that eventually foster the sense of community is difficult to project.

Going back to the notion of commitment, though, I do think that personal commitment will be a necessary component, and with that personal commitment a commitment to be personal. By that I mean a commitment to not predetermine or stick to an initial or early determination of who others are, but to view them as they manifest, which includes how they may grow and change. And as importantly a commitment to allow ourselves to be viewed as we manifest, not as a fixed picture we would like others to have of us, but as we authentically are, including in ways in which we may have grown or changed over time.


Theology of Leather (tongue firmly in cheek)

I came across a few posts mentioning ‘leather identity’ as who the author ‘is’ spiritually. Since my own journey of learning began in theology I thought I would investigate the theological implications of a spiritual leather identity.

As a theological term, spirit, like psyche and self has a specific meaning. All of these kinds of words (and we can add will, being, god, world, nature etc.) are difficult to define conceptually because they are themselves determining concepts, which as such are never themselves fully determined. Things can only be fully determined via these determining concepts.

Spirit is what determines the “who” of the psyche, our self-identity.  From spirit we always already know who we are such that we know when we are being “truly” ourselves and when we aren’t. As what determines from the beginning, spirit exists in the eternal past, i.e. the past that was always past, not the past that at one point was present. The psyche arises as a response to spirit. All the aspects or “existentials” of the psyche (such as understanding, interpretation, discourse, being-in, being-with, ambiguity) partially actualize that response. Authenticity consists in being true to spirit, which calls us out of inauthenticity in the wordless call of conscience. Although the call of conscience has no content, we always “know” what it means: that we are guilty of not actualizing a true response to our spirit.

God as a perfect being may only, as will, will good. Human beings on the other hand have the freedom to will its opposite. Since this freedom in itself cannot have originated in the living God, human self-will originated as spirit in the dark ground of God. This potential for evil in God’s ground, which although part of God, is unknown even to God himself as the living God, is the cause of God’s coming out of his ground as the living God.

If the identity of one’s spirit, then, is a leather identity, as determining who one truly is. Leather as a potentiality of being, as will-to-leather, must also have existed in the originary dark ground of God.

The living God, as the highest being and the source of all other being, contains all positive potentials of being in himself, so the human will-to-leather must have a corresponding divine will-to-leather.

As a result, someone with a leather identity, spiritually, would feel the call of conscience denoting them as guilty in any situation where they were being inauthentic, not responding appropriately to their leather spirit. They would feel guilty cavorting in the vanilla world, wearing cotton or polyester or rayon, against their true identity as the actualization of their leather spirit.

Concomitantly, the living God of the leather spirit would be the highest leather being, the source of all human leather being, the Absolute Leatherman.


Refusal Or … ?

Between my post on refusal and now I’ve had a very odd change in my manner of being.

I had what used to be called, in the conceptual world, a “divine revelation”.  Since I live in the post conceptual (post religious-metaphysical-scientific)  world it was no long divine in any sense.   However it was reflexive in a way that no epiphany could be.  It was a revelation of the nature of revelation itself.

The reflexivity made me suddenly understand Hegel’s Absolute Knowing, Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence of the Same, and Heidegger’s vom Ereignis (from Enowning) simultaneously as attempts to provoke the experience.  Not that they do, but they do at least prepare one for it in a similar way to mystic practice preparing one for divine revelation.  Understanding understanding, as it were, doesn’t give you an understanding of anything in particular.  It gives you a different sense of things where understanding precedes self-conscious interpretation.

More on this later …


Kinky Wilde-isms

These are posted without attribution … since attribution would only indicate a nickname on an anonymous site.

kink is the refuge of homely, limited people; but the ruin of attractive,
talented ones.

after illusion, perversity is the greatest of life’s pleasures, and the
preoccupation of genius.

there is no such thing as a “kinky” or “vanilla” person; people are either
interesting and charming–or boring and charmless.

polygamy is having too many partners; monogamy is exactly the same.

Kinksters refuse to be constrained by the pointless rules and expectations of
mundane society, preferring to be constrained by the pointless rules and
expectations of other kinksters.

To regain consciousness in a paramedic ambulance after ONE play session is
merely an accident; for it to happen TWICE is outright carelessness.

I like talking to brick walls, doormats and my property; the only things in
the world that don’t dare contradict me.

a little submission is a charming thing; a great deal of it, grotesque.

ownership and control-freakishness are really the same thing.

other masters and slaves are quite phony; the only genuine ones are me and
mine.

A man in his vice is an ugly thing, a woman in it is heavenly.

Sadist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.

The man who can dominate a London dinner-table can dominate the world.

“patio”: the name breathplayers give to their mistakes

Consensuality is the last refuge of the timid.

I like women better than clothes, and I like women with no clothes better than
anything else in the world.

The only difference between pain and ecstasy is attitude.

A Man’s face is his autobiography; his sub’s ass is his blog.

Blind ambition is an excellent start, ballgagged ambition is better.

The moment a Dominant must declare he has the authority in a situation he has
lost it.

To see yourself in your submissive is the product of incessant narcissism, or
fantastic oral.

If one could merely teach submissives how to talk, and dominants how to
listen, FetLife would be quite civilized.

People are not good or bad, they are merely charming or Gorean.

The ability to whimper is a serviceable substitute for passion.

It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than to be punished for
speaking without permission.

There’s a love that dare not speak its name; sadly, there’s also a love that
won’t ever shut the fuck up.

Many bdsm intimacies begin on the internet. and end in disaster.

There are many men a woman will submit to just to get rid of them.

“I’ve had a lovely beating… But this wasn’t it”.

I no longer attend play-parties; some of the women look as if they were poured
into their corsets and forgot to say “when!”

Many slaves are so grotesquely unattractive that I must resist the urge to flog
their mothers.

You can tell a lot about a man’s background and breeding from the cut of his
assless chaps.

He wears his leathers as if they were thrown on him with a pitchfork

There’s no way to distinguish between a good pro domme and a bad one. sooner
or later, out pops the fat ass.

She was raised in a poly household. they were too poor to practice monogamy.

If a “piece of property” wants to remain with her owner, all she has to do is
cater to what is most ugly in him.

Fetishes do not cease to be funny when people die any more than they cease to
be serious when people laugh.

24/7 master/slave is the marriage of meanness and martyrdom

bdsm divides people into sadists and masochists, or dominants and submissives;
it has no category for the truly original and unique.

bdsm with a woman is sometimes a vast improvement over wanking; but it takes
more imagination than most people have to really make it work

there is no sadder creatrue in the world than a woman who craves a man’s
spanking but has to settle for the whole man

bdsm “morality” is like a sexually-transmitted disease; the first stage is
called “honor, the second stage “honesty”, the final stage “community”.

there are many unfortunate women in bdsm who have to play mommy in order to
hang on to their daddy

romantics place their loves on a pedestal; sadists tie them across it

masters are the bosses in their homes; their slaves merely make all the
decisions

when their “property” demands release, most owners swing into action; they
immediately clean out the cage for rental.

People ask who is more imaginative, male dominants or female dominants? If you
ask me, the most imaginative creature is the male submissive who arrives late
to see a domme.

perversity is the daddy of invention

if sex is the spice of life, than sadism is the industrial acid

it’s fortunate that most bdsm “mentors” are too stupid to conceal their
dishonesty with deceit

I will never tolerate being called “master” in my own home

I have no issues with most doms calling themselves “sir”, “lord” or “master”;
after all, they are all napoleons of stupid.

I will never pay for porn nor support FL; I have no intention of bolstering
the capitalist system.

I have tremendous respect for her; she worked herself up from homeless teenage
runaway to beta-slave in a leather family

_many women face a terrible dilemma on FL; is he cheating on his wife or
hiding from his mother?

what’s the point of having a switch if you can’t turn her on and off?

There is nothing in the world like the devotion of a real slave, it’s a thing
that no Master knows anything about.

the amount of female gossip on these threads is shocking. it’s like washing
one’s dirty hitachi in public.

self-control is an essential element of a dominant’s character; it allows one
to peruse FL pix without bursting into laughter or puking.

the problem with human “property” is not that it depreciates, but that you
can’t even recycle it.

living with an extreme mascochist is not for the frugal; your water and
electrical bills go through the roof

If it’s not cheating as long as your spouse doesn’t know, is your spouse
really filing for divorce if you don’t know?

pervs confess to their more harmless fetishes in order to conceal the truly
sick ones

for most people, virtues are vices in disguise; for pervs, it’s the opposite

neither the sun nor death nor a fat slob in leather can be looked at with
unflinching gaze

I only engage in pervy sex to remind myself I’m not the center of the universe

the real art of topping is to know how far you can go too far

your problems getting laid are not necessarily due to gender politics

it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like jay wiseman

To have one’s fist stuck inside a dubious girl, may be regarded as a
misfortune; to have both stuck looks like carelessness.

never judge a person by the clothes (s)he wears; never judge fetish-clothing
by the person wearing them

if clothes make the man, fetish-clothing usually ruins him

riding a new york city subway is perfect prepartion for attending a new york
city fetish-party

if FL wants to attract an even edgier crowd, it should be renamed as
facefuckbook

slaves are like sphinxes without secrets, but at least they have noses.

male sadists can often be very humble people, except when their ejaculate goes
to their heads

I no longer attend dungeon parties. I dislike the feeling of deja-flog

it’s not a good idea to fall asleep when whipping someone, though it’s often
difficult to stay awake

I’m in favor of capital punishment, as long as it’s between consenting adults

a dom with a beltful of floggers is like a frenchman with a chestful of medals

a legend in his own toy-bag…

my fetish is nursing-home sex; you wait inside all day and nobody comes.

when a maso woman says “you’re breaking my heart”, it’s usually with a tone of
admiration

the critical period in establishing a polygamous household is breakfast

most people become confused when they get “things all mixed up”; d/s people
are more likely to blot out all reason and memory

a genuine male dominant makes a woman either shudder or surrender

dominance complicates a man’s character and simplifies his submissive’s

A true gentleman is someone who never leaves a mark unintentionally

I disapprove of the way you dress, but I will defend to the death your right
to dress that way–once I stop laughing uncontrollably

he has the sort of bdsm experience that only comes from years of experimenting
on rubber dolls

many people on FL complain about “drama”; that’s because they have no talent
for it–buffonery, slapstick, vaudeville and farce are all they’re capable of.

A true sadist is one who can hit harder than a masochist can stand. A true
masochist is one who can find such a sadist.

We can forgive those who know less than we do. We cannot forgive those who
know more than we do.

I once spent a year at a leather household — I think it was a Sunday.

Masters spend the first part of training teaching you how to walk and talk, and
the rest of it telling you to sit down and shut up.

when weird creatures at some fetish party waddle up to me and introduce
themselves as “Lady Gusset” or “Lord Merkin” or whatever, my reply is always
the same: “That’s ok. I’m sure its not your fault.”

By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, FetLife keeps us in touch with
the ignorance of the community.

One’s FetLife is so often the life that one does not lead.

The one charm about 24/7 bdsm is that it makes a life of deception absolutely
necessary for all parties.

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are playing with our slave’s tits.

When good kinksters die, they go to Berlin.

Submissives begin by resisting a Dom’s advances and end by blocking his
retreat.

Submissives are made to be beaten, not understood.

I feel most at home in the kink community, not because it is intrinsically
more interesting, but because no one really belongs there any more than I do.
We are all there together in its wholly excellent vacuum.

Dominants were only made into such with great difficulty: the Dom is not
naturally dominant any more than the submissive. He has to be propped up into
that position with some ingenuity, and is always likely to collapse.

A Master, like his cousin the college professor, becomes one because it’s a
great excuse to stop learning anything.