Category Archives: M/s

“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.


Definitions

Mastery (of someone):  to appropriate, own and give a disposition, a state of being, to that person.

Domination: to make available to oneself as appropriate.

To submit: to be revealed or exhibited as available and proper.

Submission: available to hear and simultaneously obey.

Submissive: acquiesce to obedience through devotion.


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.


Style as Mastery

I’m going to talk about style and mastery, not simply the style of mastery, something that varies from person to person, something optional, but style as mastery, style as the necessary manner of doing things that changes their fundamental meaning from simple acts to dominating acts.

I was reading an article about dominance in a different sphere, specifically English football, or soccer.  The article was focused on a former Manchester United player, now manager of the nascent New York Cosmos, Eric Cantona.

Cantona puts paid to the idea of moneyball.  While statistically he was a good player, he scored plenty of goals but not the numbers recorded by van Nistelrooy, Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney; he assisted on plenty but not with the numbers of a Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs or David Beckham; as far as defending, United fans put their hands over their eyes whenever Cantona went in for a tackle, fearing he’d be sent off again for another badly timed lunge.   On top of that he only played for United for 5 years, retiring young even by footballing standards.  However in fan voting Cantona was picked as the top United player of all time, eclipsing Rooney, Ronaldo, Scholes, Beckham, George Best and Sir Bobby Charlton among many other greats.

The article made the point that after years of mediocrity (United hadn’t won the title for 25 years before Cantona joined, they won 4 out of 5 in the years he was there) Cantona not only taught United how to win, but how to win with authority.  Not the authority of quantity, outscoring opponents massively on a regular basis, but the authority of style.   Cantona’s style was dominating in that it said to the opposition “try this … you can’t?  That’s why you’ll never be at the level I am …”

Looking at a specific instance, with United up one goal in an away game Giggs sent a cross field pass to Cantona with plenty of space around him and one defender plus the goalkeeper between him and the goal.  The obvious possibilities as a striker are to either hit the ball quickly, low and hard, trying to catch the defender and goalkeeper before they’re able to set themselves to block it, or to knock the ball past the defender, run onto it and therefore have a shot available with only the goalkeeper to beat.

Cantona, instead, controls the ball and comes to a dead stop, facing the defender and goalkeeper.  Then he stabs his foot downward under the ball, causing it to float into the air, catch the cold Lancashire breeze and drift over the helpless goalkeeper into the net.   Rather than an ecstatic goal celebration, Cantona then stands there looking at the other team with a disdainful expression.  Not only has he put United 2 up, a difficult score to come back from, the other team is completely intimidated by the style with which he scored it.  I could give plenty of other instances of Cantona’s style, such as the pole dance celebration after a goal against Liverpool, but you get the idea. During his time at United Cantona was referred to, not just by the fans, but by the rest of the team, as “King Cantona” or simply “Dieu” (God).

In another game, Cantona starts from close to the corner flag, skips past a couple of defenders, stops in front of the goal while the defenders and goalkeeper slide across to try to block the coming shot, then casually chips the ball over them into the net.  Cantona’s composure to the point of casualness, his nerve in front of goal and the apparent ease with which he does what he does, is a big part of his domination of the other team.  Showing strain lets the other know about the difficulty involved, restoring some sense of power to them, whether another team or another person in an M/s relationship.  Cantona, like any good master, makes his dominance look easy and natural.

Within M/s dynamics initially there’s a focus on the what, rather than the how.  Once the what is decided and to some degree achieved, however, there is often a sense of “what next?”.  Any specific what’s, whether rules, protocol, etc. can become either habitual, tedious or both, yet dropping them comes with the fear of “vanilla death” creeping into the relationship.  What seems to be missing in terms of understanding how to further and deepen the relationship is an understanding of style as mastery.  Mastery never consists in what is done but in the way that it is done, the specific style of domination required to dominate the specific slave in the relationship.  At best, though, style is often seen as something optional, an accoutrement to what is done.  Someone like Cantona demonstrates that the style changes the act itself.  Conceding a goal can be recovered by simply scoring one yourself at the other end, but Cantona didn’t just score a goal, in a topological sense he removed the level playing field that had existed by putting the other team in its place, and its place was to be dominated by United.  From that there’s no easy recovery.

Of course style remains something personal, the style with which one does things is, in total, how you are as a person to others.  As a result there’s no manual available on how to use your specific style to further an M/s context, and people seem to be constantly looking for manuals or guides on how to make their relationship work.  Having a sensitivity to how the way you do things affects the person you’re with, though, rather than simply looking at how what you do affects them, can lead to a better understanding of what it is about your particular style that is effective, eventually leading to an understanding of the best manner in which to accomplish something specific while simultaneously enhancing the dominant position you enjoy in the relationship and maintaining the appropriate places you and your  slave dwell in.


Master, Slave, Humanness and Truth

In the crossing from conceptual thinking to inceptual, truth interpreted as relational and externally founded (correspondence theory of truth) is initially rejected by Nietszche as mere valuation, and not the ‘highest’ value. But with the second Nietszche remains wedded to the notion of valuation in general. Valuation goes hand in hand with the nature of technological (metaphysical, conceptual) revealing of beings in general. The enframing nature of technological revealing requires a posited identity between differentiable things, in order to be able to ‘have’ them at one’s disposal – as a resource any given example is equivalent to any other of that type.
Nietszche then brings in the valuation of humanness as rank. Truth as valuation renders the difference null, they are both ‘human resources’. Within any enforced Master/slave pairing the metaphysical notion of truth is always advantageous to those looking up. Maintaining the differentiation though is not merely in the Master’s interest but in the interest of undermining valuation in general.
Within consensual Master/slave dynamics the metaphysical valuation is disadvantageous to both, since it renders them effectively equal, and their dynamic is posited on inequality as in itself desirable. Truth is re-posited in an inceptual manner, as the self-presentation of something to a human being, and thus founded on humanness in general.


Mastery / slavery ? Digressions in Terminology

How the more extreme forms of domination and submission oriented dynamics acquired the terminology “Master/slave” is an odd question at first glance, and one related to another form of terminology, that of “Owner/property”.
A slave, defined by being-owned, would by definition have an owner.  One who owned a human being would by definition have a slave, owning simple “property” would not distinguish one from any other in our current society.  Masters in various areas of endeavour might have servants, novices, acolytes, initiates, apprentices, etc.  But in the specific area of consensual slavery the slave’s owner appropriates the designation “Master”.  Seemingly in reaction to the ability and responsibility mastery requires, some in domination/submission dynamics opt out of the issue of what mastery entails, preferring to return to simple ownership, but the simulaneous reduction of human property (“slave”) to just “property” signals a felt lack, as if owning a human being without mastery is somehow inappropriate.
Consensual slavery has multiple defining features, but one of the principle features is a vow of obedience that overrules further need for consent, in most cases perpetual, at least in intention.  Perpetual vows of obedience are found in a number of other areas of human endeavour, but are most associated with the religious life.  Within many religious orders a vow of obedience to the order is prescribed.  While it is unusual today, vows of obedience to a particular person were at one time also common within Christianity as in other religions.
The justification for vows of obedience within specifically Christian theology stemmed from the limited perspective available to any given individual, together with the notion that community ameliorated that limitation and provided a brake on unconstrained and potentially mistaken willing by the individual.
Will as Will to Power, in the consummation of metaphysics and therefore Christianity itself, however, is the term for the essence of being itself, rather than a specific faculty of a specific being.  As the essence of being itself the slave’s being is as fully Will to Power as the Owner’s.  Rather than ameliorating the expression of Will to Power, the being of the community, religious or otherwise, is also Will to Power.  A vow of obedience could not in post Nietzschean terms accomplish any constraining of the Will to Power but would simply make the perspective panoramic, and as panoramic all the more perspectival.
A vow of obedience, as central to the slave’s being-a-slave, and hence the slave’s expression of Will to Power, serves two other purposes.  First the vow is a shield against the tempting, in particular the most tempting itself.  Second it is the focus for the more understanding and creative expression of that will demanded by its continuing alignment with the will of the Master.

It is in the radicality of the demand of obedience that it functions as a shield against the tempting.  “The most tempting itself” is an odd phrase at first –  temptation is often conflated with desire, yet in a sense it opposes and frustrates the pursuit of that which is most desired itself.  Temptation diverts from the pursuit of desire as much as from the pursuit of perfection, or any other particular pursuit.  As the “most” tempting fundamental temptation is something we always find ourselves in in advance.  Radical obedience, in either expectation or fulfillment, opposes the most tempting in an essential way because it is an extraordinary expectation, and an extraordinary thing to attempt.  “The most tempting”, the founding temptation in which we always find ourselves immersed is essentially the temptation of the mediocre, the averageness of everyday understanding and levelling off any distinctions that might threaten that tranquillizing mediocrity of everydayness itself.

Expecting this kind of vow implictly requires a sense of one’s own unique abilities, a sense that develops with mastery of those abilities itself, a sense that breaks and continually re-breaks the temptation towards a tranquilizing common mediocrity.  Consenting to such a vow requires an honouring of the uniqueness of the Master’s abilities that accomplishes the same severing from the temptation to mediocrity.


Direction and Directives

Is it enough for Mastery that a slave obey his / her Master’s directives, while his / her thoughts, desires and will remain free? Or does the act of directing implicitly require that the directed align those thoughts, desires and will with that of the Master?

In directing the Master points in a direction and sets the slave moving in that direction. This of course requires that the Master have a perspective from which to direct. The perspective itself comes from the positing of viewpoints inherent in mastery, power itself is perspectival in the sense that it is always an empowering of overpowering, a will towards a horizon, enacted through the slave, that comes back to itself in the slave’s obedience and the Master’s self obedience.

The slave’s obedience in merely accomplishing the activity is never sufficient in itself to satisfy power. At best it can allow power to be maintained, but power is always overpowering as mastery – mastery of the slave and self mastery. If it is only maintained as measure it dwindles temporally.  Mastery must empower its own overpowering and for this it requires the overpowering of its perspective itself via the merging of the slave’s will with its own, the merging of viewpoints into one panoramic perspective.

Directives are obeyed by the slave in the sense of moving in that direction, but they empower the will of the Master when the directive’s viewpoint and perspective are adopted, such that the slave’s obedience returns and empowers the Master’s self obedience. In this the directive reaches its panoramic completion, empowering further perspectives, viewpoints, and directives.


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 …


Freedom, freedom and Waffling

I’ve been reading Master Obsidian’s House blog site some more and a paragraph in another post caught my eye as something I’ve also been concerned with. Part of the reason expressing oneself as a part of the M/s subculture is that our language betrays what we in fact do and how we structure meaning within the world. Speaking of a tendency within the community Master Obsidian makes the following observation on a common and becoming more common attitude:

freedom in its purest sense embraced is the freedom to do anything and to be anything at all. And if we truly are inclusive, if we truly are seekers of truth then we must conclude as often as possible that every man and every woman has the ability and the right to pursue what ever strikes their particular fancy. And perhaps even more importantly than that notion, is the notion that whatever a person comes up in their pursuit of getting their particular fancy struck as it were – is great and wonderful and not to be denied.

Freedom, for me, comes in two flavors. There is the a priori freedom that every human being possesses no matter what their life circumstances. Without this freedom we would be unable to comport ourselves towards anything whatsoever. It is a necessity of being-in-the-world itself. This is properly called ‘ontological freedom’, which can be explained as the freedom of being itself. The other sense of freedom is the practical freedom that one possesses within-the-world. This is a matter of circumstances, and is also a matter of degrees. The proper term for this is ‘ontic freedom’, which can be made clearer as the freedom to dispose of beings as one wishes.

Enhancing the ability, if the individual chooses, to exercise ontic freedom is a noble pursuit. The as-one-wishes is crucial though, as not everyone wishes to exercise every possible ontic freedom. As well, circumstances being what they are, no one can exercise every freedom they may wish. We are all constrained by law, by custom, by societal opinion, and by our own ethical sense.

Choosing to not exercise freedoms may be due to ethics or societal norms, or it may be a more personal choice in that an individual may simply not feel comfortable exercising a good number of freedoms. If this number is great enough they may choose to enter into a D/s or M/s relationship, depending on the degree of unfreedom they feel most comfortable with. In an M/s relationship, once the choice is made it is made in a permanent sense, unless one is willing to break one’s word in an important manner.

Whatever that person, who is now a slave where continued consent is not required, may suddenly feel the urge to express may now only be expressed accordng to the will of the Master . The slave has given up the freedom to “get their particular fancy struck” unless it happens to coincide with the Master’s particular fancy at that moment. That ontological freedom is still present cannot undermine ontical slavery.


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.