Category Archives: particularization

“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.


Domination, mastery and control

These words, mentioned together in reference to ocularcentrism, and to an apparent audiocentrism, in the quote that centres the previous blog entry, sound odd in an M/s blog, especially a blog that seems to promote, at least for the participants mentioned, a full 24/7 power exchange. Sound odd because they are spoken of in a derogatory fashion. Sound odd because they are applied in conjunction with people who would otherwise seem to be anti-coercion, anti-domination …
But domination and mastery, surely, are not exactly synonymous. I can dominate all I want and not gain mastery over a thing. By the same token I can have mastery over something I didn’t dominate to begin with.
It’s a truism in BDSM that the submissive makes the dominant, in that without the submissive behaviour dominating behaviour would look irrational and ridiculous. No doubt. What about that point where the “Dominant” asks the submissive to accept him/her as his/her “Master”, for the submissive to become an all out, flat out, totalized slave?
The totalizing, that would seem to be related to the gigantic, to the massive in other spheres. If we live in an age of gigantic, totalizing machination how does this universalized fate fall down to the particulars, the individuals, to us?
To jump to it without any explanations, or justifications, we will make the assumption that the description of the wage-slave and the bourgeois, having not properly been superseded, are still applicable. That we fall into one or the other or both haphazardly without really seeing the distinction between them or the advantage one might contain. The wage-slave no longer sees the results of his labour in nature modified, he simply assists in producing a cultural product. The bourgeois doesn’t see his ideas realized in material, he just contributes to the ideas that eventually end up commercialized and vulgarized to the most popular detail. Neither is really involved in struggle except that of struggle with the massive itself. A lifetime fight against being overwhelmed and dropped behind by the gigantic totalization of our society and the remnants of individuals that one finds in it.
Back to our modest little M/s trio. I have asked, and received the gift of absolute obedience, of total slavery to my person, my being, and not to anything I represent, hold, own or command. I have given the gift of total responsibility, not to ideals, or for some teleology in a future that only exists assuming history hasn’t in fact stopped already, but to two people whom I have chosen to be responsible for, for the rest of my life on this planet.
This is the particular. Laws against M/s relationships can’t, of course, take the particular into account. But perhaps if you know someone involved in a relationship that is set out, set apart from the massive, you might understand it.

Mitdasein


Domination, mastery and control

These words, mentioned together in reference to ocularcentrism, and to an apparent audiocentrism, in the quote that centres the previous blog entry, sound odd in an M/s blog, especially a blog that seems to promote, at least for the participants mentioned, a full 24/7 power exchange. Sound odd because they are spoken of in a derogatory fashion. Sound odd because they are applied in conjunction with people who would otherwise seem to be anti-coercion, anti-domination …
But domination and mastery, surely, are not exactly synonymous. I can dominate all I want and not gain mastery over a thing. By the same token I can have mastery over something I didn’t dominate to begin with.
It’s a truism in BDSM that the submissive makes the dominant, in that without the submissive behaviour dominating behaviour would look irrational and ridiculous. No doubt. What about that point where the “Dominant” asks the submissive to accept him/her as his/her “Master”, for the submissive to become an all out, flat out, totalized slave?
The totalizing, that would seem to be related to the gigantic, to the massive in other spheres. If we live in an age of gigantic, totalizing machination how does this universalized fate fall down to the particulars, the individuals, to us?
To jump to it without any explanations, or justifications, we will make the assumption that the description of the wage-slave and the bourgeois, having not properly been superseded, are still applicable. That we fall into one or the other or both haphazardly without really seeing the distinction between them or the advantage one might contain. The wage-slave no longer sees the results of his labour in nature modified, he simply assists in producing a cultural product. The bourgeois doesn’t see his ideas realized in material, he just contributes to the ideas that eventually end up commercialized and vulgarized to the most popular detail. Neither is really involved in struggle except that of struggle with the massive itself. A lifetime fight against being overwhelmed and dropped behind by the gigantic totalization of our society and the remnants of individuals that one finds in it.
Back to our modest little M/s trio. I have asked, and received the gift of absolute obedience, of total slavery to my person, my being, and not to anything I represent, hold, own or command. I have given the gift of total responsibility, not to ideals, or for some teleology in a future that only exists assuming history hasn’t in fact stopped already, but to two people whom I have chosen to be responsible for, for the rest of my life on this planet.
This is the particular. Laws against M/s relationships can’t, of course, take the particular into account. But perhaps if you know someone involved in a relationship that is set out, set apart from the massive, you might understand it.

Mitdasein