Protocol's

ToujoursUneDame on Fetlife's Ponderings board posted an interesting topic. It deals with Protocol's and how they should be dealt with when dealing with someone without a partner.

Here it is:

How important is it in your opinion that those without partners be aware of protocols?

What protocols matter when one does not have a partner?

Whether or not you have a partner, you do have an opinion.

Let's hear it! :D

Well, I am not unpartnered, but I do have an opinion.

My opinion was:

I truly agree with MT on this, I used to not like being called Sir when I first ventured into the lifestyle, I did not feel that I had enough knowledge or experience to warrant the term because as I was growing up, Sir and Ma'am (Madam), were used in context of someone superior to you. Sure, I was a dominant and they were submissives, but I did not feel that I had earned the right to be addressed properly while I was still a student of the lifestyle. These days I almost expect to be called Sir whether it is a vanilla situation or lifestyle situation, I feel that I have accumulated enough life experience and stature in my life that I deserve the respect the title bestows.

Some may disagree with this, but in the same respect if a submissive only referred to me by name or nickname without proper permission I would hope they expect to be ignored until I decide it is a good time for ME to address them.

In my line of work you typically have 3 things you call someone you work with, Sir/Ma'am, Boss, or Hey You. Typically there can be 30-200 people working throughout a job site (if you didn't just figure it out I work in construction). Also you could be on one job one day but another the next, there is almost never a guarantee you will be working with the same people everyday, so there is typically no time to memorize EVERYONE's name. So, a quick Sir/Ma'am or Boss to your superior on the job is common courtesy and proper etiquette, and this has transitioned into my views on the lifestyle, if you acknowledge that I am in a position of superiority (I.E. - I'm dominant you're submissive) then I should be addressed as a superior, and not an equal, because we are not equals. That is the beauty of a D/s, M/s, A/b, or what ever you want to call your dynamic, they ARE unequal relationships and thus as being on the side of the submissive type, you may not be mine, but you are still in a life position that places you below me, and with that I should be addressed by my position as a superior rather than assuming I will accept you may be equal to me.

As far as a service standpoint I believe that basic protocols should be followed if you are unpartnered and servicing (in any way) a dominant, such protocol's as not looking the dominant directly in the eyes, using proper titles to address the dominant, as well as still having enough respect to ask what additional protocol's the dominant expects. With how broad the lifestyle is it cannot be expected that every submissive knows your specific quirks. Such as myself, I enjoy a proper Gorean kneel when being offered my drink, but how would a random submissive know that? I would have to tell them.

My previous paragraph brings up another point, protocol's are not bound to submissives either. Lifestyle protocol's must be adhered to by Dominants as well, especially when they are unpartnerned because it can easily become a situation where you have stepped over certain "territorial" boundaries, meaning the boundaries set by the local environment. This means that the very first protocol a Dominant should follow is to ask someone who is prominent within the local lifestyle what is expected by the locals. You can easily become known as a disrespectful or self-righteous ass hat, if you are a dominant that does not follow local protocol's. This is easily shown by the protocol of hugging and touching collars like mentioned above. In some area's I have known the touching of a collar to be a way of identifying who the dominant or owner of the submissive is, obviously this would only work if a collar held a specific symbol or name that was easily identified, which means that this should not be done these days with all of the generic collars available, they typically will not hold a specific symbol, or if you are new, you probably don't know the different symbols or who that name relates to. As far as hugging, this is a touchy subject for many I am sure, I personally would have an issue with a random (or new) person hugging or touching my girl without permission. But if it was someone we knew, whether it be online and meeting them for the first time, or known for a long time, I would not have an issue with her hugging them, as far as hugging me, I would expect to be asked permission before touching me in any way. I am a person that believes in personal bubbles and I respect personal space and expect the same respect to be given to my space.

All in all I believe protocols and boundaries extend to both sides of a dynamic especially if unpartnered. For a submissive if you do not follow basic protocol's and/or local protocol's you can quickly become shunned and find yourself in a situation of resentment, either you resenting the locals or them resenting you. If you are a dominant you can quickly become seen as false or egotistical/self-righteous/many other names I don't have the patience to write at the moment, and shunned by the locals. If you find yourself in a shunned position you can quickly find yourself without anyone to play/interact with, and what type of lifestyle is that? __BORING__ that's what.

This is the end as we know it.... And I don't feel fine..

Ok, so I never expected to write about politics on this blog. But after finding the following article I felt this same situation could happen to someone within our lifestyle. Let me start by stating, I am not "Atheist" nor am I "Christian". And to be honest I don't believe anyone is truly either of those. There are way to many religions that believe in "Christ" for anyone of them to claim to be the true "Christian" belief. And as far as "Atheism" goes I believe that the article sums it up quite nicely. "Atheist" was a term given to those that didn't believe in a supreme power, but it was not technically adopted by these people, they often have a different term that they like to be called, whether it be Humanist, Rationalism or anything else that they use to define their preference towards using visible and tangible facts as the basis to why there is no supreme power. So there I have summed up what I believe to be true for both names. Obviously I could go on about a couple other "religions" but that may have to be another post.

One thing I do believe is that our First Amendment rights are often shattered by these "moral beliefs". The fact that a man, woman or child can be persecuted and made into a villain because of a lack of belief which does not follow the majority (sheep), is a farce and goes completely against the document which our country was founded on. I believe that the wording was chosen specifically because our forefathers knew that they did not represent the whole religious community that made up the United States. They understood that through research and expanded knowledge more religions would spawn and I believe that they held the hope that these fledgling (or already established by not recognized by "the majority") religions would be able to stand up and be counted by our federal government.

So what I ask anyone reading this post to do, is to do a little digging, find out what your local (state) government laws are pertaining to this subject. And if there is a law pertaining to this situation on the books in your state, write your local legislature to get the ball rolling to change these absurd laws. Because remember, this can easily be changed from Atheist is evil to Fetish is evil.

Let's stop allowing our elected officials from spewing unfounded hate and using their religious beliefs to govern our day to day lives.

- Wikid


I woke up this morning fairly convinced I was living in the 21st century. But I began doubting my conclusion, and perhaps my sanity, when I read in the Washington Post that the election of Councilman Cecil Bothwell in Asheville, North Carolina, was being contested because he does not believe in god. No, your morning coffee is not laced with LSD; you read that correctly.

In other news, two witches were convicted in Salem yesterday. More at eleven.

Elected officials in North Carolina are constitutionally disqualified from office if they "deny the being of Almighty God." But let us not pick on the ignorant bias of the Tar Heel state, for they are not alone in primitive thinking appropriate to the 1600s. Many in Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas all deny atheists the right to hold public office. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruled way back in 1961 that the U.S. Constitution trumps such outrageous religious discrimination through the supremacy of federal law. That particular invocation of the supremacy clause from our Supremes came about when some poor guy by the name of Herb Silverman in Maryland could not be appointed as a notary for his crime of not believing in god. Herb spent eight years claiming a right that any other American would take for granted without a second thought. In other news, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Catholics can run for public office. Don't touch that dial!

State sanctions applied against one belief system in favor of another are an abomination, a stain on our society, and in direct contradiction to everything our Founding Fathers wished for our great country. Consider the deep irony of a conservative group of people who claim a unique fidelity to the Constitution while they actively undermine the document's most important principles. To understand how outrageous these prohibitions against atheism really are, just substitute "Christian" everywhere atheism is mentioned in the offending state constitutions. Let's prohibit Christians from becoming notaries or holding public office. Absurd? Why is that not acceptable but somehow discrimination against atheism is so mainstream as to be codified in state law?

"Atheist" is derived from the ancient Greek adjective atheos, which means "without gods." Defining anybody or any movement as the negative of another is a bad start. I refuse to be defined as an absence of what somebody else supposedly has; I simply cannot be without something that does not exist. The idea is ridiculous. Calling me an atheist is like defining me as a man without a dragon tail, and then denying me my rights because I do not have a dragon tail! I cannot be absent something that is nothing but another's myth. I am a rationalist, and if others wish to believe in an invisible man in the sky with magical powers, we can label them arationalists. Denying my right to hold office because I refuse to acknowledge dragon tails has no place in modern American society.

The problem partly lies in the power of words to impact our perception. Atheism is a pejorative term, and with that inherent negativity comes implied permission to discriminate blatantly and openly. We can trash that which we do not respect. During the Second World War we called our enemies Japs and Krauts among other degrading epithets in order to diminish them as humans, making them easier to hate, fight and kill. Our cause was just enough without the name calling. Many Christians use "atheists" in a similarly derogative vein. The solution is to abandon completely the use of the term atheist, just as polite society no longer uses the "N" word to describe African-Americans, "Rag Heads" for Arabs or "Wet Backs" for those south of the border. Offensive? Yes, just as is the use of the word atheist.

Atheism is pejorative because of an inherent assumption embedded in the word. African-Americans were once called "Colored" when civil rights were a distant dream. That word is offensive because of the implication that all others must be compared to the pure "standard" of White. If black skin was considered the standard, all Caucasians would be properly called "a-pigmented" or "uncolored." Likewise, the word atheist implies a standard of religiosity in which belief in god is somehow the measure by which all others must be judged. Religion is no more legitimate as a standard than is white skin.

Discrimination against atheism makes no sense on multiple levels. First, rationalism is a worldview not a religion, and therefore an odd victim of institutionalized bias. The absence of dogma is not another form of dogma; the commitment to rational thought is not another form of belief along the spectrum of religious doctrine. My worldview is available for disproof; religion is not. Second, the establishment clause in the First Amendment is unambiguous of intent. Third, the label of atheism is itself invalid, and therefore an invalid subject of discrimination; atheist is an idea that allows others to conveniently confuse rationalism with religion, and confounds the baseline from which people's views can be measured.

The latest dust up in Asheville reveals an ugly truth in modern America: our commitment to the founding principles embedded in our Constitution is in jeopardy. Paradoxically, efforts to undermine our most cherished ideas are couched in terms of patriotism and respect for the rule of law. From the Post article we learn the following about the challenge in North Carolina:

H.K. Edgerton is threatening to file a lawsuit in state court against the city to challenge Bothwell's appointment because, "My father was a Baptist minister. I'm a Christian man. I have problems with people who don't believe in God," said Edgerton, a former local NAACP president and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black southerners.

Am I the only one to see the problem here? Discriminating against blacks is bad, but perfectly OK when directed against people with a different world view?

We also learn that the head of a conservative weekly newspaper says city officials "shirked their duty to uphold the state's laws" by swearing in Bothwell and his evil atheism. David Morgan, editor of the Asheville Tribune, said he's tired of seeing his state Constitution "trashed." Again we encounter a deep irony. Mr. Morgan is offended because his state constitution is being "trashed" because the state is upholding the U.S. Constitution! You could not make this stuff up. But imagine how far we must come if upholding our founding document against blatant religious discrimination engenders outrage in the very elements of society that so piously claim patriotic fervor and so loudly proclaim the right to practice their religion unhindered.

Fellow rationalists, we have our work cut out for us. We live in a secular country in which the vast majority of citizens incorrectly believe the United States is a Christian nation. We live in society in which a Christian majority exceeding 70% claims to be a victim of discrimination. We are singled out in state constitutions as particularly unworthy of holding public office. We witness a Supreme Court Justice that believes surrealistically that the Christian cross is representative of all religions - and rationalists.

Let us start fighting back by forever abandoning the oppressive label of atheist; let us fight anachronistic and reactionary attempts to exclude rationalism from public discourse. Let us, finally, reject the false inevitability of creeping religiosity in American politics. We are a small minority but have on our side facts in place of fiction. The atrocity of stupidity in North Carolina is a call to political arms.

As we approach the year 2010, the United States owns the dubious distinction of being the only western country in which a candidate's qualifications can be challenged because he does not believe in god. Do we really want to emulate the theocracies of the Middle East? The citizens of North Carolina who support Morgan, Edgerton and their ilk are more like the radical Muslims they apparently have such disdain for than they could ever possibly imagine. I hope we can do better in the next decade.


Jeff Schweitzer

Marine Biologist and Former Clinton White House Science Advisor

Original Post can be found here

Comments are like....

A....Opinions... HAH! you thought I was gonna say Assholes! Well either way, everyone has one. So I would love reading yours if you have a comment, question or opinion related to the given topic.

All I ask is that you keep comments/opinions logical. And no "are you a douche bag" questions. Those usually meet an untimely demise.

I will do my best to respond to all questions/comments as soon as possible.

So let's get the party started!

2nd Generation

Ok, I have been trying to find the proper wording for this question for about 3 weeks now. And it hasn't come yet, so time to be blunt and just spit it out.

Anyone who has read more than 2-3 of my posts will quickly find out that I am a 2nd generation "kinkster". Meaning that once I was of an age that I understood about sex and the difference between a Dominant personality and a submissive personality, I was informed that my mother was a submissive and was in fact under consideration for consensual enslavement. I spent many years studying and learning, at a young age, about the BDSM, D/s, M/s, Sadomasochist and poly lifestyles. Quickly I learned that I was a Dominant personality and quickly moved from there to learn about Gor and how to adapt Gorean Lifestyle around the current allowances of our society.

Now that that's out of the way, here comes my question. As I think about how the lifestyle was opened up to me, and the age in which it was, I wonder if things could/should have been different. Mind you I would do it all over again if given the chance. But as I watch my daughter grow up I wonder how I will handle, informing her about alternative lifestyles, when she comes to the age of "the talk".

So my question is for those of you that have had children, or have young children.

For those that have had children, have you let them know about your choice of lifestyle? and if so, how did you go about it and at what age (their age)?

For those with small children or children just coming into the age of the sex talk, will you be informing your children of alternative lifestyles, or will you go with a vanilla take on sex and tell them more as they explore and learn or after they reach a certain age?

Few days of Quiet, but....

Ok... so I have been quiet for a few days, it's partially because of the holidays and partially because I have had limited subjects to comment on.

But today I am actually going to give everyone a quick heads up about something going on over on the Fetlife site.

I know... I KNOW, I don't typically pimp other sites unless they are giving information, and then I am typically pretty skeptical. BUT, I am a complete whore when it comes to getting shit for free, and they have this awesome give away going on for the holiday season.

Fetlife: Sit on Santa's Lap

The above link is to the give away site, you'll notice that there is no special sales code or anything, that might give me any form of credit... I don't need or want it.

So if you were naughty or nice this year, everyone should check it out.

Consideration

I came across a post by my favorite questioneer ToujourUneDame over at Fetlife.com 's Pondering board. And it got me really thinking, since I am currently seeking a second submissive to share the life with myself and springwine. It was about consideration and what it means.... here it's easier to let you read the post.

What happens when someone is under consideration by you? Or when you are under the consideration of someOne?

I know some people for whom it is the equivalent to an engadgement ring..... for others it is more like a friendship token...

Does this mean the person under consideration should be "off the market" so to speak? What if they are joining a poly house?

If the person being condsidered is "off the market", is it only fair the person doing the considering is also "off the market"?

What is the highest number of people you would be comfortable with being under you consideration at one time? How many would you feel comfortable with if it were your loved one or friend involved?

Is consideration a time to get to know your potential partner? If so, just how much do you personally need to know about someone before entering into such an agreement with them?

Some people use the term as a test run.... sort of test drive each other for a period of time, and if things go well, then next proclimation will not have training wheels.... or perhaps training is EXACTLY what they will be launching into.... Sometimes consideration is used like a step in a progression.

What's it like for you? What is your definition? How have you personally experienced it? If you haven't experienced it, why not?

I always enjoy reading her questions because they never have an easy answer.
But... they do have an answer... or at least an opinion.

springwine and I used a sort of a "consideration" time when we first were together. She had been in a couple bad situations that caused her to be a little sketchy towards people like me (at the time I was a pure Sadomasochist). Things were not going to be guaranteed, but there was an attraction and potential between the two of us.

I consider the "Under Consideration" term to be something akin to each person testing the water, I wouldn't say like a "Test Drive" but more like a "Rent to Own" situation. You are able to get together and express interests between one another, and find where common ground is and where each others absolutes are. So it could also be considered a learning period, but it's learning about each other and what makes the other person tick.

I don't like to label it as a stepping stone per say for myself because I honestly wouldn't care if the person was absolutely new or had decades of experience in the lifestyle, either way they are going to have to be trained to my preferences and bent to my will. So no matter what happens they will end up being trained.

As far as off the market... I may be a bit liberal about this concept but I do not believe either person should be "off the market" until there is an absolute claim made. The submissive should have the opportunity to experience multiple situations with multiple Dom/Domme's. This is how we experiment, I wouldn't go drive a Porsche enjoy driving it and buy it, when I have the opportunity to drive a Lamborghini and a Ferrari also and weigh my preferences. I would not expect anyone else to do this either. Obviously if it started to show conflict within the person I may ask that they step back from myself or the other(s).

Now the question of how many. I personally would probably not consider more than two submissives for myself, because of other aspects of my life that would make it difficult to properly tend to more than that. If it was a family member or friend, entering into a situation like this, I have to admit that the answer would be gaged by the person(s), ability to handle multiple people and to share that lime light.

New to the Scene

Recently I started talking with someone who is fairly new to the lifestyle. The questions a new person has always amazes me, because it seems everyone gets into the lifestyle with a varied perception or expectation, especially since it is so vast and encompasses so many different aspects, and you can choose one or many "kinks".

So I asked her to give me some questions that she comes up with as she starts learning, things I may be able to help her out with, while at the same time posting them here so others can learn and progress from the trails that those of us that have been in the lifestyle have already been through.

She wrote:

So he is into spanking and such more than I ever thought about, I am more into bondage. But since he has been talking about it I have felt intrigued and turned on by the idea. Which is kind of weird since I never really thought about that before.

So one question I had was about how things start off. I was totally intrigued yet intimidated by some marks I saw in pics here. He told me that you start slow and work up, with communication and such. So that was cool because that was not quite how I saw it. I guess maybe different people do it differently too, of course.

So hey, don't feel bad that I have not done a scene. I don't. :D I am kind of shy, and that is just not something that I would do on my own or would have done yet. But I am totally meeting people here and getting to know my way around.

Frankly, there are a lot of asswipes around here and I don't know how I feel about going to a public club where anybody can go. They do seem to have a lot of private parties.

Hey, I have a question. Is Springwine really 45? I thought I saw her original age as younger. I am really curious about that. LOL the guy I've met here, he is younger than me. I have always been into older guys but I think it's because of the control aspect. So this is all very interesting indeed. :p

as you can see I have been talking with this person for a little while now, she knows that I have a girl, springwine, that is my submissive and life partner. So now I share my response.

as far as a recommendation for a club where you can go with other people.. your best bet would be to go as a voyeur first... just to watch and see how people work with eachother. As far as interacting with people that may be on the ass side of things, I can't truly recommend anything but like the person you have been dealing with said... take it VERY VERY SLOW, like any relationship there is absolutely no reason to rush head long into it... that usually leads to pain and heart ache... not to mention a nasty taste in your mouth about the lifestyle.

So, back to the idea of spanking. Truly if you are getting interested in spanking you will definitely want to start out slowly. When you are getting into a massochist situation the best idea is to get into it lightly and then move forward. Most of those marks you see are from paddles or probably more typically canes. If you start with a hand the most you may end up with is a bruise in the shape of a hand. Now this is typically not the best thing to happen when you are first starting. And this kind of hits home for me because I have just recently gotten springwine to accept that it can be enjoyable. This was through doing no more than about 10 reps with my hand at a given time... we have recently experimented with brushes and a small "paddle" that we made out of a large paint stirring stick. So probably the best way to get into a situation like this would be to experiment with hands and padded paddles. Now if you are also considering flogging, you would want to look at something like a soft rope flogger, or a bunny flogger. I advocate rope because you can gauge it very easily, and with one flogger you can experiment with a wider variety of "pain" from soft to heavy thudding, and even intense stinging, just depending on if it's braided, wet, or dry. springwine actually makes rope floggers as a pass time, we enjoy them very much.

You definitely should not feel bad about not having entered into a scene yet. When you enter into a scene it will take a lot of trust, and should never be taken lightly. You are allowing yourself to become helpless and in control of another person, this can (and has) prove dangerous if you don't know the person. Also it can be very lacking in pleasure if you are constantly worried if the person is going to listen to your safe words or not.

Safe words... know them... remember them... love them... No, Stop, Quiet, none of these are safe words. A safe word is something you would not say in an ordinary scene. It used to be a pretty universal occurrence that the word Banana was used as a safe word, or red light. Banana was typically used in conjunction with a gag, cause you can still say it with a gag in your mouth. Red light was used when placed on a cross without a gag.

As far as private parties, I DO NOT advise these when you are first starting out. These can create expectations that you may not be ready to meet at this point. Truly the best way to start into the lifestyle is to find someone that would be willing to experiment without any sexual expectation. This person would only perform the actions that you agreed upon before entering the scene. This is typically done with a contract, where you outline the things you are interested in and a time frame you would like to adhere to, obviously this can be stretched out over time or done in rapid succession (not advised).

As far as springwines age, yes she is 45, and yes I am 26. and I too have noticed a phenomenon of younger men seeking older women. When I first entered into the scene I obviously was between the ages of 14 and 16. The internet was much more anonymous obviously. So while I learned and spoke with people I was able to keep my true age a secret, not to mention I have sounded/looked like I was older than I really was since about that same time. When I met springwine my whole outlook changed. I originally entered the scene as a sadomasochist, I got off on hurting and being hurt, that was it. But as her and I got closer I noticed something about myself changing... I was definitely more interested in dominating her rather than hurting or being hurt. it created a completely different dynamic in myself with having who would willingly submit to me wholly and completely.

As far as what seems to be an odd dynamic of younger men seeking older women is actually not as new as it seems. Vanilla society makes us believe it's typically older men seeking younger women, but the reality is that there is a very large subset of younger men seeking older women, this is because of a maturity factor, most younger men believe that women their age find themselves to be exceptionally less mature then themselves.