As a note, I do not consider myself a feminist per se, though I do believe in equal pay for equal work, and that employers should treat women the same as men. I also believe in equal treatment both ways, so for example I think women in the military should be allowed in combat, but should also have equal physical fitness requirements as men.  Physics don’t care whether you’re a man or a woman — if your buddy (who weighs 230 lbs. including gear) gets knocked unconscious by an IED, you’d better damn well be able to pull that buddy to safety, period.

And whatever strides [feminism] made in the workforce have had tremendous ramifications for businesses, so they came at a great cost to businesses and government. It’s a double-edged sword.

The abuse problem is smaller than it’s made out to be, and when you draw attention to something that’s so terrible, it’s like the issue of homosexuality today. The awareness that gays exist, or that terrible men beat their wives, is good to recognize but not to belabor or exaggerate.

Why would you have a whole movement to make women feel better about not choosing to have children?

It is my belief that ultimately nobody, male or female, can be happy with that lifestyle, with having sex with whoever they want, having sex with your friends, or one night stands and all that.

Feminists are not concerned with anybody outside of America.

I understand that there are some valid points in this woman’s philosophy.  Feminism is about equal opportunities, but some feminists disrespect women who choose to be homemakers, and that’s not cool.  And… yeah, I think that’s about the only valid point I see.  People like this disgust me.

Yet still I’m glad that I live in a country where they can spout their nonsense.

You see, she used to describe herself as lesbian to other people (before we started going out, of course), but actually identified as bisexual. This is because she was one of those women that are mostly attracted to other women, but apparently being a bisexual woman gets you shunned from the lesbian community. Which I thought was odd and counterintuitive, but the more I looked into it the more I found that to be true. Maybe it’s just a regional thing — I don’t have much data from other regions.

But then I remembered that this sort of thing, which seems hypocritical to me, happens in BDSM a lot too.

I really just don’t get it. Is it just that most people have knee-jerk emotional reactions and can’t see past them? I would think that people who are members of fringe groups would be innately accepting of other non-traditional groups, but I suppose I underestimate the tendency of people to believe that everyone else should be like them, regardless of whether they are in the minority or majority.

I challenge you, dear reader, to think about what things you pre-judge people for, and think hard about whether or not that’s fair. To use a common example: if someone tells you that they’re a furry, does that automatically lower your opinion of them? (Poor furries get no respect; I personally think they’re adorable!)

Gods, but I love the feeling of a whip in my hand. A flick of the wrist, and the cracker licks the skin softly. A snap of the elbow and a flick of the wrist, and it bites in. I love the feedback I get through the whip itself, and the feedback I get watching the bottom. The sound of it popping lightly, the twitch, and a moment later that angry red welt rising. It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

This is the third time I’ve gotten to use a whip on a live target, and first time I’ve really been able to do almost exactly what I wanted with it. I practiced for a while on a hat strung up as a target, but really my best practice came working with a live target. The first time wasn’t that great — there were a fair number of times where I missed my intended target. The second time was much better. And this last time… now I more fully understand why some people are addicted to the crack of the whip (pardon the pun).

My back after my first experience receiving a singletailing

Warning: rant ahead. (I seem to be doing a lot of that lately.)

A lot of people say you should practice for 10 years in a secluded monastery until you can knock over one dime in a row of dimes, blindfolded, before you use a whip on a person.

I call bullshit.

My whip teacher, who has been using whips for over 12 years, says that if you stay below the neck, you really can’t harm someone with a whip unless you strangle them, hit them with the blunt end really hard, or try to shove it down their throat. Other than that, you can make marks and maybe even draw blood, sure. But you’re not going to do anything that sends them to the emergency room. There’s simply not enough kinetic energy there. An amateur bondage enthusiast who doesn’t know what they’re doing can cause far worse damage than an amateur whip thrower.

This is coming from a guy that’s skilled enough to singletail someone’s face. I’ve seen him do it — just hitting with the fluff of the cracker on the eyelids for sensation play, biting in with the knot a bit on the cheeks. He often uses two whips simultaneously, Florentine style. I’m saying this not to glamorize him, but rather to say that this is a guy who knows his craft, and knows what his tools are capable of.

That said, if you’re learning on a live target, to begin with I highly suggest they wear a hoodie and some jeans. If they do that, they’re protected from anything you are likely to do to them — in fact, I can almost guarantee you that you’ll end up hurting yourself more than you will them.

The point is, a live person can tell you where you’re hitting, how hard you’re hitting, whether it’s a point of punctuation or a dragging feeling, whether you’re hitting with the cracker or the fall of a bullwhip (protip: don’t hit with the fall, almost no one likes that). Your skill will increase an order of magnitude faster when working with a live person, than with an inanimate target.

Being young does not mean that one is immature; it means that one is more likely to be immature. Conversely, neither does being older mean that one is mature. There are plenty of 40-somethings out there with the mentality of teenagers.

I’m young, and I apparently look even younger than I am*. I’m sure I’ve been the subject of age discrimination in the lifestyle, but I honestly have no problem with that. I am very forthright in what my level of experience is, and in that I am always looking to learn more — and I will be learning more so long as I draw breath. I think that respect should be earned, and I have no qualms with earning it from others, given a chance.

But to again flip the coin over, I also do not extend automatic respect just because someone has been in the lifestyle for several decades. I do tend to give a more leeway to those in the leather lifestyle that have earned the title of master, but I liken that to someone with the title of master in martial arts. At the very least, they (ostensibly) have a lot of experience. But someone not in the leather lifestyle who introduces themselves as “Master Suchandsuch” does tend to turn me off immediately. Sort of like those I mentioned in my last post, the dominants/masters online who use capital letters when referring to themselves (e.g. “I am a twue master, and My slaves all know it and bow before Me”).

* At the first munch I went to, asking my age was one of the first questions out of several people’s mouths. My response was always, “Guess first, and then I’ll tell you.” The numbers that most guessed were about 7 years too young.

But when someone refers to themselves as in, “It is My opinion that…” it immediately makes me think that they’re overcompensating. Same feeling I get when people introduce themselves as “Master so-and-so.” Or when listening to a conversation where doms are having a proverbial dick measuring contest, trying to prove that they’re the most twue dom.

What about the flip side of the coin, you ask? When a submissive refers to themselves like, “i think…”? Still sets off some alarms for me, but for some reason not quite so much — I’m not sure why, and I’ll have to think about that.

And I also have no issue with one party or the other using differentiated capitalization when writing to the other — to the contrary, I think that’s a good way for a submissive to show deference.

So I’m wondering if many published S&M how-to books are written with the kid gloves on because that’s all publishers are willing to print. As one example, Jay Wiseman, author of SM 101 among other books, is pretty adamantly against any type of breath play or choking. Even carotid chokes by people who know what they’re doing; chokes which have been used in Jiu Jitsu for hundreds of years without fatality. Of course I’d never recommend that a beginner try such a thing, but saying that it shouldn’t be done, across the board, is extreme in my opinion.  There is always some element of risk, but that is also less risky than a lot of the things that he does encourage in his books.  But I digress.

I think another part of the reason that many published SM books seem to be conservative (hah!) when it comes to theses sorts of things is that the intended audience for many such books is BDSM newbies, for the most part. You don’t exactly want to tell a newbie it’s sometimes okay to play without safewords; that’s like telling a kid it’s sometimes okay to ingest bleach. While it’s true (there’s a little bleach in your tap water), it’s easy to take it the wrong way and end up doing something dangerous.

But is that perhaps giving the younger generation a bias? Laying down “laws” which, to quote Pirates of the Carribean, are really more of guidelines? It’s not uncommon to see the attitude of, “If you’re not doing it how I think is best, then you’re doing it wrong,” but these days that seems to usually end up coming out as, “If you’re not playing with these certain certain precautions (like safe words), you’re doing it wrong.”

What exactly does it mean to be a service top?  How is it different than being a “normal” top?  Part of the whole point of BDSM is that everyone gets what they want.  If you’re only concerned with your own needs and desires, then I pity the bottom who gives themselves into your trust.  From The Loving Dominant:

Do you get as much pleasure or more from erotically exciting your partner as from your own enjoyment of the sexual act?
If this is true, then you are likely to be a good dominant.  The essence of this kind of play is to take another’s power and then use it for mutual pleasure.

And then a bit later it goes on to say that it’s well and good to have fantasies about truly nonconsensual activities, but “what separates the civilized from the uncivilized is how tight a leash we keep on [those fantasies].”  I do realize that some bottoms get off on being made to do things they truly don’t want to (or having such things done to them), because the charge they get from pleasing their top overpowers their distaste.  I don’t oppose that at all, and in fact I think it’s a beautiful thing.  But it’s not for everyone, and I don’t think it’s fair that it be the de facto expectation of all bottoms.

So to come back to the question: what’s the difference between a top and a service top?  Not much, in my opinion.

Granted, to do every single thing the bottom wants and nothing outside of those parameters is a little confining, but I think that a creative dominant can find ways to make things interesting and unpredictable even when doing that.  Someone acts as a service top whenever they let the bottom have more direct control over what’s done to them.  I phrase it as “acts as a service top” because I think it is another way of playing, not a way of being.  I am friends with a man who has worn the title of Master for longer than I’ve been alive, and on many occasions I’ve seen him act as a service top, especially when introducing new people to the lifestyle.  But I don’t know of anyone who would refer to him as a service top, least of all his slaves (and not just for fear of reprisal, either!).

So is it actually a bad thing to be a service top?  Does that actually make one less dominant?  Would you call a professional dominatrix less dominant because she gives someone what they want?

I’ll preface this by saying that I have not seen the actual study, so I can only base my opinions off of the little information given in the article.

In a nutshell, it seems like they just asked a bunch of twins (fraternal and identical), “Do you have a g-spot?”   This is horrible research methodology.  It’s like going to 1920s households and asking the women if they’ve ever experienced an orgasm.   “A significant number of women said that they had never experienced orgasm, therefore we conclude that the female orgasm does not actually exist.”

If you’re serious about this, how about you start by doing some research on female cadavers?   Map out nerve endings, that sort of thing.

To play my own devil’s advocate, I see the point of this study.   I get the impression that the people behind this study believe that many women don’t receive pleasure in that way, and feel like there must be something wrong with them.   Personally I think in most cases that’s most likely because their partner doesn’t know how to properly stimulate it, but that’s neither here nor there.  The study is meant to say, “There, there. It’s okay.  No pressure.” (Pun intended.)  But if you want to say that, then just say it. Don’t try to prove it with bogus science.

On various online BDSM forums, there are discussions about what it is to be a slave.  Like all things, I think that some people take it too lightly, and some people take it way too far.   To whit: there seems to be a philosophy among some that “the only need a ‘true slave’ has is the happiness of their master.”  I think this is utter bullshit, personally.  It’s fantasy, not reality.

To take an extreme example: a master decides to put their slave in a hole for the rest of their life with absolutely no human contact (not even with the master), and only the barest essentials necessary to live.   But could someone truly be happy in this situation? I don’t think so, and if it were possible, there would be something seriously, seriously abnormal (read: broken) in the slave’s brain chemistry.

Everyone has emotional needs.  Any master that enters into a relationship wherein he only considers his own needs and desires, and not those of his property, is an abusive person and not a master, period.  I don’t care if that’s what the slave wants — the slave is psychologically damaged, and that does not excuse the master’s abuse, any more than “consent” excuses the behavior of the Craigslist Cannibal (which I find simultaneously mind-boggling, and hilarious).

I realize that this is a dangerous line to tread.  Similar justifications have been used in the legal arena to make all BDSM activities illegal, even though they are between consenting adults.  The argument goes: if they consent to that sort of thing, then they’re obviously not in their right mind, and therefore cannot legally give consent.  But most of us in this lifestyle are perfectly rational, non-traumatized individuals capable of giving informed consent.  In fact, I’ve read about independent studies that show that your average BDSM practitioner is actually more psychologically healthy than your average ‘nilla.  However, I think that anyone who consents to the level of abuse I’m talking about above is not at all mentally healthy, and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

I will preface this with the fact that I am fairly inexperienced when it comes to the ways of the “old guard” and the leather lifestyle. I can only write about the interactions I’ve seen, and even that with the caveat that these are some general observations, and I’m not saying everyone involved in either “camp” thinks or feels this way. Also, this post isn’t directed at anyone in particular.

A lot of people from “the newer generation” (folks in their 20s and 30s in the lifestyle) seem to look down on the old guard ways as overly structured, outdated, nonsensical, and/or inapplicable to today’s world. And by the same token, I get the impression that a lot of people from the old guard tend to look down on anyone who doesn’t follow their ways as disrespectful, a “dabbler,” and/or simply childish.

No one path is right for everyone. Each person has to do what works for them. For some, for example, it makes a lot of sense that you should be a bottom/submissive before you become a top/dominant. You gain first-hand experience, more intimate knowledge of what the effects of certain tools or actions will be. You learn how the submissive/masochist thinks, and you gain insight into how to bend their body or mind to your will when you “graduate” to the other side. For others, that philosophy is simply wrong. Acting out the part of the sub won’t give them any more insight into the submissive’s mindset because they simply can’t think like a submissive, even if they forced themselves to act as one. Feeling pain wouldn’t give them a better view into the masochist’s mind because they inherently dislike receiving pain, and can’t understand the subtleties of sadism any better by being on the other side of it.

And as an aside, it’s just as easy to be a disrespectful snot, or a sensible person, whether one is old-guard or new — I’ve personally seen very little correlation there.

To me, the situation is analogous to that of the Christian-hating atheist, or the lesbian that looks down on bisexual women. There is an inherent hypocrisy there. Though it is, of course, natural to form stereotypes. Every last one of us uses stereotypes on a regular basis. We’d be pretty naive and unable to function in life if we didn’t do that.

Stereotypes are a good thing. Biases are not.

The distinction may seem subtle, but it’s not — the difference is in how open your mind is. If you have a stereotype, you might form a preconceived notion that that guy is probably a hardcore, high-protocol, gay male because all you know about him is that he’s in the leather lifestyle. And that’s fine. But if, in interacting with him, you observe evidence to the contrary and dismiss it or ignore it, then you are being biased. As the saying goes, “Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open.” (I’ve heard that quote attributed to Frank Zappa, James Dewar, and Anthony J. D’Angelo.)

So all of this is, I suppose, a long-winded way of saying that I wish fewer people in the lifestyle (and in general) were biased. Most of the people I’ve met are open-minded, but it seems like a few get stuck in the rut of, “My way is the One True/Best Way.” I think that philosophy is bred of insecurity, that it leads to ignorance, and that it is a huge barrier to personal growth. Of course, I also realize the inherent hypocrisy in my saying that — damn paradoxes!