The magician behind me

Anais Nin wrote, "I feel that from the very beginning life played a terrible conjurer's trick on me.  I lost faith in it.  It seems to me that every moment now it is playing tricks on me.  So that when I hear love I am not sure it is love, and when I hear gaiety I am not sure it is gaiety, and when I have eaten and loved and I am all warm from wine I am not sure it is wither love or food or wine, but a strange trick being played on me, an illusion, slippery and baffling and malicious, and a magician hangs behind me watching the ecstasy I feel at the things which happen so that I know deep down it is all fluid and escaping and may vanish at any moment.  Don't forget to write me a letter and tell me I was here, and I saw you and loved you and ate with you.  It is all so evanescent and I love it so much; I love it as you love the change in the days."


* * *

Something other.

I hear this statement quite a lot:  "I don't know if it's the orthodox way, but it's my way, and it works for me so I use it."  This comes from submissives who aren't sure if they are submitting "the right way," as well as dominants who declare that they follow nobody's rules but their own.  Naturally,  I would expect a dom to make his own rules, to do things his own way. That is how one cultivates one's environment, right?  One makes one's own rules, and one keeps to one's own code, and thus may a dom be rightly considered a dom(me).  And that dom will attract a certain kind of submissive following, one who respects this way of thinking.  That dom will not dom every person into submission without question -- haha! -- but rather, that dom will attract the like-minded into his circle and will, subsequently, experience the gift of some right-fitting submission when circumstances are appropriate.

This yields two things in my mind which I want to write down.

1)  A submissive personality is equally entitled to submit "her own way."  (Or his own way, of course; there are male submissives and I do not mean to alienate, but it's my submission I'm really talking about and I'm a "she" so subs are "she" in my mind for this blog.)  There is no "right way" to submit, just as there is no "right way" to dominate.  A person may submit only in the bedroom, or in all ways on all days, or to one person only or to a whole house of people.... there are so many variables and no submissive is any less or more acquiescent and obliging than the other.  Most importantly, it has been my experience that a sub can submit a whole lot more easily when she can respect the dominant.  Respect totally, wholly.  And respect comes with time and demonstration and patience etc... Not sex.  But it also comes from a demonstrated code, and that brings me to point number 2.

2)  A code of ethics is something that does not change from situation to situation.  Someone who adjusts one's conscience to suit the occasion does not abide by a code.  A variable ethical guide is, by definition, no ethical guide at all.  And actually it is one trait of mental instability to reject or refuse or resist a code of ethics.  A free-spirit is never to be tamed, of course: this is not what I am suggesting.  Rather, a mature spirit enjoys mature behaviour and takes comfort (and gives comfort) in the reliability of an established code that suggests ethics (morality, mutual benefit, the needs of the many and not just of the self) are not a chore.  

So on the one hand, I applaud those who say, "I will do this my own way," and on the other hand, while I applaud, I respect those who -- while doing it their own way -- adhere to a consistent code of morality and ethics that governs their behaviour in any situation that may present itself.  Take for example:  "I do not eat animals," to me, means "Ever, no matter the species, and no matter the expectation, no matter the day of week and no matter my own hunger -- for I do not believe I have any right higher than a beast to survive at the beast's expense, and that does not change.  Period."

If I am at a birthday party and someone says, "You must try this lambchop," that person can expect a "No thank you," because I do not change my value situationally.

If a dom says to me, "You should try this lambchop," then I would say, "No thank you."

If a dying woman says to me, "It is my final wish on this Earth that you should try this lambchop," then I would say, "No thank you."

I suppose what I mean is that there is a moral code by which I live which no man or woman, whether dom or parent or sub or sibling, can demolish (or, at least, so far so good!)  My submission does not mean that I violate any of my personal mores.  There is no test of obedience so important to me that I would sacrifice one of my values, no dominant so callous in my circle who would require such a horrible test.  "Foul times require foul tests," goes the saying, but my response is "No thank you."

My obedience comes from a profound respect for someone who abides by his own code and who does not waver from it.  The magician behind me laughs and throws more obstacles into my path, just to see if I have the courage of my conviction.  And I laugh in return.