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.

The Dictionary, Page Thirteen

Surrender, it says.  And so I do.

"Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly," so the song goes.  One must be who one was born to be, and there is no point trying to be anyone else.

There is a lesson I have been learning for the past few months and it has everything to do with "selving" and personal identity.  About carving a separate self from my creators and about feeling free to be a separate self from my creators.  This is a difficult process if one comes from creators so heavily invested in their creation that a separate self has never been possible.  It is a painful process, separating oneself and becoming oneself.

But, nothing ever changes unless there's some pain.

I surrender my path to the evolution of my self, the natural creature who crawls and claws from the wreckage of birth into the realm of chaos.  "I want to be subject to chaos," Tasdron once said to me, years ago, as he lured me from the comfortable confines of one universe into the unpredictable paradise of another.

The metamorphosis feels real, now.  It is not a change: it is a changing into.  I am more than wings: I am ripples.  The sine and cosine of waves, up and down, to and fro.  The rippled image distorts and then clarifies after the drop of pebble into pond: though the image waves, it does not fragment.  And, eventually, the image becomes again itself.

I see things visually.  I see a pebble thrown into a pond, and my reflection eventually returns.

When I lamented the feelings of vanilla chastity, wondering where my "subbie" self had gone, I did not realize until today that it was simply a pebble thrown into water that had distorted the image of myself.  Life rocks my boat, sometimes.  Life is unpleasant, sometimes.  But, my real self I look upon, and my real self remains real; and after the water stills again, the image will be clear.  It only appears as though my image is not me, for a time.  And for a time, it will strive to get back to reality.  And for a time, until the next pebble is thrown, I will be and see the real me, at once.

I surrender to this, the changing of time.  I need not surrender my submissive self; I need only shield her and protect her and keep her warm for the time when she will be, again, called upon to serve.

To forgive, to absolve, to let go

I'm working on forgiveness.  Like "Jealousy" and like "Shame" it is a very large, very baggy and convoluted idea.  And of course, it involves many people's differing opinions and advice.  When I talk about forgiveness with people, we all seem to have different ideas about what the word really means.  Often people imagine "absolution" or "forgetting" or "letting go" or "re-inventing" or "erasing" when they imagine the process of how they forgive.  But what is it, actually "to forgive"?

The best way for me to look at it is through a Christian lens.  To forgive is to hear a confession of absolute responsibility; to understand without a doubt that the person feels responsible and feels remorse; and then to feel satisfied that the person's sense of responsibility and remorse will prevent any future and similar behaviour.  Forgiveness in that sense takes two people.  The one must confess in a real and meaningful way; and the other must understand that the confession is real.  Which is great if it happens like that.

What if one is required to forgive someone who does not believe he has done anything wrong?  I believe there is no forgiveness in that sense since forgiveness requires two people, but there is the solitary version of it: absolution.  Another Christian term, but applied without any religious fervour.  A person may choose to absolve another human being of any harm he has inflicted, if a person wishes to. That is what Christ does when he offers the other cheek for slapping.  When someone slaps your cheek, offer the other cheek too, he says; don't slap in revenge.  (I'm not really a Christian, thank heavens, so I can slap whoever I want.)

In either case, whether to forgive or to absolve is the tension, the end result is a "letting go," by all accounts.  It is peace.  It is a new level of serenity.  Or, at least, that is my mental picture.  Really, what it means is, if I forgive this person once, I have to keep forgiving this person every day of my life.  Doing it once means I'll definitely have to do it twice, and thrice, ad infinitum.  At least, that is my great fear.

On the other hand, I suppose that it is possible -- it is possible -- that the person in question already self-punishes and self-loathes as a result of past and recent behaviours.  It is possible.  I will never know for sure.  Therefore, it is possible that I do not necessarily need to "keep score" and keep the wound fresh and alive for the rest of my days as an act of "being true to me."  Absolution, private and without fanfare, may be the only solution.  Honestly, the whole situation is simply exhausting... Not like my pretty picture of a dock at sunset and calm water.  My happy, peaceful, forgiving place.  Sometimes I am amazed at how realistic Second Life photography can be.   My second life needs no absolution!  It is such a pretty place!

Shame, Part Two

"Kink shame" and "shame as kink" are two different things.  Some people are ashamed of their kinks; and some are turned on as a kink by the idea of shame.

I spent a great deal of my second life (the first time around) dead-ashamed of my kinks.  (I mean, the "G" word.  My first BDSM fantasies were, counter-intuitively, Gorean.  And I'd never even heard of Gor before Second Life, so this was quite an awakening.)  I was not ashamed to live my fantasies of sexual slavery and participate actively -- only ashamed to associate my fantasy self with my real self and to introduce both selves to each other.  Often, it is shame that prevents many people from integrating their first and second lives: the feelings of shame lead to this behaviour of dividing (sometimes with a violence) the two lives.  In extreme cases, it is this shame that prevents the real self from meeting the fantasy self.  Living in the closet is a painful experience: one divides the self and it doesn't feel very good.  I am sure this theory applies to more than just "kink" and Second Life.  I am sure the idea of living in the closet is more common than society would be comfortable admitting.

In my series of interviews around "shame" I met many people who keep a careful array of closets.  Closets for reasons of gender, for reasons of sexual orientation, for reasons of shame and kinks... there are many reasons a person will hide part of oneself from the rest of the world.

I know that in my case, I have struggled in the past with asserting a confident sense of self.  Second Life has really helped me achieve a better (and loveable) sense of self.  I feel more confident saying to people "I need this."  I feel more confident saying to people, "I will not tolerate this."  I know the difference between fantasy and reality: and I know that I do not want one to become the other, but I would like both to have their own special places in my life.  This took quite a bit of time to articulate, finally.  Naturally, I wish that I could go back to the beginning knowing then what I know now.  Knowing that there is no shame (objectively) to wanting and desiring.  Knowing that I have a valid, loveable self that can play nice and contribute fun things.  Knowing that when someone acts like an ass, it's not because of something I did but, rather, that person is quite separately an ass regardless of me.

I'm over my kink-shame in much the same way that I am over my "invalid self" feelings.  I know I have a lot of people to thank for this.  I'm grateful for each and every one of them.

Everybody's Version of Paga Servin'

I'm dreaming of water.  I would really like to be wandering through a shallow stream right now.  Instead, the guru that I follow has put me in secluded shackles for three days, but that is another story.  So here I sit, far from prying eyes, way up high in the sky.  People come and go down below, while I sit here, and so I open up their profiles and I read.  And I get to see (sometimes) how they prefer things, how they do things.  I get to see "other."

One profile in particular struck me as interesting, and it involves the negotiation process in surrendering oneself to a man's collar.  He says in his profile that the submissive's consent happens when she puts the collar on, and then anything thereafter is taken for granted.  There is no need to negotiate or consent after that:  once the collar is on, the man's word goes, full stop.  And his profile was very lucid and common-sense up until that point.  Obviously he is a man who knows what he is looking for, and what he is looking for is a slave.  More specifically, a slave who is content to abandon all her rights with that one word of consent.

Another profile in particular struck me as interesting: a woman who says, quite clearly, that the negotiation process is ongoing for the entire duration of the relationship with her ideal man.  Her ideal man is submissive (and not stupid); her ideal man can think for himself but chooses to let her make all the important decisions, and in fact begs her to make all the important decisions; her ideal man enjoys her sense of humour and her sense of sadism; and her ideal man will not crumble if she does not log in for 2 days, because they always know when they will meet next.  She didn't call him a slave; and the man's profile above did not call his "ideal" submissive a slave either; but I wonder now at the word "submissive" in this lifestyle.  It is not a word anybody can take for granted.

People can't take for granted that "their way" is THE way.  There is no such thing as THE way to dominate, or THE way to submit, anyway.  There is simply the way we want when it comes to relationships -- and finding someone who wants the same thing that you do.  D/s is a very specialized architecture for relations between people: and, as one person said in a discussion recently, D/s is a power exchange, not a hostile takeover.  In other words, both partners get something out of it.  That guy who believes that consent comes with wearing the collar and there's no more need for negotiation?  He can probably find someone to buy in to those conditions, sure -- but that's not everybody's idea of submission.  The lady who wants the man to beg for all important decisions to be made by her but who can still retain a measure of his own independence?  She'll find what she's looking for, too, no doubt; but that's not everybody's idea of submission.  Neither one practices "the right way" to do things.  In the D/s world (like in the mainstream, vanilla, everyday world) if you don't beg, you don't get.

Truth

 Mistress Steel's collection of learnings  was my first "how to" manual of BDSM and the D/s lifestyle.  I have read and re-read the articles herein.  Each time, I am refreshed.  What strikes me this time is truth.  In the "24/7" article, she writes:  "It becomes crucial to say clearly exactly what you mean and to listen carefully to hear exactly what your partner says to you.  We have often been taught to try to say what we believe other people wish to hear instead of the truth.  Truth alone can be blunt and unkind, but it is the edge of the blade that does far less damage than a blade that is blunted by false veneers.  Honesty is essential.  Hiding or masking anything will quickly lead into a morass of problems and, most often, the severing of the relationship's potential."

Lately, I have been tasked with writing down my thoughts during scheduled moments of meditation so that we can discuss them later.  I remember the first time I thought I had bad news to deliver: I had meditated on limits and I was about to impose them.  I was not sure how that would be received, and I could feel the anxiety rise.  How do you deliver unpopular news to someone you respect?  How do you tell someone whom you value that you are about to place limitations on the relationship?

Personally, I believe in the Mistress Steel philosophy:  the cutting blow of truth hurts, but it doesn't hurt as much as repeated blows from a blunt object that didn't do the job right the first time, or the second, or the third.  A clean break is a mercy.  A person can work with a clean, clearly-stated truth; people are strong (regardless of how they might protest to the contrary).  Speaking for myself, I would rather hear a clean, clearly-stated truth (i.e. "It's not working out, but we gave it a good try.  Let's end this thing.") than to be left in the dark, second-guessing myself, wondering when and if and how and whether... Speak, say it, define it, bind it, and let go.  Truth is a necessary condition of maturity.  I suppose that I take it for granted that a dominant personality will speak truth to me -- will, at the very least, be able to deliver unpopular news to me with a clean blow so that I can deal with it.  If a dominant personality cannot deliver unpopular news with the same conviction as good news, then it warrants examination.  Even doms have limits and the right to assert them.  As a submissive personality, I look to them -- to one especially -- to give it to me straight and clean.

I relate the ability to tell the truth to the ability to define limits and boundaries.  The ability to say 'Stop!' when it is time.  The ability to assert, "This far, and no further."  The ability to say, "I think I have made a mistake, can you help me?"  The ability to say, "I have needs, and you cannot meet them if you continue this way."  The ability to say, "I thought I was going to like this, and now I realize I do not."  The ability to say, "Damn, that was harder than I thought it was going to be."  Speaking truth to power is not easy, sometimes, but how else are we going to enjoy our lives if we cannot speak truth to power?  How else are we going to live in a world of conflicting needs and competing desires without the ability to say, "Enough; now it is time for my needs."  Of course, a person needs a nice safe place to be able to speak the truth and have it heard as truth, and have it analyzed and discussed as human beings.  A person needs a safe place, lots of patience, great understanding, and a curious spirit engaged in getting to the source of things... yes yes.  These things I also take for granted.  A person must want to live with truth, for starters.  And that is another reason why I am so blessed with the people I know and love.

Self-Esteem from Achievement

It's tricky separating self-esteem from approval-seeking, but I'm working on it.  I know that one difference consists of the motivation through which I do things.  I have a gallery of my photography on display right now at the Journey sim, the opening for which taking place on Tuesday June 12.  My mentor said to put it out, and so I did.  The main feature is the artwork depicting my mentor's submission: there is a picture in that collection that makes me tremendously proud for having achieved it.  Art for art's sake, is the point there: I didn't do it for anybody else, this one particular picture.  I just let my mind and skill loose on the artwork to see what would happen; experimenting and teasing out the final result.  I did it for me.  So often I catch myself thinking, "so and so will enjoy this when it's finished..." or "such and such a group will get a kick out of this..." and I think those are the nascent thoughts of approval-seeking to a certain degree.  Only to a certain degree.  But when I am occupied in deep concentration, working at a particular piece, and I say to myself, "good job" then I know that it is my own achievement, and my own self-esteem talking.  And then, when so and so ALSO happens to say "good job," my self-esteem sky-rockets.  It is not approval that I sought.  It was spontaneous praise, and I feel like a million bucks.

If I were mentoring other submissives in the world, I would say to them, "Have something that you strive to do exceptionally well, regardless of how well you do it at the moment....  Strive for something big."  I would suggest they have a passion, something character-defining, something that builds self-esteem that is hard, real, tangible and evident.  Something that allows for measurable progress.  (The photographs at the beginning of my journey are measurably inferior to the ones today, which themselves are measurably inferior to the photographs of the future.)  Something that a future owner or Master or Dom (or equivalent) can look at and examine to know parts of her that aren't otherwise visible.  Something about which to say, "Here are ways that you are different; here are ways that you excel; here are ways that you improve; here are ways that you shine."   I would say, "Stretch.  Flex.  Do something that will make yourself proud first.  Then, when someone else says, afterwards, 'Great work,' you can believe in the praise, and you have already felt it, and you can look into so and so's eyes and say proudly, 'Thank you, Sir' and feel like a million bucks, which is in one way connected to your submission and in another way connected to your soul-core."  No matter how good you are now, or no matter how much you suck at it, practice makes better and better and better.  Better and better self-esteem, that is.

Self-Esteem from Clarity

I enjoy meditating upon the idea of clarity.  I clarify things that I say almost to the point of redundancy.  I know it annoys some; and others find it charming.  But I have been trained to say what I mean as part of my personal make-up and professional discipline.  It occurs to me lately that self-esteem is directly linked to one's ability to articulate one's universe.  If I can say precisely how I feel at any particular time, I can experience my own sense of worth.  Many factors influence "whether I can say precisely how I feel".   Who I'm speaking with; what I have to say; how important someone else believes it to be; how important I believe it to be; how difficult it is to say what I feel; how hurt someone else might be to hear it; how happy someone else might be to hear it.  So many variables.  "Courage of conviction," and "speaking truth to power," as well as "le mot juste" all travel with this idea.  The most important variable, I think, might be the ability to "know thyself."
Sometimes I hear people say, "I feel weird," when asked how they feel about something.  Weird isn't a feeling, really, so that is an inadequate statement to make about something so personal.  One's feelings are sacred: it increases self-esteem to be able to articulate them properly.  "I feel afraid," is a big, big deal to be able to say.  "I feel happy," equally important.  The most difficult of all, of course, is "I feel angry and it is because of this very specific reason."

It all rests, naturally, upon one's ability to be able to feel entitled to these feelings.  I think it's fair to say that feelings are fairly genuine: they come unbidden, they are irrational, they don't listen to reason when they first surface, they are the opposite and equal reaction to that which happens in the world.  Like it or not, feelings are an important barometer.   Sure, they are controllable, deniable, push-away-able if one tries very hard.  But the fact that they arise in the first place is a good indication of something to examine.  Even later, if it's easier with time.  I remember the first time I realized that I felt like I wasn't playing enough, playful enough, enjoying enough.  I felt incomplete, and I felt aroused in a way that could not be satisfied.  It made me feel anxious.  It made me feel even a little angry, which I could not justify at the time.  I had vague, unspecified yearnings, a very tiny inkling of what it would be that might soothe my imagination and buff the rough edges from my appetite.  Eventually the picture in my mind came into sharp focus after I was introduced to Shibari in Second Life.  It was a gorgeous fantasy.  It coloured every vague corner of my imagination and brought new life to my fantasy world.  It brought clarity to my thinking and to my feeling.  (I am perfectly convinced that it was the Master at the time, as much as the ropes, who is responsible for that extremely good reaction in me.  I have never tried it since, terrified of the results that might arise from someone less than him.)  Bondage done right gives me a fine-point perspective and perfect clarity.  Because of that fine point clarity, because of those emotions named and controlled by their naming, I feel free.........

And More Self-Esteem

A man I know likes to joke about how "it's the submissive's fault" if something goes wrong in a relationship or, heck, in general.  I'm sure it's a common enough joke that I'm not going to expose any particular man by raising it.  And frankly it's unfortunate that it's so common, because there are too many who find something serious to glean from the joke.  They, really, like to blame submissives, and not only blame them but also punish them, unreasonably.  I'd like to counter this with something very serious.  Submissives, including slaves, are human beings.  We are not toilets; and we are not dumping grounds; and we are not punching bags; and we are not disposable, all by default.  (Such can be negotiated, of course.  But "by default" is the characteristic of importance here.)  By default, we are people.  By default, we enter into a lifestyle that supposedly values respect and tolerance.  And, by default, we seek like-minded people with whom to interact as well as opposing-minded people with whom to love and find adventure:  meaning, we seek friends who can share experiences of their own with us, and we seek lovers and Dominants who can complete the balance of intimacy.  We are required, at all times, to demonstrate right action and right reason: this becomes extremely important in a lifestyle capable of altering mental space and physical limitations.  And guess what:  "all failures," writes Mr Najee, "are on the part of the Master... not the slave."
What a concept.  It takes two to tango, doesn't it?  Yes it does; though, even in a tango, one leads and one follows.  A submissive has a lot to do with the success or the failure of a relationship, especially if she is exercising right action and right reason in a crucial moment.  If the submissive leaves the tango prematurely, then her action ends the dance (obviously), but the failure of the tango may very well be the dominant's fault.  If, for example, the dominant is intoxicated and out of control when the submissive has every reasonable expectation of sobriety; or if the dominant refuses to get the sleep he requires in order to be able to behave in a sane, consensual, and respectable manner; or if the dominant blurts out flagrant abuse-of-power horseshit that has nothing to do with the respect due another human being, then it is no surprise at all if the right-thinking submissive leaves the dance prematurely (and if she feels any sense of self-worth at all, good for her for leaving the dance prematurely!), because submission doesn't mean trying to enjoy a nice dance with a predatory poser who cannot master his own feelings and behaviour let alone those of a trusting submissive.

There are beautiful places in Second Life, and some of those beautiful places are populated with beautiful people.  Well, I'm sure everybody's beautiful in one way or another; but, what I mean to say is there are bound to be compatible folks in the world wherever we look, if we know what "compatible" looks like.  It goes without saying that you need to know what it is that you have to give, and what it is that you think balances you in a partner, before you can find the partner, right?  I don't mind taking my time finding the partner for me.  I don't mind taking as long as it takes.

This beautiful place, by the way, with all the butterflies and nature, the water and the trees, in my latest round of photographs (and by the way, my photography has, as a result, jumped in skillset) is another art installation in Second Life which is breathtaking in its little separate spaces of interest.  I've just felt a little heartstring snap in half, though, as I read the creator's blog that says it will be closing on June 1st.  And, June 1st is only two hours away.  Oh, my aching heart, it is better to have loved and lost, is it not?  And the pain still comes.  I have found my self-esteem in a place of butterflies, and the place is mortal.

Fine Lines

This has been quite a week of conversations.  I have learned this week more about myself than in recent history combined, and so much has come from being tested with misconceptions.  I'll give the benefit of the doubt and not say the word "prejudice" or even "bigotry" but rather call it "misconception" that drives the conversations of recent memory from which I have stepped higher still in my journey to submission.  I, too, am guilty of misconception (and my recent post on protected precious sweet asses is evidence of that).  Perhaps nobody is immune; we all must learn and no one is born perfect.  But, this week especially, I have been challenged on many fronts.  It felt surreal, this week, sort of like I was exploring "D/s through the looking glass" instead of just plain old D/s.   I think the most important learning I can catalogue this week is HOW perspective changes, and THAT perspective changes, and WHY perspective changes, and the vast difference between the perspective of the new versus the perspective of the very experienced.  The difference is in the fine lines.

[Digression:  one of my pet peeves in language is the way people abuse the phrase, "There is a fine line between...(insert comparatives here)."  There is often not a fine line between the things they suggest, when I stop and think about it, and then I scuff my toe in frustration having wasted all that time.  And that is not what I mean to suggest here, either, when I talk about fine lines.  There is no fine line demarcating the initiate and the Master.  Instead, there is a crude chalk-drawing by a student, a three-stroke stick-figure trying to tell a story it isn't complex enough to convey.  Next to it, a finely-wrought image drawn by the Master, an image comprised of a thousand fine lines, conveying a rounder, deeper story that takes hours to appreciate and weeks to analyze.  What the new person scratches-out cannot compare to the Masterful image of high complexity.  That is what I mean.  The fine lines reveal everything.]

The new person:  1) expects things to be obvious, 2) gravitates towards the obvious, 3) leaves heavy footprints through the journey.


The initiate:  1) understands that things are not always as they seem, 2) gravitates more towards what she desires instead of what is obvious and presented by default, 3) tries to walk more softly through the world.


The initiated:  1) begins to develop subtleties that characterize her unique self, 2) begins to assert her desires and hardly pays any attention to the obvious and the default anymore, 3) strives to walk not just softly but without penetrating the rice paper.

The Master:  1) recognizes subtlety in others and celebrates it, while recognizing that the new need guidance also, 2) can anticipate desire and meet it but is never above being surprised by joy, 3) can carry himself and his disciple (if required) with minimal impact to the land beneath.

A simple example: it is confusing (to the new Doms and  to the new subs at the beginning, if nobody knows any better) whether a submissive lady should be kneeling by default when a man speaks to her.  There are so many competing opinions and values and practices in Second Life, as many different answers to that question as there are practitioners of alternative lifestyles and roleplay.  There are so many reasons why a Dom may believe it is appropriate for a girl to kneel when speaking to him.  There are so many reasons why a submissive may believe such behaviour to be archaic, misguided, inappropriate to her life's purpose, or totally and perfectly reasonable.

What does submission look like?  It looks like whatever you want it to look like.  Submissive women wear lingerie and snowsuits and sneakers and pumps (granted, not all at once...).  Sometimes a sub wears a collar.  Sometimes she doesn't.  There are at least a dozen variables (and possibly ten dozen more) affecting whether you see her sporting a collar at any given moment.  She may or may not kneel.  She may or may not be owned.  She may or may not be attached at all, in any relationship.  She may be getting over a relationship; she may be entertaining the possibility of a new relationship; she may be withdrawing from any immediate relationships; she may be seeking platonic friendships or protective arms with no other expectations.  She may be wearing leather or lace.  There is a lot in common, really, with the vanilla lifestyle.  But, honestly, there are so many ways to LOOK submissive if one wants to be obvious and catch the attention of the obvious-seeking.  There are also so many ways to assert one's subtleties if one is looking to attract the attention of the more discerning (and less obvious) tastes.  I have endeavoured to wander the road paved by the discerning.  My protected precious sweet ass enjoys the tranquility.

The Throne of Trust

"The Lifestyle" is filled with statements of trust.  I just attended a discussion in Second Life led by Kaddan Yue and the best thing that I took away from it was that we must examine our statements.  The unexamined life is not worth living, after all, says Socrates.  It is also a very good idea to examine statements especially about trust especially in a lifestyle that defines parameters and boundaries and limits.   So, what does it  mean to examine a statement?  It means, to ask questions and dig deeper into the meaning of whatever it is that we simply take for granted.  The word "trust" is one of those words whose meaning it is possible to take for granted, given how much we use the word in the lifestyle.  My own avatar profile says that I will even define my personal limits based on shared values and long-term trust: it is my hope that, one day, I know and trust a person so thoroughly that I could put the safety of my feelings in that person's total control.

How do we establish trust?  After examining that question for a long time, it seems as though "to establish trust" is not exactly an accurate description of what takes place between two people who grow to rely on each other.  It sounds too active a process for trust's delicate, slow development.  Aside from the very generalized trust in humankind to function in the best interest of its own species, there is a fundamental threshold of trust (a "baseline" as Miss Kaddan calls it) each person carries and builds upon with others.  A person feels more and more trust with a partner, or less and less trust with a partner, as time goes on, having started from that initial baseline.  That initial baseline comes from first impressions: how much care the person takes in communicating.  And second impressions: whether the person's behaviour matches the person's words.  Third, fourth, fiftieth impressions:  whether the person appears to be (and is actually) invested in the relationship.  But the process of establishing trust, the day by day accumulation of comfort and certainty as situations test and try the feelings of both people, that process is actually a consequence of other things.

"Can trust be broken in an instant, after years and years of building?"   I am not convinced that it works that way.  After years of building the comfort and certainty between partners, there is bound to be something that tests the faith.  (The trials and tests that establish trust over the years prove  that this will inevitably be so.  "Shit happens.  Shit did happen.  Shit will continue to happen.")   I look at it this way:  if a relationship with me is a castle where we both live, then trust is the throne.  Trust is the throne that, once seated upon it, makes you a King Above All Men in my eyes, by which I kneel and admire You.  The throne is in the centre of the castle, and many doors must be opened, many thresholds crossed, to reach the throne room.  As with Kings and their castles, trust gets tested:  and I would be a fool to remove the King from his throne just for being tested by the outside world.  Rather,  I would ask some questions.  I would want to know where the vulnerability is, why the King is susceptible, and in fact whether the King likes it that way.   I would want to know how this fits into the picture of the King I have lived with for so long.  "Why did you do what you did? How does this fit, or not fit, into our established pattern of needs and exploration?  How can I protect myself against the pain this may cause if you do it again?"   I like to think that the answers to such an examination would be, if I were asking You, "I did what I did because I know we can handle it.  It fits because, though we may not have discussed it yet, after we talk about it more, you might come to agree with me.  You won't need to protect yourself because I will protect you, if after talking more about it you remain truly pained by it."     Or, at the very least, "I am sorry.  I will never do it again."  The first answer, though, would tell me that there is no breach in the castle walls.

Discipline - The Spirit

Discipline of the self, what I call personal integrity, comprises the discipline of mind, body, spirit, and aspiration -- or at least, this is how I imagine things.  The spirit is difficult to define, in my imagination, let alone discipline.  I imagine the spirit as something like the latin "anima" (the vital, breathing force within us).  When they say, "That girl has a lot of spirit!" they could be talking about how much energy I have; or, how thoughtful I am about problems to solve; or, how tenacious I am when it comes to getting to the root of something.  These things are not just "natural" but, instead, I think they are disciplined.  I think that how much energy I have, how interested I am in problem-solving, how dedicated I am to finding my way to the root of something to explore, these all require disciplined attitudes.  It is not a matter of intelligence; I do not believe intelligence is at stake here.  It is a matter of curiosity.  In fact, perhaps it can be said that curiosity is the measure of a person's spirit.

Must a person's spirit be disciplined in order to achieve a solid personal integrity?  I can attest to as much; it is so.  The life force is not to be taken for granted.  There are events endured in each lifetime that test a person's spirit.  There are events I must endure in my lifetime that, sometimes, feel stronger than I am, and I am afraid.  There are events I must endure that, sometimes, lower me to sadness.  There are memories; there are anxieties; there are possibilities; there are unknowns.  I know that, in some people, this is the impetus to developing a Dominant personality: they wish to control, and learn to control more and greater circumstances.  I know that, in some others, this is the impetus for seeking a Master: someone who can run interference and shield a submissive soul from the world's unpredictability and chaos.  I do not feel so moved to perform in either of these ways.

Sayuri says, in Memoirs of a Geisha, "But now I know that our world is no more permanent than a wave rising on the ocean.  Whatever our struggles and triumphs, however we may suffer them, all too soon they bleed into a wash, just like watery ink on paper."   This too shall pass, in other words, but more than that.  This too shall linger, though in lesser form and with a far lesser intensity, and shape us.  The pain recedes; just as the joy recedes given sufficient time.  The waves come and go; and life continues.  I do not seek a shield against the world: my submission to You will be as one who seeks Your example, Your shaping, Your furthering of the project of myself that I have begun -- which You already know is also a project of You.  You, like me, are an artist:  You, like me, are complete because I am canvas and You are the forever stain.