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.

Safety, Safe Haven

Everybody has her idea of a safe haven, right?  The place where one goes and there is no threat of anything "wrong."

There are many versions of the safe haven in Second Life.  The Journey to Domination and Submission sim is one of those safe havens, a beautiful and natural setting with plenty of outdoor space and indoor shelter.  Pictures, art, reading, discussion areas, or a simple bench to occupy while listening to the radio and fishing in the pond.

I was thinking this week how grateful I am that such a place as J2D exists in the world.  Everybody needs a safe haven, even if they didn't realize it until they get there.

I spent time this week also making sure that I had my own house in order, my own safe haven, a retreat I share with Tasdron whenever he needs a safe retreat.  Cleaned, landscaped, tidied and organized.  It is a mental exercise to put my house in order and to see to the wee details, all the corners dusted, all the walls steamed and breathing right.  This is a nod to my history with Tasdron: the early, early days of 2007 when my job was to make sure his house was prepared nicely.  It is an act of submission on my part: I do not throw down objects in a room and call it "decorated," but, rather, each piece is carefully placed and coordinated with as much "realism" as I can orchestrate.  I take time.  I look at it from all angles.  I want it to look as though every inch of it was meant to be that way.  I want there to be no evidence of the effort that I put into it: as though the placement, the value, the functionality of everything are self-evident and their own form of perfection.  The least-adorned wooden stool has the value of perfection if it is in the right place, performing the right function.  Perfection is only ever that.

It is the same with my photographs: the picture is the truth of what I see, and the effort that goes into depicting the image must never be obvious.  That is, at least, what I strive for.  That all the elements were born to be that way, just so.  That the colour and texture and perspective and focus and distance-from, etc... were all meant to be that way, just so.  As though there could never be another way to see this story, and I have submitted my senses to show the nature of this thing as it was meant to be.

And the effort that I put into creating a haven safe from the abuse-of-power that runs rampant through the world; the effort that I put into erecting, defending, and adorning the boundaries; this is effort that I submit myself to and that I enjoy.  It is work that I do to gratify my own nerves, of course, but it is also in the service of Tasdron.  In the walled garden behind the house, there is a patio with flowers and refreshment.  The walled garden does not keep out the sound of birds and crickets; but it keeps out prying eyes and negative voices.  Only goodness, encouragement, and hope may thrive in the sturdy old house surrounded by fragrant flowers.  This is my submission to Tasdron, one of many petals in the blossoming flower.

I remember reading The Story of O, and the Fifty Shades trilogy, and seeing a few movies including The Secretary and also O:  the homes are decorated beautifully.  With discipline.  With care and thought for the proper placement of everything.  The homes are not littered with ball-gags and chains and crops and blindfolds.  A candle whose wick has already been lit several times before may be the only clue that "something else" happens when the lights go down.  To any casual observer, the furnishings are tasteful and functional, full of consideration and care.  The basic needs of human comfort and rest, of feeding the body optimal nourishment, of cleaning and hydrating the body, of adorning and warming the body are all tended to.  To any casual visitor, this is a comfortable place, a safe place.  Only when the lights go down, only when consent is established, will the place become more than what meets the eye.

And because consent is established first, the place -- one's favourite place in all the world -- one's safe haven is never tarnished with the abuse of power.  One's safe haven thrives as it comforts.

The Dictionary, Page Five

Worship comprises the fifth page of the dictionary of my submission, what words mean to me in the context of Tasdron Dryke.  Worship means, to me, a great big bowl of hyperbole -- exaggeration, excess, wanton slathering of meaning over something so ordinary as love.  And it's all I have, sometimes.  Sometimes, that great big bowl of excess and "too much" is all I have, so far away.  It makes it easier to bear, to use such words.  Too much, more than, ever in this whole world.

It makes it easier to conceive of "no ordinary love" when I imagine how I worship you (like a king) and how I adore you (like a Christ) and how I prostrate myself before you (like a Messiah).

Really it means that I obey you (like a king) and I listen to you (like a Christ) and I submit myself before you (like a Messiah).  You are not a king; you are of the same class as I am.  You are not a Christ; you are just clever, thoughtful, and ready to give love.  And you are not a messiah; you are American, brave, and free.  I know the reality of you; and yet, whenever we speak or whenever I feel close to you even if there is no speaking, despite the reality that I know (and I too am real, and I too know the vast gap between the statue on the plinth and the woman who keeps it pretty) I am compelled, time and again, to fall to my knees and look up to you and sing your praises as though I were a choir of hundreds of voices.  More hyperbole!  But it is as if, and therefore it is.  I think, therefore I worship.

It makes me feel good to know you are in the world.  And it makes me feel good to know that you can hear me.  It makes me feel good that you let me in, on days when you aren't filling my world with you, so that I can fill your world with me.  I lean on you.  You lean on me.  And I am blessed for it.  (And now I know why I chose this picture, and before that, why you chose this pose.)

"Worship" is just a word I use, sometimes, to indicate the way in which my imagination elevates you beyond the ordinary.  It is a word I use sometimes to indicate that, despite the reality of our worlds, my fantasy is to occupy a world where I may lift you so high with how much I love, and where you may bring me with you with how much you love.  You lean on me, and I lean on you, and this is how it works.  It reinforces the electrical current of the power we exchange; it doesn't sap it.

How high, Sir?

"Obsequious," a word from the latin for compliant and yielding.  It carries a negative connotation in the modern day:  fawning, agreeing without critical thought, giving the illusion of agreement regardless of whether one truly agrees.  "Yes, Sir, how high would you like me to jump?  I will not ask why."

If I were dominant and seeking, I would feel naturally suspicious of a submissive who agreed with everything I said.  It would sound, to me, as though the submissive were kissing my ass for other reasons besides submission.  I would not trust her submission while she was agreeing without critical thought.  Yes, it is good and right that she trust me, if I were dominating her.  Yes, it is good and right that she believe I would not steer her wrong.  But I think I should tire very soon with someone who could not shade my perspective with different colours besides my own shades of grey.

Of course there are dominants who require absolute obedience and unquestioning faith.  Yes means yes and "how high?" is the only acceptable deviation.  Such an attitude reveals the difference between one who owns a slave's unquestioning obedience and one who exchanges power with a submissive otherwise-free-thinking person.   But, I digress.

The real élan, the real finessing, the extra special uniqueness that one submissive is capable of giving that is different from all the rest (and the real reason why she is loved by a dominant in ways that a dominant loves no other) is the way in which she makes compliance seem like right-reason.  Right action.  How "Yes, Sir" can seem perfectly logical and NOT obsequious.  How actions can be  critically considered AND obeyed without question, the opposites erased and replaced by pleasing mystery of the initiated.  The little submissions she performs in her decisions to obey each and every time so that you see (freshly every time) how she submits -- how massively those chains hang from her wrists and ankles and yet how lightly she bears the chains of her submission.

In other words, sounding obsequious is my anxiety, and practicing asserting myself and negotiating is my antidote.  (That is, if I don't already naturally and simply agree.)

Punishment

A few months ago (it feels like a lifetime ago) I listened to an excellent Dominant expound on his feelings about discipline and punishment.  They are separate issues, to discipline and to punish.  Very often, a dom does not feel good about punishment, and yet he may easily perform almost the very same activity on his submissive in discipline and feel terrific about it.  (I beg my three readers to forgive my use of the default "Him" when referencing a Dominant, here.  I have a man in mind when I recall this moment.)  I would imagine the sentiment is simliar from a submissive's perspective -- or at least, I can imagine it would be the same for me.  To be spanked in punishment would feel differently, to me, than to be spanked for disciplining /  training / conditioning / pleasure.  Not 100% different, but different enough to derive less pleasure from the act.  I haven't given much thought to punishment since that moment when I listened to Sir Dwight talk about it.  I'm generally a person who neither seeks nor welcomes punishment because, frankly, I don't deserve it or ask for it.  I do not believe the mistakes that I have made, so far, merit punishing as much as they might merit correction, and by all means I welcome correction as I hope anybody would if there is unintentional inaccuracy or inconsistency.  (Protected Precious's sweet ass is not perfect!)  But it's come up a few times, now, today.  And I will defend punishment for one very good reason that I can think of, besides what Sir Dwight had said earlier.

At the D/s Academy in Second Life (which my mentor is a part of, incidentally) there is a notecard entitled LOG 201 sub's resp. - D/s academy LECTURE, back from 2010.  In it, the note details a very detailed lecture about the submissive's responsibilities.  And one of those responsibilities -- and this resonates with me big time -- is to know yourself so well that you know what it is in this life that brings pleasure and what it is that you would consider punishment.  The first is often easier than the second.  To know oneself so well that one can understand what would be considered punishment is a very powerful knowledge.  And to tell one's dom or Master that information renders one vulnerable as hell.  That is how one feels vulnerable:  to admit one's weakness before another.  Weakness in pleasure and weakness in punishment: a dom needs to know both, of course.  In my opinion, a submissive who does not share with her dom these two very important character traits of hers has not submitted.

One reason I believe in this so strongly is because there will inevitably come a time when a submissive makes a terrible mistake; a costly mistake, a mistake that causes undue pain.  And, to think the good of everyone first, such a mistake would certainly be accidental rather than deliberate.  When the full force of the mistake, and all of its effects, come home to the submissive and she finally begins to feel the dread, there is nothing she can do (perhaps) to make amends.  There is nothing she can do to "undo" that mistake.  That is a horrifying feeling to me, not being able to repair something.  So how does one forgive?  How does one get past it and move into the future together?  Punishment, genuine and true.  That which the submissive knows to be punishment -- not pleasure, not disguise, not half-heartedly meted out.  Punishment, I do believe, should be reserved for such instances: when nothing else will do.  When the forgiveness is too hard to come by, otherwise.  Because punishment is cleansing.  After enduring the sentence, the cleansing is complete.  Meting out the punishment is cleansing; and receiving the punishment is cleansing.  It is as symbolic as any other practice within the lifestyle, and it should not be abused or misunderstood.  (But what, pray, happens when the dom is at fault and finds it impossible to forgive himself?  Ooh.)

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 Aspiration

Our destiny is frequently met by taking the very paths we have chosen to avoid it.  Sayuri's "destiny" in Memoirs of a Geisha comes up against her aspirations in nearly every chapter.  It is difficult to determine whether the happy ending to the novel is due to her destiny or due to her single-minded, purely-focused aspiration.  If we call it "destiny," she has been a passive passenger on a pre-ordained journey, and there has been no point whatsoever to her mental conditioning and emotional tribulations.  If we call it "aspiration," she has taken charge of her fate and brought about exactly that which she had set out to do on the day she changed her living.  From the moment of her prayer to the gods, she directed her mind, body, and spirit towards the one man she knew in whom kindness came easily.  The discipline of her aspiration is expressed here:  "With  my eyes squeezed tightly shut and my hands together, I prayed," she explains.  "I would suffer through any training, bear up under any hardship, for a chance to attract the notice of a man like the Chairman again."  And, every moment thereafter was devoted to this singular vision until, finally, at long last, she realizes her vision.

Sayuri remembers, "For a flicker of a moment I imagined a world completely different from the one I'd always known, a world in which I was treated with fairness, even kindness."  She continues, "And when I raised myself to look at the Chairman, I had a feeling of leaving my misery behind me there on the stone wall."  To get very, very picky here, I notice that she says when I raised myself to look, and that is the key to this sentiment.  That is the definition, as I would understand it, of aspiration.  When I raise myself to look.  When I raise myself to look, I see more, and I see further.  I can change things before they happen.  I am not a passive recipient of destiny's hand (if I do not wish to be); I take an active participation in that which shapes me (if I wish it so).

I do not take it for granted that there is a destiny for me.  I do discipline myself so that I can face the world and all of the choices presented to me.  I do not wait passively:  I wait actively.  Behind my eyes, there are dreams, and there are ladders I craft to reach them.  There are butterflies - the symbolic metamorphosis is the achievement of aspiration.  My geisha name, Choji, a butterfly name; my sole aspiration, to become that which You have always wanted in me.

Submission, Rights, and Ethics

One more from Miss Steel's private chamber, since I've been studying today with great interest.

This article is about negotiating.  "Many submissives," it says, "long to vacate all their rights, and they express the desire to do whatever the Dominant tells them.  Some even feel that if they are in any way non-submissive they will no longer be desirable to the Dominant.  This concept of 'non-submissive' is growing in popularity and is often identified as a submissive who is forthright, honest, and open in her opinion or beliefs.  Some believe that a submissive should never disagree with 'any' person identified to them as a Dominant, that such behaviour of disagreement is indicative of a poorly-behaved non-submissive."  Ye gods.  "This type of catch-22 ideology," it goes on to say, "encourages people to return to policies of silence by intimidation or judgment, or the non-truthful communication so prevalent in vanilla society -- policies most within the BDSM communities have attempted to overcome."


I think I understand pretty clearly, now, the difference between a roleplay slave and a BDSM submissive.  I think it's pretty clear that I should be forthright about my values, not my limits, the next time I enter into negotiations.   Values are a good thing to consider right now.

Values:
- I value bone-dry honesty, blurting before thinking.
- I value examination of that honesty, taking time to consider what we're saying really.
- I value eye-contact and facetime, undistracted.  Not 100% of every day -- in fact, not even close.  I can't handle all that attention.  But when it's "us time", nobody else intrudes.
- I value my solitude so that I can process things.  I can't be in a constant state of receiving: I need processing and output time.
- I value my privacy, your privacy, and our shared time.
- I value the time I have invested in learning about respect, honesty and integrity; the differences between Play and Reality; the differences between Submission and Slavery; the differences between Doms and Masters; and the differences between my submission and everybody else's submission.
- I value the time I have invested preparing myself so that I will be worthy.
- I value a man's honour (whatever it is that makes a man thoughtful, considerate, polite, chivalrous, clean, talented, skilled, and disciplined).
- I value my own practiced ethics.