Polyamory, Swinging, and ............... COMPLETE BULL

A colleague at work has been whining for the past year ... two years actually ... (please tell me it hasn't been three already?).

She is forever with the woe about the boyfriend who deceives but always has a great tag-line to accompany the deceit. Take for instance his newest claim: he is the Master and therefore he has decided to take on a 2nd sub ... BUT ..............

He has taken a 2nd sub UNBEKNOWNST to her and WITHOUT her involvement and hey, you two sort it out -- he's The Master so he can create the muck and let the others sling it.

He has left the two women to their own devices after doing what a cheater does -- he doesn't make you hate HIM so much as he makes you hate yourself for having been so foolish to have not seen the signs.

It is pretty tough to believe that you can be with someone for a year (or three) AND see someone else simultaneously without ever happening to mention it. That is not "poly", that is called living a secret life.

Master-schmaster.

Call it what you like, explain it away, Masters have no reason to deceive -- they don't have to -- the whole premise of this life is that it is honest and accepting. If a Master wants six more slaves, Master gets six more slaves AND TAKES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY in creating the environment where all six can feel nourished and special with Him but also with each other.

~~~ + ~~~

Okay -- so this stuff with the colleague is clearly not polyamory. But, what then is polygamy? It is different from polyamory (as far as i know). i like to think of it this way:

Polyamory has the AMOR in there.
(Think amore -- love.)
Polygamy has the GAM in there.
(Think game.)

With polygamy, the guy takes several wives and there is no consideration as to a chemistry between wives. (Sidenote: i have yet to hear of a woman taking on several husbands.) Its all about alienation and segregation and it breeds competitiveness and divisiveness because surely a girl has to feel she stands out and how can she do that if she is kept on the OUTSIDE of what is being pursued elsewhere?

Guys like this, in my experience, actually get off on the fact that there is in-fighting. It makes them feel "special" -- the girls are fighting over him, hence, he MUST be special if they're willing to trample each other to be his favorite.

Everything is gained at the expense of the others because afterall, the leader is not BUILDING A TEAM, he is creating opposing factions that must vie for his attention. The only way to be appealing is IF the others are not. That is the mindset he will instill because his practice insists upon it.

(Hey, Sally didn't make you your ham and cheese as well as I MAKE IT WITH THE VIRGINIA HAM AND THE YARLSBERG. And hey, Marybeth threw away your favorite tie! Oh the blasphemy of it all. Mr. Big turns all his girls into sniveling little tattle-tails and self-righteous brats.)

Dictators and cowards employ tools of the trade that include exclusion -- keeping information and contact separate and individual rather than uniting the herd. He himself is too insecure to allow the budding of relationships that might not, in his eyes, CENTER upon him. He doesn't have enough confidence to believe in it happening naturally by doing GOOD things, so he makes it happen through pitting people against each other.

(Are we talking about my father again?)

Instilling insecurity is handy, too. They maintain their power by relying on the pee-ons to compete in order to get recognized. The little ones clamor for attention and the leader doesn't dispense it equally or communally because truth is, he is littler than the little ones. He is ensured his power strictly through circumstance -- it is the power that he doesn't possess without the pee-ons -- it is called SITUATIONAL power (as opposed to personal power or inherent power).

Oh i could give you a million examples of this in life, having nothing to do with polygamy. The rotten boss who rules with an iron fist -- he instills policies like, "narc out your coworker and get ahead". The power is only in place when subordinates are kept down, reinforced as weak, rather than grown and cultivated to be the best they can be.

PERSONAL power, on the other hand, is represented by a genuine Master Who is the Master of Himself -- He understands that if he is going to take on more than one slave, it is probably a good idea (if not vital!) to make sure that the slaves have a connection, that is, if he wants to promote a thriving family atmosphere. THIS is what i believe polyamory to be.

Now, i'm no expert! i have yet to get there myself. Situations have been pursued and some had potential and things went one of two ways. Either someone honestly admitted they didn't think it would work -- dynamics, chemistry, timing. OR someone completely misconstrued the motivation -- thought it a case of swinging or a case of Master wanting some more pussy. It has been thought that i'm just a front for a score -- that my quest for a sister-slave is about Master wanting a threesome.

Give me a polygraph and i'll tell you that the motivations are pure and yeah, i'm a Pollyanna! i believe in love and in its excess.

~~~ + ~~~

As to swinging ...

If a man wants women (plural), so be it, and when it is presented as a birth right or something a woman just has to learn to live with, its probably an open-relationship (like an "open-marriage") because all is openly known and openly discussed and mutually agreed upon. This can segue into swinging -- the relationship itself is based on the "open" premise but just to a further degree -- having sex with others is MUTUALLY explored rather than separately explored.

Based on that, i kind of get the idea that swinging would mean a tighter relationship than just a plain "open" one, but then, i have experience with neither.

Polyamory, to the contrary, is about something comprehensive ... love makes the world go 'round ... so too does loyalty ... and it doesn't really have to do with sex per se. Its about building and nurturing a family unit and one bad apple NOT SELECTED WITH ALL THE APPLES IN MIND, DOES spoil the whole bunch.

~~~ + ~~~

i told the colleague at work that i thought she was perhaps a doormat. That if she bought this business that her guy is a Master JUST BECAUSE he is calling his fling a 2nd-sub and covertly getting pussy on the side and calling it poly, that she deserved whatever she was getting because hey -- you're ENABLING such nonsense.

i probably shouldn't have said anything. You can't go telling people things like this. i'm not diplomatic in these scenarios. i should learn! Its like telling your son that the girl he's dating is no good and then he runs off and marries her. As a result of my forwardness, this doormat will now probably run out and become a tattered rag-rug.

When a guy is seeing you only when its convenient and he doesn't look out for you at other times AND when he is also seeing others without your knowledge, i'd suggest that that isn't the behavior indicative of a Master.

Masters have no reason to lie -- cowards and cheaters do. A Master will simply say, "I'm screwing the maid. Accept it b****." (And hey, funny, but THAT turns me on!)

When a sub is wistful and continually over-explaining or concocting excuses -- you know, conjuring up all sorts of elaborate denials in the form of over-romanticizing her goodness in accepting and his goodness in screwing her over, she is fooling herself.

When a sub gets angry at me for being the messenger, when she thinks i'm laying judgment and condemning her and even unleashing hate, she is right. i am. But its in her defense and for her protection. i'm not her betrayer; i'm mad at her betrayer!

Like an abused woman -- at a point, she becomes her own abuser. And like all scenarios of duplicity, the worst of it is not the hostility you feel toward the culprit, but the hatred you feel for the self for having believed and trusted.

Okay, well, i hope i've cleared up all the definitions of things here ... at least in the way i interpret them. But then, really, maybe i'm just arguing semantics again ... or maybe i'm just being ... um ... polyglot.

New Fangled Submissiveness

Master says that everyone would probably LOVE the sensation of submitting -- even Dominants if They could. He says that it is the ultimate luxury and why WOULDN'T anyone want to feel FREE and unburdened, unencumbered?

Okay -- makes sense to me.

So then, WHY are the new submissives NOT submitting?! i mean, if anyone should be relinquishing control readily, wouldn't it be the very ones who are calling themselves submissives?

A girlfriend wrote to me and suggested i check out a blog in which the "submissive" writes about how nice an idea it is for Doms to also sport collars as a symbol of the bond with the submissive. She proposes the idea as akin to wedding bands and a way for the Dom to "honor" the relationship with the sub.

my reaction is simply, would a dog like the Master to wear a dog collar, too? The blogger, i think, took offense and called the comparison average but really, is it any different than that VERY literal interpretation?

i guess the new submissives also don't like terms like "pet". i feel a revolution in the making. "DON'T CALL ME GIRL EITHER!"

Maybe the sub should also ask for a pre-nup? i mean, that would protect her never mind this bond thing.

Internal enslavement is the submission that speaks without material items. Sure, its a nice thought if a Dom wants to wear something ON HIS OWN ACCORD and not because the sub wants it. Internal enslavement is when you feel protected and OWNED because its FELT and KNOWN. A sub is honored in ways that hopefully go far deeper than the demands of a combative witchy woman.

Internal enslavement, however, would likely be deemed faulty by the submissives' union (organized by some shrew no doubt). Pretty soon i think you'll be hearing that a Master spit or pissed in the face of His slave but the slave was not in the mood and had a headache. (Any lawyers in the house?)

As more information becomes available, the hurt, the damaged, and the dejected rally together to empower themselves and before you know it, they're spewing contempt for the very things they claim to want. RIGHTS and CONSENT all become the main focus. Doms become ogres if they don't COMPLY with the submissives requirements. Who is in charge here?! Before you know it, these submissives are submissive-haters and in particular, slave-haters -- they detest all women who have actually surrendered something AT RISK -- a risk the union people won't take anymore for fear of further damage -- they confuse submitting to the WRONG people or making their own mistakes as somehow part and parcel of general submissiveness.

THEN the male bashing begins. THEN you think, wow -- are these loudmouth subs possibly female supremacy advocates? And if you think this all means that they turn the corner to become Dominatrixes, you're wrong! BDSM has nothing to do with any of this! Instead its just simply about what exists all around. Entitlement and a lack of manners. And too, don't think for a minute that they hate you when they lash out -- they're just busy hating themselves.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR sLAVES!!!!!!!!!! God, i just keep imagining what Master would look like donning my slave collar or some complementary one (as was the suggestion). i really have to laugh -- its almost as preposterous as ......... "Master, i thought i told you to take out the garbage and when are you going to stop having your football buddies here -- what do you think i am -- your slave?"

submissiveness is an elegant state of being -- its hopefully graceful and ladylike (even if you're a male sub!). Confidence is grown and haughtiness comes out on occasion, but then hopefully, it is corrected either by self-realization or by the Dominant.

~~~+~~~
Photo: www.mooncostumes.com.

What does "under consideration" really mean?

i have no idea!

i guess it all depends on the rest of the sentence or phrasing -- "under consideration FOR _________"
(fill in the blank).

i'll post on this some other time. i came across a few drafts on this subject because a few submissives have written about their confusion on the term. my reaction every single time is, "i have no idea" and my reaction makes me laugh. Hence, i couldn't resist saying it exactly as i feel it.

Suffice to say, if you don't know EXACTLY for what you are being considered, it would seem pretty reasonable to ask for a clarification.

You are under consideration for ... the job?
You are under consideration for ... the position of skullery maid?
Boot Cleaner? Toilet? Pass-around-whore? Cock-teaser-dick-servant-cum-dump extraordinaire?

When in doubt, ask.
There is no such thing as a stupid question.
(Love is a many splendid thing -- name a slogan, any slogan!)

If your polite query is met with hostility, it is probably a good idea to tell the one considering you that they are ... er ... no longer under consideration.

Its a two-way street. (Hey, and there's another one!)

~~~ + ~~~
Art by (my idol!!) SIMON BENSON.
(See more of BENSON's work at my Dungeon-Love gallery.)

TRIBUTES ... are they legit?

Here is a question from a male submissive friend:
.
"Is a tributed interview a standard thing for a Mistress looking for a new house pet, or should i consider that a hustle........?"


And here is my reply:
.
.
A tributed anything is a hustle. *S*
.
Okay, well, not necessarily.

Tributes are payment. Money, gifts, your life's savings, etc. If She is a professional, yes, expect to pay -- but that's not a hustle, that's just plain business.
.
A mandatory tribute directed by someone other than a professional and who claims to just be looking for slaves or pets is not a Master or Mistress but a scam artist. And apparently not a very good one since a good scam artist would corral you first and THEN rip you off later.
.
Then again, maybe they're not so much an incompetent con but a courteous con -- i mean, afterall, they're essentially giving you the red flags as a sort of disclaimer. A read-first and sign-off sort of run through. They're basically saying, hey, UNDERSTAND that i expect money from you and that is part of the deal.
.
Which leads me to another subject ... that of the "money-slave". If you really are a slave at heart, you can be pretty readily convinced that such a title is legitimate, that is, if presented with it by a very shrewd calculating opportunist. You have to remember, submissives RESPOND to being overpowered by someone with intense knowingness and sharp mental prowess, so it is pretty easy to buy into this idea if someone has already gained entrance to your brain. Once in, that someone may suddenly start training you for this cockamamie position of "money-slave". But the reality is, it is what otherwise would be called, financial bloodletting. Personally, that doesn't sound arousing or like BDSM to me. *S*

~~~ + ~~~
Photograph by Michael Andrews.
(See more of Michael Andrew's work at my Dungeon-Love gallery!)

The New Old Guard

Or, maybe i should entitle this post, "Disciplining the Disciplinarian!". Discipline is only as good as how reasonably and realistically it is exacted.

i came across a fabulous article the other night, after first coming across about sixteen other interesting articles, all about "The Old Guard". One was a mockery of it, another a satire, another an adherence manual written by a very devout new-age leatherman -- he actually provided lists of what to do and what not to do. i think i even saw the word, "regulation" a few times. One of the "musts" was that all leathermen must wear a uniform of blue-jeans with or without chaps and absolutely NO UNDERWEAR. Are you going to tell me that a Master Who wants His boy-slave in frilly white ruffly panties is less of a Master than the new-age guy's Master?

What a crock.

Okay, but he meant well and i feel just as zealous when it comes to following Master's protocol. Like the new-age leatherboy slave, i also have certain rituals to which i adhere FAITHFULLY. i don't ever wear panties -- i am always at risk of exposure. i don't remove my coat or my clothes UNLESS Master instructs it. i never handle His toys or implements -- i'm so programmed that i have yet to, in over three years, ever look in the closet where He keeps all the dungeon paraphernalia. Its actually no different than when i was a child getting up in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve -- i didn't want to see if Santa had been there or not and i didn't want to ruin any surprises, so i'd tip toe by the tree with my hands blindfolding me from looking or even catching a glimpse.

Master's closet of toys, just like secrets to His tricks of the trade, are off-limits and half of that is my own self-prescribed notion of it! i really believe in magic just by virtue of WANTING to believe in it.

i don't sit on furniture in Master's home and i ask permission for just about everything. i have to ask permission to have an orgasm and even then, there are only certain times when i'm permitted to ask. All else is deemed begging and begging DOES NOT go over well with Master. When i'm in formal manners, i STAY in them until i'm told to "relax". i know all the things the new-age leatherboy slave itemizes and i know them by rote, but would i ever list them as *the* guide to being a good slave? i'm MASTER'S good slave. i might be a menace to someone else!

i've been asked about this ad nauseam and it really gets me -- the end-all know-it-all stuff. The doctrine and worse, the RHETORIC! Who is to say that players aren't people, too? *S* i'm not going to tell you WHAT i am unless you tell me that you enjoy the things i enjoy, otherwise my proclivities and Master's directives just simply don't apply.

There is a great article by Jack Rinella. How fabulous! He hit it right on the head. The main premise of this Old Guard (sch-mold lard) is that it is attempting to teach HUMAN-NESS. These rules, this protocol and etiquette crud -- its really just about MANNERS. But hey, we have Judith Martin's Miss Manners for that and she takes herself far less seriously!

Now, don't get me wrong. i have friends who subscribe strictly to The Old Guard philosophy. And in a way, i do, too -- i BELIEVE IN MANNERS! i believe in RESPECT. Its unfortunate, but we are living in a society of entitlement, so you can see WHY The Old Guard promotes what it promotes. Why it felt necessary to them. But aside from that, i don't believe in much. Positions are to be learned IF yOUR MASTER TELLS yOU TO LEARN THEM, NOT if a group or organization tells you to learn them because Gor is God -- i mean, do you let Jehovah's Witnesses into your house? (Okay, never mind -- maybe you do.)

Besides all that, does anyone really think that coming to a Master pre-trained has any appeal? He is going to undo you anyway and put you back together in the way that pleases HIM. Manners are essential but they have nothing to do with BDSM. Simple formalities, courtesies extended, thank you.s and please.s and ladies having clean mouths to complement their dirty selves, these are second nature matters, or at least i personally think they should be.

Yes, i would instruct slaves who really want to be owned to call prospective Masters, "Sir". No, i would not call every Tom, Dick and Harry (or hairy dick -- okay i've used that one before ha ha), Sir. But i would approach any Dom with potential very respectfully and very politely. Why wouldn't i?

i wrote a little blog on collars. i'm collared. Figuratively, literally. Meanwhile, i was owned previously and never even wore a collar, not even during dungeon time. Yes, i speak in third person at all times unless i have permission to be in first (and i don't need permission if around family or friends who would feel uncomfortable or not understand). Does that mean all slaves speak in third person? No! It means ya gag 'em if they don't ha ha ha. (Wow i am really funny today.)

And gee whiz, i remember a time some years ago when having small scars on both knees for a good year and my Dom lover at the time commented that He thought it a sacrilege that any Dom would leave those kinds of marks on what He deemed, pretty female flesh that should always remain in tact. i felt that He was my Knight in that moment and i loved Him for it, but let's face it, at the time i got those little scars (that did go away), i was put through my paces with fetching and grazing. One Master's pleasure is another Man's scorn.

Jack Rinella has such a great grasp on this whole thing ... the matter of all this teaching and (forgive the following expression), mentoring (term of the century which is really just a hi-falutin way of saying TRAINING) being general-human-consideration driven ... and too, His own slave's keen observation that the disenfranchised tend to seek a group -- they seek to belong. It is no surprise that groups form for just that purpose. Its not just about leaders seeking followers to bolster Napoleon complexes, its that followers seek out organization and structure to remedy what otherwise feels like being out of control or without purpose. (Hmmm ... knock-knock to slaves ... sound familiar? *S*)

Now, if you join mY group, there is one protocol: DO WHAT yER MASTER or MISTRESS TELLS yOU TO DO! i'm going to start writing a really neat guide and its called REALITY. i'm going to NOT tell you HOW to pray, HOW to work, HOW to grocery shop, HOW to pay bills, HOW to raise your kids, HOW to vote ... and i'm going to tell you how to realize that this is BDSM but its also real life, too. It might be my religion, my style, my way of living, but hey, just like my Catholicism, am i any less Catholic going to Church once in a blue moon than the guy who goes to Church every single day when he even potentially lives a life of hypocrisy?

Here is Jack Rinella's article -- (with the author's permission -- thank You, Sir!):
www.leatherviews.com/kinkyinfo/9930.htm

Illustration by my friend, Asaji Muroi (see more of his work at my Dungeon-Love gallery).

PRO-subbing?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A friend of mine just asked me what i thought of the idea of her doing some professional subbing. She had gone to a BDSM conference and had been used as a bondage subject and apparently, lots of folks suggested she do it professionally. Subbing professionally.
.
Well, its a concept, i suppose.
.
i entertained the idea ... then contemplated it some more ...
.
First, i'd say that my main concern is that she is not "in control" of the scene, simply because she is in the submissive role. If you are going to have strangers using you, and beating you, how are you going to tell them they've gone too far when you're gagged and bound and about to be penetrated without a rubber (and that of course is sex and then, what? you just accepted payment for sex). Plus, you don't know what crackpot is going to be using you. What if he's a serious misogynist looking to get out aggression or worse, hostility for all the ills of the world, and if not for paying some bucks to use you, he may have raped and killed the young school girl who was last seen walking Scruffy on Apple Tree Lane? i sincerely doubt they're doing background checks at the front desk.
.
So, you'd be putting yourself into a situation where if not for the headiness of exhibitionism, you'd never do it otherwise. Most slaves i know are desirous of unconditional trust, a bond and a connection, a place where they can offer up their soul to a worthy recipient.
.
Maybe some who are just acting on submissiveness impulses are not as deeply sensitive to the nuances and intimacy would be a foreign word to them, but, i don't know. Can you submit and then pack up, say goodbye nice knowin' ya, see ya 'round, and not later be DREAMING of the Man Who was able to overpower you and render you a gooey putty melted butter puddle of nothing? (Well, that's assuming he wasn't the one who would have tracked down the girl and Scruffy on Apple Tree Lane.)
.
There ARE people out there who THINK that S/m is about violence or getting laid or about easy women or swinging -- take a look at alt.com and you'll see what i mean! Its prevalent. Its like quacks practicing medicine and God, with all the meddlesome personalities and authorities there, watch and see -- soon they'll have their own little sub-culture -- the yuppie-wannabe BDSM brigade -- they'll be like those suburban white kids who dress and talk like South Bronx gang thugs. But that's an aside. Point is, put a slave in the hands of a player and SCREAM DANGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
So take this slave, a more developed or more evolved form of submissive, a sub who wants (and needs!) to FEEL enslavement in multi-dimensional terms, isn't she at risk in a professional situation? Isn't she really only going to be fulfilled when she serves strangers FOR her Master or her Mistress? When some commitment is being reinforced? Otherwise, won't she be trashed and potentially destroyed? my fear would be the emotional damage even more than the physical.
.
i mean, maybe if you want to be a prostitute -- i can understand the draw. But i can also guess (and think i'm pretty close to on-target) that most prostitutes would prefer being owned slaves. Sure, there is some John in the picture but that is not ownership in the vein a slave requires. Yes, and sure too, prisoners fall in love with their captors. All sorts of psychological things are at issue when you get to be the exploited object, HOWEVER, that is PRECISELY my point! Playing with the psyche is playing with fire.
.
The RIGHT manipulative hands need to hold the exploited object in order that it be the sublime refuge a slave can potentially know.
.
i think a slave needs to curl up emotionally at night rather than feel the aloneness, rather than feel the reaffirmed aloneness that comes with serving sans the meaning -- the matter of no reinforced purpose, no praise for being a good girl. A slave's sense of worth is profound and its driven by her Owner -- that is why a slave is perhaps more healthy than the independent vanilla woman who still must struggle with defining her worth and proving it. It doesn't matter what the worth is based on so long as you have it! Degradation? No problem! Just make sure the one bringing you to grovel in the gutter and wallow in some pig filth knows how to lift you up out of it, too.

~~~ + ~~~

Okay, so there is the mental and emotional element ... along with the physical risk. submissives engage ALL of themselves. i suppose you could go into a situation knowing and reminding yourself that you are NOT to form an attachment, you are JUST doing something physical, and well, i guess you could say it fits in with the theme of all-out USE and objectification but ............. again, i LOVE that stuff so long as i am still tethered, so long as my Master is my witness, my supervisor, and the honoree. So long as when i open up my insides and reveal fully the vulnerability, i will still be held afterward.
.
i guess you could make sure to hold back emotionally -- you could promise yourself NOT to release, NOT to cry and too, just know that reaching the Heavens, the whole reason i think slaves are slaves to begin with, may actually mean the opposite. In this one sole case, NOTHING might be better than something!
.
And again, WHO are the patrons? you are allowing someone to work on you who most likely has NO experience. i can't imagine a single Dom or Master PAYING to use a submissive. They'll simply use one who submits freely or They'll acquire one. i also suspect most Doms want to train one as Their own.
.
i'm going to guess that the attraction of pro-subbing would be that you get to FEEL sensations you're dying to feel all the time. i'm quite positive its not about earning a living. But by the time you're through, you might not be living, period! Or you'll be shelling out your earned living for a shrink and pills! If you're dying for experiences, contact Master and we'll see what we can arrange. (wink)

How do I use this forum?

If you prefer to post a comment rather than send me an email with your query or concern, please comment here below. You can do so anonymously if you like.