Did you know that there is an international contest for Master and Slave?
http://www.internationalmasterandslave2008.com/
http://www.masterslaveconference.org/
Yup, kinky folk from around the world compete for who is the year's best, and title holders are as busy as Miss America during their year.
Well.... it seems that this year's Southwest Master is part of a budding scandal. A woman is accusing him of assault!
The reason she is accusing him of this is because, instead of using a whip, he used his fists.
To outsiders, that may seem bizarre, even silly, but it is a serious accusation. People who indulge in BDSM activities have strong social rules in place to prevent abuse. The biggest social rule is negotiation. Before anyone hits anyone else with anything, the two of them talk about what is "fun" and what is "not at all fun". This is different for everyone, so the negotiation is important.
A masochistic person may really enjoy being struck with various "toys". They may get a lot of sexual arousal, and even orgasm from it. BUT, a slap on the butt with a belt may recall childhood discipline too strongly, and change the whole situation into something way too freaky weird.
This sort of thing is known as an "emotional land mine". Everyone has them. We don't always know where they are, though. Sometimes, even with negotiation, they get stepped on. A sweet submissive woman who is happily moaning, "more, more.." turns into a slavering beast intent on ripping someone's throat out. There are ways of coping with these incidents, but it is best to avoid them in the first place.
How one avoids emotional land mines is by talking to people before doing anything kinky. An experienced person knows what they can do, and what they can't. As people get to know each other better, they can try new things, and stretch their boundaries. But, first time "playing" with each other, the rule is to not go outside what was originally discussed.
Where things get iffy is "in-scene" negotiation. This happens when someone gets an idea while playing, and suggests it at that time. This doesn't seem like a problem, after all, it's still negotiation, right? Not quite.
It's a problem of endorphins. Those hormones that we all produce in response to pain and physical stress. Someone who has produced a lot of endorphins is called "dorphed", and it is similar to being stoned or drunk. People who are dorphed may agree to things they would not when they were sober.
Beginners often make this mistake, and wind up doing a lot of apologizing and cleaning up.
A Titleholder is not a beginner. He should know better.
Apparently, the two people involved had negotiated for a "scene" with a short whip called a singletail. This was the first time they had played together, and they were not Master and Slave to each other. After using the whip for a while, the man allegedly leaned in and asked, "would you like to try some punching?" to which the woman replied, "uh.. sure... a little..." He then proceeded to use his fists on her until she went into shock.
Even that might have been something that could be worked out privately, but the woman claims that not only did the man NOT apologize, or try to figure out what went wrong, or see if she needed medical assistance, but he asked her to keep the incident a secret.
She's not keeping it a secret.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Players in the BDSM scene rarely file criminal charges on each other, because police involvement so easily gets out of hand. It is very difficult to explain to law enforcement, a prosecutor, judge, and jury, the difference between "play" and abuse. The mud winds up splashed on everybody.
.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Understanding Beauty, part 1, Picture Frames
It's happening right now, in a custom frame shop near you. A customer has brought in something they find beautiful, to be prepared for display in their home. After some time spent picking out the right frame, comes the PRICE. "$500? But the picture only cost me $25!"
Then the framer explains about the cost of the frame having nothing to do with the cost of the object being framed. About how you get what you pay for, and if you want nice wood with a pretty finish, it is going to cost more than gold-colored plastic. Eventually the customer catches on... usually.
The peculiar thing is that this kind of mental disconnect only seems to happen in areas of aesthetics. No one balks at the cost of tires based on the cost of the car, or the cost of a toner cartridge based on the cost of the printer. People correctly assess these things by their usefulness. How many miles one is going to get out of the tires, how much printing one will get from the toner cartridge.
So why do they get confused about the cost of a picture frame?
Perhaps it is because aesthetic enjoyment is not something that can be measured. How many miles of pleasure is this? Assessing the value of a works of art, and of frames for them, are purely subjective. An individual must look into themselves, and say, "How much do I like this?"
Perhaps part of the problem is that it is about pleasure. An awful lot of people in the world are taught that there is something wrong with seeking pleasure. Even if it is just the pleasure of looking at something pretty every day. If seeking pleasure isn't sinful, or selfish, it is at least wasteful of money.
Which is an incredibly wrong-headed idea.
Let me point out some examples of how important beauty is to us.
I'll start with cars. In a world where visual enjoyment really was of no consequence, cars would pretty much all look the same. There would be different types based on uses, such as sedans and trucks, and maybe variations on those based on performance. Body styles would all be the most efficient shape for the type. All would be painted with the most effective color, which is a sort of pale greenish grey. (they have to add pigment to make car paint white) Nothing would be chrome plated. Cars would be pretty ugly.
Even the Model A Ford, which was the most utilitarian automobile ever, had concessions to aesthetics. It was painted black. It had chrome.
We naturally try to make things pretty, rather than efficient. People have to study efficiency to overcome that natural tendency. The Model A just looked right, black. People pay good money to get nice paint jobs on their cars, and are willing to pay extra to get exactly the color they want.
Another example is lights in our homes. Bare light bulbs are rare. You see them in closets, or other out of the way places. Why? Diffused light is "better". We can see a little more efficiently with diffuse light. But there is even more to it than that. Even if you just want a simple "candy tray" frosted glass light cover for your ceiling, you will find many different styles at the hardware store. Even the simplest ones will have decorative touches. And we hardly ever look at our ceilings!
When it gets to lamps, style is even more important. These light fixtures are in our line of vision constantly, so their design gets a lot more attention. We pick a lamp based almost entirely on its looks. Does it look nice? Will it look good with the sofa? (do we still like that sofa?) We may pick up a lamp that appeals to us, look at the price, and say to ourselves, "I like it, but I don't like it that much." Or, pick up a particularly attractive one and say "ooh. That's more than I was thinking of spending. But it's soooo pretty! It looks like it will shed good light, too.... I'll get it!"
Which is the correct way to assess the value of a lamp. A quick evaluation of how it will light an area, but a lot of thought given to how it looks. We will bring home the expensive but very pretty lamp with a sense of pride, and look at it with pleasure every day for a long time.
Which brings us back to the picture frame. A proper assessment of the value of a frame is how much you like looking at it. The framer can assess its practicality, (that is, will it hold the picture, securely, and will it protect the picture from damage) but only the buyer can decide if it is pleasant for them to look at.
In part two, I will examine why some people have so much trouble deciding if they enjoy looking at something.
Then the framer explains about the cost of the frame having nothing to do with the cost of the object being framed. About how you get what you pay for, and if you want nice wood with a pretty finish, it is going to cost more than gold-colored plastic. Eventually the customer catches on... usually.
The peculiar thing is that this kind of mental disconnect only seems to happen in areas of aesthetics. No one balks at the cost of tires based on the cost of the car, or the cost of a toner cartridge based on the cost of the printer. People correctly assess these things by their usefulness. How many miles one is going to get out of the tires, how much printing one will get from the toner cartridge.
So why do they get confused about the cost of a picture frame?
Perhaps it is because aesthetic enjoyment is not something that can be measured. How many miles of pleasure is this? Assessing the value of a works of art, and of frames for them, are purely subjective. An individual must look into themselves, and say, "How much do I like this?"
Perhaps part of the problem is that it is about pleasure. An awful lot of people in the world are taught that there is something wrong with seeking pleasure. Even if it is just the pleasure of looking at something pretty every day. If seeking pleasure isn't sinful, or selfish, it is at least wasteful of money.
Which is an incredibly wrong-headed idea.
Let me point out some examples of how important beauty is to us.
I'll start with cars. In a world where visual enjoyment really was of no consequence, cars would pretty much all look the same. There would be different types based on uses, such as sedans and trucks, and maybe variations on those based on performance. Body styles would all be the most efficient shape for the type. All would be painted with the most effective color, which is a sort of pale greenish grey. (they have to add pigment to make car paint white) Nothing would be chrome plated. Cars would be pretty ugly.
Even the Model A Ford, which was the most utilitarian automobile ever, had concessions to aesthetics. It was painted black. It had chrome.
We naturally try to make things pretty, rather than efficient. People have to study efficiency to overcome that natural tendency. The Model A just looked right, black. People pay good money to get nice paint jobs on their cars, and are willing to pay extra to get exactly the color they want.
Another example is lights in our homes. Bare light bulbs are rare. You see them in closets, or other out of the way places. Why? Diffused light is "better". We can see a little more efficiently with diffuse light. But there is even more to it than that. Even if you just want a simple "candy tray" frosted glass light cover for your ceiling, you will find many different styles at the hardware store. Even the simplest ones will have decorative touches. And we hardly ever look at our ceilings!
When it gets to lamps, style is even more important. These light fixtures are in our line of vision constantly, so their design gets a lot more attention. We pick a lamp based almost entirely on its looks. Does it look nice? Will it look good with the sofa? (do we still like that sofa?) We may pick up a lamp that appeals to us, look at the price, and say to ourselves, "I like it, but I don't like it that much." Or, pick up a particularly attractive one and say "ooh. That's more than I was thinking of spending. But it's soooo pretty! It looks like it will shed good light, too.... I'll get it!"
Which is the correct way to assess the value of a lamp. A quick evaluation of how it will light an area, but a lot of thought given to how it looks. We will bring home the expensive but very pretty lamp with a sense of pride, and look at it with pleasure every day for a long time.
Which brings us back to the picture frame. A proper assessment of the value of a frame is how much you like looking at it. The framer can assess its practicality, (that is, will it hold the picture, securely, and will it protect the picture from damage) but only the buyer can decide if it is pleasant for them to look at.
In part two, I will examine why some people have so much trouble deciding if they enjoy looking at something.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
What's wrong with Kwanzaa
This is another one of those things that just keep people separated. Declaring a special "African-American" winter holiday casts Christmas as a "white people" holiday.
While most of the imagery and traditions associated with Christmas grew out of northern Europe and England, the event that Christmas celebrates, the birth of Christ, happened in Palestine.
And the death of Christ, which is why we celebrate his birth, was supposed to save ALL PEOPLE. Not just northern Europeans.
Some Kwanzaa promoters see Christmas not only as a "white people" holiday, but as part of the religion of the oppressors.
Hardly.
Most American slaves were Christian, but not because their owners forced it upon them. They learned Christianity from missionaries and other slaves. For most of them, it was a source of deep strength, which allowed them to keep their humanity, even in the worst situations.
Their ancestors were not Christian, but then, neither were anyone else's if you go back far enough. How far back do you go to claim Heritage?
There is also a subtle difference in modern Christianity as practiced by white Americans and by black Americans. The megachurches, million dollar televangelists, and hatemongers are predominantly a "white people" enterprise. The black brand of Christianity is more focused on local community and family. It's about uplifting the individual spirit, rather than saving the masses.
So, asking people to celebrate Kwanzaa instead of Christmas is rejecting generations of strong, faithful Christians to claim an artificial heritage based on a culture that was willing to sell their ancestors.
The Kwanzaa celebration itself is nice. It celebrates noble attributes. Add it to Christmas, if it has meaning for you. But, don't reject Christmas as a "white" holiday. It isn't.
.
While most of the imagery and traditions associated with Christmas grew out of northern Europe and England, the event that Christmas celebrates, the birth of Christ, happened in Palestine.
And the death of Christ, which is why we celebrate his birth, was supposed to save ALL PEOPLE. Not just northern Europeans.
Some Kwanzaa promoters see Christmas not only as a "white people" holiday, but as part of the religion of the oppressors.
Hardly.
Most American slaves were Christian, but not because their owners forced it upon them. They learned Christianity from missionaries and other slaves. For most of them, it was a source of deep strength, which allowed them to keep their humanity, even in the worst situations.
Their ancestors were not Christian, but then, neither were anyone else's if you go back far enough. How far back do you go to claim Heritage?
There is also a subtle difference in modern Christianity as practiced by white Americans and by black Americans. The megachurches, million dollar televangelists, and hatemongers are predominantly a "white people" enterprise. The black brand of Christianity is more focused on local community and family. It's about uplifting the individual spirit, rather than saving the masses.
So, asking people to celebrate Kwanzaa instead of Christmas is rejecting generations of strong, faithful Christians to claim an artificial heritage based on a culture that was willing to sell their ancestors.
The Kwanzaa celebration itself is nice. It celebrates noble attributes. Add it to Christmas, if it has meaning for you. But, don't reject Christmas as a "white" holiday. It isn't.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
