Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Simple Negotiator

Hold onto your pearls, fraggles and sneetches, because my perspective on negotiations is rather...laissez faire, with both relationships and play partners. I'm not big on formality. Contracts have never been a thing I've had any desire to deal with.

I'm pretty amenable when it comes to negotiating. I toss out my list of nos, and anything else is pretty much fair game to try. If I encounter something I don't like or can't stand, I'll bring it up at the time. No harm no foul. I don't like to direct a scene too much, because I like to experience the style of the person topping me. You do you, and I'll bitch if and when I have a problem.

With relationships, I've never been that elaborate either. Again, I have my limit list, but I tend to gravitate towards the TPE/slave end of the spectrum. So, I'll go along with most things that don't cross my moral or psychological lines. I'm a chameleon s-type. I adapt to whatever is needed of me. I'm happy following the Captain's lead. I just usually ask that I be warned before something particularly unusual or taxing.


Usually I don't even think about safe words. I'm more likely to just express the problem I'm having at the time. I don't tend to go nonverbal very often. It's easier for me to grab the problem than a random word, but if the top is more comfortable with having one, I just say the streetlight system, but I've yet to actually use a safe word up to this point.

I can't account for every thing and I don't try to. Relationships are fluid. I figure in a good relationship, both parties are going to work to make things run smoothly. So, I've never felt the need to employ written negotiations. I just prefer to let things develop organically.

In a relationship, I just say "tell me what you want from me" and I will do my damnedest to figure out how to do that. If I can't, we'll talk about it.

With the right person, things just fall into place for me. I go with my gut. My gut is usually correct.

For being an anxiety-ridden mess, I'm pretty chill about negotiations.

My advice? Listen to your instincts. They can tell you a lot.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Intimacy, Aftercare, and Compartmentalization

I have been active in the local scene for roughly 7 years now. I've bottomed and topped. I've been in relationships. A few, anyway. However, typically I've not really bottomed for one of my owners at a party. So, all my play partners at parties have been platonic friendships.

I had to learn years ago to separate masochism from sex. I had a couple partners who only allowed me to play with women, and, being straight, this made it easy to compartmentalize masochism and sex as separate. They're still better together, but I can easily separate the two when necessary.

Aftercare in these situations usually just looks like a quick hug and maybe getting handed a water, and then wandering off. Things like cuddling and such don't really happen. Now, I'm definitely a cuddler. I enjoy that form of intimacy after playing, but it's really only something I've done with my owners. Because in private, the sequence is usually, play-sex-cuddles. That's not a feasible sequence of events for me at a party, especially with play partners.

I have OCD and a decent dose of physical paranoia. Being in the community has helped A LOOOOT with this issue. I no longer have a panic attack when acquaintances hug me, but many forms of what might be considered casual touch are extremely intimate for me. Voluntary physical affection is a huge sign of trust from me and I often express attraction through casual touching, as I generally avoid touching people altogether.

Because of this, cuddling is a rather intimate action for me. And while I would enjoy cuddles and pets after a scene, I wouldn't wish to obligate someone to a degree of intimacy we do not share. And I may not feel comfortable with what I see as very intimate acts either.

Being straight and monogamous has a lot to do with this as well. Most of my play partners have been women, and all of my platonic play partners (at least on the top side), regardless of gender, have been poly. I'm very careful about what degrees of intimacy I allow/request. I don't want to infringe on their relationships and I don't want to compromise my personal convictions.

I think I've confused the occasional top with my lack of need for aftercare. I can't really say I've subspaced more than a couple times in my life, so I don't really enter an altered state when I play. I go deeper with romantic partners because of the emotional connection and the sexual elements, but then I usually get what one might call "aftercare" because those are private situations.

Without that emotional and physical vulnerability, I either can't space or subconsciously won't allow myself to so I don't put myself or someone else in an awkward position. And, I'm sure it's only awkward in my brain, as those I've played with tend to be very affectionate people, but I've always been excruciatingly careful about allowing myself to be vulnerable around others.

In most situations, it's simply something I don't need, or at the very least, have divested myself of the need for it in platonic scening situations. Obviously, more intimate relationships have more of an emotional impact for me, so those can be a bit more complicated depending how deep down the rabbit hole we go.

Monday, February 19, 2018

Who Holds the Power?

This has been a topic I've addressed in the past, and I'm sure I'm going to repeat a few of those points in this post, but it's been a handful of years now, and I feel like writing about it again. There is a prevalent philosophy within the PE (Power Exchange) scene that the sub holds the true power in the relationship. I have never subscribed to this, and I think its detrimental to those who do.

I understand why this is such a popular belief. Submission/surrender is a vulnerable place to be. When you're tied up or at the mercy of someone physically stronger than you, it can be a dangerous place to be. The potential for damage is high, so it makes the s-type feel safer to think that they are somehow running the show.

But I think this idea that the s-type holds all the power comes from a very narrow perspective of what power actually is. Power is more than a yes or a no. It's more than the ability to impose limits. It's more than the ability to walk away. If that is how we measure power, then both parties would possess equal power. A d-type can say yes or no. A d-type can impose limits. A d-type can walk away. These things are not rights exclusive to one side of the slash. Excluding M/s and O/p situations where these rights have been negotiated away, both parties possess these manifestations of power.

But a dominant can't dom without someone to submit to them!
And neither can a submissive submit into a vacuum. There's a reason why the word exchange is part of the terminology. We're trading in types of power. There is never just one. To think that the s-type possesses all the power is very dismissive of the d-type in the equation, and ignorant of the types of power one can hold.

For instance, physical power. You can say no. You can walk away from a relationship, but when you're bound, your power is illusory at best. You're relying on the assumption that the d-type in question will acknowledge your perceived power if you decide to use it. Because they are in a position where they don't actually have to. You are the one in the vulnerable position. In that moment, the power of choice is theirs.

Another example is financial power. I'm not referring to findoms. But say one is in a situation where one partner provides the sole income or the primary income of a household. This can be either the d-type or the s-type, depending on the living situation. In such situations, one partner is dependent on the other for their financial security. That is a form of power. Your options of leaving are rather reduced if you have nowhere to go and no money to do so.

Then we have sexual power, and I don't mean orgasm control or denial, or chastity. That's control. We're talking about power. There are people who elicit certain responses in you. That primal urge. I remember past relationships where I was almost constantly aroused by the mere proximity of my partner. He had that kind of subconscious power over my body, and I don't know that he even realized it. That intense attraction is a form of power. The ability to influence behavior without any real effort.

The most potent, I think, is emotional power. It has a lasting effect, a grip that doesn't let go easily even after a relationship ends. Any relationship can lead to emotional entanglements that rarely leave us. I know my partners all held a certain power over me for a long time after they left. Certainly within the relationship as well. I cannot speak to the power I had over them, but I know what they had over me. My need to please them. My abject fear of upsetting them or making them feel bad in anyway. I thought about them constantly. Longed to be in their presence when we were apart. If that's not power, I don't know what is.

Power is more than just consent. It's more than limits. It's more than the ability to leave. Power is such a complex concept with so many manifestations. I can't conceive of a relationship--a healthy one, at any rate--where one partner holds all of the power. Relationships, kinky or vanilla, aren't one-way streets. There's give and take to everything, and I think that's beautiful.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

The Art of Seduction

A gift I painted for the domly type I'm attempting to seduce. Got to test it out last night too. I think he liked it.

Sinful Sunday