2D1S - not two girls, one cup, though you can if you want.

I was talking to a friend the other day about how BDSM situations work where there are two D-types (dominant), and one S-type (submissive).  She asked for my take on it, so here it is.  Keep in mind, I'm not the most experienced in this particular situation, so these are just my opinions and thoughts on it.

I think the best way to deal with a situation where there are two D-types is to, of course, communicate clearly between all parties before the scene occurs.  Clear communication will help to eliminate any issues with who's running the scene and who can do what when.

As for logistics, I think the best way to go about it is to have a top dom, and a bottom dom.  Essentially, the top dom gets to run the scene, and they both get to dom the sub.  This means that they 'move on' when the top dom says they do.  Of course, for safely, any participant can call off the scene at any time - usually you'd use a safeword or something similar here.  

As with any situation where you have more than two people involved in a scene, you want to be very very clear about the scene boundaries and individual boundaries and limits.  Some doms will be happy spit-roasting and high-fiving over the sub's head, others may be totally happy getting sexually involved with each other, and others will want the whole dynamic to centre around the sub.  All of these things are totally fine - as long as everyone is aware of what's going on and everyone consents to it.

I really do think that dealing with a situation of two doms is as simple as communication.  There aren't any secrets to any relationships or BDSM relationships - communication will fix most issues.  

Another note - subs need aftercare.  It's totally different for each sub, and it depends on the particular scene.  For me, for normal sex or a 'basic' scene, I like talking and cuddles.  I don't really like being left alone at the best of times, so the best thing to help me recover quickly is feeling important/loved.  Unlike some people, I can recover with no aftercare (so if I'm left alone, I will become 'normal' without outside influence), but it does take longer.  

A scene with two doms is probably going to be pretty intense for the sub, so aftercare is something you should discuss before the scene.  Remember, doms need aftercare too, so you need to come to a happy medium about who gets what care when, and make sure that everyone gets the aftercare they need.

S&M - Rihanna - my views

Okay, I've spent most of my Saturday morning watching the Rihanna video, and I've decided I have more to say.

Here's the video if you haven't seen it.

It seems that most people don't like it because it's 'too racy' and 'too close to pornography'.  

Rihanna has said about the video:  “S&M is not about sex, well it’s about metaphorical sex".  This sort of annoys me.  I think it's a huge misconception that people have about BDSM in general - that it's about sex.  For those of you who don't know, BDSM is a shorthand representation for bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism and masochism.  BDSM doesn't have to be about sex - sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't.  

For example, for me, sometimes spanking is sexual, and sometimes it's just a great bonding experience or stress relief.  The same goes for submission - sometimes it's about the power dynamic in a sexual relationship, but often times it's about putting the person I am submitting to first - thinking of him or her needs before my own.  The same goes for masochism (pleasure from receiving pain).  It doesn't have to necessarily be sexual pleasure, although often, it is.  A lot of people in BDSM scenes engage in power play/bondage/discipline without any sexual contact.

Besides, even if the video is about sex, what's the big deal?  Sex is natural, and just because BDSM is not something you're into doesn't mean it's not a legitimate thing that others can safely enjoy. 

There are two issues that I have with the video. 

At 0.42 seconds into the music video, a newspaper headline type thing scrolls across the screen saying 'Daddy issues?'.  

I think this gives the impression to viewers who don't know anything about BDSM that in order to be into 'chains and whips', you need to have some sort of sexual imbalance; that there must be something wrong with you.  This is totally the wrong impression to be giving.  Most people, kinky or not have some issues.  However, having an interest in BDSM doesn't mean that you have a warped view of sex; in fact, I would argue that people who are into power play and sadomasochism are aften much more sure about their likes, dislikes and limits than vanilla folk.  This is because it's so much more important when you're deal with kink; if you don't have limits and make them known, there is the risk of injury, so it's something you have to be very clear about in your head.  


The other issue is the world 'slut' which is written down by one of the reporters, and is plastered on her dress.  Just because you're into BDSM doesn't mean you sleep around or any of the other negative connotations that go along with the word slut.  Liking being spanked or tied up or dominated (or conversely, liking spanking people, tying people up or dominating them) doesn't make you a sexual devient, and it doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with you.

"Sexual deviancy", in my mind, involves non-consensual play - something that is frowned upon by the vast majority of the BDSM community.  Of course, there is such a kink as 'consensual non-consent', which is a different story all together (think forced sex, rape play, punishments), but because it's consensual, it's no longer deviancy.  

The second issue I have is at 2m 15s, you see Rihanna tied up on the floor, wearing a white polka dotted leotard and pastel shoes with her hair in pigtails.  

My issue isn't with the fact that she's tied up (although the rigging is mediocre at best), it's more the fact that she looks and is dressed so young.  I really, really hate the sexualisation of tweens - kids should be innocent.  Rihanna's target audience young adults (16-25ish), but the reality is that 10-15 year olds are still listening and watching her music and videos.  I think celebrities should be aware of the reality that while they sexualise themselves at whatever age they are, by dressing younger than they are (like in this case, Rihanna dressed and looking much more like a 14 year old than the 22 year old she is), they are sexualizing children.

I think it would have been totally different if she was wearing, say, a diaper, because any viewer would clearly be able to see at a glance that it's just play - she isn't a baby.  However, a quick glance, if you didn't know who the singer was, could give you the impression that the girl tied up actually was a 14 year old, and that's where the sexualisation is.




A video that I can more readily see an issue with is the video for Destination Unknown.

This video is clear sexualisation of women.  It is reducing women to a collection of body parts (ass, lips, legs, boobs).  Personally, it doesn't bother me at all; ass and boobs are amazing, and we should celebrate them.  However, I can see the other side of the argument that women are much more than just a body.  I do think that there's a hell of a lot more to argue about this video than S&M by Rihanna.

So I was talking to this guy...

The other night I had a conversation with a guy from Canada who has been in the BDSM scene for about 20 years.  He said some things that really made me think in a different way about submission and sex and relationships in general.

The first thing he said was: submission is voluntary, it rests on the choice to submit.
I really loved this statement.  He's right, submission is something you choose to do.  It might be something that you feel more or less inclined to do, but it's not like just because you feel inclined to submit that you go around submitting to everyone you see who feels like dominating you today.  In fact, I think it's hugely important be very picky about who you choose to submit to - even more so than the pickiness you should have when choosing who to have sex with.

I'm a pretty picky person at the best of times, but I'm even more picky about choosing partners that I will be involved with BDSM with than I am with normal sexual partners.  I think a lot of it, for me, anyway, is that I recognise the risks that are involved.  Potentially, this person could hit too hard or choke me too long - and cause permanent harm or death.  Trust is a huge thing for me, even in the early stages.

The next thing was: submission must lead the sub to do things they would otherwise not do.
This was something that really made me think.  It's true though; I'm not actually submitting if I'm doing something that I would be happy to do anyway.  But then I wonder - if I'm happy to do everything up to my hard limits, aren't I actually not submitting until I allow those hard limits to be broken?  Or is it enough that I'm doing something I wouldn't usually, even though it's not something I've say, never done before or something I wouldn't want to do?

The more I think about this idea, the less I tend to agree with it.  I can submit to someone else's will without doing something I wouldn't do at all otherwise.  The important thing is that I'm doing it because they want me to rather than because it's something I want to do right now.  It doesn't necessitate me doing something I absolutely don't want to do; it's more about doing things because it's what I've been ordered to do, rather than because it's what I want to do.

The next thing: the sub and dom are intimately linked roles, like a coin; two sides, but one coin.
I agreed with this.  He said: a dom is to serve the needs of a sub, who needs to submit and serve the needs of a dom. A sub needs to serve the needs of a dom, who needs to dominate and serve the needs of a sub.  This was an interesting perspective for me - it showed me that there really isn't that much difference between a sub and a dom - neither can exist without the other.  The coin metaphor illustrates to me how important it is not not necessarily settle for the first dom-type you find - that person has to fit with you and your lifestyle and what you want.  There's not a 'one sized fits all' when it comes to any relationship.

It's for that reason that I don't agree with generic sub or slave training - a sub or slave needs to tailor him or herself to what her dominant wants, rather than assume all D-types want the same thing out of their subs.  The D/s relationship should be something that evolves over time, and should be founded on communication.  Now, don't get me wrong - I have no problem with formality in a D/s relationship (like names, positioning and that sort of thing), but I don't think it's something that needs to be set in stone on the third date, or anything like that.  Evolution of relationships is the thing that allows them to withstand changes in people and environments - this is exactly why I think that contracts in BDSM relationships are the most stupid thing I've ever heard of.  I'll write about that another time, because it deserves a whole freaking blog to itself.

While I agreed with most of what this guy said, I did not agree with one thing.  We were talking about the power dynamic, and I mentioned how the power of dominance attracts me, but I'm concerned about being dominant myself because of the responsibility that goes along with it.  He said: 'Responsibility is an illusion. Why? Because of the voluntary nature of submission'.  He is of the school of thought that a sub is purely using the dominant as a tool to 'meet his need to submit', whereas I think there's more to that.  At least, there is to me.  There is trust and respect involved.  Maybe it's an old fashioned view, but I really think that a dominant has a responsibility to protect their sub, even if it's only to protect the sub from themselves.

I spoke earlier about potentially trusting my dom with my life; this is something that I don't take lightly, and it's something that I expect that he doesn't, either.  Luckily, that sort of issue is easy to overcome with communication. Isn't it funny how we keep coming back to that?

Let's talk about sex, baby

Okay, say you're interested in kink, but you've been involved with your partner for a couple of years, and until now, you've had a totally vanilla sex life. Maybe you're just interested in some relatively tame stuff; light spanking and wrist restraints. How do you bring this up with your partner?

I think that communication in relationships is super important. Lots of people overestimate how well their partner can pick up on their non-verbal cues, and this can lead to frustration, misunderstanding and resentment. At the same time, people are embarrassed about telling their significant other what they're thinking and feeling.

It is scary to bare your soul to someone. I'm not going to lie, it's terrifying. You face possible rejection and ridicule, and it's hard to take that first step. But if you don't take any steps, know that you're settling for less than what you could potentially experience.

I can never understand couples who can't talk about money or sex. They're both hugely important and can be deal-breakers. Imagine marrying someone, and 3 years later, finding out that they owe huge amounts of money. Imagine finding out when they declare bankruptcy. Isn't money something you should talk about and be upfront about? There are some conversations that you should have early in a relationship; I'm not talking on the first date, but within that first year:

• what's your personal money situation? How much do you owe, are you managing payments and what's your credit rating like?
• do you want kids? Are you prepared to negotiate?
• do you see yourself wanting to leave the country in the next 10 years?
• if you won lotto, how would you spend the money?

Seriously, those are important questions. The sex one is a bit sticky, I'll admit. Your sexual preferences and likes and dislikes develop throughout your life; what you like today may not be the same things you'll like five years from now. With that in mind, I think sex should be something that you touch base with your partner about often.

In my first major relationship, within an hour of sex, we would rate how we found it out of 10, and give each other one thing we loved and one thing we would like to try next time. It often sparked further conversations, and lead to some pretty amazing things that we tried on a whim. It was nothing serious, more like a game that we did, but it made a huge difference to the openness of our sexlife and how we felt to talk about it.

In my second major relationship, we had a box in the bedroom. Every week, we would each put at least one thing we would like to do in the box. They could be something totally new, or something we did before. Whenever we were in a bit of a rut, we would take turns pulling things out of the box to try. We each got to veto 3 things, which went back into the box, then we would do the first thing we could either both agree on, or the 6th thing out of the box. That was a really awesome way of making sex fun and exciting, and also a great way of introducing new things without having to feel weird about it.

I think that openness about sex gets easier as you do it more. If you never ever talk about sex, of course it's going to feel weird at first. You will feel self-conscious; hell, sometimes I feel self-conscious talking about sex!

I think the best thing to do is jump in and talk about it. A simple conversation of 'you know, I had a dream last night of you doing *** to me' can open up a whole new world. If you don't want to talk face to face, text, email, write a letter if you have to. Remember, if you're feeling self-conscious, chances are, your partner is too. Make the conversations short at first; and don't pressure them. But whatever you do, for the sake of your sex life, don't ever give up.

But I don't like it...

Someone asked me how I interact with people who are into kinky things that I'm not into. This sort of had me puzzled. How do I interact/get along with people who have different views from me? Well, first of all, I respect their choice, even if it's not something I agree with, then I treat them like a human being - sort of like how people in the real world do. Wait - we ARE in the real world!

I don't see how interactions between people with different sexual preferences makes that much of a difference. Just like in real life, there are some things that are deal-breakers. For example, I could not be friends with a person who doesn't respect women as people. I couldn't be in a relationship with someone who smokes; that's a deal-breaker for me. However, there are some things that I don't like, but that don't affect me. For example, I might not agree with someone's political views, but for me, that's not a deal-breaker, so I can still be friends with them. It's probably not something we're going to spend lots of time discussing, so it wont make too much difference in my everyday life.

The same goes with sexual stuff. A deal breaker for me would be someone who's into practicing bestiality (you'll note that this is distinguished from fantasising or role playing - those I don't have a problem with because they can be justified under SSC). Bestiality is a deal breaker for me, because I can't justify it under SSC. I could probably justify it as safe, if you used adequate protection and didn't involve an animal who is likely to kill you, but it's not sane to me as it's illegal, and I won't do anything illegal. It's also not consensual because you have an animal who cannot consent. There are other people who can, rightly or wrongly justify it. That's on them, but for me, it's not only something outside of what I'm comfortable with, but I think it's morally wrong. I couldn't be with a person who was into it.

However, there are some things that I'm not into sexually that aren't deal-breakers, much like my politics example. I'm not into permanent marks, piercing or anything similar - it is a hard limit. However, it doesn't bother me if my partner was into that, and, although I wouldn't be on the receiving end of it, I would participate if it was important to my partner.

There are a couple of reasons that this is different to bestiality, in my mind, at least.

• Consent is a huge thing for me - an animal cannot consent, therefore, SSC does not apply. People CAN consent, sanely to body modification, even it it's not something I'm into.
• Bestiality is illegal, body modification isn't. I can't see how it could be sane to do something illegal, and I can't see how you can consent to something illegal safely.
• To me, bestiality can signal lots of other things I'm not into - it's just not something I want to get involved in.
• I can see the appeal of the control aspect of body modification, there is no appeal at all to me of practicing bestiality.

So, what's my answer to the question of how I deal with people who are into things I'm not? With respect, the same way I would deal with anyone else in life who was into things that I'm not. Sorry I don't have a magic fix-all answer, but there's no simple solution. In order to know what you don't like in others, you first have to know what you don't like for you, and what you do like, and go from there.

What is 'safe, sane and consensual'?

After some discussion on twitter, IM and email, it has come to my attention that many people don't know what this phrase means in BDSM circles, so I thought I'd give you my take on it.

Basically, any kink/fetish is okay as long as it can be justified under all three categories of 'safe, sane and consensual'. So, as long as you are engaging in the act in a safe manner, you are sane (not under the influence of drugs/alcohol) while doing it, and you are doing it with fully consenting adults, your kink is reasonable. This of course, doesn't mean that what you're into is going to be liked or even respected by everyone; there are lots of people out there who think than safe, consensual bondage is totally wrong. For example, I'm not into needle play. But that doesn't mean that it's not safe for someone else - or even for me if I were to consent to it.

There is another, similar one; RACK - risk aware consensual kink. I think I like this one better because depending on the kink, it's not always possible to be totally, 100% safe, but you should be aware of the risks and do what you can to minimise them (ie, wear condoms, have a knife handy in case you can't undo the ropes etc).

This safe, sane, consensual/RACK mantra is pretty well known in the kink world, and I wonder why it isn't more widely followed in the vanilla world too. I can't help but think that sex would be much safer in general if people followed the same system. The other thing that's super important is that kink shouldn't be imposed on anyone who isn't into it. People should have the choice to be involved or not involved through consent, not by accident.

Of course, like in any other community, there are people in the kink world who don't follow the 'rules' - they go too far, or do things without the full consent of their partners. The good think about the community is that in lots of ways, it's a self-regulating community because it's reasonably small. News about people doing dangerous things in the community (be it failing to respect someone's limits, rape, going too far etc) travels. It's always a good idea to talk to people in the community to see if anyone's heard anything about the person you're interested in getting involved with. It's sort of like how you'd google a vanilla partner to make sure they weren't a freak, or married or whatever.

So, that said, SSC and RACK are good rules to live by, even if you're not into kink. The basis for both, and the basis you ideally would have in any relationship is communication - in kink/bdsm/dom-sub situations, this is even more important because you're potentially trusting this person with your life.

I do think that might be why relationships based on or including kink or bdsm particularly are so intense and often last the long haul; there is a whole lot of trust involved, and in order to get to a place where you're willing to put that much trust in a person, you need to have open lines of communication, especially mid-scene. That's where safewords, if you choose to use one, and non-verbal communication come into play. Non-verbal communication isn't something that you know straight away, that takes time. Just like you might know your vanilla partner had a bad day because of they way they walk, talk or cross their arms, you might know your dom is not comfortable through similar clues, or that your sub is not coping by listening to him or her breathe.

Just like there's no right or wrong way to have a friendship or vanilla relationship, there's no wrong way to have a kink/bdsm/sub-dom relationship either, however, it is pretty important that you make sure you stay safe, talk about what you're going to be doing and your limits, and make sure that everyone has actively consented.