(I'll probably do several BRXX posts, this is one of them)
'Flashback' to Snoopy from Peanuts, confronted with a 'no dogs allowed' sign.
Yeah, like that.
Or the archetypal boys clubhouse with the 'no girls allowed' sign posted on the side.
Yeah, like that.
There are days when I'm just so sick of this shit.
No, I'm not going to be able to say all I'd like to, because much of what goes on in spaces like BRXX, even things like the schedule or who presented what are tucked behind the wall of the members area. (See the public schedule and list of presenters. This is all you got unless you registered.) But I'm going to speak somewhat generally about what I've had enough of.
In the workshops, one segment was geared towards "submissives", and another towards "switches" (apparently dominants didn't get a space of their own on the schedule.)
In the end, I attended neither of them, partially out of being told I wasn't welcome at one, but primarily out of disgust.
(I'm at a difficulty here, as I cannot quote the program/descriptions in full, to give full context. I don't like that, but basically, by the nature of the event itself, they've made it unnecessarily difficult to write what really needs to be said here. Most events at least post a list of workshop descriptions and who will be presenting them publicly, with BRXX it was all behind the wall of paid registration. Even the dungeon rules were behind the wall of registration, which made making the decision about whether or not to even attend in the first place tricky, as you don't know what exactly you're agreeing to until after you've registered. Certainly made me raise eyebrows at their notions of 'consent'. In essence, you don't know exactly what it is you're agreeing to be bound to until AFTER you've registered.)
The S/switches roundtable was listed as discussing various issues regarding switching and "misconceptions" about switches.
The submissives roundtable on the other hand was explicitly labeled as only for those who identify as "slave, sub, or bottom only"..."Sorry no tops or switches allowed".
So let's review-
* No space set aside for Dominants
* A space dealing with the topic of switching, more a discussion about switching and dealing with misconceptions about it, open to anyone far as I could tell.
* And finally (paraphrasing here) a "submissives only" kind of space, for an internal dialog amongst those who identify as purely that end of the 'spectrum'.
This is somewhat problematic from where I sit for lots of reasons.
Among other things, it means that someone who uses the word "submissive" to self identify EVEN IF THEY DECIDED THEY WERE SUBMISSIVE LAST WEEK/EVEN IF THEY HAVE NO EXPERIENCE IN THE REAL WORLD WHATSOEVER is allowed into the sub room, even as someone like me, who has spent the past 11 years in service, collared, living our version of 24-7, and wearing a locked on 'permanent' 'collar' of sorts about my wrist for the last year and half or so can't.
In my day to day existence I self-identify most clearly as Sir's property. But apparently my 'contaminating' S/switch influence would somehow infect their submissive "safe space". Yeah, this is a problem.
This is a problem in that in much of Queer Leather culture, anyway, Sirs and Masters usually began as slaves. One usually didn't tend to spring forth fully formed, a MASTER with whip in hand, at least not if one hoped to be recognized as such by a broader community. Nope, you began in service. Learning skills, being mentored, earning your leathers, and eventually in time with the support of those around you, and with community recognition of where one was headed, you transitioned into a position at the other end of the spectrum. At least, that was the (Queer) Leather community I once knew.
So any notion of a 'safe space' set apart from any tinge of dominance- brought in either by "tops" (to use their word) or "switches" is laughable from where I sit- or at least (possibly) an extremely heterocentrist view of things.
Both of which are made all the more ironic in light of the fact that person/'presenter' running the submissives' roundtable is not het identified and has made a living off being labeled/self labeling as "Old Guard". (A term in and of itself blog worthy.) One might think that this presenter would be uniquely qualified to undermine such assumptions about everyone in a room of 'slaves' would intrinsically evermore REMAIN on the 'slave' end of things, but no. Apparently not.
Saddest part of all this? By hanging the 'no switches allowed!' sign out, they turn away a wealth of experience and to put it bluntly insight. Yes, at times some insights born of having experience both ends of the whip, which leads to it's own understandings and explorations of empathy. But also the experiences and insights of those who have lived as 'slave, sub or bottom'.
And to be sure, I can't have been the only S/switch too discouraged and disgusted to even set foot in the place. That said, how prey tell, did they intend to ensure their 'pure zone' in the first place? I mean, what, asking everyone walking in the door 'you're not a ~SWITCH!~ are you?' DNA tests? Some kink equivalent of Kinsey scales to be filled out while connected to polygraphs? The mind boggles.
The main thing I walk away from this particular incident with a feeling of sadness. Sadness that the voices of those who have 'been there' and might actually have meaningful, perhaps even useful things to say are once again shut out out of prejudice. Our years of experiences are once again swept aside out of fear that a S/switch might somehow damage the intended 'purity' of a space. And that's everyone's loss. It's a community loss.
I wrote about that community loss back here, saying
"Thus I find myself talking with two sets of friends- would be mentors bemoan their lack of ability to find someone to pass on their skills, history, traditions and knowledge to, and those young in Leather, bemoaning their inability to find voices of experience."
Prejudice, specifically in this instance against S/switches is (one example of) exactly the kind of thing keeping these two sets of people apart. And I know we as a (much broader) 'community' could do better.
On a more personal note, the other side effect of what I carry away from this whole experience? The presenter running the submissives' space was one of the swaying reasons I had decided to go to BRXX in the first place, I wanted a chance to hear said presenter speak.
Worse, due to scheduling, the submissives' roundtable, (yes, something I was actually looking forward to- until I saw I was being told get the hell out) was going to be the only chance during the weekend to actually see anything they were presenting.
Now, on the back end of it, I feel no need to go out of my way to see this particular presenter at all. At some point, if it's convenient to me, at an event I'm already at, I may sit in- somewhere I'm allowed, if only to see firsthand what the hell went this wrong.
I slept in instead of going to the switch's segment. They weren't going to be gathering a mob with pitchforks and torches, ready to storm the castle (i.e. the 'submissives only space,) and educating ME about the misconceptions about S/switches ain't exactly the problem here. (Although the presenter for the submissives' roundtable probably belonged there more than they'll ever know.)
And I wasn't allowed in the submissives' roundtable, so that was that.
I went to a good 'how to' sort of workshop instead.
As a self identified Radical Feminist, can I understand the value in 'womyn only spaces' and similar? Yes. The feminist community went through its own, yet different version of this in terms of Lesbian only spaces and the 'contaminating influences' of heterosexual womyn.
The difference here is that some S/switches do live in their day to day as submissives, slaves, and bottoms, whereas heterosexual womyn don't in their day to day lives live as those who sleep with womyn- although some of us Bisexual Womyn do. Bisexuals like S/switches go through precisely this kind of being ostracised. Being both Bi and Switch, I can't help but feel like I've been here before.
I've fought these battles before. And damn it, while we get to learn over and over and over from everyone else's mistakes, those fucking us over never seem to learn. As I said, I'm sick of it.
Unfortunately, this can't be confined to just 'oh it was one presenter'. This was systemic in terms of Black Rose allowing the creation of such a space within its event. Glancing over the other workshops, this barring of people, even people who often identify as the very group the workshop was about stands out as rather unique. (Yes, ageplay- adults acting as "littles"- spaces often bar other adults entering without a "little" with them, but the adults in this senario are not people who sometimes self identify as "littles".)
I can understand asking Dominants not to attend, (or perhaps not participate in) a discussion by submissives for submissives about submission (although in watching they could potentially learn a great deal). But to tell S/switches, many of whom live our day to day lives primarily on the submissive end of things to 'get out and stay out' is just, well, bullshit. And Black Rose OKed that.
Had I been able to go, I would not have been there to discuss 'profound observations from the handle end of the whip'- those would have been off topic and out of place, it was simply neither the time nor the place for such. As a sometimes workshop moderator myself I can understand how easy it can be for someone to sidetrack a discussion, but rather than barring us premptively as a class, instead give us the chance, and then if there's a problem deal with individual behaviour (hint, this is where moderators MODERATE! Facilitators FACILITATE, and get back on track), don't deal with such by excluding a class of people.
Had I been allowed in, I would have been there to discuss the things submissives discuss. Believe it or not, just because I'm a S/swtich that doesn't mean I'm incapable of staying on topic.
And I sure as hell would not have been there to 'scope out the subs' for later hunting purposes. Although if that was the moderator's fear, barring S/switches isn't going to do a thing about the other 'sub/slave/bottoms' in the room who decide later that they're more interested in being the Dominant/Master/Top. In short people's identity often changes through time, and no amount of prejudice against people who self identify with a certain label is going to 'protect' anyone from someone else who once sat next to them in a workshop coming back at some later date with a different self identity or a different set of realizations about their identity or experiences under the belt.
So I guess you could say part of my Black Rose XX experience was in being told in no uncertain terms, from the organizational level down that I was unwelcome in one of the very spaces I was particularly interested in going to. I don't think most other attendees had that experience.
The sad things is it's ultimately a community loss.
I'm not saying this was my primary experience of the event, just that it was an important one, and one that left an impression.
I hope other people running events in the future will keep such in mind in their own planning.
Showing posts with label older writings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label older writings. Show all posts
Monday, December 17, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A rant that covers a lot of ground- getting things out of the way
This is another, older diary entry, from May '06;
Ok, so maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a freak.
I'm intentionally not posting the source for what's got me railing this morning, as it seems a common enough attitude amongst SOME of the modern leather people I keep stumbling across. No need to publicly shame the women interviewed or who wrote the piece that's got me all riled up, (let's face it, the interviewee in question is doing the best she can to find her own way, and has found her own measure of happiness, I don't begrudge her that.) So I’ll dispense with the descriptions, other than to say the woman who expressed sentiments similar to the following self identifies as a Het leather person, a submissive who was interviewed by another self described "leather chick", "leader" who writes a webpage some other pages syndicate from time to time. Thus I stumbled across the comments I’m about to paraphrase.
When a 'submissive' someone or other makes a statement along the lines of-
"In the mornings I get up and make coffee for (Dom's first name), prepare His breakfast, and serve Him. Once that's out of the way..."
Again, maybe I'm just a fossil, but am I missing something?
If any part of one's 'service', whether that's making and 'serving' breakfast, or the more general morning 'service' one performs to one's (collared in this case) Top/Dom/whatever is merely a thing to "Get out of the way" I guess I’ve got some serious questions.
Any form of 'service' as merely something to get done and over with? Phew- yeek! When did that happen? I must have missed the memo.
As a self described (S/)switch myself, let me be the first to assure all within ‘earshot’, if I'm serving my Sir (I'd never refer to him by his First name in that context!) or any other partner, I'm fully present in the moment, and not looking forward to 'getting that over with'. I'm not suffering through, looking forward to 'me time' at the other end of this crap I have to endure. I’m right there, in that moment, in that doing, and no matter whether it be ‘shit work’ or the most pleasurable duties imaginable, I’m not biding my time. And that is EXACTLY where I wish to be.
Furthermore, as a S/(s)witch, coming at it from the Domme side, if any 'submissive' comes to my life and my space with that kind of outlook, they've no business being mine. Period.
It’s the Leather equivalent of the vanilla, “Beige, I think I’m paint the ceiling beige” whist lying upon one’s back and ‘thinking of England’.
As should be clear by now, I'm not in any way saying this kind of ‘get it over and done with’ attitude is unique to the Het leather scene, just that that's where I've found much much more of it. I can only assume that perhaps some of the rigors of Queer Leather life, and some of the risks we face (by our mere existence) as Leather Queers shape us a bit differently. Our rare spaces are all the more valuable in that they are rare. Incredibly so for Leatherwomyn. Our ability to sexually be who we are is a hard fought battle, not something to try on for size, or 'play' with.
When I came to Leather, it was the 'work', Tools, not toys. As there was always risk not merely involved, but at the forefront of our minds, this was nothing one took lightly. Perhaps we came to our Leather identities despite the risks, as we could no longer live in ways that denied our deepest selves, it was compelling to live out that truth, and was not confined to bedroom behaviours, it was who and what we were. Certainly some in the Het scene live this too, but for others, I grow concerned. Drive, Passion, and the demand to let our truth live out our lives sometimes seems absent. And yes, that absence can also be apparent in the Queer crowd.
Still, it takes a certain something to find the hidden places on the bad side of town, show that you are worthy of an invite, and show that willingness to learn, and can and will behave properly when you finally reach that dimly lit Shangri-la. These are acts of need, and it is a vetting process of sorts, something unimaginable to those who look for the next munch on the local leather calendar and show up having read ‘the books’ and thinking they know, and thus don’t need to sit quietly and watch. ‘Net know’ is worlds apart from knowing. Knowing comes borne of risk and threat, and trust and honour. Consequences were always just around the next corner. And in an age when communications were so incredibly different, finding a kindred spirit was a rare and wondrous thing, never to be taken for granted.
Yeah, and no doubt we walked uphill both ways through a foot of snow to and from the Leatherspace.
Well some did, but they did so before my time, so I was fortunate enough to be able to walk in their footprints. Some in today's 'scene' deny there ever were footprints, much less that there could possibly be any value or worth in following such. For all the lip service the Leather Archives gets in Het-land, I don't see the same understanding of it from Het Leatherpeople.
So here I sit, a Bi, S/(s)witch Leatherwomyn, collared to her Sir. Confused yet? I'm not. I know exactly where I stand.
Unfortunately, where I stand is outside many structures, and with this further devaluing (my judgement, my journal, my opinion- deal) I keep running across, I feel distant and often repulsed by what passes for today's Leatherculture. And I'm not the only one. Other folks who have been around for a while, some may notice, are not 'around' so much anymore. And that's a damn shame, considering that as this devaluing continues to slide, people who remember ways it 'used to be' are in many ways more in demand than ever. The constant drumbeat for 'leaders' for 'mentors' and this odd fascination with romanticized notions and mythologies of 'old guard' are all just expressions of yearning. Yearning to be a part of a tradition, to know you're not alone, others have tread this path before, and that yes, since S/m has many genuine risks to it, both technical and societal, you're not completely alone out there working 'without a net'. To both good and ill, this then gains expression through both institutionalization and shared notions of 'common rules' which in some cases were never intended to be such.
Take, for example, a (somewhat changing) set of rules that were scrawled off for play parties at science fiction conventions (back in the day). These were specifically designed for the kinds of venues they would be used in, and among that particular subset of the broader 'scene' for the duration of certain specific events- cons. Yet over time, as many Het couples got their first in person introduction to the scene by way of those parties, when they began throwing their own parties, the rules migrated along with them. Few revisions were made to suit the new venues and subsets of the community, instead, the hastily scrawled off rules became regarded as community norms. It's not dissimilar to a game of telephone, played out in fetishwear. The 'rules' which were never THE RULES, became THE RULES to the exclusion of all else. What people miss is that THE RULES were jotted down, perhaps on something as simple as a napkin back over a meal with friends. They were written by people looking at a situation- one which had certain legal parameters.
The idea of other people coming up with other guidelines that more aptly fit their circumstances has become verboten, as now messing with the 'sacred texts' has become tantamount to stepping beyond the parameters of community standards. It's weird as hell to watch recent marketing slogans that we aimed at external, non-kinky culture like "safe, sane, and consensual" become not only THE LAW, but also something many now demand we hold one another, internal to Leatherculture to- always forgetting that some of us were Leatherfolk, tormenting pretty girls long before their precious LAW had even been dreamed up.
So what does this all have to do with little miss 'once that's over with'? Something's getting lost. Or maybe it already got lost.
Call it gut, but something has been lost, when I now watch people writing online about how you must NEVER play with anyone who 'manipulates you', or makes you feel 'out of control'. I don't even recognize this new 'leather' scene. Some of us just find such notions outright laughable. Feeling, ‘manipulated’ or ‘out of control’ may not merely be the hottest and wettest for some people, it may well be THE POINT!
So the 'mentors' new Leather craves so desperately just stop showing up to events. In part, because we don't need flogging 101 for the 150th time. But also for the deeper reasons, we simply have no idea how to function in a world where 'submissives' expect their 'Dommes' to e-mail them a week before the 'date' with an outline, detailing every aspect of what a 'scene' will look like, so the 'subbie' in question can shop around to get exactly what they want. (Real example here folks.)
Another reason some of us are disappearing is a simple logistical one. I may be collared by a man, but that does not mean we are a Het couple, and when I choose to be with a womyn, I'm immediately written off as being contaminated by the man in my life. There are few spaces that accept the realities of the fluidity of some of our sexualities. Simplistic breakdowns by gender or by what sex or gender one's partner may be, or may be playing don't work for some of us. And we need spaces that reflect those realities.
As an artist, I sometimes talk about ‘art that needs an manual’, if it takes 300 pages to explain it to the average person, mostly written in ‘art-speak-ese’, my guess is the piece has failed to communicate. (Hah! Get a load of the length of this diary!) Venues for Leather communities can likewise, fail under the weight of the manuals required to sort out the who’s who and who’s doing what, and what do we think of that? This is some of why many elders have retreated into Leather families, Leather houses, and private clubs, most Leather scene-sters will never even realize are there. We don’t want manuals or to have to ask permission to love who and how we do, not from the outside world, and doubly so from whatever passes for our chosen ‘community’.
The stark realities of pre-net and post-net Leatherpeople and our cultural ‘norms’, sometimes feel insurmountable. Ultimately, it’s a loss to both, those recent, and those elders. Despite the divisions, both real and artificial, we need one another. That is the real travesty here. To people like myself “Leather service” alongside “once that's out of the way..." are simply unimaginable. But my guess is, the Leatherworld I inhabit may be equally unfathomable to the woman in question. Yes we each have found our happinesses. But when the interweave of generations in a shared culture (if we still have one) is torn, the loss is great. Thus I find myself talking with two sets of friends- would be mentors bemoan their lack of ability to find someone to pass on their skills, history, traditions and knowledge to, and those young in Leather, bemoaning their inability to find voices of experience.
To restore some of our voices to the 'community' the 'bad' news (for some) is that some venues (not all) are going to have be a bit more complicated- places where you won't be able to tell what's going on by merely looking as visual cues like gender or even preconceptions. 'Scorecards' may practically become 'necessary', (as if they weren’t already? Fear not, I'm only joking, most of already have our hands quite full, thank you!)The 'good' news, though, is that if there are spaces in which we can be ourselves, I'm guessing some folks would gladly come back. We too feel a desire to pass on our knowledge, Some feel drawn to being ‘voices of the old ways’, yet feel stifled by rigid compartmentalized subsets of 'community' in terms of spaces and what they feel they can comfortably say and do. No I’m not talking merely spaces friendly to genders in different arrangements, I’m talking about spaces in which not adhering to the magic incantation ‘safe sane and consensual’ is not grounds for gathering up the villagers, lighting torches, and a mob making its way up toward the strange dark house on the hill where the ‘monster’ lives.
The other good news, is that for some of us, this is Leather is our lives, it's damn real, and we don't live anywhere where getting any of this, even a single moment of it 'out of the way' ever crosses our minds, mid-service or otherwise.
Getting some dirty laundry "out of the way"
Ok, so maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a freak.
I'm intentionally not posting the source for what's got me railing this morning, as it seems a common enough attitude amongst SOME of the modern leather people I keep stumbling across. No need to publicly shame the women interviewed or who wrote the piece that's got me all riled up, (let's face it, the interviewee in question is doing the best she can to find her own way, and has found her own measure of happiness, I don't begrudge her that.) So I’ll dispense with the descriptions, other than to say the woman who expressed sentiments similar to the following self identifies as a Het leather person, a submissive who was interviewed by another self described "leather chick", "leader" who writes a webpage some other pages syndicate from time to time. Thus I stumbled across the comments I’m about to paraphrase.
When a 'submissive' someone or other makes a statement along the lines of-
"In the mornings I get up and make coffee for (Dom's first name), prepare His breakfast, and serve Him. Once that's out of the way..."
Again, maybe I'm just a fossil, but am I missing something?
If any part of one's 'service', whether that's making and 'serving' breakfast, or the more general morning 'service' one performs to one's (collared in this case) Top/Dom/whatever is merely a thing to "Get out of the way" I guess I’ve got some serious questions.
Any form of 'service' as merely something to get done and over with? Phew- yeek! When did that happen? I must have missed the memo.
As a self described (S/)switch myself, let me be the first to assure all within ‘earshot’, if I'm serving my Sir (I'd never refer to him by his First name in that context!) or any other partner, I'm fully present in the moment, and not looking forward to 'getting that over with'. I'm not suffering through, looking forward to 'me time' at the other end of this crap I have to endure. I’m right there, in that moment, in that doing, and no matter whether it be ‘shit work’ or the most pleasurable duties imaginable, I’m not biding my time. And that is EXACTLY where I wish to be.
Furthermore, as a S/(s)witch, coming at it from the Domme side, if any 'submissive' comes to my life and my space with that kind of outlook, they've no business being mine. Period.
It’s the Leather equivalent of the vanilla, “Beige, I think I’m paint the ceiling beige” whist lying upon one’s back and ‘thinking of England’.
As should be clear by now, I'm not in any way saying this kind of ‘get it over and done with’ attitude is unique to the Het leather scene, just that that's where I've found much much more of it. I can only assume that perhaps some of the rigors of Queer Leather life, and some of the risks we face (by our mere existence) as Leather Queers shape us a bit differently. Our rare spaces are all the more valuable in that they are rare. Incredibly so for Leatherwomyn. Our ability to sexually be who we are is a hard fought battle, not something to try on for size, or 'play' with.
When I came to Leather, it was the 'work', Tools, not toys. As there was always risk not merely involved, but at the forefront of our minds, this was nothing one took lightly. Perhaps we came to our Leather identities despite the risks, as we could no longer live in ways that denied our deepest selves, it was compelling to live out that truth, and was not confined to bedroom behaviours, it was who and what we were. Certainly some in the Het scene live this too, but for others, I grow concerned. Drive, Passion, and the demand to let our truth live out our lives sometimes seems absent. And yes, that absence can also be apparent in the Queer crowd.
Still, it takes a certain something to find the hidden places on the bad side of town, show that you are worthy of an invite, and show that willingness to learn, and can and will behave properly when you finally reach that dimly lit Shangri-la. These are acts of need, and it is a vetting process of sorts, something unimaginable to those who look for the next munch on the local leather calendar and show up having read ‘the books’ and thinking they know, and thus don’t need to sit quietly and watch. ‘Net know’ is worlds apart from knowing. Knowing comes borne of risk and threat, and trust and honour. Consequences were always just around the next corner. And in an age when communications were so incredibly different, finding a kindred spirit was a rare and wondrous thing, never to be taken for granted.
Yeah, and no doubt we walked uphill both ways through a foot of snow to and from the Leatherspace.
Well some did, but they did so before my time, so I was fortunate enough to be able to walk in their footprints. Some in today's 'scene' deny there ever were footprints, much less that there could possibly be any value or worth in following such. For all the lip service the Leather Archives gets in Het-land, I don't see the same understanding of it from Het Leatherpeople.
So here I sit, a Bi, S/(s)witch Leatherwomyn, collared to her Sir. Confused yet? I'm not. I know exactly where I stand.
Unfortunately, where I stand is outside many structures, and with this further devaluing (my judgement, my journal, my opinion- deal) I keep running across, I feel distant and often repulsed by what passes for today's Leatherculture. And I'm not the only one. Other folks who have been around for a while, some may notice, are not 'around' so much anymore. And that's a damn shame, considering that as this devaluing continues to slide, people who remember ways it 'used to be' are in many ways more in demand than ever. The constant drumbeat for 'leaders' for 'mentors' and this odd fascination with romanticized notions and mythologies of 'old guard' are all just expressions of yearning. Yearning to be a part of a tradition, to know you're not alone, others have tread this path before, and that yes, since S/m has many genuine risks to it, both technical and societal, you're not completely alone out there working 'without a net'. To both good and ill, this then gains expression through both institutionalization and shared notions of 'common rules' which in some cases were never intended to be such.
Take, for example, a (somewhat changing) set of rules that were scrawled off for play parties at science fiction conventions (back in the day). These were specifically designed for the kinds of venues they would be used in, and among that particular subset of the broader 'scene' for the duration of certain specific events- cons. Yet over time, as many Het couples got their first in person introduction to the scene by way of those parties, when they began throwing their own parties, the rules migrated along with them. Few revisions were made to suit the new venues and subsets of the community, instead, the hastily scrawled off rules became regarded as community norms. It's not dissimilar to a game of telephone, played out in fetishwear. The 'rules' which were never THE RULES, became THE RULES to the exclusion of all else. What people miss is that THE RULES were jotted down, perhaps on something as simple as a napkin back over a meal with friends. They were written by people looking at a situation- one which had certain legal parameters.
The idea of other people coming up with other guidelines that more aptly fit their circumstances has become verboten, as now messing with the 'sacred texts' has become tantamount to stepping beyond the parameters of community standards. It's weird as hell to watch recent marketing slogans that we aimed at external, non-kinky culture like "safe, sane, and consensual" become not only THE LAW, but also something many now demand we hold one another, internal to Leatherculture to- always forgetting that some of us were Leatherfolk, tormenting pretty girls long before their precious LAW had even been dreamed up.
So what does this all have to do with little miss 'once that's over with'? Something's getting lost. Or maybe it already got lost.
Call it gut, but something has been lost, when I now watch people writing online about how you must NEVER play with anyone who 'manipulates you', or makes you feel 'out of control'. I don't even recognize this new 'leather' scene. Some of us just find such notions outright laughable. Feeling, ‘manipulated’ or ‘out of control’ may not merely be the hottest and wettest for some people, it may well be THE POINT!
So the 'mentors' new Leather craves so desperately just stop showing up to events. In part, because we don't need flogging 101 for the 150th time. But also for the deeper reasons, we simply have no idea how to function in a world where 'submissives' expect their 'Dommes' to e-mail them a week before the 'date' with an outline, detailing every aspect of what a 'scene' will look like, so the 'subbie' in question can shop around to get exactly what they want. (Real example here folks.)
Another reason some of us are disappearing is a simple logistical one. I may be collared by a man, but that does not mean we are a Het couple, and when I choose to be with a womyn, I'm immediately written off as being contaminated by the man in my life. There are few spaces that accept the realities of the fluidity of some of our sexualities. Simplistic breakdowns by gender or by what sex or gender one's partner may be, or may be playing don't work for some of us. And we need spaces that reflect those realities.
As an artist, I sometimes talk about ‘art that needs an manual’, if it takes 300 pages to explain it to the average person, mostly written in ‘art-speak-ese’, my guess is the piece has failed to communicate. (Hah! Get a load of the length of this diary!) Venues for Leather communities can likewise, fail under the weight of the manuals required to sort out the who’s who and who’s doing what, and what do we think of that? This is some of why many elders have retreated into Leather families, Leather houses, and private clubs, most Leather scene-sters will never even realize are there. We don’t want manuals or to have to ask permission to love who and how we do, not from the outside world, and doubly so from whatever passes for our chosen ‘community’.
The stark realities of pre-net and post-net Leatherpeople and our cultural ‘norms’, sometimes feel insurmountable. Ultimately, it’s a loss to both, those recent, and those elders. Despite the divisions, both real and artificial, we need one another. That is the real travesty here. To people like myself “Leather service” alongside “once that's out of the way..." are simply unimaginable. But my guess is, the Leatherworld I inhabit may be equally unfathomable to the woman in question. Yes we each have found our happinesses. But when the interweave of generations in a shared culture (if we still have one) is torn, the loss is great. Thus I find myself talking with two sets of friends- would be mentors bemoan their lack of ability to find someone to pass on their skills, history, traditions and knowledge to, and those young in Leather, bemoaning their inability to find voices of experience.
To restore some of our voices to the 'community' the 'bad' news (for some) is that some venues (not all) are going to have be a bit more complicated- places where you won't be able to tell what's going on by merely looking as visual cues like gender or even preconceptions. 'Scorecards' may practically become 'necessary', (as if they weren’t already? Fear not, I'm only joking, most of already have our hands quite full, thank you!)The 'good' news, though, is that if there are spaces in which we can be ourselves, I'm guessing some folks would gladly come back. We too feel a desire to pass on our knowledge, Some feel drawn to being ‘voices of the old ways’, yet feel stifled by rigid compartmentalized subsets of 'community' in terms of spaces and what they feel they can comfortably say and do. No I’m not talking merely spaces friendly to genders in different arrangements, I’m talking about spaces in which not adhering to the magic incantation ‘safe sane and consensual’ is not grounds for gathering up the villagers, lighting torches, and a mob making its way up toward the strange dark house on the hill where the ‘monster’ lives.
The other good news, is that for some of us, this is Leather is our lives, it's damn real, and we don't live anywhere where getting any of this, even a single moment of it 'out of the way' ever crosses our minds, mid-service or otherwise.
A post on ending Leather relationships
Recently, on an e-mail list, there was a question about ending Leather relationships and what happens to symbols, tools, and collars. The following is what I wrote in response.
***
I'll speak to some of how I was taught by friends in the midwest in the mid to late 80's about how we tried to conduct our relationships and how one relates to tokens and tools, particularly when relationships come to a close. These are just some of how I learned and some of how I (personally, speaking as a switch) have structured my own relationships. A lot of how I deal with tools and objects at an end has everything to do with how we related to the objects and the meanings we imbued them with throughout the course of the relationship.
First and foremost, I was taught was that how a Leatherperson conducts their personal affairs reflects deeply on them, and so just as one would enter into a relationship with honesty, forthrightness, and no hidden motives, ideally the same should be able to be said (again, *ideally*, anyway) of drawing one's relationships to a close if that time comes. Just as we negotiate a beginning, so too, must we sometimes negotiate an end- in good faith, honestly, articulately, and without hidden motives. Ending as civilly as possible is about many things, not merely maintaining a reference of sorts. I think it says a lot about a person, and about how they care/cared for their partner through the relationship to end it as civilly as possible.
When that's not possible, well, do the best one can to end it as civilly as possible- while still standing firm on what one's genuine needs are. There are some things that genuinely cannot be budged on without loosing parts of oneself, and on those things holding firm may be the civil thing one can do.Maintaining one's self respect is important as well, because even after the relationship is long gone, you still have to look yourself in the mirror in the morning. At the end of the day, it's you you have to live with.
One of the key qualities of a Leatherperson was that he or she kept their word. If they said it, they did it. This applies, doubly so perhaps, to when 'the going gets tough'. How one ends a relationship, and whether or not one 'does right' by the other person, not to the exclusion of self, but to their word and to the extent they can is a measure of a person. Do you bend over backwards for an abuser, no. Emphatically, NO. Here, I'm talking about situations where both parties did what they could, an honest attempt, it didn't work out, and now it's time to do something else. Being adult about it is important.
Reputation was an important aspect of Leatherlife in the community I was a part of back then (it still is to me), and so being a person of your word was very important. That also meant knowing when to say no, and when to turn things down, even if the other person was going to be unhappy, because it was better to say no at the outset rather than say yes, and then try to back out later.
Another aspect of reputation and respect meant not gossiping or badmouthing about one's ex after it was over.
Genuinely giving honest answers if asked about them? Say what needs to be said, but don't editorialize or badmouth, stick to the facts. If asked your opinion, make it clear that it's your opinion, give a very short summary, (sentence or two, unless there's pertinent safety information and you're being asked for a recommendation for example. Make it clear that that was at that time, x number of years ago, and the other person may have learned new skills, etc in the intervening x years) and leave it at that.
As for tools and other Leather symbols from the relationship? Being switch myself, I've some experience from both ends.
I was taught (and maintain in relationships that I have had) that the collar belongs to the Dominant/Top/Sir/Mistress (whatever term one uses, I'll just use "D" in this as a shorthand) as it is their property and extended to their submissive/bottom/girl or boy/plaything (whatever term one uses, I'll just use "s" in this as a shorthand) as a symbol of their relationship to the D.
Which was always predicated upon really 3 things-
1. that the D in the relationship had chosen/procured/and extended the collar for/to the s in the first place
2. that the symbolism of the collar initially had to do with coming under ownership or protection of said D- which carried with it the idea that the D was taking responsibility for that s and that the D's collar was an outward, external symbol and reminder of that.
3. and finally, that the collar, similar to other leathers also falls under a rule I was taught- that if a D puts a piece of leather on their s, the s is not to remove it until the D removes it or gives permission or instruction for when and how it is to be taken off.
As the collar was chosen, procured, in some cases even designed by the D, and then extended to the s as a symbol of those reciprocal aspects of the relationship (that of the s being owned, and coming under the D's protection and responsibility), the collar was never viewed as being "owned" by the s. It was a privilege to wear the collar of a Dominant (never "their" Dominant as the possessive term wasn't used in relation to the Dominant who owned/owns one). It was a privilege that could also be taken away at any time, although that would be considered a pretty severe measure and potentially signaling the end of a relationship.
I was also taught that while a D may remove (their) collar at any time, the s could not remove it without permission. (See point 3 above.) So if an s wanted the collar removed, or more broadly out of the relationship, it was their responsibility to ask the collar be removed or permission to remove it, which also, had the implication of either loss of privilege, end of ownership, and potentially end of the relationship.
I have known a few couples who have at one time or another set a collar aside for a time, and then at a later time returned a collar. Not wearing the collar didn't mean the end of the relationship, but it certainly indicated vast changes in the structure of the relationship, and in at least one case a massive renegotiation and fundamental changes prior to wearing the collar again. I even know of one couple who had one collar for a period of time, another period of their relationship without a collar, and then a third period which was marked by 'retiring' the initial collar and procuring a second collar, as a way of saying this is not the same relationship they had, but was something new and different, based on a completely renegotiated relationship that started from as close to 'scratch' as possible.
In any case, I was taught the collar always went back to its owner, (the D). The one (often unstated) 'rule' in that though, was that as each collar was unique to the individual who wore it, each collar represented a particular relationship, and thus the now empty collar was never to be 'recycled' or worn by others.
A lot of these ideas related to collars of a somewhat different era, though, deeply personal collars that were custom pieces, often made by a D themselves, or by a club or bar artisan at the request of a specific person for a specific person. I'm not saying today's collars AREN'T, I'm just saying these ideas came from a specific time.
Piercing rings, bars, etc (a more recent issue in relationship endings) again, has everything to do with how the people involved related to them through the course of a relationship. If at the time of the piercing it was made clear that these were ownership rings, and symbols of the D, then at the relationship's close, I feel they are within their rights to ask their tokens back. Sure, you keep the piercings themselves, but if the rings were symbols of a particular person 'returning' them can be a very visceral symbol of ending. (Buying yourself your own set of rings and placing them in the holes can also be damn liberating/symbolic of 'self ownership'.)
Other Leathers; jackets, vests etc, were often 'earned' so they went with the s, as they had earned them. (There are a few exceptions, but they related to exceptional circumstances.) What I was taught was that when one started out as a s, you were entitled to your own boots, belt, denim, and in some communities vest. Everything else, jacket, chaps, armbands whatever, were either
A. explicitly gifts (now owned by the s)
B. earned (through special service to the community or the D, or through undergoing an ordeal and coming back changed)
C. or the D's property placed upon you and not to be removed until they took them off.
At the conclusion of a relationship, the D could take back what pieces of theirs they put on you, but pieces you had earned or that were gifts you could take with you. That's part of why it was important to understand when a piece of leather was being put on you at any point in the relationship whether it was the D's (thus their mark or symbol on you) , a gift that was yours to keep, or earned. Some of the more 'ritualized' aspects relating to Leathers themselves were about making it clear what the nature of the item you were being given, or being placed upon you was.
As for whips and other implements, I learned these were always the responsibility and property of the D- unless they were things you entered the relationship with (anything you came with, you could take).
Any tool that 'tasted blood' was completely unique to an individual s- and upon a relationship ended, they stayed with the D- never to be used again, not unlike the collar.
What this means as a practical matter is that just as I have love letters and other 'artifacts' from previous relationships, I have my ex's collar, and several tools that will never again be used on anyone.
As for whether such tools and symbols are kept individually, or shared immediately or eventually through places like the Leather Archives and Museum (http://www.leatherarchives.org/ ), or even burned as a means of symbolizing the release and end, these are all things to think about and perhaps even write into contracts preferably long BEFORE any end comes.
The other HUGE factors sitting in the middle of relationship endings, (that could take books, far more than any single e-mail post), are both the emotional dependency and loss an s feels at the end, upon no longer having that particular D in their lives, and the concrete 'real life' losses this can mean- i.e. lack of ownership of property or lack of their own credit rating, or retirement funds, etc those kinds of things that may or may not be 'side effects' of a relationship. In short the things that had they not been in a particular relationship they might otherwise have had.
(I haven't even touched on children in the middle of relationships, nor am I going to here, but it is something to think about now, BEFORE the possibility of a relationship end.)
The emotional isolation is a somewhat unique facet of our lives, and no number of friends etc can stand in for that now empty space where a D once was. That said, having a support network, and not being cut off from other friends etc in the first place is something to build into the life of any s- LONG before a break up. (This can also help prevent the s jumping at whatever 'next' D appears in their lives, just to fill that emptiness.)
As for the real world parts, caring about one's s during the relationship also means caring about one's s if the relationship should end. This means ensuring that while they may be owned, they aren't going to be left homeless and penniless at the end of two decades. It means real world things like a credit rating, like helping build 'real world skills' in addition to learning proper tea service. Etc.
As for those of us living the s end of the equation? It means no matter how in love we are, no matter how much we trust, we still make sure that we're not going to be completely out in the cold should the bad day ever come. That yes, we will still have friends, we will still be able to earn a living and rent a place of our own if need be, etc.
Even if we're so fortunate as to 'never break up', we may find ourselves responsible for the care of a longterm incapacitated D, or face the possibility of our beloved passing before we do. Not being useless, completely alone, or stuck is part of what need to take care of, now, in the day to day, not later.
(That's more than I expected to write, but it seems like the kinds of things I don't often hear passed along verbally or see in books.)
***
I'll speak to some of how I was taught by friends in the midwest in the mid to late 80's about how we tried to conduct our relationships and how one relates to tokens and tools, particularly when relationships come to a close. These are just some of how I learned and some of how I (personally, speaking as a switch) have structured my own relationships. A lot of how I deal with tools and objects at an end has everything to do with how we related to the objects and the meanings we imbued them with throughout the course of the relationship.
First and foremost, I was taught was that how a Leatherperson conducts their personal affairs reflects deeply on them, and so just as one would enter into a relationship with honesty, forthrightness, and no hidden motives, ideally the same should be able to be said (again, *ideally*, anyway) of drawing one's relationships to a close if that time comes. Just as we negotiate a beginning, so too, must we sometimes negotiate an end- in good faith, honestly, articulately, and without hidden motives. Ending as civilly as possible is about many things, not merely maintaining a reference of sorts. I think it says a lot about a person, and about how they care/cared for their partner through the relationship to end it as civilly as possible.
When that's not possible, well, do the best one can to end it as civilly as possible- while still standing firm on what one's genuine needs are. There are some things that genuinely cannot be budged on without loosing parts of oneself, and on those things holding firm may be the civil thing one can do.Maintaining one's self respect is important as well, because even after the relationship is long gone, you still have to look yourself in the mirror in the morning. At the end of the day, it's you you have to live with.
One of the key qualities of a Leatherperson was that he or she kept their word. If they said it, they did it. This applies, doubly so perhaps, to when 'the going gets tough'. How one ends a relationship, and whether or not one 'does right' by the other person, not to the exclusion of self, but to their word and to the extent they can is a measure of a person. Do you bend over backwards for an abuser, no. Emphatically, NO. Here, I'm talking about situations where both parties did what they could, an honest attempt, it didn't work out, and now it's time to do something else. Being adult about it is important.
Reputation was an important aspect of Leatherlife in the community I was a part of back then (it still is to me), and so being a person of your word was very important. That also meant knowing when to say no, and when to turn things down, even if the other person was going to be unhappy, because it was better to say no at the outset rather than say yes, and then try to back out later.
Another aspect of reputation and respect meant not gossiping or badmouthing about one's ex after it was over.
Genuinely giving honest answers if asked about them? Say what needs to be said, but don't editorialize or badmouth, stick to the facts. If asked your opinion, make it clear that it's your opinion, give a very short summary, (sentence or two, unless there's pertinent safety information and you're being asked for a recommendation for example. Make it clear that that was at that time, x number of years ago, and the other person may have learned new skills, etc in the intervening x years) and leave it at that.
As for tools and other Leather symbols from the relationship? Being switch myself, I've some experience from both ends.
I was taught (and maintain in relationships that I have had) that the collar belongs to the Dominant/Top/Sir/Mistress (whatever term one uses, I'll just use "D" in this as a shorthand) as it is their property and extended to their submissive/bottom/girl or boy/plaything (whatever term one uses, I'll just use "s" in this as a shorthand) as a symbol of their relationship to the D.
Which was always predicated upon really 3 things-
1. that the D in the relationship had chosen/procured/and extended the collar for/to the s in the first place
2. that the symbolism of the collar initially had to do with coming under ownership or protection of said D- which carried with it the idea that the D was taking responsibility for that s and that the D's collar was an outward, external symbol and reminder of that.
3. and finally, that the collar, similar to other leathers also falls under a rule I was taught- that if a D puts a piece of leather on their s, the s is not to remove it until the D removes it or gives permission or instruction for when and how it is to be taken off.
As the collar was chosen, procured, in some cases even designed by the D, and then extended to the s as a symbol of those reciprocal aspects of the relationship (that of the s being owned, and coming under the D's protection and responsibility), the collar was never viewed as being "owned" by the s. It was a privilege to wear the collar of a Dominant (never "their" Dominant as the possessive term wasn't used in relation to the Dominant who owned/owns one). It was a privilege that could also be taken away at any time, although that would be considered a pretty severe measure and potentially signaling the end of a relationship.
I was also taught that while a D may remove (their) collar at any time, the s could not remove it without permission. (See point 3 above.) So if an s wanted the collar removed, or more broadly out of the relationship, it was their responsibility to ask the collar be removed or permission to remove it, which also, had the implication of either loss of privilege, end of ownership, and potentially end of the relationship.
I have known a few couples who have at one time or another set a collar aside for a time, and then at a later time returned a collar. Not wearing the collar didn't mean the end of the relationship, but it certainly indicated vast changes in the structure of the relationship, and in at least one case a massive renegotiation and fundamental changes prior to wearing the collar again. I even know of one couple who had one collar for a period of time, another period of their relationship without a collar, and then a third period which was marked by 'retiring' the initial collar and procuring a second collar, as a way of saying this is not the same relationship they had, but was something new and different, based on a completely renegotiated relationship that started from as close to 'scratch' as possible.
In any case, I was taught the collar always went back to its owner, (the D). The one (often unstated) 'rule' in that though, was that as each collar was unique to the individual who wore it, each collar represented a particular relationship, and thus the now empty collar was never to be 'recycled' or worn by others.
A lot of these ideas related to collars of a somewhat different era, though, deeply personal collars that were custom pieces, often made by a D themselves, or by a club or bar artisan at the request of a specific person for a specific person. I'm not saying today's collars AREN'T, I'm just saying these ideas came from a specific time.
Piercing rings, bars, etc (a more recent issue in relationship endings) again, has everything to do with how the people involved related to them through the course of a relationship. If at the time of the piercing it was made clear that these were ownership rings, and symbols of the D, then at the relationship's close, I feel they are within their rights to ask their tokens back. Sure, you keep the piercings themselves, but if the rings were symbols of a particular person 'returning' them can be a very visceral symbol of ending. (Buying yourself your own set of rings and placing them in the holes can also be damn liberating/symbolic of 'self ownership'.)
Other Leathers; jackets, vests etc, were often 'earned' so they went with the s, as they had earned them. (There are a few exceptions, but they related to exceptional circumstances.) What I was taught was that when one started out as a s, you were entitled to your own boots, belt, denim, and in some communities vest. Everything else, jacket, chaps, armbands whatever, were either
A. explicitly gifts (now owned by the s)
B. earned (through special service to the community or the D, or through undergoing an ordeal and coming back changed)
C. or the D's property placed upon you and not to be removed until they took them off.
At the conclusion of a relationship, the D could take back what pieces of theirs they put on you, but pieces you had earned or that were gifts you could take with you. That's part of why it was important to understand when a piece of leather was being put on you at any point in the relationship whether it was the D's (thus their mark or symbol on you) , a gift that was yours to keep, or earned. Some of the more 'ritualized' aspects relating to Leathers themselves were about making it clear what the nature of the item you were being given, or being placed upon you was.
As for whips and other implements, I learned these were always the responsibility and property of the D- unless they were things you entered the relationship with (anything you came with, you could take).
Any tool that 'tasted blood' was completely unique to an individual s- and upon a relationship ended, they stayed with the D- never to be used again, not unlike the collar.
What this means as a practical matter is that just as I have love letters and other 'artifacts' from previous relationships, I have my ex's collar, and several tools that will never again be used on anyone.
As for whether such tools and symbols are kept individually, or shared immediately or eventually through places like the Leather Archives and Museum (http://www.leatherarchives.org/ ), or even burned as a means of symbolizing the release and end, these are all things to think about and perhaps even write into contracts preferably long BEFORE any end comes.
The other HUGE factors sitting in the middle of relationship endings, (that could take books, far more than any single e-mail post), are both the emotional dependency and loss an s feels at the end, upon no longer having that particular D in their lives, and the concrete 'real life' losses this can mean- i.e. lack of ownership of property or lack of their own credit rating, or retirement funds, etc those kinds of things that may or may not be 'side effects' of a relationship. In short the things that had they not been in a particular relationship they might otherwise have had.
(I haven't even touched on children in the middle of relationships, nor am I going to here, but it is something to think about now, BEFORE the possibility of a relationship end.)
The emotional isolation is a somewhat unique facet of our lives, and no number of friends etc can stand in for that now empty space where a D once was. That said, having a support network, and not being cut off from other friends etc in the first place is something to build into the life of any s- LONG before a break up. (This can also help prevent the s jumping at whatever 'next' D appears in their lives, just to fill that emptiness.)
As for the real world parts, caring about one's s during the relationship also means caring about one's s if the relationship should end. This means ensuring that while they may be owned, they aren't going to be left homeless and penniless at the end of two decades. It means real world things like a credit rating, like helping build 'real world skills' in addition to learning proper tea service. Etc.
As for those of us living the s end of the equation? It means no matter how in love we are, no matter how much we trust, we still make sure that we're not going to be completely out in the cold should the bad day ever come. That yes, we will still have friends, we will still be able to earn a living and rent a place of our own if need be, etc.
Even if we're so fortunate as to 'never break up', we may find ourselves responsible for the care of a longterm incapacitated D, or face the possibility of our beloved passing before we do. Not being useless, completely alone, or stuck is part of what need to take care of, now, in the day to day, not later.
(That's more than I expected to write, but it seems like the kinds of things I don't often hear passed along verbally or see in books.)
Pulling across some older writings & Writing Profiles
Today, I'm going to move some of my older, other leather related writings across to this blog.
I've been going back through some of what I've written before now as we prepare to go to Floating World.
I'll start with a diary entry from July '06, I was faced with trying to write a short summary profile of myself for the final Ohio Leather Fest. This is not the profile, but the thought process that went into the writing;
No part of my life lends itself to summaries like that- yet that's exactly what I'm trying to get out digitally at the moment; a bio of sorts. So as usual, I'm stuck.
Worse, I'm not just trying to describe what I am, I'm also trying to set up some very basic gates of what I'm not, so as to avoid certain easily made incorrect assumptions about me. People tend to make all kinds of assumptions not merely based on their projections and what vibe the pick up on, but yes, in person I do actual intentionally wear certain symbiology under the right conditions- however, those signals may not equally apply to say for instance, all genders equally, etc. (That's a really opaque way of saying what I'm trying to express. Let's try that again... .)
Ok, so some examples- I wear a collar- that does not mean I'm monogamous. Sometimes I wear a black bandanna and my keys on the left (signaling being a 'Top' or 'Domme', for complete lack of language). Firstly, what people need to understand is that does not mean I will top YOU- just any ole you in just any ole situation. Further, it does not mean I will "Top/Domme" men- in actuality I almost exclusively "Top/Domme" womyn. Not confused yet? Fine. Just keep in mind, the next night I may well show up wearing my keys on the right, stilettos locked around my ankles, in full "bottom"/"property" mode.
Now ready for bonus round confusion? I've been known to wear a locked collar around my neck, keys on the left, with bandanna, and heavy flogger on my belt. What's it mean? Well I belong to my Sir, and it is by his permission that I have the freedom I want to express these ("Top"/"Domme") parts of myself. I never forget I am His, but I'm also free to be myself.
So how in the hell do I summarize any of the realities of my life, distilled down into something that makes any sense to others?
I've been accused (lovingly!) of having San Francisco "pansexual" sensibilities about these things. I find this hysterical as at times, as in some spaces SF is even more tightly wound up about role, and 'proper ways of doing things' than most people imagine. There are times SF tends to make me wanna run the opposite direction rapidly. But I can see how all these things that get tangled up into nice neat little parameters and boundaries on this coast, in some spaces and times just don't always shake out that way on the sunset coast. "Bi" and "S/switch" and "pansexual" communities SOMETIMES eeeeek out a bit more space in the community there than in other cities- if only because SF is where so many have run to.
At its most basic, labels, containers, properly defined 'identities' just break when held up to how I live my life.
But then, I'm still looking for spaces with Queer sensibility that could somehow deal with Sir and I (an opposite gendered couple) as something other than a 'heterosexual' couple. Neither of us identify that way- despite the fact that Sir only sleeps with womyn. Politically, and sexually- as Queer Nation always defined "Queer" both Sir and I are best filed there-under.
So here I am again, staring at a blank sheet of paper and trying for the life of me to define basic linguistic assumptions I use in describing my life- like Queer, that no one else really has anymore- if they ever did.
Even a simple websearch on "Queer Nation" will come up with some hits, but very little by way of how QN used that word. And that's a fucking travesty- as that was perhaps one of the largest and most important legacies of QN.
There's this void that surely SOMEONE should have that up by now, but no. So how do I write even a simple profile using words that the meanings of as I use them are not only not in common usage, but are not anywhere digital I can point people at? As always, it seems, in order to even do the most basic job of trying to communicate I need instead to put the 'building blocks' of how I use language up first- and that's not going to happen right now.
Then there are places where there just is no language. What's the word for a womyn who almost exclusively dominates other womyn? A womyn who almost exclusively serves not men, but one particular Sir? There is no language for the fact that my life-partner is an exception to my usual desires and practices. What are words beyond "Top", "Dominant", "Domme" etc? We need new and descriptive language more badly than I can possibly express.
I've been going back through some of what I've written before now as we prepare to go to Floating World.
I'll start with a diary entry from July '06, I was faced with trying to write a short summary profile of myself for the final Ohio Leather Fest. This is not the profile, but the thought process that went into the writing;
Ever tried to summarize portions of your life in a few sentences?
No part of my life lends itself to summaries like that- yet that's exactly what I'm trying to get out digitally at the moment; a bio of sorts. So as usual, I'm stuck.
Worse, I'm not just trying to describe what I am, I'm also trying to set up some very basic gates of what I'm not, so as to avoid certain easily made incorrect assumptions about me. People tend to make all kinds of assumptions not merely based on their projections and what vibe the pick up on, but yes, in person I do actual intentionally wear certain symbiology under the right conditions- however, those signals may not equally apply to say for instance, all genders equally, etc. (That's a really opaque way of saying what I'm trying to express. Let's try that again... .)
Ok, so some examples- I wear a collar- that does not mean I'm monogamous. Sometimes I wear a black bandanna and my keys on the left (signaling being a 'Top' or 'Domme', for complete lack of language). Firstly, what people need to understand is that does not mean I will top YOU- just any ole you in just any ole situation. Further, it does not mean I will "Top/Domme" men- in actuality I almost exclusively "Top/Domme" womyn. Not confused yet? Fine. Just keep in mind, the next night I may well show up wearing my keys on the right, stilettos locked around my ankles, in full "bottom"/"property" mode.
Now ready for bonus round confusion? I've been known to wear a locked collar around my neck, keys on the left, with bandanna, and heavy flogger on my belt. What's it mean? Well I belong to my Sir, and it is by his permission that I have the freedom I want to express these ("Top"/"Domme") parts of myself. I never forget I am His, but I'm also free to be myself.
So how in the hell do I summarize any of the realities of my life, distilled down into something that makes any sense to others?
I've been accused (lovingly!) of having San Francisco "pansexual" sensibilities about these things. I find this hysterical as at times, as in some spaces SF is even more tightly wound up about role, and 'proper ways of doing things' than most people imagine. There are times SF tends to make me wanna run the opposite direction rapidly. But I can see how all these things that get tangled up into nice neat little parameters and boundaries on this coast, in some spaces and times just don't always shake out that way on the sunset coast. "Bi" and "S/switch" and "pansexual" communities SOMETIMES eeeeek out a bit more space in the community there than in other cities- if only because SF is where so many have run to.
At its most basic, labels, containers, properly defined 'identities' just break when held up to how I live my life.
But then, I'm still looking for spaces with Queer sensibility that could somehow deal with Sir and I (an opposite gendered couple) as something other than a 'heterosexual' couple. Neither of us identify that way- despite the fact that Sir only sleeps with womyn. Politically, and sexually- as Queer Nation always defined "Queer" both Sir and I are best filed there-under.
So here I am again, staring at a blank sheet of paper and trying for the life of me to define basic linguistic assumptions I use in describing my life- like Queer, that no one else really has anymore- if they ever did.
Even a simple websearch on "Queer Nation" will come up with some hits, but very little by way of how QN used that word. And that's a fucking travesty- as that was perhaps one of the largest and most important legacies of QN.
There's this void that surely SOMEONE should have that up by now, but no. So how do I write even a simple profile using words that the meanings of as I use them are not only not in common usage, but are not anywhere digital I can point people at? As always, it seems, in order to even do the most basic job of trying to communicate I need instead to put the 'building blocks' of how I use language up first- and that's not going to happen right now.
Then there are places where there just is no language. What's the word for a womyn who almost exclusively dominates other womyn? A womyn who almost exclusively serves not men, but one particular Sir? There is no language for the fact that my life-partner is an exception to my usual desires and practices. What are words beyond "Top", "Dominant", "Domme" etc? We need new and descriptive language more badly than I can possibly express.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
