Posts Tagged ‘Creationism’

What is Submission? II

December 14, 2008

Since this entry seems to pop up from time to time, with other entries on D/s, submission, I have a word of caution here.

A few years ago I was involved with a man in Montreal, who called himself Mackenzie Cross, but his real name was Jerry Go-lick.  He ‘promised’ enhancement, and because I was stupid and naive, I fell for his gab.  He was a silver tongued devil, but in the end, he was just a liar. A calculated liar.

Where I have put forth praise of submission, etc….I want to backtrack.  I was involved (really on the outskirts mostly) in bdsm because I thought it might have some answers.  It didn’t.

My experience was this:  Most of the so-called ‘doms’ I met, online and in person…were wanky, insecure, massively unbalanced and stupid men.  Some obviously, because of physical deficiences….fat, unattractive,  bad personalities, or outright psychosis, were not able to attract women in the ‘normal’ ways.  They sat behind computers because then they could be anything to anyone.  Those I met in person?  They had their own bag of issues:  many of these men are just players and fit the catagory above.  Sociopaths LOVE computers.

As for the women? These ‘submissives’?  Many of them were desperate, lard-assed women who just wanted a man to pay attention to them, to micro-manage them so they didn’t have to bother with their lives….sounds so ‘freeing’. Yeah, I really want a man to give me permission to go to the loo or when to sit down.

And surprisingly, most of these women are married, as was I.  What disturbs me most is the constant disloyalty of these women towards their husbands:  In many cases, every morsel of food they put in their mouths comes from the labor of their husbands.  But they have no problem talking about them on their blogs like they are dogs. This disloyalty is destructive to marriage and  says much more about themselves than their husbands.

My marriage survived this jackass in Montreal.  I survived this experience.  But in no way was it an ’empowering’ or ‘enhancing’ experience.  It was a stupid, demeaning hell.

Only by realizing that I didn’t need the so-called ‘help’ of a man who was nothing but a sham and a liar….that empowerment was something I already had spades of, ….did I come out of that stupid and insulting period.

Understanding yourself, what you self-worth really is, is the answer to all the nastiness of the world.  Once you understand this, you don’t need these terribly unequal relationships.

I would advise those who are truly seeking answers, or are confused about this crap, to read the website of EOPC:

http://cyberpaths.blogspot.com

Lady Nyo, aka Jane

It surprised me when Jane invited me to contribute t

I am posting this on the blog surface, because it is a very well thought out opinion.  It gives a LOT to think about, and perhaps others, especially the thinking Goreans, will respond.

Regardless, it is very welcome on my blog, because after all…it’s all about investigation into differently held patterns of behavior.

And philosophies….

Lady Nyo

 

My Dear Jane-Elisabeth

The Natural Order is a very seductive but ultimately false concept, on a par with Creationism and Mutually Assured Destruction.

Would you consider a lioness in full hunt to be submissive? The full maned magnificent lion sleeping in the sun, lazy and idle, only rousing during the season to mate purfuntorily with its harem, as truly attractive in its sexual dominance?

I agree that men are in many cases confused but that is a consequence of social change in the Western World. I think that if you were offered the choice of living truly as a slave, ill educated, without choice and no horizon beyond the hearth with the attention of a man when he so chose you might think twice.

I have written to you before on Dominance and submission and its often straying into pain and pleasure.

My views remain unchanged. I too have read the fantasy works of Norman and others, they were a product of their time, they have no ‘philosophy’ only the fantasy wish fulfillment of the author. They have no deeper message other than the writer exploring their own sensual feelings and creating a self satisfying world.

I have written works of non concensual erotic slavery and utter dominance. They pleased me to write and many to read from their comments in response. But I do not espouse them as philosophical works nor do I seek followers.

Yes, women come to me as you well know, you are aware of what transpires, the depths of sensuality and the breaking down of their psychological barriers and boundaries through overwhelming pleasure and, if appropriate, pain. The depths of emotional and sexual turmoil.

It scares you.

There is some safety in the stereotype, the Master and slave of common thought. There are ‘limits’ understood ‘edges’. Gorean and other ‘styles’ are just that. Fashion statements for followers not leaders.

You will know what I mean when I remind you that a true leader will tire of the inanity of what is created by their followers?

Norman like Hubbard would laugh to see what their followers have done with their fantasies.  Azimov once wrote a short story about Shakespeare and had him say, as he shook his head coming out from a contemporary university lecture on his works. ‘Methinks they could wring a flood from a damp breechclout’.

I have little or no patience with elaborate social practices and belief structures built upon flimsy fantasy.

What you describe as a reaction to a quietly confident and psychologically strong man is little more than the mating instinct. If you want natural order that is where you should turn. Read Desmond Morriss and his classic The Naked Ape and other works. It is in fact ALL about sex.

What happens beyond is an overlay of justification.

I have worked with women and stripped them down to their cores. After exposing layer after layer through fantasy, orgasm and pain to get to that basic issue. It is about opening, spreading, accepting and welcoming the entry. Everything else just gets in the way.

For myself, what have I learned?

That I take huge pleasure from control. The control of a partner in their extremis. Orgasmic release is merely a pleasant part of the pleasure for me. To lead a partner, not by force but by tenderness and firm direction to their furthest boundary and show them what more there is to feel beyond. But it is personal, self knowledge not a cathechism to read and follow, a book of instructions or a pattern of learned behaviour or behaviour to ‘fit in’. I wish to be my own man and I am certain you want to be your own woman.

You may reject this as too controversial, too dismissive of others dearly held and very real beliefs. But I can only speak as I find.

My respect and warm regards

 

Phil.

 

UPDATE:  Friend Phil makes some assumptions, though that era was rather confusing to myself and my friends, and Phil certainly was a friend.

No, Phil, It did not scare me….it excited me in ways I hadn’t considered.  But there was real danger.

And the danger is this:  We can place …or attempt to place ourselves….our precious selves…into hands that are mean, niggardly, potentially destructive, and in the end….evil.  However, this time was one of great learning….that I didn’t need false gurus to be telling me about my life:  after all these years I was experiencing exactly what was necessary to grow.

I had given up something of myself for a very short time to an unworthy fellow who turned out to be nothing but a silly cad.  Certainly not worth my trust and respect for what he revealed himself to be in the end: a liar.

But ultimately?  We learn…and when we again trust ourselves…we can quickly scan those false gurus and walk on by.

Lady Nyo


%d bloggers like this: