The Luddites resisted the introduction of mechanised technology in factories in the 19th Century because it would do a lot of skilled labourers out of their jobs. But Sepp Blatter doesn't seem to have any such principle behind his resistance to the introduction of technology into the game of football (soccer for the USAians out there).
Yesterday, two goals at the FIFA World Cup - one that was given and shouldn't have been, the other not given when it should - highlighted how this pigheaded approach harms the sport.
The first goal, which should have been given and wasn't, came in England's match against Germany in the last-16. Germany eventually won 4-1 so arguably it didn't affect the overall result of the game, but it came at a crucial point: England were suddenly on a surge and had come back from 2-0 to 2-1; a second goal would level the scores and give them the feeling they could fight it out. That goal duly came when Frank Lampard banged the ball against the underside of the German crossbar, it bounced down, back up, and then out of the goal.
Millions must have reacted as I did, believing that it had bounced behind the line - in the words of the laws of association football, that "the whole of the ball had crossed the whole of the line" - but the German goalkeeper played the ball downfield as if nothing had happened. And the referee allowed play to continue. No goal given. Within seconds, the TV networks had replays showing exactly where the ball had landed, and the ball was far enough over the line that you could have fitted another ball between it and the goal line and THAT ball would have scored as well! It wasn't even close! Goal line technology to determine the moment when the ball has crossed the whole of the line is available. Whether it's based on TV replays (as in NFL or rugby) or the famous Hawk-eye, a tracking software first used for sports in cricket commentary to analyse LBW decisions, now a regular part of tennis adjudication (where again, it determines whether a ball has landed on or over the line) - the technology exists and could be used at international level at least (one of Blatter's objections is that it would be "too expensive" to install "worldwide").
The second goal was Argentina's first goal against Mexico. Here, initially the player was onside and powerfully struck the ball at the Mexican goal, but it bounced off something (I unremember whether it was the crossbar or the goalkeeper) and came out to a teammate. By this stage, the striker was in an offside position, as replays showed, so when the ball was played back to the striker, that should have been called an offside offence. Instead, the striker got a second chance and this time put the ball in the net.
Some people question in this instance whether you could use technology in the form of replays (Hawk-eye would not be much use here) to assist with offside decisions, because play could continue if no goal was scored, so you don't have any time in which to assess the evidence. But using replays where a contentious goal has been scored I think is certainly possible, because at that point you have a discontinuity in play whatever happens: if there is a goal then play has stopped to return the ball to the centre spot; if there is an offside then play has stopped to allow the free kick to be taken from the point of the offence. If play has stopped, and it takes only a few seconds to "rewind" the video (it's digital now, so it's not rewinding really) and play it in slow motion, then why not take the time to make sure the call is correct? The referee would have the final call in whether or not to go to the replays to check it out (or could, as in the NFL, have his own replay booth to check it himself). Details for how that would work would have to be thrashed out somewhere (for instance, whether decisions are checked on a team captain's challenge system, or whether only the referee decides whether it's needed after consulting with hir assistants) but the fact remains, it can be done.
There is a question about, "Oh, where do we draw the line in using technology?" but I think it's clear that getting goal decisions right is important. If a goal is allowed or disallowed can make a crucial difference to a match (and both English and Mexican fans I am sure are protesting that it did in their case!) so making sure the decision is as accurate as possible should be a priority. The commonest points of contention in adjudging whether a goal was scored are, "Was he offside?" and, "Did the whole of the ball cross the whole of the line?" The technology exists to give refs a helping hand in getting it right more often, at the top level of the game, when the stakes are highest. We don't need technology to be used for anything else, just for the goal/not a goal scenarios that have been highlighted so clearly by the two games played yesterday. And there is still a huge human element to refereeing a game: no computer can ever determine accurately whether a foul has been committed when football is allowed to be a contact sport, and no computer could ever determine intent or the line between a warning and an official caution (yellow card) - or between a yellow and a red. (Yes, I know video game football simulations do make adjudications but these are based on algorithms and random generators, not on real life facts). Just give the referees the tools to do their job better!
It ought to be in the very best interests of the sport's governing body to ensure that this is rolled out as far as possible. Yesterday, football as a whole looked stupid and farcical because of the bad decisions that were made and that could have been avoided. Football seemingly remains the only major sport that does not use technology in some way to make its officials' jobs easier. Cricket, rugby (both codes), tennis, athletics (heck, the photo finish has been a staple for donkey's years there!) - even snooker has used TV replays for the repositioning of balls after a "miss" foul! The NFL has the replay booth as mentioned, and coach challenges to make sure contentious decisions are called correctly.
***
Incidentally, on my Football Manager Live, I noticed that a match was being officiated by "Ms Lundy" - it's nice to see they recognise that there are female referees at league level and incldued a few in their simulations! Now, this is the first time I've noticed it in 250-odd matches, but mostly I don't notice the referee in the games anyway, so it doesn't mean that only one in 250 games has a female ref in the sims!
Monday, 28 June 2010
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Bust-ups that happened while I was away
Well, one in particular. Renee @ Womanist Musings has pointed out that there is racism inherent in the decision by some bloggers to follow FWD's lead and declare yesterday "Helen Keller Mythbusting Day". As a UKian with not a great deal of connection to race issues in the US, I was unaware that in the USA, yesterday was "Juneteenth", which commemorates the end of slavery in USA. Nanette, in comments on Renee's first post about this issue, explains that it commemorates the date on which slaves in Texas were freed by US troops.
I admit that I was concerned about the US-centric thinking of protesting this, but then Renee (whom I consider a trustworthy blogger and therefore do not suspect of misquoting) reports that the originator of the Helen Keller blogswarm @ FWD admits to having being aware of the Juneteenth commemoration before the event took place and yet doing nothing about this clash. The internet/web/blogosphere/whatever you call it, is pretty leaky. I can understand a non-USAian not knowing about Juneteenth (although again, Renee notes that there is a Nova Scotia connection, which even calls that into question). But to know about it and say "well, we'll use that date anyway" is unforgivable. Because whether or not one allows "there is space for both" (Helen Keller blogswarm and Juneteenth), on the internet things (especially things like a blogswarm) tend to leak into other things' spaces and steal it from them. Indeed, that's sometimes the whole point of a blogswarm, as I understand it.
Renee took it on herself to point out all the blogs that participated in the Helen Keller thing; it appears that very few of these even acknowledged the existence of Juneteenth. Several of these are US-based bloggers. Thus, the Helen Keller thing leaked over and took over space that really should be available to the Juneteenth celebration (whether or not those bloggers paid any attention to it at all). Regardless of the intent, this amounts to exactly what Renee calls it: erasure, appropriation, and racist actions.
The purpose of writing this post is just to call more people's attention to Renee's points. Even those who are on the periphery of this particular point can learn from it, because I think many people are prone to the kind of behaviour shown by FWD over this. But most of all I want to draw attention to it because Renee has a right to be cross and to be heard.
I hope I'm using my space to amplify her voice. I've added some of my own thoughts in this post but her posts are where it's at, and everything I've written used her posts as their basis.
I admit that I was concerned about the US-centric thinking of protesting this, but then Renee (whom I consider a trustworthy blogger and therefore do not suspect of misquoting) reports that the originator of the Helen Keller blogswarm @ FWD admits to having being aware of the Juneteenth commemoration before the event took place and yet doing nothing about this clash. The internet/web/blogosphere/whatever you call it, is pretty leaky. I can understand a non-USAian not knowing about Juneteenth (although again, Renee notes that there is a Nova Scotia connection, which even calls that into question). But to know about it and say "well, we'll use that date anyway" is unforgivable. Because whether or not one allows "there is space for both" (Helen Keller blogswarm and Juneteenth), on the internet things (especially things like a blogswarm) tend to leak into other things' spaces and steal it from them. Indeed, that's sometimes the whole point of a blogswarm, as I understand it.
Renee took it on herself to point out all the blogs that participated in the Helen Keller thing; it appears that very few of these even acknowledged the existence of Juneteenth. Several of these are US-based bloggers. Thus, the Helen Keller thing leaked over and took over space that really should be available to the Juneteenth celebration (whether or not those bloggers paid any attention to it at all). Regardless of the intent, this amounts to exactly what Renee calls it: erasure, appropriation, and racist actions.
The purpose of writing this post is just to call more people's attention to Renee's points. Even those who are on the periphery of this particular point can learn from it, because I think many people are prone to the kind of behaviour shown by FWD over this. But most of all I want to draw attention to it because Renee has a right to be cross and to be heard.
I hope I'm using my space to amplify her voice. I've added some of my own thoughts in this post but her posts are where it's at, and everything I've written used her posts as their basis.
Home again!
Thursday, Friday, Saturday nights slept in a tent somewhere in a field near Glastonbury. Anyone who points out that I was a week early for the big music festival should be aware that it wasn't THAT field, and it wasn't THAT music that I was down those parts to perform.
I was there for the very special occasion of my sister's wedding. I and a friend of my sister's made sure we were well rehearsed for our part, playing an entirely new piece of music composed especially for the bridal procession at the start - my sister asked (nay, commissioned!) me to write the music and I was very happy to oblige.
The music performance certainly had the desired effect: I am told that after just the first few bars my mother was in tears (she freely acknowledges her tendency to high emotion). The happy couple were both effusive in their thanks - it will forever be their song (music) now, and I am very pleased for that to be the case! I am superhappy that it worked and was what was wanted and everything.
It was also a blesséd relief not to plan anything - all I had to be sure of was of getting to the right train station on Thursday and after that I could relax, let people steer me to where I was needed or things were going on, and Not Worry About Anything. My tent and guitar were in someone else's care, a schedule for when we could rehearse the music was sorted out, Sis and Beau had got everything working smoothly and that was that.
After the ceremony there was a ceilidh in the evening, lots of family and friends on both sides are very folk dance people (Beau is even a Morris dancer) so it was natural for us to have one. Those who didn't know the dances were quick to try it, and fits of giggles were the very best outcome when things went wonky (as they so often do in these situations). It was fun. Although I was a little disappointed because I missed out on my chance to be the lady in the folk dances: at the start I was whisked off my feet by Sis' friend Lady Eddie (not her real name!) in the first dance: a waltz (folk waltzes are different from ballroom, I quickly discovered - the tempo seemed more like a Viennese but anyway). Lady Eddie is used to taking the male lead role (she and her wife SV (also not a real name!) are sooo beautiful together, btw). For a long long time I have wanted to take the female role in folk dances because when I was younger at folk camp, it would typically be that more women than men were eager to dance; thus, they would team up as couples and then if a man (or boy, such as me) later decided he wanted a dance there would be no available partners; Patriarchal homophobia rules being what they are, I was probably the only male willing to take the obvious step of having guys dancing the female roles. So ever since I have wanted to try it. Dancing the female role with a lesbian partner being the man would also have been delightfully gender-bending! But Lady Eddie was a popular dancer that night and that meant I was out of luck. It's probably best: I was totally off my face by that stage, after drinking three glasses of wine. It was cool: we had taxis.
After the ceilidh band were done there was some party music. I noticed that of the 8 or so people who bopped, danced, and similar to the music I was the only male. I don't know if this is another example of my not performing gender properly or just down to the fact that those who danced where the ones who most closely shared Sis' tastes in party music.
I was only a little surprised that Sis took Beau's surname, although it obviously didn't sit that well with feminist me's attitudes to the whole thing. There was, as it happened, long debate over this between them but in the end Sis was very happy to have a new name.
The day after the wedding, there was a morris dancing display by Beau's team. This also includes a long sword dance into which Sis was inserted as the maiden at the centre of a 6-pointed star made from the long swords. Apparently, the maiden is NOT supposed to wear the star as a fashion accessory, stamping along to the music; Sis, however, is not the timid waif of old and did not know this. She went to her symbolic beheading with smile, chirpy grin and bright face in the hot summer sun. Then at the end of the dance she gave a most convincing gurgle and stage-death! Such an enthusiastic victim I have never seen!
I like that my family seems to allow a good weekend for any big family festival or celebration, and have things to fill the weekend with. We declared that the wedding was still going on throughout the second day - the legal bit may have been done the day before, with the fancy dress (which was absolutely fabulous, btw) and the registrar and all that, but we partied in various ways and celebrated in various ways, for the whole weekend.
I loved the whole weekend, but undoubtedly what made it was just how happy Sis was the whole way through. It was definitely her show, along with Beau, and all of us friends and family were there to make it the best it could be and, from what I gather from her enthusiasm throughout, we did.
It's been a great holiday.
Two words: Job done.
I was there for the very special occasion of my sister's wedding. I and a friend of my sister's made sure we were well rehearsed for our part, playing an entirely new piece of music composed especially for the bridal procession at the start - my sister asked (nay, commissioned!) me to write the music and I was very happy to oblige.
The music performance certainly had the desired effect: I am told that after just the first few bars my mother was in tears (she freely acknowledges her tendency to high emotion). The happy couple were both effusive in their thanks - it will forever be their song (music) now, and I am very pleased for that to be the case! I am superhappy that it worked and was what was wanted and everything.
It was also a blesséd relief not to plan anything - all I had to be sure of was of getting to the right train station on Thursday and after that I could relax, let people steer me to where I was needed or things were going on, and Not Worry About Anything. My tent and guitar were in someone else's care, a schedule for when we could rehearse the music was sorted out, Sis and Beau had got everything working smoothly and that was that.
After the ceremony there was a ceilidh in the evening, lots of family and friends on both sides are very folk dance people (Beau is even a Morris dancer) so it was natural for us to have one. Those who didn't know the dances were quick to try it, and fits of giggles were the very best outcome when things went wonky (as they so often do in these situations). It was fun. Although I was a little disappointed because I missed out on my chance to be the lady in the folk dances: at the start I was whisked off my feet by Sis' friend Lady Eddie (not her real name!) in the first dance: a waltz (folk waltzes are different from ballroom, I quickly discovered - the tempo seemed more like a Viennese but anyway). Lady Eddie is used to taking the male lead role (she and her wife SV (also not a real name!) are sooo beautiful together, btw). For a long long time I have wanted to take the female role in folk dances because when I was younger at folk camp, it would typically be that more women than men were eager to dance; thus, they would team up as couples and then if a man (or boy, such as me) later decided he wanted a dance there would be no available partners; Patriarchal homophobia rules being what they are, I was probably the only male willing to take the obvious step of having guys dancing the female roles. So ever since I have wanted to try it. Dancing the female role with a lesbian partner being the man would also have been delightfully gender-bending! But Lady Eddie was a popular dancer that night and that meant I was out of luck. It's probably best: I was totally off my face by that stage, after drinking three glasses of wine. It was cool: we had taxis.
After the ceilidh band were done there was some party music. I noticed that of the 8 or so people who bopped, danced, and similar to the music I was the only male. I don't know if this is another example of my not performing gender properly or just down to the fact that those who danced where the ones who most closely shared Sis' tastes in party music.
I was only a little surprised that Sis took Beau's surname, although it obviously didn't sit that well with feminist me's attitudes to the whole thing. There was, as it happened, long debate over this between them but in the end Sis was very happy to have a new name.
The day after the wedding, there was a morris dancing display by Beau's team. This also includes a long sword dance into which Sis was inserted as the maiden at the centre of a 6-pointed star made from the long swords. Apparently, the maiden is NOT supposed to wear the star as a fashion accessory, stamping along to the music; Sis, however, is not the timid waif of old and did not know this. She went to her symbolic beheading with smile, chirpy grin and bright face in the hot summer sun. Then at the end of the dance she gave a most convincing gurgle and stage-death! Such an enthusiastic victim I have never seen!
I like that my family seems to allow a good weekend for any big family festival or celebration, and have things to fill the weekend with. We declared that the wedding was still going on throughout the second day - the legal bit may have been done the day before, with the fancy dress (which was absolutely fabulous, btw) and the registrar and all that, but we partied in various ways and celebrated in various ways, for the whole weekend.
I loved the whole weekend, but undoubtedly what made it was just how happy Sis was the whole way through. It was definitely her show, along with Beau, and all of us friends and family were there to make it the best it could be and, from what I gather from her enthusiasm throughout, we did.
It's been a great holiday.
Two words: Job done.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Off the radar
Folks may or may not have noticed that I have been less involved recently in my usual blog landscapes. I have been Busy doing Important Things.
This weekend I am performing music at my sister's wedding - indeed, the most important music: her bridal procession! It most definitely is not a march (that was the commission when she asked me to write it). It's a guitar duet with one of my sister's friends accompanying me (although actually, she's got the lead part so I'm the accompanist).
I travel down tomorrow, the ceremony and reception are the day after, and then more festivities the day after that (if one day of celebration will do, why not have two or three!?) Sunday I travel home again.
Since I will be in a tent for most of the time I'm away, I am still not going to be involved in bloggery for a few days, but I should have plenty of time on my netbook while travelling to come up with loads of things to recount upon my return.
This weekend I am performing music at my sister's wedding - indeed, the most important music: her bridal procession! It most definitely is not a march (that was the commission when she asked me to write it). It's a guitar duet with one of my sister's friends accompanying me (although actually, she's got the lead part so I'm the accompanist).
I travel down tomorrow, the ceremony and reception are the day after, and then more festivities the day after that (if one day of celebration will do, why not have two or three!?) Sunday I travel home again.
Since I will be in a tent for most of the time I'm away, I am still not going to be involved in bloggery for a few days, but I should have plenty of time on my netbook while travelling to come up with loads of things to recount upon my return.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Diane Abbott makes it to 33
Diane Abbott has scraped in sufficient MPs' nominations to contest the Labour Party leadership election. This is Good News. To date there has been only one female party leader of the Big Three (Labour, Conservative, Liberal/Alliance/Liberal Democrat depending on era) and that was the infamous Margaret Thatcher. There has never been a Black party leader. So it would be supercool if Abbott were to win.
There was a suggestion made on Channel 4 News that she is just "window dressing" and her nomination was engineered just so that the Labour Party can point to the token non-White, non-male candidate. And it's true - 4 white dudes are the only other candidates, and David Miliband noinated her and asked others to do the same. Nevertheless, I think that Abbott could end up surprising some people. The Labour leadership process has been rigged to limit the opportunities for non-establishment candidates to run (e.g. the need for 33 MPs' nominations). But Abbott has a good chance of bucking that trend now that she's got to the magic 33.
In the brief clips from the New Statesman hustings, one of the Milibands (I forget which one) talked about values; Andy Burnham talked about how he had genuine working class roots and that "the people of Britain can identify with" him (which is bollocks - the guy's been in Parliament long enough to earn 33 nominations, he's no longer connected to the people in that way). Both of them talked about the need to "reconnect with the electorate". But Abbott talked about reconnecting to the grassroots support, and in my not-so-humble opinion, Labour's support amongst the electorate has dropped off and dropped off precisely because of the way in which Tony Blair's "New Labour" involved isolating the leadership of the party from its core support. I grew up expecting to be a lifelong Labour voter and was proud in 1997 to have voted for them. By 2001, I had had all my illusions destroyed and have refused to vote for New Labour ever since. If Abbott really can reconnect to the core of Labour supporters then she could possibly win back my vote for Labour. (I suppose it's too much to hope that she would reinstate the socialist version of Clause IV that might persuade me to join the Party!)
So far Abbott is talking the talk. I hope to goodness she gets the opportunity to walk the walk, by becoming leader of the Labour Party, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in Parliament - and maybe, just maybe, our next Prime Minister.
Profiles on the candidates are here: I notice that Abbott has first-hand experience of Labour in the 1970s and 1980s, while her opponents are too young to have that same wealth of understanding of where the grassroots come from historically (since, as mentioned, New Labour depended in the end on ignoring the roots!)
There was a suggestion made on Channel 4 News that she is just "window dressing" and her nomination was engineered just so that the Labour Party can point to the token non-White, non-male candidate. And it's true - 4 white dudes are the only other candidates, and David Miliband noinated her and asked others to do the same. Nevertheless, I think that Abbott could end up surprising some people. The Labour leadership process has been rigged to limit the opportunities for non-establishment candidates to run (e.g. the need for 33 MPs' nominations). But Abbott has a good chance of bucking that trend now that she's got to the magic 33.
In the brief clips from the New Statesman hustings, one of the Milibands (I forget which one) talked about values; Andy Burnham talked about how he had genuine working class roots and that "the people of Britain can identify with" him (which is bollocks - the guy's been in Parliament long enough to earn 33 nominations, he's no longer connected to the people in that way). Both of them talked about the need to "reconnect with the electorate". But Abbott talked about reconnecting to the grassroots support, and in my not-so-humble opinion, Labour's support amongst the electorate has dropped off and dropped off precisely because of the way in which Tony Blair's "New Labour" involved isolating the leadership of the party from its core support. I grew up expecting to be a lifelong Labour voter and was proud in 1997 to have voted for them. By 2001, I had had all my illusions destroyed and have refused to vote for New Labour ever since. If Abbott really can reconnect to the core of Labour supporters then she could possibly win back my vote for Labour. (I suppose it's too much to hope that she would reinstate the socialist version of Clause IV that might persuade me to join the Party!)
So far Abbott is talking the talk. I hope to goodness she gets the opportunity to walk the walk, by becoming leader of the Labour Party, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in Parliament - and maybe, just maybe, our next Prime Minister.
Profiles on the candidates are here: I notice that Abbott has first-hand experience of Labour in the 1970s and 1980s, while her opponents are too young to have that same wealth of understanding of where the grassroots come from historically (since, as mentioned, New Labour depended in the end on ignoring the roots!)
More fighting Patriarchy on FML
Regular readers will remember my post a couple of weeks ago about feeling bruised after confronting a sexist comment in Sports Interactive's MMO soccer management sim "Football Manager Live".
Well, I'm back feeling bruised again. This time I had the temerity to suggest that it's not okay to use "gay" to mean "bad", "offensive", "annoying" or "wrong". Well, briefly I thought I was scoring well on that (at least, this time I wasn't the only one to say it's not okay) but the full gamut of "justifications" came out as well (culminating in the classic, "oh, you're just too sensitive, stop sounding so ANGRY and CHILL OUT!"). I identified as bi there, even though the eagle-eyed will notice it's not one of the words in my "sexual orientation" box in the sidebar there - I figured it's easier than explaining what I mean by heteroflexible, peoplesexual, and the various gender-expression terms there!
Technically, I suppose, I still won - the terms&conditions for the game include a clause saying players are not allowed to use 'gay' as a pejorative term and the mods stepped in to point this out. I still wanted to explain just why it's not okay to use the term that way (especially when someone said "but most gay people are totally comfortable with the term!" - yes, I chalked that one on the bingo card as well!) but the mods then turned around and slapped me down saying "this issue has been dealt with, don't start it up again." And I suppose I can see their point - it's supposed to be a game, not a teaching seminar about het privilege and queer rights activism (it didn't help that the game's forums auto-censor bleeped out "queer" and "sexual" in my comment!) But still, that added to the bruised feeling, like I'd been slapped down for explaining why I felt someone else was being a jerk.
I've understood this stuff on an intellectual level a lot, but rarely get to experience it first-hand (regular readers will have noticed the recent post where I talk about experiencing an incident of homophobic street harassment). I've got quite a lot of privilege when you add it up: white, male, mostly het (although technically bi, as mentioned already I don't strongly identify that way) - a lot of the time I get to keep my head below the parapet if I choose to do so. People don't often read my genderqueer, bi etc side so they don't target me directly. And so often it's just easier to duck down when the casual stuff catches me. But today I got full in the face what feminists and womanists talk about experiencing all the time. Now I know it at a gut level why women (and gay folk, and trans folk, and non-White folk) end up abandoning some online spaces. It's good that the SI terms&conditions, and the FML mods, are working towards making the game a safer space (although casual sexism still seems to go unchecked there) but lots of spaces aren't that good.
The Steel Cross Gyrls will continue to fly the flag for LGBTQ activism, though how much direct action/talking back I'll have the energy to make is uncertain (and likely to be small, alas).
Well, I'm back feeling bruised again. This time I had the temerity to suggest that it's not okay to use "gay" to mean "bad", "offensive", "annoying" or "wrong". Well, briefly I thought I was scoring well on that (at least, this time I wasn't the only one to say it's not okay) but the full gamut of "justifications" came out as well (culminating in the classic, "oh, you're just too sensitive, stop sounding so ANGRY and CHILL OUT!"). I identified as bi there, even though the eagle-eyed will notice it's not one of the words in my "sexual orientation" box in the sidebar there - I figured it's easier than explaining what I mean by heteroflexible, peoplesexual, and the various gender-expression terms there!
Technically, I suppose, I still won - the terms&conditions for the game include a clause saying players are not allowed to use 'gay' as a pejorative term and the mods stepped in to point this out. I still wanted to explain just why it's not okay to use the term that way (especially when someone said "but most gay people are totally comfortable with the term!" - yes, I chalked that one on the bingo card as well!) but the mods then turned around and slapped me down saying "this issue has been dealt with, don't start it up again." And I suppose I can see their point - it's supposed to be a game, not a teaching seminar about het privilege and queer rights activism (it didn't help that the game's forums auto-censor bleeped out "queer" and "sexual" in my comment!) But still, that added to the bruised feeling, like I'd been slapped down for explaining why I felt someone else was being a jerk.
I've understood this stuff on an intellectual level a lot, but rarely get to experience it first-hand (regular readers will have noticed the recent post where I talk about experiencing an incident of homophobic street harassment). I've got quite a lot of privilege when you add it up: white, male, mostly het (although technically bi, as mentioned already I don't strongly identify that way) - a lot of the time I get to keep my head below the parapet if I choose to do so. People don't often read my genderqueer, bi etc side so they don't target me directly. And so often it's just easier to duck down when the casual stuff catches me. But today I got full in the face what feminists and womanists talk about experiencing all the time. Now I know it at a gut level why women (and gay folk, and trans folk, and non-White folk) end up abandoning some online spaces. It's good that the SI terms&conditions, and the FML mods, are working towards making the game a safer space (although casual sexism still seems to go unchecked there) but lots of spaces aren't that good.
The Steel Cross Gyrls will continue to fly the flag for LGBTQ activism, though how much direct action/talking back I'll have the energy to make is uncertain (and likely to be small, alas).
"Not That Into You" chapter 17 notes (long)
Continuing the series of posts showing you what happened in my head as I read through "He's Just Not That Into You" (here's the rest of the series).
Nearly finished now: we've reached the extra chapters written for the 2006 edition - Liz Tuccillo's "Life after HJNTIY" (the notes I made from which are in this post) and a final FAQ answered mainly by Greg Behrendt (my notes on which will be coming shortly).
N.B. common abbreviations used:
L.T. = Liz Tuccillo (author)
HJNTIY - He's Just Not That Into You (the book)
Chapter 17: L.T. – Life after He's Just Not That Into You
Almost inclined to follow this advice, but as I'm not a woman using this for dating advice but rather a guy reading it to critique it, I'm not sure whether or not I should skip it. Let's see what happens when I turn the page…
Well, indeed. That's true anyway, and has little to do with this book in particular, it's to do with the lightened emotional load, and believe me – I've felt it too! The release of tension, of stress, that comes from making a clean break of it from something that wasn't working – definitely worth it!
Well, my objections to Ch. 1 have been mentioned several times so far. The specifics of the anecdote less important than the emotions of L.T. - empowered due to being able to tell herself “nope, he didn't do well enough” plus vindication when guy upped his game. I think this is one good thing that the book does do: it makes it okay to say “no” and be clear about it with self and others. The concept of having standards is a good one there.
Woh, hold up there a minute! So all women are purely interested in a relationship because they want “true love”, they want it sooooo much, right? I'm not really the person to criticise this outline, because I am totally the one who's out there imagining true love and how much I want it and all that. But I'm a sample of 1 (not to mention, not a woman)! I'm willing to bet, though, that there are plenty of women out there for whom relationships and dating are not about finding “true love” except possibly as a tangent from where they're at now. (Heck, there's loads like that out there if the profiles on dating websites adverts are anything to go by!) Or are the ones who are not looking for true love not worthy of the same respect as the other women reading this book?
Now, where have I heard that idea before – that the world just owes someone a romantic partner? Oh, yes: Nice Guyism. Although the Nice Guy generally doesn't get that "life doesn't work like that".
A lovely message, but again: the reward for feeling confident is – feeling confident. The reward is NOT a man "whisking you off your feet" (and why would a confident woman necessarily want that? Why wouldn't she possibly do the whisking to him instead? Oh yes – because of ch. 1 *groans*)
Just to be clear, I have no problem with the broad overview themes of this book, outlined here by L.T.: "(You can and should) Feel better about yourself!", "Don't let people treat you poorly!", "(You can and should) Feel more confident!" But I think that although following rules of engagement like this book can give you that, they don't necessarily give you the best tools for once you've got it.
Not to mention: the whole problem with a lot of this is that the default state for a lot of men is this "loneliness" phase, only without any of the "confidence" to go with it. Several of the advice tips seem based on assuming that men are in that state.
So, right. Who's this "we"? Is it "we women", or "we the human race?" Because if the latter, then what's going on with all those guys who are "just not that into you" – do they want love too? So why aren't they demonstrating it by being into you?
But if it's "we women" then congratulations L.T. for the gendered-assumptions FAIL! Because, of course, all women everywhere (or the vast majority of them) are such emotional dizzies that at the first hint of teh romantz they lose ALL their rational capacities! How much more fucking 19th Century can you get!? Just can't cope without feeling Love! Really, L.T., come on!
As it happens, feminism knows the reason behind why men appear to be "not that into you" even if they, too, "want love". [I'll save the explanation for when I do the fancy polished review post, which I'll do so folks can see how this mess of thoughts ends up as a proper blog post]
Because, of course, in every woman's mind "sex" must involve love – "I'm horny therefore I need someone to love me"? Whereas in reality, a liberated and confident woman says "I'm horny, I need to fuck someone!" (or "someone to fuck me", if that's her thang). Alternatively, "You think no one will ever love you again" suggests (in what follows) that you need to be being fucked by someone to feel loved by them!?
This whole point torpedoes the situation that this section outlines. Nothing wrong with being fuck-buddies as long as you don't confuse "sex" with "love" and "genital contact" with "intimacy". As the great philosopher Renegade Evolution says, "intimacy lives in the head and the heart, not the crotch".
Let's see how L.T. misses this point:
**SCREECHING MENTAL BRAKES**
"Always at your suggestion". And this guy, we're supposed to read, always says "yeah, alright, why not?" Because a man would never ever ever say "no" to sex, right? What a HUGE FUCKING GENDER-ENFORCING, RAPE-CULTURE-SUPPORTING PILE OF CRAP! Maybe I'm the wrong guy to consider this, but I find it hard to imagine L.T.'s scenario as being very common, just because if he enjoyed the sex then he'd want more and ask for it (since he knows she's up for it), whereas if he didn't, he'd just say no, surely? Unless… G.B. says men would say anything to avoid letting on they're "not that into you" so he thinks he's got to perform sexually to keep you happy and not offend you?
Whatever's going on with that situation it seems to me like the GUY needs a wakeup call of his own with respect to "(You can and should) Feel better about yourself!", "Don't let people treat you poorly!", "(You can and should) Feel more confident!" (see "Loneliness" stage).
Firstly, I think it's plain that "HJNTIY" is not "the rules of the game". Secondly, what's the advantage here? If all you're after is a good fucking then there's no problem and you're not "playing the game" anyway, but if you're after love then this automatically proves that you aren't getting what you want – so there's no advantage. That may be the point that L.T. is trying to make with this section, but I don't find it clearly stated.
Again equating fucking with love. I can't get my head around this assumption that women can't separate the two, and therefore get all emotional over a fuck-buddy situation. Sure, some people have rules about the emotional investment they want there to be before sex happens. But dammit, the scenario L.T. painted was "I feel horny" and "I feel lonely", and "I know he doesn't love me". I get it if for you, "sex" means "he loves me" or "I love him", but honestly? That doesn't have to be a general rule. It's something you're bringing, an expectation of "I let him stick his dick in me, now he owes me emotional involvement and I'll be upset if I don't get it." What's more, it's something that feminism can help cure, because feminism explains where that idea came from!
As for "unless you really don't like him" – yes, it's a different story. Because WTF is going on with you that you're wanting to hang out and have sex with this guy if you don't like him!? Unless "like" here means "have romantic feelings for", in which case L.T. is just saying "you slutty women who fuck without loving don't count anyway, no one cares how you do things!" Even though that way of doing things manages to solve both the horny/lonely thing and the emotional pain thing. Again, I quote the infamous and illustrious Renegade Evolution: "Intimacy lives in the head and the heart, not the crotch".
Yeah – although in this case you didn't let anyone else do it, you did it to yourself. And, it seems to me, you were doing it to him, too.
Woh, I've heard that before. Where? People who got away from the "second-wave" radical feminist school of thinking. I don't know what sort of parallel there is to be drawn there. But it's an interesting thing nonetheless.
Ah, now the analogy becomes clear: the people who break away from radfem land want to be allowed to "make … judgement calls on [their] own."
I think the message here is a good one: that last quoted sentence particularly - only you will know when the price is too high.
Nearly finished now: we've reached the extra chapters written for the 2006 edition - Liz Tuccillo's "Life after HJNTIY" (the notes I made from which are in this post) and a final FAQ answered mainly by Greg Behrendt (my notes on which will be coming shortly).
N.B. common abbreviations used:
L.T. = Liz Tuccillo (author)
HJNTIY - He's Just Not That Into You (the book)
Chapter 17: L.T. – Life after He's Just Not That Into You
"If you have just read this book for the first time or read the book but didn't care for it so much, I am inclined to tell you to read no further. This section really is for the women who are fans of the book, who used it to make great changes in their lives – and who are still out there dating. It is a chapter that can come only with perspective – and I don't want you to get ahead of yourself. For that reason, if you have just read He's Just Not That Into You for the first time, I suggest putting this section down and reading it in a year or two – and only if you feel like you need a little extra encouragement."
Almost inclined to follow this advice, but as I'm not a woman using this for dating advice but rather a guy reading it to critique it, I'm not sure whether or not I should skip it. Let's see what happens when I turn the page…
…the stages of Life After He's Just Not That Into You, according to L.T.
Exaltation (Otherwise known as 'He's out of my phone and he's out of my life!')
“You get out of the dead-end relationship. You realise the crush isn't going anywhere. You stop texting that guy. And lo and behold, pretty soon you feel better."
Well, indeed. That's true anyway, and has little to do with this book in particular, it's to do with the lightened emotional load, and believe me – I've felt it too! The release of tension, of stress, that comes from making a clean break of it from something that wasn't working – definitely worth it!
L.T. Recounts incident where she treated with scepticism a half-hearted approach by a guy: “look at my website and email me your thoughts?” (see Ch. 1: “...if he's not asking you out”.) Guy later did call and ask her out.
Well, my objections to Ch. 1 have been mentioned several times so far. The specifics of the anecdote less important than the emotions of L.T. - empowered due to being able to tell herself “nope, he didn't do well enough” plus vindication when guy upped his game. I think this is one good thing that the book does do: it makes it okay to say “no” and be clear about it with self and others. The concept of having standards is a good one there.
Loneliness (Otherwise known as 'Great, what the hell do I do now?')
“You have the space … Your imagination is now free … You start thinking about true love again, about what that looks like, feels like. You remember how much you want it and how you had forgotten that it was even a possibility.”
Woh, hold up there a minute! So all women are purely interested in a relationship because they want “true love”, they want it sooooo much, right? I'm not really the person to criticise this outline, because I am totally the one who's out there imagining true love and how much I want it and all that. But I'm a sample of 1 (not to mention, not a woman)! I'm willing to bet, though, that there are plenty of women out there for whom relationships and dating are not about finding “true love” except possibly as a tangent from where they're at now. (Heck, there's loads like that out there if the profiles on dating websites adverts are anything to go by!) Or are the ones who are not looking for true love not worthy of the same respect as the other women reading this book?
“And then it hits you … - who the hell is there left to date?”
“For me, the jubilation of finally realising what I'm worth and what I'm not going to put up with any more slowly, eventually moved on to utter, bone-crushing loneliness.”
"I don't know about you, but I wanted my reward. A huge, seismic shift had occurred in my entire outlook on love and dating, and I believed the heavens should honor me by delivering to me a really nice boyfriend. Unfortunately, life doesn't work like that."
Now, where have I heard that idea before – that the world just owes someone a romantic partner? Oh, yes: Nice Guyism. Although the Nice Guy generally doesn't get that "life doesn't work like that".
"But most often, the reward for feeling better about yourself and no longer letting people treat you poorly is just that – feeling better about yourself and not having people treat you poorly.
"But I have to say, there is something else that comes in to fill the vacuum that our book creates.
…
No, it's not a handsome man whisking you off your feet, but it's the thing that will get you there more assuredly than anything else. It's confidence. And you must not underestimate the power and gift of that."
A lovely message, but again: the reward for feeling confident is – feeling confident. The reward is NOT a man "whisking you off your feet" (and why would a confident woman necessarily want that? Why wouldn't she possibly do the whisking to him instead? Oh yes – because of ch. 1 *groans*)
Just to be clear, I have no problem with the broad overview themes of this book, outlined here by L.T.: "(You can and should) Feel better about yourself!", "Don't let people treat you poorly!", "(You can and should) Feel more confident!" But I think that although following rules of engagement like this book can give you that, they don't necessarily give you the best tools for once you've got it.
Not to mention: the whole problem with a lot of this is that the default state for a lot of men is this "loneliness" phase, only without any of the "confidence" to go with it. Several of the advice tips seem based on assuming that men are in that state.
Temptation (Otherwise known as "The devil comes in many disguises")
Temptation1: The One Who Didn't Get Away
Anecdote about meeting a guy who sent "mixed messages": "Don't you know I literally wrote the book on the subject?"
Amused: "Because now I was a superhero, imbued with superhuman powers of detecting mixed messages, of immediately defending myself against men who really were just not that into me, no matter what clever disguises they used
…
But just as Superman had his kryptonite, you will meet a man (I would say you can count on it) who will have two very important things going for him. First and foremost, you will really, really, really like him. And second, he will have a really, really, really good excuse."
Steps: "You will allow yourself to fall for it (because life isn't all black & white)" -> "You let it go on too long." (because you like him so much) -> "wrap your brain around the sad, disappointing truth"
"You can't believe it's true – it just can't be – no, really? You realise he's just not that into you. Oh, for Pete's sake!
"You thought it could never happen again. And here you are. It's really depressing…. You know better now! How could this have happened?"
"Love is something most of us want very badly in our lives, sometimes more than we even want to admit. And when we get close to getting it, we are reminded of how great it feels to have it, even if it's for a moment, even if it's just a whiff of it, we may forget everything we believe in."
So, right. Who's this "we"? Is it "we women", or "we the human race?" Because if the latter, then what's going on with all those guys who are "just not that into you" – do they want love too? So why aren't they demonstrating it by being into you?
But if it's "we women" then congratulations L.T. for the gendered-assumptions FAIL! Because, of course, all women everywhere (or the vast majority of them) are such emotional dizzies that at the first hint of teh romantz they lose ALL their rational capacities! How much more fucking 19th Century can you get!? Just can't cope without feeling Love! Really, L.T., come on!
As it happens, feminism knows the reason behind why men appear to be "not that into you" even if they, too, "want love". [I'll save the explanation for when I do the fancy polished review post, which I'll do so folks can see how this mess of thoughts ends up as a proper blog post]
Temptation 2: I Can Do This
"You are lonely. You are horny. You think no one will ever love you again."
Because, of course, in every woman's mind "sex" must involve love – "I'm horny therefore I need someone to love me"? Whereas in reality, a liberated and confident woman says "I'm horny, I need to fuck someone!" (or "someone to fuck me", if that's her thang). Alternatively, "You think no one will ever love you again" suggests (in what follows) that you need to be being fucked by someone to feel loved by them!?
This whole point torpedoes the situation that this section outlines. Nothing wrong with being fuck-buddies as long as you don't confuse "sex" with "love" and "genital contact" with "intimacy". As the great philosopher Renegade Evolution says, "intimacy lives in the head and the heart, not the crotch".
Let's see how L.T. misses this point:
"So you keep calling that guy who's only making the mildest attempt at keeping a connection with you. You suggest hanging out together. You have sex with him… You keep sleeping with him – always at your suggestion."
**SCREECHING MENTAL BRAKES**
"Always at your suggestion". And this guy, we're supposed to read, always says "yeah, alright, why not?" Because a man would never ever ever say "no" to sex, right? What a HUGE FUCKING GENDER-ENFORCING, RAPE-CULTURE-SUPPORTING PILE OF CRAP! Maybe I'm the wrong guy to consider this, but I find it hard to imagine L.T.'s scenario as being very common, just because if he enjoyed the sex then he'd want more and ask for it (since he knows she's up for it), whereas if he didn't, he'd just say no, surely? Unless… G.B. says men would say anything to avoid letting on they're "not that into you" so he thinks he's got to perform sexually to keep you happy and not offend you?
Whatever's going on with that situation it seems to me like the GUY needs a wakeup call of his own with respect to "(You can and should) Feel better about yourself!", "Don't let people treat you poorly!", "(You can and should) Feel more confident!" (see "Loneliness" stage).
"You know, deep down, that he's just not that into you." But telling yourself it's okay because you know and are not deluding yourself.
"It's like you've learned the rules of the game and now you're using them to your advantage."
Firstly, I think it's plain that "HJNTIY" is not "the rules of the game". Secondly, what's the advantage here? If all you're after is a good fucking then there's no problem and you're not "playing the game" anyway, but if you're after love then this automatically proves that you aren't getting what you want – so there's no advantage. That may be the point that L.T. is trying to make with this section, but I don't find it clearly stated.
"But it's so funny. A guy taking two days to call you back, or two weeks to want to see you again when you're sleeping with him, still hurts your feelings no matter how clever you think you're being. (Unless you really don't like him – then that's a different story.)"
Again equating fucking with love. I can't get my head around this assumption that women can't separate the two, and therefore get all emotional over a fuck-buddy situation. Sure, some people have rules about the emotional investment they want there to be before sex happens. But dammit, the scenario L.T. painted was "I feel horny" and "I feel lonely", and "I know he doesn't love me". I get it if for you, "sex" means "he loves me" or "I love him", but honestly? That doesn't have to be a general rule. It's something you're bringing, an expectation of "I let him stick his dick in me, now he owes me emotional involvement and I'll be upset if I don't get it." What's more, it's something that feminism can help cure, because feminism explains where that idea came from!
As for "unless you really don't like him" – yes, it's a different story. Because WTF is going on with you that you're wanting to hang out and have sex with this guy if you don't like him!? Unless "like" here means "have romantic feelings for", in which case L.T. is just saying "you slutty women who fuck without loving don't count anyway, no one cares how you do things!" Even though that way of doing things manages to solve both the horny/lonely thing and the emotional pain thing. Again, I quote the infamous and illustrious Renegade Evolution: "Intimacy lives in the head and the heart, not the crotch".
"The good news is, just as you are able to identify a lame excuse without equivocation, you are also able to recognise… Pain. Longing. Hurt feelings… So you know … that it's absolutely unacceptable to let anyone make you feel like that."
Yeah – although in this case you didn't let anyone else do it, you did it to yourself. And, it seems to me, you were doing it to him, too.
Balance (Otherwise known as 'settling in for the long haul')
"Sometimes you just get sick and tired of being on a diet, or even of just thinking a particular way.
…
We were tired. We were tired of having to be so conscious, of having to be on guard."
Woh, I've heard that before. Where? People who got away from the "second-wave" radical feminist school of thinking. I don't know what sort of parallel there is to be drawn there. But it's an interesting thing nonetheless.
"We were tired of having to be so goddamn vigilant with our love lives and our standards."
…
If you want to break the rules a little, go ahead. "At the end of the day, it's your life, and it's your judgement… But, ultimately, you're going to have to make these judgement calls on your own. Sometimes you will make decisions that empower you and honour you, and sometimes you're going to cheat and maybe go against your better instincts for a bit – just at the off chance that this is one of the exceptions to the rule."
…
"If you take nothing else away from this book, please remember that nothing is worse than longing for someone who doesn't want you."
"Please, the minute you realise the situation is making you feel depressed and hurt and it's really not going to go the way you want it to, please put an end to it as soon as you can. It's nice to have a break from being completely and utterly single, but only you will know when the price you're paying for that is too high."
Ah, now the analogy becomes clear: the people who break away from radfem land want to be allowed to "make … judgement calls on [their] own."
I think the message here is a good one: that last quoted sentence particularly - only you will know when the price is too high.
Monday, 7 June 2010
I'm drunk.
When I went to the supermarket on Friday they had a bottled real ale called "Old Bob" as their featured beer. Since hat meant that it was at a special cheaper price, I bougth a bottle to give it a try. I decided that tonight was the night to try it.
What I hadn't realised is that it was 5.1% alcohol by volume - pretty strong as ales go.
What I had realised is that a single pint or bottle (bottles are 500ml, a pint is 568ml) of even a relatively low alcohol beer is enough to get me drunk. Therefore, I am now drunk.
The beer was very nice though.
I'm happy and woozy now.
Dunno why I'm posting this but I am so there you go.
Oh yeah, and apparently USA beat Canada in the cricket. Unless that was a drink-induced hallucination!
What I hadn't realised is that it was 5.1% alcohol by volume - pretty strong as ales go.
What I had realised is that a single pint or bottle (bottles are 500ml, a pint is 568ml) of even a relatively low alcohol beer is enough to get me drunk. Therefore, I am now drunk.
The beer was very nice though.
I'm happy and woozy now.
Dunno why I'm posting this but I am so there you go.
Oh yeah, and apparently USA beat Canada in the cricket. Unless that was a drink-induced hallucination!
Sunday, 6 June 2010
On SSC and RACK
Via the Carnival of Kinky Feminists, this is a response in part to some points raised by Pharoah Katt @ Something More Than Sides, in a post called The Nature of Consent, Part One: SSC vs. RACK.
PK writes that, "There are currently two schools of thought regarding consent in kinky sexuality. They are defined by the acronyms SSC and RACK." I tend to disagree that these are two schools of thought, but rather that they are two different ways of trying to describe the same concepts around BDSM informed consent. They tend to emphasise different parts of the ideal.
What I want to talk about in particular is PK's passage on the term "sane" and some ideas about that. Here's what PK wrote:
I have to agree that the term "sane" in this context is problematic as PK describes here, as potentially ableist language. There is, of course, a standard ablesplaining [see the CFK posting policy for an explanation of this term] response to this, and to make my point I'm going to repeat it WITHOUT endorsing it. My point will be to explain why different, non-ableist, language could be used instead.
The kinky ablesplainer says, effectively, "But we don't mean you! We mean the really mad people!" The argument would probably go that "mild" things like depression, OCD, BPD and so on, don't "count" as "not sane". That it's really about making sure people are capable of making their own decisions. This last sentence, of course, is only digging a deeper hole for the ablesplainer, but bear with me. Sayeth the ablesplainer: "What about someone who's suicidal? You wouldn't accept their consent to REALLY REALLY RISKY stuff, would you!?"
Sifting through the ablesplainers' arguments, I feel, I can discern a concept that is less problematic but still expresses the valid concern that was originally expressed using the term "sane". It is this term that I think could be used instead. The term is "competent".
Wrapped up in this term are several other ideas, as there are in "safe" and in "consensual". Indeed, there is some overlap between "competent" and "safe" in that one of the ways competent can be interpreted is that the participants are competently skilled to perform the acts that have been agreed. Using the knifeplay example from PK's post, I know that I am not competent as a top to engage in any cutting play - my knowledge of anatomy is insufficient to be sure that I could cut someone without a great deal of risk to their health and safety.
Similarly, I am very much against playing when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, because to my mind these impair one's competence (both as top and as bottom).
"Competent" also ties in with the concept of informed consent. To be competent to make a decision, one must have the information on which to assess the options. Similarly, in BDSM, being well-informed when giving consent is considered to be very important.
But the crunch point is what the term means in respect to the term I suggest it replaces. That is, to replace "sane". Well, we can talk about mental competence, or emotional competence, in those terms. What would those terms require in BDSM terms?
Well, the first things I think of in terms of mental competence are skills and knowledge, of the types already discussed. "Do I know what I'm doing?" "Do I know what to do if it goes wrong?" "Do I know how to recognise when I'm/my partner's in trouble?" "Have alcohol, drugs or other influences impaired my judgement about what we're doing?"
Emotional competence is closer to the original intent, but has some of the same problems. In PK's original post, the comment "...what if I don't know if this is the beginnings of mania or I'm just really happy?" highlights this. My usual thoughts on these lines are related to immediate emotions that might make consent or control questionable: for instance, as a top, I feel that playing when angry should be a no-no (I have, once, done so and it was very intense but the risk-aware element was impaired - thankfully, no harm was actually done). Similarly, emotions of guilt or or obligation could sometimes be argued as weighing against a bottom's valid consent because that bottom feels zie should ignore hir own body or emotional responses to events during play, leading to poor communication and, potentially, risk for the bottom. However, I think that talking about emotional competence in these terms is setting up an impossible ideal, and not a realistic standard for practice (people are human, after all, and emotional creatures). For that reason, I would not talk about emotional competence as a part of the standard of consent. I would say that most of the main concerns that lead to "sane" being included in the SSC formulation are in fact covered by the "mental competence" points I already mentioned. [ETA: I found a post I wrote about a year and a half ago that covers my feelings on "emotional competence": Crazy Sex]
Although I prefer the RACK formulation, I do feel that "risk-aware" as a term does not really capture the concerns that I've highlighted in talking about "competence". While it talks about being well-informed ("aware"), it does not really talk about being competent in other ways, such as being competently skilled, or not being affected by alcohol/drugs, or knowing what's going on for you/your partner.
SSC (or SCC if we take my formulation!) focusses on responsibilities first. RACK focusses on informed consent first. Both talk about the same ideal of consent, but with different emphasis.
PK writes that, "There are currently two schools of thought regarding consent in kinky sexuality. They are defined by the acronyms SSC and RACK." I tend to disagree that these are two schools of thought, but rather that they are two different ways of trying to describe the same concepts around BDSM informed consent. They tend to emphasise different parts of the ideal.
What I want to talk about in particular is PK's passage on the term "sane" and some ideas about that. Here's what PK wrote:
The other thing that really shits me about SSC is the word "Sane". Guess what! I'm not sane. I don't identify as sane. There are some days when I am more sane than others, but what about when I'm in the midst of a manic episode and really, really want sex? Should I just say no? Or what if I don't know if this is the beginnings of mania or I'm just really happy? Where is the line drawn? To demand that all kinky participants be sane is, quite frankly, ableist. And I won't have any part in that.
I have to agree that the term "sane" in this context is problematic as PK describes here, as potentially ableist language. There is, of course, a standard ablesplaining [see the CFK posting policy for an explanation of this term] response to this, and to make my point I'm going to repeat it WITHOUT endorsing it. My point will be to explain why different, non-ableist, language could be used instead.
The kinky ablesplainer says, effectively, "But we don't mean you! We mean the really mad people!" The argument would probably go that "mild" things like depression, OCD, BPD and so on, don't "count" as "not sane". That it's really about making sure people are capable of making their own decisions. This last sentence, of course, is only digging a deeper hole for the ablesplainer, but bear with me. Sayeth the ablesplainer: "What about someone who's suicidal? You wouldn't accept their consent to REALLY REALLY RISKY stuff, would you!?"
Sifting through the ablesplainers' arguments, I feel, I can discern a concept that is less problematic but still expresses the valid concern that was originally expressed using the term "sane". It is this term that I think could be used instead. The term is "competent".
Wrapped up in this term are several other ideas, as there are in "safe" and in "consensual". Indeed, there is some overlap between "competent" and "safe" in that one of the ways competent can be interpreted is that the participants are competently skilled to perform the acts that have been agreed. Using the knifeplay example from PK's post, I know that I am not competent as a top to engage in any cutting play - my knowledge of anatomy is insufficient to be sure that I could cut someone without a great deal of risk to their health and safety.
Similarly, I am very much against playing when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, because to my mind these impair one's competence (both as top and as bottom).
"Competent" also ties in with the concept of informed consent. To be competent to make a decision, one must have the information on which to assess the options. Similarly, in BDSM, being well-informed when giving consent is considered to be very important.
But the crunch point is what the term means in respect to the term I suggest it replaces. That is, to replace "sane". Well, we can talk about mental competence, or emotional competence, in those terms. What would those terms require in BDSM terms?
Well, the first things I think of in terms of mental competence are skills and knowledge, of the types already discussed. "Do I know what I'm doing?" "Do I know what to do if it goes wrong?" "Do I know how to recognise when I'm/my partner's in trouble?" "Have alcohol, drugs or other influences impaired my judgement about what we're doing?"
Emotional competence is closer to the original intent, but has some of the same problems. In PK's original post, the comment "...what if I don't know if this is the beginnings of mania or I'm just really happy?" highlights this. My usual thoughts on these lines are related to immediate emotions that might make consent or control questionable: for instance, as a top, I feel that playing when angry should be a no-no (I have, once, done so and it was very intense but the risk-aware element was impaired - thankfully, no harm was actually done). Similarly, emotions of guilt or or obligation could sometimes be argued as weighing against a bottom's valid consent because that bottom feels zie should ignore hir own body or emotional responses to events during play, leading to poor communication and, potentially, risk for the bottom. However, I think that talking about emotional competence in these terms is setting up an impossible ideal, and not a realistic standard for practice (people are human, after all, and emotional creatures). For that reason, I would not talk about emotional competence as a part of the standard of consent. I would say that most of the main concerns that lead to "sane" being included in the SSC formulation are in fact covered by the "mental competence" points I already mentioned. [ETA: I found a post I wrote about a year and a half ago that covers my feelings on "emotional competence": Crazy Sex]
Although I prefer the RACK formulation, I do feel that "risk-aware" as a term does not really capture the concerns that I've highlighted in talking about "competence". While it talks about being well-informed ("aware"), it does not really talk about being competent in other ways, such as being competently skilled, or not being affected by alcohol/drugs, or knowing what's going on for you/your partner.
SSC (or SCC if we take my formulation!) focusses on responsibilities first. RACK focusses on informed consent first. Both talk about the same ideal of consent, but with different emphasis.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
Stuff that happened to me today
Still feeling "floppy", so nothing big, news-based or political-like in this really, just some things that went on in the Snowdrop life over the past 24 hours or so.
Start with "happy", then "sad", then "happy" again and end up with "hard work leading to success".
Happy was last night, which was the local munch so I got to see some kinky friends. One of them was raising money for a charity supporting women and children in Afghanistan, which obviously with my feminist leanings was something I wanted to support. She was charging 50p for a kiss, but I didn't have change so I bought two (one on each cheek!) Munches are always fun in my experience, and kisses are nice too.
Sad came early this afternoon. In town there was a street fayre thing going on, which was nice, but more importantly, I was set up for a hairdressers appointment! More on that in the second "happy", but for now, I am walking into town in the glorious sunshine, my long hair flowing free (I think it gets tangled more when I tie it back, which is a bugger because it can be awkward and unruly otherwise). On my headphones from my mp4 player I was listening to Right Said Fred, I think it had got onto "I'm Too Sexy". And I,. of course, was wiggling my hips to the music, because it's very good hip-wiggle music - and it's got the lyric "I shake my little tush on the catwalk". Admittedly, my tush is somewhat lardy and big, but I was feeling sexy and happy and fun.
Then the other direction came a bunch of men I can only describe as louts, in a red beat-up hatchback, and looking terribly rowdy. I could see them pointing and laughing, which was bad enough, but I wasn't going to let that bother me. This, however, tipped over into street harassment as their car slowed down for the traffic lights and I walked past - the jerks sprayed the windscreen cleaner as I went past, I felt the faint mist droplets land all over me. Arseholes! The lights changed just then and off they went. I continued wiggling my hips down the street. Did I look gay, in their terms? Probably. And of course, Richard Fairbrass is open about his sexuality! Anyway, I was definitely not gender-conforming, and that's enough to make me a target.
But let us cast such negative thoughts from our minds! I had a haircut to attend! I wish I had more money to spare, so I could do it more often. I made excuses for the after-effects of my usual thing of clipping away in front of the mirror at home to try to make things neater. The money this time, though, was no object (or won't be until the next credit card bill comes!) I am making myself look absolutely divine and regal and yet and at the same time pretty and rather accessible! This is so that I will not be an embarrassment to my sister on her wedding day in a couple of weeks' time. She will be looking even more divine and regal than me, of course! [I've just spotted how many '!'s I've used in this paragraph...]
So, I went to the hairdresser's, my sister had recommended them to me and since it's her special day, I went with what she said. The young lady who did my hair was very nice, and it was a great experience - as I said, I wish I could afford it more often than once every 5 years or so. Seeing as "all the tracks lead to the same place" in my mind, having my hair cut led my thoughts to kink. In particular, as she washed my hair ready for the cut, I reflected that even though I was following her direction and putting myself in her hands, she was serving me, and I was in control. Service D/s often strikes me as having this paradox or dilemma in it. Control and power are weird things for sure! But then I was sat in front of the mirror with the cape to catch the cut hair and I saw the slight smile on my face and my dark eyebrows and that face, that smile - pure sadist/Dom! I found myself wondering what my hairdresser thought my smile was about and if she read it the way I did. Put it this way: I used to wonder if I had the "evil glint" that so many sub women say turns them gooey inside. After today, I need no longer wonder - it's there!
So that was a very happy experience, and I felt wonderful afterwards, with a PROPER hairdo for once!
When I got home, however, it was all hands on deck (well - "all hands" meaning me!) because I needed to get on with tidying. Today it was the Computer Corner, which meant untangling the cables, moving all the tech out of the corner, shifting the desk, hoovering, and then putting it all back. I put it back differently. For a while now the screen on my iMac has been dying. I have shifted the iMac to one side and put a replacement screen centre-stage, rearranging it as the main screen. The PC is now on the bottom floor of the computer desk, the printer on the top floor so it's easier to load. I need a new VGA cable so I can swap the screen from Mac to PC as necessary, but otherwise it's good. I was also able to find the ethernet port on the PC so now I can put PC, iMac and netbook all through my router and get fully connected! So, it was hard work but it led to success.
Now, as I've been writing this, the "Live Final" of "I'm In A Rock'n'Roll Band" has been playing in the background. The 3 bands vying for the position of the best rock'n'roll band are all defunct, and all of them have members who are dead - Queen, Led Zeppelin and the Beatles. My vote is for Queen - love the theatrical nature of their music!
Start with "happy", then "sad", then "happy" again and end up with "hard work leading to success".
Happy was last night, which was the local munch so I got to see some kinky friends. One of them was raising money for a charity supporting women and children in Afghanistan, which obviously with my feminist leanings was something I wanted to support. She was charging 50p for a kiss, but I didn't have change so I bought two (one on each cheek!) Munches are always fun in my experience, and kisses are nice too.
Sad came early this afternoon. In town there was a street fayre thing going on, which was nice, but more importantly, I was set up for a hairdressers appointment! More on that in the second "happy", but for now, I am walking into town in the glorious sunshine, my long hair flowing free (I think it gets tangled more when I tie it back, which is a bugger because it can be awkward and unruly otherwise). On my headphones from my mp4 player I was listening to Right Said Fred, I think it had got onto "I'm Too Sexy". And I,. of course, was wiggling my hips to the music, because it's very good hip-wiggle music - and it's got the lyric "I shake my little tush on the catwalk". Admittedly, my tush is somewhat lardy and big, but I was feeling sexy and happy and fun.
Then the other direction came a bunch of men I can only describe as louts, in a red beat-up hatchback, and looking terribly rowdy. I could see them pointing and laughing, which was bad enough, but I wasn't going to let that bother me. This, however, tipped over into street harassment as their car slowed down for the traffic lights and I walked past - the jerks sprayed the windscreen cleaner as I went past, I felt the faint mist droplets land all over me. Arseholes! The lights changed just then and off they went. I continued wiggling my hips down the street. Did I look gay, in their terms? Probably. And of course, Richard Fairbrass is open about his sexuality! Anyway, I was definitely not gender-conforming, and that's enough to make me a target.
But let us cast such negative thoughts from our minds! I had a haircut to attend! I wish I had more money to spare, so I could do it more often. I made excuses for the after-effects of my usual thing of clipping away in front of the mirror at home to try to make things neater. The money this time, though, was no object (or won't be until the next credit card bill comes!) I am making myself look absolutely divine and regal and yet and at the same time pretty and rather accessible! This is so that I will not be an embarrassment to my sister on her wedding day in a couple of weeks' time. She will be looking even more divine and regal than me, of course! [I've just spotted how many '!'s I've used in this paragraph...]
So, I went to the hairdresser's, my sister had recommended them to me and since it's her special day, I went with what she said. The young lady who did my hair was very nice, and it was a great experience - as I said, I wish I could afford it more often than once every 5 years or so. Seeing as "all the tracks lead to the same place" in my mind, having my hair cut led my thoughts to kink. In particular, as she washed my hair ready for the cut, I reflected that even though I was following her direction and putting myself in her hands, she was serving me, and I was in control. Service D/s often strikes me as having this paradox or dilemma in it. Control and power are weird things for sure! But then I was sat in front of the mirror with the cape to catch the cut hair and I saw the slight smile on my face and my dark eyebrows and that face, that smile - pure sadist/Dom! I found myself wondering what my hairdresser thought my smile was about and if she read it the way I did. Put it this way: I used to wonder if I had the "evil glint" that so many sub women say turns them gooey inside. After today, I need no longer wonder - it's there!
So that was a very happy experience, and I felt wonderful afterwards, with a PROPER hairdo for once!
When I got home, however, it was all hands on deck (well - "all hands" meaning me!) because I needed to get on with tidying. Today it was the Computer Corner, which meant untangling the cables, moving all the tech out of the corner, shifting the desk, hoovering, and then putting it all back. I put it back differently. For a while now the screen on my iMac has been dying. I have shifted the iMac to one side and put a replacement screen centre-stage, rearranging it as the main screen. The PC is now on the bottom floor of the computer desk, the printer on the top floor so it's easier to load. I need a new VGA cable so I can swap the screen from Mac to PC as necessary, but otherwise it's good. I was also able to find the ethernet port on the PC so now I can put PC, iMac and netbook all through my router and get fully connected! So, it was hard work but it led to success.
Now, as I've been writing this, the "Live Final" of "I'm In A Rock'n'Roll Band" has been playing in the background. The 3 bands vying for the position of the best rock'n'roll band are all defunct, and all of them have members who are dead - Queen, Led Zeppelin and the Beatles. My vote is for Queen - love the theatrical nature of their music!
Friday, 4 June 2010
Nefarious plans foiled, but in the nicest possible way
As promised, here is a tale of dating nerves, and how it all ended up. This all started from 3 Tuesdays ago now (so 18th May) - and finished up a week later!
Tuesdays, as some may know from previous posts, are when I have my ballroom & Latin dance class. On 18th May, I found my way down to the hall where the class takes place and shortly after I arrived, so did a stunning beauty, G., who was arriving for her first ever class. She and I happened to be about the same age, she might be a little younger than me but close, and we also happened to be the only ones who were single that evening. This meant that we more or less automatically got paired together. Because the class wasn't due to start for a while, we managed to have a conversation beforehand, got to know each other a little. All very promising, and a boost to my self-confidence in talking to strangers!
Well, regular readers will know my kinky proclivities. So you will understand the flutter of hope I felt with what follows:
The male dancers were taught how to use the ballroom hold to control and direct our partners effectively and easily. G. wanted to feel it, and of course I wanted to try it out. So I tried it on her and, well, she responded beautifully, as though she really enjoyed the experience of being under my control!
The excitement didn't stop there, however. When we moved on to the Latin dance of the evening there was more. Once again, G. and I were partnered together. Once again, there was a part where the hold (this time a handhold) is used by the male dancer to direct his partner. Just like several of the dancers I've partnered in the class, G. wanted to pre-empt my moves. Most of those women ignore it when I ask them to wait for my direction. G. thanked me and did as I asked, following instruction and direction so well. By now I was thinking that she might be latent (or even not-so-latent) subbie, and I had a chance of "corrupting the 'nilla" (that is, of introducing a 'nilla person to BDSM).
So I made up my mind that the next Tuesday I would take things up a step, and hopefully if conversation went well, I could ask for her number at the end of the evening. This followed from the idea that Greg Behrendt implies in "He's Just Not That Into You" that men only stand a chance if they make the first move. Also, I figured she'd never know I was interested unless I sent some clear signal (such as asking for her number).
Well! The immediate consequence of this was that I spent the entire week until the next class in a state of heightened nervous excitement. The idea of actually striking up conversation and making a move to indicate my interest filled me with jelly-wobble fear. But I was determined to do it! I would not be imprisoned by my own panic! Talking with my female friends about the whole situation boosted my confidence that I could overcome the nerves, the shyness, the fear.
So Tuesday came around and I went through some preparations to make myself feel confident and attractive. I headed on down to the hall. I arrived in plenty of time (because I was hoping for some conversation with G. G. had not yet arrived, so I got myself settled and loosened up ready to dance - and tried to relax enough that I would be able to speak English (more or less).
Well, G. arrived a few minutes later, and literally the first thing she said as she entered and saw me was "Hi [Snowdrop] - this is my husband, H." So all that nervous excitement, psyching up and everything was all for nothing: she wasn't single really anyway! (Honest, that would have been something I would have hoped to gather from conversation before making my move!)
Was I disappointed? A little, I suppose - but I couldn't feel bad or negative about it: G. and H. were so sweet together it was beautiful to see.
Anyway, that was my totally exciting story that I wanted to tell you. I suppose the really good bit from a "personal development" point of view for me is that I got to rehearse the emtional crisis, I got to practise in my mind how I might manage it if another opportunity to chat up a woman who may or may not be 'nilla in nature, and with whom I had never communicated before by email, IM or other means.
[NB G. and H. may not be the people's real initials]
Tuesdays, as some may know from previous posts, are when I have my ballroom & Latin dance class. On 18th May, I found my way down to the hall where the class takes place and shortly after I arrived, so did a stunning beauty, G., who was arriving for her first ever class. She and I happened to be about the same age, she might be a little younger than me but close, and we also happened to be the only ones who were single that evening. This meant that we more or less automatically got paired together. Because the class wasn't due to start for a while, we managed to have a conversation beforehand, got to know each other a little. All very promising, and a boost to my self-confidence in talking to strangers!
Well, regular readers will know my kinky proclivities. So you will understand the flutter of hope I felt with what follows:
The male dancers were taught how to use the ballroom hold to control and direct our partners effectively and easily. G. wanted to feel it, and of course I wanted to try it out. So I tried it on her and, well, she responded beautifully, as though she really enjoyed the experience of being under my control!
The excitement didn't stop there, however. When we moved on to the Latin dance of the evening there was more. Once again, G. and I were partnered together. Once again, there was a part where the hold (this time a handhold) is used by the male dancer to direct his partner. Just like several of the dancers I've partnered in the class, G. wanted to pre-empt my moves. Most of those women ignore it when I ask them to wait for my direction. G. thanked me and did as I asked, following instruction and direction so well. By now I was thinking that she might be latent (or even not-so-latent) subbie, and I had a chance of "corrupting the 'nilla" (that is, of introducing a 'nilla person to BDSM).
So I made up my mind that the next Tuesday I would take things up a step, and hopefully if conversation went well, I could ask for her number at the end of the evening. This followed from the idea that Greg Behrendt implies in "He's Just Not That Into You" that men only stand a chance if they make the first move. Also, I figured she'd never know I was interested unless I sent some clear signal (such as asking for her number).
Well! The immediate consequence of this was that I spent the entire week until the next class in a state of heightened nervous excitement. The idea of actually striking up conversation and making a move to indicate my interest filled me with jelly-wobble fear. But I was determined to do it! I would not be imprisoned by my own panic! Talking with my female friends about the whole situation boosted my confidence that I could overcome the nerves, the shyness, the fear.
So Tuesday came around and I went through some preparations to make myself feel confident and attractive. I headed on down to the hall. I arrived in plenty of time (because I was hoping for some conversation with G. G. had not yet arrived, so I got myself settled and loosened up ready to dance - and tried to relax enough that I would be able to speak English (more or less).
Well, G. arrived a few minutes later, and literally the first thing she said as she entered and saw me was "Hi [Snowdrop] - this is my husband, H." So all that nervous excitement, psyching up and everything was all for nothing: she wasn't single really anyway! (Honest, that would have been something I would have hoped to gather from conversation before making my move!)
Was I disappointed? A little, I suppose - but I couldn't feel bad or negative about it: G. and H. were so sweet together it was beautiful to see.
Anyway, that was my totally exciting story that I wanted to tell you. I suppose the really good bit from a "personal development" point of view for me is that I got to rehearse the emtional crisis, I got to practise in my mind how I might manage it if another opportunity to chat up a woman who may or may not be 'nilla in nature, and with whom I had never communicated before by email, IM or other means.
[NB G. and H. may not be the people's real initials]
"Not That Into You" chapter 15 & 16 notes
Not far to go now on this series (seeing as we're on the closing remarks of the two authors!), just a couple more after this. Soon you'll have all the raw material my brain churned out as I read through "He's Just Not That Into You". Once I've done that, I'll write the post that I would normally have written as soon as I'd finished reading the book!
For now, though, on with the show:
Chapter 15: Closing remarks from G.B.
Fair enough. Although getting there is somewhat harder than it might seem fora jerk like someone as self-confident as G.B.
Because, of course, every guy is the same as every other guy, is the same as fuckin' Greg fuckin' Behrendt. I forgot that we're all really just emotional clones of one another.
Where the philosophy is applied from a "Is this good for me?" basis, yes. But G.B. often applies it from a "I can read the minds of all men, everywhere!" basis, and that pisses me off because it seems I am not, in G.B.'s terms, a man – yet to the untrained eye I sure look like one.
Chapter 16: Closing remarks from L.T.
Well, again – I'm going to turn that around. But when I do I need to be clear on something. So, what if men started requiring that women (and other men, for that matter) kept true to their word, treat US with respect? (I leave off the "shower us with the appropriate amount of love and affection" because I think for a lot of women, and especially those at whom the book is aimed, they are entirely giving too much of those to certain guys – and I think they're socialised to do so). But I think it's important in thinking this that when I think about requiring/insisting on "respect" isn't the macho posturing "respect" crap that leads to so much domestic violence and hatred. That use of "respect" is entirely illegitimate and what those men really want is servitude. I mean the basic regard for humanity. Treating as equals! Respect in the same sense as L.T. means it in the passage above.
Because if women are told not to seem needy or demanding, then men are told not to seem emotional or involved. The world teaches us all that men are not emotional creatures, which is just a big fucking lie. And it's one that G.B. seems to buy into when he wrote this book.
(See "worthiness trap" concept.)
For now, though, on with the show:
Chapter 15: Closing remarks from G.B.
"I don't need to know you to know that at the very least you ought to think that way about yourself." (i.e. "You're cool, cute" etc).
Fair enough. Although getting there is somewhat harder than it might seem for
"…who am I to be giving advice to others? I am a formerly single guy who gave those same lame excuses, so I know what these guys are really doing."
Because, of course, every guy is the same as every other guy, is the same as fuckin' Greg fuckin' Behrendt. I forgot that we're all really just emotional clones of one another.
"…at the core the 'He's just not that into you' concept can truly have a magical transcendent effect. It's not bad news if it helps you free yourself from a relationship that's beneath you."
Where the philosophy is applied from a "Is this good for me?" basis, yes. But G.B. often applies it from a "I can read the minds of all men, everywhere!" basis, and that pisses me off because it seems I am not, in G.B.'s terms, a man – yet to the untrained eye I sure look like one.
Chapter 16: Closing remarks from L.T.
"G.B. is really annoying." Reasons: very high standards; sees everything in black&white; unswerving optimism (clashes with L.T.'s pessimism). Most of all, is often right.
…
"G.B. … demands that men treat us better than even we think they should. We have been conditioned to expect so little, told not to be demanding, not to seem needy. But what would happen if all the women in the world listened to G.B. – if we all started insisting that men keep true to their word, treat us with respect, shower us with the appropriate amount of love and affection? I think there'd be an awful lot of better-behaved men in the world."
Well, again – I'm going to turn that around. But when I do I need to be clear on something. So, what if men started requiring that women (and other men, for that matter) kept true to their word, treat US with respect? (I leave off the "shower us with the appropriate amount of love and affection" because I think for a lot of women, and especially those at whom the book is aimed, they are entirely giving too much of those to certain guys – and I think they're socialised to do so). But I think it's important in thinking this that when I think about requiring/insisting on "respect" isn't the macho posturing "respect" crap that leads to so much domestic violence and hatred. That use of "respect" is entirely illegitimate and what those men really want is servitude. I mean the basic regard for humanity. Treating as equals! Respect in the same sense as L.T. means it in the passage above.
Because if women are told not to seem needy or demanding, then men are told not to seem emotional or involved. The world teaches us all that men are not emotional creatures, which is just a big fucking lie. And it's one that G.B. seems to buy into when he wrote this book.
(See "worthiness trap" concept.)
Floppy 'droppy
The past week or two there have been quite a few things happened that I feel I "should" post about or otherwise acknowledge and all that. And then I just haven't. Either just lacked the energy, or failed to make time in amongst all sorts of other stuff going on, or been away on holiday with my parents - I did manage one thing because there was a proper(ish) deadline coming up on that and I hate deadlines but only because they tend to make me actually do work!
So anyway, if there's something that you feel I should have written about but I didn't, tough. I have been too floppy.
Hopefully I'll post telling the story to which I allude in my "introduction to dating" post tomorrow or Saturday, and no doubt there will be more "Not That Into You" stuff at various points.
For now, though, please note the new thingy in the sidebar. The F-Word Blog is having a revamp, make-over, whatever you want to call it, to bring the thing up to date (apparently it's been going for close to 10 years now!) and generally make it better than ever before. For this, there is a need for cash, so there is an appeal, a "thermometer" or "totaliser" and all that good stuff: if you have a few spare quids, chuck 'em their way!
So anyway, if there's something that you feel I should have written about but I didn't, tough. I have been too floppy.
Hopefully I'll post telling the story to which I allude in my "introduction to dating" post tomorrow or Saturday, and no doubt there will be more "Not That Into You" stuff at various points.
For now, though, please note the new thingy in the sidebar. The F-Word Blog is having a revamp, make-over, whatever you want to call it, to bring the thing up to date (apparently it's been going for close to 10 years now!) and generally make it better than ever before. For this, there is a need for cash, so there is an appeal, a "thermometer" or "totaliser" and all that good stuff: if you have a few spare quids, chuck 'em their way!
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Introducing kink with FSD
K @ Feminists With FSD has just posted an account of an email exchange we had concerning SM play and medical conditions causing painful sex. She approached me in particular because she knows I identify as sadist and wanted to know how I would handle a situation where a partner had a history of painful sex, e.g. from medical conditions.
I was, of course, happy to help in any way I could, and I think that her account, quoting liberally (with my permission, naturally) from the emails I sent. I think there's quite a lot of value in there, even though it is approached from a personal point of view more than "theoretical" - I don't pretend to know how others would go about it, I just talk about trends that I have seen personally, and what I personally feel about how to approach it. Even so, I think there's good stuff in there for any relationship (focus on communication is always central to my approach, for example, regardless of medical conditions or what-have-you).
Some of the main points included:
I've put "let the new bottom set the pace" - that needs a little qualification, because some relationships thrive when the top pushes the bottom just a little way: but that's something that comes from strong established communication and relationship such that the top can judge well whether or not the bottom is ready to try a particular thing. And always a bottom has the ability then through the same level of communication to stop it if it's going too fast.
I was, of course, happy to help in any way I could, and I think that her account, quoting liberally (with my permission, naturally) from the emails I sent. I think there's quite a lot of value in there, even though it is approached from a personal point of view more than "theoretical" - I don't pretend to know how others would go about it, I just talk about trends that I have seen personally, and what I personally feel about how to approach it. Even so, I think there's good stuff in there for any relationship (focus on communication is always central to my approach, for example, regardless of medical conditions or what-have-you).
Some of the main points included:
- BDSM sex doesn't even have to involve penetration - pain play, bondage and D/s can all be big turn-ons without PiV, anal or oral penetration involved
- Pain of the sort experienced in FSD painful sex is not negotiated or consensual, so it's not desirable in BDSM sex - even for a sadist inflicting pain on a partner
- Handle the introduction the same way as any new BDSM relationship - limits, safewords, understanding
- Let the new bottom set the pace for development
- No pressure or guilt relating to use of safeword to stop an activity that is causing "bad" pain
- Communication, communication, communication!
I've put "let the new bottom set the pace" - that needs a little qualification, because some relationships thrive when the top pushes the bottom just a little way: but that's something that comes from strong established communication and relationship such that the top can judge well whether or not the bottom is ready to try a particular thing. And always a bottom has the ability then through the same level of communication to stop it if it's going too fast.
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Introduction to Dating
Since I'm one of the admin folks for the Carnival of Kinky Feminists (submission deadline 1st June) I rather feel as though I should make an effort to provide a post for the first ever edition! The theme, appropriately enough for a first edition, is “introductions”.
I've already written on this blog about my introductions to feminism and kink (links are examples of such posts, there are others as well). I've also written a post about how kink and feminism worked together in one relationship. So I think it would be good to find some other interpretation of the theme. The kinky feminist carnival suggests “introduction to partner(s)” as a possible theme. Again, that feels in general like something that I've written about before in various posts, and besides, each introduction to a new (potential) partner has been unique, just as each person was, and finding common themes on which to hang an interesting summary would be almost impossible.
So, what kinky or feminist introductions thing could I talk about? Then I realised I haven't really written about my introduction to dating as a concept, as something you do ('nilla, kinky, feminist or anything). So here's a quick look at some of that lovely stuff.
I was later developing than my peers in understanding about sex and dating, it seems. I know that cultural pressures make it seem like that for most people, but I think it's true in my case, because I know that I was “accused” (that's certainly how the claim was presented - of course, it's not something I believe you can be "accused" of being, now) of being “gay” before I knew what that was (other than “cheerful, bright, happy”) when my prepubescent penis would get erections after swimming lessons while drying off. By the time I reached secondary school I was so shy of my body I had to wait until everyone else had finished showering after physical education lessons before I would go in there (but that's part of a different story) (secondary school = 11-16yrs old). So anyway, that implies my 10-year old peers knew what an erection means (to an adult – they clearly didn't know what it means about a prepubescent body just entering hormonal changes) when I didn't know.
At that age, of course, the closest you come to “dating” is in games such as “kiss chase” or “Love, like, kiss or hate” (victim has eyes covered, is steered towards another member of the class and asked to declare without looking, “love”, “like”, “kiss” or “hate” - the safest answer seems to be “like” unless it's the class pariah who's accused of having “germs”). I do remember being the second-most outcast kid (and going further along that line is something I promised myself never to do online).
I suppose the idea of “dating” first was presented as something relevant to my age group n(as opposed to being “that yucky thing teenagers do with girls!” - yes, sexism started that young) when I got to secondary school. But for me, it was still not something I was interested in. One of the girls in my class, I was told a year or two further on, may have had a crush on me – but I didn't notice at the time because I wasn't ready for that stuff. I was still 11 years old, still thought of girls as icky aliens who were weird and different from me and why would I be interested in them? Except I was kind of interested – I had the hots for Ace in Doctor Who and for Kate Lonergan as Maid Marian in “Maid Marian and her Merry Men” (a children's tv show that suggested that Robin Hood was a fop fashion designer who accidentally got caught up in Marian's resistance fighters and was mistaken for being the leader, when really it was Marian who was the brains and talented one in the outfit). I've mentioned both those shows with respect to my earliest memories of being interested in BDSM, too!
Sex was something we were first taught about in science classes when we were 12-13, I think. Dating wasn't covered until a year later. By that stage, I was beginning to get interested but was also painfully shy about the whole thing, convinced I was unattractive and hopelessly naïve. I remember Vanessa asking me to have sex with her when we were 14 and being a) convinced she was just teasing me and b) not actually that interested in having sex.
Later that same school year I plucked up the courage to ask a girl out, except I couldn't do it face to face, I left a note on her desk in science class asking if she would go out with me. She said no, and the story spread around the class – actually, even if they were taking the piss, the comments sounded positive – although the tone was “you're finally catching up to the rest of us”.
But now I knew that girls were interesting, that dating was interesting, that it was something you were supposed to do. I also knew that it was something I didn't know how to do, and really, there wasn't a lot of helpful advice for a shy, insecure guy like me.
So the next 8-10 years became my “Nice Guy” phase (and boy did I live that role to perfection!), and in that space I only asked one girl out, I was 20, she was 18, we were both in the cult TV club at university. I spoke with my sister on the phone beforehand and afterwards trying to decode what was going on (Yes, Greg Behrendt, guys do do that too! [you'll see what I mean when I get to posting that bit of the Not That Into You” series]). Sister decoded “I'll get back to you” as “she's going to ask her friends” - the answer when she did get back to me, again, turned out to be “no” in the end.
I've written often enough before about how discovering the online consensual BDSM community was in so many ways a huge relief for me, and how it opened me up to the possibility of happy sexual relationships. That, obviously, means “dating” too.
A few days after joining Informed Consent I had contact for the first time with a woman who was kinky like me, lived near enough to me that a relationship seemed possible – then on the day we'd arranged to meet she emailed me to cancel saying she'd got back together with her ex. Crashed and burned AGAIN!
A couple of months after that, however, I was meeting a woman in real life, face-to-face, on a date, for the first time ever. She travelled from London to meet me at a nearby own and it went well, though nothing except friendship ever developed from it. I remember being completely tongue-tied for the first 15 minutes, literally unable to speak I was that shy. But I had done it. I had asked a girl on a date and she hadn't turned me down!
I think I am still only just getting introduced to dating, and this is now about 7 years on from that day. I feel totally lost unless we've met via some kind of internet dating service or personal ads, and exchanged lots of words via IM and email beforehand. A story about a recent event that I have yet to tell (but intend to) shows just how nervous I am about the idea of approaching a woman and asking her out (i.e. asking for her phone number) after getting to know her at a social event.
So far, “dating” really consists of just a few distinct events in my life: meeting Julie a few times (our first meeting, which turned out to be “meet, go to mine, fuck, chat for a bit”; and a couple of munches we went to); meeting droplette (Julie's friend that she set me up with) once; and that first ever dating experience.
I remain confident there will be more. That eventually one of them will become more, will become a relationship, might even become (whisper it) marriage. I don't know when, who, where, even whether she will be kinky or 'nilla to start with (if it's going to go far, it will definitely end up kinky!) but I have to believe (again, following the advice Greg Behrendt offers – even though he's not offering that advice to men, cos he thinks we don't need to be told that stuff).
Dating is hard, but I live in hope.
I've already written on this blog about my introductions to feminism and kink (links are examples of such posts, there are others as well). I've also written a post about how kink and feminism worked together in one relationship. So I think it would be good to find some other interpretation of the theme. The kinky feminist carnival suggests “introduction to partner(s)” as a possible theme. Again, that feels in general like something that I've written about before in various posts, and besides, each introduction to a new (potential) partner has been unique, just as each person was, and finding common themes on which to hang an interesting summary would be almost impossible.
So, what kinky or feminist introductions thing could I talk about? Then I realised I haven't really written about my introduction to dating as a concept, as something you do ('nilla, kinky, feminist or anything). So here's a quick look at some of that lovely stuff.
I was later developing than my peers in understanding about sex and dating, it seems. I know that cultural pressures make it seem like that for most people, but I think it's true in my case, because I know that I was “accused” (that's certainly how the claim was presented - of course, it's not something I believe you can be "accused" of being, now) of being “gay” before I knew what that was (other than “cheerful, bright, happy”) when my prepubescent penis would get erections after swimming lessons while drying off. By the time I reached secondary school I was so shy of my body I had to wait until everyone else had finished showering after physical education lessons before I would go in there (but that's part of a different story) (secondary school = 11-16yrs old). So anyway, that implies my 10-year old peers knew what an erection means (to an adult – they clearly didn't know what it means about a prepubescent body just entering hormonal changes) when I didn't know.
At that age, of course, the closest you come to “dating” is in games such as “kiss chase” or “Love, like, kiss or hate” (victim has eyes covered, is steered towards another member of the class and asked to declare without looking, “love”, “like”, “kiss” or “hate” - the safest answer seems to be “like” unless it's the class pariah who's accused of having “germs”). I do remember being the second-most outcast kid (and going further along that line is something I promised myself never to do online).
I suppose the idea of “dating” first was presented as something relevant to my age group n(as opposed to being “that yucky thing teenagers do with girls!” - yes, sexism started that young) when I got to secondary school. But for me, it was still not something I was interested in. One of the girls in my class, I was told a year or two further on, may have had a crush on me – but I didn't notice at the time because I wasn't ready for that stuff. I was still 11 years old, still thought of girls as icky aliens who were weird and different from me and why would I be interested in them? Except I was kind of interested – I had the hots for Ace in Doctor Who and for Kate Lonergan as Maid Marian in “Maid Marian and her Merry Men” (a children's tv show that suggested that Robin Hood was a fop fashion designer who accidentally got caught up in Marian's resistance fighters and was mistaken for being the leader, when really it was Marian who was the brains and talented one in the outfit). I've mentioned both those shows with respect to my earliest memories of being interested in BDSM, too!
Sex was something we were first taught about in science classes when we were 12-13, I think. Dating wasn't covered until a year later. By that stage, I was beginning to get interested but was also painfully shy about the whole thing, convinced I was unattractive and hopelessly naïve. I remember Vanessa asking me to have sex with her when we were 14 and being a) convinced she was just teasing me and b) not actually that interested in having sex.
Later that same school year I plucked up the courage to ask a girl out, except I couldn't do it face to face, I left a note on her desk in science class asking if she would go out with me. She said no, and the story spread around the class – actually, even if they were taking the piss, the comments sounded positive – although the tone was “you're finally catching up to the rest of us”.
But now I knew that girls were interesting, that dating was interesting, that it was something you were supposed to do. I also knew that it was something I didn't know how to do, and really, there wasn't a lot of helpful advice for a shy, insecure guy like me.
So the next 8-10 years became my “Nice Guy” phase (and boy did I live that role to perfection!), and in that space I only asked one girl out, I was 20, she was 18, we were both in the cult TV club at university. I spoke with my sister on the phone beforehand and afterwards trying to decode what was going on (Yes, Greg Behrendt, guys do do that too! [you'll see what I mean when I get to posting that bit of the Not That Into You” series]). Sister decoded “I'll get back to you” as “she's going to ask her friends” - the answer when she did get back to me, again, turned out to be “no” in the end.
I've written often enough before about how discovering the online consensual BDSM community was in so many ways a huge relief for me, and how it opened me up to the possibility of happy sexual relationships. That, obviously, means “dating” too.
A few days after joining Informed Consent I had contact for the first time with a woman who was kinky like me, lived near enough to me that a relationship seemed possible – then on the day we'd arranged to meet she emailed me to cancel saying she'd got back together with her ex. Crashed and burned AGAIN!
A couple of months after that, however, I was meeting a woman in real life, face-to-face, on a date, for the first time ever. She travelled from London to meet me at a nearby own and it went well, though nothing except friendship ever developed from it. I remember being completely tongue-tied for the first 15 minutes, literally unable to speak I was that shy. But I had done it. I had asked a girl on a date and she hadn't turned me down!
I think I am still only just getting introduced to dating, and this is now about 7 years on from that day. I feel totally lost unless we've met via some kind of internet dating service or personal ads, and exchanged lots of words via IM and email beforehand. A story about a recent event that I have yet to tell (but intend to) shows just how nervous I am about the idea of approaching a woman and asking her out (i.e. asking for her phone number) after getting to know her at a social event.
So far, “dating” really consists of just a few distinct events in my life: meeting Julie a few times (our first meeting, which turned out to be “meet, go to mine, fuck, chat for a bit”; and a couple of munches we went to); meeting droplette (Julie's friend that she set me up with) once; and that first ever dating experience.
I remain confident there will be more. That eventually one of them will become more, will become a relationship, might even become (whisper it) marriage. I don't know when, who, where, even whether she will be kinky or 'nilla to start with (if it's going to go far, it will definitely end up kinky!) but I have to believe (again, following the advice Greg Behrendt offers – even though he's not offering that advice to men, cos he thinks we don't need to be told that stuff).
Dating is hard, but I live in hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)