A comment was submitted for publication here, which contained the following queries which I felt were worth addressing (and which I have summarised).
im wondering why you are asking for peoples unpleasant stories rather than positive ones, im merely curious is all.
I have had more unpleasant stories about online relationships [...] online encounters have been unpleasant yet i dont see these listed above.
[...] i dont like to see that there is negative attitude here towards the bdsm groups in ireland. i see the request for ppl to share ‘unpleasant’ stories as a way to ‘tar’ or ‘attack’ the bdsm community
[...] why is there no request for positive feedback, i am only merely curious. it seems an odd request to look for this information from strangers.
1. Why request unpleasant stories instead of positive feedback?
As you may have noticed, positive feedback may be, and in fact is freely published everywhere, without fear of recriminations. Positive feedback is more or less universally welcomed and celebrated.
Note that these queries were posed in a comment submitted for publication, and not in a private email. This person clearly felt no concern about enduring any unpleasant recriminations from their remarks.
If it were already possible to freely publish unpleasant feedback within the community, and if the people responsible for attending to these matters always responded to unpleasant feedback with efforts to put it right, then I would hardly need to write this post, because all of my queries would have been freely and widely addressed elsewhere already. Not only would I have no need to ask people (strangers) to write to me privately, but those people (strangers) would have no need to write to me privately.
Clearly, this is not the case right now. There’s a lot to say, but there is currently no place to safely say it.
2. Why try to ‘tar’ or ‘attack’ the bdsm community?
I’m interested to note that you seem to think that unpleasant truths are by definition a ‘negative attitude’, or an attempt to ‘tar’ or ‘attack’ anybody. Why would I want to do that anyhow? I cannot think of a single reason why attacking the BDSM community, of which I am a member, would benefit me. I can’t make any sense out of your premise.
Telling the truth, however unpleasant it may be, can hardly be accurately characterised as negative, tarring or attacking anybody. Facts stand alone, without value judgements, and regardless of any personal bias.
I’m also interested to note that from what you say, positive feedback is ok with you, but other kinds of feedback are not. I read from what you wrote that somehow, the less positive kinds of feedback appear to leave you feeling like the messenger is at fault for their ‘negative attitude’, or for attempting to ‘tar’ or ‘attack’.
As it happens, I’ve found that the double-standards featured in these kinds of victim-blaming, messenger-shooting strategies are commonplace in our community, unfortunately.
3. Why not include online dating in your list of requests?
If anybody wants to talk to me about any unpleasantness from dating online or in-person individuals, then I am of course more than willing listen attentively. I do agree that it’s important to share information about people who are habitual abusers. My experience is that this kind of information has unfortunately also been frequently moderated invisibly, so I would welcome information about that, if anybody wants to share it. Perhaps some pertinent details about a few specific persistent perpetrators will come to light, which can only improve everybody’s safety.
I too have had unpleasant dating experiences with individuals, both online and in-person. So by all means, if you want to, please do write to me with the details of any transgressing online daters you’ve come across, or on anything else I haven’t included.
Just a couple of quick notes to finish off:
I got a phone call asking me about this post. I’ve never had a phone call specifically about a post I’ve published before, not once since April 2007 when I started this blog. I’m not really sure what to make of that call. It was odd. I was told that this post might be open to misinterpretation, but despite my asking several times, the caller wouldn’t say misinterpretation of what.
For the people who have written to me so far - Please be aware that I am working on replies to your messages, and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.
I’ve had a great many difficulties finding straightforward, comprehensive, concise and universally applicable definitions of consent on the web. I’ve also had (probably related) difficulties with other people’s ideas of consent conflicting with mine. So I thought I’d do a definition just so we’re all clear on what I mean by “consent”.
Please note the definition of abuse which I’ve published along with this definition.
Consent – The Definition
con•sent | ˌkənˈsɛnt |
noun
Permission, approval or authorisation chosen by an individual regarding specific and limited act(s) which impact on them, sometimes with conditions, often in response to a request.
verb [intransitive]
Choosing to permit, approve or authorise specific and limited act(s) which impact on the chooser, sometimes with conditions, often in response to a request.
Criteria - If conditions are specified, the permission, approval or authorisation is only valid as long as the specified conditions are fulfilled.
Permission, approval or authorisation to act is valid only from those who:
choose it freely, willingly, individually and separately
have legitimate jurisdiction over the choice
have fully functional judgment
are attentive, awake, aware, and alert
have full knowledge of all relevant facts
have ample time to consider, decline, and reconsider
Unless explicitly and specifically authorised and unless all the above criteria are fulfilled, permission, approval or authorisation by default are declined. By definition, waiting for permission, approval or authorisation for the specified act(s) and ensuring all the above criteria are fulfilled before proceeding is fully the responsibility of the person requesting it. Proceeding under any other conditions is a transgression.
The necessity for a comprehensive, universally applicable definition of consent is most notable by the abuse which by definition occurs when it is incomplete or absent.
Consent is not about the act itself, consent is about permission to act. So responsibility for that permission belongs to the person choosing whether to consent or not, and responsibility for the act itself belongs with the person seeking the consent of another. Frequently, a transgressor may use the absence of an explicit refusal to justify their transgression. By doing this, the transgressor is abdicating responsibility by holding the transgressed responsible for the transgression(s). This approach is logically flawed in terms of this definition. Consent can easily be invalidated by manipulating the absence of an explicit refusal, by
ignoring that consent by default is declined (otherwise, why ask?)
ignoring the responsibility to wait for consent before proceeding
purposefully limiting or eliminating opportunities to decline
deliberately withholding relevant information
The absence of an explicit refusal is therefore always an invalid justification for a transgression. Why explicitly request consent if only to proceed regardless of the response?
Single Standard Definition - For me, and I think for most people, defining a single standard is much easier when it has both a name and a behaviour which is on or off, regardless of any other factors which may be less general and sometimes distracting or irrelevant. In this case, the single standard of consent and abuse is based on the following criteria:
1.Regardless of - how, where, when or why consent is being transgressed
- to what extent, by whom and against whom consent is being transgressed
- the severity or triviality of a transgression or by whose judgement
2.All abuses and transgressions of consent - merit being challenged
- are undesirable, offensive, objectionable, repugnant and abhorrent
- are expendable, superfluous, preventable and avoidable
3.All transgressors - are accountable for their transgressions
- merit being challenged for their transgressions
4.All individuals are entitled to - respect for their consent
- support against abuse of their consent
5.Valid respect for consent is always preferable and desirable
In short, all transgressions of consent are always about the behaviour and responsibility of the transgressor. The onus of responsibility to respect consent is always on the person seeking the consent, because the choice to respect or transgress is theirs alone.
Etymology
ORIGIN - Middle English, from Old French consente (noun), consentir (verb) ‘to feel together’, from Latin consentire, from con- ‘together’ and sentire ‘feel’.
I’ve had a great many difficulties finding straightforward, comprehensive, concise and universally applicable definitions of abuse on the web. I’ve had (probably related) difficulties with other people’s ideas of abuse conflicting with mine. So I thought I’d do a definition just so we’re all clear on what I mean by “abuse”.
Please note the definition of consent which I’ve published along with this definition.
In addition to wanting fairly simple and universally applicable definition pages for my own ease of reference in discussions about abuse and consent, the many convoluted and limited definitions available elsewhere on the web contributed significantly to my interest in creating these pages.
Abuse – The Definition
a•buse | ˌəˈbjuːs | | ˌəˈbjuːz |
noun
An objectionable behaviour which transgresses the consent of others, regardless of method, target or outcome.
verb [transitive]
To transgress or cause to transgress the consent of others, including acting in contravention of an existing agreement or obligation, regardless of method, target or outcome.
Criteria - Transgressions can be perpetrated by hugely diverse individuals against hugely diverse targets, using hugely diverse methods in hugely diverse environments. Transgressions can include a negligent failure to act or any transgression of a freely undertaken agreement or obligation.
In the context of agreements to grant consent which is conditional on limiting certain behaviours, substance abuse transgresses the lawful supplier’s conditional consent to dispense, in a Christian context abuse of the sacrament transgresses the conditional consent of the cleric to give Communion, and abuse of process transgresses the conditional consent of professionals to perform certain duties within certain limits.
Abuse of a specific consent can only occur if that consent is concurrently absent, incomplete, unconsidered, uninformed, manipulated or coerced. Fully informed, considered, complete and freely given consent by definition renders abuse of that specific consent impossible.
Antonyms (noun) - respect, consideration, care, sensitivity, accommodation (verb) - respect, consider, care for, be sensitive to, accommodate
The terms consent and abuse are symbiotically linked and diametrically opposed. Although a clear definition of abuse is not integral to the definition of consent, a clear definition of consent is certainly integral to any definition of abuse. Incomplete or absent consent for an act by definition means that act is prohibited. Therefore proceeding based on anything other than explicitly granted consent is by definition abusing that consent. Conversely, fully informed, freely and explicitly given consent precludes abuse of that consent.
Double Standards - In my experience many people tend to prioritise other people’s comfort over their own. A transgression against their own consent may be disregarded, whilst an identical one against others may be considered an outrageous offense. This leads to full acceptance of some abuses as a result of becoming normalised to them, and a constantly varying double standard regarding what is and is not abusive.
Conflict Avoidance - I also find that many people experience tremendous discomfort with conflict of any kind. Combining the abuse double standard with devoted conflict avoidance means that even those who vociferously claim to be against abuse in the abstract will in the same breath allow transgressions perpetrated right in front of them (or at them, or by them) to proceed absolutely unchallenged.
(grumbled mutterings or tut-tuttings hardly constitute a valid challenge)
Difficulties With Defining - Double standards inevitably confuse and derail attempts to establish categorical definitions of both consent and the abuses which transgress it. In formal settings such as workplaces and other environments in which behaviour is under frequent supervision and individuals are accountable to specific authority figures, this is not such a problem. But in more informal social contexts, defining abuse and consent is much more problematic. A good example of this problem can be seen on Wikipedia on their abuse disambiguation page, their large number of separate and frequently convoluted abuse definition pages, and their large number of separate and frequently convoluted consent definition pages.
Single Standard - I know that many of you strive
- for congruent ethics and behaviour (waaayyyyyy rarer than it sounds)
- to always avoid abusing consent (whether you are targeted or targeting)
- to always respect all consent in all circumstances (your own and others)
If achieving these goals is important to you, then chances are you will want to meticulously include these two steps in everything you do:
Responsibly check, recheck and recheck consent(yours and others)
If consent is in any way invalid, responsibly do something else
Etymology
ORIGIN - late Middle English, via Old French abuser from Latin abusus with the root abus- ‘misused’ from the past participle stem of the verb abuti, from ab- ‘away’(as in ‘wrongly’) and uti ‘to use’.
In connection with something somebody said, I was searching the internet for a simple, accessible, focused definition of sex positive which I could link to directly.
I found many examples of the term in use, many complex, relatively unfocused definitions of it (most of which were duplicates of each other), and a few sort of suitable definitions which had no link of their own because they were one amongst many on a single page.
So for my own ease of reference, I made one. (as I do)
sex po•si•tive [sex-positive] | ˌsɛks ˈpɑ.zɨ.tɪv |
adjective
Attitudes, language and behaviour which are demonstrably inclusive, equitable and impartial in specific reference to eroticism, sexuality, erotic practices and the individuals associated with them.
In contrast to such terms as intolerance, exclusion and discrimination, this term covers attitudes, language and behaviour generally considered to be socially beneficial.
Antonyms reticent, private, shy, introverted
Usage
Although sex negative is technically an antonym, it does contain some limiting emotive nuances which can be excluding. Because sex positivity by definition requires inclusive and impartial attitudes, language and behaviour, most sex positive advocates are likely to prefer more inclusive, impartial and specific antonyms.
“The term sex positive has been in use in academic and research writing since at least the mid-1950s (and probably much earlier) [when] sex positive was most often used as a synonym for erotophilia. [...] the definition of sex positive continues to develop, and no one has made much of an effort to argue for a unified vision of sex positivity.
The term sex positive began to be used with greater frequency during [...] the 80s and 90s. [...] Sex positive was used interchangeably with the term “pro-sex” and it began to include the idea that that sexual expression could be transgressive, that people can attain sexual freedom through the performance of sexual acts and sexual ways of being.
Dr Carol Queen [is] an author and activist who has long been associated with the term sex positive, and whose 1997 collection Real Live Nude Girl was the first mainstream book to use the term sex positive in its title.”
[1]I welcome any specific source material which verifies, confirms, and/or expands on the etymology quoted here. If you have access to such information, please do send it along to LubyankaBlog at gmail dot com. Thank you.
Whenever I’m feeling uncomfortable about people and their behaviour in a BDSM, polyamorous, or any other socially diverse context (which unfortunately is pretty often), I prefer to make a distinction between discomfort which relates to my own issues, and discomfort resulting from behaviour which actually is inappropriate. To help me distinguish between them, I have a personal rule which I formulated to use as a guide. It’s a kind of reality checker.
I call this rule Analogue In Vanilla.
Analogue In Vanilla
The basic elements defining human behaviour are the same in all social contexts, and regardless of the minority variant of any particular social context, all social behaviour between human beings has a comparable analogue in a vanilla context.
Disrespectful and acceptable behaviour amongst members of minority social groups is more than likely to be analogous to disrespectful and acceptable behaviour amongst members of mainstream social groups, and vice versa.
Example The First - Behaviours which are regarded similarly regardless of the social context include:
Contravening or upholding negotiated agreements
Inaccurately assuming or verifying information prior to decision making
Unspecified double standards or abiding by agreed standards
Contradictory or congruent speech and behaviour
Flouting or respecting established sexual and other social boundaries
Example The Second - This scenario has happened to me frequently:
Scenario - I register for BDSM dating site
I set up profile with explicit specific descriptions of partners I seek
Man who is a complete stranger to me sends me a photo of his penis
I roll my eyes and despair of humanity (again)
Analogue in vanilla - Behaviour transgresses customary social boundaries by inappropriately, prematurely, and unconsensually sexualising a social interaction.
Conclusion - Behaviour is inappropriate and disrespectful, my discomfort is a legitimate and proportional response to it. (except maybe my despairing of humanity, that part might be just a smidge disproportionate)
So every time somebody does something I dislike in any context other than the ever-popular vanilla heterosexual monogamy, and especially if they also use their particular minority as a justification for their behaviour, I check the behaviour using my Analogue In Vanilla rule to decide if my response is appropriate and proportionate.
If my response is inappropriately disproportionate (such as despairing of humanity), then I recognise that as my issue and deal with it accordingly.
If my response is appropriately proportionate (such as my eye roll), then I recognise the behaviour and the person as problematic and I respond accordingly.
Conveniently, I published a rant a few months ago which has an excellent example of how this rule works in practice, if you’re interested. :)
I note with some amazement that apparently I have never written in this blog about my punishment policy. This policy is at the forefront of my mind lots and lots, so I’m genuinely surprised to notice that of all the posts I’ve written, that wasn’t one of them.
I guess it’s one of those things which seem so fundamentally basic to me that I never thought about specifying it before. I mean, I don’t write about my thoughts on toothbrushing either, cos everybody knows about that, right?
I had been supposing that like my thoughts on toothbrushing (kind of annoying but a good idea to do), my thoughts on punishment are probably shared by lots of other people. But recently in a chastity themed yahoo group, one member had been posting fictional fantasy accounts about punishments and presenting them as fact. And those accounts were so wildly and distantly removed from my personal experience of punishments that I thought, hey, maybe my approach to punishment is unusual after all.
I only noticed it wasn’t here when I wanted to provide the author of those accounts with a link to my description of my punishment policy. I couldn’t remember it, and had a browse around my blog looking for it, and only when I couldn’t find it did I realise that I hadn’t done one!
whoops :p
It must be in one of the zillions of unfinished posts I’ve got laying about the place. So anyhow I thought I’d better get moving on that. For clarity, I’ll specify that this is nothing to do with play punishments for fun.
Note Of Importantness: When I mention “punishment” and related terms in this post, I am solely referring to a BDSM relationship context in which adults consensually use real punishments between themselves as a disciplinary tool, for the purposes of penalising unconsensual transgressions and modifying future behaviour.
I live my life and conduct my relationships based on certain presuppositions. I check them regularly because my choice to continue is based on them being true. If at any time they turn out to be false, then I will change what I’m doing until the circumstances support them being true.
These are some of my basic presupposed goodnesses.
Me Exerting Myself = Boo and Easy = Yay
I want the smallest possible investment of my time and effort to yield the bestest possible result. I have no interest in exerting myself to punish undesirable behaviour if the only outcome is more of the same undesirable behaviour. That just sucks. If I have to exert myself, I’d much rather get the result I want. I think that’s reasonable.
My Partners’ Raison D’Être = My Pleasure
My partners already have a strong desire and motivation to please me, and in my experience punishments can only decrease it. Since that desire can only work to benefit me, I have every interest in nurturing it like a tender carnivorous blossom, giving it loads of juicy flies to eat. (metaphorically speaking, of course)
My Displeasure = Their Displeasure
My partners feel unhappy if they contribute to my displeasure. Any failure to please me hurts them far more than any punishment. So if I wanted them to suffer unspeakable torment (which I don’t, for reasons I’ll get to in a sec), all I need to do is express my displeasure. That’s usually plenty to wilt them like a dehydrated fern. Any punishment after that would only be redundant.
Trust = Yummy Goodness
Trust is difficult to build and easy to damage. Establishing trust requires absolutely consistent reliability. I need to be able to trust my partners, and I need my partners to be able to trust me. Therefore I nurture and feed the rare and precious foliage of their trust by taking care that what I say and what I do always match, and I expect my partners to do the same for me.
So I operate under these presuppostions:
I want the easiest possible route to my goals
I encourage my partners’ desire and interest in pleasing me
My displeasure wilts my partners like over-boiled cabbage leaves
I must be as trustworthy as I expect my partners to be
Sometimes people get hung up on beating themselves to a pulp for stuff they only think they caused, and sometimes without even confirming the existence of a problem. You might recognise this with the “shoulda” mantra. Like, “I shoulda done this” or “I shun’ta done that”. When it occurs in the absence of a pre-existing problem, sometimes the self-flagellation itself is the only problem. In the context of my relationships, when my partners beat themselves up for stuff they didn’t do, my problem is that they miss opportunities to make stuff better even when they can.
Self-flagellating is a choice, and deciding to make stuff better is also a choice. From my perspective, my main interest is to make stuff better however it happened, and this goal is impeded by that pointless self-flagellation crap. This is a good example of how some choices can be unhelpful and a waste of time and energy.
On the other hand, I’ve had a huge pile of sticky soggy badness from many people who cause a lot of shit themselves and then choose to blame other people for it. This sucks not only because they’re distracting away from improving stuff by focusing on blame, but also because they made the stuff worse in the first place and then failed to make it better.
Abdicating responsibility is also incredibly unattractive and repellent to me but that’s a separate issue.
The way I see it, no matter what anybody else says or does, no matter whether they blame themselves or somebody else, and no matter how much anybody wants to pretend it isn’t so, the thing about being a responsible adult is that in general adults are solely and entirely responsible for their own choices and how they act on those choices.
In my world,
although the available choices may be limited, uncomfortable, undesirable, or just plain suck, there are always choices.
there is no such thing as “I had no choice” or “they made me do it”.
no matter who or what you blame or credit for what you do or don’t do, people only ever do what they choose to do.
I am much more interested in how a fuckup actually happened than in whose fault it is. I understand that fuckups can happen unintentionally or by accident. Regardless of how a fuckup happened in the first place, my main interest is to change the fuckup result to a yummier one. I think that’s only fair.
As I understand it, a person can be responsible for a fuckup without necessarily being at fault. As I understand it, the term “blame” contains a nuance of fault which is absent in the term “responsibility”.
So in general I avoid the word “blame“, and favour the word “responsibility“.
As part of working out how a fuckup happened, I first prefer to establish certain limits. The limits I want to establish are about a person’s
contribution to the fuckup
acquisition of knowledge of and about the fuckup
responsibility for the fuckup
control of the causes of the fuckup
Establishing those limits before attributing responsibility is very important to me, and I refer to those limits as the sphere of responsibility.
In my world, I can realistically expect myself and others to be responsible only for those fuckups which are within our sphere of responsibility, and for anything else no blame or responsibility can be attached. I think that’s fair.
So that’s my thing about “blame“ vs “responsibility“, and sphere of responsibility.
If I told my partner to do something outside their sphere of responsibility (such as organising receipt of the $21.8 million from that nice prince in Nigeria who emailed me), then holding them responsible for failing would be silly, and punishing them for it still wouldn’t get me my $21.8 million.
If I told my partner to do something (like picking up my boots from the repair place), and withheld important information which I knew but they didn’t (like for instance, that I left no boots at the repair place), then my partner has no way of completing that task, and punishing them for that failure still wouldn’t get me any boots which I didn’t leave anyhow.
Deliberately withholding relevant information in that way to ensure my partner’s failure is what I call setting them up to fail. I also call it manipulative and sabotaging.
And fuckwitty.
I’m just going to assume we all agree that holding a person responsible for stuff outside their control is totally pointless, ok?
Since I find that the more my partners trust me, the more they let me boss the shit out of them (and you know how hard I kink on the bossing-about thingy), I therefore have no reason to cut their trust into tiny bits and stomp all over it, and every reason to tenderly water, feed, and give big juicy treats to their trust.
So in my world, I must first establish who actually caused which fuckup before I take any action, and any action I take must be limited to fuckups which my partner and I both agree are within their sphere of fuckupability.
What I’ve been leading up to is that everybody’s sphere of responsibility remains the same no matter how much the idea of my control over them turns anybody into a quivering bowl of jelly hornballness.
And even if pretending could make the sphere of responsibility different, in any case I decline to consent to participate in the fantasy of the top “forcing” the bottom to do this or “making” the bottom do that. I might temporarily play at it for really limited periods of time, but I live my life entirely differently.
A lot of people have tried to sell me a lot of misleading crap about this over the years, and this has only ever fucked me up. In my experience, acting on inaccurate conclusions about responsibility can lead to really super duper giant-sized fuckups. So for me, getting this right is really worth investing a good splodgey dollop of effort.
Since I decline to pretend that I’m responsible for my partners’ behaviour, instead I use my partners’ pleasure as the proverbial stomach through which I establish my ownership of them. The more consistently and reliably I care for and enrich their pleasure, the more they trust me to nurture their pleasure. They then reinforce and reward that approach by devoting themselves more and more to me and my pleasure, which is ultimately what I want.
I give a big fat juicy yay to getting what I want. :)
Given that I’ve encountered a whole lot of unpleasant side effects from punishing, I circumvent the lot of them by simply removing the whole punishment thing from my relationships altogether. I therefore reject punishments in favour of reward training as a method to achieve my desired yumminess.
So no matter how much my partner wants me to punish them, I will always decline.
So what do I do instead? Ok, I was just getting to that. :)
My personal method for resolving fuckups without punishment comprises these steps in the following order:
explicitly, specifically, respectfully negotiating gripes and outcomes
temporarily disengaging from them if necessary (only as a last resort)
resuming the negotiationfest as soon as possible
repeating the cycle of 1-3 in that order until the conflict is resolved
With some people (i.e. the ones who like to pass the buck) I find that the disengaging step only drags out and buries the conflict (til it inevitably re-explodes later) by giving them an excuse to wimp out of the discussion entirely. So with them I just keep slugging away at step 1. for however long it takes until everybody feels good about it.
Although navigating emotive negotiation through the obstacles of personal arguments can be tricky, the procedure itself is simple, and for me it prevents re-explosions of the resolved conflicts every single time.
The really tricky bit is identifying the actual root of the issue of which the symptoms highlighted the conflict. But that’s a whole other topic.
I appreciate that focused specific negotiation is unlikely to feature in anybody’s horniest fantasies. Oh well. Unfortunately, reality carries on regardless of your libido, and unfortunately your libido (as mighty as I’m sure it is) has no control over me. This solution works for me, and my partners have a choice of carrying on without me or getting with the programme.
You can either choose to pay a fantasy-gratification service to indulge you, or you can participate in a relationship. It’s your choice.
Yes, that was a mini-rant. Can you tell I’ve had unpleasant experiences with this?
Unlike punishments, this method has always worked well for me by getting me what I want for the least amount of effort, and I have every reason to expect it to continue to work well for me in future.
So my experience continues to support my conclusion that
actual punishments = boo
appropriate acknowledgment and attribution of responsibility = yay
focused negotiation = yay
yummy outcomes = yay
And my long and short of it is
I never punish
I focus on reward-based training
I resolve problems using focused negotiation
that fits my needs very nicely, thank you.
That’s it. Thank you very much for reading. :)
ps:I had a shitload of rants which you’ll be glad to hear I edited out in the interests of manageable readability. I may or may not make them into a separate post. Just so you know, this was a hugely rantworthy topic in which I restrained myself quite admirably, I think. So I’m awarding myself a gold star for rant refrainment. :)
You may not want to stay here if any of the following stuff is likely to bother you, because there's some topics here which might, like, offend some people.
This site may include (well, ok, definitely does include) some discussions (and/or rants) about sexual stuff, sexual orientation-ey stuff, some nude skin stuff, some anatomical reproductive system stuff, emotional relationship stuff, and other topics which are normally referred to as "Adult" in nature. There may also be swear words and images and other stuff too.
If any of that stuff is likely to bother you in any way, you might prefer to run away now.
You may find Wikipedia a delightful, informative, and more suitable site to spend your bandwidth on.
Also, Wikipedia is far less in need of therapy than I am.
This audio arm of ladylubyanka.wordpress.com has life, sexuality, relationships, pleasure and rubber chickens, with femdom-flavoured BDSM, polyamory and Jewish spicey seasoning. This Spleen Test introduces the taste of spleencasty features to come.
This audio arm of ladylubyanka.wordpress.com has life, sexuality, relationships, pleasure and rubber chickens, with femdom-flavoured BDSM, polyamory and Jewish spicey seasoning. This Spleen Test introduces the taste of spleencasty features to come.
By this time, simply tons of people in Ireland will be late for something.
Apparently my lustsign is:
Piercing Truth
I am the mirror. I absorb and own everything I come close to. Knowledge is my weapon. When I'm in bed, my partners are usually shocked to see that I completely know what they want and need. My thirst for sex, is actually the thirst of my mind. I am smart, I am kind, and I'm amazing. I am like a lottery ticket which you know to be the winning one on every draw."
