This Is You, Yes YOU.

Or   –   Things I Am Fucking Sick And Tired Of And Why The Fuck Has Nobody Else Noticed This??
 

how many people does this instruction remind you of?
 
 
 
Hopefully the more astute readers amongst you will have noticed my early use of the word “fuck“.

Did you guess this was a rant?   Well done.   :)

I know I said I was temporarily blogged out, but this rant just boiled up inside me and spilled out all over the text editor.
 

(it made quite a mess, I can tell you)

 
So I just had to do it.

Just to get my disclaimage out of the road, this message which I’m trying to convey, has been coloured by my rantness.   I hope that doesn’t detract from the content.   I think this message has a lot of important stuff in it, so I ask that you please try to assimilate the message without feeling too affronted by the ranting.   I’m ranting, ok?   Please try to cope.   :)
 
ps:   This post is really, really dull. You have been warned.
 
 

The Thing Is

 
Ok, so, the thing is, you know how a lot of bloggers spend a lot of time trying to describe what they see and why they think it’s all wrong and broken?

Well, I’m no different.

This is yet another one of my attempts to clarify what I understand from reading other people’s blogs and interacting with people generally, and highlighting and illustrating how I think they’re doing precisely what they’re objecting to.

I find it emotionally tiring to embark on such exercises, especially when I feel that what I’m trying to say isn’t being understood. But my ethical convictions dictate that I must speak out against any transgressions I come across, and so the strength of those convictions leads me to try yet again to speak out against the transgressions I have come across.

I hope this effort is more successful than my previous attempts.   I’ve already had to be a fuckload more explicit than I thought would be necessary.   I just don’t know how much more fucking explicit I’m supposed to be.   I mean, how much convincing does anybody need?
 

People perpetrate exactly what they object to other people perpetrating.   This is a fact.

 
In order to convince some of the transgressors that they are, in fact, transgressing, what am I supposed to do, hire a skywriter?   Make a movie?   Build a thirty metre tall billboard with diagrams on it?

I’m telling you, this has been an uphill journey.   Hopefully, this time, my efforts will begin to get the job done.
 
(fingers crossed)
 
 

Welcome To My Effort

 
I really recommend that you read my sources, because the elements I pick out and identify as problematic may be difficult to fully grasp if you don’t read the full context in which they were written.

You may find them to be a bit train-wrecky in the logic department.

Whether you agree with me and think I’m the best thing since sliced bread, or if you disagree and think I’m spewing nothing but horseshit, I feel that it’s important for you to have the full information on which to base your own assessments.

You can read them after or before you read this, I don’t think it matters.
 
 

Hypocrism

 
Hypocrism – Example The First
 
A blogger writes about how he thinks that nobody is really talking to dominant women.

• He says that a woman in a chastity group he subscribes to asked the group for advice about how to make male chastity more fun for her.
• He says that nobody who responded to her said anything about her or any woman at all, and that every single sentence was focused solely on the guy in the chastity device and his penis not getting to squirt.
• He says that none of the responses in the chastity group have even the tiniest bit to do with how she’s feeling.
• He says he wishes to see change in the world, and he wants to be the change he wants to see in the world.
• He says that in the spirit of being the change he wishes to see in the world, he quotes a snippet of his response to the woman who asked the original question.

 

• He said that he sent his response privately, and did not submit it for publication in the chastity group where he read the question and the previous responses.

 
 
The Hypocrism Infraction

Objecting to people not contributing desired response types for publication in a chastity group, whilst not contributing that desired response type for publication in that chastity group.
 
(and no, it does not “count” as publishing, that [an excerpt of] the desired response type was published on a blog outside the relevant target audience of the chastity group)
 
 
 
Hypocrism – Example The Second
 
The same blogger goes on to further describe his response to the woman’s question in the chastity group, and his reactions to the responses she got from men expressing their own perspectives.

• He quotes some of the responses the woman got, and calls them “absolutely horrific”.
• He says that there is an unaddressed issue of whether or not submissive men can even speak knowledgeably about the “self actualisation” of dominant women.
• He says that he knows of no dominant women who can speak with much first-hand authority about the “self-actualisation” of submissive men.
• He says in his response to the woman’s question, that the only way she can enjoy male chastity play more, is for her to find out what she thinks is sexy about it.
• He describes his personal sexual tastes as excluding yodelling to garden gnomes.
• He says that he is uninterested in sexual services from sex workers, because sexual service is what he wants to provide for his partner, and he just doesn’t have fun with it otherwise.

 
To summarise:   The blogger doesn’t like the “absolutely horrific” responses from men expressing their own perspectives in the chastity group, because they are expressed from their own perspectives and not from the perspective of the woman asking the question.

The blogger acknowledges his doubt that submissive men are able to knowledgeably discuss the “self-actualisation” of dominant women.   This appeared to logically lead to the question of whether submissive men are able to empathise enough with dominant women to be able to discuss anything knowledgeably from a dominant woman’s perspective.

The blogger nevertheless goes on to express his own personal   (albeit more accomodating)   male   perspective, both privately to the woman, and in his descriptions of his sexual tastes   (including sexually servicing his partner, excluding yodelling with garden gnomes, and excluding the services of sex workers).
 
 
The Hypocrism Infraction

Objecting to men expressing their own personal perspectives, whilst acknowledging that those men might legitimately be unable to express otherwise, and meanwhile expressing one’s own personal male perspective.
 
(and no, the transgressions are not legitimised by pointing to others and proclaiming how bad they are)
 
 
 
Hypocrism – Example The Third
 
Just to recapitulate, remember the blogger who wrote about the woman asking for advice in a chastity group, and who got “absolutely horrific” replies from men which only represented their male perspectives and desires?

(there were just too many scary examples in this post)

• He says that most of the responses in the chastity group are entirely “dick-driven”.
• He says that none of this is all that surprising because you can’t expect much more than “dick-driven” responses from locked-up guys who haven’t been having a lot of orgasms recently.
• He describes his personal sexual tastes as not including yodelling to garden gnomes.
• He says that yodelling to garden gnomes doesn’t get him off, and calls that an analogy, but he doesn’t specify what the analogy is supposed to be analogous to.
• He says that he is uninterested in sexual services from sex workers because he wants to provide the sexual service for his partner, that he just doesn’t have fun with it otherwise.

 
 
 
Two of these things are alike.   Can YOU guess which two of these things are like one another?

1. Other men’s perspectives and responses, characterised by one man as “dick-driven”
2. That one man asserting his perspective and response to what he wants and enjoys sexually   (i.e. “dick-driven”)
3. A   Carrot.

Did you guess which two of these things are alike?
 
(I mean, any person with the cognitive development of dental floss should be able to figure this one out)
 
 
 
The Hypocrism Infraction

Denigrating the characterised “dick-driven” responses from other men, whilst providing one’s own “dick-driven” responses.
 
(and no, a response is not made any less “dick driven” by being incidentally more inclusive or accomodating)
 
 
 
Hypocrism – Example The Fourth
 
A different blogger vociferously, venomously, and vitriolically objects to the existence of the specific combination of male kinks of feminisation, humiliation, and submission, which she lumps together under the not-normally-umbrella term “feminisation”.
 

• She says that men who use feminisation for humiliation, punishment, or submission are insulting her because she wears women’s knickers and a bra every day.
• She says that a submissive man who needs to feel like a lady to go down is a piece of shit, and that he should sort out that fucked up shit in his head.
• She orders submissive men to keep their fucked up oppressive obtuse ideas out of   her   fucking kink.
• She says that a man taking on aspects of a woman for submission and humiliation is gross, and that this kink excludes women.
• She says dominant women should be more angry about men dressing in women’s clothing for humiliation.
• She says that most of the   true   dominant women she speaks to agree with her, and that what she wants is what   women   want.

 

• She also says that the real reason she wanted to say all that, and why it all pisses her off, is because   she doesn’t find it sexy.
   
  (that’s a reason?!?)

 
(I am not kidding, read for yourself, I could not make this shit up)
 
 
The Hypocrism Infraction

Objecting to feeling excluded and insulted, blaming a specific group of people and a specific set of kinks for causing one to feel excluded and insulted, and simultaneously excluding and insulting, advocating exclusion and insulting, and inciting the exclusion and insulting of that group of people and that specific set of kinks.
 
(and no, no person’s pain can ever legitimise their own perpetration of, or incitement to perpetrate the same transgressions against the perpetrators who are blamed for that pain;   nobody was “asking for it”;   and no, it’s NOT “different” for any person, group, or set of kinks)
 
 

One True Way

 
One True Way – Example The First
 
Remember   (how could we forget)   the blogger, who wrote about the woman asking for advice in a chastity group, who got “absolutely horrific”, “dick-driven” replies from men representing their male perspectives?

(yes, there are still too many scary examples in this post)
 

• He says that nobody is really talking to dominant women.
• He says that there are hundreds of submissive men and dominant women talking about femdom online and in books, but none of them are actually saying anything to dominant women, that they’re just regurgitating the same stereotyped male fantasies over and over.
• He says that any proclamation other than a “male-dominant, female-submissive heteronormative paradigm” is seen as abnormal, and he blames this for the reason why women and men don’t tell other women about their femdom-themed desires.
• He says that he’s sure that the idiocy of the “heteronormative paradigm” is responsible for femdom-themed resources which only mirror a supposed “male fantasy ideal”.
• He says that most of the responses in the chastity group are entirely “dick-driven”.
• He says he wishes to see change in the world, and he wants to be the change he wants to see in the world.
• He says that in the spirit of being the change he wishes to see in the world, he sent the woman a response privately and did not submit it for publication in the chastity group.
• He says that he is uninterested in sexual services from sex workers because he wants to provide the sexual service for his partner, that he just doesn’t have fun with it otherwise.

 
 
The One True Way Infractions

• All true submissive men really speak to real dominant women
• All true dominant women and true submissive men are excluded and regarded as “abnormal” by people who perpetrate the “heteronormative paradigm”
• All true femdom-themed resources dispell “the male fantasy ideal”
• All true dominant women dispell the unreality of male fantasy.
• All true submissive men have motivations other than being “dick-driven”
• All true exponents of change may effectively perpetrate that change by acting invisibly behind closed doors
• Real advice is only sent privately
• All correct responses to the woman’s question must be presented from her perspective
• All wrong responses to that question are posted in a chastity group from men expressing their own perspectives
• All true idiots regard male fantasy as reality
• All true submissive men who like women only submit to true dominant women

 
(and no, the “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” approach never gets any less ineffective or annoying;   “change” is not synonymous with “improvement”;   and “change” perpetrated invisibly behind closed doors cannot set a visible example for others to follow)

 
 
 
One True Way – Example The Second
 
The very same blogger   (remember him?),   having mentioned his problems with responses from men representing their own perspectives, presents multitudinous assumptions as if they were demonstrated facts.

• He says that he knows of no good non-blog resource which discusses the kinds of things necessary for “self-discovery” or “sexual ’self-actualisation’”.
• He says that there is an unaddressed issue of whether or not submissive men can even speak knowledgeably about the “self actualisation” of dominant women.
• He says that he knows of no dominant women who can speak with much first-hand authority about the “self-actualisation” of submissive men.
• He says he’s amazed at how blind so many people can be about different desires when it comes to sex, and that it’s just ridiculous.

 
 
Example The Second – Multitudinous Assumptions => Multitudinous Issues
 

1. In my opinion, “knowledge”   (facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education)   is NOT a synonym for “first-hand authority”   (personal, hands-on, empirical, evidence-based, eye-witness with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject).

 

2. In my experience, the ability to empathise   (understand and share the feelings of another)   with a perspective other than one’s own   (such as the ability of dominant women and submissive men to discuss each other’s “self-actualisation”)   is unrelated to specifically knowing or being a first-hand authority on another person’s “self actualisation”.

 

3. Anybody’s inability to discuss anybody else’s “self-actualisation”   (whether “knowledgeably” or “with first-hand authority”)   might be more related to the shortcomings of the model known as “Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs“, rather than as a result of the separate matter of anybody’s possible inability to empathise.

 

4. If   there is no good non-blog resource which discusses what is necessary for “sexual self-actualisation”, this may be because many people do not regard “sexual self-actualisation” as a productive goal within a workable model.

 


5. If   a reader assumes that there is in fact no good non-blog resource which discusses what is necessary for “self-discovery”, then the reader himself may be drawing this conclusion because of   the reader’s own inability to process certain topics   in order to significantly self explore   (he’s amazed at how blind so many [other] people can be, and how ridiculous that is).
    
   Note:   As is so clearly demonstrated here – Blindness is NOT limited to sex topics.

 

6. If   one does not accept Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs as an appropriate and workable model for human motivation, then the alleged “issue” simply never existed   (the “issue” being about knowing whether submissive men are able to speak knowledgeably about “the self-actualisation” of dominant women)

 

7. A “question”   (doubt about the truth or validity of something)   is NOT   (in my opinion)   a synonym for an “issue”   (an important topic or problem for debate or discussion).
    
   As I personally do not accept Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs as a valid and appropriate model for human motivation, I do not accept the above “issue” as an important topic or problem for debate or discussion.

   Wondering whether submissive men are or are not able to speak knowledgeably about “the self-actualisation” of dominant women is, in my opinion, a question, not an issue.   (and is in any case more about empathy than it is about “self-actualisation”)

 

8. Identifying a problem   (many submissive men’s outlooks tend to exclude dominant women)   and characterising it by naming the absence of a feature   (dominant women and submissive men’s ability to discuss each other’s “self-actualisation” with either knowledge or first-hand authority),   requires logical assumptions which the blogger has not identified nor supported. The blogger’s omissions include assumptions that
• the absent feature is causally related to the problem
• the feature’s absence is caused by something(s) specific and causally significant
• the absent feature will manifest in the absence of the specific element(s) preventing it
• the problem is resolved when the absent feature manifests
• the manifestation of the absent feature is what will resolve the problem

 

9. The logical demonstration of any supposition   (submissive men cannot speak knowledgeably about “the self-actualisation” of dominant women)   normally requires more concrete support than an observation of what is absent   (dominant women who are known to be able to speak with much first-hand authority about “the self-actualisation” of submissive men).
10. All sorts of features can be absent, such as nasal piercings and thumb pianos.   So what?   In order to demonstrate relevance to the problem, it is necessary to know the causal significance of WHY those features are absent.
11. Positively identifying features which are present   (such as demonstrably poor abilities to empathise with others)   is, in my opinion, a much more productive approach to identifying a problem.
12. Yes, the difference DOES matter.

 
The blogger, having presented a premise which he supports solely with absent features and unidentified unsupported assumptions, has therefore presented a premise which is logically nonsensical.
 
 
For clarity, and in the interests of complete and relevant disclosure of my total and utter lack of objectivity on this topic:
 

My personal opinion is that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a great big steaming pile of bovine ordure.

 
The length of this post contributed to my decision to refrain from presenting my reasons for this here. If there is enough interest expressed, I can do a separate post detailing my (many) issues with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Be advised that you may regret having asked, as the topic is rather less interesting and more tediously involved than it may appear at first glance.

(possibly even less interesting than this post.)

(you have been warned)
 
 
The One True Way Infractions

• All true knowledge is equal to first-hand authority
• All true empathy includes the ability to accurately discuss “self-actualisation” from other people’s perspectives
• All real questions are “issues”
• All true issues can be identified by naming what is absent
• Naming what is absent is the true way to identify real issues
• All real dominant women and submissive men accept Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs as an appropriate model for their motivations and behaviours
• Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs represents true life goals
• Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs is the true model for all human motivation
• What is necessary for true “sexual self-actualisation” and true self-exploration isn’t discussed on non-blog internet resources
• “Self-actualisation” is the true way and the right goal for everybody
• Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs represents the right way and so must apply to all dominant women and submissive men.

 
(and no, the blogger did not specify any disclaimers, mitigators, or exceptions not already mentioned, so I cannot presume that he meant to include any)

 
 
 
One True Way – Example The Third
 
Remember the second blogger whom I referred to above, the one who spews so much vitriol at her love-to-loathe kink combination   (feminised humiliation-seeking submissive men),   and at any exponent of those kinks?

• She says that men who use feminisation for humiliation, punishment, or submission are insulting her because she wears women’s knickers and a bra every day.
• She says that men dressing as women for humiliation is the same as saying that men are superiour than women and that women are no better than animals.
• She says submission is masculine.
• She says that masculine submission has been erased from her kink and replaced with a man in a dress.
• She says dominant women should be more angry about men dressing in women’s clothing for humiliation.
• She says that most of the   true   dominant women she speaks to agree with her, and that what she wants is what   women   want.
• She says that a man taking on aspects of a woman for submission and humiliation is gross, and that this kink excludes women.
• She says that a submissive man who needs to feel like a lady to go down is a piece of shit, and that he should sort out that fucked up shit in his head.
• She orders submissive men to keep their fucked up oppressive obtuse ideas out of   her   fucking kink.

 

• She also says that the real reason she wanted to say all that, and why it all pisses her off, is because   she doesn’t find it sexy.

 
(the reason   (!!)   she is doing all this crap to people is because she doesn’t think their kink is SEXY?!?)
 
Ohhhhh kaaaayyy.
 
(I wonder what she thinks other people should do to her if they don’t find her or her kink sexy.   Oh.   Wait.   She prolly thinks they’re already doing it.   So this is just revenge, then, on all the people who never did any of that to her.   Just cos she’s so pissed off at the others, and just cos these individuals happen to have a kink that’s a convenient target.   Ok.   Never mind.)
 
Moving swiftly on…
 
 
The One True Way Infractions

• Masculine submission is true submission
• All true masculine submission excludes feminisation
• All true masculine submission is excluded and insulted and erased by feminisation
• True dominant women are excluded by feminisation and all of its exponents
• True dominant women are insulted by feminisation and all of its exponents
• True masculine submission excludes the combination of feminisation, humiliation, and weakness
• All true dominant women should be angry about feminisation
• All true dominant women should agree that feminisation must be stopped
• All true dominant women should feel insulted and excluded by any media representations of kink which don’t include them
• All true dominant women must minimise, dismiss, invalidate, marginalise, insult, and exclude feminisation to save themselves
• All true dominant women find feminisation unsexy

 
 

My Conclusionosity Of Both Bloggers

 
Essentially, I feel that both bloggers are saying that they are experiencing a lot of pain, much of which is triggered by their experiences of media portrayal of kink. They appear to blame their pain on media portrayal of kink, and on those individuals portrayed within it, even though I think it’s very likely that they both experience this same pain at other times for other reasons besides this one.

My point is that I think it’s extremely unreasonable and unfair of them to blame and exclude others, as well as randomly roping in others to support their position   against   others for their issues and pain. I feel badly that they experience so much pain. I wish they didn’t. I also wish they’d stop blaming other people, and erroneously claiming that they speak for me and people like me.

Because as far as I’m concerned, these bloggers do not speak for me, and I wish they’d stop claiming that they do. However much they think that their pain legitimises their behaviour, and however much their pain   feels   to them like it’s in response to media portrayal of kink and those people in it, I think their pain is much more likely to be in response to some much older memories they have.
 
 
If they or anybody else doesn’t agree with me, then, fine. This is my position and I’m standing by it.
 
 

However much pain you have, and however much I wish you didn’t have it,   I wish to fuck you’d cut down on your hypocrising and One True Way-ing.
 
PLEASE.

 
 

Recipe – Neurotic Hors d’Oeuvres

 
The perfect hors d’oeuvre for any party of unaware, undiagnosed, in-denial, misguided neurotics.
 

• Combine an equal measure of One True Way and hypocrism in a large mixing bowl, and beat to death with a wooden spoon.
• Preheat the oven to 150˚C and gently heat the mixture for 5768 years.
• Leave to cool for 9 seconds.
• Divide portions on to bite sized pieces of crusty bread.
• Serves billions.

 
(yes, this is a rant.   Deal with it.)
 
 

I Hate Having To Do This – It’s Depressing

 
I hate that my strong feelings about these topics, as well as my personal ethics regarding speaking out against transgressions, have led me to recognise that I must express the observations which I detailed in this post.

I hate having to do it because of the additional aggravation I will have to endure as a result of publishing this post.   I would really rather not antagonise the two bloggers I referenced, both of whom I have admired and liked and read over the past year.   I am not looking forward to the backlash I will undoubtedly receive from these bloggers and their supporters.
 
Speaking out is a risky business, I think that’s why so very many people don’t do it.   One of the risks of speaking out is the risk of saying something which transgresses respect.   If I’ve made any mistakes and truly transgressed respect for anybody by way of hypocrism, One True Way, or anything else, I do sincerely regret it, and I apologise for my inadvertent transgressions.
 

I felt that I must do this post, because I don’t know how there can   ever   be any kind of improvement in the human condition if nobody is willing to take personal risks and actually speak out about what they see and hear.
 
My personal ethics require that I MUST undertake the risks and speak out when I observe transgressions.   Therefore, out I speak.

 
If any of those risks happens to turn around and bite me in the arse, then oh well, so be it.
 
 

In The Interests Of Wanting To Be The Instrument Of Positive Human Change

 

1. I am publishing this rant for everybody to read
2. I am taking responsibility for it by publishing it under my name
3. I accept that the tellers of unpleasant and unwelcome truths are seldom appreciated for it, and that I am unlikely to be appreciated for this post
4. I accept that I will have to endure fallout from others as a result of them disliking what I’ve said
5. I accept that I will have to endure other people’s attempts to denigrate and/or discredit what I’ve written
6. I accept that I will have to endure other people’s attempts to denigrate and/or discredit me personally
7. I accept that most (if not all) of the unwitting perpetrators of the transgressions I’ve highlighted will
• deny knowledge of their transgressions
• deny the fact of their transgressions
• disclaim knowledge of their responsibility for their transgressions
• disclaim responsibility for their transgressions
8. in the unlikely event that anybody does acknowledge or accept the fact of or responsibility for their transgressions, I accept that they are most unlikely to do so publicly
9. in the unlikely event that anybody does support my position, I accept that they are most unlikely to express that support publicly
10. I accept the likely absence of public support for my position, and I am therefore prepared (at least for the moment) to stand by my position alone
11. I accept that whatever I have to endure may be pointless if my efforts are unsuccessful, but I choose to try anyhow
12. I accept that my efforts to be an instrument of positive human change may be unsuccessful on this occasion
13. I accept that I may have to endure crap for this section alone
14. In the hope that I can have some part in my goals maybe being realised someday, and because the changes I seek are so important to me, I have accepted to undertake (at least for now) the risks I have identified above.

 

15. For anybody who thinks this is an easy position for me to adopt, assert, and maintain:   I cordially invite you to go swallow a shovel.

 
 

One Last Rant And Example

 
With no disrespect intended to either of the bloggers whom I referenced in this rant -

ps:   I don’t care what anybody else thinks, but I think that anybody who uses the phrase “heteronormative paradigm” in a sentence deserves everything they get.

 
Oops, look what I’ve done.   See what I did there?
 
Right, mark me down for one “hypocrism” demerit.   :)
 

(see how easy that can happen?)

 
 

And Lo, There Was Much Rejoicing!   :D

 
Cos thus endeth the rant, verily.

And now I am one frazzled blogger, so I shall

rejoice with bits of feeblness
skipple off with weariness
slurp sausage-and-bean haute cuisine-y-ness
and remember vim-and-vigourness
which long ago left the room.
 
before my crumpled de-wordedness
ranted-outedness and de-bloggedness
forgets which way is uppageness
and falls in a heap of bloggy collapsageness
on the bloggofloor of doom.

 
ps:   I think this might possibly be the dreariest, most boringest post I’ve ever done.

Sorry about that.

Ok, collapsing now.
 

more cat pictures