The Pot Calling The Kettle Black


    A Big Fat Rant About People Doing Precisely What They Bitch About Other People Doing.

    And Utterly Failing To Notice.


    Pot Calling The Kettle Black


Update – October 2008

This post was written at a time when a lot of people in the blogosphere seemed to like me and what I had to say, and didn’t mind publicly acknowledging that fact by putting me on their blogrolls.

After I wrote this post, and got this comment, I noticed that I stopped getting hits from some blogs which had previously had me on their blogroll, but now no longer did.

This continued for awhile.   I noticed that none of the bloggers had any posts indicating that they’d understood what I was attempting to point out.   They kept perpetrating the same behaviours, and committing as well as inciting those same transgressions.   So I kept writing about it, trying to make it all clear.

    (and still not succeeding)

And then after I published this post, I noticed an additional chunk of blogs which used to refer people to me, also no longer had me on their blogrolls.

C’est la vie.

I kind of expected as much, but still, I felt disappointed that my efforts appeared to be so utterly fruitless.


I’m still on a few people’s blogrolls, and I still get a bunch of other hits, however they get here.   I value very much that people come here to read regardless of whether I am on anybody’s blogroll or not.

    And for all of you, I am deeply appreciative.   :)

My point is, this post was written when I still read and enjoyed the people and their blogs which I refer to in this post and others, and at a time when I still felt welcome in the kinky blogosphere.

I don’t feel so welcome in the kinky blogosphere anymore.   And a lot of the positive feelings I expressed in this post towards members of that blogosphere, no longer apply.

Even though it irks me now to read myself saying things I no longer believe are true, those things were true then, so I’m leaving them in.   Those things I said then which are no longer true now include:

  • Admiration for the blogger I referenced
  • My desire to write shorter posts  (which was really only true then because the blogger I referenced told me I should, and I believed him)

I just wanted you all to know that.

Thank you for reading my blog.

Best regards,


ps:   I was chuckling to myself reading my own protestations of how long this post was, when I think of some of my more recent ones, hehehe.   :)   And I was wondering to myself how I could possibly have believed this joker when I remember some of the lengths of his own posts.


Now, I have nothing against a good rant.   Far be it for me to say it’s a bad thing to rant about something which isn’t good.   I do that myself.

I do that lot, actually.

What I am objecting to in this instance is, people who commit the very infraction they are simultaneously denouncing.

    Just in case it’s not absolutely crystal clear already, this post is about:

    The problem with objecting to other people excluding, denigrating, dismissing, minimising and invalidating, when that same behaviour is exemplified in the objection

    I am, in fact, objecting to hypocrism.


Pre-Post Digression

Just as an aside  (as if I’d yet got into this post enough to have anything to get aside from),  I’d like to observe that, while there are terms for sexual and gender prejudices against women, men, gays and lesbians, transsexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals, there doesn’t even seem to be a generally agreed defining term for prejudice against BDSM-ers.

    (I’d like to suggest “kinkophobia”.)

    (heh, that sounds like an Irish name  –  “Bejaysus, it’s Kink O’Phobia!”)

    (there also doesn’t seem to be a term for prejudice against polyamorous relationships, so I’d like to suggest “polyphobia” or “polyamophobia”)

Since this prejudice and intolerance against BDSM-ers is commonly perpetrated not only by many individuals and groups in the world at large, but also unthinkingly by many individuals within BDSM, it would seem there is an urgent need for such a term, so the prejudice can be identified, targeted, and included within implementation of anti-discrimination legislation.

Now Back To The Show That Hadn’t Quite Started Yet

I’ve found that trying to modify the erroneous perceptions of most adults is usually  (not always)  a waste of time.   Most adults are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions, erroneous or not.   Most adults would have already reached an equitable, unbiased view, based on objective facts, all by themselves, if they were in any way going to.   Their opinions will not change based on me presenting them with facts which they already knew about and had decided to disregard.

Sometimes, when people express about the way they live their lives, and share that expression of how they live their lives, something happens.   Something angry, sad and afraid happens.   And most significantly, something blinkered happens.

Now, I totally get that anger thing.   I mean, I consider myself to be an ethical person  (not that I can think of anybody who doesn’t regard themselves as ethical, even bigots).   And I get angry and speak out when I witness prejudice and intolerance.   I try very hard to live my life in ways which totally eschew prejudiced and intolerant outlooks and behaviours.

But when some ethical people get really angry  (or sad, or afraid, or some combination of all three)  about certain excluding, prejudiced and intolerant outlooks and behaviours, then something blinkered seems to happen.   I’ve been getting pretty angry myself at what was happening at these times.   I’ve been seeing exclusion, prejudice and intolerance exhibited  within  the expressions  speaking out against  exclusion, prejudice and intolerance.   But I haven’t really been able to express it clearly until now, because I was seeing it as either an incredibly general vague “Respect” thing, or else as lots of individual separate things.

And what was happening in these instances became very clear to me when I was reading Maymay‘s blog.

Maymay’s Blog And “Eureka” Moment

Let me be quite clear: I  really  like Maymay’s blog. I like Maymay, too.   :)   *waves to Maymay*

    Incidentally, when I linked my kvetch to Maymay’s blog, his comment was:
    That blog is a real find.
    I agree.   :)

I admire Maymay’s writing, perspective, and style. I like that he is a submissive man who is masculine, intelligent, eloquent and brave. I like that he isn’t afraid to be who he is. I like his willingness to be who he is where everybody can see. I like his efforts to try to live according to his ethics and beliefs. And I like his refusal to accept other people’s limited ideas on how he’s supposed to be.

    (this does not, you may notice, interfere with my teensy bit of enjoyment I get from verbally trampling all over him.   It may be a flaw in my character.   I hope I can take this experience, and learn from it, and grow emotionally.)

    (or, he can sue me, whatever.)   ;)

Maymay has a series of rants up  (which is great, I like rants),  but it was this one which ended up leading to one of those ever-so-interesting revelations.
When I came to the part of that post which said

    Is it just me, or is it smelling a little One True Way® in here all of a sudden?

I stopped, and thought about that for a bit. I said “hmmmmmm.” to myself.
I read on. I read the other posts in the series, until I got to this one, which linked to another one.

And that was the one which just put the lid on the biscuit tin with a big “clangggggggg“.

At that moment, I felt like some huge, creaky cogs started slowly turning in my mind, like one of those huge clocks in clock towers with the works made of metal, but housed in wood, you know?

I felt the large wheels clacking creakily onwards….. one……… two…….. three…….. four……. five……. clacks, and then a bigCLUNK“.

The penny dropped, the light bulb over my head went on, the bells in my mind went dingdingdingdingdingding, and I shouted “Eureka!!! whilst tearing down the street in the middle of the night dressed only in my Marvin The Martian slippers and a small dental appliance.

    (Ok, well, maybe I didn’t do the last one. But all the other ones happened, I swear)

I went back to see if the thoughts I’d just had were really supported by what I’d just read.   I read that last post over again. I went backwards, and re-read this one, and this one, and this one, and this one.

And after all that, I knew the light bulbs and penny drops were supported, and I’d really read and noticed what I thought I had.

    Which was a bit disappointing.

But these were the same things I’d seen and disliked in a lot of other places without explicitly noticing what it was.

Explanation, Disclaimer, And Grovel

I must make it clear here that Maymay’s very well written and interesting blog is by no means the only blog, which expresses the behaviours I’m describing.   And Maymay is not by a long shot the only person who does this either.   I have encountered this behaviour absolutely all over the place.   It’s really, really commonplace.

    (otherwise it’d be hardly be worth bitching about I mean, mentioning, would it)   :p

I am using Maymay’s blog as an example, partly because it was what I was reading when I had my big clunky dingy shrieky revelation, and partly because there are a whole series of posts close together which provide excellent examples of what I’m describing.

    I must also admit to doing this partly because he’s an intelligent, eloquent, masculine, self-respecting ethical submissive man, whose writing I admire,  (not to mention a fellow Mac user)  and it turns me on just the tiniest bit to verbally ride a wee bit roughshod all over him.

    sorry, Maymay.   :)

I did warn him this post was coming.   :p

The Crux Of The Matter

I wrote elsewhere that I don’t like it when anybody negatively judges and condemns every member of a group of people based on arbitrary criteria such as their profession.

Sure, I agree with Maymay that it’s a powerfully negative thing for people to make vast generalisations which refer to everyone, and to act on those generalisations, when those generalisations do not in fact represent everyone.   I believe that this is known as prejudice.

I also agree with Maymay that it’s a powerfully negative thing for people to hold inaccurate, uninformed, and negative opinions about individuals, and to act on those opinions, based on those individuals’ identification with gender, sexual orientation (which includes kink and BDSM), ethnic group, place of birth, age, or any other aspect which is outside their control.   I believe that is known as intolerance.

    (for my own convenience, I’m going to use the term “submissive” in the below example, but equally the terms “dominant” and “switch” can be substituted [along with the related words])

More specifically, yes, I agree with Maymay that it’s a really crappy thing for people to publicise and support the idea that all submission, and therefore all submissives, are all kinds of   [insert negative generalisation here].

Equally, I agree with Maymay that it’s a really crappy thing for one kind of submissive to minimise, invalidate, and dismiss another kind of submissive just because they don’t offer the kind of submission which is valuable and important to them in particular.

    But to express ideas of inclusion and tolerance, and to object to ideas of exclusion and intolerance, and then to perpetrate precisely what one is objecting to, is, in my book, right out of order, and just plain unacceptable.


Example Scenario

In the world, there are some intelligent, interesting, eloquent people, who are ethical and try their best to live according to their own, very reasonable-sounding and inclusive ethical code.   I think this is positive, productive and beneficial.

These people include prejudice, intolerance, exclusion, and behaviour which expresses these points of view as elements which they exclude from their ethical code.   In my opinion this is positive, productive and beneficial.

When they see examples of prejudice, intolerance, exclusion, and related behaviours, these same people speak out and express disagreement and disapproval.   I think this is definitely positive, productive and beneficial.

  • In their expression of disagreement and disapproval for those prejudiced and intolerant outlooks and behaviours, something angry, sad, and/or fearful happens which seems to blinker them.
  • These same intelligent, interesting, eloquent, ethical people then unwittingly begin to exhibit outlooks and behaviours which precisely reflect the very outlooks and behaviours for which they are expressing disagreement and disapproval.
  • This is something which I regard as less positive, quite unproductive, and definitely detrimental.

And then they can be alerted to the fact that actually, in their intelligent, interesting, eloquent expression, they are hurting people in precisely similar ways to the way they feel they are being hurt by the behaviour they dislike in others.

Being intelligent, interesting, and eloquent people, they think they can see this, and so they say they can, thus acknowledging their awareness of their transgressions.

    So, after

  • exhibiting precisely similar behaviour as that which they have just slated
  • treating individuals in precisely the same ways as they object to being treated themselves
  • having apparently acknowledged awareness of their behaviour
    they disregard this fact as if it were unimportant and irrelevant (!!)

    I find this amazing, and completely unproductive.


Added October 2008


    I added this section, up to “Going To Get A Doughnut”, on 23 October, 2008.

I have come to the conclusion that no matter how much they say that they appreciate that they are perpetrating precisely that which they are denouncing, they cannot possibly be aware of this, because to knowingly transgress one’s own ethical code makes no sense to me.   The only way I can make it out is if

  1. they are unaware that the ethical code they are actually following contradicts the ethics they are claiming to espouse, and/or
  2. they are unaware that they are breaking their ethical code

Although I feel tempted to believe that all hypocrisers are manipulative fucks who deliberately say one thing and do another, in my heart I feel that most hypocrisers really are genuinely unaware of their hypocrising.

I suspect they get round this conflict and contradiction by nodding knowingly to themselves, and thinking vaguely:

    I’m ok, I’m not doing what they’re doing, because this is different.

But I think what they really are expressing is:

    What I do is different because they started it!   Them doing it to me is wrong.   But me defending myself by doing the same back to them is right and good.   I’m righteous, because I’m pointing out their faults to the world, which is a Good Thing™.   I’m the oppressed minority, so my transgressions are irrelevant, and everything I do in my own defense is OK.

    When they stop, I’ll stop.

Needless to say, I think that stance has all the effectiveness and productive benefit of children squabbling in the sandpit.   I think that using logical statements such as  “I wasn’t as bad as them!!”  and  “They started it!!!”  are unlikely to be very effective or useful in logical debates.

  • Successful adult strategies for achieving resolutions to interpersonal conflict often include taking responsibility for one’s own self, feelings and behaviour.

  • Successful conflict resolution is seldom accomplished by simply blaming one’s behaviour on other people.


Going To Get A Doughnut

I’m not really sure how this blinkered something happens. Oh, I have my theories about it, which are long and rambly and which are themselves probably worth a post  (or two, or nine, or sixty-three)  featuring them all by themselves.   But I’ve resolved to try to post shorter posts from now on as my previous ones have been getting a bit out of control, length-wise.

So, I’m going to omit the theories from this post in the interests of brevity and coherence.

    (you may all cheer now)   ;)

Anyhow, I’m not really sure what to do about this problem.   Well, actually, I do have a few ideas, but they’re long and involved and are built on my long and rambly theories which I have decided not to include in this post.

    (perhaps I should do a post entirely about what I’m not going to include in it.   I think that would also somehow be a really long post)

What I do know is, that ethical people get really angry about some excluding, prejudiced, intolerant expression when perpetrated by others against them or people they like.   This is especially true when there is evidence and examples of people actually responding to these expressions, espousing them themselves, and living their lives according to the prejudiced, intolerant ideas expressed.

But they dismiss as unimportant and irrelevant when they perpetrate precisely the same behaviours.

    So I feel really bewildered and rantful when people:

  • Denounce those behaviours which are repugnant to them
  • Themselves perpetrate that very behaviour which they so loathe and detest
  • Themselves incite others to reproduce that behaviour which they regard with such repugnance and contempt
  • Admit apparent knowledge of and culpability for their own transgressions
  • Dismiss their own transgressing behaviour as unimportant and/or irrelevant
    According to my own ethical code, I must, in turn, speak out about this.

Some of these same ethical, intelligent, eloquent people commit these crimes of prejudice and intolerance in the name of acceptance and inclusion, and target pro doms.   And it was this which I was defending against when I published my rant about attitudes towards pro doms post.

But whether the targets are pro doms, certain types of submissive, or albino pygmy monkeys, the transgressions are the same.   Acceptance and inclusion means acceptance and inclusion of, and respect for everybody, without exception.   This includes individuals who may, in your opinion, be transgressing your rules for respectful behaviour.

    I do not feel that it is ethically possible to practice acceptance, inclusion, and respect towards people selectively.   Acceptance, inclusion, and respect must apply to everybody.   Because otherwise, the attitudes still qualify as prejudiced, intolerant, and excluding.

I totally appreciate that sometimes, people are truly not aware that they are repeating the very behaviours they condemn in others.   I don’t like this very much, but it happens, and there isn’t a lot anybody can do about this.   The people who are truly unaware, are likely to respond, when this is pointed out to them, with a response such as:

    Oh, no, but that’s different.
    Different, my arse.
    (sorry, I let my inner rantfest get away from me for a moment there)

And there really isn’t anything anybody can say in the face of such illogic.   So that’s usually when I wander off to have a doughnut.

Oh, Look, This Post Has Got Long (Again)

So, in the interests of (a failing attempt at) brevity, I’ll conclude this with the news that everybody wandered off to get doughnuts, and nobody ever was hypocritical or intolerant again.


This is Lady Lubyanka, reporting from the scene of The Pot Calling The Kettle Black.   Now back to Curved Nicely in the studio.   Curved?

“Thank you Lady Lubyanka.   Now we go over to Wank Hornball for the weather.”

About Lady Lubyanka

I am a 45 year old musician, and also a multisexual, polyamourous, Jewish, socially dominant woman within my romantic BDSM relationships.
This entry was posted in BDSM, Consent, Dominance, Domination, exclusion, FemDom, FemDomme, fuckwit, fuckwitism, fuckwits, fuckwittedness, Human Beingness 101, Hypocrism, inclusion, Me Me Me Me Me, noodge, noodging, nudge, nudging, Pot Calling The Kettle Black, Power Exchange, Psychology, Rant, Rantfest, Respect, slave, submission, submissive, This should've been a whole lot rantier. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to The Pot Calling The Kettle Black

  1. Elizabeth says:


    I’m not sure if I’m more flabbergasted at how very many, many words you use to say basic things, or your ability to get your head through the door every day when you go out for a stroll.

    There’s a way to join the conversation that doesn’t alienate hordes of people in the process. I won’t be so rude as to hyperlink the word definitions from Wikipedia that I think apply to you.

    (that this is a near flame you may not choose to publish is well understood, but it is quite heartfelt on my part)


  2. Hello Elizabeth,

    I feel sad that you feel alienated by my post, I really did not post it with the intention of alienating anyone, honestly. Especially not you. The thought never even entered my head.

    I did not feel in any way angry as I wrote that, just tired, and disappointed. I wrote it in the hope that people could be made more aware of what was happening. I’m sorry to see from your post that this was not effective.

    ( Note To Self: Must Try Harder In Class )

    It’s true I am incredibly verbose. I’ve been working on that, but as you see, I haven’t had much success.

    I can report that, as of today, I have as yet had no difficulties getting my head through the door. I will post updates on that as they happen.

    I think it’s a shame that you didn’t hyperlink to the words you think apply to me. I am wondering what they are. I feel sure they’re not pleasant, but at least I’d maybe get some idea of what you’re talking about.

    Because right now, I really have no idea, and would genuinely appreciate some elaboration.

    I don’t suppose you’d care to enlighten me, however….?

    I would respectfully disagree with you regarding your appellation of “near flame”. It is my opinion that your post is in fact a fully grown, properly matured flame. I base this opinion on the fact that you included personal remarks which were unrelated to the topic (getting my head through the door).

    I do appreciate you stopping by and sharing your thoughts.


    Best regards,


  3. Eileen says:


    This is an interesting post. And you know, in a technical sense you are right. There, I said it. You’re right.

    But I think you completely missed a crucial point in Maymay’s argument. (Althoguh maybe what I mean to say is that you missed a crucial point that I would make, were I making the same argument.)

    May writes:

    My griping isn’t because they have a community, it’s because mine is practically non-existant.

    The reason he rants about the attitudes he rants about, the reason he reacts the way he does and excludes the people he exculdes is because he currently sees their presence as damaging and detrimental to his own space. He’s *not* saying that everyone should be accepted in the same spaces everywhere and all the time – he’s saying that everyone should have the opportunity to make their own space.

    One might draw a parallel to free speech. Having the right to free speech does not meen making sure everyone’s okay with what everyone else is saying; it means making sure that everyone, no matter how controversial, has a right to be heard.

  4. Hello Eileen,

    Thank you for your comment. You’re right that I missed something. But I am not sure what I think I missed is the same as what you think I missed, although I do agree that they’re related.

    The point I think I missed is that I disagree that there is any legitimate reason for speaking or behaving disrespectfully to another human being, or groups of human beings.

    I feel that somebody doing something wrong, however heinous it may be, can never legitimise somebody else doing the same wrong thing, whether in the name of respect or not. I don’t think there can be any legitimate reason for disrespecting others. Further to that, I don’t feel that disrespecting others can ever get anything accomplished as well as respecting others can.

    I never meant to say that I didn’t feel that everyone doesn’t have the right to be heard, I feel that was the polar opposite of what I was saying. What I was saying was (and this is one thing I think I missed in my post), that I feel that there is an exponentially higher chance of everybody being heard if everybody without exception is respectful to everybody else.

    My point was, that implementing the behaviour which is being complained about is not something which I feel can accomplish any goal in a way which benefits everybody.

    I agree completely with Maymay’s points. There is a significant proportion of the BDSM population which is being routinely and systematically excluded from “mainstream” BDSM. I feel I am a part of that marginalised population. You may well feel similarly. I don’t like it. Maymay’s points are legitimate and I agree with them.

    However, what I am objecting to is the way he expresses his views. How can the mere existence of anybody else be a threat to him? How can their mere presence be damaging and detrimental to him? We ALL share this planet. We ALL have a right to exist, and to be who we are, regardless of whether anybody else likes who we are or not. Their disrespect does not in any way justify ours.

    If it were indeed legitimate to say that people’s mere existence and presence represent a threat to him, then it might also be legitimately possible to say that Maymay’s mere existence and presence is damaging and detrimental to others. I think we both know that just isn’t so.

    I don’t like that he blames members of the BDSM population who are not excluded, minimised, dismissed, and invalidated as each being personally responsible for his (and my, and your) exclusion. I don’t like that he holds up who they are and how they are and excludes, minimises, dismisses, and invalidates them and their needs, in precisely similar ways to the behaviour he is objecting to. I don’t feel that this kind of behaviour can ever accomplish anything really good. Hurting other people (unconsensually) is never acceptable, as I’m sure you and Maymay know well.

    Just as it is completely unacceptable for anybody to exclude, minimise, dismiss and invalidate us, so it also is every bit as unacceptable for us to do similarly to anybody else.

    I never meant to dispute Maymay’s sentiments. Far from it. I don’t think this post was about that. His posts were simply convenient examples. I felt his posts were particularly good examples because I wouldn’t be able to hold them up and say something like:

    Oh, he’s such an idiot, look what he’s doing, what a stupid example of a submissive man.

    It was precisely because May is so intelligent, and eloquent, and makes such good points, that his posts were perfect examples for my post. I wanted particularly to show that intelligence and eloquence do not guarantee an ability to respectfully refrain from repeating the infractions which are being objected to.

    Oy vey, there goes the verbosity again.


    Ok, I’ll stop now, I hope I’ve made myself understood.

    Best regards,


  5. devastatingyet says:

    I can’t agree with the belief that everyone should be accepted and respected. There are people in my local bdsm community who I respect and those I don’t really respect. I “respect” them in the sense that I give them space and speak civilly with them, but I don’t respect them in my heart.

    For instance, the dom who talks shit about the (nice as pie) owner of the club I go to? And who screamed at me (“YOU’RE A FUCKIN’ IDIOT!”) when I suggested that I don’t like it when men hold open doors for me? Yeah, I don’t respect that guy at all.

    And I have not really observed this personally, but if I saw a group of people engaging in practices or attitudes that I thought were harmful to the community, or to me, or to other humans, I would try to call them on it. “Respect” wouldn’t keep me from doing so. It might keep me from arguing with them about it all the time, but it wouldn’t keep me from ranting on my blog.

    I don’t not “judge” gays and lesbians because I don’t believe in judgment – I do judge them, and what I find is that they’re cool and ok. The same thing goes for cross-dressers, transsexuals, mimes, and people who collect bone china, but not for child molesters or pimps.

    To bring this down to the personal, one persistent belief Joscelin (my submissive) has is that anger (of which he has plenty, like most of us) is disrespectful. This was drilled into him by his parents. It means he has a hard time expressing anger before he reaches some kind of critical point where he can’t hold back any more. I am trying to drill into him that, IMO, anger is not disrespectful. Anger can be a sign that you take someone seriously. (And he doesn’t have to ask for “permission to speak freely.” We’re not in the fucking military.)

  6. Hello :)

    Thanks for stopping by. I’ve seen your blog (and your link to me, thank you!). I wanted to leave a comment but I can’t without a LJ account and I didn’t want to set one up. I thought that was unfortunate.

    Ok, clearly I need to differentiate between respectful treatment/behaviour and personal regard/admiration.

    I was not talking about a benefit from everybody without exception admiring and having high personal regard for everybody on the planet. Absolutely not.

    I was talking about, whatever prejudices and intolerances, or likes and dislikes one has, the respect for other people’s needs, and, importantly, respectful behaviour towards other people, remains similar and/or appropriate in all cases.

    I don’t admire paedophiles, but I respect their human rights not to be unconsensually tortured as part of official legal punishments. I believe this very strongly, even though my personal feelings are that they should all suffer as much as is absolutely possible. I would never advocate that my personal feelings on this would be a valid reason for disregarding their rights as human beings.

    ( and yes, I would personally dispute whether they count as human beings, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are )

    My version of “respect” does not require people to disregard their own and other people’s boundaries. Respect for the self is every bit as important in my view. So, if a person shouts at you for asserting a boundary like having doors held open for you (that’s a pet peeve of mine too, by the way, and I’ve had shit from people about it as well), then my view does not permit shouting back, as shouting is not respectful behaviour.

    Continuing to assert your boundary is fine.

    Reproducing the behaviour of the person disrespecting you is not.

    Indeed, that was the whole point of the post. :)

    Self defense is also fine, if the disrespect being shown you escalates into being a personal risk to you.

    I did a post about consent prior to this one which has some definitions in it which apply here. My version of respect does not require that everyone agrees. Simply that everyone has the space to legitimately and respectfully express that disagreement. It isn’t disrespectful to disagree.

    And when I observe disrespect being perpetrated towards others, it is a personal rule of mine that I must speak out, unless doing so would put me at significant risk.

    I have observed such behaviour, and have spoken out, and have endured significant disrespect from people as a result. Truth tellers are seldom rewarded. But I can live with myself, and for me, that’s the main thing. :)

    And I totally agree that feelings, whether they be pleasant or unpleasant, or intense or moderate in nature, are all necessary, and all valid, and all need to be expressed safely. Anger is healthy, and a valid response. I love anger.

    I agree that anger, as you say, is not disrespectful.

    However, I feel that angry touching of another person’s body without their consent is not be respectful.

    So, anger is not respectful, whereas angry behaviour can be disrespectful.

    I appreciate your comments, I hadn’t realised I left out that crucial bit of definition.

    Best regards,


    ps: The amount of stuff I seem to have left out of this post is really depressing, considering I was trying to work on my verbosity problem.

    Oh well. :)

    pps: This comment is a case in point. Sigh.

  7. devastatingyet says:

    I moved my blog to wordpress, so you no longer have to have an LJ account to comment. (Actually, you don’t need one on LJ either, but otherwise you can basically only post anonymously, which is annoying.) So if you’d like to stop by, feel free :-) And feel free to comment as verbosely on my blog as you like!

  8. That sounds great, thank you. :)

    And also thank you for the reassurance on the verbosity front, much appreciated. :)

  9. Eileen says:

    If it were indeed legitimate to say that people’s mere existence and presence represent a threat to him, then it might also be legitimately possible to say that Maymay’s mere existence and presence is damaging and detrimental to others. I think we both know that just isn’t so.

    It is so. That’s the thing. Every time May voices his opinions in a public space, he damages the standing of the other submissive men in the room. They do the same to him, because each party demands different standards from the other.

    The argument that we should accord everyone their basic human rights is one I absolutely agree with and adhere to. But the discussion we’re having here is not the same as the discussion that was recently going on about superiority. May is not arguing that these people are less than human. I’m exclusive too; I do not think the people I exclude are less than human. I think they don’t meet my standards.

    In a community like the one we have, we’re currently at a level of inclusion that means to be included, basically you have to breathe. I find this to personally be a problem, because the standards that I want for a community where I feel accepted are above that. By arguing a theory of complete inclusion we end up excluding those people who want their community to be made up of persons who fit a different/higher standard.

    There’s no real solution to this in the current model of the scene. Either way, someone feels excluded.

    Also, I will throw in with Devestating (although I know you didn’t ask) that I also love long comments, although I cannot promise to always respond in kind.

  10. Eileen says:

    Oh bloody hell.
    That was my comment just now. The dangers of sharing computers in the same household.

  11. Arafinwe says:

    Labels are quick to be applied and slow to change. People label things as a device to communicate ideas with, calling someone or some group this or that as a sort of short-cut to a more elaborate meaning. That this practice is often used to further prejudiced attitudes is regrettable, to be sure, but in time labels change their meanings as different people add or subtract different things to those meanings. Take the label “gay” for instance. It used to primarily mean “happy”, then in the 1890s it came to have a connotation of “carefree”, and now, of course, it has it’s present meaning of same sex relationships. This may change in the future.

    The societal practice of viewing sub groups within that society; “minorities”, “cliques”, “coalitions”, etc. is a lot like labeling. The meaning of the sub groups changes over time. The goal of treating everyone with equanimity and unprejudiced respect is a noble one and probably contributes more towards fair and kind treatment of people who appear to be different than any amount of government legislation. Education is far a far more powerful weapon against bigotry than laws ever will be.

    I think the acid test for an end to prejudiced attitude towards a group, an idea, or an individual is the absence of the old initially prejudiced labels. In other words, the day that gays are no longer referred to as “gays” but simply as “people” will be the day when prejudiced towards those people has ended. We can practice this as individuals, of course, make our resolve known to others, and thus contribute to the overall equality of all persons. I think that BDSMers will soon have a handle of their own. That may indeed be part of the process on the road towards equality, but the ultimate goal should not be for those people to have a separate label with which to risk being seen as separate, but rather as having no label at all. Full circle? Yes, but having picked up respect from others on the way around.


  12. maymay says:

    Can I trade the verbal trampling for some more physically intensive trampling? Perhaps not actually trampling though, unless lots of ropes and chains and hopefully locks are involved, too. That would be sexy. I’ve never really gone in for the under-the-feet sort of thing as being sexy. Maybe it’s just not touchy-feely enough. :)

  13. Ok, first a news report:

    I had an incredibly hard day yesterday. I came home after gigging
    for 13 hours feeling battered, bruised, sore, and exhausted, sticky
    and smelly from having drunk people crashing into Me and spilling
    drink all over Me, and having been awake and busy for 24 hours.

    So emotionally, I’m just a bit all over the place, and still very tired and not quite recovered, but I’ll do my best. :)

    Easiest first:

    Eileen: I fixed your comment so it now looks like it’s your comment. :)

    Ok, onward to the next one……

  14. May,

    Can I trade the verbal trampling for some more physically intensive trampling? Perhaps not actually trampling though, unless lots of ropes and chains and hopefully locks are involved, too. That would be sexy. I’ve never really gone in for the under-the-feet sort of thing as being sexy. Maybe it’s just not touchy-feely enough. :)
    What, not even being trampled with bare feet?

    How about being trampled with my Marvin the Martian slippers on? ;)

    Or better yet, how about being spanked with my Marvin the Martian slippers? :p

    Ok, how about I trample you with bare feet, whilst shouting Eureka!! with a speech impediment due to the small dental appliance, and then lend my Marvin slippers to Eileen so she can spank you with them?

    Ok, I just ran out of ideas, anybody else is welcome to run with this. :D

    a big *MWAH* schmeck from

    Lubyanka. :)

  15. I wrote:
    If it were indeed legitimate to say that people’s mere existence and presence represent a threat to him, then it might also be legitimately possible to say that Maymay’s mere existence and presence is damaging and detrimental to others. I think we both know that just isn’t so.
    You wrote:
    It is so. That’s the thing. Every time May voices his opinions in a public space, he damages the standing of the other submissive men in the room. They do the same to him, because each party demands different standards from the other.
    Ok, I think there you’re making some basic assumptions here which I disagree with. What I think (I’m confident you’ll correct me if I’m in error :) ) you’re saying:

    1. Any person’s worth is (at least in part) governed by other people’s opinions

    2. People’s expressions of who they are necessarily have anything to do with others

    3. People’s expressions of who they are necessarily include judgments of others

    4. People’s expressions of who they are necessarily include requirements for others to change who they are

    5. People’s expressions of who they are necessarily include requirements for others to emulate who they are

    6. People’s expressions of who they are necessarily impacts on others in ways which are set in stone
    I’m really feeling tired, I don’t know if I can comprehensively explain what I mean right now.

    1. I know that for me, I am who I am, and I’m worth what I’m worth, irrespective of what anybody else thinks. Sometimes other people’s opinions validate me, sometimes other people’s opinions invalidate me. Either way, my own sense of image, identity, and self worth remain the same.

    Now, I know this doesn’t feel exactly the same for everybody, even if I feel it’s actually true for everybody. I mean, my opinions of a person do not actually change that person at all. My positive opinions do not make that person more worthwhile, any more than, if I change my mind, that person will suddenly becomes less worthwhile. If I change my mind, it’s because I feel that this person was that amount of worthwhile the whole time, and I was just blind enough not to see it before.
    2. I feel that, because other people’s opinions do not have anything to do with my feelings about myself, I am aware that other people’s opinions are unrelated to my feelings about myself, and therefore, that other people’s opinions do not form an integral part of my identity. Since I know that’s possible for me, I know it must at least be possible for others.

    So for me, other people expressing, for example, that they are a Femme!!Domme!! and U MUST SUBMIT 2 ME U SCUM does not impact on my standing, self image, or who I am personally in the slightest.

    Their opinions of me, whether positive or negative, are just that, opinions. Not rules, not orders, not warning of impending change in my psyche.
    3. I know that when I express who I am, that is about me, and only about me. Who I am is nothing to do with anybody else.

    My expression of my identity is not reliant on, nor formed by, anybody else.

    My expression of my identity is not reliant on, nor formed by my judgments of others, nor by their judgments of me or anybody else.

    It all comes from inside.

    ( I know there is an inherent contradiction here, in that, if I make judgments about anybody else, of course that is an expression of an element of my identity, and as part of that identity, it represents part of my self worth, but I’m just too shattered to go into that just now. Please let it suffice that I just mentioned it, ok? )

    Other people’s self expression is something I regard as their self expression, which in my universe, they are entitled to every bit as much as I am. Their self expression does not regulate nor dictate my own self expression. That is a fact about how I feel when I observe others whose style does not agree with mine.
    4. Even if Goddess Inyerface claims that people like me ruin whatever, and that I have to change who I am immediately, the fact of Goddess Inyerface saying it does not make it The Gospel According To Life, The Universe, And Everything. I don’t submit to Goddess Inyerface.

    It simply expresses that whatever it is, is true for Goddess Inyerface.
    5. People can say what they like however they like. People saying stuff does not make me any different or less important or somehow obligated to believe them. People saying I have to be like them doesn’t make me have to be like them, or even want to be like them (gawd forbid).

    Them saying stuff doesn’t make it true. So I let them, as I expect to be permitted to do similarly.

    (only I don’t include disrespect within the expression of who I am, or requirements that everybody be like ME!!!! or some such)
    6. I do not regard it as a rule, that when people are whoever they are in ways they feel are true to themselves, that this requires me to take any action whatsoever, or even to notice them. There is no rule that says I have to give anything they say any credence whatsoever.

    So I usually don’t.
    Now, when any of those self expressions include something disrespectful which DOES impact on me, then that is something entirely different and unrelated, and that is what I will object to and assert my own boundaries about.

    I want to make it very clear that I make an absolutely separate distinction between self expression, and disrespectful behaviour.

    In my universe, those two things are NOT inextricably linked. I address disrespect separately.

    This was how I was trying to be, by respecting May, May’s right to post, the topics of May’s posts, and May’s right to be whomever the hell he wants. :)

    I simply limited myself to disagreeing with the way May was expressing his ideas, because the ideas themselves, as I said, I agreed with.

    I felt May was talking about certain behaviours, and integrally linking up disrespectful elements to those behaviours, whereas I feel that the element of disrespect may appropriately be addressed separately.
    You wrote:
    The argument that we should accord everyone their basic human rights is one I absolutely agree with and adhere to.
    That’s reassuring. :)
    But the discussion we’re having here is not the same as the discussion that was recently going on about superiority.
    Oh, wow, the penny drops. Is that what Elizabeth was going on about, do you think? Do you think “the conversation” she referred to me joining in on was the one about superiourity?

    I mean, obviously this is not a post about superiourity, or supremacy, or any of that. Nor did I mean it to be, either. The thoughts I had which prompted this post were not (I think) anything to do with superiourity or supremacy. I think it was everything to do with me observing and considering the ways which I thought the objections to that were being expressed. The topics themselves seemed immaterial to me, it was how the objections to the topics were expressed which bothered me.

    Hence this post. :)

    Ok, well, perhaps that’s one item cleared up. I look forward to the rest coming to light. :)

    I actually hadn’t had any thoughts on joining in on anything in particular. I just posted as the ideas occurred to me, I didn’t consider that I was joining in anything (although, of course, I can see now that I was, however inadvertently).

    My problem with the “joining the conversation” thingy, was that I didn’t actually expect anybody to read this or really pay it the slightest bit of notice, lol. So how could I consider that I was joining a conversation when I didn’t think anybody’d hear, listen, or even notice?

    Obviously, I have now been shown the error of my ways.

    Silly me.

    Bad me. :p
    May is not arguing that these people are less than human. I’m exclusive too; I do not think the people I exclude are less than human. I think they don’t meet my standards.
    Ok, this is where I feel what I regard as the disrespect comes into it.

    I agree that May is not arguing that anybody is less than human. What I do feel May is doing, which is unacceptable to me, is arguing that those individuals are less than your idea of submissive, and that this is inherently, in my opinion, a negative judgment, and therefore a negative thing.

    I mean, if I were one of those submissives you refer to, I would be asking myself, who died and made you god, that your ideas on submission overrule everybody else’s ideas, for everybody else?

    Obviously, I give you credence in that your ideas on dominance and submission apply very completely and accurately and suitably to you. What I don’t accept is that your standards are suitable for everybody, or necessary for everybody, or even necessarily good for everybody.

    I disagree that “different” necessarily means “inferiour”. And I don’t feel that different standards equals inferiour standards.

    I also disagree that it’s necessary to exclude people from valid membership of the BDSM club just because their standards aren’t the same as yours.

    I also (also) disagree that excluding people generally will probably lead to exclusions which you won’t like.
    I will now observe that struggling to address this post has wakened me up somewhat. :)
    I’m going to define “exclude” as I understand it in this context, so we can all be sure we’re on the same page.

    I’m going to differentiate between “personally exclude” and “generally exclude”

    For my purposes, and the purposes of the post of which these are the comments:

    Personally exclude: To limit the individuals in a personal acquaintanceship (insofar as is possible) to only those whom are preferred.

    Generally exclude: To minimise, invalidate, and dismiss the validity of certain individuals’ membership of a wider group, such as submissives, dominants, or BDSM.

    I have no issues whatsoever with personal exclusion. I have massive, massive problems with general exclusion.

    I hope that’s clear?

    Phew. :)
    In a community like the one we have, we’re currently at a level of inclusion that means to be included, basically you have to breathe. I find this to personally be a problem, because the standards that I want for a community where I feel accepted are above that.
    Ok, well, I feel that there needs to be a distinction made, as I made above, with personal exclusion and general exclusion. I see nothing wrong with making a personal acquaintanceship of individuals where you all fit each other’s ideas of what’s right.

    I see everything wrong with making a wider community which, by design, excludes any element within it. You see, I am objecting to the way the wider BDSM community excludes us, and for precisely the same reasons I object to that, I also object to us doing the excluding.

    Making a community within the bigger one does not have to exclude everybody by definition, but it is very likely that un-like-minded people will be unlikely to want to join your smaller community, just as you didn’t want to join other people’s smaller communities. So they will self exclude, which is perfectly up to them, and within their rights.

    I would like to observe that inclusion of a certain type of BDSM-er does not require exclusion of other kinds.

    sigh. This is a complex topic.

    I’ll finish it later.

    One last thing, I want to just smile and wave at the acceptance, validation, and inclusion of my verbosity.

    Thank you. :)

  16. Hello Arafin :)

    I still honestly, after much readage and strugglage with your comment and your emails, absolutely am unable to work out what you’re trying to say in relation to my post.

    I regret my efforts did not result in more positive success.

    I will accept that whatever you’re trying to say is very valid and true for you, and I do hope that your belief system brings you much joy and tranquility.

    I hope what I am saying can make rather more sense to you. I did try very hard. :)

    Best regards,

    Lubyanka. :)

  17. maymay says:

    Not having read your entire comment (I’m sorry, the verbosity does affect my ability to think coherently, so I skimmed), I just want to reply to this snippet:

    What I do feel May is doing, which is unacceptable to me, is arguing that those individuals are less than your idea of submissive….

    I have to say you’re flat-out incorrect here. I’m not talking about submission at all, Lubyanka and I’ve said as much (see note on so-called real submission) in many places before. I targetted submissive men because I am a submissive man. If I were a dominant woman I would target other dominant women. It’s not about submission or dominance, it’s about sexual identity regardless of what that identity is.

    And to this snippet, which I feel you actually say many times over in many different ways in your comment, so I just took the essence out:

    …opinions of me, whether positive or negative, are just that, opinions. … [this] does not impact on my standing, self image, or who I am personally in the slightest.

    I agree here; people’s opinions of me do not affect me personally. That’s not my argument either, Lubyanka. However, people’s opinions of me do effect me politically and these political (and not always legislative) effects are oppressive.

    I am not the only submissive man who thinks so.

  18. maymay says:

    Or better yet, how about being spanked with my Marvin the Martian slippers? :p

    Oh yeah, now you’re talking. But just so we’re clear, I want to wear the Marvin the Martian outfit. That little skirt he wears is so sexy. I love Martian fashion!

  19. Eileen says:

    I mean, if I were one of those submissives you refer to, I would be asking myself, who died and made you god, that your ideas on submission overrule everybody else’s ideas, for everybody else?

    Woah. No. Hell no.
    The reason I wrote “different/higher” specifically was because I *don’t* see those as intrinsically linked ideas. I do, however, think that a standard that asks more of someone than breathing might be considered a “higher” standard, in that it is more selective. I did not mean to link “higher” with “better” in the way I clearly did. My bad.

    The rest of this . . . okay, I think what you said dovetails very neatly into a post I’m currently writing about the political ramifications of smaller organizations making up larger communities, so I’m going to leave it for that.

  20. May,

    Ok, you’re right, I totally had not gotten the political thing. Missed that one completely. I’m going to have to go away and consider that more fully. I still stand by my post, but I can see now that I was missing something critical to what you were saying. My bad. :) Thanks for pointing that out.

    As you aren’t submitting to me, you don’t need my permission to wear the Marvin outfit, lol. I’m sure you will look very hot in it.

    Actually, I do have a skirt which might fit the description of Marvin’s. ;)

    ( and I do look very hot in it :p )

    Thanks for the clarification, and I very much look forward to reading your post.

    These were really meaty comments, thanks everybody. :)

    Lubyanka. :)

  21. maymay says:

    As you aren’t submitting to me, you don’t need my permission to wear the Marvin outfit, lol. I’m sure you will look very hot in it.

    Actually, I do have a skirt which might fit the description of Marvin’s. ;)

    ( and I do look very hot in it :p )

    Okay, how about this. We enter the club together, I’m wearing that skirt at first, and then halfway through the scene we change so you’re wearing the skirt. I think it’s ingenious: we’ll both look hot, we only need one skirt, and we’ll probably confuse everyone at the club, which is always a ton of fun.

  22. Arafinwe says:

    Thank you for your consideration. We do seem to be on two different wavelengths much of the time, don’t we? If only more people in the world made as much effort to understand each other as we have, perhaps it would be a happier place. Let’s not give up on finding a common ground of comprehension. (If nothing else, it is great exercise !) :)


  23. Sue says:

    I think the issue is really what it boils down to whenever you say/write/think ALL of anything is bad.

    Prejudices just don’t really work, although they are (oddly enough) natural. It’s a little difficult to walk around thinking of all the possible diversities of individuals. so we chunk information in our brains. Very natural. So this chunking of information becomes a kind of generalization, which in turn can get codified in the mind into a prejudice.

    So the trick here, is when you are chunking information, you consciously remind yourself that there are exceptions for individuals.

  24. I’ve been away from the internet for the last week or so, and as a result I’ve got behind with stuff. Apologies for the delay in getting round to your comments.


    I don’t have any issues at all with chunking people and/or things together. I agree that doing this does help to keep stuff organised, at least in my own head. What I have problems with is when this is done judgmentally and/or presented as fact.

    For example, I prefer something like:

    “I find it’s much easier for me to notice when men flirt with me, and much harder for me to notice when women flirt with me.”

    as opposed to something like

    “Men flirt better than women.”

    As a personal opinion, it doesn’t really matter to me whether the chunking judgments are positive or negative. I don’t prefer

    “All French men are good in bed”

    any more than I like

    “All Irishmen are alcoholics”

    Prejudice is making judgments without taking account of facts, regardless of whether those judgments are positive or negative. One person who celebrates one group of people based on skin colour (for example) can often be found exhibiting rejection of another group of people based on skin colour.

    For me, this is an issue every bit as much about accuracy as it is about prejudice and intolerance. I don’t personally agree that all Jews are good any more than I would agree that all Arabs are bad.

    There is also, for me anyhow, the issue of apportioning responsibility for something, when I see no logical connection between a certain behaviour and a certain result. But that may be for another post. :)

    Thanks for stopping by, Sue. :)


  25. Marvin, er, I mean, Maymay, :p

    I’d certainly be willing to consider a scene with you involving some kind of clothes swap/sharing thing, although I can’t really get my head round that fully just at the moment.

    I’d be happy to share my clothes with you as a consensual exchange for me being allowed to just go ahead and use your body as I choose (oy, how hot a thought is THAT).

    ( and please try not to interfere with my fantasies of having you all subspacey and totally in my thrall and having you acknowledge/admit/confess that I was right all the time and you didn’t know what you could have been thinking )

    ( what with that being an imaginary fantasy and everything )


  26. Arafinwe,

    I look forward to exercising with you in future. :)

    ( with the proviso that I don’t have to actually exert myself in any way which involves effort or sweat or anything on my part :p )

    Lubyanka. :)

  27. Pingback: Hypocrisy Part 2 « Lady Lubyanka

  28. Tom Allen says:

    I don’t feel so welcome in the kinky blogosphere anymore.

    I feel compelled to give you a hug right now.

  29. Tom,

    You might be too far away to give me a hug, but you weren’t too far away to give me a genuinely big smile.   :)

    Thank you.   :)

Spill yo oh-PIN-yunz after the tone ...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s