"Brave"

I'm a big fan of the strong female lead. Always have been. I grew up in love with Alanna, the strong-willed, fiery young girl who galloped off the capitol, pretended to be a boy, and won her shield as a Knight in the kingdom of Tortall. And I've been excited for "Brave," the new movie from Pixar, because not only is the main character strong, fiesty, and female, but she's got flaming red hair and Scottish accent. After my own little Irish heart.


To be clear, I haven't seen the movie yet. But I was walking around, doing my little errands-while-podcasting dance, and I heard a review of film from NPR. I was completely floored by the first few minutes. I stopped walking and paused the podcast and listened to it back again. I got home and looked up the transcript. And I still can't tell if NPR's mention of the first Pixar female lead is totally spot on, or righteously offensive. Either way, it's definitely underdeveloped, and upon further spelunking around NPRs coverage of "Brave," I'm a little frustrated of their treatment of... well, of the female lead.

The transcript of the review (by David Edelstein) that stopped me about my day is as follows:

"First, I hate the title, and not because it's an adjective. Notorious, Ravenous, Rabid: great titles. Brave? Generic. And with the poster of a girl with flame-red curls pulling back a bow, it looks like yet another female-warrior saga, another you-go-girl action picture suggesting the biggest injustice to women over the last millennium has been the suppression of their essential warlike natures."

And the link to the rest of the review is here, in case you'd like (it's very short).

So, there are sort of two ways I take this comment. And I'm guessing, because it's NPR, and because they're relatively... not assholes, they meant it in the second way. But the fact that it's ambiguous is a problem in itself. Anyway.

Interpretation #1: We don't need any more movies showing strong willed, smart, physically agile and capable female leads because we're post-feminism. I'm sick and tired of that being the only pigeonhole that an alternative-women can fit into; don't we all already know that women don't have to fit into any pigeonholes at all, and don't we all live accordingly?

Interpretation #2: We don't need any more movies showing strong-willed, smart, physically agile and capable female leads because the way those leads are always portrayed is through a male vantage point: meaning, they've gotta be violent warriors. I'm sick and tired of female strength only being translated through male ideals, and I'm sick of pigeonholing women into one kind of strength.

So, they're not that different. Needless to say, I'm all for Interpretation #2, and yet I think there's a lot missing, even if the author of the podcast is leaning that way (which, to be clear, I think he is).

First of all, you'll notice what might be a slip-up in the Interpretations Above. Edelstein doesn't say "I'm sick of strong willed, smart, physically agile and capable female leads." He says, "I'm sick of female warrior sagas." And while that's fair, I'm not sure that's all "Brave" is. Granted, I haven't seen the movie yet, but even from the rest of that very review, it seems like the movie is about a lot more than the main character, Merida, being good at shooting arrows and killing people (I don't actually know if she kills anyone; that was admittedly for hyperbolic affect). So, if we're going by the second interpretation, Edelstein is (sort of) continuing the theory that he's arguing against; mainly, reducing the strength and capabilities of a female lead to the lens of male-ness, and therefore having something to argue against in the first place. My logic is pretty circular there, but what I'm trying to say is: so is his.

And then there's the opening sentence. First of all, the comparative adjectives he picks are interesting: notorious, rabid, and ravenous all have... less than heroic connotations, I would argue. Maybe not "ravenous;" maybe "ravenous," can imply a delightful and ucnquelchable sexual appetite, and I'm all for that in a title, but none of these words a synonyms for "brave," and moreso than that, they all have  a violent, sinister, or desperate edge to them. So I'm both a bit lost, and maybe harkening a bit back to my first point; namely, that a title about a female protagonist can't be interesting unless it's violent, unless it's so far outside the normal status quo that it is, essentially, using the frame of masculinity to prove it's worth.

What I think Edelstein misses, and maybe why he goes down the (somewhat mysterious to me) synonym track that he does, is that it is a big deal for women to be brave. Or, at least, I think it is. I grew up head strong, I grew up loud and outspoken. My mother had books on her shelf entitled "How to Raise Your Spirited Child," and I'm not sure she would have had those books had I been born a boy child.

So while I think Edelstein's right (I think there is a great deal of pigeonholing when it comes to the acceptable ways in which to show a "strong female lead") I think that's not always the case. I think female strength can also be shown through empathy, through compassion; fuck, I think female strength can be shown through milking cows and having children and quilting and... I don't know, taking the trash out. Or whatever. And I think the media expression of that strength could get better, sure. But it gets at the heart of what feminism is about, really: that in order for all expressions of female strength to be okay, we need to let go of the gendering of all expressions of strength. And if that were the case, killing people and talking loud and getting dirty and standing up for yourself wouldn't be female strength as expressed through a male lens; they would just be female strength. Hell, they would be people strength.

So while I think Edelstein's right, I think society isn't there yet; strength is gendered, and going from that fact, I think he misses the point. I know for myself, as a young "spirited" women, it was important to read my Alanna books and be able to identify with a women who wielded a sword and killed people and rode a horse (one of the books is actually titled "Women Who Rides Like A Man;" what can I say, it was the 80's). Because I knew that if women were allowed to do those things, women were allowed to do anything. It's only in the freedom to shoot the bulls eye for your own hand that the preference to sit inside and sew is also okay (for me, anyway). And as a women who doesn't yet know how to shoot an arrow (I'm working on it), and who does spend a great deal of time sitting inside sewing, I'm doing my best with that. And without books like Alanna, it would have been a lot harder. And I really believe that demonstrations of everything across the scale of behavior (or whatever it is) are still, regardless of your feelings about adjectives, really important.

The meta-critique is stretching a bit, but I did some digging around the rest of NPRs coverage of Brave, and a lot of the article titles mention the main character's gender. And that would be great, if they went anywhere with it. But they don't, sort of like Edelstein leaves his commentary on Merida as a strong female lead ambiguous and unexplained after the first paragraph. A second story, entitled "A Timeless Story Takes a 'Brave' Female Twist," has actually nothing to do with Merida being female. It's a very short, non-analytical synopsis of the movie with some quote from the voice actress who plays Merida.

And that's my biggest frustration with the article, and with NPR, and hell, with the world. I think if you're going to talk about gender, and use gender in your titles, and latch on to the idea that maybe it is kind of cool and important the Pixar has a female lead, you should actually examine that a little bit. Because just saying "Hey look, she's a girl! That's kind of unique... and who really cares why and hey look at the cool animation!" doesn't really justify bring it up in the first place, and it really doesn't justify using the protagonists' gender in your title.

So, I ask you NPR: put your feminism where your mouth is. Or, if you don't care for that sort of thing, stop riding on it's coattails. Feminism doesn't appreciate it. Feminism wants to go learn to shoot some arrows, and you are seriously cramping its style.

"Sir"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

abuse: a communal perspective (part deux)

Back to some of the initial questions this started out with. Namely, what to do with an instance of abuse in the frame of a larger community. Or rather, a friend of mine (now, a woman I'd consider a close friend of mine) is living and working in close proximity with an ex dom who abused her, and watching as he pursues other women, and what exactly do we do with that kind of complicated thing?

There's a great Pervocracy post on the legalities of this question, and I don't exactly want to get into those. I think important and relevant, but it's just not what I'm focusing on right now. So, read Cliff's thoughts about it if you like, she's amazing, as per usual.

The first reaction that I ever have to abuse, and abuse in communal situations, is that yes, of course, you should speak up about what happened to you. And at the end of this post, that's still going to be my perspective, I think. It's just a lot, a lot more complicated than that.

Talking to Hannah about what to do at the festival, and what to do in her local scene, she said something that hit me really hard, along the lines of: "I don't want to out him here, or to talk about the things he did to my friends here, because I feel like this is the place [the festival] where he comes to do the good he does in the world."

And I completely understand that, but I don't think it's enough. I hate that the questions of "what is enough," even comes up, because at the end of the day, I don't think that's the right question to ask. When a person does a bad thing, many, many times over, it doesn't exist on the side of some magical scale, one that can be balanced out by doing good. I also know that bad people do good things sometimes. I suppose, for me, it brings up the question of how many bad things, and how many bad instances of abuse, make a person "a bad person." Even typing the question, I sort of know the answer already: really, just the one. And it's not the one you think.

It comes down to a place of judgment. Faced with letting someone know about instances of abuse, like Hannah is faced with at the moment, you start to question your own judgement. Not the judgement you have of that person (because that's pretty clear for her, and it would be for me, I think), but how to use that judgement. Whether that judgement is enough to go out into the world and say "Hey, guess what, you need to know something about this guy." And again, it's a question that sort of answers itself.

There are, I know, two sides to every story. That said, if that story is anywhere near a reasonable misunderstanding, or an isolated instance of abuse, hearing both sides of it isn't going to be a problem for anyone. Meaning, the question of "should I tell?" holds in it the assumption that the other person, the abusing person, somehow isn't telling. And that's the one instance. The attitude someone takes towards their actions: this is what, for me, tells me their character, far more than their actions standing alone.*

*In some cases. Obviously, I couldn't give a fuck about what really abusive people think about their abuse. But I'm trying to wade into the middle ground here, where it's not so clear cut.

Because imagine a situation, the situation that always comes up in these debates, in which there's a dispute about whether or not a situation was abusive.* Partner A claims that they were mistreated; Partner B counters that Partner A was not, that Partner B was not abusive. What I think a lot of people miss here, and what I think is the catching-all for the accused-but-not-actually-guilty abusers, is the treatment of this conversation, both between the partners and in the community. Meaning, if there was an instance that was questionable, would the parties involved not talk about it? If no harm was meant, if there was simply a miscommunication, wouldn't it be resolved, even if it ended the relationship, as opposed to driving a divisive stake, and splitting a communities into factioned allegiances? Wouldn't it be at least an amiable, if not maybe tense and hurt and guilty, admittance by both parties that something, whatever that something was, did, in fact, happen?

*Note: a lot of the time, the BDSM community talks about dominants abusing submissives. Based on the nature of the game, I understand this. But it can definitely go both ways, so I'm trying to stay away from a language that assumes one way or the other.

Basically, what I'm saying is: an abuser who needs the abused party not to talk about it is clearly an abuser, no matter what they say. Were they not, there would be an explanation, I think. A conversation with new partners that said something like "Well, yes, we used to play together. This is what happened. These are the mistakes I made, and these are the mistakes my then-partner made. We couldn't come a resolution about it, and aren't together any longer. Here's what I learned from it." Etc.

What paints an abuser most clearly, I think, is the denial of past instances. The proof of the existence of abuse made obvious in the need to shroud it in some kind of secrecy. Which is why, I think, speaking up about abuse is never a question, because once you're in a place where the abuser themselves won't, it's clearly an instance where it needs to happen.

So. That's my happy logical conclusion. And I wish that it were ever that cut and dry. Sometimes, maybe, sometimes it is. But know there are more complex situations, and I know people are not emotionless robots of logic and reason. I also know false accusations exist. I don't really know what to do about those. I think that if we had a culture, in kink or anywhere else, that offered women (and yes, that's gender essentialist and stereotypical, but I'm going with statistics for ease of language, here) a better avenue for voicing their frustrations, and an equal footing from which to deal with this sort of thing, false accusations would go down a whole lot. But I don't have any answers.

In terms of the community, and what to do in a larger framework, I don't really think there's any answer but talk. Talk talk talk. Talk about it with your friends when you need support. Talk about it in a non-escalating, non-gossiping way. Talk about women who might encounter this man in the future, who might fall for what you fell for. Approach them, and say "Hey, I don't mean to butt into your business, and I recognize that you're an autonomous, adult being who is free to make their own choices. But I just wanted to offer a thought about that guy who's been flirting with you. I've had some bad experiences with him. Really bad, actually. It may be that that's not the case with you, and I'm not trying to smear his name. He may have changed, and things may absolutely be different with the two of you. But I wish some of the women he'd hurt before me had let me know, so I'm trying to pass it forward."

I really, really don't see anything wrong with that. Because say that new woman, the new partner, the warned one, then takes that information to her possible-flirting-partner. If everything was hunky dory, or if he's grown a bunch since then, or whatever, then he can tell her that. They can talk about it in an open and honest way. If he hasn't, then... well, then I think it sort of proves it's own point, right?

I just don't see another way to be a self-governing community. I don't see another way to keep the scene safer. Reputation can be a strange thing, full of rumor mill and misinformation. But it can also be a great thing, full of recommendations and positive experiences. I don't think having a reputation is a bad thing. I think that hiding what your reputation might be... well, if it might be so terrible, that's all I needed to know.

abuse: a personal perspective (part un)

This is part one of two. Two's already started, so it'll be up later today. If your read this (there are like, three of you? Which is awesome! Hi handful of people! Thank you thank you!), keep in mind there's a second part on it's way shortly.

There's an argument that comes up every few months on the BDSM community subreddit that I'm a part of (it's here, and also in the resources section). It's a debate that I'm sure comes up in lots of kink communities, online or not. It usually starts with a question or a story about a bad experience during play with a particular person, and then the community continues to discuss abuse, abuse and BDSM, and what the appropriate course of action is when it happens. What is abuse? Is it more likely here than elsewhere? Who do you tell? Who do you not tell? Who's place is it to talk about? What responsibilities do you, as the experiencing-of-this-bad-thing person, have to tell and/or to not tell? Where does accountability stop and the rumor mill start? How do we as a community treat reputation, and the idea of reputation?

It's an interesting argument, and one I've participated in before on an... intellectual basis, I suppose. But I had a conversation this weekend that brought it a little closer to home. And I don't think my views have changed, but they've certainly gotten much clearer.

I work for a festival each summer, a big hippie party in the woods. And although I'd known this woman in years prior, we had a kink-recognition moment this winter that was pretty great. "Wait, did I see you at kink fest?" "Wait, you went to kink fest?" "Wait, yay!" "Oh man, yay yay!" The conversation devolved (or evolved?) pretty quickly into techniques and rope preferences, and I was happy to find a kinky friend in this other part of my life.

But, as I said, that sort of changed this weekend (not the friend part; the knowing her better part. As in, I got to). We were walking around the grounds of the festival, taking a break from working, and we headed towards a part of the grounds where her ex hung around sometimes. And Hannah (not her real name, but various places on the internet have told me it means "grace," or "beauty," or "passion," all of which this woman is) couldn't keep going. And her kids went ahead with another friend of ours, and we hung back to talk. She told me about him, this man, who'd been the first person to introduce her to BDSM. This man who had two sides to him, one that was sweet and benevolent and caring, all of which she learned quickly was a pile of crap. This man who was emotionally abusive. This man who, over the years they were together, took that emotional and psychological abuse to the physical place. This man who lied about his STD status. This man who eventually choked her out without her permission, who hit her in nonconsensual ways, who manipulated abuse under the guise of BDSM. This man who ignored her safeword. This man who raped her, and who she knows from her own experience and those of others, is a fairly terrible partner. This man who puts up a very good front. This man who, she's learned in the last year, has done this other women before. This man who, she's probably sure, will do this to other women again.

I'm not going to go into a lot of specifics (I have her permission to talk about it here, but they're just not needed). We hugged, and she cried, and I cried with her. I cried for a lot of reasons, and then I drove the two hours home and did a lot of thinking.

I usually hate it when the "How is BDSM like abuse?" questions comes up, because I see (and much of the BDSM community sees) little to no link between abusive (read: actually abusive) relationships, and what we do in kink. But in this sort of situation, the question seems relevant. It has very little to do with healthy kinky relationships, I think, and more to do with the physical action of what we do and its proximity to what actual abuse looks like.

Physical abuse, in non-kinky relationships, is usually distinct. As in, the physical language between partners doesn't usually involve pain, either giving or receiving. In kink, that changes. And the line between "ow, that amazing, ow yes please thank you Sir," and "ow, stop, ow, safeword, ow, red," becomes a matter of consent, and a matter of enjoyment. I like this about kink; I like that there is no action that is okay, even if the person didn't like it (read: "Well, I mean, I was kissing her, I thought she liked it;" as opposed to "Well, I was hitting her, I thought she liked it." You've got to be much more explicit about one than the other). In this way, it's not so different from the non-kink world (or rather, not so different than I'd like to think the Whole Big World could be, one day). As in, anything without consent becomes exactly that: nonconsensual, abuse, sexual assault, and rape. Doesn't matter what the initial physical interaction was; now, it's the not the same. Not even in the same universe.

Those last two paragraphs are meant to acknowledge, and then put aside, the idea that abuse is easier in BDSM relationships. I understand where that idea can come from, but I don't agree with it. If anything, the kink community is more of consent-culture oriented community than the Outside World. But I do understand how it could look that way. To those people, I say: look harder.

I've never been in a abusive relationship, kinky or otherwise, so I'm not speaking from personal experience. But hearing about the psychological and emotional abuse that happened to Hannah hit me just as hard as hearing about the physical assaults. I don't want to set up a kinky vs. non-kinky dichotomy here, but I imagine they were harder for her than might be for other people involved in non-kinky relationships. Not to say that abuse isn't hard, and terrible, in any situation. But I've found, in my friends and in my relationships, that kink often has a great deal of trust and open communication involved, much more so than many non-kinky relationships I've been involved in. So maybe it's wrong to say that abuse is worse in kink, and more correct to say abuse is harder in relationships built on trust and vulnerability. Again, it goes back to the consent-culture idea; one is more aware, because the things we play with require it, than the other. And with kink, the trust involved can relate directly to trusting someone physically, with your body, and emotionally, with your vulnerability, in a very direct way. In kink, when I play, I offer up the smallest, most defenseless parts of myself, and I ask my partner to hold them, to play with them. I do this because it's fun for me; I do this because it's fun for him; he does it for similar reasons. But there is risk, physical and emotional, that I don't think is as often encountered in non-kink relationships, simply because there's not an interest. Do I think all non-kinky relationships are trivial and trust-less? Not at all. I just think it isn't as often confronted as directly as it is in kink.

Brief caveat: I'm not talking simply about play, or play parties, or casual kink encounters, if you will. I'm talking about emotionally involved kinky relationships. Just... a note about seriousness, I suppose.

What I'm trying to say (and I'm saying that a lot in this post.. maybe it's a difficult subject? It's a muddled post, that's for sure) is that BDSM abuse can hit much closer to home, particularly because of that line that exists, because the materials we play with (emotional, physical, psychological) are closer to the materials of abuse than, say, a non-kink relationship. To this point, Hannah spoke to me about how confusing her physical reactions were when this would happen. How her body didn't understand, that these were her partner's hands, that these were actions they'd played with in a happy way so many times, suddenly turned sinister. How hard it was to feel that, and all of the fear and betrayal and panic, and how lost it left her. And when you're turned on by pain, like I am, like she is, it's really, really hard when your body thinks Bad Pain is Good Pain. A mixed message from beneath your skin. When she told about this, that's when I cried with her.

And on top of everything, she's confronted with him. In communal situations, like this festival, like the local BDSM scene. And there stands the question of what, exactly, she should do about it.

Back in a bit with ruminations on that question, and more.

Wanting and Needing and This Little Depression Thing

I've been thinking a lot lately about how I differentiate between "want" and "need" in terms of relationships. In most cases, they're specific to BDSM relationships, but I think it's really sort of all romantic relationships. I'll get around to how this relates to depression (or Big D Depression? I'm not sure what the difference is there, or why I feel the need to point one out...).

I don't think I "need" a partner, or that I "need" my current partner, but that's a sort of pretty obvious one. I'd survive; I'd continue to eat and sleep and work and write and have orgasms and call my mother and pay bills and blog, if he left. I'd be really sad for a while. Probably a long while. But I wouldn't cease to function as a human being.

And yet I'm really careful of that word and how it relates to romantic relationships, and it really scares me when other people use it. I think where I differentiate between what I'd deem a healthy, non-squicky independent relationship, and what I'd deem a get-yourself-a-less-codependent-perspective-and-outta-there relationship; I think I'd define it without such a split infinitive, like: the difference is in how you're able to feel happy.

So, it's not live or die, it's not survive or not survive. It's your ability to be content, to be normal, to be happy, whatever you want to call it - all on your own.

I say that like it's an easy thing. And although I don't think I'm clinically big-D Depressed, I know, and have felt acutely, how not-easy a thing that can be. Mostly, it manifests as the Everything Thing (basically, the world coming down around your head and everything being not good enough all at once. Ze Frank explains it better; the link is to his show on the Everything Thing. He's great - not kink related at all, but really great). So I don't mean to brush it off (see also: Chase That Happy, which sometimes works, although sometimes the Everything Thing is too big for Chasing Teh Happy).

What kink does for me, I think, isn't dissimilar to what cutting used to do for me, although I think it does it in a healthier way, and to a much better extent. And maybe that's even taking it too far; I think they're not the same, but that maybe my desire for them comes from a similar place. I think kink lets me have a place where I'm allowed to feel pain, allowed to feel bad, allowed to feel shame and humiliation, allowed to cry and scream and rage. And all that gets lifted away, all the bad gets gutted out, and at the end, I'm clearer. I think clearer, I think faster and sharper, I'm calmer emotionally, and I chase my own happy better.

Would I find other places were I not in a kinky relationship to do this? Sure. I try to anyway; when I'm sad, or feeling the Everything Thing (which is really a better word than "sad," a more accurate word, anyway), I try to honor that, and sit with that, and let myself feel it as much as I feel it. There's always a little guilt (or a lot of guilt), and some pressure that I shouldn't be wallowing,* but I get there. Kink is a different way to get there, I think. They're not interchangeable, in any quantities, they just... sometimes seem to fit in some of the same holes (no sexy puns intended).

*I know that I sometimes wallow, but really, I hate that word. Like feeling anything just for the sake of feeling it is a bad thing. I know sometimes I can wallow; that I need a kick in the butt to let things go, but I don't think that's nearly as much of the time, for most people, as those most people think it is. Feelings are feelings. Honor them, let them take their time. They're going to cause way more problems if you don't.

So I guess what I mean when I say you shouldn't "need" anyone is that I think you (the proverbial, royal you) should be a whole person all by yourself. And that doesn't mean you can't be a better person with the right partner, or partners. That doesn't mean other people can't bring out the better parts in you (because obviously, people do this, even people you're not in relationships with). It doesn't mean you can't want someone really, really bad, or really a lot, and it doesn't mean that picturing your life without them should be some cheery happy thing.

It just means you should be a whole person. And that's enough of a not-easy thing all on it's own, so good for anybody (me, maybe?) even trying.

My Mother

...is a psychologist. A very good one. A very well-studied one, as it turns out.

Mom: Hey, is that a new tattoo?
Me: Oh, uh, yeah.
Mom: When did you get it?
Me: In Ireland, in Belfast, actually. [Partner's name] too.
Mom: Huh. Is it... it looks like a DSM-IV number...
Me: Yup.
Mom: Oh! Cool! Oh... which one?
Me: Well...

(crickets...)


Me: You really want to know?
Mom: Yeah. Sure...
Me: It's the code for sexual masochism.

(crickets...).




So. That's done, I guess.

The DiCarlo Escalation Ladder

So, there are these things called Pick Up Artists. There are... a lot of them. And basically their goal is to sleep with women, and being fairly bad at that to begin with, they developed a philosophy and community around (incredibly icky and manipulative) strategies to do so. They market themselves, most of the time, as teaching simple social skills. And while it might look that way (sometimes... very rarely, really) from the outside, the motivation behind what they're doing is... just gross. Really horrible, to the point where I wouldn't even call is misogyny (I mean, it is, but it's beyond that). They view, talk about, and treat women as objects to conquer, as video-games which, if you hit all the right buttons, can be manipulated into sex.

It's not just that they're misogynyst, but on some level, they seem... misantrhopist. Like, almost psociopathic in their language. There's no empathy, there's a distinct lack of consideration for other people. And why would there be? Women aren't people. I think that's what's scary: the extent to which these communities talk about women as non-people.

And that's no hyberole. When I talk about video games, I'm drawing from actual literature from these communities. Like, for instance, "cheat codes." Yup, there are cheat codes. For, you know, relating to other people.

Anyway, before I get really incensed about this (because I have lots of female feelings, beep boop), I'd like to offer a prime example of PUA philosophy. It's one of their most posted and linked pieces, written by Vin DiCarlo (a particularly popular, almost worshipped PUA). It's called the DiCarlo Escalation Ladder, and when I first read it, I was so appalled that I couldn't do much else but mock it. Argument was gone, debate was gone, feminist critique was gone. I just laughed, for a long time.

For your reading pleasure, I include said mockery below. It's sort of long, but I think, totally worth it. Without Further Ado!


The Dicarlo Escalation Ladder

1. Eye Contact and Initial Conversation 


Eye contact is the first step. It’s use shows social awareness and always improves your chances of starting a conversation. Start your conversational game shortly after eye contact. 

Or it shows that you’re, you know, a person, with eyes.

2. Incidental Class 1 

The first class of incidental kino involves the arms and hands. Shaking hands, tapping people on the shoulder and brushing arms are all very common things that we do on a daily basis. Done in an incidental manner, ie. occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation, it is extremely effective at building initial comfort. 

Incidental Class 1 Examples: 

* Hand shaking 
* Arm brushing 
* Light touching on her arm to emphasize your points 
* Anchoring her arm near elbow to hold her close as you talk 
* Standing next to her with your arm touching hers 
* High Fives 
* Palm Reading 

Okay, so “kino” stands for “kinesthetic approach.” It means touching people. But because women are video games, touching them has it’s own lingo, and a clear hierarchy within that lingo.

Also, palm reading?

3. Overt Class 1 

There is an unmistakable recurring pattern throughout the DEL: incidental kino, followed by overt kino. Overt means open to view or knowledge; not concealed or secret. While incidental kino is usually done in a context which masks your intention, overt kino is not. The incidental kino which precedes it creates the familiarity necessary for the overt kino to be accepted. 

This is the start of the super-creepy manipulation. Instead of human contact being about, oh, I don’t know, how nice it is to touch somebody, it becomes about tricking or manipulating women by breaking down their physical boudnaries.

Also, note the accruing acronyms and/or slang: DEL, kino. Have you found Princess Peach yet? No, not enough Kino. Try again at the next castle.

Overt Class 1 Examples: 

* Holding hands 
* Arm in arm escorting 

4. Incidental Class 2 

Class 2 kino involves any contact which takes place on her torso or legs. This is slightly more intimate than class 1, but does not include erogenous zones such as her breasts, crotch or inner thighs. Those areas are not paid any direct attention until the escalation ramp - to be defined later.

I don’t think I’ve used the word “crotch” since I was like eleven. But okay. 

Incidental Class 2 Examples: 

* Standing very close with your legs touching hers 
* Sitting close together with your legs touching hers 
* Lightly and incidentally brushing her abdomen with your hands while talking 

I’m trying to imagine this one. Like “oh, great joke, haha!” and then he… what, swivels and taps her belly and then looks away like nothing happened?

* Briefly touching her back with your palm while speaking as if you are pulling her in to hear you better 

5. Overt Class 2 

Overt class 2 kino is usually done while sitting down. It’s not necessary, but definitely a smart place to make the transition to sitting down.

This is the kind of sentence that takes it from just weird, to super-creepy technical. Like, you can’t just sit down. You have to “make the transition to sitting down.” As if I’d excuse myself from the table and say “Excuse me, I need to make the transition to urinating now.”

This class of kino should be done in a protective, almost romantic manner.

Because god forbid you might be actually romantic. 

Overt Class 2 Examples: 

* Frontal Hugging (done best as a positive reaction to her compliance)

As opposed to… backtal hugging?

 
* Escorting her through the bar with your hand on her lower back 
* Sitting next to her and placing her leg over yours 
* Holding her abdomen on the side while sitting down and talking 

Again, the language is remarkable. Because women aren’t people, we don’t have “tummies” or “bellies,” or even “torsos.” We, like arachnids and insects, have “abdomens.”

(I might have just imagined a giant woman-spider devouring PUAs with her spectacular abdomen. It was pretty sweet).

* Placing her hand on your thigh 

6. Incidental Class 3 

Her hair, face and neck are the regions included in class 3. Many guys make the common mistake of touching these areas too soon, with a girl they first met. Girls are surprisingly protective of their hair, face and neck placing these relatively high on the ladder.

Surprisingly protective, yes. And who would of thunk it, because, ya know, IT’S MY FACE.

Jesus.

 Another common mistake is that more experienced guys will generally skip this step altogether, only to face last minute resistance later on. 

Incidental Class 3 Examples: 

* Brushing (or pretending to brush) something off of her face 
* Talking very closely with your face touching hers because the environment is extremely loud 
* Touching an interesting necklace she’s wearing, meanwhile allowing your fingers to lightly caress her neck 
* Playfully pinching her cheeks 

Yeah, this is not sexy. Not even creepy sexy. This is my grandmother.

7. Overt Class 3 

The manner in which kino is delivered in overt class 3, is very direct. It is meant to prepare her for kissing,

As one would prepare a fine meat to be marinated, or a delicate soufflé.

 and is done in a very slow, gentle and romantic way.

Ah, okay, so now we can be romantic.

Most of the time you should be sitting down, relaxed and maintaining a good sexual state and strong eye contact. 

How, exactly, does one maintain a good sexual state? I’m imagine the outline of Delaware dressed up in burlesque clothing.

Overt Class 3 Examples: 

* Placing her head to rest on your shoulder 
* Moving your face into her neck and smelling her 

* Lightly stroking her face with your finger, close in, looking into her eyes 
* Running your fingers through her hair, close in, looking into her eyes 
* Holding her behind the neck with your palm to the side of her neck, looking into her eyes 

When I picture any of these things, it sort of reminds me of the re-make Charlie's Angel's villain, the one who cuts off locks of their hair and then sort of... rubs them on his face. Also, smelling? Are we monkeys now? Don't get me wrong, I like the way my partner smells, and I tell him so, but it's the sort of thing I imagine happening in a more romantic way.

Oh right. I forgot. We've leveled up to "Romantic" now.
Escalation Ramp 

So, I'm going to mock this part, just like the rest, but I'd like it known that, in the mocking, I am fully aware of how rapey this thing is. Like, legitimately, actual nausea-inducing rape-esque advice. Okay. Disclaimer disclaimed.

While the above steps from 1-7 may take anywhere from 30 minutes to 10 hours, the escalation ramp is very rapid. The duration of the ramp should be about 10 - 30 minutes. Start the ramp very quickly once you have complete isolation in a sex location.

This is one my favorites! A Bonified Sex Location! Oh man! What could that possibly be? I bet we'll find out... 

8. Kissing 

Start kissing from a very close proximity. Don’t come diving in lips first from three feet away. Ideally you should already be in a suitable position for kissing before you try. If you have overt class 3 kino taken care of, you’re probably in the right spot.

But am I in a Sex Location? Guys guys guys guys guys. Guys! 

A technique for building sexual tension - move closely in, slowly as if you might kiss her, and then move away and start talking about something else. This will build the tension and she will wonder when you’re going to actually kiss her.

Right. Or it'll make you look like a schizophrenic lunatic. Either way... 

A technique to initiate kissing - try placing your finger just underneath her chin and pulling her mouth towards yours.

I imagine a man sort of hooking his fingers into my mouth, and under my chin, and yanking my face around. I think it's the use of the verb "pulling." Which, don't get me wrong, could be hot in some circumstances. But I'm not sure it's what DiCarlo was going for. 

Kissing should be light and short at first. You should be the one to pull away first. Don’t use too much tounge at first, just use it to tease her, and build anticipation.

Like the Great Mina Bird, you shall peck and peck and peck again! (think: ostrich-esque). 

9. Kissing Her Neck 

Once you have kissed her for a bit, move down to her neck. Kiss it gently, while holding her close to you. Depending on how rough you want to set the mood, feel free to throw in some gentle biting too.

Gentle biting. Oh ostrich, Oh Great Mina Bird, what exemplars are ye! (and again, this could be hot, but again, not what he was going for, I don't think).

10. Touching the Bare Skin of Her Back 

Once you have established kissing both on her mouth and neck,

Much like "transitioning," we can't simply "kiss." We must "establish kissing."

 move your hands to her waist and underneath her shirt. Continue to hold her close to you, now with your hands directly on her back. 

11. Stomach to Stomach 

Now that you have established touching her skin, below her shirt, simply move your hand to the front, and lift her shirt, exposing only her stomach. At the same time lift your shirt as well so that your abdomen is in direct contact with hers. 

It seems innocent, but will meanwhile trigger intense sexual feelings inside of her.

The feelings! Oh god, the feelings! They're... they're inside of me! (like the first victim in Alien, sitting around the table, claws erupting from his insides... how's that for stomach to stomach?)

 The only time she feels contact like that is usually when she’s naked and having sex.

Or cuddling? Or spooning? Also, it's not like you're getting away with something that's somehow non-sexual... bellies can be sexual too. Oh, sorry. Not bellies, abdomens.

12. Kissing her Body 

Having her shirt pulled up affords the opportunity of moving downwards to kiss and caress the bare flesh of her abdomen. Start kissing her there, along the sides, and move upwards.

Touching and kissing the breasts is optional. It is not necessary, and in some cases can be detrimental to your progress. There are some women who have a negative anchor to their breasts.

So, first off, this is a primo example of creep factor. Nothing, not a single thing they do, is about anybody else being a human. Why do people touch breasts? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. And even if they didn't, I dunno, maybe because GIRLS LIKE IT SOMETIMES WHEN THAT HAPPENS. It's amazing that they're classified as "an erogenous zone," and that now, touching them has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Also, yeah, those damn negative anchors. I know how that is. I got mine from a cruise ship. They're blue. I tuck 'em up under if I'm wearing a tight shirt, but otherwise, they just sort of dangle there.

Inch toward their breasts and feel her reaction.

Like a worm. Or a feral cat! You inch that inching.

If she becomes increasingly turned on, then go for it. If she starts to close down, skip the breasts until you are already having sex. 

13. Incidentally Stimulate Vagina 

While you are kissing her body, you can position yourself between her legs and use your midsection to rub against her vagina.

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

 If you are kissing her mouth you can position your thigh to stimulate her vagina.

Yeah, okay, so I don't think you know what a vagina is. Because if there's a way that, even with my full knowledge and compliance, somebody can use their thigh to stimulate it, I'm not sure I'd survive.

The world you're looking for here is vulva. Say it with me now: vul-va! Very good.

You can also be kissing her body and reach between her legs and plant your hand on the bed below her. Then use your forearm to stimulate her vagina.

So, even though this one is technically possible, you're going to need a lot more prep and a lot more lube.

The key here is that because you aren’t using your hand or fingers, she has no basis for objection.

Like I said, it gets pretty rapey. 

14. Direct Vaginal Stimulation from Behind (Inside Panties) 

Once you have really amped her up by incidentally rubbing her vagina, move your hand around to the back and slip it inside her panties and touch her naked ass.

Not just her ass! Her neked ass! Sonvabitch pile-amonkey nuts! 

Next, move your hand all the way down and reach her vagina. Start first by touching the area around it.

VUL-VA. VULVA. Or maybe CLI-TO-RIS.

 Then proceed to finger her from behind. Women never expect to have it happen this way. Trying to reach your hand down the front of her pants will often be resisted, but from the rear is unexpected and effective.

"Many women are overly protective of their... front bodies. Try the rear." Except that that's still my butt. And I'd appreciate if you a) ask first, and b) we talk a little but about it before you do anything "from the rear."

If she is wearing a skirt or dress, you will instead move your hand up the back of her leg, and reach her vagina that way. Finger her and then proceed directly to step 16.

Choose Your Own Rapist Adventure! Proceed directly to jail!

15. Direct Vaginal Stimulation in Front 

Get her heated up

Like Ramen! Or... a crack pipe?

 by fingering her, and then when once she is sufficiently turned on, undo the front of her pants with your other hand. 

You can use the Situationally Relevant phrase “My hand is being crushed” as you do it, although it’s usually not necessary.

Situationally Relevant! Kino! DEL! Now we've got capital-letter classifications, acronyms, and abbreviations. We're getting pretty oficial with our rape here, dudes.

 Since she is engaged by the fact that you are fingering her, she will rarely object to your simultaneous undoing of her pants. You may also have her undo her pants, by saying “Unbutton your pants.” as you are fingering her.

Just a quick grammatical point: that's not actually you undoing her pants. That's her undoing her pants. Despite the later reference to "Jedi mind tricks," (not kidding, it's there), you can't actually use the force. Also, didn't your mama ever teach you to say "please," while you're skeezing on a girl? Je-SUS. 

Moving to the front, you’ll be able to get more penetration with your fingers, and get her to the point where she is practically begging for sex. Use a firm “come-hither” motion pulling forward on the front vaginal wall and stimulating her g-spot.

If I ever get the chance to fight a PUA guy, I'm going to use a "come-hither" motion to gauge out his eyeballs. But not on the first rung of the ladder. Because men are surprisingly protective of their face and hair. 

16. Remove Her Pants, Sex

Ya know, like ya do. 

The idea is to get her so heated up by fingering her, that she makes a commitment to sex, verbally or physically.

Once again, this is all about avoidiung rejection, and manipulating women around the PUAs fragule, fragile ego. Don't touch her because it might feel nice, or because you might want to, or even because it's foreplay, which is sort of a nice warmup for sex. Even the phrace "make sure you touch her enough so she's ready for sex," or "some women get really turned on by manual stimulation, and sometimes, they're up for sex after that!" would be better. But this isn't about what she wants; it's not even really about what he wants. It's about sex with no vulnerability, and no empathy. It's not about consent, but "commitment," because after commitment, there's no going back.

There are a few ways to go about this. Firstly, it is very important that you don’t stop fingering her before her pants are off. Too many times a guy will stop fingering her, and then try to take off her pants, only to get more resistance. 

While fingering her you can say “Do you want me inside you?” Which will usually get a “Yes.” response.

Like the feelings! Oh man, feelings, thighs, forearms, entire men! It's a party!

 At that point you say “Ok, take off your pants.” and continue to finger her until her panties are off, and she’s ready to go.

Like our marinating meat, stick it in!

But really, this part gets too rape culture to even make fun of very much. It's just scary. 

Another option is to skip the question and directly tell her to take off her pants. Usually with your fingers busy at work, she will be more than compliant.

Compliant is what you do with the police. Compliant is what you do while being arrested. Compliant is what you do when you don't really want to do something, but you're doing it anyway.

Also, women are like cats: distract them with a shiny thing, and they won't notice that you're taking off their pants. Wait, what?
Another technique is to ask her “Do you want me to get a condom?” In 90% of all girls you ask this, they will say “Yes.” Not because they are saying they want sex, but because they want to appear safe and level headed. You will interpret this as the permission to get a condom and have sex with her, and it will most likely be met without opposition.

It's incredible. They actually outright admit that she's not giving consent, but go ahead anyway. It's spelled out, right there, not only what she means (and how you should ignore it), but the rape-culture, anti-feminist argument you can use after the fact, if she has any problems.

"Well, your honor, I was being safe, and when she said 'yes' to me getting a condom, I assumed that was her saying 'yes' to sex."

Beware, PUAs. Beware my iminent come-hither motion.

*** 

So, that's the escalation ladder. Below are some more helpful tips, in case you have further questions.

Additional Points 
1. Higher Levels Unlock Access to Lower Levels

Ladies and gentlemen, we're now completely immersed in video game land.

The rungs of the DiCarlo Escalation Ladder may be treated exactly the same as compliance levels. The point is, any time you reach a higher level through situational relevance, it unlocks the lower levels automatically.

Wait, situational relevance? I don't know what that is!? Did I miss that step? Do I have to go back a level? Oh crap... 

A good example of this is in a loud club or bar, you can reach in and talk directly into her ear, getting incidental class 3 kino, touching the side of your face to hers. You are speaking to her in a way that is dictated by the situation, so it is accepted. If you accomplish this without her resistance, all lower levels will become unlocked.

You thought I was kidding when I said women were video games, right? Nope. We're unlocking levels and getting gold stars and everything. These gold stars might be illusive, I know, but they're probably somewhere near our vaginas. You can find them with your thigh.

2. Execution of the Escalation Ramp 

The escalation ramp, which consists of steps 8-16 is most effectively executed in isolation in a sex location. 

OH YESSSSS. Finally!

It is not efficient to start the ramp with the intention of finishing it at a later time. Starting the ramp without finishing it will lead to an increase in flaking and decrease a woman’s attraction toward you.

Flaking? Like, my skin? Is this some kind of Prince-of-Perisa curse bullshit? 

This is because these sexual behaviors were formed thousands of years ago when we were still living in caves. The natural instintual urges,

I think the word you're looking for there is "instinctual." Also, really, evo psyche? My cave woman-self woulda kicked your fucking ass.

Also, I'm still not clear on what an okay Sex Location is. Help!

 combined with a lack of knowledge of modern-day sexual consequences

Like, I don't know, laws and/or consent? Meh, just, you know, sexual consequences.

It might actually be a revelation to these people that sometimes, maybe sometimes, people actually want to have sex and then have it.

 meant that escalation with a woman would 100% of the time lead to sex. 

By executing the ladder correctly, you are matching her genetic sexual programming and giving it to her the exact way that she wants it. 

Oh yeah baby, gimme that forearm in my vagina. That's just how I want it. Uh.
It is acceptable to do the first part of the ramp - kissing - outside of a suitable sex location,

YES OKAY BUT WHERE IS IT. WHERE IS A SUITABLE SEX LOCATION. IF I DON'T KNOW THEN I'LL NEVER SAVE PRINCESS PEACH FROM THE CASTLE wait what?

 but only if you plan on completing the ramp later in that same meeting. It’s not to say that kissing a girl on a non-sex meet 

What, like a swim meet?

will destroy your chances, but it certainly won’t improve them. Kiss-closes may look impressive and feed your ego, but aren’t technically optimum.

Ah, now I understand. As opposed to non-technically optimum. Gotcha.

3. Incidental Vs. Overt Kino 

There is always a question as to how to execute these different pieces of kino. In general, you should spend most of your time in the incidental phase, getting her comfortable with contact in those regions.

Like Risk! Hunker down your troops in the right regions! Preferably Australia! 

This pattern of incidental followed by overt is almost like a Jedi mind trick.

There is nothing to say. I think I have nothing to say here. I think... I think... oh god.

Use the incidental kino in a very non-invasive, very much under the radar manner, and her subconscious will automatically accept the subsequent overt kino.

"These are not the vaginas you're looking for..." 

Since she accepts the overt kino, it is through a process of backwards rationalization that her attraction for you increases. The key is to make the overt kino extremely short. Each overt phase in the initial ladder should have a duration of 5-10 seconds. You’re not going to be holding her hand in the club for 5 minutes at a time while in class 1. Keep it short and sweet.

And make sure you've got your stopwatch handy.

4. Group Ladder Theory 

There is quite a bit of evidence supporting the idea of a “group ladder” concept. Within a tightly knit group of girls who share a “collective emotional state” with each other, it is possible that whatever step on the ladder you achieve with one girl can transfer over very easily to the other girls in the group.

Because all women are interchangable. Like orca whales. Or any of the new Star Wars movies (hey, look, a joke they might actually get!)

(Really, I love Star Wars. A lot. Sorry Han). 

In a sense, each group of girls has a ladder, which represents your escalation with that group. If you can comfortably touch and hold a girl at a certain point in the ladder, it creates an implicit trust of “this guy is cool” for the other girls in the group at that same level. Keep in mind, however, this does not include the escalation ramp, although it has been observed to happen with kissing quite readily.

Does this really need to be stated? I mean, aside from the fact that the intial claim of interchangibility is totally ludicrous, do you really need to tell these guys that you can't just switch from having sex with one woman to having sex with another? I think, maybe, one or the other would notice. Oy. 

5. DiCarlo Escalation Ladder as a Standalone Method 

The DEL provides both a sufficient framework for escalation and a linear step-by-step process such that it could be used as a standalone method. You can use one of the many popular verbal structures out there, but basic conversational skills will suffice, given an elementary understanding of the ladder.

I'm not sure you guys have basic conversational skills. But go ahead. 

There is an inherent value and attractiveness to a man who can escalate in such an intelligent and socially aware manner, which is why your verbal content does not matter very much when using this method.

Oh? Is there now? You know, I think you might actually have something here, DiCarlo... I think it's in the price his eyeballs will fetch me on the black market. Or maybe I'll sell of his thighs as sex toys. Who knows.

So, that's the Escalation Ladder. I had something quippy to finish up with, but it took about all my energy not to throw the computer to the ground, and maintain a humorous attitude, while writing that stuff.

It's just... how are there humans like this? How is there violence like this? How are these people not IN JAIL, or at least MORALLY SHUNNED? I don't know... I just, I don't fucking know.

To leave you with somewhat of a pick me up, here's an XKCD on the subject (note: negging is also a PUA technique, in which you use an underhanded compliment to pick up a girl, bringing her down a peg in self esteem with the hopes that she might go home with a loser like you. Example: "Oh, that salad looks delicious. Are you on a diet?"

Anyway. I'm too mad now. But I hope that was funny. And I hope you never, ever have to meet one of these people. And if you do, remember: come-hither motion, go straight for the eyes.

The Hippie Woo-Woo

I finished reading Radical Ecstasy recently, meant to post about it a while ago, and haven't gotten around to it until now. The book deals with ecstatic experiences in BDSM, descriptions of them, some technique advice, and a lot of descriptions of scenes. What "ecstatic experience," means is sort of up for grabs, and the authors spend most of the first part of the book trying to define what it is. Or what it might be. Or how it might apply to you. They are, admittedly, limited by language (which they also talk a lot about), and also by the lack of vocabulary surrounding this sort of thing. It might sound like I'm bullshitting my way through a description, but really, it's a hard book to explain, partly because it's a book that admits it's subject is hard to explain. It's really honest and open and great, like all of Easton and Hardy's books, but it's definitely more... woo-woo than say, The New Bottoming Book. Which was both good for me, and also got me into Super Serious BDSM Mode (see later on below).

On of my favorite things about Easton and Hardy is that their woo-woo is a self-admitted one. From The New Topping Book (also by them, along with The Ethical Slut and The New Bottoming Book and a handful of others):

"...one of Janet's regular partners, a highly intuitive body worker and martial artist, says indignantly, 'I don't do woo-woo shit'). But in our experience, the best tops pretty much universally use these concepts and techniques, whether they do so consciously or not."

They do a great job at the beginning of Radical Ecstasy explaining that, although they use words like "transcendence," and "ecstasy," and "spiritual," they know those words freak some people out, and so they give a long list of other words readers are encouraged to substitute.

I'm a bit of a hippie myself, although my sarcasm and cynicism often outweigh my woo-woo. I was a little surprised with how easy this book was for me, even though it was very.... spiritual (clearly, I can't even use the word without an ellipsis beforehand). Mostly, I just thought of what they were saying in the context of the Forever Place, or feeling close with Sir. There is something that happens in kink, for me, that's more-than-me. Or maybe, it's just an experience of myself that I don't get very often, and that I don't really believe I'm capable of creating with just me, so it seems like there's something "other" going on.

To clarify: I'm not a religious person, or really, a spiritual person. I'm a hippie, I think, because I believe a lot in do-no-harm, because I like and try to practice things like empathy and compassion. I also wear flowy skirts from time to time, had dreadlocks for a couple years, and like to go camping/make bonfires/do illegal substances on occasion/play the guitar, etc. I'm pretty sure that when we die we all turn to dirt, and I think the planet got to where it is by a lot of very complicated scientific and evolutionary phenomena that I don't understand, but that are nonetheless correct. I don't believe the placement of the stars at the time of my birth had anything to do with anything, and I don't have a spirit animal. Although I do like selkies and the mythos around them quite a bit.

But there's a certain magic to kink for me (not all the time, but sometimes) that I think of in the same way that a lot of people think about god, or spirituality (it happens in a real life too, not just in kink, but it's most obvious during kinky times, i think). But my magic (god, I hate hate hate that I can't find a better word for that) doesn't come from anything external. People are so incredibly complex; they have conscious minds and subconscious minds, they have infinitely individual experiences and personalities, and from that, there's a kind of unknown that I really enjoy. This is all sounding pretty new-agey. It's not meant to. Let's try again:

People are fucking complicated. Even me, tiny little me, has so much going on with her feelings and her thinkings that the possibilities of what she'll do or say or feel next are, in any given moment, pretty damn close to infinite. Put a single person, with all that depth, together with another single person, and man, the amount of shit that could go on there is... totally staggering.

This complexity, and the mystery within this complexity, are as close to religion as I come, and I'm pretty sure they're what keep sex (and life) pretty interesting, despite the fact that copulation is something I practice on a very regular basis. They're also what make, I think, the BDSM with me and Sir feel so fucking cool.

Imagine: He's angry, so angry, this malicious, dangerous, cut-throat look in his eyes and his muscle tensing, and he's coming, believe or not, for me. He's got rope in his hands, and the way he moves is methodical, intentional, making whatever is pulsing beneath the surface all that much scarier. I'm whimpering, frightened, but also prized, and wanting to give over to him. He touches me, red rope across my shoulder, hushing under my arms with a flick at the end, a sinlge sting, a fraction of what comes later. I sigh against it, the rope tightening, resting in the binds.

And that's just writing the very beginning of the stuff that language allows. There is so much other stuff, and the interaction of that other stuff does, I think, take me outside of myself; there are interactions and responses going on that I don't understand, and that I'm not really in control of. And it is ecstatic, and it is the forever place. I don't think it comes from anything but me and Sir being people and doing this together, but that doesn't make it any less incredible.

One side of affect of Radical Ecstasy turned out to be that I added a sort of weight to kink, as in, The Good Girl Gets Über Serious About Playtime All The Time. Which was cool, when Sir was up for it and when were both genuinely wanting to go to really dark places, and to play with the really heavy stuff. But I sort of forgot, for a while, that playing can also just be playing. That BDSM, for it's hard metal benches and deep scary voices and dungeon-esque emotionally possibility, can also just be fun. Like, Sir can pin me down and I can fight back and cry and yell and then, in a breath between moments, I'm also allowed to smile at him, and we're also allowed to have moments of kissing each other like we would walking down the street.

Fuck, even the language there: "we're allowed." Of course we're allowed! It's our sex life, right?

Anyway. Good book, good authors, good sex scenes, make sure you remember that Easton and Hardy aren't talking about all BDSM when they talk about these ecstatic experiences; this part of BDSM is an awesome one, but remember (because I forgot for a while) that you can still be playful. Read it with your hair in pigtails or your fuzzy kink slippers on or something.