FemDom, Tantric Ritual and Kali

[SlaveNano]

I've been out for a day, and am only just getting caught up. I'm fascinated by the comments and ideas offered here, and so pleased that people are wanting to consider these ideas.

I don't want to get too stuck on the idea of "sin" and expiation; the more I study on this article the more I think maybe the author was struggling with that himself; the organization who had asked him to write this was far more interested in that aspect than he is, as far as I can tell. I've read bits of other things he's written and he hardly seems like the type to focus on such a traditionally western and christian idea. So part of it, I suspect, was him trying to fit his own knowledge of the iconography and meaning of Kali worship into their ideas about, and goals for, the rites they were performing.

SlaveNano, I really appreciate your own contributions here; my fascination with this topic is as much personal as philosophical, and I was really hoping that part of this thread would involve some personal experience and history as well as theory. Please do feel free to share your own viewpoint on these activities.

I have looked around a bit and can find no other info on what group originally requested the essay.

I think one way to approach these rituals is to ask how much the rite has to do with "punishment", which of course is pretty familiar as a concept for most dom/mes around here, as opposed to the goal of providing a transformative experience for the submissive, and possibly an equally transcendent state for the dom/me.

Which leads me to this basic idea - I do see this stuff as beyond gender, and beyond any construct of sin and correction. I think the most important facets of the article for me to consider were the transcendent experience of those divine roles and the fascinating aspect of performance of a BDSM "mystery play" performed in front of an audience.

I'm hoping for both philosophical and personal discussion here; anyone who has experienced this sort of deliberate and transcendent form of BDSM rite is more than welcome to share...

Wow, thanks everyone so far - there's a lot here to chew on.

*goes off to re-read all the posts again*

A BDSM 'mystery play', what a wonderful description! Yes, that is very much part of my experience. And using that to create some kind of transcendent experience for both sub and domme is also definately something I can relate to. All of this is enhanced by both a dungeon setting and the fetish clothing of Goddess. The sessions I participate in do consciously use this idea of a false religion, which has usurped a pagan ritual where the idea of Goddess formed a central part of the play. In this Goddess and her assistant wore pvc nun uniforms and acted out capturing and torturing Goddess's slave. Goddess often has her assistant available and I have also been involved in slave parties where the audience/participation thing is explored. In this kind of scenarios the line between observer and participant is very blurred.

My stories on this site all explore the idea of Goddess worship, most of them in some kind of fantasy setting. There is one of them that is an actual description of a session. I've posted a link here as I think it gives a good impression of this type of session and my own feelings during the course of it. There is definatley a spiritual element to this kind of experience for me in this type of play and I know Goddess feels that too.

The story I am talking about is Slave Nano's Confession:-
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=407629

 

[unpredictablebijou]

That is an extraordinary story. Thank you for sharing it. The concept of taking away names, and the general idea of the immense power within names, is one I've worked with myself in many contexts including fiction. Have you written, or do you intend to write, further chapters along that theme? I would be really interested in learning more about the rituals you've experienced.

Again, thank you so much.

 

[SlaveNano]

That is an extraordinary story. Thank you for sharing it. The concept of taking away names, and the general idea of the immense power within names, is one I've worked with myself in many contexts including fiction. Have you written, or do you intend to write, further chapters along that theme? I would be really interested in learning more about the rituals you've experienced.

Again, thank you so much.

Thanks very much, I'm glad you enjoyed it. That's the only story I've done, that is actually a description of a session, though other ones obviously draw on experiences from sessions. I expect I might add more in a similar vein sometime but it really is finding the time.

Another ritual aspect of sessions I have with Goddess involves weaving stories or imaginative accounts into them, which is why I liked your idea of the bdsm mystery play so much. The idea here is that Goddess will set a task or 'mission' laying down a setting, some characters, tools that can be used to complete it and I come back and read out or recite the account of the 'mission'. Goddess will then judge whether it has been successful or not and adminster reward/punishment accordingly, which in turn will often feed into the next session. You kind of end up with a BDSM fantasy world within a BDSM fantasy world. The two stories Chronicles of Slave Nano Nos. 1 and 2 were done in exactly this way.
The links are:
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=393837
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=394453
I know the stories are strange and not be everybody's thing which is why I posted them in erotic horror, though I found them were fun to write and Goddess appreciated them.

If it were not for Goddess I doubt if I would ever have found that I could do any creative writing and would probably have never been on this site. Her sessions are very creative and imaginative - and I started writing by trying to return some of that. I consider myself very lucky and priveleged to be able to serve such a brilliant Goddess who has taught me so much.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

I really have to wonder how much of the element of "theater" and "mystery play" is inherently involved in even the most mundane (heh) of BDSM scenes, especially those which involve any sort of power play. Isn't it pretty much acknowledged that to some extent a dom takes a sub on a certain kind of journey every time they play? That there is a transformation of sorts, or that there is a shift in the mindset of the sub?

It might be just me, but I see it everywhere already. Even in the most elementary of activities, like a PYL forcing a pyl to admit to a secret desire, or to admit to powerlessness, or whatever, there's a transformative aspect, and an aspect of "sacred" or at least safe space.

In other words, it seems to me that in any scene, there is a facet of "separated" if not actually sanctified space. When we are here doing this, i as the sub am allowed to say or be or experience things I would not let myself do in other places. I as the Domme become the creator of an experience, and I may do many theatrical and ritualized activities to promote a particular atmosphere, state of mind or experience.

I come round to this place where I think, even if we don't acknowledge it, isn't it all a transformative rite, in a sense?

 

[Homburg]

I really have to wonder how much of the element of "theater" and "mystery play" is inherently involved in even the most mundane (heh) of BDSM scenes, especially those which involve any sort of power play. Isn't it pretty much acknowledged that to some extent a dom takes a sub on a certain kind of journey every time they play? That there is a transformation of sorts, or that there is a shift in the mindset of the sub?

It might be just me, but I see it everywhere already. Even in the most elementary of activities, like a PYL forcing a pyl to admit to a secret desire, or to admit to powerlessness, or whatever, there's a transformative aspect, and an aspect of "sacred" or at least safe space.

In other words, it seems to me that in any scene, there is a facet of "separated" if not actually sanctified space. When we are here doing this, i as the sub am allowed to say or be or experience things I would not let myself do in other places. I as the Domme become the creator of an experience, and I may do many theatrical and ritualized activities to promote a particular atmosphere, state of mind or experience.

I come round to this place where I think, even if we don't acknowledge it, isn't it all a transformative rite, in a sense?

I answered very specifically. Theatre is the taking on of roles, the putting on of masks. By itself, the mask is transformative. When you put on that mask, you take on that aspect. For those of us for whom this sort of behaviour is identified as core to our personal experience, the scene could be likened to taking off the mask that is worn daily to hide the twisted needs.

I said theatre as opposed to mystery play as I do not actively acknowledge what I do as ritual, and the point is not a mystical transformation. The result may be both transformative and mystical, but it is not intended to be so. This is, as I said, because I am not enlightened enough to consider it beyond that.

That said, I would imagine that, given my own bent in this direction, were I more enlightened, I would probably still consider it "sex, with some theatre". That is the manner in which enlightenment expresses itself in the area I would most likely wander.

If you scoot over tot he Resistance Play thread, you'll see me talking about my own headspace assumed when I get involved in certain activities. Tsuki-no-kokori, or mind of the moon. That is as transformative as I get. Mind, not in the Hindu sense, but in the sense of awareness, floats over the scene, placid and unaffected. Ready to respond as needed, without attachment or needless anticipation. Total focus on the task at hand, with unfocused awareness of everything around. Heightened awareness is as far as I get, but the mindset is certainly different.

It is difficult to verbalise. The core of me is hard and sharp like steel, my movements are precise and controlled, yet there is softness and fluidity, responding as needed. It sounds a bit hokey, but it is the same mind I have been in while seriously training against a live opponent with unplanned movements, and when facing a live person actively seeking to do me harm. It is strange to think of hitting a space normally associated with combat in a sexual setting, especially when I am not angry, but it is the closest description I can offer.

When it is right, there is no "I". There is only action and reaction.

So, honestly, yes to transformative, no to rite. I cannot take that word because I am either not mindful enough to acknowledge it in my play, or too mindful to need the word in what I do. I expect it is more of the former than the latter, and I am not overly impressed with my mindfulness or enlightenment.

 

[Homburg]

Note: I see masks and transformative play a little differently than most. Much of my recreation over the past 28 years has been involved in playing Role Playing Games of one sort of another. It is difficult to take the hobby seriously, let alone to see something higher in it. Yet it is, at its' heart of hearts, the shaman taking on the mask of god around the firelight.

Any time we take a role we wear that role's mask, and we either take power from it, or give respect to it. When children dress as terrors on All Hallow's Eve, they are participating in a cultural ritual, but they are also taking power away from those terrors, and are just as paying their respects to that which frightens them. Which, in the end, is a personification of either Death or the Unknown, generally speaking.

I don't role-play dominance at home so much as I role-play vanilla outside the house. Vanilla is the mask I wear, and, in that case, I take no power from it. I merely pay the role the respect needed to function within its' bounds. We all do the same, kinky or not, man or woman, adult or child. We pull our mask firmly over our faces when we get out of bed, leave the house, or walk in that shop door. Some people just wear masks that are thinner than others.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

I don't role-play dominance at home so much as I role-play vanilla outside the house. Vanilla is the mask I wear, and, in that case, I take no power from it.

This line needs to just sit and ring like a bell for a while.

Brilliant.

I'll get to other stuff later. You've raised some excellent points.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

Note: I see masks and transformative play a little differently than most. Much of my recreation over the past 28 years has been involved in playing Role Playing Games of one sort of another. It is difficult to take the hobby seriously, let alone to see something higher in it. Yet it is, at its' heart of hearts, the shaman taking on the mask of god around the firelight.

Any time we take a role we wear that role's mask, and we either take power from it, or give respect to it. When children dress as terrors on All Hallow's Eve, they are participating in a cultural ritual, but they are also taking power away from those terrors, and are just as paying their respects to that which frightens them. Which, in the end, is a personification of either Death or the Unknown, generally speaking.

I don't role-play dominance at home so much as I role-play vanilla outside the house. Vanilla is the mask I wear, and, in that case, I take no power from it. I merely pay the role the respect needed to function within its' bounds. We all do the same, kinky or not, man or woman, adult or child. We pull our mask firmly over our faces when we get out of bed, leave the house, or walk in that shop door. Some people just wear masks that are thinner than others.

One of the things that interests me about masks is their ability to reveal as well as hide. I like to think about a common role, say, Hamlet or James Bond, and noting the way different actors leave their stamp on that role and make it their own. Or the way one actor will, over the course of a career, make a statement about who he is, through his spin on many different roles. Likewise, both Homburg and I play the role of a Man, but we each give that role our particular spin.

Also with ritual. I know that I can communicate a whole range of ideas with a simple salute. Respect, disrespect, "I've got your back", "you don't deserve your rank", casual disinterest, and so on. I think both masks and ritualistic actions are like containers that I can fill how I choose.

I also don't believe it's possible to communicate without masks. There is no direct mind-to-mind contact, ime. But through the skillful use of masks, over time, we can reveal who we are to those who pay attention. But it's definitely a skill, and some people are better at it than others.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

I answered very specifically. Theatre is the taking on of roles, the putting on of masks. By itself, the mask is transformative. When you put on that mask, you take on that aspect. For those of us for whom this sort of behaviour is identified as core to our personal experience, the scene could be likened to taking off the mask that is worn daily to hide the twisted needs.

I said theatre as opposed to mystery play as I do not actively acknowledge what I do as ritual, and the point is not a mystical transformation. The result may be both transformative and mystical, but it is not intended to be so. This is, as I said, because I am not enlightened enough to consider it beyond that.

That said, I would imagine that, given my own bent in this direction, were I more enlightened, I would probably still consider it "sex, with some theatre". That is the manner in which enlightenment expresses itself in the area I would most likely wander.
-snip-

So, honestly, yes to transformative, no to rite. I cannot take that word because I am either not mindful enough to acknowledge it in my play, or too mindful to need the word in what I do. I expect it is more of the former than the latter, and I am not overly impressed with my mindfulness or enlightenment.

...
Yet it is, at its' heart of hearts, the shaman taking on the mask of god around the firelight.

Any time we take a role we wear that role's mask, and we either take power from it, or give respect to it.

...

One of the things that interests me about masks is their ability to reveal as well as hide.

...snip...

I also don't believe it's possible to communicate without masks. There is no direct mind-to-mind contact, ime. But through the skillful use of masks, over time, we can reveal who we are to those who pay attention. But it's definitely a skill, and some people are better at it than others.

Ark, your bolded line there really resonated for me. I'm still thinking about how that applies to what I am exploring personally here.

But see, here's where it gets tricky for me.

Homburg, I like your set of possibilities: that a mask either takes power away from something or gives homage to it, when used in a costume or ritual context (funereal ancestor masks, dressing like Death, etc.)

And then there's this other concept of "mask", which is that we cannot act authentically in all contexts at all times, and that in fact in order to communicate with another person we must wear some sort of face, just to make the link between one mind and the next.

Two very different, and yet related, concepts for the term Mask.

So where, then, does that particular act fall on the scale, if I have distilled myself for the purpose of a scene into one facet or one set of personality traits?

I mean, as soon as I say to the Jet, 'I am not sure you are worthy of this; you must prove yourself so,' to a certain extent I am either engaging in a mistruth or in an embodiment of something larger than myself which may genuinely feel that he needs and deserves a way to transformatively prove his own worth to himself and to the Divine.

A mask of mistruth or a mask of Goddess? I myself find the Jet immensely worthy and worthwhile in every way. It is a way to play with role and the mind when I express that sentiment. It is a way to get to an activity, and to infuse that activity with significance that brings a certain altered consciousness, a sense of visionquest.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

So where, then, does that particular act fall on the scale, if I have distilled myself for the purpose of a scene into one facet or one set of personality traits?

I mean, as soon as I say to the Jet, 'I am not sure you are worthy of this; you must prove yourself so,' to a certain extent I am either engaging in a mistruth or in an embodiment of something larger than myself which may genuinely feel that he needs and deserves a way to transformatively prove his own worth to himself and to the Divine.

A mask of mistruth or a mask of Goddess? I myself find the Jet immensely worthy and worthwhile in every way. It is a way to play with role and the mind when I express that sentiment. It is a way to get to an activity, and to infuse that activity with significance that brings a certain altered consciousness, a sense of visionquest.

I think context matters here (and everywhere). My own view, as a submissive, is that I trust my dominant not to set me up for failure. If she gives me a test, I assume she believes that I can pass it. If I didn't have that trust, I can either choose to move forward anyway (I have a bit of the gambler in me), or step back. And no matter how I express stepping back, what I would be saying is, "I don't trust you enough to take that step".

But all of that is part of the mask of the dominant. If, say, the context was a business meeting with my boss, the meaning of the statement is different.

As for the falsity of your implication that you doubt Jet's worthiness, I'd say that in that context, you're not making such a statement. The meaning communicated by your words is something else.

 

[Homburg]

So where, then, does that particular act fall on the scale, if I have distilled myself for the purpose of a scene into one facet or one set of personality traits?

I mean, as soon as I say to the Jet, 'I am not sure you are worthy of this; you must prove yourself so,' to a certain extent I am either engaging in a mistruth or in an embodiment of something larger than myself which may genuinely feel that he needs and deserves a way to transformatively prove his own worth to himself and to the Divine.

A mask of mistruth or a mask of Goddess? I myself find the Jet immensely worthy and worthwhile in every way. It is a way to play with role and the mind when I express that sentiment. It is a way to get to an activity, and to infuse that activity with significance that brings a certain altered consciousness, a sense of visionquest.

I'm going to say this softly. He is worthy as a person, as a man, in your eyes. He is worthy to you. Where you ask him to show his worth may well be to himself. You may, and probably are, asking him to prove himself to be worthy in his own eyes.

I say this based on conjecture built on many, many things you've said about him over the time you've been together. You find him to be a good man, true and excellent in your eyes. He is valuable to you. Yet the impression I get is that he is not valuable to himself, at least not inasmuch as he is in your eyes.

So in asking him to prove himself worthy, he is not to show himself worthy of you. He already is, else you'd not keep him. You are trying to get him to shine in his own eyes as beautifully as he shines in yours.

You are embodying the divine, and are thus asking him to embody his own divinity. Transformational, no?

 

[Homburg]

One of the things that interests me about masks is their ability to reveal as well as hide. I like to think about a common role, say, Hamlet or James Bond, and noting the way different actors leave their stamp on that role and make it their own. Or the way one actor will, over the course of a career, make a statement about who he is, through his spin on many different roles. Likewise, both Homburg and I play the role of a Man, but we each give that role our particular spin.

Also with ritual. I know that I can communicate a whole range of ideas with a simple salute. Respect, disrespect, "I've got your back", "you don't deserve your rank", casual disinterest, and so on. I think both masks and ritualistic actions are like containers that I can fill how I choose.

I also don't believe it's possible to communicate without masks. There is no direct mind-to-mind contact, ime. But through the skillful use of masks, over time, we can reveal who we are to those who pay attention. But it's definitely a skill, and some people are better at it than others.

This is an excellent post. I've no counter or building comments to make other than that. Good stuff here.

Hell, this whole thread has been really tasty.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

I think context matters here (and everywhere). My own view, as a submissive, is that I trust my dominant not to set me up for failure. If she gives me a test, I assume she believes that I can pass it. If I didn't have that trust, I can either choose to move forward anyway (I have a bit of the gambler in me), or step back. And no matter how I express stepping back, what I would be saying is, "I don't trust you enough to take that step".

But all of that is part of the mask of the dominant. If, say, the context was a business meeting with my boss, the meaning of the statement is different.

As for the falsity of your implication that you doubt Jet's worthiness, I'd say that in that context, you're not making such a statement. The meaning communicated by your words is something else.

There ya go. The way I'm thinking about it, unless there is something going on that is above or beyond normal interaction, that statement is either cruel or meaningless. But if both the Jet and I are in the distilled state of the rite, in which he perceives himself as Questor, Initiate or whatever, and I perceive myself as Goddess, Initiator, or whatever, the statement is at best theater, and at worst falsehood. Either way, it's pointless, since under normal circumstances he knows I adore him beyond words and have no doubt of his immense worth. I suspect you could make the same basic assumption about your own beloved, yes? As I suspect that SlaveNano (not to put words in your mouth, dear; feel free to add to this idea) might also know, deep down, that he is of immense value, that he is at the base precious to his Goddess. Without that, how much trust could there really be?

 

[jm_kaye]

Thank you for posting the article. As a matter of fact I am in the process of writing a story that connects female dominance with Goddess worship, so I've been on the lookout for material exactly like this.

 

[cj_oh]

I have been reading Lit postings for a few years, although I only actually joined recently. This is by far the most fascinating thread I've ever seen here. I wish I had the ability to make intelligent contributions to it. Suffice it to say what I have read in these posts really strike a chord that my somewhat secretive, inner nature responds to. I do hope this discussion is ongoing into the future.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

I'm going to say this softly. He is worthy as a person, as a man, in your eyes. He is worthy to you. Where you ask him to show his worth may well be to himself. You may, and probably are, asking him to prove himself to be worthy in his own eyes.

I say this based on conjecture built on many, many things you've said about him over the time you've been together. You find him to be a good man, true and excellent in your eyes. He is valuable to you. Yet the impression I get is that he is not valuable to himself, at least not inasmuch as he is in your eyes.

So in asking him to prove himself worthy, he is not to show himself worthy of you. He already is, else you'd not keep him. You are trying to get him to shine in his own eyes as beautifully as he shines in yours.

You are embodying the divine, and are thus asking him to embody his own divinity. Transformational, no?

Very well said. That would argue for the mask of Divine, rather than mistruth, indeed. And you're absolutely right; there is never a question of his worth in my mind, but only in his own self-perception.

And yes, I believe that what these rituals do, whether in a mundane and human context or in a setting which is conscious of divinity and spirituality, is to re-affirm and enhance a worth that is already inherent. We all struggle with self-worth, with our need to feel that we deserve happiness. In a church or in a dirty garage, the rite is the same: create ordeals that challenge the 'initiate' to prove themselves to themselves.

To return to a couple of issues that were raised early on, it seems like this is clearly a set of roles that go beyond gender. The active transformer, the Kali figure, can be anyone, and the initiate/receiver becomes genderless just as he or she becomes nameless and distilled within the context of the rite. Each of us contains potential to embody both prakriti and purusha.

I myself have had experiences as a sub that were transformative in the sense of ordeal and accomplishment; I wasn't proving myself to a dom, but rather proving to myself just how strong, how inherently worthy, I was within a completely powerless context. ('course, I'm basically a terrible sub in the traditional sense; there isn't much servitude in my character, at least on the mundane level.) Within that role I become, if I'm truly focused, pure Yin, purely receptive and passive in a way that receives and encompasses the force of Yang.

The other issue we seem to have all stumbled on is that of sin and expiation. I don't like that implication much either, but it may have value in the way a baptism has value; if someone is truly overwhelmed by guilt or a sense of worthlessness that comes from regret, the act of ordeal to cleanse and redeem the spirit would strike me as highly valuable. That's not a context I've worked with specifically or needed to help people explore. However, I see some parallel within some of the work I've done with the aspects of rage and anger; I have been in situations in which I was able to take the force of someone's rage and allow him to work it through completely, in a space where he could be sure he wasn't going to cause me harm. That's a form of baptism too; to stare one's anger full in the face and accept it, and then ideally to move through it into a fuller understanding of its roots, eventually releasing it so that it does not control the consciousness as it did before.

One metaphor I've used often is the concept of "fitting the monster through your mouth." We have secrets that we fear to verbalize: 'I'm not worthy, I have thoughts of rape, I have deep shame about this or that desire,' and so on. As long as we hide these in our own minds, they can grow enormous and become controlling fears and anxieties.

To speak these ideas, and to enact them in the ritualized context of BDSM, is a way of shrinking them to the size of the mouth, or the size of the ritual space, and confronting them so that they are taken to a manageable size. We strip these immense fears and anxieties and guilts of their power when we 'confess' them and enact them in that context.

Shame, guilt and unexpressed rage are killers, in my opinion. Any ritual, however bizarre or painful, is valuable if it pulls these destroyers out of the hidden spaces in our minds and allows us to address and release them.

Thank you for posting the article. As a matter of fact I am in the process of writing a story that connects female dominance with Goddess worship, so I've been on the lookout for material exactly like this.

I have been reading Lit postings for a few years, although I only actually joined recently. This is by far the most fascinating thread I've ever seen here. I wish I had the ability to make intelligent contributions to it. Suffice it to say what I have read in these posts really strike a chord that my somewhat secretive, inner nature responds to. I do hope this discussion is ongoing into the future.

Thank you, and welcome, both of you! I'm sure you have more to offer than you think you do...

 

[SlaveNano]

There ya go. The way I'm thinking about it, unless there is something going on that is above or beyond normal interaction, that statement is either cruel or meaningless. But if both the Jet and I are in the distilled state of the rite, in which he perceives himself as Questor, Initiate or whatever, and I perceive myself as Goddess, Initiator, or whatever, the statement is at best theater, and at worst falsehood. Either way, it's pointless, since under normal circumstances he knows I adore him beyond words and have no doubt of his immense worth. I suspect you could make the same basic assumption about your own beloved, yes? As I suspect that SlaveNano (not to put words in your mouth, dear; feel free to add to this idea) might also know, deep down, that he is of immense value, that he is at the base precious to his Goddess. Without that, how much trust could there really be?

It is quite challenging to be made to reflect on this. I know Goddess shows respect for me and all of her slaves who genuinely submit to her. I believe we both recognise there is a special connection between us. I know she gets the same level of intense satisfaction out of the sessions she creates for herself as I do. This is as it should be, because essentially I am there to serve Goddess for her pleasure. The fulfilment I get out of that is being able to serve her and the physical and mental challenges that come from that. Do I feel that I am of immense value to my Goddess? I find that really hard to answer and wouldn't like to make assumptions about how Goddess thinks I fit into her world. I would really like to think that was the case and I believe there is a special bond between us, but I wouldn't necessarily expect her to admit that to me! There are a few reasons why I think that.

There can’t be an equality of dependency between Goddess and slave. There is a highly addictive quality to Goddess worship/BDSM which is chemical, physical and psychological. I need to serve, I have a strong urge to submit to her and I have a dependency on the feelings I get from being allowed into her presence. I’m only being honest here and acknowledging the power that she has over me and, yes, I recognise it leads to addictive/compulsive behaviour. But, I would not dare to presume that I am the ‘special slave’ or that Goddess is dependent on my servitude in any way. I know that she has other slaves and companions who serve her as well and I am one of them. This is all acknowledged in my slave name – Nano, a microscopic piece of matter – compared to Goddess, who is all powerful, I am insignificant. Part of my role might also be to service other slaves if that is what Goddess desires, which I do at multi-slave events or parties. So I feel that I am way more dependent on her than she is on me, which is how it should be. Having said that a Goddess needs loyal slaves and slaves who are prepared to submit fully and show real devotion will be respected and valued by her I think.

I think there is an important point about the nature of Goddess worship here, which is that there has to be some part of her that remains unreachable, unattainable. For her to declare that her relationship with a single slave was so important that she was dependent on it could mean she might lose some of that and consequently some of the control over her slave. A really important quality of the idea of Goddess is mystique – a word which I don’t think has been used in this thread yet but which I think is an important part of the quality of Goddess. I think Goddess has to maintain that aura of power over her slaves. There are lots of different tools, both mental and physical she uses to achieve that.

I think trust is extremely important. You must have this to push boundaries. I have done things that I consider edgy and extreme, but I have always felt safe and protected in Goddess’s domain. It’s hard to explain, but I can suffer pain and humiliation but still feel looked after and protected all at the same time. This makes sense because the nature of Goddess has contradictory qualities. There are Goddess’s who demonstrate a vengeful, destructive life force and Goddess’s who demonstrate a caring, life giving life force. The positive/negative, ying/yang are different faces of the same life force. Goddesses will show elements of both. Mine is Goddess Nemesis, Goddess of retribution, and favours that direction, but she certainly has a caring, forgiving part of her nature to balance that out.

I trust Goddess completely to know what is right for me and how to develop me. Also, everything I have done for her has been consensual - I have never had anything forced on me. Indeed, Goddess is very clear about this, she will talk openly about slaves mentally opening up to her. When they have reached that state and are in a position to willingly do something because Goddess wants it for them then a boundary is crossed and the activity will be explored. If I can give an example, for some time Goddess has talked about carrying out a public branding ceremony on me. This started with an idea planted in my head about an activity that could happen in a session. That idea is allowed to grow in her slave’s mind. Goddess will feed it and develop it. Eventually, I get to the point where not only am I willing to submit to such a ritual but that I openly want to do it for her and openly speak about wanting her mark on my body. We both know that mentally I am ready for this ordeal and I know that one day soon it will happen. It requires absolute trust in a Goddess built up over some time to get to that point.

To sum up I think there is tons of mutual trust and respect between Goddess and slave but that the weight of dependency is not evenly balanced. Goddess will retain her air of mystique that makes her special and her slave is just that, a slave, willing to commit to servitude to her.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

You are embodying the divine, and are thus asking him to embody his own divinity. Transformational, no?

I'm curious - does it ever work the other way? Does Siva ever coax Kali to come out to play?

 

[Homburg]

In a church or in a dirty garage, the rite is the same: create ordeals that challenge the 'initiate' to prove themselves to themselves.

Exactly. While I am in a lay-off period now (which is the euphemism used instead of "lazy slacker") my weightlifting was very much a matter of proving myself to myself. It was my own rite.

To return to a couple of issues that were raised early on, it seems like this is clearly a set of roles that go beyond gender. The active transformer, the Kali figure, can be anyone, and the initiate/receiver becomes genderless just as he or she becomes nameless and distilled within the context of the rite. Each of us contains potential to embody both prakriti and purusha.

Yes, the emphasis here has been Femdom both because of the subject of the article, and the title of the thread itself. That said, honestly, I think it is a bit more clear of a possible tendency towards transformation and subsumption of ego in F/m. Or at least that those roles are more comfortably held. It is difficult to ennumerate, but, well, there are simply differences between the genders vis a vis mystery. The initiate and receiver are not inherently gendered, but it is just more... erm, language is failing me. I find it easier to see the priestess than the priest in this role, in this specific setting.

Male transformative ritual is not so blatantly sexual usually. The rites of male transformation are rites of "manhood" and the like, and often involve the classic male sublimations of sexuality and birth/menstrual envy such as violence, sports, alcohol, etc. Some may well involve sexual conquest, but it is more akin to sports/violence than sexual awareness.

There are cultures where the male transformative rituals are sexual, but they are more primitive peoples. I remember one particular tribe wherein the males coming to age were given a mentor as infants. That mentor, a non-family member, would guide the child as he grew. When the child reached age, he performed fellatio on the mentor, swallowing his ejaculate. This peoples' belief was that the seed must be passed from mentor to mentee, else the mentee will be infertile.

I myself have had experiences as a sub that were transformative in the sense of ordeal and accomplishment; I wasn't proving myself to a dom, but rather proving to myself just how strong, how inherently worthy, I was within a completely powerless context. ('course, I'm basically a terrible sub in the traditional sense; there isn't much servitude in my character, at least on the mundane level.) Within that role I become, if I'm truly focused, pure Yin, purely receptive and passive in a way that receives and encompasses the force of Yang.

Dr Mabeuse wrote a story that had some themes along these lines, as well as wending in some renaissance era magic. You would probably dig it. Hit the search function and look for Mab. I believe he had that story ("Five Cards" I think) linked in his sig. If not, you should be able to find him with an author search. It was an engaging multi-part story that I dug. I think you might as well.

The other issue we seem to have all stumbled on is that of sin and expiation. I don't like that implication much either, but it may have value in the way a baptism has value; if someone is truly overwhelmed by guilt or a sense of worthlessness that comes from regret, the act of ordeal to cleanse and redeem the spirit would strike me as highly valuable. That's not a context I've worked with specifically or needed to help people explore.

I just dislike the word itself. The connotation strongly implicit to sin is trespass against external divinity. Sure, if you are assuming the goddess role, and your boy has trespassed against you, I guess sin is more appropriate, but my has-taken-too-many-theology-courses self looks at "sin" in a particular way.

Cleansing of guilt is an entirely different animal, and a subject I can grok. It is entirely possible to trespass against me, and to need expiation from that. I have been asked for punishment before. Usually, I am not interested. I dislike it. But there have been times where I've realised that it would be the only way for that person to move forward. They feel a crushing debt, and know that the only way they can pay it back is suffering. I just can't call it "sin".

However, I see some parallel within some of the work I've done with the aspects of rage and anger; I have been in situations in which I was able to take the force of someone's rage and allow him to work it through completely, in a space where he could be sure he wasn't going to cause me harm. That's a form of baptism too; to stare one's anger full in the face and accept it, and then ideally to move through it into a fuller understanding of its roots, eventually releasing it so that it does not control the consciousness as it did before.

While I can see its' relevance, rage has no place in my own practice. I know my beast all to well, and it is not allowed to handle those I love. Or even those I like. That cage door doesn't even get opened on those I can't stand.

One metaphor I've used often is the concept of "fitting the monster through your mouth." We have secrets that we fear to verbalize: 'I'm not worthy, I have thoughts of rape, I have deep shame about this or that desire,' and so on. As long as we hide these in our own minds, they can grow enormous and become controlling fears and anxieties.

This bothers me. I cannot honestly think of a secret I hold that I have told no one at all. In fact, many of the things people hide deep and far away, I've not just told certain people, but have actively posted on this very board. I am not one for secrets of my own. Others' secret certainly, but mine? Not so much.

This makes me wonder if I have secrets so deep that they are obfuscated even from me. I don't get that feeling, but when you hear constantly that everyone hides a secret pain, or whatnot, you cannot help but wonder.

To speak these ideas, and to enact them in the ritualized context of BDSM, is a way of shrinking them to the size of the mouth, or the size of the ritual space, and confronting them so that they are taken to a manageable size. We strip these immense fears and anxieties and guilts of their power when we 'confess' them and enact them in that context.

BDSM did help me realise tsomething about myself that I'd not previously noticed, so I can dig this. In retrospect, poly has always been present in my life. In past years, it caused a lot of confusing feelings, shame, and aggravation. Now that I understand what it is, what it means, and how to express it, I'm more comfortable with myself. So while I don't really get into the secret meme, I can say that BDSM has helped me realise things about myself.

(Yes, I know that BDSM and poly are not explicitly related. It is just that the framework and openness of BDSM en toto allowed me to explore my own feelings more freely.)

--

Do I feel that I am of immense value to my Goddess? I find that really hard to answer and wouldn't like to make assumptions about how Goddess thinks I fit into her world. I would really like to think that was the case and I believe there is a special bond between us, but I wouldn't necessarily expect her to admit that to me! There are a few reasons why I think that.

There is a theory that runs through a lot of fantasy works (and some theological works!) in regards to deities in polytheistic settings. When there are lots of deities around, they tend to pay a bit more attention to the scruffy little followers. They're not dependent on them per se, but they pay more attention simply because there are other deities around, and they don't want to lose those aforementioned scruffy followers to other deities. In short, it becomes a free market for divinity.

Deities, in these systems, gain power from the belief in them, and that means they need their followers. They may not need that one guy over there, but if enough abdicate, they lose actual power. So while that one right there might not be special, he is still necessary, and more special than that other chap over there that follows that other deity.

There can’t be an equality of dependency between Goddess and slave.

While I understand this in your case, and why your psychology would likely need it to be so, it is not always the case. Dependency can be equal while power remains unequal, Goddess or not.

To use an example from these boards, Gil_T2 and Bandit58 are pretty well known. Gil has some very serious health issues that require a lot of care. There is no mistaking that he holds the power in that relationship, but he is fairly dependent on Bandit for his daily care. Obviously this is not your situation, but you made a rather pointed blanket situation there that could be applied to relationships beyond yours.

 

[Homburg]

I'm curious - does it ever work the other way? Does Siva ever coax Kali to come out to play?

Absolutely, he tops from the bottom a good bit. For a dark, skull-wearing goddess that murders her lovers, there is some definite lightness and humour to the interchanges. They are both caught in the cycle, and play it anew regularly, but nothing says they must play it the same way each time.

And the extension is true as well. There are plenty of stories out there of a submissive man coaxing the top out of a woman in whom he has seen the potential. The German film "Hounded" (American DVD title "Punish Me") has this theme at its' core.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

Yes, the emphasis here has been Femdom both because of the subject of the article, and the title of the thread itself. That said, honestly, I think it is a bit more clear of a possible tendency towards transformation and subsumption of ego in F/m. Or at least that those roles are more comfortably held. It is difficult to ennumerate, but, well, there are simply differences between the genders vis a vis mystery. The initiate and receiver are not inherently gendered, but it is just more... erm, language is failing me. I find it easier to see the priestess than the priest in this role, in this specific setting.

And again we come back to this question - do women have something to teach men, and do men have something to teach women? If we head off on a side trip to China, the Taoists posit that both men and women are unbalanced, with an excess of yang and yin respectively, and one way to achieve balance is through skillful sexual intercourse. Of course, it's also true that the great hero figure of the Taoist sexual teachings, the Yellow Emperor, was himself taught by three women. I keep going round and round this question. It's an important one to me, though, because I don't like the idea of charity. I want to believe that the exchange is equal.

There is a theory that runs through a lot of fantasy works (and some theological works!) in regards to deities in polytheistic settings. When there are lots of deities around, they tend to pay a bit more attention to the scruffy little followers. They're not dependent on them per se, but they pay more attention simply because there are other deities around, and they don't want to lose those aforementioned scruffy followers to other deities. In short, it becomes a free market for divinity.

This reminds me of an interesting quality of Greek hero cult, which ties into the intitation aspect as well. Greek heroes tended to have a particular deity that they had a love/hate relationship with, a patron deity. Sometimes they were antagonistic, sometimes helpful - and sometimes both at once! - but it was never a simple relationship. The best example, I think, is Hercules. The anger of Hera and the times she tried to kill him are well-known. But it's also true that his name in Greek - Herakles - means "Hera's Glory". And he does end up achieving immortality through her challenges, so there is a kind of intiatrix role going on.

As an aside, while most heroes had one patron, Odysseus had several. If you want to have some fun, read the Odyssey and try to see how many he has and who they are.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

And the extension is true as well. There are plenty of stories out there of a submissive man coaxing the top out of a woman in whom he has seen the potential. The German film "Hounded" (American DVD title "Punish Me") has this theme at its' core.

This is what I'm trying to see. As you know, dominance is a bit of a closed book to me, so I'm fumbling around trying to see how I can show my Mistress what I see when I see her, to reflect that mask of dominance. It's something that I struggle with a bit, because I'm fairly willful, and yet, also need to submit. My current thought is that having a will of well-tempered steel that she could never in a thousand years even crack, and then offering that will to her freely, is something of real value. Something, moreover, that only I can offer.

I'm still thinking about this, though.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

One metaphor I've used often is the concept of "fitting the monster through your mouth." We have secrets that we fear to verbalize: 'I'm not worthy, I have thoughts of rape, I have deep shame about this or that desire,' and so on. As long as we hide these in our own minds, they can grow enormous and become controlling fears and anxieties.

To speak these ideas, and to enact them in the ritualized context of BDSM, is a way of shrinking them to the size of the mouth, or the size of the ritual space, and confronting them so that they are taken to a manageable size. We strip these immense fears and anxieties and guilts of their power when we 'confess' them and enact them in that context.

Shame, guilt and unexpressed rage are killers, in my opinion. Any ritual, however bizarre or painful, is valuable if it pulls these destroyers out of the hidden spaces in our minds and allows us to address and release them.

Peter J. Carroll says that "[a] Demon is just a God denied", which I've always liked. So often our Shadows have hidden virtues, if we can learn to look at them.

 

[Homburg]

And again we come back to this question - do women have something to teach men, and do men have something to teach women? If we head off on a side trip to China, the Taoists posit that both men and women are unbalanced, with an excess of yang and yin respectively, and one way to achieve balance is through skillful sexual intercourse. Of course, it's also true that the great hero figure of the Taoist sexual teachings, the Yellow Emperor, was himself taught by three women. I keep going round and round this question. It's an important one to me, though, because I don't like the idea of charity. I want to believe that the exchange is equal.

Each sex has something to teach the other. This is unmistakable. I just see mystery practice differently. Historically, mystery, for men, is either woman leading man into mystery, or man leading man. It is more rare to see men leading women into mystery. Then again, I may simply be overlooking some tradition where this is more common.

The long and short is that there are two major mystery concepts: death and birth. Man can lead man in exploration of death. Woman must lead for birth though. Baptism was a method in which man could attempt to subsume birth into death, and run the same rite for both concepts, and thus reflects the inherently patriarchal nature of Christianity. That said, there are Christian mystery traditions. They probably include men leading women simply because that is the structure of the overall church.

It is plain that man can teach woman, just not so plain as to what mysteries the man can instruct the woman on. Death, as a feminine purview, is handled VERY differently. The female traditions for death and even murder are not remotely the same animal as the male conception of it, and not terribly applicable in that direction. I am not trying to devalue the male though. Both are necessary. Just that mystery cults do not classically operate in that direction from what my (admittedly faulty) memory recalls.

This reminds me of an interesting quality of Greek hero cult, which ties into the intitation aspect as well. Greek heroes tended to have a particular deity that they had a love/hate relationship with, a patron deity. Sometimes they were antagonistic, sometimes helpful - and sometimes both at once! - but it was never a simple relationship. The best example, I think, is Hercules. The anger of Hera and the times she tried to kill him are well-known. But it's also true that his name in Greek - Herakles - means "Hera's Glory". And he does end up achieving immortality through her challenges, so there is a kind of intiatrix role going on.

Herakles and Hera's relationship is a special one and a good example.

This is what I'm trying to see. As you know, dominance is a bit of a closed book to me, so I'm fumbling around trying to see how I can show my Mistress what I see when I see her, to reflect that mask of dominance. It's something that I struggle with a bit, because I'm fairly willful, and yet, also need to submit. My current thought is that having a will of well-tempered steel that she could never in a thousand years even crack, and then offering that will to her freely, is something of real value. Something, moreover, that only I can offer.

I'm still thinking about this, though.

Each person brings their ow mix to the D/s interchange. Have you thought simply about offering the above lines as explanation?

Peter J. Carroll says that "[a] Demon is just a God denied", which I've always liked. So often our Shadows have hidden virtues, if we can learn to look at them.

Good quote. That rocks.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

Baptism was a method in which man could attempt to subsume birth into death, and run the same rite for both concepts, and thus reflects the inherently patriarchal nature of Christianity. That said, there are Christian mystery traditions. They probably include men leading women simply because that is the structure of the overall church.

I would say it's more a case of a person leading another person. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." When the Rite of Baptism involved shedding one's clothes and being fully immersed in a baptismal pool, women did baptize other women. This, as I understand it, was the reason for the establishment of deaconesses. But that is not, as far as I know, practiced today.

Each person brings their ow mix to the D/s interchange. Have you thought simply about offering the above lines as explanation?

This particular relationship was more of a casual play relationship, and is actually coming to a close (through no fault of anyone). But it was my first explicitly F/m relationship, and is sparking more introspection than usual.