FemDom, Tantric Ritual and Kali

[unpredictablebijou]

There is so much to chew on in all the posts since I left last night, and I hardly know where to start.

Only one point that I had a coherent thought on and that's Homburg's assertion that we see many cases of women leading men into illumination, and men leading men similarly, but far fewer cases of men leading women into the same territories, at least within traditional mythos. That's an interesting thing to consider.

Perhaps it is this, in part. I know that men have led me toward illumination, as well as women, in my own visionquests. But what I notice is that the men do so not so much actively as passively, in a sense.

This goes far beyond any sort of fem dom issue. What I mean is this: the men who have taught me the most, brought me the furthest toward knowledge, have done so by opening themselves to me in the sense that is spoken of in the original essay: they have allowed themselves to be revealed, to surrender their own mysteries for me to interact with and examine; they have showed me their raw selves and allowed me to act upon them and learn my way around that mysterious territory.

I try so hard to let go of gender entirely; I have done so all my life. I contain yin and yang, I am actively androgynous, I am bisexual, I am a dommy grrrl, a tomboy, a cowgrrl, and so on. And yet I keep coming back to the essential differences, over and over. It is not as simple as personality traits or behavior or even ritual role. It is something deeper; some essential mystery that each of us contains and offers to the other.

And maybe it's just me, but I come back to you, Ark, and your question about what Siva offers Sakti, how active he can be. I find men to be fascinating and impenetrable. I find women basically and unfortunately understandable, and to a certain extent I am cynical about their supposed "mystery" and "complexity." But men hold a key for me that I am constantly investigating, constantly fascinated by, and on which I nourish myself, without ever thinking that I really understand it, or understand why I'm even there looking.

agh. I feel pretty incoherent when I get to this point. The answer is Yes. Yes, we have equal lessons for one another, equal value, and entirely different value. Everything else I could try to say about that right now will sink into babble.

*goes away to drink more coffee and think some more.*

 

[Homburg]

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.

Pfft, Christianity is the patriarchy. It may have been minorly less so at its' outset, but it is the front-line ideological paladin of the patriarchy these days, and has been for most of its' history.

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.

Understandable.

--

There is so much to chew on in all the posts since I left last night, and I hardly know where to start.

Only one point that I had a coherent thought on and that's Homburg's assertion that we see many cases of women leading men into illumination, and men leading men similarly, but far fewer cases of men leading women into the same territories, at least within traditional mythos. That's an interesting thing to consider.

I figured if anyone else would have a clue on this, it would be you.

Perhaps it is this, in part. I know that men have led me toward illumination, as well as women, in my own visionquests. But what I notice is that the men do so not so much actively as passively, in a sense.

This goes far beyond any sort of fem dom issue. What I mean is this: the men who have taught me the most, brought me the furthest toward knowledge, have done so by opening themselves to me in the sense that is spoken of in the original essay: they have allowed themselves to be revealed, to surrender their own mysteries for me to interact with and examine; they have showed me their raw selves and allowed me to act upon them and learn my way around that mysterious territory.

As to men leading women, sure, perfectly possible. It just does not really happen insofar as initiation into the classic mysteries is concerned. In my own case, I have lead women to a greater understanding of themselves. That is not a mystery though. That is simply peeling back the walls enough that they may peer back inside.

I try so hard to let go of gender entirely; I have done so all my life. I contain yin and yang, I am actively androgynous, I am bisexual, I am a dommy grrrl, a tomboy, a cowgrrl, and so on. And yet I keep coming back to the essential differences, over and over. It is not as simple as personality traits or behavior or even ritual role. It is something deeper; some essential mystery that each of us contains and offers to the other.

Eh, I acknowledge the genders. Makes no sense to me not to. It also makes no sense to me to not acknowledge that gender is a complex thing, and that function does not always follow form.

And maybe it's just me, but I come back to you, Ark, and your question about what Siva offers Sakti, how active he can be. I find men to be fascinating and impenetrable. I find women basically and unfortunately understandable, and to a certain extent I am cynical about their supposed "mystery" and "complexity." But men hold a key for me that I am constantly investigating, constantly fascinated by, and on which I nourish myself, without ever thinking that I really understand it, or understand why I'm even there looking.

Men are simple. Women are simple. Individuals are complex.

agh. I feel pretty incoherent when I get to this point. The answer is Yes. Yes, we have equal lessons for one another, equal value, and entirely different value. Everything else I could try to say about that right now will sink into babble.

*goes away to drink more coffee and think some more.*

Each has lessons for the other, and for themselves. The lessons are as similar as soccer and propwash though.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

Bijou,

Perhaps it is this, in part. I know that men have led me toward illumination, as well as women, in my own visionquests. But what I notice is that the men do so not so much actively as passively, in a sense.

This goes far beyond any sort of fem dom issue. What I mean is this: the men who have taught me the most, brought me the furthest toward knowledge, have done so by opening themselves to me in the sense that is spoken of in the original essay: they have allowed themselves to be revealed, to surrender their own mysteries for me to interact with and examine; they have showed me their raw selves and allowed me to act upon them and learn my way around that mysterious territory.

That makes perfect sense to me. The teacher always learns from the student, after all. And it's an idea that mollifies my sense of symmetrical propriety.

It also reminds me of something that I've read in relationship articles and books fairly frequently. It is said that many women find vulnerability in men to be very attractive. Perhaps, if you're right, there's something deeper to this than just the aesthetics of desire?

I try so hard to let go of gender entirely; I have done so all my life. I contain yin and yang, I am actively androgynous, I am bisexual, I am a dommy grrrl, a tomboy, a cowgrrl, and so on. And yet I keep coming back to the essential differences, over and over. It is not as simple as personality traits or behavior or even ritual role. It is something deeper; some essential mystery that each of us contains and offers to the other.

As I've suggested before, I think that gender is both necessary and insufficient. It's necessary because our sex is inescapable. But it's also insufficient because there is so much more to me, for example, than will ever fit in the box called "male" or even the one labeled "masculine".

And maybe it's just me, but I come back to you, Ark, and your question about what Siva offers Sakti, how active he can be. I find men to be fascinating and impenetrable. I find women basically and unfortunately understandable, and to a certain extent I am cynical about their supposed "mystery" and "complexity." But men hold a key for me that I am constantly investigating, constantly fascinated by, and on which I nourish myself, without ever thinking that I really understand it, or understand why I'm even there looking.

I feel similarly about women. There's a love and, yes, even adoration of you (second person plural ) that can be frightening at times to feel.

There's more I want to say, but I think I need to let those ideas marinate a bit. More later.

 

[SlaveNano]

I would like to pick up on the theme of masks and identity from earlier on this thread, which I have also found fascinating. Several posters have written elequontly on the power and symbolism of masks and there's not a great deal I can add. I do think they can do so much to enhance a session. They can help a Goddess or slave transform into another identity, which is a theme that I am intrigued by. As you might have gathered from my previous posts in this thread I engage in sessions that have a ritualistic element and a strong sense of the theatrical using an evocative dungeon setting, equipment and implements and fetish costume. Masks have an important function in creating the right atmosphere. With this kind of session (I am reluctant to use the expression ‘role play’ because in my view it goes much further than that) it is about transformation – Goddess assuming a character, the slave becoming the thing that Goddess wants him to be. It is very real and transformational. Masks, combined with setting and the other tools Goddess uses, create the atmosphere that helps slave switch into another identity and make it believable. I recall one session I was transformed into Scherazade – dressed in harem pants and top, a wig and, yes, a decorated mask to complete the identity and gender switch. I could believe I was Scherazade and that my life depended on being able to tell a story that kept Goddess amused and engaged. It was an immensely satisfying experience and one that was made real by the use of costume and mask.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Ive had no internet for two days. Arg. I'm getting caught up now, finally.

As to men leading women, sure, perfectly possible. It just does not really happen insofar as initiation into the classic mysteries is concerned. In my own case, I have lead women to a greater understanding of themselves. That is not a mystery though. That is simply peeling back the walls enough that they may peer back inside.

This is well said, and maybe there's a key here too. How do men initiate women? by revealing, sometimes actively, sometimes passively. They reveal us to ourselves, and they reveal themselves to us, but either way their role seems to be to open something, to peel back the layers. To move inward, rather than leading outward along a path as we see more conventional 'initiations' portrayed.

Eh, I acknowledge the genders. Makes no sense to me not to. It also makes no sense to me to not acknowledge that gender is a complex thing, and that function does not always follow form.



Men are simple. Women are simple. Individuals are complex.

You've been awfully quotable lately. This is fine stuff.

Bijou,


That makes perfect sense to me. The teacher always learns from the student, after all. And it's an idea that mollifies my sense of symmetrical propriety.

It also reminds me of something that I've read in relationship articles and books fairly frequently. It is said that many women find vulnerability in men to be very attractive. Perhaps, if you're right, there's something deeper to this than just the aesthetics of desire?

But of course, at least if you're like me and are doing this for more than just a way to creatively get your rocks off. (heh; not that that's a bad thing.) But I think "vulnerability" might be a bit of a slide. I cannot possibly justify generalizing for women, but it's not so much vulnerability as humanity that appeals to me; a willingness to move outside the standardized way men's behavior is so horribly regulated by our current culture.

I'm afraid that our culture has conditioned us to believe that men who are open-hearted, emotionally honest, expressive or even willing to admit to being occasionally unsure of themselves are 'vulnerable.' Somehow 'weak' or unmanly. Men have so much more pressure to fit into a masculine paradigm in that sense; perhaps it is merely that women find men attractive when they are willing to be honestly focused on, and to honestly respond to, experience, not holding themselves at a distance from their own emotions. Willing to be human, rather than male.

Women have it easy in that sense. Feminism (oy I dislike that term) has given women the power to say, "I can be, behave and think however I want; I don't have to fit in with a feminine ideal." But men have not been offered that privilege yet. If you cry, if you express yourself, if you have a flamboyant personality, if you do anything traditionally 'feminine' you're screwed. And maybe by the time we're adults it gets easier to be treated with less bias, but by that time the primary damage is already done.

Just today I heard a story from a friend's childhood. He's fiercely straight, mind you, (not that that matters) but was beat up all through school because his manner and build made his peers decide he was 'queer.' Including the fact that at age 7 he was allowed to choose his own curtains for his room and he chose pink butterflies. They were pretty, dammit, and he liked them. His parents (good rural farm folk in a small town) panicked, but to their credit they eventually stopped trying to talk him out of it and bought him the curtains.

Now here's the issue. Nice as these people undoubtedly were, they were trained by their culture. So they most probably thought, 'oh my god, our son may be gay' rather than 'how wonderful that he has an eye for color and design at such an early age.'

Men are at a disadvantage. To be human, to be expressive, to move beyond rigidly defined behavioral boundaries, is termed "vulnerable." The connotations are obvious.

As I've suggested before, I think that gender is both necessary and insufficient. It's necessary because our sex is inescapable. But it's also insufficient because there is so much more to me, for example, than will ever fit in the box called "male" or even the one labeled "masculine".


I feel similarly about women. There's a love and, yes, even adoration of you (second person plural ) that can be frightening at times to feel.

There's more I want to say, but I think I need to let those ideas marinate a bit. More later.

Gender's a root, an origin point. I do not believe it defines anything across the board or without exception, but as Homburg said, it cannot be entirely dismissed either.

I also don't think gender is nearly as easy as which naughty bits you've decided to manifest. I think when you really look at how to actually define gender, man, woman, male, female, it dissolves under the microscope and becomes nothing but numbers and mush. It's an inconvenient cultural division, and tends to do more harm than good.

What I'm hearing underneath, and perhaps I'm too far out on a limb here, is a sort of struggle within these roles of dominant and submissive: who gives what to whom, and does the teacher learn from the student. That sort of thing.

But this is where Kali comes in as a beautiful model for that particular dynamic, at least for me. She's no formalized teacher; it is through her arbitrary and seemingly selfish and random nature that she offers her initiation.

(understand I have now started, and blown away, the following sentences, at least four times. I'm still not sure of it...)

What I offer you (second person plural, a man, a submissive, whatever) may be more concrete, more pre-designed, and possibly feel more like teaching than what you offer me. But "your" value in revealing yourself at the most raw and surrendered level is equal, if more ineffable. In both the indulgence I am allowed, and the way I can interact with the underlying levels of you, I learn about your true nature, and about myself as I am reflected in your response to me.

argh. i still don't think I have that right. It's a start anyway.

eta: and as a personal aside, I know that quality of love you describe. It is rare. I have always differentiated genders in at least six categories, and this is beyond sexual preference entirely. There are straight men and lesbians, people of both sexes who prefer to have sex with women. And then there are lovers of women. Everything about them, even the non-sexual, even their vagaries and imperfections, is gorgeous and fascinating. That may or may not be (but usually is) accompanied by a desire to actually have sex with them as well. Same-same for men: there are straight women and gay men, and then there are the lovers of men. We just love men, even when they do stupid things or don't understand us or are oblivious or get sweaty (mmm) or whatever. Just can't stop being fascinated by them.

So. Six genders at least, and a great many more, as far as I'm concerned.

You strike me as a member of the lovers of women "male" (endowed with external naughty bits) gender. Those are wonderful creatures. I hope you find, always, the caliber of women who can understand, embody and appreciate the level of love you seem to offer.

-snip-

it is about transformation – Goddess assuming a character, the slave becoming the thing that Goddess wants him to be. It is very real and transformational. Masks, combined with setting and the other tools Goddess uses, create the atmosphere that helps slave switch into another identity and make it believable. I recall one session I was transformed into Scherazade – dressed in harem pants and top, a wig and, yes, a decorated mask to complete the identity and gender switch. I could believe I was Scherazade and that my life depended on being able to tell a story that kept Goddess amused and engaged. It was an immensely satisfying experience and one that was made real by the use of costume and mask.

That is an impressive idea for a ritual. Beautiful. And you are absolutely right: done right, done well, as your Goddess obviously does, the use of the right set and setting moves far beyond theater or role play and into the truly transformational. I myself find that i cannot 'play a role' as such within the encounters I have; my emotional state must come from something real within me. It may wear a mask, either figurative or literal, that distills me to an archetype of some kind, but everything that happens has a true root in a real personality.

Thanks for this.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

I hardly ever get to be on line late at night when it's quiet and I have time to think, and there were a couple of things said in previous posts that I'm now reflecting on.

-edit-

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.

-edit-

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.

-edit-
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.

It's lovely that you're willing to offer such deep insight into your view of this relationship. I think it's fascinating to consider the contrast between this idea about your role and ideas and the mindset that Ark is talking about here:

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.

These strike me as highly different approaches to a similar set of experiences, and both valuable and valid. Some of us struggle with the need for the exchange to be equal, with perhaps a need to feel as necessary to the Other as they are to us. I think this is true on both sides of the dynamic. And then some of us have a clear need for the exchange to NOT be equal, and perhaps that's where we move into the idea of interaction with a Goddess, with the Divine image.

The human who may be embodied at that moment, the regular person ridden by the loa of the Goddess, is undoubtedly imperfect, has needs and so on. But within the dynamic of the rite, is it perhaps necessary for the petitioner to believe in the perfection of the Goddess/God/Dom/me with whom he interacts? That's where I see SlaveNano's assertion really applying; it is important to relinquish a desire to be important individually to the Initiator, and to relinquish any idea of the initiator as human.

Perhaps it's as simple as the frame of a scene or a ritual; outside the scene we have a perception of equal exchange, but within the walls of the temple that must be replaced by a more archetypal set of roles, which may or may not necessarily demand that the Initiator be seen as a perfected and ineffable creature, a deity of sorts.

And perhaps the trust comes in here too: I may not be able to show you or describe to you what you exchange, what you offer to me when I'm bossing you around in a scene, but you can trust that if I tell you the exchange is equal, I'm speaking truth. That's a way bigger act of trust than what it takes to let yourself be bound and flogged.

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

I can only smile widely, waggle my reckless eyebrows and say Yes. Oh my, yes indeed.

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.

Dammit, Taoism is a huge can of worms, but I'm really glad you opened it.

Remember that by the time the Yellow Emperor is being taught, we already have this perception of the "War of the Bedroom." Simplified, the perception is this: men only have a certain amount of Yang, but women have an endless supply of Yin. To lose Yin does not weaken a woman, but to lose Yang is potentially weakening to a man. (or so the teaching goes) So the later Taoist goal becomes a somewhat exclusively male teaching: here's how to get the most Yin out of your woman while preserving your own Yang, or at least not giving up too much Yang. The White Tigress school is a sort of response to this, and falls squarely within that framework, to the extent that they are portrayed occasionally as some weird cult of evil Yang-stealing vampiresses.

If you go earlier though, and look at the more primal views of this exchange, what you see is an act of balance, an exchange that benefits everyone. The concept of a group "balancing Heaven and Earth" to promote crop growth assumes that both Yin and Yang are spilled, exchanged, and that in this exchange there is power that is then externalized, sent to energize an outside goal. The assumption here is that we're all equally important to the process and that we offer an equally valuable resource - hence the concept of balance.

*sigh* it's probably a good thing that I rarely have internet access late at night. I'd never sleep.

 

[Homburg]

This is well said, and maybe there's a key here too. How do men initiate women? by revealing, sometimes actively, sometimes passively. They reveal us to ourselves, and they reveal themselves to us, but either way their role seems to be to open something, to peel back the layers. To move inward, rather than leading outward along a path as we see more conventional 'initiations' portrayed.

At that point we get into a different sort of "mystery." As I said before, the classic Western mysteries related to either death or life/menstruation. These are the mysteries that the classic Mystery Cults took up around. There is indeed another sort of mystery, and that is the mystery of Self. That is an entirely different animal. While cults (and whole religions) have sprung up around it, it does not get the Mystery Cult treatment per se.

And, to riff off something you said, the male initiation may be the peeling back of layers because that is the physical analogue of what we do to accomplish sexual congress with the female. Opening of the thighs, spreading apart the labia, lips, etc. These are all layers that must be peeled away before the enlightenment of copulation can be achieved. Yay for mystic imagery, eh?

You've been awfully quotable lately. This is fine stuff.

Thank you

I'm afraid that our culture has conditioned us to believe that men who are open-hearted, emotionally honest, expressive or even willing to admit to being occasionally unsure of themselves are 'vulnerable.' Somehow 'weak' or unmanly. Men have so much more pressure to fit into a masculine paradigm in that sense; perhaps it is merely that women find men attractive when they are willing to be honestly focused on, and to honestly respond to, experience, not holding themselves at a distance from their own emotions. Willing to be human, rather than male.

Women have it easy in that sense. Feminism (oy I dislike that term) has given women the power to say, "I can be, behave and think however I want; I don't have to fit in with a feminine ideal." But men have not been offered that privilege yet. If you cry, if you express yourself, if you have a flamboyant personality, if you do anything traditionally 'feminine' you're screwed. And maybe by the time we're adults it gets easier to be treated with less bias, but by that time the primary damage is already done.

I used to worry a lot more about this. Then I just sort of got comfortable. I'm a large guy, hairy, muscular, with a shaved head, beard, and all sorts of obvious sexual characteristics. I'm physical enough, centered, secure enough with my own sexuality to be able to see men as erotic creatures and not mind. I'm pretty frikken solid, so why worry about the image stuff?

And I realised that those "hard" guys that showed no weakness were the most insecure feebs around, with brittle facades walling the rest of the world out. I don't have time for that mess. Or worse, the guys that spent every waking moment lying to themselves and everyone around them. No thanks, I can't keep that mess straight.

Better to look life in the eye sans apology, and just let people judge me as they wish. What they think matters fuck-all for the most part, so I don't care if they find me *gasp* weaker for the fact that I cried in the hospital when my infant was clinging to life in natal ICU, or that I write silly love poems to the girls that fill my life with the only light that has ever really mattered.

Yup, here are my weaknesses. And? How comfortable are you with yours? That said, it probably provides some gender weirdness for me. Fuck if I know. I don't track that in my own make-up.

Just today I heard a story from a friend's childhood. He's fiercely straight, mind you, (not that that matters) but was beat up all through school because his manner and build made his peers decide he was 'queer.' Including the fact that at age 7 he was allowed to choose his own curtains for his room and he chose pink butterflies. They were pretty, dammit, and he liked them. His parents (good rural farm folk in a small town) panicked, but to their credit they eventually stopped trying to talk him out of it and bought him the curtains.

Now here's the issue. Nice as these people undoubtedly were, they were trained by their culture. So they most probably thought, 'oh my god, our son may be gay' rather than 'how wonderful that he has an eye for color and design at such an early age.'

Eldest Son is seven. He's your typical little boy. Mostly. Sometimes though, Eldest Son is a little fruity. viv asked him what he wanted to be for Halloween. His reponse was "A kitty cat!" She related this to me later with a chuckle and a "Yep, he'll be gay." It was said in a perfectly warm and good-intended way. If the boy turns out to be gay or bi, I won't care a damned bit. I just want him happy and healthy.

Men are at a disadvantage. To be human, to be expressive, to move beyond rigidly defined behavioral boundaries, is termed "vulnerable." The connotations are obvious.

Unfortunately, yes.

What I'm hearing underneath, and perhaps I'm too far out on a limb here, is a sort of struggle within these roles of dominant and submissive: who gives what to whom, and does the teacher learn from the student. That sort of thing.

Okay, so as I've mentioned, I and an avid gamer. I've been involved in RPG'ing since I was eight years old. The vast majority of that time has been spent as the game-master, the guy what runs the games, and thus the game world. Sounds like a perfect role for dominant me, right? Yep, it is. It also sounds all kinds of ego-friendly. Rawr, I'm in charge here, in charge of you and you, and him, and the whole damned world. The ego-centric view would hold that I am the most important person in the room.

Nope, just the guy that does more work during downtime. I learned a long time ago that the game did not proceed without the players, and that they were more active in writing that story than I was in the session.

I see dominance and submission in a similarly holistic, symbiotic manner. There is no inherent importance more to my role than hers. We are dead equal in that both are needed for the dynamic to proceed. And both stand to learn from the other for the same reason.

What I offer you (second person plural, a man, a submissive, whatever) may be more concrete, more pre-designed, and possibly feel more like teaching than what you offer me. But "your" value in revealing yourself at the most raw and surrendered level is equal, if more ineffable. In both the indulgence I am allowed, and the way I can interact with the underlying levels of you, I learn about your true nature, and about myself as I am reflected in your response to me.

argh. i still don't think I have that right. It's a start anyway.

No, I think you're right on time there.

And perhaps the trust comes in here too: I may not be able to show you or describe to you what you exchange, what you offer to me when I'm bossing you around in a scene, but you can trust that if I tell you the exchange is equal, I'm speaking truth. That's a way bigger act of trust than what it takes to let yourself be bound and flogged.

Stupendously true.

The White Tigress school is a sort of response to this, and falls squarely within that framework, to the extent that they are portrayed occasionally as some weird cult of evil Yang-stealing vampiresses.

I swear that I've lain with a Yang-vampiress once. I don't think that she was conscious of it, though, wow, was I wrecked by it.

 

[SlaveNano]

[Perhaps it's as simple as the frame of a scene or a ritual; outside the scene we have a perception of equal exchange, but within the walls of the temple that must be replaced by a more archetypal set of roles, which may or may not necessarily demand that the Initiator be seen as a perfected and ineffable creature, a deity of sorts.

And perhaps the trust comes in here too: I may not be able to show you or describe to you what you exchange, what you offer to me when I'm bossing you around in a scene, but you can trust that if I tell you the exchange is equal, I'm speaking truth. That's a way bigger act of trust than what it takes to let yourself be bound and flogged. ]


These are both very perceptive observations. It helps me understand why I found the question you posed about whether Goddess values me hard to answer. I think I trust that she does even though she may not need to express it all the time and neither do I need to ask it from her all the time, if that makes sense? The trust and respect is definately there and mutual but its implicit and doesn't need to be articulated all the time. This enables Goddess to retain her 'mystique'. As you rightly say this is a far bigger act of trust than any single activity I might commit to.

 

[SlaveNano]

Sorry about the above post. I haven't got the hang of quoting extracts from posts properly. How do you do that?

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Sorry about the above post. I haven't got the hang of quoting extracts from posts properly. How do you do that?

If you just want to quote one post, just hit the button on the lower right of each post that says 'quote' and then you can delete anything you don't want. Just leave the framed things in brackets on either side, the ones that say [quote at the beginning and [/quote at the end. (can't type the whole thing or it will quote me. heh.)

If you want to quote multiple posts, the little doodle right next to the quote button is the one you want. It has a quotation mark and a plus sign. Hit those on each post you want to quote, and then hit the big "reply" button on the bottom left, and they will all appear magickally in your reply box.

Took me forever to figure out the multi-quote thingy.

 

[SlaveNano]

Thanks very much. I will try it out sometime. Very useful to know if you just want to respond to one point in a long post. I've noticed how much use everybody has made of it on this thread but hadn't quite worked it out beyond quoting the whole post. Cheers.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

Gender's a root, an origin point. I do not believe it defines anything across the board or without exception, but as Homburg said, it cannot be entirely dismissed either.

Small quibble. Sex is the root (sex in the sense of male/female/herm, etc.); gender is the the socialized perception of sex.

What I offer you (second person plural, a man, a submissive, whatever) may be more concrete, more pre-designed, and possibly feel more like teaching than what you offer me. But "your" value in revealing yourself at the most raw and surrendered level is equal, if more ineffable. In both the indulgence I am allowed, and the way I can interact with the underlying levels of you, I learn about your true nature, and about myself as I am reflected in your response to me.

Thinking on this a bit, and recalling those women who performed a kind of initiatory function for me, it does seem that they proceeded by teaching me to peel back layers of myself. That does seem to be a common denominator, and fits in with what you and Homburg are saying here.

But let me be especially difficult and contrast two hypotheticals. Take couple A, a man and a woman, equally uninitiated, who use sex as a transformative tool. I think at this point we can say they both learn from the process, though in different ways. fair enough?

Now take Couple B, two men. Can they use sex as a transformative tool? The Taoists generally respond with a pretty strong negative. Thoughts?

You strike me as a member of the lovers of women "male" (endowed with external naughty bits) gender. Those are wonderful creatures. I hope you find, always, the caliber of women who can understand, embody and appreciate the level of love you seem to offer.

That's exceptionally kind of you to say. Thank you.

It's difficult for me, though, to be honest. I've found that balancing the way I want to relate to women, and the needs of daily life necessitate walls. In the past, I turned to a certain level of misogyny to build those walls. Thankfully, I think I've finally purged that particular poison from my system, but I still need to push my love for women back to a certain degree. And so when I get into a place where my walls can come down - such as with my former Mistress - that love comes crashing back over me. It takes my breath away every time.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

And, to riff off something you said, the male initiation may be the peeling back of layers because that is the physical analogue of what we do to accomplish sexual congress with the female. Opening of the thighs, spreading apart the labia, lips, etc. These are all layers that must be peeled away before the enlightenment of copulation can be achieved. Yay for mystic imagery, eh?

yay indeed. And Yes. And Yum.

I used to worry a lot more about this. Then I just sort of got comfortable. I'm a large guy, hairy, muscular, with a shaved head, beard, and all sorts of obvious sexual characteristics. I'm physical enough, centered, secure enough with my own sexuality to be able to see men as erotic creatures and not mind. I'm pretty frikken solid, so why worry about the image stuff?

Respectable and accurate. It does have to be said, though, that physically you are not going to face as much threat as someone who is small and easily beat up. With your build and natural dommy mannerisms, you could walk down the street in a pink prom dress and probably still not get beat up.

Even I have to think about things like that; I'm 135 soaking wet, and my wrists are about half the size of yours. So yeah, if I were a guy I might have to worry a little more than you about being jumped in an alley.

I see dominance and submission in a similarly holistic, symbiotic manner. There is no inherent importance more to my role than hers. We are dead equal in that both are needed for the dynamic to proceed. And both stand to learn from the other for the same reason.

You're awfully good at cutting to the chase, doll. And the gaming metaphor echoes nicely my own role as a priestess for a spiritual group. That is, I may look pretty cool and in charge when I'm up in front of the circle with a raised chalice, but I always said it was like being a mom: you get one day a year where you are wonderful and fabulous, and the rest of the time you're cleaning up messes and working your ass off. The Fabulous High Priestess in the Pagan Prom Dress is also the one who hauls firewood to the grove, sets up the altar, designs the ritual, takes the calls from drama-ridden coveners and so on.

Neither of us do it for the coolness. We do it because we serve effectively, because we're called to do so. I'm not discounting the coolness entirely, though. No complaints here. But the framework is more important, and that's where the real labor comes in.

I swear that I've lain with a Yang-vampiress once. I don't think that she was conscious of it, though, wow, was I wrecked by it.

I have to wonder if she's just a natural, or if she actually had some training.

I've experienced a couple of sides of this. I talked a bit about the Taoist aspects earlier, and ideally that ends up being an exchange that benefits all participants.

I've also met the Qadishti, who are a fascinating bunch of folk who are re-creating the temple prostitution of ancient Sumeria. (that's a horrible oversimplification, but eh bien). They are often accused of being vampires because of the energy work they do. In my experience, however, I felt not so much drained as cleansed; a great deal of energy was taken from me but I felt stronger rather than weaker as a result. Their assertion, with which I mostly agree, is that most people suffer from an excess of energy, and that to drain some of it is a form of unclogging the channels, making the flow more effective.

That's certainly how I approach (or at least madly rationalize) Tigress work.


eta: Ark, your post wandered in while I was working on this one. Lovely ideas. I'm going to munch on it for a while before responding.

 

[Homburg]

Respectable and accurate. It does have to be said, though, that physically you are not going to face as much threat as someone who is small and easily beat up. With your build and natural dommy mannerisms, you could walk down the street in a pink prom dress and probably still not get beat up.

Even I have to think about things like that; I'm 135 soaking wet, and my wrists are about half the size of yours. So yeah, if I were a guy I might have to worry a little more than you about being jumped in an alley.

That was kind of the point I was making. I realised that I didn't have to be worried.

You're awfully good at cutting to the chase, doll. And the gaming metaphor echoes nicely my own role as a priestess for a spiritual group. That is, I may look pretty cool and in charge when I'm up in front of the circle with a raised chalice, but I always said it was like being a mom: you get one day a year where you are wonderful and fabulous, and the rest of the time you're cleaning up messes and working your ass off. The Fabulous High Priestess in the Pagan Prom Dress is also the one who hauls firewood to the grove, sets up the altar, designs the ritual, takes the calls from drama-ridden coveners and so on.

Neither of us do it for the coolness. We do it because we serve effectively, because we're called to do so. I'm not discounting the coolness entirely, though. No complaints here. But the framework is more important, and that's where the real labor comes in.

Essentially, yeah. The coolness is fun, but it is just what I do. It's my role. Dominance is the same way. It's what I do, the role I have. I don't care if anyone else thinks it's cool or not. There is no specific cache to me, independent of what might exist within my dynamic(s).

I have to wonder if she's just a natural, or if she actually had some training.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "natural". If she had training, she really hid it well.

I've experienced a couple of sides of this. I talked a bit about the Taoist aspects earlier, and ideally that ends up being an exchange that benefits all participants.

I've also met the Qadishti, who are a fascinating bunch of folk who are re-creating the temple prostitution of ancient Sumeria. (that's a horrible oversimplification, but eh bien). They are often accused of being vampires because of the energy work they do. In my experience, however, I felt not so much drained as cleansed; a great deal of energy was taken from me but I felt stronger rather than weaker as a result. Their assertion, with which I mostly agree, is that most people suffer from an excess of energy, and that to drain some of it is a form of unclogging the channels, making the flow more effective.

That's certainly how I approach (or at least madly rationalize) Tigress work.

Heh, I may be the sort of person with too much energy in me. Luckily, I have two women in my life. Problem solved.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

But let me be especially difficult and contrast two hypotheticals. Take couple A, a man and a woman, equally uninitiated, who use sex as a transformative tool. I think at this point we can say they both learn from the process, though in different ways. fair enough?

Now take Couple B, two men. Can they use sex as a transformative tool? The Taoists generally respond with a pretty strong negative. Thoughts?

The Taoists are full of horseshit on that particular point. That's my thought. Not very complex but there it is.

Not being a man, I cannot prove it with my own experience. But sex is potentially transformative all the time, for any combination, as far as I am concerned. And the large number of gay men I've talked to about this would probably agree that the Taoists are quite wrong there.

That's exceptionally kind of you to say. Thank you.

It's difficult for me, though, to be honest. I've found that balancing the way I want to relate to women, and the needs of daily life necessitate walls. In the past, I turned to a certain level of misogyny to build those walls. Thankfully, I think I've finally purged that particular poison from my system, but I still need to push my love for women back to a certain degree. And so when I get into a place where my walls can come down - such as with my former Mistress - that love comes crashing back over me. It takes my breath away every time.

I have almost no coherent response to this, except to say that it is beautiful.

Something about goddesses and archetypes versus real women, perhaps. But I'm a bigger misogynist than most men I know, so I may not be the one to speak to this set of ideas. Individually, I have many gorgeous and valuable women in my life. But as a group I tend to approach with cynicism. I have friends who would attest to my horrible generalized chauvinism; I'm likely to out-pig most men in that sense.

I will admit to having once been a Lover of Women. So perhaps I can offer myself only as a cautionary tale...

 

[Arkhilokhus]

The Taoists are full of horseshit on that particular point. That's my thought. Not very complex but there it is.

Not being a man, I cannot prove it with my own experience. But sex is potentially transformative all the time, for any combination, as far as I am concerned. And the large number of gay men I've talked to about this would probably agree that the Taoists are quite wrong there.

I agree, or at least, would like to believe what you say. But here's the thing. If the Taoists are wrong, then that means that their theory vis-a-vis the essential male and female conditions of having an excess of yang and yin and the importance of using sex to rebalance the participants is, at the very least, in need of revision. And then I bring it back further to our discussion about the male and female approaches to the sort of initiation we've been talking about.

So, the question, is, it seems to me, is biological sex important in terms of spiritual or, as I prefer to say, psycho-sexual development?

Edit: One point I forgot. David Deida attempts to avoid this dilemma by distinguishing "sexual essences" - one masculine, one feminine - with which he invests the properties traditionally ascribed to men and women. His idea here doesn't fit my experience, but it's something to consider, perhaps.

I have almost no coherent response to this, except to say that it is beautiful.

Something about goddesses and archetypes versus real women, perhaps.

You reminded me of a quote by Ramakrishna that I read a little while ago. "Once a man realizes God through intense dispassion, he is no longer attached to woman. Even if he must lead the life of a householder, he is free from fear of and attachment to woman. Suppose there are two magnets, one big and the other small. Which one will attract the iron? The big one,of course. God is the big magnet. Compared to Him, woman is a small one. He who has realized God does not look upon a woman with the eye of lust; so he is not afraid of her. He perceives clearly that women are but so many aspects of the Divine Mother. He worships them all as the Mother Herself." First, "intense dispassion" reminds me, as a Stoic, of apatheia. But going to the end, his perception - through dispassion - of women as aspects of the Divine Mother touch on that idea of women as goddesses.

I have to say, though, I've never liked the idea. As I'm fond of saying on this point, women are not goddesses. They are far more important.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

A little more time, so a little more navel-gazing from me.

These strike me as highly different approaches to a similar set of experiences, and both valuable and valid. Some of us struggle with the need for the exchange to be equal, with perhaps a need to feel as necessary to the Other as they are to us. I think this is true on both sides of the dynamic. And then some of us have a clear need for the exchange to NOT be equal, and perhaps that's where we move into the idea of interaction with a Goddess, with the Divine image.

I want to say that I do have a great deal of respect for SlaveNano and the approach he's sort of representing here. I think in some ways it likely takes more courage and self-possession to enter into a relationship without asking anything at all. It's an admirable trait, although I'm content enough in my own approach that I won't say I envy him. As you said, it's just different.

If you go earlier though, and look at the more primal views of this exchange, what you see is an act of balance, an exchange that benefits everyone. The concept of a group "balancing Heaven and Earth" to promote crop growth assumes that both Yin and Yang are spilled, exchanged, and that in this exchange there is power that is then externalized, sent to energize an outside goal. The assumption here is that we're all equally important to the process and that we offer an equally valuable resource - hence the concept of balance.

This is the approach I'm accustomed to. I've always assumed the Yin/Yang vampirism technique was a corruption; not, in other words, important to the technique.

Having said that, I think there's something else going on here. The Chinese sometimes make simple things complicated in order to integrate into their qi theories, and I can't help but think that's what has happened here. Setting aside Taoist ideas, the problem can be simply stated: after ejaculation, men lose almost all their arousal for a time, while women remain semi-aroused after orgasm. Consequently, men are limited in their sexual endurance while women are not (or not to the same degree). Given this issue, ejaculation control and more extensive foreplay are reasonable solutions.

But as a submissive, I have to say that one of the greatest acts of surrender for me personally is to come inside my partner. The physical exhaustion, the sleepiness, combined with the way I can literally feel the arousal draining out of me, combine to create a sensation of true sacrifice for me partner. It really is a "little death", and I would think it certainly has a place in a FemDom context.

Okay, so as I've mentioned, I and an avid gamer. I've been involved in RPG'ing since I was eight years old. The vast majority of that time has been spent as the game-master, the guy what runs the games, and thus the game world. Sounds like a perfect role for dominant me, right? Yep, it is. It also sounds all kinds of ego-friendly. Rawr, I'm in charge here, in charge of you and you, and him, and the whole damned world. The ego-centric view would hold that I am the most important person in the room.

Nope, just the guy that does more work during downtime. I learned a long time ago that the game did not proceed without the players, and that they were more active in writing that story than I was in the session.

I see dominance and submission in a similarly holistic, symbiotic manner. There is no inherent importance more to my role than hers. We are dead equal in that both are needed for the dynamic to proceed. And both stand to learn from the other for the same reason.

Wow. Having usually been a game-master myself, this analogy really helps. Maybe you upper-case class types (to steal a phrase from Keroin) aren't completely mysterious after all.

 

[Homburg]

Having said that, I think there's something else going on here. The Chinese sometimes make simple things complicated in order to integrate into their qi theories, and I can't help but think that's what has happened here. Setting aside Taoist ideas, the problem can be simply stated: after ejaculation, men lose almost all their arousal for a time, while women remain semi-aroused after orgasm. Consequently, men are limited in their sexual endurance while women are not (or not to the same degree). Given this issue, ejaculation control and more extensive foreplay are reasonable solutions.

Eh,I don't. I maintain some of my arousal as well, and tend to have fairly short refractory periods (given proper motivation). I have been known to keep going after orgasm, as I don't usually lose rigidity for a while if I continue to get physical stimulation.

But as a submissive, I have to say that one of the greatest acts of surrender for me personally is to come inside my partner. The physical exhaustion, the sleepiness, combined with the way I can literally feel the arousal draining out of me, combine to create a sensation of true sacrifice for me partner. It really is a "little death", and I would think it certainly has a place in a FemDom context.

Also not my experience. It is more of a release of pressure. My orgasms are generally not big things, and I am rarely exhausted afterwards. This is why I can outlast my fit 21yr old girl in sexual marathons. It is less a matter of "Ugh, I'm done now," and more a matter of "Ah, I feel better now."

Wow. Having usually been a game-master myself, this analogy really helps. Maybe you upper-case class types (to steal a phrase from Keroin) aren't completely mysterious after all.

I certainly don't feel like I'm mysterious at all. And I think the ones that are, are trying to be that way on purpose.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

Eh,I don't. I maintain some of my arousal as well, and tend to have fairly short refractory periods (given proper motivation). I have been known to keep going after orgasm, as I don't usually lose rigidity for a while if I continue to get physical stimulation.

Also not my experience. It is more of a release of pressure. My orgasms are generally not big things, and I am rarely exhausted afterwards. This is why I can outlast my fit 21yr old girl in sexual marathons. It is less a matter of "Ugh, I'm done now," and more a matter of "Ah, I feel better now."

There's physical exhaustion, which varies depending on what we did. Sometimes I have the "I'm spent" feeling, and sometimes it is that "I feel better now" you speak of. But more than that is the urge to sleep, which seems particularly pronounced for me. In fact, if I lay down, especially with someone warm next to me, I WILL fall asleep. And I snore, so this is generally not appreciated! Consequently, I tend to sit up afterwards, just lightly massaging my partner and talking. She gets touch and conversation, and I get to to work past the initial sleep urge, which only lasts about five or ten minutes.

Interestingly enough, if I do go to sleep, I'll go into a very deep sleep for about fifteen minutes, then wake up feeling very refreshed.

I certainly don't feel like I'm mysterious at all. And I think the ones that are, are trying to be that way on purpose.

Nah, it's more my thing. I keep wondering, "With all the work involved, what can they possibly get out of it?" That's partly my point in the whole, "What do women learn from men" discussion, too. I keep asking myself, "But what's in it for her?"

And anyway, mystery is usually in the eye of the beholder, don't you think? I mean, there are people who insist on finding me mysterious, despite the fact that I'm fairly easy to understand. ::shrugs::

 

[Homburg]

There's physical exhaustion, which varies depending on what we did. Sometimes I have the "I'm spent" feeling, and sometimes it is that "I feel better now" you speak of. But more than that is the urge to sleep, which seems particularly pronounced for me. In fact, if I lay down, especially with someone warm next to me, I WILL fall asleep. And I snore, so this is generally not appreciated! Consequently, I tend to sit up afterwards, just lightly massaging my partner and talking. She gets touch and conversation, and I get to to work past the initial sleep urge, which only lasts about five or ten minutes.

Interestingly enough, if I do go to sleep, I'll go into a very deep sleep for about fifteen minutes, then wake up feeling very refreshed.

Nope, I wake up. Like last night. I dragged my aching butt to bed at about 245am, and crawled in bed with viv. I'd lifted for the first time in months earlier that evening, and was randy, so she got flipped over and I had my way with her (the pain in my legs and hips was enough to firmly prevent orgasm, but that's no big deal to me). Regardless, even though I was exhausted, the sex woke me right up. So I would up writing in my notebook (game stuff, natch) until I was sleepy enough to consider trying to get some shut-eye.

On weekends where I go up to NY to visit MIS, it is not exaggeration to say that we have sex 20+ times over the course of two days, average (given how long it takes me orgasm, this means we literally spend the vast portion of our time together fucking on these torrid weekends). I don't get sleepy at all as a result. If anything, we avoid sex right before bed, else I am up while she sleeps (which usually happens anyway, as I just don't sleep all that much comparatively, and she is exhausted by all the activity)

Nah, it's more my thing. I keep wondering, "With all the work involved, what can they possibly get out of it?" That's partly my point in the whole, "What do women learn from men" discussion, too. I keep asking myself, "But what's in it for her?"

Easy. It's what we do. It is how we get off. It's like above, mentioning that the muscle ache in my thighs, glutes, and hips prevented me from orgasming. I know male submissives that can come when in the midst of serious pain. I cannot even remotely comprehend this, as a dull ache, muscle cramp, or even annoyances like temperature or the bedsheets being too twisted up can prevent me from climaxing. The whole idea of climaxing while wildly distracted is utterly arcane and mind-boggling to me.

I do the work because it makes the experience more satisfying for everyone involved. It also gets into some areas that many people would consider role confusion. I love it when my partner(s) are deeply physically satisfied. I am deeply pleased by their orgasms, and work to coax those orgasms out again and again. I consider a powerful orgasm to be edifying, a testament to my skill. The whole idea of using a girl and not caring about her pleasure just bores the hell out of me.

If anything, and this is where the role confusion comes in, I am more interested in her climax than my own. Given my issues with orgasms, I don't need to come to enjoy sex at all. I get my kicks out of what I do to her. So the work I do is rewarding to me. It's like a threesome. I am the proverbial one-legged man at the ass-kicking contest, as I control my own arousal, and simultaneously monitor, control, arouse, and dominate two others in t he bed with me. There ain't a video game in the world that involved and engrossing. Wow, it is a load of work though.

At the end of the day, it is just how I roll. No better explanation there.

And anyway, mystery is usually in the eye of the beholder, don't you think? I mean, there are people who insist on finding me mysterious, despite the fact that I'm fairly easy to understand. ::shrugs::

I consider myself easy to understand in sweeping arcs. An observant person should be able to "get" me in broad brushstrokes. But very few people really "get" me on a deep level. Too many incongruents, I guess.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

Nope, I wake up. Like last night. I dragged my aching butt to bed at about 245am, and crawled in bed with viv. I'd lifted for the first time in months earlier that evening, and was randy, so she got flipped over and I had my way with her (the pain in my legs and hips was enough to firmly prevent orgasm, but that's no big deal to me). Regardless, even though I was exhausted, the sex woke me right up. So I would up writing in my notebook (game stuff, natch) until I was sleepy enough to consider trying to get some shut-eye.

That's kind of an interesting point. If I don't come, then I get energized, just as you say. But given how focused on orgasm my ex was, that was always the exception and not the rule (though I'll cop to faking more than a few times). She could never grasp the idea that sometimes I just wanted to be inside her.

Easy. It's what we do. It is how we get off. It's like above, mentioning that the muscle ache in my thighs, glutes, and hips prevented me from orgasming. I know male submissives that can come when in the midst of serious pain. I cannot even remotely comprehend this, as a dull ache, muscle cramp, or even annoyances like temperature or the bedsheets being too twisted up can prevent me from climaxing. The whole idea of climaxing while wildly distracted is utterly arcane and mind-boggling to me.

Never tried serious pain, although I can come with mild soreness and chafing - I've gone on masturbation marathons before until my cock actually bleeds a little, and I'm still able to come.

But in general, what I need for ejaculation is to let go. Sensory overload can help with that. It's also why my most persistent meta-fantasy is the loss of self-control.

 

[Homburg]

That's kind of an interesting point. If I don't come, then I get energized, just as you say. But given how focused on orgasm my ex was, that was always the exception and not the rule (though I'll cop to faking more than a few times). She could never grasp the idea that sometimes I just wanted to be inside her.

That is a good part of it. Sometimes you just want to be inside her. In my case, I want her moaning and begging permission to come too, but I can see how that would not necessarily ring someone else's bell.

It's just, well, sex is not all about the climax for me.

Never tried serious pain, although I can come with mild soreness and chafing - I've gone on masturbation marathons before until my cock actually bleeds a little, and I'm still able to come.

YEah, not my thing. Hell, I frequently can't come at all from masturbation. It's just not fun enough. It's like my balls look at the situation and decide it's not worth the effort if a real flesh and blood woman is not involved.

But in general, what I need for ejaculation is to let go. Sensory overload can help with that. It's also why my most persistent meta-fantasy is the loss of self-control.

Yeah. Not gonna happen with me. I am still conscious, thinking, processing, and controlling the scene even while coming. It really is not le petit mort for me.

 

[Arkhilokhus]

Yeah. Not gonna happen with me. I am still conscious, thinking, processing, and controlling the scene even while coming. It really is not le petit mort for me.

That almost sounds like a D versus s thing, at least in the control aspect. Although maybe we just have different triggers, and relate to these triggers in different ways due to our roles?

 

[Homburg]

That almost sounds like a D versus s thing, at least in the control aspect. Although maybe we just have different triggers, and relate to these triggers in different ways due to our roles?

I would agree. And I do think it is all about triggers.

In my own case, the male orgasm as usually described is an utterly alien thing to me. My own experience is so far off from the common that it is almost meaningless.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

[completely off-topic and inappropriate]

you two are making me really hot right now.

I frickin' love smart, articulate men.

[/shameless, unabashed leering]


anyway.

Let me just point out for a moment that there's a metalevel here that really answers that question of vulnerability.

Neither of you is being 'vulnerable' in the sense of easily attacked, of course, but this is exactly what those books are talking about when they say that women like men to be 'vulnerable.' What they mean is introspective, knowledgeable, self-aware, articulate, honest, revealing.