Steve Mayhew (of The Glow Inside) has recently commented somewhat vehemently on a post by Ranat. In the post, she gives a list of mansub blogs, with asterisks near the ones she enjoys. She points out
Those where the relationship seems to have settled into a mutually fulfilling d/s dynamic are almost always entrenched in an Arthurian, Euro-centric paradigm. Fucking with the capitalization of pronouns abounds. Then there are the handful I circulate through constantly, hungering for updates. Blogs I read regularly to semi-regularly are marked with an asterisk.
I’ve written before about how much the Arthurian paradigm of male submission pisses me off. Nonetheless, as someone pointed out, if that’s legitimately someone’s kink, then Godspeed to them. But it seems really fucking shady to me that this is all there is.
Steve seems to be objecting to his sense that Ranat was trying to divide these blogs into, I guess, OKOB (“our kind of blogs”) and NOKOB. He writes
Coincidentally, [by linking to the blogs on the list] you alerted all the owners that we were part of your “Arthurian paradigm of benighted disappointment” or whatever you want to call it. Or, that we might be on the wrong side of your list. Some of the post smells like in-out grouping to me, and a lot of the comments fucking reek of it. “We have real kinky relationships. These other people don’t!” Out comes the label gun. Fuck that.
and
I get that you are looking for a way of being dominant that’s outside of a male-constructed paradigm…so is my wife, I respect it…but if that’s your thing, then why go to the trouble of listing all these blogs that you haven’t really read, but which you think sit within this paradigm? As though the men responsible for them are thereby responsible for the shape of the kinky blogosphere? We’re not. We’re just sorting shit out.
I’m intrigued by the “in-out grouping” remark, and I am forced to admit this is mainly because I feel very sensitive to it myself. There are kinky bloggers I think are awesome who no longer seem to read me or comment on my blog and that makes me feel sad, and there are other cool kinky bloggers who do still talk to me, and that makes me feel good. As I write, I am sometimes aware of how my various practices will strike some of the other people I respect – especially the things that will probably turn them off.
But I think in reality it’s just not like that. See, I am sitting here at my computer, and to me, the rest of you are all in your groups or whatever, which I am or am not a part of. But in real life you are each sitting at your own computers and we are all intermingled. Even if I think Ranat is the coolest person ever, nothing about that causes me not to read Being Her Knight if I want to. This isn’t high school and I can’t be excluded from the Popular Kids because I am seen talking to an uncool person. (I haven’t met Ranat, but something tells me that this imaginary casting of her as a “Popular Kid” would be amusing.)
What we do have is freedom of association. We’re all free to try to practice our kinks, and to write our blogs, and to read the blogs we like, and to sympathize with and enjoy the people who are more like us, and to (yes) critique the people who use Arthurian honorifics if we want. Having a blog means that some people will think you’re fantastic and some people will empathize with you and some people will think you’re a fucking idiot.
If you don’t want people to have opinions about your private life then write it in a goddamn diary.
It’s such an insipid move to call for censorship, so it’s odd that an aardvark is doing it. Amazing!
And some will think all three, at various times. Pretty sure that’s the majority of the people who read mine.
Awesomeness. You’re right that we are all just geeks typing.
If you don’t want people to have opinions about your private life then write it in a goddamn diary.
Heh – we want opinions. It’s just that we want opinions that agree with our own, or at least, give them some validity. In blogging, the uncool person is the one who voices something that’s just a little bit off, which riles up everyone else.
I would write more, but the popular kids saved me a spot at their lunch table, so I have to go now.
kthxbai
You know what I look for first on a mansub blog?
Whether he has classified his blogroll by gender.
To me, that says a lot.
(My comments here are addressed to several posters here and on Ranat’s site, but more generally, against the uncritical way “free speech” is being discussed).
What I said on Ranat’s blog was not a call for censorship, in any way. Freedom of speech doesn’t just stop when you’ve had your turn.
What I said was a direct criticism of the practice of listing other people’s blogs in such a dismissive way, without having read many of them properly, and in way that ultimately encouraged remarks such as all that “hey Bob, she let me carry her handbag again” stuff you guys were going on with. I can almost hear the snickers. I think it’s mean-spirited and not at all constructive, and to be honest, I still can’t see why there’s such a focus on these blogs in the first place. Unless you want to infer a favorable comparison to your own…
So, I went to her blog, and accused her of relying too much on a bunch of sub-males to create this thing on the internet she’s looking for, even though that’s supposedly the antithesis of what she’s about. And seriously, her post did not read like the wild woman of the woods. It sounded like an anxious, highly socialized and educated but basically very frustrated person having a gripe on the internet. And I would argue that her situation here is not the fault of some Arthurian paradigm constructed by males; it’s her own choice to remain that way.
And there’s the whole point: this “there’s too many of these married pseudo-sub guys, our voices are not being heard” argument is total baloney. Like Dev has said here, each blogger has a voice and will naturally attract some positive readers and some critics. So, you don’t like these male sub-blogs? Well, if you’re running with the ‘hey, the internet is a democracy’ argument, then you can’t also make out that because of these blogs, some dreadfully unfair paradigm is being constructed that serves to silence or marginalise you, or keep you alone.
Generally there’s some very self-protective thinking here around the notion of what free speech means. If people want to criticize others but never have their criticisms challenged, then yeah, they can get a goddamn diary.
I’m not sure I know what this means.
A number of blogs, written by male submissives, divide the links in their blogroll into a list of “The Guys” and a list of “The Girls.”
Oh, yeah. Heh. I guess I do that…
Hmm. I’ve got categories spilling out all over the place. I’m even thinking about adding some (excuse the expression) sub-categories.
Ooo! Ooo! Can I be in the sub category!?
What? That’s not what it means?
Shucks…
mmm, yeah, well I just talked to my primary partner about this and he pointed out that dividing things up by gender is a perfectly sensible thing to do if you’re a man looking for sex.
And since I’m a woman looking for ideas (rather than sex primarily) through blogs, to me it seemed a bit of a reductive way of dividing them. But now I get it.
What? Can you explain that again? I would never divide people up that way. I would divide them by BDSM orientation, maybe, but not by gender.
Maybe because I’m almost quasi-bi. Oh well.
Hah! Absolutely classic!
I can’t be completely sure, but this is how it looks to me:
Violacious’ gender blog roll comment was aimed – at least partly – at me, but you didn’t realise that both Thumper and Tom Allen also divide parts of their blogrolls along gender lines. Did you?
So now you have to backpedal. It’s all “perfectly sensible” now and you “get it.” But I doubt you would have bothered even having this conversation with your partner, if it had just been my own blogroll that was divided by gender. Then you would have happily dismissed it. But now the only mild criticism you are prepared to make is that it “seemed a bit reductive.”
So, it’s not what you say, it’s who you say it to, eh?
A nice little demonstration of normative value-making in action.
That’s not a bad idea, but “BDSM orientation” is still a bit of a mystery to me. Like, the difference between top/dom and bottom/sub and such – and what do you do with the switches?
The one thing I do get (most of the time – not always) is gender. That, and part of my job involves classification and organization of content, so dividing folks like that is kind of an OCD thing for me.
Pingback: Solo « Denying Thumper
@Steve:
Well, if you’re running with the ‘hey, the internet is a democracy’ argument, then you can’t also make out that because of these blogs, some dreadfully unfair paradigm is being constructed that serves to silence or marginalise you, or keep you alone.
I think “symptoms” and “causes” are getting confused here.
I don’t think anyone would think that blogs on the internet are what resulted in the current cultural memes re: female dominance and male submission. For one thing, said memes are older than the internet.
I don’t think anyone would think that blogs on the internet are what resulted in the current cultural memes re: female dominance and male submission
No, I agree, but I do think that a certain brand of “confused” or otherwise sexually isolated male-sub blog has become a convenient target for all the many attacks on “what’s wrong with femdom on the internet”. Or at least, a convenient target of mockery by those who perceive or portray themselves to be in more fulfilling relationships.
It’s very easy to pick on “newsub101″, who has no support network at all in his real life, and hasn’t worked out what the hell is going on in this weird new sexual world he wants to be in.
But instead of praising the courage of a guy for saying on some level, “I think macho sexuality is bullshit and I want to submit to my wife, but I’m still really confused about how to do it”, we get this jaded counter-analysis about what’s wrong with femdom and about how guys have supposedly made this destructive paradigm for the whole thing.
Just for myself, I know how amazingly hard it was to wake up to my submissive side in later life (I was about 35 when we first started talking about it, I’m 39 now), and be in a position of being very in love with someone who may or may not get my kinks. Coming out to Michelle was VERY hard.
And personally, I really value the ideas and guidance provided to me on blogs that exactly fit the profile that Ranat described. Without that, I doubt I could have ever found my own way through that “man leading the women into femdom” paradox, and into what I hope is a more realistic place.
So, are you (Bean) arguing that the basic problem is that heterosexual social norms have repressed submissive male / dominant female sexuality? You seemed to be suggesting that on Ranat’s blog.
Well, OK, I agree. But I think that a kind of critical analysis of the blogs of “subbyhub50″ or whoever it may be, complete with derisive commentary, looks pretty pointless, and a little cowardly. Rather than listing the symptoms, as you have put it, why not go after the causes? If you really want the latest and most influential incarnation of the so-called Arthurian service paradigm, go after some cheesy Hollywood films, or captains of industry, and leave me, and all the other stranded sub-hubs, out of it.
But instead of praising the courage of a guy for saying on some level, “I think macho sexuality is bullshit and I want to submit to my wife, but I’m still really confused about how to do it”, we get this jaded counter-analysis about what’s wrong with femdom and about how guys have supposedly made this destructive paradigm for the whole thing.
Steve, that one paragraph probably sums up 90% of the argument — not the one here, but the one that seems to happen every few months in some forum or another. And you do have a good point in that some people who do not fit into this model (jaded or not) become disgusted with it because it’s the most prevalent one. It’s frustrating because, while there isn’t much to go on, and there’s not much support for new (and especially older) people who are discovering themselves, what little that is available seems useless and (all too often) demeaning.
Bitchy Jones did a wonderful job expressing that frustration. However, she sometimes (i.e., almost always) fails to acknowledge that other people happen to like the stereotypical model, and get irritated at being called ridiculous for enjoying it. For example, she hates strap-ons, but can’t seem to acknowledge that some women get something out of using them. She doesn’t do the leather thing, but fails to acknowledge that some women really enjoy the fetish garb.
I think that we all sometimes miss that point that it’s perfectly okay to like what we like, and to let other people like what they like.
Even the Goreans.
Now, all of that said, I want to reiterate that I also found it very difficult to come out to Mrs. Edge a while ago. Somewhere in my blog I’ve got a couple of posts called “When someone you love is kinky” (they are in the True Tales section). I went back to read them last night, and I still remember how difficult it was to try to get my partner — who was barely listening to me as a person — to understand that my sexual desires were bound up in some crazy S&M erotic matrix.
When we finally were able to discuss it, her first thoughts were literally about wondering if I was secretly gay and was going to dress in women’s clothes, and the whole sissy thing. That’s because she went onto teh intertubez and looked at the first stuff that came up. In fact, those models were pretty much all she looked at because they are the most prevalent. Not knowing enough to dig further, and already freaked out, she had no idea what to do with this. It took another long while to try to tear down those images in order to replace them with something else.
Most of my first blog link exchanges were with FLR types, and it took almost a year before I started to run across more sub-man blogs who didn’t quite fit the old models.
It’s frustrating all around, isn’t it?
Also, seems to me that categorizing one’s blogroll is just a form of housekeeping, especially when you have more than a few dozen links. I don’t get what’s telling about doing so.
But I think that a kind of critical analysis of the blogs of “subbyhub50″ or whoever it may be, complete with derisive commentary, looks pretty pointless, and a little cowardly.
Steve, I’m not sure if that last paragraph was only directed at me or more generally. But I’ll reiterate that my comments on Ranat’s blog stemmed from gloom and frustration with the world-at-large, and weren’t intended as mockery of individual people. There are things about kink community I find mock-worthy (someone I ran across calling herself, “Mistress Most Supreme Beautiful Goddess [Name],” comes to mind), but people trying to make long-term relationships work generally isn’t one of them.
There was no intention to pick on anyone; I’m sorry you felt laughed at.
I do take your point re: the usefulness of these blogs to you. Thank you for being frank about that.
I still also think Tom Allen has a point, though; and should images and voices of submissive men become both louder and more diverse, I would think this would mean a wealth of resources for guys in similar positions to you. Rather than this, “beacon in the dark,” thing you seem to be describing.
If I had the slightest idea of how to go about altering the dominant culture, I’d go do it! I have no ideas as of yet. Suggestions are welcome, f’shizzle.
Well, you can see it as “backpedaling” if you like; I’m just admitting that I hadn’t considered a fairly important detail about why some people write sex blogs, ie. to find new sex partners in real life.
I talked about this thread and Ranat’s with my partner, on our walk yesterday evening, and he pointed out something REALLY obvious that I had not factored into my critique. He said something like, you know, it’s so easy for you, you’re a girl. You can have sex whenever you want. (this is an overstatement, obviously, but he put it that way for effect).
And that’s the perspective I was missing. It still doesn’t make any sense to divide ideas about kink by gender.
But what I get, now, as opposed to at the top of this thread, is how frustrating it must be to own a kinky sexuality for which the desired complementary partner is so hard to find. So it makes total sense for male submissives to be expedient in dividing things up to find it.
I also dislike, like everyone here, being nonconsensually teamed up when it comes to sex. By gender, by anything. But if provisional categories, even flawed ones, get us closer to understanding one another, then yeah let’s debate them. Cuz yep, it is perfectly okay to like what we like, and to let other people like what they like, but it’s also helpful to figure out why.
Gee, I started a dust-up and I didn’t even know it.
@Dev – I am rather perplexed by the ‘in-out’ group argument, because it’s difficult for me to see how my blog, with its paucity of readers (most of whom come looking for pon farr or Wizards First Rule porn), could be considered in the ‘in’ group. I’ve ‘met’ very few people who share any of the sentiments I write about. Counting all the people I’ve had actual dialogue with about these subjects, I think the total comes to eight, and there are MANY more kinky blogs out there, some with thousands of readers.
@Steve – “So, I went to her blog, and accused her of relying too much on a bunch of sub-males to create this thing on the internet she’s looking for, even though that’s supposedly the antithesis of what she’s about.”
I do not remember you making that point on my blog, but maybe I missed one of your comments. Could you point it out please?
“And seriously, her post did not read like the wild woman of the woods. It sounded like an anxious, highly socialized and educated but basically very frustrated person having a gripe on the internet.”
Frustrated person having gripe on the internet – No argument. Absolutely true. Anxious, yes. My sexuality being marginalized and given very little outlet even in the subculture supposedly for me causes me anxiety. Educated – Unfortunately. I realized I would have been better off without it too late.
Highly socialized – Socialized where/for what/to what?
“And I would argue that her situation here is not the fault of some Arthurian paradigm constructed by males; it’s her own choice to remain that way.”
Remain what way? The Arthurian paradigm was certainly created by Western European men, though it has also been perpetuated by women descendants of those cultures because they were socialized to believe chivalry was a form of protection rather than control. I did not create this paradigm. I do not perpetuate this paradigm. I do find this paradigm very limiting, and in some cases damaging, to submissive men and dominant women when it is one of only two options of acknowledged expression (the other being ‘slime-lick-my-stilletos). Yes, I believe submissive men and dominant women deserve more than that. A more thorough exploration of my frustration and the judgmental tone I wrote that post in is in a response to your latest comment there.
?
??
??!!
@#^^)&$%#$!!1
I had a lengthy comment which not only fixed all of this, but it cured cancer and broke one of Newton’s laws.
Naturally I wrote it this morning when I woke up early. Seems to have gotten lost in the freakin’ ether.
off to sulk now
Man. I’m missing all the best internet chatter. I need to get back to the blogging more often.
Sigh.
Well, then, you’re clearly not in the in-crowd…
I’m pretty sure I’m right where I want to be.