Random stuff on my mind. Some ranting, some TMI.

[kiya]

So I subscribe to a mailing list for Slavic reconstructionism, because I want to know about this sort of thing, and it's a pretty good resource.

Last couple of days I've been pondering leaving, because they clearly don't like my kind around there.

It started out with the random bashing of Wicca, which irritates me because it's bashing; it also irritates me because clearly the people doing the bashing didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. The BTW folks on the list pointed that out, to no actual effect. That wandered off into a generalised bashing of eclecticism which included the claims that eclectics "only take the fun stuff" and also that they all use a Wiccish format. No amount of bothering with facts makes their minds less made up.

When I pointed out that eclecticism required doing the work, sometimes different kinds of work than doing something within an established tradition, I got a rather snide/baffled, "What's this 'work' you're talking about? You don't have to work at being in a folkway." Um, dude. You have to make the offerings, perform the rituals, deal with the entities. For a reconstruction, you have to do the goddamn research. You have to make it fit in your life rather than be some kind of fucking hobby. That's doing the work.

Meanwhile, the folkishness -- not the really hardcore racism kind, but the tacit presumption of "These are the gods of our ancestors, so of course these are the gods we serve. Those other gods should have their own people follow them." With a few backhanded slaps at Wicca again, of type, "You are taking people away from their proper folkways!" And a treatment of this whole gods-of-the-ancestors as essential to the whole reconstruction thing, which irritates me no end. Both because I am not in service to the gods of my ancestors (since none of Them asked) and because I have my doubts that the Slavic gods are more limited than other gods or entirely uninterested in speaking to appropriate followers from other ethnicities.

Nnnnngh. I think I'll be sticking to lurk mode, strictly, if I stay around there.



Every so often I poke my nose in some BDSM resource group or another and am struck with the profound sense of alienating cases of Martian anthropology. I don't understand what the hell is going on, you see. I don't speak the subculture, I'm just a sub.

I feel like I ought to speak the subculture, mind. I mean, I'm a switchy sub and mild masochist who gets off on playing with boundaries (among other things), and ... it would be nice if that was enough to make any of it make sense.

This was partly provoked by a giant thread that was initiated by an idiot. The idiot is completely irrelevant to the thought train; the bit that started me going confounded was the bit where someone was commenting on the clothes they needed to wear to fit in in the community.

Which is sort of ... I'm used to being tenuously a member of communities with weird protocols that I don't share, right? I call it "Living on the planet Earth". But the thing here, I suspect, is that I'm not a participant in the in-person subculture in the slightest, I don't go to the parties or whatever, so the idea that there's some relevant factor of what a person might choose to wear as being a part of acceptance as a community member (when the 'community' is not defined in terms of, y'know, image) blows my little mind. It makes the whole thing hit all of my 'performance' buttons, what brooksmoses referred to as "X-Rated LARP".

It reminds me a bit of a conversation I had partially on poly-boston a while back (we took it to email fairly quickly) where one person was asking for advice on dealing with a sub with multiple doms. The whole "do I let someone scene with someone else" thing I don't get; I don't do 'scene', and the fact that I'm a sub isn't something that compartmentalises out of my sexual responses so that it only appears in the acceptable box. The stuff that hits people's 'obviously sub' identifiers mostly only comes out in sexual context, but it doesn't not come out in that context either. It doesn't show up all the time, but it's a part of my natural response set; I don't feel inclined to fake it and suppress it when it's an appropriate response. This means, in practical terms, that the only way I "have only one dom" is having only one partner, which is not an option I put on the table even when I'm having an asexual streak. This was apparently baffling, unheard of in 'the BDSM community' with which she was familiar, the idea that it wasn't a role to me, just a matter of being and appropriate response. Or something. There's major rupture here and I don't trust that I understand where it is well enough to render it.

I don't get the rules. Fortunately, I don't have to go in there to get anything I'm looking for ... I just wish it wasn't so damn confusing. I could probably go on more about this, but it would get less coherent than it already is.


Also, for the amusement of all and sundry, not only am I the sort of person who would say "Your egotism is charming, but slightly confusing" to a partner, I just did.

And I'm out of rice vinegar. So sad.

Comments

[artan]

To me both of those responses seem to be originating from the same behavioral point. Subcultures (and since one of them mentioned is BDSM there's a pun in there somewhere) that have to work hard to define themselves and gain acceptance tend to become very set in their definitons. So when someone comes along who has a different perspective on a known concept it throws them. Most get defensive (which for many people means aggressive towards the challenger).

Defending what they believe to be their territory from invasion, stuff like that. They may be idiots about how they go about it, but it's not a surprising behavior.

[kiya]

Subcultures (and since one of them mentioned is BDSM there's a pun in there somewhere)

I like walking in the park
When it gets late at night
I move `round in the dark
And leave when it gets light
I sit around by day
Tied up in chains so tight
These crazy words of mine
So wrong they could be--
What do I get out of this?
I always try, I always miss
One of these days you’ll go back to your home
You won’t even notice that you are alone
One of these days when you sit by yourself
You’ll realise you can’t shaft without someone else
In the end you will submit
It’s got to hurt a little bit.

(Er. New Order. "Subculture", to be precise.)

[rubberskunk.livejournal.com]

Another day goes by
And all I do is try
All I get from you is shellshock.

Sorry, can't resist a New Order usage. Haven't had anyone else quote such things around me in... ever.

I have whole eons and archives in my LJ sphere about people striving to break and extend subculture. (That's what my other Bostony friends are trying to *do*, you see, in a couple of different ways.) My position on the whole thing is fairly simple: people mostly get absorbed with Their Thing. Anything that impinges on Their Thing is considered immediately hostile and removed. People don't generally understand the concept of looking at the whole thing and seeing that spheres of life are a bunch of Venn diagrams *and you're not seeing the whole picture, fool*.

I could apply the same idea to the political sphere, but it's just too depressing.

Working for your own religion: there's a concept I haven't heard in a while...

[kiya]

I feel so extraordinary
Something's got a hold on me
I get this feeling I'm in motion
A sudden sense of liberty . . .

I have weird relationships to adjectives these days, which interacts poorly with some forms of subcultural stuff, when it gets excessively reductionistic and constrained by odd approaches to being adjectived. Back to Martian anthropology, for which I will use an appropriate icon.

My current state of religion is very odd. I should tell you about it sometime, since it's both shifted dramatically and really hasn't from where it was seven years ago. Though I can commission religious icons from ursulav very easily, and in fact have done so once. :}

[rubberskunk.livejournal.com]

Religious icons or very large stone dildos? ;)

I don't remember, but has there been a time when you haven't had bizarre relationships with various parts of the English language? :)

[kiya]

If I were to acquire a very large stone dildo, I would want it not 2-d.

I think this is more me having a bizarre relationship with people's usage of a part of the English language, for variety.

[ardaniel]

I'm pretty sure a 2D large stone dildo would be... within parameters for my deities. Perhaps I should ask Ursula for an icon, too. ;)

[kiya]

I think a 2D large stone dildo would be hard to distinguish from a knife, which does rather make it within parameters for your lot. ;)

One userpic of her work, and a commission of Hetharu. (Which provoked, first, "Oh, I've always wanted to do Hathor!" and then "Woo! Cow heads!") I wonder if I can trim the Hetheru one into a good userpic, since I have one for Big Red, Wepwawet, and now that I think of it Khnum.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

Hey. I am (sometimes) a major pillar of the BDSM community*, and I sure as anything don't get the idea of clothes to wear to fit into it! To get into parties, sure, but that's way different.


* and sometimes they think I'm weird b/c I actually have sex, too. But that's a whole 'nother story.

[elf]

Maybe I should join some more recon lists. It sounds like the fun flamewars are going on there. And b'sides, Discordianism blends so *well* with reconstructionism... I'm working on my "Eris is an Egyptian Goddess" speech, and I've already got Norse covered. (They have that golden appley thing going. They were misusing them, of course, but what can you expect from the people who invented the peace symbol but forgot to put a circle around it?)

I think I have some of the same problems with the BDSM community. I have some mild leanings in those directions... but zero interest in "scene," zero affinity for the "lifestyle," zero attachment to the headgames that apparently are a big part of many people's BDSMish existence. (I like certain physical acts to be part of my sex life. And sometimes, certain attitudes and relational connections. I do not roleplay; I don't pretend to be anyone other than me.) I never did figure out the ownership thing. Even at my subbest (is that a word?), I'm dominated, not owned; giving up control is not giving up my autonomy.

I'm slowly gathering an understanding of the vocab & standard issues involved in the BDSM community. But it's mainly to cut down the time of explaining that I really do know what I like, what I'm looking for, what I'm not interested in. I'm not interested in exploring ten thousand kinks. I'm not even interested in knowing whether ten thousand kinks exist.

In some ways, they remind me a lot of the Chaote community: "Here we are, without rules or boundaries, free from society's notions of right & wrong behavior, setting our own standards... and how dare you wear those shoes here! Don't you have anything more suitable?"

[elisem.livejournal.com]

I'm working on my "Eris is an Egyptian Goddess" speech, and I've already got Norse covered. (They have that golden appley thing going. They were misusing them, of course, but what can you expect from the people who invented the peace symbol but forgot to put a circle around it?)

*laughing almost too hard to breathe*

Ow.

[kiya]

elisem, meet elfwreck. ;)

[elf]

I won't be content until I have figured out why Eris is both an Aztec and an African goddess. (Aztec, African, Apple... already, I am finding connections...)

[elisem.livejournal.com]

Pleased ta meetcha.

Well, Eris is obviously a cognate of Erzulie, neh? You can get there from that pretty quickly. Not sure what the best Aztec link would be. Probably chocolate is involved, though.

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

At first I read that as "Elvis" rather than "Eris"....

[larksdream]

I have some mild leanings in those directions... but zero interest in "scene," zero affinity for the "lifestyle," zero attachment to the headgames that apparently are a big part of many people's BDSMish existence. (I like certain physical acts to be part of my sex life. And sometimes, certain attitudes and relational connections. I do not roleplay; I don't pretend to be anyone other than me.)

Yes, this is it EXACTLY for me. And it's why I'm apparently not into "real" BDSM. (Which is fine by me, if a little odd.)

[kiya]

And b'sides, Discordianism blends so *well* with reconstructionism...

I suspect that this is why I currently describe my religious position as "semi-recon on crack". I mean, I posted about the explanation of why the chocolate cookies with green sugar on them were an important offering to make recently, right?

I think I have some of the same problems with the BDSM community. I have some mild leanings in those directions... but zero interest in "scene," zero affinity for the "lifestyle," zero attachment to the headgames that apparently are a big part of many people's BDSMish existence.

That's what I'm pointing at, yeah. I mean setting apart the fact that I don't deal well with having 'lifestyle' used to refer to stuff that isn't, y'know, my lifestyle.

I'm not even interested in knowing whether ten thousand kinks exist.

I did that bit already, I don't need a remedial.

In some ways, they remind me a lot of the Chaote community: "Here we are, without rules or boundaries, free from society's notions of right & wrong behavior, setting our own standards... and how dare you wear those shoes here! Don't you have anything more suitable?"

*snicker*

[leanne-opaskar.livejournal.com]

I've already got Norse covered. (They have that golden appley thing going. They were misusing them, of course, but what can you expect from the people who invented the peace symbol but forgot to put a circle around it?)

Encore! Encore! *applauds* ^_^

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

The clothes thing seems to come with two rationalisations:-

1. "It's for our own security. If we let in people who haven't dressed up, bigots might come in and cause trouble." 'Cos, you know, bigots ben on trouble are all troglodytes who aren't clever enough to figure out a dress code.

2. "I put a lot of effort into my costume, and that person looks like s/he just walked in off the street! It's not fair! They're lowering the tone!" Um, just be glad of the lack of competition and enjoy the compliments you're going to get from the rest of the dressing-up crowd, or alternatively, if you're here for the eye candy, go to a pole-dancing show or a catwalk or read a Skin Two catalogue. The models will be prettier.

Privileging roleplaying over "just being" is an example of the More Highly Evolved Fallacy, I think - an over-reaction to the Domly Dom and subly sub S/stereotypes.

[booklectica]

I don't think those are the real reasons for the clothes thing, though. As far as I can tell (and this may just be me) the real reasons are

- People like dressing up.
- People make assumptons based on what people are wearing. Clothes are a good way to signal if you're a top or a bottom or a tranny (obviously!) or a stone butch, or whatever.
- People like dressing up.

Walking into a club where everyone is wearing something that counts as kinky - leather, rubber, underwear, uniforms - creates an immediate atmosphere that you wouldn't get if they were all wearing jeans.

[kiya]

Part of my bafflement is that none of my BDSM has anything to do with walking into clubs. :} Which means that when dealing with people whose presumed context is that most of folks' BDSM involves walking into clubs, I wind up terrifically bewildered.

[booklectica]

Well, I also find clothes helpful when doing scenes with people. Being topped by someone wearing - say - black leather is very good for my state of mind. :)

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I agree that the first two are reasons why people dress up themselves, but I don't think they're reasons to expect other people to do so. The "immediate atmosphere" thing might be, but I think it creates the wrong kind of atmosphere (too pressurising).

[booklectica]

My suspicion would be that the vast majority of people who attend clubs don't find it pressurising, but appealing and exciting. Of course, that's because the people who do find it presurising, like you, don't tend to go to the clubs. But I think that if a club started that had no dress code, it would either do very badly, attract a lot of clueless people, or quickly stop being a fetish club.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

If true, I'd consider that a sad indictment of the scene, but I think it would actually work rather well. I don't have the wherewithal to try to prove the point, unfortunately.

[kiya]

I have inarticulate thoughts about performance-resembling or -oriented versus non-performance-oriented community.

I'm thinking of alt.poly here, a little, actually, though that's not helping me become more articulate: that's a community focused on commonalities of minority-may-be-sexuality stuff (depending on who's arguing the point today) that doesn't hit my "performance-resembling" buttons.

Loving More style polyamory language does hit my performance-resembling buttons, as a counter.

[kiya]

I don't have an issue with the idea of dressing up for some sort of performance; I am given to understand that that is a significant part of many people's BDSM. It is alien to mine, though, which means that I have strong alienation responses when I try to make contact with the community of folks who do that sort of thing.

The only piece of explicitly fetishy personal decor I own was given to me by a partner.

[elisem.livejournal.com]

I don't think those are the real reasons for the clothes thing, though. As far as I can tell (and this may just be me) the real reasons are

- People like dressing up.
- People make assumptons based on what people are wearing. Clothes are a good way to signal if you're a top or a bottom or a tranny (obviously!) or a stone butch, or whatever.
- People like dressing up.

With the small edit of adding the word "some" before the word "people," this strongly resembles my experience, or at least a bunch of it. Mind you, I've been known to walk into various fetish fashion stores in extremely bland street clothes (because that's what I happened to be wearing that day, thank you very much) and make evaluations of the place and the staff based on how helpful they were, and with what manners. (My highest marks ever went to Regulation, whose staff were not only helpful, pleasant, and respectful, but who showed grace and good business sense in letting me know, when I was looking at a rack of some nice buckle-and-strap-wear, that they would be pleased to make it to order for me, at the off-the-rack price, and it would be ready in two days, if I so desired. Very professional folks. I thought them a good bunch. Wonder if they're still about; haven't been in that town for a while.)

But I digress. Still, wearing stuff can be a good time, and when I do it, I certainly don't do it with an intent to pressure anyone else into doing it. I do it, when I do, because it seems suitable attire for me for whatever party I am going to (I don't do clubs, at this point), and because I like it. I tend to assume that everyone else is wearing whatever they want to wear, and I'm cool with that; if they wind up in a conversation with me, I might ask about something, but I'm hardly likely to be the Dress Code Police.

Dressing up is not necessarily sinister.

In fact, that part takes special negotiation. *patented Lioness snarky grin*

(If I'm ever at a place where somebody is giving you a hard time, please feel free to offer me the happy opportunity to make them into a big growl-target, yes?)

(And yes, this userpic is something I consider fetishwear, at least for me. But so much is, and I think all clothing is drag, but anyhow, that's another kettle of fine fish and all that, and we haven't eaten all of this one yet. Dear me, where is the off button on this rant mode of mine? Oh, there; right. Thank you.)

[elisem.livejournal.com]

that they would be pleased to make it to order for me, at the off-the-rack price,

Forgot to say that this was significant because I was substantially larger than any of the sizes on that rack.

[kiya]

Privileging roleplaying over "just being" is an example of the More Highly Evolved Fallacy, I think - an over-reaction to the Domly Dom and subly sub S/stereotypes.

I think what gets me about that is that the 'Domly Dom' and 'Subly Sub' types strike me as all about the roleplaying, posing, and posturing. They just make their whole interactions with folks a giant play-acting rather than taking it in discrete lumps.

The guy on dot_bdsm_snark that eventually spawned this thought train was one of them; he was all full of pose and more-extreme-than-thou.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Yes, but they don't think they're roleplaying (or at least they often claim not to), and so other people who aren't roleplaying can get tarred with the same brush.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Bent on trouble. I should not post BT (Before Tea).

[lady-and-lion.livejournal.com]

I have not much to say except for my knee-jerk "fuck the rules" kind of reaction. Real mature, right? ;) I pretty much agree with you, though.

And was the ego thing said to the Leo? Hee.

[kiya]

Pisces, actually.

But it is something I could say to the Leo, the Pisces, or the Gemini. ;)

[lady-and-lion.livejournal.com]

So I guess you like a partner with a big... ego. ;)

[kiya]

So it would seem.

[arianadawnhawk.livejournal.com]

Ya know, I think I missed the memo that eclectics were supposed to be lazy. ;) And I'm Eclectic Wiccan - oh noes! Guess I can just sit on my butt the rest of my life. :P

Yeah, I'd depart that list in a hurry. I wouldn't flounce - I'd just decide I didn't need that particular source of annoyance.

[kiya]

Problem is that there are hardly any good resources for the subject anywhere . . . and I do want to have access to the knowledge.

*sigh*

[arianadawnhawk.livejournal.com]

Ah, I can see the conundrum. Ick.

[kiya]

Slavic recon isn't, y'know, trendy.

[arianadawnhawk.livejournal.com]

True. There might be some good stuff here. Slavic paganism is on my list of stuff to investigate at some point.