On communication

Another one of those things that shouldn't need to be spelled out, but:

If you're normally from around here, but out-of-state for the summer or winter or whatever, I'm perfectly sympathetic to your protestations that you wish you were here, you'd really rather be here submitting, you're going to be a complete servant/slave when you get back here, etc.

If you then return to town and blow off chat for a week, you're a shallow wanker who's been lying about his intentions to stimulate your fantasies while you were away. There's nothing wrong with consensual online fantasy, as long as you make clear that's what you're doing. When you pretend you're making real plans and you're not, that's what we call "lying."

Basically, if you can't be bothered to double-click a line in a chat window in two weeks to touch base with the guy you made plans with all summer, you are a wank, and you shouldn't act surprised when people treat you like the wank that you've demonstrated yourself to be.

Also, just FYI: when chat programs have a botguard on that require you to type a password, then typing the password merely opens the chat window. You still have to chat about things. Opening a chat window by typing the botguard password does not mean the guy on the other end suddenly has something to say to you.

Just in case that wasn't clear.

On limits

More than once this year, I've had a conversation with a sub boy that goes something like this:

[sub boy]: I want to try all kinds of things, but I'm not sure I want to do _______.

[me]: Well, I don't know about that. I'm kind of fond of _______ and would probably want it on the table.

[sub boy:] Then I guess you don't respect limits! (leaves in a huff)

Well, no, you incredibly moronic newbie. It means I absolutely respect limits and that you don't know what they are.

Limits on a scene are set by all involved parties in agreement. This is especially important to understand in BDSM because the submissive partner is likely to be tied up, or otherwise restrained, and therefore physically unable to prevent the dominant partner from doing things. That, after all, is a large part of what bondage is about—voluntarily giving up control to someone else so he can do what he wants without your input, or taking control of someone who has given that control to you (rather than asking him what he wants you to do).

Let us take the simple example of a sub who, for reasons that are all his own, does not want his socks removed at any time. Once he is tied up, the dom can, of course, peel the sub's socks off at any time, and there's nothing the sub can do about it. If it's really important to him for some reason that this not happen, he must get the dom to agree that it is a limit.

If the sub just says something like "I don't want you to remove my socks" or "I hope you don't pull my socks off," that's expressing a want, not setting a limit. If the sub says "My socks have to stay on, and that's a limit for me," then it's a limit, and the dom has only two options:

• Agree to the limit and leave the sub's socks on at all times, or
• Refuse the limit and therefore refuse to play with the sub

That's it. Those are the only options. The dom may not say he'll respect a limit and then refuse to do so; the sub may not unilaterally impose a "limit" and expect it to be obeyed. All partners must agree to what is and is not available to do, and if they cannot agree, they don't play.

So, sub boys, when you say "I don't want _______," that's good to know. If you're saying that you will not play if _______ might happen, then I have to decide if I'm willing to play with you under those limits. The dom can always refuse to do things he doesn't want to do, but the sub cannot impose a laundry list of rules and demand that the dom adhere to them without prior agreement. The conversation snippet above is limit negotiation, not refusal. Learn to understand English; it's very helpful in these circumstances. The only really bad sessions I've ever had have been with guys who did not express their ideas of the limits clearly, but thought I understood.

I'm open to a wide variety of limits for sub boys, even in my favorite areas, but I do tend to require that there be few of them (aside from safety, which is assumed as a limit). I've even had sessions with both "no oral" and "no anal" limits, but those were the only limits, and that left plenty of room for creativity. I wouldn't agree to sessions with hugely broad limits like "no bondage" or "no removing any clothes," but as long as there aren't many limits and the sub has the goal of removing them as he goes along, I'm sympathetic.

But: it is the sub's job to propose limits, not the dom's. I'm not going to present you with a "menu" of things I might want to do, so that you can pick and choose from it like you're ordering at Hell's Kitchen. If you want to submit, you want me to do what I want to do. If there are things you can't handle, you need to list them up front, and get me to agree to them. It's usually not that difficult, but it's your job as the sub. If you are incredibly ticklish on the soles of your feet and cannot withstand any tickling there before you pass out, you have to tell me before you're tied up and I think about tickling you, not try to communicate it while you're bound, gagged, and realize the tickling is about to start.

If you don't mention it, it's fair game. If you mention it and I don't agree, and you still agree to play, it's fair game. If we agree it's a limit, then it's a limit and it will not be happening, even if I talk about it, even if I act like I want you to change your mind, even if I look like I'm about to do it anyway. I'm not. The reason limits work is that they are absolute and without exception. That's why it's important to get them clearly defined before the session starts.

That wasn't so hard, was it?