Showing posts with label Monk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monk. Show all posts

Thursday, April 29, 2010

What am I reading lately? A little of everything…

I bought, but have not read yet, this one: In the Devil's Garden: A Sinful History of Forbidden Food, by Stewart Lee Allen. It appealed to my noted weakness for history-of books.
“Lust, gluttony, pride, sloth, greed, blasphemy, and anger--the seven deadly sins have all been linked to food. Matching the food to the sin, Stewart Lee Allen offers a high-spirited look at the way foods over time have been forbidden, even criminalized, for their "evil" effects. Food has often been, shockingly, morally weighted, from the tomato, originally called the love apple and thought to excite lust; to the potato, whose popularity in Ireland led British Protestants to associate it with sloth; to foods like corn or bread whose use was once believed to delineate "lowness," thus inflaming class pride…the real focus is on the human response to a primal pleasure--eating--and the way people have sought to control it, in every society and every culture, through prohibition.” (From review.)

He's Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys, by Greg Behrendt. The press around this book – and then the movie – annoyed me so much that I refused to read this book when it first came out, but for some reason curiosity overcame me lately.
It wasn't a demanding read, to say the least. It’s a lot like a long magazine article. Pretty thin text for a book, although Mr. Behrendt has gone on to write more books in the same vein, so apparently some people think he has something new to say. Overall: meh. I agree with some of what he says: some people do chase after people who are obviously - well, not that into them. Unfortunately, I doubt this fluffed-out Cosmo article is going to dissuade them. And much of the time, I think Mr. Behrendt slides from clever flippancy into repetitive heavy-handedness. When it comes to wittily capturing the social patterns and dysfunctions of love, he is no Jane Austen.

Speaking of love, here’s one book I will not be buying: Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. I have previously expressed my opinion, both here and in the Stranger, about Ms Gottlieb’s plan of: “Marry any half-way decent man who asks you, because being married, even to someone you don’t love, is better than being single. Plus you need his sperm to get pregnant, and his income to support the little devils.”

I will note that the author, in spite of having stated, in print, that her standards for marriage are extremely low, is still not partnered. Why am I not surprised? I could have told her that. Oh, wait, I did tell her that. This looks like a classic case of saying you want something, but then sabotaging your stated goal as hard as you can. Why she’s doing that I can only speculate.

***

In good print news: Check out The Stranger's article about local kink artisans and entrepreneurs. Featuring, of course, Twisted Monk! Plus, Scott Paul and Tonya Winter - it's a great piece.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Time for another podcast! In this one, Monk reads an original poem – or at least, we hope it is original – sent to him by a reader. And he reads it in the voice of William Shatner, because the William Shatner-voice makes everything better.

Moving on, we read a letter from a kinky person asking how to keep a pleasant sexual tension alive in a long-term relationship. This is a type of question that we get a lot, so we both have plenty to say about it. As a man who’s been happily married for over twenty years, Monk waxes particularly eloquent. High point: he compares BDSM to Pokemon. I’m serious.

About fourteen minutes.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Another podcast, and another riff from Monk about how I’m playing with my nipple. Even though I’m not.

Then, letters: the first is from a listener asking about jealousy and threesome sex/BDSM. Threesomes are fraught with peril, in my opinion. The best threesome experiences I have had were in situations with three previously-uninvolved people.* The emotional stakes are considerably lower when no one has ever slept with anyone else before. An established couple plus one? That’s a very tricky situation. But it's a common fantasy, so Monk and I step through some of the ways it could happen.

Next, a request for guidance from a BDSM person who’s wondering about how to answer her friend’s question: “Am I cut out to be a slave?”

The last letter asks, “Is it fair for a people in a polyamory group to veto the partners of other partners?” Monk and I both have some opinions about the term “veto” and making rules that create the illusion of control over other people. I predict they will not be universally agreed-with, but what would be the point of listening if you already agreed with everything we said?

About twenty minutes.


*I did have a three-way romp not long ago that was quite, quite lovely, and it was with two people who were - let us say they were previously involved, if not precisely a couple. But - they are both exceptional people.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Art Imitates Life

Don't Be Scared. Or Then Again...

Or is the other way around? I can never remember. But I was thinking about it last night, when Monk and I did our second appearance at the Peg-Ass-Us show. That photo? I brought that very harness and dildo with me to the show and displayed it to the audience. Everyone seemed to enjoy seeing it, although no one volunteered to let me actually demo anything on them. Too bad.

The show is fun and sexy and educational and simply delightful in so many ways. And John and Sophie are the cutest, sweetest, most winsome pair of sexual outlaws in the world, you just want to pet them and cuddle them and take them home and... do evil things to them.

But I digress. We went out for drinks after the Sunday show with John and Sophie, and I got to talk to them about how they handled putting their very real, intimate lives out on a stage for everyone to see. Because as I was watching the show, I was thinking that in some ways, Monk and I do a written version of this on our blogs and podcasts.

Obviously for us the topics are different. We do reveal a lot, though, and sometimes that gets uncomfortable. Particularly because we are not anonymous bloggers. We put our faces are on our blogs. Our professional names and reputations on riding on this. The stakes are high for us.

But we don't want to be too safe, because that's boring. So it's a continuous dance on the edge between regrettable TMI and the same-old, tame-old stuff. And I for one think Monk has nothing to apologize for, because when it comes to busting out of the stereotypes about straight male tops, he will go there. Even when there is right up onto a stage to talk to an audience full of people about pegging.

The reason people like to read us, and like to see shows like Peg-Ass-Us, is because it is real. We're just talking about things lots of people either really do, or really want to do. That blurry, low-rez camera-phone snapshot of mine? Almost seventeen thousand views since I put it up less than a year ago. (And that's just on Flickr, God only knows how many people have it posted on a website somewhere.) I'm quite clear that many of even the straightest of straight male tops are not utterly uninterested in having a woman touch their ass. You've still got two nights to catch the show, guys. Go there.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Primary/Secondary, BDSM Scene Interruptions, and Kink Celebrities

A fresh new podcast! By popular request, we’ve gone to a slightly longer format for this one, it’s about eighteen minutes.

In this episode, TwistedMonk and I answer a variety of your questions. The first one is about primary/secondary partners in polyamory – can one person in a relationship be a primary partner and the other person be a secondary?

The second question is about dealing with unexpected interruptions during a BDSM scene.

The last question: how do you introduce yourself to a kink celebrity (perhaps like me or Monk, but definitely not limited to us), and other general social tips for BDSM culture.

Not at all safe for work!

Monday, January 18, 2010

Here's a brand-new podcast! (Even though it’s only Monday. I’m busy writing a column.)

In this one, TwistedMonk and I answer a letter from someone who is new at being the top in a scene, and who is struggling with what to do when people don’t disclose important medical/emotional before the play starts. Short answer: it's not perfect, but even when you ask them, people do that. Roll with it.

Then we hear from someone who wants to know how to cover bruises, so we discuss strategies for that. I talk about my stripper days of putting make-up on my ass… And mention some other kinky activities that leave marks on socially-visible areas of the body.

Enjoy listening!

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Oh, The Media!

First, I have a new column over at The Stranger. And yes, it's about the "Alexa Dicarlo" issue. If I had had my way, this column would have come out two weeks ago. Alas, one cannot always have things as one would wish. Still, it's my hope that if I inspire any fresh debate on the matter, it will be calm, civil and reasoned. Although really, there's not much more to be said, is there? Perhaps my remarks will serve as a finale.

On a much sexier subject: last weekend, my darling Monk went to Vegas for the Adult Video News awards - the Oscars of porn, if you will. He taught a bondage class at the Erotic Heritage Museum, and he arranged with Carnal Nation to be their roving reporter. There's lot of fun videos of him, including one where he interviews Bobbi Star and they talk about me. Eek!

More clips:
A Look At Male Chastity Devices
Talking to the makers of wireless, musical vibrators.
Monk interviews Princess Kali
Monk talks to the Porn Church - and remains amazingly polite.
Monk putting "I Love Anal" stickers on people.

There's lots more on the CN site, so go check it out...

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

It's Wednesday, and it's a new podcast!

Monk starts off with a letter from a busty sex worker asking how to handle phone calls from men curious about her exact bra size. I’m embarrassed to say that the word “motorboat” is mentioned. I also talk about my oft-repeated bit of sex work advice, “Don’t say anything you wouldn’t want read out loud in court.”

Then we hear from a reader who thinks that only male dominants (not female ones) get teased, or harshly critiqued. I laugh for a while, and then I explain how that’s not true. Although I do offer an admittedly harsh critique about people who say “dom-may”.

About 12 minutes, not work safe.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Las Vegas Kinky People!

My dear Monk is coming to your town very soon - go see him in action. The class is called “Sensual Rope Bondage for the Not-So-Vanilla” - so if that describes you, you'll like this event.

Where: Erotic Heritage Museum, 3275 Industrial Road, Las Vegas, NV
When: Thursday January 7th Class 7:00-9:00pm. Private Q&A session 9:00-9:30pm
Cost: $50 per person


It's part of a larger spectrum of kinky events that weekend, he has more details about it here on his blog.

Monk is as much a performer as he is a teacher - you can see a recent video of of him here at the Columbia City Cabaret. He's great fun to watch in action, and it's even better when he talks, too.

I hope the Sin City folks make him feel very welcome!

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

It's time for... a fresh podcast!

(The page formatting continues to show the headline all wonky. I don't know why, but ignore it. Click on the little icon, and it'll play just fine.)

Now, I must warn you, I think this one gets to a new high in completely non-serious silly riffing. So just disregard all that talk about Monk parking a Buick in someone's ass.

Also, there's a whole bunch of insane nonsense about doing an all-musical-version of the podcast. Do not try to make any rational sense out of that. And do not follow Monk's instructions about emailing me, imploring me to do an all-musical-version of a podcast. Because I will not.

Then we get to letters. A reader asks us about making kink toys out of everyday thing – so we talk about pervertables, always a fun topic. And Monk offers us all the reasons why rope is so wonderful.

Then we read a letter from a kinky reader asking us why BDSM people don’t like to kiss. (We kid the guy a bit, but then, we do that to everyone.)

Meanwhile, I’m off to get my hair done, and then get massaged and generally pampered. A little pre-Christmas treat. Bye!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

I wasn’t going to upload this last podcast. But Monk says I’m being silly. And lord knows, I need the blog-content, I've been way too busy to write much lately.

So, I am ignoring a voice in the back of my head that says it is slightly undignified. Unladylike, in fact.

Yes, I know – I don’t feel the slightest qualm about posting photos of myself sticking needles in people. That's perfectly dignified. It's kinky, but it's not undignified.

But I do feel that it is a trifle undignified to post slightly-tipsy rants about one of my pet topics: Crazy People And Sex Work.

Just to be clear – thank you, President Obama – I am not disclaiming the basic opinions I express here. I just wish I had voiced them a little less profanely and a little less… stridently. Whoops.

There's also a whole side conversation about fisting, in which I make an ill-advised personal disclosure.

Thus, I bring to a close the era of cocktails while podcasting. So enjoy us in all our ranty, TMI glory, the next round will be far more calm, sober and public-radio-esque. (Well, I will be, at least. I cannot speak for Monk.)

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

I’m off to Vegas until Friday, so while I jet away, enjoy a new podcast. This one is letters from readers with questions about polyamory.

First letter: when to disclose to a potential new partner that you are poly, if they don’t know already.

And then: dealing with weirdness from your partner’s other partners. (AKA “metamours”.)

It’s a lot of unbridled snark with (hopefully) some nuggets of wisdom. And all admittedly somewhat fueled by alcoholic beverages. I am wincing slightly as I listen to myself tipsily hold forth on these, so I think that means I must make a ban on drinking + podcasting in the future.

But I will not be podcasting in Vegas! Bye!

EDIT: The formatting is coming out weird on the podcast page, not sure why. But it downloads okay, just click on the little icon.

Thursday, October 01, 2009

A new podcast! First there’s a lot of silly banter about needles and being naked in bed, and then Monk reads a letter about how to do fast, easy rope bondage during a resistance play scene, and I make some comments about securing a bottom who is larger than you.
After that, I both scold and encourage a reader who is exploring BDSM, but who wants me to do their kinky thinking for them. About 16 minutes.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Another podcast! This one's about polyamory. First, Monk and I answer a question about time-management for poly people: how many partners is too many? And then: the difficulty of finding polyamorous partners when you're very young. (Meaning: in your twenties.)

I feel compelled to note: In this last round of podcast taping, Monk brought alcoholic beverages to the studio. That's a switch - usually we're drinking Rock Star or Red Bull, or else just tons of super-strong coffee (him) and diet Mountain Dew (me). I have no idea why he decided we should have cocktails instead of caffeine while we taped this batch, but we did.

So we had great fun, but I fear they made us even less inhibited than usual. Which is not very much, anyway. Thank god we we don't do video blogging.

But if you're offended by anything I say in this podcast (or any of the next three), just remember: it's Monk's fault. Really!

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

(Warning: there is NO sex or naughty stuff in this post. And like Pascal, I made it long because I lacked the time to make it short.)

Mistress Manners

I asked for questions from the Twitter-spere, and here’s one I got...

(Can you address) poly etiquette issues like when do invitations include all the partners or selected ones - differences between etiquette for poly, kinky and mainstream that you have noticed.

I presume this refers to social invitations – parties and so forth. I am further going to presume that for the purposes of this post, we are talking about events held in someone’s home or any other private space controlled by them.

As a party-giver, this is a subject close to my heart. So first let’s talk mainstream etiquette, because I think even that is often not adequately understood. My theory is: because many poly/kinky people are also geeky, the Geek Social Fallacies sometimes come into play. I am only slightly geeky, and I’m actually pretty traditional when it comes to social etiquette. It’s my Southern upbringing.

Let’s start with the big one: With very rare exceptions, I think it is terribly rude and crass to say “Oh, I heard you’re having a party, can I come?”

If your significant other is invited to a social event, and you’re really and truly not sure the invitation included you, then it’s acceptable for the invited person to ask. For most social events, it’s nice to ask both halves of a couple. But there are actually people in the world who are close to my partners, but not to me – and vice versa. And it’s completely conceivable that they’d want to have him over for, say, an intimate dinner party with eight carefully selected guests, and I’m not one of the other seven. That’s utterly fine with me. If you host an event, you get to have it exactly like you want it.

The invited person should phrase the question in such a way as to give the host a graceful way to say, “No, that person is not invited.”

One may not pretend to misunderstand as a ploy to try to wangle invitations.

If the invitation – either verbal or written – says “bring a date,” or “you plus a guest,” then the invited person may bring ONE guest without further clearance from the host. One.

If you really feel that there’s someone that your-dear-friend-the-host would enjoy having, who hasn’t been invited, then you may go to the host, and verbally and charmingly grovel, and sweetly acknowledge that you’re being terrible, and then ask him/her if you may invite other people. The groveling/acknowledging part? Not optional. I have done this myself. If I can do it, you can do it. As before, you must give the host a graceful out.

(Also: if they say yes, bring an extra-nice host gift.)

If the invitations say anything like “Bring your friends - all are welcome - the more the merrier - feel free to forward this”, then obviously it’s fine to arrive with pals, or tell them about it and have them show up on their own.

Even when it's specified that you don’t actually need an invitation, I think it’s always nice to talk to the hosts and tell them you’d like to come. (Or drop them an email, or message them on Fetlife, or whatever medium seems appropriate.) But that’s extra credit.

That’s mainstream good manners. And this will shock you, but it’s not dramatically different for kinky people or poly people.

The only special thing kinky people need to remember is that social events may or may not be kink-friendly. Obviously if someone invites you to a play-party, you can assume that, at the very least, wearing your leather pants would be okay.

Other types of events may be more ambiguous. I was married once – not to Max – and we had two weddings. One was kinky, and one was family, and you would not believe the lengths my then-husband and I went to in order to make sure our kinky pals did not show up to the family one in chaps and leather corsets, tugging their submissives along on leashes. It was An Issue, believe me. If there is the slightest doubt in your mind, ask. If you can’t ask, err on the side of caution.

For poly people it’s slightly more complex. Here’s how I do it: For the purposes of most social invitations issued to me, Max = my partner. We are an easily recognizable social unit.

Monk is also my partner, of course. And in some ways we too are a social unit, but since we don’t live together, I feel that doesn’t usually apply to social functions. In that sense, Tambo is his partner.

There have been times when Monk and I, specifically, have been invited somewhere. That’s also happened with Max and Puck. That’s all perfectly okay, in my view.

If you do not have a spousal-equivalent, then I think it's all right to ask for clarification. (As always: give the host a graceful out.)

What is true is that Monk and Max and I all move in the same general circle. It’s rare for me to get invited to a large social event that Monk isn’t also invited to. That eliminates a lot of problems, because the main difficulty I see with polyamory and social interactions is “I got invited to an event with one partner, and I want to bring a different partner,” or “...and I want to bring ALL my partners.” That’s where it gets tricky.

Far be it from me to tell someone who is, and who is not, their partner. Never would I wade into such shark-infested waters. What I will say is: if an invitation was issued to Max and I, and Max elected not to go, I would not just show up with Monk – or anyone else - without asking my host if that was all right. I think it’s just basic courtesy to let people know who you’d like to bring into their home. And as a host, I would probably not be hugely offended by such a one-for-one request.

Extra bonus points: But before you ask for a social substitution, ponder: is there a reason why my other partner wasn’t invited? It might be because the host doesn’t know him/her. Or it might be, for example, because the host’s other partner had a bad break-up with your other partner six years ago, and still thinks he’s a giant prat. That sort of scenario is not at all impossible, in the often-incestuous world of poly. You’ll want to have the facts before you start that conversation.

If you want to bring multiple people who were not invited – you’re back to the charmingly grovel/sweetly acknowledge/give the host an out set of rules. But essentially, just because you are intimately involved with someone does not mean they should automatically expect to go anywhere you get invited. It’s the host’s privilege to choose who they want to entertain. And it’s sort of like sex – he/she doesn’t need a compelling reason not to want someone. If you ask, and the host displays any reluctance, mentioning not enough space, the amount of food, any social excuse at all, you should drop it. Only a boor would ask for further justification.

If you cannot bear the idea of attending a social event without all your partners, and your host doesn’t wish to invite them, then the solution is simple: don’t go.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Reader Letters

I've been reading your blog and columns for quite a while now and have found your thoughts on BDSM, sex work, and polyamory extremely interesting. However, there's one subject that you don't talk much about, and that, in multiple-partner relationships is pretty critical: STD's. I know you're not a doctor, and I understand that we all have to make our own decisions about what risks are acceptable, but I'm very curious about what precautions you and people you know consider to be reasonable when people have a lot of partners, either serially or in parallel. Obviously, condom use and regular STD screenings are important. But how do people deal with the risk of diseases that can't be blocked very effectively by condoms, particularly herpes? I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say on the subject.


I had two immediate responses to this letter. The first one to reflect on how often people ask me questions that really, they already know the answers to. The writer expresses it perfectly: “we all have to make our own decisions about what risks are acceptable.” I am no different than anyone else in that regard, and neither are my partners.

Take me and Monk, for example. Monk rides a motorcycle. I drive a car. I think a car is safer. Monk admits that it probably is, but he likes his bike.

And indeed, he had an accident a little over two years ago and broke his collarbone. But he’d been careful. He’d worn his helmet and his leather gear, and because he mitigated his risks that way, it wasn’t as bad as it could have been. His passenger wasn’t badly hurt, and I think that was more important to him than his own injury.

He still rides his bike. I don’t want to ride a motorcycle, but I think if he wants to, he should get to. Even if I occasionally worry about his safety. Which I do even though I myself could just as easily be hurt in a car accident.

It’s not always logical, what we think is an acceptable risk and what isn’t. You gather the information, you think about what’s important to you, and you make your choices. If I was going to drive someone somewhere and they said "Before I get in the car, you have to guarantee me that we won't be in an accident", I'd think they were being foolish. I've never been in a really bad car accident, but there are no guarantees in life. If you can't deal with that, don't get into a car with me. Or anyone.

Sex is no different. I wear a seat belt - I use condoms. I am careful when I drive - I am careful when I have sex. But I don’t twist myself into a fever of anxiety every time I engage in either activity. I won’t live my life that way.

(My second response was this: perhaps I’m misreading the intent, but my initial interpretation of this writer’s question was that she wanted me to detail exactly how I am sexual with my partners. Like, exactly. But surely – surely! – she isn’t really asking me about my own private sexual practices and the practices of my partners? I must be reading this wrong. Because I would never dream of sending a stranger an email asking them to publish such highly personal information on a website. That would be very inappropriate. I’m sure the writer didn’t mean to imply that she wanted that.)

Basically, you manage risks by managing risks. Worrying about risks isn't managing them, and that's a mistake I see often people make. They don't do anything - they just worry. So whatever it is you want to do, this is my advice: get very well-educated about it. Assess the situation as it is, not as you wish it would be. Consider all the possible outcomes of your choices, from perfect to catastrophic. Think about what you'd do in each of them. Talk to the other people involved. And accept that every day you’re alive, you’re taking risks.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Today is Monk's birthday.

As I have mentioned every year for the last five years, there are a lot of amazingly cool things about Monk. And still, every year I know him, he develops more.

Monk and I often remark to each other that we both do the impossible, every day. By that we mean: our whole crazy poly sexy kinky busy lives, which, by all conventional wisdom, should not work. And yet they do.

But at the risk of making him sound like Laverne and Shirley, Monk has never heard the word "impossible." It's a charming and occasionally terrifying trait in him, but no one who loves him would have him any other way.

I'm very glad you were born today, sweetheart. Have a happy, happy birthday!

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

I uploaded a new podcast. In this one, Monk and I read and answer letters about polyamory. First, we talk about the not-so-good idea of comparing your partners. "Why can't my Partner B be more like my Partner A?" (Hint: Because they are actually two different people.)

Then Monk talks a little about his wife Tambo - and explains why he doesn't talk about her very often. (Hint: Because she is actually Keyser Soze.)

This is the last one we have in the chute, so we'll probably go record some more next week. Got complex questions about BDSM, polyamory, sex work, or brightly colored cocktails? Send them in...

(I have mentioned that I'm becoming a brightly-colored-cocktail expert, didn't I?)

Friday, May 22, 2009

So this week, for a 12seconds video, I talked Monk into showing me his naked push-ups.

Well, I sort of tricked him into it. See, he always tells me about the mean stuff his personal trainer does to him - you people think I'm sadistic? You have no idea! I sometimes get really envious that this guy gets to hurt my boyfriend so bad. And I don't even get to watch!

(Monk would let me sit in, but he usually goes early in the morning. Nu-uh. Not even for hot boy-on-boy action do I get up at that hour.)

So tonight when we were talking gym-porn, I casually got out my phone, hid it behind my back, arranged my face into an innocent expression, and said, "One-footed push-ups? I don't understand, darling, what are those?"

These. Aren't they nice? (Probably not safe for work. )

Tuesday, April 28, 2009