Mistress Matisse's Journal

Here's my new column in this week's Stranger. Enjoy!

Labels: column, kink/sex in the news

The SF Weekly published a very odd - and inaccurate - piece about Kink.com this week. Tipoff: any article concerning sexuality that quotes Melissa Farley is going to be quite bad.

A good rebuttal here, by Miss Maggie Mayhem.

EDIT: And another response, by Violet Blue, in the San Francisco Appeal.

Labels: kink/sex in the news

A number of alert readers sent me links to some version of this story. Yowch!

I posted a little over a year ago about how I do indeed have a reciprocating saw with a dildo on it - a "Fuckzall," as they are called. (I think Monk has it, actually. I loaned it to him to use on some lucky girl, who did not wind up in the hospital.)



That poor woman! I'm glad she's recovering, but sweet Jesus, people: take the blade off! That's a good place to start, right there!

Then there's a special attachment you can buy to put the dildo on. I would not advise trying to DIY on this one, kids. Seriously.

Good lord. Some people should really just stick to deerskin mini-floggers.

Labels: bdsm gear, bdsm techniques, kink/sex in the news

The newest installment of the web series about a polyamorous triad, Family.

I was pleased to see that they got some good press in the Seattle Times. Nice when art overlaps with activism. Enjoy...

Labels: kink/sex in the news, polyamory, video

Wow, there's a lot of kinky stuff going on this weekend. The perma-fabulous Midori is in town! She's hosting the annual Bang For The Buck Party Friday night, for all the hot women in Seattle. It's at the Wet Spot/ CSPC, and it will be wild, and full of hot women. Check the sexy flyer out here.

She's doing some workshops at Babeland as well, and Max is also doing an intimate dinner + demo evening with her. EDIT: The dinner is sold out, sorry.

And! She is teaching Sunday at Max's Bondage class. Her class is called the "Hands-On Body Harness Workshop." Body harnesses are fun and useful things, so come out and watch her do her thing, she's great!


Having such cool events and such a great social scene, it's easy to forget that it ain't so easy everywhere. Right now in the UK, kinky people are struggling with the so-called "extreme porn ban". As of January 2009, it is illegal for anyone in England and Wales to possess an "extreme" image, even if the activity itself is legal.

What the hell is that? Besides utter bullshit, I mean. It's not illegal to be kinky, but it's illegal to have a picture of it?

But there's a group called backlash. backlash was created in 2005 by the Libertarian Alliance, the Spanner Trust, the Sexual Freedom Coalition, Feminists against Censorship, Ofwatch and Unfettered to collate evidence for an informed debate on censorship and to fight plans to criminalise ownership of material the Home Office finds abhorrent.

It is committed to raising awareness about why the plans are wrong, won't work and about the inevitable unintended consequences if government plans go ahead.

Go here to read all about this ban and what you can do to help backlash!

Labels: events, kink/sex in the news

I’d like to make some clarification about my stance on “sex work in the news” stories. It’s one thing to comment at length on certain types of stories. But several people have sent me links to recent news stories about a fetish model who suffered a horrific attack and lost someone she loved, and asked me what I think about it.

The answer is: I think it’s a terrible tragedy. What else could anyone think? An unbalanced man targeted her for his obsession, killed her boyfriend and kidnapped her. Thank God she survived. I can only imagine how devastated I’d be if I was her. I think we should shut up and leave her decently alone to recover as best she can.

Thus, I have nothing else to say about the matter, except that I’m rather appalled at the “news” stories that took the opportunity to post galleries of sexy photos of her in fetishwear, as if they were somehow germane to the story. Voyeuristic vultures. No, I’m not going to link to them or say her name. You can find the stories if you want to, but really, there’s nothing there that hasn’t happened before.

And that’s the really tragic part – that this sort of thing happens to all kinds of women, and to some men, too. I don’t know if anything anyone might have done would have prevented this. But please, please, buy and read this book: The Gift Of Fear. It is the best resource I’ve ever come across for recognizing and avoiding dangerous people. They do walk among us, and they don’t just prey on pretty models.

Labels: books, kink/sex in the news, sex work

A nice opinion column from Seattle PI writer Cathy Sorbo on how we should decriminalize prostitution. Pleasant to see it in a mainstream daily paper.

Moving from text to video... You do not see too many realistic depictions of polyamorous people in media, so here's a new and welcome thing from a Seattle film company: "Family: Episode 1 of a Web-series". Not sure how exactly to describe it, but it's a comedy/drama about the lives of some poly people. About six minutes, has sound, work safe. Enjoy...

Labels: kink/sex in the news, polyamory

There’s a lot of sex worker stuff in the news lately, isn’t there?

So yes, I’ve been reading about the busts at the tanning salon/brothels on Aurora Ave. I have some sympathy for the female manager who got arrested, seeing as how I once managed a “sensual touch” business myself. And just because you read something in the paper doesn’t make it true. However, if she and the owner really were running women in and out of other states, through three different locations, all I can say is: with an operation that size, you should have seen this coming. I hope you both have a good lawyer.

See, I have this thing about sex work. One woman working for herself? Great. A couple women decide to band together to share a space and perhaps swap clients back and forth? Fine. Anything where it’s a small group of peers working together - okay, I’m all down with that. But this kind of set-up makes me deeply suspicious.

Now, it’s possible those women wanted to be doing what they did, that it was a very safe and egalitarian workplace, no one ever felt pressured to do anything they didn’t want to, and they were paid as well as they should have been.

But… I bet not. I just don’t get a sense of that from places like this. They look like strip-clubs without the pole, if you know what I mean. And strip-club management works like this: use the women to get as much money as you can from the men, and then take as much of that money as you can from the women. In this situation, I’m betting they took a lot.

In the place I managed, the house supported itself by taking a set portion of the basic appointment fee – “the gate fee” we called it. My job was mostly to keep track of that, coordinate everyone’s schedule, and to deal with the new clients and the guys who needed, for whatever reason, a lot of wrangling. Occasionally I would have to pull rank and tell someone that, for example, leaving a large pink vibrator on the coffee table in the public area was really not okay. Showing up an hour late for the shift? Not okay. Coming out of the session room accompanied by a literal cloud of pot smoke? Not okay.

But I was by no means controlling the six women who worked there. (Hah. As if. Most of them were pals of mine.) And once the client and the woman were in the room together, whatever extra services were negotiated, whatever other money was exchanged, that was all strictly between them. We did not ask about it or monitor it in any way, and we did not ever, ever take any of that money. That was her money.

Once in a while the owner would wistfully mention how she wished the house could get a cut of that cash, and I would threaten to instantly quit before I’d participate in any such practice. That always put an end to that conversation, especially since half the staff would have quit with me, and the owner knew it.

But this looks like the kind of place where you’d get pushed to get as much money as you could from the guy, and then you’d have to give it all to the house. You’d think it would be easy to hide your tips and keep them, but it’s harder than you think. The trick of moving women around is that not only do you create variety for the clients, you prevent the women from forming alliances with each other. So you can’t trust the other girls not to rat you out if they find out you’re holding money back. And you don’t stay on one place long enough to get to know and trust the regular clients, so you can’t rely on them to not say anything, even as an innocent mistake. Some places like this are wired for sound – or even cameras, although not always – so management will see or hear if a girl gets more money in the session rooms.

If they were moving the women around, it’s possible that they were housing them, too. That’s not unheard of even in more legitimate sex work jobs – strip clubs in Alaska used to fly girls up there and put them in what we called “the barracks”. I don’t know if they still have those, but I stayed in one once. It wasn’t a bad place – it looked like a low-end college dormitory, or a hostel. But I got out and found my own place to stay after a week, because it was feeling strange to never be someplace really separate from my work. You need that, I think. But if these people were moving the women around and housing them – oh, that would look pretty bad to me. That would look a lot like trafficking.

Of course I don’t know that, it’s all speculation at this point, so I’ll be interested to see how this story develops. But from this perspective, they don’t look much like people I’d have much in common with.

Labels: kink/sex in the news, sex work

I am disgusted by the smear job KOMO news tried to do on the Wet Spot (The Sex Positive Community Center) last night. It was a terrible piece - sensationalistic and inflammatory crap. They made both completely false and very misleading statements, and implied that something legally questionable was going on with the Center's tax-exempt status. I wrote them a letter telling them how I felt about it, and so should you!

As Dakwallah pointed out, it's November sweeps time. I suppose they were bored with inventing excuses to get footage inside a strip club - that's the usual way to titillate people while making them feel that as though they're watching "news". Bah.

UPDATE: The link doesn't work because KOMO seems to have pulled the story. No trace of it can be found anywhere on the website. Isn't THAT interesting! Looks like a flood of negative responses cowed the station, as well it should have. Of course they can't un-show it to all the people who watched last night.

Here's the piece on YouTube, though...

Labels: kink/sex in the news

A few notes for the coming days...

Foot-lovers, remember the Footnight party this Thursday!


There continues to be a fuss in certain sex worker circles about the whole Craigslist “erotic services” thing. In light of that, I’m composing a column about it, and I hope to get a quote from Craig himself. I am crafting an email to him with some questions, but as I’m guessing he gets a fair amount of email, I fear it may get caught in some filter or other. So just in case someone who knows him personally reads this blog: Hi Craig! I hope you get my note!

Also, if you’re a Seattle sex worker with an opinion about the matter, feel free to write me. I can’t promise I’ll use your quote, but I’m interested in what you have to say.

Edit: I just found some interesting blog posts on the subject. I agree with Mike Masnick, and the data shown by Kohler is also just what I'd expect.

In personal news, I see that my birthday seems to be coming right up. I’ve been too busy to think a lot about it, but feel free to bombard me with well-wishes on November 21st.

Labels: events, kink/sex in the news, sex work

I have gotten so many emails about Craiglist's supposed "crackdown" on prostitution that I thought I'd give you all a quick answer about it. And that answer is: Good, it'll keep out the riff-raff.

That may surprise you. It surprised Max when I told him. But there's two parts to this, so let's break it down.

The first is the "Craigslist charging for ads that used to be free" aspect. To that I say: hey, that's capitalism in action, my friends. People who are selling sex - which many people would also prefer to get for free - should not get pissy that they'll no longer get to place free ads to do that. That's just the cost of doing business.

Then there's the law enforcement angle. The story says the Craigslist will supply LE with advertiser's billing information if they are subpoenaed. Well, yeah. I'm guessing any business that sells ads - The Stranger, The Weekly, Eros Guide - would have to do that. Regardless of what certain Republicans seem to think, when you get a subpoena, that means you have to comply. That being said, I am not aware of any of those places actually being subpoenaed.

Why not? Because if you want to arrest prostitutes - especially the type of prostitute who advertises on Craigslist - it ain't all that difficult. You call them up and you get in the room with them and when the time is right, you whip out the badge and take them downtown. I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying that most of the time, getting a judge to give you a subpoena is unnecessary. Simple prostitution - one woman, working for herself - is a misdemeanor. Statistically, the majority of women who work for themselves do not get arrested, because unless there's a lot of complaints about her, LE has bigger fish to fry.

What subpoenas are about is busting the people who run large-group operations. And if you're running a whole bunch of women on Craigslist, then chances are, you're a pimp. And I don't mean the honest and fair owner of an escort service, I mean a pimp. That's what I see on Craigslist. I don't like pimps, in case that wasn't clear. To me a pimp = a bad person who exploits and coerces women into sex work, or even flat-out forces them. I would not be a bit sorry to see someone like that get arrested.

I believe that there are probably a few honest escort-service owners who use Craigslist. To them I say: You are dealing in felony territory here, so I hope you have a lawyer on retainer, and I hope you understand the risks inherent in the business that you're running. It's my opinion that on the list of ways you might get busted, Craigslist giving up your data is probably the least-likely scenario. But I'd get off there anyway, it's not doing your business image any good.

I think this decision by Craigslist will also help keep under-18 people off the site, and that's also good. Whether they want to be sex-workers when they grow up, they should not be doing it underage.

I think it will also calm down the citizen's complaints, because Craigslist is the place where people who are not looking for sex workers are most likely to stumble across them, and be all outraged about it. It's the online equivalent of soliciting in front of a neighborhood flea market, with families coming in and out. That's just not what you should be doing. It gets people all upset and draws down the heat. Would it be nice if prostitution wasn't illegal so we didn't have to worry about this? Yeah, that would be great. But that's not the reality.

The people who really have my support in sex work are the independent businesswomen like myself, and people who run honest and professional businesses arranging dates between adult contractors and clients. I think those people are unlikely to be strongly affected by the Craigslist's decision.

Labels: kink/sex in the news, sex work

You know, I usually try to not resort to profanity and personal insults when I have a negative opinion about someone. I feel it’s a failure of creativity, for one thing. As a writer, I generally think I should come up with something better. And just in terms of rational discourse, that kind of thing doesn’t advance a discussion.

However, there are exceptions to that. This is one of them, because I am angry, and these people do not deserve thoughtful refutation.

So, Carl Prine of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review? Fuck you, asshole. Your snarky piece about how prostitutes and their clients tend to vote Democratic is tacky, clumsy, uncalled-for and offensive. It’s an obvious attempt to smear Democrats, because after all, if dirty filthy hookers and “johns” like them – not to mention pimps and transsexual sex workers - that’s bad, right? You’re a leering prat and I hope you get crotch rot.

(You’re also a lousy investigative reporter. “Johns” ? No one says johns anymore, you idiot. That term was out-of-date back in the eighties. And putting it in McCain-esque quotes like that, as if it’s a new and daring bit of street-slang, makes it even lamer.)

And Kathryn Jean Lopez: Fuck you, you sanctimonious bitch, for linking to the piece on The National Review Online by saying: “What Sells in Pennsylvania: Some Pennsylvania prostitutes are clear which party they want to go to.”
I suppose when one’s party is flailing as desperately as yours is, you need to clutch at anything you can to make yourself feel one-up. Or – as I look at pictures of you - maybe it’s evidence of a deeper type of insecurity. Either way, you lose.

You don't see as many of these types of sneering put-downs of sex workers as you used to. But man, it really makes me mad when I do.

Labels: kink/sex in the news

Greetings from San Francisco...

We are having a perfectly lovely kinky time down here. The weather for Folsom Street Fair was great, and the four of us got there early enough to walk around and see most things before the crowd got too oppressive. After about 1pm or so, the fair is pretty much 13 solid blocks of crowds like this:


And that's a bit much for me. Here's a brief article about the Fair in the SF Chronicle, with more photos, and if you want to see some snapshots I took, click over to my Flickr stream. Puck and I have taken some better-quality photos, but truthfully, we've not had time/energy to process them. So look for those when I get home.

Today I have a different type of photo op - my shoot with Craig Morey. I hope that goes well, and that we get some good images. Since I've worked with him before, I'm more confident about it than I was last time, and I think we'll have fun. We will also NOT shoot for eight freakin' hours like we did last time, I was wiped out after that. We planned three hours, which means it'll be four, because that's how these things go. But that's completely do-able.

Can I also mention, in connection with nothing else I have said, how amazingly mean and evil Puck is? I mean, really. I intend that as a compliment, of course. Since she's Max's other partner, and Max does not bottom, I don't see her very much in her dominant persona. But I have certainly seen it the last two days, and sweet Jesus Christ, it's slightly terrifying. She was looking very elegant at dinner last night, with her hair pinned up artfully, and there was something about her that made me think of a decadent old-world Russian aristocrat - a Marquise de Merteuil of the Romanov dynasty. Maybe it was it was the coolly sadistic pleasure she was taking in commanding and tormenting Traveler. But it was charming. One does like to get to know new sides of of people.

Labels: kink/sex in the news, kinky life, photos, travel notes

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride


Dear Mainstream Media,

Well, Salon, I'll give you points for not Photoshopping a cat's-eye mask onto her. Thank God for small favors.


Salon.com’s article on how Sarah Palin is just like a dominatrix! Wow, what a fresh take on a female politician, huh? Sigh.

All right, Mr. Gary Kamiya, you come right here and kneel down in front of me, and we're going to talk about using words you don’t really understand. Sarah Palin is not a dominatrix. Do you understand that? I'm going to put my foot right there - yes, there, don't you pull away from me - and now I want you to repeat after me: You're right, Mistress, Sarah Palin is not a dominatrix.

Do you know how I know that? Because if she was, we'd have a safeword to get out of this scene.

I know, I know – the kink thing is a metaphor. But it’s a bad metaphor. It’s an overused, hackneyed, trite, hasn’t-been-edgy-since-about-1987 metaphor. It's a metaphor that would be suitable for, say, an in-flight magazine. On the late and unlamented Hooters Air.

Plus, a metaphor should be like perfume. It should be subtle. It should suggest. It should imply. But you have loaded this piece up with more kinky keywords than a cheap porn affiliate page, spreading them around like a wet, sticky glue to try and hold your premise together. The trouble is I’m not sure what your premise is. Your close states, “But in the end, I suspect most Americans will be driven by their pocketbooks, not their pocket rockets.” I agree that people vote with their big head, and not the one I have my spike-heeled foot on right this minute. So why then this masturbatory re-casting of the political scene?

I’m not one to slam an opinion columnist for trying - and failing - to write something fun and different. I myself have written columns that I now cringe to look at. We all flop now and then. But Mr. Kamiya – and I say this with all due respect, as one writer to another - you clearly don’t know a flogger from a Fuckzall when it comes to dominatrixes, kinky sex, or the BDSM community. Thus, you should stick to literary flights of fancy that, while perhaps not as titillating for you to type, are more within your realm of expertise. Leave the kinky parsing to the experts.

Signed,

An Actual Dominatrix

Labels: kink/sex in the news

Politics: Huh. Apparently the two qualifications for being vice-president of the United States are a) boobs and b) a snarky turn of phrase and willingness to mock people. Nice to know I have another career option open to me. Since, you know, I myself possess both those traits.

As an aside: I bet Sarah Palin really pisses Dick Cheney off. I mean, the Republicans picking such a seriously under-qualified candidate - it kinda makes him look like a First Lady with a jockstrap, doesn't it?

Now, I'm certainly going to be talking some about politics until the election. Just so you know, I am actually not a hard-left kind of girl. I think of myself a political moderate, a centrist. I vote Democrat because the Republicans won’t stay out of my panties. Not that I haven’t thoroughly enjoyed that on some private occasions. But you know what I mean: the sex/reproductive rights issues.

However, the kind of Republicanism being displayed at the RNC makes me feel like Michael Moore. Only with boobs.

Pop Culture: I saw Tropic Thunder, and I know there’s some unhappiness about their use of the word “retard”, etc. However, I thought it was quite funny, and some of my best friends… Okay, not really. But as far as I know, the gay community is not upset by Jack Black’s passionate soliloquy about the blow-job he’d give to Brandon Jackson. (I know I may never recover from it.) If that speech didn’t send the gay boys shrieking out of the theater, well, surely everyone else can get a sense of humor, too.

Media: I have said in the past that a man looking to sell sex work services to women will starve to death. Well, I still don’t think you should quit your day job. But I think there’s a tiny bit more opportunity there than there used to be. I know someone personally - one might even say biblically - who’s doing all right. Here's a story from a UK paper on the subject – just fluff, really. But a small cultural indicator just the same.

Also from the Times: people who don’t think divorces should be easy to get should read this: professional seducers in Japan give unhappy spouses a way out. An interesting niche of sex work - and certainly one with room for the guys. But even if the “Family Values” party – ahem, excuse me, something seems to be sticking in my craw here, cough cough - gets elected, I can’t believe Mr. Second-Marriage McCain would take the country this way.

There’s also a lot of fuss in certain circles about this piece. Hipster Hookers, in Radar. I don’t know why, because I have read about a million jillion articles just like it. Hell, I know people who've written entire books on the topic. Elevator pitch: “Sweet young thing is titillated by sex work, but realizes at the last minute that she’s not that kind of girl”. Fresh and edgy, huh? NOT.

She may not be cut out to be an escort, however I think the author would make a great stripper, because this article is all tease and no delivery. Also, I can’t believe she gave the madame money. "Naïve and Gullible, party of one!"

Okay, I think I'm done demonstrating what a good Vice-President I'd be. Did I mention that I have boobs?

Labels: kink/sex in the news, politics

Dear Mainstream Media,

Can we talk? Okay. You know I love you, but you have to get with it, image-wise. I have spoken to you before about this doomed love affair you’re having with the cats-eye mask…




I see that you can't seem to help yourself. But just stop. Using an image of someone in a mask like this to portray a kinky person is like showing a photo of this guy to portray the modern hippie movement.

I hate that collar, too - the model looks as if he's been styled by a pit bull breeder. And the red bowling shirt. And that dreadfully Billy Idol-ish faux-sneer.

Lord knows there are plenty of photos of bonafide, sexy-looking BDSM people around, can’t you use one of them?

With weary patience,

Mistress Matisse

P.S. It is nice that you’re running stories about how kinky people are not only not a bunch of emotionally damaged abuse victims - we may even be happier than non-kinky people. Thank you for that part. Now get with this decade, stock-photo-wise.

Labels: kink/sex in the news

Oh, this sort of thing makes me mad. Way to go, Christian educators. Granted, you don't have to like or employ the author of the sex blog, but could you not visit the "sins" of the mother upon her child? Especially when you already agreed not to? The "Catalina Loves" controversy.

Labels: kink/sex in the news

I am really pleased to see this…

“In a ruling with potentially wide implications for press freedom in Britain, a judge ruled Thursday that a tabloid newspaper breached the privacy of Max Mosley, the overseer of grand prix motor racing, when it published an article in March claiming that he had participated in a sadomasochistic “orgy” with a Nazi theme.”

The judge also said “…Mr. Mosley had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy for sexual activities that took place on private premises and that did not involve violations of the criminal law.”

I have commented before on Mr. Mosley's sex life. And this is happening in the UK, so of course it won’t have any legal effect here in the US.

But I like that phrase, “a reasonable expectation of privacy.” I think we should all consider that. Gossip about famous people is big business, and tabloid fare is comfortably distant from our own lives. But where does that mentality stop? What about our friends and lovers? What is their reasonable expectation of privacy? Because there is such a thing as harmless gossip – but there’s also information that one simply should not disclose about other people. But sometimes it happens anyway.

I’m not saying I’ve never gossiped about anyone. Of course I have, I’m human. But I’ve seen how it hurts people - and I’ve been hurt by it myself. It may be that one has to be on the wrong end of it before one really understands the power of hurtful gossip, and the responsibility to not engage in it.

So now, before I talk about Person A to Person B, I ask myself some questions, like: Did I experience this myself, or am I just repeating what someone else told me? Do I absolutely know this to be true, or is it even partly hearsay/supposition on my part? If the person I’m talking about was in front of me, would I be willing to say this to their face?

And the other thing about malicious gossip? It’s like negative political campaigning – it reflects badly on the speaker. My grandmother used to say, “No one looks pretty saying ugly things.” It’s one thing to be a little snarky, but if you really start slinging mud, some of that mud will stick to you. If I hear somebody talking trash and spreading rumors about someone else, I assume that given the opportunity, they’d do the same to me.

So you have to think before you open your mouth, because once you speak, the words take on a life of their own. It’s nice for Mosley that the court found in his favor, but that doesn’t remove the violation of his privacy from everyone’s mind. It’s easy to see a tabloid paper’s motivations for printing embarrassing gossip – it sells papers, and that’s all they care about. It isn’t so clear for individuals. Like so many other things in life, you have to continually examine yourself. What is my motivation for this? And is it a motive I’m proud of? Think about it before you speak.

Labels: kink/sex in the news, kinky life, relationships

I like this idea. But what's this "be gentle" nonsense?

Labels: kink/sex in the news

A Quick Event Note: Max is teaching at Babeland this Sunday, the 27th. "Bondage For Lovers". It's 7:30-9:30 PM, there's no experience required, it'll be fun and sexy! Pre-registration is required, though, and it will definitely sell out, so do not dally. (Or else you'll have to book private lessons with him, which are also big fun.)

***

Kink In The Media: As usual, while the mainstream media (and the psychology community) is far from totally enlightened and accepting of my life, they have no objection whatsoever to using our imagery to sell magazines. Thank you ever so, Psychology Today.

The piece isn’t even all about kink. It’s sort of a round-up of some “taboos”- including kink- and a discussion of how they are viewed in our culture. Lack of ambition is one of them, but a magazine with a picture of a guy sprawled on a couch probably wouldn’t fly off the rack the way this one will.

Reality check: I cannot recall the last time I saw someone wearing a little Zorro mask like that at a kink event. It might be, oh, never. If I did, I would probably snicker, frankly.

And you sure as hell wouldn't be throwing that single-tail anywhere near me with your field of vision so intruded upon.

What do I think of PT's most recent flirtation with BDSM? Eh, not bad. Nothing new or terribly insightful, simply the usual liberal-ish stuff about how BDSM is sort of okay - unless you Take It Too Far. I happen to agree with that statement in a general sense, but I’m sure my version of Too Far looks way, way different from Psychology Today’s. I mean, I’m just guessing about that, but – yeah. I’d bet money.

I liked this bit, though.

“Normal people may be nicer than average, but they also have character traits that aren't universally appealing. They're not adventurous. They're not above average in intelligence, nor are they outgoing. Truth be told, a lot of our best qualities are unusual…. Besides, they're what make us endlessly fascinating—and essentially human.”

As anyone who’s ever caught me in an irritable moment can attest, I am not uniformly nicer than average. But I’d rather be fascinating than normal, and I think most people I know, in my not-normal world, would agree.

Labels: events, kink/sex in the news, Max