Stumbling on Happiness - Part the First

For the past year or so I’ve been making occasional allusions to a great book with a really stupid title. Daniel Gilbert’s book Stumbling on Happiness sounds like it should be what the late Douglas Adams called a “Liff” – a book that claimed “this book will change your life!”

Gilbert makes no such claim. In fact, being a dry, acerbic wit that I can relate to, he actually tells you that you won’t accept his advice on how to become happy. He's probably right when it comes to stubborn asses like me, but it's useful advice nonetheless.

When somebody talks about “how to be happy” I’m immediately skeptical. My guess is that they are going to sell me a choice lot of horseshit that is little more than common sense, and call it profound. Fortunately Gilbert does not want to give us advice on how to do things to be happier….”eat better, get more rest.” He wants to tell us how the human brain works and how it processes information and how that affects one of three states we lump together as “happiness.”

Gilbert puts forward that most of what affects our “happiness” is our perceptions and handling of the future. He goes on to explain how, and why, we think about the future, and why we make mistakes that lead us to be unhappy. He then goes on to propose a remedy we probably won’t accept.

You can argue about emotions and theory all day long, but Gilbert is talking about firm, provable, mechanical facts about how the brain works. He’s simply not wrong. When he talks about our perceptions he’s defining things as provable as this famous illusion:

It’s a little scary to have the future so reduced, but he does it brilliantly, with tongue in cheek. If you can follow him, you understand a lot more about why we do the things we do, and along the way learn several tricks that are very useful to the M/s and BDSM lifestyles.

In the next several essays I am going to break down his basic principles as they apply to M/s and D/s.

For starters Gilbert explains

Why we think about the future.

On one hand, thinking about the future is pleasurable. Studies confirm that when people daydream about the future “they tend to imagine themselves achieving and succeeding rather than fumbling or failing.”

The bad news? “Researchers have discovered that when people find it easy to imagine an event, they overestimate the likelihood that it will actually occur.” Statistically that biases us towards un unreasonable optimism.

Right now you’re probably thinking “that doesn’t sound like my sub.” The converse is true. We think about the future in order to avoid bad things. “People who seek treatment for their inability to stop thinking about the future are usually worrying about it rather than reveling in it.”

Does that sound familiar? In a community where trauma is not an unknown, how many times have we held the hand of a partner who is cursed with anxiety, and not the good kind.

Gilbert explains why we think negatively about the future:

The Paralysis of Negative Anticipation

“First, anticipating unpleasant events can minimize their impact.” If you want to read about the studies that support this buy the book…the short version is that it’s true.

This is fertile ground. We’ve all dealt with girls (or boys) who simply would not look on the bright side or embrace opportunity because it hurt too much. Better not to hope or dream and not be disappointed. It affects Masters too, and can cause a paralysis of anxiety that is one of the most common reasons a submissive seeks a Dominant partner. The need to have a controlling influence to break that paralysis.

It’s easy to tell someone “well just jump into deep water.” And so terribly easy to become frustrated when they seem to be unable to. Our own experience teaches us that there is no joy and happiness without risk. Why do our submissive partners not see this.

Let’s define the qualities of a Dominant – someone who tends to bend things with their will. Now we all know that “Submissive” doesn’t mean “beta.” The world is full of strong willed girls who aren’t submissive to anyone else. Many submissive are strong, brave, and make good leaders. But on some level the characteristic of Submission is a to be conservative in regards to certain types of personal choice. To seek protection and shelter not to risk it all.

We can’t, as much as we’d like to, simply pitch them into deep water and teach them to swim. Sometimes we can and must do that, but if we do it without any base-work we are courting disastrous failure. The basis for any D/s Relationship is to build a solid foundation of trust and care that makes the submissive partner feel safe jumping into deep water. That is critical to offsetting their tendency to think of the future negatively or pass up opportunity in order to minimize the chance of hurt.

The Benefits of Negative Anticipation

Whether one is a proponent of Capital Punishment or not, I am willing to hazard that fear of the noose or being put in the hot seat has kept more than one of our fellow men alive who otherwise would now be pushing up whatever it is that cemeteries allow you to grow on graves in these diminished days.

In short, the other reason we think negatively about the future is that it actually allows us to avoid consequences. Humans don’t have to have their left hind foot snapped off in a trap to learn to avoid things that are made of steel and smell of oil.

Gilbert says “in short we sometimes imagine dark futures just to scare our own pants off.”

With this benefit comes a danger. Humans have a frighteningly long childhood. One theory of evolution suggests that a slow maturation rate is a random mutation that is responsible for much of human intelligence. Whether that’s true or not, we do a lot of thinking and learning before our adult personalities are fully formed.

Not surprisingly this means we learn some important lessons while our personalities are still that of a child. The things we learn are the root of most of our paraphilias. They are deep and complicated and often seem simpler than they are.

One thing we often see is aversion…the personality that avoids a specific common thing because it learned differently. If it was Daddy’s habit to beat you with a stick every time he did gardening, Roses may strike one much as a steel trap strikes the three-legged fox.

All this is obvious and if it was all that this book had to say we’d consider ourselves out a few bucks, but this is just laying the groundwork.

The Allure of Control

In investigating the “why” of “why we think about the future” Gilbert suggests and obvious truth. We don’t think about the future to have a pleasant entertainment. We think about the future in order to do something about it. Start a fire before it gets cold, take an umbrella if it will rain or shift money out of bonds before interest rates skyrocket.

He asks the apparently obvious question of “why should we want to have control over our future.” He then posits two answers one right and on “surprisingly wrong.”

“The surprisingly right answer is that people find it gratifying to exercise control – not just for the futures it buys them, but for the exercise itself. Being effective – changing things, influencing things, making things happen – is one of the fundamental needs with which human brains seem to be naturally endowed, and much of our behavior from infancy onward is simply an expression of this penchant for control.”

Hear that Doms and Dommes? It’s natural.

Now, here is the interesting thing. Gilbert goes on to talk about the risks involved in loss of control. “Human beings come into the world with a passion for control, they go out of the world the same way, and research suggests that if they lose their ability to control things at any point between their entrance and their exit they become unhappy, helpless, hopeless, and depressed.”

So, let’s remember for a moment that this is not a statement about Doms. It’s a statement about humans. Stupid word games aside, last time I checked that includes your submissive or slave.

Gilbert cites some rather scary research. Patients at a nursing home who were given a plant statistically lived longer if they had the responsibility of caring for it – 30% to 15%. If those odds hold true as a Master I should never die.

But…that’s not the chilling part…they did another experiment where students visited a nursing home. Some patients got to tell the students when they could come and visit others just got visited on the students’ schedule. Those in the high control group reported being “healthier, happier, more active and taking fewer medications” than those with little control. Remember these are abstracted studies so this isn’t random hearsay…there are careful inventory and analyses for these things.

So…same result. Only in a followup after they discontinued the experiment, they found a disproportionately high number of the patients in the high control group died in the ensuing six months. A significant enough number to convince the researchers something they hadn’t thought to test…that losing control has a more negative impact than never having had it at all.

‘These and other findings,” says Gilbert “have led some researchers to conclude that the feeling of control – whether real or illusory – is one of the wellsprings of mental health.”

Gilbert spends a bit of time exploring how we often behave towards random events as if our control matters. People will bet more on a game of chance if they pick the number or roll the dice, even if there is no statistical ability to influence the outcome.

What does this mean for BDSM? I see a couple of immediate fallout observations.

1) Having a dominant to exercise control may in many cases fulfill a need to limit the impact of the unpleasantness of losing control by refusing to take any.

The downside to this is something we experience all the time. A submissive or slave who is willing to “give up control,” but bridles at “taking orders” when those orders involve doing something that is challenging. If we understand that this is a motivation to experience control we can understand that limitation better

2) A D/s Relationship that is going to be non-egalitarian should start that way. We’ve all heard of couples where they “slowly came round to an M/s dynamic. “ In practical terms taking away a partner’s control is likely to provoke resentment and upset. State the terms of a relationship clearly.

3) We may exert control over a Submissive, but we know that their mental health is dependent on their feelings of control. Very few people really want to lose all control. What they actually want is to exchange some control for a feeling of safety and security. Often what we are really doing is creating a solid basis from which those who have had control ripped away, or have never had much and are scared to experiment with it, or fear a loss of control can feel “safe” while going experimenting with using control. We create an environment where someone who has had problems with control can experiment “a little at a time.” But contrary to all M/s literature, it’s unlikely that in most cases completely depriving our partners of all control is really what is desired, except inasmuch as that may be an act of taking control.

The Surprisingly Wrong Answer

The next thing which Gilbert investigates is the surprisingly Wrong answer to why we try control the future. “We insist on steering our boats because we think we have a pretty good idea of where we should go, but the truth is that much of our steering is in vain – not because the boat won’t respond and not because we can’t find our destination, but because the future is fundamentally different than it appears through the projectiscope. “

Gilbert likens this to other illusions – those of eyesight and memory, and puts forward an explanation based on how the human brain actually works.

Gilbert’s Central Thesis

In the book, Gilbert holds his central thesis till the end. He projects, correctly, that it is an answer that most readers probably won’t and can’t accept. In the remainder of the book he details painstakingly why we aren’t actually all the good at projecting how our future will be, and then proposes a better method for making decisions about what will bring us happiness…alas, his answer is one that, however practical, most of us will have a hard time digesting.

As time permits, I’ll build on this essay, and detail the remainder of the interesting and creative points that this fascinating look at how our minds actually work

.....More to come

Californication and M/s

Californication

I don't really love TV shows all that much. I tend to let them go for a year or two then watch all the episodes in three weeks. I like to take the lead on the literature and ideas in my life, but I'm inclined to let girls take the lead on television...it just doesn't seem like an area where I need to exert control. Possibly I reject the typical male dominance model a little too hard, but I tend to leave the girls to play with the "penis" as the remote is affectionately termed.

My most recent fixation, largely due to S., has been Californication, written by Tom Kapinos and directed by Ken Whittingham. I think if I hadn't gotten my shit somewhat together I'd be Hank Moody. But less successful. Being a fuckup is so much more attractive when you're a wealthy author. At any rate I dress like Hank Moody.

Anyway...the show follows the adventures of a Bukowskiesque (is that even a fair word) writer named Hank Moody. His agent Charlie Runkle is the typical kind of bland guy who tries to be cool but benefits from the cool company he keeps. He's George Costanza from Seinfeld, dressed for L.A. He's not entirely uncool but...his cool moments are outweighed by his awkward.

So there was one scene that made me laugh out loud...really. The backstory is that Charlie's (Evan Handler) secretary has been pushing him to BDSM games. We eventually find out she wants his connections not his hot body and isn't as subby as she comes across, but that's later. In the meantime, he has her crawling around on the floor, when his wife Marcy comes in. She pretends to be looking for an Advil and actually finds it, easing tensions since Marcy is pretty clear something weird is going on. Marcy (Pamela Adlon, above in the scene) has a disappointing quickie with Charlie.

Later in bed they have this scene. It's probably funnier to watch...if you have Netflix on Demand it's Season 1, Episode 6: Absinthe makes the Heart Grow Fonder and starts at 16:44

Charlie: Although I must admit when you said that thing about her being my slave, it did get me kinda thinking...

Marcy: Thinking about what

Charlie: (halting and shifty) mmm...ohhh...y'know...roleplaying master slave, dominance submission bondage...y'know we never tried any of that stuff...

Charlie: Just trying to y'know mix things up a little bit, like you did today

Marcy: okay. Okay, hear ya. So...you want me to beat the crap outta you?

Charlie: uhhhhh...I dunno...if you want...I guess...or (laughs neverously) you know I could beat you up. Whichever you prefer. Or...nobody has to beat anybody up. we just...there's a master and a slave, right...and the slave does whatever the master tells it to...

Marcy: HER...being me...your slave...

Charlie: In that example...uhh...yeah...

Marcy: okay...(closes eyes) so whatta ya want me to do?

Charlie: Uhh...whatever...y'know...whatever makes you happy right. Maybe you want me to make you wear a ball gag in your mouth...or...maybe you would want me to drip hot candle wax on your nipples. Or maybe you like to be teased. You know I could bring you to the brink of orgasm without ever letting you cum.

Marcy: I feel like we've done that

Charlie: Or...y'know...mmm....maybe you want me to pee on you.

Marcy: Why would I want you to pee on me?

Charlie: I dunno...it's just...I know there's people that do that. Okay, that's all

Marcy: Look baby...I'm in...just...start doing some shit to me, we'll see where it goes.

Charlie: Look we should probably have a safeword...so y'know I know what your limits are.

Marcy: How about "Don't pee on me."

Charlie: That...should work...

Marcy: (He hits her open handed on the ass) "OW GOD DAMM IT...FUCK"

Charlie: "Sorry sorry..."

Marcy: "That Hurts!"

Charlie: "I'll rub it I'll rub it.."

Marcy: "Don't touch it...

Scene fades.

So...my first reaction was to think "aren't you glad you didn't have to discover BDSM in this awkward a fashion." Uh...for those of you who didn't. I think at some level it resounds for most of us because we all started somewhere.

My second reaction was "Holy shite...safewords. Ball gags. 'Master/slave' with a slash that was pretty much audible. The slip on 'it,' which Marcy catches." This is not a passage written by people who saw BDSM once in a movie. This is people who know the language. And they're exposing an American audience to it (albeit largely the same fairly sophisticated audience that watched Weeds and Dexter).

Still, even though the scene was silly and somewhat disparaging, I thought it was good. The idea that moderately normal people might introduce these things into the bedroom to "mix it up," was at least put on the table, and if it was poked fun at...well that's what the show does. Comedy increases familiarity which makes things which are strange and scary not so strange and scary.

So...amusement for the week. Something serious next, but I haven't posted for a while, and I thought I ought to start with something light...

RIP Jack McGeorge, and the Instinct for Humiliation

Jack McGeorge

This is the last place anyone in the kink community will read it, but Jack McGeorge has died. While I did not agree with everything that he had to say, I always found him a powerful, provocative, and solid presence, and have a great deal of respect for him on many levels. I was proud to be a member of a community that included him. I was proud recently when he positively commented a Fetlife Post I made on Leather History. I admired him and felt he was a role model for living bravely and "out" in the world. I did not know him well, though we spoke several times. I will be the least of those miss his presence at the MsC.

So...I am back down to crossposting my Fetlife Posts again. I was determined to get some new material up before the fall kink events, but the next two weeks of my life are...hectic. I have two posts coming up, but neither is quite ready for prime time.

On the other hand, in answering a question from a newbie on Fetlife, I ended up fully developing a set of ideas I have had congealing in my mind for a while. Attractive word that "congeal." The ideas could stand better polish, but having nothing else to offer, I decided to put them forth here, if nothing else so I don't lose the thoughts.

If nothing else, since the original poster was a foreign language speaker, I tried to use good, simple, English, which is a challenge for me.

The Instinct for Humiliation

My thesis:

Many people think that the motivations behind desiring humiliation are unhealthy. I do not.

• I think humiliation is hard for us because we live in an egalitarian culture, where we are taught that even submission is dirty and wrong, and that self-abasement in submission is doubly wrong. But our emotions did not read the Constitution, and know only that we have deep needs we seek to fill.

• I think that humans desire submission because it brings them a feeling of control in life, safety and acceptance.

• I think that humiliation is a more pro-active form of submission, and in some ways a perfection of it. I think humans crave humiliation when their need for safety and acceptance through submission is very deep.

• I think it is often associated with trauma, because experiencing trauma and the losses associated with it usually provoke a very deep seated craving for control, safety and acceptance.

• I think that the need for humiliation can and does become muddled with trauma if the trauma was sexual in nature. I think that can increase the shame and internal conflict that accompanies humiliation.

• I think that humiliation, like surrender/submission, and most other forms of BDSM is part of a search for psychological wellbeing. Because it is poorly understood, it is often poorly answered.

To go into a bit more detail:

All humans crave control. But we also know that many humans have gotten by through adapting to bad situations. And our need for control is answered in fulfilling our needs for food and shelter, which we abstract as "safety." Our emotional health is governed by how safe we feel. Throughout history populations were captured, enslaved and so forth. Men and Women.

Submission is an act which promotes safety and security under difficult circumstances,whether it is professing to a primitive King who we were born to, or a foreign invader who has taken our lands. Humans tend to band together and serve a leader. We are tribal

Submission is an expression of tribalism, and humiliation is an expression of the desire for tribe.

If you look through history, acts of humiliation are most often seen in four contexts:

• Acts by the defeated and minorities to buy their survival
• Acts of religious devotion
• Acts of devotion to a leader, Lord, Master, King.
• Acts of devotion to a lover

I think that the act of enduring/actively seeking humiliation is tied to the basic instinct of surrender, making it sharper and more powerful. And that the instinct of surrender is an expression of a basic desire for safety and security.

If you look at history, the most extreme acts of humiliation are often performed by those demonstrating their devotion. Religious ascetics. Knights. Those joining secret societies. In all cases the person being humiliated experiences a powerful emotion in response. A sense of rightness and place that is often confusing and often described differently, but always seems tied to some emotional comfort.

The rush that is described in the Chansons de Geste of a knight carrying out humiliating self-deprivation, or casting off his pride and abasing himself at the feet of a lady...the emotions strike me as exactly the same as the rush of excitement and self surrender that a man might describe at the feet of a Domme.

I think we like to believe that the act of a monk being scourged or wearing a hair shirt is different from a girl being spat on and forced to suck cock. We want to believe that the eros-tied rush that the girl experiences is different from the pure burning of shame in the monk. But is it?

Isn't it strange that in old manuscripts even the vague feeling of pride associated with humiliation is the same. In a strange way the girl is actually proud of her actions, while feeling no less burning shame. The monk is at least supposed to feel shame and humiliation yet is proud of them, and time and time again we find the monk cautioned to feel the actual humiliation not the pride that goes with it. In each case I think that if it is not merely play acting, but a true deep experience, the same frantic burn and rush is present.

I think that the instincts are the same. The most powerful love stories often contain the strongest descriptions of humiliation. The...burn...the rush...that comes from letting go and sinking into that state. Is very powerful. Most often girls tell me that they don't know exactly what they get from humiliation but it fulfills a need. If they can say anything they say it makes them "feel in their place." I think that is because a sense of place that relates to comfort and safety is a bit more abstract than most of us can lay a finger on in this day and time.

Because we are capable of thinking in abstractions, a tendency to humiliation does not need to be directly answered by a Master for us to feel some emotional need to perform it and receive some abstract comfort from it. It is better and more perfect if there is an object/recipient, and better still if that object is tied to our safety and wellbeing.

I mete out and inflict humiliation to, and receive reactions from some of those who submit to me and I do not feel in any way conflicted about it. The more strongly humiliated...the more powerfully abased... a girl feels, the more they may become able to accept comfort and safety that is hard for them to experience in any other way.

The Lion the Witch and the Strap-On...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Gays and the Danger of Going Against your Nature...a provocative finding....

Last night I was, ironically, at Trio in Dupont (the stronghold from which we try to watch the Drag Race every year) when I saw the print version of the Washington Post Website (my cute name for Post Express...live with it) proclaim: Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy. and pointed this out to M. who said "well duh..."

So nobody that I know is very surprised that in a recent APA vote S. worked at APA (American Psychological, not American Psychiatric) for a number of years and the attitudes there were very sane, and generally a lot more progressive than I think the "in the field" point of view. She had the honor of meeting and working around some people like Phil Zimbado, who carried out the famous Stanford Prison Study. She also got to hang out backstage at the APA convention and hear stories about the bad old days when APA board meetings were generally conducted like meetings of the Agrestic City Council (yes, a media reference from me), at least in terms of solubility.

So. Not...shocked...at....all...that

In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation." Wow must be fun to be one of the four who opposed it.

So it's now official, you can't give people therapy and teach them not to be gay.

This isn't the first time APA has come out against gay-curing therapy, but it's the most scientific and strongest. But that isn't what interested me.

APA went on to say: No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

Interesting. So, if you try to therapize people to go against their basic sexual nature they might get depressed or suicidal.

Now. I want to stress something. I'm not a scientist, I'm a writer. I understand well that pseudoscience is a thing of "taking real science and running with it." I'm not trying to do that.

But in five years of talking to human beings, reading blogs, and trying to learn how the mind works, I've increasingly come to the personal, radical, opinion that trying to force people to go against their basic sex drives is a bad idea. I have seen more misery, shame and frustration caused by that than almost anything else I've encountered.

And in many cases the sexual behaviors that we are talking about are ones that are either in the DSM-IV or were until recently.

When I started beating girls, it was still a sickness according to the books. Wikipedia (I'm lazy) tells us that: "the American Psychiatric Association modified the criteria of sadism and masochism in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) in 1994 so that consensual sadomasochistic behavior alone is no longer considered to be a sexual disorder. In the DSM-IV TR, published in 2000, sadomasochistic behavior can be diagnosed as a disorder if the patient "has acted on these urges with a non-consenting person" or "the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty" [6] [7]. As a result, consensual sadomasochism can no longer be considered a disorder unless it causes severe difficulties in the patient's life.

That was only ten years ago...

But we still have that scary...

the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty

Hear that...if your need for fulfilling your sexual desires through beating or being beaten, or any of the other palette of fetishes that drive our deepest inner workings twists you around and makes you change your life...you're sick. According to the DSM.

And so we said about homosexuality until the DSM-II in 1968. "Ego-dystonic Homosexuality" remained on the books in some form until it was finally eliminated from the DSM-III-R in 1987.

So...finally it was not sick if you had to rearrange your personal life and relationships to accomodate the fact that you wanted to fuck men.

Wikipedia goes on to say that:

The results of the newer studies have led to calls to abolish sadism and masochism as disease categories completely, arguing that the truly pathological forms are adequately covered by other diagnoses. The BDSM subculture added another dimension to this drive by highlighting claims of discrimination and its potential, and by referring to the precedent of the previous removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders [5].

As of course, I'm doing right now. Not an original thought, but one that bears repeating and reinforcing. But that's not entirely my point.

The DSM-V is due in 2012. I look forward to the hope that things that drive the lives of myself and my friends will cease being considered illness and that one day I can be officially as much of a normal person as Ellen DeGeneres or Harvey Milk. In the meantime, life goes on, I go to Camp, I meet people and understand this on an empiric level.

The thing that I think is most interesting about the recent APA decision is the finding of potential harm.

We know historically that trying to force left handed kids to be right handed fucks them up. We know that trying to force kids not to masturbate fucks them up. But I think it is time to strongly consider going one step further and suggesting that not allowing people to indulge thier sexual instincts fucks them up. Whether the instict is to stick their cock in another man's ass, or be hit.

Human sexual behaviors are complicated and we don't always understand where they come from. We've only been working on the issue with serious tools for about 120 years, and I've only been working on it for five-ten in my personal-empiric way. But it is my prediction that we will someday see a strong indication that trying to force people to simply repudiate their sexual drives is not a very healthy thing. Channel, redistribute, maybe.

In "the smart book with the stupid title" Stumbling on Happiness, which I quote so often that I need to start a series of analytical posts on it, Daniel Gilbert suggests that everyone seeks happiness at all times, even suicides. Everyone is actively engaged in acts they think will make them happier. Acts of self-destruction or self-degradation are often acts that, to the psyche, promise to limit future pain. Animals don't commit suicide because they lack the ability to imagine they'd be in less pain if they would. Humans hurt themselves for a variety of complex reasons, but I firmly believe that very few of them are pathological in any meaningful way.

I think that this particular finding adds fuel to the current call to declassify most paraphilias, but going further I think it suggests that we need real research into just how harmful it is to ignore our "paraphilias" to sweep them under the carpet or attempt to discipline ourselves out of them.

"It was all on the Cover of Newsweek..."

"I'm on my way..."

So this is one of those weeks when I don't have time to tie my shoes (for which I have an elegant solution), but I wanted to post very quickly with this article for anybody who missed it. It's unique for two reasons. First, it's a very positive coverage of poly lifestyles. Second, it's the first time I've seen a major publication treat it as anything other than a weird thing that some weird people off in weirdland do. This article comes pretty close to acknowledging that poly is becoming a common American lifestyle for normal middle class people. And it mentions Tristan which amuses me.

For my part of course, I have strong feelings. When divorce became acceptable in the 1950s and 60s, I think it was a "great leap forward" (apologies Chairman). But also a pretty profound negative. I mean, let's all cheer, we don't have to have one miserable relationship till the end of our lives. All we have to do is be willing to hurt the people around us and fuck our lives up, and make a horrible choice between the new sexual adventures we are driven to, and a partner we love and care about. The divorce rate suggests just how much people were willing to pay for that little bit of freedom. But...it's like abortion. It may be better than the alternative, but nobody thinks it's a particularly good thing, except maybe Marla Singer (sue me I feel literary today).

So now we're finally coming around to the idea that it might be healthy to have multiple relationships that support multiple needs. That the roles of romantic lover, source of security, indulgence, disciplinarian, partner can all get juggled around. It seems like a no-brainer.

At some point I'll share my amateur sociological ramblings on why this is good, and why we can do it today but couldn't do it in 1740 (and how the fact that some people did anyway generally proves the point). For now, read and enjoy:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/209164

Excerpt:

It's enough to make any monogamist's head spin. But the traditionalists had better get used to it.

Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city. Over the past year, books like Open, by journalist Jenny Block; Opening Up, by sex columnist Tristan Taormino; and an updated version of The Ethical Slut—widely considered the modern "poly" Bible—have helped publicize the concept. Today there are poly blogs and podcasts, local get-togethers, and an online polyamory magazine called Loving More with 15,000 regular readers. Celebrities like actress Tilda Swinton and Carla Bruni, the first lady of France, have voiced support for nonmonogamy, while Greenan herself has become somewhat of an unofficial spokesperson, as the creator of a comic Web series about the practice—called "Family"—that's loosely based on her life.

Pimping

Back in March when it was cold outside, S. circulated an article in the Washington Post
to me that we thought was very amusing. It was about how a sex store was opening in Old Town, despite the histrionics and aneurisms of the local high hats. This was just amusing. The shop also got coverage in the Alexandria Gazette (one of the oldest newspapers in the country).

To be honest, I never thought anything more of it. I do most of my shopping online from JT's Stockroom, Blowfish and the like.

However, I've also had some bad experiences ordering online. I've ordered toys that ended up being too big, or not of a good material, not because they were badly advertised, but just because it's hard to gauge these things online. There are times that you want to see merchandise, especially something like a hood or a piece of clothing, and there are times that you want to get an idea of the size and quality of a toy.

Leather Rack at Dupont Circle used to be my venue of choice. They were always better than Pleasure Place. But they also focused heavily on a gay male clientèle. The last time I was in Leather Rack, all I could say was "it looks like the recession has hit them hard." They seemed to be focusing on a few lines of stock and had very little general merchandise. It's possible they're just narrowing focus as well, but...they fell a good bit on my list of "places to shop."

That left me feeling as I had for a while that the only place to go for toys was Passional in Philadelphia. They're a great store, but also about a 5 hour round trip from DC, and I simply don't get through Philadelphia as much as it seems I used to.

Which left me a little high and dry. So this weekend at the end of a weekend trip I ended up in Old Town Alexandria for dinner with J. We were functionally broke at the end of a weekend, and mostly window shopping, when she noticed a toy store. I really figured it would be the standard run for a suburban lingerie store. Racks and racks of flimsy, poorly made, babydoll negligees; a rack of Doc Johnson vibes; and a little chained room in the back with a paltry stall of a few very basic toys.

This turned out not to be the case...

Le Tache compares favorably to some of the best stores I visited in San Francisco. At three levels, you don't realize right away how awesome it is, because the *kinky* stuff is in the back. Not in a little side room though. Half the basement and all the upstairs are given over to equipment.

And not just a few vibes. They have a really thorough lineup of just about every vibrator you could imagine. I won't say it's as big as the biggest online stores, but I have never seen as much equipment on the walls at one time, and the displays cover a huge wall and straggle upstairs and downstairs. It's a really tremendous selection.

They have a big selection of the fucking machines you can see at JT's Stockroom (which provides most of the stock I think) or Kink.com, cases of electrical play toys, cages...I was obscenely impressed.

And the atmosphere was friendly and clean. I think despite the protests it speaks to the fact that BDSM is becoming mainstream. When my mother operated a Lingerie store, I think it would have been a given that if a customer turned a corner and saw piston-driven fucking machines a la Kink.com, they would run away. It's clear that the average girl on the street today is not particularly freaked out by walking into a place that sells armbinders, or TENS units, and isn't likely to walk out even if all the stock is not something they'd want to play with.

The place is healthy and I like that. For all my perversions, I feel like at core WIITWD is something people should not be ashamed of, and that should be found in a boutique in Old Town, not just a run down building in a scary back section of town.

So...Washington (the area if not the city) once again has a really first rate Kink-Store.

The only negative I'll say is that compared to dealer prices at events, even by stores, some of the higher end items had a steep markup. But Old Town isn't a cheap district. On the other hand, there is a metal plug that I've been wanting for months but couldn't find on a shelf without going to Philadelphia. Le Tache carried the same toy in a friendlier modern silicone of some sort for $15. I may eventually get the metal plug but they were easy on the budget at the end of a weekend, and I like the idea of being able to experiment before laying down better than $100 for a toy.

Give them your business or shop online...if you're in Washington and want to see the quality of what you are buying, Le Tache is an excellent choice.