No, I don't mean the thing in my pants. I mean the thing who was my object for this past week. If that doesn't make sense, then read last week's blog at LeatherViews.blogspot.com for more information.
As a short refresher, thing and I were trying a week-long experiment in objectification. He agreed to a one-week contract that put him under my control, the purpose of which was to see if there was some agreement in what that kind of relationship would look and feel like and if such a relationship worked between the two of us.
It was a long distance relationship maintained by yahoo chat, instant messaging, email, a daily phone call, and an occasional webcam encounter.
I encouraged thing to submit as an experiment because words only demonstrate and explain so much. Most decisions, and certainly most of those concerning relationships, are best made when based on experience. We both wanted to get some experience.
The experiment was meant to answer many questions for both of us: Is objectification even possible? Are the feelings it engender pleasing to both? What does it involve? Do we communicate well enough to sustain a relationship? What does it look like in terms of activity? Do we like and understand each other? What obstacles hinder the development of objectification and are they surmountable?
Do you recognize those questions? If you use a term other than "objectification," they are the ones that any two people ought to ask themselves as they develop a relationship. Of course many of us fail to do so, since intimate relationships are often based on "falling in love" rather than letting love be one of several factors we use in the process of commitment making.
If we both decide that we want to continue, we will enter into a two week-commitment and an increase in control.
It's what my grandmother (Mommy Rose) used to call "upping the ante." Our family had a strong tradition of playing poker after holiday feasts. It was strictly penny-ante. You could always tell when Mommy Rose had a good hand because she would invariably ask my uncle how high she could bid. I think she was hoping she could raise everyone more than the three cent limit. She couldn't.
Poker was always "dealer's choice" so there would be all sorts of variations on the game. The real pot worth winning was when someone chose progressive poker. That meant if no one could open a hand with jacks or better, the next dealer had to play the same game, now openers were queens and there was another ante which increased the pot.
Relationships are like poker in many ways.
I do like the analogy for two reasons. First, I am a steadfast believer in "upping the ante" and secondly I see that healthy relationships are progressive.
I try my best to always begin negotiations for a relationship with the understanding that both of us are equal. I'm not in favor of this "I'm the master"' stuff when two people begin to discuss having a relationship. Unless negotiations are carried on between two equals, there is a high risk of there being faulty negotiations. Communication will tend to be one-sided, the bottom will be intimidated, and a lot of what ought to be asked and answered will instead be neglected.
Simply stated, the relationship starts after the negotiations, not before.
That first principle is then embellished by the second. As we negotiate and come to common agreement, we may indeed implement some part of our agreement, beginning a rudimentary relationship that will progress by degrees to a more complex one. Hence we "up the ante."
Defining a relationship by degrees, i.e., progressively, works because the progress can be built upon the knowledge the partners gain through experiencing the relationship. Time and talk build trust, thereby allowing comfort levels to increase and which allows for the deepening of the relationship. The operative idea here is incrementally.
This myth of "whole hog" is bunk. It is amazing how many potential partners, consciously or not, feel that it's all or nothing and right away. I will even grant you that there are tops and bottoms that think that's how it should be.
Even while I was writing this blog I received this email: "In Your profile many of Your likes sound exciting to me. I am not [an] experienced slave/bottom however, yet willing to try most of the items from your list. Not all of them though! You wrote about total control and objectification but I can't a priori agree to everything. If despite of the above You wanted try to enslave and objectify me, I am willing to subject to your power for a weekend. Sincerely, a candidate to learn how to please You."
This well-intentioned man (age 56) assumes that we will meet and play for a weekend without anything happening beforehand. No wonder I rant. Why don't people understand the need to negotiate? To build trust? To create a scene or a relationship only after clear communication and agreed upon activities?
On the other hand, I don't blame the guy who "is not [an] experienced slave/bottom." I blame us for not being clearer on the need for negotiations, for references, and for clear communications.
It's enough to make me want to give up SSC and RACK. Give me NR&CC!
Have a great week. I've got to write a two week contract for thing. He's willing to take the next step and I'm happy to oblige him.
You can send me email at firstname.lastname@example.org or visit my website at http://www.LeatherViews.com. You can also subscribe to my blog at LeatherMusings.blogspot.com. Copyright 2011 by Jack Rinella, all rights reserved.