Fistandantilus

Fistandantilus 38M Dom (San Francisco, California)

Fistandantilus

maymay is a douchebag, and here's why 0 Comments

Note by Fistandantilus FetLife Support Badge about 1 hour ago

So here he goes again, and since he's decided to use parts of our conversation in the public sphere, here is the whole thing. Mind you, it took him saying something like the following to make me call him out publicly for being such a fucking weak-ass male submissive that he makes male submission look bad:

"I was simultaneously proud of how well I had remained civil, even friendly, and angry about the ease with which I was able to do so. My behavior was far too familiar to me. I had covered up my discontent for the sake of sociability before, but not at The Armory".

RLY?

Here's what we had to say to one another four months ago:

written 4 months ago:

Me:
My sister Lilac has been a fan for some time, and has had me read many a blog from you, so it was nice to say hello at Bawdy last night.
Until next time,
Saxon

maymay:
Good to meet you, too, Saxon. :) I gather Lilac is impressed by my writing, for which I am flattered. How do you feel about what you read?
Also, can you elaborate on your meaning regarding "sister"? I ask because it is a word I've heard used in a number of different ways, with numerous different meanings, and it would be awkward at best to misunderstand you in this instance.
Cheers,
-maymay

Me:
She is...there was a total squee moment at Arse Elektronica. :)
Lilac is my leather sister and sole sexual partner. Our usual dynamic is one of siblings, we've made a blood pact like middle school buddies, we're the only ones who have never lied to the other, and we are essentially equals who participate in D/s relations and leather spirituality. We enjoy the perversity of having people think that we might actually be related, but it is mainly a title that indicates our bond, which is greater than that of boyfriend/girlfriend, or dominant/submissive, and doesn't have the inherent power inequality as daddy/girl, which we also occasionally play. At times, the Brother and Sister titles assume a monastic quality as well.
Regarding how I've found your writings, there is usually something to agree with and something to disagree with in every blog I've read (I should point out that I'm not a huge blog reader, however, and have not read them all). You make decent arguments that are obviously from a good mind, and I wholeheartedly support all factions of the community hashing out differences and speaking to the issues that concern us, but at the same time I tend to align as true neutral, playing devil's advocate to all sides.
For example, with your latest entry. You can tell from my profile pics that I spend quite a bit of my playtime at the armory...good digs, free booze and snacks with no cover, professional photography of good memories...and I know all the people who are involved fairly well, from Peter and John Paul to Jack Hammer and Nicky/Nicki Blue (and Maggie). I fully realize that the company (it's actually something like Cybernet, Inc.) is there to make money, but I also know that few people there, if any, are actually sexist, and that they are truly there because it is what they enjoy. My almost ex-wife went on Public Disgrace, arguably one of the more potentially disturbing of the kink.com sites, and found it to be a rewarding and ego-building experience. I have seen Peter show true concern towards models having a hard time, and the rules regarding models and outsiders become more strict to prevent problems, so I do not doubt that he regrets the wording or how it was perceived, and as of this morning the countdown banner now reflects that. Furthermore, the consumers of these experiences, some of whom I have also gotten to know outside this space, seem very respectful on the whole as well, and when some in chat have become rude (as opposed to sadistic or just crass), it is often the case that other customers will encourage decorum, should the kink staff not kick them out by then, so all parties are educating one another on these expectations. On the particular issue at hand, it was Nicky who brought up her 'real live' virginity on the kink forums, long before there was talk of her losing it on the site, and who equated her hymen with proof that she had never been vaginally penetrated, and so, when reading the press release linked from Maggie's blog, I was not particularly surprised at how it was stated, because it mirrored what customers had been prepped for by Nicky herself. We were invited to the event, and would have declined even if we hadn't had something else going on that night, because it kind of squicked us. We have spoken privately about Nicky not being the kind of with-it woman who might be a better representative of female submission, as well, but I don't view the company as showing such a lack of corporate responsibility that they deserve so much vitriol, because even as you say they are selling a non-material fantasy, and that there is nothing wrong with said fantasy, you decry the fantasy in the release, which is actually accurate in that it is what people would be buying. To expect a company to say, "Here's the steak...a woman who says she has never had a penis in her vagina is going to have a penis in her vagina" and "Here's the sizzle...Nicki Blue will have her virginity sacrificed for your viewing pleasure by whatever cock you want!" in a release is a bit much for me. A press release by a company is ALWAYS advertising, and no more, and I would no more expect scientific truth and perfect social ethics in a release from kink than I would expect my big mac to look as good as it does on television. That's my take on it, at any rate.
Respectfully,
Saxon

maymay:
I'm sorry I totally failed to notice the "squee" at Arse. :\
Thanks for clarifying the "sister" terminology.
As for your take on the press release, none of what you say is new information to me, and so does not change my opinion at all. Further, I think this is largely a matter of perspective. You seem to focus on concern for the performers. I have no concern for the performers. You don't seem to have much concern for the (largely ignorant) consumers. I do.
Your comparison to Kink, Inc. to McDonald's, however, is quite apt. The two companies are about as healthy for the average (largely ignorant) consumer. One deals in totally void nutrition. The other deals in totally void sexual fantasy.
Finally, I'd challenge that your personal experiences colors your view of the matter, not with regards to the company, but with regards to others take-away from it. You lead a life of sexual opulence. You are the "richest 2%" of America, sexually speaking. Do remember that continuing to cut your taxes at the expense of others is not only bad policy, it is bad ethics.
Finally, a point of clarification: I do not decry the fantasy in the press release. I decry the omission of a clear distinction between fantasy and reality in the press release.
Cheers,
-maymay

maymay correcting himself:
Whoops, there were mistakenly two "finally" points in there. My bad, but I think you can suss out the meaning for yourself. ;)
Cheers,
-maymay

Me:
Man, that was a rambling paragraph...apologies.
I do mention the consumers, and I believe that the most active involvement by those consumers, which is in the live chats, has been a force for good, precisely because it allows those who are not the 2% to interact with one another in a way that allows education to take place. The forums where Nicki began hymengate were largely monopolized by obviously ignorant people, most notably Nicki herself. Talk of the matter on the forums by kink employees was accurate and nonsensational. Having spoken with many viewers (not just in SF, but across the country and abroad) subsequent to shows, I have yet to speak to a single one who was actually as ignorant as you would have them be. They appreciate the sexy portrayal of fantasy, and they appreciate that it is fantasy. If judged based on only what was said in chat, some could be perceived as the sexist types you speak of, but are not so so easily judged when removed from that fantasy environment. Even in the forum postings, however, there is talk of the fantasy-inducing qualities of the performer.
Certainly, I am blessed to live in an area that has so many opportunities for the expression of my sexual predilections, but it is not my nature that drew me to the area. Rather it was the area that drew out my nature. I was one of those ignorant people who got a take-away from kink sites long before I'd ever spoken to somebody about my darkest fantasies. I saw manifested what had always been going on in my own head, which I was ashamed and scared of, and I saw that it could be done in an ethical and consensual manner. I didn't even recognize that I was dominant or sadistic until I saw James Mogul patterning a way to do that. Once I did, I could avail myself of the great educational opportunities that are all around us here, but without it, I would likely have remained someone who thought BDSM was for people who inexplicably needed props for sex. I never would have considered it the responsibility of that site to complete my kinky education any more than it is the responsibility of my kindergarten teacher to make sure I understood calculus, and this is a sentiment that I have heard expressed innumerable times by newbies to the scene. That is how I, and those others, came to understand that what we wanted could be what we have, and in true trickle-down fashion, that is why we champion it to others.
As a counter clarification, if I sell widgets, and I advertise, saying "here's my widget", I think you could agree that it is reality based. If I advertise saying "here's my awesome widget" I've stepped into subjective territory, and "here's my awesome widget, that will make you irresistible to the ladies" is subjective too, but that's the sizzle I spoke of, and which everyone over the age of 12 expects from advertising. It's no different than your (admittedly) intentionally provocative blog title. If what I'm selling, however, IS a fantasy, which is what you yourself say is being sold, then speaking of it in fantastical terms is actually accurate, and LESS misleading than "100% beef". Just because it isn't a fantasy that you or I happen to have is irrelevant, because in that case we are not the targeted consumer. It is not the job of Cybernet to produce everything you or I might want, or every fantasy that we might have. It is the job of Cybernet to sell what they make to the consumers that want it, and in that respect, kink.com has gone above and beyond what they "need" to do in order to be responsible about their influence in the community and the world.
If the issue is really just not labeling fact from fantasy in an advertisement, which every corporate press release is, then that is an issue that is much larger than the example used, and the focus seems misplaced. Caveat emptor works for porn advertising too.

maymay:
Another clarification: by "ignorant" I refer mostly to the issues I describe in The BDSM community ghetto and other cultural problems, a perspective I wholly believe you are completely blind to:
I didn't even recognize that I was dominant or sadistic until I saw James Mogul patterning a way to do that.
There is no quality equivalent for male submission represented by Kink, Inc. and this is why their consumers, like you, remain ignorant of the problems that are so painfully evident to me.
I won't address the rest of your arguments because they neither here nor there. You are defending fantasy and porn, neither of which I am not attacking.
Cheers,
-maymay

maymay correcting himself again:
Mistyped:
You are defending fantasy and porn, neither of which I am not attacking.
Should read "neither of which I am attacking."
Cheers,
-maymay

Me:
Actually, I had read that entry already, and suspected that was your real issue. I was mainly ignoring it because none of your arguments on the Nicki story had anything to do with it. You said you didn't like the conflation of fantasy and reality in a press release, so I addressed that with arguments about how the fantasy was the reality, and about what is expected in releases. You suggested care for the consumer, so I addressed that, pointing out the lack of ignorance in the viewers, the positive role that kink.com has had in education, and the results of those efforts in anecdotal evidence. The problem is that you are letting your preconceived notions and beliefs cloud the issues. That you don't respond to any arguments against your case, and even continue to use kink, inc instead of the factually accurate cybernet, inc, belies the intellectual dishonesty that is going on here.
To put a period on that debate, if the lack of content that you like is the genesis of your dislike of the press release, then I can point out that according to that logic, if IBM comes out with a new computer, they should put all the specs of every computer they've ever produced, have in production, or are thinking about making (to be realistic), and also that they should produce a computer that will be exactly what every potential consumer in the world might want, and talk about that too (to make you happy), either of which is patently absurd.
I'll also address your real issue: When it comes down to it, you don't like that you can't get the porn you want, with what you would call a valid perspective on male submission, or with the aesthetic that you get off on. But, you assert that you have never paid for porn, which might give you some influence on the content's survival in the marketplace, and you've refused to participate in porn, though you might have negotiated something that fit your criteria, and you have a blanket dictum on whatever comes out on kink.com, so you actually have no idea what is being produced or whether it would be up to your standards, and when offered a chance to speak with one of the producers directly and provide input, you refuse, and you're not, as far as I'm aware, producing your own porn that might satisfy your requirements (although you're aggregating that produced and/or paid for by others). The fact is that lifestyle dominant women show up at armory parties all the time, and nobody tells them what to wear or what to do with their submissives in tow. Some wear leather, some latex, some lingerie, some other things. The fact is that those who attend the parties range from 21 year old beauties to men and women over 60, and are fat/thin/straight/gay/bi and everything in between. The fact is that the consumers you say you so want to enlighten, love this diversity, and that the producers try to satisfy the demand inasmuch as they can, because it makes business sense and because they LIKE the community.
I saw your response to Maggie's blog, returning again to the hymen issue and ignoring the genesis of that statement. I've seen you ignore all counterarguments here, which I can only assume is because you don't have an answer, or that you don't really care about changing anyone's opinion through dialogue as much as you like having your point of view, with all of its "anger, bitterness, and sadness" validated, though you can probably agree at least pragmatically that those are not emotions that you want to be feeling.
It is far better to light a candle than curse the darkness, but to curse a darkness you don't actually know exists, because you won't come out of your house or take off the blinders, while shouting from the top of your lungs for the lamplighter to stay away is just not right. Calling it an appeal for social justice on top of that is simply disingenuous. I would encourage you to put aside emotion and ulterior motives, and view your own biases before maligning others, but I'd say the same thing to Glenn Beck. It is the choice of every grown up to decide which camp we want to be in; so, do you actually want to prevent assassinations on principle, or just when it's convenient for an argument?
(this is why I don't read a lot of blogs)

maymay:
Wow. As there are now an increasing number of inaccuracies in your characterization of me as there were when we started, I can only assume that you're either an idiot or I've got a lot more work to do in order to communicate successfully with you. I'll go for the later, since you appear intelligent.
However, I don't think I like you very much at all, and being compared to Glenn Beck is a red flag that any further conversation with you will be pointless. Have a pleasant day. Hopefully I'll find meeting with Chris K. productive, as, contrary to your presumptive assertion, I did not in any way "refuse" to speak with him, which you would know if you were at all capable of understanding simple English.
Please don't write to me again.
Cheers,
-maymay

Me (now):
Yeah, you're a paragon of sociability. You ignore the logical arguments and spout opinion. Now you're spouting intuition as being as valid as an observable fact, have the only negative quotes in your new blog entry being from VISITORS to the armory rather than from employees, and completely miss your own sexism when saying you questioned your gender identity because of your submissive ideas, something akin to saying a woman who likes being on top should consider if she wasn't actually meant to be born with a cock. And let me make this clear to you, if it's that hard to stay alive, perhaps you should consider the alternatives.

-Cheers

Comments

No comments have been left yet.
Be the first one to leave a comment.



View all advertisers

Want to advertise?

^ going up? ^