Three of the only four certainties in life...

[felis_ultharus]

School

I began my researches in earnest this morning, hunting down articles on Timothy Findley. First time I've done anything on a Canadian author and there's been an embarrassment of riches.

The big academic English critics have all noticed Findley. Of course, since the big critics are all idiots, the articles are all idiocy wrapped in thick jargon. One postmodernist seems to have missed the fact entirely that the novel I'm studying mocks postmodernism. It's not even subtle.

Taxes

I have a confession to make. I've never filed a tax return. I don't feel guilty for this for the same reason they never bothered to contact me until last month: they owe me money for every year. One of the few joys of living far below the poverty line. I can still claim most of it, too ^_^

So I'm filing ten years worth of tax returns in addition to researching my essay, writing like a demon, and beginning work on an election, to say nothing of Christmas shopping.

I had to call up the tax hotline with ten years worth of questions, too, which led to this exchange:

Me: I just have a complicated question about common-law marriage.

Long-suffering tax guy: Okay...

Me: It says here that same-sex partners are considered common-law as of 1998, if you've lived together with them for a year. I was with my partner from early January 1997 to late January 1998, and does that mean he was a common-law partner? And what year do I report him as ? 1997? Or 1998?

LSTG: ...

I had to repeat the explanation, but he finally understood and said that since the status was changing around that time, everyone in a same-sex common law relationship around that time has the right to choose their status, whichever's more convenient. Since I have no way of contacting Michael, I'm going to put "single" down on the sheet.

Still, I might be able to claim him as a disabled financial dependant. Is the inability to budget a disability? I certainly was supporting him for most of that year.

Sex

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with it, but I don't think I'll ever understand the attraction of BDSM, though it seems that every second guy I meet is into it.

I'll admit that the train of thought escapes me: "Gosh he's nice, sweet, cute, and fun to be with. I want to hurt him." There seems to be smething missing in this equation for me.

Still, our current houseguest was once heavily into BDSM, as a "slave." He told us last night that he knew a guy who asked someone to dress up in a rubber suit and do the dishes and other housework for him.

The thought of having good-looking men in tight outfits wandering my house and doing housework is attractive, I must admit. I wonder if I can fake being into BDSM long enough to get the living room and bathroom clean...?

And will we now have to refer to Ward and June Cleaver as a "dom" and a "sub"?

Comics

Funny how an unhappy carton that sums up your own rotten mood can actually make you happy. My friend Sean put this one online at just the right moment for me. Been trying to turn it into an LJ icon, but it never comes out looking right:

Comments

On the attraction of BDSM

[em-fish.livejournal.com]

... I can't really speak for hardcore Doms, as I am a switch leaning towards sub (and not hardcore anything), but you seem to have some misconceptions about the world of SM.

Let's address the word "hurt", in juxtaposition with the list of admirable qualities someone finds in a lover. This makes it sound like SM deminishes in some way the respect and tenderness of a sexual relationship, when this is not the case. "Safe, sane, consensual" is a good rule of thumb, especially in casual BDSM play, but don't be fooled: there can be, and often is, more to it than just that. "Safe, sane, consensual" is too antiseptic and emotionally void to express the fullness of the bonding that can grow from power games between committed partners.

BDSM can inspire catharsis, it can force people to confront their "issues" in a safe environment, it can bring an anxious person comfort and it can make a meek person feel powerful. It can be a spiritual experience.

Now let's talk about pain. Pain is different from hurt. Hurt implies betrayal, violation, lack of consideration. True BDSM takes place in a space that is utterly respectful. Pain inflicted by a partner is not inherently bad, it is just a feeling, a sensation, pleasurable at best and neutral at worst.
It's strange for people to think of pain as morally neutral. In our everyday lives, pain is something that is imposed upon us uninvited: paper cuts, bee stings, car accidents. Imagining pain as a feeling to be welcomed and desired seems perverse, especially if we normally assign an inherent evil to it.

Re: On the attraction of BDSM

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

I wasn't judging it in any way. I was using "hurt" to mean "pain" -- those two things are interchangeable in my vocabulary. I certainly don't "assign an inherent evil" to it. I thought that was pretty clear from my post, but maybe I was wrong.

I don't like pain. I don't like inflicting pain. Whatever the motivation. Both make me unhappy. I have no doubt it can be a spiritual experience for others, but not for myself. Whenever it's been tried on me, demanded of me, it's turned a pleasant experience unpleasant.

Whatever it is that creates the catharsis in that situation doesn't exist for me. Whatever. To each their own. I was saying I didn't understand or enjoy it, not that it was wrong in any way.

Re: On the attraction of BDSM

[em-fish.livejournal.com]

I wasn't criticising you for not enjoying it, I just wanted to further your understanding.

Re: On the attraction of BDSM

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

Okay. Tone doesn't always come across in cyberspace, so I wasn't sure.

By understanding I meant I have no "visceral awareness" of it. I've heard the description of the experience by people in the community, and I have an intellectual awareness of the experience.

I just can't translate it into personal terms, except somewhat haphazardly, by cobbling together a number of other experiences, most of which are decidedly non-sexual (for instance, I can understand catharsis in other contexts).

I could even understand a certain amount of pleasure in submission. I am really more of a bottom, when it comes down to it.

But looking over our houseguest's pictures last night, I kept trying to picture myself in a similar situation, and it came out like, "All that leather and plastic would mean less skin-to-skin contact." And so often it involved distance -- frequently someone else held a whip, a rope, or something held from afar, or had him on a leash.

And I had to admit the sight of cuffs or manacles bothered me -- it's one of my biggest fears to be tied up, and even seeing it upsets me and stresses me out. And fear doesn't translate into desire for me. It just translates into misery, in my case.

And then there are the fantasies, which I've been asked to participate in a couple of times -- even they feel like a kind of handcuff. I know other people who consider them a form of freedom, and that's fine. But that's not me.

I'm just explaining myself. Sex is one of the most individualistic activities a human being participates in, and that's a good thing. Unfortunately, there's a fair bit of prejudice on both sides. I've been made to feel like a prude sometimes for being vanilla :/

[em-fish.livejournal.com]

It really stews my onions when I hear about people being jumped on for being vanilla. Understanding is a two-way street.

I am sorry I lectured you - my head hurts like I have been hit in the head with a sledgehammer, and has since yesterday, and it's making me feel agressive and clouding my judgement. Sometimes I feel like to putting on my monocle and pretending to be smrt, but I don't always pick the best venue.

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

You don't have to pretend to be smart, my dear. It's self-evident ^_^

And I'm sorry to hear how ill you are :(