Meteors as Metaphor
As it turned out, the meteors were, for us, a bust. Too much ambient light, too early in the evening, but both of us had to get up early, so we couldn’t make a 2am run, too.
In any case, what did come to mind is transparency, a concept I like a lot.
I talk about transparency a lot in classes. I believe that transparency doesn’t run both ways, and in fact, shouldn’t.
Transparency of the submissive to the dominant enhances and enforces the whole concept of the relationship, defines the dynamic.
You will keep nothing hidden from me, no part of you is to be shut away from me.
You will make yourself open and available to me. That is my expectation, and transparency is one of the tools.
I view transparency in this way: you are not obliged to share every thought that passes through your head. However, you may not keep anything from me, and if there is something about which I should know, it is your responsibility to tell me about it.
My responsibility to you, however, is different.
I do not owe you the same thing. I may have things I don’t choose to tell you because they don’t concern you, or because I don’t feel like sharing them, or because I have plans about which you do not need to be informed.
On the other hand, if I am always unwilling or unable to explain my motives, plans, and reasoning, I am probably going to end up with very few slaves in the end.
My rule of thumb is, I’m pretty willing to explain my reasoning and my motives, so long as the request is made courteously and respectfully, and so long as the request doesn’t inhibit your obedience to me.
When I ask you to do something, you’re not allowed to get out of doing it by asking for clarification.
It also depends how big the issue is, in terms of how likely I am to give you a lot of my reasoning.
If I have made the determination that we are going to move to Alaska next week, then that requires a lot more “transparency” on my part, because that’s a big deal.
If I say, I’ve decided that I dislike Kroger’s politics, we won’t shop there anymore, that’s not something I feel compelled to justify that decision to you, and I expect you to abide by it.
I’ll probably tell you anyway, because I’m not shy about my opinion, but nonetheless, if I choose not to, then I expect the small letter side of the equation to abide by that without having to know the why of it.
I think that transparency needs change over time, too. The irony is, the more that you demand transparency from me the less likely I am to give it.
I was at an event a few months back and a man was talking about his “slave,” and referring to some of the problems they were having because “she was a switch.”
His example was that he had told her to go get dressed and she had said, “Why?” He had asked her for her keys and she had said “Why?”
I have to say that example raised the hackles along my neck.
I can imagine slave drew pretending he hadn’t hear me say get dressed, but I can’t imagine him saying, “Why,” particularly while he sat on his ass. Slave drew is slave drew.
I cannot imagine in any universe asking slave thomas for his keys and having any answer from him other than, “Of course, Mistress.”
And, when slave drew pretended not to hear, my looking at him over my glasses would be enough to start him moving.
So, I’ve just said I believe that I don’t owe the bottom transparency. Yet, in many ways, I probably tell more than many Tops.
slave drew would tell you I tell him much more about my motives than he has the slightest interest in.