WII Is WII

No, this has nothing to do with a popular gaming console. I’d mention the manufacturer, but then the Search Engine Term results would undoubtedly reflect that false advertising. Hate to get a guy’s panties in a bind that there might be a BDSM video game.

No, WII is the first part of WIITWD, aka What It Is That We Do. It’s an acronym commonly used by those who participate in BDSM and/or D/s (are two / in a row allowed?).

As part of my self-education into WIITWD I read a lot. Granted, there is no substitute for first hand (heh) experience, but reading other’s thoughts help. I have a lot to learn, and I make no secret of this. If the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, I can still see the starting line from where Leigh and I stand now.

But its good. Fucking great, actually. As with so many other married couples we discovered that, in order to do WIITWD, the communication and trust required flowed over into other aspects of our lives. Both of us have found recesses of our psyches that, prior to D/s, we either did not know we had or, more likely, cared to admit were. Leigh grapples with love of good pain and the desire to be forced. I wrestle with Hyde and how sadistic a fuck he is. Sometimes he and Leigh’s inner Cock Slut play with each other. Things get…interesting.

So I read. Study. Learn. Try to grasp new philosophies, explore different avenues, acquire new techniques and skills. Learn what not to do instead of what to. Which leads me to the focus of this musing.

In my quest to learn I have noticed an overwhelming need on the part of Dominants to quantify everything. So many times while perusing blogs or web pages the phrase “What is..” comes up. Over and over to ad nauseum. Be it a defining statement or a leading question, it seems one cannot escape these two words while exploring the topic. Submissives are guilty of this as well, but not to the degree Dominants are.

Truth be told I learn a lot more about how to be a better Dominant from (pardon my adjective) lowly submissives than most if not all the Dominants put together. Submissives share their feelings, thoughts, kid’s illnesses, desires, experiences, recipes, YouTube playlist, poetry, pictures of their cat, toys they long for, toys they fear, reactions to what Sir or Madam has said, pout, emote.

Dominants, for the most part, read like an instruction manual or Intro To Sexual Psychology 101 course text. There are exceptions, for which I am glad. Without the Dominants who own cats and like YouTube I’d be frustrated beyond words. But even a great deal of their discussion about WIITWD has no life. It’s as dry as yesterday’s toast. Many times its merely pre-existing literature (I use that term very loosely) that has been reformatted from elsewhere. Sad to think the quote “Look, it’s a submissive and her Wiki” is not unreasonable. They trust their bodies, minds, hearts and souls to someone who thinks Google and not for themselves…

Am I frustrated? Not really. I’ve realized how good I have it with Leigh and that, even though I’m very wet behind the flogger in terms of experience, I’m alright as a Dom. I can definitely get better and damn well know I could be a lot worse.

The one thing that does rub me the wrong way (ironic coming from a Dom, huh?) is the apparent desire to define everything. I suppose it stems from the need within a dynamic to explain and set parameters, but still it feels all too syllabus like. No, I am not going to say there are (gag) gray areas. Even I have my standards.

Even with the acknowledgement that this phenomenon most likely is an outgrowth of expectations, there is a concrete quality to them. Cement is cold, impersonal and dull. Its even gray (heh).

So what do I think Dominance is? What makes a good submissive? What is submission?

That sentence right there will result in some Search Engine Terms finding us. Guaranteed. So when they do stumble across this page I want them to read this:

WIITWD stands for What It Is That We Do. It’s a term often used in reference to those who practice BDSM and D/s.

The We is you.

The kink community uses it. But that second W is referring to the set of eyes reading this, and the second set if my humble thoughts are being honored by a Dominant and their submissive at this moment.

It’s what you define as BDSM or D/s. That is what WIITWD means. Be it decades of experience in the lifestyle or planning to try it for the first time, you define kink. Your views on Domination are the ones that matter. How much submission you choose to explore creates the correct definition. Please, for the love of all things leather, do not feel that because what you read sounds like a graduate level Philosophy text makes it right. No, you make it right.

You’ll also make it wrong. It’s OK.

Experience is the cruelest teacher in that it gives the test first, lesson second. You’ll learn more from that than you will any other. That’s not to say just go explore shibari and flogging without some due diligence. Use a little common sense.

A number of you reading this will laugh and think I’m a fool. Fine with me. I’ll see you later, further down the road of this journey, still holding Leigh’s cuffed hand. TETO – To Each Their Own.

I own my kink because it’s mine, which makes it right.

– Scot

Advertisements

18 responses to “WII Is WII

  1. I know you’re at the early stages of your journey (relatively speaking), but it seems to me that you could teach a lot of dominants a thing or two. I admire not only your acceptance of other ways to do things (what’s right for some may not be right for others), but your acknowledgement of your own strengths AND weaknesses, not to mention your interest in furthering your knowledge and understanding of a very broad subject.

    • That’s extremely kind of you to share, TJ. I doubt very highly any Dominants could learn anything from such a neophyte as myself. I’m just a guy, any guy you may encounter hundreds a time a day. There is nothing special about me. If others find value in my two cents, all the better. But if not, I still own my kink and its absolutely right for Leigh and I.

      • If it’s right for you and Leigh, that’s all that matters! However I still admire anyone who is willing to acknowledge and respect differences, rather than those who are so rigid in their thinking that their way is the only way and thus expect it to be the way for all.

  2. Your words are so raw and deep rooted. I guess it is hardly possible to write so fiery without honestly acknowledging your own strengths as well as your weaknesses.
    Reading my way of D/s is so confusing and frightening…

    • Thank you Kitty. I am very much one who needs to learn a lot. That does not mean I don’t have to keep quiet about what I see. Not passing judgment, just observations.

      On that note, I can highly recommend The New Topping & The New Bottoming. Not many like these books, but I found their tone, approach and whimsy to WIITWD very helpful. Of course you may disagree. TETO 🙂

      • Thank you for suggestion. I found The Topping Book but not the other one. However, got another book of same authors which is wonderful. You are a gem…

  3. So first off, what books do you recomend?
    Second, I think you are so right (young in WIITWD but wise beyond your years)–our kink is our own. MY kink needs to be right for MY SIR and ME – no one else. I think if my Sir and I weren’t in a committed, secure, LONG established marriage, then the text book of rules and regulations would be more necessary. As it is we have the years of unwritten knowledge of eachother as our guidebook.
    Thank you for your wisdom Yoda Scot 🙂

    • I am so tempted to reply to this in Yodaspeak.

      You bring up a very good point about the history being the contract, so to say. That’s a very valid and wise point.

      I can highly recommend The New Topping and The New Bottoming. In that I just received Screw The Roses Give Me The Thorns I can’t vouch yet, but merely thumbing it yielded a lot of pearls. Its very highly thought of in the lifestyle.

  4. ”Dominants, for the most part, read like an instruction manual or Intro To Sexual Psychology 101 course text. There are exceptions, for which I am glad. Without the Dominants who own cats and like YouTube I’d be frustrated beyond words.”

    Besides what you mentioned as your interests, “new philosophies, explore different avenues, acquire new techniques and skills,” I’m not sure what types of resources or styles you’re looking for. While I have no clear idea of what you consider too far in any direction and no idea what you consider “lifeless,” I’ve found a lot of bloggers and resources well between the false dichotomy you seemed to suggest. You might not like them, and they might not be what you’re looking for, but they do exist.

    ”The one thing that does rub me the wrong way (ironic coming from a Dom, huh?) is the apparent desire to define everything. I suppose it stems from the need within a dynamic to explain and set parameters, but still it feels all too syllabus like.”

    And this:

    ”WIITWD stands for What It Is That We Do. It’s a term often used in reference to those who practice BDSM and D/s. The We is you. The kink community uses it. But that second W is referring to the set of eyes reading this, and the second set if my humble thoughts are being honored by a Dominant and their submissive at this moment. It’s what you define as BDSM or D/s.”

    Taken together, these two statements don’t work for me.

    I understand that certain sources rub you the wrong way, but perhaps that’s because they aren’t for you. In part for that same reason, I have to disagree with your defining “We as you” in your discussion of WIITWD. What it is that you do is entirely different than what it is that I do. What I define as BDSM and D/s [and the particulars of the dynamic and/or practice(s) within those catchall terms] isn’t what you define as BDSM and D/s [and the particulars of your dynamic and/or practice(s) within those catchall terms].

    While I don’t like a good number of BDSM blogs/resources, I understand they aren’t for me. They’re for general knowledge, for the authors, for people exploring, and/or for those practitioners who are different from me.

    ”[. . .] you define kink. Your views on Domination are the ones that matter. How much submission you choose to explore creates the correct definition.”

    I don’t define kink. I define my kink. My views on domination aren’t the only ones that matter. The views of the people I converse with, interact with, and partner with matter just as much. A submissive’s/dominant’s definition of submission/dominance might be right for her or him, but it doesn’t mean it’s right for anyone else.

    In short, I guess what rubs me the wrong way is the presumption that “what it is that we do” is a universal and the presumption that any one voice can speak for the whole. What you do and what I do is different. We’re parts of a whole, but none of us are representative. Certainly, we can speak to/for our own kinks and to/for our own ideas of what dominance and submission are, but none of us have the right or the ability to speak for the collective.

    ”I own my kink because it’s mine, which makes it right.

    Yes! But own it because it’s right for you.

    • Thank you so much for taking the time to craft this and share it with everyone. Not many would. It’s definitely the most thorough Comment I’ve ever received.

      “Besides what you mentioned as your interests, “new philosophies, explore different avenues, acquire new techniques and skills,” I’m not sure what types of resources or styles you’re looking for. While I have no clear idea of what you consider too far in any direction and no idea what you consider “lifeless,” I’ve found a lot of bloggers and resources well between the false dichotomy you seemed to suggest. You might not like them, and they might not be what you’re looking for, but they do exist.”

      The one thing I am looking for is experiences. Actual examples of interaction, preferably current. This is one area that most, if not all, Dominant driven blogs (which are far, far fewer than their submissive blogging peers) seem to sorely lack in. The lifeless comment refers to resources and blogs that read like User’s Manuals. For a topic filled with passion and emotions ranging from utter devastation to bordering on bliss, I have issues with reading information on it when conveyed as if a form was being filled out.

      “I understand that certain sources rub you the wrong way, but perhaps that’s because they aren’t for you. In part for that same reason, I have to disagree with your defining “We as you” in your discussion of WIITWD. What it is that you do is entirely different than what it is that I do. What I define as BDSM and D/s [and the particulars of the dynamic and/or practice(s) within those catchall terms] isn’t what you define as BDSM and D/s [and the particulars of your dynamic and/or practice(s) within those catchall terms].

      While I don’t like a good number of BDSM blogs/resources, I understand they aren’t for me. They’re for general knowledge, for the authors, for people exploring, and/or for those practitioners who are different from me.”

      Now I’m confused. You mention “What it is that you do is entirely different than what it is that I do.” That’s exactly what I meant. The W is you. The We is you. When you and your submissive are together, you two become we. You go on to prove my opinion again with “What I define as BDSM and D/s…isn’t what you define as BDSM and D/s.” Exactly! Leigh and I are a different we than you and your submissive. Each defines BDSM & D/s differently.

      Unless I am totally misunderstanding you, this sure sounds like we are both saying the same thing, as well as believe in it.

      “I don’t define kink. I define my kink. My views on domination aren’t the only ones that matter. The views of the people I converse with, interact with, and partner with matter just as much. A submissive’s/dominant’s definition of submission/dominance might be right for her or him, but it doesn’t mean it’s right for anyone else.”

      Again I completely agree. I will acknowledge that I should have been clearer as to “kink.” In that we are allowing individual ownership of the definitions of BDSM as well as D/s I just tossed kink in the mix with the other terms. But even still my tenant that the individual defines it holds true in your reply.

      “In short, I guess what rubs me the wrong way is the presumption that “what it is that we do” is a universal and the presumption that any one voice can speak for the whole. What you do and what I do is different. We’re parts of a whole, but none of us are representative. Certainly, we can speak to/for our own kinks and to/for our own ideas of what dominance and submission are, but none of us have the right or the ability to speak for the collective.”

      To which I completely agree, and again is what I mention. Many of the sources that ultimately led to my musing do come across as “This is…”, which I completely disagree with. There is no “This is..” or “What is….” There just “is.” Which is why I said that the W is you, meaning the set of eyes reading this. Those eyes could be a couple in a D/s relationship, as in “You two…”

      Perhaps others will bring their own thoughts to what you so graciously offered. Thank you for this gift.

      • ”Now I’m confused. You mention “What it is that you do is entirely different than what it is that I do.” That’s exactly what I meant. The W is you. The We is you.”

        By definition, “we” isn’t “you.” “We” is “we” (the collective, including the writer and reader). In other words, when you (the author) say “we,” I don’t assume you mean just me (me alone….me the reader, singular). By “we,” I assume you mean you (the author) and me (the reader/public).

        I (the reader) can’t be a “we” because I’m just one person. Calling me a “we” means subjugating me to some collective that I’m not sure I’m a part of. You (as the author), using your authorial power to associate us (us the readers, and us the readers with you) in a shared context is misinformed and presumptuous. Perhaps is just a terminology issue, but since “WIITWD” is the focus of your post, and since you devoted a good bit of text to explaining “we,” the implications of terminology are far more consequential than if it were just an interpretation-dependent semantic issue.

        ”When you and your submissive are together, you two become we.”

        We’re “we” inasmuch as we’re two people experiencing a thing, but in any other meaningful context, my submissive and I are not a “we”—we’re not a collective. He and I are totally different, as he, I, you , and Leigh are totally different and distinct from one another.

        And I hate to go rhetorical, but to rephrase my comments above, when a first person singular author says “we,” as a reader, I interpret that as the author (and the community for which she or he speaks) and myself (the reader).

        ”You go on to prove my opinion again with “What I define as BDSM and D/s…isn’t what you define as BDSM and D/s.” Exactly! Leigh and I are a different we than you and your submissive. Each defines BDSM & D/s differently.”

        That wasn’t what I read from your post. Since the title of the post was “WIITWD,” the main focus seemed to be “what we do,” because you mentioned “those who participate in BDSM and/or D/s,” and because of the “we is you” thing, I interpreted your “we” as a collective (of BDSM practicioners). I didn’t realize you meant “we” as in “Leigh and I.” I’m not entirely sure that is what you meant.

        ” Again I completely agree. I will acknowledge that I should have been clearer as to “kink.” In that we are allowing individual ownership of the definitions of BDSM as well as D/s I just tossed kink in the mix with the other terms. But even still my tenant that the individual defines it holds true in your reply.

        I think that’s an essential point of disagreement/confusion. I wouldn’t endorse any meaningful value in “individual ownership of the definitions…” Sure, terms/ideas/definitions mean something to me, but I don’t “own” them. (Even if I do own them, whatever that means, they’re worth very little in exchange value). I do, however, individually interpret” them. Interpretation is my right, as is my right to share that interpretation with the masses. Ownership, on the other hand, is a deeply personal thing that requires far more negotiation to communicate than what I can express here in a response.

        here just “is.” Which is why I said that the W is you, meaning the set of eyes reading this.

        I beating a maimed horse here, but in equating “we” with “you” (meaning the reader), you’re implying a shared context, background, values, etc. that you don’t know exists.

        I’m absolutely fine with assuming your readers are a “you.” But defining and including those various yous as some collective “we” (which, by definition, includes the you/reader the author)… it doesn’t work for me.

  5. I very much appreciate your honesty…
    It is so true that experience is the cruelest teacher, but in my opinion it is also the best. To try and to fail and to try again, and then wonder if your failures were really failures.
    Sometimes I wonder about how I define WIITWD for me and my Experiments, in which alley it goes, what exactly is the term to stick on it… But you are right. It is ours, I don’t need to define it for anyone but us.
    Thank you for your wisdom…

  6. To my way of thinking (and reading and interpreting and understanding the world in general), you and Dumb Domme are saying the exact same thing. While the conversation between the two of you is amusing (in philosophical argumentative semantics kind of way), I’m tempted to say something about the unnecessary beating of dead horses.

    Not that I condone the beating of horses. Dead or otherwise.

    But that’s not why I’m commenting.

    I’m commenting because it is, indeed, allowable to use two / in a row. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s