REDIRECTED TO MAYBEMAIMED.COM: Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed

I've been thinking about this all day, intending to satiate myself with my own musings, however I think that the firestorm of outrage could use a little level-headedness. Not that the outrage is misguided, unexpected, or even inappropriate. I'm pretty outraged myself, but outrage does very little to ease my own need for understanding. Only rational thought can fan those flames.

Smart people are very good at rationalizing things, by the way. History is full of examples of smart people doing lots of things with lots of reasons. Reasons are one of the things humans are best at manufacturing, even though we are not as good at reasoning about them. We construct meaning for our own purposes very much in the same way that we eat or drink or breathe or sleep. We are built to do it even though it can be pretty difficult to accomplish at times. We can't help ourselves, and it's rather a helpful thing that we can't, too! It would be pretty horrible to live a life without any meaning, wouldn't you say?

Understanding that is the first step towards rationalizing your reasoning, whether you are trying to reason through thought, action, or emotion. (The latter is particularly difficult due to our particular neurological evolution, but possible nonetheless.) In other words, know that your reasons are meaningful only because you have given them meaning. If it were not for that, your life would be meaningless. It should not be a disheartening insight if you understand the empowering nature of such a statement.

But I digress. This is about the idea of supremacy, that one person, place, or thing (we'll call these options a noun, collectively) is superior to another, different noun. Here are a few examples of nouns that I've heard many people compare with one another throughout my lifetime:

• Apples and oranges.


• Glasses and contact lenses.


• City dwellers and suburban dwellers.


• Democrats and Republicans.


• Americans and foreigners to Americans.


• Men and women.


• Heterosexual people and people who are not heterosexual.


• Light-skinned people and dark-skinned people.


• Jewish people and Christian people (and Muslim people and Hindu people and on and on and on).

Here's one funny thing about such comparisons, in case it wasn't clear to you from the list above: each set of nouns contains members which share an enormous number of characteristics. In my experience encountering comparisons intended to determine superiority, this rule of likeness has never been broken. Actually, I am eager for the day when it will be. On that day I will have met someone "truly" deranged.

Apples and oranges are both fruits, glasses and contact lenses are both corrective eye-wear, and (I did focus on the human comparisons purposefully) the rest are all humans. I have never heard an apple compared to a Jewish person, for example, nor have I heard a woman compared to a pair of glasses. Why? Well, naturally, it's because the comparison to determine superiority in a way people can get emotionally invested in requires the act of measuring both nouns against the perceived value of a common property.

That is to say, in order to determine that one thing is superior to the other and have people care about it, your measurement must measure a characterstic that both things have. If you instead measure a characteristic that only one of your member things have then no half-thinking or half-feeling person would give your comparison any meaningful meaning. (See what I did there? I went back to the meaning thing from the beginning of the entry. Remember that. It'll come up again, I promise.) What does it mean to make something meaningful? It means to give that opinion weight, to use it as the basis for your reasoning and the motivation behind your actions, whatever they may be.

There are some very smart people who use this argument to try and prove the idea of absolute superiority of one form or another, citing nuance or complexity to hide their absolutism. The previous link, in particular, leads to a man named Alexis's writings, who believes in the potential superiority of all women over men.

Alexis (who is very clearly superior in his intelligence when measured for such things by means of analyzing his grammar, punctuation, vocabulary, and the like), says the following—after a very long-winded but informational digression about the merits of apples over oranges or vice versa—about making such comparisons:

My point: accepting any measure as a guideline means that one option will not rate as high as the other option. And it is the measure that is argued, not the superiority of the two options. Statistically, by changing the measure you change the results.

Preceeded immediately by this (in my opinion very accurate) statement:

If we could ever get two people to agree on the subject of what measure could be used as a guideline.

This is, unfortunately and unsurprisingly, a circular argument. A measure of superiority without defining superiority of or in a specific something is not a persuasive argument because it is statistically (and otherwise) meaningless. (Oh, there it is again! Did you see it?)

To combat that very simple point, reasons are concocted. For example, the argument changes from an absolute statement "Women are superior to men" to a qualified statement "Women are potentially superior to men" to a theory "Women are potentially superior to men if they can be shown to be smarter/stronger/better/whatever" to a belief "Women who have been proven to be smarter/stronger/better/whatever are superior to men." Is it just me, or is it smelling a little One True Way® in here all of a sudden?

God bless our puny mortal souls and our meaningless lives. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself. The opportunity for satire is rather irresistable.)

The problem with all this is, I dearly hope, obvious by now (especially since the really smart female supremacists said it first, even if they may have missed the point a little): you're not going to get everyone to agree. The disagreements aren't about measures to use for determining one gender or sex's superiority over the other. They are about the idea that any one measure or collection of specific measures are an accurate depiction of unqualified superiority whether it is applied to gender, race, religion, or anything else.

I can disprove absolutist remarks stated as fact. I can't (and won't try to) disprove belief. Neither can they.

Wow. How anti-climactic. I know, I'm almost disappointed, too.

In reply to my previous post, Eileen left some prodding comments. (I love it when she prods me.)

How can we make the spaces for everyone wider? CV is doing a fantastic job of it; what else can be done?

CV succeeded in creating a space that does not feel fragmented because there was more than just tolerance and acceptance, there was invitation and inclusion. At the same time as we celebrate diversity and showcase our differences, we are also welcoming.

It's not what you do, it's how you do it. Communities can learn a lot from that mantra. Everywhere else I look I see groups built upon expectations instead of invitations. Their party line is, "Come here if you are interested in BDSM and you are gay." The "Join us if" mentality is exclusionary, an odd thing for a marginalized community to be based on, I think. The end result of such things is the current state of the sexuality communities: fractured and divided and so utterly, utterly siloed.

Instead, why not just say, "Join us." No qualifiers, there's no need. Rules of civility and organization operations are no hindrances to this sort of thing. And of course, don't just say it. Do it!

Dom Sub Friends (aka DSF) has what is probably their view of a very inviting tagline: The Friendly BDSM Society. But go to a meeting and you'll be greeted by the most adamantly heterosexual, maledom/femsub group you're likely to meet in New York City. They may be friendly, but they are anything but inviting if who you are is someone like me. On the other hand, they are probably a great find for people who are looking for that sort of thing. (In which case I recommend them—they've never been anything but friendly to me.)

Naturally, communities will organize around their own cultures, and what they determine as criteria for valuing BDSM activity is not mine. It makes sense, then, that I would not find this group inviting. It also begs the question: would they find my culture inviting? Maybe not. (As a side-note, this is why I am very much not worried about people who may pose a threat to CV taking over the population of the group. They simply have better places to go than our little oasis. To quote our current president of vice, we're really pretty boring if you're not actually interested in learning about BDSM with an open mind.)

Therein lies my point, however. They don't need to find my culture inviting, they already have one. I, on the other hand, don't. There are no erotic art shows I know of that display imagery such as that in Van Darkholme's Male Bondage photography book. As a matter of fact, I don't even know of any other books that do such a thing.

Should we start making our own porn? Should I take photos of you? Should we pitch a fit over spaces, or work to make the spaces different, or leave the spaces altogether? And then, will what you're working to make and what already exists ever have significant cross over?

I don't know. I hope there will be crossover, because even though I don't feel welcome in their community I certainly appreciate their presence as a community. Sexual rights are important for everyone. Their presence strengthens my own stance, as mine strengthens theirs. It is not impossible to stand together and still be different, but it is impossible for me to stand with them when I can not call anything of theirs my own and when there is nothing else for me to claim for myself.

Maybe they don't even want anything to do with me, but I guarantee that I'm a voice they'd be better off having on their side, especially with the recent climate of sexual oppression and misunderstanding growing stronger every day. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: for some reason, sex and education seem to be the two topics that otherwise smart people consistently behave very stupidly about.

I don't want to go to the same parties as these other people do. Neither of us would have a good time. My griping isn't because they have a community, it's because mine is practically non-existant. What's sprung up in the past couple of years is truly extraordinary, and I am in the unique position among my tiny social circle of being able to remember what it was like before. I want to cultivate it, and make it grow.

Does that mean making my own porn? I don't know. I'd be willing to try it. There is no greater equalizer than currency. If selling my brand of sexuality earns it a top spot on people's radars, why shouldn't I try for it? That's what I admire about Tristan Taormino. It's too bad she's not a submissive guy. But then if she were a submissive guy, like I am, would her brand of sex sell at all? Would mine?

There is no doubt in my mind that there are other people who have not been lucky enough to find a place where such acceptance and intelligence has coalesced and these people are still looking for it. I hope they keep looking, because I am, and one day we might find each other.

Being loud helps you get noticed. Maybe I am just trying to rouse my little corner into making a little more noise. I feel I have been deafened by the never-ending rhetoric of others that so many people have written about lately.

I think a lot of people enjoy the notions of a BDSM community because it feels good to belong and to know that there are other people who share your feelings. That's certainly true for me, but lately I've been reminded rather harshly about just how much of my own community does not actually include me in any significant way. And it hurts. A lot.

At the risk of posting a rather dreary self-pitying entry (on a Monday, no less), I have to say that I often feel like there is no space here for me. While I know intellectually that I'm not alone, it sure feels like I am.

Because friends were involved and it was free and sounded the least bit interesting, I went to a low-key erotic art show that OneTaste NY was producing. The artwork wasn't bad; it was just so typical. I can't tell if it helped the show or made it worse that the theme wasn't specifically BDSM-oriented. Why is it that even in people's supposedly non-kinky erotic art ideas women are submissive?

The overwhelming feel of the event was decidedly…patriarchal. "This is a flirt-heavy zone," the greeter told us as we entered, and proceeded to inquire about Eileen's weekend. Maybe "flirt-heavy" is just the PC word for meat market now. Maybe that's too harsh, but there's no denying the implication that men would do the purusing and women would be the pursued. There's nothing wrong with that (putting my head in Eileen's lap at a party was how we got together—quite the forward thing for submissive male to do, many people would probably think), but the expectation is nauseating.

Even the men, the poor ignorant sods, are succumbing to the peer pressure. (Maybe that's because most of them are spineless bastards to begin with who are just aching to be told what to do. Oops, maybe that was too harsh again.) You see it in their ridiculous bait-and-switch routines where the submissive men pretend to be dominant only long enough to get the woman to bed with them. Then they turn around and get on their hands and knees and start talking about how pathetic they are. This is probably one of the very few times I'll actually agree with those men: they are pathetic, and I'm not only ashamed but enraged to be thought of as similar to them, not to mention just how many things are wrong with the very idea that this tactic might actually work out well for anyone.

I'm jealous of the submissive women for whom this kind of space must be an incredible cornucopia of sexual celebration. I bet they actually had a blast at the art show. At the same time, I'm sorry, for their sake, that this potentially wonderful environment is all but destroyed by utterly disrespectful men.

In the end, no one's really all that happy, are they? Is there anyone out there who actually thinks the scene as it is right now is just peachy keen? That it couldn't be better?

A really long time ago, friends of mine who were elected to the TES board of directors encouraged me to run alongside them. They told me that I could do so much good for that community. And that was why I chose not to run: it's not my community, really. It's the closest thing I have to a community, so I adore it, but it's not mine because so much of what they do does not welcome or include me in any significant way. Oh sure, they encourage male submissives sometimes but the way they do so is so amazingly repulsive in so many ways that I just can't see myself having much to do with it. I don't begrudge that community their right to exist. I just want one of my own.

So I'm working hard to build it.

Don't ask me why, but I wanted to try my hand at wrting a sex toy review. I'd never done it before, you know. I had to think a bit about which toy from my collection I should write about. I could have written about the Fleshlight, or about the Hitachi Magic Wand, however I've had way more fond memories with the Aneros that I ended up choosing that little gem. Following is my first stab at a review. :) (Yes, I realze it's devoid of kink-specific uses. The Aneros makes a pretty mean teasing device if prostate stimulation gets you going.)

When most men hear the word "prostate" I bet they immediately conjure up images of bending over at the doctor's bracing for a horrible experience. When I hear the word "prostate," however, I think of sex. Good sex. So what's the difference between me and most people? Well, probably many things, but at least one of them is that I own an Aneros Helix, a male prostate massager.

Okay, okay, by "prostate massager" what I really mean is sex toy. This little anal toy isn't quite a dildo nor is it like those standard butt plugs you might be familiar with. In fact, if you've never had any experience with anal stimulation, I'd say skip the butt plugs and go straight for a prostate massager like this one. Prostate massagers, of which the Aneros line was one of the first, are curvy, rather bulbous insertables whose scientifically designed shape is intended to gently ride along your prostate as you flex your buttocks—all on their own.

When I first got the Aneros (and I'm not emabrassed to admit it) I already had my fair share of experience with anal penetration, however I had never tried a prostate stimulator. I was curious about what it would feel like, so soon after I got home I had slipped a condom and some lube on the toy and gently pushed it toward my unsuspecting prostate. It immediately felt great, like a little finger pressing at the base of my penis from inside my body, but that was just a teaser.

The truly amazing feelings didn't start until I started to masturbate. As I masturbated, I involuntarily clenched my ass slightly. I hadn't even noticed that I did this before, but now whenever I would do so the Aneros would slide a little bit further inside me and then slide back again, running itself over my prostate with each stroke. It felt so good so quickly I actually stopped masturbating so it would last longer. This wasn't a filling sensation like all the other dildo and plug toys I had experienced before, it was a rubbing sensation, but it was rubbing from the inside out.

When I finally did allow myself to orgasm with the Aneros still inside me, the sensations were more powerful because with each orgasmic contraction the Aneros was dutifully pumping away at my prostate. Since then, the Aneros has become one of my favorite masturbation and sex enhancers in my toy collection. Just think about all that buttocks-flexing sex requires!

The Aneros actually comes in several different models of varying sizes, just in case you don't think your sphincter will appreciate the largest size. Personally, even at 1 and 1/16 of an inch in diameter at the tip I found the Helix a little small, so I don't think I'd get much out of any of the thinner models and am eager to try a larger one.

Perhaps this should be three separate posts, but whatever. In preparation for Floating World, Jefferson from over on One Life, Take Two has asked for some reader participation. The topics are absolutely fascinating so I couldn't help but offer my input:

1) Do you blog about sex? Let me know your site, your reasons forblogging, and your experiences as a blogger.

My experiences blogging are somewhat unusual because I have been blogging since before it was called blogging. Back in 1995, I set up a web site for bipolar youth on which I kept a semi-regular running journal. I was 12 or so at the time. My life since then is a remarkably open book. I find that blogging is one of the key techniques I use to maintain self-awareness and self-observation. I do this about sex, but I also do this about friends and family life, social events, and my work life. Making things public just makes things more accessible. I've gotten correspondence from people and have friends I would not have had other wise. To date, I've never experienced a profoundly negative effect from public blogging.

I keep getting warned that one day this is going to bite me, and you know what, maybe it will. But I've already gained so much from my own openness that it seems like a silly thing to fear the potential backlash of the future. I am much stronger now anyway, more confident but also more of a success in other people's eyes. It becomes very difficult, I believe, to point at someone and say "You're bad because of this or that" when you are presented with all the other things they have done that you don't have any problem with.

Those of you who only read this blog may not know about the other topics I write about elsewhere, and those people will probably not wander on over here to read about kink and BDSM. As a result, while I am just one voice, I am a voice for many things. It's that kind of diversity that gives people their strength and which makes it hard to demonize any one aspect of a person's life.

2) What are your experiences with male bisexuality? I'm interested in your personal experiences as well as those involving friends, lovers and/or communities. Anyone is welcome to reply; you needn't be bisexual or identify as male to have an opinion or experience to relate.

I'm a bisexual guy. Bisexuality is hard: there is very little community identity because I don't know of any bisexual guys (or girls?) who are *only* bisexual. Everyone is bi but also kinky or heavily involved in LGBT activism (from which I've noticed the B and the T get dropped very frequently), or something else such as polyamory. Indeed, I am guilty of this myself. It's been to my own detriment, in fact, because while I strongly desire male-male experiences I have been focused elsewhere.

It doesn't help that community norms typically marginalize male bisexuality, and it is infuriating that female bisexuality is actually expected to be par for the course. (First because, hey, I want some of that same-sex action, too, and secondly because don't you think this is completely unfair to the women who aren't interested in other women?) I often shy away from meeting gay men because all too often they dismiss my homosexual interests as merely a passing fad. Or sometimes the reverse case, where my heterosexual interests are inauthentic. To this I say that they have clearly not been reading their own "liberation" material.

Furthermore, the notion of claiming a bisexual identity because it is the cool thing to do, annoyingly dubbed "bi chic" and thankfully not nearly so big a social stigma anymore as it was in the mid-1990's, casts nothing but more shadow over an already veiled identity. Conversely, there is the popular notion of "forced bi", wherein self-declared straight men have irresistable fantasies about being forced into sexual encounters with other men. (Oh, and that's another thing that pisses me off: guys who say they are bi for the sole purpose of getting women. But that's a whole 'nother rant.) When I was in high school and trying to understand what my body was telling me, I struggled for longer than I'd like to admit with the binary idea that I was either gay or straight, but that bisexuality was not an option.

What is it about such black-and-white simplicity that is so attractive to so many people? It's easy, but it's false. Once again, the diversity and fluidity of my gender identity is extremely important to me, and is something I think is actually a healthy thing for everybody to have an understanding about.

3) What are your experiences and interests on g spot and p spotstimulation? Do you enjoy them? Are you frustrated by an inability tolocate them, or to stimulate them?

Kind of dovetailing off the last item, one of the reasons why I am a little hard-up for male-male action is because I absolutely love receiving anal sex. This is primarily because the prostate stimulation is so intense for me. Maybe I'm just wired differently than most people (though I doubt it), but prostate stimulation is so incredibly spot-on (no pun intended), that I am convinced it's one of the most perfect developments in the natural world.

I've never had any problem stimulating my prostate. I've been doing so as a regular part of masturbation since my very early adolescent years (about 11 or so). I started by first pressing my fingers into my perineum and gently rubbing across it. Eventually I began to anally penetrate myself with my fingers. Thank goodness for flexibility! When I masturbate this way, I feel like orgasm approaches much, much quicker than it would otherwise. It's a wonderful addition to sexual play, one I enjoy a lot. I've since bought toys specifically for this purpose, such as the aneros helix. At times, it's actually difficult for me to avoid ejaculating when sexual stimulation is supplemented with prostate stimulation. When I met my current partner, Eileen, we quickly took to strap-on sex in part for this reason.

However, another aspect to our prostate stimulation playtime actually stems from our orgasm control and chastity kinks. Prostate stimulation is a central part of many submissive men's chastity regimes for reasons of perceived prostatic health. In addition, the incredible arousal I experience when my prostate is stimulated makes me super horny. Eileen calls it "stoking my fire" when she fingers me. It's very effective for sexual teasing because many men, myself included, can't ejaculate powerfully via prostate stimulation alone if they can even reach orgasm at all. The net result is that I get more horny, but can't relieve my arousal. That, of course, is the point.

It is still fascinating to me how differently I react to pain when it is inflicted on the buttocks versus on the back versus on the face versus some other location. So much focus is often placed on the implement causing this pain but it's always been that the location of the pain has a stronger effect on my headspace.

Years ago, I disliked getting hit on the buttocks but I adored getting hit on the back. (I still adore getting hit on my back.) Facing a wall and being whipped was and still is, for the most part, the epitome of my mental image of strength. In contrast, having my ass hurt used to piss me off. I had never really been slapped in the face.

Over time, I was able to eroticize pain delivered to my ass through canings, spankings, and paddlings. I suspect this mostly has to do with the gentle and overtly sexual introduction of my ass cheeks to my play with Eileen, for which I am now, of course, very grateful. I'd never thought it possible before, but for the first time recently I actually got turned on with a properly rhythmic caning that left bruises for several days. But hitting my back still doesn't turn me on.

There is cultural imagery associated with beating certain parts of the body. The back is where you whip the insolent. The ass is where you paddle the disobediant young. The face is where you hit any kind of victim. Certainly, these associations are not far from my mind when I experience such sensations. I wonder, do other cultures (or individuals) with different associations have different reactions because of that?

While feeling pain on my back or face doesn't translate sexually to me, feeling it on my ass does as long as there's sufficent erotic context. Certainly, the proximity of my ass to my genitals helps this, though I think more to the point is the fact that the ass is a larger erogenous zone to begin with. I suspect this is how it works for people who enjoy CBT. (I've never been much a fan of cruel attentions to my genitals. They seem made for gentler manipulations.)

I have this lovely little buddy icon of this pretty boy on the floor, leaning back wearing a sweater jacket that reads, "Protect me from the things I want." I love that icon because the boy looks so sultry and so vulnerable and so seductive and so helpless all at the same time. I want to be that boy. (I also want that boy, but that's another entry entirely.)

Why is it that I want the things I don't want to actually happen to me. And do I really want them to happen to me for real or do I just like the threat of them happening?

Mean things. (Backhand me.) Deadly things. (Suffocate me.) Bloody things. (Stab me.) Things I just don't like. (Bite me.) I fantasize about having all of these things done to me. In some cases there's a part of me that really wants it to happen because I think I'd enjoy it. I've had too many fond experiences with pain to feel bad about liking that so much.

And then there are the things I'm not really eager to have happen, but I'm so nervous or frightened about them happening that a part of me wants them to happen just to get them over with. And hell, being nervous and frightened is kind of fun too. And there are the things I just don't get off to, but I know my top likes so what the hell. I like getting my top off—doesn't quite matter how they like as much as I like doing it.

But then there are the things that, no, I really don't want them to happen and if you do them to me I'll fight and scream and cry and beg you to stop. And those are the things I want to have happen because I love the fighting, the screaming, the crying, the begging, but most of all the very fact that I'm not enjoying myself. I won't like it when you do it, but I'll love that you did it. It probably won't turn me on while it's happening (though it might), but I'll masturbate to the memories of it later. And oh, it'll be good.

I do want to be tortured. I don't want to be tortured, but I want it. I have no idea how to explain that in simpler terms because everything else about this fact in my head is just circular logic. But y'know, a lot of things about submissiveness and masochism is pretty paradoxical.

Take orgasm denial, for instance. A classic example to be sure, but an appropriate example nonetheless. The wanting to orgasm is what gets me all hot and bothered. Once I've come, well sure I'm enjoying it, but all the goodness of wanting that orgasm is sated and the replacement satisfaction just isn't the same. It's the same with the death fantasy. Dying is pretty awful but, for me, it's only awful because once I'm dead I can't be bothered to care about the dying anymore. It's like, "Oh look. Here's death. Well, the dying was fun while it lasted. So…what's the weather like in hell these days?" See? Not hot.

I want what I don't want because I don't want it, but I also want my top to want it. It's similarly not hot if I'm being pierced by someone who doesn't enjoy piercing me. The reason I do it with Eileen, despite my preference not to actually be poked with sharp things more than necessary, is because she has a great time with it. Back to the getting my top off bit again. Yes, I know I'm a total whore.

Is this service? If so, then could I conceptually extend the service theory to the point of torture, or death? And now that I'm thinking about it, doesn't that sound a lot like some very well-known cultural and religious imagery? How many times have I been reffered to as Jesus on the cross when I've been whipped in a public setting? (I bet my hair doesn't help avoid the analogy, but still.) Martyrdom is hot for tops, I guess. It's not the martyrdom that turns me on though, it's the suffering. Martyrs who don't want to be martyrs.

Make me suffer. Please.

I need the excuse, so even though I don't really get meme's, since Mistress 160 tagged me, I might as well play along. Besides, I wouldn't say no to her anyway.

Seven random facts about me:

1. I have only 1 scar, even though I should probably have a lot more considering the things I put my skin through. It's through my left eyebrow.


2. For most of my teen years, I took medication to treat bipolar disorder.


3. At one point in my life I had gained a little over 60 pounds in 60 days.


4. I not-so-secretly want to be tied up with ethernet cabling. Preferably a CAT 6 cable, but CAT 5 will do in a pinch.


5. I've never held a "real job" for more than 13 consecutive months.


6. I've presented on a number of kink-related topics at TES, CV, and will soon also do so at Floating World


7. I was once an audience plant in a play where all the actors, myself included, performed naked.

I know exactly who I'll tag with this one:

• Kink in Exile


• Eileen


• Tom Allen


• Richard


• Calico

Here is the obligatory part of the meme:

Each player starts with 7 random facts/habits about themselves. People who are tagged need to write their own blog post with their 7 things as well as these rules. You need to tag 7 others and list their names on your blog. Remember to leave a comment for them letting them know they have been tagged and to read your blog.

Oh and random fact number 8: yes, I am totally a "player."

Cousin Kevin isn't the only one who's tired of white on black designs. Less design is what I need. So there. :P

More writing would be nice, but with computer thefts, lots of work, and insane moodiness, I've not been one for writing lately. In a rather exciting reversal of fortune, however, Eileen's been writing tons, so go check that out if you haven't already. It's good and stuff.

Bitchy, bitchy Jones, who generously spent an hour talking with me for this episode, shared her insightful viewpoints on Femdommery™ and what makes it hot, or not. I'd like to send a very special thanks to Bitchy for speaking with me and for sharing her views.

I am thrilled to post a new episode of Kink on Tap today. This time, I had a great conversation with Hannah and Tyler, President and Vice President of Conversio Virium, respectively. Conversio Virium (or CV, for short) is Columbia University's BDSM discussion group, and is the oldest student-run BSDM organization in the United States. They even have a Wikipedia entry.

It should be noted that I've been an attendee at CV meetings for quite some time, so this podcast is partly a discussion and partly a chance to give CV some additional reach. Hannah, Tyler, and I talked about a lot of stuff, mostly relating to young people in the kink communities, why a place like CV is so important and what makes CV so special and different from the rest of the BDSM scene.

Hannah and Tyler are also very interested in reaching out and making connections with other youth-oriented BDSM groups, university affiliated or otherwise. You can contact them and the rest of the Conversio Virium leadership through their web site or by emailing conversio@columbia.edu.

Special thanks to Hannah and Tyler for agreeing to speak with me and for continuing to do the awesome job they are doing for Conversio Virium and young kinky people in New York City.